What do you think?
Rate this book
Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint
Church Unity and the Papal Office provides the first theological and ecumenical response to Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ut Unum Sint ("That All May Be One"). Scholars representing Anglican, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, and Evangelical churches offer fresh perspectives on this pivotal document calling for a "patient and fraternal dialogue" concerning the ministry of the papal office in the service of church unity. Carl E. Braaten Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy Brian E. Daley, S.J. Joseph-Augustine DiNoia, O.P. Robert W. Jenson Richard J. Mouw Stephen W. Sykes Geoffrey Wainwright George Weigel David S. Yeago
176 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 17, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS COMMENTING ON JP II’S 1995 ENCYCLICAL
Editors Carl E. Braatan and Robert W. Jenson wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “This book offers an ecumenically representative response to an important section of Pope John Paul II’s 1995 Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint, which deals with the ‘Ministry of Unity of the Bishop of Rome.’ Here John Paul II exhibits the kind of unremitting commitment to the ecumenical quest for church unity that has characterized his papacy from the beginning… The pope’s encyclical letter aims to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach the goal of full commission… the pope finds encouragement in the fact that the question of papal primacy has become a subject of many of the ecumenical dialogues, most notably in those with Anglicans. Lutherans, and the Orthodox… But what is there to discuss? The pope is not willing to start from scratch. He is convinced that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that Peter’s position of primacy among the Twelve was a direct appointment from Jesus, and that the bishop of Rome is permanently the successor of Peter. Still, he is willing to talk about a ‘way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.’ This volume is a kind of thanksgiving offering in appreciation of the pope’s effort to promote the unity of all Christians and full communion between churches.” (Pg. 1-2)
Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy observes, “The reason for the movement away from the pursuit of full, visible unity within the ecumenical movement, which has in the past always been the goal of the Faith and Order Commission in the World Council of Churches [WCC], is to be found, I believe, mainly in frustration and disillusionment at the slow rate of progress in this search for greater communion. The difficulties that the churches are encountering in this quest bring a natural tendency to limit the goal. Ut Unum Sint is a response to this challenge.” (Pg. 13)
Brian E. Daily, S.J., acknowledged, “The difficulty, or course, is that the ideal of such a ministry of promoting communion seems to lie far beyond the power and the will of any of us, either as Christian individuals or as Christian communities. Disunity, political self-promotion, institutionalism, and denominationalism are part of the sinful fabric of every Christian communion, preventing us from genuinely being what we profess to be. Having fallen into disunion, each of our churches now has a vested interest in maintaining or differences, and probably very few of us have the generosity of heart really to desire the costly transformation and sacrifice of self that the restoration of communion among our churches will require. Yet Christian growth… will require constant dying to our pasts and our ambitions on the part of the pope and his curia as well as on the part of all the churches.” (Pg. 57)
Stephen W. Sykes [an Anglican] suggests, “the bureaucracy implied in papal powers must be revisited with the aid of sociological tools. Only such an open acknowledgment will end the offering of a frustrating and in the end simplistic choice between obedience to authority or autonomous individualism…” (Pg. 71)
Geoffrey Wainwright [a Methodist member of the WCC] states, “It would, of course, be up to the Roman Catholic Church to say whether it could be satisfied with papal primacy being viewed as a quasi-optional ‘emphasis.’ There might seem to be a inherent contradiction between the Roman claim and its expendability. The underlying problem resides in the fact that, as the current document states but does not develop, ‘churches understand their relation to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in different ways. This has a bearing upon the way they relation to other churches and their perception of the road to visible unity.” (Pg. 81)
David S. Yeago [a Lutheran] points out, “While I have suggested that the authentic practice of magisterium, as envisioned by the Reformers, has become rather alien to us, there are nonetheless occasions on which denominations like mine appoint commissions, boards, and panels to consider questions of faith and morals. Nothing would stop us from making it a regular practice on such occasions to request formally that advice and counsel of the Holy See. This would imply no a priori commitment to follow Rome’s counsel. But it should include and undertaking always to respond in detail and in writing to whatever is received from Rome, and to make the correspondence public unless unusual considerations intervene. Such a policy would by no means constitute a recognition of papal jurisdiction as defined at Vatican I, but it would be an acknowledgement of the significance for the whole church of the papacy’s witness to the apostolic faith. It would be a recognition that though we may not always follow that witness, we should nonetheless never ignore it.” (Pg. 121-122)
Richard J. Mouw [President of Fuller Theological Seminary] admits, “there is … an unofficial magisterium that shapes the theological patterns of the evangelical community. Evangelicals sustain a major industry that produces books, audio tapes, television programs, Christian radio stations---all providing considerable commentary on the Bible and its application to daily living… the combination of evangelical recognition of the need for at least an unofficial teaching office and Roman Catholic support for the role of the laity in the church’s discernment process suggests the real possibility of productive dialogue about some interesting subject matter for mutual exploration. Here too we must not be discouraged by an initial contrast between Catholicism’s well-defined hierarchical system and evangelicalism’s array of loosely structured ministries resisting clear ecclesiological definition.” (Pg. 139)
George Weigel says, “an ecumenical conversation about the way in which the church reflects upon and develops its doctrinal and disciplinary life is certainly worthwhile and much needed. That conversation should respectfully engage the proposals being made by the ‘democratization’ movement in North Atlantic Catholicism without accepting the movement’s premier that because of the pressures and demands of modernity, it is inevitably the shape of the future. Moreover, in that ecumenical conversation, it will be useful to remember that one function of the Petrine primacy is to remind the church, in and out of the season, that it is the church, the mystical body of Christ extending over time and space, and that as such its essential structure is sacramental, not political.” (Pg. 157-158)
Joseph Augustine Dinoia, O.P., states, “If we are not committed to ecumenism, we have failed to grasp heart of the message we must proclaim to one another and to the wide world in the new evangelization. It is a message of communion and love… Pope John Paul is saying to us that, if we understand the central truth at the heart of the new evangelization and we want to be as effective as possible in communicating that truth to the world, then we must be committed as well to working for the full visible unity of Christians. Thus, as to both effectiveness and essence, a commitment to ecumenism inheres in the work of the new evangelization.” (Pg. 163)
This book will be of great interest to those interested in the Ecumenical movement.
Editors Carl E. Braatan and Robert W. Jenson wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “This book offers an ecumenically representative response to an important section of Pope John Paul II’s 1995 Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint, which deals with the ‘Ministry of Unity of the Bishop of Rome.’ Here John Paul II exhibits the kind of unremitting commitment to the ecumenical quest for church unity that has characterized his papacy from the beginning… The pope’s encyclical letter aims to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach the goal of full commission… the pope finds encouragement in the fact that the question of papal primacy has become a subject of many of the ecumenical dialogues, most notably in those with Anglicans. Lutherans, and the Orthodox… But what is there to discuss? The pope is not willing to start from scratch. He is convinced that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that Peter’s position of primacy among the Twelve was a direct appointment from Jesus, and that the bishop of Rome is permanently the successor of Peter. Still, he is willing to talk about a ‘way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.’ This volume is a kind of thanksgiving offering in appreciation of the pope’s effort to promote the unity of all Christians and full communion between churches.” (Pg. 1-2)
Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy observes, “The reason for the movement away from the pursuit of full, visible unity within the ecumenical movement, which has in the past always been the goal of the Faith and Order Commission in the World Council of Churches [WCC], is to be found, I believe, mainly in frustration and disillusionment at the slow rate of progress in this search for greater communion. The difficulties that the churches are encountering in this quest bring a natural tendency to limit the goal. Ut Unum Sint is a response to this challenge.” (Pg. 13)
Brian E. Daily, S.J., acknowledged, “The difficulty, or course, is that the ideal of such a ministry of promoting communion seems to lie far beyond the power and the will of any of us, either as Christian individuals or as Christian communities. Disunity, political self-promotion, institutionalism, and denominationalism are part of the sinful fabric of every Christian communion, preventing us from genuinely being what we profess to be. Having fallen into disunion, each of our churches now has a vested interest in maintaining or differences, and probably very few of us have the generosity of heart really to desire the costly transformation and sacrifice of self that the restoration of communion among our churches will require. Yet Christian growth… will require constant dying to our pasts and our ambitions on the part of the pope and his curia as well as on the part of all the churches.” (Pg. 57)
Stephen W. Sykes [an Anglican] suggests, “the bureaucracy implied in papal powers must be revisited with the aid of sociological tools. Only such an open acknowledgment will end the offering of a frustrating and in the end simplistic choice between obedience to authority or autonomous individualism…” (Pg. 71)
Geoffrey Wainwright [a Methodist member of the WCC] states, “It would, of course, be up to the Roman Catholic Church to say whether it could be satisfied with papal primacy being viewed as a quasi-optional ‘emphasis.’ There might seem to be a inherent contradiction between the Roman claim and its expendability. The underlying problem resides in the fact that, as the current document states but does not develop, ‘churches understand their relation to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in different ways. This has a bearing upon the way they relation to other churches and their perception of the road to visible unity.” (Pg. 81)
David S. Yeago [a Lutheran] points out, “While I have suggested that the authentic practice of magisterium, as envisioned by the Reformers, has become rather alien to us, there are nonetheless occasions on which denominations like mine appoint commissions, boards, and panels to consider questions of faith and morals. Nothing would stop us from making it a regular practice on such occasions to request formally that advice and counsel of the Holy See. This would imply no a priori commitment to follow Rome’s counsel. But it should include and undertaking always to respond in detail and in writing to whatever is received from Rome, and to make the correspondence public unless unusual considerations intervene. Such a policy would by no means constitute a recognition of papal jurisdiction as defined at Vatican I, but it would be an acknowledgement of the significance for the whole church of the papacy’s witness to the apostolic faith. It would be a recognition that though we may not always follow that witness, we should nonetheless never ignore it.” (Pg. 121-122)
Richard J. Mouw [President of Fuller Theological Seminary] admits, “there is … an unofficial magisterium that shapes the theological patterns of the evangelical community. Evangelicals sustain a major industry that produces books, audio tapes, television programs, Christian radio stations---all providing considerable commentary on the Bible and its application to daily living… the combination of evangelical recognition of the need for at least an unofficial teaching office and Roman Catholic support for the role of the laity in the church’s discernment process suggests the real possibility of productive dialogue about some interesting subject matter for mutual exploration. Here too we must not be discouraged by an initial contrast between Catholicism’s well-defined hierarchical system and evangelicalism’s array of loosely structured ministries resisting clear ecclesiological definition.” (Pg. 139)
George Weigel says, “an ecumenical conversation about the way in which the church reflects upon and develops its doctrinal and disciplinary life is certainly worthwhile and much needed. That conversation should respectfully engage the proposals being made by the ‘democratization’ movement in North Atlantic Catholicism without accepting the movement’s premier that because of the pressures and demands of modernity, it is inevitably the shape of the future. Moreover, in that ecumenical conversation, it will be useful to remember that one function of the Petrine primacy is to remind the church, in and out of the season, that it is the church, the mystical body of Christ extending over time and space, and that as such its essential structure is sacramental, not political.” (Pg. 157-158)
Joseph Augustine Dinoia, O.P., states, “If we are not committed to ecumenism, we have failed to grasp heart of the message we must proclaim to one another and to the wide world in the new evangelization. It is a message of communion and love… Pope John Paul is saying to us that, if we understand the central truth at the heart of the new evangelization and we want to be as effective as possible in communicating that truth to the world, then we must be committed as well to working for the full visible unity of Christians. Thus, as to both effectiveness and essence, a commitment to ecumenism inheres in the work of the new evangelization.” (Pg. 163)
This book will be of great interest to those interested in the Ecumenical movement.
Displaying 1 of 1 review