Abstract
The Roman Catholic Church will soon conclude its celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II, an ecclesial event that marked the Church’s official entrance into the twentieth-century ecumenical movement.1 More has been accomplished ecumenically in the half century since the opening of the council than had been accomplished in the four and half centuries between the Reformation and Vatican II. Simply from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, we have witnessed remarkable ecumenical achievements: the rescinding of the mutual excommunications between the Catholic and Orthodox churches that had existed for almost 1,000 years; the declaration of a common Christological faith between the Catholic Church and the ancient Oriental Orthodox churches, overcoming 1,500 years of division on basic Christological doctrine; and the crown jewel of ecumenical achievement, the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church. Beyond these landmark achievements there has been a plethora of multilateral and bilateral ecumenical dialogues resulting in official statements that have helped articulate an expanding consensus in shared Christian faith on a wide range of topics such as scripture, tradition, baptism, Eucharist, ministry, and ecclesiology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For historical background on the Groupe, see Catherine E. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes: A Dialogue of Conversion (New York: Peter Lang, 2005);
and Joseph Famerée, “The Contribution of the Groupe des Dombes to Ecumenism: Past Achievements and Future Challenges,” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1 (2008): 99–116.
See Famerée, “Contribution of the Groupe” 107. For the use of this comparative methodology in the early Faith and Order work, see Jeffrey Gros, “Toward Full Communion: Faith and Order and Catholic Ecumenism,” Theological Studies 65 (2004): 23–43, at 27.
For an alternative assessment of this document, see Jorge A. Sampini, “La autoridad doctrinal en la iglesia último aporte del Groupe des Dombes,” Cuadernos de teología 25 (2006): 77–102.
For one example, see Konrad Raiser, Ecumenism in Transition: A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement? (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991), 117.
Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 275–76.
Yves Congar, Vrai et fausse réforme dans l’Église, rev. ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1968), 164; English translation: True and False Reform in the Church, trans. and intro. Paul Philibert (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011).
Charles Taylor, “Magisterial Authority,” in The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, ed. Michael Lacey and Francis Oakley (New York: Oxford, 2011), 259–69.
A typical example can be found in Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th ed. (St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1960), 9–10.
For an in-depth treatment of the role of theological notes and censures, see Harold Ernst, “The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine,” Theological Studies 63 (2002): 813–25.
Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 43.
CDF, “Responsum ad dubium,” Origins 25 (1995), 401.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, “Commentary on Profession of Faith’s Concluding Paragraphs,” Origins 28 (1998): 116–19.
Ghislain Lafont, Imagining the Catholic Church: Structured Communion in the Spirit, trans. John Burkhard (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 39.
Sharon Euart, “Structures for Participation in the Church,” Origins 35 (2005): 18–25.
Lonergan has in mind what he refers to as (1) dramatic bias, which inhibits our ability to enter into the drama of life fully; (2) individual bias, which is concerned with the dangers of egoism wherein one is inclined to interpret a situation in the light of one’s own self-interest; (3) group bias, which is in play when one is inclined to interpret a situation in the light of one’s group identity; and (4) common sense bias, in which one is inclined to arrive at simple understandings that overlook the true complexity of a situation or issue. See Bernard Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (New York: Philosophical Library, 1957), 191–244;
and Lonergan, Method in Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1979), 231.
English translation: Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello, 1996).
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2016 Richard R. Gaillardetz
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gaillardetz, R.R. (2016). Does a Doctrinal Teaching Office Have an Ecumenical Future?. In: Mannion, G. (eds) Where We Dwell in Common. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503152_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503152_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-58056-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50315-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)