Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
One House, Many Rooms
The Pope’s statement is just that: a reiteration. There is nothing new in it; it simply restates the familiar position of the Catholic Church. Whenever one enters ecumenical dialogue it is critically important that one stay true to oneself. It is only in that way that it is possible to be a real conversation partner. From time to time it is important to make such clarifications. Especially is this important if the conversations themselves seem to be taking a direction that is not in keeping with the fundamental values that define the conversation partner. That, according to the commentary accompanying the statement, seems to have been his perception.
It is difficult to predict exactly how the Pope’s statement will effect ecumenical relations and the conversations that surround them. Inevitably such moments of clarification contain within themselves at least two different possibilities: one is to chill relations and the other possibility is to further them. The only way to tell the difference in intent between the two is to listen carefully to the next word that is spoken. Is that next word a word of invitation to further deepen a dialogue now reinforced by the always bracing words of a candor that flows from honest humility, or is the next word a word that flows out of an arrogance that, at its’ core, senses no need for the other. Given the Vatican’s long commitment to dialogue I can not but imagine that its hope is the former and not the latter.
I’m sure that many do not care, but I am equally certain that many do. Those who do care are among those who most passionately want God’s message of abiding love made ever more available.
The Pope’s message is a sober reminder of just how “wounded” our divisions have been made us. We are all "wounded" in the sense that our message is muffled. And that, in my view, is a wound that afflicts all Christian communities: the Episcopal Church, the Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostals, independents, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic as well as all the rest. We are all incomplete to the extent that we are cut-off from the fellowship that each has to offer the other.
By
Mark S. Sisk
|
July 23, 2007; 12:40 PM ET
| Category:
Religion & Leadership
,
Theology
Save & Share:
Previous: On Being a Muslim American |
Next: Aimed at Catholic Theologians
Posted by: John | October 18, 2007 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi! Good site respect! pussy-juice Visit http://pussy-juice.lioru.com >pussy-juice Thanks!
Posted by: John | October 18, 2007 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The basic relationship between a state and its citizens should be citizenship, not ethnic or religious affiliation," he says. "Who is a citi-zen of Israel? Is my cousin in Lebanon who left the country in 1948 allowed to come back or not? This is basic. But somebody who can prove that his mother is Jewish, from Brooklyn - he can come."
Azmi Bishara, Ex-Israeli MP
Posted by: Israel is rascist | July 24, 2007 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.2Timonthy 3:1-5. God Bless and Peace.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
However, in recent months, that has begun to change. For a start, racism against Arabs in Israel is rising, according to at least one recent poll. In a survey for the Centre Against Racism, a poll of Jewish Israelis found that more than half believed it was treason for a Jewish woman to marry an Arab man; 40% said Arabs should no longer have the right to vote in parliamentary elections; and 75% opposed apartment blocks being shared by Jews and Arabs.
Posted by: I'm for Rasicm!! and I'm a Jew! | July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturei Karta) sometimes refer to Herzel as "Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as 'Nasser Jesus' and more recently 'Arafat Jesus.'" (Israel Shahak, Jewish History Jewish Religion)
Posted by: Catholics are idiots, jews are genius | July 24, 2007 6:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, Bishop Sisk, for misstating your name.
Age, and the hour of the night, I suppose.
Regards.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | July 21, 2007 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, Bishop Wright!
Benedict XVI has really conned you!
There is nothing in his pronouncement that is moderate, inviting, or aimed to promote cordial and fruitful discussions with other Christian churches.
The successor to the Grand Inquisitor remains just that. Domingo de Guzmán Garcés would be proud of him.
It seems to me that the Pope's statement, and the various responses to it, are just disputations on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
Meanwhile, the world is as it is, largely a slaughterhouse and a perpetual Treblinka.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | July 21, 2007 11:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Hi! Good site respect! pussy-juice Visit http://pussy-juice.lioru.com >pussy-juice Thanks!