World Council of Churches

[Tony]

dont dis arena football

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]First of all thre is only one Church -us. The only other groups that could be called churches are the orthodox or anglicans. The other groups are more properly called eclesial communities. So it is really not a world council of churches, simply various denominations working together. We do that thru our own agencies already. [/quote]

Referring to Protestant communities as "Churches" in common speech is no more a recognition of their theological construct as a "Church" than calling an Anglican priest "Father" is a recognition of his status as a true priest. I am not writing a theological treatise. The word "Church", in its broadest sense, is simply a formal Christian community, and so there is no problem referring to Protestant denominations as "Churches". When speaking in a formal theological sense, the word "Church" takes on another context.

Theologically, no, Anglican communities are not proper "Churches".

And as I said, the Church already does what the WCC does. The only difference is that the WCC is a visibly corporate commitment to ecumenism; whereas the Catholic Church deals with each Christian body on an individual basis. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind non-membership in the WCC; it would be redundant.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 08:21 PM']The only difference is that the WCC is a visibly corporate commitment to ecumenism;
[right][snapback]614891[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, it seems more like they are more concerned with "fellowship" than talking with other churches.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 01:34 PM']Apotheoun,

For what I can gleam from their website, there is no ecclesiology behind the WCC.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]614729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As ironic as it sounds, no ecclesiology is an ecclesiology. That being said, as you and I both know, the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone, and that is precisely why the Catholic Church has not entered as a full member of the WCC.

[Guest Eremite]

Sure, we both know that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church. I still maintain that doesn't answer why she is not a member of the WCC. The WCC is not in any way a ecclesiological communion of Churches, as the Catholic Church is. It is simply a practical organization of ecumenical partners.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did or did not join the WCC in the future. Either way, it wouldn't have any ecclesiological significance. It would simply formalize the communities the Catholic Church is already has ecumenical relations with.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 01:34 PM']The Church already does what the WCC does; she just hasn't joined their group. Why is unclear. It may be for political reasons (I don't think the Holy See is a member of the UN either, even though she is closely allied with it).
[right][snapback]614729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The reason that the Catholic Church hasn't entered the WCC is theologically based, and it is the same reason that the Church's Magisterium issued a clarification on the term "sister Churches" in relation to the Eastern Orthodox. The Catholic Church is not the sister of any particular Church; instead, she is the mother of all the particular Churches. Her unity shines out to all men, and all men are called to enter into Catholic unity.

Christians may be divided, but the unity of the Catholic Church remains ontologically unaffected, because her unity is founded upon the very person of Christ Himself, and not upon any transitory temporal consideration. There has been a certain lack of precision among some Catholic theologians on this and on other issues surrounding ecumenical dialogue, but that simply means that Catholics as a whole must be all the more firm in their theological convictions. The Church is indivisible, just as the hypostatic union is indivisible. Certainly Catholics seek the unity of all Christians, but as Catholics what we seek is to restore those who have fallen away to the full union and communion with God that can only be found in the Catholic Church, what we do not seek is a union that is lost.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:29 PM']I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did or did not join the WCC in the future. Either way, it wouldn't have any ecclesiological significance. It would simply formalize the communities the Catholic Church is already has ecumenical relations with.
[right][snapback]614957[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would be surprised if the Church did join the WCC, because it would involve a repudiation of the Catholic doctrine of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

It is quite possible that Cardinal Kasper would support the Catholic Church joining the WCC, but his ecclesiology is defective, as is evident from his article in America magazine of a few years ago, whic, in an unprecedented move, Cardinal Ratzinger responded to.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I would be surprised if the Church did join the WCC, because it would involve a repudiation of the Catholic doctrine of the Church. [/quote]

Not at all. The stated mission of the WCC is already carried out by the Catholic Church, except it is done on an individual basis, rather than a corporate basis. The participants in the WCC have simply established formal ecumenical relations with all other members. The Church already establishes full ecumenical relations with non-Catholic bodies; she just does so individually. There is no ecclesiological significance to her doing so corporately. It is simply a matter of administration.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:37 PM']Not at all. The stated mission of the WCC is already carried out by the Catholic Church, except it is done on an individual basis, rather than a corporate basis. The participants in the WCC have simply established formal ecumenical relations with all other members. The Church already establishes full ecumenical relations with non-Catholic bodies; she just does so individually. There is no ecclesiological significance to her doing so corporately. It is simply a matter of administration.
[right][snapback]614967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Eremite,

I know you're having a hard time with this, but if the Catholic Church joined the WCC it would involve a partial repudiation of the Church's teaching about herself. That's why it would be a very harmful thing to do. Ecumenical dialogue is not about negotiating a truce with the separated ecclesial communities, it is instead about enriching them so that they can hopefully someday be restored to full Catholic unity.

[Guest Eremite]

I didn't see anything about a "truce" in the WCC website. Its mission is discussion and unity.

And the goal of ecumenism is not only our enrichment of non-Catholic bodies, but non-Catholic enrichment of the Catholic Church:

[quote]Although the concept of "dialogue" might appear to give priority to the cognitive dimension (dia-logos), all dialogue implies a global, existential dimension. It involves the human subject in his or her entirety; dialogue between communities involves in a particular way the subjectivity of each.

This truth about dialogue, so profoundly expressed by Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, was also taken up by the Council in its teaching and ecumenical activity. Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an "exchange of gifts"

--John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint", #28[/quote]

What makes you think I'm having a "hard time with this"?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:42 PM']What makes you think I'm having a "hard time with this"?
[right][snapback]614970[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We have a fundamentally different view of the nature of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

[Guest Eremite]

Since you bring up Cardinal Kaspar, here is some of what he has to say on ecumenism:

[quote]Church unity is impossible with contradictions, and churches cannot or should not enter into conflicting agreements with different partners. Comprehensiveness is a good thing, but it should not be exaggerated, and pluralism should not become a new beatitude added to the Sermon on the Mount. The identity and inner coherence of the Church must be clear ad intra and ad extra. “Every kingdom that is divided against itself will fall apart” and “cannot last” (Mt 12, 25).

Such unity is needed in the synchronic and in the diachronic dimensions. The Church is the same in all centuries; today we cannot build a new Church in contradiction with her own tradition. We cannot be so proud as to believe that we have more Spirit than our forefathers, than all the Church Fathers and great theologians in the past. The Holy Spirit who was at work in the past does not now work in contradiction. The Spirit is faithful, recalling and preserving the truth. [/quote]

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]We have a fundamentally different view of the nature of the Church.

[/quote]

We do? The Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. It's not too difficult.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 17 2005, 07:46 PM']Since you bring up Cardinal Kaspar, here is some of what he has to say on ecumenism:
[right][snapback]614973[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I suggest you read the article he wrote in America magazine, and Cardinal Ratzinger response. Kasper holds views on ecumenism and on other theological issues that are clearly at variance with the Church's received tradition. Read his book on Christology.