No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
At the end of February 1950 there was published a directive from the Vatican concerning the rules to be observed by Roman Catholics on the occasion of ecumenical conversations. These show clearly how seriously such conversations are taken in that quarter. The line of thought developed in the following pages is not intended as a critical analysis and discussion of the Vatican declaration; it was complete in writing before that was published. Our aim here is rather to consider in a general way elements of difficulty and promise in ecumenical conversations. Of course the following reflections are purely private in character although they do endeavour to give due weight to a variety of experience gained within the Ecumenical Movement and also in the struggle of the Confessional Church in Germany. It would perhaps be in the interest of the Ecumenical Movement if we can come to see clearly and without illusions what are the limits that are set here to all human efforts and at the same time try to direct our view to the Lord of the Church, who alone can bring about the unification of Christendom.
page 69 note 1 Visser't, W. A. Hooft in his article, “The Significance of the World Council of Churches” (Amsterdam, Volume I: The Universal Church in God's Design, London, S.C.M. Press, 1948, p. 192.)Google Scholar
page 75 note 1 At the ecumenical doctrinal conversations described above, differences arose out of the historical and dogmatic conditions underlying the Confessions (although we do not wish to shut our eyes to the fact that here many boundaries are already obliterated). In this case, however, the conditions are primarily conditioned by geography and politics. One can therefore well imagine that Confessions which in the first case are still far apart can nevertheless in the second case speak with one voice. Whilst in the first case the co-operation of the world organisations of the Confessions seems required to prepare wider unification, the obvious suggestion in the second case seems to be that Christians within each nation and state should close their ranks in order to take united action. National associations, just as much as a world organisation of the Confessions, may of course become a hindrance on the way to unity. If, however, they are inwardly moving towards one goal kept clearly in view it is quite possible that they may be advancing the cause of unity in the truth. In any case the two forms of common action are not mutually exclusive, and it is high time for us to recognise that no contradiction is involved here.
page 76 note 1 The new factor in this case would be that the Acts of Confession themselves draw the ties between us ever closer despite the continuing validity of the traditional Confessions. In contrast with the ultimately rather too romantic idea that a unification would be possible by going back to the Confessions of the first five centuries, an attempt is here made to interpret the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who surely impels the Church forward and not backward. It is a difficult matter to give clear expression to this; the bitter controversies about the relation of the Barmen “Declaration” to the Confessions of the Reformation which have been fought in Germany in recent years show clearly that we have not yet seen the last of this new phenomenon in Church History. Is it right to say that they have significance as a “pattern” for the Ecumenical World?