That All May Be One: A Tale of Three Churches

I. Past: A Lesson in Tragedy split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches has been a scandal. Historically, angry words have been hurled at each other over the years, and, even today, accusations are still made by individuals of group against the end result was affront to Jesus' prayer that would be one (Jn. 17:21). followers of Christ were anything but one, as new Christian religions sprouted up (and continue to do so) with alarming frequency. Those baptized in various Christian traditions refused even to speak with each other, let alone engage in meaningful dialogue. Although most Christians can appreciate how far we have come in terms of relations, the continued refusal to engage each other in dialogue bears witness to how much distance must still be traversed by all Christians. In its Decree on Ecumenism, the bishops of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) acknowledged that blame was to be laid at the feet of all concerned for the hurts that all sides sustained from others. With non-Catholics in attendance at the Council, the bishops urged dialogue among all Christians, so all could better understand the beliefs of others and, in so doing, could better cherish their own beliefs. Continuing in that spirit, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Ut unum sint (On Commitment to Ecumenism), wrote, It can be said that the movement in a certain sense was born out of the negative experience of each of those who, in proclaiming the Gospel, appealed to his own Church or Ecclesial Community. (1) He noted that the only hope for reconciliation is true dialogue, which also serves as an examination of conscience, a kind of 'dialogue of consciences.' (2) To quote further from this document: [M]ention has to be made in the first place of 'dialogue between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. In their meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features.' (3) The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication, and dialogue. In the course of these, people explain to another the truth they have discovered. (4) Furthermore, Dialogue is also a natural instrument for comparing differing points of view and, above all, for examining those disagreements which hinder full communion between Christians.... With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters* Certainly it is possible to profess one's faith and to explain its teaching in such a way that is correct, fair and understandable, and which at the same time takes into account both the way of thinking and the actual historical experiences of the other party. ... all forms of reductionism or facile agreement must be absolutely avoided. (5) John Paul II wrote further that ecumenical dialogue.., prompts the parties involved to question each other, to understand each other and to explain their positions to each other. (6) Finally, dialogue puts before the participants real and genuine disagreements in matters of faith. Above all, these disagreements should be faced in a sincere spirit of fraternal charity, of respect for the demands of one's own conscience and the conscience of the other party, with profound humility and love for the truth. (7) Unfortunately, lay people of various Christian traditions too often believe that such dialogue needs to be primarily the work of church officials. John Paul II disagreed, writing that the Council held that [c]oncern for restoring unity pertains to the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike. …