Posted on

99. Las 15 enfermedades de la Curia Romana, excepto una

24 DE ENERO DE 2015
En la cúspide de la crisis que precedió a la dimisión de Benedicto XVI en 2013 la Curia Romana era representada como “un nido de cuervos”. Este órgano del gobierno central de la Iglesia Católica, compuesto por varios departamentos y dirigido por oficiales de alto rango (la mayoría son cardenales), se había convertido en un lugar de conflictos personales feroces y luchas internas. Benedicto XVI renunció a su pontificado también, entre otras causas, porque se sintió incapaz de encontrar una solución al caos que estaba derramando una luz siniestra sobre el Vaticano. El Papa Francisco fue elegido “del extremo del mundo” con la esperanza de que iba a tratar la crisis de la Curia Romana como un “outsider”. Desde que fue elegido ha estado enviando señales claras de su desazón hacia la organización vaticana. El último ejemplo de su crítica fue su mensaje a la Curia Romana justo antes de Navidad (22 Diciembre 2014) cuando diagnosticó una realidad espiritualmente gangrenosa.
UNA IMPRESIONANTE LISTA DE PLAGAS
El análisis papal de la condición espiritual de la Curia Romana en su denuncia es asombroso. A continuación, la devastadora lista de enfermedades que identificó cuando examinó a sus miembrosi: 1. La enfermedad de sentirse “inmortal”, “inmune” o, en realidad “indispensable”. 2. La enfermedad del “Marta-ismo” (que proviene de Marta), de tareas excesivas. 3. La enfermedad de la “petrificación” mental y espiritual: es decir, el corazón de piedra y “el cuello rígido”. 4. La enfermedad de la excesiva planificación y funcionalismo. 5. La enfermedad de la mala coordinación. 6. La enfermedad del mal de Alzheimer espiritual. 7. La enfermedad de la rivalidad y la vanagloria. 8. La enfermedad de la esquizofrenia existencial. 9. La enfermedad de las habladurías, las quejas y las charlas. 10. La enfermedad de divinizar a los consejeros. 11. La enfermedad de la indiferencia hacia los demás. 12. La enfermedad de las caras lúgubres. 13. La enfermedad de la acumulación. 14. La enfermedad de los círculos cerrados. 15. Y, la última: la enfermedad de los beneficios mundanos, del exhibicionismo. ¿Qué más puede añadirse a esta lista? El que tenga oídos, que oiga. Más que un nido de cuervos el cuadro se parece más a un grupo de clérigos altamente disfuncionales y egocéntricos. Esta es la condición espiritual de la Curia Romana, no de acuerdo con la opinión de un observador anticlerical incondicional sino según la propia cabeza: ¡el Papa!
LA ENFERMEDAD QUE FALTA
La honestidad y el coraje del Papa Francisco en este caso son dignos de elogio. La amarga ironía de comunicar el mensaje con ocasión de la presentación de las felicitaciones de Navidad, cuando la mayoría se limitaría a decir cosas “agradables”, es también notable. Una de las cosas que hizo después del discurso fue elegir a quince nuevos cardenales, de los cuales únicamente uno de ellos pertenece a la Curia, mientras que la mayoría de los demás “vienen del fin del mundo” como él. Otra característica interesante de estos nuevos cardenales es que algunos de ellos están claramente a favor de un planteamiento más “pastoral” y abierto en el sentido de admitir en la Eucaristía a las personas que mantienen relaciones “irregulares”, tal como parece estar el Papa. Este es otro tema candente que el Papa está manejando con dificultad creciente y que será un caso de prueba de la estabilidad de su pontificado este año. Volviendo a la lista de enfermedades hay una consideración que merece la pena mencionar. Históricamente la Curia Romana es un descendiente de las cortes del Renacimiento que rodeaban a los príncipes en sus diferentes cometidos como monarcas absolutos. El Papa al igual que un príncipe del Renacimiento también tuvo asignados sus dignatarios y los Papas, incluso hoy, continúan teniéndolos en el Estado Vaticano. A lo largo de los siglos la Curia fue obteniendo un estatus teológico como si se tratara de un pequeño modelo de la propia Iglesia; de hecho la Iglesia en su mejor momento a pequeña escala. La Curia es un producto de una visión monárquica de la iglesia y el papel del Papa como monarca absoluto de un estado es también parte de la misma estirpe. El Papa Francisco criticó la espiritualidad horrible de la Curia, pero no fue tan lejos como para cuestionar su naturaleza política y monárquica. Si bien denuncia sus comportamientos erróneos, no aborda la teología equivocada detrás de los mismos. Una razón para su reticencia es que la Curia Romana como modo de gobierno va de la mano con el Papado como una forma de liderazgo. Ambos son inseparables. Cuestionar a uno significa cuestionar al otro y Francisco no está preparado para hacer ninguna de las cosas. Esto significa que reformar la Curia supone mucho más que denunciar las pobres condiciones espirituales de sus miembros o cambiar el personal en los puestos clave. Implica una nueva concepción radical de las estructuras de la iglesia según la enseñanza apostólica suprema, es decir, la Biblia, donde la iglesia no tiene corte de dignatarios ni príncipe a su cabeza, sino a Jesucristo solo, que fue crucificado, resucitó y ahora es exaltado. Al comienzo de su parlamento a la Curia, Francisco citó 1 Corintios 12 donde Pablo habla de la Iglesia como un cuerpo con muchos miembros. Este es el proyecto original bíblico de la Iglesia mediante el cual sus plagas más graves pueden curarse y la dignidad del pueblo de Dios puede ser restaurada.
i El discurso completo está en: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-address-to-roman-curia
Posted on

99. The Fifteen Sicknesses of the Roman Curia Except One

January 14th, 2015

During the peak of the crisis that preceded the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013 the Roman Curia was depicted as a “nest of crows”. This central governing body of the Catholic Church, made up of several departments and lead by high ranking officials (the majority being cardinals), had become a place of fierce personal conflicts and internal struggles. Benedict XVI gave up his pontificate also because he felt unable to find a solution to the chaos that was shedding a sinister light on the Vatican. Pope Francis was chosen “from the end of the world” in the hope that he would deal with the crisis of the Roman Curia as an outsider. Since being elected he has been sending clear signals about his uneasiness towards the Vatican establishment. The latest example of his criticism was his message to the Roman Curia just before Christmas (December 22, 2014) where he diagnosed a spiritually gangrenous reality.

An Impressive List of Plagues

The papal analysis of the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia is breathtaking in its denunciation. Here is the devastating list of sicknesses that he identified as he examined its members[1]:

1. The sickness of feeling oneself “immortal,” “immune” or in fact “indispensable”.

2. The sickness of “Martha-ism” (which stems from Martha), of excessive busyness.

3. The sickness of mental and spiritual “petrification”: namely a heart of stone and a “stiff-neck”.

4. The sickness of excessive planning and functionalism.

5. The sickness of bad coordination.

6. The sickness of spiritual Alzheimer’s disease.

7. The sickness of rivalry and vainglory.

8. The sickness of existential schizophrenia.

9. The sickness of gossip, of grumbling and of tittle-tattle.

10. The sickness of divinizing directors.

11. The sickness of indifference to others.

12. The sickness of the mournful face.

13. The sickness of accumulating.

14. The sickness of closed circles.

15. And the last one: the sickness of worldly profit, of exhibitionism.

What else can be added to this list? Whoever has ears, let them hear. More than a nest of crows the picture is more like a bunch of highly dysfunctional and egocentric clerics. This is the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia not according to a staunch anti-clerical observer but according to the head himself: the Pope!

The Missing Sickness

The honesty and courage of Pope Francis in this case is to be commended. The bitter irony of delivering the message on the occasion of the presentation of Christmas greetings when most would only say “nice” things is also noteworthy. One of the immediate follow-ups of the speech was that among the list of the fifteen new cardinals chosen by Francis only one of them belongs to the Curia whereas most of the others come “from the end of the world” like himself. Another interesting feature of these new cardinals is that some of them are outspokenly in favor of a more “pastoral” and open approach towards admitting to the Eucharist those in “irregular” relationships, as the Pope seems to be. This is another hot topic that the Pope is handling with increasing difficulty and that will be a test-case of the stability of his pontificate this year.

Back to the list of sicknesses. One consideration is worth mentioning. Historically the Roman Curia is a child of the Renaissance courts that surrounded the princes in their various tasks as absolute monarchs. The Pope as a Renaissance prince also had his dignitaries assigned to him and Popes even today continue to have them in the Vatican state. Throughout the centuries the Curia was given a theological status as if it were a small model of the Church itself; indeed the Church at its best on a small scale. The Curia is a product of a monarchial vision of the church and the role of the Pope as absolute monarch of a state is also part of the same breed. Pope Francis criticized the awful spirituality of the Curia, but did not go so far as to question its political and monarchial nature. While denouncing its wrong behaviors, he did not tackle the wrong theology behind it. One reason of his reticence is that the Roman Curia as a form of government goes hand in hand with the Papacy as a form of leadership. The two are inseparable. Questioning one means questioning the other and Francis is not prepared to do either.

This means that reforming the Curia entails much more than denouncing the poor spiritual conditions of its members or changing personnel in key positions. It involves a radical re-envisioning of the structures of the church according to the supreme apostolic teaching, i.e. the Bible, where the church has no court of dignitaries nor prince at its head, but Jesus Christ alone, who was crucified, rose again and is now exalted. At the beginning of his speech to the Curia, Francis quoted 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul speaks of the Church as one body with many members. This is the biblical blueprint of the Church whereby its most serious plagues can be healed and the dignity of the people of God can be restored.

Posted on

98. John Calvin and the Papacy

December 31st, 2014

This is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2015)

The Papacy has always had its critics throughout the centuries. It is fair to say, however, that it was the XVI century Protestant Reformation that developed the most comprehensive and massive argument against the Papacy pulling together Biblical, doctrinal, historical, moral, and institutional threads in order to do so. The Protestant critique reached its peak with the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. According to the New Testament the Antichrist is someone who is against Christ and His church by wanting to take His place and destroy His work (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2). For Christians the Antichrist is the enemy par excellence. This equation stirred the religious emotions more than many subtle theological arguments. The Protestant Reformation was not the first movement that referred to the Pope as the Antichrist. There was a robust Medieval European tradition – from the Waldensians to Wycliffe, and down to the Hussites – that had denounced the Pope in such a radical way. This is why a recent Roman Catholic and Lutheran dialogue in the United States acknowledges this fact: “In calling the pope the ‘antichrist’ the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the ‘antichrist’ when they wished to castigate his abuse of power”.[1] Even in this case the Reformers were not necessarily innovative but relied on previous strands of thought well attested for in Church history. Here is how John Calvin argued his case against the Papacy.

The French Reformer John Calvin dealt with Roman Catholic representatives at various times and in different ways. [2] His major work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion (first edition: 1536) contains frequent interactions with Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Here Calvin develops his argument that the Pope is the Antichrist (Institutes IV,7,25). The historical Pope that Calvin had in view was Paul III (1534-1549) but his critique never focuses on his person, but rather on the Papal institution. After underlining the fact that the Antichrist sets his tyranny in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, Calvin writes that the Antichrist “abolishes not the name of either Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask” by robbing God of his honor. This is, for him, a clear picture of the Pope and therefore he concludes by saying that “it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom”. Calvin is not speaking of a particular historical Pope, but he is referring to the Pope as representing the institution of the Papacy.

An Antidote to the Papacy

Calvin’s main critical analysis of the Papacy is found in two works in particular. In 1543 the theological faculty of the Sorbonne published twenty-five articles that candidates had to subscribe to as a kind of oath to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The following year, Calvin wrote a refutation of this summary of Catholic doctrine in his Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae parisiensi by quoting each article and providing a critical review, i.e. an “antidote”.[3] Article XXIII treats the primacy of the See of Rome and rehearses Catholic proofs for it. In response, Calvin argues that while Scripture often speaks of Christ as the head of the Church, it never does so as far as the Pope is concerned.[4] The unity of the Church is based on one God, one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:4), but there is no mention of the necessity of the Pope in order for the Church to be the Church. Moreover, in listing the ministries and offices of the Church, Paul is silent about a present or future Papacy. Peter was Paul’s co-worker, not his pope-like leader. The universal Bishop of the Church is Christ alone. To this Biblical argument for the headship of Christ, Calvin adds a historical reference to some Patristic writings that support the same New Testament view. Even Cyprian of Carthage, who is often considered a Church Father who favored an early form of a Papacy, calls the bishop of Rome a “brother, fellow-Christian, and colleague in the episcopate”, thus showing that he did not have in view the kind of primacy that was later attributed to the Pope. These kinds of Biblical and patristic arguments against the Papacy can be found in another giant of the Protestant Reformation of the XVI century, namely Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), especially in his 1542 Trattato della vera chiesa e della necessità di viver in essa (Treatise of the true church and the necessity to live in her).[5] They appear to be standard controversial treatments of the magisterial Reformation.

What is Wrong with the Papacy?

Returning to Calvin, another of his works that deals with the Papacy was written in 1549. When Charles tried to find a compromise solution to the Augsbug Interim, Bucer and Bullinger urged Calvin to respond. He wrote the treatise Vera Christianae pacificationis et Ecclesiae reformandae ratio, in which he described the doctrines that should be upheld, including justification by faith. In expounding the doctrine of the Church, Calvin devotes a section to the Papacy. Here he criticizes the standard Catholic reading of John 21, a New Testament text that is considered to be one of the Biblical foundations of the Papal office. In commenting on the passage, Calvin notes that the threefold command to Peter to shepherd the sheep is to be related to the threefold denial of Jesus by Peter. This office is not exclusive given the fact that Peter exhorts his fellow-elders to do the same (1 Peter 5:2). Furthermore, according to Calvin the Papacy is totally invalid because in the New Testament there is no injunction given to Peter to find successors in a juridical sense. To keep the unity of the Church, Christ is all we need. Calvin then comments on the choice of Rome as the chosen See for the Pope. “Why Rome,” Calvin asks.  In writing to the Romans, Paul mentions many individual names, but Peter is not on the list. And even if Peter would later go to Rome, why was the city selected as the special and central place for future Popes? Why not Jerusalem? Or Antioch? Calvin, however, does not address the political and historical importance of Rome as reasons for locating the Papacy there.

Finally, Calvin once again accuses the Pope of being the Antichrist because of his “tyranny”, “destruction of the truth”, “corruption of the worship of God”, “breaking of His ordinances”, and the “dispersion of the order of His Church”. Here we see many similarities with Luther, with the exception that with Calvin the apocalyptic tone is not as strong and is less evident than that of the German reformer. Rather than passionate eschatological concerns, Calvin relies on lucid theological and Biblical arguments in his effort to grapple with the Papacy.

[1] “Differing Attitudes Towards Papal Primacy” (1973). The text can be accessed at http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm and is a useful summary of the main controversial issues around the Papacy between present-day Lutherans and Roman Catholics.

[2] On Calvin’s views of Rome as they are presented in various writings, see M. Stolk, Calvin and Rome in H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) pp. 104-112.

[3] This word “antidote” would come back in Calvin’s refutations of the Acts of the Council of Trent. See his Acta synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto (1547).

[4] See also Calvin’s Institutes IV,6-7.

[5] See my paper “Separazione e riforma della Chiesa ne ‘Il Trattato della vera Chiesa e della necessità di viver in essa’”, A. Oliveri and P. Bolognesi (edd.), Pietro Martire Vermigli (1499-1562). Umanista, Riformatore, Pastore (Rome: Herder, 2003) pp. 225-232.

Posted on

98. Juan Calvino y el Papado

10 DE ENERO DE 2015
A lo largo de los siglos el Papado siempre ha tenido sus críticos. No obstante, es justo decir, que fue la Reforma Protestante del siglo XVI la que desencadenó la disputa más completa y masiva contra el Papado, aunando esfuerzos para mover los hilos institucionales, morales, históricos, doctrinales y bíblicos con el fin de llevar a cabo la misma. La crítica protestante alcanzó su auge con la identificación del Papa como el Anticristo. Según el Nuevo Testamento el Anticristo es alguien que está contra Cristo y su iglesia al querer ocupar su lugar y destruir su obra (p.e. 2 Tesalonicenses 2). Para los cristianos el Anticristo es el enemigo por excelencia. Esta ecuación agitó las emociones religiosas más que otros sutiles argumentos teológicos. La Reforma Protestante no fue el primer movimiento que se refirió al Papa como el Anticristo. Hubo una sólida tradición europea medieval -desde los valdenses a Wycliffe y hasta los husitas- que denunciaron también al Papa de una manera tan radical. Esta es la razón por la cual en un reciente diálogo entre luteranos y católico romanos celebrado en los Estados Unidos se reconoce este hecho: “Al llamar al papa el ‘anticristo’ los primeros luteranos se interpusieron en una tradición que se remontaba al siglo XI. No únicamente los disidentes y los herejes sino también los santos habían llamado al obispo de Roma el ‘anticristo’ cuando querían castigar su abuso de poder”.i Inclusive en este caso los reformadores no fueron necesariamente innovadores sino que se basaron en líneas de pensamiento previas bien documentadas por la historia de la Iglesia.
Así es como Juan Calvino argumentó su caso contra el Papado. El reformador francés Juan Calvino negoció con los representantes católico romanos diversas veces y de diferentes formas.ii Su principal obra, Institutes of the Christian Religion [La Institución de la Religión Cristiana] (primera edición: 1536) contiene frecuentes interacciones con las doctrinas y prácticas católico romanas. En la misma Calvino desarrolla su argumento de que el Papa es el Anticristo (Institución IV,7,25). El Papa histórico que Calvino tenía en mente era Pablo III (1534-1549), pero su crítica nunca se centra en su persona sino más bien en la institución papal. Después de subrayar el hecho de que el Anticristo establece su tiranía en contraposición al reino espiritual de Cristo, Calvino escribe que el Anticristo “no suprime el nombre de Cristo o la Iglesia, sino que utiliza el nombre de Cristo como pretexto y está al acecho bajo el nombre de Cristo como bajo una máscara”, robando a Dios su honor. Esto es, para él, una clara imagen del Papa y por consiguiente, concluye diciendo que “es cierto que el Romano Pontífice ha transferido impúdicamente a sí mismo las propiedades más peculiares de Dios y de Cristo y por tanto no puede haber duda alguna de que es el líder y el abanderado de un reino impío y abominable”. Calvino no habla de ningún papa histórico en particular sino que se refiere al papa como el representante de la institución del Papado.
Un Antídoto contra el Papado
El principal análisis crítico de Calvino del Papado se halla en dos obras en particular. En 1543 la facultad teológica de la Sorbona publicó veinticinco artículos que los candidatos a permanecer fieles a la Iglesia Católica tenían que suscribir como una especie de juramento. Al año siguiente, Calvino escribió una refutación de este resumen de la doctrina católica en su Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae parisiensi [Artículos de la Facultad de Teología en París] citando cada artículo y proporcionando una revisión crítica, es decir, un “antídoto”.iii El artículo XXIII trata de la primacía de la Sede de Roma y ensaya las pruebas católicas para la misma. En respuesta, Calvino arguye que si bien las Escrituras hablan a menudo de Cristo como la cabeza de la Iglesia, nunca lo hacen en lo que concierne al Papa.iv La unidad de la Iglesia está fundamentada en un Dios, una fe y un bautismo (Efesios 4:4), pero no hay ninguna mención a la necesidad de un Papa para que la Iglesia sea la Iglesia. Por otra parte, en la enumeración de los ministerios y cargos de la Iglesia, Pablo no dice nada acerca de un presente o futuro Papado. Pedro fue un condiscípulo de Pablo, no su líder (similar a un papa). El Obispo Universal de la Iglesia es Cristo únicamente.
A esta evidencia bíblica de la jefatura de Cristo, Calvino agrega una referencia histórica a algunos escritos patrísticos que respaldan el mismo punto de vista del Nuevo Testamento. Incluso Cipriano de Cartago, a quien se considera frecuentemente un Padre de la Iglesia que favoreció una forma temprana de Papado, llama al obispo de Roma “hermano, compañero cristiano y colega en el episcopado”, demostrando así que no tenía en perspectiva la clase de primacía que más tarde se atribuyó al Papa. Estos tipos de argumentaciones patrísticas y bíblicas pueden hallarse en otro gigante de la Reforma Protestante del siglo XVI, a saber, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), especialmente en su Trattato della vera chiesa e della necesità di viver in essa [Tratado de la verdadera iglesia y la necesidad de vivir en ella] de 1542.v Todos ellos parecen ser los tratamientos estándar controvertidos de la Reforma magisterial.
Lo Erróneo del Papado
Volviendo a Calvino, otra de sus obras en la que se ocupa del Papado fue escrita en 1549. Cuando Carlos intentó encontrar una solución de compromiso con el “Provisional Augsbug”, Bucer y Bullinger instaron a Calvino a responder. Entonces escribió el tratado Vera Christianae pacificationis et Ecclesiae reformandae ratio [La pacificación de la verdadera Iglesia Cristiana debe ser reformada] en el cual describe las doctrinas que deben defenderse, incluida la de la justificación por la fe. Al exponer la doctrina de la Iglesia, Calvino dedica una sección al Papado. Critica la lectura estándar católica de Juan 21, un texto del Nuevo Testamento que está considerado como uno de los cimientos bíblicos del cargo papal. Al comentar este pasaje, Calvino constata que el mandato triple a Pedro de pastorear a las ovejas debe relacionarse con la triple negación de Jesús por parte de Pedro. Este cometido no es exclusivo puesto que Pedro impulsa a los ancianos a hacer lo mismo (1 Pedro 5:2). Además, según Calvino el Papado queda totalmente invalidado porque en el Nuevo Testamento no hay ningún mandato dado a Pedro para encontrar sucesores en un sentido jurídico. Para conservar la unidad de la Iglesia, Cristo es todo lo que necesitamos. Calvino comenta después sobre la elección de Roma como la localidad preferida para la Sede del Papa. “Por qué Roma” pregunta Calvino. En sus cartas a los romanos, Pablo menciona muchos nombres individuales, pero Pedro no está en la lista. Incluso si Pedro hubiera ido más adelante a Roma, ¿por qué fue la ciudad seleccionada como el lugar central y especial para los futuros papas? ¿Por qué no Jerusalén? ¿O Antioquía? No obstante, Calvino no aborda la importancia histórica y política de Roma como las razones para el emplazamiento del Papado. Por último, Calvino acusa una vez más al Papa de ser el Anticristo a causa de su “tiranía”, “la destrucción de la verdad”, “la corrupción de la adoración a Dios”, “el quebrantamiento de sus ordenanzas” y “la dispersión del orden de su Iglesia”. Aquí podemos ver muchas similitudes con Lutero, con la excepción de que Calvino usa un tono apocalíptico no tan fuerte y es menos evidente que el del reformador alemán. Más que en inquietudes escatológicas apasionadas, Calvino se apoya en argumentos teológicos lúcidos y bíblicos en sus esfuerzos por enfrentarse al Papado.
Notas: Este texto es un compendio de mi próximo libro, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy [Guía de Bolsillo del Papado para los Cristianos] (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2015).
i “Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy” (1973) [Diferentes Actitudes hacia la Primacía Papal]. Se puede acceder al texto por http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm y es un útil resumen de los principales temas polémicos sobre el Papado entre los luteranos y los católico romanos de hoy en día.
ii Sobre las opiniones de Calvino acerca de Roma, tal como se presentan en diversos escritos, ver M. Stolk, Calvin and Rome [Calvino y Roma] en H.J. Selderjuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook [La Guía de Calvino] (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 104-112.
iii Esta palabra “antídoto” volvería en las refutaciones de Calvino de los Hechos del Concilio de Trento. Ver su Acta synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto [Sínodo Trento con Antídoto] (1547)
iv Ver también Institutes [Institución] IV,6-7 de Calvino.
v Ver mi artículo “Separazione e riforma della Chiesa ne ‘Il Trattato della vera Chiesa e della necesita di viver in essa’” [“La separación y la reforma de la Iglesia, ‘El Tratado de la verdadera Iglesia y la necesidad de vivir en ella’”]. A. Oliveri y P Bolognesi (edd. Pietro Martire Vermigli 1499-1562). Humanista, Reformador y Pastor (Roma: Herder, 2003) pp. 225-232.
Posted on

97. Turkey, Gateway To Inter-religious Dialogue and Ecumenism

December 12th, 2014

Pope Francis’ visit to Turkey (28-30 November 2014) was significant for a number of reasons. The two most outstanding reasons concern the ability of the Roman Catholic Church to engage in “dialogue”: that is dialogue with Islam and dialogue with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The former takes the form of inter-religious dialogue, the latter is primarily an expression of ecumenism. Turkey is a threshold into the Muslim world. The country borders Syria and Iraq, places where Islamic fundamentalism threatens the sheer survival of the local Christian communities. Turkey is also the historical see of the “second Rome”, i.e. Constantinople, an influential center of Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus of the visit was therefore twofold: to foster mutual understanding with the “moderate” Islam and to advance the ecumenical agenda with Constantinople.

Your Prayers for Me

Pope Francis had several meetings with various Muslim leaders. In each of them he stressed the commonalities between Christians and Muslims in terms of them worshipping the All-Merciful God, having Abraham as father, practicing prayer, almsgiving and fasting, and sharing a religious sense of life that is foundational for human dignity and fraternity. In addressing Muslims, the Pope used the language of brotherhood and focused on what they have in common. This same approach was used in Turkey.

One interesting albeit striking element emerged as he spoke on 28 November to the Department for Religious Affairs in Ankara[1]. After referring to the common themes that we already mentioned, he said: “I am grateful also to each one of you, for your presence and for your prayers which, in your kindness, you offer for me and my ministry”. Pope Francis is used to asking for prayers for himself and to thanking people who pray for him. But in this case he was speaking to Muslims and he nonetheless thanked them for their prayers for him. It seems that in this case he went further than simply underlining commonalities in basic theology and spirituality. He went as far as recognizing Islamic prayers as legitimate, and even useful acts of intercession. Should a Christian be thankful to Muslims for their prayers? Are these prayers accepted by God? Didn’t the Pope unwarrantedly stretch the inter-faith theology that assumes that all prayers are pleasing to God and answered by Him? Didn’t he further blur the distinction between the Christian faith and the Muslim religion by implying that Christians and Muslims can pray for each other as if God accepts their respective prayers as they are?

Back to the First Millennium

The other focus of the visit was to strengthen the ecumenical relationships with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the Roman Catholic principles of ecumenism, the Eastern Orthodox churches are close to “full communion” with Rome because they profess the same apostolic faith, they celebrate the same Eucharist and they have maintained the apostolic succession in their priesthood. From a theological point of view, the role of the papacy is the only imperfection that inhibits them from full communion. The papal office as it developed after the schism of 1054 AD makes Eastern Orthodox churches unwilling to accept the primacy of the Roman Pope as it stands. In their view, certain monarchial aspects of the Petrine ministry that were introduced in the Second Millennium (e.g. the infallibility of the Pope as he speaks ex cathedra) go against the collegiality principle of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Being aware of these complexities and yet wanting to promote an ecumenical breakthrough, Pope Francis said that he is willing to envisage a way forward: the Roman Church is open to concede that in order to enter into full communion with Rome, Eastern Orthodox churches need to accept the Papal office as it was understood and practiced in the First Millennium when the Church was still “undivided”. This is not a new idea – even Joseph Ratzinger was in favor of it – but it is important that Francis made it his own[2]. It seems that the way forward is to first go backwards. The Roman Church is willing to exercise its catholicity, i.e. being flexible enough to accommodate a different point of view, all while maintaining its distinctive outlook without renouncing any of it. This suggestion needs to be worked out historically and theologically. What exactly were the forms of the papacy in the First Millennium? How can they be implemented after so many centuries? How can an institution such as the Papacy that the Roman Church couched with dogma (i.e. the infallibility) be diluted for non-Catholic Christians? How can one be cum Petro (with Peter) without being sub Petro (under Peter)?

While ecumenical theologians have some homework yet to do in this field, a final comment is warranted. In the end, even the Protestant Reformation was a cry to go back to the written Word of God, i.e. Sola Scriptura! In calling for a new season under the rule of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the Reformation beckoned the church to re-discover the Scriptures and re-submit to them. Back to the Word was a way of saying: back to Jesus Christ, back to the Gospel! The Catholic Church of the XVI century was however unwilling to receive this challenge and wanted a way forward without giving thought to the need of going backward. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) imagined a renewal without a reformation, a way forward without having to go backward. Now, Rome is ready to go back to the First Millennium and fully embrace the Eastern Orthodox churches. Why not go a bit further than the First Millennium? A return to Sola Scriptura should be the real starting point for a much needed breakthrough.