Posted on

51. Paus Benedictus XVI leest roomse traditie terug in Bijbel

27-02-2013 | Dr. Leonardo de Chirico

„Ratzingers interpretatie van de Bijbel is geladen met betekenissen die behoren tot de rooms-katholieke traditie, maar die niet kunnen worden teruggevonden in de tekst van de Schrift. ”

Benedictus XVI treedt morgen terug als paus. Zijn laatste theologische uiteenzetting was typisch rooms-katholiek, waarbij hij de roomse traditie teruglas in de Bijbel, aldus dr. Leonardo de Chirico.

De wereld was geschokt toen Benedictus XVI zijn aftreden als paus van de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk aankondigde. Eeuwenlang was het niet gebeurd dat een paus aftrad. Tot hun dood bleven zij in hun ambt. De paus deed zijn aankondiging in het Latijn, niet echt de voertaal van vandaag. Journalisten haastten zich naar latinisten om er zeker van te zijn dat zij zich niet vergisten, alvorens ze het nieuws de wereldkundig maakten.

Paus Ratzinger deed iets opvallend nieuws, maar hij deed het op een erg ouderwetse manier. Zelfs bij een van zijn laatste handelingen als paus was hij zowel modern als traditioneel. Daarin herkennen we de rooms-katholieke manier van doen: de traditie hooghouden, maar tegelijkertijd voortdurend veranderen.

De laatste ”lectio” (een soort theologische meditatie) die Ratzinger op 8 februari gaf aan een groep studenten van het grootseminarie in Rome geeft een goed zicht op zijn loopbaan als paus. Het was niet zijn laatste toespraak als paus, maar wel zijn laatste theologische uiteenzetting voordat hij zich terugtrekt. In zekere zin is deze lectio een soort prisma waarin heel zijn onderwijs uit de Bijbel in een notendop gezien kan worden.

De tekst was 1 Petrus 1:3-5, een heel compacte tekst vol theologische rijkdom. Benedictus XVI gebruikte al zijn catechetische vaardigheden om hem uit te leggen. Zijn commentaar is grondig, zoals je mag verwachten van een eersteklas theoloog. Toch laat het duidelijk de speciale rooms-katholieke mix zien van Bijbeluitleg.

Encycliek

Bij de introductie van de brief stelt Ratzinger dat het gaat om de „eerste encycliek” die de plaatsbekleder van Christus aan de kerk stuurde. Een encycliek is in het algemeen gesproken een rondzendbrief, maar technisch gesproken is het een brief die de paus stuurt aan bisschoppen, geestelijken, gelovigen en mensen van goede wil en die handelt over leerstellige en/of pastorale thema’s.

Vanaf 1740 sturen pausen regelmatig encyclieken. In ieder geval is het dus historisch gezien niet correct om 1 Petrus met een pauselijke term te beschrijven van 1700 jaar later. Zelfs als we de algemene betekenis van het woord encycliek (rondzendbrief) nemen, werd 1 Petrus niet als eerste nieuwtestamentische tekst geschreven. Paulus’ eerste brief aan de Thessalonicensen is waarschijnlijke het vroegste document van het Nieuwe Testament. Dus al voor Petrus zijn eerste brief schreef, waren er andere apostolische brieven.

Achter deze historische details zit de boodschap die Benedictus wil overdragen van een voortgaande continuïteit tussen Petrus die zijn brief schrijft en toekomstige pausen die hun encyclieken schrijven. De paus verbindt de Bijbelse brief aan moderne encyclieken en Petrus aan moderne pausen. Deze claim is hermeneutisch geladen met de rooms-katholieke uitleg van Petrus’ ambt en successie, maar komt niet op uit de tekst van de Schrift zelf.

Plaatsbekleder

Het is ook niet toevallig dat Benedictus XVI in zijn lectio spreekt over Petrus als ”plaatsbekleder van Christus”. Nadat hij terecht gememoreerd heeft aan de wijze waarop Petrus zichzelf introduceert als apostel, vervolgt hij met te zeggen dat Petrus aangesteld was als „de eerste apostel, de plaatsbekleder van Christus.” Petrus schreef vanuit Rome (het ”Babylon” uit 5:13), wat volgens de paus theologische betekenis heeft. Als plaatsbekleder van Christus en gezien zijn wereldwijde ambt gaf Petrus eerst leiding aan de Joodse kerk (Jeruzalem) en uiteindelijk aan de kerk uit de heidenen (Rome).

De titel ”plaatsbekleder” komt niet bij Petrus zelf vandaan. De apostel spreekt over zichzelf als ouderling tussen andere ouderlingen, een mede-ouderling (5:1). De tekst geeft geen enkele aanwijzing dat Petrus de titel ”plaatsbekleder” zou hebben ontvangen, wat dat ook moge betekenen. Petrus denkt niet over zichzelf als iets wat zijn mede-ouderlingen niet zijn.

Het is zelfs zo dat Petrus het hele volk van God beschrijft als „een uitverkoren geslacht, een koninklijk priesterdom, een heilig volk” dat geroepen is om de deugden van God te verkondigen. Het feit dat Petrus Rome definieert als Babylon kan weleens een apocalyptische betekenis hebben in plaats van dat het een verwijzing is naar zijn wereldwijde eerste pausschap. Weer is Ratzingers interpretatie geladen met betekenissen die behoren tot de rooms-katholieke traditie, maar niet kunnen worden teruggevonden in de tekst van de Schrift.

Er zit veel wijsheid in Benedictus’ laatste lectio over 1 Petrus. Maar het is wel een wijsheid die voortkomt uit bepaalde rooms-katholieke vooronderstellingen die bepalend zijn voor zijn manier van lezen en die niet door de Schrift zelf wordt geleid.

De auteur is theoloog en vicevoorzitter van de Evangelische Alliantie Italië. Deze bijdrage verscheen ook op reformation21.org.

Posted on

52. Marks of a Pontificate

Assessing a pontificate is no easy task. Assessing Benedict’s pontificate (2005-2013) is even more difficult. The caliber of Ratzinger as a theologian, the muddy state of present-day Vatican affairs, and the complexity of global religious and moral trends, … these are all factors that call for careful consideration, although his pontificate will perhaps be remembered more for the shocking way it

ended than for what it achieved. Our task here will be more modest. It will take as parameters the main bullet points that characterized Evangelical perceptions of Benedict’s pontificate. It will be an exercise to see to what extent they match reality.

Orthodox

A recurring comment is that Benedict XVI has been an “orthodox” pope. In this case, orthodox means maintaining Nicene Christianity, i.e. the Trinitarian and Christological confession of faith of the early church. In itself, being orthodox is not a distinct feature of any single Pope because it is part of his service. The pope, or any pope, is to be orthodox. Bonifacius VIII, the pope that

introduced the papal tiara in 1300 (indicative of the temporal power), was orthodox. Pope Leo X, the one who excommunicated Martin Luther in 1521, was orthodox. The best and the worst popes were orthodox. Indeed, all 265 Popes since Peter have been orthodox. The business of the Pope is to be orthodox in this Nicene sense.

It may be true that Benedict put a special emphasis on orthodoxy, but he has interpreted his orthodoxy in a Roman Catholic way, like all previous Popes. He has been praying daily to Mary, he has granted indulgences, he has canonized new saints, he has maintained the church-state profile of the Vatican, etc. Contrary to what C.S. Lewis believed, there is no “mere orthodoxy” out there. Nicene Christianity is always colored by subsequent developments in Christian doctrine and practice. It never stands in isolation nor does it exist in an abstract way. Benedict’s pontificate has been a peak of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

Biblical

It is true that in his catechetical efforts, Benedict has been dealing with the Bible much more than his immediate predecessors. His speeches have largely been Biblical meditations and his recent writings on Jesus have defended the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Much of his reading of Scripture, however, was driven by post-biblical presuppositions that come out of ecclesiastical tradition rather than Scripture itself. The heavily sacramental interpretations of Gospel stories and the over-arching interpretive grid that sees the relationship between Biblical teaching and Roman Catholic practices in terms of linear continuity, are only two examples of “how” Biblical Benedict’s magisterium has been. During his pontificate, the point that distinguished Roman Catholicism from the Protestant tradition was no longer whether or not the Bible is accessible to the people, but “how” it is to be read and lived out.

There is still another aspect to bear in mind. The Pope’s most famous (and criticized) speech, i.e. the 2006 Regensburg lecture, was not about Islam, but revolved around the need to keep the Hellenized combination of “faith and reason” which Thomas Aquinas refined at its best and which the Roman Catholic Church holds onto. In denouncing the threats to the “classic” synthesis, Benedict indicated the “sola Scriptura” of the Reformation as a major breach that eventually caused theological liberalism and present-day relativism. It is interesting that a “Biblical” Pope would have such a low view of the Reformation’s formal principle that brought the Bible back to the center of the life of the Church.

Public Truth

Benedict has courageously stood for basic Judeo-Christian convictions about life, the family, and the welfare of society characterized by freedom and solidarity, even in the midst of criticism from secular intellectual circles. Like his predecessor, John Paul II, Benedict was commended by Muslim and other religious leaders for his tenacious defense of traditional morality in the global world. His Church, however, did not perform well in terms of public transparency and integrity with regards to the sexual abuses scandals, the opaque financial maneuvers, and the appalling intrigues within the Vatican. During Benedict’s reign the distinction between the standards of the official Church and those of the world has been thin if not impalpable. He is not to blame for all this, yet this poor “public” performance sheds light on the overall picture. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Benedict came to the almost unprecedented conclusion to resign from the papal office.

The Pope spoke of Christians as a “minority” and encouraged the Church to re-think its identity accordingly. The fact that he did not take any action to move his Church beyond the privileged status it has in many countries where Catholics are majority puts his record as a “public truth” teller in perspective. Would it not be a “public truth” argument to say that the Church wants to be the church only and not a religious agency with a built in state with its own politics, bank, army, etc., like any other state of the world?

New Evangelization

The New Evangelization was an idea of John Paul II, but Benedict XVI started implementing it by creating a Vatican office dedicated to it and by making it the central theme of the 2012 Synod of Bishops. Pope Ratzinger has come to terms with the idea that the West is largely post-Christian and is in need of being evangelized again by a reinvigorated Church.

The future will tell what the New Evangelization will bring about in terms of spiritual renewal. Yet, so far there has been little self-criticism on the Church’s part as to why the West became more secularized. Does the Church have any responsibility in the secular “schism” that has taken place? No clear answer has come from Pope Ratzinger who has instead blamed the modern world for it.

In the meantime, Benedict has continued calling “sects” those that are engaged in evangelism, including Evangelicals in the Global South, not making the distinction between New Religious movements and Evangelical Christianity.

Beyond extremely positive assessments based on selected aspects of Benedict’s pontificate, Evangelicals have food for thought in order to come to a more nuanced and perhaps realistic view of his office as a Pope.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 25th February 2013

Posted on

51. Última ‘Lectio’ de Benedicto XVI (antes de su renuncia)

No deja de ser curioso que su último discurso teológico como Papa girara en torno a Pedro, el primer Papa según Benedicto XI.

18 DE FEBRERO DE 2013

Benedicto XVI conmocionó el mundo entero al anunciar su renuncia a ser el Papa reinante de la Iglesia Católico Romana. Durante siglos, ningún Papa había renunciado sino que habían esperado su muerte ejerciendo su ministerio. Su anuncio fue hecho en latín, que no es exactamente la lengua franca del mundo de hoy.

Antes de enviar la noticia a los medios de comunicación, los periodistas tuvieron que apresurarse a consultar a los expertos en latín para asegurarse de lo que estaba pasando. Al hacer algo tan extraordinariamente nuevo, el Papa Ratzinger lo hizo de una manera antigua. Incluso en uno de sus últimos actos como Papa, se comportaba tanto de forma moderna como tradicional. En cierto sentido, reflejaba el estilo de hacer las cosas de los católico romanos, o sea, mantener la tradición, y al mismo tiempo cambiar constantemente.

Habrá ciertamente otras ocasiones para evaluar la trayectoria del pontificado de Ratzinger. Es suficiente por ahora llamar la atención sobre la última “lectio” que impartió a un grupo de seminaristas en Roma el pasado 8 de febrero. Este no fue su último discurso como Papa, pero fue su última charla atractiva teológicamente previa a su renuncia. En cierto modo, esta “lectio” es una suerte de prisma donde su enseñanza bíblica puede verse en una cáscara de nuez.

El contenido versaba sobre 1 Pedro 1:3-5, un texto muy denso, lleno de riqueza teológica y Benedicto XVI empleó todas sus habilidades catequísticas para exponerlo. Su comentario fue profundo, como podía esperarse de un teólogo de primera clase. No obstante, también reveló la particular mezcla católico romana de su enseñanza bíblica.

¿1ª DE PEDRO COMO LA PRIMERA ENCÍCLICA?
Al presentar la carta, Ratzinger dijo que era la “primera encíclica” enviada por el vicario de Cristo a la Iglesia. Detengámonos un momento. Una encíclica es -generalmente hablando- una carta circular, pero -técnicamente hablando- es una carta enviada por el Papa católico romano a los obispos, al clero, a los fieles y a la gente de buena voluntad de su tiempo, que trata de asuntos pastorales y/o doctrinales.

Históricamente, las encíclicas han sido enviadas regularmente por los Papas desde 1740. Como mínimo, no es apropiado históricamente, dar a 1ª de Pedro una expresión papal que no se pondría en uso hasta después de 1700 años.

Incluso si tomamos el significado más general de la palabra encíclica (es decir, una carta circular), 1ª Pedro no es el primer texto del canon del NT en función de la cronología de su composición.

La primera carta de Pablo a los Tesalonicenses es el primer documento del Nuevo Testamento. De este modo, incluso si el adjetivo “primera” se refería a la prioridad cronológica de la carta de Pedro, no es este el caso puesto que otras cartas apostólicas fueron escritas antes de que Pedro escribiera su primera.

Más allá de los detalles históricos, el mensaje que Benedicto quería comunicar era el de una continuidad entre Pedro escribiendo su carta y los futuros Papas escribiendo sus encíclicas. El Papa ha vinculado esta carta bíblica a las encíclicas modernas y a Pedro con los modernos Papas. Esta afirmación está basada hermenéuticamente en el entendimiento que tienen los católico romanos del cargo de Pedro y de su sucesión, pero no surge del texto de la propia Escritura.

¿PEDRO COMO EL VICARIO DE CRISTO?
No es por casualidad que en su “lectio” Benedicto XVI hablara de Pedro como si fuera el “vicario de Cristo”. Después de recordar correctamente la forma en que Pedro se presenta a sí mismo como un “apóstol”, continuó diciendo que Pedro fue comisionado para ser “el primer apóstol, el vicario de Cristo”.

Para ello se basa en que Pedro escribe desde Roma (la Babilonia citada en 5:13) y el hecho de estar en Roma es teológicamente significativo. Como vicario de Cristo y, en vista de su ministerio universal, Pedro tiene que presidir primero la iglesia judía (Jerusalén) y con el tiempo la iglesia de los gentiles (Roma).

El título de “vicario” no procede del propio Pedro. El apóstol habla más bien de sí mismo como “anciano” (5:1) en compañía de los demás ancianos, asimismo anciano también con ellos. No hay ningún indicio en el texto de que Pedro recibiera el título de “vicario”, sea cual sea la significación del término.

Pedro no piensa de sí mismo como de alguien o algo que los demás ancianos no sean.

Por otra parte, se da más bien el caso que Pedro llama a todo el pueblo de Dios como “linaje escogido, real sacerdocio, nación santa” llamado a anunciar las virtudes de Dios (2:9). El hecho de que Pedro defina a Roma como Babilonia puede ser un simbolismo apocalíptico, más que una referencia al primer papado universal. De nuevo, la interpretación de Ratzinger está cargada con significados que pertenecen a la tradición católico romana pero que no pueden encontrarse en el texto de la Escritura.

Hay mucha sabiduría en la última “lectio” de Benedicto sobre 1ª Pedro. Sin embargo, es una sabiduría impulsada más por ciertas presuposiciones católico romanas que rigen sus lecturas que por lo que establece la propia Escritura. No deja de ser curioso que su último discurso teológico como Papa girara en torno a Pedro, el primer Papa según Benedicto XI.

Traducción: Rosa Gubianas

Posted on

51. The Last Lectio of Benedict XVI (before his resignation)

Benedict XVI shocked the whole world announcing his resignation from being the reigning Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries, no Pope had resigned but has instead waited for his death while still holding the office. His announcement was in Latin, not exactly the lingua franca of today’s world. Before getting the attention of the media, journalists had to rush to experts in Latin to be sure of what was going on. In doing something remarkably new, Pope Ratzinger did it in a very old-fashioned way. Even in one of his last acts as Pope, he was both modern and traditional. In a way, he reflected the Roman Catholic way of doing things by maintaining tradition, yet at the same time constantly changing.

            There will certainly be other occasions to assess the trajectory of Ratzinger’s pontificate. Suffice it for now to draw attention to the last lectio he gave to a group of seminarians in Rome on February 8th. This was not his last speech as Pope, but it was his last theologically engaging talk prior to his resignation. In a certain sense, this lectio is a kind of a prism where his Biblical teaching can be seen in a nutshell.

            The text was 1 Peter 1:3-5, a highly dense text full of theological richness, and Benedict XVI applied all his catechetical skills to expound it. His comment was profound as one might expect from a first class theologian. Yet it is also revealing of the particular Roman Catholic blend of his Biblical teaching.

1 Peter as the First Encyclical?

In introducing the letter, Ratzinger said that it was the “first encyclical” sent by the vicar of Christ to the Church. Let’s pause for a moment. An encyclical is – generally speaking – a circulating letter, but – technically speaking – is a letter sent by the Roman Catholic Pope to bishops, clergy, the faithful and the people of good will of his time dealing with doctrinal and/or pastoral issues.

            Historically, encyclicals have been regularly sent by Popes from 1740 onwards. At the very least it is not historically appropriate to give 1 Peter a papal term that wouldn’t be put into use for another 1700 years. Even if we take the more general meaning of encyclical (i.e. a circulating letter), 1 Peter is not the first NT text of the canon in terms of the chronology of its composition. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians is the earliest document of the New Testament. So, even if the adjective “first” referred to the chronological priority of Peter’s letter, this is not the case in that other apostolic letters were written before Peter wrote his first one.

            Beyond historical details, the message that Benedict wanted to convey was that of an on-going continuity between Peter writing his letter and future Popes writing their encyclicals. The Pope linked this Biblical letter to modern encyclicals and Peter with modern Popes. This claim is hermeneutically loaded with the Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s office and succession, but does not stand out from the text of Scripture itself.

Peter as the Vicar of Christ?

It is not by chance that in his lectio Benedict XVI talked about Peter as being the “vicar of Christ”. After rightly recalling the way in which Peter introduces himself as an “apostle”, he went on to say that Peter was commissioned to be “the first apostle, the vicar of Christ”. He makes the case that Peter writes from Rome (the Babylon quoted in 5:13) and that his being in Rome has theological significance. As vicar of Christ, and in view of his universal office, Peter had to preside over the Jewish church (Jerusalem) first and eventually the Gentile church (Rome).

            The “vicar” title does not come from Peter himself. The apostle rather talks of himself as an “elder” (5:1) in the company of other elders, thus a fellow-elder. There is no hint in the text that Peter has received the title of “vicar”, whatever the term may mean. Peter does not think of himself as being someone or something that other fellow-elders are not. Moreover, it is rather the case that Peter calls the whole people of God as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” called to declare the praises of God (2:9). The fact that Peter defines Rome as Babylon may have apocalyptic significance, rather than being a reference to his universal first papacy. Again, Ratzinger’s interpretation is loaded with meanings that belong to the Roman Catholic tradition but cannot be found in the text of Scripture.

            There is much wisdom in Benedict’s last lectio on 1 Peter. Yet it is a wisdom driven by certain Roman Catholic presuppositions that govern his reading rather than being governed by Scripture itself. It is curious that his last theological speech as Pope revolved around Peter, the first Pope according to Benedict XVI.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 12th February 2013

Posted on

50. A Provision to Become Roman-and-Lutheran Catholics?

Between the 18th and 25th of January, the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches organized the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Since 1958, the Week of Prayer has been a yearly exercise of “spiritual ecumenism” (i.e. joint prayer) that involves both the official ecclesiastical bodies of and the grassroots ecumenical movements. Its main theological premise is a call to common prayer for the unity of those who are “baptized”.[1]

At the end of the week, Benedict XVI presided over the final liturgy at St Paul’s basilica in Rome. In his homily, the Pope stressed the fact that unity is both given by God and a responsibility for all Christians. In their efforts towards unity, the doctrinal issues that cause the division between the Roman Catholic Church and other non-Catholic Christians should not be “neglected or minimized”. In this occasion too, Pope Ratzinger insisted on the fact that ecumenism is not a watered down, sentimental unity but is unity in the profession of the same faith, in the celebration of the same Eucharist, and united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession.

            As the Week of Prayer was about to commence, however, a curios event provided another perspective on the big picture of Roman Catholic ecumenism.

A Way Forward for “LutheRomans”?

In presenting his latest book on the main themes of Pope Ratzinger’s thought in a Roman bookshop next to the Vatican, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, who is Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, made a comment on a possible prospect for the ecumenical process. Imagining a future scenario in which significant numbers of Lutherans would want to come in full fellowship with the Roman Church, Müller said that a specific “ordinariate” for them could be created in order to facilitate the transition. An ordinariate is a special diocese which allows full integration into the Roman Church while, at the same time, granting the acceptance of some aspects of the previous liturgical and spiritual tradition.

            The pattern of the ordinariate has been already envisioned and implemented. In 2009 Pope Ratzinger provided for the constitution of “personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church”. In this case, the former Anglicans that are now Roman Catholics can celebrate the sacraments according “to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition”. The ordinariate achieves the integration in the Roman system while paying tribute to its “catholicity” that is able to accommodate different traditions.

Archbishop Müller conceded that “the Lutheran world is a bit different from the Anglican one, because among Anglicans there has always been a sector closer to Catholicism.” However, he said, some Lutherans hope for a restoration of full communion with Rome, and the Church should be ready to receive them. He suggested that, as with Anglicans, the Catholic Church might allow Lutherans to preserve “the legitimate traditions they have developed” while becoming members of the Catholic Church. The idea was severely criticized by Lutheran officials.

How Does Visible Unity Work?

Apart from the technicalities of canonical law, what is worth considering is the overall picture that emerges from these comments. It is true that Archbishop Müller did not pronounce an official statement as if the decision was already made. Nevertheless, he expressed ideas that are given serious consideration in Vatican offices at both spectrums of the borders of the Roman Church. On her “right”, Rome is painstakingly trying to resolve the excommunication inflicted to the traditionalist Msgr Lefebvre and his followers in 1998. The means of achieving it is through an ordinariate whereby they could maintain their distinctive liturgical patterns while accepting that other Catholics would adhere to post-Vatican II developments. On her “left”, Rome is opening herself to former Anglicans and now, possibly, to groups of Lutherans wishing to embrace the Roman “catholicity” while keeping some of their Lutheran heritage. The ordinariate is the means by which the catholicity of the Roman Church can stretch itself on all sides while preserving the unity of the system around the sacramental institution.

            The fact that these ideas were publicly spoken of in the ecumenical week is intriguing, but perfectly legitimate if one understands what ecumenism is all about for Rome. On the one hand, the Roman Church prays with other Christians for unity and rejoices for the unity that already exists. On the other, she makes provisions so that the full unity will be achieved through the incorporation of other Christians into her fold. According to the Roman view of unity, there is no contradiction between the two moves. As recalled earlier, the Pope in his homily remembered that Christian unity is not a general “unity-in-diversity” type of union, but the full expression of Christian unity, i.e. professing the same faith, celebrating the same Eucharist, being governed by the same authorities. This full or perfect unity subsists in the Roman Catholic Church alone. Other churches and communities are in one way or another “defective” in some important respects. After the Anglicans, it is now the Lutherans turn to have a special provision made to enjoy a “fuller” Christian life.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

Rome, 31st January 2013

[1] The Evangelical Alliance Week of Prayer is a different initiative, though it usually runs a week before. It began in 1846, more than a century prior to the ecumenical week, and has a very different theological premise in that it encourages prayer amongst those who are believing Christians. The difference should be noted. Not all those who are baptized are necessarily Christian. The phenomenon of “nominal” Christianity is widespread whereby large numbers of a given population is composed of those who are baptized, but there can be few Christians amongst them.