Christopher,
I am a little surprised that you want to continue on a discussion which appears no longer to be a discussion but a personal attack on a Cardinal, a Prince of the Church.
Is there a reason why you think you must criticize Kasper using some poor theological, hermeneutical and logical skills? Is there some underlying contempt you hold for him? If so, why? If not, please reconsider the kind of kind, polite discussion of ideas needed without implicating a Cardinal of the errors you try to suggest (detraction is a sin, especially when it engages arguments from silence).
Example of detraction: "However, there is no question the authors took inspiration from his 2001 address and his selective presentation of Church teaching." Does the fact that X takes inspiration from Y and X is wrong (though I think you have failed to show that in full, I think there were issues of ambiguity myself), that does not implicate Y. Proof? Luther, sola fidei, inspired from the Book of Romans.
Secondly, the whole "not churches in the proper sense" clearly comes from Dominus Iesus. And again, it is an issue of equivocal dialogue. One side reads church one way, the other another; by saying to Protestants don't read our internal memo using your own interpretation of terms is nothing but reminding people this basic issue. As John Paul II makes clear, "Nonetheless, it is true that a single term conceals a variety of meanings. Hence the need for a preliminary clarification" is an important role when engaging in external dialogue vs internal (Fides et Ratio, 4).Cardinal Kaspers should not be disagraced and beaten up for doing so; indeed, do you see the Pope making any comments in response to him?
"Is there a reason why you think you must criticize Kasper using some poor theological, hermeneutical and logical skills?"
It is precisely this type of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tone that mercifully is free from Christopher's posts here on Against the Grain. Observe and learn Mr. Karlson.
As to the question at hand, this from 2002:
"Rabbi David Sandmel's Report on the Rabbinic Committee for Interreligious Dialogue
January 28, 2002
The Rabbinic Committee for Interreligious Dialogue meeting was jointly sponsored by the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding at Sacred Heart, the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Center for Interreligious Understanding.
The meeting consisted of three sessions. In the first session, Cardinal Walter Kaspar and Rabbi Norman Solomon presented papers on the concept of covenant in Judaism and Christianity. In the second session, Blu Greenberg and Mary Boys offered responses, and in the third session, Phil Cunningham and David Sandmel responded.
There were several issues that I think would be of interest to members of the Commission. First, Cardinal Kaspar made a clear and unequivocal statement that "Torah is a path to salvation." This is significant because it directly responds to the question of whether, according to Roman Catholic theology, faith in Jesus Christ is a prerequisite for salvation. Prior Vatican documents have skirted this touchy theological issue, making positive statements about Jews and Judaism and citing Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the promises of God are irrevocable, but no document (as far as I know) has ever stated this as boldly as the Cardinal did. It will be interesting to see whether this will be repeated in more "official" settings and documents in the future. It does suggest that Kaspar is someone with whom the Jewish community can work, at least on this issue.
The Cardinal also said, "Dialogue has nothing to do with proselytism." This is, in part, a response to some of the uproar over Dominus Iesus, which stated that Roman Catholics participate in interfaith dialogue as part of mission. In the discussion, the Cardinal was pushed by myself, Phil Cunningham, and Gene Fisher (and others, I believe) as to whether the Vatican could issue an official statement specifically stating that the Roman Catholic church does not view missionizing Jews as a necessity and laying out the reasons why. I understand that the Cardinal took these remarks very seriously and was considering the issue. Needless to say, the Vatican is not likely to move quickly on any pronouncement, but it this is noteworthy."
The Cardinal made several statements about Judaism that were factually incorrect. One was that "Judaism today seems to find it impossible to recognize any non-Jewish religion as a religion; pious Jews consider non-Jewish religions as idolatries." In my response, I offered a correction to this comment. He also expressed interest in what "a Jewish interpretation of Christianity - an interpretation open to dialogue - would be like," as if there were no such thing. I pointed out that the volume Michael Signer and I (and a few others) edited, Christianity in Jewish Terms, did just this sort of thing. He had not heard of it; fortunately the Center at Sacred Heart University had several copies and gave him one."
Sometimes a speaker or writer is not at fault when he is misinterpreted. Quite a few people have the never failing facility to hear what they wish to, or read what they wish to, no matter what the speech or text says. At other times, however, it is the fault of the speaker or writer for either lack of clarity or intentional ambiguity. If such misinterpretation does happen over and over again, it does seem to indicate that perhaps the fault is with the speaker or writer and not with the audience.
One last thing, let's like at UR 22:
"Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue."
There is therefore something positive in Protestant theology: while they do not contain the fullness of eucharistic communion, nonetheless they do understand the symbolism being used in the liturgical practice and its connection to the death and resurrection of Christ. The two go hand in hand, and the sign itself is valuable; many Catholics, somehow seem to ignore this part of the rite. But this mystical side of the liturgical rite with its rich symbolism is indeed important, and while proclaimed consistently through history, it is also something Protestants still keep to. This is not to say there is symbol alone, but we must recognize the connection of the sign with the reality in this situation, and how the sign itself is also didactic. This also means there is indeed something positive here-- there is a point of agreement which can be used as a starting point of dialogue. Isn't that positive? I would say so.
let *look at* .
But I do find it interesting that there is a reference giving for stating UR has a positive reflection on Protestant liturgical practices, and instead of a reflection on those passages to see what exactly that could be, other parts of the document are brought up and the whole passage is ignored. Please, do much better? I really thought you would.
Just re-read my first post.
It should have read: does the fact that X draws inspiration from Y, and X is in error, suggest Y is also in error? Of course not. Proof... Luther...
This is a good summary of other issues and angles involved in the on-going conversation. I appreciate the work you put into this as it is quite helpful to all who have interest in this subject matter.
Commenting by HaloScan
