A Habermasian Approach to Ecumenical Ecclesiology
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction subtitle of the recent Faith and Order statement on ecclesiology invites churches to move into a on the to a common (1) Choosing to frame the report as a on the way rather than as a consensus statement is indicative of where churches are in ecumenical ecclesiology. Theological interpretations of the nature and mission of the church are diverse among Christian bodies. 2005 text, Nature and Mission of the Church, notes many areas of convergence as well as areas of disagreement. One of the longstanding ecclesiological debates that the text highlights centers on the question: What are the limits to ecclesial diversity within the visible unity for which the ecumenical movement is striving? This ecclesiological question is at the heart of the ecumenical movement. in which churches answer this question shapes their approach to ecumenism, because it impacts their vision of the very goal of the ecumenical movement. Ecclesiology has gained center stage in ecumenical dialogues, particularly since the groundbreaking 1982 Faith and Order paper, Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry (BEM). (2) This text allowed churches to discover more explicitly the commonalities and differences in their ecclesial self-understandings. section on ministry, in particular, revealed many areas of ecclesiological differences. Not surprisingly, ecclesiology was a central focus in the Fifth World Conference of Faith and Order in Santiago de Compostela (1993). Following the commission's recommendations there, Faith and Order took up a study on the nature and mission of the church, which resulted in the 2005 text. While the significance of ecclesiology has been made explicit in the work of Faith and Order since BEM, it has been an important consideration since the beginning of the ecumenical movement. Two years after the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam (1948), the Central Committee, meeting in Toronto, received, and commended to the churches for study, a statement on the ecclesiological significance of the W.C.C. 1950 statement, The Church, the and the World Council of Churches, (3) articulated what the W.C.C. is and what it is not. text stresses that the W.C.C. is not and must not become a Super-Church; (4) rather, as a council that facilitates ecumenical interaction among different churches, it must remain ecclesiologically neutral. Stressing the ecclesiological neutrality of the W.C.C., the text goes on to declare that agreement on the nature of visible unity is not a prerequisite for membership in the council. Membership does not necessarily imply mutual recognition of the ecclesial status of other churches; however, it does require openness toward elements of church in the other. Within the contemporary debates on ecumenical ecclesiology, the 1950 Toronto statement is particularly relevant. principle of ecclesiological openness is key for moving forward toward a common statement on the nature and mission of the church, as it invites diverse perspectives on what it means to be church. question remains, however, as to how to maintain the principle of ecclesiological neutrality while also promoting movement toward an explicit agreement on the nature and mission of the church. In other words, how can Faith and Order make explicit ecclesiological statements, inviting churches to respond and enter into conversation, as in the case of BEM, while also remaining ecclesiologically open? In response to this question, I suggest that Jurgen Habermas's theory of communicative action provides a tool for promoting constructive engagement with ecclesiological issues while also upholding the principles of the Toronto statement. Habermas (b. 1929) has developed his theory of communicative action in response to a cultural challenge that is parallel to the challenges of ecumenical ecclesiology, namely, how we can arrive at common truth-claims after debunking the modernist notion of universality. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle