APA 6th Edition VUKŠIĆ, T. (2003). Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus. Bogoslovska smotra, 73 (2-3), 395-431. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835
MLA 8th Edition VUKŠIĆ, Tomo. "Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus." Bogoslovska smotra, vol. 73, br. 2-3, 2003, str. 395-431. https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835. Citirano 01.12.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition VUKŠIĆ, Tomo. "Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus." Bogoslovska smotra 73, br. 2-3 (2003): 395-431. https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835
Harvard VUKŠIĆ, T. (2003). 'Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus', Bogoslovska smotra, 73(2-3), str. 395-431. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835 (Datum pristupa: 01.12.2020.)
Vancouver VUKŠIĆ T. Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus. Bogoslovska smotra [Internet]. 2003 [pristupljeno 01.12.2020.];73(2-3):395-431. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835
IEEE T. VUKŠIĆ, "Teološki pluralizam i ekumenizam nakon Dominus Iesus", Bogoslovska smotra, vol.73, br. 2-3, str. 395-431, 2003. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/27835. [Citirano: 01.12.2020.]
Sažetak The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church Domimus Iesus, in Jubilee year, August 6, 2000. It was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, but John Paul II earlier »with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, ... and ordered its publication.«
This Declaration, as soon as it apeared, caused many reactions throughout the world: Catholics, non-catholic Christians and official representatives of their communities (Anglicans. Protestants, Orthodoxes, Oldcatholics) and even some nonchristians. Some reactions were very studious, some less serious. The contents of the Declaration was accepted by some as a sign of continuity of the Catholic doctrine. Even some Protestant theologians (Heinz Rüegger) were very realistic. However, on the other hand, some of the comments, particularly by theologians and representatives of Protestant communities, were negative: often very tumultuous, sometimes emotively exaggerated and journalistically superficial. Protestants in Republic of Croatia reacted to the Declaration saying it is a »cold shower« to many ecumenical endeavors after the Second Vatican Council inviting the Catholic Church in Croatia to keep a distance from the Declaration. Some in Serbian Orthodoxy called the Declaration an expression of romancentric ecumenism that always meant union. Croatian Catholic theologians accepted it positively, with no major remarks.
For the most part the Declaration, on theological level, deals with religious pluralism and less with ecumenism. However, most of the polemic was caused by this smaller part of the Declaration: Chapter IV (numbers 16 and 17) under the title »Unicity and Unity of the Church«. Namely, avalanche of attacks were caused by the repeated doctrine of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium, 8) that the Catholic Church »governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him« is subsistence of the Church founded by Christ, while in other Churches and communities, though they have defects, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found. In accordance with that doctrine, it is said too that: »the ecllesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense«, unlike true Churches with the valid Episcopate and the Eucharistic mystery (17).
In October 1, 2000., John Paul II, foreseeing that kind of unfolding events, defended the Declaration saying that »this Declaration is in my heart«. Confirming the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, the Pope reminds, along with the Declaration, that God gives salvific grace in ways known to Him. In regard to noncatholic Christians and the future of dialogue, the Pope says: »The Document enlightens the essential Christian contents which do not hinder dialogue but reveals its foundations, because dialogue without foundations would become an empty eloquence. [...] When the Document, along with the Second Vatican Council, asserts that 'the single Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church', there is no intention to express less respect for other Churches and ecllesial communities«, although separated, they have precious salvific elements. In hope that the Declaration will accomplish and fullfill its role of clarification and opening, the Pope reminds that the Document expresses, once again, the same ecumenical difficulty that was in the essence of his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint.
This article, which deals with the question and place of theological pluralism and ecumenism after Dominus Iesus, is divided in four parts. The first is about the appearance and many reactions regarding the Declaration. The second part discusses the causes, intentions and contents of the Declaration. The next theme is on pluralism in the context of salvific elements in other Christian communities. The fourth part deals with the differences in the formulations of the Declaration in relation to the documents of Second Vatican Council, and the perspectives of ecumenical dialogue after the Declaration Dominus Iesus.
Finally, although modus loquendi of the Declaration, in same places, could have been different, the prevailing conviction is that the Declaration and the Pope wanted to warn: Ecumenism is a job for theological realists.