Catholicism Engaging Other Faiths:

Vatican II and its Impact 1st ed. Edition

Vladimir Latinovic
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/catholicism-engaging-other-faiths-vatican-ii-and-its-im
pact-1st-ed-edition-vladimir-latinovic/
PATHWAYS FOR
ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE

Catholicism
Engaging
Other Faiths
Vatican II
and its Impact

Edited by
Vladimir Latinovic · Gerard Mannion
Jason Welle, O.F.M.
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue

Series Editors
Gerard Mannion
Department of Theology
Georgetown University
Washington, DC, USA

Mark D. Chapman
Ripon College
University of Oxford
Oxford, UK
Building on the important work of the Ecclesiological Investigations
International Research Network to promote ecumenical and inter-faith
encounters and dialogue, the Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue series publishes scholarship on such engagement in relation to
the past, present, and future. It gathers together a richly diverse array of
voices in monographs and edited collections that speak to the challenges,
aspirations and elements of ecumenical and interfaith conversation.
Through its publications, the series allows for the exploration of new ways,
means, and methods of advancing the wider ecumenical cause with
renewed energy for the twenty-first century.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14561
 Vladimir Latinovic • Gerard Mannion
Jason Welle, O.F.M.
Editors

Catholicism Engaging
Other Faiths
Vatican II and its Impact
Editors
Vladimir Latinovic Gerard Mannion
Tübingen University Department of Theology
Tübingen, Germany Georgetown University
Washington, DC, USA
Jason Welle, O.F.M.
Pontifical Institute for Arabic and
Islamic Studies
Rome, Italy

Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue

ISBN 978-3-319-98583-1    ISBN 978-3-319-98584-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98584-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958775

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
­hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Cover design by eStudio Calamar

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 For Jack DeGioia—with gratitude—
A true facilitator of interfaith dialogue and understanding
 Foreword

It is a great honor for me to pen a brief foreword to this splendid collec-

tion of essays on the Catholic Church’s embrace of its religious Others at
Vatican II and since. As documented throughout this book, such a move
represents a theological, spiritual, and practical conversion on the part of
the Catholic Church. Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the
Church to Non-Christian Religions, known by its Latin title Nostra
Aetate, despite its brevity—a mere five paragraphs of 41 sentences, and
1141 words—has become the magna carta of interreligious dialogue.
It is vital to note that for Vatican II, dialogue is not simply a series of
activities on behalf of church unity and interreligious harmony, necessary
though they are. Rather it is the council’s very ethos, or its distinctive
“style,” to use the phrase of John O’Malley, one of the foremost historians
of the council. In contrast to its predecessors, Vatican II explicitly renounces
issuing anathemas and imposing canonical penalties on dissenters. Rather,
it adopts the rhetoric of dialogue and with it an attitude of generous hos-
pitality, expansive openness, profound respect, sincere humility, genuine
willingness to listen and to learn and to change, and all-­inclusive friend-
ship—essential qualities that make fruitful dialogue possible. Furthermore,
dialogue animated by those virtues is adopted as the church’s modus ope-
randi within itself as well as with other Christian churches, non-Christian
religions, unbelievers, and the world at large. Indeed, dialogue is nothing
less than a new way of being church. To understand Vatican II and its
impact, it is necessary not simply to parse its 16 documents with scholarly
exactitude, but also to place them, especially those on ecumenical unity

vii
viii FOREWORD

and the church’s relations to non-Christian religions, in the context of

Vatican II as an event of dialogue, or more precisely, as a process in which
the Catholic Church learned the difficult art of dialogue.
In this respect, Vatican II represents a real break from, or discontinuity
with, the way of being church since the council of Trent (1545–1563),
requiring therefore a corresponding “hermeneutics of discontinuity,” and
not only the “hermeneutics of continuity.” In other words, something
momentous did happen at Vatican II, for which the word “revolution” is
not entirely inappropriate. That this is the case is indisputable if we take a
look at where the church came from at Vatican II and where it was going
since then in the dialogue with non-Christian religions.
The pre-Vatican II church’s attitude toward non-Christians was suc-
cinctly stated in the declaration of the ecumenical Council of Florence
(1442): “[The holy Roman Church]… firmly believes, professes and
preaches that ‘no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only
pagans,’ but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of
eternal life, but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and
his angels,’ unless before the end of their life they are received into it.” To
this list of the damned, Muslims and other “pagans” such as Hindus,
Buddhists, and the followers of other Asian, African, and Latin American
religions will be added. Between 1442 and 1962, the church’s position on
the impossibility of salvation for these religious believers did soften, espe-
cially though the theory of “invincible ignorance.” Nevertheless, there
was no official recognition of and appreciation for the positive elements of
truth and grace of these non-Christian religions in themselves. There was
also no acknowledgment of the responsibility of Christians in fostering
discrimination and hatred, at times on the basis of their Christian teach-
ing, against the religious “Other,” especially Jews (anti-Judaism), whose
covenant with God is said to have been superseded by Christianity.
Vatican II made a 180° turn. It states: “The Catholic Church rejects
nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. It has a regard for the
manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although
differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a
ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women” (NA 2). The coun-
cil goes on to say: “Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and
way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral
truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and cul-
ture” (NA 2). With regard to Jews, the council explicitly rejects the charge
 FOREWORD ix

of deicide and any discriminatory practice against them. Most importantly,

it affirms the continuing validity of God’s covenant with Israel.
As far as interfaith dialogue is concerned, the contribution of John Paul
II is immense. His friendship with Jews went back as far as his youth in his
hometown of Wadowice. The pope made a series of dramatic firsts. In
1979 he visited the Nazi Auschwitz concentration camp, and in 1998
issued We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. In 1986 he visited the
Great Synagogue of Rome. In 1994 he established formal diplomatic rela-
tions between the Holy See and the State of Israel, and in 2000 he visited
Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial in Israel, and prayed at the
Western Wall. He publicly begged forgiveness for any acts of hatred and
violence committed by Christians against Jews.
During his travels John Paul made a point of meeting with the leaders
of other non-Christian faiths. In 1986 he convoked the highly controver-
sial World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi which more than 120 represen-
tatives of non-Christian religions and non-Catholic Christian churches
attended. For understandable reasons, John Paul paid particular attention
to Islam and Muslim communities, especially after 9/11, 2001, and repeat-
edly emphasized the common doctrines between Christianity and Islam
and urged collaboration for peace and justice. He is the first pope to enter
a Muslim house of worship (the Umayyyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria).
He has even kissed the Qur’an as a sign of respect. During his pontificate
the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue was particularly active.
Of course not everything went smoothly in matters concerning inter-
religious dialogue during the 50 years after Vatican II. Not much has been
accomplished on the official level toward a more adequate theological
understanding of the role of non-Christian religions beyond the oft-­
repeated thesis that they contain “seeds of the Word” and constitute “a
preparation for the Gospel.” Again, perhaps unintentionally, the Vatican
produced a chill on interfaith dialogue with its lukewarm reception of the
anniversaries of John Paul II’s World Day of Prayer for Peace and condem-
nation of the (rather moderate) writings on interreligious dialogue of
theologians such as Jacques Dupuis, S.J., and others. Pope Benedict XVI
himself created a storm of protest with his quotation of an offensive remark
by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos about the Prophet
Muhammad. Fortunately, this tragic was followed by an open letter of 138
Muslim leaders, A Common Word Between Us and You, initiating a serious
dialogue between Christianity and Islam.
x FOREWORD

What can move the Catholic Church in interreligious dialogue beyond

this one-step-forward-two-steps-backward dance? To achieve this goal, it
seems that interreligious dialogue needs to be carried out on four different
levels: common life, collaboration for a better world, theological exchange,
and sharing of religious experience. Part of this dialogue is the judgment
one makes regarding other religions. Today it seems no longer possible or
necessary to maintain that one’s religion is the only true one (“exclusiv-
ism”), or that all religions are equally valid spiritual paths (“pluralism”), or
that the truths and values of other religions are ultimately derived from
one’s own religion (“inclusivism”). All these three theologies of religions,
the last one currently being held, by and large, by the Catholic Church at
the official level, presume to judge the other religions in the light of one’s
own theological criteria. Their greatest defect is the failure to appreciate
the “otherness” of various religions and to view them on their own terms.
Currently, the Catholic Church teaches that Christianity (or more pre-
cisely, the Catholic Church) is the only “way of salvation” and that other
believers, if they are saved at all, are somehow, mysteriously, “related” to
the church and that their salvation is brought about by Christ. As with the
Catholic Church’s still current (official) teaching that churches with no
“apostolic succession” are not church in the proper sense, its claim that
non-Christian believers are “mysteriously” related to the Catholic Church
and that their salvation is wrought by Christ will, I suspect, be greeted by
them with a polite shrug of the shoulders or a bemused rolling of eyes:
“We are doing fine by ourselves, thank you very much.”
In our contemporary context of religious pluralism, marked by diversity
and conflicting truth-claims, it seems that another way toward interreli-
gious harmony must be found other than either asserting, ever louder,
that one’s religion, Christianity or otherwise, is the absolutely unique,
universal, and necessary way of salvation, or abandoning such a claim in a
mindless surrender to the “dictatorship of relativism” (which no religion
is willing to do). The way forward seems to be a deep intellectual and spiri-
tual humility (or self-emptying, like Christ’s or the Buddha’s) that com-
pels one to recognize, gratefully and gracefully, that one’s religion offers a
true but ever partial insight into reality, and that other religions can and
do correct, complement, enhance, and perfect one’s own.
The road to interreligious harmony is still arduous and challenging. The
Catholic Church has come a long way at Vatican II. In the last 50 years it
has embarked on a zigzagging but irreversible course. Whither from here
 FOREWORD xi

cannot be predicted with certainty, but there are helpful s­ ignposts. Along
the way, the ancient motto, of which John XXIII was so fond, should
remain the norm: “Let there be unity in what is necessary, freedom in what
is doubtful, and charity in everything.” (The Latin sounds much more
elegant: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.1)
We are deeply grateful to the editors and contributors of this volume,
with their profound and passionate explorations of how Catholicism’s
understanding and engagement with its religious others was changed for-
ever by Vatican II, leading to the many, many fruitful developments that
have followed since. They have helpfully pointed toward a future where
Catholics not only better understand and engage with the believers of
other faiths, but join with them in collectively helping to build a brighter
future for our shared home.

Georgetown University Peter C. Phan

Washington, DC, USA

1
John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram (June 29, 1959), §72.
 Acknowledgments

First of all, our deep gratitude once again to all at Palgrave Macmillan and
their associates for the smooth and professional way in which they have
worked with us yet again in bringing to print two further important vol-
umes in the Ecclesiological Investigations Series—Pathways for
Interreligious and Ecumenical Dialogue. Special thanks to Phil Getz and
Amy Invernizzi, and also to Vipin Kumar Mani and all at SPS for their
thorough and diligent commitment at all stages of production for this
particular volume. It has been a pleasure once again working with you all.
Thank you also to the blind peer reviewers who shared such enthusiastic
feedback on the proposal for these volumes.
It is only fitting that we should here thank those who helped make the
commemorative event out of which these volumes emerged such a special
one that has brought forth the impressive collection of essays you have in
your hands. Thank you to all who were part of this very special gathering,
especially to all of our presenters and speakers, particularly those traveled
so far, including our ecclesial keynotes, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Tagle
and Cardinal Tauran, Archbishop Fitzgerald, Archbishop Machado, and
Bishop Hiiboro, who took time out of such busy schedules to be with us.
That event could not have taken place without the hard work and sup-
port of many people and organizations, above all else the organizing com-
mittee, which comprised John Borelli, Special Adviser to the President on
Interreligious Initiatives, Georgetown University; Mark D. Chapman,
Vice Principal, Ripon College, Cuddesdon and Reader in Historical
Theology, Oxford University; Drew Christiansen S.J., Distinguished
Professor of Ethics and Global Development, Georgetown University;

xiii
xiv Acknowledgments

Brian Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Marymount

University, Va.; Miriam Haar, then of Trinity College, Dublin and
Evangelische Landeskirche in Württemberg, Germany (now at the
Lutheran World Federation in Geneva); Peter Herman, one of our
Graduate Students in Religious Pluralism at Georgetown University, USA;
Leo Lefebure, Matteo Ricci, S.J., Chair in Theology, Georgetown
University; Peter De Mey, Professor of Ecclesiology and Ecumenism and
Director of the Center for Ecumenical Research, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Belgium; Peter C. Phan, Ignacio Ellacuria Professor of Catholic
Social Thought, Georgetown University; and Sam Wagner, Special
Assistant to the President, Georgetown University. Among this band of
heroes, a special word of acknowledgment for supererogatory efforts must
be said also to John, Brian, Peter De Mey, Peter Herman, and Sam, who
did so much heavy lifting behind the scenes throughout.
We had so much great support in multiple ways from Georgetown
University’s community, most especially from John J. DeGioia,
Georgetown’s 48th President, whose office afforded remarkable sup-
port from start to finish, especially in the person of Joe Ferrara, Chief
of Staff to the President, as did Chester Gillis, Dean of Georgetown
College, and Richard Cronin, the Senior Associate Dean of Georgetown
College; deep gratitude for invaluable support is also expressed to Thomas
Banchoff, Georgetown’s Vice President for Global Engagement and then
Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs; Fr
Joe Lingan S.J., Rector, Wolfington Hall Jesuit Community; Fr Kevin
O’Brien S.J.; Vice President for Mission and Ministry; William Treanor,
Dean, Georgetown Law; Fr Leon Hooper S.J., Librarian and Amy Phillips,
Rare Materials Cataloger, the Woodstock Theological Library; and James
Wickman, Director of Music, Liturgy and Catholic Life. We also received
great support from Lyndsay B. Taylor, Deputy to Joe Ferrara, Chief of Staff
and Communications Manager, Alexandra McCarthy, Andrew Koenig,
Melissa Bennett, and Susan Cruden—all of the Office of the President.
Others of the Georgetown community whose tireless efforts really helped
make the whole thing possible and who deserve a very special mention
include Karen Lautman, Michael Friedman, Taraneh Wilkinson, and espe-
cially Linda Ferneyhough, who graciously came out of retirement to help
with preparations. A huge thank you is also owed to Patrick Ledesma,
Director, and Sonam Shah, Program Coordinator at the Healey Family
Student Center, where so much of the program was memorably staged.
 Acknowledgments  xv

Beyond Georgetown, enormous debts of gratitude are equally due first

and foremost to Matt Shank, then President of Marymount University,
and his staff; Dean Gary Hall, Canon Gina Campbell, Ruth Frey, Mitchell
Sams, and all at the National Cathedral; and also David Pennington, the
pastoral associate for Liturgy, Holy Trinity Parish Georgetown, Aaron
Hollander, Nicolas Mumejian, Scott MacDougall, Craig Phillips, and
Joshua Ralston. Our sincere and deep gratitude also to all at the Study
Centre for Church & Media (Belgium), which allowed us to produce an
English version of their informative films about the Council (see www.
volgconcilie.be), for the opening session and the event website.
Among our numerous benefactor institutions, in addition to the many
Georgetown and Marymount administrators named above, special words
of deep gratitude should also be said for Joseph and Winifred Amaturo
and the Amaturo Foundation; for the Church and World Program, Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs (as well as the Center in gen-
eral for such great support on many fronts); to Fr Johan Verschueren, S.J.
Provincial, and Fr E.J.J.M. Kimman S.J. of the Dutch and Flemish
Province of the Society of Jesus, and all members of that community;
Mark David Janus and Bob Byrns at Paulist Press; the National Jesuit
Advisory Board on Interreligious Dialogue and Relations; Prof. George
Demacopoulos, Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center,
Fordham University; Woodstock Theological Library and the Jesuit
Community of Wolfington Hall, Georgetown University; Michael Bloom,
Now You Know Media Inc.; Ian Markham, President, Virginia Theological
Seminary; Dale Irvin, President, New York Theological Seminary; Ripon
College, Cuddesdon, Oxford; the Scalabrini International Migration
Institute, Rome; Fr James Wiseman, St Anselm’s Abbey; Leonora
Mendoza, President, and all members of the Philippine Nurses Association
of Metropolitan DC; and Mr & Mrs Dennis Lucey. Our greatest debt of
gratitude here of all is to a foundation which wishes to remain anonymous
and above all to its Director!
Thank you one and all!

Gerard Mannion, Jason Welle, O.F.M.

and Vladimir Latinovic
 Contents

Part I Introduction   1

1 Catholicism Embracing Its Religious Others  3

Gerard Mannion

2 Introduction: Vatican II—Remembering the Future 15

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

Part II Nostra Aetate: A New Vision in Our Time  23

3 Nostra Aetate: Dialogue and Dialogues 25

Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald

4 Fifty Years of Nostra Aetate: Opportunities to Transcend

Differences 41
Archbishop Felix Machado

5 Nostra Aetate: Where It Has Taken Us; Where We Still

Need to Go 55
John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M.

xvii
xviii Contents

6 The Role of Ecclesial Movements in the Implementation

of Nostra Aetate 79
Roberto Catalano

Part III Vatican II’s Impact on Interfaith Method  99

7 Interpreting the Bible in Relation to Other Religions:

Hermeneutics and Identity101
Leo D. Lefebure

8 Interfaith Dialogue and the Duty to Serve Justice and

Peace: Assessing Some Anthropological Perspectives of
Gaudium et Spes and Their Implications119
Sandra Mazzolini

9 Rahner’s Kindred: The Legacy of Finitude in Comparative

Theology137
Taraneh R. Wilkinson

10 St. Bonaventure’s Illumination Theory of Cognition as

the Framework for the Logos Spermatikos in Jacques
Dupuis’ Inclusive Pluralism157
Richard Girardin

11 Epistemological Openness: A Reformed Neo-­Calvinist’s

Theological Response to Vatican II and Comparative
Theology175
Alexander E. Massad

12 Ecclesial Spirituality and Other Faith Traditions195

Roger Haight, S.J.

Part IV The Fruits and Future of Vatican II’s Opening to

Other Faiths 211

13 The Indian Church Opening to the World213

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
 Contents  xix

14 Monastic Interreligious Dialogue: Dialogue at the Level

of Spiritual Practice and Experience229
William Skudlarek, O.S.B.

15 Fifty Years of Buddhist-Catholic Relations and Inter-­

monastic Dialogue: A Buddhist Perspective249
Sallie B. King

16 A Model for Muslim-Christian Dialogue on Care for the

Earth: Vatican II, St. Francis and the Sultan, and Pope
Francis265
Dawn M. Nothwehr, O.S.F.

17 Jews and Catholics in the Twenty-First Century:

Lingering Shadows and the Road Ahead285
Jonathan Ray

Part V Conclusion 303

18 Nostra Aetate and the Small Things of God305

Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

19 Epilogue317
Leo D. Lefebure

Index321
 Notes on Contributors

Michael Amaladoss, S.J. has been Professor of Theology at Vidyajyoti

College of Theology, a visiting professor in various theological institutes in
Manila, Thailand, Paris, Bruxelles, Louvain, Berkeley, Washington DC,
and Cincinnati, and the President of the International Association of
Mission Studies. He has authored and edited dozens of books, some of
which have been translated into many languages, and has written over 400
articles in various languages.
Roberto Catalano holds a doctorate in Missiology from the Pontifical
Urbanian University in Rome. After a long experience in India (from
1980 till 2008), he is the Director of the International Office for
Interreligious Dialogue of the Focolare Movement in Rome and visiting
professor at the Pontifical Urbanian University; University Institute
Sophia, Loppiano-Florence; and ASUS (Accademia di Scienze Umane e
Sociali), Rome.
Francis X. Clooney, S.J. is the Parkman Professor of Divinity at Harvard
University. From 2010 to 2017, he was also the Director of the Center for
the Study of World Religions. His primary areas of scholarship are theo-
logical commentarial writings in the Sanskrit and Tamil traditions of
Hinduism, and comparative theology—theological learning deepened
through the study of traditions other than one’s own. His recent books
include The Future of Hindu–Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry
(2018), His Hiding Place Is Darkness: An Exercise in Interreligious
Theopoetics (2013), and, co-edited with Klaus van Stosch, How to Do
Comparative Theology (2018).

xxi
xxii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald is a member of the Society of

Missionaries of Africa. Former Director of the Pontifical Institute of Arabic
and Islamic Studies in Rome, former Secretary and then President of the
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, in 2006 he was appointed
Apostolic Nuncio to Egypt and Delegate to the League of Arab States. He
retired in 2012, and now lives in Jerusalem.
Richard Girardin received his MA in Philosophy from the Franciscan
University of Steubenville. He works in Catholic Campus Ministry, but
when he is not ministering to college students, he continues to engage in
philosophical and theological topics. His research has primarily focused in
philosophy of religion and phenomenology. He currently lives in Virginia.
Roger Haight, S.J. is Scholar in Residence at Union Theological
Seminary in New York. He received a doctorate in Theology from the
University of Chicago’s Divinity School in 1973, with a thesis on French
Modernism. He received the Alumnus of the Year award from Chicago in
2005. He has taught in graduate schools of theology in Manila, Chicago,
Toronto, Boston, and New York. From 2013 to 2015 he was the Director
of the PhD Program at Union. His theological work has focused on fun-
damental issues in faith and revelation, method in theology, grace,
Christology, ecclesiology, trinity, and spirituality. His recent books include
Spiritual and Religious: Explorations for Seekers (2016) and, co-authored
with Paul Knitter, Buddha and Jesus: Friends in Conversation (2015).
Sallie B. King is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at James Madison
University. She is the author, co-editor, and translator of numerous works
on Buddhism, engaged Buddhism, Buddhist-Christian dialogue, and the
cross-cultural philosophy of religion. She is a trustee of the international,
interfaith Peace Council and a former President of the Society for
Buddhist-Christian Studies.
Vladimir Latinovic is Lecturer in Patristics and Church History at
Tübingen University, where he previously was a research fellow at the
Institute for Ecumenical and Interreligious Studies. He is also project
manager of the project “Treasure of the Orient,” which seeks to improve
integration and visibility of Near Eastern and Orthodox Christians in
Germany. As an undergraduate he studied Orthodox Christian theology at
the University of Belgrade and did his doctorate with the Catholic
Theological Faculty at Tübingen University on homoousian Christology
and its repercussions for the reception of the Eucharist (the first volume of
the fruits of these researches, Christologie und Kommunion, was published
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxiii

by Aschendorff-Verlag in 2018). He is vice-chair of the Ecclesiological

Investigations International Research Network.
Leo D. Lefebure is Professor of Theology at Georgetown University. His
recent books include True and Holy: Christian Scripture and Other Religions
(2014) and the edited volume Religion, Authority, and the State: from
Constantine to the Contemporary (Palgrave, 2016). He is an honorary
research fellow of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a trustee emer-
itus of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions. He is a long-
time participant in dialogues with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus.
Archbishop Felix Machado is the bishop of Vasai, India. He is chairman
of the Office on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Federation of Asian
Bishops’ Conferences (OEIA—FABC) and chairman of the Office for
Dialogue and the Desk for Ecumenism of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference
of India (CBCI). He holds a PhD in Dogmatic Theology from Fordham
University and a Licentiate in Theology from Faculté Catholique de
Théologie in Lyon. He served as undersecretary at the Pontifical Council
for Interreligious Dialogue in Rome from 1993 to 2008, with special atten-
tion to Asian Religions, and is the author of several books and articles.
Gerard Mannion holds the Joseph and Winifred Amaturo Chair in
Catholic Studies at Georgetown University, where he is also a senior
research fellow of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World
Affairs. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, he has
held visiting professorships and fellowships at universities such as Tübingen
(Germany), the Dominican Institute for Theology and University of St
Michael’s College, Toronto (Canada), the Australian Catholic University,
the Institute of Religious Sciences in Trento (Italy), and the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven (in Belgium). He serves as chair of the Ecclesiological
Investigations International Research Network and has published numerous
books and articles particularly in fields such as ecclesiology, ecumenical and
interreligious dialogue, ethics, and social justice. He is the current President
of the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (INSeCT).
Alexander E. Massad is a PhD candidate at Fuller Theological Seminary
working on comparative theology, missiology, and Muslim-Christian dia-
logue. He is interested in how religious identity formation occurs through
the formulation of a perceived religious other and the subsequent theol-
ogy that emerges from such an encounter. He is an adjunct professor
at California Lutheran University and serves as a member of the
Presbyterian Church in America.
xxiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Sandra Mazzolini completed her doctorate in Systematic Theology at

the Gregorian University in Rome in 1998. A full professor at the Faculty
of Missiology of the Pontifical Urbanian University in Rome, she has pub-
lished various contributions to academic journals, reviews, and collected
works. Her recent books include Concilio (2015) and the edited volume
Vangelo e culture: per nuovi incontri (2017).
Dawn M. Nothwehr, O.S.F. holds the Erica and Harry John Family
Endowed Chair in Catholic Ethics at the Catholic Theological Union in
Chicago. Her research focuses on global climate change, environmental
ethics, and ecotheology. Her numerous publications include Ecological
Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide to Sustainable Living (2012).
John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M. is Professor of Social Ethics and the
Director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program at Catholic Theological
Union in Chicago. He is an author of or contributor to more than 20
books on interreligious relations and social ethics, including Restating the
Catholic Church’s Relationship with the Jewish People: the Challenge of
Super-Sessionary Theology (2013). He has received numerous awards for
his work to promote Jewish-Christian relations.
Peter C. Phan is the Ignacio Ellacuria Chair of Catholic Social Thought
in Theology at Georgetown University. A native of Vietnam, he emigrated
to the United States in 1975. He has received doctoral degrees in Sacred
Theology from the Universitas Pontificia Salesiana in Rome and in
Philosophy and Divinity from the University of London. Phan is the first
non-Anglo to be elected president of the Catholic Theological Society of
America. He is also the editor of two present book series: Theology in
Global Perspective and Ethnic American Pastoral Spirituality.
Jonathan Ray is the Samuel Eig Professor of Jewish Studies in the
Theology Department at Georgetown University. He specializes in medi-
eval and early modern Jewish history, focusing on the Sephardic world. He
is the author of After Expulsion: 1492 and The Making of Sephardic Jewry
(2013) and co-editor, with Peter Phan, of Understanding Religious
Pluralism: Perspectives from Theology and Religious Studies (2014).
William Skudlarek, O.S.B. is a monk of Saint John’s Abbey in
Collegeville, Minnesota, and Secretary General of Dialogue Interreligieux
Monastique Monastic Interreligious Dialogue. He taught theology in the
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxv

college and homiletics and liturgy in the School of Theology of Saint

John’s University for 20 years, spent 5 years in Brazil as a Maryknoll
Missionary Society associate, and for 10 years was a member of his mon-
astery’s priory in Japan.
Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran Born in 1943, Cardinal Tauran was,
from 2007 until his sad passing in 2018, the President of the Pontifical
Council on Interreligious Dialogue. Born in Bordeaux, France, Tauran
studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, receiving licenti-
ates in philosophy and theology and a doctorate in canon law. He also
studied at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome and the Catholic
University of Toulouse, France. He was ordained to the priesthood in
1969 and worked as a curate in the Archdiocese of Bordeaux before
entering the Vatican’s diplomatic service in 1975. He was secretary of the
nunciatures to the Dominican Republic (1975–1978) and to Lebanon
(1979–1983). Cardinal Tauran also participated in special missions in
Haiti (1984), Beirut (1986), and Damascus (1986), and served as a mem-
ber of the Vatican delegation to the Conference on European Security
and Cooperation, the Conference on Disarmament in Stockholm, and the
Cultural Forum in Budapest and later in Vienna. In 2014, Pope Francis
appointed him Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church.
Jason Welle, O.F.M. is the Dean of Studies at the Pontifical Institute for
Arabic and Islamic Studies in Rome. His teaching and research focus on
interreligious dialogue, Muslim-Christian relations, the Franciscan intel-
lectual tradition, and Islamic mysticism, particularly in the medieval
period. He has published articles in a number of scholarly journals,
including The Muslim World, Islamochristiana, and the Journal of
Ecumenical Studies. His first major project focuses on the notion of com-
panionship in the writings of the eleventh-century Ṣūfī master Abū ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, including English translations of some of his trea-
tises. He holds a PhD in Theological and Religious Studies from
Georgetown University and master’s degrees from the University of Notre
Dame and the Catholic Theological Union.
Taraneh R. Wilkinson received her PhD in Theological and Religious
Studies from Georgetown University in 2017. With combined training in
the Christian intellectual tradition and in Islamic studies, she specializes in
Turkish Islam and Muslim-Christian theological conversation.
Abbreviations and Works Frequently Cited

Documents of the Second Vatican Council

AA Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (1965)
AG Ad Gentes, Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (1965)
CD Christus Dominus, Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishop (1965)
DH Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration on Religious Freedom (1965)
DV Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965)
GE Gravissimum Educationis, Declaration on Christian Education (1965)
GS Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World (1965)
IM Inter Mirifica, Decree on the Means of Social Communication (1963)
LG Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964)
NA Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions (1965)
OE Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches (1964)
OT Optatam Totius, Decree on Priestly Training (1965)
PC Perfectae Caritatis, Decree on Renewal of Religious Life (1965)
PO Presbyterorum Ordinis, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (1965)
SC Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963)
UR Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism (1964)

xxvii
xxviii Abbreviations and Works Frequently Cited

General
AAS Acta Apostolica Sedis
ASS Acta Sanctae Sedis
CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
CELAM Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano (Latin American Bishops’
Conference)
CJC, CIC Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law)
D, DZ, DS H. Denzinger: Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et
Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum
H/V History of Vatican II, eds. Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph
Komonchak, 5 vols.
FA:ED Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, 3 vols.
ITC International Theological Commission

The proceedings of the Second Vatican Council are collected as Acta synodalia
sacrosancti concilii oecumenici Vaticani II, 32 vols. (Vatican City: Typis polyglottis
Vaticanis, 1970–1999). Various English translations of these documents are regu-
larly used. Among the most common are:

Walter M. Abbott, ed., Documents of Vatican II (New York: America Press, 1966)
Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II – The Conciliar and Post Conciliar
Documents, Revised Edition (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1992)
Giuseppe Alberigo and Norman Tanner, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils
(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990)

Contributors have been free to choose their own preferred translations. The
majority have employed those from the Vatican’s web archive, publicly available at
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
In all essays, biblical references occur with parenthetical, in-text citations accord-
ing to the standard chapter and verse numbering, and contributors have chosen
their preferred translations. Citations of the documents of the Second Vatican
Council also occur in-text according to the paragraphs of the document, not
according to the page numbers of a specific edition. Citations of all other sources
occur in notes. References to papal writings, speeches, or other ecclesial documents
generally cite the official text published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis or Acta Sanctae
Sedis; English translations of many of these documents are available on the Vatican’s
web archive as well as in a variety of volumes of collected documents.
 PART I

Introduction
 CHAPTER 1

Catholicism Embracing Its Religious Others

Gerard Mannion

The year 2015 marked the 50th anniversary of one of the most important
events in the history of the Roman Catholic Church: the Second Vatican
Council, which took place between 1962 and 1965. This is the second of
three volumes that originated from a major international conference to
commemorate that milestone.1 These events were staged at Georgetown
University as well as at the National Cathedral, Washington, DC, and
Marymount University in Virginia. This event took as its theme Vatican II:
Remembering the Future – Ecumenical, Interreligious and Secular
Perspectives on the Council’s Impact and Promise.
Staged across several days, this conference constituted the ninth inter-
national gathering of the Ecclesiological Investigations International
Research Network (EI).2 The Network was founded in 2005—its raison

1
The third volume is edited by Peter De Mey on the ‘hard sayings’ of Vatican II—passages
and conceptions in conciliar texts that remain stumbling blocks for dialogue.
2
See www.ei-resarch.net. The full program as well as films and images from many of the
conference sessions can be accessed at http://dc2015.ei-research.net.

G. Mannion (*)
Department of Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: gm751@georgetown.edu

© The Author(s) 2018 3

V. Latinovic et al. (eds.), Catholicism Engaging Other Faiths,
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98584-8_1
4 G. MANNION

d’être arising out of the realization that many different churches and
­religious communities from other traditions share common concerns and
challenges, as well as hopes and aspirations. The network came into being
to help facilitate the dialogue necessary to help diverse church and faith
communities come to understand one another better, to understand
themselves better, to engage and interact with the wider society in which
people live out their faiths better, and to help work toward common con-
structive ends.
EI, then, is an ecumenical venture established to promote dialogue,
scholarship and collaboration in an open, pluralistic, and inclusive spirit
throughout the different churches, between Christianity and other faith
communities, and between the church and secular societies. In particular,
EI promotes collaborative ecclesiology in national, international, intra-­
ecclesial, and ecumenical contexts. In addition to ecumenical and interre-
ligious encounter and understanding, EI’s work has an equally central and
ongoing commitment to promoting dialogue toward the ends of enhanc-
ing social justice. The Network initiates research ventures and tries to help
break new ground through making conversations, scholarship, and educa-
tion in these fields happen.
The commemorative Vatican II event received worldwide media atten-
tion, with highlights including keynote addresses from the late Cardinal
Jean-Louis Tauran (President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue and who announced to the world the election of
Pope Francis back in March 2013), who opened the event, from Cardinal
Luis Antonio Tagle, Archbishop of Manila and a leading voice on many
key committees in Rome, and a hugely significant address on the future of
ecumenical dialogue, delivered during a moving ecumenical prayer service
at Washington National Cathedral, by Cardinal Walter Kasper, President
Emeritus of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and a key
adviser to Pope Francis, particularly on ecumenism.
The aim of this gathering was not merely to have academic reflections
on dialogue but for participants to engage one another in dialogue during
and beyond the gathering itself.
It was a gathering of people from all around the world, featuring well
over 300 regular participants from different continents, churches, reli-
gions, and multiple different academic disciplinary perspectives. Those
speaking alone numbered around 133 different perspectives. For the orga-
nizers, at times along the way, it felt as if we were not so much commemo-
rating Vatican II as reconvening it!
 CATHOLICISM EMBRACING ITS RELIGIOUS OTHERS 5

Why This Council?

For readers perhaps less familiar with the story of the council, the name—
Vatican II - points to the fact that it was assembled at the Vatican, itself, as
well as that it was only the second such council to be held there (after the
first in 1869–1870). The main council sessions were held in St Peter’s
Basilica itself. The council was a gathering of bishops, heads of religious
orders, accompanied by an army of theologians and related specialists,
along with many there to ‘observe’ proceedings from within and without
the church. At the close of the council, the most substantive outcomes
were the 16 final documents agreed upon by varying majority votes among
those assembled, the end result of painstaking preparations, discussions,
arguments, and revisions, and finally promulgations over the course of its
four sessions. Of varying degrees of importance, significance and length,
these included four constitutions, three declarations and nine decrees. The
council’s true and lasting significance, however, would be with regard to
the implementation of the ecclesial vision and reforms outlined in those
documents and the resultant impact upon the church, its subsequent
teaching and the life of Catholics worldwide.
Thanks to this council, day-to-day life for Catholics would be trans-
formed in many ways. The church’s organization, liturgy, outlook, teach-
ing, and self-understanding were all left transformed in deeply significant
ways. The church became a more open church in many respects and it
embraced the modern world at last, vowing to learn from the ‘signs of the
times’. And the lives and ministry of priests, religious, and bishops would
equally be transformed. The Catholic Church’s understanding of relations
with other Christians, other religious traditions, as well as communities
and peoples of no faith likewise radically changed for the better.
But the story is neither as exclusively positive nor as radically revolu-
tionary as some accounts suggest. The conciliar documents contain much
compromise, ambivalence, and ambiguity on vital issues at multiple junc-
tures. And, as with earlier councils in the church’s history, many opposed
the changes which Vatican II brought in and have continued to challenge
aspects of its legacy down to this day.
Having allowed time for the dust of the cycle of 50th anniversaries to
settle (and it was also judged prudent to wait some time to allow ‘Vatican II
anniversary fatigue’ to subside), we believe it is a good moment to publish
these three volumes. This is particularly so because further time has now also
passed to allow Pope Francis’ agenda with regard to ­further implementing
6 G. MANNION

the spirit and intentions of Vatican II with regard to contemporary church-

world, ecumenical and interfaith relations to become further consolidated
and so better understood. As with the EI event out of which they arose,
these volumes bring together an internationally renowned and diverse group
of scholars and church leaders, alongside many exciting emerging voices to
explore the Second Vatican Council, just as the cycle of 60th anniversary
commemorations of the council dawns.

Remembering the Future of Vatican II

Why this theme, why these areas of focus, why the people involved who
were there? The EI Network chose this theme to further expand and
deepen the dialogue engaged in throughout its work since 2005, particu-
larly through its previous eight international conferences. Following the
original 2007 gathering at St. Deiniol’s in Hawarden, Wales, invitations to
which were sent out to a carefully selected global group of leading figures
in ecclesiology and ecumenical dialogue and research, further past themes
have included Religious Pluralism, held in Kottayam India (2008),
Ecclesiology and Exclusion in Dayton, Ohio (2011), the Household of God
and Local Households in Leuven, Belgium (2010), Religion Authority and
the State in Belgrade, Serbia (2013), Hope in the Ecumenical Future in
Oxford, England (2014), Christianity and Religions in China (Hong
Kong, 2016), The Reformation and Global Reconciliation (Jena, Germany,
2017), and The Church and Migration: Global In-difference?, (Toronto,
Canada, 2018). In 2012, a more broad and ambitious theme was chosen
for our gathering in Assisi, Italy, where we explored Pathways for Dialogue
in the 21st Century and encouraged ‘thinking outside the ecumenical box’
in developing new methods and practices for ecumenical, interreligious,
and church-world dialogue. Since 2005, Ecclesiological Investigations has
also organized multiple sessions each year as part of the American Academy
of Religion’s Annual Meeting which have proved further venues for
groundbreaking dialogue, encounter, and research. More recently, the
Network has also been a regular part of the annual program for the
European Academy of Religion which, to date, has met each year in
Bologna, Italy.
The primary genesis for the precise theme of these volumes, and the
event of which they reflect many of the fruits, was obviously the 50th
anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. But its
genesis was also more than that. At times, it seemed as if every institution
 CATHOLICISM EMBRACING ITS RELIGIOUS OTHERS 7

and organization were marking Vatican II—our intention was to do

something distinctive, something truly different. The core flash of
inspiration that made this gathering something different came from
Professor Brian Flanagan of Marymount University who conceived of
the great idea of exploring what people from other churches, other
religions, and secular standpoints made of Vatican II. Thus EIDC 2015
was born. And there was also a feeling that it would enhance the quality
of the conversations we hoped to encourage all the more if a still fur-
ther distinctive dimension was added to the theme in order to channel
the focus of this event, given the plethora of conferences marking
Vatican II in recent times. The solution was to place the emphasis upon
the future, rather than simply the past or indeed the present—this
proved the final piece in the jigsaw. And so the road to Vatican II,
Remembering the Future: Ecumenical, Interfaith and Secular Perspectives
on the Council’s Impact and Promise was embarked upon. Not the most
succinct and catchy of titles but it was evocative of what we wanted to
achieve across four days of what would become a packed and, we hoped,
inspirational program.
Most distinctively, then, as with the original EI event, these volumes
assess the council, its legacy and promise through the eyes of scholars and
practitioners from beyond the Roman Catholic world, alongside perspec-
tives from a wide variety of Catholic scholars, practitioners and church
leaders within the Catholic tradition. So multiple Catholic assessments are
brought into dialogue with contributions on the council and its key docu-
ments from Christians belonging to other churches, figures from other
faith traditions and wider perspectives informed by secular-oriented
research. The contributors come from a wide range of different disciplin-
ary backgrounds and different contexts. The volumes include contribu-
tions from most continents and feature many contributions from
pioneering and leading figures in their respective fields. They feature the
voices of those who were around during the council itself as well as voices
from scholars not yet born when the council closed. These volumes are
dialogue in action. Each contribution has been substantially revised and
expanded in the light of the gathering itself. All in all, each volume draws
together a range of perspectives with international, disciplinary, and expe-
riential breadth and depth.
So how and even why should we continue to go on remembering
Vatican II in these volumes and into the future? The simple answer is,
because no matter what historical or rhetorical perspectives have been put
8 G. MANNION

to the contrary, it was a monumental event of significance that changed

the Roman Catholic Church and indeed helped change the world—in a
positive sense—forever. This, despite the opinion of the Archbishop of
Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, who, returning from Vatican II in
December 1965 famously told the people of Ireland that nothing had
happened at the council and reassured his flock that ‘You may have been
worried by talk of changes to come. Allow me to reassure you: no change
will worry the tranquility of your Christian lives’.3 How wrong he would
be proved to have been! On the contrary, Vatican II was a monumental
event in history, period, and arguably the most significant council ever in
terms of its global impact upon Catholicism. These volumes bear testi-
mony to the fact that the council continues to be an event of transforma-
tive power and influence throughout today’s church and world alike.
In the period of anniversaries relating to the council—especially the
40th, then 50th anniversary periods, there were many debates about
whether the council’s teachings and reforms primarily constituted conti-
nuity or discontinuity with earlier, particularly more recent periods of the
church’s history. This led to an especially rather pointed debate in recent
years about whether anything really did happen at the council or not. A
clear answer was given by the eminent church historian and Jesuit, John
O’Malley,

[T]he questions recur: Is there a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ Vatican II? Is there
any noteworthy discontinuity between the council and what preceded it?
Did anything happen? When the council ended in 1965…, practically every-
body would have answered those questions with a resounding affirmative, to
the point that… Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the council as heretical
and led a group into schism. Today, however, there are learned, thoughtful,
and well-informed people who are responding in the negative. … As a his-
torian… I believe we must balance the picture by paying due attention to
the discontinuities. When we do so, one thing at least becomes clear: the
council wanted something to happen.4

From a sermon reported in The Irish Times (10 December 1965).

3

John W. O’Malley, ‘Vatican II: Did Anything Happen?’, in Vatican II: Did Anything
4

Happen?, John W O’Malley, Joseph A. Komonchak, Stephen Schloesser, Neil J. Ormerod,

edited by David G. Schultenover (New York and London: Continuum, 2007), 52–85 at
84–85. This passage admirably sums up O’Malley’s now classic study, What Happened at
Vatican II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008).
 CATHOLICISM EMBRACING ITS RELIGIOUS OTHERS 9

History will judge the council as a decisive era when the church sought
to turn away (embrace metanoia) from the monolithic world-renouncing
character and style of magisterium and the ecclesial mindset that had
begun in the late eighteenth century and been entrenched in the second
half of the nineteenth century, early twentieth century, and in an ongo-
ing battle against totalitarian regimes in the mid-twentieth century. The
church had for too long been characterized by a siege mentality against
modernity and its ideas and social impact. With Vatican II that came to
an end.
In calling the council, Pope John XXIII was essentially presenting the
church with a series of daunting yet empowering challenges—how do we
bring the church up to date? How do we engage the wider world in a
constructive and positive fashion? How do we better discern the signs of
these times? And how do we advance the cause of unity among the reli-
gions and churches of the world?
The church needed to move into a process of transition before those
tasks could even begin to be addressed. In many ways, Catholicism is still
in that period of transition. Anyone who wants to know how long pro-
cesses of genuine reform and renewal can take has only to look at the
Kyoto agreement from 1992—still awaiting implementation in so many
ways, with some steps forward being achieved and yet intermittent steps
backward along the way, too. A church council, of course, should be
thought of as something even more long term and long range in scope
and ambition.
Indeed, instead of asking what, if anything, happened at the council, a
more fruitful approach today is to explore what is happening with Vatican II.
This is a core task that these volumes give attention to, just as it was at the
EI gathering Vatican II: Remembering the Future. Pope Francis has also
helped lead the way here. Very early on in his pontificate, he spoke of
Vatican II as a ‘beautiful work of the Holy Spirit’.5 He also said that

5
In a homily preached on April 16th, 2013, as reported widely, for example, https://
www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/rejecting-holy-spirits-work-in-vatican-ii-is-foolish-
pope-says and https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-vatican-ii-beautiful-
work-holy-spirit. Alas, the report on the Vatican’s own news website no longer features the
original page on which it was reported: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-2nd-vatican-
council-work-of-holy-spirit-but-s. Furthermore, the summary record of the pope’s homily
that day also no longer records those words, see http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/
en/cotidie/2013/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20130416_spirit.html.
10 G. MANNION

throughout the church we must ask whether we have done enough to

actualize what the Holy Spirit was willing the church to do through the
vision of the council. Answering his own rhetorical question in the nega-
tive, he cut to the heart of the clashes over the council in recent decades,
stating: ‘We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we
don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there
are those who wish to turn the clock back’.6 His point was that those who
resist the vision of the council are resisting the presence and work of the
Holy Spirit in the church.
In some countries, particularly on the European continent and in North
America, the first decade and a half of the twenty-first century is a period
that has been termed the ‘Battle for the Council’, as differing interpreta-
tions of the conciliar documents jostled for supremacy. But this also fol-
lows from a process that has been going on since the late 1960s and which
gathered pace in the 1970s and which became an almost fanatical obses-
sion for some groups in the church in recent decades.
Yves Congar once remarked in an interview that it would take 30–50
years for the council to really begin to bear fruit.7 And if we are to agree
with him, as opposed to Abbot B. C. Butler, who returned from the
Second Vatican Council to his Benedictine brethren at Downside to
enthuse about the council’s decisions but also to caution them that those
same teachings would take ‘half a millennium’ to implement (causing at
least one brother to lament that that was far too long for him…!), then we
are now living in the key period during which Vatican II’s true and endur-
ing legacy will hopefully become ever-more apparent.
Therefore, Vatican II is not simply ever more ancient history—its effects
are only just starting to come into their own. There is much ‘unfinished
business’ of the council and, in many ways, as Paul Lakeland has memora-
bly said, it is ‘a council that will never end’.8

Discerning the Fruits

So, these volumes explore Vatican II’s story and history, yes. They explore
what mark it has left upon different communities and parts of the globe,
yes. But above all else their intention, in sum, is to relate those foregoing

6
Ibid.
7
The interview, ‘Trente ans de souvenirs’ (30 Years of Memories), was conducted in 1964,
as cited in Joseph A. Komonchak, ‘On Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P. (1904–1995)’, Proceedings
of the Catholic Theological Society of America vol. 59 (2004), 162–166 at 163.
8
Paul Lakeland, The Council That Will Never End (Collegeville, Mn., Liturgical Press, 2013).
 CATHOLICISM EMBRACING ITS RELIGIOUS OTHERS 11

explorations to considering what is going to happen to Vatican II and to

what will be its legacy in the future. To such ends, each contributor was asked
to consider and explore the council in general and/or particular conciliar
documents in retrospective and prospective fashion: what difference did the
council/particular documents make? What difference do they continue to
make? What difference could they make in the future?
Both of these first two volumes are broken down into key thematic sec-
tions as well as featuring treatments of major council documents and of
questions, challenges, and prospects ahead for the council’s ongoing leg-
acy and impact into the future. The intention is not simply for these three
volumes to mark the end of the cycles of conciliar anniversary programs in
relation to the Second Vatican Council. But, and perhaps even more
importantly, the essays contained throughout this trilogy genuinely aspire
to contribute to the ongoing interpretation and advancement of the mis-
sion and legacy of the council through furthering discourse and under-
standing about Catholicism in relation to the wider world, to social justice,
and to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.

Catholicism Opening to Other Faiths

This second volume encompasses a richly comprehensive range of assess-
ments of how Vatican II opened up the Catholic Church to encounter,
dialogue, and engagement with other world religions. We open with an
inspiring ‘Foreword’ from Peter C. Phan, whose work in recent decades
has done so much to promote an openness of Christianity to other
faiths and who was among the sterling organizational team behind the
original event, itself. There follows the gracious contribution from the
late President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue,
Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran. The following section of this volume is
devoted to exploring the impact and continuing relevance and promise of
Nostra Aetate, the Council’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions. It
discerns such in relation to a variety of faiths, global contexts, and theo-
logical and pastoral questions. The first two essays come from two of
the Catholic Church’s leading experts on interreligious dialogue in the
post-conciliar era, Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald and Archbishop Felix
Machado. Assessments of this revolutionary conciliar document follow
with specific attention to Jewish-Christian relations (John T. Pawlikowski,
O.S.M.) and to the role of new ecclesial movements in implementing its
vision (Roberto Catalano).
12 G. MANNION

The volume turns next to explore how Vatican II in general has influ-
enced and helped develop method in interfaith dialogue and the intellec-
tual and comparative study of world religions in the post-conciliar decades.
These intricate studies embrace the study of the Bible in relation to other
faiths (Leo D. Lefebure), how interfaith dialogue can promote justice and
peace (Sandra Mazzolini), Karl Rahner’s legacy for the council’s interfaith
opening and for comparative theology alike (Taraneh Wilkinson), St.
Bonaventure’s illumination theory of cognition as a precursor for Jacques
Dupuis’ inclusive pluralism (Richard Girardin), a Reformed Calvinist
assessment of Vatican II vis-à-vis comparative theology (Alexander
E. Massad) and Roger Haight’s masterful essay on ecclesial spirituality in
relation to other faith traditions.
The third and final thematic section of this collection is devoted to a
range of perspectives on the fruits and future of Vatican’s II’s opening to
other faiths. Indian Jesuit Michael Amaladoss offers a comprehensive
assessment of the impact of the council on the Indian context—including
in terms of social and cultural effects, in addition to describing the unique
interfaith context that the sub-continent presents. An account of the
achievements of Monastic Interreligious Dialogue is next given by one of
its founding pioneers, the Benedictine, William Skudlarek, followed by a
study of the great strides made in Buddhist-Catholic dialogue in the wake
of the council (Sallie B. King). Concern for creation is then explored as a
common ground for advances in Muslim-Christian dialogue and collabo-
ration, with specific reference to the encounter between St Francis of Assisi
and the Sultan of Egypt and the interfaith outlook of the twenty-first cen-
tury’s own Francis, the present pontiff (Dawn M. Nothwehr, O.S.F).
Finally, a Jewish scholar offers an incisive evaluation of where relations
between Jews and Catholics stand today in the light of advances made
thanks to and since the Council, as well as of the ‘lingering shadows’ that
remain obstacles between more harmonious relations still (Jonathan Ray).
The second volume draws to its conclusion with two very special con-
tributions. First, a moving and evocative reflection from one of the leading
pioneers in contemporary comparative theology, itself, Jesuit Francis
X. Clooney. The volume closes with a most thoughtful epilogue from Leo
Lefebure—another key figure who did so much to help organize and make
the original EI gathering possible—in which he reflects on Catholicism’s
opening to other faiths and what this continues to mean for ours and
future times.
 CATHOLICISM EMBRACING ITS RELIGIOUS OTHERS 13

The council not only constituted a monumental sea-change in how

Catholicism would henceforth perceive its religious others, it embraced an
ecclesial imperative for the future: that from now on, by default,
Catholicism was charged with going out to engage with, to seek to under-
stand, and to dialogue with those of other faiths and of no declared faith.
From that dialogue and engagement would follow an imperative to seek
to collaborate in order to make the world a better place. The guiding prin-
ciple for this would be a spirit of love, charity, for, as Pope Paul VI said in
his first encyclical, issued during the council, itself:

Charity is the key to everything. It sets all to rights. There is nothing which
charity cannot achieve and renew. Charity ‘beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things’ (1 Cor. 13:7). Who is there
among us who does not realize this? And since we realize it, is not this the
time to put it into practice?9

Nostra Aetate opened by calling attention to the bonds of commonality

differing peoples, faiths and cultures around the globe share and what calls
them to fellowship. It did so specifically to promote unity and love among
peoples, indeed nations. It pointed to our common origins, our common
destiny, and to how the world’s religions have been guiding lights in try-
ing to make sense of our being and to provide sustenance and direction for
our journey along the way.10 There is one human family. It closed by con-
demning all discrimination and harassment of people ‘because of their
race, color, condition of life, or religion’.11 Its call for encounter, dialogue,
and engagement with Catholicism’s religious others was oriented toward
practical and social outcomes in promoting harmony, commonality, and
understanding. All of this was incisively grounded in scripture and
Christian theological reasoning itself. So both in moral terms and in terms
of being faithful to Christ, Catholics were called to openness to their reli-
gious others.
A key challenge since Vatican II has been that not all Catholics have
been as readily enthusiastic in wanting to embrace and understand their
religious others, just as many of other churches, faiths and of no particular

9
Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (6th August 1964) §56.
10
Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,
October 28th, 1965), http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html, §1.
11
Ibid., §5.
14 G. MANNION

religion have resisted doing the same. And so, therefore, in a world fraught
with religious, ethnic, political, and economic divides, there has never been
a more urgent time actively to seek to recall and give attention to the future
of how, at Vatican II, Catholicism opened up to other faiths. So, also, do
these times urgently call for us to rekindle the vision of Gaudium et Spes:

Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differ-
ently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the
more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such
courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with
them.12

We hope this volume, indeed all three volumes taken together, may
help, in whatever small, piecemeal, or reflective ways, as well as in helping
contribute to efforts which are more substantially action-oriented, to fos-
ter and promote such dialogue, engagement, understanding, and collabo-
ration into the future, in a spirit of love toward the ends of the global
common good.

12
Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,
December 7th, 1965), http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html, §28.
 CHAPTER 2

Introduction: Vatican II—Remembering

the Future

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

I was deeply grateful to Georgetown University for the honor and privi-
lege given to me of delivering the Opening Address at the global encoun-
ter on “Vatican II: Remembering the Future” and I am equally grateful to
the editors of this book for the invitation to write these words of introduc-
tion to the volume Catholicism Opening to Other Faiths. Georgetown
University, as is well known, has always been in the forefront of igniting
minds and hearts on issues and challenges of the times. I thus also wish to
express deep gratitude to the entire University and its generous collabora-
tors, especially the Ecclesiological Investigations International Research
Network, Marymount University, and Washington National Cathedral for
organizing that very important event in 2015. Remembering the Future
of Vatican II is a very important task—both a challenge and a great oppor-
tunity indeed.

The Late Cardinal Tauran was President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue and Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, The Holy See, Vatican City,
Vatican.

Cardinal J.-L. Tauran (Deceased)

Vatican City, Vatican

© The Author(s) 2018 15

V. Latinovic et al. (eds.), Catholicism Engaging Other Faiths,
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98584-8_2
16 CARDINAL J.-L. TAURAN

Introductory Remarks
When Cardinal Giuseppe Roncalli was elected pope in October 1958,
many foresaw that it would be a transitional pontificate. But on January
25, 1959, in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, St. John XXIII
announced his decision to celebrate an ecumenical council. The Pontiff
thought that the Church was called to be nearer to ordinary people, and
he specified that the Council would not have the goal of holding the mod-
ern world in contempt, nor of complaining about the presence of evil
therein. Rather, the Church was called to use the medicine of mercy more
than the medicine of severity, avoiding, as much as possible, the language
of condemnation.
On October 11, 1962, the Pontiff opened the Second Vatican Council
together with 2800 bishops, saying that the council “wishes to transmit
the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion.”1
Although John XXIII died on June 3, 1963, his successor Paul VI decided
to continue the Council. Without pronouncing dogmatic sentences, the
Second Vatican Council expresses its teaching on many questions which
occupy the conscience and activity of humanity. There is no doubt that the
Second Vatican Council was the most significant religious event of the
twentieth century. General de Gaulle said once to Monsignor Paulo
Bertoli, the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, that according to him, the Second
Vatican Council was “the most important event of the century because
you cannot change the prayer of a billion men and women without affect-
ing the balance of the planet.”2 The Council Fathers asked themselves
how to guide the Church in a more collegial manner. They learned to look
with benevolence at others who belong to different religious traditions or
who are agnostic. At the end of the Council, the Council Fathers addressed
a message to governments, to the intellectual community, to artists, to
women, to workers, to the poor, to all those who are suffering, and to
young people. Yves Congar stressed very well the difference between a
council and a synod. A synod is a consultation. A council is more than
consultation: it is communion. The style of the conciliar documents
­indicates this. The words that arise again and again are benevolence, fra-
ternity, collaboration, dialogue, and collegiality.

1
John XXIII, alloc. Questa festiva, AAS 51 (1959): 65–69.
2
http://www.archivesdefrance.culture.gouv.fr/action-culturelle/celebrations-nation-
ales/recueil-2012/economie-et-societe/ouverture-du-concile-vatican-ii
 INTRODUCTION: VATICAN II—REMEMBERING THE FUTURE 17

John Paul II declared that Vatican II remains the fundamental event of

the life of the contemporary Church: fundamental for the deepening rich-
ness given to it by Christ; fundamental for highlighting the fruitful rela-
tionship with the world in the prospective of evangelization and dialogue.
The Council set the agenda for the contemporary Church. The Council’s
teaching prepared the Church for its passage from the second to the third
millennium. What is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council? The
Council established a point of reference for the Church, opening it up to
the breeze of the Holy Spirit. It took an important stand on various sub-
jects, offering to the Church documents of doctrine and of action: four
constitutions (one liturgical, two dogmatic, and one pastoral); nine
decrees; and three declarations. Vatican II is considered the council that
dealt, more than others, with the Church. The Council explored the mys-
tery and the nature of the Church, and it frequently employed the
term “People of God” as a synonym for church. Opening the second ses-
sion of the Council in September 1963, Paul VI exhorted, “May this
Council have always in mind the relationship between us and Jesus Christ
[…] let no other light shine on this assembly that is not the Christ, light
of the world.”3 The reference to Christ enlivens the Constitutions Dei
Verbum and Sacrosanctum Concilium. They indicate the fundamental
forms of his presence in the Word of God and in the Liturgy. The
Constitution Gaudium et Spes expounds the Council’s view on such
important issues as the vocation and dignity of the human person, athe-
ism, marriage, hunger, social and economic life, peace, war, and commu-
nity of populations.
At the end of the Council in 1965, the climate was optimistic. Most of
the bishops agreed with the words used by the Pope, first John XXIII and
then Paul VI. They believed this was a “springtime of the Church” and a
“new Pentecost.” After the initial celebration of the Council’s accomplish-
ments came the period of the Council’s implementation. Many saw this
process as a linear path forward, without discontinuity and without a
return to the past. In reality, the life of the Church following the Council
was a time of renewal but also provoked certain shifts. In a 1992 lecture,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger distinguished three phases of the post-conciliar
period: a time of euphoria (1965–1968), a period of disillusion
(1970–1980), and then a period of synthesis (from 1990 onward).

3
Paul VI, alloc. Salvete Fratres, AAS 55 (1963): 841–859.
18 CARDINAL J.-L. TAURAN

In retrospect, what positive results did the Council generate? I should

say, first of all, the rediscovery of the Bible, read in modern languages,
especially in the context of the Liturgy. For the ordinary Christian, the first
effects of the Council appeared in the celebration of the liturgy, including
the use of the vernacular, the priest celebrating while facing the people,
and the importance given to the Liturgy of the Word. After the liturgy, the
Council Fathers fixed their attention on catechesis, that is, the way in
which one learns about Jesus, the faith and the Church, although we know
that we had to wait until 1992 before we would receive the actual text of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Also significant was the Council’s call for Catholics to develop friendly
relationships and indeed collaboration with non-Catholic Christians, as
well as the first recognition in official Church teaching that there are ele-
ments of truth in other religions. As President of the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, here I must recall how Nostra Aetate, the
“Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”
was not adopted without resistance. On the contrary, a group of Council
Fathers attempted to withdraw this matter from the agenda, even though
John XXIII himself had placed it there. In the first version, the text treated
only the theme of the Shoah. Many of the Oriental Fathers claimed that
such a document would be ill received by Arab countries, seeing in it the
first step toward a normalization of relations between the Holy See and
the State of Israel. As a result, another group of Council Fathers reassured
the Oriental Fathers that Nostra Aetate had nothing to do in particular
with the State of Israel, and they expanded the scope of the text to con-
sider other religions. In particular, the Declaration speaks of Muslims. By
coming to know them and understand their culture, Catholics may
thereby help to enhance and promote social justice, moral values, peace,
and freedom for the entire human family. Very few of the Council’s themes
seem to be quite so important today as this one.
A third theme addressed by the Council was the hierarchical gover-
nance of the Church. The Council’s emphasis on the collegiality of bish-
ops with the pope gave rise to the renewed institution of the Synod of
Bishops, the establishment of episcopal conferences, and the valorization
of diocesan synods. All this modified in a radical way the relationship
between the local churches and the universal Church around the world.
The mass media brought these realities to the public eye: before the
Council, the Church had never appeared so visibly diverse and yet so
united. One must recall the words of Lumen Gentium: “Moreover, within
 INTRODUCTION: VATICAN II—REMEMBERING THE FUTURE 19

the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches

retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of
the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity and
protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such
differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it” (LG 13).
Two further brief observations with regard to the reception of the
Council should be made. During these last 50 years, two key dimensions
of ecclesiology have clearly developed: first, a theological dimension con-
cerned with a further and deeper engagement with the implications of the
conciliar texts regarding revelation, the transmission of the faith, freedom
of conscience and liturgy; second, a horizontal and dialogical dimension.
Vatican II was the first Council to have preoccupied itself with the rela-
tionship between the Roman Catholic Church and separated Christians as
well as those with non-Christian religions. And, of course, Lumen Gentium
begins by defining the Church as a sacrament, that is to say, “as a sign and
instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of
the whole human race” (LG 1).
My second observation is that the celebration of a council is one thing;
its implementation is another. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI,
and now Francis have courageously guided the Church through the post-­
Conciliar period, including the reform of the liturgy, the publication of a
new Code of Canon Law, the convocation of Synods of Bishops, the
increased prominence of episcopal conferences, the importance given to
local, especially diocesan churches, the growing number of countries with
diplomatic relations with the Holy See, the empowerment of the laity, and
the flowering of interreligious dialogue. All of this is the fruit of the Second
Vatican Council.
While noting the many blessings of the Council, we cannot remain
silent before obstacles that remain and troubling events that have devel-
oped in the post-Conciliar period. Secularization and consumerism have
favored religious indifference and contributed to a severe decrease in the
number of regular churchgoers. Dissension within the Church has grown,
heightened by the growth of fundamentalist groups. The resignation of
many priests and religious men and women from active ministry along
with the decline in vocations in many parts of the world remain a cause of
concern. Political instability in many countries, including the unresolved
Palestinian-Israeli situation, detrimentally affects the lives of the faithful,
even though the thawing of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall
have also given grounds for much hope.
20 CARDINAL J.-L. TAURAN

A Council Different from the Others

Unlike some earlier Councils, Vatican II did not result in any major schism.
Lumen Gentium provides the spinal column for the entire Council. While
the final texts of the Council documents were approved with near-­unanimous
votes, a problem that remains to this day is that the majority of Catholics
have yet to read these documents. Today, many people ask if Vatican II is a
council like the other ones that preceded it. It is certain that each council
has its own physiognomy, but we can discover the unique character of
Vatican II in its origin, in its content, and in its interpretation. In its origin,
one must recall that John XXIII did not convoke the Council in response to
a crisis. Rather, he said, “Our duty is not only to guard this precious trea-
sure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves
with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of
us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty
centuries.”4 In its content, one must recall that the Second Vatican Council
issued no condemnations or dogmatic definitions. Rather, Paul VI stressed
that the Church wanted to proclaim itself as the “servant of humanity.”5
To sum up, I should say that the Council presents the Church ad intra
as a mystery of communion, linked with the Trinity, and manifested as the
People of God. Paul VI summarizes the nature of the Church ad extra in
his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964). The Church enters into
conversation with the world; the Church is charged with portraying to
humanity the new life in Christ. Indeed, the Council has renewed the
question of the relationship between the Church and society through its
emphasis on the relationship between Christ and humanity. Consider the
titles of some of the key documents: Lumen Gentium cum Sit Christus, the
Dogmatic Constitution that proclaimed Christ the light of the world, of
nations; Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution which proclaims that
Christ is the Word of God; and Christus Dominus, the decree on the pas-
toral duty of bishops. The name of Christ himself emerges from these
texts. Christ, God-made-human, is the revelation of the human person, the
transmission of the truth about the human person, and the Church has no
other ambition than to proclaim, serve, and manifest in history the funda-
mental relationship God has established with humanity through Christ.

4
John XXIII, alloc. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, AAS 54 (1962): 786–96.
5
One must also, of course, note that some have mistakenly interpreted aspects of the
Council as entailing a ‘sell-out’ to mistaken theological and political worldviews in the ‘spirit
of the age’.
 INTRODUCTION: VATICAN II—REMEMBERING THE FUTURE 21

Conclusion
In the 50 years and now more since the Council closed, we have passed from
an image of the Church as a fortress to a Church of communion, the Church
that is the People of God. The question now is how the faithful must present
the Church to today’s world. It is not a question of creating a Christian
world separate from the secular world. Rather, the goal is to create the
Christian in the world, and it is for this world that Christ died. The Church
has always been inserted in the world, and the Constitution Gaudium et Spes
reminds us that “the Church, at once ‘a visible association and a spiritual
community,’ goes forward together with humanity and experiences the
same earthly lot which the world does” (GS 40). The Second Vatican
Council offers to humanity the assistance of the Church to foster the genu-
ine unity and sense of one family that is the destiny of humankind. “Inspired
by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry for-
ward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit” (GS 3).
This 50th anniversary of the Council is an appropriate opportunity to
remember the actual sense in which the Church should be understood as
being hierarchically structured: Jesus chose his 12 apostles in order to be
the columns of the spiritual temple. Symbolically, this has inspired ecclesial
structures of pastoral episcopal service down through the centuries. Above
all, it has been understood in a collegial sense. It is remarkable, also, that in
the Acts of the Apostles, we see this collegial attitude articulated through-
out, particularly through the first Council of Jerusalem. In a Council, the
bishops are not so much the delegates of their communities; their power
does not come from below, but from above. They are witnesses to the
deposit of the faith. In a Council, the law is not that of the simple majority
but the law of unanimity: the unanimity and communion that are two
attributes of the Holy Spirit. During the Council sessions, the Bible was
opened and placed on the altar, to remind conciliar fathers of the ritual
formula that the Holy Spirit presides over the assembly, with Christ also
being invisibly present.
In a divided world where hatred, massacres, and wars seem to prevail, it
is a consolation to hear the Catholic Church affirming that “The joys and
the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age… are the joys
and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ” (GS 1). In
its response to these joys, hopes, griefs, and anxieties, the Second Vatican
Council was guided by two popes, each one having his own distinc-
tive charism. John XXIII was convinced that the Church had the capacity
22 CARDINAL J.-L. TAURAN

to answer the questions of the men and women of our times around the
entire globe. Paul VI took forward the agenda of the Council and focused
increasingly upon the manner in which its decisions could be applied, as
well as upon preserving the unity of the Church. The Second Vatican
Council proclaimed itself a pastoral council, but it was doubtlessly also a
teaching council. It accomplished this not by imposing definitions, but by
breathing a style of relationships which helped the Church to move from
commandment to invitation, from threat to proposition, and from mono-
logue to dialogue. Let us hope that, in and through the richness of the
conciliar documents many more Catholics, alongside many other
Christians and non-Christians, alike, may continue to be assisted in their
quests to answer the three great questions of Immanuel Kant: “What can
I know? What ought I to do? For what may I hope?”6 For we Christians
the answer, of course is thus: God “raised [Jesus] from the dead and glori-
fied him, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1 Pt 1:21). I am tempted
to say “Amen.”

6
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A805/B833.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
inzicht in de beschavingsgeschiedenis van ons volk.

De spotnamen zijn over al de Nederlanden, Noord en Zuid,

verspreid; in al de Nederlandsche gewesten zijn ze in gebruik. In ’t
eene gewest echter meer dan in het andere. In de Friesche en in de
Vlaamsche gewesten zijn ze het talrijkst. Ook in de oorspronkelijk
Dietsche gewesten van Frankrijk (Fransch-Vlaanderen en Artesië)
komen er voor, en niet minder in de Friesche gouwen van Noord-
Duitschland (Oost-, Wezer- en Noord-Friesland). 1

Als Fries zijn mij de Friesche spotnamen het beste en het volledigste
bekend. Dus komt in deze verhandeling aan de Friesche spotnamen
het leeuwendeel toe, en worden ze in de eerste plaats uitvoerig
besproken en verklaard. Vervolgens worden de spotnamen van de
overige Nederlandsche gewesten, voor zooverre ze mij bekend zijn,
hier allen vermeld. Bij sommigen van die namen heb ik eene kleine
aanteekening gevoegd, zonder echter den oorsprong en de
beteekenis van al die namen in het algemeen [8]na te speuren en
aan te geven. De Oud-Vlaamsche spotnamen die ons overgeleverd
zijn in het allermerkwaardigste gedicht Den langen Adieu, van den
Bruggeling Eduwaert den Dene, worden ten slotte, nog
bijzonderlijk vermeld, en, ten deele althans, in hunnen oorsprong en
in hunne beteekenis nader besproken. Zoo is de indeeling van deze
verhandeling.

De Friesche spotnamen zijn in de Friesche taal gesteld—dat spreekt

geheel van zelven. Daar is nog geen man van Arum ooit voor
„kruiper in het stof van den weg” gescholden; geen man uit Sneek
voor „duimpjevreter”, geen man uit Warns voor „schapenkeutel”.
Maar „M o u d e k r û p e r s ”, zóó heeten de Arummers;
„D ú m k e f r e t t e r s ” de Sneekers; „S k i e p e l o a r t e n ” de
Warnsers. De Friesche spotnamen zijn hier en vervolgens dan ook in
het Friesch vermeld, en daarbij, voor zooverre noodig, verdietscht, of
anderszins in het Nederlandsch verklaard.

In mindere mate is het gelijke ook met andere namen het geval, die
steeds in gouwspraak genoemd worden. Welke Hollander en welke
Vlaming, of welke andere Nederlander, die de gouwspraak van
Twente niet kent, zal den spot naam van de Oldenzalers,
„G r u p p e n d r i e t e r s ”, verstaan? Die Friesche namen, of die
welke in de eene of andere gouwspraak genoemd worden, verliezen
in oorspronkelijkheid, in eigenaardigheid, in kracht, als ze vertaald
worden of in algemeen Nederlandsch overgezet. M o u d e k r û p e r ,
G r u p p e n d r i e t e r , dat is kernachtig, kort en krachtig, volkseigen-
schoon gezegd. Hoe lamlendig en laf staat daar tegenover „Kruiper
in het stof van den weg”, en: „Iemand, die zijne lichamelijke
ontlasting verricht in eene greppel”—’k weet waarlijk niet hoe men dit
best in zoogenoemd beschaafd Nederlandsch zal zeggen of
schrijven.

Leeuwarden is de hoofdstad van Friesland. Met Leeuwarden willen

we beginnen.

De Leeuwarders dragen den spotnaam van „G a l g e l a p p e r s ”. Zij

zijn eigenlijk wel twee spotnamen rijk. Immers heeten ze ook wel
S p e k n e k k e n . Speknek is een bijnaam voor een welgesteld,
lichamelijk ook zeer welvarend man, wiens glad-geschoren [9]nek,
zoo als bij zulke lieden wel ’t geval pleegt te zijn, als ’t ware glimt van
vet (spek), en met plooien van eene dikke, onderhuidsche vetlaag is
voorzien. Maar deze spotnaam voor eenen ouderwetschen, dikken,
kwabbigen burgerman, zoo als ik die in den goeden ouden tijd, in
mijne jeugd te Leeuwarden nog velen heb gekend (een geschoren
nek, en krullokken vóór de ooren, was „mode” in de eerste helft
dezer eeuw)—de spotnaam S p e k n e k is verdrongen door dien van
Galgelapper.

Hoe nu de Leeuwarders aan den spotnaam G a l g e l a p p e r s

gekomen zijn, wil ik hier eens uitvoerig mededeelen, en wel, voor de
verandering, geschreven in de dagelijksche spreektaal der
ouderwetsche Leeuwarder burgerij; geheel zóó als een Leeuwarder
burgerman van den ouden stempel, dat verhaal den zijnen zoude
doen. Dit dient dan met één als een staaltje van de spreektaal der
Leeuwarders, van het verkeerdelijk zoogenoemde Stad-Friesch (het
Stêdsk der Friesch sprekende Friezen), ’t welk anders niet is als
goed Oud-Dietsch, rijk vermengd met Friesche woorden en
woordvormen en zinwendingen, en dan uitgesproken door eenen
Frieschen mond, die geen letter n op ’t einde der woorden
verwaarloost, maar dit wel doet met de r in ’t midden der woorden;
ook met sk, s en f en zachte g in plaats van de Hollandsche sch, z
en v en rochelende g, die geen Fries uitspreken kan (de s of z, de f
of v dan in ’t begin der woorden), tenzij dan kunstmatig, met veel
moeite, en met veel keelgeschrap wat de sch en g betreft.

Luuster nou ’ris! Dan sa’ ’k jimme ’ris fertelle, hoe-’t de Leewarders
an har bijnaam fan Galgelappers komen binne.

Oudtiids hadden alle steden in Friesland, in de groote dorpen oek,

daar ’t rechthuus fan ’e grietenij staat, in oek wel sommige staten
(dat binne fan die groote, oud-adellike boereplaatsen), it recht fan
galg in rad, liik as dat doe soo hiette. Dat is te seggen: in die
plaatsen mochten in musten de boosdoenders, de moordenaars, de
branstichters in suk gespuus, foor soo feer as se daar, of in ’e
onderhoorichheit fan die plaatsen har misdaden uutricht hadden, oek
ophongen wudde an ’e galge.
Later, doe-’t Leewarden, in ’e plaats fan Staveren, de hoofdstad
[10]fan Friesland wudden waar, in doe de regeering over Friesland
hoe langer hoe meer in ien han komen waar, in te Leewarden har
setel hadde, doe houdde dat op. Doe musten alle boosdoenders,
die-’t in Friesland oppakt waren, in tot ’e dood feroordeeld, die
musten te Leewarden an ’e galge ophongen wudde. It lansbestuur
liet in alle steden in andere plaatsen, die-’t it recht fan galg in rad
hadden, wete—om so mar ’ris te seggen, met dizze woorden: „Hur
ris, jimme Franekers in Harlingers, jimme Dokkumers, Sneekers in
Bolseters, in die ’t it meer angaat, jimme hewwe ont nou toe jimme
eigen moordenaars sels ophongen, mar dat houdt nou op; dat mut
deen weze. As jimme en moordenaar of en andere kwaaddoender
snapt hewwe, in feroordeeld om te hangen, dan mutte jimme die
man na Leewarden sture, om daar dan ophongen te wudden. Set de
man dan mar, goed in ’e boeiens slagen, met een paar dienders of
feldwachters of wat jimme hewwe (as it mar goed fortroude mannen
binne), in ’t trekskip na Leewarden, met en briefke der bij, hoe in wat.
Dan salle se te Leewarden dat saakje wel feerder opknappe, in de
man an ’e galge ophange.”

Nou! dat ston alle minsen lang niet an, in die kleine plaatsen. Want
jimme mutte begripe, d’r gebeurt daar niet veul nijs, soo deur ’n
bank; in dan gaf soo’n ophangerij altiid nog ’ris en aardig fersetsje, in
’n mooi fleurig kiikje. Mar wat suden se d’ran doen? Se musten wel
doen soo-’t de regeering it hewwe wude, hee? Mar de Leewarders!
nou, die hadden en boel wille deur die nijigheit; in en hopen foordeel
oek.

De merkedag wudde doe te Leewarden houden op Saterdag, in niet

op Frijdag, soo as nou teugenwoordig. In fan sels, op merkedag
wudde der ophongen, in branmerkt, in giisseld, in te pronk set. Want
sien! merkedag dan waar der altiid en hopen boerefolk in ’e stad, die
daar dan doch weze musten foor har saken, in om te koopen in te
ferkoopen. Mar dan kwammen d’r altiid oek en boel uut nijsgierigheit
om ’t ophangen te sien. In soo had de Leewarder galge it mar drok;
hast alle Saterdags waar d’r ’t ien of ander op ’t skawot te redden. In
daar hadden de Leewarders dan niet allienig de nocht [11]in de wille
fan, mar oek groot foordeel. Fooral de kas’leins in de koekebakkers.
Want en koem koffi met en stuk koek, in en burreltsje—dat waar al ’t
minste dat de lui bruukten. De meesten nammen feul meer achter ’t
fesje. In daar kwam dan nog bij alderlei koopmanskap fan alderlei
guud dat ’t boerefolk noodig had, oek fan goud in sulver in mooie
kleeren foor de froului—dus de Leewarder merkedag wudde mar
deeg fleurig fan dat alles.

Dat gong soo jaren heene, in de Leewarder galge had mar en boel
te doen. In fan sels—soodoende sleet-i oek deeg. Langsamerhand
begon-i al mooi oud te wudden, in te ferfallen. D’r muste noodig in
nije galge komme, soo noodig as eten in ’e mon.

Ja, mar wie must die nije galge betale? Daar kwam it mar op an. De
Leewarders seiden: Alles goed in wel! ’t is ons galge, in as d’r
allienig mar Leewarders an ophongen wudden, dan musten wij him
oek allienig onderhoude; of fernije, as ’t noodig waar. Mar nou al die
kleinsteedsers d’r an ophongen wudde, in al dat butenfolk, nou mutte
die minsen d’r oek mar an betale. It sude wat moois weze! Wij de
galge onderhoude, of en nije galge geve; in die Franeker
klokkedieven in Harlinger tobbedansers, die Dokkumer garnaten,
Sneeker duumkefreters in Bolseter olikoeken, in al die butenminsen,
die suden d’r mar frij anhange!—alles in recht in billikheid! Mar soo
niet!

Hou wat! seiden doe de kleinsteedsers in it boerefolk, hou wat!

Jimme Leewarder Speknekken! jimme hewwe alle wille in oek alle
foordeel fan ’e ophangerij, mar wij krije d’r in ons eigen plaatsen niks
meer fan te sien. ’T is billik in recht dat jimme nou oek de galge
onderhoude, of anders en nije galge make late!

Dat gaf nou fan sels ’n hopen roezje onder ’e lui, in ’n hopen geskriif
in gewriif onder ’e heeren. Want sien, ieder bleef fan sels stiif op siin
stuk staan—dat is ’t oude Friesse gebruuk soo, in daar mut me ien
dan oek an houde—is ’t nou waar of niet?

Nou, de galge waar oek nog niet soo, al sag-i d’r frij wat skunnig uut,
of-i kon nog wel wat dienst doen. In soo bleef dan die saak fan ’n nije
galge fooreerst mar sloeren.

Doe waar daar in die tiid ’n kleermaker te Dokkum, in die [12]man had
’n boos wiif. Benaud boos, kan ’k jimme segge. In op ’n goeie
morgen sloeg die man siin frou dood, met ’t striikiisder in de
parsplanke. ’T waar anders mar en klein, springerig in spichtig
kereltsje, soo as de sniders feulal binne; mar sien, die booze flarde
had de man breinroer maakt. Goed! Hij wudde oppakt, in fonnisd, in
na Leewarden brocht, in ’t trekskip, om daar ophongen te wudden.
De Frijdagsmiddags kwam-i te Leewarden an, in de
Saterdagsmiddags om twaalf uur suud-i ophongen wudde. Eerst
kreeg-i nog siin galgemaal. Want de lui die-’t oudtiids ophongen
wudden, mochten die daags foor ’t laast nog ’ris uutkieze, wat se ete
wuden. In wat se dan begeerden—as ’t niet al te mal waar, dat
kregen se dan oek. Nou—dizze man dan, die koos eindfeugel met
appelsmots; want it waar in ’t najaar. In daar ’n fles wiin bij; want wiin
had de man eigentlik nooit niet goed proefd. In doe-’t-’i dat lekker
oppeuzeld hadde, doe kwam d’r nog ’n domenij ’n half uurke bij him
—och ja, mins!—In daarna brochten se him op ’t skawot.

Doe die man daar soo ston onder ’e galge, in de beulsknecht sette
de ledder al klaar, in de burgemeester met de froedsmannen
stonnen om him heene, doe keek die man ’ris na boven, na de galge
daar-’t-i an hange muste. In doe skudd’-’i ’t hoofd, in doe wudd’-’i
moeielik. Sij froegen him wat of-’t-’i hadde. Och! seid’-i, Heeren fan
’e stad fan Luwarden! 2 dat ik hier ophongen wudde sil, dat is tot
daair an toe. Daair sil ik niks fan segge. Dat hew ik ferdiend; in die
wat ferdient, die mut wat hewwe, segge se bij ons in Dokkum. Dat is
niet anders. Mar—(in doe sag die man al weêr na boven, na de
galge) mar dat ik nou an soo’n skunnige, an soo’n rotterige galge
mut—dat krinkt mij. Ik bin ’n fatsoendelik burgermanskiin fan ’e stad
fan Dokkum, fan ouder tot foorouder. In dat ik nou an soo’n wrak,
onsjog ding bongele sil, daair skiet mij ’t moed fan fol. [13]Waar it nog
’n knappe, krease galge, ik suud d’r niks fan segge. Sien! ik hew miin
leven lang feul fan Luwarden seggen hoord, dat it soo’n mooie stad
is, in sukke mooie groote huzen, in alles like deftig, knap in kreas.
Mar die rotterige galge, die skeint de hele stad. It is suver en skande
foor de hoofdstad fan Friesland. In jimme Luwarders! jimme sille om
die oude galge, nog ’n kwaaide naaim krije bij andere lui. Dit is te
slim, Heeren! fur ’n fatsoendelik burgermanskiin fan Dokkum!”

Mar, ons maat mocht lipe of pipe, in hij mocht hoog springe of leeg
springe, dat holp him allemaal niks. Hij muste d’r an geloove. In gien
twie minuten later, doe bongeld’-i al boven an ’t dwarshout fan ’e
galge.

Nou, doe dat karwei dan ofloopen waar, doe seide de burgemeester
fan Leewarden teugen ’e froedsmannen: „Hur ’ris! die Dokkumer
kleermaker het geliik had. Ik wude d’r niks fan segge, daar die man
bij waar, mar geliik het-i. Ons galge is te min. In d’r mut ferandering
komme; anders houdt heele Friesland ons nog voor de gek. Wij
binne ’t an de eere in an de goede naam fan ons stad ferplicht, om
hierin ferbetering an te brengen. In kan d’r dan gien gloednije galge
op staan, in fredesnaam! dan mutte wij de oude galge mar wat
oplappe in opknappe. Dat kan oek best!”
In soo wudde ’t dan besloten. De stads-timmerbaas hakte de
rotterige steden d’r uut, in-i sette daar nije stukken foor in ’t plak, in-i
bespikerde de galge wat, in-i skoorde ’m wat. In doe ferwde de
ferwer him mooi rood op. In sie daar! de galge waar alheel oplapt in
opknapt, in-i leek wel weer nij.

Ja—mar de Leewarders, omdat se soo skriel waren, dat se gien nije

galge betale wuden, die hewwe daar fan de bijnaam kregen van:

Leewarder Galgelappers

tot ’e dag fan fandaag toe. In se salle him wel houde, soo lang as
Leewarden bestaat, in soo lang as d’r Leewarders binne. In wij wille
hope dat dat nog duzent jaar in langer dure sal!

Na de Leeuwarder S p e k n e k k e n en G a l g e l a p p e r s zijn de
andere Friesche stedelingen aan de beurt. Dat zijn dan de
[14]To b b e d o u n s e r s van Harlingen, de D ú m k e f r e t t e r s van
Sneek, de O a l j e k o e k e n van Bolsward, de G a r n a t e n van
Dokkum, de K l o k k e d i e v e n van Franeker, de B r ij b e k k e n van
Workum, de R i b b e k l i u w e r s van Staveren, de K e a p m a n k e s
van IJlst, en de T j e e u n k e n van Hindeloopen. De burgers van
Slooten zijn eigenlijk geen bijnaam rijk; maar over hen zal verder in
dit opstel nog gesproken worden.

Te Harlingen waren oudtijds vele weverijen, waar eene bijzondere

soort van linnen (later katoenen) stof vervaardigd werd; wit, met
licht-blauwe ruitjes in verschillende teekening. Dit weefsel, deze
kleedingstof had eenen zeer goeden naam in den lande, wegens
hare deugdelijkheid, hare sterkte en haar fraai voorkomen. Ze werd
vooral voor vrouwenschorten of voorschooten gebruikt, en ze was
(en is nog heden, al wordt ze te Harlingen niet meer gemaakt) in
Friesland als Harnser bûnt, Harlinger bont, in andere Nederlandsche
gewesten als Friesch bont bekend. Dit maken van Harlinger bont
geschiedde te Harlingen door wevers en verwers in het klein, bij
wijze van handwerk, in het eigene woonhuis. Dat was lang voor den
tijd van groote stoomfabrieken en van maatschappijen tot uitoefening
van allerlei takken van nijverheid in het groot. Iedere burger, iedere
„baas”, werkte toen op zich zelven en voor zich zelven als vrij man.
Als het linnen garen dan ook blauw geverfd was geworden, moest
het ter dege in frisch water uitgespoeld worden, eer het gebruikt, eer
het geweven werd. Dat uitspoelen geschiedde in groote kuipen, en
de verwer sprong met bloote beenen in die kuip of tobbe, en
bearbeidde het garen, al trappelende met zijne voeten, tot het
spoelwater helder en ongekleurd afliep, en het garen niet meer
afgaf. De Harlinger stoffenverwer stond als ’t ware te dansen in de
tobbe, en dat zonderling en dwaas schijnende werk heeft den
Harlingers in ’t algemeen hunnen spotnaam van Tobbedansers
bezorgd.

Nijverheid, van welken aard ook, is eigenlijk den echten Fries, die
boer of zeeman is, een vreemd bedrijf. Nijverheid heeft dan ook
nooit vasten voet in Friesland kunnen vatten, vooral geen nijverheid
in ’t groot. En die daar dan nog de eene of andere tak van
noodzakelijke nijverheid uitoefende, deed dit in ’t klein, en was in
den regel een vreemdeling, veelal een [15]„Bovenlander”, uit
Westfalen, uit Lippe of uit Hessen. Zulk een vreemdeling was bij
voorbeeld ook Toon Wever, die in de geestige zedeschets van Dr.
Eeltje Halbertsma, in De Reis nei de Jichtmasters zijn rol speelt.
Ook de Harlinger-bontwevers en verwers waren oorspronkelijk
vreemdelingen in Friesland, die hunne kunst, hunne nijverheid uit
Vlaanderen, hun vaderland, waar ze, om geloofs wille, in de 16de en
17de eeuw waren uitgedreven, naar Friesland hadden meêgebracht,
en in hunne nieuwe woonplaats uitoefenden, tot eigen opkomst en
bloei, en almede tot opkomst en bloei van Harlingen. Die verdrevene
Vlaamsche nijverlingen waren Doopsgezinden, en ze stichtten te
Harlingen, te Haarlem, aan de Zaan en elders hunne eigene
kerkelijke gemeenten, wier leden nog tot in het laatst der vorige
eeuw als „Vlamingen”, als „Oude Vlamingen”, als „Vlaamsche
Mennisten” in Friesland en Holland bekend waren, en zich van de
landseigene Mennonieten afgezonderd hielden. Hunne
nakomelingen zijn nog heden ten dage aan hun veelal bijzonder
Vlaamsche namen, en aan andere bijzondere zaken kenbaar.—

De Sneekers heeten D ú m k e f r e t t e r s . Het ligt voor de hand aan

te nemen, dat de Sneekers van ouds bijzondere liefhebbers zijn
geweest van dúmkes, dus gaarne en veelvuldig dúmkes aten, en
alzoo zich dezen spotnaam verwierven. Een bijzonder soort van
klein gebak, van koekjes, hard, droog en zoet, en rijkelijk met halve
amandelen doorspekt (zal ik maar zeggen), in vorm eeniger mate en
in grootte als een mansduim, draagt den naam van dúmkes
(duumkes), verhollandscht tot duimpjes, en ook wel den griezeligen,
alle eetlust benemenden naam van „doodemansfingers”. Die
dúmkes zijn overal in Friesland bekend, en worden er vooral in
kermistijd veelvuldig als snoeperij gegeten. Dus zegt ook Hoatse, de
bloode vrijer uit het aardige liedje van De Boalserter Merke (bij de
Friezen zoo zeer bekend, en zoo gaarne door hen gezongen), als hij
voornemens is van de kermis naar huis toe te gaan:

„Ik koft hwet dúmkes for de bern.”

De Sneeker koekbakkers kunnen anders niet uit tegen die van

Franeker, in het bakken van bijzonder lekkere dúmkes. De Franeker
dúmkes hebben den voorrang bij de Friezen, en [16]genieten zekere
mate van bekendheid, ja van roem. Toch is ook Sneek niet verstoken
van eene eigene lekkernij; de drabbelkoeken van Sneek zijn
vermaard. Ik zie waarlijk geen kans, om dat eigenaardige gebak hier
duidelijk te beschrijven. Die het kennen wil, koope het en ete het. In
blikken bussen gesloten, naar hedendaagsch gebruik, zijn de
Sneeker drabbelkoeken tegenwoordig ook in Holland en andere
Nederlandsche gewesten verkrijgbaar.

Nog eene bijzonderheid; de drabbelkoeken hebben van ouds te

Leeuwarden eenen eigenen naam. De Leeuwarders noemen ze
keugels. Ik versta dezen naam niet, al ben ik Leeuwarder van ouder
tot voorouder. Het Nederlandsche woord kogel is het niet—al zoude
de vorm van den drabbelkoek anders wel aanleiding kunnen geven
tot dezen naam; immers een kogel heet in de Oud-Leeuwarder
spreektaal ’n koegel.

Ook die van Bolsward dragen hunnen spotnaam, die aan eene
lekkernij, aan zeker gebak ontleend is. De Bolswarders heeten
O a l j e k o e k e n , Oliekoeken.

Oliekoeken zijn zeker eene versnapering, die bijzonderlijk bij de

Friezen in ’t algemeen veel gebakken en veel gegeten werd, en nog
wordt, en die bij het Friesche volk zeer in den smaak viel, en nog
valt; ofschoon—heden ook al minder dan vroeger. In vroegere tijden,
veertig en vijftig jaren geleden, waren de Friesche oliekoek- en
wafelkramen op alle kermissen, ook in Holland en andere
Nederlandsche gewesten te vinden. Het bakken van de bruin-
glanzende oliekoeken, op een rookend vuur van turf en hout,
verspreidde zijnen vettigen, scherpen, eigenaardigen walmgeur over
alle kermissen in den lande, en het Friesche famke (meisje), Friesch
sprekende en in Friesche kleeding, dat de oliekoek- of
wafelssmullende gasten in het kraamke bediende, of anders het
gebak aan de huizen der ingezetenen bracht of in de straten
uitventte, was als „Friesch wafelmeisje” alom bekend. Zij vervulde
eene vroolijke, vriendelijke rol in het Oud-Nederlandsche volksleven,
en is in het bekende werk De Nederlanden, Karakterschetsen, enz.
(’s-Gravenhage, Nederl. Maatschappij van Schoone Kunsten, 1862),
in woord en beeld verheerlijkt. [17]

Zulk eene Friesche wafel- en oliekoekenkraam zag ik nog ten jare

1878 te Hamburg, op de Neumarkt, nadat al in de verte de
eigenaardige walm aan het oliekoekbakken verbonden, mijne
reukzenuwen had geprikkeld, en, onbewust, Oud-Vaderlandsche
herinneringen bij mij had opgewekt. En een paar jaren later zag ik er
nog eene te Brussel, op het plein bij de Halsche Poort. Beide keeren
kon ik het niet laten mijnen landsman, die daar oliekoeken zat te
bakken, eens vriendelijk goeden dag te zeggen, en den man en zijne
vrouw, die met een oorijzer getooid was, eens aan te spreken in de
zoete klanken der Friesche moedertaal.

Omstreeks het midden dezer eeuw werden oliekoeken nog te

Leeuwarden op straat uitgevent, vooral des Zondags-avonds, en
meest in de buiten- en achterbuurten der stad. Dan galmde het
geroep „Oliekoeken hie-ie-iet, hiet ende warrem!” op lang gerekten,
weemoedig-zangerigen toon, door de stille straten. De verkooper
had zijne oliekoeken in eenen grooten schotel van grof aardewerk,
dien hij in eene hengselmand aan den arm droeg; en, om zijne waar
hiet ende warrem te houden, had hij een kussen boven op het
deksel van den schotel gelegd. Uit dezen ouden woordvorm ende
(min of meer als inne klinkende), die bij dezen oliekoekenroep nog
steeds voluit werd gesproken, blijkt het dat deze wijze om oliekoeken
uit te venten, al zeer oud, wel minstens twee-honderd jaren oud was.
In de dagelijksche spreektaal der Leeuwarders van deze eeuw werd
ende (inne) nooit meer gezegd.—Ook op de Oude Veemarkt te
Leeuwarden zaten er op marktdag altijd een paar oude wijfkes, bij
den ingang van het marktplein, te oliekoekbakken, ten dienste van
de veedrijvers, die het vette gebak zóó uit de hand opaten, en
hunnen voorraad daarvan soms in hunne petten bewaarden. En des
winters, bij mooi ijs, als schier alle Friezen en Friezinnen tusschen
de zes en de tachtig jaren, op schaatsen waren, zaten er hier en
daar te lande, onder bruggen waar veel volk onder door reed, en bij
de toegangen der waterherbergen, 3 waar veel volk inkeerde, oude
vrouwen te oliekoekbakken, met vuurpot en bakpot in eene oude
theekist, voor den wind. Vooral de vrouw, [18]die onder de brug van
Uultsjestein (aan de Bolswarder trekvaart, halfweg Leeuwarden en
Bolsward) oliekoeken bakte, had veel gunst van Leeuwarder
jongelieden, die reeds bij haar hunnen voorraad oliekoeken
opdeden, waarmede zij de Bolswarders zouden hoonen, zoo als hier
vervolgens zal vermeld worden.

Maar—om op de Bolswarder oliekoeken in het bijzonder terug te

komen—of men nu dit volkseigene gebak oudtijds te Bolsward
bijzonder lekker wist te maken, dan wel of de Bolswarder burgers het
bijzonder gaarne en veelvuldig aten, daarvan melden „’s Lands
Historieblaân” niemendal. Toch heeft iemand verkondigd dat de
bijnaam der Bolswarders (Oliekoeken) wel degelijk eenen
geschiedkundigen oorsprong zoude hebben. Paulus C. Scheltema
vermeldt in zijne Verzameling van Spreekwoorden (Franeker, 1826)
het volgende: „Zoo stamt de naam, waarmede men de Bolswarders
alsnog betitelt, af van den hoofdman over Bolsward, Edo Jongema,
die vreemde gezanten, bij zekere gelegenheid op oliekoeken
onthaalde. Het spreekwoord Bolswarder oliekoeken was reeds
bekend in de vijftiende eeuw.”

Waar of Scheltema dit bericht vandaan had, heeft nog geen

Friesche navorscher ooit kunnen ontdekken; en of hij het misschien
uit den mond des volks heeft opgeteekend, meen ik sterk te mogen
betwijfelen. Immers als zulk eene overlevering, sedert de vijftiende
eeuw, nog in de eerste helft dezer eeuw bij den volke bekend
geweest was, me dunkt dan kon ze in de laatste helft dezer eeuw
moeielijk geheel en al reeds bij het volk vergeten zijn. Toch hebben
anderen en ik nooit ofte nimmer gehoord noch bespeurd, dat het
volk iets wist van deze oliekoeken van Jonker Edo. Trouwens, men
dient Scheltema’s mededeelingen altijd cum grano salis op te
vatten; dit is bij de Friesche geschied- en oudheidkundigen bekend
genoeg.

Een ander weet er weêr wat anders op ter verklaring van den
spotnaam der Bolswarders. Waling Dykstra schrijft daarvan in zijn
werkje In doaze fol âlde Snypsnaren (Frjentsjer, 1882):

„To Bolswert plichte in oaljemounle to wêzen der sokke bêste lyn- en

raepkoeken makke waerden, dat de lju fier en hein der fen ha
woene. Dy neamde men den, om de aerdichheid, Bolswerter
oaljekoeken.” [19]

Maar het volk weet ook niets af van die oliekoeken voor het vee. Het
Friesche volk kent, in betrekking tot de Bolswarders, slechts de
oliekoeken voor de menschen. Om nu de Bolswarders niet openlijk
en luide met dezen spotnaam te noemen, maar toch stilzwijgende
daar mede te plagen, als door een teeken, rijden de jonge lieden uit
andere plaatsen, des winters als er ijs is, wel te Bolsward op de
gracht, die de geheele stad omgeeft, met een oliekoek op de punt
van de schaats gestoken, gespietst. De Bolswarders plegen deze
hoon en smaad, hunner oude en wijdvermaarde stede aangedaan,
bijzonder kwalijk op te vatten. Zij vergelden deze beleediging
gaarne, als ze daar kans toe zien, door de bedrijvers van die, in
hunne oogen zoo gruwelijke wandaad, eens flink af te kloppen.
Menigeen die het stoute stuk waagde te Bolsward op de gracht te
rijden met oliekoeken op de schaatspunten, heeft deze zijne koene
daad moeten boeten met een duchtig pak slagen, dat de verwoede
Bolswarders hem gratis verstrekten, en dat lang niet malsch was,
zoodat er wel blauwe oogen, bebloede koppen en andere
krijgstropheeën bij te pas kwamen. Het gold in mijne jeugd dan ook
nog voor eene schitterende heldendaad, bij de jongelieden van
Leeuwarden, Sneek, Makkum, Harlingen, Franeker en de tusschen
gelegene dorpen, als men te Bolsward de gracht om de stad
rondgereden was, met oliekoeken op de schaatspunten. Want bij
mooi weêr en mooi ijs, als het Friesche jongvolk, in kleine of groote
gezelschappen vereenigd, voor pleizier naar naburige, vaak ook
naar ver verwijderde plaatsen reed, stonden de Bolswarder jongelui
(die anders ook wel uitgereden waren, maar waarvan er altijd
eenigen opzettelijk om in de stad bleven) wel op den uitkijk of ook
een vreemdeling het zoude wagen dien smaad hunner stede toe te
voegen. En wee hem, dien ze betrapten en achterhaalden! Er
behoorde moed toe om het stuk te bestaan, en vlugheid en
behendigheid om de Bolswarder hoonwrekers te ontkomen. Slechts
kloeke, dappere jongelingen, flinke schaatsrijders tevens, waagden
zich daaraan.

Waarlijk, eene eigenaardige, echt Oud-Vaderlandsche soort van

sport, die geen Engelschman den Frieschen jongelingen had
behoeven te leeren! Die de gracht van Bolsward rond gereden had,
de geheele stad om, met oliekoeken op de schaatsen, [20]gevolgd,
maar niet ingehaald noch gegrepen door de wraaksnuivende bende
Bolswarder hoonwrekers, was de held van den winter in ’t geheele
Friesche land.

De Friezen zijn van ouds bekend als liefhebbers van zoetigheid,

vooral van allerlei soorten koek en zoet gebak. Ook wordt in de
Friesche keuken veelvuldiger en meer suiker gebruikt bij de
bereiding der spijzen dan in andere Nederlandsche gewesten
gebruikelijk is, veelvuldiger en meer dan den smaak der andere
Nederlanders behaagt. Trouwens, hoe noordelijker men komt, hoe
meer de smaak voor zoetigheid toeneemt bij ’t eenvoudige, krachtige
en frissche, door de scherpe prikkels der verfijnde Fransche kokerij
niet verwende en bedorvene volk. In Skandinavië staat de suikerpot
bij het middagmaal altijd op tafel, zoo als bij ons het zoutvaatje, de
peperbus, het mosterdpotje, enz. Zelfs strooit men in Zweden wel
suiker over gebakken visch, en voor de Lappen is een mondvol
keukenstroop de grootste lekkernij.

De liefhebberij der Friezen voor zoet gebak blijkt almede uit hunne
hiervoren verklaarde spotnamen D ú m k e f r e t t e r s en
O a l j e k o e k e n , en blijkt ook uit den spotnaam, dien men den
ingezetenen van ’t stedeke IJlst aanhangt. De lieden van IJlst (of van
Drylts, zoo als de Friezen zelven dit plaatske noemen—en die zullen
toch wel best weten hoe het heet—), de lieden van Drylts dan noemt
men K e a p m a n k e s of K e a p m a n t s j e s , K j e p m a n k e s of
K y p m a n k e s ; ik weet waarlijk niet hoe ik dezen naam best
spellen zal. Waling Dykstra zegt van dezen naam, in zijne Doaze
fol alde Snypsnaren: „To Drylts wirdt en soarte fen moppen bakt, dy
kypmantsjes neamd wirde. Dy ’t winters oer iis to Drylts komt, moat
kypmantsjes mei nei hûs nimme.” 4

Ook de ingezetenen van ’t dorp Hallum dragen hunnen spotnaam

naar hunne liefhebberij voor koeketen; zij heeten
K o e k e f r e t t e r s . Over de Amsterdamsche koeketers vindt men
verder in dit opstel nader bescheid. [21]

Niet aan zoetigheid, maar aan eene hartige versnapering danken (of
wijten) de Dokkumers hunnen spotnaam. Zij heeten namelijk
Garnaten.

Garnaet is het Friesche woord, beter gezegd: de Friesche

woordvorm voor het bekende schaaldiertje Crangon vulgaris, dat in ’t
Hollandsch Garnaal heet. De Oud- en Echt-Dietsche, de
oorspronkelijke en volledige naam van den Crangon is Geernaart,
Gernaart of Garnaart—dat is ’t zelfde, met een gering, onwezenlijk
verschil in uitspraak of tongval. De West-Vlamingen, die onder alle
Nederlanders juist het beste de oorspronkelijke, oude woorden en
woordvormen tot op den dag van heden in hunne spreek- en
schrijftaal hebben bewaard, zeggen nog voluit Geernaart, of, bij
afslijting der sluitletter, Geernaar (Zie De Bo, Westvlaamsch
Idioticon, op dat woord). Even als de West-Vlamingen de laatste
letter in dit woord wel veronachtzamen, doen de Friezen dit met de
voorlaatste, met de r. Trouwens, dit is geheel volgens den aard der
Friesche taal, geheel volgens de volkseigene uitspraak der Friezen,
die in al zulke woorden, vooral als de r op eene d of op eene t stuit,
die r zóó flauw uitspreken, dat zij ter nauwer nood of ook in ’t geheel
niet gehoord wordt. De Friezen zeggen dan Garnaet (Garnaat), met
de volle stemzate op de laatste lettergreep, waardoor de eerste
lettergreep zoo onduidelijk wordt, dat het woord in den mond van
geheel ongeletterden en van slordig sprekenden wel als Ge’naat
luidt. Deze woordvorm en uitspraak geldt ook voor andere Friesche
gewesten, voor Groningerland, Oost- en Weser-Friesland, met dit
onderscheid, dat de oostelijk wonende Friezen de a van de laatste
lettergreep niet zuiver, maar op Sassische wijze, sterk naar de o
zweemende, uitspreken. De Hollanders vervallen weêr in eene
andere fout, door hunne eigenaardige uitspraak van dit woord,
waarbij de t aan ’t einde, even als bij de West-Vlamingen, vervalt,
maar tevens de r in eene l overgaat (r en l zijn wisselletters). Zoo is
uit deze bijzonder-Hollandsche tongvalsvorm de hedendaagsche
geijkt-Nederlandsche naam Garnaal ontstaan. De Strand-Hollanders
spreken den zuiveren, onzijdigen aklank van ’t woord garnaal,
volgens hunnen eigenen tongval, al blatende, naar de e
zweemende, als æ uit. Te Haarlem hoort men de Zandvoorders
(visscherlui van het zeedorp Zandvoort) hunne waar op
[22]zangerigen toon uitventen, zoodat het des morgens al vroeg door
de straten der stad galmt: Garn æ æ le-n—ekoakte garn æ æ le!”
Noordelijker nog in Noord-Holland gaat de Strand-Hollandsche æ
klank in de West-Friesche volkomene e over. Men spreekt daar van
Garneel, of, gerekt, Garreneel. Zie Dr. G. J. Boekenoogen, De
Zaansche volkstaal. De Hoogduitschers, op hunne bergen en in
hunne bosschen van geen Geernaarts wetende, hebben voor hunne
boeketaal den Noord-Hollandschen vorm des woord overgenomen,
ofschoon anders de Oost-Friesche vorm hen toch veel nader lag.
Immers den Crangon noemen ze Garnele.

De Dokkumers dan heeten G a r n a t e n . Hoe ze aan dien naam

gekomen zijn, daarvan weet het volksverhaal eene heele
geschiedenis te vertellen, eene geschiedenis die men uitvoerig, en
op geestige wijze naverteld, kan lezen in de Rimen ind Teltsjes fen
de Broarren Halbertsma, het geliefde volksboek als bij
uitnemendheid, van de Friezen. Uit dat werk heb ik die geschiedenis
hier overgenomen en uit het Friesch in het algemeen Nederlandsch
vertaald, waarbij ik echter de Dokkumers, den Groninger en den
Duitscher hunne volkseigene spreektaal heb laten houden.

Het is gebeurd in het jaar 1623, dat een schipper met eene lading
hout uit Noorwegen kwam, en te Ezumazijl 5 binnen liep. Die
schipper had uit aardigheid eenige levende kreeften in eenen korf
meegebracht voor zijnen reeder, die te Leeuwarden woonde. Dien
korf met kreeften droeg hij ’s avonds, toen het al duister was, door
de stad Dokkum, en toen kwam er, bij ongeluk een van die beesten
uit de mand te vallen, juist voor de deur van zekeren vroedsman,
Grada. Des anderen daags, ’s morgens vroeg, toen de dienstmaagd
de straat zoude aanvegen, vond zij dat beest daar liggen. Zij liep
verschrikt het huis weêr in, en riep: „Heere, Froedsman! Kom gau ’ris
foor deur. Heere, wat leit daair ’n raair ding op ’e straaite?”
Vroedsman, met eene roode kamerjapon aan, met de witte
slaapmuts op het hoofd, en met afgezakte kousen, liep terstond naar
buiten. Hij sloeg de handen van verbazing in één, en zei: „Dit is ’n
mirakel! suud dat ok ’n jong weze van die roek, die hier boven in ’e
lynneboom nestelt?” [23]Het duurde niet lang of daar liep al spoedig
een half honderd menschen bijéén, om het schepsel te beschouwen.
Een catechiseermeester, die daar ook voorbij kwam, riep: „Minsken!
minsken! sien it beest dochs niet an; want ik loof dat it de Basiliscus
is, daar men fan in ’e Skrift leest; it kon jimme allegaar it leven
koste.”—” ’t Mocht in skyt, meester!” zeide een turfdrager, die daar
met zijn korf voorbij kwam, „ik hew him al goed in siin freet sien; ’t
stomme beest sal ons niks doen, in die d’r in mingelen bier foor over
het, dan sal ik him daaidlik met de tange in miin korf legge, in
draaige him waair de frinden him hewwe wille.”—„Dat gaait an!” zei
vroedsman. De tang werd gehaald, de kreeft in den korf gelegd, en
toen ging de man eerst naar de brouwerij, om zijn kan bier op te
drinken. Daar van daan recht uit naar den burgemeester, met een
troep straatjongens achteraan. De turfdrager zette den korf in het
voorhuis neêr, en vroedsman ging in de kamer bij burgemeester. Hij
sprak den burgemeester met een erg bedrukt en verschrikt gezicht
aan, en zei: „Goeie morgen, Burgemeister!”—„Goeden morgen,
Froedsman! Jou hier soo froeg al over de floer, man?”—„Ja,
Burgemeister! Wij hewwe hier ’n raair stuk, Burgemeister. Wij hewwe
fan ’e morgén ’n levendig ding op straait fonnen, en gien minske
weet wat ding of it is, of hoe it hiet, Burgemeister. Wij hewwe it
metnomen, Burgemeister: it staait in ’t foorhuus, Burgemeister. Wil
Burgemeister it ok ’ris sien, Burgemeister?”—„Fooral in believen,
Froedsman!” zei die heer; „Jou wete, seldsaamheden bin ik altoos
nieuwsgierig na.” De Burgemeester, die een eerste grappenmaker
was, zag terstond wel dat het een kreeft was, maar hij hield zich nog
dommer als de vroedsman eigenlijk was. Hij sloeg dan de handen
samen en zei: „Froedsman! Froedsman! ik loof dat er ons slimme
dingen over ’t hoofd hange! Soo’n ding staat in gien kronyk
beschreven, in soo lang as de wereld staat is er soo’n ding in
Dokkum niet vertoond. Het is een stuk van te feel belang. Daarom
gefoel ik mij verplicht om nog heden morgen om tien uur den raad te
beleggen, om dan te bepalen, wat of wij met dit monster sullen
aanfangen.—Jou komme dochs ok, Froedsman?”—„Ja wis,
Burgemeister!”
Des morgens om tien ure dan kwamen de Heeren bij elkanderen
[24]in het Raadhuis. De mand met den kreeft er in werd in de
Raadzaal gebracht; ieder van de Heeren zag beurt voor beurt in de
mand, en ging daarna weêr op zijne plaats zitten. Sommigen van de
Heeren waren maar juist dapper genoeg om het onnoozele beest
aan te durven zien. Toen allen weer gezeten waren, zei de
Burgemeester: „Heeren van de Raad van Dokkum! De Heeren
hebben gezien dat er in onze stad een wonderlijk creatuur gefonden
is, en daar men niet weet, welk dier dit is, en fanwaar het gekomen
is, soo heb ik het selve hier gebracht ten einde het advys fan de
Heeren te hooren. Daarom U, froedsman Grada! als de oudste fan
den raad dezer stad, fraag ik het eerst: wat dunkt u fan dit beest?”

„Ikke?” zei vroedsman Grada, „ik bliif bij miin eerste advys, dat it
namentlik ien fan die jonge roeken is, die foor miin deur daair in die
hooge lynneboomen nestele; want waar duvel suud it ding anders
wegkomen weze? ’t Kan ok niet uut ’e straaitstienen kropen weze.”

„Daar ben je mis in, Froedsman!” zei de burgemeester. „Mijn soon

heeft onlangs een nest fol roeken uitgehaald, en die jonge roeken
geleken nergens meer op as op oude roeken. Nu is de beurt aan u,
froedsman Inia!”

„Heeremistiid, Burgemeister! wat weet ik, froedsman Yuje, fan

fremde gediertens. Ik hew wel seggen hoord, dat de kanarjefeugels,
as se jong binne, dat se dan kropen. Suud it ok ’n kanarjefeugel
weze?”

„Zou een jong kanariefogel dan grooter zijn als een oude? Dat
spreekt sich immers selfs tegen,” sprak daarop de burgemeester.

„Dat weet ik niet,” zei vroedsman Inia. „Wij sien alderdegenst, dat
groote minsken klein wudde kinne. Miin grootfader is fan
burgemeister al bierdrager wudden.”