|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE TO THE FIRSTANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S RESPONSE
GENERAL EVALUATION: The Catholic Church gives a warm welcome to the Final Report of ARCIC I and expresses its gratitude to the members of the International Commission responsible for drawing up this document. The Report is a result of an in-depth study of certain questions of faith by partners in dialogue and witnesses to the achievement of points of convergence and even of agreement which many would not have thought possible before the Commission began its work. As such, it constitutes a significant milestone not only in relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion but in the ecumenical movement as a whole. The Catholic Church judges, however, that it is not yet possible to state that
substantial agreement has been reached on all the questions studied by the
Commission. There still remain between Anglicans and Catholics important
differences regarding essential matters of Catholic doctrine. The following Explanatory Note is intended to give a detailed summary of the
areas where differences or ambiguities remain which seriously hinder the
restoration of full communion in faith and in the sacramental life. This Note is
the fruit of a close collaboration between the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is
directly responsible for the dialogue — a dialogue which, as is well known,
continues within the framework of
ARCIC II. It is the Catholic Church's hope that its definitive response to the results
achieved by ARCIC I will serve as an impetus to further study, in the same
fraternal spirit that has characterized this dialogue in the past, of the points
of divergence remaining, as well as of those other questions which must be taken
into account if the unity willed by Christ for His disciples is to be restored.
EXPLANATORY NOTE Before setting forth for further study those areas of the Final Report which do
not satisfy fully certain elements of Catholic doctrine and which thereby
prevent our speaking of the attainment of substantial agreement, it seems only
right and just to mention some other areas in which notable progress has been
achieved by those responsible for the redaction of the Report. The members of
the Commission have obviously given a great deal of time, prayer, and reflection
to the themes which they were asked to study together and they are owed an
expression of gratitude and appreciation for the manner in which they carried
out their mandate. It is in respect of Eucharistic Doctrine that the members of the Commission were
able to achieve the most notable progress toward a consensus. Together they
affirm "that the eucharist is a sacrifice in the sacramental sense, provided
that it is made clear that this is not a repetition of the historical sacrifice"
[(EE 5)]1; and areas of agreement are also evident in respect of the real
presence of Christ: "Before the eucharistic prayer to the question ‘what is it?',
the believer answers ‘it is bread'. After the eucharistic prayer to the same
question he answers: ‘it is truly the body of Christ, the bread of life'" (EE
6). The Catholic Church rejoices that such common affirmations have become
possible. Still, as will be indicated further on, it looks for certain
clarifications which will assure that these affirmations are understood in a way
that conforms to Catholic doctrine. With regard to Ministry and Ordination, the distinction between the priesthood
common to all the baptized and the ordained priesthood is explicitly
acknowledged: "These are two distinct realities which relate each in its own way
to the high priesthood of Christ" (MOE 2). The ordained ministry "is not an
extension of the common Christian priesthood but belongs to another realm of the
gifts of the Spirit" (MO 13). Ordination is described as a "sacramental act" (MO
15) and the ordained ministry as being an essential element of the Church: "The
New Testament shows that the ministerial office played an essential part in the
life of the Church in the first century and we believe that a ministry of this
kind is part of God's design for his people" (MOE 4). Moreover, "it is only the
ordained minister who presides at the eucharist" (MOE 12). These are all matters
of significant consensus and of particular importance for the future development
of Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. On both the Eucharist and the Ordained Ministry, the sacramental understanding
of the Church is affirmed, to the exclusion of any purely ‘congregational'
presentation of Christianity. The members of the Commission are seen as speaking
together out of a continuum of faith and practice which has its roots in the New
Testament and has developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout
Christian history. When it comes to the question of Authority in the Church, it must be noted that
the Final Report makes no claim to substantial agreement. The most that has been
achieved is a certain convergence, which is but a first step along the path that
seeks consensus as a prelude to unity. Yet even in this respect, there are
certain signs of convergence that do indeed open the way to further progress in
the future. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in its
Observations of 1982 on the Final Report: "It is necessary to underline the
importance of the fact that Anglicans recognize that a ‘primacy of the Bishop of
Rome is not contrary to the New Testament, and is a part of God's purpose
regarding the Church's unity and catholicity'" (cfr.
A II; 7). If this is taken
with the statement made by His Grace Archbishop Runcie during his visit to
Pope
John Paul II in 1989 and with reference to infallibility in
A II, n. 29, then
one can rejoice in the fact that centuries of antagonism have given way, to
reasoned dialogue and theological reflection undertaken together. Despite these very consoling areas of agreement or convergence on questions that
are of great importance for the faith of the Catholic Church, it seems clear
that there are still other areas that are essential to Catholic doctrine on
which complete agreement or even at times convergence has eluded the
Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission. In fact, the Report itself acknowledges that there are such matters and this is
particularly true in respect of the Catholic dogma of Papal infallibility, to
which reference has just been made. In the section
Authority in the Church II,
it is stated that "in spite of our agreement over the need for a universal
primacy in a united Church, Anglicans do not accept the guaranteed possession of
such a gift of divine assistance in judgement necessarily attached to the office
of the Bishop of Rome by virtue of which his formal decisions can be known to be
assured before their reception by the faithful" (n. 31). The Final Report recalls the conditions set down for an infallible definition by
the First Vatican Council, but goes on to give a different understanding of this
question on the part of Catholics and Anglicans: "When it is plain that these
conditions have been fulfilled, Roman Catholics conclude that the judgement is
preserved from error and the proposition true. If the proposition proposed for
assent were not manifestly a legitimate interpretation of biblical faith and in
line with orthodox tradition, Anglicans would think it a duty to reserve the
reception of the definition for study and discussion" (n. 29). Similarly, the Commission has not been able to record any real consensus on the Marian dogmas. For while A II 30 indicates that "Catholics and Anglicans can agree in much that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are designed to affirm", under the same heading it is stated: "The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture. For many Anglicans the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome, independent of a Council, is not recommended by the fact that through it these Marian doctrines were proclaimed as dogmas binding on all the faithful. Anglicans would also ask whether, in any future union between our two Churches, they would be required to subscribe to such dogmatic statements". This statement and several others in the Final Report illustrate the need for
much further study to be done in respect of the petrine ministry in the Church.
The following quotations from the Final Report, while reflecting the more
positive approach of Anglicans in recent times in this connection, also
illustrate the reservations that still exist on the part of the Anglican
community: — "Much Anglican objection has been directed against the manner of the exercise
and particular claims of the Roman primacy rather than against universal primacy
as such" (AE 8); Dealing with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils (AE 3),
ARCIC I describes
the scope of doctrinal definitions by the Councils as being concerned with "fundamental
doctrines" or "central truths of salvation". The Catholic Church believes that
the Councils or the Pope, even acting alone, are able to teach, if necessary in
a definitive way, within the range of all truth revealed by God. A further point of difficulty emerges in the position taken regarding the
relationship of the ecclesial character of a Christian community and its
incorporation into Catholic communion through union with the See of Rome. With
references to
Lumen gentium 8 and
Unitatis redintegratio 13, which are not fully
accurate, the Report states: "The Second Vatican Council allows it to be said
that a church out of communion with the Roman See may lack nothing from the
viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church except that it does not belong to the
visible manifestation of full Christian communion which is maintained in the
Roman Catholic Church" (A II 12). It is the teaching of the Second Vatican
Council that a church outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff lacks more
than just the visible manifestation of unity with the Church of Christ which
subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. The manner in which
ARCIC I writes in respect of the role of Peter among the
twelve — ‘special position' (A II 3), ‘a position of special importance' (A II
5) — does not express the fullness of the Catholic faith in this regard. The
dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council declares that the primacy of
the Bishop of Rome belongs to the divine structure of the Church; the Bishop of
Rome inherits the primacy from Peter who received it "immediately and directly"
from Christ (DS 3055; cfr.
Lumen gentium
22). From a Catholic viewpoint, it is
not possible then to accept the interpretation given in
Authority in the Church II
concerning the Jus divinum of the First Vatican Council, namely that it "need
not to be taken to imply the universal primacy as a permanent institution was
directly founded by Jesus during his life on earth" (n. 11). The Catholic Church
sees rather in the primacy of the successors of Peter something positively
intended by God and deriving from the will and institution of Jesus Christ. As is obvious, despite considerable convergence in this regard, full agreement
on the nature and the significance of the Roman primacy has not been reached. As
Pope John Paul II pointed out during his visit to the World Council of Churches
on June 12, 1984, the petrine ministry must be discussed "in all frankness and
friendship", because of the importance of this from the Catholic point of view
and the difficulty that it poses for other Christians. It is clear, as already affirmed, that on the questions of Eucharist and the
Ordained Ministry, greater progress has been made. There are, however, certain
statements and formulations in respect of these doctrines that would need
greater clarification from the Catholic point of view. — that in the Eucharist, the Church, doing what Christ commanded His Apostles to
do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary. This would
complete, without contradicting it, the statement made in the Final Report,
affirming that the Eucharist does not repeat the sacrifice of Christ, nor add to
it (E 5;
EE5); — that the sacrifice of Christ is made present with all its effects, thus
affirming the propitiatory nature of the eucharistic sacrifice, which can be
applied also to the deceased. For Catholics "the whole Church" must include the
dead. The prayer for the dead is to be found in all the Canons of the Mass, and
the propitiatory character of the Mass as the sacrifice of Christ that may be
offered for the living and the dead, including a particular dead person, is part
of the Catholic faith. The affirmations that the Eucharist is "the Lord's real gift of himself to his
Church" (E
8) and that the bread and wine "become" the body and blood of Christ
(EE
6) can certainly be interpreted in conformity with Catholic faith. They are
insufficient, however, to remove all ambiguity regarding the mode of the real
presence which is due to a substantial change in the elements. The Catholic
Church holds that Christ in the Eucharist makes himself present sacramentally
and substantially when under the species of bread and wine these earthly
realities are changed into the reality of his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. On the question of the reservation of the Eucharist, the statement that there
are those who "find any kind of adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament
unacceptable" (EE
9), creates concern from the Roman Catholic point of view.
This section of
Eucharistic Doctrine: Elucidations, seeks to allay any such
doubts, but one remains with the conviction that this is an area in which real
consensus between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is lacking. Similarly, in respect of the Ordained Ministry, the Final Report would be helped
if the following were made clearer: -that only a
validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings
into being the sacrament of the Eucharist. He not only recites the narrative of
the institution of the Last Supper, pronouncing the words of consecration and
imploring the Father to send the Holy Spirit to effect through them the
transformation of the gifts, but in so doing offers sacramentally the redemptive
sacrifice of Christ; -that it was
Christ himself who instituted the sacrament of Orders as the rite which confers
the priesthood of the New Covenant. This would complete the significant
statement made in
Ministry and Ordination 13, that in the Eucharist the ordained
minister "is seen to stand in sacramental relation to what Christ himself did in
offering his own sacrifice". This clarification would seem all the more
important in view of the fact that the ARCIC document does not refer to the
character of priestly ordination which implies a configuration to the priesthood
of Christ. The character of priestly ordination is central to the Catholic
understanding of the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the
common priesthood of the baptized. It is moreover important for the recognition
of Holy Orders as a sacrament instituted by Christ, and not therefore a simple
ecclesiastical institution. The question of Apostolic Succession is not dealt with directly in the Final
Report of
ARCIC I, but it is referred to in
Ministry and Ordination
16, and in
Ministry and Ordination: Elucidation
4. The essential features of "what is meant
in our two traditions by ordination in the apostolic succession" are set down in
MO 16 and the statement is made that "because they (the ordaining bishops) are
entrusted with the oversight of other churches, this participation in his
ordination signifies that this new bishop and his church are within the
communion of churches. Moreover, because they are representatives of their
churches in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles and are members
of the episcopal college, their participation also ensures the historical
continuity of this church with the apostolic church and its bishop with the
original apostolic ministry". These statements stand in need of further
clarification from the Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church recognizes in
the apostolic succession both an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from
Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today
and an uninterrupted continuity in Christian doctrine from Christ to those today
who teach in union with the College of Bishops and its head, the Successor of
Peter. As
Lumen gentium 20 affirms, the unbroken lines of episcopal succession
and apostolic teaching stand in causal relationship to each other: "Among those
various ministries which, as tradition witnesses, were exercised in the Church
from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who,
appointed to the episcopate in a sequence running back to the beginning, are the
ones who pass on the apostolic seed. Thus, as Saint Irenaeus testifies, through
those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors
down to our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved
throughout the world." This question, then, lies at the very heart of the
ecumenical discussion and touches vitally all the themes dealt with by
ARCIC I:
the reality of the Eucharist, the sacramentality of the ministerial priesthood,
the nature of the Roman primacy. A final word seems necessary in relation to the attitude of the Final Report to
the interpretation of Scripture in so far as the role of Tradition is concerned.
It is true that this subject was not treated specifically by the Commission, yet
there are statements made which cannot be allowed to pass without comment in
this reply. As is well known, the Catholic doctrine affirms that the
historical-critical method is not sufficient for the interpretation of Scripture.
Such interpretation cannot be separated from the living Tradition of the Church
which receives the message of Scripture. The Final Report seems to ignore this
when dealing with the interpretation of the petrine texts of the New Testament,
for it states that they "do not offer sufficient basis" on which to establish
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In the same way, the Final Report introduces
with reference to the infallible judgements of the Bishop of Rome the need for
such decisions to be "manifestly a legitimate interpretation of biblical faith
and in line with orthodox tradition" (A II 29). Certainly, there is need, then,
for further study concerning Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium and their
interrelationship since, according to Catholic teaching, Christ has given to his
Church full authority to continue, with the uninterrupted and efficacious
assistance of the Holy Spirit, "to preserve this word of God faithfully, explain
it and make it more widely known" (Dei Verbum 9-10). The quite remarkable progress that has been made in respect of Authority in the
Church indicates just how essential this question is for the future of the Roman
Catholic-Anglican dialogue. The value of any consensus reached in regard to
other matters will to a large extent depend on the authority of the body which
eventually endorses them. The objection may be made that this reply does not
sufficiently follow the ecumenical method, by which agreement is sought step by
step, rather than in full agreement at the first attempt. It must, however, be
remembered that the Roman Catholic Church was asked to give a clear answer to
the question: are the agreements contained in this Report consonant with the
faith of the Catholic Church? What was asked for was not a simple evaluation of
an ecumenical study, but an official response as to the identity of the various
statements with the faith of the Church. It is sincerely hoped that this reply will contribute to the continued dialogue
between Anglicans and Catholics in the spirit of the
Common Declaration made
between Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Robert Runcie during the visit of the
latter to Rome in 1989. There it is stated: "We here solemnly recommit ourselves
and those we represent to the restoration of visible unity and full ecclesial
communion in the confidence that to seek anything else would be to betray Our
Lord's intention for the unity of his people".
|
|
 |
