I.
Ecumenism in a changing situation
The following report on the activities of the Pontifical Council during the
three years since the last Plenary limits itself to a short period. Nevertheless,
as we hold our first Plenary in the new Millennium, this report cannot avoid
facing the much larger question: Where are we ecumenically at the beginning of
the new Millennium? What have we achieved in the last 35 years since the
Catholic Church officially entered the ecumenical movement with the Second
Vatican Council? What have been the positive outcomes? What are the
new problems and new challenges that we face? My reflections on these
issues have been deliberately placed under the heading: “Ecumenism in a
changing situation”.
I will and can not enter into all the details of the 13 different dialogues
being carried out at the present time, and into all the many other activities of
our Council. You have the detailed reports before you; you are invited to
present questions during the general discussion for any further information or
clarification. At this point I want to highlight some general elements of
the present situation and to reflect on the changes that seem to me to be
characteristic. I want to put forward the thesis that a new ecumenical
situation is emerging.
In a certain sense we can speak of a crisis. But the term ‘crisis’ is not to
be understood one-sidedly, in the negative sense of a break-down or collapse of
what has been built up in the last decades - and that is not negligible. Here
the term ‘crisis’ is meant in the original sense of the Greek term, meaning
a situation where things are hanging in the balance, where they are on a
knife-edge; indeed, this state can either be positive or negative. Both
are possible. A crisis situation is a situation in which old ways come to
an end but room for new possibilities open. A crisis situation therefore
presents itself as a challenge and a time for decision.
If we look back over the last three years, and especially at the Jubilee Year
2000, it is clear that there is no one-sided form of crisis. In 1999 in
Augsburg we not only signed but celebrated the signing of the “Joint
Declaration on Justification” with the Lutheran World Federation.
As Pope John Paul II expressed, this was a real milestone: on the one hand, it
was the result of many ecumenical dialogues on the international and national
levels during the preceding years; on the other hand, however, we had
reached only a differentiated consensus, and are still far from the goal we are
seeking. But even so, the event was seen by many Christians as offering the
world a sign of hope. They rejoiced that centuries-old polemics and
differences which had divided the churches over a central and fundamental point
of her message could be overcome through serious ecumenical dialogue.
During the Jubilee Year we had the joy of celebrating some important prophetic
ecumenical events, as delineated by the Pope “Novo Millennio inenunte”
(2001) (No. 48): The opening of the Holy Door in St Paul's Outside the
Walls; the Day of Pardon on the first Sunday in Lent; and the commemoration of
the new martyrs (or, better, witnesses) of the 20th century at the Colosseum. At
the first and the last of these three events more ecumenical delegates were
present then during the Second Vatican Council. All of the delegates were
deeply moved. For was it not moving that at the beginning of the new
Millennium the Bishop of Rome, as the first of all the bishops, together and
united with the representatives of the churches and ecclesial communities of the
East, the delegate of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the representative of the
churches and ecclesial communities of the West, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
entering the Basilica of St Paul , took some steps together, albeit not many,
and that towards the end of the solemn liturgy all the bishops and leaders of
the separated churches and ecclesial communities shared the sign of peace with
the bishop of Rome? Even more moving for me was the celebration of the witnesses
of the 20th century which, more than any previous century, had been the century
of martyrs in all the churches and in all ecclesial communities. The
commemoration of this common heritage of martyrdom is a source of hope, because “sanguis
martyrum semen christianorum” (Tertullian) and semen christianorum
unitatis as well.
We recall in this context all the visits of the Holy Father: to Egypt and Mount
Sinai; to the Holy Land; before that to Rumania, then to Greece, Syria, the
Ukraine and Armenia. These visits were very important from the ecumenical
point of view and are, as are the letters that the Holy Father exchanges
regularly with the heads of other churches, much more than an expression of
diplomacy and courtesy. They have a deeper ecclesial meaning. For just
as in the tradition of the church of the first centuries they are expressions of
church communion which today is already real and deep even if still incomplete. As
such they were the result, the fruit and the summary of 35 years of ecumenical
work.
All this shows very clearly the positive new ecumenical situation, and is proof
of what has grown during the last decades. Besides all the precious individual
results of the dialogues these events demonstrate an essential historical shift
and a new historical situation. Pope John Paul II in his ecumenical Encyclical “Ut
unum sint” (1995) describes and appreciates the fruits of the dialogues as
“brotherhood rediscovered” (No. 41). Christians of the different
churches and ecclesial communities are no longer enemies or indifferent
neighbours; they meet as brothers, as sisters and as friends; they are
on the same common way, on the same pilgrimage towards full communion.
We cannot and will not go back behind this rich ecumenical heritage. We
must build on it. Nevertheless we would be blind if we did not see that
there is a new situation emerging that is not only the continuation of the last
35 years. The Jubilee Year celebrated these fruits but at the same time
highlighted that, in different ways at the beginning of the new Millennium, we
face a new situation which can be called a crisis situation in the dual sense of
the term.
Let us first take a quick glance at some of the dialogues and then make some
general observations. Firstly, the dialogue with the Oriental and the
Orthodox Churches. Theologically they are nearest to us. Since 1980 we
have achieved good and profound results in the dialogue. The exchange of
delegates between Rome and Constantinople for respective feast days, and the
visits to Moscow, Bucharest and many other centres prove that the new spirit
exists despite all the problems which have arisen, especially with the
Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, in reference to the situation in
the Western Ukraine. But although these churches are theologically very
close to us, they are extremely remote both mentally and culturally, much more
so than the Protestant ecclesial communities. This often creates suspicion
and misunderstandings and makes the dialogue sometimes difficult and emotional.
The tensions evident on the universal level correspond to tensions among these
churches themselves. Today they find themselves in a new situation. For the
first time in their long history, most of them are free - free from the
Byzantine emperors, from the Ottoman rulers, from the tsar, from communist
oppression and persecution. Thus the Orthodox world today is confronted by
a new situation, and the churches need time to find their direction and to
define their identity. This requires time and patience on our side. But it
also creates fear and tensions among the churches, and fosters the temptation to
close in upon themselves. Moreover, during the time of persecution many of their
members fled to the West. Now these churches are no longer only Eastern churches
but have a large diaspora in Europe, America and Australia, and therefore within
the pluralistic Western culture. This is also a new situation that, up to
now, has not yet found a satisfactory solution. The problem and the
accusation of proselytism and and so-called ‘uniatism’ is to some degree a
projection of fear and a form of self-protection.
However, the demand of the Orthodox churches to discuss and solve first the
problem of ‘uniatism’ before continuing with the agreed agenda of the
dialogue has led to a dead end. How can we solve these problems without speaking
about the Petrine ministry which is the very rationale of the existence of the
Catholic Oriental churches? After the sad experiences at the last Plenary of the
Joint International Theological Commission in Emmitsburg/Baltimore, I do
not see how we can continue with the dialogue on this level. Thanks to God,
good relations continue with single Patriarchates and on the regional level, the
level of bishops’ conferences, of dioceses, monasteries, of many personal
contacts and of institutions like Church in Need, Renovabis and others.
The dialogue with the Anglican Communion (ARCIC) has also produced good
and valuable documents, especially the last one on “The Gift of
Authority” (1998). Enormous progress has been made, not least
regarding the question of the Petrine ministry. The climate and atmosphere
on the theological level and on the hierarchical level are excellent. In
contrast to the Orthodox churches, one feels that we come from the same Latin
tradition and live in the same Western world. One could think that unity
must be possible very soon. But as we saw in Toronto last year during a
meeting with all the Anglican Primates - a meeting held in an exceptionally
fraternal atmosphere - there is in both churches a lack of reception of our
common documents. There are strong tensions within the Anglican Communion,
and one may even ask whether these dialogue documents are representative of the
whole or even of the majority of Anglicans. In particular, the introduction
of women's ordination to the priesthood and, in some Anglican provinces, also to
the episcopacy presents a new, difficult obstacle and remains an unresolved
problem within the Anglican Communion itself. But here at least the
structures and the spirit of dialogue are still intact so that we can hope and
go ahead. And we will do so.
The situation with the Lutheran World Federation is similar. Three
have been good results and excellent personal relations. No doubt, the “Joint
Declaration on Justification” was an important step forwards and a
breakthrough about which we can and must rejoice. This Declaration brought
a new dimension and a new intensity to our mutual relations which are rather
different from the relations with other ecclesial communities that issued from
the Reformation. Nonetheless, there were different expectations about the
consequences of the differentiated agreement on justification which, afterwards,
sometimes led to disappointment and frustration. Many Lutherans thought,
even though we had denied it clearly from the very beginning, that Eucharistic
sharing or at least Eucharistic hospitality should be the consequence of this
agreement. Moreover, it is the ecclesiological problems that now arise for us:
the problem of the ministries in the church, especially the episcopate and the
apostolic succession. In this regard, it was my impression at the last
session of the International Dialogue Commission in Denmark two months ago that,
despite the warm atmosphere, hardly any progress has been made on these
ecclesiological problems.
In this context, we might also bear in mind that there are also unresolved
problems between the different Lutheran churches: the Porvoo churches in
Scandinavia which have the intention of introducing the historical episcopacy,
and a similar intention in the US; there are the Leuenberg churches on the
European continent, with tendencies towards a new United Church including the
Reformed churches under the common umbrella of the EKD in Germany, etc. It
is my impression that we still have a long intermediate period to face with
these communities. And this is even more so for the other ecclesial
communities of the Reformation.
I will not discuss in this frame of reference the dialogues with the other
ecclesial communities (Reformed, Methodists, Mennonites, etc.) and the
new dialogues that we are starting, for example with the Seventh Day
Adventists, even though many positive results could be reported. I finally
only want to mention the dialogues with the new communities, the Evangelical
and Pentecostal communities. They best represent the new situation. These
communities are growing very fast whilst the traditional Protestant churches
world-wide are shrinking. In ethical questions they are often nearer to us
than to the historical Protestant churches and to the WCC. Often they are
committed Christians who take seriously the Biblical message, the Godhead of
Jesus Christ and the commandments of God. With some of them we have good
dialogues and firm friendships, or at least positive and promising contacts. To
be sure, in terms of ecclesiological questions they are distant from us. So
necessarily these dialogues have a quite different character than those with the
Orthodox. Their goal is not the unity of the church but the overcoming of
misunderstandings, better mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation where
that is possible. The dialogues can have a maieutic function and help these
communities to question and to clarify their own identity and raise questions
that they had not hitherto discerned. So the ecumenical scene is also
changing very much in this respect.
The new communities mentioned here should be distinguished from the older and
newer sects and from the many new “mushroom churches” in Latin America,
Africa and Asia. They too are part of the new scene. But because of
their fundamentalist, often very aggressive, proselytising and syncretistic
attitudes and practices they can hardly be partners in the ecumenical dialogue. However,
those communities that are open to ecumenical dialogue present a real challenge,
enabling us to stand together and give common witness to Christian brotherhood
despite all the differences and problems that still exist.
The new situation affects also the situation of the WCC and our relations with
it. Cooperation in the “Faith and Order” Commission is good, and
in the “Joint Working Group” the participation is effective,
collaborative and friendly. But the WCC is also in crisis. The Oriental and Orthodox churches do not feel really at home and are threatening to
leave unless substantial changes are made in matters of procedure and in issues
pertaining to the agenda. Many new communities do not want to join the WCC
because of what they perceive to be its liberal positions. This has led to
debate about the creation of a Forum which would include all ecclesial
communities and groups - whatever form this will eventually take. Within
the WCC we can see a diminishing interest in classical theological discussions
and often a paradigmatic shift towards a so-called secular ecumenism with the
emphasis on common witness in questions of justice and peace, sometimes also
with pressure groups in favour of gender questions, etc. On the basis of
our past relationship, the Pontifical Council is determined to continue in its
loyal and friendly albeit sometimes critically constructive cooperation that is
appreciated by our partners as well.
This presentation is only a superficial report of some aspects, and is by no
means complete, and at some points necessarily generalised. I will not
insist on every word. What I wanted to say is only an introduction to a
definition of the elements of the merging and changing new situation that we
should discuss afterwards.
1. A first element of a changing or, better, of an already changed situation is
the simple distance of 35 years from the Second Vatican Council and its Decree
on Ecumenism that declared the restoration of the unity among Christians to be
one of its principal concerns (Unitatis
redintegratio, 1). To some degree
the crisis of the ecumenical movement is paradoxically the result of its
success. Ecumenism for many became obvious. But the closer we come to
one another, the more painful is the perception that we are not yet in full
communion. We are hurt by what still separates us and hinders us from
joining around the table of the Lord; we are increasingly dissatisfied with the
ecumenical status quo; in this atmosphere, ecumenical frustration and sometimes
even opposition develops. Paradoxically it is the same ecumenical progress
that is also the cause for the ecumenical malaise.
There is also a second aspect to the distance in time. For my generation
the Second Vatican Council and its decision in favour of the ecumenical movement
was a great and to some extent a new experience. In the meantime we have a
new generation of Catholic people and young priests who “knew not Joseph”; they
were not yet born at the time of the Council, so they do not really understand
what, how and why things have changed. They do not understand our
theological problems and they are not bothered by them. So the ecumenical
questions have lost their fascination. This is very often connected with a lack
of catechetical and homiletic instruction. Many do not know what Catholic
or Protestant doctrine is all about and what the differences are. Often
they have only a superficial and patchy knowledge through the mass media.
In this situation we are faced with a double task and challenge. Firstly,
we have to promote ecumenical education and the reception of ecumenical results. The
results of ecumenical progress have not yet penetrated into the hearts and into
the flesh of our church and of the other churches as well. Ecumenical
theology is not present as an inner dimension in theological programmes. Often
TV determines the reception whilst, as the German debates after the Joint
Declaration showed, even serious theologians believe: ecumenical non leguntur.
Secondly, we must clarify and renew the ecumenical vision; we need a new
ecumenical push and verve. We are in danger of losing a whole generation
of young people if we do not give them a vision. This means catechetical,
homiletic, theological endeavour, burteven more a spiritual renewal and a new
start.
2. A second element in our situation is the new emphasis on identity. The
search for openness and dialogue under a more secular aspect can be seen as a
part, an aspect or a form of globalisation. This tendency in the meantime
is challenged by a new search for cultural, national, ethnic, confessional and
also personal identity. The new question is: Who are we? Who am I? How can
we, how can I avoid being absorbed in a faceless, bigger whole?
The question is obvious in the Orthodox world but is also found in some Lutheran
reactions to the Joint Declaration, and in some Roman Catholic circles as well. In
extreme forms the question is alive in fundamentalist movements that are to some
degree a reaction to post-modern pluralism. The identity question is a form
of self-affirmation and often an expression of the fear of losing oneself. Thus,
ecumenism is often accused of or, better, is misunderstood as abolishing
confessional identity and leading to an arbitrary pluralism, to indifference,
relativism and syncretism. Ecumenism has often become a negative term.
Surely the question of identity as such is legitimate and even essential; as
such, genuine dialogue is possible only with persons who have established their
proper identity. But the question can also obstruct and confine. The
task will be to reach an open identity because identity is a relational
reality: I have my identity only in relation with others, and in sharing with
others. In this sense the concept of ecumenism must be clarified. In this
context we should see the problem and the advantage of "Dominus
Jesus" that stressed the identity question. We must make it clear
that serious ecumenism is different from confessional indifference and
relativism that tends to meet on the lowest common denominator. Ecumenism
must be understood as the open and shared Catholic identity, as a genuine
expression but also the significance of Catholicity in the profound sense of the
term.
3. A third element is the inner differentiation within the great
confessional world families. The Pontifical Council decided right at the
beginning of the ecumenical movement to engage in dialogues with all the
Orthodox churches together, with the World Federations of the Protestant
churches (LWF, WARC, etc.) and with the WCC and its sub-units like the “Faith
and Order” Commission. This was a reasonable decision even though these
Federations and Associations clearly do not constitute individual churches;
indeed, it would have been impossible, for example, to enter into dialogues with
the different ‘Landeskirchen’ (Evangelical Lutheran churches).
This perspective leads to a consideration of the increasing awareness of the
fact that the Orthodox church does not really exist. There are
autocephalous Orthodox churches which are often jealous of their independence
and live in tension with their own sister churches. Constantinople at this
moment seems no longer to be able to integrate the different autocephalous
Orthodox churches, and its primacy of honour is questioned especially by Moscow. With
Moscow, the dialogue on the universal level at this moment is very difficult.
The situation is improving with Greece, while in the Middle East, in the
territory of the ancient See of Antioch, we have a completely different
situation, one in which almost full communion already exists.
We have already mentioned the tensions within the Lutheran world about church
ministries, and the tensions within the Anglican Communion. Besides these
tensions about institutional questions there are tensions about ethical
questions like abortion, homosexuality, bio-ethics, and questions of political
ethics like peace and justice in the world, etc.
These are only some examples, but examples which raise the question of whether
we will have in the future a two-speed - or even a many-speed ecumenism. This
seems to be likely but it is not without dangers and not without new problems. We
must avoid giving the impression of a “divide et impera”. It would be
bad ecumenism to create new divisions within other churches or confessional
families, or to aim at a new form of uniatism. Therefore a two-speed ecumenism
is a very delicate thing that needs to be handled with great discretion. But
in the given situation there is no realistic alternative. The
implementation of this concept needs an ecumenical responsibility that is
balanced between the universal church and the local churches. The local
churches must assume their responsibility, they cannot expect everything from
the centre. Our Plenary should issue an encouragement in this direction.
4. A fourth and last point: In his Apostolic Letter “Tertio
millennio adveniente” (1994) the Pope had expressed the hope that by the
year of the Jubilee we would have reached full communion with the Orthodox
churches, or at least have come close to it (No. 34). After the Jubilee in “Novo
millennio ineunte” he was much more cautious, expressing the view that
there is still a long way to go (Nos. 12; 48). This seems to me to be very
realistic. The time for an enthusiastic ecumenism that was characteristic
of the period immediately following the Council has gone.
The consequences are sometimes disappointment and even scepticism, often also
harsh criticism of the official church (“Amtskirche”), attitudes and acts of
protest or of a wild ecumenism that disregards the official rules drawn up for
instance in the
Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on
Ecumenism. This wild ecumenism is counter-productive because, instead
of more communion it creates new divisions. I personally prefer to speak of
a new realistic approach and of a maturing and adult ecumenism that has gone
beyond the enthusiasm of youth but also the loutish behaviour of adolescence and
has become mature and realistic.
This means that we have to envisage a longer period during which we will
continue living in the present situation of an already existing and profound
communion, but which is still not a full communion. It means a situation in
which we have left behind the old hostility and indifference and where we have
rediscovered the brotherhood of all Christians. This seems to me to be the
most important result of the last decades of ecumenism. But we must remain
realistic and not make blueprints of abstract models of unity that sooner or
later lead only to new disappointments. So now the question arises of how
to give life and structure to our situation that will probably last longer than
we thought before. How can we live, and how can we shape this intermediate
situation? We shall come back to this point further on.
II.
The Catholic Concept of Communio as the Ecumenical Vision
1. We start with a surprising discovery. Although all dialogues of the last 35
years have never been held according to a pre-conceived plan, it is all the
more astonishing that they converge in a surprising way. All the dialogues
converge in the fact that they revolve around the concept of communio as
their key concept. All dialogues define the visible unity of all Christians as communio-unity,
and agree in understanding it, in analogy with the original Trinitarian model,
not as uniformity but as unity in diversity and diversity in unity. This
convergence in the concept of communio corresponds to the vision of the
Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 1985 stated
that the communio-ecclesiology is the “central and basic idea of the
Council documents”.
2. As we have already seen, the present situation is complex and many-layered.
The dialogue documents show convergence about the concept of communio
but, on closer inspection, different understandings are hidden behind the term.
The common concept of communio has different meanings and thus calls
forth different expectations and projected goals. This necessarily leads to
misunderstandings on one's own part and that of the partners. Convergence about
one and the same concept, however, is also - apart from other factors - the
cause for confusion. The differences in understanding reflect different
ecclesiologies of the various churches and ecclesial communities. But often the
theological understanding of communio is also replaced or overlaid by an
anthropological or sociological understanding. The secularised use of the word communio
leads to a secular understanding of an ecumenism which is characterised by
non-theological, general social criteria and plausibilities.
In its secularised meaning, communio is understood in a “horizontal”
way as a community of people resulting from the individuals’ desire for
community. Communio in this sense is the result of an association of
partners who are in principle free and equal. Such an understandings applied to
the church describes the church “from below”; that is, the ‘base’ church
against the ‘established’ church and its official ecumenism. But communio
can be also understood in the sense of neo-Romanticism as a naturally grown,
personal community based on primary personal relations; this understanding
involves personal nearness and warmth in a familiar and friendly atmosphere.
This results in a brotherly-sisterly understanding of the church, a model which
has been frequently attempted in monastic communities and fraternities, as well
as in some Free Churches and pietistic communities. Nowadays it is often
practised in small groups, in base communities and especially in the more
recent spiritual communities. However, if this model of a fraternal ecclesiology
is applied to the church as a whole, it can lead to a “cuddle-corner
ecclesiology” which chafes against the institutional reality of a large church
instead of attempting to establish a constructive relation with it.
On the other hand, a one-sided institutional understanding of communio
can also lead to misunderstandings. It often leads to a misleading understanding
of the church as a communio hierarchica, in the sense in which this term
was usually understood in pre-Conciliar theology: church as societas perfecta
inaequalis or inaequalium. The Council tried to overcome such a
one-sidedly hierarchical understanding, and re-emphasised the biblical and early
church doctrine of the priesthood of all the baptised, as well as the doctrine
of the sensus and consensus fidelium which derives from it. This
does not lead to a democratic understanding but to a participative concept of communio with
graduated rights of co-operation.
The church therefore is neither a democracy nor a monarchy, not even a
constitutional monarchy. She is hierarchical in the original sense of the word,
meaning “holy origin”; that is, she has to be understood on the basis of
what is holy, by the gifts of salvation, by Word and Sacrament as signs and
means of the Holy Spirit’s effectiveness. This brings us to the original and
authentic theological understanding of communio as the Catholic vision of
unity.
3. The Greek word for communio, “koinonia”, in its original
sense does not mean community but participation (participatio). The verb “koinoneo” means
“to share, to participate, to have something in common”. This is part of the
overall message of the Bible, that God gathers his people and that he will bring
all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, Jesus Christ (Eph
1:10).
According to the Acts of the Apostles the early church in Jerusalem constituted
a koinonia in the breaking of the bread and in prayer (Ac 2:42);
they held everything in common (Ac 2:44; 4:23). According to Paul we have
koinonia with Jesus Christ (1 Co 1:9), with the Gospel (Phm 1:5), in
the Holy Spirit (2 Co 13:13), in the faith (Phm 6), of suffering
and comfort (2 Co 1: 5,7; Phm 3:10). The first and second letters
of Peter speak of the koinonia of the glory to come (1 P 5:1) and
of the divine nature (2 P 1:4); the first letter of John mentions koinonia
with the Father and the Son and consequently among us (1 Jn 1:3). Basis
and measure of this communion is the unity of Father and Son (Jn 17:21-23).
The sacramental basis of this communio is the one Baptism through which
we are baptised in the one body of Christ (1 Co 12:12f; cf. Rm
12:4 f; Ep 4:3f) and therefore through baptism we are one in Christ (Ga 3:26-28). The
summit of communion is the Eucharistic celebration. So in the history of
theology, the most important text was to become 1 Co 10:16f: “Is not
the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of
Christ? And is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ?
Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of
the one loaf.” This text states that the koinonia in the one
Eucharistic bread is the source and sign of the koinonia in the one
body of the church; the one Eucharistic body of Christ is source and sign of the
one ecclesial body of Christ.
This statement must not lead to a one-sidedly Eucharistic communio
ecclesiology. The communion with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit
also affects the communion of brothers among each other and especially the
communion with the suffering. Koinonia/communio therefore has a
theological and communal and social dimension as well. It would be as wrong to
limit the ecclesial significance of koinonia/communio to the area of
sacraments and worship, or even just to the Eucharist, as it would be to
emphasise only the social dimension. There is so to say a vertical and a
horizontal dimension of communion. The sacraments are the foundation of the
church, and the sacramentally founded church celebrates the sacraments; and the
sacramental communion expresses itself in communal and social behaviour.
However, different emphases can be placed on the different aspects of the one communio
reality. Thus, different and sometimes even opposing communio-ecclesiologies
can be derived from the one common basic term koinonia/communio. There
have been different confessional developments in terms of a far-reaching
ecumenical agreement in this concept.
4. Firstly, we might take a look at the new Eucharistic ecclesiology of the
churches of the East. It is not uncontroversial in inner-Orthodox circles; it is
not simply “the” Orthodox position. Ecumenically, however, it has become
influential. The starting-point for the Eucharistic ecclesiology according to 1
Co 10:16 f is the inner connection between ecclesial and Eucharistic communio,
meaning that the church is realised in the local church gathered for the
eucharist. The local church celebrating the eucharist is the church
gathered around the bishop. Since the one Christ and the one church are present
in every local church, no local church can be isolated; every local church is
necessarily and essentially in koinonia/communio with all other local
churches which are celebrating the eucharist. The universal church is a communio-unity
of churches.
For Orthodox theologians, this Eucharistic ecclesiology often has an
anti-primatial intention. Since every local church is church in the fullest
sense, there can be no ecclesial ministry or authority higher than the bishop.
There may have been from early days a precedence of the metropolitan sees and of
the patriarchs but it is synodically embedded. The Petrine ministry also is
exercised by all the bishops, individually and in synodical communion.
Therefore, in the view of the Orthodox churches, the problem of the primacy of
Rome can only be considered in connection with the synodical or conciliar
structure of the church. Orthodox partners always refer to Canon 34 of
the “Apostolic canones”, which states that the first bishop can
only take important decisions in agreement with the other bishops, and these
only in agreement with the first bishop (cf. Valamo Document, 1988). In
this sense, the Orthodox churches can in general accept that Rome holds the
“primacy in love” (Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Rom, prooem.); but they
understand this normally as an honorary primacy and exclude any primacy of
jurisdiction. Whether this fully corresponds to the first Millennium is another
question.
The ecclesiology of the Reformers arrives at a similar problem. In his early
works, Luther is still very much aware of the connection between Holy Communion
and the church. But in Lutheran and Reformed theology the church is generally
understood as based on the proclamation of the Word rather than on the
sacraments, and defined as creatura verbi. According to Reformation
understanding the church is where the Word of God is preached in its
purity, and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. Thus,
the communio sanctorum becomes synonymous with the congregatio
fidelium – a term for the church which was already usual in the Middle
Ages. In this sense there exists a basic agreement between the Catholic and the
Reformation understanding of communio as founded not “from below” by
the association of the faithful but as constituted by word and sacrament.
But the difference is also clear. For the Reformers, the church becomes real in
the worshipping community of the local congregation. Luther wants to replace
the, for him, dark and obscure word “church” by the word “congregation”
("Gemeine"). The Reformation understanding of the church has
its basis and centre of gravity in the congregation. The worshipping
assembly of the local congregation is the visible realisation and manifestation
of the church; it lacks nothing of what is constitutive for the church. The
criticism of the theological distinction between episcopate and pastorate, and
especially of the “papal monarchy” of the universal church, basically arises
out of this concentration on the local congregation. According to the usually
accepted Reformation understanding, the episcopate differs only functionally
from the pastorate; it is the ministry of the pastor exercising a church
leadership function.
But even regarding this question of episcopacy some convergence can be detected
nowadays. Not even in Reformation times was it possible to maintain an approach
which was exclusively centred on the local congregation; even then the question
of the episkopé arose, of the ministry of supervision and oversight in
the form of a ministry of visitation. Further progress was made in the 20th
century. It became clear that the church realises itself on different levels: on the
local, the regional and the universal level. On each of these levels the “with
and over against” of ministry and congregation is constitutive. This raises
anew the question of the quality of leadership ministries in the church on the
regional and universal level. With this new openness to a more universalistic
viewpoint the question of the possibility of a universal ministry of unity has
been raised in several of the dialogues.
At present, however, the approach centred on the local church and local
congregation still prevails. The ecumenical goal accepted today by most of the
church communities of the Reformation is conciliar fellowship, or communion of
churches which remain independent but recognise each other as churches, and
agree to have altar and pulpit fellowship as well as mutually accepted
ministries and services. This idea in particular is the basis of the Leuenberg
Church Fellowship (1973). This concept is also behind the model of
“reconciled diversity” favoured by the LWF. So the question arises whether
the Reformation model of unity as a network of local congregations, local
churches or nowadays of confessional families is compatible with the Catholic
ecclesiological approach. Though some progress has been made in formulating
the problem, and possible lines of convergence are beginning to appear, a firm
ecumenical consensus is still not in sight.
5. For a systematic presentation of the Catholic communio ecclesiology we
start with the Council's Constitution “Lumen gentium”. In the eighth
chapter, which tries to define where the church is really and concretely to be
found, the ecumenical question arises with the famous “subsistit in”.
The Constitution states that the church of Jesus Christ is concretely real in
the Catholic Church, in communion with the Pope and the bishops in communion
with him. In this statement lies the nerve of the ecumenical dialogue, and the
declaration "Dominus Jesus” (2000) and consequent
debate have shown very clearly that the nerve here is raw, and the pain
threshold correspondingly low.
The ecumenically crucial question is how the two statements relate to each
other: how, on the one hand, the one church of Jesus Christ is concretely
real and present in the Roman-Catholic Church, and, on the other hand, how the
many and essential elements of the church of Jesus Christ can be found outside
the institutional boundaries of the Catholic Church (LG 8; 15; UR 3) and,
in the case of the churches of the East, even genuine particular churches (UR
14).
“Dominus Jesus”,which goes beyond the Council's words and affirms that the church of Jesus
Christ is “fully” realised only in the Catholic Church, provides a hint for
an appropriate answer. This statement logically implies that, although outside
the Catholic Church there is no full realisation of the church of Jesus
Christ, there still is an imperfect realisation. Outside the Catholic
Church therefore there is no ecclesial vacuum (UUS 13). There may not be
“the” church, but there is church reality. Consistently, "Dominus
Jesus" does not state that the ecclesial communities which issued from
the Reformation are not churches; it only maintains that they are not churches
in the proper sense; which means, positively, that in an improper sense,
analogous to the Catholic Church, they are church. Indeed, they have a different
understanding of the church; they do not want to be church in the Catholic
sense.
If one asks further what concretely constitutes the fullness of what is
Catholic, the Council texts show that this fullness does not concern salvation
or its subjective realisation. The Spirit works also in the separated churches
and ecclesial communities (UR 3); outside the Catholic Church there
exist forms of holiness, even of martyrdom. Conversely, the Catholic Church is
also a church of sinners; its needs purification and repentance. The full
reality and fullness of what is Catholic does not refer to subjective holiness
but to the sacramental and institutional means of salvation, the sacraments and
the ministries. Only in this sacramental and institutional respect can the
Council find a lack (defectus) in the churches and ecclesial communities
of the Reformation (UR 22). Both Catholic fullness and the defectus
of the others are therefore sacramental and institutional, and not existential
or even moral in nature; they are on the level of the signs and instruments of
grace not on the level of the res, the grace of salvation itself.
The consequence of the thesis that the one church of Jesus Christ subsists in
the Catholic Church is that at present unity is not given in fragments, and is
therefore a future ecumenical goal. Indeed, unity subsists in the Catholic
Church, it is already real in it (UR 4). This does not mean that
full communion as the goal of the ecumenical endeavour has to be understood
as the simple return of the separated brothers and churches in the bosom of the
Catholic mother church. In the situation of division, unity in the Catholic
Church is not concretely realised in all its fullness; the divisions remain a
wound for the Catholic Church too. Only the ecumenical endeavour to help the
existing, real but incomplete communion grow into the full communion in
truth and love will lead to the realisation of Catholicity in all its fullness (UR
4; UUS 14). In this sense the ecumenical endeavour is a common pilgrimage to
the fullness of catholicity Jesus Christ wants for his church.
This ecumenical process is not a one-way street in which only others have to
learn from us and, ultimately, to join us. Ecumenism happens by way of a mutual
exchange of gifts and mutual enrichment (UUS 28). Catholic theology can
accept everything that the Orthodox communio ecclesiology has to say
positively because Catholic ecclesiology also maintains that, wherever the
Eucharist is celebrated, the church of Jesus Christ is present. From Reformation
theology it has learnt that the proclamation of the Word of God also has the
function of establishing church and communio. Conversely, the Catholic
Church is convinced that its institutional “elements”, such as episcopacy
and the Petrine ministry, are gifts of the Spirit for all Christians; therefore,
it wants to offer them as a contribution in a spiritually renewed form to the
ideal of fuller ecumenical unity. This does not mean association, or the
insertion of other Christians into a given “system” but mutual enrichment.
The closer we come to Christ in this way, the closer we come to each other in
order, ultimately, to be fully one in Christ.
Our understanding of the “subsistit” makes clear that, according to
Catholic understanding, unity is more than a network and communio-unity of local
churches. Although every local church is fully the one church (LG 26; 28),
it is not the whole church. The one church exists in and out of the local
churches (LG 23), but the local churches also exist in and out of the one
church (Communiones notio, 9), they are shaped in its image (LG 23).
Local churches are not subdivisions, simple departments or provinces of the one
church, but neither is the one church the sum or local churches, nor the result
of their association, their mutual recognition or their mutual
inter-penetration. The one church is real in the communio of the
local churches but it does not grow out of it, it is pre-given and subsists
in the Catholic Church. Taking both together, this means that the one church and
the diversity of local churches are simultaneous; they are interior to each
other (perichoretic).
Within this perichoresis the unity of the church has priority over the diversity
of the local churches. The fact that unity has priority over all particular
interests is really blindingly obvious in the New Testament (1 Co 1:10 ff).
For the Bible the one church corresponds to the one God, the one Christ, the one
Spirit, the one baptism (cf. Ep 4:5 f). According to the model of the
early community of Jerusalem (Ac 2:42), despite all legitimate
diversities, she is one through the preaching of the one Gospel, the
administration of the same sacraments and the one apostolic governing in love (LG
13; UR 2).
The thesis of the priority of unity, however, is in opposition to the
post-modern mentality of fundamental pluralism for which there no longer is the
one truth, but only truths. Therefore, the Catholic position has difficulties at
present in public debates. Catholic ecclesiology, so to say, sails against the
winds of the spirit of the age. That need not be a weakness, it can also be its
strength. Its concrete expression finds the Catholic understanding of the communio-unity
of the church in the Petrine ministry. We will discuss the problem later on the
basis of a particular paper.
Finally, the whole problem of the substistit and the specific Catholic
understanding of communio has one more deeper dimension. The whole problem must
be seen against the background of the specific Catholic understanding of the
relation between Jesus Christ and the church. The differentiating “subsistit
in” aims at indicating that there is a differentiated relation between
Jesus Christ and the church. They must not be identified with each other, or
confused, but neither can they be separated from, or simply placed alongside
each other. The church is not Christ continuing alive, but Jesus Christ living
and working in the church as His body. In this differentiated togetherness they
make - according to Saint Augustine – the "whole Christ" So for
us the solus Christus is at the same time the totus Christus, caput et
membra.
Only on this general basis can discussions with the Reformation position be held
in all their depth. For the Reformation view tends to oppose Jesus Christ as the
head of the church to the church itself. This becomes obvious when in the case
of ecclesial doctrines, reservations about their definitively binding character
are registered, about whether they are in accordance with Scripture; the
Protestant position tends here to a certain revisionism. A similar problem
arises when it comes to admittance to the Eucharist, and when it is argued that,
since Jesus Christ invites everybody, the church cannot deny access. Such
argumentation is impossible for Catholics since Jesus Christ only invites in the
church and through the church.
If one recognises the fundamental nature of these problems one realises that
despite encouraging progress, the way ahead still appears to be difficult and
perhaps long (Novo millennio
ineunte, 12). All the more important to ask:
What can we do already, here and now? What are the next steps?
III.
Ecumenical Praxis during the Transition Period
It is essential for the church to acknowledge that she lives in an intermediate
situation between the “already” and the “not yet”. Full communion in the
complete sense can therefore be only an eschatological hope. Here on earth the
church will always be a pilgrim church struggling with tensions, schisms and
apostasy. As a church of sinners she cannot be a perfect church. But as pointed
out by Johann Adam Möhler, who inspired Yves Congar, one of the
Fathers of Catholic ecumenical theology, we have to distinguish between
tensions, which belong to life and are a sign of life, and contradictions, which
make impossible and destroy communal life and lead to excommunication. The
ecumenical task therefore cannot be to abolish all tensions, but only to
transform contradictory affirmations into complementary affirmations and into
constructive tensions; that is, to find a degree of a substantial consensus
permitting us to lift excommunications.
We reached this goal in the Christological agreements with the Ancient Churches
of the East and in the Joint Declaration on Justification. In other questions,
particularly issues regarding the ministries in the church, we have not yet been
successful. Thus, we live still in a transitional period, which will probably
last for some time to come.
We have to fill this transitional period, of a real if not complete church communio,
with real life. To the “ecumenism of love” and the “ecumenism of truth”,
which both naturally remain very important, must be added an “ecumenism
of life”. The churches did not only diverge through discussion, they diverged
through the way they lived, through alienation and estrangement. Therefore, they
need to come closer to each other again in their lives; they must get
accustomed to each other, pray together, work together, live together, bearing
the sting of the incompleteness of the communio and of the still
impossible Eucharistic communion around the Lord’s table. I want to stress six points,
which should be discussed and concretised in the following discussion:
1. This transitional period must have its own “ethos” involving
renunciation of all kinds of open or hidden proselytism, awareness that all
“inside” decisions touch also our partners, healing the wounds left by
history (purification of memories), and wider reception of the ecumenical
dialogues and agreements already achieved. Without danger to our faith or our
conscience we could already do much more together than we actually do: common
Bible study, exchange of spiritual experiences, gathering of liturgical texts,
joint worship in services of the Word, better understanding of our common
tradition as well as existing differences, co-operation in theology, in mission,
in cultural and social witness, co-operation in the area of development and the
preservation of the environment, in mass media, etc. Ecumenical reception
and formation are particularly important for this transitional period, as
we have already pointed out. In this context we should recall what was said, but
unfortunately mostly forgotten, in the last Plenary.
2. We must find institutional forms and structures for the present transitional
period and for the above-mentioned “ecumenism of life”. This can be
undertaken in particular through Councils of churches on the regional and
national level. They do not constitute a super-church, and they require none of
the churches to abandon their own self-understanding. Responsibility for
the ecumenical journey ultimately remains with the churches themselves. But
they are an important instrument, and a forum for co-operation between the
churches and instrument for the promotion of unity (cf.
Directory for
the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993, 166-171). This
point too was already dealt with in one of the last Plenaries.
3. The changing situation does not prevent us from continuing with our
dialogues. After the substantial clarification of the central content of the
faith (christology, soteriology and doctrine of justification), it is the
question of the church and her mission which becomes central. It will be
necessary to clarify the understanding of church and communio and to come
to an agreement on the final goal of the ecumenical pilgrimage. All churches
will have to do their homework in order to understand and explain better the
nature and mission of the church. In doing so we have to present our agreements
and our differences; this is the only way to come to a clarification and,
ultimately, to a consensus. False irenicism leads us nowhere. In this sense we
support and co-operate in the multi-lateral consultation process of the
Commission for Faith and Order, “Nature and Purpose of the Church”.
For the year 2002 we plan an international theological Congress with the theme
“Present Situation and Future of the Ecumenical Movement”. The
Congress aims at clarifying the definitive Catholic ecumenical vision.
4. Part of the discussion of the understanding of communio relates to
ministries in the church. This is at present the crucial point of the ecumenical
dialogue. Particularly at stake is the episcopate in Apostolic succession and
– in answering the question and the request of Pope John Paul II in the
encyclical “Ut unum sint” (n. 95) - the future exercise of the
Petrine ministry within the new ecumenical situation. We should make it clear
that both are a gift for the church that we want to share for the good of all.
But it is not only others who can learn from us - we, too, can learn from the
Orthodox and Reformation traditions, and consider further how best to integrate
the episcopate and the Petrine ministry with synodical and collegial structures.
Such an effort to strengthen and develop the synodal and collegial structures in
our own church without giving up the essential nature of personal responsibility
is the only way in which an ecumenical consensus could be reached about the
Petrine and episcopal ministries.
5. In this interim stage two forms of ecumenism are important and interrelated:
ecumenism ad extra through ecumenical encounters, dialogues and
co-operation, and ecumenism ad intra through reform and renewal of the
Catholic Church herself. There is no ecumenism without conversion and reform (UR
6-8; UUS 15-17). It is particularly important for us also to develop a
“spirituality of communio” (Novo millennio
ineunte, 42 f), in our own
church and between the churches. Only if in this way we are able to restore the
recently lost confidence will further steps be possible. In more concrete terms,
only through a balanced relationship between the universal church and the local
churches can we conceive a two-speed ecumenism and – what is even more
important – can we find credibility for the ecumenical concept of
communio as unity within diversity and diversity within unity.
6. Last but not least, from its very beginning the ecumenical movement has been
and will continue to be an impulse and a gift of the Holy Spirit (UR 1; 4).
So pre-eminence among all ecumenical activities belongs to spiritual ecumenism,
which is the heart of all ecumenism (UR 7-8; UUS 21-27). Often
less ecumenical activism would be more; in this light, spiritual ecumenism
should be more strongly promoted, and relations with and between ecumenically
concerned monasteries, movements, brotherhoods and groups should be
strengthened.
As we embark upon the new Millennium, we need new ecumenical enthusiasm. But
this does not mean devising unrealistic utopias of the future. Patience is the
little sister of Christian hope. Instead of staring at the impossible, and
chafing against it, we have to live the already given and possible communio,
and do what is possible today. By advancing in this way, step by step, we may
hope that, with the help of God’s Spirit who is always ready with surprises,
we will find the way towards a better common future. In this sense “Duc in
altum!” “Put out into the deep!” (Lk 5:4).
