Interchurch Families & Receptive Ecumenism. + Paul
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ONE IN CHRIST CONTENTS VOLUME 46 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES Interchurch Families & Receptive Ecumenism. + Paul Hendricks 2 The Chemin Neuf Community in England. Charles Hadley 13 Beyond Ecumenical Dialogue. Tom Hughson SJ 24 Strangers in our Midst. Adoption & Implicitness in Ecclesial Life. Martyn Percy 38 Francis, Clare & the Ecumenical Spirit of Assisi. Gilberto Cavazos-González OFM 49 Mano a Mano: Baroque Jesuits & Calvinists (1635-1700). Paul Shore 58 A Catholic Perspective on Salvation. Brett Salkeld 72 What does it mean for Evangelicals to say they are ‘saved’? David Guretzki 79 Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Ethics and Moral Theology: an Anglican Perspective. Charles Sherlock 89 Landscapes of Ecumenism: a Vast & Complex Realm. Robin Gibbons 108 A Hermeneutics of History for an Ecumenical Future. Jeffrey Gros FSC 124 REPORTS & EVENTS Assisi 2012. Where We Dwell in Common: Pathways for Dialogue in the 21st Century. Gerard Mannion 146 The Life & Ministry of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. + Angaelos 153 Week of Prayer Sermon preached in Dublin, 18.01.2012. + Michael Jackson 159 The Re-launch of English ARC. Tony Castle 165 Michael Sattler: Catholics remember Anabaptist martyr. 176 BOOK REVIEW 177 1 ONE IN CHRIST VOL.46 NO.1 EDITORIAL In our religious lives we relive the past. But which past? And to what purpose? A holy history has often become an offensive weapon, especially in the hands of men (Cavazos-González, Shore). What price ‘the luxury of confessional identity’ (Jackson), when forged with defensive and/or aggressive intent? What—or rather, Who—is our true Tradition (Guretzki, Salkeld)? Our churches adhere to their own (version of their own) family histories; but don’t always listen to the families they share (Hendricks). Along with a review of René Beaupère’s ecumenical journey (book review), we may also rejoice at another Lyon-grown initiative, the Chemin Neuf, drawing inspiration from the authentic recovered Ignatian tradition, and now in England (Hadley, cF. Shore). The year 2017 will be seen as commemorating the fragmentation of the Western Church, with its subsequent global fallout. Our final article, a systematic treatment of ‘The Hermeneutics of History for an Ecumenical Future’, concludes with a plea that we collaborate in ‘constructing a new reconciling, but differentiated narrative of Christian history’ (Gros). Such a process, through which we may better learn the truth about ourselves, has to be pursued at every level of inter-church dialogue, explicated at the recent ‘Pathways for Dialogue’ gathering in Assisi as official (track 1), informal (track 2), and those which vitally bridge the two (Mannion et passim). 2 INTERCHURCH FAMILIES AND RECEPTIVE ECUMENISM Paul Hendricks* Interchurch Families embody Receptive Ecumenism, whereby Christians can learn From each other in a way that does not threaten, but rather enriches, their own Faith. Just as any theological statement can best be understood in terms of what it affirms, so one achieves a deeper understanding of another Christian tradition by considering its strengths, rather than what one might Feel to be its weaknesses. It is often assumed that ecumenism implies a search For a bare minimum that is acceptable to all traditions, but in an interchurch marriage, one reaches out to embrace what is best in the other tradition. When Keith Lander suggested the idea of giving a talk to the Association of Interchurch Families, I immediately thought of the topic of Receptive Ecumenism. That’s because I see interchurch families as an excellent example of how Christians can learn from other churches in a way that does not threaten, but rather enriches, their own faith. I’ll begin by trying to explain what I think receptive ecumenism is, and why it has a lot to offer us at this stage of our ecumenical journey. Then I’m going to make some links with certain features of interchurch families. For this part, I’m very grateful to Ruth Reardon for letting me read a draft of an article she has written on ‘Interchurch Families’ for the OxFord Handbook oF Ecumenical Studies. Finally I want to add some further thoughts about why receptive ecumenism is a good thing—and I hope some of these observations may link up with your own experience in various ways. * Paul Hendricks is one of the three Auxiliary Bishops in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark and a member of the Bishops’ Conference Department of Dialogue and Unity. He has had a particular interest in Receptive Ecumenism since attending the second Durham conference on the subject in 2009. He has had regular contact with members of the Association of Interchurch Families for several years. This article originated as a talk to the AIF, in March 2012. 3 ONE IN CHRIST VOL.46 NO.1 There is time set aside for questions—but perhaps observations and comments might be even more appropriate than questions. After all, I’m only speaking as an observer; you’re the ones who are actually living this out from day to day, so you know a lot more about it than I do. What is receptive ecumenism? So, what is receptive ecumenism? It might sound a bit theoretical, but I’d like to start from an observation about theological statements generally. It seems to me that everything we say about God can be interpreted both in a positive and in a negative way. Let me give you an example from St Peter’s Pentecost homily in Acts 2. First he tells the people about the death and the resurrection of Christ. ‘This Jesus ... you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men ... But God raised him up ... and of that we all are witnesses.’ Then he concludes, ‘Let all the house of Israel thereFore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ He proclaims Jesus as Lord and Christ (Messiah) on the basis that God has raised him from the dead. So in terms of what it says positively, this is a declaration of faith in Jesus, as Lord and Messiah. But we could also interpret it negatively, as if Jesus wasn’t already the Son of God, the Messiah and Lord beFore the resurrection. Obviously the Church hasn’t understood these statements in this negative or a restrictive way. Looking back with the benefit of the Church’s developing teaching, we realise that the resurrection was a decisive moment when it was possible to recognise what had been true all along. Even during the period covered by the New Testament, we can already see a developing awareness of the divinity of Christ, culminating in the prologue to St John’s Gospel, which reveals Christ as the Word who existed from the beginning. Now you might think that the Church would have removed the less-developed statements, such as the text from Acts, seeing them as inadequate to express the fullness of our faith in Christ. But this isn’t what happened. The church recognised that these more primitive expressions still said something important about Jesus, which should not be lost. At the same time, they could only be retained because the Church always focuses on what these texts say positively about Jesus, and does not take them in a restrictive or negative sense. HENDRICKS Interchurch Families & Receptive Ecumenism 4 It seems to me that this can be applied generally. Any theological statement can best be understood in terms of what it says positively, whereas the difficulties really start when we apply a negative or restrictive interpretation. I think this is very important when it comes to addressing the differences between churches. Let’s look at one famous and controversial example, from the Thirty-Nine Articles, in the Anglican Book oF Common Prayer. Article 31 speaks about the one sacrifice of Christ, completed upon the Cross and says that ‘there is no other satisfaction for sin.’ This is very much at the heart of our faith and no church would have any quarrel with this part of the article. But Catholics within and beyond the church of Rome would very much disagree with the negative conclusion in the second half of the article. Here it says that ‘the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.’ We would want to correct this misunderstanding of the Catholic view of the Eucharist, while agreeing with the positive statement which the first part of the Article upholds. So I would say that receptive ecumenism is all about approaching the other churches in a spirit of openness, ready to learn from the positive insights they offer, without necessarily accepting what we might regard as limiting or restrictive aspects of their tradition. Looking only at what we would regard as the positive aspect of other churches’ teachings may seem dishonest—as if we’re pretending that we don’t see any problem with other aspects of what they believe. But the point of receptive ecumenism isn’t to come to a judgement about the other churches and what they believe. All we’re concerned about here is what I can learn from them and integrate with my own faith. In saying this, I recognise that other Christians will regard aspects of the Catholic tradition as limiting or restrictive—and they will be quite right. If it were not so, I as a Catholic would have nothing to learn from them, and (for me) receptive ecumenism would be pointless. Let me give one simple example of an aspect of the Catholic tradition that might be regarded as limiting.