Vatican II and the World Council of Churches: a Vision for Receptive Ecumenism Or a Clash of Paradigms? Gabriel Flynn

1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 6

Vatican II and the World Council of Churches: A Vision for Receptive Ecumenism or a Clash of Paradigms? Gabriel Flynn

Abstract. — The aim of this article is to examine the vision for unity proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the World Council of Churches respectively, in order to contribute to a renewal of ecumenism. It begins by briefly outlining the contribution of Vatican II and of the World Council of Churches to the coveted goal of unity, with particular reference to their respective elaborations of the psychology of ecumenism, at that movement’s inception. The article considers how Yves Congar (1904-95) and Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft (1900-85), two of the great pioneers of ecumenism in the twentieth century, contributed jointly to its advancement. The penultimate part of the article considers the indispensable role of dialogue in the methodologies of ecumenism proposed by the principal protagonists both within their particular ecclesial milieux and beyond. An important objective is to assess whether the specific models for ecumenicity at the heart of the World Council of Churches and of the Second Vatican Council contribute to a symbiotic receptivity or to an inevitable clash of ever divergent paradigms, or both.

1. Ecumenism Eclipsed?1

The history of the modern ecumenical movement, already documented by scholars,2 predates the Second Vatican Council. As the Council marked a profound engagement by the Roman Catholic Church with the modern world, so also its Decree on Ecumenism,

1. I thank A. N. Williams, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge and Hans Boersma, Regent College, Vancouver, for comments on an earlier draft of this essay. 2. See Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517-1948, vol. I (London: SPCK, 1954); Harold E. Fey (ed.), The Ecumenical Advance: A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1948-1968, vol. II (London: SPCK, 1970); John Briggs, Mercy Amba Oduyoye and Georges Tsetsis (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1968-2000, vol. III (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004); Gustave Thils, Histoire doctrinale du mouvement œcuménique, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 8 (Louvain/Paris: Warny/Desclée de Brouwer, 1955) and new ed. 1963. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 7

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 7

Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) signalled an end of the old isolationist poli- cies and effectively transformed the ecumenical landscape for ever. In the apposite words of Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J. (1881-1968), one-time President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity: “The Council has been able to make a great contribution to the cause of the union of all bap- tised people. For this reason, since the closing of the Council, every ecumenical movement, in order to be opportune and in accordance with actual reality, must also take into account the ecumenical situation now created by the Council.”3 The Council, in fact, provides unequivocal testimony of the Catholic Church’s binding commitment to the causa unitatis. As Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) remarks in his propitious Encyclical Letter on Commitment to Ecumenism: Ut Unum Sint (1995): “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed her- self irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, […] to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion.”4 Consideration of the great events in the history of ecumenism of the twentieth century points unambiguously to the dual edifice of the World Council of Churches (WCC), formally constituted in 1948, and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In this regard, the assessment of the Lutheran scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg is germane: “In the history of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century, Vatican Council II’s Decree on Ecumenism was probably the most important event since the found- ing of the World Council of Churches.”5 The aim of the present essay is to examine the vision for unity proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the World Council of Churches respectively, in order to contribute to a renewal of ecumenism at a critical moment in world history, one defined by heightened tensions and renewed hostilities between nations, tensions and hostilities that are not without religious significance and/or the spurious inspiration of unscrupulous and dangerous religious chameleons. Without succumb- ing either to the nascent pessimistic assessments of some commentators on ecumenism or to the equally deleterious, imperious optimism of others, this essay, rooted in pragmatic realism, attempts to move beyond

3. Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J., The Way to Unity After the Council: A Study of the Implications of the Council for the Unity of Mankind, trans. Gerard Noel (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967) 7. 4. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint: Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father John Paul II on Commitment to Ecumenism (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1995) par. 3, pp. 5-7. 5. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Ecumenical Movement Since Vatican II – A Lutheran View,” Theology Digest 51 (2004) 203-208, at 203. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 8

8 GABRIEL FLYNN

the shadows of a presumed eclipse of ecumenism in search of the dawn- ing light of a winter solstice. It seeks to uphold the inspiring vision for unity eloquently articulated in the seventeenth chapter of St John’s gospel, and by situating that vision in the context of its ultimate eschatological realization, an attempt is made to formulate the essential elements of a necessary dialectic for ecumenicity. Building on the outstanding achieve- ments of previous generations – those tireless architects of unity, whose patient perseverance and unfaltering fortitude has characterized ecumenical conversations over the past forty years – I shall endeavour to formulate a vision for ecumenism that draws on the contribution of two of the most noteworthy pioneers of unity in the twentieth century, namely, the French Dominican Cardinal Yves Congar (1904-95), the emblematic figure of Catholic conciliar ecumenism, and the Dutch Reformed Pastor Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft (1900-85), first General Sec- retary of the World Council of Churches. Knowledge of their memoirs,6 and of the causes they championed in the course of their long lives, shows that ecumenism normally operates dialectically in the diffuse, often frozen shadow-lands of a long since shattered oikoumene and, by working towards the reconciliation of the irreconcilable, the possibility of a new era of peace, harmony and mutual reform becomes possible.7 To prevent misunderstanding, it should be added that there are two serious difficulties that cannot be passed over without comment. First, there is a clear antinomy between ecumenical agreements negotiated at the high- est level between churches and what can only be described as largely unchanged pastoral practice at the local level, following the signing of such agreements.8 Second, there is the undeniable tenacity of ecclesial/

6. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs (London/Philadelphia, PA: SCM/Westminster Press, 1973; Geneva: WCC Publications, 21987); Yves Congar, Mon journal du Concile, ed. with annotations by Éric Mahieu, 2 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 2002); Yves Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946-1956), ed. with annotations by Étienne Fouilloux and others (Paris: Cerf, 22001). See further Jacques Maury (ed.), W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève – Rome (Paris: Cerf, 2001). 7. The term dialectic is used in this essay in the sense of holding together opposite and contrary beliefs rather than the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. 8. For an appreciative evaluation of forty years of Methodist-Roman Catholic dialogue, see Mary Tanner, “An Anglican View of Methodist-Catholic Dialogue,” Eccle- siology 2 (2006) 325-338. See, also, David Carter, “Recent Anglican-Protestant Dialogue within the Meissen Agreement,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 4 (2004) 1, 80-90; Michael Root, “Porvoo in the Context of the World-wide Anglican- Lutheran Dialogue,” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement, ed. Ola Tjørhom (Grand Rapids, MI/Geneva: Eerdmans/World Council of Churches Publications, 2002) 15-33. For an overview of statements on ecclesiology in the bilateral agreements, see Oliver Schuegraf, Der einen Kirche Gestalt geben: Ekklesiologie in den Dokumenten der bilateralen Konsensökumene (Münster: Aschendorff, 2001). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 9

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 9

political identities born of religious reformation or renewal but which have long since evolved into something more cultural than theological. Against such difficulties, it bears repeating that, for divided communities or civilizations in conflict, living tolerably with an irreconcilable “enemy” is far less burdensome than war.9 I begin by briefly outlining the contribution of the Second Vatican Council and of the World Council of Churches to the coveted goal of unity, with particular reference to their respective elaborations of the psychology of ecumenism, at that movement’s inception. I indicate briefly how Congar and Visser ’t Hooft, two of the great pioneers of ecumenism in the twentieth century, contributed jointly to its advancement. In the penultimate part of the essay, I turn to a consideration of the indispensable role of dialogue in the methodologies of ecumenism proposed by the principal protagonists both within their particular ecclesial milieux and beyond. An important objective is to assess whether the specific models for ecumenicity at the heart of the World Council of Churches and of the Second Vatican Council contribute to a symbiotic receptivity or to an inevitable clash of ever divergent paradigms, or both.

2. The Psychology of Ecumenism: Yves M. J. Congar and W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, Patriarchs and Pioneers of “Ecumenical Hope”

St John’s gospel discloses the broken, stony path of a normally illusive earthly unity, one illuminated by a heavenly vision of perfect peace. “That they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me.”10 A difficult question arises: How are Christians to follow the wearisome way of harmony amidst the terrible terrain of such disputatious disunity? While the tragedy of antediluvian mutual excommunications and the frightening tumult of long distant wars of religion have given way to a new dawn of hope,11 albeit a dawn that apparently, imperceptibly succumbed to a loss of vigour and the naissance of what is now commonly perceived to be a

9. See Benjamin J. Kaplan, Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007) 142-143. 10. John 17:21 (Knox). 11. See Yves Congar, Neuf cents ans après: notes sur le ‘Schisme oriental’ (Cheve- togne: Éd. de Chevetogne, 1954). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 10

10 GABRIEL FLYNN

flagging ecumenical movement, there are signs of hope, both tangible and oblique. The matter can be elucidated in this way. The dream of unity was revivified by Pope John Paul II through his papal ministry and, in particular, his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995). Pope Benedict XVI’s inaugural homily of 24 April 2005, with its “explicit call to unity;”12 his subsequent overtures to Eastern Christians;13 his meeting with Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 2006;14 the historic if controversial Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church (1999);15 the document on Mary from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) entitled Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2005);16 the reconciliation and unity within the Protestant family of churches in continental Europe; and the indispensable contribution of the Christian Churches to the current fragile peace in Northern Ireland, as well as to the emerging democratic structures there, all provide evidence of new vitality. Past progress in ecumenical dialogue notwithstanding, and in view of the sadness of continued divisions, divisions that are compounded by an inevitable hardening of positions in some ecclesial domains, it is obvious that the challenge of “receptive ecumenism,” as articulated by Paul D. Murray, does not allow for complacency. The core concern of receptive ecumenism, according to Murray, is “to explore how ecumenical encounter, ecumenical engagement, ecumenical responsibility and calling can be privileged contexts for promoting this process of personal and ecclesial growth into more intensely configured communion in Christ and the Spirit.”17

12. “Mass, Imposition of the Pallium and Conferral of the Fisherman’s Ring for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome: Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI,” in http://www.va/holy_father/Benedict_xvi/homilies/2005 (accessed 19 April 2008). 13. See “Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul: Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI,” Wednesday 29 June 2005 in http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/ homilies/2005 (accessed 19 April 2008). 14. See “Meeting with His Holiness Bartholomew I Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople: Address of the Holy Father,” Istanbul, 29 November 2006 in http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ ben-xvi_spe_20061129_bartholomew-i_en.html (accessed 19 April 2008). 15. See, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html (accessed 19 April 2008). 16. See Donald Bolen and Gregory Cameron (eds.), Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (London: Continuum, 2006). 17. Paul D. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning: Establishing the Agenda,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7 (2007) 279- 301, at 283. See further, Paul D. Murray (ed.), Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 11

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 11

Some remarks on the state of Catholic ecumenism are here in place. Even a perfunctory glance demonstrates that considerable progress has been made in a relatively short period of time. The official Catholic position in the nineteenth century was articulated by Pope Pius IX (1846- 78), who issued an invitation to the Protestant world to “return to Catholic unity.” Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) effected important changes in the previously intemperate language of “heretic” and “schismatic” in favour of “dissidentes.” Popes Pius XI (1922-39) and Pius XII (1939-58) both regarded the fledgling ecumenical movement as “a most grave error” and “a dangerous error” respectively.18 It was the announcement by Pope John XXIII (1958-63) on 25 January 1959 of an ecumenical council that would not be a “Council of fear but a Council of Unity,”19 that inaugurated a new era in Catholic ecumenism. As one commentator observed, the Pope “felt the urgent need to make up for lost time.” The official communiqué on the papal allocution that announced the Coun- cil, issued on the same day, stated that: “as far as the celebration of an ecumenical Council is concerned, this not only has for its purpose, in the thinking of the Holy Father, the upbuilding of the Christian people; it is also meant to be an invitation to the separated communities to join in the search for the unity for which so many yearn all around the world.”20 Such momentous change was crystallized in the Council’s Decree on Ecu- menism, Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) which exhorted Catholics “to rec- ognize the signs of the times and to take an intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.”21 The Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio states unambiguously from the outset that “the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the second Vatican synod.”22 At the Council, the idea of unity by means of a return to the Catholic fold, as expressed by Pope Pius XI in 1928,23 was abandoned

18. See M. Cecily Boulding, OP, “Ecumenism Forty Years on – Are we Still in the Desert?,” Vatican II Facing the 21st Century: Historical and Theological Perspectives, ed. Dermot A. Lane and Brendan Leahy (Dublin: Veritas, 2006) 187-201, at 190. 19. Giuseppe Alberigo, “The Announcement of the Council: From the Security of the Fortress to the Lure of the Quest,” History of Vatican II: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo, English version ed. Joseph A. Komonchak, 5 vols. (Maryknoll, NY/Louvain: Orbis/Peeters, 1995) 1: 1-54, at 33. 20. Ibid. 21. Second Vatican Council, “Decree on Ecumenism,” 4, Decrees of the Ecumeni- cal Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, 2 vols. (London/Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward/Georgetown University Press 1990) 2: 911. 22. Ibid., 1: 908. 23. Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Religious Unity, par. 10. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/ hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html (accessed 17 April 2008). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 12

12 GABRIEL FLYNN

in favour of the notion of a pilgrim body in pursuance of a lost brother- hood/sisterhood. The most decisive ecumenical achievement of the Council occurred on 7 December 1965, a historic day in relations between East and West. In a moving ceremony at St Peter’s Basilica, more than nine hundred years after the tragic events of the Great Schism, traditionally dated to 1054, the text of the abolition of the mutual excommunications between Rome and Constantinople was promulgated by Pope Paul VI (1963-78). The old anathemas were simultaneously nullified by the Oecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (1886-1972). No well-informed person would deny that such historic progress would not have been possible without the patient work of two modern apostles of unity in France, Cardinal Yves Congar, author of the influential Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un “œcuménisme” catholique,24 the first contribution in French to Catholic ecumenism, and Father Paul Couturier (1881- 1953),25 who developed the “Week of Universal Prayer” for Church unity, that prepared the ground for the Council, effectively making them its heralds and harbingers in France. A persistent call to ecumenists to continue the painstaking work for unity is articulated in various forms at the present time, from the violent voices of sectarianism, the shrill tones of which may still be heard in certain Scottish cities, to the plaintive cry emanating from the jagged scars of Northern Ireland’s terrible thirty years war (1968-98), calling posthumously for justice for the dead and “the disappeared,” and for peace and prosperity for the children of that previously pilloried province. Now, in view of the difficulties of the terrain and the frequency and magnitude of the obstacles, it is true to say, I think, that ecumenists and others engaged in the work of unity may find some solace and strength in poetry. While the imaginings of poets do not constitute an accepted idiom of ecumenical dialogue; nonetheless, without the creative genius of the poet’s imagination, all dialogue will inevitably yield a less bounti- ful harvest. Christians devoted to the goals and vision of unity will be uplifted by the inspiring words of William Wordsworth: We must run glittering like a brook In the open sunshine, or we are unblest;26

24. Congar, Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion, trans. M. A. Bousfield (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1939); also id., Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un ‘œcuménisme’ catholique, Unam Sanctam, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1937). 25. See Geoffrey Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ (London: SCM, 1964). 26. William Wordsworth, “London, 1802,” The Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics, ed. Francis T. Palgrave (Dublin: The Educational Company, no date) 216. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 13

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 13

As regards the theology of ecumenism, the first point I wish to make is that an effective theology of ecumenism depends directly on the effec- tiveness of its psychology. The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism made an important contribution to the psychology of ecumenism. Careful study of the document reveals the central elements of that psychology. First, Catholics are invited to take the initial and therefore difficult first steps towards members of other churches. “Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for other Christians, praying for them, keeping them informed about the church, making the first approaches towards them.”27 Second, knowledge of the other, combined with the dissemination of full and accurate information on matters of doctrine and practice, is of utmost importance in overcoming mutual ignorance and distrust which in the past perpetuated a state of separation and estrangement. “We must get to know the outlook of our separated fellow Christians. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with good will.”28 Seminary and university faculties of theology play an influential part in the important process of education and, in particular, in avoiding the old detrimental polemics of polariza- tion. “Theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with a due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that at every point they may correspond more exactly with the facts.”29 Third, meeting with the “other” affords perhaps the best possibility for progress in disputed matters of theology and doctrine. In the pithy words of the Decree on Ecumenism: “Catholics […] need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of other Christians, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and culture. Most valuable for this purpose are meet- ings of the two sides.”30 The psychology of Catholic ecumenism is closely allied to that movement’s spirituality, which in turn elicits a dual obligation to prayer and conversion: “This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name ‘spiritual ecumenism’.”31 This is a point of considerable importance. In what follows, I shall briefly outline the principal elements of the

27. Second Vatican Council, “Decree on Ecumenism,” 4, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2: 911. 28. Ibid., 9: 914. 29. Ibid., 10: 914. 30. Ibid., 9: 914. 31. Ibid., 8: 913. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 14

14 GABRIEL FLYNN

“spiritual ecumenism” elaborated in the Decree on Ecumenism. First, prayer for unity and for all Christians is considered as being de rigueur. Such prayer has both inward and outward aspects. Its interior dimension is concerned with conversion. “There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from the renewal of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop.”32 The exterior dimension of prayer for unity is creatively set within the context of service of others. “We should therefore pray to the holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of gen- erosity towards them.”33 Second, charity is pre-eminent. “In all things let charity prevail,” a course of action which significantly is seen as giving “ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the church.”34 Third, the spirituality of ecumenism reaches its zenith in personal holiness, the test of authentic Christian witness to the unity of the Body of Christ on earth. As we read in the Decree on Ecumenism: “All the faithful should remember that the more effort they make to live holier lives according to the gospel, the better will they further christian unity and put it into practice.”35 On the question of common worship, the document remains rather more circumspect. The Decree is emphatic, however, that the practice of ecumenism remains the concern of the whole community. “The restoration of unity is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike. This concern extends to everyone according to their talents, whether it be exercised in ordinary christian life or in theological and historical research.”36 I want now to discuss the unique contribution of Yves Congar, a defining force of the ecumenical movement.

Yves Congar: “Father of Roman Catholic Ecumenism” Appropriately described by Dr. Visser ’t Hooft as “the father of Roman Catholic ecumenism,”37 Congar was indefatigable in his commitment to its advancement. Writing in 1987, he described his involve- ment in the ecumenical movement in terms of vocation and grace:

32. “Decree on Ecumenism,” 7: 913. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., 4: 912. 35. Ibid., 7: 913. 36. Ibid., 5: 912. 37. Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs, 319. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 15

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 15

Ecumenism has been my concern, I would even say my vocation, for a very long time; it is a vocation that I can date quite precisely from 1929, though it has antecedents, kinds of preparation in my child- hood and youth. […] I even ask myself, often, if I have been faithful to this vocation and this grace.38 Congar and Visser ’t Hooft first engaged in ecumenical talks in the setting and atmosphere that led to the 1937 conferences, especially that of Oxford. Ironically, it is in the context of an essay in honour of W. A. Visser ’t Hooft that Congar provides his richest contribution to the psychology of ecumenism. In a moving, personal testimony, he unfolds a rich tapestry fashioned along the dual lines of “ecumenical experience” and “conversion.”39 He writes fervently of the personal benefits of his own ecumenical experience: “The ecumenical dialogue has, in the first place, obliged and helped me to renew the Christian man within me. It has, as it were, compelled me to become more Christian and more catholic.”40 Congar demonstrates how and why ecumenism educes interior reform within its practitioners who are in turn obliged to model their lives on Christ, the true centre and source of unity. “Ecumenism seeks also a reform within ourselves, for we are full of aggressiveness, clannishness and arrogance, of distrust and rivalry. We must be converted by detachment from all this and from ourselves, and acceptance of a humble submissiveness to what the Lord expects of us.”41 In an unequivocal presentation of the advantages of ecumenism, Congar also formulates the necessary elements of its psychology. First, ecumenism shakes its participants from “a comfortable and common- place conformity” to “an expansion both mental and spiritual.”42 Refer- ring to the new spiritual worlds which ecumenism opens up, Congar shows how much personal friendships contribute to ecumenical dialogue. As he writes: “Father Portal, a few months before his death, bore witness to the part that ‘friendship in the service of unity’ had played in his life

38. See Yves Congar, Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar, ed. Bernard Lauret, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1988) 77; also id., Entretiens d’automne (Paris: Cerf, 21987) 99. See, also, Claude Goure, “Conversation avec Yves Congar: un théologien dans le siècle,” Panorama 222 (1988) 49-53, at 53. 39. Congar, “Ecumenical Experience and Conversion: A Personal Testimony,” The Sufficiency of God: Esssays on the Ecumenical Hope in Honor of W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, ed. Robert C. Mackie and Charles C. West (Philadelphia, PA/London: Westminster Press/SCM, 1963) 71-87; also, id., “Expérience et conversion œcuméniques,” in Congar, Chrétiens en dialogue: contributions catholiques à l’œcuménisme, Unam Sanctam, 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1964) 123-139. 40. Ibid., 71; also id., 123. 41. Ibid., 83; also id., 134-135. 42. Ibid., 71-72; also id., 123. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 16

16 GABRIEL FLYNN

and work. For all of us, the Orthodox celebration of the liturgy has opened the door to a certain understanding of the scriptural texts, and to that world of tradition and saintliness of which the Orthodox Church is the hallowed sanctuary.”43 In an important corollary, Congar indicates how ecumenism permits an auto-critique without disloyalty to one’s own tradition: The discovery of another spiritual world does not uproot us from our own, but changes the way we look at many things. […] Ecumenism has freed me from a certain narrowness of outlook, characteristic of the Latin and of the Mediterranean man by bringing me into touch with Eastern Christians, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons and with their respective traditions I have kept my Latin anthropological make-up but have looked critically upon its limitations.44 Second, the psychology of ecumenism centres on “knowledge of others” and “knowledge of history.” In view of the “non-theological factors” that contribute to division, factors Congar had commented on in detail in Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un “œcuménisme” catholique,45 while unaware that the Edinburgh Conference had at the same time sponsored a report on the same problem, it is easy to understand why he accentu- ates the benefits of a healthy relativity. As he remarks: “And so in the face of all this that is not the truth [La Vérité] itself and can even prevent its diffusion, we must acquire a wholesome sense of relativity. Knowledge of others, which is only complete if it is first-hand and factual, awakens this sense. It thrives on the study and more especially the knowledge of history.”46 In order to illustrate this point, Congar refers to “the question of Luther.” Following his ordination on 25 July 1930, he was allowed to visit the chief places associated with the life of Martin Luther (1483- 1546) in 1930 and 1931,47 where he came in contact with the Lutheran High Church movement. He also attended modules at the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Paris and became familiar with Karl Barth and Oscar Cullmann, as well as with Orthodox theologians. Congar eluci- dates the importance of “knowledge” in ecumenism as follows:

43. Congar, “Ecumenical Experience and Conversion: A Personal Testimony,” 72; also id., “Expérience et conversion œcuméniques,” 124. 44. Ibid., 72-73; also id., 124-125. 45. Congar, Divided Christendom; also id., Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un “œcuménisme” catholique, Unam Sanctam, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1937). 46. Congar, “Ecumenical Experience and Conversion: A Personal Testimony,” 73; also id., “Expérience et conversion œcuméniques,” 125. 47. Congar, Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. Philip Loretz (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966) 5-6; also id., Chrétiens en dialogue: Contributions catholiques à l’œcuménisme, Unam Sanctam, 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1964) xiv-xv. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 17

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 17

I looked into the question of Luther, whose writings I turn to, in one way or another, almost monthly. […] I know that nothing really worthwhile with regard to Protestantism will be achieved so long as we take no steps truly to understand Luther, instead of simply condemning him, and to do him historical justice. For this convic- tion which is mine I would gladly give my life.48 Third, Congar’s psychology of ecumenism is profoundly experien- tial. Far from being restricted to intellectual factors, ecumenism is an “original experience” that entails a “second birth.” Ecumenism too has its “order” and it is felt as an authentic Christian value in an original experience which brings with it its own light and power. It is difficult to analyse an experience; one makes it. It entails a second birth, or rather it is itself a process of rebirth. One becomes thereby a better person.49 The most profound expressions of the “ecumenical experience” are in common prayer and table fellowship. As Congar remarks: “Prayer, and as far as it is allowed, prayer in common, is one of the principal concerns of the ecumenical climate. Only after eating together, praying and talking together, can the discussion of certain questions be approached in such a way that the other side is both heard and under- stood.”50 This part of our discussion can perhaps be fittingly brought to a close with some perspicacious remarks from Congar that strike a rare note of joy. “Psychologically, ecumenical experience brings with it the joy of meeting, of being together, diverse and even heretical in each other’s eyes, yet assembled in a similar and harmonious response to God’s call.”51 Having considered the principal elements of the psychology of ecumenism from a Roman Catholic perspective, I wish now to outline the contribution of the World Council of Churches to the psychology of ecumenism. It should be noted at the outset that that Council is a loose confederation of Churches that arose from the fusion of two earlier movements, “Life and Work” and “Faith and Order.”52 At its foundation, the

48. Congar, “Ecumenical Experience and Conversion: A Personal Testimony,” 74; also id., “Expérience et conversion œcuméniques,” 126. 49. Ibid., 79; also id., 131. 50. Yves Congar, “Conquering Our Enmities,” Steps to Christian Unity, ed. John O’Brien (New York: Doubleday, 1964) 100-109, at 108. 51. Congar, “Ecumenical Experience and Conversion: A Personal Testimony,” 80; also id., “Expérience et conversion œcuméniques,” 132. 52. For an account of the history and emergence of the ecumenical movement, see M.-J. Le Guillou, o.p., Mission et Unité: Les Exigences de la Communion, Unam Sanctam, 33 (Paris: Cerf, 1960). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 18

18 GABRIEL FLYNN

World Council of Churches was empowered with purely spiritual authority. The Council’s work was impeded both by the lack of a clear mandate from the churches and by the difficult issue of the relationship between “practical Christianity” (Life and Work) and “doctrinal issues” (Faith and Order). With the approval, at the Edinburgh Conference in 1937, by “Faith and Order” of the plan for a World Council, the most difficult hurdle had been crossed in the ultimate coalescence of the “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” movements respectively. Commenta- tors attribute success in this fragile venture to Dr. Visser ’t Hooft.53 Further progress was made at the Utrecht conference in 1938 when a constitution was agreed and a provisional organization, “The World Council of Churches in Process of Formation,” was also established. Fol- lowing the ravages of the Second World War, the World Council of Churches was formally constituted at Amsterdam on 23 August 1948.54 The defining feature of the World Council of Churches has always been its inherent diversity and respect for difference. As Visser ’t Hooft remarks: “The originality and the raison d’être of the World Council lie precisely in this respect for differences. It would be easier to form a council of churches with similar ecclesiologies, but such a council would not be able to undertake the greater task of bringing together all the Chris- tian churches.”55 To make the position of the World Council of Churches clearer, it should be added that, according to Nathan Söderblom (1866- 1931), Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala and the chief promoter of the “Life and Work” movement,56 the aim of the World Council of Churches was to create a permanent and representative body for the Christian Churches which would provide its members with a “common speaking- trumpet.”57 The history and genesis of the World Council of Churches is not our primary concern here, except to note the immense, outstanding contribution of W. A. Visser ’t Hooft. During the difficult years 1938-48, years of war, confusion and helplessness, it was his leadership and

53. Robert C. Mackie, “W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: An Appreciation,” The Sufficiency of God, 7-16, at 7-9. 54. See The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross, 3rd ed., ed. E. A. Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 1765. 55. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982) 85. 56. See Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948, vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: SPCK, 1967). 57. Nathan Söderblom, Christian Fellowship (New York: Fleming Revell, 1923) 208-209. Cited in Visser ’t Hooft, The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches, 18. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 19

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 19

charisma that helped to shape the World Council of Churches into “a unique international instrument” with an efficient administration.58 Over and above his considerable administrative skills, it was Visser ’t Hooft’s natural capacity for friendship, enhanced by diplomatic dex- terity that ultimately ensured the success of his ecumenical endeavours. Shortly after the Amsterdam Assembly of 1948, Visser ’t Hooft, with magisterial mastery of language, captures something of the original hopes and fears of the World Council of Churches, as well as the perennial, ostensibly insurmountable, and essentially ecclesiological challenges facing the entire ecumenical enterprise. The symbol of the World Council of Churches is a boat, not much different from the boat with which Peter fished on the lake of Gennesaret … The boat has left port for an unknown destiny. It moves forward, [blown] along by the winds of God. But we do not know either what is the significance of the new community and what form it will assume. The ship’s company is inexperienced and its members speak different languages. We do not yet agree on the mean- ing of the church and the Lord’s supper. And we start this dangerous undertaking in the midst of the raging storms in history and feel that the shaky boat is vibrating under our feet. We notice how it struggles with the divisions in politics, culture and theology which separate us. But we cling to the cross in the middle of the boat, because this cross keeps us together and proclaims to us the victory of God over human beings.59

W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: “Pioneer of Ecumenism, Geneva-Rome” Descended from a Dutch legal family, Visser ’t Hooft received a classic European formation. A gifted linguist, he became a skilled representative of Christian theology in the “public square,” notably, in the domains of unity and justice. He is honoured as “the last of the great pioneers of the ecumenical movement who succeeded in keeping together in his own personality and in his reflection the vertical and horizontal dimensions of ecumenism – engagement for the unity of the Church and for social justice, the missionary vocation and spiritual renewal.”60

58. Ans J. van der Bent, Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft 1900-1985: Fisherman of the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000) 15. 59. Hans Heinrich Harms, “Dank an Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft,” Ökumeni- sche Rundschau 24 (1980) 406. Cited in: Van der Bent, Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft 1900- 1985, 17. 60. Konrad Raiser, “Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève- Rome,” Istina 48 (2003) 29-34, at 31-32. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 20

20 GABRIEL FLYNN

But it is as “creator” of the World Council of Churches that he will be best remembered. As Konrad Raiser remarks with characteristic insight: The creation of the World Council of Churches was the result of many factors and influences that Visser ’t Hooft himself analysed in a detailed manner at the end of his life. But there is no doubt that without him, without his tenacity, his courage and his perspicacity, the World Council of Churches would never have survived from the period of the ten years between the decision in 1938 and the first Amsterdam Assembly in 1948. It is the battle for the integrity of the Church against the challenge of Fascism and the discovery of the strength of the bonds of solidarity between the Churches and Chris- tians during the Second World War which gave to the World Coun- cil of Churches its distinct profile. And it was the unique domain by which the personality of Visser ’t Hooft could impose itself on the World Council of Churches. It was his work and it was clear that he was the “patron.”61 Visser ’t Hooft was a prodigious author and the library at the Ecumenical Centre in Geneva possesses an almost complete collection of his writings. Compared with his staggering output on matters ecumenical, however, there is comparatively little written on Visser ’t Hooft himself. The excellent work of Ans J. van der Bent is, in this regard, as accessible as it is useful.62 It is noteworthy that Visser ’t Hooft, in his capacity as editor of The Student World (1928-39), a journal of the World Student Christian Federation, came into contact with leading theologians of his time, including Reinhold Niebuhr, Emil Brunner, William Temple, Hendrik Kraemer and, significantly, Yves Congar.63 It should not be forgotten that the World Council of Churches, as has often been noted, “is first and foremost a fellowship of churches.”64 It was fashioned from a meeting of American and European cultures. The challenge of mediating between those cultures and ecclesiastical traditions fell to Visser ’t Hooft; his Dutch roots made him sufficiently close to the Anglo-Saxon tradition to act as a highly successful mediator. His candidacy for that role is best described by Konrad Raiser: “He was a Protestant at heart but with a catholicity of spirit which permitted him to open the World Council of Churches first to the tradition of the Orthodox Churches and then to appreciate very soon the important

61. Raiser, “Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome,” 30-31. 62. Van der Bent, W. A. Visser ’t Hooft 1900-1985. 63. Ibid., 7. 64. Samuel Kobia, “Foreword,” A Handbook of Churches and Councils: Profiles of Ecumenical Relationships, ed. Huibert van Beek (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2006) vii- viii, at vii. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 21

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 21

changes in the orientation of the Roman Catholic Church through the Second Vatican Council.”65 I wish now to refer to two of Visser ’t Hooft’s early writings because they provide a synopsis of the original vision for church unity promoted by the World Council of Churches. In The Task of the World Council of Churches: Report presented on behalf of the Provisional Committee (1948), Visser ’t Hooft, in anticipa- tion of a brighter dawn, refers explicitly to the provisional nature of the World Council of Churches. “Our Council represents therefore an emer- gency solution – a stage on the road – a body living between the time of complete isolation of the churches from each other and the time – on earth or in heaven – when it will be visibly true that there is one Shep- herd and one flock.”66 He reiterates the primacy of fellowship born of unity. “We are above all a fellowship which seeks to express that unity in Christ already given to us and to prepare the way for a much fuller and much deeper expression of that unity.”67 Holding tenaciously to the “definitely Christocentric basis” of the World Council of Churches, Visser ’t Hooft articulates an indispensable element of its original gospel vision. “We are not forming this Council in a spirit of ambition and in order to join in any struggle for power. We form it in a spirit of repentance for our failure to be the Church together and in order to render clearer witness together to the Lord who came to serve all.”68 In a salutary and timeless caveat for all the churches, Visser ’t Hooft describes as a “misunderstanding” the view that the World Council of Churches “pursues political ends.”69 There is one further document that should be alluded to briefly. The World Council of Churches: Minutes and Reports of the Eighth Meet- ing of the Central Committee (August 2-8, 1955) is significant because it furnishes Visser ’t Hooft’s response to an important question: “What does the World Council mean when it speaks about Christian unity?”70 Referring to the Toronto Statement, Visser ’t Hooft notes that member- ship of the World Council of Churches does not imply the acceptance

65. Raiser, “Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome,” 31. 66. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, The Task of the World Council of Churches: Report Presented on Behalf of the Provisional Committee (Amsterdam: The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, 1948) 6. 67. Ibid., 6. 68. Ibid., 9. 69. Ibid., 5. 70. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, “Various Meanings of Unity and the Unity which the World Council of Churches Seeks to Promote,” Appendix C 1, World Council of Churches: Minutes and Reports of the Eighth Meeting of the Central Committee, Davos (Grisons) Switzerland (Geneva: World Council of Churches: 1955) 86-92, at 86. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 22

22 GABRIEL FLYNN

of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of church unity. In this document, he emphasises the ecclesiological implications of this far- reaching problem. As he observes: “It is not sufficiently realised that every doctrine of the Church implies a particular conception of church unity and that therefore we are not only faced with the problem of differing ecclesiologies but also with the problem of many and various convictions about the conditions and shape of true church unity.”71 In the process of synthesis and abstraction of the World Council of Churches’ vision of unity, Visser ’t Hooft provides a “suggestive list” of what that body has said about unity, two elements of which are particularly noteworthy. First, that “this unity must be made manifest to the world,” and, second, that “the unity of the Church depends on the renewal of the Church.”72 An indispensable element in Visser ’t Hooft’s programme was his perceptive psychology of ecumenism. I refer to two factors by way of illustration of this important point. First, the regularization of relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches; and second, the accession to that body of more Protestant churches in the first world and independent churches in the third world.73 In the “Report of the Provisional Committee” of the “First Assembly of the World Council of Churches” held in Amsterdam (22 August – 4 September 1948), Visser ’t Hooft acknowledges his profound concern for other churches outside the fellowship of the World Council of Churches and, in particular, for the Roman Catholic Church. As he remarks: “We should keep the door open for the Church of Russia and other Orthodox Churches not already represented among us. And we should feel responsible for them as we feel responsible for each other. Special reference should also be made to the Roman Catholic Church.”74 The historical importance of Visser ’t Hooft’s contribution to the renewal of Catholic ecumenism is best described by Konrad Raiser, one-time Sec- retary General of the World Council of Churches. “It is noteworthy that for Visser ’t Hooft the position of the Roman Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement was of such importance that he devoted his intellectual and spiritual energies as well as his erudition and his exceptional experience up until the last moment of his life to ensure the rebirth of the dynamic and the hope created by the Second Vatican Council.”75 71. Visser ’t Hooft, “Various Meanings of Unity,” 87. 72. Ibid., 88. 73. Van der Bent, Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft 1900-1985, 18-19. 74. Visser ’t Hooft, The Task of the World Council of Churches, 8. 75. Raiser, “Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome,” 32. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 23

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 23

On 27 September 2002, Éditions du Cerf, the leading French Catholic Press, hosted an important ecumenical event in Paris to launch Congar’s Vatican II diary Mon journal du Concile,76 and W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome, edited by his friend Jacques Maury, thus jointly honouring two great pioneers of “ecumenical hope.”77 In the company of the late Pierre-Marie Gy, the distinguished French liturgist and a life-long friend and colleague of Congar, I attended that enriching day of speeches, conferences and frank ecumenical exchanges, subsequently published in Istina. I shall comment briefly on Visser ’t Hooft’s important final address at Uppsala in 1968, reproduced in Maury’s volume, because it provides a sort of balance sheet of his hopes and recommendations for the ecumenical movement. It is remark- able, in light of Gaudium et Spes, that Visser ’t Hooft identifies the “Church-world problem” as the old internal tension with which the ecumenical movement will always have to do battle. He is emphatic that the churches need each other; he issues an impassioned call for church renewal for the sake of the world, of civilization and of the young people who pose the profound questions concerning the “ultimate significance of life.”78 Dr. Visser ’t Hooft’s response to Pope John XXIII’s surprise announcement of a Council – a turning point on the Christian journey towards unity – provides clear evidence of his leadership skills. The official response of the World Council of Churches to the breaking news from Rome was in fact rather circumspect. This may in part be explained by a lack of clear information both in and from Rome. The key question raised by the World Council of Churches, as reported in its executive committee’s “Reply to the Pope,” published in the Religion section of Time on 23 February 1959, was as follows: “How ecumenical will the council be in composition and in spirit.”79 It is true to say, I think, that the ecumenical movement was swept along by the swift currents of the momentous events that unfolded in the wake of the announcement of the Second Vatican Council. Most important was the development of a whole new era of dialogue and communication between Rome and Geneva. As Visser ’t Hooft remarks in his Memoirs:

76. Congar, Mon journal du Concile. 77. Maury (ed.), W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome. 78. Visser ’t Hooft, “Le Mandat du mouvement œcuménique,” W. A. Visser ’t Hooft: pionnier de l’œcuménisme Genève-Rome, 205-220, at 219. 79. “Reply to the Pope,” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171, 825597,00.html?iid=chix-sphere (accessed 3 July 2008). See, further, Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs, 327. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 24

24 GABRIEL FLYNN

In June 1960 Fr Willebrands, with his colleague Dr Frans Thijssen, came to see me in Geneva and brought me news about far-reaching developments in Rome. Pope John had decided to create a Secretariat for Unity and had asked Cardinal Augustin Bea to be the head of it. The Cardinal wanted me to be directly informed about this before the public announcement was made and had therefore asked Father Willebrands to visit me in Geneva. This was indeed important news. I had often complained that although we had many contacts with individual Roman Catholics, there was no address or office in the Roman Catholic Church to which we could turn to discuss problems of relationships at an ecclesiastical and representative level.80 It is perhaps noteworthy that so small a matter as common courtesy and effective communication could have such a positive, transformative effect on relations between churches. The Second Vatican Council was set to become the grand ecumenical meeting place of the epoch, a place where friendships were formed and new directions set, the full benefits of which may not yet have been garnered by the churches. The emotional response of Yves Congar on seeing the observers at the Council perhaps best signifies the magnitude of what was transpiring. On meeting the Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann with Max Thurian of Taizé, among others, Congar remarks: “I embrace them all on both cheeks.”81 At the Vatican Council, the World Council of Churches’ observers quickly engaged in fruitful dialogue with the bishops. As Visser ’t Hooft comments: “Before long the observers were also engaged in a constant dialogue with the council fathers. And they were asked by the Secretariat of Unity to comment frankly on the documents under discussion. In many cases these comments had a considerable influence on the wording of the constitu- tions and decrees.”82 By a process of highly effective networking, Visser ’t Hooft continued to advance the World Council of Churches’ agenda for unity both in Rome and beyond the confines of that ancient city. The new challenges for ecumenists, which apparently engendered a certain “nervousness” in Geneva that Rome was becoming the new centre for ecumenical initiative, are succinctly described by Visser ’t Hooft as follows: It seemed that we had arrived at a period of acceleration of ecumenical developments. We had become accustomed to say: The Roman Catholic Church and the ecumenical movement. Now we had to learn that the Roman Catholic Church was becoming an active participant in the ecumenical movement. This was all to the

80. Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs, 328. 81. Congar, Mon journal du Concile, 1: 111-112. 82. Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs, 330. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 25

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 25

good, but it meant that we were confronted by completely new questions and new tasks. […] Writing about “the dangers of ecumenical geometry” in 1964 I said: “The expression that the centre of the ecumenical movement is shifting is equally inadequate to describe the realities of the ecumenical situation. […] The truth is that the centre of the ecumenical movement cannot shift because it has no earthly centre. Its earthly expression is multilateral. The one centre of the ecumenical movement is our common Lord.”83 More than forty years after Vatican II and almost sixty years since the formal constitution of the World Council of Churches, it is clear that the challenges facing ecumenists appear greater than ever and therefore necessitate enhanced courage and keener vision in the service of unity than those manifested by the founders of the modern ecumenical movement. This point can be made clearer by drawing attention to the manner in which the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church currently articulate their respective commitments to the cause of unity. In its mission statement, the World Council of Churches reiterates that body’s abiding commitment to unity, including an effective psychology of ecumenism: Bearing in mind its central task as a council of churches calling one another to visible unity, the WCC builds on the initiatives of churches and partner organizations; keeps in tension dialogue and advocacy, building relationships and promoting social witness; and offers a prophetic voice and witness on the urgent and turbulent issues of our times.84 The Roman Catholic Church, for its part, has never been as active in ecumenical initiatives as it is at present.85 The direction and style of Catholic ecumenism is now largely determined by Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. In a vein reminiscent of Visser ’t Hooft’s emphasis on “our common Lord” four decades earlier, Kasper articulates a Christ-centred vision of ecumenism that proposes a spiritual solution to the present crisis: “In the ecumenical movement the question is the conversion not only of the

83. Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs, 330-331. 84. See World Council of Churches, http://www.oikoumene.org/en/programmes. html (accessed 3 July 2008). 85. Bishop Brian Farrell, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Romanian Orthodox Church, Leeson Park, Dublin, 18 January 2007. Dr. Farrell commented in his homily that he does not accept that there is a winter in ecumenism. On the contrary, he asserted that the Pontifical Council is engaged in multifarious ecumenical initiatives on a worldwide basis. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 26

26 GABRIEL FLYNN

others but of all to Jesus Christ. […] We must, at the same time, deepen and widen the ecumenical dialogue. In other words: we can only widen the ecumenical dialogue when we deepen it. Only spiritually can we over- come the present crisis.”86 In the penultimate part of the present essay, I turn to ecumenical dialogue, a highpoint in receptive ecumenism.

3. Ecumenical Dialogue: “no cascade of light”

“’Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone.”87 So wrote John Donne, lamenting the cosmological revolutions of the seventeenth century. But Europeans were even more deeply shocked by the emergence in the sixteenth century of a new Europe, destined evermore to be “divided by faith.” Wherever past religious divisions shattered unity and divided faith, family, and fatherland, there emerged in the course of time champions of dialogue, possessed of an insuperable commitment to peace. Two such exponents of dialogical peace were Pope Paul VI and Dr. Konrad Raiser, former Secretary General of the World Council of Churches. In his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam: The Paths of the Church, Paul VI outlines the constituent elements of a multifaceted “dialogue of salvation.”88 Set in an essential evangelistic and transcendent context (pars 66 and 72), Church dialogue, like the divine “dialogue of salvation,” is universal and engaged with the world. “The dialogue of salvation was made accessible to all; it was destined for all without distinction; in like manner, our own dialogue should be potentially universal, i.e. all-embracing and capable of including all, except those who either reject it or insincerely pretend to accept it. […] Today, i.e., every day, our dialogue should begin again; we, rather than those toward whom it is directed, should take the initiative.”89 Based on an essential relationship of “courteous esteem,” of “meekness,” “trust,” “pedagogical prudence” and above all, of “clearness,” the “dialogue of salvation” seeks, by means of a dialectic of patience and of thought, to engender receptive openness to and from the other. Paul VI places the dialogue partners within three circles: first, the world, including atheists; second, non-Christians; and third, separated

86. Walter Kasper, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity (London: Burns & Oates: 2004) 17. 87. John Donne, The Complete English Poems, ed. A. J. Smith (London: Penguin Books, 31986) 276. 88. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam: The Paths of the Church (New York: America Press, 1964) par. 76 (41). 89. Ibid., paras 78-79 (42). 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 27

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 27

brethren. Unafraid to articulate his fear regarding “an immoderate desire to make peace and sink differences at all costs,”90 he enunciates again a fundamental and irreplaceable principle of sound ecumenical dialogue: “Let us stress what we have in common rather than what divides us.”91 In a paper entitled “The Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue” published in 2000, Konrad Raiser gives renewed advocacy to the “hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue” proposed by the commission on Faith and Order in 1998.92 The study distinguishes three dimensions of ecumenical hermeneutics: a “hermeneutics of coherence,” in response to the urgent need to hold together the diverse expressions of Christian faith; a “hermeneutics of suspicion,” concerned to examine the historical and contextual relativity of affirmations of the faith; and a “hermeneutics of confidence,” aiming at the mutual reception of Christians and churches from various cultures, backgrounds and confessions. Raiser’s hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue acknowledges that the contributions of the various dialogue partners are shaped by specific ecclesial, cultural, economic, geographical and historical backgrounds. The paper concludes with reference to the ultimate goals of dialogue: “Ecumenical dialogue ultimately aims at reception of the insights gained and the agreements reached, but reception goes beyond the official affirmation of common statements. It involves the mutual reception of the partners in dialogue as sisters and brothers in Christ.”93

4. Conclusion

Daring to give expression to the melancholic yearning for lost unity in past Christian generations, ecumenism operates within a restless dialectic of power and powerlessness. Like a deep fountain of rich pure honey, whose harvesters must gather their precious produce on the windy head- lands of a hostile, estranged world, the ecumenical movement moves falteringly forward, transcending, of necessity, all obstacles, while avoiding the quicksand of spiritual relativism. Speaking in Dublin on 30 April 2007, Dr. Samuel Kobia, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, boldly declared: “We have the capacity as the church, when we work together, to resolve any

90. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, par. 91 (46). 91. Ibid., par. 113 (55). 92. Konrad Raiser, “The Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue,” Ecumenical Review 52 (2000) 287-292, at 290. 93. Ibid., 292. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 28

28 GABRIEL FLYNN

problem.”94 Such powerful rhetoric is reduced to mere aspirational sentiment when the Christian churches fail to work together against injustice and war and when theologians tire of their normally wearisome labour in the still deeper caverns of ancient doctrinal disagreement. It cannot be denied that the World Council of Churches faces grave difficulties in its relations with the Roman Catholic Church and the Ortho- dox Churches which increasingly favour dialogue with individual churches and with evangelicals. The urgent challenge for the members of the World Council of Churches and of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular, for theologians and church leaders, is to further Christ’s work for unity on earth by closer adherence to the word, the truth of the gospel. Reading the signs of the times, and considering the lessons of history and their corollaries, it is clear that religion is as emblematic of peace as of violence. Thus, without denying past divisions and present differences between the churches on such controversial matters as Eucharistic hospitality and holy orders, issues profoundly affected by our common fractured humanity and in varying degrees symptomatic of an ever restless modern society, it is incumbent on all to chart a way forward. By way of conclusion, I think it is clear that the ecumenical question is in essence an ecclesiological one. If efforts to awaken ecumenism from its present torpor are not to end in disappointment, a renewal in that domain must be preceded by a renewal in ecclesiology. Furthermore, since ecclesiology is perceived as an academic exercise, though one that is inextricably linked to the churches’ pastoral life, the importance of an adequate psychology and spirituality emerges as of primary importance for the local churches. As Dr. Visser ’t Hooft remarks: “Our affirmation of unity can only expect to meet with response if we awaken in each local congregation the joyous consciousness of its participation in and responsibility for the Church of Christ as a whole.”95 On the universal plane, the immense contribution of the World Council of Churches and of the Second Vatican Council, respectively, to a symbiotic ecumenical receptivity is indisputable; nonetheless, to deny that the churches they symbolize and represent also constitute radically divergent paradigms would be to misread ecclesiastical history and to misunderstand the present realpolitik. Thus, while the churches are ensnared in an apparently

94. Samuel Kobia, “Issues in Reconciliation,” unpublished public lecture, Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College, Dublin. Dr. Kobia’s statement was in response to a question posed by the author: Is it realistic to expect unity between the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church before the Lord’s return? 95. Visser ’t Hooft, The Task of the World Council of Churches, 4. 1609-08_LouvainStud_1-2_08_01 11-06-2009 12:04 Pagina 29

VATICAN II AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 29

unfinished symphony of suffering divided even on fundamental issues of life, sexuality, gender and equality, the prayer of Christ for unity and salvation may still be heard over a cacophony of conflicting voices, “That they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me.”96 For Irish and British people, it may respectfully be suggested that there are 3,722 reasons why, putting aside the enmities and prejudices of former generations, we should commit unstintingly to the work of unity – 3,722 people died in our 30-year difficulty, what in Ireland is euphemistically called “The Troubles” (1968-1998) – the price of peace in Britain and Ireland.97 I end with the words of the Nobel literature laureate Seamus Heaney, from North (1975): Compose in darkness. Expect aurora borealis in the long foray but no cascade of light.98

Gabriel Flynn is Head of the School of Theology, Mater Dei Institute, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. He received his doctorate from the University of Oxford in 2000. An ordained Catholic priest, he is the author of Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief (Ashgate, 2004) and editor of Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church/Yves Congar: Théologien de l’Église (Peeters, 2005/Cerf, 2007), Leadership and Business Ethics (Springer, 2008), and (with Paul D. Murray) “Ressourcement:” A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth Century Catholic Theology (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2009). He has contributed scholarly articles to Louvain Studies, New Blackfriars, La Vie spirituelle, Concilium and the Journal of Business Ethics. Address: Mater Dei Institute, DCU, Clonliffe Road, Dublin 3, Ireland. E-mail: gabriel.flynn@ materdei.dcu.ie.

96. John 17:21 (Knox). 97. On 9 May 2007, the day following the historic opening of the newly constituted Northern Ireland Executive, as laughter at last returned to Ulster, The Irish Times published the names of all who died in the Northern Ireland conflict. See, “The Trou- bles 1966-2007: 3,722 lives lost – the price of peace in a divided island,” The Irish Times, 9 May 2007, 14-15. Data from: David McKittrick and others Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 1999). 98. Seamus Heaney, New Collected Poems: 1966-1987 (London: Faber and Faber, 1990) 56.