“Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession” Concluding Reflections to the Centro Pro Unione Symposium William Henn, O.F.M

Louvain Studies 21 (1996) 183-199

“Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession” Concluding Reflections to the Centro Pro Unione Symposium William Henn, O.F.M. Cap.

My aim in the following reflections is not so much to add new data to what was presented in the five excellent papers prepared for the symposium held on November 23-24, 1995, at the Centro Pro Unione in Rome on the “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession.” Rather, my own reflections will be limited to the following points, which I have attempted to derive directly from the material presented in those papers: I. the importance of the symposium; II. a prin- cipal area of convergence; and III. specific issues which could lead to yet greater convergence.

I. Significance of the Theme of the Symposium

The report published in 1990 by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches about the responses of the various Christian communities to the Lima document on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,” includes the following observation: For many on both sides of the issue the question of episcopal succession remains the most difficult problem for further dialogue on ministry. Behind this issue lie significant ecclesiological questions. It can, therefore, only be tackled in the framework of a broader, more intensified discussion on ecclesiology …1 The Centro Pro Unione symposium has been a valuable contribution to this discussion, focusing on the ecclesiological theme of the apostolic

1. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the Process and Responses, Faith and Order Paper, 149 (Geneva: WCC, 1990) 128. 184 WILLIAM HENN continuity of the Church and, within that context, on the precise topic of apostolic succession. Because one of the defining parameters of the symposium was the Porvoo Common Statement of the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches and the Anglican Churches of Great Britain and Ire- land, the papers of the symposium have also given quite precise attention to the topic of episcopacy. When speaking of the difficulty and complexity of this issue, as does the Report on BEM cited above, one should not overlook the progress which has already been made in reflection about apostolicity. Perhaps an example could illustrate this. Almost thirty years ago, the Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar wrote an essay entitled “Apos- tolicity of Ministry and Apostolicity of Doctrine,” in which, taking as his point of departure some passages by Luther, Melanchthon and other reformers, he attempted to show that the two dimensions of apostolicity entailed in this distinction are rather closely intertwined in patristic and later scholastic writings.2 This could have been considered a bit avant-garde at the time, in that Congar suggested that one could not simply rely on succession in ministry as the sufficient criterion for ensuring apostolicity.3 He provided various witnesses, at one point quot- ing Pope Sixtus III (432-440) to the effect that one cannot truly be considered a successor to the apostles if one does not follow them in the faith which they handed on. Thus, correct faith was often seen as much as a criterion by which bishops were acknowledged to be “in apostolic succession” as was their ordination in a line of ministerial succession. The importance of apostolicity in faith in underscored by the fact that some of those who had fallen into error during the doctrinal debates of the early centuries were in fact ordained bishops of ancient “apostolic” churches. One recalls John Henry Newman's comment that, during the great Arian controversy, “the episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicea … did not … play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did.”4 Neither Congar nor Newman made use of these observations to question the legitimacy or even, for them, the necessity of the episcopacy for the Church. But for

2. The full title of this work is “Apostolicité de ministère et apostolicité de doctrine: Essai d'explication de la Réaction protestante et de la Tradition catholique.” First published in 1967, it was later included among the essays of Y. Congar, Ministères et communion ecclésiale, Théologie sans frontières, 23 (Paris: Cerf, 1971) 51-94. 3. This point also is made in various ways in the symposium papers of Dr. Tan- ner, Professor Tjørhom and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. 4. J. H. Newman, “The Orthodoxy of the Body of the Faithful during the Supremacy of Arianism,” in The Arians of the Fourth Century (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1919) 445-468 at 445. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 185 them it seemed clear that an approach to apostolicity which isolated ministry from faith or faith from ministry could never be adequate. If one looks at the rather numerous ecumenical dialogues which have taken up the question of apostolicity during the last thirty years, one can trace a certain shift in the way in which the topic has been framed. Most of the dialogues prior to BEM tended to speak of apostolicity within the context of discussing ministry. Since then, there has been a substantial increase in dialogue precisely about ecclesiology and, within that context, about the nature of the whole Church as apostolic.5 This has tended to place the question in a much broader context, the ultimate fruits of which may not yet have come to light. If nothing else, it seems a general point of agreement among divided Christians that Christ's church is and must be apostolic and that its apostolicity needs to be understood in a way which takes into account many factors.

II. A Major Convergence Concerning Apostolicity

The Porvoo Common Statement accepts this broader vision of apostolicity, as does each of the conferences presented during the Centro Pro Unione symposium. Dr. Tanner reflected on the integral unity of the various factors favoring apostolicity as, to take only one example, in her discussion of the organic relation between the elements present in the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral. This more global and integrated understanding appeared also in Professor Tjørhom's five general theses on apostolicity, as well as in his analysis of the Porvoo Common State- ment. Professor O'Collins developed biblical material which principally supported the presence and succession of leadership structures, but this was related and in service to the ongoing continuity of the community

5. A perusal of the indices of the various collections of ecumenical documents under the headings “apostolicity” or “apostle” will, in a general way, verify this observation, although there are some exceptions, such as the relatively early document (1970) from a theological commission set up by the Joint Working Group of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches which focused on the catholicity and apostolicity of the Church as a whole, and not simply on apostolicity of ministry. The report of this commission was published under the title “Study Document on ‘Catholicity and Apostolicity',” One in Christ 6 (1970) 452-483. Helpful syntheses of the overall ecumenical discussion of apostolicity can be found in F. A. Sullivan, “Apos- tolicity in Ecumenical Dialogue,” in his The Church We Believe In: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988) 185-209; and H. Schütte, “Apostoli- zität der Kirche – Gabe und Aufgabe,” in his Kirche im ökumenischen Verständnis: Kirche des dreieinigen Gottes (Paderborn/Frankfurt am Main: Bonifatius/Otto Lembeck, 1992) 115-123. 186 WILLIAM HENN as a whole. Metropolitan John gave a very direct and distinctive accent to this principle by arguing from patristic sources that apostolic succession is fundamentally a succession of communities and that succession in episcopal ministry must be understood within this context. Finally, Professor Meyer's theological presentation from the perspective of the Reformation begins precisely with the more global understanding of continuity and proceeds to situate ministerial succession within that context. Here, then, is an important convergence among the symposium papers. It signals that theologians representing the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions would all reject the isolation of any one element of apostolic continuity – such as, for example, faith or ministry – as the sole means or criterion of such continuity. A first consequence of this would appear to be that the divided Christian communities already can and do consider each other to be to some degree “apostolic.” This recognition does not eliminate the need to explore the whole mosaic of factors which enter into apostolicity and to seek possible consensus about what they are and how they relate to each other in maintaining the Church as apostolic.6 But this shift from identifying apostolicity in a very restricted way to the more realistic and dynamic view that apostolicity entails many elements and that various communities may express these in various ways and degrees is one of great importance, perhaps the most considerable achievement of ecumenical dialogue about apostolicity so far.

III. Specific Promising Themes

In addition to this major convergence, a number of specific issues have been touched upon in the various conferences which can contribute to a real advance toward greater consensus about apostolic continuity and apostolic succession. I will discuss below three such issues.

6. A recent ecumenical acknowledgment of the many factors involved in apostolicity as well as of the need to more deeply reflect on the way in which they work together is the second part of the “Report of Section II: Confessing the One Faith to God's Glory” of the Fifth World Conference of Faith and Order (Santiago de Com- postela, August 3-14, 1993). This second part of the Report is entitled “Recognizing Apostolicity” and can be found in T. F. Best and G. Gaßmann (eds.), On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Santiago de Compostela 1993 – Official Report of the Fifth World Confer- ence on Faith and Order, Faith and Order Paper, 166 (Geneva: WCC, 1994) 239-240. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 187

1. The Freedom of the Churches with Regard to Ministry Both Dr. Tanner and Professor Tjørhom touched upon the unique nature of the Porvoo agreement which may distinguish it from earlier ecumenical documents, that is, that it entails entering into a deeper communion and sharing of ecclesial life. One of the key aspects of this involves the freedom of communities to acknowledge the ministry of others and to alter their own forms of ministry. The relevant texts from paragraph 52 of the Porvoo Common Statement read as follows: “a church which has preserved the sign of historic episcopal succession is free to acknowledge an authentic episcopal ministry in a church which has preserved continuity in the episcopal office by an occasional priestly/presbyteral ordination” and “a church which has preserved continuity through such a succession is free to enter a relationship of mutual participation in episcopal ordinations with a church which has retained the historical episcopal succession and to embrace this sign, without denying its past apostolic continuity.”7 The Porvoo Statement is here addressing a particularly difficult problem, one that also emerged in the responses to the ministry section of BEM. In the responses to BEM, this freedom was not felt by many of the communities. The problem can be stated in several questions. How can a church which really believes that episcopacy is in some way essential to ministerial transmission be free to recognize the ministry of those churches which do not have episcopal ministry, without thereby com- promising its own understanding of ministry? Some responses to BEM found that such recognition would involve them in a doctrinal inconsistency.8 On the other hand, how can a non-episcopal church, even if it were to find no doctrinal inconsistency in accepting episcopal ministerial structure, be free to adopt such a structure without thereby calling into question its past apostolic continuity?9 Some responses stated that

7. The Porvoo Common Statement, CCU Occasional Paper, 3 (London: Council for Christan Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England, 1993) 28. Here- after, this document will be referred to as PCS, followed by a paragraph number. 8. For example, the response of the Romanian Orthodox Church states: “We do not understand why, on the one hand, the document affirms apostolic succession through episcopate (Commentary 34) and on the other hand it asks for the recognition of apostolic succession of the churches which have not retained or do not have episcopal succession (M37), without stating precisely through what particular church structures apostolic succession could have been or could be preserved today.” This text is found in M. Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” Text, vol. III, Faith and Order Paper, 135 (Geneva: WCC, 1987) 11. Sim- ilar positions are found in the responses of other Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic church and some Anglican churches. 9. This position was very clearly expressed by the response of the United 188 WILLIAM HENN they simply would not and could not do anything which could amount to a repudiation of their past ministerial structures.10 The Porvoo Statement suggests that communities of both sides would be free to take these steps, seemingly on the basis of two affirmations: first, that “episcopal succession does not by itself guarantee the fidelity of a church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life and mission” (PCS 51) and, second, that “faithfulness to the apostolic calling of the whole Church is carried by more than one means of continuity” (PCS 52). These affirmations weaken the case for episcopal succession by noting that it is not a guarantee and broaden the range of factors which count for apostolicity. Still, as both Dr. Tanner and Professor Tjørhom noted, episcopal succession is not merely optional, in that “the retention of the sign [of episcopal succession] remains a permanent challenge to fidelity and to unity, a summons to witness to, and a commission to realize more fully, the permanent characteristics of the church of the apostles” (PCS 51). The acceptance of these affirmations would seem to be the condition for that freedom about which the Porvoo Statement speaks. But one point seems to call for further clarification. Porvoo follows BEM in stating that episcopal succession is not a “guarantee” of continuity and that many elements go into apostolic continuity. But do either of these affirmations, or both of them taken together, intend also to say that such succession is not “required” or “essential” or “necessary?” Is the freedom about which Porvoo speaks really conditioned on a prior supposition that episcopal succession is not, strictly speaking, necessary for apostolic continuity? At least two reflections come to mind in this regard. The first one concerns whether the Porvoo Common Statement itself ultimately

Reformed Church of Great Britain, with the words: “We welcome the recognition that churches which have not retained the historic episcopate have preserved continuity in apostolic faith, worship and mission, particularly in ordination (M37). We believe that further work needs to be done on whether or how the sign of episcopal succession can be recovered (M38) in a way which does not in fact throw the existing continuity with apostolic faith, worship and mission into question.” This text can be found in M. Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vol. I, Faith and Order Paper, 129 (Geneva: WCC, 1986) 108. 10. For example, the Federation of the Evangelical Churches in the German Democratic Republic, comprised of eight churches, responded: “Care must be taken here to ensure that any possible adoption of the sign of episcopal succession in no way implies for the churches concerned any devaluation or even invalidation of their traditional ministries, theologically, canonically or liturgically. We see no possibility whatever of accepting the adoption of this sign as the condition for recognition of our ministry.” This text can be found in M. Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vol. V, Faith and Order Paper, 143 (Geneva: WCC, 1988) 143. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 189 addresses this question. If its basis for the freedom about which I have been commenting consists of the statements about episcopacy as no guarantee and about the plurality of means of continuity, then it would seem that this particular question may not yet have found an answer at Porvoo. For neither really excludes the possibility that episcopal succession may in some sense be required, essential or necessary. For example, the fact that succession in ministry did not guarantee that all bishops during the Arian crisis remained “orthodox” does not in and of itself imply that such succession is unnecessary. It could simply imply that, even with such succession, it is still possible for bishops to err. The fact that many elements are involved in the Church's apostolic continuity does not in and of itself imply that none of these elements are necessary. Here the analogy suggested by Dr. Tanner that apostolic continuity may be likened to a rope which entwines many cords and which therefore may still be sturdy enough to sustain continuity even if one or another cord may be missing merits some analysis. This could suggest that no single cord should be considered as absolutely required, essential and necessary. But would not these many cords include elements of continuity such as fidelity to the scriptures or celebration of the eucharist? Surely most Christians would agree that these cords are in some way “necessary” to the integral whole which constitutes this rope of apostolic continuity, such that, for example, a community which did not try to be faithful to the scriptures, as part of the complex of factors which go into its continuity, would not be not be considered to be “apostolic” in the normal or full meaning of the word. Thus, while very useful for express- ing the interconnectedness and mutual support of the various factors favoring apostolic continuity, the image of a rope of many chords does not in itself answer the legitimate question about whether or not some elements of apostolicity are essential to such continuity. One could even envision, as I suspect many would believe to be the case, that not merely one but rather a number of such elements are in some way “necessary” to apostolicity. If one frames the issue in this way, then the crucial question now becomes not whether episcopal succession can serve as a guarantee of continuity or whether there are many elements involved in continuity but rather whether any of the elements of apostolic continuity are necessary and whether episcopal succession is among such elements. One might wonder whether Metropolitan John Zizioulas' demon- stration of two distinct patristic visions of apostolic succession (the linear-historical conception, present in 1 Clement, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Cyprian, and the eschatological conception, found in Ignatius of Antioch, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Hegesippus) might be of 190 WILLIAM HENN help here. More precisely, might one identify the question of the necessity of episcopacy with the linear historical model which looks to the past and see the eschatological model which conceives apostolic succession as in some real way coming from the future as a patristically based alternative which would render episcopal succession in some way unnecessary? This would not seem to follow from the material presented by Metropolitan John Zizioulas, since neither of the models he presented envisions a community without bishops. The eschatological model appears more as a corrective to a one-sided linear-historical conception, with its attendant danger of isolating the bishop from the community, rather than as an alternative which would wholly replace the linear historical conception now with a one-sided eschatological conception. Thus the possibility that episcopacy is an essential aspect of apostolic succession is not removed by this distinction. A second reflection concerns the words “required,” “essential” and “necessary,” which I would take as conveying basically the same meaning. How and for what reason could any aspect of Church life be desig- nated by these adjectives? It would seem to me that Christians would be strictly bound to some particular beliefs, sacramental practices and ecclesial structures only by the Word of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and handed on through the apostles and the apostolic churches by the power of the Holy Spirit. This would imply that in many aspects of Christian life, Christians are not “bound” and that there would be a rather substantial freedom for the elaboration of theologies, the evolu- tion of liturgical rites and practices, the development of various ecclesial structures and the inculturation of the Christian vocation in various forms of spirituality. Some elements of Christian and ecclesial life, on the other hand, would be classified as required or essential or necessary on the basis of the Word of God which conveys the will of God. Chris- tians would be “bound” by these elements, but it would be an easy yoke and a light burden (see Mt 11:30), one which believers would embrace with that same enthusiasm with which the psalmist prayed “The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul; the decree of the Lord is trust- worthy, giving wisdom to the simple” (Ps 19:8) or about which Jere- miah the prophet rejoiced when he said: “When I found your words, I devoured them; they became my joy and the happiness of my heart” (Jer 15:16). The task then becomes a joyful one, of seeking for this will. If words like “required,” “essential” or “necessary” are seen in this context, they would lose much of their restrictive or judgmental nuance. In terms of the precise topic of apostolicity, surely one of the most important ecumenical tasks is to discern what this will of God is CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 191 regarding ecclesial continuity. It would seem that, even if episcopal succession were discerned to be part of God's will for the Church and so a necessary component of apostolic continuity, this would not ipso facto compel a complete rejection by episcopal churches of the apostolicity of the ministry of non-episcopal churches or ipso facto imply that the only way in which non-episcopal churches could adopt an episcopal structure would amount to a repudiation of their ministerial heritage. These would seem to be extreme conclusions which do not recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit acting in all of the still divided Christian communities. But the Porvoo Statement about freedom certainly has taken the discussion a step forward by bringing into sharper focus this question of the Church's freedom concerning ministerial structures in such a way which challenges all within the ecumenical community to consider it at greater depth.

2. The Biblical and Patristic Foundations for Apostolic Succession

Here I would like, first, to point out what appears to be an incipi- ent tension between the thrust of the paper by Professor O'Collins and a point made by Professor Meyer. O'Collins outlined what I suspect most would consider a rather reasonable argument that the New Testa- ment provides evidence of a Church which enjoys “some kind of ecclesial leadership in a hierarchical organization,” rather than evidence of a “totally egalitarian community.” He supports one major section which lays out relevant biblical data with eight other arguments, some more directly biblical and some making use of patristic and philosophical considerations, to bolster his case. He admits to having focused on the broader question of ecclesial leadership which is to some degree orga- nized in a hierarchical fashion and to have left aside considerations which would be more relevant to the precise question of “episcopal succession,” although one senses in this admission the conviction that there would also be data in the New Testament which would be relevant to the question of episcopacy and its succession. The potential tension appears when Professor Meyer stated that one of the ecclesiological insights which followed upon the experience of the Reformation was the insight that, of three elements which had been thought of as in some way normative in maintaining apostolic continuity – scripture, creed and episcopacy – the third, episcopacy, had shown itself to be of a lower rank (point 1 in section IV of Professor Meyer's paper) and, indeed, not normative (point 2 of the same). The potential tension appears insofar as O'Collins' paper seems headed in 192 WILLIAM HENN the direction of saying that the New Testament itself, and therefore one of the two normative elements which Meyer has retained, would seem to provide evidence that “ministry and office belong among the necessary means for handing on and living the same apostolic faith in ‘succession' or continuity.” Admittedly, O'Collins here spoke of “ministry and office” and not specifically of “episcopacy.” One may wonder whether the New Testament case for the more general category “ministry and office” would be considerably stronger than its case for “episcopacy.” But this would seem to be an important question which could benefit from further ecumenical dialogue. There has been no dearth of scholarly study about ministry and even about episkope in the New Testament.11 A rather wide spectrum of views has been defended. But I would like to point out two examples which suggest that this area may be a promising field for further work. In 1973 the International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church published the results of its study of the same theme treated in the Centro Pro Unione symposium: the apostolicity of the Church and apostolic succession.12 These scholars, after analyzing the biblical and patristic material, concluded that, while purely historical research could provide much evidence which could be marshalled, even from New Tes- tament sources, in support of the idea that bishops in some way succeed to the apostles, nevertheless the historical method alone could not ultimately “prove” such succession. They needed to take recourse in a second method, which they called “theological” or “spiritual” and which not only considered facts from the vantage point of scientific history but also tried to interpret those facts “with the eyes of faith,” as it were, to try to discern the will of God as working through historical events. Only then could they come to some conclusion about apostolic succession. This suggests a certain modesty about what can be drawn, on strictly scientific grounds, from scripture regarding apostolicity and, more particularly, episcopal succession. It also suggests that faith, and not reason alone, has a crucial role to play in the discernment of what God is carrying forth in guiding the God's people through the course of history.

11. For one example, see R. E. Brown, “Episkope and Episkopos: The New Testa- ment Evidence,” Theological Studies 41 (1980) 322-338. An earlier study, which includes five pages of bibliography containing relevant publications which had appeared up to that time, is R. Schnackenburg, “Apostolicity: The Present Position of Studies,” One in Christ 6 (1970) 243-273. 12. The report of the commission appears under the title “Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession,” in M. J. Sharkey (ed.), International Theological Commission: Texts and Documents 1969-1985 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989) 93-104. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 193

A second development relevant to the biblical and patristic foundations of apostolicity and apostolic succession was the discussion of these themes by the delegates of the Fifth World Conference of Faith and Order at Santiago de Compostela in 1993. Here, in discussing the ecclesial structures which serve koinonia in faith, it was suggested that considerable scientific, historical-critical support for the role of the episkopos in the Church could be drawn from New Testament material, especially from the pastoral letters and from the emergence of the so- called “house churches,” the leaders of which, it was suggested, may provide in part the historical origins of that ministry which later soon evolved into the episcopal ministry early in the second century.13 Here too, voices countered that a theological method of interpreting the New Testament texts with the discerning eyes of faith would add much more to what can be drawn from merely historical techniques. Regardless of this difference of opinion, the imprint which the discussion left upon the “Report of Section II” suggests that New Testament material relevant to the question of succession in the ministry of episkope could yet provide insight which would be ecumenically quite fruitful. The opportuneness of deeper reflection in this area can be seen in the fact that the numbers of BEM entitled precisely “Succession in the Apostolic Tradition” (BEM M34-38 and comments 34 and 36) remark- ably contain no direct citations of or even explicit reference to any biblical passage. In fairness, one must acknowledge that the commentary on paragraph 34 is wholly devoted to general statements derived from the New Testament which are relevant to apostolicity. Still, as the above-mentioned documents suggest and as the speakers of the symposium have brought into focus, the examination of relevant New Testa- ment material could provide yet further help in facing this difficult question of apostolic continuity and succession. Finally, a brief comment should be added concerning the necessity of examining patristic literature for material concerning the theological foundations of apostolicity and apostolic succession. The paper by Met- ropolitan John of Pergamon illustrates that biblical data is by no means the only relevant source for uncovering the foundations of episcopal ministry and succession. His rather detailed discussion of quite specific points such as the identity of the bishop in relation to the community and the rich nuance of various views of apostolic succession stands in contrast to the more restricted detail which can be gleaned from

13. See the fourth part of Santiago de Compostela's “Report of Section II,” entitled “Structures serving unity” in T. F. Best and G. Gaßmann (eds.), On the Way to Fuller Koinonia, 242-244. 194 WILLIAM HENN

Scripture about these topics. This suggests that, alongside the fruits of further study of the Scriptures, even more explicit and relevant material could be gained from research and dialogue about the way in which episcopacy was exercised and reflected upon during the early centuries of the life of the Church. In the context of the papers presented during the Centro symposium, the remarks of Dr. Tanner and Professor Tjørhom about the episcopacy as a sign of apostolicity could be related in a fruitful way to the reflections of Metropolitan Zizioulas relative to the patristic understanding of episcopacy, as could also the comments of Professor Meyer questioning the differentiation between bishops and other ordained ministers.

3. The Original Intention of the Leaders of the Reformation with Regard to Ministerial and Episcopal Structure In my opinion, this is an issue which could be of monumental importance for the way in which the ecumenical discussion of ministry is contextualized and approached. Both Professors Tjørhom and Meyer provided evidence that the origins of the Reformation were not directly related to a theological difficulty about Church structure. One wonders whether this fact has been given the attention it may deserve. Might it not appear a tragic outcome of human history, not unlike those tragedies represented in great literature from Sophocles to Shakespeare, that divided Christian communities should have to resign themselves to a disagreement about Church structure as a result of historical developments which none of their leaders had intended in the first place. In this regard one must take into consideration also the intentions of the leaders of the Catholic church at the time. When one recalls Vatican II's admission, recently reaffirmed by John Paul II in his encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, that Catholics too bear responsibility for Christian divisions,14 it is clear that to use the word “tragedy” about such divisions is not in any way meant as a disparagement of the Refor- mation but rather refers to an unfortunate sequence of events which concerns us all. In this light and respecting all of the positive values embraced by the leaders of the Reformation and by the leaders within the Catholic Church at the time, it seems quite appropriate to ask “what went wrong?” Is it possible to return to the moment prior to actual divi- sion so as to uncover the original motivations of both sides in such a way that one can be faithful to those motivations, and not remain

14. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, printed in Origins 25, no. 4 (1995-1996) 49-72, at par. 11, which quotes Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio 3. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 195 trapped in a disagreement which only emerged as the consequence of subsequent events? Of course a fundamental question in this regard has been brought quite clearly into focus by Professor Meyer, when he stated that these subsequent events provided the opportunity for a theological and ecclesiological insight.15 It was as if two experiences – 1) the experience of the failure of the bishops to respond appreciatively, and instead even to reject, the legitimate concerns of the leaders of the Reformation along with 2) the experience of continuing to live as genuine Christian communities, even in an apparently more fruitful way, without the bishops – together convinced the reformers that the episcopacy could not be considered as somehow normative or necessary for apostolic continuity. What comes into focus here is a question of fundamental importance, that is, the question of the way in which historical events contribute to clearer knowledge of God's will for the Church. A recurrent theme in the responses to BEM was voiced by Reformation communities which asked how that Faith and Order document reflected and gave positive appreciation to their own historical experience.16 This topic is too broad for an adequate development in these concluding reflections. Surely the following two themes would need to be included in a thorough consideration of this issue. First, the Church does seem to be able to grow in understanding revelation over the course of time, so that circumstances, cultures and histories can make possible new insights. Without this ability, growth in faith and development in doctrine, liturgy, praxis and spirituality would not be possible. Second, fidelity to the apostolic origins of Christian faith and life always plays a normative role in guiding historical developments. Because of this, it would seem that a discernment must be made concerning historical experience, so as to clarify just how the new experience can serve in correctly interpreting what has been handed on from the beginning. These are the more general, fundamental parameters which need to be explored in coming to some determination about how historical experience can enter into growth in understanding the revealed Word of God.

15. In remarking that the situation at the time should not be “theologized,” Professor Tjørhom appears to disagree with this point of Professor Meyer. 16. For example, the United Reformed Church of Great Britain, in M. Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vol. I, 104f, asked why one may not discern that it to have been the guidance of the Holy Spirit which brought about the rejection of episcopal structure by Reformation communities during the early 16th century. The Reformed Church in Hungary, in M. Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vol. V, 163, charged that BEM wholly neglected the Calvinistic order which constitutes the structure of many Reformation churches. 196 WILLIAM HENN

To these more general observations, I would like to add two specific reflections which were inspired by the presentations during the symposium. The first concerns what I will call the fallibility of the episcopacy. It is for historians to decide, if they so wish, to assign failure to any historical figure. It is perhaps more historically sustainable simply to establish the facts as well as one can and leave the assignment of failure, especially if this implies moral culpability, to God. But from a more systematic point of view, it is a valid theological question to ask what significance for the topic of apostolic continuity and of episcopal succession is implicit in the possibility that members of the episcopacy, even many of them together, may fail by reason of human frailty and vulnerability. There is good reason for the reluctance of theologians to define the Church as sinful.17 That would be like defining a community in terms of that which it was founded precisely to avoid. Consequently, in describing the Church, there has been a tendency to emphasize its sanc- tity or its freedom from error, for example, in confessing Jesus as Lord. But such an emphasis can obscure the fact that the whole Church, including its ministerial leaders, must constantly seek that metanoia with which Jesus opened his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Whatever else a belief in the necessity of episcopal succession may mean for those who are convinced of it, it does not mean that individual members of the episcopate and even those holding a position of primacy cannot make mistakes, either moral or doctrinal. Perhaps if this idea could enter more explicitly into ecumenical discussion of apostolic continuity and episcopal succession, a more accurate presentation of episcopacy could eliminate misunderstanding and facilitate greater convergence. Moreover, the two reformation insights that ministry is under the word of God and that it must be exercised accountably and, in that sense, verifiably could be important themes integrated into an ecumenical discussion of episcopal ministry. I suspect that the Roman Catholic

17. Karl Rahner struggles with this question, in his own inimitable and inspira- tional way, in “The Sinful Church in the Decrees of Vatican II,” in Theological Investi- gations, vol. VI (London/New York: Darton, Longman & Todd/Seabury Press, 1969) 270-294, which provides a good number of references not only to Vatican II but also to earlier doctrinal statements relevant to the attempt to reconcile the presence of sinful- ness within the Church to the credal profession that the Church is “holy.” Rahner's “The Church of Sinners,” on 253-269 of the same volume, closes with the beautiful image of Jesus kissing the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7:53–8:11) on the forehead and whispering “My beloved bride, my Church.” CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 197 theological and doctrinal tradition and even praxis would agree with these two points, without seeing them as contradicting either the necessity of episcopacy or the normativity of some episcopal doctrinal decisions in certain carefully defined circumstances.18 The episcopacy would be understood as necessary and some of its decisions normative only to the extent that the Word and will of God were to so designate. Doctri- nal decisions would be considered normative only insofar as they are authoritative interpretations of God's Word. Finally, both accountability and verifiability would be required by fidelity to revelation, as it is dis- cerningly interpreted by the gift of the sensus fidei, bestowed the Holy Spirit on all believers, and by the collegial and primatial ministries which serve the organic unity of the Church. Secondly, the fact that the original intentions of the leaders of the Reformation were not centered on theological difficulties with episcopal succession could perhaps play an important role in addressing one of the very difficult problems voiced in the Porvoo document and in the responses to BEM as well – the problem that adoption of episcopacy by communities which do not currently have that structure seems to amount to a repudiation of their past ministerial heritage. In this regard, it certainly is not sufficient simply to have recourse to the intentions of the reformers without positively appreciating the many ways in which ministry has been exercised in communities without bishops. The saints, martyrs and shining witnesses from so many divided communities con- stitute a reality which gives testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit in working through ministers of these communities. The holiness of these many witnesses cannot be thought of as resulting “in spite of” the ministry of their communities but rather, in part, by means of the very efficacy of that ministry.19

18. For some support of this statement, see Congar, “Apostolicité de ministère,” passim, but especially 78-80. Congar shows that Thomas Aquinas, among others, acknowledged the need for bishops to be held accountable; he also comments about the tradition, unanimously held at least until the time of the counter-Reformation, of the possibility that a pope could be a heretic. About the latter point, Congar adds: “L'idée qu'un pape puisse être hérétique nous paraît aujourd'hui encore méthodologiquement essentielle au bon équilibre de la théologie de sacra hierarchia et speciatim de potestate papae.” 19. One may note that, in their presentations, three of the symposium speakers (Professors Tjørhom and Meyer and Metropolitan John of Pergamon) made reference to the “extraordinary circumstances” which initially caused the shift away from an episcopal structure in some of the communities of the Reformation. In this regard, two points suggest areas of potentially fruitful reflection. First, might not the traditional theological appreciation of God's ability to act for the salvation of human beings in “extraordinary circumstances” open up a way for a more positive appreciation of ministry in communities which found themselves in such circumstances? Such freedom on God's part 198 WILLIAM HENN

Within this context, the adoption of an episcopal form of ministry perhaps can be seen not as a repudiation of the leaders of the Reforma- tion but even, in some way, as a fidelity to their more original intentions. In this case, the noble desire of fidelity need not be neglected nor trodden under foot in weighing the possibility of adopting an episcopal form of ministry as a step toward greater unity.

Conclusion

These reflections have attempted to situate the Centro Pro Unione symposium on the “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession” within the context of recent ecumenical dialogue and to characterize it as a contribution to the discussion of what the BEM Report calls “the most difficult problem for further dialogue on ministry.” Furthermore, the unanimous acceptance of the multiform nature of apostolic continuity on the part of the symposium presenters was pointed out, an acceptance which reflects one of the most important results of ecumenical dialogue about apostolicity. Finally, an attempt was made to show how the themes of 1) the freedom of the Church regarding ministry, 2) the biblical and patristic foundations for apostolic continuity and episcopal succession and 3) the original intentions of the protagonists on both sides at the time of the Reformation all suggest promising areas for further joint study and dialogue. The idea for this symposium was first elaborated at the Interna- tional Centre of the Bridgettine Sisters in Farfa, Italy. Legend has it that the ancient abbey of Farfa was founded in the fourth century by a certain St. Lawrence the Syrian, so called because he fled from Syria, on account of a persecution instigated by Arians, to establish this refuge on a small hilltop, some 40 kilometers north of Rome. Thus, in a way, the abbey of Farfa owes its existence to some of the earliest divisions among Christians. The Centro Pro Unione symposium, sponsored by the Cen- tro, the Anglican Centre of Rome and the International Bridgettine could at least mitigate the harsh nuance which inevitably seems suggested by the phrase defectus ordinis, which Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio 22 used in describing the ordained ministry of some Reformation churches and to which both Professors Tjørhom and Meyer referred. Second, one wonders whether the great influence of the Holy Spirit on all Christian communities by means of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century may not have already substantially changed the “extraordinary circumstances” which obtained in the early 16th century. If circumstances have significantly changed, may not assessments and initiatives which were once impossible now become possible? 20. As reported in Y. Congar, “La lente maturation de l'œcuménisme,” Essais CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS TO THE SYMPOSIUM 199

Centre, stands as a remarkable testimony to the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in bringing about a new spirit of reconciliation among Christians. This symposium brought together scholars from regional churches who, in the Porvoo Common Statement, had pledged themselves to enter into a new relationship of communion (the Anglican Churches of Great Britain and Ireland and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches), with Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran scholars of churches, which did not take part in that agreement, to discuss one of its most important themes: apostolic continuity and apostolic succession. One is reminded of the words of that great Ecumenical Father, Willem Visser 't Hooft, about the convocation of Vatican II: nostra res agitur – this concerns us too.20 The Centro symposium is a witness to the changed situation among divided Christian communities, in which a regional step toward communion is valued as an event which is of importance for all Christians. This changed situation is something about which those who long for the unity for which Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) can only thankfully rejoice.

œcuméniques: le mouvement, les hommes, les problèmes (Paris: Le Centurion, 1984) 40-50, at 50.