1
The Church – Towards A Common Vision Faith and Order Paper No. 214 World Council of Churches 2013
A Response from the Faculty of Theology, Queen’s College, St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
The Rev. David N. Bell, D. Phil., Dean of Theology and Professor Michelle Rebidoux, Ph.D.
Prepared under the auspices of the Rev. Dr. Alex Faseruk, Provost
Historical Introduction
The World Council of Churches was founded in 1948, though the real beginning of the Ecumenical Movement is probably to be seen in the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1910. Between 1910 and 1948, the ecumenical initiative was driven primarily by western Protestantism, but in 1920 the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a remarkable encyclical addressed “Unto the Church of Christ Everywhere” which set out eleven ways in which a new rapprochement might be achieved. To this the Lambeth Conference of the same year responded with a similar call to Christian reunion and issued no less than thirty-one resolutions on the subject. By the time of the pontificate of John XXIII, the Ecumenical Movement was well underway, but the Second Vatican Council’s Decree of Ecumenism promulgated on 21 November 1964 by Paul VI broke new ground. We do not find here the old traditional call for the separated Churches to return to the true fold of Christ, but a different ecclesiology based on the idea of the Church as the People of God, already united by baptism and faith in Christ. The Decree was also drafted in a way that encouraged ecumenical dialogue, and it was welcomed by both Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Archbishop Michael Ramsey. Of those Churches separated from Rome, the chief place is given to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. What, then, of the Anglicans? They are included among those Communions or Ecclesial Communities (the Decree reserves the term Churches for Orthodox and Roman Catholic) which came into being “from the events which are usually referred to as ‘the Reformation’. As a result, many Communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.”1 Ramsey was happy with this wording, and it sowed the seed for his official visit to Rome in 1966. He was also pleased with the language used in the document about the Church, the liturgy, and freedom of religion. The problem with the other Ecclesial Communities was (and still is) twofold: first, the very wide differences and disagreements they have among themselves, and second, their lack of an apostolic episcopate. This latter point is of prime importance, for what it
1 Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 21 November 1964, §13, on the Vatican website
2 Ibid., §§20-22. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., §22. 3
when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.5
Such an ecumenical dialogue might begin, we are told, with discussions on the application of the Gospel message to moral questions, but – and here is a warning – the quest for ecumenical unity must not be undertaken superficially or with imprudent zeal. This can only harm any real advance toward unity, and if there is to be any ecumenical progress at all, it “must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and the Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed.”6 That is a fair point, for any ecumenical pseudo-unity which is based merely on, let us say, a convergence of moral teachings without any consideration of the source of those teachings will be superficial at best. It cannot be denied that the Decree represented something new in the history of ecumenism. Gone was the aloof Roman Catholic isolationism of an earlier age, and John XXIII and Paul VI had opened a door. That there were restrictions as to how wide the door should be opened is only to be expected, but the fact that it was opened at all was worthy of note. We now read that “in certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers ‘for unity’, and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren,”7 and even though such occasions are to be controlled by the local bishop, the key words “indeed desirable” were a clear step forward. On the other hand, we also read that “it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation’, that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation”,8 and the Decree does not – cannot – really reconcile its openness to ecumenical dialogue with the old traditional view of the Church of Rome as the One True Church. In the years following the Council, the quest for Christian reunion proceeded apace, but only between Churches of the same confessional families. Between, let us say, Orthodox and Presbyterians, or Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, there was, effectively, no movement at all. Even between those confessions which had a substantial degree of overlap there were problems. Witness the failure of Archbishop Ramsey to bring about a reunion of Anglicans and Methodists. Why did the scheme fail? Because, said the Archbishop in a speech to the General Synod on 3 May 1972, the people who opposed it were of many different sorts:
Some don’t like the scheme because it fails to be Catholic. Others don’t like it because it is too Catholic. Some don’t like it because they want more freedom for
5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., §24. 7 Ibid., §8. 8 Ibid., §3. 4
the Spirit. Others don’t like it, and they are very many, because they don’t like change at all.9
What was true in 1972 is still, of course, true today. In general, people, specifically more established people, don’t like change. The “profane novelties” of 1 Timothy 6: 20 were regularly identified as heresies by early and medieval Christian writers, and there are many who would fervently exclaim with their Spanish friends “Que no hayan novedades”, “May no new things arise” – new things being, by definition, bad. The status quo is secure, established, known, and safe, and rather than venturing out into the dangerous waters of Christian reunion, it is much easier to look for reasons why there should be no change at all, and to explain why the present situation (which has existed for centuries) can be defended without difficulty against those who would seek – God forbid! – something new. Some thirty years after Ramsey spoke to the General Synod, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew spoke to a papal delegation in the Patriarchal Cathedral of St George in Istanbul. “The saddest part of the great Christian division”, he said,
is that most Christians do not see it as a failure and a call to repentance and reunification but rather accept it as natural, proposing theories and arguments to legitimize the division. … Christians are very comfortable with how they are and how they live – that is to say, they excuse their division into many confessions, many faiths, many baptisms, many spirits, and many hopes. This is clearly evident when one compares the often passive and sometimes self-complacent attitude of each Christian to the painful prayer of the Lord before the last moment of His earthly life, when He asked His Father and God that all who will believe in Him “may be one” (Jn 17: 21).10
It takes courage to break free of the mould, to leave the well-trodden path, and fear has always dogged the road that leads to ecumenical reunion: fear of losing one’s identity, fear of losing one’s power, fear of losing one’s established place in the universe. But it was a lack of fear that was characteristic of Athenagoras, John XXIII, Paul VI (in the early years of his pontificate), and Michael Ramsey, and, unlike many of that age, they were prepared to open their arms to change and embrace it in hope and love. Happily, we may see the same lack of fear today in Pope Francis, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop Justin Welby, and many of the leaders of the Protestant denominations. What, then, of the important encyclical Ut Unum Sint (quoting John 17:21) promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25 May 1995? This is a document which takes up the theme of the Decree of Ecumenism and is a paean in praise of the quest for unity. But there are still problems, for the encyclical repeats the statement which appears in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that “the one Church of Christ subsists in the
9 Michael Ramsey, Canterbury Pilgrim (London: S.P.C.K., 1964), p. 105. 10 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. John Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love. Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011), p. 207. 5
Catholic Church”,11 it still talks about “Churches and Ecclesial Communities” (which did not please Protestants), and it also reiterates the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the successor of St Peter. But in the latter case it adds a very important comment:
It is nonetheless significant and encouraging that the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has now become a subject of study which is already under way or will be in the near future. It is likewise significant and encouraging that this question appears as an essential theme not only in the theological dialogues in which the Catholic Church is engaging with other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, but also more generally in the ecumenical movement as a whole.12
John Paul, in fact, went on to speak of “a ministry of unity” and to refer to himself as “the first servant of unity”;13 though as “first servant” he still has “vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church’s mission, discipline and the Christian life”.14 He also has “the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith”, and, under the conditions set forth at the First Vatican Council, he may still make infallible statements. “By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity,”15 though not everyone would agree with this. When Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, for example, speaks of a primacy “not so much among specific persons but rather among ministries of service”,16 he is not saying what John Paul II is saying. The encyclical is absolutely honest, however, when it points to those “areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved” – those areas, in other words, with which virtually all Protestants and many Anglicans are going to have real problems. What are they? They are the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the nature of the Eucharist and the doctrine of the Real Presence, ordination to the three- fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, “the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the pope and the bishops in communion with him”, and Mary as Mother of God and intercessor.17 Given that disagreements on all of these areas were, in essence, why the Reformation came about, it is easy to see why the road to reunion with the “Ecclesial Communities” is so difficult. On the other hand, Catholics and Lutherans managed to achieve a joint statement on the doctrine of justification by faith in 1983, and a joint statement on justification in general in 1999. There have also been many meetings at all levels between members of the different Churches. The first momentous visits of Athenagoras and Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul, Paul to Athenagoras, and so on, are now almost commonplace. Popes,
11 Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of Pope John Paul II on Commitment to Ecumenism, 25 May 1995, §86, on the Vatican website www.vatican.va; Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 21 November 1964, §8. 12 Ibid., §89. 13 Ibid., §94. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Speaking the Truth in Love, p. 273. 17 Ut Unum Sint, §79. 6 patriarchs, archbishops, and the various leaders of the Reformed Churches have all met, and in many cases have participated in a liturgy, though not with concelebration and not with intercommunion. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Benedict XVI, for example, celebrated the Liturgy of the Word together, recited the so-called Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed together, and bestowed the final blessing together on those attending the liturgy. In 2008, at the invitation of Pope Benedict, the Ecumenical Patriarch came to the Vatican and addressed the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly of the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops – the first time ever that an Ecumenical Patriarch, or any other eastern patriarch for that matter, had addressed such a gathering. More recently, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, the quest for unity between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches has made significant advances. A joint declaration was signed by Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on 30 November 2014, which stated:
We express our sincere and firm resolution, in obedience to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, to intensify our efforts to promote the full unity of all Christians, and above all between Catholics and Orthodox.18 As well, we intend to support the theological dialogue promoted by the Joint International Commission, instituted exactly thirty–five years ago by the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios and Pope John Paul II here at the Phanar, and which is currently dealing with the most difficult questions that have marked the history of our division and that require careful and detailed study. To this end, we offer the assurance of our fervent prayer as Pastors of the Church, asking our faithful to join us in praying “that all may be one, that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21).19
The same cannot be said of Anglican-Roman-Catholic relations, and it would be improper to let a purblind optimism overlook major problems. The relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury is unquestionably cordial, but in his address to Archbishop Welby when he visited the Vatican in June 2014, Pope Francis said that “The goal of full unity may seem distant indeed.” But, he continued,
it remains the aim which should direct our every step along the way. I find a source of encouragement in the plea of the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism that we should advance in our relationship and cooperation by placing no obstacle to the ways of divine providence and by not prejudicing future promptings of the Holy Spirit (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Our progress towards full communion will not be the fruit of human actions alone, but a free gift of God. The Holy Spirit gives us the strength not to grow disheartened and he invites us to trust fully in the power of his works.20
18 Our emphasis. 19 Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Pope Francis to Turkey, Ecumenical Blessing and Signing of the Common Declaration, Istanbul, 30 November 2014, at https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/november/documents/papa- francesco_20141130_turchia-firma-dichiarazione.html. 20 Address of Pope Francis to His Grace Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and His Entourage, 16 June 2014, at 7
The three major problems which, at present, make the goal of full unity so distant are (i) the question of the consecration of women to the episcopacy; (ii) the consecration of actively homosexual bishops; and (iii) the creation of personal ordinariates to accommodate Anglicans wishing to come as groups into the Roman Catholic Church. Of these three, the first is arguably the most significant. As Cardinal Walter Kaspar said in his address to the Lambeth Conference on 30 July 2008, “While our dialogue has led to significant agreement on the understanding of ministry, the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican Orders by the Catholic Church.”21 Given that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is still that Anglican Orders are invalid, it is obvious that this must prove a significant obstacle in any quest for true unity. How far, then, does the present document – The Church – Towards a Common Vision – take us in the difficult quest for just such a common vision?
The Church – Towards A Common Vision
That the document is well meaning is not in doubt, and many of its suggestions, should they be followed, will unquestionably result in a closer relationship between a number of Christian Churches. It is also true that the document avoids several issues which remain major stumbling-blocks in any quest for institutional unity. To some extent this is understandable. It is doubtful, for example, that the small congregation of St X’s in a tiny Newfoundland outport can do much to solve the problem of primacy of honour versus primacy of jurisdiction or the question of the validity of Anglican Orders. The document must therefore be practical and down to earth, suggesting ways in which the “average Christian” – if there be such an animal – might make a positive contribution towards a closer relationship and better understanding among the various Churches. In this matter it does some things well, and some things – let us be honest – less well. In its early days, the World Council of Churches was regarded by most Roman Catholics as a pan-Protestant organization, and there was some truth in that. Over the years the situation has changed, but the WCC still retains, let us say, a certain Protestant colouring. We may see this in two ways: first, in the strong Scriptural basis of the document; and, second in the emphasis on evangelization and re-evangelization. One of the problems with the document is its general lack of an historico-critical approach. The document certainly makes abundant use of Scripture in providing support for almost all of its statements, but its approach to Scripture tends to be uncritical. For example, it is by no means certain that the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19 (see p. 6 §2) is not a later addition to the text (as is certainly the case with 1 Jn 5:7). The universalist verse in 1 Tim 2:4 (see p. 15 §25) must be balanced by contrary teachings in the genuine Pauline epistles. On p. 35 §61, the document quotes “emphatically” Paul’s view on justification by grace through faith, but takes no account of the rather different teaching https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/june/documents/papa- francesco_20140616_arcivescovo-canterbury.html 21 Address of Cardinal Walter Kaspar at the Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Conference July 30, 2008, at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm- docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20080730_kasper-lambeth_en.html 8 to be found in the letter of James – a letter which may have been written with the specific intention of contradicting the views of St Paul. Rather, the document simply states that “All Christians share the conviction that Scripture is normative” (p. 9 §11), though it does not define exactly what “normative” means. This becomes even more confusing when we read, on p. 30 §53, of the “normativity” of the early Ecumenical Councils. In fact, the statement that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils “were received by all as an acknowledgement of the important service they played in fostering and maintaining communion throughout the Church as a whole” (p. 30 §53) is not entirely accurate, though much progress has been made in recent years in reconciling differences as to the authority of Ecumenical Councils. Furthermore, side by side with Scripture, we also find other sources being cited with the implication that they have the same authority as Scripture. There are two examples in the text: p. 14 §22 refers to Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, and on the same page Clement of Rome’s first letter to the Corinthians appears side by side with texts from Ephesians and Revelation.22 Clement’s letter was indeed once included by certain churches as part of the New Testament Canon, but that was never the case with any of the writings of Ignatius. It is also problematic that in its discussion of the nature of primacy the document should quote the Apostolic Canons. These had a very checkered history and were never approved by any Ecumenical Council. The document is equally uncritical in its use of more modern sources. For example, the statement that John Paul II, in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, invited Church leaders and their theologians to “enter into patient and fraternal dialogue” overlooks the fact that the encyclical was far less ecumenical than appears from its title. John Paul II was ecumenical only on his own terms, and, as we mentioned above, his view of the primacy of Rome in Ut Unum Sint was clearly a primacy of jurisdiction. The situation under Pope Francis is dramatically different, and it may now, perhaps, be justly said that “all would agree that any such personal primatial ministry would need to be exercised in communal and collegial ways” (p. 31 §56). Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Justin Welby would certainly agree. As to evangelization, the document could not be more specific. “The Church is essentially missionary, and unity is essentially related to this mission” (p. 2).23 And again, “The Church’s mission in the world is to proclaim to all people, in word and deed, the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. Evangelization is thus one of the foremost tasks of the Church in obedience to the command of Jesus” (p. 33 §59). Now, some who have read the document have seen in this stress on evangelization an unfortunate echo of nineteenth-century Protestant proselytizing. But the document also adds that “Evangelization should always be respectful of those who hold other beliefs” (p. 34 §60), and points to a close linkage between evangelization and social justice. The Church, it states, must promote “not only those individual moral values which are essential to the
22 In footnotes, Tertullian is cited in fn. 11 on p. 25 §44, and St John Chrysostom in fn. 2 on p. 39 §67. 23 See also p. 6 §4, and p. 8 §7, which speaks of the need for “re-evangelization” (i.e., of those who have moved away from the Church, finding their membership in it “no longer relevant to their lives”). On p. 10 §13, we read that the Church “is by its very nature missionary, called and sent to witness in its own life to that communion which God intends for all humanity and for all creation in the kingdom”. 9 authentic realization of the human person, but also the social values of justice, peace and the protection of the environment” (p. 35 §62).24 What, then, is the precise relation between, on the one hand, proclaiming “the kingdom of God inaugurated in Jesus the Lord, crucified and risen” (p. 6 §4), proclaiming that “Jesus is the one and only Saviour of the world” (p. 7 §7), and, on the other hand, “sharing the ministry of Christ as Mediator between God and his creation” (p. 6 §4) by specifically promoting core values – “the authentic realization of the human person”, and “the social values of justice, peace and the protection of the environment” (p. 35 §62) – on which Christians can hardly be said to have the monopoly! Nevertheless, it might be suggested that Christians will interpret these core values in a specifically theological way – that is, in relation to God’s design for creation as his eschatological kingdom. But in this case, more simply must be said on the matter of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue (for the two cannot be separated), as well as on ecumenism and secular humanism which, no less than Christianity, champions the above- mentioned core values, albeit without reference to God’s kingdom. Indeed, the document itself points out that “Christians will seek to promote the values of the kingdom of God by working together with adherents of other religions and even with those of no religious belief” (p. 36 §64). With reference to inter-faith dialogue, on p. 29 §51, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are given due credit for inviting “Christians and leaders from other faiths to join together in praying for and promoting peace”, but in all the document there is but one paragraph (p. 34 §60) which deals specifically with inter-faith dialogue.25 There, Christians are called not only to share “the joyful news of the truth revealed in the New Testament”, to invite others “to the fullness of life in Christ [as] an expression of respectful love”, but also to “appreciate whatever elements of truth and goodness are present in other religions” – including especially teachings on love as articulated by those traditions. Without such appreciation, surely no “love” could be said to be respectful at all (in which case, we might even question whether it could truly be called love at all). And presumably it is just such love which must inspire and support and lead both Christians and non-Christians alike (indeed, both religious and non-religious people alike) – in short, “all people of good will” – in their mutual work of promoting the core values in our shared world. In fact, those who prepared this response found it curious that nowhere in the document do we find any mention of Jn 13:34 – “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another…” – and nowhere do we find any mention of Christ’s own summary of all the Law and the Prophets: love God and your neighbor. Yet it may be argued that the most effective mode of evangelization is by putting into practice our love for God and our neighbor, and by acting in such a way that it is our deeds rather than our words which will begin the transformation of this world into the Kingdom of God. On p. 28 §49, the document refers to “a service (diakonia) of love, without any domination or
24 See also p. 37 §65. Cf. p. 34 §59 “a constitutive aspect of evangelization is the promotion of justice and peace” and p. 36 §64: faith impels Christian communities “to work for a just social order”. 25 Early in the document it is rightly stated that the awareness of religious pluralism “challenges Christians to deepen their reflection about the relation between the proclamation that Jesus is the one and only Saviour of the world … and the claims of other faiths” (p. 7 §7), but no hint is given here as to how this may be accomplished. 10 coercion”, but only with reference to authority in the Church. It is far more than that: it is a summary of the nature and character of the Christian life as a whole. Another point on which more might have been said in the document is the doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ. Granted, there is by no means a lack of references to the Body of Christ in the document; and, as to be expected from a strongly Protestant document, it is the charismatic ecclesial sense of the Body which is heavily emphasized. But, of course, this ecclesial sense is only one of four traditional senses of the Body of Christ as articulated, with varying emphases, within different Christian denominations, so that a more explicit discussion of this Body in all of its senses should be undertaken in any effort towards ecumenism. We offer here the following (admittedly somewhat lengthy) discussion for the purposes of deeper reflection. The four distinct but overlapping senses in which the Body of Christ has been understood are as follows:
The personal / individual sense There is the personal / individual sense, referring to the resurrected and transformed human body of Christ – that is to say, glorified, incorrupt, and incorruptible body – which Christian teaching traditionally holds to have been taken up into heaven and to be seated since that time at the “right hand of the Father”.
The charismatic ecclesial sense There is the charismatic ecclesial sense, referring to the Church as the Body, of which all Christians are members, with Christ himself as its Head. This sense is generally understood to have been “activated” in the Pentecost event, with the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples of Christ and with their consequent initiation of others into that spiritual community. It largely refers, of course, to the inner, spiritual nature of the Church (rather than to its organizational, its more outer, visible nature) – that is to say, to the charismatic nature of the Church, pertaining to the workings of invisible grace within the Christian community.26 This, of course, is where the centrality of love must come in, and also a discussion of the “gifts of the Spirit”, and thus of the “legitimate diversity” within the Church (see p. 10 §12) which, as the document points out, is a God-willed part of Christian communion. Still, a large part of this invisible grace is mediated through the sacramentsespecially the initiatory sacrament of baptism, and the liturgically central sacrament of the Eucharist. This, then, raises the ecumenical problem of the validity of ministry. On the question of the ordained as against the ministry of the baptized, and the related question of the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, the document is perhaps overly optimistic. The document is right in recognizing the signal importance of baptism, and it is at one with the Decree on Ecumenism in stating that “All members of the body [of Christ], ordained and lay, are interrelated members of God’s priestly people” (p. 12 §19). Ordained ministers can indeed “fulfill their calling only in and for the Church; they need its recognition, support and encouragement” (p. 12 §19), and it is certainly true that the ordained and ministry of the baptized are not “mutually exclusive
26 In addition to the Pentecost event, as recorded in the Book of Acts, other scriptural passages that serve as the basis for this ecclesial sense of the Mystic Body are as follows: Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 27, Ephesians 4:3-4, and 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and 24. 11 alternatives” (p. 12 §20). But we are still faced with the fact, which is not mentioned, that the Roman Catholic Church has never withdrawn the statement made in 1896 by Leo XIII that all Anglican orders are null and void,27 and the differences between the various Churches on the nature and role of the episcopacy and “apostolic succession” are greater than is implied in the document. And, as we previously mentioned, there remains the question of the nature of a relationship with those Christian denominations which do not practice baptism (the Quakers and the Salvation Army). They can hardly be called “non- Christian”!
The Eucharistic sense The third sense is the Eucharistic sense, which has itself three dimensions to it. First, there is the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist, with the ingestion of the “body and blood” of Christ mediating one’s reception of the invisible grace of the remission of sins as accomplished in Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. As we have previously mentioned, the “body and blood” of Christ can itself be understood in four ways: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, or purely as a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice. Second, there is the sacrament’s relation to the Resurrection, especially to the process of the transformation of the human nature into the resurrection state – indeed, of the transformation of all creation into the eschatological kingdom. This transformation takes place through various means such as penances, prayer, the practice of virtues, the promotion and realization of core values in society, and also through participation in the Eucharist. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the emphasis on transubstantiation, although certainly not without a moral and spiritual dimension, nevertheless flavours this process as having a deeply substantialist connotation.28 Those who hold the sacrament to have only a spiritual presence, on the other hand, still hold the process of transformation to take place, but put less of an emphasis on the substantialist dimension of it, and more emphasis on the moral (virtues, core values) dimension; or else they may emphasize a spiritual dimension as helping to build up the Church in the second (the charismatic ecclesial) sense of the Body. It is certainly this emphasis which is present in the document to which we here respond. Finally, those who hold the sacrament to be merely a memorial would have difficulty thinking of it in transformational terms at all – except perhaps to insist that such acts of memorialization themselves support one in one’s growth in virtue, especially in the virtue of faith.
27 On p. 22 §37 we read that one of the ecclesial elements necessary for full communion is “a truly one and mutually recognized ministry” (our emphasis). This, at present, is not the case. 28 Unlike other food, whose substance our body assimilates to its own when we eat it, it is held that the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament rather assimilates us to itself when we eat it. That is to say, we are assimilated, bit by bit, into the glorious, incorrupt, incorruptible substance of the resurrection state. The Body of Christ is thus, in this sense, the general “Substance” of glorious, incorrupt, incorruptible existence in which all resurrected bodies, including Christ’s own personal resurrected and ascended body (i.e. Body sense #1), participate. This view, furthermore, serves as a response to those who reject the doctrine of trans- substantiation on the grounds that Christ’s body, seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, could not possibly be in two places at once, such that it is after all not present in the Eucharist. In other words, it responds to those who interpret the Body of Christ only in the first (the personal / individual) sense. 12
Indeed, in the matter of the Eucharist, we see again the document’s (perhaps unwarranted) optimism. We really cannot say that the difference between the Churches may be “more one of emphasis than of doctrinal disagreement” (p. 25 §44). Such a case may be made for baptism and “other rites” (p. 35 §44), but, as we previously saw, there is a difference of major consequence between those Churches which maintain that something happens to the bread and wine in the course of the Eucharist (though they may disagree on exactly what that something is), and those that maintain that nothing happens at all. One of the authors of this response has, as a friend, a Cistercian abbot – a man of very liberal views – who has no problem with Orthodox, Anglicans, or Lutherans receiving communion at the altar, but is uncomfortable with offering the bread and wine to those who believe that no change whatever takes place, either substantial or spiritual. One may argue, of course, that no one who comes to the altar should be refused communion, since what then happens is entirely up to God, but not everyone would agree with that. Finally, there is the communal thanksgiving dimension. The word “Eucharist” means literally “good grace / good thanks”. The sacrament is as much, therefore, about offering up thanks and gratitude as it is about receiving grace. The community offers up thanks to God for his grace (past, present, and future) in the sacrament; it does this precisely by offering up itself to God to be incorporated into and as the eschatological fullness of the Body of Christ. Furthermore, the very “gifts” of the sacrament which are offered up, the bread and the wine (and it matters not here whether they are to be trans- substantiated into the body and blood of Christ, co-mingled with them, or only to be inspirited by Christ), constitute two further offerings. First, these gifts (bread and wine) are themselves the fruits of the creation (i.e. wheat and grapes) which God himself has already offered to us through nature, and which now the community, in gratitude, offers back to him. This lends a certain cosmic dimension to the Eucharist; the community, that is to say, does not only offer up itself, but offers up all of the creation (symbolized by the wheat and grapes) to God; in other words, it mediates the incorporation of the entire creation into the Body of Christ. Second, these gifts (bread and wine) being originally wheat and grapes, are not offered to God by the community in the same form in which they were received, but as transformed through the work of its hands. The community, accordingly, offers up the very work of its hands in the Eucharist; that is to say, the community’s mediation of the incorporation of the entire creation into the Body of Christ constitutes an offering up to God of the very creative initiative and work of persons. In this way, the human community, the human person, becomes a freely willing co-creator with God of the eschatological kingdom. It is our view that a deeper discussion of this thanksgiving dimension of the Eucharistic sense of the Body of Christ – especially in its emphasis on the creative initiative and work of persons – can considerably buttress the document’s own concern with the realization of authentic personhood and legitimate diversity (of gifts of the Spirit) within the Church.
The cosmic sense Finally, there is the cosmic sense of the Body of Christ, which follows directly from the last sense. This sense is largely inspired by a turn in late Modernity away from a medieval understanding of an “other-worldly” kingdom back towards its original “this- worldly” sense as inherited from the Jewish tradition; this turn, or “return”, is supported especially by a key passage in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (8:19-23): 13
For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the children [literally sons] of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In other words, as is traditionally taught, it is not just the human but the whole of creation which is subjected to corruption in the “Fall” of humankind; and though redemption of the creation, according to traditional doctrine, is made possible in the death and resurrection of Christ, the human also participates in this act by “sacramentalizing” the creation (in the Eucharist), whereby the whole of it is, for inclusion in that redemptive act, offered up to God. To that extent, the cosmic sense of the Body of Christ as the creation “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God”, and requiring the human sacramentalizing act for this deliverance, is precisely what is meant by human co-creation with God of the universal eschatological kingdom. And, of course, such a sacramentalizing act by the human must reach well beyond just the formal liturgy taking place within the church’s walls; it must permeate every aspect of the Christian communal life. For the word “liturgy” (leitourgia) means literally a “work of the people”, or “public work”, and the work of the people in their communal offering up of the whole of creation to God should be unceasing. Indeed, this constitutes a distinct anthropology in terms of the human relation to God and the world: all of creation must at all times by the human community, in its attitude towards the earth and in its treatment of the planet’s many creatures, be sacramentalized. The human is the mediator between Christ’s redemptive act and the deliverance into glorious liberty of the creation as a whole. This extension of the sacramental / eucharistic / liturgical context has been widely promoted in recent years, especially among Orthodox thinkers, as a significant Christian approach to ecology and environmentalism. Granted, the document to which we are responding does not quite speak in “cosmic” terms. It does, however, speak in terms of God’s design / plan / purpose for the whole of creation: namely, that it be transformed into God’s eschatological kingdom – a kingdom whose values Christians will seek to promote “by working together with adherents of other religions and even with those of no religious belief” (p. 36 §64). And this brings us back to the question of dialogue with non-Christians (be they practitioners of another religion or not). To what extent must “love” and “legitimate diversity”, in terms of spiritual gifts, be limited to participation within the Christian community? Certainly, we might say that such “love” and such “gifts” are inspired by the Spirit which is God. But if Christians are called, with a truly “respectful love”, to “appreciate whatever elements of truth and goodness are present in other religions” (p. 34 §60) – and perhaps even present within a “good-willed humanism” – then Christians must recognize those elements of truth and goodness as themselves gifts of the Spirit, expressed by the creative initiative and work of authentic persons. And in the case of practitioners of other religions, these will also be authentic persons who know themselves to be in a certain relation to “the Divine”. We are reminded of a sermon preached in the cathedral of St John the Baptist in St John’s earlier this year in which the preacher made the cardinal 14 point that Jesus did not say that he was the only way to God, but that he was the only way to the Father (Jn 14:6). The difference is of great significance in inter-faith dialogue. In short, the document rightly emphasizes the role of the Church in the process of transfiguration or transformation, both of the individual and of society. The very mission of the Church is “the transfiguration of humanity” (p. 15 §26), and “the Church was intended by God, not for its own sake, but to serve the divine plan for the transformation of the world” (p. 33 §58). And what is the source of the Christians’ passion for the transformation of the world? It “lies in their communion with God in Jesus Christ” (p. 36 §64). But how is this transformation to be achieved? Not, perhaps, through the old- fashioned way of verbal proselytization – nineteenth-century missionary work – but by working towards the realization of authentic personhood for all, by following in the footsteps of the Good Samaritan and what might be called doing-in-love.
Conclusion
The Church – Towards A Common Vision is described as a “convergence text” (p. 1), and it recognizes “legitimate diversity” (p. 10 §12) as an aspect of the catholicity of the Church, and, on p. 16 §28, as a “gift from the Lord”. There is much in the document that is excellent, and it certainly bears witness to a real desire for ecumenical rapprochement. The criticisms we have made above are not in any way intended to suggest that the document cannot act as a “convergence document”, but merely to suggest how, in our view, it might be made more effective. Much work clearly remains to be done, and can only be done by people of good will who are willing to open up the doors of their hearts and of their churches to all who wish to enter, for it is not only Christians who are created in the image of God. But any ecumenical approach must be based on sound theology, clear argument, and absolute honesty. We must not overlook significant differences and we must not try to skirt around significant problems. We cannot and must not ignore the major difficulties of, for example, the consecration of women bishops or what might happen with the solemnization of same-sex marriages. The Church – Towards A Common Vision may prove effective in the slow quest for such a vision – no one could wish otherwise – but in the opinion of the writers of this response, with a little adjustment it might have been even more effective.