sign in sign up
<<
Home , Apostolic succession, Catholic ecclesiology, David Tustin, Episcopal polity, Historical episcopate, Lay presidency

THE UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Ecclesiology and :

Recent Anglican-Lutheran Agreements on Episcopacy from a Catholic Perspective

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the of the

School of Theology and Religious Studies

Of The Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of

By

Elizabeth Marie Smith

Washington, D.C.

2017

2

Ecclesiology and Ecumenism:

Recent Anglican-Lutheran Agreements on Episcopacy from a Catholic Perspective

Elizabeth Marie Smith, Ph.D

Michael Root, Ph.D.

In the 1990s, various Lutheran and Anglican churches in Europe and North America entered into on the basis of agreements which overcame their previous differences over episcopacy and historic succession. While these agreements have been the subject of intense scrutiny in these churches, they have received little attention from Catholic theologians. The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze and evaluate these agreements on episcopacy from a Catholic perspective, asking if the Catholic can glean any theological or methodological wisdom from them in her own ecumenical discussions. Chapter one begins with a brief discussion of the ecumenical imperative for the , with special attention to the theology of Karl

Rahner, Heinrich Fries, and . Chapter two looks historically at the topic of and at the many conversations held between the Anglican and Lutheran communions on this topic. This chapter aims to provide important contextual information for analyzing the primary documents. Chapter three, then, surveys the primary documents that arose out of the discussions between Anglican and Lutheran communions in the U.S., Canada, and Northern

Europe that led to full communion. It traces the development of central themes that often run between several or all documents. Chapter four discusses the reception history and evaluation of the primary documents as well as their implementation. Chapter five offers a Catholic perspective, evaluating the extent to which these documents prove helpful to the Catholic Church in her ecumenical endeavors with regard to the historic episcopate.

This dissertation by Elizabeth Marie Smith fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in approved by Michael Root, Ph.D., as Director, and by Christopher

Ruddy, Ph.D., and William G. Rusch, D.Phil. as Readers.

______Michael Root, Ph.D.

______Christopher Ruddy, Ph.D.

______William G. Rusch, D.Phil.

ii Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Preliminary Concerns Regarding Ecumenism, Ecclesiology, and the Episcopate

1.1: The value of ecumenism (1)

1.2: The Role of Ecclesiology and the Episcopate in Ecumenical Discussions (4)

Chapter 2: Contextual Information about the Primary Documents

2.1: Selection of Primary Documents (10)

2.2: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the (12)

2.3: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the Patristic Writings (22)

2.4: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the Writings of the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers (30)

2.5: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues from the

through the Early Twentieth Century (36)

2.6: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues Internationally (44)

2.7: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in the United States (46)

2.8: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in Europe (56)

2.9: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in Canada (61)

Chapter 3: A Survey of the Contents of the Primary Material

3.1: What is Full Communion? (67)

3.2: The Problem Stated (71)

3.3: Highlighting Commonalities and Existing Unity (76)

3.4: A Legitimate Diversity (83)

iii 3.5: Accommodations and Adaptations on Behalf of the Lutherans (87)

3.6: Accommodations and Adaptations on the Anglican and Episcopalian Side (97)

3.7: Declarations (109)

3.8: Essays on the Concordat of Agreement/Dissenting Report and Porvoo Common Statement (114)

Chapter 4: Evaluation and Reception of Primary Documents

4.1: Unity Within Diversity (129)

4.2: A Broader Definition of Apostolic Succession than Historic Succession (134)

4.3: Resulting Ecclesiological Considerations (139)

4.4: Accommodations Made by Partner Churches (144)

4.5: Summary Remarks (148)

Chapter 5: Testing the Fruits of This Study for the Catholic Church

5.1: Summary of the Major Issues (150)

5.2a: Catholic Thinkers with a Narrow Understanding of Apostolic Succession (155)

5.2b: Catholic Thinkers with a Broad Understanding of Apostolic Succession (162)

5.2c Confrontation of Broad and Narrow Understanding of Apostolic Succession (168)

5.3a: Divisive Disagreement vs. Legitimate Diversity (177)

5.3b: The Issue of Defectus (186)

5.3c: Questions of Validity (191)

5.4: The Nature of the Unity Being Sought (200)

5.5a: Modes of Reconciliation (211)

5.5b: Ministry vs. (227)

5.6: and Kenosis (230)

Appendix 1 (237)

Bibliography (243) iv

Chapter 1: Preliminary Concerns Regarding Ecumenism, Ecclesiology, and the Episcopate

1.1: The value of ecumenism

This dissertation aims to explore the role of the historic episcopate in the ecclesiology of two denominations within ; from there, it will survey the extent to which specific advances in ecumenical discussions involving this topic can prove fruitful for the Catholic Church. The two denominations to be explored are and . More specifically, Anglicanism will be understood as members of the Anglican or Episcopal Communion in Northern Europe, the U.S., and Canada tracing their heritage to the . Lutheranism will be understood as inheritors of ’s religious heritage in the same countries.

Before investigating the role of the historic episcopate (in particular) and its role in ecclesiology (in general) germane to these two communions and their discussions among one another, however, we must step back and consider the value of ecumenical dialogue. The bulk of

Catholic evaluation of the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues will be reserved for chapter five. However, it is appropriate at this point to provide an understanding from a Catholic perspective for why this is important in the first place.

In their 1983 book, Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries issue a “cry of distress”1 demanding what they deem an “urgent matter of survival for ”2: the reunification of the now divided

Christian denominations. They name the secularism, atheism, and religious pluralism of our current age as an indication of this necessity; such an age cries out for the saving power of Christian truth, but the fraction of Christianity into various opposing denominations undermines its credibility and efficacy. They rightly observe that a broken church is hard to sell. Moreover, this disunity is an

1 Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner, Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility (Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 1983), 3. 2 Rahner/Fries, 1. 1

2 internal flaw; “the unity of the Church is the commandment of , who will demand from the leaders of the churches an accounting as to whether or not they have really done everything possible in this matter.”3 We cannot currently claim to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,”4 since we are many, local churches. For these reasons, the consolidation of all denominations is a “matter of life or death for .”5

The kind of reunification that Rahner and Fries call for is not a “Church of uniformity, but rather as a unity in variety, as conciliar fellowship, as Church of reconciled diversity.”6 While they argue that uniformity must be maintained in such things as belief in scripture and in the of the , Nicaea, and , so as to ensure that the Christian faith “does not mean just any form of religiosity whatsoever,”7 they also highlight that adaptation in non-essentials in the spirit of ecumenism is “to be endured for the sake of honesty.”8

Harding Meyer, in a book named after ’ own instruction/prayer That All May Be One

(John 17:21), highlight, in agreement with the tenor of Rahner and Fries’ book, that unity belongs to the very nature of the church, which he calls the “basic ecumenical conviction.” This conviction is paired with what they refer to as the “ecumenical imperative,” the belief that the ecumenical conviction must be made manifest not only by subscribing to unity in theory but by visibly living into this unity. 9

3 Rahner/Fries, 1. 4 Rahner/Fries, 2. 5 Rahner/Fries, 1. 6 Rahner/Fries, 107. 7 Rahner/Fries, 13. 8 Rahner/Fries, 2. 9 C.f. Harding Meyer, That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity, Translated by William G. Rusch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999).

3

In his 1995 Ut unum sint, John Paul II states, “ calls all his disciples to unity.”10 Highlighting that “Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21), 11 the pope makes an ecclesiological inference:

This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community.12

Recalling “the call for Christian unity made by the Second Vatican with such impassioned commitment,”13 he turns Catholics toward such statements as the following from

Unitatis Redintegratio:

The of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the . Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the to every creature.14

Indeed, “at the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture.”15 He indicates that “together with all Christ's disciples, the Catholic Church bases upon God's plan her ecumenical commitment to gather all

Christians into unity.”16 The Pope professes an intention

to promote every suitable initiative aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium. That will be an exceptional occasion, in view of which she asks the Lord to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion. The present Encyclical Letter is meant as a contribution to this most noble goal. Essentially pastoral in character, it seeks to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.17

10 Pope John Paul II, Ut unum sint : Encyclical on commitment to Ecumenism (25 May, 1995, AAS 87 (1995), 61), article 1. 11 Ut unum sint 9. 12 Ut unum sint 9. 13 Ut unum sint 1. 14 Vatican Council, Unitatis redintegratio: on Ecumenism (21 November, 1964, AAS 57 (1965), 90), article 1 15 Ut unum sint 3 16 Ut unum sint 5 17 Ut unum sint 3

4

From these ecclesiological statements, he draws a parallel between the reality of the Church and the

Church’s role in the larger world: “The unity of all divided humanity is the will of God. For this reason he sent his Son, so that by dying and rising for us he might bestow on us the Spirit of love.

On the eve of his sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus himself prayed to the Father for his disciples and for all those who believe in him, that they might be one, a living communion.”18

Reconciliation among currently divided Christian communions, then, is the goal of ecumenism. Unity is, arguably, one of the most significant criteria for a sound Christian ecclesiology.

This notion will become important in chapters four and five. Reconciliation might range from full merger to a relationship of open or full communion among previously separate denominations.

Thus, the entire exercise this dissertation aims to undertake is arguably of central importance to

Catholicism. Having surveyed Catholic Christian thoughts on the topic of the importance of unity, this dissertation feels justified in claiming that the present state of division is utterly inimical to

Christian ecclesiology.

1.2: The role of Ecclesiology and the Episcopate in Ecumenical Discussions

Christian ecclesiology, i.e., the understanding of what and how the Christian Church is and should be, is first and foremost unified within itself. Having separated, of course, various Christian communions have developed varying ecclesiologies of their own, especially regarding the role of ordained leaders.

Having outlined Catholic support for the ecumenical enterprise, we are in a position to consider the main topic of our study. Anglicans and Lutherans have engaged in dialogue with one

18 Ut unum sint 6

5 another which has resulted, in Northern Europe, the U.S., and Canada, in their entering full communion with one another. As an ecumenical achievement, this is remarkable, especially since the two communions appeared to enter the conversation with very differing evaluations of the significance of the historic episcopate in their respective ecclesiologies.

How did two such differing understandings of something so significant reach enough reconciliation to achieve a reunion of this magnitude? This is the question we aim to address in chapter three and evaluate in chapter four. Chapter two provides important contextual information about the topic of episcopacy and its role in Christian ecclesiology in general and about the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues in particular. This will involve understanding the different natures of the role of the historic episcopate to each communion’s respective ecclesiology, surveying the contents of their conversations with one another to see how they satisfied their different understandings insofar as they achieved full communion with one another. Finally, in chapter five, we will test the fruits of this discussion to see if they might prove fruitful for Catholic ecumenical discussions with partners who have very different understandings of the role of the historic episcopate than in Catholicism’s own ecclesiology. This may include Anglicans, Lutherans, or others.

Therefore, before surveying the contents of the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues on the topic of the role of episcopacy in their respective ecclesiologies, let us briefly pause to consider what this topic – the episcopate and its ecclesiological role – means.

For the purposes of this dissertation, we are considering that the historic episcopate represents the concept of an uninterrupted succession of , ordained by the , from one generation to the next. Moreover, this uninterrupted succession of bishops extends all the way back to the first bishops, the apostles. The veracity of this claim is one of the main topics

6 of this dissertation; it is not without support in either Biblical or Patristic literature (see chapter two).

Episcopacy, the exercise of leadership in the Church, is thus believed by some Christians to have a significant literal connection to the leadership of the very first Christian communities through the historic succession of of bishops. This dissertation will refer to this concept, then, as the historic episcopate, or historic succession.

Related to the concept of the historic episcopate is the concept of apostolic succession. As the name suggests, the concept of apostolic succession implies that, as Rahner and Fries indicate above, the religious truths handed down within Christianity are not merely any religious truths; rather, through some sort of verifiable succession, Christianity believes herself to be true to her name as manifesting the faith of Christ as he handed it to the apostles. The idea of succession suggests that the apostles handed on what was given to them, obeying Christ’s “” to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the , and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20) The idea that Jesus is “with” the Church always is of great importance to the concept of apostolic succession; in ensuring that what is taught and believed in the Catholic Church is what comes from the apostles, so it is ensured that it also comes from Christ.

Precisely how apostolic succession is ensured is a matter of debate to be explored in detail in the following pages. One theory is that the historic episcopate is one – perhaps the greatest, perhaps the only - way to ensure this. By relying heavily on the belief that the successive generations of bishops represent a real tie to the first generation of bishops, apostolic succession seems safeguarded. Another theory is that the Holy Spirit, ever present in the Church, ensures that the

7 entirety of Christian faith stands within the apostolic succession. This may or may not necessitate an actual historical succession.

We see, in this brief consideration, the role that a discussion of apostolic succession and the historic episcopate has in the wider discussion of ecclesiology. It raises significant questions: Is historic succession necessary in a Church that wants to call itself Christian? Is there a way other than historic succession to claim to stand in the apostolic succession? What sorts of guarantees does the historic episcopate give to the Church?

We have also seen in this brief chapter a belief that one of the most central aspects of

Christian ecclesiology is unity. If, then, varying beliefs about apostolic succession and the historic episcopate are divisive, are Christians mandated to find a creative solution to these disagreements?

In other words, does the ecuemenical imperative demand that Christians either agree on the role of the historic episcopate in ecclesiology or, at the very least, decide that the topic no longer be Church dividing? That is the central question this dissertation will explore. Meyer observes that the struggle for unity is influenced by varied understandings of church and of ecclesiastical unity, and yet, insist that creativity and effort are surely needed in order to accommodate differing ecclesiological understandings of the role of ordained leadership in the Church.19

Ephraim Radner makes a compelling observation about Christian ecclesiology through the lens of the oft-condemned Judas when he observes,

Yet Judas had a constructive role among the Twelve—he went out, he was commissioned, he preached and healed and exorcised, returning with joy to report the successes of his ministry, along with the others. He kept the funds of the group as they traveled along and distributed alms from the common store. And he was a thief as well, in all of this (John 12:6)! An embezzler, a wolf among the sheep. Nonetheless, "chosen" not out of

19C.f. Meyer

8

ignorance, but in full knowledge. Jesus chose his enemy to be his companion and friend—betrayed, in the end not by a torrent of lies or by the rage of rejection but by a "kiss."20 In doing so, Radner aims to make a point about Christianity’s current state of division. It is tempting, perhaps even natural, to mourn and to criticize division among as irreparable. Yet:

This is where the "divisive" character of the Church is indeed located: that is, in the continuity of Judas with the life of the , literally, in its fearful unity by which Jesus has called the divider into its midst. Judas, to be sure, separates himself from his brethren. He leaves them, never to return. But this leaving is not the same as his betrayal itself, the denial, the turning away from his Lord. On this last, there is a strange bridge between himself and the disciples more widely. It is a blasphemy and a horror, yet it is not "other" to this body. All of them ran away; all of them abandoned him; all of them denied him.21

Radner claims that, in being separated from one another, Christians betray Christ. Yet, the situation is not beyond the reconciling, forgiving, welcoming love of the Lord, who, ultimately, works in and through our human divisiveness. He observes:

There is a way, however, that Christian division has indeed proven one of the central topics of theological self- reflection, from Paul to to to to Augustine and on and on, just because of the choices it has forced upon Christian leaders and explicators of Church structures and decision making. A general adage has held that ecclesiology did not develop as a discipline until the post-Reformation. But from the earliest Church there has always been practiced a fundamental theological genre we might call Christian schismatology or eristology—the study of division and of discord as a prosecutorial enterprise, that has ultimately given rise to often elaborated canonical, and, to a lesser extent, ecclesiological formulation.22

What Radner argues is that the separation of Christians from one another present since (perhaps) the East-West schism of 1054 and, certainly, since the Protestant Reformation in the West is two things. First, it is lamentable, as per section one of this chapter. Second, it is not foreign to the very way Jesus chooses to relate to his bride, the Church. Divisions have existed since the beginning, and indeed, the Church is marked by an implicit unrest about its own nature.

20 Ephraim Radner, A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 118. 21 Radner, A Brutal Unity, 119. 22 Radner, A Brutal Unity, 126.

9

Rahner and Fries, who are cited above in making such a strong case for unity on the basis of the classical creeds alone, offer various thoughts about the way episcopacy and its role in ecclesiology might be thought of in ecumenical discussions. One extreme view of the ecclesiological result that unity calls for would be merger or adoption of one Church by another. Another goal might witness a situation in which “regional partner churches…can, to a large extent, maintain their existing structures.”23 Rather than recommending, for example, that Lutheranism is absorbed by

Anglicanism, or that all Protestant Churches dissolve and merge into the Church (a goal Rahner and Fries find “totally unrealistic”24), they call Christians to “demolish the fear …of a takeover.”25 This relationship of existing structures entered into “full communion” is what we see in the relationship between the Anglican and Lutheran communions in this study.

At the conclusion of this short introductory chapter, then, this dissertation has hoped to establish the need for and value of fruitful ecumenical dialogue among Christian denominations, the goal of such dialogue, and the items at stake with regard to episcopacy, apostolic succession, and ecclesiology. Now, we turn our attention to a more detailed examination of the context for the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues of late (chapter two), the contents of the dialogues themselves (chapter three), an evaluation of the ecclesiological theology involved in these discussions (chapter four), and, finally, an extended discussion about the degree to which these theological conversations – and moves – may provide fruitful for the Catholic Church as it participates in the ecumenical enterprise with these and other Christian communions.

23 Rahner/Fries, 8. 24 Rahner/Fries, 43. 25 Rahner/Fries, 113.

Chapter 2: Contextual Information about The Primary Documents

2.1: Selection of Primary Documents

This study examines primary documents that came from conversations between Lutherans and Anglicans or Lutherans and Episcopalians in the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe.

The rationale for focusing specifically on these documents is that these are the ones that produced results; they succeeded in attaining their goal of full communion between the Anglican or Episcopal and Lutheran Churches.

The following is a regional indication of the specific primary documents to be used in chapter three. After briefly naming the documents by region, we will step back to gain a wider vision of the context which led to them. At this juncture, we aim simply to identify the primary documents that will be the focus of this study.

From Episcopal-Lutheran dialogues in Canada, we will analyze Called to Full Communion: A

Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration1 (1998) (Hereafter Called to

Full Communion). It comes from the work done by the Joint Working Group of the Evangelical

Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada in December of 1997.

In the United States, the Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A., and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church conversed with each other from 1978-80 to produce Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations2 (1981)

(Hereafter LED). We will also investigate the 1991 document Toward Full Communion And “Concordat

1 Called to Full Communion: A Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration, The Joint Working Group of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, December 1997(Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, 1998), hereafter Called to Full Communion 2 Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations. Second Series 1976-1980. Sponsored by the Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church. Cincinnati, Forward Movement Publications, 1981. (Hereafter LED)

10

11 of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III3 and the accompanying Concordat of Agreement:

Supporting Essays (1995).4 Additionally, we will survey the 1999 document : A

Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement (hereafter Called to Common Mission).5 It is in this Called to Common Mission that was adopted by both the Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America and the Episcopal Church, confirming full communion, which slightly amended the rejected Concordat (rejected in 1997 by six votes).

In Europe, the 1988 German document The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible

Unity6 represents a German-Church of England discussion, and while it did not lead to full communion, it is only five years later that joint work between the British and Irish Anglican

Churches together with the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches resulted in the 1993 document

Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays,7which did.

In addition to the aforementioned regional documents, we will investigate international documents not representing one particular country or region. The Niagara Report: Report of the

Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 19878 (1988) (Hereafter The Niagara Report) and the 2003,

Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group 2000-20029 (Hereafter

Growth in Communion) are central to this discussion.

3 “Toward Full Communion” And “Concordat of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III. Ed. William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991. (Hereafter Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement) 4 Concordat of Agreement: Supporting Essays. Ed. Daniel F. Martensen. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995. (Hereafter Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays) 5 Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement. An agreement of Full Communion with the Episcopal Church as amended and Adopted by the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, August 19, 1999. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1999. (Hereafter Called to Common Mission) 6 The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible Unity. The Council for Christian Unity of the General of the Church of England. Meissen, March 18, 1988. Occasional Paper No. 2. (Hereafter The Meissen Agreement) 7 Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement With Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe. Conversations between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. London: Church House Publishing, 1993. (Hereafter Porvoo) 8 The Niagara Report: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 1987. By the Anglican - Lutheran International Continuation Committee. London: Church House Publishing, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation, 1988. (Hereafter The Niagara Report). 9 Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican – Lutheran International Working Group 2000-2002. : The Lutheran World Federation, 2003. (Hereafter Growth in Communion).

12

Before analyzing the contents of these documents, however, it is important to situate them within their larger dialogical context. The subject of episcopacy is of primary importance in these documents. While finding straightforward agreement on many tenets of the Christian faith, it is the role of apostolic succession and its relationship to the historic episcopate in the ecclesiological formulations of each communion that has been the biggest hurdle to entering full communion with one another. In chapter three, these items will be elaborated and surveyed in the context of the various documents that express them. By way of introductory summary: it seems that Lutherans have historically rejected that apostolic succession must be understood in the context of historic succession of bishops, instead emphasizing successive faithfulness to as the foundation of apostolic succession; Anglicans, on the other hand, inherited from their Catholic heritage an emphasis on the historic episcopate as the essential form of apostolic succession.10

Therefore, two items are necessary to investigate to investigating the contents of these primary sources: (1) the topic of episcopacy in Christian history and (2) the origins and relationship of the Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran communions.

2.2: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the New Testament

First and foremost in a discussion investigating the role of episcopacy in ecumenical discussions between two churches, there needs to be a preliminary investigation of episcopacy in the wider Christian faith. In their conversations, both the Anglican and Lutheran communions attempt to draw on the concept of apostolic succession, often appealing to the Biblical and Patristic Church in elucidating their particular ecclesiological role (or lack thereof) of the historic episcopate. Their

10 Francis A. Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” Sapere teologico e unità della fede: Studi in onore del Prof. Jared Wicks, Edited by Aparicio Valls, Carmen, Carmelo Dotolo, and Gianluigi Pasquale (: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004), 591.

13 appeal to history necessitates a consideration of the historical realities, insofar as they are available to us, pertaining to the historic episcopate and its origin in the apostles. This section investigates the presence of the concept of apostolic succession (in general) and of historic succession of the episcopate through the laying on of hands (in particular) in the New Testament, while the following section explores the same items in Patristic writings. In doing so, this study will be better equipped to discuss references to historical succession when they arise in the primary documents.

Arnold Ehrhardt observes that his “investigation of the New Testament material has produced comparatively little evidence for the idea of an Apostolic succession. Remarks about appointment to the ministry and descriptions of the several ministries have proved to be only casual, and the idea of succession, in so far as it is found at all, is capable of more than one interpretation.”11

Let us look more closely at varying interpretations.

Gerald O’Collins asks if the ecclesiological structure of the Catholic episcopate demonstrates a right understanding of Church leadership original to New Testament times. In other words, he considers whether or not there is a foundation for historic succession of bishops to be found in the

New Testament. He answers in the affirmative. To do so, he begins by drawing on New Testament evidence for Jesus having chosen twelve followers with a unique leadership function:

The report how Jesus chose out of a wider group of his followers a core group of twelve to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to drive out demons (Mk 3:13-19). He later dispatched them on a preaching and healing mission, with instructions about their modus operandi that obviously mirror not so much the pre- crucifixion period as the situation of post-Easter itinerant missionaries (Mk 6:7-13,30). At the end Jesus celebrated the Passover "with the twelve" and is called "one of the twelve" (Mk 14:10,43 parallel) — something that seems inconceivable unless the earthly Jesus had already brought that group into existence. Matthew, who calls this core group both the "twelve disciples" and the "twelve apostles," repeats (and modifies) some of the instructions he finds in Mark and adds others (Mt 10:1—11:1). When "sent" by Jesus, the twelve will share in the authority he has received from God (Mt 10:40). In Matthew's Gospel the twelve are not reported to have gone out proclaiming the message of the kingdom. They begin their one and definitive mission with the resurrection, when they are commissioned (as "the eleven," after Judas' defection and suicide) to make disciples of all nations, to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to teach all that Jesus had commanded them (Mt 28:16-20). Much of what we read here comes from the evangelist Matthew, but for my purposes one point is important: talk in that closing scene of "the eleven," as happens similarly in Lk 24:9,37, would not be intelligible unless this leadership group had already been created during Jesus' ministry. Luke has Jesus himself give the name of "apostles" to the twelve (Lk 6:12-16), repeats practically all the instructions from Mark (Lk 9:1-5), tells of the trial mission of the twelve (Lk 9:6), adds a

11 Arnold Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1953), 35.

14

similar mission undertaken by a broader group of seventy-two disciples (Lk 10:1-12), and inserts Jesus' reaction to the joyful report of this latter group's success (Lk 10:17-20). Luke ends his Gospel with the risen Jesus commissioning "the eleven and those with them" for a world-wide mission (Lk 24:33,47-49), for which they will be empowered by the gift of the Holy Spirit — a promise repeated by the risen Jesus to "the apostles" at the start of Acts (:1-5). Luke's detail about the need for Judas' place to be filled (Acts 1:15-26) suggests that there was a group of twelve with an office to fulfill. For Luke the twelve (apostles) are the authoritative witnesses to the original Christian faith. Like Matthew (Mt 19:28) Luke draws from the Q- or sayings-source a promise about the twelve's future role in representing and judging "the twelve tribes of Israel" (Lk 22:30). Only "the twelve," in their function as representatives and judges, will sit on "the thrones," while all are called to "the banquet" in the new age (Mt 22:1-14 ; Lk 14:15-24; see Mt 8:11; Lk 13:29). A certain "hierarchical dualism" turns up in Jesus' metaphors of a "banquet" for all and "thrones" for some, even though one could well argue that he is speaking of the twelve eschatological judges who will neither "judge" during their earthly lifetime nor hand on to others something of this office. Their sitting on thrones will occur with the eschatological gathering of all the people around the coming Son of man. Attentive reading of the Gospels shows, then, multiple witness for the fact that at some point in his ministry Jesus chose twelve leaders from among the wider ranks of his followers and gave them some kind of authoritative office.12 Having established the existence of this unique leadership, we see the existence of a ministry of oversight (episkope) in the Gospels. Also present in the earlier Pauline literature, O’Collins continues:

The eight ministries of 1 Cor. 12:28 become five in another, deutero-pauline list: "his [Christ's] gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some and teachers (Eph 4:11). The foundation of many local churches by apostles and others brought a shift in leadership, when pastors (called "overseers, "elders," and "") took over from missionary apostles and founders among whom had been the pillars" of Gal 2:9. A range of New Testament sources reflects this movement from missionary to settled, pastoral leaders (Acts 20:17, 28; Ph 1:1; 1 P 5:1-14; the Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus)…The Pastoral Letters, when recording a more developed organization of ministries, speak of "overseers" or "bishops" and their qualifications (1 Tm 3:1-7; see Tt 1:7-9), of the "elders" or "presbyters" to be appointed by Titus "in every town" of Crete (Tt 1:5-6; see 1 Tm 5:17- 20), and of the qualities of "deacons" (1 Tm 3:8-10,12-13) and, apparently, also of (1 Tm 3:11). There is some indication of succession in teaching authority (2 Tm 2:2), teaching, preaching, defending sound doctrine against error, and the domestic behavior expected from leaders.13

Having established a scriptural basis for the ecclesiological role of the episcopate in the New

Testament, O’Collins then seeks to illustrate the existence of the practice of handing this leadership role on through successive generations of leaders through the laying on of hands. Citing 1 Tm 5:22,

1 Tm 4:14, and 2 Tm 1:6,14 he concludes that the existing “institutionalization is necessary for survival.”15

12 Gerald O’Collins, S. J., “Did Apostolic Continuity Ever Start? Origins of Apostolic Continuity in the New Testament.” (Louvain Studies 21 (1996)), 142-143. 13 O’Collins, 144. 14 O’Collins, 145. 15 O’Collins, 151.

15

Summarizing O’Collins’ work, James F. Puglisi observes that “Prof. O'Collins attempts to broadly show what the New Testament roots of leadership were and how they are related to the issues of apostolic continuity. By the exploration of biblical data and early Christian communities,

O'Collins speaks about apostolicity as a kind of ecclesial leadership in a hierarchical organization.”16

Gregory Rogers observes the significant role of the and, in particular, in the laying on of hands, in pointing out that, while a and, in certain circumstances, even a layperson can baptize, “that must be confirmed by a bishop or his representative. And the connection was not merely a legal formality. It also had charismatic power. The Holy Spirit was given to the new

Samaritan believers when the Apostles' hands were laid on them. Until they were organically linked to the apostolic Church, the Samaritans were lacking something of the grace and power of God.”17

Thus, we see arguments in favor of the view that scripture provides a basis for the historic episcopate (transmitted through the laying on of hands) as the form of apostolic succession.

Switching gears, Puglisi mentions the work of Harding Meyer, finding that “Meyer begins with a global view of continuity and moves on to situate the question of ministerial succession within this broader context.”18 Indeed, Meyer understands apostolic succession more broadly than as simply historical succession through the laying on of hands. He emphasizes that in Matthew 28:20, the so-called Great Commission, “the idea of ‘guarding’ or ‘obeying’ is still predominant rather than

‘handing down’ or ‘transmitting,’ it becomes already apparent what ‘transmission’ means: first, transmission is entrusted to human people by an imperative which clearly says what is to be transmitted: ‘everything that I have commanded you’ – and nothing else.”19 Indeed, “everything” includes witness to, and faith in, the entirety of Christ’s salvific actions, in Meyer’s opinion. This

16 James F. Puglisi, “Introduction” Louvain Studies 21 (1996), 110. 17 Gregory Rogers, Apostolic Succession: The Biblical Foundation, the Historical Evidence, the Twentieth-Century Context (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1989), 7. 18 Puglisi, 111. 19 Harding Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” Louvain Studies 21 (1996), 170.

16 statement means that “the lasting source and point of reference for transmission are the apostles, the

Christ-appointed witnesses of his life, teaching, and resurrection…Therefore, transmission of the

Christ event is transmission of the apostolic witness – otherwise it is not transmission of the Christ event.”20 Thus, apostolic succession, for Meyer, is the transmission of the entire faith. He also points out that the imperative to hand on what was given in Christ was “upheld by an indicative, by a promise: ‘I am with you always.’ Both command and promise, indicative and imperative always go together in the historical process of transmitting God’s once for all saving act in Jesus.”21 For him,

“maintenance or surrender of this principle marks the division line between true church and false church.” 22

Puglisi mentions a triad of episcopacy, scripture, and in Meyer’s work, finding that

“Meyer will give a ‘’ of importance to these whereby the episcopacy will be the lowest ranked in this triad and indeed considered not necessary.”23 In other words, Meyer indicates that apostolic succession need not be conceptualized as historic succession of the episcopate, but includes the entire faith which Christ handed to his followers.

A Symposium held on November 23-24, 1995, at the Centro Pro Unione in Rome on the

"Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession"24 “closed with an extensive conclusion given by Prof. William Henn. After summarizing the significance of the general theme of the symposium, he pulled together the areas of major convergence on the question of continuity, succession and apostolicity.”25 The following excerpts from Henn’s reflections on the symposium

20 Harding Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 170. 21 Harding Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 170. 22 Harding Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,”170. 23 Puglisi, 111. 24 William Henn, O.F.M., Cap. ”Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession: Concluding Reflections to the Centro Pro Unione Symposium,” Louvain Studies 21 (1996), 183. 25 Puglisi, 112.

17 indicate the extent to which he, like Meyer, understands apostolic succession more broadly than being limited to historic succession. Henn remarks on the

tension between the thrust of the paper by Professor O'Collins and a point made by Professor Meyer…the potential tension appears when Professor Meyer stated that some of the ecclesiological insights which followed upon the experience of the Reformation was the insight that, of three elements which had 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.26

Henn finds O’Collins’ work to conclude with “a rather reasonable argument that the New

Testament provides evidence of a Church which enjoys some kind of ecclesiastical leadership in a hierarchical organization.”27

John J. Burkhard’s research, on the other hand, casts doubt on the notion that an easy link can be made between the early leadership of the Church and the twelve called by Jesus. He questions the veracity of “the twelve” being the same as “the apostles.” He states:

The first result of our investigation must be the distinction between "the Twelve" and the apostles. They represent two different groups of individuals in early Christianity with two very different functions. The Twelve were the symbolic expression of Jesus' conviction that in his proclamation of the kingdom of God the end times had begun. God was reuniting and healing the people of the covenant, and Jesus himself was inseparably a part of the process of renewal of the "true Israel." The apostles, on the other hand, represented the emergence of a community more or less distinct from Judaism, its parent. Their function was to be once-for-all foundations of the of early Christians regarding the life, death, and and his inseparable connection with God's kingdom in its ultimate or eschatological phase.28

As such, he criticizes O’Collins’ research, indicating that “Gerald O'Collins falls prey to such confusion.”29 The apostles represent a broader group than merely Christ’s closest twelve followers.

His research, he claims, puts us “in a better position to understand the issue of office in early

Christianity. The twelve do not represent an office, yet the apostles certainly do.”30 He observes, “an office can be succeeded at least in certain respects. But … I really do not see the strictly collegial character of the group of apostles in the first century.”31 His research does not, of course, indicate

26 Henn, 191-192. 27 Henn, 192. 28 John J. Burkhard, O.F.M., Conv., Apostolicity Then and Now: An Ecumenical Church in a Postmodern World (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 5 29 Burkhard, 19. 30 Burkhard, 12. 31 Burkhard, 12.

18 any definitive evidence that the New Testament opposes episcopacy as such, but it helps clarify the nuance necessary for understanding it.

Like Burkhardt, Thomas Kocik posits that the definition of is more complicated than one might assume. He notes, for example, that “the author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Jesus

Christ the Apostle of God (3:1).”32 While Kocik traces the origin of the word to Mark 3:14 and

Matthew 10:1 (“And He appointed twelve, to be with Him, and to be sent out (apostelle) to preach”33), indicating a “special group of twelve disciples (who had) a share in His mission of reconciling the world to God (2 Cor 5:18- 19),34 he acknowledges that, “yet others, too, were sent out by Jesus.” 35 He cites, for example, Luke 10:1 (“After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent (apesteilen) them on ahead of Him, two by two36).

Paul frequently and emphatically refers to himself as an apostle, especially in the introductions to his letters. He admits the apostleship of the Twelve, and of Peter (Cephas) specifically (Gal 8; 2:8). In addition to Peter and the rest of the Twelve, Paul acknowledges the otherwise unknown Andronicus and Junias (Rm 16:7) as apostles; then less clearly (1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:9), who was his companion on the first missionary journey (Acts 12 - 14); James the Lord's "" or kinsman (Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 15:7); John (Gal 2:9); and Silas, who replaced Barnabas (Ac 15). Paul contrasts with them the "false apostles" who have received no authorization from Christ (2 Cor 11:13). These were presumably 2 Palestinian opponents of Paul who appealed to the authority of the super apostles" (cf. 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11). The true apostles' credentials consist of "signs and wonders and mighty works" (2 Cor 12:12), together with a willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ (2 Cor 4:10; 7:5). Set apart (Gal 7:15), called (Rm 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:15) and sent by God (1 Cor 1:17; Gal 2:8), the apostle must be totally dedicated to the Gospel of Christ.37

Kocik then puts his observation into conversation with the practice of laying on of hands:

The Pastoral Letters indicate the laying-on of hands as the only method of ordination. Two passages from the Letters to Timothy are important and should be seen as complementing each other. The first is 1 Timothy 4:14: Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders [presbuteroi] laid their hands on you. The other is 2 Timothy 1:6: Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying-on of my hands.38

32 Thomas M. Kocik, Apostolic Succession in an Ecumenical Context (New York: Alba House, 1996), 1. 33 Kocik, 1. 34 Kocik, 1. 35 Kocik, 1. 36 Kocik, 1. 37 Kocik, 3. 38 Kocik, 14.

19

Yet, both the use of the term apostle and the presence of the laying-on-of-hands might be of little consequence when Kocik considers:

One would search the New Testament in vain for an account of Jesus ordaining the Twelve (or Paul) by the ritual gesture familiar to us today: that is, by prayer and the laying-on of hands. Should we conclude, then, that the of Order has no scriptural basis and perhaps (worse yet) no derivation from Jesus Himself, in which case it is not truly a sacrament? permits us to conceive the notion of sacramentality in broader terms. To claim that Jesus Christ "instituted" a sacrament does not necessarily mean that He established the external rite. Rather, it means that something in His life justifies the Church's use of a particular ritual action. Jesus empowered the apostles to share in the fullness of His unique Priesthood, to speak in His name and to act in His person… Understanding ordination in this wider sense, one can scarcely take issue with the Church's Tradition of recognizing the ordination of the Twelve in successive stages.39

Francis Sullivan disagrees with Burkhard’s reading of the New Testament, stating that although “the term ‘the twelve apostles’ appears only twice in the New Testament,”40 “clearly Luke, in both his Gospel and in Acts, believed ‘the Twelve’ and ‘the apostles’ to be identical groups of men.”41 He cites Luke 24:48, Acts 1:8, and Luke 24:46-48 in support of his argument.42 He acknowledges, “It is obvious that Paul's notion of what being an apostle required differs from

Luke's, for Paul insisted that he himself was an apostle of Jesus Christ, even though he had never been one of Jesus' disciples….suffice it to say that (Paul’s understanding of ‘apostle’) certainly included being sent to preach the Gospel to those who had not heard.”43 Yet, Sullivan ultimately concludes: “I believe the New Testament does provide a solid basis for a theory of apostolic succession.”44 He states:

The Pastoral Letters witness to the belief of the subapostolic church that Timothy not only continued Paul's work, but that he received his authorization to do so from Paul himself, and therefore shared the mandate Paul had received from the risen Christ. We are surely justified in seeing Timothy and Titus as successors of the apostle Paul in his apostolic mission and ministry. But, as noted above, the authentic letters witness to the fact that Paul had many more coworkers than these two. It seems altogether reasonable to presume that after Paul's death many of these others continued the work he had entrusted to them. If one asks, then, who were the successors to the apostle Paul, the first answer should be: Timothy, Titus and other coworkers who shared Paul's ministry while he lived and carried it on after he died. What about Peter and others of the Twelve? Did they also have coworkers who carried on their missionary task after they died? The New Testament gives hardly any information on which to base a reply. We know that at least some of those local church leaders were

39 Kocik, 12. 40 Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York: The Newman Press, 2001), 22. 41 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 22. 42 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 22. 43 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 24. 44 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 78-80.

20

called episkopoi; on the other hand we have no clear evidence in the New Testament that any one of them was a "bishop" in the historic sense of the term, that is, as the residential of a local church with authority over the group of presbyters as well as over the rest of the community. Timothy and Titus are presented as having had authority over groups of presbyters, but they were still missionaries, not residential pastors. We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man as bishop for each of the churches they had founded. The only person in the New Testament whose role resembles that of a bishop is James the "brother of the Lord," who was most likely designated for his position of leadership in the Jerusalem church by his relationship with Jesus and the special appearance with which he was favored by the risen Christ. It seems extremely unlikely that he was "ordained" as bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter. Nor does the New Testament evidence support the idea that Peter, Paul or any other apostle became the bishop of any one local church or ordained one man as bishop of any local church. One looks in vain to the New Testament for a basis for the idea of an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today. 45

Yet, while there is indeed no evidence for an unbroken line of episcopal ordination, at the same time, he acknowledges the degree to which

The laying on of hands is an important component of the of and ordination.…Acts contains two references to the laying on of hands by apostles for the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the first instance, Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritan converts. ‘[W]hen the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.’ (Acts 8:14-17) In the second case Paul laid hands on the men at Ephesus who had previously received John's baptism. ‘When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, they spoke in tongues and prophesied.’”(Acts 19:5-6).46

Sullivan, then, finds that apostolic succession is an important component of Christ’s ministry; yet, apostolic succession is broader than merely the historic succession passed on through the laying on of hands. He states, regarding the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:20, “If Jesus is going to continue to be with his apostles until the end of the age, it will be through his presence with those who will carry on the ministry he entrusts to them.”47 He states that “it is obvious that the ministry to which the apostles devoted their lives did not cease with their deaths. Paul fully expected his ministry to continue after his departure, and indeed it was carried on.”48 But the degree to which this was dependent on the laying on of hands is less obvious. Sullivan indicates two references to the laying on of hands by apostles in commissioning ministers for the Church.49 The first, Acts 6:6,

45 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 78-80. 46 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 37. 47 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 38. 48 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 78. 49 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 223.

21 refers to the Twelve calling on the community to select seven men to take care of Hellenists complaining about being neglected in the daily distribution. Then “they presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.” (Acts 6:6). The second, in the Second Letter to

Timothy, Paul states, “I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.” (2 Tim 1:6).

what we see in the New Testament, then, is a conclusion that we cannot trace an office of bishop handed on from the twelve apostles through ordinations by the laying on of hands through

Scripture alone. While there is evidence of a historical succession traceable to the apostles, it is apparent that the laying on of hands is not universally present in scriptural accounts of it. It is not incorrect, therefore, to understand apostolic succession as succession in teaching and ministry as a whole.

Sullivan indicates that “proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded…unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.”50 Although the documents indicate a transition from leadership by a college of presbyters to leadership by a single bishop in the second century in

Corinth, Philippi, and Rome, they do not elaborate on that tradition’s shape. Sullivan believes that the apostles “shared their mandate with both their missionary coworkers and with the leaders in the local churches and that when the apostles died both of these groups carried on their ministry.” 51

Thus, he concludes that there were likely “two lines of apostolic succession in the postapostolic church, each perpetuating the mandate given to the apostles by Christ. I think it most likely that a

50 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 223. 51 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 223.

22 development along both lines of apostolic succession gave rise to the monepiscopate during the second century.”52

This suggestion has obvious implications for the nature of the episcopacy:

I realize that someone might raise an objection to this explanation on the grounds that it would mean that the specifically episcopal powers of ordaining and teaching with authority would have been handed on not only by the apostles' coworkers but also by presbyters in the local churches prior to the emergence of the episcopate. One might object the idea that a group of presbyters not only would have possessed and transmitted such episcopal powers, but would have conferred them on the person whom they chose as the first bishop of their church. To this objection I would reply that the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hernias favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters.53

Thus, Sullivan sees, in the New Testament writings and in the Patristic Period, evidence that apostolic succession began as the handing on of the mission of Christ from a collegial body to a successive generation of collegial bodies. Here, he evidences the broad understanding of apostolic succession mentioned above. We must also survey the central documents from the Patristic Era germane to the conversation.

2.3: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the Patristic Writings

Arnold Ehrhardt remarks that the “laying on of hands cannot be proved as having formed part of the rite in the earliest times, although the evidence from the Pastoral Epistles as well as from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus makes it probable that the rite was continued during the period between the times of origin of these two testimonies.”54 What further light do early Patristic writings shed on this discussion? Sullivan mentions that “there is a broad consensus

52 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 223. 53 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 224. 54 Ehrhardt, 82.

23 among scholars that the developed in the post-New Testament period, from the local leadership of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes also called episkopoi, to the leadership of a single bishop.”55 With little written information about the early succession, however, understanding this development with clarity is, as we saw with regard to the New Testament, also characterized by vagueness and nuance. Meyer notes that “the dimension of historic continuity and transmission does not seem to have been very much in the mind of the first and second Christian generation. It is only in the third generation that there was a clearly growing awareness of the need for historic continuity and transmission of the Christ event and, simultaneously, an awareness of the problems and dangers implied in this process of transmission.”56

One of the strongest written links to the earliest lines of historic succession are lists of the earliest successors of the apostles. Ehrhardt refers to four such succession lists mentioned in the writings of and other Patristic authors. These lists include succession in Jerusalem,

Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. “The names of the bishops, barring some few exceptions, are not in doubt. Three things are under discussion: the periods during which these bishops were in office, i.e. the question of dates; the times at which these lists were compiled, i.e. the question of age; and finally the pattern followed in these lists, i.e. the question of their literary—and theological— origin.”57 He elaborates:

Our research into the early succession lists of bishops therefore produced the following results. First of all, it was proved that these lists were compiled in the second half of the second century, and it has therefore fixed the time from which we shall have to start working back to the New Testament period. Secondly, it has proved that the early episcopal succession lists were mere lists of names, occasionally, but not very frequently, referring to events of Church historical importance. The main interest of their compilers was in showing these roles were occupied without interruption, but not in the dates of accession of their respective holders… it has been shown that the mere undated lists of names have their closest analogy in the succession list of the Jewish High , and in particular of the post-exilic High Priests. In this respect it has been shown first that such a list had been compiled in the pre-Christian times. It has also been shown that it arose out of special eschatological considerations, based upon Daniel 9. Also, that the Christian Fathers took a special interest in that list, because

55 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 217. 56 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 169 57 Ehrhardt, 37.

24

they were concerned with that prophecy of Daniel's regarding the seventy weeks before the coming of the Messiah.58

Ignatius offers “a lucid distinction between episkopoi and presbuteroi, one episkopos presiding over each local Church, standing out clearly from the local presbyterate.” 59 Rogers indicates:

In his writings we find…a strong eucharistic emphasis: "Since, then, in the persons already mentioned I have beheld the whole congregation in faith and have loved it. I exhort you: be eager to do everything in God's harmony, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbytery in the place of the council of the Apostles and the deacons, most sweet to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ" (Ignatius to the Magnesians, 6:1).This passage emphasizes the Church's eschatological (heavenly) character. The image is eucharistic. The bishop is said to be "presiding" in the place of God, surrounded by the presbyters and deacons. And where does the bishop preside over the assembly but in the eucharistic liturgy?60

Radner remarks:

Ignatius of Antioch's discussion of episcopal "hierarchy" makes little scriptural sense apart from seeing the larger context and flow of his arguments in this light of Lordship as the form of the servant…The bishop in apostolic succession "continues" with Jesus through his trials, goes in and out with him through the world, is driven to his knees both in service and in the agony of prayer, shares in the body and blood poured out for the world, and is only in this lifted up to the place where Israel is governed in her entirety as a people thus drawn together. It is "succession" in the sense of tradition," a passing along or moving along …The full body— Israel—is given in the unity that is Christ's full yet apostolic body, ordered with and through the bishop's integral witness.61

Rogers adds:

Some have argued on the basis of Ignatius' epistles that the threefold structure of leadership (bishop, presbyters, deacons) is an essential constitutive element of the Church. … Ignatius' purpose in stressing the role of the bishop, presbyter, and deacon is to preserve the unity of the Eucharistic assembly and to make sure the life of the Church is legitimate and secure. The one who establishes an apart from the existing apostolic community and its leadership is not establishing a true local church.62

Kocik turns our attention from Ignatius, arguably the author in whom we find the most relevant writing pertinent to historic succession from the period, to Clement of Alexandria. He remarks that it is “first with Clement of Alexandria we find in Tradition some precedent for the characteristically Protestant stress on doctrinal succession or ‘content.’ … Where Clement does mention the Church hierarchy, it is to parallel the three grades of Order with the angelic

58 Ehrhardt, 61. 59 Kocik, 33-34. 60 Rogers, 18. 61 Radner, 187-188, c.f. Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians. See the translation by Gerald G. Walsh in The (New York: Christian Heritage, 1947), 104, 109-11 and Ignatius, Letter to the Romans. 62 Rogers, 18.

25 hierarchy.”63 Thus, already in the Patristic Period we have evidence of apostolic succession understood both in terms of succession of people in office and succession in the content of ministry. Kocik is aware of these varying emphases in saying, “We have seen different ecclesiastical writers stress different aspects of the apostolic succession.” 64 He observes that “with St. Clement of

Rome at the end of the first century, there is the principle of succession going back to the mind of the apostles and, behind them, to Christ. In the late second century, we find St. Irenaeus and

Tertullian testifying to the important interplay between orthodox doctrine and legitimate office.

…Irenaeus expresses this constantly: the bishops in apostolic succession ‘never knew and have never taught’ 's weird doctrines. Furthermore, there is specifically doctrinal succession, the succession of Christian teachers.”65 Rogers adds,

In 1 Clement, chapter 42, is the first reference outside the New Testament to the idea of apostolic succession. Written about A.D. 95, 1 Clement is a letter from the bishop of the church of Rome, written to the church at Corinth. In it he states, "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus the Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God. And so the apostles, after they had received their orders and in full assurance by reason of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, being full of faith in the word of God, went out in the conviction of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that God's kingdom was about to come. So as they preached from country to country and from city to city, they appointed their first converts, after testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.”66

He continues:

The point here is clearly succession. Clement argues that upon the death of the bishops appointed by the Apostles, other reputable men were to be appointed with the consensus of the whole Church to succeed to their ministry. There is a clear conception in Clement of a pastoral office held in legitimate succession from the Apostles. So while there is a hint in Clement of the eucharistic aspect of ecclesiology ("those who have offered the gifts" being the major description of pastoral function), the primaiy emphasis is upon the historical aspect of the Church. The bishops are from the Apostles, who are from Christ, who is from God.67

In the much later Hippolytus (170-237), we see “both aspects of the idea of apostolic succession,” according to Rogers: “The presbyters and bishops are seen as the successors to the

Apostles in teaching and in oversight of the churches. They have been given ‘the Holy Spirit handed

63 Kocik, 30. 64 Kocik, 33-34. 65 Kocik, 33-34. 66 Rogers, 17, c.f. Sparks, Apostolic Fathers, 41. 67 Rogers, 17.

26 down in the Church, whom the Apostles first received and handed on to the orthodox believers.

We, having become their successors, participate in the same grace of the High Priesthood and ministry of the Word, considered watchmen of the Church.’”68

If, then, there was nuance and variety in the various understandings of apostolic succession present in the New Testament, nuance is no less present during the early Patristic Era. Rogers seems to suggest that a strong identification of the historic episcopate with apostolic succession became emphasized only in the writings of Cyprian in the mid-third century. Kocik mentions that “by the mid-third century, the difference between the apostles and the bishops disappears with Cyprian. The bishops are not merely in succession from the apostles, but are the successors of the apostles. There is a general consensus that the office of bishop is of divine origin.”69 Rogers elaborates, saying, “for

Cyprian, the episcopate is the foundation of the Church. Citing Jesus' granting to Peter the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:13-19), he says, ‘From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.’”70

O’Collins highlights that there is a historical emphasis present in the writings in the earlier

Patristic Period. He states,

Hierarchical structure, in the sense of episcopal succession with bishops enjoying apostolic authority, finds support from another source: the notion of "the rule of faith" as developed by its second-century exponent, Irenaeus of Lyons…He opposed the secret, anti-hierarchical, and anti-apostolic position of the Gnostics, along with their new and scriptures: “They oppose tradition, claiming to be wiser not only than the presbyters [the bishops] but even than the apostles, and to have discovered the truth undefiled. (Adversus Haereses 3.2.)71

Puglisi references Metropolitan John Zizioulas, stating, “However, Metropolitan John will show that there is another way of understanding continuity and succession that does not involve

68 Rogers, 27, c.f. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, par. 6. 69 Kocik, 33-34. 70 Rogers, 29. 71 O’Collins, 146.

27 historicity in the usual sense but rather begins with the eschatological community as experienced in the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven.”72 In fact, Metropolitan John Zizioulas indicates, “as

Raymond Brown has pointed out, we have no evidence that any of the twelve ever ordained anybody. In many first-century communities bishops appear without any ordination by bishops traceable to the twelve apostles.”73 Zizioulas states,

On the one hand there is evidence, particularly in the West, of an understanding of succession in strictly historical terms. This we encounter mainly in I Clement, to some extent in Hippolytus and again in St. Cyprian. It marks Western theology ever since leading up to the present time when academic theology, in both West and East, limits its view of succession to the establishment of factual historical evidence of an uninterrupted chain of episcopal ordinations. Yet, on the other hand there seems to have been in the early Church a strong tradition, represented mainly in Syria and Palestine of a view of continuity and succession that does not involve historicity in the usual sense but is interested mainly in securing a continuity of identity of each local Church with the eschatological community as it was originally expected in and through the original church of Jerusalem and ever since the destruction and dispersion of this community, experienced in the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, in the community of the . Faithfulness to this eschatological community was in this case the main requirement in the search for apostolic continuity and succession.74

He argues that “it is mainly this second view that accounts for the fact that apostolic continuity came to be expressed exclusively as episcopal succession. If we miss this we are in danger of misunderstanding what episcopal succession is about.”75 Indeed, he says, “This misunderstanding has in fact occurred when the first of these two views, namely the linear historical one, won the day in the Church. It became sufficient to speak of a continuous chain of episcopal ordinations in order to establish apostolic succession, as if it were a matter of some sort of mechanical activity.”76 In trying to understand the isolation of the “linear” historical view from the more broad view encapsulating the entirety of Christ’s mission, Zizioulas distinguishes between what he calls the

“historical” and the “eschatological” approach to apostolic continuity. The historical focuses merely on historical ties to the past while the eschatological relates to Christ’s messages as it leads to the

72 Puglisi, 111. 73 Richard J Schlenker, “A Roman Catholic Comment on the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994), 118-119, c.f. Raymond E. Brown, and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York: Paulist Press, 1970), 41, 72- 73. 74 Metropolitan John Zizioulas, “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession in the First Five Centuries,” Louvain Studies 21 (1996), 164. 75 Zizioulas, 165. 76 Zizioulas, 165.

28 fullness of God’s kingdom as a whole. Thus, Zizioulas claims that the misunderstanding referenced above “has been the result of the loss of the Christo-centric and eschatological approach to apostolic continuity and a replacement of it by the solely historical view. We need, therefore, to work out a synthesis of the two approaches,” 77 which would involve the following: “1. A ‘holistic’ way of treating succession.”78 “2. This means that ordination as a sign and visible means of apostolic succession must be an insertion into the life of the community. When this happens the ordained bishop both gives and receives apostolicity from the community into which he is inserted.” 79

“Apostolic continuity cannot be created ex nihilo through episcopal ordination unless it is somehow already there.”80 And “3. There is, therefore, no apostolic succession which could be limited to the episcopal college as such or to some form of apostolic collegiality.”81 He highlights the extent to which:

the idea that the bishop is the ‘ of Christ’ has survived in both West and East, particularly in the latter. It would make little sense to hold this view of the bishop without relating it somehow to succession and continuity: it is a continuity with a Christological dimension without which apostolic succession loses its meaning. Secondly, it not without significance that all ordinations to the episcopate must take place in the context of the Eucharist… This means that succession has to come to us not only from the past but also from the future, from the eschatological community with which it is meant to relate each local Church at a given time in history. If this is combined with the fact that no ordination to the episcopate is possible without the mention of the place to which the ordained bishop is attached, it becomes clear that succession means in fact continuity of communities, not of individuals. Therefore, the basic elements of St. Ignatius' ecclesiology did not disappear altogether. They simply are there awaiting their incorporation into our concept of apostolic succession, which without them suffers from a dangerous one-sidedness and a contradiction between our lex orandi and our lex credendi.82

Thus, we see Zizioulas not arguing for an abandonment of apostolic succession simply because of the vagueness of its origins in the early Church. On the contrary, he elevates the extent to which “historical succession … developed after the fourth century independently of what we have called here the eschatological and community” 83 and is concerned with how to achieve a situation in

77 Zizioulas, 165. 78 Zizioulas, 165. 79 Zizioulas, 165. 80 Zizioulas, 166. 81 Zizioulas, 167. 82 Zizioulas, 163. 83 Zizioulas, 167-168.

29 which “historical succession is purified from excesses and deviations owing to its detachment from the synthesis of the historical with the eschatological approach to apostolic continuity which we have been discussing here.”84

Sullivan, on the topic, states that he is “substantial agreement with the consensus of modern scholars that the historical episcopate was not already present in the New Testament church, but a development that took place in the course of the second century.”85 To this end, he draws on such examples as the following: “in the letter that Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, wrote to the church of

Philippi shortly after Ignatius had stopped there on his way to Rome, he speaks of presbyters and deacons in that church, but makes no mention of a bishop.”86 And yet, like Zizioulas, he does not allow an awareness of the historical development of the bishopric in the early centuries of the

Church to diminish the significance of the role of bishop in the Church. He elaborates:

The Catholic belief that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution is based on a combination of historical evidence and theological reflection. Since theology, by definition, is "faith seeking understanding," theological reflection will necessarily presuppose faith. The reflection I propose is based on belief that Christ founded the Church, that he continues to guide it through the abiding gift of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit maintains the Church in the true faith. I propose theological reflection in three steps: 1. The post-New Testament development is consistent with the development that took place during the New Testament period. 2. The episcopate provided the instrument that the post-New Testament Church needed to maintain its unity and orthodoxy in the face of the dangers of schism and threatening it. 3. The Christian faithful recognized the bishops as the successors to the apostles in teaching authority. The reception of the bishops' teaching as normative for faith is analogous to the reception of certain writings as normative for faith. The Holy Spirit guided the Church in determining both norms, for error about the norms would have led to untold errors in faith.87

It seems, according to both Zizioulas and Sullivan, that the tradition of apostolic succession as it has developed to include the historical succession is significant – indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit – enough to attribute to it its proper value. In other words, the significance of the role of historical succession in the historic episcopate is not dependent on the extent to which apostolic succession is solely based on historic succession. It is an important component of a broader concept. While there is

84 Zizioulas, 167-168. 85 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 218. 86 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 221. 87 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 225.

30 dispute about the degree of certainty associated with the office from New Testament times, as Kocik states,

From earliest times, Christians recognized the presbyter as successors of the apostles, with the special responsibility for safeguarding and handing on the apostolic Tradition. Succession in office, the Church's Tradition and sacramental-juridical communion are not juxtaposed, but "triune." A congregation may not encapsulate itself from the other Churches. If it should do so, it would cease to be Church and would soon fracture. preserves and expresses apostolicity. 88

Indeed, “the question dividing the churches is not whether or how rapidly the development from the leadership of a college of presbyters to that of a single bishop took place, but whether the result of that development rightly judged an element of the divinely ordered structure of the Church.”

Sullivan seems to answer in the affirmative.89

2.4: Apostolic Succession, Historic Succession of the Episcopate, and the Laying on of

Hands in the Writings of the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers

Because “the millennium from St. Augustine to the late Middle Ages saw no real evolution of the concept of apostolic succession per se,”90 we are now in a position to briefly investigate the ecclesiological changes that took place during the Protestant Reformation that allowed these

Reformation Churches to diverge so drastically in their understanding of the role of historic succession within the context of apostolic succession.

It would be misleading to paint Luther’s original intention as breaking with the historical succession of the episcopate. In a less hyperbolic tone, Meyer indicates that although “the

Reformers justified their particular way by historical and theological arguments, it would, however, be misleading to think that their particular understanding and exercise of the ministry directly derived from historical and theological considerations. Their starting point, and quite obviously, was

88 Kocik, 33-34. 89 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 218. 90 Kocik, xxvi.

31 concrete historical events, developments and experiences in the church at that time.”91 And what historical events occurred were, as O’Collins points out, a degree of corruption within the hierarchy of the Church which Luther so desperately sought to reform. As such, Meyer characterizes Luther by referring to his “long run of unsuccessful attempts…to establish an ‘evangelical’ episcopate.”92

In fact, Luther and his followers in defending their cause turned to the bishops and the pope and not against them. At least during the first years it was their sincere hope, that the bishops and the pope in their particular responsibility for continuity and transmission of the apostolic faith would listen to their concerns or at least tolerate them. However, the Reformers made a double experience which was decisive and formative: first, they made the experience that the bishops –in their quasi totality – rejected the concerns of the Reformation and were not willing to tolerate them let alone to ordain priests for the evangelical congregations. Second, they made the experience that, left alone and even being accused by the bishops, the new evangelical communities, by God’s grace, continued to be church: the apostolic message was proclaimed in word and sacrament by a particular ministry, people came to faith, lived their faith and became true members of the body of Christ. This was a fundamental experience of the Reformation.”93

As such, “It goes without saying that also for the Reformers the principle of apostolicity is basic.

Therefore they constantly appeal to the apostolic scriptures as the supreme norm of the church’s life and teaching, and, hence, the particular place given to the ‘Apostolic Creed’ which was considered to be of apostolic origin.”94 Perhaps one of the most misleading concepts in considering the dialogue between Lutherans and any Church that sees itself as standing within the historic episcopate is the belief that Luther and/or the Lutheran communion is against the notion of apostolic succession.

Instead, it seems that a Lutheran understanding of apostolic succession is simply broad enough to include the entirety of Christ’s mission and not merely the isolated succession of bishops, as highlighted earlier in this chapter; moreover, it seems that a Lutheran understanding of apostolic succession has ample room for historical succession, if only historical pressures had not pushed aside theological possibilities.

To this end, Meyer states,

One can go even a step further. Also the idea of ‘succession’ is not at all absent from the Reformation understanding of ministry and ordination. The bearers of the ministry are never alone with nothing but the

91 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 174. 92 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 176. 93 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 175. 94 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 171.

32

Bible in their hand and the Holy Spirit in their hearts. They are aware of the fact and, indeed, committed to it that they are at the end of a chain of witnesses to the apostolic faith continuing through the ages and that therein a successio fidei, testium et testimoniorum…but does the link between the apostles and the ministry have to be more than this successio fidei, testium et testimoniorum going back to the apostles? Does it have to be, at the same time, a formal, unbroken succession in the episcopal office from the apostles on?”95

And Henn remarks,

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 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.96

Rutowicz highlights that “it might come as a shock to many Lutherans to learn that it was Luther's and Melanchthon's "deep desire," and "earnest desire" (to quote the Apology) to keep the hierarchy and polity of episcopacy.97

Henn summarizes that

Both Professors Tjorhom and Meyer provide 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, divided Christian communities should have to resign themselves disagreement about Church structure as a result of historical developments which none of their leaders had intended in the first place.98

In short, “Luther… in emphasizing the of all believers did by no means intend to question the particular ministry.”99 Of course, the theological realities of Lutheranism are at odds with the schismatic result of the era. Faithful though Luther may have been to the role of the historic episcopate within the larger concept of apostolic succession at the outset, it is apparent now

95 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 174. 96 Henn, 195. 97 Rutowicz, 10, 12, c.f. Apology XIV in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. 98 Henn, 194. 99 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 172.

33 that the Lutheran communion sees historic succession as “a very important issue but… ultimately, an adiaphoron.100

Francis Sullivan states,

Evidence suggests that Luther and his early followers would have preferred to maintain the historic episcopate if Catholic bishops had joined them, but none did. They resorted to the ordination of pastors by pastors, some of whom had been validly ordained as Catholic priests. It was one such Lutheran pastor who ordained the first Lutheran bishops for Norway and Denmark. In Sweden and Finland, however, the first Lutheran bishops were ordained by a man who had been a validly ordained Catholic bishop. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never officially expressed its judgment on the validity of orders as they have been handed down by episcopal succession in these two national Lutheran churches. In any case, while the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland have maintained the practice of ordination by bishops, they agree with main body of Lutherans that the validity of orders does not depend on episcopal ordination in the historic apostolic succession.101 This critical passage highlights the degree to which a Church - such as the Catholic or Anglican, which sees itself as maintaining the historical succession - does not accept the validity of Lutheran ministers, as well as the degree to which it is contrary to Lutheranism to allow the matter to be of concern.

Of course, “the did not explicitly pronounce Protestant ministries invalid, but simply not ‘legitimate’ inasmuch they violated the traditional discipline of the Church.”102 Yet, it is precisely the “validity” Kacik questions when he remarks that an

objection to the validity of Protestant ministries is that Luther and the other Reformers could not validly ordain, because they themselves were not bishops. Whether simple priests can validly ordain is a question open to debate in Catholic theology. But even granted that such powers were exercised by the priest- in England and Germany … authorization from Rome was necessary for such ordinations to be recognized (rightly or wrongly) as valid.103

Based on these reflections, it is possible to see the disparity between Lutheran and Anglican understanding of the historic episcopate. It seems one potential way forward rich with possibility is simply the notion of grafting Lutherans back in to the historic succession. Ordinations of all

Lutheran pastors by “validly ordained” bishops in historic succession, for example, seems to be a

100John Rutowicz, Holding Fast the Faithful Word: Episcopacy and the Office of the Holy Ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran of North America (Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2013), 29. 101 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 4. 102 Kocik, 115. 103 Kocik, 115.

34 foolproof way to remedy the problem within a single generation. Or, perhaps, keeping in mind that

“the Catholic Church can supply, modify, or dispense with the form of the sacraments for a good reason….Insofar as the Protestant Reformers were convinced that breaking with the papal Church was the only way to reform the whole of Church life according to the Gospel, could the Catholic

Church supply for any defects inherent in Protestant ministries? Could the Church ‘validate’ these ministries by evoking the principle of Ecclesia supplet ("the Church supplies") or of "" in

Orthodox terminology?”104 This is where the Lutheran Communion expresses hesitancy. “Should

Lutherans care about so called apostolic succession? For the most part, the answer should be no.

Lutherans have no problem obtaining or maintaining "apostolic succession" for the sake of tradition or for the sake of a weaker brother's conscience. However, Lutherans ought not be in the business of obtaining “apostolic succession” in order to make some other group or organization see them as legitimate.”105 The point is well made. Lutherans emphasize a broader understanding of apostolic succession than do their Anglican or Catholic counterparts. The Lutheran understanding encompasses succession in content more than office. Thus, a re-grafting or joint ordination program would be theologically suspect for Lutherans. On the other hand, the lack of historical succession in office is ecclesiologically suspect to Anglicans and Catholics. This seems to be the stalemate reached at the beginning of the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues we aim to study regarding the role of the historic episcopate. Thus, to ask the following question is to pose a problem for Lutherans:

Whether the Church can supply for sacramental defects in Protestantism depends, at least in part, on the degree to which she can extrapolate the good faith intentions of the Reformers, however one might oppose their doctrinal conclusions. Luther and the other Reformers did not initially intend to establish new Churches, but to bring the Catholic Church into conformity with their understanding of evangelical faith and life. On this basis, some would credit them with acting in good faith.106

104 Kocik, 119. 105 John Rutowicz, Holding Fast the Faithful Word: Episcopacy and the Office of the Holy Ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2013), 25. 106 Kocik, 119.

35

It seems rich with possibility, and yet, the Lutheran communion would reject the idea that such a

“sacramental defect” exists. “What is feared, on the Lutheran side, is uniformization, a surrender of one’s own convictions and a draw back from the concept of ‘unity in (reconciled) diversity.’ This is an obvious misunderstanding.”107 In response to this fear, there is a strong argument in support of historical succession despite it:

Episcopacy also has the weight of history behind it. One of the most important arguments for episcopacy is its early and nearly universal appearance in the life of the Christian Church…That fact, in and of itself, should cause us to seriously think about why we would reject such a massive historical witness and tradition.108

Drawing once again on Zizioulas’ broad understanding of apostolic succession, Rutowicz comments that:

we must distinguish between those who reject historical succession out of theological conviction and those who, for accidental historical reasons (e.g. today's Orthodox Church of Albania) have interrupted their historical continuity. There is no particular difficulty with the latter, if there is the will to be re-inserted in historical succession. With regard to those, on the other hand, who reject historical succession out of theological conviction the ecumenical dialogue demands that we raise the question why and how they have arrived at this rejection. I venture to suggest that behind this rejection probably lies a denial of historical succession as it developed after the fourth century independently of what we have called here the eschatological and community aspect of apostolicity stemming from a Christo-centric and pneumatological view of continuity. A succession of individuals or of a "college" of individuals transmitting grace and authority from one another independently of the ecclesial community represents a kind of historical succession which does raise difficulties to anyone operating with a Biblical or Patristic ecclesiology. If, however, historical succession is purified from excesses and deviations owing to its detachment from the synthesis of the historical with the eschatological approach to apostolic continuity which we have been discussing here, we may reach a consensus on this thorny matter.109

Zizioulas’ comments offer the charity of mind that is required from both sides of the discussion in a stalemate such as this. Such creative thinking is exactly what we aim to uncover in the primary documents to be explored in chapter three and evaluated in chapters four and five.

107 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 180. 108 Rutowicz, 12. 109 Zizioulas, 167-168.

36

2.5: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues from the Reformation through the Early Twentieth Century

Recall that Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) 1517 Ninety-Five Theses and the resulting 1521 Diet of

Worms serve as concise historical markers for the separation of Lutheranism from the Catholic

Church and hence the creation of the Lutheran communion. It was in May of 1521 that King Henry

VIII and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey presided at the burning of a collection of Luther's books.110 The

1530 Augsburg Confession further articulated the tenets of Lutheranism. Regarding Anglicanism, significant documents include the 1538 Thirteen Articles agreed upon by a committee of German and

English theologians, 's 1530 Forty Two Articles, and the 1563 Thirty- Nine Articles of

Religion. It is the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that have, in the past, served as the defining doctrines of the Church of England or . According to Growth in Communion, the

Augsburg Confession served as the “basis” for all three documents,111 thus indicating a commonality between the two communions from the start.

Regarding historical succession, of course,

Historic episcopal succession has traditionally been seen by "" Anglicans as being ontological, even an essential element of the gospel given for all time, whereas "" Lutherans have traditionally emphasized that the ordained ministry is strictly functional in character, having no ontological dimension whatsoever, especially insofar as ordination might then be seen as establishing a or higher class of Christians within the church.112

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Lutherans have appeared to reject the belief that apostolic succession must be understood in the context of historic succession of bishops, instead emphasizing successive faithfulness to the Gospel as the foundation of apostolic succession;

Anglicans, on the other hand, inherited from their Catholic heritage an emphasis on the historic episcopate as the essential form of apostolic succession. It is this main ecclesiological discrepancy

110 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 111 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 112 Toward Full Communion, 23.

37 that Gunther Gassmann has in mind when he acknowledges that “it was surprising that these two churches entered such a lively and fast love-affair. They had seemed, rather, to be strangers to each other.”113

At this point in our historical survey, then, it is appropriate to understand the context of the

Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues regarding the historic episcopate in their entirety. Only by situating the primary documents we are focusing on within the context of a broader conversation between the two denominations will we have a full picture of their significance. Having already situated the topic of episcopacy in a broader context in the previous section, this section offers a brief overview of the two denominations’ history and relationship on their way to full communion with one another.

Dialogues in America occur first in a historical chronology of the dialogues between these two communions. Regional dialogues appear long before international conversations. During the eighteenth century, there was a “considerable amount of sharing ministry and fellowship on the part of the Episcopal Church with Lutherans who had recently arrived from Europe and whose churches were not yet well organized in America. However, such sharing did not persist into the nineteenth century.”114 Regarding the intra-communal dialogues proper, all of the literature on the topic seems to begin toward the end of the nineteenth century, during which time the in

England “resulted in emphasis put on the importance of historical succession in the episcopate, upon which the validity of ministry was understood.”115 Conversely,

The impact of the Orthodox, Pietistic, and Liberal movements within Lutheranism added to the mutual estrangement. The results of these developments were mutual ignorance, isolation (with a few exceptions of visionary bridge-builders), and misrepresentations: Lutherans were seen as part of Reformed-dominated Protestantism, and Anglicans were regarded by average Lutherans as "the English High Church," made up of a curious mixture between Roman Catholic ceremonial and Reformed doctrine of Holy Communion.116

113 Gunther Gassmann, “Anglican-Lutheran Convergence and the Anticipation of Full Communion,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34:1 (Jan 1997), 3. 114 Francis A. Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” Sapere teologico e unità della fede: Studi in onore del Prof. Jared Wicks, Edited by Aparicio Valls (Carmen, Carmelo Dotolo, and Gianluigi Pasquale. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004), 573. 115 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 591. 116 Gassmann, 4-5.

38

The first year of which to take note is 1888, during which time an event known as the Lambeth

Conference117 produced the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.118 During the conference, the following

“cornerstones”119 of the faith were discussed: “acceptance of Holy Scripture, the Apostles' and

Nicene Creeds, the two dominical sacraments, and the historical episcopate.” 120

Confident that this succession had been preserved in the Church of England, Anglican theologians studied the grounds on which a similar claim was made by the , and came to the conclusion that this was well-founded. As a result, the question of relations with the Church of Sweden was raised at the Lambeth Converence of 1888, which passed a resolution to the effect that earnest efforts should be made to establish more friendly relations with that church.121

Ecumenically, Anglicans had an ecclesial and straightforward approach: Let us agree on the four cornerstones of the 1886-88 Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral…and we will soon have organically united national churches.” 122 On the other hand, “Lutherans had a doctrinal approach that had not much favor with ecclesial consequences but aimed at long and thorough doctrinal conversations in the hope of arriving at a consensus in faith.”123

Around the same time, Anglican-Lutheran ecumenical relations began to take shape in

Northern Europe. In 1887 the Church of England began “to examine further the question of the validity of orders in the Sweedish Church.”124 This led to an Anglican-Lutheran conference in

Uppsala in 1909, much of which was devoted to question of apostolic succession. Delegates from the Sweedish Church (the largest Lutheran Church in the world) attempted to demonstrate historically that episcopal succession of the Church of Sweden had not been broken, but “also insisted that their Church did not share the Anglican view of the significance of this. They explained that for them the question of episcopal church government was an organizational matter, and was

117 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 118 Lorelei Fuchs, Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Theology: From Foundations Through Dialogue to Symbolic Competence for Communionality (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008),542-550. 119 Gassmann, 3. 120 Gassmann, 3. 121 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 571-572. 122 Gassmann, 3. 123 Gassmann, 3. 124 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 572.

39 not a condition for church unity.”125 This conference marked the beginning of what Lorelei Fuchs refers to as Anglican-Lutheran (AL) Phase 1. She marks the Conversation between the Anglican

Communion and the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden’s meeting in Uppsala as the beginning of AL

Phase 1, and remarks that the period lasts until 1939. 126 Gassmann agrees that the meeting in

Uppsala and its representative conversation between the Church of England and the Church of

Sweeden constitutes “a new era of Anglican-Lutheran relations.” 127

Aside from the mention of a 1911 Report on Intercommunion,128 the next item on our historical timeline is the 1920 acceptance of the Uppsala agreement on eucharistic hospitality and mutual consecration of bishops by the Church of England and the Church of Sweden. During the same year, another encourages adoption of the report's recommendations,129 publishing An Appeal to All Christian People.130 It recommended in 1920 that members of the Church of Sweden be allowed to receive Holy Communion in Anglican churches and pastors of the Church of Sweden be allowed to speak in Anglican Churches. In turn, it asked that the Swedish Church allow Anglican priests to perform religious functions in Swedish church. Lastly, it featured a “mutual agreement that bishops should be invited to take part in the other church’s consecration of bishops.”131

On September 19, 1920, a landmark joint consecration took place as two Anglican bishops participated in the consecration of Swedish bishops at Uppsala. 132 Seven years later, A Swedish bishop participated in the consecration of three Anglican bishops on November 1, 1927. 133

125 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 572. 126 Fuchs, 542-550. 127 Gassmann, 5. 128 Fuchs, 542-550. 129 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 130 Fuchs, 542-550. 131 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 572. 132 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 133 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63.

40

In 1930, the conversation in Northern Europe – by way of another Lambeth Conference134

- was “extended to include first the Church of Finland.”135 At the time of the Reformation Finland was part of Sweden, and it had the same claim to apostolic succession as the Swedish Church did.”136

In addition to including Finland, 137 in the same year, the conversation was extended to include the

Churches of Estonia, 138 Latvia.139 Norway, 140 Denmark, 141 and Iceland. 142 These churches, unlike those at Sweden and Finland, made no claim to episcopal succession. These conversations led to different agreements about and arrangements for eucharistic sharing or hospitality. Of course,

Gassmann remarks that this period was characterized by a situation in which

Anglicans and Lutherans did not come too close to each other because of certain barriers and differences in approach. Anglicans entered the ecumenical discussions with a considerable advantage on their side: They provided strong leadership, had a clear concept for the ecumenical goal of the unity of the church (the Chicago/ Lambeth Quadrilateral), and acted as a world communion. Lutherans, meanwhile, opposed accepting the topic of the ordained ministry as a necessary part of the ecumenical agenda and of the goal of church unity; they were not at all enthusiastic about the concept of church unity in the form of organic unity or union, and they did not act out of an awareness of a worldwide Lutheran communion. Only slowly did mutual understanding and contacts begin to grow.143

The Meissen Agreement indicates a broad understanding of the European timeline, stating:

In the 1920s and 1930s the Church of England established intercommunion with the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland, Latvia and Estonia. This involved mutual eucharistic hospitality and permission to preach and assist at the Eucharist. Bishops of the Church of England and of the Churches of Sweden and Finland have taken part in one another's episcopal from time to time. There has also been mutual eucharistic hospitality between the Church of England and the Churches of Norway, Denmark and Iceland since the 1950's.

Fuchs indicates 1947-1982 as AL Phase 2. 144 Fuchs points out that 1947 featured the Church of England and Churches of Denmark, Iceland, Norway accepting eucharistic hospitality.145 Sullivan

134 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 135 Fuchs, 542-550. 136 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 572. 137 Fuchs, 542-550. 138 Fuchs, 542-550 and Gassmann, 5. 139 Fuchs, 542-550, and Gassmann, 5. 140 Gassmann, 5. 141 Gassmann, 5. 142 Gassmann, 5. 143 Gassmann, 5. 144 Fuchs, 542-550. 145 Fuchs, 542-550.

41 elaborates that negotiation began in 1947 and a conference was held in Oslo in 1951 largely on apostolic succession:

Here the situation was different, because while these churches had an episcopal structure, the apostolic succession of their episcopacy had been broken during the Reformation, when their first bishops were consecrated by Dr. , a Lutheran ‘superintendent’ who had been ordained a Catholic priest and had become a close associate of Martin Luther. These churches had consistently refused to invite Swedish bishops to take part in the consecration of their bishops. Hence they were not interested in having apostolic succession restored by Anglican bishops, and no agreement was made about mutual participation in episcopal consecrations.146

As a result of the Oslo conference, members of those churches, when cut off from the services of their own churches, could receive Holy Communion in the Church of England, and vice versa. 147

Fuchs points out that 1951 witnessed the first Anglican bishop participating in a consecration of a Finnish bishop.148 Michael Root elaborates on the relationship between the

Anglican and the Lutheran Churches of Iceland, Norway, and Denmark evident in conversations held during 1952, stating:

Here, while the Lutheran churches had an episcopal order, the direct personal succession had been broken at the time of the Reformation. As with the other Nordic and Baltic dialogues, agreement was quickly reached on all subjects but episcopacy. In this context, however, the succession issue presented difficulties that were not overcome. Recommendations of mutual eucharistic hospitality were more hesitating; during the meeting, then Professor (later of Canterbury) , chair of the Anglican delegation, said that eucharistic hospitality would be a matter of economy rather than a sign that "all is well."149

Gassmann qualifies this period as the “beginnings of real change,” stating:

Especially since World War II, the following developments have contributed to a new, positive stage in Anglican Lutheran relations in all parts of the world: (a) increased contacts on all levels of church life, exchange of persons and information, and better mutual knowledge; (b) Anglican recognition and admission of Lutheran influence in the ; (c) a growing awareness that Lutherans are not simply part of a general and undifferentiated Protestantism; (d) liturgical revival in Lutheran churches; (e) Lutheran readiness to have the issue of ordained ministry included in ecumenical conversation; (f) the recognition of common missionary and social tasks in countries where Lutherans and Anglicans live side-by-side (for example, in the U.S.A., Canada, Namibia, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia); (g) study in theological schools of the other tradition and appreciation of the outstanding and characteristic values in each other's theological and spiritual traditions, including the role of the life and thinking of Dietrich Bonhoeffer for Anglo-German ecclesial and theological rapprochement; (h) Anglican attempts to move beyond a nonconfessional stance and to define Anglican identity more clearly no longer referring simply to being the church through the ages that

146 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 573. 147 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 573. 148 Fuchs, 542-550. 149 Michael Root, “Porvoo in the Context of the Worldwide Anglican-Lutheran Dialogue,” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement, edited by in Ola Tjorhom (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 19.

42

had washed its face in the Reformation; and (i) the involvement of both traditions in multilateral ecumenical dialogue, especially in Faith and Order work, both being among the most active participants.150

He also indicates that it is the period in which “bilateral dialogues,” pave the way for international discussions. Bilateral discussions:

were the logical (especially for the Lutheran ecumenical method) consequence of the emerging new relationships. Bilateral dialogues were and are the necessary and specific means to clarify, evaluate, and formulate the rediscovered or new affinities, agreements, and convergences and to submit these to a wider audience in the churches and the decision-making bodies of the churches for action. This process of moving from a wider range of contacts and relationships to the focused bilateral dialogues that transform a broader flow of ideas and experiences into formulated theological propositions and interchurch proposals underlines the significance and the absolutely necessary role of bilateral dialogues. They are a kind of "funnel" through which the whole range of interchurch theological exchange is transformed in such a way that decisions can be proposed to the participating churches. This role of bilateral dialogues (and their other important functions) seems to be increasingly recognized even by those who have not shown great affinity for this ecumenical method. As a result there is still a growing number - nearly fifty now—of international dialogues and dialogue- rounds.151

Fuchs points to 1968 as the year that the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation

“agree to begin global international dialogue.”152 Toward Full Communion cites the conversations proper as beginning on October 14, 1969,153 while Growth in Communion154cites 1970. Gassmann states that the period 1970-72 is the pinpoint of the beginning of international dialogue between

Lutherans and the Anglican Communion.155 Growth in Communion elaborates:

Anglicans and Lutherans began formal conversations at the world level in 1970. While Anglicans and Lutherans had no history of mutual condemnation or recrimination, difficulties in union negotiations involving Lutherans and Anglicans, especially in Asia and Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, indicated the need for such conversations. That first dialogue resulted in the Pullach Report of 1972, which surveyed the range of issues affecting Anglican-Lutheran relations. While discovering extensive agreement, the dialogue also discovered significant differences over apostolicity and episcopal ministry. The Report urged both closer cooperation and continuing dialogue.156

The international discussions that resulted in the Pullach Report began in 1967. At this point, the

Executive Committee of the Lutheran World Federation along with the Anglican Consultative

Council157 established connection with the Archbihsop of Canterbury and, in 1968, created the

150 Gassmann, 5-6. 151 Gassmann, 6. 152 Fuchs, 542-550. 153 Toward Full Communion, 11. 154 Growth in Communion 1. 155 Gassmann, 60-63. 156 Growth in Communion 1. 157 Called to Full Communion 3, 8.

43

Anglican-Lutheran Commission, which agreed to meet four times in two years. 158 This commission, chaired by Bishop Oliver Tomkins (Bristol) “recommended that the terms of the existing sacramental relationship between the Church of England and the Lutheran churches of Finland,

Latvia, and Estonia should be further clarified so as to encourage a greater freedom of interchange.”159 The Anglican-Lutheran Commission met four times160 between September 1970 and

April 1972 and, as mentioned above, produced the Pullach Report.161 “The meetings took place at

Oxford, September 1970, Logumkloster, Denmark, March-April 1971, Lantana; Florida, January

1972, and Munich, Germany, April 1972. Growth in Communion cites 1973 as the date for the Pullach

Report, 162 while Fuchs cites 1972;163 regardless, Sullivan points out that “this report was not officially received or acted upon by the churches represented in it.”164 It had far-reaching effects: “The

Anglican Consultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation convened a Joint Working

Group in 1975 to review responses to the Pullach Report and to chart further work. The Group suggested that regional dialogues be pursued in Europe, Africa, and North America. Dialogue took place in the first and third of these regions over the next eight years.”165

The 1988 Lambeth Conference of the bishops of the Anglican Communion

adopted a resolution which included the following provisions: Recognizes, on the basis of the high degree of consensus reached in international, regional and national dialogues between Anglicans and Lutherans and in the light of the communion centered around Word and Sacrament that has been experienced in each other's traditions, the presence of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Lutheran Communion as in Our own166

158 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 577. 159 David Tustin, “The Background and Genesis of the Porvoo Common Statement,” in Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 3-4. 160 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 4 161 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 576. 162 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 163 Fuchs, 542-550. 164 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 577. 165 Growth in Communion 2. 166 Toward Full Communion, 15,

44

2.6: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues Internationally

In 1975, the Anglican-Lutheran Working Group, which was international, was formed, 167 and it recommended regional dialogues in North America, Africa, and Europe.168 For the sake of clarity, we now parse our timeline out into four sections. Rather than following a strict chronology, we will continue our timeline by observing Anglican-Lutheran relations that took place internationally before observing the discussions that took place in the individual locations of the

U.S., Canada, and Europe.

1982 marks the last year in what Fuchs refers to as AL Phase 2, and it marks a significant milestone because of the publication of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) of the Faith and Order

Commission of The World Council of Churches (1982).169 This key ecumenical document

underlie(s) much of the discussion about episcopacy and mutual recognition of ministries. The statement on apostolicity is widely regarded as the heart of agreed statements on the subject in ecumenical dialogue. BEM was a very important impetus in the renewal of Anglican-Lutheran dialogue throughout the world, and has been an incentive for all Lutheran churches of the Lutheran World Federation to move towards adopting the episcopate.170

Concisely stating the problem “as recently as 1982,” Toward Full Communion states, “the General

Convention of the Episcopal Church specified that the Historic Episcopate of the Chicago-Lambeth

Quadrilateral is central to this apostolic ministry and essential to the reunion of the church.”171

“Lutherans, on the other hand, have opposed the notion that the historic episcopate is required as a condition for full communion.”172

Sullivan elaborates that BEM (Lima Text) published by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches at Lima 1982, multilateral consultation on Baptism, Eucharist, and

167 Fuchs, 542-550. 168 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63, and Fuchs, 542-550. 169 Meissen Agreement 3. 170 Called to Full Communion, 64-66. 171 Toward Full Communion, 19. 172 Toward Full Communion, 19.

45

Ministry. Anglican and Lutheran theologians took part as well as other Churches including Roman

Catholic, which does not belong to the WCC.

One major catalyst, cited by Wright, that has helped the churches to understand and move beyond the impasse on this point was the 1982 Lima Statement on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry from the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, which (in paragraph 38 of its Ministry section) described the episcopal succession "as a sign though not a guarantee of the continuity and unity of the Church.” The Lima Statement went on (in paragraph 53) to propose for implementation of this principle in the cause of unity that "Churches which have preserved the episcopal succession are asked to recognize both the apostolic content of the ordained succession and also the existence in these churches of a ministry of episkope in various forms.173

The Commission did not reach a full consensus, but did have convergence even regarding apostolic succession. Sullivan spells out some key points:

The succession of bishops became one of the ways, together with the transmission of the Gospel and the life of the community, in which the apostolic tradition of the Church was expressed. The succession was understood as serving, symbolizing and guarding the continuity of the apostolic faith and communion. In churches which practice the succession through the episcopate, it is increasingly recognized that a continuity in apostolic faith, worship and mission has been preserved in churches which have not retained the form of historic episcopate. This recognition finds additional support in the fact that the reality and function of the episcopal ministry have been preserved in many of these churches, with or without the title ‘bishop.’ Ordination, for example, is always done in them by persons in whom the Church recognizes the authority to transmit the ministerial commission. These considerations do not diminish the importance of the episcopal ministry. On the contrary, they enable churches which have not retained the episcopate to appreciate the episcopal succession as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church. Today churches, including those engaged in union negotiations, are expressing willingness to accept episcopal succession as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church. Yet, at the same time, they cannot accept any suggestion that the ministry exercised in their own tradition should be invalid until the moment that it enters into an existing line of episcopal succession.174

Returning to the Anglican-Lutheran material, Canada was the site of international work done in the late eighties:

Two linked events took place at Niagara Falls in autumn 1987 in the course of the international dialogue between Anglicans and Lutherans. The first was a major consultation on episcope (24th - 29th September), and this was immediately followed (30th September - 3rd October) by a meeting of the Anglican - Lutheran International Continuation Committee to produce this report. At the consultation some three dozen theologians, historians and church leaders met to tackle the issue of episcope, the chief remaining obstacle to full communion between Anglicans and Lutherans. The intention of this gathering may be summarised thus: (a) to shed some fresh light on the relationship between the topics of apostolic succession, the ministry of the whole , episcopacy and the historic episcopate; (b) to set this material in the broad perspective of the Church's mission, taking seriously the diversity of its cultural settings; (c) and to evaluate in the light of contemporary ecumenical dialogue the current practice of episcope amongst Anglicans and Lutherans, so as to offer pointers for the future reform and joint exercise of episcope in the service of our common mission.175

173 Toward Full Communion, 22. 174 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 578. 175 The Niagara Report preface

46

In sum, the international Lutheran-Anglican consultation on episcope was held in Niagara Falls,

Ontario,176 among the Lutheran Church and Anglican Communion177 on the topic of episcope178 and, as a result, issued The Niagara Report. 179 Summarizing the discussion at Niagara, Root specifies,

“Lutherans and Anglicans have always agreed that there exists a divinely instituted ministry to serve the mission of the gospel. Anglicans in their theological reflection and Lutherans in their practical experience have recognized that some form of oversight is a necessity.”180 Sullivan specifies that the

working group that produced the Cold Ash Report recommended that the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and Lutheran World Federation (LWF) establish a continuation committee to assess developing Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. The International Continuation Committee met in October 1986 at Niagara Falls, Ontario September 1987 with theologians, historians, church leaders and even Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox consultants. 181

Drawing on previous dialogues, notably and BEM and “The Ministry in the Church” from

International Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in 1981, the Niagara Report, in 1988, recommended “attainable goals to the ACC and LWF.” 182

The last notable date in this timeline of Anglican-Lutheran relations occurs over a decade later. Fast forwarding to a document published in 2003, Growth in Communion represents work done by the Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group between 2000-2002.183

2.7: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in the United States

Francis A. Sullivan points to the first “official” conversation in the U.S. as a 1935 conversation between the Episcopal Church and the Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church, who

176 Called to Full Communion 3, 8. 177 Miguel Maria Garijo-Guembe, “Unidad en una diversidad reconciliada. Reflexiones sobre modelos de unidad a la luz de recientes acuerdos ecuménicos” (Dialogo Ecuménico 30 (1995)), 72. 178 Fuchs, 542-550. 179 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 180 Root, in Tjorhom, 26 181 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 579. 182 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 579 183 Fuchs, 542-550.

47 had its roots in Sweden but didn’t have an episcopal structure. Conversations were terminated on friendly terms because of significant differences over the importance of bishops.184

The years from 1969-73, were just as fruitful on the American scene as they were on the international scene. In 1967, the “General Convention of the Episcopal Church ECUSA invited

Lutheran Churches to engage in theological dialogue, and was accepted by the Lutheran Church in

America (LCA), the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

(LCMS) (which together established the Lutheran Council in the USA).” 185 Representatives appointed by the then Joint Commission on Ecumenical Relations (JCER) of the Episcopal Church and the presidents of the Lutheran bodies in the Lutheran Council U.S.A. (LCUSA) met together in

Dialogue six times between October 1969 and June, 1972186 in what is known as the First

“Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue” (LED I). LED I issued a 1973 Progress Report,187 affirming the presence of the gospel and apostolicity in both churches188 and made proposals for mutual recognition as churches and for limited intercommunion.”189 The Progress Report also included recommendations for "continued joint theological study and conversation.”190 Although the report was “received without result largely due to the press of issues internal (but at the same time somewhat common, e.g. , liturgical renewal, civil rights)… to the churches,”191

Gassmann evaluates it as having “laid some of the foundations for further Anglican-Lutheran conversations on a regional level.”192 Moreover,

184 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574. 185 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574. 186 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 4; Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574; Gassmann, 7, c.f. Implications of the Gospel, Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue Series III, edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House; Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1988). 187 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 5. 188 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 189 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574. 190 Toward Full Communion, 11. 191 Growth in Communion 83. 192 Gassmann, 7.

48

The Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church (then JCER) received the report of Dialogue I and recommended it to its Church for study. The desire for more historical and theological documentation prior to the implementation of the report’s recommendations prompted the SCER to recommend further that a second series of Lutheran-Episcopal conversations be held.193

Between January, 1976 and November 1980,194 a second series of Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogues took place in the U.S.195 (LED II). This series was “focused again on the nature of the gospel and apostolicity.” 196 It isolated two areas of theological concern which remain problems between the two communions: on the Lutheran side, the understanding of the nature of the gospel, and on the

Anglican side, the place of the historic episcopate. While “it was felt that further dialogue on these questions should take place, but (and the participants attached great importance to this proviso) only in the context of prior mutual ecclesial recognition and occasional Eucharistic sharing.”197

Nonetheless, “no implementing action, however, was taken. Instead, it was resolved by both parties that the dialogues would continue without ecclesial recognition.198

At the seventh session of LED II at Sewanee, Tennessee,

plans were crystalized for the end of the second series of the Dialogue within two or three more sessions and that drafting assignments for LED joint statements on Gospel, Authority of Scripture, Eucharistic Presence and Apostolicity were made. The eighth session of the Dialogue (April, 1980, Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana) was planned as the final occasion for consideration of the remaining papers.199

The ninth session of LED II was held at Nashotah House, Wisconsin, in November of 1980.

“Discussion centered on the remaining joint statements on Eucharistic Presence, Apostolicity, and

Scripture. After textual changes were made in each of them, the Dialogue was able to adopt them as

Joint Statements.”200 Finally, two sets of recommendations were proposed: “a) the recommendations agreed upon by the Episcopal Church U.S.A., The Evangelical Lutheran Church, Association of

193 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 5. 194 Toward Full Communion, 11. 195 Gassmann, 6., C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 196 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574. 197 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 13. 198 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 14. 199 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 11. 200 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 12.

49

Evangelical Lutheran Churches, and Lutheran Church in America participants; and b) the recommendations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod participants.”201

In the U.S., the Lutheran-Episcopal Agreement of 1982 led to mutual eucharistic hospitality, a limited degree of sharing ordained ministry, occasional joint celebrations of the Eucharist and a commitment to common life and mission.202 In September, 1982,

the Episcopal Church and three of the Lutheran churches approved the Lutheran- Episcopal Agreement as follows: The Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Churches 1) Welcome and rejoice in the substantial progress of the Lutheran- Episcopal Dialogues (LED) I and II and of the Anglican-Lutheran International Conversations, looking forward to the day when full communion is established between the Anglican and Lutheran Churches; 2) Recognize now the (Episcopal Church/The American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Church in America, Association of Evangelical Lu- theran Churches) as Churches in which the Gospel is preached and taught; 3) Encourage the development of common Christian life throughout the respective Churches. 203

This is part of an Agreement on Interim Sharing of the Eucharist between the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Lutheran Church of America, the American Lutheran Church, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. In addition to agreement on Implications of the Gospel, the action of 1982 requires attention to the "historic episcopate, and the ordering of ministry (Bishops,

Priests, and Deacons) in the total context of apostolicity."204

The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC) proposed an agreement ratified in 1982 by the Episcopal Church and three of the Lutheran Churches (LCMS abstained) which said that full communion between Anglicans and Lutherans is the ultimate goal of the dialogues and that they “recognize each other as churches in which the gospel is preached and taught, and that a relationship of ‘Interim Sharing of the Eucharist’ was hereby established between them.205

Toward Full Communion notes that:

In 1982 the Lutheran-Episcopal Agreement held before the sponsoring churches the goal of full communion and presented a mandate for the third series of Lutheran-Episcopal dialogues. This mandate, supported by the Episcopal Church in the United States, the American Lutheran Church, the Association of Evangelical

201 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 12. 202 The Porvoo Common Statement 4. 203 Toward Full Communion, 11. 204 Toward Full Communion, 14. 205 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574.

50

Lutheran Churches, and the Lutheran Church in America, called for discussion of implications of the gospel and the ordering of ministry (bishops, priests, and deacons) in the total context of apostolicity. It is clear from the mandate given to the dialogue that Lutherans wished greater assurance about consensus in the gospel, and Episcopalians greater clarity about order in the church before preceding toward full communion.206

Thus, 1983-1991207 witnessed in the U.S. a third set of Lutheran-Episcopal Discussions (LED III).

These, significantly, “led to the agreements and recommendations for full communion.”208 In a 1984 report on the historic episcopate, the Lutheran churches in the Lutheran Council in the U.S. reaffirmed the traditional Lutheran position "that the historic succession of bishops is not essential for the office of the ministry.”209 Yet, Lutheran and Episcopal churches in the U.S. moved in 1986 into “interim eucharistic fellowship.”210

Sullivan notes that in 1988, the three Lutheran Churches taking part in the dialogue completed the negotiations that led to their joining to form the one church: The Evangelical

Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Ratified 1982 agreements and pledged to continue LED III on the question of historic episcopate. “It was the world-wide Anglican-Lutheran Dialogue that provided the way out of the impasse for both the USA dialogue and the dialogue between the

British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Noric and Baltic Lutheran Churches.”211 “The goal of

LED III, mandated by our churches in 1982, is full communion.

Two official publications resulted from LED III: Implications of the Gospel (1988) and Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement (1991). The latter part of the second document contains the actual proposal for full communion to be initiated and specified the actions that would be necessary to both churches. In brief, the ECUSA agreed to suspend the operation of its ‘Preface to the Ordinal’ in the in order immediately to realise the interchangeability of ELCA and ECUSA presbyters while the ELCA agreed to accept ECUSA without requiring subscription to the Augsburg Confession. Mutual future participation

206 Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement, 5. 207 Gassmann, 7, c.f. Implications of the Gospel, Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue Series III, edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House; Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1988); and Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement, edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House; Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1991). 208 Gassmann, 7, c.f. Implications of the Gospel, Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue Series III, edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House; Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1988); and Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement, edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House; Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1991). 209 Toward Full Communion, 20. 210 Meissen agreement 14. 211 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 574.

51

in the consecration/installation of new bishops as part of the plan envisioned ultimate reconciliation of the churches respective episcopates.212

The 1991 Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement between the Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America213 represents work done between 1988 and 1991 and is the “completion of the work assigned to the dialogue by the churches. It is based on more than twenty years of international, regional, national, and local dialogue between Anglicans and Lutherans, and the insights of contemporary ecumenical theology.

It can move them beyond the Lutheran-Episcopal Agreement of 1982 toward full communion.”214

The dialogue's work is a “call for recognition of both churches as fully Church united in mission and service. “215 It “spelled out broad areas of agreement,” 216 drawing on the Niagara Report, and the

Resolution on Anglican-Lutheran relations of the Lambeth Conference of 1988. The only two

Lutherans who voted against the Concordat created a “dissenting report in which they objected that the historic episcopate is made to be a necessity for church fellowship and thus essential to the unity of the church…To introduce the historic episcopate into the ELCA under the terms of this

“Concordat” is to make an adiaphoron into a matter of necessity.”217 In appropriate seriousness, the original document acknowledges, “We approach these issues of ministry in sober awareness of the importance and the difficulty of the task.”218 It was not until 1997 that the Concordat was put to a vote, which we will explore momentarily. It was the revised Concordat, Called to Common Mission, that was adopted by both churches and led to their entering full communion.

212 Growth in Communion 86. 213 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 214 Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement preface, 5. 215 Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement preface, 6. 216 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 584. 217 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 585, c.f. Toward Full Communion, 111. 218 Toward Full Communion, 19

52

The revised proposal was drafted between December 1997 and April 1998 by a committee consisting of three members from each of the churches. The principal revisions pertained to the episcopate. One significant example includes, “rather than asking three bishops from the other church as well as three of its own, ordinations can now just have one or more bishops of the other church. These changes suggest a preference to regain the historic succession through Lutheran churches that have maintained it, rather than from the Episcopal Church.”219 It reaffirms that this episcopate “is nonetheless not necessary for the relationship of full communion…By thus freely accepting the historic episcopate, the ELCA does not thereby affirm that it is necessary for the unity of the church.”220 It was approved by the Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA August 1999 and by the General Convention of the ECUSA in July 2000. It went into effect January 1, 2001.221

In 1997, the Concordat of Agreement was finally voted on by the The Episcopal Church in the

United States of America (ECUSA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).222

Growth in Communion notes that the ELCA has a membership of 5.1 million, just under twice the size of the ECUSA with 2.5 million, though Episcopalians are more evenly distributed throughout the country, while Lutherans feature in areas of heavy concentration and relative sparsity.” 223 It summarizes the vote:

After a six-year’s process of reception by both churches under the auspices of a joint co-ordinating committee, the Concordat of Agreement came to a vote in 1997 at the national governing bodies of both the ELCA and ECUSA meeting within two weeks of each other. It was overwhelmingly passed by ECUSA’s General Convention and failed of a required two-thirds majority by only six votes in ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly. Subsequently, at ELCA initiative, a small team of theologians and ecclesial leaders appointed by the presiding bishops of both churches met to formulate a revision of the ‘Concordat’ that was designated ‘Called to Common Mission’. Following a reception process by both churches this document brought a revised proposal for full communion before both churches in the summer of 1999 (ELCA) and 2000 (ECUSA). Having passed both churches’ highest governing bodies, a relationship of full communion was celebrated at the National Cathedral in Washington DC on the Feast of the Epiphany 2001 and regionally in following weeks and months.224

219 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 587. 220 Called to Common Mission, 13 and 18, 7-9. 221 Called to Common Mission, 13 and 18, 7-9. 222 Growth in Communion 82 223 Growth in Communion 82 224 Growth in Communion 87

53

Although the text itself is silent on whether the laying on of hands constitutes an ordination, Fuchs’ understanding is that that although “the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America failed to pass it by six votes less than the required two-thirds, a rewrite of the agreement was called for, and the

National Convention of the Evangelical institution took steps necessary to understand the installation of synodical bishops as ordination. Likewise, Sullivan observes that unanimous approval of Episcopal participants confirmed at the General Convention of ECUSA did not outweigh

Lutheran disagreements with the text caused it to “fail by six votes to obtain a majority of two thirds. However, the next day the Churchwide Assembly passed overwhelmingly a resolution ‘to seek conversations with the Episcopal Church, building on the degree of consensus achieved at this assembly.’”225

Only two years later, of course, the revised Concordat did pass with the number of votes needed, and full communion was achieved in the U.S. “The revised Concordat was presented to the

1999 Churchwide Assembly in Denver. After vigorous debate it passed with 69.3% of the vote. This represented a 3.2% change from 1997 and 2.6% above the required 66.7%. As these percentages indicate, only a very small portion of the voting members changed their minds.”226 This percentage indicates, for Thomas Baima, a remaining “deeper, unresolved problem of non-reception”227 in the

ELCA inasmuch as “The ELCA is now in full communion with the Episcopal Church while approximately thirty percent of its voting members do not accept the terms of that full communion.”228

225 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 586, c.f. Ecumenical Trends 27.4 (April 1998) 10 226 Thomas A Baima, Lessons on the Way Toward Full Communion: A Critique of the Doctrinal Decision-Making Processes of the 1997 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the Basis for an Inquiry Concerning the On-Going Opposition to the Theology of the Concordat of Agreement. (Doctoral Dissertation, Apud Pontificiam Universitatem S. Thomae in Ubre. Rome: 2000), 353. 227 Baima, 54. 228 Baima, 54.

54

Gassmann, at length, highlights the significance of the Concordat, despite its original failure in voting.229 He indicates that its thorough preparation and wide readership and commentary provided rich historical and theological reflection and much discussion. He cites it as heavily influencing

Porvoo. He lauds its recognition of the authenticity of both churches’ ministries as an important step to fully recognizing these ministries. Moreover, the participation of three bishops in future episcopal ordinations is, in his opinion, written about successfully as not necessitating acceptance of Lutheran bishops into the historical succession, but as an expression of collegiality. As such, he sees it as an important “move beyond tight theological and canonical logic.”230 It shows, he says, impressive readiness and courage on the part of both Anglicans and Lutherans to depart with tight-fisted grasps on ways of understanding episcope.

His conclusion: “Despite their different historical and geographical contexts and some differences in their way of proceeding toward fuller communion, the Concordat and the Porvoo

Statement are marked by the same theological perspectives.”231 Moreover, continuing the thoughts offered above, Baima, in a dissertation on the decision-making process pertaining to the acceptance and rejection of the Concordat of Agreement, offers that “The Concordat was, possibly, the most important ecumenical event in the United States.” 232 He indicates, “At the time of this writing, the

ELCA has completed the process of revision of the document and achieved a positive outcome at the 1999 Churchwide Assembly in Denver.” 233 We would assume this acceptance of the document a mere two years later indicates an ecumenical victory.

Baima, nonetheless, indicates the slim margin by which the acceptance indicates yet underlying theological issues. He states,

229 Gassmann, 10-11. 230 Gassmann, 10-11. 231 Gassmann, 11. 232 Baima, 3. 233 Baima, 3.

55

The process is proceeding with no serious study of the failure in 1997. This is not to be critical of the ELCA. The 1997 vote was only six short of a two-thirds majority. That is a significant approval of the Concordat. So, it is understandable that the leadership of the ELCA would proceed by modifying the document in such a way that it would answer some of the questions raised, so as to gain those few more votes necessary for passage. In this sense, whether the revised one passed or failed at Denver is unrelated to our research, since the revised Concordat (Called to Common Mission) is not addressing the root cause of the failure in 1997.234

Baima believes “there are important lessons to be learned from the Concordat event.”235 He states,

These lessons could not have been learned in any other way and thus the Concordat vote in the 1997 ELCA Churchwide Assembly can be considered as a laboratory of ecumenism. This event allows scholars of the ecumenical movement to acquire data and to make observations on the methods and processes of the bilateral dialogue. This data would not have been available had the Concordat proposal not been contested. Close examination of the Concordat event teaches us several things about the bilateral dialogue between the Lutherans and Episcopalians. 236

In particular, he suggests that it tells us that even after thirty years, the theology of the dialogue had not been received into the mind of the ELCA. Second, it indicates the extent to which each church had maintained and developed a separate notion of ministry. The Lutherans followed “a notion based upon the medieval understanding of ministry which conceives the pastoral office in terms of a unitary ordination. In other words, the pastor is the only ordained and other offices, such as that of bishop, are functions, not separate orders.” 237 The Anglicans, on the other hand, developed a theology “much closer to the Orthodox and modern Roman Catholic notion of the three-fold ministry.”238 These different theological assumptions about ministry, “which were not reconciled in the course of the LED,”239 are highlighted in the rejection of the Concordat. Further, he says, it highlighted a weakness in the decision making process in the ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

“Evidence exists that the legislative model used by the churchwide assembly, when confronted with decisions about theology and the truths of the Faith, lacks the capacity to handle these decisions.

234 Baima, 3. 235 Baima, 5. 236 Baima, 6. 237 Baima, 7. 238 Baima, 7. 239 Baima, 7.

56

Thus, the model fell victim to several distortions known in management science as ‘decision traps.’”240

Baima raises important observations about the extent to which these communions, while in full communion with one another, still have further closeness to achieve on the issue of “reception” of this communion. Nonetheless, as of 2000, the two communions are one in the U.S.

2.8: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in Europe

European dialogue also continued between 1980-82, following a recommendation of the international dialogue. This time period saw the publication of the Helsinki Report of the Anglican-

Lutheran European Regional Commission, which saw “no serious obstacles on the way to the establishment of full communion.”241

Beginning in 1983, Fuchs refers to the stage of Lutheran-Anglican relations as entering AL

Phase 3; it covers the period between 1983-1994.242 The first event of note during this period was the Cold Ash Report; this report of a meeting in Cold Ash, Berkshire, England, November 28-

December 3, 1983243 served “to make recommendations on how full communion might be achieved.” 244 Sponsored by a Joint Working Group established by the Anglican Consultative

Council and the executive committee of the Lutheran World Federation,245 it defined the goal of

Anglican-Lutheran dialogue as "full communion: a relationship that was described in broader terms than pulpit and fellowship.”246 The report

surveyed the state of Lutheran-Anglican relations and explored the concept of ‘full communion’ (cf. section III, B) as a description of the life together sought in Anglican-Lutheran ecumenical efforts. They also called for the creation of an Anglican-Lutheran International Continuation Committee (ALICC), with a mandate to foster

240 Baima, 7. 241 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 242 Fuchs, 542-550. 243 Fuchs, 542-550. 244 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 577. 245 Growth in Communion 3. 246 Tustin, 5.

57

dialogue at the world-wide level and to help make the results of the various national and regional Anglican- Lutheran dialogues contribute to progress elsewhere. 247

At its first meeting in Wimbledon, England, 1986, the Anglican-Lutheran International Continuation

Committee (ALICC, later changed to the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission,248 or

ALIC249) “laid plans for a joint consultation on episcope, regarded as the chief obstacle to full communion.”250 This was the consultation that led to the international Niagara Report. Just two years later, “Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada adopt

Agreement on Interim Sharing of the Eucharist.” 251

The preface to the Meissen Agreement states,

From 1985 onwards official delegates were appointed by the Church of England, the Federation of the Evangelical Churches in the German Democratic Republic and the Evangelical Church in Germany in the Federal Republic of Germany to work out a basis for closer relations. (The names of participants are shown in the appendix.) This work was begun in February 1987 at London Colney (UK), elaborated by a small working group in November 1987 at Schloss Schwanberg (FRG) and concluded in March 1988 at Meissen (GDR). The statement is unanimous, and is now offered to the appropriate authorities of each Church for endorsement. (The English and German texts are equally authentic.)252

In 1988, The Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany253

(EKD) issued On the Way to Visible Unity: The Meissen Report, which then came into effect in 1992.254

Its first five sections “deliberately draw on the findings of previous ecumenical dialogues,” as it states, “We intend to build on valuable work already done which is still in the process of reception by our Churches. The Meissen Report sees itself and its “growing together” as “part of a wider movements towards unity within the one Ecumenical Movement. It resulted in the Church of

England and the Evangelical Churches in East and West Germany entering “mutual eucharistic hospitality, a limited degree of sharing ordained ministry, occasional joint celebrations of the

247 Growth in Communion 3. 248 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 249 Fuchs, 542-550. 250 The Niagara Report 2. 251 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 252 Meissen Agreement 5. 253 Growth in Communion 11. 254 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63.

58

Eucharist and a commitment to common life and mission.”255 As a result, “the Church of England and the Lutheran, United, and Reformed Churches (E.K.D.) in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the German Democratic Republic (Bund) concluded a dialogue in 1988 with an agreement on eucharistic sharing and closer relationships among these churches.”256

Also in 1988, talks began between the churches of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and all the Nordic and Baltic churches.257 In 1989, the Church of England and Nordic and Baltic churches (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia) begin conversations;

Anglican churches in Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the Church of Lithuania join shortly after.”258

In 1989, the first Anglican bishop participated “in a consecration of a Finnish bishop First participation by an Anglican bishop in a Baltic consecration.”259

In Europe, “Porvoo comes from a regional Anglican and Lutheran dialogue. It establishes a communion of churches of Northern Europe.”260 Between 1989 and 1992, the dialogue that would form The Porvoo Common Statement took place between British and Irish Anglican Churches and

Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. 261 Specifically, participants included four Anglican churches

(Church of England, , Scottish Episcopal Church, and ) and eight

Lutheran churches (, Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland, Evangelical-

Lutheran , , Church of Sweden, Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran

Church, Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Latvia, and Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Lithuania).262

“After only four plenary sessions and the work of a small drafting group, the final text of this so far most significant Anglican-Lutheran dialogue was agreed upon unanimously on October 13, 1992, at

255 The Porvoo Common Statement 4. 256 Gassmann, 8, c.f. The Meissen Agreement: Texts, Occasional Paper 2 (London: Council for Christian Unity, 1992). 257 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 258 Fuchs, 542-550. 259 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 260 Tanner, 125, 261 Growth in Communion 11. 262 Gassmann, 8.

59

Järvenpää, Finland.”263 It was named after “the Finnish city in whose cathedral we had celebrated the

Eucharist together on the previous Sunday. Indeed, the context of worship in which Anglicans and

Lutherans shared the Eucharist and daily morning and evening prayer throughout these meetings played an important rôle in bringing us, under God, to a common mind.”264 It was in 1993 that the work of the Nordic, Baltic, British, and Irish conversations led to the publication of Together in

Mission and Ministry265, which included the Porvoo Common Statement and “which would lead to a relationship of full communion and mutual recognition of ministries among the churches.”266

Gassmann remarks, “The acceptance of the Porvoo Statement would bring the majority of

Christians in Northern Europe (about 50,000,000) into full communion,” and thus, “Porvoo thus presents a major ecumenical breakthrough and step forward.” 267 Fuchs cites 1996 as the year of ratification for the Porvoo statement.268 Ola Tjorhom mentions that by 1996, “ten of the twelve churches involved have accepted this report’s proposals, either unanimously or with a very substantial majority. Only one church has not approved the report (Denmark). And one decision is still missing (Latvia).”269

The Porvoo statement examined doctrinal agreements reached in previous dialogues and focused specifically on the problem of episcopal ministry in relation to historic succession. 270 It self- identifies as being:

the result of several major influences. The first was the series of theological Conversations which took place between Anglicans and Lutherans in the Nordic and Baltic region during 1909-1951, and the agreements to which these talks gave rise. Secondly, acquaintance between these churches was greatly strengthened by other joint events not directly concerned with church unity negotiations, notably the series of Anglo-Scandinavian theological conferences (begun in 1929) and pastoral conferences (begun in 1978) which still continue. Thirdly, a new climate of theological debate was created at world level by the bilateral and multilateral ecumenical

263 Gassmann, 8. 264 The Porvoo Common Statement 8. 265 in Fuchs, 542-550. 266 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 267 Gassmann, 8-9. 268 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 269 Ola Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement: A Challenge to the Nordic Lutheran Churches,” Louvain Studies 21:2 (1996), 131. 270 Garijo-Guembe, 72.

60

dialogues of the 1970s and 80s, as evidenced by the following reports in particular: Pullach 1973, Lima (BEM) 1982, Helsinki 1982, Cold Ash 1983 and Niagara 1988. This last report in particular has thrown new light on old questions of Faith and Order.271

Gassmann remarks, regarding “the significance of the Porvoo Common Statement,” that it

“presents a solution of the problem of the historic episcopate without any condition (there will

‘normally’ be mutual participation in future consecrations of bishops) or limitations. It thus goes beyond all previous solutions proposed for solving this problem.”272 He points out that “the goal laid out by Porvoo is rather ambitious and comprehensive: interchangeability of ministers; guest congregations; mutual participation in ordinations and consecrations as a sign of communion; sharing of resources; forms of collegial and conciliar consultation for questions of faith, life, and service; a joint coordinating group of the churches that have accepted the agreement, etc.”273 At the point of its acceptance in 1993, Gassmann indicates,

Apart from the Lutheran Church of Latvia, which still has to decide, and the Lutheran Church of Denmark, which has not yet been able to accept the statement, the Porvoo Statement has been accepted by all the Anglican churches involved...and by the Lutheran Churches of Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Lithuania, and Sweden. The new relationship among these churches was inaugurated by festive joint communion services in the cathedrals of Trondheim, Norway, and Tallinn, Estonia, in September, 1996, and in Westminster Abbey, London, in November, 1996”274

Henn remarks,

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.… 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.275

Ola Tjorhom, who served as director of the Nordic Ecumenical Institute and was a Lutheran drafter of the Porvoo Commission, 276 criticized in 1996 that, “speaking as a Nordic Lutheran, or rather as an ecumenically committed Nordic Lutheran,” “There is much evidence that a majority of

271 The Porvoo Common Statement 2. 272 Gassmann, 8-9. 273 Gassmann, 8-9. 274 Gassmann, 8-9. 275 Henn, 185. 276 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 126-127.

61 these (Nordic Lutheran) churches has no concern for apostolic succession since they take apostolicity more or less for granted. It can even be argued that the crucial requirement of apostolic continuity, at least in practice, has been exchange(d) for a shortsighted activism.”277 He continued,

All the Nordic Lutheran Churches hold that apostolicity by necessity belongs to the Church’s nature and hence they are committed to express and safeguard apostolic continuity in their lives. This has been done in different ways, e.g. by stressing the confessional and doctrinal continuity with the teaching of the Apostles, through a kind of ‘presbyteral succession’ at the time of the Reformation as well as the normal custom that pastors are ordained by bishops…In the wake of this it should be noted that all the Nordic Lutheran Chruches can be regarded as episcopally ordered churches even if this terminology may be experienced as slightly alien by some….we realize that the Reformers in general and the Confessio Augustana art. XXVIII in particular did not aim at removing the episcopal office, but rather at strengthening this office by cleansing it of political and ecclesiastical abuses.”278

He recalls the unique stance of Sweden and Finland, as he observes,

in spite of our common apostolic and at least implicitly episcopal nature, a certain difference between the Nordic Lutheran Chruches as to the question of the successio apostolica. This is seen in the fact that Sweden and Finland have kept the historic succession, while Denmark, Norway and Iceland has lost this sign of continuity. Yet, it is important that none of our churches have canonized or insisted on the theological necessity of its practice in this area. In Sweden and Finland this is reflected when, without any reservation, have always recognized the full apostolicity of their Nordic sister-churches.279

Moreover, “as for Denmark, Norway and Iceland, I think it is fair to say that we accept that the

Bugenhagen-incident at the time of the Reformation must be seen mainly as a contextually governed emergency solution that can, nor should, be theologized. Accordingly, our divergence in view of the apostolic succession must not be overemphasized.”280

2.9: Contextual Information about the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues in Canada

Turning to Canada, in 1983 Lutherans and Anglicans “met to discuss the implications for the churches in Canada of the ongoing dialogue between Lutherans and Episcopalians in the United

States. From this meeting emerged the Canadian Lutheran-Anglican Dialogue (CLAD I), whose first series of meetings led to the publication of its Report and Recommendations (April, 1986).”281 The

277 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 127. 278 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 130. 279 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 130. 280 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 130-131. 281 Called to Full Communion 4, 8.

62 report included “the background to the dialogue; Agreed Statements on , the

Eucharist,”282 in addition to “declaring agreement in the faith and calling for extensive cooperation between the two churches, including an interim agreement on sharing the Eucharist.”283

In 1989 a second series of discussions (CLAD II)

resulted in the agreement Interim Sharing of the Eucharist, which was approved in 1989 by the National Convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. In that agreement, we i. agreed to live in a relationship of interim eucharistic sharing, ii. acknowledged one another as churches in which the Gospel is preached and taught, iii. committed ourselves to share a common life in mission and service, to pray for and with one another, and to share resources.”284

It was the 1992 CLAD II that published a Response to The Niagara Report.285 This response was adopted by the Evangelial Lutheran Church in Canada at its 1993 National Convention.

Fuchs’ ALC Phase 4 covers the period between 1995-2010.286 1995 witnessed Canada establishing a joint working group in order “to bring forward proposals for full communion by

2001.”287 Six years earlier, the communions had begun six years of inerim Eucharistic sharing. 288 In

1995, a Canadian evaluation of their Agreement on Interim Sharing of the Eucharist called “for mutual recognition of each other's members without requiring reconfirmation, and extends the possibilities for pastors/priests to serve in each other's churches when both bishops agree.”289 More specifically, it called

to request all neighbouring congregations to undertake joint projects and celebrate the eucharist together annually ii. to receive one another's lay members, when moving from one church to the other with the same status (baptized/communicant/confirmed) which they held in their first church iii. to foster the development and implementation of agreements which permit an ordained minister (priest or pastor) to serve the people of both churches, including presiding at the sacraments of the Church, wherever, and according to whichever rite, the local bishop of each church deems appropriate iv. to develop structures with the purpose of evaluating and improving the bishop's ministry through collegial and periodic review v. to call tor our two churches to move towards full communion by 2001.290

282 Called to Full Communion, 64-66. 283 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 284 Called to Full Communion 5, 8. 285 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 286 Fuchs, 542-550. 287 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 288 Called to Full Communion 6, 8. 289 C.f. “Dates of Interest in Anglican-Lutheran Relations,” in Growth in Communion, 60-63. 290 Called to Full Communion 6, 9.

63

Also in 1995, the Lutheran Relations Task Force of the Inter-Church Inter-Faith Relations

Committee of the Anglican Church published Towards Full Communion: Anglicans and Lutherans in

Canada,” for the 1995 general synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. It was

“distributed at General Synod as a supplement to the Report of ICIFRC.”291

Fuchs notes the creation of the Waterloo Declaration by the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada in in the late 1990s.292 Along with Called to Full

Communion, the Waterloo Declaration represents the work of the Joint Working Group of the

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. Called to Full

Communion spends an extensive number of pages offering contextual information about the two communions in Canada at the time. It highlights that “the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the largest Lutheran body in Canada,… is a member church of the Lutheran World Federation.

Other Lutheran church bodies, namely Lutheran Church — Canada (Missouri Synod), Wisconsin

Synod, Lutheran Brethren, and others, are not part of the conversations.”293

It acknowledges the extent to which the conversations taking place in Canada are

paralleled by agreements agreed to in Europe and under consideration in the United States, and there are ongoing conversations and common work in other places such as Namibia, Tanzania, and Malaysia. The process of parallel development of agreements was encouraged by the 1978 Lambeth Conference, which recognized that the peculiar circumstances in different regions of the world would necessitate different steps to reach the same goal. In fact, the Nordic and Baltic churches (except for Latvia and Denmark), and the churches of Britain and Ireland have endorsed The Porvoo Common Statement, and it was implemented in the fall of 1996. The Episcopal Church in the USA voted in July, 1997 to implement the Concordat of Agreement. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) did not approve it, but they have requested that a reworking of the agreement come back to their National Convention in 1999. The Canadian proposals have been shared with the Ecumenical Officer of the Anglican Consultative Council and with the Ecumenical Advisory Group (ecumenical officers of the provinces of the Communion) at several stages. The Lambeth Conference (1998) and the Anglican Consultative Council (1999) will have an opportunity to comment, if they wish. The Lutheran World Federation at its meeting in Hong Kong (July, 1997) encouraged Lutheran churches to continue work towards full communion with their Anglican counterparts.294

291 Called to Full Communion 64-66. 292 Growth in Communion 11. 293 Called to Full Communion, 15. 294 Called to Full Communion, 25.

64

Posing its own questions, such as “Would we be endangering other ecumenical relationships?,” it clarifies,

At the national and international levels, Roman Catholics have been partners to the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant churches have been made aware of the state of the dialogue and steps are being taken. While there has not been any official response, the for Promoting Christian Unity has been encouraging of Anglican-Lutheran rapprochement, and is itself committed to ecumenical dialogue leading to full visible unity with both of the communions. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox families of churches would not want to see an abandonment of the historic episcopate, but that is not what is being proposed. Rather, both the Anglican and Lutheran communions are taking steps that would broaden the constituency of churches that have the historic episcopate, even though there might be temporary anomalies. There have been temporary anomalies in all our churches. This is not to take the question lightly. Obviously, if any serious objection were made to the steps being proposed by any other of dialogue partners, it would have to be treated with an equal seriousness, at the highest levels of decision-making.295

It summarizes that “just as in the understanding of full communion, the type of agreement reached on episcope and episcopacy was influenced by different historical, geographical and cultural contexts.”296

Those which have come to an agreement about full communion have each found ways, slightly different, but all drawing on Niagara, to recognise each other's expression of episcopal ministry as a sign of continuity and unity in apostolic faith. Those texts which are still working toward ‘full communion’ (Reuilly, Meissen and Common Ground) have not reached consensus on episcopal ministry and succession. The Meissen statement records this disagreement, reflected in the Pullach report (1973), concerning the historical Anglican position and the historical Lutheran position on episcopacy and succession, and does not try to bring them together: Lutheran, Reformed and United Churches, though being increasingly prepared to appreciate episcopal succession "as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church”, hold that this particular form of episcope should not become a necessary condition for ‘full, visible unity’. The Anglican understanding of full, visible unity includes the historic episcopate and full interchangeability of ministers. ‘Yet even this remaining difference, when seen in the light of our agreements and convergences, cannot be regarded as a hindrance to closer fellowship between our Churches.’ (Meissen §16).297

It provides a transition into the following chapter by summarizing the challenges each communion faces in this dialogue, explored more fully in chapter three. On one hand:

The Lutheran Church is challenged to receive this by accepting "the episcopal office as a sign of the apostolicity and catholicity of the church” and affirming "the value of the historic episcopate within the orderly succession of the ministry of Christ through the ages, without implying the episcopal office is necessary for or that it guarantees, by itself, the orthodoxy of the church's faith" (Common Ground, Appendix 2, §24.2). Anglicans are challenged to "recognise the intention of the Lutheran church to be nothing other than apostolic and truly catholic in its faith and practice" (Common Ground, Appendix 2, §24.3).298

295 Called to Full Communion , 25. 296 Growth in Communion 124. 297 Growth in Communion 125-126. 298 Growth in Communion 128.

65

And:

On the other hand, the Porvoo Common Statement is able to affirm that: Faithfulness to the apostolic calling of the whole Church is carried by more than one means of continuity. Therefore 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 at the time of the Reformation. Similarly, 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. (Porvoo §52). In Canada, each of the churches was able to respond clearly to Niagara and incorporate its insights. Thus, the Anglican Church of Canada agreed to view "the historic episcopate in the context of apostolicity articulated in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry", (Waterloo § 8) and the ELCIC agreed "to take the constitutional steps necessary to understand the installation of bishops as ordination", (Waterloo §9).299

This marks the close of the period Fuchs refers to as ALC phase 3 draws to a close; at the close of this period, in Canada, a 1994 edition of the Anglican Journal reported that “members of the

Canadian Lutheran Anglican Dialogue, composed of seven members from each church and a

Roman Catholic observer, specified they were not encouraging the two churches to merge. The recommendations will go to the Anglican General Synod and the Biennial Convention of the

Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, both of which meet in 1995.”300 It clarified that “Full communion involves a state of mutual recognition short of merger…however priests of each can minister over each other’s sacraments.”301

Having elaborated important contextual information for our primary documents, we are now ready to proceed with an explanation of the primary documents focused on in this study. As already mentioned, this study examines primary documents that came from conversations between

Lutherans and Anglicans or Lutherans and Episcopalians in the United States, Canada, and

Northern Europe; the rationale for focusing specifically on these documents is that these are the ones that produced results; they worked. The conversations set out to explore the possibility of the

Lutheran communion and the Anglican or Episcopalian communion entering full communion with

299 Growth in Communion 129. 300 “Anglicans, Lutherans Urge Full Communion: Canadian Lutheran Anglican Dialogue.” Anglican Journal 120:8 (Oct 1994). 12. 301 “Anglicans, Lutherans Urge Full Communion: Canadian Lutheran Anglican Dialogue.” Anglican Journal 120:8 (Oct 1994). 12.

66 one another, and the primary documents listed in this section are reports of the conversations that were successful in attaining this goal. Exploring them and their contents will allow us, in chapters 4 and 5, to evaluate the documents as examples of successful ecumenism.

It is of note that Sullivan highlights certain documents within our list as playing key roles in the agreements of full communion between Anglican and Lutheran Churches. These included the

Porvoo statement between British and Irish Anglican Churches and Nordic and Baltic Lutheran

Churches, Called to Common Mission between the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and Evangelical

Lutheran Church in America. He also notes the role played in these agreements by the worldwide dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation. 302 It is to the central and efficacious documents to which we now turn.

302 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 571.

Chapter 3: A Survey of the Contents of the Primary Material

3.1: What is Full Communion?

This chapter provides a survey of relevant statements found in the primary documents being utilized in this study. It aims to answer the questions: how are ordained ministry, episcopacy, and apostolic succession addressed in the documents? What ecclesiology emerges? What theology of historic succession arises in the official statements that led to these two churches entering full communion? What agreements and adaptations are made between the two denominations? Minimal commentary will be present in this chapter, as its main goal is to probe and summarize the contents of the material. Explanation and evaluation will happen in subsequent chapters.

Several of the documents articulate what “full communion” means as a relationship status between the two churches. It is not a merger, as the two churches would keep their separate identities. A 1994 edition of the Anglican Journal summarizes the distinction as follows: “Full communion involves a state of mutual recognition short of merger.”1

In a supporting essay to the Concordat of Agreement, Michael Root asks: “If full visible unity need not mean ‘denominational merger' then what does it mean?" He suggests that it indicates a relationship between churches “fruitful not only for themselves but also for the wider church.”2 An example he points to is interchangeabiliy of ministries, stating, “Full communion is not fully realized until a Lutheran pastor filling in for an Anglican priest (and vice versa) ceases to be seen as an unusual affair or a special ecumenical event. Of course, the normal disciplinary structures of both churches will need to be respected. The openness of each church to the preaching and liturgical leadership of clergy from the other must not destroy the normal oversight that each church exercises

1 “Anglicans, Lutherans Urge Full Communion: Canadian Lutheran Anglican Dialogue.” Anglican Journal 120:8 (Oct 1994). 12. 2 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 166.

67

68 over its own life. Nevertheless, such oversight will need to be so organized that the occasional substitution of clergy from one church within the other is not an overly complicated matter.”3

He also highlights:

Such a common life must be open to other churches. Lutheran-Episcopal communion must not create a front against rapprochement with other traditions, but should be seen as one step in a larger process of reconciliation. Care should be taken to avoid the impression that either church is pursuing this fellowship as a form of opposition to some other ecumenical development…There is no general reason why a joint Episcopal- Lutheran Vacation Church School could not expand to include a Presbyterian congregation or Roman Catholic .4

Full communion, as presented in several the documents we are examining, stands in contrast with a merger in that the notion of diversity among bodies of Christians is a focal point; rather than merge the two denominations, Anglicans and Lutherans approached the discussion as one of unity and cooperation among distinct bodies.

Toward Full Communion (U.S., 1991) states:

We are using for purposes of the Concordat of Agreement the definition of "full communion" which has been formulated by the Anglican Working Group meeting in Cold Ash, Berkshire, England, in 1983."Full Communion" means that "members of one body receive the sacraments of the other"; that bishops from each church participate in consecrations of bishops from the other church, "thus acknowledging the duty of mutual care and concern"; that clergy from each church "may exercise liturgical functions in a congregation of the other"; and that there be organs of consultation "to express and strengthen the fellowship and enable common witness, life and service.”5

It is careful to specify, “The unity which is expressed by the term "full communion” is not something we achieve by processes of dialogue or by legislative agreements. It is a gift which we receive in and from Christ, who has reconciled all of humanity to God "in one body through the cross.”6 Furthermore, “The unity which is expressed by the term "full communion" is not intended merely to facilitate the convenience of communicants and clergy. It is intended above all to express the fully shared life and mission of our churches. When the church hears together the one gospel

3 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 170. 4 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 173. 5 Toward Full Communion, 72-73. 6 Toward Full Communion, 73, c.f. Ephesians 2:16.

69 and feasts together at the one table of the Messiah, it is given the gift of life and mission.”7 Toward

Full Communion further states that "full communion is, in part, received and expressed in the interchangeability and reciprocity of ordained ministries.”8

Called to Full Communion (Canada, 1998) likewise emphasizes that the proposed unity would stem from a life of shared sacraments, witness, mission, and fellowship, rather than merging of ecclesial bodies. It states:

Our two churches are using the following definition of full communion: Full communion is understood as a relationship between two distinct churches or communions in which each maintains its own autonomy while recognizing the catholicity and apostolicity of the other, and believing the other to hold the essentials of the Christian faith. In such a relationship, communicant members of each church would be able freely to communicate at the altar of the other, and there would be freedom of ordained ministers to officiate sacramentally in either church. Specifically, in our context, we understand this to include transferability of members; mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministries; freedom to use each other's liturgies; freedom to participate in each other's ordinations and installations of clergy, including bishops; and structures for consultation to express, strengthen, and enable our common life, witness, and service, to the glory of God and the salvation of the world.9

This involves “welcome(ing) persons ordained in either of our churches to the office in accordance with any regulations which may from time to time be in force, in that ministry in the receiving church without re-ordination,” 10 which includes “regularly inviting one another's bishops to participate in the laying on of hands at the ordination of bishops” 11 and “encourage(ing) regular consultation and collaboration among members of our churches at all levels.”12

Unlike the merger that created the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which was a merger of two Lutheran bodies, full communion, rather, “will be a relationship of sister churches.”13

This would be,”one step, between two churches, on the way to full visible unity….(which) remains the final vision and goal of the ecumenical movement.”14

7 Toward Full Communion, 73. 8 Toward Full Communion, 73. 9 Called to Full Communion 7, 9. 10 Called to Full Communion, 13. 11 Called to Full Communion, 13. 12 Called to Full Communion, 13. 13 Called to Full Communion, 16. 14 Called to Full Communion, 17.

70

Further articulation about the nature of full communion is found in the Concordat of Agreement supporting essays. William Countryman begins by citing John 17:20-21: “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” He remarks:

This is not a text about church unity in the usual sense. It is about something both more and less difficult, both more and less attainable. It speaks of a mystical union that is not only a union between a single human reality and the divine, not only the flight of the alone to the alone, but also a union among all who are in union with God. The unity of Father and Son in the godhead is the model for this unity of believer with believer—and also the source from which it flows.15

Michael Root, also in a supporting essay to the Concordat of Agreement, states, “Full communion must have within it a dynamism and discomfort, a sense that it is only a pilgrim reality on its way to the heavenly Jerusalem.”16 It “must not be reduced to a set of institutional elements, finished once the enumerated elements are in place. As has been stated repeatedly…communion between churches must be the structure in which a common life is lived.”17 We see, embodied in these definitions, a sense that the church is a living structure of relationship not reducible to names and titles. Rather, “At all levels, the structures of unity must be free to develop in ways that conform to the true life of the church. As that life progresses, grows, and meets crises, so the shape that communion takes must be open to adjustments and innovations. The constant features of full communion create the context for a life together and are not a substitute for it.”18

It is in the supporting essays that we find a level of detail not spelled out in the documents themselves. Root’s essay offers the following:

The continuing distinct character of the churches will need to be respected when one considers the possibility of clergy from one church permanently exercising their ministry in the other. It is not unreasonable to ask persons transferring from one church to the other to do special work to become more acquainted with the education or churchEven an internship, serving perhaps as an associate in a parish in order to become more acquainted with the ethos of the new church, may not be an unreasonable demand in some cases. In addition, a

15 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 17, citing John 17:20-21. 16 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 165. 17 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 165. 18 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 166.

71

permanently transferring priest or pastor would come under the discipline of the new church and would be expected to make the commitments expected from the clergy within the new church (e.g., in terms of confessional subscription). Some special rite of acceptance for such a permanent transfer may be appropriate. Such matters, however, should not be so onerous as to block the transfer of ministers from one church to the other, nor be such as to call into question the validity of ministry in the other church.19

He traces the oneness in ministry to a oneness in mission, stating, “We can stand together and in place of each other because we see ourselves as one in mission.”20 He continues, “If the church is to be one in mission, then the bishops need to be one in their oversight. The collegial unity of the bishops in their ministry of oversight is thus not simply a sign of the unity of the church, but a means by which unity is maintained.”21 Perhaps the most significant item offered by way of definition in Root’s essay, however, is his observation that “To describe full communion at the present moment is a task in contextual ecclesiology. Details can only be lived into, not spelled out in advance. But such a life must have as its central concern that we live out and live toward the unity we are given in Christ.”22

3.2: The Problem Stated

Surely the biggest roadblock between the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian churches going in to these dialogues was each church’s stance on ordination as it relates to apostolic succession. Specifically, the Anglicans/Episcopalians saw their bishops as standing in the line of apostolic succession, therefore highly valuing the historic episcopate in its particular manifestation as the laying on of hands in an unending line of historical succession from the first bishops, the apostles themselves. On the other hand, the Lutherans saw apostolic succession in a more general sense as standing in historical succession as an entire Church living out the Gospel and its mission.

Therefore, the role of bishops and the function of ordination seemed to play a very different role in

19 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 170. 20 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 171. 21 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 171. 22 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 177.

72 each church. The question then became: how can we overcome this ostensibly insurmountable difference to enter full communion? This section will analyze the various theological reflections and conversations as presented in the primary material to understand the ways in which this dispute was treated.

Toward Full Communion admits that “the ordained ministry is recognized as the ‘most controversial area’ between Lutherans and Episcopalians.” 23 Similarly, The Porvoo Common Statement references “the major problem to be resolved: namely, episcopal ministry and its relation to succession.” 24 The most succinct way to state the problem is likely as follows. As the problem is presented in the primary documents in question, the Anglicans/Episcopalian communion sees itself as standing in the line of apostolic succession because their bishops are part of an unbroken line of ordination by the laying on of hands by bishops ordained by bishops ordained by bishops (etc.) ordained by the original bishops, the apostles. As one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the

Anglican/Episcopalian communion believes this historic succession of bishops to be constitutive of a legitimate Christian communion. An ordained minister who was not ordained by a bishop standing in this historic succession is not, legitimately, a truly ordained minister. On the other hand, the

Lutheran communion understands apostolic succession in a broader sense; namely, the entire

Church, as protector and proclaimer of the Gospel, stands in historic succession to what has been handed down through successive generations by the apostles and, ultimately, through Christ: the

Gospel itself. Thus, failure to recognize Lutheran ministers to be legitimately ordained because of the break in succession that took place during the Protestant Reformation (a break that the

Anglican/Episcopalian communion believes it has avoided) is insulting. Likewise, requiring

Lutheran ministers to be ordained “legitimately” by Anglican/Episcopalian bishops is to require

23 Toward Full Communion, 31. 24 The Porvoo Common Statement 9.

73 something unnecessary and to fail to recognize that Lutherans stand in legitimate succession in a broader sense. If full communion were to be achieved, the Lutheran communion seems to have felt that requiring Anglican/Episcopalian legitimization would be asking too much; the

Anglican/Episcopalian communion seems to have felt that anything less, however, would be to sacrifice a necessary element of the ordained ministry as established by the apostles and, indeed,

Christ himself.

Toward Full Communion (U.S., 1982) summarizes that:

The historic impasse, as we have inherited it, seems simple but irreconcilable. If Anglicans insist on the historic episcopate as an essential dimension of the church's catholicity and therefore as a pre-condition for full communion, then Lutherans insist that something is being added to the gospel; and therefore the gospel itself is being undermined if not actually vitiated.25

It continues:

For, according to Lutherans, the true unity of the church, which is the unity of the body of Christ and participation in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is given in and through proclamation of the gospel in Word and sacrament. This unity is expressed as a communion in the commonand at the same time, multiform confession of one and the same apostolic faith. It is a communion in holy baptism and in the eucharistic meal, a communion in which the ministries exercised are recognized by all as expressions of the ministry instituted by Christ in his church, It is a communion where diversities contribute to the fullness and are no longer barriers to unity. It is a committed fellowship, able to make common decisions and to act in common.26

In other words, “Anglicans are convinced that catholicity is being compromised. Lutherans are convinced that ‘evangelicity’ (the gospel) is being compromised.”27

This brief sketch does not, however, embody nuances fully present in the primary documents. For example, the second dialogue between Lutherans and Episcopalians in the United

States(LED II) achieves, according to Toward Full Communion, a distinction between apostolic succession and the institution of the historic episcopate. In Part One, “Apostolicity: A Citation” apostolicity is defined as “the Church's continuity with Christ and the apostles in its movement

25 Toward Full Communion, 20. 26 Toward Full Communion, 20. 27 Toward Full Communion, 20.

74 through history.”28 Apostolic succession is “a dynamic, diverse reality”29 embracing faithfulness to apostolic teaching, participation in baptism, prayer, and the eucharist; “sharing in the Church's common life of mutual edification and ministry of Word and sacrament;” 30 and “continuing involvement in the apostolic mission”31 of the church by proclaiming the gospel through word and deed. Apostolic succession is not to be understood “primarily in terms of historic episcopate.”32 It concludes that “apostolicity is then understood in terms of Christ's mission, and it is defined as ‘an expression of the permanence and, therefore, of the continuity of Christ's own mission in which the

Church participates.’”33 The crux of the discussion seems to be in whether to associate apostolicity strictly with the historic episcopate. It raises the question: can specific ordained ministers in the

Church stand in apostolic succession without receiving ordination explicitly in the line of the historic episcopate?

Further complicating the problem is that it is different in different areas of the world. On one hand, a successio localis, a succession of bishops in the same place, can be distinguished from a successio personalis, a succession handed on from one bishop to another. Future chapters will elaborate more on the unique situations of the Nordic Reformation Churches; Porvoo argues that in Denmark,

Norway, and Iceland, where the successio personalis was lost, the successio localis was maintained. “In

Denmark, even though the office of bishop was continued by one himself only in presbyterial orders

(through existing episcope, care has been taken ever since to maintain that episcopate through a personal succession, as is also the case in Norway and Iceland.”34 Thus, the Nordic Lutheran

28 Toward Full Communion, 29. 29 Toward Full Communion, 29. 30 Toward Full Communion, 29. 31 Toward Full Communion, 29. 32 Toward Full Communion, 29. 33 Toward Full Communion, 31. 34 The Porvoo Common Statement, 50.

75 churches claim a kind of continuity not present in the US or Canada, where no such successio localis exists.

L. William Countryman, in one of the supporting essays to the Concordat of Agreement, adds to this discussion by stating:

One of the great hindrances to the task of uniting ministries—perhaps the greatest of them—is our tendency to treat ordinations as if they were governed not by the gospel but by purity laws…If a Lutheran bishop participated in an Anglican ordination, would the ordination be less Anglican? If the reverse, would the ordination be less Lutheran? On the purity model, yes; for pollution is seen as intrinsically more powerful than the system it attacks. If our ministries or proclamations of life in the gospel, however, we should be able to find ways of preserving clarity in the "language" of orders without seeking to exclude our cobelievers.35

He proposes a way forward:

If we can shed the purity model, I believe we can approach a common ministry by ensuring that each tradition retains and contributes to the whole the positive elements it has been expressing in its existing orders. For Anglicans, this must include the historic episcopate; for Lutherans, it must include elements associated in their orders with the Reformation itself and its assertion of the predominance of the gospel over the institutions of the church. Anglicans do not lose the historic episcopate by acknowledging the existing ministry of the ELCA as a true, gospel ministry, as we have already done.36

We see present in primary documents a characterization of the dispute as pure obstinacy on the part of each communion. The following passage makes this clear, and demands that the goal of union is far superior than whatever is at stake in this dispute.

The frustrating character of the historic disagreement between Anglicans and Lutherans –its sheer folly – can be formulated thus. Anglicans say to Lutherans, “If you have no objection in principle to episcopal government, then your refusal to adopt it can only be obstinacy.” Lutherans say to Anglicans, “Of course we can adopt it, provided you Anglicans say it is not necessary for us to do so.” To which Anglicans reply, “We haven’t got any official theology which says that it, the episcopate, is of the essence of the Church, but we couldn’t possibly say, dogmatically, that it wasn’t.” This conversation is not merely frustrating, it is dumb. And our parent bodies ought to demand their money back from us in this consultation if we cannot show a way out of this ludicrous impasse.37

Having explored the apparent impasse on the topic of historic succession between the two denominations responsible for these primary documents, subsequent sections in this chapter will

35 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 98. 36 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 98. 37 S.W. Sykes, Papers of the Consultation: Background for the Niagara Report (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1987), 16, c.f. Toward Full Communion, 12.

76 explore how the various conversations – as presented in these documents – overcame this impasse and opened th way to full communion.

3.3: Highlighting Commonalities and Existing Unity

Perhaps the most recurring theme that serves as a theological method for unification in the primary documents is the characterization of their relationship as already deeply united. In some cases, this is illustrated through a conceptualization of each denomination as a long lost family member of the other. Rather than looking at unity as a novel concept to be won at the price of theological compromise, the documents again and again point to a once-existing unity now being rediscovered. This rediscovery serves to outweigh any ostensible division of episcopacy, thereby allowing full communion without the onus of explaining how to graft an alien branch onto the family tree. This section will survey the various ways this comes up in various documents.

Called to Full Communion (Canada, 1998) cites a piece written for the first joint Eucharist service in 1993, “A Tale of Two Sisters: A Reflection on Christian Unity:”

There once were two women, living in different countries, who discovered from old records that they were twin sisters. They had been separated when very young and sent to foster families when their own family broke up. Once they contacted each other, they began to write letters, but the letters didn't say very much. Neither of them quite trusted the other; each was afraid that the idea of a twin sister was at best a dream, and at worst some kind of scam. All that changed when they agreed to meet at their old family home, abandoned now and boarded up since the caretaker had died. They brought a picnic lunch, and as they sat in the garden and ate, their suspicions vanished. Each one, looking at the other under the apple tree, thought she saw herself— not like in a mirror, but in the flesh. They began to laugh together, to tell each other about their lives, their sorrows, their secret hopes. Then they finally summoned the courage to go into the house. It was dusty, many things were broken, and there were tangles of cobwebs and some scary dark corners. But under the debris they found things: the room they must have shared as infants, with a cot and toys still in it, and even some baby pictures of themselves. Then, in a few of the pictures, they noticed other children, and in sisters, laughing and playing. As they cleaned and dusted, they collected all they could find to preserve of the family heritage, and began dreaming of a way to bring children — their own sons and daughters, nieces and nephews — into the old house once again. When they parted, they promised not only to write but to meet again of every year; and each swore to do her best to find the other members of their scattered family, and to bring them as well to the next reunion.38

38 Called to Full Communion, 38, c.f. The Rev. Iain Luke, Humboldt, Saskatchewan; written for the first joint Eucharist November 1993.

77

Called to Full Communion reinforces this point by articulating, “Lutherans and Anglicans are graced in that we can respond to this prayer for unity without having experienced formal separation from one another. We share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation.”39 It continues,

“Why a relationship between these particular churches? Anglicans and Lutherans share a common heritage: as part of the church of the West before the Reformation, as churches shaped by the

Reformation itself, as established national state churches in Europe, [and] as churches that have a national expression in Canada while being part of worldwide communions.”40 In addition:

Both churches engaged in and emerged from the Reformation believing themselves to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They believed themselves to hold the same faith, to preach the same Word, to celebrate the same sacraments, and to exercise the same ministry as the apostles, and to be in continuity with them and with the church throughout the ages.41

Following these statements, Called to Full Communion presents a variety of prayers and hymns of unity

– including a reaffirmation of baptism – that can be used in individual congregations,42 such as: “My sisters and brothers in Christ, by water and the Holy Spirit God breaks down the walls that divide us and brings us into the household of faith. Let us renew our baptismal promises confident in the unity that is ours in Christ and as our pledge to work to make that unity visible in our time.”43

The Porvoo Common Statement (Europe, 1993) begins with the notion of familial rediscovery or commonality, stating, “Through the gracious leading of God Anglicans and Lutherans all over the world are sharing together in mission and service, and discovering how much they have in common.”44 It later continues:

The faith, worship and spirituality of all our churches are rooted in the tradition of the apostolic Church. We stand in continuity with the Church of the patristic and medieval periods both directly and through the insights of the Reformation period. We each understand our own church to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and truly participating in the one apostolic mission of the whole people of God. We share in the liturgical heritage of and also in the Reformation emphases upon justification by faith and upon word and sacrament as . All this is embodied in our confessional and liturgical documents

39 Called to Full Communion 2, 7. 40 Called to Full Communion, 14. 41 Called to Full Communion, 14. 42 Called to Full Communion, 39. 43 Called to Full Communion, 40. 44 The Porvoo Common Statement 1.

78

and is increasingly recognized both as an essential bond between our churches and as a contribution to the wider ecumenical movement.45

And later:

We set out the substantial agreement in faith that exists between us. Here we draw upon Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (the Lima text) and the official responses of our churches to that text. We also draw upon previous attempts to specify the range and nature of Anglican-Lutheran agreement. These include the Pullach Report of 1973, the Helsinki Report of 1983, the Cold Ash Report of 1983, Implications of the Gospel of 1988, The Meissen Common Statement of 1988 and the Niagara Report of 1988. These texts all testify to a substantial unity in faith between Anglicans and Lutherans. We have benefited from the insights from these texts as a contribution to our agreement in faith. Furthermore, we have made considerable use of the results of the respective Anglican – Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic – Lutheran dialogues.46

Finally, it, too, makes a lengthy list detailing commonalities among the two denominations.

These include: the central role of scripture in God’s in Christ; the belief in God’s unfailing love and mercy and his command to treat neighbors with the same love and mercy; the proclamation that in Jesus Christ God loves and redeems the world; the belief that justification must lead to good works; acceptance of the faith as it appears in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and

Apostles’ creeds, “that is, we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is true God and true Man, and that God is one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit;”47 an acknowledgement of their common tradition of liturgical, spiritual, and sacramental life “which has given us similar forms of worship and common texts, hymns, canticles and prayers;” sacramental theology; the belief that all members of the church are called to participate in its apostolic mission in baptism; beliefs about eschatology; as well as beliefs about ordination and episcopacy.48 In particular, they agree that “a ministry of pastoral oversight (episcope), exercised in personal, collegial and communal ways, is necessary as witness to and safeguard of the unity and apostolicity of the Church. Further, we retain and employ the episcopal office as a sign of our intention, under God, to ensure the continuity of the Church in apostolic life and witness.”49

45 The Porvoo Common Statement 7. 46 The Porvoo Common Statement 30. 47 The Porvoo Common Statement 32. 48 The Porvoo Common Statement 32. 49 The Porvoo Common Statement 32.

79

The Niagara Report, (international, 1998) too, lists several “affirmations” articulating the

“common sharing of fundamental beliefs and practices.”50 They begin: “We recognize that in each other's churches there exists a sustained and serious commitment to the apostolic mission of the

Church.”51 They continue to also include that “We see ourselves already united by baptism;”52 an awknowledgment that there exists “in each other's ministries of episcope the fruits of the presence of Jesus Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit;”53 while also confessing the extent to which, in their respective ministries of episcope, each church has “fallen short of the unity and continuity of the apostolic commission;”54 each has a desire to remove “barriers which prevent the life of our churches from reflecting that unity of heart and mind which is God's gift to the people of God.”55

It also points out: “The Churches of the Lutheran tradition have received as the focus for

God's faithfulness to them the creeds of the early Church, the confessions of the sixteenth century, and the continuity of the ordained ministry through which the Word of God has been preached and the sacraments and rites of the Church have been administered.”56 Likewise, “The Churches of the

Anglican Communion have received as the focus for God's faithfulness to them the creeds of the early Church, the Book of Common Prayer from the sixteenth century (revised periodically and adapted regionally), and the continuity of the episcopal office through which clergy have been ordained for the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the sacraments and rites of the Church.”57

The Pullach Report (international, 1972) offers a similarly extensive list of ecclesiological commonalities. Its list likewise includes that “both churches hold that through the proclamation of

50 The Niagara Report 72. 51 The Niagara Report 73. 52 The Niagara Report 74. 53 The Niagara Report 75. 54 The Niagara Report 76. 55 The Niagara Report 77. 56 The Niagara Report 84. 57 The Niagara Report 85.

80 the gospel and the administration of the sacraments…Christ is speaking to us and is active amongst us today, calling us to live and serve in his name.”58 Indeed, “Both our communions affirm in virtually the same words (Conf. Aug. VII, XIX) that the right proclamation of the Word and the proper administration of the sacraments are essential and constitutive.”59 It also highlights that both churches are “one in accepting officially the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.”60

It highlights the role of ministry in stating that both churches teach “that the whole church, and especially the ministry of the church, has received the responsibility for guarding all proclamation and interpretation from error.”61 It specifies:

In the concept of apostolicity there is common ground insofar as all teaching, life and ministry of the church have to be in continuity with the fundamental apostolic witness and commission to go out into the world. It is the role which the succession of bishops plays within this wider concept of apostolicity which is one of the main conversation points between the two traditions.62

The Concordat of Agreement (US, 1991 precursor to the 1999 revision which was accepted) perhaps treats this theme most succinctly: “We receive with thanksgiving the gift of unity which is already given in Christ.”63

Part Three of the Concordat (US, 1991), entitled “An Analysis of the Agreement in Apostolic

Succession to be Found in the Lutheran and Episcopal Churches,” provides another example of focusing on unity in mission as a means by which to move past the difference of theologies of the historic episcopate between the two communions. The notion that Christ and his call to baptize and spread the Gospel - which Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians do share in common - is

58 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglican-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 138. 59 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglican-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 145. 60 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglican-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 139. 61 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglican-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 139. 62 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglican-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 143-144. 63 Concordat of Agreement, 105.

81 elaborated in great detail here. The section begins by naming “Apostolic Mission” as something the two communions share, stating, “Both Lutherans and Anglicans have been extensively involved in missionary outreach.” 64 It subsequently states that the two communions share “Apostolic

Scriptures” in common, stating, “The Lutheran churches and Episcopal Church acknowledge the writings of the to be the normative means of abiding in continuity with apostolic teaching. In this the two Communions are at one with each other.” 65 It also names “Apostolic

Creeds” and “The Holy Sacraments” as shared in common.66

It is the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue that perhaps comes closest to isolating commonalities that pertain specifically to the historical episcopate between the two communions. By pointing out the commonalities that do already exist, this document moves the conversation forward in significant ways. It highlights the extent to which even here we have a great measure of agreement not always found with other communions. This document highlights a list of important commonalities: “Both

Lutherans and Episcopalians hold the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament to be of divine institution. They distinguish this pastoral office from the priesthood of all believers.” 67 Both communions “engage in the practice of ordination. into the pastoral office or is bestowed through a liturgical act which is not to be repeated.” 68 Both, in doing so, intend “to set apart ministers of both Word and Sacrament.”69 Regarding the transmission of apostolicity, significantly, “both hold that the succession in office of ordained ministers shows the Church's continuity in time and space in the ministry of Word and Sacrament and the care of the Church.” 70

Both “recognize the necessity of oversight (episcope) which is embodied in an ordained office.

64 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 36. 65 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 37. 66 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38. 67 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 68 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 69 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 70 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40.

82

Lutherans see episcope exercised in the ministry of parish pastors as well as in bishops' supervision of local congregations and clergy, while Episcopalians see that episcope as shared by bishops with their clergy.”71 Finally,

Episcopalians recognize that Lutherans do affirm the full dignity of the pastoral office and are open to the historic episcopate as a valid and proper form of that office. Some Lutheran Churches are ordered in the historic episcopate. There is even a preference for the historic episcopate shown in the Lutheran confessional writings where and when that form could be maintained in accord with the Gospel, i.e., in the context of faithful preaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments. Lutherans do not, however, hold the historic episcopate to be the only legitimate form of episcope. 72

This list achieves the feat of highlighting the extent to which Lutherans and Episcopalians agree on the historic Episcopate and further isolating that about which they do differ. That Lutherans do not hold the historic episcopate to be the only legitimate form of episcope is significant. In addition,

There is, it is to be admitted, serious divergence in the actual ordering of the Pastoral Office in the two Communions as well as in the importance generally accorded to the historic episcopate. Further, there are additional topics worthy of continued discussion. However, despite that, we are profoundly impressed and encouraged by the basic and extensive elements of agreement which we have and in all of the aspects of apostolic succession, including that of the ordained ministry. We can declare together that both the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church stand in Apostolic Succession. And they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers. (Acts 2.42)73

We see present in these writings – one from Canada, one from Europe, one international, and three from the U.S. – an emphasis on the theme of already existing unity. Moreover, the lists all seem to include similar items. Called to Full Communion (Canada, 1998) and Porvoo (Europe, 1993) both emphasize the as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, while Porvoo,

Niagara (international, 1998), Pullach (U.S., 1972), and LED III (U.S., 1991) all mention the broader

Niceno-Constinopolitan and Apostles’ Creeds. Called to Full Communion, Porvoo, Niagara, Pullach, and

LED III all mention the existence and priority of right administration of the sacraments in each church, and Pullach and Porvoo include scripture alongside administration of the sacraments.

Moreover, all five documents mention continuity in the episcopacy of each church. Called to Full

71 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 72 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 73 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 41.

83

Communion mentions that each are in continuity with the apostles, Porvoo indicates that episcope is necessary both as a witness to and a safeguard of the unity and apostolicity of the church, while

Niagara mentions continuity of ordained ministry. Those three are vague about how the episcopate stands in apostolic succession, but Pullach is more articulate in stressing that the succession of bishops plays a large role within apostolicity (not, at the same time, reducing apostolicity to historical succession). Finally, LED III indicates that Episcopalians observe that the Lutherans indicate a

“preference” for the historic episcopate in their confessional writings.

By outlining not only what the two denominations have in common but also the sanctity of their call to unity and to their common mission, the conversations move closer to addressing the historical impasse regarding episcopacy. However, as significant a step as recognizing existing unity is, it does not address the differences already isolated.

3.4: A Legitimate Diversity

One method of not merely distracting from differences by highlighting similarities but indeed addressing the significant differences is to suggest that there exists among Christian denominations a “legitimate diversity.” 74 This method does not yet aim to reconcile differences by suggesting a change in either Church’s theology, but offers yet another way to sit comfortably with them. The following excerpts demonstrate an earnest reflection on the question: is it possible that there can exist, among denominations in full communion with one another, a diversity of ministries that does not undermine the unity of the communion? In other words: is identicalness in both the concept and the practice of historic succession necessary in order for full communion to happen, or is there a place for legitimate diversity among denominations? (This would stand, it seems, in contrast to illegitimate diversity, or outright disagreement).

74 Growth in Communion 145.

84

The Porvoo Common Statement (Europe, 1993) engages this idea by pointing out, “The Holy

Spirit bestows on the community diverse and complementary gifts.”75 Although not uniform in their understandings of the historic episcopate, the Porvoo Common Statement urges the churches to consider that “visible unity, however, should not be confused with uniformity.”76 By highlighting the humanness of the church, this document aims to address the historical impasse by pointing out the impossibility of perfection. “The Church is a divine reality, holy and transcending present finite reality; at the same time, as a human institution, it shares the brokenness of human community in its ambiguity and frailty. The Church is always called to repentance, reform and renewal, and has constantly to depend on God’s mercy and forgiveness. The Scriptures offer a portrait of a Church living in the light of the Gospel.”77 Porvoo then offers specific scriptural evidence for its point:

Already in the New Testament there is the scandal of division among Christians (I Cor. 1: 11-13, I John 2: 18- 19). Churches not outwardly united, for reasons of history or through deliberate separations, are obliged by their faith to work and to pray for the recovery of their visible unity and the deepening of their spiritual fellowship. Set before the Church is the vision of unity as the goal of all creation (Eph. 1) when the whole world will be reconciled to God (II Cor: 5). Communion is thus the fruit of redemption and necessarily an eschatological reality. Christians can never tolerate disunity. They are obliged not merely to guard and maintain, but also to promote and nurture the highest possible realization of communion between and within the churches.78

Likewise,

In the narrative of the this sharing in a common life is served by the apostolic ministry. We are given a picture of how this ministry fosters the richness of diversity while also maintaining unity. Through the mission of the apostles Peter and Paul, the Gentiles also are baptized. In the face of the threat of division, this radical decision is ratified by the coming together of the Church in council (Acts 15). Here is illustrated the role of apostolic leaders and their place within councils of the Church.79

75 The Porvoo Common Statement 19. 76 The Porvoo Common Statement 23. 77 The Porvoo Common Statement 20 . 78 The Porvoo Common Statement 27. 79 The Porvoo Common Statement 25.

85

We see a similar method in Toward Full Communion (US, 1991) which also turns to scripture:

“The basic institutions, of Holy Scripture, sacraments, and ministry, which have long defined the life of the church, have their roots in the New Testament.” 80 It continues,

Both the New Testament grounding of these fundamental institutions of church life and their openness to subsequent development are important. That these have come to be known in classic forces which have served the church well is hereby gratefully acknowledged. Both Lutherans and Anglicans respect tradition…Both Lutherans and Anglicans recognize that the ordained ministry in its various developed forms, including the episcopate, is a gift of God to the church. And both of us agree that the historic episcopate can be ‘locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.’81

The notion of local adaptation allows for a diverse manifestation of the same theological principle all over the world based on culture, heritage, and even theological emphases.

Reinforcing this idea, Growth in Communion (international, 2003) states, “Within each

Communion, there are diverse traditions of theological method and of spirituality and liturgy. Such diversity is understood to be a desirable dimension of the catholicity of the Church, where judged to be genuine expressions of a faith held in common. Anglicans and Lutherans can enjoy such a diversity within the Body of Christ.”82 It is this document which uses the specific phrase, “legitimate diversity,” in stating, “Within each Communion mechanisms are evolving which can assist with the task of discernment of legitimate diversity, bearable anomaly and potentially church-dividing issues which arise in ecumenical dialogue. Which issues fall into which of the above categories, and what are the boundaries between categories? It is precisely these questions that require discernment.”83 It expands on this concept later:

Legitimate diversity, temporary anomalies and potentially church-dividing issues are simple ways to categorise differences among Anglicans and Lutherans and between churches of the same ecclesial family. Diversity does not lead to division where it is a necessary feature of the Church’s catholicity. Temporary anomalies occur in the stages along the way to the Church’s full visible unity, but mechanisms to discuss and address such anomalies are desirable between churches that are in a relation of communion. Potentially church dividing issues between Anglicans and Lutherans may be referred to a Commission that is competent to address the theological issues involved, with a view to seeking deeper agreement in these areas.84

80 Toward Full Communion, 36. 81 Toward Full Communion 39. 82 Growth in Communion 138 83 Growth in Communion 84 Growth in Communion 155

86

Growth in Communion references the Lambeth Conference of 1998 and its section entitled “Living with Difference,” which mentions “the extent to which Anglicans and Lutherans express sufficient agreement in faith which would not require them ‘to accept every doctrinal formulation characteristic of our distinctive traditions.’”85

Growth in Communion does not attempt to negate the significance of the historic episcopate, of course, or to offer a shallow resolution to a significant problem. It acknowledges that

Some differences cause strains within each Communion as well as between Churches of the two Communions. They are potentially or presently Church dividing and require ongoing dialogue. Some different emphases and practices related to the ordained ministry among Anglican and Lutheran Churches are at present barriers to the development of fuller relations between Anglicans and Lutherans in certain places, or risk impairing the relation of communion already established: a. the ordination or non-ordination of women as deacons, priests / pastors and bishops b. the acceptability of historical episcopal succession in the service of the apostolicity of the Church c. the delegation of ordination by bishops d. of the Eucharist.86

We see an exposition on this theme in the supporting essays of the Concordat of Agreement

(US, 1991) as well. L. William Countryman acknowledges the benefits of making room in the relationship between Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians for a legitimate diversity, but ultimately concludes that this falls short of real resolution. He states,

One proposal for doing this might be to say, "Let each tradition continue as it is." We are not, after all, talking about a merger of church organizations, but about that somewhat less concrete and specifiable thing called "full communion." Yet I do not think this is a desirable solution, even if it should prove possible. A purely functional, task- oriented understanding of ministry—one that ignores the enormous freight of meaning attached to various ministries over the centuries— might wish to move in this direction; but I doubt that the people of God would move with it.87

Elsewhere, he focuses on

Ministry as a bond and sign of unity both within the local communities and among them. It is this, above all, that the ordination rites came to express. To ordain a bishop, three other bishops must lay on hands. Since these will have had to come from neighboring cities, they were, in effect, bringing the new bishop into a larger network and reaffirming the local community's communion with the larger church. The bishop alone laid hands on deacons, to indicate that deacons functioned as extensions of the bishop in serving the church. The intimate connection between the two reemphasized the intimate connection between leadership and servanthood that comes down to us as part of Jesus' teaching. On the other hand, from our earliest records onward, other presbyters share in the laying-on-of-hands when a presbyter is ordained, for the college of presbyters has its own integrity in the local church. While it must function in relation to the larger church, as represented by the bishop, this college also serves as the council of elders whose advice could guide and

85Growth in Communion 149, C.f. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, 227-228. 86 Growth in Communion 153 87 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 95.

87

restrain the bishop on behalf of the local community—in effect, an enlarged voice for that community in the deliberations of its leaders. Ordination was thus not a single thing, from its very beginning, but a fairly complex set of gestures that wove together into a language through which the identity of each ordained person was defined in relation to the church, both local and universal.88

By pointing out the theological intricacies inherent in the laying on of hands, Countryman highlights the deficiencies in allowing each tradition to merely continue as it is under the heading of “legitimate diversity.”

3.5: Accommodations and Adaptations on Behalf of the Lutherans

Beyond merely looking at the ecclesiological status of each church in a different way, both the Lutheran and Episcopalian/Anglican communions express a willingness to adapt theologically or in to accommodate what is vital to the other conversation partner. This section will survey some of the accommodations witnessed on the Lutheran side of the table; the next section survey the same thing on the Anglican/Episcopalian side. The main focus on the Lutheran side features

Lutherans acknowledging the significance of historic succession or recognizing themselves in it.

For example, the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue (U.S., 1982) appeals to history by pointing out:

During the modern era, all Scandinavian Lutherans retained the office and title of bishop. In the 20th century many German "general superintendents" were given the title bishop and three American churches have adopted the title since 1970 for their synod or district presidents In Baltic and Slavic countries the title bishop is used. Some Lutheran churches in Africa have bishops and the Lutheran Church in Papua New Guinea has recently adopted the term.89

Called to Full Communion (Canada, 1998) continues this emphasis on the extent to which

Lutherans, by indeed participating in the laying on of hands, by having bishops, and by standing in line with the historic episcopate, woul do so in continuity with, and not in opposition to, its own history:

Lutherans wonder, "Will the Declaration change the Lutheran understanding of ordained ministry?" Lutheran understanding of the bishop's ministry is still developing, and different Lutheran churches have responded differently to this question. Lutherans continue to discuss the nature of the ordained ministry. The Declaration

88 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 97. 89 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 36.

88

asks both churches to acknowledge the full authenticity of each other's ordained ministries as they are presently constituted, without requiring exact agreement about what they mean.90

And:

Lutherans wonder, "Will the Declaration change the role of Lutheran bishops?" The ELCIC has had bishops since its inauguration in 1986, and one of its predecessor bodies has had bishops since 1980. Bishops currently are installed by a liturgical rite that has come to include the laying on of hands by the national bishop and synod bishops. 91

Sure to highlight that “it was because of particular historical circumstances, and not for theological reasons, that some Lutheran churches did not have bishops ordained in exact continuity by the laying on of hands by other bishops,”92 Called to Full Communion offers the Lutheran communion a way to adopt historic succession without highlighting it as a theological accommodation. It is briefer than documents that follow in what Lutherans will concede; in short: it comments that Lutherans

“are increasingly prepared to appreciate the significance of the episcopate in apostolic succession as a sign and servant of the apostolic continuity.” 93

The Concordat of Agreement (U.S., 1991) failed to pass in 1997 in the Churchwide Assembly at the Evengalical Lutheran Church in America by just six votes, but the Lutheran proposal for its revision, entitled Called to Common Mission, was accepted in 1999. In this document, Lutherans consent to consent to be a part of the historic episcopate so important to The Episcopal Church.

The document words the situation not as a accommodation, but as indicating a theological principle already held: “The Episcopal Church refers to this tradition as ‘the historic episcopate.’ In the

Lutheran Confessions, Article 14 of the Apology refers to this episcopal pattern by the phrase, ‘the ecclesiastical and canonical polity’ which it is ‘our deep desire to maintain.’”94 To enact this desire, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America “promise(s) to include regularly one or more bishops

90 Called to Full Communion, 23. 91 Called to Full Communion, 22. 92 Called to Full Communion, 22. 93 Growth in Communion 133. 94 Called to Common Mission 11, 7.

89 of the other church to participate in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordinations/installations of their own bishops.”95 Though the text immediately indicates that this act would be a “sign, though not a guarantee of the unity and apostolic continuity of the whole church,”96 to agree to this is extraordinary and, according to Episcopal theology, would graft the Lutheran communion back into the historic episcopate. The significance of highlighting that the agreement specifies historical succession to signify but not guarantee apostolicity was a significant point of debate, which will be expanded in later chapters.

Lest there be any doubt, it is repeated later that “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America agrees that all its bishops chosen after churches pass this Concordat will be installed for pastoral service of the gospel with this church’s intention to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate.”97 There is a mention in article 19 of the necessity of including three bishops already standing in historic succession to participate in the laying-on-of-hands of a bishop, and this causes ambiguity with regard to the promise in article 12 to “include regularly one or more bishops” of

Episcopalian order.

Noteworthy is the fact that that the promise on the part of Lutherans to become grafted, so to speak, into the historic episcopate does not differ greatly from the rejected proposal for Lutheran accommodations mentioned in the Concordat of Agreement. What does differ is the language that suggests such grafting would seem to guarantee a safeguard of apostolic succession. The pertinent paragraph from the Concordat is as follows:

Each church hereby promises to invite and include on an invariable basis at least three bishops of the other church, as well as three of its own, to participate in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordination of its own bishops….Inasmuch as both churches agree that a ministry of episkope is necessary to witness to, promote, and safeguard the unity and apostolicity of the church and its continuity in doctrine and mission across time and space, this participation is understood as a call for mutual planning, consultation, and interaction in episkope,

95 Called to Common Mission 12, 7. 96 Called to Common Mission, 12, 7. 97 Called to Common Mission 18, 9.

90

mission, teaching, and pastoral care as well as a liturgical expression of the full communion that is being initiated by the Concordat of Agreement.98

Again, it is noteworthy that the most significant change is not a change from agreement to disagreement regarding the participation of either one or three Episcopal bishops in the laying-on- of-hands for Lutheran bishops; rather, the significant change is the language regarding the extent to which the laying-on-of-hands will “safeguard” apostolic succession. The word “safeguard” was dropped, indicating a change in theology in Called to Common Mission that highlights the Lutheran promise to participate in the act, though it is “a sign, not a guarantee.”99

Moreover, a while the Concordat called for three Episcopal bishops to be present at the initial events commencing the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s acceptance of episcopal succession, Called to Common Mission calls for three bishops in historical succession, at least one of whom would be from the Episcopal Church. Thus, the ELCA could invite bishops from Sweden and Finland, whose succession the Anglicans recognize to be present, to participate in the laying-on- of-hands as part of the event. This was more pleasing to the Lutheran conversation partners than what was contained in the Concordat.

Porvoo (Europe, 1993) reflects a similar, though slightly less strongly worded accommodation on the part of the Lutheran communion. Also acknowledging that the historic episcopate does not guarantee apostolic succession, it proclaims that “all our churches can affirm together the value and use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession. This means that those churches in which the sign has at some time not been used are free to recognize the value the of the sign and should embrace it without denying their own apostolic continuity.”100 It is noteworthy that they do not

“promise” to adopt historical succession, but express that they are “free” to adopt it. It does seem

98 Concordat of Agreement, 3, 99, emphasis added. 99 Called to Common Mission, 12, 7. 100 The Porvoo Common Statement 56, 29.

91 apparent that agreement with the text obliges them to accept this invitation, but the emphasis on free choice is an important one. Also noteworthy is that, like its American counterpart, Porvoo is careful not to suggest that historic succession is a necessary element of apostolic succession or that it would guarantee it. In doing so, it mirrors the Lutheran revisions to the Concordat of Agreement present in its accepted revision. Porvoo states: “The mutual acknowledgement of our churches and ministries is theologically prior to the use of the sign of the laying on of hands in the historic succession.

Resumption of the use of the sign does not imply an adverse judgement on the ministries of those churches which did not previously make use of the sign.” 101 And again, it highlights that the

Lutheran church can “embrace the sign without denying its past apostolic continuity.”102

After mentioning that Lutherans “are increasingly prepared to appreciate the significance of the episcopate in apostolic succession as a sign and servant of the apostolic continuity,” 103 Growth in

Communion (international, 2003) adds:

Lutherans are free to take up the historic episcopal succession when (1) this integration of Lutheran bishops into historic episcopal succession occurs after mutual recognition of churches and ministries and declaration of church fellowship/full communion have been expressed, (2) this integration does not imply an adverse judgement on the Lutheran ministries in the past nor an increase of their ecclesiastical power in the future, (3) there is the continuing liberty for different interpretations of the office of bishop and its ecumenical significance.104

The Niagara Report (international, 1988) makes the important observation that

Formal recognition of each other's ministries so that our Churches acknowledge a relationship of full communion between them cannot simply mean that neither Church changes. Nor can it mean that either Church changes merely to meet the expectations and requirements of the other…Rather Churches of both communions are being called to acknowledge that the experience and practice of full communion will involve them both and simultaneously in changes and reforms.105

It then highlights what changes the Lutheran communion is called to make. There are four changes promised. First, the persons ordained in the role of episcope will adopt the title of bishop

101 The Porvoo Common Statement 53, 28. 102 The Porvoo Common Statement 52, 28. 103 Growth in Communion 133. 104 Growth in Communion 133. 105 The Niagara Report 86-87.

92

or .106 Second, bishops will be “elected to the same tenure of office as congregational pastors, chaplains, and other pastoral ministers.”107 Third,

In accordance with the canon of the Council of Nicaea, the rites of installation for bishops should be revised so that there is a laying on of hands by at least three bishops. The involvement of three bishops in the installation of a bishop is the liturgical form by which the Church recognizes that the bishop serves the local or regional church through ties of collegiality which are links to the universal Church. …If we are in full communion with each other, one or more of the bishops at a Lutheran installation should be from a Church in the Anglican Communion. 108

Fourth, only bishops or suffragan bishops should preside at ordinations of clergy. 109 Most significant of these accommodations is the third change; here, we see Niagara mirror the accommodations made in both the U.S. and Europe. In doing so, Lutherans are grafted into historic succession. Also like the documents above, they simultaneously announce the “full authenticity of the existing ministries of Lutheran churches” 110 inasmuch as “Anglicans join Lutherans in affirming that bishops have authority only through the gospel.”111 Niagara also states Lutherans’ relationship with the historic episcopate throughout history, stating: “Lutherans have confessionally and historically recognized that the historic episcopate is a valuable symbol of unity and continuity in the

Church.”112

The supporting essays to the Concordat of Agreement (U.S., 1991), offer a deeper exploration of what the Lutheran communion is called to do and why. William G. Rusch “describe(s) where

Lutheran-Anglican discussions have come on this matter and where ecumenical theology has led, and then suggest(s) two models that the dialogue may wish to consider as a way out of this apparent ecumenical cul-de-sac.”113 Both of these models look to ecclesiology as the basis for a theology of

106 The Niagara Report 89. 107 The Niagara Report 90. 108 The Niagara Report 91. 109 The Niagara Report 92. 110 The Niagara Report 91. 111 The Niagara Report 91. 112 The Niagara Report 91. 113 Rusch (II), Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 155.

93 ordination. In particular, “they look to the early church as a resource for overcoming present divisions.”114

His first model is BEM. Drawing on section VI, he points out that “Churches without succession… realize that continuity with the church of the apostles finds profound expression in successive laying-on-of-hands by bishops and recover the sign of episcopal succession.” 115 His second model comes from the international Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue.

Facing Unity turns to forms and phases of Catholic-Lutheran church fellowship. It envisions a growth of church communion with three elements, taken together as part of a process including the interlocking accomplishments of recognition and reception. The first includes a communion of faith with a common witness to the apostolic faith, a unity of faith in a diversity of forms, and a removal of doctrinal condemnations. Lutheran-Anglican dialogue has shown repeatedly that Anglicans and Lutherans can claim together such a communion of faith. The second element includes a communion of sacraments, with a growth of sacramental life in the churches, an increasing agreement in the understanding and practice of the sacraments, and an acknowledgment of remaining diversities along with basic agreements. Here, too, Lutheran-Anglican dialogue has demonstrated a basic agreement that Anglicans and Lutherans can share. The third element includes a communion of ministry (service). If churches confess the same apostolic faith and share a common under- standing of the sacraments, they should be committed to a structured fellowship together. Thus Facing Unity provides the description of a process that would lead to a common ecclesiastical office for the common practice of episcope.116

Eric W. Gritsch recounts a lengthy history of the Lutheran relationship with the concept of bishop to promote the notion that the presence of bishops is not entirely alien to Lutheran ecclesiology.

Unlike and other sixteenth-century reformers, Luther reinterpreted the existing order of ministry rather than rejecting it. He thought he was in agreement with earlier church leaders, notably Paul and , in considering bishop (episcopus) and pastor (presbyterus) to be equals. Luther agreed with ’s draft of the Augsburg Confession, which made the office of the ministry a principal ‘article of faith and doctrine’ (article 5) while depicting ‘power of bishops’ as a matter ‘in dispute, in which an account is given of the abuses which have been corrected.’117

He indicates that

An attempt to reintroduce the historic episcopate was made in Prussia in 1701, when the first king, Frederick I, was to be crowned according to customary English rites. Since Daniel Ernst Jablonski, the Reformed Court Chaplain in Konigsberg, had been consecrated bishop in the in proper apostolic succession through the Hussite connection (Unitas Fratrum), he volunteered to function as the bishop required for the occasion. But Fredrick refusec to cede his rights as summus episcopus and therefore appointed the Lutheran court chaplain Ursinus from Berlin and the Reformed chaplain von Sanden from Konigsberg to be his bishops.

114 Rusch (II), Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 161. 115 Rusch (II), Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 162. 116 Rusch (II), Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 162-63. 117 Gritsch, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 102 .

94

Though called ‘bishops,’ both were eventually recognized only as ‘chief court chaplains’ (Oberhofprediger). Jablonski in 1737 consecrated Nichol von Zinzendorf as bishop of the Moravian community of Herrnhut because the Moravian community in Herrnhut accepted the consecration of Zinzendorf an expression of apostolic succession, even though German church orders generally retained the title "bishop" for heads of and/or geographical territories.118

Gritsch seeks to normalize the concept of Lutheran bishops in the passages cited in the last section.

On the other hand, however, he states:

Some Lutheran communities in the Lutheran World Federation have contended that episcopacy represents the well-being of the church (bene esse), but there is veiy little, if any, argument favoring the office of bishop as necessary to the being (esse) of the church. There seems to be no consensus among Lutherans regarding episcopal apostolic "well-being" (bene esse), and "fullness" (plene esse) seems to have given way to more recent assessments of episcopal apostolic succession in terms of "a sign, though not guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church.”119

Walter R. Bouman looks to the 1979 revision of the Book of Common Prayer as a resource for determining whether bishops (and Anglican ecclesiology in general) are compatible with

Lutheran ecclesiology. He, too, points out the significance of considering historical development in this discussion, stating:

It has a perspective in harmony with the confessional documents of the , particularly the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. Some features of the BCP about which Lutherans might have questions need to be understood in the light of historical developments within the Anglican tradition. Some features of the BCP that might surprise Lutherans need to be understood in the light of historical developments within the Anglican tradition. However, there are no obstacles to doctrinal recognition and liturgical use of the BCP by Lutherans.120

Robert J. Goeser continues to emphasize the importance of considering historical development by asking an important question about the Lutheran concept of . Assuming that this concept is highly influential in the Lutheran communion’s departure from the historic episcopate, Goeser seeks to redeem such traditions in their stance next to Scripture. He states,

Sola scriptura as a formal principle must be examined first in the historical setting of the struggle over the form of tradition and its relation to Scripture in the Middle Ages. In the early Church, tradition was the inclusive term to express — and to assure — the continuity of the Church with the total revelatory event in which the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ cohered. Scripture and tradition were a part of the same continuity. The late medieval concern, however, was authority and not continuity. There was no method of evaluating traditions historically, and extreme claims were sometimes made: claims of post-apostolic revelations, equal in authority to the Scripture, whose validity was to be judged by the papacy.121

118 Gritsch, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 110. 119 Gritsch, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 110. 120 Bouman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 113. 121 Goeser, appendix in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 114.

95

It is in this light that he says, “It is the Word, for example, not the Scripture, which calls the Church into existence.”122 Further, “it is fundamental to observe that the Word is Christ, is the second person of the . The Word is the living Word of the living God.”123 It is in this sense, then, that the reader may conclude that the Lutheran understanding of the scriptural message is not identical with scripture as written, but is more concerned with the Spirit of God as lived and proclaimed. And it leads, as Growth in Communion states, to the acknowledgement:

Increasingly Lutherans around the world are prepared to appreciate the significance of the episcopate in apostolic succession as a sign and servant of the apostolic continuity and unity of the church. The agreements show a growing readiness to become part of this succession by inviting Anglican and Lutheran bishops who belong to churches that share in the historical episcopal succession to actively participate in the ordinations or installations of Lutheran bishops in churches which have not so shared.”124

This last sentence is of particular importance, as it raises the question of joint ordinations. The

Anglican/Episcopalian side of the discussion might suggest that Lutherans, even if they had not previously participated in the historic episcopate, could easily become part of it by participating in

“legitimate” ordination. Of course, phrasing the question as such accuses existing Lutheran ordinations of being illegitimate. “It was quickly discovered within the dialogue that such a practice would be foreign to Lutheran usage. And there was some sense that it looked suspiciously like a sub rosa attempt to legitimate or validate non-Episcopal ministrations…Concelebration in itself might be harmless and even meaningful as an expression of some measure of already existing unity, yet when required as a precondition it would be contrary to the doctrine of ministry which we could in common affirm.”125 Still, the suggestion is a significant and simple method of unification. By suggesting that “collegiality is signified and, to a degree, realized in the participation of other bishops

122 Goeser, appendix in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 119. 123 Goeser, appendix in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 121. 124 Growth in Communion 133. 125 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue,16.

96 in the installation or consecration of a new bishop,”126 Michael Root reinforces the significance of joint ordination.

Brauer cites that

Most Lutheran churches in Europe have bishops of one type or another.…The Church of Sweden has never been without bishops, and they can lay claim to an unbroken apostolic succession (with perhaps a better case than the Church of England). With such a background, it is curious that no Lutheran group in America developed the office of bishop until recently, when three of the groups (which formed the ELCA in 1988) redesignated the offices of national and synodical presidents with the title "bishop."127

This raises the obvious question, “If the vast majority of Lutherans who immigrated to America came from churches with bishops, and if Lutherans generally found themselves in close relationship with the Church of England in America why, then, did they not adopt the episcopal system?”128 He reports, “The argument says that Lutherans who landed in the New World encountered an opportunity to be free and organize their ecclesiastical system in any way they felt appropriate.”129

His conclusion is that “a subtle interplay of a variety of American influences helps to explain the absence of bishops.”130 The contribution of this essay, of course, is that it normalizes the concept of

Lutheran bishops and paints the extent to which they are not at all foreign to Lutheran ecclesiology.

He fleshes out more details about these varying influences, some of which we mention here.

Certainly “from their very first days in America, these colonists exhibited a constant striving for and embodiment of independence from their roots and background.”131 And yet, “for virtually all immigrant groups, the most important source of continuity and sustenance through familiar language and customs was the church.”132 “The churches, too, experienced this duality. While they

126 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 171. 127 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 97. 128 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 80. 129 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 81. 130 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 81. 131 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 82. 132 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 82.

97 retained a sense of identity with the past through their rituals and language, they simultaneously recognized an opportunity for a fresh start.”133 He observes,

From its very beginnings in Germany and Scandinavia, Lutheranism took a very flexible attitude toward the necessity of bishops. Certainly Lutherans appreciated the significance and role of bishops in organizing and maintaining the church. When the regularly constituted bishops failed to perform their tasks, Lutherans were prepared to turn to the princes as lay-bishops, to do those things in the ordering of the church that the constituted bishops failed to do. … Luther probably would have favored their retention for no other reason than that, at their best, they represented good order and a fine historical tradition. At no point, however, did Luther appear to argue for episcopacy as a constituent mark of the Christian church.134

Again, the contributions of this historical sketch is not that it explains away the need for bishops, but that it normalizes the idea of Lutheran bishops and shows that the reasons for not having them are not theologically based.

It seems apparent from the primary material that the most significant point of adaptation on the Lutheran side of the discussion is a willingness to acknowledge the significance of the historic episcopate. Further, we see extensive study pointing out the extent to which the Lutheran church does stand in apostolic succession and the extent to which they are willing to see their bishops grafted more fully onto that line of succession. As has been mentioned, of course, the Lutheran communion approached this adaptation with a certain degree of reluctance based mainly on the concern that it would unintentionally admit illegitimacy to the existing order of Lutheran ordinations. To combat this, the Anglican/Episcopalian side of the discussion also comes forth in the primary material as making various adaptations. That will be what the following section explores.

3.6: Accommodations and Adaptations on the Anglican and Episcopalian Side

We now survey some of the theological accommodations the Anglicans/Episcopalians in these discussions made during these discussions. Most of them center on acknowledging a broader definition of apostolic succession than merely historic succession. This centers first on an

133 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 84. 134 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays 91.

98 acknowledgement that the office of bishop (and hence the historic episcopate) has gone through some development and has not remained unchanged throughout Christian history. Then it centers, as we have already seen, on emphasizing that historic succession does not guarantee fidelity. Unlike the Lutheran communion, then, the Anglican communion, seems to make more of a theological accommodation than a practical one.

The Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogues (U.S. 1982), a precursor to the Concordat of Agreement which was itself a precursor to the revision Called to Common Mission (this later one establishing full communion in the U.S.) is worth citing here because it provides valuable information about the historical development in which “both Lutheran and Anglican reformers rejected the Papacy as the primary focus of continuity in the Gospel.”135 It focuses on “Scripture as the core of apostolicity” and states:

Sweden and Finland retained historic episcopal succession. For Lutheranism as a whole, the episcopate in apostolic succession did not function as the primary strand of apostolicity. The confessional writings, the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism in Scandinavia and the entire Book of Concord in Germany, served to focus the Lutheran understanding of apostolicity on doctrinal continuity.136

A challenge within the Church of England came with “some of the who contended that episcopal government was not biblical which tended to harden certain Anglican defenses of

Episcopacy in apostolic succession.”137 It continues:

It was not until the Anglo-Catholicism of the 19th century Tractarian movement that serious argument was heard within the Church of England for the historic episcopate being of the essence (esse) of the Church in a way that tended to "un-Church" non-episcopal churches. In recent decades, most Episcopalians have argued either for the episcopacy as an order of ministry developed under the Spirit's guidance for the well-being (bene esse) of the Church or as an aspect of the fullness of the Church (plene esse)— both groups holding it to be a sign, symbol and means of the Church's unity and continuity in mission and ministry, doctrine and worship. The Lutheran reformers, while supportive of the office of bishop, were critical of abuses of episcopal power.138

Sketching the historical development of the office of bishop is a key method we see in the primary material of establishing that there was, indeed, much development in the office. It does not offer

135 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 33. 136 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 34. 137 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 34-35. 138 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 35.

99 official accommodations on the part of Anglicans the way Called to Common Mission (U.S., 1999) does.

At this point, let us investigate the rejected Concordat (U.S., 1997) and its revision in Called to Common

Mission for the purpose of summarizing the Anglican accommodations therein.

The Concordat states that “the Episcopal Church hereby recognizes now the full authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.”139

Recognizing in these ministers an already existing ministry of episkope, the Episcopal Church:

hereby pledges, at the same time that this Concordat of Agreement is accepted…to begin the process for enacting a temporary …of the 17th century restriction that ‘no persons are allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church unless they are so ordained, or have already received such ordination with the laying on of hands by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders.’140

It agrees to this because it “endorses the Lutheran affirmation that the historic catholic episcopate under the Word of God must always serve the gospel, and that the ultimate authority under which bishops preach and teach is the gospel itself.”141 In these statements, we see in the Concordat more theological than practical accommodations. The Episcopal Church is willing to acknowledge the completeness of Lutheran episcopacy if, as we saw in the last session, the Lutheran church will adopt historical succession. By acknowledging that there is no lack of apostolic succession in the

Lutheran Church because apostolic succession can not be reduced to historical succession, the

Episcopal Church is willing to recognize the full ministry of Lutheran bishops prior to the adoption of the historical episcopate.

Of course, this document was not passed. Its revision, however, makes no noteworthy changes. We see in Called to Common Mission (U.S., 1999) a commitment that the Episcopal Church

“recognizes the ministers ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or its predecessor bodies as fully authentic.”142 It repeats verbatim the pledge, in relation to the ELCA, to

139 Concordat of Agreement 4, 99. 140 Concordat of Agreement 5, 100, c.f. Preface to the Ordinal, Book of Common Prayer, 510. 141 Concordat of Agreement 6, 100. 142 Called to Common Mission 15, 8.

100 suspend the 17th century restriction of the title of bishop to those who have had the laying on of hands by someone in the historical succession.143 Finally, it elevates the gift of “primacy of the

Word” present in the Lutheran Church, pledging that it “seeks to receive the gifts of the Lutheran tradition.”144 In so doing, it acknowledges that the episcopate must always serve the gospel, again repeating verbatim the information contained in the Concordat.

In a succinct fashion similar to the way it addressed the Lutheran accommodations, Called to

Full Communion (Canada, 1998) expresses a commitment on behalf of both churches, but most obviously effecting the Anglican communion, “to welcome persons ordained in either of our churches to the office of bishop, priest/pastor or deacon to serve, by invitation and in accordance with any regulations…without re-ordination.”145

The Porvoo Common Statement (Europe, 1993), spends a great deal of time reflecting on the concept of the apostolicity of the whole church, a broader definition than simply the historic episcopate in the form of ordination through the laying on of hands. “Thus the primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to be found in the apostolic tradition of the Church as a whole. The succession is an expression of the permanence and, therefore, of the continuity of

Christ’s own mission in which the Church participates.”146 It states:

Apostolic tradition in the Church means continuity in the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles: witness to the apostolic faith, proclamation and fresh interpretation of the Gospel, celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and suffering, service to the sick and needy, unity among the local churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each.147

As such, it states that God “raises up men and women, both lay and ordained, to contribute to the nurture of the community. Thus the whole Church, and every member, participates in and

143 Called to Common Mission 16, 8. 144 Called to Common Mission 17, 9. 145 Called to Full Communion, 12. 146 The Porvoo Common Statement 39. 147 The Porvoo Common Statement 36.

101 contributes to the communication of the gospel, by their faithful expression and embodiment of the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles in a given time and place.”148

Highlighting the role of the historic episcopate, it acknowledges, “Within the apostolicity of the whole Church is an apostolic succession of the ministry which serves and is a focus of the continuity of the Church in its life in Christ and its faithfulness to the words and acts of Jesus transmitted by the apostles. The ordained ministry has a particular responsibility for witnessing to this tradition and for proclaiming it afresh with authority in every generation.”149 In more detail:

To nourish the Church, God has given the apostolic ministry, instituted by our Lord and transmitted through the apostles. The chief responsibility of the ordained ministry is to assemble and build up the body of Christ by proclaiming and teaching the Word of God, by celebrating the sacraments and by guiding the life of the community in its worship, its mission and its caring ministry. The setting aside of a person to a lifelong ordained office by prayer, invocation of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of hands reminds the Church that it receives its mission from Christ himself and expresses the Church’s firm intention to live in fidelity to and gratitude for that commission and gift. The different tasks of the one ministry find expression in its structuring. The threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons became the general pattern of ordained ministry in the early Church, though subsequently it underwent considerable change in its practical exercise and is still developing today.150

To acknowledge the role of the historic episcopate while also acknowledging the extent to which the ordained ministry is still developing is very similar to the theology offered in the previously surveyed documents. Also similar is the call to unite in ordination and apostolicity so as to unite the to witness to the gospel:

The diversity of God’s gifts requires their co-ordination so that they enrich the whole Church and its unity. This diversity and the multiplicity of tasks involved in serving it calls for a ministry of co-ordination. This is the ministry of oversight, episcope, a caring for the life of a whole community, a pastoring of the pastors and a true feeding of Christ’s flock, in accordance with Christ’s command across the ages and in unity with Christians in other places. Episcope (oversight) is a requirement of the whole Church and its faithful exercise in the light of the Gospel is of fundamental importance to its life.151

The Porvoo Common Statement highlights that “the ultimate ground of the fidelity of the Church, in continuity with the apostles, is the promise of the Lord and the presence of the Holy Spirit at work in the whole Church. The continuity of the ministry of oversight is to be understood within the

148 The Porvoo Common Statement 38. 149 The Porvoo Common Statement 40. 150 The Porvoo Common Statement 41. 151 The Porvoo Common Statement 42.

102 continuity of the apostolic life and mission of the whole Church. Apostolic succession in the episcopal office is a visible and personal way of focusing the apostolicity of the whole Church.”152

Historic succession is thus but one part of apostolic succession, as “the continuity signified in the consecration of a bishop to episcopal ministry cannot be divorced from the continuity of life and witness of the diocese to which he is called”153 because “the whole Church is a sign of the Kingdom of God; the act of ordination is a sign of God’s faithfulness to his Church, especially in relation to the oversight of its mission. To ordain a bishop in historic succession (that is, in intended continuity from the apostles themselves) is also a sign.”154

To pick up on the interesting concept raised by the Pullach Report, i.e., the question of guaranteeing standing in apostolic succession merely because of the historic episcopate, the Porvoo

Common Statement agrees with the Pullach Report that “the use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession does not by itself guarantee the fidelity of a church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life and mission.”155 Just as Porvoo used the concept of freedom (rather than promise) to adopt historic succession on the part of the Lutheran, likewise it states that “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/presbyterial ordination at the time of the Reformation.”156 Moreover, both churches

should confidently acknowledge one another as churches and enter in to a new relationship; that each church as a whole has maintained an authentic apostolic succession of witness and service; that each church has had transmitted to it an apostolic ministry of word and sacrament by prayer and the laying on of hands; that each church has maintained an orderly succession of episcopal ministry within the continuity of its pastoral life, focused in the consecrations of bishops and in the experience and witness of the historic sees.157

152 The Porvoo Common Statement 46. 153 The Porvoo Common Statement 49. 154 The Porvoo Common Statement 50. 155 The Porvoo Common Statement 51. 156 The Porvoo Common Statement 52. 157 The Porvoo Common Statement 56.

103

As mentioned previously, a successio localis, a succession of bishops in the same place, can be distinguished from a successio personalis, a succession handed on from one bishop to another, which links the entire episcopal college back to the early church. In Denmark, Norway, and Iceland (all ruled together at the time), while the succession of ordinations, the successio personalis, was broken at the Reformation (as is noted later in this dissertation), a succession of bishops in each place, a successio localis, was preserved. “In Denmark, even though the office of bishop was continued by one himself only in presbyterial orders through existing episcope, care has been taken ever since to maintain that episcopate through a personal succession, as is also the case in Norway and

Iceland.”158 There was a Bishop of Trondheim just before the new ordinations occurred and a

Bishop of Trondheim just after, although they were different men and the new bishop was not ordained by a bishop. There was thus a continuity of the diocese, the local church, organized episcopally. For the British Anglicans, they could thus argue that a sort of episcopal succession had continued even in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. Of course, no such argument would work for

Anglican-Lutheran relations anywhere else in the world.

The Niagara Report (international, 1988) states, “It is the whole Christian Church which has been sent on its mission and been given the necessary gifts. God's plan is the unification of all things in Christ; that, and nothing less, is the goal.”159 Further, “Every member of the Church is an integral part of its witness and its mission; and every member has received a gift of the Holy Spirit so that the whole may flourish.”160 As such:

Study of the life of the early Christian communities reflected in the pages of the New Testament should make it unthinkable for us to isolate ordination at the hands of someone in linear succession to the apostles as the sole criterion of faithfulness to the apostolic commission. So many investigations have now confirmed this conclusion that the burden of proof has passed to those who would argue otherwise. Ministries of pastoral leadership, coordination and oversight have continuously been part of the Church's witness to the gospel. Indeed we may say that the mission of the Church required the coherence of its witness in every aspect of its life, and that this coherence required supervision. But the New Testament does not entitle us to assert that such

158 The Porvoo Common Statement, 50. 159 The Niagara Report 15. 160 The Niagara Report 17.

104

supervision was carried out by a uniform structure of government… Thus to speak of 'apostolic succession' is to speak primarily of characteristics of the whole Church; and to recognize a Church as being 'in the apostolic succession' is to use not one criterion of discernment, but many.161

The Niagara Report juxtaposes self-preservation with self-offering in considering how to preserve the apostolicity of the Gospel, observing that

The Church receives its apostolicity, its mission, as the gift of …Christ (who) can confer his mission upon the Church because by raising him from the dead the Father conferred the final yes upon Christ's way of self- offering love. All powers and dominions in this age believe, in the last analysis, that death has the last word. The appropriate expression of such belief is humanity's unrelenting drive for self-preservation. But if the Christ has the last word, then the appropriate expression is rather self-offering, confident in the knowledge that there is more to do with life than preserve it. Those who seek to save their lives will lose them anyway. But those who offer their lives for Christ's sake will find their true selves, will find life itself (Matt. 16.24-26 and parallels).162

It then concludes, “The apostolicity of the Church is the mission of self-offering (not self- preservation) for the life of the world. The Church thus serves the reign of God, not the reign of sin and death. The Church serves the mission of God's suffering and vulnerable love, not a mission of its own devising. The Church serves the mission grounded in and shaped by Christ's way of being in the world.”163 In highlighting that an emphasis on self-preservation through the historic episcopate somewhat negates the Christian call to self-offering, The Niagara Report shifts focus from questions of legitimacy to quest for unity. The Niagara Report points to “the oversight or presiding ministry which constitutes the heart of the episcopal office, and that oversight is never to be viewed apart from the continuity of apostolic faith.” 164 But on the other hand, that “the fact of bishops does not by itself guarantee the continuity of apostolic faith. A material rupture in the succession of presiding ministers does not by itself guarantee a loss of continuity in apostolic faith.” 165 It then paints the separation of Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian communions with appropriate candor: “What

161 The Niagara Report 20 cf. BEM, 35. 162 The Niagara Report 22. 163 The Niagara Report 23. 164 The Niagara Report 54. 165 The Niagara Report 54.

105 evaluation is, then, to be given of a situation in which there is a material rupture in the succession of presiding ministers in the name of preserving the continuity of apostolic faith?”166

The Niagara Report also makes mention of the way in which the Lutheran communion may, after all, stand in historic succession, as “it must be clearly noted that the Reformers believed themselves authorized to act in this manner in an emergency situation, appealing to Jerome's position on the original unity of the office of bishop and presbyter. The authority of a bishop's office is thus present in the pastors. The succession of a presiding ministry is thus preserved, though in an unaccustomed form.”167

As cited in the previous section, it also makes the important observation that “Formal recognition of each other's ministries so that our Churches acknowledge a relationship of full communion between them cannot simply mean that neither Church changes. Nor can it mean that either Church changes merely to meet the expectations and requirements of the other.”168 “Rather

Churches of both communions are being called to acknowledge that the experience and practice of full communion will involve them both and simultaneously in changes and reforms.”169 Anglican

Churches are committing to three changes in current practice: First, they will “make the necessary canonical revisions so that they can acknowledge and recognize the full authenticity of the existing ministries of Lutheran Churches.”170 Second, these major canonical revisions would be accompanied with a promise to establish structures for periodic review to evaluate and improve the bishop’s ministry171 and, finally, a commitment to "regularly invite Lutheran bishops to participate in the laying on of hands at the consecration and installation of Anglican bishops.” 172 Third, it specifies

166 The Niagara Report 54. 167 The Niagara Report 58. 168 The Niagara Report 86. 169 The Niagara Report 87. 170 The Niagara Report 94. 171 The Niagara Report 95. 172 The Niagara Report 96.

106 that this participation is “a symbol for mandatory mutual consultation and real interaction in episcope.”173 The document recommends practical steps for this commitment which includes joint liturgical worship, the avoidance of “any suggestion of reordination,” 174 and a “personal covenant of the Church leaders to collaborate in episcope.”175

We see present in the lengthy work done in the Niagara Report a concern to avoid offending the Lutherans by suggesting the need for reordination mirrored in Called to Full Communion and

Porvoo. The concept of broadening the churches’ understanding of apostolic succession opens new possibilities here, while, as the last section shows, grafting Lutheran ministers onto the succession of historic ordinations quells Anglican concerns about illegitimacy.

Growth in Communion articulates the following Anglican accommodations:

On the Anglican side, the following three features are understood to be crucial: (1) an awareness that the threefold ministry should not be seen as the only theologically possible ministerial form, but rather comes through as the structure which benefits the mission and service of the church in the best way, (2) a realisation that the church's apostolicity can be kept up also in times when some of its signs have been lost; (3) an understanding of the historic episcopate as ‘a sign, though not a guarantee’ without reducing this sign to a mere ‘optional extra’ in the life of the church.176

The Pullach Report (international dialogue, 1972), which did not lead to any official action by the churches, nonetheless provides a helpful addition to the historical summary offered in the beginning of this section. It states, “In the Lutheran Communion episcopacy has been preserved in some parts in unbroken succession, in other parts in succession of office, while in other parts oversight has been exercised in non-episcopal forms. In all forms it has experienced the blessings of the ministry in the church.”177 And, “In the Anglican Communion Episcopacy has been preserved in a succession unbroken at the time of the Reformation and, rightly or wrongly, important deductions

173 The Niagara Report 96. 174 The Niagara Report 115. 175 The Niagara Report 115. 176 Growth in Communion 134. 177 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglica-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue 80, 150.

107 have been drawn from this in relation to the organic continuity and unity of the church. Both communions are open to new forms.”178 The following “Statement of the Anglican participants” further clarified this broadened understanding of apostolicity:

Anglicans treasure the historic episcopate as part of their own history and because of their belief in the incarnational and sacramental character of God's involvement with the world and his involvement with the world and his people. As God acts now in and through words spoken, in and through bread and wine, and in and through the reality of human community, so too he acts in the laying on of hands in historic succession, providing for the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the one church…succession is a gift of God to the church…Anglicans do not believe that the episcopate in historic succession alone constitutes the apostolic succession of the church or its ministry. The participants wish to declare that they see in the Lutheran Communion true proclamation of the Word and celebration of the sacraments. …The Anglican Communion has been much influenced and blessed by God through the Lutheran Communion's faithfulness to the apostolic gospel. We, therefore, gladly recognize in the Lutheran churches a true communion of Christ's body, possessing a truly apostolic ministry…Such recognition, if reciprocated by the Lutheran churches, implies, according to the mind of the participants, official encouragement of intercommunion in forms appropriate to local conditions.179

If, in fact, this broader definition of apostolicity holds , and if apostolicity is not dependent on the historic episcopate, then the Lutheran communion could, in theory, accuse the

Anglican/Episcopal communion of not standing in apostolic succession. Fortunately, this is not an issue, as the Anglican/Episcopal communion does indeed possess that which the Lutheran communion holds essential to stand in apostolic succession: “The Lutheran participants in these conversations recognize the churches of the Anglican Communion as true apostolic churches and their ministry as an apostolic ministry in unbroken succession, because they see in them true proclamation of the gospel and right administration of the sacraments.”180

The supporting essays to the Concordat of Agreement again flesh out the discussions present in the documents proper.

178 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglica-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue 81, 150. 179 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglica-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue 83-86, 150-151. 180 The Pullach Report, Report of the International Anglica-Lutheran Conversations, in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue 90, 152.

108

Countryman, too, turns to the “Historical Development of Lutheran and Episcopal Views and Expressions of Apostolic Succession” to find answers to the apparent impasse regarding succession.

It was thus the apostolic quality of certain individuals—their ability to put one in touch with Jesus himself because of their own favored relationship to him—that also determined the significance and value of the ministry for the earliest Christians. Paul's claims for himself as a genuine, if belated, apostle are a case in point (1 Cor. 15:1-11; 2 Cor. 10-12). Since he could not claim to have been a during the earthly , he needed to stress his being called by the risen Lord. Still, it is the element of personal contact and authorization that puts a foundation under everything else, not only Paul's right to a hearing, but the very right of the local church to exist. The whole life of the Church flows out of the personal link with Jesus formed by the apostles.181

His emphasis on the personal relationship with Jesus being the important aspect of ordination, rather than the institution of the laying on of hands itself, allows him to point out:

What is the relationship of such institutions to the gospel itself? Jesus' own ministry was not marked with a high degree of institutionalization; indeed, some of his most characteristic modes of expression were calculated to undermine rather than reinforce institutions…The answer, I suppose, is that we do it imperfectly, and yet we have to do it. Communities do not survive without institutionalization. The critical question is not whether there will be institutions. There will be. The question is how they will go about pointing to the gospel, which stands as the fountainhead of the life of this continuity.182

In calling our attention to the relationship between the institution of bishop and the church as a whole, Countryman warns us against “mistaking the institution for an end rather than a means. The ministry may be (and often has been) mistaken for the church whose life it serves to articulate.”183

Brauer’s research, too, contributes to the expanding definition of apostolic succession. He states:

Lutherans agreed with both their Catholic and many of their Protestant brethren that the church was indeed one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. However, for Lutherans, "apostolic" was never defined as the direct succession of bishops from Peter down to the present incumbents. Rather, apostolic meant first, participation throughout history in the true teaching of the church as guaranteed by the creeds, and second, the proper confession of faith. At its center is the living, dynamic Word properly preached and the true sacraments properly administered. These elements embody and preserve the continuity of the Christian church. Its form of government can and does vary from epoch to epoch, from country to country. Normally but not always, bishops are a part of that government. While many Lutherans were prepared to argue for bishops strictly in terms of the well-being of the church, they were not ready to argue for the necessity of bishops as constitutive of the life of the church.184

181 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 22-23. 182 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 24. 183 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 25. 184 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays 91-92.

109

The belief in sola scriptura further promoted a suspicion about the necessity of bishops. Lutheran theology reasoned that “the office of bishop was not founded by Christ and so is not an absolute necessity for a true church.”185

What this section demonstrates is the extent to which a broader understanding of apostolic succession played a role in these discussions, especially as it pertains to how and what the

Anglican/Episcopalian side of the conversation might concede in order for the union to flourish.

3.7: Declarations

For a complete listing of official declarations made, see appendix one. This section will summarize the declarations that led to full communion.

Beginning with regional dialogues, The Porvoo Common Statement (Europe, 1993)

“recommend(s) that our churches jointly make the following Declaration.”186 It then outlines a brief statement before enumerating several acknowledgements and commitments on behalf of the Church of Denmark, the Church of England, the Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran Church, the Evangelical-

Lutheran Church of Finland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Iceland, the Church of Ireland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the

Church of Norway, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Sweden, and the Church in

Wales. The acknowledgements include: each church is indeed a church belonging to the one, holy,

Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, emphasizing the apostolicity of each; in each church the

Gospel is authentically preached and sacraments authentically administered; these churches share a confession of apostolic faith; an oversight of episcope is embodied in a variety of forms in all of

185 Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays 92. 186 The Porvoo Common Statement 58.

110 these churches; and the episcopal office is a valuable sign of episcope. The agreements include: to share a common life in mission, service, prayer, and resources; to receive each other’s members in sacramental ministry; to regard baptized members of all churches as belonging to each church; to welcome episcopally ordained ministers in any church (bishops, priests, and deacons) to serve all churches without re-ordination; to invite each other’s bishops “normally” to participate in the laying on of hands at ordinations of each church “as a assign of unity;” and to collaborate on consultations on theological matters.187 For our purposes, the most significant agreement is, naturally, that they will “normally” invite one another’s bishops to participate in the laying on of hands, thus agreeing to restore historical continuity. Careful to emphasize that it is a sign of unity, rather than a necessary step in recognizing the validity of those ordinations, the document successfully tends to both

Episcopalian and Lutheran concerns.

The next regional commitment, chronologically, is Canada. Called to Full Communion (Canada,

1998) presents a “Proposed Joint Declaration” in article 7 on behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran

Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. In a form similar to Porvoo, Called to Full

Communion lists acknowledgements and commitments. Acknowledgements, also like Porvoo, include recognition that: the Gospel is preached authentically in each Church (here quoting and citing

CLAD I188); that each church shares in one apostolic faith; that oversight is embodied in a variety of forms in both churches; that this episcopal office is “valued and maintained” in both churches “as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission, and ministry”189 (here quoting and citing Porvoo). Then,

The Anglican Church of Canada hereby recognizes the authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, acknowledging its pastors as priests in the and its bishops as chief pastors exercising a ministry of episcope over the jurisdictional areas of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada in which they preside. 190

187 The Porvoo Common Statement 58. 188 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 189 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 190 Called to Full Communion 7, 11.

111

And

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada hereby recognizes the full authenticity of the ordained ministries of bishops, priests, and deacons presently existing within the Anglican Church of Canada, acknowledging its priests as pastors in the Church of God and its bishops as chief pastors exercising a ministry of episcope over the jurisdictional areas of the Anglican Church of Canada in which they preside.191

Both churches understand “the bishops of both churches to be ordained … in the pastoral ministry of the historic episcopate.”192 Following the points outlined above, Called to Full Communion articulates a succinct “Declaration of Full Communion,” stating, “We declare the Evangelical

Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada to be in full communion.”193

Regarding “mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministries,” Called to Full Communiom, like

Porvoo, tends to both Episcopalian and Lutheran concerns in emphasizing that, in establishing full communion, “each church would be free to participate in each other's ordinations/installations, not as intending to supply something missing in the other, but as a sign of our common mission and ministry.”194 This is a change from the preliminary phase of agreement prior to the acceptance of

Called to Full Communion, during which time “the ministries are not, strictly speaking,

‘interchangeable’; the clergy function as licensed/rostered clergy of their own church, ‘on loan’ to the other church” 195 as Lutheran pastors may serve Anglican congregations and vice versa, in particular circumstances, and according to specific terms agreed to by both bishops.”196

Called to Common Mission (U.S., 1999), as a revision of earlier documents, amended the more explicit lists offered in the documents not accepted. The documents that did not lead to full communion in the U.S. articulate lists congruent to the official declarations voted on and accepted

191 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 192 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 193 Called to Full Communion 12. 194 Called to Full Communion 17, cf. Declaration C.2. 195 Called to Full Communion 17, cf. Declaration C.2. 196 Called to Full Communion 17, cf. Declaration C.2.

112 by regional churches in Canada and Europe. This section takes up the texts leading to Called to

Common Mission.

The Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue (U.S. 1982), for example, outlines that apostolicity refers to the

Church’s continuity with Christ; that it is a

dynamic, diverse reality organically embracing a variety of elements and activities…includ(ing) continued faithfulness to the apostles' teaching, which teaching found normative expression in Holy Scripture, and under Scripture, in the ecumenical creeds. It involves participation in baptism, in the apostles' prayers and the breaking of bread which continues in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. 197

Moreover, acknowledging that avoidance of thinking “of apostolic succession primarily in terms of historic episcopate” 198 is necessary in order to not succumb to an “exclusive concern with the historic episcopate,” 199 the document attends to Lutheran concerns much as do the previously listed documents. Criticized as “narrow,” 200 this understanding of episcopacy does not attend to

Episcopalian concerns the way the previous two documents do. Thus, this document does not officially declare any unity in the manner some of the other documents do, but declares a starting point for the theological work it then goes on to do. It was a preliminary agreement that did not propose full communion or claim sufficient agreement for full communion.

Then, Toward Full Communion (U.S., 1991) does make a list of “Five substantive agreements” that, though unaccepted, would indicate the work of the General Convention of the Episcopal

Church and the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.201 These proposed agreements are as follows: apostolicity belongs to the reality of the church; both communions should affirm that the Eucharist is authentically celebrated in each Church; mutual recognition of ministries would create conditions for greater service to God; the identity of the

Gospel with the apostles’ Gospel and the church with the apostles’ church reveals the risen Christ,

197 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 32. 198 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 32. 199 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 32. 200 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 32. 201 Concordat of Agreement, 98.

113 which yields the belief that succession of the church is a succession of the Gospel through scripture and sacramental-liturgical tradition as well as the institution and succession of ordained ministers; that this succession must take different forms in different places and times.202 Not included in this list, but mentioned elsewhere is the statement that “both churches agree that a ministry of episkope is necessary to witness to, promote, and safeguard the unity and apostolicity of the church its continuity in doctrine and mission across time and space;”203 “the Episcopal Church hereby endorses the Lutheran affirmation that the historic catholic episcopate under the Word of God must always serve the gospel;”204 and “only bishops shall ordain all clergy.”205 Later in the document, the unaccepted document offers a statement to recognize each other’s ordinations as fully authentic.206

Like the accepted documents, then, we see in these last statements a concern for both the Lutheran and Episcopalian standpoint.

Called to Common Mission (U.S., 1999), the revision to the Concordat that did lead to full communion, “gives thanks for a renewed discovery of the centrality of the ministry of all the baptized in both our churches….Because both our churches affirm this ministry which has already been treated in our previous dialogues, it is not here extensively addressed. Both churches need more adequately to realize the ministry of the baptized through discernment of gifts, education, equipping the for ministry, and seeking and serving Christ in all persons.”207 It

“acknowledge(s) that one another's ordained ministries are and have been given by God to be instruments of God's grace in the service of God's people, and possess not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also Christ's commission through his body, the church.”208 It states agreement that

202 Toward Full Communion, 28-29. 203 Concordat of Agreement, 99. 204 Concordat of Agreement, 100. 205 Concordat of Agreement, 101. 206 Toward Full Communion, 77. 207 Called to Common Mission 6. 208 Called to Common Mission 6.

114

“that the one ordained ministry will be shared between the two churches in a common pattern for the sake of common mission,”209 and, further, elaborates the following regarding the laying on of hands:

“Historic succession” refers to a tradition which goes back to the ancient church, in which bishops already in the succession install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying-on-of-hands. At present The Episcopal Church has bishops in this historic succession, as do all the churches of the Anglican Communion, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at present does not, although some member churches of the Lutheran World Federation do. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888, the ecumenical policy of The Episcopal Church, refers to this tradition as “the historic episcopate.” In the Lutheran Confessions, Article 14 of the Apology refers to this episcopal pattern by the phrase, "the ecclesiastical and canonical polity" which it is “our deep desire to maintain.”210

We see in Called to Common Mission, thus, a commitment on behalf of Lutherans and Anglicans regarding the historic episcopate and each church’s participation in and recognition of it.

The Niagara Report (international, 1988) is much more succinct in its declaration:

The comprehensive doctrinal agreement between Lutherans and Anglicans outlined in Section III indicates a commonly held apostolic faith. In the light of this commonly held apostolic faith, neither tradition can, in good conscience, reject the apostolic nature of the other. In the light of the argument contained in the above sections, the ordained ministry is no longer an issue which need divide our two Churches. In the light of the symbolic position of the bishop as reflecting both the universal and local koinonia, the continued isolation, one from another, of those who exercise this office of episcope in our two Churches is no longer tolerable and must be overcome.211

3.8: Essays on the Concordat of Agreement/Dissenting Report and Porvoo Common

Statement

As a help to ensuring that the contents of the two most important proposals are rightly understood, we here note the contents of two books of essays, each sympathetically examining one of the proposals.

As surveyed in chapter three, the Concordat of Agreement was rejected by the Evangelical

Lutheran Church in America. by just six votes in 1997, but Called to Common Mission, its revision, was accepted just two years later. Ephraim Radner and R.R. Reno edited an extended evaluation of the

209 Called to Common Mission 8. 210 Called to Common Mission 11. 211 The Niagara Report 59.

115

Concordat in their 1995 book, in which they claim to provide “unashamed support for the proposed

Concordat between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church,

USA.”212 They summarize:

The Concordat faces a major theological objection from the Anglican side. Worries concentrate upon the Concordat's proposal that the Episcopal Church immediately recognize the full authenticity of ELCA ordained ministry. This recognition seems to imply that the historic episcopate is not a necessary condition for apostolic ministry, an implication that therefore jettisons the historic episcopate as an Anglican "fundamental."213

They continue,

Bishop S. W. Sykes meets this concern directly in the first essay of the volume. His contribution… shows how a proper understanding of the sign-character of God's activity in history allows Anglicans to recognize that faithfulness to the apostolic calling of the whole church can be preserved by means other than the sign of historic episcopal succession. Thus, is, the historic episcopate may be justly cherished and, in ecumencial agreements, its practice enhanced and expanded — for its sign-character serves the gospel — without turning its presence and use into the decisive "test" of apostolic continuity. 214

Steven Sykes, in his essay, remarks that

The Concordat is, as its conclusion makes clear, a forward-looking proposal, with mission as the dynamic that drives and commends it. Reconciled churches, whether in North America or elsewhere, will of course have many further tasks to carry out together beyond that of achieving full communion between themselves. But a start has been made, and the theological basis of it is, in my view, rich in potential.215

Radner and Reno point out that

Sykes concludes his essay with a theme that echoes throughout the volume and dominates the next three essays. He observes that there is an urgent need to prevent the separation of pnuematology from . The pneumatic trajectory of the gospel in our lives and in the life of the church should not be separated from that particular first-century Palestinian Jew, Jesus of Nazareth. The need to avoid such a separation drives Wolfhart Pannenberg, Michael Root, Bruce Marshall, and R. R. Reno in their discussions of the problem of "conditions" for full communion. All four seek to overcome the worry that the Concordat requires Lutherans to forsake their Reformation insight into the freedom of the gospel.”216

Likewise, David S. Yeago warns that Anglicanism is invested in a “concrete ” that focuses on the particularities of ecclesial and faithful life, whereas Lutheranism has a characteristic

212 Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat, edited by Ephraim Radner and R.R. Reno (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 1. 213 Radner/Reno, 8. 214 Radner/Reno, 1. 215 Steven Sykes, “The Apostolate of Bishop and People as a Sign of the Kingdom of God,” in Radner/Reno, 31. 216 Radner/Reno, 8.

116

"radical Christology. “Both traditions, however, are vulnerable to a debilitating one-sidedness.”217

Yeago states:

I would like to identify the Anglican theological ethos in this aspect as an ethos of concrete pneumatology — an attentive focus on the contingent and particular ways in which the Spirit makes us partakers of the mystery of the church. Anglicans have traditionally been distinctively attuned, I would suggest, to the concreteness of the church, to the fact that we encounter salvation in an actual community whose reality we cannot properly envision apart from a whole complex of social practices, institutions, and even artifacts.218

On the other hand,

The Lutheran theological ethos might therefore best be described as an ethos of radical Christology — a watchful insistence on the newness of Christ. This is what is at stake in the typical Lutheran belief that all Christian discourse must submit to a critical principle, famously articulated as "justification by faith alone.”…Such a critical principle is…a deep conviction that ordinary, unexamined modes of thought and discourse are likely to prove disastrously inadequate to the mystery of Christ219

As such, “Anglicans and Lutherans are betrayed by the limitations of their distinctive traditions into a common theological helplessness.”220 Regarding the Concordat, then,

The Concordat will not, to be sure, solve any of the problems of either church in any obvious or easy way; there is probably something to the cynical view that it will only saddle each church with the problems of the other. But it may well be that in the long run, running the risks of communion holds out the only realistic possibility for the renewal of both churches; it may be that, in the mercy of God, the encounter of our two very different traditions may generate the light by which we may see our way forward.221

Bruce D. Marshall observes that the “Concordat's preoccupation with bishops may lead and clergy of both churches to worry that it makes bishops and ordained ministers generally more important than the gospel, and urges Episcopalians and Lutherans to unite not around the gospel and that mission to the world which the gospel enjoins, but instead around a clerical elite.”222

However, he clarifies that the major question of apostolicity has to be what drives the discussion. He states,

How can Lutherans or Episcopalians be sure that we, or each other, belong to the same community as did the apostles — that is, to the church, the community that receives the gospel from them and believes it with them? Talk of sharing the apostolic faith raises, in a word, the question of the church's apostolicity…The Concordat

217 Radner/Reno, 15-16. 218 David S. Yeago, “Theological Renewal in Communion: What Anglicans and Lutherans Can Learn from One Another,” in Radner/Reno, 209-210. 219 Yeago, in Radner/Reno, 214. 220 Yeago, in Radner/Reno, 217. 221 Yeago, in Radner/Reno, 223. 222 Bruce D. Marshall, “The Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat: What Does It Say; and Why Does It Matter?” in Radner/Reno, 33.

117

and "Toward Full Communion" rightly perceive that the question of the church's apostolicity, in particular the issues of apostolic succession and the historic episcopate, poses the most difficult obstacle to full communion between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church….Its attention to ministry and episcopacy signals not clericalism, but practicality; the Concordat simply tries to scratch where the itch is.223

Marshall aims to “consider two objections that people in the ELCA have raised, and will no doubt continue to raise, to the Concordat.”224 First, he notes that

The Lutheran Confessions famously maintain that the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments are necessary, but also sufficient, conditions for the unity of the church. They further maintain that when traditions and practices which are not necessary for the church's unity (matters which are, to use the terminology of the Formula of Concord, adiaphora) are treated as though they were necessary for it, must refuse accept them or to engage in them. The Concordat makes the historic episcopate necessary for the unity of the church, in the sense that there will be no shared administration and reception of the gospel and its sacraments (pivotally, of the eucharist) with Episcopalians unless Lutherans adopt the episcopate. This adds a necessary condition for church fellowship beyond those which Lutherans are confessionally bound to regard as sufficient. Thus Lutherans are confessionally bound to reject the proposed and with it the proposed fellowship.225

To get around this criticism, Marshall highlights:

Would the full communion between Lutherans and Episcopalians proposed by the Concordat…in fact require, as a condition for its existence, that Lutherans adopt the historic episcopate? To this decisive question the answer is No. The Episcopal Church offers in the Concordat immediate recognition of the present episcopal and pastoral ministry ELCA, and full interchangeability of present ELCA pastors.226

Indeed, “The Concordat and its supporting documents nowhere suggest that Lutherans need, either as a condition for the sequence of full communion with the Episcopal Church, doctrinally or confessionally to regard the historic episcopate that they would be adopting as necessary for the unity of the church. On the contrary, it everywhere supposes that they will not (e.g., TFC, §22).”227

He characterizes the Concordat’s presentation of historical succession “as clearly desirable but not strictly necessary for the unity of the church.”228 Root affirms this observation in his own essay, stating, “Since the churches will be in communion prior to ministries in the ELCA actually being in episcopal succession, ordination in episcopal succession obviously is not itself a condition of

223 Marshall, 34. 224 Marshall, 44. 225 Marshall, 44. 226 Marshall, 45. 227 Marshall, 46. 228 Marshall, 46.

118 communion in the Concordat.”229 We will continue with Root’s elaboration of this point momentarily.

A second criticism Marshall anticipates toward the Concordat is stated thus: “The objection, crudely put, is that we Lutherans cannot enter full communion in the apostolic faith with

Episcopalians because they no longer hold it.”230 This criticism takes up the issue Catholics might have with the agreement. In this statement, Marshall highlights what will be taken up later: as a church of the Protestant Reformation, Catholics would not affirm the Episcopal Church as having the right to claim historical succession. This issue is rightly saved for chapter five.

Summarizing its conclusion, Marshall states that

The historic episcopate does not by itself guarantee the church's apostolic succession, its continuity with the faith and teaching of the apostles…Moreover, apostolic succession can be maintained where episcopal succession is not. As we have seen, the Concordat, together with the wider ecumenical consensus on episcopacy, makes both of these points bluntly.231

Marshall believes the Concordat makes strides toward “the formation of a common ministry…In so doing we will strike a blow for the gospel, one in which all Christians — and perhaps even the world

— can take heart. And that is a good enough reason for the Concordat to matter to us.”232

These concerns mirror the ones voiced in the actual Dissenting Report, written on behalf of

Lutherans on the dialogue commission who had voted against Toward Full Communion and The

Concordat of Agreement. It argues that “Scripture and the Augsburg Confession clearly teach that the

Word of God rightly preached and rightly administered in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s

Supper constitutes the sole and sufficient basis for the true unity of the Christian Church. This unity

Lutherans and Episcopalians already share in Christ.”233 They reject the fact that, in the Concordat,

229 Michael Root, “Conditions of Communion: Bishops, the Concordat, and the Augsburg Confession,” Radner/Reno, 44. 230 Marshall, 49. 231 Marshall, 39. 232 Marshall, 51. 233 The Concordat of Agreement Dissenting Report of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, Series III, 335.

119

“the historic episcopate is made to be a necessity for church fellowship and thus essential to the unity of the Church.”234 They believe that the mandate to participate in joint ordinations, thus grafting them into historic episcopacy through the Anglican succession, “belong to the realm of adiaphora (things often important but never essential to the unity of the church.)” 235 Believing themselves to be standing as “a clear witness to the central insights of the Reformation,” they argue in favor of a Christian ecumenism that “best serves the apostolic mission of the church” which, they believe, is one which “provides for the speaking of God’s Word and the administration of the

Sacraments in a multitude of ways appropriate to a variety of times and places.” 236 Done with an expression of “cherish(ing) the fellowship now existing between the Episcopal Church and the

ELCA,”237 it sympathetically rejects the tenants of the Concordat.

Taking up the Dissenting report, Michael Root's essay

surveys the historical context of the Augsburg Confession. Root shows that the Reformers were willing to accept the jurisdiction of Roman authorities in Germany, provided that jurisdiction did not require a repudiation of the gospel as Lutherans understood it.…This willingness to accept conditions for reunification with the church in Rome, argues Root, stems from the distinction between conditions for unity in Christ and conditions of communion among separated churches. For unity in Christ, the Augsburg Confession is clear: agreement in word and sacrament is sufficient. However, when Luther considered the gospel imperative of visible unity, he was willing to submit to quite rigorous conditions for communion with Rome. For Root, the lesson for modern Lutherans is clear. Lutheran confessional faithfulness is entirely compatible with accepting conditions for communion with other churches.238

Root continues,

It occurred to no one at the time that something like the modern denominational order, friendly tolerance with occasional cooperation, could represent an adequate model of a reconciled Western church. For the sake of communion (among other things), the Lutherans were willing to resubmit to the jurisdiction of the Catholic bishops if such submission did not involve implicit or explicit recantation. They did not demand that the Catholic authorities agree with or adopt the practice and theology laid out in the CA. They asked only for the freedom to continue these reforms in their own lands. 239

234 The Concordat of Agreement Dissenting Report of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, Series III, 335. 235 The Concordat of Agreement Dissenting Report of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, Series III, 335. 236 The Concordat of Agreement Dissenting Report of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, Series III, 335. 237 The Concordat of Agreement Dissenting Report of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, Series III, 335. 238 Radner/Reno, 9. 239 Root, in Radner/Reno, 62-63.

120

Having shown that the Augsburg Confession accepts a wider understanding of conditions for communion, though, he finds that “the dissent's argument that Lutheran principles…require the rejection of the Concordat is thus historically dubious.”240

Shifting to other writings, Root confirm that he rejects the notion that “accepting the

Concordat would involve accepting that something other than word and sacrament is necessary for the unity of the church” which “den(ies) the basic ecclesiology of the Augsburg Confession.”241

Thus, Root states,

The remaining difference seems to me the following: For Anglicans, the office of bishop in succession …has such an importance that they will only enter a relation of full communion with churches which are at least moving toward the common possession of this office. Lutherans, however, even those Lutherans in churches with an episcopacy in succession, do not place such an importance on episcopacy. The Swedish and Finnish Lutheran churches, the other Nordic churches which have adopted the Porvoo Common Statement and thus have adopted a succession of episcopal consecrations as a sign of unity and continuity, the various Asian, African, and Latin American churches with an episcopacy in succession are all in full altar and pulpit fellowship with the non-episcopal Lutheran churches. The Concordat does not eliminate this difference: The Episcopal Church will remain in fellowship only with churches with a commitment to entering episcopal succession; the ELCA will in fellowship with the non-episcopal churches of the LWF and will be in communion with the non- episcopal Reformed churches if it adopts the Formula.242

In fact, because the Concordat is explicit that the two churches will recognize each other’s ordained ministries from the outset without any suggestion of re-ordination, he concludes not only that the

Lutheran rejection of the Concordat is unfounded. Moreover, he states that “any Anglican who really believed that ordination by a bishop in succession is strictly essential to the divinely instituted office of ministry could not consistently accept the Concordat.”243 Thus, he evaluates,

The great merit of the Concordat is that it clarifies the nature of this commitment to episcopacy in the context of ELCA-Episcopal Church relations. The Anglican action called for by the Concordat is plausible only on the basis of some distinction between, on the one hand, what is necessary for true unity and, on the other, true conditions of communion. By accepting the ministry of ELCA clergy ordained outside of episcopal succession, the Episcopal Church would then be implicitly saying that the presence of episcopal succession is not necessary for the "true unity" referred to in CA 7…Nevertheless, the Concordat does not ask the Episcopal Church to abandon its commitment to episcopal succession. Within the terms of the Concordat, the Episcopal Church can continue to hold a commitment to episcopal succession as a condition of communion, but in such a way that need not call into question the Lutheran commitment to what constitutes the true unity of the church.244

240 Root, in Radner/Reno, 67. 241 Root, in Fackre/Root, 95. 242 Root, in Fackre/Root, 95. 243 Root, in Fackre/Root, 96. 244 Root, in Radner/Reno, 67-68.

121

The writing surveyed here highlights the extent to which “care must be taken in any move from the

Augsburg Confession to the Concordat…The ecumenical problems surrounding episcopacy and ordained ministry have become more difficult…The Lutheran estates had not yet begun to ordain their own clergy in significant numbers. Thus, a question that did not need to be discussed at

Augsburg was whether the Catholics would recognize Lutheran ordinations.”245 However more difficult the conversation is now, however, Root criticizes not only the conclusion but also the very logic of the dissenting report. He states,

The majority who endorsed the Concordat did not look upon episcopal succession as an onerous condition imposed by the Anglicans but as something positively desirable, both for the sake of the ELCA and for the sake of the broader cause of reconciliation. The dissent clearly disagrees with this judgment, without saying so explicitly….The logic of the dissent naturally leads to such a result. According to this logic, if another church makes any matter of a condition of communion, then Lutherans must reject such fellowship, whether the matter of church order involved is good, bad, or indifferent. In effect, the dissent makes the nonconditionality of all matters beyond gospel and sacraments narrowly defined itself a condition of communion. To accept the logic of the dissent is to limit Lutheran ecumenical involvement to those churches which agree that church order is arbitrary.246

Thus, “a merit of the Concordat is that it allows Lutherans to maintain their conviction that episcopacy and episcopal succession is not a necessity to fellowship even while moving the ELCA into the stream of episcopal succession. Such a move removes an obstacle to possible fellowship not only with Anglicans, but in the future perhaps with other episcopal churches… The Concordat is a step in the right direction.”247

Reno argues “that the evangelical significance of the Concordat is that it requires new patterns of ecclesiastical governance that call both churches to live more full, tangible, public, and durable demands of the gospel.”248 He states,

I shall argue that the central mandate of the Concordat — the absorption of the Lutheran ordained ministry into the historic episcopate — provides a striking opportunity to consider the worldly form of the gospel. This will involve identifying the conditions that the Concordat establishes for full communion, conditions that are precisely the glory of the gospel. As such, the way is clear to consider the historic episcopate as a fuller expression of Lutheranism's "evangelical" emphasis on the free word of grace in the gospel, and an opportunity

245 Root, in Radner/Reno, 65. 246 Root, in Radner/Reno, 69. 247 Root, in Radner/Reno, 70. 248 Radner/Reno, 11.

122

to give evangelical depth to Anglicanism's "catholic" embrace of episcopal practice. Viewed in this way, the Concordat becomes a renewing challenge to both partners.249

Wolfhart Pannenberg also takes up the Dissenting Report and makes comments on the value of the Concordat. His contribution to the work by Radner and Reno, is that it

turns to the historical question of the relation of the episcopal ministry to other ministries in early Christianity. Amid complexities of development, Pannenberg identified two clear episcopai functions. First, the ministry of bishop developed in order to secure the unity of the church with its apostolic origins. Second, the episcopal presidence at the eucharist signified the unity of the congregation in the faith of the one gospel. In both respects, Pannenberg discerns a development in the ministry of the gospel that is so intimately bound up with the authority and effectiveness of gospel that one can hardly separate the two. The subsequent clarification of both ‘the gospel’ and ‘the historic episcopate’ into separable and hypostasized theological concepts should not, he argues, obscure the de facto link between the episcopal function and the authority of the gospel…As such, Pannenberg rejects the Dissenting Report.250

Pannenberg states that Protestant ministry “corresponds to one of the forms in the development of the early Christian episcopate itself.” 251 Namely, he highlights the development of the office of bishop in early generations of Christians already surveyed in chapter two. In doing so, he notes that

the idea that the apostles formally transferred their authority to successors of their choice seems to idealize a more complicated historical process. The result of these reflections is that the ministry of ‘bishop’ developed after the death of the apostles was responsible for the unity of the church in each place with its apostolic origin.”252

The point of this reflection is to conclude that “ministry can hardly be considered an unnecessary addition to the authority of the gospel itself as the Dissenting Report seems to assume.”253 The point that the historicity of succession is not necessarily correlative to the significance of the role of the historic episcopate in maintaining apostolic succession is well made, here. Thus, although apostolic succession does indeed have a wider definition than simply historic succession, nonetheless, historic succession is a significant component of apostolic succession, and of how the earliest Christians sought to maintain apostolic succession.

249 R. R. Reno, “The Evangelical Significance of the Historic Episcopate,” in Radner/Reno, 77. 250 Radner/Reno, 10. 251 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Gospel and Church: The Proposed Concordat between Lutheran and Episcopal Churches in the USA,” in Radner/Reno, 74. 252 Pannenberg, in Radner/Reno, 74. 253 Pannenberg, in Radner/Reno, 75.

123

Radner paints the significance of the Concordat as having symbolic value as effecting the next stage in a cycle of union, diaspora, and reunion characteristic of the entire Judeo-Christian heritage.

He states.

Reading the Old Testament's history of Israel's division, exile, and reintegrated return as a figure for our destiny in Christ, Radner suggests that the challenges associated with the Concordat are prefigured in the life of Israel as hammer blows that will reshape the church. This involves three elements. The first element is the actual disappearance of denomination. Second, full communion will be a step toward the formation of a postdenominational remnant based upon renewed unity in remembrance of the source of Christian identity. Third, the figure of Israel shows a future of "constricted penitence" for the church. In light of scriptural prophecy, Radner argues, events such as the Concordat, and the full communion that it might make possible, will reveal the foolishness of promoting Anglican and Lutheran "identity," and will, in judgment, drive some (but by no means all or even most) Episcopalians and Lutherans toward a penitent pilgrimage into the figure of Christ prophesied in the fate of Israel and awaiting us in the future of the church.254

Moving, now, to a book of essays focused on Porvoo (Europe, 1993) we begin by pointing out that information contained in the Cold Ash Report raises a concern about parallel jurisdictions.

Anglicans, in particular, voiced that the idea of multiple bishops with the same jurisdiction undermines the unity implied by full communion. Porvoo is thus more pleasing to some in the

Church of England than the regional dialogues because, as an international document, it is speaking about unity among bishops that do not share jurisdictions.

Root and Rusch state, “The Porvoo Common Statement holds up a goal of visible unity that is virtually identical with that proposed in the Concordat of Agreement now before the Episcopal

Church in the USA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”255 They continue,

Like the Concordat of Agreement, the Porvoo statement provides a way for churches committed to the common mission of Christ's people to find a way forward to greater unity with integrity. Both ecumenical proposals offer a way for churches to be in common mission together by entering into a specific type of relationship, described as "full communion" by the Concordat and "fullness of communion" by the Porvoo statement. Each, in ways appropriate to its particular history and context, points toward a resolution of the Anglican-Lutheran dilemma.256

Mary Tanner observes that for Anglicans,

Continuity was understood as multi-faceted: continuity in the faith grounded in the Scriptures; continuity with the Fathers and the Councils of the early Church; continuity in the worship and sacramental life of the Church; continuity in the ministry, ordered in the three fold pattern and continuity in the episcopate and in the collegial

254 Radner/Reno, 13. 255 Michael Root and William Rusch, “Lutheran Reflections on the Porvoo Statement” (Mid-Stream 33 (1994)), 360. 256 Root, Rusch, 362

124

gatherings of the bishops – all of this expressed in the continuing life and witness of the faithful people in the .257

Thus, “the insistence on ordination by bishops, who themselves had been ordained in traditional fashion by other bishops, was a way of testifying that legitimate reception of authority – as distinct from seizure of it – presupposes both continuity in office and orderly transmission of office.”258 She highlights that in recent history,

The way was open for a debate between those who see the ‘historic episcopate’ as belonging to the esse of the Church, and those who see it as a matter of bene esse or plene esse. This is a debate which still rumbles on, though as Bishop John Hind pointed out in a recent lecture, Anglicans have never expressed a common mind about this.”259

Regarding the Porvoo statement, she states,

It is not the Anglican position of apostolic continuity and apostolic succession that we must look for in the Porvoo Common Statement. It is rather a ‘fresh’ twentieth century statement of the faith of the Church, the catholic faith. It is a statement which Anglicans can recognize as consistant with the faith that Anglicans have sought in their history to affirm. It is important to get hold of this distinction because in voting for Porvoo, Anglicans were voting for a greater visibility in Northern Europe of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, living in continuity with the faith of the Church through the ages.260

She states that “the strength of the Porvoo treatment of apostolicity and succession is that, unlike so much Anglican and ecumenical discussions in the past, it treats apostolicity in a holistic way, refusing to wrest the apostolic ministry apart from the apostolic life of the whole people of

God. It begins with a consideration of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church.”261 Related to this holistic treatment of apostolicity, she states,

The two sections [of the Porvoo Common Statement] need to be taken together: one section describes the ministry of bishops. It is followed immediately by a section on the personal, collegial, and communal exercise of oversight. In this way the oversight ministry itself is not seen in isolation but as essentially relational: a bishop’s ministry is exercised in relation to his diocese, in relation to other bishops in collegiality and in relation to the community in synodal gatherings – communal gatherings. This emphasis on the personal, the collegial and the communal, the threefold dimension of episcope, is familiar to Anglican theology and Anglican experience, though like all Christian churches Anglicans struggle with how best to express the personal, collegial and

257 Mary Tanner, “The Anglican Position on Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement” (Louvain Studies 21:2 (1996)), 114. 258 Tanner, 114. 259 Tanner, 117, c.f. J. Hind, “The Porvoo Common Statement: Process and Contents and the Hopes of the Anglican Church,”Leuenberg, Meissen and Porvoo, edited by W. Huffmeier and C.J. Podmore, Leuenberger Texte (Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, 1996), 4. 260 Tanner, 119. 261 Tanner, 119.

125

communal forms of oversight. They hope, through ecumenical dialogue, to be helped to find a creative way of developing these structures of communion.262

This holistic component of Porvoo results in a characteristic freedom evident in the writing of the

Porvoo statement. “While Porvoo refuses to make a negative judgment on the existing ministries of any of the participating churches, it at the same time maintains the requirement of historic episcopal succession as a requirement for the visible unity of the Church.”263 Of course, “the use of the phrase

‘free to embrace’ is not used in the sense of free to decide whether to embrace the sign or not. It is a rather strong use of the word ‘free.’ As the text itself says, these churches should embrace the sign.

The agreement liberates them and they can do no other.”264

In short, for Tanner, “the historic episcopal succession is not for Porvoo an optional extra – but neither is it a guarantee of the fidelity of a church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life, and mission.”265 The laying on of hands “signifies the Church’s intention to be faithful to its apostolic calling. It gives assurance to the faithful that the Church today intends both to do and to be what it has always intended to do and to be. The laying on of hands by bishops in succession is a sign – an effective sign – of that intention.”266

Ola Tjorhom observes that Porvoo doesn’t use the term full communion, but he warns that the goal is indeed still communion; “I find adjectival grading counterproductive here. For there is no such thing as ‘half full communion; there is only ‘communion’ and ‘non communion.’”267 He lists ways that the Porvoo statement challenges the Nordic Lutheran Churches. First, it provides the challenge to “value the crucial significance of continuity – or historic continuity – in the life of our churches. This quest should not be seen as an expression of nostalgic escapism, but rather as a plea

262 Tanner, 121. 263 Tanner, 124. 264 Tanner, 124. 265 Tanner, 122. 266 Tanner, 122. 267 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,”136.

126 for strengthening every conceivable link with the Church’s apostolic foundation, directing us towards Christ as the living corner-stone.”268 Second, it provides the opportunity “to avoid the tendency to theologize measures that the Reformers launched as contextually governed emergency solutions,”269 namely, departing from a “purely pragmatic approach to ecclesiology.”270 Third, it offers an opportunity to consider the difference between res and signum, and to reconsider their commitment to apostolicity through distinct signs, symbols, and expressions.271 Fourth, it is an opportunity to consider the significance of the ordained ministry in general and the episcopal office in particular “as vital signs of apostolic continuity also directs us towards an openness to consider a reevaluation of the concept of the Church’s ministry as a ‘representation of Christ.’”272 Fifth and finally, it causes one to paule and ponder whether apostolicity should be expressed “through as many signs of apostolic continuity as possible.”273 Without undermining the extent to which apostolicity can not be reduced to historic succession, then, he finds Porvoo rich with promise as one of many signs.

To this end, Heinrich Holze offers a Lutheran perspective on Porvoo. He describes the church as characterized by four aspects: the Trinitarian dimension, the sacramental dimension, the apostolic dimension, and the eschatological dimension.274 Regarding the apostolic dimension,

“Particular emphasis is given to the concept of continuity…. PCS also suggests that the church represents a continuous history and that this can be recognized in distinctive features that have not changed substantially throughout history.275

268 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,”134. 269 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,”134. 270 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,”134. 271 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,”135. 272 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 135. 273 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 135. 274 H. Holze, “The Ecclesiology of the Porvoo Common Statement — A Lutheran Perspective,” (Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement, Edited by Ola Tjorhom, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 99. 275 Holze, 103.

127

In summary, one can say that the basic assumptions of the Porvoo ecclesiology are convergent with Lutheran theology. The Trinitarian dimension corresponds with the insistence that the church is a creature of the gospel of the Triune God who creates, reconciles, and renews the world. The sacramental dimension stresses that word and sacrament are the distinctive features of church. The apostolic dimension ex- presses the existence of the church across time and space. Finally, the eschatological dimension emphasizes that the church — as a sign of God's purpose with the whole creation — points beyond itself. As I see it, however, questions remain regarding PCS's interpretation of the apostolic dimension of the church, especially in view of the doctrine of the ministry, the episcopate, and the historic succession. For Luther, the witness of history is only important to the extent that it is in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the criterion for the , but also for the persons and institutions of the Early Church. Luther therefore acknowledges the Apostolic Creed as a short summary of the .276

Thus, his evaluation of the Porvoo statement is that it is in line with Lutheran theology as well.

“Obviously, this indicates that the existing consensus on apostolicity and ministry is much broader than the dissent”277

Finally, Kristen Busch Nielsen highlights the degree to which the Porvoo statement neither conflates nor entirely separates the concepts of historic succession and apostolic succession. With a clever play on the theology articulated at Chalcedon (“without confusion, without separation,” referring to the two natures in Christ), she offers the following thoughts:

Since no one individual Nicene ecclesial predicate can be insulated from the others, inasmuch as they must be viewed d as forming an integrated whole, apostolicity applies to the church as one, holy, and catholic, and so b to the church as such. That does not mean that apostolicity, both qua theological determination and qua commitment, cannot be distinctively bound up with certain sectors of the church; but that it does not make apostolicity a partial matter. That the meaning of the root apost has to do with "mission" entails that apostolicity involves not only backward-looking credentials but also a forward-looking commitment to mission.278

Arguing that “apostolicity and succession, then, neither can nor should be separated,”279 she highlights:

The difference between apostolicity and succession resides in the fact that whereas apostolicity is fulfilled in that kairos in which Christ with his Spirit is present in, and for, the church here and now, in that the church in its hidden aspect becomes visible for faith, that other fulfillment is God's work alone — and as such is without "preconditions." Apostolicity in this latter sense interrupts succession.280

276 Holze, 109-110. 277 Holze, 113. 278 Kristen Busch Nielsen, “Apostolicity and Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement: Without Confusion, Without Separation” (Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement, Edited by Ola Tjorhom, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 183. 279 Nielsen, 186. 280 Nielsen, 197.

128

What we see in the evaluation of both the Concordat and Porvoo statements, then, is a large degree of approval from both Lutheran and Anglican theologians. They single out particular strengths and weaknesses, some more significant of which we will take up now. We will open the discussion, at this point, to all of the documents rather than merely the two about which there is the most commentary.

Having explored secondary literature on the two documents about which there seems to be the most secondary literature, let us evaluate the primary documents thematically. The following sections offer the author’s own evaluative comments as well as evaluations present in secondary literature.

Chapter 4: Evaluation and Reception of Primary Documents

Before we can test the fruits of these dialogues for their applicability to the Catholic Church in her ecumenical dialogues with these or other churches, they must first be evaluated in their own right. What sorts of issues do they solve? How effective are they in achieving their goals? How have they been received? What issues still remain in Anglicanism and Lutheranism? Only after evaluating the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues discussed in chapter three in this way can we then, in chapter five, test their efficacy for Catholicism. Therefore, this chapter evaluates the theology and method of the documents present in chapter three. It aims to evaluate the reception of the documents as well as understand the theological criticism and acclaim attributed to them.

4.1: Unity Within Diversity

One theme we have already seen present in the documents evaluating the Concordat and

Porvoo is the theme of unity within diversity. Recall that the goal of the primary documents is nothing short of full communion, which is neither merger of two distinct churches nor a superficial relationship without substantive unity. Rather, full communion is a

relationship between two distinct churches or communions in which each maintains its own autonomy while recognizing the catholicity and apostolicity of the other, and believing the other to hold the essentials of the Christian faith. In such a relationship, communicant members of each church would be able freely to communicate at the altar of the other, and there would be freedom of ordained ministers to officiate sacramentally in either church.1

The documents speak of a “legitimate diversity,” 2 highlighting the reality that “the Holy Spirit bestows on the community diverse and complementary gifts.”3 Inasmuch as “diversity does not lead to division where it is a necessary feature of the Church’s catholicity,” 4 unity is possible even where uniformity is not.

1 Called to Full Communion 7, 9. 2 Growth in Communion 145. 3 The Porvoo Common Statement 19. 4 Growth in Communion 155.

129

130

This topic truly represents not merely a summary of one particular theme but a summary of the entire goal of the project summarized in these documents. Thus, here is not merely an evaluation of this theme, but an evaluation of the overall project. It is the opinion of this author that continuing to understand the separate identities of the Lutheran and Anglican churches while also achieving visible unity, as per the primary documents, seems to be the correct goal at this juncture for several reasons.

First, it is attainable. If the primary documents demonstrated one thing, it is the difficulty with which the Lutherans and Anglicans achieved unity on the subject of episcopacy even insofar as their result was to accept a unity within diversity. To demand uniformity, in addition to unity, seems altogether impossible. Second, it values the theological achievements of each partner Church.

Neither Anglicans nor Lutherans (and, indeed, a variety of other Christians) would likely see the value in simply eliminating one or both churches in favor of a new church, or of subsuming one into the other. Each church embodies a unique historical and theological contribution to Christianity, and it would be to devalue the whole if one denomination were to be deleted under the guise of unity. Third, it is effective. Recall from chapter one that Rahner and Fries name secularism, atheism and religious pluralism of our current age as an indication of the necessity of the restoration of unity among churches. Our current age cries out for the saving power of Christian truth, but the fraction of Christianity into various opposing denominations undermines its credibility and efficacy. They rightly observe that a broken church is hard to sell. Moreover, this disunity is an internal flaw; “the unity of the Church is the commandment of the Lord, who will demand from the leaders of the churches an accounting as to whether or not they have really done everything possible in this matter.”5 Can we rightly claim to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,” if we are many, local churches? For these reasons, the consolidation of all denominations is a “matter of life or death for

5 Rahner/Fries, 1.

131

Christendom.”6 Thus, the visible unity achieved in the primary documents surveyed in chapter three is effective in achieving this goal; it is a step toward meaningful unity, which is more meaningful than a shallow unity which glosses over meaningful disagreements.

More comprehensive studies, such as Lorelei Fuchs’ extensive work on ecclesiology, affirm the concept of “unity within reconciled diversity,” stating that “in unity in reconciled diversity, differences remaining between churches are no longer conceived as church-dividing. As long as they are within the acceptable limits of diversity, they are vehicles of unity by their very nature to express the richness of confessional traditions.”7 What has been achieved in the Anglican-Lutheran discussions pertinent to this study is such a unity in reconciled diversity; communions are not subsumed into one denomination, but neither are they divided. Fuchs’ works seems to characterize these discussions as a “via media,” 8 then, between the starting point of complete disagreement and a potential goal of full unity.

Fuchs talks about the concept of “organic union,” in which she “envisions a church so united that the well-being of the whole takes precedence over the good of any single part….This calls for the end of confessional identities and their replacement by a new ecclesial entity produced by their merger. Historically, at its extreme, such union has yet to take place.”9 However, this is not to say that the work done in these Anglican-Lutheran conversations has not moved beyond a very basic form of cooperation to something more substantial. She states elsewhere, “As a via media between basic cooperation and organic union… other forms and structures of intrachurch and interchurch relations have emerged.” 10

6 Rahner/Fries, 1. 7 Fuchs, 65. 8 Fuchs, 60. 9 Fuchs, 58. 10 Fuchs, 60.

132

Where the early part of Fuchs’ work seems to suggest that the work achieved by the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues represent only a medium achievement toward full unity, suggesting that only conflation into one visible denomination is the goal, elsewhere she states:

Confessionality is here to stay. By this we mean two things. First, the particularity of different confessional traditions configures in the unity of the churches. Second, when we speak of the visible unity of the church recognised, experienced and realised in the fullest manifestation of koinonia in common credal faith, common sacramental life and common mission and witness, we are not necessarily talking about either the elimination of existing churches or the absorption of one into another or the assimilation of present churches into a new church.”11

Indeed, the model of having various different communions “assumes the lasting characteristic of confessional identity and values confessional distinction as contributive to church unity. At the same time there is a check on the relationship between the many church communions and the one communion of Jesus Christ.”12 It is in this vein that Fuchs speaks of “legitimate diversity”:

Diversity is good only when it serves ecclesial communion. This is legitimate diversity, marked by acceptable limits. Legitimate diversity is legitimate in so far as it deepens faith, nourishes life and inspires witness. Diversity which breaks communion and causes division is bad. This is illegitimate diversity, stamped with extremes of either excessive open-ended variety or retrenching self-likeness. Illegitimate diversity is illegitimate in so far as it diminishes faith, alienates life, thwarts witness13

Regarding Lutherans and Anglicans, she indicates the extent to which their relationship characterizes a “legitimate diversity” within reconciled diversity. She mentions, “From the Lutherans we have received the notion of adiaphora; Anglicans, the idea of comprehensiveness….we can view these confessional attributes as distinct but interrelated….Confessionality becomes a gift within the church of churches, not a particularity of the one which must be given up for the many.”14

Affirming the value of the concept of unity within diversity, Garijo-Guembe mentions that the agreement reached in these conversations “no implica uniformidad litúrgica ni idénticos usos eclesiásticos, pero debe ser vista como desarrollo legítimo de la fe una de la Iglesia antigua e

11 Fuchs, 333. 12 Fuchs, 67. 13 Fuchs, 333. 14 Fuchs, 289-290.

133 indivisa.”15 Likewise, Michael Root observes that “the consensus we seek in ecumenical dialogues must not be a consensus on every theological detail. We are seeking only that consensus needed for a common life to which we are called.16

If this section evaluates not merely the concept of unity within diversity, but the extent to which this concept has served as the crux of the entire solution offered in the primary documents, then what must be praised above all is the creativity and humility inherent in such a solution. Recall this creative acknowledgement that participants simply must do better:

The frustrating character of the historic disagreement between Anglicans and Lutherans –its sheer folly – can be formulated thus. Anglicans say to Lutherans, “If you have no objection in principle to episcopal government, then your refusal to adopt it can only be obstinacy.” Lutherans say to Anglicans, “Of course we can adopt it, provided you Anglicans say it is not necessary for us to do so.” To which Anglicans reply, “We haven’t got any official theology which says that it, the episcopate, is of the essence of the Church, but we couldn’t possibly say, dogmatically, that it wasn’t.” This conversation is not merely frustrating, it is dumb. And our parent bodies ought to demand their money back from us in this consultation if we cannot show a way out of this ludicrous impasse.17

Indeed, the documents are to be praised not only for their sophisticated treatment of a nuanced issue, but for so clearly stating the issue and resisting the temptation to treat it with superficial or hasty theology. We see the concise summary of what had been perceived to be the problem,

“Anglicans are convinced that catholicity is being compromised. Lutherans are convinced that

‘evangelicity’ (the gospel) is being compromised.”18 To highlight the ways in which the concept of a

“legitimate” diversity has a place within unity of faith is theologically nuanced and evident of

Christian koinonia.

15 Garijo-Guembe, 68. (does not mean uniformity or identical liturgical ecclesiastical practices, but should be seen as legitimate development of the faith of the ancient and undivided Church) 16 Root, in Fackre/Root, 82. 17 Sykes, Papers of the Consultation: Background for the Niagara Report, 12. 18 Toward Full Communion, 20.

134

4.2: A Broader Definition of Apostolic Succession than Historic Succession

Perhaps the most prevalent way we see the primary documents achieving unity within diversity is making room for what we are calling a “broad” or “wider” understanding of apostolic succession than merely historic episcopal succession. For example, we recall that the Porvoo Common

Statement spends a great deal of time reflecting on the concept of the apostolicity of the whole church, a broader definition than simply the historic episcopate in the form of ordination through the laying on of hands. “Thus the primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to be found in the apostolic tradition of the Church as a whole. The succession is an expression of the permanence and, therefore, of the continuity of Christ’s own mission in which the Church participates.”19 The

Porvoo Common Statement agrees with the Pullach Report that

the use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession does not by itself guarantee the fidelity of a church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life and mission. There have been schisms in the history of churches using the sign of historic succession. Nor does the sign guarantee the personal faithfulness of the bishop. Nonetheless, the retention of the sign remains a permanent challenge to fidelity and to unity, a summons to witness to, and a commission to realise more fully, the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles.20

And yet, “the continuity signified in the consecration of a bishop to episcopal ministry cannot be divorced from the continuity of life and witness of the diocese to which he is called”21 because

the whole Church is a sign of the Kingdom of God; the act of ordination is a sign of God’s faithfulness to his Church, especially in relation to the oversight of its mission. To ordain a bishop in historic succession (that is, in intended continuity from the apostles themselves) is also a sign. In so doing the Church communicates its care for continuity in the whole of its life and mission, and reinforces its determination to manifest the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles.22

We see that the primary documents here indicate that historic succession is an important sign but not a sure and certain sign of apostolic succession. The Niagara Report also states, “It is the whole

Christian Church which has been sent on its mission and been given the necessary gifts. God's plan

19 The Porvoo Common Statement 39. 20 The Porvoo Common Statement 51. 21 The Porvoo Common Statement 49. 22 The Porvoo Common Statement 50.

135 is the unification of all things in Christ; that, and nothing less, is the goal.”23 It concludes, “The apostolicity of the Church is the mission of self-offering (not self-preservation) for the life of the world. The Church thus serves the reign of God, not the reign of sin and death. The Church serves the mission of God's suffering and vulnerable love, not a mission of its own devising. The Church serves the mission grounded in and shaped by Christ's way of being in the world.”24

This broad understanding of the concept of apostolic succession is rich in potential to overcome the ostensible impasse on the topic of historic succession. By highlighting the degree to which historic succession is important while acknowledging the degree to which it is not sufficient to ensure apostolic succession, this treatment of the topic is satisfactory to both Anglicans and

Lutherans. Lutherans are no doubt assuaged by the documents’ emphasis on a more holistic apostolic inheritance while Anglicans are satisfied by due attention to its significance. It is this kind of creative thinking that has surely enabled these two denominations to proceed in charity and love; indeed, it is no doubt charity of mind that allows this type of work to be treated with such nuance.

As indicated in the front matter of this dissertation, Harding Meyer is “convinced that…a generally valid solution of the problem of episcopacy can only be found in this direction, i.e., in the direction of a new common sharing in the ecclesial reality of the episcopal office notwithsatanding a partial, though clearly perceptible difference in the valuation of this office and in its exercise.”25 As already mentioned, Mary Tanner claims that “the strength of the Porvoo treatment of apostolicity and succession is that, unlike so much Anglican and ecumenical discussion in the past, it treats apostolicity in a holistic way, refusing to wrest the apostolic ministry apart from the apostolic life of the whole people of God. It begins with a consideration of the apostolicity of the life of the whole

23 The Niagara Report 15. 24 The Niagara Report 23. 25 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 181-182.

136

Church.”26 Likewise, “The Porvoo Common Statement accepts this broader vision of apostolicity, as does each of the conferences presented during the Centro Pro Unione Symposium.”27 This symposium deserves our attention here.

Reporting on the November 23-24, 1995 symposium at the Centro Pro Unione in Rome on the “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession,” William Henn’s writing aims to comment on the “importance of the symposium, principal areas of convergence, and specific issues that would lead to greater convergence.”28 Henn states,

The Centro Pro Unione symposium has been a valuable contribution to this discussion, focusing on the ecclesiological theme of apostolic 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 Ireland, the papers of the symposium have also given quite precise attention to the topic of episcopacy. 29

Specifically regarding what we are calling a “wider definition” of apostolic succession than merely historic succession, Henn comments,

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. This has tended to place the question in a much broader context, the ultimate fruits of which may not have come to light.30

Indeed, this theme was

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 mans 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.’31

He references Mary Tanner, mentioned above, insofar as

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 includes elements of continuity such as

26 Tanner, 119. 27 Henn, 185. 28 Henn, 183. 29 Henn, 183-184. 30 Henn, 185. 31 Henn, 186.

137

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 favtors which go into its continuity, would not be considered to be ‘apostolic’ in the normal or full meaning of the word.”32

Moving to comments that reach beyond the symposium, John Hind, in “Sign but Not

Guarantee,” affirms what has been said about the promise of understanding apostolic succession in a wider sense than merely historic succession; in short, all of the theologians surveyed in this section seem to affirm the theological commitment in the primary documents in chapter three to the belief that historic succession is indeed a sign – a very powerful sign – but not a guarantee of an overall wider existence of apostolic succession. He believes “that the expression "sign but not guarantee" may be ecumenically useful provided the word “sign” is understood strongly (“efficacious sign'”) and "not guarantee" is taken as an indication that none of the several "signs" of the church's apostolicity can stand alone and apart from the others.”33 To reach this conclusion, he acknowledges that the question of apostolic succession is “not an abstract question. Christian believers need to be confident that what they learn in the church is authentic and has the authority of Christ himself.”34

To this point, Sykes mentions Bruce Marshall’s comments on

the apostolicity of the church, which takes concrete and controversial form with respect to the historical episcopate. Since the historic episcopate is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for apostolic church life, Marshall reads the Concordat as proposing a course of action which treats the historic episcopate as an effective and fitting sign of the apostolicity of the church … (and of) Lutheranism's enduring commitment to the apostolic unity of the church, and is entirely in accord with Lutheran confessional documents.35

Ola Tjorhom’s reading of the Porvoo statement affirms the value of this wider understanding as well. He remarks that

Porvoo does not maintain that the sjgn of historic succession in the episcopal office must be understood as "necessary" in the sense that churches that have lost this sign of continuity are seen as invalid or substantially deficient. Similarly, the text makes it clear that apostolicity is attached to and expressed by a multitude of signs. Yet, this definitely does not mean that the historic episcopate in apostolic succession can be considered as a

32 Henn, 189. 33 John Hind, “Sign but Not Guarantee: Reflections on the Place of the Historic Succession of Bishops Within the Apostolic Continuity of the Church in Some Current Ecumenical Texts,” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement, Edited by Ola Tjorhom (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 161. 34 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 147. 35 Sykes, Papers of the Consultation, 32.

138

mere "optional extra" in the church's life or something we are at liberty to pick and choose as it suits us. Here I would like to quote PCS §52, a key paragraph: On the one hand, "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 at the time of the Reformation." On the other hand, "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.” This effort to identify an intermediate position may not make total sense logically, but in my opinion it makes much sense theologically. And its key point is the conviction signs of apostolicity should not be perceived as juridical requirements or commands, but rather as God's rich gifts to his church in Christ through the Holy Spirit — gifts that none of us can afford to reject and that we share with each other in communion. Thus, Porvoo receives BEM's position while at the same time moving beyond its "negative" affirmation that succession is "not a guarantee."36

This paragraph is fitting in this section, rather than the section on the Porvoo statement, because of its relevance to the topic at hand: the wider definition of apostolic succession than merely historical succession. To this end, he states, “The three central terms in this connection are "apostolicity,"

"apostolic suecession" or successio apostolica, and "the historic episcopate" in apostolic succession. On the one hand, these terms cannot be seen as identical.”37 He articulates,

Apostolicity” is continued and becomes manifest in the lives of the churches through “apostolic succession.” And this succession is expressed through a number of signs, among which “the historic episcopate” plays a crucial role. Accordingly, "apostolicity" and the “historic episcopate” can also not be torn completely apart from each other. 38

Because of this, “apostolicity is not simply a ‘pipeline’ to the past, but must primarily be perceived as an expression of living continuity with Jesus Christ through the ministry of his apostles.”39 As such,

“apostolicity cannot be confined to certain sectors, but must be manifested in the church in its totality” such that apostolic succession cannot “be restricted to the ordained ministries of the church, but must be tied to and reflected through the life and mission of the whole people of

God.”40 Hhe continues, “Within this broader approach to apostolicity there is a need for specific expressions and signs that will help us to avoid a vague and abstract perception of the apostolic

36 Ola Thorjom, “Apostolicity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement — Necessary or a Mere "Optional Extra" in the Church's Life?,” 179. 37 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 163. 38 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 163-164. 39 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 164. 40 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 165.

139 nature of the church. Such signs are essential in manifesting and visualizing apostolicity — at the same time serving as specific markers of its fundamental significance.”41 He believes that there is a

“rich multitude of feasible apostolic signs” available to the Christian churches, one of which is indeed the “ordained ministries in general and the episcopal office in particular,” which “are of fundamental significance.”42 Since “to be an apostle means to be sent by Christ,”43 the church should take ample care to make “it perfectly clear that mission forms an essential part of its apostolic nature.”44 To summarize the significance of his work, he comments that

On the Anglican side, there are examples that the sign of historic continuity in the episcopal office has been overemphasized in a rather isolated manner — pointing in the direction of a mechanical so-called ‘pipeline’ theory… And among Lutherans, this special sign of apostolicity has often, at best, played a marginal role — at worst, no role whatsoever. This has, in some cases, led to a disregard of all signs or visible manifestations of apostolicity and apostolic continuity — turning this crucial mark of the church into a largely abstract theory.45

As such, “Porvoo aims at locating an intermediate position between two extremes.” 46

To summarize the significance of this wider definition of apostolic succession, then, Meyer states,

The link between both apostolic continuity and the ministry is, indeed, evident. It is also true for every church which claims to be a church of the Reformation: to ordain somebody to the ministry always means to entrust this person with a special task to preserve the apostolicity of the church and it means, at the same time, that in and by the liturgical act of ordination the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised and given for carrying out this task.47

4.3: Resulting Ecclesiological Considerations

What sorts of ecclesiological considerations emerge from this discussion? In some of the secondary literature, we see a focus on how the currently divided Chuches might in practice come together in a unified ecclesiological understanding of the role of the episcopate. Many suggest that

41 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 165. 42 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 166. 43 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 167. 44 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 167. 45 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 169. 46 Tjorhom, Apostolicity and Unity, 172. 47 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 173.

140 the two churches, despite obvious commitment to a unity within diversity, argue for a clearly articulated ecclesiological policy regarding the episcopate. For example, Rutowicz states,

Episcopal polity is not the only option that is open to Lutherans, but I would suggest that it is the best option. It is an important component in the well-being {bene esse) of the Church…Lutherans clearly teach that there is only one office in the Church, the office of the ministry. There are not two or three different divinely established offices in the New Testament Church…ranking of clergy (deacons/presbyters/bishops) is simply by human arrangement.48

Ola Tjorhom says, “Apostolicity is a fundamental mark as well as a necessary requirement of the

Church,”49 although it “may be perceived as a dynamic, living bond between Christ and His

Church.”50 He continues,

Even if I – in the light of the history of my own church – feel most comfortable with characterizing this factor as something which is vital to the Church in the sense that it belongs to its bene or plene esse, I do not regard the so-called historic succession merely as a kind of optional extra. This simply depends on my conviction that no particular church can afford to neglect any bond to the apostolic foundation that is essential to the Church at every time and in every place.”51

Perhaps finding deemphasizing the diversity in these documents and focusing instead on the unity,

Tjorhom says that the place for apostolic succession within Christian Churches must ultimately unify, rather than divide, Churches. Making this point, he states:

Within this communion it is not necessarily required that every church possess all apostolic signs. In my opinion, the tendency to approach these signs as if they belong to the ‘private property’ of the denominational churches has been highly destructive in our debates on this issue. Quite the contrary, apostolicity is manifested through sharing. Moreover it provides an openness towards every conceivable sign that will help us to keep the apostolic legacy alive in our churches. And we should of course note that apostolicity first and foremost must be seen as a powerful bond of unity and not as a dividing issue”52

George Tavard states,

Lutherans and Anglicans are not separated by dogmas but, rather, by their distinct origins in the sixteenth century, by their religious ethos, by custom, and to some extent by mutual suspicion. From the Lutheran side, there is the suspicion that the traditional Anglican insistence on the threefold ministry and the historic episcopate in apostolic succession (whether of the esse or the bene esse of the church) undermines the freedom and the power of the gospel. On the Anglican side, there is the suspicion that the Lutheran stance by the Confessional Books tends to restore a legalistic approach to doctrines, against which the Reformation originally reacted. On the one side, the gospel is primarily embodied in liturgical praise and doxology. On the other, it is embodied in doctrinal formulations that are no less normative for not being formally dogmatized. 53

48 Rutowicz, 7. 49 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 127. 50 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 128. 51 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 129. 52 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 129. 53 Tavard, George H., “Review of the Niagara Report,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26 (1990), 569.

141

This summary statement of the ecclesiological role of the historic episcopate flows from our discussions of diversity and of a wider understanding of apostolic succession than simply historic succession. If our conclusion from the first topic was that the primary documents argue in favor of a legitimate diversity and our conclusion from the second topic was that they argue in favor of a wider understanding of apostolic succession than merely historic succession, this topic regards the role of the historic episcopate, then, in the wider understanding of what it is to be the Christian Church.

Regardless of the role diverse churches have in defining the historic episcopate as a meaningful sign

(though not guarantee) of apostolic succession, Tavard is keen to point out that “Lutherans and

Anglicans are equally concerned about the gospel,”54 and, we might add, the extent to which the

Church embodies that which is truly the gospel. Thus, apostolic succession refers to the succession of Christ’s whole life and ministry and truth; in short, the gospel. Signs such as historic succession are strong symbols of the apostolicity of the gospel in the diverse expressions it takes in the churches. Elsewhere, he reaffirms that “the reconciliation of ordained ministries is an ecumenical problem of major importance, which cannot be solved apart from ecclesiological considerations.”55

He states,

These liturgical reconciliations and others similar to them make certain assumptions of an ecclesiological nature. I note two such assumptions. First, it is assumed that, at least in the process of reconciliation with others, one church or denomination has the right and the capacity to recognize the ministry of the other ones as having been a true ministry of Word and Sacraments. …. Second, this very same assumption that, whatever the qualifying circumstances, one church has the right and the capacity to recognize the ministry of another as having been a true ministry of Word and Sacraments implies its opposite, namely the right and the capacity to judge the ministry of another church as not having been a true ministry of Word and Sacraments.56

As a result, Tavard says that divided Christen denominations need to have a common ecclesiology, or understanding of the role of the historic episcopate in the Church. “In other words, only if we

54 Tavard, “Review of the Niagara Report,” 569. 55 Tavard, George H., “The Reconciliation of Ministries,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18:2 (1981), 267. 56 Tavard, The “Reconciliation of Ministries,” 269.

142 have a common ecclesiology can we have a common system of ministry.”57 By “system of ministry,” he articulates:

A system of ministry is the translation of an ecclesiology in ministerial terms. It is the way in which a church structure elicits a structure of ministry. From this angle, it would seem that unification of ministries should not be conceived of as reconciliation. Reconciliation implies previous estrangement. There is, of course, a historical sense in which Catholic and Protestant systems of ministry were estranged during the sixteenth century. But theological estrangement is made of more than divergences in conceptions of ministry, in rites of ordination, in views of the sacramentality or non-sacramentality of Orders, or in the social status and ethical disciplines assigned to ministers or priests. Between Catholics and Protestants, the estrangement was in ecclesiology, the relations between the invisible and the visible aspects of the Christian community being conceived differently, and at times in opposition, by the followers of the Reformers and by the theologians of the Counter- Reformation. Between the churches which issued from the Reformation which have attempted or are attempting to join together in a United Church or a Church Uniting, the lay of the land is rather different. For if one can detect differences in the practice of the ministry among them, it is more difficult to discover fundamental estrangements or basic divergences in ecclesiology. Even Anglicans, whose view of the church is at times and in some quarters indistinguishable from a Roman Catholic one, are not, I believe, committed to any specific ecclesiology58

As such, he proposes “models of reconciliation” in which currently separated denominations would achieve a unified ecclesiology. Tavard does not think any specific event featuring a new laying on of hands should play a role in the reconciliation of the churches. This is because, he explains,

I would myself prefer to remove any possibility of such a ceremony's being interpreted as reordination. I would therefore like to be more radical and do away with any kind of laying on of hands. I realize of course that this raises problems concerning ordination by bishops and its necessity in the Roman Catholic tradition. In the spectrum of Catholic sacramental theology, however, I share the view of those who understand the difference between bishops and presbyters as a difference of jurisdiction and not of Orders.”59

Root and Rusch, however, accuse Tavard’s evaluation of the Porvoo statement as “incomplete and could run the risk of being misleading”60 because

This dialogue report sees apostolicity as a many stranded cord. It recognizes that a church which realizes apostolic continuity in many aspects of its life can be recognized as apostolic even if one of those strands, e.g., an unbroken succession of episcopal consecrations, is lacking. Unfortunately Tavard's stress on the person who can confer orders misses the central argument of the Porvoo text. Indeed individuals are important in the process of ordination as Tavard recognizes. But the far more critical issue in the statement is not whether a presbyter can serve as an extraordinary minister of episcopal consecration; it is rather what is the intention and action of the ordaining church. The appreciation and discernment in the Porvoo text of this wider issue, viz., judgment about orders in the context of a judgment about the total life of a church, constitute the breakthrough in the Porvoo proposal and in the earlier Niagara Report which prepared for it.”61

57 Tavard, The “Reconciliation of Ministries,” 270. 58 Tavard, The “Reconciliation of Ministries,” 270-271. 59 Tavard, The” Reconciliation of Ministries,” 277. 60 Root, Rusch, 361. 61 Root, Rusch, 361.

143

They believe Tavard is reading it through the lens of his own tradition, to “too great a degree annexing the Porvoo discussion to the Anglican-Roman Catholic discussion of Anglican orders.”62

We recall from 3.3 that one major facet of the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues is the recurring theme of family reunited. Rather than looking at unity as a novel concept to be won at the price of theological compromise, the documents again and again point to a once-existing unity now being rediscovered. To point out the extent to which, for example, “Anglicans and Lutherans share a common heritage: as part of the church of the West before the Reformation, as churches shaped by the Reformation itself, as established national state churches in Europe, (and) as churches that have a national expression in Canada while being part of worldwide communions,”63 these documents make a methodological choice to elevate tradition and history amidst novelty and newness. In their highlighting of “the substantial agreement in faith that exists between us” 64 and their enumeration of specific points of agreement (acceptance of Old and New Testaments, understanding of justification and grace, Niceno-Constantiopolitan and Apostles’ Creeds, liturgy, and eschatology, etc.) the primary documents achieve a meaningful union of churches in both their methodology and in their content.

In highlighting these features, we must acknowledge the extent to which the participant churches must be praised for resisting the urge to superficially gloss over the nuanced issue of episcopacy for the sake of unity. Indeed, Countryman says that we might

say, "Let each tradition continue as it is." We are not, after all, talking about a merger of church organizations, but about that somewhat less concrete and specifiable thing called "full communion." Yet I do not think this is a desirable solution, even if it should prove possible. A purely functional, task- oriented understanding of ministry—one that ignores the enormous freight of meaning attached to various ministries over the centuries— might wish to move in this direction; but I doubt that the people of God would move with it.65

62 Root, Rusch, 361. 63 Called to Full Communion, 14. 64 The Porvoo Common Statement 30. 65 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 95.

144

4.4: Accommodations Made by Partner Churches

The clarity and creativity of the primary documents has already been praised. Also to be praised is the spirit of caritas and inherent creativity and clarity involved in surveying the accommodations admitted by both Anglicans and Lutherans in the primary documents.

From the Lutheran side, the primary documents emphasize above all that Lutherans both (1) can and will accept bishops and (2) have an inherent space for bishops in their Lutheran heritage.

Historical surveys that articulate, for instance, that “the ELCIC has had bishops since its inauguration in 1986, and one of its predecessor bodies has had bishops since 1980” and that

“Bishops currently are installed by a liturgical rite that has come to include the laying on of hands by the national bishop and synod bishops”66 is both concrete and theologically significant.

It seems apparent from the primary material that the most significant point of adaptation on the Lutheran side of the discussion is a willingness to acknowledge the significance of the historic episcopate. Further, we see extensive study pointing out the extent to which the Lutheran church does stand in apostolic succession and the extent to which they are willing to see their bishops grafted more fully onto that line of succession. As has been mentioned, of course, the Lutheran communion approached this adaptation with a certain degree of reluctance based mainly on the concern that it would unintentionally admit the illegitimacy of the existing order of Lutheran ordinations. To this end, Anglicans also make certain accommodations. Namely, we see an emphasis on the degree to which Anglicanism has room to understand historic succession within the broader definition already mentioned and, in addition, to acknowledge that historic succession is far less significance than the whole of apostolic succession.

The primary documents do not neglect to discuss one important option: that of joint ordinations. No doubt this concept is the first to arise in the minds of many people, for having both

66 Called to Full Communion, 22.

145

Anglican and Lutheran bishops co-presiding at all ordinations for bishops seems like an easy way to destroy the problem within one generation. In other words, if both Anglican bishops (in the historic succession) and Lutheran bishops are present and participating in the laying on of hands at all

Lutheran ordinations of bishops henceforth, the issue of validity of ordination would become a non- issue because the Lutheran bishops would become grafted back onto the tree of succession within one generation of bishops.

It is important here to highlight that the primary documents emphasize the need for joint ordinations going forward. They do not imply any re-ordination of current Lutheran ministers. To do so would suggest that Lutheran bishops are illegitimate currently. The implicit accusation that

Lutheran bishops stand in need of re-ordination in order to be validly recognized by the

Episcopal/Anglican Church, would negate the careful work done in the primary documents to provide for immediate recognition of the validity of Lutheran orders. Anything less, indeed, was found unacceptable by the Lutheran communion.

Indeed, we see present in the lengthy work done in the Niagara Report a concern for avoiding offending the Lutheran communion by suggesting the need for re-ordination. The concept of broadening the churches’ understanding of apostolic succession opens new possibilities here, while, as the last section shows, grafting Lutheran ministers onto the succession of historic ordinations quells Anglican concerns about illegitimacy. It is an answer that seems to require at once that

Lutherans alter their ordination practice, while maintaining that this isn’t to say it is necessary. If this kind of tiptoeing around feelings seems unnecessary, the fruits of successful communion should remind us that it was also effective. Of course, Toward Full Communion highlights that “there can be no creation of an artificial reconciliation of ministries through negotiation. Because we are one in the truth of the gospel we cannot require something of each other which is not essential for salvation.

146

The center for both Lutherans and Episcopalians ‘is the gospel and its ministry.’”67 Is what is seen in these discussions “artificial reconciliation” through “negotiation,” or a legitimate ordering of priorities and a concern to satisfy the theological concerns for the other?

The Anglican/Episcopalian side of the discussion might suggest that Lutherans, even if they had not previously participated in the historic episcopate, could easily become part of it by participating in “legitimate” ordination moving forward. Again, this appears the solve the problem in one generation. Of course, phrasing the question as such accuses existing Lutheran ordinations of being illegitimate. “It was quickly discovered within the dialogue that such a practice would be foreign to Lutheran usage. And there was some sense that it looked suspiciously like a sub rosa attempt to legitimate or validate non-Episcopal ministrations…Concelebration in itself might be harmless and even meaningful as an expression of some measure of already existing unity, yet when required as a precondition it would be contrary to the doctrine of ministry which we could in common affirm.”68 Still, the suggestion is a significant and simple method of unification. Michael

Root reinforces the significance of joint ordination by suggesting that “collegiality is signified and, to a degree, realized in the participation of other bishops in the installation or consecration of a new bishop,”69

And yet, Countryman highlights that joint ordinations are not outside of the realm of practice for both churches, stating,

To ordain a bishop, three other bishops must lay on hands. Since these will have had to come from neighboring cities, they were, in effect, bringing the new bishop into a larger network and reaffirming the local community's communion with the larger church. The bishop alone laid hands on deacons, to indicate that deacons functioned as extensions of the bishop in serving the church. The intimate connection between the two reemphasized the intimate connection between leadership and servanthood that comes down to us as part of Jesus' teaching. On the other hand, from our earliest records onward, other presbyters share in the laying- on-of-hands when a presbyter is ordained, for the college of presbyters has its own integrity in the local church. While it must function in relation to the larger church, as represented by the bishop, this college also serves as the council of elders whose advice could guide and restrain the bishop on behalf of the local community—in effect, an enlarged voice for that community in the deliberations of its leaders. Ordination was thus not a single

67 Toward Full Communion, 34-35. 68 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue,16. 69 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 171.

147

thing, from its very beginning, but a fairly complex set of gestures that wove together into a language through which the identity of each ordained person was defined in relation to the church, both local and universal.70

The significance of this passage is that it explores the nuanced history of the laying on of hands such that Lutheran adoption into joint ordinations might not be looked at simply as adopting an overly

Anglican practice, but in adopting a continually-developing practice relevant to the earliest of

Christian history which leaves room for creativity and newness.

In short, the documents must be praised for highlighting that

One of the great hindrances to the task of uniting ministries—perhaps the greatest of them—is our tendency to treat ordinations as if they were governed not by the gospel but by purity laws…If a Lutheran bishop participated in an Anglican ordination, would the ordination be less Anglican? If the reverse, would the ordination be less Lutheran? On the purity model, yes; for pollution is seen as intrinsically more powerful than the system it attacks. If our ministries are proclamations of life in the gospel, however, we should be able to find ways of preserving clarity in the "language" of orders without seeking to exclude our cobelievers.71

One, and only one, criticism that could be made of the primary documents is that they did not adequately explore the degree to which joint ordinations might be a more significant solution to the problem of episcopacy. It is raised, discussed, and provided for, even encouraged. And yet, it is not pushed for the sake of hurt feelings. It is the opinion of this author that the documents’ one weakness is that it was not pursued with slightly more persistence. The topic of joint ordinations, as seen in the passage above, are avoided because the spirit of the gospel and the spirit of fellowship were both deemed to be of greater value than of restoring the historic succession immediately. This enabled the participants to settle on a language that did not “exclude” certain cobelievers. More creative attempts to ensure the spirit of this approach while also ultimately deciding that the sign of historic succession is important enough to retain (without any exclusionary overtones) should have been pursued with more passion.

70 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 97. 71 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 98.

148

4.5: Summary Remarks

The primary documents should be praised for two more facets. One facet is their concreteness. For example, The Niagara Report also includes four “practical steps” by which

“Anglicans and Lutherans can realize Full Communion.”72 The second facet is success. The theological and methodological steps taken in the documents surveyed actually achieved what the documents aimed to do. In the areas of the world mentioned, Anglicans and Lutherans are in full communion. We see extensive documentation of this in the final section of chapter three.

How then, we might ask, are Christians to incorporate the various diverse ecclesiological understandings of the historic episcopate into the life of the Church in a way that is unifying around their common commitment to the apostolic gospel? The following remarks provide summary statements regarding the lessons to be taken from the primary documents in this study.

Gassmann comments that reception will play a large role in the efficacy of these documents.

While the primary documents evidence a variety of convincing theological “results, insights, agreements, and convergences,” Gassmann indicates:

Of course, we have learned that the reception of the results, insights, agreements, and convergences of ecumenical dialogues is much broader and more comprehensive than formal decisions of churches by which they establish new relationships with each other. Reception is that multifaceted process by which the churches, that is, their members lay and ordained, make their own in mind, heart, and life the whole range or a selected number of results coming from the individual multilateral and bilateral ecumenical dialogues”73

Of course, he does mention the extent to which “such reception would remain provisional if it would not also lead to official decisions of the churches, for which this broader process of reception, of change and renewal, is a necessary condition,”74 so the decisions of these dialogues is nonetheless significant.

72 The Niagara Report 111. 73 Gassmann, 1. 74 Gassmann, 2.

149

A great majority of secondary literature on the primary documents outlined in chapter three hail the work done in these documents as theologically and methodologically sound; many authors highlight ways in which these documents and the conversations they represent indeed do not merely gloss over the problem of historic episcopacy in these two very different ecclesiological systems, but treat it with due thoughtfulness such that it achieved a real solution to a topic that was once thought to be a stalemate between the two conversation partners. Likewise, it is the opinion of this author that the primary documents in question demonstrate a satisfactory theological achievement for both

Lutherans and Anglicans on the topic of the historic episcopate with regard to overcoming the obstacles preventing them from full communion. We are now ready to ask the question that is at the very heart of this study: do these primary documents demonstrate a similarly satisfactory achievement for Roman Catholics on the same topic? In other words, can the theological and methodological fruits of these dialogues between Lutherans and Anglicans prove useful in assisting the Roman Catholic Church in her ecumenical conversations with Lutherans, Anglicans, or other

Churches? This is the topic of chapter five.

Chapter 5: Testing the Fruits of This Study for the Catholic Church

5.1: Summary of the Major Issues

Having explored the way that the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues have treated the topic of episcopacy, this dissertation is now in a position to test the hypothesis that these dialogues represent a breakthrough on episcopacy that the Catholic Church can embrace. In order to test this hypothesis, this chapter will look thematically at some of the biggest contributions and challenges that these discussions on episcopacy offer to Catholicism’s own theology of the episcopate, placing the ecclesiology present in these documents into dialogue with . In doing so, we will uncover the extent to which these dialogues are fruitful for Catholicism’s own ecumenical discussions with fellow Christians on the topic of episcopacy, the extent to which the Catholic

Church can accept or adapt methods or theological concepts therein, and the extent to which the

Catholic Church would have difficulty with some of those theological concepts. What can the

Catholic Church take from these discussions? Where would be the Catholic difficulties?

It should be noted that the conversations examined in this dissertation are of particular interest to Catholicism because of the two conversation partners. James Puglisi indicates that one of the greatest “reasons why the Catholic Church follows with great interest the developments between these two church communions in Northern Europe… is that within both these traditions are the so- called high church” and “low church”1 traditions, those that have a more “catholic” content and those with a more “evangelical” tendency.2 If the Anglican communion, which aligns so closely with

Catholicism on the role and significance of episcopal succession, can enter into full communion with the Lutheran communion, do the dialogues method shed light on how the Catholic Church, too, might enter into communion with the Lutheran communion? Does it shed light on how the Catholic

1 Puglisi, “The Porvoo Common Statement from a Catholic Perspective,” 220. 2 Puglisi, “The Porvoo Common Statement from a Catholic Perspective,” 220.

150

151

Church might enter into full communion with other communions who vary greatly on ecclesiological matters? Does the Anglican conversation partner demonstrate avenues of help for the

Catholic Church in this regard?

As a Catholic looks at the Anglican-Lutheran primary materials surveyed in this dissertation, four major issues seem to surface in response to these questions: (5.2) a narrow vs. a broad understandings of apostolic succession; (5.3) questions of validity and defect, and whether differences constitute invalidity of defect; (5.4) the nature of the unity being sought between the

Catholic Church and other Christian communions; and (5.5) the modes of reconciliation by which the Catholic Church would enter into unity with these communions. Briefly, let us articulate the ways in which these subject headings confront the question of what Catholicism can glean from the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues; the remainder of this chapter will offer Catholic responses and resources for engaging these issues.

Regarding (5.2) a narrow vs. a broad understanding of apostolic succession, we recall the extent to which this subject remained a continual focus throughout the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. It is, indeed, perhaps one of the most recurring ecclesiological debates we see in them. As indicated in chapter four, the Anglican-Lutheran agreements accommodate a wider understanding of apostolic succession than merely a succession of episcopal ordinations. In response to this, Catholic

Church is likely to emphasize the degree to which there is an inherent danger, in this theological move, of understating the significance of the historic succession. Why? Given that apostolicity is one of the four marks of the Church, the nature of how it is apostolic is undoubtedly important. Why is the historic episcopate an important manifestation of apostolicity to the Catholic Church? If Christ is the head of the Church, what significance does historic succession have? Does not the Holy Spirit itself, or continuity in Tradition, or maintenance of Scripture guarantee continuity in Christ’s

152 mission? Why is this particular form of historicity necessary? A more detailed, focused this discussion of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the concepts of a “narrow” (i.e., historic episcopate-focused) vs. a “broad” (i.e., in line with the concepts apparent in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues), understanding of apostolic succession will be discussed in the following sections. It aims to survey Catholic literature with those questions in mind. The section will be divided into three sections: 5.2a will discuss Catholic thinkers whose understanding of apostolic succession might be named narrow, 5.2b surveys Catholic thinkers whose understanding might be named broad, and 5.2c will engage the two schools of thought.

Related to the discussion of the first item, (5.2) wide vs. narrow understanding of apostolic succession, are questions of (5.3) validity and defect. The Catholic Church understands Protestant communions as having a defectus regarding historic succession. If the Catholic Church can adopt the use of a wider conceptualization of “apostolic” than historic succession, it will nonetheless need to have a clear understanding of how to understand Protestant ministers. Given that current Catholic theology considers even Anglican orders to be extraneous to the historic succession, it does not currently have room in its ecclesiology to understand any Protestant communion’s episcopate as without defectus. This raises questions of validity, particularly with regard to the sacraments. The

Eucharist, for example, must be presided over by a validly ordained priest. Catholic theology, therefore, is unable to accommodate an immediate recognition of Lutheran – or other communions’

– bishops on grounds other than merely its theology of the episcopate. Shared intercommunion among Lutherans and Anglicans is a step called for in the primary documents in and through diverse approaches to historic succession. Immediate recognition of each other’s ministries is called for, as, for example, “The Episcopal Church offers in the Concordat immediate recognition of the present

153 episcopal and pastoral ministry of the ELCA, and full interchangeability of present ELCA pastors.”3

It indicates that, “in such a relationship, communicant members of each church would be able freely to communicate at the altar of the other, and there would be freedom of ordained ministers to officiate sacramentally in either church.”4 Unlike Anglican and Lutheran theology, however, Catholic

Eucharistic theology holds that occurs when a validly ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine. A non-validly ordained priest, then, would not merely pose a problem for

Catholics in terms of apostolic succession. If the Catholic Church were to accept a wider understanding of apostolic succession based on the concept of unity within diversity, there still exists the problem of the validity of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The validity of the sacraments depends on the validity of the ordained minister, therefore creating what seems to be an insurmountable roadblock to the Catholic Church following the Anglican communion’s example in its relationship with the Lutheran communion. Moreover, this critique is written from a Catholic point of view, which assumes transubstantiation. A Lutheran pastor, with differing , will not only regard as unimportant his ability to consecrate the Eucharist according to valid Catholic criteria, but he may argue against the belief that transubstantiation is occurring. A closer agreement on Eucharistic and sacramental theology is, therefore, imperative to any decisions on episcopacy. To explore this topic, section 5.3 will look at, in three sections: 5.3a: the notions of a legitimate diversity vs. a divisive disagreement; 5.3b defectus; 5.3c: validity.

What this roadblock poses is a question about (5.4) the nature of the unity being sought. We have seen some of the issues that arise when the Catholic Church aims to enter full communion with a Protestant communion. Is there, then, a different vision of unity with which the Catholic

3 Marshall, 45. 4 Called to Full Communion 7, 9.

154

Church might reconcile with Protestant communions? For example, in the primary documents, we see emphasis on the theme of a family reunited; how might Catholic responders utilize this image moving forward? Does the concept of Christianity consisting of a fractured family provide any framework for Catholicism to accommodate Protestant communions’ divergent theological concepts? Chapter one emphasized the Catholic Church’s commitment to ecumenical dialogue; does

Catholic/Protestant common heritage as Christians as well as their agreement with the overall importance of ecumenism potentially shift the weight of discussions away from necessitating a uniform understanding of the episcopate for the sake of unity? If so, what would this mean for the relationship between Catholicism and other communions? Would it be possible to reach agreement with other communions on areas of ministry and evangelization, thereby designing a co-ministry?

Are joint worship services possible? As preliminary steps toward full communion, these are worthy of investigation. The goal of comprehensive unity, rather than merely co-sponsorship of certain outreach initiatives, then becomes the focus of Section 5.4, which aims to discuss the nature of the unity being sought.

What the Catholic Church can surely agree with is the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues’ plan for grafting, as it were, the Lutheran branch of Christianity back onto the tree of historic episcopal succession through the laying on of hands. The Anglican-Lutheran plan is to invite both Anglican and Lutheran bishops to lay hands on newly ordained bishops moving forward. This will return

Lutheranism to the historic succession, according to Anglican understanding, within one generation.

In return, the Anglican communion agrees to immediately acknowledge the validity of existing

Lutheran bishops. Herein lies the crux of the Catholic difficulty with this plan. The Catholic Church could surely adopt the practice of inviting Catholic bishops to participate in the laying on of hands of Lutheran bishops moving forward as part of a plan for future unity; this would graft Lutheranism

155 back into Catholic episcopal succession within one generation. The Catholic Church would not, however, acknowledge the validity of existing Lutheran bishops for the reasons expressed above.

This one interim generation between a declaration of full communion and the actualization of the laying on of hands for all new ordinations, then, is the center of the Catholic Church’s difficulty with the Anglican-Lutheran model. Therefore, section 5.5 investigates the modes of reconciliation by which the Catholic Church would enter into unity with these communions. Catholicism would not be able to recognize the immediate validity of Lutheran (or other Protestant) pastors. What other ways, then, are there to restore unity? It will consider this question in two sections: 5.5a looks at modes of reconciliation, while 5.5b hones in on the concept of ministry as distinct from ordination, considering how that distinction may help play a role in attaining reconciliation.

This chapter aims to offer Catholic responses and resources for addressing these items.

5.2a: Catholic Thinkers with a Narrow Understanding of Apostolic Succession

We begin with an investigation of a wide vs. narrow understanding of apostolic succession.

Section 5.2 covers this topic in three sections: 5.2a surveys Catholic thinkers with a narrow understanding; 5.2b surveys Catholic thinkers with a broad understanding, and 5.2c confronts the two understandings.

Recall that Called to Full Communion states that full communion entails “freedom to participate in each other’s ordinations and installations of clergy, including bishops.”5 It is a freedom, not a mandate. It further states that they will “welcome persons ordained in either of our churches to the office in accordance with any regulations which may from time to time be in force, in that ministry in the receiving church without re-ordination; regularly to invite one another’s

5 Called to Full Communion 7, 9.

156 bishops to participate in the laying on of hands at the ordination of bishops as a sign of the unity.” 6

We see similar wording in Root’s supporting essay to the Concordat of Agreement, suggesting that

“structures of unity must be free to develop in ways that conform to the true life of the church. As that life progresses, grows, and meets crises, so the shape that communion takes must be open to adjustments and innovations.”7 The emphasis on freedom here, on one hand, constitutes an invitation rather than a command, which has significant ecumenical value. On the other hand, the

Catholic Church is likely to find the emphasis on freedom too lackadaisical to ensure uniform practice. Gassmann remarks, that while the Porvoo Statement “presents a solution of the problem of the historic episcopate …Roman Catholic reactions are slightly worried, fearing that the concept of apostolic succession is watered down.”8 What do the official Catholic documents say about the issue of narrow vs. wide understanding of apostolic succession? This section surveys theologians whose work points to a Catholic emphasis on the narrow definition of apostolic succession as resting primarily or solely in the historic episcopate.

Catholic theologian Richard J. Schlenker9 believes that the Concordat of Agreement “is of interest to Roman Catholics”10 and comments on this issue as “an observer who is committed to working toward the unity of Christ's church;” since “the Catholic Church recognizes in the apostolic succession both an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today and an uninterrupted continuity in Christian doctrine from Christ to those today who teach in union with the and its head, the

6 Called to Full Communion, 13. 7 Root, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 166. 8 Gassmann, 8-9. 9 Schlenker, 111. 10 Schlenker, 111.

157 successor of Peter,”11 we see that Catholic ecclesiology emphasizes historic succession, albeit within the context of the wider faith. He states:

In the concordat the Episcopal Church acknowledges E.L.C.A. pastors and bishops as being priests. This it ‘recognizes now.’ Does this mean that the episcopal ordination of priests is not necessary, since these pastors were not ordained by bishops? If so, that is contrary to the official Roman Catholic view, although not contrary to the view of such theologians as Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng, , and others. These theologians point out that as late as the seventeenth century there were cases of nonbishops, abbots, who ordained priests.12

Indeed, Schlenker summarizes Schillebeeckx as acknowledging that the structure of ordained ministry goes back to the early church; yet, “while that same structure and theology continue today, we need not claim them as the only possible structure and theology of ordained ministry.”13

Schlenker highlights, however, that contrary to considering alternative forms of ordained ministry, the Catholic position questions Lutheran suspicion of the current form rather than seeking room to explore other options:

The form of episkope under discussion is specifically the mono-episcopate, that is, one bishop as the pastor of the local church (diocese) in which he or she exercises the supreme authority. It seems that this is the major source of concern for Lutherans. Some one or some group has to be the subject of the highest authority in the diocese, synod, or district, unless, of course, the structure is purely congregational. It seems to this writer that many Lutherans' real concern is the fear that the mono-episcopal form of episkope will generate authoritarianism. Perhaps they need to ask themselves several questions: Do Episcopalians have this problem? If so, how do they deal with it? Do they deal with it at all? Can ways be developed to check such authoritarianism—a system of checks-and-balances, some form of limited or constitutional “monarchy”? Should such ways be developed first, before entering into full communion involving the understanding of the office of bishop that is embodied in the concordat?

He concludes:

This Catholic commentator thinks the official Vatican view is narrow. Will developments that have already occurred in Roman Catholic theology effect a change in the official Vatican view in the near future? Will a similar modification of view occur in the Episcopal Church? If so, should the ecumenical consecration of bishops wait until that day when all will see it as an expression of communion with other apostolic churches, not as an insertion into an unbroken line of bishops?14

11 “Rome and Canterbury. The Vatican Response to ARCIC,” 245 (December 7, 1991), 1523. 12 Schlenker, 113-114. 13 Schlenker, 114. 14 Schlenker, 119.

158

Francis Sullivan likewise provides insights about the primary documents from a Catholic observer.

He states:

In both Porvoo and CCM, autonomous national Anglican churches have entered into communion with autonomous national Lutheran churches This would hardly be possible where the Catholic Church is concerned. Here it would have to be something like the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” involving the universal Catholic Church. However, it would seem possible for the universal Catholic Church to enter into full communion with a particular Lutheran church such as the ELCA. … The ELCA would no doubt be asked to agree that in the future their bishops would be co-ordained by Catholic bishops. Full communion would take place only when all their bishops have been so ordained, and all their clergy had been ordained by them. The problem, however, would be for the Catholic Church to make the kind of concession that the Episcopal Church has made: to recognize as valid, without any form of re-ordination, the present ministry of ELCA bishops and pastors. The Episcopal Church has treated the requirement of episcopal ordination for the ministry of bishops and priests as a canonical matter that could, for a good reason, temporarily be dispensed. It hardly seems possible for the Catholic Church to do this. Even though there is good evidence that on occasion have authorized priests to ordain priests, it not merely a matter of but a matter of doctrine for the Catholic Church that bishops must be ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession.15

Sullivan, indicates that it seems theologically unjustifiable to consider apostolic succession apart from historic succession.

Ut unum sint, which, as we have seen, places Christian unity at the forefront of theological importance in the Catholic Church, also demonstrates a commitment to what we are calling the

“narrow” definition of apostolic succession, i.e., historic succession. It lists, as two of five “areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved,” 16 the “ of the

Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith,” 17 as well as “Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate.” 18 Elsewhere, it states:

The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God's plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the

15 Sullivan, “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches,” 588. 16 Ut unum sint 79. 17 Ut unum sint 79. 18 Ut unum sint 79.

159

Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.19

One observation we might make at this juncture is to indicate that in the primary documents surveyed in chapter three, it was the Anglican conversation partners that seem to embody the

Catholic position on this matter and the Lutheran conversation partners who do not. This might imply that, from these documents, we can glean an appreciation for the extent to which Anglicans and Catholics might be ready for reunification insofar as their belief on episcopal succession might very well be the same. However, this is not the case. In anticipating Lutheran criticisms of the

Concordat of Agreement, Bruce Marshall states, “The objection, crudely put, is that we Lutherans cannot enter full communion in the apostolic faith with Episcopalians because they (the

Episcopalians) no longer hold it.”20 In this statement, Marshall is likely saying that some Lutherans might see the Episcopal Church as having abandoned apostolic doctrine and thus not really in the true apostolic succession. The Catholic Church might see this concern in a different light. Sullivan cites Yarnold as wondering “whether, in recognizing the validity of the ministry of Lutheran pastors who have not been ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession, the British, Irish and American

Anglicans are being consistent with principles with which Anglicans had expressed their agreement in the international dialogue with Roman Catholics.”21 According to Schlenker, “it seems evident that in these (Anglican-Catholic) statements, apostolic succession is understood as an unbroken line of ordinations.”22 The Anglican position on succession is significant, because the Bull Apostolicae

19 Ut unum sint 97. 20 Marshall, 49. 21 Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 6. 22 Schlenker, 118.

160 curae23“declared that Anglican Orders were invalid and the Apostolic Succession broken in the

Church of England.”24 The extent to which the Anglican communion accommodates Lutheran ecclesiology and the extent to which it, rather, moves toward restoration of the Catholic ecclesiology is an important piece of the conversation. Felix L. Cirlot believes that he can “marshal the evidence which shows that the Anglican Church officially and authoritatively holds the Catholic position on the subject of the Ministry.”25 He states:

in order to maintain the thesis that she no longer officially holds and teaches a doctrine like Apostolic Succession, which she certainly held before the Reformation in common with all Western Catholic Churches, it is necessary to show definitely that a specific change on that particular subject has been made by the official formularies of the Church. It is not a question of whether she has reaffirmed this doctrine in her Reformation and post-Reformation formularies; though this also can be shown conclusively…The only question that is really crucial is, "Has she repealed that doctrine in those formularies, or amended it by setting forth another and incompatible doctrine as her own?" Unless she can be shown to have done this, she still holds and teaches it, officially, today26

Further, “the Anglican Church also, both officially and also unofficially through the Lambeth

Conferences, lays down ‘the historic episcopate’ as an absolutely indispensable condition of reunion from our standpoint.”27 While the Catholic Church does not view the Anglican communion as ultimately standing in the historic succession, Unitatis redintegratio insists that, “among those in which

Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.”28 Congar sees “in the Church of England a continual concern to look not only to the right (to the Catholic Church) but to the left and to seek reunion with the definitely Protestant groups. In such ways as these the Church of England aims without doubt at fulfilling the function of a ‘Bridge Church.’”29 Thus, the Anglican position as evidenced in the primary documents surveyed

23 : (Sept. 18th, 1896), Papal Archive, The , AAS 29 (1896-97), 193. Acta Leonis XIII, XVI, 258 ff. 24 , Divided Christendom (London: The Centenary Press, 1939), 159. 25 Cirlot, 57. 26 Cirlot, 24. 27 Cirlot, 59. 28 Unitatis redintegratio 13. 29 Congar, Divided Christendom, 162-163.

161 in chapter three complicates Anglican-Catholic discussions on episcopacy insofar as it seems to accommodate a wider understanding of apostolic succession than Catholicism can accommodate.

We see a focus on the topic at Vatican I, which spoke of “episcopal jurisdiction, by which

Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each his own flock, as true Pastors, that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor.”30

Catholic teaching on the episcopacy is most fully articulated in . It states:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the , with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the , the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.31

It speaks of “those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed. Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved.”32 Further, “the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles.”33 Lumen gentium affirms that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is

30 Vatican Council. : Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, 18 July, 1870, Papal Archive, The Holy See, AAS 7 (1870-71) 40, 3. 31Vatican Council, Lumen gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21 November, 1964, Papal Archive, The Holy See, AAS 57 (1965), 18. 32 Lumen gentium 20. 33 Lumen gentium 20.

162 understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.”34 The “bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature.”35 Mentioning the threefold office, Lumen gentium states:

Christ, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, has through His apostles, made their successors, the bishops, partakers of His consecration and His mission. They have legitimately handed on to different individuals in the Church various degrees of participation in this ministry. Thus the divinely established ecclesiastical ministry is exercised on different levels by those who from antiquity have been called bishops, priests and deacons. 36

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states:

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.37

5.2b: Catholic Thinkers with a Broad Understanding of Apostolic Succession

Of course, Catholic theology is not willing to go so far as to say that all that matters regarding the concept of apostolic succession is a succession of episcopal ordinations. The succession of the whole college of bishops is of superior importance to individual succession. This section explores the extent to which Catholic theology can accommodate a wider understanding of apostolic succession. Consider that

it may be objected that while the Lutheran communities do constitute churches, they are defective churches … This charge is true if apostolicity is defined so as necessary to include apostolic succession through episcopal consecration. However, it is dubious that apostolicity should be so defined. In the first two centuries of Christianity apostolic succession in doctrine (fidelity to the gospel) was considered more important than simple succession in office or orders… Undoubtedly apostolic succession through episcopal consecration is a valuable

34 Lumen gentium 22. 35 Lumen gentium 24. 36 Lumen gentium 28. 37 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church. (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, 31 October, 1998. Papal Archive. The Holy See) 6.

163

sign and aspect of apostolicity, for in church history there is a mutual interplay between doctrinal integrity and the succession of those who are its official teachers. Yet, despite the lack of episcopal succession, the Lutheran church by its devotion to gospel, creed, and sacrament has preserved a form of doctrinal apostolicity. 38

This passage highlights the definition of apostolic succession present in the primary documents. How is the Church is apostolic? That it is is obvious from : the Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Is its apostolicity limited to historic succession or is it wider than that? From chapters three and four, it is clear that the Anglicans and Lutherans responsible for these discussions have determined that it is, indeed, wider than historical succession. Miguel Maria Garijo-Guembe discusses the difference by articulating the difference between a ministry of leadership and one of being present within the community, and this is a

diferencia más importante en lo que se refiere al ministerio. Es un axioma en el campo ecuménico que al ministerio hay que considerarlo no sólo en frente de la comunidad, en cuanto que representa a Cristo ante la comunidad, sino también en la comunidad. Este en es básico en la forma de concebir y practicar el en hay una diferencia fundamental entre las concepciones católica y protestante.39

(more important difference with regard to the ministry. It is an axiom in the ecumenical field that the ministry must be considered not only in front of the community, as representing Christ to the community, but also in the community. This basic way of thinking and practice is one of the fundamental differences between Catholic and Protestant conceptions).

The question, then, is: can the Catholic Church, following the example of Anglicans in these discussions, accept a broader definition of apostolicity than just the historic episcopate? Chapter four emphasized the degree to which Anglicanism has room to understand historic succession within the broader definition already mentioned and, in addition, to acknowledge that historic succession is far less significant than the whole of apostolic succession. To what degree can the

Catholic Church accommodate this move?

Schlenker, while evaluating the official Catholic position as having a narrow understanding of apostolic succession, also highlights that episcopal succession does not necessarily mean an

38“Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Building Unity: Ecumenical Dialogues with Roman Catholic Participation in the United States, edited by Joseph A. Burgess, and Jeffrey Gros, (New York: Paulist, 1989), 114-115. 39 Garijo-Guembe, 80.

164 unbroken line from Christ. “Lumen gentium does not seem to support that. It is more modest in its claim. It simply states that the ministries were ‘exercised in the Church from the earliest times,’”40 which, he says, departs from Trent’s suggestion that the threefold ministry was “of divine .”41

John J. Burkhard addresses several understandings of apostolic succession. “The first is that a church is apostolic by reason of origin. It was founded by an apostle and thereby endowed by the apostle with the truth of faith and the appropriate expressions for living it.”42 Then, “from the second century onwards, the issue of the content of Christian belief was of central importance. The church could only be church to the extent that it proclaimed and taught what the original apostles themselves had taught. Fidelity to the apostolic kerygma became the hallmark of Christian belief.”43

He continues:

Finally, the church is apostolic by reason of ordained apostolic ministry. This is usually referred to as apostolic succession and means the succession of bishops in the course of the church's history. Yves Congar has pointed out that apostolic succession is not simply a matter of an historical chain of episcopal ordinations stretching back unbroken to the first bishops. It also possesses an element that transcends history and yet does not negate it.44

Burkhard describes this image of a chain of episcopal ordinations assuring the validity of ministry as

“rather mechanical,” emphasizing that Catholic theologians are “paying increased attention to the importance of apostolic doctrine.”45 Thus, “it is my contention that just as Roman Catholics and

Lutherans had to find new language for new insights on justification, the same will have to be the case for apostolic succession.”46

Yarnold comments, “Few theologians would now wish to defend a narrow ‘pipe-line

40 Schlenker, 117, C.f. Lumen gentium 9. 41 Schlenker, 117. 42 Burkhard, 26. 43 Burkhard, 29. 44 Burkhard, 35-36. 45 Burkhard, 40. 46 Burkhard, 23.

165 theory,’ which would base the bishop's authority on the historical succession of episcopal ordinations alone without reference to the succession maintained by the Churches themselves.” 47

However, “The … argument that apostolic succession survives in the whole Church even without the focus and sign of a continuous ordained ministry must be judged in the context of the growing understanding of the Church, and of the function of bishops within it, in terms of communion.”48

He states, “When episcopal succession is seen in this way in the context of the apostolicity of the

Churches, the question arises whether the latter can supply extraordinarily for any breach in the former. Some Catholic theologians, such as Hans Küng and Karl Rahner, have ventured an affirmative answer.”49 This is an extraordinary support of the “wider” definition of apostolic succession present in the Anglican-Lutheran documents. These eminent Catholic theologians’ apparent support of a wider understanding of succession provides an avenue for Catholicism to find, in itself, room for this wider understanding. However, “all the same, the declaration does exemplify a fundamental difference between Anglican and Roman Catholic understandings of the

Church.”50

From this line of thinking, then, Catholic theology has some room to consider the extent to which other elements contribute to apostolicity aside from historic succession. Puglisi states:

A Catholic concern would be to see clearly the fact that the office of bishop is truly a pastoral ministry and not merely a function of ordination. Since at least the second century and probably even earlier, the church was considered realized in her fullness whenever and wherever the faithful of a certain place, following their bishop as Christ himself, were united under his presidency in one Eucharistic community…. it is a succession of communities and not of individuals. If the bishop is crucial in this kind of succession it is because he is head of a community imaging the eschatological gathering of the church around Christ, and not because he has received apostolic authority as an individual.51

47 Yarnold, 2. 48 Yarnold, 3. 49 Yarnold, 2. 50 Yarnold, 3. 51 Puglisi, 228.

166

Of special note is the thought of Yves Congar, who “came to consider apostolicity essentially as apostolicity of doctrine and apostolicity of ministry, stressing the intimate relationship between these two dimensions.” 52 Indeed, his writing emphasizes “two components of the notion of apostolic succession: valid ordination and authentic mission.”53 Congar thus would seem to offer a Catholic approval of the notion that “within the one church, both the Anglican continuity of the episcopal order, and the Lutheran concentration on doctrine, have been means of preserving the apostolicity of the one church.”54 Moreover his writing attempts to “show that the two dimensions of apostolicity entailed in this distinction are rather closely intertwined in patristic and later scholastic writings.”55According to Steger:

Congar rejects the view held by the Tractarians of the Oxford Movement who considered succession as a kind of fluid which would pass from the one validly ordained to the one to be ordained. It is this conception that allowed the episcopi vagantes to appear, a miserable caricature of true apostolic succession in Congar's opinion.56

Congar’s ecclesiology is based on the entire “People of God” rather than the hierarchy; as such, he denounces legalism and emphasizes what he calls an “apostolic” rather than “ritual” understanding of the priesthood.57 Yet, even to the extent that he thinks Catholic “approval” of the Ausburg confession is “possible,”58 Congar holds that he does not question the Church or her authority;59 rather, he believes the Church is constantly reforming herself, and the hearts and minds of the faithful must be attentive to ways in which the Church is called toward “a movement beyond what

52 Steger, 82, c.f. Congar, L'Eglise une. 214; idem, "Composantes et idee,” 69. 53 Steger, 96, c.f. Congar, “Apostolicité,” Catholicisme. 54 Toward Full Communion, 28. 55 Henn, 184, c.f. Apostolicité de ministere et apostolichite de doctrine: Essai d’explication de la Reaction protestante et de la Tradition catholique.” First pblished in 1967, it was later included among the essays of Yves Congar, Ministeres et communion ecclesiale, Théologie sans frontiers, 23 (Paris: Cerf 1971), 51-94. 56 Steger, 95, c.f. Congar, "Composantes et idee," 64; idem, L'Ectlisp une. 206. See also idem, "Apostolicite de ministre," 88; idem, "Le diaconat dans la theologie des ministres," 125; and idem, Challenge to the Church. 57 Yves Congar, True and False Reform in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011), 4. 58 Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic, CT: Twenty-third Publications, 1982),146. 59 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 2.

167 went before it…. In that way, every active movement has a certain quality of reform.”60 It is in this light that Congar is “concerned with liberating the Gospel from outmoded sociological, pastoral, and liturgical forms.”61 He believes that rituals and symbols can come to be seen just as “things” if we outgrow them; indeed, they may even become idols if they no longer connect the faithful to the divine reality they symbolize; fidelity to the form of something rather than the faith itself runs the

“risk of things being cut off from the living heart of the Gospel.”62 In other words, rituals and symbols utilize the stuff of life, thereby making it holy through the role they play and the meaning they symbolize. If that role would be better filled by something else, or they cease to symbolize what they once did, they return to being the ordinary stuff of life. Congar’s view

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. He provided various witnesses, at one point quoting Pope Sixtus III 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.63

Congar, in his attitude as much as his theology, demonstrates the kenotic spirit of self-evaluation and reconciliation central to Christianity. This spirit of self-evaluation, in addition to the theological concepts reinforced above, show the extent to which Catholic theology has ample room to consider and be nourished by the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. Congar articulates that this spirit of self- evaluation is characterized by four traits: (1) a deep attachment to, and desire to be able to trust, a conversation partner without a spirit of revolt or bitterness,64 (2) a real awareness of the apostolic situation of the Church,65 (3) an ear attentive to the laity,66 and (4) a “return to the sources,” or

60 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 21. 61 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 2. 62 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 47. 63 Henn, 184. 64 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 36-37. 65 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 38. 66 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 39.

168 ressourcement.67 In chapter two, this study attempted to draw on Congar’s fourth concept; in this chapter, we survey the extent to which Anglicans, Lutherans, and, by extensions, Catholics have used the first concept to achieve the second.

5.2c Confrontation of Broad and Narrow Understanding of Apostolic Succession

We have seen evidence both that the Catholic Church affirms a “narrow” understanding of apostolic succession that centers on the historic episcopate and evidence that it has room to consider a “broader” understanding evident in the primary Anglican-Lutheran documents. This section attempts to put these two strands of Catholic theology into dialogue with one another.

These two strands are most evident in Catholic reactions to the phrase “sign, though not guarantee” in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM). Walter Kasper highlights this important section of BEM “in which the apostolic succession in the episcopate is considered as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church.”68 The Catholic Church has responded negatively to the phrase “sign, though not guarantee,” even while it seems to agree with the tenor of the phrase inasmuch as it acknowledges apostolic succession to be wider than historical succession.

The Vatican’s 1988 response to BEM sharply questions the phrase while also stating, “We appreciate the fact that ordained ministry is not treated in isolation but rather in its wider ecclesiological context”69 It elaborates:

A number of questions on authority are raised for us by the BEM text. What are the constitutive elements of authority and order in the church? What is the nature and role of decisive authority in the discernment of God’s will as to the development of ministry in the church in the past and with regard to the present needs of the church?...Concerning episcopal succession, when it is said that it is a ‘sign’ of continuity and unity in the church, what does ‘sign’ mean here? What is the ecclesiological meaning of the episcopal succession for

67 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 39. 68 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 22. 69 “Roman Catholic Church Response to ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,’” Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” Text 6, Edited by Max Thurian (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1988), 26. (Hereafter “Roman Catholic Response to BEM”)

169

ordination? What is the precise difference and relationship between the priesthood of all, and the priesthood of the ordained? What are the ecclesiological dimensions of the authority of the ordained minister?”70

Elsewhere, it praises the extent to which, in the document, “Episcopacy is rightly described as ‘a focus of unity’ (20), as necessary to express and safeguard the unity of the body (23).”71 Catholic understanding of episcopacy is presented as having a strong focus on the role of the historic succession of bishops, such that the idea that it does not guarantee apostolicity is misleading. The notion that it is not a guarantee, it suggests, leads focus away from episcopacy to too great an extent.

And today, even churches which have not retained the episcopate are able to appreciate the episcopal succession ‘as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the church’ (38). It is said that there is willingness expressed among them ‘to accept episcopal succession as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church’ (38). The text speaks further on of ‘a need to recover the sign of the episcopal succession’ that will strengthen and deepen that continuity with the church of the apostles (53b). We agree that the ‘episcopal succession’ is of the order of the sign that can signify, through the image of historic transmission, the fact that the church is rooted in the apostolic church around Christ and therefore shows its fundamental apostolicity. However, the meaning of ‘sign/expression’ needs to be clear. In the previous version, One Baptism, One Eucharist, and a Mutually Recognized Ministry (34), the text spoke of an ‘effective sign.’ This indicates better the unique importance of the episcopal succession for the edification of the church through the ages. This is immediately related to the meaning which the ministry of the bishop has in a Catholic ecclesiology: it is more than a function of oversight next to other functions and ministries. In his very personal ministry, the bishop represents the local church entrusted to him. He is its qualified spokesperson in the communion of the churches. At the same time he is the first representative of Jesus Christ in the community. By his ordination to the episcopacy he is commissioned to exercise leadership in the community, to teach with authority and to judge. All other ministries are linked to his and function in relationship to it. Thus his ministry is a sacramental sign of integration and a focus of communion. Through the episcopal succession, the bishop embodies and actualizes both the catholicity in time, i.e., the continuity of the church across the generations, as well as the communion lived in each generation. The actual community is thus linked up through a personal sign with the apostolic origins, its teaching and way of living. In this perspective, episcopal succession can rightly be called a guarantee (cf. 38) of the continuity and unity of the church, if one recognizes in it the expression of Christ’s faithfulness to the church to the end of time. At the same time it lays upon each individual office-bearer the responsibility to be a faithful and diligent guarantor.72

What is key here is the way the Catholic Church is using the word guarantee. As Michael

Root says, an Arian bishop ordained validly in the historic succession does not by itself guarantee apostolicity.73 So it is obviously using the word in a more figurative sense. It clarifies this in the next paragraph when it states that, in ordination, “the reality granted is the power of the Holy Spirit

70 “Roman Catholic Church Response to BEM,” 9. 71 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 31. 72 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 33. 73 Personal conversation.

170

(42).”74 With the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Church reasons, a new spiritual relationship is formed, symbolized by the laying on of hands. Moreover, in the sign of the laying on of hands, “Catholics would like it to be stated clearly that ordination is not only a sign, but an effective sign.”75 The efficacy of the sacrament of ordination, then, seems to be what Catholics take issue with regarding the phrase “sign but not guarantee.” The phrase seems to imply that a sign does not itself become or cause what it signifies, reducing the term “sign” to something that merely represents an external reality. Catholic sacramental theology, however, holds that for ordination and all other six sacraments, the symbols effect what they signify, such that the notion of signifying something without guaranteeing its reality is incongruous with reality.

It is, of course, plain that since a validly ordained bishop can manifest teachings or practices that stand outside of the apostolic faith ( is a clear example), historic succession does not by itself guarantee apostolic succession. Thus, the Catholic concern about the phrase “sign but not guarantee” seems to be more reflective of Catholic sacramental theology and the precise terminology therein than it is of the idea that historic episcopacy alone is a standalone criterion through which the Church is apostolic. Indeed, Catholicism shows its support of the belief that things other than historic succession constitute apostolicity when it states, in its response to BEM, that “the connection of the apostolic succession with the apostolic tradition, understood as ‘the continuity in the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles,’ in their witness, proclamation, celebration, service etc. (34) is legitimate.”76 Indeed, it goes so far as to even say that “It will not be an opportunistic ‘recovering of the sign of episcopal succession’ that will solve the problem…The recognition of ordained ministry cannot be isolated from its ecclesiological context. The recognition

74 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 34. 75 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 34. 76 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 32.

171 of the ordained ministry and of the ecclesial character of a Christian community are indissolubly and mutually related.”77

This discussion raises differences between Catholics and Protestants over the sacramentality of ordination. This difference seems to be at the heart of the Catholic Church’s concern with the phrase “sign but not guarantee.” The document states, “Our view, however, is that ordination is a sacrament. The valid minister of this sacrament is a bishop who stands in the authentic apostolic succession and who acts in the person of Christ. We therefore ask the Commission on Faith and

Order to reflect on the ecclesiological meaning of the episcopal succession of ordination….It is rooted in the sacramental nature of the Church.”78 The Catholic criticism of this phrase, then, must not be taken to mean that the Catholic position is that standing in the historic succession does guarantee that one stands in the apostolic faith, Rather, it should be taken as a sign that Catholic theology has a truly central place for the role of historic succession in the role of apostolicity, and that it has deep roots in Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental theology. In other words, it is necessary but not sufficient.

One of the most visceral explanations of the “wider” definition comes from the Lutheran theologian John Rutowicz:

Should Lutherans care about so called apostolic succession? For the most part, the answer should be no. Lutherans have no problem obtaining or maintaining "apostolic succession" for the sake of tradition or for the sake of a weaker brother's conscience. However, Lutherans ought not be in the business of obtaining “apostolic succession” in order to make some other group or organization see them as legitimate. Chasing after Roman or Eastern or Anglican approval through "apostolic succession" plays into the doctrinal errors of these churches. They make lists of successive office holders the test as to their own orthodoxy, rather than an examination of doctrine that is passed on. If Roman apostolic succession can't keep Popes from kissing Korans or praying with imams in mosques, I fail to see its value. Likewise, Anglican apostolic succession hasn't stopped the from being an honorary Druid.79

77 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 36. 78 “Roman Catholic Response to BEM,” 35. 79 Rutowicz, 25.

172

Thus, when Toward Full Communion makes the following statement, it is not merely indicating that apostolic succession is broader than historic succession. It is reinforcing the idea that obsessive focus on the historic succession may detract from true apostolicity:

Apostolic succession is ‘a dynamic, diverse reality’ embracing faithfulness to apostolic teaching, participation in baptism, prayer, and the eucharist; ‘sharing in the Church's common life of mutual edification and ministry of Word and sacrament;’ and ‘continuing involvement in the apostolic mission’ of the church by proclaiming the gospel through word and deed. Apostolic succession is not to be understood ‘primarily in terms of historic episcopate.’80

This is a concept the Catholic Church can benefit from considering, even if she ultimately decides this conception does not give historic succession enough of a role. To consider that separation from historic succession for the sake of, and not in spite of, the Gospel, is a Lutheran way of looking at the situation. Indeed, “the prevalent Roman Catholic view of apostolic succession presented above was unacceptable to the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in whose eyes the authority ascribed to the apostles' successors was an obstacle to maintaining the purity of the gospel.”81 Further, “John Calvin

(1509-1564) contended that the claim of succession is vain unless those who make it ‘conserve safe and uncorrupted the truth of Christ.’ In his view ‘nothing is more absurd than to lodge the succession in persons alone to the exclusion of teaching.’” 82

To this end, we see an observation from Lutherans and Episcopalians that:

in Roman Catholic theology, reflected in the international discussions between Lutheran and Roman Catholic Churches, a distinction is made between Apostolic Succession of substance (the apostolic succession of the whole Church in faith and life) and apostolic succession of ministerial transmission (the succession of ministers) which is the sign and servant of the Apostolic Succession of the whole Church. This distinction is essentially the same as we have made. It allows the Roman Catholic partners to raise the question whether it is possible to affirm Lutheran orders to be within the true succession of the Church and therefore merely defective in form or lacking fullness and not invalid. 83

80 Toward Full Communion, 29. 81 Carlos Alfredo Steger, Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullman, translated by Ruth C. L. Gritsch and Eric W. Gritsch (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993), 25. 82 Steger, 31, c.f. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.2.2 (trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill, LCC, 21:1043) 83 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 40-41.

173

It is in this light that a Catholic can read seemingly anti-Catholic statements as, “Both Lutheran and

Anglican reformers rejected the Papacy as the primary focus of continuity in the Gospel”84 and understand that this might be, in disguise, a helpful Lutheran contribution to sound Catholic theology of apostolicity. A Catholic cannot accept the content of this statement, but, understanding that it is grounded in a fear of papal idolatry for the sake of the Gospel, Catholic theology can appreciate its proper use.

The most recent international Catholic-Lutheran dialogue pertinent to the heading of wide vs. narrow understandings of apostolicity is The Apostolicity of the Church,85 which represents the final meeting of the fourth phase of proceedings of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity (which began in 1995), held on September 22-30, 2005 in Cassano delle Murge (Bari), Italy. Led by co- presidents Dr. B. Harmati (Lutheran), Archbishop Alfons Nossol (Catholic), and Prof. Dr. Cardinal

Walter Kasper (Catholic), the Lutheran and Catholic participants took up Catholic issues of apostolic succession.

The Apostolicity of the Church isolates the concept of universality as the site for the disconnect between Lutheran and Catholic understandings of the role of the bishop. It argues that whereas

Lutherans, just as Catholics, “presuppose that the congregation assembled for worship stands in an essential relation to the universal church,”86 the Catholic Church has a much more developed framework in which to understand the connection of the many local churches as the one church.87

The document represents the most current literature on this topic, and points out that succession in faith is the essential aspect of the concept of apostolic succession; the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine

84 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 33. 85 “The Apostolicity of the Church,” Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity, Accessed March 5, 2016, http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_ap-01.html. 86 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 285. 87 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 287.

174 of Justification, signed by both Catholic and Lutheran churches demonstrates agreement in basic truths of the one apostolic faith.88 Where they differ, then, is on the historicity of their succession of bishops: “But, they [Lutherans] faced a situation in which for them the elements of apostolicity of ministry, that is, fidelity to the apostolic gospel and canonical ordination by a bishop, had come into conflict with one another, so that they had to make a decision. They opted for fidelity to the apostolic tradition, as they understood it. This should be taken into consideration when Catholics assess the development of the ministry in Lutheran churches.”89

Then, this is the basis of the argument for a wider understanding of apostolic succession:

It is Catholic doctrine that an individual bishop is not in apostolic succession by his being part of a historically verifiable and uninterrupted chain of imposition of hands through his predecessors to one of the apostles. It is instead essential that he be in communion with the whole order of bishops which as a whole succeeds the apostolic college and its mission. Thus the consensus of the bishops among themselves is the decisive sign of the apostolicity of their teaching. Catholicity is the means and expression of apostolicity. If catholicity is a sign of apostolicity, then apostolicity is a condition for catholicity. Thus fidelity to the apostolic gospel has priority in the interplay of traditio, successio and communio.90

In this vein, the document argues in favor of accepting a “differentiated consensus”91 with regard to succession, Catholics emphasizing the historic episcopate and Lutherans emphasizing apostolicity in doctrine.

In discussing historic succession and ecumenism, it is clear that Lutherans seem to regard that which is to be handed on in apostolic succession to be the entire apostolic faith, rather than the episcopate in isolation. To be apostolic is to have a link to the apostles and what is entrusted to them. It is a holistic picture; nonetheless, it has special room for the identity of the apostles and their successors. Historically, Lutherans felt Catholicism negated the former for the sake of the latter, and they compensated by, in Catholicism’s view, doing the opposite. Yet, if there is appreciation on

88 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 288. 89 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 289. 90 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 291. 91 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 293.

175 behalf of Anglicans and Catholics for the former, perhaps Lutherans can develop an appreciation for the latter, which, indeed, we see happening in the primary documents: “The Lutheran participants in these conversations recognize the churches of the Anglican Communion as true apostolic churches and their ministry as an apostolic ministry in unbroken succession, because they see in them true proclamation of the gospel and right administration of the sacraments.”92 It is striking, to a Catholic observer, to see the Lutheran communion “granting” recognition of apostolic succession to Anglicans in this light; a Catholic sees the Lutheran communion through the eyes of what they lack and need to be re-given (historic succession). The Catholic Church should consider the fruits of considering what she might lack in the eyes of the Lutheran communion (a holistic understanding of succession). The Lutheran emphasis on what the Catholic or Anglican communion needs to be re-given, far from demonstrating obstinacy, demonstrates is the extent to which they, too, believe that “there can be no creation of an artificial reconciliation of ministries through negotiation. Because we are one in the truth of the gospel we cannot require something of each other which is not essential for salvation.” The center for all communions “is the gospel and its ministry;”93 each has a particular emphasis on how this is to be safeguarded. Creative needs to consider the value in seeing each communion being faithful to its own standard, and in looking collectively at the group of communions as a system of checks and balances, lifting up what the other communions might not emphasize.

Perhaps historic succession, and a focus on it, is the particular gift of Catholicism, whereas a mindfulness of fidelity to the Gospel in its purity is the gift of Lutheranism; moreover, perhaps it is fair to say that both are a good and necessary part of apostolic succession in Christianity. This is to

92 The Pullach Report 90. 93 Toward Full Communion, 34-35 c.f. Paul Berge, “A Response to Bill Countryman’s paper, ‘The Gospel and the Institutions of the Church’” (Unpublished paper, Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III, June 10-13, 1984), 2.

176 reinforce what we find in Toward Full Communion as it states, “For the future, we agree that if either communion should be able to receive the gift of the other's particular apostolicity, without unfaithfulness to its own, the future of the church would be served…Any future unity of the church will be a unity of common confession.”94

For both Lutherans and Roman Catholics,

The basic intention of the doctrine of apostolic succession is to indicate that throughout all historical changes in its proclamation and structures, the church in all times referred back to its apostolic origin. …In the New Testament and the early fathers, the emphasis was obviously placed more on the substance of apostolicity, i.e., on succession in apostolic teaching. In this sense the entire church as the ecclesia apostolica stands in the apostolic succession. Within this general sense of succession, there is a more specific meaning: the succession of the uninterrupted line of transmission of office. … It is in these terms that Catholics today are trying once again to develop a deeper understanding of apostolic succession in the ministerial office. … It can also be of ecumenical importance to indicate that the Catholic tradition knows of individual instances of the ordination of priests by priests which were recognized as valid. It still needs to be clarified to what extent this leaves open the possibility of a presbyterial succession.95

There exists within Catholicism, like Lutheranism and Anglicanism, room to consider that apostolic succession is wider than merely historic succession. It seems reasonable to say that fruitful to the

Catholic Church in these discussions is attentiveness to the nuances and complexities of the issue.

As Mary Tanner has said, apostolicity is a “many-stranded rope,”96 not the least important of which is historic succession. Yet, though not unimportant, neither is it unilaterally important. Catholic theology needs to articulate what degree of legitimate diversity, then, it can accommodate, following the example of the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. To this topic we now turn.

94 Toward Full Communion, 28-29. 95 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 118. 96 Mary Tanner, “The Anglican Position on Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 123.

177

5.3a: Divisive Disagreement vs. Legitimate Diversity

Our dialogue between thinkers who adopt a narrow understanding of apostolic succession with thinkers who adopt a broader understanding has concluded with extended reflections on the possibility of each emphasis being a particular gift of each communion. The theme of legitimate diversity or unity within diversity is prevalent throughout the Anglican-Lutheran primary documents, and its fruits for the Catholic Church should not be understated. The theme deserves more extended exploration at this juncture. Section 5.3 conducts this explaration through three main topics: 5.3a investigates the concept of diversity in contrast with differences that would divide; 5.3b looks specifically at the notion of a defectus regarding episcopical succession and the degree to which it constitutes either a legitimate diversity or a divisive disagreement; and 5.3c considers the discussion in terms of the concept of validity.

Unity does not mean uniformity. Porvoo states, “The Holy Spirit bestows on the community diverse and complementary gifts.”97 Although not identical in their understandings of the historic episcopate, the Porvoo participants state, “Visible unity, however, should not be confused with uniformity.”98 This idea is reiterated in Toward Full Communion, which states, “Both Lutherans and

Anglicans recognize that the ordained ministry in its various developed forms, including the historic episcopate, is a gift of God to the church. And both of us agree that the historic episcopate can be

‘locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.’”99 The notion of local adaptation allows for the concept of “legitimate diversity.”100 How might Catholics evaluate the concept of unity within

97 The Porvoo Common Statement 19. 98 The Porvoo Common Statement 23. 99 Toward Full Communion, 39. 100 Growth in Communion 155.

178 diversity, and is it a concept they might draw on for dialogues with non-Catholic churches? Does the concept of unity within diversity allow the Catholic Church to envision itself as one of many valid forms of Christianity?

According to Walter Kasper, “Communio really is the key concept for all bilateral and multilateral dialogues. All of them define the visible unity of all Christians as communio-unity, and agree in understanding it, not as uniformity but as unity in diversity and diversity in unity.”101

Catholics may appreciate that Growth in Communion does not attempt to deny the significance of the historic episcopate, of course, or to offer a shallow resolution to a significant problem. It acknowledges that

Some differences cause strains within each Communion as well as between Churches of the two Communions. They are potentially or presently Church dividing and require ongoing dialogue. Some different emphases and practices related to the ordained ministry among Anglican and Lutheran Churches are at present barriers to the development of fuller relations between Anglicans and Lutherans in certain places, or risk impairing the relation of communion already established: a. the ordination or non-ordination of women as deacons, priests / pastors and bishops; b. the acceptability of historical episcopal succession in the service of the apostolicity of the Church; c. the delegation of ordination by bishops; d. lay presidency of the Eucharist.102

How might Catholics evaluate the concept of unity within diversity, and is it a concept they might draw on for dialogues with non-Catholic churches? Walter Kasper cites Lumen gentium 8 and 15 in acknowledging that “Christ can be found outside the institutional boundaries of the Catholic

Church.”103 He affirms elsewhere that “through dialogue and communication…we can reach and preserve unity and find common ground and unanimity amidst legitimate plurality.”104 It is indeed this notion of a “legitimate” and not merely indiscriminate plurality that is of interest to us.

Gaudium et spes exhorts that the Church’s “mission requires in the first place that we foster within the Church herself mutual esteem, reverence and harmony, through the full recognition of

101 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 50. 102 Growth in Communion 153. 103 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 66. 104 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 190.

179 lawful diversity. … For the bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything dividing them.

Hence, let there be unity in what is necessary; freedom in what is unsettled, and charity in any case.”105

Taking cues from Congar, we see ample room in Catholicism for the understanding of unity within a legitimate diversity. He likens the oneness of the Church as a unity within diversity to the

Trinity itself. 106 It would seem, indeed, that the Catholic Church has room to accommodate the concept of unity in diversity, and that the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues’ use of the concept to reach consensus on the topic of episcopacy is a theological move that the Catholic Church might likewise consider. Of course, this leads to the question: what constitutes a “legitimate” diversity, and what constitutes an “illegitimate” one? To draw on terminology present in Unitatis Redintegratio, we might ask about essentials and non-essentials:

All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.107

In other words, then, agreement in “essentials” and permissive disagreement in non-essentials seems to be the concept evident in all of the documents we have surveyed. The question thus raised is whether or not the historic episcopate is an essential. While the Church of England did break with

Catholic historical succession, there was a desire “in the Church of England not to break historic continuity with the old religion, at any rate in essentials.”108

105 Vatican Council. Gaudium et spes: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 7 December, 1965, Papal Archive, The Holy See, AAS 58 (1966), 1025, 92. 106 Congar, Divided Christendom, 48. 107 Unitatis redintegratio 4. 108 Congar, Divided Christendom, 151.

180

On the other hand, Catholicism cannot infer, from this statement, that she, too, believes historic succession to be a non-essential. Evidence in support of the “narrow” definition in the section above shows that this could be a sticking point. Moreover, Congar states:

It is also of the essence of the Church on earth to have an unchangeable human form of its unity. This is because its spiritual reality is incarnate in humanity, and there is on earth no fellowship which is not a society, or faith which is not dogma, or incorporation in the mystery of Christ which is not sacramental, or life in charity which is not also an obligation in the social order. All the sources of the Church's unity, of which catholicity is the dynamic universality, have an outward form, the sign and the instrument of the inward unity. Catholicity is like unity, apostolic, social and hierarcical. Moreover, this outward constitution of the Church, the organ of her unity and catholicity, is something established by the Lord Himself or by His apostles and it is not susceptible to change. This constitution concerns the organs of oneness in faith, grace and the common life, which are respectively magisterium, priesthood and government. It implies for the magisterium a positive criterion of collective life in truth, for priesthood the law of apostolic succession, for government the twofold and imprescriptable institution of the and the Episcopate.109

And yet, “Christendom is more extensive than the visible reality of the Church…we know that outside her visible membership there are souls who belong to Jesus Christ. …this implies no denial of the famous principle Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus.”110 He states elsewhere:

But, you may ask, what about confessional differences and breaches of ecclesiastical communion? These (it will be replied) are infinitely regrettable but inevitable, and in a sense normal. Neither the one nor the other involves the esse of the Church. The substantial unity of the Church is that of a family, bound by a common life and a common origin. A family may be divided, either by the ordinary dispersion of its members or by an unhappy quarrel, yet it still remains one, despite distance or disagreement, despite the inevitable variety of tastes and habits and activities. The Church is a family, and Christians of different confessions who have a genuine continuity with the parent stock are brethren and remain so even when they separated.111

Another scholar whose thought bears on this discussion is James Loughran, who, during the brief period between the 1997 rejection of the Concordat and the 1999 acceptance of its revision, reflected on the overall project, wondering if the Lutheran rejection signifies resistance to the need for episcopacy and, therefore, a hindrance to Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. He writes empathically towards the Lutheran Church, however, understanding that “ecumenists simply cannot assume the people in our pews have understood what ecumenism really means. Many do not understand the

109 Congar, Divided Christendom, 100-101. 110 Congar, Divided Christendom, 222. 111 Congar, Divided Christendom, 175.

181 need for the one universal church, because they can easily confuse it with a loss of legitimate diversity. The fear of powerlessness appears. What saves ecumenism in the end is a spirit of love and an honest desire for unity among our people.”112 Indeed, he admonishes at the conclusion of the article: “be patient.”113

To help us understand the value of the concept of unity as reconciled diversity for Catholic ecclesiology, a promising method might be to look at the situation under the heading of development. Gaudium et spes states, “the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come.”114 This statement seems to suggest that it might be possible to consider that at one point in history one thing might be proper, fitting, or essential for the Church and its apostolicity and that, at another point in history, something else might be more appropriate. The wisdom of

Congar’s work on “true and false reform” sheds light on this subject. He states that the Church is called to be impervious to the outside world in the sense that she does not compromise the deposit of faith, but not insofar as it engages new issues in contemporary settings. She “will never depart from the deposit of faith…(but) witness simply must come alive in new cultures…to explain itself in the languages and sensibilities of those cultures.”115

He calls for two types of fidelity:116 fidelity to development and fidelity to the existing form.

Catholic fidelity will have to embrace the two aspects.”117 To be sure, there are “inauthentic” reforms, namely, those which lead to schism. Yet, reform is also an essential aspect of a living, intact

112 James Loughran, “Response to William Rusch’s ,” The Anglican 27 (Jan 1998), 9. 113 Loughran, 9. 114 Gaudium et Spes 4. 115 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, xiv. 116 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 365-371. 117 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 367.

182

Church.118 As a living body, this ability to breathe and grow is essential, for the breath of the Holy

Spirit cannot be strangled.119 Otherwise, “the Church’s body has grown, but not its skin. So it is in danger of splitting open.”120

He names the temptation to worship existing forms of the Church that should be changing and growing with the times as the “temptation to become a Synagogue,” or “the temptation to refuse to accept any progress in the development of the forms by which we celebrate God’s work, forms situated and fixed in a given moment in time.”121 The Church has to develop with the world, but “it runs the risk of becoming attached to familiar and established forms and then of failing to hear the call for new needs and for new growth requiring new forms.”122 From this, we might deduce that the Holy Spirit is enough to ensure apostolic continuity, that the historic episcopate is a form we must resist idolizing. This deduction would likely take Congar’s work too far, but it is worth stating in order to demonstrate how Catholic theology surely has room to consider to what extent that might be a helpful line of thinking.

Congar’s line of thinking is evident in Ut unum sint:

The increase of fellowship in a reform which is continuous and carried out in the light of the Apostolic Tradition is certainly, in the present circumstances of Christians, one of the distinctive and most important aspects of ecumenism. Moreover, it is an essential guarantee for its future. The faithful of the Catholic Church cannot forget that the ecumenical thrust of the Second Vatican Council is one consequence of all that the Church at that time committed herself to doing in order to re-examine herself in the light of the Gospel and the great Tradition.123

A reflection on the topic of Scripture and Tradition will provide additional support for why, and to what extent, the Catholic Church can accommodate a theology of unity in diversity on the topic of episcopacy.

118 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 13. 119 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 90. 120 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 148. 121 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 133. 122 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, 148. 123 Ut unum sint 17.

183

The second chapter of this dissertation concluded we cannot simply “prove” historic succession from scripture. Reflecting on the Centro Pro Unione conference, William Henn states:

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 Testament 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 come 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 (sic) through the course of history.124

In a similar vein, Jerald C. Brauer argues that “Anglicans do not make frequent use of the word

‘tradition’ except in a phrase like churches of the Anglican tradition, which is virtually a synonym for the ‘Anglican Communion.’… The office of bishop was not founded by Christ and so is not an absolute necessity for a true church.”125 In fact, “there has been a sharply critical attitude to tradition if this implied an additional source for historical data supplementing the history given in the gospels, or a source for a ‘secret’ doctrine additional in the gospels”126 in a gnostic sense. Here, we see that if

Catholicism is criticized for neglecting scripture in favor of tradition, Anglicans and Protestants have perhaps compensated by going too far in the opposite direction, neglecting tradition in overzealous biblical purity, forgetting, indeed, that the whole of the New Testament comes several decades into the living tradition and from her. In this sense, Catholic theology rests on both scripture and tradition, and, although Protestant theology typically tends to emphasize scripture to a much greater degree (following the Reformation principle Sola Scriptura), it does not lack an appreciation for tradition:

124 Henn, 192, c.f. “Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession,” in International Theological Commission: Texts and Documents 1969-1985, edited by M.J. Sharkey (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981), 93-104. 125 Jerald C. Brauer, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays 92 126 The Pullach Report, 142

184

Both Lutherans and Anglicans respect tradition…Both Lutherans and Anglicans recognize that the ordained ministry in its various developed forms, including the episcopate, is a gift of God to the church. And both of us agree that the historic episcopate can be ‘locally adapted in the methods of its of God into the Unity of His Church.’127

Moreover,

The Word is more inclusive than Scripture in Luther's understanding of revelation. Most frequently Word means the proclamation, the spoken Word, which embodies God's whole gracious action. Hence, it can refer — by extension — to the whole free proclamation of grace which for Luther constitutes the revival of the Word or gospel in his day. In this regard, Luther remarks repeatedly in bold language that the gospel is properly a spoken word. For the gospel to be gospel it needs to be spoken, addressed to a you. Ideally the gospel ought never to have been written down. Writing takes away the address character, the character or revelation as event.128

Combined with our previous discussion on development, the implication for Catholics is striking: simply the fact that both Scripture and tradition are such important means for guarding the deposit of faith allows for diverse approaches to the historic episcopate. One might assume it would mean only more uniformity, since the Catholic tradition only approves of one, uniform method. However, tradition is not merely the action and teaching of the magisterium, but the sensus fidelium, and the action of the Holy Spirit in the movement of the ever- developing Church. Dei Verbum confirms:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that , Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.129

Thus, it follows that Catholics must acknowledge as part of the that very variety in diverse relationships with historic episcopacy discussed earlier in this dissertation. For the past

127 Toward Full Communion, 39. 128 Goeser, appendix in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 119. 129 Dei Verbum 10.

185 five hundred years or so, part of the corpus of Christian life has been a variety of alternative means of apostolic succession. Speaking about Christians not yet in full communion with the Catholic

Church, Lumen gentium posits:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.130

With Mary Tanner, we can say, in this light, that the “Porvoo statement on apostolicity and succession is a fresh re-reading of Scripture and tradition, while at the same time taking account of the teaching and lived experience of both traditions.”131 This line of thinking is not to undermine what the Catholic Church has always striven to uphold – both for the past five hundred years and the many hundreds of years before that. But it is undeniable that the Church’s embrace has farther to reach today than ever before, and her current ecumenical thinking seems to call for creativity in ecclesiological conceptions.

Congar is sure to highlight that, “on the other hand, Catholicism simplifies human diversity, assimilating differences in order to incorporate them, and obviating too excessive particularism.”132

The Catholic concern with a “too excessive particularism” balanced with legitimate diversity is something that will naturally arise when asking to what extent the unified Church might manifest

130 Lumen gentium 15. 131 Tanner, 124. 132 Congar, Divided Christendom, 111.

186 different models of the episcopate. Perhaps the model offered in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues will be considered too un-unified for the Catholic Church. This leads us to a discussion about what the Church might have trouble adopting from the dialogues.

5.3b: The Issue of Defectus

The Catholic Church’s emphasis on historical succession as central to the understanding of apostolic succession render, in the Catholic view, communions that do not stand in historical succession as possessing a defectus, according to Unitatis redintegratio 22:

In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in perfect unity. Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone and shepherd of our souls. Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors - the bishops with Peter's successor at their head - should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love.133

Unitatis redintegratio characterizes Protestant churches as defective or lacking in fullness:

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless 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.134

It addresses the separation among churches in the west, stating:

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient (defectus) in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.135

This passage is striking, for while Unitatis Redintegratio clearly indicates that lack of historic succession is a defect, or renders divided churches “deficient,” it also praises them as a means of salvation

133 Unitatis redintegratio 2. 134 Unitatis redintegratio 22. 135 Unitatis redintegratio 3.

187 nonetheless. This raises questions about the meaning of succession in a church; is it necessary to make the church a vehicle of salvation?

The Apostolicity of the Church names the defectus sacramenti ordinis mentioned in Unitatis redintegratio 22 as a central element in Catholic-Lutheran dialogue:

What is in dispute between Lutherans and Catholics is …over what makes a person a rightful holder of a regional ministry and what grounds the power to ordain. At issue is apostolic succession in episcopal office. What is the significance of prayer and the laying on of hands by other bishops and of incorporation into the Roman Catholic episcopal college of bishops in communion with the Pope? It is Catholic doctrine that the practice and doctrine of apostolic succession in the episcopate is, together with the threefold ministry, part of the complete structure of the church. This succession is realized in a corporate manner as bishops are taken into the college of Catholic bishops and thereby have the power to ordain. Therefore it is also Catholic doctrine that in Lutheran churches the sacramental sign of ordination is not fully present because those who ordain do not act in communion with the Catholic episcopal college. Therefore the Second Vatican Council speaks of a defectus sacramenti ordinis (UR 22) in these churches.136

As a Catholic commentator on the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues, one must ask if this passage might be fruitful insofar as it seems to suggest degrees of episcopacy; there are greater and lesser ranks of minister. This might refer to the differences between bishops, priests, and deacons; perhaps full communion between Catholics and other Protestant denominations is possible if it is also understood to mean that episcopacy may be recognized in other churches simply to a lesser degree.

Rather than focusing on a defectus in apostolic succession in terms of pure lack, perhaps Lumen gentium offers, much like the Anglican-Lutheran documents themselves, a

way, or rather: a ‘process’ by which a Lutheran church re-appropriates the historic episcopacy and, thus, overcomes the defectus – which the other church thinks it has – without, however, surrendering the ecclesiological convictions derived from the as fait ecclesiologique…the central idea is, that one can together share in a reality in spite of gradual but, nonetheless, clearly perceptible difference in the validation of this reality.137

Michael Root, writing while still a Lutheran, responds to this conundrum by arguing that it is possible to understand ordained ministries as existing on a spectrum if we dissect the word defectus and uncover several possible meanings. He draws our attention to Unitatis Redintegratio’s use of the

136 “The Apostolicity of the Church” 283, c.f. Unitatis redintegratio 22. 137 Meyer, “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective,” 180.

188 term as it is applied to non-Catholic communities’ ordinations. He observes, “Ever since Vatican II, there has been a low-level, but highly significant, debate on how to translate defectus, as “defect” or as

‘lack’ or ‘absence.’ Some (e.g., Walter Kasper) have argued for “defect”; others have argued for ‘lack’ or ‘absence.”138 Observing that official versions of Catholic texts almost uniformly use the latter, he observes that the resulting theology is one in which, in non-Catholic communities, “the sacrament of order is not present with a defect or present defectively; it is simply not present.”139 This theological emphasis results in Catholics viewing Lutheran communities as less than true churches:

In Catholic eyes, a Lutheran remains a member of an ecclesial community, not a church, primarily because of a defectus in the sacrament of order [praesertim propter sacramenti ordinis defectum] (UR 22). For that same reason, a Eucharist celebrated by Lutherans (or Anglicans or other Protestants) does not retain “the authentic and full reality [or substance] of the eucharistic mystery [genuinam atque integram substantiam mysterii eucharistici] (ibid.). The defectus in the sacrament of order is a function of the absence of a “valid episcopate.”140 Root specifies that “ states that the ‘ecclesial communities’ are not ‘churches in the strict sense’ because they ‘have not preserved the valid episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic ministry,’ citing UR (Unitatis Redintegratio) 22, even though UR 22 makes no explicit reference to the episcopate.” 141 Yet, he observes, Ut unum sint 11 states that these communities “stand in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church” (as opposed to no communion at all), and Root elaborates that it affirms “the church is active among them. …these ecclesial communities are instruments of salvation.”142

138 Michael Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue: Deadlock, Breakthrough, or Both?” (CTSA Proceedings 62 (2007)), (Hereafter “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue”), 29. C.f. Walter Kasper, “Die apostolische Sukzession als ökumenisches Problem” (Lehrverurteilungen— kirchentrennend?: III Materialien zur Lehre von den Sakramenten und vom kirchlichen Amt, edited by Wolfhart Pannenberg, Freiberg: Herder, 1990), 345. 139 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 29. 140 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 24. c.f. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dominus Jesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,” Origins 30 (2000), 17. 141 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 24 (footnote). 142 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 28.

189

The aforementioned understandings of Lutheran communities results in a theological incongruity, however. If there is a defectus, lack or absence, of truly or validly ordained ministers in this community such that it is not truly a church, and yet the Holy Spirit and salvation are nonetheless present in them, then Root argues that the implication “would be that ordered ministry is needed to be church in the strict sense, but the church can be present and active even though ordered ministry is simply absent.”143 A result would be that ordination – and perhaps even apostolicity altogether – would appear to not matter very much at all in the grand scheme of salvation, a conclusion Root argues is entirely incongruous with Catholic theology: “The ordained ministry and episcopate thus would seem to be essential only to some full or integral functioning of the means of grace, but accidental to their regular effective functioning.”144 He adds:

…such a theology of the episcopate contradicts strongly the conclusions that would seem to follow from the combination of present Catholic affirmations and denials about the ecclesial communities. This combination would imply that ordained ministry and episcopacy are less significant for Catholics than they even are for Lutherans, since the Lutheran Confessions clearly state that the ongoing efficacy of the gospel in Christian communities requires the presence of the office of ministry. How can Catholic theology avoid the implications of this combination of affirmations and denials? Catholic theology must say either less about the saving character of these ecclesial communities and their imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, pulling back from the positive statements of Vatican II and post-conciliar texts, or they must say more about the ordained ministry and episcopacy in these communities, conceding some greater reality and status to such ministry. I see no other alternative if Catholic ecumenical theology is to achieve conceptual coherence.145

Root’s solution is to argue for an understanding of defectus that translates more as “defect” than as

“lack;” in other words, to understand the validity of the sacrament of orders as “scalar,” with more nuanced degrees than simply “yes” or “no,” as is the traditional understanding of sacramental theology. Currently, there is no language in sacramental theology to talk about partial effects of a sacrament, as if they are on a spectrum. One is either baptized or not baptized. One is either married

143 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 30. 144 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 31. 145 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 31.

190 or not married. Is there room, however, in light of Root’s discussion, to talk about greater or lesser degrees of having been ordained in the episcopal succession? Root answers:

What is needed is such a flexible, scalar category to apply to the episcopacy and ministries of the ecclesial communities, especially to the churches of the Lutheran and Anglican communions that affirm and practice episcopal succession. Catholic theology need not invent such a category; it is already present in Vatican II, namely, defectus, if defectus is understood as defect and not as lack or absence. A real but defective episcopacy (and thus a real, but defective ordained ministry) could be understood to be such that it mediates a real, but imperfect ministerial or hierarchical communion with the Catholic Church. It can be a medium through which the church is present and active in a community, even if it is not capable of bearing the weight that goes with being ‘church in the strict sense.’ It can be an instrument of the Holy Spirit in the saving operation of the means of grace, even if not in the same way that a non-defective ministry can be. It can be a real, but imperfect bearer of the teaching office that is inherent in the office of ministry, even if, in Catholic judgment, it is also erring in certain respects and lacks that participation in the church’s infallibility that accompanies full communion with the episcopal college headed by the bishop of Rome.146

Root’s considerations contribute to a Catholic conception of a wider understanding of apostolicity than the black-and-white categories of “yes” and “no” with regard to the sacrament. If there are scalar degrees in which a minister may participate in the historic succession, then the Church has room to consider the possibility of orders being present outside the Church while not conceding the importance of the historicity of succession in recognizing these ministers. Root’s observations make the important observation that in Protestant orders, even if there is not a fully valid ordination in the

Catholic view, still, the reality of ministry is there. There is something as opposed to nothing. What is needed is an understanding that will permit us talk about the episcopate in degrees other than

“fully” and “nothing at all.”

This discussion also bears on the subject of joint ordinations. In short: the Anglican-

Lutheran dialogues model an immediate recognition of each other’s bishops. If the Catholic Church were to enter into joint ordinations with Lutheran bishops, presumably it would not be willing to recognize existing Lutheran bishops as standing in the historic succession. It would be able to

146 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 33.

191 recognize only bishops ordained by at least one Catholic bishop in the historic succession. However, if understood in scalar terms, perhaps a recognition of orders that are not valid in absolute terms but still possess aspects of the essential reality of what is communicated in the sacrament of order could be useful during the interim period before a new generation of bishops is grafted onto the tree of the historic episcopate.

5.3c: Questions of Validity

Catholic George H. Tavard’s opinion of the Catholic problem with the historical succession as it stands in Lutheran Churches is summarized by drawing on Johannes Bugenhagen:

On July 6,1536, Martin Luther's friend, the pastor of Wittenberg, Johannes Bugenhagen, who did exercise some sort of oversight of churches in Northeastern Germany … ordained seven priests to serve as “superintendents” in the kingdom of Denmark. The word "superintendent" is a literal rendering of the New Testament term, episkopos. The historical surveys, Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe (p.44-184) clearly show that Lutheran bishops in Denmark, Norway, and the Baltic countries trace their orders back to Bugenhagen. In the Baltic countries the historical succession was, so to say, regularized in this century, when ordinations to the episcopate were performed by Swedish bishops. The case of Sweden of course stands apart, since the Catholic bishops of Sweden generally accepted the Lutheran reformation and there was no break in the continuity of their succession. For comparison, canon 1012 in the 1981 code of canon law of the Roman Catholic Church identifies the bishop is the sole minister of ordination. No difference is made in this canon between ordination to the diaconate, to the priesthood, and to the episcopate because those three are considered part of one and the same sacrament of orders.”147

The Bugenhagen dilemma seems to be a sticking point for Catholics, as ordinations that stem from him are not considered valid. Questions of validity, e.g., ensuring that ordained ministers in the

Christian Church are, according to the code of canon law, ordained by a bishop standing in the line of succession, seem to be a fundamental part of the definition of apostolic succession. Of course, in

Catholic theology, “the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary ministers is commonly made regarding baptism. A bishop, priest, or deacon is the ordinary minister. Yet in the absence of an ordinary minister anyone who is ‘moved by the correct intention’ (quilibet homo debita intentione motus)

147 Tavard, George H., “A Catholic Reflection on the Porvoo Statement,” Midstream 33 (1994), 352-353.

192 may act as extraordinary minister (canon 861). But such a distinction has never been applied to ordination in the Catholic tradition.”148 The reason it never has is perhaps not a reason that it could not, and as such, says Sullivan, “in assessing the value of the Porvoo Statement the ecumenical context cannot be ignored.”149 Jesuit theologian Edward Yarnold also traces Catholic difficulties to

Bugenhagen:

These Lutheran Churches, like the Anglicans, maintain the office of bishop. There is, however, a vitally important difference within the histories of these Lutheran episcopates: while, despite the Reformation, Sweden, Finland and Estonia preserved an episcopal succession, into which Latvia and Lithuania entered in the twentieth century, that succession was and remains interrupted in Denmark, Norway and Iceland, where all bishops derive their orders through Bugenhagen, a German Lutheran presbyter of superintendent rank, though without episcopal orders, who consecrated seven bishops in 1536. In Denmark indeed, though the title of bishop was retained, the office seems to be understood in organisational rather than sacramental terms; according to the essay on episcopacy in that country, the bishop differs from the priest not in any "new ministry", but in his "responsibility for a wider area" and his "oversight over his fellow pastors".

Yarnold refers to the roots of the episcopacy in Denmark, Norway and Iceland as “irregular,” 150 rather than invalid, and believes that the invitation to joint ordination expressed in Porvoo “will in time restore episcopal succession where it is lacking. The doctrinal section of the statement, however, makes it clear that the existence of a valid apostolic ministry does not depend upon this.”

151 It would be this admission that Roman Catholics would take issue with. As of the Council of

Trent,

the triple hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons is now said to be of "divine ordinance" (and therefore not just an administrative convenience); the power of bishops to ordain is not shared by presbyters. Nevertheless, the Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic Churches would not see themselves bound by the Tridentine and subsequent Roman Catholic decisions. They could base their claim to presbyteral orders on medieval precedent; they can even invoke ancient Alexandrian custom in justification of their episcopate. 152

148 Tavard, “A Catholic Reflection on the Porvoo Statement,” 354. 149 Tavard, “A Catholic Reflection on the Porvoo Statement,” 353. 150 Edward Yarnold, “In Line with the Apostles,” The Tablet (July 9, 1994), 878. 151 Yarnold, 878. 152 Yarnold, 879.

193

Related to the questions of validity stemming from the Bugenhagen line of bishops are questions of validity stemming from sacramental theology. A joint Catholic/Lutheran statement from 1966 reads:

Perhaps the most serious obstacle standing in the way of a favorable Catholic evaluation of the Lutheran eucharistic Ministry has been the doctrine of the Council Trent pertinent to sacred orders. In particular, canon 10 of Session VII (A.D. 1547; DS 1610) denied that all Christians have the power of administering all the sacraments, and canon 7 of Session XXIII (A.D. 1563; DS 1777) said that those who had not been ordained or commissioned by ecclesiastical or canonical power were not legitimate Ministers of the word and the sacraments. It would seem, prima facie, that in Trent's judgment Lutheran Ministers, since they have not been ordained by bishops, would not have the power of presiding at the eucharist, and that the Catholic church could not change its stance on this question since the doctrine of Trent is permanently binding. 153

This is no small problem. The extent to which Catholic teaching on the Eucharist impacts its ability to accept a wider understanding of apostolic succession is of decisive significance when evaluating the fruitfulness the Anglican-Lutheran primary documents can have on Catholic ecumenical discussions about episcopacy. Sacramental theology cannot avoid questions of validity. We have seen that Catholic principles have ample room for unity in essentials and diversity in non-essentials; surely, however, something as central as the right administration of the sacraments must be considered essential. To this end, Yarnold states,

Among Catholics the "extraordinary route to episcopal office" remains a tentative suggestion; the tradition that certainty is required in matters concerning the sacraments is likely to prevent the Church from recognising orders without episcopal succession, even on the accepted principle of ecclesia supplet (the implicit action of the Church makes up defects in the administration of sacraments). The Porvoo signatories, on the other hand, are much more confident, wishing to commit their Churches to the interchange of ministries even before the sign of episcopal succession has been re-established. They consider themselves justified in taking such an unprecedented step, feeling "free" to acknowledge "authentic episcopal ministry" even if there is no unbroken line of bishops, on what can only be the balance of theological probabilities. A similar boldness was in evidence in the Church of England's decision to ordain women priests. The declaration has thus important implications for Roman Catholic-Anglican relations. If Roman Catholics could accept the Porvoo principle, many of the objections to Anglican orders would be nullified. If on the other hand, as seems more probable, they are bound to reject it, a new and important disagreement on the doctrine of ministry will have emerged.154

Of course, valid ordination is not required for all sacraments; notably, baptism is valid when performed by any Christian. Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear in stating, “Only validly

153 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 116. 154 Yarnold, 3.

194 ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”155 It seems that a resolution to this difficulty will be found not in questioning the teaching on the Eucharist, but by continuing to evaluate the characteristics of priests ordained “validly.”

Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement offers that “one approach to the problem is the contention that the Tridentine attitude was not so absolutely negative as has been thought.” 156 For example, they “are not sure that the council meant that a Minister ‘not ordained by ecclesiastical or canonical power’ was really incapable of celebrating the eucharist. They emphasize that all that the council said was that this was not a “lawful" Ministry.”157 Or, “another approach to the Tridentine position reckons with the likelihood that the council really did mean implicitly to declare invalid Lutheran orders in the sixteenth century but wonders whether the present situation is not so changed that the Tridentine attitude is now only partially applicable.”158 One might accuse this statement of reducing dogmatic statements to “attitude;” on the other hand, it is possible that post-Vatican II theology has room to consider that it might be a fruitful to observe the truth of

Trent’s declarations on a level deeper than literalism. It is indeed true that the present Catholic-

Lutheran situation is much different than during Trent. We see in the supporting essays to the

Concordat of Agreement, for instance, a caution about ordination and the sacraments: “As with sacraments, the temptation is to substitute them for the larger reality and thus, in the case of creeds, to let orthodoxy become a matter of subscribing to correct formulae rather than a matter of being in

155 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II (: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997) 1411. 156 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 116. 157 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 116. 158 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 116.

195 a faithful and worshipful relation to God through our Lord. The danger is to reduce all Christian theology to a polemical exercise.”159 In this vein, Catholic dialogue participants go so far as to say:

The historical and theological reflections made above move us to doubt whether Roman Catholics should continue to question the eucharistic presence of the Lord in the midst of the Lutherans when they meet to celebrate the Lord's supper. And so we make the following statement: As Roman Catholic theologians, we acknowledge in the spirit of Vatican II that the Lutheran communities which we have been in dialogue are truly Christian churches, possessing the elements of holiness and truth that mark them as organs of grace and salvation. Furthermore, in our study we have found serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity of the eucharistic Ministry of the Lutheran churches. In fact, we see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic Church recognizing the validity of this Ministry. Accordingly we ask the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry, and correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of Lutheran churches.160

Related to this topic, of course, is the topic of what constitutes a sacrament. If Catholics and

Lutherans, Anglicans, or other Protestant denominations are able to come to an agreement on the sacraments of baptism (which is easy) and the Eucharist (which proves more challenging, but perhaps not impossible), then the Catholic Church would surely call to mind the other five sacraments and questions about their validity. The fact that most denominations recognize only baptism and the Eucharist as being sacraments at all is cause for concern from

Catholics regarding sacramental theology. What of the power to forgive sins? What of the power to heal? Scripturally, the power to bind and loose sins (Matthew 16:19) is given to the apostles in conjunction with the handing of the keys to the kingdom to Peter. Catholicism, thus, is going to read into this passage the importance of Petrine succession as it relates to historic apostolic succession and, by extension, as it relates to the sacrament of Reconciliation. Protestants will naturally read the passage differently. This is surely a sticking point for sacramental theology among

Catholics and Protestants. The center of this sticking point is likely the very sacrament that this entire dissertation has been considering: holy orders. The very fact that Catholicism sees ordination

159 Countryman, Concordat of Agreement Supporting Essays, 25. 160 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 116-117.

196 as a sacrament and that Protestants do not is at the crux of our entire discussion about historical succession. Considering that it is not a sacrament makes it much easier to be lax in considerations of how formal it must be. That Catholics do consider it a sacrament explains issues with validity discussed throughout this chapter.

Interestingly enough, the joint Catholic/Lutheran statement mentioned above elaborates that, “on one occasion in the Lutheran confessional documents, the term ‘sacrament’ is deemed applicable to ordination, but such language is not common in Lutheran theology.”161 Although not typically called a sacrament, “like the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran too sees ordination as conferring a spiritual authority…namely, the power to sanctify through proclamation of the word of

God and the administration of the sacraments.”162 According to Margaret O’Gara, the Anglican-

Roman Catholic International Commission’s “discussion of ordained ministry also brings out the uniqueness of the ordained ministry. While ordained ministers share through baptism in the priesthood of the people of God and represent the church in its priestly vocation of self-offering, the ministry of the ordained is not an extension of the common Christian priesthood but belongs to another realm of the gifts of the Spirit.”163 In moving forward with any of the Protestant churches, the Catholic Church would surely ask whether or not these churches would agree theologically with the existence of seven sacraments. There is nothing in the primary documents that suggests they would be fundamentally opposed, although neither is there anything to confirm that they would not.

Questions of the validity of this particular sacrament also arise when placing Catholic theology into dialogue with the primary documents of this study. Namely, in a move of reunification

161 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 114. 162 “Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,” Burgess/Gros, 115. 163 Margaret O’Gara, No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014), 95.

197 or full communion with various Protestant denominations, who can be ordained? Catholic theology of ordination is clear on the belief that priestly ordination is reserved for men. What of denominations that accept ministers who are women? What of denominations that accept ministers who are in same-sex relationships?

Let us take, for example, the issue of gender. While not uniform in practice, the Lutheran

World Federation’s official position is to urge member churches to ordain women. Most synods do ordain them; the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod does not ordain women, but nonetheless, most

Lutheran ecclesiology and practice assumes the authority to ordain women. By contrast, Catholic teaching holds that “priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his

Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone.”164 The Church states that it “has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church.”165 Lutheran criticisms of this teaching as sexist will be countered by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ claim that “the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity.”166 Moreover, despite even the sharpest criticisms, the Catholic Church does not believe that it is a decision she has the power to reverse, as she “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”167

164 Pope Saint John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Apostolic Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. 22 May, 1994, Papal Archive, The Holy See, AAS 86 (1994) 545, 1. 165 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 2. 166 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 3. 167 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4.

198

This discussion bears tremendous weight in terms of validity. It is one thing to question whether otherwise ordainable Christian men are validly ordained in the Christian tradition and how, in a generation’s time, a cohort of otherwise ordainable Christian men might be grafted onto the tree of historic succession. It is quite another thing to question whether inordainable women might, at any point, be grafted onto the historic succession. This conundrum lies outside, it would seem, of the heading of “legitimate diversity;” if the Catholic Church believes she has “no authority whatsoever” to ordain women, she would be hard pressed to find an avenue through which to make sense of ordained Lutheran women. The onus of conforming to Catholic norms, then, falls on the

Lutheran communion, who would be faced with an uproar over seemingly sexist policy changes if they were to adopt a Catholic gender understanding of ordination. This is not to say that the

Lutheran communion would be theologically unable to do this, but it is to say they will likely be unwilling.

Similar conflicts arise when considering pastors who are married or who are in same-sex relationships. Now, with regard to married priests, there currently exists a precedent for allowing for the ordination of married, ordained, Episcopalian converts to the Catholic priesthood. What is to prevent this policy from carrying over to women or to people involved in same-sex unions? The answer to this is likely found in the extent to which each individual issue is doctrinal. There is no doctrine denying married priests; it is a matter of discipline. There is, however, doctrinal support against the ordination of women; thus, while the Catholic Church might recognize the and ordination of an Episcopalian man, doctrine prevents it from seeing female ordination from being possible. What of same sex relationships? If the Catholic Church recognizes the ordination and the marriage of a heterosexual Episcopalian convert to Catholicism, doctrine prevents it from recognizing his “marriage” if he is married to a man, since the Catholic Church denies the possibility

199 of two men entering into marriage. We see, then, that the lines of what is permissible under the heading of disciplinary differences or unity within diversity and what is impossible under the heading of Catholic doctrine is not uniform. Less likely than conforming to Catholic doctrine with regard to these items, Protestant communions who have granted the ordination of women or who accept same-sex partnerships will likely criticize the Catholic Church’s doctrines as sexist, homophobic, and exclusionary.

Catholic theology holds that these discussions are not merely polemical or technical. They represent a supernatural reality. If Catholic sacramental theology holds that a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, then the Catholic Church’s gift to these discussions is to remind us that the problem of Christian unity is not merely a jigsaw puzzle to be assembled or a vote to be cast.

The reality of Christ’s Church cannot be decided upon by popularity or by human will. The Catholic lens through which we read the Anglican-Lutheran documents is one that highlights the supernatural reality behind the visible Church, one the Church has a duty to read and to express in the life of the world, albeit adapted in the most effective way possible to the degrees that are possible. To this end,

Schlenker points out the “The church is not just an event; it is also an enduring community, the body of Christ, the community animated by the Holy Spirit.”168

O’Gara affirms that both Catholic and Protestant conversation partners are taking important steps towards each other: “While Roman Catholic theology shows changes in its understanding of ordained ministry, changes that are then received into Roman Catholic liturgical practice, ecumenical dialogue also shows significant developments of understanding in its recent agreements on ordained

168 Schlenker, 113.

200 ministry.”169 Nonetheless, this section has demonstrated that creative responses to several doctrinal roadblocks are needed even though the primary documents provide many new avenues forward.

5.4: The Nature of the Unity Being Sought

The roadblocks indicated above raise the question of item (3) discussed in the introduction to this chapter: the nature of the unity being sought. Would Catholics agree with the overall goal present in the primary documents? Unequivocally, we must answer yes. Restoration of unity is the goal, as evident in Called to Full Communion, which states, “Full communion is understood as a relationship between two distinct churches or communions in which each maintains its own autonomy while recognizing the catholicity and apostolicity of the other, and believing the other to hold the essentials of the Christian faith.” 170 On one hand, it is plausible to posit that Catholicism will really be satisfied only with true and utter reunion in the sense that all communions become one

Church, specifically the Catholic Church. For although she confesses fidelity to ecumenism, it is unclear to what degree she can live with mere “full communion” as described in the Anglican-

Lutheran documents (different communions in relationship with one another). On the other hand, this would be a gross miscalculation of the urgency of unity called for in the Catholic documents.

The Catholic Church is quite committed to ecumenism, and there is surely ample room to accommodate theological creativity. Thus, she would certainly be committed to the goal of full communion on a preliminary level. Ut unum sint states:

Besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long- standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called

169 O’Gara, 90. 170 Called to Full Communion 7, 9.

201

to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people's minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.171

As such, the Catholic Church finds an apt conversation partner in the Anglicans and Lutherans as evident in these dialogues. We must consider that the Catholic Church does not find, in the

Anglicans and Lutherans, opponents or enemies unfaithful to the truth. Rather, the spirit of reconciliation so evident in the primary material is likewise evident in Catholic material, emphasizing the extent to which Catholicism would find these primary documents fruitful for adoption in its own ecumenical enterprise. Unitatis Redintegratio, for instance, points out:

Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.172

In this passage, we see not only a care and concern for separated brethren, but an acknowledgment that it is in turning inward, removing the log from Catholicism’s own eye over and above the speck in Catholicism’s neighbors’, so to speak, that will bring about true reconciliation. “Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance.”173 This spirit of reconciliation is indeed evident in Ut unum sint:

The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers, and the faults into which her members daily fall. The Catholic Church knows that, by virtue of the strength which comes to her from the Spirit, the weaknesses, mediocrity, sins and at times the betrayals of some of her children cannot destroy what God has bestowed on her as part of his plan of grace. Moreover, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). Even so, the Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty.174

171 Ut unum sint 2. 172 Unitatis redintegratio 4. 173 Unitatis redintegratio 6. 174 Ut unum sint 11.

202

This is not a statement representing a self-righteous judgment of Protestant conversation partners; affirmed in this passage, rather, is an indication that the Catholic Church is a ready and willing partner in the ecumenical search for reconciliation, truth, and fellowship evident in the primary documents. This is why “the Council calls for personal conversion as well as for communal conversion.”175 Indeed, even the extent to which the Catholic Church acknowledges that “The ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the

Reform”176 lifts up these conversation partners as models of reconciliation and compunction.

Someone writing from a Catholic perspective should acknowledge the value of the overall goal and overall attitude present in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues to the the extent that it agrees,

“By engaging in frank dialogue, communities help one another to look at themselves together in the light of the Apostolic Tradition. This leads them to ask themselves whether they truly express in an adequate way all that the Holy Spirit has transmitted through the Apostles.”177 Indeed, “Ecumenism implies that the Christian communities should help one another so that there may be truly present in them the full content and all the requirements of ‘the heritage handed down by the Apostles’.

Without this, full communion will never be possible.”178 Adding to this idea the concept that theological difficulties with the theology present in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues in this study are mitigated by the fact that unity and the ecumenical movement is of paramount importance, we are arriving at a conclusion that balances the Catholic Church’s desire not to gloss over theological complexities easily (and indeed, this chapter has identified some true difficulties for the Catholic

Church in her dialogue with Anglicans and Lutherans in particular and with Protestantism in

175 Ut unum sint 15. 176 Ut unum sint 65. 177 Ut unum sint 16. 178 Ut unum sint 78.

203 general) while also emphasizing the importance of unity and reconciliation is embedded in the values of Catholic theology. The conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church is likely to value the

Anglican-Lutheran search for unity and take with great charity the attitude of reconciliation contained therein. Indeed, the Catholic Church strives to adopt this attitude itself.

Again, this is not to say that the Catholic Church will use this attitude of reconciliation as an occasion to gloss over important theological issues; that is neither modeled in the primary documents nor faithful to the overall theology of Catholicism. While

the way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren(,) (i)t is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.”179

Fundamentally,

in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.180

The Catholic Church no doubt praises the extent to which the Anglican and Lutheran communions do what “The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to” do, which is

“recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.”181 In particular, it is the attitude of unity which the Catholic Church no doubt lauds in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues.

The theme of a reunited family holds conceptual and hermeneutical promise as a lens through which to look at Catholic-Protestant dialogues. While the questions raised previously in this chapter about the plausibility of unity between Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics sound as though

179 Unitatis redintegratio 11. 180 Unitatis redintegratio 11. 181 Unitatis redintegratio 4.

204 they come from one stranger to another, the Catholic Church is likely to acknowledge the extent to which these differing communions are but different branches in the same ever-developing family tree.

We have noticed that the primary documents call to mind the vast number of ways in which

“Anglicans and Lutherans share a common heritage: as part of the church of the West before the

Reformation, as churches shaped by the Reformation itself, as established national state churches in

Europe, (and) as churches that have a national expression in Canada while being part of worldwide communions.”182 We need only look as far as Ut unum sint to discover a subject heading called

“Brotherhood rediscovered” and, therefore, to discover that this method of seeing in ecumenical partners a fellowship resting on common Christian heritage is not foreign to Catholic theology:

There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The "universal brotherhood" of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.183

And:

It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large- hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work.184

Unitatis Redintegratio likewise states:

Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.185

182 Called to Full Communion, 14. 183 Ut unum sint 42. 184 Ut unum sint 42. 185 Unitatis redintegratio 4.

205

Congar reinforces the concept of existing familial ties in his work, as well, and highlights this existing unity as the very basis for ecumenism:

For catholicity is the taking of the many into an already existing oneness; it postulates a unity definitely institutional and ecclesiastical in the strict sense of the word. Whereas what is to-day called "oecumenism" is the introduction of a certain unitedness into an already existing diversity—oneness in multiplicity ("die Einheit in der Mannigfaltigkeit"), as Archbishop Soderblom called it. 186

His conclusion that, therefore, “a great diversity of religious experience—of ways of feeling or living the Christian life and of interpreting the religious objective is not only legitimate but desirable in the

Church”187 relates this observation of Catholic approval of the method of recognizing existing brotherhood to the theme of unity in diversity already discussed.

At this point, it is clear that Catholicism has ample room for finding lost brotherhood among separated denominations. How fruitful are the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues in contributing actual content about which Catholicism can agree and find common familial and ancestral ties?

Much of what the Anglican and Lutheran conversation partners agree on are also things that the Catholic Church could agree on with either of them or with other conversation partners: to work towards a common understanding of diaconal ministry; to establish appropriate forms of collegial and conciliar consultation on significant matters of faith and order, mission and service; to encourage regular consultation and collaboration among members of our churches at all levels; to promote the formulation and adoption of covenants for common work in mission and ministry; and to facilitate learning and exchange of ideas and information on theological, pastoral, and mission matters; to establish a Joint Commission to nurture our growth in communion and report to the decision-making bodies of both our churches; 188 to hold joint meetings of national, regional and

186 Congar, Divided Christendom, 100. 187 Congar, Divided Christendom, 100. 188 Called to Full Communion, 12.

206 local decision- making bodies wherever practicable; and to “continue to work together for the full visible unity of the whole Church of God.”189

Catholicism would find agreement with The Niagara Report’s list of several “affirmations” articulating the “common sharing of fundamental beliefs and practices.”190

We recognize that in each other's churches there exists a sustained and serious commitment to the apostolic mission of the Church.

We see ourselves already united by baptism in thankfulness to God for the gift of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, and for the sending of the Holy Spirit.

We acknowledge in each other's ministries of episcope the fruits of the presence of Jesus Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit, in the offering of sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, in the reflection of the faithful love of God towards the world, in care for the nurture and growth of all the faithful, and in commitment to the establishment of the kingdom of God in justice and peace for the whole earth.

We confess to God, to each other and to all Christian people how far, in our discharge of the ministry of episcope, our Churches have fallen short of the unity and continuity of the apostolic commission. We ask of each other forgiveness for our disregard of each other's gifts, for our lack of humility, and for our past toleration of our division.

We earnestly desire to remove those barriers which prevent the life of our churches from reflecting that unity of heart and mind which is God's gift to the people of God.

We commit ourselves to the obligation to take counsel together in reaching a common mind on how the mission of the people of God can most fruitfully be served in every place, so that there may be a united witness to the gospel, in word and deed, and a common enjoyment of the means of grace.

We intend thereby also to promote the unity of all churches with whom we are seeking, or have already discovered, the faith of the Catholic Church.

We rejoice in rediscovering in each other our common inheritance of faith and of life, and in our unity in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has bestowed on us in Christ every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.191

Likewise, agreement with the majority of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue is obvious:

(i) Both Lutherans and Episcopalians hold the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament to be of divine institution. They distinguish this pastoral office from the priesthood of all believers… (ii) The two communions both engage in the practice of ordination. Entrance into the pastoral office or holy orders is bestowed through a liturgical act which is not to be repeated. (iii) Both Lutherans and Episcopalians intend by ordination to set apart ministers of both Word and Sacrament. (iv) Both hold that the succession in office of ordained ministers shows the Church's continuity in time and space in the ministry of Word and Sacrament and the care of the Church.

189 Called to Full Communion, 13. 190 The Niagara Report 72. 191 The Niagara Report 73-80.

207

(v) Both Lutherans and Episcopalians recognize the necessity of oversight (episcope) which is embodied in an ordained office. Lutherans see episcope exercised in the ministry of parish pastors as well as in bishops' supervision of local congregations and clergy, while Episcopalians see that episcope as shared by bishops with their clergy. (vi) Episcopalians recognize that Lutherans do affirm the full dignity of the pastoral office and are open to the historic episcopate as a valid and proper form of that office. Some Lutheran Churches are ordered in the historic episcopate. There is even a preference for the historic episcopate shown in the Lutheran confessional writings where and when that form could be maintained in accord with the Gospel, i.e., in the context of faithful preaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments. Lutherans do not, however, hold the historic episcopate to be the only legitimate form of episcope. 192

This is not to say there are not theologically objectionable things found in these documents for Roman Catholics; many of these have been surveyed already, e.g., the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue’s statement that “both Lutheran and Anglican reformers rejected the Papacy as the primary focus of continuity in the Gospel,”193 or that we can declare together that “both the Lutheran Church and the

Episcopal Church stand in Apostolic Succession.”194

Nonetheless, secondary literature is full of praise for the extent to which Catholics,

Lutherans, and Anglicans do indeed stand in much agreement. Burkhard states:

One of the most fruitful and prolific of the bilateral dialogues has been between Roman Catholics and Lutherans. The dialogue has taken place at the national and international levels…. These national and international dialogues have addressed the widespread misunderstanding by Catholics and Lutherans of each other's history and beliefs and have been highly successful in correcting errors of fact and interpretation of each other's belief. The most recent statement, the 'Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," issued in 1998 and officially signed by representatives of the World Lutheran Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on October 31, 1999, in Augsburg, Germany, is the culmination of years of patient discussion and the careful stating of each church's theological position. The document caps the efforts of the last thirty-five years of Roman Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical discussions, and represents the closing of a painful chapter of repeated misunderstandings between the two churches. It also represents the opening of a new chapter with momentous ramifications. The salvation of the person by the Lord's redemptive act of justification was the very heart of the magisterial Reformation. Nothing else came close to expressing the radical character of this doctrine to Martin Luther (1483-1546) and the other Reformers. The fact that Roman Catholics and Lutherans now confess their ‘consensus [on] the basic truths of the doctrine of justification’ means that when we re-read the earlier documents of the international dialogue, they take on added meaning. Let us examine some of the principal statements of the Roman Catholic-Lutheran dialogue.195

O’Gara speaks about a

192 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 38-40. 193 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 33. 194 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 41. 195 Burkhard, 178-179, C.f. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).

208

scholarly reassessment of historical data about ordained ministry during the medieval and Reformation periods. A principal suggestion of the new findings is that the Reformers did not lightly depart from the apostolic tradition regarding ordained ministry of for the sake of their own purposes, as the more familiar account would have it. On the contrary, they sought to remain faithful to that tradition despite the challenges they faced.196

Her research focuses on a

tension, often severe, between the German bishops and the Lutheran Reformers. The bishops and in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation during Luther's day were also secular rulers, so that … sometimes it led to a conflict of interest between a bishop’s religious and secular roles. Moreover, at times the person who had been appointed bishop was unfit for his religious responsibilities and would designate others to represent him in that regard But the Reformers had more serious problems with the episcopate when the bishops adhering to the traditional faith prohibited evangelical preaching by presbyters attracted to the Reformation, persecuted such presbyters, and refused to ordain Reformation-minded theologians. The Reformers in Germany experienced this situation as an emergency in which they were required to choose between faithfulness to the apostolic tradition and continuation of the traditional forms of the ministry. The third and concluding element of the argument is this: the Reformers resisted making that choice. Luther considered regional oversight as normal, instructing his pastors to choose one or more from among themselves who would visit each pastor and congregation to ensure the purity of Gospel proclamation….Reformers declared that as a matter of ecclesiastical order they would reserve the right of ordination to bishops if the bishops would accept and ordain reform-minded pastors. It was only when that offer was deemed unacceptable that the Reformers began allowing ordinations by presbyters. But they did not do so lightly. Appealing to the longstanding albeit minority view that the offices of presbyter and bishop were not originally distinguished, they argued that such a practice remained in continuity with the tradition of apostolic oversight. Moreover, they took pains to implement the practice in a way that recognized the broad communal dimension of that tradition as they understood it.197

The extent to which, additionally, the Anglican-Lutheran documents do indeed demonstrate a Lutheran acceptance of the historic episcopate is a significant resolution to this longstanding issue.

O’Gara concludes,

I think Roman Catholics can especially welcome the elaborated theology of the episcopate present in The Porvoo Common Statement. According to that statement, apostolic succession in the episcopal office is "a visible and personal way of focusing the apostolicity of the whole Church" (PCS 46). But this continuity cannot be divorced from the continuity of life and witness of the diocese to which the bishop is called. …The Roman Catholic Church can agree with Porvoo that the use of the sign of historic episcopal sucession is in itself no guarantee of fidelity to all the aspects of apostolicity; but it should welcome Porvoo's insistence that "the retention of the sign remains a permanent challenge to fidelity and to unity, a summons to witness to, and a commission to realise more fully, the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles" (PCS 51).198

In addition, inasmuch as “I think we should not underestimate the extent to which the signing of the

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is a sign of the underlying intention of both our

196 O’Gara, 133. 197 O’Gara, 133-134. 198 O’Gara, 139.

209 churches to move toward visible unity,”199 O’Gara finds strong evidence to see, in the primary documents, a strong impetus for Catholic-Lutheran relations. “If they are able to see them in a new light, Roman Catholics can recognize this desire as patently present in the recent agreements

Lutherans have made with Anglicans.”200

Walter Kasper likewise praises the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification as an important step in the journey between not only Catholics and Lutherans but also, in light of these primary documents, between Catholics and Anglicans.201 He praises this step in Catholic “dialogue with the

Lutherans which, together with the dialogue with the Anglican Communion, is the most developed.”202 Agreeing together with Anglicans and Lutherans that, ultimately, “the Church has no other authority than the authority she received from hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ witnessed once for all by the apostles,”203 he highlights the need for continued work along these lines:

In the decree Unitatis Redintegratio the Second Vatican Council recognized that the ecumenical movement is a sign of the Holy Spirit's action and said that it considered the promotion of this movement to be one of its principal tasks. Today, 40 years later, the ecumenical movement is in a different situation. Alongside the progress, the burden of old and new divisions can be felt: the process of rapprochement has been drawn out far longer than many expected an earlier, optimistic phase. Then there are impatient voices which, contrary to the Council's declared intention (c.f. Unitatis redintegratio 11) and hiding behind the mirage of presumed solutions, are creating problems and misinterpreting the ecumenical movement by mistakenly believing that they will further it by surrendering to dogmatic relativism, and pure pragmatism.204

Christians are a family divided; ecumenism which draws on our commonalities without glossing over important theological differences is a good example for Catholics set by the Anglican and Lutheran conversation partners in this study.

199 O’Gara, 146. 200 O’Gara, 147. 201 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 21. 202 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 21. 203 Walter Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (New York: Continuum, 2009), 78. 204 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 6.

210

Considering the nature of the unity desired, then, the Catholic Church must consider the extent to which she can begin to actively engage Protestant communions as long-lost family members. From the primary documents, Catholics can glean from them important practical steps.

As an example, we cite The Niagara Report205

Step 1: Each Regional or 's governing body: (a) affirms the agreement in faith as expressed in certain specified documents (eg. paragraphs 61-70 of this Report). (b) recognizes the Church of...... as a true Church of the Gospel etc (see BEM, M 53, [a] or [b]).

Step 2: Create provisional structures to express the degree of unity so far achieved and to promote further growth. These could include the following examples, though the time scale could vary region by region: (a) Eucharistic Sharing and Joint Common Celebration of the Eucharist; (b) meetings of Church leaders for regular prayer, reflection and consultation, thus beginning joint episcope; (c) mutual invitation of Church leaders, clergy and laity, to synods, with a right to speak; (d) common agencies wherever possible; (e) explore the possibility of adjusting boundaries to assist local and regional co-operation; (f) Covenants among Church leaders to collaborate in episcope; (g) joint pastoral appointments for special projects; (h) joint theological education and training courses; (i) sharing of information and documents; (j) joint mission programmes; (k) agreed syllabuses for Christian education in schools, joint materials for catechesis and adult study; (1) co- operation over liturgical forms, cycles of intercession, lectionaries and homiletic materials; (m) welcoming isolated clergy or diaspora congregations into the life of a larger group (see ALERC Helsinki Report, 5); (n) interchange of ministers to the extent permitted by canon law; (o) twinning (partnership) between congregations and communities; (p) joint programmes of diaconal ministry and reflection on issues of social responsibility; (q) joint retreats and devotional materials. The ACC and LWF should be asked to give their full support to Churches making such provisional arrangements.

Step 3: The actions taken in Steps 1 and 2 form the basis and motivation for the implementation of the recommendations in paragraphs 88-96.

Step 4: Together representatives (including lay members, ordained ministers and Church leaders) of both Churches publicly celebrate the establishment of full communion. This liturgical occasion should include the following elements: (a) penitence for past shortcomings; (b) declaration of joint faith; (c) reaffirmation of baptismal vows; (d) mutual greeting by sharing the Peace by the right hand of fellowship, so as to avoid any suggestion of reordination, mutual recommissioning of ministries, crypto-validation, or any other ambiguity; (e) a celebration of the Eucharist; (f) covenant to work together and become closely involved in one another's corporate life, with the long-term aim of fuller unity; (g) a personal covenant of the Church leaders to collaborate in episcope. (It is intended that new leaders should enter the same covenant on assuming office.)206

While Unitatis Redintegratio rightly cautions that “worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity”207 it

205 The Niagara Report 111. 206 The Niagara Report 112-115. 207 Unitatis redintegratio 7.

211 nonetheless praises it as an important component to accompany more theologically sophisticated attempts at the restoration of unity. Indeed,

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. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”208

In the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues, then, the Catholic Church sees the method of recognizing each other as separated brethren both as a model which it can follow and as a method which she herself already embodies. Recognizing in ecumenical conversation partners an agreement on the following, then, is ecumenically valuable: “At all times and in every race God has given welcome to whosoever fears Him and does what is right. God, however, does not make men holy and save them merely as individuals, without bond or link between one another. Rather has it pleased Him to bring men together as one people.”209

5.5a: Modes of Reconciliation

Recall from 5.1 that the Catholic Church can surely agree with the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues’ model for grafting the Lutheran branch of Christianity back onto the tree of historic episcopal succession through the laying on of hands by both a Lutheran and Anglican bishop at future ordinations. If the Catholic Church were to utilize this model, having Catholic bishops present at ordinations of Protestant ministers would graft them validly into historic succession.

While the Catholic Church could, as part of a larger plan of achieving unity, adopt the practice of inviting Catholic bishops to participate in the laying on of hands of Protestant bishops moving forward, thus grafting that communion back into Catholic episcopal succession within one

208 Unitatis redintegratio 7. 209 Lumen gentium 9.

212 generation, Catholicism would not agree to immediately acknowledge the episcopal validity of existing ministers. This is the major difference between what the Catholic Church would accept and what the Anglican communion, evident in the primary documents, was willing to accept. Thus, while the plan of adopting Lutheran bishops into Anglican episcopal succession evident in the primary documents provides a solution for the problem of historical episcopacy after one generation, it is this one interim generation between the decision to host joint ordinations and the actualization of said joint ordinations that proves problematic for Catholicism. This necessitates a creative discussion of item (4) from this chapter’s introductory section: the modes of reconciliation by which the

Catholic Church would enter into unity with these communions. Short of simply refusing to immediately acknowledge the validity of current Protestant orders, expecting Protestant communions to bend wholly to the tenets of Catholicism without any accommodation on the part of the Catholic Church, are there alternative modes of reconciliation?

First, in light of our discussion on issues of validity, let us pose and answer the question: can

Catholics follow the Anglican example? As already expressed, the concern here is right administration of sacraments. There is a theological difficulty in the immediate recognition of

Lutheran pastors; yet, the next question becomes: is this a bigger problem than the ecumenical problem of division? Chapter one seems to suggest that unity is of utmost importance, and yet,

Catholicism would be unwilling to admit a cheap restoration of unity at the expense of sacramental or theological integrity. Yet, the ecumenical imperative must be kept in mind as we insist that creative solutions to this problem be offered.

Sullivan explicitly asks the question about whether the Roman Catholic Church can accept the agreement reached between the two churches in Porvoo, concluding in the negative. Sullivan affirms that the Catholic Church could not accept the Lutheran ministry as it stands the way that the

213

Anglican Church has done in Porvoo, since it believes a valid ministry “requires sacramental ordination by a bishop standing in the apostolic succession.”210 He holds that “the present attitude of the Catholic Church would be negative toward the idea of recognizing valid episcopal ministry in churches whose succession in the episcopate depends on bishops who at the time of the

Reformation were ordained by a man who lacked episcopal orders.”211 Further,

For the Roman Catholic Church full communion would also have to mean a relationship of hierarchical communion among all the bishops, and this would have to mean the recognition of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, what recognition of the primacy of the bishop of Rome would have to mean is the $64M question. It certainly has meant different things in the course of Christian history.212

Thus, Sullivan’s reflections offer that while the Catholic Church does not state anything officially rejecting the practice of having Catholic bishops present at Lutheran ordinations, they do, in theory, suggest that the Catholic Church could nor mirror the Anglican Church’s immediate recognition of current ministries. Again, while joint ordinations will solve this issue within one generation, we need to work toward an understanding of how to theologically maneuver past the interim generation of invalidly ordained ministers.

One solution is re-ordination. In order to enter full communion with the Catholic Church,

Lutheran pastors (for example) could be (re-)ordained by valid Catholic bishops. This would prove satisfactory in the eyes of the Catholic Church and wholly unsatisfactory in the eyes of the Lutheran communion, which, as we recall from chapter three, outright rejected any suggestion on the part of the Anglican communion that Lutheran ministers were currently invalidly ordained.

Another alternative would be a scenario in which joint ordinations take place prior to any joint recognition of ordained ministries. Rather than practicing re-ordination, this scenario would

210 Francis A. Sullivan, “Comments of a Roman Catholic on Called to Common Mission and the Porvoo Common Statement,” Lutheran Forum 40, no. 1 (Spring 2006), 20. 211 Sullivan, “Comments of a Roman Catholic,” 20. 212 Sullivan, “Comments of a Roman Catholic,” 19.

214 nonetheless reserve recognition of ministries to those who have been ordained by Catholic bishops.

The troublesome interim generation about which we are deliberating would lack a Catholic recognition of Lutheran ministry. In other words, it would be quite similar to the agreement reached by Anglicans and Lutherans in the primary documents but with recognition of ministry delayed for one generation. Like the previous example, however, given the tenor of Lutheran theology present in the primary documents, it is likely that the Lutheran communion would argue that this scenario undermines the legitimacy of their ministry.

Another alternative is present in Facing Unity,213 a document which emerged from a February

27-March 3, 1984 meeting in Rome of the Joint Evangelical-Lutheran – Roman Catholic

Commission. It posits a scenario in which reunification would happen on the local, rather than universal level. This scenario would result in a complicated mixture of certain synods or being in communion with one another while others are not. It deserves an in-depth examination at this juncture.

The steps for such a process are laid out in the latter part of the document. The first step, outlined in the sixth chapter, discusses preliminary forms of joint exercise of episcope. These forms would involve mutual invitations of church leaders to speak at each church, development of working relationships at the local or regional levels, and the creation of regional conciliar organs for consultation on evangelization, social service, and public responsibility.214 In other words, the preliminary steps would involve a co-ministry of outreach and fellowship before any official recognition. This would occur at the next step, elaborated in the seventh chapter. This chapter

213 “Facing Unity: Models, Forms, and Phases of Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship,” Joint Evangelical-Lutheran – Roman Catholic Commission, Accessed March 5, 2016, http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l- rc_facing.html. 214 Facing Unity 120-122.

215 enumerates how the “initial act of recognition” might look. It will contain an agreement or

“fundamental consensus on faith, sacramental life, and ordained ministry,”215 an ecclesial binding recognition of each other as an authentic Church of Christ, an affirmation on the part of the

Catholic Church of the ministry of Christ in Lutheran churches, the beginning of a joint exercise of episcope, action towards solidarity, and developing considerations of the requirements of the episcopate as a whole.216 Its eighth chapter outlines the stage it refers to as a “collegial exercise of episcope,” characterized by “the common exercise of episcope, including ordaining made possible by the recognition of ministries, through which community of faith and sacraments between

Lutherans and Catholics becomes structured church fellowship, will initially take the shape of a single episcope exercised in collegial form.”217 Chapter nine then outlines the shape of the transition to a common ordained ministry.

This plan of action is ambiguous as to the role joint ordinations or re-ordinations might play in this co-ministry. Neither is mentioned. In fact, the joint exercise of ministry would lead to the gradual establishment of a common ministry outlined in its ninth chapter suggests that ordination not depend solely on the imposition of hands, but suggests involving the whole congregation in some way, such as by testifying to the faith and morals of the candidate. It is careful not to speak of re-ordination or supplementary ordination which would suggest the invalidity of Lutheran orders.218

To this, then, the Catholic Church must inquire about how it is to reach a “fundamental consensus on faith, sacramental life, and ordained ministry” with any particular Lutheran congregation or synod, or how it would assume the right to assume a “common exercise of

215 Facing Unity 123-126. 216 Facing Unity 123-126. 217 Facing Unity 128. 218 Facing Unity 132-141.

216 episcope.” While not specified in the document, it stands to reason that a local Catholic diocese would be authorized to agree with these items only if the Lutheran ministry met the valid criteria of

Catholic ordination. One Catholic diocese cannot, it would seem, recognize Lutheran orders apart from the universal Catholic teaching that it does not. The document does not contest this, and in fact specifies that “if a positive judgment is arrived at, the act of initial recognition must occur in cooperation with the Pope, because such an act concerns the whole Catholic Church. On the basis of his particular responsibility for the unity of Christians and the fellowship of the churches, it is the task of the Pope to approve or encourage such a local act in the name of the Catholic Church.219 In fact, the document states that criteria for the Catholic Church would be the recognition that

“remaining differences between Catholics and Lutherans no longer can appear as church dividing, and reciprocal doctrinal condemnations no longer have any basis.”220 It does not elaborate how an individual parish or diocese would determine how a universal Catholic condemnation of Lutheran orders can be found to be without basis.

Facing Unity responds to inferred Catholic critiques by drawing on the example of the early

Church, in which, it argues, episcope was “exercised in concert with the church as a whole in a personal, collegial, and communal way. Consequently, the exercise of the episcope cannot be separated from the responsibility of the laity or from ‘synodality’ or .”221 It argues that its suggested method of locally restoring unity with Lutheran communion is “in basic agreement with the understanding of the unity of the local church as it was held and practiced in the Early

Church.”222 Characterized by a single bishop exercising jurisdiction in one territory,223 the early

219 Facing Unity 126. 220 Facing Unity 123. 221 Facing Unity 112. 222 Facing Unity 128. 223 Facing Unity 128-131.

217

Church emphasized local diversity, noting that the episcopate was “generally exercised in fellowship with the people and respects the diversity of the ministries and charisms given by the Spirit. Thus absolute sovereignty either on the part of the congregation or the bishop is excluded.”224 In more detail:

Bishops thus both represent the universal church in their own church and represent their own church among all other churches. This mediating position corresponds to the task of the new bishop in the realm of faith which is expressly emphasized by the confession-like structure of his ordination. As leader of his own church together with the other bishops (collegiality), he is to bear witness to the faith received from the apostles and to watch over it. Furthermore, the bishops are those who primarily, though not exclusively, ensure regular communication between the churches. This is done formally in regional or even universal conciliar life that serves to further or re-establish fellowship among the churches. Finally, bishops are obliged to promote the common action and common witness of the churches. All this indicates that the episcopal office, as understood in the light of ordination, must be exercised collegially if it is to serve the fellowship of the churches.225 The document cites how, since Vatican II, “the Catholic Church has been introducing institutional changes which stress the coresponsibility of parishioners in the local churches.”226 It concludes:

Common reflection about the Early Church brings to light a way to a jointly exercised ministry which requires careful examination. The following considerations may be of help. The proposed process is not necessarily the only possible one, though it does seem to avoid obstacles which have, up to now, impeded the way to church fellowship. The description here given may be modified in many of its details. It is neither a rigid nor final plan. Preserving its central intention however is what is important. An officially declared mutual recognition of ordained ministries opens the way by means of an initial act to the joint exercise of episcope, including ordaining. A series of such ordinations would eventually lead to a common ordained ministry. The process could function at the universal level, but could also be set in motion at local, regional, or national ecclesial levels.227

In other words, Facing Unity finds room to consider joint ordinations between Catholics and

Lutherans in considering the model of the early Church and the relationship between the local and universal Church, localized in the person of the bishop. Practically speaking, this lets Catholics and

Lutherans consider the extent to which ministries may be joined not on a global scale but on a local one, in particular dioceses or synods.

224 Facing Unity 114. 225 Facing Unity 111. 226 Facing Unity 115. 227 Facing Unity 118.

218

This model has the potential to be contested by Catholics who would uphold that it is not consistent with Catholic ecclesiology based on its de-emphasis of the degree to which bishops form a worldwide college; however, perhaps, taking this critique seriously, we might envision a local branch of Lutheranism uniting with the universal Catholic Church. On one hand, under the heading of “legitimate diversities,”228 Facing Unity states, “Unity in the same faith does not mean uniformity in the way it is articulated and expressed. This is one of the basic presuppositions of the ecumenical movement of our century.”229 On the other hand, it recognizes that “past doctrinal condemnations cannot be rendered ineffectual through a relativizing of truth. Rather, it is the duty to be truthful which calls us to act.”230

This program would be different in various places in the world: “The exercise of the episcopate need not be uniform for each place. Specific historical, social and cultural situations, as well as the diversity of spiritual traditions, can speak in favor of exercising that ministry in different ways.”231 Interestingly enough, the true locality of the partner church comes through in the specification that “even if there is agreement in the central truths of faith, this church and its members are not admitted ipso facto to the Eucharist in the whole Catholic Church.” 232 In eliciting a view of church unity as “communion (communio) (which) goes back to the early days of

Christianity,”233 Facing Unity offers a way to conceive of joint ordinations between Catholics and

Lutherans that does not require immediate recognition of the universal validity of Lutheran orders.

And although the one universal Church is unified in faith, sacramental life, and governance, Facing

228 Facing Unity 84. 229 Facing Unity 61. 230 Facing Unity 68. 231 Facing Unity 142. 232 Facing Unity 148. 233 Facing Unity 2.

219

Unity points out that “part of the fundamental stress of the Second Vatican Council is that the one church exists in and consists of particular churches.”234 And also as:

This view of the church and of ecclesial unity is also in accord with Lutheran ecclesiology. The local communities gathered around word and sacrament do not remain isolated as visible forms of the church of Jesus Christ, but rather live in such large and organically united communities as regional churches, national churches, folk churches, etc. The worldwide Lutheran community, which has the Lutheran World Federation as an instrument, is made up of churches that are bound together by a common understanding of the gospel and by participation in the sacraments which that includes.235

It must be noted that, despite its strong appeal to the early Church as providing a precedent for elevating the role of the local church, the fact remains that the Catholic Church cannot grant to local dioceses the right to ignore past doctrinal condemnations regarding holy orders. What it does surely offer is the question: what if whole synods of Lutheranism are unwilling to consent to re- ordinations or to enter into joint ordinations with Catholics without immediate recognition of

Lutheran orders, but individual, local branches of Lutheranism are? This question flows naturally from the creative work done in Facing Unity. This question is rich with promise for the Catholic Church, for although it is not within an individual diocese’s jurisdiction to begin to enter into ministerial relationship with Lutherans that involves any kind of recognition of Lutheran ministries, it is certainly within its jurisdiction to ordain anyone of its choosing (provided that person meets all criteria). If that person is now simultaneously a Catholic minister ordained in the episcopal succession and a Lutheran one, this is a valid example of Lutheran-Catholic co-ordination happening on the local level. Of course, it does not embody a panacea for the problem of Christian division in the West, since every single individual Lutheran synod or parish (and other Protestant communions as well) would have to locally decide to enter into this kind of partnership with the

Catholic Church in order for it to reach that height. Still, the suggestion of restoration of unity

234 Facing Unity 2. 235 Facing Unity 3.

220 beginning with local, individual relationships of unity rather than with policy at a universal level is in keeping with the Spirit of Christian kenosis, and it is rich with promise. Explored momentarily as the concluding theme to this dissertation, this concrete spirit of reconciliation and restoration among real people and not corporate bodies is in keeping with the very gift Christ left to his apostles, his friends, those with whom he shared personal relationship and engaged with daily. What is needed to move forward with the promises of Facing Unity, then, is concrete discussion at the local level with individual Lutheran (and other) groups about their interest in entering into this type of fellowship, and gauging resistance.

Facing Unity also brings us face to face, again, with the question: to what extent can the

Catholic Church be comfortable with a legitimate diversity and to what extent do certain matters have to be uniform? Will a married Lutheran pastor be considered ordainable in some dioceses and not others? If married Lutheran pastors convert to Catholicism with their marriage and ordination intect, what if the Lutheran is “married” to a same-sex partner? The Catholic Church would need a program for confronting the various diverse lived experiences of Christians coming into communion with it.

What is needed is both creativity but also faithfulness to binding dogma, lest agreements not be accepted by one or both parties. What is needed is for Christian communions to continue to seek new and creative ways to reconcile these differences, an endeavor to which Facing Unity clearly contributes. Christianity aimed at restoring her unity needs to run responsible risks with regard to experimentation in living out fellowship. Facing Unity encourages such regional experiments.

Another model of reconciliation comes from the work done by Karl Rahner and Heinrich

Fries referenced in chapter one of this dissertation. That chapter drew on their work to highlight the

221 importance of the ecumenical endeavor; this chapter draws on it to consider their model of reconciliation.

Rahner and Fries posit several theses to which partner churches would have to subscribe in order for their unity to be truly apostolic. In other words, in order to ensure that their unification does not neglect the apostolicity of the Church, thesis I stipulates that “the fundamental truths of

Christianity…are binding on all partner churches of the one Church to be.”236 These fundamental truths include the deposit of faith as it is expressed in Scripture and in the creeds of the Apostles,

Nicaea, and Constantinople. This is to say that the “faith” of the unified Church” does not mean just any form of religiosity whatsoever;”237 it must be the Christian faith. While Rahner and Fries emphasize the importance of restoration of unity as having utmost importance, it is not to be done without regard for the Church’s duty as protector of the apostolic faith.

Thesis II articulates that the unified Church not embody an “insistence or rejection of anything outside these fundamental truths.”238 This “realistic principle of faith”239 allows for diversity of approaches, understandings and emphases on the Christian faith within apostolicity. Appealing to the historicity of variety within in unity, they refer to the apostolic faith as an “inheritance handed down by the Apostles (that) was received in different forms and in different ways, and was therefore interpreted differently in these churches from the beginning.”240

Rahner and Fries do not seem to emphasize eventual co-ministry to the same extent that

Facing Unity does; their thesis III stipulates that “regional partner churches…can, to a large extent, maintain their existing structures”241 which exist in “mutual fraternal exchange of all aspects of their

236 Rahner/Fries, 7. 237 Rahner/Fries, 13. 238 Rahner/Fries, 7. 239 Rahner/Fries, 7. 240 Rahner/Fries, 44. 241 Rahner/Fries, 8.

222 life.”242 Thesis IVa mandates that “all partner churches acknowledge the meaning and right of the

Petrine service of the Roman pope to be the concrete guarantor of the unity of the Church in truth and love.”243 This highlights their opinion that the papacy, rather than the episcopacy “seems to be the real cause of the separation of the Churches.”244 While the “Pope rejected…truths of the

Reformation”245 (justification by faith and scripture alone) Rahner and Fries appeal to the writings of

Leo I, Iranaeus, and to conclude that Peter represented not only a founding person but a

“founding function.”246 If this seems unacceptable to Protestant communions, Rahner and Fries are quick to point out that Luther promised to “accept the pope and his leadership…if only the pope would accept ‘his’ gospel regarding the justification of human beings…but that did not happen in a way available to Luther at the time.”247 Moreover, Rahner and Fries’ Thesis IVb tempers IVa by stipulating that the pope “will make use of his highest teaching authority (ex )…only in a manner that conforms juridically or in substance to a general council of the whole Church, just as his previous ex cathedra decisions have been issued in agreement and in close contact with the whole Catholic episcopate.” (8)

Specifically addressing episcopacy, thesis V proposes that all partner churches have bishops as the head of their larger subdivisions.”248 Again appealing to Protestant history, they highlight that

“the Reformers not only adopted a Latin translation of the Greek ‘episcopus’, they also clung to the bishop’s office itself.”249 They propose the use of joint ordinations. Their attitude towards this suggestion, however, is less stringent than the attitude present in Facing Unity. Rather than insist that

242 Rahner/Fries, 8. 243 Rahner/Fries, 8. 244 Rahner/Fries, 59. 245 Rahner/Fries, 59. 246 Rahner/Fries, 65. 247 Rahner/Fries, 66. 248 Rahner/Fries, 8. 249 Rahner/Fries, 95.

223

Catholic bishops be present by necessity at all ordinations moving forward, they suggest that it be a forgivable oversight. Thus, Rahner and Fries’ plan would involve a gradual disappearance of bishops not ordained in the historical Catholic succession, rather than ensuring it be done in one generation.

They articulate that, in their vision, discontinuity from apostolic succession “would disappear slowly but surely.”250 More important than an immediate adoption of joint ordination, according to Rahner and Fries, is a spirit of fraternal fellowship. While agreeing to “commit themselves henceforth to conduct ordinations with prayer and the laying on of hands, so that acknowledging them will present no difficulty for the Roman Catholic partner church either,”251 thesis VIII calls for “pulpit and altar fellowship between the individual partner churches”252 even prior to this restoration.

George Lindbeck observes that whereas Facing Unity offers a grassroots effort beginning with individuals in local communities, “Rahner’s and Fries’s attention focuses on the hierarchical, juridical, and institutional. Unification is seen as proceeding from top to bottom, from higher levels to lower ones.”253 He believes that this represents a distinct advantage of the program of Facing

Unity, in that it sees that it is the bishops as a “collegium, not as isolated individuals, who are the successors of the apostles.”254 The advantage to understanding the episcopal college as a college is that “the problem of the defectus in nonepiscopal orders loses its virulence. If the ministry of unity is basic, then the basic defect is the limitation of this ministry. The limitation and the defect can thus also infect ministerial orders that stand in the historic succession, and the formation of a common episcopate helps remedy deficiencies on both sides.”255 By contrast, Rahner and Fries:

250 Rahner/Fries, 120. 251 Rahner/Fries, 9. 252 Rahner/Fries, 9. 253 George A. Lindbeck, “Episcopacy and the Unification of the Churches; Two Approaches,” Promoting Unity: Themes in Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue, Edited by H. George Anderson and James R. Crumley Jr. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 56. 254 Lindbeck, 56-57. 255 Lindbeck, 57.

224

seem to assume that a preliminary reconciliation of ministries could be an essentially juridical or administrative act. This act…would then be followed by a gradual spread of fully episcopal ordinations throughout the nonepiscopal parts of the united churches. The proposal is startling. I fail to think of any negotiation between episcopal and nonepiscopal churches that has been this starkly juridical, nonliturgical, and, ultimately, nonsacramental in its approach to union.256

Lindbeck also raises an important question to which this dissertation has heretofore assumed the answer. Whether pertaining to Rahner and Fries’ model, Facing Unity, or some other arrangement in which the mutual laying on of hands is a part, he asks:

How is this (mutual laying on of hands) to be construed? Is it to be understood as reordination, supplementary ordination, conditional ordination, or no ordination at all? The attempt to leave the matter ambiguous has, in the eyes of many, been the worst solution of all. Perhaps it is because of these problems that Rahner and Fries try to avoid the quandary by resorting to sheer juridicism, to an administrative fiat. In contrast to this, Facing Unity, given its emphasis on starting with the unification of local worshipping communities, is unable…to be anything except liturgical and sacramental in its approach. It circumvents the difficulty of defining who gives what to whom by proposing the formation of a common ministry rather than the reconciliation of already existent ones. The uniting churches…induct those who are for the first time to be ordained or consecrated into a ministry comprehending both bodies and therefore neither specifically Roman Catholic nor specifically Lutheran.”257

This dissertation has tacitly been operating under the assumption that each partner church would view the joint ordinations in whatever way suits them. Lutherans would likely view a Catholic-

Lutheran joint ordination of an existing minister as simply no ordination at all, but rather a sign of unity, whereas the Catholic partners would see it as reordination. A newly ordained person might be seen as simply being ordained, due to the Catholic bishop, as in the valid episcopal succession in

Catholic eyes, and as being ordained, and as the Lutheran bishop’s presence as merely a sign of unity and reconciliation. Lutheran partnerships would likely deemphasize the importance of the Catholic bishop’s connection to the historic episcopate. This dissertation stands to assert that these diverging emphases are not problematic. Indeed, it is likely intentional vagueness which will allow Catholicism to feel that the demands of validity are being met while allowing Lutheranism to feel that existing structures are being maintained enough to, as Rahner and Fries state, “demolish the fear that the

256 Lindbeck, 59. 257 Lindbeck, 60.

225 model of the prodigal son will be used in the concept of the ecumenical goal. The fear of a takeover”258 is deemphasized.

One facet to any of these programs that needs to be examined is the role of non-Catholic bishops in electing the pope. Rahner and Fries remind us that bishops (in particular, the ) have a common role in electing the Pope; this raises questions as to the role of bishops coming from Protestant communions. What will the relationship between bishops and Popes change in the Church to be? Can Protestant bishops become cardinals? Will the Protestant-origin bishops have a role in electing the Pope? Could a Protestant-origin bishop become Pope? Rahner and Fries are not explicit on these items, and creative answers need to be outlined in order to protect the papacy from being occupied by a bishop not in the historic succession during the interim generation(s).

Lindbeck’s observations highlight the unique role of the Petrine succession within the episcopal succession. He adds: “It is of the utmost importance that the formation of a common ministry and episcopate not result in a new body separated from churches with which it was previously in communion. On the Roman Catholic side, the pope would ultimately have to approve directly or indirectly even the Lutheran bishops in the common episcopate.”259 To warn against the creation of a third Lutheran-Catholic hybrid is important, although Lindbeck does not articulate why both the Lutheran and Catholic Churches would see unified Catholic-Lutheran Churches as a third hybrid churches rather than simply churches belonging to both communions. By adding the observation that “Rome and Uppsala might both be in communion with a Lutheran-Catholic church of Tanzania…and yet not be in communion with each other,”260 Lindbeck adds to this discussion

258 Rahner/Fries, 113. 259 Lindbeck, 55. 260 Lindbeck, 55.

226 the importance of the need for clearly defined descriptions of the relationship between local and universal churches in partnering on the local level. Yet, his concern about confusion is, in this author’s estimation, overstated. He states elsewhere that if Catholics and Lutherans in Alaska “were to covenant together jointly to exercise episcope and then asked their worldwide communions for approval…if they were to form a common ministry and episcopate(,) a withdrawal of anathemas on all five continents would then be necessary, and this would have to be accompanied by the development of coordinate methods of dealing with the unprecedented Alaskan situation.” 261 It stands to reason that past anathemas can stand as just that: past anathemas. It is fruitful to consider that wider Lutheran governing bodies and the universal Catholic Church could uphold condemnations of doctrinal and juridical decisions of the sixteenth centuries but acknowledge the extent to which newfound reconciliation (and creative joint ordinations) can nullify the problem moving forward. Likewise, Lindbeck supposes that “the very act of joining together to form a common episcopate is described in Facing Unity as equivalent of the mutual recognition of the previous ministries.”262 This is a dubious claim. He does not articulate why the Catholic Church could not view the Lutheran ministry as invalid while acknowledging, in the act of joining together, that it is the very act of joining together that offers Lutheran orders validity. This is not theologically problematic unless the Lutheran communion would, as in the Anglican-Lutheran primary documents, require written acknowledgement of the opposite.

Lindbeck indicates that this Alaskan example poses the risk of schism. While he is right to name Facing Unity as offering practical answers more than theological ones, 263 and Rahner and Fries as offering a top-down and theological program rather than a sacramental and practical one,

261 Lindbeck, 65. 262 Lindbeck, 60. 263 Lindbeck, 64.

227 together, the two programs offer much in the way of how to adapt the model of unity exemplified by the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. Indeed, those dialogues represent a model of what Facing Unity calls for: many local churches affecting the larger corporate body.

5.5b: Ministry vs. Ordination

Another alternative to dealing with the problematic interim generation between any agreement to begin joint ordinations and the new generation of fully restored adoption into historical succession is perhaps found in discussing the ways Catholics can recognize the ministry, if not the ordination, of current Lutheran (or other Protestant) ministers. By this, we need to examine the difference between what requires ordination (e.g., administer the sacraments) and what we might rightly called ministry, which does not require ordination. There are countless examples of non- ordained people currently performing effective ministry in the Church. Missionaries in Africa and other developing nations are not validly ordained – many are women – and yet they successfully carry on the mission of Christ (although not the sacraments). Volunteers teach Catechism classes without ordination.

What emerges from this observation is that perhaps it is not the ordination that is an issue, but the extent to which this is known. People know simply by looking at a woman that she is not a validly ordained Catholic clergy member; no pretense is made. Thus, it is not a problem for a female volunteer to engage in mission work in Africa or to teach CCD classes because no one is under the false impression that s/he is being evangelized by a validly ordained priest; there is full awareness that one is working with a lay volunteer. This changes when a Lutheran minister puts on a clerical collar and stands in front of a Catholic Church to consecrate the Eucharist. If Lutherans and

Catholics would be willing to identify which “side of the fence” they are coming from, so to speak,

228 in the spirit of transparency, would Catholics perhaps find this approach more fruitful than if

Lutherans were appearing to “hide” their Lutheran origins? For example, if altar and pulpit fellowship were to be admitted between Catholics and Lutherans, what if there were some kind of sign or emblem to identify which communion the minister originates from? To come out and declare their Lutheran heritage, such that any member of the faithful will not be “duped” into receiving invalid sacraments and may choose to receive sacraments by a “validly ordained” minister at their choosing, the issue might be greatly reduced.

For example, Lutheran and Catholic conversation partners would need to decide whether the Catholic minister, the Lutheran minister, or both would carry out funerals, weddings, preaching, education programs. Rather than pose an invalid situation where a Lutheran pastor is presiding at

Mass, could the interim generation have a unified Lutheran-Catholic church group celebrate both a

Mass and a “” on Sunday, with clear boundaries as to which pastor is leading each.

Or, can the generous use of Papal dispensations permit more collaborative partnership between the two partnering pastors? This is a possible way to grow together over time during the interim period.

It will likely take extensive conversation to determine whether this is a solution with which they would be comfortable. Naturally, this would involve both a willingness on the part of the pope and an acceptance of papal authority on the part of the Lutherans in order to work.

During this interim period, Michael Root’s ideas about scalar conceptions of ministry are also quite helpful. His suggestion that the term of defectus translates more as “defect” than as “lack” allows us to understand the validity of the sacrament of orders as “scalar,” with more nuanced degrees than simply “yes” or “no,” as is the traditional understanding of sacramental theology. Recall that Unitatis redintegratio 22 says that Protestant orders possess this defectus. If translated “lack,” then this sentence is decisively against recognizing any ministerial value of Lutheran minsters; however, if

229 translated “defect,” then there is room to understand degrees of more or less complete ordination.

Perhaps there is valid ministry present in Protestant ministry even if it is imperfect or defective. This line of thinking calls to mind the tenor of Nostra Aetate, which, speaking not about separated

Christians, but of different religious traditions altogether, acknowledges some religious truth to these traditions. She “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”264 even while maintaining that the “fullness”265 of God’s love, truth, means of salvation, etc., rests with Catholicism. While there is no language in sacramental theology to talk about partial effects of a sacrament, as if they are on a spectrum, Root answers calls for the need for a “flexible, scalar category to apply to the episcopacy and ministries of the ecclesial communities, especially to the churches of the Lutheran and Anglican communions that affirm and practice episcopal succession.266 If there are scalar degrees in which a minister may participate in the historic succession, then the Church has room to consider the possibility of orders being present outside the Church while not conceding the importance of the historicity of succession in recognizing these ministers.

In short, Catholic theology will benefit from following the methodology, even if not the specific content, of the Anglican-Lutheran primary documents. These documents demonstrate a creative engagement with the previously black-and-white category of valid historical succession in the spirit of Christ. The notion of a scalar understanding of ministry needs further exploration.

Willingness to participate in joint ordinations and the resulting organizational and theological accommodations that would need to be present on the part of both Catholics and Protestants needs further articulation. To understand apostolic succession not apart from, but certainly as

264 Vatican Council. Nostra aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. 28 October, 1965. Papal Archive. The Holy See. AAS 57 (1965), 665, 2. 265 Nostra aetate 2. 266 Root, “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 33.

230 encompassing more than, historic episcopacy is essential. The attitude of Christian fellowship and common ancestry, and a resulting spirit of charity and reconciliation rather than rigid self- preservation, following Christ’s own example, is a necessary step forward as all communions within

Christianity seek to live in the Spirit of Christ. All of these things are a theological imperative to

Christianity, which should not continue to live as divided.

A series of conclusions seem to be emerging as a result of this dissertation: (1) The uniting task of ecumenism is of supreme importance to the Catholic and all Christian communities. (2) The topic of episcopacy – although nuanced and complicated – is not an insurmountable obstacle on the way to this unity, especially since the whole idea of the episcopal college is a way unity is realized; this chapter has discussed some avenues that Catholic theology needs to explore and articulate in order to move forward with that task. (3) The Anglican-Lutheran dialogues offer significant guidance to the Catholic Church in her participation in this goal. (4) Those dialogues serve the

Catholic Church in both her relations with Anglicans and Lutherans as well as her relations to other

Christian denominations insofar as this issue of episcopacy goes beyond Catholic relationships with only Anglicans and Lutherans. Finally, (5) that themes of koinonia and kenosis – so central to the early

Church before her major divisions and so central to the teachings of the one whom Christianity follows – emerge as central themes to this author as lenses through which to understand this entire narrative and its role in the life of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It is this final concept with which this dissertation will close.

5.11: Koinonia and Kenosis: The Context for Moving Forward

This dissertation is now in a position to offer its final comments on the topic of what the

Catholic Church can take from the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues that led to their entering full

231 communion and to offer a conclusion about their efficacy in the life of the Catholic Church and about the lasting value of this conversation.

Philippians 2:1-15 states:

If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world.

If we are to take anything from the previous section, it is that Catholic, Anglicans, and Lutherans alike approach ecumenical discussion with a spirit of reconciliation. Another way we might look at it is to say that they embody – or strive to embody – the spirit of kenosis or self-emptying so eloquently elaborated in Philippians. Any time there is disagreement among humans, it is tempting to act out of self-preservation. What the Catholic Church sees happening in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues is a brave adoption of kenosis in their approach to one another. Evident in the passage from Philippians is everything the Catholic Church might take from the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues: a spirit of brotherhood and reconciliation, the desire to work out “with fear and trembling” rather than with carelessness or pride the important theological concepts related to the ministry, a methodology of not “murmuring and arguing” with one another. Combined with Loralei Fuchs’ focus on the concept of koinonia, emphasis on communion and the joining together of individuals in the spirit of community kenosis is indeed one of the main themes we find in this study.

232

The notion of not considering equality with God something to be grasped is evident in the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues. Resisting the urge to assume either communion has a special access to

God denied to the other one because of its particular theology of the episcopate and therefore working out creative theological answers is something the Catholic Church can agree with wholeheartedly. Indeed, it warns Catholics away from making an idol of the Church itself or of the episcopate in particular.

The notion of working out salvation “with fear and trembling” acknowledging that “it is

God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” highlights the extent to which ecumenical agreement is not a grumpy, half-hearted agreement, but an opportunity to be of the “same mind,” “the same love,” and “the same accord.” Ephraim Radner also looks to Philippians 2 when he insists that “oneness of mind is received through having the

"mind of Christ," which is that of the one who gave up the form of God for that of a slave and emptied himself into death (Phil 2:1-11).”267 Moving forward, then, what is needed is creativity in seeking ways to reconcile dogmatic differences, work already fruitfully beun in the primary documents surveyed here. Christianity aimed at restoring her unity needs to run responsible risks with regard to experimentation in living out fellowship.

God came into a broken world; he can therefore live in a broken Church. Indeed, is not the

Lord of Christians a Lord who works primarily through brokenness, death, and falling? The Catholic

Church can take from the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues an appreciation for the fact that the ministry in the form of a perfect, unblemished succession is not a criterion for the action of the Holy Spirit.

Unity in mind and heart, however, is. Christ was sent into this world to be broken and resurrected; how, like Christ, is the Church to be broken and then restored in unity? Indeed, what if, as Pope

267 Radner, A Brutal Unity, 446.

233

Francis so recently stated, the Church is called to be “bruised, hurting, and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security?”268 Indeed, how like God to operate through brokenness and vulnerability rather than security. Jesus was sent to be broken and healed; how much must this be true of the Churches?

This idea is potentially read into Schlenker when he speaks about “certain risks”:

There is, or should be, an urgency about moving toward full communion. That inevitably involves certain risks. A Catholic bishop, noting that liturgical ministry occurs within a certain culture and ethos, asks how there can be a complete interchange of ministries. Even within the Roman Catholic Church there is not such an interchange between Eastern and Western rites. He fears that Christian tradition will lose something. Perhaps that is inevitable. The important question is what it will lose—something essential or a cultural accretion. Over the centuries many nonessential accretions have been lost, and Christian tradition may be somewhat less rich today because of that. But, is not the greater unity (not uniformity) in faith and ministry and fuller communion a more important benefit to the efficacy of the church's mission, even at the price of a loss of richness? It is a question of priorities.269

Likewise, Ola Tjorhom’s remarks on the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues reinforce the themes of kenosis and konionia we are here emphasizing. In making a remark about the idea of a “defect” in apostolicity evident in Unitatis Redintegratio, he states:

this is primarily related to the defectus ordinis principle in Unitatis Redintegratio 22 that still emerges as one of the most crucial ecumenical obstacles. The Porvoo Common Statement does not discuss this concept explicitly since none of the participating churches apply it. Yet, it may be argued that PCS implicitly offers, if not a ready solution, then at least a feasible framework for dealing with this idea. Here we will have to start with the Porvoo Report’s suggestion that apostolicity is expressed through sharing in accordance with the Biblical concept of koinonia. This approach indicates that the signs of apostolicity cannot be seen as the private property of any particular church and that we are all lacking because of our division. In this way the contention of a unilateral or one-sided deficiency is adjusted by the fact that all of us are deficient, until we, together, succeed in restoring the unity which belongs to the nature of the apostolic Church and which is firmly established in God’s will.270

Fuchs’ concept of symbolic competence is helpful here. We must keep in mind that the historic episcopate is a very powerful symbol of the apostolicity of the Church. Therefore, its importance is not to be denied, and, yet, it is a symbol of the unity of the Church. Used as a means

268 . Evangelii Gaudium: . 24 November, 2013. Papal Archive. The Holy See. AAS (2013), 1019, 49. 269 Schlenker, 120. 270 Tjorhom, “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement,” 137.

234 by which to isolate Christians from one another, it is neither faithful to the concept of apostolicity nor faithful to the goal of the symbol. She states:

Symbol by nature is relational. Symbol is the bridge to relationality. The symbolic bridges human koinonia with God and with one another. It joins us to that inner dynamic unity of the triune relationality of Father, Son and Spirit, which is ours for the asking, as gift and call. Going over this bridge equips us with the propensity for communionality. Symbol qualifies competence. The competence of which we speak reflects capacity. It concerns the capacity of Christians and their churches 'to ecume.’ 'To ecume' means to engage in the actions and activities which give birth to an ecumenical understanding of the church, its faith and its unity. …It measures the qualification of the churches and the Christians which compose them by which they carry out Christian identity and churchliness, not in isolation and separation but in participation and together md togetherness. This measure is wholistic and organic, reflecting the cognitive and the affective, the dialogical and the doxological, in ecclesial and ecumenical encounter. Symbolic competence thus connects naturally with communion ecclesiology. Understanding the church in terms of koinonia is the way churches ecume. It is the way churches become church-communio.271

Again calling our attention to existing familial ties, she highlights that symbolic competence for continuity is thus our meta-language for a methodology serving ecumenical reception. “It… is our hermeneutical device inviting the churches and Christians to embody the communion which already exists among them and urging them to its clearest vision and deepest realisation. Thereby it reflects an attitudinal stance essential for the reception of ecumenical findings.”272

Perhaps a most striking Catholic support of the concept of kenosis related to this discussion is found in Lumen gentium:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.273

Here, we see Catholic Church would emphasizing charity of heart, rather than formality in sacramental structure, as being of utmost importance. This emphasis serves to support the theory that the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues, as a model both methodological and theological, are fruitful

271 Fuchs, 411-412. 272 Fuchs, 412. 273 Lumen gentium 14.

235 for the Catholic Church in her ecumenical dialogues. Indeed, it is also stated that “Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.”274 If explicit desire for unity is ample criteria for an individual to seek unity with the Catholic Church, is it a far cry to assume this is also true for entire Protestant communions? And yet, as “the ultimate goal of ecumenical dialogue is the same as the goal of the ecumenical movement itself: not only the spiritual but the visible unity of the Church,”275 it is not enough simply to laud the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues as indicating a long lost brotherhood, as already discussed in this chapter. It also must be the impetus for full visible unity. However, the spirit of kenosis and koinonia demands that “there can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way.”276

In closing, the Anglican-Lutheran dialogues serve as a fruitful way to call the Catholic

Church’s attention to many theological principles which she herself believes, accentuating the brotherhood already contained between these three communities. They serve as a way to highlight differences which, if they are true to their own principles, the Catholic Church will approach with humility, “fear and trembling” as all participants “work out their own salvation.” In a true spirit of kenosis and with the goal of koinonia, ecumenism as a whole is greatly moved forward by the

Anglican-Lutheran dialogues and calls for Catholic participation in them. In both methodology and content, these fruitful dialogues call all Christians to observe the faithful way the conversation partners have treated the sensitive issue of episcopacy in their overall ecclesiologies, such that they

274 Lumen gentium 14. 275 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 43. 276 Unitatis redintegratio 7.

236 serve as a model for doing “all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world.” (Philippians 2:14-15)

Appendix 1

Passages from primary documents in regional areas articulating agreements:

Called to Full Communion (Canada, 1998) presents a “Proposed Joint Declaration” in article 7, stating:

We, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, make the following acknowledgements and commitments:1

1. We declare that in each church "the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel" (Augsburg Confession VII), that in each church "the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments ... duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." (Article XIX of The Thirty-Nine Articles) 2 2. We acknowledge that both our churches share in the common confession of the apostolic faith. (Report and Recommendations, CLAD I, 1986) 3 3. We acknowledge that personal, collegial and communal oversight (episcope) is embodied and exercised in both churches in a variety of forms, in continuity of apostolic life, mission and mini forms, in continuity of apostolic life, mission and ministry. (The Porvoo Common Statement, 1993) 4 4. We acknowledge that the episcopal office is valued and maintained in both our churches as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church's unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry. (The Porvoo Common Statement, 1993) 5 5. We acknowledge that one another's ordained ministries are given by God as instruments of and as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also Christ's commission through his body, the Church (An Appeal to all Christian People, Lambeth Conference, 1920); and that these ministries are the gifts of God's Spirit to equip the people of God for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). 6 a. The Anglican Church of Canada hereby recognizes the authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, acknowledging its pastors as priests in the Church of God and its bishops as chief pastors exercising a ministry of episcope over the jurisdictional areas of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada in which they preside. 7 b. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada hereby recognizes the full authenticity of the ordained ministries of bishops, priests, and deacons presently existing within the Anglican Church of Canada, acknowledging its priests as pastors in the Church of God and its bishops as chief pastors exercising a ministry of episcope over the jurisdictional areas of the Anglican Church of Canada in which they preside. 8

The Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada each understands the bishops of both churches to be ordained … in the pastoral ministry of the historic episcopate, although tenure in office may be terminated by retirement, resignation or conclusion of term, subject to the constitutional provisions if the respective churches. 9

1 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 2 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 3 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 4 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 5 Called to Full Communion 7, 10. 6 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 7 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 8 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 9 Called to Full Communion 7, 11. 237

The Porvoo Common Statement (Europe, 1993) “recommend(s) that our churches jointly make the following Declaration: The Porvoo Declaration.”10 It then outlines a brief statement before enumerating several acknowledgements and commitments, as follows:

We, the Church of Denmark, the Church of England, the Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran Church, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Iceland, the Church of Ireland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Church of Norway, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Sweden and the Church in Wales, on the basis of our common understanding of the nature and purpose of the Church, fundamental agreement in faith and our agreement on episcopacy in the service of the apostolicity of the Church, contained in Chapters II-IV of The Porvoo Common Statement, make the following acknowledgements and commitments:

A: i we acknowledge one another’s churches as churches belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and truly participating in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God; ii we acknowledge that in all our churches the Word of God is authentically preached, and the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist are duly administered; iii we acknowledge that all our churches share in the common confession of the apostolic faith; iv we acknowledge that one another’s ordained ministries are given by God as instruments of his grace and as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also Christ’s commission through his Body, the Church; v we acknowledge that personal, collegial and communal oversight (episcope) is embodied and exercised in all our churches in a variety of forms, in continuity of apostolic life, mission and ministry; vi we acknowledge that the episcopal office is valued and maintained in all our churches as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry.

B: We commit ourselves: i to share a common life in mission and service, to pray for and with one another, and to share resources; ii to welcome one another’s members to receive sacramental and other pastoral ministrations; iii to regard baptized members of all our churches as members of our own; iv to welcome diaspora congregations into the life of the indigenous churches, to their mutual enrichment; v to welcome persons episcopally ordained in any of our churches to the office of bishop, priest or deacon to serve, by invitation and in accordance with any regulations which may from time to time be in force, in that ministry in the receiving church without re-ordination; vi to invite one another’s bishops normally to participate in the laying on of hands at the ordination of bishops as a sign of the unity and continuity of the Church; vii to work towards a common understanding of diaconal ministry; viii to establish appropriate forms of collegial and conciliar consultation on significant matters of faith and order, life and work; ix to encourage consultations of representatives of our churches, and to facilitate learning and exchange of ideas and information in theological and pastoral matters; x to establish a contact group to nurture our growth in communion and to co-ordinate the implementation of this agreement. 11

10 The Porvoo Common Statement 58. 11 The Porvoo Common Statement 58. 238

The Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue (U.S. 1982, does not lead to full communion), begins with the notion of an already-existing unity, stating, “The following statement indicates the lines of this convergence while pointing out areas of divergence where appropriate.”12 It then outlines the following points:

(1) The Apostolicity of the Church refers to the Church's continuity with Christ and the apostles’ movement through history. The Church is apostolic as "devoted ... to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2:42) (2) Apostolicity or apostolic succession is a dynamic, diverse reality organically embracing a variety of elements and activities. It includes continued faithfulness to the apostles' teaching, which teaching found normative expression in Holy Scripture, and under Scripture, in the ecumenical creeds. It involves participation in baptism, in the apostles' prayers and the breaking of bread which continues in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. Abiding in apostolic fellowship is given expression rough sharing in the Church's common life of mutual ^ edification and caring, served by an ecclesiastically called and recognized pastoral ministry of Word and sacrament. Finally, apostolic succession involves a continuing involvement in the apostolic mission, in being sent into the world to share the Gospel of Christ by proclamation to all far and near and by neighborly service to those in need. (3) It has been all too common for many to think of apostolic succession primarily in terms of historic episcopate. We must take care to avoid this narrowing of our view of the Church's apostolic succession to an exclusive concern with the historic episcopate. Such a reduction falsely isolates the historic episcopate and also obscures the fact that churches may exhibit most aspects of apostolicity while being weak or deficient in some. Recovery of appreciation for the wider dimensions of apostolicity has allowed us to see in each other a commonality which a narrow concentration on the historic episcopate would have obscured.13

Contained within Toward Full Communion (U.S., 1991, does not lead to full communion) is a list of “Five substantive agreements” as follows:

1. We agree that apostolicity belongs to the reality of the catholic church; apostolicity is manifested in various ways of the church's life, and is guarded especially by common confession and through that function of the church designated as episcope (oversight).14 2. We agree that both our communions can and should affirm that the Eucharistic celebrations held under the discipline of either communion are true occurrences of the Body of Christ in the world. We agree that both our communions can and should affirm that the others are true ministries of the one church of Christ, that is, that they are apostolic ministries. We agree that mutual recognition of ministries by each of the two traditions could 27 create the conditions by which both communions could enter that sort of relationship in which each would receive gifts from the other for greater service to the Lord and his Gospel.15 3. We agree that the identity of our Gospel with the apostles’ Gospel and of our church with the apostles' church, is the personal identity of the risen Christ; …The church has, within the providence of God, enacted its responsibility that this succession shall be a succession of the Gospel, by the means of a canon of Scripture, the use and authority of creeds and confessions, sacramental-liturgical tradition, and the institution of an ordered ministry and succession of ministers.16 4. We agree that this substance of apostolic succession must take different forms in differing places and times if the Gospel is to be heard and received. At the time of the Reformation, one of our communions in its place experienced the continuity of the episcopally ordered ministry as an important means of the succession of the Gospel; in various ways the other in its place was able to take its responsibility of the succession of the Gospel only by a new ordering of its ministry. We agree that each decision … of our communions can and should affirm the decision of the other. Until the Lord of the church grants a new ordering of the church, each church

12 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 31. 13 Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue, 32. 14 Toward Full Communion, 27. 15 Toward Full Communion, 27-28. 16 Toward Full Communion, 28. 239

should respect the right of the other to honor the distinct history which mediates its apostolicity, and to continue that ordering of its ministry which its history has made possible. Within the one church, both the Anglican continuity of the episcopal order, and the Lutheran concentration on doctrine, have been means of preserving the apostolicity of the one church. 17 5. For the future, we agree that if either communion should be able to receive the gift of the other's particular apostolicity, without unfaithfulness to its own, the future of the church would be served. In any future ordering of the one church, there will be a ministry and within that ministry an episcope. The functional reality of episcope is in flux in both our communions. If we are If we are faithful, we will together discover the forms demanded by the church's new opportunities, so that the church may have an episcope which will be an episcope of the apostolic Gospel, an episcope of the apostolic Gospel. Similarly, any future unity of the church will be a unity of common confession. The functional reality of the common confessions of the past (their contemporary interpret will be that we think and pray together seeking to be ready for a new will be that we think and pray together seeking to be ready for a new common confession when the Lord shall give us the apostolic bold- ness to proclaim the Gospel with the freshness and vigor of our fathers in the faith.18

It expresses its intention in view of the many agreements achieved in the dialogues:

The dialogues have revealed that there have been profound similarities in our 16th century experience, in the type of reforms introduced in different countries associated with our two editions, in the theological perspectives shared by our 16th century documents. Our studies of these similarities during the three rounds of dialogue over a period of more than two decades have led us to a deepened appreciation for each other's traditions. Dialogues during a great many years, at every level—national, regional, international— have disclosed that our distinctive emphases are complementary: Lutherans with an emphasis on doctrine, Anglicans with an emphasis on worship. We are now ready to propose a Concordat of Agreement between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It is our fervent prayer that the actions proposed in the Concordat of Agreement can be the means by which the Holy Spirit gives our churches the gift of full communion.19

The Concordat of Agreement (U.S., 1991, does not lead to full communion) declares:

The Episcopal Church hereby agrees that in its General Convention, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America hereby agrees that in its Churchwide Assembly, there shall be one vote to accept or reject, as a matter of verbal content as well as in principle, and without separate amendment, the full set of agreements to follow. If they are adopted by both churches, each church agrees to make those legislative, canonical, constitutional, and liturgical changes necessary and appropriate for the full communion between the churches which these agreements are designed to implement without further vote on the Concordat of Agreement by either the General Convention or the Churchwide Assembly.20

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church hereby recognize in each other the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith as it is witnessed in the unaltered Augsburg Confession (CA), the Small Catechism, and The Book of Common Prayer of 1979 (including the "Episcopal Services'' and "An Outline of the Faith"), and as it is summarized in part in Implications of the Gospel and Toward Full Communion between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the reports of Episcopal Dialogue III, and as it has been examined in both the papers and fourteen official conversations of Series III. Each church also promises to require its ordination candidates to study each other's basic documents.21

17 Toward Full Communion, 28. 18 Toward Full Communion, 28-29. 19 Toward Full Communion, 72. 20 Concordat of Agreement, 98. 21 Concordat of Agreement, 98. 240

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees that all its 100 bishops will be understood as ordained, like other pastors, for life service of the gospel in the pastoral ministry of the historic episcopate even though tenure in office of the churchwide bishop an synodical bishops maybe terminated by retirement, resignation, or conclusion o term however constitutionally ordered. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America further agrees to revise its rite tor the Installation of a Bishop" to reflect this understanding. In keeping h these principles the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also agrees to revise its constitution (e.g., 16.51.41.) so that all bishops, including those no longer active, shall be regular members of the Conference of Bishops.22

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America hereby recognizes now the full authenticity of the ordained ministers presently existing within the Episcopal Church, acknowledging the bishops, priests, and deacons of the Episcopal Church all as their respective orders within the Episcopal Church and he bishops of the Episcopal Church as chief pastors in the historic succession exercising a ministry of episkope over the jurisdictional areas of the Episcopal Church in which they preside. 23

Called to Common Mission (U.S., 1999, the revision to the Concordat):

The Episcopal Church agrees that in its General Convention, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees that in its Churchwide Assembly, there shall be one vote to accept or reject, as a matter of verbal content as well as in principle, the full set of agreements to follow. If they are adopted by both churches, each church agrees to make those legislative, canonical, constitutional, and liturgical changes that are needed and appropriate for the full communion between the churches. In adopting this document, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church specifically acknowledge and declare that it has been correctly interpreted by the resolution of the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, adopted at Tucson, Arizona, March 8, 1999.24

The ministry of the whole people of God forms the context for what is said here about all forms of ministry. We together affirm that all members of Christ's church are commissioned for ministry through baptism. All are called to represent Christ and his church; to bear witness to him wherever they may be; to carry on Christ's work of reconciliation in the world; and to participate in the life, worship, and governance of the church. We give thanks for a renewed discovery of the centrality of the ministry of all the baptized in both our churches. Our witness to the gospel and pursuit of peace, justice, and reconciliation in the world have been immeasurably strengthened. Because both our churches affirm this ministry which has already been treated in our previous dialogues, it is not here extensively addressed. Both churches need more adequately to realize the ministry of the baptized through discernment of gifts, education, equipping the saints for ministry, and seeking and serving Christ in all persons.25

We acknowledge that one another's ordained ministries are and have been given by God to be instruments of God's grace in the service of God's people, and possess not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also Christ's commission through his body, the church. We acknowledge that personal, collegial, and communal oversight is embodied and exercised in both our churches in a diversity of forms, in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles. We agree that ordained ministers are called and set apart for the one ministry of Word and Sacrament, and that they do not cease thereby to share in the priesthood of all believers. They fulfill their particular ministries within the community of the faithful and not apart from it. The concept of the priesthood of all believers affirms the need for ordained ministry, while at the same time setting ministry in proper

22 Concordat of Agreement, 101. 23 Concordat of Agreement, 101. 24 Called to Common Mission 3. 25 Called to Common Mission 6. 241

relationship to the laity. The Anglican tradition uses the terms “presbyter” and “priest” and the Lutheran tradition in America characteristically uses the term "pastor" for the same ordained ministry.26

In order to give witness to the faith we share (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above), We agree that the one ordained ministry will be shared between the two churches in a.common pattern for the sake of common mission.27

Important expectations of each church for a shared ordained ministry will be realized at the beginning of our new relation: an immediate recognition by The Episcopal Church of presently existing ordained ministers within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a commitment by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to receive and adapt an episcopate that will be shared. Both churches acknowledge that the diaconate, including its place within the threefold ministerial office and its relationship with all other ministries, is in need of continuing exploration, renewal, and reform, which they pledge themselves to undertake in consultation with one another. The ordination of deacons, deaconesses, or diaconal ministers by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America required bv this Concordat. 28

“Historic succession” refers to a tradition which goes back to the ancient church, in which bishops already in the succession install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying-on-of-hands. At present The Episcopal Church has bishops in this historic succession, as do all the churches of the Anglican Communion, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at present does not, although some member churches of the Lutheran World Federation do. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888, the ecumenical policy of The Episcopal Church, refers to this tradition as “the historic episcopate.” In the Lutheran Confessions, Article 14 of the Apology refers to this episcopal pattern by the phrase, "the ecclesiastical and canonical polity" which it is “our deep desire to maintain.”29

26 Called to Common Mission 6. 27 Called to Common Mission 8. 28 Called to Common Mission 9. 29 Called to Common Mission 11. 242

Bibliography

Primary literature

(Canada)

Called to Full Communion: A Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration. The Joint Working Group of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, December 1997. Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, 1998.

(Europe)

The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible Unity. The Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England. Meissen, March 18, 1988. Occasional Paper No. 2.

Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe. Conversations between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. London: Church House Publishing, 1993.

(United States)

“Toward Full Communion” And “Concordat of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III. Edited by William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991.

Concordat of Agreement: Supporting Essays. Ed. Daniel F. Martensen. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995.

Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement. An Agreement of Full Communion with the Episcopal Church as amended and Adropted by the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, August 19, 1999. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1999.

Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations. Second Series 1976-1980. Sponsored by the Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church. Cincinnati, Forward Movement Publications, 1981.

(International Texts)

Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group 2000-2002. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2003.

The Niagara Report: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 1987. By the Anglican – Lutheran International Continuation Committee. London: Church House Publishing, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation, 1988.

243

Secondary Literature

(The Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues)

Baima, Thomas A. Lessons on the Way Toward Full Communion: A Critique of the Doctrinal Decision- Making Processes of the 1997 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the Basis for an Inquiry Concerning the On-Going Opposition to the Theology of the Concordat of Agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, Apud Pontificiam Universitatem S. Thomae in. Rome: 2000.

Beck, Brian. “The Porvoo Common Statement: A Methodist Response.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Bouteneff, Peter C. “The Porvoo Common Statement: An Orthodox Response.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Fackre, Gabriel, and Michael Root. Affirmations & Admonitions: Lutheran Decisions and Dialogue with Reformed, Episcopal, and Roman Catholic Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Furberg, Tore. “The Sending and Mission of the Church in the Porvoo Common Statement.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Garijo-Guembe, Miguel Maria. “Unidad en una diversidad reconciliada. Reflexiones sobre modelos de unidad a la luz de recientes acuerdos ecuménicos.” Dialogo Ecuménico 30 (1995): 67-81.

Gassmann, Gunther. “Anglican-Lutheran Convergence and the Anticipation of Full Communion.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34, no. 1 (Jan 1997): 1-12.

Henn, William. “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession: Concluding Reflections to the Centro Pro Unione Symposium.” Louvain Studies 21 (1996): 183-199.

Hind, John. “Sign but Not Guarantee: Reflections on the Place of the Historic Succession of Bishops Within the Apostolic Continuity of the Church in Some Current Ecumenical Texts.” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Holze, Heinrich. “The Ecclesiology of the Porvoo Common Statement – A Lutheran Perspective.” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Loughran, James. “Response to William Rusch’s Sermon.” The Anglican 27 (Jan 1998): 8–9.

Marshall, Bruce. “The Lutheran-Episcopal Condordat: What Does It Say, and Why Does It Matter?” Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

244

Meyer, Harding. “Some Observations Concerning the Unity Concept of the Porvoo Common Statement.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Neilsen, Kirsten Busch. “Apostolicity and Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement: Without Confusion, Without Separation.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Gospel and Church: The Proposed Concordat between Lutheran and Episcopal Churches in the USA.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Puglisi, James F. “The Porvoo Common Statement from a Catholic Perspective.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Radner, Ephraim. “The Cost of Communion: A Meditation on Israel and the Divided Church.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Radner, Ephraim, and R. R. Reno. Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Reno, R. R. “The Evangelical Significance of the Historic Episcopate.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Root, Michael. “Conditions of Communion: Bishops, the Concordat and the Augsburg Confession.” Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Root, Michael. “Porvoo in the Context of the Worldwide Anglican-Lutheran Dialogue.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjohom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Root, Michael and William Rusch. “Lutheran Reflections on the Porvoo Statement.” Mid-Stream 33 (1994): 358-362.

Saarinen, Risto. “The Porvoo Common Statement and the Leuenberg Concord — Are They Compatible?” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002

Schlenker, Richard J. “A Roman Catholic Comment on the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 111-121.

Sullivan, Francis A. “Comments of a Roman Catholic on Called to Common Mission and the Porvoo Common Statement.” In Lutheran Forum 40, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 14–21.

245

Sullivan, Francis A. “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches.” In Sapere teologico e unità della fede: Studi in onore del Prof. Jared Wicks. Edited by Aparicio Valls, Carmen, Carmelo Dotolo, and Gianluigi Pasquale. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004. 571–88.

Sumer, George R. “Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Full Communion for Mission.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Sykes, S. W. “The Apostolate of Bishop and People as a Sign of the Kingdom of God.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Sykes, Stephen W. “The Doctrine of the Church in the Porvoo Common Statement.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Sykes, S.W. Papers of the Consultation: Background for the Niagara Report. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1987.

Tanner, Mary. “The Anglican Position on Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement.” In Louvain Studies 21, no. 2 (1996). 114-125.

Tanner, Mary. “The Concept of Unity in the Porvoo Common Statement: Visible Unity and Ecclesial Diversity.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Tavard, George H. “A Catholic Reflection on the Porvoo Statement.” Midstream 33 (1994): 351– 58.

Tavard, George H. “Review of the Niagara Report.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26 (1990): 568-569.

Tavard, George H. “The Reconciliation of Ministries.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18:2 (1981). 267- 280.

Tjorhom, Ola, ed. Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Tjorhom, Ola. “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement: A Challenge to the Nordic Lutheran Churches.” Louvain Studies 21, no. 2 (1996). 126-137.

Tjorhom, Ola. “Apostolicity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement — Necessary or a Mere ‘Optional Extra’ in the Church's Life?” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Turner, Philip. “Episcopal Oversight and Ecclesiastical Discipline.” In Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

246

Tustin, David. “The Background and Genesis of the Provoo Common Statement.” In Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Edited by Ola Tjorhom. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Yarnold, Edward. “In Line with the Apostles.” The Tablet (July 9, 1994): 878-879.

Yeago, David S. “Theological Renewal in Communion: What Anglicans and Lutherans Can Learn from One Another,” Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Edited by Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

(Episcopacy)

Burkhard, John J. Apostolicity Then and Now: An Ecumenical Church in a Postmodern World. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Cirlot, Felix L. Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism: A Defense of Anglican Orders and Catholicity. Lexington, KY: Trafton Publishing Co., 1946.

Ehrhardt, Arnold. The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1953.

Kocik, Thomas M. Apostolic Succession in an Ecumenical Context. New York: Alba House, 1996.

O’Collins, Gerald, S. J. “Did Apostolic Continuity Ever Start? Origins of Apostolic Continuity in the New Testament?” Louvain Studies 21 (1996): 138-152.

Puglisi, James F. “Introduction.” Louvain Studies 21 (1996): 109-112.

Rogers, Gregory. Apostolic Succession: The Biblical Foundation, the Historical Evidence, the Twentieth-Century Context. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1989.

Rutowicz, John. Holding Fast the Faithful Word: Episcopacy and the Office of the Holy Ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2013.

Sullivan, Francis A. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. New York: The Newman Press, 2001.

Zizioulas, John. Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession. Louvain Studies 21, no. 2 (1996): 153-168.

247

(Ecumenism and Catholic Ecclesiology)

Burgess, Joseph A., and Gros, Jeffrey, eds. Building Unity: Ecumenical Dialogues with Roman Catholic Participation in the United States. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

Congar, Yves. Diversity and Communion. Mystic, CT: Twenty-third Publications, 1982.

Congar, Yves. Divided Christendom. London: The Centenary Press, 1939.

Congar, Yves. True and False Reform in the Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011.

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church. 31 October, 1998. Vatican. The Holy See.

“Facing Unity: Models, Forms, and Phases of Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship.” Joint Evangelical-Lutheran – Roman Catholic Commission. Accessed March 5, 2016. http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_facing.html.

Fries, Heinrich, and Karl Rahner. Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility. Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 1983.

Fuchs, Lorelei. Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Theology: From Foundations Through Dialogue to Symbolic Competence for Communionality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.

Hill, Christopher, and Edward Yarnold, eds. Anglican Orders: The Documents in the Debate. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1997.

Kasper, Walter. Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue. New York: Continuum, 2009.

Kasper, Walter. That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today. London: Burns & Oates, 2004.

Lindbeck, George A. “Episcopacy and the Unification of the Churches; Two Approaches.” Promoting Unity: Themes in Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Edited by H. George Anderson and James R. Crumley Jr. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989.

Meyer, Harding. “Apostolic Continuity, Ministry, and Apostolic Succession from a Reformation Perspective.” Louvain Studies 21 (1996): 169-182.

Meyer, Harding. That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity. Translated by William G. Rusch. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

O’Gara, Margaret. No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism. Edited by Michael Vertin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014.

248

Pope Francis. Evangelii Gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation. 24 November, 2013. AAS (2013), 1019- 1137.

Pope John Paul II. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Apostolic Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. 22 May, 1994. AAS 86 (1994), 545-548.

Pope John Paul II. Ut unum sint: Encyclical on commitment to Ecumenism. 25 May, 1995. AAS 87 (1995), 921-982.

Pope Leo XIII. Apostolicae curae: Papal Bull. 18 September, 1896. AAS 29 (1896-97), 193-203.

Radner, Ephraim. A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.

“Roman Catholic Church Response to ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’.” Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” Text 6. Edited by Max Thurian. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1988. 3–40

Root, Michael. “Bishops, Ministry, and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogue: Deadlock, Breakthrough, or Both?” CTSA Proceedings 62 (2007): 19-35.

Steger, Carlos Alfredo. Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullman. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993.

“The Apostolicity of the Church.” Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. Accessed March 5, 2016. http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_ap-01.html

Vatican Council I. Pastor aeternus: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. 18 July, 1870. ASS 6 (1870-71) 40-55.

Vatican Council II. Gaudium et spes: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. 7 December, 1965. AAS 58 (1966), 1025-1115.

Vatican Council II. Lumen gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. 21 November, 1964. AAS 57 (1965), 5-75.

Vatican Council II. Nostra aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. 28 October, 1965. AAS 57 (1965), 665-686.

Vatican Council II. Unitatis redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism. 21 November, 1964. AAS 57 (1965), 90-112.

249