You can download the March 2020 newsletter as a PDF or read online:
Editorial.
There are two main items in this newsletter. The first is a report on our recent day conference, held at Cheyneygates, Westminster Abbey, followed by attendance at Evensong in the Abbey.
The second, related to the first session, is a series of reflections I had on the Vatican response to The Church, Towards a Common Vision, after reading that particular response in preparation for our meeting.
The Committee met on Feb 12, beginning planning for an event in the autumn followed by events for 2021.
Finally, there is a note from Victoria Turner about a Twitter link that she has developed and a note from myself, on two articles I have had published in Ecumenical Trends.
Report on 8 February Conference
The first presentation was by the Rev. Dr Susan Durber, a minister of the United Reformed Church, who is also Moderator of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. She spoke on the responses received by the Commission to the document on ecclesiology issued by the Commission in 2013, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. The document had arisen from suggestions from several churches in the wake of Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry Report of 1982 that further work was needed on ecclesiology.
Work on the document had involved a sub-committee, made as widely representative as possible. It had issued two separate interim reports over the time involved. The final report had four main sections, followed by a series of questions to which member churches were asked to respond.
Dr Durber stressed that the key issue was that of visible unity and what it required. From the very beginning, the WCC had stressed that the object of the WCC had been to facilitate the response of all the partner churches to the call to visible unity; every assembly of the WCC had stressed particular aspects of that imperative call, the most famous one being the New Delhi statement (1961) on ‘the unity of all in each place’.
76 responses in toto had been received, 48 from individual member churches, 19 from ecumenical bodies and 9 from individuals. This was smaller than the number of responses to BEM but they had come from a very wide range of churches, Orthodox, Oriental and Byzantine, Anglicans and Protestants of various types. One had come from a world confessional body, the Baptist World Alliance. 42 responses had come from western Europe, 16 from North America. Only two had come from eastern Europe, 2 from Latin America, 5 from the South Pacific, but none from Africa.
A sub-group of 10, again denominationally very widespread, had reflected on the responses. The responses had been generally positive, expressing appreciation of the report, though some felt it was too descriptive and that the report had recorded no real advance. One response felt the report had been too abstract, too affected by traditional western theology. The Roman Catholic response had been more positive than their earlier BEM response. Susan said that reading the Roman Catholic response had been one of her happier days; she felt it had been grounded in a truly global conversation. The lack of response from the global south she took as ‘a comment in itself’ on an approach that had not taken enough account of its needs and priorities.
Some responses felt there should have been more on mission and common sharing in mission. Within that, there were also those who felt evangelism, as such, should have been stressed more and not simply mission to the poor. There had been quite a bit of discussion of legitimate diversity within the Church, often with reference to issues relating to gender and sexuality (rather than more traditional stresses on complementary theological styles and spirituality). Susan noted that the Church of England response called for moral issues not to be regarded as church dividing.
Divisions on the ministry of women still featured, though possible changes, particularly with reference to the recent ordination of women as deacons in some Orthodox churches and the promise of Francis to have a commission on the possibility of ordination to the diaconate in the RC Church, were noted.
Susan noted discussions relating to the catholicity of the Church. Could it be seen in the contemporary situation as the positive Christian response to the situation created by secular globalisation. This again, related back to legitimate diversity. The Roman Catholic Church now maintains that the boundaries of its own communion are not coterminous with the whole of the Church, even if it still insists that certain key elements of faith and order which it holds are essential to full visible unity. There was widespread agreement that each local church is part of the one holy catholic Church whilst not being the whole of the Church. There was also need for a common agreement on authority, with more stress on authority which can commend itself by what it does. Susan touched here on the authority of Pope Francis, that which stemmed from his office but also from more than the office in itself.
Many, perhaps particularly outside of the European/North American world, wanted more on working together in mission and proclamation. Many saw the need to engage with those not previously involved in the discussion, particularly Pentecostalists, evangelicals and the African Independent churches.
Finally, Susan stressed that churches were still very committed to full visible unity (only the Swiss Protestants, amongst the respondents, had contested the need for the visibility of unity). However, opinions as to what it meant varied from, at one extreme, the Friends who saw it simply in terms of joyful mutual recognition of diversity, and others who needed far more convergence on faith and ministerial order. Perhaps koinonia was the more helpfully dynamic concept to bring us together in terms of mutual sharing in common mission.
A lively discussion followed.
The second presentation was by Rev. Dr Paul Goodliff, General Secretary of Churches Together in England, on Juridical Ecumenism.
Paul stated that this was a recent development. It counteracts the idea that canon law restricts ecumenical progress and shows that Christian church law can enrich ecumenical learning.
Paul traced the development of the concept to a project by Prof. Norman Doe of Cardiff, in which he probed the similarities between different codes of canon law within the Anglican Communion. The second step was to apply this process to the wider ecumenical context and begin the Christian Law Project.
In Nov. 2013, a symposium was held at the Venerable English College in Rome with church lawyers attending in their personal capacities, not as delegated officially by their churches. Those attending included a former Moderator of the Church of Scotland and Methodist, Ken Howcroft.
In his work, Christian Law-Contemporary Principles, Doe set out to evaluate the principles common to all Christian churches, including Lutherans and Pentecostalists. He looked for the theological and ethical values underpinning each set of laws. Investigation of ten different traditions revealed profound similarities. He wrote this up for the Ecclesiastical Law Journal in 2017.
In 2018, a panel meeting in Rome to consider further moves was greeted by the Pope who affirmed, ’canon law is now established in ecumenical dialogue’.
Principles were established under ten headings, including the faithful in general, the ordained ministry, doctrine and worship, the rites of the Church, church property and church-state relations.
Paul stressed the problems that exist around the common concept of the unrepeatability of baptism, accepted by all but with differences over what constitutes true baptism in the first place. As a Baptist himself, he accepted his own feelings were conflictual on this.
Reference was made to J.H. Oldham’s concept of axioms as establishing a via media between the law of love and the unguided intuition of individual conscience.
Paul’s talk was followed by a reflection from Prof Sir Malcolm Evans as an international lawyer, after which there was more general discussion.
The Roman Catholic Response to The Church: Towards a Common Vision
This appeared at the end on last October. In general, it is irenically welcome to the Report and particularly to the extent to which it responds to the Catholic wish, expressed in their earlier response to the Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry statement of 1982, that the Faith and Order Commission should do detailed work on ecclesiology. They acknowledge, in particular, considerable more recent convergence on that subject, whilst noting that the convergence recorded is still not sufficient for full communion in faith, sacramental life and mission.
The Pontifical Council states that, in the drawing up of their response, bishops, theologians and individual Catholic organisations and individuals have had all had a say, even the comments of some individual correspondents with the Commission being duly and carefully considered. This broad approach in consultation should be appreciated by the other churches, all of which practice varying degrees of synodical consultation and will be glad to see Catholic practice becoming increasingly synodical with, of course, the strong approval by Pope Francis, who, as Massimo Faggioli observes, sees this as the way of life needed in the twenty first century church. The dating of the Response has allowed the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity itself to reflect clearly on the relevant ecumenical style and approach of Pope Francis.
The Report is in three main parts. The first, the Introduction, evaluates the progress in convergence in ecclesiology represented by TCTCV. The second comments in detail on each of the four main sections of TCTCV. Finally, the Response answers the specific questions put in TCTCV to each church involved.
The middle section reveals many comments which show the Roman Catholic Church enthusing over the progress that has been made. Chapter 1, ‘God’s Mission and the Unity of the Church’, affirms ‘the remarkable level of convergence that can almost be regarded as consensual’. It relates such statements as ‘the Church and its mission are rooted in the vision of God’s great design for creation’ to parallel teaching in Lumen Gentium and AG. On p.15, it argues that a theological reflection on the transformative power of the Gospel could have included both a critique of the modern age and the need for the proclamation of the Gospel as ‘first and foremost a personal encounter with Jesus Christ’. This last will be music in the ears of evangelicals, including, one would hope, even those most traditionally suspicious of Rome. Ch 2 on ‘The Church and the Triune God’ contains the confession ‘a part of the unfortunate story of catholic theology is that these marks (i.e. one, holy, catholic and apostolic) have been used in an exclusive manner, as if pertaining to the RC Church alone’. ‘Conciliar teaching and the post conciliar Magisterium both note that these marks are also present in other churches’.
Legitimate diversity is highly commended as a gift from the Lord in conformity with the statement in UR 16 that it ‘enhances the splendour of the church and contributes greatly to the fulfilment of her mission’. Finally, the stress on the Church as a communion of local churches which are wholly church without being the whole of the Church Universal is strongly commended.
In the third chapter on growing in communion, much is made of recent progress in the understanding of the sacraments, particularly the eucharist. Though the term sacraments is preferred to ordinances, it is admitted that ‘this term can indicate both the action of God and the necessity of faith, as does sacrament’. It goes on to aver, ‘it is remarkable to witness the considerable agreement that has occurred with regard to the mutual understanding of sacrament and ordinance’.
Authority was always going to be a particularly difficult question. Interestingly a sharp assertion that an essential authority is missing, that of the Magisterium, is then counterbalanced by the more irenic assertion that ‘the lives of the Christian martyrs are another significant source of authority for all Christians’. It is also made clear that it means martyrs from all churches and is referenced by direct quotation from Francis. The Response does, however, indicate that there be alternative and mutually acceptable ways of defining essential truths.
Much of the final chapter on Church and the World particularly stresses the key, and generally more widely welcomes, emphases of the present pontificate. It points to the strong agreement amongst all the churches on the Church’s overall response to the sufferings of human beings and cites the 2016 document on curial reform. ‘In all her being and action, the Church is called to promote the integral development of the human person in the light of the Gospel’.
Final section
This responds frankly and positively, amplifying the general tone of approval of growing convergence in the first two sections. In answer to question one on the relationship of the ecclesiology of the text, it affirms that many of the convergences recorded in the text ‘show convergences that reflect in very substantial ways the ecclesiological understanding of the Catholic Church’1. In particular, the stress on church as communion and the acknowledgement of the entire people of God as prophetic, priestly and royal is acknowledged, a stress that, one may add, will be welcome to the Reformation churches as well. The PCPCU welcome the opportunity for the Catholic Church to engage the ecclesiology of the text.
Next the Response sees a basis for the growth of unity in the way that the text encourages recourse to Tradition, values the idea of apostolic succession, clarifies and expands the nature of the ministry or episcope and promotes the value of synodality and primacy. The last in particular will be welcomed by practically all the other churches since, in varying ways, they all favour a more synodical style of church government than has prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church, even after Vatican II. It ends with highlighting the need for more reception, stating that ‘the faithful in all of the churches and Christian communities may not realise that these common understandings of the mystery of the Church have been acknowledged.’2
The response to the third enquiry about the adaptations and forms of renewal that the Catholic Church would regard as necessary in pursuit of closer unity elicits a response very much marked by the present papacy and thus highlight’s Francis call for synodality at all levels in Church, where, according to Francis, ‘everyone has something to learn.’ The response acknowledges that that ‘the hopes for decentralisation, collegiality and synodality, expressed at Vatican II had not yet been fully realised’. Francis is further cited as asserting that the ‘the pope is in the Church, not above it’. He endorses the call of the late John Paul II for examination of ways in which the petrine ministry might be differently, and to other Christians potentially more appropriately, be exercised.
This is potentially the most appealing statement to the rest of Christendom where a degree of synodality is lived in all of them, albeit varying in its relationship to the orders of ordained ministry. Finally, the stress on the whole laity as missionary disciples will appeal universally.
Section 4, on the development of closer relationships, endorses spiritual ecumenism, mutual prophetic gestures and, above all, underlines the call of John Paul II for a common martyrology, followed by Francis commemoration of the Coptic martyrs of Libya in 2015. Francis asserted against any reservation of fellow Catholics, ‘they are our martyrs because they gave their blood for Christ’.
In section 5, the PCPCU express their wish that Faith and Order should devote further study to the relationship between diversity and separation as well as to the limits of diversity. It should do work on the question of a universal ministry of primacy at the service of Christian Unity. It commends the work already done in response to its 1987 request on sacraments and sacramentality, but argues for further progress on this and on apostolic tradition and authority in the Church.
It would also like to see work on Christian anthropology, on shifting cultural contexts, and, finally to charisms and the charismatic dimension of the Church; all of these wishes relate to the changing nature of global Christianity in which the variety of contexts in which the faith is lived is more varied than ever and which Pentecostalists cumulatively are the second largest communion in 2020.
Overall, this response is very encouraging. It shows how the Roman Catholic Church has come even closer to the rest of us than it did at Vatican II. It confirms the hope of some of the then fathers that Vatican II would begin a process, not end anything. It remains clear, however, on the need for further progress, particularly on the authority of the Church and the central role of the Magisterium in that.
David Carter
1 Response p.52., will of course resonate.
2 Ibid, p,55.
Twitter Link
Victoria writes:
I just wanted to give you all the details of our new Twitter. Our tag is @StudiesSociety, so, if any of you use Twitter, please follow https://twitter.com/StudiesSociety
Also, if anybody has anything sent them they believe would be good to share, or if any of you are doing anything exciting like an ecumenical project or speaking at an event (or would like to create a constant thread), please e-mail the information to me or log into our Twitter yourself and post.
All the best, Victoria.
Publications
I am pleased to announce that Ecumenical Trends, the ecumenical journal of the Society of the Atonement has published two articles of mine on ecumenical aspects of the ministry of Pope Francis. They are: ‘Petrine Ministry: Towards a Common Vision’, vol 48, no7, July/Aug 2019 and ‘The Ecumenism of Pope Francis. A significant pontificate for the oikoumene’. Vol 49, no1, Jan/Feb 2020.
Remember I am always happy to draw the attention of any work by any member to the attention of the Society in general.