Search

Current issue

Editorial Columns Notebook The Living Spirit Letters Letters Extra Have your say Classifieds Puzzle Arts Book reviews

Previous issues

Archive

Further Reading

Liturgical Calendar

The Tablet Radio Show

Manage your Subscription

Newsletter

Feature Article

Still a place for optimism

Ecumenical dialogue symposium

For 40 years, the Catholic Church has engaged in dialogue with the Lutheran, Reformed and Methodist Churches. Here, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity reflects on that dialogue and warns against dismay about ecumenism’s future

All the Churches have become aware that division – as the Second Vatican Council affirmed – stands in contradiction to the will of Our Lord and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to all nations. In this perspective, the Churches have sought to overcome old prejudices and misunderstandings in order to attain a degree of mutual understanding that is at the same time also more just and more profound. The last decades have been marked by growing mutual respect, trust and friendship. Indeed, these are the true fruits, which are even more important than the fruits we have gathered in our documents.

From the beginning, the dialogues were ecclesial in nature, and on the Catholic side they were supported and encouraged by the post–conciliar popes. The publication of [my book] Harvesting the Fruits [which recalls the last 40 years of dialogue and is the basis of a symposium in Rome this week] was welcomed by Pope Benedict XVI. I say this because sometimes I am asked why we did not publish the text through, let us say, the official channel of the pontifical council and the Vatican publishing house. Some have taken this to mean that ecumenism has been marginalised by the Roman Curia. I can easily calm such concerns. An Italian version was published only a few weeks after the English edition, and was forwarded to all the dicasteries of the Curia, and they – like the Pope himself – expressed appreciation. The original edition was published in English because it is the language in which the documents themselves were issued, and it was also felt that the distribution of the text would be greatly facilitated using a personal name rather than that of an institution of the Curia.

Secondly, after 40 years a new generation stands ready to take up the torch to continue the ecumenical journey. It is normal, indeed it is necessary, that this generation has new and fresh ideas, but it should not start again from zero; rather, it can count upon a solid foundation. There is no reason to be discouraged or resigned, as many are today.

We have affirmed our common foundation in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity as expressed in our common creed and in the doctrine of the first ecumenical councils. It has been possible to deepen and to widen this common foundation in the consensus on the fundamental truths of the doctrine of justification. There is therefore consensus on the centre and foundation of the Christian message, which makes possible our shared witness before the world. Important progress has also been made in ecclesiology, the relationship between sacred Scripture and tradition, the sacramental nature of the Church, apostolic succession and ministries in the Church. Mention must also be made of the consensus or rather the convergences on the Eucharist, that is, on doctrines that in the sixteenth century were at the heart of bitter controversies and which are still today crucial for the achievement of full communion. In this context, the dialogue with the Anglican Communion has been the source of notable results.

The key problem in ecumenical theology is the hermeneutical problem. The problem relates to biblical and dogmatic hermeneutics, to the relationship between an historical-­critical reading of the Bible and a reading in the light of tradition and the Church’s self-awareness, which among other things implies questions relating to the Magisterium and its role in the interaction between the other instances of witness. The fundamental hermeneutical problem is how to translate and interpret the message revealed once and for all into the contemporary context, how to sustain the ongoing relevance of the Gospel message without falling into the trap either of fundamentalism or of relativism. These are problems that face all the Churches.

This last problem – that is, the living and dynamic relevance of the apostolic message in the contemporary world – becomes a priority also in the second range of problems, that is, in the anthropological question. Here we find the traditional issues such as co­operation between God and humankind, and of simul iustus et peccator (at the same time righteous and a sinner); but today we also face new problems, mainly ethical ones, which have recently divided some Churches from within and which have unfortunately also widened the distance between the Churches. It is not merely a question of specific issues such as homosexuality, but more fundamental questions for modern and postmodern society, such as what is man? And what does it mean to be a man or woman in God’s plan? These are contemporary questions relating to human rights, social justice in the global context, peace, bioethics, safeguarding Creation and so on. In all these issues we are called to give common witness to our world, a world which is facing a deep anthropological crisis.

Recent dialogues have focused on a third range of problems, that is, the ecclesiological questions. At first glance, these questions on which we are divided seem to be primarily of an institutional nature; namely, the question of the sacramentality of ordination, the episcopal ministry in the apostolic succession and the problem of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. We reflect with gratitude to God that in these matters also there has been notable rapprochement, but there remains an underlying fundamental problem: not only what is the Church, but where is the Church? Has God given His Church a specific structure or has he left the Church to find its own concrete structure, in such a way that a pluralism of structures is possible; structures which are interchangeable and need only recognise each other mutually? Here it is a matter of the reality of salvation and the sacramental nature of the essence and structure of the Church.

Finally, we should mention the problems regarding the sacraments, which endure in the doctrine on the Eucharist, that is, on the real presence of the Lord and on the sacrificial character of the Mass, which were the cause of bitter controversies in the past. These are questions in which the communion of the Church and the communion among the Churches become specific. Here we also have the expectations of our faithful, who aspire to sharing the same table of the Lord. These problems are faced particularly by the pastors of our churches, confronted by the challenges of a growing number of mixed marriages.

A reflection on the journey towards the future presupposes that we know both where to go and what is the purpose of the ecumen­ical journey. Without a shared aim, we are in danger of taking different directions and ending up further apart than at the start.

As we are all aware, in some important aspects the divided Churches have different ecclesiologies, which means that they also have different conceptions about the unity to be achieved. We cannot therefore start from some neutral point, nor can any Church impose its own view on the other Churches or criticise them for not accepting its position, taken on the basis of its own presuppositions.

The Catholic Church understands itself as a community in faith, in the sacraments and – in the service of both – in the apostolic ministry. Therefore, its concept of the ecumenical goal is full communion in faith, sacraments and apostolic ministry. We could say that the goal is full communion in a communion of communions, which in different ways share in the same faith, the same sacraments and the same apostolic ministry. Thus, the Catholic concept implies at once both unity and diversity; that is, diversity in unity.

In the years since the publication of the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), the sometimes harsh controversy that has arisen on this point is related to the interpretation of the formula “subsistit in” in the Second Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 8, and in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio 4. This formula affirms that the Church of Christ and its unity is realised in the Catholic Church, that is, in the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the bishops in communion with him.

Many of our ecumenical partners felt that this formula was a closure, marking the end of ecumenical dialogue as it had been undertaken until then. It was our mistake not to have elucidated that for the Conciliar Fathers the term “subsistit” did not entail a closure but rather an openness. The intention of the Conciliar Fathers in formulating the term “subsistit in” was to reconcile two aspects. First, they wanted to affirm the position of our entire tradition: that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Secondly, they also affirmed – and this is the openness – that there exist many important elements of the Church of Christ outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, and that, to the degree such elements are present in other Churches, the Church of Christ is operative in them.
It may seem that we are dealing with a confrontation between abstract terms or even a lexicographical battle on the meaning of the Latin term “est” and the term “subsistit”. In reality, we are dealing with something much more essential and much simpler if we begin with the concept of “communion”, which defines the true nature of the Church.

What does communion mean in the theo­logical sense? It does not mean community in the horizontal sense but “communio sanctorum” – what we might call vertical participation in what is “holy”, in the “holy things” – that is, the Spirit of Christ present in his Word and in the sacraments administered by ministers “rite vocati”, which means duly ordained. Thus, the council seeks to say that such an operative presence of Christ in the Spirit exists also outside the institutional boundaries of the Catholic Church, wherever the Word of God is proclaimed and the sacraments in conformity with the Gospel are celebrated. There is not an ecclesial vacuum outside the Catholic Church, but there we find ecclesial communion in different degrees.

“In different degrees” means that there are deficits in the other Churches. Yet on another level there are deficits, or rather, wounds stemming from division and wounds deriving from sin, also in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also is not perfect and is in need of constant renewal. Herein lies the importance of ecumenical dialogue, which calls for such a renewal and helps it. Through dialogue, or rather through the exchange of gifts, all the Churches learn to grow and to mature in their faithfulness to Christ. The path to full communion is not a one-way movement. All the parts must move. All the parts are in need of repentance and renewal.

Thus, dialogue does not take place only through negotiations among the Churches, but primarily through a more intensive participation in what is holy, that is, in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. The ecumenical goal cannot be achieved by a return to the past, but rather through a forward–moving ­ecumenism, through a spiritual dynamic of growth towards the fullness of Christ. Spiritual ecumenism is the true heart of ecumenism.

The process leading to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) between the Catholic Church and the ­Lutheran World Federation was complicated, involving all the synods of the Lutheran Churches. [The World Methodist Council adopted the declaration in 2006.] I am not sure that such a process could be realistically undertaken again in the future. One idea which emerged from the plenary of our Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [earlier this month] was an ecumenical catechism that would be written in consultation with our partners although ultimately authorised only by the competent Catholic authority. We do not yet have any idea how such a catechism could be structured and written.

Today there is a need, therefore, for an ecumenism of basics that identifies, reinforces and deepens the common foundation, and from there goes on to the remaining open questions. In other words, we must draw out the internal dynamics. This is what is being looked for in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue on the theme “Baptism and Growing Church Communion”. And in a similar way, it is also the aim of the dialogue with our Methodist partners on sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry. The dialogue with the Reformed will discuss the theme “The Christian Community as Agent for Justice”. The choice of this theme aims at preparing the way towards an association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which would be a great joy for us. With the Anglican Communion, we have decided upon the theme “Church as Communion: Local and Universal”, dealing in this context also with the discernment of ethical questions on these two levels and the interaction between them.

Ecumenical dialogue is perhaps in danger of becoming a matter for specialists and thus of moving away from the grass roots. But our theological dialogues will bear fruit only if they are undertaken in a wider church context. They must be supported by the faithful, for it is only in this way that these fruits can sustain and inspire the dialogues themselves. We must therefore reflect further on how to implement a better interaction between all the dimensions of dialogue and to embark on a people-centred ecumenism.

Back to the front page