The Committee for
Christian Unity appointed the following to study the ARCIC II document The
Gift of Authority, who were affirmed by the Standing Committee: the Bishop
of Cashel and Ossory, the Rev Dr Ian Ellis, Canon Michael Kennedy, Canon Clive
West, the Rev Olive Donohoe, the Rev Maurice Elliott, the Rev John McDowell,
the Rev Elizabeth McElhinney, the Rev Bob Gray and Mr Dermot O’Callaghan. The Bishop of Cashel was elected Chairperson
and the Rev Bob Gray as secretary to the Group. The Rev Liz McElhinney was unable to serve on the committee. The Study Group met on four occasions.
Note: References
to paragraph numbers are to those in The Gift of Authority unless
otherwise indicated.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THIS RESPONSE
1.1. Since
Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI declared their intention in 1966 to
form a dialogue between our two communions, the First and Second
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commissions have published extensive
material on major theological subjects for all our consideration and we place
on record once again our gratitude to the members of both commissions for all
their work during a period now of over thirty years.
1.2. The Lambeth Conference of 1998 and our General
Synod in 1999 both reaffirmed their commitment to the visible unity of the
church and, in responding to this most recent work on authority by ARCIC-II, we
believe that this vision must remain an inspiring motivation as Anglicans and
Roman Catholics continue faithfully to pursue ever deeper ecumenical life and
witness.
1.3. The unity in truth, holiness and love that we
seek is to be a unity in flourishing diversity and we regard a major role and
purpose of authority in the church as the enabling of precisely such a
diversity. We hope that our comments
here will assist towards this end.
2. COMMENTS ON THE INTRODUCTION TO THE AGREED
STATEMENT
2.1. In outlining the progress in the convergence in
our two communions’ understanding of authority, we believe the commission
presents a rather more positive picture than is entirely justified. The affirmation at paragraph 1 that “the
Spirit of the Risen Lord maintains the people of God in obedience to the
Father’s will”, for example, does not take any account of the extent to which
the work of the Holy Spirit is in fact frustrated by human sin and even by
errors that are completely unintentional.
2.2. Paragraph 1 also affirms that the laity have
“an integral part in decision making in the Church”, but the commission’s
affirmation is not sufficiently developed in the agreed statement in terms of
precisely how this lay participation is actually to function.
2.3. Despite what ARCIC-I said about the need for a
universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome (to which reference is made at
paragraph 1), we do not believe it is helpful to join the two issues of
universal primacy and location in an essentially inseparable way. These are, in fact, quite separate matters
(cf para. 4.11 below). We also note
that at paragraph 1 the commission refers to the envisaged universal primate in
exclusively male terms and suggest that this is an as yet unresolved issue.
2.4. We greatly welcome Pope John
Paul II’s invitation to other churches, in Ut Unum Sint (1995), to
engage with him in dialogue on how the particular ministry of the Bishop of
Rome might be exercised in a new situation, to which reference is made in
paragraph 4 of the document, and we set forth our own comments on this at
paragraph 4.11 below.
2.5. We also warmly welcome the
commission’s view, expressed at paragraph 5, rejecting “oppressive and destructive”
patterns in the exercise of authority and affirming, with appropriate
scriptural references, that it is “in conformity with the mind and example of
Christ that the Church is called to exercise authority”. The reference to authority here leads on to
the designation, in paragraph 6, of authority as a “gift” to the church, but we
feel that the ensuing discussion of authority is overly focused on people. This does not do justice to the Anglican view of authority as dispersed, among
scripture, reason, tradition and “people”. In so far as authority, exercised in love, is a gift of God to
the church, it is to enable that diversity
which is reflected in God’s many gifts to his people (Eph. 4:11-13).
3. COMMENTS ON
THE AGREED STATEMENT’S CHAPTER II, “AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH”
3.1. While the theme of “God’s
‘Yes’ to Us and our ‘Amen’ to God” (cf paragraph 8) is attractive in many ways,
it is nonetheless a somewhat complex concept.
It is by no means clear that this text at 2 Corinthians 1 can bear the
enormous weight that is made to rest upon it in the agreed statement. We believe the commission’s exegesis of the
text here is rather overdeveloped.
3.2. We believe that great care is
needed in moving from the believer’s “Amen” to Christ to the believer’s “Amen”
to the faith of the church (paragraph 12).
We detect a significant theological shift here. While there is truth in the commission’s
assertion, it cannot be taken to imply a “lock, stock and barrel” acceptance of
every item of church teaching. That could
amount to a complete submission to a magisterium, which we would regard as
intellectually oppressive.
3.3. We believe that a useful
point is made at paragraph 13: “The believer is incorporated in an “Amen” of
faith, older, deeper, broader, richer than the individual’s “Amen” to the
Gospel. So the relation between the
faith of the individual and the faith of the Church is more complex than may
sometimes appear.” However, we find the
remainder of this paragraph rather vague and, consequently, unclear. While we can accept that the eucharist is
central to the local Christian community’s life, the same must also be said of
scripture which constitutes God’s word to us in a unique way.
3.4. The use of the word “Tradition” at paragraph 14 fails to identify the
normative role of scripture as
transmitting an original and authentic witness to the life and teaching of
Jesus Christ and as containing “all
things necessary to salvation” (Articles of Religion, 6). The contrast is not so much between “Tradition” and “tradition” as
between scripture and tradition. If
scripture is to be considered as
apostolic tradition then the qualitative distinction between this and all
later “traditions” must be fully acknowledged.
It is not clear, in spite of what is said later at paragraph 19, that
the commission has fully faced the implications of this important distinction.
We feel that the commission’s distinctions between Tradition, tradition,
traditions and apostolic Tradition are ultimately more confusing than helpful, running
the risk, in the end, of actually
blurring the very distinctions that the commission seems to wish to clarify.
3.5. We welcome the commission’s affirmation of scripture as “uniquely
authoritative” (paragraph 19). However, we do not believe that the agreed
statement draws out the full implications of this affirmation. We believe
scripture is to be regarded as a separate category rather than “within
Tradition”, as here (paragraph 19).
Scripture is the very word of God and, as the commission’s quote from Authority
I states, is “uniquely inspired”.
Anglicans speak of scripture, reason
and tradition as three strands of dispersed authority. If scripture is “uniquely inspired”
(however that is to be explicated), this clearly places it in a category of its
own.
3.6. While the receiving and
handing on of scripture, declaring it to be inspired and authoritative, may be
described itself an act of authority (cf paragraph 22), scripture is not to be
received because the church says so but rather because, after a long and
complex process involving trial and error, the truly inspired documents
have been generally and widely recognised as such. It must be added however that the precise status of the
deutero-canonical books is not an entirely resolved matter (cf Article 6).
3.7. While it is true that God’s
revelation has been entrusted to a community, the prophetic voices of
individuals must not be ignored. We
believe that the recovery of scriptural truth at the Reformation was to a
considerable extent the work of such individuals. While “individualistic interpretations” (cf paragraph 23) clearly
must be regarded as such, we believe the commission appears over-anxious at
this point.
3.8. The
issue of reception is fundamental to ecumenical dialogues. We do not see reception as the same
as obedience; we feel that the commission comes close - albeit rather
ambiguously so - to such a position when it states that “reception is at one
and the same time an act of faithfulness and
of freedom” (paragraph 24). (Cf also
our comments at paragraphs 4.4 and 4.8
below.) Rather, we see reception as a
process of discernment by the whole people of God.
3.9. Re-reception is not only a
matter of recovering some element of ecclesial communion which has been
“forgotten, neglected or abused” (paragraph 25). There may be cases of actual error that need to be corrected, a
point which we believe is perhaps hinted at.
However if so, the point is much too weakly made in the commission’s
reference here to a “sifting” of what has been received because of formulations
that seem to be “inadequate or even misleading in a new context”.
3.10. We warmly welcome the affirmation of
ecclesial diversity at paragraph 27: “As God has created diversity among
humans, so the Church’s fidelity and identity require not uniformity of
expression and formulation at all levels in all situations, but rather catholic
diversity within the unity of communion.”
We would also endorse the call, at paragraph 30, for those who exercise
episcope not to be separated from the “symphony” of the whole people of
God. This approach, however, tends
against the prevailing view of the church in the agreed statement which appears
generally to distinguish between the “teaching” church and the “learning”
church. There is an acknowledgement of
the role of the sensus fidelium, but how this operates is not clearly
developed.
4. COMMENTS ON
THE AGREED STATEMENT’S CHAPTER III, “THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH”
4.1. Unity in faith and unity in
life are certainly related (cf paragraph 33), but the unity in faith that is
required for a credible unity in life is not necessarily an absolute
unity. Diversity in the understanding
of the faith is clearly possible within a single fellowship. The 1997 Agros
Report of the Anglican Communion’s Ecumenical Advisory Group stated:
“In the life of the Anglican
Communion, whenever major issues have appeared to threaten it, there has been
discussion of the nature and permissible limits of diversity and the
effectiveness of Anglican structures to hold the Communion together. At its best, Anglican unity is characterised
by generosity and mutual tolerance in diversity. It demonstrates a willingness to contain difference and to live
with tension, even conflict, as the church seeks the mind of Christ on
controversial issues that threaten its unity.
Anglican comprehensiveness is not a sign of weakness or uncertainty of
the central truths of the faith, nor does it mean that there are no tolerable
limits to the differences which impair unity.”
Paradoxically, for
the church to live as a “community of reconciliation” implies that it contains
certain differences. If there were no
diversity, no difference, the church simply could not be a community of
reconciliation. Those who are
reconciled do not become identical, but accept each other in their difference.
4.2. When the commission refers at paragraph 33 to
disagreement about “the Gospel itself”, we fear that the underlying
understanding of what the Gospel is, is much too broad in scope; in fact, it is
probably so broad that differences of opinion are inevitable. The need for a common eucharist is clear
(also paragraph 33), but the preconditions in terms of doctrinal uniformity,
which Rome sets, militate against precisely this. It has to be said that one of the chief causes of division in the
church, historically, has been the will to exercise authority and jurisdiction;
the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, as well as being a force for unity, has
also undoubtedly been at the centre of major disputes and a cause of
disunity. The final reference in this
paragraph to “legitimate diversity” is good, but it should have been the
controlling theme rather than an apparently rather casual comment.
4.3. One can only agree with the statement at
paragraph 35: “The way in which authority is exercised in the structures and
corporate life of the Church must be conformed to the mind of Christ (cf Phil.
2.5)” who is our model of servant leadership (cf Luke 22:24-27; John 13:1-17).
Comment has already been made in this connection at paragraph 2.5 above.
4.4. When ARCIC states, “Decisions taken by the
bishop ... have an authority which the faithful have a duty to receive and
accept” (paragraph 36), the commission runs the risk of over-stating the
case. The faithful have a duty to
respect episcopal decisions. Accepting
decisions is perhaps implicit in such respect, but this becomes very dangerous
territory when the bishop is divorced from the synodical process, which
strangely seems to be the case here, despite the introduction of the concept of
synodality. Para. 36 appears to move
away from synodical to solely episcopal government. One is left wondering precisely what the commission understands
by synodality in practical terms, and precisely how one is to understand the
commission’s own statement here that there is a “complementary relationship
between the bishop and the rest of the community”; it appears as though this
complementarity is to be allowed to exist only up to a point.
4.5. What is said in paragraph 38 about the bishops’
role being “magisterial” in the determination of what is to be taught reflects
a particularly Roman Catholic perspective.
We believe that the Holy Spirit is bestowed on the whole church to lead
it into all truth, this being recognised in the synodical structure in most
parts of the Anglican Communion in so far as matters of faith and order are
determined by bishops, clergy and laity together, and not by bishops only. There is a significant difference, we
believe, between saying that a House of Bishops is integral to such a process
and saying that bishops are “to determine” what is to be taught and practised.
4.6. Paragraph 39 does not appear to recognise
variations in practice within the Anglican Communion. Decisions of a diocesan synod in the Church of Ireland require
the bishop’s consent to stand (cf paragraph 39); faith and order matters being
decided, not by diocesan synods, but by the General Synod in which there is
also a decisive episcopal role.
4.7. We understand that for Roman
Catholics, infallibility means that at specific moments the church’s teaching
in matters of faith and morals can be proclaimed at the time of its definition as surely and absolutely free from
error, therefore commanding certitude.
Indeed, the Vatican’s 1982 document, Observations on the Final
Report of ARCIC (the first Commission), indicates that infallibility
“refers immediately not to truth but to certitude” (B, III, 3). The
indefectibility of the church - more generally the Anglican approach - means
that the church, despite its very
fallibility, is maintained in the truth.
The commission tries to conflate
infallibility and indefectibility by arguing that “infallible teaching is at
the service of indefectibility” (paragraph 42). However, an infallible magisterium is not
necessary for the church to be maintained in the truth, and where the idea of
infallibility has been put into practice the result has not been helpful. Indefectibility works, not through an
infallible magisterium but through the unfathomable providence of God. It is a matter of trust in God. Indefectibility, moreover, has a vital and
dynamic eschatological dimension that the much more static, cut and dried
infallibility lacks. Furthermore, in
proposing not only an infallible magisterium but also papal infallibility,
there is a conspicuous absence in The Gift of Authority of any reference
to the Marian dogmas (1854 and 1950).
In a pastoral letter following the publication of the 1950 Dogma of the
Assumption, the Church of Ireland House of Bishops protested “against the
defining, as part of the divinely-given Faith of Christ, of a doctrine which
possesses the acceptance of only a section of Christendom, resting as it does
on no scriptural authority or historical evidence, and not even on any support
from the writings of the most ancient fathers”.
4.8. The commission states at paragraph 43: “Since it is the faithfulness of
the whole people of God that is at stake, reception of teaching is
integral to the process. Doctrinal
definitions are received as authoritative in virtue of the divine truth they
proclaim as well as because of the specific office of the person or persons who
proclaim them within the sensus fidei of the whole people of God.” This paragraph may appear to endorse the
need for the reception by the people of God of definitions of the faith for
those definitions to be fully authoritative.
If that is what is intended by the text, it accords with a very
important principle for Anglicans, namely reception. However, is this in fact what the Commission is saying? The text as quoted reads: “Doctrinal
definitions are received as authoritative ...” (our italics), suggesting
that reception is “integral to the process” because the faithful are obliged to
receive teaching rather than because teaching is dependent on reception by the
faithful, as part of the complementarity of the process, to be fully
authoritative. In the Vatican’s Observations
document (quoted in our last paragraph), it was indicated that the latter view
of reception “is not in accord with Catholic teaching” (B, III, 5).
4.9. When paragraph 43 speaks of
God’s “Yes” revealed in Christ as “the standard by which such authoritative
teaching is judged”, the Commission can be understood to be using the word
“judge” not in the sense of passing judgement but simply as a reference to the
intellectual aspect of receiving teaching. Indeed, the paragraph’s next sentence
states: “Such teaching is to be welcomed by the people of God ...”.
4.10. Paragraph 44 asserts that “the
authenticity of the teaching of individual bishops is evident when this
teaching is in solidarity with that of the whole episcopal college”. This does not appear to envisage the
situation in which one bishop may maintain the truth in face of the otherwise
unanimous neglect of truth by the rest of the bishops. There was a time when, as Jerome put it, “the
whole world groaned and found itself Arian” and when Athanasius stood contra
mundum. The commission’s view here is
simply too “neat”.
4.11. We
agree with the commission that the “exigencies of church life call for a
specific exercise of episcope at the
service of the whole Church” (paragraph 46).
In the Church of Ireland’s response
to the Final Report of ARCIC-I, we already accepted that “in a reunited Church
a form of universal primacy may be desirable” (The Response of the
General Synod of the Church of Ireland to
the Final Report of ARCIC-I, May 1986, Dublin, APCK 1987, p.22).
For many Anglicans, the observation of the ministry exercised within the
Anglican Communion by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, as primus inter pares, leads to the conclusion that
there may be a highly significant role for the global ministry of a universal
primate. However, it is the terms of such a universal primacy that are
important. We believe that the universal primacy in a reunited church (1) should
be constitutional in form, (2) should not have any unique magisterial powers, (3) should be non-jurisdictional, and (4)
should not necessarily be associated with Rome. The universal primate in such a church, we
believe, should perform a primarily pastoral role, as distinct from a
magisterial/jurisdictional one.
4.12. The commission states at paragraph 47: “Within his
wider ministry, the Bishop of Rome offers a specific ministry concerning the
discernment of truth, as an expression of universal primacy ... In solemnly
formulating such teaching, the universal primate must discern and declare, with
the assured assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit, in fidelity to
Scripture and Tradition, the authentic faith of the whole Church, that is, the
faith proclaimed from the beginning.”
Although the word “infallibility” is not employed in this context, there
can be no doubt that the dogma is clearly intended by the use of the phrase
“with the assured assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit”. In this connection, we would refer to our
comments on infallibility and indefectibility at paragraph 25 above.
4.13. While it is good to note how the
commission says that “loyal criticism and reforms are sometimes needed”
(paragraph 48), the reform of specifically “infallible” teaching can be taken
as excluded as this would, by definition, be irreformable.
4.14. We
find paragraph 49 reassuring in its initial part, but proceeding to appear to
restrict the very freedom of
conscience just affirmed by stating that “In freely accepting the way of
salvation offered through baptism, the Christian disciple also freely
takes on the discipline of being a member
of the Body of Christ.” There is,
certainly, discipline involved in belonging to the church, but we feel that the commission is
hinting at something that could have the potential to be, in fact, quite
oppressive. The recognition of the
rights of conscience should have had a more central and determinative place in
the thinking of the commission.
5. COMMENTS ON THE AGREED STATEMENT’S CHAPTER
IV: “AGREEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY:
STEPS TOWARDS VISIBLE UNITY”
5.1. Paragraph 53 refers to the Virginia
Report. Despite some of the suggestions in the Virginia Report,
Anglican history has largely been one of devolution of powers to provincial
synods as new provinces have come into being.
Consultation, through the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council
and the Lambeth Conference, maintains our “bonds of affection”. However, within Anglicanism (as within
Orthodoxy), communion is best maintained on a voluntary basis. Certainly, there has been impairment of
communion within Anglicanism over women’s ordination to the priesthood and
episcopate, but the definition of Anglican koinonia as being in
communion with the See of Canterbury (as opposed to the Church of England)
leaves the way open for the primus inter pares formally to cease
communion with an individual or province.
(We offer these comments also in relation to the agreed statement’s paragraph
56.)
5.2. We do not consider it
appropriate that Anglican bishops should join in ad limina visits of
Roman Catholic bishops to the Vatican (paragraph 59). The involvement of Anglican bishops in such visits could very
easily appear to imply a recognition of some form of papal jurisdiction over
Anglican churches. Indeed, this
proposal of the commission (of Anglican bishops joining in ad limina
visits) is clearly linked to the commission’s proposed recognition of papal
primacy before there is communion (paragraph 60). However, we do not believe
that there can be any meaningful primacy without communion.
6. CONCLUDING
REMARKS
6.1. As Anglicans we respond to The
Gift of Authority whilst conscious of current discussion within the
Anglican Communion of the manner in which authority in the Communion can be
exercised. In view of difficulties
which emerge from time to time as a result of the autonomy of individual
Anglican Provinces it has been suggested that a more centralised and effective
authority within the Communion is required.
Such a suggestion would seem to have the consent of the Anglican members
of ARCIC-II. However, in spite of the Virginia
Report, we note that such thinking has failed to win significant support
among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion.
Discussions at Lambeth 1998 and at the Anglican Consultative Council in
1999 revealed that Anglicanism has not been won over to the concept of more
centralised authority. Ways in which
mutual accountability can be developed are generally welcomed by Anglicans but,
while recognising the roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter
pares, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican
Consultative Council, further development beyond a moral and consultative form
of authority is not seen as helpful.
6.2. There is the implication in The
Gift of Authority that it is desirable that there should be an ultimate and
final authoritative voice in the church, or at least that once the need for
authority in the Church is established, there should be at some stage in the
process an authority that is absolute.
Our response here has been based on the conviction that such authority
resides dynamically in the Triune God, and that the way in which God maintains
the church in truth cannot be defined in any precise manner. This is an expression of the concept of
dispersed rather than of a centralised authority.
6.3. The methodology of The Gift of Authority has created some unease
for us as we have sought to make our
response. We have pointed out the ambiguity
that occurs in several places, and in
particular in the discussion of the role of scripture and tradition. Similar ambiguity results when a case
is built on a basis that is weak in that it does not necessarily lead only to
the chosen conclusion, as for example in the handling of the divine and human
‘Amen’ (2 Cor.1:18-20) in paragraph 8.
A more truly critical exegesis of scripture is required.
6.4. We welcome
this further attention given to the subject of authority by ARCIC-II and, while
we are not of the view that the agreed statement, The Gift of Authority,
presents a generally satisfactory conclusion, we wish to encourage the
commission to continue to work towards an agreement that will prove acceptable
to both the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church. It is clear that the difficulties lying
ahead in this endeavour should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, we intend the comments offered here to assist our
two communions in the further work that clearly will be needed on this important
subject. We take this opportunity of
expressing our prayerful good wishes for the continuing work of this dialogue.