“The
Church’s constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic
theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto
but also de iure (or in principle).” (Dominus Iesus Introduction 4) This sentence sums up the purpose of the document issued by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6th 2000. As such this is a significant explication of
the limits that have been set for Roman Catholic Interfaith dialogue. Its emphasis on the person of Christ and on
the incarnation will be something with which most churches would concur, even
though in some instances wishing to set the limits of religious diversity less
rigidly.
This response is not concerned with the issue of interfaith
dialogue, except to remark that it is unfortunate that issues of ecumenical
relationships between churches (whose members are baptised into Christ) should
be linked to issues of relationships between Christianity and other faiths.
This is to undervalue the real measure of communion that
already exists between those who have been baptised as Christians.
The document Dominus Iesus does not say anything new with regard to the way in which the Roman Catholic Church understands itself. The section Unicity and Unity of the Church (IV:16,17) stresses the uniqueness of the Roman Catholic Church and that the single Church of Christ subsists in that Church. This is clearly found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council. It then goes on to express a distinction between those Churches on the one hand which retain the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist where the Church of Christ “is present and operative”, and on the other those “ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery” which it further says are “not Churches in the proper sense”. The conclusion to this section is quite blunt “The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.
It is this small section of the document (IV, 16,17) which raises difficulty for the Church of Ireland, and indeed one could venture to say for most churches with a real ecumenical commitment. It is this section that links naturally to the Note on the use of the terminology “Sister Churches” which has provoked such strong reaction. Before turning to the Note, it is worth reflecting on the section as a whole.
Those who
say that through the issue of Dominus Iesus that nothing has changed in
the official documents of the Roman Catholic Church may be strictly
correct. However it raises the whole
question as to the adequacy of the use of doctrinal statements as effective
tools for ecumenical relations.
Churches
with confessional statements and historic formularies (Reformed, Anglican or
Lutheran) framed in the early days after the Reformation frequently find that
the terminology, and indeed the tone, of these statements are unhelpful to
modern theological dialogue, and generally desist from using them in dialogue. Such a recognition enabled Lutheran Churches
to reach a new agreement with the Roman Catholic Church in 1999 on the Doctrine
of Justification. In the same spirit,
the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in 1999 passed a resolution stating:
Historic
documents often stem from periods of deep separation between Christian
Churches. Whilst, in spite of a real
degree of convergence, distinct differences remain, negative statements towards
other Christians should not be seen as representing the spirit of this Church
today.
The
Church of Ireland affirms all in its tradition that witnesses to the truth of
the Gospel. It regrets that words
written in another age and in a different context should be used in a manner
hurtful to or antagonistic towards other Christians.
The documents
of Vatican 2 were framed likewise in the very early days following the entry of
the Roman Catholic Church into the modern ecumenical movement. One should ask whether they really provide
an adequate basis for ecclesiology thirty years later in the light of the way
that the Roman Catholic Church has moved in its relationships with all major
Christian traditions, especially at the local level.
The tone of
both Dominus Iesus and the Note with reference to Sister Churches does
not reflect the manner in which ecumenical partners enter into dialogue
today. The English Roman Catholic journal, The Tablet,
in an editorial on 9th September 2000 concludes: “What a pity
that it sounds notes of triumphalism that the sympathetic style and way of
acting of Pope John XXIII, newly beatified, seemed to have dispelled for
good”. This is borne out by some senior Cardinals who have distanced
themselves from it to a greater or lesser extent. Cardinal Martini of Milan suggested that the
tone “risks being rather strong” and that it should be read in the context of
the “wider and more encouraging framework of Ut Unum Sint”. Cardinal Konig, formerly of Vienna, wished that
the document “could perhaps have been expressed more politely and could
have reflected a greater eagerness for dialogue”. Papal statements since the
issue of these documents may indeed have affirmed their content, but
have been reflected a much warmer and fuller commitment towards ecumenism.
Another disturbing element in Dominus Iesus is the manner in
which the term “church” is denied to some Christian communions and ascribed to others. It is of course difficult for Anglicans to know exactly where they belong on
this scale of ecclesial correctness.
Preserving a historic episcopate but without the papacy would
place Anglicans in the same category as the Orthodox. In the very arbitrary definition of the rectitude of Eucharistic
doctrine, then one might say that, in the light of the official response by the
Vatican to the Report of the first Anglican Roman Catholic International
Commission, questions have still to be answered. Such sharp distinctions undermine the ecumenical endeavour. This has been well expressed by Bishop Eero
Huovinen of the Church of Finland in a statement issued following the
publication of Dominus Iesus. He
speaks of the possible obstacle in this distinction
“to equal partnership” and of the “lack of mutual respect in ecumenical dialogue”. He continues “It is my hope that old wounds
will not be opened again. In a
situation like this it would be important to
rather seek for what unites than to remind of disagreements.”
Ecumenical
study in ecclesiology involving all our Churches approaches ecclesiology from
an understanding of the whole people of God rather than with definitions of
hierarchy. The basis for this work is
the sacrament of Baptism rather than the validity of ordained ministry. Dominus Iesus reverses this process
by its negative conclusions based entirely on issues of holy orders and the
eucharistic theology of one tradition.
The Note on
Sister Churches arises naturally out of these issues. It was issued shortly before and entered the public domain at the
same time, though for more limited circulation. It is stated to be “authoritative and binding”. The terminology “sister churches” has
been used chiefly in relation to the Orthodox Churches, but also on occasions
with regard to Anglicans and indeed other Churches as well.
The Note
examines the way in which the term was used in the early centuries between the
different patriarchates, whilst contending that Rome never accepted that it
held merely a primacy of honour among them.
It shows that by the twelfth century, the other Patriarchs were
protesting that Rome was merely their sister whilst Rome was contending that it
was mother and teacher. The Note
goes on to show that in more recent times John XXIII did speak of the Orthodox
as sister Churches, following the use of the term by the Patriarch of
Constantinople. This was then
incorporated into the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and further used
by Paul VI, and occurs again clearly in Ut unum sint issued by John Paul
II. But it is at this point that the
use of the term is clarified in a very narrow way. Section II:10 reads:
“In
fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular
Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the patriarchates
or metropolitan provinces) among themselves.
It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is
used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal
Church is not sister but mother of all the particular churches.”
It appears that the only interpretation allowed of the term “sisters” is that which a mother would use in addressing her daughters, and has nothing to do with being sisters (and brothers) in Christ, but merely sisters of each other, and certainly not sisters of the parent.
This is further developed to show that it can be used of other
particular churches (as well as the Orthodox) who are sisters of other particular churches but
certainly not of the Roman Catholic Church.
This is developed to show that one should not speak of “our two
churches” in respect of the Roman Catholic Church and any other single
Church, as this would even obscure the
credal statement concerning one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. The final paragraph states again that
sister churches can only be used in a proper sense “for those ecclesial
communions that have preserved a valid episcopate and Eucharist”.
It could be
contended that this Note does indeed change things. It officially limits the interpretation of the often used term sister
churches in such a manner as to change the way in which it has generally
been understood in ecumenical theology.
It can be argued on the basis of the teaching that the fullness of the
Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church that it is impossible for there to
be sister churches, and this is precisely what the Note has done. However such an argument merely raises once
more the question whether this statement of Roman Catholic ecclesiology
actually is adequate to where the Roman Catholic Church is today in ecumenical
work and dialogue.
The
interpretation of the use of the term sister churches to churches which
are siblings of each other, but daughters of Rome cannot be supported by the
way that Pope Paul VI spoke of the Anglican Communion as an “ever-beloved
sister”. He did not speak of “sisters”
implying that the Anglican Communion was a group of siblings of which the
Church of Rome was mother, but rather of an “ever-beloved sister”. Who was sister to whom? The answer is obvious and the Pope was
hardly ignoring the use of the term as it had apparently according to the Note
always been understood and giving it an entirely new meaning. The Note seems to be the novel
interpretation in this context.
The sadness
for Anglicans in all this is not that they have apparently been denied this
special status which they had thought was somewhat akin to that given to the
Orthodox Churches, but rather that this is a negative marker on that whole
ecumenical endeavour including the Roman Catholic Church. A special relationship between Anglicans and
Roman Catholics that was recognised at one time should not be seen as a barrier
to wider ecumenical effort, but rather an affirmation that all progress towards
the healing of ancient divisions is a step on the road to greater unity.
We rejoice
in the progress that has been made in our conversations with the Roman Catholic
Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Reformed Churches, the Baptist Churches, the
Methodist Church, and the Lutheran Churches. This dialogue with the Lutheran Church has in several regions led
to full communion. We give thanks for
the United Churches that Anglicans have entered and for the many new dialogues
being explored, including the work of the Commission on Faith and Order.
The most recent encouragement on the road to
unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics was the
meeting of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops from thirteen countries convened
by Cardinal Cassidy of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity and the
Archbishop of Canterbury in May 2000 at Mississauga near Toronto. The official statement begins by talking of
meeting in the year 2000 with the challenge of international debt and
states: “we are aware of the need to
leave behind all past deficits with which our churches have themselves been
burdened, so as to enter the new millennium renewed in deepening unity and
peace.” The message of the Consultation
is expressed in one sentence “we feel compelled to affirm that our communion
together is no longer to be viewed in minimal terms”. But the official statement also sets out the stage of communion
that has been reached between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and this is quoted
in full (Section 9):
“The marks of this new stage of communion in mission are: our trinitarian faith grounded in the scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds; the centrality of Christ, his death and resurrection, and commitment to his mission in the Church; faith in the final destiny of human life; common traditions in liturgy and spirituality; the monastic life; preferential commitment to the poor and marginalised; convergence on the eucharist, ministry, authority, salvation, moral principles, and the Church as Communion, as expressed in agreed statements of ARCIC; episcopacy, particularly the role of the bishop as symbol and promoter of unity; and the respective roles of clergy and laity.”
What is
significant is that this Mississauga Statement represents the tone of
ecumenical work and relationships, and though expressed in theological terms
here represents a great deal of the type of relationships that are developing
between our two Communions at the local level, and at the national level.
It is natural that Anglicans will want to build on the relationships
expressed in this Statement, but not so as to separate Anglicans
from other Churches with whom we are in conversation, but rather as
seeing each step towards the healing of the divisions of the Church as part of
God’s purpose for the Church and indeed for humankind. This is part of what we in the Church of
Ireland see as a response to living in a society crying out for reconciliation.
The tone of
the Note and indeed of the Statement Dominus Iesus reflects little of
the journey on which we believe that God is bringing us together as Christians,
and though we can understand it from a merely academic point of view, we would
wonder what it will achieve for the healing of the divisions of the
Church. For the Church of Ireland, this
document coming soon after the statement One Bread, One Body causes
substantial difficulty in maintaining the momentum of ecumenical progress.
Our prayer
and wish is that it will not damage the growing awareness of the unity that has
already been achieved through our Baptism into Christ, and our sharing in a
common goal in the ecumenical movement.
Such a growing unity we believe to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Growth towards unity is being experienced in
parts of Ireland, and it is on these foundations that we would seek to build.
October
2000
Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,
I have rarely if ever come to an inter-Church gathering with a heavier heart or more troubled mind. I feel sad that this meeting is necessary. As an Anglican and a convinced ecumenist I believe that the pilgrimage of Christians towards full understanding of each other’s views is not of our making. It is a response to the call of Christ. That pilgrimage has at times been painfully slow – at times its speed has been breathtaking. But it has I believe been marked by growing maturity – and nowhere more clearly than here in Ireland. Through dialogue at the highest level and co-operation at parish level has come humility. With dialogue has come new evidence of trust. With dialogue has come a new koinonia. But dialogue depends on human language and human thought forms. It is therefore disappointing when the frailty of language exposes attitudes which can be perceived to place obstacles to that greater understanding rather than encouragement to greater understanding of God’s purpose for His Body, the Church.
In presenting the official Church of Ireland response to Dominus Iesus I find myself addressing the issue on two levels. Here at home in the Church of Ireland we have rejoiced as co-operation and shared understanding have become so visible in the realities of everyday experience of inter-Church witness. Things are possible today which would have been unthinkable when I was ordained. Friendship between clergy at all levels has never been more visible. Over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland events which could have divided have often had the effect of drawing us closer together.
But I also address this discussion as a Primate of the Anglican Communion. At that international level conversations, dialogue and discussions over the years have produced so much which is valuable, so much which is worthwhile and so much which has shown us the will of the Spirit for the Churches. I am certain that when the Primates of the Anglican Communion meet in the United States next March under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury we will be considering the document at that international level.
Let me now try to ‘speak the truth in love’ from a Church of Ireland perspective. Copies of the Church of Ireland Response are available for you all.
1. As Anglicans we were encouraged by the positive nature of the Anglican-Roman Catholic consultation at Mississauga, Toronto, earlier this year. It had been convened by Cardinal Cassidy and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Official Statement spoke of the participants’ profound sense of ‘spiritual communion’. It said that those who had participated believed that our two communions had ‘reached a very significant new place on our journey’. There was also reference to a ‘new stage of communion in mission’. This heartening sense of hope for the future seemed to have brought some warmth into what many had felt was an ‘ecumenical winter’. But that hope was not to last for long because of the declaration, Dominus Iesus.
2. So much of Dominus Iesus is devoted to the relationship between Christianity and other faiths and we feel it is inappropriate that relationships between the Churches should be dealt with in that context. However we acknowledge and can identify with, the emphasis in Dominus Iesus on the uniqueness of the Christian revelation in the context of inter-faith relations, even if it is put somewhat starkly.
3. The general
tone of Dominus Iesus is in fact surprisingly uncompromising. It does not
reflect the atmosphere and manner in which we have become accustomed to relate
to one another and certainly reflects
nothing of the tone of the Mississauga Statement.
4. Dominus Iesus appears to us simply to restate the position of the Roman Catholic Church on its understanding of the Church, as enunciated by Vatican II. Disappointingly it does not show any sign that all the ecumenical dialogue since then has made any impact on Vatican thinking. Indeed the decades since Vatican II have been marked by so much inter-Church dialogue – both bilateral and multilateral – that they might even be described in historical terms as an ‘era of dialogue’. But in what way has this in fact borne fruit in the SCDF’s understanding of the Church? What influence has all this dialogue had on Vatican thought processes? Apparently none.
5. Dominus Iesus, like One Bread One Body, seems to us to be quite out of touch with attitudes in general. Many Roman Catholics have spoken to us of their embarrassment by these documents. These texts appear to us to be out of touch with the sensus fidelium and they clearly are out of touch with our times. Some people have now sadly questioned – and even worse, doubted – the point of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. That is nothing less than a tragedy.
6. The central thrust of Dominus Iesus in terms of ecclesiology is that those Churches which Rome does not think have preserved a proper ministry and sacraments are not proper Churches. Rome is the standard and the more like Rome one is the more authentic as a ‘Church’ one is. But no Church can claim that degree of perfection.
7. Is it possible to be the Church only to a certain degree as Vatican II’s ecclesiology holds? Can there really be degrees of ecclesialness? Rome recognises our baptism and calls us Christians. Yet, how can there be Christians who are not fully part of the Body of Christ, the Church? It is our view that the ecclesiology of Vatican II is flawed in this way. That flaw was repeated in One Bread One Body and now has been repeated in Dominus Iesus. But people generally, even many Roman Catholics, are discovering how wrong the basic Vatican II ecclesiological presuppositions are.
8. We welcomed Vatican II because it was a significant advance on what had gone before, but not because we agreed with all that it said. It is not for any Church to try to determine the boundaries of the Church of God by juridical means. The Church is in fact determined not by being in communion with any human being but by being ‘in Christ’. There is mystery to this and for that reason the Church and its boundaries are better discerned by us rather than determined by us.
9. Vatican II encouraged and even inspired a previous generation. But what encourages and inspires one generation will not necessarily do the same for the next. Actual ecumenical movement is vital, for without it we quite simply have ecumenical stagnation.
10. Where is Dominus Iesus taking us? What does it say to an increasingly sceptical world? It surely does not so much speak of Christians loving one another but rather more of Christians judging one another. Is that what we want to show the world? Is that the message that we want to give the world – a Christianity that is not even at ease with itself let alone with the rest of the world? Surely not.
11. What is the vision for ecumenism that underlies Dominus Iesus, if it is not simply to be a case of returning to the Roman fold? Ecumenical dialogue has not been marked by that kind of demand and it would be highly unfortunate to say the least if that is in fact the underlying message of Dominus Iesus. Without exaggerating we would then have to sit down and re-map the entire ecumenical landscape. That is surely not where any of us wants to be.
Representatives of the four main churches in Ireland met on 5 December 2000 to discuss the recent document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus. The meeting was chaired by the Most Rev Sean Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, and the Rev Dr Ian Ellis, Chairman of the Irish Council of Churches. The four main speakers were Fr Bernard Longley (secretary, unity committee of Catholic Bishops’ Conference, England & Wales), Archbishop Robin Eames, Dr Trevor Morrow (Presbyterian Moderator) and Dr Norman Taggart (former Methodist President). Fr Longley explained the status of the document, an in-house statement of one Vatican department which should be taken together with all Vatican statements. When all are taken together it is clear that the Vatican is deeply committed to ecumenism. Archbishop Eames spoke of the deep disappointment Dominus Iesus had caused to Anglicans, especially since the very positive meeting of Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops in Mississauga, near Toronto, recently. Dr Morrow said the emphasis of Dominus Iesus on the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of Scripture in the face of modern relativism would be very welcome to Presbyterians. The document’s view that Protestant bodies are not churches ‘in the proper sense’ does not disturb Presbyterians since they think the same about the Roman Catholic Church! Dr Taggart pointed out that nowadays no church statement can be confined to that church’s members but will affect inter-church relations generally. He said the document did not reflect the ecumenical progress that had been made since Vatican II.
In a lively debate speakers from the floor regretted the effect the document would have on ecumenical relations in Ireland as it would give encouragement to anti-ecumenists. It was suggested that the four church leaders in Ireland should issue a joint statement on Dominus Iesus for Unity Week 2001.