Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism
by Walter Kasper
The Ecumenical Review
Date: 10/1/2000;
I. The ecumenical problem at present
Church and baptism belong together from the very beginning. In the New Testament the account of the event of Pentecost, which definitively established the church, moves directly into the report of the baptism of the first Christians (Acts 2:41). In all churches baptism has since been the gateway to church membership. In all churches and in almost all church communities we find the practice of baptism in the name of the triune God, the Quakers and the Salvation Army being the only exceptions among the ecumenically active church communities. Hence the ecumenical movement from the start has sought to make our common baptism the point of departure and the basis for ecumenical efforts. Vatican II also took this path (UR 3). Thus, for all the divisions that still exist, there is already a fundamental common basis -- which shows that the separations have neither penetrated to the deepest roots, nor "extended to heaven".
After many preliminary efforts(1) and a process of consultation lasting for many years, the Lima declaration, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), took up this concern, achieving a considerable consensus and extensive convergence in the understanding of baptism? Since then formal mutual recognition of baptism has taken place between churches in many countries.
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry undoubtedly marks a great step forward, and within this convergence text it is the section on baptism which has met with most agreement. Above all, the ecclesiological consequences (for the divided churches) resulting from a common understanding of baptism have been welcomed.
But the churches' responses to BEM(3) also show that many questions still remain unresolved and that the differences go more deeply than BEM assumed. The bilateral dialogues(4) which have been conducted since then, and the fact that all churches still do not recognize each others' baptism, confirm this conclusion. Alongside the cultural questions and challenges -- raised above all by the churches in Asia and Africa -- there are fundamental theological questions which show that the traditional controversial questions still persist, at least to some extent. It is regrettable, therefore, that -- despite some significant studies(5) -- the theology of baptism has remained somewhat peripheral in the last few decades.
This is also true of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", which mentions baptism almost only in passing (no. 25).
Differences in the understanding of baptism exist above all between the "historic" churches on the one hand and the Baptist, evangelical and Pentecostal communions on the other. Here the question is not only about the baptism of infants and the practice of "adult baptism", but also about the much more fundamental question of the understanding -- more precisely, the sacramental understanding -- of baptism. With the swift growth, and increasing importance, of the Pentecostal and charismatic communities this question is becoming increasingly urgent.(6)
Problems of another kind arise in relation to certain Orthodox and Oriental churches. They do not recognize the baptism performed in another church of Christians transferring to them, or preparing for a church wedding in an interfaith marriage, and correspondingly require what the other churches describe as a "re"-baptism.(7) Underlying this are differences in the understanding of the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of baptism, about which there is little clarity and no consensus, even among Orthodox churches.
A third set of problems must finally be mentioned. Even where churches do recognize each other's baptism, there is not always a consensus on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of such recognition. This is true for the relation between baptism and confirmation or sacramental chrismation and, above all, for the relation between baptism and the eucharist; for recognition of another church's baptism does not mean, for the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, that persons thus baptized are then also admitted to the eucharist. This is why the Reformation churches often ask these two churches why those who -- by the "one baptism" are members of the ecclesial body of Christ -- nevertheless(8) cannot together receive the eucharistic body of the Lord at the Lord's table.
BEM sees the remaining differences among the churches above all in their different practices in relating faith and baptism, and baptism, confirmation and eucharist. It sees these differences as complementary approaches. In doing so, however, it underestimates the deeper differences among the church in the understanding of baptism and the church. The problems of the Orthodox and Oriental churches, and the challenges coming from the Pentecostal communities, are scarcely considered.
For this reason, further discussions on the theme of baptism are urgently necessary. For without mutual recognition of baptism all other ecumenical efforts are literally left hanging in the air: they amount to nothing more than friendly gestures and interchurch diplomacy, and lack theological substance, commitment and consistency. And even mutual recognition of baptism really makes sense only if it is backed by a fundamental common understanding of baptism -- and its ecclesiological consequences.
In what follows I do not wish to analyze the churches' responses to the Lima declaration. This has, to a large extent, already been done.(9) Rather I wish to elaborate on the basic theological questions underlying these issues. At first sight this attempt may seem to complicate matters and upset the ecumenical optimism about consensus. But it seems to me that this will take us further than simply adding one consensus paper on to another, thus falling into a sterile, private ecumenical scholasticism. In the long view, the only way which will take us further is a return to the sources. Let me, therefore, first briefly recall our common basis in the witness of the New Testament.
II. Biblical foundations
1. Baptism in the context of the church's mission and confession
For its practice of baptism -- which it has exercised from the beginning -- the church has appealed to the commission from the risen Lord: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19f.; cf. Mark 6:15f.).(10)
The justification for baptism is naturally not limited to the baptismal command; such a purely formal basis would be inadequate. The early church sees the foundation of baptism as laid down in the baptism of Jesus himself in the Jordan (Mark 1:9-11 and par.). The baptismal command is indissolubly linked to the cross, the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38-41 links the practice of baptism with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Thus we cannot detach baptism from history, from the fate of Jesus and from confessing Jesus Christ, any more than from the action of the Holy Spirit. Baptism stands in the great context of salvation-history: that the Father sends the Son into the world, exalts him through the cross and resurrection to be the kosmokrator to whom all power has been given in heaven and in earth; and that the Holy Spirit makes the person and work of Jesus Christ present (2 Cor. 3:17), and has been poured out "on all flesh" as an eschatological gift (Acts 2:17).
Therefore the command to baptize is not the justification "after the fact", but is the intrinsic foundation of the practice of baptism. It tells us that the church baptizes not on its own initiative and authority, but in obedience to its Lord. The command to baptize, however, not only institutes baptism but gives it its meaning. The trinitarian confession is in fact the sum and substance of the entire Christian faith. TM Therefore baptism in the name of the triune God is also more than one formula, interchangeable with others for administering baptism;(12) it is rather a confession of the historical and theological basis and inner content of baptism. In addition it is the epiclesis and promise of salvation, not as a mere ritual, and certainly not as a ritual working by "magic"; but in the power of this authoritative promise, baptism obtains its power to effect salvation. Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum.(13)
For the ancient church baptism was thus the "sacrament of faith"(14) and the baptismal liturgy was an important locus for the emergence, and development, of confession of the faith.(15) In line with this, baptism was -- incipiently in the New Testament and explicitly in the ancient church -- linked with the catechumenate as an introduction into the faith and into the church's life. The churches arising from the missionary movement have rediscovered this connection; for the free churches within the European context it has become important in a different way. Given the estrangement of the culture from the churches in Western societies, the renewal of the catechumenate has now become essential for the life and survival of the historic churches.
2. The importance of baptism for salvation
The New Testament statements on the significance of baptism for salvation are extremely rich and varied. They embrace the whole message of salvation: the forgiveness of sin(s) and liberation from the powers of evil; new life, justification, reconciliation and sanctification; rebirth and renewal, enlightenment and being sealed, being placed in the hands of Jesus Christ, the realization of Christ's death and resurrection, the admonition to live/t new life. Recently the gift of the Holy Spirit has once again been stressed more clearly alongside the christological aspect.
The one and only reality of salvation is thus described in scripture from various standpoints. This variety shows the outflowing and overflowing activity of God. It allows for legitimate differences of emphasis in the different churches. The special merit of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry lies in its highlighting the fact that, despite these varied emphases, a broad fundamental consensus exists on the significance of baptism for salvation. Through the Lutheran-Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" this consensus has been considerably extended and deepened.
Today the difference between the different church traditions no longer lies in the content of the significance of baptism for salvation, but in the relation between baptism and salvation. Is baptism only a preliminary or subsequent sign of salvation, or also a means of salvation? According to scripture it is not enough to understand baptism only as a sign; it is rather an effective sign of salvation. Heinrich Schlier in particular stressed this to Karl Barth.(16) According to the New Testament, baptism is what cleanses from sin (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21). Ephesians 5:26 is particularly clear: "in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word". To the same effect Titus 3:5 says, "through the water of rebirth and renewal". Accordingly baptism in the New Testament is clearly understood as a means of salvation -- and that means a sacrament of salvation.
The significance of baptism for salvation also means that baptism is necessary for salvation. "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16)." ... no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). But the necessity of baptism for salvation cannot be detached from the total context of the preaching of the gospel and faith. This is important, above all, in relation to the salvation of those who have never been confronted by the gospel message and therefore have never been able intentionally to reject the gospel. Are we to assume that they are all lost, even damned? Nowhere in the New Testament is this question asked explicitly, but it is all the more unavoidable for us today and we cannot but try to answer it on the basis of the New Testament.
The answers given in the churches differ. Vatican II -- while entirely acknowledging the necessity of baptism for salvation (LG 14; AG 7) -- referred to God's general desire for our salvation (1 Tim. 2:4), concluding that those not to "blame" for their ignorance of the gospel of Christ and his church, but seeking God with an honest heart and really striving to fulfill his will as discerned in the call of conscience, can achieve salvation (LG 16; cf. AG 7; GS 22). To justify this thesis one can point to the statement in the prologue of John's gospel that everything was created in the Logos which has become flesh in Jesus Christ, and that this Logos enlightens everyone coming into this world (John 1:2,9).
Roman Catholic theology therefore talks about a "conditional" necessity for baptism for those to whom the gospel has been preached and who can consequently decide for or against the faith. Thus the connection between faith and baptism becomes clear, as also the idea that the possibility of salvation of the unbaptized is founded not in what they do themselves, but in Jesus Christ whose Spirit is at work in the entire creation.
Finally, understanding baptism from the whole reality of salvation explains why, for the New Testament and for the whole Christian tradition, baptism is unrepeatable and can be received only once. This corresponds to the unrepeatable nature of God's saving act in Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10); just as Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected once for all, so too the Christian can only die once with him and be raised to newness of life: a baptized Person has died to sin once for all (Rom. 6:10). "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away: see, everything has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). In line with this, Ephesians refers to the one baptism which corresponds to the one God, the one Lord and the one faith, and is incorporated in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4).
Against this biblical background, rebaptism can only be described as a scandal and as sacrilege. To be sure, churches which do not recognize baptism in another church regard the previous baptismal act as invalid; they see their own, later baptismal action as a first baptism, and not as "re"-baptism. But for the other churches such action amounts to nothing other than a rebaptism, a disturbing praxis behind which lies a different understanding of the ecclesiological meaning of baptism.
3. The ecclesiological significance of baptism
According to Acts 2:41 baptism means being added to the Christian community: "in the one Spirit we were all baptized into" [the] "one body" [of Christ] (1 Cor. 12:13). In baptism more is involved than the personal salvation of the individual; baptism has an ecclesial dimension, incorporating the baptized person into the church as the body of Christ through the Spirit.(17) Not for nothing do the New Testament statements about baptism frequently occur in a liturgical context (1 Pet. 1:3ff.; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 5:14). It is the church that celebrates baptism and, as it does so, the faith of the whole church is expressed and not just that of the person being baptized. The church is not brought into being by people gathering together to form a church. Thus, in my view we do not enter the church through baptism; rather we are accepted into the church as a pre-existing reality of salvation.
However, the liturgical celebration of baptism is not the end of the matter. The New Testament is not concerned with an abstract doctrine of baptism but with paraclesis, the reminder to live life in the reality of baptism (Rom. 6:3-14; Col. 3:1-17; 1 Pet. 1:3-25). Many New Testament statements therefore have the function of reminding us of our baptism, showing clearly that baptism, carried out once for all, must be repeatedly realized afresh in the Christian's life. Important social -- not just individual -- consequences arise from this. Above all, there must be no inequality on the basis of race, nationality, social position or gender among the baptized (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
Finally, no one is baptized only for himself or herself, or only for their own individual salvation. Baptism is linked to the sending of the church into the whole world (Matt. 28:19); it makes the baptized a witness to Christ in the world, and is the foundation for the priesthood of all believers who are sent to proclaim the mighty acts of God (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Baptism is at once a sacrament of initiation and of mission.
Baptism, and life based on baptism, normally take place in an actual local congregation, but baptism is more than inclusion in a local congregation and also more than inclusion in a particular confession. Baptism incorporates us in the one and only body indivisible of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13 and 1:13). Thus for the New Testament, the one church of Jesus Christ is present in each local congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), and the "church" is both the local church and the church universal in one. Thus baptism makes us a member of a local congregation but also a member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (una sancta, catholica et apostolica ecclesia).(18) From its inmost nature baptism has an importance that goes beyond this or that local or confessional church. It has ecclesiological and ecumenical implications. This is the very point, of course, where the fractures between the different church traditions become plain.
III. Different developments in East and West
On the basis of the common biblical witness, the doctrine of baptism has undergone different developments.(19) The Eastern churches have not developed an abstract theology of baptism. Especially since they have freed themselves from a temporary Western scholastic influence and have remembered their patristic tradition, they have been describing baptism as a musterion, i.e. as a symbolic representation of the saving activity of the triune God. In the last analysis the Eastern churches' view of the musterion stops short of any attempt at definition. The liturgical implementation of the musteria has priority over any logical reflection on them. Sacred acts are involved here, in which the Holy Spirit works with visible signs and imparts the gifts of the Spirit. Correspondingly their baptismal formula runs as follows: "The servant of God [name] is baptized ...", and this "passive of the divine" highlights the mysterious action of God in what the church does.(20)
The Western doctrine of the sacraments in Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine and others agrees substantially with this. Aquinas developed it with the help of the Aristotelian doctrine of causation. For Aquinas the effective cause (causa efficiens) of baptism is the triune God; the church's activity on the other hand is a matter of instrumental causality (Summa theologica III q. 66 a.5). Thus baptism is understood as a means of salvation. This is also the teaching of the council of Trent (DS 1529).
In principle the sacramental understanding of baptism is common to East and West,(21) but here too there have been differences in development. In contrast to the Western churches, the Orthodox churches held to the unity of baptism and chrismation (confirmation), stressing the pneumatological dimension of baptism and the church more clearly than the Western churches? Of primary importance is the point that, especially in the West, the understanding of baptism was taken further in the dispute over heretical baptism (Ketzertaufstreit) in the 3rd century.
At issue was how to deal with Christians who had received baptism in a heretical or schismatic community, and now wanted to be received into the fellowship of the Catholic Church. Above all Cyprian of Carthage spoke out against the validity of heretical baptism. He argued that there is only one true church, only one Spirit and one baptism (Ep. 71,1; 74,4); and there is no salvation outside the church (Ep. 73,21). Because, he argued, heretics and schismatics stand outside the one church, they do not possess the Spirit -- and hence cannot impart it. Their "baptism" is without effect; it is not a baptism, and therefore Cyprian preferred to speak not of rebaptism but simply of baptism (Ep. 74,7). Despite this he was unwilling to force his view, and practice, on another church; rather he recognized its freedom (Ep. 72,3; 73,26). Firmilian of Caesarea and large parts of Asia Minor thought likewise.
Not so Pope Stephen I of Rome. Like the church of Alexandria, he recognized the validity of baptism outside the church. For him the criterion was the invocation of the name of the triune God (Ep. 74,5; 75,9), and thus in receiving heretics he required only the laying-on of hands, as an act of penance (DS 110). The West generally embraced this position at the synod of Aries (314), the criterion for this being the trinitarian confession (DS 123).
Augustine's dispute with the Donatists became crucial for the whole further development of the West, and even for the Reformers of the 16th century. For him, the validity of baptism outside the Catholic church was based on the fact that the real bestower of baptism is Jesus Christ himself (De bapt. IV, 12,18; In Joh. VI,7; Ep. 93,47). In fact for Augustine there are no sacraments outside the church: even where heretics usurp the sacraments they remain the church's sacraments. Therefore one must distinguish the heretics' doctrines from their use of the sacraments, which belong to Christ and the church (De bapt. I, 12,19). According to Augustine, however, the validity of their baptism does not extend to its fruitfulness (ibid., 6.1. I).)
Augustine's position became the criterion for the Latin church. The fourth Lateran council (1215) (DS 793; 810) and the council of Trent (DS 1617) defended the validity of heretical baptism if the correct trinitarian baptismal formula was spoken at it, and the baptism was administered with the intention of "doing what the church does". Despite this there were cases of rebaptism even in the Catholic church when non-Catholic Christians came over to it. Until Vatican II, conditional baptism was practised in such cases -- often thoughtlessly. Only with Vatican II was this practice abandoned.(23)
The council even went a step beyond Augustine's position. It recognized not only the validity, but also the fruitfulness, of baptism in non-Catholics (LG 15): "For ... many who [do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety] ... believe in ... Christ ..." and "are sealed by baptism ..." The Spirit of God makes use also of the non-Catholic churches as a means of salvation (UR 3; cf. 22) Thus, for Vatican II, baptism is the foundation for recognizing an ecclesial quality in the non-Catholic churches and church fellowships; it is the basis for the Catholic church's seeing itself as being in "a real but not full" fellowship with the non-Catholic churches and church communities.
The Eastern tradition is not so uniform. In the East there are, on the one hand, the "Apostolic Canons" representing the 4th-century Syrian tradition. Theirs is the rigid position of Cyprian and Firmilian, rejecting the baptism of heretics (canons 46 and 47).(24) On the other hand, there is the nuanced position of Basil of Caesarea. He rejected the baptism of heretics who (like the Manichaeans) proposed a different belief in God and the Trinity, but on the contrary did not reject the baptism of the schismatics (among whom he clearly counts the Novatians) -- or of those who constitute a rebellious parasynagogue [sic]. Basil was even prepared to allow validity to the more liberal view of the West, only desiring that those coming from another church should in every instance be chrismed (Ep. 174,199). This nuanced position probably underlay the council of Nicea (325)(25) and it is also to be found in canon 7 of the council of Constantinople (381).(26)
The Trullanum II (Quinsextum) (692) became the criterion for further discipline in the Eastern churches. It included the strict definitions of the apostolic canons, but also laid down in canon 95 that heretical teachers advocating a false doctrine of God must be baptized on their return to the church -- but not, however, the Severians (the nonChalcedonians and the Nestorians).(27) Thus not each and every deviation leads to baptism being invalid but only heresies which -- as with the Gnostics -- affect the bases of the biblical belief in God.
Naturally the Trullanum could not yet take into account the schism between East and West, which came later. The later synodal definitions comment on this.(28) Till 1667 in the Russian Orthodox Church, all converting to the Orthodox church were rebaptized; since then, however, their baptism has been recognized. This has been the practice of the Slav Orthodox churches up to the present. Things are different in the sphere of the patriarchate of Constantinople. Initially a synod of Constantinople (1484) did in fact reject the union of Ferrara-Florence (1439), but envisaged only chrisming for the reception of Catholics into the Orthodox church. Later the Greek church deviated from this liberal practice; Patriarch Cyril of Constantinople, in 1755, ordered the rebaptism of all "heretics" -- and thus of all Western Christians. This was a reaction against the aggressive proselytizing of Latin missionaries, and the foundation of a united Melchite (Uniat) Patriarchate in 1724.
Thus an unprecedented hardening of positions took place on these two sides in the 17th and 18th centuries, with each side advocating an ecclesiological exclusivity and disputing that the other was a means of salvation. Later, Constantinople returned to the canons of 1484 at different councils, for instance in 1756.
Nikodomos Hagioreites's influential Philokalia (1782), a compilation of the spiritual wisdom of the fathers which contributed essentially to the renewal of patristic theology in Orthodoxy, tried to harmonize the contradictory canons of the ancient church. It endorsed the stricter positions in fundamentally not regarding baptism outside the Orthodox church as valid, but also took account of the milder positions by considering recognition of such baptisms as possible in accordance with the principle of oikonomia -- that is, in line with shrewdness, wisdom, clemency and pastoral evaluation of the local circumstances, as well as the ecumenical situation.(29)
But this solution in terms of oikonomia, which is often advocated nowadays, does not meet with general approval even within Orthodoxy.(30) While it rightly says that the Spirit of God is not tied to the limits of church institutions, it seems to me to create the impression that the hierarchy has the authority to "make" effective for salvation a sacramental action which, in itself, is invalid and so ineffective for salvation. For the Orthodox churches this confusion can only be cleared up at the planned pan-Orthodox council, or at a future ecumenical council.
On account of the divergent views among the Orthodox churches, the international theological commission could not deal explicitly with this question in the Bari document (1987).(31) The sacraments were described simply as "sacraments of faith" (15), the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Apostles' Creed was described as the criterion for baptism (20) and communio, and agreements and differences in the practice of initiation in the churches were described. The Balamand document (1993)(32) brought progress, expressly rejecting rebaptism and indirectly recognizing the baptism received in the Roman Catholic Church (10,13). The national dialogue in North America between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches happily went a step further, and in a notable declaration (1999) arrived at an explicit full mutual recognition of baptism.(33)
For all the regret and criticism the Catholic church has expressed concerning the practice of a number of Orthodox and also Coptic churches, we nevertheless acknowledge their concern, in the spirit of the flexible position of Basil of Caesarea. These churches make the recognition of baptism dependent on the doctrine of God and of the Trinity. Thus their practice has an entirely different background to that of the Baptist churches. While the latter -- as we will see below -- are concerned with the subjective dimension of the decision of faith made by the recipient of baptism (fides qua creditur), the foremost concern of the Orthodox is for the correct objective faith of the person administering baptism and for the baptizing church (fides quae creditur). They wish thereby to preserve an important biblical concern, namely the link between baptism and faith -- more precisely, the church's faith. They do this sometimes on an ecclesiological basis that is exclusivist in regard to salvation, something I can hardly regard as biblically justified, or even as necessarily called for by their own Orthodox tradition.
Nevertheless, I do not intend to describe this position as Obsolete. It remains relevant when the Christian trinitarian view of God is lost as, in my opinion, happens when through a radical feminist critique the supposedly "male" language of the trinitarian baptismal formula is replaced by inclusive wordings such as "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier". Here, in my opinion, the biblical foundation of the Christian understanding of God and the Trinity is abandoned; ecumenical common ground, not only with the Orthodox churches but with all the "historic" churches, is lost, and one can no longer speak of a valid baptism.
IV. Splits within Western Christendom
In the doctrine of baptism, the 16th-century Reformation unleashed by Martin Luther remained within the Western tradition. Luther and the Lutheran Reformation kept clearly to the sacramental view of baptism. The Augsburg confession says of word and sacrament that the Holy Spirit is given through them, as through means; it rejects the Anabaptists and "enthusiasts" (Schwarmer) who teach that without the external word of the gospel we can obtain the Holy Spirit through our own preparations and works (art. 5). Against the Anabaptists, the legitimacy of infant baptism is also defended (art. 9). Thus the teaching is that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that grace is offered to us through baptism.
But in the Augsburg confession it also becomes clear that for Luther this teaching is set in a new context. For him everything is focused on the word-event that promises and justifies. Hence, for the Augsburg confession baptism, like all the sacraments, is a sign and testimony of God's will towards us; the sacraments should awaken and strengthen faith. Their proper "use" consists in receiving them in faith in the promises of God, to which the sacraments attest and which they describe (art. 13).
The word of promise and the sacramental sign do not, of course, just stand alongside each other; they are related to each other. According to Luther's two catechisms, baptism is not mere water but "water comprehended in God's word and commandment" (Tappert, ed., Book of Concord, 438, cf. p.349). "It effects the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the word and promise of God declare" (ibid., pp.348f.). "To be baptized in God's name is to be baptized not by men but by God himself; although it is performed by men's hands it is nevertheless truly God's own act" (ibid., p.437).
Thus already in Luther new emphases in relation to tradition appear. This becomes clear especially in his critique of the Thomistic position (BSELK 450) and above all in the rejection of the doctrine of the efficacy of the sacraments ex opere operato (Tappert, pp. 184f.) (a doctrine misunderstood in the Lutheran confessional writings [BSELK] as efficacy without faith and without Christ [Tappert, p. 185 [sections] 25, etc.]). Thus the different approaches lead to different conclusions, and the same statements take on a different meaning in different contexts. The connection between word of God, sacrament and church therefore needs still more thorough discussion.(34)
This is true also of Calvin, in a different and even clearer way. In the Institutio christianae religionis Calvin sees baptism as promise and as a "badge and mark by which we profess" our faith (IV. 15.1-2; 13-15: wording as in Beveridge, tr. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2). According to the Heidelberg Catechism, baptism reminds and assures us of salvation; it is promise, pledge and symbol (ed. W. Niesel, pp.165f., German ed.). However, as Calvin's uncompromising adherence to infant baptism shows (IV. 16, 1-32) he does not seek to challenge the "objective" character of baptism. Calvin too can say that baptism is not something human but God's affair (IV. 15,16). Calvin's position can be understood only in the context of his definition of the relation between the sacrament and the working of the Holy Spirit (IV. 14,812): for him Spirit baptism and water baptism belong together, but they operate alongside each other and with each other rather than in each other (IV. 16,25).
The break with tradition comes only with Zwingli. He sees baptism as an act of the believer; for him it is a sign of commitment, acknowledgment and confession, a visual means pointing to grace, but not the proffering of salvation. Thus a development begins with Zwingli which leads away from the sacramental to a purely symbolic view of baptism, according to which the sacraments are no longer effective signs of grace, but signs of faith.(35)
Radicalizing Zwingli's position led already in the 16th century to a baptist-type movement, and then in the 17th century to the Mennonites and the Baptists. They drew radical conclusions from the new position.(36) For if baptism is now seen as an external sign of confession, the baptism of children or infants becomes problematic.
However, the demand for adult baptism was not the only consequence; the ecclesiological consequences are at least as serious. For if baptism is no longer seen sacramentally but as an act of confession and commitment by the person baptized, the church is then no longer the organism through which God bestows newness of life; nor is it any longer the locus of salvation, into which the baptized person is received. Incorporation into the church is replaced by freely-chosen entry into the church, which is understood as a free association of believers. Becoming a reality in the local congregation as a "voluntary" church, it is thus inevitably seen as being congregationalist.
Logically the notion of a voluntary church leads a step further -- to a stress on freedom and independence from the state. This means the elimination of the medieval idea of the corpus christianum -- and correspondingly a breach in the continuity of the established church with the early church -- through the introduction of infant baptism and through the fundamental change in the relation of church and state under Constantine. Thus a free church congregation no longer understands itself in terms of continuity with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church semper et ubique. This led to a new type of ecclesial community, which can no longer be classified among the "historic" churches of the Reformation.
The same phenomenon exists both among the evangelical communions which have become so numerous, and among the Pentecostal churches.(37) They take up the concerns of the older free church movements for revival (Methodists, Quakers, Pietists and so on). Since for them too baptism is not an objective means of salvation, the emphasis falls all the more on the subjective experience of inner rebirth, Spirit baptism and spiritual charisms. At present such churches are having huge success in mission with this "enthusiastic Christianity". Incontestably, biblical motives which have often fallen into oblivion in the historic churches, with their sacramental view of baptism, come into play here -- even though, I believe, in a one-sided way. The historic churches will therefore have to take up the challenge from these new and extremely varied church communities, and do so in a constructive way.
Recently, on the basis of scriptural testimony, individual Baptist authors such as G. Beasley-Murray(38) have been re-emphasizing God's action through baptism, and thus the spiritual effect of baptism. And in the evangelical and Pentecostal communities -- not the great majority, admittedly, but still by individual representatives -- the question about the sacramental character of baptism is again being asked.(39) Thus a few hesitant rapprochements are under way.
All this clearly shows that in these developments the question is not only about the right sequence between baptism and a personal decision of faith; there are also fundamental questions about how baptism, and the church, are understood. It took a theologian of Karl Barth's stature to raise this debate to an adequate theological level. Karl Barth's doctrine of baptism(40) has the great merit of having introduced the free church doctrine of baptism -- which among many theologians had tended to be dismissed as weak -- into serious theological discourse, thus stimulating the theological debate afresh. For all the criticism, both exegetical and systematic, that one can and must make of Barth's position -- and his destruction of the sacramental view of baptism -- we must not underestimate his effect on many of today's theologians. Ecumenically this is more important, by far, than many ecumenical papers on dialogue and "consensus".
Barth distinguishes between baptism with the Spirit and baptism with water. For him, baptism with the Spirit is "effective, causative, even creative action on the human being and in the human being. It is, indeed, divinely effective, divinely causative, divinely creative" (p.34). Baptism with water, on the other hand, is an obedient response to baptism with the Holy Spirit, and thus Barth comes out against the consensus of the "historic" churches which see baptism sacramentally. For him water baptism has cognitive but not a causative significance; it is not a means of grace (pp. 105ff.).
Thus it is not surprising that -- for all his criticism of this position -- Barth feels a certain sympathy for the approach of Zwingli, the Baptists and the movements that focus on the Spirit. He does not see infant baptism as simply invalid, but nevertheless it is "a profoundly irregular" practice, "a wound from which the church suffers at this genuinely vital point with its many-sided implications" (p. 194). In infant baptism, that is, "the character of baptism as both obedience and response is so obscured as to be virtually unrecognizable" (p. 195)
In addition, Barth also sees the inner connection among the practice of infant baptism, the Constantinian state church, and the medieval corpus christianum. He would like to understand the church as being again a "small and unassuming group of aliens ... freed of much ballast, as a mobile brotherhood" (p. 168).
The loss of the sacramental view of baptism is of course not confined to the Baptist, Pietist, evangelical and Pentecostal movements and theology influenced by Karl Barth. With an entirely different background, a "purely" symbolical view is widespread in so-called "liberal" circles, even within the historic churches. Thus the dividing line becomes again clear between a purely symbolic view in which baptism is "only" a human or ecclesiastical symbolic and confessing act, and a sacramental view that sees baptism, in terms of the musterion of the ancient church, as a "real" symbol, that is, a symbol that bestows what it describes through the action of the Spirit of God.
Thus for all the gratifying ecumenical consensuses and convergences in the understanding of baptism, profound differences keep appearing, with consequences for how the church is understood as well as for the relation between church and state and between church and society. But there are also pointers for overcoming these differences through patient steps, taken on the basis of holy scripture and the tradition of the ancient church.
V. Ecumenical discussion on baptism and the Lord's supper
Baptism cannot be considered in isolation. It is linked with the other sacraments of initiation, confirmation or chrismation and the eucharist, and this connection is seen and practised differently in the different church traditions. Here too the issue is not only about the sequence and timing of the process of initiation, but also about the fundamental questions of how baptism and the church are understood.
All the churches agree that baptism with incorporation in the church also bestows the Spirit, and that incorporation in the ecclesial body of Christ by baptism is linked to participation in the eucharistic body of Christ at the one table of the Lord. The connection has always been conserved in the Orthodox churches through the fact that chrismation is administered along with baptism, and the eucharist is administered to the newly-baptized person. This maintains the unity of the three sacraments of initiation. Fundamentally, this is also seen by the Roman Catholic Church today, and is also practised in adult baptism.(41) In the case of infant baptism, by contrast, confirmation and the eucharist are administered only later. The Reformation churches also distinguish, in infant baptism, between the moment of baptism and admission to the Lord's supper. However, confirmation which precedes admission to the Lord's supper is not understood as a sacrament.(42)
The liturgical unity of baptism and confirmation(43) emphasizes more strongly the pneumatological dimension of baptism and, indeed, of being a Christian, while the liturgical distinction between the two brings out the element of growth to the maturity of adulthood, and the "measure of the full stature of Christ" (NRSV, Eph. 4:13). The situation is the same in the temporal distinction between baptism and first communion. Here too the law of growth and maturity holds good. Baptism is only the beginning and starting point; the eucharist is the fullness and climax (UR 22, cf. LG 11).
There is a further perspective to be considered. According to 1 Corinthians 11:26 the eucharist is an intensive, qualified form of the proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection. Eating and drinking in the eucharist therefore presupposes that all those who come to it should examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), and this duty of self-examination makes it sensible to proffer the eucharist only to those who are capable of this "discernment" (1 Cor. 11:29). But these are different emphases, not differences that divide the churches.
More serious ecumenically is another circumstance: the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church, even though they recognize the baptism of another church, nevertheless do not allow persons baptized within that church to participate in the eucharist. To Protestant Christians this practice is hard to understand and, even within Roman Catholicism, it causes pain from the pastoral point of view. Here we have to do with one of the thorniest ecumenical problems of the present time, from which many Christians and pastors suffer.
For the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches communio and eucharistic fellowship belong together. For this they can appeal to 2 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." In the Tradition of the ancient church the unity of eucharistic fellowship and church fellowship was fundamental and, till the middle of the 20th century, this was also the position of the Reformation churches(44) -- for till then, despite unity in principle on the doctrines of justification and baptism, there was no fellowship in the Lord's table between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches.
A consensus of the universal church is thus involved, from which, from this perspective, Christians of the Reformation churches have now departed. Put briefly, they mostly argue as follows: It is Jesus Christ who invites, so the church is not entitled to exclude; Jesus Christ is the giver and the gift in the eucharist, so the church is not lord of the eucharist.(45)
This argument, I believe, is plausible only at first sight. It presupposes a definition of the relation between Jesus Christ and the church which leaves out of consideration the sacramental view of the church. But taking seriously the New Testament and the Tradition of the ancient church, that the mystery of Jesus Christ becomes manifest and present in and through the church (Rom. 16:25f.; Eph. 3:4-6,9-11; Col. 1:26f.), and as soon as one understands the church as a sacramental sign and instrument of Jesus Christ,(46) it becomes impossible to separate fellowship in Christ and church fellowship. The relation between Christ and the church must then be understood in the sense of Augustine's Christus totus, the whole Christ, involving Head and members.(47)
In such a sacramental view of the church one simply cannot see fellowship in Christ, the eucharist and the church other than in their inner unity. From this standpoint the eucharist has to be always two things at once: a sign of an already given unity of the church, and the means of deepening this given unity, and growing and maturing in it (cf. UR 2, 8).(48)
Thus finally the ecclesial "fault-lines" which have already come to light in the doctrine of baptism become clear in a new form. This concerns both the sacramental view of baptism and the sacramental view of the church. Following agreement on basic questions relating to the doctrine of justification, and the basic consensus on the doctrine of baptism, the ecclesiological implications of the doctrine of baptism are now on the agenda of ecumenical dialogue. Here the pneumatological delineation of the sacraments and the church, such as we find them in Orthodox theology, might prove ecumenically fruitful as a means of breaking down institutional rigidities.
Thus there are good, hopeful signs for the new consultation process which the commission on Faith and Order has introduced on the "Nature and Purpose of the Church".(49) One can only hope that this process will find a positive reception similar to that of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Of course, real progress will only be possible if we have the courage to tackle the root problems, and if [in the original sense of the word] we have the strength to think "radically". The ecumenical movement needs this new courage for serious theological work. Bishop Karl Lehmann, to whom this article is dedicated, has shown this courage in exemplary fashion.
NOTES
(1) Cf. E. Schlink, Die Lehre von der Taufe, Kassel, 1969 -- which is still instructive.
(2) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper no. 111, Geneva, WCC, 1982, Also M. Thurian, ed., Ecumenical Perspectives on BEM, Geneva, WCC, 1983; and "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry", in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva, WCC, 1991, pp.80-83; G. Wainwright, "Taufe" 2.3, in FKL 4, 1996, 670-672.
(3) M. Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM, 6 vols, Geneva, WCC, 1986-88; Bapteme, Eucharistie et Ministere 1982-1990: Rapport sur le processus "BEM" et les reactions des Eglises, Document Foi et Constitution 149, Paris, 1993. J.A. Radano, "The Catholic Church and BEM, 1980-1989", in Mid-Stream, 1991, pp.139-156.
(4) Growth in Agreement, H. Meyer and L. Vischer, eds, Geneva, WCC, 1983. Cf. Dokumente wachsender Ubereinstimmung, H. Meyer, H.I. Urban and L. Vischer, eds, vol. 1, Paderborn-Frankfurt am Main, 1983, pp.108ff.,480ff.; vol. 2, 1992, pp. 195ff.,387ff.,607ff. Cf. A. Birmele, "Baptism and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogues", in M. Root and R. Saarinen, Baptism and the Unity of the Church, Geneva, WCC, 1998, pp.104-129.
(5) Thus J. Ratzinger, Taufe, Glaube und Zugehorigkeit zur Kirche, IkathZ 5, 1976, 218.
(6) Surprising figures based on a Gallup Poll of 1980, in K. McDonnell and G.T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1991, pp.xif.
(7) This is true, for instance, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece and the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt.
(8) Cf. D. Heller, "Eucharistic Fellowship in the Third Millennium", in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 51, 1999, pp.202-208. On this, see the Orthodox response by P.C. Bouteneff, "Koinonia and Eucharistic Unity: An Orthodox Response", op. cit., vol. 52, 2000, pp.72-80. For recent ecumenical discussion see further Becoming a Christian: The Ecumenical Implications of Our Common Baptism, Thomas F. Best and Dagmar Heller, eds, Faith and Order Paper no. 184, Geneva, WCC Publications, 1999; and Baptism and the Unity of the Church, Michael Root and Risto Saarinen, eds, Grand Rapids and Geneva, Eerdmans and WCC Publications, 1998.
(9) G. Wainwright, "Word and Sacraments in the Churches' Responses in the Lima Text", in One in Christ, 24, 1988; Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the Processes and Responses, Faith and Order Paper no. 149, Geneva, WCC, 1990. In addition the excellent analysis by D. Heller, "Le bapteme -- fondement de l'unite des Eglises? Foi et Constitution et la question du bapteme", in Irenikon, 72, 1999, pp.73-93.
(10) The literature on the biblical doctrine of baptism is immense. Here I therefore give only a few references: TDNT 1 527-544; R. Schnackenburg, Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus, Munich, 1950; L. Hartmann, Auf den Namen des Herrn Jesus, Die Taufe in den neutestamentichen Schriften, Stuttgart, 1992.
(11) Cf. W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz, 1982, p.378. G. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott: Eine trinitarische Theologie, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1997.
(12) Cf. J. Ratzinger, "Taufe und Formulierung des Glaubens -- Traditionsbildung und Liturgie", in Theologische Prinzipienlehre, Munich, 1982, pp.106-116; K. Lehmann, "Das Verhaltnis von Glaube und Sakrament in der katholischen Tauftheologie", in Gegenwart des Glaubens, Mainz, 1974, pp.201-28.
(13) Augustine, In Joh., 80:3.
(14) Especially in Tertullian: fidei sacramentum (Adversus Marcionem 1:28.2), obsignatio fidei (De poenitentia 6:16). Augustine, too, frequently describes baptism as sacramentum fidei (Ep. 98:9,10; 157:4,34).
(15) Cf. A. Stenzel, Die Taufe: Eine genetische Erklarung der Taufliturgie, Innsbruck, 1058. W. Kasper, loc. cit., pp.304f.
(16) H. Schlier, "Die Taufe nach dem 6. Kapitel des Romerbriefs", in Die Zeit der Kirche: Exegetische Aufsatze und Vertrage, 2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1958, pp.47-74. "Zur kirchlichen Lehre yon der Taufe", ibid., pp. 107-129.
(17) Cf. R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 9th ed., Tubingen, 1984, pp.311f.; cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, ET Kendrick Grobel, London, SCM Press, 1952, vol. I, p.311.
(18) Unfortunately this aspect of ecumenism and the universal church has been obscured in the post-conciliar baptismal liturgy.
(19) From the numerous writings: A. Stenzel, Die Taufe: Eine genetische Erklarung der Taufliturgie, Innsbruck, 1958. B. Neunheuser, Taufe un Firmung (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte), vol. IV/2), 2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1983. B. Kleinheyer, Sakramentale Feiern I, Die Feiern der Eingliederung in die Kirche (Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, vol. 7,1), Regensburg, 1989.
(20) Cf. R. Hotz, Sakramente -- im Wechselspiel zwischen Ost und West (Okumenische Theologie, vol. 2), Zurich-Gutersloh, 1979, pp. 188ff. K.Ch. Flemy, Orthodox Theologie: Eine Einfuhrung, Darmstadt, 1990, pp. 169f.
(21) The two results of dialogue, Munich 1982 and Bari 1987, are important respectively: "Das Geheimnis der Kirche und der Eucharistie im Licht des Geheimnisses der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit"; and "Glaube, Sakramente und Einheit der Kirche", in Dokumente, wachsender Ubereinstimmung, vol. 2, pp.531-39;542-51.
(22) On the danger of Christomonism in Western theology see Y. Congar, "Pneumatologie ou christomonisme dans la tradition latine?", in Ecclesia a Spiritu sancto edocta, Gembloux, 1970, pp.41-63; W. Kasper, "Die Kirche als Sakrament des Geistes", in Kirche -- Ort des Geistes, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1976, I.D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, New York, 1985, pp. 123-142.
(23) Cf. Ecumenical Directory, 1993, no.99.
(24) Discipline generale antique (Fonti. Fasc. IX, ed. P.P. Joannou), vol. I,2: Les canons des synodes particuliers, Grottaferrata (Rome), 1963, 81. Canon 45 forbids bishops, presbyters and deacons even prayer with heretics.
(25) This emerges from a comparison of canons 8 and 19. Cf. Cconciliorum oecumenicorum Decreta, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1962, pp.8f., 14.
(26) Cf. ibid., p.31.
(27) The Council in Trullo Revisited, G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, eds, Kanonika 6, Rome, 1995, pp. 174-77.
(28) On this see J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 3rd ed., New York, 1981, pp.91,97-99; K.Ch. Flemy, op. cit., pp. 180f. Damaskinos Papandreou, "Zur Anerkennung der Taufe seitens der Orthodoxen Kirche", in Una Sancta, 48, 1993, pp.48-53.
(29) To this effect the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Germany and Exarch of Central Europe, Augoustinos Lambardakis, recognized baptism administered in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Protestant churches, by referring to the decision of 1756 "kat' oikonomian", in Una Sancta, 52, 1997, p. 120.
(30) The key text is still G. Florovsky, "The Limits of the Church", in Church Quarterly Review, 1933, pp. 11731, and more recently J.D. Zizioulas, op. cit., pp.245f. On the whole problem see Y. Congar, Diversites et communion, Paris, 1982, pp.80-102; D. Wendebourg, "Taufe und Oikonomia: Zur Frage der Wiedertaufe in der Orthodoxen Kirche", in Kirchengemeinschaft -- Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, F.S.G. Kretschmar, Stuttgart, 1986, pp.93-116.
(31) Dokumente wachsender Ubereinstimmung, vol. 2, pp.542-65.
(32) L'uniatisme, methode d'union du passe, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, Mixed International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Bari (1987), Valamo (1988), Balamand (1993).
(33) "Bapteme et `economie sacramentelle': Declaration commune de la consultation theologique nord-americaine orthodoxe-catholique", in Irenikon, 72, 1999, 114-30.
(34) K. Lehmann and W. Pannenberg, eds, Lehrverurteilungen -- kirchentrennend? Freiburg im Breisgau-Gottingen, 1986, p.88.
(35) Cf. TRE 29, 1998, pp.673f.
(36) Cf. TRE 5, 1980, pp. 190-97; H.J. Urban in Kleine Konfessionskunde, ed. Johann-Adam-Mohler Institut, 3rd ed., Paderborn, 1996, pp.245-63.
(37) Still fundamental is J. Hollenweger, Enthusiastisches Christentum: Die Pfingstbewegung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Zurich, 1969. On the present position see H.J. Urban, op. cit., pp.263-305. Y. Congar, Je crois en l'Esprit Saint, vol. 2, Paris, 1979, pp. 187-269, has already drawn attention to the need for serious theological discussion. K. McDonnell and G.T. Montague, op. cit. (note 6) provide a thorough investigation on a biblical theological and patristic basis.
(38) G. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, London, 1963, German tr. Kassel, 1968.
(39) Cf. the Louisville consultation: "Consultation on Baptism" (Faith and Order Paper no. 97), in Review and Expositor, 57, 1980, issue 1, and the most recent document of the dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and classical Pentecostal churches: "Perspectives on Koinonia", in Information Service, no. 75, 1990, issue 4, pp. 179-96.
(40) Here I pass over his earlier work, Die kirchliche Lehre yon der Taufe, 3rd ed., Zurich-Zollikon, 1947, and confine myself to the Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV/4, Zurich, 1967 (Church Dogmatics, IV/4, Edinburgh, 1969). See Zu Karl Barths Lehre von der Taufe mit Beitragen von J. Beckmann u.a., Gutersloh, 1971; R. Schluter, Karl Barths Tauflehre: Ein interkonfessionelles Gesprach, Paderborn, 1973; J. Moltmann, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes: Ein Beitrag zur messianischen Ekklesiologie, Munich, 1975, pp.262-66: E. Jungel, Barth-Studien, Okumenische Theologie, 9, Zurich-Cologne, 1982, pp.246-90,291-94,295-314.
(41) The unity of the sacraments of initiation has again been clearly highlighted by Vatican II: SC 64-71, AG 14; PO 5. Cf. also CIC 1983 can. 842 [sections] 2.
(42) On the question whether and how far a difference exists here that divides the churches, see the view (to my mind too optimistic) in Lehrverurteilungen -- kirchentrennend?, pp. 125-132.
(43) On the historical problem see Neuheuser, op. cit., pp.29-33,34-52,70-73,73-96; G. Kretschmar, article, "Firmung" in TRE 11, 1983, pp.192-204; B. Kleinheyer op. cit., note 18.
(44) W. Elert, Abendmahlsgemeinschaft und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche, Berlin, 1954. Fundamental for the new mind on the Roman Catholic side was above all H. de Lubac, Corpus mysticum, L'Eucharistie et l'Eglise au Moyen Age, Paris, 1949 (German tr. Einsiedeln, 1969). On Augustine's corresponding doctrine cf. F. Hofmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus, Munich, 1933, pp.390-413; J. Ratzinger, Volk und Haus in Augustins Lehre von der Kirche (Munchner Theol. Studien, vol. II,7), Reprinted St Ottilien 1992, pp.211-15.
(45) See the nuanced argument in G. Wenz, "Sanctorum Communio: Eine Problemskizze zum Verhaltnis von Kirchen- und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft in lutherischer Perspektive", in Okumene vor neuen Zeiten, Festschrift for Theodor Schneider, K. Raiser and D. Statler, eds, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2000, pp.319-53.
(46) Thus in four places Vatican II: LG 1,9,48,59; OS 42,45; AG 1,5. On the Protestant side there are indications of openings, cf. E. Jungel, "Die Kirche als Sakrament", in ZThK, 80, 1983, pp.432-57. In this context the last dialogue document, Kirche und Rechtfertigung, 1993, nos. 122-32, between the Evangelical Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches, is of importance.
(47) Cf. F. Hofmann, op. cit., pp.152ff.; J. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp.206-209,216-18.
(48) The resultant regulations are to be found in the Ecumenical Directory, 1993, nos. 122-132.
(49) The Nature and Purpose of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement, Faith and Order Paper no. 181, Geneva, WCC, 1998.
Bishop Walter Kasper, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote this paper for a Festschrift for Bishop Karl Lehmann, to be published in 2001. It has been translated by the WCC Language Service and subsequently edited for publication here.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
The Ecumenical Review
Date: 10/1/2000;
I. The ecumenical problem at present
Church and baptism belong together from the very beginning. In the New Testament the account of the event of Pentecost, which definitively established the church, moves directly into the report of the baptism of the first Christians (Acts 2:41). In all churches baptism has since been the gateway to church membership. In all churches and in almost all church communities we find the practice of baptism in the name of the triune God, the Quakers and the Salvation Army being the only exceptions among the ecumenically active church communities. Hence the ecumenical movement from the start has sought to make our common baptism the point of departure and the basis for ecumenical efforts. Vatican II also took this path (UR 3). Thus, for all the divisions that still exist, there is already a fundamental common basis -- which shows that the separations have neither penetrated to the deepest roots, nor "extended to heaven".
After many preliminary efforts(1) and a process of consultation lasting for many years, the Lima declaration, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), took up this concern, achieving a considerable consensus and extensive convergence in the understanding of baptism? Since then formal mutual recognition of baptism has taken place between churches in many countries.
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry undoubtedly marks a great step forward, and within this convergence text it is the section on baptism which has met with most agreement. Above all, the ecclesiological consequences (for the divided churches) resulting from a common understanding of baptism have been welcomed.
But the churches' responses to BEM(3) also show that many questions still remain unresolved and that the differences go more deeply than BEM assumed. The bilateral dialogues(4) which have been conducted since then, and the fact that all churches still do not recognize each others' baptism, confirm this conclusion. Alongside the cultural questions and challenges -- raised above all by the churches in Asia and Africa -- there are fundamental theological questions which show that the traditional controversial questions still persist, at least to some extent. It is regrettable, therefore, that -- despite some significant studies(5) -- the theology of baptism has remained somewhat peripheral in the last few decades.
This is also true of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", which mentions baptism almost only in passing (no. 25).
Differences in the understanding of baptism exist above all between the "historic" churches on the one hand and the Baptist, evangelical and Pentecostal communions on the other. Here the question is not only about the baptism of infants and the practice of "adult baptism", but also about the much more fundamental question of the understanding -- more precisely, the sacramental understanding -- of baptism. With the swift growth, and increasing importance, of the Pentecostal and charismatic communities this question is becoming increasingly urgent.(6)
Problems of another kind arise in relation to certain Orthodox and Oriental churches. They do not recognize the baptism performed in another church of Christians transferring to them, or preparing for a church wedding in an interfaith marriage, and correspondingly require what the other churches describe as a "re"-baptism.(7) Underlying this are differences in the understanding of the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of baptism, about which there is little clarity and no consensus, even among Orthodox churches.
A third set of problems must finally be mentioned. Even where churches do recognize each other's baptism, there is not always a consensus on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of such recognition. This is true for the relation between baptism and confirmation or sacramental chrismation and, above all, for the relation between baptism and the eucharist; for recognition of another church's baptism does not mean, for the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, that persons thus baptized are then also admitted to the eucharist. This is why the Reformation churches often ask these two churches why those who -- by the "one baptism" are members of the ecclesial body of Christ -- nevertheless(8) cannot together receive the eucharistic body of the Lord at the Lord's table.
BEM sees the remaining differences among the churches above all in their different practices in relating faith and baptism, and baptism, confirmation and eucharist. It sees these differences as complementary approaches. In doing so, however, it underestimates the deeper differences among the church in the understanding of baptism and the church. The problems of the Orthodox and Oriental churches, and the challenges coming from the Pentecostal communities, are scarcely considered.
For this reason, further discussions on the theme of baptism are urgently necessary. For without mutual recognition of baptism all other ecumenical efforts are literally left hanging in the air: they amount to nothing more than friendly gestures and interchurch diplomacy, and lack theological substance, commitment and consistency. And even mutual recognition of baptism really makes sense only if it is backed by a fundamental common understanding of baptism -- and its ecclesiological consequences.
In what follows I do not wish to analyze the churches' responses to the Lima declaration. This has, to a large extent, already been done.(9) Rather I wish to elaborate on the basic theological questions underlying these issues. At first sight this attempt may seem to complicate matters and upset the ecumenical optimism about consensus. But it seems to me that this will take us further than simply adding one consensus paper on to another, thus falling into a sterile, private ecumenical scholasticism. In the long view, the only way which will take us further is a return to the sources. Let me, therefore, first briefly recall our common basis in the witness of the New Testament.
II. Biblical foundations
1. Baptism in the context of the church's mission and confession
For its practice of baptism -- which it has exercised from the beginning -- the church has appealed to the commission from the risen Lord: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19f.; cf. Mark 6:15f.).(10)
The justification for baptism is naturally not limited to the baptismal command; such a purely formal basis would be inadequate. The early church sees the foundation of baptism as laid down in the baptism of Jesus himself in the Jordan (Mark 1:9-11 and par.). The baptismal command is indissolubly linked to the cross, the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38-41 links the practice of baptism with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Thus we cannot detach baptism from history, from the fate of Jesus and from confessing Jesus Christ, any more than from the action of the Holy Spirit. Baptism stands in the great context of salvation-history: that the Father sends the Son into the world, exalts him through the cross and resurrection to be the kosmokrator to whom all power has been given in heaven and in earth; and that the Holy Spirit makes the person and work of Jesus Christ present (2 Cor. 3:17), and has been poured out "on all flesh" as an eschatological gift (Acts 2:17).
Therefore the command to baptize is not the justification "after the fact", but is the intrinsic foundation of the practice of baptism. It tells us that the church baptizes not on its own initiative and authority, but in obedience to its Lord. The command to baptize, however, not only institutes baptism but gives it its meaning. The trinitarian confession is in fact the sum and substance of the entire Christian faith. TM Therefore baptism in the name of the triune God is also more than one formula, interchangeable with others for administering baptism;(12) it is rather a confession of the historical and theological basis and inner content of baptism. In addition it is the epiclesis and promise of salvation, not as a mere ritual, and certainly not as a ritual working by "magic"; but in the power of this authoritative promise, baptism obtains its power to effect salvation. Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum.(13)
For the ancient church baptism was thus the "sacrament of faith"(14) and the baptismal liturgy was an important locus for the emergence, and development, of confession of the faith.(15) In line with this, baptism was -- incipiently in the New Testament and explicitly in the ancient church -- linked with the catechumenate as an introduction into the faith and into the church's life. The churches arising from the missionary movement have rediscovered this connection; for the free churches within the European context it has become important in a different way. Given the estrangement of the culture from the churches in Western societies, the renewal of the catechumenate has now become essential for the life and survival of the historic churches.
2. The importance of baptism for salvation
The New Testament statements on the significance of baptism for salvation are extremely rich and varied. They embrace the whole message of salvation: the forgiveness of sin(s) and liberation from the powers of evil; new life, justification, reconciliation and sanctification; rebirth and renewal, enlightenment and being sealed, being placed in the hands of Jesus Christ, the realization of Christ's death and resurrection, the admonition to live/t new life. Recently the gift of the Holy Spirit has once again been stressed more clearly alongside the christological aspect.
The one and only reality of salvation is thus described in scripture from various standpoints. This variety shows the outflowing and overflowing activity of God. It allows for legitimate differences of emphasis in the different churches. The special merit of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry lies in its highlighting the fact that, despite these varied emphases, a broad fundamental consensus exists on the significance of baptism for salvation. Through the Lutheran-Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" this consensus has been considerably extended and deepened.
Today the difference between the different church traditions no longer lies in the content of the significance of baptism for salvation, but in the relation between baptism and salvation. Is baptism only a preliminary or subsequent sign of salvation, or also a means of salvation? According to scripture it is not enough to understand baptism only as a sign; it is rather an effective sign of salvation. Heinrich Schlier in particular stressed this to Karl Barth.(16) According to the New Testament, baptism is what cleanses from sin (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21). Ephesians 5:26 is particularly clear: "in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word". To the same effect Titus 3:5 says, "through the water of rebirth and renewal". Accordingly baptism in the New Testament is clearly understood as a means of salvation -- and that means a sacrament of salvation.
The significance of baptism for salvation also means that baptism is necessary for salvation. "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16)." ... no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). But the necessity of baptism for salvation cannot be detached from the total context of the preaching of the gospel and faith. This is important, above all, in relation to the salvation of those who have never been confronted by the gospel message and therefore have never been able intentionally to reject the gospel. Are we to assume that they are all lost, even damned? Nowhere in the New Testament is this question asked explicitly, but it is all the more unavoidable for us today and we cannot but try to answer it on the basis of the New Testament.
The answers given in the churches differ. Vatican II -- while entirely acknowledging the necessity of baptism for salvation (LG 14; AG 7) -- referred to God's general desire for our salvation (1 Tim. 2:4), concluding that those not to "blame" for their ignorance of the gospel of Christ and his church, but seeking God with an honest heart and really striving to fulfill his will as discerned in the call of conscience, can achieve salvation (LG 16; cf. AG 7; GS 22). To justify this thesis one can point to the statement in the prologue of John's gospel that everything was created in the Logos which has become flesh in Jesus Christ, and that this Logos enlightens everyone coming into this world (John 1:2,9).
Roman Catholic theology therefore talks about a "conditional" necessity for baptism for those to whom the gospel has been preached and who can consequently decide for or against the faith. Thus the connection between faith and baptism becomes clear, as also the idea that the possibility of salvation of the unbaptized is founded not in what they do themselves, but in Jesus Christ whose Spirit is at work in the entire creation.
Finally, understanding baptism from the whole reality of salvation explains why, for the New Testament and for the whole Christian tradition, baptism is unrepeatable and can be received only once. This corresponds to the unrepeatable nature of God's saving act in Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10); just as Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected once for all, so too the Christian can only die once with him and be raised to newness of life: a baptized Person has died to sin once for all (Rom. 6:10). "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away: see, everything has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). In line with this, Ephesians refers to the one baptism which corresponds to the one God, the one Lord and the one faith, and is incorporated in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4).
Against this biblical background, rebaptism can only be described as a scandal and as sacrilege. To be sure, churches which do not recognize baptism in another church regard the previous baptismal act as invalid; they see their own, later baptismal action as a first baptism, and not as "re"-baptism. But for the other churches such action amounts to nothing other than a rebaptism, a disturbing praxis behind which lies a different understanding of the ecclesiological meaning of baptism.
3. The ecclesiological significance of baptism
According to Acts 2:41 baptism means being added to the Christian community: "in the one Spirit we were all baptized into" [the] "one body" [of Christ] (1 Cor. 12:13). In baptism more is involved than the personal salvation of the individual; baptism has an ecclesial dimension, incorporating the baptized person into the church as the body of Christ through the Spirit.(17) Not for nothing do the New Testament statements about baptism frequently occur in a liturgical context (1 Pet. 1:3ff.; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 5:14). It is the church that celebrates baptism and, as it does so, the faith of the whole church is expressed and not just that of the person being baptized. The church is not brought into being by people gathering together to form a church. Thus, in my view we do not enter the church through baptism; rather we are accepted into the church as a pre-existing reality of salvation.
However, the liturgical celebration of baptism is not the end of the matter. The New Testament is not concerned with an abstract doctrine of baptism but with paraclesis, the reminder to live life in the reality of baptism (Rom. 6:3-14; Col. 3:1-17; 1 Pet. 1:3-25). Many New Testament statements therefore have the function of reminding us of our baptism, showing clearly that baptism, carried out once for all, must be repeatedly realized afresh in the Christian's life. Important social -- not just individual -- consequences arise from this. Above all, there must be no inequality on the basis of race, nationality, social position or gender among the baptized (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
Finally, no one is baptized only for himself or herself, or only for their own individual salvation. Baptism is linked to the sending of the church into the whole world (Matt. 28:19); it makes the baptized a witness to Christ in the world, and is the foundation for the priesthood of all believers who are sent to proclaim the mighty acts of God (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Baptism is at once a sacrament of initiation and of mission.
Baptism, and life based on baptism, normally take place in an actual local congregation, but baptism is more than inclusion in a local congregation and also more than inclusion in a particular confession. Baptism incorporates us in the one and only body indivisible of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13 and 1:13). Thus for the New Testament, the one church of Jesus Christ is present in each local congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), and the "church" is both the local church and the church universal in one. Thus baptism makes us a member of a local congregation but also a member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (una sancta, catholica et apostolica ecclesia).(18) From its inmost nature baptism has an importance that goes beyond this or that local or confessional church. It has ecclesiological and ecumenical implications. This is the very point, of course, where the fractures between the different church traditions become plain.
III. Different developments in East and West
On the basis of the common biblical witness, the doctrine of baptism has undergone different developments.(19) The Eastern churches have not developed an abstract theology of baptism. Especially since they have freed themselves from a temporary Western scholastic influence and have remembered their patristic tradition, they have been describing baptism as a musterion, i.e. as a symbolic representation of the saving activity of the triune God. In the last analysis the Eastern churches' view of the musterion stops short of any attempt at definition. The liturgical implementation of the musteria has priority over any logical reflection on them. Sacred acts are involved here, in which the Holy Spirit works with visible signs and imparts the gifts of the Spirit. Correspondingly their baptismal formula runs as follows: "The servant of God [name] is baptized ...", and this "passive of the divine" highlights the mysterious action of God in what the church does.(20)
The Western doctrine of the sacraments in Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine and others agrees substantially with this. Aquinas developed it with the help of the Aristotelian doctrine of causation. For Aquinas the effective cause (causa efficiens) of baptism is the triune God; the church's activity on the other hand is a matter of instrumental causality (Summa theologica III q. 66 a.5). Thus baptism is understood as a means of salvation. This is also the teaching of the council of Trent (DS 1529).
In principle the sacramental understanding of baptism is common to East and West,(21) but here too there have been differences in development. In contrast to the Western churches, the Orthodox churches held to the unity of baptism and chrismation (confirmation), stressing the pneumatological dimension of baptism and the church more clearly than the Western churches? Of primary importance is the point that, especially in the West, the understanding of baptism was taken further in the dispute over heretical baptism (Ketzertaufstreit) in the 3rd century.
At issue was how to deal with Christians who had received baptism in a heretical or schismatic community, and now wanted to be received into the fellowship of the Catholic Church. Above all Cyprian of Carthage spoke out against the validity of heretical baptism. He argued that there is only one true church, only one Spirit and one baptism (Ep. 71,1; 74,4); and there is no salvation outside the church (Ep. 73,21). Because, he argued, heretics and schismatics stand outside the one church, they do not possess the Spirit -- and hence cannot impart it. Their "baptism" is without effect; it is not a baptism, and therefore Cyprian preferred to speak not of rebaptism but simply of baptism (Ep. 74,7). Despite this he was unwilling to force his view, and practice, on another church; rather he recognized its freedom (Ep. 72,3; 73,26). Firmilian of Caesarea and large parts of Asia Minor thought likewise.
Not so Pope Stephen I of Rome. Like the church of Alexandria, he recognized the validity of baptism outside the church. For him the criterion was the invocation of the name of the triune God (Ep. 74,5; 75,9), and thus in receiving heretics he required only the laying-on of hands, as an act of penance (DS 110). The West generally embraced this position at the synod of Aries (314), the criterion for this being the trinitarian confession (DS 123).
Augustine's dispute with the Donatists became crucial for the whole further development of the West, and even for the Reformers of the 16th century. For him, the validity of baptism outside the Catholic church was based on the fact that the real bestower of baptism is Jesus Christ himself (De bapt. IV, 12,18; In Joh. VI,7; Ep. 93,47). In fact for Augustine there are no sacraments outside the church: even where heretics usurp the sacraments they remain the church's sacraments. Therefore one must distinguish the heretics' doctrines from their use of the sacraments, which belong to Christ and the church (De bapt. I, 12,19). According to Augustine, however, the validity of their baptism does not extend to its fruitfulness (ibid., 6.1. I).)
Augustine's position became the criterion for the Latin church. The fourth Lateran council (1215) (DS 793; 810) and the council of Trent (DS 1617) defended the validity of heretical baptism if the correct trinitarian baptismal formula was spoken at it, and the baptism was administered with the intention of "doing what the church does". Despite this there were cases of rebaptism even in the Catholic church when non-Catholic Christians came over to it. Until Vatican II, conditional baptism was practised in such cases -- often thoughtlessly. Only with Vatican II was this practice abandoned.(23)
The council even went a step beyond Augustine's position. It recognized not only the validity, but also the fruitfulness, of baptism in non-Catholics (LG 15): "For ... many who [do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety] ... believe in ... Christ ..." and "are sealed by baptism ..." The Spirit of God makes use also of the non-Catholic churches as a means of salvation (UR 3; cf. 22) Thus, for Vatican II, baptism is the foundation for recognizing an ecclesial quality in the non-Catholic churches and church fellowships; it is the basis for the Catholic church's seeing itself as being in "a real but not full" fellowship with the non-Catholic churches and church communities.
The Eastern tradition is not so uniform. In the East there are, on the one hand, the "Apostolic Canons" representing the 4th-century Syrian tradition. Theirs is the rigid position of Cyprian and Firmilian, rejecting the baptism of heretics (canons 46 and 47).(24) On the other hand, there is the nuanced position of Basil of Caesarea. He rejected the baptism of heretics who (like the Manichaeans) proposed a different belief in God and the Trinity, but on the contrary did not reject the baptism of the schismatics (among whom he clearly counts the Novatians) -- or of those who constitute a rebellious parasynagogue [sic]. Basil was even prepared to allow validity to the more liberal view of the West, only desiring that those coming from another church should in every instance be chrismed (Ep. 174,199). This nuanced position probably underlay the council of Nicea (325)(25) and it is also to be found in canon 7 of the council of Constantinople (381).(26)
The Trullanum II (Quinsextum) (692) became the criterion for further discipline in the Eastern churches. It included the strict definitions of the apostolic canons, but also laid down in canon 95 that heretical teachers advocating a false doctrine of God must be baptized on their return to the church -- but not, however, the Severians (the nonChalcedonians and the Nestorians).(27) Thus not each and every deviation leads to baptism being invalid but only heresies which -- as with the Gnostics -- affect the bases of the biblical belief in God.
Naturally the Trullanum could not yet take into account the schism between East and West, which came later. The later synodal definitions comment on this.(28) Till 1667 in the Russian Orthodox Church, all converting to the Orthodox church were rebaptized; since then, however, their baptism has been recognized. This has been the practice of the Slav Orthodox churches up to the present. Things are different in the sphere of the patriarchate of Constantinople. Initially a synod of Constantinople (1484) did in fact reject the union of Ferrara-Florence (1439), but envisaged only chrisming for the reception of Catholics into the Orthodox church. Later the Greek church deviated from this liberal practice; Patriarch Cyril of Constantinople, in 1755, ordered the rebaptism of all "heretics" -- and thus of all Western Christians. This was a reaction against the aggressive proselytizing of Latin missionaries, and the foundation of a united Melchite (Uniat) Patriarchate in 1724.
Thus an unprecedented hardening of positions took place on these two sides in the 17th and 18th centuries, with each side advocating an ecclesiological exclusivity and disputing that the other was a means of salvation. Later, Constantinople returned to the canons of 1484 at different councils, for instance in 1756.
Nikodomos Hagioreites's influential Philokalia (1782), a compilation of the spiritual wisdom of the fathers which contributed essentially to the renewal of patristic theology in Orthodoxy, tried to harmonize the contradictory canons of the ancient church. It endorsed the stricter positions in fundamentally not regarding baptism outside the Orthodox church as valid, but also took account of the milder positions by considering recognition of such baptisms as possible in accordance with the principle of oikonomia -- that is, in line with shrewdness, wisdom, clemency and pastoral evaluation of the local circumstances, as well as the ecumenical situation.(29)
But this solution in terms of oikonomia, which is often advocated nowadays, does not meet with general approval even within Orthodoxy.(30) While it rightly says that the Spirit of God is not tied to the limits of church institutions, it seems to me to create the impression that the hierarchy has the authority to "make" effective for salvation a sacramental action which, in itself, is invalid and so ineffective for salvation. For the Orthodox churches this confusion can only be cleared up at the planned pan-Orthodox council, or at a future ecumenical council.
On account of the divergent views among the Orthodox churches, the international theological commission could not deal explicitly with this question in the Bari document (1987).(31) The sacraments were described simply as "sacraments of faith" (15), the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed or the Apostles' Creed was described as the criterion for baptism (20) and communio, and agreements and differences in the practice of initiation in the churches were described. The Balamand document (1993)(32) brought progress, expressly rejecting rebaptism and indirectly recognizing the baptism received in the Roman Catholic Church (10,13). The national dialogue in North America between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches happily went a step further, and in a notable declaration (1999) arrived at an explicit full mutual recognition of baptism.(33)
For all the regret and criticism the Catholic church has expressed concerning the practice of a number of Orthodox and also Coptic churches, we nevertheless acknowledge their concern, in the spirit of the flexible position of Basil of Caesarea. These churches make the recognition of baptism dependent on the doctrine of God and of the Trinity. Thus their practice has an entirely different background to that of the Baptist churches. While the latter -- as we will see below -- are concerned with the subjective dimension of the decision of faith made by the recipient of baptism (fides qua creditur), the foremost concern of the Orthodox is for the correct objective faith of the person administering baptism and for the baptizing church (fides quae creditur). They wish thereby to preserve an important biblical concern, namely the link between baptism and faith -- more precisely, the church's faith. They do this sometimes on an ecclesiological basis that is exclusivist in regard to salvation, something I can hardly regard as biblically justified, or even as necessarily called for by their own Orthodox tradition.
Nevertheless, I do not intend to describe this position as Obsolete. It remains relevant when the Christian trinitarian view of God is lost as, in my opinion, happens when through a radical feminist critique the supposedly "male" language of the trinitarian baptismal formula is replaced by inclusive wordings such as "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier". Here, in my opinion, the biblical foundation of the Christian understanding of God and the Trinity is abandoned; ecumenical common ground, not only with the Orthodox churches but with all the "historic" churches, is lost, and one can no longer speak of a valid baptism.
IV. Splits within Western Christendom
In the doctrine of baptism, the 16th-century Reformation unleashed by Martin Luther remained within the Western tradition. Luther and the Lutheran Reformation kept clearly to the sacramental view of baptism. The Augsburg confession says of word and sacrament that the Holy Spirit is given through them, as through means; it rejects the Anabaptists and "enthusiasts" (Schwarmer) who teach that without the external word of the gospel we can obtain the Holy Spirit through our own preparations and works (art. 5). Against the Anabaptists, the legitimacy of infant baptism is also defended (art. 9). Thus the teaching is that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that grace is offered to us through baptism.
But in the Augsburg confession it also becomes clear that for Luther this teaching is set in a new context. For him everything is focused on the word-event that promises and justifies. Hence, for the Augsburg confession baptism, like all the sacraments, is a sign and testimony of God's will towards us; the sacraments should awaken and strengthen faith. Their proper "use" consists in receiving them in faith in the promises of God, to which the sacraments attest and which they describe (art. 13).
The word of promise and the sacramental sign do not, of course, just stand alongside each other; they are related to each other. According to Luther's two catechisms, baptism is not mere water but "water comprehended in God's word and commandment" (Tappert, ed., Book of Concord, 438, cf. p.349). "It effects the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the word and promise of God declare" (ibid., pp.348f.). "To be baptized in God's name is to be baptized not by men but by God himself; although it is performed by men's hands it is nevertheless truly God's own act" (ibid., p.437).
Thus already in Luther new emphases in relation to tradition appear. This becomes clear especially in his critique of the Thomistic position (BSELK 450) and above all in the rejection of the doctrine of the efficacy of the sacraments ex opere operato (Tappert, pp. 184f.) (a doctrine misunderstood in the Lutheran confessional writings [BSELK] as efficacy without faith and without Christ [Tappert, p. 185 [sections] 25, etc.]). Thus the different approaches lead to different conclusions, and the same statements take on a different meaning in different contexts. The connection between word of God, sacrament and church therefore needs still more thorough discussion.(34)
This is true also of Calvin, in a different and even clearer way. In the Institutio christianae religionis Calvin sees baptism as promise and as a "badge and mark by which we profess" our faith (IV. 15.1-2; 13-15: wording as in Beveridge, tr. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2). According to the Heidelberg Catechism, baptism reminds and assures us of salvation; it is promise, pledge and symbol (ed. W. Niesel, pp.165f., German ed.). However, as Calvin's uncompromising adherence to infant baptism shows (IV. 16, 1-32) he does not seek to challenge the "objective" character of baptism. Calvin too can say that baptism is not something human but God's affair (IV. 15,16). Calvin's position can be understood only in the context of his definition of the relation between the sacrament and the working of the Holy Spirit (IV. 14,812): for him Spirit baptism and water baptism belong together, but they operate alongside each other and with each other rather than in each other (IV. 16,25).
The break with tradition comes only with Zwingli. He sees baptism as an act of the believer; for him it is a sign of commitment, acknowledgment and confession, a visual means pointing to grace, but not the proffering of salvation. Thus a development begins with Zwingli which leads away from the sacramental to a purely symbolic view of baptism, according to which the sacraments are no longer effective signs of grace, but signs of faith.(35)
Radicalizing Zwingli's position led already in the 16th century to a baptist-type movement, and then in the 17th century to the Mennonites and the Baptists. They drew radical conclusions from the new position.(36) For if baptism is now seen as an external sign of confession, the baptism of children or infants becomes problematic.
However, the demand for adult baptism was not the only consequence; the ecclesiological consequences are at least as serious. For if baptism is no longer seen sacramentally but as an act of confession and commitment by the person baptized, the church is then no longer the organism through which God bestows newness of life; nor is it any longer the locus of salvation, into which the baptized person is received. Incorporation into the church is replaced by freely-chosen entry into the church, which is understood as a free association of believers. Becoming a reality in the local congregation as a "voluntary" church, it is thus inevitably seen as being congregationalist.
Logically the notion of a voluntary church leads a step further -- to a stress on freedom and independence from the state. This means the elimination of the medieval idea of the corpus christianum -- and correspondingly a breach in the continuity of the established church with the early church -- through the introduction of infant baptism and through the fundamental change in the relation of church and state under Constantine. Thus a free church congregation no longer understands itself in terms of continuity with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church semper et ubique. This led to a new type of ecclesial community, which can no longer be classified among the "historic" churches of the Reformation.
The same phenomenon exists both among the evangelical communions which have become so numerous, and among the Pentecostal churches.(37) They take up the concerns of the older free church movements for revival (Methodists, Quakers, Pietists and so on). Since for them too baptism is not an objective means of salvation, the emphasis falls all the more on the subjective experience of inner rebirth, Spirit baptism and spiritual charisms. At present such churches are having huge success in mission with this "enthusiastic Christianity". Incontestably, biblical motives which have often fallen into oblivion in the historic churches, with their sacramental view of baptism, come into play here -- even though, I believe, in a one-sided way. The historic churches will therefore have to take up the challenge from these new and extremely varied church communities, and do so in a constructive way.
Recently, on the basis of scriptural testimony, individual Baptist authors such as G. Beasley-Murray(38) have been re-emphasizing God's action through baptism, and thus the spiritual effect of baptism. And in the evangelical and Pentecostal communities -- not the great majority, admittedly, but still by individual representatives -- the question about the sacramental character of baptism is again being asked.(39) Thus a few hesitant rapprochements are under way.
All this clearly shows that in these developments the question is not only about the right sequence between baptism and a personal decision of faith; there are also fundamental questions about how baptism, and the church, are understood. It took a theologian of Karl Barth's stature to raise this debate to an adequate theological level. Karl Barth's doctrine of baptism(40) has the great merit of having introduced the free church doctrine of baptism -- which among many theologians had tended to be dismissed as weak -- into serious theological discourse, thus stimulating the theological debate afresh. For all the criticism, both exegetical and systematic, that one can and must make of Barth's position -- and his destruction of the sacramental view of baptism -- we must not underestimate his effect on many of today's theologians. Ecumenically this is more important, by far, than many ecumenical papers on dialogue and "consensus".
Barth distinguishes between baptism with the Spirit and baptism with water. For him, baptism with the Spirit is "effective, causative, even creative action on the human being and in the human being. It is, indeed, divinely effective, divinely causative, divinely creative" (p.34). Baptism with water, on the other hand, is an obedient response to baptism with the Holy Spirit, and thus Barth comes out against the consensus of the "historic" churches which see baptism sacramentally. For him water baptism has cognitive but not a causative significance; it is not a means of grace (pp. 105ff.).
Thus it is not surprising that -- for all his criticism of this position -- Barth feels a certain sympathy for the approach of Zwingli, the Baptists and the movements that focus on the Spirit. He does not see infant baptism as simply invalid, but nevertheless it is "a profoundly irregular" practice, "a wound from which the church suffers at this genuinely vital point with its many-sided implications" (p. 194). In infant baptism, that is, "the character of baptism as both obedience and response is so obscured as to be virtually unrecognizable" (p. 195)
In addition, Barth also sees the inner connection among the practice of infant baptism, the Constantinian state church, and the medieval corpus christianum. He would like to understand the church as being again a "small and unassuming group of aliens ... freed of much ballast, as a mobile brotherhood" (p. 168).
The loss of the sacramental view of baptism is of course not confined to the Baptist, Pietist, evangelical and Pentecostal movements and theology influenced by Karl Barth. With an entirely different background, a "purely" symbolical view is widespread in so-called "liberal" circles, even within the historic churches. Thus the dividing line becomes again clear between a purely symbolic view in which baptism is "only" a human or ecclesiastical symbolic and confessing act, and a sacramental view that sees baptism, in terms of the musterion of the ancient church, as a "real" symbol, that is, a symbol that bestows what it describes through the action of the Spirit of God.
Thus for all the gratifying ecumenical consensuses and convergences in the understanding of baptism, profound differences keep appearing, with consequences for how the church is understood as well as for the relation between church and state and between church and society. But there are also pointers for overcoming these differences through patient steps, taken on the basis of holy scripture and the tradition of the ancient church.
V. Ecumenical discussion on baptism and the Lord's supper
Baptism cannot be considered in isolation. It is linked with the other sacraments of initiation, confirmation or chrismation and the eucharist, and this connection is seen and practised differently in the different church traditions. Here too the issue is not only about the sequence and timing of the process of initiation, but also about the fundamental questions of how baptism and the church are understood.
All the churches agree that baptism with incorporation in the church also bestows the Spirit, and that incorporation in the ecclesial body of Christ by baptism is linked to participation in the eucharistic body of Christ at the one table of the Lord. The connection has always been conserved in the Orthodox churches through the fact that chrismation is administered along with baptism, and the eucharist is administered to the newly-baptized person. This maintains the unity of the three sacraments of initiation. Fundamentally, this is also seen by the Roman Catholic Church today, and is also practised in adult baptism.(41) In the case of infant baptism, by contrast, confirmation and the eucharist are administered only later. The Reformation churches also distinguish, in infant baptism, between the moment of baptism and admission to the Lord's supper. However, confirmation which precedes admission to the Lord's supper is not understood as a sacrament.(42)
The liturgical unity of baptism and confirmation(43) emphasizes more strongly the pneumatological dimension of baptism and, indeed, of being a Christian, while the liturgical distinction between the two brings out the element of growth to the maturity of adulthood, and the "measure of the full stature of Christ" (NRSV, Eph. 4:13). The situation is the same in the temporal distinction between baptism and first communion. Here too the law of growth and maturity holds good. Baptism is only the beginning and starting point; the eucharist is the fullness and climax (UR 22, cf. LG 11).
There is a further perspective to be considered. According to 1 Corinthians 11:26 the eucharist is an intensive, qualified form of the proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection. Eating and drinking in the eucharist therefore presupposes that all those who come to it should examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), and this duty of self-examination makes it sensible to proffer the eucharist only to those who are capable of this "discernment" (1 Cor. 11:29). But these are different emphases, not differences that divide the churches.
More serious ecumenically is another circumstance: the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church, even though they recognize the baptism of another church, nevertheless do not allow persons baptized within that church to participate in the eucharist. To Protestant Christians this practice is hard to understand and, even within Roman Catholicism, it causes pain from the pastoral point of view. Here we have to do with one of the thorniest ecumenical problems of the present time, from which many Christians and pastors suffer.
For the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches communio and eucharistic fellowship belong together. For this they can appeal to 2 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." In the Tradition of the ancient church the unity of eucharistic fellowship and church fellowship was fundamental and, till the middle of the 20th century, this was also the position of the Reformation churches(44) -- for till then, despite unity in principle on the doctrines of justification and baptism, there was no fellowship in the Lord's table between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches.
A consensus of the universal church is thus involved, from which, from this perspective, Christians of the Reformation churches have now departed. Put briefly, they mostly argue as follows: It is Jesus Christ who invites, so the church is not entitled to exclude; Jesus Christ is the giver and the gift in the eucharist, so the church is not lord of the eucharist.(45)
This argument, I believe, is plausible only at first sight. It presupposes a definition of the relation between Jesus Christ and the church which leaves out of consideration the sacramental view of the church. But taking seriously the New Testament and the Tradition of the ancient church, that the mystery of Jesus Christ becomes manifest and present in and through the church (Rom. 16:25f.; Eph. 3:4-6,9-11; Col. 1:26f.), and as soon as one understands the church as a sacramental sign and instrument of Jesus Christ,(46) it becomes impossible to separate fellowship in Christ and church fellowship. The relation between Christ and the church must then be understood in the sense of Augustine's Christus totus, the whole Christ, involving Head and members.(47)
In such a sacramental view of the church one simply cannot see fellowship in Christ, the eucharist and the church other than in their inner unity. From this standpoint the eucharist has to be always two things at once: a sign of an already given unity of the church, and the means of deepening this given unity, and growing and maturing in it (cf. UR 2, 8).(48)
Thus finally the ecclesial "fault-lines" which have already come to light in the doctrine of baptism become clear in a new form. This concerns both the sacramental view of baptism and the sacramental view of the church. Following agreement on basic questions relating to the doctrine of justification, and the basic consensus on the doctrine of baptism, the ecclesiological implications of the doctrine of baptism are now on the agenda of ecumenical dialogue. Here the pneumatological delineation of the sacraments and the church, such as we find them in Orthodox theology, might prove ecumenically fruitful as a means of breaking down institutional rigidities.
Thus there are good, hopeful signs for the new consultation process which the commission on Faith and Order has introduced on the "Nature and Purpose of the Church".(49) One can only hope that this process will find a positive reception similar to that of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Of course, real progress will only be possible if we have the courage to tackle the root problems, and if [in the original sense of the word] we have the strength to think "radically". The ecumenical movement needs this new courage for serious theological work. Bishop Karl Lehmann, to whom this article is dedicated, has shown this courage in exemplary fashion.
NOTES
(1) Cf. E. Schlink, Die Lehre von der Taufe, Kassel, 1969 -- which is still instructive.
(2) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper no. 111, Geneva, WCC, 1982, Also M. Thurian, ed., Ecumenical Perspectives on BEM, Geneva, WCC, 1983; and "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry", in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva, WCC, 1991, pp.80-83; G. Wainwright, "Taufe" 2.3, in FKL 4, 1996, 670-672.
(3) M. Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM, 6 vols, Geneva, WCC, 1986-88; Bapteme, Eucharistie et Ministere 1982-1990: Rapport sur le processus "BEM" et les reactions des Eglises, Document Foi et Constitution 149, Paris, 1993. J.A. Radano, "The Catholic Church and BEM, 1980-1989", in Mid-Stream, 1991, pp.139-156.
(4) Growth in Agreement, H. Meyer and L. Vischer, eds, Geneva, WCC, 1983. Cf. Dokumente wachsender Ubereinstimmung, H. Meyer, H.I. Urban and L. Vischer, eds, vol. 1, Paderborn-Frankfurt am Main, 1983, pp.108ff.,480ff.; vol. 2, 1992, pp. 195ff.,387ff.,607ff. Cf. A. Birmele, "Baptism and the Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Dialogues", in M. Root and R. Saarinen, Baptism and the Unity of the Church, Geneva, WCC, 1998, pp.104-129.
(5) Thus J. Ratzinger, Taufe, Glaube und Zugehorigkeit zur Kirche, IkathZ 5, 1976, 218.
(6) Surprising figures based on a Gallup Poll of 1980, in K. McDonnell and G.T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1991, pp.xif.
(7) This is true, for instance, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece and the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt.
(8) Cf. D. Heller, "Eucharistic Fellowship in the Third Millennium", in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 51, 1999, pp.202-208. On this, see the Orthodox response by P.C. Bouteneff, "Koinonia and Eucharistic Unity: An Orthodox Response", op. cit., vol. 52, 2000, pp.72-80. For recent ecumenical discussion see further Becoming a Christian: The Ecumenical Implications of Our Common Baptism, Thomas F. Best and Dagmar Heller, eds, Faith and Order Paper no. 184, Geneva, WCC Publications, 1999; and Baptism and the Unity of the Church, Michael Root and Risto Saarinen, eds, Grand Rapids and Geneva, Eerdmans and WCC Publications, 1998.
(9) G. Wainwright, "Word and Sacraments in the Churches' Responses in the Lima Text", in One in Christ, 24, 1988; Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the Processes and Responses, Faith and Order Paper no. 149, Geneva, WCC, 1990. In addition the excellent analysis by D. Heller, "Le bapteme -- fondement de l'unite des Eglises? Foi et Constitution et la question du bapteme", in Irenikon, 72, 1999, pp.73-93.
(10) The literature on the biblical doctrine of baptism is immense. Here I therefore give only a few references: TDNT 1 527-544; R. Schnackenburg, Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus, Munich, 1950; L. Hartmann, Auf den Namen des Herrn Jesus, Die Taufe in den neutestamentichen Schriften, Stuttgart, 1992.
(11) Cf. W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz, 1982, p.378. G. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott: Eine trinitarische Theologie, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1997.
(12) Cf. J. Ratzinger, "Taufe und Formulierung des Glaubens -- Traditionsbildung und Liturgie", in Theologische Prinzipienlehre, Munich, 1982, pp.106-116; K. Lehmann, "Das Verhaltnis von Glaube und Sakrament in der katholischen Tauftheologie", in Gegenwart des Glaubens, Mainz, 1974, pp.201-28.
(13) Augustine, In Joh., 80:3.
(14) Especially in Tertullian: fidei sacramentum (Adversus Marcionem 1:28.2), obsignatio fidei (De poenitentia 6:16). Augustine, too, frequently describes baptism as sacramentum fidei (Ep. 98:9,10; 157:4,34).
(15) Cf. A. Stenzel, Die Taufe: Eine genetische Erklarung der Taufliturgie, Innsbruck, 1058. W. Kasper, loc. cit., pp.304f.
(16) H. Schlier, "Die Taufe nach dem 6. Kapitel des Romerbriefs", in Die Zeit der Kirche: Exegetische Aufsatze und Vertrage, 2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1958, pp.47-74. "Zur kirchlichen Lehre yon der Taufe", ibid., pp. 107-129.
(17) Cf. R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 9th ed., Tubingen, 1984, pp.311f.; cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, ET Kendrick Grobel, London, SCM Press, 1952, vol. I, p.311.
(18) Unfortunately this aspect of ecumenism and the universal church has been obscured in the post-conciliar baptismal liturgy.
(19) From the numerous writings: A. Stenzel, Die Taufe: Eine genetische Erklarung der Taufliturgie, Innsbruck, 1958. B. Neunheuser, Taufe un Firmung (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte), vol. IV/2), 2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1983. B. Kleinheyer, Sakramentale Feiern I, Die Feiern der Eingliederung in die Kirche (Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, vol. 7,1), Regensburg, 1989.
(20) Cf. R. Hotz, Sakramente -- im Wechselspiel zwischen Ost und West (Okumenische Theologie, vol. 2), Zurich-Gutersloh, 1979, pp. 188ff. K.Ch. Flemy, Orthodox Theologie: Eine Einfuhrung, Darmstadt, 1990, pp. 169f.
(21) The two results of dialogue, Munich 1982 and Bari 1987, are important respectively: "Das Geheimnis der Kirche und der Eucharistie im Licht des Geheimnisses der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit"; and "Glaube, Sakramente und Einheit der Kirche", in Dokumente, wachsender Ubereinstimmung, vol. 2, pp.531-39;542-51.
(22) On the danger of Christomonism in Western theology see Y. Congar, "Pneumatologie ou christomonisme dans la tradition latine?", in Ecclesia a Spiritu sancto edocta, Gembloux, 1970, pp.41-63; W. Kasper, "Die Kirche als Sakrament des Geistes", in Kirche -- Ort des Geistes, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1976, I.D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, New York, 1985, pp. 123-142.
(23) Cf. Ecumenical Directory, 1993, no.99.
(24) Discipline generale antique (Fonti. Fasc. IX, ed. P.P. Joannou), vol. I,2: Les canons des synodes particuliers, Grottaferrata (Rome), 1963, 81. Canon 45 forbids bishops, presbyters and deacons even prayer with heretics.
(25) This emerges from a comparison of canons 8 and 19. Cf. Cconciliorum oecumenicorum Decreta, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1962, pp.8f., 14.
(26) Cf. ibid., p.31.
(27) The Council in Trullo Revisited, G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, eds, Kanonika 6, Rome, 1995, pp. 174-77.
(28) On this see J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 3rd ed., New York, 1981, pp.91,97-99; K.Ch. Flemy, op. cit., pp. 180f. Damaskinos Papandreou, "Zur Anerkennung der Taufe seitens der Orthodoxen Kirche", in Una Sancta, 48, 1993, pp.48-53.
(29) To this effect the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Germany and Exarch of Central Europe, Augoustinos Lambardakis, recognized baptism administered in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Protestant churches, by referring to the decision of 1756 "kat' oikonomian", in Una Sancta, 52, 1997, p. 120.
(30) The key text is still G. Florovsky, "The Limits of the Church", in Church Quarterly Review, 1933, pp. 11731, and more recently J.D. Zizioulas, op. cit., pp.245f. On the whole problem see Y. Congar, Diversites et communion, Paris, 1982, pp.80-102; D. Wendebourg, "Taufe und Oikonomia: Zur Frage der Wiedertaufe in der Orthodoxen Kirche", in Kirchengemeinschaft -- Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, F.S.G. Kretschmar, Stuttgart, 1986, pp.93-116.
(31) Dokumente wachsender Ubereinstimmung, vol. 2, pp.542-65.
(32) L'uniatisme, methode d'union du passe, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, Mixed International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Bari (1987), Valamo (1988), Balamand (1993).
(33) "Bapteme et `economie sacramentelle': Declaration commune de la consultation theologique nord-americaine orthodoxe-catholique", in Irenikon, 72, 1999, 114-30.
(34) K. Lehmann and W. Pannenberg, eds, Lehrverurteilungen -- kirchentrennend? Freiburg im Breisgau-Gottingen, 1986, p.88.
(35) Cf. TRE 29, 1998, pp.673f.
(36) Cf. TRE 5, 1980, pp. 190-97; H.J. Urban in Kleine Konfessionskunde, ed. Johann-Adam-Mohler Institut, 3rd ed., Paderborn, 1996, pp.245-63.
(37) Still fundamental is J. Hollenweger, Enthusiastisches Christentum: Die Pfingstbewegung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Zurich, 1969. On the present position see H.J. Urban, op. cit., pp.263-305. Y. Congar, Je crois en l'Esprit Saint, vol. 2, Paris, 1979, pp. 187-269, has already drawn attention to the need for serious theological discussion. K. McDonnell and G.T. Montague, op. cit. (note 6) provide a thorough investigation on a biblical theological and patristic basis.
(38) G. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, London, 1963, German tr. Kassel, 1968.
(39) Cf. the Louisville consultation: "Consultation on Baptism" (Faith and Order Paper no. 97), in Review and Expositor, 57, 1980, issue 1, and the most recent document of the dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and classical Pentecostal churches: "Perspectives on Koinonia", in Information Service, no. 75, 1990, issue 4, pp. 179-96.
(40) Here I pass over his earlier work, Die kirchliche Lehre yon der Taufe, 3rd ed., Zurich-Zollikon, 1947, and confine myself to the Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV/4, Zurich, 1967 (Church Dogmatics, IV/4, Edinburgh, 1969). See Zu Karl Barths Lehre von der Taufe mit Beitragen von J. Beckmann u.a., Gutersloh, 1971; R. Schluter, Karl Barths Tauflehre: Ein interkonfessionelles Gesprach, Paderborn, 1973; J. Moltmann, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes: Ein Beitrag zur messianischen Ekklesiologie, Munich, 1975, pp.262-66: E. Jungel, Barth-Studien, Okumenische Theologie, 9, Zurich-Cologne, 1982, pp.246-90,291-94,295-314.
(41) The unity of the sacraments of initiation has again been clearly highlighted by Vatican II: SC 64-71, AG 14; PO 5. Cf. also CIC 1983 can. 842 [sections] 2.
(42) On the question whether and how far a difference exists here that divides the churches, see the view (to my mind too optimistic) in Lehrverurteilungen -- kirchentrennend?, pp. 125-132.
(43) On the historical problem see Neuheuser, op. cit., pp.29-33,34-52,70-73,73-96; G. Kretschmar, article, "Firmung" in TRE 11, 1983, pp.192-204; B. Kleinheyer op. cit., note 18.
(44) W. Elert, Abendmahlsgemeinschaft und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche, Berlin, 1954. Fundamental for the new mind on the Roman Catholic side was above all H. de Lubac, Corpus mysticum, L'Eucharistie et l'Eglise au Moyen Age, Paris, 1949 (German tr. Einsiedeln, 1969). On Augustine's corresponding doctrine cf. F. Hofmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus, Munich, 1933, pp.390-413; J. Ratzinger, Volk und Haus in Augustins Lehre von der Kirche (Munchner Theol. Studien, vol. II,7), Reprinted St Ottilien 1992, pp.211-15.
(45) See the nuanced argument in G. Wenz, "Sanctorum Communio: Eine Problemskizze zum Verhaltnis von Kirchen- und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft in lutherischer Perspektive", in Okumene vor neuen Zeiten, Festschrift for Theodor Schneider, K. Raiser and D. Statler, eds, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2000, pp.319-53.
(46) Thus in four places Vatican II: LG 1,9,48,59; OS 42,45; AG 1,5. On the Protestant side there are indications of openings, cf. E. Jungel, "Die Kirche als Sakrament", in ZThK, 80, 1983, pp.432-57. In this context the last dialogue document, Kirche und Rechtfertigung, 1993, nos. 122-32, between the Evangelical Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches, is of importance.
(47) Cf. F. Hofmann, op. cit., pp.152ff.; J. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp.206-209,216-18.
(48) The resultant regulations are to be found in the Ecumenical Directory, 1993, nos. 122-132.
(49) The Nature and Purpose of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement, Faith and Order Paper no. 181, Geneva, WCC, 1998.
Bishop Walter Kasper, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote this paper for a Festschrift for Bishop Karl Lehmann, to be published in 2001. It has been translated by the WCC Language Service and subsequently edited for publication here.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home