Papacy, Protestantism and ecumenism
By Jean-Louis Leuba
The World Council and the Christian World Communions
Ecumenical Review
October 1994
The Catholic and Protestant churches must find a way to extend the hand of brotherhood towards one another in order to assure their future success and preserve the possibility of a future reconciliation. The re-creation of a single church would have to take some path not now visible, but its eventual possibility depends on the present churches' willingness to grant mutual recognition that, as they represent the body of Christ, so do their sister churches.
The apostle Paul said, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:8). Perhaps not all the Christian confessions are sending out an uncertain sound. What is certain, however, is that the various messages they are sending out and the mere fact of their visibly separate existence often give rise to confusion, which compromises the clarity and effectiveness of the witness to Christ which each desires to give. How, in fact, can those outside the church throughout the world make sense of the many denominations which, sometimes contradictorily, claim to be expressions of the Christian faith? How can believers themselves quite often be anything else but uncertain, or at least disturbed, by their own divisions?
That is why ecumenical work is essential. For each confession, for each church, for each Christian community this certainly does not mean they must start by giving up their "specific charism" -- to use Oscar Cullmann's felicitous expression -- or reducing the various gifts entrusted to them by God to a monolithic uniformity. But it does mean for all of them discovering how their differing witness, far from being contradictory, mutually exclusive or confusing, can become so many musical parts, so many musical scores that together make up not a cacophony, but a symphony -- a symphony which may well contain discords, but discords which can be resolved.
Ecumenical work, which has been pursued now for more than three quarters of a century and which was greatly encouraged by the Second Vatican Council, has already unbolted several doors which were keeping the Christian confessions apart from one another in a way contrary to truth and to charity. The mass of the people, marked by centuries of confessional habit, culture and antagonism, have not yet become aware of this development, but it is none the less real and irreversible. Moreover, in a good number of confessionally mixed countries, cooperation between Catholic and Protestant parishes is a clear sign that attitudes have changed.
Confining ourselves to relations between Catholicism and Protestantism, we have, through the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit, discovered recently on both sides that we could and should transcend and move on from the different doctrinal positions which have hitherto seemed irreconcilable. Scripture and tradition, faith and works, word and sacrament are so many areas where what were thought of and experienced as opposing and mutually exclusive possibilities have been seen to have an underlying deeper complementarity. Even Mariology has shed its divisiveness and on both sides has been relocated within Christology, even including the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption.(1) Of course, much work, many conversations, much biblical and theological research are still necessary before we arrive at the point where we can play the score of the rediscovered symphonies together. It is no less certain that in these various areas, promising decisive first steps have been taken, opening up a vast quarry for ecumenical thought and action.
There is, however, one area where it seems clear that we come up against an insurmountable difficulty at the outset: the existence of the Roman papacy with all its implications for the very structure of the Catholic Church. In an address to the Secretariat for Christian Unity on 28 April 1967, Pope Paul VI put it very explicitly: What shall we say of the difficulty to which our separated brethren are still so sensitive? I refer to the difficulty which arises from the function which Christ has assigned to us in the church of God and which our tradition has so authoritatively upheld. The pope, we well know, is without doubt the most serious obstacle on the road to ecumenism.(2)
Why is this the most serious difficulty? The reason seems to me to be obvious: the doctrinal points I have just mentioned are capable of being interpreted. A doctrine can be explained; its meaning and implications can be examined; an interpretation can be suggested. But that cannot be done with the papacy and the church structure based on it, for there we are dealing with an institution. Strictly speaking, an institution cannot be "interpreted". You either accept it or reject it. And herein lies the ecumenical difficulty inherent in the papacy. On the Catholic side, there is the institution of the papacy, which regards itself as the organ founded by Christ validly to determine and express, by virtue of the promised help of the Holy Spirit granted to it as an institution, the contemporary testimony to the tradition of the apostles by the Holy Spirit. And, on the Protestant side, there is the contemporary testimony by the work of the Holy Spirit to the tradition of the apostles and of scripture, which is self-authenticating by the force of its own internal evidence and which is constantly calling the church afresh into being. On first sight one cannot see how these two positions, Catholic and Protestant, could be other than mutually exclusive.
It should be noted that this problem does not date simply from the First Vatican Council, which decreed the infallible and changeless nature of the dogmatic and moral pronouncements made under the conditions laid down by the Council. It is already present, if less explicitly, in the sixteenth century, since it was on this issue that the protests of the Reformers were made, by Luther in the first place, against certain definitions and decrees of the Catholic church contrary to what they saw as explicit testimony of scripture.
We should note in addition that this difference is further strengthened by the successive and constantly reconfirmed definitions of the juridical primacy of the pope.
On other points of doctrine, even on very important ones, ecumenical dialogue has enabled us to arrive at convergence. But, if we have to concentrate on this problem -- the choice between the divine institution of the papacy and the church on the one hand, and the Word constantly calling the church into being on the other -- then it is obvious that there is this single essential outstanding point on which there can be no dialogue in the strict sense of the word, since from the outset basically contradictory positions are set absolutely against each other. Thus the best that could be hoped for is that ecumenism might consist of some advances in particular areas, a few bridges thrown across an abyss separating two axiomatic irreducible opposites. If that were really the case, there could be no prospect of the churches giving a clear and coherent witness to the one Christian gospel, a witness whose unity would not be compromised by the diversity of its ecclesiological expressions, or to put it very concretely, by the existence alongside one another of different, separate and ultimately competing communities.
But is that really the case? It would be the case if we could and should confine ourselves to abstractly formulated principles on each side without regard to the actual way in which they find expression. While it is not in effect possible to interpret the existence of an institution, it is nevertheless possible to look at the actions of that institution and at the contributions that its actions may make to any act of Christian witness and the influence it may exert on believers outside that institution. If the way in which principles can be lived out in practice is taken into account, the possibility then opens up for a dialogue between Catholicism and Protestantism. What were apparently contradictory, mutually exclusive theoretical positions then appear as two charisms, each in its own way contributing complementarily to the expression of the living testimony to the gospel. And then genuine, fruitful ecumenical dialogue does not imply the destabilization, cancellation or disappearance of one or the other position, but openness to each other.
What does such openness mean in fact? And, first, what does openness to Protestantism mean for the institution of Catholicism, with its culmination in the papacy? In this regard it is beyond doubt that the Second Vatican Council, without changing anything in the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, did considerably widen the field of action of its own magisterium. Whereas formerly the Catholic Church hardly drew any inspiration, at least not explicitly, from anywhere except from the work of the Holy Spirit within itself to formulate and express Christian truth, Vatican II -- especially in the Decree on Ecumenism -- did acknowledge the contribution which the work of the Holy Spirit within Protestant communities can make to its own witness. ...Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments for our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethern. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in his works and worthy of all praise.
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a more perfect realization of the very mystery of Christ and the church.(3) What that text states explicitly is not, of course, completely new. From the sixteenth century to the present day, the Roman Catholic Church in various areas and at various levels has sometimes been able to draw inspiration from Protestantism to formulate Christian faith and ethics. One has only to think in particular of the contribution made by Protestant exegesis in throwing light on often unknown aspects of the Bible, or of the systematic work by Protestants to make the gospel message understandable to the modern world both in the area of belief and in the area of ethics, particularly social ethics. We must be careful not to forget the witness which the Reformers and the churches which have remained faithful to them have given and are giving to freedom of conscience, the gospel freedom arising from the personal faith of the believer before God, and thus very different both from doctrinal indifferentism and moral permissiveness and from blind obedience to laws raised to the status of absolutes unillumined by grace.
What is new, however, is that this potential and sometimes actual Protestant contribution has been explicitly acknowledged by Vatican II. That points to future possibilities which cannot be revoked. Without denying anything of itself as an institution, the Catholic Church, as well as acknowledging the work of the Holy Spirit within itself, can perfectly well recognize the fruit of the same Spirit outside its visible boundaries giving contemporary expression to elements in the apostolic tradition which it does not yet discern and which it still only possesses implicitly.
This process of openness, of shared reflection, of mutual criticism and, without doubt, of caution and prudence, is already taking place at the level of theological work between representatives of the various Christian traditions. Moreover, there would seem to be no absolute obstacle to a pope or council inviting separated Christians to participate themselves -- not simply as observers -- in discussions for the purpose of defining doctrinal or ethical points requiring clarification -- on the condition, of course, that their contributions would be included only when they convinced pope or council. Whatever the situation in regard to that last point -- which I mention only by way of hypothesis and which would require more thorough investigation -- the ecumenical stance of Catholicism seems clear: it is possible for it to engage in dialogue with Protestantism on fundamentals. It is even essential if it wishes for its part to make a contribution so that all the churches can testify together to the gospel of salvation, and not in an uncoordinated and disorganized way which is confusing, contradictory and unintelligible to the world and to believers themselves.
What does it mean, imply and involve for Protestantism to be open to the institution of Catholicism with its culmination in the papacy?
One initial point should be mentioned: the service which the Roman Catholic Church -- as in a different way the Orthodox churches -- gives to the whole of the Christian church by preserving intact the central elements of the apostolic faith as contained in scripture and as by the work of the Holy Spirit it has been expressed through the centuries. Of course, we could wish and should hope that fuller definitions will be given on the practical consequences of the hierarchy of defined truths, the real meaning of infallibility, the areas which it can cover and the areas to which it does not apply. Whatever the situation on those points, which are still an issue even for Catholic theologians and lay people, one thing is certain: by being open to Catholicism, Protestants, without ceasing to be themselves, are opening themselves to a church which despite all opposition has preserved the central elements of the faith which was also the faith of the Reformers: the teachings on creation, Christology, the Trinity and redemption, and the creeds produced by the first four ecumenical councils. Were it not for this constantly present reminder in Catholicism, how would Protestants be able to discern the work of the Holy Spirit within their own churches and avoid the mistakes and variants of which the history of their communities and theologies in the course of recent centuries furnishes only too many examples?
But the openness of Protestantism to the institution of Catholicism has yet another effect: it is a reminder to Protestants that it is not enough to preach the word of God in an uncoordinated way, leaving to the hearers the task of selecting and formulating for themselves the truth they have heard. Rather the church as a community should express, confess and proclaim the living faith as it has been granted to perceive it by the Holy Spirit. Of course, Protestant communities will be able to do this in a different way from the Catholic Church. But they still have the obligation to present to their own members, the Catholic Church and the world something better than a mere mosaic of disparate elements which do not portray a coherent and meaningful gospel. The Protestant churches have a major task before them here if they wish -- as they should -- to stand again in the great tradition of the Reformers and their immediate successors, who strove to unite so as to confess their faith clearly and publicly. Yes, it will be, it is necessary for the various branches of Protestantism -- Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists and Methodists (to mention only the major ones) -- to agree to meet together to formulate the basic elements common to them which make up the specific Protestant witness, a witness which is the sole basis on which a dialogue with other confessions, and especially with the Roman Catholic Church, is possible.
In parallel with this effort, there should be no refusal on the Protestant side to exercise discipline on preachers and theologians concerning their faithfulness to their task. Of course, we must not quench the Spirit nor forbid from the outset any prophetic attempt to discover new aspects of the gospel and their application to different historical and cultural situations. But this legitimate freedom must not over-ride the equally legitimate concern that we should not tolerate the presentation by preachers and theologians of arbitrary messages which cannot be substantiated from scripture as if they were the gospel.
By allowing themselves to be reminded by Catholicism of the basic teachings of the Christian faith and of the need to formulate what the Holy Spirit is saying to their own community, Protestants will for their part be contributing to the presentation of a coherent Christian testimony to believers and to the world.
To what model of unity between Christians do the foregoing considerations point? Three models are theoretically and formally possible: 1) that Protestants should return to the Roman Church as it exists at present; 2) that the Roman Church should take the fundamental decision that it, and, above all, the papacy, should place itself no longer at the service of Catholic unity as such but with immediate effect -- and I stress, with immediate effect -- at the service of Christian unity; 3) that the diversity between Catholicism and Protestantism be maintained, but the two confessional communities should hold out their hands to each other.
The first two models give rise to difficulties. The return of Protestants to Rome would imply that the sixteenth-century Reformations have not ultimately made and cannot make any decisive original contribution to the Christian testimony. Such a view is untenable, for the sixteenth-century Reformations prompted Catholicism to reform itself. Certainly, Catholicism reformed itself in its own way, and the influence of Protestantism has hardly ever been explicitly admitted. But it is impossible to accept that in the course of the last four centuries Protestantism has made no original contribution to the actual testimony of the Catholic Church. Moreover, in recent decades, Catholicism has discovered the deeply Christian elements in the person and work of Luther.
The second model would involve the Catholic Church making a basic change in its structure so as to incorporate the Protestant testimony into it as part of the institution. From the outset it would incorporate within itself the Protestant communities as they are. Such a change would involve a considerable shift in the self-understanding of the Roman Church and would give rise to insurmountable difficulties. How could such a radical change be reconciled with the continuity of Catholic tradition and the ecclesiological identity of that church? Moreover, it would seem to deprive the Christian testimony of the specific contribution of Protestantism: the possibility for the church to be renewed from outside through the work of the Holy Spirit shedding light on scripture apart from the previous interpretations which have been duly brought together and expressed in its tradition. It is just not possible at one and the same time to defend the acknowledged authentic tradition and be open to the emergence of a fresh contemporary interpretation. To take but one example, if the Roman Church had confined itself to its own tradition, it would have had no reason to go back on its condemnation of Galileo, had it not been called upon to do so by thinking from outside itself. Furthermore, we should note that the "outside" takes two very different forms: there is the "outside" consisting of Christian communities outside the institution of the Roman church, communities in which the Holy Spirit is active in shedding light on the scriptures. And there is the "outside" consisting of the hidden providential influence of the Holy Spirit guiding history and particularly scientific progress, an "outside" which, while it does not shed light on the revelation itself contained in scripture, does contribute new ways of expressing the faith of the gospel and its ethical implications.
All this seems to say that the third model is clearly the only one that can be envisaged: the mutual recognition of different communities, the one having the specific charism of the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit and the other having the specific charism of the freedom of the same Spirit. Mutual recognition symbolized by the right hand of fellowship, which the apostle Paul, having been previously directly inspired by the living Christ, subsequently extended to the Jerusalem apostles, without which he acknowledges that he would have run in vain (Gal. 2:2). He would have run in vain if he had not extended this right hand of fellowship to the Jerusalem apostles, but he would also have run in vain if those apostles had not accepted the hand he held out to them. And, finally, the Jerusalem apostles themselves would also have run in vain if they had not accepted the hand Paul held out to them.
Is that not the true model of unity, unity through diversity, unity in diversity, but also a valid plurality because of the underlying living unity? In those conditions, the communities, mutually acknowledging one another as churches of Jesus Christ, communities with a real unity between them and with real differences between them, would meet from time to time to demonstrate their communion and determine the lines of their witness in speech and deed. True ecumenism, thus conceived, would be different from any monolithic church structure. It would be mutual service showing forth a communion, not only between individual believers, but also between believing communities, mutual service in which no one, individual or community, could say "I have no need of you" (1 Cor. 12:21). In short, a community of love. And love implies otherness, differences. In love, one loves the other. It is by means of the other that one is what one is. And one is what one is for the sake of the other. And it is with others -- and only with others -- that we can bear witness to the truth.
Is this communion as I have just outlined it simply a stage on the ecumenical journey? Or is it, until the advent of the kingdom of God, the only possible final form which communion between individual Christians and Christian communities can take here below?
On this point, the position of Oscar Cullmann seems to me to be worthy of attention. The right hand of fellowship between the confessions does not imply setting up a "super-church". But it [brings] to expression the fact that precisely in each individual church the one church -- the body of Christ -- is present. Of course every church should be aware that it represents the body of Christ, but at the same time it should be aware of the fact that each of its sister churches represents this body of Christ.(4) It is the same body, but in a different way.
None of us -- Catholic or Protestant -- is yet in a position to know if communion thus understood can result in a "concrete structured community",(5) in other words, a church, a visible institution which would include both the Catholic Church founded on jus divinum and the Protestant communities which have arisen outside the institution of Catholicism. I think that I am not mistaken in thinking that no one can yet see how the communities outside Catholicism and Catholicism itself could form a single visible community offering at one and the same time the service of Rome to Christian unity, and hence being subject to the see of Rome, and the contribution from outside made possible by being institutionally free from Rome. I am not saying that that is impossible. What I am saying is simply that that possibility is not at present discernible. And by saying "at present", I am not of course referring to the individual behaviour of any particular pope but to the very principle of the doctrinal and juridical ministry of any pope (and I cannot see how, as long as the papacy remains what it is -- which it must do, so as to be able to perform its specific service -- it can be other than monolithic). In a word, we cannot yet know whether the right hand of fellowship is simply an interim stage which at some future point in history should result in organic unity including both the common and diverse elements of our witness, or whether it is the final stage, to be transcended only at the parousia.
But what we can know, and know now, is something that we can do today, from today: we can hold out to one another this right hand of fellowship, we can set up as of now, before reaching an overall consensus, a community constituted admittedly on the basis of jus humanum, but none the less enduring and effective, a place for an enriching complementarity of charisms.(6) We can know that, without that right hand of fellowship at least, we would run the risk -- or even more, we may have already fallen prey to it -- of running and having run in vain.
NOTES
(1)I am thinking in particular of the essay by Heinrich Ott, "Steht Maria zwischen den Konfessionen?", in In necessariis unitas: Essays in Honour of Jean-Louis Leuba, ed. Richard Stauffer, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984, pp.305-19; and of the fine work on Mary by Heinrich Stirnimann, cf. Mariam. Marienrede an einer Wende, Fribourg University Press, 1989, esp. pp.8-13, 193-201.
(2)Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1967, pp.497-98. The points made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (explicitly approved by John Paul II) on the primacy of the pope in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1992), indicate very concretely the extent of this obstacle: "Indeed, the ministry of the primacy involves, in essence, a truly episcopal power, which is not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all, whether pastors or other faithful" (p.14).
(3)Unitatis Redintegratio, I,4.
(4)Oscar Cullmann, Unity through Diversity, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988, p.83.
(5)Oscar Cullmann, Les voies de l'unite chretienne, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1992, p.91.
(6)Ibid., p.95.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
The World Council and the Christian World Communions
Ecumenical Review
October 1994
The Catholic and Protestant churches must find a way to extend the hand of brotherhood towards one another in order to assure their future success and preserve the possibility of a future reconciliation. The re-creation of a single church would have to take some path not now visible, but its eventual possibility depends on the present churches' willingness to grant mutual recognition that, as they represent the body of Christ, so do their sister churches.
The apostle Paul said, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:8). Perhaps not all the Christian confessions are sending out an uncertain sound. What is certain, however, is that the various messages they are sending out and the mere fact of their visibly separate existence often give rise to confusion, which compromises the clarity and effectiveness of the witness to Christ which each desires to give. How, in fact, can those outside the church throughout the world make sense of the many denominations which, sometimes contradictorily, claim to be expressions of the Christian faith? How can believers themselves quite often be anything else but uncertain, or at least disturbed, by their own divisions?
That is why ecumenical work is essential. For each confession, for each church, for each Christian community this certainly does not mean they must start by giving up their "specific charism" -- to use Oscar Cullmann's felicitous expression -- or reducing the various gifts entrusted to them by God to a monolithic uniformity. But it does mean for all of them discovering how their differing witness, far from being contradictory, mutually exclusive or confusing, can become so many musical parts, so many musical scores that together make up not a cacophony, but a symphony -- a symphony which may well contain discords, but discords which can be resolved.
Ecumenical work, which has been pursued now for more than three quarters of a century and which was greatly encouraged by the Second Vatican Council, has already unbolted several doors which were keeping the Christian confessions apart from one another in a way contrary to truth and to charity. The mass of the people, marked by centuries of confessional habit, culture and antagonism, have not yet become aware of this development, but it is none the less real and irreversible. Moreover, in a good number of confessionally mixed countries, cooperation between Catholic and Protestant parishes is a clear sign that attitudes have changed.
Confining ourselves to relations between Catholicism and Protestantism, we have, through the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit, discovered recently on both sides that we could and should transcend and move on from the different doctrinal positions which have hitherto seemed irreconcilable. Scripture and tradition, faith and works, word and sacrament are so many areas where what were thought of and experienced as opposing and mutually exclusive possibilities have been seen to have an underlying deeper complementarity. Even Mariology has shed its divisiveness and on both sides has been relocated within Christology, even including the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption.(1) Of course, much work, many conversations, much biblical and theological research are still necessary before we arrive at the point where we can play the score of the rediscovered symphonies together. It is no less certain that in these various areas, promising decisive first steps have been taken, opening up a vast quarry for ecumenical thought and action.
There is, however, one area where it seems clear that we come up against an insurmountable difficulty at the outset: the existence of the Roman papacy with all its implications for the very structure of the Catholic Church. In an address to the Secretariat for Christian Unity on 28 April 1967, Pope Paul VI put it very explicitly: What shall we say of the difficulty to which our separated brethren are still so sensitive? I refer to the difficulty which arises from the function which Christ has assigned to us in the church of God and which our tradition has so authoritatively upheld. The pope, we well know, is without doubt the most serious obstacle on the road to ecumenism.(2)
Why is this the most serious difficulty? The reason seems to me to be obvious: the doctrinal points I have just mentioned are capable of being interpreted. A doctrine can be explained; its meaning and implications can be examined; an interpretation can be suggested. But that cannot be done with the papacy and the church structure based on it, for there we are dealing with an institution. Strictly speaking, an institution cannot be "interpreted". You either accept it or reject it. And herein lies the ecumenical difficulty inherent in the papacy. On the Catholic side, there is the institution of the papacy, which regards itself as the organ founded by Christ validly to determine and express, by virtue of the promised help of the Holy Spirit granted to it as an institution, the contemporary testimony to the tradition of the apostles by the Holy Spirit. And, on the Protestant side, there is the contemporary testimony by the work of the Holy Spirit to the tradition of the apostles and of scripture, which is self-authenticating by the force of its own internal evidence and which is constantly calling the church afresh into being. On first sight one cannot see how these two positions, Catholic and Protestant, could be other than mutually exclusive.
It should be noted that this problem does not date simply from the First Vatican Council, which decreed the infallible and changeless nature of the dogmatic and moral pronouncements made under the conditions laid down by the Council. It is already present, if less explicitly, in the sixteenth century, since it was on this issue that the protests of the Reformers were made, by Luther in the first place, against certain definitions and decrees of the Catholic church contrary to what they saw as explicit testimony of scripture.
We should note in addition that this difference is further strengthened by the successive and constantly reconfirmed definitions of the juridical primacy of the pope.
On other points of doctrine, even on very important ones, ecumenical dialogue has enabled us to arrive at convergence. But, if we have to concentrate on this problem -- the choice between the divine institution of the papacy and the church on the one hand, and the Word constantly calling the church into being on the other -- then it is obvious that there is this single essential outstanding point on which there can be no dialogue in the strict sense of the word, since from the outset basically contradictory positions are set absolutely against each other. Thus the best that could be hoped for is that ecumenism might consist of some advances in particular areas, a few bridges thrown across an abyss separating two axiomatic irreducible opposites. If that were really the case, there could be no prospect of the churches giving a clear and coherent witness to the one Christian gospel, a witness whose unity would not be compromised by the diversity of its ecclesiological expressions, or to put it very concretely, by the existence alongside one another of different, separate and ultimately competing communities.
But is that really the case? It would be the case if we could and should confine ourselves to abstractly formulated principles on each side without regard to the actual way in which they find expression. While it is not in effect possible to interpret the existence of an institution, it is nevertheless possible to look at the actions of that institution and at the contributions that its actions may make to any act of Christian witness and the influence it may exert on believers outside that institution. If the way in which principles can be lived out in practice is taken into account, the possibility then opens up for a dialogue between Catholicism and Protestantism. What were apparently contradictory, mutually exclusive theoretical positions then appear as two charisms, each in its own way contributing complementarily to the expression of the living testimony to the gospel. And then genuine, fruitful ecumenical dialogue does not imply the destabilization, cancellation or disappearance of one or the other position, but openness to each other.
What does such openness mean in fact? And, first, what does openness to Protestantism mean for the institution of Catholicism, with its culmination in the papacy? In this regard it is beyond doubt that the Second Vatican Council, without changing anything in the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, did considerably widen the field of action of its own magisterium. Whereas formerly the Catholic Church hardly drew any inspiration, at least not explicitly, from anywhere except from the work of the Holy Spirit within itself to formulate and express Christian truth, Vatican II -- especially in the Decree on Ecumenism -- did acknowledge the contribution which the work of the Holy Spirit within Protestant communities can make to its own witness. ...Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments for our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethern. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in his works and worthy of all praise.
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a more perfect realization of the very mystery of Christ and the church.(3) What that text states explicitly is not, of course, completely new. From the sixteenth century to the present day, the Roman Catholic Church in various areas and at various levels has sometimes been able to draw inspiration from Protestantism to formulate Christian faith and ethics. One has only to think in particular of the contribution made by Protestant exegesis in throwing light on often unknown aspects of the Bible, or of the systematic work by Protestants to make the gospel message understandable to the modern world both in the area of belief and in the area of ethics, particularly social ethics. We must be careful not to forget the witness which the Reformers and the churches which have remained faithful to them have given and are giving to freedom of conscience, the gospel freedom arising from the personal faith of the believer before God, and thus very different both from doctrinal indifferentism and moral permissiveness and from blind obedience to laws raised to the status of absolutes unillumined by grace.
What is new, however, is that this potential and sometimes actual Protestant contribution has been explicitly acknowledged by Vatican II. That points to future possibilities which cannot be revoked. Without denying anything of itself as an institution, the Catholic Church, as well as acknowledging the work of the Holy Spirit within itself, can perfectly well recognize the fruit of the same Spirit outside its visible boundaries giving contemporary expression to elements in the apostolic tradition which it does not yet discern and which it still only possesses implicitly.
This process of openness, of shared reflection, of mutual criticism and, without doubt, of caution and prudence, is already taking place at the level of theological work between representatives of the various Christian traditions. Moreover, there would seem to be no absolute obstacle to a pope or council inviting separated Christians to participate themselves -- not simply as observers -- in discussions for the purpose of defining doctrinal or ethical points requiring clarification -- on the condition, of course, that their contributions would be included only when they convinced pope or council. Whatever the situation in regard to that last point -- which I mention only by way of hypothesis and which would require more thorough investigation -- the ecumenical stance of Catholicism seems clear: it is possible for it to engage in dialogue with Protestantism on fundamentals. It is even essential if it wishes for its part to make a contribution so that all the churches can testify together to the gospel of salvation, and not in an uncoordinated and disorganized way which is confusing, contradictory and unintelligible to the world and to believers themselves.
What does it mean, imply and involve for Protestantism to be open to the institution of Catholicism with its culmination in the papacy?
One initial point should be mentioned: the service which the Roman Catholic Church -- as in a different way the Orthodox churches -- gives to the whole of the Christian church by preserving intact the central elements of the apostolic faith as contained in scripture and as by the work of the Holy Spirit it has been expressed through the centuries. Of course, we could wish and should hope that fuller definitions will be given on the practical consequences of the hierarchy of defined truths, the real meaning of infallibility, the areas which it can cover and the areas to which it does not apply. Whatever the situation on those points, which are still an issue even for Catholic theologians and lay people, one thing is certain: by being open to Catholicism, Protestants, without ceasing to be themselves, are opening themselves to a church which despite all opposition has preserved the central elements of the faith which was also the faith of the Reformers: the teachings on creation, Christology, the Trinity and redemption, and the creeds produced by the first four ecumenical councils. Were it not for this constantly present reminder in Catholicism, how would Protestants be able to discern the work of the Holy Spirit within their own churches and avoid the mistakes and variants of which the history of their communities and theologies in the course of recent centuries furnishes only too many examples?
But the openness of Protestantism to the institution of Catholicism has yet another effect: it is a reminder to Protestants that it is not enough to preach the word of God in an uncoordinated way, leaving to the hearers the task of selecting and formulating for themselves the truth they have heard. Rather the church as a community should express, confess and proclaim the living faith as it has been granted to perceive it by the Holy Spirit. Of course, Protestant communities will be able to do this in a different way from the Catholic Church. But they still have the obligation to present to their own members, the Catholic Church and the world something better than a mere mosaic of disparate elements which do not portray a coherent and meaningful gospel. The Protestant churches have a major task before them here if they wish -- as they should -- to stand again in the great tradition of the Reformers and their immediate successors, who strove to unite so as to confess their faith clearly and publicly. Yes, it will be, it is necessary for the various branches of Protestantism -- Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists and Methodists (to mention only the major ones) -- to agree to meet together to formulate the basic elements common to them which make up the specific Protestant witness, a witness which is the sole basis on which a dialogue with other confessions, and especially with the Roman Catholic Church, is possible.
In parallel with this effort, there should be no refusal on the Protestant side to exercise discipline on preachers and theologians concerning their faithfulness to their task. Of course, we must not quench the Spirit nor forbid from the outset any prophetic attempt to discover new aspects of the gospel and their application to different historical and cultural situations. But this legitimate freedom must not over-ride the equally legitimate concern that we should not tolerate the presentation by preachers and theologians of arbitrary messages which cannot be substantiated from scripture as if they were the gospel.
By allowing themselves to be reminded by Catholicism of the basic teachings of the Christian faith and of the need to formulate what the Holy Spirit is saying to their own community, Protestants will for their part be contributing to the presentation of a coherent Christian testimony to believers and to the world.
To what model of unity between Christians do the foregoing considerations point? Three models are theoretically and formally possible: 1) that Protestants should return to the Roman Church as it exists at present; 2) that the Roman Church should take the fundamental decision that it, and, above all, the papacy, should place itself no longer at the service of Catholic unity as such but with immediate effect -- and I stress, with immediate effect -- at the service of Christian unity; 3) that the diversity between Catholicism and Protestantism be maintained, but the two confessional communities should hold out their hands to each other.
The first two models give rise to difficulties. The return of Protestants to Rome would imply that the sixteenth-century Reformations have not ultimately made and cannot make any decisive original contribution to the Christian testimony. Such a view is untenable, for the sixteenth-century Reformations prompted Catholicism to reform itself. Certainly, Catholicism reformed itself in its own way, and the influence of Protestantism has hardly ever been explicitly admitted. But it is impossible to accept that in the course of the last four centuries Protestantism has made no original contribution to the actual testimony of the Catholic Church. Moreover, in recent decades, Catholicism has discovered the deeply Christian elements in the person and work of Luther.
The second model would involve the Catholic Church making a basic change in its structure so as to incorporate the Protestant testimony into it as part of the institution. From the outset it would incorporate within itself the Protestant communities as they are. Such a change would involve a considerable shift in the self-understanding of the Roman Church and would give rise to insurmountable difficulties. How could such a radical change be reconciled with the continuity of Catholic tradition and the ecclesiological identity of that church? Moreover, it would seem to deprive the Christian testimony of the specific contribution of Protestantism: the possibility for the church to be renewed from outside through the work of the Holy Spirit shedding light on scripture apart from the previous interpretations which have been duly brought together and expressed in its tradition. It is just not possible at one and the same time to defend the acknowledged authentic tradition and be open to the emergence of a fresh contemporary interpretation. To take but one example, if the Roman Church had confined itself to its own tradition, it would have had no reason to go back on its condemnation of Galileo, had it not been called upon to do so by thinking from outside itself. Furthermore, we should note that the "outside" takes two very different forms: there is the "outside" consisting of Christian communities outside the institution of the Roman church, communities in which the Holy Spirit is active in shedding light on the scriptures. And there is the "outside" consisting of the hidden providential influence of the Holy Spirit guiding history and particularly scientific progress, an "outside" which, while it does not shed light on the revelation itself contained in scripture, does contribute new ways of expressing the faith of the gospel and its ethical implications.
All this seems to say that the third model is clearly the only one that can be envisaged: the mutual recognition of different communities, the one having the specific charism of the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit and the other having the specific charism of the freedom of the same Spirit. Mutual recognition symbolized by the right hand of fellowship, which the apostle Paul, having been previously directly inspired by the living Christ, subsequently extended to the Jerusalem apostles, without which he acknowledges that he would have run in vain (Gal. 2:2). He would have run in vain if he had not extended this right hand of fellowship to the Jerusalem apostles, but he would also have run in vain if those apostles had not accepted the hand he held out to them. And, finally, the Jerusalem apostles themselves would also have run in vain if they had not accepted the hand Paul held out to them.
Is that not the true model of unity, unity through diversity, unity in diversity, but also a valid plurality because of the underlying living unity? In those conditions, the communities, mutually acknowledging one another as churches of Jesus Christ, communities with a real unity between them and with real differences between them, would meet from time to time to demonstrate their communion and determine the lines of their witness in speech and deed. True ecumenism, thus conceived, would be different from any monolithic church structure. It would be mutual service showing forth a communion, not only between individual believers, but also between believing communities, mutual service in which no one, individual or community, could say "I have no need of you" (1 Cor. 12:21). In short, a community of love. And love implies otherness, differences. In love, one loves the other. It is by means of the other that one is what one is. And one is what one is for the sake of the other. And it is with others -- and only with others -- that we can bear witness to the truth.
Is this communion as I have just outlined it simply a stage on the ecumenical journey? Or is it, until the advent of the kingdom of God, the only possible final form which communion between individual Christians and Christian communities can take here below?
On this point, the position of Oscar Cullmann seems to me to be worthy of attention. The right hand of fellowship between the confessions does not imply setting up a "super-church". But it [brings] to expression the fact that precisely in each individual church the one church -- the body of Christ -- is present. Of course every church should be aware that it represents the body of Christ, but at the same time it should be aware of the fact that each of its sister churches represents this body of Christ.(4) It is the same body, but in a different way.
None of us -- Catholic or Protestant -- is yet in a position to know if communion thus understood can result in a "concrete structured community",(5) in other words, a church, a visible institution which would include both the Catholic Church founded on jus divinum and the Protestant communities which have arisen outside the institution of Catholicism. I think that I am not mistaken in thinking that no one can yet see how the communities outside Catholicism and Catholicism itself could form a single visible community offering at one and the same time the service of Rome to Christian unity, and hence being subject to the see of Rome, and the contribution from outside made possible by being institutionally free from Rome. I am not saying that that is impossible. What I am saying is simply that that possibility is not at present discernible. And by saying "at present", I am not of course referring to the individual behaviour of any particular pope but to the very principle of the doctrinal and juridical ministry of any pope (and I cannot see how, as long as the papacy remains what it is -- which it must do, so as to be able to perform its specific service -- it can be other than monolithic). In a word, we cannot yet know whether the right hand of fellowship is simply an interim stage which at some future point in history should result in organic unity including both the common and diverse elements of our witness, or whether it is the final stage, to be transcended only at the parousia.
But what we can know, and know now, is something that we can do today, from today: we can hold out to one another this right hand of fellowship, we can set up as of now, before reaching an overall consensus, a community constituted admittedly on the basis of jus humanum, but none the less enduring and effective, a place for an enriching complementarity of charisms.(6) We can know that, without that right hand of fellowship at least, we would run the risk -- or even more, we may have already fallen prey to it -- of running and having run in vain.
NOTES
(1)I am thinking in particular of the essay by Heinrich Ott, "Steht Maria zwischen den Konfessionen?", in In necessariis unitas: Essays in Honour of Jean-Louis Leuba, ed. Richard Stauffer, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984, pp.305-19; and of the fine work on Mary by Heinrich Stirnimann, cf. Mariam. Marienrede an einer Wende, Fribourg University Press, 1989, esp. pp.8-13, 193-201.
(2)Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1967, pp.497-98. The points made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (explicitly approved by John Paul II) on the primacy of the pope in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1992), indicate very concretely the extent of this obstacle: "Indeed, the ministry of the primacy involves, in essence, a truly episcopal power, which is not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all, whether pastors or other faithful" (p.14).
(3)Unitatis Redintegratio, I,4.
(4)Oscar Cullmann, Unity through Diversity, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988, p.83.
(5)Oscar Cullmann, Les voies de l'unite chretienne, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1992, p.91.
(6)Ibid., p.95.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
posted by Eric Nicolai @ 6:01 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home