Breathing new life into ecumenism

December 12, 2024 in News

Bill Toner SJ :: The year 2025 could prove to be a pivotal year in the journey of modern ecumenism, now over 100 years old, if one dates it from the letter that Germanus V of Constantinople wrote to the Christian Churches in 1920 suggesting a ‘League of Churches’. The year 2025 also holds a special significance because it is the 1700th anniversary of the first Council of Nicaea.

The letter of Germanus V led to the founding of the World Council of Churches in 1937. Although the Catholic Church has never taken up membership of the Council, it is now in regular communication with it on a number of issues, and there are now Catholic representatives on a number of its sub-committees.

In more recent years the main driver of ecumenism has been the 1995 encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (That all may be One), referred to in the rest of this article as UUS.

The Pope addressed this, not only to the Catholic faithful, but to the other Christian Churches, inviting them to reflect on the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, whose primacy he defined as a possible service of unity and of love; and to offer responses to his letter. Responses were received from a broad spectrum of Christian Churches in the West, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Old Catholics, Reformed Churches and Free Churches.

There were no official responses from the Orthodox Churches. However, a large number of ‘Dialogues’ with the Orthodox were initiated, including the Coptic Church (a few had already been established, and in the end there were thirteen in all). There were also many other Dialogues being conducted by Catholic Church bodies, including those with Anglicans and Pentecostal Churches.

In June 2024 the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity (the new name for a Department of the Roman Curia at the Vatican) issued a study document, The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality (BR) which summarized the main points from the responses to UUS and those raised in the Dialogues. This document was published with the agreement of Pope Francis.

It is notable also that, as their centrepiece of the Nicaea 2025 commemoration, the World Council of Churches has convened their sixth world conference on faith and order around the theme ‘Where now for visible unity?’

The Study Document: ‘The Bishop of Rome’

For many Catholics, the Study Document (which is available on the internet but is 147 pages long) will contain many surprises and give rise to a lot of questions. The most notable feature is that the opinions of other Churches, many of them critical of current Catholic positions and beliefs, are freely quoted, without any countering comment by the Dicastery or the editors. The reader may soon come to the view that many of the opinions put forward are considered reasonable, or at least worthy of consideration, by the Dicastery. It is notable that the publication of the Working Paper was agreed by the Pope. While the main suggestions from the non-Catholic contributors are offered in a constructive manner, they do not pull any punches regarding their dissatisfaction with the way papal power is currently exercised. However, Pope John Paul II commented, “it is significant and encouraging that this question [of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome] appears as an essential theme in the theological Dialogues” (31).

If the main suggestions of the non-Catholic Churches are actually implemented, the following would be some of the most likely outcomes in the short or medium term. While this is offered as only a personal opinion, the quotations included here may offer some validity to these views. Where necessary for clarity, significant quotations from the ordinary text of the study document will be indicated by BR , and points made by various dialogues and responses will be indicated by a paragraph number of the study document.

1) There will be an admission by the non-Catholic Churches that the current situation, whereby their Churches lack access to a clear, scripturally-grounded, personal primacy, is no longer proving satisfactory to them. A weak analogy would be the situation where a committee was trying to function without a chairperson. The Reformed-Catholic dialogue stated: “We agree on the need for episcope [ministry of oversight] in the Church, on the local level (for pastoral care in each congregation), on the regional level (for the link of congregations among themselves), and on the universal level (for the guidance of the supranational communion of churches)” (40). Lutheran members of the Dialogue in the U.S. said they were stimulated “to consider how vital it is for the churches to speak, when occasion demands, with one voice in the world and how a universal teaching office such as that of the pope could exercise a Ministry of unity which is liberating and empowering rather than restrictive or repressive” .The response to UUS from the Anglicans stated, “Anglicans are by no means opposed to the principle and practice of a personal ministry at the world level in the service of unity” (71). BR comments that “in an increasingly globalised world, many Christian communities, having long privileged the local dimension, have a growing sense of the need for a visible expression of communion as the worldwide level… (This) need for global instruments of communion was felt also in order to resolve disagreements between local churches regarding new and potentially dividing issues in a globalized world” (84).

2) There will be a renewed recognition of the Bishop of Rome (referred to by that title rather than Pope) as the bishop of the primary see of Christendom, as he was seen in the first few hundred years of Christianity. There were then five patriarchal sees: Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome. Rome was regarded as the most important see because of its association with St. Peter and St. Paul, but probably also because Rome was the centre of the Roman Empire. What powers and authority that would give to the Bishop of Rome in the modern context would be the subject of intense debate. Early tradition offers a guide, and the modern role of chairperson again offers a weak analogy. Some Dialogues stated that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome “cannot be established from the Scriptures in isolation from the living tradition, which, very early on, recognized the Roman See to have a special position and role” (44). The Lutherans in the U.S. had stated in 1989 that “the Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a ‘primacy of honour’ according to a primus inter pares (first among equals)” (76). And again, in a Dialogue in 2009,”the bishop of Rome possesses the presidency of honour in the Church. But with regard to episcopal authority, he does not differ whatsoever from his brother bishops” (78). In 1999 the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) went on to suggest that the Anglicans might accept the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, albeit exercised in a collegial and synodal manner,….”even before our churches are in full communion” (87). The Dombes Group concluded in 1985 that the recognized primacy of the Church of Rome in the first millennium “implied an authority in the Church, not the government of the Church” (98). The meaning of ‘authority’ here seems to be used in the sense “he spoke with authority” rather than as in the question “who is the person in authority here?”. But the meaning is not well clarified in this paragraph.

3) There would be a renewed insistence that any primacy afforded to Bishop of Rome, and his consequent powers and functions must be solidly grounded in scripture, and in the early tradition that emerged in relation to his position, mainly limited to the first five centuries of Christianity. Moreover, the German Lutheran-Catholic dialogue maintained that in contemporary Lutheran theology, “the exegetical examination of the figure of Peter in the New Testament, as well as the role of the apostle Paul, have allowed the significance of a personal responsibility for the communion and unity of the church to be seen anew” (35). The Orthodox-Catholic Chieti Document concludes: “This common heritage of theological principles, canonical provisions, and liturgical practices from the first millennium constitutes a necessary reference point and a powerful source of inspiration for both Catholics and Orthodox as they seek to heal the wound of their division at the beginning of the third millennium” (89). BR also comments: “Catholics have also been challenged to recognize and avoid an anachronistic projection of all doctrinal and papal developments concerning papal ministry into the ‘Petrine texts’ [of Scripture]” (36). On the other hand, the Response of the Church of England to UUS stated, “While being faithful to the past, we must also be faithful to the present context and the demands of common life, witness and service today” (109).

4) The family of Christian Churches that would develop would be more like a federation than a single body, and so would not be at one in all matters. The nearest current model for this is the current relationship between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. The two Churches are considered to be divided by a ‘political’ schism rather than by differences in belief. However, significant differences in belief have developed over many centuries. The Orthodox allow divorce in certain circumstances. They do not accept the ‘filioque’ (meaning ‘and the Son’) teaching on the Trinity; this means that they believe that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father, but not also from the Son, unlike the Catholic belief. They have a passionate objection to the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. And so on. It seems hard to believe that they will ever be willing to change these practices and beliefs. In fact, BR recalls the words of Cardinal Ratzinger: “As far as the doctrine of primacy is concerned, Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium” (91). The Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue states that during the first millennium “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East” (93). The North American Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue emphasised that “the early Church had a diversity of ecclesial organizational models, responding to local custom and need… Is it necessary, or even desirable, that we have absolutely identical understandings? (107).

Pope John Paul II and the Coptic Pope Shenouda III agreed as far back as 1979 that “the unity we envisage in no way means absorption of one by the other or domination by one over the other… The unity presupposes that our Churches continue to have the right and the power to govern themselves according to their own traditions and disciplines” (129). BR comments that the Orthodox Churches do not recognize the present relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches with Rome as a model for future communion (130). ‘Subsidiarity’ is often mentioned as an important principle of the exercise of primacy. In Orthodox-Catholic consultation subsidiarity was described as the ancient principle whereby ‘higher’ instances of episcopal authority would only be expected to act when ‘lower’ instances were unable to make and implement the decisions necessary for continuing unity in faith (136). Some Dialogues and responses to UUS warn against any misuse of power in the exercise of authority. The Reformed Churches in the U.K. stated,”it is not our experience that matters of disagreement among Christians with informed consciences can be simply settled by the exercise of power and authority, nor is it consistent with our understanding of the nature of catholicity” (140). At the same time, some Dialogues affirmed that realistically the Bishop of Rome will need a sufficient amount of authority to meet the challenges and obligations related to a ‘ministry of unity’. Deprived of authority, such a ministry risks becoming an empty title (142).

5) There will be a major ‘reinterpretation’ of the Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, as defined in the first Vatican Council in 1870. There has been some discomfort in Catholic circles in regard to this dogma, mainly because it suggests that the Church was attempting to give the Bishop of Rome powers that were greater than those he was understood to have during the formative first five centuries of Christianity. For instance, the Bishop of Rome did not convene some major Councils of the early Church and did not even attend them, although his agreement with their decisions was considered essential. Also, in reaction to many challenges faced by the Church in the middle of the 19th century, when Vatican I was being planned, BR comments that “the ultramontane movement promoted the leadership of the pope and the creation of a more centralised church modelled on contemporary political regimes of sovereignty”. It is noted also that the Council was interrupted by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War and was unable to treat the mystery of the Church as a whole (60 – in BR this paragraph references the deliberations of the Farfa Sabina Group, the Groupe des Dombes, the St. Irenaeus Group, and the international Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue). A further point raised in responses and Dialogues relates to the issue of the ‘reception’ of the teaching of the Council by the faithful, which has always been considered one of the touchstones of authenticity. ARCIC stated that “although it is not through reception by the people of God that a definition first acquires authority, the assent of the faithful is the ultimate indication that the Church’s authoritative decision in a matter of faith has been truly preserved from error by the Holy Spirit”. In relation to Vatican I, BR comments that “historically, the Response of the German bishops to Bismarck’s Circular Dispatch of 1878 is of crucial importance, because it was received by Pius IX … as (the) authentic interpretation (of the Council)… According to this Response, the jurisdictional primacy of the pope does not reduce the ordinary authority of the bishop…” . Regarding infallibility, “it covers exactly the same domain as the infallible magisterium of the Church in general and is bound to the content of Holy Scripture and tradition…” (65).

6) There will be a more nuanced understanding of the nature of ‘infallibility’ in Church teaching. Three groups in particular, (the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue in the U.S, the Group des Dombes, and the Farfa Sabina group) concurred, not on what infallibility is, but rather, what it is not. (1) It is not a personal quality. Vatican I taught that the Pope, when performing certain acts, is gifted with the same infallibility which Christ bestowed on the Church. (2) Infallibility is not independent of the Church. (3) Infallibility is not absolute since, as BR puts it, “the pope cannot pronounce a new teaching, but only give a more developed formulation of a doctrine already rooted in the faith of the Church” (70).

7) The Christian Church as a whole, and its constitutive Churches, will be governed through more participative structures, with conferences of bishops, priests and lay people having a greater voice. Identifying the sensum fidelium (the sense or opinion of the ordinray Christian) will also be more centre-stage. This is what the ‘synodality’, which Pope Francis is seeking to introduce or deepen in the Catholic Church, means. The strapline of the Working Paper refers not only to Primacy, but to Synodality. In fact the current discussion on Synodality may well have been boosted by the responses to UUS since the lack of synodality in the Catholic Church, and its essentially monarchical structure, was commented on unfavourably in a number of responses and in the Dialogues. Pope Francis stated that excessive centralisation complicates the Church’s life. The St. Irenaeus Group asserted: “Both theologically and canonically, it is impossible either to address the issue of primacy without considering synodality, or to ignore primacy when dealing with synodality… Any restoration of full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will require, on both sides, a strengthening of synodal structures and a renewed understanding of a universal primacy” (112). The U.S Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue commented, “the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context…” (112).

8) The long dispute regarding the theological nature of the primacy will come to an end. Vatican I taught that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was instituted by divine right (de iure divino). Protestant theologians considered it institution as simply by human right (de iure humano). The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue pointed out that the two notions have been too sharply separated. “We have ius divinum always only as mediated through particular historical forms”. Papal primacy is both ‘de iure divino’ and ‘de iure humano’ (52). Many ecumenical problems, fears, or dissatisfactions are primarily linked to contingent and therefore changeable features of papal primacy (56).

There is little need to point out the difficulties and obstacles that are likely to arise in arriving at these eight possible outcomes. The main difficulty arises in relation to the fourth point above. At what point will it make sense to talk about ‘unity’ in a group of churches that is so diverse, and whose members are deeply wedded to their own practices and beliefs? I have used the word ‘federation’ above, which is usually defined as an organisation or group within which smaller divisions have some degree of internal autonomy. But at what point does the exercise of this autonomy make the concept of ‘group’ untenable? That said, there is a strong common commitment among all the Christian churches to the articles of the Nicene Creed, which summarizes what might be called a ‘cosmic’ theology about the existence and Triune nature of God, the promise of eternal salvation through the mediation of Jesus Christ, as the incarnate son of God; as well as belief in one worldwide ‘catholic’ church. Also agreed by all is the central role of Scripture as a guide for Christian life and belief. And crucially there is a shared dissatisfaction with the status quo of divided Christianity. But there are also varying degrees of disagreement too, which have led to much bitterness and even wars in the past. These concern such matters as the interpretation and application of the ten commandments (moral theology), liturgy and worship, the place of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the life of the church, the role of women in church structures, the validity of orders of church ministers, the number of sacraments, predestination to heaven or hell, and the precise role of the Bishop of Rome. In its ‘special relationship’ with the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church has been willing to overlook significant differences between the tw0 Churches, and has, for instance, suggested to Catholic travellers abroad to participate in Orthodox liturgies when Catholic services are not available. Is it possible for the office of the Bishop of Rome to increase its toleration of much greater diversity than that? Is there a point where ‘the centre cannot hold’ and the attempted unity collapses in a welter of recrimination? Or will the Christian Churches remain a polite alliance with a shared history, – not the worst of outcomes by human standards.

The Working Paper, The Bishop of Rome, does not finish on a naïve note. Unity, it states, will not be realized through any preconceived model or blueprint. It regards the “proposals” it is putting forward as signposts for the Churches, in confidence that the Holy Spirit is at work illuminating the way towards an acceptable ministry of unity for the Churches as Christ wills. BR finishes by quoting Pope Francis, “Unity will not come about as a miracle at the very end. Rather, unity comes about in journeying; the Holy Spirit does this on the journey. If we do not walk together, if we do not pray for one another, if we do not collaborate in the many ways that we can in this world for the People of God, then unity will not come about. But it will happen on this journey, in each step we take”.

Photo: Pope Francis embraces a Lutheran pastor at a Prayer Service that took place in the 12th century Lutheran Cathedral in Lund (Sweden) on 31st October, 2017 to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. The event highlighted the important ecumenical developments that have taken place during the past 50 years of dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans.