Introductory Observations
Growing Together in Unity and Mission
(GTUM), an Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Roman
Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM), is an ecumenical statement
which needs to be situated within the context of relations between the Anglican
Communion and the Catholic Church over the past 40 years, and more
particularly, over the past six years during which it was drafted. On the one
hand, as we shall see, it is a new genre of ecumenical document; on the other
hand, very little of its content is new, and it should be seen as a step in a
larger ecumenical process. Understanding its origins, development and goal is
essential to identifying its potential contribution and assessing its strengths
and weaknesses.
Less than two years after the signing of
the March 1966 Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop of Canterbury
Michael Ramsey which initiated the search for full visible unity between the
Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, a preparatory commission issued The
Malta Report, which to some degree served as a road map for fostering
Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. In addition to setting the agenda for the
body soon to be called the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission
(ARCIC), The Malta Report called for the preparation of "an official and
explicit affirmation of mutual recognition from the highest authorities of each
Communion" which would set forth the essential aspects of Christian faith which
Anglicans and Catholics hold in common (§7). Malta also identified
numerous practical proposals which it argued would give ecclesial expression to
those aspects of shared faith.
Thirty-two years later, in May 2000, a group of Anglican Primates and Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences (or their representatives)
were summoned together by Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and President
of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), Cardinal
Edward Cassidy. They met in Mississauga, Canada, to reflect on what had been
accomplished in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations and by ARCIC in the
intervening years, and to ask what additional steps could be taken to further
relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. In a
statement which echoed Malta, they called for the establishment of a
commission mandated to prepare a joint declaration of agreement which, it was
hoped, would be signed by Anglican and Catholic authorities, setting out "our
shared goal of visible unity; an acknowledgment of the consensus in faith that
we have reached, and a fresh commitment to share together in common life and
witness".[1]
The IARCCUM commission was established with this as its principal task.
The years since the Mississauga meeting,
however, have brought their own complications in Anglican-Roman Catholic
relations. Internal tensions within the Anglican Communion on questions of
human sexuality have led to prolonged debate about moral teaching and practice,
but also about the nature of the Anglican Communion and the bonds which hold
the Anglican provinces together. These tensions bring to the surface what has
always been a challenge for the Catholic Church in its dialogue with the
Anglican Communion, namely that Anglican provinces differ considerably in their
ecclesiology and in their polity (internal governance), both of which
significantly shape ecumenical relations. Given that the Anglican Communion is
in the midst of a major discernment process which is addressing some of those
differences in ecclesiology and polity, and which may eventually give more
precise definition to the nature of the Anglican Communion, it does not seem a
propitious moment to take major ecumenical steps until greater clarity has
emerged. The current context within the Anglican Communion will be addressed at
greater length in the first section of this commentary.
In this introduction, it may prove helpful
to address the relationship between ARCIC and IARCCUM. ARCIC began its work in
1970, and is a theological commission mandated to address and determine to what
extent communion-dividing issues between the Anglican Communion and the
Catholic Church can be resolved. IARCCUM, by contrast, is largely a commission
of bishops. The Mississauga statement Communion in Mission, which called
for its establishment, identified its task as follows: "This Commission will
oversee the preparation of the Joint Declaration of Agreement, and promote and
monitor the reception of ARCIC agreements, as well as facilitate the
development of strategies for translating the degree of spiritual communion
that has been achieved into visible and practical outcomes" (§12). The
authoritative reception of an ecumenical statement by the Catholic Church
necessarily involves the consent of the Holy See, and for Anglicans, involves
decision-making bodies in each Anglican province as well as their collective
action as a communion. But the process of reception also involves the life of
the churches: it requires that ecumenical statements be studied and understood;
that the convergences or consensus recorded in a statement be recognised in the
dialogue partner; that the implications of agreements reached be reflected in
the churches.
IARCCUM understands itself as fostering
that larger reception process, which both waits on and accompanies the
authoritative responses of Anglican and Catholic Churches. But its principal
task has been to work towards the preparation of a declaration of agreement
which would be authoritatively received by the Anglican Communion and the
Catholic Church, and GTUM is understood as a step in the process towards
such a declaration. In §9, GTUM speaks of its work as "discerning those
doctrinal elements over which there is a readiness in both our Communions to
see in ARCIC's work a faithful expression of what the Church of Christ
teaches," and in §93, states that it has "attempted to harvest the fruits of
forty years of dialogue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics." But in this
there is potentially some ambiguity about the relationship between ARCIC and
IARCCUM. GTUM identifies its work as an Agreed Statement - the same
phrase used to describe ARCIC texts. Like
ARCIC's work, the text is published under the authority of the commission
members. Again like ARCIC, it states clearly (in the Co-Chairmen's Preface)
that the text "is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church
or by the Anglican Communion. What is offered by IARCCUM here is a statement
which is intended to foster discussion and reflection."
In sum, IARCCUM's text is of a different
genre to the documents of ARCIC - it is a review and synthesis of the work of
ARCIC directed towards identifying those results of the dialogue which Anglican
and Catholic authorities might affirm as areas of shared faith; yet it is put
forward as a text with the same authority status as the documents of ARCIC. IARCCUM
was asked to initiate a process leading towards an authoritative joint
declaration, and what it offers here is not a final product, but a step towards
an authoritative reception of ARCIC's work. As we shall see, and as the text clearly
states, what it has offered is what is possible in the present context. While GTUM
has sought to be transparent in this regard, it would have been helpful for the
relationship between ARCIC and IARCCUM to be more clearly articulated, and for
the status of statements of convergences and consensus to be more clearly noted
throughout the document.
The present Commentary is offered, in the
same spirit of GTUM, as a candid reflection on the text - what it
strives for and how effective it is - mindful of a well-established tradition
of our relations being advanced by honest and rigorous reflection offered in a
spirit of ecumenical friendship. The first section of this Commentary will
consider in further detail the context, methodology and structure of GTUM.
A second section seeks to offer an overview and assessment of the main body of GTUM
- its synthesis of ARCIC and presentation of the degree of communion enjoyed by
Anglicans and Catholics. The third section will evaluate and offer reflections
on the practical proposals and initiatives offered by GTUM, proposals
which the Commission presents as grounded in the theological agreement set
forth in the text. Lastly, the Commentary's attention will turn to four
recurrent themes which complement and illuminate the document's principle
theme, and to some concluding observations. In all this the Commentary seeks to
offer an assessment of the content and methodology of GTUM from a Roman
Catholic doctrinal and pastoral perspective, which may be of some help to
Catholics wishing to study the text, on their own or with their ecumenical
partners.
I. Context and Method
Following the meeting of Anglican and
Catholic bishops in Mississauga in 2000, the report Communion in Mission was
confident in asserting "we have reached a very significant new place on our
journey. We feel compelled to affirm that our communion together is no longer
to be viewed in minimal terms."[2]
The aspirations and intentions of the
Mississauga bishops at this particular point are reminiscent of the consensus
which had been expressed in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the
Catholic Church in the Preamble to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification about reaching the opportune time and place at which to make
a new commitment to each other: "In their discussion of the doctrine of
justification, all the dialogue reports as well as the responses show a high
degree of agreement in their approaches and conclusions. The time has therefore
come to take stock..."[3]
Communion in Mission echoes this where it judges that "now is the
appropriate time for the authorities of our two Communions to recognise and
endorse this new stage through the signing of a Joint Declaration of
Agreement."[4]
This positive assessment of the scope and timeliness of its work is reflected
in the Communiqués following the first three plenary meetings of IARCCUM in
2001, 2002 and 2003.
A fourth plenary meeting had been planned
for 2004, but in December 2003, the PCPCU and the Anglican Communion Office
issued parallel press releases indicating that the IARCCUM plenary meeting and
the Commission's work towards the publication and reception of a common
statement of faith would have to be put on hold in the light of ecclesiological
concerns raised as a consequence of recent developments within the life of the Anglican
Communion. As is well-documented, these developments pertained to the
authorisation of a public rite of blessing for same-sex couples by the Diocese
of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada, and by the Episcopal
Church (USA)'s General Convention of 2003's approval of the nomination of a
priest in a same-sex union as the next Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire.
Through various means, the Holy See has
expressed concern over both moral and ecclesiological aspects of these recent
developments. During the visit to the Holy See of Archbishop of Canterbury Dr
Rowan Williams in October, 2003, Pope John Paul II addressed the Archbishop
about the "new and serious difficulties" that had arisen, and stated: "These
difficulties are not all of a merely disciplinary nature; some extend to
essential matters of faith and morals. In light of this, we must reaffirm our
obligation to listen attentively and honestly to the voice of Christ as it
comes to us through the Gospel and the Church's Apostolic Tradition."[5] During the course of Dr
Williams' visit to the Holy See in November, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI added: "We
believe that these matters, which are presently under discussion within the
Anglican Communion, are of vital importance to the preaching of the Gospel in
its integrity, and that your current discussions will shape the future of our
relations."[6]
While work towards a common declaration was
put on hold for just over a year, Archbishop Williams invited Cardinal Kasper
to join him in setting up an IARCCUM sub-commission (of Anglican and Roman
Catholic members) which would specifically reflect on what the work of ARCIC
might be able to contribute to the discernment process within the Anglican
Communion. A sub-commission was established and produced a report, entitled
"Ecclesiological Reflections on the Current Situation in the Anglican Communion
in the Light of ARCIC", which proceeded to identify some of the ecclesiological
implications of the moral decisions taken. Its conclusion (§44) noted:
We have tried to show how
the decision of the Episcopal Church USA to proceed with the recent
consecration despite sustained strong opposition from large segments of the
Anglican Communion calls into question significant portions of our agreed
statements on authority and ecclesiology: the nature of ecclesial communion;
the mutual interdependence of churches; the role of episcopal and collegial
authority in maintaining the unity of the communion; the process of discernment
in the communion of the Church, and the decisive role of Scripture and
Tradition therein. This decision also challenges our mutual claim that we
uphold a shared vision of human nature and the same fundamental moral values.
The publication of The Windsor Report
in October, 2004, strongly endorsed a koinonia ecclesiology which
invited a strengthening of the interdependence of Anglican provinces; along
with the Primates' communiqué of 24 February, 2005, it reiterated the
traditional understanding of marriage and human sexuality, as expressed in
Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference, as the normative teaching of the
Anglican Communion. In May 2005, the PCPCU issued a press release which stated
that Windsor and the Primates' communiqué "affirm the general thrust and
conclusions of the understanding of the nature of the Church put forward in the
ARCIC dialogue to this point, and that this provides a foundation for continued
dialogue and ecumenical co-operation."[7]
While uncertainty about the future will linger until the current tensions are
resolved, the Anglican Communion's way of addressing the New Hampshire and New
Westminster developments has created a context wherein GTUM could be
brought to completion, but not unchanged by the intervening events.
The genesis and stated purposes of GTUM make
plain that the document is intrinsically linked with and reflects the
developing relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church,
which is governed by the life and decisions both ad intra and ad
extra of our two Communions, and GTUM has rightly sought to reflect
that dynamic in both its evolution and its content. It is a fruit of this
relationship and has been shaped and refashioned as a consequence of the
relationship. GTUM consciously seeks to reflect and in its own
development effectively mirrors the ways in which this relationship has changed
- both in ways it has been strengthened and in the emergence of new obstacles
and challenges. It notes candidly that our relations "have become more
complicated as proposals within the Church of England have focussed attention
on the issue of the ordination of women to the episcopate which is an
established part of ministry in some Anglican provinces" (§6). Especially
concerning the tensions initiated by decisions in New Westminster and New Hampshire, GTUM aims to be realistic in its understanding of the ecumenical
climate in which it has been written, commenting on the measure of ecclesial
communion within the Anglican Communion, on moral behaviour, and offering
suggestions regarding consultation. IARCCUM's sober judgement is that "(t)his
present context, which adds to existing differences between our two Communions,
is not the appropriate time to enter the new formal stage of relationship
envisaged by the bishops at Mississauga" (§7).[8]
One of the challenges for those working on
an international level in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations is that relations
vary a great deal in different parts of the world, shaped by numerous factors,
not least by the different stances in particular Anglican provinces towards the
matters of human sexuality currently under discussion, and towards the
ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. While IARCCUM as a
commission is seeking to foster relations between our two Communions and thus
needs to offer general comments about the current context for those relations,
it must be stressed that there is not 'one' uniform context in which decisions
about Anglican-Roman Catholic relations need to be made; relations, for
instance, are very different in Papua-New Guinea, where a covenant has recently
been signed by Anglicans and Roman Catholics, and in the United States, where
tensions within the Episcopal Church are most acute. This important
consideration will be expanded upon in commenting on the practical proposals
set forward in Part Two of GTUM.
i) Building on Mississauga
When Pope John Paul II addressed the
members of IARCCUM at their first plenary meeting in November 2001 he encouraged
them to "consider the next practical steps which might be taken not only to
consolidate the gains already made, but also to lead us to new depths of
communion on the way to that fullness of unity which is the will of Christ."[9]
In these words the Holy Father prefigured the way that IARCCUM was to work and
pointed towards the structure which was to serve its purpose.
As mentioned above, IARCCUM's mandate from Mississauga was to review and synthesise the work of ARCIC so as to identify and articulate
the degree of faith shared by Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Mississauga's Action
Plan called on the new Commission to work towards the preparation, signing
and celebration of a joint declaration which would "set out: our shared goal of
visible unity, an acknowledgement of the consensus in faith that we have
reached, and a fresh commitment to share together in common life and witness."[10]
This clearly stated purpose is reiterated
in the Press/Media Release issued by the Mississauga meeting where it
refers to "a joint affirmation of faith. This would formally express the degree
of agreement that already exists between Anglicans and Catholics. All at the Mississauga meeting believed that this extensive common faith needs to be officially
acknowledged and celebrated. This itself should lead logically to consequences
for the life of the two churches." This description of intent is complemented
and expanded by the Communiqué following IARCCUM's first plenary meeting: "a
joint declaration which would formally express the degree of agreement that
exists between Anglicans and Catholics and consolidate the results of more than
thirty years of dialogue."[11]
ii) Revised in light of the current context
In its structure and self-understanding GTUM
reflects the particular purpose outlined at Mississauga and has sought to
be faithful to the methodology envisaged from the beginning; but it has also
sought to be realistic about the changing climate in which this task is
undertaken, and recognises that a longer road towards the goal of a Joint
Declaration needs to be travelled. Underlying GTUM, one senses the
Commission holding in a careful balance the Mississauga vision and the
complexities of the current situation, and pondering what is possible in this
new context. The shift in genre from a Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church
and the Anglican Communion to an Agreed Statement of the Commission only
implies this longer road. The text is now submitted to the sponsoring bodies
for study and reflection, and responses to it will assist the Catholic Church
and the Anglican Communion to discern whether, as it currently reads or with
modifications and clarifications, a formal agreement could be received in the
future.
iii) Method in Part One of GTUM
In GTUM the areas of convergence and
consensus in faith are systematically outlined under nine doctrinal headings in
Part One: The Faith We Hold in Common (§§11-92), drawing on the
documents of both phases of the ARCIC dialogue. In the introductory section A
further step (§§4-10) this method of presentation is expressed in carefully
chosen terms. ARCIC's achievement in dialogue is discerned as "those doctrinal
elements over which there is a readiness in both our Communions to see in
ARCIC's work a faithful expression of what the Church of Christ teaches" (§9) and this assessment honours the continuing and still to be
completed process of reception within the Anglican Communion and the Catholic
Church.
More than ARCIC texts, GTUM also
highlights areas of divergence, unresolved questions which still need to be
addressed. The text "offers an honest appraisal of what has been achieved in
the dialogue ... candidly pointing to remaining difficulties, thus identifying
where further theological work is necessary" (§9). GTUM is novel as an
Agreed Statement in presenting these areas of remaining difficulties in
"clearly identifiable boxes" as a way of facilitating or encouraging the
further exploration for which it calls. This is consonant with the way IARCCUM
encourages a wide study of the document so that Anglicans and Catholics may
"engage in a searching exploration of new possibilities for co-operation and
mission" (§126). The particular way in which GTUM highlights the areas
in need of further study is perhaps a reflection of the context in which the pace
of IARCCUM's work was modified, if not interrupted. However, it also serves to
emphasise the importance of further dialogue, and is likely to be of help in
determining the questions and issues to which a third phase of ARCIC might
eventually turn its attention. During the course of the visit of Archbishop of
Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams to the Holy See in November, 2006, it was agreed
to set up a Preparatory Commission which would meet in 2007 to prepare
proposals for the PCPCU and for Anglican authorities on the content and mandate
for a third phase of the ARCIC dialogue.
While GTUM reflects a careful
reading of ARCIC's Agreed Statements, it is less thorough in attending to
official or authoritative responses to ARCIC's work. From a Catholic perspective,
the reception of GTUM would have been assisted had the text more
rigorously addressed the concerns raised by the Catholic Church in its 1991
Response to ARCIC I's Final Report. The 1993 "Clarifications", produced
by an ARCIC sub-commission to respond to these concerns in so far as they
addressed the Agreed Statements on Eucharist (1971) and Ministry (1973), was
seen to have greatly strengthened the agreements reached. Yet GTUM does
not explicitly appeal to these "Clarifications": it makes reference to them but
does not extensively draw upon them. Nor does it directly address the request
for greater precision in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1988
"Observations" on ARCIC's Salvation and the Church. If the reception
process is understood to include a refining of a text in the light of responses
from the churches, IARCCUM could have been more deliberate in addressing
concerns raised there.
iv) Method in Part Two of GTUM
As already noted, GTUM's
Introduction states that the text stops short of the goal set in the year 2000:
it "is not the appropriate time to enter the new formal stage of relationship
envisaged by the bishops at Mississauga" (§7). But this statement, reiterated
in various ways in paragraphs 7-10, is inevitably followed by a summons to
engage in common mission to whatever degree is possible and responsible. "Even
in a time of uncertainty, the mission given us by Christ obliges and compels us
to seek to engage more deeply and widely in a partnership in mission, coupled
with common witness and joint prayer"(§7). Following Mississauga, GTUM
posits a gap between the theological convergence or substantial agreement
articulated in the ARCIC statements and the practical ecclesial steps which
would reflect those theological gains. "(I)t must be acknowledged that the
progress towards agreement in faith achieved through the theological dialogue
has been substantial, but that in the past four decades we have only just begun
to give tangible expression to the incontrovertible elements of shared faith"
(§7). This gap points to the principal unifying theme of GTUM: the
relationship between the bonds of communion and engagement in common life and
mission. While the principal body of GTUM investigates the bonds of
communion between Anglicans and Catholics, the last sentences of its
Introduction set the stage for Part Two of the text:
While this may not be the moment to
initiate a formal new stage in our relations, we believe that it is the time to
bridge the gap between the elements of faith we hold in common and the tangible
expression of that shared belief in our ecclesial lives. The final section of
this document therefore proposes some specific steps to deepen our fellowship
in life and mission which we believe are responsibly open for us and would be
appropriate for us to take in the present context. (§10)
Part Two of GTUM sets out to explore
the real though limited possibilities for common life and mission that are open
to our two Communions on the basis of the extent to which we share a common
faith. It proposes ways of acknowledging and celebrating where we are at
present in our search for full communion, and suggests ways of expressing,
deepening and extending it through co-operation in witness, formation, social
outreach and mission. As the Preface (§5) states: "it is a call for action,
based upon 'an honest appraisal of what has been achieved in our dialogue'."
Yet there is an inherent tension built into
GTUM precisely in the text's central link between unity and mission. As
the text acknowledges, like the work of ARCIC upon which it builds, the
agreements and convergences set forth in Part One of GTUM are being put
forward for evaluation. The practical initiatives based on those convergences
are in various ways contingent on a positive reception of Part One. Since the
first part of GTUM is lacking authoritative approval, it is clear that
the practical suggestions of the second part will need to be examined in the
light of present Catholic teaching and policy. Recent developments, especially
in the Episcopal Church (USA) and the potentially transforming nature of the
decisions being faced there, have made it difficult to make general statements
about what is possible at present. These are factors which will shape this
commentary's reading of the specific proposals set forward in Part Two of GTUM.
v) Ecumenical precedents
It has been noted elsewhere that there are
some similarities between the methodology and structure of the Lutheran-Roman
Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and GTUM.
While the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration focussed on a particular
doctrine (justification), what is presented in GTUM encompasses a range
of doctrines, reflecting the theological breadth which forty years of dialogue
have given to the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. The method, however,
envisages a similar harvesting of the fruits of dialogue so as to lead towards
a deepening of communion. In the relationship between the Lutheran World
Federation and the Catholic Church there is a precisely focussed reason for
synthesising the dialogue to date: "to show that on the basis of their dialogue
the subscribing Lutheran Churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to
articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through
faith in Christ."[12] In this it
differs from GTUM where the recognition and expression of our common
faith have the broader purpose of moving Anglicans and Catholics "to live and
witness together more fully here and now" (§96), hence
the wide range of suggestions and invitations set out in Part Two of the text.
In all of this it should be emphasised again that the major difference between
the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and GTUM is that
the Joint Declaration has come through a formal reception process and is an
authoritative statement of the signatory partners, while GTUM has not
yet reached that stage and consequently lacks that authority.
In one other particular - its treatment of
the areas of outstanding difference - GTUM reflects the theological method and presentational pattern of
both the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration and the recent Agreed
Statements of ARCIC, although the conclusions drawn in each case are different.
The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration is able to set out the areas of
"consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification", acknowledging
that these do "not cover all that either church teaches about justification",
and affirming "that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer
the occasion for doctrinal condemnations".[13]
ARCIC has followed a similar pattern of
presentation in its Agreed Statement Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (MGHC)
where it "proposes a fuller statement of our shared belief in the Blessed Virgin
Mary" but can "also take up differences of practice, including the explicit
invocation of Mary."[14] Although it
does not claim to have fully achieved this, MGHC nevertheless "points to
the possibility of further reconciliation, in which issues concerning doctrine
and devotion to Mary need no longer be seen as communion-dividing, or an
obstacle in a new stage of our growth into visible koinonia."[15]
II. Communion and Mission: The Principal Theme of GTUM
The experience of sharing in prayer,
theological reflection and common life that characterised the meeting of the
bishops at Mississauga brought them insights into the nature and state of the
relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church which were
to influence and give shape to the work of IARCCUM and ultimately to the vision
offered by GTUM. There is a consistent conviction, common to the
statements of Mississauga and IARCCUM, and articulated in its own distinctive
way by GTUM, that ecclesial communion in Christ has characteristic and
interrelated dimensions (in GTUM §36 these are consonant with though not
identical to the bonds of communion familiar in Catholic ecclesiology as
communion in faith, sacramental life and pastoral oversight) and that communion
in faith, being one of these dimensions, once acknowledged and articulated
together, can and should move both the individual Christian and the Churches
towards a fuller expression of that communion in its other dimensions.
At Mississauga koinonia is
recognised as both a gift to be enjoyed and an instrument to be employed: "The
communion constituted by what we already share has within it an inner dynamic
which, animated by the Holy Spirit, impels us forward". It is understood furthermore as "a communion of joint commitment to our
common mission in the world."[16] As Pope
John Paul II has stated, "(w)e need to live and
practise that communion which, though not yet full, already exists between us."[17] In its earliest deliberations
IARCCUM had considered a variety of ways that this communion in mission might
be expressed and lived out: "one possible avenue for greater co-operation is in
the field of inter-faith relations ... the members [of IARCCUM] affirmed the
importance of deepening our commitment to work together in social and cultural
spheres for the defence of human dignity and the promotion of justice and
peace."[18]
The title of the Agreed Statement, Growing
Together in Unity and Mission, reflects the conviction expressed at Mississauga that there is a logical, theological and intrinsic relationship between the
developing experience of ecclesial communion and the imperative to engage step
by step in forms of shared life and mission. This conviction is set out in the
introductory section of GTUM (§§1-3) as a Commitment to unity and
mission which has been a constant feature of Anglican-Roman Catholic
relations over a period of forty years, and Appendix I: Unity and Mission is
helpful in expanding on this commitment as it draws on the official documents
of each of the two Communions before emphasising our shared commitment.[19]
This theme of the relationship between
communion and mission runs through and pervades the nine doctrinal areas
outlined in Part One (§§11-92), but it is considered at length in what might be
viewed as the theological core of GTUM in its sections on Belief in
God as Trinity (§§11-14), Church as Communion in Mission (§§15-25),
and Discipleship and Holiness (§§77-87). A preliminary consideration of
these sections will help in assessing the theme of communion and mission as it
features in the other sections of Part One.
The theology of communion and mission which
IARCCUM was mandated to draw from the ARCIC dialogue and which provides GTUM
with its purpose and dynamic is shown to have its roots in our shared faith
in the communion between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Belief in God as
Trinity reflects the Catholic teaching that our experience of ecclesial
communion - in its two dimensions of relationship with God and relationship
with our brothers and sisters in Christ - is always understood as a sharing
through Christ in the eternal communion which characterises the revealed inner
life of God, into which we are continually being drawn and from which we are
drawn together by "God's holy gifts of word and sacrament" (GTUM §14).
If this is true of the fullness of
ecclesial communion then it is also true, not commensurately but absolutely, of
the communion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and it is the first
compelling motive for moving from the experience of communion towards its
fuller expression in life and mission. "We are called to live out that real but
imperfect communion visibly, while striving ultimately for full visible unity"
(GTUM §14).
In the teaching of the Second Vatican
Council the Church is "the universal sacrament of salvation"[20]
whose mission is to bring all people into communion with God and with one
another in Christ. In Church as Communion in Mission GTUM highlights the
intrinsic link which ARCIC emphasises between ecclesial communion and mission
and draws out its consequences: "The Church is intended to be the 'sacrament'
of God's saving work, i.e. 'both sign and instrument' [ARCIC, The Final
Report, Introduction, n.7] of God's purpose in Christ, 'to unite all things
in him, things in heaven and things on earth' (Ephesians 1.10)" (GTUM §16).
This can be seen as a judgement on our condition of imperfect communion and a
compelling motive to strive more effectively for fullness of communion: "The
Church's living of communion is therefore a vital part of its mission, and
mission is harmed when communion is lacking" (GTUM §17).
At the same time the experience and
recognition of communion between ecumenical partners are shown to depend on the
fruits of ecumenical dialogue and in particular its capacity to foster
recognition of those elements of goodness and truth which are the properties of
ecclesial identity: "The degree of visible communion depends on the extent of
our mutual recognition of the holy gifts and the essential constitutive elements
of the Church in one another" (GTUM §20). IARCCUM's underlying
assumption here, which could have been more clearly articulated, is that the
exchange of gifts, as called for in Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Ut unum
sint (§28), is precisely
geared towards helping us to give visible expression to our unity based on
sharing constitutive elements of the Church.
GTUM's
treatment of the Church as koinonia notes that unity
"is of the essence of the Church", and that "its unity also must be visible" (§18), but the text would have been strengthened had it affirmed more directly that
visible unity is an essential characteristic or 'mark' of the Church given by
Christ from the beginning. It could then have considered the fundamental
ecclesiological question of the foundation of the Church's unity before
identifying visible 'structures of communion' as among the issues calling for
further exploration. Since GTUM does this in the context of its
treatment of authority the reader should be mindful that the two sections need to
be read in relation to each other.
Two issues in the section on Church as
Communion in Mission identified as requiring further theological work will
be addressed in the final section of this commentary: international structures
of communion within the Anglican Communion (GTUM §21), and the ministry
of universal primacy within the Catholic Church (§23).
In Discipleship and Holiness the text
makes some of its most forceful assertions about the relationship between
communion and the Christian life, indicating that the personal and communal
moral decisions we make have a direct bearing on the degree of communion we
enjoy. The text of GTUM uses the strongest terms ("integral",
"constitutive" and "essential") to explain the binding force of the
relationship, only falling short of a reflection on the disruptive effect of
sin on our relationship with God and one another.[21]
So "moral behaviour is integral to the maintenance of communion with the Holy
Trinity, as well as to communion with the community of believers in the Church"
and "our common acceptance of the same fundamental moral values, and the
sharing of the same vision of humanity ... are constitutive elements of ecclesial
communion and are essential for the visible communion of the Church" (GTUM §77).
In a beautiful reflection on human nature GTUM
develops a theme intrinsic to our understanding of the imago Dei in the
creation of human beings, that in some sense our human nature, fashioned in the
image and likeness of God, must reflect the inner life of the Trinity and
therefore at its deepest level bears the imprint of the divine, eternal
communion. This is understood to be the basis of our human dignity and offers
us an insight into the link between Christian anthropology and the theology of
communion. "We affirm the dignity of the human person, male and female, created
by God for communion with God ... Human persons are created for communion, and
communion involves responsibility, in relation to society and creation as well
as to God" (§79). In this way GTUM develops its presentation of the link
between communion and mission, harvested from the ARCIC dialogue, and leads us
towards consideration of the concrete expressions of common mission which it
sets out in Part Two.
Despite the encouraging measure of consensus
on moral questions which the ARCIC II Agreed Statement Life in Christ:
Morals, Communion and the Church found between our two Communions when it
was presented in 1994, the changed context of our ecumenical relations has
resulted in an extensive list of "serious disagreements on specific issues"
which are itemised in GTUM 86, at the end of the section on Discipleship
and Holiness. There can be no doubt that GTUM regards these issues
as a pressing priority for our future dialogue and co-operation: "It is a
matter of urgency that we take counsel, decide together, and act together in
moral teaching, in order to guide and assist Christ's disciples in the way of
holiness and to witness credibly and effectively to God's love and justice to
the world" (§87).[22]
Of particular concern in this regard is §86e,
concerning marriage and human sexuality and the specific moral issues
threatening to undermine the coherence of the Anglican Communion. As mentioned
above, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, the current decisions
facing the Anglican Communion concern not only discipline but also doctrine,
and have vital consequences for Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. GTUM
concisely states that there are also underlying questions of anthropology and
of biblical hermeneutics which need to be addressed - a
brief sentence inviting lengthy discussion and having important implications. In this same vein, in
his reflections on the Windsor
Report, Cardinal Kasper has noted the importance of jointly addressing "a
question which is becoming increasingly acute, namely, the tension between the
Gospel, as reflected in the apostolic witness, and the approaches and trends of
our post-modern societies."[23]
The text recommends that consultative structures be developed within both
Communions so as to obviate any expansion in the areas of disagreement (§87).
The section on Discipleship and Holiness
also addresses the sacrament of marriage, and in that context, states with
confidence that "(i)n both Communions, the husband and wife are the celebrants
of the sacrament" (§85); a statement that is at once striking and challenging.
While it acknowledges that marriage "has a naturally sacramental dimension"
(§85) the precise meaning of this "natural sacramentality" is unclear and it
has not been established by GTUM that the term "celebrants of the
sacrament" would carry the same meaning for the Anglican Communion and the
Catholic Church.[24]
In the light of these three sections it is
helpful to follow the theme of communion and mission as it runs through the
remaining six doctrinal sections of Part One before reflecting on the ways it
is given concrete expression through the suggestions and invitations of Part
Two.
In The Living Word of God (§§26-32)
we are made aware of ARCIC's conviction that tradition[25] must be viewed as a servant of
the temporal dimension of communion: "Properly understood, tradition is itself
an act of communion whereby the Spirit unites the local churches of our day
with those that preceded them in the one apostolic faith" (GTUM §27).
It has been noted earlier that GTUM presents
issues for further theological exploration in a series of boxes within the
relevant sections of the document. However, there is one occasion when a
theological issue is identified in the text as a remaining difficulty or in
need of further study but not adequately represented within the adjacent box,
and it is found in this section on The Living Word of God, where it is
stated: "We agree that the Church's teaching, preaching and action must
constantly be measured against the Scriptures; however the manner in which we
each understand the Scriptures as 'test and norm' needs still more
clarification" (§29). This too deserves to be highlighted in a boxed section
since it is of fundamental importance in all other areas of Anglican-Roman
Catholic dialogue.
The section on Baptism (§§33-38)
focuses on the shared faith of Anglicans and Catholics that through baptism we
are sacramentally incorporated into the Church as the Body of Christ. Our
incorporation is regarded as something interior and hidden, a "spiritual
communion"[26] which needs
to be made manifest: "This spiritual communion of the baptised receives
necessary expression in a visible community" (§36). More than this, the gift of
ecclesial communion through baptism carries within it an imperative to engage
in joint Christian life and evangelical action: "Our fundamental baptismal
communion gives us the shared responsibility to witness as fully as possible to
the Gospel of Christ before the world" (§38).
Where GTUM considers the Eucharist
(§§39-49) it reiterates the shared faith of Anglicans and Catholics that
"the visible communion of Christ's body, entered through baptism, is nourished,
deepened and expressed" when we receive the eucharist (§39). It is unusual for GTUM
to quote from ecumenical documents other than ARCIC, but it seems
appropriate for this section to draw upon the World Council of Churches' Faith
and Order Paper, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) given
the participation of Anglican and Catholic representatives in its production. The issue concerning the scope of communion in time
and space - "The communion established in the body of Christ is a communion
with all Christians of all times and places" (GTUM §44) - has
implications for our understanding of partial ecclesial communion which might
also benefit from further theological reflection.
Despite the stated agreement on the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf. §§39-44), Catholic doctrine on the
Eucharist is more specific than what we find expressed in this section of GTUM.
Here it would have been helpful had the document drawn upon the 1993
"Clarifications" noted above, and thus eliminated any possible interpretations
which would fall outside of the parameters of Roman Catholic understanding of
the Eucharist.
It is fitting that an episcopally led
Commission should give serious consideration to the way that episkope
serves the Church's communion. In the section on Ministry (§§50-61)
ARCIC's view of the bishop as a minister of unity is expressed in sacramental
terms: "The communion of the churches in mission, faith and holiness through
time and space is thus symbolised and maintained in the bishop" (§54). Given
the principal theological thrust of GTUM this can also be seen as
relating to episcopal responsibility towards other bonds of communion: "In
their dioceses, when they come together regionally, and at a world level,
bishops have a special role in keeping the Church true to apostolic teaching
and mission in conformity to the mind of Christ" (§55).
This section could have been strengthened
in two ways. Firstly, GTUM speaks of ordination as being a "sacramental
act" and as having a "sacramental nature" (§53), and adds that in the Eucharist the ordained ministry has "a particular sacramental
configuration with Christ as High Priest" (§57), yet the term 'sacrament' is nowhere
defined in the text. Such a definition would have brought greater clarity. Secondly,
the boxed material treating the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate
(§§60-61) might have stated more clearly that this is a church-dividing issue
which is not merely disciplinary but doctrinal in nature.
Following upon the section on ministry and
closely related to it is the text's treatment of the exercise of Authority
in the Church (§62-76) which has, in GTUM's quotation from ARCIC's The
Gift of Authority (§32), "a radical missionary dimension". Again, GTUM
emphasises the bishop's responsibility to exercise authority in appropriate
interaction with the people of God at the service of ecclesial communion:
"Bishops have ... a special responsibility for promoting truth and discerning error
and for preserving and promoting communion" (§66). The reflection in §70 on the
need for "a ministry of primacy at every level of the Church's life as a
visible link and focus of its communion" is clearly related by GTUM to
ARCIC's sense of the value of a ministry of universal primacy "exercised by the
Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church" (§71).
In relation to this section I would offer
two critiques. The first of these is the choice of the two examples cited in
§74 to illustrate the recommendation in §73 "to reflect upon the relationship
between local and universal in the life of the Church". The openness of the
Anglican Communion to establish more robust "instruments of oversight" is
paired with the readiness of the Catholic Church to "ensure consultation
between the Bishop of Rome and the local churches prior to making important
decisions". While there is a theological balance in asking our two Communions
to address these issues, they cannot be equally weighted in terms of their
immediate importance for ecclesial integrity and coherence. There is an
urgency, both pragmatic and ecclesiological, about the question facing the
Anglican Communion which is not reflected in the question before the Catholic
Church, even though both questions are of long-term significance.
The second comment pertains to the text's
consideration of the Catholic understanding of "infallibility". In §76 GTUM explains
how infallibility serves the gift of ecclesial indefectibility, "whereby the
Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth." However, in reference to the
exercise of an infallible teaching office, "in specific circumstances and under
certain precise conditions" and by "those with a ministry of oversight,
assisted by the Holy Spirit" it could have been more plainly stated that the
Catholic Church teaches that the magisterium represents under identifiable
conditions a particular participation in the gift of infallibility which Christ
has given to the Church.[27]
In the last of the nine doctrinal sections
in Part One IARCCUM is principally concerned with ARCIC's most recent Agreed
Statement Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, concluded in 2004 and
presented in 2005, some four years after IARCCUM was itself established. GTUM
acknowledges that "Christian understanding of Mary is inseparably linked with
the doctrines of Christ and of the Church" (§89). Mary can be seen by Anglicans
and Catholics as "paramount in the Communion of Saints" (§90) so that the
Scriptures' reflection on her life may be studied for what it reveals of the
activity of the Holy Spirit translating her own experience of communion with
God and within the Body of Christ into the Church's earliest missionary and
evangelical activity and so offering us a model of discipleship.
The import given by IARCCUM to the theology
of communion and mission central to GTUM is summarised in the conclusion
to Part One, The Faith that Sets us Free (§§93-95) and provides a
graceful transition to the practical expression of this theology in Part Two.
"The Commission has become more profoundly aware of how intimately connected
are understanding and co-operation, faith and mission. It is our conviction
that, as we grow towards full, ecclesial communion and respond afresh to the
common mission entrusted to his Church by our Lord, the remaining Church-dividing
issues will be resolved more effectively" (§94). This is a hope-filled but
prudent assessment of the value of what is to be proposed in Part Two. GTUM does
not claim that witnessing and engaging together in mission will lead to more
speedy resolution of differences but emphasises the effectiveness and by
implication the thoroughness of what is envisaged.
III. Part Two: GTUM's Proposals for Common Mission
Towards Unity and Common Mission (§§96-126) offers suggestions and invitations to engage
in joint work and common mission. It is divided into four sections which
address the areas of worship, study, ministry and witness. The theological
rationale for what follows is here set out as something compelling and, by
implication, inviting the two Communions to take seriously the intrinsic link
between theological convergence or agreement and practical steps flowing from
the results of our dialogue. "Discerning a common faith challenges our churches
to recognise that elements of sanctification and truth exist in each other's
ecclesial lives, and to develop those channels and practical expressions of co-operation
by which a common life and mission may be generated and sustained" (§96).
That being said, GTUM is not a text
which has been authoritatively received. As mentioned above, it will be
important for those who read the document - most especially for bishops, to
whom it is principally addressed - to evaluate very carefully the text's specific proposals in the light of Catholic discipline and practice. In this
brief section, I will offer some initial reflections on the proposals of Part
Two in view of the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on
Ecumenism and to a lesser degree, in light of other sources which inform
Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement.[28]
Before doing so, it should be reiterated
that the local particularities of this relationship will colour the ways in
which GTUM is received and the extent to which its suggestions can be
acted upon. The text clearly acknowledges this: "There may be compelling
reasons why some of the suggestions and invitations ... are neither appropriate nor
feasible in some local contexts" (GTUM §99). They are also likely to
influence the reception of and the response to the text by bishops. This will
be particularly significant where Anglican and Catholic bishops have an
opportunity to reflect together on GTUM in pairs or groups within a
region.[29] Anglican-Roman
Catholic relations are internationally uneven, insofar as they move at variable
speeds as appropriate in different places and in a way which may reflect
regional and national variations in the priorities facing both our Communions.
As mentioned in the introduction, relations
are uneven in the present context above all because of diverse stances on the
moral and ecclesiological questions at the heart of current tensions in the Anglican
Communion. For this reason in particular, what is recommended will need to be
nationally and locally received as well as locally adjusted for its effective
implementation. Where stances have been adopted which move an Anglican diocese
or province further from Catholic teaching on doctrinal matters, and where
there is significant internal conflict within a diocese or province, there is
likely to be a very limited scope for joint practical initiatives. So it may
well be the case that some of GTUM's invitations and suggestions will
present a considerable challenge in one context and yet be an already existing
feature of ecumenical co-operation in another. The Ecumenical Directory
anticipates the need for such local discernment: "The nature of the ecumenical
activity undertaken in a particular region will always be influenced by the
particular character of the local ecumenical situation. The choice of
appropriate ecumenical involvement pertains especially to the Bishop who must
take account of the specific responsibilities and challenges that are
characteristic for his diocese" (§31).
As will be evident, most of the proposals
put forward by IARCCUM - though not all - are either authorised by the Ecumenical
Directory or consistent with its principles. This is not to say every initiative proposed would be equally appropriate for
Anglicans and Catholics in all places and at all times,
but it follows that it would fall within the proper competence of bishops to
make decisions in this regard. GTUM's Part Two would have been more
functional had the Commission referenced authoritative sources relating to each
particular suggestion; this would have provided a useful resource for the local
and regional discernment which inevitably must take place.
1. Worship
Visible expressions of our shared faith (§§100-103) considers opportunities in the context of public worship
to express our common faith together, principally though not exclusively in
connection with baptism and the eucharist. The suggestions of GTUM generally
respect the limits governing sacramental as well as non-sacramental liturgical
worship required of Roman Catholics by the Ecumenical Directory. However,
it could be convincingly argued that the encouragement to prepare common
catechetical resources for use in baptismal and confirmation preparation and in
Sunday Schools (§100) stretches beyond the parameters of the Ecumenical
Directory. Pastoral initiatives involving catechesis and sacramental life
presuppose doctrinal agreement, and while Anglicans and Catholics recognise
each other's baptism, GTUM touches only briefly on the sacrament of
confirmation (§37) and further theological dialogue in this regard may be
deemed necessary. Likewise, common catechetical materials for Sunday Schools
could be beneficial, but that would depend on the subjects being addressed.
The suggestions in GTUM for common
prayer, and those which build on a common baptism or the renewal of baptism,
are particularly encouraging and practicable. By their nature, these
suggestions are manageable within the setting of the local church and it would
be possible to envisage an arrangement in which an Anglican diocese and a Roman
Catholic diocese might offer to pilot one or more of the proposals so that they
might ultimately be considered by a Province and a Bishops' Conference working
together.
It should be obvious to Catholics that the
prayer enjoined upon the two Communions for "the local bishop of the other
church as well as for their own bishop" (§103) envisages inclusion in the intercessory
or bidding prayers during the liturgy rather than in the course of the
Eucharistic Prayer, but GTUM's phrasing could lead to misinterpretation
if not read with due care and with reference to the principles governing Roman
Catholic ecumenical engagement.[30]
In its reflection on the ecumenical
experience of koinonia and the ways in which this is to become visible
in our joint life and mission GTUM uses the term "spiritual communion"
on a number of occasions. The ways in which the term is used could cause for
some Catholics a degree of ambiguity. They also suggest that the particular
dimension of communion which GTUM is seeking to describe might itself
benefit from further theological reflection in the context of our growing
common understanding of koinonia.
The bishops of IARCCUM used the term
themselves in describing a part of the task that they had undertaken: "The
Commission began intensive work on ... the development of strategies to translate
the degree of spiritual communion that has been achieved into visible and
practical outcomes."[31]
Here the Commission seems to be indicating by "spiritual communion" the inner
reality of that real though imperfect relationship (between Anglicans and
Catholics) which is brought about through baptism by the power of the Holy
Spirit, has the capacity to grow and deepen, and shows itself in the visible
communion of the Body of Christ. GTUM echoes this understanding in its
section on Baptism where it asserts: "This spiritual communion of the
baptised receives necessary visible expression in a visible community..." (§36).
However, in Part Two's account of some
strategies to foster the visible expression of shared faith GTUM employs
the term in a subtly changed way. Where it encourages Anglicans and Roman
Catholics to attend one another's Eucharists (always "respecting the different
disciplines of our churches") GTUM explains: "While this would take the
form of non-communicating attendance in each other's churches, it would
nonetheless initiate a renewed awareness of spiritual communion" (§101).[32] The text implies that
this "spiritual communion" may find visible expression in the giving and
receiving of "a blessing which has become a regular practice in some places for
those who may not receive holy communion" (§101). Although GTUM does not
call for this explicitly, further ecumenical study of the relationship between
"spiritual communion", the sacraments of initiation and ecclesial identity
could help us come to a deeper common understanding of the dimensions of koinonia
and of its visible expressions.
2. Study
GTUM reflects
the mandate given to IARCCUM where it encourages Joint study of our faith (§§104-107)
so that we may live out our real though imperfect communion more effectively.
Such study, especially of the Agreed Statements of ARCIC "can help Anglicans
and Roman Catholics to identify the constitutive elements of the Church in each
other's life and witness and, as they discern elements in common, can assist
them to consider how they may come together in the living of them" (§105). When
studying ARCIC's Agreed Statements, it would be important to indicate that most
of these texts have not been responded to authoritatively by the Catholic
Church or by the Anglican Communion, and at this point are published as the
work of the Commission.
This section draws attention to the 1997
text of the PCPCU on The Ecumenical Dimension in the Formation of those
Engaged in Pastoral Work,[33] and draws
various suggestions from it (as well as from the Ecumenical Directory),
in particular pertaining to the joint study of the Scriptures. The
encouragement to develop common hermeneutical principles (§104) is helpful, as
reaching a deeper common understanding of the Scriptures would be greatly
beneficial to our relations. GTUM does not make any suggestions as to
who would be well suited to carry out such a project; perhaps this is a project
which could be undertaken by ARCIC.
3. Ministry
One particular invitation of Co-operation
in ministry (§§108-117) is made specifically to Anglican and Roman Catholic
primates and hierarchies in an appeal relating as much to the maintenance and
safe-guarding of the present degree of communion as to its potential for
deepening. "We also encourage Anglican and Roman Catholic leaders, on both the
international and national levels, to consult one another as fully as possible
before crucial decisions touching the unity of the Church are taken in matters
of faith, order or moral life" (§109). The value which the members of IARCCUM
place on the influence of this consultation has already borne fruit in
Anglican-Roman Catholic relations and provides a complementary theme taken up
later within this Commentary.
It is heartening that GTUM singles
out interchurch families as especially deserving recipients of shared pastoral
and spiritual care. Interchurch families have a particular ecclesial
significance, in part because they experience continuously and most intimately
both the reality and the imperfections of the communion which Anglicans and
Roman Catholics share. So the text is careful to recommend a specific approach:
"Of particular concern in the area of ministry is the need to develop
programmes of joint pastoral care for interchurch families (including marriage
preparation) and to find ways to minister to their concerns" (§116). Such
pastoral care and marriage preparation would need to be attentive to the
principles set forth in the Ecumenical Directory (§§143-160). It would help to highlight both the
needs of interchurch families, and that much may be learnt from their
experience and insights, if the ecclesial significance of interchurch families
could be further explored within our two Communions.
One proposal from this section invites
consideration of the "possible association of Anglican bishops with Roman
Catholic bishops in their ad limina visits to Rome" (§111). This echoes
the proposal made in ARCIC's 1999 statement The Gift of Authority (§59).
I would argue that this suggestion requires a great deal more reflection. When
a national or regional group of bishops come
together with Peter's successor, there is a strong experience and expression of
communion, which is qualitatively different from the experience of an
ecumenical gathering of bishops whose churches share a partial communion. GTUM's
suggestion comes in the context of significant ecumenical work and interest in
the Petrine ministry, which is most encouraging. Even so, the proposal to
associate Anglican bishops with ad limina visits has not been formally
encouraged by the Holy See, and I would suggest that the proposal should not be
encouraged until it has received an authoritative response from the sponsoring
bodies. There may be a time in our relations when this would be appropriate,
but perhaps that time has yet to come.
Several proposals in this section - for
regional meetings of Anglican and Catholic bishops, for joint pastoral
statements on matters of common concern, for the invitation to attend each
other's synodical and collegial gatherings as observers - are common practice
in many regions, and have done a great deal to strengthen relations and to
foster common witness. The proposals in §112 calling
for aspects of joint formation and theological education could also prove
fruitful, but such initiatives should be careful to work within the parameters
set in the Ecumenical Directory and The Ecumenical Dimension in the
Formation of those Engaged in Pastoral Work.
4. Witness
A compelling ecclesiological argument
underlining the need for the joint life and mission which should flow from the
state of our present communion is affirmed in the final section of Part Two, Shared
witness in the world (§§118-125). As the universal sacrament of salvation
the Church both prefigures and serves to bring about the perfect unity of the Kingdom of God which God wills for all men and women. "We recognise the intimate
relationship between the unity of the Church, the peace and well-being of the
human community, and the integrity of all creation" (§118). It follows that,
although this truth is manifest in its fullness within the Catholic Church, our
experience of imperfect communion with the baptised of other Churches and
ecclesial communities continues to impede the complete effectiveness of our
witness and service and spurs us on to resolve our differences. We are offered
a powerful motive of the Church's ability to change the world - as yet not
fully realised - for committing our two Communions to a greater expression of
common life and mission.
While it is helpful that these invitations
and suggestions are thematically arranged it seems a pity that GTUM has
not suggested a general approach towards prioritising them. At the same time,
in this document IARCCUM exhibits a respect for the process of reception,
appropriate adaptation and adoption which GTUM encourages, implying that
it would be the task of Anglican and Catholic bishops together (or of Anglican
Provinces and Catholic Episcopal Conferences) to seek to prioritise and
customise the recommendations made.
IV. Four Complementary Themes
Alongside the principal theological
assertion of GTUM there are four related and recurrent themes which are
present either explicitly or implicitly in the document. These lend weight to
and illustrate the significance of the central theme. Three of them focus in
the main on the Anglican-Roman Catholic relationship, as it is and as it might
develop, while the fourth reflects on the nature of the Anglican Communion and
our developing understanding together of its role as a partner in dialogue.
The first of these themes, already alluded
to, is the necessity and value of consultation. This had been itemised in the Mississauga Action Plan as an instrument that might be used by partners in dialogue
to influence one another's decision-making bodies in defence of the current
degree of communion. The bishops then envisaged IARCCUM "examining ways of
ensuring formal consultation prior to one Church making decisions on matters of
faith and morals which would affect the other Church, keeping in view the
Agreed Statements of ARCIC" (Mississauga Action Plan).
In its reflection on Discipleship and
Holiness GTUM is aware that the process of convergence to which our two
Communions are committed could be halted and even gradually reversed by the
pressure of divergence. "We agree that there is a danger that areas of
disagreement between us could expand as new issues and new contexts rapidly
emerge. We need to study together and develop common structures for decision
making" (§87).
Part Two reiterates the need for
consultation and, by way of concrete proposal, suggests that: "Wherever
possible, ordained and lay observers can be invited to attend each other's
synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences" (§109). The difficulties
associated with implementing this recommendation would vary according to the
nature of the decision-making bodies themselves within each of the two
Communions. Another opportunity for consultation relates to the need for
consistency in dialogue where more than one dialogue partner is engaged and it
becomes important both for bi-lateral and multi-lateral relations to ensure
that what is agreed with one ecumenical partner is at least consonant with what
is agreed with another. So as to achieve this and "to extend the parameters of
agreement in faith which we have reached, we strongly encourage close
consultation when one of us engages in a new ecumenical partnership with
another church, whether locally, regionally or at world level" (§123).[34]
In the context of Anglican-Roman Catholic
relations the most significant example of such consultation, already referred
to above, is the invitation issued by Dr Rowan Williams to Cardinal Kasper "to
join him in setting up a joint ad-hoc sub-commission made up of IARCCUM and
ARCIC members to reflect ... on the ecclesiological issues facing Anglicans"[35]
following the decisions taken by the Episcopal Church of the United States of
America and within the Anglican Church of Canada. As a consequence of this
invitation the Ecclesiology Sub-Commission presented its Reflections (8
June 2004) to the Lambeth Commission whose mandate was fulfilled on completion
of the Windsor Report in October 2004.
Two elements complete this process of
consultation. Cardinal Kasper was asked by Archbishop Williams to write a
letter on the Windsor Report and, at the invitation of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, travelled to London for conversations with him and staff of the
Anglican Communion Office.[36] In his
letter to Dr Williams Cardinal Kasper re-affirms the Catholic Church's
willingness to engage in this consultation: "In a spirit of ecumenical
partnership and friendship, we are ready to support this process in whatever
ways are appropriate and requested."[37] Formal
consultation at this level is unprecedented in Anglican-Roman Catholic
relations and offers a good, working example of the context within which and
out of which GTUM seeks to encourage such formal co-operation.[38]
Another important theme that is closely
related to GTUM's advice about consultation and that is crucial
to the process that produced the Agreed Statement is the influence of periodic
personal encounters between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In
both of our Communions these encounters are viewed as more than symbolic and
they have frequently led to the dialogue taking a fresh direction or being
given fresh impetus.
When Pope John Paul II addressed the
members of IARCCUM in 2001 he chronicled the sequence of meetings which he and
his predecessor Pope Paul VI had had with successive Archbishops of Canterbury
and indicated the advances in dialogue to follow each encounter. So the
establishment of ARCIC, the "new impetus" in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations
leading to the second phase of ARCIC and the inauguration of IARCCUM each
succeeded a meeting in which the personal commitment of Pope and Archbishop and
their ecumenical convictions as Church leaders were to bear fruit in the
development of formal structures to serve dialogue and communion.[39]
Pope Benedict XVI emphasised the
significance of these encounters at his meeting with Dr Rowan Williams in
November 2006 forty years after the visit of Dr Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI
in 1966. "The visits of Archbishops of Canterbury to the Holy See have served
to strengthen those [Anglican-Roman Catholic] relations and have played an
important role in addressing the obstacles which keep us apart."[40]
It is a mark of the frankness and trust which these meetings have fostered that
Pope Benedict was able to refer in this context to Dr Williams' public
utterances "about the strains and difficulties besetting the Anglican Communion
and consequently about the uncertainty of the future of the Communion itself"
and to the vital importance of these issues for Anglican-Roman Catholic
relations.[41]
A commitment to consultative procedures and
the opportunities for personal meetings between the leaders of our two
Communions represent two ways in which our real though imperfect communion can
find expression in joint witness and mission. A third expression, episcopal
collaboration between Anglican and Catholic bishops, is both encouraged
and, because of IARCCUM's modus operandi, is also modelled by GTUM.
IARCCUM was established as "an episcopally
led body aimed at fostering practical initiatives that would give expression to
the degree of faith shared by Anglicans and Catholics."[42]
It came into being because of the meeting of the bishops at Mississauga who
reflected in prayer and study on their experience as bishops together and
consequently wished to share the benefits of this experience through the
existence and work of IARCCUM. In their Preface to GTUM the Co-Chairmen
of IARCCUM have emphasised that "this text has been prepared by bishops and is
addressed primarily to bishops" (even though they hope that bishops will
consult widely about its implications). The latter point is reiterated in GTUM's
concluding exhortation: "We the bishops of IARCCUM strongly commend these
suggestions to members of the episcopate around the world" (§126).
In GTUM's section on Ministry we
are reminded that the bishop is a sign and instrument of communion in its
temporal and spatial dimensions, holding the churches together in mission,
faith and holiness, and that episcopal collegiality is a servant and guarantor
of apostolicity (§§54 and 55). Since this is true of bishops who exercise their
ministry together and in full communion with one another within a Church it
ought also to be a characteristic, mutatis mutandis, of bishops working
and witnessing together ecumenically so as to manifest, preserve and assist in
deepening our real though partial communion. IARCCUM offers a model of real
though imperfect ecumenical episcopal collegiality at an international level,
complementing and always consonant with the occasional personal meetings
between Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury. In the Mississauga Action Plan the
Commission was mandated to encourage national and regional meetings of bishops
wherever possible, and discussion of GTUM would provide the obvious
starting point for such gatherings. Such meetings may have less common ground
to build on where relationships have been complicated by recent developments. However,
decades of fostering deeper relations may have created a local climate in which
frank exchange about the ecumenical implications of possible decisions would be
appropria and welcomed.
The fourth complementary theme differs from
the others in that it concerns the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion and
so touches on what is internal to its life and mission. At the Plenary Meeting
of the PCPCU in 2003 this issue was touched upon in the Introductory Report of
the President: "Our collaboration with the Anglican Communion highlights the
current problem and aporia of ecumenism: namely the emergence of new ethical
problems and the internal fragmentation of an Ecclesial Communion ... While not
intending to interfere, it should be borne in mind that as ecumenical partners
we are not simply observers, but active participants".[43]
As was noted earlier the Anglican Communion
consulted the Catholic Church about the issues threatening the Communion's own
integrity and Cardinal Kasper's letter to Dr Rowan Williams (17 December 2004)
commends the practical steps envisaged by the Windsor Report to place
the autonomy of the Anglican Provinces more securely within the interdependence
of the Anglican Communion. Among the ways of strengthening the bonds of
communion proposed by the Windsor Report three are highlighted in
Cardinal Kasper's letter: "especially the interpretation of provincial autonomy
in terms of interdependence, thus 'subject to limits generated by the
commitments of communion' (n. 79). Related to this is the Report's thrust
towards strengthening the supra-provincial authority of the Archbishop of
Canterbury (nn. 109-110) and the proposal of an Anglican Covenant which would
'make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the
relationships between the churches of the Communion' (n. 118)."[44]
The Catholic Church is concerned to see the
maintenance of the Anglican Communion's ecclesial identity and coherence
insofar as these reflect the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council and are
therefore a sure basis for our ecumenical relations. Forty years of dialogue
and the invitation to proffer its view both equip and permit the Catholic
Church to reflect on the ecclesial identity of the Anglican Communion in a way
that would once have been considered impossible. It is an indication that the
coherence of the Anglican Communion matters to the Catholic Church as an
important dimension of the real though imperfect communion that holds us
together in Christ: "allowing an enhancement of our understanding of the
Anglican Communion precisely as a communion. For the continuation of our
ecumenical dialogue, it is important for us to have a clear understanding of
who our partner is."[45]
In the light of these concerns it is clear
that the communion ecclesiology summarised in GTUM has implications for
the Anglican Communion in terms of its own mission ("mission is harmed when
communion is lacking" §17) and regarding the role, purpose and style of
primatial ministry ("The communion of the Church requires a ministry of primacy
at every level of the Church's life..." §70). The Agreed Statement sees that a
fundamental area for further theological reflection is "the relationship
between local and universal in the life of the Church, and in particular: on
the place and authority of regional and national structures" (§73). It goes on
to detail the particular issue germane in this context: "The question of
whether the Anglican Communion is open to instruments of oversight that would
allow decisions to be reached which in certain circumstances would bind the
members of every province is an important and topical one" (§74). Since this
question can only be answered by and within the Anglican Communion (even if in
consultation with the Catholic Church) GTUM is wise to remain non-committal.
However, the Anglican response will no doubt have a significant impact on
Anglican-Roman Catholic relations in the future.
Concluding Comments
The author of this Commentary was recently
able to discuss GTUM with two of the members of IARCCUM, one Anglican,
and the other Roman Catholic. Each emphasised an issue which would be of
significance not only at the level of the relationship between our two
Communions but just as significantly at the national and local levels where
Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops live and work together. Such consideration
of the implications of the Agreed Statement at local level, by bishops, clergy
and laity, is what the document envisages and encourages. At the same time it
is important to recall that GTUM requires some formal recognition by the
ecclesial authorities to whom it is presented so that it may be used fruitfully
and with confidence by Anglicans and Roman Catholics.
The first of these issues is that for some
Anglicans there will be concerns that the Anglican Communion, in moving towards
greater conciliarity and the proposed Covenant, may need some kind of
jurisdictional framework and that this might fall within the pastoral care of a
re-received ministry of universal primacy. In such circumstances how might the
legitimate patrimony of Anglicans be honoured, preserved and promoted? The
other issue is that for some Catholics it may be of particular importance that
Part Two of GTUM foresees a co-operation in which Anglicans and
Catholics work and witness together as equal partners, especially in those
places where Anglicanism has a special status or established position. Discussion
of such issues, arising at local or national level, will surely strengthen the
culture of dialogue that must accompany our reflection on practical proposals.
Looking to the future of Anglican-Roman
Catholic dialogue we should feel encouraged by the Catholic Church's conviction
that in a relationship in Christ of real though imperfect ecclesial communion
the reality of that communion is fundamental to the relationship. Only
on the basis of that existing communion is it possible to fashion a dialogue
about the remaining or emerging imperfections in our communion which can
then lead us towards an experience of fuller or less imperfect communion. Thus,
even emerging obstacles to communion between the Anglican Communion and the
Catholic Church can be the subject of a dialogue that we believe continues to
lead us towards full, visible unity.
For both the Anglican Communion and the
Catholic Church in Growing Together in Unity and Mission the
International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission offers:
"a glimpse of what has been achieved already, a realistic view of the set-backs
encountered, and an agenda for future discussion."[46]
As such it deserves to be welcomed and further studied by our two Communions so
that the present reality of our ecumenical relations may be more clearly
understood and the real though partial communion we enjoy may become more
visible in effective witness and mission.
+Bernard Longley
Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster
15 June 2007