IARCCUM: Growing Together in Unity and Mission
by Paul McPartlan
The Rev. Dr. Paul
McPartlan is Carl J. Peter Professor of Systematic Theology and Ecumenism at the
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. He is a member of the Joint
International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church, and has served as a theological consultant for IARCCUM.
This paper was
delivered at the National Workshop on Christian Unity (NWCU), Washington DC, on January
30, 2007.
It has also been published in Ecumenical Trends
36, no. 2 (February 2007). It is published here with permission from the author.
We are here this morning to consider the latest Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement, soon to be
published. At the outset, however, I would like to 'triangulate' our reflection
by mentioning something very significant happening today in London. In a little
over an hour from now (London time), there will be a special Evensong in
Westminster Abbey attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, to celebrate the publication
of the latest Anglican-Orthodox agreed statement, the fruit of seventeen years'
work (1989-2006).
In fact, if we consider the triangle, Catholic-Anglican-Orthodox, there are
significant things happening on all three sides right now. I have mentioned the
new Anglican-Orthodox agreed statement. Its title is: The Church of the
Triune God. That reference to the Trinity immediately signals a communion
ecclesiology. The international Catholic-Orthodox dialogue resumed last
September in Belgrade and was gives a strong boost by the visit of Pope Benedict
XVI to Turkey, and especially to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in November. That
dialogue is continuing to work within the matrix established by the first
Catholic-Orthodox agreed statement in 1982, entitled: The Mystery of the
Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.
Again, clearly, a communional matrix.
Then finally there is our new Catholic-Anglican text, which bears the title:
Growing Together in Unity and Mission, and is subtitled: Building on 40
Years of Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue. In a very far-sighted way, right
from the outset, Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, conducted by ARCIC, the
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, has taken communion, or
koinonia, as the central theme of all its texts. You will recall what The
Final Report said in 1982, presenting the fruits of the first round of
ARCIC's work: 'we present the eucharist as the effectual sign of koinonia,
episcope as serving the koinonia, and primacy as a visible link and
focus of koinonia'.[1]
Communion, or koinonia, is the theological territory in which all of
us, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox are conducting our mutual dialogues at
present, and particular attention is being given to the role of primacy
within an ecclesiology of communion. Indeed, the proper balance of communion and
primacy is an issue not only between but also within our respective churches.
After the controversy caused by the episcopal ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson
here in the USA in 2003, the Archbishop of Canterbury established the Lambeth
Commission under Archbishop Robin Eames, and one of the major recommendations of
the subsequent Windsor Report 2004 was a strengthening of the
'instruments of communion' in the Anglican Communion, and especially a
strengthening of the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury.[2]
The autonomy of the thirty eight provinces of the Communion needed to be an
'autonomy-in-communion', a 'freedom-in-relation', and excessive provincial
independence needed to be tempered in favour of interdependence.[3]
Primacy is something the Catholic Church does rather well, some might say
perhaps too well! It is more collegiality and decentralisation that ecumenical
partners tend to look for from the Catholic Church. Significant in that light is
the fact that Pope Benedict chose to have an episcopal mitre rather than a papal
tiara on his coat of arms, and that having presided over a worldwide Synod of
Bishops on the topic of the Eucharist soon after his election, he will preside
in October of next year over another Synod, this time on the Word of God, a
topic he himself chose. Overall, it is clear that the main christian churches
need to engage lovingly with one another and to undertake an exchange of
gifts. As Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum
Sint (1995), 'Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is
always an "exchange of gifts"'.[4]
There's a strong pointer in that phrase to a more practical
rather than a purely theological encounter between the christian
churches. When people think of Anglican-Roman Catholic relations, they tend to
think straight away of ARCIC, a commission largely made up of theologians. But
the new text, Growing Together in Unity and Mission, is a product not of
ARCIC, but of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and
Mission, which revels in the acronym IARCCUM!
I have not been personally involved with ARCIC, but I have been a theological
consultant to IARCCUM, which is primarily an episcopal commission, for the last
five years or so, working with others on the drafting of this text. Why has it
been written and what really is the purpose of IARCCUM? Well, IARCCUM picks up
the broad thrust that Anglican-Roman Catholic relations had at the very
start. When Archbishop Rowan Williams visited Pope Benedict in November 2006,
they commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the 1966 meeting between
Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI, a historic meeting which launched
Anglican-Catholic dialogue. The 1966 meeting was followed by the formation of a
Joint Preparatory Commission which swiftly held a series of meetings,
culminating in the production of the Malta Report early in 1968. That Report is
crucial for an understanding of IARCCUM.
The Malta Report mapped out a broad practical programme for the rapprochement
of the two communions, starting with a public act.
'We recommend ... an official and explicit affirmation of mutual
recognition from the highest authorities of each Communion. It would
acknowledge that both Communions are at one in the faith that the Church is
founded upon the revelation of God the Father, made known to us in the
Person and work of Jesus Christ, who is present through the Holy Spirit in
the Scriptures and his Church, and is the only Mediator between God and Man,
the ultimate Authority for all our doctrine. Each accepts the basic truths
set forth in the ecumenical Creeds [and] the common tradition of the ancient
Church, although neither Communion is tied to a positive acceptance of all
the beliefs and devotional practices of the other.'[5]
The act of mutual recognition never happened, but the outline at Malta of
what the two communions needed to be able to acknowledge in one another set the
programme for ARCIC and was a prime resource thirty five years later when
IARCCUM began its work of drawing together the achievements of ARCIC. Essential
also for appreciating the bond between Malta and IARCCUM is the fact that Malta
saw theological dialogue as just one strand of a rich programme of corporate
ties to be fostered. Immediately after the statement just quoted, the Report
said: 'In every region where each Communion has hierarchy, we propose an annual
Joint meeting of either the whole or some considerable representation of the two
hierarchies'.[6] It then went on to
recommend 'constant consultation between committees concerned with pastoral and
evangelistic problems', 'agreements for joint use of churches and other
ecclesiastical buildings', sharing facilities for theological education, common
prayer, bonds between religious orders of the two communions, collaboration in
liturgical renewal, 'joint or parallel statements from our Church leaders at
international, national, and local level on urgent human issues',[7] and so on.
Within all of that activity, as part of the broad practical programme, there
was to be an ongoing theological dialogue. Malta actually mapped out the agendas
for what proved to be two successive rounds of ARCIC: Eucharist, ministry and
authority for ARCIC 1, and salvation, communion, morals, authority and Mary for
ARCIC 2.[8]
That second cycle of dialogue began after Pope John Paul's visit to Canterbury
in 1982 and finished only recently in 2004 with the agreed statement on
Mary,
Grace and Hope in Christ.
It is clear that theological dialogue was never meant to be all that was
going on. Looking back from the vantage point of today, however, we must
acknowledge that theological dialogue has been the bulk of what has gone on; and
that, in light of Malta, has been something of an impoverishment. Of course,
theological dialogue is a vital part of the process, but there is much more to
ecclesial reconciliation than just theological dialogue. The process cannot
largely be deputed to theologians, not least because theological dialogue is
always in danger of developing a life of its own. There is always another topic
that might be considered for an agreed statement! Theological dialogue needs to
be anchored in the life of the Church, and its achievements need to be regularly
'cashed in', so to speak: if we have now reached this measure of
agreement in this particular area, how should this make a difference in
our corporate relations? How then might we establish a new context of
relationship, a new level or plateau, from which to tackle the next topic. Malta
foresaw a process of unity by stages, and there was wisdom in
that.
However, theological dialogue (ARCIC) proceeded largely on its own. The
Lambeth Conference of 1988 endorsed the results of the first round of ARCIC, and
the Vatican finally gave a measure of approval in 1992, but the second round of
ARCIC has been through no formal process of ecclesial reception. There have been
considerable achievements in the theological dialogue, but there has also been a
mounting backlog of reception, in other words, the ecclesial digestion of
the results. It really was high time to cash something in, high time for the
bishops, the pastors of the two communions, to take charge instead of just the
theologians.[9]
One of the many splendid initiatives of the Jubilee Year 2000 was the
convening by Cardinal Edward Cassidy, at that time the President of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), and the then
Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, of a gathering of bishops of the two
communions at Mississauga, near Toronto, in Canada. There were pairs of bishops,
one Anglican and one Roman Catholic, from thirteen countries, and they took
stock of relations between the two churches. It was a remarkable meeting which
profoundly affected the participants. Their final statement said: 'We have come
to a clear sense that we have moved much closer to the goal of full visible
communion than we had at first dared to believe. A sense of mutual
interdependence in the Body of Christ has been reached, in which churches of the
Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church are able to bring shared gifts
to their joint mission in the world'.[10]
They continued:
'We believe 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. This agreement 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.
Our two Communions would be invited to celebrate this Agreement around the
world.'[11]
The bishops drew up an 'action plan', with a new commission being established
to oversee the production of the Joint Declaration, to monitor the reception of
all the ARCIC statements, and generally to develop strategies for translating
the progress that had been made into 'visible and practical outcomes'.[12]
Thus was IARCCUM conceived, as a 'new stage' on the journey to the reiterated
goal of 'full and visible unity'.[13]
The new Commission was actually established in 2001 and duly began its work. It
met in Malta in 2002.
The following year, 2003, saw the controversial ordination in New Hampshire,
which dealt a severe blow to the process. The ordination caused major internal
problems for the Anglican Communion, but it also caused problems for
Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, not only because of Catholic concern about the
ordination of an actively gay man as bishop (many Anglicans shared that
concern), but also because of the fault lines that began to appear in the
Catholic Church's dialogue partner. Ever since Vatican II, the Catholic Church
has been in dialogue with the Anglican Communion, and that dialogue partner
needs to be intact and functioning for the dialogue to take place.
ARCIC continued working, though Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth (Primate of
the Anglican Church of Australia) took over from Bishop Frank Griswold
(Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA) as the Anglican Co-Chair, in
order to complete the document on Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ (2004),
but the work of IARCCUM was suspended. Then something very significant happened.
Having established the Lambeth Commission to make recommendations about the way
forward for the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Rowan Williams invited Cardinal
Walter Kasper, the current President of the PCPCU, to join him in establishing
an ad hoc sub-commission of IARCCUM to make a submission to the Lambeth
Commission specifically from the perspective of the results of over thirty years
of Anglican-Catholic dialogue.
The PCPCU subsequently praised this initiative for several reasons. 'It
showed the degree of mutual confidence which has come to characterise
Anglican-Catholic relations; it was an acknowledgement that the actions of one
church had a significant effect on the other; and it was an important step
towards the reception of the results of the dialogue'.[14] I was a member of
that sub-commission and I well remember our first meeting, which was held in
Seattle in 2004 immediately after ARCIC had completed work there on the Mary
document. Having just arrived for our crisis-prompted meeting, we joined the
members of ARCIC for the celebratory dinner that concluded their own meeting.
There was a mixture of emotions around the tables, but predominantly the sense
that what ARCIC had achieved over the years was substantial and too precious to
be squandered. What had been achieved must rather be deployed to help in the
crisis, and in fact (as later stressed in the comment above) the whole exercise
would itself be a valuable opportunity for the reception of ARCIC's results.
We duly completed and submitted our report, and The Windsor Report was
published later in 2004, with the recommendations I mentioned earlier. In the
more settled climate that ensued, IARCCUM resumed its work in 2005, and the
agreed statement is now complete and ready for publication. It, too, has a vital
role to play in the reception of ARCIC's achievements, and is in a sense a means
of fast-tracking their reception, which has got so far behind.
All of this history and background indicates two main purposes for the new
agreed statement: first, to draw together the main results of ARCIC, so that
they can be comprehended and, hopefully, received; and second, with the original
vision of The Malta Report in mind, to reinstate and promote a broad
practical programme of engagement between the two churches, not just in relation
to one another but primarily in view of our shared task in the world. These two
aims, of course, overlap and interlock, because it is hoped that the results of
ARCIC will themselves enable greater unity and more concerted action. As is
stated in Growing Together in Unity and Mission,[15]
the document is 'a call for action, based upon an honest appraisal of what has
been achieved in our dialogue' (Preface); 'we believe that it is ... 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' ( n.10). Accordingly,
the text is structured in two main parts.
Part One is entitled: 'The
Achievements of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue', and
Part Two has the title:
'Towards Unity and Common Mission'. I would like now briefly to give the flavour
of these two parts.
It is important, first of all, to highlight the candid and realistic tone of
the text. The first part is presented under nine headings: 'Belief in God as
Trinity', 'Church as Communion in Mission', 'The Living Word of God', 'Baptism',
'Eucharist', 'Ministry', 'Authority in the Church', 'Discipleship and Holiness',
and 'The Blessed Virgin Mary'. In all but two of these areas, the text frankly
indicates in a boxed section issues that still require further exploration. The
two areas where this thankfully wasn't necessary relate to 'Belief in God as
Trinity' and 'Baptism'! Then, while the document acknowledges that the time may
not be right to initiate 'a formal new stage in our relations' (reading between
the lines: the way ahead for the Anglican Communion and therefore for the
dialogue is not yet fully clear), it nevertheless says that the second part
'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' (n.10).
The first section, 'Belief in God as Trinity', rejoices that Anglicans and
Catholics can together proclaim the Apostles' Creed, as 'graced recipients of
the wholly unmerited gift of God's self-revelation in Christ' (n.13).
Acknowledging the Trinitarian structure of the Creed, the text speaks of the
Church's participation in the communion life of God (n.14), and naturally moves
on to the second theme of 'Church as Communion in Mission', because the Son and
the Spirit have come into the world on a mission of salvation; the Church's
mission is 'a sacramental form of that divine mission' (n.16). Church as
communion and Church as sacrament are prominent and interwoven motifs here, and
there is a strong emphasis on the work of the Spirit and on the eschatological
aspect of the Church's life. The Spirit 'nurtures the new life of the Kingdom
within the Church' (n.18). Commendably, the text then makes the discussion very
concrete. It is relatively easy to agree on 'the Church' in the abstract, but
where do we respectively think that the Church is actually to be found? Both
Catholics and Anglicans have adopted the idea that the Church has components or
elements, for example, scripture, sacraments and creeds, with a unifying
ministry of oversight, but the nature and number of those elements and the form
and shape of that ministry are matters needing further work. Nevertheless, there
is agreement that 'the goal of the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican
Communion is to come together in a common confession of the apostolic faith and
a shared sacramental life with a common ministry of oversight' (n.25).
Before turning to the sacramental trio of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,
grouped in this way to recall the Lima Report of the Faith and Order Commission
of the World Council of Churches in 1982,[16] the text gives a
strong presentation of 'The Living Word of God' and makes its own the valuable
formulation of the Montreal Report of the same Commission in 1963, that 'We
exist as Christians by the Tradition of the Gospel, testified in Scripture,
transmitted in and by the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit' (n.29).
It is also emphasised that effective preaching of the word is indispensable
(n.31).
The section on 'Baptism' stresses that Anglicans and Catholics recognise one
another's Baptism and that it is imperative that the obstacles which prevent us
from enjoying 'the fulness of eucharistic communion to which baptism should
lead' be overcome (n.38). There is an extensive treatment of 'Eucharist' which
clearly states our agreement that the Eucharist sacramentally makes present the
once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ, and incorporates the superbly crafted
statement of ARCIC's very first document, that in the Eucharist the members of
Christ 'enter into the movement of his self-offering' (n.40).[17]
The difference of discipline between the two churches regarding eucharistic
sharing is an obvious point of divergence that is described and acknowledged
(nn.46-48). The section on 'Ministry' starts with the strong statement of
agreement that Christ's ministry is 'the source and the model from which all
ministry flows and takes its shape', and emphasises that the ordained ministry
exists to uphold and strengthen the ministry of the whole community as the Body
of Christ in the world (n.50). The three-fold ordained ministry and the
responsibilities of the ordained are treated, as is the specifically priestly
designation of bishops and presbyters (nn.56-58). Two serious matters are
carefully noted at the end of the section: Pope Leo XIII's negative judgement on
Anglican orders and the disagreement between our two churches regarding the
ordination of women (nn.60-61).
Again, when the text turns to consider 'Authority in the Church', the opening
emphasis is on our agreement that 'the primary authority for all Christians is
Jesus Christ himself' (n.62), an authority entrusted to the Church. While there
is much agreement on basics, there are many ticklish issues here, regarding the
reaching of decisions, the authority of councils, papal infallibility, and so on
(nn.73-76).
We agree that 'the Christian vocation is to holiness of life' and that moral
behaviour is 'integral to the maintenance of communion with the Holy Trinity'
(n.77). The section on 'Discipleship and Holiness' notes that Catholics and
Anglicans have 'similar ways of moral reasoning' and lots of agreement on social
ethics (nn.83-84), but it also carefully considers issues such as divorce and
remarriage, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality, where it is important
for us to do more work together and 'develop common structures for decision
making' (nn.86-87). Finally in Part One, in the section on 'The Blessed Virgin
Mary', the 'unique vocation of Mary, Mother of God Incarnate', whom all
generations have called blessed, is treated, with emphasis that any
interpretation of her role that would obscure the unique mediation of Jesus
Christ between God and humanity must be rejected (nn.88-89).
Part Two of the agreed statement opens by stating firmly that 'Genuine faith
is more than assent: it is expressed in action'; 'the extent of common faith
described in this statement compels us to live and witness together more fully
here and now' (n.96). 'We should always be seeking to share with one another and
with the world at large the good gifts of the living God', it adds (n.97). There
is careful recognition that 'the context and dynamics of relationships between
Anglicans and Roman Catholics differ widely across the world' (n.99), meaning
that what is appropriate in any given place must be determined locally.
Nevertheless, the text makes numerous practical recommendations under four
headings: 'Visible expressions of our shared faith' (nn.100-103), 'Joint study
of our faith' (nn.104-107), 'Co-operation in ministry' (nn.108-117), and 'Shared
witness in the world' (nn.118-125), often taking up and expanding The Malta
Report's proposals.
In Conclusion, the bishops of IARCCUM call on all bishops around the world,
'mindful of the specific responsibilities of bishops for the promotion of
Christian unity and the mission of the Church', 'to encourage their clergy and
people to respond positively to this initiative, and to engage in a searching
exploration of new possibilities for co-operation in mission' (n.126).