1

The Decree on Ecumenism – 40 Years On

[For Archdiocese of Melbourne Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission Commemoration of 40th Anniversary of Decree on Ecumenism – 28 November, 2004]

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today with several old friends. My own entry into local ecumenism began shortly after I was ordained and sent to the parish of South Yarra. In my first year there an ecumenical conference had been organised by the late Kevin Pethebridge and others. The parish priest would not allow it to be held within the parish boundaries, so we moved the venue to Wesley College, Prahran, just over our parish boundary!

The two speakers were “the two Youngs”, Archbishop Guilford Young of Hobart and Professor Norman Young, then of Queens College. Later that year I celebrated my first ecumenical wedding, with the Rev’d Philip Newman as principal celebrant (with permission to officiate in a Catholic Church – this rule was later changed) and myself assisting at St Thomas Aquinas Church, South Yarra. That first year of ministry saw me being led into the ecumenical movement by others. Later on I was chair of the Melbourne Ecumenical Affairs Commission when the Catholic Archdiocese, led by Archbishop Little, joined the Victorian Council of Churches. Subsequently I served two terms as that Council’s President. The friendships formed then have endured all these years and are marked here today for me.

I am quite sure that most of the Catholic bishops who attended the Second Vatican Council had little understanding of what was happening on the ecumenical front. The bishops from Australia, for instance, had come out of a century of strong religious polemic, stemming from the education debates of the 19th Century. There were still in place many rules prohibiting Catholics from attending the services of other churches, even weddings and funerals. Mixed marriages were frowned upon and, if permitted, the non-Catholic spouse had to endure many hours of religious instruction and pressure to convert. Memories of those sectarian times have not entirely gone, of course. I still am asked regularly if there is any problem that a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic. Grandparents have long memories, I say to myself. Such memories are probably still lurking among us here today! And much hurt has been caused.

I.Ecumenical Background to Vatican II

The decision to call the Council was made by one who had had considerable personal experience of divided Christianity during his time in the Balkans as an Apostolic Delegate. His repeated invitation to unity was generally accepted as well meant and given a surprisingly friendly reception, given the recent history of the Catholic Church vis-à-vis other Christians. It was quickly noted that he had avoided any trace of the desire on the part of the Catholic Church to “absorb” the others. But it also became clear that this was not to be a Council of Union, as earlier Councils like Lyons II (1274) and Ferrara-Florence (1438-45) had been. John XXIII’s chief concern seems to have been the missionary impact of the Gospel on the world – certainly a desire shared by many other Christians. Pope Paul VI, in opening the second session of the Council reiterated that the Council was called to adopt a new attitude towards “the vast number of brethren separated from us…”

It is important for Catholics to accept that the ecumenical movement had had a long history outside Catholic circles. This fact took time to impact on many of the Council Fathers, some of whom betrayed the view that the Catholic Church was beginning an ecumenical movement. Not true. Since 1910 Anglicans and Protestants had cooperated formally in a variety of ways: the World Missionary Council, the Life and Work (social justice) and Faith and Order Movements and more recently (1948) the formation of the World Council of Churches. Pope Pius XI had firmly declined an invitation for Catholic participation in the Lausanne meeting of Faith and Order in 1928, issuing his encyclical Mortalium Animos which embodied to “return to Mother” view of Church Unity. Prohibitions agains Catholic theologians taking part in ecumenical meetings continued for several decades.

However, we should remember, too, that not all Catholics accepted the “party line” of the time. The great Yves Congar, one of the leading theologians of the Council, wrote, “Work for unity has always gone beyond the official limits of the ecumenical movement.” From the beginning of the 20th century in Europe there were Catholics concerned for the cause of unity and working to foster it. The experience of the Second World War brought priests and pastors into contact in the concentration camps. We should acknowledge, too, the significant ecumenical connections in several other great movements that impacted on the work of the Council:

The biblical movement

The liturgical movement

Renewal of the study of the Fathers of the Church (Patristics)

Renewal of Luther studies.

These were largely the work of scholars, whose research, following historical principles, cut across denominational boundaries. The result today, of course, is that in these movements, and in others, there is hardly a distinctive church-position on many matters.

There were many other Catholics, too, whose experience told them that things had to change. I have anecdotal evidence from my own family in country Victoria of far better relations between Christians than were encouraged by Church authorities. Even the rules prohibiting attendance of Catholics at weddings and funerals in other churches were occasionally flouted and far more often considered offensive.

For the Catholic Church officially, though, things had begun to change in 1949. In that year the Holy Office issued an Instruction which recognised the working of the Holy Spirit, no less, in the non-Catholic ecumenical movement and allowed Catholic theologians to meet with their opposite number, like with like (par cum pari), even if this was still under strict supervision of the bishops.

The other step which had great influence on the Council and right up to the present was the setting up of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1960 (now called the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity), with Cardinal Bea as its President and Bishop (later Card.) Willebrands as its Secretary. Bea, like Pope John XXIII, was disarmingly friendly, a fine biblical scholar in his own right, a spiritual guide to the two previous Popes, in his late 70’s, and totally and tenaciously committed to the new work entrusted to him. This secretariat was to become one of the eleven preparatory commissions for the Council, but it had specific tasks:

  • it was to be a point of contact for other Christians with regard to the Council,
  • to provide information to them about the Council,
  • to receive their wishes and suggestions.

It was also to carry out an independent theological review of all the themes being considered by the Council, from the ecumenical point of view, in a constant awareness, as Cardinal Bea noted, that “the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of unity, is capable of far more than man.” From 1961, when it had been decided to invite non-catholic observers to the Council, this was also one of the Secretariat’s functions, to welcome and liaise with them.

Through a series of sub-committees, many of the issues being taken up by the Theological Commission of the Council were considered by the Secretariat. These were not strictly ecumenical issues, but ones upon which the observers had views and wished to comment:

  • the hierarchical nature of the Church,
  • the universal priesthood and the mission of the laity,
  • the significance and the pre-eminence of the Word of God,
  • the sources of revelation…

II. History of the Decree on Ecumenism

I will not delay on the development of the Decree, only to say that it involved intense debate over several drafts. This text was being studied in parallel with the constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. They impacted on each other, but because of the way in which texts were debated, the decree on ecumenism did not manage to integrate all of the insights of the latter. Still today, the Decree on Ecumenism needs to be read in the light of the Constitution on the Church, particularly its understanding of the Church as mystery, as a communion of life and love with the Holy Trinity rather than as a juridical institution.

In the debate on the text two different mentalities quickly emerged. They should not surprise us, even today. On the one side was the view of the Counter-Reformation period that regarded Christian unity as nothing more than the return of “the others” to the Catholic Church. The other was perhaps tentative at first, emphasising the gospel and the need to present to the modern world a common witness to the Christian faith. Charles Moeller, a Belgian expert, noted, “Two worlds: one prudential, abstract, juridical, moved by fear of relativism; the other evangelical, concrete, open. The first will turn to dust.” Few Australian interventions are recorded, but two are interesting, by an Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Thomas Muldoon. Firsly he said that “a great deal has been said in the hall by people who do not know much about the subject.” Secondly when discussion turned to the idea of the Church seeking forgiveness of the separated brethren, he opposed this, saying, “If someone is guilty, let him go find a good confesssor!”

There was debate at this time, too, on two other important texts: on the Jews and on religious freedom. It was proposed that these become part of the decree on ecumenism, but by the end of this session of the Council it became clear that they would be handled separately.

We should note, too, the role the observers from other Churches and ecclesial communities played in the formulation of the decree. By the second session of the Council there were 66 of them, representing 22 communities. There was one Australian observer, at the fourth session, Canon Frank Cutriss (Anglican). As well as attending the daily sessions of the Council, they met regularly with the members of the Secretariat and personally with many bishops and theologians. It was clear in the general debates, that while the observers did not speak, the Fathers were well aware of them. As one theologian noted, “Each Father who speaks is conscious of speaking in their presence, and many speak for them.” (B. Olivier) The delegates of the World Council of Churches made some strong and frank suggestions at times. There was specific criticism of the Catholic Church’s notion of its unity; of its belief that all others had fallen away or become separated from this Catholic unity. There was criticism also of the attempt to judge other Christian groups almost quantitatively, according to their more or less full (or deficient) possession of the ecclesial elements and means of salvation to be found in the Catholic Church. This view remains in the final version of the decree and still causes some irritation to our partners in dialogue. Yet each Church does have the right to state its own view of the matter. Others (e.g the Orthodox) hold similar, but more extreme, views to that of the Catholic Church.

I do not intend to analyse the whole of the Decree, only to note several important matters:

  1. Right at the beginning it is stated that the ecumenical movement is “fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit” and that the Decree wishes “to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.” (UR 1) This is a powerful claim. In these harder times for the ecumenical movement we should remind ourselves of it. Recently Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the PCPCU spoke of the difficult path that still lies ahead in the search for unity: ecumenical exhaustion, attempts to mine the path to unity. “After having filled in the trenches that at one time divided us, we find them opening up anew in the field of ethics.” From a human point of view there are reasons for concern and for losing hope. But, he stated, Christians are always people of hope. “When the Spirit of God starts something, he always see it through to completion”. (Homily at the Close of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Basilica of St Paul’s Outside the Walls, January 2004) Kasper has often said that we should hold ourselves ready for the future surprises the Spirit has in store for the Churches.
  1. At the very start of the Decree we read that the disunity of Christians “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block for the world and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the good news (gospel) to every creature”. These are the three urgent reasons that urge Churches to participate in the ecumenical movement.
  1. the notion of the Church as a communion, already treated in the Constitution on the Church, is central, because it enables the decree to say that there already exists a certain, though imperfect, communion between other Christians and the Catholic Church as a result of their belief in Christ and the sacrament of baptism. The Decree speaks of other Christians as “brothers” (UR 3). Pope John Paul II has more recently written of “brotherhood rediscovered” – “the universal brotherhood of Christians” has become a firm ecumenical conviction. (UUS 42) While differences certainly remain, what we share in common is very significant:
  • invocation of the Holy Trinity
  • faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour
  • the written Word of God
  • the sacrament of baptism
  • the life in fellowship with Christ and for Christ’s sake
  • the gifts of the Holy Spirit;

and that the Holy Spirit has used other Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation. This real communion, I would argue, is far greater than it is incomplete.

4.Perhaps the strongest affirmation made in the Decree is that in any ecumenical activity in any Church there is need for a change of heart: striving to live according to the Gospel which deepens our communion with the Father, the Word and the Spirit; constantly working for this renewal is a demand on the whole Church of God. In this process all Churches can learn from each other in what John Paul II has called “an exchange of gifts” (UUS 49). I know many Roman Catholics, particularly some younger ones I encounter studying theology, who can point out the defects in other Churches. But do we hear their criticism of us. That is much harder. Are we willing to learn anything from them? That is much harder for a Church which claims to hold the fullness of means of salvation (UR 3), but which nevertheless confesses that it has not made full use of each of those means! Along with this change of heart and holiness of life comes prayer for the unity of Christians. The Decree calls this “spiritual ecumenism”. It is “the soul of the whole ecumenical movement”(8). We need to note this call, especially in the harder times in our relationships: prayer to the Holy Spirit must inform all our other activities together; waiting on the Holy Spirit is an ever-present necessity. Upon this foundation we are called to construct what Cardinal Cassidy recently called the “three pillars” of ecumenical activity: common prayer for unity, ecumenical dialogue to try to overcome the differences between us and common witness and cooperation in social matters. These are the ways in which the ecumenical movement is carried on. I will comment on ecumenical dialogue and cooperation and common witness in what follows.

There is much more in the Decree and in the subsequent Directory on Ecumenism (issued in 1967 and 1970 and revised in 1993) which was designed to guide bishops, theologians and all the People of God of the Catholic Church. These texts are still worth reading and pondering. Another more recent RC text is the encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint (1995). This is one of his very best letters, easy to read and very challenging. He has repeatedly said that ecumenism is an organic part of the life and work of the Catholic Church and that it must pervade all she is and does (cf. UUS 20). That is a call especially, I believe, to our bishops and priests, -easier said than done.

III. The Modern Ecumenical Movement

I would like to turn now to look at three phases which the ecumenical movement has gone through in the last 90 years. The RCC has come late to each and is rather edgy about the most recent phase.

  1. Getting to know you:

Much of what has happened ecumenically in the course of the last century has happened not between churches as such, but between individual Christians. I once heard Cardinal Daneels of Brussels say, “Institutions do not make good lovers” and I believe that to be true. The early leaders of the EM had come to know one another through students groups, like the SCM, through missionary cooperation, in the prison camps during WWII, and on local level between pastors all across Europe. The early RC pioneers, like Congar and Coutourier had also worked this way. This was the period of missionary collaboration and of the founding of the World Council of Churches, which in its many (too many?) meetings has created a great fellowship among Christians from all parts of the world. Quite a few Australians experienced this back in 1991 at the Assembly of the WCC in Canberra, with 4,000 people from all parts of the world and from over 150 churches. The daily worship in a huge tent gave us just a taste of what might be to come for Christians.