2016 PLENARY ASSEMBLY
PROLUSIO OF THE CARDINAL PRESIDENT

 

THE UNITY OF CHRISTIANS: WHAT MODEL OF FULL COMMUNION?

 

Kurt Cardinal Koch

 

1.     Looking back in gratitude, looking forward in realistic hope

How is the ecumenical goal of Christian unity going today? How are we to understand full ecumenical communion? These at first glance innocuous questions very often conceal the – usually unspoken – suspicion that ecumenism today is in fact standing still and going nowhere. There is often talk of a standstill or even a winter frost within ecumenism. But of course anyone who looks into the ecumenical situation today or is personally engaged in it will not share this diagnosis. This is especially true when we look to ecumenism worldwide and ascertain what has actually been achieved in the more recent past.

In that regard we must bear in mind above all the range of dialogues the Catholic Church has conducted and continues to conduct since the Second Vatican Council with almost all Christian churches and ecclesial communities, beginning with the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches such as the Copts, Syrians and Armenians, through the Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine and Slavic traditions, on to the churches and communities which emerged from the Reformation such as the Lutherans and the Reformed, the Mennonites and the Baptists and the Anglican Communion, to the Old Catholics and the various Free Churches, and finally the Evangelical and Pentecostal communities that have grown so enormously in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Many positive fruits have been harvested from these dialogues, as Cardinal Walter Kasper has presented in his book “Harvesting the Fruits”.[1] Such a review of the past gives cause above all for gratitude for all that has been achieved.

But despite all these positive results it cannot be denied that the real goal of the ecumenical movement, namely the restoration of the visible unity of the Church or full ecclesial communion, has not yet been achieved and will obviously require much more time than was anticipated 50 years ago. This desideratum becomes all the more pressing when we reflect that the Second Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio” sees the visible unity of the Church as the goal of all ecumenical efforts and grounds this in the fundamental theological conviction that Christ intended “one Church and one Church only”.[2] This faith conviction is then confronted with the historical and still today empirically tangible fact that there is de facto a multiplicity of churches and ecclesial communities, which moreover all make the claim before the world that they alone “are the true inheritors of Jesus Christ”. Because that can give rise to the fatal impression “as if Christ Himself were divided”, the Council felt compelled to conclude that the division in the Church “openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalises the world and damages the holy cause of preaching the gospel to every creature”.

With these fundamental convictions the Second Vatican Council declared the ecumenical undertaking to be an serious obligation of the Catholic Church, because ecumenism represents a concern which belongs at the heart of the Church. After more than half a century since the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism, the question therefore arises of the current situation of its reception,[3] of where ecumenism stands today, and what are the appropriate next steps towards achieving this ecumenical goal.

 

2.    The disputed ecumenical goal

In the first instance, we are compelled to recognise that the goal of ecumenism itself is among the most contentious issues within the current ecumenical situation. As the first step we must confront this fundamental challenge in order to be able to proceed with the search for an adequate form of ecumenical unity. Just as in medicine, in ecumenism too, constructive therapeutic suggestions can only be investigated on the basis of a clear diagnosis.

a)   Lack of consensus on the goal of ecumenism

“We need a ‘common vision’ because we shall grow further apart if we do not aim towards a common goal. If we have conflicting views of this goal, we shall, if we are consistent, move in opposite directions.”[4] With these clear–sighted words the Evangelical Lutheran–Roman Catholic Commission already in 1980 in its consensus text “Ways to Community” already pointed to the special difficulty arising if there were no consensus within the ecumenical movement on its goal. If the various partners in ecumenism have no shared goal in view but in fact understand it in a very different way, there is an imminent danger that they stride ahead in different directions, only to discover later that they have distanced themselves from one another even more than they were before. This danger has by no means diminished over recent decades, since no really workable agreement has been achieved as yet regarding the goal of the ecumenical movement, and previous partial consensus in this regard has in part been called into question. In the course of time the goal of ecumenism has become increasingly unclear, with no consensus in view on how the restored unity of the church is to be understood.

In the previous phases of the ecumenical movement, wide–ranging and satisfying convergences and consensus have been achieved, on the one hand, on many individual questions on the faith understanding and the theological structure of the Church. On the other hand, most of the remaining points of difference have consolidated around the quite divergent profiles in the understanding of the ecumenical unity of the church per se. This twofold result reveals the real paradox of the current ecumenical situation, which one can determine more precisely in the diagnosis of Bishop Paul–Werner Scheele: “We are in accord on the ‘that’ of unity, but not on the ‘what’ ”.[5]

This difficulty is intensified by the fact that the ecumenical search for the unity of the Church is today exposed to a strong headwind in the pluralist and relativist spirit of our times that has become such a matter of course today. In contrast to the Christian tradition in which according to the theological axiom “ens et unum convertuntur” unity was considered the meaning and foundation of reality per se, today pluralism has by contrast to a great extent become the definitive fundamental concept in the perception of the so–called post–modern experience of reality today. According to the well–known essay “La condition postmoderne” by Jean–Francois Lyotard, post–modern means the acceptance of the plural and the suspicion of any singular. The basic assumption of the post–modern mentality affirms that we neither can nor may turn our minds back to before the plurality of reality, if we do not want to expose ourselves to the suspicion of a totalitarian mindset; indeed, plurality is seen as the only way in which the whole of reality can be apprehended, if at all.[6] This fundamental abandonment of the idea of unity is characteristic of post–modernism, which is “not only the acceptance and tolerance of plurality, but rather an option for pluralism on principle”.[7] To this post–modern mentality, every search for unity immediately appears antiquated and pre–modern.

Furthermore, this post–modern mentality can be seen to be taking effect even within Christianity today, on the one hand in the widespread religious pluralistic movements of the present time which not only proceed from a multiplicity of religions but also from a pluralism of divine revelations, so that even Jesus Christ is seen only as one among many in the world of bearers of revelation and salvation.[8] On the other hand, in current ecumenical thinking we find a broadly accepted ecclesiological pluralism, according to which the multiplicity and diversity of churches is considered a positive reality, and any search for unity of the church seems suspicious. It seems that people have not only come to terms with the historically developed and continuing pluralism of churches and ecclesial communities, but in principle even welcome it, so the ecumenical quest for visible unity of the church seems to be unrealistic and is not even valued as desirable.

It is not unusual to attempt to justify this renunciation of the search for unity on scriptural grounds, by pointing out for example that the earthly Jesus had dealings with various groups and groupings among the people of God, with Sadducees and Pharisees, with Zealots and Essenes, with Samaritans and others, and thus with a fragmented people of God of that time.[9] Or one refers to the often repeated thesis of the Protestant New Testament scholar Ernst Käsemann, who attempts to legitimate the great church schisms with the claim that the New Testament canon does not establish the unity of the church but rather the multiplicity of confessions.[10] Although it seems an anachronistic enterprise to transmit back into the New Testament the current historically developed situation of separated and co–existing denominationally defined churches and ecclesial communities,[11] this thesis by Käsemann is still taken up today, when for example the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) refers to it in its foundational text on the Reformation commemoration of 2017, in order to interpret the churches of the Reformation as a “part of the legitimate, because in conformity with Scripture, pluralisation of Christian churches” and to laud it as a welcome after–effect of the 16th century Reformation.[12] Even the academic leaders of the Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians, Volker Leppin and Dorothea Sattler, openly profess that in the current composition of this Ecumenical Working Group the number of theologians has increased who perceive the plurality of churches as “a cause for esteem rather than as grounds for concern”.[13]

These examples document the fact that the ecumenical search for unity of the church takes place today in a radically altered theological context, more precisely with a tendency that the multiplicity of churches is no longer considered from the perspective of the historical schisms and the unity that is to be restored, but rather as an historically developed enrichment of being church.[14] On that basis, fundamental concerns are expressed against an understanding of unity in which the multiformity of churches, even when it is the result of division, is not in the first instance seen as an enrichment.

Together with this option for the plurality of churches, a paradigm shift in the ecumenical theology is also postulated and practised, in which the previously applied method – which is decisively consensus oriented and constantly seeks to arrive at a “differentiated consensus”[15]– is today called into question. This method means that on the one hand the convergence in dialogue on the basic substance of a doctrine previously contested between the churches is formulated, and what can be jointly stated is jointly articulated. At the same time, on the other hand, the remaining differences are named just as clearly, and in the process it is demonstrated that they do not call into question the basic consensus, and that they no longer need to be perceived as church–dividing differences, but can be handed on for further theological study. This ecumenical method which is intended to serve the restoration of ecclesial unity through the development of fundamental consensus in questions of the faith, is today variously criticised, to the extent that the end of so–called “consensus ecumenism” has been proclaimed, to be replaced by a so–called “ecumenism of difference”.[16] Closely associated with this is the concept of an “ecumenism of profiles” propagated by the German Protestant Bishop Wolfgang Huber, which according to its inherent logic tends towards profiling one’s own denominational identity in contrast to the other churches, and to claim for one’s own church for example the profile of a “church of freedom”.[17] The discourse on irreconcilable “fundamental confessional differences” goes even further in taking up once more a concept previously encountered in the work of the Protestant theologian Gerhard Ebeling, casting doubt on whether any convergence can ever be reached on fundamental theological assumptions in the various churches. It is not difficult to see that within the horizon of this kind of thought the question of the unity of the church and full communion takes on a quite different complexion.

b) Lack of clarification of the understanding of church and unity

Within this context we see a crucial cause for the failure to achieve a practicable agreement on the goal of ecumenism. This has its essential basis in the fact that the quite diverse denominational conceptions of the church and its unity continue to stand unreconciled beside one another, as they did at the outset. Since each church or ecclesial community has and realises its own specific concept of being church and of its unity, it also strives to transfer this confessional concept to the level of the goal of ecumenism, so that there are ultimately as many concepts of the ecumenical goal as there are denominational ecclesiologies.[18] This means that the lack of a consensus on the goal of the ecumenical movement is not in a negligible way grounded in the lack of an ecumenical consensus on the nature of the Church and its unity.

This diagnosis leads inevitably to the consequence that an ecumenical clarification of the understanding of the church and its unity must be the central theme of current and future ecumenical dialogues.[19] A constructive path in this direction is provided by the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches in its study “The Church. Towards a Common Vision”. It strives for a “global, multilateral and ecumenical vision of the nature, purpose and mission of the church”, and can be evaluated as a valuable ecclesiological in–via declaration with an ecumenical perspective.[20] Nevertheless, even this worthy study cannot lead the theological convergence on most of the previously controversial ecclesiological issues any further than the formulation of still open questions. Thus it confirms once more that the ecumenical conceptions of unity prevailing in the various churches are to a great extent dependent on their conception of the church and its unity, as is to be clarified through several indications in the following.

The Orthodox understanding of the church can most adequately be defined as a eucharistic ecclesiology developed in the first instance by Russian Orthodox theologians in exile in Paris after the First World War. These first approaches were deliberately formulated in opposition to what they claimed to be the centralism of the papacy in the Roman Catholic Church, and of course also, as in the case of Nicholas Afanasjev, against developments in ecclesial structures within Orthodoxy that have led to the formation of autocephalous patriarchates. In this Orthodox view, the Church of Jesus Christ is present and realised in each local church, gathered around its bishop, where the eucharist is celebrated. Because the local church celebrating the eucharist with its bishop is understood as the representation, actualisation and realisation of the one Church in its concrete location, each eucharistic community is wholly Church and lacks nothing beyond itself. Therefore the Catholic Church shares with the Orthodox Church the same Early Church structure and its sacramental, eucharistic and episcopal constitution. It is distinguished from it however in that, from the Orthodox perspective, apart from an ecumenical council there can be no visible and effective principle of church unity at a universal level equipped with any kind of juridically developed authority such as the Catholic Church discerns and acknowledges in the Petrine ministry. The Orthodox Church understands and realises itself instead as a communion of autonomous and autocephalous churches, so its conception of unity is to a large extent determined by the concept of autocephaly and the corresponding national principle.

The fundamental difference can thus be identified in the vision of a controversial relationship between the local and the universal church, or more precisely, in the confrontation of an “Orthodox understanding of church bound up with the national culture and a Catholic universally defined understanding”.[21] While the Orthodox understanding of the church implies a strong local church ecclesiology, for Catholic ecclesiology the reciprocal interweaving of local and universal church is constitutive. At the Second Vatican Council this was given expression in the basic ecclesiological formula that “the one and only Catholic Church [comes into being in and from the individual churches]”[22]: “This Church of Christ is truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament”.[23] The constitution of the Catholic Church can most readily be compared with an ellipse with two focal points, namely the multiplicity of local churches and the unity of the universal church: it is communio ecclesiarum and communio ecclesiae. It is at one and the same time constituted as local church and universal church, as episcopal and papal. In the Catholic understanding of church, the church of Jesus Christ is wholly present in the concrete individual congregation, but the individual eucharistic community is not the whole church. The unity of the individual eucharistic communities with one another and in unity with the local bishop and with the Bishop of Rome as the Pope of the universal church is therefore constitutive of being church.

In the case of the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformation, we find a different type of church consisting essentially in the fact that the church consists above all in the “dynamism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation”.[24] Just as Martin Luther himself condemned the term “church” as a “blind and unclear word”, declared it to be a negative concept, and employed the word “congregation” (Gemeinde) to give expression to the essential theological nature of the church,[25] the Protestant understanding of church today finds its unequivocal focus and its centre of gravity in the concrete local congregation. The church of Jesus Christ in its fullest sense is present in the concrete congregation assembled in worship around the word and sacrament. This ecclesiological self–understanding has found its classical formulation in Article 7 of the Confessio Augustana, according to which the church is the assembly of the faithful in which the gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel. Since this occurs concretely in the local congregation, the congregation is in fact considered the prototypical realisation of the church. With this focus on the congregation, the supra–congregational aspect of the church, and thus its universal dimension, is only made secondary. Above all, herein lies the principal reason why the Protestant understanding of the church does not recognize a generally accepted theology of the episcopal ministry as a service of unity on the regional level of the church, much less a theology of the ministry of unity at the level of the universal church.

When we for a moment take into account these diverse global conceptions of ecclesiology, it becomes readily comprehensible that they must also involve diverse concepts of ecumenical unity. Together with the Orthodox Church – despite existing differences – the Catholic Church maintains the originally envisaged shared goal of visible unity in the faith, the sacraments and ministries. By contrast, not a few of the churches and communities that emerged from the Reformation have to a great degree given up this originally shared concept of unity in favour of a postulated reciprocal recognition of the various ecclesial realities as churches and therefore as belonging to the one Church of Jesus Christ. Certainly, that does not imply postulating an in principle invisibility of the unity of the church, but the visible unity consists merely in the addition of all previously existing ecclesial realities.

This re–definition of the ecumenical goal has found its clearest expression in the Leuenberg Agreement concluded in 1973, giving expression to that model of ecclesial communion which has in the meantime been realised in the Leuenberg communion of churches.[26] This consciously understands itself as a communion of confessionally diverse churches, which on the basis of a common understanding of the gospel as seen in the doctrine of justification, grant one another communion in word and sacrament, including the mutual recognition of ordination, so that ecclesial communion essentially consists in altar and pulpit fellowship. The ecumenical goal is thereby considered to be already achieved to the extent that the separated churches, while maintaining their confessional identity, continue to exist as individual institutional realities but reciprocally recognise one another as churches.

The Leuenberg Agreement sees itself not only as the characteristically “Protestant model for ecclesial unity”[27] but also as the model for ecumenical relations with other Christian churches.[28] It is to be hoped that the ecumenical dialogue with the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE), which has been entrusted with the examination of the extent to which the Leuenberg Agreement can serve as a model for the ecumenical goal, will lead to a positive result. At this stage it is not clear how this understanding of the ecumenical goal could accord with the biblical image of the one body of Christ. It is instead obvious that this view of an additive ecclesiological pluralism favoured by contemporary Protestantism cannot be harmonised with the Catholic principles of ecumenism,[29] as Pope Benedict XVI has judged with the necessary clarity: “The search for the re–establishment of unity among the divided Christians cannot therefore be reduced to recognition of the reciprocal differences and the achievement of a peaceful coexistence: what we yearn for is that unity for which Christ himself prayed and which, by its nature is expressed in the communion of faith, of the sacraments, of the ministry.”[30] Therefore, in common with the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church holds fast to the conviction, alive already in the Early Church, of the inseparability of ecclesial communion, confessional communion, and eucharistic communion, and cannot perceive the goal of all ecumenical endeavours in so–called intercommunion, but only in the re–establishment of “communio, within which the communion in the Lord’s Supper also has its place”.[31]

c) Pluralisation of the ecumenical goal on the basis of new partners

The Leuenberg Agreement and its underlying ecclesiological pluralism can be evaluated as a characteristically Protestant model also because the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformation have in the meantime developed into a virtually incalculable pluriverse where only marginal endeavours towards greater unity with one another can be discerned at a worldwide level. On the contrary: within global Protestantism increasing fragmentation and multiple splintering processes can be observed, which have led to further pluralisation of the concepts of the ecumenical goal.

This phenomenon finds further confirmation in more recent time in the entry of new dialogue partners into the ecumenical movement. Ecumenical encounters today take place not only between the historical mainstream churches but also and increasingly with the so–called Free Churches, which have pre–empted the future that also clearly awaits the historical churches – namely the end of “inherited” Constantinian Christianity, that is, freedom and independence from the state – and which therefore represent yet another concept of ecumenical unity. Of particular significance in this regard is the rapid and numerically strong growth of evangelical and charismatic groupings, and above all in the breath–taking growth of pentecostal communities and movements. With approximately 400 million members, they form numerically the second largest Christian community after the Roman Catholic Church. This represents such an expanding phenomenon that one has to speak of a current pentecostalisation of Christianity,[32] or may be inclined to apprehend it as a “fourth mode of being Christian”, namely beside the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church and the churches and ecclesial communities resulting from the Reformation.[33]

Not least, the phenomenon of Pentecostalism brings to light the fact that, in reviewing the last decades, the worldwide geography of Christianity has changed radically, and that the ecumenical situation has become more unfathomable and not in the least simpler. It is also readily comprehensible that ecumenical dialogues with these newer movements the agenda items that must be given priority differ from those in dialogues with historical mainstream churches, and the spectrum of the concepts of the ecumenical goal extended yet again. Since this fact has its not negligible basis in the increased number of ecumenical dialogue partners, the increasing pluralisation of the models of the ecumenical goal should not be considered simply as a problem but also seen positively, as affirmed by the Berlin Protestant church historian Christoph Markschies, who has reflected that while the goal of the ecumenical movement has become less clear than it was at the beginning, this fact can also be interpreted as a – certainly unintended – consequence of the success of the ecumenical movement: “In the meantime so many people are engaged in the ecumenical movement that the initially divergent goals have become further pluralised simply on the basis of the mass of Christians who are interested in ecumenism”.[34]

In spite of this positive view of the otherwise negative fact that there is no workable consensus on the goal of the ecumenical movement, the question of unity arises with renewed urgency, for without the quest for unity, the Christian faith would surrender itself, as the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians expresses with all the necessary clarity: “There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4–6). Because unity is and remains a fundamental category of Christian faith, Christians must have the courage and the humility to confront face to face the continuing scandal of divided Christendom, and with amiable stubbornness keep alive the question of unity. The conversion demanded by the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council must therefore in the first instance mean conversion to the passionate search for unity.[35]

 

3.    Keeping alive the search for church unity

In view of the pluralisation of the ecumenical concepts of unity we are as it were thrown back to the origins of an understanding of unity. Since the question of unity and full communion arises in a different manner in each of the various dialogues, no single concrete model of ecumenical unity can now be drafted in advance: it must instead be developed in dialogue with the concepts of unity favoured by the other churches and ecclesial communities. This is also not the place to analyse and discuss the various models of ecumenical unity developed in previous ecumenical discussions – spiritual unity, joint action between communities that remain distinct, federation of communities, communion between confessionally diverse churches, unity in reconciled diversity, organic union. Above all, it cannot involve making maximal demands of other churches and ecclesial communities in the name of one church, since such a process contradicts an honest and authentic dialogue and hinders the path to full communion. In our current context what is called for is an elementary search for the traces of church unity, whereby the most significant trace is found in Sacred Scripture, more precisely in the last prayer of Jesus, in which the prayer for unity among his disciples occupies a pre–eminent place. In this prayer Jesus looks beyond the community of disciples of that time and directs his gaze towards all who “will believe in me through their word” (Jn 17:20). Since in the high–priestly prayer of Jesus our ecumenical present is thus included, we can through it most profoundly discern what is and must be most deeply involved in our ecumenical obligation in the light of faith. If the unity of his disciples is Jesus’ central concern in this prayer, Christian ecumenism can only mean Christians joining in Jesus’ prayer, in that they make his heart’s desire their own. If the motivation of ecumenism is not simply philanthropic or humanitarian but genuinely Christological, it can ultimately be nothing less than participation in the high priestly prayer of Jesus. With this primary biblical definition of what ecumenical means, the following represents an attempt to identify the elementary dimensions of ecumenism on the basis of the text of John 17, so well–known to all of us and yet so inexhaustible, in order to ascertain the ecumenical obligation of the search for that unity of the faith that has been promised to us as a gift and entrusted to us as our mission.[36]

a)   The spiritual dimension: prayer for unity

Pride of place must be accorded to the spiritual dimension of ecumenical unity. In the prayer of Jesus “that all may be one” we see that Jesus does not command unity to his disciples or demand it of them, but prays for it. This simple but fundamental insight also has profound significance for our ecumenical search for unity. The prayer for the unity of Christians is and remains the defining keynote of all ecumenical efforts. Without prayer there can therefore be no unity, as Pope Francis stresses again and again: “The ecumenical commitment responds, firstly, to the prayer of the Lord Jesus himself, and is based primarily in prayer.”[37]

This spiritual dimension found its tangible expression from the outset in the fact that the Week of Prayer for the Unity of Christians stood at the beginning of the ecumenical movement and is celebrated each year in January. It was prompted by Paul Wattson, an American Anglican who later joined the Catholic Church, and Spencer Jones, a member of the Episcopalian Church, and was taken up by Pope Benedict XV and extended throughout the entire Catholic Church; it was further developed by Abbé Paul Couturier, a passionate pioneer of spiritual ecumenism, and was from the outset an ecumenical initiative. It was the Prayer for the Unity of All Christians that opened the pathway for the ecumenical movement, which right from the start was above all a prayer movement, as Pope Benedict XVI expressed it in the beautiful image: “The ship of ecumenism would never have put out to sea had she not been lifted by this broad current of prayer and wafted by the breath of the Holy Spirit.”[38] This prayer movement cannot simply represent a beginning that we can ever leave behind us, but rather a beginning that must remain beside us on our journey and accompany all ecumenical endeavours still today.

Prayer must remain the focal point of the path to the restoration of Christian unity. With the prayer for unity we give expression to our faith conviction that unity cannot be effected solely – let alone primarily – by our own efforts, that we cannot create unity ourselves, nor determine its form or its time–frame. We Christians can provoke division, as we see in history and in the present day. We can only allow unity to be granted to us. The prayer for unity reminds us that even in oecumenicis not everything is achievable, but that we Christians must leave room for the working of the Holy Spirit, which is not at our disposal, and place our reliance in Him at least as much as in our own ecumenical efforts.

The best preparation for receiving unity as a gift from the Holy Spirit is prayer for unity. Because we Christians know that unity is “in the first instance a gift from God for which we must pray without ceasing”, we must also be conscious of our responsibility for “preparing the conditions, cultivating the ground of the heart, so that this great grace may be received”.[39] The centrality of prayer makes it clear that ecumenical endeavour is above all a spiritual task, and spiritual ecumenism is, as the Second Vatican Council expressed it forcibly “the soul of the entire ecumenical movement”.[40] Credible ecumenism stands or falls by the depth of its spiritual power, and by Christians joining in the high–priestly prayer which is as it were the innermost locus of ecumenical unity: “We will be one when we allow ourselves to be drawn into this prayer.”[41]

b)     The somatic dimension: visible unity

The primacy and centrality of the spiritual dimension of ecumenical unity would of course be misunderstood if it led to the conclusion that the unity of all Christians were a purely spiritual and therefore an invisible entity. That view is contradicted by the second guideline found in the high–priestly prayer of Jesus, who prays in a quite specific manner for the unity of his disciples. “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you have sent me”. In order that the world may believe, it must be able to see the unity. The unity of the church that is to be regained cannot simply be an invisible unity; what is needed is a unity that can take on a visible form in our world.

The rediscovery of the somatic dimension of ecumenical unity is due above all to the intensive efforts of Pope Benedict XVI, in particular in his interpretation of Jesus’ high–priestly prayer and the related ecumenical debate with Rudolf Bultmann.[42] For this Protestant exegete the authentic unity of the disciples is, above all in the view of John’s gospel, “invisible” since it is “not a worldly phenomenon” at all. Benedict XVI fully and completely agrees with the second claim in this twofold statement while fundamentally calling into question the first claim. In order to gain a practicable understanding of ecumenical unity it is worth the effort of reflecting a little on this twofold response. That the unity of the disciples, and therefore also the unity of the future church for which Jesus prays, is not and in principle cannot be a “worldly phenomenon”, is for Benedict self–evident, as he expressly maintains: “Unity does not come from the world: on the basis of the world’s own efforts, it is impossible. The world’s own efforts lead to disunion, as we can all see. Inasmuch as the world is operative in the Church, in Christianity, it leads to schisms. Unity can only come from the Father through the Son.[43] As much as Benedict agrees with the Protestant exegete that the unity of the disciples cannot come from the world, just as strongly does he dispute on the other hand his conclusion that it is therefore “invisible”. Even if unity is not a worldly phenomenon, the Holy Spirit is nevertheless at work within the world. The unity of the disciples must therefore be of such a kind that the world can recognise it and through it come to faith, as Pope Benedict expressly emphasises: “While it does not come from the world, it can and must be thoroughly effective in and for the world, and it must be discernible by the world. The stated objective of Jesus’ prayer for unity is precisely that through the unity of the disciples, the truth of his mission is made visible for men.”[44] Benedict XVI even stresses that through the unity of the disciples which does not come from this world and is inexplicable in human terms, “Jesus himself is vindicated. It can be seen that he is truly the ‘Son’”.”[45]

This insistence on the visibility of the unity of the disciples and the church and consequently on the somatic dimension of ecumenical unity is closely linked with the fact the Second Vatican Council sees this visible unity already existing in the sacrament of baptism. In baptism the Conciliar Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio” sees the inherent ground and the visible expression of the participation of all the baptised in the Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”[46] Baptism therefore establishes a “sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it.” Baptism is however only “a beginning, an inauguration”, since according to its essence its goal is “directed toward the fullness of life in Christ”; it is therefore oriented towards “the full confession of faith, full incorporation into the history of salvation as Christ intended it and ultimately full integration into eucharistic communion.” [47] Thus the ecumenical path towards the visible unity of all Christians is in concrete terms the path leading from the fundamental communion in baptism and its mutual recognition to the full communion in the eucharist, the celebration of the body of Christ, in which the somatic dimension of ecumenical unity is most clearly experienced.

c)      The Trinitarian dimension: unity in diversity

Since ecumenical unity must be somatic and visible, a further question arises as to the concrete appearance of this unity. An answer can be found in the third guideline in the high–priestly prayer of Jesus when he prays with the words: “They shall be one as we are one, I in you and you in me” (v 22), Jesus himself thus discerns the most profound foundation of unity between the disciples in the Trinitarian unity of love between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the inner life of God. The three–fold God, who is in himself living communion in the original relationship of unity in love, is the most transparent archetype of ecumenical unity. In the light of this mystery of Trinitarian love the church appears as the dimension of salvation modelled on the threefold God or, as the Second Vatican Council emphasised, “the people united on the basis of the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.[48] Ecumenical unity is therewith ultimately grounded in the Trinitarian communion, and the church is the icon of the trinity.

When we consider this mystery of the faith more closely it becomes apparent that in the Trinitarian life of God two dimensions come into force with equal originality: in God there is in the first place room for the life of the Other, and therefore for multiplicity and diversity: for the Father is other than the Son and the Son in turn other than the Holy Spirit. Within the divine trinity there exists a wonderful diversity of persons. But in God there is also a wonderful unity of divine life. Although the Father is other than the Son and the Son in turn other than the Holy Spirit, the divine persons nevertheless live as heavenly trialogue partners on the same plane of being. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. The Triune God is in himself living communio in the original relationship of unity in love.

In the light of this divine mystery the church is called to live as an icon of the trinity. If accordingly ecumenical unity is to reflect in the world the communion of the threefold God, it can only consist in a unity in diversity and diversity in unity. Such a unity in diversity can however only be granted by the Holy Spirit. Whereas we human beings are always prone to the temptation on the one hand to try to produce diversity while at the same time enclosing ourselves in particularisms and exclusivisms and thus creating division, and on the other hand to attempt to establish unity along human lines while giving rise instead to standardisation and uniformity, it is the Holy Spirit alone who by contrast calls forth multiplicity and diversity while at the same time effecting unity. The Spirit grants unity in diversity or, as Pope Francis has expressed it in the words of the Reformed theologian Oscar Cullmann “unity in reconciled diversity”.

In this sense of finding unity in diversity we Christians can while still separated already be one when we neutralise the divisions, accepting what is fruitful in them and receiving the positive from diversity, in the light of the mystery of Trinitarian love which Pope Benedict has so sensitively described: “True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity that is not ordered from the outside but gives form from within, so to speak, to the whole.”[49] Then our view becomes free for that life of ecumenical unity which is possible already today. It does not consist merely in the exchange of ideas and theses but far more fundamentally in the exchange of gifts. This is far more than simply a theoretical exercise but serves to make the various Christian communities more profoundly acquainted with their traditions in order to understand an learn from them. For no church is so poor that it could not make an inimitable contribution to the greater community of Christianity. But nor is any church so rich that it would not need the enrichment provided by other churches., in the conviction that what the Holy Spirit has sown in other Christian communities is to be “accepted as a gift meant for us”.[50]

d)     The missionary dimension: credible unity

From this provisional unity our view is expanded towards the real scope of the high–priestly prayer of Jesus in which he prays for unity among his disciples with a specific intention: “That they may become perfectly one so that the world nay know that you sent me and loved them as you loved me.” This final clause expresses unmistakably that the unity of the disciples is not an end in itself but stands in the service of the credibility of the mission of Christ and his church in the world and represents the indispensable prerequisite for a credible testimony to the world.

This finality of the ecumenical quest for unity was recognised already in the last century ago at the first World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910. The participants in this conference were faced with the scandal that the various Christian churches and ecclesial communities were competing in their mission work, to the detriment of the credible proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially in distant cultures, as along with the Gospel they also brought to these cultures the European divisions of the Church. They therefore were aware of the painful fact that the lack of unity among Christians was putting the credibility of the Christian witness in the world at risk.

The division within Christianity formed the most difficult obstacle for world mission then, and that is still true today, as Pope Francis calls to mind in clear words in his Apostolic Encyclical “Evangelii gaudium”: “Given the seriousness of the counter–witness of division among Christians, particularly in Asia and Africa, the search for paths to unity becomes all the more urgent. Missionaries on those continents often mention the criticisms, complaints and ridicule to which the scandal of divided Christians gives rise”. Consequently, for Pope Francis “commitment to a unity which helps them to accept Jesus Christ can no longer be a matter of mere diplomacy or forced compliance, but rather an indispensable path to evangelization.”[51]

This ecumenical emergency case implies that an honest and therefore ecumenically shared witness to Jesus Christ in the modern world is only possible when the churches overcome their divisions and live in a unity of reconciled diversity. Ecumenism and mission therefore belong indissolubly together. If mission consists in essence in bearing witness to the love of God which he has revealed in his Son and through such witness bringing God to the people and the people to God, the focus of Christian mission must be the proclamation of God, which we today are bound to conduct ecumenically. Pope Benedict sees this as the most urgent ecumenical responsibility today: “Our primary ecumenical service at this hour must be to bear common witness to the presence of the living God and in this way to give the world the answer which it needs.”[52]

e)      The martyrological dimension: unity testified in death

The most credible witnesses of the faith are the martyrs who have borne testimony to their faith with their life even unto death and draw our attention to the martyrological dimension of ecumenical unity.[53] This has attained a particular existential urgency in the world of today, in which more Christian persecution occurs than in the first centuries.[54] For eighty percent of all those who are persecuted for their faith are Christians. The Christian faith is the most persecuted of all religions in the world today. Today all churches and ecclesial communities have their martyrs. Christians today are not persecuted because they are Catholic or Orthodox, Protestant or Pentecostal, but because they are Christians. Martyrdom today is ecumenical, and one can indeed speak of an ecumenism of martyrs,[55] as Saint Pope John Paul II emphasised so vividly already in 1994 in his Apostolic Letter “Tertio millennio adveniente”: “At the end of the second millennium, the Church has once again become a Church of martyrs. The persecutions of believers —priests, Religious and laity—has caused a great sowing of martyrdom in different parts of the world. The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants.”[56] In his passionate encyclical on ecumenical engagement “Ut unum sint” in 1995 Pope John Paul devoted an entire paragraph to the ecumenism of the martyrs and emphasised that “in a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This … shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.”[57]

In the ecumenism of the martyrs Saint Pope John Paul II already perceived a fundamental unity between Christian and hoped that the martyrs would help us to find full communion. While we Christians and churches here on earth still stand in an imperfect communion towards and with one another, the martyrs in their heavenly glory already live a full and perfect communion. “The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church” are for John Paul II the “most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel.”[58] In the ecumenism of the martyrs, or as Pope Francis often says, in the ecumenism of blood, the conviction of the Early Church expressed by the church writer Tertullian with the words that the blood of martyrs is the seed of new Christians, is renewed. So we too may hope that the blood of so many martyrs of our day will one day prove to be the seed of the full ecumenical unity of the body of Christ.

In the ecumenism of the martyrs we may discern the innermost heart of all ecumenical endeavours for the unity of the Church, as Pope Francis expressed it in the memorable formula: “If the enemy unites us in death, how can we separate ourselves in life”.[59] Is it not indeed a cause for shame that those who persecute Christians have a better ecumenical vision than we Christians do, since they know that Christians are most profoundly one with one another? Because the suffering of so many Christians in the world today forms a shared experience, the ecumenism of blood is for Pope Francis even “the most convincing sign of ecumenism today.”[60]

f)      The eschatological dimension: unity in Christ’s return

The sensitive perception of the Christian martyrs today and the ecumenical search for unity of Christians belong indissolubly together: “The martyrs belong to all the Churches and their suffering is an “ecumenism of blood” which transcends the historical divisions between Christians, calling us all to promote the visible unity of Christ’s disciples.”[61] That does not only involve the pressing kairological duty of Christians today, which we are to fulfil in ecumenical community. The ecumenism of the martyrs in fact also points to the eschatological dimension of ecumenical unity, in which the search for unity is considered in the light of its perfection.

We encounter the eschatological vision of ecumenical unity in a very challenging way in Solojew’s “Short story of the Antichrist”, which contains a twofold message. On the one hand it will become apparent in the ultimate decision before God that in all three communities, namely those of Peter, Paul and John, there are adherents of the Antichrist who make common cause with him; but there are also true Christians who will remain faithful to the Lord until the hour of his return. On the other hand, the separated groups around Peter, Paul and John will recognise one another as brothers when face to face with the returned Christ. With this story Solojew does not intend to postpone the unity of the disciples until the end of days or even into the eschatological situation. The ultimate separation between the followers of Antichrist and the faithful companions of Christ will certainly only take place on the day of the eschatological harvest. But since in the view of the Christian faith eternal life is the true life, Solojew’s vision contains the challenge to us Christians to encounter one another already now in the eschatological light in which Peter, Paul and John belong indissolubly together.

The Christian search for ecumenical unity therefore means living in this eschatological light already today, or more precisely, in the light of Christ’s return, in the knowledge that the best form of the search for ecumenical unity consists in living according to the gospel. If we take the eschatological dimension of ecumenical unity seriously, the passionate search for unity and the serene awareness that we cannot create it of ourselves no longer appear as mutually exclusive opposites – as they are so often perceived to be today – but as two sides of the same reality. When we reflect on ecumenical unity in the light of its ultimate perfection, we are faced with the liberating insight that we can acknowledge the provisional nature of our exertions and not succumb to the temptation of trying to make ourselves that which only Christ can effect on his return, and that we can approach closer to one another precisely in this way. Seen in this eschatological light, the ecumenical search for unity means simply but fundamentally: If we are together on the way to the returning Christ, then we are also on the way to unity with one another, and can also be one already now although we are still separated, namely in the common faith in Jesus Christ: “The closer we draw to Christ, converting to his love, the closer we also draw to one another.”[62]

 

4.    The viatoric perspectives: shared way to unity

The eschatological dimension of ecumenical unity throws new light on the ecumenical situation today and thus on its viatoric dimension, which can be illuminated most clearly in the image of the way, or more precisely on the way of the disciples to Emmaus. In turning to this Easter pericope in the Gospel of Luke (4:13–35), we ask what this image has to say to us for the next steps along the way to ecumenical unity.

In the first place, we are to take this image of the way seriously. In the ecumenical situation today it is important that Christians who live in different communities are on the way to unity together and do together everything that it is possible for them to do together. This perspective is particularly close to the heart of Pope Francis, who gave expression to his ecumenical conviction in the succinct words: “Unity will not come about as a miracle at the very end. Rather, unity comes about in journeying; the Holy Spirit does this on the journey.”[63] For Pope Francis it is crucial that unity grows in going and that being on the way already means putting unity into practice. What matters today is to intensify this perspective and above all to live it concretely. To be on the way to ecumenical unity together: that is the first guideline given to us by the profound story of the Easter chapter in Luke’s Gospel.

The way of the disciples to Emmaus is of course not a mystery tour. The disciples are in mourning over what has taken place in Jerusalem, and they speak with one another and with their anonymous companion of what has disturbed them. That is a second guideline for us: Authentic ecumenism lives in mutual empathy with the life of the others in joy and in sorrow, as Paul conveys in the beautiful image: “If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:26–27). This rule for living in ecumenical community finds – as already mentioned – its actual expression in the sad fact that we have to experience the persecution of Christians in dimensions unique in history. Here a special ecumenical solidarity in fellow–suffering is called for among all Christians and Christian churches.

In their exchange on the experiences of suffering, the disciples on the way to Emmaus are looking for a liberating word, and allow their anonymous companion to provide them with this in his interpretation of Sacred Scripture. That reveals the third guideline, that we Christians draw closer to one another when we listen to the word of God together and speak about it with one another. Therein consists the specific call of the Reformation commemoration next year. For the Reformation and the subsequent church division in the 16th century were bound up with a controversial interpretation of the Bible and in a way extended into Sacred Scripture itself. Therefore overcoming the division and restoring unity can only become possible on the way of a shared reading of Sacred Scripture. The more we immerse ourselves in the mystery of Jesus Christ and his word, the more we will find our way to one another.

The eyes of the disciples in Emmaus were of course only opened when the Lord broke bread with them and thereby awakened in their hearts the deepest longing for unity. As a fourth guideline that suggests to us the insight that just as the companionship of the disciples on the way flowed into the breaking of bread of the Lord with them, so too the shared search for ecumenical unity must find its goal at the shared eucharistic altar. The ecumenical companionship on the way is fulfilled as a eucharistic community.

Following the personal meeting with the risen Lord the disciples set out on their way once more: “And they rose that same hour…” That provides the fifth guideline quite literally: Christians who also find their unity with one another in their meeting with Christ do not remain comfortably seated but set out and proclaim what they have seen like the disciples, knowing full well that the credibility of their witness essentially depends on the fact that they do not give their testimony against one another or without contact with one another but jointly. Ecumenical companionship on the way always means common witness and common service.

Against the background of these five guidelines the question arises how ecumenical unity is to be understood. We find a helpful definition of the unity of the church in the description of the original congregation in Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles, in which it is said of the first Christians: “And they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). There are three elements above all that appear constitutive for the unity of the church, namely unity in in the faith, in the celebration of divine worship and in fraternal communion. On this biblical basis the unity of the church is understood as visible unity in faith, in the sacraments and in the life of the community with their called witnesses and thus also in the ecclesial ministries. This conception of ecclesial unity from which the Catholic Church takes its orientation has also been received in the ecumenical movement. The World Council of Churches in the Third Article of its constitution defines it as its primary responsibility “to call the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith and in one Eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ and to advance towards that unity in order that the world may believe.”[64]

If the goal of ecumenical unity is thereby defined as communion in faith, in worship, in witness and in service, then the goal consists more precisely in “the most complete communio that is possible of the most complete communions that are possible”. This description implies at the same time the assessment that the ecumenical communion that exists in the current situation is to be understood as a still “incomplete communion of communions that are to different degrees and in different ways still incomplete”, and that each of these communions is obligated to strive for and realise being full communio, so that the full communio of all communions can be achieved.[65] The responsibility of ecumenism therefore consists in essence in the passionate concern to re–establish that communion which Paul describes in his greeting to the Christians at Philippi in the words that they are “of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind with one another (Phil 2:5). Because this communion is so close to the heart of Christ we have every reason to continue on the ecumenical journey with passionate serenity and serene passion. Then we will see the “glory” that God has given to Christ, and which is the culmination of the high–priestly prayer of Jesus: “to see my glory that you have given to me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

 

ENDNOTES

[1].  Cardinal W. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits. Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (London – New York 2009).

[2].  Unitatis redintegratio, 1.

[3] . Cf. K. Koch, „Ut unum sint“: Realität – Hoffnung – Illusion? Zur Rezeption des Ökumenismusdekrets „Unitatis redintegratio“, in: Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 124 (2015) 279-302.

[4].  Gemeinsame Römisch-katholische / Evangelisch-lutherische Kommission, Wege der Gemeinschaft, in: H. Meyer – H. J. Urban – L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene 1931-1982 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1983) 296-322, zit. 297.

[5].  P.-W. Scheele, Ökumene – wohin? Unterschiedliche Konzepte kirchlicher Einheit im Vergleich, in: St. Ley – I. Proft – M. Schulze (Hrsg.), Welt vor Gott. Für George Augustin (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 165-179. zit. 165.

[6].  Cf. W. Welsch, Unsere postmoderne Moderne (Weinheim 1987).

[7].  Cf. W. Kasper, Die Kirche angesichts der Herausforderungen der Postmoderne, in: Kasper., Theologie und Kirche. Band 2 (Mainz 1999) 249-264, esp. 252-255: Absage an das Einheitspostulat: Der pluralistische Grundzug der Postmoderne, cit. 253.

[8].  Cf. K. Koch, Glaubensüberzeugung und Toleranz. Interreligiöser Dialog in christlicher Sicht, in: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 92 (2008) 196-210.

[9].  On the theological debate on this thesis cf. G. Lohfink, Jesus und das zerrissene Gottesvolk, in: Ders., Gegen die Verharmlosung Jesu. Reden über Jesus und die Kirche (Freiburg i. Br. 2013) 156-177.

[10].  E. Käsemann, Begründet der neutestamentliche Kanon die Einheit der Kirche?, in: Ders., Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. Erster und zweiter Band (Göttingen 1970) 214-223.

[11].  W. Kardinal Kasper has therefore in view of Käsemann’s thesis rightly judged: “For Paul such a co-existence and pluralism of various different confessional churches would have been a totally intolerable idea.” Cf. Katholische Kirche. Wesen – Wirklichkeit – Sendung (Freiburg i. Br. 2011) 226.

[12].  Rechtfertigung und Freiheit. 500 Jahre Reformation 2017. Ein Grundlagentext des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) (Gütersloh 2014) 99. Justification and Freedom.

[13].  V. Leppin and D. Sattler (Hrsg.), Reformation 1517-2017. Ökumenische Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. – Göttingen 2014) 20.

[14].  Cf. D. Sattler, Einheit und Spaltung der Kirche(n). Thesen zur Ökumene aus (einer) römisch-katholischen Sicht, in: U. Swarat und Th. Söding (Hrsg.), Heillos gespalten? Segensreich erneuert? 500 Jahre Reformation in der Vielfalt ökumenischer Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 77-92.

[15].  Cf. H. J. Urban, Art. Methodologie, ökumenische, in: W. Thönissen (Hrsg.), Lexikon der Ökumene und Konfessionskunde (Freiburg i. Br. 2007) 871-873.

[16].  Cf. U. H. J. Körtner, Wohin steuert die Ökumene? Vom Konsens- zum Differenzmodell (Göttingen 2005).

[17].  W. Huber, Im Geist der Freiheit. Für eine Ökumene der Profile (Freiburg i. Br. 2007).

[18].  Vgl. G. Hintzen / W. Thönissen, Kirchengemeinschaft möglich. Einheitsverständnis und Einheitskonzepte in der Diskussion (Paderborn 2001); F. W. Graf / D. Korsch (Hrsg.), Jenseits der Einheit. Protestantische Ansichten der Ökumene (Hannover 2001).

[19].  Vgl. K. Koch, Auf dem Weg zur Kirchengemeinschaft. Welche Chance hat eine gemeinsame Erklärung zu Kirche, Eucharistie und Amt? in: Catholica 69 (2015) 77-94.

[20].  Die Kirche auf dem Weg zu einer gemeinsamen Vision. Eine Studie der Kommission für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen (ÖRK) (Gütersloh – Paderborn 2015).

[21].  W. Kardinal Kasper, Ökumene zwischen Ost und West. Stand und Perspektiven des Dialogs mit den orthodoxen Kirchen, in: Stimmen der Zeit 128 (2003) 151-164, zit. 157.

[22].  Lumen gentium, 23.

[23].  Lumen gentium, 26

[24].  Benedict XVI, Light of the World. The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times. A Conversation with Peter Seewald (San Francisco 2010)  94.

[25].  M. Luther, WA 50, 625.

 

[26].  Vgl. H. Meyer, Zur Entstehung und Bedeutung des Konzeptes „Kirchengemeinschaft“. Eine historische Skizze aus evangelischer Sicht, in: J. Schreiner / K. Wittstadt (Hrsg.), Communio Sanctorum. Einheit der Christen – Einheit der Kirche. (Würzburg 1988) 204-230.

[27].  W. Hüffmeier, Kirchliche Einheit als Kirchengemeinschaft – Das Leuenberger Modell, in: F. W. Graf – D. Korsch (Hrsg.), Jenseits der Einheit. Protestantische Ansichten der Ökumene (Hannover 2001) 35-54, zit. 54.

[28].  Vgl. U. H. J. Körtner, Die Leuenberger Konkordie als ökumenisches Modell, in: M. Bünker / B. Jaeger (Hrsg.), 40 Jahre Leuenberger Konkordie. Dokumentationsband zum Jubiläumsjahr 2013 der Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Euroopa (Wien 2014) 203-226.

[29].  For a critical analysis cf. K. Koch, Kirchengemeinschaft oder Einheit der Kirche? Zum Ringen um eine angemessene Zielvorstellung der Ökumene, in: P. Walter u. a. (Hrsg.), Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive. Festschrift für Kardinal Walter Kasper (Freiburg i. Br. 2003) 135-162

[30].  Benedict XVI, Homily at the Vespers service at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, 25 January 2011.

[31].  P. Neuner / B. Kleinschwärzer-Meister, Ein neues Miteinander der christlichen Kirchen. Auf dem Weg zum ökumenischen Kirchentag in Berlin 2003, in: Stimmen der Zeit 128 (2003) 363-375, zit. 373.

[32].  B. Farrell, Der Päpstliche Rat zur Förderung der Einheit der Christen im Jahre 2003, in: Catholica 58 (2004) 81-104, zit. 97.

[33].  Cf. M. Eckholt, Pentekostalismus: Eine neue „Grundform“ des Christseins. Eine theologische Orientierung zum Verhältnis von Spiritualität und Gesellschaft, in: T. Kessler / A.-P. Rethmann (Hrsg.), Pentekostalismus. Die Pfingstbewegung als Anfrage an Theologie und Kirche = Weltkirche und Mission. Band 1 (Regensburg 2012) 202-225, zit. 202.

[34].  Ch. Markschies, Neue Chance für die Ökumene? in: Nach der Glaubensspaltung. Zur Zukunft des Christentums, in: Herder Korrespondenz Spezial (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 17-21, zit. 20.

[35].  Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Innere Reform und Umkehr als Voraussetzung von Ökumene, in: E. Dieckmann – K. Kardinal Lehmann (Hrsg.), Blick zurück nach vorn. Das Zweite Vatikanum aus der Perspektive der multilateralen Ökumene (Würzburg 2016) 161-186.

[36].  Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Christliche Ökumene im Licht des Betens Jesu. „Jesus von Nazareth“ und die ökumenische Sendung, in: J.-H. Tück (Hrsg.), Passion aus Liebe. Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes in der Diskussion (Mainz 2011) 19-36.

[37].  Francis, Address to participants in the Ecumenical Colloquium of men and women religious held by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life on 24 January 2015.

[38].  Benedict XVI, Homily at the Vespers concluding the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on 25 January 2008.

[39].  Francis, Address to a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 28 June 2013.

[40].  Unitatis redintegratio, 8.

[41].  Benedict XVI, Address at the ecumenical prayer service  in the Church of the Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, on 23 September 2011.

[42].  Ratzinger – Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (San Francisco 2011), especially 95–97.

[43].  Ibid., 95.

[44].  Ibid., 96.

[45].  Ibid., 96.

[46].  Unitatis redintegratio, 3

[47].  Ibid., 22.

[48].  Lumen gentium,  4.

[49].  Benedict XVI, Homily at the Vespers concluding the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on 25 January 2006.

[50].  Francis, Evangelii gaudium, 246.

[51].  Ibid., 246.

[52].  Benedict XVI, Address at the ecumenical prayer service  in the Church of the Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, on 23 September 2011.

[53].  Vgl. P.-W. Scheele, Zum Zeugnis berufen. Theologie des Martyriums (Würzburg 2008); E. Schockenhoff, Entschiedenheit und Widerstand. Das Lebenszeugnis der Märtyrer (Freiburg i. Nr. 2015).

[54].  Vgl. H. Moll, Martyrium und Wahrheit. Zeugen Christi im 20. Jahrhundert (Weilheim-Bierbronnen 2009); A. Riccardi, Salz der Erde, Licht der Welt. Glaubenszeugnis und Christenverfolgung im 20. Jahrhundert (Freiburg i. Br. 2002).

[55].  Vgl. Kardinal W. Kasper, Ökumene der Märtyrer. Theologie und Spiritualität des Martyriums (Norderstedt 2014); R. Prokschi / J. Marte (Hrsg.), Europa, vergiss Deine Märtyrer nicht! Aus jüdischer und christlicher Sicht (Klagenfurt 2006); K. Cardinal Koch, Christenverfolgung und Ökumene der Märtyrer. Eine biblische Besinnung (Norderstedt 2016).

[56].  John Paul II, Tertio millennio adveniente, 37.

[57].  John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 84.

[58].  John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 2.

[59].  Francis, Address to the Renewal in the Holy Spirit Movement on 3 July 2015.

[60].  Francis, Message on the occasion of the Global Christian Forum on 1 November 2015.

[61].  Common Declaration of His Holiness Francis and His Holiness Karekin II at Holy Etchmiadzin, Republic of Armenia, on 26 June 2016.

[62].  Benedict XVI, Address at the General Audience on 17 January 2007.

[63].  Francis, Homily at the Vespers on the feast of the conversion of the Apostle Paul on 25 January 2014.

[64].  Verfassung und Satzungen des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen, in: H. Krüger und W. Müller-Römheld (Hrsg.), Bericht aus Nairobi 1975. Ergebnisse – Erlebnisse – Ereignisse. Offizieller Bericht der Fünften Vollversammlung des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen (Frankfurt a. M. 1976) 327-377, zit. 327.

[65].  P.-W. Scheele, Ökumene wohin? Unterschiedliche Konzepte kirchlicher Einheit im Vergleich, in: St. Ley – I. Proft – M. Schulze (Hrsg.), Welt vor Gott. Für George Augustin (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 165-179, zit. 174.