2018 PLENARY ASSEMBLY
PROLUSIO OF THE CARDINAL PRESIDENT
PENTECOSTALS, CHARISMATICS AND EVANGELICALS:
IMPACT ON THE CONCEPT OF UNITY[1]
Kurt Cardinal Koch
1. The passionate search for unity
“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.”[2] Already in this very first sentence the Second Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio” not only gives expression to what is and must be the essence of ecumenism, but also directs attention to one of the fundamental concerns of the Council as a whole, namely the passionate search for restoration of the lost unity among Christians. Our first line of thought today is to retrace the steps of this fundamental conviction.
This orientation can be clearly grasped already in the thinking of Saint Pope John XXIII and the vision he had for the Second Vatican Council, which notably appeared to him during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The two chief concerns that moved him to call the Council were for him intimately interconnected, namely the renewal of the Catholic Church and the restoration of Christian unity. Pope John XXIII was convinced that the Catholic Church could only be renewed if the ecumenical cause was given a position of priority. He had set this priority in train above all through the foundation of the Secretariat for Christian Unity already two years before the opening of the Council, entrusting the task of its leadership to the German Jesuit Augustin Bea. He was later justly honoured with the title “Cardinal of unity” and “Cardinal of ecumenism and dialogue,”[3] and the 50th anniversary of his death falls on 16 November this year.
The great Council Pope, the blessed and soon to be saint Paul VI too was convinced of the indissoluble nexus between these two great causes. The ecumenical cause was an important leitmotif for him also and especially with regard to the Conciliar renewal of the Catholic Church and its self–understanding, to such a degree that one has to speak of an actual reciprocal interaction between the ecumenical opening up of the Catholic Church and the renewal of its ecclesiology.[4] In this sense Paul VI emphasised already at the beginning of the second session period in his foundational opening address, which the Council Advisor at that time Joseph Ratzinger has attested as having a “truly ecumenical character”,[5] that the ecumenical rapprochement between separated Christians and churches was one of the central goals, as it were the spiritual drama for which the Second Vatican Council had been called.[6]
In this open orientation the Popes following the Council, Saint John Paul II[7] and Pope Benedict XVI,[8] have furthered, fostered and deepened this ecumenical concern. And in his manner Pope Francis too continues on the path of ecumenical dialogue.[9] His passionate engagement for the restoration of Christian unity has in the past two years since the last Plenary of our Council become particularly evident in two extraordinary events.
The first was the participation of Pope Francis in the Catholic–Lutheran Reformation commemoration in the Lutheran Cathedral in Lund on 31 October 2016. On that occasion, together with Bishop Munib Younan, the President of the Lutheran World Federation, he frankly confessed in their joint declaration: “While we feel a deep gratitude for the spiritual and theological gifts that we have received through the Reformation, we at the same time confess and regret before Christ the fact that Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the Church.”[10] Behind this expression of gratitude and pain stands the shared conviction that Martin Luther himself in no way wanted the break with the Catholic Church and the foundation of a new church but rather intended the renewal of Christianity as a whole in the spirit of the gospel. His goal was a thorough–going reform of the whole Church, and precisely not a reformation in the sense of the ultimately shattered unity of the Church, as the Protestant ecumenist Wolfhart Pannenberg has repeatedly pointed out: “Luther intended a reform of the whole of Christianity; his goal was anything but a separate Lutheran Church.”[11] In view of the fact that Luther’s concern for reform could not be fulfilled according to his intention at that time, but led instead to the rise of separate evangelical churches, Pannenberg concluded that this development cannot be seen as the “success” of the Reformation: the real success of the Reformation could only be perceived in overcoming divisions and restoring the unity of the church renewed in the spirit of the gospel.[12] To that extent the ecumenical search for Christian unity also means the achievement of the Reformation itself, in which Lutherans and Catholics must be engaged in equal measure. Renewing the obligation for the restoration of unity between Lutherans and Catholics was therefore the true sense of the common commemoration of the Reformation.
The second significant event at which Pope Francis intensively supported the restoration of Christian unity was his visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva to mark the 70th anniversary of its foundation on 21 June 2018. On this occasion he placed a strong emphasis on the motif of walking and moving forward. In the conviction that unity grows as we move forward, and that to be walking together along the same path even now means living unity, it is a particular concern of Pope Francis that various Christians and ecclesial communities are jointly under way on the journey to unity, that they walk together, pray together and work together: “This is the great path that we are called to follow today.” With the same passion Pope Francis also stressed however that he had come to Geneva as a “pilgrim in quest of unity and peace”: “And this path has a clear aim, that of unity. The opposite path, that of division, leads to conflict and breakup. We need but open our history books. The Lord bids us set out ever anew on the path of communion that leads to peace. Our lack of unity is in fact ‘openly contrary to the will of Christ, but is also a scandal to the world and harms the most holy of causes: the preaching of the Gospel to every creature’ (Unitatis redintegratio, 1). The Lord asks us for unity; our world, torn by all too many divisions that affect the most vulnerable, begs for unity.” [13]
With this passionate appeal for unity Pope Francis at the same time pointed to the deepest and innermost foundation of the quest for unity, namely the will of the Lord as testified in the message of the New Testament. The clearest articulation of this will for unity is found without doubt in the Letter to the Ephesians with its spiritual call to all the baptised to maintain the unity in the church and of the church: “one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of 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). How earnestly Paul makes this spiritual appeal for unity is evident already in the fact that he is writing this from prison as a “prisoner for the Lord” (4:1), for in such constrained circumstances one does not waste time on peripheral issues, let alone trivia, but expresses what is really weighing on one’s mind. In this spirit Paul names the “supporting pillars of unity”[14] and places it before the congregation as the strongest motives for unity, namely unity with the one Lord Jesus Christ, unity in the shared faith, the common recognition of baptism, the confession of the one body of Christ and the confession of the Holy Spirit.
2. The search for unity in view of the plurality of concepts of unity
With this brief reminder of the ecumenical engagement of the popes and the biblical foundation of this engagement it will have become clear that unity is and must remain a fundamental category of Christian faith and church life, and is therefore such a basic element of being church that Christian faith without unity and without the search for unity wherever it is threatened or even lost would meaning surrendering oneself. Keeping alive the search for unity with amiable stubbornness is a particular challenge in view of the ecumenical situation today, where our findings are twofold: On the one hand, in the previous phases of the ecumenical movement wide–ranging and pleasing convergences and consensus have been achieved on many contentious individual questions on the understanding of the faith and the theological structure of the church. On the other hand however, most remaining points of difference have consolidated unchanged around the diversely determined understandings of the ecumenical unity of the church per se. This twofold circumstance represents the real paradox of the current ecumenical situation, which one can define more precisely in the diagnosis of Bishop Paul-Werner Scheele: “We are united on the ‘that’ of unity but not on the ‘what’.”[15]
The pluralisation of concepts of unity has one essential basis also in the appearance of new ecumenical dialogue partners. The fact that the goal of the ecumenical movement has in the course of time become less clear than it was originally in the estimation of the Berlin Protestant church historian Christoph Markschies can be seen even as a consequence – of course unintentional – of the success of the ecumenical movement: “In the meantime so many people are engaged in the ecumenical movement that the initial already diverse goals have become further pluralised simply on the basis of the number of individual Christians who have an interest in ecumenism”.[16]
This observation finds further confirmation in the fact that encounters and dialogues in world-wide ecumenism today no longer take place only between the historical mainstream churches above all of the West but increasingly with many new Christian communities and movements, predominantly in the Protestant sphere. This finding is particularly relevant for the countries in the southern hemisphere. There church divisions arrived primarily as a European legacy and thus, in part, as a colonial legacy given that it was in Europe that these great historical divisions mainly occurred. This historical fact surely also explains why dialogues with the historical mainstream churches may not represent the primary challenge in the global south. The crucial ecumenical challenge is instead the rapid and numerically strong growth of autochthonous free churches, evangelical and charismatic groupings and Pentecostal movements in the southern hemisphere but by now also on other continents.[17] With approximately 500 million members, Pentecostalism alone taken as a whole forms numerically “the second largest denominational family after the Roman Catholic Church”.[18] This represents such an expanding phenomenon that one feels compelled to speak of a current “pentecostalisation of Christianity”,[19] or may be inclined to consider it as a “fourth mode of being Christian”, namely beside the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church and the churches and ecclesial communities resulting from the Reformation.[20]
The rapid growth of the so-called Pentecostal churches reveals that over recent decades the world-wide geography of Christianity has radically changed, and the ecumenical situation has become more unwieldy and in no way simpler. This represents a fundamental challenge of the ecumenical situation today, as Pope Benedict XVI indicated – surely not by chance – in his meeting with representatives of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany in the Augustinian Cloister in Erfurt in September 2011 in these nuanced words: “Faced with a new form of Christianity, which is spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism, sometimes in frightening ways, the mainstream Christian denominations often seem at a loss. This is a form of Christianity with little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability. This worldwide phenomenon – that bishops from all over the world are constantly telling me about – poses a question to us all: what is this new form of Christianity saying to us, for better and for worse? In any event, it raises afresh the question about what has enduring validity and what can or must be changed – the question of our fundamental faith choice.”[21]
3. The ecumenical challenges of the new communities
With these insights and questions Pope Benedict XVI has defined the challenge to ecumenism represented by the global phenomenon of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements and formulated an actual list of agenda items for the ecumenical encounter. It has already become clear that in ecumenical dialogues with these movements different agenda items must occupy the foreground than in the dialogues with the historical mainstream churches.
The main agenda item we wish to deal with in our Plenary of the Pontifical Council this year is the question of what concept of unity may motivate these new Christian movements, and what consequences arise from that for defining the goal of ecumenical dialogues with these Christian movements? Having in previous Plenary frequently enquired after unity as the goal of the ecumenical movement with the historical mainstream churches in mind, I consider that the time is ripe to raise the question of unity with regard to the new evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Here it seems logical to approach our discussion of this topic in a sequence of three steps of Seeing – Judging – Acting. So we have invited three experts to introduce this subject. Professor Teresa Rossi will give us an historical overview of the Pentecostal, charismatic and evangelical communities and their influence on the ecumenical movement in a range of contexts. Then Father Jorge Scampini will offer a theological appraisal of the ecclesiology of the Pentecostal, charismatic and evangelical movements and their challenge to the Catholic vision of Christian unity. And in a third step Monsignor Usma Gomez will outline an ecumenical–pastoral approach for a Catholic response to the Pentecostal, charismatic and evangelical movements.
a) Seeing: the great plurality of the new movements
It cannot be the duty of the Prolusio to presume upon this valuable information that will be imparted to us. Instead I confine myself to give a few introductory remarks for consideration in our discussion of these relatively new phenomena. As far as seeing is concerned, we begin with the premise that the customary terms “Pentecostal churches” or “Pentecostal movements” encompass highly diverse phenomena, so we encounter innumerable ecclesial communities. This plurality is also correlated with the fact that the so-called Pentecostal churches represent movements rather than ecclesial institutionalisations, and as a consequence, with these movements a completely new type of being church appears in which the charismatic dimension of the faith and its life in the community play a significant role. Albert–Peter Rethmann has characterised this new type as the development in these new movements of a type of church “based on individual decision and understanding itself more as a movement than as an organisation and hierarchy, that is – speaking in Christian terms – as a decidedly brotherly and sisterly community”.[22] In comparison with the ecclesial structure of the historically developed mainstream churches Rethmann even speaks of “two contrasting church models” which should reciprocally interrogate one another and must also without doubt form the subject of ecumenical dialogue. In this dialogue the historical mainstream churches will find the strong ecclesialization of their faith and Christian life both past and present called into question by the experiences of the newer movements, without forgetting the biblical principle that the relationship with Christ and the relationship with the church cannot be divided from one another, since being in Christ and being in the body of Christ ultimately form an inseparable unity. Within this broader context it becomes even more evident that ecclesiology and the question of ecumenical unity determine one another reciprocally.
This new type of church may also relate to the fact that the evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements according to their self-understanding do not manifest any direct roots in the 16th century Reformation but see themselves as the fruit of a new Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly for them the faith in the working of the Holy Spirit and the experience of the Spirit in concrete daily life, together with the so-called spiritual baptism that seals this faith and experience, plays a significant role. It is not rare for this to find expression in a holistic understanding of salvation and healing and the resultant healing rites on the one hand, and sometimes quite ecstatic worship forms on the other hand. For this reason Pope John Paul II already warned against simply regarding these new phenomena negatively, because in them – even with all their problems in individual instances – a great hunger and thirst after spiritual experiences is manifested which the mainstream churches must take seriously. For the elementary focus on the working of the Holy Spirit no doubt represents a strong questioning of the shadowy existence that faith in the Holy Spirit still plays to some extent in the average life of the historical mainstream churches. They must overcome their still prevailing obliviousness to the Spirit, without of course perceiving in pneumatology a contradiction to Christology, since the Holy Spirit is above all to be recognised in the fact that he always leads to Christ and never away from him. Likewise the historical mainstream churches must take seriously the freedom of the individual Christian grounded in the experience of the Spirit, without betraying the biblical principle that the freedom of the Spirit never works alongside the ecclesial communion but always in it and through it.
b) Judging: discernment of spirits
By now we have already passed from seeing to judging. Judgement poses an even more fundamental question, for within the broader spectrum of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements one also finds manifestations of the religious which one traditionally characterises as “sects” In the more recent past great caution and reserve have rightly come into play with regard to such terminology. Therefore it has become customary to refrain from the term “sects” on principle and instead to speak generally and more neutrally of “new religious movements”. On the other hand, ecumenical analysis of the great diversity of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements cannot dispense with an elementary discernment of spirits, particularly in the sense of which phenomena can be addressed as new fundamental forms of the Christian and which phenomena must continue to be judged as “sects”. For both history and the present show that one must count on the fact that there are not only positive and helpful forms of the religious but also unhealthy and morbid forms of religion.
Such a discernment of spirits is compelling above all from the ecumenical perspective. Here the fundamental criterion consists in whether or not one is able to conduct an ecumenical dialogue at all with such groupings and movements. With communities that take up an expressly anti-Catholic stance and represent anti-ecumenical positions and therefore exhibit a proselytising praxis, dialogue proves to be exceedingly difficult or not at all possible. For one cannot compel anyone to dialogue without discrediting dialogue itself. The experience of our Pontifical Council shows however that it has indeed been possible to enter into a respectful and trusting dialogue with evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal groupings and movements. The discernment of spirits is there necessary also in the sense that ecumenical dialogue is only feasible with such groupings and movements with whom one can reach an understanding on the common Christian faith foundation, while other groupings that are distinguished by strong religious syncretism represent a pastoral rather than an ecumenical challenge.
c) Action: evangelisation in credible ecumenism
As far as the third step is concerned it seems appropriate to follow the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council, according to which the essence of ecumenical dialogue does not simply consist in an exchange of ideas and theories but much more fundamentally in an exchange of gifts,[23] by which the ecumenical partners mutually enrich one another, and of course also mutually question one another to the extent that ecumenical dialogue makes visible the strengths of the one partner and at the same time the weakness of the other partner and vice versa. This implies that the ecumenical challenge must be taken up in a self-critical manner as a first step, as we are exposed to those questions which are directed to us in the encounter with evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal groupings and movements, questions which Cardinal Walter Kasper has already formulated during a previous Plenary: “What makes these movements so attractive? Why do so many of the faithful leave our church? What do they expect to gain from the Pentecostal congregations? What do they find lacking among us? What can and must we change pastorally in order to do justice to the spiritual thirst and the hunger for concrete experience, as well as the concrete social needs?”[24]
We will briefly pursue these questions by exemplifying them through an important complex of topics. One of the great strengths of the evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements lies without doubt in a clearly developed evangelizatory consciousness from which the historical mainstream churches can only learn. In the reverse direction the mainstream churches must of course not give in to the temptation to take over the in part problematic evangelisation methods of these movements. The most basic of these must surely consist in allowing the Christian gospel to degenerate into an extremely problematic “Teologia de la prosperidad”, a message promising worldly and above all economic happiness, by which the Christian option for the poor and powerless is turned into its opposite.
The fact that these movements apparently find it easy to attract and win members away from the established churches is surely grounded in this strongly developed evangelatory consciousness. In the face of this the mainstream churches must strongly advocate that Christian evangelisation involves a thoroughly free and voluntary process addressing the freedom of other individuals without any thought of imposing faith upon them, and consequently without any form of proselytization as contrary to Christian principles.
Ecumenical dialogue with the evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements must therefore concentrate on a common praxis of evangelisation without proselytism. In this dialogue it must first be observed that the term proselytism can be used in a different sense.[25] In a positive or at least neutral sense the word can signify all the efforts of a religious community to gain new members. In ecumenical discussion however the negative sense of this word has long prevailed which comprehends all measures by a religious community to gain members at any price by applying any and every effective means. This negative connotation of the word proselytism has come to predominate in the ecumenical movement notably since the study document adopted at the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Delhi in 1961 which states: “Proselytism is not something totally distinct from authentic witness: it is the corruption of witness. Witness is distorted when – subtly or openly – cajolery, bribery, undue pressure or intimidation are applied in order to achieve a seeming conversion”[26].
In the same sense the Second Vatican Council also rejected every form of proselytism in its Declaration on Religious Freedom “Dignitatis humanae”, when it for example emphasised that “in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonourable or unworthy especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people”.[27]
For the Council it is however self-evident that the principle of religious freedom and the concomitant rejection of every form of proselytism does not mean in any way that the mission activity of the church is called into question, as is unmistakeably demonstrated in Article 14 of “Dignitatis humanae”: “The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself”. The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom does not in any way express an obligation to renounce missionary witness to the truth of the faith, but it does express an obligation to renounce all those means which are not consonant with the good news of Jesus Christ, and instead to apply solely the means of the gospel itself, which consist in the proclamation of the word and the testimony of life, even to the extent of martyrdom. Or to use the precise words of Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, the second president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The conciliar Declaration on Religious Freedom “contributes to an intensification of missionary work in that it causes it to become more true and more pure”[28].
In the context of life today, so strongly characterised by the longing for freedom of contemporary humanity, evangelisation cannot be conducted in any other way. That includes the fact that the task of evangelisation can only be fulfilled free of every form of proselytism if it manifests an elementary ecumenical dimension, if it is realised in an ecumenical spirit and if as a result mission and ecumenism represent two sides of the same coin. A missionary church must also be an ecumenical church; an ecumenically engaged and living church forms the prerequisite for a missionary church. The mission of evangelisation must have an ecumenical key-note so that its melody resounds not as a cacophony but as a symphony in which both ecumenical partners can assist one another. The evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal movements can and should constantly remind the Catholic Church that in the gospel such a precious gift has been entrusted to them that they dare not in a spirit of self-sufficiency keep it for themselves. In return, the Catholic Church can and must appeal to the conscience of those movements that one must not impose the gospel on others but can only pass the gift on with an invitation. In this sense Pope Francis speaks against proselytism again and again, invoking the profound words of Pope Benedict XVI at the opening of the Fifth General Assembly of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in Aparecida on 13 May 2007: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction’ just as Christ ‘draws all to himself’ by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfils her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.”[29]
4. Criteria in the search for unity
With this three-step process of seeing – judging – acting the aim is to give concrete form to the question of the concept of unity in dialogue with the evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements. In view of the present multiplicity of concepts of unity, criteria are required to assist in the process of assessing the motivation for the question of unity. Two such criteria are outlined here.
a) Denominationally determined concepts of unity
In the first instance one must be aware that the question of unity cannot be abstract and neutral but is always informed by denominational presuppositions. In ecumenical discussion such presuppositions on the part of the Catholic Church are usually clearly named. The Church’s passionate insistence on visible unity as the goal of the ecumenical movement is mostly seen to be grounded in the fact that the Catholic Church as a worldwide faith communion is strongly engaged in maintaining or regaining unity within its sphere, so it is also tempted to transpose its ideal of unity to the level of the goal of the ecumenical movement. The strong emphasis on unity is therefore mostly countered with the objection that unity should not mean uniformity, and that the strong insistence on unity is itself in danger of endangering unity. This objection is not seldom radicalised with the suggestion that the category of unity should be renounced altogether. In this direction Konrad Raiser, former General Secretary of the World Council of Churches has for example declared: “Again and again in the course of church history dissidents have been excluded or violently persecuted by invoking the ‘unity of the church’. Indeed one can propose the thesis that most schisms in the history of the church are the result of exaggerated unity thinking; in any case diversity becomes a problem only when it is measured against a normative form of unity. So the question must be asked whether ecumenical discussion should not renounce the concept of ‘unity’ of the church because of its ambiguous and abstract character of this term.”[30]
Konrad Raiser sees the alternative in a “horizontal understanding of unity”, which by contrast with the previous paradigm which was “unashamedly vertical in speaking of the unity of the church”, is now gaining ground in the sense of “rapprochement between diverse traditions and positions”, so that “the reconciliation, the balancing of differences between the church traditions, is realistically the maximum of ecumenical unity that can be achieved.”[31] When one allows this definition of the goal of the ecumenical movement to sink in, one soon realises that it is no more neutral than the catholic one but represents a reflex of the history of Protestantism. For the great church schism in the Western church in the 16th century has in the course of history again and again set in train further splits so that the churches and ecclesial communities originating in the Reformation have in the meantime developed into a virtually incalculable ‘pluriverse’ in which we find even today at the global level increasing fragmentation and multiple splintering processes, but only marginal striving towards greater unity with one another. This situation could well be the basis for the fact that not a few of the churches and ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation on principle advocate difference and diversity and no longer see the goal of the ecumenical movement as visible unity in the faith, the sacraments and ecclesial ministries but in the reciprocal recognition of the multiple ecclesial realities as churches and thus as part of the one Church of Jesus Christ.
This typically Protestant constellation is further intensified and radicalised by the newer evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements. That raises the question of what this problematic situation means for the search for unity. As the first step one must be aware that the multiplicity of ecumenical goal concepts and the diverse ecumenical appeals for unity or plurality are grounded in confessional-ecclesiological presumptions, and that one must find paths to reconciliation as the Catholic theologian Eva-Maria Faber postulates. “The necessity of supplementing the individual confessional traditions can hardly be ignored. The one-sidednesses that have arisen and the persisting tendencies towards one-sidedness must rely on a reconciliation of differences within a prospective unity in order to avoid ever breaking out once more”.[32]
Pope Francis also has in mind this principle of reconciliation in his orientation towards pneumatology, for in his view the Holy Spirit grants not only unity but also diversity: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity.” In fact, the work of the Holy Spirit aims at unity that lives in diversity, and a diversity that gathers itself in unity. This is the difference between the work of the Spirit and the endeavours of humans. On the one hand when we try to create unity through our own designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. On the other hand when we try to create diversity and multiplicity, we are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things and create division. In contrast, the Holy Spirit creates diversity and works for unity, as Basil the Great affirmed eloquently, God’s spirit is harmony “Ipse harmonia est”.[33]
b) Different impulses and causes of Church divisions
The second criterion to be considered in the search for a constructive concept of unity consists in the nuanced awareness of those factors which have led to historical schisms and thus the loss of unity. Because the ways of restoring unity must also bear in mind the historical facts that substantially caused the division.
The first great divisions in the history of Christianity in the 4th and 5th century came about when some individual ecclesial communities did not accept the doctrinal decisions of the Councils of Ephesus and above all of Chalcedon in 451, and therefore separated from the imperial church. The theological cause for the splits was the dispute over an adequate formulation of the confession regarding Christ. The ecumenical dialogues have however led to the pleasing insight that this dispute essentially revolved around a problem of language, insofar as differing philosophical concepts of person and nature were applied which were however substantially intended to express the same ecclesial belief in Christ[34]. In this sense, for example, during the visit of the Syrian-Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Ignatius Zakka I Iwas to Pope John Paul II in June 1984 both church leaders stated in their Common Declaration “that the confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same content”. Accordingly, we find today “no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation.”[35]
In the great schism in the church between East and West too serious theological questions were certainly also in play but on the whole one must conclude that the real causes for the later split must be identified in the growing mutual cultural estrangement[36] in which different spiritualities played a not inessential role, leading to misunderstanding and mistrust which were then in part attached to questions which we today would consider different disciplinary instructions or understand as the unfolding of legitimate diversity within a given unity, such as the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the celebration of the eucharist or other differences in rites or the different liturgical calendars. To that extent different modes of understanding and different spiritualities contributed substantially to the cause of the schism, as Cardinal Walter Kasper rightly states: “Christianity did not primarily talk itself apart quarrelling over different doctrinal formulae, but grew apart leading different lives”. [37]
The impulses and causes of the church divisions in the western church in the 16t century must be assessed as more diverse and more complex. Here, not only the Catholic Church’s unwillingness for reform but also important political factors must be taken into account. While it was for example for the Reformer Martin Luther initially a matter of an internal movement within the church for the renewal of the whole of Christianity through the spirit of divine truth, the split in the church and as a consequence the development of a separate evangelical church reality was above all the result of political developments, in that Luther himself in part sought support from political powers and in the course of time was increasingly instrumentalised by individual princes for their own interests.
The impulses and causes of the rise of evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal movements within global Protestantism is different yet again. For these movements have their historic roots not so much in the church splits of the 16th century but in the late 19th century when they developed out of the traditional Pentecostal churches and charismatic movements.
5. Forms of the ecumenical search for unity
The impulses and causes of church divisions have, as these few examples make clear, been very different. Therefore there must also be different ways of finding and restoring the lost unity once more, especially since the Second Vatican Council expressly states that the ecumenical obligation concerns all Christians: “The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and shepherds alike. This concern extends to everyone, according to his talent, whether it be exercised in his daily Christian life or in his theological and historical research.”[38] In order that all the baptised can participate in the ecumenical endeavour the ecumenical search for unity must also and above all manifest different forms above all with the new evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal movements
a) Spiritual ecumenism: prayer and martyrdom
In the first place one must name spiritual ecumenism, which the Second Vatican Council identified as “the soul of the whole ecumenical movement”.[39] For prayer for Christian unity is the most fundamental form of ecumenism. With this prayer for unity we Christians give expression to our faith conviction that we human beings cannot create unity nor determine its form or its time-frame. We human beings can produce divisions, as both history and the present time demonstrate. But unity we can only allow to be bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, who is the spiritual source and driving force of unity as Pope Francis stresses: “Our unity is not primarily a fruit of our own consensus or of the democracy in the Church, or of our effort to get along with each other; rather, it comes from the One who creates unity in diversity, because the Holy Spirit is harmony and always creates harmony in the Church.”[40] The best preparation for receiving unity as a gift of the Holy Spirit is prayer for unity. And prayer for its part is and remains the crucial key signature of all ecumenical endeavour.
A special form of spiritual ecumenism is that which Pope John Paul II has called the “ecumenism of the martyrs” and which Pope Francis terms the “ecumenism of blood”. This form relates to the tragic reality that in today’s world countless Christians are exposed to massive persecution, that today there is even greater persecution of Christians than in the first centuries and Christian churches have become martyr churches. Today all churches and ecclesial communities have their martyrs so one can indeed speak of an ecumenism of martyrs.[41] Today Christians are not persecuted because they are Orthodox or Catholic, Protestant or Pentecostal, but because they are Christians. Despite the tragedy, the ecumenism of the martyrs embraces a great promise: as the Early Church was convinced that the blood of martyrs is the seed of new Christians today too we as Christians may live in the hope that the blood of so many martyrs of our day will one day prove to be the seed of the full unity of the one body of Christ. We can even be convinced that we have already become one in the blood of the martyrs. Because the suffering of so many Christians in today’s world forms a shared experience that proves to be stronger than the differences that still divide Christian churches, the common martyrdom of Christians is in my view the most convincing sign of ecumenism today.
b) Practical ecumenism: joint action and ecumenical witness
Spiritual ecumenism can of course only prove credible if it is accompanied by that form which we can define as practical ecumenism. This means that one should do jointly all that can be done jointly, because in ecumenism the ways to unity are as important as the goal. It is therefore crucial that the various Christians and ecclesial communities set themselves on the way to unity together, in the conviction that Pope Francis has expressed so vividly: “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.”[42]
Joint action between different churches and ecclesial communities becomes urgent above all in view of the great challenges of our time such as advocacy the option for the poor, the conservation of creation, promoting peace and social justice, special engagement for the young and the old in today’s society, defence of the right to life in all its phases and dimensions, engagement for religious freedom and defence of social institutions such as marriage and the family. Increasing globalisation must also and above all be a real motivation for Christians to consolidate and intensify ecumenical collaboration in the service of the holistic well-being of the family of mankind. If Christians and churches succeed in speaking with one voice in this sense on the fundamental questions of human life and social co-existence cohesion, not only will the Christian voice be strengthened in public life but likewise also the credibility of ecumenical witness.
Ecumenical collaboration between Christians and churches also implies joint testimony to the truth of the gospel, for the still-existing divisions within Christianity hinder the credibility of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world of today. It would surely be much greater if Christians could overcome their divisions and give united witness, as Pope Francis rightly states: “The immense numbers of people who have not received the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot leave us indifferent. Consequently, 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.”[43]
c) Ecumenism of love: fraternal encounters in word and signs
The ecumenism of love serves above all the reconciliation between churches which is expressed concretely in pleas for forgiveness for sins committed in the past, often together with expressive gestures which can be a better language than many words. Here we call to mind Pope Paul VI, for whom such gestures were an integral part of his ecumenical vocabulary. In 1973 for example he knelt down in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican before Metropolitan Meliton as the ambassador of the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios and asked forgiveness for past sins against Orthodox Christians. Unforgettable too are Pope John Paul II fervent pleas for forgiveness, notably in the Liturgy on the First Sunday in Lent in the year of the Great Jubilee in 2000. Pope Francis took a great step towards reconciliation during his private visit to the Pentecostal Pastor Giovanni Traettino in Caserta in July 2014. Referring to the persecution of Pentecostal churches during the Fascist period in Italy, in which Catholics too participated, stigmatising the members of this churches as “fanatics” and “madmen”, Pope Francis also felt obliged to ask forgiveness: “I am the Pastor of Catholics: I ask your forgiveness for this! I ask your forgiveness for those Catholic brothers and sisters who did not understand and were tempted by the devil and did the same thing as Joseph’s brothers. I ask the Lord to give us the grace to recognize and to forgive!”[45] In referring to the Old Testament story of Joseph and his brothers Pope Francis intended to give expression to the fact that the Christians who live and work in evangelical and Pentecostal movements are for him brothers whom we have found again, as the sons of Jacob found their brother Joseph in Egypt.
Such gestures translate into real life one of the fundamental convictions of the Ecumenism Decree of the Second Vatican Council, namely that “there can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart.” In the first instance that of course involves not the conversion of others but our own conversion, which presumes the willingness to self-critically perceive one’s own weaknesses and deficits, to humbly confess them. [46] Such ecumenism of conversion is a particularly credible form of the ecumenism of love.
d) Ecumenism of truth: patient investigation of theological differences
Only within the environment of the dialogue of love is the dialogue of truth also possible, namely the theological investigation of those factors which are the causes of the still existing divisions in the church. The theological dialogue of truth however presupposes the other forms of ecumenism in order to be credible. Here we can glimpse the reason why Pope Francis relativises the significance the theological dialogue of truth in emphasising that Christian unity “will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions. When the Son of Man comes, he will find us still discussing!”[47]
On the other hand theological dialogues are however necessary in order to approach the ecumenical goal of unity, for no unity can bypass the truth of the faith. So with Pope Francis we also find again and again clear professions of the necessary role of theological dialogue in the ecumenical relationships which he supports as important contributions to the promotion of the full unity of all Christians. Together with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew he stated in their joint declaration in Jerusalem in May 2014 that “theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings.”[48]
The theological dialogue of truth has been especially entrusted to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. With this task in mind we will in the Plenary which follows enquire after the ecumenical significance of evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal movements and their impact on the concept of Christian unity, in order in this way to get to know better the most dynamically expanding sector of Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century, and to identify paths of reconciliation and unity.
[1] Prolusio at the Plenary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 25 September 2018.
[2] Unitatis redintegratio, 1.
[3] S. Schmidt, Agostino Bea. Il Cardinale dell’unità (Roma 1987); Idem, Agostino Bea, Cardinale dell’ecumenismo e del dialogo (Roma 1996).
[4] Cf. H. J. Pottmeyer, Die Öffnung der römisch-katholischen Kirche und die ekklesiologische Reform des 2. Vatikanums. Ein wechselseitiger Einfluss, in: Paolo VI e l´Ecumenismo. Colloquio Internationale di Studio Brescia 1998 (Brescia – Roma 2001) 98-117.
[5] J. Ratzinger, Das Konzil auf dem Weg. Rückblick auf die zweite Sitzungsperiode des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (Köln 1964) 21.
[6] Ench. Vat. Vol 1 Documenti del Concilio Vaticano II, 104. f.
[7] Cf. K. Koch, L´attività legislativa di Giovanni Paolo II e la promozione dell´unità dei cristiani, in: L. Gerosa (Ed.), Giovanni Paolo II: Legislatore della Chiesa. Fondamenti, innovazioni e aperture. Atti del Convegno di Studio (Città del Vaticano 2013) 160-177.
[8] Cf. K. Cardinal Koch, Dienst an der vollen und sichtbaren Einheit. Das Ökumeneverständnis von Joseph Ratzinger / Papst Benedikt XVI., in: M. C. Hastetter / St. Athanasiou (Hrsg.), „Ut unum sint“. Zur Theologie der Einheit bei Joseph Ratzinger / Papst Benedikt XVI. = Ratzinger-Studien. Band 13 (Regensburg 2018) 10-38.
[9] Cf. H. Destivelle, Le pape Francois: un oecuménisme en chemin, dans: Idem, Conduis-la vers l´unité parfaite. Oecuménisme et synodalité (Paris 2018) 115-152.
[10] Joint Declaration on the occasion of the joint Catholic-Lutheran Reformation Commemoration, 31. October 2016.
[11] W. Pannenberg, Problemgeschichte der neueren evangelischen Theologie in Deutschland (Göttingen 1997) 25.
[12] W. Pannenberg, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, in: Ders., Ethik und Ekklesiologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen 1977) 254-267, zit. 255.
[13] Francis, Addrss at the Ecumenical Prayer in the Ecumenical Centre of the WCC in Geneva 21 June 2018.
[14] A. Wikenhauser und O. Kuss (Hrsg.), Regensburger Neues Testament. 7. Band: Paulusbriefe II (Regensburg 1959) 146.
[15] 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.
[16] Ch. Markschies, Neue Chance für die Ökumene? in: Nach der Glaubensspaltung. Zur Zukunft des Christentums = Herder Korrespondenz Spezial (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 17-21, zit. 20.
[17] Cf. J. Müller – K. Gabriel (Eds.), Evangelicals, Pentecostal Churches, Charismatics. New religious mouvements as a challenge for the Catholic Church (Quezon 2015).
[18] U. H. J. Körner, Ökumenische Kirchenkunde (Leipzig 2018) 261.
[19] B. Farrell, Der Päpstliche Rat zur Förderung der Einheit der Christen im Jahre 2003, in: Catholica 58 (2004) 81-104, zit. 97.
[20] 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.
[21] Benedict XVI, Address at the encounter with representatives of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) in the Augustinerkloster, Erfurt 23 September 2011.
[22] H.-P. Rethmann, Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Pfingstbewegung und ihre Praxis. Anfragen an Theologie und Kirche, in: T. Keller, H.-P- Rethmann (Hrsg.), Pentekostalismus. Die Pfingstbewegung als Anfrage an Theologie und Kirche (Regensburg 2012) 15-33, zit. 30.
[23] Unitatis redintegratio, 4.
[24] W. Kasper, Ökumene im Wandel. Einführung bei der Vollversammlung des Päpstlichen Rates für die Einheit der Christen am 13. November 2006, in: Ders., Wege zur Einheit der Christen = Gesammelte Schriften. Band 14 (Freiburg i. Br. 2012) 498-518, zit. 512.
[25] Cf. S. Ferrari, Proselytism and human rights, in: J. Witte, Jr. and F. S. Alexander (Ed.), Christianity and Human Rights. An Introduction (Cambridge 2010) 253-266.
[26] F. Lüpsen (Ed.), Neu Delhi-Dokumente (Witten 1962)) 104-106. Ecumenical Review 13/1 October 1960, p 79-89.
[27] Dignitatis humanae, 4.
[28] J. Cardinal Willebrands, Religionsfreiheit und Ökumenismus, in: , Mandatum Unitatis. Beiträge zur Ökumene (Paderborn 1989) 54-69,czit. 63.
[29] Benedict XVI, Homily in the Holy Mass for the Inauguration of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in Aparecida on 13 May 2007.
[30] K. Raiser, Ökumene im Übergang. Paradigmenwechsel in der ökumenischen Bewegung (München 1989) 120.
[31] Ibid. 119f.
[32] E.-M. Faber, „Sich ausstrecken auf das Kommende“. Plädoyer für eine antizipatorische Struktur der Ökumene, in: A. Birmelé / W. Thönissen (Hrsg.), Auf dem Weg zur Gemeinschaft. 50 Jahre internationaler evangelisch-lutherisch / römisch-katholischer Dialog (Leipzig-Paderborn 2018) 209-234, zit. 226.
[33] Francis, Homily in the Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul, 29 November 2014.
[34] Cf. Th. Hainthaler, Hermeneutische Aspekte bei christologischen Erklärungen mit den Kirchen des Ostens, in: S. Ernst, G. Gade (Hrsg.), Glaubensverantwortung in Theologie, Pastoral und Ethik = Festschrift für Peter Knauer (Freiburg i. Br. 2015) 146-171.
[35] Declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Syrian-Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius Zakka I. Iwas, on reciprocal pastoral assistance 23. June 1984, in: H. Meyer, D. Papandreou, H. J. Urban, L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 2: 1982-1990 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1992) 571-574./ Growth in Agreememt Vol 2.
[36] Cf. Y. Congar, Zerstrittene Christenheit. Wo trennten sich Ost und West (Wien 1959).
[37] W. Cardinal Kasper, Wege der Einheit. Perspektiven für die Ökumene (Freiburg i. Br. 2005) 208.
[38] Unitatis redintegratio, 5.
[39] Unitatis redintegratio, 8. Cf. K. Koch, Rediscovering the soul of the whole ecumenical movement (UR 8). Necessity and perspectives of an ecumenical spirituality, in: The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Ed.), Information Service 115 (2004) 31-39.
[40] Francis, Address during the General Audience 25 September 2013.
[41] Cf. K. Cardinal Koch, Christenverfolgung und Ökumene der Märtyrer. Eine biblische Besinnung (Norderstedt 2016).
[41] Jonn Paul II., Ut unum sint, 1.
[42] Francis, Homily at the Celebration of vespers on the solemnity of the conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, Basilica of St. Paul Outside-the-walls , 25 January 2014.
[43] Francis, Evangelii gaudium, 246.
[44] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 41 and 42.
[45] Francis, Address during a private visit to Caserta on the occasion of the encounter with Pastor Giovanni Traettino, 28 July 2014.
[46] Unitatis redintegratio, 7.
[47] Francis, Homily at the Vespesr on the Feast of the Conversion of the Apostle Paul, 25 January 2015.
[48] Common Declaration of Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the private encounter in the Apostolic Delegation in Jerusalem, 25 May 2014.