On Living in Communion
I write today from Dallas where I am making a short visit to attend the consecration as Bishop Coadjutor of this diocese of the Very Rev. Robert Price who is currently the Dean of St Matthews Cathedral here. I shall immediately afterwards return to Boston ahead of the parish Visitation of Bishop Julia Whitworth to which we look forward this Sunday!
Both occasions remind of one specific point, which may seem narrow but it is important. This is that it is never appropriate to speculate upon, or still less publicly to interpret, the action of another person in taking , or not taking, Holy Communion.
The historic Exhortations contained in the Book of Common Prayer — which we nowadays hear too infrequently perhaps — remind us firmly that taking Communion is always a matter upon which the proper exercise of the individual conscience is to be exercised. To quote the original words of Cranmer prefatory to administration of Communion, this was to be given “to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion, whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God our heavenly Father, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. Which being so divine and comfortable a thing to them who receive it worthily, and so dangerous to them that will presume to receive it unworthily; my duty is to exhort you …to consider the dignity of that holy mystery, and the great peril of the unworthy receiving thereof; and so to search and examine your own consciences, and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissemblers with God: but so that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly Feast, in the marriage-garment required by God in holy Scripture, and be received as worthy partakers of that holy Table.” (Book of Common Prayer, 1662)
All this in turn invites further reflection upon our understanding of the Church and what it means to commit to dwell together within it. But first, another rather lighter quotation comes to mind, since:
“Thinking is a difficult business, and most of us prefer to do as little of it as possible. To avoid the anguish and responsibility of independent thought, we explain the past with historical clichés, we play with labels rather than grapple with the complexities of detail.”
The words are those of the Oxford church historian, Christopher Haigh[i]. In illustration of this tendency, he cites those who make unthinking use of such phrases as ‘the decay of medieval religion’, ‘the growth of an articulate laity’, …and ‘the dynamic impact of Protestantism’ in allegedly explaining the origins of the English Reformation. For Haigh, these statements offer the mere “convenience-foods of historical study, which give us our past pre-packaged and frozen, …needing only to be warmed in the moderate oven of a mediocre essay or lecture” to serve as the réchauffé foundation of yet more conventional interpretation.
Yet they can serve also to remind us that existentially hard work is constantly involved in the task of understanding, sustaining and living out the faith that we have received, while also relating it to the ever evolving challenges of contemporary thought. Achieving successful exposition and engagement, while preserving what is essential and sustaining fidelity, will always be a profound challenge.
The fourth century Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, St Basil, wrote at the time of the Council of Nicea, that the church even then was like a ship facing battle in the darkness of a storm, during which, “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…”[ii]
It is a manifest fact that such contestation has remained true in church history down to the present day, something which is both alarming in one way and yet in another reassuring, insofar as the continued existence of the church through so many times of trial and tribulation must give us cause to see the hand of God and thus a sense of confidence that whatever vicissitudes changing contemporary cultures may impose, the Church of Christ will prevail
As Benedict XVI observed of the crises that later arose in interpreting the Second Vatican Council, what happened was that “two contrary hermeneutics came face-to-face and quarrelled with each other… On the one hand, … ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; [which] has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology… [while on] the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject — Church which the Lord has given to us …which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
He then warned bluntly of the consequent danger that, “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split” whereas the authentic path lay in the alternative “hermeneutic of reform, …presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11th October 1962 [when he said] that the Council wishes ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’, and, ‘Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us…’ [where] it is necessary that ‘adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness…’ be presented in ‘faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…’, retaining the same meaning and message.[iii]
Benedict added that. “It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived” which he stressed is, “extremely demanding”. He added that, “It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church’s decisions on contingent matters…. should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. [For] in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change.
The matter of religious freedom can illustrate the principle.[iv]
Insofar as religious freedom might be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth, it would become a canonization of relativism to raise a perceived social and historical necessity, inappropriately, to the metaphysical level, while in doing so leaving it stripped of its true meaning. Such a position cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.
It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth, that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.[v]
All of which serves to bring us back, in really quite deep ways, to the relation of the Church as a whole, to communion in the several senses of that rich word. This invites us moreover, to reflect upon an underlying continuity made available to us in the word sacrament for it is possible and illuminating to think of the Church itself in sacramental terms.
The term ‘sacrament’, as applied to the Church, contains a variety of implications, all of which should be kept in mind. The sacrament is a sign or symbol, signifying the unity and communion willed by God; it is an efficacious sign, an instrument by which God effects this saving unity; and thirdly, it so to speak proleptically “pre-contains” the reality that it signifies and brings about. The sacrament, under one aspect, is a fruit of the grace that, under another aspect, it effects — perspective which allowed Karl Rahner to see the Church as the supreme historical objectification coming to expression through time of the invisible grace of God.
Viewing the Church of Christ which is the say the Church Universal or Catholic, as a sacrament of communion allows us to see it as a corporate sign that signifies, contains, and establishes a supernatural communion of human beings with one another and with God in Christ, (despite our human imperfections which it thus transcends). Indeed, we must remember always that it is Christ — the sacrament par excellence — who is the source and center of communion. And it is Christ who brings about communion by the sending of the Holy Spirit, who acts through the visible structures of the Church, imperfect as in this life they must be.
As Avery Cardinal Dulles pointed out, one of the merits of this sacramental ecclesiology is its value for our understanding of membership. The institutional and organic models of the past led to the conclusion that everyone was either in the body of the Church or outside it such that no middle ground was possible. Yet this was manifestly in tension with the insight that baptism is a sacrament of initial incorporation into the body of Christ which is recognised as shared by most Christians and thus offers an altogether more inclusive approach. Sacramental ecclesiology by contrast, allows more readily for recognition of a measure of ecclesial reality outside the visible ecclesial borders of which we are otherwise so conscious. Indeed the Church as sacrament consists of a number of elements both visible and invisible. This allows recognition that Christians can be in varying degrees within Christ’s Church without having all the elements we may look for in order for us to be able to know there is full incorporation.
Viewed thus, those churches and ecclesial communities that share and recognise baptism given in the name of the Trinity, are thereby, truly joined to Christ (Christo conjunguntur) by baptism and thus participate in elements of the church and therefore enjoy gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit in which we thus have grounds to trust as present. All this can therefore ground our sense of Communion even when there are other grounds indicative of degrees of separation. To recall the words of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, “all who have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion”.
Aspects of this also connect to and illuminate the understanding of Holy Orders, where once again it is possible to think of “hierarchical communion” as a bond among the ordained. Furthermore, the sacramental powers of bishops can be seen in this light, not as capacities that can be exercised individualistically, but rather ones that can only be deployed ecclesially in communion with the whole body of bishops and wider church. This is fundamental despite the normal geographical boundaries that rightly define dioceses along with their attendant pastoral bonds. The episcopal role is always best expressed when embodied as a figure of unity, representing Christ the head, High Priest and Shepherd of the Church to whom they must be configured — though just what that point entails for who can receive such Orders remains contested.
All this leads to the expectation that the fullest realization of the Church, as a sacramental reality in a given diocese, should occur when the faithful are gathered before the altar with the bishop and clergy. In the Eucharist the faithful partake of the very source of salvation which, as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, and this should also therefore be the ultimate sacrament of the unity of the Church.
In the light of all these considerations it is a deeply painful reality for Anglicans to recognise that for over two decades now the Archbishops and Bishops from Provinces comprising the majority of the world’s Anglicans have not been able to share Communion with those provinces from whom they are divided by differences of beliefs about matters of sexual morality and the role of women in ordained ministry. But this does remain a hard fact.
Nonetheless, it remains true also, that the enduring and historic bonds of affection have allowed varying degrees of non-eucharistic communion still to be expressed even at meetings of the Primates of the Anglican Provinces and of the Lambeth Conference (deeply incomplete though participation has been for the last two of these conferences).
These hard realities matter and yet they point also to the variety of responses that have come to be seen as proper in the face of division and impaired communion, And this is even true at the level of partaking of Holy Communion, where trust in the graces proper to the wider church have upon occasion been relied upon to transcend the normal discipline that would preclude partaking of Holy Communion in the face of real doctrinal difference.
All of which brings us, finally, to the matter of what theologians call the concept and process of doctrinal reception, since what has been discussed in the foregoing is really about how, as well as if, the church can validly receive new insights and perspectives — without corrupting the faith we have received — one of the central challenges with which this discussion opened.
And here it is valuable to recognise that some of the most fruitful insights have been generated by the challenge of thinking about the vocation and understanding of the church — together with its sacramental character — in ecumenical discussions. By definition in such cases, the encounter is framed from the start by recognition that doctrinal differences exist, and indeed provide the historic warrant for existence as separated ecclesial bodies. This has the one advantage of allowing recognition of such doctrinal differences as simply a fact, rather than a scandal that would be better denied or extirpated — in the manner that finding such differences within one’s own denomination has historically tended to trigger.
It is important also to recognise that the Church was born out of a process of reception and has continued to exist and grow through reception. Thus, in terms of theology the Church both receives and is received. This is manifestly the case since the Church receives from God, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit. In Christ the Church is received by God. But beyond this, the Church also receives from the history and culture of the world including from its sinful experiences and failures. This coheres with the understanding that the Church as the Body of Christ indeed the body of the crucified Lord, who takes upon himself the sins of the world. Thus, reception from God and by God, from the world and by the world, is a process rooted in the being of the Church as communion. The Church is both the product of communion and its instrument. From the ecclesial perspective both mission and reception are expressions in turn of communion.
In the light of this valuable ecumenical experience, it will be fitting to conclude this rapid survey with some particularly appropriate passages generated by the dialogue between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches (of which the international commission met only last year in Boston).
The following quotations come from section on theology of Reception in the earlier report, entitled, The Church of the Triune God, The Cyprus Statement agreed by the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, 2006, Section IX: “Reception in Communion”:
“There is a growing consensus that reception involves relating the Gospel to the actual needs of humanity, and not simply applying juridical norms to new situations. Anglicans and Orthodox agree that this requires us to receive Scripture and Tradition with attentiveness to contemporary needs and with respect for different cultural backgrounds.
ii. There is also a growing consensus that the Eucharist is the proper context of reception, and that reception is not complete without eucharistic communion. This is the ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement…. Although the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Church have not yet reached this goal, they are committed to the journey towards it…..
In the light of this continuing ecumenical search for clear agreement, we may establish some basic features of a renewed classical model of reception.
- Reception is a matter not only of texts but of churches and people. In reacting to texts, the churches begin a process of receiving one another as churches.
- All churches need to question their own tradition and re-receive it, re-aligning themselves with the original apostolic community. Re-reception requires careful discernment, which should be a common discernment in communion with one another.
- The final decision is made by churches, and not by individuals, however great their theological expertise and influence in their community might be. “Churches’ in this context means communities structured for the sake of communion. Reception cannot be accomplished by individuals or authorities in isolation: it must be an act of communion. Ecclesial reception happens within ecclesial communion and is itself a constitutive element of such communion.
- Scripture and Tradition have to be received. In specific instances that process may be completed. But in general transmitting what is handed on is a continuous process: receiving and re-receiving is a process which is never finished….
“While the process of reception continues, the theological debate remains open. In this process critique, affirmation or rejection are all possible. Discussion of proposed new doctrine or practice will address two concerns. One is whether what is being proposed in response to the demands of culture contradicts what has already been received as the rule of faith. The other is whether the challenges posed by culture relate to genuine existential human needs, or spring from motives which are not in accord with the Gospel. Reception is a complex and creative process, which can be completed successfully only by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. vi.
During the process of reception two further things must be kept in mind.
First, all must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and submit to it.
Secondly, no one should claim the authority of the Holy Spirit for accepting or rejecting any new doctrine or practice until the process of reception is completed.
Only then is it legitimate to say with St James,’…it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..’ (Acts 15.28).
[i] See, “Anticlericalism and The English Reformation”, in History, 1983, Vol. 68, No. 224, pp. 391-407.
[ii] De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524.
[iii] For the interior quotes of John XXIII, see The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715
[iv] As did the way in which the church related to pagan Romen emperors in its earliest times would also. The ancient church prayed for the emperors out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while the church prayed for the emperors, it nonetheless refused to worship them, and it thereby rejected the religion of the State. So a practical, not to say pragmatic, balance was found possible to discern without loss of doctrinal integrity. The challenge of discerning such paths will always be necessary — but difficult in immediate contexts — even when ultimately fruitful more widely over time.
[v] Moreover, to quote Benedict XVI again, “The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith – a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.”