THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF nRECEPTION n I I. Introduction Toe subject on which l have been asked to speak is extremely vast and complex. We c � nnot cover all its aspects here. Our object will be to touch upon some of the most important areas which are of particular importance ecum enically today. Let me first say a few words about the importance of the subject before I outline the method l shall follow in this presentation. Reception is part of the on-going life of the Church. Ever since the time of our Lord and the Apostles the Church constantly receives and re-cetves the message -and indeed more than the message -of Our Lord. In fact one can go even further back and make the point that Our Lord himself received not only vertical ly (the mission from his Father) but also horizon tally, i.e. the history of the people of Israel to which he belonged as Man. Our Lord belonged to a certain historical period, to a certain generation, and he did not speak except in and through what was transmitted to him histori c � y in his own context. Thus the idea of recep t10n precedes the Church herself and it must be stressed that in a very deep sense the Church was _bom out of an on-going process of reception; she 1s herself a product of reception. . But in � pite of this general sense of recep tion -which we musy always bear in mind -the term . � cquired in the course of history a very spec1f1c and technical sense. This sense is mainly associated with the Councils of the Church and their decisions. It entered even the terminology of Canon Law and acquired a very special meaning: it is the acceptance and consent given by the people to a particular counciliar or ecclesiastical decision. In modern times the idea of reception became a basic theological concept in the context John Zizioules• of the Ecumenical Movement. I was myself involved in the very first occasions when this issue started to emerge in the ecumenical horizon: it was a meeting organized by Faith and Order, first in Oxford and then in Bad Gastein, Austria, in 1965 and 1966, which brought toget � r Church historians and Patristic scholars to d8cuss the Councils in the Ancient Church. It emerged then tllat Reception is an important part of conciliarity. But it also emerged that we know very little about the meaning and especially the theological content of this term, a fact that called for further reflection on this matter. As time went on the idea of reception began to enter into the ecumenical vocabulary officially and in a decisive way. It was, I remem ber, in Louvain, at the me�ing of the Faith and Order Commission in 1972 that an attempt was made to make use of this idea in a decisive way. As time went on the idea of reception became more and more the object of attention both theologically and practically in the Ecumen ical Movement. Reception is now a subject we cannot ignore, as subsequent events in the Ecumenical Movement, (especially the development of bilateral theological dialogues which produced official documents, e.g. the ARCIC, as well as the Lima document) have made this issue relevant and inescapable. But these latter developments have also made the entire matter even more complex for the following reason: In the classical idea of reception (about which students of theology are not very clear anyway), we have to deal with a united Church which knew exactly what the organs of receptio� were and assumed agreement on this point. Today we have to take into account that there is a variety of views and differences among *Th1s paper was originally delivered at the Centro Pro Unione on April 2nd, 1984. John D. Z1z1oulas, an Orthodox theologian, is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland). N9 26 / FALL 84 Bulletin/ Centro Pro Unione -3 Christians as to how reception operates. It is also peculiar to our actual situation that the divided Churches are called to receive from one another or indeed to receive one another, which raises all sorts of fundamental ecclesiologi cal questions, since the highest form of reception in this context is that of mutual ecclesial recognition and not simply of agreement on doctrine. This makes one wonder whether the classical views would have any relevance for our present situation. Do we have to take into account the classical view of reception and how ca we fit it into our situation? My answer to this question is positive, for two reasons: a) Thereaare Churches which are so deeply bound to their traditions that they cannot act without reference to the classical view of reception, e.g., the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, to some extent also the Anglicans, have certain fixed organs and procedures of reception which they cannot ignore or bypass in their present ecumenical relations. b) The classical view of reception contains many· elements that can be helpful for our situation, if we are able to appreciate them theologically and make the proper use of them. For these reasons l propose to deal with my subject in the following way: First, I shall try to point out the major theological issues that reception involves in the classical use of the notion. Secondly, I shall look at the present day situation and see what difficulties these issues entail for the Churches involved in the ecumen ical dialogue. Finally, I shall try to identify ways in which the classical model of reception can be operative today. 11. The Classical idea of Reception and its theological significance 1. What is being received? As l said at the beginning of my presenta tion the notion and experience of reception is deeply rooted in the historical origins and the very being of the Church. The Church was born out of a process of reception and has grown and existed through reception. If we look deeply into this matter from a theologi cal point of view, we must note that there are two fundamental aspects to this fact of reception, both of which are important for us today. The first is that the Church receives: she receives from God through Christ in the Holy Spirit; but she receives also from the world, its history, its culture, even its tragic 4 -Bulletin/ Centro Pro Unione and sinful experiences and failures, for she is the body of the crucified Lord who takes upon himself the sins of the world. The second aspect is that the Church is received: this involves two points: on the one hand the Church as a distinct community within the world exists in constant clialogue with whatever consti tutes the "non--ecclesial" realm in and attempt to make herself acceptable to the world. What we us62!1 to call "mission" is better rendered with notions and nuances of reception, because "mission" is loaded with ideas of agressivenesss, whereas the Church should be offering herself to the world for reception instead of imposing herself on it. (It is interesting that in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel the Son of God is spoken of as having not been received by the world: his own did not "receive" him). The other point in the Church's being received is that of a reception of one Church by another Church -a most important aspect of recep tion, which stems from the basic ecclesiolog ical fact that the Church although one exists as Churches (in the plural), and these Churches exist as One Church in and through constantly receiving one another as sister Churches. We shall see later how important this aspect is for us today. Thus, to the question: what is received in reception we can answer by the following remarks: a)What is received in the first place, and also in the final analysis, is the love of God the Father incarnate in His own unique and beloved Son and given to us in the Holy Spirit. Whatever we may add to the meaning of recep tion as theologians, as Church historians and as Canon lawyers should not obscure, ignore or destroy this fact. The Church exists in order to give what she has received as the love of God for the world. Because the content of reception is this love of God for the world incarnate in Christ, St. Paul uses the technical term (and it is technical) of parelabon and paralabete with reference to the person of Our Lord. In Col. 2,6 he writes "as you have received Jesus Christ". Equally it is interesting that in Hebrew 12,28 _the verb "to receive" is used in the sense of "receiving the Kingdom". Reception is not a dry practical idea. b)Within this broader theological and exis tential context the Church according to St. Paul received also the Gospel (to euaggelion) of Christ (I Co 15, 1; Gal 1,9-12). This Gospel is the Good News of God's love to the world in Christ, but in the concrete form of a teaching and of a creed stating the historical facts that make up this giving of the love of God to us. Thus, the Church receives also the histori- N'? 26 / FALL 84 Next >