CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 48 - Fall 1995 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director...................................................p. 2 Thirty Years in the Service of the Ecumenical Movement: The Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches by Konrad Raiser..................................................p. 3 Do Methodists (Think They) Stand in the Apostolic Tradition? by Geoffrey Wainwright..............................................p. 9 Questioni ecumeniche sulla giustizia, la pace e la salvaguardia della creazione di Alberto Quattrucci................................................p. 15 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the AtonementDirector's Desk We are pleased to present the texts of three public lectures given at the Centro Pro Unione in this Fall issue of the Bulletin. As General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Dr. Konrad Raiser made his first official visit to Rome with a delegation representing the Council's side of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. His lecture emphasized the progress made in increased collaboration but also expressed a desire to see a reorganization for furthering relations and strengthening the relationships between the WCC and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. During the Spring term, Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, visiting professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University and long time friend of the Centro, offered his reflections on the understanding of apostolic tradition. His lecture presented the Methodist understanding of apostolic tradition in relation to itself and to others and concluded with an ecumenical perspective on the question of apostolic tradition. The third text which we offer to our readers deals with the ecumenical questions related to the themes of justice, peace and the integrity of creation. The Italian text represents one of the classes held during our recent Italian course of introduction to the ecumenical movement. Dr. Alberto Quattrucci is a member of the St. Egidio community in Rome. Our Summer course had 27 participants from North America, England, Belgium, Indonesia and Africa. We are pleased to be able to offer the three week course, "Introduction to the Ecumenical & Interreligious Movements from a Roman Catholic Perspective" this Summer from 24 June to 12 July 1996. For our readers' convenience an informational flyer and application form is included. We hope you will share this information with others. Additional flyers can be obtained by contacting us at the Centro. You will find another informational flyer enclosed for the ecumenical program of studies at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas-Angelicum. The Centro library has played an important role in this program. A number of the Friars have also taught in the ecumenical section of the theological faculty. The Centro's activities for this Fall began with a concert of classical music by the International Aca- demy "A. Corelli". In November we will co-sponsor a lecture with the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas given by Rev. Thomas Stransky, CSP, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute entitled "The Crisis of Religion in the Holy Land". On November 23rd and 24th, we have organized with the Anglican Centre in Rome and the International Bridgettine Center in Farfa a symposium on the theme "Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession". Speakers will include Mary Tanner, Ola Tjørhom, Gerald O'Collins, SJ, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, Harding Meyer and William Henn, OFM Cap. We warmly welcome the new Director of the Anglican Centre, Rev. Bruce Ruddock and the new Administrator, Mrs. Vivien Ruddock. Best wishes to the former Director, Rev. Douglas Brown, SSM, who serves as chaplain to the Anglican Community in Palermo. I would like to end with a word of "Thanks". During the summer our librarian, Mary Peter Froelicher, SHCJ visited the WCC Ecumenical Centre in Geneva seeking to complete some series of periodicals and monographs. Her trip was very successful thanks to the generosity of so many, Pierre Beffa, Director of the Library, staffs of the various Units of the WCC, the Publications Office, the Bookstore, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and the Conference of European Churches. It is with their aid that our library grows in quality and richness of documentation. James F. Puglisi, SA DirectorN. 48 / Fall 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 CC Centro Conferences Thirty Years in the Service of the Ecumenical Movement The Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches by Dr. Konrad Raiser Secretary General of the World Council of Churches, Geneva (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Tuesday, 4 April 1995) The Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the World Council of Churches has been at work for thirty years. The Group was constituted in 1965, before the closing of the Second Vatican Council, to explore the possibil- ities of common study and to propose methods and structures of collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches (WCC). This thirtieth anniversary offers us an occasion to express our gratitude to those who planted the seeds at a small meeting in Milan (1964), where it was agreed that such a step was desirable1, to those who, soon later, laid the foundations at the meeting of the WCC Central Committee in Enugu (1965) 2 , and to those who laboured for the agreement by the Vatican “to set up a mixed committee... to explore together the possibilities of dialogue and collaboration between the WCC and the RCC” 3 . Now, thirty years later, we continue this dialogue and collabo- ration while attempting a survey and interpretation of the work the JWG accomplished. Of course, it is difficult to summarize three decades of work —a succession of achievements and failures— in the framework of a short presentation. I will not make long references, for example, to the cooperation within Evangelism, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This does not mean I minimize their importance. I consider this aspect of RCC-WCC cooperation as better known. The task of presenting the work of the JWG appears to be even more difficult when realizing that many questions are raised: what was the real contribution of the JWG to the ecumenical movement in its thirty years of existence? what is the role and the specificity of the JWG today? is it time for a systematic evaluation of what the JWG has achieved? is it time for reviewing its mandate and basic tasks? Some of these and many other questions are somehow justified by the variety of understandings of or expectations from the JWG. The true significance of the JWG “is only seen when it is under- stood as one element in the manifold and diverse —official and unofficial— movement at every level”, commented one of those who served the JWG in the first years of its existence 4 . “The Joint Working Group represents a turning point in the history of the ecumenical movement”, concluded some years ago a thesis presented to the Fribourg University 5 . “The Joint Working Group has been renewed at regular intervals, becoming a substitute for Catholic membership in the WCC, quite against the intention of most of its creators”, observed a “friendly outsider” in an extensive study which grew out of a paper he was asked to present to one of the JWG meetings6. Where do we stand today? What our expectations are from the JWG within the present ecumenical situation? how does the work of the JWG influence and shape our ecumenical vision? We should probably underline from the very beginning that three important factors have to be taken seriously into consider- ation when studying the history of the JWG: first, the JWG, as a joint instrument of the RCC and the WCC, is influenced by developments and changes which take place within its parent bodies. Second the ecumenical situation and, in the broader context of this situation, the relationship between the RCC and the WCC are subject to changes and, therefore, its is important to always recall the significant events at each period in order to 1 Cf. Visser t'Hooft, Memoirs, London: SCM Press, 1973, p. 331. 2 The text of the proposal which had been adopted by the WCC Central Committee in Enugu is published in The Ecumenical Review 18 (2), 1966, pp. 171ff. 3 Cf. A. Bea, M. Boegner, W.A. Visser't Hooft, N.A. Nissiotis, O. Cullmann, Rencontre œcuménique à Genève, Geneva: Labor et Fides (“Collection œcuménique”, 4), 1965. 4 Lukas Vischer, “The activities of the JWG between the RCC and the WCC, 1965-1969”, The Ecumenical Review 22 (1), 1970, p. 46. 5 Catherine E. Clifford, The Joint Working Group between the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church: Historical and Ecclesiological Perspectives, Fribourg, 1987, p. 132. 6 Thomas Sieger Derr, Barriers to Ecumenism, The Holy See and the World Council on Social Questions, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983, p. 3.4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 48 / Fall 1995 reestablish the continuity in the development of the JWG. Third, the reaffirmation by the JWG of earlier convictions, far from being a purely formal or diplomatic act, reflects an important consolidation in the understanding of the nature and collaboration between the RCC and the WCC. Initial years of the JWG: ‘The principles of dialogue' The initial years of the existence of the JWG coincided with the pioneering period of ecumenical initiatives following the Second Vatican Council. The JWG participated fully in the excitement of those years and contributed to the dynamics of the Council. During a brief exploratory period of only three years, the JWG was able to fulfil its initial mandate of clarifying the principles and methods of collaboration. The first question, and indeed a fundamental one, confronting the JWG was that of the very nature of ecumenism. The active entry into the ecumenical movement of the Roman Catholic Church, together with the increased involvement of the orthodox churches in ecumenical work, required a new common language as well as a review of basic approaches. Was it possible to speak of one and the same conception of the ecumenical movement? The first two official reports of the JWG, submitted in 19667 and 1967 8 , reflect a broad agreement about the nature of the ecumenical movement in which both the RCC and the WCC share. The second official report made it clear that both the WCC and the RCC were, in their own way, anxious to serve the one ecumenical movement and that for the sake of this common aim there was “need for constantly more dynamic relations between them”. This common understanding was further developed in a study document on the nature of ecumenical dialogue9. It had become urgent to launch a “dialogue about dialogue” and to initiate a common understanding of principles and methods. The word “dialogue” had become one of the most favoured expressions after the Second Vatican Council. Dialogue and ecumenical movement become practically interchangeable notions. The JWG stated that dialogue does not mean simply conversation. The Churches meet together and cooperate with each other for the sake of the task jointly entrusted to them. The dialogue is not just an internal Church affair. It arises from the desire to be more obedient to Christ, and its aim is common witness. The whole issue of bilateral theological dialogues and their relationship to the multilateral one was also deepened by the JWG. Most of the affirmations contained in this study document are still valid today, constituting basic elements of the ecumenical commitment on both sides. In addition to this theological work, the JWG was able to initiate a wide network of links between departments of the WCC on the one side and the corresponding partners in the RCC on the other. The area of cooperation expanded in many directions: from theological conversations to development aid and from coopera- tion among women's organizations to combined efforts to fix a common date for Easter. This initial period appears today, at least for the WCC, of extreme importance. The Theological work accomplished by the JWG during the first years of its existence strengthened the awareness that the WCC is not to be identified with the ecumeni- cal movement and that this movement extends further than the WCC. This awareness determines even today our ecumenical vision and our efforts. Within the present ecumenical situation, it forces us to turn to a great variety of ecumenical partners, to churches which have their own ecumenical vision and commit- ment without being necessarily member-churches of the WCC —to mention here only the evangelical and pentecostal ecclesial realities. Moreover, building, maintaining and cultivating relationship with a non member church has been a precious experience which facilitate our efforts today in cooperating with other churches and ecumenical organisations. Finally, the ecclesiological deliberations during which our Roman Catholic partners reminded to the WCC that to explore, understand and describe the fellowship experienced within the WCC we have to emphasize the notion of the “Churches” rather than that of the “Council”10. This brings us to the very heart of our present task to respond to a slightly rephrased question: is the fellowship that has grown between the churches in the ecumenical movement ecclesial in nature and how can it be described? A search for reorganization: towards a new realism? Encouraged by the positive experiences during the exploratory period and by the affirmative responses from the two parent bodies, the JWG extended its reflections beyond the principles of collaboration to a number of basic issues regarding the relation- ship between the RCC and the fellowship of churches within the WCC. Two study commissions were formed on “Catholicity and Apostolicity” and on “Common Witness and Proselytism”, the results of which were published together with the third official report in 1971 11 . Moreover, the JWG had decided in 1969 to explore in detail the question of possible membership of the RCC in WCC. Since 1966 this question had been frequently discussed at various meetings, including the Uppsala Assembly in 1968. The publica- tion of the report on this study, “Patterns of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches”, in 1972 concludes this second phase of the activities 7 Cf. The Ecumenical Review 18 (2), 1966, pp. 243ff. 8 Cf.The Ecumenical Review 19 (4), 1967, pp. 461ff. 9 Cf.The Ecumenical Review 19 (4), 1967, pp. 469ff. 10 “The emphasis... should not be on the Council of Churches, but on the Council of Churches”, cf. Thomas F. Stransky, “Roman Catholic - World Council of Churches Relations, Address given to the US Conference of the WCC at Buck Hills Falls, Pa., April 30, 1970”, WCC Archives. 11 Cf.The Ecumenical Review 23 (1), 1971, pp. 9-20, 44ff.N. 48 / Fall 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 of the JWG 12 . The third report concludes on a hopeful note. It refers only briefly to the study on membership. When the results of this study were published a year later, a preface, signed by Cardinal Willebrands as President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU) and Dr. Eugene Carson Blake as General Secretary of the WCC stated that an application by the RCC for membership in the WCC was not to be expected “in the near future”, adding that “all are convinced that cooperation between these bodies must not only continue, it must be intensified”. This reserved response to the study, coupled with a number of other events, inaugurated a period of critical assessment and reorienta- tion in the work of the JWG leading up to the fourth official report which was presented at the time of the Nairobi Assembly of the WCC (1975)13. The judgement on the membership question, “not in the immediate future”, reconfirmed also in the fifth report of the JWG, reflected a clear policy choice on the highest level within the RCC, and it had implications for the relationship in general. It meant, in fact, that no further structural and institutionalized links between the two bodies would be developed, and even existing ones came under critical scrutiny. Within the total scope of ecumenical relationships established by the RCC following the Second Vatican Council, priority attention gradually shifted from relationships with the WCC to bilateral conversations with the major Christian World Communion. Most of these conversations at the time of the study on membership had completed the exploratory phase and were moving into an official doctrinal dialogue. The consequences of this choice became immediately visible in three distinct areas of collaboration which had been particularly notable examples of collaboration of the growth of joint initiatives: the Christian Medical Commission, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group, and the Joint Committee on Society Development and Peace (SODEPAX). The case of SODEPAX offers the clearest example of the problem encountered by the JWG and its parent bodies in this period. Formed in 1968 as a result of a joint conference on issues of development, SODEPAX explored fully the possibilities of its experimental mandate as a joint operation with a competent staff team assisted by generous independent funding. In the beginning it had been the hope that SODEPAX would serve as the catalyst for a process of growing organic relationships between its parent bodies— in this case, the Pontifi- cal Commission Justice and Peace (PCJP) and the WCC. When it became clear that neither side was yet ready for such a move, SODEPAX found itself caught in the dilemma of either being regarded as an irritating “third entity” or becoming an overstructured instrument for liaison between separate activities of its parent bodies. The dilemma was resolved initially in 1972 by drastically reducing the operations and finally in 1980 by terminating the mandate of SODEPAX altogether. As one could expect it, the coincidence of these decisions led to a temporary “crisis of confidence” in the JWG and prompted a process of reorientation in its work. While efforts until this time had been focused on the task of expanding and organizing collaboration between the structures of the two parent bodies at the international level, during the years up to 1975 the JWG turned its attention to the issue of local ecumenism. A first step had already been taken by initiating a survey of Roman Catholic participation in councils of churches, which served as a contribution to a WCC-sponsored World Consultation on Christian Councils in 197114. At the same time, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had begun a study of the forms of ecumenical collaboration on Various levels. The result of the survey and the ensuing discussion in the JWG provided important input for the document on “Ecumenical Collaboration at the Regional. National and Local Levels”, published by the SPCU in 197515. Twenty years later, we realize the importance of these efforts and the pioneering role of the JWG. Increasingly, the RCC, is a member of a council of churches at local, national or regional level, these are considered among the most important forms of ecumenical cooperation. The substance of the 1975 document has become integral part of the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). New challenges emerge, being addressed to both sides. On the one hand, the question of a National Council of Churches, of which the RCC is a member, seeking associate membership in the WCC is a delicate matter requiring decision by the member churches, including the RCC. On the other hand, the new reality of institutional local ecumenism constrains the WCC to reassess the significance and role of its partners within the one ecumenical movement and look for ways of effective cooperation with them. Finally, both sides are called to seriously consider the implications of the present ecumenical work at the local, national or regional levels, reflecting often two different models of ecumenism. As a member of the WCC put it in Johannesburg (1994): “The most dividing elements often arise from within constituencies and not through the vision imposed from outside. To whom should we listen within the churches? How do we keep people at a table and deal with different understandings of our faith? On the issue of war, the leadership is fairly unified in contrast to many in their constituency, but on the subject of sexuality for example they are deeply divided. How can we stay together through conversations where some feel so offended by others' 12The Ecumenical Review 24 (3), 1972, pp. 247ff. 13Cf. D.M. Paton (ed.), Breaking Barriers, Nairobi 1975, London: SPCK, 1976, pp. 271ff. 14 Published in a dossier together with other relevant papers in One in Christ 8 (2), 1972, pp. 200ff. 15 Information Service n. 26 (I), 1975, pp. 8f.6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 48 / Fall 1995 decisions that they cannot endure it any longer?” 16 . A second challenge coming from this period and still keeping its stimulating richness is the study on local ecumenism and the mission of the church. In carrying out this study, the JWG had adopted the method of surveying a limited number of specific situations. On the basis of the responses from correspondents in twenty countries, as well as from three offices in the Roman Curia, a report was prepared and submitted to the JWG in 1974 17 . The study attempted the identification of characteristic elements in the ecumenical situation, the influence of contextual factors on the development of specific forms of cooperation, and the widening of ecumenical awareness from ecumenism as an interconfessional activity to ecumenism as a dimension of Christian life, from ecumenism as an interchurch concern to ecumenism as service in the world, and from merely doing things together to witnessing together. All these are still valid methodological components and challenging elements in our common journey. Even more importantly, the document made the attempt to analyze the underlying difficulties “which impede the churches' progress towards unity”. It is not only the difficulties mentioned and deepened in the study which offer interesting insights but the constant reminder of the principle that such an analysis is needed in every context and every particular period. “A framework of ongoing efforts”: slowing down of the progress? The demand which had been identified through the study on local ecumenism oriented the JWG towards two studies on Towards a Confession of the Common Faith 18 and on Common Witness 19 . Both studies continue earlier reflections in the JWG on the goal of visible unity and on the task of common witness. They have received wide publicity and stimulated ecumenical collaboration in many situations. Since 1978-79, the attention of the JWG has shifted to the issues of collaboration in the field of social thought and action. Rather than entrusting the task of this renewed exploration to a special body or study group, the JWG concentrated on a fuller discussion of the three areas which had been identified for study: the differences in self-understanding and mode of operation of the two partners as they act in the social field; the areas of convergence and of divergence in the social thinking of both sides; and the joint reflection of the theological and ecclesiological basis of churches' social action. The papers presented to the JWG on this occasion have been made public together with a first summary of the discussion in the JWG 20 . In 1979 the JWG had been confident in proposing to its parent bodies three subjects for concrete and visible collaboration which it felt could be taken up immediately since they represented equally pressing concerns for both sides. In particular, the JWG had suggested joint initiatives regarding the International Year of Disabled Persons, human rights and religious liberty, and the armaments issue. A year later it had become clear that SODEPAX would not continue beyond the end of 1980 and no new instrumentality had yet been developed. Thus the three suggestions remained without immediate follow-up. Another interim structure, the “Joint Consultative Group on Social Thought and Action” focused first on development, peace and human right and later turned its attention to the issues of racism and apartheid (1985-1987). With the agreement of its parent bodies, its mandate ended in 1988. One small but visible result of these efforts has been a volume containing official RCC and WCC statements on peace and disarmament, published jointly by the Vatican's Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace and the WCC Commission of the Churches in International Affairs (CCIA) 21 . Of course, the fifth report, like those which preceded it, included a section on “ongoing collaboration” which identified some of the areas where regular and sustained common work had taken shape over the years. One may observe that this cooperation has found a long-term structural expression in some areas, notably in the work of the Commissions on Faith and Order and on World Mission and Evangelism, as well as in the preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Specific constitutional provisions in the by laws of these two commission permitted the full and official participation of bodies outside the formal membership of the WCC. This form of collaboration has been maintained and even expanded in spite of the obstacles and problems encountered in other areas. It is true that the achievement of the Commission on Faith and Order in presenting the ecumenical converge texts on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” would have been unthinkable without the full participation of competent Roman Catholic officials. Collaboration has also been intensive in the area of mission and evangelism. Among other examples one could quote documents on the theme of the World Missionary Conference at Melbourne (1980), reactions from RC missiologists to the draft of the ecumenical affirmation on mission and evangelism, and a special study paper in preparation for the Sixth Assembly of the WCC coming from a consultation sponsored by the SPCU in 1982. Other areas where contacts have been firmly established and found some regular expression include inter-religious dialogue, activities in the field of science and technology and the programme of the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey. It will be 16Cf. WCC Central Committee, Minutes of the Forty-Fifth Meeting, Johannesburg, South Africa, 20-28 January 1994, Geneva: WCC, 1994, pp. 29-30. 17One in Christ 11 (1), 1975, pp. 30ff. 18 Geneva: WCC (Coll. “Faith and Order Paper”, 100), 1980. 19 Geneva: WCC (Coll. “Commission on World Mission and Evangelism”, 1), 1981. 20Mid-Stream 20 (1), 1981. 21Peace and Disarmament: Documents of the WCC and the RCC. Presented by the CCIA and the PCJP, 1982, Geneva: CCIA, 1982.N. 48 / Fall 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 noted, however, particularly in comparing the fifth report with the preceding ones, that this ongoing collaboration had now taken shape most clearly in areas of study and reflection. It has been more difficult to establish or maintain forms of cooperation in those areas where the programmes of the WCC are oriented towards action, i.e. where the WCC relates directly to particular local constituencies and responds to stated needs of its member churches. The special role of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia in relationship to local church situations, the evolving status of episcopal conferences and the structures of authorities within the RCC have made it more difficult to develop forms of collaboration which go beyond contacts of staff level. Thus, the experiences from this period constitute another source of inspiration for our present work. They seem to suggest that today we should emphasize the quality and the content of cooperation avoiding the search of structural forms for our relationships and collaboration. Yet, our difficulties in facing together the issues of human rights and religious freedom place us in a very delicate position. In many parts of our world these are the real issues Churches and people face in their daily lives. They are sources of human suffering but also of tensions between communities, including churches. Our impossibility to offer a common witness, also in these fields, could be easily characterised as a serious weakness —not to say a lack of credibility— in our respective ecumenical commitment. Furthering relations and practical cooperation The sixth official report, published soon before and submitted to the Canberra Assembly 22 , confirmed the fact that while the overall scope of collaboration between the RCC and the WCC was oriented more toward study rather than common action, the JWG began to assume the task of coordinating existing forms of collaboration or of evaluating relationships between the two bodies. Two theological studies on “The Church: Local and Universal” and the “Hierarchy of Truths”, published as an Appendix to the sixth official report, constitute the main harvest of this period. The impetus for work on these themes came during the visit of Pope John Paul II to the WCC (1984). The first study document could be seen as part of the ongoing ecclesiological search and discussion. It focuses on the ecclesiology of communion which is presented as a framework within which the study of the church local and universal takes place. The second document attempted to offer an understanding and interpretation of the intention of the Second Vatican Council in speaking of a “hierarchy of truths”. It analyzes therefore the conciliar statement and indicates some examples of “hierarchy of truths” and proposes implications for the ecumenical dialogue. Both study documents have their own significance and constitute important steps. They raise however two questions. First, that of “reception” in the wider sense of the term. There is the growing impression that these two documents were not sufficiently made known and explored. The second, and probably more important question concerns the relationship between the work of the JWG and the ongoing WCC-RCC collaboration within the Commission on Faith and Order. What is the specificity of the JWG? Is there duplication of work between the JWG and the Commission of Faith and Order? If the JWG attempts to clarify eventual differences between WCC documents in the drafting of which the RCC was fully involved and RC documents as such, is this effort clearly communicated or understood? These are questions which need proper answers in order to consolidate the orientation and contribution of the JWG. The disappointing result of the many efforts on both sides for ensuring a RC participation in the world convocation on “Justice Peace and the Integrity of Creation” is known. It can be interpreted in many ways. It strengthens the conviction that the fundamental question of the nature of ecumenism has to be discussed time and again, in the light of developments on both sides. The paradox of serving the “one ecumenical movement” in spite of “the difference in nature between the WCC and the RCC” should not paralyse our efforts and lead us to impasses. But it certainly constitutes an obstacle. This obstacles could and should be analyzed more thoroughly. Here is probably a priority task for the JWG, as the sixth report recognizes in its foreword and the assembly underlines in its response to the report of the JWG. An example where the JWG has tried to respond to a new challenge was its decision to include in its agenda the whole question of “ethical issues as new sources of division”. Can we learn to respect the convictions of the others who are rooted in their traditions and commitments? Can we continue the dialogue in the face of disagreement without demanding that anyone should compromise convictions “for the sake of unity”? The process has already started and there are good signs that the JWG will be in a position to propose how some of these dividing ethical issues may best be approached in dialogue. One is positively surprised to discover in the sixth report, under the title “Ecumenical collaboration in other areas between WCC and RCC partners”, an extended list of WCC activities where representatives of the RCC were present and offered their contribution. Practically all programmatic activities of the WCC are included in this register. This is a visible result of the continuous efforts undertaken by the staff on both sides serving the JWG. It confirms that cooperation goes very often beyond Rome and Geneva and includes a considerable number of experts who are ready to serve the ecumenical movement. Undoubtedly this very fact contains a great potential for the WCC and for its relationships with the RCC. The issue of how all these experiences are shared at the local level and do serve local ecumenical cooperation remains open. The JWG has not yet found an effective and convincing way to respond to this need which has been identified since the beginning of cooperation. 22 JWG Between the RCC and the WCC, Sixth Report; Including two Study Documents, Geneva-Rome 1990, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990. 8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 48 / Fall 1995 A quick look at the present The last and still ongoing period in the efforts of the JWG has started on a positive note. The publication and wide distribution of a study document on “Ecumenical Formation: Ecumenical Reflections and Suggestions” (1993) 23 seems to open new possibilities for further common reflection and action in the realm of theological education. The initiative to present to the members of the WCC Central Committee (1994) copies of the Ecumenical Directory, in order to facilitate a better understanding of the theological basis of the RCC's involvement in the ecumenical movement, constitutes another positive step in the broad spectrum of our relationships. Since then, the JWG has included in its agenda discussions on the Directory. On this basis we might be able to deal more creatively both with ecclesiological issues, such as the nature of the ecumenical movement, and pastoral ones, such as mixed marriages. In spite of these positive signs, it should be admitted that the radical changes in central and eastern Europe created an new climate in inter-church and ecumenical relations which also affected RCC-WCC relationship. Tensions between Orthodox churches and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches came to the agenda of the WCC at the request of its member churches. Using the existing mechanisms for mutual consultation and cooperation —including the JWG— as well as our conviction that there is a complementarity between the bilateral et multilateral dialogues have largely contributed in responding to this challenge. What could be seen as a second “crisis of confidence” was avoided. Yet, similar tensions exist in other parts of the world and similar demands are addresses to the WCC. Here also the JWG could be extremely instrumental. Its immediate reaction was to respond to the challenge of proselytism as affecting the call to common Christian witness. A study document reminding the churches of the scope and the significance of the problem is being prepared. A step forward however seems to be needed. Part of the problem in these tensions is due to a variety of understandings and practices of religious freedom as well as a variety of models in church and state relations. Could we use thirty years of experience and cooperation through the JWG in order to serve the churches in one of their priorities? During a meeting between the leadership of the PCPCU and the officers and staff of the WCC (November 1993) we had extremely interesting discussions about the eventual need for an evaluation of our relationships and the possibilities of strengthening this relationship within the framework of the JWG. This is also the purpose of my official visit to the Vatican. We need to sharpen our understanding of the ecumenical movement, discussing common concerns and exploring ways of deepening and expanding our cooperation in the future. After thirty years we look at this relationship with realism. We know, on both sides, that we must move forward, but we also know much better what are the points of difficulties for each of the two partners. We are approaching the end of the second millennium. Shortly before, the WCC will hold its Eighth Assembly commemorating on this occasion the 50th anniversary since the First Assembly at Amsterdam in 1948. The challenge of a future under the threat of growing fragmentation and violence, of a de facto apartheid between rich and poor, and of a progressive degradation of the whole ecosphere is such that it should lead to an urgent reordering of the ecumenical agenda. The “jubileo” values of reconciliation and forgiveness, of repentance and metanoia, of restitution and reconstruction should inspire us to close the books over our past struggles and to concentrate all our energies on addressing together the life and survival issues of today and tomorrow in the light of the gospel of Christ. It is this spirit which should characterize and which could energize our ecumenical efforts towards the year 2000. The kairos must not be missed. 23 The Ecumenical Review 45 (4), 1993, pp. 490-4.N. 48 / Fall 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 CC Centro Conferences Do Methodists (Think They) Stand in the Apostolic Tradition? by Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright Cushman Professor of Christian Theology Duke University, USA and co-chair of the Methodist-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 27 April 1995) Let me offer you a rapid sketch of ecclesiastical history. In the fifth century, the non-chalcedonians split from the hitherto undivided Church. Then the Byzantine East broke away in 1054. The unreformed Roman Catholics were left behind in the sixteenth century, while the continental Protestants had the misfortune of being foreigners. In the eighteenth century, even the Church of England refused the mission of John and Charles Wesley, so that finally only Methodists remained in the body of Christ. The point of the story is, of course, to turn the tables on Orthodox or, more particularly perhaps, Roman Catholics and even Anglicans in their respective ecclesiological self-understand- ings. But this ironic tale is aimed also at Methodist themselves. For many Methodists do consider that the Church to which they belong began only in the 18th century with John and Charles Wesley. And in the first part of this lecture, I shall in fact concede that there is unfortunately good reason, historically and theologically, for them to think so. But soon there comes a stage when, on reflection, Methodists resent the manner in which others — perhaps Anglicans and even Roman Catholics — present them as ecclesiastical upstarts, johnnies-(and-charlies)-come-lately in the history of Christianity. And then Methodists start to assert their sense of identity with the Church of the apostles. And in a second part of this lecture, I shall in fact claim that there is surprisingly good reason, histori- cally and theologically, for Methodists to make that assertion. In the third and final part of this lecture, I will put forward an ecumenical perspective concerning Apostolic Tradition in which it may be possible for some of the weaknesses of Methodism in the matter of origin and continuity to be compensated for, while at the same time the claims of Methodists to apostolic character are held within moderate bounds. So far, I have spoken of Methodists in the third person, they and them. Henceforward, I will own my allegiance and speak of Methodists as we and us. And in a further recognition of the living nature of our encounter this evening, I will address particularly Roman Catholics and will speak from within the international bilateral dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, in which I have participated for the past twelve years and which I have chaired on the Methodist side for the last nine. So here we go, on the first two parts of the lecture. In Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, the so-called “Lima text” of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, the section on “Ministry” distinguishes two different ways of conceiving the relationship to the apostolic Church enjoyed by later generations, and particularly as personified by their bishops. The one conception is named (with whatever justice) after Clement of Rome, the other after Ignatius of Antioch (the two models are in any case useful). The first runs thus: “Clement of Rome linked the mission of the bishop with the sending of Christ by the Father and the sending of the apostles by Christ (Cor. 42:44). This made the bishop a successor of the apostles, ensuring the permanence of the apostolic mission in the Church. Clement is primarily interested in the means whereby the historical continuity of Christ's presence is ensured in the Church thanks to the apostolic succession”1. Note that, in this first model, the relationship to the apostolic Church is conceived in terms of historical continuity. In a moment, I will examine the case of Methodism in that so-called “Clementine” light. Next, however, BEM continues with the so- called “Ignatian” model: “For Ignatius of Antioch (Magn. 6:1, 3:1-2; Trall. 3:1), it is Christ surrounded by the Twelve who is permanently in 1 World Council of Churches, Faith and Order Commission, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Geneva: World Council of Chrches (coll. “Faith and Order Paper”, 111), 1982, M 36, commentary, p. 29. Hereafter cited BEM followed by § number.Next >