CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 58 - Fall 2000 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director..................................................p. 1 Can the Roman Catholic and Methodist Churches be Reconciled? by David Carter...................................................p. 3 The Trinity, Prayer and Sexuality: A Neglected Nexus in the Fathers and Beyond by Sarah Coakley..................................................p. 13 Challenges of The Gift of Authority for the Churches by John Baycroft...................................................p. 18 Quelques réflexions sur primauté et pouvoir by Michel Meslin..................................................p. 22 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the AtonementDirector's Desk In this issue of the bulletin we have the pleasure of presenting four of the conferences that were held at the Centro during this past year. You will note that these texts are quite different in nature showing the diversity of themes that we try to treat through our activities. Prof. David Carter who is a member of the British Catholic- Methodist dialogue takes a look at the rich diversity in ecclesiologies between the Methodist and Catholic churches and tries to illustrate that the diversity that exists is not an obstacle to the possible reconciliation of the two churches. While David was here he also held a seminar at the Angelicum for the students of the ecumenical section. Sarah Coakley, Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, presented the second annual Fr. Paul Wattson and Mother Lurana White lecture. She presents us with a fresh reading of classical Trinitarian theology to show the link that the Fathers make between Trinity, prayer and sexuality. A lively discussion followed her presentation by some of the participants. We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sarah on her ordination for the Anglican diocese of Oxford. This year’s Wattson/White lecture will be given by Prof. Bruno Forte. His lecture entitled “Beauty as a Way to Unity” will take place on December 14 th at the Centro. A concert will be held on the next day to mark the anniversary of the foundation of the Society of the Atonement. We hope that many of our Italian readers will be able to join us. The director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, Bishop John Baycroft offered this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity conference held in January. In his lecture he illustrated the challenges that the recent ARCIC text on authority offers to the churches. Following his lecture we had an ecumenical celebration of the Word presided by Pastor David Huie of the Scots Presbyterian Church in Rome with the homily given by Rev. Tom Best of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Later in the year the Anglican Centre had the distinguished honor of welcoming Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. We were most honored that we were invited as supporters of the Anglican Communion and Centre to meet the Queen and talk about the collaboration that goes on between our Center and the Anglican Centre. The final text in this issue is the lecture given by the President of the Sorbonne, Michel Meslin. This lecture rounds out the series that the Centro has sponsored dealing with the question that Pope John Paul II raises in Ut unum sint on the role of the petrine ministry and the unity of the Church. Prof. Meslin is an anthropologist and historian of religion and hence his talk approached the understanding of primacy from this perspective. In the context of the recent document from the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus, this lecture helped clarify some issues confronting the churches today on the interreligious and ecumenical fronts. Two successful Summer sessions were sponsored this year. One held in Jerusalem co-sponsored by the SIDIC Center and the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion in Ein Kerem. The other was our annual Summer course. Once again for both programs we had participants from over 20 different countries. You will find a flyer for this year’s Summer course to be held from June 25 to July 13, 2001. Reserve your place early!. Several groups visited the Centro this year including a German study group led by Dr. Martin Wallraff from the University of Bonn and a group of French couples from the movement Foyer Notre Dame. In addition we had the pleasure of presenting the study of Giovanni Turbanti Un concilio per il mondo moderno which is a study on the evolution of the Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes. We are also grateful for the research that has been done on behalf of defenseless children by Vincenzo Ancona. His volume Bambini indifesi (Schena Editore) is a welcomed addition to the library. We would like to remind our readers that this periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Floor., Chicago, IL 60606 (http://www.atla.com). Please note that our e-mail address is pro@pro.urbe.it. For more information on our activities, visit us at: http://www.prounione.urbe.it James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 58 / Fall 2000Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC Can the Roman Catholic and Methodist Churches be Reconciled? by David Carter Member of the British Catholic-Methodist Dialogue (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 25 November 1999) In 1992, Rev. David Butler, Secretary of the British Roman Catholic-Methodist Committee for dialogue, wrote a paper entitled, ‘Can the Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches be Reconciled? 1 It was subsequently received by the Commission, and sent by the Methodist members for consideration by the Methodist Conference. In 1992, it was sent down by the Conference for discussion and comment by the Methodist districts, thus initiating a process of reception and reflection from the Methodist side, a process which was, however, not as thorough and complete as the Committee would have wished. That such a paper could be written, let alone almost immedi- ately commended for study by the highest organ of the British Methodist Church, is a sign of the rapid progress made in recent years in Catholic-Methodist relations, especially in England. This process has not, of course, occurred spontaneously in a vacuum. It had its origin in the great movement of ecumenical and spiritual renewal which culminated, on the Roman Catholic side in Vatican II, and on the Methodist side, in 1967, in the enthusiastic acceptance of the Vatican’s offer of a bilateral dialogue. Right from the beginning, Methodist members of the dialogue commission asked that the ultimate goal of visible unity should be kept constantly in mind, however long and arduous the journey towards it might be. Even before the 1960's there were signs of mutual interest and recognition between Catholics and Methodists. John Wesley had a great devotion to many Catholic saints 2 . Cardinal Manning is said to have loved the local preachers of North country Methodism because they pleaded the one sacrifice as effectively from their pulpits as he did from his altar. In the early twentieth century, many Methodists and Catholics recognised that their common concern for holiness represented an important bridge across the many differences. Nevertheless, as late as the 1950's, few could have envisaged the rapid progress that was to occur over the next 40 years. It is, of course, important not to exaggerate this. It is true that, where they exist, relationships between Methodists and Catholics, in England, are usually warm, and based on mutual respect. However, it is also true that enormous numbers of Catholics and Methodists, in England and elsewhere, still live in deep ignorance not only of the spiritual riches of each others’ traditions, but even of aspects of the others’ most basic convic- tions. The Methodist people do not generally lack goodwill towards other Christians. Nevertheless, they are often puzzled by differences that they do not understand. In particular, they often misunderstand Catholic teaching about the ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist. They are often unable, to relate unfamiliar typoi of Christian life and devotion to their own experience of the faith. A vast work of reception lies ahead of us, a point stressed by Cardinal Cassidy when he visited the British Methodist Conference in 1998 3 . Even if the theologians were able tomorrow to resolve all the remaining differences, to the mutual satisfaction of both the Vatican and the World Method- ist Council, a prolonged period of preparation would be necessary in both churches to ensure that all our people appreci- ated the fuller heritage into which they were being asked to enter. I am sad to record that little, as yet, is being done about this in Britain. Many Methodist districts made no response to the paper referred to above. Occasional study days are being held in a few districts and dioceses, but that is as far as it goes 4 . Despite these caveats, it is undeniable that great progress has been made on many fronts. The early stages of the dialogue were carried out in a respectful but cautious mood. Great honesty was displayed in recording areas of continuing dis- 1D. BUTLER, ‘Can the Roman Catholic and Methodist Churches be Reconciled?’ (Methodist Publishing House, 1992). 2 The standard work on this is D. BUTLER, Methodists and Papists. John Wesley and the Catholic Church in the Eighteenth Century (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1995). 3For the text of Cardinal Cassidy’s address, see the British Methodist theological journal, Epworth Review 25, 4 (1998) 13-22. 4 A local dialogue group meets regularly in Liverpool Archdiocese/District. Southwark and Arundel and Brighton diocesan ecumenical commissions have sponsored several study days in conjunction with the Methodist London SW. District. Otherwise, there is little local dialogue and reception.4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 58 / Fall 2000 agreement as well as those of agreement or convergence5. Some of the former, however, are now ripe for reconsideration in the light of developments in ecumenical thought since BEM, and, also, in the light of some of the work done in the fourth and fifth quinquennia of the dialogue. These two quinquennia issued reports on the Church and the Apostolic Tradition which showed clear signs of convergence on key aspects of funda- mental ecclesiology, doctrine of the ministry and Tradition and traditions 6 . In 1996, the dialogue published its latest complete report, on revelation and faith, ‘The Word of Life’. Let us look at some of these issues, beginning with ecclesiology. Roman Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II has balanced acceptance of the ecclesial reality of other churches and Christian communities with a continuing emphasis on the primacy of the see of Rome as the cornerstone of universal koinônia. Unity ‘subsists’ in communion with the See of Rome, with its uniquely authoritative double apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul. This means that full koinônia is only possible with a reception of the Petrine ministry, though it is clearly accepted that this reception will probably be of a style different from that practised since the time of Paul V or even Gregory VII. John Paul II has hinted at this possibility in his prepared- ness to discuss the future style of his ministry with the theolo- gians and leaders of the other churches 7 . British Methodist ecclesiology takes as axiomatic the claim of the Deed of Union, which constituted the present British Methodist Church in 1932, that ‘Methodism claims and cherishes its place within the one Holy Catholic Church’ 8 . Methodism has never, of course, claimed to be the whole of the Catholic Church. Methodists accept that there was a time when the Universal Church existed without a separate Methodist body. Many of them look forward to a time again when Methodism no longer needs exists as a separate body. Method- ists believe, however, that within the providence of God, they have certain insights into the nature of the Church and the practice of the Christian life that should become part of the permanent heritage of the Universal Church 9 . This claim is consistent with the ecclesiology of Vatican II and of the recent encyclical ‘Ut Unum Sint’ with their talk of the gifts and endowments of many Christian communities. We can reasonably hope, ultimately, for a union of the two churches, within which they will both work and pray for such further and completer union of the whole of Christendom as might still then be necessary. Such a union would transcend but not eclipse the claims and ecclesiologies of the two churches. Following the ecclesiology of Cardinal Willebrands, it should be possible for Roman Catholics to recognise within Method- ism an authentic ‘typos’ of ecclesial life and spirituality which embodies within a particular manner the essentials of the Apostolic Tradition 10 . Methodists have shown their willingness to restore the sign of the episcopal succession, and to receive the Petrine ministry, if and when they can be convinced of its indispensability for the unity of Christ’s Church 11 . Methodists believe that the Petrine ministry needs to be exercised in a ‘connexional’ and collegial context, but, in the light of Vatican and post-Vatican II thinking about collegiality this should not 5 For the first three reports of the dialogue, see H. MEYER & L. VISCHER (eds.), Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, (NY/Geneva: Paulist/WCC, 1984) 307-388. 6 ‘Towards a Statement on the Church’, 1984, published by World Methodist Council, Lake Junaluska and ‘The Apostolic Tradition’, 1991, published by Methodist Publishing House, Peterborough, ‘The Word of Life’, published by the World Methodist Council at Lake Junaluska, 1996. Currently, the dialogue is studying teaching authority. 7 See ‘Ut Unum Sint’, paras 98-107. For a range of both catholic and other views on the possibilities, see J.F. PUGLISI (ed.), Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999), being the papers of the symposium held at this Centro in December 1998. For the Methodist contribution, by Geoffrey WAINWRIGHT, see ch 4, pp. 59-82. 8 The Deed of Union of 1932 sets out the basis on which the three previously existing main British Methodist churches viz: the Wesleyan, Primitive and United Methodist Churches came together in that year as one, the ‘Methodist Church’. For a full text of the doctrinal clauses of the Deed of Union of the Methodist Church of 1932 see, G.T. BRAKE, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932-1982 (London: Edsall, 1984) 829-830. 9 For statements on this, see, for example, G. WAINWRIGHT, The Ecumenical Moment: Crisis and Opportunity for the Church (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1983) 196-199. 10 For Cardinal Willebrands’ famous sermon on this, “Diversity without Separation,” The Tablet 224 (1970) 92-93. The question of the extent of legitimate diversity within the Great Tradition remains a matter for theological exploration between our communities. See e.g. my article in One in Christ 29, 3 (1993) 226-234: “Legitimacy of Diversity in the Apostolic Tradition”, which was a paper given to the British Roman Catholic-Methodist Committee in 1992. 11 For British Methodism’s attitude to the recovery of the historic episcopate, see M. THURIAN (ed.), Churches respond to Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, Faith and Order Paper, 132 (Geneva: WCC, 1986) vol 2, 215 where it is stated “we await the occasion when it would be appropriate to ‘recover the sign of the episcopal succession’”. For the statement on Petrine ministry, see “Towards a Statement on the Church”, op. cit., 17. See also the response of the British Methodist Faith and Order Committee to ‘Ut Unum Sint’, Conference Agenda, 1997, pp 256-57.N. 58 / Fall 2000Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 be impossible to achieve12. We can derive particular hope from the flexible approach taken by Pope John-Paul II in ‘Ut Unum Sint’, as already noted. The rapprochement of the two churches will be facilitated by their common emphasis on the Church as the ‘Pilgrim People of God’. It is a welcome feature of the Report on ‘The Apos- tolic Tradition’, issued after the fifth quinquennium of the dialogue, that it presents a very carefully nuanced ecclesiology, juxtaposing and acknowledging the reality both of the divine element, and if the human element, with all its frailty, in the Church, and thus avoiding some of the pitfalls of both pre- Vatican II Catholic and traditional Protestant ecclesiology with their respective tendencies to veer towards the monophysite and the nestorian in ecclesiology. Both churches understand themselves to be ‘in via’ towards their promised eschatological perfection (Ephesians 5:27). Both would, I think, accept George Tavard’s dictum that the Church ‘progressively images the kingdom of God’ and that it continues to meditate upon the word of God until all the promises of God are fulfilled in its life 13 . Within their histories, they recognise that there have been times of great renewal and spiritual progress and also times of weakness when the Church has stood in dire need of reform. They accept the principle ‘ecclesia semper reformanda’. Within this framework, it is possible for both churches to recognise and affirm each others’ periods of renewal, such as the monastic revivals of the Middle Ages or the Wesleyan revival of the eighteenth century, and to acknowledge their joint need of constant renewal14. Another great fillip has been given to Catholic-Methodist convergence by the common developing understanding of the Church as koinônia 15 . This emphasis was fundamental to early Methodism, ‘as much a revival of primitive church life as of primitive doctrine’, to quote James Rigg, a great nineteenth century Methodist ecclesiologist 16 . It is instructive to note the parallel phenomenon in the renewal of Catholicism from the work of Möhler and Newman through to its coming to fruition in developments after Vatican II. This involved a return to the patristic sources, and with it a renewed appreciation of the Church as koinônia 17 . The link between doctrinal and ecclesiological renewal is very strict. A renewed understanding of the dynamics of trinitarian theology led to a renewed understanding of the Trinitarian mission to all creation, and thence to the understanding of the koinônia effected by the Word and the Spirit as they graciously involve the elect in the life and mission of the Triune God. These links can be exempli- fied both in much Catholic teaching at and after Vatican II and in the recent Ecclesiology Report of the British Methodist Faith and Order Committee18. The understanding of the Church as communion helps us to transcend the dichotomy between those ecclesiologies that start from the necessity of an authoritative hierarchy and those which start from the presupposition that authority emanates upward from the gathered congregation. Rather, ordained ministry and laity are in a symbiotic relationship with each other within which they listen to each other, the ministry transmitting the apostolic gospel and the people of God speaking back to the 12 The term ‘connexional’ (spelt ‘connectional’ in US) is used to describe the Methodist system of church organisation and government, the core emphasis of which is on the essential interrelatedness and mutual accountability of all local churches. Arising originally as a pragmatic device for ensuring the maximum coverage in mission, the system became increasingly justified as better expressing the total koinônia and interdependency of the Church than other systems of church organisation. See eg. J.H. RIGG, A Comparative View of Church Organisations (London, 1887). For a recent, profound justification of connexionalism, see the articles in Epworth Review, the British Methodist theological review, of Rev. Brian BECK, the then Secretary of the Conference, “Some Reflections on Connexionalism”, (May/Sept 1991) 48-59. For a summary of principles and recent theologising, see B.W. ROBBINS and D. CARTER, “Connexionalism and Koinônia: A Wesleyan Contribution to Ecclesiology,” One in Christ 34, 4 (1998) 320-336. Connexionalism is combined with an episcopal ministry in the main American Methodist traditions, but with a non-episcopal system in Britain. Methodism everywhere emphasises collegial and communal decision making. The relationship between this tradition and the personally focused system of episcope exercised by bishops is under discussion in contemporary British Methodism. In USA, there has always been a delicate balance between the authority of the General Conference and that of individual bishops and the Council of Bishops. 13 G.A. TAVARD, “Tradition as Konoinia in Historical Perspective,” One in Christ 24, 2 (1988) 110. Decree ‘Dei Verbum’ of Vatican II, para 8. 14 Apostolic Tradition, op. cit., para 32. 15 The sources on this are almost too many to mention, but see especially, J.M.R. TILLARD, Church of Churches. The Ecclesiology of Communion (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992) passim and, for a selection of Wesley’s hymns that have influenced Methodism’s sense of koinônia throughout its history, see Hymns and Psalms: A Methodist Ecumenical Hymn Book —the present British Methodist Hymn Book, (Peterborough: Methodist Publishing House, 1983) Nos 752-763. 16 J.H. RIGG, A Comparative...,op. cit., 239. 17See e.g. P. McPARTLAN, Sacrament of Salvation. An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995) 30-44, for a brief resume of such influences. 18 See the Ecclesiology report approved by the Methodist Conference in 1995. Called To Love and Praise (London: Methodist Publishing House, 1999), esp paras 1.4.3. and 2.1.1. In joint dialogue, see the approach taken in ‘Towards a Statement on the Church’, op. cit., paras 1-10 and ‘The Apostolic Tradition’, op. cit., paras 9-32. Methodists would sympathize with much of the ecclesiology of J.M.R. TILLARD, especially in Church of Churches, op. cit. and L’Église locale: ecclésiologie de communion et catholicité, Cogitatio fidei, 191 (Paris: Cerf, 1995), with their frequent and strong emphasis on the ‘synergy’ of ministers and lay people in koinônia.6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 58 / Fall 2000 ministry of communion its prophetic insights in order that through them the life of the whole body may be further en- riched. The relationship is one of mutual accountability and has its ultimate paradigm and source in the mutually accountable relationship of Father and Son as described in John’s Gospel. The whole concept of koinônia is suffused by mutual respect and submission and cannot be authentically lived without such kenotic openness 19 . Our two churches are also at one in their affirmation of the simultaneous importance of the Church Universal and the local church, even if they nuance this understanding somewhat differently. For both Methodists and Roman Catholics the fullness of the Church is present in each local church, and the Universal church is thus, truly, ‘Church of churches’. However, both communions also assert the essential interdependence of all churches. For Catholics, this point has been recently reemphasised in the Letter of the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith to the Catholic Bishops. For Methodists, it has been reemphasised in the report ‘Called To Love and Praise’. Both churches agree that this is on account of the nature of the total worshipping and witnessing life of the Church which reaches its culmination and focus in the Eucharist 20 . For Roman Catholics, no local church can exist properly in isolation; all need to relate to each other, to be ‘porous’, to use Jean-Marie Tillard’s expression, through the ministry of the college of bishops under its head, the Bishop of Rome. For Methodists, the communion of local churches is maintained through the outworking of the ‘connexional principle’ with its interlocking levels of koinônia from the ‘class meeting’, the small fellowship group meeting under the leadership of an individual responsible to the pastor of the local ‘society’, through the ‘circuit’ and ‘district’ to the level of the national Conference, which exercises collegial supervision of the whole ‘Connexion’21. Catholics define the ‘local church’ strictly as the diocese. Methodists have never made such a strict definition. In one sense, where it still exists, the ‘class meeting’ can still be seen by the faithful Methodist as the most concentrated form of ‘local church’, but he or she will also view his ‘society’ (local congregation) as a key element in ‘local’ ecclesiality, a point that can be sustained from an examination of the ‘hymns for the society meeting’ of the Wesleys. British Methodists also value the fellowship of the ‘circuit’ 22 . In terms of sharing resources, the circuit and district are both important. The distinction is less between ‘local’ and ‘universal’ in absolute terms as between interlocking levels. Both Catholics and Methodists, however, acknowledge this interconnectedness. The Catholic Church uses national Bish- ops’ Conferences as key elements of intermediate koinônia. The Pope clearly sees the different typoi of life, theological thought and devotion, Eastern and Western, in the Catholic Church, as mutually enriching; he talks of the Church as ‘breathing with its two lungs’. Koinônia may be described as a circulation of love throughout the whole, with interchange of spiritual and material 19 See for example John 5:19-30 with its alternating assertions of the complete equality of the Father and the Son, the Son’s complete voluntary submission to the will of the Father and the Father’s placing of all trust and authority in the hands of the Son. John 15:15 is also relevant in this context where Christ talks of the disciples as friends with whom he has shared everything that he has heard from the Father. For a classical Wesleyan reflection on the trinitarian basis of the koinônia of the Church, see B. GREGORY, The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1873) 152-53. 20 See the ‘Letter’ quoted in P. McPARTLAN, Sacrament..., op. cit., 69-71; Called To Love and Praise, op. cit. 21 For Tillard’s expression ‘porous’, see L’Église locale..., op. cit., 380. For the benefit of Roman Catholics and others unfamiliar with British Methodism, the following points should be explained. The ‘class meeting’ is a fellowship group which meets for common prayer and study. Membership of these groups was originally compulsory and they used to meet weekly. Now, they do not exist in all churches, and where they do exist membership is optional and meetings are usually less frequent than hitherto. The ‘Society’ corresponds to the local parish/congregation in other traditions. The ‘Circuit’ is a group of churches sharing the ministry of ordained and lay or ‘local’ preachers. Methodist ministers are traditionally assigned to a circuit rather than an individual congregation. Regular meeting between the members of societies within a circuit gives them a close sense of cohesion. A circuit is in some ways usually comparable in size to a Catholic deanery. The ‘District’ is comparable to a diocese. Its twice yearly Synods are presided over by a Chairman who is appointed for a period of years, and who exercises general episcope in much the same way as a Catholic bishop. The final authority in a national Methodist Church is the Annual Conference, consisting of an equal number of ministers and lay persons. It has final authority over the stationing of the ministers and the deployment of the resources of the Church. It also has final authority in terms of interpretation of doctrine within British Methodism. The situation elsewhere is recounted a little later in this text. 22 ‘Constitutional Practice and Discipline’, the code of canon law of British Methodism and the equivalent of the Book of Discipline in US Methodism talks of the ‘local church’ as the local congregation but adds that the circuit is ‘the primary unit in which local churches experience their interconnexion in the Body of Christ’. Standing Order 500.N. 58 / Fall 2000Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 resources after the pattern witnessed to by the Apostle Paul 23. It is for this reason, however, that both Churches, while wishing to safeguard the legitimate rights of ‘local churches’ repudiate any idea that churches can be totally independent of each other. As far as Methodists are concerned, this is embodied in the very ‘connexional’ principle, a principle which they see as enshrined in the total divine economy 24 . As far as Catholics are concerned, the matter was clarified in the Letter to the Bishops of the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. This made it clear that the interdependence of churches related to the very nature of te Eucharist as focus and summit of Christian life and praise 25 . Methodists would agree. The communion of the whole Church, past and present, in the Eucharist points to the ‘connexional principle’ so deeply rooted in the ‘sensus fidelium’. When Catholics and Methodists can see the Petrine ministry in the context of the fostering and guardianship of this koinônia, they may then be able move towards an integrated ecclesiology of ‘primacy within connexionalism’ 26 . However, within the present practice of connexionalism, one important distinction may be seen within world Methodism at the highest level. The United Methodist Church, originating in the USA, and its associated overseas churches maintain a four yearly General Conference as an instrument of universal koinônia 27 . The British Methodist Conference maintains close relations with those sister churches Methodist churches of British origin, but exercises no ultimate supervision over them through a global Conference; their ‘conferences’ are fully autocephalous in a manner similar to the Orthodox Churches. There is here a need for inter-Methodist reflection, within which the consideration of the role of a universal primate could come to play a part. From such a consideration of the mystery of the Church, it is natural to proceed to an analysis of the sources of authority under which it lives, and, in particular, to look at the nature of the ministry through which the People of God are enabled to live their apostolic witness. Both churches are agreed on the supremacy of Scripture, which as the British Methodist Deed of Union puts it, ‘contains the divine revelation’ 28 , which was given by God, through the Word and the Spirit, to the first apostles, whose primary function was to act as ‘servants of the Word’ (Acts 6:4). Both churches now repudiate any simplistically fundamentalistic understanding of Scripture, but nevertheless regard the divine revelation contained in it as normative for their life and teaching, and as a source to which they must constantly return in order to see that they are in true continuity with the Apostolic Tradition. Roman Catholics emphasise that the magisterium is always subject to the word of God and serves its interpretation. Both churches believe that the revelation contained in Scripture needs constant rereading and re-reception by the people of God in ways that enable them to fulfil their mission in changing circumstances. The Methodist- Catholic statement on ‘The Apostolic Tradition’ states, ‘Christians do not order the life of the Church by fixed repetition of rigid routine laid down in the past. Rather, by recalling and holding fast to the treasured memory of the events of our salvation, we receive light and strength for our present faith as, under God, we seek to meet the needs of our own time. It is Christian hope that makes possible our wholehearted and active contribution to the continued handing on of the transforming power contained in the Gospel’ 29 . Para 6 goes on to state that the developing tradition of the Church helps us in this process; However, at the same time, the Church always has to be careful to check development against the original witness of Scripture. Scripture and Tradition cannot exist without each other. ‘Scripture was written within Tradition, yet Scripture is normative for Tradition’ 30 . Tradition is essential to the life of the Church, but it is always subject to checking against the authority of Scripture. Both churches have a high regard for genuine Tradition as an activity of the Holy Spirit within the Church. British Methodism introduced its ‘Statement on the Nature of the Christian Church’ of 1937 thus. ‘The Church of Christ is the home of the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a family with a unique and developing life. It is a life of distinctive quality, a life which under the guidance of the Spirit should be richer as time goes on, with fresh manifestations as new nations and races are added to the Church, and as new apprehension of divine truth is given’ 31 . 23Cf. 2 Corinthians 8-9, Romans 1:12; in the latter Paul speaks of his desire to visit the Church of Rome in order that his faith and theirs may be mutually enriched. Both John Paul II (Orientale Lumen, para 45) and the great classical Wesleyan ecclesiologist, James Rigg, quote this in ecclesial contexts. 24 For the link between ecclesiological connexionalism and the ‘connectedness’ of all creation in recent United Methodist thinking, see Robbins and Carter, “Connexionalism...,” op. cit., 328. 25 McPartlan, Sacrament...,op cit, 69-70 quotes relevant sections of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s document. 26 For two accounts of possibilities, see Wainwright chapter in J. PUGLISI (ed.), Petrine..., op. cit. and D. CARTER, “A Methodist Reaction to Ut Unum Sint,” One in Christ, 33, 2 (1997) 125-137; also D. CARTER, “Papacy and Connexionalism,” Methodist Sacramental Fellowship Bulletin, 126 (1997) 33-40. 27 For an account of the working of the ‘United Methodist Church’ and its global connexional system, see T.E. FRANKS, Policy, Practice and Mission of the United Methodist Church, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997). 28 G. Thompson BRAKE, Policy..., op. cit., 829-830. 29 Apostolic Tradition, op. cit., para 5. 30Ibid. para 21. 31Statements of the Methodist Church on Faith and Order 1933-83, (London: Methodist Publishing House, 1984) 7.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 58 / Fall 2000 To a degree, both churches make a distinction between the ‘Great Tradition’ of the Early Church, and the separate traditions of later churches. The distinction is clearer in Catholic thought than Methodist, though it is clearly implicit in the way in which Methodism has claimed legitimacy for many of its practices as good and edifying without ever suggesting that they are indispensable for the rest of the Church 32 . Within the dialogue, it is reflected in two ways in the Report on the ‘Apostolic Tradition’. Firstly, the fundamental importance of the Nicene Creed is stressed as explicating the apostolic faith witnessed to in Scripture. Secondly, the centrality of the Eucharist is emphasised as ‘the focus where the pattern of Christian life is set forth’ 33 . Some aspects of Eucharistic theology, definition and devotion may, in due course, come to be held by the two churches as ‘secondary’ in the sense that they are legitimate, but not universally binding. One can perhaps distinguish between the way in which the two types of tradition are to be received as follows. The first, where it clearly explicates the logic of Scripture, and is an established part of the heritage of the Universal Church, is to be received universally, whereas the second is merely to be acknowledged with respect as carrying the local authority of a particular church or church- es, but as not necessarily binding on all the other churches. Both churches accept that there is a legitimate variety in the way in which the Apostolic Tradition has been explored and articulated within different churches 34 . Provided that the essentials of the Tradition are maintained, there may be variety of devotional expression, styles of Christian life and forms of theological expression. As John XXIII said, the Apostolic Tradition is unalterable, but its mode of expression may be variable. We shall touch later on one or two areas where there is continuing disagreement between our churches as to whether certain later developments are to be regarded as universally binding or as possibly permissible theologoumena. The concept of the ‘sensus fidelium’ is important to both communions. This has its biblical root in the Johannine teaching concerning the ‘anointing’ which the faithful have from the Holy Spirit, by which they have a sure instinct for the things of God. This instinct inheres in the Body as a whole. Methodists would say that it is verified in the obedient practice and the living experience of the people of God 35 . In both churches, it is the practice of those who have the duty of articulating the faith of the people, to consult them before issuing any key doctrinal statement. Thus, before the definition of the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950, the popes concerned asked the bishops to verify that what they proposed to define was, indeed, the faith of the people. In British Methodism, it is the custom of the Conference, before officially approving any doctrinal statement, to commend a draft from of it for discussion at the local level. Only after an interval, during which it ponders the weight of the responses, does the Conference decide whether to adopt the statement as an official one. There is some difference in the authority ascribed to the magisterium, or teaching office, in the two churches. These differences reflect their respective different forms of ecclesiological self-understanding. Methodism does not purport to be able, of itself, to issue dogmatic statements which are binding on all Christians. It does accept the teaching of the first four councils of the undivided church as continuing to have universal authority, both because of their clear grounding in Scripture and their universal acceptance among the orthodox Trinitarian churches36. The Catholic Church contends that its magisterium, whether acting through all the bishops or, extraordinarily, through the Pope alone, can, in principle, make statements binding universally on all the faithful. The Methodist people ascribe a high degree of authority to their local doctrinal statements as reflecting the mind of a particular church, and worthy, as such, of serious exploration by sister churches, even if they are not ‘received’ by them as binding. The Wesleyans of the last century distinguished usefully between our ‘doctrines’, and their binding formulation for Methodists, and the fact that these emphases need not be received in exactly the same form by other Christians. The present seventh quinquennium of the international Catholic-Methodist commission is studying the 32 For a good example of this, see B. GREGORY, Holy Catholic..., op. cit., 239ff in which he traces the history of the Methodist class meeting and argues for it as fulfilling an essential function in koinônia, without ever suggesting that churches that lack such or similar meetings are not true churches. This summary betrays an ambivalence in the Methodist tradition, especially in the writings of the British Wesleyan ecclesiologists of the 19th century who claimed many Methodist innovations helped the Church more fully to live out its nature and calling. Perhaps there is an analogy with the thought of those Anglicans who claim that episcopacy is of the ‘esse’ but not the ‘bene esse’ of the Church. 33 Apostolic Tradition, op. cit., para 44. 34 See e.g. Y. CONGAR, Diversity and Communion, ( London: SCM, 1984), passim; also the recent Papal encyclical ‘Orientale Lumen’. For Methodism, see the famous resolution of the Liverpool Conference of 1820.’ Let us therefore maintain towards all denominations of Christians, who ‘hold the Head’, the kind and catholic spirit of primitive Methodism; and, according to the noble maxim of our fathers in the Gospel, ‘be the friends of all and the enemies of none’, quoted in J.S. SIMON, A Summary of Methodist Law and Discipline, (1923). 35 For Catholic teaching, see J.H. NEWMAN, “On Consulting the Faithful in matters of doctrine”, 1859. For Methodism, see especially some of the hymns on fellowship, especially Hymns and Psalms, op. cit., 753. T. RUNYON in his recent The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) emphasises ‘orthopathy’ alongside ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘orthopraxy’ in the Christian tradition. see esp. 146-167. The implications of these Wesleyan insights for a common convergent doctrine of the ‘sensus fidelium’ have yet to be teased out in dialogue. 36 The Deed of Union talks of the authority of the historic Creeds, see G. Thompson BRAKE, Policy..., op. cit., 829-830.N. 58 / Fall 2000Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 whole question of the exercise of teaching authority. In conclusion to this section, a word should be said about the degree of authority that Methodists ascribe to experience, a matter that has frequently been misunderstood in other churches and sometimes even by individual Methodists. Methodists have always believed that it is the privilege of Christian people to prove existentially in their lives the truth of the great doctrines of the faith, and that the witness of the Spirit in the lives of Christians is a powerful confirmatory source of authority in verifying the truth of what is already believed through Scripture and/or Tradition. Experience has confirmatory force; it is never an independent source of authority, and any experience that is contradicted by basic Scriptural authority can thereby be shown to be unsound. The word ‘prove’ is used constantly in Wesley’s hymns 37 . It has its analogy, in the Great Tradition, in Irenaeus’ appeal to the practice and experience of worship in ‘proving’ the doctrine of the Incarnation. ‘Our faith is in accordance with the Eucharist and the Eucharist is in accordance with our faith’. It has Pauline roots in the call to ‘prove and approve’ the acceptable will of God (Phil 1:9-10) 38 . It is in a sense consistent with this that Wesley talked of Christianity as ‘the true, the experimental religion’. In this context, it is worth raising the question of the necessity of dogmatic definition to which there have been contrasting, but not necessarily finally incompatible, approaches in our two communions. For Methodists, the ultimate purpose of dogmatic definition has been to safeguard those truths that are experimentally important in the pursuit of sanctification and perfect love. Methodists have sometimes found it difficult to understand how some of the dogmatic definitions of Rome, such as the Marian dogmas of 1854, are thus necessitated. They are able to affirm some of the truths which the dogmas are intended to uphold such as the eschatological destiny of all Christians in the case of the dogma of the assumption 39 . We ask, as did the American Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, whether these matters need to be church dividing 40 . Many Catholics, however, see the dogmas as doxologically required. There is need for further study here. Our last main sphere of theological consideration is that of the doctrine of the ministry. Both churches recognise the fundamentally pastoral nature of the ordained ministry41. Such ministers are ‘stewards in the household of faith’42, with a special responsibility for the faithful transmission of the Gospel and for supervision/oversight of the life of the Church. Ministers also maintain the bonds of koinônia, relating local churches to each other and ensuring their continued communion. To use the rather quaint phrase of Gregory, they are ‘impersonations of order and harmony, keystones in the arch of unity’ 43 . The ordained ministries of the two churches are differently, but not incompatibly structured. The Roman Catholic Church has, since at least the second century, maintained the historic threefold order of ministry, within which the norm of episcopal ordination has prevailed almost without exception 44 . Methodism has, on account of missionary imperative rather than any deliberate rejection of the model per se, departed from it in certain ways 45 . Neither Wesley nor his successors in Methodism ever repudiated episcopacy as a legitimate system of church government, though they could and did claim that genuine churches existed without it. Wesley himself despaired of ever persuading Anglican bishops to ordain ministers for the Church that was rapidly emerging in America. Accordingly, in 1784, after long hesitation, and believing himself as a presbyter to have such powers ‘in extremis’, he set aside, by the laying on of hands with prayer, Thomas Coke as ‘superintendent’ of the work in America. Wesley believed that he was providing for the necessary foundation of a new church where none previously existed 46 . Coke and Asbury used the title of ‘bishop’, and proceeded to establish the threefold ministry which has prevailed since in the United Methodist Church of USA and its daughter churches. In Britain, Methodism established only one order of ministry, the presbyteral, which saw itself as exercising a 37 See e.g.Hymns and Psalms, op. cit., 753. 38 ‘The Word of Life’, para 63. 39 For the work of the British Roman Catholic-Methodist dialogue committee on this, see M. EVANS (ed.), Mary, Sign of Grace, Faith and Holiness (Peterborough: Methodist Publishing House, 1995). 40 For this dialogue see J.A. BURGESS and J. GROS (eds.), Growing Consensus: Church Dialogues in the United States 1962- 1991 (New York: Paulist, 1995) 374-484 and especially 456-457 for the suggestion that some interim communion might be possible between churches not agreeing on these dogmas provided there is continued joint exploration of the matter. 41 ‘Apostolic Tradition’, op. cit., para 86. 42 This expression is used in the Deed of Union. 43 B. GREGORY, Holy Catholic..., op. cit., 103. 44 For some interesting exceptions, see a paper presented to the US Catholic-Lutheran dialogue in P. EMPIE and T. MURPHY (eds.), Eucharist and Ministry, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 189-208. 45 It is interesting to note that the great Wesleyan theologians always allowed episcopacy as a legitimate form of church government when it was assailed by other evangelical Protestants. 46 Not surprisingly, there is a very considerable literature relating to Wesley’s theology of the ministry and, in particular, the understanding of the ordinations he carried out, both in 1784 and subsequently. A key work still is A.B. LAWSON, John Wesley and the Christian Ministry. The Sources and Development of His Opinions and Practice (London: SPCK, 1963). Next >