CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 72 - Fall 2007 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director...................................................p. 2 25 Years of the Lima Document (BEM): A Unique Document – An Extraordinary Process – A Promising Impact Günther Gassmann .................................................p. 3 A ZUSA S TREET C ENTENNIAL : An Anthropological Perspective on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Ruth Vassar Burgess ................................................ p. 11 A ZUSA S TREET C ENTENNIAL : Pneumatological Perspective: A Possible Genealogy of the Manifestations of the Spirit David Cole ...................................................... p. 18 A ZUSA S TREET C ENTENNIAL : The Sanctifying and Charismatic Action of the Spirit Raniero Cantalamessa, ofm cap ......................................... p. 22 A ZUSA S TREET C ENTENNIAL : Moral Perspective: Moral Standards in the Churches and in the Public Forum Bruce Williams, op ................................................. p. 25 A ZUSA S TREET C ENTENNIAL : Summary Reports of the Listeners Thomas Best, Stanley Burgess, Massimo Paone, John A. Radano, Charles Whitehead ..... p. 28 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement www.prounione.urbe.itDirector's Desk In this issue of the Bulletin, you will find the texts of some of the lectures held at the Centro Pro Unione this past year. The first of the lectures in our series “Celebrating Lima and the BEM Document’s Twenty-fifth Anniversary (1982-2007)” opens this number of the Bulletin. Dr. Günther Gassmann is no stranger to the Lima process as one of the individuals who worked on the document and who was responsible for the follow up process of the document’s reception. Other lectures that will be held this year will situate the document in the context of the whole work of the Faith and Order Commission and also look at the contribution the process made to the liturgical renewal of the churches. In 2006, a very significant anniversary was held in Los Angeles, California. It was 100 th anni- versary of the Azusa Street Church experience which is considered to mark the beginning of the Pentecostal Movement. The Centro organized a study day that celebrated the beginnings of this movement as well as remembering the 40 th anniversary of the “week-end” at the Duquesne University that marks the beginning of the Renewal in the Spirit also known as the Catholic Charismatic Movement. A number of scholars and experts were invited to explore “The Challenging Power of the Gifts of the Spirit” from the ecumenical, anthropological, pneumatological and moral perspectives. Several listeners were also invited to identify real challenges, new convergences or unresolved points of divergence that emerged from the exchange and to share these with a wider audience. The texts of this celebration are found in this issue of the Bulletin. “The Challenge of Reciting the Creed Today” this year’s Wattson/White lecture will be given by Dr. Timothy Radcliff, OP, former Master General of the Dominicans on 18 December. The event will be followed on the 20 th of December with an extraordinary performance of the 24 Capricci of Niccolò Paganini by 13 year old violinist Masha Diatchenko. Invitations are included in this Bulletin. 2008 marks a special date for the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Atonement. One hundred years earlier between January 18 and 25, their Founder, Fr. Paul Wattson began what was then called the Church Unity Octave. For 100 years, without fail, the Sisters and Friars have been praying the prayer of Christ for the unity of Christians. 2008 will also mark 40 years of collaboration between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Faith & Order Commission in preparing the annual celebration. For this reason the Friars of the Atonement will award the Paul Wattson Christian Unity Award to both for their faithfulness in promoting prayer for the unity of Christians. This award will be granted during the Centro, the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas and the Vincent Pallotti Institute’s Week of Prayer celebration, 24 January 2008. Also enclosed in the Bulletin are forms for registering for the Annual Summer Institute to be held at the Centro from June 23 to July 11, 2008. Sign up early to reserve your place! This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive, 16 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (http://www.atla.com). James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 72 / Fall 2007Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC 25 Years of the Lima Document (BEM) A Unique Document – An Extraordinary Process – A Promising Impact Günther Gassmann Former Director, Faith & Order Commission of the World Council of Churches (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Friday, 20 April 2007) I. A Unique Document Among the many different ecumenical documents of the last one hundred years, the Lima-Document of 1982 on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) 1 stands out because it has gained a special, unique place. Why unique? No other document ever before has initiated by itself such an extraordinary process of communication, distribution, translation, discussion and reaction. Thus, BEM appears post festum, first, as a unique document because it has set in motion an extraordinary process. Second, the BEM document is unique because it stands at the end and is the result of a long theological and ecumenical reflexion process. This process was initiated, in a way, already in the 19th century. In 1888 the Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops agreed on a first vision of the basic elements and requirements for the recovery and manifestation of Christian unity. These four basic elements were the acceptance (1) of the authority of Holy Scripture, (2) the acceptance of the authority of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, (3) the acceptance of the two sacraments instituted by Christ himself – Baptism and the Eucharist, and (4) the acceptance of the historic episcopate/bishops in apostolic succession. Accordingly, the Faith and Order Movement between 1910 and 1948 and, at that time, under the strong Anglican leadership and influence had from its beginnings the points of the Lambeth Quadrilateral on its agenda, besides a few other topics. From the early 20th century onwards the issues of baptism, eucharist, and ministry were at the centre of the beginning theological discussion in Faith and Order. “This triad of themes is the reflection of the theological conviction that the koinonia of Christians is based on, built up, and expressed by the Triune God’s action and presence in and through word and sacraments and the ministries which serve them.”2 This work since 1910 continued for about 70 years with several intermediate drafts and texts of results so far until a final text was accepted in 1982 at Lima, Peru, by the whole Faith and Order Commission. 3 (If this would have been a Lutheran meeting, the participants would have raised to sing “Now Thank we all our God”). Thus, BEM is not only the result of a long process of discussion and maturing but also of a long process of internal reception. A process, in which emerging and developing common theological perspectives on baptism, eucharist, and ministry were taken up, received, and integrated into the different stages of drafting and finally accepting the three BEM texts. BEM is a unique document because it is the fruit of a long and broad discussion and reception process. There was an internal pre-BEM reception process before the external post-BEM reception process was initiated. Third, BEM is a unique document because in the process of its development the initial Anglican-Protestant involvement was broadened and enriched by the stronger Orthodox ecumenical participation after 1961, the new Roman Catholic involvement in the ecumenical movement and its official participation in Faith and Order after 1968, as well as the growing involvement of theolo- gians from the Southern Hemisphere, also after 1968. Accordingly the work on the three themes inherited from the Lambeth Quadri- lateral grew with the broadening of the ecumenical movement. The result was an unprecedented wide and representative circle of theologians, church leaders, and lay persons that were able to work out a common document and to agree on its stage of maturity. It was a document that formulated agreements and convergences on fundamental beliefs and structures of Christian faith and ecclesial life. This had happened never before in this ecumenical form and stature. Fourth, and this is most frequently mentioned, BEM is unique because it addressed the churches in a way as never before by challenging them to respond to the BEM texts and consider their significance for their own thinking, life, and relationships. This 1 Faith and Order Paper, 111 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982) 38th printing 2007. 2 G. GASSMANN, “The Relation between Bilateral and Multilateral Dialogues,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23, 3 (1986) 368. 3 Cf. the most instructive historical survey by Lukas Vischer of the steps leading up to BEM between 1963/1964 and 1982. The broad reception process of BEM (e.g. the influence of BEM in bilaterals and church agreements), however, is neglected for the sake of critical comments. L. VISCHER, “The Convergence Texts on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. How did they take Shape? What have they Achieved?” Ecumenical Review 54, 4 (1982) 431-451.4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 72 / Fall 2007 was, in fact, an impetus and call for a reception process of which most of the churches had no experience so far and for which they were not prepared. BEM initiated a process that was new for the churches, and also this contributed to its uniqueness. II. An Extraordinary Process 1. The great surprise The Faith and Order Commission had hoped that its document on BEM would find interest, discussion, and reaction in the churches. But it had not anticipated and dared to expect what an extraordinary process was set in motion by the publication, translations, and discussion of its document. This was a great surprise! A little story is rather typical for the unexpected “l'evento BEM”:4 I was told that in 1982 the publication people of the WCC thought that to print 5000 copies as requested by Faith and Order was unrealistic given their experience with theological WCC publication. Finally 5000 copies were printed after all, and a month ago the publication people in the WCC told me that they just had received the 38th, the thirty-eighth edition of BEM and that BEM continued to be the only best-seller in their work. Indeed, as Thomas Ryan writes, “a sense of surprise, a sense of being challenged, and a feeling of gladness and excitement” followed the publication of BEM.5 An extraordinary process of printing, translation, distribution, discussion, and reaction was set in motion. The result was that BEM became since 1982 the most widely distributed and considered text in ecumenical history. We have lost track of its distribution but I assume that more that 600 000 copies have been distributed in over 35 languages, ranging from Icelandic to Urdu (in Pakistan). Study guides in different languages were produced in large numbers.6 Thousands of Christians have considered the document in congregations, seminars, ecumenical groups, theological faculties and training centers, church commissions and synods, bishop’s conferences, ecumenical organizations, Christian World Commu- nions, and in the Vatican. Already in 1987 a BEM bibliography listed over 700 titles ranging from short news items to substantial articles and books. 7 Today such a list might contain far beyond 1.200 titles. Numerous diploma papers and doctoral dissertations have dealt with aspects of BEM. In many books, articles and statements and reports as well as presentations of theologians and church leaders BEM is mentioned, referred to and has influenced the respective augmentations. In his ecumenical Encyclical Ut Unum Sint of 1995, Pope John Paul II referred several times to BEM, as he did on other occasions. 8 Concerning BEM and Confessing the One Faith he wrote that these studies “demonstrate the remarkable progress already made, and they are a source of hope inasmuch as they represent a sure foundation for further study” (par. 17, cf. also paras.42, 45 and 87). The Joint Working Group between the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church has continuously referred to and used BEM. The most recent example is its substantial Study Document of 2004 on “Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of a Common Baptism”.9 Within the WCC, BEM has played an important role, prominently at the Sixth Assembly 1983 in Vancouver, at the Seventh Assembly in 1991 at Canberra, and extensively at the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order 1993 in Santiago de Compostela, especially in the report of Section III. 10 The so-called Lima-Liturgy, though not an official text of Faith and Order, has been used and is still used at many ecumenical occasions. It thus has contributed to the knowledge of BEM and its influence. BEM has become a major ecumenical reference text and continues so, even though it is no longer so often mentioned as in the first ten years after its publication. 2. Elements of an extraordinary process Of course not the whole Christian world has talked about BEM. But the width and depth of the BEM process as such has been extraordinary, and this not because of efficient methods of promo- tion. Rather, I believe, thousands of people have become interested in BEM because they were looking for two things: First, they were seeking an encouragement in an ecumenical milieu that had lost its earlier enthusiasm and drive by settling down to a certain satisfac- tion with friendly relations, contacts and cooperation. In this situation BEM promised steps forward to overcoming still church- dividing issues and thus towards forms of communion between churches, the real goal of the ecumenical movement. Secondly, people became attentive to this new ecumenical document because it promised to respond to their search and expectation to receive help and inspiration for their own understanding of baptism, eucharist and ministry. There may have been a sense that a document that represents the insights and experiences of the wider Christian tradition – the faith of the Church through the ages – may especially be able to provide such help and inspiration. Among the many learnings from the BEM process is the discovery of this sensitivity and yearning of many people for basic convictions of the Christian faith and life that are often neglected in Western mainline 4 R. MAGNANI, La successione apostolica nella tradizione della chiesa: ricerca nel BEM e nei documenti del dialogo teologico bilaterale a livello internazionale (Bologna: EDB, 1990) 51. 5 T. RYAN, “How are People Responding to BEM?” Ecumenism, no. 70 (1983) 32. 6 Cf. the report of a first evaluation: Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the Process and Responses, Faith and Order Paper, 149 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990). 7 A. HOUTEPEN, C. van LIGTENBERG, B. VELDHORST, (eds.), Bibliography on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Lima Text) 1982-1987 (Leiden/Utrecht: Interuniversitair Instituut voor Missiologie en Oecumenica, 1988). 8 Cf. J.A. RADANO, “The Catholic Church and BEM 1980-1989,” Mid-Stream 30, 2 (1991) 339-346. 9 Eighth Report: 1999-2005 / Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005) 45-72. 10 T.F. BEST and G. GASSMANN, (eds.), On the Way to Fuller unity. Official Report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994) 245-252.N. 72 / Fall 2007Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 churches and left to other Christian groups and their ways of promoting the faith. A major part of the extraordinary BEM process represent, of course, the over 185 official responses of large and small churches of all confessional traditions, ranging from the Salvation Army to the Roman Catholic Church (based on the responses of 35 Bish- op’s Conferences). Again this is an unprecedented event in modern church history. Published in the six volumes of Churches Respond to BEM, 11 the responses of the churches contain a wealth of material on the ecumenical positions and expectations of the churches. With a few exceptions all responses to BEM generally applaud the ecumenical achievement represented by this document. They witness to the historical impact of a sustained and determined ecumenical theological effort by indicating ways in which the issues of baptism, eucharist and ministry are of relevance for the theological thinking and the forms of the life and mission of their churches. The responses also indicate in which way BEM has challenged the churches to reflect on their own position or to react critically to certain aspects of BEM. Quite a number of responses also reveal how difficult it is for churches to look beyond the borders of their own confessional tradition of faith and order. Sometimes there seems to be an unwillingness to be confronted with theological perspectives that are not familiar to their own positions. To open up perspectives towards the “faith of the Church through the ages” (Preface to BEM) remains a continuing ecumenical task. 3. The achievements of the BEM process The BEM process presents a number of insights that should not be forgotten in the ongoing ecumenical movement. Among these are the following: -1. For the first time the ecumenical methodology of taking up results of modern biblical, historical, and theological studies into an international ecumenical study and dialogue process has led to a unique document, an extraordinary process, and a promis- ing impact. -2. The BEM process has confirmed and underlined the indis- pensability of theological dialogue and agreements for the advancement of closer relations between churches. -3. The discussions about and responses to BEM have served as an ecumenical learning process in which churches have rediscovered forgotten elements of their own tradition, have been changed in their thinking and practice, and have perceived other traditions. -4. Discussions about BEM have initiated many new ecumenical relationships at local and national levels. BEM and the Lima- Liturgy have stimulated and informed liturgical life, studies on worship and official revisions of forms of worship in several churches. -5. Impulses coming from BEM have nourished reflection on spirituality, the social-ethical implications of sacraments and worship, the issue of authority in the churches. In some cases steps towards mutual recognition of baptism and forms of eucharistic hospitality have been encouraged by the BEM process. -6. In bilateral theological dialogues between Christian World Communions, BEM has been used as a resource, stimulus, point of reference and as a framework that can provide common orientations for simultaneous dialogues with different partners. -7. In general, BEM has become a standard ecumenical text that is used or referred to in many ecumenical studies, texts, state- ments, addresses, and gatherings. -8. The official responses of the churches, their preparation, quality and number represent an outstanding element and result of the BEM process. -9. Finally, the most significant church historical element of the BEM process is the reception of the text in bilateral dialogues that have led and are leading to decisions of churches on full communion and sacramental sharing. (See next chapter). Thus, the extraordinary BEM process signals a historically significant step in efforts to transcend the history of Christian division towards the rediscovery of visible Christian unity in faith, life, and mission. BEM, said Cardinal Walter Kasper, has “made a significant impact on the whole ecumenical world”.12 III. A Promising Impact 1. Forms of Reception of BEM The decisive question that is addressed to every ecumenical text, process, and event is: Does it make a difference, is it changing something, is it being taken up by the churches and the theological and ecumenical community – is it of church historical relevance? In other words: Are we able to recognize and identify forms of transforming reception? “Reception” is in our ecumenical context generally understood, first, as referring to the acceptance, affirma- tion, confirmation, integration and canonical implementation of ecumenical statements, agreements and convergences by official acts of churches that apply such acts of reception to their general ecumenical positions or, more specifically, to their relationships with other churches or to the ecumenical movement in general. Second, such formal, structural concepts of reception, however, should be complemented by a more general understanding of the term “reception” that could help us to discover and circumscribe a much broader reality when ecumenical theological developments and perspectives are accepted, fully or partially, into the life of 11 M. THURIAN, (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vols. I-VI, (Geneva: WCC, 1986-1988). 12 Lausanne 2002, Faith and Order 75th Anniversary Celebration, 25-06-2002 (mim.). Among the many evaluations cf. for example P. NEUNER, “Impulse und ihre Folgen: Eine systematisch-theologische Bilanz zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Lima-Dokumente,” Fortschritt oder Sackgasse? 20 Jahre Lima-Dokumente über Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt, EPD-Dokumentation, 20 (2003) 41-52.6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 72 / Fall 2007 churches and their ecumenical reflection.13 Already one year after the publication of BEM Emanuel Lanne stated that the “reception (of BEM) is the number one problem set before the churches”.14 A similar accentuation is to be found e.g. when Rino Magnani writes: “La ricezione del BEM può essere considerato di primaria importanza per le chiese oggi. E innanzitut- to un problema posto a tutte le chiese: sono infatti le chiese e non tanto i teologi che ora debbono esprimersi …”15 2. The broad, implicit reception of BEM Such a broad process of reception was, indeed, set in motion soon after the publication of the BEM document in 1982, and over the last 25 years has continued remarkably. One could enumerate hundreds of studies of and references to BEM, many of them are documented in the continuing bibliographical lists of the Centro pro Unione. The Centro thus provides a living memory of the broad and multifaceted BEM reflexion and reception process. Given this broad process and especially also the formal, structural reception of BEM in official agreements between churches (below 3.1-3.3) which Lukas Vischer does not mention in his survey, it is not correct when he states that after 1993 “the conscious process of reception has come to a standstill”. 16 It has gone on! The broad reception process of BEM is not limited to publications and articles that refer to BEM in their titles but it includes also publications or references in them that deal with aspects of BEM even though this is not indicated in titles. Furthermore, there are traces of BEM that can be found in many ecumenical texts today. Ideas and perspec- tives of BEM have “trickled down” and have permeated state- ments, reports, references, articles, and ways of thinking even without referring to BEM. Emanuel Lanne had expressed the hope that “Its (BEM) reception and integration into the life of all churches should be for each one an occasion for enrichment by means of the new accents which are set on this or that aspect of sacramental life or on the exercise of ministry”17 – and today we can add that this has happened in many instances. As examples of this broad process one could mention the today widely accepted and further devel- oped broader and dynamic concept of apostolic succession that is more comprehensive than episcopal succession. This is acknowl- edges e.g. by William Henn when he writes: “Most of the dia- logues prior to BEM tended to speak of apostolicity within the context of discussing ministry. Since then, there has been a substantial increase in dialogue precisely about ecclesiology and, within that context, about the nature of the whole Church as apostolic.” 18 Other examples of this broad process would be the three ways - personal, collegial, and communal - of exercising ministry and episcope; or the ethical/moral implications of the Eucharist; or the suggested connection between creation and the eucharist; or the new emphasis on the interrelation between baptism and personal as well as communal faith. These and other perspectives own their acceptance – reception - to a large degree to impulses coming from BEM that have permeated theologi- cal/ecumenical thinking in many places. This is true even if such perspectives were first articulated by individual theologians before BEM was born. But such personal perspectives were taken up – received - by BEM. Being restated on this corporate and highly articulate and representative level they were given a much broader sounding board than that of an individual voice and thus captured wide attention and enabled forms of reception. 3. Reception of BEM in Bilateral Dialogues We in Faith and Order have from the beginning of the BEM discussion and reception process reflected on the relationship between this multilateral text and the important development since the 1970s of the bilateral international as well as regional and national theological dialogues of Christian World Communions (CWCs). It became clear that together with their distinctiveness there exists also a unity of multilateral and bilateral dialogues. “The basis and frame of their relationship is the one ecumenical move- ment, within which they find themselves with a common role, purpose, and set of themes and procedures. … This relationship has to be expressed and made mutually enriching through concrete forms of exchange, communication, and the active pursuit of tasks in an awareness of complementarity.”19 The formula that was found for this relationship had as its background the specific advantages of each of these two forms of dialogue: On the one hand the greater historical and confessional specificity of bilateral dialogues and their potential to lead to agreements between churches that could open the way to decisions on forms of closer fellowship or unity between them. On the other hand there is the necessary comprehensive framework provided by multilateral dialogues that can provide consistency and common directions for bilateral dialogues. Consequently, the conceptually important formula of the complementarity of both forms of dialogue emerg- ed. What has been developed as a theoretical concept of complementarity in the years after 1982 has now been tested and 13 See G. GASSMANN, “From Reception to Unity: The Historical and Ecumenical Significance of the Concept of Reception,” in C. PODMORE, (ed.)., Community – Unity – Communion. Essays in Honour of Mary Tanner (London: Church House Publishing, 1998) 117-118. 14 E. LANNE, “The Problem of Reception,” Ecumenism no. 70 (1983) 26. 15 R. MAGNANI, La sucessione apostolica..., op. cit., 56-57. 16 L. VISCHER, “The Convergence Texts...,” op. cit., 22. 17 E. LANNE, “The Problem...,” op. cit., no. 70 (1983) 30. 18 W. HENN, “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession. Concluding Reflections to the Centro Pro Unione Symposium,” in J.F. PUGLISI and D.J. BILLY, (eds.), Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession (Leuven: Faculty of Theology, K.U., 1996) 185 (=Louvain Studies 21, 2 (1996) 185. 19 G. GASSMANN, “The Relation between Bilateral...,” op. cit., 371.N. 72 / Fall 2007Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 implemented in different degrees in the recent history of bilateral dialogues. 3.1 General Reception of BEM in International Bilateral Dialogues20 I would like to mention a few examples of explicit general reception of BEM in reports of international bilateral dialogues. In such dialogues, as Cardinal Kasper said, “BEM has been received in the primary sense of helping to facilitate reconciliation and new relationships between some separated churches. This is what dialogue is for.” 21 Already one year after the publication of BEM the Joint Working Group between the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) published in 1983 its Cold Ash Report.22 It states in par.18.d that Anglican-Lutheran dialogues in Europe and the USA have “profited from the multilateral dialogues in Faith and Order which resulted in Baptism, Eucharist and the Ministry, 1982”. The group provides a methodologically important clarification by observing that “the active participation of both our churches in the multilateral Faith and Order conversations provides a common reference point and a wider framework for their dialogue” (par. 21). In view of the risk that parallel bilateral dialogues with different partners may pursue different directions, the broader multilateral conversations “help to maintain consistency and theological credibility” (par. 21). Once again the report affirms that the Anglican-Lutheran dialogue “can now find a framework and a source of enrichment for its further development” in BEM and suggests in par. 23, that the churches “study and evaluate BEM together with the reports from their bilateral conversations”. In its concluding recommendations the report asks the ACC and the LWF to consider “the relation between apostolic succession, the ministry of the whole people of God, episcopacy and the historic episcopate, taking the BEM treatment of this issue as its framework” (Recommendation II (d). The discussion on these topics led to the Anglican-Lutheran Niagara Report on Episcope of 1987. 23 In its ecclesiological section it quotes BEM/M 5 and refers in par.17 to the whole section M 1-6 on the calling of the whole people of God “for an expression of the sense that every Christian is involved in the church’s witness to God’s plan for humanity”. On the development of an authoritative ministry the report refers in par.19 to M 9 and quotes M 34 on the specific responsibilities of the ministry. It refers in par. 20 to M 35 that says: to speak of apostolic succession is “to speak primarily of characteristics of the whole church”. In its application to Anglican and Lutheran churches the report quotes M 16 on the exercise of authority (par. 110). The so far last Anglican-Lutheran report, the one on the Diaconate24 of 1995, refers already in its para.1 to BEM and the way it has helped to intensify the debate about the ministry of the whole people of God and that of specific ordained ministries. Together with M 12 and 15 the text points in par. 25 to the special role and authority of the ordained ministry, and in par. 65 points to the threefold ministry in M 29-31. Understandably the report highlights in par. 60 the insights in M 31 on the diaconate as important for the present considerations about a renewed or re- established diaconate and again quotes in par. 70 the statement in M 31 on the diaconate. This diaconal ministry should also, says par. 57, reflect according to M 26 the personal, collegial and communal aspects of the church’s ministries. Other examples of international bilateral dialogues that quote or refer to BEM are: - the Reformed-Roman Catholic dialogue that says in par. 163 of “Towards a Common Understanding of the Church, 1984- 1990”, “Basic for unity too is the need to share faith in regard to baptism, eucharist and ministry. An important contribution to achieving this is the document of the Faith and Order Commis- sion on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry”;25 - the Lutheran-Roman Catholic report Facing Unity 26 of 1984 that quotes B 1.1 in par. 75 and refers in par. 81 about baptism and confirmation to B 14 and in par. 114 to M 26 and Comm. on the three forms of exercising ministry; - the Lutheran-Roman Catholic report on Church and Justifica- tion,27 1993, that quotes and refers to M 8, 12 and 42 in par. 189; - the Anglican-Reformed report God’s Reign and Our Unity, 28 1984, that quotes the following paras. of BEM: E 20 (in par. 63), E 5 (in par. 65), E 13 (in par. 66), E 12 (in par. 67), E 13 (in par. 68), M 9 (in par. 77), M 17 (in par. 79), includes a long quote in par. 84 on ordination M 42-44, and concludes in par. 121 with the suggestion that local study groups on this Report should also use BEM; - the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic report Perspectives on Koinonia, 29 1985-1989, that quotes M 9 according to which the earliest church has never “been without persons holding specific 20 Note: B refers to BEM/Baptism, E to BEM/Eucharist, and M to BEM/Ministry. 21 Lausanne 2002..., op. cit. 22 In: J. GROS, H. MEYER, W.G. RUSCH, (eds.), Growth in Agreement. Reports and Agreements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level II, 1982-1998, Faith and Order Paper, 187 (Geneva/Grand Rapids: WCC Publications/W.B. Eerdmans, 2000) 2- 10. 23 In Growth..., op. cit., 11-37. 24 The Diaconate as Ecumenical Opportunity, Hannover 1995, in Growth..., op. cit., 38-54. 25 In Growth..., op. cit., 817. 26 Facing Unity, Report of the Roman Catholic-Lutheran Joint Commission, 1984, in Growth..., op. cit., 441-484. 27 Church and Justification, Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission, 1993, in Growth..., op. cit., 485-565. 28 In Growth..., op. cit., 114-154. 29 In Growth..., op. cit., 735-752.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 72 / Fall 2007 authority and responsibility” (par. 105); - the Baptist-Lutheran dialogue in A Message to Our Churches,30 1990, that states in its Introduction that BEM “has been a significant point of reference during our work”; - the Disciples of Christ-Reformed report No Doctrinal Obsta- cles, 31 1987, that refers in par. 23 to the Baptism section of BEM and in par. 35 to episcope in BEM; - the Anglican-Methodist report Sharing in the Apostolic Communion, 32 1996, that mentions in par. 2 the use of BEM in the dialogue, refers to the “generally favorable response” to BEM of Anglican and Methodist churches (par. 28), then refers to M 10 in par. 32, quotes M 34 in par. 40 and M 39 and M 44 in par. 42, further quotes M 19 in par. 44, mentions in par. 66 BEM's concept of the apostolicity of the whole people of God, and quotes M 38 in par. 72, refers to M 26 in par. 76, quotes again M 38 in par. 77, refers again to M 38 in par. 82, quotes and explicitly endorses E 13 in par. 88, quotes E 32 in par. 75, and finally quotes E 3 and 1 in par. 94. A list of the many national dialogues that have quoted or used BEM could be added. Only four examples can be mentioned: the German Roman-Catholic – Lutheran dialogue with its reports on Kirchengemeinschaft in Wort und Sakrament, par.69,33 1984, and Communio Sanctorum. Die Kirche als Gemeinschaft der Heiligen,/The Church as the Communion of Saints, paras. 24 and 188, 34 2000, the report Lehrverurteilungen – kirchentrennend? 35 , that refers on page 93 to E 26 and 27, quotes E 14 on page 97, quotes E13 on page 107-108, and refers to M 53 b on page 165, and dialogue reports in Australia.36 - The Preface to the collection of Australian reports underlines the significance of BEM for these dialogues. Examples from this collection: - the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue refers in the statement on Pastor and Priest, 1989, in par. 55 to M 34, in par. 73 to M 53.b and on p. 125 to M 41-44; - the Anglican-Uniting Church dialogue quotes in its Agreed Statement on Baptism, 1984, B 1 on page 145 and B 10 on page 147, and in the Agreed Statement on the Eucharist quotes exten- sively on pages 149-151 the Eucharist section of BEM: E 1, 2, 4, 8, 22, 14, 13, 20; - the Greek Orthodox (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese)-Uniting Church dialogue issued a statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 1984, saying e.g. that discussions “showed strong affirmation of much of the document” (i.e. BEM) and especially regarding the sections on Baptism and the Eucharist while the section on the Ministry “showed more obvious differences in the two traditions” (page 162). 3.2 Reception of BEM in Church Agreements The most promising impact of BEM obviously consists in its direct contribution to the development towards and implementation of official church agreements on (1) closer relations together with eucharistic sharing and (2) full communion between churches. Concerning closer relations between churches including eucharistic sharing two cases come to mind. The first is the often mentioned Meissen Agreement, 37 1988, between the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany (Lutheran, United, Reformed). The Foreword to the Meissen Statement already acknowledges in par. 3 that an impetus, among others, to developing closer relations between the Church of England and the German Evangelical Churches came from BEM. Significantly the basic Agreement in faith refers in par. 15 (iii) to the three parts of BEM: Baptism 17-23, Eucharist 27-31, Ministry, 41-44, and then specifically to B 22-25 (par. 15 (iv)), E 1 (par. 15 (v)), M 4 & 12 (par. 15 (viii)), M 23 & 26 (par. 15 (ix)) & M 38 (par. 16). Con- cerning the remaining eucharistic elements the Declaration quotes E 32 (par. VI). “Meissen”, in turn, had a considerable influence on other dialogues. This is especially true for the Reuilly agreement of 199938 that was the result of a dialogue between the same partners as Meissen – Anglican, now including all the Anglican Churches in Great Britain and Ireland, and the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in France. This dialogue has reached similar results as those of Meissen and frequently refers to Meissen. Section V, Accord en matière de foi, refers on the celebration of the apostolic faith in par. 30 (e) to B 17-23, E 27-33, and M 41-44. In par. 30 (g) 30 In Growth..., op. cit., 155-175. 31 In Growth..., op. cit., 178-186. 32 In Growth..., op. cit., 55-76. 33 Kirchengemeinschaft in Wort und Sakrament. Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Kirchenleitung der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands, (Hannover/Paderborn: Lutherisches Verlagshaus/Bonifatius, 1985). 34 Communio Sanctorum. Die Kirche als Gemeinschaft der Heiligen, Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Kirchenleitung der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands, (Frankfurt/Paderborn: Lembeck/Bonifatius, 2000) and in English, The Church as the Communion of Saints: Bilateral Working Group of the German National Bishops`Conference and the Church Leadership of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004). 35 K. LEHMANN and W. PANNENBERG, (eds.), Lehrverurteilungen – kirchentrennend? I, (Freiburg/Göttingen: Herder/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 36 R.K. WILLIAMSON, (ed.), Stages on the Way. Documents from the Bilateral Conversations between Churches in Australia (Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian Education, 1994). 37 On the Way to Visible Unity. A Common Statement together with The Meissen Declaration, (Berlin, Hannover and London, 1988). 38 L ' Affirmation commune de Reuilly. Dialogue entre les Eglises anglicanes de Grande-Bretagne et d ' Irlande et les Eglises luthériennes et réformées de France (Paris: Les Bergers et Mages, 1999).N. 72 / Fall 2007Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper the text states that “Toutes les Eglises participants sont en accord avec le liste qu'elle figure dans la BEM, E 27”. The same par. 30 (g) also refers to the initial statement of E 1. Par. 30 (h) on the ministry as a gift of God refers to M 41-44, while par.30 (I) on the ministry of episcope refers to M 23&26. Section VI on the Apostolicity of the church and the ministry speaks in par. 36 about the permanence of the mission of Christ in which all the baptized participate and refers to par. 39 of the Porvoo Common Statement. 39 However, this par. 39 of Porvoo is, in fact, a literal quotation of BEM/M 35 (and says this). Thus, in reality BEM is quoted. This is another example of probably many where quotations of or references to BEM are not identified as such. This may be so because BEM has become so much part of ecumenical references and ways of arguing that it is often no longer acknowledged. In the same para.36 dealing with the apostolic succession of the whole church and of the ministry the text refers to M 34 (Commentary) and M 35 and, finally, in relation to mutual recognition of the apostolic continuity of churches the text refers to M 37 and M 53. 3.3 Reception of BEM in Agreements on Full Communion The most important and truly promising impact of BEM is present in recent – i.e. since the 1990s – declarations of full communion between churches. The Porvoo Common Statement of 1993 (see note 37) is, I believe, the most significant one. This for two reasons: It has brought together the majority of Anglican and Lutheran Christians in Northern Europe – over 40 millions – and it has succeeded to achieve an agreement on one of the ecumeni- cally most difficult issues: the episcopal succession and the threefold ministry. Because of its focus on the difficult issue of agreement on the ministry, Porvoo uses extensively BEM. The references to and quotes of BEM are (paras. of the Report): -par. 19 on gifts in the church, ref. to M 5; -par. 32 (h) on the eucharist, ref. to E 2; -par. 32 (I) states that all members participate in the apostolic mission of the church, ref. to M 17; -par. 32 (j): on general and ordained ministry, ref. to M 17; -par. 32 (j) on the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, quotes M 22; -par. 32 (k) on the exercise of episcope in personal, collegial, and communal ways, refers not to BEM but to Meissen 15 (ix) and Niagara 69. However, Meissen 15 has the original formulation of the statement and refers to BEM M 23 and M 26 where we find, indeed, the basic formulation of this concept. Niagara 69 quotes this formulation in Meissen 15 but refers no longer to BEM. When Porvoo 32 quotes Meissen/Niagara it follows Niagara and refers no longer to BEM, the “invisible mother” of the statement. This is another example of how BEM continues to be operative without being acknowledged any longer. But back to BEM in the Porvoo statement: -par. 36 quotes the whole para. M 34 on the apostolic tradition in the church; -par. 39 quotes M 35 on apostolic succession (but does not identify it as a quote); -par 40 on apostolic succession refers to M 34 (commentary) and M 35; -par. 41 on the responsibilities of the ordained ministry quotes M 13 (but is not identified as quote), and M 22; -par. 43 on the tasks of bishops quotes most of M 29; -par. 44 on the three ways of exercising episcope quotes in part M 26 (without identifying it as quote) and ref. to M 29. Porvoo stands out because of the magnitude of its constituency and the solution of the thorny problem of episcopal succession, and its use of BEM and other BEM inspired documents such as Meissen and Niagara has been much more extensive than in other inter-church agreements. Porvoo, in turn, was used in the prepara- tion of other agreements (there were, for example, even voices in the course of the Episcopal-Lutheran conversations in the USA that suggested simply taking over Porvoo). The so far four agreements on full communion in North America contain only few references to BEM in their basic, constitutionally relevant texts. This is, it seems to me, the conse- quence of a methodological decision or tendency in some final reports/statements to restrict the number of footnotes as well as references to theological texts and to refer primarily to authoritative confessional documents. Thus the basic text for the agreement on full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and three Reformed/Presbyterian Churches in the USA A Common Calling/A Formula of Agreement,40 1993, has no reference to BEM. The statement of full communion between the ELCA and the Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the USA (2001) Called to Common Mission,41 1998, contains implicit (not identified as such) references to BEM such as “personal, collegial, and communal oversight is embodied and exercised in both our churches” in par. 7 (cf. M 26), or when speaking of the participa- tion of bishops of the other church in the laying-on of hands at the ordination/installation of bishops “as a sign, though not a guarantee, of unity and apostolic continuity of the whole church“, in par. 12 (cf. M 38). That is all! However, the foundational Anglican- Lutheran preparatory drafts to the final statement, Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement, 42 contain direct references to BEM: -par. 23 quotes M 34 on apostolic tradition and quotes part of M 35 on apostolic succession as expression of the continuity of 39 Together in Mission and Ministry. The Porvoo Common Statement between The British and Irish Anglican Churches and The Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches (London: Church House Publishing, 1993). 40 (Minneapolis; Augsburg, 1993). 41 Called to Common Mission. A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement (Chicago: ELCA, 1998). 42 W.A. NORGREN and W.G. RUSCH, (eds.), Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991).Next >