Media Network TwitterYOUTUBESoundcloudFACEBOOK www.prounione.itWebsite A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement N. 103 SPRING 2023 2532-4144 `Letter from the Director 2 James F. Puglisi , sa `Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 Bryan D. Spinks 5 Geoffrey Wainwright as Liturgist Geoffrey Wainwright: A Theological Legacy in Ten Propositions Richard Clutterbuck 11 ` Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 `Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 William G. Rusch 18 Geoffrey Wainwright: A Theological and Ecumenical Nexus – Personal Observations `Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 Bernhard A. Eckerstofer 23 Geoffrey Wainwright – Personal Recollections `Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 Gillian Kingston 26 Geoffrey Wainwright – Personal Recollections Donald J. Bolen 28 `Conference · Thursday, 20 October 2022 Geoffrey Wainwright – Personal Recollections `Conference · Thursday, 19 May 2022 Jack Bemporad 31 Wisdom, Virtues, and Vices in the Book of Proverbs: Some Philosophical and Ethical Considerations compiled by Loredana Nepi 39 `Thirty-eighth Supplement · 2023 A Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues `Digital Network Visit Our Media Channels 74 Online platforms of the Centro A Formative Itinerary in Ecumenism and Christian Unity Books and Course Volumes 70 `Editorial Catalog Benefactors guide 72 `Support Atonement Friars Ministry Help the the Charism and Ministry of the Atonement Friars in service of Christian Unity and Reconciliation by making a free donation `Formation Program Summer School Rome 2023 68 Introduction to the Ecumenical & Interreligious Movements from a Roman Catholic Perspective DIGITAL EDITION UT OMNES UNUM SINT SEMI-ANNUAL BULLETIN in this issue e-book issn number A publication about the activities of the Centro Pro UnioneCENTRO PRO UNIONE BULLETIN The Centro Pro Unione in Rome, founded and directed by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, is an ecumenical research and action center. Its purpose is to give space for dialogue, to be a place for study, research and formation in ecumenism: theological, pastoral, social and spiritual. The Bulletin has been published since 1968 and is released in Spring and Fall. CONTACT Address Via Santa Maria dell'Anima, 30 I-00186 · Rome – ITALY TwitterYOUTUBESoundcloud FACEBOOK Telephone (+39) 06 687 9552 Fax (+39) 06 687 9552 Media Network @EcumenUnity @CentroProUnione E-mail pro@prounione.it Website www.prounione.it IN THIS ISSUE 2 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 elcome to our Spring issue! This issue of the Bulletin–Centro Pro Unione opens with the presentations for the study day honoring “The Heritage of Geoffrey Wainwright as Liturgist, Theologian, and Ecumenist”. Geoffrey was a frequent lecturer here at the Centro in his capacity as liturgist, theologian and ecumenist and he was a dear friend. We invited specialists in their own right who were also colleagues of Geoffrey. The opening lecture was given by Bryan Spinks, well known liturgist. He laid out for us the work of Geoffrey which had a three-fold focus: liturgy, doctrine, ecumenism. Spinks contained his exposé to the principle works of Wainwright found in his articles in Studia Liturgica, and his books entitled Christian Initiation, 1969; Eucharist and Eschatology, 1971; and Doxology, 1980; together with those papers published in Worship with one Accord, 1997. In his exploration of these major works, Spinks asked the question whether or not Geoffrey was indeed a liturgist. His answer was that he had an aptitude for summarizing in a systematic fashion what he understood to be the current state of liturgical scholarship, and extrapolate from the cumulative narrative some theological observations, and use them to make broad suggestions for an ecumenical audience. The second presentation by Richard Clutterbuck attempt to summarize the value of Wainwright as theologian with 10 observations. These observations focussed on how Wainwright did theology: it is marked by a conservative nature and dogmatic since it focusses on the core beliefs of the Christian community. Therefore it needs to be systematic for its own coherence, but should not be shaped – or distorted – through conformity to extra-theological criteria. For Wainwright theology needs to be rooted in a living Christian tradition, but need not be confessional since it is at its best when it is Creatively Catholic as well as eirenically ecumenical. Christian Theology is at the same time doxological and eschatological. Finally for Wainwright Christian Theology serves the Church’s mission as messenger of the Kingdom of God. The third lecture treated Geoffrey as ecumenist and was given by an outstanding ecumenist, William Rusch. Rusch noted that one of Geoffrey’s gifts, and by no means not the only one, was that he combined in one person both ecumenist and theologian, namely an “ecumenist” is a person of deep commitment to the visible unity of the Church of Jesus Christ and takes with utmost seriousness, the biblical imperative and indicative about the unity of the Church. Rusch meant respectively by those two terms that the essential unity of the Church must be lived and made visible and that the essential unity of the Church is presupposed in every effort for unity. Geoffrey was highly respected and trusted by his colleagues both as a theologian and `James F. Puglisi, SA •Bryan D. Spinks •Richard Clutterbuck •William G. Rusch •Bernhard A. Eckerstofer •Gillian Kingston •Donald J. Bolen •Jack Bemporad •Summer School Rome 2023 •Editorial Catalog of the Centro W Director's Desk E-book Digital Design · Espedito Neto 3 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 an ecumenist. This is manifested by Wainwright’s involment in the Faith and Order projects for many years. In addition his leadership as co-chair of the Catholic-Methodist International Dialogue and the role he played in promoting the Methodist’s joining the Lutheran-Catholic declaration on the doctrine of justification. The study day concluded with three reflections on their personal relationship with Geoffrey. These were given by Gillian Kingston, Bernhard Eckerstofer and Donald Bolen. All three spoke warmly and with humor about the human and Christian qualities of Geoffrey as colleague, mentor and collaborator. The last of the articles in this number of the Bulletin–Centro Pro Unione is by our dear friend, Rabbi Jack Bemporad. Rabbi Jack laid out for us some of the philosophical and ethical considerations found in the Book of Proverbs. His talk “The Decisive Significance of the Book of Amos for Understanding the Literary Prophets in the Hebrew Bible” was given to complete the picture of the trilogy of wisdom literature since he already spoke at the Centro on Job: “A New Look at the Book of Job” and on “Ecclesiastes,” (in Hebrew, Kohelet), called “Some Philosophical Aspects of Kohelet.” He explains that the Book of Proverbs is not a simple writing. It is vast and has a great deal of controversy, as to what it really means. It’s not the kind of a book that was written in extreme times, where, for example, there is crisis, there is danger, and life is in turmoil. It may seem that nothing will continue. It is when you find things happening that seem so irregular that you don’t really understand what’s going on. “Proverbs” is a relatively normal kind of ongoing existence, where people can plan and decide how they want to live their lives and go about doing it. The Book of Proverbs is a book that is founded on the concept of choice, that people have control over their lives. That it’s not fate, or the gods, or anything of that nature that actually is in control. You are in control of your destiny! So as Rabbi Jack says, it is all about choice. It’s through our choices that we determine what we become. In other words, it isn’t already determined what you will be. It isn’t already determined how you will live. We are, in fact, incomplete, and the very way we live our lives completes us through the choices we make, so that one’s life is really open. It isn’t something determined and we have freedom to go in different directions. According to Bemporad’s theory, the motto (so to speak) for the “Book of Proverbs” is found in Deuteronomy 30: 15 – “I’ve set before you life and death. The blessing and the curse. Choose life so that you and your children may live.” The Book of Proverbs is a book that is founded on the concept of choice, that people have control over their lives. Basically, Proverbs says that at the end of one’s life, if you have chosen folly, have chosen vices, have chosen basically the exploitation of others and doing evil, “at the end of your life you groan when your flesh and body are consumed.” Bemporad ends with the observation cited by his teacher Hans Jonas who said to him, “Live your life in such a way that God doesn’t repent that he made you.” The remainder of the Fall included the twenty-fifth annual lecture in honor of the Founders of the Society of the Atonement, Servant of God, Paul Wattson, sa and Mother Lurana White, sa. This year’s lecture: “(In Case You Missed It). The Ecumenical Winter is Over” was given by the former director of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, Dr. Thomas F. Best. Together with the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas, the Centro hosted an afternoon of study and prayer for Christian Unity. The lecture given by Dr. Dirk G. Lange, deputy general secretary for ecumenical relations of the Lutheran World Federation, dealt with the recent Lutheran-Catholic International Commission on Unity’s study document, “Baptism and Growth in Communion”. Together with the directors of the Methodist Ecumenical Office Rome and the Anglican Centre, the Centro’s Director celebrated a vigil of prayer in preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in the chapel of the Anglican Centre. We proudly announce the publication of the substantial E-book containing M.A.D. 2, the second module focusing on Baptism of M.A.D. for Ecumenism – Mutual Accountability Desk. Download it from our website ― bit.ly/DWL-Logbook-MAD-for-Ecumenism-v2 M.A.D. 3, was launched in the Fall and had several meetings, including the ecumenical LETTER FORM THE DIRECTOR4 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 consultants meeting on February 8 th . Their role was to receive the work done in the parishes. The importance of this module is found in the implementation of a synodal and ecumenical methodology, which witnesses the people of God involved in dialogue and in synergy in its multiform ministries and charisms, in order to carry out a shared reflection on the greatest challenges that the post-postmodern era poses to the churches today. We are proud to include the next installment of the Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues compiled by our librarian, Dr. Loredana Nepi. It is the thirty-eighth supplement. As a remainder you can always have realtime updates to the bibliography by accessing our website at ― www.prounione.it/en/library/search And realtime access to all of the dialogues at ― www.prounione.it/dialogues In addition, the Centro is organizing the presentation of an important ecclesiological study: Ecclesial Boundaries and National Identity in the Orthodox Church (Notre Dame Press, 2023) by Dr. Tamara Grdzelidze. Since the Orthodox Church has not sufficiently addressed the pressing problem of religious nationalism and the problems arriving because of it, this work will be of interest to scholars. Rabbi Jack Bemporad will speak on "The Decisive Significance of the Bokk of Amos for Undestanding the Literary Prophets in the Hebrew Bible" on Wednesday, May 17, 2023. Look for details on our website. The Centro staff welcomed the internation- al student body from the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey, Switzerland. Besides presenting the historical and beautiful setting of the Collegio Innocenziano, the staff presented the work and ministry of the Friars of the Atonement carried out at the Centro Pro Unione and led a conversation on the modern ecumenical movement and the issues which challenge all the churches. On Wednesday March 22, 2023, the World Council of Churches’ General Secretary, Rev. Prof. Dr. Jerry Pillay and Prof. Dr. Vasile-Octavian Mihoc, Programme Executive for Ecumenical Relations and Faith and Order paid a visit to the Centro Pro Unione. This was Dr. Pillay’s first visit to Rome after his installation as General Secretary and the Centro’s staff is honored that he would request to meet us and learn more of how the Centro could be engaged in some of the future projects being planned by the Faith and Order commission. Dr. Pillay was very impressed by the important documentation housed in the Centro’s Library concerning the international and regional theological dialogues and the fact that materials are present in many languages. The delegation also expressed appreciation for the formation projects of the Centro Pro Unione (specifically Mutual Accontability Desk for Ecumenism and annual Summer Course) and for the attention paid to the heuristic aspect of these projects oriented towards a constant meta-reflection on the dynamics of reception and ecumenical formation that the Centro has always activated. The Director and staff were able to speak about the on-going programs of the Centro as well as to describe future programs in development. Particular interest was shown in the proposed Nicaea 2025 project. Drs. Pillay and Mihoc assured the Centro staff that we would maintain important collaborative relations in the immediate future. It is never too early to book for your Rome Summer School experience in June 26 – July 14, 2023 at the Centro. See the web for registration for the Summer Course “Introduction to the Ecumenical and Interreligious Movements from a Catholic Perspective”. We invite our readers to always check our web site for dates and events as well as the up-dating of our data base on the international theological dialogues and, of course, our two libraries: pro and dialogo. 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 (www.atla.com). James F. Puglisi, sa ∙ Director LETTER FORM THE DIRECTOR5 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 Conference he Quicunque Vult, or so-called Creed of Saint Athanasius, states that “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.” Geoffrey Wainwright was certainly trinitarian in belief. His own academic work, though, was also trinitarian- liturgy, doctrine, and ecumenism, and like the perichoretic mutual indwelling of the divine persons, Geoffrey’s threefold focus was also a form of scholarly perichoresis. To isolate one is rather like dividing the substance. In this presentation, I hope to discuss the liturgical emphases in his work without confounding it too much with doctrine and ecumenism, other than as his perichoretic methodology requires. The 2000 festschrift for Geoffrey listed 203 published books, reviews, and articles, with 5 more forthcoming. There have been some more subsequently. Let me make it clear that I have not read all his published material. My review of his work on liturgy is confined to his articles in Studia Liturgica, to his books entitled Christian Initiation, 1969; Eucharist and Eschatology, 1971; and Doxology, 1980; together with those papers published in Worship with one Accord, 1997. I believe that these sufficiently illustrate his liturgical interests, his methodology and intentions. Geoffrey’s own relevant biographical background and his fundamental beliefs about the importance of liturgy for systematic theology and ecumenism were spelled out clearly in the first pages of Doxology: “Born (in 1939) and brought up in British Methodism, I am now a Methodist minister. Having acquired some linguistic, biblical and historical skills at Cambridge, I trained for the ministry under Raymond George, whose twin interests in systematic theology and liturgics appealed to me.” 1 Raymond George was a committed Ecumenist, was a WCC observer on the Roman Catholic Liturgical 'Consilium' at the Vatican from 1966 onwards, wrote on liturgy and worship, and was a founding member of the Joint Liturgical Group, the ecumenical liturgical body in the UK. In many ways, Geoffrey followed his seminary teacher. Geoffrey saw his own vocation and task as follows: 1G eoffrey W ainWriGht , Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life. A Systematic Theology (New York : Oxford University, 1980) 10. Geoffrey Wainwright as Liturgist Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione Thursday · 20 October 2022 T www.prounione.it/webtv/live/20-oct-2022 Bishop F. Percy Goddard Professor Emeritus of Liturgical Studies and Pastoral Theology, Yale Institute of Sacred Music and Yale Divinity School ░ CAMERA-ALT Photo Credits Personal Archive / B. Spinks6 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 Conference “It is the Christian community that transmits the vision which the theologian, as an individual human being, has seen and believed. As a believer, the theologian is committed to serving the Christian community in the transmission and spread of the vision among humanity. Worship is the place in which that vision comes into sharp focus, a concentrated expression, and it is here that the vision has often been found to be at its most appealing. The theologian’s thinking therefore properly draws on the worship of the Christian community and is in duty bound to contribute to it. The specific task of the theologian lies in the realm of doctrine. He is aiming at a coherent intellectual expression of the Christian vision. He should examine the liturgy from that angle, both in order to learn from it and in order to propose to the worshipping community any corrections or improvements which he judges necessary.” 2 This method of Geoffrey can be observed in some of his writings on Christian initiation. One of his first academic publications was in Studia Liturgica 1965. The journal was founded by the Dutch Reformed ecumenist, Wiebe Vos, in 1961, to be an international ecumenical quarterly for liturgical research and renewal- as it still is today. Geoffery would become a friend of Wiebe Vos, and a co-editor of the journal. This article had in fact won the Dr. Paton Prize in 1964 from the Free Church Federal Council of Great Britain, and it was prior to Geoffrey gaining his doctorate. The essay was a summary of the evidence for the Baptismal Eucharist before Nicaea. Geoffrey surveyed the findings of liturgical scholars and gave a synthesis of the evidence as it was known and interpreted at that time. The names of R. H. Connolly, E. C. Ratcliff, F. L. Cross and Gregory Dix are frequently cited. The early evidence was listed as Justin Martyr’s First Apology, the (so-called) Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus about 215 AD, Tertullian, the Passio of Melito of Sardis, the Didache, and Didascalia. However, he also suggested that the Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem and the Euchologian of Serapion might preserve traditions that ante-date Nicaea. 2Ibid., 3. Geoffrey grouped the evidence under headings: Thus, the time of initiation, the preparation for baptism, the Paschal Vigil, the baptismal rite, and the baptismal Eucharist. These last two had many sub-sections, such as Blessing of the water, the baptism of children, the renunciation and exorcism, the ceremony of baptism, and so on. In the Eucharist Geoffrey wandered far beyond Nicaea to make sense of the evidence as he understood it. The anaphora of Addai and Mari is invoked, but also Apostolic Constitutions 8, as well as the occasional reference to the anaphoras of saints Basil, John Chrysostom and James. As with most liturgical scholarship at this time, great weight is placed on the anaphora in Apostolic Tradition, and believing it to be 215, and possibly because of his own Methodist background which inherited an Anglican approach, he argued that the institution narrative cited in Justin Martyr’s First Apology was probably a reference to its use in the thanksgiving over the bread and wine. Some of this material, or at least, some of the implications, lie behind the 1969 book on Christian Initiation – appearing in the Ecumenical Studies in History Series. As what would become a common approach for Geoffrey, the first chapter surveyed the contested New Testament background, and he drew on the Arland-Jeremias debate over initiation of infants. What of course we notice here is the assumption that the New Testament documents yield answers to all the subsequent questions that arise over baptism as an ecclesial ritual. The second chapter surveys what Geoffrey called Initiation Ancient and Eastern. The Apostolic Tradition is discussed along with Justin and Origen, but the treatment of the eastern material is limited to the Byzantine and Coptic rites, with little critical enquiry into them. It seems but a prelude to the chapter on baptism medieval and Western, and a discussion of the enigma of confirmation. Further chapters explored Believer’s baptism, initiation and unity with a plea for mutual recognition between churches of the validity of trinitarian baptism across denominations, and initiation and mission. It should be noted that here Geoffrey was mainly concerned with theology and not liturgy. He never discusses texts from Believer’s Baptismal tradition, even though they existed, and mission is discussed in relation to process, not liturgical 7 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 Bryan D. Spinks rite, such as confession of personal faith, first communion and admission to the catechumenate. The latter is illustrated with what almost seems random material that suits the discussion, with brief references to the Missale Gothicum and the Bobbio Missal, and then, having had no discussion of the Syrian Orthodox rite, out of the blue a quote from Jacob of Edessa is thrown into the mix. A review of past developments in the rites of Christian initiation was the subject of Geoffrey’s 1974 paper in Studia Liturgica – almost 10 years after his initial paper on the subject. He explained that the paper would be occupied with liturgy rather than dogma, and with the past rather than the present. As was his style, he began with the New Testament evidence, though attempted to illuminate some of the vague or ambiguous statements with reference to the so- called Apostolic Tradition, John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, which today would be regarded as a strange methodology. As in his 1964 article, Geoffrey proceeded to examine the liturgical past under convenient headings, such as post-baptismal anointing, imposition of hands and consignation, preparatory and explicatory words and ceremonies and so pre-baptismal anointing, oddly, was included in this section, along with crowning, the lighted candle, milk and honey and hair cutting. However, by the end of this article Geoffrey moved into dogma- infant baptism, theologies of baptism, world-view, society, evangelism and unity- some of the very themes discussed in his 1969 book. I want to suggest that these three writings on Christian Initiation provide us with an excellent insight into the liturgical interests of Geoffrey. In what way was Geoffrey a liturgist? Was he in fact a liturgist? As far as I can discover, he never himself did any original research into any particular liturgical rite. He was not a liturgist of the Robert Taft hue, with concern for critical editions and copious use of manuscripts. Neither did he do any original research into the history of liturgy, and nor as far as I am aware, did he ever explore in depth the theology of a particular rite. Rather, he had an aptitude for summarizing in a systematic fashion what he understood to be the current state of liturgical scholarship, and extrapolate from the cumulative narrative some theological observations, and use them to make broad suggestions for an ecumenical audience. Paul Bradshaw has called attention to two approaches to liturgical study which he has called lumpers and splitters. Lumpers are concerned to gather the material together and give a coherent developmental narrative; splitters examine what is unique and special to each text, in its time and place. Geoffrey was the archetypal lumper, weaving together material from different times and places to yield a narrative that he then used to illustrate the theological points he was advancing. This means that for many liturgical scholars today, Geoffrey seems to belong to a past age- which of course, he does. He was an ardent ecumenist, and rejoiced at the WCC Report, BEM, but of course, then witnessed a new age when the ecumenical dream was fading, and denominational distinctions became important. Geoffrey’s great contribution was made in the last years of modernity, when the grand narrative was still regarded as a respectable norm. But in postmodernity, the grand narrative is no longer regarded as an acceptable narrative. Now is the time of the splitters, when differences are important. Furthermore, liturgical studies yield more and more information which shows how the narratives Geoffrey adopted are now regarded at best an unhelpful flattening of the evidence, and at worst, a distortion made in the interests of a preconceived theological agenda. This observation should not be read as a negative judgement on Geoffrey. It is simply to remind us of the fact that we are all people of our generation and age, and what are the accepted norms of scholarship in one era, becomes the outdated mode of the next. In a post-modern and post-ecumenical age, the methods and aims of liturgical scholarship are different. Geoffrey’s perichoretic approach, and his use of liturgical method, is illustrated further by his book on the Eucharist and Eschatology, and Doxology. Most studies of the Eucharist have and still do focus on the issues that divide the churches, namely how the Eucharist can be described as a sacrifice, and how Christ is present in the sacrament. Geoffrey chose to look at a neglected topic, namely the eschatological dimension of this sacrament. In the introduction to his study he wrote:8 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 Conference My aim in the present study is not only to do more justice to the importance of the neglected biblical texts for a doctrine of the eucharist, but to develop in a systematic way the more or less isolated insights into the eschatological character of the eucharist displayed by the liturgies and the earlier theologians.’ 3 The interesting word here is ‘displayed’. This became Geoffrey’s method, already encountered in his book on Christian initiation, and in his 1974 article. Liturgy was a source for illustrating a doctrine which was identified in Scripture and expounded by earlier theologians, and then illustrated from a variety of liturgical texts. Geoffrey’s fluency in German and French allowed him to draw on a wide variety of studies, and in the first chapter of the book he went straight to the original edition and title of Albert Schweitzer’s book of 1906, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, in which Schweitzer debunked the hitherto creation of Jesus in the image of nineteenth century writers and presented the Jesus of a strange world of eschatology. He traced the debate about sacred time through Conzelmann’s influential work on Luke-Acts, and then surveyed the theme in systematic theology. Exploring first the eucharist as the ‘Antepast of Heaven’, he noted that the liturgies seem to have gone to excess in disguising the fundamental phenomenological feature of the eucharist.’ 4 His investigation, so he claimed, would be to show that the sign of the meal is a basis category if the eschatological content and import of the eucharist are to be properly appreciated.’ 5 One might have thought he would begin here with some liturgical evidence, but instead worked through meals in the Old Testament, noting the future tense of passages such as Zechariah 9:17 and Isaiah 65:13. A similar survey followed of the intertestamental period, and then feasting in the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. Two and half pages were devoted to the words in the Lord’s Prayer, the bread of tomorrow. Geoffrey next made reference to ecclesiastical monuments, liturgies and theologians. When he turned to what he called ‘the classical liturgies of both East 3G eoffrey W ainWriGht , Eucharist and Eschatology (London: Epworth Press, 1971) 3. 4Ibid.,18. 5Ibid., 18. and West’, we find a peppering of citations from a wide range of sources – the Acts of Thomas, the Visigothic rite, Addai and Mari, the Armenian rite, the Roman Mass of Corpus Christi, the Syriac anaphora of St. Cyril as found in Renaudot, Jan Laski’s Forma ac Ratio, and Wesley’s Hymns on the Lord’s Supper. Geoffrey certainly illustrated that his theme could be found in a variety of liturgical texts, and he never pretended that his survey was exhaustive. However, it was extremely selective, and limited. The statement that ‘It was not until the Wesley’s Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745) that the Western church achieved again a rich appreciation of the eucharist as the sign of the future banquet of the heavenly kingdom’ simply showed that Geoffrey had not searched out the older hymns of the late seventeenth century of the Independent Richard Davis of Rothwell and Benjamin Keach of the Particular Baptists, both of whom wrote hymns on the Lord’s Supper that have some eschatological references. His methodology would also bring forth criticism from exponents of Liturgical Theology. The methodology of the latter by such exponents as Aidan Kavanagh, David Fagerberg and Kevin Irwin would argued that Geoffrey worked out a theology first and then found liturgical quotes to fit his theology, whereas Liturgical Theology started with the particular liturgies and investigated the theology that they articulated. That Geoffrey could work in the direction of Liturgical Theology was illustrated in the chapter entitled Maratha, where from the Pauline Institution narrative of 1 Cor 11, with the ‘you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ was immediately followed by Apostolic Constitutions 8, Syriac St. James, Alexandrian St. Mark, the Roman Canon , the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Armenian rite, the English Non-jurors. This was followed by a dialogue with systematic theologians and then patristic writers, before turning to the Didache. Given the title of the chapter, it might have been more logical to begin with 1 Cor., and then the Didache, before looking at other liturgical texts, and then systematic theology. After the Didache, Geoffrey discussed the Benedictus qui venit, and then he gave illustrations from the Sursum corda, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Wesleys, before discussing the importance of Sunday as the first and eighth day.9 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin n. 103 - spring 2023 There are of course subsequent chapters, but this is sufficient to illustrate Geoffrey’s methodology and the use he makes of liturgy. It is by way of illustration rather than a starting point for historical lessons or a theology expressed in a particular liturgy. Mention must be made of his other important work, Doxology. Here he used the same methodology, but the work was much more concerned to find a theology that would gain some ecumenical support and use. The Introduction explained that worship is best seen as the point of concentration at which the whole of the Christian life comes to ritual focus; into the liturgy the people bring their entire existence so that it may be gathered up in praise. Doctrine both draws on and contributes to worship. 6 It is this last sentence that indicated the difference in approach from Aidan Kavanagh’s On liturgical Theology which was published 4 years later. Kavanagh would put forward an argument that primary theology was what Mrs Murphy- the typical person in the pew- learned from and how she understood the liturgy she experiences week by week. Secondary theology reflected on this primary source. History shows, I think, that Geoffrey was right and Kavanagh wrong on this issue. It is clear from anthropological studies that cult precedes rational reflection. However, rational reflection then is brought o bear on the cult, and its understanding is changed, and sometimes its verbal expression is changed accordingly. This was the lesson learnt from Bernard Lonergan’s reflections on theological method. Lonergan cogently argued that experience ultimately leads to dialectic and judgment, which is then taken to experience which as a result now appears in a new way. 7 Geoffrey noted: ‘Synchronically, the difficulty is to decide where, at a given time, the line should be drawn between the diversity of different but symphonic voices and the clash of contradictions which become cacophony. It is a matter of deciding where a unilateral emphasis amounts to a distortion; where 6Doxology, 8-9. 7B ernard J. f. L onerGan ,Method and Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press: Lonergan Research Institute of Regis College, 1971). simplification is purification, where truncation. It is a matter of deciding where tentative exploration opens up new vistas and where it misses its way and passes into error or nothingness.’ 8 Whether Geoffrey’s perichoretic method was able to demonstrate this logically is a matter for debate. He questioned, for example, the definitions of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) and her bodily assumption (1950) as de fide. His comments though seem to draw no distinction between a de fide doctrine, and the undefined but obvious antiquity, West and East, of the Feast of the Assumption or Dormition of Mary. As a Methodist, Geoffrey almost certainly did not often if ever observe the Dormition, and it is clear that his own denominational background was at play in his own reasoning as to what was a distortion and what was a truncation. Although, as we have seen, he frequently referred to the hymns of the Wesleys, there was no reason for anyone outside the Methodist tradition to regard the hymns as having the slightest authority, and certainly less authority than the undoubted antiquity of the Marian feast. Doxology, though, was a significant work where Geoffrey used his wide knowledge of liturgy, past and present, in the interests of ecumenism. The chapter entitled ‘Revision’, though now obviously dated in what was then recent liturgy, remains a useful text for those involved in liturgical revision. A long section on the Reformation contrasts with a very brief section on the Enlightenment period, reflecting the then common view that this period had little to offer liturgically, which is far from the truth. However, the section on Archaeology or ephemerality brought to bear Geoffrey’s knowledge of the Liturgical Movement, the Vatican II reforms of the liturgy, ecumenical discussion on the Eucharist, as well as the problem of appeal to an imagined golden age and archaeological reconstruction. He no doubt had in mind the near universal appeal to the so-called Apostolic Tradition that was so influential in revisions across the Western Churches. But in this section he drew on the Table Prayers of Huub Oosterhuis, the British Methodist Sunday Service of 1976, the Church of England’s 8Doxology, 11. Bryan D. SpinksNext >