John Cardinal Willebrands.

THE PAUL WATTSON LECTURE

Washington, November 19th, 1974.

 

With deep appreciation I express my gratitude to the trustees and authorities of the Catholic University of America for the signal honor you have conferred upon me. To have been named an honorary doctor of your great university is a source of deep personal satisfaction. More importantly, I see in this act of yours, a pledge of your interest in, and dedication to the cause of Christian unity. In its decree on Ecumenism, whose tenth anniversary we commemorate this week, the Vatican Council indicated the special role that scholars and educators have in fostering this unity. The Ecumenical Directory, in its section on ecumenism and higher education was even more specific in pointing out the contribution that a university may make, with the rigorous and scholarly methods proper to it, to freeing the minds and hearts of people from the ignorance and prejudices that are so often at the foundation of divisions among Christians. Many of your faculty members and students are already actively and fruitfully engaged in the ecumenical movement. Among them the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement have a special place. In a spirit of gratitude to Catholic University and to the Friars of the Atonement, and with confidence that the events of this evening are but a sign of future contributions on your part to the ecumenical movement, I offer this Paul Wattson lecture.

 

It was the high ideal of Christian unity which animated Father Paul and which he embodied in the Society of the Atonement. Atonement is the original, pregnant english Word for reconciliation. Father Paul was wholeheartedly attached to this word and he had his own interpretation, etymologically and exegetically, of it. He accepted only the word "adunatio" as the Latin equivalent of the Society's name in English: Societas Adunationis. He insisted upon this and argued in correspondence to Rome as follows:

"The Latin 'adunatio' etymologically is exactly the same as the English 'atonement,' the root words being ad and unus, in English at-one."

and then, proposing an exegesis applicable to the vocation of his Society, he continues: "God has clearly impressed the vocation of unity on our holy Society... . It was through Our Lord's sacrifice on the cross that an at-one-ment, or reconciliation, was made between God and man, and the union of God and man in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ as His Incarnation was through Out Lord made possible for the elect by His sacrifice on Calvary. The central text of our Institute, which contains the word 'atonement' is this: 'We joy in God, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have not received the atonement' " (David Gannon, S.A.: Father Paul of Graymoor, 1950, p. 334).

 

In 2 Cor. 5, 17-21 St. Paul speaks of "the ministry of reconciliation" (atonement) διακονία τής καταλλαγής, which will continue until the day in which God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ. It is this ministry of, reconciliation that Father Paul claims for his Society, particularly in the specific sense of the reconciliation between Christians and the restoration of unity among them, which presupposes reconciliation, at-one-ment, in Christ: "that they may be one in us" (John 17,21).

 

I would now like to develop one of the most important points in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council about the ecumenical movement, namely its teaching on dialogue, and the progress we have been able to achieve in following this teaching. There was certainly been no greater change in the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Churches and Communities, than the change from a polemical attitude to dialogue, from the prejudice that "the other" is an adversary in the Christian cause to accepting that he is a brother in Christ. Not only has the concept of dialogue been accepted. Since the council a great deal has been said and done about it. You may ask me whether there is still anything new or relevant to say about it.

 

During recent years dialogue has known a widespread and comprehensive develop‑ ment. But it is not this extension which brings the real renewal.' In some dialogue we have gone through a deep experience and we only begin to feel and to suspect what the consequence could be if it develops in depth, always "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4,15).

 

Concerning this dialogue question, and even problems of an intellectual, a spiritual and of a practical nature can arise.

1. There are intellectual or theological questions concerning the formulation of doctrine. On this point the Decree on Ecumenism states: "If the influence of events or of times has led to deficiencies ... in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment." (U.R. 6)

2. Questions of a spiritual nature regard conversion of heart, about which the same Decree says: "There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from newness of attitudes (cfr. Eph. 4,23), from self-denial and unstinted love, that yearnings for unity take their rise and grow toward maturity" (U.R. 7).

3. Finally, practical questions concerning methods of dialogue arise when some results, even partial, have been achieved. Therefore it seems useful and perhaps necessary to appreciate again what dialogue means and implies. On the other hand, among those who do not know about the development of dialogue, or who are involved in discussions which have never plumbed the fullest possible depth of dialogue some express the feeling that all this is of little or no importance, that it has come to a standstill or that it is continually paralyzed by measures taken by official authorities.

I

Pope John XXIII was the first to draw our attention to the distinction between the unchanging deposit of faith and the changeable mode or language in which it is concretely and historically expressed. "The deposit of faith is one thing; the way  that it is presented is another. For the truths preserved in our sacred doctrine can retain the same substance and meaning under different forms of expression" (A.A.S. 54, 1962, p. 792). The Decree on Ecumenism admits the possibility of deficiency in formulation and of rectification ("Si minus accurate servata fuerint,... recte debiteque modo instaurentur"; U.R. 6). Again, in the pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World Today we read: "While adhering to the methods and requirements proper to theology, theologians are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men-of their times. For the deposit of faith or revealed truth are one thing; the manner in which they are formulated without violence to their meaning and significance is another" (G.S. n. 62). The prudent and circumstanced phraseology indicates that we touch here complicated and delicate problems, particularly the problem of faith, its content and the possibility of its adequate verbal expression in a determinate historical and cultural context, and even the problem of the expressive power of language or the problem of the relation between language and thought. This problem is so important for present theological discussion that the "Declaration in defense of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day ("Mysterium Ecclesiae") published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1973) dedicates a full chapter to it, which develops further the statements of the Second Vatican Council.

 

Dialogue in general is a struggle for truth and for the common expression of truth. Ecumenical dialogue is a struggle for common understanding and common expression of truth as it has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ. It is a common search to under‑ stand Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The Church has expressed its faith in the Creed of the Apostles, the Creed of Nicea, the dogmas, especially those of the ecumenical Councils. In ecumenical dialogue we seek to understand what exactly is the content, the meaning of those formulas, what at a certain period of history of the Church was the precise question at issue so that we may be able to understand the answer and through tackling our own problems develop further the knowledge of faith, building upon what in the past the Church already disclosed and made sure. For history can not be cut into segments which have no link with each other, there is a continuous stream of life, biologically but also spiritually, which binds all human history together. In the Church of Christ we have His one living word of which we are all disciples and one living Spirit who guides us into all truth.

 

Dialogue proves to be a serious reading in the theology of the other side, which means reading a full context and not for the purpose either of polemics or of agreement for the sake of agreement (false irenicism). Dialogue brings also to both parties the experience of the actual living use of the theological discourse of a given tradition. These two things together do much to expose the non-theological overtones, the emotional content, the historical conditioning, both of language used on one side and of the other side's reaction to it. At some levels of theological perception and of pastoral concern particular formulas can assume the character of identity discs or cords, so that giving them up creates insecurity. I would not suggest that theological reflection is somehow independent of language (a proposition I would heartily disagree with), or that we have not propositions to which we are committed by our commitment to Christ in faith, but it seems a natural consequence of the distortion of our divisions that convergences, or even agreements about certain doctrines which have caused division, must evolve and be evolved from a theological discourse which is not precisely identical with the traditional language of either side. In this sense the Decree on Ecumenism tells: "Catholics need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the distinctive doctrines of our brethren who are not in full communion with us, as well as of their own history, spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background ... From dialogue of this sort will emerge still more clearly what the true posture of the Catholic Church is. In this way too, we will better understand the attitude of our brethren and more aptly present our. own belief" (U.R. 9). And further: "Catholic belief needs to be explained more profoundly and precisely, in ways and in terminology which our brethren who are not in full communion with us too can really understand" (U.R. 11).

 

This means that in dialogue we may be able to find a new expression and language in full loyalty and faithfulness to our tradition and doctrine, in a language in which we can agree and express together a common faith. Examples of it we find in the past history of the Church and of which we find also a new illustration in the Common Declarations given on the occasion of the visit of the Syrian-orthodox Patriarch Jacoub III and of the Coptic-orthodox Patriarch Shenouda III to Pope Paul VI. We have to admit indeed that certain words are heavily burdened by history and evoke long and bitter polemics of the past. Other expressions which are familiar to one tradition are very difficult to be understood in their right and precise meaning by people who belong to another tradition (f. inst. "ex opere operato").

 

Thus dialogue has not only the task to explain, but also to find a terminology which being fully faithful and orthodox, builds really a bridge upon which both can meet each other.

 

One may ask whether in these meetings between different traditions we have not to cope also with the problem of pluralism in theology. Of course, a plurality of expression of the same faith is possible and you will find examples of it already in the early history of the Church, touching the dogmas which stand at the top in the hierarchy of truths. Personally I do not like the word "pluralism" and prefer to speak of a plurality of expressions. And what is important above all is that we are able to reach certainty, that in the plurality of tradition and expression, we are one in faith or at least that we are on the way to be united again in one faith, one hope, one love.

 

II

 

Ecumenical dialogue transcends mere intellectual approach, we meet each other in faith and faith means more than knowledge. Those who meet live in a "certain though imperfect communion" (U.R. 3). They are "justified by faith through baptism and incorporated into Christ" (U.R. 3); as far as brotherly relations between Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, the Pope speaks of an "almost perfect communion." Even if unity in faith is full and complete, the fullness of that communion cannot be adequately and sufficiently expressed in a scientific formula. To say, individually or in communion with other, a. Creed, is not a scientific act but a religious celebration. When we shall be joined together in the fullness of faith, we shall be taken up in the common celebration of the central mystery of faith, which alone is able to express fully what we confess and what, in confessing, we are in Jesus Christ, the eucharistic mystery which builds up the Church.

 

Even at the present stage, where we are not able to express and to celebrate that fullness of unity, we should not leave it to a few theologians, to express in difficult and unfamiliar language a convergence or agreement            On the basis of the communion which exists already among us and in order to celebrate what we have received together, we should join on certain special occasions in common prayer. Let us never consider this as weak, as meaningless or without force. The Council called these prayers "desirable" and, speaking to Catholics, explains that "such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which even now bind Catholics to their brethren who are not in full communion with them. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (U.R. 8).

 

From what I have said so far it is clear that in the ecumenical dialogue intellectual or theological problems cannot be separated from spiritual problems which concern the conversion of heart.

 

Ecumenical dialogue engages the whole person, it cannot be a thing accessory, a trimming, like make-up on the face - it must be an expression of life. The most unfair charge that can be made is that dialogue is a new policy, a new tactic, a concession to fashion. It is a law of the Gospel. It is a way of placing myself before another so that I listen to him, getting inside him so that I know him from •the inside.. So far as response to the Gospel and loyalty to my faith allows, I absorb what he says to me so as to revise my own judgment.

 

Dialogue really begins not merely when each hears and understands the other's witness, but when he recognizes himself through this witness, authentically challenged by the Word of God. Here it is that the specifically Christian character of dialogue shows itself a reciprocal witness of faith.

 

The nature of Christian dialogue, ecumenical dialogue, cannot be grasped without recognizing that it is born of the pressure of love. Concern for unity in the Christian heart feeds on the charity of God himself. It is St. Augustine who after commending life in charity, says: "Open to them (the Donatists) the pith and marrow of your charity". Truly it is love that is the motive-power of dialogue. The ecumenical movement begins when we realize the tragedy of schisms and divisions and become certain that unity is essential to the Church. It loses its meaning and its truth if it ceases to respond with all its power to the highest demands.

 

III

 

Everything said about dialogue can be realized in many and varying ways. To aid our consideration of questions arising out of methods of dialogue, let us reflect on three concrete examples -- one from the New Testament, another from the history of the early Church and a third from our own time.

 

In John IV, 1-43, Christ talks to a Samaritan woman (This is not a parable but history, which John alone relates).. Even if this conversation cannot be equated with the dialogues individual persons and churches have with each other -- for Christ is the Lord whose dialogue with His world is unique -- still this account can be a certain model of ecumenical dialogue before its time. We can really speak of a schism between Jews and Samaritans. The woman's first reaction: "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" is significant of this.

 

How does Our Lord treat this "schism"? Several points can be noted:

 

a)      He chooses to pass through Samaria. He didn't have to. As a Jew he was not 'even welcome to do so. Luke tells us that the Samaritans regularly annoyed Jewish 9 - travelers (IX, 52-3). Thus Christ's choice of the way is already a proof of his freedom of mind and his resolve "to accomplish his work" (v. 34).

b)      Christ himself prompts the meeting. It is He who speaks first to the woman  of Samaria, asking her: "Give me a drink". Thus he bridges the gulf between Jews and Samaritans. The woman knowing him as a Jew from his dress and accent, is astonished; she cannot believe a Jew would even speak to a Samaritan. Jesus goes against very rigid customs: a Jew could not speak to a Samaritan, and a man could not speak in public to a woman, especially one he did not know. This was certainly the reaction of Christ's disciples (v. 27). So Christ's decision is a bold one, ecumenically courageous -- like his decision later to spend two days with the Samaritans at their invitation.

c)      All the same Jesus does not compromise with the truth. This is noteworthy. He says clearly that salvation comes from the Jews. He gives preference to the orthodox Judaism of Jerusalem. The Samaritans. did not acknowledge the Pentateuch, lacked essential elements of revelation and their worship was very incomplete. Jesus says that salvation comes from the Jews -- an extraordinary claim, even to us. The Samaritan woman seems to think on the whole that anyone can practice his religion in his own way (some at Gorazim, some at Jerusalem); Christ looks for a deeper principle than this indifferentism, this acceptance of disagreement. "The true worshippers", he says, "will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him". Thus Jesus is in the great tradition of the prophets who had always insisted that true worship is a matter of interior acts, not is tied merely to an external rite or a set place or to one nation.

d)      The dialogue leads to the acceptance of Christ as Messiah. Starting from the outward aspect of water to reach a spiritual reality, Jesus leads the Samaritan woman step by step to confess that he is the Messiah: following her own progress through scandalized surprise, irony, seriousness, enthusiasm, raising in her the desire for truth, inducing her to ask questions and reveal her deeper perplexities, helping her to lay bare her moral problems -- for there is no conversion without acceptance of one's own spiritual poverty. And so in the end she and her fellow towns people recognize him as the Saviour of the world (v. 42).

 

We must first grasp that Christ starts from our problems, our sufferings, our concerns. Many of our dialogues are evasions of reality. Unconsciously we often discuss problems to avoid coming to grips with life. We talk as though from outside. Jesus goes to the heart of difficulties to resolve them. He centers the discussion on the woman's own anxieties, enters into her searching and her sorrow and from thence illuminates, purifies, vitalizes her and arouses her fervor.

 

Christ's dialogue is always a comfort, an encouragement. In this way he is master of all our dialogues.

 

Christ's dialogues lead to action, they prompt commitment to the service of the Kingdom. Notice how those who spoke with Christ and listened to him all set out to. run: the woman of Samaria (who forgot her water jar), the disciples on the journey from Emmaus back to Jerusalem (Luke XXIV, 13sqq.), Mary Magdalen (John XX,2). They leave everything and set off to spread the Good News. The word of Christ carries the man of good will from remorse, nostalgia, fear to enthusiastic action in the service of God's Kingdom. Words, even ecumenical words, are not enough. True dialogue is essentially tied to mission.

 

2. An ecumenical dialogue in the early Church (The Deed of Union of 433). Moving from Christ's own dialogue with the woman of Samaria to the Church's dialogue through the centuries, we change keys. Christ is an unapproachable model in the sense that we cannot equal him, but he inspires the Church, his spouse and his mystical body, in its hard task of dialogue with the cultures of different ages. An outstanding example of this is the Deed of Union of 433. It bears on a central element of. Christian faith, the person of Jesus Christ and that of his mother, proclaimed Mother of God (Theotokos) at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The Council had been called to pronounce on the proposals of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in this regard. It condemned his proposals.

 

Unhappily Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, published the condemnation of Nestorius without waiting for the bishops of the Orient to get to the Council. Worse, he added to the letter of condemnation the famous twelve anathemas (known in history as the kefalaia) which represented his personal theology; so he seemed to establish on the same level essential Christological faith and theological options which were legitimate but not necessary to faith and therefore not to be imposed in the name of the rule of faith. One of them was the famous formula "one nature of God the Word, incarnate". For these two reasons the bishops of the diocese of the Orient, led by their Patriarch, John of Antioch, refused to acknowledge the Council of 431. The Alexandrians for their part suspected that Antiochian christology especially the formula "two natures in one person" ran the risk of a fundamental dualism which would reduce the union of the two natures to a purely moral link.

 

The schism was thus brought about. But pressed by the Emperor Theodosius II and many of their contemporaries the two patriarchs, Cyril and John, after many ups and downs during the months from June 432 to April 12, 433, reached an agreed statement known to history as the Deed of Union.

 

Avoiding the expressions "in two natures" or "one nature," this formula asserts the unity of Christ, only son of God, perfect God in his divinity, perfect man in his humanity, and at the same time insists on the diversity of these attributes. Cyril announced in his letter "Laetentur Coeli" of April 12, 433 that union was restored and schism brought to an end.

 

Certainly ambiguities persisted. Each of the two leaders had to face criticism, sometimes violent, from their extremist followers. On John of Antioch's side, for example, Alexander of Hierapolis refused to accept the agreed statement. The extremists . on the other side, like Succensus of Diocaesarea, demanded to know whether their patriarch, Cyril, had or had not given up his "anathemas," which for them were essential elements of the faith. The positions and behavior of John and Cyril never entirely lost their ambiguity. The fact remains that the schism was resolved, and from within, and unity survived, come rain come shine, for another six years. Then the quarrel broke out afresh, and un‑ happily some of.Cyril's followers were unable to preserve the remarkable theological balance which the patriarch of Alexandria had shown in the Deed of Union of 433.

 

None the less, the Deed of Union, is an historic achievement that can serve as a model for other conferences, discussions, negotiations which aim at restoring doctrinal unity between churches.

 

So true is this; and so important was the Union of 433, that Paul VI, when in 1967 he visited the Phanar to see the ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras, mentioned it in one of his speeches. The whole passage should be quoted:

"In the light of our love for Christ and of our brotherly love, we perceive even more clearly the profound identity of our faith, and the points on which we still differ must not prevent us from seeing this profound unity. And here, too, charity must come to our aid, as it helped Hilary and Athanasius to recognize the sameness of the faith underlying the differences of vocabulary at a time when serious disagreements were creating divisions among Christian Bishops. Did not pastoral love prompt St. Basil, in his defense of the true faith in the Holy Spirit, to refrain from using certain terms which, accurate though they were, could have given rise to scandal in one part of the Christian people? And did not St. Cyril of Alexandria consent in 433 to abandon his beautiful formulation of theology in the interests of making peace with John of Antioch, once he had satisfied himself that in spite of divergent modes of expression, their faith was identical?"

 

The act of Saint Cyril presupposed that it is possible to express the faith in different ways, provided that the essential elements of that faith are ensured.

 

3. Coming to my third example of dialogue, namely the present dialogue in which Christians, and even Christian Churches and Communities are engaged, we find ourselves again in a very different situation from that found in the example taken from the first centuries.

 

In the case of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, two theological approaches met which were so far in contrast with each other that serious danger of schism menaced the Church. At present we find ourselves in a situation where schisms are already many centuries old so that we have grown apart in nearly all fields of Christian life, as for instance, theological thinking, liturgy, canon law, spirituality, etc. We bear the burden of many centuries of history.

 

In his History of the Council of Trent, Jedin states that if that Council had taken place in 1525 instead of 1545, the differences would not have been so profound and, among the people as a whole, those movements would not have arisen which degenerated finally into religious civil war. Harnack expressed a doubt whether the Reformation would have developed if the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification had been made and promulgated at the 5th Lateran Council. (1513-1517).

 

For several centuries now, different Christian Churches and Communities have evolved with little if any contact with each other or in a polemical attitude which has often sharpened division. For all these reasons, repentance, forgiveness, conversion of heart, reconciliation are part: of our dialogue, as well as getting to know each other again. ,We have to discover again theologically and spiritually what unity means in the light of the Gospel, in order not only to manifest it through common witness as far as this is already possible, but also to restore it where it has been lost, or to heal it where it has been wounded. This task belongs to the whole people of God with all the diversity of charisms and ministries given by the H. Spirit through which that people becomes the living Mystical Body of Christ.

 

The task is very different from what it was at the time when opposite theological approaches met and even clashed with each other within a still existing and living unity. Is this task therefore much heavier, or impossible? Human efforts will always remain a duty in the service of Christ and it is only in this way, enlightened by the H. Spirit, that we can undertake them with the certainty that faith and hope can give us.

 

In this light we look to the work of many international and national dialogues. This is not the place to give a detailed analysis of the work already achieved and in part made public in reports or statements. I can only offer a few remarks about the development of these dialogues and the methods followed in them.

 

During the sessions of the II Vatican' Council, a certain kind of dialogue developed between the delegate-observers of the different Churches and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and even between them and the Fathers of the Council. The question then rose quite naturally; how can we continue and develop this dialogue after the Council?

 

In 1965 the Joint Working Group between the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church was created. At the same time many observers at the Vatican Council, and also their Churches, felt that they had their own responsibility in the question of unity between Christians and that they had their own specific problems either historical, or theological, or spiritual, with the R.C. Church. So bilateral dialogue began on the inter‑ national level. In sending delegate-observers from the different Churches, the World Confessional Families had played an important role. In the same way the dialogue with the R.C. Church on the international level was organized with and through the World Con‑ fessional Families. We were surely breaking new ground.

 

The theological dialogue with the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation started with international commissions who had to prepare a programme, indicating the most fundamental issues at stake between the R.C. Church and the other confessions, seen not so much in their historical importance as rather in their bearing upon the present theological discussion and development and the religious life of our Churches today.

 

Let us look briefly at certain aspects of just one of these dialogues. As a result of preparatory studies, the Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission chose three subjects which seemed to be central and to comprise the essential problems existing between the two Churches. These subjects were the Eucharist, ministry and the authority in the Church. The Catholic Lutheran International Commission chose the general theme: The Gospel and the Church. The choice of theme and the order of subjects is surely not without significance for the result of the conversations. Therefore the Anglican-Catholic Commission decided to study first the problem of the Eucharist, since it seemed to be difficult, or even impossible, to discuss the problem of ministry without certainty that we had a common faith in the Eucharist, or without knowing exactly where points of difference would exist. For the same reason it would not be fruitful, or even possible, to discuss the problem of authority in the Church and function of a bishop in the Church.

 

For instance, the Commission did not deal directly with the problem of "Anglican ordinations." They decided to discuss simply the question which is prior to the problem of the validity of an ordination, namely: what is the teaching and the faith of the Church about ministry. Do Catholics and Anglicans have a common faith about ministry in the Church of Christ? The answer to this question, is surely of basic importance for the consideration of the actual situation of the ministry in our Churches, but it does not solve by itself the historical problem which Catholics have about Anglican ordinations. It does, however, put the latter problem in the right theological context.

 

Dialogue between the Roman-Catholic. Church and other Churches has developed during several years and in some cases it has pro­duced documents which have been called "common statements," or "declarations" or "agreements," etc. The problem then rose: What should be the function and scope of these documents? How to handle them? The question of the publication of these documents was seriously discussed, either in the commissions or at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome. Although they were made by an officially appointed Commission, their status is provisional and they have no official authority. The Commissions are charged to study the controversial questions, to find a solu­tion to them, to propose possible action, but they are not invested with magisterium or pastoral authority over the Church.. They have to submit their conclusions to the authorities which have created them.. if the authorities allow publication, as the Commissions requested this does not imply approbation of the content. Publication has another aim, viz, to promote the criticisms of other theologians and competent bodies such as ecumenical commissions, and to bring out in this way the merits and deficiencies of the document. The Commissions themselves recognize that their work represents a provisional stage and are ready to receive reactions in order to improve their texts before asking final assessment and judgment from the official authorities.

 

This wider participation is desirable for another reason. We want to know the reaction of the sensus ecclesiae and the sensus fidei when it says: "Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith which characterizes the People as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when 'from the bishops down to the last member of the laity' it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals" (L.G. 12). The restoration of unity cannot be the work of a few, either theologians or bishops. The history of the Church reminds us of failures coming from methods of that kind.

 

The procedure I have described has already proved to be fruitful: we have received many criticisms, either directly sent to the Commissions and to their authorities,, or published in reviews, books, etc. All this material goes to the commissions and will be carefully studied. After a second round of their work, the commissions may feel that, as far as their own mandate and work is concerned, they are able to submit the final result to the authorities of the Churches for their judgment.

 

This procedure was not adopted without hesitation. There are pastoral difficulties, which have also proved to be real. The publication of a document could be considered as an approval of its content. The status of the Commission Could be wrongly interpreted and the conclusions could be drawn from the document which go far beyond the intention of the authors and exceed the limits of the careful wording of the text. This has happened indeed either where good intentions have not been controlled by sufficient knowledge or where there has been irresponsible enthusiasm. We should not forget that these documents are the first fruits of a serious theological dialogue, which is an important part of the all-embracing ecumenical effort and engagement of the Churches for restoring unity. This ideal was one of the chief concerns of the II Vatican Council, finds expression in the work of the World Council of Churches and in other ecumenical bodies and agencies, and is deeply rooted in the soul of the people of God. Although we deplore misunderstandings and mistaken paths, we should not allow them to discourage us from continuing on the highway. We study and pray that we may persevere in following the right signposts.

 

The history of the ecumenical movement is still very young compared with the history of divisions. We have to learn much more from reflection and experience. I am confident that the work, its methods and the reactions to it will grow in maturity and effectiveness for the benefit of the Church and its unity, in obedience to God and for the glory of His name.

 

A final word on dialogue at the national level.

 

This word is first of all a word of gratitude. As President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity I am grateful for the ecumenical theological dialogue in the United States. My gratitude reaches out to the Catholic Bishops Conference Committee for ecumenical affairs, the parallel bodies in the other connected with it and bear responsibility in it. This dialogue has contributed substantially to a change of mentality, to deeper mutual understand­ing and recognition among Christians, to a genuine love of each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. The significance and influence of this dialogue is not limited to the United States, dialogue in general, all over the world, has benefited by it. This dialogue has not shrunk from difficult and delicate issues, which besides bring historically complicated and theologically difficult, are also psychologically very sensitive and have become symbolic of our differences. I am thinking, for example, of the role of Peter among the Apostles, of the successors of Peter, of primacy and infallibility.

 

This is not the occasion to express evaluation or judgment about the content of the various forms of dialogue which are in progress between the Churches in this country. I would only like to underline one important aspect about them. Even if the local churches have a particular and positive role to play in the dialogue, the Catholic Church holds firmly to the principle of being one in faith and, doctrine, one calling or convocation as the greek word 'Εκκλησία means, which is universal. The local Church is one and the same Church of God which is present and con­voked at Corinth, at Philippi, at Colossae as S. Paul addresses the saints of these Churches. As a consequence of this eccle­siological principle, it seems therefore necessary that at a certain stage of progress in dialogue a contact be established with the Church as a whole, a contact which expresses the organic link existing between all the local Churches within the oneness and catholicity of the Church. It seems that this contact should be established with and through the primatial Church, with "the chair of Peter which presides over the whole assembly of charity" as the II Vatican Council states in agreement with S. Ignatius of Antioch. The proper point of contact would be the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and we must ask ourselves whether we have responded sufficiently to the call of the local Churches, whether we have found the right way to fulfill this important service of faith and charity. In consultation with the local Church and its Committee we are striving to find a satisfactory solution to this question which would reflect the legitimate aspirations and achievements of the local churches while preserving the fundamental unity of all the Churches of God.

 

One final remark. As President of the newly created Pontifical Commission for Judaism, I would like to express my gratitude for the progress in dialogue on the levels of religious reflection and cooperation that has taken place in the United States of America during the last years between Catholic communities and Jewish groups. In such a difficult but important field committed to my concern, besides the liaison-group which assures the dialogue between the Catholic Church and Judaism on world level, North America has played a prominent role, for which I want to express my special satisfaction. It is my sincere hope that this relationship, in which we seek the glory of God, may develop for the benefit of our various communities and ultimately of all mankind.

 

And so we come to the end of this Paul Wattson lecture. May I express my sincere hope that this series may give a real service to the cause of the ecumenical movement and that in some way there may be fulfilled in them and through them the words which God said to Abraham and which strengthened so greatly Father Paul in one of the most difficult and critical periods of his life: "Surely, blessing I will bless thee."

 

* * *