Current Problems in
Ecumenical Theology
Divisions between the Churches prevent them
from giving a
common witness to life, justice, peace, human dignity and
solidarity in a world which urgently needs such a common testimony.
By Walter Kasper
About the Author: Walter Kasper studied Catholic theology and philosophy at the Universities of Tübingen and Munich and was ordained a priest in 1957. After completing doctoral studies at the Faculty of Theology of the Eberhard-Karls-Universität in Tübingen, he worked as an assistant to Professors Leo Scheffczyk and Hans Küng. He went on to teach dogmatic theology at Münster (1964-1970) and Tübingen (1970-1989). From 1983-1984 he was a visiting lecturer at the Catholic University of America. He has served as the Catholic representative on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, and in 1985 was named Special Secretary of the Synod of Bishops in Rome. In 1989 he was consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, and in 2001 was named a cardinal by Pope John Paul II. He became President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. His books include Jesus the Christ (1974), The God of Jesus Christ (1984), Theology and the Church (1989), and The Christian Understanding of Freedom and the History of Freedom in the Modern Era (1988).
In the last decades, ecumenism and the ecumenical movement have become commonplace for most Christians. In a situation where the term globalization characterizes our condition in all its ambiguity, to the majority of people ecumenism seems self-evident. Nonetheless, after the first rather euphoric phase of the ecumenical movement which followed the Second Vatican Council, the last decade has seen us experiencing signs of tiredness, disillusionment and stagnation. Some speak even of a crisis, and many Christians no longer understand the differences on which the Churches are arguing with each other. Others hold that ecumenism is outmoded and that Interreligious dialogue now represents the new agenda. In my opinion, there is a difference but not a competition between the two dialogues, for ultimately to be effective Interreligious dialogue presupposes that Christians can speak one and the same language. Indeed, the necessity of Interreligious dialogue makes ecumenical dialogue even more urgent.
Today, through the new means of communication and travel, people are closer to each other; nations and people are much more interrelated and they are, so to speak, on the same boat for better of for worse. This gives an impulse to the Christian Churches, and they are challenged to reflect upon their divisions and to seek to overcome them. Ecumenism is thus a response to a sign of the times. For the Catholic Church, especially for the present Pope, this is one of the priorities of her pastoral work.1 It is all the more necessary since the divisions between the Churches are becoming increasingly more shameful and scandalous, preventing them from giving a common witness to life, justice, peace, human dignity and solidarity in a world which urgently needs such a common testimony.
All the more do the questions arise: Where are we? Why this crisis? How do we overcome the current problems? What are these problems? In order to understand our situation we must for a brief moment trace the origins of our difficulties.
I. Impulses
The 20th century, which began with a belief in progress which is quite unthinkable today, turned out in the end to be one of the darkest and bloodiest centuries in the history of mankind, with two world wars, many local wars, civil wars and ethnic conflicts, two humanity-despising totalitarian systems, concentration camps and gulags, genocides, expulsions and waves of refugees. Never before had so many people violently lost their lives in one single century. But in that dark century one bright light also shone: the rise of the ecumenical movement. After the centuries during which the “una sancta ecclesia”, the “One Holy Church” confessed by all Western Churches in a common profession of faith, broke increasingly into separate churches, a counter movement set in.All Churches became painfully aware that such a situation contradicted Jesus Christ’s will, and was a sin and a scandal. The separation of the Churches—1500 year ago with the Ancient Oriental Church, 1000 years ago with the Orthodox Churches, and almost 500 years ago with reformed Christianity, with a tendency to still new divisions—has seriously prejudiced the credibility of the Christian message. The divisions have brought much harm to mankind, inducing disunity and estrangement even within families, even to this very day.
Characteristically, the new ecumenical awareness developed in connection with the missionary movement. The birth of the ecumenical movement is generally traced to the 1910 World Missionary Conference of Edinburgh. The division of the Churches was recognized as a serious obstacle to world mission. A second impulse came from the war experiences and the national-socialist terror. In the concentration camps, courageous Christians from different Churches discovered that in their resistance against a new pagan totalitarian terror system they had much more in common than what divided them. Thus, the ecumenical movement emerged fully in the second half of the 20th century. The founding of the World Council of Churches in 1948 in Amsterdam was an important milestone on the ecumenical way. With the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) the Catholic Church, too, joined the ecumenical movement. That decision for the ecumenical commitment—as Pope John Paul II constantly stresses—is irrevocable.2
Much has been achieved over the last decades. Separated Christians no longer consider one another as strangers, competitors or even enemies, but as brothers and sisters. They have largely removed the former lack of understanding, misunderstanding, prejudice, and indifference; they pray together, they give together witness to their common faith; in many fields they work trustfully together. They have experienced that “what unites us is greater than what divides us”.3 Such a change was hardly conceivable only half a century ago; to wish to go back to those times would entail being forsaken not only by all good spirits but also by the Holy Spirit.
II. New Difficulties
Nevertheless, today we find ourselves in a new and changing situation, which many describe as a crisis, a set-back or a standstill. I want to mention only three elements of this changing situation.
1. A first element is the simple distance of 35 years from the Second Vatican Council and its Decree on Ecumenism that declared the restoration of the unity among Christians to be one of its principal concerns.4 There is also a second aspect to the distance in time. For my generation the Second Vatican Council and its decision in favor of the ecumenical movement was a great and to some extent a new experience. In the meantime we have a new generation of Catholic people and young priests who “knew not Joseph”; they were not yet born at the time of the Council, so they do not really understand what, how and why things have changed. They do not understand our theological problems and they are not bothered by them. So the ecumenical questions have lost their fascination.
To some degree the crisis of the ecumenical movement is paradoxically the result of its success. Ecumenism for many became obvious. But the closer we come to one another, the more painful is the perception that we are not yet in full communion. We are hurt by what still separates us and hinders us from joining around the table of the Lord; we are increasingly dissatisfied with the ecumenical status quo; in this atmosphere, ecumenical frustration and sometimes even opposition develops. Paradoxically it is the same ecumenical progress that is also the cause for the ecumenical malaise.
2. A second element in our situation is the new emphasis on identity. The search for openness and dialogue under a more secular aspect can be seen as a part, an aspect or a form of globalization. This tendency in the meantime is challenged by a new search for cultural, national, ethnic, confessional and also personal identity. The new question is: Who are we? Who am I? How can we, how can I avoid being absorbed in a faceless, bigger whole? The identity question is a form of self-affirmation and often an expression of the fear of losing oneself. Thus, ecumenism is often accused of or, better, is misunderstood as abolishing confessional identity and leading to an arbitrary pluralism, to indifference, relativism and syncretism. Ecumenism has often become a negative term.
3. A third and last point: In his Apostolic Letter “Tertio millennio adveniente” (1994) the Pope had expressed the hope that by the year of the Jubilee we would have reached full communion with the Orthodox churches, or at least have come close to it (No. 34). After the Jubilee in “Novo millennio ineunte” he was much more cautious, expressing the view that there is still a long way to go (No. 12; 48). This seems to me to be very realistic. After the overcoming of many misunderstandings we reached now the hard core of our differences. Thus the time for an enthusiastic ecumenism that was characteristic of the period immediately following the Council has gone.
The consequences are sometimes disappointment and even scepticism, often also harsh criticism of the official church (“Amtskirche”), attitudes and acts of protest or of a wild ecumenism that disregards the official rules. This wild ecumenism is counter-productive because, instead of more communion it creates new divisions. I personally prefer to speak of a new realistic approach and of a maturing and adult ecumenism that has gone beyond the enthusiasm of youth but also the loutish behavior of adolescence and has become mature and realistic. This means that we have to envisage a longer period during which we will continue living in the present situation of an already existing and profound communion, but which is still not a full communion. So now the question arises of how to give life and structure to our situation that will probably last longer than we thought before. How can we live, and how can we shape this intermediate situation?
III. Foundations
The first and most important point is to reflect anew about the foundations of our ecumenical endeavor. This is important also because some new documents, first of all the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, “Dominus Jesus”5, have given rise to doubts about the ecumenical commitment of the Catholic Church. Many people were disappointed, wounded and hurt by the tone and style of the document. Yet, the resulting irritations are no reason for resignation. References to still existing and undeniable differences do not mean the end of dialogue, on the contrary, they do represent a challenge to dialogue. In any case, that document does not represent any substantial change in the attitude of the Catholic Church; correctly interpreted it remains basically on the line of the II. Vatican Council.
Because of the many misunderstandings this text aroused, I would like before entering into the present and the future of ecumenism to make a few—necessarily fragmentary—observations on the theological foundations of ecumenism, as outlined in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council “Unitatis redintegratio” and in the ecumenical encyclical “Ut unum sint” (1995). From the Catholic perspective, these two documents represent the Magna Carta of the ecumenical commitment.
The decisive element of the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical approach is the fact that the Council no longer identifies the Church of Jesus Christ simply with the Roman Catholic Church, as had Pope Pius XII as lately as in the Encyclical “Mystici corporis” (1943). The Council replaced “est” (the Catholic Church “is” Jesus Christ’s Church) with “subsisti”: the Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which means that the Church of Jesus Christ is made concretely present and can be met.6 This does not exclude that also outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church there are not only individual Christians but also elements of the church, and with them an “ecclesial reality”. “It is not that beyond the boundaries of the Catholic community there is an ecclesial vacuum”.7
All this shows that the divisions did not reach down to the roots, nor do they reach up to heaven. The Council distinguishes full communion from imperfect communion.8 The aim of ecumenical work is the full communion and the fullness of unity.
The Council speaks of “elementa ecclesiae” outside the Catholic Church, which, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.9 The concept “elementa” or “vestigia” comes from Calvin.10 Obviously, the Council—unlike Calvin—understands the elementa not as sad remains but as dynamic reality, and it says expressly that the Spirit of God uses these elementa as means of salvation for non-Catholic Christians.11 Consequently, there is no idea of an arrogant claim to a monopoly on salvation. On the contrary, both the Council and the ecumenical Encyclical acknowledge explicitly that the Holy Spirit is at work in the other Churches in which they even discover examples of holiness up to martyrdom.12
Similar declarations are made by the non-Catholic Churches. The Orthodox Churches claim even more “harshly” to be the Church of Jesus Christ.13 The confessional texts of the Reformation also affirm that the true Church is present in them; they deliberately and critically made a point of striking themselves off from the then “Pope’s Church”, and the Reformed Churches continue to do so still today. No Church can speak of several duplicates or branches of the one Church of Jesus Christ all having equal rights, without renouncing the claim of being truthful. Every Church that takes itself seriously, must start from the fact that—for all human weaknesses—the true Church of Jesus Christ is present in it. The Catholic Church takes the other Churches seriously precisely in that she does not even out the differences nor does she consider these differences as being of “equal value”, but she respects the other Churches in the otherness which they claim for themselves. In that sense she speaks with them “par cum pari”, on a parity level, “on an equal footing”.14
Ecumenism is quite different from an easy irenism, relativism or indifferentism, which forgets and disregards the question of truth. True ecumenism takes serious the claim of truth of its proper Church as it respects the claim of truth other churches or church communities raise. Only Christians or church communities which have and preserve their own identity can enter in dialogue. But the personal identity as the identity of a people of the Church as well is not an isolated monad and is in itself a closed, arrogant, self-satisfied and self-sufficient reality. As every person so every culture, every nation and every church has its own identity only in relation and communication with its neighbor persons and with other cultures, nations and church communities. Identity is a dialogical reality, and ecumenical dialogue is therefore dialogue in truth and in love. Therefore, ecumenism is no one-way street, but a reciprocal learning process, or—as stated in the ecumenical Encyclical “Ut unum sint”—an exchange of gifts.15
The Catholic Church too is wounded by the divisions of Christianity. Her wounds include the impossibility of concretely realizing fully her own Catholicity in the situation of division.16 Several aspects of being Church are better realized in the other Churches. So we can learn from each other in order to grow in the one truth of Jesus Christ, to comprehend and to realize more and more the richness he revealed us. Thus, since the Councils we Catholics learned a lot from our Protestant brothers and sisters about the importance of the word of God and its proclamation, and who knows only a little on orthodox icons gets aware what spiritual richness we can draw from them. The oikoumene is a spiritual process, in which the question is not about a way backwards but about a way forwards by mutual exchange.17
Therefore, ecumenism is not a question of Church political debates and compromises, it is not at all an impoverishment, but a reciprocal spiritual exchange and a mutual enrichment.
Besides, The Council is aware of the sinfulness of the members of its own Church, and of sinful structures existing in the Church itself;18 and it knows about the need of reforming the shape of the Church. The Constitution on the Church and the Decree on Ecumenism state expressly that the Church is a pilgrim Church, and ecclesia “semper purificanda”, which must constantly take the way of penance and renewal.19 Thus, the ecumenical dialogue fulfils the task of an examination of conscience.20 Ecumenism is not possible without conversion and renewal.21
The ecumenical aim is therefore not a simple return of the others into the fold of the Catholic Church, nor the conversion of individuals to the Catholic Church (even if this must obviously be mutually acknowledged when it is based on reasons of conscience).22 In the ecumenical movement the question is the conversion of all to Jesus Christ. As we move nearer to Jesus Christ, in him we move nearer to one another.
Such unity is ultimately a gift of God’s Spirit and of his guidance. Therefore, the oikoumene is neither a mere academic nor only a diplomatic matter; its soul is spiritual ecumenism.23 Only by a renewal of the spiritual ecumenism, by common prayer, and common listening to the Word of God in the Bible can we hope to overcome the present ecumenical impasses and difficulties.
IV. Ecumenism With The Oriental Churches
In what follows I shall proceed from the fundamental declarations to the concrete ecumenical situation. In doing so I shall not limit myself to Protestant-Catholic relations. In the oikoumene we must overcome a unilateral “Western-oriented” ecumenical theology and include the Oriental Churches, especially because the Diaspora of these Churches has meant that they have their home also in the Western world.
The Oriental Churches include not only the Orthodox Churches, but also the Ancient Oriental Churches which separated from the then imperial Church as early as the 4th and 5th centuries, or had never even belonged to it (Eastern and Western Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian and Thomas Christians). To us Westerners they make an archaic impression; but they are lively Churches, deeply rooted in the life and culture of their respective peoples. By joining the ecumenical movement they were able to overcome their secular isolation and resume their place within the whole of Christianity.
The reasons underlying their separation, besides political motives, lay in the dispute about the Christological formula of the Council of Chalcedon (451): Jesus Christ true God and true man in one person, that is one person in two natures. In the meantime, after intensive preparatory work involving historical research on dogmas24 and discussion mediated by the “Pro Oriente” Foundation in Vienna,25 these controversies have been settled through the bilateral declarations of the Pope and the respective Patriarchs.26 It was recognized that when speaking of one person and two natures, the starting point was a different philosophical conception, but with the same meaning as far as the matter itself is concerned. This understanding has enabled maintaining the common faith in Jesus Christ as true God and true man, without imposing on the other one’s own respective formula; thus, the formulations of the Council of Chalcedon were not forced upon the Ancient Oriental Churches. The ultimate outcome has been unity in the diversity of ways of expression.
In the coming months, after an interval, we shall undertake a second phase of dialogue, this time with all the Ancient Oriental Churches together. We hope that concrete steps can successively be taken and that perspectives of a hopefully possible full communion can be developed in the future.
No such official agreement has yet been reached with the Orthodox Churches of Byzantine and Slavic tradition. However, at the end of the Council the excommunication of 1054, the symbolic date of the separation between East and West, was cancelled “from the conscience of the Church”. Of course, the year 1054 is rather a symbolic date. The actual breach occurred only with the conquest, looting and destruction of Constantinople in 1204 in connection with the 4th crusade. But that had long antecedents. East and West had received differently the message of the Gospel and they had developed different traditions,27 moreover, different forms of cultures and mentalities developed in the Eastern and in the Western spheres. Yet despite these differences, during the first Millennium all were living in the one Church. But already in the first Millennium, East and West grew increasingly apart, understanding each other less and less. This estrangement was the actual reason of the separation.28
So we see even today in every meeting with the Orthodox churches that while we are very close to one another in the faith, we have difficulties in understanding each other culturally and mentally. In the East, we encounter a highly developed culture, but one with neither the Western separation between Church and State nor the modern Enlightenment in its background, and one perhaps marked most of all by 50 or so years of Communist oppression. After the changes closing the last century, these churches are now free for the first time—free from the Byzantine emperors, free from the Ottomans, free from the Tsars and free from the totalitarian Communist system; they see themselves facing an entirely transformed world, in which they must first find their way. This takes time and requires patience.
The three documents produced by the “Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission for the Theological Dialogue” between 1980 and 1990 show a deep community in the understanding of faith, church and sacraments.29 The positive results of the North-American dialogues have also been a valid contribution. Along this line, important elements of the ancient church communion with both the Orthodox and the Ancient Oriental Sister Churches could be renewed: reciprocal visits and regular correspondence between the Pope and the Patriarchs, frequent contacts at the local church level and—importantly for the strongly monastic Oriental Churches—at the level of the monasteries. Our estrangement has persisted over so many centuries, and a long process will be needed to live together again.
The only seriously debated theological issue30 between us and the Orthodox Church, besides the “Filioque” clause in the Creed, which is still a motive of separation for most Orthodox, is the question of Roman primacy. As Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have often said, this issue is for non-Catholic Christians the most serious stumbling block.31 In this perspective, John Paul II in his ecumenical Encyclical “Ut unum sint” (1995) extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on the future exercise of the primacy.32 A quite revolutionary step for a Pope! The resonance was great; yet, unlike most Churches of the Reformed tradition, the Oriental Churches have unfortunately hardly taken up this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has collected and analyzed the reactions to this initiative and has sent this data to all the churches and ecclesial groupings involved. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of the dialogue. The outcome of the first phase—as to be expected—was by far not yet a consensus; but there seems to be a new atmosphere, a new interest and a new openness.
Unfortunately, after the 1989/90 political changes in Middle and Eastern Europe, relations with the Orthodox churches have become more difficult. In Ukraine and Romania the Oriental churches in union with Rome, which had been violently oppressed and persecuted by Stalin, have come out of the catacombs and returned to public life. Old hostilities in turn re-emerged, and have since then made the dialogue more difficult, especially with the major Orthodox church, the Russian-Orthodox Church. At the last plenary meeting of the “Joint International Commission” in Baltimore, 2001, we could unfortunately make no progress. It has become clear that the issue regarding the Oriental Churches in union with Rome cannot be discussed without taking up the main cause of separation and of union, namely the question of communion with Rome.
That question cannot be considered in isolation; it concerns the relationship between primacy and synodical structure (we would say: collegiality).33 Joseph Ratzinger—at the time in his academic role—laid the basis for that discussion in his well-known address in 1976 in Graz, by stating “that what was possible during a whole Millennium can not be impossible today”. “On the doctrine of the primacy, Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first Millennium”.34 Known as the “Ratzinger Formula”, this idea has become fundamental for the discussion; it has also been touched upon in the Encyclical “Ut unum sint”.35 We hope to have soon the possibility to take up the issue during a symposium.
The solution of this problem is not an easy one. It is not only a question of abstract theological arguments, but of long standing different traditions, of painful experiences in the past and of strong emotions. But according to Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, the papacy, which is the visible sign and principle of unity, has become for most non Catholic Christians the stumbling bloc of unity.36 Ultimately, more time is needed to solve this problem. But in the interim, provisional solutions are possible. On the occasion of a recent visit to Rome of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Theoktist, the Holy Father asked that there be reflection on the creation of a stable means and structures to share mutual information and consultation. At the present time, even though papal juridical power is not recognized in the eastern churches, the pope is recognized as the first of the bishops whose primacy in houour and in love, as Ignatius of Antioch expressed it,37 implies a high degree of moral and spiritual authority.
V. Oikoumene With The Churches of the Reformed Tradition
It was necessary to go into more depth in relation to the ecumenical discussion with the Oriental Churches, for I am convinced that such a discussion is essential also in order to overcome the divisions within Western Christianity. Upon its separation from the East, Latin Christianity has developed unilaterally; it has, so to speak, breathed with one lung only and is impoverished. This impoverishment was one cause, among others, of the serious crisis in the Church in the late Middle Ages, which led to the tragic division of the 16th century. My following remarks will limit themselves to the dialogue with the Lutherans which, together with the dialogue with the Anglican Communion, is the most developed one.
In the meantime much has been accomplished in many bilateral and multilateral dialogues at the international, regional and local level.38 Based on considerable preparatory work,39 the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” was solemnly signed in 1999.40 This—as the Pope rightly expressed it—was a milestone, that is an important step but not yet the end of the journey. The result allows us to give common witness to the essence of the Gospel, what is highly important in our present day world of a growing secularism and loss of meaning of life. In a world of so many and growing conflicts Christians must be able to give common witness for peace and reconciliation, which belongs to the center of the Christian message.
Of course, there are a number of further yet unresolved issues. However, the Churches do not have to agree point by point on all theological issues. If there is substantial agreement, differences are not necessarily church divisive. A differentiated agreement, a reconciled diversity, or whatever we name it, is sufficient.41
The actual “inner core” which remains and was hidden in a footnote of the “Joint Declaration”,42 is the question of the Church and its inherent question of the ministry. It is now on the agenda. In the process of the Reformation—with or without the intention of the Reformers—not only any other church but a new type of church, a church with a different selfunderstanding of her very nature has in fact come into being.43
In the reformatory sense, the Church is “creatura verbi”;44 she is understood primarily through the proclamation of the Word and the answer in the faith; she is the assembly of the believers, in which the Gospel is preached in its purity and the sacraments are administered according to the Gospel.45 Hence, the center of gravity is no longer in the Church—a blind and vague word, according to Luther46—but in the community as the “central reference point of the basic reformatory insights and mental structures”.47 For that reason the constitution of the Churches of the Reformed tradition is not episcopal but community-synodical and presbyterial; theologically, the episcopate is a pastorate with the function of church leadership,48 a comprehension which is even more strongly marked in the Reformed Churches than in the Lutheran Churches.49
However, in the two last decades there has been some shift. The Lima documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (1982), in which the apostolic succession in the episcopate is considered “as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church”,50 play an important role. Meanwhile, in the dialogue with the Anglican Churches, which hold ecumenically an important intermediary position,51 the Scandinavian and the US-American Lutheran Churches have taken up the issue of the historical episcopate.52 The continental European Lutheran Churches of the Leuenberg Community have a different stand; they understand both, the Episcopal and synodical-presbyterial order as legitimate plurality.53
There is still need for clarification on ecclesiological issues, especially on the ordained ministry, both ecumenically and within the Protestant world itself. We receive currently different signals from our partners, and it is not easy for us at this time to distinguish in what direction they are moving in ecclesiological terms. The Joint International Dialogue Commission is now working on these issues. The “Faith and Order” Commission has also initiated a consultation process on “The Nature and the Purpose of the Church”54 which—we hope—will constructively build further on the Lima documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (1982).
Thus, in the dialogue with the Churches of the Reformed tradition, after the clarification on the Doctrine of Justification, the issues still pending are pre-eminently those dealing with ecclesiology. Before we can reach full unity of the churches or full communion between the churches we must agree on what church is all about. We must agree on what is her nature and her essential structure. At this time we still do not agree on the very purpose of our ecumenical engagement. Together we say and we agree: The aim is visible unity. But we do not agree on how to answer these questions: What are the essential and binding elements and requirements for this visible unity and for full communion, and where is legitimate plurality possible and/or desirable? In both the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, these issues represent the key to moving forward on the question of Eucharistic communion. Eucharistic communion for all churches stemming from the first Millennium is intimately linked with church communion.
VI. The Renewal of Spiritual Ecumenism
For the Catholic Church there are three constitutive elements for full communion: Communion in the same faith, communion in the same sacraments, communion in the apostolic ministry. As we have seen in this discussion, although there are still other problems, the question of ministry is the main problem. For the Orthodox Churches, the problem is the Petrine ministry. For Protestant theology the problem also includes the Episcopal ministry. Mainstream Protestant theology tends to affirm that it is enough (the famous “satis est”) to agree on the proclamation of the Gospel and on the right administration of the sacraments for church unity.55 But the concrete shape and structures of Church ministry, whether it be Episcopal, presbyterial or synodal, according to the New Testament witness, remains open and can be realized in different forms. For them, historical Episcopacy in apostolic succession belongs at best to the bene esse (well being) of the Church and can be accepted for the peace and the unity of the Church, but it is not constitutive for the esse, the very essence of the Church.
Catholics may answer, that we possess the Canon of the New Testament only in and through the Church with an Episcopal structure. The final decision about the Canon and the final consolidation of Episcopal ministry occurred together. Neither can be separated from the other. Indeed, the Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) of the Reformers often ended, as the history of Protestant theology shows, with criticism and often with the dissolution of the Canon. The problem of the Canon is the weak spot and the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism. Thus, the problem of Church ministry at this time seems to be the dead end of the ecumenical dialogue with the Protestant Churches.
The following objection is often made: it cannot be that just because of the question of church ministry—priesthood, episcopate, Petrine ministry—we should live in separate churches and not participate together in the Lord’s Table. And yet it is so! Theologians of the Orthodox Churches and of the Reformed tradition point out that on the issue of ministry a deeper difference is becoming clear. We shall progress in the ecumenical dialogue only if we succeed in defining more precisely that deeper difference, not in order to cement the diversity but to be able to overcome it in a better way.
For authoritative Orthodox theologians, especially those of the neo-Palamitic School, the basic difference involves the argument about the “Filioque”, the Latin addition to the common Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of the Old Church saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).56 At first, this seems a somewhat odd thesis. Although it is at least comprehensible, the view of many Orthodox theologians is that the “Filioque” has concrete consequences for the understanding of the Church. For them, it seems to link the efficiency of the Holy Spirit fully to the person and work of Jesus Christ, leaving no room for the freedom of the Spirit, who blows wherever it pleases (Jn 3:8). According to that reading of the “Filioque”, the Holy spirit is, so to speak, entirely chained to the institutions established by Christ. For these theologians, this perceived tendency represents the roots of the Catholic submission of charisma to the institution, of individual freedom to the authority of the Church, of the prophetic to the juridical, of the mysticism to the scholasticism, of the common priesthood to the hierarchical priesthood, and finally of the Episcopal collegiality to the Roman primacy.
We find similar arguments based on other premises on the Protestant side. The Reformatory Churches are no doubt in the Latin tradition and they generally keep the “Filioque”; against the rebels they affirm with energy that the Spirit is Jesus Christ’s Spirit and is tied to Word and Sacrament. But for them, too, it is a question of the sovereignty of God’s Word in and above the Church, and with it of the Christian human being’s free will, as against a—real or supposed—unilateral juridical-institutional view of the Church.57
This means that the question of pneumatology or the question on how to relate christology and pneumatology becomes central for the definition of the nature of the church and for freedom and legitimate pluralism within the church. For “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17).
It is not possible to deal in this context with the whole problem of pneumatology. It is even less possible to deal with the complicated and thorny historical and speculative problem of the “Filioque”.58 For most Catholic theologians, and in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church this problem is more or less solved. They don’t see the Filioque as contradictory, but as complementary to the orthodox view of a problem, which ultimately remains an unfathomable mystery.59 Nevertheless, the reference to the Filioque-question gives us a hint where the deeper problem is to be found: In a renewal of pneumatology and in a renewal of spiritual ecumenism.
Through their common baptism all Christians are by the one Spirit, members in the one Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). And so they are in a deep and real, but still imperfect communion. Growth in full communion is not an achievement of ours, but a gift of the Spirit. Thus, in the beginning, the ecumenical movement was driven by a spiritual movement, by spiritual ecumenism which is the power behind the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity started by the Abbé Couturier. For good reasons the Second Vatican Council in its Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio” saw in the ecumenical movement an impulse and work of the Holy Spirit. And for good reasons the Council and the present Pope are calling this spiritual ecumenism the heart of the ecumenical movement. This calls for prayer, especially common ecumenical prayer for the unity of the Christians, for personal conversion and individual renewal, for repentance and the striving for personal sanctification.60
In some way, such a “programme” corresponds to the present state of ecumenical discussions. The Oriental Churches are basically skeptical about the conceptual theology which has developed in the West since medieval scholasticism, and particularly in modern times. For them, the doxological and apophatic theology and its underlying liturgical and mystical experience are the most important aspects.
In the discussions with the Churches of the Reformation we have touched upon the existential dimension of their theology in the doctrine of justification. But the churches of the Reformation are not as much concerned with a doctrine of justification as they are with the existential significance of the message of justification. The difficulty which many Christians have with the doctrine of justification and the fundamental consensus reached about it is that they can no longer experience and comprehend the profound shock of Luther’s existential experience of the burden of sin. They are not burdened with the threat of God’s judgement and the liberation of the message of justification. Therefore the doctrine of justification remains meaningless for them, and the disputes around it are pure theological bickering unless the problem can be rendered accessible again through an existential experience.
Finally, the special emphasis of spiritual ecumenism corresponds to our present intellectual situation which is influenced by post-modern relativism and skepticism, in which there is an often rather vague residual longing for a spiritual experience. In this missionary situation therefore we will only be able to make progress if we return to the spiritual roots of ecumenism and search for a renewed ecumenical spirituality. We can say that it is not more ecumenical activism which is needed, but more ecumenical spirituality.
This does not signify a retreat into a vague mysticism, or a refusal and an undervaluation of intellectual accountability in theology. On the contrary, as rational concepts are void and empty without concrete experience, and experience without rational clarification remains blind, the renewal of spirituality and spiritual experience can pave the way for a new and fresh start of theological reflection on issues where the dialogue seems to be blocked. In order to move the process again, an impetus and a new drive are needed. They must be stronger than academic conversations by their nature can be. In our critical situation we have to return to the original and basic impetus of the ecumenical movement and to the pneumatological setting of the article on the Church.
VII. The Charismatic Dimension of the Church
In many places, the Second Vatican Council has made a remarkable effort to set forth the pneumatological and charismatic dimension of the Church.61 We can speak of the revival of the charismatic dimension of the Church. This does not deny or obscure the hierarchical dimension, but brings it in a larger context and puts it on a higher horizon, making it more understandable and easier to accept. The emphasis on the charismatic dimension has reshaped the face of the Catholic Church since the Council, and represents so to speak, an ecumenism ad intra which then facilitates the ecumenism ad extra.
In Lumin Gentium 7 the Council refers to 1 Cor. 12, 1-11, and says the following: “it is the one Spirit that dispenses its diverse gifts for the benefit of the Church according to its wealth and the requirements of the services . . . The same Spirit unites the body through itself and through its strength as well as through the inner linking of the members; it brings forth the love of the faithful and drives it forward. Consequently, if one member suffers, all members suffer with it, and if one member be honourned, all the members rejoice with it (cf. 1 Cor. 12, 26).”
The Council makes it clear in different ways that the unity endowed by the Spirit is not a uniform monotony but, rather, a unity of great diversity. Catholicity implies an “abundance of unity” in the variety of peoples and cultures, offices, service and positions, as well as in the many local churches.62 The theology of the local churches, in particular, was revived once again by the Council.63
The Council is serious about this charismatic structure of the Church and does not speak only of the effect of the Spirit through the Bishops,64 particularly through the teaching authority of the Church65 but rather also of the sense of faith of all believers66 of the introduction of the Spirit into the truth throughout the entire life of the Church.67 There should, therefore, not be any one-sided top-down relationship between bishops and priests68 or between laypeople, priests and bishops.69 Rather, there should be a mutual relationship built on brotherhood and friendship.70
A practical consequence of this is the charismatic movement, through which the Pentecostal movement found its way into the Catholic Church. This movement is characterized by expressions of informal spontaneity, emotionality, and individuality in relation to experience. Admittedly, this sometimes leads to subjectivism, which comes into conflict with the objective nature of the liturgy. The charismatic movement within the Catholic Church has facilitated dialogue with the Pentecostal movements outside the Catholic Church. But in contrast to the Pentecostals, the Catholic charismatic movement remains within the sacramental and institutional structure of the Church; it therefore has the possibility of having a stimulating effect in the Church herself.71
The accentuation of the charismatic dimension of the Church goes far beyond the circle of the charismatic movement itself. Worthy of particular mention in this context are the spiritual movements, which are characteristic of post-Council Catholicism, and constitute a hope for the universal Church. Finally, indispensable to this is the most important aspect of the charismatic dimension, the dimension of sanctity and sanctification, to which not only the chosen few belong, but to which all Christians are called upon.72
If we want to summarize the character of the renewed charismatic perspective, it can be said that the rediscovery of the charismatic dimension has by no means led to any denial of the special charisma bestowed upon the ecclesiastical office in a sacramental manner (1 Tim., 4, 14). On the contrary, as the Church is no longer seen as being officially structured in the form of a one-sided pyramid-type hierarchy, but is seen more in a collegial manner as an “interaction” of all charismata, the ecclesiastical office also secures the place and mission peculiar to it. This mission cannot be taken away from it or be disputed by the other charismata. Conversely, however, the ecclesiastical office must also listen to the other charismata, pay heed to them and grant them the freedom of space due to them. The Catholic Church sees herself as a whole in which each person has his own charisma (1 Cor. 7:7). Consequently, no member can be everything. This is what is meant in the final analysis by the ecclesiology of the people of God lead by the Holy Spirit and nourished by God’s Word and Sacrament.
VIII. Towards a Spiritual Communio-Ecclesiology
The reflections on the charismatic dimension of the Church lead us to the central concept of recent ecumenical theology: the concept of communion. Though all dialogues of the last 35 years have never been held according to a pre-conceived plan, they converge in the fact that they revolve around communio as their key concept. All dialogues define the visible unity of all Christians as communio-unity. This convergence in the concept of communio corresponds to the vision of the Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 1985 stated that the communio-ecclesiology is the “central and basic idea of the Council documents.”
The most profound justification for a communio-ecclesiology is based on the eternal Trinitarian communion (communio) of the Father, Son and Holy spirit. What is originally meant by the communio sanctorum of the Apostles’ Creed is joint participation (participatio) in the sacred (sancta).73 This coincides with that which Paul speaks of in 2 Cor. 13:13. Thus, the Church is shaped in the image and likeness of the Trinity.94
The doctrine of the Trinity is, in essence, the development of the statement from the first letter of St. John: “God is love” (1 John 4, 8:16). God is, in Himself, the pure relationship of love; above all, the Holy Spirit is love in person. A relational ontology follows from this, which is fundamental for a renewed communio-ecclesiology. It can understand being only as being in relations, as a mutual giving of space and as the mutual enabling of the relations. The Trinitarian mystery is a mystery of communion in love, where each person gives room and freedom to the other and at the same time penetrates it in a mutual perichoretic way. They are one and distinct at the same time.95 In an analogous way the Church as icon of the Trinitarian mystery combines unity with diversity.
Here we have the deepest foundation of the ecclesiology of communion. Rather than bring up only structural questions, a communio-ecclesiology therefore—first of all and to a much greater extent—raises spiritual questions. Communio-ecclesiology calls out for communio-spirituality. Pope John Paul II gave a marvelous description of this spirituality of the communio in the Apostolic Letter entitled “Tertio millennio ineunte” (2001). He pointed out at the same time, however, that a communio-spirituality does not move in an unworldly way in a vacuum, so to speak, rather it has consequences for the understanding and practice of collegiality at all levels of Church life, and also for the exercising of the Papal service (43 f).
Johann Adam Möhler captured the sense of this issue splendidly in the following words: “Two extremes in Church life are possible, however, and they are both called egotism; they are: when each person or one person wants to be everything; in the latter case, the bond of unity becomes so tight and love so hot that asphyxia cannot be averted; in the former case, everything falls apart to such an extent and it becomes so cold that you freeze; the one type of egoism generates the other; but there is no need for one person or each person to want to be everything; only everyone together can be everything and the unity of all only a whole. This is the idea of the Catholic Church.”76
An ecclesiology devised under the influence of pneumatology according to the archetype of the Trinity leads us right to the heart of the large number of concrete issues affecting not only the Catholic Church but all churches. It tells us that these questions cannot be resolved through structural debates alone; rather they require a renewed ecumenical spirituality. In the same way as a theology of the Holy Spirit is only possible “in the Spirit”, i.e. only spiritually, ecumenical theology and an ecumenical movement are, in the end, a spiritual task that can only be resolved in the Holy Spirit. Only the spiritual person grasps what the Spirit is (cf. 1 Cor. 2, 10-15). Spiritual ecumenism must be renewed; it alone is able to lad us out of the bottleneck in which we find ourselves.
Quanta est nobis via? How long we will have still to wait? I am no prophet, I do not know. But I am convinced that one day the gift of unity will take us by surprise just like an event we witnessed on a day already more than ten years ago now. If you had asked passers-by in West Berlin on the morning of 9 November 1989, “How much longer do you think the wall will remain standing?”, the majority would surely have replied, “We would be happy if our grandchildren pass through the Brandenburg Gate one day.” On the evening of that memorable day the world witnessed something totally unexpected in Berlin. It is my firm conviction that one day too we will rub our eyes in amazement that God’s Spirit has broken through the seemingly insurmountable walls that divide us and given us new ways through to each other and to a new full communion.
Notes
1. Unitatis redintegratio (UR) 1; Ut unum sint (UUS) 99.
2. UUS 3; Osservatore Romano 18/19th September 2000.
3. UUS 3, To the “Fruits of Dialogue”: UUS 41-49.
4. UR 1.
5. Cf. The “Declaration Dominus Jesus. On the Uniqueness and the Saving Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”, August 6, 2000.
6. Lumen gentium (LG) 8. The exact interpretation of “subsistit” is still a desiderata. Df. A. Grillmeier’s comments in: LthK Vat. II, vol. 1p. 174s; 200-205, and G. Philips’ L’Église et son mystère au Deuxième Concile du Vatican, Paris 1976, 119. Important are the different interpretations given by Cardinal J. Willebrands, “Subsistit in”, Vatican’s Ecclesiology of Communion *1987), in: Information Service 1999/II-III, 143-149, and by Cardinal J. Ratzinger, L’ecclesiologia della Costituzione “Lumen gentium”, in: Il Concilio Vaticano II. Ricezione e attualità alla luce del Giubileo. Ed. R. Risichella, Milano 2000, 78-80. My interpretation: cf. Art. Kirche III, in: LthK vol. 5 (1996) 1469. On the recent discussion, which goes often beyond the Council’s declaration, P. Lüning. The ecclesiological problem of the “subsistit in” (LG 8) in today’s ecumenical conversations, in: Catholica (1998) 1-23. The interpretation of the subsistit” by “Dominus Jesus” should be expressly explored. Cf. To that L. Boff, Was wollte das Konzil?, in: Orientierung 64 (2000) 262-264 (with an extensive literary survey); considerably more balanced M. Kehl, Die eine Kirche und die vielen Kirchen, in StdZ 219 (2001) 3-16.
7. UUS 13.
8. UR 3; UUS 11. When “Dominus Jesus”, 16, says that only in the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ fully realized, what is meant can’t be only the sacramental-institutional dimension of the Church. So understood, such a declaration implies that in other Churches and Church communities the Church of Christ is realized under the sacramental-institutional aspect, not fully but imperfectly.
9. LG 8; UR3.
10. Johannes Calvin, Untgerricht in der christlichen religion. Istitutio christianae religionis (1539). IV, 2, 11s. Translated and developed by Weber. Neukirchen 1955, 1955, 712s.
11. LG 15; UR 3; UUS 48; “Dominus Jesus” 17.
12. UR 4; UUS 12; 15.
13. J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church. New York 1981, 225: “As opposed to Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Church claims to be the true Church of Christ from which Western Christians have separated. Its claims are as exclusive and categorical as those of Rome”. Cf. D. Staniloae, Orthodox Dogmatik, vol. 2. Zurich-Gütersloh 1990, 223s.
14. UR 9.
15. UUS 28.
16. UR 4; “Dominus Jesus” 17.
17. So J. Ratzinger, Gott und die Welt. Glauben und leben in unserer Zeit. Stuttgart-Munich 2000, 3-88s.
18. UUS 34.
19. LG 8; UR 4; 6-8; UUS 15-17.
20. UUS 34.
21. UR 4; UUS 15s; 34s; 82-85.
22. UR 4.
23. UR 7s; UUS 21.
24. Important works by A. Grillmeier, A. De Halleux, L. Abramowski, etc.
25. Cf. Wort und Wahrheit, Ed./vol. 1/5, 1974/1989; Chalzedon
und die Folgen (FS Bischof Mesrob Kikorian: Pro Oriente, vol. 14),
Innsbruck/Vienna 1992. To that: D. Wendebourg, Die eine Christenheit
auf Erden. Tübingen 2000, 116/146.
26. Cf. Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Published by
H. Meyer, H. J. Urban, L. Visher. Vol. 1. Paderborn-Frankfurt a.. 1983. 529-531;
533s; 541s (with the Copts); vol. 2 (1992) 571s (with the Syrians); 575 (with
the Copts); 578s (with the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church); Growth
in Agreement. Ed. J. Gros, H. Meyer, W. Rush. Vol. 2, Geneva 2000, 707-708
(with the Armenian-apostolic Church); 711-712 (with the Assyrian Church of
the East).
27. UR 14; 16.
28. Cf. Y. Congar, Zerrissene Christenheit. Wo trennten sich ost und West? Freiburg i.Br. 1959.
29. To the international dialogue: Documents on increasing agreement, vol. 2, 531-541; 542-553; 556-567; the Balamand document, in: Growth in Agreement, a.a.O. 680-685. Bilateral Dialogue: Orthodoxy in Dialogue. Ed. By Brewer-J. Oeldemann-D. Stoltmann. Trier 1999. Important North-American Dialogue: The Quest for Unity, Ed. J. Borelli and J. H. Erickson, Crestwood-Washington, 1996.
30. To the issue on the question of the “Filioque” cf. Erklärung des Päpstlichen Einheitsrates, Les traditions grecque et latine concernant la procession du Saint-Esprit, Vatican City 1996.
31. Paul VI, Address to the World Council of Churches in Geneva (12 June 1984( in: Insegnamenti VII, 1 (1984), 186; John Paul II, Address to the Plenary of the PCPCU, in: Information Service, No. 98 (1998) 118ss; UUS 88.
32. UUS 95.
33. On this matter, the Orthodox refer always to Cannon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, in: Les Constitutions apostoliques, vol. 3, Book 8, 47 (Sources Chrétiennes, 336), Paris 1987, 274s.
34. Reprinted unchanged in: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Theologische Prinzipenlehre. Steine zur Fundamentaltheologie, Munich 1982, 209. Later, J. Ratzinger has not withdrawn his position, but has defined it against any misunderstanding by clarifying that one should not deduct from it the return to the first millennium and therefore a return oikoumeme. Cf. J. Ratziner, Kirche, Ökumene, politik, Einsiedeln 1987, 76s; 81s.
35. UUS 61.
36. UUS 88.
37. Letter to the Romans, praescr.
38. We shall mention only the international documents: With the Lutherans: The Gospel and the Church (“Malta Report”) (1972); The Eucharist (1978); Ways to Community (1980); All Under One Christ (1980); The Ministry in the Church (1981); Martin Luther—Witness to Jesus Christ (1983); Facing Unity (1984); Church and Justification (1994). With the Reformed: The Presence of Christ in Church and World (1977). Multilateral dialogues: Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, Convergence Declarations of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches (1982); Confessing One Faith Together, An Ecumenical Interpretation of the Apostolic Credo as Known in the Profession of Faith of Nicea-Constantiople (381).
39. Cf. Especially: Justification by Faith, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, Minneapolis 1985; Lehrverurteilungen–Kirchentrennend? Ed. By K. Lehmann and W. Pannenberg, Freiburg i.Br.-Göttingen 1986.
40. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Official statement and Annex. Frankfurt a.M.-Paderborn 1999.
41. Cf. H. Meyer, Einheit in versöhnter Verschiedenheit”, in: the same, Versöhnte Verschiedenheit. Aufsätzezur ökumsenische Theologie, vol. 1, Frankfurt a.M.-Paderborn 1998, 101-119; K. Lehmann, Was für ein Konsens wurde erreicht? In: StdZ 124 (1999) 740-745; Einheit—aber wie? Zur Tragfähigkeit der ökumenischen Formel von, differenzierten Konsens, ed. by H. Wagner (Quaestiones Disputatae, vol. 184). Freiburg i.Br. 2000.
42. See above 9. Note 9 calls the attention to the different use of the word “Church” and to the unresolved ecclesiological question connected to it.
43. I say deliberately: a new type of church and I prefer this formula of Cardinal J. Willebrands (The Notion of “Typos” within the One Church [1970], reprinted in: Information Service 1999/II-III, 130-140) to that of “Dominus Jesus” 17, which says that what is meant is not a church in the true sense. That formulation has to be understood in the sense of the scholastic doctrine of analogy. In that sense, it does not say that the churches issued from the Reformation are non-churches or fictitious churches; it does not exclude, or it rather includes that in comparison with the Catholic understanding of the Church they are churches in an analogous sense.
44. M. Luther, De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesia Praeludium (1520), in: WA 6, 561.
45. CA Art. 7 and 8 (BSELK 61s); Schmalkaldische Artikel III, 10: Von den Kirchen (BSELK 459s); Grosser Katechismus Art. 3 (BSELK 653-658); Heidelberger Katechismus, 54. Question (Confessional Texts and Church Orders, ed. W. Niesel, 43s); Barmener Erklärung, Art. 3 (ibid. 335s).
46. M. Luther. Von Konziliis und Kirchen (1539), in: WA 50, 625.
47. G. Gloege, Art. Gemeinde, in: RGG vol. 2, 3. Edition 1958, 1329.
48. Fundamental CA 28 (BSELK 120-134).
49. Cf. John Calvin, ibid. 714-724, in which Calvin excludes the episcopate from his doctrine on ministries.
50. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 38. Frankjurt-Paderborn 1982, 44.
51. Important above all the last document of ARCIC: The Gift of Authority—Authority in the Church III, London-Toronto-New York 1999.
52. The Porvoo Common Statement (1992) (The Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England. Occasional Paper 3); A Formula of Agreement, USA 1997.
53. Die Kirche Jesu Christi. Der reformatorische Beitrag zum ökumenischen Dialog über die kirchliche Einheit (Leuenberg Texts, 1), Frankfurt a.M. 1995, 34; 56-59.
54. The Nature and the Purpose of the Church. A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement. Faith and Order Paper 181 (1998).
55. CA VII.
56. Cf. On what follows my contribution The Holy Spirit and Christian Unity (not yet published).
57. Cf. R. Frieling, Amt, Laie - Pfarrer - Priester - Bischof - Papst, Göttingen 2002, 213s.
58. On the theological discussion: Y. Congar, 361-370; 439-453; W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz 1982, 264-273; H. U. Von Balthasar, Theologik III, 189-200; J. Moltmann, Trinität und Reich Gottes, Munich 1980, 194-206; R. Slenska, in: Glaubensbekenntnis und Kirchengemeinschaft, 82-99; W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie I, Göttingen 1988, 344-347; LthK III, 1995, 1279-81.
59. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248.
60. UR 5-8; UUS.
61. LG 4; 12; 49; AA 3; AG 4: 29.
62. LG 13.
63. LG 26; CD 11. Cf. The publications of Rahner, Lubac, Kasper and others.
64. LG 21; 24; 27.
65. LG 25.
66. LG 12; 35.
67. DV 8.
68. LG 28; PO 7; CD 16; 28.
69. LG 37; PO 9; AA 25.
70. This point was further developed in the encyclical “Dominum et vivificantem” (1986) and the Apostolic Letter “Christifideles laici” (1988). Postconciliar theology (Y. Congar, K. Rahner, H. U. Von Balthasar, H. Kürmann and many others) developed further the charismatic dimension of the Church.
71. Authoritative theologians in the charismatic movement include H. Mühlen, K. McDonnell, F. A. Sullivan, and others.
72. LG 39-42.
73. For the original meaning of communio sanctorum, cf. LthK IV, 433-435.
74. LG 4; UR 3.
75. W. Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, New York 1997, 305-314.
76. Unity in the Church, 70.
