'IT CANNOT BE RIGHT TO PATRONISE OUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS': CANON PROFESSOR JOHN BARTLETT COMMENTS ON RECENT VATICAN STATEMENTS

Speaking at the 11.00 Holy Communion service in Christ Church cathedral on Sunday 12 August 2007, the Revd Canon Professor John Bartlett, former principal of the Church of Ireland Theological College commented on recent statements by the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The congregation recently asserted in Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church that 'Christian communities born out of the reformation' have 'not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery [and] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense'.

Canon Professor Bartlett said 'It cannot be right to patronise our fellow Christians by saying to them, "You do not really belong". A Christian is surely one who expresses loyalty not primarily to the successors of St Peter as bishop of Rome but to the person of Jesus as Lord. Has one branch of Christianity alone the right to appropriate the New Testament word and concept of "ecclesia", which we translate as "church"?'

Asking 'Why should we seek to distance ourselves from other Christians?' Canon Bartlett continued 'Christians are right to say that there is an identity between the historical Jesus and the present church, and that there is a unity, a oneness; but in the interests of ecumenism we need to re-think our Christian definition of that unity, so that we can be inclusive rather than exclusive. We can be inclusive towards Christians with differing views of church polity.'

Closing Canon Professor Bartlett said 'It seems to me that even here on earth there is a Christian unity which transcends the limitations of the individual churches. We may apply Paul’s parable of the body; the body is one and has many members; if the eye may not say to the hand, I have no need of you, then one church of one tradition may not say to the church of another tradition, I have no need of you. The different churches need each other for their differing insights into the message of Christ. We are not, I think, all Anglicans here this morning; we all come here, however, Anglican, Roman, Protestant, Orthodox or whatever, from our differing traditions, to share in the one bread, and to be his one body.'

The Revd Canon John Bartlett is a retired priest and canon of Christ Church cathedral. He was principal of the Church of Ireland Theological College from 1989-2001 and precentor of Christ Church from 1988–2001.

The original statement from the Roman Catholic Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith is available online (29 June 2007).

I don't know from what Christian tradition you all come. Some of you are Anglicans, certainly, some probably Roman Catholic, some perhaps from Lutheran or Evangelical churches, or perhaps even from the Orthodox or Coptic traditions. But whatever your tradition, in a few minutes' time, the celebrant will break the bread and say 'The bread which we break is a sharing in the body of Christ' and you will each and all reply, from whatever church tradition you have come, 'We being many are one body, for we all share in the one bread'. We shall be quoting words from St Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, and Paul had a lot to say about the church as the Body of Christ. 'Just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body - Jews or Greeks, slave or free…' (1 Cor 12.12); and Paul elsewhere speaks of Christ as 'the head of the body, the church' (Col.1.18). For nearly 20 centuries Christians have valued these words and their witness to the unity of the church and its roots in the historical person of Jesus.

On August 6, 2000, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at Rome, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, published a document entitled from its opening words Dominus Iesus ('Lord Jesus'), which gave much offence to many Christians round the world. In its central section on the unity of the Church, it spoke, using language we have just heard, of the identity of Jesus and his body, the church, and the consequent need to believe in a single body of Christ - ideas and language familiar to all Christians. It went on to argue that the Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is 'an historical continuity - rooted in the apostolic succession - between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church. Well, OK; no one doubts the historical continuity and Anglicans at least are happy to believe in apostolic succession. But then it raised hackles everywhere by continuing 'This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (the original draft said 'is') the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him'. This expression, the document explains, is an attempt to harmonise two ideas: (1) that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and (2) ' "that outside her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth", that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church'. 'Those Churches', it was further explained, are churches remaining united to Rome by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist; 'ecclesial communities' are those 'which have not preserved the valid episcopate and the genuine and integral substance' [what ever that might be] 'of the Eucharistic mystery'. But 'these separated Churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation'. Well, thanks a lot.

Six weeks ago [29/6/07] the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued some 'Responses' to questions arising from Dominus Iesus. Importantly, this document conceded and affirmed that 'the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them'. But it reserved the word 'subsists in' to the Catholic Church alone, because there is only one Church. And it declines to use the word 'church' for these 'ecclesial communities' because they 'do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders' and 'have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharist'.

I'm sorry to present you with this solid stuff, but I think it is reasonably clear in meaning and it is indeed important. The Chairman of ARCIC [Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission], Archbishop Peter Carnley from Australia, expressed disappointment with Rome's apparent assumption that the goal of ecumenism was to attract everyone back to Rome like a magnet; he preferred to think of the churches as being on an equal footing. The former president of the Methodist conference, Lord Griffith, found these responses less offensive than the original Dominus Iesus document, and saw them as a conciliatory document. The Lutherans saw the document, with its assertion that Reformation churches were not true churches, as an intentional snub. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches questioned the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogue with the Reformed family. (A German Catholic bishop published an open apology to Protestants over the offence caused by the suggestion that the Reformation churches suffered from defects.) The Russian Orthodox Church declared firmly that 'The Orthodox Church is the rightful successor of the Apostolic tradition of the undivided Church' but made the point that 'to have honest and open dialogue we need to know the position of the other side' - what a pity that the spokesman felt the need to speak of 'the other side'.

All this makes one wonder, whatever has happened to ARCIC, which began under the leadership of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey in 1970 and was once chaired by our own Archbishop Henry McAdoo? And to the friendship and significant gifts exchanged between John-Paul II and Archbishop Runcie of Canterbury? And to the ARCIC documents, highly praised by both Anglican and Roman theologians, on the theology of the Eucharist and Ministry and Authority? There was an enormous measure of agreement on the Roman-Anglican understanding of the Eucharist and the apostolic ministry. Has all that hard work and intellectual and spiritual energy gone for nothing? It is gratifying to see that within the Church of Ireland, Professor Enda McDonagh, a Roman Catholic theologian of world standing from Maynooth, and Dr Kenneth Newell, a former Presbyterian Moderator in Ireland, have been appointed to canonries in St Patrick's Cathedral; congratulations are due to all concerned in those appointments (not least to Professor McDonagh himself). They actually do and say something about the real relationships of different Christian bodies.

The Roman Catholic documents draw a line round a particular theological position and then appear to say 'You do not belong to the one church; you are not my people'. Exclusion by drawing lines on the map, in the sand, or differentiating by colour, race, family, age, sex, wealth, or whatever, is how this world organises itself. We all seek endlessly to limit our obligations towards other fellow human beings by categorizing them and ruling them out of our sphere of responsibility. But somehow the Christian family should have a wider view of itself. Why should we seek to distance ourselves from other Christians? Christians are right to say that there is an identity between the historical Jesus and the present church, and that there is a unity, a oneness; but in the interests of ecumenism we need to re-think our Christian definition of that unity, so that we can be inclusive rather than exclusive. We can be inclusive towards Christians with differing views of church polity. It cannot be right to patronise our fellow Christians by saying to them, 'You do not really belong'. A Christian is surely one who expresses loyalty not primarily to the successors of St Peter as bishop of Rome but to the person of Jesus as Lord. Has one branch of Christianity alone the right to appropriate the New Testament word and concept of 'ecclesia', which we translate as 'church'?

Here in this cathedral we extend an invitation to members of all Christian churches to share with us in the Eucharist, which we believe to be a very real symbol of the Body and presence of Christ. We proclaim that the bread which we break is a sharing in the body of Christ; we being many are one body, for we all share in the one bread. The command, 'Do this in memory of me' is a command for all Christ's followers. Some, more authoritarian, Christians argue that we should not take part in the Eucharist together until we are all one in one church body. Other, more realistic, Christians argue that it is by fulfilling the Lord's command and sharing in his body together that we become one body. We being many are one body, for we all share in the one bread. It seems to me that even here on earth there is a Christian unity which transcends the limitations of the individual churches. We may apply Paul's parable of the body; the body is one and has many members; if the eye may not say to the hand, I have no need of you, then one church of one tradition may not say to the church of another tradition, I have no need of you. The different churches need each other for their differing insights into the message of Christ. We are not, I think, all Anglicans here this morning; we all come here, however, Anglican, Roman, Protestant, Orthodox or whatever, from our differing traditions, to share in the one bread, and to be his one body. Amen, so be it.

- ENDS –