Unitatis
Redintegratio, the Decree
on Ecumenism, was promulgated during the Second Vatican Council on 21 November
1964. The Decree emphasized that restoration of unity among all Christians is a
primary concern of the Council, because division of the Church “contradicts the
will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching
the Gospel to every creature” (UR 1).
Since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has been
actively and continuously engaged in ecumenical dialogues with various
Christian Churches and ecclesial communities in her mission to restore unity among all Christians in the
Church of Christ so as to fulfill the original intention of the Lord in
his prayer to the Father that “they
may be one, as we are one” (John 17:11). This paper discusses the current state of dialogue between the
Catholic Church with the Methodist communion, including the documents produced
from the dialogue and the theological issues at hand, i.e., the points of
convergence/ agreement and the topics requiring further dialogue, and an
assessment of where the dialogue needs to go in its next phase.
Shortly
after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, a joint commission between
the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity and the World Methodist Council was formed to engage in regular
ecumenical dialogue. The first meeting of the Joint Commission was held in 1967
in Ariccia, near Rome (Methodist-Catholic dialogue, “Denver Report (1971)” 1).
So far, ten rounds of uninterrupted dialogue, with each round lasting for a
period of five years, have been completed with a joint statement produced for
each round. The first two rounds covered initially a range of subjects
including “Christianity and the Contemporary World” (“Common Witness and
Salvation Today” for the second round); “Spirituality;” “Christian Home and
Family;” “The Eucharist;” “Ministry;” and “Authority” (Methodist-Catholic
dialogue, “Denver Report (1971)” Contents; “Dublin Report (1976)” Contents).
The second round covered an additional moral question of euthanasia (“Dublin
Report (1976)” Contents). From the third round onwards, there was a specific
theme and a joint statement produced for each round: “Toward an Agreed
Statement on the Holy Spirit” (1977-1981); “Towards a Statement on the Church”
(1982-1986); “The Apostolic Tradition” (1987-1991); “The Word of Life - A
Statement on Revelation and Faith” (1992-1996); “Speaking The Truth In Love:
Teaching Authority Among Catholics And Methodists” (1997-2001); “The Grace
Given You in Christ: Catholics and Methodists Reflect Further on the Church”
(2002-2006); “Encountering Christ the Savior: Church and Sacraments”
(2007-2011) (Vatican website, “Methodist-Catholic dialogue”). The theme of the
latest (tenth) round (2012-2016), marking 50 years of Methodist-Catholic
dialogue, is “The Call to Holiness: From Glory to Glory” (Vatican Radio
“Catholics and Methodists: Walking together in service to the world”). The
current co-chairs of the Joint Commission are Bishop Donald Bolen on the
Catholic side and Reverend Dr. David M. Chapman on the Methodist side (“Houston
Report (2016)” Preface). “Members of the Commission, appointed in equal number
by the World Methodist Council and by the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, include professional theologians proficient in relevant fields
of study, as well as those with expertise and experience in ecumenism, and
those who exercise a ministry of oversight as bishops and church leaders”
(“Houston Report (2016)” Preface). The above joint statements were allowed to
be published by the two authorities for wider discussions in their respective
communities. The latest statement (Houston Report (2016)), likely because it
was only recently concluded, is found in the website of the World Methodist
Council but not yet in the Vatican website. These reports are “not (yet) an
authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the World
Methodist Council, which will study the document in due course” (“Houston
Report (2016)” Status of document).
Apart
from the above ecumenical dialogue and statements produced by the Joint
Commission, “the Methodist churches joined together in the World Methodist
Council” also “declare that the common understanding of justification as it is
outlined in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ 15-17) corresponds to Methodist
doctrine” (“Methodist association with the JDDJ”
2). Moreover, the World Methodist Council “accept(s) the explanations (in the JDDJ) which Lutherans and Catholics
respectively give” to “the crucial issues in the doctrine of justification
which were disputed between them since the time of Reformation” (“Methodist
association with the JDDJ” 3). The JDDJ was officially agreed by the
authorities of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on
30 October 1999 (“Official Statement on the JDDJ”).
Since
Methodism was stemmed from Anglicanism, Methodist-Catholic dialogue “had a
singular advantage – there is no history of formal separating between the two
Churches, none of the historical, emotional problems consequent on a history of
schism” (“Denver Report (1971)” 6). After half a century of uninterrupted
dialogue, the two parties have in fact reached substantial understanding and
considerable agreement on a number of fundamental issues, some of which were
highly contentious at the time of Reformation, such as the understanding of the
Eucharist as a sacrifice, justification on faith alone, the role of Mary in
salvation, etc. Some other divergent views have gained initial mutual
understanding, e.g., Confirmation, ordained ministry, church authority,
communion of saints, etc., though further dialogue will continue be required
between the two sides in order to achieve the goal of “full communion in faith,
mission and sacramental life” (“Houston Report (2016)” 5).
Both
parties hold that man is created in the image of God (imago Dei) (Genesis 1:26-27). Every human being is constituted a
body and a soul, which are not to be separated. “Being embodied, humans are
subject to space and time and are therefore finite and mortal. Being ensouled,
humans transcend the world and are called to immortality” (“Houston Report
(2016)” 23). This mutual understanding is important to the dialogue concerning
sacraments because “(a)t the heart of sacramental theology is the mystery of
the human who is both spiritual and material, and whose spiritual life largely
depends on the senses and on bodily encounters” (Christian, “Catholic
Evaluation on the Dublin Report (2011)” I(a)). God has given man the gift of
freedom. He can use this precious gift and exercise his free will to live a
holy life as desired by God or to sin against Him. Because of the fall of our
first parents, sin entered this world and human beings have lost their original
holiness. Based on the personal experience of St. Paul, “human life entails an
unavoidable struggle between good and evil” and “humans find that they are
incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully on their own” (c.f.
Romans 7:15-23) (“Houston Report (2016)” 29). Nonetheless, “Methodists and
Catholics do not consider the fall as causing the destruction of the imago Dei …The sinful person is still a
human being made in the image of God” (“Houston Report (2016)” 30). Christians
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Because of his incarnation, death
and resurrection, humanity has been redeemed from the slavery of sin. Indeed,
“one man’s righteousness leads to justification and life for all … where sin
increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 6:18, 20). To Christians,
“(t)he created image (imago Dei)
marred by sin is made a new creation in the image of Christ (imago Christi)” (“Houston Report (2016)”
34). Methodists and Catholics “confess together that all persons depend
completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation” (JDDJ 19). The two parties also agree that
the “person who is saved is saved by grace with free consent” (“Houston Report (2016)” 55). Methodists call this
grace “the grace that enables” (“Houston Report (2016)” 53-57).
As for
the highly controversial issue of justification, Catholics and Methodists can
now confess together that “(b)y grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work
and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive
the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good
works” (JDDJ 15). Moreover, this
“grace that justifies” may not be in a “permanent state of being” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 63). The two sides agree that “(i)t always remains possible for
the justified to depart from grace and fall back into a state of sin, though, even
then, the grace of God makes it possible to repent afresh and receive the grace
that justifies” (“Houston Report (2016)” 63). Furthermore, Catholics and
Methodists confess together that “good works of mercy and piety are the fruit
of justification and an obligation of holy living” (“Houston Report (2016)”
65). Both parties have a similar understanding on the “grace that sanctifies”
(sanctifying grace) as a “habitual gift of the Spirit” which produces good
works through faith in Christ (“Houston Report (2016)” 65).
It is
also important to note that the Methodist understanding on “the assurance to
salvation” is “an inner conviction of having received saving grace” from the
Spirit but “not (to be) seen as the certainty of possession” (“Houston Report
(2016)” 92). In other words, the Methodist doctrine of “the assurance to
salvation” is not in direct contradiction with the Catholic doctrine on the
“privation of sanctifying grace” by committing mortal sin (CCC 1681) since “(t)he assurance of salvation does not amount to an
assurance of final salvation since it remains possible to fall from grace”
(“Houston Report (2016)” 92). As for human merits, Catholics will not claim
that they acquire grace or salvation by good human works but wish to affirm
that these good works, made possible by divine grace, contribute to “a reward
in heaven” according to the Gospel (“Houston Report (2016)” 80). Again, this
understanding does not contradict with the Methodist conviction that
justification is the “unmerited gift of grace” and never the fruit of human
merits (“Houston Report (2016)” 80). Perhaps the most obvious deviation between
the two sides at the moment is “the possibility that the merit arising from the
good works of Christians might aid the sanctification of others” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 82). This point will be explored later in the discussion on
“intercessory prayers for the departed” below.
The two
parties have reached substantial common understanding on the nature of the
Church. Of particular importance is the mutual understanding that the Church is
sacramental (“like” a sacrament) – an “assured means of grace,” a “sign,
instrument, and foretaste of the kingdom of God” (“Houston Report (2016)”
102-103). Catholics “emphasize that the Church as an eschatologically present
reality in the world is without sin, even though its individual members may be
sinful” (“Houston Report (2016)” 97). On the other hand, Methodists do not
claim the “holiness” of the Church in this present world, because they prefer
to understand “holiness” not as a “possession” of the Church, but as God’s
“action and free gift” (“Houston Report (2016)” 98). Such difference in
emphasis on the “holiness” of the Church affects the way Methodists and
Catholics “respectively speak of the Church, its institutional forms, and the
possibility and limitations of authoritative discernment” (“Houston Report
(2016)” 99).
Notwithstanding
the difference, the sacramental understanding of the Church leads to
substantial convergence of the two sides on the understanding of two sacraments
– Baptism and the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, which are recognized and celebrated
as sacraments by Methodists. The two parties jointly affirm that “(t)he
proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacraments are actions of
Christ in and through his body, the Church, so as to build up his body in love
and constantly draw new members to it” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 20). Proclaiming
the word and administration of sacraments are no longer seen as “separate
categories of Christ’s presence and action” but they are intrinsically
connected together (“Dublin Report (2011)” 21). “Catholics and Methodists in
many parts of the world recognize each other’s Baptisms” (“Dublin Report
(2011)” 29). Moreover, both parties baptize infants as well as adults (“Dublin
Report (2011)” 30). Mutual recognition of Baptism brings the two parties “into
a fundamental communion with one another in Christ; this communion, though
incomplete, is the firm foundation for (their) shared journey into full
communion” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 72). There is also substantial agreement
between the two parties on the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. Methodists and
Catholics affirm together “the real presence of Christ” in the Eucharist
(“Dublin Report (2011)” 88). Although adoration of the Blessed Sacrament
outside the Lord’s Supper is not practiced in Methodism, “Methodists reverently
consume (the consecrated elements), distribute to the unwillingly absent or
return to the earth the remaining elements” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 87). As for
the historical controversial issue on the understanding of the sacrificial
meaning of the Eucharistic celebration, the two parties are now able to agree
on “the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, and yet both also
understand the Eucharist as in some way making present and available for us
that one same sacrifice, so that Christ’s Church can be one with him in his
offering” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 107). As such, the sacrificial understanding
of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper for the Methodists is somewhat implied though
not made explicit because of historical reason. It is encouraging to note that
the “historical perception of an estrangement over the relation of the
Eucharist to the single sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is no longer warranted”
(Christian I(b)).
In the
Catholic Church, “Baptism is orientated towards the sacrament of Confirmation,”
which “brings about an increase and deepening of baptismal grace, drawing the
confirmed deeper into divine filiation, and strengthening them in the Spirit
for the work of witness and mission” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 30). For Western Catholics,
it is particularly important for those who are baptized at a young age to
receive the sacrament of Confirmation when they have attained the age of
reason. “Confirmation is not customary in all Methodist Churches; often a rite
of ‘Reception into Full Membership’ will, in effect, take its place” (“Dublin
Report (2011)” 70). However, Methodists do not consider the rite a sacrament.
Catholics “identify four further sacraments: matrimony, holy orders, penance
and reconciliation, and the anointing of the sick. Methodists recognize a
sacramental character to these rites without naming them as sacraments”
(“Dublin Report (2011)” 109), and “count them among the prudential means of grace”
(“Dublin Report (2011)” 112). In particular, for the sacrament of
Reconciliation, Methodists do not practice private confession but they “have a
long history of the careful and communal examination of conscience” in small
groups (“Dublin Report (2011)” 113). To them, the communal examination of
conscience provides “effective moments in the reception of grace strengthening
a pilgrim people traversing a difficult terrain” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 115).
However, it lacks the Catholic understanding on “God’s action through the
intervention of the Church,” via the priest/ minister, “forgives sins in the
name of Jesus Christ” to assure that “the sinner is healed and re-established
in ecclesial communion” (CCC 1448).
As for
ordained ministry, the two parties agree that “apostolic ministry in the Church
did not cease with the death of the Twelve” and both “identify apostolic
ministry in the Church with ordained ministers” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 141).
For the Catholic Church, the transmission of apostolic ministry “is guaranteed
only by episcopal laying-on of hands in historical succession and authentic
transmission of the faith within the apostolic college” (“Dublin Report (2011)”
143). On the other hand, despite the existence of episcopal order in some parts
of the Methodist communion, Methodists do not claim transmission of apostolic
ministry via bishops but “attach great significance to ministerial succession
through the (Methodist) Conference as evidence of their continuing faithfulness
to the apostolic tradition” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 144). This idea of
“ministerial succession” of Methodism is somewhat different from “apostolic
succession” of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, both parties ordain their
priests/ministers by the “imposition of hands” with an “invocation of the Holy
Spirit to confer the appropriate gifts” to the ordained person (“Dublin Report
(2011)” 166-167). Although Methodists do not use the term “sacrament” for
ordination, they can agree with the Catholic opinion that “ordination places
the ordained minister in a new and permanent relationship to Christ
(‘configured to Christ’) and the people of God” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 179).
As such, ordination is considered not repeatable (“Dublin Report (2011)” 158).
Moreover, Methodists agree with Catholics that “ordained ministers do not
receive their authority by delegation from the people of God. Likewise, the
priesthood of the ordained ministry is not derived from the common priesthood
of the people of God” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 170). However, Methodists have
yet to recognize “an ontological change in the subject of Holy Orders” despite
that the person is “consecrated” when he receives the ministry (Christian
II(c)). Because of this lack of understanding of “an ontological change,”
Methodists will not claim that the ordained minister is acting in the person of
Christ (In persona Christi), the
great High Priest forever (c.f. Hebrews 4:14, 7:17), and through whom “makes
his priesthood present and effective among the people of God” (“Dublin Report
(2011)” 172). In fact, this deviation also has a read-across implication on the
Eucharist/ Lord’s Supper because an ordained minister is not considered a must
for presiding over the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Methodism (Christian
II(b); “Dublin Report (2011)” 164).
Unlike
the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, “it is the (Methodist) Conference that
authoritatively discerns the truth of the Gospel for the Church,” and even so,
“the exercise of authority in the Church is necessarily provisional and subject
to revision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads the Church into the
truth” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 183). Further dialogue in this area, especially
as to who are entrusted to “authoritatively exercise episcope or oversight” will be required (“Dublin Report (2011)”
183). Clearly, “the question of how
the Church continues to preserve her doctrine, ministry, sacraments and life,
which is a question of how God does this, and through what officials duly
consecrated, is still in need of common exploration” (Christian II(c)). Other
related subjects for further dialogue include more in-depth discussions on the
threefold structure of ordained ministry; the issue of ordaining women, which
is being practiced in the Methodist community but Pope John Paul II declared
that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on
women” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4);
and the authority of the Petrine Office ,which was initially examined in the
fourth round of dialogue from 1981 to 1986 on “Towards a Statement of the
Church” (“Nairobi Report (1986)” 39-75).
The two
sides affirm that “(t)he communion between the saints below (i.e., holy
Christians on earth) and the saints above (i.e., saints in heaven) is like that
of a family, where bonds of love continue to exist between the living and the
departed” (“Houston Report (2016)” 143). For Catholics, “the saints in heaven
are also intercessors because of the bonds of love that exist between all the
members of the Church and Christ” (“Houston Report (2016)” 157). On the other
hand, since “Article 14 in John Wesley’s abridgement of the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England denounces the invocation of saints,”
Methodists have been reluctant to “petition the saints for their specific
intervention” (“Houston Report (2016)” 158). Nonetheless, the feast days of
some saints do appear on the Methodist liturgical calendar, and “(s)ome
Methodists have found the observance of saints’ days and prayerful reflection
on the lives of the saints to be helpful as signs of the love of God and the
fruits of the Spirit, which inspire growth in holiness” (“Houston Report
(2016)” 159). Hence, although Methodists generally do not consider the saints
in heaven to be their intercessors, at least some Methodists find it beneficial
to their own sanctification by “contemplating and meditating upon the witness
of these exemplary figures” (“Houston Report (2016)” 142).
“A
significant difference between Methodists and Catholics relates to the question
of how unqualified holiness is conferred upon those who have died without
having attained it” (“Houston Report (2016)” 152). The Catholic doctrine of
purgatory is rejected by the Reformers and the Methodists. Yet, Methodists do
not have a consistent teaching on the issue. “Some Methodists understand
perfection to be a gift from God bestowed instantaneously at death whilst
others consider growth in holiness to continue in an intermediate state beyond
death” (“Houston Report (2016)” 152). Recent Magisterium teaching on the
purgatory doctrine by Pope Benedict XVI’s in his encyclical “The Hope that
Saves (Spe Salvi)” “describes the
purification of the soul in terms of the dramatic encounter with Christ, before
whom all falsehood melts away” (“Houston Report (2016)” 153). “This
encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to
become truly ourselves” (SS 47).
While recognizing the painful experience in the purification process, “(y)et in
the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become
evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us
through an undeniably painful transformation ‘as through fire’ (1 Corinthians
3:15),” the pope remarked (SS 47).
The encyclical may well offer possibilities for further dialogue with a view to
“developing an ecumenical understanding of purification after death” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 153). Related to the purgatory doctrine is that “Catholics
continue to pray for those still being purified, and particularly their loved
ones” (“Houston Report (2016)” 154). “Intercessory prayers are an act of trust
in God’s merciful power to save through the redeeming work of Christ” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 154). Also, as pointed out above, the Catholic tradition
believes in “the possibility that the merit arising from the good works of
Christians might aid the sanctification of others” (“Houston Report (2016)”
82), particularly those departed but requiring purification. Methodists reject
the doctrine of purgatory and do not have a practice of praying for the
departed. However, “in response to pastoral needs created by a huge number of
distant deaths caused by warfare, there are indications that Methodists may
increasingly be open to the practice of prayer for the departed” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 155).
The
discussion on the communion of saints would not be complete without mentioning
“Mary: Life and Sign of Grace and Holiness” (“Houston Report (2016)” 160). Both
Methodists and Catholics “recognize on the basis of Scripture the unique role
of Mary as Jesus’ Mother and God-bearer (Theotokos)
(Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-29), holy exemplar (Luke 2:19, 51), advocate for
the poor and lowly (Luke 1:46-55), and disciple (Acts 1:12-14)” (“Houston
Report (2016)” 127). Moreover, Mary is particularly admired as “a sign or icon
of ‘grace alone’ (sola gratia). By
grace alone she was enabled freely and courageously to say her ‘Yes’ to God’s
call to her: ‘I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to
your word’ (Luke 1.38). By grace alone, Mary’s poverty of spirit received the
gift of becoming the mother of her Lord” (“Houston Report (2016)” 57). As for
the Catholic dogma of the Assumption, although Methodists “find no scriptural
foundation,” they are able to “affirm its core intention to bear witness to
God’s saving work in Christ and the final consummation of holy living”
(“Houston Report (2016)” 163). A more dissenting issue lies with the various
devotional practices Catholics have for Mary and the frequent appeal for her
intercessory prayers. Catholics “regard the intercession of Mary as
particularly effective because of her exalted status within the communion of
saints through being ‘Mother of God’” (“Houston Report (2016)” 164). Besides
not having the practice of invocating the heavenly saints (including Mary) in
prayers, Methodists are also concerned that such admiration of Mary by
Catholics “encourages an excessive devotion that detracts from the worship due
to God alone” (Houston Report (2016)” 164). Obviously, Catholics do not regard
the Marian devotions as either obscuring or diminishing the unique mediation of
Christ, yet the Methodist concern is not entirely unfounded as some individual
Catholics might have gone overboard in their devotional practices. Further
dialogue and reflection can perhaps “lead to greater mutual understanding and,
hopefully, to greater convergence between Catholics and Methodists about Mary,
the Mother of the Lord, as a sign of grace and holiness” (“Houston Report
(2016)” 164).
Based
on the above, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church and the World
Methodist Council have jointly made significant progress in advancing the unity
of the two communions. The dialogue parties, who are experts in their own
right, would unlikely need much guidance on the topics requiring further
dialogue. That said, for the purpose of this paper, I venture to suggest a few
areas and directions below that may contribute to the unity of Catholics and
Methodists.
First,
as noted above, the goal of ecumenical dialogue has all along been “full
communion in faith, mission and sacramental life” (“Houston Report (2016)” 5).
In terms of communion in “faith,” the Methodist association with the JDDJ together with the most recent
dialogue on “The Call to Holiness” have contributed to significant progress on
the convergence of doctrines of the two parties. Nevertheless, further
ecumenical dialogue in the following areas appears to be beneficial:
(a)
The
notion of a “sacramental character” for Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders,
and “what it means to call it a sharing in the priesthood of Christ” (Christian
IV).
(b)
The
“distinction between sacraments and sacramental rites,” and the role of the
Church and the priest/ minister in the sacrament/ rite (Christian IV). The
Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation may be discussed in depth.
(c)
Deepened
dialogue on the threefold structure of ordained ministry and “(t)he connection
between Holy Orders and presiding at the Eucharist” (Christian IV). The reason
for the Catholic Church to always
have a priest to preside at the Eucharistic celebration without exception can
be more thoroughly discussed. Further dialogue on women ordination will also be
required.
(d)
Discussions
on the conciliarity and authority of the Church at the local, regional and
universal levels to identify the commonalities and differences in authoritative
teaching and discernment of the truth, especially as to who are entrusted to
“authoritatively exercise episcope or
oversight” (“Dublin Report (2011)” 183).
(e)
For
the area of universal oversight in particular, the theological basis and
benefits of having a Petrine ministry for “seek(ing) together the forms in
which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all
concerned” (Ut Unum Sint 97).
(f)
Further
dialogue on the communion of saints to foster mutual understanding and possible
consensus, particularly on intercessory prayers and their contribution to the
holy life of Christians on earth and their purification after death.
Second,
in terms of communion in “mission,” both parties are in fact keen to put faith
into charitable actions. The subject of euthanasia was briefly touched upon in
the second round of dialogue over 40 years ago. It would be most useful to
select a few more ethical areas of mutual interests and having impact on the
society for building consensus and collaboration. These may include the value
of family, contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, biotechnology (e.g., on
human stem cells research) as well as social issues that have an effect on human
rights and dignity such as poverty, human trafficking, refugee problem and
environmental protection. Joint efforts at the local and international levels,
e.g., through holding joint campaigns, prayer meetings and academic conferences
and issuing common statements, can be made for a common witness to counter the
widespread secular and individualistic movements. Moreover, while an English
edition of ecumenical Bible is available, the translation and publication of
common editions in other languages is a “valuable form of common service and
common witness in the Church and to the world” (Directory of Ecumenism 183). For example, for the Chinese Bible
edition, reaching an agreed translation of Chinese names of persons and places
is already a mammoth yet very worthwhile endeavor. Such consensus is
fundamental to common prayers and liturgies. In addition, recognizing the rich
resource of Wesleyan hymns in the Methodist community, ecumenical cooperation
in developing liturgical music is also highly recommended. Spiritual ecumenical
tasks such as joint bible study groups and common prayer meetings are also
valuable and can be facilitated at the local diocesan or parish level.
“Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an
exchange of gifts” (Ut Unum Sint 28).
It should nevertheless be noted that these ecumenical activities would likely
require the setting up of separate Joint Commission(s), sub-committees or task
forces apart from the existing Joint Commission on ecumenical dialogue.
Third,
after substantive efforts on the above have been made, it would be useful for
the Joint Commission to come up with a draft declaration like the JDDJ, but perhaps focusing on the
subject of sanctifying grace or sanctification, for further deliberations among
their respective communities and seeking consensus from the two authorities,
including but not limited to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of
the Catholic Church and the World Methodist Conference, with a view to making a
joint authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church the World
Methodist Council.
Fourth,
in terms of communion in “sacramental life,” obviously common celebration of
the Eucharist will be the ultimate objective. While the difficulties in
achieving this objective could not be underestimated, it is believed that the
existing dialogue has already laid a solid foundation for such to happen.
Recognizing that it is unrealistic to fully agree on every single doctrine
between the two parties, I think agreement by the two authorities on a couple
of areas is fundamental to the common celebration of the Eucharist:
(a)
The
mutual recognition of Holy Orders which may become a subject of examination
after the two parties have made the joint declaration suggested above. Mutual recognition
of the respective liturgies of the Eucharist/ Lord’s Supper is also deemed
necessary.
(b)
The
acceptable form in which the Petrine ministry can be exercised to establish a
“teaching office” that is recognized by both parties.
Finally,
it may be desirable to implement the common celebration of the Eucharist by
stages so that the clergy and lay faithful of the two communities in a certain
territory can start to share liturgical lives before extending it to different
parts of the world. Further cooperation in catechesis and between seminaries in
accordance with the Directory of
Ecumenism can then be better facilitated. Places where trustful
relationships between the two parties have already been established can be
selected for “pilot” implementation. This approach can reduce the level of
resistance by some local churches and individuals of the two communities, yet
the risk of irenicism should be properly managed and mitigated. Hopefully, with
the gradual Eucharistic communion (koinonia)
of churches and ecclesial communities into the one and only Church of Christ,
the desire of Jesus that those who believe in Him “may all be one” (John 17:21)
will eventually be met.
Works Cited
Catechism
of the Catholic Church (CCC). New York: Doubleday, 1995. Print.
"Catholics and Methodists:
Walking Together in Service to the World." Vatican Radio. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Christian, Robert F.
"Encountering Christ the Saviour: Church and Sacraments - Evaluation from
a Catholic Perspective." Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Joint Commission between the
Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council. "The Denver Report
(1971)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
---. "The Dublin Report
(1976)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
---. "The Durban Report
(2011)" Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
---. "The Houston Report
(2016)." World Methodist Council, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
---. "The Nairobi Report
(1986)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec.
2016.
"Official
Common Statement on Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity. "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on
Ecumenism (Directory of Ecumenism)."
Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Pope Benedict XVI. Spe Salvi. Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec.
2016.
Pope John Paul II. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Vatican, n.d.
Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
---.
Ut Unum Sint. Vatican, n.d. Web. 31
Dec. 2016.
World
Methodist Council. "Methodist Association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)." Vatican,
n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
"World
Methodist Council - Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity." Vatican. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio. Vatican, n.d. Web. 31 Dec. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment