Ecumenical Dialogues between Roman Catholic Church and World Alliance of Reformed Churches

        After a couple of preliminary meetings between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (now the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) held in Geneva in November 1968 and Vogelenzang in April 1969, official ecumenical dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Roman Catholic Church began in 1970 (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 2). Three phases of ecumenical dialogue have so far been conducted. The theme of the 1^st phase dialogue (1970-1977) was “The Presence of Christ in Church and World” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 3); the theme of the 2^nd phase dialogue (1984-1990) was “Towards a Common Understanding of the Church (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 4); and the theme of the 3^rd phase dialogue (1998-2005) was “The Church as Community of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 5). The Reformed-Catholic dialogue is officially sponsored by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Similar to the other ecumenical dialogues, each phase of dialogue was co-chaired by a representative coming from each side of the two ecumenical parties, together with a number of members, consultants and staff members of each party. The latest (3^rd) phase of dialogue was co-chaired by Bishop Anthony J. Farquhar of the Catholic side and Rev. Prof. Russel Botman (1999-2001) of the Reformed side (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue Appendix).

        The theme of the 1^st phase was set to be “The Presence of Christ in Church and World” because “it seemed to have a bearing not only on the ultimate salvation of man but also on his life and happiness here and now” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 5). The dialogue included the following topics: “‘Christ’s Relationship to the Church’ (Rome, Spring, 1970), ‘The Teaching Authority of the Church’ (Cartigny, Switzerland, Spring, 1971), ‘The Presence of Christ in the World’ (Bièvres, France, Winter, 1972), ‘The Eucharist’ (Woudschoten-Zeist, the Netherlands, Winter, 1974) and ‘The Ministry’ (Rome, March, 1975)” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 6). The discussions highlighted both the similarities of as well as differences between the two communions so that “an honest appraisal of these differences could help the two traditions to overcome them and discover together what they must do in order to become more credible in the eyes of the world” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 5). For example, in the light of Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, the two parties jointly acknowledged that “the customary distinction between Scripture and Tradition as two different sources which operate as norms either alternatively or in parallel has become impossible” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 25). “(A)s Creatura Verbi the Church together with its Tradition stands under the living Word of God and that the preacher and teacher of the Word is to be viewed as servant of the Word” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 26). Despite the above agreement, it was noted that the Catholic Church emphasizes on “the special service of those who with the aid of the Holy Spirit accept pastoral responsibility and must also make provision, therefore, for the right interpretation and proclamation of the Word of God” (Reformed-Catholic 1^st phase dialogue 30). The 1^st phase dialogue basically sorted out the facts and paved the way for further discussions.

        The 2^nd phase dialogue focused on the understanding of the Church by the two ecumenical parties. Chapter 1 of the final report “Towards a Common Understanding of the Church” contains a “reconciliation of memories in which the dialogue partners share with each other the ecclesiological and reforming concerns of their sixteenth century predecessors as well as their own contemporary attitudes towards one another” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 4). Chapter 2 then moves to a common confession of faith on a number of topics including “Our Lord Jesus Christ: The Only Mediator Between God and Humankind” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 64-76); “Justification by Grace, Through Faith” (77-79); “The Calling of the Church; Its Role in Justification by Grace Through Faith” (80-88).

        Chapter 3 of the final report “identifies some distinct Reformed and Catholic understandings of the Church, its continuity throughout the ages, and its ministerial order” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 4). Nevertheless, in highlighting the differences, the dialogue also reflected on the convergences amidst the diversity. For example, in discussing the two conceptions of the Church as “the creation of the Word (Creatura Verbi)” and “sacrament of grace,” the two parties acknowledged that they “can in fact be seen as expressing the same instrumental reality under different aspects, as complementary to each other or as two sides of the same coin. They can also become the poles of a creative tension between our churches” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 113). In fact, “unity in diversity” is a main spirit in ecumenical dialogues. “The unity of the Church is realized in the midst of a rich diversity. This diversity in the Church is a dimension of its catholicity. At times the very richness of this diversity can engender tensions within the communion. Yet, despite such tensions, the Spirit continues to work in the Church calling Christians in their diversity to ever deeper unity” (Directory of Ecumenism 16).

        In the final Chapter on the way forward, the parties acknowledged that dialogues between the local churches are needed in addition to international dialogue because “according to the Reformed understanding, each member church is responsible for its own confession, its life and its witness” and “the World Alliance of Reformed Churches has no binding authority over its member churches” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 151). In fact, the relationships between the Catholic and Reformed communions can be very different under different “(p)olitical situations and sociological factors” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 150). This “requires the involvement of the People of God within the ecclesial structures and the discipline appropriate to each of these levels” (Directory of Ecumenism 26). On the way to unity, the two parties agreed that they “should give expression to mutual recognition of Baptism … as an expression of the profound communion that Jesus Christ himself establishes among his disciples and which no human failure can ever destroy” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 152(a)). This is in line with the Catholic principles of ecumenism regarding the mutual recognition of Baptism (Directory of Ecumenism 93). While mutual recognition of Baptism has become possible, the parties acknowledged that they “are not yet in a position to celebrate the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper together” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 152(b)) since “Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression” (Directory of Ecumenism 129). Nevertheless, both sides can “recall and reaffirm the progress in (their) common understanding of the Eucharist” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 152(b)). For confessionally mixed-marriages, both parties “deem it to be important that the two churches should jointly exercise pastoral responsibility for those who live or grow up in confessionally mixed marriages in a manner which supports the integrity of the conscience of each person and respects their rights” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 152(c)). This is in line with the Catholic principles of ecumenism on the need for the Church to provide “special instruction and support” to “the couples in mixed marriages both in the preparation for the marriage, in its sacramental celebration and for the life together that follows the marriage ceremony” (Directory of Ecumenism 146). The final report of the 2^nd phase concludes with the call for the two parties “(l)iving for each other” and “bearing common witness,” with a view to “mak(ing) every effort to speak jointly to the men and women of today to whom God desires to communicate Christ’s message of salvation” (Reformed-Catholic 2^nd phase dialogue 157).

        The 3^rd phase dialogue was a direct response to the above petition in “living for each other” and “bearing common witness” to Christ. “At the heart of (the) discussion is the desire to find the most appropriate way of articulating the struggle to overcome Christian divisions in relation to the struggle to overcome what divides societies, nations, cultures and religions in today’s world” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 7). The dialogue focused on discovering the commonalities and similarities in relation to the theological theme of the kingdom of God. The subject of the final report is “The Church as Community of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 1). It is a significant step towards Christian unity because the dialogue has changed its focus from simply identifying similarities and differences arising from the 16^th century separation to a common witness of the kingdom of God which a central theme of the Gospel, yet this important subject was not under dispute in the 16^th century and the unfortunate developments thereafter.

        After exploring the converging theological perspectives on the kingdom of God, the dialogue went on to discuss three major instances of collaboration between Reformed and Catholics in “confronting the forces of the anti-kingdom” through “the power of giving common witness to the values of the kingdom of God” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 69). These are “Advocating Aboriginal Rights in Canada” (70-81); “Facing Apartheid in South Africa” (82-101); and “Struggling for Peace in Northern Ireland” (102-122). Through these three examples, the dialogue discussed the overarching common source – the Word of God for discernment among Christians in their witness to the kingdom of God, as well as some differences in the discernment means and process in view of varied ecclesial practices. It is apparent that the two parties will require further ecumenical dialogue and collaboration to “explore the possibilities of common discernment and witness” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 232). This is because “(a)s ethical and moral issues in our modern world raise challenges for human behavior, and become more central and intense in ecumenical relations, the insights about discernment gathered are offered as one contribution to the dialogue on these vital questions that concern all Christians” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 232). “(T)his common witness (to the problems of the modern world) is one way in which mutual respect, trust, and affection grows between (the two) communions, making life between (them) spiritually richer, and nurturing (their) sense of mutual belonging” (Reformed-Catholic 3^rd phase dialogue 233). “Through such cooperation, all believers in Christ are able to learn easily how they can understand each other better and esteem each other more, and so prepare the way for the unity of Christians” (Directory of Ecumenism 213).

Works Cited

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism." Vatican, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. 

"Report of the First Phase of the International Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1970-1977)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. 

"Report of the Second Phase of the International Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1984-1990)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. 

"Report of the Third Phase of the International Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1998-2005)." Vatican, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016.