Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumenical Movement: The Path of Ecclesial Conversion 9004397809, 9789004397804

Citation preview

Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumenical Movement

Brill’s Studies in Catholic Theology Edited by Philip Endean (Centre Sèvres –​Facultés jésuites de Paris) Paul van Geest (Tilburg University) Paul Murray (Durham University) Marcel Sarot (Tilburg University)

VOLUME 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/​bsct

Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumenical Movement The Path of Ecclesial Conversion By

Antonia Pizzey

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Johan Gottlob Brusell (1756–​1829), A Vaulted Staircase. Architectural Piece. Nationalmuseum, Sweden (Photo: Cecilia Heisser, public domain). The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://​lccn.loc.gov/2019938331​

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/​brill-​typeface. issn 2352-​5 746 isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​3 9778-​1 (hardback) isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​3 9780-​4 (e-​book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-​free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my parents, with many thanks and much love There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio

∵

Contents Foreword: Serving the Spirit of Receptive Ecumenism xi Paul D. Murray Acknowledgments xiii 1

The Ecumenical Path: The Past, the Present, and New Ways Forward 1 1 Calls for Ecumenical Renewal 4 2 A Time for Ecumenical Conversion 8 3 Receptive Ecumenism 12 4 Spiritual Ecumenism 14 5 Purpose and Outline of This Work 15

2 The Path of Self-​Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion: Receptive Ecumenism 18 1 Paul Murray’s Vision of Receptive Ecumenism 18 2 Receptive Ecumenism’s Development 21 3 The Aim of Receptive Ecumenism 31 4 Receptive Ecumenism’s Distinctive Features 33 3 Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path: Exploring Themes and Tensions 43 1 A Critical Analysis of the Receptive Ecumenism Volume 43 2 The Challenges Facing Contemporary Ecumenism 44 3 Ecumenism as an Exchange of Gifts 45 4 Reception 49 5 The Impact of Non-​Theological Factors on Ecumenism 51 6 Spiritual Ecumenism 55 7 Pneumatology 58 8 Tensions within Receptive Ecumenism 59 4 The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii: The Spiritual Roots of Receptive Ecumenism 62 1 The Roots of Receptive Ecumenism in Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism 62 2 Yves Congar as a Forerunner to Receptive Ecumenism 72 3 The Influence of Vatican ii on Receptive Ecumenism 78

viii Contents 5 The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism: The Spiritual Roots of Receptive Ecumenism 96 1 The Groundwork for Receptive Ecumenism in Ut Unum Sint 96 2 Walter Kasper’s Emphasis on Spiritual Ecumenism 103 3 Margaret O’Gara’s Ecumenical Gift Exchange 106 4 Receptive Ecumenism—​Simply a New Name for Spiritual Ecumenism? 113 6 Two Paths or One? The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism 120 1 The Value of Receptive Ecumenism for the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement 120 1.1 Institutional and Structural Conversion 121 1.2 Ecclesial Learning 123 1.3 Appeal and Accessibility 125 2 The Importance of Spiritual Ecumenism for Receptive Ecumenism 128 2.1 Christological Basis 129 2.2 Pneumatological Foundation 134 2.3 The Ecumenical Exchange of Gifts 141 3 Receptive Ecumenism as Reception of the Principles of Spiritual Ecumenism 145 7 Essentials for Walking the Path: Receptive Ecumenical Virtues 149 1 The Spiritual, Virtuous, and Affective Aspects of Receptive Ecumenism 149 2 Humility and Hope: Essential Receptive Ecumenical Virtues 155 3 On Humility: the Basis of Virtue 155 4 Hope as an Act of Humility 165 5 Hopeful Humility: a Virtue for Receptive Ecumenism 173 8 At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path: Receptive Ecumenism and Contemporary Challenges 179 1 Receptive Ecumenism’s Positive Approach to Contemporary Challenges 180 1.1 The Challenge of the Ecumenical Winter 180 1.2 The Challenge of Pluralism 183 1.3 The Challenge of Ecclesial Identity 190 1.4 The Challenge of Full Visible Unity 194

Contents

2 3

The Implementation of Receptive Ecumenism as an Ecumenical Strategy 198 2.1 The International Conferences 198 2.2 The Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church 201 2.3 arcic iii 206 2.4 Receptive Ecumenism in Australia 213 Challenges Facing Receptive Ecumenism 218

9 The Path Forward: Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumenical Movement 226 1 Areas for Further Reflection 230 2 Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism, and the Ecumenical Future 232 Bibliography 235 Index 249

ix

Foreword: Serving the Spirit of Receptive Ecumenism In this important contribution to the growing literature on Receptive E ­ cumenism, Antonia Pizzey explores the relationship between Spiritual E ­ cumenism and Receptive Ecumenism. Of course both Spiritual Ecumenism and Receptive ­Ecumenism seek ongoing ecclesial renewal and conversion through ecumenical engagement. But more can and should be said. As Antonia Pizzey shows us in this book, their connections are far closer, manifesting what Ludwig Wittgenstein would have referred to as an intimate “family resemblance.” Whilst activities labelled Spiritual Ecumenism and Receptive Ecumenism might look and feel different, they not only share a deep commitment to ­ecclesial renewal but also similar sources and dispositions. Indeed, as Andrea Murray and I imply in our essay, “The Roots, Range, and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” there is even a genetic connection. One key inspiration that led me to coin the phrase Receptive Ecumenism was what Cardinal Walter Kasper and Archbishop Rowan Williams had each made of Spiritual Ecumenism. My intention was to suggest that the kind of mutual appreciation and receptivity characteristic of Spiritual Ecumenism should stretch also to matters of doctrine and church organisation. Thereafter, as I learned more of its origins in the work of Paul Couturier, Spiritual Ecumenism continued to be one of the key conceptual and practical resources contributing to the distinctive articulation and shaping of Receptive Ecumenism, together with the remarkable 1995 encyclical of Pope John Paul ii, Ut Unum Sint, and the ecumenical writings of Yves Congar, Walter Kasper, and others. But there is more still that should be said. The need for Spiritual Ecumenism and Receptive Ecumenism to be held in close conversation with each other is not simply a matter of complementary intentions and genetic origin. Most deeply it is a matter of ensuring that each is maintained in close relationship with what is an essential aspect of its own identity but which can be lost from view on account of their different tones and emphases. As I have said elsewhere, in opening and closing the recent volume edited by Geraldine Hawkes and Vicky Balabanski,1 for all its characteristic emphasis 1 See Paul D. Murray, “Foreword. Receptive Ecumenism as a Leaning-​in to the Spirit of Loving Transformation,” in Receptive Ecumenism: Listening, Learning, and Loving in the Way of Christ, Vicky Balabanski and Geraldine Hawkes, eds. (Adelaide: atf, 2018), xv–​xxiii; and id.,

xii Foreword on organisational reform and doctrinal-​pragmatic testing, at its most fundamental Receptive Ecumenism is a movement of the Holy Spirit –​a movement rooted in prayer, penance, and call; a movement opened up by love and lived out through loving attention and response. And the converse also holds, as is shown by the work of the Groupe des Dombes, itself drawing on Couturier. Spiritual Ecumenism may stress the need for us to attend with reverence and receptivity to the real ecclesial presences of Christ in each of the traditions. But it was always envisaged as needing to lead to the hard theological labour of doctrinal reconceiving and ecclesial reimagining. Only on that basis could these different real presences be truly received into the reality of our respective ecclesial lives. In this volume, then, Antonia Pizzey helpfully explores the full depth of the intimate relationships between Receptive Ecumenism and Spiritual Ecumenism. She helps us understand that each is essential to the true identity, power, and dynamism of the other. I am delighted to commend her elegant work to you, the reader. May it inspire you. And thereby may the cause of full Christian communion be furthered in the generative power of the Holy Spirit. For it is the Spirit in person who is calling us, in our very weaknesses and difficulties, to walk together the path of transformative receptive learning in and between our divided Christian traditions, so that all may be One. Paul D. Murray Department of Theology and Religion Durham University

“Afterword. Receiving of Christ in the Spirit: The Pneumatic-​Christic Depths of Receptive Ecumenism,” 157–​70.

Acknowledgments This book began its journey from my initial desire to explore the importance of humility and hope for the contemporary context, especially in the field of ecumenism. Early in my research, I encountered Receptive Ecumenism, an approach that embodies an ecumenism of humility and hope. The history of this book, in earlier form, lies in my doctoral dissertation. Receptive Ecumenism has had a deep and formative impact on me, both professionally and personally, and, as Murray asserts, I have found that it is truly worth every effort to walk down the Receptive Ecumenical path. Exploring that path is the aim of this book. I am grateful to all who have helped, guided and shaped this book, and who are too numerous to individually thank here. I must point out a special debt of thanks to Paul Murray for his helpful and critical guidance on revising and reshaping the work; the end result is far better for his help. To Anthony Kelly, my supervisor, for his expertise and wisdom throughout my doctoral years. To James McEvoy, for his role as my doctoral co-​supervisor. I have immensely valued his gentle guidance throughout this process. To David Pascoe, for his vital help and direction, especially in the initial stages of research. My sincere thanks also to Ormond Rush for all of his advice, guidance, and support throughout this journey. I  am grateful also to Denis Edwards for his support and critical reading of chapters of this book. To Paul Avis and Gerard Kelly, for their critical feedback and advice. Of course, any mistakes or errors that remain are solely my own. I am grateful to acu’s School of Theology as a whole, for nurturing, challenging, encouraging, and supporting me over the course of my undergraduate and doctoral studies. I owe a special debt of thanks to Ian Elmer for his constant support and mentorship, and the many long chats that have sustained and motivated me throughout this long process, from undergraduate to postgraduate, and thesis to book. I would also like to thank Michael Vertin, for his generosity in giving me an early copy of Margaret O’Gara’s No Turning Back. Thanks also to Geraldine Hawkes and the sacc for allowing me to use their resources on Receptive Ecumenism, and for her friendship and inspiration over this time. Finally, I could not have done this without the unconditional love and support of my family: my brothers and sisters, Jaymee, Susan, Adrian, and Vincent, and especially my parents, Stephen and Linda. They journeyed with me every step of the way, and never once doubted that we would make it to the end. This book is, humbly and hope-​fully, dedicated to them.

Chapter 1

The Ecumenical Path: The Past, the Present, and New Ways Forward The ecumenical path is a winding one; at some points, the path is wide and even, allowing free-​flowing and easy movement; yet at other points, it narrows down so far that traversing it seems hardly possible. Since Vatican ii, the Ecumenical Movement has endured periods of both optimism and disillusionment. The present time is one of questioning and transition, described by many as an ecumenical winter. Yet it also carries with it the promise of spring. For some, the integrity of the entire Ecumenical Movement is in doubt. Others question or dismiss the goal of full visible unity. For those who uphold the importance of ecumenism, there is a renewed focus on evaluating the last fifty years of ecumenical endeavour, and on searching for new ways forward. Any assessment of the last fifty years illustrates that ecumenism has achieved significant successes. Formal agreement has been reached on key, previously divisive issues. One outstanding example is the theology of justification, in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.1 Other successful outcomes include the Montreal statement on scripture and tradition (1963) which addresses and helps churches move beyond another of the major reasons for divisions at the time of Reformation. The Final Report on Eucharist, Ordained Ministry and Authority (1982) between Catholics and Anglicans, and the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches’ document, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) were also notable steps forward. The more recent Faith and Order convergence document, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (2013) represents a milestone in tackling the divisive area of ecclesiology, which has been positively received and responded to by major Christian groups throughout the world.2 The ecumenical celebrations that were held around the world to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation 1 The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was signed by the Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation in 1999, and countersigned by the World Methodist Council in 2006. 2 For examples of academic responses, the Journal of Ecumenical Studies published an issue on The Church Towards a Common Vision which gathers together valuable reflections on its significance: 50 no. 2 (2015). See also American Academy of Ecumenists, “Responses to The Church: Towards a Common Vision from a September, 2015, Gathering of the North American Academy of Ecumenists,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 51, no. 3 (2016): 320–​36; and Paul

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_002

2 CHAPTER 1 in 2017 were also expressions of the success of the Ecumenical Movement as a whole. Such commemorations included joint prayer services, academic assemblies and university courses throughout the world, undertaken with an uplifting sense of ecumenical friendship and respect. The commemoration of the Reformation held in Lund in October 2016 was the first time that the leaders of the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation have jointly commemorated the Reformation. The 2016 commemoration was in stark contrast to previous anniversaries of the Reformation, where, in the past, Catholics had condemned Lutherans for church divisions, and Lutherans had expressed strong polemical statements against Catholics.3 At the 500th commemoration, in a spirit of Receptive Ecumenism, Pope Francis spoke of the gifts that the Reformation has given to the Catholic Church, especially around recognising the centrality of sacred scripture.4 Pope Francis emphasised the joint commemoration as a “new opportunity to accept a common path” and a call to move beyond divisions.5 The 2013 Lutheran-​Catholic document From Conflict to Communion was a preparatory document for the 2016 commemoration, and a significant ecumenical statement in its own right, beginning with the positive assertion that more unites than divides Lutherans and Catholics.6 From a time when Catholics were once officially dissuaded from engaging in ecumenical activity, the Catholic Church has now recognised the inherent value of ecumenism in its community and mission. As the prominent Catholic ecumenist, Walter Kasper explains, “Separated Christians no longer regard one another as strangers, competitors or even enemies, but as brothers and sisters.”7 Many misunderstandings and prejudices have been overcome, and Christians now work, pray, and witness together to their common faith in Christ.8 The

3 4 5

6 7 8

McPartlan, “The Church –​Towards a Common Vision: A Roman Catholic Response,” Ecclesiology 12, no. 3 (2016): 298–​315. Lutheran World Federation and Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, From Conflict to Communion (2013), 5–​6. https://​www.lutheranworld.org/​sites/​default/​files/​From%20 Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf. Philip Pullella and Annabella PultzNielsen, “Pope, in Sweden, says Reformation had positive aspects,” Reuters October 31 2016, https://​www.reuters.com/​article/​us-​pope-​sweden/​pope-​ in-​sweden-​says-​reformation-​had-​positive-​aspects-​idUSKBN12V005?il=0. Pope Francis, “Ecumenical Prayer in the Lutheran Cathedral in the City of Lund, Sweden, 31st October 2016,” The Tablet https://​www.thetablet.co.uk/​texts-​speeches-​homilies/​4/​942/​ pope-​francis-​ecumenical-​prayer-​in-​the-​lutheran-​cathedral-​in-​the-​city-​of-​lund-​sweden-​31-​ october-​2016. From Conflict to Communion, 1. Walter Kasper, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today (London: Burns & Oates, 2004), 14. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 14.

The Ecumenical Path

3

achievements of the Ecumenical Movement cannot be overemphasised, for, as Kasper makes clear, “Such a change was hardly conceivable only half a century ago.”9 Ecumenism’s success is also emphasised by Anglican ecumenical theologian Paul Avis, who writes that ecumenical work has “largely replaced suspicion, incomprehension and competition with understanding, trust and friendship.”10 However, ironically, ecumenism now appears to be something of a victim of its own success. Signs of a slowing down of ecumenical energy are all too prevalent. A new generation of Christians has grown up with the benefits of the ­Ecumenical Movement and therefore, in some ways, they take the fruits of ecumenism for granted. Amongst the younger generations, to which I myself belong, it is generally assumed as obvious and correct that Christians of different traditions should work and pray together. Younger Christians do not always realise just how much things have improved and changed. Ecumenism does not seem to be the pressing issue now that it was for older generations who lived through that time, who did not feel comfortable speaking to other Christians, praying with them, or entering their church buildings –​let alone marrying them! Some of the urgency that fired previous ecumenical activity has faded, in part because of how much has been achieved by prior generations. Many visible hurdles to Christian unity have already been overcome, leaving the next generation of ecumenists to handle obstacles that are more elusive and subtle.11 The ecumenical situation has changed over the last fifty years, and now the task of Christian unity faces different challenges. Not least among these is reigniting the ecumenical spark in a new generation of ecumenists, and the difficulties posed by our pluralist, postmodern context.12 The future of ecumenism in the twenty-​first century is far from guaranteed.13 9 10 11

12

13

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 14. Paul Avis, “ ‘Unreal Worlds Meeting’? Realism and Illusion in Ecumenical Dialogue,” Theology 115, no. 6 (2012): 420. Paul Murray talks about the “softwood” of “easy early gains” of ecumenism that have already been harvested, leaving our generation to work on the “hardwood” of the difficult “lasting substantive differences,” such as church hierarchy. Paul D. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” The Ecumenist:  A Journal of Theology, Culture, and Society 51, no. 2 (2014): 3. The wcc appears quite concerned with this issue. One recent attempt to educate and train a new generation of ecumenical leaders under the age of forty was established by the Global Ecumenical Theological Institute (geti), held alongside the 10th Assembly of the wcc in Busan. As part of the coursework, geti produced a textbook focusing on ecumenism in the 21st century: Mélisande Lorke and Dietrich Werner, eds., Ecumenical Visions for the 21st Century (Geneva: wcc Publications, 2013). Michael Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? Questions for the Future of Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 2.

4 CHAPTER 1 The ecumenical milieu is shifting, with changes generated by forces such as secularisation, Christianity’s move towards the Global South, and the increasing number of Pentecostal Christians who are opposed or apathetic to ecumenism. In contrast to its earlier unbridled optimism, the Ecumenical Movement is now widely regarded as existing in a state of uncertainty. The present moment is a time to pause, reflect and evaluate:  What has been achieved? What is there still to accomplish? What is the ultimate aim of ecumenism? How can we best go about realising it, here and now? 1

Calls for Ecumenical Renewal

Calls for ecumenical renewal and revival are widespread, and reflect some of the difficulties facing ecumenism today. There is no shortage of evidence to support a negative appraisal of the current ecumenical situation. Alarm over the “ecumenical crisis” or the “ecumenical winter” can be traced back at least as far as the early 1990s. For example, Jon Nilson paints a bleak picture of the ecumenical situation in 1995, writing that ecumenical hope and enthusiasm has faded, and even “in some quarters … completely died out.”14 He goes on to explain that ecumenical decline is compounded by the retirement of experienced ecumenists, and the lack of those willing to replace them.15 The loss of ecumenical interest in younger generations is influenced by a perception that “ecumenism is very old and unexciting news.”16 The next generation appears more interested in non-​Western theology, inter-​faith dialogue, and working for justice.17 He considers ecumenical decline to be fuelled by a lack of interest and commitment at both lay and official levels, calling on the Catholic Church, in particular, to do more to facilitate ecumenical activity.18 A similar assessment of the ecumenical context at the end of the 1990s is provided by Harding Meyer –​one which is startlingly reminiscent of today’s situation. He notes that discussions over the ecumenical crisis have been ongoing for a long time, and that there has been a serious decline in ecumenical urgency.19 He points to deteriorating interest in ecumenism, confusion or 14 15 16 17 18 19

Jon Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary: Roman Catholicism and the Ecumenical Future (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1995), v. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, v. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, v. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, v. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, vi. Harding Meyer, That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity, trans. William G. Rusch (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 151.

The Ecumenical Path

5

uncertainty over what direction ecumenism should take, loss of motivation, and lack of regard for the importance of ecumenical achievements, coupled with increasing resistance and reservation against ecumenism.20 Drawing on the 1994 Strasbourg paper, Crisis and Challenge of the Ecumenical Movement, Meyer describes a number of militating factors behind this negative situation.21 One of the major causes of ecumenical decline, according to the Strasbourg report, is a general attitude of complacency over ecumenical achievements.22 The fact that ecumenism has generally achieved “peaceful and cooperative coexistence” means that there is little driving urgency to push for more.23 Of course, as Meyer says, stopping at the point of friendly cooperation actually devalues the ecumenical aim, which is nothing less than Christ’s vision of unity.24 He argues, therefore, that the aim of ecumenism needs to be clearly defined. The ecumenical goal is not simply the establishment of friendly relations. Rather, it is the Christological imperative that “they may all be one” (Jn 17:21), with all of its eschatological overtones. Thus, Meyer seeks to counter “present tendencies toward an erosion, disintegration, or reduction of the determination of the ecumenical aim,” by reasserting the goal of full visible unity.25 Unfortunately, this sense of ecumenical complacency is still one of the key challenges facing ecumenism today. The fact that the Ecumenical Movement remains in crisis is borne out by many contemporary ecumenists. One of the more positive appraisals to date is from Kasper, who offers an encouraging account of how much the Ecumenical Movement has already achieved.26 This positivity, however, is tempered by the assertion that ecumenical work is far from finished, and that the contemporary milieu is a challenging context for ecumenism. He explains that previous enthusiasm has turned into a new sombreness, and that doubts about the future of ecumenism, as well as questions about ecumenical methods and past achievements are all being raised.27 As such, he urges the need for both cementing the successful results of ecumenical dialogues to date and for identifying where ecumenical tasks and challenges still remain.28 However, while 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Meyer, That All May Be One, 151–​152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 151. Walter Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits:  Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (New York: Continuum, 2009), 2. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 2. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 2.

6 CHAPTER 1 acknowledging that the Ecumenical Movement faces challenges in the contemporary context, Kasper counsels against ecumenical disillusionment or talk of an ecumenical winter.29 He asserts that while more has been achieved than could have been hoped for, we are still at an intermediate stage of “our ecumenical pilgrimage.”30 The present moment, Kasper believes, is the time to ask: “Where are we? What has been achieved? What has still to be done? Where can we, and where should we, move ahead?”31 Avis writes in a similar vein. He explains that there is widespread recognition that ecumenism requires reform and renewal. As he puts it, “Its theology needs to be reinvigorated and reshaped. Its bureaucracy deserves to be streamlined and refocused.”32 He observes that the once exciting Ecumenical Movement now seems “rather humdrum” and “dreary.”33 Moreover, “there is at the present time much uncertainty, doubt and heart-​searching about the future of ecumenism, the search for visible unity, coupled with real scepticism about the value of investing resources in ecumenical activity.”34 Ecumenical reform is needed, but it is unclear what direction it should take.35 Avis offers some pointers, arguing that ecumenism needs to grapple with diversity and identity.36 It must also integrate mission and unity, and be realistic about unity, and how to achieve it.37 He affirms that, above all, maintaining relations with each other should be undertaken out of love.38 He also draws attention to a lack of spiritual depth within contemporary ecumenism, explaining that what had been considered as a “new work of the Holy Spirit” can now at times appear “all too human.”39 The spiritual basis for ecumenism can tend to get lost beneath the itty-​gritty realities and complexities of dialogue. The future of the Ecumenical Movement is also a question of concern for Michael Kinnamon, prominent ecumenist and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the usa. He observes that it is unclear whether ecumenism will feature strongly in the future of the church.40 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 8. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 8. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 3. Paul Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology: The Church Made Whole? (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010), vii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, vii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, vii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, viii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, viii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, ix. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, ix. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, vii. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 2.

The Ecumenical Path

7

He believes that the Ecumenical Movement is currently “in danger of losing its way”41 and requires renewal if it is to survive.42 In particular, he identifies four points of weakness.43 The first is a lack of commitment among church leaders to the ecumenical goal. The second is that of divisions and difficulties within those churches that are engaged with ecumenism. The third is the increasing gap between theological and practical ecumenism, and the failure to integrate them. The last point he raises is that of decreasing financial and other support for key ecumenical instruments, including councils of churches.44 However, lest we become too discouraged, Kinnamon also outlines what he calls “two cardiac-​type responses” to these problems.45 The first of which is a renewed focus on Spiritual Ecumenism, as he critiques the tendency to over-​emphasise practical ecumenism at the expense of its spiritual dimensions.46 He reflects that ecumenism has “become so preoccupied with doing –​conferences, committees, dialogues, reports  –​that it feels like business as usual rather than something Spirit-​led” and calls for a renewed focus on prayer and spirituality.47 The second remedy Kinnamon proposes is that of a renewed emphasis on lay engagement and commitment with ecumenism.48 He insists that we remember that the Ecumenical Movement began as a lay prayer movement.49 As such, “if ecumenism is to be revitalized, then it cannot be left for denominational specialists and theological experts to do on behalf of the church.”50 In Kinnamon’s opinion, therefore, the future of the Ecumenical Movement depends on Spiritual Ecumenism and active lay participation. If nothing else, this brief discussion of different assessments of the Ecumenical Movement, from the 1990s up until the present, highlights that claims about the “ecumenical crisis” have characterised ecumenism for decades. Ecumenical enthusiasm and interest has generally declined since the high point of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. However, there is certainly no call for the Ecumenical Movement to be abandoned. As John Paul ii constantly reiterated,

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Michael Kinnamon, “New Contours of Ecumenism,” The Ecumenical Review 66, no.  1 (2014): 18. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 6. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 147. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 147–​152. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 152. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 152. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 152–​153. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 154. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 154. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 154.

8 CHAPTER 1 the Catholic Church’s commitment to ecumenism is irrevocable.51 Much has already been achieved by the Ecumenical Movement. But it is difficult, at the present moment, to point towards a concrete direction or goal for further development. The ultimate aim of full visible unity seems further out of reach today than it did in earlier decades. While the Ecumenical Movement is certainly not without hope, it is floundering. It is no surprise, therefore, that the current time is characterised by a call for renewal. The time is ripe for ecumenism to look back towards its roots in Spiritual Ecumenism. 2

A Time for Ecumenical Conversion

In 1964, in its Decree on Ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council asserted:  “There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart.”52 This document was not only a landmark in the history of Catholic engagement with the quest for Christian unity, but still guides the approach of the Catholic Church to ecumenism today. It is significant, therefore, that it highlights ecumenism as inextricably bound with a change of heart, or conversion. Indeed, the Decree puts it more strongly still: if ecumenism does not lead to conversion, then it is not truly ecumenism. The testimonies of many ecumenists bear out the point that ecumenism is intertwined with conversion. What draws someone to ecumenism? Why is undertaking the journey towards Christian unity not only important but imperative? A conversion experience, driven by desire to conform to Christ’s will, is often at the beginning of both individual and communal ecumenical journeys. The call for conversion also resonates strongly within contemporary theology.53 Pope Francis, continuing Vatican ii’s emphasis, calls for a continual conversion not just on the behalf of individual members, but also for the Church as a whole –​and even the Pope himself.54 He emphasises dialogue as a learning opportunity, grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit. He writes, “If we really believe in the abundantly free working of the Holy Spirit, we

51 52 53 54

John Paul ii, Ut Unum Sint: On Commitment to Ecumenism (1995), no. 3. Hereafter UUS. Vatican ii Council, “Unitatis Redintegratio:  Decree on Ecumenism,” in Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, ed. Austin Flannery (New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996), no. 7. Hereafter UR. For an excellent recent exploration of the theme of conversion, see: Karim Schelkens and Stephan van Erp, eds., Conversion and Church: The Challenge of Ecclesial Renewal: Essays in Honour of H. P. J. Witte, vol. 2, Studies in Catholic Theology (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016). Francis, Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel (2013), no. 25–​32. Hereafter, EG.

The Ecumenical Path

9

can learn so much from one another!”55 He makes it clear that this is not just meant to be a learning about others, but a learning from others, an exchange of gifts through the Spirit. As an example, Francis argues that Catholics can learn about episcopal collegiality and synodality from the Orthodox tradition.56 Calls for conversion are increasingly aimed at ecclesial, rather than just personal, levels. The Decree goes on to state, “This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, ‘spiritual ecumenism.’ ”57 The centre of ecumenism, its very soul, is spiritual. The ecumenical endeavour not only involves intellectual discipline and systematic investigation of doctrines and structures, as well as practical drive and commitment to work and pray together, but must also engage us spiritually and emotionally, individually and communally. All ecumenism is spiritual. Spiritual Ecumenism is therefore not only the soul of the Ecumenical Movement, but also the context and grounding of ecumenism, in all its forms, whether more theologically focused or more practically oriented. Considering that the importance of Spiritual Ecumenism was asserted in the Catholic tradition over fifty years ago, and in Protestant traditions well before then, it is somewhat surprising that the spiritual dimensions of ecumenism have been so neglected. It would seem that there is an imbalance in the Ecumenical Movement, caused by a neglect of the central importance of Spiritual Ecumenism. Ecumenism has focused predominantly on theological or practical matters. There is a tendency to separate theological and practical ecumenism into two different spheres and tasks. The divide between so-​called “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” ecumenism is an example. The term “theological ecumenism” refers here to ecumenical activities that primarily focus on doctrinal or theological concerns, on seeking to understand each other’s beliefs and ecclesiology, in order to reach theological and doctrinal consensus. Its key activity is ecumenical dialogues, usually conducted by ecumenical professionals, theologians, and academics. Theological ecumenism has succeeded in overcoming many dividing issues between Christians.58 However, there are signs that theological methods need to be re-​adapted and re-​oriented in light of the current context, which seems to be calling for a renewed focus on the spiritual elements of Christian unity. 55 56 57 58

Francis, EG, no. 245. Francis, EG, no. 245. Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Avis, “Unreal Worlds Meeting?” 420–​421.

10 CHAPTER 1 A predominant focus on practical ecumenism is likewise not without problems. “Practical ecumenism” is understood here as ecumenical efforts primarily directed towards mission, and churches working together. It is often undertaken by laypeople, as well as professional ecumenists. While practical ecumenism is an essential aspect of ecumenism, and one with a rich harvest, there is a concern that a dominant focus on that element contributes to a lessening of the ultimate ecumenical goal. Practical ecumenism focuses on cooperation and joint mission, and could perhaps be satisfied with peaceful coexistence, rather than pushing for full visible unity. If that is the case, then the ecumenical endeavour can largely be considered successful, and simply needs to be maintained rather than driven forward. However, if the aim of ecumenism is Christ’s desire for unity, then this impulse must be resisted. Christian unity is far from achieved. Arguably, while both theological and practical ecumenism have been well-​ developed, established, and successful, Spiritual Ecumenism remains underdeveloped, and its potential is largely untapped. The relative lack of emphasis on Spiritual Ecumenism today is at odds with the intrinsic character of ecumenism. Kasper draws attention to the fact that ecumenism as a whole can be considered as beginning with Spiritual Ecumenism, as “the very first impetus of the ecumenical movement.”59 To disregard the spiritual aspects of ecumenism is to distort the entire ecumenical drive. If bereft of a focus on Spiritual Ecumenism, as Kasper explains, ecumenism “becomes a soulless bureaucracy and is destined to exhaust itself.”60 Ecumenism cannot be reduced solely to academic debate; it is about how all of us, as members of the body of Christ, follow Christ’s wishes. Therefore, the desire for Christian unity should perfuse the entire community, not touch only on “the margin of their hearts and lives.”61 Spiritual Ecumenism should not be seen as a third “type” of ecumenism, added to theological and practical ecumenism, but rather as the very heart and foundation of all ecumenical efforts. Historically, the Ecumenical Movement has its roots in prayer for unity, ­under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not surprising, considering the driving impetus behind ecumenism is Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). Kasper makes the point that while the modern Ecumenical Movement is usually dated from 1910, it could be considered as starting two years 59 60 61

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 156. Walter Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century,” (presentation, the 40th anniversary of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC, 18th November 2005). Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.”

The Ecumenical Path

11

earlier, with Paul Wattson’s introduction of an octave of prayer for the unity of Christians, celebrated from the 18th to 25th of January 1908.62 Precedents can be seen even further back.63 Thus, ecumenism is more than just an intellectual or practical endeavour. It also needs to be conducted on the affective level of the heart, and as a spirituality. Ecumenical spirituality speaks to the depths underlying ecumenical dialogue, the silences without words, and the mystery that concepts alone cannot convey; the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual Ecumenism is the impetus underlying ecumenism itself. As such, emphasising the spiritual within the ecumenical is vital to renewing the ecumenical endeavour as a whole. This sentiment is eloquently expressed by Kasper, worth quoting at length: We are only at the beginning of a new beginning. In order to start with renewed enthusiasm and energy in the new century we have to clarify the foundations, the vision, the ways and the practice of the ecumenical movement; above all, there is a need for spiritual ecumenism. The ecumenical movement from its very beginnings has been and will continue to be an impulse and a gift of the Holy Spirit. Ecumenical activities not grounded in spiritual ecumenism will very soon become a soulless routine, whereas spiritual ecumenism will lead us to the conviction that [He] who has initiated the whole ecumenical movement, is faithful and will bring it to its fulfilment.64 This is to say that the present time calls for a focus on the affective levels of shared faith and spirituality, for an ecumenism focused on both institutional and personal conversion. If ecumenism is a spiritual, affective, and virtuous activity, it must be carried out with humility and hope, not as a purely human task, but as a Christ-​given, Spirit-​led endeavour towards deepening conversion. 62 63

64

Walter Kasper, “The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: Origin and Continuing Inspiration of the Ecumenical Movement,” in A Century of Prayer for Christian Unity, ed. Catherine E. Clifford (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), 26. The link between Christian prayer for unity and the birth of the Ecumenical Movement is well-​documented. The various prayer movements of the 18th and 19th centuries formed the basis for the later development of the ecumenical endeavour. Members of these prayer movements “discovered that there must be not only prayer for unity but prayer for unity by people of different traditions praying together,” as explained by Gwen Cashmore and Joan Puls, “Spirituality in the Ecumenical Movement,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky, et al. (Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002), 1070. See also Kasper, “The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity,” 27–​28. Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.”

12 CHAPTER 1 A renewed focus on Spiritual Ecumenism is particularly suited to our postmodern contemporary context, which is characterised by “a distrust of any doctrinal position, yet at the same time a search for spiritual experience.”65 For decades, the ecumenical endeavour has concentrated almost exclusively on the working out of doctrinal agreement between one or more ecclesial communities. As such, ecumenical achievements have been reached largely on a theological level, concentrating on doctrinal considerations, scriptural interpretations, doctrinal formulae, theological systems, and the like. While these are essential steps towards unity, they are building blocks, rather than the heart of unity, which is its spiritual impulse. A one-​sided focus on theological ecumenism, without placing Spiritual Ecumenism at its heart, may well have been a contributing factor to the ebbing of ecumenical enthusiasm that we now face. However, highlighting the importance of Spiritual Ecumenism is in no way meant to denigrate the significance and value of theological and practical ecumenism, but rather to re-​affirm their spiritual roots. Ideally, theological and practical ecumenism should be conducted ­together, grounded in, and inspired by, Spiritual Ecumenism. To avoid becoming abstract, theological ecumenism needs to be grounded in the context and reality of each church community. Practical ecumenism must also be challenged by theological ecumenism, by critically interpreting and ­understanding the doctrinal issues dividing different communities. Perceived divisions between practical and theological ecumenism can be bridged by understanding the basis of all ecumenical activity as stemming from Spiritual Ecumenism. It is this assertion that leads to my central focus:  Receptive Ecumenism. There is a widespread call for the renewal of the Ecumenical Movement. However, if we are to rekindle the ecumenical flame, effective ecumenical approaches must be developed for the contemporary context. One such response, Receptive Ecumenism, has been lauded as lighting the way forward for ecumenical progress. But what is Receptive Ecumenism? How can Receptive Ecumenism fulfil its promise as an effective ecumenical strategy? 3

Receptive Ecumenism

Receptive Ecumenism is a fresh ecumenical approach that has immense potential. However, because it is still emerging, its identity and significance requires further exploration. This new method has been linked to a variety of different 65

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157.

The Ecumenical Path

13

frameworks, including:  reception,66 comparative ecclesiology,67 elemental theology,68 fundamental theology,69 and pragmatic idealism.70 However, it is my premise that Receptive Ecumenism is most appropriately recognised as a development within Spiritual Ecumenism. To put it boldly, Receptive Ecumenism has the potential to reinvigorate ecumenism precisely because it is a form of Spiritual Ecumenism. Yet, no systematic examination of the relationship between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism has been undertaken. In the hope of teasing out some of Receptive Ecumenism’s full potential, this investigation offers an exploration of that intrinsic connection. The aim is to explore the potential of this ecumenical approach as one uniquely suited to the contemporary milieu because it prioritises the need for ecclesial, not just personal conversion, and is deliberately capable of bridging the separation between theological and practical ecumenism. The intention is to discover how Receptive Ecumenism may be a valuable development and application of Spiritual Ecumenism. Does it contribute to furthering Spiritual Ecumenism in the contemporary context? Can it help to redress the equilibrium between theological, practical, and Spiritual Ecumenism? Is Receptive Ecumenism capable of opening up new vistas of ecumenical engagement? Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism is worthy of serious consideration, especially in regard to the distinctiveness of its method and its significance for contemporary ecumenism, which lies in its relationship with Spiritual Ecumenism. 66

67

68 69

70

Hervé Legrand, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Future of Ecumenical Dialogues  –​ Privileging Differentiated Consensus and Drawing its Institutional Consequences,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Gerard Mannion, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Hermeneutics of Catholic Learning –​ The Promise of Comparative Ecclesiology,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D.  Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Daniel W.  Hardy, “Receptive Ecumenism  –​Learning by Engagement,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Walter Kasper, “ ‘Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam’ –​The Relationship between the Catholic and the Protestant Principles in Fundamental Ecclesiology,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 78. Paul D.  Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning  –​Establishing the Agenda,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 7. It must be noted that this key chapter was first published as an article: Paul D. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning:  Establishing the Agenda,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7, no. 4 (2007). To avoid confusion, as the text is identical, all references used here are taken from the book chapter.

14 CHAPTER 1 4

Spiritual Ecumenism

Along with providing some clarification of Receptive Ecumenism, my intent is also to offer an exploration of Spiritual Ecumenism. Spiritual Ecumenism, defined by Vatican ii as the “soul” of the Ecumenical Movement, itself requires some rediscovery.71 The term “spiritual ecumenism” can be used in different ways, in both Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Certainly, Spiritual Ecumenism was an important thread in ecumenism prior to official Catholic involvement. The first recorded mention of Spiritual Ecumenism is at the Edinburgh missionary conference in 1910.72 It was expressed as a “gospel requirement” which presupposes “practical and theological ecumenism” in the 1925 Life and Work conference, and in 1927 at the Faith and Order Conference.73 Moreover, Spiritual Ecumenism is affirmed as the “foundation on which the wcc was built (1948).”74 This is very significant, and it is curious as to how Spiritual Ecumenism has been obscured in the intervening decades. While further work could be fruitfully undertaken on addressing Spiritual Ecumenism as a whole, in this current work, I am referring to Spiritual Ecumenism as it has manifested specifically within the Catholic tradition. The term Spiritual Ecumenism should not be confused with the broader notion of ecumenical spirituality. Spiritual Ecumenism here refers specifically to the type of ecumenism advocated in Unitatis Redintegratio, with a pre-​ eminently pneumatological focus. It cannot be understood without reference to Paul Couturier, and consideration of its expansion and development by post-​ Vatican ii theologians, such as Walter Kasper and Margaret O’Gara. Because of this, the term Spiritual Ecumenical Movement is useful because it categorises a broad ecumenical movement that emphasises ecumenism as a spiritual activity, seeking both personal and ecclesial conversion to Christ through the Spirit. Paul Murray sees Receptive Ecumenism as belonging to the Spiritual ­Ecumenical family, and as wanting to draw out specific aspects of Spiritual ­Ecumenism –​namely, its latent focus on institutional conversion and decision-​ making. He considers Spiritual Ecumenism’s scope as properly e­ xtending to “structural, institutional, ecclesial and theological renewal,” rather than just

71 72 73 74

Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Régis Ladous, “Spiritual Ecumenism,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky, et al. (Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002), 1069. Ladous, “Spiritual Ecumenism,” 1069. Ladous, “Spiritual Ecumenism,” 1069.

The Ecumenical Path

15

“prayer” and personal conversion.75 In this light, he regards Receptive Ecumenism as an attempt at re-​orientating Spiritual Ecumenism back to the original thrust given it by Couturier. This re-​discovery of Spiritual Ecumenism’s full scope is vitally important for the future of ecumenism. All of this leads us to the key question: what significance does Receptive Ecumenism have for the future of the Ecumenical Movement? How can its potential be unlocked and activated? 5

Purpose and Outline of This Work

Receptive Ecumenism has been hailed as the coming of a “new spring” for the Ecumenical Movement.76 But if it is to bring about a newly fruitful season for Christian unity, the ground must be carefully prepared. Receptive Ecumenism is almost always defined simply in terms of its key question, of asking what one’s own tradition can learn from another. Asking this question has caused a re-​invigoration of the ecumenical sphere:  it has led to the publication of dozens of articles, four major international conferences, and various research projects. It has also impacted on bilateral dialogues, most notably in its adoption as a method by the third phase of the Anglican-​Roman Catholic International Commission (arcic iii). While Receptive Ecumenism has already made an impressive impact on the contemporary ecumenical scene, its place within ecumenism is, of course, still emerging. However, the approach has yet to be set out and explained in a detailed, structured, systematic manner. Systematic investigation of Receptive Ecumenism has been lacking, due in part to its newness. Receptive Ecumenism cannot be considered an ecumenical model in the usual sense of the term. Its strength (and weakness) resides in its simplicity. At one level, its simplicity enables a high level of appeal and adaptation to specific contexts. It is not asking an ecumenically minded Christian to detail the differences between, say, the Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the doctrine of justification. Rather, it asks a more open question: what can Catholics learn from Lutherans? However, its simplicity can also be a weakness. 75

Paul D.  Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ:  Receptive Ecumenism as an Instrument of Ecclesial Conversion” (presentation, The Catholic Theological Society of America: Sixty-​Eighth Annual Convention: Conversion, Miami, Florida, June 6–​9, 2013). 76 Walter Kasper, “Foreword,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D.  Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), viii.

16 CHAPTER 1 Attempting to define what Receptive Ecumenism actually is can be somewhat frustrating. Yet, the promise of Receptive Ecumenism warrants a sustained critical analysis of its method, its connection with Spiritual Ecumenism, how it is being implemented, its effectiveness as an ecumenical strategy, and the ramifications it has for the future of ecumenical theology. The following exploration is structured around the motif of Receptive Ecumenism as an ecumenical path. Chapter Two focuses on defining Receptive Ecumenism, as the path of self-​critical ecclesial learning and conversion. It explores Paul Murray’s vision of Receptive Ecumenism, its development, aims and distinctive characteristics. Chapter Three investigates how other contributors conceptualise and understand Receptive Ecumenism. This is undertaken via a critical analysis of the major themes and tensions within the Receptive Ecumenism volume, which is the primary resource currently available on Receptive Ecumenism. It is about navigating along the Receptive Ecumenical path, assessing what work has been undertaken so far, and what still needs to be done. One key theme that is uncovered is that of Spiritual Ecumenism, raising the need to trace the influence of Spiritual Ecumenism on Receptive Ecumenism. Chapters Four and Five address the theological grounding and context of Receptive Ecumenism within Spiritual Ecumenism. These two chapters explore, in chronological order, Receptive Ecumenism’s roots within Spiritual Ecumenism, which is where the path begins. Chapter Four addresses Spiritual Ecumenism up to, and including, Vatican ii. The key Spiritual Ecumenical influences discussed are: the impact of Couturier; Congar as a forerunner to Receptive Ecumenism; and the impact of Vatican ii, particularly the Decree on Ecumenism. Chapter Five picks up the thread, examining post-​Vatican ii influences on Receptive Ecumenism, namely:  Ut Unum Sint as laying the groundwork for Receptive Ecumenism; the significance of Kasper’s Spiritual Ecumenism; and finally, Margaret O’Gara’s focus on the ecumenical exchange of gifts. From this theological background, key characteristics of Spiritual Ecumenism are drawn out and examined. The last section of the chapter appraises the connection and distinction between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. Drawing on the arguments outlined in the previous chapters, Chapter Six considers how the relationship between Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism is dynamic; in other words, how they enrich each other. First, it is argued that not only is Receptive Ecumenism best understood as part of the Spiritual Ecumenical family, but that it is a valuable development. A critical assessment is given of how it enriches Spiritual Ecumenism, reflecting on three key areas. The second part of the chapter focuses on three key areas where Receptive

The Ecumenical Path

17

Ecumenism differs from Spiritual Ecumenism. Finally, Receptive Ecumenism is addressed as a reception of the principles of Spiritual Ecumenism, shaped by the contemporary context. Chapters Seven and Eight shift the focus to exploring the relevance and significance of Receptive Ecumenism for the contemporary Ecumenical Movement. Chapter Seven emphasises the importance of seeing ecumenism as a virtuous exercise. This chapter centres on the significance of the spiritual, virtuous, and affective elements of ecumenism, which are highlighted by Receptive Ecumenism. Consideration of these dimensions is essential in order to balance out the more traditional emphasis on the theological and practical levels of ecumenism. The chapter focuses on how key ecclesial virtues, humility, hope, and love, receive expression in Receptive Ecumenism. The final part of the chapter addresses the relevance of Receptive Ecumenism’s basis in virtues for the contemporary context. Chapter Eight investigates Receptive Ecumenism’s potential and effectiveness as an ecumenical strategy. Firstly, its capacity to respond to some of the key challenges currently facing the Ecumenical Movement is analysed. Secondly, an evaluation of the ways it has been applied, and their relative successes and drawbacks, is undertaken. Finally, the challenges that need to be overcome for its successful implementation in our current context are ­examined. Chapter Nine summarises the key points and results of the investigation into the relationship between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. Drawing together the arguments discussed throughout, it outlines seven critical ­reflections on the significance of the dynamic between Receptive and Spiritual E ­ cumenism. It concludes by looking to the future, and addressing the value of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism for the Ecumenical Movement, especially in regard to the need to tap into the spiritual and affective levels of ecumenical engagement.

­c hapter 2

The Path of Self-​Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion: Receptive Ecumenism Receptive Ecumenism is expressly conscious of the importance and influence of context and lived realities. Understanding its own context is therefore a good place to start when coming to grips with its aims and distinctive features. Receptive Ecumenism developed as a response to crisis in the contemporary Ecumenical Movement and is designed specifically to traverse its particular challenges.1 As a strategy to reignite ecumenical momentum, it has the ­potential to provide the Ecumenical Movement with new direction and energy. According to Avis, its potential is “revolutionary” because it “strikes deep into ecumenical motivation and stands prevailing ecumenical attitudes on their head.”2 What, then, is Receptive Ecumenism? How was it developed? What are its aims? What makes it distinctive? 1

Paul Murray’s Vision of Receptive Ecumenism

Receptive Ecumenism is Paul Murray’s proposal for “a fresh new strategy in Christian ecumenism.”3 Murray is a Catholic theologian from the United Kingdom. He is Professor of Systematic Theology and the founding Director of the Centre for Catholic Studies at Durham University. In 2011, he was appointed by Pope Benedict xvi to arcic iii, and in 2012 as a Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. His earlier work focused on Nicholas Rescher’s idealist-​pragmatist method. He also places a strong emphasis on the value of Nicholas Healy’s approach to ecclesiology which is both concrete and theological.4 In line with this thinking, Murray asserts that the church should not be

1 Paul D. Murray and Mathew Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church: Theological and Sociological Reflections on Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church,” in Explorations in Ecclesiology and Ethnography, ed. Christian B. Scharen (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012), 144. 2 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 225. 3 Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. 4 Paul D. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice: On the Transformative Task of Systematic Ecclesiology,” Modern Theology 30, no. 2 (2014): 254.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_003

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

19

considered as an ideal abstract, but as a “messy reality.”5 His work is concerned to discuss “the living, breathing, empirical reality of the church as it actually is and not simply as we would have or imagine it to be.”6 He therefore asserts the value of empirical methods and ethnography for ecclesiology.7 Indeed, he claims that “the relationship between ecclesiology and ethnography is essential to any genuinely Catholic ecclesiology.”8 Murray’s focus on empirical data and the lived reality of the church emphasises his view that the doctrinal/​theological needs to include the practical/​empirical within it far more strongly than is generally the case, which is an important factor in Receptive Ecumenism. Murray describes Receptive Ecumenism as a new ecumenical method of “humble ecclesial learning.”9 It is based around a shift in thinking. Instead of asking: “What do our various others first need to learn from us?”10 We are challenged to ask instead, “What, in any given situation, can one’s own tradition appropriately learn with integrity from other traditions?”11 His argument is that if each tradition adopts this question and applies it to their particular situation, then the Ecumenical Movement would regain some momentum.12 It is highly important that specific contexts are taken seriously, as Murray is rightly concerned with the need to focus on the actual lived realities of communities, rather than with abstract generalities. Moreover, he stresses the importance of each tradition doing this for the potential benefit to be gained, and not out of any insistence that others reciprocate.13 This is a key point, as the focus here is on the church ad intra, rather than ad extra, on interior ecclesial conversion, rather than quid pro quo ecumenical engagement. Receptive Ecumenism’s ­inward focus on the church ties in with its key emphasis on conversion. In a striking turn of phrase, Murray calls Receptive Ecumenism “the way of hope-​filled conversion.”14 Its explicit aim is to inspire interior conversion, and the “structural, institutional, ecclesial and theological” ramifications this

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 253. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 256. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 254. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 255. The phrase from the first Durham conference was “Catholic Learning.” The 2009 conference extended Receptive Ecumenism’s sphere outside of just Catholic learning to other Christians, shifting to “ecclesial learning.” This more encompassing phrase is used here. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12.

20 CHAPTER 2 conversion may have.15 It focuses on enriching one’s own tradition, leading towards deeper conversion, by engaging in a process of hope-​filled ecumenical learning. Hope plays a particular role in Receptive Ecumenism, which will be explored in more detail later.16 Suffice to say, Receptive Ecumenism entails a trusting hope in other Christians, as it is an ecumenism of “the wounded hands,” wherein a church openly displays its weaknesses to other Christians, rather than its strengths.17 This is undertaken “knowing that we cannot save ourselves, asking our ecumenical others to minister to us in our need from their gifts.”18 Undoubtedly, this implies a radical humility and hope in our Christian brothers and sisters. If it is to resist being naïve, this type of humble engagement with another church can only be undertaken on the basis of a strong trust in the other, and is therefore, dependent on already established ecumenical relations. It is an advanced, rather than beginner level of ­ecumenical engagement. A concern that needs to be raised here is that of clarity of expression. A quick reading of Murray’s idea of the ecumenism of wounded hands could lead to the impression that we should look to other Christians to “save” us, rather than leaving enough room for the salvific activity of the Spirit. This is not his intention, although Receptive Ecumenism’s pneumatological dimensions are somewhat implicit and require further emphasis. If a church community offers itself to other churches on the assumption that they have the ability to heal us with their gifts, we must be careful to emphasise that those gifts come ultimately from the Holy Spirit. Another possible issue is whether this approach may appear disquieting towards more conservative elements within the Catholic Church. Yet, the potential of Receptive Ecumenism is clear. In light of the difficult situation currently faced by ecumenical endeavours, Murray attests to the possibility for genuine future progress if churches follow this path.19 Receptive Ecumenism is a cautious optimism, a realistic hope. We can move forward, even in this time of ecumenical winter, but progress requires us to be more self-​critical and to focus on interior conversion. In other words, to heed Vatican ii’s call for interior conversion and re-​discover Spiritual Ecumenism as the soul of the Ecumenical Movement.

15 16 17 18 19

Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” The role of the virtue of hope in Receptive Ecumenism will be examined in Chapter Seven. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

21

Receptive Ecumenism’s main intent is not to try to remove, minimise, or seek agreement over doctrinal differences, although these may be part of the process, but rather to focus inwardly on the tradition itself, and most especially, on its wounds. Murray explains that it should “with all due expertise, rigor and sophistication … explicitly seek to perform a reparative ministry addressing these wounds.”20 It is designed to complement ecumenical tactics that focus primarily on sorting out differences between traditions. Receptive Ecumenism focuses on renewing the tradition itself, based on the lived experience of that tradition. It therefore offers a balance between practical and theological ecumenism, which is sorely needed. Kasper emphasises this fact, when he writes that Receptive Ecumenism “is conducive to a bridging of theological discussions and ecclesial practice.”21 It not only asks a tradition to reflect on what it may learn from other Christian traditions, but it is “attentive to practical steps which could be taken as a result of that learning.”22 Rather than a rarefied academic discipline, it acts on both sides of ecumenism: theology and practice. Receptive Ecumenism’s balance between practical and theological ecumenism stems from its grounding within Spiritual Ecumenism, something which becomes apparent in Murray’s argument that, “all effective ecumenical learning,” while “always in need of being tested by the ‘head,’ ” nevertheless “consists most deeply in an affair of the ‘heart.’ ”23 Receptive Ecumenism is an ecumenism of the heart. The shift required by Receptive Ecumenism, from the learning needs of others, to what we need to learn, is a change of perspective and attitude, and ultimately, of the heart. The vision of Receptive Ecumenism strikes to the core of Vatican ii’s recognition of ecumenical activity as involving conversion of the heart. It is important, then, to consider factors involved in its development. 2

Receptive Ecumenism’s Development

Receptive Ecumenism was officially launched in 2006 with the international colloquium “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism,” held by Ushaw College at Durham University. It

20 21 22 23

Paul D.  Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning:  Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology, and Receptive Ecumenism,” Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (2013): 92. Kasper, “Foreword,” viii. Kasper, “Foreword,” viii. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 86.

22 CHAPTER 2 received highly positive feedback.24 Murray reports that the conference was variously described as “ ‘historic,’ ‘groundbreaking’ ” and “ ‘the most significant academic theological event in the UK in living memory.’ ”25 The first conference aimed “to articulate and scrutinize the basic idea and to test it out” in relation to Catholicism.26 The second conference, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Learning to Be Church Together,” held at Durham University in 2009, expanded on this by considering Receptive Ecumenism in a more broadly Christian, rather than Catholic, sense.27 The third conference, “Receptive Ecumenism in International Perspective: Ecclesial Learning in Context,” held at Fairfield University, Connecticut, in June 2014, aimed to build on the previous conferences by investigating Receptive Ecumenism in a global context. The fourth conference, “Leaning into the Spirit: Discernment, Decision Making and Reception” was held in Canberra, Australia in 2017 and focused on the connection between Receptive Ecumenism and pneumatology, as well as considering further applications of the method. Alongside the conferences, which have been primarily academic in orientation, there was a significant research project on applying Receptive Ecumenism to a particular context, the Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church, studying churches in the North East of England.28 Thus, in just over a decade, Receptive Ecumenism has encompassed four major international conferences, hundreds of participants from countries around the world, hundreds of papers, a major practical initiative, and one main volume, although in coming years, that number should increase. Receptive Ecumenism is still, therefore, very much emerging and continuing to grow. But how was it initially developed? In considering formative factors on Receptive Ecumenism’s development, five influences are of key relevance: (1) Murray’s awareness that the Ecumenical Movement requires a fresh ecumenical approach; (2) the American idealist-​ pragmatist tradition, especially the thought of Nicholas Rescher; (3) Spiritual Ecumenism; (4) Scriptural Reasoning; and (5) Ignatian spirituality.

24 25 26 27 28

Paul D. Murray, “Preface,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), x. Murray, “Preface,” x. Paul D.  Murray and Andrea L.  Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” in Unity in Process:  Reflections on Ecumenism, ed. Clive Barrett (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2012), 80. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 80. This project is discussed in detail in Chapter Eight.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

23

First, Murray’s proposal for a fresh ecumenical approach stems from his conviction that a realistic new strategy is necessary, given the onset of the ecumenical winter.29 In comparison to the decades immediately following Vatican ii, which were characterised by high levels of enthusiasm and energy for ecumenism, ecumenical fervour has dwindled considerably.30 In particular, Murray reflects that the aim of achieving full visible unity, which was a key focus of much ecumenical activity from the 1960s to 1980s, “appears to have run out of steam.”31 He suggests a number of reasons for this, including “immense disappointment” caused by the “failure of high-​profile initiatives,” such as the 1969 and 1972 Church of England-​Methodist unity schemes, and the negativity of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith during the first stage of arcic.32 Moreover, he points to a divide between the commitment of grassroots ecumenists and the official levels of the Catholic Church. He believes that frustration with slow progress on doctrinal and structural unity has led to increased focus on more immediately practical topics, such as mission.33 Murray also emphasises a trend toward increasingly insular ecclesial communities, as the postmodern milieu causes some communities to adopt “a more inward-​looking, preservationist mentality.”34 This phenomenon is called re-​ confessionalism. Unfortunately, attempting to strengthen ecclesial identities in this manner often comes at the expense of the ecumenical spirit.35 In light of the current plateau of ecumenical achievements, he argues that ecumenism is “frequently … written-​off as futile, washed-​up, log-​jammed, irrelevant,” and “belonging to a former age.”36 From a critical appraisal of the current ecumenical context, he believes that “we are at the point where the traditional formal strategies, for all their erstwhile success, have for the time being quite possibly gone as far as they can on most fronts.”37 In his evaluation, despite prior achievements, “the structural, sacramental, and ministerial reconciliation of the traditions now seems further away than ever.”38 However,

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 10. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 11. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 11. Paul D. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Receiving Gifts for Our Needs,” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1–​2 (2008): 30. Paul D. Murray, “ARCIC III: Recognising the Need for An Ecumenical Gear-​Change,” One in Christ 45, no. 2 (2011): 207. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 3.

24 CHAPTER 2 hearteningly, Murray considers that the early post-​conciliar decades may, in fact, have been “excessively and prematurely” optimistic, and that ecumenism now has an opportunity to become more realistic.39 He proposes that the thrust of ecumenism should shift to finding a pragmatic approach for the current time.40 As full visible unity is not a feasible immediate goal for contemporary ecumenism, he proposes doing what can actually be done, which is a process of deepening conversion. However, this is not to say that he believes the goal of ecumenism to be anything less than full structural unity. In fact, Murray critiques ecumenical approaches that focus only on “prayer, good relations, and shared witness and mission.”41 As mentioned earlier, a distorted over-​emphasis on practical ecumenism, which acts to sideline theological ecumenism, or the pursuit of full structural unity, is one of the dangers facing the contemporary Ecumenical Movement. As Murray puts it, the ultimate goal of Christian unity cannot be reduced to that of “the ecumenism of tea and crumpets, of prayer and politeness, and possibly, some shared social action.”42 While these matters are important, they cannot on their own resolve Christian divisions, nor smooth over the impact such visible disunity has on our ability to bear proper witness to the world.43 To resolve this problem, he says “we need the achievement … of structural, institutional and sacramental communion.”44 In this regard, he argues that Receptive Ecumenism takes seriously the reality that the achievement of full structural unity is not possible any time soon.45 Therefore, he proposes Receptive Ecumenism as a realistic strategy for the “now,” designed with the realisation that full visible unity is not yet possible, but which still ultimately works towards the “not yet,” or the final goal of ecumenism.46 However, while Murray justifies the need for a fresh ecumenical methodology based on the current state of ecumenical stagnation, he also considers that the contemporary milieu represents an opportunity for achieving realistic ecumenical growth.­ Because full visible unity is not a workable immediate goal at this point in the Ecumenical Movement, it is time for an ecumenism “suited to the interim 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Paul D.  Murray and Paula Gooder, “Receptive Ecumenism and ARCIC III,” Seminar in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Visit of Archbishop Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI (Gregorian University, Rome, 2016). Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.”

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

25

situation.”47 He argues that the current context should not be perceived as a “problematic interim” but “more as a long-​term learning opportunity” for “slow and difficult growth in maturity.”48 Therefore, one of the significant influences on Murray’s development of Receptive Ecumenism is his critical awareness of the current ecumenical milieu. Receptive Ecumenism is an attempt to engage with a largely negative situation in a positive, constructive manner. However, the way Receptive Ecumenism responds to this sense of ecumenical stagnation has been shaped by certain key influences. One formative factor is the American pragmatist tradition, especially as it has influenced Murray’s theological thinking. Murray’s first book, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective (2004) places a high value on Rescher’s pragmatist-​idealist method.49 He relates that the “key thinking” around Receptive Ecumenism was shaped by engagement with the pragmatist tradition more broadly and Rescher’s approach specifically.50 In fact, Murray states that Reason, Truth and Theology can be seen as outlining Receptive Ecumenism’s methodological and epistemological principles.51 Receptive Ecumenism’s pragmatist underpinning is illustrated in Murray’s emphasis on the significance of context: “for Rescher the rational thing to do is to take one’s situatedness seriously whilst continually opening it out to testing against what else there is and what else comes to light.”52 This is precisely what Receptive Ecumenism attempts to do. Murray attests that for Rescher, truth is something that we “can assume ourselves to be articulating in part but which inevitably eludes us in toto,” which means that our attitude towards truth is one of “aspiration rather than possession.”53 Therefore, while recognising the pluralistic context of Christianity, and postmodern indeterminacy, Murray favours Rescher’s pragmatist-​idealist approach to truth. Here, instead of looking at Truth from a modern perspective as one great, objective, static, transcendent, overarching entity, truth is instead found through a “recursive, expansive, self-​critical” process.54 What a community holds to be true must constantly be challenged with new insights from others, undertaken 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. See Paul D. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective (Leuven: Peeters, 2004). The book is a reworking of his doctoral dissertation, and serves to outline some of the key influences on Murray’s own approach. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 7–​8. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 80. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8.

26 CHAPTER 2 through a self-​critical process to determine whether it is still clear and coherent or whether the community requires renewal.55 Tradition is conceived of as a living process, rather than a static reality. Tradition is not “a state of arrival,” Murray says, “but of continuing navigation via key points of reference.”56 Moreover, the transformative renewal is undertaken “in light of what can be appropriately received.”57 This rather eschatological understanding of truth as developing, rather than fully achieved, and the need for self-​critical engagement with others, can be seen as Receptive Ecumenism’s very backbone. Furthermore, Murray finds that Rescher’s approach is “helpfully suggestive here of what might be referred to as a committed pluralist position.”58 This position takes “the pluralist reality of the world” seriously as fact, and therefore requires “commitment” to “the need to negotiate this appropriately.”59 The committed pluralist approach also “makes a claim precisely for the legitimacy and rationality of particular rooted commitment in this context,” and for how this legitimate diversity may be lived out appropriately.60 Rescher and Murray place a positive value on pluralism. They reject the notion that pluralism legitimates pure relativism. Total relativism leads to a stance of indifference, where all positions are accepted as equivalent and equally valid. Against this, Rescher pragmatically asserts that, in fact, each person naturally considers their own position superior to that of others.61 Murray explains that Rescher therefore holds to a qualified relativism, acknowledging that while others may be justified in their stance, we are also justified in relation to our own.62 However, Rescher opposes the thinking that such a stance could be used to support tribalism, or “multiple, self-​contained and mutually isolated communities.”63 Instead, he asserts our responsibility to present our own position to others, not just as legitimate, but as the most correct position. Because of this, Murray explains that Rescher emphasises “the need for a process of constructive mutual challenge and the responsibility this entails to allow one’s own (community’s) perspectives to be subjected to the challenges and possibilities of other perspectives.”64 In fact, Rescher considers that it is only possible to assert 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 158. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 124. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 124. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 124–​125. Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 125.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

27

one’s own perspective as the most correct if one has clearly taken into account other  perspectives. This requires a self-​critical attitude on behalf of one’s community.65 Because of this positive attitude towards pluralism, Murray believes that Rescher’s approach is “uniquely well-​suited to the contemporary Christian ecumenical context and to indicating a constructive way forwards in a difficult phase of the ecumenical journey.”66 For example, from Rescher’s approach to diversity, it follows that the legitimacy of one’s ecclesial identity is not compromised by recognising the validity of another’s ecclesial identity. In fact, if plurality is legitimate, and no one possesses the totality of truth, then ecumenism becomes a process of self-​critical learning and renewal. In this light, Murray’s recognition of the relevance of applying this approach to the ecumenical sphere becomes clear. Certainly, pluralism is one of the key challenges facing the Ecumenical Movement. By grounding it within Rescher’s pragmatist idealism, and advocating the committed pluralist approach, the hope is that Receptive Ecumenism may be able to navigate the pluralistic context facing ecumenism without succumbing to the pitfalls of postmodern relativism. Rescher’s approach to truth “as being about the integral refreshment and renewal of what one/​one’s community already has in the light of what can be appropriately received,” is a highly significant influence on the development of Murray’s ecumenical approach.67 Receptive Ecumenism was also shaped by the broader context of Catholic ecumenical theology, especially Spiritual Ecumenism. In his semi-​ autobiographical account of Receptive Ecumenism’s origins, co-​authored with Andrea Murray, Murray points to a day conference in 2003 on Spiritual Ecumenism by Rowan Williams and Walter Kasper as being a “final decisive event.”68 His statement of the impact this had on Receptive Ecumenism’s development is vital to our understanding, and thus worth quoting at length: Spiritual Ecumenism articulated precisely the vision of receptive ecumenical hospitality and fruitfulness … The one caveat was that Spiritual Ecumenism could potentially be heard as speaking of the need for receptive learning purely at the level of one’s personal spirituality or, if extended to the collective level at all, to the need for such learning merely in 65 66 67 68

Murray, Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective, 125. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 85.

28 CHAPTER 2 relation to respective spiritual and liturgical traditions. If so, this would be to leave out of account the crucial need also for deep structural, institutional learning from each other in relation to such things as respective processes and structures of decision-​making.69 Murray’s explanation pinpoints the difference between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism as primarily one of scope. He advocates for a type of Spiritual Ecumenism with more than a “personal” emphasis; it must extend toward structural and ecclesial conversion. As Spiritual Ecumenism has tended to be relegated towards the personal, “the decision was taken to refer to Receptive Ecumenism rather than to Spiritual Ecumenism.”70 Murray’s idea for Receptive Ecumenism is that it should expand the range of Spiritual Ecumenism to include institutional and ecclesial conversion, not just personal conversion. For instance, he writes, “Receptive Ecumenism both resonates with Cardinal Kasper’s and Archbishop Rowan Williams’s joint advocacy of the need for ‘spiritual ecumenism’ and expands upon this by explicitly drawing out the interpersonal and structural-​institutional dimensions.”71 In a paper given at the Catholic Theological Society of America in 2013, he states, “Receptive Ecumenism seeks to reclaim the full radical intent of Couturier’s spiritual ecumenism.”72 However, it is significant to note that the issue of scope is identified as the singular difference between Murray’s interpretation of Spiritual Ecumenism and Receptive Ecumenism. Indeed, it is implied that the Receptive Ecumenism conferences could, potentially, have been “Spiritual Ecumenism” conferences. Thus, Spiritual Ecumenism is a highly significant factor in Receptive Ecumenism’s initial development, and one with importance for its ­continuing development. So far, three major formative influences on Receptive Ecumenism (ecumenical stagnation, Rescher’s pragmatist-​idealist method, and Spiritual Ecumenism) have been discussed. Two other factors should also be addressed: Scriptural Reasoning and Ignatian spirituality. Murray undertook his doctoral studies at Cambridge University supervised by David Ford, and influenced by Daniel Hardy.73 It was during this period that he encountered the developing project of Scriptural Reasoning.74 He explains that although “Receptive Ecumenism came to articulation independently of 69 70 71 72 73 74

Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 85. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 85–​86. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 77. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 77.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

29

Scriptural Reasoning” there “was doubtless collateral influence, especially around the handling of particularity and plurality.”75 This influence comes from the fact that during the time Murray was developing Receptive Ecumenism’s “operative epistemological commitments and related understanding of human rationality,” he was also exposed to the processes of Scriptural Reasoning.76 In Murray’s explanation, Scriptural Reasoning is a type of post-​liberalism that incorporates the commitment to “take the particularity of Christian practice and understanding seriously” with the awareness of placing “such particularity” under “appropriate expansive scrutiny and potential revision.”77 A similar emphasis can be seen in Receptive Ecumenism, regarding its treatment of pluralism. Murray quotes Hardy’s description of Scriptural Reasoning as “one way of going deeper simultaneously into one’s own faith and into the faith of others through study and mutual mentoring.”78 With this explanation in mind, Murray writes:  “In many respects Receptive Ecumenism can be viewed as seeking to do something directly analogous in the intra-​Christian context.”79 This sparks an interesting connection between the two approaches. In 2013, the journal Modern Theology devoted a special issue to drawing attention to parallels between Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology, and Receptive Ecumenism.80 Murray considers all three approaches to be “self-​consciously postliberal strategies” which avoid focusing on commonalities and aiming for agreement; instead, they take “seriously the particularity and plurality of traditioned commitment.”81 Like Receptive Ecumenism, he considers Scriptural Reasoning and Comparative Theology as “postliberal strategies of committed pluralism.”82 In Receptive Ecumenism, this influence is expressed in its concern for an ecumenism that entails entering more deeply into one’s ecclesial identity (conversion), rather than compromising it. As Murray expresses, the three approaches share “not only a concern to take differing traditioned identities seriously and to speak out of them, but to have them enriched through

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 77. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 77. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 82. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 82. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 82. David F.  Ford and Frances Clemson, eds., “Special Issue:  Interreligious Reading After Vatican II:  Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology and Receptive Ecumenism,” Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (2013). Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 76. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79.

30 CHAPTER 2 the very process of also taking another’s tradition seriously.”83 The connection between Receptive Ecumenism and Scriptural Reasoning also affirms the influence of Rescher’s pragmatist-​idealistic approach to pluralism, on both ­Murray’s thought and Receptive Ecumenism’s development. He describes another key influence on Receptive Ecumenism’s development, particularly at the “affective level,” as his experience of a set of Ignatian-​ inspired Lenten retreats.84 He explains, “There is a direct link between the emphasis placed in Receptive Ecumenism on continuing conversion  –​both personal and institutional –​as a principle of life rather than diminishment, and our involvement in these guided prayers.”85 It must be noted that Ignatian spirituality places a strong emphasis on humility, which is one of Receptive Ecumenism’s key virtues. He elucidates that the influence of Ignatian prayer can also be seen in “the place accorded within Receptive Ecumenism to the imaginative, the creative, the ‘dreaming of dreams’ and their critical testing and scrutinizing.”86 The fact that Receptive Ecumenism operates on affective, as well as intellectual levels, is one of its distinguishing features, which will be discussed further below. To summarise, Receptive Ecumenism’s development was influenced by five key factors. It developed out of awareness of ecumenical inertia, and in particular, the question of how to deal with the pluralistic context now facing ecumenism. Murray’s response was to set in place a self-​critical, yet simple, ecumenical methodology which allows the church to reflect on what can be learned from other Christians. Such a procedure is based on Rescher’s pragmatist-​idealist sense of truth discoverable by means of a reflective, self-​ critical process undertaken by engaging with others. It is grounded within what Murray terms a committed pluralist approach, where difference is approached positively, rather than diluted to reach a type of lowest common denominator consensus. Moreover, Receptive Ecumenism’s theological underpinning is grounded in key Catholic ecumenical sources and inspired by the vision of Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism seeks to expand Spiritual Ecumenism’s range to include institutional and structural transformation. During his formulation of Receptive Ecumenism, Murray was also influenced by Scriptural Reasoning, which adds depth to the way he approaches plurality. A final influence is found in Murray’s experience of Ignatian spirituality, particularly its emphasis on humility and other spiritual and affective dimensions. 83 84 85 86

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 83. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 83. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 83.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

31

Having considered its developmental context, the question arises: what is the intended purpose of Receptive Ecumenism? 3

The Aim of Receptive Ecumenism

Receptive Ecumenism is proposed as a realistic approach to ecumenism in light of the current ecumenical situation. It does not aim to simply re-​tread the paths of theological or practical ecumenism, such as those of increasing mutual understanding between traditions or undertaking good works together. Instead, it strikes out on the path of self-​critical learning, interior conversion, and ecclesial growth, in the service of seeking full visible unity. While Murray is conscious of the magnitude of the challenge posed by the achievement of full structural unity, he does not concede that this means it should be abandoned.87 In his perspective, the ultimate goal of ecumenism is eschatological.88 It is not human striving, but God who will bring about such unity. However, full structural unity must remain the aim of ecumenism.89 With an acute awareness of our current context, he explains:  “The point is to ask what it means to live now oriented upon such goals?”90 Receptive Ecumenism holds ultimately to the conviction that the goal of ecumenism is nothing less than full visible unity. As Murray stresses, “ ‘reconciled diversity without structural unity’ can simply never be a sufficient equivalent to the intended unity and catholicity of the church.”91 Receptive Ecumenism’s aim is not just to re-​energise ecumenical activity. The thinking behind Receptive Ecumenism is that the process of transformative learning (aimed at deepening interior conversion) within a tradition will also bring us closer to the achievement of full visible unity. Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism should be seen “not simply as a compensatory second-​best suited to the present interim situation, but as the essential way forwards towards the anticipated goal of organic structural unity.”92 Receptive Ecumenism’s self-​critical process of transformative learning from other Christian traditions is designed to open up new possibilities and bring about changed circumstances in which ecclesial growth becomes possible. The point, Murray argues, is “that if all were asking 87 88 89 90 91 92

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

32 CHAPTER 2 and pursuing this question, then all would be moving, albeit somewhat unpredictably, but moving nevertheless, to places where more may, in turn, become possible than appears to be the case at present.”93 He clarifies that this is “a somewhat ad hoc yet nevertheless systematically tested” process.94 Importantly, Receptive Ecumenism’s self-​critical ecclesial learning is undertaken “without insisting, although certainly hoping, that these other traditions are also asking themselves the same question.”95 This is an important characteristic, as it focuses on ecclesial transformation, rather than doctrinal agreement. Murray maintains that “the primary aim is not the promotion of increased mutual understanding and appreciation between traditions but of continuing ecclesial conversion, deepening and expansive growth within traditions.”96 The focus is on interior conversion, in continuity with Unitatis Redintegratio, which states that while Catholics must “be concerned for their separated brethren” however, “their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself.”97 Receptive Ecumenism is in service of this ad intra, rather than ad extra ecumenism. The aim of Receptive Ecumenism is transformative conversion, in all ecclesial areas, including spirituality and devotional practices, but also “extending to doctrinal self-​understanding and, even more so, respective structural and organizational-​cultural realities.”98 Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism’s scope properly extends to all aspects of the church. However, Murray insists that this process of conversion does not compromise ecclesial identities, but instead deepens and enriches them.99 Furthermore, while the strategy is “being modelled in specific relation to the Roman Catholicism,” Murray explains that it is also of “much wider and direct relevance” to Christianity, an assertion that was tested at the second conference.100 Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism’s primary aim is transformative conversion via a process of ecclesial learning. Lest this be seen as inferior to theological or practical ecumenical approaches, Murray writes that while “the ­immediate aims of Receptive Ecumenism might appear relatively modest … it should not … simply be viewed as a lesser option.”101 Instead, it aims at the “very 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 14. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 88. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 80. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 14.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

33

core of what is required for any real effective progress to occur.”102 Therefore, it is Murray’s conviction that Receptive Ecumenism is not just a desirable new approach to ecumenism, but actually necessary for ecumenical progress.103 He argues that without “this mode of self-​critical learning no further substantive progress is possible.”104 However, following the Receptive Ecumenical pathway already makes “all kinds of things” possible and can lead traditions to “new places wherein further things will become possible.”105 This is no trifling aim, and certainly demands that Receptive Ecumenism receive serious attention. 4

Receptive Ecumenism’s Distinctive Features

Having outlined Receptive Ecumenism’s development and aims, something must be said on its distinctiveness. Is this ecumenical path of transformative ecclesial learning actually something new? What sets it apart from other ecumenical approaches? Six key distinguishing features of Receptive Ecumenism can be seen: (1) its innovation and explication of implicit ecumenical processes; (2) its focus on receiving rather than giving; (3) its Catholic characteristics; (4)  its operation on both the affective and intellectual levels of ecumenical activity; (5) its balance of practical and theological ecumenism; and (6) its collaborative nature. Firstly, one of Receptive Ecumenism’s distinctive characteristics is that it explicates ecumenical processes which have been largely only implicit. Referring to the title of William James’s 1907 book, Murray suggests that Receptive Ecumenism could be considered “ ‘A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.’ ”106 This is because it seeks “to articulate and promote [what] have been features of ecumenical thought and practice and of Catholicism throughout.”107 Specifically, these are the “dispositions of self-​critical hospitality, humble learning, and on-​going conversion that have always been quietly essential to all good ecumenical work.”108 As these values are particularly important for today’s context, Receptive Ecumenism seeks to give them “fresh prominence.”109

1 02 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 78. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 78. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray and Gooder, “Receptive Ecumenism and ARCIC III.” Murray and Gooder, “Receptive Ecumenism and ARCIC III.”

34 CHAPTER 2 He sees Receptive Ecumenism’s distinctiveness as being in “formally naming” these values, and therefore releasing their “strategic potential.”110 Edmund Chia makes the point, when reflecting on Receptive Ecumenism’s relevance to the Asian context, that the method has not gained the traction in Asian churches that it has in Western churches. This is because, he explains, Receptive Ecumenism’s goals are not perceived as something new by Asian Christians. In fact, “the principles and aims of Receptive Ecumenism have already been very much part and parcel of Asian Christianity even before the idea was invented.”111 The fact that Receptive Ecumenism highlights processes intrinsic to ecumenism can also be seen in the approaches taken by other contributors to Receptive Ecumenism, where receptive ecumenical learning is identified as occurring as far back as the 1980s.112 In other words, once pointed out, Receptive Ecumenism may seem immediately obvious; but before being highlighted, it may have been unconsciously assumed, rather than undertaken with critical awareness. Rather than inventing something new, Receptive Ecumenism explicitly emphasises the receptive, ecclesial learning dimension involved in ecumenism. This fact supports Murray’s argument that Receptive Ecumenical learning is essential to ecumenism. As Receptive Ecumenism is tapping into processes essential to ecumenism as a whole, it can be seen as an organic development of the Ecumenical Movement, rather than a radical departure from it. Moreover, the fact that Receptive Ecumenism draws attention to indispensable aspects of the ecumenical endeavour gives it a higher chance of being accepted and implemented. As Avis observes, if it were proposing a radical break, rather than continuity, with previous approaches, it would be viewed as a threat.113 Whilst this is all well and good, Receptive Ecumenism does need to claim a certain amount of originality, if it is to be considered a fresh ecumenical method. What, therefore, is distinctively original in the approach? Murray himself raises the “nagging” question as to whether there is anything new in Receptive Ecumenism.114 He observes that there are “already shelves 1 10 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. 111 Edmund Chia, “Receptive Ecumenism through Asia’s Triple Dialogue Theology,” Pacifica, 28 no. 2 (2015): 127. 112 See, for example, Mary Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga –​Lessons in Receptive Ecumenical Learning from the Anglican-​Roman Catholic Bilateral Dialogue Process,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). This point will be addressed in more detail in Chapter Three. 113 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 225. 114 Murray, “Preface,” xiv.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

35

groaning under huge volumes of theological writings examining how particular traditions might understand each other better and even learn something from each other.”115 Even in reference to its specific focus on learning, he admits that Receptive Ecumenism does not “claim any particular originality for according a strategic priority to Catholicism’s learning mode.”116 As ecclesial learning is the key process underpinning Receptive Ecumenism, how then are we to understand its own distinctive contribution? Murray recognises that much has been written on ecumenism as a learning opportunity.117 He thinks the real question is that of reception: why “has it generally led to such slight change in practice?”118 In relation to the Catholic Church, “What is it that militates against Catholicism being a mature learning community?” And, “how might this situation best be tended to, or ministered to, therapeutically in such a fashion as might help free the ecclesial body of Catholicism for greater flourishing?”119 Whilst there is, admittedly, an ambiguity here in that Murray answers the question of Receptive Ecumenism’s originality with other questions, the questions themselves are certainly pertinent. Moreover, Receptive Ecumenism is implicated as being able to either explore or resolve these quandaries –​which would constitute a significant ecumenical step forward. Of course, the issue of Receptive Ecumenism’s uniqueness is something that can only, as of yet, be partially assessed. For now, fittingly, part of its distinctiveness comes from the fact that it is essentially a question: What can we learn or receive from others for our own growth? While this question may implicitly underpin ecumenism as a whole, it has never before been asked in such a bold and challenging way. Receptive Ecumenism’s creative explication of aspects integral to ecumenism is therefore one of its distinctive features, and one with a great deal of promise. Indeed, Murray argues that the value of self-​critical learning may in fact be “the appropriate organizing principle for contemporary ecumenism.”120 Receptive Ecumenism is therefore a strategy designed to highlight the value of ecclesial learning, based in hope and humility. A second defining characteristic is Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on receiving instead of giving, learning rather than teaching. Murray explains that Receptive Ecumenism involves “Catholicism in explicitly receptive, learning mode rather than its, perhaps more familiar, teaching, repeating, judging, and defending 115 116 117 118 119 120

Murray, “Preface,” xiv. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 17. Murray, “Preface,” xiv. Murray, “Preface,” xiv. Murray, “Preface,” xiv. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Italics added.

36 CHAPTER 2 modes.”121 This shift in attitude, from teaching to learning, is at the core of Receptive Ecumenism. Murray insists that Receptive Ecumenism be understood as a unilateral process, exclusively focused on what we may learn or receive.122 Therefore, asking what our church has to teach or offer others is essentially opposed to Receptive Ecumenism. He explains that we should take responsibility for our own learning without “worrying” about the perceived learning requirements of others.123 He illustrates this attitude with the adage that, “ ‘we cannot change others, we can only change ourselves but changing ourselves will enable change in others.’ ”124 This is a fundamental attitude shift, characterised by humility and a sense of maturity. He suggests that it involves “a move away from the presupposition of mutuality –​‘we’ll move if you move’ –​to the embrace of a certain unilateral willingness to walk the path of ecclesial conversion” for the sake of one’s own tradition.125 This is regardless of whether or not others are undertaking a similar process of self-​critical reflection and conversion. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on learning resonates with Murray’s argument that the current ecumenical milieu calls for a realistic approach, of doing what is possible. Simply put, taking responsibility for one’s own learning is possible, whereas placing requirements on, or guiding, the learning of others is not. Moreover, it requires a conception of ecumenism as a process of necessary conversion; ecumenism is not undertaken for the benefit of other traditions, but for the enrichment of one’s own. One of Receptive Ecumenism’s aims is: “To embrace the unilateral willingness of ecclesial conversion for the sake of the ongoing flourishing of one’s own tradition in love.”126 Coupled with this emphasis on learning rather than teaching, Receptive Ecumenism focuses on ecumenism as a receiving of gifts rather than a giving of gifts. It requires an unwavering focus on what we need to receive from others, and not on what other churches may need to learn from us. As Murray explains, each “tradition takes responsibility for its own potential learning from others and is, in turn, willing to facilitate the learning of others as requested.”127 But the attention 1 21 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 17. 122 As this is a key characteristic of Receptive Ecumenism, Murray reiterates this point more than once. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Also Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 88. And Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 87. 123 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 88. 124 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 88. 125 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 88. 126 Durham University Centre for Catholic Studies, “About Receptive Ecumenism,” https://​ www.dur.ac.uk/​theology.religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​about/​. 127 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

37

remains on what we need to learn, regardless of whether or not others are also participating or learning. It is an ecumenism of receiving, rather than of giving, of taking responsibility for one’s own journey of conversion, rather than controlling that of others. Receptive Ecumenism’s unilateral focus clearly distinguishes it from the model of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts.128 However, there is a question of the validity of looking at only one half of the ecumenical exchange. After all, how can there be reception if there is not also giving, or learning without teaching? Avis draws attention to this point, calling it something of “a narrow tightrope.”129 Without damaging the integrity of their own tradition, ecumenists are to seek what other traditions have to offer them, focusing on what they can receive, rather than give.130 But, as Avis says, “Can we be receptive to all that we can learn from the wider Church without false humility or breast-​beating or pretending that we have nothing to offer in turn?”131 Receptive Ecumenism is not a quick-​fix solution; rather it is one that expects a lot from a church. Avis is correct in pointing out that it “demands practical realism” about one’s own church and other churches.132 Without question, however, Receptive Ecumenism’s unilateral and interior orientation is one of its most defining characteristics. The uniqueness of Receptive Ecumenism lies in its focus on learning rather than teaching, on the receiving of gifts rather than the giving of them; in highlighting the values underlying ecumenical engagement and bringing them to the forefront. It involves not just looking at other Christian churches in light of what they might be doing that is admirable, but considering what we can, potentially, learn from them. It requires a self-​critical and imaginative consideration of where renewal and learning need to occur in order for a tradition to convert itself more deeply to Christ’s will, which is the process of discernment. After discerning areas for renewal, the next step becomes one of authentic reception with what Murray calls “dynamic integrity” into the host tradition, so that real, concrete transformation actually occurs.133 Importantly, this is not about 128 The ecumenical gift exchange is a key concept within Spiritual Ecumenism that will be discussed in detail throughout this book. It is particularly important in the Vatican ii documents, John Paul ii’s Ut Unum Sint, and the work of Margaret O’Gara. 129 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 226. 130 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 226. 131 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 226. 132 Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 229. 133 Paul Murray, “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-​Ecclesial Renewal: ‘Tests,’ ‘Notes,’ and Criteria for Receptive Ecumenical Learning,” presented at Receptive Ecumenism IV Conference, Canberra, Australia, November 2017.

38 CHAPTER 2 simply transplanting an aspect or a gift from one tradition to another. Instead, it is about rediscovering or uncovering something that either has been a part of, or is discovered now to be a part, of our own tradition, but which has not yet been fully realised. In this way, the Receptive Ecumenical attitude clearly resonates with Vatican ii’s vision of the church as a pilgrim, called to continual reform. A third distinctive feature of Receptive Ecumenism is its specifically Catholic voice. The first colloquium centred on Cardinal Walter Kasper, with five other Roman Catholic bishops also in attendance.134 The Catholicity of Receptive Ecumenism has been explicitly acknowledged, and there are few non-​Catholic sources or texts referred to in Murray’s explication of the approach.135 It was, certainly at first, a Catholic perspective on ecumenism, designed by, and for, Catholics. One of the stated aims of the Receptive Ecumenism volume (published proceedings from the first conference) is to apply the methodology of Receptive Ecumenism “to Roman Catholicism’s own specific need as the host tradition for receptive ecumenical learning from other Christian traditions.”136 As Murray elaborates, Receptive Ecumenism “is about the intensification, complexification, and further realization of Catholic identity, not its diminishment and loss.”137 In another article introducing Receptive Ecumenism, Murray writes that it is a “Catholic-​inspired approach to intra-​Christian, inter-​ denominational theological learning.”138 Furthermore, Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on the importance of the goal of full structural and sacramental communion is one that resides most easily within Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican understandings of ecumenism. It is interesting to note that during the prayer movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which were the forerunners of the modern Ecumenical Movement, the specific prayer for the visible union of Christians came primarily from individual Catholics and Anglicans.139 Most Protestant traditions tend towards the goal of a federal understanding of ecclesial communion, rather than full, structural and sacramental communion. As such, it may be more challenging for Protestant traditions to fully apply the Receptive Ecumenical approach. However, a tradition that 134 Murray, “Preface,” x. 135 Murray mentions the significance of both Walter Kasper and Rowan Williams’s understandings of Spiritual Ecumenism, which means that there is at least one reference to a Christian, rather than solely Catholic, viewpoint. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. 136 Murray, “Preface,” x. 137 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 17. 138 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 76. 139 Geoffrey Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ (London: scm Press, 1964), 54.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

39

does not support the notion of full structural unity can still focus on the more immediate dimension of Receptive Ecumenism by emphasising the value of transformative learning. Moreover, as mentioned previously, Murray maintains that Receptive Ecumenism is of relevance to all Christian churches. It “is intended to be evocative of a universal call and identifying mark pertaining to the entire church of Christ Catholic and to every confessing Christian, and not simply to the Roman Catholic Church uniquely.”140 But undoubtedly, it has been centrally focused on the Catholic Church. The vast majority of participants at the international conferences, and contributors to the volume, are Catholic. While the second conference changed the focus from “Catholic Learning” to “Ecclesial Learning,” it remains to be seen how far Receptive Ecumenism will move outside of Catholic circles. A fourth distinctive characteristic of Receptive Ecumenism is its emphasis on the affective, imaginative, and spiritual dimensions of the ecumenical endeavour. Murray observes that, “we are changed by love not by anger and if we are in turn to effect creative ecclesial change then it must be through the sustained passion of love rather than frustration.”141 Murray highlights that ecumenism is not only engaged on the level of the head, but also operates on the affective levels of the heart, stemming from the desire for unity.142 Receptive Ecumenism therefore prioritises the affective levels of ecumenism, which have not always been emphasised. Along with love, other virtues also play an important role in fostering a Receptive Ecumenical attitude, which will be explored in depth in Chapter Seven. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on the affective and spiritual levels of ecumenical engagement adds a much-​need extra layer to ecumenical involvement, emphasising the affective and spiritual aspects of ecumenism, as well as its intellectual levels. Receptive Ecumenism is an attempt at forming an ecumenism of the heart, designed to work in balance with theological and practical ecumenism. Its emphasis on the affective dimensions of ecumenism is, therefore, one of its key defining features. A further distinctive facet is its deliberate intent to engage with a broad array of people, both lay and professional. As Denis Edwards points out, there are many ways a church can learn from another church, ranging from complex issues of decision-​making and institutional structures, to simpler areas of shared prayer and worship. Receptive Ecumenism, he observes, “can take place 1 40 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18. 141 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 89. 142 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 86.

40 CHAPTER 2 at many levels of church life.”143 It is designed for use at the level of practical ecumenism as well as theological ecumenism. Murray highlights the diversity of those engaging with Receptive Ecumenism as including “ecclesiologists, ecumenists, senior ecclesiastics, social scientists, and local practitioners.”144 He asserts that “the point is that the basic process is one in which all can share and of which all can properly be initiators in relation to specific live issues.”145 In this sense, Receptive Ecumenism emphasises that the academic must always be in service of practical, or real life, ecumenism. Consequently, it would lose its integrity were it to become dominantly academic. Rather than approaching ecumenism from a purely academic or theoretical perspective, considering theological, scriptural, or doctrinal texts and doctrines, it focuses on lived traditions. Murray writes that its aim is to “not simply be a highly theorised endeavour” or become “abstracted from the ordinary lived practice of the traditions concerned.”146 He is concerned about the tendency of ecumenical approaches to become wholly theological affairs, with an overriding emphasis on theological ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism, he says, should stem from the recognised needs and challenges of the tradition, rather than from an academic examination of theological or doctrinal differences.147 As Murray explains, it is “quite clear that asking the basic receptive ecumenical question … is not the exclusive preserve of an elite caste of theologians.”148 Rather, the premise is that everyone, at every level, should be involved in ecclesial learning.149 However, this is not to say that it is non-​theological. Receptive Ecumenism is committed to the systematic theological critique of practical and structural ecclesial issues. So, while aspects of this approach are democratised and designed to be employed by lay Christians, it also has facets that require theological ecumenical expertise. Receptive Ecumenism entails expert analysis of the gifts or learnings that may be received into a tradition through ecumenical engagement, which requires critical theological understanding of ecclesial differences between traditions. Edwards considers that “a deeper, fundamental, level of Receptive Ecumenism occurs when one church is open to receive what might be called an institutional charism of a

143 Denis Edwards, “Synodality and Primacy:  Reflections from the Australian Lutheran/​ Roman Catholic Dialogue,” Pacifica 28, no 2 (2015): 137. 144 Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. 145 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. 146 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. 147 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. 148 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. 149 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90.

The Path of Self-Critical Learning and Ecclesial Conversion

41

partner church.”150 Reception of this charism requires deep theological analysis and reflection on “the identity and life of its partner church.”151 It requires the host church to consider whether the charism might be something “it is called to receive and take into its own life as a gift of the Spirit.”152 Receptive Ecumenism, therefore, has ramifications for the potential transformation of the decision-​making and institutional structures of a church –​aimed at inspiring ecclesial growth. A final distinguishing facet of Receptive Ecumenism is its inherently collaborative nature. Rather than Murray publishing a treatise on Receptive Ecumenism, where he systematically outlined its theological grounding and context, methodology and aims, and developed a set of guiding criteria for its implementation, he approached Receptive Ecumenism collaboratively. He organised a series of international conferences aimed to investigate the key question of Receptive Ecumenism. The approach, therefore, can perhaps most appropriately be explained as having multi-​authorship. Murray affirms that Receptive Ecumenism has an “explicitly collaborative nature” and is concerned “to draw together a variety of ecclesial voices and responsibilities.”153 This collaborative dimension is illustrated by the Receptive Ecumenism volume, a collection and expansion of papers originally presented at the first conference. Edited by Murray, this volume is of central significance for understanding Receptive Ecumenism, and constitutes the primary text currently available on it. According to Murray, the purpose of the volume was to introduce and test Receptive Ecumenism as a new approach, and to “illustrate and apply” this approach specifically to the needs of the Catholic Church.154 As such, the volume can be considered as authoritative regarding Receptive Ecumenism. The advantages of this collaborative authorship lie in the richness and diversity it lends to Receptive Ecumenism as an ecumenical method. As Margaret O’Gara notes, ecumenism, at its best, is inherently collaborative.155 However, this somewhat less than systematic approach may also have disadvantages. A  potential difficulty of Receptive Ecumenism’s format is the possibility of fragmentation and lack of depth. The fact of Receptive Ecumenism’s multi-​ authorship may also cause some internal tensions and contradictions in how

1 50 151 152 153 154 155

Edwards, “Synodality and Primacy,” 137. Edwards, “Synodality and Primacy,” 137. Edwards, “Synodality and Primacy,” 138. Murray, “Preface,” xiv. Murray, “Preface,” x. Margaret O’Gara, “Epilogue:  The Study of Theology,” in No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), 235.

42 CHAPTER 2 the approach is understood. However, the ways in which these contributors have conceived of and applied Receptive Ecumenism is highly significant in understanding it. It is they who, with Murray, have taken on the work of exploring the theological context and grounding of Receptive Ecumenism. As such, it is important now to examine major themes (and tensions) within the broader literature available on Receptive Ecumenism.

­c hapter 3

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path: Exploring Themes and Tensions Approaching an understanding of Receptive Ecumenism necessitates thorough engagement with the published source material outside of the work of Paul Murray. What follows is an examination of the key themes and tensions that can be unearthed in the available major publication on Receptive Ecumenism.1 Of course, such an examination cannot hope to do full justice to the contributions individually. It is undertaken specifically to look at the developing Receptive Ecumenical method, with the awareness that the material stems from the first conference, and therefore, represents the opening foray of exploratory engagement with the approach. 1

A Critical Analysis of the Receptive Ecumenism Volume

Without doubt, the volume makes a valuable and wide-​ranging contribution to contemporary ecumenism. However, critical analysis reveals that much of its focus is on the contemporary context and challenges facing the Ecumenical Movement, and Catholic approaches to ecumenism. There are relatively few chapters where the meaning of Receptive Ecumenism is probed as a distinctively new method, or which posit suggestions specifically honed to Receptive Ecumenism. Much of what is elucidated could be applied to ecumenism in general. Of course, as this volume was published from the proceedings of the first conference, it is not surprising that an analysis of its contents highlights just how very new Receptive Ecumenism was. For instance, out of thirty-​two chapters, twelve of them do not refer to Receptive Ecumenism by name even once.2 Seven chapters use the term Receptive Ecumenism once or

1 This is the 2008 Oxford UP volume. As mentioned previously, more volumes are forthcoming, from the second and third conferences. 2 The 12 chapters that do not refer to Receptive Ecumenism by name even once are: Margaret O’Gara, Chapter  2; Ladislas Örsy, Chapter  3; Nicholas Lash, Chapter  5; Keith Pecklers, Chapter 8; Michael Putney, Chapter 9; William Rusch, Chapter 11; Paul McPartlan, Chapter 12; James Puglisi, Chapter 13; Denis Edwards, Chapter 14; Joseph Famerée, Chapter 15; Paul Lakeland, Chapter 16; and, Peter Phillips, Chapter 32.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_004

44 CHAPTER 3 twice.3 Only thirteen of the chapters refer to it three or more times.4 In other words, less than half of the chapters explicitly mention the term “Receptive Ecumenism” three or more times. Again, this lack of explicit engagement is not surprising considering that the material is from the first conference, which aimed to introduce and set out principles for the developing method. Saying this, however, does examination of the main themes and tensions within the volume reveal what actually constitutes Receptive Ecumenism as a specific method? How do they relate to Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism? What gaps or tensions are there? Is it a cohesive, unified methodology? A critical reading reveals a number of recurring themes, which will be explored in the following order, starting in descending order with the highest number of contributions engaged with the theme: 1. awareness of the challenges facing ecumenism; 2. the ecumenical exchange of gifts; 3. reception; 4. the importance of non-​theological factors impacting upon ecumenism; 5. Spiritual Ecumenism; and 6. pneumatology. The chapter concludes with a discussion of key tensions within Receptive Ecumenism, especially between Paul Murray’s vision of the method and that of other contributors. 2

The Challenges Facing Contemporary Ecumenism

The single strongest theme within the volume is that of the challenges currently facing the ecumenical endeavour, with at least fourteen chapters (almost half of the volume), discussing this at some length.5 There is a consensus among the contributors that the Ecumenical Movement is currently experiencing an “ecumenical winter.” Kasper writes that the current ecumenical time 3 The seven chapters in which Receptive Ecumenism is named once or twice are:  Philip Sheldrake, Chapter 4; Walter Kasper, Chapter 6 (although only in the introduction); David Chapman, Chapter  10; Brendan Tuohy and Eamonn Conway, Chapter  21; Andrew Louth, ­Chapter 25; Nicholas Sagovsky, Chapter 26; and, Hervé Legrand, Chapter 27. 4 Receptive Ecumenism is mentioned by name three or more times in the following chapters: Paul Murray, Chapter 1; Riccardo Larini, Chapter 7; Patrick Connolly, Chapter 17; Mary Tanner, Chapter 18; Donald Bolen, Chapter 19; Geraldine Smyth, Chapter 20; Peter McGrail, Chapter  22; James Sweeney, Chapter  23; Thomas Reese, Chapter  24; Gabriel Flynn, Chapter 28; Gerard Mannion, Chapter 29; Daniel Hardy, Chapter 30; and, Jeffrey Gros, Chapter 31. 5 This theme receives a significant amount of treatment in at least fourteen of the chapters: Walter Kasper, Chapter 6; Denis Edwards, Chapter 14; Paul Lakeland, Chapter 16; Mary Tanner, Chapter  18; Geraldine Smyth, Chapter  20; Brendan Tuohy and Eamonn Conway, Chapter  21; Peter McGrail, Chapter  22; James Sweeney, Chapter  23; Thomas Reese, Chapter 24; Hervé Legrand, Chapter 27; Gerard Mannion, Chapter 29; Daniel Hardy, Chapter 30; Jeffrey Gros, Chapter 31; and Peter Phillips, Chapter 32.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

45

is that of an interim stage.6 He then explicates on the present ecumenical crisis.7 Kasper’s assertion of the existence of an ecumenical crisis, and current interim period, are key arguments for the basis of Receptive Ecumenism. As Peter Phillips puts it, “Ecumenism is facing a critical moment.”8 Jeffrey Gros investigates the challenge of fostering more widespread engagement with ecumenism, especially a receptive attitude towards our ecumenical others.9 He lists some key challenges in particular, including that of the need to foster ecumenical attitudes in new generations and that of actually receiving the results of ecumenical work into the church’s life, what he calls moving from “dialogue to decision.”10 While certainly vital points, they are of concern for ecumenism as a whole, rather than specific to Receptive Ecumenism. However, the perceived crisis of ecumenism is a highly significant note within the volume, and one which acts as justification for the development of new ecumenical approaches. That ecumenism is currently in a state of crisis is also one of Murray’s key points.11 Indeed, this very fact is what gives impetus to his search for “a new way forwards,” namely, Receptive Ecumenism.12 Here, we can see a high level of accord within Receptive Ecumenism’s primary source material. 3

Ecumenism as an Exchange of Gifts

The next major theme is more problematic. The exchange of gifts and emphasis on mutuality (of learning as a two-​way process) is a key thread within ­volume.13 The perspective that receiving and giving is a mutual process, rather 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 78. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 79. Peter Phillips, “Receiving the Experience of Eucharistic Celebration,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 457. Jeffrey Gros, “Learning the Ways of Receptive Ecumenism,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 442. Gros, “Learning the Ways of Receptive Ecumenism,” 449. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 9. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. That Receptive Ecumenism is a two-​way process is argued within at least three chapters:  David Chapman, Chapter  10; Andrew Louth, Chapter  25; and Peter Phillips, Chapter 32. The ecumenical exchange of gifts is explicitly discussed in at least nine of the chapters:  Margaret O’Gara, Chapter  2; Keith Pecklers, Chapter  8; Michael Putney, Chapter  9; David Chapman, Chapter  10; Patrick Connolly, Chapter  17; Donald Bolen,

46 CHAPTER 3 than a unilateral one, is significant within at least twelve of the chapters, more than a third of the volume. For example, Peter Phillips stresses: “Learning from the other is a two-​way process.”14 And David Chapman insists: “Receptive Ecumenism is never a one-​way process.”15 There is, therefore, a strong emphasis on the indivisibility of teaching and learning. Orthodox theologian Andrew Louth asserts that while the focus of the volume is on “what Roman Catholics can learn from other Christian confessions,” listening “must always be a two-​way process.”16 In a similar manner to the ecumenical exchange of gifts, he stresses that it is a matter of “mutual listening, and mutual reflection on a process of learning in which we all share.”17 Therefore, Louth’s affirmation of ecclesial learning as a two-​way endeavour somewhat contradicts Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism as a unilateral process. The model of ecumenism as a gift exchange is one of the clearest threads throughout the volume, with, for example, both O’Gara’s and Putney’s chapters being almost exclusively devoted to the topic. Margaret O’Gara focuses on the process of receiving gifts in ecumenical dialogue.18 Her points are firmly grounded within the idea of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts, as elucidated in the theology of Vatican ii and Ut Unum Sint.19 Throughout, O’Gara beautifully explicates the ecumenical exchange of gifts as an essential aspect of ­ecumenism.20 Note, however, that her argument is not specific to Receptive ­Ecumenism, but pertains to ecumenical dialogue as a whole. Her consistent use of the language of “gift” differs from Murray’s more common usage of the term “learning,” and she does not actually use the term “Receptive Ecumenism.” Of particular interest, O’Gara outlines different types of gift-​giving, one of which closely resembles the Receptive Ecumenical process: a Mennonite-​ Roman Catholic movement called “Bridgefolk,” where “each tradition wants

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Chapter  19; Geraldine Smyth, Chapter  20; James Sweeney, Chapter  23; and Gerard Mannion, Chapter 29. Phillips, “Receiving the Experience of Eucharistic Celebration,” 463. David M.  Chapman, “A Methodist Perspective on Catholic Learning,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 146. Andrew Louth, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning –​an Orthodox Perspective,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 361. Louth, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 361. Margaret O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 26. O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 27. O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 26.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

47

to receive a different gift from the other.”21 She also writes on the problem of “gifts offered but not received.”22 This is extremely valuable for understanding how to practice ecumenism as an exchange of gifts, but is perhaps not so directly relevant to Receptive Ecumenism. After all, Receptive Ecumenism is concerned with a unilateral process of receiving, rather than giving. It is Murray’s conviction that Receptive Ecumenism does not have to presuppose the ecumenical gift exchange. This is not to say that the gift exchange is redundant, but rather that Receptive Ecumenism takes a different approach. Michael Putney also focuses on the ecumenical exchange of gifts.23 Putney writes that ecumenism “involves a process of discovering in the other what the Holy Spirit has done to conform them to Christ and his wishes for the church.”24 Therefore, the gift exchange is not just an exchange of ideas.25 Rather, importantly, it “can also involve an exchange of those gifts which are yet to develop as fully in one’s own communion … but yet belong to Christ’s vision for his church.”26 He views the Ecumenical Movement as a process of Christians growing closer “towards each other as they grow closer to Christ.”27 He also expresses clearly that the Ecumenical Movement is a movement of conversion.28 Referring to a potential “clash of gifts” regarding ordained and lay roles in ministry, Putney explains that, at times, an exchange of gifts “requires that one gift be adjusted in order to make room for the other to be received.”29 This is reminiscent of O’Gara’s argument that certain gifts may need repair before being offered.30 He concludes with the reminder that an exchange of gifts is not always easy, and that while the process should not be postponed, it also cannot be rushed.31 He attests that it must also actively involve the “experience of ordinary men and women” not just theologians, church leaders and ecumenical experts.32 This is a sentiment echoed in Murray’s emphasis on democratised 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 29. O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 30. Michael Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 124–​125. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 125. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 125. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 124. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 124. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 127. Margaret O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” in No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), 21. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 132. Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 132.

48 CHAPTER 3 ecumenism.33 Thus, there is significant overlap between Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism and Putney’s contribution: the emphasis on conversion, the spiritual and affective elements of ecumenism, and the participation of the whole church. Yet, there is a key difference regarding the ecumenical gift exchange, as Receptive Ecumenism does not require mutuality. Keith Pecklers also addresses the “gifts” that Catholics can receive from Anglicans in the areas of “Church, Authority, Worship, and Spirituality.”34 He grounds his argument within the theology of Vatican ii and Ut Unum Sint, and strongly emphasises the model of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts.35 Pecklers argues for “the dual truth” that Anglicans and Catholics share much in common, and that there is “much we have to learn from one another.”36 While this assertion is compatible with the ecumenical gift exchange, much like O’Gara and Putney, he does not explicate the nuances of Receptive Ecumenism as a unilateral rather than mutual process.37 As with O’Gara and Putney, Pecklers’s contribution raises the need for further clarification over the r­ elationship between the ecumenical gift exchange and Receptive Ecumenism. The ecumenical gift exchange originates from Lumen Gentium and Ut Unum Sint, and has been expanded on by theologians such as Kasper, Putney and O’Gara. The concept asserts that different Christian churches have gifts to offer each other, but each gift ultimately comes from the Spirit for the enrichment of Christ’s Church. Thus, an exchange of gifts leads churches deeper into conversion in Christ, made possible by the real but imperfect communion that exists already within the Body of Christ. However, there is a tension between the model of the ecumenical exchange of gifts, the related notion of learning as a mutual process, and Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism is a unilateral process, focusing on interior conversion. Murray stresses this one-​sidedness as intending to inspire a sense of responsibility on behalf of the ecclesiological community to move towards its own conversion. He explains, “the primary call is to take responsibility for one’s own and one’s own community’s learning in the face of the other, without first demanding that the other does likewise.”38 The argument is that an

33 34 35 36 37 38

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. Keith Pecklers, “What Roman Catholics Have to Learn from Anglicans,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 108. Pecklers, “What Roman Catholics Have to Learn from Anglicans,” 107–​108. Pecklers, “What Roman Catholics Have to Learn from Anglicans,” 108. Pecklers, “What Roman Catholics Have to Learn from Anglicans,” 112. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 17.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

49

emphasis on gift-​giving or teaching may carry with it tones of superiority or arrogance. It places the teacher or gift-​giver in a position of superiority or ­authority. It may reinforce boundaries between traditions, rather than fostering e­ cumenical engagement. It could lead the church to assert that other traditions must learn from it, or must accept the gift it is offering. The emphasis becomes ad extra rather than ad intra, on what other churches must do, instead of what our church needs to do. If the dimension of giving overrides that of receiving, the church risks becoming hypocritical, simply telling rather than doing. In an extreme form, it could support the return model of ecumenism supported by the pre-​Vatican ii Catholic Church. In contrast, ecclesial learning fosters a sense of receptivity towards others. Instead of looking at other traditions in the negative fashion of what they need to learn, it engenders positive appraisal of other churches in the sense of what they have to give. It is a self-​critical approach that centres on interior conversion and transformative learning. This unilateral method contrasts sharply with the mutuality of learning and teaching, and the exchange of gifts presented within these chapters of the volume. There appears to be a tendency to collapse Receptive Ecumenism into the more familiar model of the ecumenical gift exchange –​an inclination which should be resisted. The difference between the volume and Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism on this point creates a significant divergence within its primary source material. Clearly, the relationship between Receptive Ecumenism and the ecumenical exchange of gifts requires clarification. As does the next theme, that of reception. 4 Reception Reception is another major thread within the volume, receiving significant attention in at least ten chapters.39 However, it is something of an ambiguous theme, in part due to the lack of definition surrounding the term “reception.” Reception can be understood simply as the action of receiving something, or more technically, as the process of change that occurs within a tradition over time, through the inspiration of the Spirit. More specifically, it may refer to ecumenical reception, which is concerned with the integration, or impact, of the 39

At least ten of the chapters discuss the issue of reception at some length:  Margaret O’Gara, Chapter 2; Ladislas Ӧrsy, Chapter 3; Riccardo Larini, Chapter 7; William Rusch, Chapter  11; James Puglisi, Chapter  13; Denis Edwards, Chapter  14; Patrick Connolly, Chapter 17; Mary Tanner, Chapter 18; Geraldine Smyth, Chapter 20; and Hervé Legrand, Chapter 27.

50 CHAPTER 3 results of ecumenical work, especially ecumenical dialogues, on a tradition. In other words, with whether the fruits of ecumenical labours actually lead to growth or enrichment within a tradition. With these three potential definitions in mind, how does Receptive Ecumenism relate to reception? It is significant that Larini places some of Receptive Ecumenism’s distinctiveness on being an academic discussion of the theme of reception.40 His use of the two terms in an almost synonymous manner is noteworthy in understanding how others, including other contributors, may perceive Receptive Ecumenism. He concludes by arguing for Receptive Ecumenism’s great potential but asserts that its “hermeneutical foundations” first need to be taken into account.41 Larini’s chapter points to the need for further consideration regarding the dynamic between reception and Receptive Ecumenism. The focus of William Rusch’s study is clearly on ecumenical reception, which highlights a need to consider the nexus between ecumenical reception and Receptive Ecumenism. Rusch attests that reception “has always been a feature of the life of the church.” He emphasises that “ecumenical reception” and “ecclesial learning” are dynamic processes that challenge division between churches.42 However, he does not address Receptive Ecumenism specifically, or nuance the connection between reception, ecumenical reception, and Receptive Ecumenism. Ecumenical reception in the sense of relating to the results of bilateral dialogues is not necessarily directly engaged within Receptive Ecumenism, as it is a different, albeit complementary method to that of bilateral dialogues. Murray attests that Receptive Ecumenism should not simply be reduced to a focus on the “approval, appropriation, and dissemination” of the results of bilateral dialogues. Instead, Receptive Ecumenism seeks to highlight “the prior necessary disposition to receptive transformational learning that the bilateral processes presuppose.”43 With this in mind, Murray understands Receptive Ecumenism as a necessary precursor in order to achieve reception. As such, Receptive Ecumenism may, indeed, better enable the process of reception, but it is also distinct from reception. 40 Riccardo Larini, “Texts and Contexts:  Hermeneutical Reflections on Receptive Ecumenism,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 89. 41 Larini, “Texts and Contexts,” 98. 42 William Rusch, “The International Lutheran-​Roman Catholic Dialogue:  An Example of Ecclesial Learning and Ecumenical Reception,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 157. 43 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 14.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

51

While delineating the contours of their relationship is difficult because of the lack of precise definition for either concept, certain preliminary assertions can be made. Firstly, Receptive Ecumenism and reception overlap in the sense that both are concerned with transformative change. However, reception is a broader process than Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism aims to cause transformative renewal within a tradition. Reception is concerned more generally with assessing how something has been received within a tradition, and therefore, has impacted on or changed that tradition. For instance, the question of the reception of Receptive Ecumenism itself will be an ongoing issue, as time will show what impact Receptive Ecumenism will have on the ecumenical landscape in general, and specific churches in particular. However, the strength of the theme of reception within the volume illustrates the need for further elucidation over how reception, ecumenical reception, and Receptive Ecumenism, relate. The next major theme is less problematic. 5

The Impact of Non-​Theological Factors on Ecumenism

The importance of considering how non-​theological factors impact on ecumenism is another key theme within the volume, with at least six chapters placing significant focus on this topic.44 A broad array of non-​theological factors is outlined throughout the volume. These aspects include organisational, sociological, historical, psychological, educational, and spiritual factors, as well as affective aspects such as defensiveness over identity (the fortress church), prejudice or bias, emotional factors, friendship, and virtues such as hope, faith, and love. Considering affective, rather than theological factors, in relation to ecumenism leads to a focus on the experience, or phenomenology of ecumenism. Here ecumenism is more than purely an academic exercise, but a deeply meaningful, spiritual experience, linked to conversion. The volume’s focus on non-​theological ecumenical factors correlates strongly with Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism. He consistently uses affective language to describe Receptive Ecumenism, and affirms it as a combined approach of being “imaginative,” “analytic,” and “practically focused.”45 44

45

Non-​theological factors are discussed within at least six chapters:  Philip Sheldrake, Chapter  4; Geraldine Smyth, Chapter  20; Brendan Tuohy and Eamonn Conway, Chapter 21; Peter McGrail, Chapter 22; James Sweeney, Chapter 23; and Thomas Reese, Chapter 24. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 19.

52 CHAPTER 3 In this light, Philip Sheldrake argues that Receptive Ecumenism is more than just an ecclesiological issue.46 He argues that “ ‘becoming Catholic people’ is a process of hope.”47 As such, he insists that “Receptive Ecumenism is not simply a matter of structural adjustments or doctrinal refinement but is an encounter of people.”48 In light of this, he focuses on the importance of hospitality.49 Murray also affirms that hospitality is essential to Receptive Ecumenism.50 Moreover, Sheldrake’s emphasis on ecumenism as an encounter of people evokes Murray’s point that Receptive Ecumenism is concerned with lived traditions, rather than doctrines.51 From this reflection, he observes that “the process of becoming genuinely Catholic may be profoundly uncomfortable.”52 Sheldrake’s discussion of the importance of non-​ecclesiological, or affective, elements in Receptive Ecumenism, especially hospitality, dovetails with and re-​affirms points vital to Murray’s vision of Receptive Ecumenism, particularly that of conversion. In a similar vein, Patrick Connolly recognises that “receiving gifts” in “ ‘an exchange of gifts’. … is not a pain-​free exercise,” because it requires acknowledgement of “current Roman Catholic inadequacies, and of the consequent need for ecclesiastical adaptation.”53 Connolly recognises that there “is also a sometimes unspoken Roman Catholic reluctance to learn from other Christian traditions,” because of “awareness of difficulties in that other tradition’s own structures.”54 He observes that much “discussion about renewing structures to ensure accountability” involves “learning from the secular world, rather than from other Christian denominations.”55 This raises further consideration on the perceived differences between learning from another Christian tradition as opposed to secular sources. Rather than theological factors, Geraldine Smyth considers the import of socio-​psychological aspects that influence dialogue, such as the existence of 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55

Philip Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 52. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 54. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 55. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 55–​58. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 59. Patrick Connolly, “Receptive Ecumenical Learning and Episcopal Accountability Within Contemporary Roman Catholicism –​Canonical Considerations,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 250. Connolly, “Receptive Ecumenical Learning and Episcopal Accountability,” 250. Connolly, “Receptive Ecumenical Learning and Episcopal Accountability,” 250.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

53

“institutionalized prejudice” within churches, which causes an attitude of reluctance to learn from others.56 Smyth’s focus on the social and psychological factors that influence ecumenical engagement is valuable to understanding the surrounding ecumenical milieu. Her emphasis on non-​theological factors impacting ecumenism, such as fear and prejudice, reiterate Receptive Ecumenism’s key focus on the affective levels of ecumenical engagement. Peter McGrail’s contribution also explores “sociological factors” impeding Catholic learning.57 He argues that Receptive Ecumenism entails “a profoundly social dimension.”58 He asserts that “a genuinely transformative ecumenical learning is not simply agreement on matters of faith and morals, but a renewal of interpersonal engagement at a structural or institutional level, within denominations and across them.”59 This focus on reform at a structural and institutional level is one of Receptive Ecumenism’s key characteristics as presented by Murray. However, McGrail makes the critical observation that despite forty years of ecumenical dialogue, at the institutional level, the Catholic Church remains to a high degree unaffected by the ecumenical work which has been carried out.60 He expresses that there is reluctance to draw on anything other than traditional Catholic resources to tackle challenges facing the Church.61 The key reason behind this insularity, he suggests, is “primarily sociological in nature.”62 McGrail explains that there is a defensive attitude which causes an “emotive pull” in the Catholic community towards relying on its own, rather than outside resources.63 He insists that British Catholics “face a choice of either embracing ecumenical learning or of rebuilding the ‘fortress’ model of church that was its default position across the twentieth century.”64 McGrail’s assertion that the primary impediment to ecclesial learning is sociological has ramifications not only for understanding Receptive Ecumenism, but for considering its feasibility as an ecumenical strategy. 56 Geraldine Smyth, “Jerusalem, Athens, and Zurich:  Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Factors Inhibiting Receptive Ecumenism,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D.  Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 286. 57 Peter McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction? Sociological Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning in the Church in England and Wales,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 319. 58 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 319. 59 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 319. 60 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 320. 61 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 320. 62 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 320. 63 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 321. 64 McGrail, “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction?” 321.

54 CHAPTER 3 Like Smyth and McGrail, James Sweeney highlights ecclesial identity as problematic for ecumenism, referring to a resurgence of defensiveness regarding ecclesial identity within the Catholic community as the “fortress church.”65 Two themes emerge here that are important for Receptive Ecumenism:  the challenge posed by fears over loss of identity, and the consideration of more than just theological factors that impede ecumenism, such as society and culture. Sweeney argues that, if it is to be successful, Receptive Ecumenism must “reckon with the social psychology of identity formation.”66 He also points to some potential limits to Receptive Ecumenical learning, especially over irreducible differences between traditions, such as those of sexual practices and ministry.67 Sweeney concludes by stating that if Christianity is to “re-​establish” its role in society it must foster “a reflexive and self-​critical identity, humble enough and secure enough to engage in dialogue.”68 Being self-​critical, reflective, and humble are core Receptive Ecumenical values. Moreover, Sweeney believes that Receptive Ecumenism’s “ecclesial virtues” are “not simply of intra-​and inter-​ ecclesial significance but of profound extra-​ecclesial significance.”69 The factors that inhibit Receptive Ecumenism, such as defensiveness over identity, or prejudice, actually impede all forms of ecumenical progress. Moreover, the attitudes required to advance ecumenism may also prove significant in strengthening the position of Christianity in society as a whole. As such, Receptive Ecumenism’s ecclesial virtues may well prove vitally important to Christianity in general. Thomas Reese’s chapter on “organizational factors” impeding ecclesial learning within the Catholic Church highlights issues affecting both Receptive Ecumenism specifically and ecumenism generally.70 Reese’s concluding emphasis that “ecumenism is an essential path to church reform,” is an attitude central to Receptive Ecumenism.71 He argues that both the church’s future and Receptive Ecumenism must be grounded within faith, hope, and love.72 Reese asserts the significance of two of Receptive Ecumenism’s key characteristics: conversion

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

James Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 334. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 335. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 338–​339. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 343. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 343. Thomas J.  Reese, “Organizational Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 346. Reese, “Organizational Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning,” 354. Reese, “Organizational Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning,” 355.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

55

and a central focus on ecclesial virtues. While these two emphases are important to all ecumenical activity, they receive particular emphasis within Receptive Ecumenism –​and, of course, within Spiritual Ecumenism, which brings us to the next theme. 6

Spiritual Ecumenism

Spiritual Ecumenism is a further major theme within the volume, receiving significant emphasis in at least six chapters.73 Although, at times, this theme is treated implicitly, via discussions on conversion, or the importance of prayer within ecumenism, rather than explicitly using the term. Gros attests that “Receptive Ecumenism is first of all a matter of spirituality,” which needs to be “nurtured” with “attention to mind and heart, to prayer and study, to grace and the good works that flow from the Spirit’s gift.”74 In his chapter, Kasper further emphasises the importance of Spiritual Ecumenism as the “soul” of the Ecumenical Movement, stressing that it “encompasses prayer, conversion, and self-​sanctification.”75 Especially important, however, is Kasper’s emphasis on the pneumatological and spiritual basis of ecumenism.76 He writes: “Ultimately it is not we, but the Spirit of God alone, who can create unity.”77 This sentiment is echoed in Receptive Ecumenism, as Murray attests that it is “a Spirit-​ driven movement of the heart, mind, and will.”78 Kasper’s points highlight the connection between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. His reference to the pneumatological nature of ecumenism leads him to, “in the tradition of Paul Couturier … say that spiritual ecumenism is the soul of the ecumenical movement (UR, 8).”79 Kasper explains that Spiritual Ecumenism “encompasses prayer, conversion, and self-​sanctification.”80 He attests, however, that: Spiritual Ecumenism also makes it clear that we should not be satisfied with such intermediate goals as better mutual awareness, cooperation 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Spiritual Ecumenism is discussed within six chapters: Ladislas Ӧrsy, Chapter 3; Walter Kasper, Chapter 6; Keith Pecklers, Chapter 8; Michael Putney, Chapter 9; Gabriel Flynn, Chapter 28; and Jeffrey Gros, Chapter 31. Gros, “Learning the Ways of Receptive Ecumenism,” 453. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85.

56 CHAPTER 3 and peaceful coexistence. The goal of ecumenism is the shared celebration of the one Eucharist.81 His assertion that Spiritual Ecumenism is concerned with the goal of full structural unity, rather than simply improved Christian relations, is also key to Murray’s understanding.82 Similarly, Kasper’s assertion that the purpose of ecumenical dialogue is not “a matter of finding the lowest common denominator but of reciprocal enrichment and growth” is also one of the major points of Receptive Ecumenism.83 While Kasper does not develop the Receptive Ecumenical method in detail, his contribution provides a broader context for the strategy, and offers helpful points for consideration regarding the relationship between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. One of Smyth’s key themes is that of conversion, and she refers throughout to Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, and the Groupe des Dombes.84 Her use of key Spiritual Ecumenical sources raises further consideration of the link between Receptive Ecumenism and the broader Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. Smyth defines Receptive Ecumenism “as a journey of transformation,” highlighting the centrality of conversion in its approach.85 She makes the point that “divided churches” must “recognize that divided identities will not be healed without openness to conversion.”86 Conversion is the path forward, which is the point also emphasised by Murray. Putney’s contribution follows similar lines, especially being evocative of Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism, which was a key influence on Putney’s work.87 Putney emphasises conversion as the central focus of Receptive Ecumenism, which brings Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism into the same sphere. Ladislas Örsy also places a key focus on the spiritual or affective aspects of ecumenical engagement. Örsy explains the requirements for achieving authentic receptive learning: namely, the “persons learning and receiving must have the right dispositions, the doctrines received must be rooted in truth, and the practice accepted must be an expression of Christian love.”88 It is interesting to note that two of these three requirements are affective in character. In seeking 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 85. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,” 86. See Smyth, “Jerusalem, Athens, and Zurich,” 289, 296. Smyth, “Jerusalem, Athens, and Zurich,” 289. Smyth, “Jerusalem, Athens, and Zurich,” 294. Michael Putney, “One Man’s Ecumenical Journey,” in My Ecumenical Journey, ed. Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly, and Ormond Rush (Adelaide: atf Theology, 2014), 1. Ladislas Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving:  A Search for Criteria,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 39.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

57

a response to identifying the criteria for “such subtle requirements,” Örsy draws connections between receptive learning and the Second Vatican Council.89 He offers “the wounded body in need of healing” as an analogy for understanding Christian unity.90 This resonates well with Murray’s understanding of Receptive Ecumenism as a reparative ministry of the wounded hands. Örsy offers a helpful reflection on how a church can become an authentic receiving community.91 Namely, it must focus inwards on itself, and have humility and a desire for growth.92 It must also focus outwards and believe that other communities contain gifts of the Spirit.93 Moreover, the receiving community must seek to discover something that would enrich itself from others.94 Finally, the receiving community must take the initiative for its own growth, and draw on its own resources to develop what it has received, so that it can be authentically integrated into its existing community.95 These points, especially the last one, are all important in understanding the process of Receptive Ecumenism. Örsy places clear emphasis on the affective dimensions of ecumenism. “Love and wisdom must go hand in hand,” he insists.96 He concludes by pointing out the need for healing: “We need to heal ourselves, if we want to heal the world.”97 He explains that learning and receiving are parts “of this healing process.”98 Örsy’s chapter strongly resonates with Murray’s conception of Receptive Ecumenism, particularly as a reparative ministry, and the focus on the affective and spiritual levels of ecumenical engagement. Örsy also provides a valuable contribution towards another stage in Receptive Ecumenism’s development: that of establishing criteria for Receptive Ecumenical learning. Gabriel Flynn’s contribution also highlights the connection between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. Drawing on the work of Couturier and Congar, he insists that “over and above political, intellectual, and psychological factors” for ecumenism, “prayer is foremost.”99 Flynn describes Congar’s life as “a 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 39–​40. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 41. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 44. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 46. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 46. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 49. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 49. Gabriel Flynn, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning:  Reflections in Dialogue with Yves Congar and B.C. Butler,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D.  Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 400.

58 CHAPTER 3 veritable school of receptive learning” and refers to his primary emphasis on conversion.100 Flynn concludes by stating that he “advocate[s]‌the approach of … Couturier whose eloquent prayer for unity resonates with unmistaken eschatological overtones:  ‘That the unity of all Christians may come, such as Christ wills, and by the means that He wills.’ ”101 The strong emphasis on Spiritual Ecumenism found within the volume is not surprising, as Receptive Ecumenism places a central emphasis on conversion. However, while Murray acknowledges the influence of Spiritual Ecumenism on Receptive Ecumenism, he also argues that Receptive Ecumenism aims to refocus Spiritual Ecumenism, rediscovering its institutional and structural implications. Receptive Ecumenism is therefore a reinterpretation or redevelopment of Spiritual Ecumenism.102 The spiritual theme recurrent throughout the volume also receives expression in those chapters that reflect on Receptive Ecumenism’s implicit pneumatological basis. 7 Pneumatology Interrelated with Spiritual Ecumenism, pneumatology receives substantial focus, given detailed attention within at least three chapters, although it is implied throughout the volume.103 Denis Edwards highlights broader ecumenical issues that impact on the function and achievement of Receptive Ecumenism; namely, the need for a renewed pneumatology and some resolution over the issue of the Petrine ministry.104 He argues for the value of Kasper’s theology of pneumatology in regards to these two points.105 Edwards’s focus on a renewed pneumatology is of particular importance, as Receptive Ecumenism has a strong, although somewhat implicit, pneumatological basis.106 Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on the activity of the Spirit requires further development, which is where Edwards’s work on pneumatology is especially valuable. 1 00 101 102 103

Flynn, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 401. Flynn, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 409. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Pneumatology receives significant focus in three chapters:  Walter Kasper, Chapter  6; Denis Edwards, Chapter 14; and Geraldine Smyth, Chapter 20. 104 Denis Edwards, “The Holy Spirit as the Gift –​Pneumatology and Catholic Re-​reception of Petrine Ministry in the Theology of Walter Kasper,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 196. 1 05 Edwards, “The Holy Spirit as the Gift,” 196. 106 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

59

Edwards therefore provides a critical reflection of what is needed in order to achieve ecumenical receptivity, which is vital for Receptive Ecumenism to become a successful ecumenical pathway. Significantly, while pneumatology is a clear theme in the volume, it is one that is only implicit within Murray’s presentation of Receptive Ecumenism. He attests that Receptive Ecumenism is “a Spirit-​driven movement of the heart, mind, and will.”107 While he does not offer here an explication for the presumed pneumatological basis of Receptive Ecumenism, he recognises it as important and engages with it in other work.108 As such, pneumatology represents an area where further development is needed. 8

Tensions within Receptive Ecumenism

There are, however, also some discordant notes between Receptive Ecumenism’s two primary sources. Two jarring points in particular: confusion over dating Receptive Ecumenism, and diverging methodological groundings for its approach. There is some confusion over whether Receptive Ecumenism is a recognisably new approach, or something that can be traced back decades. For instance, Mary Tanner’s chapter posits it as being active in the 1980s.109 She attests that churches have been on “a voyage of discovery” since Vatican ii, and the 2006 conference “provided a useful opportunity to reflect on what has happened and to envisage what might stimulate Receptive Ecumenism in the future.”110 Tanner identifies Receptive Ecumenism as emerging over time since Vatican ii; asserts the lack of widely held principles and rules on it; and defines the first conference as an “opportunity” to revitalise Receptive Ecumenism for the future, rather than launching it as a new ecumenical approach. For example, she describes the meeting at Mississauga in 2000 as “a new initiative in Receptive Ecumenism.”111 At this meeting, she attests, the bishops “emphasized the importance of episcopal sharing, shared collegiality, and the 1 07 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. 108 Paul Murray, “The Holy Spirit and the Church: Making Sense of the Spirit in the Sense of the Church,” (presentation, Annual Conference of the cta of Great Britain:  Sensus Fidelium: Listening for the Echo, September 2016). 109 Mary Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga: Lessons in Receptive Ecumenical Learning from the Anglican-​Roman Catholic Bilateral Dialogue Process,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 263. 110 Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga,” 258. 111 Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga,” 266–​267.

60 CHAPTER 3 need for the bishops themselves to take responsibility for this new stage of Receptive Ecumenism.”112 While Murray explains that elements of Receptive Ecumenism have always been implicit within ecumenism, the highlighting of these aspects within Receptive Ecumenism, and the use of the term itself, stem from Murray’s work and the 2006 conference.113 Here, then, is something of a tension over the conception of Receptive Ecumenism –​and one that suggests further delineation over Receptive Ecumenism and the context from which it developed would be helpful. Overall, Tanner provides a rich, critical reflection on Receptive Ecumenism. She emphasises that the personal and relational must come to the fore, that the whole church must be engaged, that effective leadership is essential, that more developed understanding of the processes of reception would aid Receptive Ecumenism, and that there must be a constant reaffirmation of the goal of full visible unity.114 None of these points appear discordant with Murray, and several are essential to his vision. Her points may be useful in developing criteria for Receptive Ecumenical learning. While she provides a valuable discussion of the historical ecumenical background for Receptive Ecumenism, can the term Receptive Ecumenism authentically be applied to events prior to 2006? The difficulty over historically dating the approach points to the need for greater clarity and definition. In contrast, for example, Gros’s contribution discusses Receptive Ecumenism almost in future terms, as something still developing.115 The discordance between contributors over how to historically date or trace Receptive Ecumenism contrasts with Murray’s presentation of Receptive Ecumenism as “a fresh approach to the contemporary ecumenical task.”116 Murray acknowledges that part of Receptive Ecumenism’s value stems from its explicit intent to highlight features that have always underpinned ecumenism.117 However, the naming and elucidation of such as “Receptive Ecumenism” comes from his own work, leading up to the 2006 Receptive Ecumenism conference.118 In this sense, using Receptive Ecumenism as a specific term for anything prior to 2006 is essentially inaccurate. This kind of discontinuity suggests a lack of clarity, and highlights a need for further explanation over the theological context surrounding Receptive Ecumenism, and in particular, its antecedents.

1 12 113 114 115 116 117 118

Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga,” 267. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Tanner, “From Vatican II to Mississauga,” 268. Gros, “Learning the Ways of Receptive Ecumenism,” 442. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 79. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 79. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 79.

Navigating the Receptive Ecumenical Path

61

There are also discrepancies over Receptive Ecumenism’s methodological basis. For example, Hervé Legrand perceives it as falling within reception.119 Gerard Mannion places it in the framework of comparative ecclesiology.120 Daniel Hardy considers it within the context of elemental theology.121 Kasper refers to fundamental theology.122 While Gros and Flynn place Receptive Ecumenism within Spiritual Ecumenism.123 Murray himself situates Receptive Ecumenism partly within Rescher’s pragmatist idealistic approach.124 Clearly, there is room for greater clarification over its methodological underpinning, especially as explicating its methodological basis has long-​reaching ramifications for how the approach is defined and used. Analysis of the Receptive Ecumenism volume therefore reveals six major themes: challenges facing contemporary ecumenism; the mutuality of giving and receiving; the ecumenical gift exchange; reception; the impact of non-​ theological factors on ecumenism; Spiritual Ecumenism; and pneumatology. Some confusion was also present regarding the “newness” of Receptive Ecumenism and its methodological basis, which is unsurprising considering this material dates from the first conference. Overall, the volume sets out not just a valuable contribution to contemporary ecumenism, but the groundwork for Receptive Ecumenism itself. Both Murray’s work, and a significant number of the contributors to the volume, refer to the relationship between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. As such, the connection between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism requires further exploration. 119 Hervé Legrand, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Future of Ecumenical Dialogues: Privileging Differentiated Consensus and Drawing its Institutional Conseqences,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 120 Mannion, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Hermeneutics of Catholic Learning.” 121 Daniel Hardy, “Receptive Ecumenism: Learning by Engagement,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D. Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 122 Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam.” 123 Flynn, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning.” 124 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 7.

­c hapter 4

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii: The Spiritual Roots of Receptive Ecumenism Spiritual Ecumenism is where the Receptive Ecumenical path truly begins. Receptive Ecumenism is understood as being part of the Spiritual Ecumenical family and as seeking to revitalise certain aspects of it for the contemporary context. Therefore, in order to understand Receptive Ecumenism more fully, its roots in Spiritual Ecumenism require unearthing. The focus of this, and the following chapter, is to address the theological context and grounding of Receptive Ecumenism within the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. Murray identifies key Spiritual Ecumenical figures, such as Paul Couturier, Yves Congar, Walter Kasper, and important texts, such as Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint as playing a vital role in Receptive Ecumenism’s emergence.1 He asked Margaret O’Gara to co-​facilitate the first conference and her contribution to the Receptive Ecumenism volume is directly after Murray’s own.2 Each of these is a proponent of Spiritual Ecumenism who has impacted on Receptive Ecumenism in a significant manner. For the sake of clarity, the examination is presented in chronological order, with this chapter outlining Spiritual Ecumenical influences up to and including Vatican ii, and the next chapter addressing post-​Vatican ii influences. 1

The Roots of Receptive Ecumenism in Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism

In Catholic thought, Spiritual Ecumenism can be traced back at least to the 1930s.3 In particular, it was influenced by Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881–​ 1953). Couturier was one of the most significant figures in early Catholic engagement with ecumenism. Known as the father of Spiritual Ecumenism, he

1 Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” 2 Paul D. Murray, “Acknowledgements,” in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, ed. Paul D.  Murray (Oxford:  Oxford ­University Press, 2008). 3 Ladous, “Spiritual Ecumenism,” 1069.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_005

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

63

is widely recognised as a “pioneer” of Catholic ecumenism.4 Kasper calls him “the grand apostle and pioneer of spiritual ecumenism.”5 Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism significantly impacted on Catholic approaches to ecumenism. Indeed, decades later, Vatican ii would assert Spiritual Ecumenism as the very “soul” of the Ecumenical Movement.6 Couturier also established the influential ecumenical group, the Groupe des Dombes in 1937, which is remarkable for being “the longest standing forum for Protestant-​Catholic ecumenical dialogue.”7 Murray reflects that the Groupe des Dombes could even be seen as representing, at this very nascent stage of Catholic ecumenism, an “unofficial precursor to later bilateral dialogues.”8 In his work redeveloping the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Couturier built on Paul Wattson’s Octave of Christian Unity, which was first observed in January 1908. The Octave aimed at the unity of Christians through their return to the Catholic Church, which reflected the Catholic Church’s viewpoint on Christian unity at the time. In 1933, Couturier initially accepted Wattson’s Octave of Christian Unity, but after two years of observance, he became convinced that the “triumphalist spirit” of the Octave required “radical revision.”9 He argued that the Octave should be “broadened and decentralized.”10 Couturier’s Week of Prayer would have some immediate and much long-​term success, with Couturier writing of it in 1938 as “an immense current.”11 In 1935, he published an apologetic for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.12 He asserted that a revised Octave for Christian Unity “must be founded on three pillars,” namely, humility and repentance; the ecumenicity of prayer for unity; and religious freedom.13 Many of the core aspects of Receptive Ecumenism can be discerned in these three pillars. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Catherine E. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes: A Dialogue of Conversion (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 8. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 156. Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 1. Paul D. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity in the Work of Yves Congar: Ressourcement, Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Reform,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 13, no. 3 (2011): 277. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 15. From a letter Couturier wrote to Pastor Rosendal of the Swedish Church, quoted in Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 63. From a letter Couturier wrote to Pastor Rosendal of the Swedish Church, quoted in Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 65. The apologetic was entitled: “Psychologie de l’Octave de prières du 18 au 25 janvier,” and was first published in Revue Apologétique, December 1935. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17–​19; Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 76.

64 ­chapter  Couturier’s first pillar is that of humility and repentance. A truthful understanding of Christian division as sin is a necessary precondition for desire for unity.14 Confessing the sin of disunity and asking for repentance inspires a humble attitude towards the Spirit. Such an attitude fosters the awareness of Christian unity as beyond the accomplishments of human ability.15 Clifford points out that Couturier was living at a time when “many Catholics considered that those separated from Catholicism were solely responsible for the sin of division.”16 This prevailing attitude supported the Catholic Church’s notion of return ecumenism –​“you-​come-​in-​ism” as it is sometimes called. By placing sole responsibility for church divisions on other Christians, the Catholic Church was able to assert that unity could only be achieved through their repentance and return to the Catholic Church. Couturier’s emphasis that all Christians must take responsibility for Christian disunity is striking in contrast. Receptive Ecumenism also advocates that we must take responsibility for our own community, its ecclesial learning and our own journey towards Christian unity.17 In Receptive Ecumenism, this sense of responsibility is also founded on humility, as we must clearly and critically assess the wounds and weaknesses of our own community. Receptive Ecumenism is about churches being willing to show each other their weaknesses and their wounds, and to have the humility to ask their Christian brothers and sisters for assistance.18 For Couturier, any true approach to Christian unity is grounded in humility, with recognition of the responsibility all must take for division. This humility extends to professing a truthful account of history, including uncomplimentary aspects of the Catholic Church, such as incidents of papal corruption, and violence towards other Christians.19 This is why, for Couturier, humility is accompanied by repentance and prayer. In his revision of Wattson’s Octave, Couturier included prayers for the sanctification of each Christian denomination, including the Catholic Church.20 Decades before Vatican ii’s call for renewal, he highlighted the need to pray for the purification and continuing conversion of the Catholic Church. In Receptive Ecumenism, this emphasis is highlighted in an explicitly self-​critical mode. The Receptive Ecumenical approach requires us to be “counter-​instinctual” in considering our own flaws

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 17. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 22.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

65

and failings, instead of pointing out those of other traditions.21 Receptive Ecumenism requires unilateral, not mutual, humility. The second pillar, the ecumenicity of prayer for unity, refers to the necessary openness of ecumenical prayer. According to Clifford, Couturier regarded the Wattsonian Octave as having “prejudged the ecumenical goal and effectively imposed Catholic convictions on other Christians.”22 Prayer for Christian unity necessitates a scope applicable to all Christians, regardless of their denomination, but without affecting the integrity of each tradition.23 Couturier was convinced that the papal basis of the Octave was an obstacle for the participation of all Christians.24 Because of this, he focused prayer for unity on Christ, rather than the papacy or Rome. He situated ecumenical prayer around Christ’s prayer in John 17:21, attesting this as a prayer that every Christian can unreservedly uphold, as it is nothing less than Christ’s own desire for us.25 By focusing on Christ’s prayer for unity, Couturier intended to “universalize” ecumenical prayer into a truly ecumenical context, instead of emphasising return to the Catholic Church.26 Prayer is the cornerstone of Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism, as he humbly asserts that unity cannot be achieved through human effort alone, but only through the work of the Spirit.27 Prayer must remain open to all Christians, and most of all, to the workings of the Spirit. Couturier’s shift from praying for other Christians to return to the Catholic Church, towards prayer for Christian unity, is reflected in his decision to rename the “Church Unity Octave,” which has explicitly Catholic connotations, to “Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.”28 Couturier’s conviction that ecumenical prayer must be truly ecumenical ties in with his third pillar: religious freedom. Couturier’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is grounded in respect for religious freedom, another feature which was out of step with the prevalent Catholic attitudes of his own time. Religious freedom would not be declared a basic human right by the Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae, promulgated in 1965. However, the declaration on 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 18. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 18. Curtis, Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 64. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 18. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 18. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 17–​18. Walter Kasper, “Charting the Road of the Ecumenical Movement,” Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 2008 http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​pontifical_​councils/​chrstuni/​card-​kasper-​docs/​rc_​pc_​chrstuni_​doc_​20080117_​kasper-​ecumenismo_​ en.html.

66 ­chapter  the right to religious freedom is intrinsic to the Council’s revolutionary Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. As Clifford points out, the “document would be a key factor in bringing about confidence in new ecumenical relationships and prepared the way for official dialogue with other churches on equal footing.”29 Couturier’s focus on the right to religious freedom as a necessary component of ecumenism serves to emphasise how his thinking was decades ahead of its time. A respect for religious freedom entails that participating in the Week of Prayer would not compromise a person’s confessional identity in any manner.30 In this way, Couturier showed respect for the integrity of other Christian traditions, and worked to establish a form of ecumenical activity that did not impose on other traditions while, at the same time, fostering repentance for Christian division and prayer for unity.31 Couturier’s approach does not threaten ecclesial identity or loyalties, but acts as a process of deepening conversion into one’s own tradition, as participants open themselves to the will of Christ, and the activity of the Spirit.32 As Clifford suggests, “The outcome is not uniformity, but a greater conformity of each church to Christ.”33 The impetus behind Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism is recognition of Christ’s will for his church, grounded in shared repentance and humility. The Ecumenical Movement is a matter of Christians “being drawn in the same spiritual movement towards Christ.”34 As such, it must be based on respect for religious freedom, as Clifford expresses: “In this movement of prayer one remains entirely Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant and renounces nothing of one’s theology.”35 Therefore, Spiritual Ecumenism does not damage ecclesial identities, but rather leads to deeper conversion. This idea is echoed in Murray’s assertion that Receptive Ecumenism is “not a matter of becoming less Catholic but of becoming more Catholic precisely by becoming more appropriately Anglican, more appropriately Lutheran,” etc.36 Here we find Couturier’s focus on the interconnection between ecumenism, ecclesial identity, and conversion drawn even more explicitly within Receptive Ecumenism.

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 19. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 19. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 19. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 20. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 20. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 19. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 20. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

67

Murray advocates Receptive Ecumenism as “a process of collective, ecclesial examination of conscience before the face of the other,” for the purpose, not of diminishing our own identity, but of strengthening and growing into it more fully.37 This conscious intent to deepen and enrich, rather than compromise ecclesial identities, is also how Murray conceives the aim of Receptive Ecumenism, which “is not, primarily, as a task of convincing the other but as a task of conversion.”38 Receptive Ecumenism is about the deepening rather than loss of identity.39 Murray writes that it is about an ecclesial conversion which is understood not “as a fundamental switching or diminishing of identities” but rather a deepening and growth of those identities.40 Receptive Ecumenism clearly follows in Couturier’s footsteps in understanding conversion as essential to ecclesial identity. However, Receptive Ecumenism actually aims towards an even more fundamental goal –​it asserts that ecclesial conversion itself requires “the refreshment of ecumenical engagement and receptive ecclesial learning if it is ever actually to be achieved.”41 Where Couturier and the Groupe des Dombes assert conversion as a necessary prerequisite for ecumenical growth, Receptive Ecumenism takes one step back, and emphasises that receptive ecumenical learning itself is required for conversion.42 The theme of conversion was of central importance in Couturier’s work, and continues to be key to the work of the Groupe des Dombes.43 Rather than the return model, where other Christians were expected to convert to Catholicism, Couturier was convinced that all are in need of conversion, including the Catholic Church.44 Spiritual Ecumenism is concerned with becoming more deeply converted to the will of Christ. The idea that ecumenism and conversion are inextricably linked is one which has resonated throughout the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, from Couturier’s work to Receptive Ecumenism, which Murray calls “the way of hope-​filled conversion.”45 It is also important to note Couturier’s approach to Christian diversity and division. One of Couturier’s key concepts is that of “spiritual emulation.” By 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Paul D. Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands: Exploring the Promise and Potential of Receptive Ecumenism,” (Lecture at Trinity College, Toronto: November 4, 2013). Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands.” Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 82. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” One of the Groupe Des Dombes’s key works is the document, For the Conversion of the Churches, trans. James Greig (Geneva: wcc Publications, 1993). Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 24. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12.

68 ­chapter  maintaining that Christian denominations could come together in a movement of Spiritual Ecumenism, Clifford explains that he conceived of a “convergent movement” of different Christian denominations.46 In this view, diversity is not necessarily negative. While all Christians need to show repentance for division, and desire renewal, this does not mean the extinguishing of all difference.47 Rather, Couturier understood Christian diversity to be a reflection of God’s will for diversity throughout creation.48 Therefore, diversity in theology, doctrine, or practice does not necessarily lead to division. Rather, Couturier’s notion of spiritual emulation ties in with his belief that Christian traditions may prove to be complementary.49 This more positive approach to diversity is reflected in Receptive Ecumenism’s stance of committed pluralism. As Murray articulates, Receptive Ecumenism is in service of achieving full visible unity, which must be understood as a unity in diversity, “not of uniformity and not even of convergence.”50 Couturier’s positive appraisal of diversity and the conviction of the complementarity of Christian denominations can also be seen as the nascent form of the concept of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. The inherent riches that Christian traditions have to offer each other would later be stated in Vatican ii, and developed by John Paul ii. Along with conversion, it forms a keystone of Spiritual Ecumenism. Denominational complementarity is also intrinsic to Receptive Ecumenism, as it is founded on the concept that we need to learn from other Christians. Although Couturier phrases the complementarity of traditions in spiritual terms, other Spiritual Ecumenists express it in terms of “gifts,” and Receptive Ecumenism prefers the term “learning,” the core idea is the same. Clifford makes the important point that while a cursory understanding of Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism may give the impression that his focus is primarily on the individual, and personal prayer, this is far from the case.51 Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism is, she explains, “aimed ultimately at a corporate and ecclesial renewal.”52 He considers that “personal sanctification” is inextricable from “the sanctification of each confessional body.”53 Couturier

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 21. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 21. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 21. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 21. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

69

explicitly states that “Unity cannot be attained by a great number of individual conversions.”54 Rather, Christian unity will, some day, be achieved through the “corporate reunion” of all Christians.55 And in this unity, he stresses, the unique spiritual features and gifts of each Christian group will be treasured.56 Nonetheless, the individual and the community are indissolubly linked, such that communal renewal is intertwined with the personal conversion of each of its members.57 The personal and communal do not suffer from a false dichotomy in Couturier’s understanding. Spiritual Ecumenism, therefore, is intended to influence all aspects of the church, theologically, liturgically, doctrinally, and morally.58 Couturier’s goal is nothing less than the conversion of the whole church. This is one of the key points reflected in and re-​emphasised by Receptive Ecumenism. Murray’s goal in Receptive Ecumenism is to re-​discover the full structural and ecclesial ramifications of Couturier’s vision of Spiritual Ecumenism.59 As such, it is deliberately geared to foster ecclesial conversion, especially structural and theological change.60 Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism intended to provoke ecclesial conversion by focusing on interior renewal. In his prayers for sanctification, he contends that each tradition needs to pray and work for its own renewal first.61 In fact, spiritual emulation involves attending first to any obstacles to unity that can be found inside one’s own tradition.62 Couturier’s prioritisation on seeking internal renewal challenged the prevalent Counter-​Reformation attitudes of his time, especially propensities towards criticism of others, rather than oneself.63 Couturier’s notions of seeking internal renewal first, and being self-​critical rather than critical of others, resonate strongly throughout Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism is ad intra ecumenism, concentrating on the renewal of the host tradition. Moreover, the assertion that we must change our thinking from asking what others need to learn from us, to instead self-​critically asking what we may learn from others, is fundamental to the Receptive Ecumenical

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Paul Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” in Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, ed. Geoffrey Curtis (London: scm Press, 1964), 337. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 338. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 338. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 23–​24. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 24. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 24.

70 ­chapter  method.64 While this is essentially the same attitude as that behind Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism focuses the need to be self-​ critical in the specific sphere of learning, which adds a different dimension. The legacy of Couturier’s work can clearly be seen in Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism intends for its practice to lead to one becoming more deeply converted into one’s own tradition.65 This echoes Couturier’s concept of ecumenism as conversion. Moreover, Couturier’s concept of spiritual emulation can be seen at the heart of Receptive Ecumenism’s idea of ecclesial learning. Indeed, the fundamental conviction behind Receptive Ecumenism is based on Couturier’s ground-​breaking assertion of the difference between diversity and division, and subsequently, of the gifts traditions may have to offer each other. Moreover, Couturier’s emphasis on self-​renewal and being self-​ critical, instead of criticising other traditions, is strongly emphasised within Receptive Ecumenism. However, Couturier emphasises prayer above all.66 Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism is intrinsically a prayer movement, where prayer leads one more deeply into relationship with Christ. His ecumenism is spiritual in the deepest meaning of the word. With humility, Couturier recognises that Christian unity is not possible for us to achieve on our own, but that it is in fact, the desire of Christ for his church. As such, the proper response is repentance and prayer, in particular, prayer which opens hearts and minds to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Grounded in Christ’s prayer for unity (Jn 17:21), Couturier’s prayer has an encompassing scope that goes beyond confessional borders to strike at the heart of Christian belief. Girded by respect for religious freedom, Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism does not challenge ecclesial identity, but rather inspires deepening conversion. The simplicity of his vision of Spiritual Ecumenism is breathtaking. It is at once both reasonable and unobjectionable (because it does not compromise the integrity of a tradition) while being challenging, for both individual Christians and their traditions (because it is founded on repentance and humility, and the understanding that division is against God’s desire for us). In contrast, Receptive Ecumenism does not have this singular focus on prayer. In Receptive Ecumenism, the key emphasis is on learning. Prayer and learning have significantly different connotations. The distinction between 64 65 66

As this assertion is key to the Receptive Ecumenical methodology, it is repeated throughout Murray’s work. For one example, please see:  Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 343.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

71

the two in Receptive Ecumenism is one area that requires greater clarification. Receptive Ecumenism has certainly inherited Couturier’s focus on repentance and humility in that it advocates learning rather than teaching, receiving rather than giving. For Couturier, the way towards Christian unity is found in kenotic humility, in becoming open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and the will of Christ.67 Clifford explains that Couturier uncompromisingly held that, if “unity seems unattainable” this is because of “egoism and a lack of genuine humility and openness.”68 Ecumenism therefore requires an emphasis on the virtuous and affective levels of engagement. Thus, he perceived impediments to unity as existing largely on the affective level, and the solution to be an increase in humility. Couturier writes passionately in his Ecumenical Testament: If we were to examine every single difficulty which must be overcome so that progress towards Christian Unity may be made, we should always come to the same conclusion: the problem of Christian Unity is for everyone a problem of the orientation of the inner life, for unless it is orientated, even in secret, towards Christian Unity, how can Christians face this burning question? Unless it succeeds in gripping, even torturing the Christian conscience, what hope is there of its resolution?69 For Couturier, Christian unity is truly a matter of the heart. Unity is primarily a desire, and it is impeded by arrogance. In his words, it must “torture” one’s conscience, which situates ecumenism clearly at the affective levels of human experience. Spiritual Ecumenism conceives of ecumenism as a virtuous activity, with humility as one of the key ecumenical virtues. In line with Couturier, Murray emphasises humility and a renewed openness to the other. Murray considers that ecumenical progress is still possible, but only if each tradition approaches other denominations from the humble perspective of what they have to learn from others. However, whereas Couturier specifically advocates humility and openness to Christ and the Spirit as the way forward, Murray primarily emphasises humility and openness towards other traditions, albeit enabled through the Spirit, as the way forward. Whether Receptive Ecumenism places enough emphasis on the activity of the Spirit is a point for further reflection. This may be an area where Receptive Ecumenism could benefit from a deeper engagement with Spiritual Ecumenism.

67 68 69

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 22. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 22. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 351.

72 ­chapter  However, it should also be acknowledged that Couturier places a high regard on the virtues of a monastic lifestyle. This focus on monasticism necessarily influences his work on ecumenism. Bearing this in mind, the primacy Couturier places on prayer, and the need for self-​emptying humility, is certainly not out of context. In contrast, Murray is a married layman, engaged in academic work. As such, Murray’s emphasis on learning, rather than prayer, appeals to different contexts than Couturier’s undoubtedly monastic approach. The broader appeal of learning is one which is suited to our particular context, especially in the Catholic tradition where the role of the laity is increasing in general; a trend which can be seen in the increase of the numbers of lay rather than clerical theologians. Another point of contrast between Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism is in terms of response from the Catholic Church. While Couturier is now lauded as a pioneer of Catholic ecumenism, in his own time his methods “were met with great suspicion,” to use Clifford’s phrase.70 While he had the support of Cardinal Gerlier of Lyon, and while his Week of Prayer would become influential, his notions were not universally acclaimed by the wider Catholic Church.71 Despite his efforts, Couturier’s idea of Spiritual Ecumenism “was not widely received.”72 Couturier was far ahead of his time. More than half a century later, Murray’s restatement of some of Couturier’s key themes in Receptive Ecumenism has received a great deal of support and praise from the highest levels of the Catholic Church. Receptive Ecumenism is gaining worldwide, particularly in the United Kingdom and Australia, and has been received very positively. In Receptive Ecumenism, it may well be that the time has finally come for the full flowering of Couturier’s vision of Spiritual Ecumenism. Of course, it is not as if the intervening decades between Couturier and Receptive Ecumenism were some kind of vacuum. Rather, Catholic involvement in the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement had only just begun in the work of Couturier. 2

Yves Congar as a Forerunner to Receptive Ecumenism

Yves Congar (1904–​1995) marks the next important stage of development for Spiritual Ecumenism. Whereas Couturier is the father of Spiritual Ecumenism, Congar has been called the father of Catholic ecumenism.73 Congar was a 70 71 72 73

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 24. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 24–​25. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 25. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 273.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

73

French Dominican priest who is widely regarded as one of the twentieth century’s most important Catholic theologians. He is well-​known for his work in ecclesiology, pneumatology, and ecumenism. Gabriel Flynn describes Congar “as a pioneer of Church unity and a champion of the laity.”74 Flynn sees Congar as a reformer, citing him as “an architect of the contemporary Church.”75 There is no doubt that Congar “holds an eminent place in the history of Church reform.”76 Paul Lakeland, also a contributor to Receptive Ecumenism, and the co-​host of the third conference, writes of Congar: “No Catholic theologian … had a greater influence on the course of twentieth-​century Catholic theology than” Congar.77 Moreover, Congar’s legacy and influence is ongoing. He was a highly influential figure at the Second Vatican Council, and was key to the writing of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio. Congar’s work was largely situational –​he wrote in response to current issues of the time. However, his influence on Vatican ii was such that Congar himself writes that, “If there is a theology of Congar, that is where it is be found.”78 His value to the contemporary Ecumenical Movement has been recently highlighted in a book focusing on Congar’s work in the “hope of identifying resources that can revitalize the ecumenical movement.”79 However, like Couturier, Congar’s ecumenical work did not always meet with approval from the Catholic Church. Prior to Vatican ii, some of his work was banned, he was prevented from teaching, and everything he published had to be approved by the Vatican. In 1956, he wrote to his mother that he was silenced because, “What put me wrong (in their eyes) is not having said false things, but having said things they do not like to have said.”80 For much of his career, he worked under intense scrutiny. Yet, before his death, he was made a cardinal.81 There is a deep connection between Congar and Couturier, especially around Spiritual Ecumenism. Congar writes that “for me ‘spiritual ecumenism’ 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Flynn, “Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform,” 99. Flynn, “Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform,” 99. Flynn, “Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform,” 99. Paul Lakeland, “Introduction,” in Yves Congar:  Essential Writings, ed. Paul Lakeland (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2010), 15. Quoted in Gabriel Flynn, “Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform: A Renewal of the Spirit,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Gabriel Flynn (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), 101. Douglas M.  Koskela, Ecclesiality and Ecumenism:  Yves Congar and the Road to Unity (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2008), 10. Yves Congar, “Silenced for Saying Things Rome Didn’t Like to Have Said,” National Catholic Reporter (2000): 3. Robert Nugent, “Yves Congar:  Apostle of Patience,” Australian Ejournal of Theology 4 (2005): 1.

74 ­chapter  was conjoined with an equally necessary theological ecumenism.”82 He attests to a desirable connection between spiritual and theological ecumenism, a core theme in Receptive Ecumenism. However, Congar attests that it was Couturier who opened ecumenism as a spiritual way and who gave “it its heart of love and prayer.” He praises Couturier for being “admirably faithful, even heroically faithful to that vocation.”83 This is not to say that Congar does not value the spiritual aspect of ecumenism. Indeed, he writes, “This movement, which inspires men with the desire to serve the cause of Christian unity, is of a very pure and lofty spiritual nature.”84 Congar has, therefore, a deep sense of ecumenism as a spiritual endeavour. He is highly praiseworthy of Couturier’s work on Spiritual Ecumenism, including the need for interior reform and conversion.85 On Couturier’s Prayer for Christian Unity, Congar attests that “all can come together in concord and unison, all the more so because fundamentally it consists in praying as Jesus prayed: ‘Father, that they may all be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11), and thus in letting Jesus pray in us.”86 In this way, Congar proclaims that Couturier has succeeded in creating a “truly universal, truly ecumenical” prayer.87 Of Couturier himself, he writes, “To him we owe the spiritual foundation of the immense movement which today inspires the ecumenical hope of the whole world.”88 But what of Congar’s own contribution to Spiritual Ecumenism, and later, to Receptive Ecumenism? Murray refers to Congar’s work “as representing a decisive forerunner of receptive ecumenism.”89 He explains that Congar “can be seen to have anticipated and, in many cases, to have significantly developed the key principles that come to articulation in Receptive Ecumenism.”90 Murray lists these as being an unremitting emphasis on full visible unity as the goal of ecumenism, combined with the recognition of the need to acknowledge the concrete realities and distinctiveness of churches.91 This dual focus goes along with an

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Yves Congar, Dialogue Between Christians:  Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. Philip Loretz (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), 20. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 20. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 100. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 20. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 21. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 21. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 21. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 284. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 301. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 301.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

75

awareness that it is the responsibility of each church to consider their need for reform and continuing conversion.92 Murray considers that Congar maintained the emphasis that the goal of ecumenism was nothing less than that of full visible unity, a perspective reflected in Receptive Ecumenism.93 While Congar recognised that there is diversity in catholicity, and affirms that there are riches within other Christian traditions, he focused on the goal of ecumenism as full visible and structural communion.94 Murray asserts that Congar advocates a type of return ecumenism, but one where the Catholic Church itself learns and is changed by the process of ecumenical engagement.95 While it is a return ecumenism, Congar’s primary emphasis is one of ecumenism as reform and interior conversion –​the Catholic Church, as well as other traditions, must continue to “grow towards restored communion and intensified catholicity,” as Murray puts it.96 After all, as Murray points out, “all authentically Catholic ecumenical engagement will, by definition, view restored communion with the Bishop of Rome, even if necessarily in revised form, as one of the abiding gifts that Catholicism has to offer.”97 As such, Congar’s ecumenical approach is not the arrogance of a return model which proclaims that the Catholic tradition is perfect; but one which emphasises its own need for continual reformation. Congar urges the recognition that, “if reunion does take place one day” that reunion will be with a Catholic Church which is not identical to its current shape, but which “will have developed and been purified and reformed in more than one aspect.”98 Moreover, this future Catholic Church will not be somehow diminished, but “will be something more than she is now.” Specifically, the Church will be more fully catholic, “partly because of the contributions of the dissident sects whose secession has left so sad a void in the body of the Church.”99 This call for reform and conversion as an enrichment rather than loss is at the very heart of Receptive Ecumenism. Congar conceives of ecumenism largely in the ad intra sense, of interior conversion and reform. He considers that our first task is to work on ourselves, in order to more closely aspire to the will of Christ. He explains,

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 301. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 290. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 291. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 291–​292. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 292. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 292. Congar quoted in Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 294. Congar, quoted in Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 294.

76 ­chapter  Our business was to rotate the Catholic Church through a few degrees on its own axis in the direction of convergence towards others and a possible unanimity with them, in accordance with a deeper and closer fidelity to our unique source or our common sources.100 Here we can clearly recognise that ecumenism is not about lowest common denominator type consensus, but rather about deepening conversion. Congar recognises the value of ecumenical learning, asserting that Catholics can learn much from other Christians, especially from how they have developed Christian “ideas and values which we have perhaps neglected.”101 We can see, in nascent form, Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on learning from others in order to become more deeply what we already are. Congar’s sense of the need for deepening ecumenical conversion is intertwined with his call for internal reform. He argues that ecumenism demands that we “broaden our minds,” and challenges us to develop “our loyalty and fidelity in depth.”102 This deep process of critical self-​reflection is needed to grapple with ideas which, although they may be commonly accepted as part of the Catholic tradition, actually “represent its stagnation and attenuation.”103 Congar evinces the call for continual reformation that would be asserted in Lumen Gentium 8. He sees ecumenism primarily as becoming more fully converted to Christ, as the Catholic Church living “its own life more fully and genuinely.”104 For Congar, this deepening of conversion is presupposed by ecclesial reform. As such, he advocates the need for self-​criticism and humility, and the willingness to listen to the Spirit in areas where we are not truly representing Christ. This is, of course, no easy task, as he explains, but it will lead to the deepening and enriching of our own catholicity. He says: Beyond the purely confessional and somewhat narrow meaning of that fine name ‘catholic,’ we shall discover a truer sense of what we are and learn to become all that name implies, to make it a reality rather than a mere label and ourselves become more ‘catholic,’ more ‘universal.’105

100 101 102 103 104 105

Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 21. Congar quoted in Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 291. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105. Congar quoted in Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 276. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

77

Therefore, far from any risk of losing our ecclesial identities through undertaking ecumenism, Congar attests that ecumenical engagement and interior conversion can lead us to a deepened and more truthful realisation of ourselves in Christ. He elucidates further that doing so we will lead to the rediscovery of “parts of our heritage of which we never dreamed.” It will be a recovery of parts “of our common heritage which our separated brethren retained in parting from us and which they have perceived, developed and lived with greater intensity than we have.” It will mean a “rediscovery, in greater depth and breadth, of our own tradition.”106 The seeds of Receptive Ecumenism can clearly be seen here. Congar focuses on interior conversion, on ecumenism as a rediscovery of our own tradition, not as in any way diminishing one’s own ecclesial identity. Rather, ecumenism is a necessary process in order to find the gifts of the Spirit within other traditions, which also properly belong to our own. Congar’s sentiments are central to Receptive Ecumenism: that through ecumenism we will become more Catholic, rather than less Catholic; and that this process offers enrichment, rather than diminishment. Receptive Ecumenism reiterates Congar’s emphasis on reform and conversion, and what he calls his “plenitudinous” understanding of truth; that our articulation of truth will always be only in part.107 Alongside conversion and reform, Congar places a strong emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in ecumenism. For him, ecumenism is the activity of the Spirit. It is the Spirit who spreads the seeds of desire for Christian unity “where no human hand has planted,” and the Spirit who germinates and continually nourishes those seeds.108 Christian unity is therefore not the work of human hands or minds, but rather the work of the Spirit according to God’s will.109 Ultimately, the achievement of unity will come about according to God’s will, kindled within us by the Spirit. This pneumatological underpinning is central to Spiritual Ecumenism. Congar’s emphasis on our inability to fully realise the truth is, as has been discussed, vital to Receptive Ecumenism.110 Murray also points out that Congar emphasises that theological ecumenism, alone, is not enough. Congar argues that we must “deal with the mystery of the Church not only as a fact shown by revelation but as a concrete reality. … being worked out in human life.”111 Therefore, on this point, Congar reveals himself 106 107 108 109 110 111

Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 297–​298. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 102. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 131. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 297–​298. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 287.

78 ­chapter  as a “counter-​instance” to the prevailing ecclesiology of his time.112 Murray sees Congar as anticipating one of Receptive Ecumenism’s key themes in what he considers his recognition that theological ecclesial analysis must be balanced with practical, pragmatic and empirical methods.113 Receptive Ecumenism highlights this principle, attesting that ecclesiology must be at once theological and concrete.114 It must look at the lived realities of traditions, at “the church as it actually is and not simply as we would have or imagine it to be.”115 There is a point of tension, however, between an aspect of Congar’s ecumenical views and Receptive Ecumenism. Congar argues that “not every Christian is equally qualified to engage in ecumenical dialogue.”116 He asserts that ecumenical activity must pass through rigorous internal testing, and “also conform to the external disciple of the Catholic community of which the hierarchy is the custodian.”117 This is a different approach to that of Receptive Ecumenism which can be undertaken, at least at some level, by every member of the church.118 While Receptive Ecumenism upholds the need for expert academic work, it seeks a balance between theological and practical ecumenism, and the intellectual and affective levels of engagement. It aims to activate ecumenical work as the responsibility and duty of all, rather than as restricted to the academic sphere. While Receptive Ecumenism’s more open concept of democratised ecumenism may not directly stem from Congar, the connection between Congar’s ecumenical work and Receptive Ecumenism is clear. In light of Congar’s influence, it is not surprising that Vatican ii is the next significant influence on Receptive Ecumenism that must be investigated. It was, after all, the Second Vatican Council which would lead to Spiritual Ecumenism’s central position in Catholic ecumenical theology. 3

The Influence of Vatican ii on Receptive Ecumenism

While we have looked at some examples of Catholic engagement with ecumenism prior to Vatican ii, most notably in the work of Couturier and Congar,

1 12 113 114 115 116 117 118

Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 287. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 287–​288. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 254. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 256. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 105. Paul D. Murray, “The Reception of ARCIC I and II in Europe and Discerning the Strategy and Agenda for ARCIC III,” Ecclesiology 11, no. 2 (2015): 214.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

79

officially, it was the 1964 promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, which launched and sanctioned Catholic involvement in ecumenism in earnest. The Decree has fundamentally fashioned the framework for Catholic ecumenical dialogue over the decades since the Council. It is of primary importance, therefore, that it proclaims Spiritual Ecumenism as the “soul” of the whole ecumenical endeavour.119 Regarding Receptive Ecumenism, Murray takes care to recognise its “lineage” within Vatican ii.120 As he explains, the principles of Vatican ii “have been of fundamental importance in the shaping of Receptive Ecumenism.”121 It is these principles, and in particular, Vatican ii’s impact on Receptive Ecumenism, which will now be outlined. In the Decree on Ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council highlights Christian unity as one of its “principal concerns.”122 Far from the previous mentality against Catholic involvement in the Ecumenical Movement, Unitatis Redintegratio explicates the importance of working towards Christian unity. The ramifications of disunity appear to impede the church in almost every way. By disobeying Christ, it cannot faithfully act as his Body. By scandalising the world, the church actually misrepresents the salvific love of God revealed in Christ, causing (rather than removing) obstacles to the journey of conversion.123 As Murray reflects, while division exists, the church essentially contradicts its own message to the world.124 By appearing hypocritical, the church impairs the preaching of the Gospel, and fails in one of its primary missions, that of bringing the Good News to the whole world.125 As if the above three reasons do not place enough importance on Christian unity, the Council emphasises that the Spirit behind ecumenism is indeed the Holy Spirit.126 The same Spirit who brings about the unity of Catholics as one community, primarily through the seven sacraments, also inspires Christian unity. Thus, far from being a purely human mission, Christian unity ultimately stems from the mystery of the Trinity.127 119 120 121 122 123 124

125 126 127

Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 82. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Vatican ii, UR, no. 1. Vatican ii, UR, no. 1. Paul D.  Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II:  Reading Unitatis Redintegratio with His Holiness Benedict XVI Roman Pontiff Emeritus,” in The New Evangelization: Faith, People, Context and Practice, ed. Paul Grogan and Kirsteen Kim (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 99. Vatican ii, UR, no. 1. Vatican ii, UR, no. 2. Edward P.  Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II (Cincinnati:  St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2007), 114.

80 ­chapter  As Unitatis Redintegratio emphasises, “the unity of the church” is a “sacred mystery,” one “with the holy Spirit energizing its various functions.”128 The Decree goes on to explain: “The highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the holy Spirit.”129 The Holy Spirit, who in some sense brings together the Three Persons of the Trinity, also works to unify the body of Christ on Earth. Therefore, the ultimate source for Christian unity is nothing less than the unity of the Trinity. It is no wonder, therefore, that in recognising the magnitude of the consequences of division, the Council seeks “to set before all Catholic guidelines, helps and methods” to work towards the “divine call” of Christian unity.130 The Decree explains that the Ecumenical Movement is comprised of “initiatives and activities planned and undertaken … to promote Christian unity,” including expert theological dialogue.131 It is strongly asserted that “every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions” misrepresenting to other Christian traditions be made.132 Such measures are intended to lead to increased cooperation between Christians, and common prayer, “wherever this is allowed.”133 Finally, it outlines that “all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and, wherever necessary undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.”134 This last sentence is particularly important for Receptive Ecumenism, as will be seen. However, while the Council affirms that the Catholic Church must be genuinely engaged in the task of Christian unity, through the impetus of the Holy Spirit, it also recognises that the ultimate goal of unity can only be fulfilled by God. The Decree concludes with the acknowledgment that “the unity of the one and only church of Christ transcends human powers and gifts.”135 This realisation affirms the existence of the Catholic Church within the eschatological paradox of “now” but “not yet.” Unity is essential to the full realisation of what the Church is; yet, unity is impossible for us to achieve. Unity will only be brought to fruition by God, in God’s time. Therefore, with a strong sense of humility, Unitatis Redintegratio states that the Council “places its hope entirely in the prayer of Christ for the

128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Vatican ii, UR, no. 2. Vatican ii, UR, no. 2. Italics added. Vatican ii, UR, no. 1. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 24.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

81

church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the holy Spirit.”136 While the consequences of division are great indeed, the foundation of Vatican ii’s hope for Christian unity far surpasses them. Hope for unity is grounded in Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). As we celebrate the Eucharist in his name, because he willed it of us, we should hope in the same way for Christian unity. The hope for unity is grounded in the Father’s love for us, which is the foundation of all creation’s existence. The hope for unity is rooted in the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who dwells within our hearts and, Jesus says, “will teach you everything” (Jn 14:26). It is in this way, the Decree attests, that the church “makes its pilgrim way in hope.”137 The words of the Council evoke a connection between the nature of the church as pilgrim and the ecumenical endeavour, which is a key underpinning of Receptive Ecumenism. Moreover, the call to “interior conversion” which is at the heart of Spiritual Ecumenism needs to be seen in the context of Vatican ii’s ecclesiology.138 In Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Council asserts that the church “will receive its perfection only in” the eschaton.139 Until then, the “pilgrim church … carries the mark of this world which will pass,” and must “groan and … suffer the pains of childbirth.”140 The ecumenical significance of this ecclesiology cannot be overstated. The image of the church as pilgrim counteracts the model of the church as the perfect society (societas perfecta) which influenced Catholic ecclesiology from the nineteenth century up until Vatican ii.141 In its original conception, the image of the church as the perfect society was understood in the sense that the church was a complete society, possessing “all the means a society needed to pursue its own aims,” and therefore was independent of other societies.142 It was conceived during the Middle Ages in a primarily defensive and juridical setting influenced by ­power-​ struggles between sovereign rulers and popes.143 However, over time from the

136 137 138 139

Vatican ii, UR, no. 24. Vatican ii, UR, no. 2. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Vatican ii, “Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” in Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, ed. Austin Flannery (New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996), no. 48. Hereafter LG. 140 Vatican ii, LG, no. 48. 141 Rembert Weakland, “Images of the Church:  From ‘Perfect Society’ to ‘God’s People on Pilgrimage,’ ” in Unfinished Journey:  The Church 40 Years After Vatican II, ed. Austen Ivereigh (New York: Continuum, 2003), 79–​83. 1 42 Weakland, “Images of the Church,” 79. 143 Weakland, “Images of the Church,” 79.

82 ­chapter  Middle Ages to the nineteenth century there was a critical shift in thinking from asserting that the Church possesses “the necessary means of salvation” to “implying that it was” in actuality, the perfect society.144 Under this version of Catholic ecclesiology, ecumenism is not a search for Christian unity, but rather focuses on the return of other Christians into the Catholic fold. As Murray puts it, from Trent to Vatican ii, the understanding was that “the Catholic Church equates straightforwardly and exclusively with the one true Church of Christ … The only real way forward is one of unidirectional return to Rome.”145 Debate over this ecclesiological model can be seen behind the drafting of Lumen Gentium. The first draft states unequivocally that “only the Catholic Roman has a right to be called the church.”146 Many bishops rejected the implication that, therefore, Protestant and Orthodox traditions are not churches. The second draft was amended to read that the church of Christ “is” (est) the Catholic Church, echoing the image of the church as the perfect society. However, the conception of the church as perfect in reality was contested by many bishops during Vatican ii. The final draft made the decision to change “is” to “subsists in” (subsistit in).147 Hahnenberg calls this “what might be the single most important word change of the whole Council.”148 The precise implications of “subsists in,” however, continue to be the subject of intense debate. As Murray observes, the change seems to “suggest a non-​exclusive relationship, at least of some kind: as to quite how it does or does not reinterpret this relationship, however, has been a matter of fierce debate.”149 For example, Karl Becker’s 2006 article offers a generally conservative interpretation.150 Becker builds on his doctoral student Alexandra von Teuffenbach’s research on analysing Sebastian Tromp’s understanding of “subsists in.”151 Becker and Teuffenbach assert that Lumen Gentium’s use of the word does not represent

1 44 Weakland, “Images of the Church,” 80–​81. 145 Paul D. Murray, “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), forthcoming. 146 First draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, quoted in Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 41. 147 Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 41. 148 Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 41. 149 Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 107–​108. 150 First published in L’Osservatore Romano, December 5–​6, 2005. All references here are to the English translation, “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology,” Origins 35 no. 31 (2006): 514–​522. 151 Karim Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited:  The Catholic Church and Christian Unity after Vatican II,” Theological Studies 69, no. 4 (2008): 882.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

83

a weakening or contradiction of the meaning of “est,” which reflects the traditional understanding of the direct correlation between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.152 Based on his reading of Lumen Gentium, Becker asserts, “the one church of Christ is none other than the Catholic Church, and it is only within this context that the term subsistit can be interpreted.”153 Becker laments that there have been many publications since the Council representing what he considers a misinterpretation of the term which contradicts the Council’s doctrine.154 Chief among these is the understanding that “subsists in” allows for recognition of elements of the Church of Christ existing outside of the Catholic Church. Becker’s position is that outside of the Catholic Church there exist only ecclesial elements “proper to the Catholic Church and which impel toward unity with it.”155 Such an interpretation lends itself towards return, rather than Receptive Ecumenism, and arguably does not cohere with the message of Vatican ii as a whole, nor with other key post-​Vatican ii documents. For a rebuttal of Becker’s argument and presentation of a more liberal perspective, see Francis Sullivan’s 2006 response.156 In 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cdf) officially addressed the interpretation of Lumen Gentium 8 in “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” In continuity with its 2000 document Dominus Iesus, it affirmed that the Second Vatican Council did not change the Catholic doctrine on the Church, but “rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”157 In response to interpretations of Lumen Gentium 8, the cdf asserts that it is possible to affirm the presence of the Church of Christ 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.”158 However, the term “subsists in” is only applicable to the Catholic Church, which alone has

1 52 153 154 155 156

Becker, “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology,” 515, 519. Becker, “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology,” 515. Becker, “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology,” 520. Becker, “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology,” 520. Francis Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata a Response to Karl Becker, S.J., on the Meaning of Subsistit in,” Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (2006): 395–​409. 157 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” June 29, 2007, at http://​www.vatican.va/​ roman_​curia/​congregations/​cfaith/​documents/​rc_​con_​cfaith_​doc_​20070629_​responsa-​ quaestiones_​en.html. 1 58 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.”

84 ­chapter  the fullness of unity.159 The document states that “subsists in” was chosen because it refers to the “full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church” but also “brings out more clearly that fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure” which impel towards Christian unity.160 However, the cdf’s interpretation of Lumen Gentium 8 has also caused heated debate. Jared Wicks reports that the cdf’s 2007 reaffirmation that the Church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church “prompted many people to say, ‘What, again?’ or ‘Why now?’ ”161 However, he explains that while reasserting that “subsists in” indicates the relation between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, it also affirms John Paul ii’s assertion that the Church of Christ is “present and operative” in churches and ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.162 As Wicks points out, “Here, the cdf clearly does not follow von Teuffenbach or its own consultant, Becker.”163 Francis Sullivan critiques the 2007 cdf document on a number of levels. The document asserts that “subsists in” was chosen because it indicates the correlation between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.164 However, he points out that the earlier use of “is” already made this claim, and therefore asserting the full identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ does not justify the change of wording.165 Instead, he argues, the official reports given to the council fathers when provided with the revised text clearly outline that the word change was made in order “to say that the church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church, rather than that it is the Catholic Church.”166 While a minority of bishops wanted to return to the use of “is,” the amendment was accepted, showing that the “intention of the Doctrinal Commission in using subsistit in instead of est was to give the text a less restrictive meaning.”167 Sullivan also questions the cdf’s statement that Vatican ii did not change the

159 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” 160 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” 161 Jared Wicks, “Not-​So-​Fully Church,” The Christian Century 124, no. 17 (2007): 9. 162 Wicks, “Not-​So-​Fully Church,” 10. 163 Wicks, “Not-​So-​Fully Church,” 10. 164 Francis Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata:  The Meaning of Subsistit in as Explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2008): 121. 165 Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata,” 121. 166 Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata,” 122. 167 Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata,” 122.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

85

doctrine of the church. As he explains, the recognition that elements of the Church of Christ are “present and operative” in the separated churches and ecclesial communities represents a significant adjustment. As he says, “One would look in vain for such positive statements about non-​Catholic churches and communities in any papal document prior to Vatican ii.”168 Nonetheless, while recognising “subsists in” as a real ecumenical break-​through, it is also important that the term not be interpreted in too liberal a manner. In their 2009 response to Sullivan’s argument, Lawrence Welch and Guy Mansini raise some relevant points for reflection. They criticise Sullivan for implying that the Church of Christ is “formed out of both Catholic and non-​ Catholic churches” which contradicts Catholic self-​ understanding of the uniqueness and fullness of unity given to the Catholic Church by Christ.169 As Schelkens clarifies, both extremes must be avoided: on the one hand, the position that the correlation between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ is identical and exclusive, and on the other, the claim that the Church of Christ “subsists in other churches as it does in the Catholic Church.”170 Considering the positions discussed above, a balance must be found between recognising the integrity and uniqueness of the Catholic Church and the implications of Vatican ii’s ground-​breaking use of “subsists in” as acknowledging elements of Christ’s Church in existence outside of the Catholic Church. It is no wonder then, that the debate is a fraught one. Massimo Faggioli points to post-​conciliar attempts to reinterpret “subsists in” in order to minimise the perceived difference between the earlier use of “is” and the final choice of “subsists in.” He argues that such reinterpretation “ignores the intention of the council” and can be rejected both on the basis of the history of the document and of the Council’s ecumenical focus as a whole.171 Walter Kasper offers a similar argument. He refers to the “enormous” amount of literature on this topic, emphasising the importance of the debate around “subsists in” as containing “in essence the whole doctrine of ecumenism.”172 He explains that the view that the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church is the traditional Catholic viewpoint, up until Vatican ii.173 This position, of course, aligns with return ecumenism. Kasper considers that the Council’s change of word to “subsists in”

1 68 Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata,” 124. 169 Lawrence Welch and Guy Mansini, “Lumen Gentium No. 8, and Subsistit In, Again,” New Blackfriars 90, no. 1029 (2009): 605. 170 Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited,” 892. 171 Massimo Faggioli, Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 101. 172 Kasper, The Catholic Church, 159. 173 Kasper, The Catholic Church, 160.

86 ­chapter  was designed to, on the one hand, reaffirm the connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, and on the other hand, “to create space for the recognition of elements of the true Church beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church.”174 He calls “subsists in” an “opening clause.”175 It maintains the integrity of the Catholic Church’s self-​understanding, but in a way that is “no longer advocated in the sense of all or nothing.”176 Kasper explains that instead of an ecumenism of return, Vatican ii prompted “an ecumenism of common return, or common conversion to Jesus Christ.”177 It recognises aspects of Christ’s church outside of the Catholic Church, thereby opening the door to genuine ecumenism. While remaining contentious, there is no doubt that the use of the word “subsists in” was a key development for Catholics in relation to other Christian churches and communities. Even following the more conservative approach of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2007 document, the change of word enabled the Council to affirm both that there is something distinctive about the Catholic Church (that it is where the fullness of the Christ of Christ exists), and also that elements of Christ’s Church are present in other traditions. By stating that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, the bishops maintained more of the original sense of the image of the societas perfecta (that the church holds all the means of salvation), without the triumphalist overtones that the church is actually perfect, here and now. In this way, as Murray explains, the change from “is” to “subsists in” is in continuity with the rest of the document, which earlier proclaims that there are, indeed, elements of truth outside of the Catholic Church. However, quite rightly, Murray rejects progressivist interpretations of the text that attempt to argue that it represents an “ecclesiological pluralism” where the Church of Christ is found equivalently in other traditions, Catholicism among them.178 He attests that, “If the Council texts are viewed as a coherent whole, then taken at face value we can see that they simply do not support such a reading.”179 Murray presents a nuanced understanding of this key paragraph, reiterating that with this acknowledgement, the church recognises that there are opportunities for learning from other Christian communities.180 However, this is attested to without

174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Kasper, The Catholic Church, 160. Kasper, The Catholic Church, 160. Kasper, The Catholic Church, 160. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 67. Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 108. Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 108. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

87

“a complete relinquishing of there being something distinctive about the Catholic Church.”181 He points out that both Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio affirm that elements of truth exist within other traditions but unity with Christ subsists fully and permanently only in the Catholic Church.182 As such, Murray explains that Catholicism is “refreshing its self-​understanding” by respecting other traditions and recognising that Catholics can appropriately learn from them, while continuing to maintain its self-​understanding of its own distinctiveness.183 Murray is able to highlight the manner in which the Decree gracefully navigates around tensions surrounding issues of ecclesial identity and ecumenism. However, as he says, for all the Council’s concern to emphasise continuity with previous teaching, the Decree also makes it clear that “Catholicism is itself engaged on a continuing story of reform, growth, and renewal” and there is much it can fruitfully receive and learn from other traditions to enrich its own catholicity.184 In Murray’s assessment, Vatican ii not only opened the Catholic Church to the Ecumenical Movement, it also presented “ecumenical engagement and Catholic ecumenical learning in particular as a means whereby Catholicism could itself hear the call to continuing conversion and renewal.”185 Bringing this focus on renewal and transformative learning to centre stage is Murray’s intention in developing Receptive Ecumenism.186 Unitatis Redintegratio professes the Catholic Church’s real need for renewal and conversion, but without compromising its integrity. For, as it proclaims, “Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.”187 This understanding forms the essence of Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism does not seek the elimination of differences, but rather that, through learning from others, a tradition may become more deeply itself.188 Or in other words, it seeks interior conversion, which is central to Unitatis Redintegratio.189 Murray firmly attests, therefore, that the principles 1 81 182 183 184

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Paul D. Murray, “Vatican II: On Celebrating Vatican II as Catholic and Ecumenical,” in The Second Vatican Council:  Celebrating its Achievements and the Future, ed. Gavin D’Costa and Emma Jane Harris (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 96. 185 Murray, “Vatican II,” 100. 1 86 Murray, “Vatican II,” 100. 1 87 Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. 188 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15–​16. 189 Vatican ii, UR, no. 7.

88 ­chapter  of Receptive Ecumenical learning are supported by “even a relatively cautious reading” of Vatican ii.190 Receptive Ecumenism is in clear continuity with Vatican ii, and acts as something of a reception of Council teaching for the contemporary context. He insists that “Vatican ii maintains an appropriate orientation to receptive ecumenical learning on Catholicism’s behalf” as it emphasises the Church’s continuing journey of reform and renewal.191 Therefore, Murray grounds Receptive Ecumenism within Vatican ii, particularly the ecumenical principles of Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium’s ecclesiological teachings about the church’s pilgrim nature.192 Undoubtedly, however, as Murray says, the Decree represents “a remarkable transformation in Catholic self-​understanding.”193 All this leads the Council to declare that the church’s perfection will only be fully realised in the eschaton.194 Because of this, Vatican ii emphasises that the church is always in need of purification and reform, ecclesia semper purificanda. It is this ecclesiological shift, from perfect society to pilgrim church, which allows discussion of the need for interior reform, and opens the door to Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism. Such critical evaluation of the need for repentance can be seen in the Decree’s acknowledgement that “both sides were to blame” for the breaking of the church during the Reformation.195 As it attests, “Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity.”196 Unitatis Redintegratio states that Catholics should pray for other Christians, show concern for them, inform them about the Catholic Church, and make “the first approaches towards them.”197 However, the “primary duty” of Catholics is self-​critical evaluation of areas within the Catholic household requiring renewal, so that it can more authentically bear witness to the teachings handed down from Christ through the Apostles.198 This clearly posits ecumenism as a reform movement within the church itself. Ecumenism starts from the church’s truthful and critical self-​appraisal, in the spirit of continuing conversion to Christ. This conversion is necessary, the Decree explains,

1 90 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 85. Vatican ii, LG, no. 48. Murray, “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity,” 279. Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 48. Vatican ii, UR, no. 3; Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 114. Vatican ii, UR, no. 5. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

89

because although the Catholic Church has been provided with “all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace,” individual members of the Church fail in living up to them.199 Far from being perfect here and now, the Council acknowledges the eschatological tension between “now” and “not yet” within the church. The church does, indeed, have truth and grace, parts of the “now,” but it is still comprised of human members inflicted with sin and human frailty. Unitatis Redintegratio goes on to state that, as a result, the sinfulness of the members of the church is recognised outside the church, by the world. Consequently, the church’s very mission, “the growth of God’s kingdom is retarded.”200 Therefore, the sinfulness of members of the church must be recognised and purified. So, the Decree states, all Catholics must work towards the purification and renewal of the church, each according to their own roles.201 Walter Kasper makes it clear that Vatican ii does not mean just public proclamations of sin and prayers for forgiveness, but also the need for interior conversion and purification of the church’s inner life. In his words, such renewal “must become concrete,” at both individual and communal levels.202 As a pilgrim church, rather than perfect society, all Catholics must strive towards deeper conversion, to more authentically represent a church that bears “the humility and dying” of Christ.203 As such, Vatican ii calls the church to a renewed sense of repentance and humility.204 Because of this, it outlines, any deficiencies in areas such as morality, church discipline, or formulation of church teaching must be appropriately corrected.205 The church’s renewed sense of humility leads it to seek conversion and reform. This humility also extends to the Catholic Church’s relations with other Christians. The pilgrim nature of the church links with the Council’s ecclesiological shift, from identifying the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, to the Church of Christ existing fully, but not exclusively, within the Catholic Church.206 This 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Kasper, The Catholic Church, 173. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 6. Vatican ii, UR, no. 6. This can be seen throughout the drafting process of Lumen Gentium. The first draft of LG states unequivocally that “only the Catholic Roman has a right to be called the church.” The second draft asserts that the church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church. Between the second and final draft of LG, the Council made the decision to change the statement that the church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church, to the church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church. For a brief outline of the process, see Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 41.

90 ­chapter  more humble declaration moves away from the return model which previously dominated Catholic attitudes towards ecumenism, and lays the foundations for genuine ecumenism. As Unitatis Redintegratio states, “Church renewal therefore has notable ecumenical importance.”207 As pilgrim, the Church has not yet received the totality of fullness or truth; it is eschatologically still “on the way.” As such, all theology remains provisional. Ecumenists cannot argue the absolute truth of any one doctrine or belief; rather such debates necessarily exist within the eschatological tension of the “now” but “not yet.” Furthermore, from the beginning, Christian unity has been recognised not as a human task to create, but as a Christ-​given, Spirit-​led endeavour. The fullness of unity will only come through God’s will, and in God’s time. With its essence of hope, ecumenism must also accept, at times, working in the dark, for “hope that is seen is not hope” (Rom 8:24). In this light, ecumenism becomes a deeply humble exercise, appropriate for a pilgrim church. Here, we can see the ecclesiological underpinning for the concept of interior conversion. Spiritual Ecumenism formulates ecumenism as a process of conversion, rather than a purely abstract, academic, or rational pursuit. The Decree unequivocally attests, “There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without interior conversion.”208 The use of the word “interior” is of key importance, as ecumenism is not something the Church undertakes for external reasons, but because it is necessary for the Catholic Church within itself. Spiritual Ecumenism is intrinsically a reform movement within the Church, seeking its ever-​deepening conversion in Christ. Therefore, as Cardinal Cassidy explains, ecumenism cannot be merely considered “a program of the Catholic Church; ecumenism is in the nature of being the Catholic Church. The Church cannot be true to itself unless it is ecumenical.”209 This only makes sense in the context of ecumenism as interior conversion, with its basis in the self-​understanding of the Church as a pilgrim. After asserting the priority of interior conversion for ecumenism, the Decree goes on to explain: “For it is from newness of attitudes of mind, from self-​ denial and unstinted love, that desires of unity take their rise and develop in

207 208

Vatican ii, UR, no. 6. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Note: this, and all references used in this book, are to the Flannery translation; however, the quote used on page v is a different translation, from the Vatican website. 209 Edward Idris Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” in Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclial Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 12.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

91

a mature way.”210 Here, the spiritual, virtuous, and emotional aspects of ecumenism are given precedence. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council illustrates that ecumenism is primarily a virtuous activity, rather than an intellectual one. Regarding diversity and difference in spirituality, liturgy, and “even in the theological elaborating of revealed truth,” that is, theological interpretation, it declares that love should receive priority in all things.211 Love is above all, the concern of Christians, for, after all, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). Love should prevail above all else, as St Paul teaches: “if I … understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith … but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). Unitatis Redintegratio affirms that if love is given the highest priority in ecumenism, then “they will be giving ever richer expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the church.”212 Furthermore, it exhorts Christians to “pray to the holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-​denying, humble, gentle in the service of others and to have an attitude of generosity toward them.”213 The Decree goes on to quote Ephesians 4:1–​3, emphasising the Christian call to live with humility, meekness, patience, love, and unity in peace.214 The ecumenical task must be carried out, therefore, with these virtues. Moreover, dialogue between Catholics and other Christians must be undertaken with “love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.”215 Finally, Unitatis Redintegratio points to the importance of the virtue of hope, as it is “our common hope which does not play us false.”216 The Decree’s emphasis on the virtues and the spiritual and affective dimensions of ecumenical engagement resonates clearly within Receptive Ecumenism. Moreover, after asserting that “many elements of sanctification and of truth” exist outside the Catholic Church, forming the basis for interior conversion, the Council goes on to affirm that “since these are gifts belonging to the church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards catholic unity.”217 In other words, the recognition of elements of truth and sanctification outside of the Catholic Church is one of the key motivating forces towards unity. Receptive Ecumenism emphasises this concept by highlighting the notion that we can learn from other Christian communities. The related idea of ecumenism as

210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217

Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Italics added. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Vatican ii, UR, no. 11. Vatican ii, UR, no. 12. Vatican ii, LG, no. 8.

92 ­chapter  an exchange of gifts is founded on Vatican ii’s recognition of the existence of “some, though imperfect communion” between Catholics and other baptised Christians.218 Indeed, acknowledging the efficacy of baptism in Protestant churches has long been acknowledged by the Catholic Church and represents one of the recognised elements of sanctification existing outside of it. Again, the Decree draws on the ecclesiology outlined in Lumen Gentium, which affirms that “the church has many reasons for knowing that it is joined to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity of communion under the successor of Peter.”219 It acknowledges that many Christians share the same belief in the Trinity; the role of Scripture; Baptism, and other sacraments. Moreover, many Christians have the episcopate; celebrate the Eucharist; and practice devotion to Mother Mary. Further, there is a “communion in prayer and other spiritual benefits.” Perhaps most importantly, “there is a true union in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is active in them also and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood.”220 Lumen Gentium affirms that the impulse towards unity comes from the Spirit, who creates within us the desire for unity under Christ, as “one flock under one shepherd.”221 In a similar manner, Unitatis Redintegratio professes that “even in spite of” obstacles, “it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ,” and therefore deserve to be called Christians, and recognised as “sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”222 Therefore, a real, though incomplete, communion exists already between Catholics and other baptised Christians. However, it is important to note that the Decree does not express complete equality between the Catholic Church and other Christian traditions. It states that “nevertheless, our separated sisters and brothers” are “not blessed” with the “unity” Jesus Christ desired his Church to have, namely, “that unity which the holy scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the church proclaim.” The implication is that these are maintained only in the Catholic Church, the unity of which is consistently proclaimed in both Scripture and Tradition. “For,” the Decree insists, “it is through Christ’s Catholic church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”223 218 219 220 221 222 223

Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. Vatican ii, LG, no. 15. Vatican ii, LG, no. 15. Vatican ii, LG, no. 15. Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. Vatican ii, UR, no. 3.

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

93

Vatican ii goes so far as to emphasise the importance of the Ecumenical Movement as belonging to the nature of the church itself, along with its pilgrim nature. However, in regards to other Christians, the Catholic Church is still the only church to have “the fullness of the means of salvation.” While some contemporary readers may still find such a statement off-​putting, it is important to remember, as Hahnenberg points out, to read the Decree on Ecumenism in context. He writes, that while from today’s perspective, such a claim might seem “arrogant and patronizing” it was in fact a “real breakthrough.”224 Because, at the time, Catholic teaching questioned the “very possibility of salvation for Protestants.”225 Moreover, while this statement reflects a highly important theological point in the self-​understanding of the Catholic Church (and one which cannot and should not simply be dismissed), it should also be interpreted within the context of the Decree as a whole. Murray makes similar assertions, pointing out that the interpretation of conciliar texts is far from straightforward. There are two major ways of interpreting Vatican ii, either more conservatively or more progressively. The key point relating to the question of the Council’s continuity is one which continues to be debated.226 On this point, the work of John O’Malley is a seminal resource. Notably, he talks about the change of tone and style found in the vocabulary used in Vatican ii documents compared to that of earlier councils. His litany articulating Vatican ii’s shift in tone is well worth quoting at length: From commands to invitations, from laws to ideals, from threats to persuasion, from coercion to conscience, from monologue to conversation, from ruling to serving, from withdrawn to integrated, from vertical and top-​down to horizontal, from static to changing, from passive acceptance to active engagement, from prescriptive to principled, from defined to open-​ended, from behaviour-​modification to conversion of heart, from the dictates of law to the dictates of conscience, from external conformity to the joyful pursuit of holiness.227 As a whole, Unitatis Redintegratio represents a significant change in the Catholic Church’s approach and openness to other Christian traditions. Murray considers that it should be seen as “a clear example of contrast with pre-​conciliar 224 Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 118. 225 Hahnenberg, A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II, 118. 226 Murray, “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism”; Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization, and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 100. 227 John O’Malley, Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? (New York: Continuum, 2007), 81.

94 ­chapter  teaching; not necessarily discontinuity but certainly contrast.”228 Stephen Duffy points out that it “was a quantum leap and light years ahead of any previous Roman Catholic pronouncement on ecumenism.”229 He makes the further assessment, written in 1984, that it “is also theologically more advanced than anything issued from Rome on ecumenism since the Council.”230 Moreover, the Decree’s affirmation that “some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church” forms the very basis for ecumenical dialogue.231 As the Decree explains, because of the Holy Spirit working within their churches, the Spirit may have led them to develop certain gifts “which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, [and] belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”232 Here, it affirms that Catholics must “gladly” recognise the “truly Christian endowments from our common heritage” to be found amongst other Christian communities, for “God is always wonderful in his works and worthy of all praise.”233 Even more so, as Murray observes, the Decree attests that some of these ecclesial elements may, in fact, have come to fuller expression in other churches than they have in our own.234 As such, the Decree advocates that these aspects can be received into the Catholic tradition, thereby leading to the Church’s enrichment.235 Therefore, not only can the Catholic community accept the inspiration of the Spirit working within other Christian communities, but the gifts given to them by the Spirit can lead to the deepening and fuller realisation of the Catholic Church. As pilgrim, the fullness of the Church has not yet been attained, and therefore the Church can, and must always, seek to move closer to the mystery of the Church of Christ. It is here that we come to the theological underpinning for both ecumenism as an exchange of gifts and Receptive Ecumenism. Murray explains that it is within Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium that “we find an emphasis on Catholicism’s own need to learn, to be renewed, purified and even reformed.”236 It is this key assertion that he aims 2 28 Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization, and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 100. 229 Stephen Duffy, “Catholicism’s Search for a New Self-​Understanding,” in Vatican II: Open Questions and New Horizons, ed. Gerald M.  Fagin (Dublin:  Dominican Publications, 1984), 14. 230 Duffy, “Catholicism’s Search for a New Self-​Understanding,” 14. 231 Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. 232 Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. 233 Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. 234 Murray, “Ecumenism, Evangelization, and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II,” 106. 235 Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. 236 Murray, “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism.”

The Path from Couturier to Vatican ii

95

to highlight in Receptive Ecumenism. The Council provides a solid foundation for ecumenical learning and reception of gifts, and prioritises the need for reform and renewal. As the essence of Spiritual Ecumenism, interior conversion itself draws on the process of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. The acknowledgement that Christian communities have gifts for sharing, giving, and receiving, recognises the implicit value of learning from each other. This point brings us to the work of John Paul ii, who, building on the Decree, focuses on the theme of the ecumenical gift exchange in Ut Unum Sint. The next chapter continues to explore Receptive Ecumenism’s spiritual roots, examining the impact of Ut Unum Sint and other post-​Vatican ii Spiritual Ecumenical influences on its development.

­c hapter 5

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism: The Spiritual Roots of Receptive Ecumenism Investigating Receptive Ecumenism’s ancestry leads us now to consider post-​ Vatican ii influences on its development, namely:  Ut Unum Sint, the work of Walter Kasper, and Margaret O’Gara’s ecumenical gift exchange. The path will be followed right up to Receptive Ecumenism’s launch, and will conclude with a summary of Spiritual Ecumenism’s key features. 1

The Groundwork for Receptive Ecumenism in Ut Unum Sint

John Paul ii’s 1995 encyclical “Ut Unum Sint: On Commitment to Ecumenism,” is regarded as “the single most important Catholic document pertaining to ecumenism” since Unitatis Redintegratio.1 It is also a key influence on Receptive Ecumenism. Born Karol Józef Wojtyła (1920–​2005), he served as Pope John Paul ii from 1978 until his death. Before becoming Pope, he attended the Second Vatican Council (1962–​1965). Throughout his pontificate, he strongly supported the reforms of Vatican ii and the ecumenical endeavour. His emphasis on the importance of ecumenism characterised his papacy from its beginning.2 He often repeated that the Catholic Church has an “irrevocable” commitment to ecumenism.3 For John Paul ii, “ecumenism is an organic part” of the church’s “life and work, and consequently must pervade all that she is and does.”4 He worked

1 Murray, “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism.” 2 Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, “Introduction,” in Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 1. 3 See UUS, no. 3 for one instance of John Paul ii making this statement. For examples of scholars quoting his statement, see: O’Gara, “Ecumenism’s Future,” 11; Peter Cross, “John Paul II and Ecumenism,” in John Paul II: Legacy and Witness, ed. Robert Gascoigne (Strathfield, nsw: St Pauls, 2007), 121; Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” 11; and Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” The Catholic Church’s “irreversible” commitment to ecumenism was re-​affirmed by Pope Benedict xvi after his election in 2005. 4 John Paul ii, UUS, no. 20.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_006

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

97

to improve inter-​faith relationships as well as relations with other Christians, particularly the Orthodox Church. Ut Unum Sint was a landmark document for Catholic ecumenism. As Cardinal Edward Cassidy points out, it was “the first encyclical letter ever written on the subject of ecumenism,” and it “made a vital contribution to the ecumenical movement.”5 Kasper describes it as “the great, important and even prophetic ecumenical encyclical of John Paul ii.”6 Ut Unum Sint was a major inspiration for such influential ecumenists as Kasper and O’Gara, as will be seen. Cassidy considers that “certainly no other papal encyclical has been so widely distributed and studied outside the Catholic Church.”7 Moreover, responses from ­other churches towards Ut Unum Sint have been generally positive.8 Written thirty years after Unitatis Redintegratio, it built upon the teachings of Vatican ii. John Paul ii writes in Ut Unum Sint that it is our “duty” to “listen to and put into practice” the teachings of Vatican ii.9 In particular, he emphasises the Spiritual Ecumenism espoused in the Decree on Ecumenism as the “soul” of the entire ecumenical endeavour.10 There are three points of particular relevance to the development of Receptive Ecumenism: 1) its re-​affirmation of the importance of ecumenism; 2) its tone of humility; and 3), its re-​emphasis on ecumenism as an “exchange of gifts.”11 These key aspects will be discussed in turn, highlighting their influence on Receptive Ecumenism. The first chapter re-​affirms the ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. In particular, John Paul ii strongly emphasises that unity is God’s will, and as such, it is intertwined with God’s plan of salvation for humanity.12 Because it is central to God’s plan, as William Henn points out, disunity cannot be seen as a “minor flaw that can be tolerated,” but is rather of paramount importance.13 John Paul ii makes this clear: “To believe in Christ means to desire 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13

Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” 10. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 34. Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” 10. For an outline of different ecumenical bodies’ responses to the enyclical, ranging from the wcc, the Orthodox churches, the House of Bishops of the Church of England, and Reformed and Evangelical responses, see Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” 16–​24. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 1. Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. The concept first appears in Paul vi’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, August 6th 1964, no. 64. The actual expression “an exchange of gifts” then appears in LG, no. 13, and is referenced by John Paul ii in UUS, no. 28. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 6. William Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” The Ecumenical Review 52, no. 2 (2000): 235.

98 CHAPTER 5 unity.”14 The necessity of engaging in ecumenical engagement for the sake of the life of the church, both ad intra and ad extra, clearly resonates within Receptive Ecumenism. On the ad intra level, ecumenism is not to be considered as simply another thing on the “to do” list, but as of key importance for the life and flourishing of the church itself. Deepening conversion, as advocated by Receptive Ecumenism, is vital to the future life of the church. As Murray puts it, “the life of faith, personally and communally –​or better, ecclesially –​is always in essence a matter of becoming more fully what we already are.”15 On the ad extra level, as already discussed, Murray is acutely aware of the problems division causes to the church’s ability to witness to the world. The encyclical’s tone of humility is a second key influence on Receptive Ecumenism. As Henn observes, the encyclical’s significance can perhaps best be seen in contrast with other papal encyclicals on Christian unity, such as Leo xiii’s Satis Cognitum (1896) and Pius xi’s Mortalium Animos (1928).16 These two encyclicals affirm the return model of ecumenism. While Ut Unum Sint also deals with ecclesial unity, it does so in light of the teachings of Vatican ii.17 In particular, unity is considered with reference to Lumen Gentium’s much discussed statement that, while the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”18 Ut Unum Sint even explains that “certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized” in other Christian communities.19 This recognition forms the theological basis for Receptive Ecumenism’s notion of ecclesial learning. John Paul ii further stresses that, “To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them.”20 This strongly reflects Unitatis Redintegratio’s emphasis on the elements of the Church of Christ within other Christian traditions which exist for the enrichment of the whole body of Christ.21 In continuity with the Second Vatican Council, Ut Unum Sint carefully demarcates that it is in the Catholic Church where “elements” of the Church of Christ “exist, found in their fullness, and without this fullness, in the other Communities.”22 This understanding reiterates the Decree’s careful 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

John Paul ii, UUS, no. 9. Murray, “Establishing the Agenda,” 6. Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 234. Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 235. Vatican ii, LG, no. 8. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 14. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 11. See Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. This concept is reiterated in John Paul ii, UUS, no. 11. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 14.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

99

explanation of how the Catholic Church can undertake ecumenism without conceding its ecclesial identity. Both documents advocate an ecumenism of conversion, not one of compromise. With this acknowledgement, the teachings of Vatican ii, re-​affirmed in Ut Unum Sint, appear to shift away from the return model of ecumenism, and open the way for a more open Catholic ecumenical engagement. However, there is still debate as to how far there has, in fact, been a movement away from the return model. Paragraph 86 of Ut Unum Sint, which paraphrases Lumen Gentium no. 8 and Unitatis Redintegratio no. 3, could be read as either supporting the return model or moving away from it: “the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church … Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.”23 Henn points out the ambiguity here: “Are the Council and pope really saying nothing different from what was said by earlier popes, only now with a deceptively honeyed tongue?”24 However, he declares after consideration, “I think not.”25 As discussed earlier, Vatican ii broadened the horizons of ecumenical engagement beyond a simple return model. This is a point of particular importance for Receptive Ecumenism, as its approach is incompatible with a triumphalist return model which sees the church as already perfect, rather than in need of renewal. In contrast, Vatican ii’s humbler change in tone relating to ecumenical discourse is clearly conveyed in Ut Unum Sint. Though there is common agreement that ecumenism pertains to God’s will, one of the major distinctions between John Paul ii’s encyclical and earlier papal letters on unity mentioned above, is the tone of expression. Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wainwright describes it as “personal … in style, passionate in tone, and pastoral in aim.” 26 Wainwright notes the encyclical’s sense of thankfulness and joy at what ecumenism has already achieved, as well as its call for continued conversion.27 In particular, compared to earlier encyclicals, its attitude is one of clear humility. This tone of humility and the recognition of the need for the Catholic Church’s own continuing conversion, resonates strongly within Receptive Ecumenism, which Murray calls a method of “­humble ecclesial learning.”28

23 24 25 26 27 28

John Paul ii, UUS, no. 86. Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 238. Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 238. Geoffrey Wainwright, “Ut Unum Sint,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky, et al. (Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002), 1184. Wainwright, “Ut Unum Sint,” 1184. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 255.

100 CHAPTER 5 Rather than a one-​sided return model demanding that other Christians acknowledge their failures and be reconciled with the Catholic Church, the Church comes to humbly acknowledge “the weaknesses of her members.”29 Humility must inform ecumenical endeavour, as Ut Unum Sint maintains: “Even after the many sins which have contributed to our historical divisions, Christian unity is possible, provided that we are humbly conscious of having sinned against unity and are convinced of our need for conversion.”30 John Paul ii takes seriously Vatican ii’s assertion that the church is a “pilgrim Church.”31 He goes so far as to refer to himself as a “pilgrim.”32 Ecumenism is possible if we recognise our mistakes, and strive for conversion, which in itself can be considered an act of humility. The ecumenical humility within the encyclical is reflected throughout Receptive Ecumenism; especially in its focus on interior conversion, its self-​critical evaluation of one’s wounds and weaknesses, and its emphasis on ecclesial learning. The conduct of ecumenism in a spirit of humility leads to understanding Christian unity as an exchange of gifts, which is the third key feature of relevance. John Paul ii states, “Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an ‘exchange of gifts.’ ”33 This is a highly significant statement for Catholic ecumenical dialogue. An ecumenical gift exchange means that the pilgrimage towards conversion cannot be undertaken alone. As he describes, “Communities strive to give in mutual exchange what each one needs in order to grow towards definitive fullness in accordance with God’s plan.”34 Ecumenism as a gift exchange emphasises profound humility, as the Catholic Church recognises both areas within itself for improvement, and its need to receive gifts from other ecclesial groups.35 Through this exchange of gifts, the church community may move closer towards fuller realisation of the body of Christ. Moreover, John Paul ii calls this mutual helping of each other towards the truth an outstanding example of love.36 This emphasis on a dialogue of love and truth is an affirmation of Unitatis Redintegratio’s statement that: “In all things let charity prevail.”37 Ecumenism is therefore, above all, an act of love. Ecumenism is not only undertaken on the level of the head, or 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

John Paul ii, UUS, no. 3. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 34. Vatican ii, LG, no. 50. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 25. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 28. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 87. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 57. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 78. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

101

intellectual level, but also at the level of the heart, and the change of heart entailed in conversion. Vatican ii’s acknowledgement of elements of truth within other churches invites the Christian community to search for greater unity through an exchange of gifts.38 Such an exchange benefits all, as John Paul ii observes, referencing Unitatis Redintegratio no. 4, “everything that the Spirit brings about in ‘others’ can serve for the building up of all communities.”39 This exchange is both the cause and effect of the dialogical nature of ecumenism in the light of the church’s eschatological hope. Therefore, the ecumenical path is a “long and arduous pilgrimage,” performed with an “attitude of conversion to the will of the Father and, at the same time, of repentance and absolute trust in the reconciling power of … Christ.”40 Consequently, according to Ut Unum Sint, Ecumenism implies that the Christian communities should help one another so that there may be truly present in them the full content and all the requirements of the ‘heritage handed down by the Apostles.’ Without this, full communion will never be possible.41 An ecumenical exchange of gifts means that the journey towards the fullness of Christ’s Church cannot be undertaken alone. This pilgrimage towards conversion takes place in the company of others. In this spirit, John Paul ii reflects on what the Catholic Church has already received through ecumenism, calling it a process “of mutual enrichment.”42 In this way, the exchange of gifts, made possible due to our real but partial communion, leads to the mutual improvement of the churches, and ultimately towards the final goal of ecumenism, which is nothing less than full visible unity.43 In one of the encyclical’s most well-​known passages, John Paul ii offers an example of this “exchange of gifts” in a spirit of humility regarding the Petrine ministry. Not without justification, Peter Cross describes this section of the encyclical as “a bombshell.”44 Firstly, the Pope acknowledges the difficulty that the Papal office presents for other Christians.45 He then asks,

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

John Paul ii, UUS, no. 57. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 38. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 82. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 78. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 87. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 87. Cross, “John Paul II and Ecumenism,” 124. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 88.

102 CHAPTER 5 Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea ‘that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me’ (Jn 17:21)?46 Murray describes John Paul ii’s call for a reimagining of the Petrine ministry as “an invitation which itself exemplifies the strategy and virtues of Receptive Ecumenism.”47 He regards it as a “clear, prophetic expression of the courageous commitment to one’s own tradition’s conversion that is necessary if the churches are really to progress beyond friendship to the full catholicity of the one Church of Christ.”48 The importance of this section is attested to by a number of significant volumes published in its wake, where different groups have responded to the Pope’s invitation.49 The humility expressed in the request, and as Henn notes, the implied “openness to modify the present forms of the exercise of this ministry,” reflects the shift in attitude towards ecumenism brought about by Vatican ii.50 Such a statement represents a significant change from earlier encyclicals such as Mortalium Animos, and highlights the ground-​breaking import of Ut Unum Sint. The same can be said of Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism also holds to John Paul ii’s insistence that, “The ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement is to re-​establish full visible unity among all the baptized.”51 Therefore, Vatican ii and Ut Unum Sint form the theological context out of which 46 47 48 49

50 51

John Paul ii, UUS, no. 96. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 13. Murray, “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism.” Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson offer “an ecumenically representative response” in their edited volume, Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001). In 2002, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published a preliminary report on responses concerning the Petrine ministry, “Petrine Ministry,” which is available online:  Information Service N.  109, 2002/​I-​II, 29–​42. http://​www.vatican. va/​roman_​curia/​pontifical_​councils/​chrstuni/​information_​service/​pdf/​information_​ service_​109_​en.pdf The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also organised a symposium on the topic, the proceedings of which have been edited by Walter Kasper and published as:  The Petrine Ministry:  Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue (New York: Newman Press, 2006). Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 243. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 77.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

103

Receptive Ecumenism arises. This fact is also acknowledged by Avis, as he remarks, Receptive Ecumenism “could not flourish except on the basis of all that Vatican ii said about ecumenism and all that Pope John Paul ii said in Ut Unum Sint (1995).”52 Discussion of Ut Unum Sint leads us now to a more immediate influence on Receptive Ecumenism: the work of Walter Kasper. 2

Walter Kasper’s Emphasis on Spiritual Ecumenism

The context of Receptive Ecumenism, particularly in the years immediately preceding it, was considerably influenced by the prominent ecumenist, Cardinal Walter Kasper (1933 -​). Kasper is president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, serving as president from 2005–​2010. He has authored dozens of books, many of them on ecumenism. More to the point, he is highly supportive of Receptive Ecumenism, describing it as no less than a “new spring within the ecumenical movement.”53 In fact, the Receptive Ecumenism volume is dedicated to Kasper, “with gratitude … for his inspiration in the way of Receptive Ecumenism.”54 Kasper also contributed a chapter to the volume.55 Unfortunately, a consideration of the breadth of Kasper’s work on ecumenism is not possible here. Therefore, this section will be limited to his influence on Receptive Ecumenism. In this regard, two key aspects are of particular importance: firstly, Kasper’s assertion that ecumenism is in a state of transition; and secondly, his focus on Spiritual Ecumenism. Kasper repeatedly states that ecumenism is in a “transitional” period, requiring a fresh approach.56 He is acutely aware of the need for a shift in ecumenical thinking and practices. In Harvesting the Fruits, he discusses both the achievements of the Ecumenical Movement, and the challenges it still faces.57 He seems in little doubt of the existence of an “ecumenical winter,” as is Murray after him. As Kasper asserts, “The fact that ecumenism is facing a critical moment cannot be denied.”58 During his 2005 presentation at the event marking the 40th anniversary of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the wcc, he articulated that while clarification of the foundations,

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 234. Kasper, “Foreword,” viii. See the Dedication Page of Murray, Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning. Kasper, “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam.” Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 1.

104 CHAPTER 5 vision, methods, and practice of ecumenism is necessary, what is most needed for renewed ecumenical enthusiasm is a focus on Spiritual Ecumenism.59 In this regard, Kasper draws explicitly upon the foundations laid by Vatican ii as he asserts that “full communion cannot be achieved by convergence alone” but requires instead a focus on conversion.60 He is implying a shift in ecumenical focus, in line with Vatican ii. Murray also attests to the need to focus primarily on conversion, on ecclesial learning, rather than on seeking doctrinal agreement, or convergence between traditions. Kasper focuses on the spiritual attitudes underpinning ecumenism, and above all, readiness for conversion, rather than just the doctrinal or intellectual issues that were previously the main consideration. He explains, “in the end it is not we who ‘make’ and create unity. The unity of the Church is the gift of God’s Spirit.”61 While ecumenism is in a state of change, any solution must be seen in light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, with an awareness of repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. Kasper’s acknowledgment that unity stems ultimately from the Holy Spirit echoes the humbler tone of Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint. He is quite definite on the need for Catholic ecumenical theology to “be linked to spiritual ecumenism.”62 He argues that the solution to current problems must be looked for within the “very heart” of ecumenism, namely, Spiritual Ecumenism.63 For him, Spiritual Ecumenism “does not mean any spirit but the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”64 Therefore engaging in Spiritual Ecumenism involves deeper engagement with Christ and his will for the church. Ecumenical progress can only occur by surrendering to the Spirit and developing a renewed ecumenical spirituality.65 He writes that such a spirituality requires listening and receptiveness to the Spirit, a willingness to rethink and convert, and a readiness to encounter and uphold the “otherness of the other,” which demands love, patience, goodwill, tolerance and respect.66 Thus, Kasper contributes much to the growing rediscovery of the significance of Spiritual Ecumenism, and to the broader issue of ecumenical spirituality.67 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Kasper, That They May All Be One, 45. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 45. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 45. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 156; Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 160. Kasper attempts to work out what “could be an appropriate ecumenical spirituality,” on the “basis of a reflective theology of the Holy Spirit,” using three steps:  universal

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

105

Here, a distinction is necessary: while considerations of ecumenical spirituality and Spiritual Ecumenism inevitably overlap, the connotations of ecumenical spirituality are more general. Spirituality is a somewhat problematic term, requiring critical assessment. Kasper concedes that there are shallow types of spirituality, including “so-​called” ecumenical spiritualities.68 He proposes that every spirituality “must be questioned about the spirit behind it, whether it is the Holy Spirit or the spirit of the world.”69 The postmodern tendency to uncritically embrace spirituality must therefore be tempered by prayer, openness to the Holy Spirit, and solid theological ecumenism. In short, the terms, “ecumenical spirituality” and “Spiritual Ecumenism” are not interchangeable. One refers to a myriad of diverse approaches and emphases, whereas the other is firmly structured in an ecclesiology and a specific perspective, clearly stemming from the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. This is where the value and stability of Spiritual Ecumenism can be found. Spiritual Ecumenism is concretely grounded in Vatican ii theology and represents a specific, Catholic perspective on ecumenism, with a particularly pneumatological focus. What is more, Kasper sees Spiritual Ecumenism as particularly suited to our postmodern context.70 This is because while our current context is marked by relativism and scepticism, it is also characterised by longing for spiritual experiences as an alternative to today’s lifestyle, which many “feel to be empty and void.”71 The postmodern context involves suspicion of doctrines, ideologies, authority, and institutions.72 But it also entails a desire for spiritual experience, “vague and residual as it often may be.”73 This means that a renewed focus on Christian spirituality, and Spiritual Ecumenism in particular, is the way forward for ecumenical, and indeed, missionary progress.74 At a time which may not be receptive to theological ecumenism alone, ecumenical renewal depends on re-​ emphasising Spiritual Ecumenism as at the core of the ecumenical endeavour. The sense of traditional theological approaches as no longer being sufficient on their own is key to Receptive Ecumenism, which seeks to be a more realistic and pragmatic approach.75

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

effectiveness, Christological basis, and Life of the Church. See That They May All Be One, 162–​168. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 161. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 161. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1.

106 CHAPTER 5 Many of the key themes of Kasper’s work resonate within Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism was initiated on the understanding of the contemporary period as an interim stage for ecumenism. Aspects of Kasper’s Spiritual Ecumenism are also key to Receptive Ecumenism, such as his central emphasis on interior conversion. Kasper writes that ecumenical dialogue with other churches and ecclesial communities presupposes an initial inward step which entails us “learning from each other and self-​reform.”76 In this respect, he asserts that ecumenism is both ad extra in its relationship to other churches, and ad intra in recognition of the Catholic Church’s need for conversion.77 In Kasper’s theology, “interior conversion” is the hallmark of Spiritual Ecumenism. He thus foreshadows the method of Receptive Ecumenism as involving a cycle of internal reflection (on what the church may lack), and external engagement (on what others may have to offer). We can clearly see significant connections between Receptive Ecumenism and the broader Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. Further connections, and perhaps most importantly, some key distinctions, between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism are evidenced in the work of Margaret O’Gara. 3

Margaret O’Gara’s Ecumenical Gift Exchange

Margaret O’Gara (1947–​2012) was a distinguished academic and ecumenist who worked at the University of St Michael’s College, Toronto from 1975 to 2012. She was a “champion of ecumenism,” a Catholic ecumenist who served from 1976 to 1993 on Canada’s Anglican-​Roman Catholic Dialogue.78 She was a member of the Disciples of Christ-​Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue from 1983, the u.s. Lutheran-​Roman Catholic Dialogue from 1994, the Evangelical-​Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada from 2008, and the Lutheran-​Roman Catholic International Commission for Unity from 1995–​ 2006.79 She was also a founding member of a North American organisation facilitating dialogue between Mennonites and Catholics, called Bridgefolk, from 2002–​2012.80

76 77 78 79 80

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44, 74. Diana Swift, “Margaret O’Gara 1947–​2012,” Anglican Journal 138, no. 8 (2012): 8. Margaret O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 3 (2011): 368. Michael Vertin, “Editor’s Introduction,” in No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), xx.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

107

Her contribution to ecumenical work is staggering, and is “unusual, even within the ranks of dedicated ecumenical theologians,” as her husband, Michael Vertin points out.81 As O’Gara served on more than one dialogue at a time, if the years she spent on these dialogues were to be added together, the cumulative total would be an extraordinary eighty-​nine years of ecumenical service.82 Moreover, O’Gara was President of the North American Academy of Ecumenists (1987–​1989) and the Catholic Theological Society of America (2007–​2008).83 Thus, O’Gara’s significance as a Catholic ecumenist is one worthy of recognition and her legacy is still to be fully discovered. In his excellent article on O’Gara’s ecumenical ecclesiology, Paul Ladouceur writes of her unrelenting conviction that learning from non-​Catholic denominations is “central to the very life of the church,”84 a sentiment at the heart of Receptive Ecumenism. O’Gara is also connected to the development of Receptive Ecumenism. In 2006, she co-​facilitated the first Receptive Ecumenism colloquium. She also contributed a chapter to the Receptive Ecumenism volume.85 O’Gara’s chapter is the second in the volume, after Murray’s own. However, unlike the other influences previously discussed, O’Gara’s work did not have direct impact on the development of Receptive Ecumenism. At the time when Murray was developing Receptive Ecumenism, he had not yet encountered O’Gara’s work. It was only at the time of the first conference in 2006 that he had the opportunity to engage with her and her ecumenical perspective.86 This fact makes the parallels between O’Gara’s and Murray’s ecumenical approaches quite striking, and lends credence to the proposition that both O’Gara and Murray developed their ecumenical approaches out of the common source, so to speak, of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement in light of the needs of the contemporary context. However, there are also a number of key differences between them. O’Gara has written numerous articles and two books, one of which, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, can be seen as putting forward the key points of her ecumenical theology.87 She planned a sequel, No Turning Back, which was e­ dited

81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Vertin, “Editor’s Introduction,” xx. Vertin, “Editor’s Introduction,” xx. Swift, “Margaret O’Gara 1947–​2012,” 8. Paul Ladouceur, “Living Ecumenism: Margaret O’Gara’s Ecumenical Ecclesiology,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 52, no. 3 (2017): 419. O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue.” Author’s discussion with Paul Murray at the third Receptive Ecumenism conference in Fairfield, June 2014. Margaret O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998).

108 CHAPTER 5 and published posthumously in 2014.88 Between them, the books serve as a collection of O’Gara’s work from 1986 to 2012. In particular, there are two key concepts found in Vatican ii teachings and Ut Unum Sint which she expands on: ecumenism as “an exchange of gifts,” and the need for conversion. The two concepts are intertwined, as O’Gara points out, “Ecumenical dialogue allows the churches to receive gifts they need, but it also demands a readiness for such reception.”89 Hospitality is a third important concept in her work. O’Gara defines ecumenism as fundamentally a gift exchange: “In ecumenical dialogue, each Christian communion brings one or many gifts to the dialogue table, and each receives riches from their dialogue partners as well.”90 This beneficial sharing of each other’s gifts leads all towards a greater fullness than would be possible in isolation. O’Gara rejects a charge frequently levelled at ecumenism, that it seeks to be “a kind of melting pot,” leading to the “elimination of the distinctive gifts of the many churches” and a “loss of identity.”91 Instead, she argues, “the gift-​giving enriches all of the partners, since we do not lose our gifts by sharing them with others.”92 She provides some examples garnered over her years of ecumenical experience, which is worth quoting in length: Where my Anglican partners have a rich understanding and practice of the conciliarity of the Church, they need and are seeking the leadership in teaching that can be provided in the Roman Catholic communion by the bishop of Rome. Where my own Roman Catholic communion has emphasized the communal character of faith and decision-​making, we need to receive from my partners in the Disciples of Christ their effective emphasis on the personal appropriation of faith within the community of baptized believers. … Where one communion is clear about the priority of grace, another is clear about the implications of the Gospel for the social order. Where one communion is open to the opportunities provided by modern culture for proclaiming the Gospel, another is clear about the centrality of our trinitarian foundations.93 88

89 90 91 92 93

The book is No Turning Back:  The Future of Ecumenism (Collegeville:  Liturgical Press, 2014). Michael Vertin explains that O’Gara selected most of the papers, and began the editing process for the book, before illness forced her to stop. He finished the book according to her intentions. A complete bibliography of her work is also included. O’Gara, “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue,” 26. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, vii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, vii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 3.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

109

O’Gara has clearly experienced the ecumenical gift exchange in action, not just as a theoretical concept. So much so, that the gift exchange is a central theme of her ecumenical theology. It is also a unifying thread throughout the two collections of her papers.94 O’Gara builds on both Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint in illustrating the ecumenical exchange of gifts. The notion of gift exchange becomes the fundamental basis for ecumenical activity: “the gifts exchanged in ecumenical dialogue are more like a mosaic, where every piece is. … needed for the full picture of the one Church of Christ.”95 Here she emphasises the heart of John Paul ii’s teachings on dialogue as fundamental to the nature of the human person, and essential to the church.96 Moreover, she explains, “The mosaic picture is damaged if any of the pieces is missing.” 97 It is only through dialogue with one another, through conversion, that the church can fully realise itself. This is why ecumenical dialogue is essential to the Catholic Church. As O’Gara explains, wherever “a church tradition’s emphases” may be “distorted due to isolation,” they “are corrected and complemented in the emerging mosaic that results from ecumenical gift exchange.”98 In this way, the gift exchange inspires reform. To accept a gift acknowledges at some level a lack. A sense of deficiency is itself an impulse towards conversion. O’Gara points out that often it appears to be the case that a deficiency in one tradition could be complemented by a strength within another denomination.99 As an example, she writes that Catholics “have something to learn from the Mennonite tradition,” namely that the Mennonites have a long tradition of “ecclesial responsibility, including mutual accountability,” that “is shared by everyone in the church.”100 She also believes that greater accountability to the people of the church would be a valuable gift, particularly in light of the scandal of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.101 The correlations between O’Gara’s concept of the ecumenical exchange of gifts and Receptive Ecumenism, including an emphasis on learning, is unmistakable.

94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Those two volumes being of course, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange and No Turning Back. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 28 and no. 31. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 3. Margaret O’Gara, “The Catholic Church in the World Today,” in No Turning Back:  The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), 6. 101 O’Gara, “The Catholic Church in the World Today,” 6.

110 CHAPTER 5 Moreover, she attests that any authentic ecumenical gift exchange arises out of humility and hope. Humility is required to acknowledge where the church in any way has not realised its fullness; and where another tradition might be able to inspire growth in that direction. Hope is needed that Christ’s prayer will be answered, “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). There can be no hope without the humility that allows for the acceptance of gifts from another tradition. In O’Gara’s words, the Catholic Church undertakes ecumenism “in a spirit of repentance and a new hope.”102 She goes on to explain that, “These two spirits are linked together: repentance and the hope for reception of gifts.”103 It is important to recognise this interplay of hope and humility in O’Gara’s conception of ecumenism, particularly in view of how ecumenism as a gift exchange interweaves with the recognition of ecumenism as conversion. With her emphasis on conversion, O’Gara thinks of the Ecumenical Movement as fundamentally a reform movement within the church.104 This assertion is based on Vatican ii’s declaration that ecumenism centres on “interior conversion.”105 In her discussion of conversion (as with the ecumenical gift exchange) the virtues of humility and hope work together. She argues that the “reception” of ecumenical gifts is “prepared [for] by repentance and hope.”106 From her practical experience with ecumenical dialogue, O’Gara observes that those involved in ecumenical dialogue share the “same poignant experience of love for their own church traditions and restlessness within them.”107 The desire for conversion stems out of love for one’s own tradition and drives us to seek its renewal and reform. However, the gift exchange is also a challenge, as she explains, “One of the gifts that Christian churches bring each other in dialogue is serious criticism.”108 Lest the focus of the ecumenical endeavour veer off course into mutual condemnation or bitterness, however, O’Gara adds that “in this way … the Holy Spirit is using the ecumenical dialogue today to bring about the renewal of the Church.”109 In line with Vatican ii teachings, ecumenism must always remain grounded in the Holy Spirit, as unity is “the work of the Holy Spirit among us.”110 Ecumenism offers not only the possibility of constructive 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 3. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 3. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, vii. O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” 376. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, xi.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

111

criticism from the outside, but also requires a “self-​critical repentance” from within.111 With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church may critically reflect on itself, in consideration of where improvements could be made, or where forgiveness might need to be sought. The impulse of ecumenism thus moves from the inside out, not merely from the outside in: as we have seen, this is also a key point in Kasper’s ecumenical theology. The ecumenical gift exchange is not asking the church to bare itself abjectly towards other Christian communities, and accept their judgment. Rather, the church is to consider itself critically, and then, with humility, approach other Christians for possible gifts that can be of mutual benefit. The basis for this comes from the real but partial communion present among separated Christians.112 From out of this understanding, and in continuity with Vatican ii, O’Gara re-​asserts that “the goal of ecumenical dialogue is the restoration of full, visible communion of the one Church of Christ for the sake of its mission.”113 As such, recognition of the communion already in existence among Christians places an impetus on the theological concept of hospitality. Underpinning the ecumenical gift exchange is the virtue of hospitality. There are two key aspects of significance here. Firstly, hospitality is a key theme in Spiritual Ecumenism.114 Secondly, ecumenical hospitality is also grounded in humility.115 O’Gara emphasises hospitality as a powerful resource for ecumenical dialogue, stating: “ecumenical friends and colleagues from other church communions offer each other intellectual and emotional hospitality on the journey toward full communion.”116 She goes on to express that “[i]‌n experiencing the hospitality of our dialogue partners, we often experience the deeper hospitality of mutual reception that is the goal of dialogue itself.”117 The ecumenical gift exchange can only be properly undertaken within a spirit of hospitality. As she states, “real ecumenical collaboration calls for willingness to enter into relationships, to risk vulnerability for the sake of the common effort,

111 O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 3. 1 12 Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. 113 O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, 18. 114 David Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility:  A Foundation for Inter-​ Ecclesial Learning,” (presentation, the Second International Receptive Ecumenism Conference:  Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning:  Learning to be Church Together, Durham, January 2009), 2. 115 Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility,” 4. 116 O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” 376. 117 O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” 376.

112 CHAPTER 5 and to reject competition.”118 Therefore, this commitment to hospitality over competition is essential for the success of ecumenism. There are clear parallels between O’Gara’s and Murray’s ecumenical approaches, as both stem from Vatican ii and Ut Unum Sint. In considering the place of Receptive Ecumenism within the broader context of the Ecumenical Movement, Murray re-​affirms that ecumenical unity is the work of the Spirit.119 It is the Spirit, he explains, which inspires us “both in grace-​filled delights in another’s beauties and in a longing awareness of a fitting match between our own particular lacks and needs and the other’s particular gifts.”120 He writes that Receptive Ecumenism stems from the hope that ecumenism can shift away from past disappointments towards a new period, where we become aware of our own inadequacies and need for renewal and learning from other traditions.121 Ecumenical growth, then, depends on our ability to engage with the other, and in particular, to recognise the intrinsic fact that the church cannot fully realise itself on its own. As O’Gara puts it, “every piece is needed for the full picture of the one Church of Christ.”122 Murray alludes again to the importance of conversion, writing that: “fundamental to … Receptive Ecumenism … is a process of conversion –​that is at root not a loss, nor a diminishment, but a finding.”123 Both O’Gara and Murray understand ecumenism as a Spirit-​led movement of ecclesial conversion to Christ. However, there is a key difference between O’Gara’s approach and Receptive Ecumenism: that of the ecumenical gift exchange. O’Gara builds on Ut Unum Sint’s notion of a gift exchange, referring to a mutual process of gift-​giving and growth between traditions. However, Receptive Ecumenism emphasises a unilateral process of receptive learning  –​it does not require mutuality or an exchange. While Receptive Ecumenism is often collapsed into the model of the gift exchange, to do so is to misconstrue what Receptive Ecumenism is actually about. Murray affirms that Receptive Ecumenism “does not have to presuppose the equivalence of the gift exchange and can just get doing without this.”124 Instead of considering what others might be able to receive from us (gift exchange) Receptive Ecumenism focuses on the renewal and reform which is needed within our own tradition. Murray acknowledges that this is not a “natural tendency,” and that the gift exchange comes more easily to 1 18 119 120 121 122 123 124

O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” 373. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange, viii. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 282. Correspondence between Paul Murray and myself on this topic.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

113

us.125 However, a potential problem with the gift exchange is that: “if we are honest, we can all come to the table assuming that life would just be a bit easier if the ‘others,’ whoever the ‘others’ might be, were a little more like ‘us’ and assuming that ‘we’ basically have it right.”126 The gift exchange does not necessarily lead towards arrogance; but it can certainly foster, rather than dissolve, such an attitude. Receptive Ecumenism bypasses this tendency, and places the onus for change and growth squarely on us, within our own traditions. Where O’Gara emphasises the ecumenical gift exchange aspect of Ut Unum Sint, Murray prioritises its emphasis on humility and conversion. It is a difference of perspective which sparks interesting ramifications for understanding Receptive Ecumenism’s connection with Spiritual Ecumenism. 4

Receptive Ecumenism—Simply a New Name for Spiritual Ecumenism?

In view of what has been said above and in the previous chapter, a much-​ needed picture of Spiritual Ecumenism begins to emerge. Spiritual E ­ cumenism, ­despite being the very soul of ecumenism, has been relatively neglected in the decades following Vatican ii, with the notable exceptions of the work of Kasper and Rowan Williams. However, the assertion of the existence of a Spiritual Ecumenical Movement presumes that certain defining principles are common to a variety of groups and individuals. In this respect, arguably, Spiritual Ecumenism has five key characteristics. Firstly, it is central to ecumenism. Secondly, it has a predominantly pneumatological focus, with an emphasis on openness to the Holy Spirit. As Kasper explains, the spirit behind Spiritual Ecumenism is no less than the Holy Spirit.127 Thirdly, it centres on interior conversion, to the extent that conversion is considered the aim of ecumenical endeavour. Fourthly, it places an emphasis on ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. Fifthly, it prioritises the affective levels of ecumenical encounter, such as emotions, attitudes, and virtues, especially hope for the future, and the humility that recognises sin and trusts in the Holy Spirit. The following is a brief exploration of these aspects. Firstly, Spiritual Ecumenism is central to the quest for Christian unity. Spiritual Ecumenism is not a third stream in ecumenism, added on to theological and practical ecumenism. Rather, it is the very centre, the soul, of all 1 25 Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 8. 126 Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 8. 127 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 161.

114 CHAPTER 5 ecumenism. This is because ecumenism is founded on Christ’s desire for unity. Spiritual Ecumenism is the inner pulse of the Ecumenical Movement as a whole, from which practical and theological ecumenism draw their energy. The primary drive of ecumenism is, therefore, not intellectual nor practical, but spiritual. Receptive Ecumenism clearly emphasises the spiritual dimensions of ecumenism, with Murray describing it as an ecumenism of the heart.128 Secondly, Spiritual Ecumenism presents ecumenism as primarily an activity towards deepening conversion, grounded in Vatican ii’s conception of the “pilgrim Church.”129 As such, Spiritual Ecumenism both overarches and properly forms the basis for rational and doctrinal ecumenical dialogue. As the soul of ecumenism, it is vital for every type of ecumenism. According to Unitatis Redintegratio, “there can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without interior conversion,” which is nothing less than the core of Spiritual Ecumenism.130 This means that Spiritual Ecumenism is, in some manner, the measuring stick for all types of ecumenism. Ecumenism of any variety should lead the community, personally and together, deeper into conversion to Christ through the Spirit. Put simply, without Spiritual Ecumenism, the ecumenical endeavour lacks its soul. Therefore, anything that is not genuinely open to the movement of the Spirit cannot be called ecumenism. Ecumenism that is not guided by love misses the mark. In a 2003 speech, Walter Kasper makes reference to two dangers that stem from a failure to remember Spiritual Ecumenism: “an ecumenism which is only an academic affair for professional theologians,” and “an ecumenical activism defined primarily by an endless series of meetings, conferences and symposia.”131 He goes on to posit “spiritual ecumenism” as the necessary remedy in both cases.132 In continuity with Unitatis Redintegratio, Kasper explains that “ecumenism ad extra,” ecumenism aimed at engaging with other Christians, “presupposes … ecumenism ad intra,” and therefore, as he says, “theological ecumenism must be linked to spiritual ecumenism, which is the heart of ecumenism.”133 Therefore, Spiritual Ecumenism is primarily directed towards interior conversion. Conversion is also the key focus of Receptive Ecumenism, as has already been discussed.

1 28 129 130 131

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 86. Vatican ii, LG, no. 48. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. Referenced in C. Christopher Epting, “Exercises in Spiritual Ecumenism,” The Ecumenical Review 55, no. 3 (2003): 272. 132 Epting, “Exercises in Spiritual Ecumenism,” 272. 1 33 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

115

Openness to the Holy Spirit is therefore of central importance to Spiritual Ecumenism, which is its third aspect. John Paul ii calls “docility to the Holy Spirit” the “deepest center of the ecumenical attitude.”134 As expressed in the work of Couturier, Congar, Vatican ii, John Paul ii, Kasper, and O’Gara, ecumenical activity is the work of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual Ecumenism is fundamentally grounded in pneumatology, and requires prayer and openness to the Holy Spirit. While Receptive Ecumenism also has a pneumatological focus, this has not yet emerged as clearly as it could have. A further key aspect of Spiritual Ecumenism is that of the ecumenical gift exchange. Through this giving and receiving of gifts, the church community may move towards fuller realisation of the Church of Christ. The eschatological dimension of this hope is evoked by John Paul ii’s assertion that Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21) is simultaneously his prayer “that the Father’s plan may be fully accomplished.”135 The humility expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio is connected to this sense of hope. As the Decree states, “the church … makes its pilgrim way in hope towards its goal.”136 This statement accentuates the humble self-​understanding of the church as a “pilgrim,” emphasising the eschatological “not yet” of the journey. But it is a striving towards God undertaken with a sense of hope. As discussed above, this facet of Spiritual Ecumenism receives the most expression in Ut Unum Sint, Kasper and O’Gara. Receptive Ecumenism is distinct from the gift exchange ­altogether. Recognition of the roles of humility and hope within the ecumenical gift exchange raises consideration of Spiritual Ecumenism’s focus on the spiritual, emotional and virtuous aspects of ecumenism. Spiritual Ecumenism gives particular attention to the affective and spiritual dimensions of ecumenical engagement. This is important, as Spiritual Ecumenism should be intertwined with practical and theological ecumenism. While theological ecumenism focuses primarily on ideas, Spiritual Ecumenism emphasises the spiritual and affective levels of ecumenical activity. Ecumenism is far more than just a rational endeavour. It is a mystery that requires trust and hope in Christ, as well as the humility to recognise that unity is ultimately in God’s hands, rather than our own. Kasper explains this point well:

134 135 136

John Paul ii, “To the Delegations From Other Christian Churches, October 22 1978,” in John Paul II: Addresses and Homilies on Ecumenism 1978–​1980, ed. John B. Sheerin and John F. Hotchkin (Washington: u.s. Catholic Conference, 1980), 2. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 9. Vatican ii, UR, no. 2.

116 CHAPTER 5 Without spiritual communion, communion’s entire structure would be nothing more than a soulless apparatus. Indeed, communion is first and foremost a gift. To decide when, where and how unity will be achieved is not in our hands but in God’s; we must trust him.137 Ecumenism therefore involves a change of heart, such as that experienced in metanoia. Spiritual Ecumenism entails spiritual, affective, and virtuous aspects that are of vital importance to the contemporary Ecumenical Movement, but which have not always been emphasised. It implies that genuine ecumenical relations and activities arise from a “change of heart,” together with a sense of repentance.138 As the Council has already affirmed, these are interior experiences, coming from the heart, and stimulated by the Holy Spirit. This change of heart is necessary for personal conversion, as well as the conversion of the whole church. Moreover, the Decree articulates, that the closer individual Christians can grow towards God, the closer they can grow towards each other.139 Therefore, the impulse to Christian unity comes first from the interior to the exterior, rather than the other way around. Our essential calling to be followers of Christ is what drives ecumenism. It is only by growing closer to God, through deeper conversion, that we will be able to grow in love. And it is love that is the greatest commandment of all. The Council’s recognition of Spiritual Ecumenism as the soul of the Ecumenical Movement is further highlighted by John Paul ii: “the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts.”140 Here, Spiritual Ecumenism points to the mystery of Christian unity: that is the one Spirit who calls us to Christ who also calls us to unity. The spiritual and affective aspects of ecumenism are highlighted within Receptive Ecumenism, as will be seen in more detail in Chapter Seven. Now that we have a more complete picture of Spiritual Ecumenism, what is its importance and place in the Ecumenical Movement and for Receptive Ecumenism? While Kasper has done much to emphasise the vital importance of Spiritual Ecumenism for contemporary ecumenism, it is still frequently overlooked. The question of why it needs rediscovery, at all, raises the point of how well it has been received, on which opinions differ. The question of how well Vatican ii’s ecumenism has been received is necessarily linked more broadly with the process of reception for any Vatican ii document, particularly as ecumenism was one of the key themes of the Council as a whole. 1 37 138 139 140

Kasper, “Charting the Road of the Ecumenical Movement.” Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Vatican ii, UR, no. 7. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 2.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

117

The question becomes more complicated when we turn, specifically, to the reception of Spiritual Ecumenism. Catholic involvement in the Ecumenical Movement has made great strides since Vatican ii. However, the types of ecumenism which have generally been practiced, and have achieved much success, are largely theological and practical in accent. Kasper provides helpful clarification, writing that Unitatis Redintegratio distributes ecumenical dialogue into three “dimensions:” “theological dialogue, where experts explain the beliefs of each individual church,” “practical cooperation and especially common prayer,” and thirdly, “the renewal and reform of our own church.”141 In reference to these categories, the focus has been on theological and practical ecumenism; on dialogue, on reaching consensus, on matters of doctrine, and on working together. Ecumenism as fundamentally concerned with reform and conversion, and in this case, with the renewal of the Catholic Church, or ecumenism as a virtuous and spiritual endeavour, has received less attention. While interior conversion, or Spiritual Ecumenism, should in many ways take priority over the other categories, it conversely appears to be the most neglected. Duffy argues that the Decree on Ecumenism has not been received fully or deeply within the Catholic community. He writes of the need to “protect the principles of Unitatis Redintegratio against the retrenchment and obfuscation of recent years lest they die the death of a thousand qualifications.”142 He maintains that its fundamental principles are “endangered by a lack of understanding and ecumenical commitment” and that they have not been “widely understood and internalized by Catholic clergy and laity.”143 Ecumenism on the level of the heart, as a virtuous and spiritual activity engendering conversion, under the guidance of the Spirit, has perhaps not been as deeply received as other types of ecumenism. In a similar manner, O’Gara also attests to “what a long way the Roman Catholic Church must go before receiving fully the commitment to ecumenism made by the Second Vatican Council.”144 In looking towards its future, it is to the reception of Spiritual Ecumenism that the ecumenical endeavour must now turn, in all hope and humility. Spiritual Ecumenism is therefore vital for the renewal of the Ecumenical Movement. It certainly seems to have found a home within Receptive Ecumenism. However, the substantial commonalities between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism 141 142 143 144

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44. Duffy, “Catholicism’s Search for a New Self-​Understanding,” 27. Duffy, “Catholicism’s Search for a New Self-​Understanding,” 27. Margaret O’Gara, “Friendship in the Ecumenical Movement,” in No Turning Back:  The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), 35.

118 CHAPTER 5 also raises the question: is Receptive Ecumenism merely a new name for Spiritual Ecumenism? As already discussed, one of the distinguishing features of Receptive Ecumenism is that it highlights aspects that have always been part of ecumenism.145 As Murray acknowledges, to a high degree, Receptive Ecumenism is in continuity with broader Catholic ecumenical theology.146 He bases its distinctive contribution to Catholic ecumenism on the fact that it explicitly highlights processes that have been working underneath ecumenism without sufficient recognition. By pushing them to the forefront, their potential can be unlocked, opening up new possibilities for ecumenical engagement.147 Therefore, rather than being considered an entirely new approach to ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism is innovative and builds on what has come before, nurturing dormant aspects of ecumenism to new life. Receptive Ecumenism’s inheritance from Spiritual Ecumenism, as illustrated in its creative connection to Couturier, Congar, Vatican ii, Ut Unum Sint, Kasper, and O’Gara, indicates that it belongs in the Spiritual Ecumenical family. Receptive Ecumenism implies an ecumenical methodology of surprising simplicity. It emphasises the aim of Unitatis Redintegratio, which is reiterated in Ut Unum Sint, O’Gara, and Kasper: full visible unity. Receptive Ecumenism is described as “a total ethic that is as simple yet all pervasive as the Gospel it represents.”148 Receptive Ecumenism highlights ecclesial learning as the ecumenical way forward. It is a unilateral process of learning, grounded in humility and hope in our Christian partners, which requires us to shift from aggressive defence of ourselves in opposition to others to instead prioritising our responsibilities in the face of the other.149 This immediately recalls O’Gara’s emphasis on ecumenism as hospitality, not competition. Murray explains: “For this to happen … it requires some to take responsibility, to take the initiative, and this regardless of whether others are ready to reciprocate.”150 Receptive Ecumenism focuses, therefore, more on the benefit to be gained by one’s own tradition through discovering the “other,” rather than any type of quid pro quo ecumenical competition. This evokes Kasper’s point of the ad intra aspect of ecumenical dialogue. This is the fundamental methodology of Receptive Ecumenism: each tradition should critically 1 45 146 147 148 149 150

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

The Path from Ut Unum Sint to Receptive Ecumenism

119

reflect on what it can learn from another tradition. By doing so, each community and tradition will be enriched, without setting any precondition for the involvement or performance of others.151 This is where Receptive Ecumenism most differs from Ut Unum Sint’s and O’Gara’s emphasis on the exchange of gifts  –​yet, the other four aspects of Spiritual Ecumenism clearly resonate within it. This investigation of Receptive Ecumenism’s spiritual roots illustrated how major figures and texts of Spiritual Ecumenism have directly influenced its development. From this, it was possible to clarify key aspects of Spiritual ­Ecumenism in relation to Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism clearly stems from the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. However, this is not to say that it has nothing distinctive and valuable to offer to Catholic ecumenical theology in general, and the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement in particular. It does raise the question of how to best understand the nexus between Receptive and Ecumenism. In what ways do they intersect with and enrich each other?

151 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

­c hapter 6

Two Paths or One? The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism In tracing the Receptive Ecumenical path, Receptive Ecumenism’s ancestry in Spiritual Ecumenism becomes apparent. However, a key question over their connection remains:  are Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism two separate paths? Should Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism be applied separately, at different times and for different purposes? Or do they make up one intertwined path, weaving through the Ecumenical Movement? Up to this point, attention has been focused on the respective characteristics of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism. What has emerged from this investigation is that that there must be some form of mutually enriching dynamic between the two. In what follows, the intention is to address the question of their complementarity, and thus clearly delineate the dynamic between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. First, the manner in which Receptive Ecumenism enhances and expands on Spiritual Ecumenism will be investigated. Second, how Spiritual Ecumenism, for its part, enriches Receptive Ecumenism will addressed. Finally, the idea that Receptive Ecumenism can be considered a reception of the principles of Spiritual Ecumenism will be ­examined. 1

The Value of Receptive Ecumenism for the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement

Murray acknowledges that Receptive Ecumenism builds on Spiritual Ecumenism, explaining: Specific forerunners are to be found in Couturier’s ‘spiritual ecumenism’; in Congar’s writings, in Unitatis Redintegratio, in the work of the Groupe des Dombes, in Ut Unum Sint, in Walter Kasper’s ecumenical writings, and in aspects of the bilateral dialogues, particularly the recent work of the Methodist-​Roman Catholic dialogue. So Receptive Ecumenism grows out of a certain trajectory of ecumenical endeavour, which it develops in distinctive ways.1 1 Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_007

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

121

In this quote, Receptive Ecumenism’s heritage is clear. However, he also asserts that Receptive Ecumenism develops Spiritual Ecumenism in a distinctive manner. What, then, is the value of Receptive Ecumenism for the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement? Three key areas where Receptive Ecumenism expands on Spiritual Ecumenism can be discerned: its emphasis on structural rather than personal conversion; its focus on learning; and its appeal and accessibility. 1.1 Institutional and Structural Conversion According to Murray, a fresh ecumenical approach is needed to address institutional and structural transformation, an area where he considers Spiritual Ecumenism to be lacking.2 He acknowledges a level of continuity between Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism, explaining that “Receptive Ecumenism resonates both with … ‘spiritual ecumenism,’ and expands upon” the “more obviously personal that is the focus of spiritual ecumenism.”3 Furthering this interpretation, he explains that the “one caveat” between Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism is the former’s generally personal focus.4 He clarifies that Spiritual Ecumenism’s tendency is to focus on spirituality and liturgical practices, whereas Receptive Ecumenism’s focus is on decision-​making and ecclesial structures, on considering how practical issues or challenges may be ­approached by learning from other traditions.5 Thus, to Murray, the key distinction between them is that Spiritual Ecumenism is viewed as relating to the personal, whereas Receptive Ecumenism is concerned with institutional and structural conversion. Receptive Ecumenism’s role, therefore, is formulated as filling the need to also focus on structural and institutional conversion.6 In this light, Murray stresses that “Receptive Ecumenism seeks to reclaim the full radical intent of Couturier’s spiritual ecumenism.”7 He argues that it seeks to “rescue” Spiritual Ecumenism “from the reduction to praying together and receiving of each other’s spiritual and liturgical riches to which it can sometimes be reduced.”8 Accordingly, the scope of Spiritual Ecumenism properly extends beyond just prayer and personal conversion.9 To that degree, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 85. Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands.” Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 85. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.”

122 CHAPTER 6 ­ eceptive Ecumenism is an attempt at recovery designed to set Spiritual EcuR menism’s “potential free for structural, institutional, ecclesial, and theological renewal.”10 Thus, Receptive Ecumenism aims to recover Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism, which is in need of restoration after becoming focused on personal conversion to the point of distortion. Hence, Receptive Ecumenism’s stated aim is, “To emphasize that the ecclesial dimension of conversion includes the ongoing development of the organizational, structural, cultural, and practical aspects of the church.”11 It is these broader elements of Spiritual Ecumenism that Murray considers have been lost. For him, Receptive Ecumenism must restore the integrity of Spiritual Ecumenism. However, what is the validity of this interpretation? There is little doubt that Spiritual Ecumenism is in need of rediscovery. As we have seen in previous chapters, it has been neglected, with few academic resources available on the topic. The Ecumenical Movement has largely focused on theological and practical ecumenism, rather than on its spiritual dimensions. Due to the overuse of these approaches, it would seem timely to return to the roots of ecumenism and recover the fullness of Spiritual Ecumenism’s potential. Murray’s assertion that Spiritual Ecumenism has been narrowed down to just the personal certainly seems to have weight. As we have seen, both Couturier’s Spiritual Ecumenism and Vatican ii were explicitly concerned with conversion at personal, communal, and institutional levels. For example, Unitatis Redintegratio urges the ecclesial renewal of the Catholic Church.12 In fact, paragraph 4 of the Decree emphasises that the renewal of the whole church outweighs individual conversion.13 However, the full extent of Spiritual Ecumenism’s scope does appear to have become narrowed over time. When Spiritual Ecumenism has been considered at all, it has often been practiced as a component of practical ecumenism. Kasper’s A Handbook of ­Spiritual Ecumenism is a case in point: rather than being an academic contribution to understanding Spiritual Ecumenism, it largely focuses on prayers for ecumenical gatherings.14 As such, in the context of practical ecumenical gatherings, there is a tendency for the focus of Spiritual Ecumenism to be concentrated on the personal to the detriment of an integrated personal, communal, and institutional notion of conversion. Here lies the validity of Murray’s concern 10 11 12 13 14

Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Centre for Catholic Studies, “About Receptive Ecumenism,” Durham University https://​ www.dur.ac.uk/​theology.religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​about/​. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Walter Kasper, A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism (New York: New City Press, 2007).

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

123

over the excessive concentration of Spiritual Ecumenism on the individual level of conversion. There has been a tendency to constrict Spiritual Ecumenism down to simply personal dimensions, rather than recognising its ecclesial and structural ramifications. This may account for why Spiritual Ecumenism has received less attention then it deserves. In this way, Receptive Ecumenism can be seen as a dynamic and necessary reinvigoration of Spiritual Ecumenism for the contemporary context. We must be careful, however, to avoid falling into the opposite extreme, namely to focus on institutional conversion to the exclusion of all else. The individual and the communal, the personal and the institutional, are inextricably linked. Personal conversion is in most cases a component of institutional conversion: “Renewal and conversion of heart includes both personal and institutional aspects.”15 This holistic perception of conversion is well recognised in Spiritual Ecumenism, as Couturier, Vatican ii and Kasper all attest. While Receptive Ecumenism enriches contemporary Spiritual Ecumenism by refocusing on its potential for institutional reform, it should also take care not to downplay personal conversion. Receptive Ecumenism may need to emphasise Spiritual Ecumenism’s emphasis on the connection between the personal and institutional in ecumenical conversion. Nevertheless, while Spiritual Ecumenism contains a holistic conception of conversion, the fact remains that it has been largely overlooked. The most evident aspect of Spiritual Ecumenism is, as Murray argues, its focus on personal conversion. Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism does Spiritual Ecumenism a service by explicating the institutional aspects of conversion which can be found throughout Spiritual Ecumenism’s primary source material. By emphasising the structural and institutional dimensions of conversion, Receptive Ecumenism highlights one of the key neglected aspects of Spiritual Ecumenism, which is a crucial point of enrichment –​although not the only such point. 1.2 Ecclesial Learning Unsurprisingly, prayer holds the preeminent place within Spiritual Ecumenism. Spiritual Ecumenism is intrinsically a prayer movement leading more deeply into relationship with Christ.16 Couturier emphasises prayer above all else. The proper response to Christian division is repentance and prayer, which opens hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit.17 Prayer is the “source of power,

15 16 17

Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 337. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 343.

124 CHAPTER 6 the only power which can move all.”18 It is the driving force behind Christians coming “to discover each other, recognize each other, and love each other.”19 Without prayer, Couturier exclaims, we “would otherwise be helpless before these crippling separations!”20 However, Receptive Ecumenism places a special emphasis on learning, with its fundamental question, “ ‘what, in any given situation, can one’s own tradition appropriately learn with integrity from other traditions?’ ”21 Here lies a key distinction between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. Needless to say, prayer and learning have significantly different connotations. Does Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on learning open up new directions for Spiritual Ecumenical engagement? The topic of ecumenical learning has the advantage of novelty compared to ecumenical prayer alone. The phrases “Catholic learning,” “ecclesial learning” and “receptive learning” are distinctive to Receptive Ecumenism. There are also significantly different phenomenological ramifications implied. Learning involves humility (“I do not know everything”), receptiveness (“I am ready to learn or receive”), willingness to work (“In order to learn, I need to. …”), and the goal of gaining knowledge (“once I finish learning, I will now know. …”). Praying also implies humility and receptiveness, but in a different sense (humility as: “awe at the thought of God in relation to myself” and receptiveness as “listening to God’s will”). However, instead of the willingness to work towards a goal (which is implied in learning), prayer more simply involves hope (“I can trust in God”), rather than placing the onus for the goal’s achievement on the one making the prayer. Learning implies active involvement and engagement, while prayer may emphasise a more passive, receptive and kenotic attitude. Where learning emphasises the intellectual level, prayer focuses on the spiritual dimension. For Receptive Ecumenism, learning is directed at learning from other Christians, albeit through the direction of the Holy Spirit, whereas for Spiritual Ecumenism, prayer aims at being receptive to the grace of God. This is to suggest that learning has broader connotations and accents the cognitive and the objective, whereas prayer is specifically spiritual in the sense already explained. When learning, the learner is expected to achieve a certain result, whereas prayer is self-​surrender and conformity to the will of God. Learning also has wider secular connotations: it is an activity that must be capable of being grasped, where the responsibility falls on the learner to learn, and which should achieve a concrete result. A  phenomenology of learning 18 19 20 21

Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 337. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 337. Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 337. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

125

could certainly contribute to understanding ecumenical activity. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on learning, especially if such learning is understood as a component of the larger activity of prayer, opens up an area for mutual enrichment in ecumenical activities and attitudes. There are, of course, contextual considerations. Couturier places a high regard on virtues traditionally emphasised in a monastic lifestyle, as has already been noted.22 A monastic focus necessarily influences his ecumenical approach. The primacy he sets on prayer, and the need for self-​emptying humility, is consonant with his personal commitment as an ordained priest in the Society of St. Irenaeus. In contrast, as also already noted, Murray is a married layman, and is engaged in academic work. Differences in emphasising learning rather than prayer may be explained by their contexts. However, Murray clearly envisions Spiritual Ecumenism in a different manner than Couturier does. And that has ecumenical consequences. Conceiving of ecumenism in terms of learning implies a possible outcome, which is our responsibility to strive towards, and which is possible to achieve. However, there is no reason why learning and prayer should not be undertaken together. Receptive Ecumenism in fact attempts to integrate prayer within its method, while retaining its primary emphasis on learning. After all, the entire Ecumenical Movement is founded upon a prayer (Jn 17:21). And, within the eschatological horizon of ecumenism, all agree that unity will not be achieved by human endeavour, but by the will of God. Accordingly, prayer should always have the first place. On this point, Kallistos Ware stresses that Couturier “emphasized the right order of priorities when he advocated a week of prayer for Christian unity: not just a week of discussions, lectures and conferences, but a week of insistent prayer.”23 Nonetheless, Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on learning introduces something both new and with great potential into Spiritual Ecumenism. Learning is something we are all accustomed to; as such Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on learning enables it to be seen as something both familiar and practical. 1.3 Appeal and Accessibility A third aspect of Receptive Ecumenism of value to Spiritual Ecumenism is its accessibility and popular appeal. Receptive Ecumenism is deliberate in its intent to engage with a broad array of people, both lay and professional.24 As Murray states, it is “quite clear that asking the basic receptive ecumenical 22 23 24

Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes, 8. Kallistos Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism:  An Orthodox Perspective,” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1–​2 (2008): 47. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism,” 1.

126 CHAPTER 6 question … is not the exclusive preserve of an elite caste of theologians.”25 Rather, the premise is that “everyone at every level of church life is capable of asking in relation to any given issue, problem, area of understanding, or responsibility, what might fruitfully be learned from one’s ecumenical others in this specific regard.”26 In a somewhat radical manner, Receptive Ecumenism recognises the role of the whole church in ecumenical engagement. The simplicity of Receptive Ecumenism’s method makes sense, given its realistic focus. Receptive Ecumenism insists that the academic serves practical or real life, ecumenism: “the point is that the basic process is one in which all can share.”27 Consequently, its integrity depends on its accessibility, as an affective experience, not just an academic one.28 As such, Receptive Ecumenism explicitly draws on the affective and spiritual, as well as the systematic and intellectual levels, of ecumenical encounter.29 Its simplicity is intended to make ecumenism accessible to newcomers and more general audiences, as well as remain adaptable to the needs of specific contexts. It aims to provide widespread access to the ecumenical endeavour to all Christians, including laypeople, or those without a high level of theological education or ecumenical expertise. Receptive Ecumenism seeks to counteract the notion of ecumenical dialogue as a high-​brow, theological activity which is inaccessible to most Christians. As such, its accessibility and balancing of head and heart is a significant step forward for the future of the Ecumenical Movement. For example, Kinnamon argues that increasing lay participation and commitment to ecumenism will be a critical factor for the future.30 It seems clear that ecumenism must become accessible and available, indeed, the responsibility, of everyone in the church to some degree if it is to have a future. After all, ecumenism is properly the activity of the entire body of Christ, not just of an academically-​minded few of its members. Receptive Ecumenism aims to revitalise ecumenism by honing ecumenical activity down to its core, namely, that we have need of each other. Instead of approaching ecumenism from a purely academic perspective and the examination of theological texts and doctrines, which can end up abstract from reality, Receptive Ecumenism focuses on learning from concrete, lived traditions.31 For Murray, the point of Receptive Ecumenism is to “not simply be a highly theorised endeavour” or to become “abstracted from the ordinary lived 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 90. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 86. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 154. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

127

practice of the traditions concerned.”32 Rather, Receptive Ecumenism focuses on the “lived practice of traditions,” on structural realities rather than abstract concepts.33 He is concerned about the tendency of ecumenical approaches to become wholly abstract affairs. Receptive Ecumenism, he says, “should arise out of the felt needs and experienced difficulties of the participant traditions” rather than solely from an academic examination of theological or doctrinal differences.34 Receptive Ecumenism seeks to collaborate with different ecumenical approaches, such as bilateral dialogues, to enrich, rather than replace them.35 To focus on lived traditions amounts to calling on the whole church community to participate in the ecumenical project. Therefore, everyone can and should be involved, but working in their own contexts and their own ways. Receptive Ecumenism is an ecumenism of doing whatever can be done, at all levels. It aims for theological and practical ecumenism to be conducted together, because it seeks to engender ecclesial conversion. Such an approach, if carefully nuanced, is well suited for use within a variety of ecclesial structures, including hierarchical church structures such as the Catholic Church. Further, the accessibility of Receptive Ecumenism is increased in that it is formulated as a question, which is open to adaptation by specific traditions in their own contexts, rather than a prescriptive, one-​size-​fits-​all method. Murray uses a variety of terms to refer to Receptive Ecumenism, describing it as an “ethic,” “strategy,” “methodology,” “value,” and “way.” Receptive Ecumenism is designed to be adapted and applied differently according to the needs of each context. A certain flexibility, and lack of set prescribed instructions, in the approach is therefore necessary. This is why Murray calls it a “virtuous virus,” capable of evolving and adapting to suit specific contexts.36 Receptive Ecumenism does not necessarily require lengthy study to participate –​all members of a tradition can engage with it at some level. As Clive Barrett explains, the only “prerequisites” for Receptive Ecumenism are a willingness to change, receptiveness to the Spirit, and sufficient ecumenical consciousness “to make us look to each other in the first place.”37 Fundamentally, all Receptive Ecumenism requires is an open receptiveness both to the Holy Spirit and to other Christians. It is not the work of a closed mind or heart, and therein lies its appeal –​and its importance for Spiritual 32 33 34 35 36 37

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 91. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 40–​41. Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands.” Clive Barrett, “An Overview of Ecumenism,” in Unity in Process: Reflections on Ecumenism, ed. Clive Barrett (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2012), 22.

128 CHAPTER 6 Ecumenism. While central to Catholic approaches to ecumenism, Spiritual Ecumenism has been underemphasised in the decades following Vatican ii, with little scholarly work in this area. As such, Spiritual Ecumenism is not readily accessible to broader audiences, and is not well canvassed even within ecumenical circles. In contrast, Receptive Ecumenism is highly visible in contemporary ecumenism, particularly in the Catholic Church. Its activities reach broader audiences and stimulate lay interest. In this respect, Receptive Ecumenism intentionally serves to push aspects of Spiritual Ecumenism into greater prominence. For instance, Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on what we have to learn from other Christians can only be carried out within an overarching awareness of the Holy Spirit as directing ecumenical efforts. Further, central to Receptive Ecumenism is its focus on conversion. Both of these points, as already discussed, are key to Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism, thus, explicitly leads to greater engagement with Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism therefore enriches Spiritual Ecumenism in three key areas: its focus on structural conversion, emphasis on learning, and the high level of its appeal and accessibility. The three above-​mentioned dimensions suggest areas where Receptive Ecumenism highlights implicit, or even dormant features, within Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism can, therefore, be seen as a valuable development of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, rather than as a fundamentally new type of ecumenism. Having investigated where Receptive Ecumenism enriches Spiritual Ecumenism, it is important now to address the other side of the equation. 2

The Importance of Spiritual Ecumenism for Receptive Ecumenism

Does Spiritual Ecumenism have further potential to enrich Receptive Ecumenism? Over a decade since its initial launch, Receptive Ecumenism has been recognised as an exciting new approach to ecumenism, one that may rejuvenate the ecumenical landscape. However, Receptive Ecumenism is also still developing, and is, in many ways, still a question in search of an answer. How can Receptive Ecumenism continue to develop and mature as an ecumenical methodology? Despite its apparent simplicity, certain elements of Receptive Ecumenism’s methodology require clarification. What, for instance, is its theological context? How can it be understood in relation to other ecumenical approaches? Most critically, how can it be effectively applied and its results assessed? It is at this point that Spiritual Ecumenism can foster Receptive Ecumenism’s development along the lines of a deepened Christological and pneumatological vision. Christology and pneumatology are

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

129

tightly linked in ecumenical theology. As Congar asserts, there is “no Christology without pneumatology and no pneumatology without Christology.”38 Receptive Ecumenism can benefit from Spiritual Ecumenism’s familiarity with these two key concerns. Accordingly, we move now to consider three major points where Receptive Ecumenism could be enriched by further engagement with Spiritual Ecumenism: Christology, pneumatology, and the ecumenical exchange of gifts. 2.1 Christological Basis Michael Putney, a renowned Australian ecumenist and Catholic bishop, ­places a strong emphasis on Spiritual Ecumenism.39 He makes the point that the pre-​eminent relationship for Christian unity is not relationships between Christians, but relationship with Christ. He explains:  “It would be a mistake when talking about unity between the churches or the unity within any one Christian community to start with or focus upon the relationship of Christians with each other.” 40 This is because Christian unity is about the participation of Christians with Christ, and through him, a participation in the life of the Trinity.41 Ware also emphasises this point:  “Our horizontal receptiveness presupposes, as its source and inspiration, a vertical receptiveness.”42 He proposes that Receptive Ecumenism’s success hinges on receptivity to God, stating that the effectiveness of “learning and receiving from one another … depends on both sides being prepared to learn and receive from God.”43 Moreover, the Trinity forms the basis for ecumenism, as “the model and paradigm of all human relationship is nothing less than the Holy Trinity.”44 That Christ is the centre of unity can easily be taken for granted, especially by Receptive Ecumenism with its focus on inter-​Christian learning. Hence, the need for a stronger Christological basis. What, then, is the Christological basis of Spiritual Ecumenism? Three considerations come into play: 1) ecumenism as willed by Christ; 2) baptism as the b­ asis for ecumenical endeavour; and 3) the example of Jesus’ radical hospitality. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Yves Congar, The Word and the Spirit, trans. David Smith (London:  Geoffrey Chapman, 1986), 1. Putney, “One Man’s Ecumenical Journey,” 1. Michael Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” in My Ecumenical Journey, ed. Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly and Ormond Rush (Adelaide: atf Theology, 2014), 184. Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 184. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 46. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 46. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 49.

130 CHAPTER 6 At the heart of Spiritual Ecumenism is the assertion that Christian unity is the will of Christ. Ecumenism arises from Christ’s prayer “that all of them may be one” (Jn 17:21), and is, therefore, intrinsically Christological. Christ’s prayer for unity is both the inspiration and foundation for ecumenical endeavour. The ecumenical imperative derives from Christ, and this is emphasised throughout key Catholic ecumenical texts. Couturier calls Christ’s prayer for unity the “prototype of all prayer for Unity.”45 Congar recounts that it was while meditating upon John 17 that he “recognized” his “vocation to work for the unity of all who believe in Jesus Christ.”46 Furthermore, Unitatis Redintegratio states that “division openly contradicts the will of Christ.”47 This assertion is reiterated throughout Ut Unum Sint.48 As Henn reports, “Some of the strongest words of Ut Unum Sint concern unity as God’s will, even as the primary motive of the whole Christ-​ event.”49 Here, the ecumenical importance of Christology clearly emerges. Couturier’s emphasis on ecumenism as Christ’s will and prayer for all Christians achieved remarkable results. His focus on the common prayer and Christological basis for Spiritual Ecumenism allowed Christians to pray in accordance with Christ’s command, without demeaning their own traditions. Couturier expressed his Christological ecumenism in the formula: “to pray for the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ as He will and when He wills.”50 Spiritual Ecumenism of this kind (rather than theological or practical ecumenism) provided much of the impetus for the development of Catholic ecumenism.51 In applying Receptive Ecumenism to a particular issue or locality, emphasising the common will of Christ for all Christians would reinforce an ecumenical sense of transcending human desires, bias, fear of change, or pride. It would frame ecumenism as a matter of self-​transcendence in conformity to the will of Christ. As Couturier realised, Jesus’ prayer for unity provides a common ground and imperative for all Christians. Kasper reiterates this point:  “Ecumenical work, therefore, is a spiritual task and can be nothing other than participation in the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus.”52 Christ’s will is foundational 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Couturier, “The Ecumenical Testament,” 329. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 3. Vatican ii, UR, no. 1. Christ’s call for unity is a key theme throughout UUS. See paragraphs 1 and 6 for explicit treatment of the issue. Henn, “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism,” 235. Quoted in Lukas Vischer, “The Ecumenical Movement and the Roman Catholic Church,” in The Ecumenical Advance: A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1948–​1968, ed. Harold E. Fey (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993), 321. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 156. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 156.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

131

for all ecumenical endeavour. This is why Unitatis Redintegratio can proclaim Spiritual Ecumenism to be the “soul” of the whole Ecumenical Movement.53 Secondly, there is the centrality of baptism. Vatican ii asserts that baptism places Christians from other traditions into “some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”54 This means that “all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ,” as brothers and sisters.55 Fruitful dialogue, not to mention ecclesial learning, is made possible by this baptismal bond. Baptism is a sacrament of unity, where many different members are incorporated into the one body of Christ. Because of this, John Paul ii queries how we can possibly remain divided, when we have all been baptised into Christ’s death and resurrection, through which God “has broken down the walls of division?”56 Baptism into Christ unites all Christians, despite their divisions. It is relationship with Christ through baptism, which enables relationship with other Christians. According to Congar, “on the basis of the baptism which incorporates us into Christ and the Word which is our Christian norm, [ecumenism’s] aim is to carry out the will and the prayer of Christ, which is that his disciples should be united.”57 The Christological foundation of Spiritual Ecumenism affirms that ecumenism is not our idea or goal, but rather Christ’s will and prayer for us. Moreover, Christian unity already exists to some extent among all baptised Christians because of their relationship with Christ. Only through Christ is ecumenism possible. Kasper explains that Spiritual Ecumenism’s fundamental Christological basis means that any ecumenical spirituality “will also be a sacramental spirituality.”58 Baptism is “therefore a basic element of ecumenical spirituality.”59 The Christological foundation of unity in baptism allows the mutual learning commended by Receptive Ecumenism. Kasper, emphasising this point, considers that, “we can already live this still imperfect communion. … For we have more in common than what divides us.”60 Receptive Ecumenism should, therefore, not lose sight of the fact that it is Christ who stands at the centre of ecumenism, and so, can benefit from Spiritual Ecumenism in this respect. There is a third consideration, namely, hospitality. For Murray, one of Receptive Ecumenism’s “core values” is “responsible hospitality.”61 Further 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Vatican ii, UR, no. 8. Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. Vatican ii, UR, no. 3. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 6. Congar, The Word and the Spirit, 132. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 164. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 165. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 43. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16.

132 CHAPTER 6 explication of the meaning of hospitality for Receptive Ecumenism would be valuable. Here, Spiritual Ecumenism has something to offer. In the Receptive Ecumenism volume, Sheldrake places a strong emphasis on hospitality as an “important concept.”62 For him, hospitality is “not the same as assimilation of what is ‘other’ into me.”63 Rather, hospitality “concerns the reception of what is strange and what remains strange, or at least ‘other.’ ”64 This is an important point for Receptive Ecumenism: hospitality expects nothing in return for giving. Kasper attests that the Jesus revealed throughout the Gospel is a “person for others,” who “did not come to dominate but to serve.”65 Indeed, radical hospitality was characteristic of the historical Jesus. Spiritual Ecumenism emphasises Christian hospitality by placing, as its first duty, love for one ­another. ­Spiritual Ecumenism is, therefore, not concerned with changing others or trying to convert them. It exists within an understanding of hospitality which respects the “otherness” of the other. In a paper presented at the second conference, David Pascoe explains the notion of hospitality as foundational for ecclesial learning.66 He argues that deepening interior conversion results from “hospitable engagement with another church whose gifts are recognised and received.”67 There results a process of “transformational learning” wherein a tradition becomes more deeply itself through engagement with others. This has its “foundation in what is proper to spiritual ecumenism.”68 In light of the positions of Murray, Sheldrake, and Pascoe, Receptive Ecumenism would benefit from further exploration of the place of hospitality, particularly in regard to the “other.” However, hospitality may also act as something of a critique of Receptive Ecumenism’s pragmatic focus on the interior benefits to be gained through ecumenical engagement. Receptive Ecumenism asserts that other communities have much to teach one’s own community, and therefore, ecumenical engagement will strengthen and enrich one’s own tradition. However, a key dimension of hospitality is not to require anything from the “other.” Therefore, an ecumenism of hospitality would undertake ecumenical engagement without expecting anything in return –​in accordance with Christ’s example of hospitality. Pohl makes the point that “seeking to gain advantage through hospitality

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 55. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 56. Sheldrake, “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People,” 56. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 39. Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility.” Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility.” Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility.”

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

133

undermines it as a moral practice. If hospitality is calculated, the moral bond between host and guest is destroyed.”69 She asserts that, “Hospitality is fragile because it is to be offered out of kindness only.”70 Hospitality neither aims to incorporate the “other” into the self, nor even into one’s own tradition. Nor should it be undertaken out of any sense of reciprocity. Hospitality is giving without any expectation of receiving, after the example of Christ. For Pohl, “Our hospitality both reflects and participates in God’s hospitality.”71 Hospitality, when understood as engagement with the “other” with no requirements or expectations, constitutes an interesting counter to what could be considered to be Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on the gains to be had by receiving, rather than giving. Pohl makes the point that hospitality can be misused: The temptation to use hospitality for advantage remains an important issue today because we tend to be so instrumental in our thinking, so calculating, so aware of costs and benefits. We continually ask, almost as an expression of good stewardship, “Well, what will it accomplish? How is it useful?”72 For Receptive Ecumenism, this is a question worth taking seriously. Receptive Ecumenism is undertaken for the purpose of learning from others, and thereby enriching one’s own community. Receptive Ecumenism must, therefore, be careful not to misuse or neglect the notion of Christ’s gratuitous hospitality which is not tied to pragmatic concerns. Hospitality “depends on a disposition of love because, fundamentally, hospitality is simply love in action.”73 Hospitality is a key virtue for Receptive Ecumenism, and one which highlights a tension in the approach around the mechanism of giving/​receiving as opposed to unilateral receiving. The method is based on the assertion that it is our own church which seeks to change, rather than any quid pro quo sense of mutual change. Hospitality is therefore a fundamental Receptive Ecumenical virtue as the method does not require or expect any change on behalf of the “other.” However, it does flip the traditional relationship roles on its head, as the host is the one who receives from the guest, rather than vice versa. A stronger emphasis on Christological hospitality may be necessary for Receptive Ecumenism, 69 70 71 72 73

Christine D.  Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 142. Pohl, Making Room, 142. Pohl, Making Room, 172. Pohl, Making Room, 144. Pohl, Making Room, 172.

134 CHAPTER 6 lest it become too narrowly focused on concrete goals and achievements, on what can be gained from another tradition, rather than Christ’s selfless love. According to Pohl, “Hospitality is not optional for Christians, nor is it limited to those who are specifically gifted for it.”74 The same can be said of ecumenism itself, as Receptive Ecumenism recognises. While Receptive Ecumenism intentionally focuses on receiving, rather than giving, hospitality places its emphasis on giving instead of receiving. Hospitality is therefore an important value for Receptive Ecumenism. Hospitality, when understood in relation to guiding encounters with our ecumenical “others,” places no requirements or expectations upon them. It is our church which seeks change; not to change them. Hospitality is a guiding virtue for Receptive Ecumenism, as it highlights that we approach others seeking not to take anything from them, but to find a fuller awareness of our own tradition through receptive ecclesial learning. Hospitality guides us in the appropriate manner of inviting another tradition in, listening, reflecting and learning from them –​not solely to learn from them, but also to encounter them as guests, as our brothers and sisters in Christ. When Christ is the axis of unity, relationships with all Christians become possible. Putney explicates this point:  “The unity Christians have with each other arises from this prior unity they have through Christ.”75 Ecclesial learning, which is the focus of Receptive Ecumenism, needs to be explicitly and completely based on our unity in Christ. However, this Christological foundation also requires an accompanying pneumatological emphasis. 2.2 Pneumatological Foundation As pointed out in Chapter Three, pneumatology is one of the major themes within the Receptive Ecumenism volume. However, the pneumatological basis of Receptive Ecumenism has not yet been fully explicated. Murray recognises that Receptive Ecumenism is “a Spirit-​driven movement of the heart, mind, and will.”76 For him, one of its “guiding principles” is that “we need to ‘lean-​into’ the promise of God’s purpose and the presence of God’s Spirit and to ask what it means in practice for us to enter into this more fully in the here and now.”77 While Receptive Ecumenism thus presumes a pneumatological foundation, it needs to be drawn out further. Receptive Ecumenism can benefit from the richness and depth of pneumatology expressed within Spiritual Ecumenism, especially under the three following headings: 1) ecumenism as the work of the Spirit; 2) the 74 75 76 77

Pohl, Making Room, 31. Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 184. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 89.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

135

importance of pneumatology in developing criteria for Receptive Ecumenism; and 3) the significance of the “sense of the faithful” (sensus fidelium). For its part, Spiritual Ecumenism is deeply pneumatological. The spirit at the heart of Spiritual Ecumenism is none other than the Holy Spirit.78 Ecumenism is not the achievement of human beings, but rather the work of the Spirit implementing Christ’s will for unity. Christology and pneumatology are interconnected in ecumenism, as Kasper attests, “It is the Spirit of God that makes us increasingly aware of Jesus Christ’s commandment of unity to his disciples.”79 Ware argues that Receptive Ecumenism involves calling on the Holy Spirit, as he stresses: “Receptive ecumenism signifies a continual epiclesis of the Paraclete.”80 Therefore, while based in the Trinitarian context, Receptive Ecumenism is focused specifically on the Spirit as the one who opens our hearts to God and each other. It is the Holy Spirit, Congar explains, who acts to “convince us of our sins, to awaken in us a realization that we are not all that we should be.”81 Awareness of sin and our own incompleteness are critical factors in fostering the desire for unity: “No unitive endeavour can succeed unless it is based on a sense of our own guilt, of the ills we have inflicted on each other and an acknowledgment of it.”82 This affective experience of repentance and longing for fulfilment is inspired by the Spirit, and is a fundamental dimension of Spiritual Ecumenism. Repentance and yearning for fulfilment can also be seen as prerequisites for Receptive Ecumenism, as it implies an awareness of deficit that can only be corrected by learning from others. The sense of repentance accompanying the desire for unity witnesses to the necessary role of the Spirit in ecumenical activity. Spiritual Ecumenism places primary importance on the assertion that unity is the work of the Spirit. As Kasper explains, “Christian unity cannot only be the fruit of human effort; we cannot as human beings ‘make’ or organize it. We can only receive it as a gift of the Spirit.”83 Ecumenism is, then, essentially a spiritual activity, a point reiterated by Putney: “Ecumenism is always an intensely spiritual experience. It occurs in the Spirit. To engage in dialogue is no more than to respond to the Holy Spirit.”84 What, then, are the implications for Receptive Ecumenism?

78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Kasper, That They May All Be One, 4. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 47. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 103. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 103. Kasper, “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 185.

136 CHAPTER 6 Receptive Ecumenism emphasises the need to learn and receive from Christians of other traditions –​without demeaning one’s own spiritual inheritance. Unitatis Redintegratio states “that anything wrought by the grace of the holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brothers and sisters can contribute to our own edification.”85 The key point here is that it is the activity or gifts of the Spirit bestowed on these traditions that the Catholic Church can accept and receive into itself. The guidance of the Spirit, therefore, is the principle of discernment as to what the Catholic Church may, or may not, authentically receive. The task of the Spirit is not only to foster ecumenism, but also to guide the church in the reception of gifts. The need for guidance and discernment points to the necessity of Receptive Ecumenism developing a deeper, more nuanced, pneumatological foundation. The development of some guiding criteria for Receptive Ecumenical learning has been raised previously. Clearly, such criteria must have a spiritual foundation. Congar writes on this point: “The Holy Spirit, then, leads us and guides us into ‘all truth.’ ”86 Such learning and guidance requires trust in the Spirit, along with the humility to recognise that unity is ultimately the work of God. Spiritual Ecumenism’s pneumatological basis, therefore, has special value in formulating such a set of guiding principles for Receptive Ecumenical engagement. Congar remarks, in reference to Unitatis Redintegratio, that ecumenism is “fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit,” but that “Christians should ‘go forward … without prejudging the future inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’ ”87 If ecumenism is truly the activity of the Spirit, ecumenists must leave unity up to the Spirit of God, without presuming or restricting its movements. There is a sense of proceeding in a “cloud of unknowing,” and with a distinctive via negativa –​ for the shape of Christian unity and the paths to it remain unknown. Spiritual Ecumenism requires trust in the Spirit for guidance and surrender of human control and calculation. In this respect, trust in the Spirit is paradoxically liberating. As Douglas Koskela articulates, the very fact that the Spirit moves in new and surprising ways means we can never lose hope for Christian unity.88 Trust and hope in the Holy Spirit is also a theme reflected upon memorably by Putney: The Spirit will never lead them in any direction other than to him. The Spirit will never lead them to think something contrary to what he has 85 86 87 88

Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 104–​105. Congar, The Word and the Spirit, 132. Koskela, Ecclesiality and Ecumenism, 150.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

137

taught; and the Spirit will find ways of revealing to them what is God’s will, even when they are resistant. One can conclude from these fundamental affirmations that the Spirit has never revealed to Christians different truths. Because God respects their different cultures, languages and histories, the Spirit will have revealed the one truth to them in different forms. Sometimes too the Spirit will have revealed to one or another a new insight into the truth which is meant as a gift for all, even if the gift is first received by one divided from another. Perhaps, too, the Spirit is hindered from revealing ‘everything’ because of the barriers which divisions have created in the hearts and minds of Christians.89 Putney’s words raise five important points relevant to Receptive Ecumenism’s commitment to ecclesial learning: i) the Spirit will guide ecumenical endeavours; ii) what is required from us is prayer, repentance, and trust; iii) while there is only one truth, there may be different interpretations of that one truth; iv) the Spirit may have given one community a gift meant for the whole body of Christ; v) and the Spirit will not lead us astray. In a similar way, Denis Edwards’s application of Congar’s notion of the charisms of the Spirit to Receptive Ecumenism breaks new ground.90 Edwards argues that “a theology of institutional charisms can contribute to the development of receptive ecumenism.”91 He concedes that while a pneumatological focus on charisms cannot explicitly be seen in the Receptive Ecumenism volume, it is still “implicit in much of the discussions.”92 In addressing the topic of Congar’s discussion of the charisms of the Spirit for Receptive Ecumenism, he endorses the primary importance of the Holy Spirit for all ecumenical endeavours: “there is a need to invoke the Spirit at every point along the journey and to be open to the Spirit leading us into the new.”93 This receptivity towards the Spirit can lead to the realisation that other traditions “may embody an institutional charism.”94 This point supports Putney’s assertion that the Spirit may give one tradition a gift (charism) intended for all. Edwards defines these charisms as “gifts of nature and grace given for the fulfilment of the

89 90 91 92 93 94

Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 185. Denis Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church: the Example of Justification,” The Australasian Catholic Record 86, no. 4 (2009). Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 457. With the exception, he points out, of the article by Ladislas Ӧrsy. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 457–​458. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 460. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 460.

138 CHAPTER 6 mission of the church.”95 In continuity with Vatican ii’s teachings, therefore, an institutional charism, once recognised as given by the Spirit for the entire church, can be authentically received by the Catholic Church. Consequently, while Receptive Ecumenism is concerned with the value of ecclesial learning, it must develop a capacity for authentic reception in regard to the teachings, values, and institutions of other Christian communities. Otherwise, Receptive Ecumenism may degenerate into fragmentation and relativism, rather than promoting g­ enuine conversion. A basic question remains:  How can such an institutional charism be discerned? Edwards calls on Congar to clarify what is implied in the discernment of charisms in a partner church.96 Accordingly, he offers six criteria for the recognition of an institutional charism. Firstly, that the charism must be recognised as “an authentic expression” of faith. Secondly, that the charism leads to Christ. Thirdly, that it does not undermine the ecclesiology of the receiving church. Fourthly, that it can be considered an “organic development” of the ­receiving church’s faith. Fifthly, that it brings the receiving church “renewed energy and life.” Sixthly, that it is “accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit.”97 Meeting these conditions, he argues, means that the charism can be “celebrated as an institutional charism of the Spirit” and as “a gift of God for the ­receiving church.”98 Thus, Edwards provides a starting point in the process of developing criteria for Receptive Ecumenical learning. Notably, his suggestions are both pneumatological and Christological. The positions of Edwards and Putney on the need for Receptive Ecumenism to be guided by the Holy Spirit mitigate the risk of fragmentation. Here, mutual learning is solidly grounded in Christ and the Spirit. Without this theocentric perspective, division and fruitless argument may surely result. This is, therefore, a key point where Receptive Ecumenism can be enriched by further engagement with Spiritual Ecumenism. In this context, the notion of the sensus fidelium as informing Receptive Ecumenism emerges with fresh relevance. Ormond Rush provides a pneumatological justification for Receptive Ecumenism. He states that “any theology of Receptive Ecumenism must be grounded in a pneumatology which gives appropriate weight to this active ‘principle of reception’, the Holy Spirit.”99 He

95 96 97 98 99

Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 459. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 462. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 462. Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church,” 462. Ormond Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and Discerning the Sensus Fidelium:  Expanding the Categories for a Catholic Reception of Revelation,” Theological Studies 78, no.  3 (2017): 560–​561.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

139

explains that “the ecclesial instrument for learning, given by the teaching Spirit, is faith’s organ for understanding, the gift of a ‘sense’ of/​for the faith.”100 Here Rush identifies Receptive Ecumenism as fundamentally grounded in pneumatology. For him, the specific mechanism operating in inter-​Christian learning is the sense of the faithful, given by the Holy Spirit. Vatican ii’s notion of the sensus fidelium presumes that the Holy Spirit works through the whole people of God, and that the people of God “cannot be mistaken in belief,” for this sense of the faith is “sustained by the Spirit.”101 Accordingly, Rush defines the sensus fidelium as an “ecclesial gift in which all individual believers participate and which enables the whole church to receive and to transmit the faith effectively and faithfully into new cultures and contexts.”102 In view of the fact that Receptive Ecumenism explicitly presents itself as a “democratised” ecumenism, involving the entire church, then, as Rush argues, this sensus fidelium provides a pneumatological basis for it. Receptive Ecumenism’s concept of democratised ecumenism can therefore be developed further in relation to the sensus fidelium. However, Rush acknowledges that the process of actually discerning the sensus fidelium “is somewhat problematic,” because “it is a spiritual reality.”103 His understanding of the relationship of the sensus fidelium to Receptive Ecumenism strongly emphasises Receptive Ecumenism as a form of Spiritual Ecumenism. Nonetheless, despite problems involved in discerning the sense of the faithful, Rush believes that “employing the rubric of sensus fidei for conceiving faith’s organ of recognition for determining what is true or false to the faith can open new perspectives in ecumenical dialogue.”104 He goes on to outline seven potential advantages.105 The first advantage to Receptive Ecumenism is “methodological,” by grounding “reception” within the “double gift exchange” of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The second is “pneumatological,” as “it seeks a theology of Receptive Ecumenism that is explicitly pneumatological, in a way that balances the mission of the Word and the mission of the Spirit.”106 These two points correlate with the previous argument that Receptive Ecumenism needs to deepen its Christological and pneumatological foundation. The third

1 00 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 561. 101 Vatican ii, LG, no. 12. 102 Ormond Rush, The Eyes of Faith: The Sense of the Faithful and the Church’s Reception of Revelation (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 2. 103 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 569. 104 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 570. 105 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 571. 106 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 571.

140 CHAPTER 6 advantage for Receptive Ecumenism is “eschatological,” as emphasising the pneumatological “source of the gift of faith” highlights the “eschatological dimension of Christian truth.” An eschatological understanding of truth already resonates within Murray’s work on Receptive Ecumenism, especially regarding Receptive Ecumenism as an approach of committed pluralism. The fourth is “pisteological,” by “focusing on faith as the reception of revelation,” particularly “the sensus fidei, given to all the baptised by the Holy Spirit.” Rush explains that it “is this sensus fidei that constitutes the organ of recognition in ecumenical dialogue.” That Receptive Ecumenism could emphasis baptism and the role of the Holy Spirit more clearly has been discussed above. The fifth advantage is “hermeneutical,” by explicating the “interpretative dimension of all practices and doctrines.” This point, in particular, has great potential for Receptive Ecumenism. Number six points to “its heuristic possibilities,” because “it may just open up new perspectives on Receptive Ecumenism.” He provides the example of “framing” the analysis, and discussions of current divisions “in terms of differentiated interpretations or senses of the faith.” This is “one way of further developing the differentiated consensus methodology of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”107 The final advantage is “pedagogical,” focusing on what the Catholic Church may be able to learn regarding the interior “reception of the sensus fidelium.”108 Here, we are at the heart of Receptive Ecumenism. As such, further explication of the role of the sensus fidelium could deepen and ground Receptive Ecumenism. In an earlier book, Rush discusses the concept of a “reception pneumatology.”109 This asserts that while it is our responsibility to seek to “understand, interpret, and apply the Gospel anew … it is not our work.”110 That work belongs to the Holy Spirit, “who is our communal memory, preventing ecclesial amnesia and igniting our creativity.”111 This “reception pneumatology” is a resource for the further development of Receptive Ecumenism’s pneumatological basis. The central importance of pneumatology for Receptive Ecumenism clearly emerges. At a fundamental level, Receptive Ecumenism, following Spiritual Ecumenism, is a call to Spirit-​inspired conversion. Developing these pneumatological dimensions is vital for Receptive Ecumenism’s maturation, especially in the area of ecclesial learning. The role of the Holy Spirit within ecumenical 1 07 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 571. 108 Rush, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Sensus Fidelium,” 572. 109 Ormond Rush, Still Interpreting Vatican II:  Some Hermeneutical Principles (New  York: Paulist Press, 2004), 77. 110 Rush, Still Interpreting Vatican II, 77. 111 Rush, Still Interpreting Vatican II, 77.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

141

activity is beautifully expressed by Congar, in an article originally published in 1950: The Holy Spirit is the sun of the soul and, at the same time, the wind ‘blowing where it will’ (John 3:8), sowing the seed of its choice where no human hand has planted. He is also the life-​thrust urging on its growth and he provides the soil to nourish it.112 The metaphor of the Spirit as “the sun of the soul” anticipates Vatican ii’s later description of Spiritual Ecumenism as the “soul” of the Ecumenical Movement. For Receptive Ecumenism to realise its full potential, the centrality of the Spirit must be fully appreciated. This leads us, finally, to discuss the third area where Spiritual Ecumenism may further enrich Receptive Ecumenism: the model of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. 2.3 The Ecumenical Exchange of Gifts As discussed previously, Receptive Ecumenism places priority on receiving and learning, not giving and receiving. To that degree, it bypasses the ecumenical exchange of gifts. However, the ecumenical exchange of gifts, and the related theme of the indivisibility of teaching and learning, are two of the key themes in the Receptive Ecumenism volume –​mentioned in at least a third of the contributions. This unevenness in Receptive Ecumenism’s primary source material will require further analysis as the method continues to develop, especially as there is a tendency to fail to distinguish Receptive Ecumenism clearly from the gift exchange model. The ecumenical gift exchange has already been discussed within both Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism. Here we dwell only briefly on the potential value of Spiritual Ecumenism’s focus on the gift exchange for Receptive Ecumenism. In Receptive Ecumenical learning, the question arises as to what should be received, and what rejected. Who decides, and how do genuine gifts filter through the entire ecclesial community? On this point, O’Gara’s discussion of the need for the discernment of gifts or teachings is particularly helpful. She asks, “How do we distinguish between offering bread and offering a stone? Churches engaged in dialogue are familiar not just with the joy of having a gift accepted but also with the pain of having a gift refused out of fear that it is actually poison.”113 She allows that “refusing

112 Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 102. 113 O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 222.

142 CHAPTER 6 gifts is a complicated issue,” as different traditions emphasise different values.114 For her, the avoidance of relativism consists in a discernment process guided by “a firm foundation in Christological and trinitarian faith.”115 On this issue, Spiritual Ecumenism’s ecumenical exchange of gifts has something to offer Receptive Ecumenism. The reception of gifts can be approached only with humility and hope, grounded in Christ and the Spirit. The criteria for receiving or rejecting a gift therefore derives from a deepened Christological and pneumatological foundation. Spiritual Ecumenism’s concept of the gift exchange maintains the indivisibility of the process of teaching and learning, giving and receiving. While it is possible to emphasise one aspect over the other, the other is always implied. In this manner, even though Receptive Ecumenism emphasises only the receiving of gifts, the ecumenical gift exchange can still be seen as underpinning it in some way. The Spirit may well call both the host and the guest tradition to a renewed understanding of their identities through Receptive Ecumenical engagement, not just the host. This is a point that Murray emphasises –​along with affirming that, in no way, can Receptive Ecumenism require that others change. Giving and receiving are reciprocally dependent, but Receptive Ecumenism’s deliberate emphasis on receiving offers a creative and dynamic accent to the notion of ecumenism as an exchange, and one which is particularly suitable to today’s context. However, while Receptive Ecumenism explicitly and importantly focuses on receiving, it can only really be understood in relation to the older model of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. Receptive Ecumenism has a grounding and implicit basis in the gift exchange, something which is illustrated in the broader body of literature on Receptive Ecumenism. For example, Receptive Ecumenism’s implicit focus on the indivisibility of giving and receiving, teaching and learning is emphasised by Ware. He insists that “giving and receiving, teaching and learning, are mutually interdependent.”116 He illustrates this in his response to Receptive Ecumenism’s central question, where he writes: “What can and does my Church learn and receive from other Christian traditions?” However, he then goes on: “And what do these other Christian traditions need to learn and receive from my own tradition?”117 While the first question is recognisably the unilateral method of Receptive Ecumenism, the second question is one of mutuality. Murray explicitly focuses on reception and learning 1 14 115 116 117

O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 223. O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 225. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50. Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

143

only, as the point of Receptive Ecumenism, he stresses, is to focus on what we can learn, without consideration of what we may be able to teach.118 However, Ware considers the two questions together, as if one necessarily implies the other. In this regard, his presentation brings Receptive Ecumenism much closer to that of the ecumenical exchange of gifts. Ware writes that at first he set out to draw up “two lists,” one that sets out what the Orthodox Church can learn, and one which outlines what the Orthodox Church can teach.119 “Very quickly, however,” he explains “I discover that this approach will not work.”120 For, he realises, every point he believes the Orthodox Church could teach, they actually still need to “understand far better” themselves, and “other Christian communities can help us to do precisely this.”121 Ware resolves this by coming up with just one list of “themes” that “all of us need to explore in common.”122 So, with humility, Ware emphasises that everyone is learning, which correlates well with Receptive Ecumenism. However, learning and teaching, giving and receiving remain inseparable. He attests that by “learning from one another, and at the same time teaching one another,” we may “explore in common the urgent issues that at present we understand so imperfectly.”123 Thus, Ware presents an account of Receptive Ecumenism that emphasises learning but which is not divorced from teaching. The gift exchange may represent a more holistic vision of ecumenical activity. The two sides of the exchange inform and extend each other, in much the same way as personal and institutional conversion are dynamically related. Ecumenism is not only concerned with what can be received or learned, but also with what can be shared with one’s fellow Christians. For example, the Catholic Church has gifts and teachings to impart to other Christian communities, which they could authentically receive as gifts of the Spirit, just as these other Christian communities have gifts for the Catholic tradition. Ecumenism is, as John Paul ii affirmed, an exchange, not just a reception, of gifts. Moreover, gift-​giving is as much a process requiring discernment from the Spirit as gift-​receiving. As O’Gara and Putney point out, some gifts may need to be adjusted or repaired before they can be offered and given. For instance, Putney considers the gift of “priesthood and authority” in the exchange between

118 See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16–​17 and Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 87. 119 Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50. 120 Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50. 121 Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50. 122 Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 50. 123 Ware, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 52.

144 CHAPTER 6 Catholics and Methodists. He explains that differing understandings of priesthood and authority could be “an exchange of gifts which requires that one gift be adjusted in order to make room for the other to be received.”124 O’Gara also places a strong emphasis on the indivisibility of the gift exchange. In regards to the issue of the papacy, O’Gara writes that Catholics should desire to give the gift of the Petrine ministry to the whole of Christ’s Church, but acknowledges that “receiving gifts is not the only difficult part of the ecumenical gift ­exchange. Even offering them suitably can be a challenge.”125 Clearly, she appreciates both sides of the gift exchange –​not just the challenges of receiving, but also those of giving. She implies that there is particular challenge in “suitable” gift-​giving.126 Christians should desire to give as well as receive, to the extent that sometimes, “a gift needs to be repaired or changed before it is offered.”127 She remarks on the reluctance that may exist among Catholics to offer such gifts, and therefore appear to be giving away something vital to Catholic ecclesial identity.128 On this concern, O’Gara declares that we “must learn to want to share the gift of the papacy with others.”129 Her assertion of the indivisibility of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts highlights an area where Receptive Ecumenism may profit from further development. After all, ecumenism is an active pursuit, a movement into the future. As a call from Christ, and a vocation, ecumenism also requires stepping outside of comfort zones, giving to others, and may, at times, necessitate one to be the first to move towards another. In short, ecumenism is giving as well as receiving. But the exchange of gifts that may occur is never abstracted from its context of faith in Christ and surrender to the Spirit. It is only through the unity already given in Christ that Christians can share in and contribute to the exchange of gifts. Likewise, the Spirit is responsible for the gifts within the different communities, and for their exchange within the entire body of Christ. Receptive Ecumenism draws creatively on one side of the exchange; a key feature that distinguishes it from Spiritual Ecumenism. However, further articulation of how Receptive Ecumenism both connects to and diverges from Spiritual Ecumenism’s notion of the exchange of gifts would constitute a point of enrichment for Receptive Ecumenism.

1 24 125 126 127 128 129

Putney, “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue,” 127. O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” 21. O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” 21. O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” 21. O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” 22. O’Gara, “Christ’s Church Local and Global,” 22.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

3

145

Receptive Ecumenism as Reception of the Principles of Spiritual Ecumenism

As Murray argues, Receptive Ecumenism expands Spiritual Ecumenism’s role in the contemporary context, opening up new areas of fruitful engagement. However, the dynamic between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism also appears to be one of mutual enrichment. Although it cannot simply be considered a new name for Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism can best be understood as a part of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. As discussed, Receptive Ecumenism pushes Spiritual Ecumenism in different directions, and places distinctive emphases on key ideas and practices. Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism interprets Spiritual Ecumenism in a fresh way. The areas of difference are points of dynamic exchange and enrichment, rather than discord. It must be concluded, then, that Receptive Ecumenism is best understood within the framework of Spiritual Ecumenism. The interconnection between the two is neatly portrayed by Jeffrey Gros who writes that: “To the spiritual disciplines should be added a ‘receptive ecumenism.’ ”130 In short, Receptive Ecumenism cannot be properly understood without reference to Spiritual Ecumenism. Spiritual Ecumenism’s core aspects (interior conversion, pneumatology, the emphasis on the virtuous and affective levels of ecumenical activity, and even implicitly, the ecumenical gift exchange) underpin Receptive Ecumenism. However, the relationship between the two is dynamic in the sense that Receptive Ecumenism newly interprets and applies Spiritual Ecumenism for the contemporary context. Receptive Ecumenism is not the same as Spiritual Ecumenism  –​in the same way that a child is not the same as its parent. As such, to push the metaphor further, Spiritual Ecumenism still has a parental role to play in the maturation process of Receptive Ecumenism, as discussed above. Nonetheless, the differences between them are more complementary than contrary. To that degree, Receptive Ecumenism can be considered a reception of the principles of Spiritual Ecumenism as it emerged over fifty years ago in Vatican ii, and, prior to the Council, in the work of Couturier and Congar. “Reception,” as Rush explains, “is always a selection from the past. From the treasure house of tradition, the church brings to the foreground what was previously neglected or explicitly rejected.”131 Receptive Ecumenism certainly

1 30 Gros, “The Ecumenical Calling of the Academic Theologian,” 377. 131 Rush, Still Interpreting Vatican II, 79.

146 CHAPTER 6 brings to centre stage neglected and even dormant aspects of Spiritual Ecumenism (for example, institutional conversion). Moreover, recognising Receptive Ecumenism as a reception of the principles of Spiritual Ecumenism ­concurs with Murray’s assessment of Receptive Ecumenism as “a new name for some old ways of thinking.”132 Murray points out at length that: … the question needs to be asked as to whether there is actually anything that new here and, if so, what exactly? After all, has not the idea of being open to learning and receiving from the separated Christian other been a feature of ecumenical thought and practice throughout? Was it not as the heart of Abbé Paul Couturier’s visionary work? Is it not presupposed in the bilateral and multilateral processes and the relationships of trust and mutual openness that makes their work possible? Indeed, do not some of the more recent bilateral documents explicitly acknowledge the need for a mutual receptive learning that goes beyond the concern to bring differing languages into reconciled conversation, most notably The Gift of Authority of the second phase of the Anglican-​Roman Catholic International Commission and the most recent document of the Joint International Commission for Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, The Grace Given You in Christ? Again, are the priorities of Receptive Ecumenism not in evidence in exemplary form in Pope John Paul ii’s remarkable call in his 1995 encyclical letter, Ut Unum Sint, for theologians and leaders in other traditions to help re-​imagine the papacy so that it might once again be the focus of communion rather than the continuing cause of division it currently is? And similarly, as already noted, does it not resonate with the call expressed by Cardinal Walter Kasper and Archbishop Rowan Williams for a ‘Spiritual Ecumenism’?133 He concedes that “all of this is true,” but sees the distinctiveness of Receptive Ecumenism as proposing a “strategic, programmatic priority to it.”134 That is to suggest that Receptive Ecumenism is reformulating and re-​emphasising key elements of Spiritual Ecumenism in an attempt to release its potential in the contemporary milieu. Receptive Ecumenism can, therefore, be properly understood as a reception of Spiritual Ecumenism. For example, a key point here is that of the seeming divergence between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism over the interpretation of the extent of the 1 32 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. 133 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 38. 134 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 39.

The Complementarity of Spiritual and Receptive Ecumenism

147

latter’s scope. Murray argues that Spiritual Ecumenism has become relegated to the personal sphere.135 Due to this interpretation, he argues that Receptive Ecumenism aims to “reclaim the full radical intent of Couturier’s spiritual ecumenism” and reassert its potential for “structural, institutional, ecclesial and theological renewal.”136 From examining key texts from the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, there appears little evidence that Couturier, the conciliar documents, John Paul ii, Kasper, or O’Gara would so limit the scope of Spiritual Ecumenism. Therefore, its range should rightly extend to institutional conversion. The fact the Spiritual Ecumenism has often been emphasised only in regards to personal conversion is a great loss to the Ecumenical Movement. The call for interior conversion is not limited to individuals, but calls for the conversion of the whole church. Murray is right to point out and challenge this common misconception about Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism remedies this distortion by deliberately highlighting the “interpersonal and structural-​ institutional dimensions” that need to accompany the personal; which is very important for the future of ecumenism.137 In sum, Receptive Ecumenism’s development out of the Spiritual Ecumenical trajectory is an aspect that should be highlighted. Tightly weaving Receptive Ecumenism into broader Catholic ecumenism as a form of Spiritual ­Ecumenism would serve to strengthen and enrich it. Consider, for example, the fact of simplicity as simultaneously being both the strength and weakness of Receptive Ecumenism. Simplicity is a great strength: its fundamental principle expressed in the question, “what can we learn from other Christian traditions?” is undeniably appealing and in some measure disarming. However, it may also be a problem, due primarily to its apparent lack of depth. Where is the depth or richness to be discovered within Receptive Ecumenism? If looked at without reference to the context of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, it may appear lacking in substance, especially with regard to other ecumenical theologies. However, rightly considered in relation to Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism can be perceived in a different light. It can be understood as having a rich and valuable heritage that deserves critical appreciation. Receptive Ecumenism is a dynamic development of Spiritual Ecumenism, with significant potential for ecumenical renewal. From this point of view, the relationship between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism is dynamic and interdependent. Together, they represent the heart (Receptive Ecumenism) and soul (Spiritual Ecumenism) of the ecumenical 1 35 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. 136 Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” 137 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15.

148 CHAPTER 6 endeavour. They are not two separate paths, but rather one intertwined path, which forms the foundations of the Ecumenical Movement which we are called to traverse. As a form of Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism activates the spiritual and affective dimensions of ecumenical engagement sorely needed at the present time. In this time of ecumenical winter, when theological and practical ecumenism appear to be largely dormant, the time seems ripe to tap into the enlivening influences of the spiritual and affective aspects of ecumenism. The affective and spiritual dimension is one that both strongly identifies Receptive Ecumenism as part of Spiritual Ecumenism, and differentiates Receptive Ecumenism from other ecumenical approaches. As such, a more in-​depth examination of the role of the virtues, especially humility and hope, within Receptive Ecumenism seems warranted.

­c hapter 7

Essentials for Walking the Path: Receptive Ecumenical Virtues One of the most striking features of Receptive Ecumenism is the priority it places on the affective and virtuous aspects of ecumenism. Murray describes Receptive Ecumenical “awakening” as a “matter of the heart,” of “falling in love with the experienced presence and action of God in the people, practices even structures of another tradition.”1 Once in love, we are then “impelled” to seek “ways in which all impediments to closer relationship might be overcome.”2 Love is the primary motive behind all ecumenical activity; but it receives particular emphasis in Receptive Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism aims to operate on both the affective and intellectual levels of ecumenical engagement. This is one of the key aspects that differentiates it from other ecumenical approaches. As such, the importance of the affective and virtuous dimensions of Receptive Ecumenism, and their significance for the Ecumenical Movement as a whole needs to be explored. 1

The Spiritual, Virtuous, and Affective Aspects of Receptive Ecumenism

Contemporary theology has seen something of a revival of focus on the virtues, and a rediscovery of the significance of the affective dimensions of human experience. The importance of emphasising the spiritual, virtuous and affective aspects of ecumenical engagement for the contemporary Ecumenical Movement is also beginning to emerge. Ecumenism has never just been an intellectual endeavour. It is something that must also be felt. Ecumenism is an act of love. This loves springs from the desire to be one, as Christ prayed for us (Jn 17:21). Ecumenism is therefore affective: it is an impulse of hope, of humility, of awe, and above all, of love. Ecumenism is not only a rational matter of the head, a discussion of doctrinal, theological, structural, or hermeneutical differences between Christians. Ecumenism is also a movement of the heart,

1 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 14. 2 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 14.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_008

150 CHAPTER 7 inspired by the Holy Spirit. Ecumenism stems from the desire for unity; from repentance for the harms caused by division; from faith in God’s will; from hope for our future oneness in Christ. It is an intrinsically virtuous activity, especially involving humility, faith, hope, and love. The virtuous nature of ecumenical activity receives clear expression within Receptive Ecumenism. Murray explains that “Receptive Ecumenism is also an ecumenism of desire, even love.”3 Moreover, he attests that while always requiring testing “by the head,” ecumenical learning is “most deeply an affair of the heart.”4 It is love that moves us to see the riches and beauty of another tradition, and love that drives us towards unity with them. Love is the primary motive behind all ecumenical activity and Christianity itself. We display our love of God through loving each other. All ecumenical actions, discernment and decision-​making should be guided by love. As Werner Jeanrond writes, “Love seeks the other. Love desires to relate to the other, to get to know the other, to admire the other, to experience the other’s life, to spend time with the other.”5 Love is the driving ecumenical force, pulling us together as one. Murray therefore insists that love is “the way of ecclesial transformation.”6 This statement resonates with Unitatis Redintegratio’s conviction that love must receive priority above all else.7 The affective dimension of Receptive Ecumenism is illustrated clearly in his following comments: Aware of our needs and frustrations that we cannot alone resolve, we come to look with the eyes of desire on the particular gifts and strengths of our other; wanting to move towards them and to benefit for ourselves from the gifts and strengths we see there and which we know ourselves to need. It is a matter of falling in love; of putting the erotics back into ecumenism. If awareness of lack and need disposes us to be prepared to change, loving, even erotic, desire draws us on.8 Recent theological studies on love have attempted to recover a positive understanding of the erotic aspect of love; indeed, of understanding that all love involves aspects of desire.9 While discussing Aristophane’s myth of the

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 86. Werner G. Jeanrond, A Theology of Love (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 2. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 89. Vatican ii, UR, no. 4. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Jeanrond, A Theology of Love, 6.

Essentials for Walking the Path

151

creation of humanity and the Greek god Eros, Jeanrond explains erotic love as “a desire for human wholeness intimately bound to proper behaviour towards the gods.”10 Understood in such a way, Receptive Ecumenism certainly does involve erotic love. Murray’s passionate argument indicates that the motivation behind Receptive Ecumenism is nothing else but such love. While we may each practice ecumenism in a variety of ways, it is pertinent to remember that we all undertake this task out of love. As Scripture reminds us:  “Let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God […]. Since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (1 Jn 4:7–​11). And here lies the very heart of ecumenism: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). Murray’s use of such evocative phrases as “putting the erotics back into ecumenism,” steer away from pure theological ecumenism, into an ecumenism of the heart. Receptive Ecumenism asks us to think first about what we can learn from others rather than what they need to learn from us; it asks us first to love, as Christ loved. We learn from the other so that we can love the other better, and in so doing, love Christ better. Receptive Ecumenism requires a fundamentally positive approach to other Christians, a turning towards them with eyes open to their goodness. In his exploration on the meaning of the virtue of love, Josef Pieper points out that love signifies approval of the other’s existence.11 “Loving someone or something means finding him or it probus, the Latin word for ‘good.’ It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, ‘It’s good that you exist; it’s good that you are in this world!’ ”12 He makes the point that all human love “is a reflection of the Creator’s creative love, by whose ‘approval’ all beings … exist at all.”13 Even more than this, however, loving is more than simply expressing good will for others; loving is about the desire to be one with the beloved. “When the true lover says, ‘It’s good that you exist,’ he wants to be one with the person he loves.”14 In line with this definition, Receptive Ecumenism’s approach to other Christians is directed by love; it involves an attitude of fundamental approval 10 11

12 13 14

Jeanrond, A Theology of Love, 14–​15. Josef Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love (San Francisco:  Ignatius, 1997), 163. Pieper goes on to explain that this approval does not mean a blind acceptance of everything that the loved one currently is or does. Love fundamentally involves forgiveness of their shortcomings. See 188–​189. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 163–​164. Pieper expands on the connection between loving and willing from 163–​172, even quoting Aquinas as attesting that “The first thing that a lover ‘wills’ is for the beloved to exist and live” 168. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 193. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 197.

152 CHAPTER 7 towards other traditions, founded on a basic realisation that their existence “is good” and the desire to be one with them. Without this, the process of Receptive Ecumenical learning could not succeed. Receptive Ecumenism requires us to approach other Christian traditions in such a loving way; love is therefore a key guideline for embarking on the Receptive Ecumenical path. In considering the process of Receptive Ecumenism, love is also a risk. Love opens us to vulnerability towards the other. Yet, we are impelled to love by Christ’s command. We also love out of our felt recognition of need for the other, and out of hope and trust in the other to return, rather than spurn, that love. Receptive Ecumenism could be considered a risky endeavour –​it places a church in a receptive, loving mode, rather than one of protected defensiveness. Yet, openness to the Spirit, and to others through the Spirit, is necessary for growth. Jeanrond makes the point that love cannot be made or created; we fall in love, we are pulled into love; love is bigger than ourselves.15 Love is God pulling us outside of ourselves in order to enter more deeply into the Spirit. Love makes us bigger, deeper, more complex, than we were before, but it also changes us –​it leads us towards God, towards conversion. Ecumenical love is a guiding virtue for ecclesial discernment because it orients us to Christ and each other –​it provides the impetus behind the quest for unity. Love, then, is the primary motive behind receptive ecclesial discernment. Josef Pieper makes the vital point that loving is not only about becoming closer (about unity), but that loving is actually only possible on the basis of a pre-​existing relationship. As he says, the fact is that “love not only yields and creates unity but also that its premise is unity.”16 This point is particularly important for ecumenical unity; love guides us in desiring to become one, which is the motive behind all ecumenical activity, but that desire stems from the fact of our already existing oneness, partial though it may currently be. Pieper paraphrases Paul Tillich’s definition of love, which is strikingly applicable for ecumenical unity: “Love, he says, is not so much the union of those who are strangers to one another as the reunion of those who have been alienated from one another.”17 All baptised are brothers and sisters in Christ; we are family. On the foundation of that relationship, ecumenical love calls us to risk opening ourselves to each other, receiving each other, out of love in order to continue to grow and deepen our relationship with Christ. As a guiding ecumenical virtue, love calls us to reach out to our ecumenical brethren and begin the pilgrimage of Receptive Ecumenism, the ultimate goal of which is Christian unity. Love 15 16 17

Jeanrond, A Theology of Love, 4. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 159. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 159–​160.

Essentials for Walking the Path

153

is the virtue which can conquer fear or resistance to change, which is one of Receptive Ecumenism’s biggest obstacles. Love also finds concrete expression in hospitality, which was discussed in the previous chapter. Hospitality stems from love:  it is a guiding virtue for Receptive Ecumenical discernment because it reminds us that we approach others out of love, seeking not to take anything from them, or to remove their “otherness,” but to find a fuller awareness of our own tradition through receptive ecclesial learning. As Pohl says, hospitality “depends on a disposition of love because, fundamentally, hospitality is simply love in action.”18 In this way, Receptive Ecumenism enacts hospitality in a stronger manner even than traditional bilateral dialogues, which do operate on an expectation of mutual change. In no way is Receptive Ecumenism about absorbing or changing the “other”; it is about our own tradition opening itself to the will of the Spirit, and listening to who and what the “other” is, in all love –​the love that constantly desires to be closer. Receptive Ecumenism is also grounded in a realisation of deficiency, that we have wounds that need to be healed. Congar attests that, “The first step in the work of the Holy Spirit is to convince us of our sins, to awaken in us a realization that we are not all that we should be.”19 He goes on, explaining that this experience of humility is: The tap-​root, as it were, from which the fruits of the Holy Ghost, enumerated by St Paul, must spring (Gal 5:22). No unitive endeavour can succeed unless it is based on a sense of our own guilt, of the ills we have inflicted on each other and an acknowledgment of it.20 Humility is, therefore, to be considered the foundation from which desire for Christian unity originates, as its necessary predisposition. Congar calls humility “the psychological manifestation of truth.”21 It is the feeling and experience of truth, which leads us towards reform and metanoia. Kasper also emphasises the virtues behind ecumenical engagement. He writes that the dialogue of love and the dialogue of truth are both important and, in fact, inseparable. As he says:

18 19 20 21

Pohl, Making Room, 172. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 103. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 103. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, 104.

154 CHAPTER 7 Love without truth is void and dishonest; truth without love is hard and repelling. So we must seek the truth in love, bearing in mind that love can be authentic only when it is an expression of truth.22 As such, ecumenism requires recognition of its intrinsic affective and virtuous levels. On this basis, Kasper asserts that theological dialogues will only be successful if they involve more than merely intellectual skills; in fact, dialogue requires trust and friendship, common prayer and “sharing on a spiritual level.”23 Ecumenism always entails more than just an intellectual pursuit, or even shared practical initiatives. Ecumenical progress depends also on these more spiritual and affective aspects, which are experienced affectively, rather than operating on the rational mode alone. O’Gara places a similar emphasis on the affective and virtuous aspects of ecumenical engagement. She writes that ecumenism “takes imagination, faithfulness, and perseverance. These are virtues that will be needed by the next generation of ecumenists.”24 Like Congar, O’Gara has a particular emphasis on repentance, saying that “In a sense the entire ecumenical movement rests on recognizing the need for repentance, a willingness to ask whether we have a beam in our own eye before concerning ourselves with the mote in the other’s eye.”25 This accent on humility is also represented in Receptive Ecumenism’s explicitly self-​critical focus. Murray frequently refers to the virtuous and affective levels of ecumenical activity, such as hope and imagination. He is careful to point out that Receptive Ecumenism’s self-​critical attitude is motivated by love, by which he means “the full-​blooded commitment of heartfelt passion, with all that suggests about gratitude, delight, desire, the determination to struggle for something worth struggling for, and the patience to bear with it, even, if necessary, to suffer for it.”26 Receptive Ecumenism is therefore driven by love, guided by humility, and ultimately undertaken out of hope.27 The recognition of the affective, virtuous, and spiritual dimensions of ecumenism serves to illustrate the experience of ecumenism as operating at far more than just an intellectual level. Ideally, ecumenism balances head, heart, and soul. It is a holistic endeavour, but one which stems from desire, fanned by

22 23 24 25 26 27

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 45. Margaret O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue: The Next Generation,” in No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014), 217. O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 218. Murray, “Preface,” xiv-​xv. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 89.

Essentials for Walking the Path

155

the breath of the Spirit into our hearts. While all of these virtues are important for ecumenism, humility and hope seem to play a pivotal role, especially for Receptive Ecumenism. 2

Humility and Hope: Essential Receptive Ecumenical Virtues

Humility and hope are essential virtues for both Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism –​humility, in the recognition of present failures and shortcomings; hope, in the confidence that progress is possible. What follows is an investigation of the role of these two virtues for ecumenism broadly and Receptive Ecumenism specifically. The intention is not to give a full treatment of these virtues, but rather to explore the relationship between the two, and their significance for Receptive Ecumenism. The virtue of humility will be examined first, focusing on humility as the basis for all other virtues. Secondly, it will be posited that Christian hope is an act of humility. The constructive relevance of exploring these two virtues will then be made clear by an investigation of how the interplay of humility and hope create a particular attitude, here termed “hopeful humility,” which is of special significance for Receptive Ecumenism. 3

On Humility: the Basis of Virtue

This section sets out to make two main points: first, that the virtue of humility can be misunderstood (there are tensions regarding its position in the virtues); and second, that humility acts as the basis for virtue. Christian perspectives on humility involve a paradox. On the one hand, humility is fundamental to Christianity. Humility is highlighted throughout the Scriptures as essential.28 The significance of humility in Jesus’ teachings is undeniable.29 As Michael C ­ asey points out, humility is distinctive of “Jesus’ personal style,” and he himself is

28

29

Some Biblical references to humility include: Proverbs 3:34; Isaiah 66:2; Job 5:11; Psalms 25:9, 149:4; ii Chronicles 7:14; i Corinthians 1:27–​29; Matthew 5:3–​10, 11:25, 11:29, 19:30, 20:16, 20:27; Mark 9:35,10:15, 10:31, 10:44; Luke 13:30; Philippians 2:5–​9; 1 Peter 5: 5–​6. See the following article for a useful outline of the importance of humility in the Scriptures: James S. Spiegel, “The Moral Irony of Humility,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 6, no. 1 (2003): 138–​141. Spiegel, “The Moral Irony of Humility,” 140; Michael Casey, Truthful Living: Saint Benedict’s Teaching on Humility (Leominster: Gracewing, 2001), 10.

156 CHAPTER 7 the “model” of humility.30 Humility receives priority within many spiritual writings.31 Illustrated by Christ’s act of kenosis in the incarnation (Phil 2: 5–​11), humility appears to be a divine attribute. As Augustine attests, humility “comes from elsewhere, from the One who, being the Most High, wished to humble himself for us.”32 In a similar fashion, the eighteenth century missionary, Cajetan Mary da Bergamo declares: “Humility is a virtue that belongs essentially to Christ, not only as man, but more especially as God.”33 Humility appears to be rooted within nothing less than the humility of God, exemplified in Christ’s kenosis. “Humility matters,” as Mary Margaret Funk writes. “It is at the core of our experience of life in Christ.”34 However, despite this, humility is often viewed as something distasteful instead of desirable. Rather than listed as the foremost of the virtues, humility is relegated to being a lesser virtue, or worse, it is sometimes even not considered a “virtue” at all. Humility is something of a “despised” virtue, as Tom Frame observes.35 Thus, despite its centrality to Christianity, the meaning of humility can be misconstrued. As Pieper remarks, “the notion of humility has become blurred even in the Christian consciousness.”36 Humility is often described in the negative, as the “absence” of pride, rather than in any positive sense.37 The prevalence of this is such that, even in a contemporary article, Stephen Pardue goes to some pains to attest that Augustine understood humility as something that “empowers” and not just restrains.38 Moreover, humility is often defined as having a low opinion of oneself, and linked with self-​abasement.39 For example, 30 31

Casey, Truthful Living, 10. See, for example, the spiritual writings of St Benedict, Bernard of Clairvaux, Ignatius de Loyola, Thomas à Kempis, Cajetan Mary da Bergamo, and André Louf. 32 Quoted in André Louf, Humility (London:  The Catholic Truth Society, 2005), 11. For a discussion of Augustine’s approach to humility, see Stephen Pardue, “Kenosis and its Discontents:  Towards an Augustinian Account of Divine Humility,” Scottish Journal of Theology 65, no. 3 (2012). 33 Cajetan Mary da Bergamo, Humility of Heart, trans. Herbert Vaughan (Charlotte, NC: tan Books, 2006), 4. Originally published c. 1905. 34 Mary Margaret Funk, Humility Matters for Practicing the Spiritual Life (New York: Continuum, 2005), 9. 35 Tom Frame, “Humility: The Despised Virtue?” Quadrant 51, no. 4 (2007): 36. 36 Josef Pieper, Fortitude and Temperance, trans. Daniel F. Coogan (London: Faber and Faber, 1955), 106. 37 Some of the prevalence of this opinion can be traced back to Aquinas, who viewed humility largely in conjunction with pride, as its absence. See Frame, “Humility,” 37. 38 Pardue, “Kenosis and its Discontents.” 39 Mark Button, “ ‘A Monkish Kind of Virtue’? For and Against Humility,” Political Theory 33, no.  6 (2005):  842; Norvin Richards, “Is Humility a Virtue?” American Philosophical Quarterly 25, no.  3 (1988):  253; June Tangney, “Humility:  Theoretical Perspectives,

Essentials for Walking the Path

157

Jamie Schillinger defines humility as primarily centring on “self-​assessment,” writing that “humility picks up an attitude that emphasizes the lowliness of the self.”40 However, defining humility in terms of the self and in particular, as advocating a low opinion of oneself, seems difficult to reconcile with its depiction in scripture. Joan Chittister explains that over time, humility became increasingly connected with the concept of low self-​esteem. “Eventually,” she says, “the thought of humility was rejected out of hand, and we have been left as a civilization to stew in the consequences of our arrogance.”41 Moreover, outside of Christianity, humility is often disparaged. The notion of humility seems nonsensical compared with contemporary notions of “success,” as it opposes trends towards arrogance, prideful ambition, and selfishness.42 It also confronts contemporary notions of individuality and personhood. Humility is therefore “counter-​cultural,” opposing “a status quo that encourages arrogance and self-​aggrandizement at the expense of others.”43 Not surprisingly, secular philosophy does not typically accord humility with much veracity. As André Louf (1929–​2010)44 points out: In the eyes of Nietzsche, humility is the great lie of the weak that cunningly transforms cowardice into apparent virtue. For Freud it is a form of the masochistic guilt complex. For Adler, it runs close to a feeling of inferiority.45 While there is some indication that this situation may be changing, humility is still often reviled.46

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Empirical Findings and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19, no. 1 (2000): 71. Lisa Fullam, The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 3. Jamie Schillinger, “Intellectual Humility and Interreligious Dialogue between Christians and Muslims,” Islam and Christian-​Muslim Relations 23, no. 3 (2012): 399. Joan Chittister, The Rule of St Benedict:  A Spirituality for the 21st Century (New York: Crossroad, 2010), 77. Frame, “Humility,” 36. Frank Pakenham also makes this point, and recounts some of his own experiences in trying to understand humility, and why it is perceived so negatively. See: Frank Pakenham, Humility (London: Fontana Books, 1969), 16–​22. Elizabeth A. Dreyer, “Humility,” in The New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Philip Sheldrake (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 349. Louf is a Cistercian monk, who served as abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Mont-​des-​Cats in France from 1963 to 1997. André Louf, The Way of Humility, trans. Lawrence S.  Cunningham (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2007), 4. Recent research, undertaken from such fields as psychology, health, education, business and philosophy, appears to place more value on humility. See for example, Dusya Vera

158 CHAPTER 7 Therefore, the word “humility” seems to have largely negative connotations, such as guilt, fear, obedience, low self-​esteem, inferiority, punishment, humiliation, submission, and weakness. The prevalence of these misconceptions presents a skewed concept of humility with little resemblance to the actual virtue. As Elizabeth Dreyer attests, despite popular misconceptions, humility “does not demand that one become a doormat.”47 Rather, humility is about having a true understanding of oneself, rather than one which is over, or under, emphasised. As Pieper elucidates, “the ground of humility is man’s estimation of himself according to the truth. And that is almost all there is to it.”48 As such, Pieper expresses disbelief over how humility has subsequently become such “a bone of contention.”49 However, even within Christianity, humility faces “an ambiguous situation.”50 “If humility is such an important virtue,” asks Lisa Fullam, “what happened? Why is it missing from most contemporary accounts of the virtues?”51 Part of humility’s lack of regard is due to the negative misconceptions it has suffered. As Casey points out, it is not “unusual to find exhortations to humility and obedience coupled with a disregard for the rights of persons” or used as an excuse to deny participation in the church.52 He observes, “For many people humility does not seem like an appropriate ideal. This was true for the ancient Greeks, and it certainly corresponds to the way many of our contemporaries feel.”53 As he points out, humility does not receive positive treatment in Greek philosophy. Indeed, in ancient Greece, humility was “disdained, equated with low social status, lack of freedom and inability to influence the public arena.”54 Clearly, there is an essential disparity between the Christian and Greek understandings of humility, the ramifications of which have rippled through Christianity over the centuries. This is one of the key points made by Louf. In his influential essay, The Way of Humility, Louf seeks to recover the concept of humility using the theology of the Desert Fathers.55 This retrieval is

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

and Antonio Rodriguez-​Lopez, “Strategic Virtues:  Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage,” Organizational Dynamics 33, no. 4 (2004). Dreyer, “Humility,” 349. Pieper, Fortitude and Temperance, 106. Pieper, Fortitude and Temperance, 106. Louf, The Way of Humility, 4. Fullam, The Virtue of Humility, 3. Casey, Truthful Living, 11. Casey, Truthful Living, 10. Casey offers a helpful outline of some common reservations against humility on pages 14–​23. Dreyer, “Humility,” 238. Louf, The Way of Humility. The essay was first published in Italian in 2000, and French in 2002, before being translated into English.

Essentials for Walking the Path

159

necessary in view of the influence of Aquinas’s theology of the virtues, which can be seen as unfortunately contributing to a skewed understanding of humility. In attempting to integrate Christianity with Aristotle, Aquinas faced a particular problem with humility. While humility is extolled in Scripture with the highest of import, it is not included in Aristotle’s list of virtues.56 In fact, Greek philosophy considers pride to be a virtue. In “a risky move,” Louf writes that Aquinas “took as his own Origen’s assertion” that humility is included within the Greek concept of moderation.57 This leads Aquinas to classify humility “as a by-​product (if one dares use the word) of the virtue of temperance.”58 Consequently, humility ranks oddly low in Aquinas’s account of virtues, placed after the theological virtues, the intellectual virtues, and justice.59 As Servais-​ Théodore Pinckaers explains, “humility thus receives an overly modest position, which is understandable among pagan authors, but St. Thomas knows perfectly well its importance in Christian tradition.”60 Nevertheless, Aquinas relegates it as a lesser virtue, situating it as part of temperance, rather than as a virtue in its own right. Temperance is a virtue of moderation of the appetites, especially those of “desire and pleasure,” such as sex and food.61 Moreover, he views it almost exclusively in relation to pride, therefore in a negative rather than positive sense.62 Aquinas justifies including humility as part of temperance, rather than among the theological virtues (e.g., by relating it to the theological virtue of hope), by stating that “whatever virtues restrain or suppress … are reckoned parts of temperance.”63 Therefore, he goes on, as “humility suppresses the movement of hope [the passion, not the theological virtue], which is the movement of a spirit aiming at great things,” therefore humility belongs to temperance.64 Replying to an objection, he affirms the place of the 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Christopher Cordner, “Aristotelian Virtue and Its Limitations,” Philosophy 69, no.  269 (1994): 293. Louf, The Way of Humility, 7. Louf, The Way of Humility, 7. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica:  Complete and Unabridged, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Amazon Digital Services: Coyote Canyon Press, 2010), II-​II, q.61, a.65. Hereafter referred to as ST. Servais-​Théodore Pinckaers, “The Sources of the Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas,” in The Ethics of Aquinas, ed. Stephen J.  Pope (Washington:  Georgetown University Press, 2002), 23. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.141, a.143. Daniel J. Harrington and James F. Keenan, Paul and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology (Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), 145. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.164. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.164.

160 CHAPTER 7 theological virtues, as “the causes of all the other virtues,” and even though “humility is caused by reverence for God” this “does not prevent it from being part of temperance.”65 In sum, humility is not a theological virtue, the highest of virtues which underpin all other virtues. Rather it acts to restrain the passion of hope, which can lead to pride, and therefore is properly classed as part of temperance, which is to do with suppressing human appetites. Aquinas’s understanding of humility certainly seems to undervalue humility given its significance in scripture. However, as Louf points out, the position of humility within Aquinas’s own system is not without tension. Aquinas perceives the role of humility as restraining us from aiming “at greater things through confiding in one’s own powers” (pride). But humility does not, of course, inhibit us from aiming “at greater things through confidence in God’s help. … [As] the more one subjects oneself to God, the more is one exalted in God’s sight.”66 This leads him to state that “humility holds the first place [among the virtues], inasmuch as it expels pride … and makes man submissive and ever open to receive the influx of Divine grace.”67 In relation to deterring pride, humility is “first” in the virtues. However, in relation to other virtues, namely love, it ranks quite differently. One reason Aquinas objects to humility being the “greatest of the virtues” is because “charity is set above all virtues.”68 Therefore, from Aquinas’s perspective, while humility is not the greatest of all virtues, it does enable grace by countering pride, which is “the most grievous of sins.”69 This somewhat oddly recognises humility’s importance against its opposite (pride), but does not grant it a central place among the virtues, despite the preeminence of pride as a sin. Fullam expounds on this point, writing that in Aquinas’s view, even though humility opposes the vice of pride, which can be seen as the greatest of sins, it is not the greatest of virtues. Instead, humility is an “enabling” virtue, helping us to overcome pride, and therefore paving the way to the acquirement of other virtues.70 In view of all this, Louf explains that we should “not cast stones at Saint Thomas” as his “inculturation of the Gospel with the thought of Aristotle” was largely successful. However, “we might inquire whether, in such a system, humility might find itself a bit constricted or even demoted from the central role it plays in Christian experience.”71 The problem is compounded, as he explains, 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.164, reply to obj.161. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.162, reply to obj.162. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.165. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.161, a.165. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q. 162, a.167, reply to obj. 164. Fullam, The Virtue of Humility, 56. Louf, The Way of Humility, 8.

Essentials for Walking the Path

161

because while Aquinas himself apparently “tried to re-​configure the equilibrium with a larger emphasis on humility,” the same cannot always be said of those who followed after him.72 Aquinas himself manifestly expressed humility in his life and teachings. Pieper illustrates this point, writing on the “negative element” or “silence” of Aquinas’ work.73 Ultimately, Aquinas surrenders to the mystery and incomprehensibility of God, attesting: “this is the ultimate in human knowledge of God: to know that we do not know Him.”74 And, famously, Aquinas abandons writing his Summa, stating “All that I have hitherto written seems to me nothing but straw … compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.”75 Pieper explains that Aquinas’s last teaching is one that “God exceeds all our capabilities of possessing Him, that our knowledge can only be the cause of new questions, and every finding only the start of a new search.”76 This is nothing if not the heart of humility. Thus, the position of humility among Christian virtues is far from clear-​cut. The history of humility is paradoxically one of both recognition of its centrality to ­Christianity, and misunderstanding over its meaning. Therefore, as we have seen, there are different theological understandings of humility. Regarding its relation to other virtues, it could be seen that humility is a tangential rather than central virtue (following Aquinas). Indeed, Casey argues that “humility is powered primarily by the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.”77 This seems to place humility after the theological virtues, and arguably misunderstands the essence of humility. However, there is another way of viewing humility’s position amongst the virtues: that it acts as the basis for all other virtues. This is a key point over which many thinkers, ancient and contemporary, appear to be in accord. A brief selection of quotes from different thinkers serves to emphasise the point. Augustine (354–​430) states:  “Humility is the only thing required for the Christian life.”78 Similarly, the fourth century monk, Evagrius of Pontus writes: “Just as one who goes down into the bowels of the earth to find gold, so the one who humbles himself with the gold of humility extracts all virtues.”79 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Louf, The Way of Humility, 8. Josef Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas, trans. Daniel O’Connor (London:  Faber and Faber, 1957). Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, 5, 2 ad 11, quoted in Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas, 44. Quoted in Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas, 45–​46. Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas, 47. Casey, Truthful Living, 78. Augustine, quoted in Louf, Humility, 9. Quoted in Louf, The Way of Humility, 35.

162 CHAPTER 7 Humility forms the foundation of St Benedict of Nursia’s (480–​547) highly influential Rule.80 For Benedict, humility is the ladder Jacob saw leading to heaven.81 He writes: “Now, therefore, after ascending all these steps of humility, we will quickly arrive at the ‘perfect love’ of God which ‘casts out fear.’ ”82 Here, humility is the very basis for spiritual life, and the underpinning of love. In a similar vein, the sixth century monk, Dorotheus of Gaza, recalls a saying from an Elder that:  “Above everything, you must have humility … No virtue is attainable without humility.”83 However, humility was not only considered important in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. The reformer John Calvin (1509–​1564) places a great deal of emphasis on humility. He argues that humility is the “sovereign virtue … the mother and root of all virtue.”84 This theme is reiterated by the eighteenth century missionary priest, Cajetan Bergamo: “Therefore whoever possesses this virtue may be said … to possess all virtues, and he who lacks it, lacks all.”85 Among contemporary theologians, Fullam writes that humility “functions as a kind of meta-​virtue, a virtue of the acquisition of virtue.”86 And finally, Louf, after elaborating on the difficulties of categorising humility, even as a virtue, in the end writes passionately: “If one still wishes to speak in the language of virtue it would be an all-​ encompassing virtue –​the heart of stone shattered and restored to life as the heart of flesh –​the virtue from which all other virtues are derived.”87 All this raises the question: if humility does indeed ground all other virtues, how does it do so? Put simply, humility lays the foundation for all other virtues because of its orientation towards truth. Humility’s foundational aspect consists in its alignment to the truth regarding ourselves, others, creation, and especially God. Far from being self-​abnegating, to have humility is to recognise the fundamental truths of our existence. Bernard of Clairvaux repeatedly emphasises this point in his classic work on humility and pride: “the knowledge of truth is the fruit of humility.”88 Bergamo also declares, humility “is nothing 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

There appears to be some debate over his date of death; I am using the same date as Mary Margaret Funk. Chittister, The Rule of St Benedict, 78. Chittister, The Rule of St Benedict, 98. Quoted in Louf, The Way of Humility, 39. St Dorotheus of Gaza wrote instructions for monks, which have been compiled in Directions on Spiritual Training. John Calvin, Sermons on Job, lxxx, quoted in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 269. Bergamo, Humility of Heart, 3. Fullam, The Virtue of Humility, 3. Louf, The Way of Humility, 21. Bernard of Clairvaux, The Steps of Humility and Pride, trans. M.  Ambrose Conway (Trappist: Cistercian Publications, 1973), 30.

Essentials for Walking the Path

163

else but a true knowledge of God and of oneself.”89 Or even, as Casey puts it, “Truth-​filled living is the soul of humility.”90 The theological notion of humility, therefore, is not about low self-​regard but rather about having “a true knowledge and awareness of oneself as one really is.”91 In this respect, humility is intrinsically “other-​orientated.”92 It is relational, focusing outward –​the self in relation to others; ultimately, God. “We are not the centre of the universe,” as Anthony Kelly remarks.93 Here is the crux of humility. Its focus is not centred on the self, but rather the opposite. Therefore, to behave humbly is to exhibit other-​orientated behaviour. As William Temple states, “Humility does not mean thinking less of yourself than of other people, nor does it mean having a low opinion of your own gifts. It means freedom from thinking about yourself at all.”94 Humility is not about demeaning ourselves, but recognising our place within creation, as lovingly made by God. As Pieper points out, “above all, it is candid acceptance of this one thing: that man and humanity are neither God nor ‘like God.’ ”95 A humble attitude towards God recognises God’s perfection and grace, against human sin and corruption. As Pieper comments, “Humility is the knowledge and acceptance of the inexpressible distance between Creator and creature.”96 Humility towards each other acknowledges all of us to be imperfect creatures, nevertheless beloved of God. Humility towards creation admits that humanity co-​exists with, and depends on, the Earth. As Chittister outlines, “Humility, in other words, is the basis for right relationships in life.”97 Exercising humility suddenly allows the universe to be a much larger place –​so infinite that human knowledge of it cannot but fall short. As such, humility recognises that all attempts at interpretation, or expressions of the transcendent, must necessarily be inadequate. God is truly beyond our grasp. We are limited and God is limitless. Conversely, by recognising the limitations of human understanding, humility conveys the limitlessness of God. A humble

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Bergamo, Humility of Heart, 7. Casey, Truthful Living, 30. Norvin Richards, quoted in Spiegel, “The Moral Irony of Humility,” 137; Tangney, “Humility,” 73–​74; David Pascoe, “Living as God’s Steward’s:  Theological Foundations,” (presentation, Stewardship Conference, Brisbane, 2011). Everett L. Worthington, “Humility: The Quiet Virtue,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 27, no. 3 (2008): 273. Anthony Kelly, Eschatology and Hope (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2006), 5. William Temple, quoted in Worthington, “Humility,” 271. Pieper, Fortitude and Temperance, 109. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 102. Chittister, The Rule of St Benedict, 77.

164 CHAPTER 7 perspective, perhaps surprisingly, is one of infinite openness, not negativity. It is to see ourselves and the universe as it really is, broken and imperfect, but above all else, a gift. Indeed, humility permits humankind not to take itself so seriously. Pieper points to a “hidden connection” between humility and the “gift of humour.”98 This is one of the liberating qualities of the virtue. In other words, humility allows grace. Therefore, humility is the basis for all other virtues, including the theological virtues of hope, faith, and love, because it is to see the truth, of who we are, and who God is. Humility is indeed “all encompassing,” as Louf argues, because it penetrates to the heart of the mysteries of Christianity (of sin, grace, and redemption), where words and ideas cannot help but remain inadequate. Humility requires a certain kenotic surrendering of the self to God. Louf concludes his essay by quoting from Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton’s (1901–​1999) final work, written months before his death at almost a hundred years old. Guitton writes: To be plunged into humility is to be plunged into God, for God is the foundation of that abyss … Humility obtains for us things which are too lofty to be taught or explained; humility attains and possesses what even speech cannot.99 The importance of humility, which resonates so strongly from Jesus’ teachings, through the words of many theologians and spiritual writers (over the centuries and in the present) can be approached by understanding the virtue of humility as awakening in us a sense of the truth, a necessary first step towards conversion. It is no wonder, then, that humility is an essential virtue for Receptive Ecumenism, which Murray calls the process of “humble ecclesial learning.”100 Practicing Receptive Ecumenism requires us to have the humility to consider our own wounds and weaknesses, and critically discern where we need to learn from others in order to enrich our own community. Humble ecclesial learning is not about having a false sense of modesty, or putting our own church down. Rather it is about having a clear understanding of our tradition and where it falls short of emulating Christ. Humility is an other-​orientated virtue; we can only critically understand ourselves in light of others. This is how Murray can argue that Receptive Ecumenism leads to us becoming more deeply what we already are.101 Receptive Ecumenism picks up the golden thread of humility 98 99 100 101

Pieper, Fortitude and Temperance, 109. Jean Guitton, quoted in Louf, The Way of Humility, 22–​24. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16.

Essentials for Walking the Path

165

in the conciliar documents, and challenges the church to live out the notion of being a pilgrim people, always in need of reform and renewal. Humility belongs to the heart, to the mystery of conversion, and the gift of grace. In this manner, humility inspires hope. 4

Hope as an Act of Humility

Hope has become more prominent in theology over recent decades, since the twentieth century’s rediscovery of eschatology.102 It is also a term frequently used in ecumenical discourse. Indeed, Kasper writes that “Ecumenism is linked with hope” on the second page of the Receptive Ecumenism volume.103 Moreover, Murray insists that we “must seek to live courageously and imaginatively in hope,” rather than give in to complacency or defeat.104 He maintains that Receptive Ecumenism “requires both active trust that we are being resourced for this and led into it in the ways we require and patient recognition that any real receptive learning necessarily takes time to be realised.”105 In other words, Receptive Ecumenism requires hope. Yet what hope means for ecumenism is often frustratingly passed over. The theological dimensions and import of hope for ecumenism is rarely examined in detail. In this section, it will be argued that hope is an essential aspect of the humility characterising Receptive Ecumenical engagement. Since humility grounds all virtues, it also affects Christian hope, so much so that hope can be seen as an act of humility through its trust in, and surrender to, God. Ecumenical hope draws its energy from Christ’s prayer that, “They may all be one” (Jn 17:21). In such a context, how is hope best described and, where necessary, defined? Two key questions need to be asked: firstly, what are the differences between Christian hope as opposed to natural hope?106 Secondly, how does the eschatological tension between “now” and “not yet” illustrate the interplay between hope and humility? Firstly, it is important to differentiate between natural hope and Christian hope. A natural form of hope is an intrinsically human quality. Hope is widely regarded as a human phenomenon (it is anthropological), and as such it is 102

Alister E.  McGrath, Christian Theology:  An Introduction, 4th ed. (Oxford:  Blackwell, 2007), 472. 103 Kasper, “Foreword,” viii. 104 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 87. 1 05 Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 87. 106 The term “natural hope” is borrowed from Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 101.

166 CHAPTER 7 not unique to Christianity.107 Hope of some kind appears to be a basic human impulse.108 It is in our nature to hope, and as such, hoping is not learned but rather instinctive; we are hope-​oriented creatures. Pieper remarks, “Hope, like love, is one of the very simple, primordial dispositions of the living person.”109 Hope of some kind motivates almost all human action, to the degree that John Macquarrie argues for the existence of hope as a “universal phenomenon.”110 Natural hope usually pertains to the future, which, because it is future, is something beyond our control. Broadly speaking, the future can either be approached with an attitude of hope, or one of fear. Natural hope also can be quite narrow in its perspective, limited usually to the personal (oneself, family, friends, and events in the immediate future). The strength of natural hope depends on its basis, whatever that may be, and so it may vary based on the person or situation. Natural hope is also contingent on its object, whatever that may be. This raises the interesting point that natural hope may have any object, even one that is not good, and yet remain hope. Pieper expresses this point: “When justice ceases to be directed toward good, it ceases to be justice. Hope, on the other hand, can also be directed … toward what is objectively bad and yet remain real hope.”111 Moreover, considering that the object of natural hope may be almost anything, hope can be unrealistic. Hoping for something improbable is one of the key pitfalls of natural hope, as it may fail and lead to despair. In sum, two things can be said with certainty regarding natural hope: it is a fundamental attribute of being human; and it usually addresses the future. But its foundation and object, and consequently, strength, are all contingent upon the hoper.

107 Hope has become an increasingly significant theme since World War ii, both for theologians and philosophers. One important example is that of Ernst Bloch’s highly influential work, written between 1938 and 1947, The Principle of Hope, trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice, and Paul Knight (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1986). Bloch’s work is particularly influential on theologians Jürgen Moltmann and Johannes Baptist Metz, who are both key players in the theology of hope. See Gerald O’Collins article for an outline of Bloch’s influence: Gerald O’Collins, “The Theology of Hope,” The Way 8, no. 4 (1968). Another important example is Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator: Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, trans. Emma Craufurd (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1951). 108 John Macquarrie, Christian Hope (London: Mowbrays, 1978), 4; Dermot A. Lane, Keeping Hope Alive: Stirrings in Christian Theology (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1996), 59. William F. Lynch, Images of Hope: Imagination as Healer of the Hopeless (London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965), 31. 109 Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 100. 110 Macquarrie, Christian Hope, 4. 111 Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 100.

Essentials for Walking the Path

167

While the experience of hope is integral to the human person, the form hope takes within Christianity is distinctive. Christian hope is exceptional in its breadth: it is a “total hope.”112 The all-​encompassing scope of Christian hope reaches out to all of creation, to fellow human beings, even out beyond the reach of death. Christian hope is the encompassing hope for “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1) when, as the Protestant theologian of hope, Jürgen Moltmann emphasises, God will “be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).113 As the Kingdom of God was the central focus of Jesus’ ministry, exploring Christian hope brings us to the crux of Christianity. Hope is central to Christianity, to the extent that Christianity can be seen as defined by its hope.114 Indeed, Johannes Baptist Metz argues that theology itself is “a defence of hope.”115 He remarks: “Christianity is not primarily a moral system, but a hope; its theology is not primarily an ethics, but an eschatology.”116 The breadth of Christian hope is illustrated in its telos: God. Christian hope has both its foundation and its object in God, as the fulfilment of all hopes. Pieper puts it, “Christ is the actual foundation of hope. … [And] at the same time, the actual fulfilment of our hope.”117 While natural hope may have any object, even an impossible one, Christian hope is firmly centred on God. This means that, as Edward Oakes says, “Christian hope, on the contrary, is always realistic” because it has God for its object, “who is Reality.”118 Christian hope is therefore “hope against hope,” strong in the face of any circumstance, and wholly incapable of giving in to despair. Christian hope keeps us from giving up, it is “a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul” (Heb 6:19) and the “the anchor guiding the Church through her pilgrimage on earth,” as Oakes puts it.119 Classifying Christian hope as a theological virtue further distinguishes it from natural hope. Kelly outlines the significance of hope as a virtue.120 Virtue comes from the word virtus, “a capacity to act well.”121 Kelly argues that hope is more than just “wishing,” it

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Macquarrie, Christian Hope, 1. Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1967), 23. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 14. Johannes Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society:  Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980), 3. Johannes Baptist Metz, A Passion for God: The Mystical-​Political Dimension of Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1998), 134. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 106. Edward T. Oakes, “The Radicality of Christian Hope,” Chicago Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 15. Oakes, “The Radicality of Christian Hope,” 8. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 6. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 6.

168 CHAPTER 7 is “a mode of living and acting.”122 Unlike natural hope, which can remain an ephemeral sensation akin to optimism or wishful thinking, Christian hope is meant to be translated into action. Christian hope is very distinct from optimism; as Murray says, “Christians are not actually called to be optimists: we are called to be people of hope.”123 He describes optimism as a “form of reality-​denial,” a self-​deluding attempt at reassuring ourselves that, despite concrete reality, things will somehow fix themselves and everything will “work out well in the end.”124 Neither, however, is hope a form of pessimism. Hope brings with it a sure trust that God has things in hand and everything will go according to God’s will.125 In contrast, Christian hope does not lead us to take comfort in illusions, instead it “takes reality in all its starkness radically seriously, even into and through death.”126 It requires us to humbly recognise that we are not in control of the future, rather we are “its servants,” and it is our role to “anticipate this future that is not yet … and to ask ourselves what it means to live this anticipation now.”127 In this way, hope means we are “impelled to action, called to conversion, and made living witnesses to this future in the here and now.”128 It is not enough just to hope for the future existence of the Kingdom; rather Christian hope urges us to work to bring the Kingdom in some measure into the present. Christian hope is therefore challenging, since Christians are called to live their lives in a particular way, in hope. This raises an interesting distinction between natural hope and the theological virtue of hope. Whereas natural hope is anthropological, part of us as human persons, possessing the God-​given virtue of hope aids in the realisation of our full humanity. It brings forward a good from the Kingdom into the present. Moreover, hope is not just a moral virtue, but a theological virtue. The theological virtues are so named because God is their source and their object, and through them God is “attained directly.”129 Henry Bars explains: “for by faith we believe in God, by hope we trust in him, by charity we love him.”130 As a theological virtue, hope ranks among the highest of God-​given and God-​oriented virtues 122 1 23 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 6. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Murray, “Establishing the Agenda,” 11. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Henry Bars, Faith, Hope and Charity, trans. P. J. Hepburne-​Scott (London: Burns & Oates, 1961), 9. Bars, Faith, Hope and Charity, 9.

Essentials for Walking the Path

169

which have love as the pinnacle. The theological virtues cannot be acquired, as they are “beyond, far beyond, our powers.”131 Rather, they are “supernatural virtues,” and “we can only receive them as gifts.”132 While natural hope is part of our human nature, Christian hope comes from God. Therefore, while hope is certainly not a distinctively Christian phenomenon, Christian hope differs from natural hope in its expansive breadth (extending to all of creation), its foundation, source, and object in God, and how it acts, not just as part of our humanity, but to realise our human destiny in God. Aquinas distinguishes the “passion” of hope, and the “theological virtue” of hope, in reference to what we have called natural hope, and Christian hope, respectively. His understanding of hope both as passion and as virtue serves our understanding of what is meant by Christian hope. As Fullam explains, “virtues perfect powers of the soul, while passions are appetites requiring ordering for their perfection.”133 In other words, virtues improve (perfect) our human nature, whereas passions are impulses that come from our human nature. Passions are therefore “neither good nor bad,” as Dominic Doyle observes, and only “become morally significant” when “ordered by reason.”134 That is, passions, like instincts, have to be controlled by reason. As a virtue, hope can never be in excess. Aquinas affirms this point, stating: “hope has … no extremes … since it is impossible to trust too much in the Divine assistance.”135 However, as a passion, hope can be in excess, and therefore may require discipline.136 This point brings us to consider the way humility acts on hope, both as ­theological virtue and as passion. Humility acts to underpin the virtue of hope. There is some contention over hope’s position as a theological virtue. As already noted, theological virtues are virtues that have God as their object.137 One argument against hope as a theological virtue is that “by hoping, one does not attain God.”138 In contrast, Aquinas asserts that hope is a theological virtue because it “unites the believer with God.”139 In answering the question, “Whether hope is a virtue?” Aquinas 131 132 133 134

Bars, Faith, Hope and Charity, 10. Bars, Faith, Hope and Charity, 10. Fullam, The Virtue of Humility, 35. Dominic Doyle, The Promise of Christian Humanism:  Thomas Aquinas on Hope (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2011), 76. 135 Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.17, a.15 reply to obj. 12. 136 Doyle, The Promise of Christian Humanism, 79. 137 Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.17, a.15. 138 Romanus Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” in The Ethics of Aquinas, ed. Stephen J. Pope (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002), 233. 1 39 Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 233.

170 CHAPTER 7 replies: “It is therefore evident that hope is a virtue,” because “in so far as we hope for anything as being possible to us by means of the Divine assistance, our hope attains God himself, on Whose help it leans.”140 Here, Aquinas appears to be implying that hope is a virtue because, through reliance on divine help, it brings us to our fulfilment in God. This is one indication of how the virtue of hope is founded in humility, as humility is what allows us not just to recognise the need for God’s help, but to accept it. Doyle remarks, “Hope becomes virtuous … when it relies on God’s help to attain some good.”141 As Aquinas states, hope “leans” on God’s help. Murray attests that Receptive ­Ecumenism involves a “leaning into” the Spirit in just this way.142 The connection between hope and help is one that William Lynch explores in a therapeutic setting. According to Lynch, hope is always linked with the idea of help.143 He states, “The truth is that hope is related to help in such a way that you cannot talk about one without talking of the other. … hope is an interior sense that there is help on the outside of us.”144 For Christian hope, of course, the ultimate help is from God. James Alison writes in a similar vein: “The one hope you have in the face of death is a hope that rests on another,” that is, help from someone outside of oneself.145 It is the very fact that we can ask God for help that leads us to hope, and the acknowledgement that we need help is itself one of humility. Hope is therefore based on trusting in God’s help. As Kelly describes, hope “is trustful, for it is relying on something or someone for the help that is needed.”146 The point is further emphasised by Lawrence Hennessey as he writes, hope “invites … a radical trust in God.”147 In other words, hope is founded on the knowledge (truth) that God will give us what we need; this indicates humility’s underlying role in the virtue of hope. Humility also acts on the passion of hope in a particular fashion. According to Aquinas, the role of humility is to restrain “presumptuous hope.”148 Humility acts to restrain the passion of hope, because, as it is not orientated towards God, it can be excessive. As a human passion, hope may require restraint so as not to either over-​reach itself (become presumptuous), or fall into despair. 140 141 142 143 144 145

Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.17, a.11. Doyle, The Promise of Christian Humanism, 85. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. Lynch, Images of Hope, 31. Lynch, Images of Hope, 40. James Alison, Raising Abel: The Recovery of the Eschatological Imagination (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996), 166. 146 Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 1. 147 Lawrence Hennessey, “Editor’s Corner,” Chicago Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 3. 1 48 Aquinas, ST, II-​II. q.161, a.162.

Essentials for Walking the Path

171

Aquinas considers presumption and despair to be the two “contrary vices” opposing hope.149 Interestingly, the remedy for both presumption and despair is humility. Pieper explains, “Pride is the hidden conduit that links the two diametrically opposed forms of hopelessness, despair and presumption.”150 According to Aquinas, presumption is a sin against the Holy Spirit.151 The sin of presumption is when someone takes God’s grace for granted, such as those who hope for forgiveness but “persevere in their sins,” or hope for glory “who cease from good works.”152 This role properly belongs to humility, as Cessario explains, because “presumption is born of pride.”153 Therefore, humility acts against presumptuous hope (which comes from pride) by channeling hope into what is possible through proper acceptance of God’s help. At the other extreme, despair is the second form of hopelessness. According to Aquinas, despair is “an error in faith-​judgment” that holds that God will not fulfill God’s promises.154 To despair means that one has given up on God. As such, it is no wonder Aquinas calls it “not only a sin but also the origin of other sins.”155 As he defines it, “despair consists in a man ceasing to hope for a share of God’s goodness.”156 Surely, deciding that God will not give grace is just as arrogant as presumption. Pieper points to the long recognised link between pride and despair.157 Thus, humility acts to safeguard hope; hope needs humility to keep it from falling into the extremes of either presumption or despair. Humility is therefore important in understanding not just the theological virtue of hope, but the passion of hope as well. However, despite the distinction between the passion and virtue of hope, Aquinas describes certain features that are “common to every kind of hoping.”158 Robert Miner makes the point that Aquinas supposes a solid understanding of the passions before moving on to consider the virtues.159 The passion of hope and the virtue of hope are not oppositional; they have some features in common, even though hope as a theological virtue far surpasses the

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.20. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 123. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.21, a.22. Aquinas, ST, II-​II. q.21, a.22. Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 240. Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 240. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.20. Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.20, a.23. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 122. Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 232–​233. Robert Miner, Thomas Aquinas on the Passions: A Study of Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 22–​ 48 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 6.

172 CHAPTER 7 passion. Aquinas applies the following characteristics of hope for both the passion and the virtue.160 For him, “the object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain.”161 Here, he defines hope as having four characteristics: the good, the future, the difficult, and the possible. The first criterion is that hope is for something good, which distinguishes it from fear. Secondly, hope is for something future, something that is not “present and already possessed,” and thereby differs from joy. Thirdly, hope is for something difficult, for “we do not speak of any one hoping for trifles, which are in one’s power to have at any time.”162 He argues that hope “regards something arduous, to be obtained by another’s help,” namely, God’s.163 Here hope is closely linked with humility because the theological object of hope is outside of human ability to achieve it. Finally, “that this difficult thing is possible to obtain,” because hope cannot desire something impossible, or else it would lead to despair.164 It follows that not “everything can be hoped for.”165 As Cessario notes “only something that is attainable elicits hope; a person must judge that the hoped-​for reality lies within the realm of possible options.”166 Hope’s connection to a possible good is what makes it strong, Lynch states: “there is nothing as strong as hope when it knows how to limit itself.”167 Aquinas’s theological-​scholastic treatment of hope is valuable when applied to ecumenical dialogue. Rephrasing Aquinas, Lynch writes, “Hope therefore involves three basic ideas that could not be simpler: what I hope for I do not yet have or see; it may be difficult; but I can have it –​it is possible.”168 Each of the qualities of hope is applicable to the hope for unity, the impetus behind ecumenism. Firstly, hope is for something good. Christian unity is most certainly for something good, as it is what Christ himself prays for us: “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one” (Jn 17:20–​21). Unity is something Jesus asks of God, not just for his disciples’ good, but also the good of the world, because disunity hinders us in acting properly as his witnesses in the world.

160 Aquinas references these four characteristics for the passion of hope in I-​II, q.40, a.1, and for the virtue in II-​II, q.17, a.1 and again, in II-​II, q.20, a.4. 161 Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.17, a. 11. 162 Aquinas, ST, I-​II, q.40, a.41. 163 Aquinas, ST, II-​II. q.17, a.15. 164 Aquinas, ST, I-​II. q.40, a.41. 165 Lynch, Images of Hope, 47–​48. 166 Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 233. 167 Lynch, Images of Hope, 47. 168 Lynch, Images of Hope, 32.

Essentials for Walking the Path

173

The next quality is that hope applies to something future. Christian unity lives within the paradox of the “now” and “not yet.” A degree of unity exists already, binding all Christians together as the body of Christ. Yet, this unity is incomplete. The fullness of unity will only come through God’s will, and in God’s time. It is something future, of which we receive only a foretaste. Murray articulates Receptive Ecumenism as asking us to “lean into” this future, as an imperative to action.169 The hope for Christian unity is also something difficult, in line with the third quality. It is arduous, in view of the suffering, violence, and persecution Christians have suffered at the hands of other Christians over history, the memory of which cannot be forgotten. It is difficult in view of the many real differences that separate Christians, structurally, doctrinally, liturgically, and spiritually; differences that cannot simply be dismissed. It is difficult because it is not “a trifle,” but something that comes from the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is an imperative for all Christians. Finally, this good, future, but difficult hope is something possible. Christian unity is possible because it is ultimately the work of God, for whom all things are possible. Moreover, it is not just possible but realistic, as it is Christ’s desire for us, inspired within us by the Holy Spirit. Further, it is not just realistic, but actually promised. True Christian unity will come to pass, for God will one day be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Thus, the hope for Christian unity can be understood in the context of Aquinas’s four key qualities of hope. Understanding the hope for unity in this manner helps to strengthen the hope of ecumenism, as it is not a wishful hope, but one that is good, future, difficult but possible. Ecumenists may take heart from this hope, which is certainly something vital for the future of the Ecumenical Movement. Hope is the heartbeat of Receptive Ecumenism –​it gives us hope, in this time of ecumenical winter, that unity really is the will of the Spirit. 5

Hopeful Humility: a Virtue for Receptive Ecumenism

Having inquired into both humility and hope, it is now time to consider the interplay between the two, especially as they relate to Receptive Ecumenism. The humility grounding hope is evoked in the eschatological tension between “now” and “not yet.” Aquinas connects the virtue of hope with the notion of the human person as a “wayfarer,” or viator, “someone on the way.”170 Pieper

1 69 Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. 170 Aquinas, ST, II-​II, q.18, a.14.

174 CHAPTER 7 explains, “The virtue of hope is pre-​eminently the virtue of the status viatoris; it is the proper virtue of the “not yet.’ ”171 This concept is helpful in understanding the interconnection between humility and hope. He writes, “The only answer that corresponds to man’s actual existential situation is hope.”172 The recognition of the truth of existence, of what humanity is before God, is therefore, the fruit of humility. This implies that hope arises from humility, from the acknowledgement of the truth. Pieper goes on, In the virtue of hope more than in any other, man understands and affirms that he is a creature, that he has been created by God.173 Here Pieper asserts that hope, even more than other virtues, illustrates humility, and it is this acknowledgement that causes hope to be proper to us as humans. The form of hope is shaped by humility. “The ‘not yet’ of the status viatoris,” explains Pieper, “includes both a negative and a positive element: the absence of fulfilment and the orientation towards fulfilment.”174 It is a “now” but “not yet” that illustrates how humility and hope interact. Cessario points out, “As a virtue of the wayfarer, hope develops a connatural clinging to God, a sure expectation that God will provide whatever is needed to reach happiness.”175 It is God who provides, as our “own resources and the feebleness of one’s own efforts” are not enough.176 It is here that humility and hope interweave so closely as to become inseparable. Humility recognises the “not yet,” while hope sees the “now,” just as humility helps us see the “now,” the provisional nature of all theology, and hope pushes us towards the “not yet” of its fullness. Hope is radical in that it sees the world how it will be, the eschatological vision of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is only inaugurated in the present, while the fullness is yet to come. This is the “new heaven and [the] new earth,” where “God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more” (Rev 21:1–​4). This is the vision Christian hope strives towards. Yet hope is nourished from the “now,” the aspects of the future which exist, already, in tension with the present world. This eschatological tension is also at the core of Receptive Ecumenism. Paradoxically, the very reason 171 172 173 174 175 176

Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 98. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 98. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 98. Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love, 93. Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 239. Cessario, “The Theological Virtue of Hope,” 239.

Essentials for Walking the Path

175

Christians can strive for full unity is because that unity exists already, although only partially. Like humility, Christian hope unflinchingly recognises the reality of the existence of sin, evil, hate, grief, and death, and the corruption of creation. At the heart of Christian hope is the recognition that hope must also work in “darkness.”177 The distinctiveness of Christian hope compared to other types of hope is due to the humility which lies at its heart. This connection is recognised by Kelly. He argues that hope “is never far from humility” in requiring from us a trustful surrendering of ourselves, a realisation that we are not in “total control” of everything.178 As he comments, “However confident and courageous hope might be, it has to move forward without any controlling vision of what is to come.”179 Christian hope requires us to trust and hope in a future beyond what we can even imagine. Kelly writes, “Christian hope is always more than the catalogue of particular hopes, for it looks to an incalculable fulfilment in terms of what can never be fully expressed.”180 Moreover, he acknowledges that hope must carry on with “not only not-​understanding and not-​representing but also with a certain not-​willing … it must yield” to the Spirit.181 This makes sense only in the context of the kenotic humility of Christian hope, which accepts God’s will and God’s plan for creation, over our own. As Paul attests, “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9). Considering the unfathomableness of the mystery at the heart of Christian hope, Kelly reflects: “hope relies on God alone.”182 Thus, Christian hope itself is an act of humility, a humble hope. It is, after all, a theological virtue which cannot be attained, but must be given by God as a gift. Murray articulates this point, explaining that hope requires from us “a deeper, more radical trust in the overwhelming goodness of God.”183 Yet, what does this hopeful humility mean for ecumenism? There is no doubt that the Ecumenical Movement could profit from a deeper sense of humility and hope. Kelly’s concept of “inter-​hope dialogue,” although proposed as a replacement for inter-​faith dialogue, suggests a revaluation of the role of hope in ecumenism. He explains that “Inter-​hope dialogue would highlight the unimaginable ‘otherness’ of eschatological fulfilment. It looks beyond what is,

177 178 179 180 181 182 183

Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 54. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 5. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 54. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 13. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 57. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 54. Murray, “Vatican II,” 99.

176 CHAPTER 7 to what is to come.”184 Dialogue can be grounded in hope because “the future is what we have in common.”185 God is the goal for all Christians. The past is broken with division, yet the future will be found in the one body of Christ. He writes that “Christian hope can be especially creative” if Christians look together toward “a hoped-​for future.”186 In the future, “the other is essentially welcomed into the communion of ultimate life” and must be received as truly brother and sister, rather than holding on to “the distance and fragmentation” of our past.187 The future thus, ironically, offers us a shared starting point for dialogue, because it is the “not yet,” when unity will be fully realised. Humility is necessary for the “now,” however. The first letter of Peter tells us that “all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another” (1 Pet 5:5–​6). Paradoxically, we need to humble ourselves in order to be exalted. Humility therefore comes with the hope of exaltation. In the setting of ecumenism, to clothe ourselves in humility means to focus on the other first. It also means to recognise our faults, sins, weaknesses, and mistakes, and to be truthful about our failings to each other. Chittister writes that humility requires us to “cease to wear our masks, stop pretending to be perfect, and accept the graces of growth that can come to us from the wise and gentle hearts of people of quality around us.”188 Hopeful humility recognises the provisional nature of theological thinking; we are still in the time of the “now,” lacking the “not yet” of full evidence. God is still the incomprehensible mystery of grace inspiring and energising our hope. We speak insofar as we have words, but acknowledge that words will always fail, as Aquinas experienced when he put down his pen.189 Humility, therefore, allows us to look around in hope that someone else (or some other ecclesial community) has found words more adequate than our own. Steven Harman explains the value of humility for Christian unity, echoing Vatican ii: Humility in the service of the unity of the church means being willing to contemplate the possibility that other Christians from whom we’re divided may have preserved some conviction or practice belonging to the wholeness of the church’s faith that our own church currently lacks, even 184 185 186 187 188 189

Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 16. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 16. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 16. Kelly, Eschatology and Hope, 17. Chittister, The Rule of St Benedict, 89. Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas, 46.

Essentials for Walking the Path

177

while humbly offering the distinctive gifts of our own church to the rest of the body of Christ.190 It means also being open “to the possibility” that we could be in the wrong.191 It is no wonder, therefore, that humility is at the heart of Receptive Ecumenism. As a primal other-​orientated attitude, humility means being open and receptive in regard to others and the gifts they may have to offer. The humility of Receptive Ecumenism is far from negative. It acknowledges both our current imperfections, recognised by our pilgrim state, and our hope for the fullness of the gift of God to all. In this way, humility finds its partner in hope in its receptivity to the gifts God wishes to give to the Christian community. These gifts are given in order to enrich its common knowledge of the truth and to increase its charity. Humility is intrinsically other-​orientated in its reliance on God, and Christian hope is hope in God for all others, encompassing all creation. In response to the imperfections of the present, humility acts to ground Christian consciousness, while hope inspires and moves it forward. Combined, humility and hope offer a lens by which to see the universe in a different way: at once, both fallen and already redeemed. A hopeful humility and a humble hope collaborate in giving us the ability to make a critical, realistic assessment of the “not yet” character of the present world, while also recognising the unconditional extent of God’s love. The contribution of hopeful humility to ecumenical activity is therefore positive and liberating. Theological formulations of agreement are inevitably incomplete and part of the limitations of the present. As such, Vatican ii presents the image of the pilgrim church.192 To approach the ecumenical endeavour with hopeful humility also has consequences. The focus shifts from the ideal of attempting to find perfect cognitive agreement on the doctrinal level, to focusing on the mystery of conversion. Conversion, or metanoia, speaks directly to a hopeful humility which allows mystery to remain what is, as God acts, and all involved remain receptive to the gifts of the Spirit. The Ecumenical Movement must work “in the dark,” but with the confidence that comes from trusting in God’s help. As Murray explains, “If the call to full structural and sacramental communion is a Gospel imperative, a constant, then so also will God’s resourcing of the churches for this task be constant.”193 While ecumenism may continue to 190

Steven R.  Harmon, Ecumenism Means You, Too:  Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010), 43. 191 Harmon, Ecumenism Means You, Too, 43. 192 Vatican ii, UR, no. 2. 193 Murray, “Vatican II,” 99.

178 CHAPTER 7 face different challenges, with the awareness that “previous strategies and resources might no longer be adequate … strategies and resources there most surely will be.”194 The virtues of humility and hope call us to “discern them and to live them with courage, creativity, and fidelity.”195 And this is exactly what he has done, in developing Receptive Ecumenism. As he says, “Receptive Ecumenism seeks to chart a constructive way forwards, a way of hope.”196 Humility and hope, therefore, are essential provisions for walking the Receptive Ecumenical path. Hopeful humility enables us to look outside of ourselves in the hope that encounters with other ecclesial communities can help us seriously and critically examine our own tradition. In considering the question of how we can best listen to the Spirit, and what can guide us in Receptive Ecumenical discernment, the virtuous aspect of Receptive Ecumenism comes to the fore. Ecumenical love lends motivation, to discern areas for reform in our churches out of love for Christ. Hospitality, as love in action, guides us in our process of discernment with our ecumenical others, to encounter them with Christ as our model and to realise that is we, not they, who are changed. Ecumenical humility propels us to recognise our wounds and repent, to humbly look at what the Spirit has done in other traditions and to surrender ourselves to the Spirit’s guidance. Hope encourages us onward, with the surety that ecumenism is possible; that conversion and reform are possible. Hope leads us to reach out to others with confidence in the Spirit. Receptive Ecumenism is an impulse of hope, humility, awe, and above all, of love. It is certainly no “quick-​fix” approach. It is about embracing and receiving each other as friends, helping and receiving help from each other as Christians, and learning from each other as pilgrims. These virtues are essentials for walking the path of Receptive Ecumenism. Guided by these virtues, Receptive Ecumenism can be described as fundamentally love in action carried out with humble hope in the Spirit to lead us deeper on the path to ecclesial conversion. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on the affective and virtuous dimensions of ecumenical engagement is vital for approaching Christian unity in the contemporary context; to which our attention now turns.

1 94 Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. 195 Murray, “Vatican II,” 99. 196 Murray, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands.”

­c hapter 8

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path: Receptive Ecumenism and Contemporary Challenges The Ecumenical Movement is at a crossroads. What path should be taken? Do we continue trudging down the well-​worn roads of practical or theological ecumenism? Or should we strike out on the path that has been less travelled, that of Spiritual Ecumenism, especially in its new manifestation as Receptive Ecumenism? Receptive Ecumenism promises a realistic way forward in the current ecumenical climate. But is it actually up to the task? How can Receptive Ecumenism effectively respond to the challenges of the contemporary context? What is the potential and effectiveness of Receptive Ecumenism as an ecumenical strategy? There is no doubt that the contemporary context is challenging for ecumenical engagement. The early 21st century brings with it particular challenges, such as globalisation, postmodernity, pluralism, and increasing secularism. Kasper defines our ecumenical milieu as “ambiguous,” and draws attention to the fact that ecumenism necessarily responds “to the signs of the times.”1 The goal of ecumenism is to reach unity so that Christians can properly bear witness to Christ. As such, ecumenism is entwined with broader issues facing Christianity, especially those around dialogue with the world. Religion faces a difficult situation today, especially in Western society, where attitudes range from disinterest to outright hostility. On this point, James McEvoy explains that, “If the church is to proclaim the gospel effectively, a coherent and insightful view of the contemporary place of religion is essential.”2 Societal and cultural pressures placed on the Catholic Church necessarily have ramifications for its ability and willingness to engage in inter-​Christian relationships. Additionally, the Catholic Church is still grappling with the “polarized climate” experienced in the wake of Vatican ii.3 This impacts ecumenism in particular, as ecumenical initiatives generally receive greater support from the more liberal, rather than the more conservative, sections of the Church. The recent debate 1 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 14. 2 James McEvoy, Leaving Christendom for Good: Church-​World Dialogue in a Secular Age (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2014), 49. 3 McEvoy, Leaving Christendom for Good, xiii.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_009

180 CHAPTER 8 around the interpretation of “subsists in” in Lumen Gentium 8 highlights just how polemical interpretation of the conciliar texts can be.4 Moreover, the types of problems and challenges between denominations have also changed. As O’Gara explains, “the generation of theologians entering ecumenical dialogue today … are faced with a bewildering new cluster of arguments that cause new divisions between and within churches.”5 As we can see, ecumenical activity is bombarded by external, internal, and inter-​denominational challenges. However, with these challenges also comes opportunity. Rather than condemning the contemporary milieu as wholly negative, McEvoy asserts that “this age is not, in itself, hostile to belief. Rather, we find ourselves in a new place.”6 A new place requires new ways of acting and understanding, such as Receptive Ecumenism. 1

Receptive Ecumenism’s Positive Approach to Contemporary Challenges

To be effective, Receptive Ecumenism needs to be able to navigate the particular challenges posed by the contemporary context. In order to investigate its ability to successfully engage with the contemporary context, Receptive Ecumenism will, firstly, be considered in relation to four major ecumenical challenges: the ecumenical winter, pluralism, ecclesial identity, and full visible unity. While these are far from the only obstacles facing ecumenism today, they must be addressed in order for the Ecumenical Movement to move forward, and continue to play a vital role in the life of the church. Secondly, the key implementations of Receptive Ecumenism to date will be discussed: the international conferences; the substantive practical project undertaken in England on Receptive Ecumenism and the local church; Receptive Ecumenism’s adoption by arcic iii; and finally, Receptive Ecumenism in Australian context. The chapter concludes by analysing critical challenges facing Receptive Ecumenism’s overall implementation and effectiveness. 1.1 The Challenge of the Ecumenical Winter References to the “ecumenical winter” are commonplace in contemporary ecumenism. The notion of the ecumenical winter conveys a sense of frozenness in ecumenical endeavours (along with the imagery that evokes, such as coldness, 4 The importance of Lumen Gentium 8 for Receptive Ecumenism, and recent debates surrounding its interpretation, are discussed in some detail in Chapter Four. 5 O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 220. 6 McEvoy, Leaving Christendom for Good, 93.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

181

darkness, dormancy, immobility, hardship; a time of waiting it out, instead of moving forward, of survival rather than flourishing). It names a general feeling permeating the ecumenical endeavour, of the season in which ecumenism now finds itself. The ecumenical winter reflects both the experience of ecumenical decline over the last decades, and the difficulties facing ecumenism today. Ecumenical decline has many different symptoms, such as: a lack of both professional and lay participation in ecumenical engagement; an aging generation of ecumenical leaders; a loss of interest in, and even opposition to, ecumenical concerns; a lack of priority placed on ecumenical engagement; a deficit of funding for ecumenical activities; uncertainty of direction and initiative for Christian unity; and generalised ecumenical apathy. Kelly provides a discomfiting picture of the situation, reflecting that “most churches face critical questions in relation to their internal life.”7 He canvasses problems to do with authority and ministry, gender and sexuality, declining numbers of clergy, a generally aging church demographic, and the lack of young people to take their places.8 “Most churches are dealing with diminishment in some form or other,” he explains.9 “All churches, in some manner or other, are likely to be thinking about how to present the gospel in the postmodern world where indifference has often been replaced by hostility.”10 There is also something of a loss of conviction in ecumenical goals, such as full visible unity. Coupled with this is the trend towards defensiveness over ecclesial identities, known as re-​confessionalism, which is unreceptive towards the ecumenical agenda. The ecumenical winter also refers to the perceived exhaustion of traditional ecumenical methods, and the need to find a way around the current impasse. As Kelly describes it, “we often appear to be lost and looking for a way forward.”11 Recognition of the ecumenical winter is often expressed hand-​in-​hand with efforts to find effective ecumenical approaches. The ecumenical winter is not an appeal to give up on the ecumenical endeavour, but rather a call to regroup and reconsider. Despite its nebulous nature, we can identify two key challenges in particular posed by the ecumenical winter: negativity surrounding ecumenism, and the need to develop suitable ecumenical methods. It is to these problems that Receptive Ecumenism most directly responds. Receptive Ecumenism was born in the ecumenical winter. It is therefore intrinsically attuned to its challenges, especially that of ecumenical 7 8 9 10 11

Gerard Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” (presentation, Diocesan Ecumenical Commissions Biennial Conference Adelaide, September 3rd 2011), 2. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 2. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 2. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 2. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 1–​2.

182 CHAPTER 8 negativity. While the ecumenical winter reflects the generally deteriorating state of e­ cumenical affairs, the negativity engendered by the notion itself represents a challenge to ecumenism. The use of the term “ecumenical winter” itself contributes towards the negative conception of ecumenism. It evokes a sense of ecumenism as a bygone golden age, a great achievement of the twentieth century, but not necessarily of key importance today. In contrast, Receptive Ecumenism offers a positive solution to a largely negative situation. It responds to the negativity surrounding ecumenism by proposing a realistic approach grounded in hope, rather than optimism. At our current vantage point in the midst of the ecumenical winter, it is time to be humbly realistic, rather than overly optimistic. It is the very nature of Receptive Ecumenism’s “more realistic” approach, by acknowledging the current situation as an intermediary one, which Kasper and others particularly welcome.12 The enormity of the challenges facing ecumenism must be recognised. However, despite appearances, ecumenism is not in its dotage, and is far from being over. Ecumenism was not only of importance for the twentieth century, but remains important for all generations, up until the time of the eschaton. However, we must believe that ecumenical progress is possible, if it is to be made. Our responsibility to pray and work towards Christian unity must be reaffirmed, not laid aside. Receptive Ecumenism provides a strategy where progress is possible and realistic. It finds the medium between negativity and optimism. It is founded on viewing our current stage as an interim period, where the goal is to learn from each other and, with myriad small steps, regain some ecumenical momentum. Instead of aiming for ultimate goals, which are out of current reach, it refocuses ecumenical energy on what is possible to be accomplished in the here and now. As Murray makes clear, the point is not to give up on ecumenical unity, but “to ask what it means to live now oriented on such goals.”13 In this way, Receptive Ecumenism manages to sweep away some of the frozen negativity surrounding the Ecumenical Movement, replacing disillusioned optimism with cautious hope. Receptive Ecumenism also directly responds to the ecumenical winter’s call for new ecumenical methods. It is a fresh approach explicitly designed to push ecumenism forward. Murray explains that “Receptive Ecumenism offers a constructive way ahead where such dialogues seem to have run out of steam.”14 If the Ecumenical Movement is to survive, it must reignite the interest of lay 12 13 14

Kasper, “Foreword,” vii. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 12. Paul D. Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” in The Routledge Companion to the Practice of Christian Theology, ed. Mike Higton and Jim Fodor (London: Routledge, 2015), 292.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

183

­ eople, and engage the entire church community. Receptive Ecumenism aims p for a balance between theological and practical approaches; it is a democratised ecumenism, inviting participation at some level from all church members. Moreover, it seeks to engage churches in ecumenism out of solidarity. Many churches face similar problems to each other. Receptive Ecumenism advocates learning from each other, in an attempt to tackle together some of the key problems facing the entire body of Christ in the world. As Kelly outlines, part of Receptive Ecumenism’s potential is that it enables churches to “look with fresh eyes at their own situation, particularly the challenges and threats they face.”15 By offering a fresh vantage point, “Receptive Ecumenism may offer a way to learn from others in facing up to these challenges. In some cases it could result in breaking through the impasse.”16 As Murray observes, rather than most church leaders and parishes being “actively hostile” to ecumenism, it is usually more often the case that ecumenism can seem “as just one more difficult but less urgent demand on the already over-​long ‘to-​do’ list.”17 Seen in this way, ecumenism will not become a priority for churches because there “is just too much else to do and too much else to feel guilty about.”18 As such, ecumenism must be considered as something actually useful for churches to undertake. After all, as Murray says, “Pragmatism generally trumps idealism any day of the week.”19 If applied, Receptive Ecumenism has the potential to aid churches in surviving the challenges of the contemporary milieu, by learning from each other and standing together. Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism is both able to combat the negativity surrounding ecumenism, as well as providing a fresh ecumenical method suitable for the contemporary context. It is Kasper’s conviction that “it will contribute to a new start and a hopefully also a new spring within the ecumenical movement.”20 However, while the ecumenical winter encompasses the broadly negative context surrounding ecumenism today, we need to look more deeply into some of the other challenges of our context, such as pluralism. 1.2 The Challenge of Pluralism Pluralism is one of the key challenges facing contemporary ecumenism, and indeed, the church as a whole. As Kasper explains, the Catholic Church has 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 2. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 2. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Kasper, “Foreword,” viii.

184 CHAPTER 8 had problems with pluralism for a long time, and only started to grapple with it after the Second Vatican Council.21 Pluralism is a challenge across all three levels: within the Catholic Church, between denominations, and from culture and society. Pluralism is a dominant feature of contemporary Western society. As part of the context of postmodernity, pluralism places positive value on diversity and plurality. Instead of one truth, there is a multiplicity of interpretations. Instead of uniformity, there is diversity. Pluralism is intertwined with individualism, and respect for personal autonomy, all hallmarks of contemporary culture. Ecumenism cannot hope to inspire new generations unless it grapples seriously with the reality of pluralism. The cultural and social impact of pluralism represents a significant challenge to the Ecumenical Movement, which, at its heart, calls for unity. However, it must be emphasised that the positive value of pluralism, diversity, must be distinguished from the extreme form of pluralism that is relativism. Diversity is acceptable and even desirable. In 1972, the International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church published an early and significant reflection on “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism.”22 The document begins by recognising that both unity and plurality are based in the mystery of Christ, which is a mystery that “goes beyond the possibilities of expression of any given age and thus eludes exhaustive systematization (Eph 3:8–​10).”23 As such, the task of interpretation of Christ’s mystery may lead to diversity in approaches. John Paul ii talks about “legitimate diversity” which “is in no way opposed to the Church’s unity, but rather enhances her splendour and contributes greatly to the fulfilment of her mission.”24 Diversity within the Catholic Church has become recognised as “not only possible but even desirable.”25 The paradox between unity and diversity is one with which Christianity is intimately familiar. After all, the central belief of the Christian faith is the Triune God, who is both one and three. However, according to the International Commission of the Catholic Church, the limits of pluralism can be found “in the fact that faith creates the communion of men in the truth, which has been

21 22 23 24 25

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 174. International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church, “Theological Pluralism” (1972), available online http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​congregations/​cfaith/​cti_​ documents/​rc_​cti_​1972_​fede-​pluralismo_​en.html. International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church, “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism,” 1. John Paul ii, UUS, no. 50. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 175.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

185

made accessible in Christ.”26 Therefore, any conception of faith, which reduces it “to a purely pragmatic cooperation, lacking any sense of community in the truth,” is unacceptable.27 Statements and positions can therefore be assessed and rejected on the basis of maintaining integrity and continuity with scripture and tradition.28 Legitimate diversity within the Catholic Church is, therefore, a positive feature of the connection between local churches and universal Church. But what about diversity between Christian denominations? More than 30,000 different Christian churches currently exist.29 The richness these different churches brings to Christianity cannot be denied. However, it is also indisputable that all Christians are called by Christ to unity, as One Body. However, it is not the goal of ecumenism to submerge all these different expressions of Christianity into one homogenous, generic “church.” Ecumenism has long sought to resist critics who argue that ecumenism is a “melting pot,” where differences are boiled down to lowest common denominator type consensus. The tension between one and many characterises Christianity. Diversity may be in tension with unity, but it is also fundamentally a part of unity. As Meyer explains:  “ ‘Diversity’ is, therefore, a constitutive element in the understanding of communion. … diversity and unity belong together in the church.”30 Pluralism can be a positive value, as long as it does not fragment unity. Therefore, pluralism is both a challenge and an enrichment for ecumenism. Avis’s work on pluralism and ecumenism is particularly valuable. He argues that ecumenism must take diversity much more seriously, especially at the official level.31 He emphasises the contradiction between the fundamental Christian belief that the Church is one and the fact of Christianity diversity.32 Avis also makes the point that unity used to be synonymous with uniformity.33 The push towards pluralism did not occur until after the Enlightenment, and in conjunction with growing secularism.34 However, uniformity is now considered far from desirable, especially by millennials. He explains how diversity

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church, “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism,” 8. International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church, “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism,” 8. International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church, “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism,” 9. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 13. Meyer, That All May Be One, 69. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, viii. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 4. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 14. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 16.

186 CHAPTER 8 itself is a positive value, arguing that “the more successful the Church’s mission is, the more diverse church life becomes.”35 He clarifies that the “opposite of unity is not diversity but division. The opposite of diversity is not unity but uniformity.”36 Unity and diversity are therefore not opposed to each other, but rather belong in tension. Relativism, however, is the opponent of ecumenism. Postmodern relativism, the belief that no truth claims can be made, that individuals are free to pick and choose and swap at random, is the antithesis of the ecumenical search for unity, which seeks truth. Relativism leads to fragmentation and opposes unity, it prioritises individuality rather than community. Whilst the acknowledgment of legitimate diversity may appear to condone relativism, this is not the case. As Avis remarks, When we acknowledge the principle of diversity in the expression of Christian faith, we thereby relativize our own standpoint. We cannot make absolute claims for our own particular grasp of the truth while at the same time recognizing that other interpretations have authenticity. The truth stands beyond any individual’s grasp of it.37 However, the crucial point is that acknowledging “diversity in principle” by accepting the incompleteness of our own grasp of the truth, “does not relativize the Truth itself.”38 There is therefore a distinction between human comprehension of God, and the reality of God. We need to be aware of our own inadequacies, while trusting in God. As Avis makes clear, “Ultimately, the truth is identical with God.”39 There is a link, therefore, between diversity and the via negativa tradition. The positive value of diversity reiterates the eschatological tension between the “now” and “not yet.” We have not yet achieved the fullness of knowledge and truth in Christ, yet that fullness does already partially exist. The eschatological nature of the church means that there are interpretations of the mystery still yet to be revealed. As Avis puts it, “there is much that we cannot see clearly, much that we can never know, a vast hinterland of mystery.”40 As such, diversity serves to express where a church may have come closer to the truth in one area rather than another. Avis proposes that 35 36 37 38 39 40

Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 18. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 32. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 29. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 29. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 29. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 30.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

187

a “realist approach to diversity” takes differences seriously: “It is not that various traditions and theologies are all saying the same thing in different words and idioms, but that they are actually saying some different things (as well, of course, as some very important things on which they speak with one voice).”41 He cautions that: “Ecumenical work jumps too readily to the conclusion that differences are only semantic.”42 The real differences between traditions must be recognised and grappled with, not glossed over.43 Avis’s statements shed light on how an ecumenical method can positively approach diversity. Pluralism is both a challenge and an obstacle to the Ecumenical Movement. The goal of ecumenism is fundamentally eschatological, just as the church itself is an eschatological reality. However, an eschatological understanding of ecumenism does not mean that the current Ecumenical Movement should rest satisfied with the friendly and collaborative relationships already achieved. In Murray’s understanding, visible unity is not thought of as a goal that can be achieved only in the eschaton. Instead, eschatological ecumenism is about responding to the call to live and act out the “not yet” in the “now.” We must be careful to distinguish unity from uniformity, and to recognise the positive value of diversity. Ecumenism does not aim either towards division or towards uniformity, but the extreme of relativism must be countered. Murray writes that the contemporary ecumenical context requires that we grapple with the question of how to take “traditioned particularity seriously, and the inevitable plurality of diverse traditioned particularities this suggests, without collapsing into … closed, relativistic tribalism.”44 In other words, how can pluralism be maintained as a positive value within a movement directed towards unity, without succumbing to relativism? Murray argues that Receptive Ecumenism is “the primary means by which, and the primary locus in which, the separated Christian traditions can witness to what it might mean to live difference” in a healthy and “flourishing” manner.45 Receptive Ecumenism is acutely aware of the tensions and challenges involved in navigating the pluralist context. Murray both emphasises the gravity of the challenge of pluralism, and argues for Receptive Ecumenism as the most effective response to it.46 He argues that “The key question of our age is as to whether we can live difference for mutual flourishing rather than mutually 41 42 43 44 45 46

Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 30. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 30. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 30. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 7. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18.

188 CHAPTER 8 assured destruction.”47 He insists that we must consider how to undertake ecumenism “in relation to the all-​pervasive situation of irreducible pluralism –​ even blood-​soaked conflictual difference  –​that we late-​moderns find ourselves in.”48 Pluralism must be taken seriously, but not in a defensive manner that leads to isolated, fortress churches. The reality of different manifestations of Christianity must be accepted seriously, and as a positive opportunity for learning and deepening conversion. However, Receptive Ecumenism does not go so far as embracing relativism, where no truth claims or judgments can be made at all. Murray advocates a position of “committed pluralism.”49 This approach is one of being “committed to acknowledging and negotiating appropriately the pluralist reality of the world of difference in which we exist; committed also to the legitimacy and rationality of particular rooted commitments precisely in this context.”50 This position is represented by Receptive Ecumenism, Comparative Theology, and Scriptural Reasoning.51 The three methods not only focus on taking “differing traditioned identities seriously,” but also on traditions being “enriched through the very process of also taking another’s tradition seriously.”52 Pluralism is accepted positively, rather than demonised. Instead of the goal being to mitigate differences between traditions, the ­focus is on learning from those differences, in order to enrich one’s own tradition. Pluralism is legitimate, in light of the eschatological nature of the Church. There are also overtones of the via negativa approach to theology in Receptive Ecumenism, where full comprehension of God’s mystery is beyond our grasp. The approach to truth represented in Receptive Ecumenism is certainly not the Enlightenment version of knowledge and truth which characterised ­modernity. As Murray explains, knowledge is not seen as “a superstructure progressively erected on the basis of sure and certain, discretely verifiable foundations,” or in other words, Enlightenment metanarratives.53 Rather, knowledge is “a complex, flexible, context-​specific web.”54 Receptive Ecumenism is a child of postmodernity. Truth is no longer seen “in terms of cognitive understanding and conceptual articulation,” in line with the dominant focus on reason that 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 31. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 8. See also Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 79. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 80. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 80.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

189

characterises modernity.55 Rather, truth is “also about discerning and living in accordance with the fruitful possibilities that the open-​textured reality of things presents,” and is therefore concerned not just with reason but with “efficacy and fruitfulness.”56 Again, Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on the affective and spiritual aspects of ecumenism is brought to the fore. In this way, Receptive Ecumenism, as an approach of committed pluralism, is able to tackle the ecumenical challenge of pluralism. Murray explains, Receptive Ecumenism is a key way for separated Christians to witness what “it might mean to live difference as grace and blessing and for mutual flourishing.”57 Rather than working towards homogeneity, which would not receive widespread support in current Western society, difference and diversity are positively recognised. Receptive Ecumenism is therefore able to adapt to the times, and as such, has the ability to appeal to a new generation of Christians. The pluralist context is therefore not just a positive value for Receptive Ecumenism, but its native habitat. Receptive Ecumenism is based on the recognition of the positive value of diversity, and could not flourish in a context which valued uniformity. Its repudiation of uniformity contrasts with the “classical Christian ecumenical tendency … to seek to neutralise and overcome difference as efficiently as possible.”58 Murray argues that negativity towards difference and pluralism “has increasingly appeared unrealistic as the likelihood has opened up of a prolonged interim stage of having to live with in un-​reconciled divisions.”59 As such, Receptive Ecumenism’s primary focus is on a unity committed to pluralism and diversity; to difference not uniformity. Murray describes this vision of unity eloquently: “The wholeness, the full communion, of full catholicity thus understood is like the fully decked, fully illuminated Christmas tree –​or like a polyphonous choir singing in harmony –​in which each unique ornament, each distinct voice, is needed for the whole.”60 Born out of the pluralist context, Receptive Ecumenism offers an ecumenical strategy with a positive approach to diversity. It centres on the value of difference as an opportunity for interior conversion, and takes pluralism seriously, without surrendering to relativism. It engages with the challenge of pluralism, transforming it into an opportunity, rather than an obstacle. However, pluralism is far from the only challenge facing the Ecumenical Movement. 55 56 57 58 59 60

Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 80. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 80. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 18. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 78. Murray, “Families of Receptive Theological Learning,” 78. Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” 292.

190 CHAPTER 8 1.3 The Challenge of Ecclesial Identity Issues surrounding ecclesial identity constitute one of the most significant challenges for ecumenism today. Identity is of vital concern to all churches. As Avis makes clear, “As historic institutions, churches guard their identity.”61 Identity is developed and strengthened by drawing on their historic contexts, their standpoints on key issues, such as gender and ministry, and their beliefs about relating to God. Avis explains that differences also serve to distinguish a church’s identity from others, such as how the Petrine ministry contributes to Catholic identity.62 The Christian landscape has seen something of an increase in emphasis on denominational differences, what Murray calls a “post-​modern heightening of the particularity of identity over against any easily assumed commonality.”63 The difficult situation many churches face in the contemporary context can lead churches to adopt a defensive posture. Such churches protectively withdraw in on themselves and steer away from inter-​denominational engagement; a phenomenon termed re-​confessionalism. While not necessarily an unreasonable reaction, Kelly clarifies that “renewed confessionalism” is negative “if it builds walls around churches, effectively entrenching division.”64 Clearly, this tendency is a major obstacle for the Ecumenical Movement, and for the flourishing of Christianity as a whole. Effective dialogue and engagement is critical to the entire body of Christ. Sweeney argues that “churches will only re-​establish their role in late modern society if they succeed in cultivating a reflexive and self-​critical identity, humble enough and secure enough to engage in dialogue.”65 As such, negative re-​confessionalism is of concern not only to ecumenism, but for the whole church. However, a more positive aspect of it is the renewal of ecclesial identity, “which leads to a more authentic ­expression of church life, learning from the richness of the whole oikumene.”66 Any ecumenism that appears to denigrate or diminish identity is therefore ­suspect, but the pitfalls of rigid defensiveness must also be avoided. The perception that ecumenical engagement leads to the erosion of identity, wherein a church’s distinctiveness is boiled away to create a bland homogenous whole, is a contributing factor to the current ecumenical impasse. As Kasper explains, “Even in a world which is characterized by globalization, many 61 62 63 64 65 66

Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 19. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 19. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 35. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 4. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 343. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 4.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

191

ask: Who are we? Who am I? Nobody wants to be absorbed in an anonymous and faceless whole.”67 Churches may be unwilling to engage in ecumenism for fear of losing their identities. However, far from seeking to diminish ecclesial identity, authentic ecumenical dialogue depends on those involved having strong ecclesial identities. In fact, as Kasper argues “Only partners with a clear identity can undertake dialogue without fearing the loss of their identity within the dialogue.”68 The misconception that ecumenism aims towards lowest common denominator consensus is the very opposite of its process and purpose. What is needed, therefore, is an ecumenical approach which values and protects e­ cclesial identity, without leading to negative re-​confessionalism. Receptive Ecumenism is acutely aware of the need to protect ecclesial identity. As Ӧrsy makes clear, ecclesial learning can only be authentic if it supports a church’s identity.69 Grounded in this concern, Receptive Ecumenism seeks not to detract, but rather to enrich, ecclesial identity. In Receptive Ecumenism, identity is not diminished, but rather found through engagement with others, through deepening conversion and becoming more authentically what we already are. Murray proposes that “ecumenical theological learning should be about the enrichment rather than diminishment of identity. This is a great gift to bestow: to help another become him/​herself in all his/​her difference from you.”70 Receptive Ecumenism aims towards a deepening of conversion, and thus of ecclesial identity. He emphasises that: “It is a process of growth and change –​a process of conversion –​that is at root not a loss, nor a diminishment but a finding, a freeing, an intensification, and an enrichment.”71 Therefore, it cannot lead towards loss of identity. In line with the work of the Groupe des Dombes, Murray attests that it requires “traditions to relinquish the rigid absolutizing of their opposed confessional identities,” and recognise what gifts can be received from other traditions.72 However, any learning or change which takes place through ecclesial learning must be authentic to that tradition. This is why Receptive Ecumenism cannot be imposed on a church, but is the self-​critical responsibility of each church to undertake for itself. Only the members of that church, under the guidance of the Spirit, can discern whether what is learned is authentic to their ecclesial identity. As such, the purpose of Receptive Ecumenism is to help a church seek out where it has not fully 67 68 69 70 71 72

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 15. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 15. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 42. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 82. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 6. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.”

192 CHAPTER 8 realised itself (its “woundedness”) through a process of ecclesial learning. As Avis asserts, “The witness of RE is needed to remind all churches that they are wounded and incomplete and need to be made whole by divine mercy.”73 It is prefaced on humility, and necessitates a deep level of self-​understanding. Receptive Ecumenism is, therefore, a process of healing and deepening conversion, of becoming more fully what we already are, rather than less. In an article based on her paper at the second conference, Catherine Clifford offers valuable insight into how Receptive Ecumenism approaches the challenge of ecclesial identity.74 She observes that ecumenical activity seems “to have stalled in a kind of fear of moving forward, of taking concrete new steps toward fuller communion.”75 She proposes that the problem revolves around insecurity of ecclesial identity, as churches ask:  “ ‘Can we possibly change without sacrificing something that is essential, that defines us as who we are as Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant Christians, without betraying a tradition that has been entrusted to us by the apostles?’ ”76 In tackling this insecurity, she emphasises the work of the Groupe des Dombes in asserting that “some of what needs correcting is our very sense of self, our sense of identity, which has too often confounded confessional identity or self with the identity or self of the one church of Christ.”77 There are eschatological overtones here, in the need to recognise that there is a difference between the Church of Christ and our Earthly churches. As she explains: The impulse to retrenchment in denominational identities reveals that we have at times reversed the order of priority and placed the sense of confessional identity above fidelity to the church of Christ, or confused historically and culturally conditioned forms of doctrine and church practice with the timeless tradition of the apostolic faith.78 Acknowledging the eschatological incompleteness of the church provides a way of being receptive, rather than defensive, regarding ecclesial identity. Rather than pressure to change ecclesial identity in the face of other Christians, the focus is on converting deeper into the identity of Christ. The Second

73 74 75 76 77 78

Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 232. Catherine E. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church: Putting on the Mind of Christ,” One in Christ 43, no. 2–​5 (2009). Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 2. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 2. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 4. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

193

Vatican Council’s decision to explain the Church of Christ as “subsisting in” the Catholic Church, rather than the more exclusionary expression, that the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church, is an example of a positive revisioning of ecclesial identity. The change upholds the integrity of the Catholic Church’s ecclesial self-​understanding but also opens the door to recognition of Christ’s will working in other ways outside of the Catholic Church. On this issue, she posits that:  “To move forward on the path of receptive ­ecumenism we must have the humility to make an honest assessment of where our churches may have a distorted perception of their ecclesial selves.”79 This attitude of humility is essential to Receptive Ecumenism. Grounded in Spiritual Ecumenism, it maintains that all churches require further conversion into Christ. This is why Receptive Ecumenism results in a deepening sense of identity, rather than a loss of identity.80 Emphasising this point, Clifford argues that churches “might need to be freed from a false sense of self,” and that “these false selves” must “be emptied,” and replaced with the mind of Christ.81 “Every faith community must pass through this kenotic way if we are to grow in genuine communion,” she says.82 Ecumenism, as she puts it, calls for “the churches to move from being self-​centered, or confessionally-​centered, to adopting a sense of church that is Christ-​centered.”83 Ecclesial identity must therefore be viewed through the lens of Christ. It is to Christ’s identity that we must conform, and it is Christ’s identity which cannot be compromised or sacrificed. We must allow Christ and the Spirit to “become the criteria for our unity in the place of our particular ecclesial selves.”84 Ecclesial communities need to reflect critically on how they express Christ, and allow themselves to be challenged to deeper communion. Identity is therefore an important critique for all churches. Receptive Ecumenism sidesteps the stumbling block of ecclesial identity by refocusing on conversion into Christ. Its response to the challenge of ecclesial identity is vital for both the Ecumenical Movement and the life of the church. Thus far, we have seen how Receptive Ecumenism responds to some pressing ecumenical concerns by navigating their pitfalls and emphasising their positive aspects. But how does it engage with the ultimate, far from unproblematic, aim of ­ecumenism: full visible unity? 79 80 81 82 83 84

Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 16. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5. Clifford, “Kenosis and the Church,” 5.

194 CHAPTER 8 1.4 The Challenge of Full Visible Unity The aim of full visible unity, once the driving impetus of ecumenism, is far from uncontested in the contemporary context. Full visible unity has been, and cannot but remain, the ultimate goal of the Ecumenical Movement. However, concerns over the concept require us to ask whether full visible unity is still relevant and useful for ecumenical endeavour? In 1995, Nilson argued for a shift away from a focus on full visible unity, asserting that “now is the time for realism, time to mute people’s expectations and hopes for a church that is vibrantly and visibly one.”85 He considers that full “reconciliation is impossible and perhaps it is even unnecessary for the foreseeable future.”86 He is not advocating ecumenism as a failed project, which should be relegated to the dusty shelves of history. Rather, the “ecumenical question for us today,” he says, is not “if” or “whether” we should undertake ecumenism, but “how” best to do so.87 In contrast to Nilson, Meyer upholds full visible unity as the aim of the Ecumenical Movement.88 He contests the tendency to “be content with the present ecumenical achievement and to leave matters as they are with the present existing peaceful and cooperative coexistence of the churches.”89 This is because anything less than full visible unity is a “downgrading” of the ecumenical aim.90 If the goal of ecumenism is simply to establish friendly relations with each other, and to work together in shared mission, then the Ecumenical Movement can count its task as complete, and has only to maintain what has already been gained. However, ecumenism cannot be reduced to merely the attainment of co-​ operative relationships. No matter how unfashionable, the goal remains no less than Jesus’ prayer, “that they may all be one.” Nonetheless, full visible unity does not seem to grip imaginations today in the way that it inspired previous generations. The trend towards asserting denominational differences (re-​ confessionalism) certainly plays a part in the negative perception attached to full visible unity. In a time when differences are celebrated and identities are, at times militantly, protected, it is not surprising that full visible unity does not have the same appeal it once had. Cassidy explains that disappointment in ecumenical progress also contributes to the shift away from full visible 85 86 87 88 89 90

Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, vi. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, vi. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, vii. Meyer, That All May Be One, 153–​154. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152. Meyer, That All May Be One, 152.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

195

unity. He observes that, “The difficulties that the churches are encountering in this quest bring a natural tendency to limit the goal.”91 It is a trend that must be countered, however. Wainwright makes the point that, “An unremitting attachment to the visibility of unity will remain imperative in face of the perennial temptation to Docetism or Gnosticism and the current danger of acquiescence in the postmodern mood of fragmentation.”92 Perhaps now, more than ever, the Ecumenical Movement requires reaffirmation of the goal of full visible unity. However, Avis reflects that although full visible unity is still upheld by churches, especially by Anglican and Catholics, “the practical realization of the goal seems to be receding.”93 He acknowledges that the traditional understanding of full visible unity, “defined as all Christians in each place in visible unity with all Christians in every place … has not been translated into reality, except in a piecemeal and fragmentary way.”94 While affirming that the “eschatological hope of the full visible unity of the Body of Christ” remains valid, he recognises that it can be understood in different ways.95 As such, he argues that we need to have “greater realism” about unity, and that moving towards this goal requires a “sober, steady but progressive method.”96 In a similar vein, Kasper affirms that visible unity should not be understood as “uniformity but as unity in plurality and as a communion of churches.”97 Full unity includes “cultural diversity, different liturgical rites, different forms of piety, different but complementary emphases and perspectives, etc.”98 Clearly, the concept of full visible unity needs to be reinterpreted for the contemporary context. As Christian unity is an eschatological reality, we cannot fully grasp the form that unity will ultimately take. Where, then, does all this leave us? Full visible unity needs to be re-​affirmed as the goal of the Ecumenical Movement, but it must also be approached realistically and with sensitivity to the concerns of the current context. This point brings us to discern how Receptive Ecumenism engages with the concept of full visible unity. 91 92

93 94 95 96 97 98

Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” 13. Geoffrey Wainwright, “Ut Unum Sint in Light of ‘Faith and Order’ –​or ‘Faith and Order’ in Light of Ut Unum Sint?” in Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 89. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 22. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 22. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, 21. Avis, Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, ix. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 43. Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, 6.

196 CHAPTER 8 Receptive Ecumenism is premised on what Murray terms “two apparently opposed points” in regards to full visible unity.99 First, the recognition that full visible unity is not viable as the immediate aim of ecumenical endeavour.100 Second, that full visible unity must, nonetheless, remain the ultimate aim of the Ecumenical Movement.101 Murray’s stance of committed pluralism is important here. The goal of full visible unity is often misperceived as meaning uniformity, rather than unity –​as previously discussed, uniformity is not actually what full visible unity is about. If the goal is to be embraced more warmly in today’s postmodern, pluralistic context, then we must make that distinction clear. As Murray clarifies, he means the achievement of structural, institutional and sacramental communion, but “very definitely not of uniformity and not even of convergence in any straightforward sense.”102 Holding these points in tension, Receptive Ecumenism focuses on what is directly achievable now, but is ultimately directed towards the eschatological fullness of unity.103 It is a realistic interim measure, rather than one aimed directly at achieving full reconciliation. While Murray asserts full visible unity as the ultimate aim of ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism is not aimed immediately towards this goal. This is because full visible unity is not an achievable short-​term objective for our current point in time.104 As such, it is not a direction from which ecumenism will be able to regather momentum. To get ecumenism moving again, we need to start working towards realistic goals. However, this is always undertaken in light of eschatological full visible unity, which exists already in part, if not fullness. Receptive Ecumenism is therefore proposed as the way to move toward full visible unity, by restarting ecumenical progress. In fact, Murray asserts that “this way of reparative receptive ecumenical learning … is the only way in which the currently divided traditions can walk towards full structural, ministerial, sacramental communion and their own healing together.”105 Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism is an interim measure not only designed to regain ecumenical momentum, but to strive towards full visible unity. It both sidesteps the obstacle of full visible unity (that it is not possible to achieve right now) and reasserts its central place in the ecumenical agenda (that it is

99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 144. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 144. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 144. Murray, “Growing into the Fullness of Christ.” Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 144. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 34. Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” 292.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

197

the ultimate ecumenical aim). Full visible unity remains the goal, but the strategy to achieve it is that transformative learning will bring about changed circumstances and open up new possibilities, which will then shift closer to the achievement of full structural unity. This approach acknowledges the eschatological and spiritual aspects of ecumenism, as something which will come into fullness according to Christ and the Spirit. Receptive Ecumenism offers an eschatological approach to full visible unity, where we must work with the tension of “now” but “not yet.” It recognises the pervading sense that full visible unity is not possible at this time, but reaffirms its necessity by attesting that the point is to live in its light anyway. Murray argues that Receptive Ecumenism takes the present moment, one he names as “post-​euphoric optimism and pre-​realisation of the hopes there ignited,” as an opportunity for conversion and ecclesial learning.106 Our time represents “a long-​term learning opportunity in which the churches might progress towards their calling and destiny in the only way possible –​by slow and difficult growth in maturity.”107 Receptive Ecumenism offers no short cuts to full visible unity; the difficult realities of our time are taken seriously, but not pessimistically. In this way, it navigates the rocky terrain surrounding the concept of full visible unity, by offering a realistic approach centred on achieving whatever is possible to achieve, however we can, but which is also shot through with eschatological promise. Receptive Ecumenism therefore has the potential to navigate some of the key challenges facing the Ecumenical Movement today. Because of this, Kelly’s observation of “how eagerly people embrace it –​almost as though it may be the saviour of an ecumenical movement which for some seems to have entered a period of malaise” is not surprising.108 He goes on, “I agree that receptive ecumenism has the potential to give new energy to the ecumenical movement.”109 He offers a word of caution, however. For it to realise its potential, “we need to be aware of just exactly what receptive ecumenism is and consider how we can make it a successful methodology in our own situation.”110 Receptive Ecumenism is certainly a good idea, an excellent theory –​but does it work in reality? It is important now to consider how Receptive Ecumenism has been implemented, and gauge its effectiveness.

1 06 107 108 109 110

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 36. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 36. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 1. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 1.

198 CHAPTER 8 2

The Implementation of Receptive Ecumenism as an Ecumenical Strategy

As we have seen, Receptive Ecumenism has the potential to respond to the challenges of the contemporary milieu, thereby fostering ecumenical progress. The question becomes, then, that of its feasibility as an ecumenical strategy. How has Receptive Ecumenism been applied, and to what success? To date, there have been four major implementations of Receptive Ecumenism: the international conferences; the Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church; arcic iii; and Receptive Ecumenism in Australia. 2.1 The International Conferences Much has already been said in regards to the international Receptive Ecumenism conferences. Here we focus on their effectiveness as an application of Receptive Ecumenism. The first conference was highly successful.111 The proceedings were published in 2008, in a volume that constitutes one of the key resources available on Receptive Ecumenism.112 The conference’s success is further testified to by the fact that it paved the way for further international conferences, and a variety of international projects. However, it was primarily Catholic, focusing on the question of Catholic learning. There were other limitations as well, as outlined by a report on the conference, pointing to a “relative lack of broad involvement of and ownership by the local Church.”113 Participants were predominantly international academic experts, rather than representatives of the local church community.114 Questions remained over how Receptive Ecumenism would work in practice. The second conference was held in 2009. It was jointly organised by Durham’s Centre for Catholic Studies and the Ecclesiological Investigations Network. It intentionally broadened the scope beyond the specifically Catholic focus of the first conference. It aimed to critically explore Receptive Ecumenism’s potential, address its implications for other Christian traditions, and assess its practical relevance for local church life.115 Proceedings from the conference are pending ­publication. In light of the fact that it focused on ecclesial learning, the volume’s 111 Murray, “Preface,” x. 112 This volume was analysed in detail in Chapter Three. 113 Centre for Catholic Studies, “Report on 2006 Conference,” Durham University https://​ www.dur.ac.uk/​theology.religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​projects/​catholiclearning/​catholiclearning/​. 114 Centre for Catholic Studies, “Report on 2006 Conference.” 115 Ecclesiological Investigations Network and Centre for Catholic Studies, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning:  Learning to Be Church Together Conference

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

199

contribution will certainly be significant. However, the delay in publishing the volume may have decelerated Receptive Ecumenism’s growth. The work undertaken, and the theological insights and developments presented by those at the second conference are yet to be engaged with. One example is the paper by David Pascoe on ecclesial learning as essentially underpinned by humility and hospitality, which remains unpublished.116 Despite the success of the conference itself, the lengthy wait for the volume’s publication represents something of a suspension on Receptive Ecumenism’s continuing development. The third conference was held in 2014 at Fairfield University in Connecticut. One of its notable features was its variety of sponsors, which indicates a significant amount of growth and interest in Receptive Ecumenism.117 The conference aimed to examine how Receptive Ecumenism, “virus-​like rather than brand-​like” has been applied and adapted to different contexts on a global scale.118 There was a great diversity of papers presented at the third conference which showcased Receptive Ecumenism’s potential. However, one m ­ ajor critique was the lack of criteria for ecclesial learning. A prominent theme at the conference was the coming of age of Receptive Ecumenism.119 Murray declared that “if Receptive Ecumenism has legs, then let it walk.”120 He did not, at that stage, envision organising any further conferences, or necessarily taking Receptive Ecumenism further himself.121 While this attitude serves to re-​emphasise Receptive Ecumenism’s collaborative nature, there is no doubt that Murray has been the approach’s key figure and proponent, the captain at the helm of the ship, so to speak. If Receptive Ecumenism is to continue to flourish, then it will require the work and enthusiasm of others, to pick it up and apply it to their own contexts. The third conference therefore represented a turning point for Receptive Ecumenism. Its success was more mixed than

1 16 117

118 1 19 120 121

Program,” Ecclesiological Investigations Network http://​www.ei-​research.net/​uploads/​ microsoft-​word-​jan09-​reconf-​briefingparticipants_​web_​.pdf. Pascoe, “Hospitality Grounded in Humility.” REIII was sponsored by: atf Press; The Anglican Communion Office; The Association of Interchurch Families; The Australian Catholic University; The Centro Pro Unione, Rome; The Commission for Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches; The Episcopal Church; The Global Christian Forum; The Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame; The Irish School of Ecumenics; The RASKOB Foundation; The South Australian Council of Churches; and The United Reformed Church of Great Britain. https://​www.dur.ac.uk/​ resources/​theology.religion/​REinInternationalPerspectiveDraftProgramme140416.pdf. Centre for Catholic Studies, “Draft Programme of Receptive Ecumenism in International Perspective.” This was the theme of Murray’s introductory session at REIII. This was one of Murray’s comments in the introductory session at REIII. These comments are from Murray’s introductory session at REIII.

200 CHAPTER 8 the high of the previous conferences. Receptive Ecumenism received international attention, and the eventual publication of the conference proceedings will make a significant contribution to ecumenism. But the conference also signalled the end of this stage of Receptive Ecumenism. The shape of the next stage, of course, is still emerging. The fourth international Receptive Ecumenism conference, “Leaning into the Spirit:  Discernment, Decision-​making, and Reception,” was held in Canberra, Australia in November 2017.122 This conference built constructively on the previous conferences. Its key focus was on applying the Receptive Ecumenical method to discernment, decision-​making, and reception. It marked a new era in Receptive Ecumenism, as it was the first conference not organised directly by Murray, although he was a keynote speaker. Like the third conference, its success was somewhat more mixed than the first two, yet it was still a significant step forward. The dissemination of material from the fourth conference will add greatly to the Receptive Ecumenism movement. The success of this fourth conference indicates that Receptive Ecumenism has sustainable energy and effectiveness as a strategy; it continues to inspire and draw people together from across the world to continue ecumenical work. To use Murray’s phrase, Receptive Ecumenism seems, indeed, to have legs. A  fifth Receptive Ecumenism conference, in fact, will take place in Sweden in 2020. The conferences represent the major academic implementation of Receptive Ecumenism to date. They have been internationally successful, and have stimulated ecumenical activity. However, there is a backlog of work awaiting publication, spanning the years from 2009 to 2017. The publication of these volumes will incite further interest in Receptive Ecumenism, and contribute greatly to its continued development. The success of the conferences indicate that Receptive Ecumenism can be applied to many different ecumenical questions. However, a natural consequence of this medium is that the majority of academic work on Receptive Ecumenism has been undertaken in a disconnected and individual, rather than systematic and comprehensive, manner. As such, as discussed previously, inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the body of work on Receptive Ecumenism, as is only to be expected. There is a lack of overarching criteria to guide ecclesial learning. If Receptive Ecumenism is to have lasting value, there needs to be clarification over its meaning and application. Rusch’s concern about ecumenical reception 122 The fourth Receptive Ecumenism conferenced was organised by the Centre for Ecumenical Studies as part of the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, together with Australian Catholic University, in partnership with a variety of Australian ecumenical bodies as well as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

201

becoming a “catchall” term is equally applicable for Receptive Ecumenism.123 Receptive Ecumenism must be careful not to become an umbrella phrase, for as Rusch explains, “words that mean everything ultimately mean nothing.”124 Murray raised this issue in his keynote paper at the Fourth Receptive Ecumenism conference in 2017. He acknowledged that Receptive Ecumenism can “easily be taken up in a very superficial manner.”125 When this happens, it is quite possible for us to continue doing what we were already doing “only now calling whatever we were doing Receptive Ecumenism.”126 There is a danger, he notes, that Receptive Ecumenism “becomes reduced to the level of a kind of ecumenical ‘pick-​n-​mix’ wherein people indiscriminately choose various attractive-​looking sweeties from the ecumenical sweet shop and add them to their own bag in a somewhat indiscriminate fashion.”127 Murray’s words here are reflective of the dangers of the way Receptive Ecumenism has been explored using the conferences as a primary medium, which necessarily lacks a systematic approach. This is why clearly explicating Receptive Ecumenism as a form of Spiritual Ecumenism, with a rich heritage and specific characteristics, is vital to its continuing development. A further limitation of this application of Receptive Ecumenism is its primarily academic nature. The conferences undertook theoretical testing of Receptive Ecumenism; whether it works in practice is another matter entirely. The Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church Discerning Receptive Ecumenism’s value for practical ecumenism is the focus of the Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church (abbreviated by Murray to RE&LC).128 RE&LC was developed by Durham’s Centre for Catholic Studies as a major cross-​disciplinary, collaborative undertaking.129 It aimed to involve the participation of as many churches 2.2

123 124 125 126 127 128 129

William G.  Rusch, Ecumenical Reception:  Its Challenge and Opportunity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), 59. Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 59. Paul Murray, “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-​Ecclesial Renewal.” Murray, “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-​Ecclesial Renewal.” Murray, “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-​Ecclesial Renewal.” For a detailed account of RE&LC, see Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church.” Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 138. It involved Durham’s Theology and Religion Department and Business School, St John’s College, and the North East Institute for Christian Education, as well as regional ecumenical officers and members of local churches. See Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 43.

202 CHAPTER 8 in England’s North East as possible.130 While originally intended as a three year study from 2007 to 2010, it was extended several times.131 The project was completed in 2016, and both the full report and the six denominational reports are available.132 RE&LC arose from a perceived need for a practical and empirical project “that would examine the actual relevance, viability and on-​the-​ground implications of Receptive Ecumenism at the level of local church life.”133 It was developed as a practical complement to the conferences’ implementation of Receptive Ecumenism, which were “at a relatively abstract, theorized level.”134 RE&LC was established in accord with Murray’s conviction that Receptive Ecumenism remain focused on the church as “not primarily a doctrine, a theory, but a living, breathing life-​world.”135 Receptive Ecumenism argues that churches must be engaged in a holistic manner, recognising their multiplicity as theological, affective, spiritual, and living contexts. The scope of the project was ambitious. Participant churches were treated as living traditions, focusing on their systems and practices, rather than as theoretical ideals.136 The practical and organisational receive priority, as “portals into the theological rather than the other way around.”137 However, Murray and Guest articulate that the aim of RE&LC goes beyond simply understanding and describing each community.138 The aim was to “identify areas of difficulty, tension, incoherence, awkwardness, even dysfunction, with a view to exploring how they might each potentially be rewoven in order to address their respective difficulties.”139 The project put Receptive Ecumenism as a reparative ministry into practice. As Murray and Guest articulate, “This is to view the task of ecclesiology as a form of diagnostic, therapeutic analysis; as a means of address and repair for systemic ills; as an agent of change.”140 RE&LC aimed to 130 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 43–​44; Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 138. It involved the Dioceses of Durham, Hexham & Newcastle, Newcastle, the Northern Baptists Association, the Northern Division of the Salvation Army, and the Northern Synod the United Reformed Church. 131 Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” 291. 132 The reports are available online on the Durham website: https://​www.dur.ac.uk/​theology. religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​projects/​localchurch/​. 133 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 43. 134 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 145. 135 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 145. 136 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 43. 137 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 43. 138 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 143. 139 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 143. 140 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 143.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

203

consider how each local church may “fruitfully learn from the respective best practice of the other participant groupings.”141 The project was organised in three major research teams of eight people, each led by an expert in the field: Governance and Finance, Leadership and Ministry, and Learning and Formation.142 RE&LC also employed an empirical methodology based on social scientific methods.143 The empirical methodology was chosen in an attempt to move beyond abstract, theoretical understandings of the church. As Murray and Guest explain, “the aim is to escape the ­tendency … of pursuing ecclesiology in an abstract, purely theoretical-​conceptual mode that operates in an ideal realm detached from the concrete reality of church life.”144 This evokes Murray’s argument that Receptive Ecumenism is “properly a matter of the heart before it is a matter of the head.”145 However, the approach is not anti-​theological. Theological analysis and methods were always intended to be undertaken once the practical and organisational factors had been considered.146 Indeed, Murray and Guest highlight that use of theological methodologies were required to discern the integrity of the identified areas for ecclesial learning.147 It is clear that Receptive Ecumenism seeks a balance between academic and practical, rational and affective. The project was envisaged in six stages.148 The first stage involved identifying the theological self-​understanding and challenges within each participating church.149 Phase Two began in 2008.150 It aimed to move beyond theory to the “lived reality and actual practice” of each church.151 This stage had three major aims: (1) to test how the respective theories work in practice; (2) to begin to identify respective areas of good practice and difficulty/​dysfunction alike; (3) to begin to identify where fruitful receptive learning might potentially take 1 41 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 138. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 149. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 162. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning,” 15. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 164. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 164. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146. The number of envisaged “phases” grew along with the length of the project. Earlier articles by Murray discussed four, and then five, envisaged phases. The project ended up with six phases. See Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 279. 149 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146. 1 50 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 44. 151 Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146.

204 CHAPTER 8 place across the traditions, whereby one tradition’s particular difficulties might be tended to, or enabled, by another’s particular gifts.152 This phase was undertaken through a range of empirical approaches, such as questionnaires, interviews, and group listening exercises.153 The third stage focused on ethnographic studies for each church.154 The aim was to consider the challenges posed by decreasing numbers of clergy and ministers, and what strategies have been undertaken in response.155 Phase Four focused on analysing the data to identify areas of good practice (gifts) and problems (needs) in each church.156 The end result of the project was a tailored proposal for each church on what it may be able to receive from other churches to promote its own growth. Of course, each proposal required careful consideration. The fifth stage was a process of testing each proposal, in terms of “intensive coherence,” “extensive coherence,” and “pragmatic coherence.”157 Namely, the proposal had to cohere with the church’s doctrinal integrity.158 As such, one factor taken into consideration was how much the “overall web can be legitimately reconfigured, even rewoven in order to accommodate the proposal in question.”159 Both the proposal’s practicality and whether it would receive support within the church also needed to be tested.160 The testing process sought to identify possible objections and discern a “reasonable way forward” for each church.161 Only the proposals that passed testing were then offered to each church.162 The final phase was that of the dissemination of results on several levels.163 Firstly, each church was provided with a report detailing “a number of well-​ thought-​through and tested practical proposals for real potential receptive learning.”164 This was accompanied by discussions between each church and the research team.165 The third type of dissemination was intended to be the publication of a major volume, “providing a thorough methodological and 1 52 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 146. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 147. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 147. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 147. Murray, “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice,” 280. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 148. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 149.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

205

theological analysis of the project.”166 Finally, the research was also distributed through a series of popular publications.167 One of these includes a resource book by Churches Together on how to undertake Receptive Ecumenism in parishes.168 Murray anticipated that the project would “contribute fresh knowledge” in practical ecclesiology, ecumenism, and “organisation studies more generally.”169 It would result in “academic conference papers, published essays and two further major volumes.”170 He also hoped that the project would lead to “real receptive learning” for the participant churches.171 In a paper presented in 2011, Kelly comments on the distinctiveness of the project’s methodology, emphasising that its emphasis on organisational and practical concerns “is a very different paradigm to the normal ecumenical methodology, which is characterised by theological dialogue.”172 This focus directly counters the tendency of much theological ecumenical work to focus on ideas and doctrines, which may have little relation to the actual lived reality of churches. It is not high-​brow ecumenism, but an ecumenism aiming to foster ecumenical progress, or as he puts it, “to assist the churches to learn.”173 Moreover, he considers the three key research areas of RE&LC to be “crucial areas where all churches are confronted with questions about best practice and how to respond to the demands of modern organisational and economic life, while at the same time remaining faithful to the gospel.”174 There are some limitations to the project as well. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, considering the project concluded in 2016, there has not yet been much secondary material published on RE&LC. Again, this fact emphasises the newness of Receptive Ecumenism. Furthermore, Murray recognises that a “major limitation” is that the project’s empirical social-​scientific methodology means that it cannot “easily translate” or be “further applied by those without specialist social-​scientific training.”175 This is a major drawback. While RE&LC emphasises much continuity with Receptive Ecumenism, the use of a specialised empirical social-​scientific methodology opposes Receptive Ecumenism’s key advantage of accessibility. It is not a methodology that can 1 66 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 149. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 149. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 149. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 45. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 45. Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 45. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 6. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 6. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 6. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 92–​93.

206 CHAPTER 8 be practiced by all members of the church, and therefore, does not emphasise Receptive Ecumenism’s democratised ecumenism. All of the limitations entailed by this methodology also necessarily apply. As such, Murray suggests that rather than using this type of methodology and analysis more broadly, “what is required is for groups in diverse local contexts themselves to take on the responsibility of identifying what is difficult and in need of repair in their respective contexts.”176 They can then “pursue the Receptive Ecumenical question as to how their particular difficulties can, with integrity, be creatively addressed and tended to through appropriately receiving from the gifts of other traditions.”177 Murray is therefore not advocating the methodology used in RE&LC more broadly. It is up to different churches to decide how they want to respond to the basic Receptive Ecumenism methodology. He goes on to express that it is “heartening and humbling” that Receptive Ecumenism is already being received and adapted to local contexts “in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Germany, Scotland and England.”178 Murray’s suggestion of different groups discerning their own questions and challenges in relation to Receptive Ecumenism is open-​ended, and does not provide a criteria for their engagement with the method. This raises concerns as to how useful the RE&LC project will be outside of its particular context. As the project is specifically tailored to the participant churches, it lacks general applicability. It also raises concerns as to the cohesiveness of Receptive Ecumenism as a whole. As Receptive Ecumenism develops furthers, will there be a myriad of different “receptive ecumenisms”? Or will local manifestations of the method be generally recognisable as a single movement? If it is to maintain cohesiveness, as has been argued previously, there is a need to ground it firmly within Spiritual Ecumenism. Much has been said here about the distinctiveness of Receptive Ecumenism compared to traditional theological ecumenical approaches. Perhaps surprisingly, then, a third key manifestation of Receptive Ecumenism sees the method entwined with the high profile bilateral dialogue: arcic iii. 2.3 arcic iii A further significant application of Receptive Ecumenism was its adoption by the third phase of the Anglican-​Roman Catholic International Commission (arcic iii). arcic is the official dialogue between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches. It is comprised of members appointed by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Department for Unity, 1 76 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 92–​93. 177 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 92–​93. 178 Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 92–​93.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

207

Faith and Order of the Anglican Communion. arcic’s first phase was held from 1970–​1981.179 Phase ii ran from 1983–​2011.180 The current third phase was mandated in 2009 by Benedict xvi and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and began in 2011. The overarching aim of arcic iii is to investigate “the Church as Communion, local and universal, and how in communion the local and universal Church come to discern right ethical teaching.”181 arcic iii also seeks to address how the goal of full communion in faith and sacramental life can be addressed in the contemporary situation.182 A third goal is to assist the reception of the work of arcic ii.183 In order to address these aims, arcic iii adopted Receptive Ecumenism “as providing an appropriate way of proceeding and theological orientation for this next phase of the Commission’s work.”184 Murray is one of only eight Catholic members of arcic iii, and will guide the commission in understanding and applying Receptive Ecumenism. The fact that Receptive Ecumenism, only a few years after its advent on the scene, was adopted by arcic iii is impressive indeed, and speaks to Receptive Ecumenism’s impact on the ecumenical landscape. It needs to be acknowledged that there is some disillusionment and doubt over the arcic process, due to recent divisions between the two traditions over  ministry. Murray reports that the feeling at the inaugural meeting of ­a rcic iii in Bose in 2011 was that the arcic process had stalled.185 Murray argues that what is needed now is not learning about each other, but “direct, explicit and effective self-​criticism, growth, development, change,” or in other words, interior conversion.186 He points out that the limitations of the methods employed by arcic i and ii were starting to be recognised in the later work 179 The key agreed statements produced by arcic i are as follows:  Eucharistic Doctrine (1971); Ministry and Ordination (1973); Authority in the Church i (1976); Elucidations on the Eucharist (1979); Authority in the Church ii (1981); Elucidations on Authority in the Church (1981); The Final Report (1981). 180 The key agreed statements produced by arcic ii are as follows:  Salvation and the Church (1986); Church as Communion (1990); Life in Christ, Morals, Communion and the Church (1993); Clarifications of Certain Aspects of the Agreed Statements on Eucharist and Ministry (1994); The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church iii (1998); Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2004). 181 arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” 182 arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” 183 arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” 184 Murray, “ARCIC III,” 208. 185 Murray, “The Reception of ARCIC I  and II in Europe and Discerning the Strategy and Agenda for ARCIC III,” 202. 186 Murray, “ARCIC III,” 208.

208 CHAPTER 8 of arcic ii.187 He writes that arcic i and ii are “best viewed as strategies of clarification and explication rather than of growth, change and conversion per se.”188 He goes on, arguing that in “substantive rather than perceptual and relational terms they effectively leave things as they are.”189 While acknowledging their achievements, he attests that they have, at least for now, “quite possibly gone as far as they can on most fronts.”190 This is because many of the challenges facing ecumenical dialogue today require a different approach.191 As such, a new ecumenical methodology is required, namely, Receptive Ecumenism.192 The communique from the 2011 meeting defines Receptive Ecumenism as an approach “which seeks to make ecumenical progress by learning from our partner, rather than simply asking our partner to learn from us.”193 arcic iii identifies Receptive Ecumenism as being “more about self-​examination and inner conversion than convincing the other.”194 A method such as this is valuable for Anglican-​Catholic relations as “Anglicans and Roman Catholics can help each other grow in faith, life and witness to Christ if they are open to being transformed by God’s grace mediated through each other.”195 As such, “arcic is committed to modelling the receptive ecumenism it advocates.”196 Grounded in Receptive Ecumenism, the Commission focuses on how Catholics and Anglicans respectively approach decision making, and how difficulties between them may be resolved through mutual learning.197 Murray sees two main ramifications of arcic iii’s adoption of Receptive Ecumenism. First, that arcic iii’s focus will be phrased in terms of ecclesial learning, rather than seeking agreement or consensus.198 For example, it would once have been asked: “ ‘How can Catholics and Anglicans seek to come directly to a common mind on issues such as decision making at local and universal levels?’ ”199 However, Murray wants the question to be: “ ‘What respective difficulties are there in each of our traditions around decision marking and how can these potentially 1 87 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

Murray, “ARCIC III,” 206. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 205. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 205. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 207. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 207. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 207–​208. arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” arcic iii, “ARCIC III.” Murray, “ARCIC III,” 209. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 209.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

209

be helped by learning from what is strong in the other tradition?’ ”200 The focus is clearly on ecclesial learning. The second implication is that “arcic iii will both seek to model this process in its own work and seek to stimulate similar processes at all levels” of the churches.201 He considers the Receptive Ecumenical process as being “actually more ­important than seeking to arrive at a theorised conclusion in a convergence ­statement.”202 This certainly marks a departure from the aims of arcic i and ii. Because of this shift away from agreed statements, he explains that “the final statements arising from arcic iii will very likely include clear acknowledgment of continuing areas of substantial and substantive disagreement between the traditions.”203 It is important to recall that Receptive Ecumenism does not aim to work out differences between traditions, but rather, to inspire interior conversion. Rather than working towards common agreement, Murray attests that “each tradition will be called, as an ecclesial spiritual discipline analogous to individual examination of conscience. … to grow in specific ways in its respective practices and structures of decision-​making through effective receptive ecumenical learning.”204 Therefore, following this methodology, arcic iii will not concentrate on agreed statements and consensus, but rather on ecclesial learning. Murray explains, “This requires a very challenging move away from the refined articulation of theorized, doctrinally-​driven accounts and towards also asking after the lived experience of decision-​making in each tradition and the real difficulties and tensions to be found there.”205 It prioritises the ad intra dimension of ecumenical engagement, rather than the more traditional ad extra focus. arcic iii therefore strikes out in a different direction to arcic i and ii. Instead of attempting to resolve deep differences in Catholic and Anglican ecclesial structures and processes, it aims for “realistic” achievements and to instigate further ecumenical progress. arcic iii intends to critically reflect on respective challenges within each tradition and to make some form of progress towards these.206 arcic iii’s adoption of this approach certainly represents an impressive achievement for Receptive Ecumenism. On this point, Murray relates a comment from a “bishop friend:” Receptive Ecumenism has now moved from being a good idea discussed by some academics and ecumenists with some church support to being 2 00 201 202 203 204 205 206

Murray, “ARCIC III,” 209. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 209–​210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” 291. Murray, “Engaging with the Contemporary Church,” 291.

210 CHAPTER 8 embraced by the most significant international bilateral process in the English-​speaking world that has in turn tended to influence the methodology of all the other dialogues. It has gone global!207 However, Murray seeks to place this success “in perspective.”208 He reiterates that Receptive Ecumenism “is a way of thinking and acting that has been long incubated in the ecumenical movement.”209 Thus, if the receptive ecumenical methodology is successful it will only be because it represents “the coming of age” of implicit aspects of ecumenism.210 Nevertheless, he concludes, [I]‌t is profoundly engendering of hope to recognise, contrary to the prophets of doom who would write-​off formal institutional ecumenism in general and arcic in particular as a now redundant exercise, that arcic continues to work at the forefront of the ecumenical agenda, exploring and in some respects pioneering a path appropriate to our age.211 It is clear that Murray sees the adoption of Receptive Ecumenism as exhibiting how arcic is at the forefront of ecumenism. His conviction that Receptive Ecumenism is the necessary way forward for the Ecumenical Movement is also apparent. Nonetheless, the shift from focusing on agreed statements to interior ecclesial learning represents a significant change between the first two phases of arcic and the third. The effectiveness of arcic’s integration of Receptive Ecumenism over the coming years will provide much needed information on Receptive Ecumenism’s feasibility and complementarity with formal bilateral dialogues. The fifth meeting, April 2015, included a private audience with Pope Francis. The Pope congratulated arcic on its work, and reaffirmed the importance of ecumenism for the Catholic Church. He states, The cause of unity is not an optional undertaking and the differences which divide us must not be seen as inevitable. Some wish that, after fifty years, greater progress towards unity would have been achieved. Despite difficulties, we must not lose heart, but we must trust even more in the 2 07 208 209 210 211

Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 210. Murray, “ARCIC III,” 211.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

211

power of the Holy Spirit, who can heal and reconcile us, and accomplish what humanly does not seem possible.212 Francis’s emphasis on the spiritual dimensions of ecumenism is clear, and re-​ affirms the need for an approach which highlights the spiritual within the ecumenical. In July 2018, arcic iii released its first agreed statement, Walking Together on the Way:  Learning to be the Church  –​Local, Regional, Universal.213 The statement has been positively received. Paula Gooder, an Anglican member of a­ rcic iii, called the document “groundbreaking.”214 Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham and Catholic co-​chair of arcic, said he felt the document was “exciting,” especially as it indicates a resumption of dialogue between Anglicans and Catholics.215 One of the profoundly significant aspects of the document is recognised by Catholic arcic iii member Henry Wansbrough as being that it explicitly outlines that the Catholic Church “is willing to learn from other ecclesial bodies.”216 Regarding its use of Receptive Ecumenism, Walking Together on the Way expresses the strong conviction that “critical self-​examination through the prism of ecumenical dialogue and receptive learning can deepen the renewal and participation of the Church in the Trinitarian communion of God.”217 In the official Catholic commentary on the document, Ormond Rush points out two ways that Walking Together differs from previous arcic documents: firstly, its use of Receptive Ecumenism, and secondly, its typographical arrangement of the text.218 The use of Receptive Ecumenism is ground-​breaking, and Rush notes the tone of “mutual gratitude” for each other that pervades the document.219 Sections iv, v, and vi of the document explicitly use the Receptive 212 Philippa Hitchen, “Pope Francis meets Members of ARCIC III,” Vatican Radio 2015 https://​ecumenism.net/​2015/​04/​pope-​francis-​meets-​members-​of-​arcic-​iii.htm. 213 The full text of the agreed statement can be accessed here: https://​iarccum.org/​doc/​?d=721. 214 Simon Caldwell, “ARCIC Document hailed as ‘groundbreaking’ by Catholics and Anglicans,” Anglican-​Roman Catholic Dialogue, IARCCUM, 4th July 2018 iarccum.org/​ ?p=2943. 215 Caldwell, “ARCIC Document.” 216 Caldwell, “ARCIC Document.” 217 arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 19. 218 Ormond Rush, “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way: Learning to Be the Church  –​Local, Regional, Universal of the Anglican-​Roman Catholic International Commission,” 4.  http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​pontifical_​councils/​chrstuni/​angl-​ comm-​docs/​rc_​pc_​chrstuni_​doc_​20180604_​walkingtogether-​ontheway-​commentary_​ en.pdf. 219 Rush, “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way,” 5.

212 CHAPTER 8 Ecumenism method. These sections, on the church as local, regional, and universal, are also the ones that present “the core” of Walking Together’s contribution,220 which reflects the impact of the use of Receptive Ecumenism on arcic iii. Those sections follow the same pattern by firstly, exploring the “common heritage and shared understandings of both traditions,” then investigating the “tensions and difficulties that each is experiencing within its own life,” and finally, considering “the possibilities which one tradition sees for itself if it were to appropriate what is a strength and grace in the life of the other.”221 The typographical arrangement of the text flows on from its use of Receptive Ecumenism. Rush explains that the benefit of its distinctive layout is that it is able to highlight “in a nuanced way the range of commonalities and differences, thus preparing the reader for the receptive learning from the other that might be possible between the two traditions.”222 No previous arcic document has so clearly highlighted dialogue as an experience of mutual learning. In Section iv on the local level, the document outlines several points of “potential receptive ecclesial learning” for Anglicans, among them “the possibility of parallel jurisdictions which are in full communion.”223 For Catholics, it presents several points for learning, among them “receptive learning about lay involvement in Roman Catholic governance.”224 Section v on the regional level points out that Anglicans may be able to learn from Catholics about listening “to the wider communion,” and that Catholics may be able to learn from Anglicans about strengthening “the role of regional instruments.”225 Anglicans might learn about corporate episcopal leadership, and Catholics might learn about theological and juridical principles.226 Anglicans might learn about “appointment of consultors,” while Catholics might learn about the “establishment of synodal bodies at a national level involving lay and ordained.”227 In Section v, on the universal level, amongst other points, Anglicans might learn “from the clarity of recognised processes for the reception of teachings and decisions of the instruments of communion,” whereas Catholics might learn “from the Anglican practice of provincial diversity” and allowance of appropriate local cultural and contextual differences.228 Walking Together concludes 2 20 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228

Rush, “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way,” 6. Rush, “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way,” 5. Rush, “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way,” 6. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 98. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 99. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 120. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 121. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 122. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 148.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

213

by affirming significant common points of understanding, “albeit with characteristically differing emphases.”229 In line with Receptive Ecumenism, the document affirms that while their “respective confessional identities” are “valued as gifts of grace and providence,” they acknowledge that “these identities themselves are not unaffected by sin,” which therefore require “ecclesial repentance and reform,” of which the proposals for “mutual receptive learning” outlined in the document are “the first step in taking up the vision of a Church fully reconciled.”230 Also in the spirit of Receptive Ecumenism, the concluding comments of the document are spiritual in nature, describing themselves as “pilgrims together walking on the way of penitence and renewal towards full communion,” and that this pilgrimage requires humility, gentleness, patience, love, efforts to maintain unity, and peace.231 In fitting fashion, the final sentence of the document articulates how important these spiritual and affective dimensions of ecumenism are:  “These characteristics capture the necessary spirit of our ecumenical journey, and offer us a vision of how we are to continue walking together on the way towards full communion.”232 The document offers resounding evidence for the success of Receptive Ecumenism working at the highest levels of official bilateral dialogues. At this level, use of the Receptive Ecumenism method has enabled a sense of freshness and new life in the ecumenical scene. The results of the dialogue also have potentially serious and far-​reaching practical ramifications for Catholic and Anglican churches. Undoubtedly, Receptive Ecumenism’s central role in arcic iii raised its profile as an ecumenical approach. It also emphasises its complementarity with other ecumenical methods. As with the conferences, arcic iii’s work is ongoing, and the next agreed statement will be received with great interest. As such, while the full effectiveness of Receptive Ecumenism as part of arcic iii is yet to be seen, the initial results are extremely positive. However, the implementations of Receptive Ecumenism discussed so far have all directly involved Murray. It is important now to consider an application of Receptive Ecumenism led by others, in a context which has warmly embraced the ­method: Australia. 2.4 Receptive Ecumenism in Australia Australians have been involved with Receptive Ecumenism since its initial development. The amount of engagement with Receptive Ecumenism, both 229 230 231 232

arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 153. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 155. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 161. arcic iii, Walking Together on the Way, 161.

214 CHAPTER 8 academically and practically, in Australia is remarkable. Australians have been a significant presence at the conferences. Australian theologians, such as Gerard Kelly, Denis Edwards, Neil Ormerod, Ormond Rush, Michael Putney, and David Pascoe, to mention only a few, have contributed substantially to its developing methodology. There have also been ground-​breaking practical initiatives in ­Receptive Ecumenism. The South Australian Council of Churches organised a variety of Receptive Ecumenical projects and workshops, which have been highly successful.233 The Executive Officer of the sacc, Geraldine Hawkes, describes how the participants of a 2010 workshop strongly experienced the presence of the Spirit among them, describing the workshop as a moment of grace and of providing hope for the future of ecumenism.234 In 2012, the sacc organised a lecture tour for Murray in Australia and New Zealand.235 Significant themes to emerge from these intensive sessions included: a renewal of ecumenical energy and commitment, igniting interest in Receptive Ecumenism; a focus on learning, especially the difference between learning from in contrast to learning about, starting with the problems within one’s own tradition; and democratised ecumenism.236 There were also major emphases on the affective and spiritual dimensions of the method, namely: openness, sharing our woundedness, humility, trusting in the Spirit, and “receiving others in ecumenical way of love.”237 One of the key insights shaping Receptive Ecumenism in Australia is that: “RE is not a method or a tool, but ultimately a disposition of the heart.”238 Australian Receptive Ecumenism therefore has a strongly affective and spiritual emphasis. In a presentation given in 2013, Hawkes explains that: Receptive Ecumenism requires a disposition of love and humility. It requires us to know –​and accept –​that we are each different, that we each have our own gift, our own charism –​and that we are beautiful and loved. 233 See their website for a full list of projects:  http://​www.sacc.asn.au/​en/​index.php?rubric=en_​receptive+ecumenism. 234 Geraldine Hawkes, “Receptive Ecumenism: Encounter with Beauty, Truth and Love,” (presentation, South Australian Council of Churches Annual Ecumenical Lecture, Adelaide College of Divinty, Adelaide, 2013). 235 The lecture tour ran from 24–​28th of July 2012. More details can be found at http://​www. sacc.asn.au/​en/​index.php?rubric=en_​receptive+ecumenism. 236 South Australian Council of Churches, “Receptive Ecumenism,” South Australian Council of Churches http://​www.sacc.asn.au/​en/​index.php?rubric=en_​receptive+ecumenism. 237 South Australian Council Churches, “Receptive Ecumenism.” 238 South Australian Council Churches, “Receptive Ecumenism.”

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

215

Receptive Ecumenism also invites us to receive the beauty and the truth of one’s own church and of the church of the other, in love.239 Here, the focus on virtuous, spiritual and affective dimensions of Receptive Ecumenism comes to the fore. The sacc also produced a booklet on Receptive Ecumenism which was endorsed by Murray at the third conference.240 Much like Receptive Ecumenism, the booklet is a continuously developing, collaborative enterprise. The booklet describes the key features of Receptive Ecumenism, stressing its spiritual and affective dimensions.241 It also emphasises Receptive Ecumenism’s focus on institutional conversion and its accessibility to all members of the church.242 The pneumatological underpinning of Receptive Ecumenism is highlighted, as the booklet frequently references it as “a movement of the Spirit.”243 It outlines a number of exercises and activities, which strongly emphasise the spiritual and affective aspects of the method. Consider the first activity, “Ecclesial Examination of Conscience,” described as a process of prayer.244 The first step is prayer. The second step is giving thanks to God for our tradition and all it has offered us. The third step is acknowledging some point (whether a process, practice, system or structure) where our tradition has “diminished, obscured, ignored or overlooked” Christ or God’s grace. Fourth is to reflect on these areas where we have not adequately represented Christ and pray for guidance from the Spirit. The fifth step is to ask for the grace to be open and receptive to the gifts of other traditions.245 Receptive Ecumenism’s heritage from Spiritual Ecumenism becomes evident in this activity. A second activity instructs groups to consider what gifts they have each received from another tradition.246 A  third activity revolves around picking a question, such as “how does your Church nurture an active congregation?” Each member of a different church then responds to the question, while the others listen.247 The fourth activity asks each participant to share an area of weakness or “woundedness” in their own tradition.248 These activities involve 2 39 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248

Hawkes, “Receptive Ecumenism.” South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands.” South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 1. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 1. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 2. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 3. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 3. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 4. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 5. South Australian Council of Churches, “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands,” 5.

216 CHAPTER 8 humility, receptiveness, listening, and trust in the Spirit. They emphasise interior conversion and the ecumenical exchange of gifts. They are as much an exercise in Receptive as Spiritual Ecumenism. The booklet has been used by church groups around the world, in countries such as the United Kingdom, Rome, and Sweden. Hawkes was also a consultant for the New South Wales Ecumenical Council’s parish workbook on Receptive Ecumenism, published in 2013.249 The ­editor, Gideon Goosen, explains that the workbook is designed to guide parishes “in reflecting on receptive ecumenism, and hopefully help them to come up with some practical suggestions of their own.”250 The booklet includes an important article by Gerard Kelly, which has already been discussed in some detail.251 Having defined Receptive Ecumenism, the booklet outlines five sessions on Receptive Ecumenism, involving prayer, reflection, ecumenical stories and experiences, questions and discussion points.252 There is a notable focus on listening, reflection, and prayer, as well as a theological understanding of ecumenism and other traditions. A  checklist for identifying a receptive ecumenist includes characteristics such as: being constructively critical of one’s own tradition, and positive towards other traditions; seeking to help one’s tradition change positively, and striving to see where we can move forward by learning from others. The booklet emphasises that Receptive Ecumenism requires humility, the willingness to be vulnerable, and openness to the Spirit.253 The spiritual, virtuous, and affective dimensions clearly emerge in these two workbooks. It may be that, to fit the purpose of the workbooks, Receptive Ecumenism has been distilled down to its most distinctive and appealing aspects. When put into practice, its heritage as part of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement shines out. This point is further illustrated by a ground-​breaking initiative facilitated by the sacc, the pilot programme “Receptive Ecumenism: Gifts of Healing.”254 The programme was initiated in 2013. It involved the Anglican Ecumenical Network (aen) and the Diocesan Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission (deic), part of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. The aims of the 249 Gideon Goosen et  al., eds., The Gift of Each Other:  Learning from Other Christians (Sydney: The New South Wales Ecumenical Council, 2013). 250 Gideon Goosen, “Foreword,” in The Gift of Each Other: Learning from Other Christians, ed. Gideon Goosen (Sydney: The New South Wales Ecumenical Council, 2013), 4. 251 Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 252 Goosen et al., The Gift of Each Other. 253 Goosen et al., The Gift of Each Other, 42. 254 Geraldine Hawkes, “Gifts of Healing: Receptive Ecumenism Process Draft,” (sacc, May 2013). Used here with permission.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

217

project were: to explore Receptive Ecumenism as a method towards ecclesial renewal; to more deeply appreciate each other; to spread Receptive Ecumenism more broadly; to focus on something lacking within each tradition; to discern how to approach that deficit without diminishing ecclesial identity but rather enriching it on both sides.255 The first session was organised around the sacc workbook activities discussed above. Each participant reflected on areas of perceived deficiency, shared hospitality, prayed together, and listened to each other. There was also a central focus on the exchange of gifts.256 The programme was undertaken with the intent to generate realistic transformative change within each tradition. As such, the issues tackled by the two churches needed to be considered attainable.257 At the second meeting, held in 2014, the deic asked to listen to the aen in order to reflect on how the deic may be able to improve their collaborative decision making.258 The pilot programme showcases how Australian applications of Receptive Ecumenism emphasise the principles of Spiritual Ecumenism along with Receptive Ecumenism’s distinctive focus on realistic change. While still ongoing, the programme has already yielded positive results for both participants.259 This implementation of Receptive Ecumenism, organised by the sacc, demonstrates how Receptive Ecumenism can be applied without recourse to specialist methodologies. Unlike the RE&LC project, Australian initiatives such as the two workbooks, and the pilot programme, have applied Receptive Ecumenism in a spiritual fashion, rather than an empirical social-​scientific manner. The activities in the workbooks are readily adaptable to other contexts. Considering how Receptive Ecumenism is flourishing in the Australian context, it is not surprising that the Fourth Receptive Ecumenism conference was held in Australia in 2017. In November 2018, Hawkes and Vicky Balabanski published what is believed to be the second edited volume currently available on Receptive Ecumenism:  Receptive Ecumenism:  Listening, ­Learning and Loving in the Way of Christ.260 Thus, the dynamic and ongoing importance of Receptive Ecumenism is clearly illustrated both in these Australian initiatives, and more broadly.

2 55 256 257 258

Hawkes, “Gifts of Healing.” Hawkes, “Gifts of Healing.” Hawkes, “Gifts of Healing.” Geraldine Hawkes, “Receptive Ecumenism: Gifts of Healing –​A Pilot Project. Executive Officer Reflections,” (The South Australian Council of Churches, 30th September 2014). 259 Hawkes, “Receptive Ecumenism Pilot Project.” 2 60 Vicky Balabanski and Geraldine Hawkes, eds. Receptive Ecumenism: Listening, Learning and Loving in the Way of Christ (Adelaide: atf Press, 2018).

218 CHAPTER 8 All four implementations of Receptive Ecumenism strongly demonstrate its spiritual, virtuous, and affective dimensions. Along with an initial flush of success, there is also a sense of ongoing development, which will only accelerate with the eventual dissemination of further Receptive Ecumenical initiatives. Therefore, as Receptive Ecumenism continues to develop, we must also inquire into the challenges that face its long-​term effectiveness. 3

Challenges Facing Receptive Ecumenism

The applications of Receptive Ecumenism discussed above illustrate its adaptability for a variety of purposes and contexts. But what are the challenges ­involved in employing Receptive Ecumenism, especially with regard to its long-​term effectiveness? The difficulties facing Receptive Ecumenism must be taken seriously, as Gerard Kelly indicates.261 He asserts that non-​theological issues, such as organisational, psychological, sociological, and cultural factors, can impede ecclesial learning.262 He outlines four key challenges facing the Receptive Ecumenical methodology, the first being that it is counter-​intuitive.263 Receptive Ecumenism inverts the traditional ecumenical orientation. The natural inclination of many ecumenists is to focus primarily on other traditions, rather than on ourselves.264 Receptive Ecumenism therefore goes against the grain, which means that undertaking it requires a conscious effort. However, this fact is also part of its success. Receptive Ecumenism’s fundamental argument is that ecumenical progress has plateaued. Therefore, restarting ecumenical momentum necessitates focusing on achievable goals. While we may not be able to further our ecumenical relationships at the current time, we have instead the “opportunity to do some work on our own house,” as Kelly puts it.265 Looking at ecumenism from a wholly different angle brings new possibilities. Therefore, while this challenge needs to be taken seriously, any sense of awkwardness because of its counter-​intuitiveness can be alleviated by understanding why its ad intra orientation is required. The second problem is not so easily overcome. If Receptive Ecumenism is to be successfully employed, then the churches involved must be open to change. 2 61 262 263 264 265

Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 6. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 4. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 6. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 6. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

219

However, as Kelly explains, “all of our churches can be remarkably resistant to change.”266 Moreover, Receptive Ecumenism does not require change of other churches, which may be more palatable, particularly where a church is concerned to protect its ecclesial identity. Rather, it demands change within our own tradition. Resistance to change cannot be underestimated, as Kelly points out, “Let’s not forget that the bottom line is that we are talking about change  –​not other churches changing, but my church changing. Change is never easy!”267 However, Receptive Ecumenism will not succeed unless a tradition is open to change. This is, therefore, a major difficulty for the approach, compounded by the fact that resistance to change is complex. Kelly asserts that it is often not about “ill will,” but rather expresses “a lack of imagination in identifying those areas where we need new ways of thinking and acting.”268 There needs to be a self-​critical and imaginative consideration of where renewal needs to occur. Receptive Ecumenism can draw on the resources of Spiritual Ecumenism in overcoming this hurdle, especially prayer. However, internal diversity within a tradition also makes agreement over areas requiring change problematic.269 The Catholic community itself is far from homogenous. Openness to renewal is further complicated by the link between change and authority.270 The authority structures within a tradition are directly connected to the mechanisms for change. As Murray and Guest reflect, there are “numerous tricky questions” involved, such as how criticism can be provided appropriately and by whom, and how disagreements can be handled effectively.271 The underlying structures that foster ecclesial change must therefore be engaged. However, there is no simple way for the ensuing problems to be overcome. The challenge of Receptive Ecumenism is that it demands change. It entails that we, as members of the body of Christ, consider what we still have to learn. After identifying what can be received, the next step becomes one of actually receiving it, authentically and with integrity, into the host tradition. Here, Receptive Ecumenism flows into the field of ecumenical reception, with all of its challenges and obstacles. There is no doubt that the practice of Receptive Ecumenism can lead a church community to consider what it may need to learn from its Christian brethren. But whether, and 2 66 267 268 269 270 271

Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 4. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Murray and Guest, “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church,” 150.

220 CHAPTER 8 how, this learning can be implemented, so that real, concrete change occurs, is another matter. Of course, Receptive Ecumenism cannot, on its own, resolve the problem of ecumenical reception. That is the continuing task of the entire Ecumenical Movement, of all Christians. Above all, it is the task of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Receptive Ecumenism cannot succeed if a church is not open to transformative change. It is here that the true challenge of the method becomes apparent. Receptive Ecumenism cuts to the quick of ecumenism, drawing on its roots as a spiritual movement. It points to a further stage in the ecumenical endeavour, moving past mutual understanding and partnership, towards conversion. If there is no experience of interior conversion, then Receptive Ecumenism has not succeeded. Resistance to, or fear of change, is therefore a critical challenge. However, fear is overcome by love, and courage comes from hope in Christ. Spiritual Ecumenism, through prayer, and kenotic surrendering to the Spirit, must be relied on to lead a tradition to open itself, humbly and hopefully, to conversion. The third challenge highlighted by Kelly is the difficulty of approaching, and asking to learn from, ecumenical partners, once areas requiring change have been decided.272 He explains that this is made more difficult if the issue is one involving fundamental doctrinal differences, such as ministry.273 Differing, even competing, ecclesial doctrines may impede a church from approaching ecumenical partners. Receptive Ecumenism challenges the Catholic tradition’s tendency to search within itself, for native resources, when it requires renewal; what is known as the “fortress church” mentality.274 In contrast, Receptive Ecumenism requires a tradition to open itself to other churches in a spirit of humility and hope. The difficulty centres on its nature as an “ecumenism of the wounded hands,” where we show others our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Lest this requirement seem to denigrate ecclesial identity, Kelly emphasises that ecclesial learning does not mean “doing things the way the other church does them, or even accepting their basic theological stance.”275 Instead, the purpose of ecclesial learning is for other traditions to help us see our problems in a new light.276 After all, Receptive Ecumenism aims to foster conversion, not lowest common denominator consensus. Nonetheless, approaching others for help requires both humility and hope. 2 72 273 274 275 276

Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Sweeney, “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe,’ ” 334. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

221

In this sense, Receptive Ecumenism would not have been possible fifty years ago, when relationships between Christians were veiled in fear and misunderstanding. This method is only feasible on the basis of pre-​existing ecumenical friendships. In order to counter any reluctance to approach and ask others for help, Receptive Ecumenism must be undertaken with trusted ecumenical partners. It is not an introductory type of ecumenism, seeking to establish, or even deepen, ecumenical relationships. On the contrary, it can only be launched from the firm foundation of longstanding relationships, grounded in trust and friendship. It fosters interior conversion, rather than external relations, in the same way that at times a person’s positive growth requires a friend’s constructive criticism and advice, which is asked for and accepted on the strength of that relationship. This is a further step in the ecumenical process, past learning about each other, to learning from each other. Putney’s explanation of the stages in the Ecumenical Movement is helpful here. He explains that early ecumenism was “like a honeymoon in a marriage, or the first flush of friendship,” which involves becoming friends and getting to know each other.277 However, as he says, “That easy, exciting period is past.”278 The next stage is that of maintaining and deepening the relationship. Gradual deepening of friendship includes points where “friends have to challenge each other when they do not believe the other is being their best possible selves, and to forgive each other when they fail, or offend.”279 This later stage is where Receptive Ecumenism comes in, and why it necessitates learning from ecumenical friends in order to learn about oneself. A further challenge facing Receptive Ecumenism is the breadth of its scope.280 Its method can apply to any and all areas of a church. As such, it must be adapted by local communities to suit their own needs.281 This requires commitment on behalf of individual churches to critically reflect on their own contexts.282 Kelly argues that Receptive Ecumenism may be most effective in relation to a church’s practical life.283 For the Australian context, he believes there to be an implicit example of Receptive Ecumenism in “the way the churches have been willing to learn from each other about responding to the crisis of sexual abuse.”284 Some areas where engaging with Receptive 2 77 278 279 280 281 282 283 284

Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 189. Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 189. Putney, “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue,” 189. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7.

222 CHAPTER 8 Ecumenism may prove fruitful include: the problem of decreasing numbers of clergy; falling church attendance, and an aging church population; how to engage young people; how to effectively respond to local issues, such as poverty; and how to improve the quality of worship or liturgy.285 The success of Receptive Ecumenism therefore depends on local churches or ecumenical groups being engaged, self-​critical, and self-​driven. An excellent example of this, of course, is the sacc. However, not all churches necessarily have the resources, ability, or mindset to be able to engage in Receptive Ecumenism. It is a serious commitment, which should permeate all areas of ecclesial life. There is no doubt that Receptive Ecumenism is hard work, and an undertaking that will challenge a church community to its core. Because it focuses on the affective and spiritual levels of ecumenical engagement, transformative conversion cannot be achieved by half-​hearted lip service. Commitment must be genuine, and preferably shared by each member of the church. While there is no way of enforcing commitment (as it must come from the Spirit), the lack of criteria to guide local applications of Receptive Ecumenism can be tackled. A  set of criteria would enable a church’s initial engagement with Receptive Ecumenism, by providing a framework which can be adapted to their context. Kelly’s four challenges have highlighted significant difficulties for implementing Receptive Ecumenism. Several further problems must also be noted. Another challenge for Receptive Ecumenism is its apparent negative focus on one’s own church. It depends on a self-​critical attitude towards one’s tradition. Parishioners may not be willing to do this, especially if they feel defensive of their ecclesial identities. Nigel Zimmermann points this out as a “possible danger” of Receptive Ecumenism: that of a “too-​optimistic naiveté” in always emphasising other churches in a positive manner, and our own church in a negative way.286 He calls this “a kind of extreme, but ignorant humility.”287 This kind of approach may lead to distortion, rather than healthy ecumenical relationships, as the problems of other churches may be overlooked or idealised, while the flaws of our own church are unduly magnified.288 This is a pertinent observation, especially as it may impact on the feasibility of actually applying Receptive Ecumenism. This factor may be especially challenging for the 2 85 Kelly, “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” 7. 286 Nigel Zimmermann, “Book Review:  Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism,” The Heythrop Journal 55, no. 3 (2014): 526. 287 Zimmermann, “Book Review,” 526. 288 Zimmermann, “Book Review,” 526.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

223

Catholic Church, as Ӧrsy indicates, due to the Catholic belief that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church.289 On this basis, the Catholic community may not feel the need to learn or receive.290 However, this tendency is mitigated by belief in the eschatological nature of the pilgrim church. Nevertheless, any conceited disposition that one’s church does not need to learn or change is a difficulty for implementing Receptive Ecumenism. In such a process, the attitude of humility is required, with all of the challenges the virtue brings with it. Ӧrsy clarifies this point, explaining that the receiving community must fully realise “its own limitations and incompleteness.”291 Avis mentions another perception which may hinder Receptive Ecumenism: fears that it means to replace the “formal bilateral and multilateral dialogues that have been the theological backbone of the ecumenical movement for 40 years and more.”292 Discussing the relationship between Receptive Ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue is important. Receptive Ecumenism is designed as an alternative approach to formal dialogues. A key conviction behind Receptive Ecumenism is that traditional bilateral or multilateral dialogues are no longer as fruitful as they once were. However, the argument that we need to focus on other forms of ecumenical engagement is hardly new. Twenty years ago, Nilson argued that one reason behind ecumenical decline “is the dead end that bi-​lateral dialogues seem to have reached.”293 He explains that “Dialogue was deemed the royal road to mutual knowledge and the dissolution of the factors that divided the churches.”294 The very success of dialogues is why theological ecumenism has dominated over other forms of ecumenical engagement, such as Spiritual Ecumenism. However, Nilson illustrates that there were arguments, two decades ago, that “dialogue alone is no longer the way toward church unity.”295 He clarifies that while formal dialogue continues to be important, it “alone cannot carry us to that full, visible unity that is the ecumenical goal.”296 The issue is that formal dialogues “will produce only more agreed statements, which the churches will also keep at arm’s length.”297 This is the problem with an exaggerated focus on theological ecumenism. To counteract this, Nilson argues that, “The partner churches must 2 89 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297

Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Örsy, “Authentic Learning and Receiving,” 45. Avis, “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” 230. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 2. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 2. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 4. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 5. Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 5.

224 CHAPTER 8 begin sharing their lives with one another as much as possible.”298 The emphasis is on ecumenism as something that must be lived, that integrates head, heart, and soul. As such, Receptive Ecumenism aims not to create more agreed statements for their own sake, which may not be received into the church, but rather to focus on the lived experience of the church itself, and the problems it faces. This is one reason the arcic iii document is quite different from previous agree statements. That document took a self-​critical approach to some key problems facing both the Anglican and the Catholic Churches and how they might be addressed through mutual learning. The pragmatism of Receptive Ecumenism shines through clearly throughout the agreed statement, adding a much-​needed real-​world impetus to ecumenism. As is clearly seen in the success of arcic iii, Receptive Ecumenism is designed not to replace or oppose, but rather to complement, theological ecumenism and bilateral dialogue processes. In conjunction, theological and Receptive Ecumenism provide much needed balance to the Ecumenical Movement. Therefore, overcoming this challenge requires greater clarity over Receptive Ecumenism’s position within ecumenical theology. It is not a replacement for formal dialogue, but an alternative that operates alongside theological ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism is dependent on the riches which already have been mined through bilateral dialogues and theological ecumenism. It is only feasible on the basis of the hard yards already won. This is why Kelly argues that Receptive Ecumenism “is appropriate to the degree of unity that we already share, particularly after the success of over forty years of ecumenical activity.”299 However, Receptive Ecumenism is “also necessary at a time when we seem to have reached a road block.”300 It is a complementary alternative to traditional ecumenical approaches, which can only flourish on the basis of what has already been accomplished. Thus, its successful implementation, and long-​term success, faces some challenges. Belying its apparent simplicity, Receptive Ecumenism is a challenging, advanced form of ecumenical engagement. Affective and spiritual conditions are important for its success. It cannot succeed unless it is undertaken with humility and receptiveness, attention to listening, imagination, and space for the Holy Spirit. Receptive Ecumenism is not an abstract theological process, but rather needs to be experienced. At a presentation given in 2013, Hawkes provides a checklist of requirements for undertaking Receptive Ecumenism, worth quoting at length: 298 Nilson, Nothing Beyond the Necessary, 5. 2 99 Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 7. 300 Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 7.

At the Crossroads of the Ecumenical Path

225

Do we have a spirit of humility and willingness to embrace our vulnerability? Do we have a desire for healing, from within as well as across? Can we be trusting enough to share our ecclesial pain, the woundedness, the felt-​absence, lack of authentic expression with our ecumenical other? What steps might we with others take to share our grief about those parts of our being that are ‘false’ or wounded and seek the ministering hands of our ecumenical other in becoming more authentic, more fully who we are and who God made us to be?301 Receptive Ecumenism requires humility and hope. It requires prayer. Moreover, if it is to be successful, it must be adopted willingly and wholeheartedly, by at least the majority of the church community. As Kelly remarks, “before we rush headlong into the future, championing receptive ecumenism as the solution to all our woes, we need to be confident that it is something that our church can embrace willingly.”302 Unless this is the case, it cannot succeed. A  more traditional form of ecumenism may be more suitable if a church is not yet ready to undertake the transformative change required by Receptive Ecumenism. However, at some point in the ecumenical pilgrimage, churches will need to take that plunge. Therefore, while Receptive Ecumenism has considerable challenges to overcome if it is to be successful, it also has enormous potential to renew the Ecumenical Movement.

3 01 Hawkes, “Receptive Ecumenism.” 302 Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 4.

­c hapter 9

The Path Forward: Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of the Ecumenical Movement The Ecumenical Movement is at a turning point, teetering towards either further decline or, just maybe, the potential for reinvigoration and a new pathway forward. Undeniably, ecumenism’s future depends on capturing anew the hearts and minds of Christians. To do so, it requires fresh direction and energy. The renewal of the Ecumenical Movement calls for a restoration of balance between theological and practical ecumenism through recognising the centrality of Spiritual Ecumenism. Spiritual Ecumenism is remarkably underdeveloped and its potential has yet to be fully realised. As such, ecumenism’s future depends on tapping into the spiritual and affective levels of ecumenical engagement in order to restore ecumenical equilibrium between “head,” “hands,” “heart,” and “soul.” This is not to denigrate the importance of theological and practical ecumenism, but to reassert the neglected value of Spiritual Ecumenism as its very soul. This is why Receptive Ecumenism is such an exciting development, perhaps even a true game changer. Kelly is correct to describe Receptive Ecumenism as “a new wave in the ecumenical movement.”1 The significance of Receptive Ecumenism for the future of the Ecumenical Movement boils down to two key assertions: (1) that ecumenism must be renewed as a spiritual movement, in balance with theological and practical ecumenism. And (2), that as a form of Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism offers the way forward. The claim that we need to re-​emphasise the spiritual within the ecumenical is a common thread uniting the work of the key Spiritual Ecumenists discussed previously. Deliberating on perceived ecumenical stagnation, Putney determines that: “If there is a loss of interest or passion for ecumenism the cause may well lie in a failure to tap the spiritual roots of the ecumenical movement and to act instead as if it is simply a human work.”2 To counteract this tendency, the spiritual core of ecumenism 1 Gerard Kelly, “A New Ecumenical Wave” (presentation, National Council of Churches Forum, Canberra, 12 July 2010), 1. 2 Michael Putney, “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism,” in My Ecumenical Journey, ed. Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly and Ormond Rush (Adelaide:  atf Theology, 2014), 169.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI 10.1163/9789004397804_010

The Path Forward

227

must be rediscovered. Ecumenism is grounded in the Trinity: it is God’s unity; it is Christ’s will and prayer; it is the Spirit’s work. Ecumenism therefore carries with it a Christological imperative akin to partaking of the Eucharist. However, as Putney explains, working for Christian unity is all too often seen in terms of activities for justice and peace, with prayer as “simply an addendum.”3 The lack of priority placed on spiritual activities is more than “a minor lapse in one aspect of ecumenical activity.”4 It points to “a profound gap between ecumenical activity and its source, between activity and spirituality.”5 As he reminds us, ecumenism is above all else a spirituality. It is not primarily theological or practical. As such, he asserts: “Action for Christian unity ought to flow from this divine prayer for unity rather than the other way around.”6 Contemporary ecumenism requires a reorientation towards Spiritual Ecumenism, as the wellspring for all ecumenical endeavours. O’Gara’s discussion of the future of ecumenism hits on a similar point. She draws attention to the fact that prayer has continually nourished ecumenism, predicting that prayer will be of “continuing importance” for “future ecumenical work.”7 The realisation that ecumenism is a spiritual task is something she considers to be “even clearer to young ecumenists today.”8 As such, she posits, “perhaps we will not be surprised when the spiritual ecumenism of which the Second Vatican Council speaks becomes an even more central instrument for dialogue between Christians in the coming decades.”9 It is apparent that O’Gara believes that the future of the Ecumenical Movement will see a shift towards spirituality. And, vitally, it is this spiritual emphasis which resonates with younger generations. The importance of Spiritual Ecumenism for the ecumenical future is also asserted by Kinnamon. Spiritual Ecumenism is necessary to counteract what he views as contemporary ecumenism’s fixation on ecumenical activity as committees, conferences, reports, and dialogues, rather than as something Spirit-​led.10 He argues that the renewal of the Ecumenical Movement hinges on emphasising spiritual ecumenism and lay participation.11 Spiritual Ecumenism is also, of course, of key concern for Kasper. He explains that there are three aspects to ecumenical dialogue:  theological 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Putney, “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism,” 169. Putney, “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism,” 169. Putney, “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism,” 169. Putney, “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism,” 170. O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 230. O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 230. O’Gara, “Ecumenical Dialogue,” 230. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 153. Kinnamon, Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? 152.

228 CHAPTER 9 dialogue, practical ecumenism, and interior conversion and renewal.12 With Unitatis Redintegratio, Kasper asserts that there can be no ecumenism without “personal conversion and institutional renewal.”13 While theological and practical ecumenical approaches are vital to the Ecumenical Movement, forward progress also requires emphasising Spiritual Ecumenism. As Kasper explains, “we can only widen the ecumenical dialogue when we deepen it. Only spiritually can we overcome the present crisis.”14 Elucidating further on Spiritual Ecumenism’s vital importance, Kasper posits that “we will only be able to make progress in our missionary endeavour if we return to the spiritual roots of Christianity in general and of ecumenism in particular and search for a renewed ecumenical spirituality.”15 Rekindling ecumenical energy requires placing priority on Spiritual Ecumenism, the very roots of the Ecumenical Movement. Whilst its full significance and place within contemporary ecumenism cannot yet be measured, Receptive Ecumenism provides fresh hope that the Ecumenical Movement is gaining its second wind to continue forward on the ecumenical path. By emphasising Spiritual Ecumenism, and providing a balance of theological and practical ecumenical approaches, it opens up new possibilities. Receptive Ecumenism offers an ecumenical strategy for engaging some of the critical challenges currently facing ecumenism, which is vital for the future of the Ecumenical Movement. It is certainly fitting that, in searching for a new way forward, the Ecumenical Movement should return to its roots: Spiritual Ecumenism. Having explored the potential of Receptive Ecumenism for the future of the Ecumenical Movement, along with areas where it still needs to be developed, and the enriching dynamic between Receptive and Spiritual Ecumenism, we are now in a position to offer six final critical reflections on the implications of Receptive Ecumenism as a form of Spiritual Ecumenism. Firstly, the centrality of Spiritual Ecumenism must be re-​emphasised if the Ecumenical Movement is to move forward. Prioritising the spiritual within the ecumenical is vital to the future of ecumenism. The contemporary Ecumenical Movement has focused on theological ecumenism, to the detriment of Spiritual Ecumenism. Without Spiritual Ecumenism, the Ecumenical Movement devolves into a matter merely of academic or theoretical interest, rather than

12 13 14 15

Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 44. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 17. Kasper, That They May All Be One, 157.

The Path Forward

229

conversion. Ecumenism must be renewed as also a spiritual movement, of the heart and soul. Secondly, Christian unity is above all else a hope, and a humble one. Ecumenism must be undertaken humbly and prayerfully, with openness to the Holy Spirit, and a central focus on Christ. Theology, and ecumenical theology, is experiencing a turn towards the affective and spiritual. This is a growth area for the Ecumenical Movement. There needs to be an approach that can tap into and engage with this level, such as Receptive Ecumenism. Thirdly, Receptive Ecumenism is capable of reinvigorating ecumenism precisely because of its basis in Spiritual Ecumenism. However, Receptive Ecumenism would do well to further explicate its connection to Spiritual Ecumenism, so that it can deepen its theological basis, and reach its potential. In particular, Receptive Ecumenism would benefit from emphasising Christ as standing at the centre of ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on inter-​Christian learning should be undertaken with awareness that the primary ecumenical relationship is with Christ, not with other Christians. Receptive Ecumenism’s Christological dimension should be expanded and brought to the forefront. Moreover, Receptive Ecumenism needs to realise a deepened pneumatological foundation. Receptive Ecumenism’s emphasis on ecclesial learning is essential to conversion, which is the role of the Spirit. Receptive Ecumenism also needs to develop a more holistic understanding of conversion. Receptive Ecumenism’s central focus on institutional conversion should not be seen as divorced from personal conversion. Receptive Ecumenism can fruitfully draw further on Spiritual Ecumenism in these areas. Fourthly, without becoming too prescriptive, Receptive Ecumenism would benefit from the establishment of some form of guiding principles or criteria to direct ecclesial learning. What can be received? What should be rejected? Denis Edwards’s framework for receiving charisms of the Spirit offers a basis for this criteria.16 Ormond Rush’s work on discerning the sensus fidelium in relation to Receptive Ecumenism also has great value for the strategy’s ongoing development. Fifthly, Receptive Ecumenism would benefit from further reflection on the integral connection between learning and teaching, giving and receiving. The focus of Receptive Ecumenism should remain on receiving, but there also needs to be an underpinning awareness of the indivisibility of giving and receiving. Spiritual Ecumenism’s focus on the ecumenical exchange of gifts acts 16

Edwards, “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church.”

230 CHAPTER 9 as the underlying basis for ecclesial learning, and Receptive Ecumenism draws on one half of it intentionally and with great purpose. Finally, Receptive Ecumenism would do well to explore the virtues that guide ecumenical engagement in more detail, perhaps especially, the virtue of hospitality. Receptive Ecumenism’s basis in hospitality has much depth and richness still to explore, and such an exploration might aid in developing general guidelines for Receptive Ecumenical engagement. These critical reflections highlight the conviction that the future of the Ecumenical Movement rests upon rediscovering ecumenism as a spiritual practice, of conversion into Christ, as well as about theological knowledge, and practical mission. Ecumenism needs to be re-​emphasised and re-​discovered as an act of love, if it is to inspire the passions of future generations. It is always an act of witness, and constantly challenges us to seek out where we may more fully become one with, and in, Christ. Nonetheless, ecumenism may never be particularly popular; it may not be fashionable; it may not suit the purposes of current authorities; it may even upset the status quo. It may be counter-​cultural, especially in a postmodern milieu which prioritises diversity and difference. At times, such as when churches are protectively drawing back in on themselves, it may fly in the face of what appears to be common sense. This is because ecumenism ultimately comes from God, not from any human initiative or imagination. Ecumenism requires us to trust in God’s mystery. It goes beyond the “now” and stretches us into the barely imaginable “not yet,” where God will “be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Ecumenism is a spiritual learning experience, and as such, as a development of Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism offers us a hopeful and humble way forward, a path for Christ’s pilgrim church. If Receptive Ecumenism is to mature as an ecumenical methodology and fulfil its potential, it must deepen its connection to Spiritual Ecumenism, and become more deeply what it already is. It is the spiritual dimension of ecumenism which will open up new vistas for contemporary ecumenical engagement. There is a need to recover the spiritual within the ecumenical. Consequently, Spiritual Ecumenism, particularly as developed in Receptive Ecumenism, presents a way forward for the Ecumenical Movement. However, many questions still remain. 1

Areas for Further Reflection

There is a need to explore Receptive Ecumenism in relation to other ecumenical methodologies, such as comparative ecumenism, bilateral dialogues, and with

The Path Forward

231

interreligious dialogue. There is also more work to be done on understanding and applying Receptive Ecumenism in other Christian traditions, rather than just Catholic perspectives and circles. The rich connection between Receptive Ecumenism and inter-​faith dialogue is yet to be mapped. Fruitful research could be undertaken on exploring Receptive Ecumenism in relation to key inter-​faith methodologies. One example of a valuable area for future research would be to explore the correlation between Receptive Ecumenism and the work of Raimon Panikkar. It would also be highly significant to apply Receptive Ecumenism to specific, divisive ecumenical issues, such as the question of married or female ordained ministers, and issues of sexuality and morality. Additionally, an investigation of the dialogue between the different rites within the Catholic Church, such as the Ukrainian, Maronite, or Chaldean rites, would be helpful as Receptive Ecumenism progresses. The diversity within the Catholic Church across its different rites could prove to be a valuable example of Receptive Ecumenism. Another helpful line of enquiry would be to document the effectiveness of Receptive Ecumenism in local contexts, such as in Australian dioceses, so as to explore how it functions as a method of undertaking ecumenical dialogue in a concrete situation. Addressing how Receptive Ecumenism may be able to engage with Pentecostal Christians, who are generally antagonistic towards ecumenism, would also be a vital area of future research. Receptive Ecumenism may prove to have great potential to engage with the Pentecostal movement. Moreover, while this study has explored the significance of humility and hope for ecumenical engagement, there is much work to be done on examining the role of virtues in general for ecumenism. Furthermore, research will need to be conducted on the major volumes which are to be published in the near future: the proceedings of the 2009, 2014 and 2017 conferences, and the results of the RE&LC study. The publication of these volumes is certain to have an enormous impact on our understanding of Receptive Ecumenism. It will be especially interesting to see how the theme of Spiritual Ecumenism, so prominent in the current volume, is carried out in further volumes. Evaluations of Receptive Ecumenism’s longer-​term contribution and significance also represent fruitful avenues for future research. Undertaking more research is vital in understanding how Spiritual Ecumenism applies to the Ecumenical Movement in general. Spiritual Ecumenism is significantly underdeveloped in comparison to theological and practical ecumenism, which means it has untapped energy to contribute to the contemporary ecumenical endeavour. Further research investigating the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, defining its key characteristics, and highlighting its importance for the renewal of the Ecumenical Movement would be valuable.

232 CHAPTER 9 The lack of academic engagement with Spiritual Ecumenism represents a significant gap in contemporary ecumenical studies, and one that requires urgent attention. 2

Spiritual Ecumenism, Receptive Ecumenism, and the Ecumenical Future

The Ecumenical Movement is coalescing into a new stage. Building on all that has been accomplished, on carefully established and nourished ecumenical relationships, attention can now also be focused on conversion and renewal. Interior conversion needs to be prioritised, in accordance with Vatican ii’s teaching that there can be no ecumenism without a change of heart. This is where ecumenical growth can take hold and flourish, and inspire ecumenical renewal. The way forward for ecumenism is that of Spiritual Ecumenism: emphasising ecumenism as a process of humility and hope directed towards interior conversion. Prioritising the spiritual aspects of ecumenism is also one way to foster a new generation of ecumenists. Asserting the importance of Spiritual Ecumenism for the ecumenical future brings us to reassert the key point: that Receptive Ecumenism is capable of reinvigorating ecumenism precisely because it is a new development out of Spiritual Ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism contains both of the remedies Kinnamon describes as necessary for the revitalisation of the ecumenical movement: a focus on Spiritual Ecumenism and opportunities for increased lay participation. Receptive Ecumenism is a form of Spiritual Ecumenism designed to foster the engagement of the entire church. It focuses on the affective and spiritual level, on transforming attitudes and engendering conversion. Rather than continuing to push up against the ecumenical impasse, Receptive Ecumenism sidesteps the obstacle and tackles ecumenical endeavours from a new angle: Spiritual Ecumenism. It is the spiritual and affective aspects of Receptive Ecumenism that engages the hearts and minds of people today. By drawing on them explicitly, Receptive Ecumenism engenders ecumenical progress. While perhaps it does not widen the ecumenical circle, it certainly deepens it. Another key concern for the ecumenical endeavour is the problem of genuine reception. Ecumenical apathy is, no doubt, also generated by the sense that ecumenical activities ultimately lack value, as they are often not received into the life of the church. Murray makes the point that despite success “over the past forty years unpicking complex knots of doctrinal disagreement … the amount of actual change in the lives of the churches … that has taken place at more than a notional or theoretical level, might be thought to be rather

The Path Forward

233

thin.”17 If ecumenism is to have a future, then it must be seen as relevant, and its work must make a genuine impact. Here we come to something of a deal breaker:  is Receptive Ecumenism able to fruitfully enable reception? If the answer is negative, then it would be hard to imagine it having much long-​term value for the Ecumenical Movement. However, fortunately, this is far from the case. Kelly attests to Receptive Ecumenism’s value in terms of its connection with reception, stating: I am confident that this new methodology can serve us well –​not just because it is new, but because it emerges out of the ancient idea of reception. These deep roots in the Christian tradition suggest that receptive ecumenism is not an ephemeral moment in ecumenical time, but has the potential to develop into a lively instrument for ecclesial learning.18 Receptive Ecumenism has deep ecumenical roots, and as Kelly elucidates, its connection with reception is a vital part of its potential. However, it should be emphasised that Receptive Ecumenism’s approach to reception is characterised by Spiritual Ecumenism, rather than theological ecumenism. Receptive Ecumenism cuts to the heart of reception, which is transformative change. If conversion has not occurred within a church community, then Receptive Ecumenism has failed. As such, there are fewer layers between Receptive Ecumenism and reception than between theological ecumenism and reception. This is because Receptive Ecumenism is already at the core of reception. It concentrates on interior conversion, whereas theological ecumenism generally focuses on coming to doctrinal agreement. Because it is more removed from the lived traditions of communities, theological ecumenism can be undertaken regardless of whether or not it achieves its intent to foster real change. However, Receptive Ecumenism is intrinsically a process of reception, which means that it will either succeed in engendering transformative conversion (reception) or fail altogether. But it does not require a distinct process of reception, such as that necessitated by ecumenical dialogues. Therefore, Receptive Ecumenism has the potential to resolve the current deadlock surrounding reception, by causing transformative change, because it is primarily grounded in spiritual, rather than theological, ecumenism. However, unlike theological ecumenism, if Receptive Ecumenism does not enable reception, it may simply fizzle out. This raises the concern that Receptive

17 18

Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning,” 37. Kelly, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 7.

234 CHAPTER 9 Ecumenism could just be a brief blaze of warmth in the ecumenical winter, if it is not adopted or taken to heart by churches. Conversely, if it is recognised and applied, Receptive Ecumenism holds the promise of being extremely fruitful, and indeed, of shaping the ecumenical future. What is definite is that Receptive Ecumenism has the potential to truly open new horizons of ecumenical engagement, rooted deeply in all that has already been accomplished. This is because it represents a reorientation and renewal of Spiritual Ecumenism, rather than a wholly new approach. As Murray affirms: “If Receptive Ecumenism is indeed fruitful for our times, it represents the coming of age and to full voice of a gift born within and given by all that has and all who have gone before in the ecumenical movement.”19 Receptive Ecumenism’s strength comes from the depth of its roots. As such, he declares that: the appropriate attitudes are those of gratitude, rejoicing, humility and confidence in as much as Receptive Ecumenism is indeed right and fitting for our times, it will be shown to be so by its fruits and, in as a much as it is not, it will in due course be similarly discerned not to be and so be suitably adapted and developed by the community of the church.20 Receptive Ecumenism ultimately offers itself up to the will of the Spirit, and the sense of the faithful. Any achievements of Receptive Ecumenism are properly recognised as stemming from God, rather than ourselves. Receptive Ecumenism is a gift that requires us to have the humility and the hope to open ourselves to the Spirit. It does not offer any magical shortcuts; rather it requires hard work, commitment, self-​criticism, and the courage of hopeful humility. It challenges us to enter more deeply into conversion in Christ and the Spirit, by learning from our ecumenical partners. This is certainly no easy task, but one which offers great rewards. The future of the ecumenical endeavour rests on rediscovering ecumenism as a spiritual practice. It is not just about theological knowledge, or practical mission, but about conversion into Christ through the Spirit. Largely untapped, it is the spiritual dimension of ecumenism which opens up new horizons for engagement, and points the way forward to the next stage of the ecumenical journey. Thus, Receptive Ecumenism shines much-​needed light on the long path of ecclesial conversion which stretches before us.

19 20

Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 94. Murray and Murray, “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism,” 94.

Bibliography Alison, James. Raising Abel:  The Recovery of the Eschatological Imagination. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996. American Academy of Ecumenists. “Responses to The Church: Towards a Common Vision from a September, 2015, Gathering of the North American Academy of Ecumenists.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 51, no. 3 (2016): 320–​36. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica:  Complete and Unabridged. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Amazon Digital Services: Coyote Canyon Press, 2010. arcic iii. “ARCIC III –​First Meeting Communique.” ARCIC & IARCCUM. http://​anglicancentre.churchinsight.com/​Publisher/​Article.aspx?ID=320801. arcic iii. “Communique from the Fourth Meeting.” ARCIC & IARCCUM. http://​www. anglicancentreinrome.org/​Articles/​403558/​Anglican_​Centre_​in/​ARCIC_​IARCCUM_​Dialogues/​ARCIC_​III/​ARCIC_​III_​Fourth.aspx. arcic iii. Walking Together on the Way: Learning to Be the Church –​Local, Regional, Universal. 2018. http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​pontifical_​councils/​chrstuni/​ angl-​comm-​docs/​rc_​pc_​chrstuni_​doc_​20180521_​walking-​together-​ontheway_​ en.pdf. Avis, Paul. “Are We Receiving ‘Receptive Ecumenism’?” Ecclesiology 8, no. 2 (2012): 223–​234. Avis, Paul. Reshaping Ecumenical Theology: The Church Made Whole? London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Avis, Paul. “ ‘Unreal Worlds Meeting’? Realism and Illusion in Ecumenical Dialogue.” Theology 115, no. 6 (2012): 420–​426. Balabanski, Vicky and Geraldine Hawkes, eds. Receptive Ecumenism: Listening, Learning and Loving in the Way of Christ. Adelaide: atf Press, 2018. Barrett, Clive. “An Overview of Ecumenism.” In Unity in Process:  Reflections on Ecumenism, edited by Clive Barrett, 19–​28. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2012. Bars, Henry. Faith, Hope and Charity. Translated by P. J. Hepburne-​Scott. London: Burns & Oates, 1961. Becker, Karl. “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit in’ Terminology.” Origins 35, no. 31 (2006): 514–​522. Bergamo, Cajetan Mary da. Humility of Heart. Translated by Herbert Vaughan. Charlotte, NC: tan Books, 2006. Bernard of Clairvaux. The Steps of Humility and Pride. Translated by M. Ambrose Conway. Trappist: Cistercian Publications, 1973. Bloch, Ernst. The Principle of Hope. Translated by Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice and Paul Knight. Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1986.

236 Bibliography Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson. “Introduction.” In Church Unity and the Papal ­Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, 1–​9. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001. Button, Mark. “ ‘A Monkish Kind of Virtue’? For and Against Humility.” Political Theory 33, no. 6 (2005): 840–​868. Caldwell, Simon. “ARCIC Document hailed as ‘groundbreaking’ by Catholics and Anglicans.” Anglican-​Roman Catholic Dialogue, IARCCUM. 4th July 2018 iarccum.org/​ ?p=2943. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. Casey, Michael. Truthful Living:  Saint Benedict’s Teaching on Humility. Leominster: Gracewing, 2001. Cashmore, Gwen, and Joan Puls. “Spirituality in the Ecumenical Movement.” In Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Nicholas Lossky, José Míguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom F. Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright and Pauline Webb, 1070–​1073. Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002. Cassidy, Edward Idris. “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective.” In Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclial Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, 10–​26. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001. Centre for Catholic Studies. “About Receptive Ecumenism.” Durham University. https://​ www.dur.ac.uk/​theology.religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​about/​. Centre for Catholic Studies. “Report on 2006 Conference.” Durham University. https://​ www.dur.ac.uk/​theology.religion/​ccs/​projects/​receptiveecumenism/​projects/​ catholiclearning/​catholiclearning/​. Centre for Catholic Studies, Durham University, and Fairfield University Centre for Catholic Studies. “Draft Programme of Receptive Ecumenism in International Perspective: Contextual Ecclesial Learning. The Third International Receptive Ecumenism Conference.” Durham University. https://​www.dur.ac.uk/​resources/​theology.religion/​REinInternationalPerspectiveDraftProgramme140416.pdf. Cessario, Romanus. “The Theological Virtue of Hope.” In The Ethics of Aquinas, edited by Stephen J. Pope, 232–​243. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002. Chapman, David M. “A Methodist Perspective on Catholic Learning.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 134–​148. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chia, Edmund. “Receptive Ecumenism through Asia’s Triple Dialogue Theology.” Pacifica 28, no. 2 (2015): 126–​136. Chittister, Joan. The Rule of St Benedict: A Spirituality for the 21st Century. New  York: Crossroad, 2010.

Bibliography

237

Clifford, Catherine E. The Groupe des Dombes:  A Dialogue of Conversion. New  York: Peter Lang, 2005. Clifford, Catherine E. “Kenosis and the Church: Putting on the Mind of Christ.” One in Christ 43, no. 2–​5 (2009): 2. Congar, Yves. Dialogue Between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism. Translated by Philip Loretz. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966. Congar, Yves. “Silenced for Saying Things Rome Didn’t Like to Have Said.” National Catholic Reporter, June 2000. Congar, Yves. The Word and the Spirit. Translated by David Smith. London:  Geoffrey Chapman, 1986. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” June 29, 2007. http://​www.vatican. va/​roman_​curia/​congregations/​cfaith/​documents/​rc_​con_​cfaith_​doc_​20070629_​ responsa-​quaestiones_​en.html. Connolly, Patrick. “Receptive Ecumenical Learning and Episcopal Accountability Within Contemporary Roman Catholicism  –​Canonical Considerations.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 241–​252. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008. Cordner, Christopher. “Aristotelian Virtue and Its Limitations.” Philosophy 69, no. 269 (1994): 291–​316. Couturier, Paul. “The Ecumenical Testament.” In Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, ­edited by Geoffrey Curtis, 329–​352. London: scm Press, 1964. Cross, Peter. “John Paul II and Ecumenism.” In John Paul II: Legacy and Witness, edited by Robert Gascoigne, 119–​126. Strathfield, nsw: St Pauls, 2007. Curtis, Geoffrey. Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ. London: scm Press, 1964. Doyle, Dominic. The Promise of Christian Humanism:  Thomas Aquinas on Hope. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2011. Dreyer, Elizabeth A. “Humility.” In The New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, edited by Philip Sheldrake, 348–​349. Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2005. Duffy, Stephen. “Catholicism’s Search for a New Self-​Understanding.” In Vatican II: Open Questions and New Horizons, edited by Gerald M. Fagin, 9–​37. Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1984. Ecclesiological Investigations Network, and Centre for Catholic Studies. “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning:  Learning to Be Church Together Conference Program.” Ecclesiological Investigations. http://​www.ei-​research.net/​uploads/​ microsoft-​word-​jan09-​reconf-​briefingparticipants_​web_​.pdf. Edwards, Denis. “The Holy Spirit as the Gift –​Pneumatology and Catholic Re-​reception of Petrine Ministry in the Theology of Walter Kasper.” In Receptive Ecumenism and

238 Bibliography the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 197–​210. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Edwards, Denis. “Receptive Ecumenism and the Charism of a Partner Church: the Example of Justification.” The Australasian Catholic Record 86, no. 4 (2009): 457–​467. Edwards, Denis. “Synodality and Primacy: Reflections from the Australian Lutheran/​ Roman Catholic Dialogue.” Pacifica 28, no 2 (2015): 137–​148. Epting, C. Christopher. “Exercises in Spiritual Ecumenism.” The Ecumenical Review 55, no. 3 (2003): 272–​278. Faggioli, Massimo. Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning. New York: Paulist Press, 2012. Flynn, Gabriel. “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning  –​Reflections in Dialogue with Yves Congar and B. C. Butler.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 399–​412. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Flynn, Gabriel. “Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform: A Renewal of the Spirit.” In Yves Congar:  Theologian of the Church, edited by Gabriel Flynn, 99–​133. Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005. Ford, David F. “Introduction –​Interreligious Reading After Vatican II: Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology and Receptive Ecumenism.” Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (2013): 1–​9. Ford, David F., and Frances Clemson, eds. “Special Issue: Interreligious Reading After Vatican II: Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology and Receptive Ecumenism.” Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (2013): 1–​229. Francis. Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel. Strathfield: St Paul’s Publications, 2013. Francis. “Ecumenical Prayer in the Lutheran Cathedral in the City of Lund, Sweden, 31st October 2016.” The Tablet https://​www.thetablet.co.uk/​texts-​speeches-​homilies/​ 4/​942/​pope-​francis-​ecumenical-​prayer-​in-​the-​lutheran-​cathedral-​in-​the-​city-​of-​ lund-​sweden-​31-​october-​2016. Frame, Tom. “Humility: The Despised Virtue?” Quadrant 51, no. 4 (2007): 36–​42. Fullam, Lisa. The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009. Funk, Mary Margaret. Humility Matters for Practicing the Spiritual Life. New York: Continuum, 2005. Goosen, Gideon. “Foreword.” In The Gift of Each Other: Learning from Other Christians, edited by Gideon Goosen, 4.  Sydney:  The New South Wales Ecumenical Council, 2013. Goosen, Gideon, Paul Kinder, Jim Tulip, Paul Weaver, Joan Wilcox, and Doug Hewitt, eds. The Gift of Each Other: Learning from Other Christians. Sydney: The New South Wales Ecumenical Council, 2013. Gros, Jeffrey. “The Ecumenical Calling of the Academic Theologian to Spiritual Pilgrimage in Service of Gospel Unity.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 3 (2009): 367–​382.

Bibliography

239

Gros, Jeffrey. “Learning the Ways of Receptive Ecumenism  –​Formational and Catechetical Considerations.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 442–​ 456. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Gros, Jeffrey, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs, eds. Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998–​2005. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Gros, Jeffrey, Eamon McManus, and Ann Riggs. Introduction to Ecumenism. New York: Paulist Press, 1998. Gros, Jeffrey, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch, eds. Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982–​ 1998. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Groupe des Dombes. For the Conversion of the Churches. Translated by James Greig. Geneva: wcc Publications, 1993. Hahnenberg, Edward P. A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2007. Hardy, Daniel W. “Receptive Ecumenism –​Learning by Engagement.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 428–​441. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Harmon, Steven R. Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010. Harrington, Daniel J. and James F. Keenan. Paul and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Hawkes, Geraldine. “Gifts of Healing: Receptive Ecumenism Process Draft.” South Australian Council of Churches, May 2013. Hawkes, Geraldine. “Receptive Ecumenism: Encounter with Beauty, Truth and Love.” Presentation at the South Australian Council of Churches Annual Ecumenical Lecture. Adelaide College of Divinty, Adelaide, 2013. Hawkes, Geraldine. “Receptive Ecumenism: Gifts of Healing –​A Pilot Project. Executive Officer Reflections.” The South Australian Council of Churches, 30th September 2014. Henn, William. “Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism.” The Ecumenical Review 52, no. 2 (2000): 234–​245. Hennessey, Lawrence. “Editor’s Corner.” Chicago Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 3–​7. Hitchen, Philippa. “Pope Francis meets Members of ARCIC III.” Vatican Radio, 2015. https://​ecumenism.net/​2015/​04/​pope-​francis-​meets-​members-​of-​arcic-​iii.htm. International Theological Commission of the Catholic Church. “Unity of the Faith and Theological Pluralism.” 1972. http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​congregations/​ cfaith/​cti_​documents/​rc_​cti_​1972_​fede-​pluralismo_​en.html.

240 Bibliography Jeanrond, Werner G. A Theology of Love. London: T&T Clark, 2010. John Paul ii. “To the Delegations From Other Christian Churches, October 22 1978.” In John Paul II: Addresses and Homilies on Ecumenism 1978–​1980, edited by John B. Sheerin and John F. Hotchkin, 1–​2. Washington, DC: u.s. Catholic Conference, 1980. John Paul ii. Ut Unum Sint: On Commitment to Ecumenism. 1995. Kasper, Walter. “Charting the Road of the Ecumenical Movement.” Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 2008. Kasper, Walter. “ ‘Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam’  –​The Relationship Between the Catholic and the Protestant Principles in Fundamental Ecclesiology.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 78–​88. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Kasper, Walter. “Credo Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam: The Relationship between the Catholic and the Protestant Principles in Fundamental Ecclesiology.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7, no. 4 (2007): 250–​260. Kasper, Walter. “The Ecumenical Movement in the 21st Century.” Presentation at The 40th anniversary of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC, 18th November 2005. Kasper, Walter. “Foreword.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, vii–​ viii. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Kasper, Walter. A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism. New York: New City Press, 2007. Kasper, Walter. Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue. New York: Continuum, 2009. Kasper, Walter. That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today. London: Burns & Oates, 2004. Kasper, Walter. The Catholic Church:  Nature, Reality and Mission. London:  Bloomsbury, 2015. Kasper, Walter. “The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity:  Origin and Continuing Inspiration of the Ecumenical Movement.” In A Century of Prayer for Christian Unity, edited by Catherine E. Clifford, 25–​40. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009. Kaspwer, Walter, ed. The Petrine Ministry:  Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. New York: Newman Press, 2006. Kelly, Anthony. Eschatology and Hope. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2006. Kelly, Gerard. “A New Ecumenical Wave.” Presented at the National Council of Churches Forum, Canberra, 12th July 2010. Kelly, Gerard. “Receptive Ecumenism.” Presented at the Diocesan Ecumenical Commissions Biennial Conference, Adelaide, September 3rd 2011. Kelly, Gerard. “What is Receptive Ecumenism?” In The Gift of Each Other: Learning from Other Christians, edited by Gideon Goosen, 5–​7. Sydney: The New South Wales Ecumenical Council, 2013.

Bibliography

241

Kinnamon, Michael. Can a Renewal Movement be Renewed? Questions for the Future of Ecumenism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. Kinnamon, Michael. “New Contours of Ecumenism.” The Ecumenical Review 66, no. 1 (2014): 16–​24. Kinnamon, Michael. The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How it Has Been Impoverished by Its Friends. St Louis: Chalice Press, 2003. Koskela, Douglas M. Ecclesiality and Ecumenism: Yves Congar and the Road to Unity. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2008. Ladouceur, Paul. “Living Ecumenism:  Margaret O’Gara’s Ecumenical Ecclesiology.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 52, no. 3 (2017): 402–​420. Ladous, Régis. “Spiritual Ecumenism.” In Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Nicholas Lossky, José Míguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom F. Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright and Pauline Webb, 1069–​1070. Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002. Lakeland, Paul. “Introduction.” In Yves Congar: Essential Writings, edited by Paul Lakeland, 13–​35. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2010. Lane, Dermot A. Keeping Hope Alive: Stirrings in Christian Theology. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1996. Larini, Riccardo. “Texts and Contexts  –​Hermeneutical Reflections on Receptive Ecumenism.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 89–​101. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Legrand, Hervé. “Receptive Ecumenism and the Future of Ecumenical Dialogues  –​ Privileging Differentiated Consensus and Drawing its Institutional Consequences.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 385–​398. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Lorke, Mélisande, and Dietrich Werner, eds. Ecumenical Visions for the 21st Century. Geneva: wcc Publications, 2013. Louf, André. Humility. London: The Catholic Truth Society, 2005. Louf, André. The Way of Humility. Translated by Lawrence S. Cunningham. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2007. Louth, Andrew. “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning  –​An Orthodox Perspective.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 361–​372. Oxford:  Oxford ­University Press, 2008. Lutheran World Federation and Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. From Conflict to Communion (2013). https://​www.lutheranworld.org/​sites/​default/​files/​ From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf. Lynch, William F. Images of Hope: Imagination as Healer of the Hopeless. London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.

242 Bibliography Macquarrie, John. Christian Hope. London: Mowbrays, 1978. Mannion, Gerard. “Receptive Ecumenism and the Hermeneutics of Catholic Learning –​The Promise of Comparative Ecclesiology.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Marcel, Gabriel. Homo Viator:  Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope. Translated by Emma Craufurd. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1951. McEvoy, James. Leaving Christendom for Good: Church-​World Dialogue in a Secular Age. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2014. McGrail, Peter. “The Fortress Church Under Reconstruction? Sociological Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning in the Church in England and Wales.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 319–​332. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. McPartlan, Paul. “The Church  –​Towards a Common Vision:  A Roman Catholic Response.” Ecclesiology 12, no. 3 (2016): 298–​315. Metz, Johannes Baptist. Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology. New York: The Seabury Press, 1980. Metz, Johannes Baptist. A Passion for God: The Mystical-​Political Dimension of Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1998. Meyer, Harding. That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity. Translated by William G. Rusch. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999. Miner, Robert. Thomas Aquinas on the Passions: A Study of Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 22–​48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1967. Murray, Paul D. “Acknowledgements.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, xvi–​xviii. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Murray, Paul D. “ARCIC III: Recognising the Need for An Ecumenical Gear-​Change.” One in Christ 45, no. 2 (2011): 200–​211. Murray, Paul D. “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-​Ecclesial Renewal: ‘Tests,’ ‘Notes,’ and Criteria for Receptive Ecumenical Learning.” Presented at the 4th Receptive Ecumenism Conference, Canberra, Australia, November 7th 2017. Murray, Paul D. “Ecumenism, Evangelization and Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II:  Reading Unitatis Redintegratio with His Holiness Benedict XVI Roman Pontiff Emeritus.” In The New Evangelization: Faith, People, Context and Practice, edited by Paul Grogan and Kirsteen Kim, 99–​120. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.

Bibliography

243

Murray, Paul D. “Engaging with the Contemporary Church.” In The Routledge Companion to the Practice of Christian Theology, edited by Mike Higton and Jim Fodor, 278–​ 294. London: Routledge, 2015. Murray, Paul D. “Expanding Catholicity through Ecumenicity in the Work of Yves Congar: Ressourcement, Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Reform.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 13, no. 3 (2011): 272–​302. Murray, Paul D. “Families of Receptive Theological Learning:  Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology, and Receptive Ecumenism.” Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (2013): 76–​92. Murray, Paul D. “Growing into the Fullness of Christ: Receptive Ecumenism as an Instrument of Ecclesial Conversion.” Presented at The Catholic Theological Society of America: Sixty-​Eighth Annual Convention: Conversion, Miami, Florida, June 6–​ 9th 2013. Murray, Paul D. “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands:  Exploring the Promise and Potential of Receptive Ecumenism.” Presented at Trinity College, Toronto, November 4, 2013. Murray, Paul D. “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism.” The Ecumenist: A Journal of Theology, Culture, and Society 51, no. 2 (2014): 1–​8. Murray, Paul D. and Mathew Guest. “On Discerning the Living Truth of the Church: Theological and Sociological Reflections on Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church.” In Explorations in Ecclesiology and Ethnography, edited by Christian B. Scharen, 138–​164. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012. Murray, Paul D. “Preface.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Murray, Paul D. and Paula Gooder. “Receptive Ecumenism and ARCIC III.” Seminar in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Visit of Archbishop Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI. Gregorian University, Rome, 2016. Murray, Paul D. Reason, Truth and Theology in Pragmatist Perspective. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Murray, Paul D. “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning –​Establishing the Agenda.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 5–​25. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Murray, Paul D. “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning: Establishing the Agenda.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7, no. 4 (2007): 279–​ 301. Murray, Paul D. “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Receiving Gifts for Our Needs.” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1–​2 (2008): 30–​45.

244 Bibliography Murray, Paul D. ed. Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Murray, Paul D. “Roman Catholicism and Ecumenism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, edited by Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, forthcoming. Murray, Paul D. “Searching the Living Truth of the Church in Practice: On the Transformative Task of Systematic Ecclesiology.” Modern Theology 30, no. 2 (2014): 251–​281. Murray, Paul D. “The Holy Spirit and the Church:  Making Sense of the Spirit in the Sense of the Church.” Presented at the Annual Conference of the CTA of Great Britain: Sensus Fidelium: Listening for the Echo, September 2016. Murray, Paul. D. “The Reception of ARCIC I and II in Europe and Discerning the Strategy and Agenda for ARCIC III.” Ecclesiology 11, no. 2 (2015): 199–​218. Murray, Paul D. and Andrea L. Murray. “The Roots, Range and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism.” In Unity in Process:  Reflections on Ecumenism, edited by Clive Barrett, 79–​94. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2012. Murray, Paul D. “Vatican II: On Celebrating Vatican II as Catholic and Ecumenical.” In The Second Vatican Council: Celebrating its Achievements and the Future, edited by Gavin D’Costa and Emma Jane Harris, 85–​104. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Nilson, Jon. Nothing Beyond the Necessary: Roman Catholicism and the Ecumenical Future. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1995. Nugent, Robert. “Yves Congar: Apostle of Patience.” Australian Ejournal of Theology 4 (2005). O’Collins, Gerald. “The Theology of Hope.” The Way 8, no. 4 (1968): 261–​269. O’Gara, Margaret. “The Catholic Church in the World Today.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, 3–​6. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. O’Gara, Margaret. “Christ’s Church Local and Global.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, 16–​22. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. O’Gara, Margaret. “Ecumenical Dialogue:  The Next Generation.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, 205–​231. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. O’Gara, Margaret. The Ecumenical Gift Exchange. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998. O’Gara, Margaret. “Ecumenism’s Future.” Commonweal 132, no. 13 (2005): 11–​12. O’Gara, Margaret. “Epilogue: The Study of Theology.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, 232–​237. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. O’Gara, Margaret. “Friendship in the Ecumenical Movement: Its Theological Significance.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, 28–​ 37. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. O’Gara, Margaret. “Receiving Gifts in Ecumenical Dialogue.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 26–​38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bibliography

245

O’Gara, Margaret. “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 3 (2011): 368–​377. O’Malley, John. Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? New York: Continuum, 2007. O’Meara, Thomas F. Thomas Aquinas:  Theologian. Notre Dame:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Oakes, Edward T. “The Radicality of Christian Hope.” Chicago Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 8–​35. Örsy, Ladislas. “Authentic Learning and Receiving –​A Search for Criteria.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 39–​51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pakenham, Frank. Humility. London: Fontana Books, 1969. Pardue, Stephen. “Kenosis and its Discontents:  Towards an Augustinian Account of Divine Humility.” Scottish Journal of Theology 65, no. 3 (2012): 271–​288. Pascal, Blaise. The Mind on Fire:  Faith for the Skeptical and Indifferent. Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 2006. Pascoe, David. “Hospitality Grounded in Humility:  A Foundation for Inter-​Ecclesial Learning.” Presented at the Second International Receptive Ecumenism Conference: Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Learning to be Church Together, Durham, January 2009. Pascoe, David. “Living as God’s Steward’s: Theological Foundations.” Presented at the Stewardship Conference, Brisbane, 2011. Pecklers, Keith. “What Roman Catholics Have to Learn from Anglicans.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary ­Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 107–​121. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008. Phillips, Peter. “Receiving the Experience of Eucharistic Celebration.” In Receptive ­Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:  Exploring a Way for Contemporary ­Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 455–​468. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008. Pieper, Josef. Faith, Hope, Love. Translated by Mary Frances McCarthy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986. Pieper, Josef. Fortitude and Temperance. Translated by Daniel F. Coogan. London: Faber and Faber, 1955. Pieper, Josef. The Silence of St. Thomas. Translated by Daniel O’Connor. London: Faber and Faber, 1957. Pinckaers, Servais-​Théodore. “The Sources of the Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas.” Translated by Mary Thomas Noble. In The Ethics of Aquinas, edited by Stephen J. Pope, 17–​29. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002. Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999.

246 Bibliography Pullella, Philip and Annabella PultzNielsen. “Pope, in Sweden, says Reformation had positive aspects.” Reuters October 31 2016. https://​ www.reuters.com/​ article/​us-​pope- ​sweden/​pope-​in- ​sweden- ​says-​reformation-​had-​positive-​aspects-​ idUSKBN12V005?il=0. Putney, Michael. “The Approach of the Catholic Church to Ecumenism.” In My Ecumenical Journey, edited by Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly and Ormond Rush, 157–​ 171. Adelaide: atf Theology, 2014. Putney, Michael. “A Catholic Understanding of Ecumenical Dialogue.” In My Ecumenical Journey, edited by Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly and Ormond Rush, 173–​190. Adelaide: atf Theology, 2014. Putney, Michael. “One Man’s Ecumenical Journey.” In My Ecumenical Journey, edited by Elizabeth Delaney, Gerard Kelly and Ormond Rush, 1–​11. Adelaide: atf Theology, 2014. Putney, Michael. “Receptive Catholic Learning Through Methodist-​Catholic Dialogue.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 122–​133. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Reese, Thomas J. “Organizational Factors Inhibiting Receptive Catholic Learning.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 346–​356. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Richards, Norvin. “Is Humility a Virtue?” American Philosophical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (1988): 253–​259. Rusch, William G. Ecumenical Reception:  Its Challenge and Opportunity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. Rusch, William G. “The International Lutheran-​Roman Catholic Dialogue –​An Example of Ecclesial Learning and Ecumenical Reception.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 149–​159. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Rush, Ormond. “A Catholic Commentary on Walking Together on the Way: Learning to Be the Church –​Local, Regional, Universal of the Anglican-​Roman Catholic International Commission.” 2018. http://​www.vatican.va/​roman_​curia/​pontifical_​councils/​chrstuni/​angl-​comm-​docs/​rc_​pc_​chrstuni_​doc_​20180604_​walkingtogether-​ ontheway-​commentary_​en.pdf. Rush, Ormond. The Eyes of Faith: The Sense of the Faithful and the Church’s Reception of Revelation. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Rush, Ormond. “Receptive Ecumenism and Discerning the Sensus Fidelium: Expanding the Categories for a Catholic Reception of Revelation.” Theological Studies 78, no. 3 (2017): 559–​572.

Bibliography

247

Rush, Ormond. Still Interpreting Vatican II:  Some Hermeneutical Principles. New York: Paulist Press, 2004. Schelkens, Karim. “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited: The Catholic Church and Christian Unity after Vatican II.” Theological Studies 69, no. 4 (2008): 875–​93. Schelkens, Karim and Stephan van Erp, eds. Conversion and Church: The Challenge of Ecclesial Renewal: Essays in Honour of H. P. J. Witte. Vol. 2, Studies in Catholic Theology. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016. Schillinger, Jamie. “Intellectual Humility and Interreligious Dialogue between Christians and Muslims.” Islam and Christian-​Muslim Relations 23, no. 3 (2012): 363–​380. Sheldrake, Philip. “Becoming Catholic Persons and Learning to Be a Catholic People.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 52–​62. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Sklba, Richard J. “Foreword.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, ix–​x. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. Smyth, Geraldine. “Jerusalem, Athens, and Zurich  –​Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Factors Inhibiting Receptive Ecumenism.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 285–​302. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. South Australian Council of Churches. “Healing Gifts for Wounded Hands: The Promise and Potential of Receptive Ecumenism.” Edited by South Australian Council of Churches. Adelaide: South Australian Council of Churches, 2014. South Australian Council of Churches. “Receptive Ecumenism.” South Australian Council of Churches. http://​www.sacc.asn.au/​en/​index.php?rubric=en_​receptive+ecumenism. Spiegel, James S. “The Moral Irony of Humility.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 6, no. 1 (2003): 131–​150. Sullivan, Francis. “Quaestio Disputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S.J., on the Meaning of Subsistit in.” Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (2006): 395–​409. Sullivan, Francis. “Quaestio Disputata: The Meaning of Subsistit in as Explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2008): 116–​124. Sweeney, James. “Receptive Ecumenism, Ecclesial Learning, and the ‘Tribe’.” In Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 333–​345. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Swift, Diana. “Margaret O’Gara 1947–​2012.” Anglican Journal 138, no. 8 (2012): 8. Tangney, June. “Humility: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19, no. 1 (2000): 70–​82. Tanner, Mary. “From Vatican II to Mississauga  –​Lessons in Receptive Ecumenical Learning from the Anglican-​Roman Catholic Bilateral Dialogue Process.” In

248 Bibliography Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, edited by Paul D. Murray, 258–​270. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Vatican ii. “Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.” In Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, edited by Austin Flannery, 1–​95. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996. Vatican ii. “Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism.” In Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, edited by Austin Flannery, 499–​523. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996. Vera, Dusya and Antonio Rodriguez-​Lopez. “Strategic Virtues: Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” Organizational Dynamics 33, no. 4 (2004): 393–​408. Vertin, Michael. “Editor’s Introduction.” In No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, edited by Michael Vertin, xiii–​xxiv. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014. Vischer, Lukas. “The Ecumenical Movement and the Roman Catholic Church.” In The Ecumenical Advance:  A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1948–​1968, edited by Harold E. Fey, 311–​354. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993. Wainwright, Geoffrey. “Ut Unum Sint.” In Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Nicholas Lossky, José Míguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom F. Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright and Pauline Webb, 1184–​1186. Geneva: wcc Publications, 2002. Wainwright, Geoffrey. “Ut Unum Sint in Light of ‘Faith and Order’ –​or ‘Faith and Order’ in Light of Ut Unum Sint?” In Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One), edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, 76–​97. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001. Ware, Kallistos. “Receptive Ecumenism: An Orthodox Perspective.” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1–​2 (2008): 46–​53. Weakland, Rembert. “Images of the Church: From ‘Perfect Society’ to ‘God’s People on Pilgrimage.’ ” In Unfinished Journey: The Church 40 Years After Vatican II, edited by Austen Ivereigh, 78–​90. New York: Continuum, 2003. Welch, Lawrence and Guy Mansini. “Lumen Gentium No. 8, and Subsistit In, Again.” New Blackfriars 90, no. 1029 (2009): 602–​617. Wicks, Jared. “Not-​So-​Fully Church.” The Christian Century 124, no. 17 (2007): 9–​11. Worthington, Everett L. “Humility: The Quiet Virtue.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 27, no. 3 (2008): 270–​273. Zimmermann, Nigel. “Book Review:  Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism.” The Heythrop Journal 55, no. 3 (2014): 525–​526.

Index Alison, James 170 Aquinas, Thomas 151n, 156n, 159–​161, 169–​173, 176 arcici 206–​210 arcic ii 206–​210 arcic iii 15, 207–​214, 224, 232 Walking Together on the Way 211–​214 Augustine 156, 161 Avis, Paul 3, 6, 9, 18, 34, 37, 103, 185–​187, 190, 192, 195, 223 Baptism 92, 130–​132, 140 Barrett, Clive 128 Becker, Karl 82–​83 Benedict of Nursia 162 Bergamo, Cajetan 156, 162–​163 Bernard of Clairvaux 162 Bilateral dialogues 15, 50, 63, 120, 127, 146, 153, 207, 210–​211, 214, 223–​225, 231 Bridgefolk 46–​47, 106 Calvin, John 162 Casey, Michael 155, 158, 161, 163 Cassidy, Edward 97, 195 Cessario, Romanus 169, 171–​172, 174 Charism 40–​41, 137–​138 Chia, Edmund 34 Chittister, Joan 157, 163, 176 Christological focus of ecumenism 129–​134, 138, 140, 142, 228, 230 Clifford, Catherine 64, 66, 68, 70, 192–​193 Comparative Theology 188, 232 Congar, Yves 57, 72–​78, 130, 131, 135–​138, 141, 153 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 83–​84 Connolly, Patrick 52 Conversion  Ecclesial 8–​9, 11, 13–​14, 16, 19–​20, 24, 28–​29, 30–​33, 36–​37, 47–​49, 51–​52, 54–​56, 58, 64, 66, 67–​69, 74–​77, 79, 81, 86–​91, 93, 95, 98–​102, 104, 109–​112, 114, 116, 121–​125, 127, 132, 141, 147, 152, 177, 191, 208, 219–​220, 230, 233. see also ecclesial reform

Personal 8, 11, 13–​15, 30, 69, 100, 116, 123, 177, 230 Couturier, Paul 14–​15, 28, 55, 56, 57, 62–​72, 73–​74, 121–​122, 124–​125, 130–​131, 146 Spiritual emulation 67–​70 Despair 166–​167, 170–​172 Discernment 37, 136, 140, 142–​144, 150, 152, 178, 192, 213 Diversity 6, 26–​27, 31, 67–​68, 70, 75, 91, 184–​189, 195, 219, 231–​232 Doyle, Dominic 169–​170 Dreyer, Elizabeth 158 Duffy, Stephen 117 Ecclesial identity 23, 27, 32, 38, 51, 53–​54, 66–​67, 76–​77, 99, 133, 145, 181, 188, 190–​194, 195, 221, 223 Ecclesial learning 31–​32, 34–​35, 36, 49, 70, 76, 87, 98, 104, 118–​119, 123–​125, 132–​136, 138, 141, 150, 188, 197, 199, 209–​210 Ecclesial reform 14, 26–​27, 37, 51, 53, 68, 80, 110–​111, 153, 165, 213, 219–​220 Ecumenical gift exchange 37, 45–​49, 68, 94, 97, 100–​101, 108–​113, 115, 142–​145, 217, 230–​231 Ecumenical Movement  Achievements 1–​3, 6 Current state 3–​6, 12, 44–​45, 103–​105, 179–​180 Decline 3–​5, 23, 180–​183 Future 6–​7, 179, 227–​231, 233 History 1–​2, 10–​11 Ecumenical renewal 4, 6–​7, 8, 12, 51, 227–​229, 232–​233, 235 Ecumenical spirituality 11, 104–​105 Ecumenical winter 6, 20, 23, 44, 103, 148, 173, 180–​183, 235 Edwards, Denis 39, 40, 58, 137–​138, 214, 229 Ethnography 203–​204, 260 Evagrius of Pontus 161 Faggioli, Massimo 85 Federal view of communion 38

250 Index Flynn, Gabriel 57, 61, 73 Fortress church 51, 53–​54, 188, 221 Full visible unity 23, 24, 31, 38, 56, 60, 68, 74–​75, 101–​102, 111, 118, 181–​182, 187, 194–​198, 224 Fullam, Lisa 158, 160, 162, 169 Funk, Mary Margaret 156 Goosen, Gideon 216 Gros, Jeffrey 45, 55, 60, 61, 146 Groupe des Dombes 56, 63–​65, 67, 120, 191–​192 Guitton, Jean 164 Hardy, Daniel 61 Hawkes, Geraldine 214–​218, 225 Henn, William 97–​99, 102, 130 Hope 11, 20, 35, 91, 110, 115, 117, 155, 165–​178, 220–​221, 225, 233, 235 Hopeful humility 173–​178, 230, 234 Hospitality 33, 52, 111, 132–​134, 153, 178, 217, 231 Humility 11, 20, 30, 33, 35, 36, 64, 66, 71, 98–​102, 110, 115, 117, 136, 153–​154, 155–​165, 169–​178, 192–​193, 215, 220–​221, 223, 225, 233, 235 Ignatian spirituality 22, 28, 30 Jeanrond, Werner 150–​152 John 17:21 10, 65, 70, 74, 81, 102, 110, 115, 125, 130, 149, 165, 172, 194 John Paul ii 7, 84, 96–​97, 109, 115, 116, 131, 144, 184 Joint Declaration on Doctrine of Justification 1, 140 Kasper, Walter 2–​3, 5, 10–​12, 14, 21, 44–​45, 55–​56, 61, 63, 85–​86, 89, 96–​97, 103–​106, 111, 114, 116–​117, 122, 131–​132, 135–​136, 153–​154, 165, 179, 183–​184, 191, 195, 228–​229 Kelly, Anthony 163, 167–​168, 170, 175–​176 Kelly, Gerard 181, 183, 190, 197, 205–​206, 214, 218–​222, 224–​226, 233 Kingdom of God 167–​168, 174 Kinnamon, Michael 6–​7, 126, 227, 232 Koskela, Douglas 137

Larini, Riccardo 50 Legrand, Hervé 61 Lived, not abstract, traditions 40, 52, 74, 77–​78, 127, 202–​203, 205, 210, 224, 233 Louf, André 156–​158, 160–​162, 164 Louth, Andrew 46 Love 6, 17, 36, 39, 51, 54, 56–​57, 74, 79, 81, 90–​91, 100, 104, 110, 114, 116, 124, 132, 134, 149–​155, 160, 162, 166, 168–​169, 177–​178, 213, 215, 220, 230 Lumen Gentium 48, 81–​83, 87–​88, 92 Lynch, William 170, 172 Macquarrie, John 166 Mannion, Gerard 60–​61 McEvoy, James 179–​180 Metz, Johannes Baptist 166n, 167 Meyer, Harding 4–​5, 185, 194 McGrail, Peter 53 Moltmann, Jürgen 166n, 167 MortaliumAnimos 98, 102 Murray, Paul  Emphasis on ecclesial conversion 21, 30 Evaluation of ecumenism 23 Philosophical background 25 Spiritual Ecumenism 14, 27–​28, 62, 69, 120–​121 Vision of Receptive Ecumenism 18–​21 Non-​theological factors on ecumenism 51–​55, 215, 218 Nilson, Jon 4, 194, 223–​224 O’Gara, Margaret 14, 41, 46–​47, 96, 106–​113, 117–​119, 142, 144–​145, 154, 180, 227 Optimism 1, 4, 20, 168, 182, 197 Örsy, Ladislas 56–​57, 191, 223 Pascoe, David 132, 199, 214 Pecklers, Keith 48 Pentecostal movement 231 Perfect society 81–​82, 86, 88–​89, 99 Petrine ministry 101–​102, 144–​145, 147, 190 Phillips, Peter 45 Pieper, Josef 151–​152, 156, 158, 161, 163–​164, 166–​167, 171, 173–​174 Pilgrim Church 38, 81, 88–​90, 100, 114–​115, 165, 177, 223, 230

251

Index Pluralism 26–​27, 68, 184–​190, 196 Pohl, Christine 133–​134, 153 Pope Francis 2, 8–​9, 211 Postmodernity 105, 184, 188–​189, 196, 231 Practical Ecumenism 9, 12, 117, 202, 205, 227 Definition of 9–​10 Prayer movements 10–​11, 38 Pride 156, 159–​160, 171 Putney, Michael 46–​47, 56, 129, 134, 136–​137, 144, 214, 221–​222, 226–​227 Real but partial unity 48, 92, 101–​102, 131–​132, 152, 173, 175 Reception 35, 37, 40–​41, 49–​51, 138, 220, 232–​233 Definition of 49 Receptive Ecumenism  Achievements of 15, 210 Adaptability of 127–​128, 222 Affective and virtuous dimensions 149, 154–​155, 215–​217, 225 Aim of 31, 36, 67, 122 Appeal to non-​experts 39–​40, 47, 78, 126, 139–​140, 183, 206, 215 Asia, in 34 Australian Receptive Ecumenism  213–​218 Catholic characteristics 38–​39 Challenges it faces 53, 218–​226 Collaborative dimension 41, 200–​201 Criteria 60, 136–​139, 199, 201, 206, 222, 230 Definition of 12–​13, 15–​16 Development of 21, 30 Distinction from exchange of gifts 35–​37, 46–​49, 112–​113, 119, 142–​143, 145 Emphasis on learning 70–​72 Emphasis on theological expertise 39–​40 Originality of 34–​35, 37 Philosophical basis 25 Pneumatological basis 20, 55, 58–​59, 71, 112, 115, 135 Potential of 20, 35, 182 Protestant approaches to 38–​39 Relationship to Spiritual Ecumenism  13–​15, 55–​58, 62, 107, 113–​119, 120–​121, 145–​148, 229–​230

Tensions within source material 49, 59–​61 Receptive Ecumenism Conferences 21–​22, 38–​39, 41, 43, 198–​201, 202, 231 Reconfessionalism 23, 181, 190–​192, 194, 231 Reese, Thomas 54 Regional Comparative Research Project in Receptive Ecumenism and the Local Church 22, 202–​207 Relativism 26–​27, 105, 184, 186–​189 Religious freedom 65–​66, 70 Repentance 64, 66, 70, 88, 89, 104, 110, 116, 136, 150, 154 Rescher, Nicholas 18, 25–​27, 61 Return Ecumenism 49, 63, 64, 65, 67, 75, 82–​83, 85–​86, 90, 98–​100 Rusch, William 50, 201 Rush, Ormond 139–​141, 146, 212, 214, 229 Sensusfidelium 135, 139–​141, 230 Scriptural Reasoning 28–​29, 188 Sheldrake, Philip 51–​52, 132 Smyth, Geraldine 52, 56 South Australian Council of Churches  214–​217, 222 Spiritual Ecumenism  Christological focus 129–​135 Definition of 9, 14, 105, 113–​119 Importance of 7, 10–​12, 14, 105, 117, 227–​235 Neglect of 9–​10, 113, 117, 122–​123, 227, 232 Pneumatological focus 129, 135–​141 Reception of 116–​117, 146–​148 Subsists in 82–​87, 98, 180, 193 Sullivan, Francis 83–​85 Sweeney, James 54, 190 Tanner, Mary 59–​60 Temperance 159 Temple, William 163 Theological ecumenism 9, 12, 40, 80, 117, 224–​225, 227, 229, 234 Definition of 9 Unitatis Redintegratio 8–​9, 32, 56, 66, 79–​81, 87–​93, 96–​97, 100–​101, 109, 114–​116, 118, 122, 130, 136, 141, 150, 228 Ut Unum Sint 46, 48, 56, 96–​103, 109, 118–​119, 130, 147

252 Index Vatican ii Council 46, 65, 73, 78–​95 Reception of 117 Virtues 149–​150, 231–​232 Theological 54, 159–​161, 164, 168–​169 Wainwright, Geoffrey 99, 195 Ware, Kallistos 125, 129–​130, 135, 142–​143

Wattson’s Octave of Prayer for Unity 11, 63, 65 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 11, 63, 65, 70, 74 Wicks, Jared 84 Wounded hands 20, 57, 220 Zimmerman, Nigel 222