LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Churches. However, it sees a small but important aspect of ongoing disagreement. The main topics of agreement are as follows.

      • Ecclesiology: The Church is a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. This includes the idea of the ongoing importance of the Church even after history has ended. And of even more importance here, it also includes the need for every possible endeavour to establish unity since the Church is an instrument of God’s goal to unite all mankind in His kingdom. Therefore the reality of the Church is godly in itself, even though it fully participates in human weakness and sinfulness and thus is in constant need of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and graceful renewal (MD 1–3). MD gratefully adopts an ecclesiology of communion developed mainly in the 1980s. The Church is considered as koinonia (communion) of fellow Christians and at the same time as participatory koinonia with the living God. Both facts show the urgent need that the Church may come to a fuller communion in itself and via missionary endeavours with all mankind. At this point MD expresses a statement of guilt. Although Protestants (I will use this terms to abbreviate “Lutherans, Reformed and United”) and Anglicans have never condemned each other they lived in reciprocal ignorance, which is an active sin against what God prepared for His Church by granting it koinonia (MD 10).

      • Basic Christian doctrines: The participants agree to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, to the Creed of Nicea and Constantinople and the Creed of the Apostles, and to the trinitarian and christological dogmas that followed. The basic reformation creeds such as the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, The Common Book of Prayer and the Ordinal, the Augsburg Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are regarded as communicating the Reformer’s heritage which is common to all signatory Churches (MD 9, 15.1–2).

      • The sacraments: Although the signatory Churches do not have Church communion, they acknowledge that in all of them there is adherence to the apostolic faith and mission, baptism, the Eucharist, and the ordained ministry (MD 12). This assertion is complemented by a double-sided strategy. On the one hand, MD mentions the full Church union as declared between the signatory Churches of the Leuenberg Concord and thus leaves no doubt that the formulation as found in this paper is adequate to describe a joint understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (MD 13.4). MD adds a quotation from a paper drafted by the Anglican-Reformed International Commission affirming Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and his once-for-all offering which cannot and need not be repeated by any other person (MD 15.5). MD thus offers a new kind of reinterpretation of the Leuenberg Concord. Leuenberg declared full Church union since its signatory Churches could agree to a common understanding concerning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This formula, however, does not present a view of Christ’s presence which fully encompasses both sides. Nevertheless, it was regarded as sufficient to overcome the disagreements and even condemnations which had held true for centuries. MD mentions the very same statement concerning the Eucharist but speaks of separate Churches explicitly. Thus, it obviously regards the remaining differences concerning the office of ecclesial oversight to be a hindrance to declaring mutual acceptance. This is the feature in the Meissen Declaration which is most worthy of attention. We will therefore return to it shortly.

      • Ordained Ministry and Episcopé: All signatory Churches declare that an office of pastoral oversight is needed to ensure and to testify to the unity and Apostolicity of the Church. This office of oversight may vary in form and be personal, communal or collegial, but its necessity as such is clearly stated (MD 15.9).

      MD thus offers an unprecedented expression of agreement between Churches who are not formally united. It fully and mutually acknowledges that the Churches belong to the one, holy and apostolic Church, and that they have properly ordained ministries and administration of the sacraments. A reciprocal invitation to receive the sacraments is included as well as a large number of subsequent joint activities such as regular conferences, joint projects, and even the institution of special libraries.

      Restrictions apply to the doctrine of the office of ecclesial oversight. In brief, MD states that the Protestant Churches do not confess themselves to the bishop’s succession as a sign of Apostolicity in the life of the whole Church. In their opinion, fully visible union is not connected to that special form of the office of oversight. Since this is the case within the Anglican Communion, the full interchangeability of ordained ministers is thereby hindered (MD 16). Consequently, joint celebrations of the Eucharist should be presided by a clergy person of only one of the denominations and Anglican priests as well as bishops will not participate fully in an ordination of a protestant minister.

      The remaining point of divergence is small but obviously of some importance. With reference to a formal analysis it can be depicted by the following points.

      1. Main argument, equally shared: the aim of full, visible unity of the Church (as deriving from the koinonia-ecclesiology from MD).

      2. First conclusion, equally shared: A sign for the Apostolicity in the life of the whole Church is necessary.

      3. Second conclusion (a), Lutheran-Reformed-United side: a bishop’s succession may be considered a sign as stated by the first conclusion but is one among others.

      4. Second conclusion (b), Anglican side: fully visible union necessarily includes historic episcopacy and interchangeability of ministers.

      Prior to comparing this statement of disagreement to the solution to be found in PCS, two aspects should be noted. First, sentences (1) and (2) are a remarkable ecumenical achievement in themselves. For the protestant Churches, the term “apostolic” has long since failed to play a significant role. Its use was restricted to be one of the characteristics of the Church, but the term was not assigned a special significance in its own right. Nowadays, MD states that the Apostolicity of the Church has its special meaning in the Church’s visible unity. Speaking about Apostolicity does not only serve as a reminder of the fact that the Church exists because the Lord instructed and blessed His apostles; Apostolicity also points to the indispensable fact of the oneness and unity of the Church. Secondly, MD 16 uses two similar but distinct terms, namely, the bishop’s succession (3) and historic episcopacy (4). This approach, and the fact that both terms are used to state a certain difference between the Protestant Churches on the one and the Anglican Church on the other hand but are not a subject to discussion themselves gives room to further debates. Sentences (1) and (2) once agreed that matters have not been settled by the partial disagreement as depicted in sentences (3) and (4). Obviously, there is more than one term for the matter in question, which indicates room for discussion. MD finishes with a disagreement but the way this disagreement is presented, MD makes clear that there should be a way for further negotiation and understanding.

      Although the Porvoo Common Statement has admittedly not been planned as a sequel of the Meissen Declaration, as I would like to point out now, it can be taken as an example of an ongoing discussion at precisely the point where MD seems to see a final point of misunderstanding. Before doing so, however, we should be aware of the different settings and conditions of this ecumenical settlement. First, unlike the situation between the Church of England and the EKD-Churches, there is a tradition of dialogue between Anglican Churches, on the one hand, and Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia, on the other. With contacts as early as 1909, a tradition of dialogues was established decades before the negotiations began that directly led to the common statement. Additionally, both the Church of England and the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches are national Churches such that an important aspect of self-understanding is shared by most of the dialogue partners. This holds true even if the status of a national Church is under debate in several of the Scandinavian participants. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, is the fact that unlike in the Meissen dialogue process, the Anglican side is not represented by the Church of England alone. Signatory Churches on the Anglican side are the Church of England and of Ireland, the Church in Wales, and the Scottish Episcopal Church. As is well known, the situation in Ireland and in Scotland is quite different from the one in England, with Ireland being mainly Catholic and Scotland having a highly dynamic history which includes lively contentions with the Church of Scotland. Even though nothing of that instance is mentioned in the common statement itself, a stipulation like this sets the tone, so to speak. A view widely shared is being looked at attentively if some of the fellow participants live within a minority situation. The result is hermeneutical

Скачать книгу