LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

dialogue. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark signed the statement in 2010, whereas the Lutheran Church in Great Britain and the Latvian Church Abroad have been granted observer status. Additionally, the signatory Churches are not confined to northern Europe. The Lusitanian Church in Portugal and the Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain are also members of the group. For reasons which will soon be obvious, the Porvoo Churches regard themselves as being more than a loose cluster or assembly of Churches. Signing the PCS is beginning to mean becoming part of a network of independent organizations. Although, theologically speaking, it is a communion of Churches.

      So much for a short introduction to the notably different settings between the dialogues of Meissen and Porvoo. Of course, they do not yield all the theological differences if one compares the two documents. Nevertheless, it should be clear that theological arguments, penetrating and solid though they may be, are not grounded in themselves but rather in the actual life of communities.

      PCS, very much like MD, states a considerably large number of agreements as well as some remaining differences. Its conclusion, however, does not deny the jointly celebrated Eucharist and it encourages the ordination of bishops to be held on the condition of the full participation of a bishop from the partner denomination. I would like to take a closer look at the reasons for that difference.

      “Anglicans of Britain and Ireland and Lutherans of the Nordic and Baltic lands have at no time condemned one another as Churches and have never formally separated” (PCS 29). This statement is almost identical with the one quoted from MD 10 (see above). One of the striking differences between MD and PCS, however, is that PCS does not begin with this idea; instead, it is the first clause in the sub-section, “What We Agree in Faith.” The statement itself starts with a number of preliminary remarks which mainly concern the history of the relation between Anglicans and northern Lutherans and, even more important, with a primer on ecclesiology. Thus, the section “What We Agree in Faith” is a sequel to a basic understanding concerning the nature and the unity of the Church. This hermeneutical and theological aspect is doubtlessly in need of closer inspection. For the sake of brevity, I will call it “ecclesiology first,” indicating a basic common understanding of the nature of the Church. Then what is “ecclesiology first”? “The faith, worship and spirituality of all our Churches are rooted in the tradition of the apostolic Church. We stand in continuity with the Church of the patristic and medieval periods both directly and through the insights of the Reformation period. We each understand our own Church to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and truly participating in the one apostolic mission of the whole people of God” (PCS 7).

      In brief, this quotation depicts a theological hermeneutic. All that is involved in being a Christian today can only properly be thought of when it is clear that this takes place within the tradition of the Apostolic Church. The Church is, so to speak, the hermeneutical site or realm within which “faith, worship and spirituality” take place. The conclusion here is that an agreement concerning the basics of the Christian faith also takes place within that hermeneutical realm. Therefore it is not an exaggeration to say that any given MD signatory would agree to that. But a different tone is set by underlining the existence of that hermeneutical realm.

      The section at stake here is titled “The Nature and Unity of the Church.” It starts with a short inference of the topic of the Church. The sending of the Son is God’s offering of koinonia with all those who hear and believe it. This is the essence of the Church: “We are brought from death to new life (Rom. 6:1–11), born again, made sons and daughters by adoption and set free for life in the Spirit (Gal. 4:5, Rom. 8:14–17). This is the heart of the gospel proclamation of the Church and through this proclamation God gathers his people together. In every age from apostolic times it has been the purpose of the Church to proclaim this gospel in word and deed” (PCS 15). God’s act of making³³ sons and daughters is identical with the existence of the Church. Hence, there is a twofold conclusion. a) “The Church and the gospel are thus necessarily related to one another” and b) “there is no proclamation of the word and sacraments without a community and their ministry. Thus, the communion of the Church is constituted by the proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacraments, served by the ordained ministry” (PCS 17, both). So far, the “ecclesiology first” strategy has established a clear-cut connection between God’s offering koinonia with himself, on the one hand, and the Church and its ordained ministry, on the other. This is a strategy is quite precarious because if that clear-cut connection holds true, no agreement will be accepted as satisfactory which does not agree within the theology of the ordained ministry.

      “Ecclesiology first” gives a number of additional hints as to how the clear-cut connection should be understood. The text mainly substantiates the nature of the Church and the nature of the ordained ministry. First, the Church is defined as “a divine reality, holy and transcending present finite reality; at the same time, as a human institution, it shares the brokenness of human community in its ambiguity and frailty. The Church is always called to repentance, reform and renewal, and has constantly to depend on God’s mercy and forgiveness” (PCS 20). This quotation offers a regulative statement with two aims. First, the signatory Churches position themselves against a purely congregational self-understanding of the Church. It is more than a human congregation of men and women and of divine substance, so to speak. Needless to say, this goes well with the Lutheran understanding of the Church as a creature of God’s word. Alternately, the signatory Churches position themselves with a critical distance from denominations like the Baptists and Anabaptist traditions, both of whom at times obviate the term “Church” for themselves as a critique of the institutionalization of the fellowship of Christ. Ecumenical partners like these are not at stake in PCS, but consequences like these will restrain the signators’ aims in further dialogues. Secondly, the quotation indicates a critical distance from Roman Catholic self-understanding. The clear-cut connection between God’s self-revelation, the Church, and its ministry could be read as an advancement towards the Roman Catholic idea of totus Christus (entire Christ), i.e., the unity of Christ and the Church. The phrase that nobody can have God as his or her father who does not have the Church as his or her mother depicts this idea. Benedict XVI’s denial to speak of the Church’s sins, and therefore of her necessity of repentance, is a reminder that the phrase is of importance for Catholic self-understanding even today. PCS is quite clear here and obviously fully aware of potentially problematic consequences. The Church exists by means of God’s forgiveness and is in constant need of repentance, reform, and renewal. A definition like this would not be possible within the boundaries of a totus Christus-ecclesiology. PCS thus holds that the divine character of the Church is in no way a hindrance to emphasize its constant need of repentance.

      Another important feature can be seen in the following text: “it is a Church which is served by an ordained apostolic ministry, sent by God to gather and nourish the people of God in each place, uniting and linking them with the Church universal within the whole communion of saints” (PCS 20). The statement declares a theology of the ordained ministry which, from a Lutheran point of view, confines itself to the statement of grounds as derived from CA XIV solely (see above). Additionally, it defines the ordained ministry as being “apostolic.” The usage of this word is a new momentum in comparison to what was at stake in the Meissen dialogue process. This can be made clear by a close inspection of the word “apostolic” or “Apostolicity” in PCS. I follow Ludwig Wittgenstein’s conviction that the meaning of a word is at least partly constituted on the basis of its application.³⁴

      The key insight is that the usage of “apostolic” is not reduced to “apostolic ministry” or “apostolic office of oversight.” Rather, “apostolic” is used within a wider frame of reference. For example, note the following phrases: “the one apostolic mission of the whole people of God” (PCS 7), “tradition of the apostolic Church” (ibd.), “apostolic times” (PCS 15), “confession of the apostolic faith in word and in life” (PCS 20), “response to the apostolic preaching” (PCS 24), “We accept the canonical scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments to be the sufficient, inspired and authoritative record and witness, prophetic and apostolic, to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ” (PCS 32), “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” (ibd.), “apostolic life and witness” (32), “apostolic continuity of the Church as a Church of the gospel”

Скачать книгу