LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

the crucial aspects of argumentation are situated in unalike positions in the two papers. A move on one side would be answered with a move at a different position on the other, so that no substantial acquirement is to be expected. One way of overcoming this dilemma is to have a look at a presupposition both papers share. What they have in common is that they state the idea of historic succession as an isolated one. Both papers declare a disagreement concerning it and, additionally, both papers do not make an attempt to discuss the idea by means of which it is connected to other theological themes. It is precisely at this point that the two papers agree—notwithstanding their considerably different outcomes. I want to argue that this puts both papers at a disadvantage. Not to discuss the theological location of historic succession may be called a fallacy of misplaced concreteness (see above, discussion of PCS) or, more precisely, a fallacy of misplaced isolation.

      To avoid that detriment means to retrieve PCS’s strategy of argumentation once more. Its key insight, as sketched above, is the use of the word Apostolicity. PCS states that Apostolicity is a quality of the Church as a whole and therefore that the notion of the Apostolicity of the ordained ministry does not add anything new to it. Consequently, historic succession is a sign of a fact stated otherwise and does not bear any value apart from it. In other words, MD also speaks of the historic succession as a sign (MD 16). But if we look at the structure of its argument, MD makes no use of the signatory character of historic succession. PCS’s achievement is having shown why and how this is to be understood.

      Thus, MD falls short of using an insight it itself has rightly stated. But, what about CCM’s proposals to overcome the disconnectedness by means of the Lutheran bishops’ entering historic succession? I am hesitant for two reasons. The first one has just been stated: if PCS’s notion of the historic succession as a sign holds true, then there is simply no need to require steps from both sides that are not congruent with both sides’ own presuppositions. But that on its own is not sufficient. As stated above, an ecumenical theology of gift may and should include willingness to offer something which is not easy to offer. The decrease in the giver’s autonomy is at stake here as well as the key ecumenical insight that the full truth of the gospel is not present within one denomination alone. Hence, further support is needed if CCM’s claim is to be rejected successfully. I can only try to achieve this from a Lutheran perspective, so that I will not discuss whether idea of the temporary suspension of the Preface to the Ordination Rites concerning the qualification to confer Holy Orders is possible within an Episcopalian framework. There is, so to speak, a specifically Lutheran problem connected to the idea of an intermediate status during which Anglican bishops recognize Lutheran ministers and bishops as proper, but do so reluctantly because full communion would require to re-enter historic succession. The problem here is that CCM speaks of two distinctly different steps of recognition and union, one of them being intermediate and the other in extenso and for all the foreseeable future. As mentioned above, one of the Lutheran approaches to ecclesiology is the satis est definition from the Augsburg Confession VI. “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough (satis est) to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.” If that holds true, the Lutheran side has no reason whatsoever to distinguish between the validation of a service held by a minister who is ordained by a bishop within the historic succession and a service presided by a minister ordained outside this succession. CA VI alone is not a sufficient theology of the ordained ministry, but it clearly states prerequisites for the occurrence of Church as Church. These prerequisites cannot be subject to distinction in grade, subtle though they may be.

      Hence CCM’s proposal does not seem satisfactory concerning a core Lutheran conviction. This leads us back to a final discussion of whether there is considerable progress concerning that point to be found in PCS. I refer to the deliberations delivered above, and particularly the crucial statement concerning historic succession. It reads like this: “The use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession does not by itself guarantee the fidelity of a Church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life and mission. There have been schisms in the history of Churches using the sign of historic succession. Nor does the sign guarantee the personal faithfulness of the bishop. Nonetheless, the retention of the sign remains a permanent challenge to fidelity and to unity, a summons to witness to, and a commission to realise more fully, the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles” (PCS 51).

      This claim entails two denials but just one affirmation. This alone might as well be a rhetorical pattern to make the reader well-disposed towards what the author in his last sentence claims to be true. But if we have a closer look at that sentence we will see that the retention of historic succession is defined as a “challenge.” And this clearly marks a difference between PCS and the two other papers. MD as well as CCM understand historic succession as a stipulation for unity. PCS, having linked the concept within the wider framework of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole, is free to downgrade the very same notion from stipulation to permanent challenge. In doing so, it does justice to the definition of historic succession as a sign which cannot be found in the other two documents.

      Consequently, PCS’s outcome should be regarded a substantial ecumenical advancement. Based on sound theological deliberations it states, “Faithfulness to the apostolic calling of the whole Church is carried by more than one means of continuity. Therefore a Church which has preserved the sign of historic episcopal succession is free to acknowledge an authentic episcopal ministry in a Church which has preserved continuity in the episcopal office by an occasional priestly/presbyterial ordination at the time of the Reformation. Similarly a Church which has preserved continuity through such a succession is free to enter a relationship of mutual participation in episcopal ordinations with a Church which has retained the historical episcopal succession, and to embrace this sign, without denying its past apostolic continuity” (PCS 52).

      I have discussed CCM as a contribution to an ecumenical theology of gift, including the critique that the gift-exchange recommended in that paper is disadvantageous. On the contrary, the solution offered in PCS 51 and 52 may also be regarded as an exchange of gifts. The Anglican side agrees to enter full communion with Churches that respect the ongoing challenge of the idea of historic succession but do not accept it as part of their self-understanding. Correspondingly, Lutheran Churches outside succession accept it as a significant and valid sign of the Church’s Apostolicity. This is an exchange of gifts since both sides declare their own theological tradition to be subject to interpretation and even circumspective change. What we have here is an exchange of gifts by means of finding a compromise. It does not go as far as a full consensus, but it is considerably more than the identification of a convergence.³⁶ Additionally, this compromise does justice to the sentiment of the Kirchentag-visitors mentioned at the beginning of the present chapter. Their impression was that the theology of the ordained ministry is not an ecumenical core problem. Porvoo’s compromise does justice to this sentiment insofar as it puts the topic of succession within the wider framework of the Church’s Apostolicity as a whole. Ecumenical theology should by no means just follow the spirit of the day, but it is an act of theological self-control to check one’s own conclusions with the sensus fidelium.

      Two concluding remarks, one concerned with the overall status of the Anglican-Lutheran relationship, the other with the question whether Porvoo might serve as an example for further ecumenical dialogues. First, the problem at stake in this chapter should be classified as a problem of considerably low rank. The two denominations in dialogue are closely related to each other, though they have drifted apart for far too long a period. They not only share the common background of the western Church’s tradition and of the reformation period, also they share quite a number of basic assumptions. Ecumenical progress between two neighbour denominations such Anglicans and Lutherans is desirable and simply delightful—if of course it is successfully completed. But compared to the whole spectrum of ecumenical problems, it constitutes a fairly easy problem to deal with. This statement neither downplays the achievement of PCS nor does it say that PCS was eventually simply achieved. It rather focuses on how far from convergence—let alone compromise or consent—various other topics in various other processes of dialogue still are.

      Consequently we should ask how Porvoo could serve as an example for other topics in ecumenism

Скачать книгу