Windsor Report and Ecumenical Dialogue, The

Flynn, Kevin

This essay notes points of continuity between the Windsor Report's understanding of communion and authority and the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission on the same topics. In addition, features of the process of ecumenical dialogue are identified-especially respect, detachment, and common prayer-as ways of interaction that are essential for continued relations within the Anglican Communion. Finally, the author points to elements of the church's liturgical life that ground those features.

While attending a recent meeting of the Canadian Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue, I found myself wondering whether a similar meeting might be held some 450 years from now at which people would be trying to put back together the broken shards of what once was the Anglican Communion. If so, among the tasks of such a future dialogue would be the effort to "get behind" the controversies that led to the break in order "not to evade the difficulties, but rather to avoid the controversial language in which they have often been discussed." Such a dialogue would seek solutions by "re-examining our common inheritance, particularly the Scriptures."1

While the Windsor Report is intended primarily for an Anglican audience, it has significance as well for the larger Christian world. The issues of authority, of the relations between the local and the universal church, and of the nature of communion itself, are not issues for Anglicans alone. As the Virginia Report observed, theological reflection on these matters is intended to serve not only the Anglican Communion but also the "ecumenical goal of full visible unity."2 To what extent, then, does the Windsor Report build on or reflect the theological consensus on these issues that Anglicans have achieved with other churches? In this essay, I will focus on the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), a dialogue that has been going on for close to forty years. The experience of participation in ecumenical dialogue can be instructive for the way Anglicans carry forward their own conversations today.

It must be said at the outset, though, that the Windsor Report refers to the Roman Catholic Church in ways that make me wonder if anyone had noticed that the dialogue has been taking place at all. Working as I do in a Roman Catholic University, and serving on the Canadian Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue, it is embarrassing to have to account for the statement that in the Roman Catholic Church, "the Pontiff, with the support of the Curia, enjoys 'supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power,' which he can always freely exercise" (para. 70).3 This is contrasted with the Anglican way in which supreme authority is given "to scripture as the locus and means of God's word." Another blunt contrast appears in paragraph 42: "The Anglican Communion does not have a Pope. . . . The Anglican Communion has always declared that its supreme authority is scripture." This contrast ignores, for example, the teaching of Vatican II in Dei Verbum (November 18, 1960):

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord, in so far as she never ceases, particularly in the sacred liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ. She has always regarded, and continues to regard the Scriptures, taken together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of her faith (para. 21).

The very first ARCIC document on authority asserted, in its 1981 elucidation, that "since the Scriptures are the uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation, the church's expression of that revelation must be tested by its consonance with Scripture."4 Subsequent documents of ARCIC have never departed from this foundation.

Another instance of the Windsor Report's careless approach to Roman Catholic theology appears in the important section on adiaphora (para. 87-96) where the principle is opposed to "those schools of thought, both Roman and Protestant, in which even the smallest details of belief and practice are sometimes regarded as essential parts of an indivisible whole" (para. 88). It is generally considered a courtesy in ecumenical dialogue to refer to your partners by the name they call themselves. Note that Roman Catholics do not call themselves "Romans." Although the authors of the Windsor Report were undoubtedly working under pressure of time, these blunt descriptors are unworthy.

More important is the apparent opposition between adiaphora and the Roman Catholic attention to "the smallest details of belief and practice." Roman Catholic theology acknowledges mutual connections and coherence between the dogmas of the faith that is expressed as a "hierarchy of truths." This "hierarchy" is intended to relate doctrines to one another as "they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."5 One may fairly criticize recent tendencies on the part of the Roman Catholic magisterium to try to define too much, but even then distinctions are made between the varying degrees of importance of different pronouncements, which range from dogmas all the way down to "prudential judgements." The Windsor Report actually seems to require the elaboration of similar nuances among Anglicans when it refers to a need to introduce some "level of distinction" between different kinds of motions at Lambeth Conferences: some might "touch upon the definition of Anglicanism"; others might refer to "the authentic proclamation of the Gospel" (Appendix One, para. 4). These infelicities notwithstanding, the Windsor Report builds on the substantial work of ARCIC on two key concepts: communion and authority.

ARCIC is unambiguous that koinonia, communion, is the fundamental reality of the church. The fullest treatment of the theme is found in Church as Communion. This document's rich treatment describes ecclesial communion as being

rooted in the confession of the one apostolic faith, revealed in the Scriptures, and set forth in the Creeds. It is founded upon one baptism. The one celebration of the eucharist is its pre-eminent expression and focus. It necessarily finds expression in shared commitment to the mission entrusted by Christ to his Church (para. 45).6

The Windsor Report is in continuity with this thinking as it declares that communion is both God's gift to us and our calling, a divine expectation (para. 5).7

The Anglican and the Roman Catholic churches both recognize that koinonia is upheld and invigorated by "structures of grace." For the Windsor Report, these structures or bonds of communion are "a common pattern of liturgical life rooted in the tradition of the Books of Common Prayer; shaped by the continual reading, both corporate and private, of the Holy Scriptures; rooted in its history through the See of Canterbury; and connected through a web of relationships-of bishops, consultative bodies, companion dioceses, projects of common mission, engagement with ecumenical partners" (para. 7). In this section, the authors of the Report are evidently trying to hold together two aspects of koinonia that can be distinguished but never separated, namely the visible dimension of the church's life and its animating, divinely given source of life.8 Here the Report is consistent with Church as Communion (para. 43), which insists that it is "inadequate to speak only of an invisible spiritual unity as the fulfilment of Christ's will for the Church; the profound communion fashioned by the Spirit requires visible expression." The Windsor Report is thus largely in continuity with what has been achieved in Church as Communion. The bulk of the rest of its reflection is on authority and its structures.

For both Anglicans and Roman Catholics, structures of authority are intended to maintain and nurture the "structures of grace," that is, the constituent elements of communion. The Windsor Report provides a brief account of the efforts Anglicans have made to find more effective ways of maintaining koinonia in times of change. Citing the example of the ordination of women, the Windsor Report shows how this has been worked out in practice through existing and emerging structures and practices. Roman Catholics, too, especially since Vatican II, have been attempting to develop structures of learning to assist the structures of teaching: national and regional episcopal conferences, general assemblies of the Synod of Bishops, and experiments in the greater involvement of laypeople in parochial and diocesan pastoral councils are among the initiatives. (The extent to which these initiatives have been successful is, of course, questionable.)

Both ARCIC I and ARCIC II have made it clear that these structures are interrelated. Church as Communion states: "For all the local churches to be together in communion, the one visible communion which God wills, it is required that all the essential constitutive elements of ecclesial communion are present and mutually recognised in each of them. Thus the visible communion between these churches is complete and their ministers are in communion with each other" (para. 43). The document asserts that the fullness of oversight is entrusted to the episcopate, which has "both collegial and primatial dimensions" that afford the context for "the episcopal ministry of a universal primate . . . as the visible focus of unity" (para. 45).

The Gift of Authority9 gives still greater emphasis to the role of the College of Bishops in maintaining the unity of the church:

The mutual interdependence of all the churches is integral to the reality of the Church as God wills it to be. No local church that participates in the living Tradition can regard itself as self-sufficient. . . . The ministry of the bishop is crucial, for his ministry serves communion within and among local churches. Their communion with each other is expressed through the incorporation of each bishop into a college of bishops. Bishops are, both personally and collegially, at the service of communion (para. 37).

The ministry of bishops in discerning what is or is not an authentic expression of the apostolic faith is set within synodality "in all its expressions." In practice, this requires that all the faithful participate through the "wide variety of organs, instruments and institutions, notably synods or councils, local, provincial, worldwide, ecumenical" (para. 37). Importantly, the faithful have to be able to recognize and receive such teaching (see The Gift of Authority, 43; Church as Communion, 32; Windsor Report, para. 67, 68).

Although the Windsor Report outlines various ways in which greater authority might be ascribed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is silent on some of the challenges issued by The Gift of Authonty. These include concrete, local aspects of oversight shared by Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops together (para. 59). More challenging still is the invitation to Anglicans to recover and re-receive a renewed form of the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome (para. 62). It may be that our Communion s efforts to understand and develop our own versions of primacy will sketch the outline of what a renewed form of the Petrine office might be.

The present situation requires Anglicans to work to a clearer, more realistic reflection on the connections between the theological work of the dialogues and the realities of history. The Windsor Report effectively recognizes that our crisis calls into question the agreements ARCIC has reached (section D). A healthy reality check is no bad thing for such theological statements. The Gift of Authonty, in particular, has some of the character of an ideal that is unsullied by the concrete lived experience of believers. For Canadian and American Anglicans, this includes the reality of a cultural context in which the notion of authority itself is suspect. Given the Windsor Report s rather brief treatment of communion, we would do well to revisit especially Church as Communion as a way of discovering a more compelling link between the Trinitarian life and ecclesial communion. Without such a link, people will find it impossible to see submission to the Instruments of Unity either as a means to liberating love or the fulfilment of unity with God and one another.

Both the Windsor Report and The Gift of Authonty acknowledge the crucial role of the laity in decision-making within the life of the church. The Gift of Authonty fails to acknowledge the absence of structures within the life of the Roman Catholic Church whereby bishops can effectively hear the voice of the laity. The Report raises questions about the further development of the structures of unity, including the place of the laity, but without resolving them. Given that the February 2005 Primates' Meeting requested that the Canadian and American churches consider not attending the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005-the only forum for lay participation-there is a very real danger that the way forward envisaged by the Windsor Report will not adequately include laity.

We need to ask, too, whether those who are elected as bishops have adequate formation in discerning and articulating the authentic faith. The Windsor Report makes a number of critical statements about the academic study of Scripture (including the entirely justified statement in paragraph 58 that teaching the Scriptures authoritatively cannot be left to academic researchers alone). Some form of the academy, however, remains the place where candidates for presbyteral ordination receive their formation. The Windsor Report gives no indication of how that formation develops into the kind of discernment and articulation necessary for the episcopal office.

What else helpful might we learn from the experience of ecumenical dialogue? Several things suggest themselves. Though it may seem obvious, the most important is the maintenance of a respectful attitude of openhearted listening. People on all sides of the issues before us need to try to attend to the deep concerns of those who differ from them, despite the controversial language in which those concerns may be expressed.

Related to this is the spiritual quality of detachment that is so necessary in dialogue. That is, we all must be prepared not only to admit that we may be wrong even about our most passionately held convictions, but we must be prepared to say our piece and work to the ends which we believe to be God's will, but without becoming personally attached to whether our efforts will succeed.

Pope John Paul II referred to ecumenical dialogue as "an exchange of gifts."10 Can Anglicans of opposing views discern gifts to be received from one another?

Finally, the Windsor Report alludes rather briefly in paragraph 7 to the way in which the liturgical life of Anglicans has sustained the life of the communion. The Report points out that there is confusion among many Anglicans about the extent to which communion exists among themselves. Does our impaired communion mean that we cannot receive the eucharist in one another's churches? Once again, experience from ecumenical dialogue is instructive here. Meetings of the Canadian Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue are always set within a context of prayer. This context provides the basis for the emergence of relationships of trust and friendship among dialogue partners. The context of prayer also includes the celebration of the eucharist, with an Anglican presiding at one meeting, a Roman Catholic at the next. Although we do not partake of one another's eucharist, preferring to abide by the discipline of our churches and to maintain before us the painful reality of the scandal of our division, we find the experience to be one of significant communion nonetheless. In ecumenical dialogue we can recognize the legitimacy of one another's presidency and rejoice in such communion as we do enjoy. If we can attend a celebration of the eucharist with a Roman Catholic presider, we can surely attend one with an Anglican presider even if, in conscience, we are unable to receive communion. We should still be able to discern in the liturgy these features of communion, these marks of the church:

* The structure of the eucharistie celebration;

* The canonical Scriptures;

* Faithful preaching on the Scriptures;

* Intercession for the needs of the church and the world;

* Common patterns of eucharistic prayer;

* Connections between the liturgy and care for the poor, often expressed through collections of money and food;

* The ancient traditions of Sunday and paschal observance, as well as the other festivals;

* Celebration of daily prayer;

* Patterns of baptism: teaching, bathing, and welcoming;

* The creeds and catechesis, which summarize and express baptismal practice and its content;

* Patterns of repentance and reconciliation which renew baptism; and

* Patterns of presidency as servant leadership.11

If the ongoing development of appropriate structures of authority and communion among Anglicans can reflect and express these features, we should be able to find a way forward that is a gift not only to ourselves but to the ecumenical world as well.

1 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Final Report (London: SPCK and Catholic Truth Society, 1982), introduction, 3.

2 The Virginia Report, The Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (1997), 1.14.

3 The section quotes the Code of Canon Law, canon 331.

4 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, "Authority in the Church. Elucidation (1981)," The Final Report (London: SPCK and Catholic Truth Society, 1981), 70.

5 Catechism of the Catholic Church: Popular and Definitive Version (London and New York: Burns & Gates, 2000), 90.

6 Church as Communion. An Agreed Statement by the Second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission ARICIC II (London: Church Publishing House, 1991).

7 See also The Virginia Report, chap. 2.

8 See also Church as Communion, para. 3.

9 The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church III: An Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission ARCIC (London: CTS; Toronto: Anglican Book Centre; New York, Church Publishing, 1999).

10 John Paul II, Homily at St. Paul's-Outside-the-Walls, Rome, January 18, 2000.

11 This list is based on that of Gordon Lathrop, Holy People: A Liturgical Ecclesiology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 57-58.

KEVIN FLYNN*

* Kevin Flynn is Director of the Anglican Studies Program at Saint Paul University, Ottawa. He has been a member of the Canadian Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue since 2000.

Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Fall 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved