Presidential address by the Archbishop of Canterbury -- General Synod: November 1989
Episcopal News Service. November 22, 1989 [89247]
I have decided to give a short presidential address on my visit to Rome because I try to keep the Synod informed of major ecumenical journeys. My predecessors also spoke to Synod or Church Assembly of their meetings with the Pope. Furthermore, though the media coverage was extensive, it was not always accurate. Indeed, it was surprising that some headlines reflected Dr. Paisley more faithfully than either the Pope or myself.
The first thing I want to say is that I was returning the visit the Pope himself made to Canterbury Cathedral in 1982 -- at which the members of the General Synod were present. The Pope has written and spoken of the significance of that occasion for him. I would also want to stress that though I went to Rome from the Church of England, I also went, after consultation with the Primates, to represent the wider Anglican Communion. To emphasize this, I was accompanied by the Primate of Nigeria, the secretary-general of the Anglican Consultative Council, and the bishop of Birmingham in his capacity as co-chairman of our international conversations.
Second, contrary to some reports, there was the warmest possible welcome to the Anglican party from the Pope himself. And not only the Pope -- from his personal household, the secretariat of state, and our good friends in the Council for Christian Unity, too. On this visit, there was opportunity for contact with a wide range of Vatican officials. Valuable discussions took place, for example, with cardinals and officials in the Councils for Justice and Peace and for Relations with Other Faiths. It remains true that while some departments in Rome are used to meeting Anglican leaders in different parts of the world and working their them, others focus more narrowly upon internal questions. But there was valuable discussion with Cardinal Ratzinger about the place of the congregation for the doctrine of faith. He made a point of joining with us in the ecumenical evening prayer at the Church of St. Gregory.
This leads me to my third point. We met five times in four days. The formalities were exchanged in a way that left space for friendship. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this was neither a meeting for negotiations nor one limited to official statements built simply on prepared documents and polite set speeches. That in itself was the unique character of this small assembled company, that eating and drinking together represented "a very high degree of communion." In St. Gregory's, from where Gregory sent Augustine to England, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, was prayed for, as well as John Paul II, Bishop of Rome. Augustine's successor, as well as Gregory's, was acknowledged in the liturgical bidding of the evening office of the Church of Rome. At the open-air papal mass at St. Peter's, we exchanged the peace at the altar in the face of all the people immediately before the distribution of communion. There was the poignancy and pain of a true Christian communion, but not yet full in faith and sacrament.
Fourth, our private discussions chiefly focused on the need for the common presentation of the Gospel to the world. We talked a good deal about how our two churches face the same problems -- not least in an increasingly secularized Europe. But the presence of the Archbishop of Nigeria, from a church that can claim more practicing Anglicans than England and America put together and as many practicing Anglicans as Roman Catholics, ensured that we did not only talk about Europe. In a rather different way, the presence of Ian Paisley in Rome promoted a fascinating discussion about the multiplication of sects and new religious movements. The Pope spoke sensitively of the failure of the institutional church to provide a sense of community, identity, and commitment -- thus leaving a vacuum for others to fill. So our primary emphasis was on mission and evangelization.
In this regard, the Pope was clear that it was not for central authority to lay down programs. He did speak of the Second Vatican Council as providing them with a strategic framework. But this made it all the clearer that local churches were to find appropriate ways of presenting and representing the Gospel. This was helpful encouragement, and I hope to talk to other Christian leaders about ways of doing this together in England as we enter the Decade of Evangelism.
We also touched on my words about an "ecumenical primacy" for the Universal Church. This is a new thing for the Pope to consider. It was also raised during his recent visit to Scandinavia by the Lutheran bishops. He was fascinated that other Christians should be looking to the Bishop of Rome for this ecumenical leadership. It must be for ARCIC to continue to explore how future unity can best be served by what I call the recovery of an earlier Primacy. I was looking for a Primacy to serve mission and unity rather than an office dependent on ultramontane centralism.
Naturally we spoke about ARCIC itself. The Pope thought it would be interesting to be a member -- but not perhaps good for responding to ARCIC! He heard of the difficulty caused by Rome's delay in responding to ARCIC 1. He has now himself called for procedures to expedite their official response.
The sensitive issue of the ordination of women did not dominate our discussion. I think the earlier exchange of letters had cleared the air. I had explained the position reached by the Lambeth Conference and the fact of the autonomy of Anglican provinces. The Pope had clearly but charitably expressed the official Roman Catholic position.
In Rome, we looked beyond particular arguments for and against the ordination of women. We were able to locate the issue of the ordination of women in its proper place -- the debate about authority, communion, and the church. We did not resolve the issue. But we did clarify the issue as ultimately about how the church judges development in the tradition. To clarify an issue is to take the first step to resolving it.
This enables us to take a more balanced look at what still divides us. "It is simply not correct to suggest that the ordination of women is the only obstacle to unity. Nor that all the obstacles come from the Anglican side. We all know the large issues of authority that remain on the Anglican-Roman Catholic agenda and that most Anglicans would judge as Roman Catholic obstacles to unity."
At our final meeting, we signed a common declaration, which -- if you will allow me this little advertisement -- is, I hope, shortly to be published, with other texts by the Pope and myself, by Church House Publishing and the Catholic Truth Society.
So let me underline points in our formal declaration. We first stress the need for unity in a divided world. This is the global setting for our work for Christian unity -- Christian disunity having so largely contributed to the tragedy of human division throughout the world.
We solemnly recommit ourselves to the search for a restoration of visible unity and full communion. This is an important affirmation, for some in both churches have been saying that since the Lambeth Conference "it's all over." Not so. We say this together quite unequivocally.
But we are not unrealistic about the difficulties presented to Anglican-Roman Catholic relations by the ordination of women. The actual difference of practice makes it very difficult to see how the reconciliation of ministries could be effected as things now stand. Even so, we believe that continuing engagement with the issue will deepen and enlarge our understanding. The presence of ordained women within the Anglican Communion does not change the character or status of our dialogue.
Furthermore, we stress our existing unity. Using significantly fresh language for Rome, we speak of the "certain yet imperfect communion we already share". Even in "our separation we have been able to recognize gifts of the Spirit in each other". And I am unashamedly keen on the sentence where we agree: The ecumenical journey is not only about the removal of obstacles but also about the sharing of gifts". The Second Vatican Council spoke of the special place that Anglicanism holds among the churches separated from Rome. Any reader of post-reformation history will be aware of the degree to which, in liturgical practice and renewal, as well as in critical biblical scholarship, there have been substantial exchanges in gifts.
We finally declare that we are not working for some exclusive Anglican-Roman Catholic unity, but the unity of all Christians. My visit is no threat to other ecumenical relations.
I see it as an encouragement to "all-round ecumenism". And in this country that means an encouragement of the Inter church process. Sometimes we need to humbly remind ourselves that the Roman Catholic Church has more official ecumenical conversations than any other church.
My abiding impression of the significance of the visit is given by the Pope's farewell words. As took our leave, he said in his usual, serious, theological way, as to a brother bishop: "Our affective collegiality will lead us to effective collegiality."
Only bonds of love will grow into bounds of communion. Newman once wrote that unity and mutual understanding cannot be achieved by paper arguments. They require "chronic familiarity." A strange phrase but one that catches the necessity for meetings of this sort and, at the same time perhaps, resonances of the pain and cost that inevitably surround them.
May an affective familiarity lead us to be more effectively of one family in Jesus Christ. Perhaps that's a word for us too as we confront a contentious agenda this week; but I hope you will find time in your thoughts and prayers to support many quiet initiatives that may emerge at different levels as the result of our meeting in Rome.