A Papacy for All

Last spring, Roman Catholics witnessed as well as participated in an outpouring of global sympathy over the passing of Pope John Paul II. The emotions made it clear that Catholics are not alone in their feelings toward the one who sits in the Chair of Peter, and the conclave that followed was a further sign that fascination with the papacy travels beyond Catholicism and even Christianity.

Woodstock Theological Center senior research fellow John C. Haughey, S.J., notes that people across cultures were in effect asking, "What is this papacy thing? And what does it have to do with the future of the world?"

The papal events of this year inspired Woodstock to devote its 30th anniversary forum on September 26 to the theme, "Re-envisioning the Papacy."

According to Woodstock director Gasper F. Lo Biondo, S.J., such a topic - connected to notions of communion, sacramental life, and collegiality - sheds light on Woodstock's role as a center of specifically theological research and conversation. The anniversary forum was a response to not just worldwide sentiment, but also to John Paul's invitation in his 1995 encyclical letter on Christian unity, Ut Unum Sint (That They Be One). That document called for a broad ecumenical conversation about how to "find a way of exercising the primacy" of the pope in today's world.

The Woodstock forum brought together five noted ecumenists from the Lutheran, Orthodox, Quaker, Anglican, and Catholic communions, around the question of "what the papacy could or should become," in the words of Haughey, who created the event. Approximately 220 people turned out that evening for the public discussion held at Georgetown University.

The moderator of the forum was the highly respected Catholic theologian and Woodstock's newest research fellow, Monika K. Hellwig, who died suddenly four days later. This report begins with some of her last public words, followed by an edited account of the five panelists' presentations.

FOREWORD BY THE MODERATOR
Each of the presenters here will express their desires for a papacy, a Petrine ministry that would fulfill the function envisaged in the 1995 encyclical letter, Ut Unum Sint. In that letter, the late Holy Father expressed, among other things, an invitation to Christians, both those in full communion with Rome and those in all the other churches and communions, to respond to his desire to make the papacy the kind of voice of spirituality, of peace, of unity, that it ought to be in the world. In other words, to express expectations or desires for a way of conducting business that would make it easier for the other traditions, as well as those of us in communion with Rome, to see this as our spiritual leader in the world, with a word of peace to say to the world. And I suppose that it could not have been far from his mind to think about the kind of role that the Dalai Lama plays. If there are two voices that have a worldwide appeal for a spiritual perspective on what we're doing in the world, it would probably be those two.

THE FUTURE OF THE PAPACY: A LUTHERAN THESIS
Rev. Dr. Scott Ickert is pastor of Resurrection Lutheran Church in Arlington, Virginia. He is also a member of the U.S. Lutheran Catholic Dialogue, holds a doctorate in church history from The Catholic University of America, and has written in matters of theology and church history.

I will have to speak from my Lutheran background. There's no way around that. And my brief thesis is based upon one sentence from the 1974 Lutheran Roman Catholic Dialogue No. 5, Papal Primacy in the Universal Church: "The one thing necessary from the Lutheran point of view is that papal primacy be so structured and interpreted, that it clearly serve the gospel and the unity of the Church of Christ and that its exercise of power not subvert Christian freedom."

Papacy must serve Christian unity. Certainly the communion of the church must be rooted, above all, in the unity of faith. And the pope is the primary spokesman of that faith and symbol of that unity. But the way in which he goes about expressing that unity, exercising discipline, and stating central truths - how the papacy does that in an age centered and structured around instant media access - is extremely important. The technological aspects of our current society must impinge upon the way in which the papacy carries out its business.

Second, if as Pope John Paul II maintained, that the content of the faith can truly speak to all cultures and the expression of truth can take different forms, then the particular expression and application of that truth simply requires extensive internal and ecumenical consultation - at a minimum.

Third, the preservation of revealed faith and the essential bond of sacramental unity require a common ministry, such as the communion of bishops as heads of particular churches and of the bishops with the bishop of Rome.

Papacy Must Not Subvert. The second part of the original sentence I read says "the papacy in its exercise of power must not subvert Christian freedom." Here I think we touch upon the principal issues that have existed historically, that exist in the present, and I daresay will exist in the future. That is, the extent of papal jurisdiction, the reach of the papacy in terms of its jurisdictional power. The first point that I like to hold up is the importance of collegiality. To what degree collegiality actually exists within the Catholic Church itself is a question. And can collegiality be extended to ecumenical partners?

Furthermore, both a strong teaching office that recognizes the need to build consensus and a decentralized form of church government are required in order to maintain unity and strengthen bonds of communion. Put negatively, if the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome insinuates itself into local churches in an unwarranted manner, and if the pastoral authority of local bishops in their own churches is not respected, then communion is defective.

My last point: papal jurisdiction will have to become less of an obstacle and more of a servant of unity. For example, local churches should be given greater freedom in the selection of bishops. In decision making, a greater balance could be struck between papalism, on the one hand, and conciliarism [which holds that final spiritual authority rests with general church councils, not with the pope] on the other. Claims of magisterial primacy and jurisdictional primacy could be distinguished with greater clarity. Ecumenical relations, where appropriate, might move from consultation to interim expressions of unity - opening up a possibility for some sort of phased implementation of a wider communion among Christian churches.

THE POPE OF ROME: A VIEW FROM THE EAST
Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko is dean emeritus of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and the author of many books, including The Orthodox Faith, a four-volume work. He was a member of the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission, 1975-1991.

If we Orthodox were re-envisioning the papacy in our time, we would affirm that more than ever, there has to be a global leader of Christianity, even symbolically. That, in fact, has existed from the beginning, because of the blood of Peter and Paul and because Rome was the capital city of the Empire. And I think, like it our not, the Pope of Rome today is de facto if not de jure the leader of Christians in the world. He is the Dalai Lama of Christians, without any doubt. And that's due to many reasons, including the electronic culture in which we live. We are in a global village. The pope dies and more people see the funeral than have ever seen any event on the planet earth before; they ask questions about Christian faith, about who this man is, what Christians believe, why are they divided, and what's going on.

Terms of Communion. What we Orthodox would have the greatest difficulty with is the dogma of papal infallibility under certain conditions, when he speaks ex cathedra Petri, from the chair of Peter, on matters of faith and morals, and as said in Vatican I, ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae, from himself and not from the consensus of the church. We would not accept that. That he has direct episcopal jurisdiction over all the other Christians in the world, including the other bishops whom he appoints - we would not accept that. As St. Cyprian said in the 3rd century, there is no episcopus episcoporum - no bishop of bishops. Every bishop is a successor of Peter; every bishop is a servus servorum Dei, servant of the servants of God, as stated by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century. Then you have the whole area of the pope's authority in appointing and deposing bishops and the issue of the magisterium, which is, we would hope, the bishops in communion with each other - not as some kind of college over the universal church, but as heads of local churches whose president would be the Bishop of Rome.

Like it or not, the Pope of Rome today is de facto
if not de jure the leader of Christians in the world.

So de facto, what we would like him to do now, and I think he's already doing it - praise God - is to be the leader of the re-envisioning. And let the chips fall where they may. That would have to involve exegetical study and interpretation of the Bible. It would mean re-reading history and taking a look at what happened historically and why. It would have to do with theological and ecclesial issues, especially the development of the so-called imperial papacy in reaction to the Reformation in the West as it developed in isolation from the Eastern Churches. And then it would have to do with being the spokesperson for Christianity on the planet.

We Orthodox would support this radical re-envisioning, but in the meantime, we would definitely have a lot of gratitude for the ministry of the Pope of Rome in the world, particularly as he holds fast to what we would consider articles of faith, of the Gospel itself. However, that itself is up for debate. What is the Gospel of Christ? How does it work? And here, it's very important to note that structures in the world are in fact giving the message of what that is. Not just words. Not just documents, but the way people live and operate. And we would envision a different form of operation that would then give us a different operation of what not only Christian faith is about, but what human life is about.

THE MINISTRY OF UNITY: A ROMAN CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE
Rev. John J. Burkhard, O.F.M. Conv., is acting president of the Washington Theological Union and professor of systematic theology with a concentration in ecclesiology. His most recent book is Apostolicity Then and Now: An Ecumenical Church in a Postmodern World (Liturgical Press, 2004).

I'd like to take my time this evening to do what I felt I was charged to do, and that is to allow my imagination and my yearnings for the office of the pope to kind of take flight and come to expression. When I do that I think of the way Roman Catholics have traditionally considered the papacy - in terms of a primacy of jurisdiction. And as I've told my students, this is far too narrow a way to conceive of the papacy. The papacy is far too rich to limit itself to categories that are primarily juridical. We don't want to do away with those, but they certainly cannot be the principal way in which to understand the office of papacy.

I'd like to now share with you a list of some practical suggestions, ways of exercising the papacy's office of service to the unity of the church, differently.

First of all, we need to commit ourselves to mutual respect in all things and to dialogue over condemnation. We need to consider holding regular meetings of the pope with the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches. One of the titles of the Bishop of Rome is that he's Patriarch of the West. We don't get enough sense of that, of his dealing with other patriarchs on that level of their responsibilities. Here are some other suggestions:

. That the pope consider holding meetings also with leaders of the other churches, in addition to the Orthodox, to the extent that these leaders can be identified by their communities.

. That the names of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch be inserted in our liturgical prayers, especially the Eucharistic Prayer and the general intercessions.

. That we reorganize papal trips to include meetings with leaders of the other churches. And that we revamp these trips to also include religious rallies of Catholics and the Christian faithful together.

. That we continue the reform of the Roman Curia by dividing the curia into those congregations that assist the pope as Patriarch of the West and those that assist the pope as Servant of Unity and of the Universal Church. And that we reform the process of electing a new Bishop of Rome to include a broader consultation among all the churches. This will of course entail a longer process of election.

. That we reform the process of appointing new diocesan bishops in the Latin rite to include the local church, the metropolitan archbishop, the national episcopal [bishops'] conference, as well as of course the Bishop of Rome. And that we abolish the "ad limina," the every-five-year visits of bishops to Rome, except for serious causes.

. That we strengthen the bonds of episcopal collegiality by permitting great teaching authority on the part of the national bishops' conferences and among national conferences. The rule of consensus among the bishops should be adequate - then confirmation by Rome. Authority should be extended to include liturgy and issues of discipline.

. That we locally encourage discussion of shared problems between parish councils and similar decision making bodies in other churches. Regionally hold joint meetings of Roman Catholic bishops and bishops and leaders of other churches.

. That nationally we have joint sessions of the Roman Catholic bishops together with bishops and leaders of the other churches. And, internationally, that we invite these other bishops and leaders to participate in the ordinary synods of bishops.

. That we establish a pattern for the authoritative exercise of the papal magisterium in which definitive and infallible teaching is [a result of] agreement between the pope, the episcopal conferences, the synods of Eastern Churches, and their Protestant counterparts. In extraordinary cases, however, the pope is always free to teach with full authority.

. And, finally, that we use our ecumenical documents, which are so rich and generally read by scholars, as texts in our colleges and universities, but also in our seminaries. And that we share theological education in ministerial formation - do more educating together. Without these kinds of grassroots actions, I'm not sure that the kind of respect that is necessary can be truly realized.

FROM DOUBT AND CHAOS TO FAITH AND ORDER
Dr. Ann K. Riggs serves as associate general secretary for the National Council of Churches in its Faith and Order Commission. She is a Quaker, with a doctorate in theology from The Catholic University of America, and an author in matters ecumenical and religious.

The world of dialogue among churches originated with the notion that we needed to talk about doctrines and categories of leadership. So Faith and Order - or Doubt and Chaos, depending on the day - was put together and pulled into an ecumenical process.

Let me first talk about the concept of sacrament. The basic concept is already a problem ecumenically. You listen to people from Disciples of Christ or Churches of Christ, traditions that were born on the Western frontier of the United States, and they call baptism and Eucharist "ordinances." [Editor's note: "ordinance" suggests that the act in question is primarily symbolic.] And yet they clearly have a very sacramental understanding. By that I would mean there is intrusion into our space-time continuum of the infinite. Next door to them would be a Baptist church, also speaking of "ordinance" - but they exclude the possibility that in ordinances there is an intrusion into our space-time continuum of the infinite. So when you talk about the church as having a sacramental quality or sacrament-like nature, we're not even connecting here. The encyclical Ut Unum Sint brings forward that sacrament-like quality that's so beautifully spoken of in Lumen Gentium [a document of Second Vatican Council] and is so elegantly probed by [the late French theologian] Yves Congar in a way that makes it much more approachable for people who don't hold the same system to be able to say, "Well, are there ways that we could talk about the presence of the Holy Spirit in this community that begin to approach this gap?" But I have to say there are Reformed Christians, in particular, who are just horrified that the ecumenical movement is going this way.

Once the Pope gets on the ground, gets out of the chair,
and goes skiing on vacation, doors begin to open.

There are other openings. Unity in mission is the way most Baptists talk about their way of relating to one another. They had a Baptist convention, a very important meeting last January. The four larger African American Baptist conventions had never met together. It was an important time of reconciliation among them. And it was specifically about mission. How could we do mission together? They understand the church so locally that to talk about doing something beyond the local congregation and calling that "church" is a stretch unless you talk about it in missional terms. And the Bishop of Rome can talk about relating missions to one another: Here we are together in the mission of God. What are we doing? What is our obligation to do? What are we privileged to do? What are we being called to do? Those questions can open up a discussion about the role and the character and behavior of the Bishop of Rome.

Attractions of the Modern Papacy. And I think once the pope gets on the ground, gets out of the chair - goes skiing on vacation, engages in performance-like quality that is recognizable as having continuity with other kinds of religious meetings - doors begin to open. Think about Billy Graham. Pope John Paul II had an extraordinarily similar repertoire of ways of being with crowds. There are many, many stories of the way recent popes, simply by their behavior, have made it possible to open different kinds of doors. There's the story about Billy Graham and John Paul II in South Carolina. There were some difficulties. Catholic leaders were thinking: a lot of Baptists there - how could we pull it off? And the United States Catholic Bishops Conference called Graham and asked: Can you help us? And he said yes. He made a way for everybody to rally around the Pope. So there's something actually going on; it isn't a theory. Certain kinds of behaviors have brought us to a new point of dialogue.

LIFTING UP THE GIFTS OF ALL: AN ANGLICAN VISION
Rt. Rev. Mark J. Dyer is professor of systematic theology at Virginia Theological Seminary and former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He serves on the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission and co-chairs the International Anglican/Eastern Orthodox Theological Dialogue.

First I'd like to make a theological statement about the nature of the Christian church as communion, or koinonia, and what some consequences for the future shape of the papacy might flow from that. I think it is agreed that the very being of the church is dependent on the outpouring of God's gracious love, the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And to say that is to view the church as communion, as koinonia. The revelation of God as three persons in communion is therefore the theological icon for the very life of the church, whose life is meant to reflect that of God's life. Hence the identity and life of the church is relational and deeply personal: persons living in communion of God's gracious love with one another. This means the church must look at the gifts that are granted by the Holy Spirit to all of its members. And this means honoring and uplifting the exercise of the gifts of all.

The church must look at the gifts that are granted by the Holy Spirit to all of its members.

With that short preamble, I'd say the future of the papacy should look something like this, if I might be so bold. It should intentionally lift up all the people and all their gifts. That is, the Bishop of Rome trusts the gifts that lay people have been given.

Would it possible to widen the notion of a teaching church that listens to the voice of the lay person as prophet and theologian? Is it possible that the gift of lay people might be given equal participation in the decision making and magisterial elements of the church face to face? Is it possible for lay people to see something coming from the Bishop of Rome which they judge to be inauthentic in light of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that they've received?

This raises the question of where and at what levels decisions are to be made. To respond appropriately, the church needs to be clear that there is indeed a diversity of levels on which the mission of Christ is to be carried out. Each one has its own theological integrity and its own demands. Some elements of decision making are the common concerns of a single parish. Some are diocesan. Some relate to the national, some to the universal. Would it be possible for the Bishop of Rome to theologically respect, recognize, and support synodical life at every level? That is, each level would have a conciliar body that has the authority to make judgments concerning its mission within the context and culture that God has placed it. Would lay people be seen as having the gift of authority and discernment at each level? Would lay people at each level - parish, diocese, National Conference of Bishops, and the universal church - have a place at the table in discerning what is the will of Christ? Would it be possible to conclude that the laity could decide a particular piece of teaching was in error? This would require trust and openness, a transparency that would indeed reflect the authoritative openness and transparency of Jesus.

All of us look forward to a universal papacy.

Toward a universal papacy. Would a future papacy be able to see the possibility of deacons and priests with full authority sitting at the conciliar and magisterial table? Deacons and priests, along with the laity, are literally on the line face-to-face with the local culture in which they live and carry out the Gospel. Would it be possible to establish such structures of conciliar inter-relatedness that would include deacons and priests who are carrying out their ministry at the parish level on every level of discernment and authority in the church? Would the future of the papacy be able to see national conferences of bishops as truly and fully representing the church in communion with their own people's exercise of discernment in the Gospel? That is, upholding the ancient theology of the local church gathered with its bishop at the Eucharist as a church catholic?

Finally, would it be possible for diocesan bishops to be regularly involved in decision making concerning issues facing the church universal - the diocesan bishops as face-to-face with the people of God? His discernment and authority could very well be more prophetic than that of an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. It would seem that universal primacy requires universal synodality at every level.

My vision really is a vision of Pope Gregory the Great, who modeled the episcopate as Bishop of Rome day in and day out, and yet became one of our most influential popes in church history. I think an important thing has been said here by all of us tonight - that all of us really look forward to a universal papacy that all of us can be very much a part of.

Full texts prepared by the participants of this forum can be found here.