Fokke Wouda



. NETHERLANDS STUDIES IN RITUAL AND LITURGY 26 Published by Institute for Ritual and Liturgical Studies, Protestant Theological University and Centre for Religion and Heritage, University of Groningen. Editorial Board Prof. dr. Marcel Barnard (editor in chief, Amsterdam/Stellenbosch), dr. Mirella Komp (Amsterdam), prof. dr. Joris Geldhof (Leuven), dr. Martin Hoondert (Tilburg), dr. Andrew Irving (Groningen), prof. dr. Paul Post (Tilburg), prof. dr. Thomas Quartier (Nijmegen/ Leuven), prof. dr. Gerard Rouwhorst (Utrecht/Tilburg), and prof. dr. Eric Venbrux (Nijmegen). Advisory Board Prof. dr. Sible de Blaauw (Nijmegen), prof. dr. Bert Groen (Graz), prof. dr. Benedikt Kranemann (Erfurt), dr. Jan Luth (Groningen), prof. dr. Peter Jan Margry (Amsterdam), prof. dr. Keith Pecklers (Rome/Boston), dr. Susan Roll (Ottawa), and prof.dr. Martin Stringer (Swansea). Printed by Ridderprint, Design Cover: Church of Reconciliation, Taizé. Photo, cover design, and lay-out by Fokke Wouda. Secretary IRiLiS De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam PO Box 7161 1007 MC Amsterdam Phone: +31 20 598 57 16 Email: Orders Centre for Religion and Heritage, University of Groningen Oude Boteringestraat 38 9712 GK Groningen Phone: +31 50 363 45 87 Email: ISSN 1571-8808 ISBN 978-94-6458-243-7 Copyrights ©2022 Fokke Wouda, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. No parts of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur.

. EUCHARISTIC HOSPITALITY IN ECUMENICAL CONTEXTS LEARNING FROM MONASTIC EXPERIENCES Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. W.B.H.J. van de Donk, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Aula van de Universiteit op woensdag 8 juni 2022 om 13.30 uur door Fokke Wouda, geboren te Apeldoorn

. Promotores: Prof. dr. J.R. Först, Universität Würzburg Prof. dr. J. Rahner, Universität Tübingen Prof. dr. J. Loffeld, Tilburg University Leden promotiecommissie: Prof. dr. M.C.H. van Dijk-Groeneboer, Tilburg University Prof. dr. Th. O’Loughlin, University of Nottingham Prof. dr. M. Sarot, Tilburg University Prof. dr. M. Wijlens, Universität Erfurt

. Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the end of a journey or is it the viaticum for walking together? Pope Francis

. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ABBREVIATIONS III PART ONE INTRODUCTION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON A SENSITIVE QUESTION 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1 ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION: EUCHARISTIC HOSPITALITY AS WAY TO PROCEED? 9 1.1 Past and present of the ecumenical process 9 1.2 Approaches to ecumenical dialogue 21 1.3 Eucharistic hospitality: A debated pastoral question 33 1.4 Eucharistic hospitality: Towards an ecumenical quest 42 1.5 Complementing a charged debate 52 2 A PRACTICAL THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY: ARTICULATING PRACTICES, EXPERIENCES, AND IMPLICATIONS 61 2.1 Starting point: The object of this study 62 2.2 A practical theological methodology 63 2.3 Research design: Empirical methods 75 2.4 The empirical process 80 2.5 Synopsis: Objectives, scope, methods 89

PART TWO AN EMPIRICAL ACCOUNT: MONASTIC EXPERIENCES DOCUMENTED 93 3 EUCHARIST IN ECUMENICAL MONASTERIES: 95 DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICES 3.1 Context: New Monastic Communities 95 3.2 Taizé: Reformed and ecumenical 98 3.3 Bose: Roman Catholic and ecumenical 115 4 MONASTIC VOCATION WITH ECUMENICAL IMPLICATIONS 123 4.1 Common life as primary motivation and mission 124 4.2 Lived ecumenism as catalyst for ecumenical commitment 129 4.3 Responses to newly encountered liturgical traditions 134 4.4 The primacy of practice in coping with differences 140 4.5 Synthesis 149 5 DYNAMICS OF COMMON LIFE AND COMMON EUCHARIST 153 5.1 Common life results in common Eucharist 154 5.2 Eucharist as a basis for the common life 159 5.3 Organic growth 164 5.4 Trust 168 5.5 Synthesis 174 6 A TEMPORARY SOLUTION FOR A PERMANENT PROBLEM 177 6.1 The notion of scandal 178 6.2 A provisional and local solution 184 6.3 A continuous struggle 188 6.4 A sign for the churches 194 6.5 Synthesis 200 7 LIVING IN COMMUNION 203 7.1 Faithfulness 204 7.2 Baptism, church, and the denominations 208 7.3 De facto double belonging 214 7.4 What does communion mean? 222 7.5 Synthesis 226 8 POSITIONING OF THE EUCHARIST 229 8.1 Focal point of a wider liturgy and life 229 8.2 “Do we have two Eucharists?” 234 8.3 Eucharistic sharing: Summit or source? 236 8.4 Synthesis 240

PART THREE CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 243 9 IMPLICATIONS I: PRIORITIES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS 245 9.1 Division is the scandal, not sharing the Eucharist 246 9.2 Challenging a counter-argument: The ‘pain stimulus’ 248 9.3 Cultivation of trust and the maximization of recognition 251 10 IMPLICATIONS II: A PATH TOWARDS UNITY? 253 10.1 Regaining momentum: Transcending the Rahner-Fries paradox 253 10.2 Inclusive faithfulness fostering ecclesiastical coalescence 257 10.3 Eucharistic hospitality as a means for the restoration of Christian unity 262 10.4 General ecumenical strategy: Examples of receptive ecumenism 265 11 SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 269 11.1 Some suggestions for churches and the communities 269 11.2 Recommendations for further research into the Eucharist in ecumenical contexts 273 11.3 Recommendations for theological research in general 275 APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE 277 APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORM 279 APPENDIX 3: DUTCH TRANSCRIPTS (TA) 281 ABSTRACT 289 SAMENVATTING 295 BIBLIOGRAPHY 303 INDEX 319 BIOGRAPHY 323

i . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS y own biography is marked by experiences of Christian division and the struggle for reconciliation. To some extent, this study is a result of that struggle and constitutes my contribution to the restoration of Christian unity. My first acknowledgements should be addressed at my parents, the Reformed congregations of my youth, and the Theological University Kampen, who have all facilitated my initiation in the Christian faith. The latter also contributed significantly to my academic training, together with Tilburg University’s School of Catholic Theology. I am grateful for the education that I received and for the chance to write a dissertation on the topic of my choice, tied to my master’s thesis. Among those who have inspired me to engage in the current project, I want to thank dr. Harm Goris, my supervisor at the time, for his continuing support along the way. I am particularly grateful to my first promotor, prof. dr. Johannes Först, who has accompanied me from the very start. He has left his mark on my research by suggesting the practical theological methodology that proved indispensable for answering my question. Had it not been for him, I would have written a very different study without the focus it has today, which addresses the very essence of my inquiry. In addition, he and my other supervisors have helped me acquire the skills and mindset required for such a project. Prof. dr. Johanna Rahner offered her much appreciated expertise in ecumenical theology, especially by providing feedback on my article in Catholica. I thank prof. dr. Jan Loffeld for joining us the last couple of years and for his enthusiasm and constructive feedback. I am very grateful to the PhD committee for critically assessing my manuscript. Your feedback has definitely improved my thesis. Its publication has benefitted significantly from Michelle Rochard’s linguistic corrections and the assistance of the staffs of IRiLiS and Ridderprint. M

ii I thank the Roman Catholic Church for encouraging academic theological research in general and Pope Francis for revitalizing the debate on this particular issue. I hope to have conducted my study in the spirit of his remarks to Rome’s Lutheran congregation in 2015, as discussed in Chapter 1. I am thankful to Cardinal Walter Kasper, with whom I feel privileged to have discussed my research. Closer to home, I want to express my sincere gratitude to Msgr. De Korte, bishop of Den Bosch, and Geert van Dartel, president of the National Council of Churches in The Netherlands, for their friendship and their openness to critically discuss the matter at hand among many other topics. I owe so many people thanks for their interest and support: friends and family, colleagues, peers, and students at Tilburg University, our Graduate School (especially Jack de Mooij and Agnes Berns), fellow PhD candidates and lecturers at research school NOSTER for their feedback and examples, its staff – now my colleagues – and the many inspiring participants in academic conferences and ecumenical meetings. A special thanks to dr. Giulia Casadei, dr. Anton ten Klooster, and dr. Sam Goyvaerts, with whom I have co-authored texts in the past years. Additional thanks to the latter for accompanying me on this special day as paranymph, together with my good friend Willem van Enk. I should not forget those whom I join in celebrating the Eucharist on a regular basis in my home parish. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife and dear friend Geertrude, who gave me the space to do this. Not only has our life together matured over the years, providing a solid basis for my scholarly work (of the utmost importance itself, especially during the pandemic), but she has also embarked with me on an even greater adventure as we welcomed our most precious children Sofie and Hugo. They are a source of happiness and have assured some very welcome distraction after long days of reading, transcribing, and writing. Spending countless hours tending to them and playing with them has surely enriched me as a person, as a theologian, and as an academic. Finally, I owe heartfelt thanks to the communities that I have studied. Taizé and Bose have both welcomed me with appreciated gestures of hospitality. They – and the respondents in particular – have made themselves vulnerable by participating in my study. I sincerely hope that this study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the dynamics of Eucharistic hospitality and that it inspires church leaders to once again entertain its ecumenical potential. I hope that it does justice to the lives, experiences, and ecumenical mission of the communities and their members. May their prayers – including their Eucharistic prayers – serve the unity of the church. Holy Thursday (14 April 2022), grateful for the institution of the Eucharist. Fokke Wouda

iii . ABBREVIATIONS Organizations CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ÖAK Ökumenische Arbeitskreis Evangelischer und Katholischer Theologen PCPCU Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (successor of SPCU) SPCU Secretariat for Christian Unity (predecessor of PCPCU) WCC World Council of Churches Documents BEM Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982. Also referred to as Lima document. CIC/1983 Codex Iuris Canonici. Code of Canon Law, Rome 1983. EE John Paul II. Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Encyclical on the Eucharist in Relation to the Church. Rome, 2003. Ecumenical Directory Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism. Vatican, 1993. With occasional reference to its predecessor of 1967/1970. LG Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Rome, 1964. UR Second Vatican Council. Unitatis Redintegratio. Decree on Ecumenism, Rome, 1964. UUS John Paul II. Ut Unum Sint. Encyclical on Commitment to Ecumenism. Rome, 1995.

PART ONE INTRODUCTION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON A SENSITIVE QUESTION This part introduces the research questions (Introduction) and describes the status quaestionis of the debate on Eucharistic hospitality (Chapter 1). It then explains the research design and offers an account of the empirical process, formulating its objectives, scope, and methods (Chapter 2).

INTRODUCTION 3 . INTRODUCTION es, the springtime of ecumenism has flowered on the hill of Taizé,”1 said Cardinal Walter Kasper at the funeral of Roger Schutz-Marsauche in 2005. Brother Roger was the founder and first prior of the ecumenical community in the small village of Taizé in Burgundy, France. The community had been a sign of ecumenical hope for sixty-five years that day. Remarkably, however, Cardinal Kasper – the Roman Catholic Church’s most senior ecumenical officer at the time – uttered these words in a period commonly referred to as the ecumenical winter, in which the movement encountered a crisis preventing it from establishing the goal of full, visible ecclesiastical unity. The cardinal analyses: To some degree the crisis of the ecumenical movement is paradoxically the result of its success. Ecumenism for many became obvious. But the closer we come to one another, the more painful is the perception that we are not yet in full communion. We are hurt by what still separates us and hinders us from joining around the table of the Lord.2 This pain, experienced by many, sparks the question of Eucharistic hospitality: would it be possible to share the Eucharist already in this stage of the ecumenical process? In their 1983 proposal for an imminent reunion of the (German) churches, Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner adequately captured the paradox of the 1 Walter Kasper, “Cardinal Kasper’s Address at Brother Roger’s Funeral,” 2005, 2 Walter Kasper, “Present Situation and Future of the Ecumenical Movement,” 2001, chrstuni_doc_20011117_kasper-prolusio_en.html. “Y

4 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION question of Eucharistic sharing in ecumenical contexts: “as long as no eucharistic fellowship exists, there will be no church fellowship, and as long as no church fellowship exists, there will be no eucharistic fellowship.”3 The only way to escape this paradox seems to prioritize either Eucharistic communion or ecclesial communion as a prerequisite for the other. The Roman Catholic Church, interpreting the Council’s statement that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian life,”4 encountered this problem, too. Since the Church emphasizes the function of the Eucharist as expression of full unity, it does not consider Eucharistic sharing as a viable way towards restoration of such unity in general, even though current regulations permit Eucharistic hospitality towards individual non-Catholic baptized as a channel of grace under certain conditions. This study explores two places where Eucharistic hospitality is practiced in order to learn from their experiences and to reflect on the place of Eucharistic sharing in the context of ecumenical rapprochement. One important conclusion will be that, in these particular contexts, the dynamic of Eucharistic hospitality transcends the individual spiritual needs of the respondents and, as a consequence, embodies a general ecumenical relevance. The first chapter outlines the evolution of the ecumenical movement, which intended to reverse the schisms inflicted to the church. It summarizes some of the main currents in the movement’s history, the stagnation of its progress, and explores the debate concerning one form of spirituality that might enable a new step forward, namely, Eucharistic hospitality. Against that backdrop, I will make an argument for studying the decades-long tradition of Eucharistic hospitality in the ecumenical monastic communities of Taizé and Bose. Starting from these very practices, this study intends to enrich the debate on that controversial topic by confronting theology with the reality of concrete instances of Eucharistic hospitality. Because of significant developments in this debate parallel to my research, the chapter is rather elaborate as it aims at presenting the evolving status quaestionis properly. 3 Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner, Unity of The Churches: An Actual Possibility, trans. Ruth C.L. Gritch and Eric W. Gritch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 123. Originally published as Heinrich. Fries and Karl Rahner, Einigung der Kirchen - Reale Möglichkeit, Quaestiones Disputatae (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1983). 4 Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, 1964, sec. 11, 19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (henceforth cited as UR).

INTRODUCTION 5 After explaining the why of studying this concrete practice in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 explores how this can be done, introducing this study’s methodology. It elucidates two fundamental presuppositions underpinning this study, namely, the necessity to listen carefully to the concrete experiences of the faithful as a source for theological consideration, and to do so in a systematic way using methods from the humanities. As a consequence, this study focuses on the empirical data it produces: the process of generating and interpreting this data is at the very core of my study, in the tradition of Johannes van der Ven’s school of empirical theology.5 As such, the study finds itself at the crossroads of systematic theology (questions), practical theology (methodology), and the social sciences (methods). This interdisciplinary character opens a unique and innovative perspective on the matter at hand but also implies some limitations since not every aspect of the three disciplines can be addressed in-depth. Given these presuppositions and the interdisciplinary character with its benefits and limitations, the aim of this research is threefold: describing the concrete and particular practice of Eucharistic hospitality in its context; articulating the experiences acquired through this practice and reconstructing their implicit theological rationale; and formulating some of the implications this rationale might have for the theological discourse on the topic. The following lists the sub-questions contributing to this study’s main research question: Which theological implications can be formulated based on the concrete experiences with Eucharistic hospitality in the ecumenical monastic communities of Taizé and Bose in order to complement the charged debate on this sensitive issue? 5 Johannes van der Ven, Practical Theology: An Empirical Approach, trans. Barbara Schultz (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993); Annemarie Dillen, “Lived Religion and the Complex Relations between Practical Theology, Empirical Theology, and Religious Studies,” in Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Claire E. Wolfteich and Annemarie Dillen, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 286 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016).

6 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Part One addresses the status quaestionis, the theological and academic relevance of the topic and perspective, and the research design, by answering the sub-questions: Chapter 1 How does the practice of Eucharistic hospitality as encountered in Taizé and Bose relate to the ongoing ecumenical process and the debate on this controversial topic? Chapter 2 How can the concrete reality of the experience with Eucharistic hospitality be studied and articulated in order to become a meaningful voice in the theological discourse? In other words: how can an ‘hermeneutic of experience’ be operationalized? Part Two presents the result of the empirical inquiry and answers the subquestions: Chapter 3 What does the practice of Eucharistic hospitality look like today, and how and why has it emerged in these particular contexts? Chapters 4-8 How do monastics inhabiting these communities articulate their experiences with the practice and what theological rationale is embedded in it? Part Three, finally, discusses the results in the context of the broader debate and draws conclusions by formulating implications. It also offers some suggestions and recommendations, addressing the sub-questions: Chapters 9-10 What are possible implications of the theological rationale embedded in these practices and experiences, and how do they affect the debate on Eucharistic sharing in ecumenical contexts? Chapter 11 Which concrete recommendations for future policy can be formulated for the communities involved and for the Roman Catholic Church? Which suggestions for further research follow from this study?

INTRODUCTION 7 Because of the practical theological nature of this research, and considering the objective to learn from the encountered practice, this study takes a positive view on the phenomenon as starting point. Consequently, this study does not offer a comprehensive critique of the encountered practice. Such criticism is, without doubt, possible from various disciplinary backgrounds. The practice could be evaluated and critically reviewed from liturgical, canonical, and dogmatic perspectives, for instance. Yet given the purpose of this study, critical reflection will take place from the very perspective of the practice itself and directed towards the theological consensus, addressing the other options only occasionally. Finally, this research is embedded in a research program of Tilburg University’s School of Catholic Theology: ‘The Transformation of Religion in Late Modernity: The Case of New Catholicism.’ It relates to one of the program’s sub-questions in particular: “What kinds of theology, what practices, and what forms of spirituality are being advanced or should be advanced?” This question, with its normative connotation, loosely plays a role in the background. In the context of this study, it can be rephrased into the question that this research in and of itself cannot fully answer, but to which it tries to contribute nonetheless: Might Eucharistic hospitality be the way to proceed as a next step during this liminal and intermediate stage of the ecumenical process towards Christian unity? Thus, this study approaches a highly relevant topic in contemporary Catholic and ecumenical theology from an innovative and challenging interdisciplinary perspective.

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 9 1 ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION: EUCHARISTIC HOSPITALITY AS WAY TO PROCEED? his first chapter briefly introduces the history of Christian division and the emergence of the ecumenical movement, providing the wider context in which this study finds itself in section 1.1. Section 1.2 discusses perspectives and methods within the ecumenical dialogue, situating the question of Eucharistic hospitality within the field. Sections 1.3 and 1.4 represent the status quaestionis; they consist of my contribution to the debate sparked by the proposal of the German Bishops’ Conference on facilitating Eucharistic sharing in the context of ecumenical marriages. The (sometimes fierce) exchange of arguments following the publication of this proposal depicts the current state of the debate. Section 1.5 lists several other recent contributions to the debate, completing the status quaestionis. 1.1 PAST AND PRESENT OF THE ECUMENICAL PROCESS Response to Christian division When considering the division that the church faces today, two moments in church history come to mind immediately: 1054 representing the Great Schism between the Christian East and West, and the Reformation usually associated with the year 1517. As Walter Kasper analyses, they mark two types of division.6 The former is a schism between clusters of local churches who still share a similar ecclesiological self-understanding. They can be regarded as sister 6 Walter Kasper, “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity,” Origins 45, no. 9 (2015): secs. 155–156. Cf. UR, secs. 3; 13. T

10 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION churches, 7 almost in full communion. The latter category of division is denominational in nature, based on confessions rather than on local churches. Kasper notes that the Reformation introduced an altogether new type of division and pushed the Catholic Church to a form of self-understanding alien to its nature: [T]he Catholic Church has never understood itself as a confessional church but through the decrees of the Council of Trent, the Trent confession and the Trent catechism factually adopted characteristics of a confessional church. That resulted in a situation that had never existed before: confessional churches existing alongside one another that differed and differ not only in individual questions of the confession of faith, the sacraments and the understanding of their ministries but also in their ecclesial self-understanding.8 Kasper mentions a third category of division: the emergence of new types of Christian communities inspired by the evangelical movement in the twentieth century, often at the cost of traditional churches. For Kasper, this third category is harder to grasp because the communities involved are so different in nature and in their level of ecumenical engagement. Some even take anti-ecumenical positions. These communities are, by their emphasis on the local manifestation of church, less inclined to engage in supra-local ecumenical dialogues, let alone seek for visible unity. Moreover, the altogether different conception of church as a theological concept in these communities makes it difficult to discuss structural unity, since they do not start from a sacramental (Catholic, Orthodox) or confessional (Protestant) point of departure, but from the perspective of individual conversion. As Jelle Creemers concludes: [F]ree churches are very ecumenical – in their own way. Their different starting point in conversionist soteriology, however, makes them unusual partners in ecumenical dialogue. Their full acceptance as partners in dialogue and their full inclusion in ecumenical 7 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches’” in 2000 to advocate the term’s proper use. According to the Congregation, the term can only be applied to particular churches that have preserved the valid episcopate and Eucharist, but never to the universal church, which should be regarded as mother with relation to the particular churches. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church as a whole cannot be regarded as a sister church of the Orthodox Churches, whereas, e.g., the particular church (i.e., the diocese) of Rome can. 8 Kasper, “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity,” 156.

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 11 initiatives surely involves challenges when considering ecumenical priorities and ecumenical methodology today.9 Nonetheless, with Christians belonging to this category, too, a dialogue has been taking place since the 1970s, with its own methodologies and goals.10 Given the western context of the ecumenical communities studied in this research, the current study focuses (although not exclusively) on Kasper’s second category, namely, the ecumenical process of the Roman Catholic Church and the churches and ecclesial communities in the West.11 Since the Council did not differentiate between the communities stemming from the Reformation era – that is, between Lutherans, Reformed, Old Catholics, and Anglicans on the one hand, and the Evangelical and Pentecostal communities on the other – much of what the Council states applies to the latter category as well. Moreover, since this study aims at contributing to the theological debate behind the regulations, the outcomes can contribute to the debate on Eucharistic sharing involving all categories. The ecumenical movement In response to the divisions, the modern ecumenical movement (starting in the early twentieth century) tries to bring churches closer together. The prayer of Jesus can be considered the creed of the ecumenical movement: “May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the worldmay believe it was you who sent me.”12 It is the testament 9 Jelle Creemers, “Ecumenical Recongnition and Reception in Free Church Perspective,” in Just Do It?! Recognition and Reception in Ecumenical Relations/Anerkennung und Rezeption im ökumenischen Miteinander, ed. Dagmar Heller and Minna Hietamäki, Beihefte zur ökumenischen Rundschau (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018), 64. 10 Creemers addresses the difficulties of this particular dialogue in comparison with traditional Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues, cf. e.g., the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue IRCCPD as analyzed in Jelle Creemers, Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities, Ecclesiological Investigations (London/New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2015), 11 Because of a different ecclesiological qualification of the Christian communities in the East and theWest, the Council considers the Catholic Church’s relationship with them in different sections of the Decree on Ecumenism, cf. UR, secs. 14-18 for the Eastern churches and secs. 19-24 for Christian communities in the West. Some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), which includes the sharing of the Eucharist, is only explicitly encouraged in relation to the Eastern churches, cf. UR, sec. 15. Since this is not the focus of my study, I will engage with the Catholic Church’s regulations regarding common worship in the Western context more frequently throughout this thesis. 12 John 17:21 NJB.

12 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION of Jesus, provided immediately after the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper and on the eve of his death and resurrection. The prayer reflects the double meaning of the term ecumenical, as used by the church throughout history. The termwas used by the Greeks to indicate the entire inhabited world. The Romans identified this world with their empire, an identification adopted by the early Church. Thus, the ecumenical councils (the prototype of which is recorded to be held in Jerusalemby the Apostles13) addressed issues concerning all of Christianity within the Roman-Byzantine Empire. Likewise, Eastern Orthodoxy speaks of the patriarch of Constantinople as an ecumenical patriarch, recognizing him as the primus inter pares of all the Orthodox bishops.14 A similar role is attributed to the bishop of Rome in the West, although it is theologically and canonically defined differently compared to the Orthodox ecumenical patriarchate. The papacy is conceived as a “ministry of unity.”15 The unity of the followers of Christ has thus in several ways been given practical implications throughout history. As the prayer of Jesus indicates, the unity of the church is not merely a goal in itself. Ideally the entire inhabited world and the church coincide. This is the Christian conception of the eschaton – a situation in which the new or renewed creation is inhabited by the people of God. Christianity has the mission to proclaim the Kingdom of God and thus to evangelize, to which the unity of the church ought to contribute. This basic conclusion is fundamental for the modern ecumenical movement, which itself emerged from the fields of mission. The 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference is commonly recognized as the starting point of the ecumenical movement. This was a conference aimed at closer cooperation between Protestant denominations in their respective mission activities. Inspired by the prayer of Jesus, the conviction that Christian 13 Cf. Acts 15:1-35. Held from the fourth century onward, seven councils are commonly accepted and therefore called ecumenical. However, with Western and Eastern Christianity parting ways, the ecumenicity of subsequent councils is disputed. The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the Second Vatican Council to be the 21st ecumenical council, whereas the Orthodox do not recognize any council after the Second Council of Nicaea as ecumenical. In its reception, the 2016 Holy and Great Council of Crete may prove to have been an ecumenical synod. Protestants in general do not attribute theological significance to councils, although many accept (parts of) the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils, among which is the creed of Nicene-Constantinople. 14 Thomas E. FitzGerald, The Ecumenical Movement: An Introductory History (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004), 3. 15 John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical on Commitment to Ecumenism (Rome, 1995), secs. 88–89, enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html (henceforth cited as UUS).

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 13 unity is essential for mission and evangelization emerged. Catholic ecclesiology, too, includes this goal of Christianity, as Bruce T. Morrill points out: “[t]he theme of unity – of Christians and, then, all humanity – reflects the ultimate meaning and purpose of Holy Communion in Western Christian tradition, namely, the res tantum of the sacrament being the unity of the church as the mystical body of Christ.”16 The two elements of Christ’s prayer combined form the main theological inspiration of the modern ecumenical movement. In addition, other developments urged the churches to cooperate more closely. In the early twentieth century, however, churches were increasingly inclined to cooperate as they faced the challenges of modern society: for example, the growing interdependence due to the process of globalization while secularization threatened the dominance of Christianity in Europe and the world, and a concomitant theological renewal of Christian identity. Thus, both external, sociological changes and internal, theological developments have inspired and continue to inspire the modern ecumenical movement.17 Since its institution in 1948, the World Council of Churches (WCC) has played a decisive role in the ecumenical movement. With the pre-existing movements of Faith and Order (dedicated to comparative theology) and of Life and Work (promoting the application of Christian principles in all realms of society) at its core, the WCC has been the main institutionalization of the ecumenical movement. The WCC has provided a platform for interchurch encounter. Confessing that the unity of the church is already given by God, WCC acknowledges that ecclesiastical unity is not to be made but, rather, to be searched for. Important clarifications on its self-understanding were presented in the 1950 Toronto Statement.18 The WCC explicated that it does not imagine itself to be a super-church, superseding the existing churches, nor does membership demand adjustment of one’s own ecclesiological selfunderstanding or view on other churches or communities. 16 Bruce T. Morrill, “Good Table Manners? The Presence and Participation of Fellow Christians at Roman Catholic Mass,” Liturgy 31, no. 3 (July 2, 2016): 42–43, 17 See Willem Adolph Visser ’t Hooft, “The General Ecumenical Development since 1948,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement. Volume 2, 1948-1968, The Ecumenical Advance, ed. Harold E. Fey (London: SPCK, 1970), 3–6. 18 World Council of Churches, “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches: The Ecclesiological Significance of the World Council of Churches,” Toronto Statement, 1950,

14 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION To date, the WCC has contributed significantly to the inter-church relations, ecumenical theology, and the common witness of the churches in societal and ethical issues. However, given its own self-understanding, theWCC does not account for the interchurch dialogues and negotiations about alliances or reunions. Therefore, apart from the World Council’s activities, countless bilateral and multilateral dialogues were initiated, especially when the Roman Catholic Church committed to the ecumenical movement. Ever since, however significant its activities still are, theWCC is no longer the primary and dominant embodiment of the ecumenical movement. Programmatically, the WCC upholds the same goal as the broader movement, i.e., the reunion of the Christian church. However, lacking any authority over its members, the WCC can only facilitate ecclesiastical encounters without having the means to establish the unity it envisions. Nevertheless, the WCC is still a driving force for the movement and a point of reference for evaluating the state of the ecumenical process. Its influence is felt through its Assemblies and statements and through the numerous national, regional, and local councils of churches that have been instituted after the example of the WCC. The Roman Catholic Church has never applied for formal membership in the WCC, although on national and regional levels, Catholic dioceses and parishes do take part in councils of churches. Membership is ecclesiologically problematic for the Catholic Church as a whole because it does not consider itself to be a confessional denomination in the same way as other WCC members: [M]embership could present real pastoral problems to many Roman Catholics because the decision to belong to a world-wide fellowship of churches could easily be misunderstood. Then there is the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.19 In addition, Catholic membership would have endangered the fragile equilibriumwithin theWCC, given the sheer size of the Roman Catholic Church compared to the WCC member churches. The problem of membership was resolved by the erection of a Joint Working Group in 1965. The Roman Catholic Church also became a full member of the Faith and Order commission. 19 World Council of Churches and Roman Catholic Church, “Fourth Official Report of the Joint Working Group (RCC/WCC),” 1975, 20, Document/04%20Fourth%20Report%20Joint%20Working%20Group.pdf.

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 15 Roman Catholic ecumenical engagement Due to its exclusive identification with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Christ, and its tradition of polemics portraying other Christians as schismatics and heretics, the Roman Catholic Church initially observed the movement of the “pan-Christians”20 with the utmost suspicion. Catholics were forbidden to participate in it, as was officially stated in Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos. However, Pius XII, following the cautious examples of the earlier Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV, opened the way for Catholic involvement in ecumenical discussions, albeit under strict regulations and supervision.21 The Catholic conception of restoring church unity was still explicitly an ecumenism of return or an invitation to other Christians to return to the Roman Catholic Church. An important initiative utilizing the space given by Pius XII was the Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions (CCEQ) in the Netherlands, initiated by Dutch priests Johannes Willebrands and Frans Thijssen. The Conference established a European network of Catholic ecumenists, as well as numerous ecumenical contacts. The CCEQ operated under supervision of Cardinal Augustin Bea.22 A major shift in Catholic ecumenical engagement was initiated by Pope John XXIII. He proved not to be the intermediate pope he was expected to be upon his election in 1959. To everyone’s surprise, he convoked a Council dedicated to aggiornamento and ressourcement. He also envisioned the Council to prioritize the theme of Christian unity.23 John XXIII appointed Cardinal Bea as head of a new body, the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU), with Willebrands as its secretary. They employed the CCEQ’s networks for setting up the SPCU and for inviting ecumenical observers to the Council. From the start, the scope of the SPCU’s activities was limited (although these activities were deliberately formulated rather unspecified to enable newly 20 Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Encyclical on Religious Unity (Rome, 1928), 5 and 8, mortalium-animos.html. 21 Karim Schelkens, “Pioneers at the Crossroads: The Preconciliar Itineraries of W.A. Visser- ’t Hooft and J.G.M. Willebrands,” Catholica. Vierteljahresschrift Für Ökumenische Theologie 70, no. 1 (2016): 27. 22 Karim Schelkens, Johannes Willebrands: Een leven in gesprek (Amsterdam: Boom, 2020), 195–98. 23 UR, sec. 1 therefore declares that “[t]he restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.” Cf. John XXIII, “Allocutio Ioannis PP. XXIII in Sollemni SS. Concilii Inauguratione,” 1962,

16 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION emerging tasks to be included), but the Secretariat soon became involved in drafting several of the Council’s schemata. Although initially no separate statement on ecumenism was anticipated, the need for such a document emerged as the Council proceeded. The SPCUwas assigned the task to draft one, which became the decree eventually known as Unitatis Redintegratio.24 Another document, the constitution on the church Lumen Gentium, laid the necessary foundations for the Catholic Church’s ecumenical engagement through its ecclesiological presuppositions. While reflecting on the ecumenical commitment of Vatican II, it is important to note that Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio should be considered together and in the context of the other conciliar documents, since all the documents together reflect fully the ecumenical program of the Council.25 This program is explicated in Unitatis Redintegratio, but the implications of the Council’s ecumenical intentions are also represented in other documents and embedded in the ecclesiology as expressed in Lumen Gentium; the reciprocal complementarity of the two documents is strikingly demonstrated in their joint promulgation on 21 November 1964. Defending the value of Unitatis Redintegratio against critics of ecumenical commitment, Cardinal Kasper insists: [T]here is no opposition between the doctrinally binding character, on the one hand, and the pastoral or disciplinary character on the other. Rather, any wish to discredit the theological aspect of the Decree on Ecumenism would be contrary to the overall ecumenical intention of the Second Vatican Council.26 One of the most significant and revolutionary concepts of Lumen Gentium is its rephrasing of the Catholic Church’s identification with the church of Christ. Lumen Gentium, section 8, famously states that the church of Christ subsistit in the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike the originally intended verb est, this phrase leaves space for ecclesiality outside the confines of the Catholic 24 Cf. Thomas F. Stransky, “The Foundation of the SPCU,” in Vatican II by Those Who Were There, ed. Alberic Stacpoole (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986). 25 As such, the conciliar documents represent the movements that also inspired the ecumenical movement: the liturgical movement (Sacrosanctum Concilium), the Biblical movement (Dei Verbum), the missionary movement (Gaudium et Spes, Ad Gentes, Nostra Aetate), a growing awareness of ecumenical relations (Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesiarum), combined with a growing need for a coherent ecclesiological selfunderstanding (Lumen Gentium) and a definition of the internal life of the church (Christus Dominus, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Perfectae Caritatis). 26 Walter Kasper, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity (London/New York, NY: Burns & Oates, 2004), 8.

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 17 Church. In the lead up to the Council, questions were raised about the nature of the communities to which other Christians belonged. The ecumenism of return model, which focusses on the return of non-Catholic individuals to the Catholic Church, was not yet abandoned. However, the question of membership in, or (gradual) belonging to, the church through Baptism, opened the discussion on the status of other communities.27 The Council then utilized this space to appreciate other churches and ecclesial communities,28 and to introduce the concept of gradual communion with other Christians.29 These important presuppositions have governed the attitude of the Catholic Church towards other Christian communities and its engagement in the ecumenical movement ever since. As a result, the unilateral ecumenism of return advocated previously gave way to an “ecumenism of common return, or common conversion to Jesus Christ.” 30 Bernd Jochen Hilberath speaks of a paradigm shift, a Perspektivenwechsel, explaining that “[t]he question ‘How do others relate to us?’ is, in principle (not in every individual formulation), resolved by the question ‘How do we and others relate to Jesus Christ, who is central to us?’”31 The ecclesiological reevaluation of other Christians implies the necessity of dialogue and a common search for the restoration of Christian unity, which includes reciprocal efforts to bridge the dogmatic, ecclesiastical, and cultural gaps. Thus, the Council committed itself to an ecumenical movement together with other Christians, directed towards the head of the church: Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Council committed explicitly to the existing ecumenical 27 Myriam Wijlens, Sharing the Eucharist: A Theological Evaluation of the Post Conciliar Legislation (Lanham Md: University Press of America, 2000), 91–109. 28 Cf. UR, secs. 3–4; 14–17; 19–23. 29 Cf. Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 1964, sec. 15, const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (henceforth cited as LG) and UR, secs. 3–4. 30 Kasper, That They May All Be One, 67. 31 Bernd Jochen Hilberath, “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über den Ökumenismus Unitatis Redintegratio,” in Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, Vol. 3, ed. Peter. Hünermann, Bernd Jochen. Hilberath, and Guido Bausenhart (Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder, 2005), 103. Original text in German: “[d]ie Frage ‘In welchem Verhältnis stehen die Anderen zu uns?’ wird prinzipiell (nicht in jeder einzelnen Formulierung) abgelöst durch die Frage ‘Wie stehen wir und die Anderen zu Jesus Christus, der unser Mittelpunkt ist?’” (translation: FW).

18 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION movement, acknowledging the efforts already made by many Protestant and Orthodox churches.32 Overall, the Council – encouraged by Pope John XXIII, the ecumenical observers, and the SPCU – dealt with various topics relevant to ecumenism, for example, by addressing questions that the First Vatican Council (1970), prematurely concluded, had left unanswered. As then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger analyzed the merits of Vatican II: [T]he Council reinserted into the Church as a whole a doctrine of primacy that was dangerously isolated; it integrated into the one mysterium of the Body of Christ a too-isolated conception of the hierarchy; it restored to the ordered unity of the faith an isolated Mariology; it gave the biblical word its full due; it made the liturgy once more accessible; and, in addition, it made a courageous step forward toward the unity of all Christians.33 And Pope John Paul II confirmed in his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism Ut Unum Sint: “[a]t the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture;” 34 a statement often repeated. This commitment was carried out primarily by the SPCU, which, during John Paul II’s reforms, was remodeled into the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (PCPCU). It has initiated many bilateral dialogues, which have achieved considerable results. Some dialogues have produced significant convergence texts, while others are still in an early stage of getting acquainted and clarifying past misunderstandings. Cardinal Walter Kasper presents the achievements and the questions that remain open of the most prominent dialogues in his Harvesting the Fruits.35 The cooperation with the WCC, too, has resulted in important progress, which is best seen in the convergence texts Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM, also known as the Lima Text, 1982) and The Church: Towards a Common Vision (2013). Both texts 32 Significant in this regard is the change that took place in the title of the first chapter of the schema on ecumenism. Instead of calling it De oecumenismi catholici principiis, the title De catholicis oecumenismi principiis was adopted. It makes clear that no independent Catholic type of ecumenism was intended, but that the Council expressed Catholic principles for engagement in the broader ecumenical movement. 33 Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology; Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Mary Francis McCarthy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), 370. 34 John Paul II, UUS, sec. 3 (italics in original). 35 Walter Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits: Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (London/New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009).

CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 19 demonstrate profound convergence on doctrinal issues achieved in the ecumenical dialogues. Another significant impetus for the Council comes from the liturgical movement, which has its origins in the late nineteenth century. The achievement of this movement was that the theological understanding of the role of the laity inMass shifted froma passive observation of the effective action of the priest towards active participation in the celebration of the Eucharist. Receiving Communion became considered an integral and significant part of the Eucharistic rite. Consequently, the practice of frequent Communion was advocated.36 MyriamWijlens concludes that questions like the one addressed in the current study result from this process: Increased appreciation of the connection between celebration of the eucharist and the reception of it on the one hand and the impulses coming from the Ecumenical Movement on the other hand paved together the road to questions about sharing the eucharist.37 An intermediate period The ecumenical movement is currently experiencing a crisis. The 1960s and 1970s, in particular, were marked by optimism and enthusiasm, fueled by the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II and the Assemblies of the WCC. Many expected visible and concrete reunion to be within reach – a period celebrated as the Spring of ecumenism. The 1980s and early 1990s were still dedicated to resolving the major dogmatic themes, resulting inter alia in the already mentioned 1982 Lima Text and the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which tackled one of the most prominent issues dividing the church in the history of Western Christianity. 38 However, from the 1990s onward, a crisis emerged. Cardinal Kasper analyses: To some degree the crisis of the ecumenical movement is paradoxically the result of its success. Ecumenism for many became obvious. But the closer we come to one another, the more painful is the perception that we are not yet in full communion. We are hurt by what still separates us and hinders us from joining around the table 36 Cf. Wijlens, Sharing the Eucharist, 109–15. 37 Wijlens, 122. 38 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper No. 111 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982); Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” 1999, chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html.