Documents on Anglican Roman Catholic relations III, compiled by Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and


(jdJtWsVc tVurtW- V^o^rio Co^Wera. ^ CkKoKc.

^OtVXJfALYV^* 0*\
>c^ ^'*3TA HI

r&» id iff

^

C0UC6C UMMW

DOCUMENTS

ON

ANGLICAN

ROMAN CATHOLIC
v
" RELATIONS

<
Q£

U

QQU

S



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/documentsonangiicath_0



DOCUMENTS
ON

ANGLICAN ROMAN
CATHOLIC RELATIONS

m
Compiled by

BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON
ECUMENICAL and INTERRELIGIOUS

AFFAIRS

in Cooperation with the

JOINT COMMISSION ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS

1976

Publications Office

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005





TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMISSION IN THE
U.S.A. AGREED STATEMENT ON THE PURPOSE OF THE
CHURCH 1

THE ECCLESIAL NATURE OF THE EUCHARIST, A report by
the Join Study Group 12

COVENANTS, Covenant Relationship 36

JOINT PASTORAL LETTER, Bless These Beginnings 56

WHERE ANGLICANS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AGREE,
The Text of Bishop Clark's Address to the Anglican Synod on

November 7, 1974 59

FIFTH MEETING OF THE ANGLICAN/ROMAN CATHOLIC
COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE 70

THE CANTERBURY STATEMENT 74

APPENDIX, ARC Response to ARCIC Canterbury Statement . . 82

ROMAN CATHOLIC-EPISCOPALIAN MARRIAGES 90





Anglican/Roman Catholic Commission

In The U.S.A.

Agreed Statement On The

Purpose Of The Church

I. INTRODUCTION

1. As Roman Catholics and Episcopalians living in the United
States today, we have been charged by our churches to explore
the possibility that there is a fundamental unity between us on
the deepest levels of Christian faith and life. Roman Catholics
and Episcopalians believe that there is but one Church of Christ,1

yet we find ourselves living in separate churches.

2. Those who went before us in the faith lived in one com-
munion for many centuries. This fellowship was broken in the
sixteenth century, yet our two churches continue to share "many
elements of sanctification and truth" which "possess an inner

dynamism toward Catholic unity."2 We follow one Lord; we
profess the ancient Creeds and confess one Baptism; we hear
God's Word in the Scriptures; we revere the Fathers and the
ancient Councils; we cherish similar structures of worship and
episcopal succession. Thus, our estrangement of four centuries

has been far from complete. In fact, recent authoritative state-

ments and liturgical texts of both our churches which we have
examined3 show a remarkable convergence in their answers to
fundamental questions such as these:

Where does the Church come from and why does it exist?

Where is the Church going and what should it be doing here
and now? In short, what is the purpose of the Church?

3. Since the prayer of the Church is the most intense expression

of our faith in God and commitment to his purpose for the world,
and since the Eucharist is seen in both our churches as bringing

us into a new relationship of union with Christ and with one
another in his sacramental Body and Blood,4 we have decided
together to write our common belief about the Church's purpose
or mission, in answer to the above questions, in a context inter-

1



woven with prayers from our contemporary Eucharistic liturgies.
We invite the reader to reflect upon this relationship between
prayer and belief in the statement that follows. In the parallel
passages that we quote, liturgical texts used in the Episcopal and
Roman Catholic Churches are placed, respectively, in the left
and right hand columns.5

II. WHERE DOES THE CHURCH COME FROM AND
WHY DOES IT EXIST?

4. Both our churches witness to the fact that the Church comes
from God who sent Jesus Christ his Son in the power of the
Spirit to accomplish the mystery of salvation and redemption.

Christ announced the Kingdom and proclaimed the Good News.
The Church is that community of persons called by the Holy
Spirit to continue Christ's saving work of reconciliation.6 As
Christ proclaimed the Kingdom, so the Church serves the King-

dom, so that "the entire world may become the people of God,
the Body of the Lord, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that in,

by, and through Christ there may be rendered to God the Creator
and Father of the universe all honor and glory."7

God of all power, Ruler of the
Universe,

you are worthy of glory and praise.
Glory to you for ever and ever.

At your command all things came to
be,

the vast expanse of interstellar space,

galaxies, suns, the planets in their

courses,

and this fragile earth, our island
home:

By your will they were created and
have their being.

From the primal elements you have
brought forth the race of man,

and blessed us with memory, reason,
and skill;

you made us the rulers of creation.

Therefore, we praise you,
joining with the heavenly chorus,

with prophets, apostles, and martyrs,
and with men of every generation who

have looked to you in hope:
to proclaim with them your glory,
in their unending hymn:

Father in heaven, it is right that we
should give you thanks and glory:

you alone are God, living and true.
Through all eternity you live in

unapproachable light.

Source of life and goodness, you
have created all things, to fill your

creatures with every blessing

and lead all men to the joyful
vision of your light.

Countless hosts of angels stand before

you to do your will;
they look upon your splendor
and praise you night and day.
United with them, and in the name of

every creature under heaven,
we too praise your glory as we sing:

2



Holy, holy, holy Lord,

God of power and might.
Heaven and earth are full of your

glory.

Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name

of the Lord.

Hosanna in the highest.

III. WHERE IS THE CHURCH GOING AND WHAT SHOULD
IT BE DOING HERE AND NOW?

5. Many in our churches ask the questions, "Where is the
Church going?" and "What should it be doing here and now?"
Some feel the Church is engaged in a fruitless, self-serving enter-
prise which fails to come to grips with the challenges posed by
the world today. Others ask in bewilderment whether the Church

has abandoned its spiritual calling. We find this restlessness and
bewilderment among clergy and laity in both our churches. On
the one hand, this situation is partially rooted in the churches'

awareness of "the cry of those who suffer violence and are
oppressed by unjust systems and structures (in a world whose)

perversity contradicts the plan of its Creator."8 On the other
hand, it is partially produced by movements of renewal and new
responses to the Spirit within our churches, such as the charis-

matic movement, the liturgical movement, new forms of piety,
and developments in biblical study and catechesis.

6. In the midst of the long history of human selfishness and sin,
we hear the story of God's redeeming action for us and all man-
kind calling us to re-examine our faithfulness to our mission.

Holy and gracious Father,
in your infinite love you made us for

yourself;

and when we fell into sin
and became subject to evil and death,
you, in your mercy, sent Jesus Christ,

your only and eternal Son,

to share our human nature,
to live and die as one of us
to reconcile us to you,

the God and Father of all.

Father, we acknowledge your
greatness:

all your actions show your wisdom
and love.

You formed man in your own likeness
and set him over the whole world
to serve you, his creator,

and to rule over all creatures.

Even when he disobeyed you and
lost your friendship

you did not abandon him to the
power of death,

but helped all men to seek and find
you.

Again and again you offered a
covenant to man,

and through the prophets taught him
to hope for salvation.

3



7. In our re-examination, we need to be constantly reminded
that "the Church is not a man-made society of like-minded
people who are trying to live Christian lives and to exert some
kind of Christian influence upon the world."9 Rather, it is a
community created and called by God. Its task is evangelization
and salvation: to be an instrument of God's work in the world
focused in the saving and liberating mission of Jesus Christ. It

must, therefore, look to him for the example and style of its

mission and to the Holy Spirit for the power to accomplish it. 10

8. Our churches have understood that this mission of witness
to Jesus Christ is to be carried out by the proclamation of the

Good News, the praise of God's Name, and service to all people.
This mission is carried out in the context of the fellowship of

believers, and it is the responsibility of all—not just some—of the
Church's members. 11 The corporate character of this witness

springs from the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ.

9. The witness which the Church is called upon to give must

first find expression in the lives of its individual members and in
the Church's regulation of its own structures and agencies. Only
then can it become a light to the world12 and find expression in
the structures of society.

Almighty and everliving God, you
have fed us with the spiritual food

of the most precious Body and
Blood of your Son, our Saviour

Jesus Christ;

You have assured us, in these Holy
Mysteries, that we are living
members of the Body of your Son,

and heirs of your eternal kingdom.

And now, Father, send us out to do
the work you have given us to do,

to love and serve you as faithful
witnesses of Christ our Lord.

To him, to you, and to the Holy Spirit,
be honor and glory now and for
ever. Amen.

A. Proclamation of the Gospel

10. The first thing the Church should be doing here and now is
proclaiming the Gospel. The original Gospel was not only a

message preached but also a life lived, and for this reason our

Lord Jesus Christ,

we worship you living among us in
the sacrament of your Body and
Blood.

May we offer to our Father in heaven a
solemn pledge of undivided love.

May we offer to our brothers and
sisters a life poured out in loving
service of that kingdom

where you live with the Father and
the Holy Spirit,

one God for ever and ever.

4



proclamation today must involve not only preaching in words

but also witness in deeds.
13 The Church proclaims Jesus as Lord

and Savior, both in its preaching and in its witness, and the

response it asks is a following in both word and deed. The task
of proclamation and likewise the necessity of response, more-

over, are an obligation not only for individuals but also for the

Church as a whole.

Therefore, O Lord and Holy Father,
we your people

celebrate here before your Divine

Majesty,

with these holy Gifts which we offer
to you,

the memorial of the blessed Passion
and precious Death of your dear Son,
his mighty Resurrection and glorious

Ascension,

looking for his Coming again in
power and great glory.

And with these Gifts, O Lord, we
offer to you ourselves,

for this is our duty and service.
And we pray you, in your goodness

and mercy, to accept,
through the eternal mediation of our

Savior Jesus Christ, this our sacrifice

of praise and thanksgiving.
Gracious Father, in your almighty

power,

bless and sanctify us and these holy
Mysteries

with your Life-giving Word and Holy
Spirit;

fill with your grace all who partake
of the Body and Blood of our Lord

Jesus Christ;

make us one Body that he may dwell
in us and we in him.

And grant that with boldness
we may confess your Name in

constancy of faith,

and at the last Day enter with all your
Saints

into the joy of your eternal kingdom.

Father, calling to mind the death your
Son endured for our Salvation, his
glorious resurrection and ascension
into heaven, and ready to greet
him when he comes again,

we offer you in thanksgiving this holy
and living sacrifice.

Look with favor on your Church's
offering, and see the Victim whose
death has reconciled us to yourself.

Grant that we, who are nourished by
his body and blood, may be filled
with his Holy Spirit, and become
one body,

one spirit in Christ.

May he make us an everlasting gift to
you and enable us to share in the
inheritance of your saints,

with Mary, the virgin mother of God;
with the apostles, the martyrs, and

all your saints, on whose constant
intercession we rely for help.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has
made our peace with you, advance
the peace and salvation of all the
world.

11. Both in proclaiming the Gospel and in responding to it,

the Church remembers with its Lord the words of the prophet as
recorded in the Good News according to St. Luke (4:18-19): "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to

5



set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the accept-
able year of the Lord." These words of Scripture, we believe, as
well as the words of our Eucharistic liturgies, lead us to affirm
that "action on behalf of justice and participation in the trans-
formation of the world" are fully a "constitutive dimension of
the preaching of the Gospel."14 This is to say, the Gospel as a
word of reconciliation must be embodied in efforts to bring
about social justice,15 and in particular the Church must address
itself to the questions posed by technological change. Such

change, which is inevitable in the modern world, adds urgency
and brings new opportunities for Christian mission. To the nega-
tive effects of technology, the Church must proclaim a word of
challenge and even, at times, confrontation, whereas the positive

effects of technology should receive the Church's active promo-
tion; in both cases, however, the Church must seek to evaluate

these effects and then make its voice heard. The imperative of
evangelism, therefore, has many dimensions.16

B. Worship

12. The Church which proclaims God's Word expresses its own
life most fully when it gathers as a community for worship,
especially the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the summit

and source of its mission.17 Worship, indeed, is part of the mis-

sion of the Church, for it testifies to the dependence of all people
upon God and it affirms God's action for humanity in the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the promise of the gift of the

Spirit, and in our ultimate destiny of union with the Father.

He stretched out his arms upon the
Cross,

and offered himself, in obedience to

your will,

a perfect sacrifice for all mankind.

On the night he was handed over to
suffering and death,

our Lord Jesus Christ took bread;

and when he had given thanks to you,
he broke it, and gave it to his

disciples,

and said, "Take this and eat it:

This is my Body, which is given for
you.

Do this for the remembrance of me."

After supper he took the cup of wine;

and when he had given thanks, he

Father, you are holy indeed,

and all creation rightly gives you
praise.

All life, all holiness comes from you
through your Son, Jesus Christ our

Lord,

by the working of the Holy Spirit.

From age to age you gather a people
to yourself,

so that from east to west

a perfect offering may be made
to the glory of your name.

And so, Father, we bring you these
gifts.

We ask you to make them holy by
the power of your Spirit,

that they may become the body and
blood

6



of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

at whose command we celebrate this
eucharist.

On the night he was betrayed,
he took bread and gave you thanks

and praise.

He broke the bread, gave it to his
disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it;

This is my body which will be given
up for you.

When supper was ended, he took the
cup.

Again he gave you thanks and praise,

gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it;
This is the cup of my blood,
The blood of the new and everlasting

covenant.

It will be shed for you and for all men
So that sins may be forgiven.

Do this in memory of me.
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

Christ has died,

Christ is risen,

Christ will come again.

13. To many contemporary Christians; moreover, the witness of
worship is only fully complete when it results in a commitment
to service.

C. Service

14. The imperative of viewing the Church's purpose in the

context of "Service" (diakonia) has deep roots both in Holy

Scripture and in the documents of our respective traditions.18

While this call to serve others and to place our resources at the

service of others is recognized and widely discussed in each of

our churches, we must confess that it does not appear that either
of us has yet found the means to carry out this aspect of mission

as successfully as we might. This presents a particular problem
as well as a special opportunity to those Church members who
find themselves among the affluent, for they possess, under God,
particular means whereby the Church may become more fully
a servant people, a sign of hope on mankind's way. 19 One of the
major challenges facing our churches is the cultivation of an

awareness of "unjust systems and structures" that oppress human
freedom, maintain situations of gross inequality, and facilitate

gave it to them,

and said, “Drink this, all of you:

This is my Blood of the new Covenant,
which is shed for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.

Whenever you drink it, do this for the
remembrance of me."

Therefore, Father, we recall the
mystery of faith:

7



individual selfishness.
20 Forms of Christian service which do not

take these structures into account are not adequate for the
complexities of our day.

Lord God of our Fathers,
God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob,
God and Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ:

open our eyes to see your hand at
work in the world about us.

Deliver us from the presumption of
coming to this Table

for solace only, and not for strength;
for pardon only, and not for renewal.
Let the grace of this Holy Communion
make us one body, one spirit in Christ,
that we may worthily serve the world

in his name.
Risen Lord, be known to us in the

breaking of the Bread.

Father, you so loved the world
that in the fullness of time you sent

your only Son to be our Savior.
He was conceived through the power

of the Holy Spirit, and born of the
Virgin Mary,

a man like us in all things but sin.
To the poor he proclaimed the good

news of salvation,
to prisoners, freedom,

and to those in sorrow, joy.
In fulfillment of your will
he gave himself up to death;
but by rising from the dead,

he destroyed death and restored life.

15. Our contemporary re-examination of mission has empha-
sized the call of the Church to serve as an agent and forerunner,

in this world, of God's Kingdom of justice and peace. "Mindful
of the Lord's saying, 'By this will all men know you are my
disciples, if you have love for one another' (John 13:35) Chris-
tians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the
men of the modern world ever more generously and effectively.
Therefore, holding faithfully to the Gospel and benefitting from

its resources, and united with every man who loves and practices
justice, Christians have shouldered a gigantic task demanding

fulfillment in this world. Concerning this task they must give a

reckoning to Him who will judge every man on the last day.
Not everyone who cries, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but those who do the Father's will and take a strong
grip on the work at hand. Now, the Father wills that in all men
we recognize Christ our brother and love Him effectively in word
and in deed."21

16. Human liberation, we agree, is that aspect of the Church's
mission of service which is most challenging for our time. We
agree, also, with the context in which Pope Paul VI has recently

placed it: [Human liberation] "forms part of that love which

Christians owe to their brethren. But the totality of salvation is
not to be confused with one or other aspect of liberation, and

the Good News must preserve all of its own originality: that of
a God who saves us from sin and death and brings us to divine
life."

22

8



IV. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH?
Conclusion

17. The Church, the Body of Christ in the world, is led by the
Spirit into all nations to fulfill the purpose of the Father. Insofar

as it faithfully preaches the Gospel of salvation, celebrates the

sacraments, and manifests the love of God in service, the Church
becomes more perfectly one with the risen Christ. Impelled by
its Lord, it strives to carry out the mission it has received from

him: to prepare already the structures of the Kingdom, to share

with all persons the hope for union with God.

18. In humility and repentance, the Church shares the guilt of

mankind in its disunity. Presenting men and women with hope in
the fulfillment of their destiny beyond this life, it also assumes,
under the cross of its Lord, the burdens and the struggles of the

oppressed, the poor, and the suffering. Striving for justice and

peace, the Church seeks to better the conditions of this world.

To the divided, it offers oneness; to the oppressed, liberation; to
the sick, healing; to the dying, life; to all persons, eternal sal-

vation.

But chiefly are we bound to praise you
for the glorious Resurrection of

your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, for
he is the Paschal Lamb who by his
death has overcome death, and by
his rising to life again has opened to
us the way of everlasting life.

Accept these prayers and praises,
Father, through Jesus Christ, our

great High Priest, to whom with you
and the Holy Spirit, your Church
gives honor, glory, and worship,
from generation to generation.
Amen.

Father, in your mercy grant to us, your

children,

to enter into our heavenly inheritance

in the company of the Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God,

and your apostles and saints.

Then, in your kingdom, freed from

the corruption of sin and death,

we shall sing your glory with every
creature through Christ our Lord,

through whom you give us
everything that is good.

Through him,
with him,

in him,

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,

for ever and ever.
Amen.

19.

We, as Roman Catholics and Episcopalians charged by our
churches to explore the possibility that there is a fundamental

unity between us, find that we are in substantial agreement about
the purpose or mission of the Church as we have set it forth
above. We have uncovered no essential points on which we
differ. And we know, also, that insofar as the Church appears

9



visibly divided, its purpose is obscured, its mission impeded,
and its witness weakened. We yearn, therefore, for a restoration
of the unity that will serve our common purpose . 23 Listening to
the signs of the times, we seek guidance from the Spirit, so that
through our common witness all may acknowledge that Jesus is
the Lord, to the glory of God the Father, and that, in this faith,
all may have life and have it abundantly. We conclude with a
prayer common to both our traditions : 24

O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on
your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery. By the tranquil
operation of your providence, carry out the work of man's salvation.
Let the whole world see and know that things which were cast down
are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made
new, and that all things are being renewed to the perfection of him
through whom all things were made, your Son our Lord Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one
God, for ever and ever. Amen.

NOTES
1
Constitution of the Episcopal Church, preamble; Vatican Council II,

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 5 and 8, ed. Walter
M. Abbott, S.J., pp. 17-18, 22-23.

2
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

, 8; Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redinte-
gratio, 3 and 13; ed. Abbott, pp. 23, 345-46, 356.

3
At these meetings: ARC XIII, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 19-22, 1973; ARC

XIV, Vicksburg, Miss., January 6-10, 1974; and ARC XV, Cincinnati, November
10-13, 1974. The following papers, among others, were considered: Charles H.
Helmsing, "Some Reflections on the Mission of the Church"; George H. Tavard,
"The Church as Eucharistic Communion"; and J. Robert Wright, "The Purpose
or Mission of the Church as seen by the Episcopal Church." The documentation
for this present statement has been largely drawn from these papers, which
were themselves documented from authoritative statements and liturgical texts
of both our churches.

4 Anglican/Roman Catholic Internationa! Commission, Windsor Statement
on Eucharistic Doctrine, paras. 2-4.

5
Episcopalian texts are taken from Services for Trial Use (1971) and

Authorized Services (1973). Roman Catholic texts are taken from The Roman
Missal: The Sacramentary (Liturgical Press 1974). The aim of ARC in this state-
ment has been to describe the Church's purpose or mission as it is seen in the
present faith of our two churches, and in our selection of texts we have not
intended to urge the superiority of any one particular form of liturgical expres-
sion over another. It is acknowledged that liturgical revision is still in process in
both our churches.

0 ARCIC, Canterbury Statement on Ministry and Ordination, paras. 3-5,

12, 17.
7
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 17; cf. Decree on the Ministry and Life of

Priests: Presbyterorum Ordinis, 1; ed. Abbott, pp. 36-37, 532-33.
8 Roman Catholic Church, Second General Assembly of the Synod of

Bishops, Justice in the World (1971), introduction; cf. Lambeth Conference
1948, pp. 26-28.

0 Lambeth Conference 1948, p. 26.
10

Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World:
Gaudium et Spes, 3 and 21; ed. Abbott, pp. 201, 219. The Book of Common

10



Prayer (Episcopal Church), p. 38 (Prayer for Missions). Cf. General Convention
of the Episcopal Church, 1973, definition of evangelism: "The presentation of
Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, in such ways that persons may
be led to believe in him as Savior and follow him as Lord, within the fellowship
of his Church."

11
Episcopal Church, canon 1.3, article 1: membership of the Domestic

and Foreign Missionary Society comprises "all persons who are members of
the Church." Cf. Vatican II, Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity: Ad
gentes, 1, 11, 15, 20, 21, 35, ed. Abbott, pp. 585, 597, 602, 609-11, 623.

12
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

,

1; ed. Abbott, pp. 14-15.
13 Book of Common Prayer, p. 83; Lambeth Conference 1968, p. 24;

Anglican Congress 1954, p. 199; Episcopal Church, House of Bishops, Pastoral
Letters, November 12, 1953, and November 12-17, I960; cf. Vatican II, Lumen
Gentium, 25; ed. Abbott, p. 47.

14
Justice in the World, introduction; cf. Episcopal Church, Position State-

ment of the Executive Council on Empowerment, February 22, 1972.
15

Cf. Justice in the World, part III.
16 Book of Common Prayer, pp. 47-48 (Bidding Prayer), 74-75 (Prayer for

Whole State); Lambeth Conference 1968, p. 77; Anglican Congress 1954, p. 44.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 8; ed. Abbott, pp. 22-24.

17
Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium,

2 and 10; ed. Abbott, pp. 137, 142; Anglican Congress 1954, pp. 197-98. Cf.
Book of Common Prayer, p. 291 (Second Office of Instruction, Bounden Duty).

18
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), vol. 3, pp. 386 ff. ("Ministry,"

diakonia, by M. H. Shepherd, Jr.); Robert C. Dentan, The Holy Scriptures ("The
Church's Teaching Series," Protestant Episcopal Church, 1949), pp. 167-69;

Augustin Cardinal Bea, We Who Serve (1969), esp. pp. 171-184; Lambeth Con-
ference 1968, p. 24; Anglican Congress 1963, p. 264; Vatican II, Lumen
Gentium, 18; Caudium et Spes, 3 and 45; ed. Abbott, pp. 37, 201, 247.

19
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 8, 9, and 10; ed. Abbott, pp. 205-9;

Lambeth Conference 1968, p. 74. Book of Common Prayer, pp. 18, 32 (Prayer
for All Conditions), p. 44 (Prayer for Social Justice).

20
Cf. Justice in the World, introduction; Book of Common Prayer, pp.

298-9, 579-80 (Duty Towards Neighbor).
21

Vatican II, Caudium et Spes, 93; ed. Abbott, p. 307; cf. Episcopal Church,
Actions of General Convention 1967, pp. 303-7; Summary of General Conven-
tion Actions 1970, pp. 3-6; Position Statement of the Executive Council on
Empowerment, February 22, 1972.

22
L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, November 7, 1974, p. 9.

23
Cf. John 17.

24
In the Episcopal Church: Services for Trial Use, in Eucharistic Inter-

cessions form VI, and in the Solemn Collects for Good Friday. In the Roman
Catholic Church: prayer following Reading VII in the Easter Vigil.

11



The Ecclesial Nature of the Eucharist

A REPORT BY THE JOINT STUDY GROUP

The present Report was examined by the National Ecumen-
ical Commission for Scotland of the Roman Catholic Church at its
meeting in Glasgow on September 22nd, 1973. The Report was
approved in the following terms:

"The National Ecumenical Commission receive with
pleasure the Report on the Ecclesial Nature of the Eucharist.
They wish to thank the Joint Study Group for their excellent
work, and warmly commend the Report as a most useful
basis for study. The National Ecumenical Commission are par-
ticularly pleased to note the clear expression in the Report

of so much agreement between the Scottish Episcopal Church
and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland on fundamental
present-day belief about the Eucharist. The National Ecumen-
ical Commission, while satisfied with the Report as a whole,
would not wish to be committed however, to any particular
historical judgment on Reformation doctrine on the Eucharist."

Subsequently, the Report was discussed at a meeting of the

Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland and it was
accepted in the same terms as by the National Ecumenical

Commission.

The Report was likewise presented to the Provincial Synod

of the Scottish Episcopal Church at its meeting on October 9th-

10th, 1973. The Synod expressed appreciation of the Report and

suggested its widespread study.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT STUDY GROUP

Roman Catholic Church:

Western Group: Rev. Desmond Strain (Convener)
Mr. James Breen

*Rev. Henry Docherty

Rev. John H. Fitzsimmons

Mr. Frank G. MacMillan

Eastern Group: Rev. James Quinn, S.J. (Convener)

*Rev. Charles Barclay

*Rev. Brian Cavanagh, O.F.M.

Rev. Matthew J. Donoghue

12



Rev. Robert Hendrie

Professor P. G. Walsh

Rev. Hugh G. White

Scottish Episcopal Church:

Western Group: Rev. Hugh McIntosh (Convener)
*Mr. Walter H. A. Abbott

Rev. A. Oswald Barkway
Dr. Robert A. Shanks

Rev. Samuel S. Singer

Rev. John A. Trimble

Eastern Group: Rev. Donald A. Guthrie (Convener)

Rev. Alexander S. Black

*Miss Gillian M. Carver

Rev. W. B. Currie
*Rev. E. J. C. Davis

*Mr. Thomas Glen
Dr. Robert Gould

^Principal Alistair I. M. Haggart

Consultant-Observer:

Rev. Richard F. Baxter (Scottish Churches' House)

* Later Resigned

FOREWORD

The Joint Study Group of representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church in Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church

was formed in 1968. The details of its formation and composition
are given in the Foreword to its common statement on "The
Nature of Baptism and its Place in the Life of the Church/' which

was published in 1969 with the authority of the Scottish Hierarchy
of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Provincial Synod of the
Scottish Episcopal Church.

The procedure whereby groups of Roman Catholics and
Scottish Episcopalians, both clerical and lay, met in Edinburgh

and Glasgow for detailed and frank discussions, and then met in

plenary session to draw together the results of their deliberations,

seemed a happy and fruitful arrangement. The immediately spon-

soring bodies of the Joint Study Group are the National Ecumeni-
cal Commission of the Roman Catholic Church and the Inter-

13



Church Relations Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church,
and in presenting their common statement in 1969, the members
of the Joint Study Group asked these authorities to continue their
remit, suggesting as the next subject for discussion "The Ecclesial
Nature of the Eucharist." This was agreed, and the present report
represents the extent to which the Joint Study Group has been
able to pursue its chosen but difficult goal.

The composition of the Group has understandably not re-
mained unchanged, and several members for one reason or
another were unable to continue. More grievous was the de-
parture of the Chairman, Provost Haggart, whose appointment as
Principal of the Scottish Episcopal Theological College in Edin-

burgh compelled him to relinquish a position he had filled
admirably. On the credit side, we were glad to welcome new-
comers to our Group, and in particular to welcome an observer
from the Scottish Churches' Council at plenary sessions.

Necessary changes notwithstanding, the bond of friendship
and understanding which was so notable a feature of our discus-
sions on Baptism, grew in warmth and openness: it is true to say
that we have not been able fully to complete our remit by includ-
ing consideration of "The Ministry" or "Intercommunion," but

none of us now has the same fear of grasping the nettle of our
historic divisions on these two subjects as we should have felt
had we not learnt to know each other so well.

Both Chairman and Secretary are only too conscious of the

debt of gratitude they owe to several members for many a long’
stint at home preparing documents for discussion. We must also
thank our colleagues for a forbearance in discussion without which

our tasks would not have been possible.

Above all, we have been humbly aware that in spite of the
limitations and imperfections of our report, our prayers for the

guidance of the Holy Spirit were not entirely unanswered.

Robert A. Shanks James Quinn, S.J.

(Chairman) (Secretary)

INTRODUCTION

On first acquaintance, "The Ecclesial Nature of the Eucharist"
as a topic for ecumenical discussion has a recondite air far from

the problems of individual Christians who are disturbed by their

14



divisions and yet unmoved by the spectacle of theologians at
play. This report will try to make plain that the unique inter-
relationship between Eucharist and Church is as central to our
common faith as it is to our divisions. From earliest times, the
Eucharist has been held to be the supreme gift of God, and has
been celebrated in obedience to the express command of Our
Lord. While there have been historical differencs both within and

between our two communions, the centrality of the Eucharist has
never been in question. Not the least of our difficulties has been
that of nomenclature, and we have chosen the term "Eucharist"
in preference to "The Mass," "The Lord's Supper," or "Holy

Communion" for reasons of euphony, brevity, and neutrality.

The heart of our problem could not be reached without some
preliminary discussions: some subjects might seem peripheral,
but had to be dealt with to clear the way for unambiguous con-
sideration of our views on the Eucharist and the Church. From

time to time, ecumenical groups have been accused of agree-

ment by ambiguity—a polite glossing over differences of inter-
pretation of phrase or concept. "For all colours will agree in the

dark," wrote Francis Bacon in his essay, "Of Unity in Religion,"

and it was precisely in order to avoid this error that the Joint
Study Group decided to spend some time on antecedent con-
siderations, such as differing eucharistic practices, and the the-

ology of Presence and Sacrifice, before going on to consider the

nature of the Eucharist and the light it throws on the nature of

the Church.

The plan of this report was to begin with Eucharistic Practice

and Eucharistic Theology, and to follow this with the main sec-

tion on the Ecclesial Nature of the Eucharist. We had intended to
complete the report with two final sections on the Ministry and

Intercommunion, in that order.

We have not departed from this plan, although it soon became
clear that we should not be able to complete it in time for our
first report—itself delayed beyond our expectations. To those
who are familiar with the difficulties of such discussions this will
come as no surprise. It is worth stressing that some of the delays
occasioned by protracted discussions were because of an unex-

pected measure of agreement between us, allowing a deeper

exploration of our beliefs.

A discussion of the nature of the Eucharist inevitably involves
consideration of what is meant by "The Real Presence": for many

15



Protestants there is difficulty over the meaning of the word
"sacrifice" as applied to the Eucharist; and there is the ever-
present difficulty of the nature of the act of Communion and the
basis for the authority of the presiding minister of the Eucharist.

It is a tribute to the individual members of the Joint Study Group
that our often protracted discussions seldom ranged beyond the
use of words and always returned to the Narrative of Institution

—

the words of Our Lord himself—as the centre of our eucharistic
theology.

Preliminaries were clearly needed for a meaningful consid-
eration of our remit, and it should be emphasized that the work
involved was considerable. Individual pairs from both groups
produced papers on items for discussion, only to find them torn

to pieces in argument, and so requiring that another draft be

prepared and offered for similar treatment. It is our earnest hope
that the mutual respect and understanding that we reached in
our deliberations will be reflected in this report.

The succeeding chapters are largely self-explanatory, and it

remains perhaps to explain the title of our report. It might be

thought that to explain the choice of the word "ecclesial" as a
title for a report over which so much time and consideration has
been spent would be only too easy. In one sense, it may be so:
"ecclesial" is an obsolete form of the current adjective "ecclesi-

astical," according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (although the

New Chambers Dictionary allows "ecclesial" as the adjective
from "ecclesia"). The word "ecclesiastical," however, has more

overtones than are desirable if it is to be used to imply the

essential nature of the Church; but in distinguishing between

these two words and using "ecclesial" to refer to the essential

nature of the Church while reserving "ecclesiastical" to include

aspects of Church organisation, we are in danger of implying a
dichotomy that is not intended. The matter is dealt with in some

detail in Chapter III.

Two sections of this report remain to be studied, namely
"The Ministry" and "Intercommunion." These are subjects that

we have not yet been able to discuss in depth, yet we are in no
way reluctant to do so. We know very well that the nearer we
move to the practical implications of our agreement on the cen-

trality of our faith, the closer we come to the problems of en-
trenched positions and attitudes of mind rooted in history rather

than reason. Yet we remain convinced that this report, which

16



indicates how little of truly ecclesial importance separates the
Scottish Episcopalian from the Roman Catholic in the three
aspects of eucharistic theology so far considered, can only lead

us to hope for a similar agreement on the other two, and so lead

us nearer to that unity which is Our Lord's will for his Church.

I. EUCHARISTIC PRACTICE

The basic fact to emerge from our discussions was the cen-

trality of the Eucharist in the worship of both Churches.

In Roman Catholic practice, this is reflected in the tradition
of daily celebration, while the Scottish Episcopal Church has a

tradition of celebrating "frequently, but always on a Sunday and

on the greater festivals." The Eucharist takes the same essential
form in both Churches: there is the same two-fold pattern of
"Liturgy of the Word" and "Liturgy of the Eucharist," the latter
being expressed by means of a four-fold action—Offertory, Con-
secration, Breaking of the Bread, and Communion.

In the Scottish Episcopal Church, Communion is received
"under both kinds," while the Roman Catholic practice is for it
to be received by the laity under one kind only, although the

practice of receiving under both kinds is gradually being renewed.

In both Churches, Communion is usually received kneeling; but
whereas Episcopalians receive the consecrated Bread in their

hands, Roman Catholics normally receive it in the mouth.

In all Roman Catholic churches and many Episcopalian ones,
the Blessed Sacrament is reserved: in both traditions, where the

consecrated elements remaining after Communion are not to be
reserved, they are reverently consumed by the ministers. With
regard to ceremonial, the use of lights (candles), vestments, and

genuflections is "universal" in the Roman Catholic Church, and
"widespread" among Episcopalians.

In the matter of admission to the Eucharist, the present disci-

pline of the two Churches differs, in that the Scottish Episcopal

Church recognises wider areas of admission for "Christians duly

baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity and qualified to receive
Holy Communion in their own Churches," who "may be wel-
comed at the Lord's Table in the Anglican Communion" in order
to meet "a special pastoral need," and in certain authorised
ecumenical situations . 1 The Roman Catholic Church does not
admit to Communion anyone except those in full communion

17



with Rome, though there are some exceptions to this with regard
to Eastern Christians and other Christians in special circum-

stances.
2

There are thus many liturgical elements held in common by
our two Churches, and in many respects our practice is identical.
Since a common "Lex Orandi" would be a factor making for a
common "Lex Credendi," we feel it is important to recognise
how much is already done in similar ways, as well as to press
forward wherever possible with the development of other com-
mon elements. Although it is clearly necessary for each tradition
to develop in harmony with its own past and heritage, neverthe-
less agreement to use a common Lectionary and to observe a
revised Christian Year, together with the incorporation of inter-

nationally agreed texts for the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and

other elements of the Liturgy, and the creation of a common
store of hymns and church music—all of these are factors which
would promote further unity between our two Churches.

II. ASPECTS OF EUCHARISTIC FAITH

Sacrifice

Down the centuries both our traditions have developed a
theology about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist; and in both

cases the roots of this theology are to be found in the biblical

tradition of the Old and New Testaments, together with the
interpretation of its data embodied in the traditional teaching

of the Church.

On examining together the New Testament narratives of the
institution of the Eucharist, we have seen how the evangelists
have taken over the themes and motifs of the Old Testament's

own theology of sacrifice.1 Their central idea is that of the
Eucharist as the "Christian Passover": just as the Passover of

Israel is anticipated and signified in the meal shared in Egypt (cf.

Ex. 12, 1-36), so the Passover of Christ and Christians is antici-

pated and signified in the Last Supper. The context of the nar-

ratives of institution (at least in the tradition of the Synoptic

Gospels) is the Passover meal shared by Jesus and his followers.

While the image of Christ as the Paschal Lamb is none too clear,
the words of the institution interpret his death as an atonement

sacrifice—his Body and Blood are "for many" and "for you."
The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is further heightened

18



by its definition as the sealing of the New Covenant between
God and man.2 Here again the immediate reference is to the
covenant sacrifices of the Old Testament. As in the Old Testa-

ment sacrifices the ritual words and actions interpret the offering

of the victim, so the words and actions of Jesus in the Upper

Room interpret his offering of himself on the Cross as the Victim
reconciling God and man.

The Last Supper provides us with a key to the understanding

of Calvary, and the Last Supper and Calvary together provide us

with a key to the understanding of the Eucharist. The author of

the Letter to the Hebrews takes up these ideas and expresses

them succinctly: the sacrifice of Christ was offered "once and for

all", and this offering of Christ achieves perfect forgiveness for

all men; through the sacrifice of Christ, the Christian can

approach God with faith and hope that he is delivered from
sin (cf. Heb. 9-1 0).

3

In the light of this interpretation offered by the New Testa-
ment writers, the Eucharist was early understood in terms of
Christ's offering of himself as a sacrifice for the reconciliation of

God and man. As the perfect sacrificial offering, he fulfills in
himself the aspirations and intentions of the Old Testament in

its worship. There are, however, other aspects of the New Testa-
ment understanding of the Eucharist which are significant for us,
in that they have been integrated into the theology of both our

traditions.

The words of institution contain the injunction to celebrate
the Eucharist as a "memorial" of Christ, and to this St. Paul adds

the further notion of the Eucharist as a "proclamation" of the

death of Jesus (/ Cor. 11, 26), so allowing the Church to see in

the Eucharist the source and fullest expression of its mission.

If the idea of communion with God through the offering of
sacrifice is essential to the Old Testament theology of sacrifice,

it is also an essential aspect of the New Testament theology of
the Eucharist. The eucharistic sharing of the Body and Blood of
Christ makes all Christians one—the many are one body, for they
all partake of the one bread (/ Cor. 10, 17). Further, the Eucharist
is celebrated until the Lord "comes" (/ Cor. 11, 26), and so stands
as a sign and guarantee of the final fulfilment of the salvation in

which the Christian is already caught up through his sharing in

the Lord's Body and Blood. Thus what God's people of the Old

19



Testament hoped for and looked forward to in the celebration of
the Passover meal, the Church now possesses in the celebration
of the Eucharist. The Messianic Banquet, which expresses the full
and final union of all men with God and with one another, is
already anticipated in the eucharistic meal.4

Inspired by this interpretation of the Eucharist offered by the

New Testament writers, both Churches have understood the
Eucharist as the presence here and now in the Christian com-
munity of Christ's once-and-for-all offering of himself as a sacri-

fice for the reconciliation of God and man. The communion with
God in a sacred meal or banquet which belongs to the New
Testament appreciation of the Eucharist has been the source and

context of our understanding of the real presence of Christ. Our
idea of the Church as the "Body of Christ" is derived from the

New Testament idea of the Eucharist as the sharing of one bread
which makes us who are many, all one with God and with one
another. Our hope and our expectation for the future are nour-
ished by the Eucharist, which points to the fulfilment of our

salvation. The eucharistic sacrifice indeed has been understood

by both Churches as a pattern for the life of the Christian com-
munity: "Be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in
love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant

offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5, 1-2).

In examining the interpretation of biblical data embodied in

the traditional teaching of both our Churches, we have seen how
the Eucharist has been understood as a "re-presentation" of the

one sacrifice of Christ, through the re-enactment of the words

and actions of the Upper Room, which make the reconciling
work of Christ present and effective for us, and through us for all

men. Through the eucharistic mystery celebrated by the Church

in the Spirit, the sacrifice of the Cross, achieved "once and for

all," is brought to mind in the "memorial" of Christ, and thus

made sacramentally present, so that its saving power may be
communicated to us. 5

From the very beginning, the Church has gathered to cele-

brate the Paschal Mystery of Christ's death and resurrection,

reading all that the Scriptures have to say about the "things

referring to himself" {Lk. 24, 27) and celebrating the Eucharist in

which "the victory and triumph of his death are again made
present."

6
It is clear that there can only be one sacrifice: the

20



eucharistic sacrifice is the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the
Cross, and this one sacrifice is now offered by the ascended and
glorified Lord in his Church. The Eucharist is the celebration not

only of the death, but also of the resurrection and ascension of

Christ: it is the sacrament of the whole Paschal Mystery. The

Eucharist is not simply the commemoration of Calvary as of a
past event, nor is it simply an offering of praise and thanksgiving

for Calvary and its reconciling and atoning effects. On the con-
trary, the Eucharist is the continuing presence in our time and

situation of Christ's sacrifice. This presence, which signifies and

brings about the reconciliation of men with God and with one
another, is his gift to those who, through the Spirit, are incor-

porated with him in his Body the Church. It is this identification

of the faithful in the Spirit with the risen humanity of Jesus Christ

that guards the "once and for all"-ness of Christ's sacrifice and

yet makes that sacrifice the sacrifice of the Church itself.

In this connexion we have looked at the Anglican Articles,
especially Art. XXXI. What is repudiated in this Article is some-
thing that never had been part of the authentic teaching of the

Roman Church. The "sacrifices of Masses" referred to there is part
of a conception which would understand the eucharistic sacrifice

as adding something to the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. This idea

is rightly denied and the traditional faith of the Church remains

what it always has been: there is but one sacrifice, the sacrifice

of Christ on Calvary of which the Eucharist is the "memorial" or

"re-presentation ."7

The Real Presence

In speaking of the eucharistic sacrifice, we have referred to
the idea of the sacred banquet, that communion with God which
we share in the Eucharist, as the source and context for our
understanding of the real presence of Christ. From St. Paul on-

wards, the Church has always maintained that a change takes

place in the eucharistic elements after the consecration . 8

After the consecration, the Bread of the Eucharist is a different

kind of bread: the bread of human life has been changed into the
Bread of everlasting life. This change, though it does not affect the
physical or chemical properties of bread, is nevertheless a real

change—not one imposed by our purpose, minds, or faith. It is more
than a change in the use to which we put bread; it is more than a
change in its meaning for us. It is a change by which the bread of
human life has become the Bread of everlasting life, has become the

21



"Body of the Lord" (/ Cor. 11, 29).

We do not think of the eucharistic sacrifice and the real
presence as separate, nor do we believe that they should be
thought of in this way. Christ is present, i.e., the change takes

place in order that we may offer him and his oblation on behalf
of ourselves and the world, and receiving the full benefits of his

death and resurrection in his gift of Holy Communion may be
reintegrated in him so as to participate more effectively in his
mission and service to the world.

It is important also to recall that Christ is the Giver as well as

the gift bestowed, and that he is present and active in more than
one way in the Eucharist—in his People gathered together, in the
minister who presides, in his Word read and proclaimed, in the
world's needs brought forward in the Intercessions (Mt. 25, 40).

9

The priesthood which is exercised in the eucharistic offering

is the priesthood of Christ himself. He is at once Priest and
Victim. In the Church's offering of his sacrifice, the officiating

priest and the whole community share in his Priesthood. Hence,
those who say that the ministry of an episcopally ordained priest
is necessary for the eucharistic offering do not deny that the

whole People of God offers the sacrifice together.10 The presence
of Christ's sacrifice in the eucharistic offering is the work of the

Holy Spirit acting in the community, as the liturgical traditions of

both our Churches constantly attest. In the Christian community's

exercise of his priesthood, which it shares, the Eucharist is offered

by Christ in and through the Church.

III. THE ECCLESIAL NATURE OF THE EUCHARIST

Introduction

The understanding of the Eucharist expressed in Chapter II

calls our attention once more to a fundamentaJ but somewhat

neglected feature of our common eucharistic heritage: viz. the
unique relationship of mutual dependence between the Eucharist

and the Church. It is not without significance that from the

earliest times, as acknowledged in the New Testament and faith-
fully maintained in both traditions, the Eucharist has been cher-

ished as the supreme gift of God to his Church and that the
celebration of the Eucharist has always held a place of pre-

eminence in the growing life and work of the Church. For it is

in the celebration of the Eucharist that the faithful experience and

22



express most fully that unity which must always be the first char-

acteristic of the Church of Christ. The eucharistic sacrifice "is the

fount and apex of the whole Christian life . . . Strengthened anew
at the Holy Table of the Body of Christ, (the faithful) manifest in a

practical way that unity of God's people which is suitably signi-
fied and wondrously brought about by this most awesome sac-
rament."1

The Eucharist—Sacrament of the Church: A Biblical Approach
It was his appreciation of this intimate connection between

the Eucharist and the Church which allowed Paul to speak of

both the Eucharist (/ Cor. 10, 16) and the Church (Ephes . 1, 23)

as the "Body" of Christ, meaning by body "person."

"Because there is one bread, we who are many are one
body for we all partake of the one bread" (/ Cor. 10, 17).

".
. . and he has put all things under his feet and has made

him the head over all things for the church, which is his body,
the fullness of him who fills all in all" ( Ephesians 1, 22).

Already, Paul finds in the celebration of the Eucharist the

sign and source not only of the union of the faithful with Christ,

but of their unity with one another—"a single body." As such,
Paul prompts us to an understanding of the Church as first and

foremost a Eucharistic Community—what is achieved by and wit-
nessed to in the fellowship of the Eucharist is the normative

guide for the Church. The Eucharist reveals the nature of the

Church, and in each celebration of particular communities the

Church continues to discover afresh the dynamic source of its

own membership, growth and renewal, the origin of its structure
and the ultimate meaning and purpose of all its activity. Without

the Church there can be no Eucharist, but without the Eucharist

there would be no Church—each stands as a sign and source of
the other.

When the New Testament authors came to set down in writ-
ing the tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus, they were

acutely aware that they were not handling facts of the past

which belonged exclusively to the past. It is for this reason that

we can see an underlying conviction in all that they wrote: the
conviction that the Jesus of whom they write is still alive, exalted
at the right hand of the Father, and present and active in his

Church. This explains why Luke refers to the details of the Gospel

23



story as events which "have been accomplished" and which have

been fulfilled "among us/' thereby identifying himself and his
readers with the witness of the past ( Lk

.

1, 1). In the same way,
John speaks of the Word's becoming flesh and dwelling "among
us," in such a way that "we have beheld his glory" (Jn . 1, 14).
The same conviction animated Matthew when he wrote of the
birth of Jesus as the coming of Emmanuel, "which means God
with us" (Mt

.

1, 23), and when he concluded his version of the
Gospel with the promise of Jesus: "I am with you always to the
close of the age" (Mt. 28, 20).

When we use the language of contemporary theology and
speak of Jesus Christ as "the sacrament of the Father," we are
simply expressing something that responds to the New Testament
portrayal of the person and mission of Jesus. (Here it is enough

to remark that "sacrament" is taken in its most general sense

—

an effective sign: a sign, first of all, which can be seen and under-

stood as such, and one which actually effects what it signifies,

makes it real and present.) In this case, what is meant, therefore,

is that in Christ the Father is present and active. The Gospel

picture of the ministry (and more specifically of the miracles) of

Jesus underlines this active presence of the Father in him. They

all involve an encounter between men and Jesus: this encounter
is effective, for the "blind receive their sight, and the lame walk,

lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up,

and the poor have the good news preached to them" (Mt. 11, 5).
The Gospels, then, show us how the presence of Christ is the
presence of the redeeming love of God in the midst of men (cf.
Mt.'s quotation of Hos. 6, 6 in 9, 13), in such a way that they can
see it and respond to it. The whole technique of the handing on

of the tradition which we find in the New Testament is based on
the conviction that what jesus once did, he does still. This is the

heart of sacramental theology, and it is the key concept with

regard to the existence and nature of the Church. Just as the

leper, the blind, and the lame receive a fuller life through their

encounter with Jesus, so the Christian shares a new kind of life

through his encounter in faith with the Risen Christ. Christ is

"the sacrament of the encounter with God,"2 the infinite love of

God coming into contact with men in a tangible and personal
form. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself . . .
and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (II Cor. 5, 19).

Here, we begin to touch upon the very essence of the Church

—

24



it is to be the meeting between Christ and men through the ages.

So, when we use the language of contemporary theology
and say that "the Church is the sacrament of Christ,"3 we are
simply expressing the basic New Testament vision of the Church
and its function. What Christ has done, that is the Church's task
—"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me
receives him who sent me" (Mt

.

10, 40). It is the abiding presence

of Christ himself which enables the Church to carry out its mis-

sion
—"where two or three are gathered together in my name,

there am I in the midst of them" {Mt. 18, 20). The community of
those who have gathered in his name is to be the bridge between
Christ and the world in all places and in all times. Just as Christ,

raised on the Cross, draws all men to himself {Jn. 12, 32), the
Church must be an ensign for the nations {Is. 11, 12), carrying out

and continuing the mission which Christ himself was sent to fulfill.

It was Christ himself who commissioned the Church to go "and
make disciples of all nations" {Mt. 28, 19); the witness of the
Church to the abiding presence of Christ is the work of the Holy
Spirit

—
"the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Mt. 10,

20). It is for the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to a deeper aware-

ness of itself and its mission, to lead it "into all the truth"

(Jn. 16, 13).

Against this background, it is easier to see how the New
Testament writers regarded the Church as being most fully itself,

as expressing most completely the abiding and active presence of

Christ, when it came to the celebration of the Eucharist. In the
Synoptic tradition, there is the highly symbolic presentation of

the miracle of the feeding of the multitude (cf. Mk. 6, 32-44, par.

Mt. 14, 13-21; ik. 9, 11-17), where the disciples are involved in

the miracle in such a way that they become partners of Jesus
in feeding the people; further, the narratives of the institution

of the Eucharist itself (cf. Mk. 14, 22-25, par. Mt. 26, 26-29; Lk.

22, 17-20), are short and to the point because they simply make
explicit something which lies at the heart of the whole Gospel
tradition—the abiding presence of Christ. There is a logic which
imposes itself here: if Christ is the sacrament of the Father, and

if the Church is the sacrament of Christ, then the sharing of the

eucharistic meal is the sacrament of the Church. The formula
with the wine is all the more significant: "This is my blood of the
covenant" {Mt. 26, 28); the covenant between God and man is
what brings the people of God into existence, and it is the cove-

25



nant in the blood of Christ which brings the Church into exist-

ence. In the sharing of the Eucharist is the full affirmation of the

Church's identity. But not only is it an affirmation of identity, it

is also an affirmation of what the Church does—to unite men to
Christ and to unite them with one another: that is the mission of
the Church. That is why the Fourth Gospel speaks of the Eucha-
rist in terms of the giving of eternal life: "He who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (/n. 6, 56). It
also explains why the Fourth Gospel interprets the Last Supper
in terms of a parting gift and instruction to the Church—"by this
all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for
one another" (Jn . 13, 35). It is for this reason that St. Paul was
able to move from the real presence of the body of Christ in the
Eucharist to the identification of the Church itself as "the Body of
Christ." It is for this reason also that he sees in the Eucharist the

remembrance of the death of the Lord and in the partaking of
the Eucharist, the proclamation to the world of the Lord's death

(cf. / Cor. 11, 23-26).

Just as John concentrates on the relationship between Christ

and the individual Christian in his eucharistic doctrine, so the

other New Testament writers emphasise this aspect, each in his
own way. The identity between Christ and the Christian is basic
to the meaning of Matthew's Mission Discourse (cf. Mt. 9, 35

—

11, 1). The mission of the Christian, however, which makes of

him a "sacrament" of Christ, is consequent upon the call he has

received to follow Christ. Men are "called" in the Gospels, and
they are "baptised" in the letters of Saint Paul. It is those who
have been "called"/"baptised" who are sent to preach under the
guidance of the Spirit; so the New Testament perspective helps
us to see the integral elements of Christian Initiation. The culmi-

nation of this initiation into Christ comes with the sharing in the

Eucharist. It is Christ himself who called men to witness to his
death and resurrection, to preach his Gospel, to forgive sins, to

suffer with him, to share his authority, to be his companions, i.e.,

to live their lives in his company through to an eternal destiny.
This is the ultimate sense of the Eucharist in the Church: it is the

continuation (or "re-presentation") of the self-giving of Christ,

and the guarantee of his lasting presence in the community of

those who bear his name. The man who has been initiated into
Christ becomes part of his work and his life becomes fused with

the life and action of Christ. This is the new covenant between
God and man, and it is sealed in the Eucharist.

26



The Eucharist—Model of the Church
In the Eucharist, the Church is always aware that here is the

continuing action of God himself, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by
whose life the Church lives. The Church sees itself in the Eucha-
rist as the mystery of the Trinity, revealed and actualised in our

world and our history with the purposes of bringing all men into
personal communion with the Father through the Son in the
Holy Spirit. Incorporated into Christ so as to form his living Body,

the faithful live in the fellowship of the Spirit as true sons of the

Father.

Hence in the Eucharist the Church is built up by the Spirit
into the fullness of Christ, and, through the saving work of Christ
there made present, has access to the Father. The Church knows
itself as the object of the Father's loving initiative, mediated by

the Son, in the power of the Spirit.

In the Eucharist the presence of Christ is known through the
signs of his self-giving love: his broken Body and outpoured

Blood are shown forth in the consecrated elements. The Church
knows itself to be, like Christ, the suffering and redeeming Servant
of God and of all men.

In the Eucharist the Church is caught up into God's heavenly

glory, and receives the promise and foretaste of the life of the

age to come. The Church knows itself to be a pilgrim people,
travelling in hope towards that goal of which it already has the

foretaste.

In the Eucharist the Church blesses God for all creation by
offering that creation to its Lord under the symbols of bread and

wine, and the Church is herself nourished with the life of God
through these same symbols, now made Christ's Body and Blood.
The Church knows itself to stand as the priestly people within
creation and through the whole universe of matter God works
out his purposes of love.

In the Eucharist the Church is summoned to a sacred meal,
which is a foretaste of the perfect fellowship with God which is
to come. The Church knows itself to be a fellowship of men and
women, having a vocation to build itself up as the universal
family of mankind and thus committed to overcoming everything

that breaks or hinders the fellowship of men with each other and
with God.

27



The Eucharist and the Structure of the Church

Since the Church is the sign of Christ's saving action in the
world and the means of that saving action, it lives at two levels.
Its inner life and its structure are revealed in the Eucharist. It is

here that we can see the need for holding two aspects of the
Church in a dynamic tension. The Church is the visible society
founded on the apostles, and at the same time the mystery of
salvation always present. The Church is at once the community
of the redeemed and the redeeming community. Acts 2, 42, holds
the balance

—
"These remained faithful to the teaching of the

apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and to the

prayers." In the community gathered together to celebrate the
Eucharist we see a visible society; this gathered community not
only recalls and ratifies again the new covenant between God
and man, but is also here and now caught up in the very acts of
Christ by which it is gathered together and established as the

People of God. The Eucharist is the mystery of salvation consti-

tuting the Church in its inmost being—the People of God gath-
ered together in the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Wherever and whenever the tension between these two

aspects of the reality of the Church is not maintained, the nature

of the Church as a visible society is distorted and the presence of

the saving activity of God in the Church is obscured. In other
words, there is a constant danger that the "ecclesial" aspect of

the Church can be taken for the "ecclesiastical" and vice versa.

In distinguishing these two aspects, we are provided with a
means of describing the mystery of the Church in its fullness. For,

in the actual life of the Church, there is an unchanging element,

a "givenness," forever to be found where the People of God are
gathered together in the new and eternal covenant sealed with
the Blood of Christ: this is its "ecclesial" nature, willed by God
and given by Christ. It is God's will that men will be made holy
and saved, "not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds,

but by (his) making them into a single people, a people which

acknowledges him in truth and serves him in holiness . . . Estab-

lished by Christ as a fellowship of life, charity and truth, it is

also used by him as an instrument for the redemption of all."
2

Side by side with this, however, it must be recognised that the

Church exists in history and subject to the changes, the stresses

and the strains of history, in the same way that the men and
women who make up the People of God are subject to them.

28



Because of this, in the course of history, the Church takes on

many different shapes, many different structures. This is what is
meant by its "ecclesiastical" nature: it is the product of the

guidance of the Holy Spirit coupled with the goodwill and

activity of the members of the Church in any historical situation
to make the Church a clearer expression of what God wills that it
should be in every age, to make it a more effective "instrument
for the redemption of all." The ecclesiastical may be Spirit-
inspired for times and circumstances or it may be consequent on
human genius or frailty, and it is in this area that the Church is
"semper reformanda." Consequently, there is always a priority

of the "ecclesial" over the "ecclesiastical": the shape and struc-

ture of the Church must be judged by its effectiveness in allowing

the Church to be as fully as possible "the Sacrament of Christ,"

his visible embodiment in the power of the Spirit.

However, since the Eucharist is "the sacrament of the

Church" and "the model of the Church," it likewise has impli-

cations for an estimate of the structure of the Church. The

"ecclesial" shape of the Church is proclaimed in the Eucharist:

at the Eucharist, the Church is most fully itself, and it is there

that the characteristic roles and attitudes of the People of God
find expression. The witness of the Church to the saving event

of God in Christ cannot be separated from its unity in faith, hope
and love. "I in them and you in me, that they may become
perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me
and have loved them even as you have loved me" {Jn. 17, 23).
The unity of the Church in the Body and Blood of Christ is both

source and sign of its unity in faith, hope and love. When we
pose the question of what is essential for the Eucharist, then we
become conscious of what we are really asking—the question of
what is essential for the Church itself. It is the Eucharist which

lays bare the "ecclesial" nature of the Church, and helps us to

distinguish it from the Church's "ecclesiastical" aspect. As ever,

the Last Supper serves as guide and paradigm: The People of God
are all equally served by Christ and called to serve one another:

"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you
also ought to wash one another's feet" (Jn

.

13, 14). The "exam-

ple" of Christ is a rule for his Church, and since "a servant is not

greater than his master, nor he who is sent greater than he who
sent him" {Jn. 13, 16), it follows that those who have authority
in the Church are called to serve the community in the spirit of
Christ.

29



It is in the light of these considerations that we can consider
the existence and exercise of authority in the Church, the nature

and function of the ministry in the Church. There we can dis-
cover the same kind of distinction between what is "ecclesial"
and what is "ecclesiastical"; in making this vital distinction and
in drawing out its implications, the Eucharist will be our guide

because it enables us to see clearly what the structure of the
Church is.

The Eucharist and Membership of the Church

All that is implied by Baptism and Confirmation is fulfilled

in the Eucharist. There the Christian expresses the fullness of

responsible membership of the Church. There he brings to com-
pletion what his Baptism and Confirmation looked forward to,
rejoices in Christ's risen life within his Church on earth, and is

drawn into his reconciling work in the world. Through his incor-
poration into Christ's Paschal Mystery, made present in the
Eucharist, the Christian shares in the divine life (Romans 6, 3-11).

Often, the New Testament places the close relationship be-
tween Christ, the Christian, and the Church in a eucharistic

context. With the words, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of

Man and drink his blood, you can have no life in you," St. John
draws out the eucharistic implications of the community of faith

(John 6, 52-58).

Later, in the great discourses of Our Lord at the Last Supper
with his disciples, we find this relationship described as so inti-’
mate that it is like a vine and its branches (John 15, 1-7).

St. Paul goes even further, illustrating membership of the
Church in terms of being so closely one with Christ that we may
think of the Church as his Body. Once again the relationship is
seen as expressing itself in the Eucharist. The cup of blessing

which we bless, the bread which we break—these are a sharing
in the Body of Christ (/ Cor. 10, 16-17). By the action of the Holy

Spirit in the Eucharist, our union with Christ is continually deep-

ened and our fellowship with one another is strengthened.

But it is perhaps in the First Letter of St. Peter that we have
the clearest picture of the eucharistic community in action—

a

priestly people called by God to holiness, a New Israel set for
a light in the world (1 Peter 2, 4-10). The Christian goes out from

the Eucharist to serve the world, able to share in this work

30



through the power and grace of Christ's Paschal victory, which

was first mediated to him in Baptism and is ever renewed for

him in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist and Mission

The New Israel has been a missionary body from the first:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," was the com-
mand of Christ (Matthew 28, 19). The primary and chief agent of
mission is the Father himself, who loves the world so much that
he sent the Son. The Church's calling is to continue the mission

of Christ in the power of his Spirit (John 20, 21-23), and this is

symbolised by the fact that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost

gives to the disciples the courage and capacity to spread the

Gospel (cf. Acts 2).

God's Mission—the Father's sending of the Son to redeem
the world—is focused, actualised and celebrated above all in the
Eucharist. There the Church is called together, reintegrated in

Christ, and sent out in his Spirit to share in his mission and serv-

ice to the world. It is a world made new in Christ, and in which
he comes to meet us in many forms. But the Lord who meets,
beckons, challenges and judges us variously through his world,

meets us by appointment, so to speak, and most plainly in the

Eucharist. Christians recognise Christ's saving presence not only

in the Eucharist but in the world, and are therefore committed

to co-operate with him and to help others to realise his saving

presence for themselves.

The relationship in Christ with God, with other Christians
and with the world, which is explicit in the Eucharist, must

increasingly be lived out in daily life. At the Eucharist we stand
before the Father as those who have received forgiveness; we
must then go out and forgive others. Because we are united with
one another as well as with Christ, we must go out and draw men
together. Because we have been loved, we must go out and love.
Thus the world should see in the living community of the Church
its own true face, and the possibility of bringing to birth its own
potentialities in the power of Christ.

A great aspiration of present-day Christians is "One Church
renewed for mission." This phrase emphasises our conviction,

based upon the words of Jesus in John 17, 21, that the Eucharist
is the sign and source of unity, and that unity at the Eucharist is

31



part of the gospel of reconciliation, to be preached to the whole
world.

FINAL STATEMENT

Having come to the end of our study of the topic proposed
to us, namely, "The Ecclesial Nature of the Eucharist," we can
take great encouragement from the fact that our discussions have
led to extensive and thorough agreement on the doctrine of our

respective traditions with regard to the Eucharist, sacrament and

sacrifice. The preliminary discussion of the eucharistic practice

of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church
helped us to find a common ground, in that both traditions agree
on the continuing application of the principle: "Lex orandi, lex

credendi." Our study of two essential aspects of eucharistic faith
—the eucharistic sacrifice and the real presence—have brought
us to an agreement which is not only "substantial," but which

can fairly be described as "complete." This is already something

for us to rejoice over; further, it is a sign of hope for future

discussions.

It is, however, in our conversations centring on the relation-

ship between the Eucharist and the Church that we have felt
ourselves breaking new ground and moving closer to the heart
of all ecumenical endeavour. Not only have we been able to
reach a similar degree of agreement in this context, but we have
been able to see as a result the way in which our future discus-
sions must go: the way is clear for us to open up the topic of the
Ministry, and ultimately of Intercommunion.

We have felt it necessary to pause at this stage, so that we
can estimate the gains we have made, and so that we can clarify
as far as possible the precise questions which now face us. The
fact that we have concurred in relating the Eucharist to the
Church, and in this way clarifying our understanding of the
Church itself, means that we have to go further in this direction;
the recognition of elements which are "ecclesial" as distinct

from "ecclesiastical" is crucial for our estimate of the Church

and for our understanding of the ministry within the Church. It

will be remembered that our study of the Eucharist in relation to

the Church has meant that we had to discuss the Church's inner
nature, its structure and its mission, as well as the connexion

between the Eucharist and membership of the Church. From the

fact that we recognise the connexion between the Eucharist and

32



membership of the Church, it follows that we must consider this
connexion in relation to the vexed question of intercommunion.

What we have done, we believe, is to clear the ground for such
further discussions. In the experience of the representatives of

both communions, there has been a great deal of clarification

of thought gained through our study to date, as well as a mutual

growth in awareness and appreciation of the theological and

liturgical traditions of both communions. Throughout our work
we have been activated by a desire to hasten the time when
"all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the
Eucharist, into that unity of the one and only Church which
Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning."1

We have gained encouragement from the "Windsor State-
ment"2 of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commis-
sion, and we would hope that what we have agreed together
serves to clarify some of the questions alluded to in that docu-
ment, and indeed carry the discussion further.

It is our conviction that what we have studied together is of
supreme importance to the life of the Church of Christ; it is our

earnest hope that what we have concluded will serve as a step
on the way to the restoration of unity between our two com-
munions. With this in mind, we submit our work to the authori-
ties of our respective Churches.

NOTES

I. EUCHARISTIC PRACTICE

1 Cf. "Intercommunion. A Scottish Episcopalian Approach," being a Report
of the Commission on Intercommunion to the Provincial Synod of the Scottish
Episcopal Church, together with a Postscript recording the decisions of the

Provincial Synod at its meeting in Perth on 4th-5th November, 1969, published
for the Provincial Synod by the Representative Church Council, 13 Drumsheugh
Gardens, Edinburgh, nos. 21-22, pp. 9-10.

2 Cf. "Guidelines for Ecumenical Activity," issued by the National Ecu-

menical Commission for Scotland of the Roman Catholic Church, Glasgow,
1970, nos. 16-18, pp. 13-15; the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church on
this point has been further elaborated by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian

Unity in its Instruction on June 1st, 1972, and the interpretative "Note" issued

on October 17th, 1973.

II. ASPECTS OF EUCHARISTIC FAITH

1 Above all else, the Old Testament's theology of sacrifice is concerned
with a personal response of man to a God who is personal: Jahweh, the Lord,
is Master, Creator, the Transcendent, but above all he is a person. Sacrifice is

33



the external expression of an internal attitude of service and dedication. The
different kinds of sacrifice which we find in the religion of the Old Testament
each emphasize various aspects of the total reality—the highest expression of
man's self-giving to God, and an act of communion between God and man.

2 Cf. "My blood of the covenant" in Mt. 26, 28, and Mk. 14, 24, and
"The new covenant in my blood" in Lk. 22, 20, and I Cor. 11, 25. We have
understood this idea against the background of Ex. 24, 8.

3 It is significant that exegetical opinion recognises in these chapters the
"central section" and "essential message" of the entire Letter. The author
institutes a comparison between the Old Covenant and its religious expressions
and the unique, effective, and definitive sacrifice of Christ which brings the
New Covenant into being; the priesthood of Christ replaces the former priest-
hood, and so "we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of
Jesus" (10, 19) and can "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of
faith" (10, 22).

4 Each of these notions has an important bearing on the total New
Testament picture of the Eucharist, and consequently on the traditional theology
of both Churches: the biblical idea of "memorial," the Pauline idea of "procla-
mation," the Eucharist as "effective" sign of unity, and the Eucharist as a
share in the eschatological future.

5 Cf. Council of Trent: "Doctrina de Sanctissimo Missae Sacrificio," esp.
ch. 1. Vatican II has expressed the same idea concisely and in the form of a
synthesis: "At the Last Supper, on the night when he was betrayed, our Saviour
instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order
to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should

come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial
of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of
charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with
grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Const on the Sacred
Liturgy, ch. 2, no. 47.)

Cf. also Lambeth Conference Report, 1958, p. 2. 84; and Anglican-Roman

Catholic International Commission (ARCIQ, Agreed Statement on the Eucha-;
rist, para. 3.

6 Cf. Council of Trent, "Decretum de Sanctissima Eucharistia," ch. 5.

Cf. also Encyclical Letter, "Mysterium Fidei," no. 34, and ARCIC Agreed
Statement, para. 5.

7 Article XXXI states that "the sacrifices of Masses," not the sacrifice of

the Mass, were "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It asserts that

"the Offering of Christ once made is the perfect Redemption, Propitiation,
and Satisfaction," which again is not in question today. It is the idea that the

Mass adds something to Calvary that is rightly denied, and the notion that

the more Masses are offered, the greater is the redemption. The writings of

Elizabethan and later Anglican divines to the effect that in the Eucharist the

one sacrifice of Christ is offered to the Father make clear that the notion of
"re-presentation" here stated is not contrary to the teaching contained in this

article. Indeed Ridley, at his trial, referred to the Eucharist as an "unbloody

sacrifice." Thus the agreement in this statement is not a contravention of

Anglican faith.

8 The doctrine of eucharistic change in contemporary Roman Catholic
theology is not tied to any particular philosophy. "The word 'transubstantia-

tin' is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God
acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements.

34



The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presence, and of the
mysterious and radical change which takes place." (ARCIC Agreed Statement,
footnote to para. 6.)

The Thirty-Nine Articles appear to deny transubstantiation as a doctrine.
A letter from the author of the article in question, no. XXVIII, insists that it
did not exclude the presence of Christ's Body from the sacrament, but only
the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof. He goes on: "Though
he took Christ's Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that
corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally as the doctors do write,
yet he did not for all that see it, smell it, nor taste it." What Bishop Guest, the
writer, appears to be denying is the belief that gave rise to the legend of
bleeding hosts and blood-stained corporals. It is clear that what is here contro-
verted is an idea that no one would assert today. He affirms a presence that
is not in a "corporal, carnal, or natural manner." He quotes Bishop Jewel, who
claimed that the presence is "invisible, unspeakably, supernaturally, divinely,

and by way to him only known." Thus no denial of what is currently held by
Roman Catholics is contained here; indeed, it is asserted.

It is also relevant to note that the so-called Black Rubric added at the last
moment to the Communion service of the 1552 English Prayer Book, and
rewritten in modified form in the 1662 Prayer Book, has never appeared in any
Scottish Prayer Book. In its 1552 form the Rubric stated that kneeling to receive
communion did not imply "any real or essential presence there being of
Christ's natural flesh and blood." In the 1662 Book this was changed to "any
Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood."

The Scottish Prayer Book of 1929 includes the following among its rubrics
for Holy Communion: "According to long-existing custom in the Scottish
Church, the Presbyter may reserve so much of the consecrated Gifts as may
be required for the Communion of the Sick and others who could not be
present at the celebration in Church."

9 Cf. ARCIC Agreed Statement, para. 7.

10 Cf. Vatican II: Const, on the Church, ch. 2, no. 10. Cf. also Lambeth
Conference Report, 1968, "Renewal in Ministry," pp. 93 ff.

III. THE ECCLESIAL NATURE OF THE EUCHARIST

1 Cf. Vatican II: Const, on the Church, ch. 2. no. 11.

2 Cf. Schillebeeckx, E.: "Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God,"

London and Melbourne, 1963.

3 Cf. Ibid., ch. 2: "The Church, Sacrament of the Risen Christ." Cf. also

Vatican II: "By her relationship with Christ, the Church is a kind of sacrament

or sign of intimate union with God and of the unity of all mankind." (Const,
on the Church, ch. 1, no. 1.)

FINAL STATEMENT

1 Cf. Vatican II: Decree on Ecumenism, ch. 1, no. 4.

35



Covenants

COVENANT RELATIONSHIP

What is it?

A "Covenant Relationship" is an agreement between two
communities—e.g., a Roman Catholic parish and a parish or con-
gregation of a non-Roman Catholic church—in which the mem-
bers of these communities commit themselves to pray for each
other, and together; to cooperate in whatever ways they deter-
mine are mutually desirable; and to come to know and support
one another in the LORD.

Why?

Concern for Christian Unity has been a growing awareness in

the lives of Christians and their churches during this century. For

Roman Catholics, this awareness was confirmed in official Church
policy at the Second Vatican Council, where Catholics—"faithful
and clergy alike"—were charged with the responsibility of being
concerned for restoring unity. The Council called for closer coop-
eration among all Christians.

Yet ecumenism—or, working for Christian Unity—has often
remained on a theoretical, upper-echelon level. Its practical mean-

ing is not clear to the people in the pew, nor often to their parish

clergy, either.

Practical steps at the parish level are needed if we are to be-
come aware of our call as a people to work for that unity for
which Christ prayed. To enter a "Covenant Relationship" is one

such practical step to build understanding and trust, cooperation

and support, on the firm foundation of prayer and faith in Christ.

What does a "Covenant' contain?

The Covenant is primarily a willingness on the part of mem-
bers of both parishes to enter into a relationship of prayer, coop-

eration and mutual support in Christ. Unless this attitude is firmly

rooted in the hearts of people, a document will be meaningless.

The Covenant must also be reflected in the activities and

programs of each parish, in their internal concerns and priorities.

36



If it is a simple "good idea" which everyone approves but no one

acts upon, the "Covenant" will be empty.

Finally, the Covenant should be written up in such a manner
as to express the attitude and commitment of the people and
parishes, and as a reminder for self-evaluation to determine peri-

odically what the relationship truly means. Such a written docu-

ment should contain at least the names of the parishes involved,
the purposes for the Covenant, how they have mutually agreed to
express this relationship in various programs or activities, and any

other special provisions the two parishes may agree upon.

How is it developed

?

The following is suggested approach for Roman Catholics:

1. The parish staff should consider the idea carefully.

Once they fully understand it, they should determine whether
they would be willing to carry through on such a relationship.

2. The Parish Council should consider the idea in the

light of the Church's official position on Christian Unity. The

question is whether this is an effective step to be taken locally

to build greater understanding and love. If it is not, then

alternatives to the "Covenant Relationship" should be de-

cided upon: not to act for Christian Unity may be a betrayal
of our Catholic convictions.

3. If the parish staff and Parish Council are agreed that a

Covenant Relationship is desirable, conversations should be

initiated by the parish staff with a parish or congregation with

which the Catholic parish already enjoys a certain level of

understanding and mutual cooperation. At least, this would

appear the most effective first choice.

4. The staff and appropriate agencies of the other parish

or congregation should be encouraged to consider the pro-

posal as thoroughly as the Catholic parish has just done.

5. If there is agreement that the idea is worth pursuing,

joint study committees drawn from both communities should

be established to investigate the various possibilities for what

the Covenant Relationship might entail.

6. The parish staffs and councils of the two communities

should eventually determine the extent of the Covenant Rela-

37



tionship, approve the statement of it, and prepare the people

of their respective communities for this relationship.

7. For Roman Catholic parishes, approval of the Cove-
nant by the Bishop is required before it may be signed by the
local parish. Approval by the proper authorities of the other

Church is encouraged.

A suggested time-table

Careful preparation is needed to achieve a genuine Covenant
Relationship.

Before June 30—steps 1 through 4

Before November 30—step 5 should be completed

Before December 30—steps 6 and 7

During the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity Qanuary IB-
25), formal signing of the Covenant document and initia-
tion of the relationship.

—The Ecumenical Commission of The Roman Catholic
Diocese of Helena.

TOWARD A THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF CLUSTERS

The term "cluster" occurs in ordinary language when, e.g.,

we say, "That cluster of birches makes a brilliant scene," or, as a
model in physics, such as a "cluster of molecules." Clusters of

churches normally refers to two or more neighboring churches
who associate in any way. The phenomenon of clustering reflects
the local, regional, or grass roots turn in contemporary ecumenism.

We should more appropriately speak of "covenants," not
clusters. In fact, covenant is the term used in Wales where

churches have been involved in this process since 1964. It has a

firm basis in Scripture and Tradition in the concept of the People

of God as a covenantal community. While clusters implies prag-
matic cooperation based upon geographical proximity, covenant

means conscious intention to bring about a new relationship of
community based upon a recognition of the faith which we share.

This means that the covenant is primarily a relationship. It is

neither sacramental nor voluntary association. It is a relationship

created by the love of God and sustained by the faith of its con-

38



stituents. It is intentional, conscious, freely made, involves a com-

munity of persons, and carries specific responsibilities. The

churches who comprise the covenant each recognize that the
present state of affairs is not the final one. Purification and re-

newal are constantly needed. Death for an exclusive identity and

resurrection to a more inclusive identity can then occur.

A covenant of churches may take a variety of shapes depend-
ing on the makeup of its constituents and their current state of
development. They may be denominational—Orthodox, Protes-
tant, Catholic or ecumenical.

Theologically speaking, any covenant model must include

four basic features. Each one is indispensable and all four are

equally important and must be held in balance: spiritual, intel-

lectual, moral, and organizational. Indeed, it is the purpose of a

covenant of churches to assure that all four dimensions of our

ecumenical and religious life flourish together.

A covenant of churches is a worshipping community. In the
process of mutually recognized and shared worship, it begins to

create new ecumenical liturgies based on its own experience
together.

A covenant of churches is a thinking community. It takes
seriously the need to supply vision and to be informed as Chris-

tians and as people of the 20th Century. Accordingly, it provides

occasions to engage in dialogue, reflection, and action with any

person.

A covenant of churches is an acting community. It under-
stands the basic meaning of the word "ecumenism" as "the in-
habited world" and so acts courageously as an agent of reconcilia-

tion, change, and transformation among persons and institutions
(including its own) in the world.

A covenant of churches is a conciliar community. That is,
how it reaches decisions and organizes its life is as important as
what it does. Honesty, openness, humility, fairness, e.g., equal
male-female representation and toleration characterize its total

organizational life.

A covenant of churches will grow to the degree that it allows
all four dimensions to develop fully and in balance. It can help

ecumenism move beyond the stalemate between the diplomatic
ecumenism of polite conversation on the one hand and the utili-
tarian ecumenism of mere community service on the other.

39



The impetus for a covenant of churches should spring from

our faith. It may arise though from the sudden realization that the
existence of five or ten separate, unrelated, or competing churches

in a community each with its own budgets, programs, staff, build-
ings, etc., raise serious moral not to say economic questions today.

Instead of all the wasted energy and ineffective (shall we say
faithless?) witness which that scene increasingly represents, think

of what it might mean to begin seriously building a covenant of
churches, a community of Christians worshipping, thinking, acting

and planning together.

If we thoughtfully recognize the faith which we as churches
share, then it will be our intention to really build covenants of

churches. In the process, the twin luxuries of denominationalism

and ecumenism as we now know them will vanish. Think of what
that might mean in our neighborhoods, towns, and region!

Prepared by:

Rev. Daniel L. Anderson

SOUTHBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, COVENANT

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Notre Dame and Holy Trinity will be part of a pilot program
in Anglican/Roman Catholic relations. Together with other pairs

of churches in the diocese of Worcester, we will undertake a cov-
enant of mutual concern. As an expression of this covenant, each

parish at its principal Sunday service, will offer public prayers, for

the clergy and people of the sister parish and for the re-union of

the Anglican and Roman Catholic communions. What will happen
as a result of these prayers remains for the Lord of the Church and

His people to decide, although, if the future is like the past, we
may expect gratifying—even surprising—progress.

After four centuries of estrangement, the Anglican Church

(of which the Episcopal Church is the American branch) and the

Roman Catholic Church have been blessed with a spirit of warm
reconciliation within the past decades but especially within the

past five years. In 1966 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael

Ramsey, and Pope Paul VI met and instituted an Anglican/Roman

Catholic ("ARC") Joint Preparatory Commission.

The ARC meetings in America have revealed that the two

40



churches hold surprisingly identical positions, particularly in re-

gard to the Eucharist and the historic, ordained ministry. Indeed

the members of ARC resolved:

We see the goal as to realize full communion of the
Roman Catholic Church with the Episcopal Church and the
other Churches of the Anglican Communion. For the past four
and one-half years we have given our energies to the task of
this consultation. Nothing in the course of this serious enter-
prise has emerged which would cause us to think for a
moment that this goal, given the guidance and support of the
Spirit of Christ, is unattainable.

In order to let this relationship develop at the grass roots, the

ecumenical commissions of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wor-
cester and the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts called

a meeting last June to discuss the possibility of yoking local Roman
Catholic and Episcopal parishes together in a formally declared

covenant. The Ecumenical officers of Holy Trinity and Notre Dame
attended this meeting and heartily endorsed the idea.

As your pastors we desire that you will join in praying and
working for reconciliation between our churches so that we will
soon have intercommunion. We ask you to attend the service in
which we make our covenant with each other. The service will be
held at 7:30 Wednesday evening, December 1, 1971 in Holy
Trinity Church.

Faithfully in the service of Christ,

Rev. Raymond J. Page

Rev. Edward A. M. Cobden, Jr.

SERMON PREACHED BY REV. EDWARD A. M. COBDEN, JR.
AT HOLY TRINITY CHURCH, SOUTHBRIDGE, ON

NOVEMBER 21, 1971.

"A Special Covenant"

This morning Fr. Page and I are interpreting to our congrega-

tions the Covenant we wrote to you about earlier this week. The
letter explained that parishioners of Notre Dame and Holy Trinity
will meet here at 7:30 Wednesday evening, Dec. 1, to pledge to
each other that we will offer ourselves as instruments of unity and
that the first step we will take is to pray for each other and the re-
union of our communions at the principle services of our churches.

41



In commenting on this Covenant the overall note which I
would like to strike is one of profound joy.

After more than 400 years of isolation and alienation our two
communions are declaring our friendship for each other. When
you look down the road and see what this step we are about to
take signifies, who can fail to be exhilarated by the warmth of the
reconciliation we now have? It is such a happy feeling you can
feel sympathetic to the married couples who like to quarrel be-
cause it is so nice when they make up. Let's hope, of course, that
we no longer have to quarrel to feel the joy of the reconciliation
we now have.

The joy we have can be compared to that which we have
when the cure to a dread disease has been discovered. Our divi-
sion has been very much like a disease which has sapped the
strength of Christ's church. Now happily a cure has been found.

What makes it even more exciting is that the cure has been
tested in the laboratories by the theologians and bishops and they

have given it their approval. Now it can be used. It is interesting to
note that it will be used first in our two dioceses, and it just so

happens, it will be used first in our two parishes. In the whole

western hemisphere and perhaps in all the world, the concrete

step of reconciliation will happen first here with us.

That it should happen with us first is no accident. Our dioceses
have long been working toward this moment. Years ago you may
remember we had the Living Room dialogues. Our bishops have
been eager for this, and none have been closer than Bishop Ste-

wart and Bishop Flanigan. In addition Fr. Page and I are dedicated

body and soul to the reconciliation between our two churches. I

know you share with us the joy and thrill over the historically
significant step we will be making on December 1.

Now while the overarching mood is one of extreme jubila-
tion and thanksgiving, certain cautions must be noted. We wish to
neither mislead nor overstate the meaning of what we are doing.

First of all, this Covenant relationship between our two com-

munions and parishes is not to be interpreted as a merger. It has

nothing to do with merging buildings, budgets, or people. It will

not mean we will become Roman Catholics or the people of
Notre Dame Episcopalians.

What we are aiming at is intercommunion. This means that

42



we would recognize the validity of what each church believed
and was doing in order that we could embrace each other as
brothers and co-workers for Christ. The specific issues involved

are the doctrines of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the

validity of Anglican orders in the mind of the Roman Catholic
Church.

Theological consensus on the Eucharist has been reached.

When this consensus is approved by the teaching authorities of
both churches, then the doctrine of ministry will follow quite

easily. A few weeks ago Archbishop Ramsey did approve the con-
census on the Eucharist and approval by Pope Paul is anticipated

shortly.

When this theological understanding is reached, we can
share our ministry for Christ in a teamlike fashion. We can have
communion together. We can teach and preach together since we
are like-minded on essential matters. That is what is meant by

intercommunion.

Intercommunion does not mean one church will absorb the
other or that we will both be absorbed in a bigger church. We are
not aiming at a new political structure with a new constitution.
Each communion—Anglican and Roman—will retain its own
identity, character, ethos, and distinctive qualities. To use collo-

quial idioms, we will continue doing our own thing, dancing in
our own style, but dancing as partners to the same tune.

The joint commission on Anglican-Roman Catholic relations

hopes their work will lead to "the restoration of full communion
and organic unity." It makes clear that "full communion must not
be interpreted as an agreement to disagree while sharing in the

eucharistic gifts, nor may organic unity be understood as juridical
concept implying a particular form of church government. Such a

unity is hard to visualize, but would mean a sufficient compatibil-
ity of policy to make possible a united mission to the human
family. Whatever structural forms emerge, it is hoped that cul-
tural and liturgical variety will remain so that the values of both

the Roman and Anglican ethos will survive and develop."

The kind of relationship we are talking about might be put
like this. Two families have announced that after 400 years the
feud is over. They are going to be friends because happily they

are able to see eye to eye about basic issues. These families are

talking about having dinner in each other's homes 16 celebrate

43



their friendship. They are talking about working together as a

team in the community. But these families recognize that they

still have their own family responsibilities. They are not planning
to move into each other's houses.

I can speak of the remaining cautionary notes more briefly.

The second is this: Having a close bi-lateral relationship be-

tween two churches-—Roman and Anglican—does not in any way
preclude or hinder other bi-lateral relationships.

I am concerned that people will say now that Holy Trinity is
friends with Notre Dame or now that the Episcopal Church is
moving forward with the Roman Catholic Church, that means
that they are moving away from the Orthodox or Protestant
Churches. This may be a normal reaction but it is incorrect. It is
like the little girl who says that Susie doesn't like her anymore
because Susie is playing with Mary. As we mature we find we can
have several friends simultaneously.

We need to see this reconciliation as taking place in the con-
text of a total movement of unity. I picture it by using the image
of a wheel with spokes. The spokes are the denominations, and

the wheel is the church as a whole. The Anglican and Roman
Catholic spokes are close to each other. We have a lot in common
by nature, and so we find it less difficult to get together. But all
the other spokes—the other churches—are holding the wheel
together. And when the wheel is doing its job and moving

,
you

don't think about the various spokes—it's even hard to distinguish
them—you think of the wheel as a whole.

So we will continue to be friends with members of all the
other churches. Indeed we feel that when two churches can
achieve a close relationship, it is a good sign for all the other

churches. If A is close to B and A is also close to C, this can only
help to draw B and C closer together.

Third: The progress which has been made can only be con-
tinued with the support of the people. A great amount of careful
preparation has gone into the stage where we are now. But if the
Archie Bunker in each of us, if our ghetto-mindedness and ethnic

blindness prevents us from seeing the will of Christ in our recon-

ciliation, then further progress will be hindered. If you want the
church to have peace with itself and effectiveness in its mission,

then I ask you to give your enthusiastic support to this movement
toward reconciliation.

44



The kind of support I mean is to have a positive attitude.
What we need is a willingness to interpret what we are doing with
love to those who have sociological hang-ups and who may very
well be sour and suspicious about this new relationship.

Right now we are not looking for support in promoting a lot
of joint projects. In our press conference, reporters wanted to

know what we were going to do besides praying for each other.
The answer is that for the moment this is all we plan. After 400
years of animosity, we want to live for a while with the good news
that we are friends. Let's give this good news a little while to
register in our minds and hearts.

The fourth caution I would make is that this Covenant we will
have is only a step toward our goal. Even intercommunion is not

the final step. Our goal is the renewal of the whole church. We
would have the church become what Christ meant it to be: the
light of the world showing forth a recreated humanity, living at

peace with each other because we live in obedience to the Lord.

So we can only rest for a moment as we celebrate the historic
step we take on December 1. But we cannot stop there as wonder-
ful as it is that we have made good friends in Christ. Rather we
must link arms with our new friends as we move forward together
in a life-long mission.

These then are the cautions:

1) We seek intercommunion and not merger

2) Our friendship with Notre Dame does not preclude
friendship with any other church

3) We can proceed only with the support of the people

4) This reconciliation is not an end in itself but only a

step toward the goal of renewal for the church as a

whole.

Having made these precautions, we can feel a deep sense of
step toward the goal of renewal for the church as a whole.

45



TO THE GLORY OF GOD
A SERVICE OF COVENANT

Notre Dame Parish (Roman Catholic) and
Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, Southbridge, Mass.

December 1, 1971, 7:30 P.M.

Hymn: "We Gather Together" Episcopal Hymnal 315

A Prayer of Purity

:

Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known,

and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our

hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may per-
fectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy Name;
through Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Penitential Rite:

Leader: My brothers and sisters, that we might more worthily
pursue greater unity with each other, let us pause for a

moment in silence, to recall our sinfulness and our con-
stant need for God's forgiveness. (Brief period of

silence).

Leader: That we may be forgiven controversies marked by irony,
suspicion, pride, and intolerance. Lord have mercy.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Leader: That we may be forgiven all acts of violence and in-
justice toward our separated brothers, toward those in

our own communions. Christ have mercy.

People: Christ, have mercy.

Leader: That we may be forgiven the complacency and apathy
which tolerates indefinitely the scandal of disunion

which delays and diminishes the fulfillment of Christ's

will for His church. Lord have mercy.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Leader: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our
sins, and bring us to everlasting life.

46



People: Amen.

Gloria in Excelsis: (All will now say together).

Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on
earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we
worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your
glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God,

Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world; have mercy
on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father; receive

our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are

the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the

Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Minister: The Lord be with you.

People: And also with you.

Minister: Let us pray.

A Prayer For The Unity Of The Church:

Almighty Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed
for his disciples that they might be one, even as you and he

are one; Grant that, bound together in love and obedience to
you, your Church may be united in one body by the one
Spirit; that the world may believe in him whom you have
sent, your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns
with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and
ever. Amen.

Old Testament (all sit) Isaiah 35

After the announcement of the Gospel
the people respond:

"Glory to you, Lord Jesus Christ."

After the Gospel the people respond:

"Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ."

Hymn: "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" Episcopal Hymnal 2

Silence

Epistle

Gospel (all stand)

Ephesians 4:1-6

John 17:15-23

47



Greetings

Homily

The Creed:

The Rev. Edward A. M. Cobden, Jr.

The Rev. Raymond J. Page

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of
heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from
Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in
Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate: he suf-

fered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures: he ascended into heaven and

is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in
glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will

have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who
proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he

is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the
Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We
acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We
look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the

world to come. Amen.

Anthem:

(all stand).

Minister: Let us make our covenant with each other in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

People: Amen.

All: Father, we acknowledge your Son's desire for unity in
His Church. With the assistance of your Spirit we, there-

fore, pledge to you and each other that we will offer
ourselves as instruments of unity. As our first act we

48



promise to pray for each other and the reunion of our

two communions. Renew your Church, Lord, beginning
with us. Amen.

The Exchange of Peace: The Peace of the Lord be with you.

Response: And also with you.

Minister: Let us pray with confidence to the Father in the words

our Saviour gave us.

People: Our Father in heaven, holy be your Name, your king-
dom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we
forgive those who sin against us. Do not bring us to the
test but deliver us from evil. For the kingdom, the

power, and the glory are yours now and for ever. Amen.

A Thanksgiving

Minister:

People:

Minister:

People:

Minister:

People:

Minister:

People:

Minister:

People:

Minister:

People:

Let us give thanks to God our Father for all his gifts to
us. For our very lives and all the wonder of your creation.

We thank you, Lord.

For your constant care for us.

We thank you, Lord.

For the way you rescued us from Sin and death by your
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.

We thank you, Lord.

For the outpouring of your Holy Spirit especially in

your Church by which you keep us whole and well

unto eternal life.

We thank you, Lord.

For our baptism by which we share the most profound
unity in Christ.

We thank you, Lord.

For the Eucharist in which we are nourished by the very
life of our resurrected Lord Jesus.

We thank you, Lord.

49



Minister: For the ordained ministers of the Church: deacons,

priests, and bishops as they offer the Word and Sacra-
ments to God's people.

People: We thank you, Lord.

Minister: For your leading us to this joyful step toward reunion

and renewal.

People: We thank you, Lord.

Minister: Let us go forth into the world in peace, rejoicing in the

power of the Spirit.

People: Thanks be to God.

Hymn: "The Church's One Foundation"

Episcopal Hymnal 396

STATEMENT OF INTENT (MONTANA)

Jesus Christ prayed that his followers would be one.

Recognizing that the division among Christians is counter to
the Will of Christ, Archbishop Michael Ramsey of Canterbury and
Pope Paul VI of Rome issued a common declaration on March 24,
1966. They pledged "to inaugurate between the Roman Catholic
Church and the Anglican Communion a serious dialogue which,
founded on the gospels and on the ancient common traditions,
may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed."

At the national and international levels, this dialogue has

been pursued with gratifying results.

Attempting to respond faithfully to the Will of Christ, and

pursuant to the call of the leaders of our respective Churches, we
the Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Montana, the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Great Falls, and the Roman Catholic Diocese
of Helena, now issue the following Statement of Intent:

1. We will pursue a serious dialogue between our vari-
ous Dioceses in the spirit of the national and international

Dialogues, in an effort to approach that unity in truth for

which Christ prayed.

2. We encourage the parishes of our respective tradi-
tions to enter into covenant relationships one with another

50



to build through a spirit of prayer, study and social life to-

gether, a mutual understanding which can form the basis for

the practical discovery of that unity for which Christ prayed.

3. We express the hope that our common experience
will enable each of us to engage in further dialogues with

Christians of other traditions and Churches, as we strive to
overcome those barriers to unity which still scandalously

divide Christians today.

Great Falls, Montana

April 2, 1974

Bishop of the

Diocese of Montana
Signed: Jackson E. Gilliam

Bishop of the

Diocese of Great Falls

Signed: Eldon B. Schuster

Bishop of the

Diocese of Helena

Signed: Raymond G. Hunthausen

A JOINT DECLARATION (MONTANA)

In an effort to respond to the call of Christ for unity among
His followers, the Episcopal Diocese of Montana and the Roman
Catholic Dioceses of Great Falls and Helena have entered into

official dialogues.

We have held a joint workshop to study the results of the
Anglican—Roman Catholic Dialogues held nationally and inter-
nationally at the call of Archbishop Michael Ramsey of Canter-
bury and Pope Paul VI of Rome. With the aid of competent ex-
perts, clergy and lay persons from our dioceses have studied the

Windsor Statement on the Eucharist and the Canterbury State-
ment on Ministry and Ordination.

After prayerful study and reflection, we find these Agreed
Statements to express substantially the faith we each profess. We
call, therefore, for their official ratification by our respective

Churches.

51



We ask this official recognition in order to promote better
understanding between our Churches. We ask also that within
our Churches, such recognition may provide official reassurance
that the substance of our faith is accurately expressed in these

documents.

We commit ourselves as individuals and as local Churches to
strive to live this richer understanding in truth of the faith we
profess.

Signed at Bozeman, Montana, this 27th day of June, 1974.

The above Joint Declaration was approved in substance
by participants at the Workshop on June 27, reviewed and
revised by the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue group for

Montana, and signed by the Bishops concerned.

Bishop of the

Diocese of Montana
Signed: Jackson E. Gilliam

Bishop of the

Diocese of Great Falls

Signed: Eldon B. Schuster

Bishop of the

Diocese of Helena

Signed: Raymond G. Hunthausen
.

KANSAS CITY COVENANT

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Whereas, it is the Will of Jesus Christ "that they all may be
one"; and

Whereas, the highest leadership of the Roman Catholic and
Anglican Churches have expressed a desire for reunion of these
Christian and Sister Churches; and

Whereas, the theologians of these Churches are meeting to
solve the theological problems involved in reunion; and

Whereas, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of West Mis-
souri and the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas
City-St. Joseph have expressed a desire that the parishes in their

Diocese prepare themselves for this reunion; and

52



Whereas, the peoples of Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral and

the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, both in the City of

Kansas City and the State of Missouri, are conscious of the Will of

Jesus Christ and the desire of their respective Churches for re-

union;

Now,

Therefore, we solemnly and reverently enter into this Cove-
nant and hereby pledge:

1. To support each in preserving the traditions of the

other—Roman Catholic or Anglican as the case may
be—according to the mandate of the Gospel.

2. To strive for the removal of any existing obstacle to

reunion.

3. To place no impediment in the way of reunion.

4. To include in our liturgies a petition to God for the
reunion of these Churches.

5. To include in our liturgies a prayer for each other.

6. To share as far as is feasible our facilities.

7. To make available each to the other programs spon-
sored by our congregations.

8. To have designated representatives attend Mass or a

service of the other once each month.

9. To work together for social justice and the common
good.

10. To sponsor joint social events.

11. To continue convenanting meetings on a regular

basis for prayer, study and the furtherance of inter-

involvement.

We dedicate ourselves to these objectives and ask the bless-
ing of Almighty God on this Covenant that we may be faithful to
it to His Honor and Glory.

In Witness Whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this
Pentecost, the second day of June in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and seventy-four.

53



GREEN BAY COVENANT

We, the Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac and
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, met recently to discuss
ways to augment the findings of the Anglican-Roman Catholic
Commission for Unity. As you undoubtedly are aware, there has
already been much progress toward this end between our two
Communions in this area.

For example, there has been a history of warm, personal
friendship between priests of our dioceses for many years; there
has been a sharing of church facilities; there have been joint

catechetical ventures between some of our parishes and other
gestures of fraternal and pastoral sharing.

Deserving of special note is the recent Windsor Statement of

the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission concern-
ing our substantial agreement on the Eucharist. Inasmuch as the

Holy Eucharist lies at the very heart of the life of both our Com-
munions, this remarkable breakthrough in common understand-
ing and faith deserves our attention, serious study and prayerful

hope for its full realization.

Already toward this end there are noteworthy beginnings: In

the Dioceses of Worchester, Massachusetts, and Western Massa-

chusetts "Covenant Relationships" have been established for

some two years. This has involved prayer for one another publicly
in the liturgy, a serious getting to know one another among both
the clergy and the laity, and a mutual concern for the sick and

shut-ins, the youth and many others in need. Even closer to home
may we point out that the same sort of Covenant relationships
have been initiated between the Cathedrals of Milwaukee and

some twenty other of our parishes . . .

We request the prayers of you, our brothers in Christ, that the
Holy Spirit guide us in this humble beginning toward oneness in

Christ.

GEORGIA/SAVANNAH COVENANT

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

The Lord Jesus Christ prayed that we His followers be one, as
He and His Father are one. The present divisions that exist among
Christians clearly are not what He wills for us. On 24 March 1966

54



the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a common
declaration in which they pledged "to inaugurate between the

Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion a serious
dialogue which . . . may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ
prayed."

At the national and international levels this dialogue already

has been pursued with most encouraging results. Moved now by
the Holy Spirit, we, the bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of

Georgia and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah, issue the
following statement of intent:

1. We will promote serious dialogue between our two
dioceses in the spirit of the national and international dia-

logues between our Churches.

2. We encourage all our congregations to enter into
covenant relationships with one another. Although we recog-
nize that inter-communion has not yet been achieved by our

Churches, we strongly recommend common prayer together,
study together, (especially of the Canterbury and Windsor

Agreed Statements) and social witness together.

3. We will inaugurate a Prayer Cycle for the congrega-
tions of our two dioceses so that each day we can pray for
one another in an ordered way.

May the Lord grant us to grow in love for Him and for one
another. Amen.

55



Joint Pastoral Letter

Trinity Church, Copley Square, Boston, June 6, 1975

BLESS THESE BEGINNINGS

Dearly beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Our first words must be of thanks that we can address to-
gether some of the points on which our two Christian commun-
ions have spoken separately for four and one half centuries. We
attribute this possibility to the Holy Spirit working in our day to

bring together that which is broken and to reunite those whom
the events of history have made separate.

It is, of course, our task to reaffirm the constant Christian

concern with those who suffer from want or deprivation of what-
ever sort. It is our hope that more and more we may find ways to
make explicit before our people and our neighbors the ecumen-
ical axiom—never do separately what can be done together.

There is need for the world to see this common witness as
there is need for us to manifest it. A humanism which is not
rooted in the notion of the divine is most apt to be rootless and

impermanent, and subject to the ever-changing social pressures

of the times.

It is precisely because we emphasize the transcendence of
God over human affairs that we can give to man and his problems
that dignity which would otherwise be open to question. We can
project for our fellow men the highest and holiest of accomplish-
ments, regardless of present obstacles, because our belief in God's

presence in human affairs, and our allegiance to His holy will
are firm.

This is true of our war on racism, poverty, exploitation and

ignorance. We recognize what great contribution has been made
in this respect by those who do not share our faith in God, but we
believe that it is such a faith alone which will guarantee the stead-

fast continuance of a holy battle for human justice in the face of
every adversity.

Our two communions have much to share in what has gone
before. Together we are blessed and refreshed by innumerable

56



common memories and understandings. Together we celebrate
the accomplishments of those giants of the Christian faith, Co-

lumba, Hilda, Patrick and Augustine of Canterbury. We recall that
for centuries this same Canterbury, like Jerusalem, Rome, and

Compostello, was a great shrine of pilgrimage and prayer.

Despite the historical division and continuing separation, we
share much of a community of piety and worship rooted in the
inspired Word of God and a common tradition of spirituality.

This past is prelude to the present in which we attempt to
discern the working of the Spirit in our midst. Our common desire
for increasing unity between our two communions is surely a sign
of the Spirit. We rejoice that through three significant move-
ments: Biblical studies, the liturgical renewal, and ecumenism, we
are further encouraged and prompted to create, with God's

grace, this future of growing unity.

As we project for the future, it is important that we do not
lose our past and we commend that past to the study of our two
communions. That past has had its problems and difficulties and

yet it is that past that makes it possible for us today to address

this joint letter to our peoples.

What can be more profitable in the future than for our peo-
ple to study together—as we have these past two days—the ways
whereby God has guided us over the years of our common and
separate histories until the present with its hope of a bright
new future?

We know sadly how much remains to be accomplished
to bring about the unity of the world despite the marvels of

modern communication. We know how suspicion and hatred
linger long after their apparent root causes are removed.

But we do know that a great first task in which we must
work and pray is the reunion of all those who profess the Chris-
tian name and believe the Christian gospel. We recognize that
the Episcopal and the Roman Catholic Churches have so many
links that they can approach each other with the confidence of a

common background.

In John 17 our Lord prayed again and again that all who
profess His name should be one, "that they may be one even as
we are one—that they may become perfectly one, so that the
world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even

57



as thou hast loved me." This is our Divine impulse, God's ecumeni-

cal imperative. This is the innate thrust of the church visible: to

be one. How can we speak to the world of God's reconciling love
unless we manifest our love for one another? How can we be
ambassadors of Christ, the ministers of reconciliation if we do
not express our unity in Christ, our community rather than our
divisions? Visibly, institutionally we are divided, yet we firmly
believe that there is but "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one
God and Father of all."

The Good News must be shared! It cannot be contained nor
placed under a bushel. It is good news for the whole world.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,

male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Hence we who have met to discern the signs of existing unity
and to seek ways of future greater unity among us, do so in all
humility, trusting that we are but instruments of the Providence
which wills that we may all be one. Our common task may be
regional and apparently small but in the sum of all that must be
accomplished for God and His Christ, it is irreplaceable.

May God bless these beginnings.

Devotedly yours in Our Lord,

John M. Burgess

Bishop of Massachusetts

Humberto Cardinal Medeiros •

Archbishop of Boston

58



Where Anglicans and Roman Catholics

Agree

The Text of Bishop Clark's Address to the
Anglican Synod on November 7, 1974

PART I

I would like to begin these reflections with almost a plati-
tude—that no one ever speaks in a void—though I hasten to add
that it is farthest from my thoughts to describe the General Synod
as a void! What I wish to emphasise from the outset of what is
for me a very privileged occasion, is that the opportunity to speak
to you regarding the work of the Anglican/Roman Catholic Com-
mission is particularly valuable in the light of the extensive inter-

est the two Agreements (on the Eucharist and on the Ministry)

have aroused throughout the Church. One finds enormous en-
couragement in the recent welcome given to them by the two
Convocations of York and Canterbury. My contention is, quite
simply, that the work of the Commission, particularly as a result
of its specific methodology, has changed the face of ecumenical

dialogue. In fact, I believe that the whole span of ecumenical

activity, which is now contributing towards the growth in Chris-
tian unity, has drawn breath and life from the achievements

of ARCIC.

But if one always speaks out of the present moment and to
the present moment, it is right to specify in general terms the
contemporary context which has made these agreements possible.
First and foremost I would emphasise the ecumenical movement
itself. This has thrown into reverse the tragic drift to greater and

greater division and to the hopelesness of unyielding polarisation

and mutual distrust. This must not be seen as a great human
achievement—though great and good men have done much to
enable all of us to accept the grace which is being offered—it is
a pure gift of God in the Holy Spirit. Why else should those who
confess one Lord and one Saviour be converted, within so short

a time, to the massive undertaking of seeking a unity that, though

never entirely lost, had become submerged in controversy and
polemic? The movement of return is under way, a return not to
the past but, paradoxically, to a future which Christ, the Lord of

the Church, to whom all things are subject, is leading all of us, and

59



which we will disregard to our peril. We cannot ascertain the
details of the shape and form of the Church of the future but we
are not ignorant of its basic constituents which exist by the express

will of Christ. For this Church will be always, at any time in his-

tory, the continuing identifiable community of believers, joined
by adherence to one apostolic faith, sharing the same sacraments
and the same organic life based on the gifts of the Spirit. In what-
ever way it is incarnated in the passing society of a particular age,
it is in visible continuity with its past.

This perhaps is the key to an understanding of how the Inter-
national Commission made its first stumbling steps to the fashion-
ing of a method whereby, without disregarding the history of our
divisions, we could positively profess an unimagined unity of
faith in those very areas where reconciliation had appeared for

too long to be impossible, namely in the doctrine of the Eucha-

rist, of the Ordained Ministry and of the authority given by Christ

to the Church to order all things according to his will. We spoke
to each other, not out of our catechisms, but out of our experi-

enced faith, a faith formed by the communities to which we
belong. What do you and I believe to be the Eucharist which the
Church celebrates in memory of its Lord? What is the Church
doing when she gathers the faithful round the altar in this cele-
bration? What is the office and function which is embodied in
the ordained ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon? By what

authority do we say this is the meaning of the Gospel we are
commissioned to preach, and by what criterion do we give abso-
lute value to those doctrines which we consider of the essence of
our faith?

These are the questions which set in motion the interchange

of ideas which were to be the stuff out of which our agreements

were made. We avoided taking up again, in the same terms, the
mechanics of the Reformation debate—not because we under-
rated the strength of that long, long controversy which, after all,

is still with us, but because nothing suggested we would do bet-
ter than our forebears. Instead, we began by asking what we, as
representatives of our respective Churches, believed here and

now to be Gospel truth. We began by speaking to each other in
our own language, of course, but seeking to understand what each
was saying—not just the words but the doctrinal positions which

these words signalled. Our dialogue was—and remains—an en-
counter of persons, persons in love with the same Lord and en-

60



joying the love of the same Lord. This means that we did not
seek to convince each other of the rightness of our own interpre-
tations but rather, by reflecting together on the sources of the

faith we professed, to reach a consensus of faith. It was as though
I, as a Roman Catholic, said: this is my faith, to which my Anglican
brother replied: it is also mine. Only within this climate of the

Spirit is it possible to disentangle the reasons why Christians
should adopt with such determination particular positions that

conflict, rather than unity, becomes inevitable. As Pope John
pointed out some ten years ago, speaking out of his generous
vision of the redeemed community of our Lord and Saviour, all

dialogue begins with a conversion of heart and mind.

Nevertheless, we regarded, and continue to regard, the for-
mulation of our belief as of overriding importance. The faith we
profess is a faith to be preached and proclaimed. It needs words

to articulate it. Yet it is precisely in the arena of human words
and argument that the faith can so easily be distorted. Particular

words or expressions become signs of denominational identity,
at times even shibboleths. The truth that even within the unity

of one faith there can be different expressions of the same faith
is not an abstract principle of semantics but the dynamic fact

which admits the legitimacy of a certain pluralism even at the

level of faith. This cannot mean that every expression of faith is
admissible. There are limits to orthodoxy. But it is evident that

much of our doctrinal division requires our close attention in
order to be sure that the divisions result from differing belief

rather than from differing theology. We must be able to distin-
guish what are accretions to our faith, accretions which should

be seen for what they are—therefore expendable if need be!
I hope, by now, I have described enough of the spirit and

dynamic forces which the work of the commission released, in
order that you may grasp with sympathy not only what we have
been endeavouring to do over the last five years but what you, I

hope, will be ready to do in your own areas of responsibility.
Perhaps this is the moment when it would be right to indicate
in more detail the structure of the two agreements, the impetus
of their argument and so underline the stringency of their con-

clusions. I then propose to offer you, in simplicity and with the

assurance of your charity, some reflections on the present posi-
tion and practical consequences of the commission's work.

The first Agreed Statement was achieved at Windsor in Sep-

61



tember 1971 at the Third Meeting of the International Commis-
sion. It ended (see N.12) with the assertion that substantial agree-
ment had been reached on the doctrine of the Eucharist. The full
implications of such an agreement have yet to be registered but

in simple terms the commission was rejecting the assumption that
Anglicans and Roman Catholics professed substantially different
doctrine in the central mystery of the Christian faith. In the mind
of the "Men of Windsor/' it was time to bring to an end the
polemic of the Reformation in this area. Nevertheless, though this

was not immediately apparent, we were very conscious that we
had produced a new kind of credal document—a fact which ex-
plains much of the confused reaction that ensued on its publica-
tion.

If I may be permitted to quote myself from another context:

"Agreed Statements are a kind of ecclesiastical document.

They are not agreed by the highest authorities, nor by the Church

at large, but by a commission officially sponsored by these

authorities. They are formulated in a language acceptable to all

members of the commission but not wholly familiar to those more
accustomed to the style and vocabulary of their Church's "offi-

cial" declarations of Faith. They seek to provide a deeper exami-

nation of the issues that have historically divided our Churches

and to provide a wider context in which such problems may
eventually be resolved.

"They are the first word of doctrinal reconciliation, not the
last. They cannot be adequately evaluated in isolation but only

as part of an overall programme. Their purpose is to promote the

convergence of the Churches by establishing unity of faith . . .

"We are in process of reconciliation precisely because, on
the fundamental issues of eucharist, ministry and authority

,

we
are steadily achieving a common understanding. The reconcilia-
tion of our Churches and their ministries is the goal of our en-

deavour." (Commentary on Ministry and Ordination: p. 3).

But in the face of the bitter polemic of the past regarding

the Eucharist, how was this possible? I have already outlined the
general methodology of the commission, and it will, I think, be

helpful to put into sharper focus the lines of our argument which

imposed our conclusion.

The Agreed Statement expresses:

62



(a) the overall relation of the Eucharist to the Redemp-
tion (see N.5);

(b) the correlation of the eucharist action—a liturgical
celebration—with the historical event of the death and resur-
rection of Christ—expressed through the analogy of me-
morial or anamnesis (see ibid);

(c) the meaning of "sacrifice" when applied to this
liturgical, sacramental action. The meaning to be attached to

the mystery of Christ acting in the Church as its Head and
Priest. This action is so new (for it belongs to the New Dis-
pensation) that older concepts must be very carefully em-
ployed if we are to avoid distortion and the unnecessary
accusations and counter-accusations that such distortion

produces;

(d) the transformation of the elements into the Body
and Blood of Christ (the mystery of the Real Presence) in

order that, in sacrament but reality, these may be eaten and
drunk for the growth in eternal life of his Body which is the
Church—with the crucial qualification that, though the pri-
mary purpose of his presence in sacrament is for Holy Com-
munion, and demands faith in the communicant in order
that this encounter may be fruitful, the coming-to-be of this
presence is not dependent on that personal faith:

(e) finally—but central—the total mystery is to be at-
tributed to the word of the Holy Spirit.

In a true sense our approach was strictly matter-of-fact. We
looked at what the Church is doing when she celebrates this
mystery, and then endeavoured to discern what central beliefs

control this response to the Lord's command. "Do this in Memory
of me." In this long and searching examination of our apostolic

faith, we identified two pivotal truths within the diversity of
one truth.

This point is of considerable importance. The Christian faith

is one but also multiple. Because it exceeds the power of the
human mind to comprehend, it must need to be expressed as a
complex of mysteries. But even within each single mystery there

is complexity—a hierarchy of truths. One truth will find its
authenticity as dependent on a deeper and more central truth.
There is, as one of our brilliant French theologians in the com-

63



mission perceptively analysed, an axis in eucharistic faith round

which the total mystery revolves. This axis—this pivotal faith

—

we identified as, first, the sacramental relation of the Church's
celebration to the unique sacrificial event of Christ's death and

resurrection, and secondly, the mysterious action of the Holy

Spirit whereby bread and wine became the Body and Blood of
Christ. From these two pivotal doctrines, all else derives. This is
not to deny that the derivative doctrines are themselves within

the area of faith. For example, the permanence of Christ's pres-
ence in the eucharistic elements is not directly confronted by the

document, even though we are convinced that we have estab-
lished principles whereby this area of non-agreement (not dis-
agreement) may be explored in the fullness of time. Hence our
agreement we styled as substantial, not full, suggesting, never-
theless, that, in the light of the above analysis of pivotal faith,

our agreement in eucharistic faith is such that "it will no longer

constitute an obstacle to the unity we seek" (N.12).

It is very open to my fellow commissioners to question the
emphasis of my presentation. This is not only legitimate, it is
inevitable. For the depth of a mystery we contemplate together
ensures that our own limited theological perspectives will be
exposed to view. True union, paradoxically, diversifies, particu-

larly since no theological formulation can ever exhaust the con-

tent of faith. Hence there can be—there is—a plurality of expres-
sion of faith in the fundamental unity of this same faith. Rather

than get involved in the morass of the argument regarding the

limits of comprehensiveness, I would prefer to quote the sober

words of Newman: "The deliberate judgment in which the whole
Church at length rests and acquiesces, is an infallible prescription

and a final sentence against such portions of it as protest and

secede" (from the Apologia).

I would like to think that all here will find in the Agreed

Statement the makings of "a deliberate judgment of the whole

Church" on its eucharistic faith.

PART II

The second agreement of the Commission on Ministry and

Ordination dated at Canterbury 5 September 1973, was, some-

what strangely, more easy to achieve, not because the issue was

not divisive, but because, once again, we held fast to our brief
that factual implications of agreement in doctrine were firmly

64



outside it. It is the Church as a whole which must decide on the

factual implications of our, this time, full consensus.

Time does not permit me to describe in detail the massive
development in the theology of ministry within the Roman Cath-
olic Church over the last decade, signalled, even as in eucharistic

theology, by a considerable number of official documents. This
development is paralleled, as I see it, in the mainstream of Angli-

can thought during the same period. Because of this it was not

too difficult for the commission to find its feet reasonably early

in its inquiry.

Because both Churches require apostolicity as a constitutive

feature of all ministry and specifically of the ordained ministry,

acknowledging together the full emergence of the threefold
pattern of ministry at the end of the 2nd century—acknowledging

this historical development as according to the will of Christ—it
was possible to begin in an area of outstanding agreement.
Neither of us can avoid the problem of the statement, to assert

that the normative principles of the ministry are contained in the

apostolic preaching and have a firm scriptural basis.

Where do we begin? With Christ, the High Priest, the Min-
ister of the Father. The Church, which is the Body, shares, by its

common priesthood, in the priesthood of its Head and is sum-
moned by him into all ministry. The backcloth of any discussion
of the ordained ministry is thereby firmly unrolled. The whole
Church is in priesthood, the whole Church is in ministry.

The first question to arise, therefore, is to establish the spe-

cific role of the ordained minister. The answer is simple: to

enable the whole Church to exercise its priesthood of praise, in

holiness of life, and the ministry of service of the Gospel. The

specific character of the ordained ministry lies in its function of

enablement, though it would be to falsify the richness of the gift

to reduce it to merely sociological terms. Its historical develop-

ment illustrates the assertion of the Agreed Statement that the
over-arching concept of episcope or "oversight" binds together

the three main features of this ministry. For the ordained minister

—and we speak chiefly of the bishop without contradicting our
affirmation that the threefold pattern of ministry should be seen

as one ministry historically diversified—is in the Church in order

to coordinate its Spirit and to discern or evaluate the objectives

the Church as a whole chooses to make its own. In this way, the

65



ordained minister acts as an effective sign of Christ's ministry as

Lord of the Church and of the world. At first sight apparently en-

closed within the Church, this ministry makes no sense except as
an instrument of the Church's mission as the sign of salvation to

the world of history and experience.

Many may be recalling the tons of paper expended over the
appropriateness of the term "priesthood" as applied to the or-

dained ministry. The commission is at pains to establish that the

unique priesthood of Christ, reflected in the common priesthood
of the Church, has a particular relationship to the work of the
ordained minister—in fact, a "sacramental relationship" (see
N.13) vividly realised in his presidency of the Eucharist. The posi-
tion of some Reformers that the ordained minister is such
exclusively by deputation and assignment of the Christian com-
munity is rejected, and his particular charism, in virtue of which

he labours in the Church is firmly placed in a specific gift of

the Spirit.

The further question arises: what makes a man an ordained
minister, be he bishop, presbyter or deacon? Vocation, by Christ,

in and through the Church. What sign or sacramental action
gives official embodiment to this vocation? Ordination—never
repeated—into the apostolic succession.

It would be inhuman to ask you to avoid the question: does

the Agreed Statement assert that both Churches are in the apos-

tolic succession, thereby reversing the Roman Catholic judgment
of Apostolicae Curae? But I must ask you to be content with the

sober words of our conclusion: "We consider that our consensus,
on questions where agreement is indispensable for unity, offers

a positive contribution to the reconciliation of our Churches and

of their ministries." This reconciliation we believe to be possible
but only when other issues, such as authority and specific ques-
tions raised by the notions of infallibility and primacy, have been

satisfactorily resolved—for they do admit of resolution if God
gives us the courage and the intelligence of the Spirit. For the

moment we should direct our attention to the apparently novel

—

to the western Christian—approach enshrined in the meaning we
attach in the document to the Apostolic Succession.

The Church of God—if one may use this expression without
prejudice—is no abstract unity: it is a complex amalgam of com-
munities in varying degrees of communion one with the other.

66



We are committed, ecumenically, to the pursuit of one com-
munion organically united in legitimate diversity. This organic

unity is achieved by the insertion of every Christian Church into

the communion of all the Churches in the apostolic tradition. At
ordination the bishops of neighbouring churches attest by their

action that the new bishop, and the church over which he now
is called to exercise oversight, lives within the apostolic faith and

the bishop's ministry is in historical continuity with the original

apostolic ministry (see N.16).

It will, I think, be clear that the Statement has ventured to

relate the functions of the ordained minister one to the other in

such a way that he is no longer seen as primarily a liturgical or
cultic figure. Though he possesses, in virtue of his office, a tra-

ditional liturgical role, the office entails a wider field of responsi-

bility. As an ordained minister of the Gospel, his prime task is

to preach and proclaim that Gospel from within the Christian

community whose mission it is to bring every human activity
under the lordship of Christ. This work is first and foremost the
work of the Spirit of God working in and through the com-
munity, but, by Christ's ordinance, it is coordinated, promoted

and discerned by the Church's ordained ministers. Once this is
firmly established it becomes crystal clear that his sacramental
role is firmly embedded in his responsibility for oversight. For the
Christian community is built up into the Body of Christ by the
celebration of the Eucharist over which he is called to preside.

This is in a true sense a work of humble service, but it is a
service first and foremost of Christ who has chosen those who
exercise it, and none other may do so. Clearly the question of the
nature of this authority is overwhelmingly important if we, in the

commission, are to fulfill our goal of consensus in faith. The logic

of our dialogue demands the resolution of our differences and
disagreements in this difficult area, but we would be poor ser-
vants of our Churches if we baulked the task we are already in
fact pursuing. (The commission has begun this work and will be
meeting again at St. Stephen's, Oxford, next year.)

I have said that our goal is consensus in faith. This is the

immediate purpose. But there is a deeper and profounder con-

tent to what we are doing. For what will emerge at the end of
the day, if we respond to the grace of God, is a picture, however,
imperfectly drawn, of what we profess to be the Church of Christ.
This is the fundamental consensus we are seeking. If we have

67



done our work well, then all of us, wherever we are, will have
to face the charge: why then do we remain divided?

As a very personal coda to the introduction to the work of the
commission and to the Agreed Statements it has produced, I ask

the liberty to make some tentative statements about where we
now stand and how we should proceed.

I am, of course, overjoyed at the terms of the proposed

resolution which will be put, at the proper time, to the assembly.

Agreements reached at commission level, however official the
commission, will have no value unless they are accepted by the

Church at large. But by the nature of the case mere intellectual
acceptance of our consensus has a way of being of little avail. No
real commitment is involved, no real movement of persons
towards one another need take place. It is only when our com-
munities accept that the faith portrayed in our consensus docu-

ments is indeed their faith that something dramatic has occurred.

This can happen only if our communities—using perhaps the State-
ments as guide-lines—go through themselves exactly the same
process as the members of the commission. My own experience
of hawking these documents up and down the land convinces
me not only that we are all still victims of our past—which is in-
evitable—but that it requires great faith and courage to accept
the need to confront our habitual faith and to disentangle its

constituent parts with a view to their re-ordering in deeper truth.

As the great Constitution on Divine Revelation of the second

Vatican Council puts it: "There is a growth in the understanding

of the realities and the words which have been handed down . . .
As the centuries succeed one another the Church constantly

moves towards the fullness of divine truth, until the words of God
reach their complete fulfillment in her." (Dei Verbum: para 8).

In the concrete ecumenical situation, however, we suffer a
nagging temptation to rush to institutionalise the degree of agree-

ment we have undoubtedly reached. This is by no means to be
rejected. The problem arises when, without care, we urge—to
take one example—a degree of sacramental sharing which is not
supported by this degree of agreement. It is one thing to ask for

greater eucharistic hospitality: it is another to request general

intercommunion. A Roman Catholic cannot accept the latter re-
quest because he finds therein a basic ambiguity, which does not

primarily arise from questions of validity but from the meaning

of the Eucharist as a sacrament of faith. In receiving our holy

68



communion we attest not only our belief in the presence, in
sacrament, of the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord but also in
the unity of the Church. If that unity is not yet given, then we are
better servants if we accept the pain of our division. This ap-
proach, one knows is unacceptable to many and the deep charity
that inspires their longing to share the one bread and the one
cup is something one understands. Perhaps it is best to say, at
this particular moment, that our way to unity is not only a great
grace but that it is also the way of the Cross. Dr. Philip Potter, in
his address to the Synod of Bishops in Rome last month, was
not afraid to involve this reality of Christian life. This is the

authentic path of Christian reconciliation.

69



Fifth Meeting of the Anglican/Roman

Catholic Commission on Marriage

Dublin, April 1-5, 1974

The fifth meeting of the Anglican/RC commission on the

Theology of Marriage and on Mixed Marriages took place at the

Church of Ireland Divinity Hostel, Dublin, April 1-5, 1974.

Bishop Hallock (formerly of Milwaukee) and Archbishop

Dean (formerly of Cariboo) having both retired and resigned from
the commission, their places were taken by Dr. Lincoln Mason
Knox and Fr. Barnabas Lindars, S.S.F. The Bishop of Menevia was

unfortunately prevented by illness from attending, but the com-
mission had the services of Chancellor Garth Moore and Fr. Brien
O'Higgins as ad hoc consultants.

Discussion centred mainly on three topics:

1. the ecclesiological positions underlying the disci-

plines of the two communions concerning the upbringing of
the children of mixed marriages;

2. the pastoral disciplines of the two communions con-
cerning defective marital situations, and their conceptions of

the character and relationship of natural and sacramental

marriage;

3. the answers received to an international question-

naire addressed during the preceding year to most provinces

of both communions about current marriage discipline and
thinking.

The next meeting of the commission is to be arranged for

June 23-27, 1975. It will issue a final report. The two members
charged to produce a first draft for this have already done so,

and this draft will be circulated for consideration by the members
of the commission in good time for the final meeting.

Discussion centered mainly on three topics:

70



Meeting of Anglican/Roman Catholic

International Commission (ARCIC)

Grottaferrata, August 27-September 5, 1974

The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission met

from August 27th to September 5th at Centro Mariapoli near

Grottaferrata, Italy, to begin their discussion of the question of

authority in the Church. This was the third of the three major

subjects of dialogue outlined in the Malta Report, the Joint

Preparatory Commission (1968), and agreed in a letter of the late

Cardinal Bea to Archbishop Ramsey under the title "the nature

of Authority in the Church and its concrete form in the teaching

authority, Petrine primacy, etc." It had already been the subject

of a paper produced at the Commission's meeting at Venice in

1970 and subsequently printed, in which some general principles
were accompanied by an attempt to set side by side a Roman
Catholic and an Anglican view of authority within the Church

seen as community.

A large number of papers were either directly commissioned
or adopted for use during the preceding year, and the Commis-
sion had reason to be grateful to the authors of those studies,

which provided an exceptionally broad basis from which to begin

joint reflection.

On the general nature of authority in the Church and on
the purposes which it should serve, the Commission became
more clearly aware of possible lines of convergence which had
already been glimpsed at Venice. While historic differences about

authority in the concrete persist and there was no attempt to
obscure or minimise them, the meeting ended with reason to
hope that we might, on the basis of the work already done and
on that of some precise studies to be commissioned shortly,
carry our process of convergence into this field also with the

prospect of reaching agreement in faith.

The Commission was honoured and grateful to be received
in audience by Pope Paul VI at Castelgandolfo and to hear from
him words of hope and encouragement. We wish also to record
our deep appreciation of the devoted care by which the mem-
bers of the Focolare Movement made our stay at Mariapoli so

71



agreeable. The Commission will meet to continue its work at
Oxford in a year's time.

TEXT OF THE ALLOCUTION OF THE HOLY FATHER
Welcoming you here today, we recognize at once that for

most of you it is not the first time you have visited Rome and the
Holy See in a fraternal spirit and in a fraternal relationship. Many
of you made your contribution of service to the Second Vatican
Council, in one case as a Council Father and member of its
theological commission, in other cases either as our periti or as

observers on behalf of the Anglican Communion. In this way you
already cemented friendships, and sowed seeds of better under-
standing—seeds which have taken root and flourished.

We recall too that some of you accompanied our beloved
brother in Christ, Michael Ramsey, on his historic visit to this See,

more than eight years ago. The memory of that visit has remained
green with us, and has been many times refreshed by letters of
greeting, full of his characteristic spirit of Christian love and

wisdom.

It was from that meeting of nineteen hundred and sixty-six
that the resolve came to embark on that "serious dialogue" which
continues to bring you together, and which has already brought

from you the most generous efforts, the most untiring labour.

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council saw and ex-

pressed in the Decree on Ecumenism the "special place" occupied

by the Anglican Communion in relation to the Catholic tradition.
The dedication and the depth manifested in your work during

these recent years testify to and strengthen that special relation-

ship. This is so not only because of your own industry and
achievements, but also because of the collaboration you have

been able to enlist in many parts of the world, showing how
widespread is the impulse towards that reconciliation in Christ

which strives to perfect the unity which He wills.

You interupt a difficult phase of your work to come to visit
us. At such a moment there is no need for us to remind you of
the obstacles that remain to be overcome. Let us rather dwell on

hope and encouragement. What you seek to do is God's work

—

an indispensable aspect in our time of the ministry of Christ,

which is a ministry of reconciliation. As you do so our thoughts,

our gratitude, our fervent prayers are with you. We pray that

72



you will have the spirit of knowledge and of prophecy, and the

faith that moves mountains, but remembering Saint Paul's scale

of values, we pray above all that you will have love, which 'bears
all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things'

and leads us from partial knowledge to full understanding (cf.

7 Cor. 13, 7).

73



The Canterbury Statement

PREFACE

At Windsor, in 1971, the Anglican-Roman Catholic Inter-

national Commission was able to achieve an agreed statement
on eucharistic doctrine. In accordance with the program adopted

at Venice in 1970, we have now, at our meeting in Canterbury
in 1973, turned our attention to the doctrine of ministry,

specifically to our understanding of the ordained ministry and its

place in the life of the church. The present document is the
result of the work of this officially appointed commission and
is offered to our authorities for their consideration. At this stage

it remains an agreed statement of the commission and no more.

We acknowledge with gratitude our debt to the many studies
and discussions which have treated the same material. While

respecting the different forms that ministry has taken in other

traditions, we hope that the clarification of our understanding
expressed in the statement will be of service to them also.

We have submitted the statement, therefore, to our
authorities and, with their authorization, we publish it as a
document of the commission with a view to its discussion. Even
though there may be differences of emphasis within our two
traditions, yet we believe that in what we have said here both
Anglican and Roman Catholic will recognize their own faith.

H. R. McAdoo, Bishop of Ossory

Alan C. Clark, Bishop of Elmham
Co-Chairmen

Introduction

1. Our intention has been to seek a deeper understanding of
ministry which is consonant with biblical teaching and with the

traditions of our common inheritance, and to express in this
document the consensus we have reached. 1 This statement is
not designed to be an exhaustive treatment of ministry. It seeks

to express our basic agreement in the doctrinal areas that have

been the source of controversy between us, in the wider context

of our common convictions about the ministry.

2. Within the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Com-

74



munion there exists a diversity of forms of ministerial service.
Of more specific ways of service, while some are undertaken
without particular initiative from official authority, others may
receive a mandate from ecclesiastical authorities. The ordained

ministry can only be rightly understood within this broader

context of various ministries, all of which are the work of one and
the same Spirit.

Ministry in the Life of the Church

3. The life and self-offering of Christ perfectly express what it

is to serve God and man. All Christian ministry, whose purpose
is always to build up the community (koinonia), flows and takes

its shape from this source and model. The communion of men
with God (and with each other) requires their reconciliation.
This reconciliation, accomplished by the death and resurrection

of Jesus Christ, is being realized in the life of the church through

the response of faith. While the church is still in process of

sanctification, its mission is nevertheless to be the instrument by

which this reconciliation in Christ is proclaimed, his love mani-

fested, and the means of salvation offered to men.

4. In the early church the apostles exercised a ministry which re-

mains of fundamental significance for the church of all ages. It

is difficult to deduce, from the New Testament use of "apostle"
for the Twelve, Paul, and others, a precise portrait of an apostle,

but two primary features of the original apostolate are clearly

discernible: a special relationship with the historical Christ, and

a commission from him to the church and the world (Matt. 28.19;

Mark 3.14). All Christian apostolate originates in the sending of
the Son by the Father. The church is apostolic not only because

its faith and life must reflect the witness to Jesus Christ given in

the early church by the apostles, but also because it is charged to

continue in the apostles' commission to communicate to the
world what it has received. Within the whole history of mankind

the church is to be the community of reconciliation.

5. All ministries are used by the Holy Spirit for the building up

of the church to be this reconciling community for the glory of
God and the salvation of men (Eph. 4. 11-13). Within the New
Testament ministerial actions are varied and functions not pre-

cisely defined. Explicit emphasis is given to the proclamation

of the Word and the preservation of apostolic doctrine, the care
of the flock, and the example of Christian living. At least by the

75



time of the pastoral epistles and 1 Peter, some ministerial func-
tions are discernible in a more exact form. The evidence suggests
that with the growth of the church the importance of certain

functions led to their being located in specific officers of the

community. Since the church is built up by the Holy Spirit pri-
marily but not exclusively through these ministerial functions,

some form of recognition and authorization is already required
in the New Testament period for those who exercise them in the
name of Christ. Here we can see elements which will remain at
the heart of what today we call ordination.

6. The New Testament shows that ministerial office played an
essential part in the life of the church in the first century, and
we believe that the provision of a ministry of this kind is part of
God's design for his people. Normative principles governing the

purpose and function of the ministry are already present in the

New Testament documents (e.g., Mark 10.43-5; Acts 20.28; 1
Tim. 4.12-16; 1 Pet. 5.1-4). The early churches may well have had
considerable diversity in the structure of pastoral ministry, though

it is clear that some churches were headed by ministers who were
called episcopoi and presbyteroi. While the first missionary

churches were not a loose aggregation of autonomous com-
munities, we have no evidence that "bishops" and "presbyters"
were appointed everywhere in the primitive period. The terms

"bishop" and "presbyter" could be applied to the same man
or to men with identical or very similar functions. Just as the
formation of the canon of the New Testament was a process
incomplete until the second half of the second century, so also

the full emergence of the threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter,
and deacon required a longer period than the apostolic age.

Thereafter this threefold structure became universal in the
church.

The Ordained Ministry

7. The Christian community exists to give glory to God through
the fulfillment of the Father's purpose. All Christians are called

to serve this purpose by their life of prayer and surrender to

divine grace, and by their careful attention to the needs of all

human beings. They should witness to God's compassion for all
mankind and his concern for justice in the affairs of men. They

should offer themselves to God in praise and worship, and devote
their energies to bringing men into the fellowship of Christ's

76



people, and so under his rule of love. The goal of the ordained

ministry is to serve this priesthood of all the faithful. Like any

human community the church requires a focus of leadership and
unity, which the Holy Spirit provides in the ordained ministry.

This ministry assumes various patterns to meet the varying needs

of those whom the church is seeking to serve, and it is the role
of the minister to coordinate the activities of the church's fellow-

ship and to promote what is necessary and useful for the church's

life and mission. He is to discern what is of the Spirit in the
diversity of the church's life and promote its unity.

8. In the New Testament a variety of images is used to describe
the functions of this minister. He is servant, both of Christ and
of the church. As herald and ambassador he is an authoritative

representative of Christ and proclaims his message of reconcilia-

tion. As teacher he explains and applies the Word of God to the
community. As shepherd he exercises pastoral care and guides

the flock. He is a steward who may only provide for the house-
hold of God what belongs to Christ. He is to be an example
both in holiness and in compassion.

9. An essential element in the ordained ministry is its responsi-
bility for "oversight" (episcope). This responsibility involves

fidelity to the apostolic faith, its embodiment in the life of the
church today, and its transmission to the church of tomorrow.

Presbyters are joined with the bishop in his oversight of the

church and in the ministry of the word and the sacraments; they
are given authority to preside at the eucharist and to pronounce

absolution. Deacons, although not so empowered, are associated
with bishops and presbyters in the ministry of word and sacra-
ment, and assist in oversight.

10. Since the ordained ministers are ministers of the gospel,

every facet of their oversight is linked with the Word of God.
In the original mission and witness recorded in Holy Scripture lies

the source and ground of their preaching and authority. By the

preaching of the word they seek to bring those who are not
Christians into the fellowship of Christ. The Christian message

needs also to be unfolded to the faithful, in order to deepen their

knowledge of God and their response of grateful faith. But
a true faith calls for beliefs that are correct and lives that endorse

the gospel. So the ministers have to guide the community and to
advise individuals with regard to the implications of commit-
ment to Christ. Because God's concern is not only for the welfare

77



of the church but also for the whole of creation, they must also
lead their communities in the service of humanity. Church and

people have continually to be brought under the guidance of the

apostolic faith. In all these ways a ministerial vocation implies a

responsibility for the word of God supported by constant prayer
(cf. Acts 6.4).

11. The part of the ministers in the celebration of the sacra-

ments is one with their responsibility for ministry of the word. In

both word and sacrament Christians meet the living Word of
God. The responsibility of the ministers in the Christian com-
munity involves them in being not only the persons who normally
administer baptism, but also those who admit converts to the
communion of the faithful and restore those who have fallen
away. Authority to pronounce God's forgiveness of sin, given to

bishops and presbyters at their ordination, is exercised by them

to bring Christians to a closer communion with God and with
their fellow men through Christ and to assure them of God's
continuing love and mercy.

12. To proclaim reconciliation in Christ and to manifest his

reconciling love belong to the continuing mission of the church.

The central act of worship, the eucharist, is the memorial of that

reconciling action in Christ, who through his minister presides at
its mission. Hence it is right that he who has oversight in the
church and is the focus of its unity should preside at the celebra-

tion of the eucharist. Evidence as early as Ignatius shows that at

least in some churches, the man exercising this oversight presided
at the eucharist and no other could do so without his consent
( Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8.1).

13. The priestly sacrifice of Jesus was unique, as is also his

continuing high priesthood. Despite the fact that in the New
Testament ministers are never called "priests" (hiereis)

2

Christians came to see the priestly role of Christ reflected in these
ministers and used priestly terms in describing them. Because

the eucharist is the memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, the action

of the presiding minister in reciting again the words of Christ at

the Last Supper and distributing to the assembly the holy gifts

is seen to stand in a sacremental relation to what Christ himself

did in offering his own sacrifice. So our two traditions com-
monly use priestly terms in speaking about the ordained ministry.

Such language does not imply any negation of the once-for-all

sacrifice of Christ by any addition or repetition. There is in the

78



eucharist a memorial (anamnesis),3 of the totality of God's

reconciliation and nourishes the church's life for the fulfillment of

the Lord's Supper and gives himself sacramentally.

So it is because the eucharist is central in the church's life

that the essential nature of the Christian ministry, however this

may be expressed, is most clearly seen in its celebration; for, in
the eucharist, thanksgiving is offered to God, the gospel of

salvation is proclaimed in word and sacrament, and the com-

munity is knit together as one body in Christ. Christian ministers

are members of this redeemed community. Not only do they
share through baptism in the priesthood of the people of God,

but they are—particularly in presiding at the eucharist—repre-
sentative of the whole church in the fulfillment of its priestly

vocation of self-offering to God as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12.1).
Nevertheless their ministry is not an extension of the common
Christian priesthood but belongs to another realm of the gifts of

the Spirit. It exists to help the church to be "a royal priesthood,

a holy nation, God's own people, to declare the wonderful deeds
of him who called (them) out of darkness into his marvellous
light" (1 Pet. 2.9, RSV).

Vocation and Ordination

14. Ordination denotes entry into this apostolic and God-giving

ministry, which serves and signifies the unity of the local churches

in themselves and with one another. Every individual act of

ordination is therefore an expression of the continuing apostol-

icity and catholicity of the whole church. Just as the original

apostles did not choose themselves but were chosen and com-
missioned by Jesus, so those who are ordained are called by
Christ in the church and through the church. Not only is their

vocation from Christ but their qualification for exercising such a

ministry is the gift of the Spirit: "our sufficiency is from God,

who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a
written code but in the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3.5—6, RSV). This is
expressed in ordination, when the bishop prays God to grant the
gift of the Holy Spirit and lays hands on the candidate as the

outward sign of the gifts bestowed. Because ministry is in and for

the community and because ordination is an act in which the
whole church of God is involved, this prayer and laying on of
hands takes place within the context of the eucharist.

79



15. In this sacramental act,
4
the gift of God is bestowed upon

the ministers, with the promise of divine grace for their work
and for their sanctification; the ministry of Christ is presented to

them as a model for their own; and the Spirit seals those whom
he has chosen and consecrated. Just as Christ has united the

church inseparably with himself, and as God calls all the faithful
to lifelong discipleship, so the gifts and calling of God to the
ministers are irrevocable. For this reason, ordination is un-

repeatable in both our churches.

16. Both presbyters and deacons are ordained by the bishop.

In the ordination of a presbyter the presbyters present join the

bishop in the laying on of hands, thus signifying the shared nature

of the commission entrusted to them. In the ordination of a new
bishop, other bishops lay hands on him, as they request the gift

of the Spirit for his ministry and receive him into their ministerial

fellowship. Because they are entrusted with the oversight of

other churches, this participation in his ordination signifies that

this new bishop and his church are within the communion of
churches. Moreover, because they are representative of their

churches in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles

and are members of the episcopal college, their participation also
ensures the historical continuity of this church with the apostolic

church and of its bishop with the original apostolic ministry. The

communion of the churches in mission, faith, and holiness,
through time and space, is thus symbolized and maintained in

the bishop. Here are comprised the essential features of what

is meant in our two traditions by ordination in the apostolic

succession.

Conclusion

17. We are fully aware of the issues raised by the judgment of
the Roman Catholic Church on Anglican orders. The develop-
ment of the thinking in our two communions regarding the
nature of the church and of the ordained ministry, as represented

in our statement, has, we consider, put these issues in a new con-
text. Agreement on the nature of ministry is prior to the con-

sideration of the mutual recognition of ministries. What we have
to say represents the consensus of the commission on essential

matters where it considers that doctrine admits no divergence.

It will be clear that we have not yet broached the wide-ranging
problems of authority which may arise in any discussion of

80



ministry, nor the question of primacy. We are aware that present
understanding of such matters remains an obstacle to the recon-

ciliation of our churches in the one communion we desire, and
the commission is now turning to the examination of the issues
involved. Nevertheless we consider that our consensus, on ques-
tions where agreement is indispensable for unity, offers a positive

contribution to the reconciliation of our churches and of their

ministries.

NOTES

1
Cf. An Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine, para. 1, which similarly

speaks of a consensus reached with regard to the Eucharist.
2
In the English language the word "priest" is used to translate two distinct

Greek words, hiereus which belongs to the cultic order and presbyteros which
designates an elder in the community.

3
Cf. An Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine, para. 5.

4 Anglican use of the word "sacrament" with reference to ordination is
limited by the distinction drawn in the Thirty-nine Articles (Article 25) be-
tween the two "sacraments of the Gospel" and the "five commonly called
sacraments." Article 25 does not deny these latter the name "sacrament," but
differentiates between them and the "two sacraments ordained by Christ" de-
scribed in the Catechism as "necessary to salvation" for all men.

81



Appendix

ARC RESPONSE TO ARCIC CANTERBURY STATEMENT

The Anglican-Roman Catholic Consultation in the U.S.A.

at its fourteenth meeting, January 6-10, 1974, in Vicksburg,

Mississippi, has read carefully and discussed extensively the

"Canterbury Statement" on Ministry and Ordination released by

the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission on De-

cember 13, 1973. We wish to express our enthusiastic reception
of this Statement. We are unanimous in our substantial agree-
ment with it. We are convinced that in this Statement we see
our own faith and the faith of our respective churches, and we
find no major points of disagreement with it.

Since the Commission has published the statement "so that

it may be discussed by other theologians" and has called for
"observations and criticism made in a constructive and fraternal
spirit" and has promised to "give responsible attention to every

serious comment which is likely to help in improving or com-
pleting the result so far achieved," we now proceed to record our
observations and criticisms, which, we emphasize, are minor.

1. Ministry in the Life of the Church

In paragraph one, we see that different published editions
of the document have different editorial styles regarding capitali-
zation of the word "ministry" as well as some other words, and
we note that members of the International Commission who are
members of our Consultation assure us that these differences
are accidental and that no theological distinction is intended

between "Ministry" and "ministry." Nevertheless, since this

distinction is employed in some other significant ecumenical
statements, such as those of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic

dialogue in the U.S.A.
,
we call this to the Commission's attention.

2. The Ordained Ministry

In the section entitled "The Ordained Ministry" (paragraphs

7-13), there is one sentence with which we are in substantial
agreement but which we feel needs further clarification. It is
the next to the last sentence in paragraph 13: "their ministry is

not an extension of the common Christian priesthood but belongs

82



to another realm of the gifts of the Spirit." Here we understand
the "common Christian priesthood" to mean hierateuma of
Exodus 19 which is fulfilled and completed in Christ, to which all

Christians are born by their baptism, and the phrase "another

realm of the gifts of the Spirit" to be applied specifically to the

ordained ministry. However, in our discussion of this sentence,

we see a generic relationship among the various special
ministries, both ordained and unordained (such as those

enumerated in I Corinthians 12:4-11 and Ephesians 4:11-13),

which exist within the common Christian priesthood and serve to
build it up. A clarification such as this would, we believe, help
to remove a vagueness which many of us thought the sentence
contained.

Our Consultation would have preferred at this point to read
some more adequate expression of the vital relationship that does
exist between the ordained ministry and the common Christian
priesthood of all the faithful.

In further discussion over the meaning of this sentence, one

Anglican member welcomed its description of the ordained
ministry in preference to the statement of Vatican Council II that

the ordained priesthood differs from that of the laity "in essence

and not only in degree" (Lumen gentium #70), whereas another

Anglican member explicitly preferred the Council's own termi-
nology.

3. Vocation and Ordination

In the section entitled "Vocation and Ordination," we found
ambiguities in the second and last sentences of paragraph 16.

The phrase in the second sentence, "signifying the shared nature

of the commission entrusted to them" could, we believe, more
clearly affirm that the commission the presbyters share is not

co-extensive with the commission of the bishop.

Our difficulty with the final sentence of this paragraph was
our inability, at first reading, to locate the "essential features" of

apostolic succession which the sentence describes simply as

"here." This location, we are assured by members of the Interna-
tional Commission, is to be found in the totality of paragraphs

14-16, and not just in paragraph 16 or even in its latter portion.

We believe that this might have been more clearly indicated in
the document.

83



4. Conclusion

In the final paragraph (No. 17), some of us believe that
the fourth sentence, regarding "essential matters where it con-
siders that doctrine admits of no divergence," requires consider-

able interpretation. Does the International Commission mean
that it believes it has now covered all essential doctrinal matters
concerning ministry and ordination, or does it mean that it
believes no divergence from its own statement about these es-
sentials should be admitted within our two churches from now
on? Members of the International Commission have assured us
that the former meaning is intended, but this is not obvious.

Finally, we note that the International Commission, in writing
these seventeen paragraphs to describe "essential matters where
it considers that doctrine admits no divergence," did not specify

the tradition in both our churches that the presbyterate and

episcopate can be conferred upon men only. This topic is the
subject of considerable discussion, both pro and con, within our

two churches in this country today.

In conclusion we take this opportunity to thank the members
of the International Commission for this significant advance

in progress towards the mutual recognition of our ministries. We
are convinced this Statement merits careful study by the member-
ship of both churches.

January 9, 1974

84



Statement From Bishops Hines and Allin

The agreed statement on Ministry and Ordination of the

Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission is a second

major milestone in the long journey toward reconciliation be-

tween our two Churches.

Like the first milestone, the Agreed Statement on Eucharistic

Doctrine adopted a year ago, the new document is grounded in
the Scriptures and the teaching and practice of the Christian

Church for many centuries before Anglicans and Roman Catholics
parted ways. Careful study by theologians and Church authorities

will, we are confident, show that both statements are in accord
with the teaching and practice of the Episcopal Church.

The statement on the ministry will be welcomed by clergy
and laity of the two Churches who have entered into covenant
relationships at the local level and will stimulate the process of

growing together in faith and fellowship.

These statements belong to a wider ecumenical context.

Convergence in understanding of the Holy Communion is ex-
emplified in studies of the World and National Councils of
Churches. The statement on ministry builds on the fact that both

Churches cherish the ordained ministry of Bishops, priests and

deacons, but it does not pre-judge the relation of this ministry

to presbyterial and congregational forms or seek to confine the

gifts of the Spirit to narrow channels.

Our two Churches have made many judgmental statements
about each other in the past. The task of reviewing the present

relevance of such statements must begin with the understandings

of sacrament and ministry which we share today. More miles of
doctrinal exploration lie ahead of us, including the difficult terrain

of authority and primacy.

The good beginnings made so far are grounds for hope that
in the not-too-distant future we shall be able to see in each other
the fullness and integrity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic

Church. When and if this happens, millions of Christian people
will rejoice in the Lord.

December 13, 1973

85



BCEIA Response to ARCIC

Canterbury Statement

The members of the Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and
Interreligious Affairs consider it a privilege and a duty to respond

briefly and affirmatively to the Canterbury statement of ARCIC. As

Roman Catholic Bishops, we understand the Canterbury state-
ment to parallel the Windsor statement. As the latter attempted
to express a substantial agreement in answer to the question,

What is the Eucharist, so the Canterbury statement is understood
as a substantial agreement in answer to the question, What is the
ordained ministry—that is, what is a Bishop, a Priest and a Dea-
con?

From the appended bibliography of official statements, both
Roman Catholic and Anglican; of private scriptural and theol-
ogical studies; and of international and national dialogues, it is

evident that the Canterbury statement has profited from the

wealth of material available on the study of ministry. For the

moment it is beyond our scope to cite the remarkable parallels
that can be made between the Canterbury statement and the rich
official magisterial statements to be found on the Roman Catholic
side in the 1971 Statement of the Synod of Bishops convened by

Pope Paul VI on the Ministerial Priesthood. Similarly, many pas-
sages from Documents of the Second Vatican Council could be

cited to show that the Canterbury statement does agree with
official Catholic teaching. We refer to the First Chapter of (A.G.)
The Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church. Likewise

to (L.G.) The Constitution on the Church; and not least to (P.O.)

The Decree on Priestly Ministry and Life.

As these modern documents of the Magisterium of the

Roman Catholic Church express the perennial doctrine of the
Church in newer and clearer terminolgy, so the Canterbury state-

ment follows very closely the understanding of the transmission

of the deposit of faith as summarized for example in No. 10

of the Constitution on Divine Revelation.

The doctrinal principles repeated in the 1971 Synod of

Bishops are found in the Canterbury statement.

While the Canterbury statement tells us what an ordained

86



minister is by the functions that he performs there is a clear

understanding, as expressed in scholastic terminology, "operari

sequitur esse." Consequently, the vocation and mission of the

ordained minister is from Christ through the Church. The or-

dained minister represents not only the community, but acts as

an ambassador of Christ and he is constituted such by the im-

position of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. His

ordination is given once for all; it is permanent and cannot be

repeated. The statement likewise emphasizes, as does the Decree

on Priestly Ministry and Life of the Second Vatican Council, that

the ordained minister is a minister of the Word and this ministry
includes also his celebration of the Sacraments and in particular

in the case of the Priest and Bishop the celebration of the

Eucharist. By Ordination, the minister is gifted in a way superior
to and distinct from that share in the Priesthood of Christ which

all the baptized and confirmed have. Indeed, Ordination is for

the service of all the People of God.

As Roman Catholic Bishops, we welcome the Canterbury
statement. We hope that there will be widespread interest in the
agreed statement and that our fellow Roman Catholics will give
their honest reactions to it.

Limiting ourselves to these general observations, we encour-
age our subcommission involved in the ARC bilateral dialogue to
probe the Canterbury statement more fully and make known to
us their conclusions.

Finally, while recognizing the limited scope of the statement,

we rejoice at the unprecedented achievements of the members of
ARCIC. As we have encouraged wide diffusion of the previous
findings of ARCIC and ARC, so we commend to our brother
Bishops of the NCCB, the priests, deacons and religious and laity
of the Roman Catholic Communion to a prayerful study of this
agreed statement on the ordained ministry.

87



The Agreed Statement

The following is a statement from the Hierarchy Theology
Commission on the Agreed Statement of the International
Anglican/Roman Catholic Commission on Ministry and Ordina-
tion.

1. We welcome this further step in that "serious dialogue
founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions"
which the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury commended
in 1966.

The statement is the work of a commission set up by the
Holy See and the authorities of the World Wide Anglican Com-
munion. As the Co-Chairmen say in their preface: "It is the result

of the work of this officially appointed Commission and is offered
to our authorities for their consideration. At this stage it remains

an agreed statement of the Commission and no more." While,

therefore, it will serve to form that common mind which is the
necessary preliminary to any authoritative decisions by the two

communions, it does not authorise any change in existing

ecclesiastical discipline.

2. Anything said about the Eucharistic role of the minister, for

example in para. 13, is to be understood in the light of the Agreed

Statement on the Eucharist.

3. A merit of the statement is that, as in Lumen Gentium, the
discussion of the ordained ministry is situated in the context of

the ministerial nature of the whole Church, whose mission it is

"to be the instrument by which this reconciliation in Christ is

proclaimed, his love manifested, and the means of salvation

offered to men." (para. 3)

4. The statement adequately secures what Roman Catholics
emphasise when they distinguish between the priesthood of the
ordained ministry and the priesthood of the whole people. Thus

we welcome the declaration that "the action of the presiding
minister ... is seen to stand in a sacramental relation to what

Christ himself did in offering his own sacrifice." (para. 13)

One important sentence has been variously interpreted,
namely: "Nevertheless their ministry is not an extension of the

common Christian priesthood but belongs to another realm of the
gifts of the Spirit." (para. 13)

88



We take this to mean that within the common Christian
priesthood their ministry is a unique and particular gift of the

Spirit.

5. The effect of ordination receives abundant testimony: the

"qualification for exercising such a ministry is the gift of the

Spirit." (para. 14) "In this sacramental act, the gift of God is be-
stowed upon the ministers with the promise of divine grace for

their work and for their sanctification; the ministry of Christ is

presented to them as a model for their own; and the Spirit seals

those whom he has chosen and consecrated. Just as Christ has
united the Church inseparably with himself, and as God calls all
the faithful to life-long discipleship so the gifts of God to the min-
isters are irrevocable. For this reason ordination is unrepeatable

in both our Churches." (para. 15)

6. If we have dissatisfaction to record, it is with a rather general
tendency of the document to understress the hardness of the
Gospel and the centrality of the Cross not only in the whole

Christian life, but also and especially in the life and work of the
ordained minister.

7. We would hope to see in a future statement on authority a
fuller treatment of apostolic succession as entailing "fidelity to

the teaching and mission of the apostles." (para. 16)

8. The statement draws upon careful historical analyses. Evalua-
tion, however, of the doctrinal significance of the historical state-

ments concerning the threefold ministry must await the further

studies of the Commission on the Church and Authority.

9. Many Roman Catholics and Anglicans will find the language
of this statement unfamiliar. The statement requires, therefore,

careful, prayerful and repeated study, but within the limits of our

examination of it we have not found anything incompatible with
the Catholic faith. Roman Catholics will want to read it in con-
junction with other and for them authoritative pronouncements.
But we conclude with the hope that study of this document will
lead to a deeper understanding of Ministry and Ordination.

George Patrick Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham ; Bishop B. C.
Butler

, OSB; Bishop A. C. Clark; Frs. J. Crehan, 57, L. Johnston, F.
Kerr

,
OP

, N. Lash, J. Mahoney, 57, J. McHugh , R. Murray, 57, M.
Richards

, W. Steele, P. Wilkinson; Mr. J. Coulson, Fr. P. Kelly,
Secretary

,
Oscott College, Chester Road, Sutton Coldfield,

Warwickshire.

89



Guidelines for

Roman Catholic—Episcopalian

Marriages

FOREWORD FROM BISHOP CAMPBELL

I am happy to give my Imprimatur to these Guidelines, and
I am filled with great joy that both the Most Rev. Joseph H.
Hodges, Bishop of Wheeling and I are in full agreement as we
take this step toward fulfulling Our Lord's command that we
may all be one.

Faithfully yours,

Wilburn C. Campbell

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese

of West Virginia

FOREWORD FROM BISHOP HODGES

Dearly Beloved of the Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston:

"Jesus performed the first of his mighty works in Cana of
Galilee" (Jn 2:11) at a wedding feast. It was a significant event
worthy of his presence and special assistance. He would elevate
the natural marriage bond to the dignity of a sacrament for all
those who had been incorporated by baptism into the life of
grace. In this spirit, and with this obligation, the Roman Catholic
Church has always been concerned with protecting the sacra-

ment of Matrimony.

Because marriage brings about new relations between two
persons, along with special obligations to society, children, and

above all to God, the Church by right and necessity has been

involved whenever one of her members entered into this state of
life. It is helpful when the partner in marriage comes of a sincere
Christian tradition. Since Episcopalians recognize Jesus Christ as

the Savior and Lord who sanctified marriage, we are happy to
join with them in "Guidelines for Marriage" between Episco-

palians and Roman Catholics in West Virginia.

90



I am happy to sign these Guidelines with the Rt. Rev.
Wilburn C. Campbell, D. D., Bishop of West Virginia, and join
with him in declaring them effective for one year from date of

promulgation. It is understood that these are on a trial basis,

with the intention of reviewing them for renewal at the end of

that period. We pray that this joint effort may serve to protect
the unity in marriage of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics,
preserving Christian values and benefiting their progeny.

God bless all of you! May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
be served by these efforts.

With deep appreciation to all who have participated in this
effort,

Cordially yours in Christ,

Joseph H. Hodges

Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston

Part I: THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT

Roman Catholics and Episcopalians share a common belief
about marriage. For us, marriage is primarily the work of God.
We see married life as part of His divine plan. When Jesus Christ,
the long-awaited Bridegroom of the Church entered human his-
tory, He elevated married life to one of the sacramental signs
of union with Him. It stands as a covenant or agreement between

a man and a woman and as a covenant or agreement of those
two with God.

By virtue of the Sacrament of Matrimony, married Christians

signify and share in the mystery of the unity and fruitful love

which exists between Christ and His Church. Christian marriage

asks of them a lifelong and faithful commitment. Through their
married life, they receive certain benefits:

a. They help each other to "grow in Christ" and

attain salvation.

b. They share the mutual joy of their union in heart,

body and mind.

c. They receive help and comfort from one another
in prosperity and adversity.

d. They have the privilege and responsibility of rear-
ing and educating their children in the knowledge and
love of the Lord.

91



Married persons have a significant contribution to make to
both church and community. They should always be aware of
their special role and gift among the people of God in His
Church. As their mutual love orders their common life within
the family, so also it directs them to share in shaping a society
of human dignity.

Part II: PROCEDURES AND TOPICS FOR COUNSELING
Preamble

The following guidelines are intended as recommendations
and practical suggestions, not as a set of inflexible rules. Every

marriage has its own set of circumstances that may require, in
the judgment of the pastor or parties, different treatment.

These guidelines are based on the actual present situation

that prevails between the Roman Catholic and Episcopal
Churches. They make no attempt to consider or solve historical
and theological differences that still condition the relationship

of the two churches. Such questions are being dealt with else-
where, and their eventual resolution will obviously modify any

set of policies such as these:

I—Initial Procedures
1. Given present social customs, the marriage will

usually take place in the church of the bride.

2. The priest of the church where the marriage will take

place should assume the primary responsibility for the mar-

riage arrangements.

This responsibility includes:

a. both the Roman Catholic and Episcopal priests have
the responsibility of establishing that the couple is free to

marry.

b. pre-marital counseling. Appropriate materials for

the pre-marital counseling are available from the Episcopal

and Roman Catholic Diocesan Offices. The Episcopal
Church normally requires a thirty (30) day notice before a

wedding in order to provide ample time for these counsel-

ing sessions which are required by canon law. The Roman
Catholic Church also requires sufficient notice in order that

the proper instructions be imparted.

92



c. planning the marriage service, and

d. insuring that the couple comply with the require-

ments of the civil law.

3. As soon as one priest is contacted by the couple re-

garding the marriage, he should contact the priest of the

other church, or a local priest of the same communion, so
that they may discuss how the responsibilities mentioned
above will be met. It is important that preparations and ar-

rangements be done in a cooperative manner from the very

first.

4. When possible, a joint counseling session should be
planned so that both priests can be present with the parties to

the marriage. Such a session would promote an appreciation

of the mutural respect that exists between the churches, and

provide the couple an opportunity to discuss differences and

similarities in the way the two churches perceive and practice
the Christian Faith.

5. If for any reason a priest refuses to solemnize a mar-

riage and if the parties approach another priest who agrees
to do it, the two priests should, if possible, discuss the prob-

lem to arrive at some mutual understanding. Each should re-
spect the decision of the other, however the matter turns out.

II—Freedom To Marry
1. Both priests will be concerned that the two parties be

free to marry and intend a regular Christian marriage.

a. The Episcopal priest will see that the Declaration of

Intention required by his Church is properly signed.

b. The Roman Catholic priest will see that the MA,
MB, and other forms required by his Church are properly
filled out. He will also be responsible for obtaining from
his Chancery the necessary dispensation to enter into a

mixed marriage.

2. If both priests are to participate in the ceremony, the

priest of the church where the marriage is to take place should

obtain the necessary permission from his bishop for the other

priest to take part in the ceremony.

3. If one or both of the parties has been married previ-

93



ously, both priests must present the situation to their respec-
tive Diocesan offices for resolution.

a. The Episcopal priest will be responsible for gather-
ing the appropriate documentation and sending it to his

bishop for decision.

b. The Roman Catholic priest will be responsible for
presenting the case to the Chancery or Tribunal and doing

the work ordinarily required to gain a decision in such
cases.

c. It can happen that one Church will declare a per-
son free to marry, while the other one will not. In such

instances, the parties will decide what to do in good faith
and conscience, and their decision should be respected. If

the couple decides to marry, the officiating priest should

inform them that their decision does not deprive them of

the continuing ministry of their respective churches. How-
ever, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Episcopalian is
free to receive the Sacrament(s) until the marriage con-

forms to the requirements of his or her Church. It would

be an act of good faith for the officiating priest to notify

the other priest of his action.

d. If it should happen that one priest decides to sol-

emnize a marriage in which the other will not or cannot

have any part, each priest should do his best to respect the

good conscience of the other. Given the continuing differ-

ence in the outlook and practice in the two Churches, it is

not unlikely that such situations will arise that significant

demands will be placed on a priest's understanding and

generosity.

Ill—Pre-Marital Counseling
1. It has already been suggested that wherever possible,

both priests conduct a joint counseling session with the

engaged couple. Yet, it is the primary responsibility of the

priest of the church where the marriage will take place to

counsel the couple in preparation for their marriage. Each

priest must have the opportunity of counseling with the

couple in order to bring out those particular points which are

part of his Church's teaching and practice.

94



2. It is presumed that such counseling will include topics

such as finances, an understanding of family background,

personality differences, and sex.

3. Certain religious questions should receive special

attention during the counseling sessions; for example:

a. Mutual respect: Each party should be led to a better

understanding of the religious traditions and convictions

embodied in the Church of the other party. Each should

be encouraged to deepen his own faith and Church com-
mitment, and to show an equal trust and respect for the
commitment of his or her partner.

b. Worship: Although it is usually a good thing for a
family to worship together, each party should be encour-

aged to worship in the Church to which he is united in

faith. The parties should understand and respect the wor-

ship in the Church to which each is united in faith. This

respect, as well as their bond with each other, could be
strengthened if on occasion they worshipped together in

one or the other Church.

c. Responsible Parenthood: This is a sensitive area

and one in which the parties may have markedly different
points of view. It should be thought through very carefully

and discussed frankly. In discussing the matter of children,

each priest should raise all aspects of responsibility—moral,
social, spiritual, and economic—and should clearly express
the teachings of his church on the matter. The counseling

priest should be sensitive to the potential dilemma with
which the parties must deal and carefully refrain from

dogmatically imposing his personal point of view.

d. Religious Education of Children: Although the

Roman Catholic Church no longer requires written or
signed promises in this area, it still requires that the Roman
Catholic party "make a sincere promise to do all in his
power to have all his children baptized and brought up in
the Catholic Church." Here again, the parties themselves

will have to work out how they will handle this issue.

However the couple deals with the matter of the children's
church affiliation, they should be urged to bring their chil-

dren to a deep appreciation of the person and gospel of

95



Jesus Christ and a respect for the religious convictions of

both parents. They should also make the children aware of
large areas of agreement between Roman Catholic and
Episcopal Churches as well as the differences between them.

e. Marriage as a Sacrament: One area of agreement
between the Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches is
their understanding of the nature of the Sacrament and

their common belief that marriage is a sacrament. The
sacredness and permanence of the marriage bond are af-
firmed by both Churches and for the same reasons. This

places marriage on a very high plane, and should be

stressed by both priests, perhaps in a joint counseling ses-

sion with the couple.

Part III: THE WEDDING CEREMONY

By the time of the actual wedding ceremony, the couple and

the two priests should have developed a mutual respect and un-

derstanding for the doctrines and disciplines of both Churches.

The wedding ceremony may then serve as a public witness to this
mutual respect and understanding. For this reason, it is hoped that

both priests will be able to participate actively in planning and

celebrating the marriage.

The Eucharist

If the marriage takes place in a Roman Catholic Church, it
may, at the request of both parties, be celebrated in the context

of the Mass. Since intercommunion is not yet a reality, the Epis-

copal party may not receive communion at such a Mass. If the
Mass is to be a part of the marriage service, both parties should

be made aware of this restriction.

If the marriage takes place in an Episcopal Church it may also,
at the request of both parties, be celebrated in the context of the

Holy Communion. Again, since intercommunion is not yet a
reality, the Roman Catholic party may not receive Communion at
such a service, even though the Episcopal Church permits all

baptized persons to receive Communion. At this time, concele-
bration of the Eucharist by both priests is not permitted.

Since questions about intercommunion can be very delicate

and may cause suffering and misunderstanding, patience and
charity should be exercised by the parties and priests involved.

96



The Wedding Ceremony

Roman Catholic discipline requires that the Roman Catholic
priest ask for and receive the vows in any marriage involving a

Roman Catholic. A dispensation from this form, however, may be
obtained from the Bishop, thereby enabling an Episcopal priest

to perform this function. According to the Episcopal discipline,

either priest may perform any or all parts of the service.

Beyond these minimal requirements, when both priests take
part in the marriage, they may divide the various parts of the
ceremony between them in whatever way they and the parties
involved find congenial.

For the sake of illustration, the following examples are offered.

and many cause suffering and misunderstanding, patience and

THREE POSSIBLE PLANS FOR PARTICIPATION

For a marriage taking place in an Episcopal Church, using the

Book of Common Prayer, 1928:

The Exhortation (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Charge to the Couple (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Betrothal (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Marriage Vow and Ring (Episcopal Priest)
The Prayers (pp. 302-303) (either Priest)

The Declaration and Blessing (bottom pp. 303-304) (Epis-

copal Priest)

For a marriage taking place in an Episcopal Church, using

the Service For Trial Use, 1970:

The Exhortation (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Charge (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Betrothal (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Collect (Episcopal Priest)

The Lessons (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Homily (either Priest)
The Marriage (pp. 314-315) (Episcopal Priest)

Prayers (pp. 316-317) (either Priest)

The Blessing (p. 318) (Episcopal Priest)

For a marriage taking place in a Roman Catholic Church
according to the Roman Catholic rite:

97



The Greeting and Collect (Episcopal Priest)

The Lessons (Episcopal Priest)

The Homily (either Priest)

The Rite of Marriage (Roman Catholic Priest)
The Prayer (either Priest)

The Nuptial Blessing (Roman Catholic Priest)

Recording the Marriage

The Episcopal Priest is required to record in his parish

register any marriage in which he participates regardless of where

it takes place. The Roman Catholic Priest is required to record
any marriage involving a Roman Catholic in the parish where it
takes place.

As a general rule, the priest who makes the declaration of
marriage will sign and return the Civil Certificate of Marriage.

Joseph H. Hodges

Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston

Wilburn C. Campbell

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese

of West Virginia

Feast of Pentecost

May 18, 1975

In early 1973, the Religious Unity Commission of the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston requested their Excel-

lencies, Bishop Campbell and Bishop Hodges to appoint priests

of their Dioceses to draw up guidelines for marriages between

Episcopalians and Catholics in West Virginia.

Committee Members of the Episcopal Diocese of West Virginia:

Rev. John S. Greenman, Chairman

All Saints' Episcopal Church

4032 MacCorkle Avenue, S.W.

South Charleston, West Virginia 25309

Rev. Walter J. Mycoff

St. Matthew's Episcopal Church

1314 Bridge Road

Charleston, West Virginia 25314

98



Rev. Stephen Norcross

Formerly of the Episcopal Diocese of West Virginia

Rev. Richard H. Schmidt, Assistant Rector

St. John's Episcopal Church

1105 Quarrier Street

Charleston, West Virginia 25301

Committee Members of the Wheeling-Charleston Roman Cath-
olic Dioceses:

Rev. P. Edward Sadie, Chairman

St. Agnes Catholic Church

4807 Staunton Avenue, S.E.

Charleston, W. Va. 25304

Very Rev. Hilarion V. Cann
Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church

305 E Street

South Charleston, W. Va. 25303

Rev. Bernard W. Schmitt
St. Francis of Assissi Catholic Church

1023 Sixth Avenue
St. Albans, W. Va. 25177

99



'