The following report from the Conference of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, written by Matthew Davies, comes from the Episcopal Digital Network.

Old Catholics and Episcopalians in Europe have agreed to enter into deeper communion, seeking new ways to collaborate, preparing a common structure, and leading the way towards the ultimate goal of becoming one church in Europe.

The Episcopal Cathedral in Paris

The Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe passed two resolutions during its Oct. 17-20 convention in Rome following a charge delivered by Old Catholic Archbishop Joris Vercammen, in which he encouraged the churches to “overcome our borders” and become “agents of transformation.”

One resolution commits the congregations of the convocation to seek to collaborate with their neighboring Old Catholic congregations by developing mutual ministries in worship, program and outreach, and by increasing knowledge and awareness of each other’s traditions.

Another resolution supports the bishop-in-charge of the convocation and the archbishop of Utrecht “in their joint efforts to foster and develop our common life in Christ.”

The Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht is the Episcopal Church’s longest-standing full communion partner, dating back to the Bonn Agreement of 1931.

“The work of full communion is meant for fuller communion than we can envision,” Vercammen told the delegates Oct. 18 at the convocation’s convention. “I hope I am able to seduce you to the freedom for which the Holy Spirit wants to open our minds.”

The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, bishop-in-charge of the convocation, said that Vercammen had planted a seed “for us to pray about who we are together … [and to] determine that we no longer consider ourselves separate churches … We need to think outside ourselves.”

Whalon told ENS that there is a strong desire to form “a communion of churches that can have a common witness in continental Europe” and that such a communion would bring the Old Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church “as close as possible to full visible unity without giving up local autonomy of individual jurisdictions.” The deepening of relationships between Old Catholics and Episcopalians, he said, might encourage other Anglican churches and full communion partners in Europe to work more intentionally towards unity.

The Church of England’s Diocese in Europe also includes parishes throughout the continent. The Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain and the Lusitanian Church of Portugal are the two other Anglican jurisdictions in Europe.

“On the very long term it could be the aim to have only one ecclesiastical structure that would be really both Old Catholic and Episcopal,” Vercammen said. “For the time being we have to organize the steps we have to take in order to realize this long term goal.”

“I’m guessing the Old Catholics might help us to become new Episcopalians,” President of the House of Deputies the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings said in her address to the convention, meeting at St. Paul’s Within-the-Walls, an Episcopal church in the center of Rome. She described Vercammen’s proposal as “a radical form of community, a new way to be church, the church we’re called to be.”

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, after hearing news about Vercammen’s appeal and the convocation’s response, told ENS that she is “deeply grateful for the growing awareness of the possibilities of full communion in Europe, and the increasing commitment to make it a greater reality.

“Imagine the missional witness and possibility of a seamless Anglican-Episcopal-Old Catholic-Lutheran Christian community!” she added. “The strong and deepening relationship between Old Catholics and Episcopalians in Europe is the forerunner, which just might lead other parts of the Body of Christ into greater partnership.”

Jefferts Schori was a guest of the Old Catholic Church in 2011 when she visited Utrecht anddelivered the Quasimodo Lecture, an annual event that explores issues of faith in contemporary society.

Vercammen, during his remarks to the convocation’s convention, quoted from that lecture, during which Jefferts Schori said that ecumenism “is basically housekeeping work – cleaning up the household, setting it in order, so that it can be a home … Ecumenical work begins in the baptismal vision of a restored body of Christ, but it cannot stop at any limited version of what God’s body includes. We are here to help the whole, and that’s the future I want to point toward in being catholic beyond borders.”

Following that lecture, Vercammen told ENS that more creativity is needed in dealing with overlapping jurisdictions.

“We need more concrete initiatives,” such as common searches for church leadership to serve across jurisdictions, he said, “and then we can really build a nucleus of church where Christians of all origins can come together. We have a unique opportunity and it would be a pity if we were not to use it.”

The Old Catholic Cathedral in Utrecht

The Episcopal Church entered into full communion with the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht in 1934 on the basis of the Bonn Agreement three years earlier. The Old Catholic Church includes about 200,000 members in several national churches in Europe, located in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, France and Italy [Where did the author take this number from?, www.dstp.rel.pl]. They separated from the Roman Catholic Church because they could not accept the definition of papal infallibility presented by the first Vatican Council in 1870.

The Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe serves a culturally diverse demographic of Christians in 20 parishes and missions throughout Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland.

In addition to the Old Catholics, the Episcopal Church is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar, India, the Moravian Church in North America and the Philippine Independent Church.

Churches in full communion formally recognize that they share essential doctrines, including Baptism and Eucharist; agree to accept the service of each other’s clergy; and pledge to work together in evangelism and mission. The churches become interdependent while remaining autonomous.

We published several posts about Old Catholicism and its relations with
Anglicanism:

– Anglicans and Old Catholics. Part 1: The Origins of Old Catholicism;
– Anglicans and Old Catholics. Part II: There is no way towards unity, unity is a way
– Beyond Boundaries
– The Union of Utrecht is 121 Years Old
– Anglicans and Old Catholics 

You can read more about Anglicanism and Old Catholicism here.

Below a conversation between the bishop-in-charge of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, the Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, and the Archbishop of Utrecht, the Most Rev. Joris Vercammen.

A concrete question comes to our mind, of course: what can the deepening of Old Catholic-Anglican relations, which we of course witness with joy, mean for the functioning of the Polish Episcopal Network? In Poland there is a church that has been a member of the Union of Utrecht for years, the Polish Catholic Church (the sister church of the Polish National Catholic Church in the USA, which is no longer a member of the Union), and another with the status of an observer – the Old Catholic Church of the Mariavites. May we hope for cooperation with those church communities in the future?

How is it actually with the Anglican (and Episcopal) openness? Br. Pawel emphasized from the very beginning that it shouldn’t be confused with arbitrariness. The Anglican Churches are located within the mainstream of the Christian tradition and consider themselves heirs of the legacy of the Church of all ages. At our services e say the words of ancient creeds, and some time ago we started translating a series of sermons about one of them, the Apostles Creed, on our blog. Sometimes we quote in this context the words of one of the fathers of the Anglican Way, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626): “One canon, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the series of the Fathers in that period determine the boundaries of our faith.” Not considering the particular elements of this statement in detail, we can in any case conclude that according to Andrewes such boundaries do exist and can be defined. For me personally more important than boundaries is the sense of belonging and the “fundamental spiritual solidarity” resulting of it – both with Christians living in the world now and with generations of Christ’s followers that have passed, and those who will still come. Membership in the Episcopal Church more and more often is related not to being raised in it, but to making personal decisions independent of it. Already some time ago we have noticed that most of our Episcopal friends are people who came to it from other denominations. So did I. But my path to Anglicanism led not from a church with more stringent doctrinal discipline, but the other way around; for I was a member of a community describing itself as “principally liberal” or even “non-dogmatic”. Thus the discovery of Anglicanism meant for me a discovery of a Christianity far more traditional than practiced in the church I came from. So you can say that when I was confirmed in an Anglican church I voluntarily accepted certain boundaries. Yet it wasn’t about boundaries but rather about expressing this “spiritual solidarity”, which I very often missed among the “principal liberals”. I frequently had the impression that in the milieu I came from the favorite way to spend time was to criticize different aspects of traditional Christianity, while all that has been considered a “heresy” in the course of the ages and much that came from other religions was treated with far lesser criticism. I didn’t like it. But above all I didn’t understand how on the one had you can officially consider yourself a part of a tradition, and on the other spend so much time on undermining even the most fundamental elements of it and making this the basic characteristic of your community. This is what I experienced as a lack of “fundamental spiritual solidarity”. Interestingly however, in Anglicanism I encounter a critique of tradition which  is often not less fierce. Yet I usually sense with ease that it is based on a strong commitment. We criticize because we consider the object of our critique to be a part of our legacy, our personal concern, something that moves us, and not because we have rejected it altogether long ago. I like the way Bishop Pierre Whalon put it in his article What is Anglicanism?

We have deep respect for our elder brothers and sisters in the Faith, but we also know that bearing forth the Faith into the future requires living it in our own generation. Thus when we sense that reforms are necessary, we cast an eye back to the Tradition for inspiration, but not uncritically. And when change is necessary, we can go forth when we have convinced ourselves that such change is essentially consonant with the Faith as we have received it.

The word “consonant” is of key importance for me in this context. We want our faith to be consonant with the faith of other Christians: both contemporary and those who came before us and will come after us. We want to be one of the voices consonant with other voices, for we know that Christianity doesn’t begin and end either in the place we find ourselves or in the time we live in. Our truth is not the ultimate truth. It is one of the voices in the endless dialogue called tradition. At the same time we know, however, that this consonance will be possible only if we voice our views clearly. No one can replace us. If we keep silent, there will be no consonance. Likewise if we try to muffle other voices. One of my theology teachers would say that a liberal church is one where you can ask all questions. If so, the Episcopal Church can be called liberal, and I’m still a liberal Christian. But the adjective “liberal” will cease being necessarily the opposite of “orthodox”. Not without a reason we said these words in our presentation May an Episcopal Congregation in Poland be an Answer to the Needs of Local Christians? delivered at the conference in Cracow in March of last year:

On the other hand, relativizing somehow the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism accumulated through the ages, we don’t want to fall into the trap of the newer controversy – between “liberal” and “conservative” or “orthodox” Christianity. Here once again we should refer to the previous talk, where diverse expressions of Anglicanism were discussed. When two and a half years ago we set up the blog “Don’t Shoot The Prophet”, one of our goals was to challenge the myth prevailing in Poland that the Episcopal Church is a liberal church. Of course, this is also the church of Bishop Spong or some members of the famous “Jesus Seminar”, who are iconic figures in liberal Christianity. And it is good that it is so, but above all it is a broad church, comprising a multitude of spiritualities and theological visions. In one of the books written by Alan Jones, the former dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, whose visions we often present on our blog, we found a great declaration which also applies to our approach: “I cannot identify either with liberals or conservatives”. We were often labeled as liberals because we support the ordination of women and the inclusiveness of the church towards the LGBT persons. Unfortunately, we can’t help but accept that these things became recently the litmus test of liberal Christianity. But what about our need to build on the tradition of the undivided church of the first centuries, to deal with the ancient creeds? And what about our love for old liturgical traditions? One can hardly consider these as expressions of liberalism. But it is more important than that. Judging by the reactions we receive, we are not the only Poles who try to combine the old and the new and withstand the tension that results from this. Contrary to the comments we received after announcing today’s meeting, we do not aspire to set up yet another “liberal church” nor a “church for the homos”. We dream about a community whose character is best described by the English word “comprehensive”.

Br. Pawel shared a somewhat sad reflection with us in Pulawy, saying that there are churches that started like this and then, regrettably, have fallen into stagnation, and that there us such whose beginnings were less promising in this regard, but which learned over time that comprehensiveness is perhaps not a value in itself, but something very important. The Anglican comprehensiveness was being shaped over the ages in the heat of discussions and arguments. We are still working on it, struggling with still new challenges. And how is it with our desire concerning Polish Episcopalianism that is still coming into being? Regarding different types and forms of spirituality, the Polish Episcopal Network, though still so small, is undoubtedly a broad community. There is place in it for a Methodist, a Mariavite, and many others. There are people of different personalities in it, shaped by various experiences in different places. Undeniably this also leads to tensions, and sometimes even conflicts. Some we can solve better, some worse. At the moment it is still difficult to say whether the dream we described one and a half year ago in Cracow is really starting to come true, but we are without a doubt working for it to come true. It is not an easy work, for openness brings with itself different things. Everybody knowns that if you open all windows and doors at the same time, a draft will ensue. Then you have to decide to close some of them sometimes. It is not nice, but sometimes necessary. I’m still wondering how we’ll manage it.

Jak to właściwie jest z tą anglikańską (i episkopalną) otwartością? Br. Paweł od początku zaznaczał, że nie należy mylić jej z dowolnością. Kościoły anglikańskie plasują się w głównym nurcie tradycji chrześcijańskiej i czują się spadkobiercami dziedzictwa Kościoła wszystkich wieków. Na naszych nabożeństwach wypowiadamy słowa starokościelnych wyznań wiary, na naszym blogu jakiś czas temu zaczęliśmy tłumaczenie rozważań nt. jednego z nich – Składu Apostolskiego. Niekiedy zdarza nam się przytaczać w tym kontekście słowa jednego z twórców „the Anglican Way”, biskupa Lancelota Andrewesa (1555-1626): „Jeden kanon, zawierający słowa samego Boga, dwa testamenty, trzy wyznania wiary, cztery sobory powszechne, pięć wieków oraz tradycja Ojców w tym okresie – to znaczy trzy stulecia przed Konstantynem i dwa po nim – wyznaczają granice naszej wiary”. Nie wnikając w zawarte w tych słowach szczegółowe wyznaczniki, można w każdym razie od razu stwierdzić, że jak widać zdaniem Andrewesa takie granice istnieją i że możliwe jest zakreślenie ich. Dla mnie osobiście ważniejsze od granic jest jednak poczucie przynależności i wynikająca z niego pewna „fundamentalna solidarność duchowa” – zarówno z chrześcijanami żyjącymi na świecie obecnie, jak i z pokoleniami wyznawców Chrystusa, które zdążyły już przeminąć, oraz tymi, które jeszcze nadejdą. Przynależność do Kościoła episkopalnego coraz częściej wiąże się nie z wychowaniem, ale z dokonanym niezależnie od niego własnym wyborem. Już jakiś czas temu skonstatowaliśmy, że większość naszych znajomych episkopalian to ludzie pochodzący z innych tradycji kościelnych. To samo dotyczy również mnie. Jednakże moja droga do anglikanizmu wiodła nie z Kościoła charakteryzującego się większą dyscypliną doktrynalną, lecz odwrotnie; byłem bowiem członkiem wspólnoty określającej się mianem „pryncypialnie liberalnej”, a nawet „bezdogmatycznej”. Odkrycie anglikanizmu oznaczało dla mnie więc odkrycie chrześcijaństwa o wiele bardziej tradycyjnego aniżeli to uprawiane w Kościele, z którego pochodziłem. Można więc powiedzieć, że w momencie swego bierzmowania w anglikańskim kościele nałożyłem sobie dobrowolnie pewne ograniczenia. A jednak nie o ograniczenia tu chodziło, lecz raczej o wyrażenie właśnie tej „duchowej solidarności”, której wśród „pryncypialnych liberałów” bardzo często mi brakowało. Niejednokrotnie miałem wrażenie, że w środowisku, z którego przyszedłem, ulubioną formą spędzania czasu było krytykowanie różnych aspektów tradycyjnego chrześcijaństwa, podczas gdy wszystko to, co na przestrzeni wieków uznano za tzw. „herezje”, oraz wiele z tego, co pochodziło z innych religii, było traktowane z o wiele mniejszą dozą krytycyzmu. Mnie to nie odpowiadało. Przede wszystkim zaś nie rozumiałem jak można z jednej strony oficjalnie przypisywać się do pewnego nurtu, a z drugiej trawić taką ilość czasu na podważanie jego – często nawet najbardziej wyjściowych – przesłanek i czynić z tego właśnie cechę szczególną swojej społeczności. To właśnie odczuwałem jako przejaw braku „fundamentalnej solidarności duchowej”. Co ciekawe jednak, w anglikanizmie napotykam częstokroć nie mniej ostrą krytykę tradycji. Mimo to zazwyczaj bez problemu wyczuwam, że jest ona podszyta zasadniczym zaangażowaniem. Krytykujemy dlatego, że przedmiot krytyki uznajemy za część naszego wspólnego dziedzictwa, za coś, co nas osobiście dotyczy, obchodzi i porusza, a nie dlatego, że już dawno „postawiliśmy na tym krzyżyk”. Podoba mi się ujęcie bpa Pierre’a Whalona, który pisze w artykule pt. Czym jest anglikanizm?:

Odczuwamy głęboki szacunek dla naszych starszych braci i sióstr w wierze, ale wiemy również, że przekazywanie wiary w przyszłość wymaga przeżywania jej w naszym własnym pokoleniu. Gdy więc czujemy, że reformy są konieczne, spoglądamy wstecz ku Tradycji w poszukiwaniu inspiracji, ale nie bezkrytycznie. A kiedy konieczna jest zmiana, możemy jej dokonać, gdy przekonaliśmy się, że zasadniczo współbrzmi ona z wiarą, którą otrzymaliśmy.

Kluczowe jest tutaj dla mnie słowo „współbrzmi”. Chcemy, aby nasza wiara współbrzmiała z wiarą innych chrześcijan: zarówno współczesnych, jak i tych, którzy byli przed nami i przyjdą po nas. Chcemy być jednym z głosów, które współbrzmią z innymi głosami, wiemy bowiem, że chrześcijaństwo nie zaczyna się i nie kończy ani w miejscu, w którym się znaleźliśmy, ani w czasie, w którym przyszło nam żyć. Nasza prawda nie jest prawdą ostateczną. Jest jednym z głosów w ustawicznym dialogu zwanym tradycją. Jednocześnie jednak wiemy, że to współbrzmienie będzie możliwe tylko wtedy, gdy zabierzemy głos i jasno wyartykułujemy swój pogląd. Nikt nie może nas w tym zastąpić. Jeśli będziemy milczeć, nie będzie mowy o współbrzmieniu. Podobnie jeżeli będziemy zagłuszać inne głosy. Jeden z moich nauczycieli teologii mawiał, że liberalny Kościół to taki, w którym można zadać każde pytanie. Jeśli tak, to Kościół episkopalny możemy nazwać liberalnym, a ja nadal jestem liberalnym chrześcijaninem. Jednakże przymiotnik „liberalny” przestanie wówczas koniecznie oznaczać przeciwieństwo „ortodoksji”. Nie bez powodu w naszej prezentacji Czy powstanie episkopalnej wspólnoty w Polsce może być odpowiedzią na potrzeby polskich chrześcijan? wygłoszonej na krakowskiej konferencji w marcu zeszłego roku znalazły się m.in. następujące słowa:

Relatywizując w jakiś sposób narosłe przez wieki różnice pomiędzy katolicyzmem i protestantyzmem, nie chcemy z kolei popadać w nowszą kontrowersję – tę pomiędzy chrześcijaństwem „liberalnym” i „konserwatywnym” czy „ortodoksyjnym”. Tu znów wypada nawiązać do poprzedniej prezentacji, w której zostały przedstawione różne nurty anglikanizmu. Gdy dwa i pół roku temu powstawał blog „Don’t Shoot the Prophet”, stawialiśmy sobie za cel m.in. prostowanie opinii, według której Kościół episkopalny jest Kościołem liberalnym. Oczywiście, to jest również Kościół biskupa Sponga czy niektórych członków słynnego „Jesus Seminar”, będących sztandarowymi postaciami tego nurtu chrześcijaństwa. I to dobrze, że tak właśnie jest, jednakże ponad wszystko jest to Kościół szeroki, obejmujący mnogość typów duchowości i wizji teologicznych. W jednej z książek Alana Jonesa, byłego deana episkopalnej Grace Cathedral w San Francisco, którego wizję często prezentujemy na naszym blogu, znaleźliśmy deklarację świetnie oddającą również nasze podejście: „Nie potrafię utożsamić się ani z liberałami ani z konserwatystami”. Wielokrotnie próbowano nam przykleić etykietkę liberałów, bo opowiadamy się za ordynacją kobiet czy za otwartością Kościoła wobec osób LGBT. Prawdopodobnie wypada niestety zaakceptować fakt, że te właśnie sprawy stały się w ostatnich czasach papierkami lakmusowymi przynależności do nurtu liberalnego w chrześcijaństwie. Cóż jednak począć z cechującą nas również potrzebą budowania na bazie tradycji Kościoła niepodzielonego pierwszych stuleci, mierzenia się z treściami zawartymi w starożytnych wyznaniach wiary, z umiłowaniem wiekowych tradycji liturgicznych? To już raczej trudno uznać za przejawy liberalizmu. Istotniejsze jest jednak to, że na podstawie reakcji, które do nas docierają, dochodzimy do wniosku, iż nie jesteśmy jedynymi Polakami, którzy starają się łączyć to, co stare z tym, co nowe i wytrzymać napięcie, które w ten sposób powstaje. Wbrew komentarzom, które pojawiły się w reakcji na zapowiedz dzisiejszego spotkania, nie dążymy do powstania ani jeszcze jednej „wspólnoty liberalnej” ani „Kościoła homosiów”. Pragnęlibyśmy społeczności, której charakter najlepiej określa angielskie słowo „comprehensive” – szerokiej i bogatej w różne treści i formy.

Br. Paweł podzielił się z nami w Puławach trochę smutną refleksją o tym, że istnieją Kościoły, które tak właśnie zaczynały, a potem niestety popadły w zastój i marazm, są też takie, których początki były pod tym względem mniej chlubne, a które jednak z czasem nauczyły się, że „comprehensiveness” nie jest może wartością samą w sobie, ale mimo to czymś niezwykle istotnym. Anglikańska comprehensiveness kształtowała się na przestrzeni wieków w ogniu dyskusji i sporów. Nadal ją wypracowujemy, borykając się z ciągle nowymi wyzwaniami. A jak to jest z naszym pragnieniem w odniesieniu do powoli powstającego polskiego episkopalianizmu? Pod względem obecnych w niej typów i form duchowości Polska Wspólnota Episkopalna, chociaż nadal tak mała, jest już bez wątpienia szeroką wspólnotą. Jest w niej miejsce i dla metodysty, i dla mariawity oraz dla wielu innych. Są wśród nas ludzie o różnych typach osobowości, ukształtowani pod wpływem różnych doświadczeń w różnych środowiskach. Nie ma co ukrywać, że prowadzi to również do napięć, a niekiedy nawet do sytuacji konfliktowych. Niektóre udaje nam się rozwiązać lepiej, inne gorzej. W tej chwili trudno jeszcze powiedzieć, czy nasze marzenie, które opisaliśmy półtora roku temu w Krakowie, faktycznie zaczyna się spełniać, natomiast niewątpliwie staramy się pracować na rzecz jego spełnienia. Nie jest to łatwa praca, bowiem otwartość niesie ze sobą różne skutki. Każdy wie, że jeśli w jakimś pomieszczeniu otworzy się jednocześnie wszystkie okna i drzwi, powstaje niezły przeciąg. Niekiedy trzeba wówczas podjąć decyzję o zamknięciu niektórych z nich. To niemiłe, ale czasami konieczne. Wciąż zadaję sobie pytanie, jak sobie z tym poradzimy.

Theotokopoulos, better known as El Greco

One piece of Flat Thinking is that the Holy Spirit is “outside” of us. That salvation comes from somewhere else, and is added on to our existing humanity. But if the gift of the Spirit is true,  then we see that God is never far from us. No human being is outside of the love of God, the grace of  Jesus, the communion of the Holy Spirit. And this means among other things that all truth, all knowledge, every good inspiration of art or science or any sphere of human endeavor comes from the Holy Spirit.

Source: Pentecost sermon by the Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, bishop-in-charge of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe

… w drugi dzień Świąt Zesłania Ducha Świętego:

Jednym z przejawów płaskiego myślenia jest pogląd, że Duch Święty znajduje się “poza” nami. Że zbawienie nadchodzi skądś indziej i zostaje dodane do naszego istniejącego człowieczeństwa. Jeżeli jednak dar Ducha jest prawdziwy, widzimy, że Bóg nigdy nie jest daleko od nas. Żaden człowiek nie znajduje się poza Bożą miłościa, łaską Jezusa, wspólnotą Ducha Świętego. A to oznacza, między innymi, że wszelka prawda, wszelka wiedza, każde dobre natchnienie w sztuce, nauce czy jakiejkolwiek innej sferze ludzkiej aktywności pochodzi od Ducha Świętego.

Źródło: kazanie na Pięćdziesiątnicę wygłoszone przez Przew. Pierre’a Whalona, biskupa Konwokacji Kościołów Episkopalnych w Europie

We would also like to thank our friend from Oklahoma, Rev. deacon Helen Waddle, for preparing the transcript of the interview.

Od krakowskiego spotkania Przybliżyć Kościół Episkopalny minęło już prawie dwa miesiące, a my wciąż mamy do nadrobienia pewną zaległość. W przerwie spotkania ks. biskup Pierre Whalon, zwierzchnik Konwokacji Kościołów Episkopalnych w Europie, udzielił wywiadu red. Dariuszowi Brunczowi z portalu ekumenizm.pl. Poniżej zamieszczamy oryginalny zapis tej rozmowy. Jej polski przekład można przeczytać na portalu ekumenizm.pl. Jest to więc pierwszy projekt, który realizujemy wspólnie z tym portalem.

Chcielibyśmy serdecznie podziękować naszej przyjaciółce z Oklahomy, ks. diakon Helen Waddle, za sporządzenie transkryptu.

DB: Excellency, is Anglicanism on the move or is it going to disappear from the religious scene?

During the interview in the children's area in the Lutheran church in Cracow. Phot. Piotr Kalinowski

PW: Well, when you say Anglicanism, you mean the Anglican churches in Europe, the Anglican Episcopal churches in Europe? Yes, we’re on the move. We’re growing. We’re expanding beyond the English-speaking communities in Europe into local languages.

DB: All right, but is your activity addressed only to Anglicans or also to people looking for a new spiritual home?

PW: That’s what I was saying. We are also growing with people from other countries, not just ex-patriots, and they are looking for a spiritual home, not necessarily new but perhaps for the first time.

DB: In the Polish media, or when you Google the words “Anglicanism” or “Episcopal”, most information you get is about scandals, about the divisions in the Anglican Communion or about Episcopal and Anglican priests leaving for Rome on the grounds of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus which was promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI. Do you have the impression that this offer and this rather negative view of the Anglican Communion amplifies the impression of collapse, especially after the failure of the Anglican Covenant?

PW: Well, you’ve mentioned two different things. One is all these scandals and the second is the ordinariate. So let’s talk about the ordinariate first. The ordinariate is set up to offer a church home to people who do not belong to the Anglican Communion. That was its intent. It was set up for people who are a part of the Anglican tradition but not a part of the Anglican Communion. So, in that respect, it’s a perfectly acceptable ecumenical development. It was asked for by people calling themselves a Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome said yes. There were predictions in the press about hundreds of thousands of Anglicans leaving. That’s not true at all. Very few have left who are in the Anglican Communion, not so many people from the Traditional Anglican Communion have gone into it either.

DB: Yes, but several Bishops and retired Bishops from the Church of England converted to the Roman Catholic Church.

PW: So? I have had a hundred and one requests from Roman Catholic priests in Europe during my episcopate…

DB: One hundred?

PW: One hundred and one requests to become Episcopal priests. So, you know, to hear about all these Anglicans that are going to Rome is ridiculous if you don’t realize all the Romans who are coming to us. The fact that a few retired bishops decided to become Roman Catholics in their retirement is not important.

DB: So what’s the purpose of these stories by the media and the storm in the media, so to speak, about Anglicans leaving the Anglican Church?

PW: I think it’s a storm that the media has created.

DB: What for?

PW: Because it sounds controversial.

DB: And why don’t we hear about movement in the opposite direction?

PW: Because we haven’t set up an ordinariate for Roman Catholics.

DB: But in Peru, for example, there is a kind of an ordinariate for Catholics, including clergy, preparing themselves for conversion to the Anglican Church.

PW: We don’t have an ordinariate. If people who are Roman Catholics want to become Anglicans or Episcopalians it’s not a difficult transition to make. In terms of ordination we don’t re-ordain people who are ordained by Roman Catholic bishops. We don’t reconfirm them. So, as you know, we recognize that the Roman Catholic bishops are catholic bishops and therefore we don’t change or undo what they did. So we’ve had plenty of hundreds and thousands of people become Episcopalians who used to be Roman Catholic and this has been going on since the 16th century. So it’s not news. Now the ordinariate is news. In 10 years it will no longer exist.

DB: Do you think so?

PW: Yes, because it is not an ecclesiological structure. It is a pastoral gesture. And a few people have taken advantage of it. We have a bishop, an Episcopal bishop of Albany, who left after his retirement to become Roman Catholic. He’s come back. He’s come back to the Episcopal Church. I don’t consider this to be important. The media wants to make a big thing out of it. The media has also made a big thing out of pedophilic priests in the Roman Church.

DB: But where there is one dominant church, as the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, such information is presented rather partially: look, the lost ones come back. Of course, there has always been movement in both directions, but I think that an incomplete picture causes confusion. What would you say as a bishop to somebody who wants to leave the Episcopal Church, and what would you say to somebody who wants to join it?

Phot. Piotr Kalinowski

PW: Well, if someone wants to leave the Episcopal Church for reasons of conscience, because their conscience says I must become a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, or Lutheran, what can I say? You must follow your conscience. The conscience is the voice of God. That is a traditional teaching. Your interior conscience is God speaking to you; you must listen to that voice. And it’s not up to me to say, you’re wrong. When people want to join the Episcopal Church, particularly say Roman Catholic priests, I ask them also about their conscience. And it’s oftentimes they answer because they want to be married. This is not enough to convert. It must be for reasons of the heart of the doctrine of the church. That is the important thing. People always must follow their conscience whether they leave or they come.

DB: What does it mean for you personally to be an Episcopalian, apart from being a bishop? What’s the essence of being Episcopalian to you?

PW: It is the way of following Christ.

DB: But all Christians can say so – Lutherans, Old Catholics, Roman Catholics, Orthodox. What constitutes Episcopal specificity?

PW: It is one way of following Christ. It is a true way. It is a way that allows me to be a Catholic but also to live in the 21st century and accept the realities of today. That is the difference if there is a difference. You remember the Anglican tradition always emphasizes what is the minimum necessary for you to follow Christ, not the maximum. We don’t claim to be the only true church. We’re a part of the true church but we’re not the whole of the church.

DB: You mentioned this during your presentation, talking about those four conditions that define Anglicanism, so to speak: the Holy Scripture, the sacraments, the Nicene Creed, and the episcopal structure of the church. It more or less corresponds to what the Augsburg Confession says, the primary symbolical book of the Lutheran Church.

PW: It’s almost the same thing, yes.

DB: Almost, except for the fact that the Augsburg Confession says that the proclamation of the Word of God and the administration of sacraments are sufficient. The Nicene Creed is also included in the Lutheran symbolical books, so how close are these visions?

PW: They’re very close. The difference is that we would also insist on the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon. As you know, the Church of England is in communion, full communion with the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia…

DB: Moreover, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is in full communion with the Episcopal Church.

PW: Yes, and it is my hope that we will soon be part of the Porvoo Communion as well.

DB: The Episcopal Church?

PW: Sure. Why not?

DB: I understand that it will happen through the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, whose bishop-in-charge you are?

PW: First of all, we’ve always acted as if we were in full communion with the Swedish Lutheran Church. Because the Swedes have kept the three-fold ministry. And in the 18th century they asked us to take over eight Swedish Lutheran churches, in America, that are still in existence today. They are now Episcopal churches, but they retained their Swedish history.

DB: You are the Bishop of the Convocation of the Episcopal Churches in Europe, and if you like it or not you have to be ecumenical and cooperate with other churches.

PW: Certainly.

DB: What are your experiences with regard to the ecumenical movement in Europe and how different are they from your experiences from the United States?

PW: First of all, you will remember that we started the ecumenical movement. Ecumenism is very much a part of Anglicanism. That is why the quadrilateral you quoted, Scripture, sacraments, creeds and bishops, was set forth as conditions for union with other churches. We have very good ecumenical relationships across the board with the Evangelical Church of Germany, the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany or the Old Catholic Diocese in Germany. The English bishop is licensed in the Convocation. I am licensed as an Anglican bishop in Spain and Portugal as well as in England. We rent churches from other denominations in Europe. Ecumenically it’s very rich, a very, very rich time. One of the things I became involved in because I am born in America and representative of the so-called American church has been getting Iraqi Christians and other people threatened with death in Iraq because of their faith, even non-Christians. And we brought them to France. They’re not Anglicans. They’re Chaldeans. They’re in communion with Rome. Or they’re Syrians and they’re in communion with Constantinople. So what? They are people who need help and I was in a position to be able to help. So ecumenism is really about helping each other to live and to believe.

DB: What are the differences between ecumenism in Europe and in the United States?

PW: Well, I don’t think that at the local level there is much difference. Some of the newer Roman Catholic bishops, both in Europe and in America, those who did not know Vatican II, are more difficult to work with but the local Catholics, it’s not a problem. There are certainly issues with the Baptists in America that don’t exist in Europe because there aren’t the kind of very conservative Baptists in Europe like in the United States with the Southern Baptist Convention. They don’t believe in ecumenism. But, as a rule, particularly as the cultures become more and more secular, ecumenism becomes a way of surviving. When I went to Tehran in Iran, I was given communion in the churches there because they have no time to wait, you know. Am I good enough? No, I’m a Christian, you see. That’s the most important thing, not that I am an Episcopalian, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Lutheran, or whatever. When you push us together we have to stick together. And in places where Christians are really persecuted like in the Middle East, they don’t really care about those differences at all any more. I think that’s the future in Europe and in America.

DB: Could you elaborate on this reflection?

PW: Yes, the new cardinal in charge of The Pontifical Council for the

The American Cathedral in Paris

Promotion of Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch has written a book in German The Future of the Church? And he says, this is 2004, that the re-evangelization of Europe, which Benedict XVI has called for, has to be an ecumenical effort or it will fail. And that’s why I see as we are more and more required to work together by the growth of secularism, other religions, no religions, there will be more and more collaboration in this task of re-evangelizing. The other thing is we’re going to have to forget a lot of our stupid old traditions that get in the way of presenting the Gospel today.

DB: For example?

PW: For example, we don’t get along. Probably the biggest and stupidest tradition is that we’re the only true church and you guys, you’re not quite good enough. We’ve been doing that for a long time. That doesn’t work any more. That never did work. So, I see the future of Christianity in the world and in Europe in optimistic terms.

DB: Optimistic?

PW: Of course! The mission of God in the world has a church and the mission of God in the world is not going to fail. We don’t know what is beyond the church because we are just a part of the it – but we know that this mission has a church. That church may change. It may die and be resurrected but it is not going to fail and disappear and be replaced by something else or a more enlightened kind of spirituality or other nonsense.

DB: Many years ago Pope Benedict XVI, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, said that the future of Christianity lies in small congregations, as in the apostolic times. The Churches will be a very small minority, and we will have to forget our dreams of big Volkskirchen. Is that an optimistic vision?

PW: Yes. Do you remember when Christianity first started after the resurrection of Jesus? It spread throughout the known world very quickly because it was based on small communities, not Volkskirchen. Today we are the largest religion on the planet. There are two billion Christians so we’re not failing. But the future is not in great big monolithic structures, huge cathedrals the way that it once was. It’s a much more flexible, networked, well it kind of resembles the internet. It works by nodes. So there will be lots of small nodes and as you probably know, a network that has lots of nodes survives a lot better than one that has a few. Now that’s the future of Christianity and it’s not dark, it’s bright. But it will require a change.

DB: As for the future of the Anglican Communion: the Anglican Covenant has failed. Where is the Anglican Communion now? What should we expect: Anglicanism being reshaped as it is now or gradually falling apart?

PW: I don’t believe that anybody can say that the Anglican Communion is falling apart. There have been some strong tensions but today as opposed to 10 years ago there are many, many more companion relationships or links between dioceses across the world than there were 10 years ago. So these are local links. One diocese in Connecticut and the diocese in Boga, Congo are forming a link, exchanging bishops, mutual instruction, becoming involved in each other’s lives. Those types of links have tripled in number in the past 10 years. And that is really what the Communion is all about. Right now in my apartment in Paris, the Provincial Secretary of Congo, Bishop Jean Molanga, and his wife are staying there because he had to come to Paris to have heart surgery he couldn’t have in Kinshasha. So we set it up, of course! That’s what the Communion is really all about. In our church in Geneva, there were many heads of the non-governmental organizations that belonged to the United Nations. Our priest got them together. They came up with the United Nations’ program for AIDS in Africa. That’s what the Communion is. It’s not like the Church of Rome where you have one main bishop and 7,000 suffragans around the world. It’s much more of a network. It’s much more horizontal. It’s much more flexible. It does not depend upon one person.

DB: But such structure has serious drawbacks.

PW: Of course. So what? Do you want to tell me the Church of Rome has no weaknesses?

DB: No.

PW: Or the Lutheran World Federation? Or the World Council of

The seal of the Convocation

Reformed Churches? I mean, come on. The point is that the Anglican Covenant process was crucial. You know, 10 years ago no one in the United States knew much about the Anglican Communion. But not many people in Uganda knew much about the Anglican Communion either. So the process of discussing “Is this Anglican Covenant right for us?” has been very, very important because the question was “What does it mean to be in communion?” Does it mean to look like this? Now the Church of England by a majority of dioceses does not want to consider the Covenant. Several other provinces have said, “Yes, we want to be part of such a thing.” So I think the future in the Anglican Communion will be to say, “Okay, if not the Covenant, what is it that it means to be in full communion?” I would say to you that it’s much more important that the bishop in Kinshasa can get a heart operation in Paris because he is part of the Anglican Communion, or a pastor’s wife from Nigeria can go to London or whatever than it is that we have some kind of doctrinal council that comes together and says this is what we believe, this is what we don’t believe. Because Anglicans, we are a family. We have a family resemblance. We all have books of common prayer. We all subscribe to the Lambeth Quadrilateral. We all have bishops. Some of us have archbishops, some of us don’t. Some bishops are elected; some people are appointed. So there’s always been difference in the way that we have been in the Anglican Communion. I don’t see that that’s going to change. As for the schism that took place in the United States, you probably know that only in the past six months it has split into three groups. So that’s what schism does. It creates little tiny churches that all broke apart over something that in retrospect looks very stupid. The best example, 5th century, the schism over Chalcedon. The difference between Nestorius and Chalcedon was that of a hair. And Nestorius said you could accept the definition of Chalcedon. There was a schism anyway. And the church of the east grew much bigger than the church in the west until the Mongols came and then they were alone. The church of the west didn’t know them, didn’t want to know them. They were monophysites or they were Nestorians. We are now seeing the last of them in the Middle East. That’s what schism does. So, you know, finally I think that when you hear media reports in a country like Poland about the Anglicans it’s very easy to say, “Oh, look at them! Those poor people of the lost out there. They don’t belong to Mother Church. And they’re coming back to us! That means we’re not as bad as we think we are, are we?” So, it’s propaganda really. When you look at reality we are talking about a few people. We are talking about a pastoral gesture by the Church of Rome that’s perfectly appropriate. So you have a few retired bishops who don’t want to be part of the Church of England any more and become Roman Catholics. So what? We also have the same.

DB: Yes, but the problem is not simply that they go to Rome. Everyone has a right to do that. They deprive the spirituality and tradition of the Anglican patrimony of their roots and plant them in a place which doesn’t fit to this patrimony.

PW: Well, let me put it to you another way. After we decided to ordain women there were a number of Episcopal priests who petitioned Rome to accept them with their families, with their wives, which they did. And there was this talk of the same thing they were going to be bringing this Anglican patrimony to them and it would change things. It didn’t. They were absorbed. Nothing, nothing changed on the Catholic ethos. The most important thing that ever happened in terms of what you’re talking about was when John Henry Newman became…

DB: Roman Catholic.

PW: Roman Catholic. Because he brought in an Anglican idea and an Anglican way of looking at things which I think were directly responsible, in the long run, for what happened in Vatican II in the Aggiornamento. So maybe it would be a good thing if the Roman Catholic Church today would discover again a little bit of the Anglican ethos. Maybe a Vatican III.

DB: Thank you very much.

PW: Thank you very much.

It took us some time, but we finally published the presentations delivered at the conference Bringing the Episcopal Church to Poland on March 31 2012 in Cracaw and Bishop Whalon’s sermon preached at the Eucharist concluding the conference. You can find them on the Projects page available via the brown menu on the top of the website. We invite to read them both those who were with us and those who couldn’t come.

Fot. P. Kalinowski

Dzięki temu poparciu oraz gościnności krakowskich ewangelików możemy was zaprosić 31 marca bieżącego roku do parafii ewangelicko-augsburskiej w Krakowie przy ul. Grodzkiej na spotkanie pod hasłem “Przybliżyć Kościół Episkopalny”. W programie znajdą się prezentacje tematyczne, czas na rozmowy i wzajemne poznanie się, zaś jego ukoronowaniem będzie Nabożeństwo Eucharystyczne, które poprowadzi ks. bp Pierre Whalon. W planach mamy:

10:00
Witamy uczestników w sali katechetycznej przy ul. Grodzkiej 60 (wejście przez bramę na 1 piętro). Na spragnionych i zdrożonych czekać będzie kawa i herbata.
10:45
Oficjalne otwarcie z modlitwą.
11:15
“Kościół Episkopalny i anglikanizm, historia i współczesność” – prof. Daniel Joslyn Siemiatkoski
12:15
“Czy powstanie episkopalnej wspólnoty w Polsce może być odpowiedzią na potrzeby polskich chrześcijan?” – J. Kubacki, Ł. Liniewicz
13:00
“Konwokacja Kościołów Episkopalnych w Europie” – bp. Pierre Whalon
14:00
Zapraszamy na skromny poczęstunek
15:00
Czas na rozmowę
17:30
Nabożeństwo eucharystyczne w kościele św. Marcina przy ul. Grodzkiej 58 i zakończenie oficjalnej części spotkania
18:45
Dla chętnych nieformalne spotkanie przy kolacji

Całość będzie tłumaczona na język polski.

Zapraszamy zainteresowanych anglikanizmem, a przede wszystkim Kościołem Episkopalnym. Zapraszamy każdego, komu bliska jest wizja Kościoła nawiązującego do wielowiekowej tradycji lokalnej a jednocześnie otwartego na pytania i wyzwania współczesności; Kościoła, którego sercem jest piękna liturgia, a przede wszystkim życie sakramentalne, i który, głosząc Ewangelię Jezusa Chrystusa, odważnie podejmuje trudne pytania moralne i społeczne. Kościoła, który chce być Kościołem dla wszystkich, niezależnie od płci, przekonań politycznych, statusu materialnego, orientacji seksualnej. Jeżeli marzy wam się taki Kościół, spotkajmy się, poznajmy ze sobą i porozmawiajmy! A przede wszystkim we wspólnej Eucharystii podziękujmy za to, że “aż dotąd prowadził nas Pan” i poprośmy o to, by zechciał dalej kierować naszymi krokami.

Chętnych prosimy o nadesłanie zgłoszenia pod adres [email protected] (oczywiście zapraszamy również tych, którzy zdecydują się w ostatniej chwili). Z udziałem nie są związane żadne dodatkowe koszty.

Thanks to this support and the hospitality of Lutherans in Cracow we can invite you to the meeting “Bringing the Episcopal Church to Poland” on March 31 in the Lutheran church in Grodzka street. The programme comprises presentations, time for conversation and getting to know one another, and above all Eucharist celebrated by Bishop Pierre Whalon. That is what we plan:

10:00
Coffee and tea
10:45
Greeting and Opening prayer
11:15
“The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism, Past and Present” – Prof. Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski
12:15
“May an Episcopal Congregation in Poland be an Answer to the Needs of Local Christians?” – J. Kubacki, L. Liniewicz
13:00
“The Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe” – Bishop Pierre Whalon
14:00
Lunch break
15:00
Time for questions, conversation
17:30
Eucharist and the conclusion of the (official part of the) meeting
18:45
Time for informal fellowship

The meeting will be interpreted and the English-speaking guests will be provided with a translation of the Polish presentation.

We invite people interested in Anglicanism, and above all in the Episcopal Church. We welcome everyone who adhers to the vision of a church referring to the ancient local traditions and at the same time open to the questions and challenges of today; a church in whose heart lies a beautiful liturgy, and above all the sacramental life, and which, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, boldly takes up the difficult moral and social issues. A church that wants to be a church welcoming all, regardless of gender, political convictions, social status and sexual orientation. If you dream of a church like that, let’s meet, get to know each other and talk! And above all thank God in Eucharist celebrated together that “Thus far the Lord has brought us” and ask that he continues to direct our steps.

If you want to take part in the meeting, please send as an e-mail to [email protected] (of course, if you decide spontaneously to join us, you are welcome as well!). The participants do not bear any costs.

Francuscy janseniści znajdowali się od czasu do czasu w polu widzenia anglikanów. Ich eklezjologia, która podkreślała znaczenie Kościoła lokalnego i jego cech narodowych, przemawiała do nich, ale maleńki Kościół Utrechtu, który praktykował tę eklezjologię, pozostawał raczej niezauważony. Rzecz jasna jest to ogromne uproszczenie, bo na przykład książka “History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland” pokazuje, że pewne zainteresowanie istniało.

Tak czy inaczej, to nie holenderscy starokatolicy zainicjowali kontakty z anglikanami; uczynili to niemieckojęzyczni przedstawiciele “drugiej fali starokatolicyzmu”. Starokatolicka ksiądz i historyk Kościoła, prof. Angela Berlis, pisze:

Biskup Edward Herzog

Relacje pomiędzy anglikanami i niemieckojęzycznymi starokatolikami rozpoczynają się około roku 1870, w czasie, gdy w reakcji na papieskie dogmaty Pierwszego Soboru Watykańskiego powstawał ruch starokatolicki.

W Kościele anglikańskim w Anglii i Ameryce Północnej śledzono z wielkim zainteresowaniem prowadzone na kontynencie europejskim spory wokół Vaticanum I. Podczas gdy skrzydło ewangelikalne angielskiego Kościoła to, co łączyło je ze starokatolikami, widziało przede wszystkim w sprzeciwie wobec Rzymu, skrzydło anglokatolickie słusznie domniemywało, że starokatolicy byli jego duchowymi pobratymcami ze względu na trzymanie się dziedzictwa starożytnego niepodzielonego Kościoła pierwszego tysiąclecia.

Źródło

Z drugiej strony nie powinniśmy idealizować anglokatolickiego spojrzenia na starokatolików, ponieważ, na przykład, wybitny anglokatolicki przywódca, Edward B. Pusey, obawiał się, że porozumienie ze starokatolikami uniemożliwi pojednanie z Rzymem i miał im za złe zbyt wielką ustępliwość wobec Kościoła prawosławnego.

Tak czy inaczej, w pierwszych międzynarodowych konferencjach starokatolickich brali udział, oprócz przedstawicieli Kościołów prawosławnych, również wysokiej rangi anglikanie. Od 1874 r. miały miejsce w Bonn konferencje unijne, którym przewodniczył jeden z najważniejszych teologów starokatolickich, Ignacy von Döllinger. Konferencje te uważa się za najważniejsze wydarzenia ekumeniczne XIX w. Cały czas odgrywała jednak rolę kwestia ważności anglikańskich święceń. Podczas gdy sam Döllinger, podobnie jak biskupi J.H. Reinkens (Niemcy) i E. Herzog (Szwajcaria) nie mieli wątpliwości, że święcenia udzielane w Kościołach anglikańskich były ważnymi katolickimi święceniami, holenderski Kościół wciąż kwestionował ich ważność. W poprzednim poście pisaliśmy o oddaleniu, które nastąpiło pomiędzy Kościołem w Niderlandach i wspólnotami niemieckojęzycznymi. Przejawiło się ono również w odniesieniu do anglikanizmu. Biskup Urs Küry pisał:

Biskup E. Herzog i biskup J.H. Reinkens odwiedzali wielokrotnie Kościół Anglii. Te osobiste spotkania uzyskały Kościelne uświęcenie w 1879 r., w Kościele parafialnym w Bernie, kiedy to szkocki biskup Cotterill, biskup J.H. Reinkens, biskup E. Herzog i o. Hyacinthe Loyson po raz pierwszy potwierdzili wzajemną wspólnotę kościelną przez wspólną komunię. W 1880 r. biskup E. Herzog został zaproszony do udziału w Generalnym Konwencie Kościoła Episkopalnego Ameryki. Konwent ten podjął uchwałę o jedności episkopatu w obu Kościołach. Biskup E. Herzog odprawiał nabożeństwa w wielu parafiach Episcopal Church i udzielał tam bierzmowania.

Źródło: Küry U., “Kościół starokatolicki. Historia, nauka, dążenia”, Warszawa 1996.

Kolejnym istotnym krokiem na drodze do Porozumienia z Bonn była konferencja w Lambeth w 1888 r., a przede wszystkim Czworokąt z Lambeth, który stał się podstawą przyszłych rozmów. Holenderscy starokatolicy wciąż nie byli jednak gotowi do uznania ważności anglikańskich święceń. Musiało upłynąć wiele czasu, a przede wszystkim wiele musiało się zmienić w samym starokatolickim Kościele w Holandii, zanim ogłosił on w 1925 r., że “bez jakichkolwiek zastrzeżeń sukcesja apostolska w Kościele Anglii nie została przerwana”. To podejście Holendrów do anglikanizmu wpłynęło w negatywny sposób na całokształt stosunków pomiędzy starokatolikami i anglikanami, szczególnie od momentu, gdy w 1889 r. powstała Unia Utrechcka, ponieważ jej powstanie oznaczało, że starokatoliccy biskupi mieli odtąd wszystkie istotne decyzje podejmować wspólnie. Mimo to również w tym stosunkowo trudnym okresie miało miejsce wiele ważnych wydarzeń. Jednym z nich było powstanie w roku 1908 w Anglii Stowarzyszenia Św. Willibrorda. Oświadczenie holenderskiego Kościoła z 1925 r. oznaczała usunięcie ostatniej istotnej przeszkody na drodze do porozumienia pomiędzy Unią Utrechcką i Wspólnotą Anglikańską. 2 lipca 1931 r. w Bonn spotkało się ośmiu delegatów wyznaczonych przez Konferencję w Lambeth i czterech przedstawicieli Kościołów starokatolickich. Ranek spędzono jeszcze na zadawaniu pytań. Starokatolicy pytali anglikanów o autorytet konferencji w Lambeth i znaczenie 39 artykułów Kościoła Anglii (niestety nie udało nam się znaleźć w sieci polskiego przekładu 39 artykułów, natomiast dostępny jest tekst artykułów wiary Kościoła Ewangelicko-Metodystycznego, które są w dużym stopniu oparte na 39 artykułach), podczas gdy anglikanie pytali o autorytet Pisma Świętego i starokatolickie rozumienie Eucharystii. Już po południu powstał szkic tego, co miało przejść do historii jako Porozumienie z Bonn. Ostateczna wersja brzmi jak następuje:

Arcybiskup Canterbury i Arcybiskup Utrecht w drodze do kościoła we Fryburgu, 2006

1. Każda wspólnota kościelna uznaje katolickość i samodzielność drugiej oraz utrzymuje własną;
2. Każda wspólnota kościelna wyraża zgodę na dopuszczenie członków drugiej do udziału w sakramentach.
3. Interkomunia nie wymaga od żadnej wspólnoty kościelnej przyjęcia wszystkich poglądów doktrynalnych, pobożności sakramentalnej lub praktyki liturgicznej właściwych dla drugiej, lecz zakłada, że każda wierzy, iż druga uznaje to wszystko, co należy do istoty wiary chrześcijańskiej.

7 września 1931 r. Międzynarodowa Konferencja Biskupów Starokatolickich przyjęła porozumienie, a w dniach 20-21 stycznia 1932 r. zostało ono ratyfikowane przez Konwokacje Canterbury i Yorku.

W dyskusjach, które niekiedy prowadzimy w internecie, szczególnie z rzymskokatolikami, słyszymy często, że Porozumienie z Bonn nie doprowadziło przecież do pełnej jedności Kościołów anglikańskich i starokatolickich. Tu oczywiście pojawia się pytanie: co to takiego “pełna jedność”? Szeroko odniósł się do tego biskup Pierre Whalon w swoim kazaniu z okazji 80. rocznicy Porozumienia. U podstaw tej wizji jedności biskup Pierre umieszcza trynitarną wizję Kościoła (którą znamy również z teologii prawosławnej):

Te Trzy [Osoby] tworzą relacje, które określają Bóstwo jako potrójne i zarazem jako doskonałą jedność: te Trzy [Osoby] są jednością, ponieważ relacje, które tworzą ich odrębne tożsamości, zarazem łączą je w doskonały sposób ze sobą w nierozdzielną jedność miłości. (…)

Te kilka słów Porozumienia z Bonn wskazuje na rodzaj jedności, która jest naszym udziałem. Nie jest to monada, podległa jednemu biskupowi, który mówi reszcie w co wierzyć i jak działać. Jest to obraz – jakkolwiek blady i wątły – życia, które dzielimy ze sobą w Trójjedynym Bogu. Każda z Trzech [Osób] ma odrębną tożsamość, a jednak stanowią one doskonałą jedność.

Anglikańska Eucharystia w katedrze starokatolickiej w Haarlemie

Jedność anglikanów i starokatolików jest jednością w relacji, a relacja to coś, co trzeba utrzymywać w ruchu. Ta jedność jest drogą, którą musimy iść razem; procesem wzrostu. Oczywiście nie powinniśmy nadużywać tej wizj do ukrywania faktu, że wciąż istnieją problemy i trudności. Porozumienie z Bonn jest bardzo ogólne i nie zawiera żadnych przepisów wykonawczych; innymi słowy – wiemy, że jesteśmy jednością, ale nie zawsze wiemy jak nią być. Pomimo to, ta jedność jest faktem. Ostatniej niedzieli uczestniczyliśmy w anglikańskim nabożeństwie komunijnym, które odbywało się w starokatolickiej katedrze w Haarlemie. Ponieważ miejscowi anglikanie nie mają obecnie własnego duchownego, nabożeństwo było prowadzone przez lektora, który udzielał komunii chlebem i winem uprzednio konsekrowanym w czasie starokatolickiej mszy porannej. “Chociaż jest nas wielu [i różnimy się], jesteśmy jednym ciałem, ponieważ wszyscy dzielimy się jednym chlebem”…

Do dalszej lektury (w języku angielskim) polecamy wykład wygłoszony przez Arcybiskupa Canterbury, dra Rowana Williamsa, z okazji 75. rocznicy Porozumienia oraz książkę ”Building on the Bonn Agreement: An historical study of Anglican-Old Catholic relations before and after the 1931 Bonn Agreement with special reference to the Anglican-Old Catholic Theologians Conferences 1957-2005″, o której pisaliśmy w zeszłym roku tutaj.

The French Jansenists were from time to time noticed by the Anglicans. Their ecclesiology, which emphasized the local church with its national characteristics, was appealing to Anglicans, but the tiny Church of Utrecht, which practiced this ecclesiology, remained rather unnoticed. It should be noted, however, that what we wrote here is naturally a great simplification, because the book “History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland” suggests there was at least some interest.

However, it wasn’t the Dutch Old Catholics that initiated contact with Anglicans; it was done by German speaking representatives of the “second wave of Old Catholicism”. Old Catholic priest and church historian, Rev. Prof. Angela Berlis, wrote:

Bishop Eduard Herzog

The relations between Anglicans and the German speaking Old Catholics began about 1870 when the Old Catholic movement was established as reaction to the Papal dogmas of the First Vatican Council.

The Anglican Church in England and North America followed the controversy aroused by the First Vatican Council with great interest. While the evangelical wing of the English church thought that what was shared with Old Catholics was above all the opposition to Rome, the Anglo-Catholic wing rightly suspected that Old Catholics were their spiritual kinsmen because of their adherence to the legacy of the original undivided church of the first millennium.

Source

On the other hand, we shouldn’t idealize the Anglo-Catholic vision of Old Catholics, because, for example, the great Anglo-Catholic leader, Edward B. Pusey, feared that an agreement with Old Catholics will make reconciliation with Rome impossible, and he held it against them that they were too compliant toward the Orthodox Church.

In any case, in the first international Old Catholic conferences took part, beside representatives of the Orthodox Churches, also high-rank Anglicans. Since 1874 Reunion Conferences were held in Bonn, lead by one of the most important Old Catholic theologians, Ignaz von Döllinger. These conferences are considered the most important ecumenical events of the 19th century. All the time, however, the validity of Anglican orders was still an issue. While Döllinger himself, as well as Bishops J.H. Reinkens (Germany) and Bishop E. Herzog (Switzerland) didn’t doubt that Anglican orders were valid Catholic orders, the Dutch church was still questioning them. In the last post we wrote about estrangement between the church in the Netherlands and the German speaking communities, and the  estrangement manifested itself also in regard to Anglicanism. Bishop Urs Küry writes:

Bishop E. Herzog and Bishop J.H. Reinkens visited the Church of England many times. These personal meetings were given church sanction in 1879 in the parish church in Bern when the Scottish Bishop Cotterill, Bishop Reinkens, Bishop Herzog and Fr. Hyacinthe Loyson affirmed communion between the churches by celebrating the Eucharist together. In 1880 Bishop Herzog was invited to take part in the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. The Convention passed a resolution on the unity of Episcopate in both churches. Bishop Herzog conducted services in many Episcopal parishes and administered confirmations.

Source:  Küry U., “Die Altkatolische Kirche. Ihre Geschichte, ihre Lehre, ihr Anliegen”, Stuttgart 1982

Another important step on the way to Bonn Agreement was the Lambeth Conference in 1888, and above all the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which became the foundation for further talks. However, the Dutch Old Catholics were still unwilling to accept the validity of Anglican orders. Much time had to pass, and, above all, much had to change in the Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands itself, until, in 1925, it declared “without any restrictions that the apostolic succession in the Church of England has not been interrupted”. That attitude of the Dutch to Anglicanism negatively influenced the entire relations between Old Catholics and Anglicans, especially since the Union of Utrecht was established in 1889, because its creation meant that the Old Catholic bishops would make all the important decisions together. Yet also in this relatively difficult period quite a few important events took place. One of them was the establishment of the Society of St. Willibrord in 1908 in England. The declaration of the Dutch church from 1925 meant that the last important obstacle on the way to agreement between the Union of Utrecht and the Anglican Communion was removed. On 2 July 1931 in Bonn eight delegates nominated by the Lambeth conference and four representatives of the Old Catholic churches gathered together. In the morning took place mutual survey of the delegates. Old Catholics asked Anglicans about the authority of the Lambeth Conference and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, whereas Anglicans were asking about the authority of Scripture and the understanding of Eucharist. Already in the afternoon a draft of what was to be remembered as the Bonn Agreement was prepared. The final version was as follows:

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Utrecht on their way to the church in Freiburg, 2006

1. Each Communion recognizes the catholicity and independence of the other and maintains its own.
2. Each Communion agrees to admit members of the other Communion to participate in the Sacraments.
3. Full Communion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith.

On 7 September 1931 the International Old Catholic Bishops’ Conference accepted the agreement and on 20-21 January 1932 took place the ratification by the Convocations of Canterbury and York.

In the discussions we sometimes have on the internet, especially with Roman Catholics, we often hear that the Bonn Agreement has not lead to full unity of the Anglican and Old Catholic churches. Of course, here comes up the question what is “full unity”. It was broadly discussed by Bishop Pierre Whalon in his sermon for the 80th anniversary celebration of the Bonn Agreement. At the foundation of the vision of unity Bishop Pierre presents there is the Trinitarian vision of the church (which we also know from Orthodox theology):

The Three are relations which both define the Godhead as triple and also as perfectly One: these Three are One because the relations which generate their separate identities also bind them perfectly into an indivisible unity of Love. (…)

The few words of the Bonn Agreement point to the kind of unity we share. It is not a monad, under one bishop who tells the rest of us what to believe and how to act. It is an image — albeit a very pale and feeble image — of the life we share in the Triune God. The Three have each a separate identity, yet they are perfectly one.

Anglican Eucharist in the Old Catholic cathedral in Haarlem

The Anglican-Old Catholic unity is one in a relationship, and a relationship is something we have to keep dynamic. This unity is a way we have to go together; a process of growth. Of course, we shouldn’t abuse that vision to conceal the fact that there are still problems and difficulties. The Bonn Agreement is very generic and doesn’t contain any executive rules; in other words, we know we are one, but we not always know how to be one. Despite this, that unity is a fact. Today we attended Anglican Service of Holy Communion which took place in the Old Catholic Cathedral in Haarlem. Since the local Anglicans don’t have their own priest-in-charge now, the service was lead by a reader who distributed bread and wine previously consecrated during the Old Catholic Mass in the morning. “Though we are many [and different] we are one body, because we all share in one bread”….

For further reading we recommend you the lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, for the 75th anniversary of the Agreement and the book “Building on the Bonn Agreement: An historical study of Anglican-Old Catholic relations before and after the 1931 Bonn Agreement with special reference to the Anglican-Old Catholic Theologians Conferences 1957-2005” we wrote about last year here.