Beyond the experience of duality

Inter-Communion Now

A Letter to The Tablet 8 July 1978

Sir: I have been intending for some time to write an article on a new approach to Christian unity on the lines suggested by Fr Abrami in his article ‘Intercommunion now’ (The Tablet 17 June). Now that Fr Abrami has anticipated me, I would like to write in support of his suggestion, perhaps giving it a more concrete form.

I would start like Fr Abrami from baptism as the basis of Christian unity, that is, of the visible unity of the Church. It has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, at least from the 2nd century, that there is only one baptism, and that every Christian who is baptised is baptised into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. It is further held that in baptism every Christian is reconciled with God as the Father, is forgiven his sins by the gift of the Holy Spirit and is made a member of the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The question, therefore, surely is, how can any church refuse communion to a person, who has thus been accepted by God, acknowledged by Christ and made the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit? Unless a person deliberately renounces the grace of his baptism, it is difficult to see how this can be, or how he can be considered anything less than a member of the one Church of Christ.

But it may be said that baptism implies faith, on the part of the person concerned or on the part of his sponsors, and that it is here that the difficulties arise. But I would suggest that there is a simple answer to the problem. It is now recognised that Christian faith is not essentially an assent to certain propositions about God and Christ and the Church, but a commitment to the person of Christ, which was expressed in the early Church in the simple formula, “Jesus is the Lord”. Of which St Paul says that “no-one can say ‘Jesus is the Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” Or, if one prefers a slightly different formula, one can take that of St Peter on the day of Pentecost: “This Jesus, whom you crucified, God has made Lord and Christ.” In these simple formulas the whole essence of Christian faith is contained, and anyone who professes Christ in this way can surely be accepted as a Christian. We would thus have a simple all-embracing formula to define a Christian and a member of the Church of Christ in the words of St Paul: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” This would be the sign of membership of the Catholic Church.

If this is accepted then there can be no question, as Fr Abrami says, about admission to communion. But I would disagree with him about making any special profession of faith in the Eucharist. Surely, what all Christians hold in common is that just as in the sacrament of baptism we are made members of the Body of Christ and enter into personal communion with him, so in the sacrament of the Eucharist we renew out communion with the person of Christ and with one another in him. It is this personal communion with Christ and with one another in his Body which is the Church, which is the essence of the Eucharist. St Thomas Aquinas distinguishes in the Eucharist the sacramentum, that is the outward sign, and the res, the thing signified, and says that the res, the thing signified by the Eucharist, is the “unity of the Body of Christ,” That is the unity of Christians with one another in the Body of Christ. Could we not therefore say that faith and baptism and the desire for personal communion with Christ and with one’s brothers and sisters in Christ in his Body the Church is sufficient for admission to communion in the Eucharist?

It would be a mistake to introduce further elaborations of Christian doctrine at this or at any other point. We have to recognise that the ‘developments’ of Christian doctrine, of which Newman wrote, and likewise of church organisation, though implicit in the original doctrine, yet developed under particular historical and cultural conditions. Catholic doctrine and discipline developed, in fact, almost entirely, in the historical conditions of the Roman Empire in the first five centuries and then in medieval Europe. This was a particular development, guided no doubt by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless belonging to a particular historical culture and capable of a very different development under different circumstances. This is becoming an urgent matter in another sphere than ecumenism today. What people are asking now is whether the Gospel must be preached in Asia and Africa with all the development of doctrine and organisation, which were developed in Europe in the past. Could not the peoples of Asia and Africa develop their own forms and structures based not on Greco-Roman models, but on their own traditional cultural forms and structures?

Thus, the problem of ecumenism opens up on the wider problem of evangelisation. In both respects we seem to be called to go back to the original source of Christian doctrine in its purity and simplicity. This is not to say that the doctrinal developments and sacramental structures are not important, but they are secondary not primary. We cannot wait for Christian unity until we reach agreement of these developed forms and structures. We have first to unite and then to continue with the search for more far-reaching agreement. The unity already exists: it is only a matter of acknowledging it.

Shantivanam