ANGLICANS regrettably know about ecclesiological culture wars. Some assessments of the papacy and earlier ministry of Joseph Ratzinger already fall into the trap of making him the personification of Roman Catholic opposition to the current policy of Pope Francis. From an ecumenical perspective, Pope Emeritus Benedict, who died on 31 December (News, 6 January), deserves more than such a conservative caricature.
His undoubted contribution to Vatican II must be recorded. As the “theological expert” of Cardinal Frings of Cologne, he had already published (with the Jesuit Karl Rahner) important contributions to the Council’s eventual consensus on “Scripture and Tradition”, and on the relationship between bishops and the primacy.
While Ratzinger was always cautious about Enlightenment individualism — even suspicious of some of the optimism of Vatican II — he was a champion of a return to the “sources” of scripture and the Fathers. Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue became possible with Pope Paul VI’s and Dr Michael Ramsey’s Common Declaration of “a serious dialogue which, founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions, [would] lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed”. Ratzinger was one of those who helped the Council to escape the trap of Reformation/Counter-Reformation polemics on two alleged sources of revelation.
But, after the Council, commentators notice a change. Student riots apparently shocked Ratzinger, particularly a dispute in the Catholic faculty at Tübingen over a theologian whose licence to teach theology had been withdrawn by Rome. Ratzinger’s interpretation of the Vatican Council became tempered by a hermeneutic of continuity rather than change. In this, he concurred with Pope John Paul II, who appointed him as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
This was at the time that the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission’s (ARCIC’s) Final Report of 1982 was before the Congregation. A comparison between the official assessment by the CDF, and Ratzinger’s comments in a personal article on the Final Report, demonstrate his intelligent engagement with the issues and an enthusiastic commitment to continuing the dialogue. His personal comments were not roadblocks.
MOST Anglicans will be less familiar with Ratzinger’s commitment to the dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation on Justification. He organised a private meeting with Lutheran leaders to resolve difficulties, and secured agreement.
His own Augustinian theology of grace no doubt helped him in his understanding of — and even empathy with — Lutheran positions. In this context, he spoke of a “differentiated consensus.” This intentional phrase contrasts with earlier difficulties that the CDF had in comprehending the nature of ecumenical agreement. It follows Ratzinger’s championing of unity through diversity, in which he spoke of the good for the RC Church of German Protestantism.
Evangelical scholars have more than once recognised Ratzinger’s constructive ecumenical approach. Bishop Tom Wright once opined that Ratzinger had more or less solved the problem of purgatory and prayers for the dead.
Ratzinger also participated in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. He said that Rome could not impose on the East doctrines or practices introduced since the split between East and West in 1054. He also understood that the Church is formed at local, regional, and universal levels. This was essential for dialogue with the Orthodox Churches with their Patriarchates, and also for Anglicans, with our tradition of provincial autonomy, as recognised in the last ARCIC statement.
For Ratzinger, the issue of the priority of the universal Church over the local, or vice versa, was a real one. So, too, the self-understanding of the Church of Christ as “subsisting” in the RC Church. CDF documents on these matters certainly ruffled feathers ecumenically, but with the interesting result of internal Vatican “dialogue” from Cardinal Walter Kasper, who insisted that subsidiary documents must be interpreted in the light of Vatican II, and not the other way round.
RATZINGER does not appear to have minded discussing difficult issues. A number of years ago, the co-chairs and the secretaries of ARCIC visited the Cardinal, as he then was, in his office in the CDF. After a very courteous welcome, an animated discussion followed. He clearly enjoyed this “seminar” role, and, at one point, he noted that this had been a Western discussion, and that the Orthodox would speak in different terms. Later, he was to say of himself: “In reality, I am more of a professor, a person who reflects and meditates on spiritual questions.”
Anglicans were sceptical about the erection of the Ordinariates. They were never hailed (by Rome), however, as an alternative ecumenism, but, rather, a pastoral provision at the specific request of some Anglicans. Much more significantly, he more than once commented on the ordination of Protestants (he was thinking of Lutheran and Reformed in Germany). They had been ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands. He said “This is not nothing,” recognising a reality in their ordained ministry.
But, above all, Pope Benedict’s retirement was his greatest ecumenical action, by demonstrating that the papacy is a ministry connected to an office (the Bishop of Rome) rather than to the person holding that office — something that Ratzinger was already clearly teaching even before the Second Vatican Council.
The Rt Revd Christopher Hill is a former Bishop of Guildford and a former co-secretary of ARCIC. He reviews Catholicism: A global history form the French Revolution to Pope Francis here