In 1983, shortly before Karl Rahner died, he and Heinrich Fries, another Roman Catholic theologian, published an appeal for Christian unity. They were moved by the conviction that a divided Church could never adequately respond to the onslaught of secularism and atheism which has swept the modern world. The Stone-Campbell heritage of which we are a part has long shared this conviction.

In their 1985 book entitled, Unity of the Churches An Actual Possibility,⁽¹⁾ Fries and Rahner proposed the formation of "one Church" composed of "partner Churches" consisting of the large Protestant bodies and the Roman Catholic Church. In support of this proposal they presented Eight Theses which merited far more attention than they received. Especially was this true in the United States, where many religious bodies including Christian Churches and Churches of Christ proceeded on their way, largely unaware.⁽²⁾

Indeed, some may ask, Why should a lecture which is devoted to the cause of "Christian Reformation" be concerned with a plea for unity made by Roman Catholic theologians? My reply is twofold: First, We and Roman Catholics share a "high" doctrine of the Church. Second, a study of the Proposal of Fries and Rahner may well throw light upon the catholicity of our own historic plea, whether in contrast or in confirmation.⁽³⁾

Some years ago, A. T. DeGroot wrote, "Disciples are Free Church Catholics."⁽⁴⁾ In my judgment, this is a very apt description of the original plea of the Stone-Campbell Movement. We share the venerable "Free Church" conviction of the "Radical" wing of the Protestant Reformation, that "God is best served by free and uncoerced devotion." Therefore, we practice believer's Baptism.

But we are different from the Anabaptists in that we seek "restoration" or "restitution" for the sake of Christian unity, for the sake of mission. We have a deep concern for the "catholicity" which marked the apostolic Church. For this reason, to be "Free Church Catholics" is the unique calling of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

Since this is so, how does the catholicity of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ relate to Roman catholicity? It is from the standpoint of that question that I wish to compare the Fries-Rahner Proposal with the "founding principles" of the 19th Century Stone-Campbell Movement.

Let us therefore turn to examine several of the key Theses which Fries and Rahner propose, together with the authors' commentaries.⁽⁵⁾

Thesis I declares,
 

     The fundamental truths of Christianity, as they are expressed in Holy Scripture, in the Apostles' Creed, and in that of Nicea and Constantinople are binding on all partner churches of the one Church to be.

This Thesis is addressed by Heinrich Fries, who commences with an eloquent affirmation of the unique role of Holy Scripture. Because of its significance we quote it at length. He writes,
 

    Holy Scripture is the record of the Christian faith described here according to its content and accomplishment. It is the varied fallout in written form of the faith of a community which orients itself by Jesus Christ, by His person, by His word, by His work, by what in Him became an event culminating in death and resurrection. The result of this was that the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ was revealed: Jesus is the Christ, He is the Lord, He is the Son of God in a sense reserved entirely to Him, He is the Redeemer and Saviour of the world. . . .
 

    Holy Scripture is the record of the faith of the Church at its inception. This is not only a chronological but also a normative origin, a standard for all that is to come, yet simultaneously critical of the tradition. "The river does not rise above its source" (John H. Newman) applies to this origin. . . .
 

    But the result of what has been said is also: everything that is to come must be responsible to the origin and must, as it were, be capable of reflecting it.
 

    This normative origin testified to in Holy Scriptures is antecedent to the community of faith, the Church, throughout its two-thousand-year history up to the present time, and is at the same time the enduring basis of its life.⁽⁶⁾

We who have pleaded for "Restoration,"--the reformation of the Church in terms of its origin--will surely appreciate this emphasis upon the "normative origin testified to in Holy Scriptures [which] is antecedent to the community of faith. . . ."⁽⁷⁾ Has anyone in our heritage more clearly voiced the plea of the Restoration Movement?

In light of this high doctrine of the "Given Norm" to which Scripture bears testimony, and to which the Church is responsible, why is the second part of Thesis I necessary? Indeed, Fries asks this same question, saying,
 

    Why are the fundamental truths of Christianity--as they are also proclaimed in the Apostles' Creed and in that of Nicaea and Constantinople--now binding on all partner churches of the one Church?⁽⁸⁾

This is surely an appropriate question. If Scripture presents Jesus as the Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, Redeemer, Saviour and the Word Incarnate, what more is to be said? Fries says that the Creeds are "historical effects" of Scripture. They represent "faith's response" to the Biblical testimony. But even so, are they normative in the same sense as Scripture?⁽⁹⁾ Fries and Rahner seem ambivalent in this regard.⁽¹⁰⁾

We have noted their high doctrine of Scripture, but the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is nonetheless made a term of communion.
 

Thesis II affirms that

    beyond Thesis I no explicit and positive confession in one partner church is to be imposed as dogma obligatory for another partner church.⁽¹¹⁾

In his exposition of this Thesis, Rahner notes the change which he perceives in the religious environment. Where once a common doctrinal understanding was considered essential to church union, now diversity of understanding is to be brought into the one united Church. Rahner commends this "epistemological tolerance," saying, "If a person withholds an affirmative verdict regarding a true (certainly or possibly) proposition, he does not err."⁽¹²⁾

Presumably, mainline churches are prepared to exercise such "tolerance," but Rahner does not expect the "smaller groups or sects," to possess such "tolerance." Indeed, Rahner thinks their very existence denies the principle of "toleration."⁽¹³⁾

Thus, it is evident that the ecclesiastical unity Fries and Rahner propose is a "particular" or "partial" unity. It only concerns what have been called, the "Great Churches"--not the "Gathered Churches."⁽¹⁴⁾

Thesis III, which would permit partner churches to exist in the same "region," need not detain us here. It has reference to the European scene in which the State-Church remains established.⁽¹⁵⁾

However, Rahner's exposition contains a noteworthy statement which explains why the authors felt Thesis III to be necessary. It was a message for Rome. Rahner writes,
 

    It is simply inconceivable that the churches of the Reformation could ever be dissolved in such a way as to deliver their members, including their officials, to a Western Roman Catholic church without transforming that church. . . . The demand that these churches surrender themselves is an illegitimate and unjust demand which simply may not be made by Rome in any way.⁽¹⁶⁾

Thesis IV concerns the papacy and is of such significance that it has been divided into two parts.
 

Thesis IVa reads:

    All partner churches acknowledge the meaning and right of the Petrine service of the Roman pope to be the concrete guarantor of the unity of the Church in truth and love.

In writing the exposition of Thesis IVa, Fries shows himself to be very aware that although he and Rahner would soften papal claims, yet, those claims remain most troublesome to any proposal for unity between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.⁽¹⁷⁾

Indeed, Fries concedes,
 

One could find ample evidence to prove how much these decisions of Vatican I regarding the primacy and teaching office of the pope have burdened the relationship to other confessions almost to the present day.⁽¹⁸⁾

How true! Protestants were encouraged by Vatican II's "Decree on Ecumenism," which seemed to moderate the extreme claims of Vatican I. But many Protestants were disturbed when the Second Vatican reaffirmed the "hard line" by declaring, "The pope, as supreme shepherd of the Church, can exercise his power at any time he sees fit, as is demanded by his office."⁽¹⁹⁾ It is still unclear which of these pronouncements truly represents Rome. Or, are we to understand that the "Decree on Ecumenism" is to be interpreted according to the latter affirmation of papal power and prerogative?

Fries outlines the arguments from Scripture which have persuaded many of Peter's primacy and the validity of the Petrine succession. Yet, he acknowledges that it is only since the Third Century that popes have based their claims on such New Testament passages. With magnificent understatement, Fries observes, "It is undoubtedly a long way from the Petrine service, as described in the New Testament, to the papacy in its historical form and prominence, particularly in its representation as coined by Vatican I."⁽²⁰⁾

The uncommon concern and courage of Fries and Rahner is seen in their call for a "restructuring" of the papacy in the direction of "legitimate diversity, collegiality, and subsidiarity."⁽²¹⁾ The radical character of this proposal is seen in the fact that in 1985, only two years after this plea, Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian "liberation theologian" was silenced by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.⁽²²⁾ There was not much "collegiality," "subsidiarity," or room for "diversity" visible in the treatment of Boff. Were the voices of Fries and Rahner simply ignored by Rome?

Rahner introduces his discussion of Thesis Ivb by three radical concessions: The first is almost unheard of: Non-Roman Catholics do not need to recognize the papal office by acceding to the "positive and explicit recognition of the teaching of Vatican I."

The second concession is of special significance for Free Church Catholics: It declares that the pope's obligation to acknowledge the independence of the partner churches in the one Church inheres in the nature of the Church and "is not subject to the pope's wishes" [Italics mine]. We might put this principle in even simpler terms: "Freedom is of the essence of the Church."

The third concession states that in the "united Church" any papal encyclicals addressed to non-Roman partner churches would need to respect the "dissimilarity in the mentality and in the religious and theological thinking" of those bodies. Obviously, this would constitute a welcome step in light of papal history.

Yet, as a Free Church Catholic, I cannot refrain from asking, What is this preoccupation with the question, Who is "first"? Who is "preeminent"? Did not Jesus chide the disciples when they commenced a quarrel about that very thing?⁽²³⁾ Of course, it needs to be acknowledged that ecclesiastical authority figures are not confined to Rome.⁽²⁴⁾ But the unseemly debate over primacy would seem to many of us to be more appropriate for the legions of Caesar than the company of Jesus.

In the Free Church heritage, confidence has traditionally been placed in the community of the faithful who seek to discern "the mind of Christ" as they are led by the Spirit under judgment of the Word. Learning is reverenced, if it is learning on the part of scholars who, themselves, "will to do the will of God," and hence "know the teaching" (Jn. 7:17). When learning is placed within the context of devotion, the consensus fidelium is discovered--"the consent of the faithful, freely expressed."⁽²⁵⁾

Of course, to seek the counsel of wisdom in others is important. But it is not appropriate to deliver over to another "level of authority" that for which a congregation is, itself, responsible. Moreover, history has revealed another "Murphy's Law" which decrees that the higher the "level of authority," the more devastating is its abuse.

Recognition of this reality would seem to be implicit in two daring suggestions of Fries and Rahner: First, in "the one and varied Church" the existing Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would, itself, need to be reformed. The theologians do not say whether they had consulted with Cardinal Ratzinger in this regard.

The Second provision attempts to allay a realistic fear: Some procedure must be found to assure the non-Roman partner churches that the pope will not violate the consciences of their members by offensive ex cathedra pronouncements. Such a move could force the partner churches to withdraw.⁽²⁶⁾

Fries and Rahner are to be commended for their fairness in recognizing the threat which "non-Roman partner churches" would feel were the Papacy to revert to a pre-Vatican II status. In light of Boniface VIII with his Unam Sanctum,⁽²⁷⁾ or Pius IX with his Syllabus of Errors,⁽²⁸⁾ or even Pius XII and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary,⁽²⁹⁾ the "non-Roman partner churches" will most certainly wish to see realistic procedures set in place should an intransigent Ultramontane again occupy the Papal Chair.

The foregoing theses represent the heart of the Fries-Rahner Proposal. The concluding theses concern the role of bishops, fraternal interchange of traditions, the ministerial office, and pulpit and altar fellowship.

  II CATHOLICITY OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE STONE-CAMPBELL MOVEMENT

The Roman Catholic theologians Fries and Rahner, and the reformers Barton Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell were all concerned for the unity of the Church. Some convictions they shared in common. Yet, their understanding of the essence of the unity for which Jesus prayed was significantly different. It may therefore be useful to compare the Theses of Fries and Rahner with the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery (1804),⁽³⁰⁾ and the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington [PA] (1809).

First, as we have seen, Fries and Rahner seek visible Church unity through an amalgamation of hierarchical structures under the aegis of the pope. This left the "free churches" out of consideration, for they have no hierarchical structure through which such an union could be effected. Moreover, Fries and Rahner don't think those churches would be interested, anyway. In some instances they are probably correct, but most certainly not in all.

On the other hand, Barton Stone and his fellow revival preachers sought catholicity which could include all Christians. To realize this goal, two steps were necessary: First, they would no longer define Christian unity in terms of their Presbytery--an organization which did not and could not include all the brothers and sisters of Jesus. For this reason, they willed that their Presbytery "die," and "be dissolved"--an unprecedented step.

Second, Stone and his associates would henceforth not consider their primary Christian identity to be in their denomination, but in the whole Church. Thus, they willed to "sink into union with the Body of Christ at large." This would require them to learn to recognize and enjoy unity with other Christians only in terms which did or could include all of the Lord's brothers and sisters. Those terms would surely be the marks of the unity created by the Holy Spirit, which Paul enunciates in the fourth chapter of Ephesians: One Body, One Spirit, One Hope, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism and One God and Father of all.

Third, Fries and Rahner placed great emphasis upon "holy orders" and "apostolic succession" which granted clergy special rights and powers. On the other hand, the Last Will abolished the qualitative difference between clergy and laity, willing that the title, "Reverend" with its prerogatives be dropped. Far from a mechanical "apostolic succession," they willed that
 

candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven. . . .

They further willed that the
 

church of Christ . . . try her candidates for the ministry as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them.

Thomas Campbell was apparently unaware of the Last Will and Testament, when, five years later, he wrote the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington.⁽³¹⁾ Yet we may be amazed how his view of Christian unity unfolded the Last Will's expressed desire to be part of "the Body of Christ at large." This makes the Declaration and Address especially relevant to the Theses of Fries and Rahner.

We have noted, for example, that Fries and Rahner advocate a Church union in political or hierarchical terms. However, Thomas Campbell sought to reform such political understandings of unity, in keeping with the rich inter-personal terms of which Jesus spoke in His prayer. Let us take note of what Jesus said:
 

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
                    -- (Jn. 17:20, 21 NIV)

In light of Jesus' prayer, Thomas Campbell wrote, "The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one." It "consists of all those in every place [personal] who profess their faith in Christ [confessional] and obedience to him in all things according to the Scripture" [sacramental] and who "manifest the same by their tempers and conduct" [ethical]⁽³²⁾

Again, we have noted that Fries and Rahner are concerned for "Church unity" made "visible" in an hierarchy. But the unity which Campbell urges is not "invisible." People are visible! Bearing witness to the "Good Confession" is both a visible and audible act. The broken Bread and the poured out Cup are on the Table for all to see. Burial in the water of Christian Baptism is a visible event. And a Christ-like life marked by the fruits of the Spirit is visible, becoming a "living letter known and read by all people."

Indeed, it really needs to be asked, Why does this generation insist that only through creation of a massive, monolithic ecclesiastical structure can the unity of the Church be made "visible"?

We have also noted that Fries and Rahner affirm a high doctrine of the Scripture which conveys to the Church her normative origin. However, they then proceed to treat as normative subsequent creeds and dogmas, whether pronounced by councils or popes. Thomas Campbell likewise affirmed the normative nature of Scripture.⁽³³⁾

But in distinction to Fries and Rahner, Campbell insisted that not even his own Westminster Confession of Faith had equal standing with Scripture.⁽³⁴⁾ He stated the principle succinctly:
 

Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church; or be made a term of communion amongst christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.⁽³⁵⁾

Again, we have noted that Fries and Rahner commend "epistemological tolerance" among the uniting churches. That is, there must be room for doctrinal diversity within a common faith. For his part, Thomas Campbell did not speak of "epistemological tolerance." But he did declare that "inferences and deductions from scripture premises," are not to be made "formally binding on the consciences of christians [sic] farther than they perceive the connection." The reason is simple: "Their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God." Therefore, Campbell firmly declared that "no such deduction can be made terms of communion" [italics added]. They rather belong to the "after and progressive edification of the church." This principle, essentially validated by Fries and Rahner, remains an unappropriated blessing to the whole Church.

Finally, we have noted that Fries and Rahner addressed their appeal only to the Orthodox churches of the East, and to the episcopally organized Protestant churches of the West. It was an institutional appeal with institutional limits.

But Thomas Campbell addressed his plea to persons--to all "Christians among the sects." It was addressed to all believers, everywhere, no matter what their church order or special doctrines. It was just that--an invitation to reformation for the sake of mission, for the sake of Jesus.

Two paths to realization of Church unity are represented by the Fries-Rahner Proposal and the original plea of Stone and Campbell. Their relative value or validity may be measured by asking a simple question of each viewpoint. Let us first ask, Would Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell have been considered members of the united Church as envisioned by Fries and Rahner? The answer must be, "No. They did not belong to an ecclesiastical institution which acknowledged 'the meaning and right of the Petrine service of the Roman pope.'"

Now let us ask again, Would Fries and Rahner be considered members of the united Church as envisioned by Stone and Thomas Campbell? The answer is, "Yes. They were part of 'the Body of Christ at large.'" Even more specifically, in Thomas Campbell's terms, were not Fries and Rahner part of that great company composed of "all those in every place who profess their faith in Christ"? Did they not "[profess] their obedience to Him in all things according to the Scripture"?⁽³⁶⁾ Did not their lifestyles "manifest" that faith? We may say "yes," to all these questions.

So while Thomas Campbell would not have been a member of the united Church as envisioned by Karl Rahner, Rahner was a member of the Church as envisioned by Campbell. Where, then, lay the most promising direction to true catholicity?

The contemporary task of the "Restoration Movement" is to awaken within worshiping congregations an awareness of their inherent catholicity, with both its privileges and responsibilities.

It is remarkable that to such humble fellowships as well as to the largest is offered the same Gift of the Church--Christ's fellowship with God, shared with believers. To each assembly God provides the gift of wholeness in its place--a wholeness created by the Holy Spirit. In this role as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in its place, each assembly acts on behalf of the whole Church on earth and in heaven when it proclaims the Word, baptizes believers, breaks the Bread, disciplines its body-life and serves in the world. How else are believers' names "written in heaven" (Lk. 10:36)?

To these high privileges are added equally high responsibilities to act for the whole Church on earth and in heaven. ⁽³⁷⁾

For this reason, I have elsewhere suggested a "categorical imperative" for the local Church. That is, A local Church ought so to believe, teach, practice and live in love that the principles of its faith, practice and life could be commended to the whole Church of Christ on earth. In so doing, all congregations in common would realize and exhibit amidst a lost and confused world, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Most importantly, united hands would lift Jesus Christ higher, that all the nations might "look and live."

1. Translated by Ruch C. L. Gritsch and Eric W. Gritsch, Unity of the Churches was jointly published in English by Fortress Press and Paulist Press in 1985. Hereafter referred to as Unity.

2. It is true that the Council on Christian Unity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has carried on discussions with Roman Catholics. But Disciples have largely been preoccupied in negotiations with the Church of Christ Uniting, with which they entered a covenant relationship in 1995.

Other heirs of the Restoration heritage have exhibited a varied interest in Christian unity. Indeed, for some, it would seem to be a dead issue. But some of us were actively engaged throughout the 1960's in the "Consultations on Internal Unity." Others of us have participated in the ongoing "Restoration Conferences" with the a capella Churches of Christ. Also, some of our leaders have been seriously engaged in fruitful, ongoing discussions with leaders of the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana. Meanwhile a few have continuing involvement in the Faith and Order Movement. But to my knowledge, no extensive conversations have taken place between leaders of "independent" Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and Roman Catholic leaders.

It would seem that for the more part, present heirs of the 19th Century Reformation, which sought Christian unity through recovery of the original "Gift" of the Church as revealed in Scripture, have allowed the means and the goal to be separated. Some have chosen "restoration," while others have emphasized "union;" each group believing the all too common mantra that the two are incompatible.

3. Of course, some may consider our interest an intrusion. Indeed, Fries and Rahner specifically excluded the "smaller church groups or sects" from consideration. Rahner writes,
 

One should, of course, examine in detail which churches and church communities would really qualify for unification in accordance with Thesis III. In Germany, for instance, this would be the large Protestant territorial churches individually, or the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) as a whole, but not the smaller church groups or sects, even if these declared their basic desire for unity. Smaller religious communities, even if they desired unity, could probably not really fit into the adjusted landscape of the Church in unity and diversity, because they are too small and they would contribute too little historical substance with regard to Christian experience and Christian life. Unity, p. 52

This observation is profoundly offensive to one who has read of the sufferings of the free churches, such as the Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren [Rifton, NY, 1987]. How can one say that modern heirs of the Radical Reformation of the Sixteenth Century--a people who for the sake of Jesus endured bloody, fiery martyrdoms--have "too little historical substance" to contribute to the Christian experience and life of the whole Church?

4. See A. T. DeGroot, Disciple Thought: A History I am aware that some of us may be uncomfortable with the term, "catholic." But this is a good word, as is the word, "ecumenical." They both concern the universality of the Church. The fact that terms may be abused ought not mean that we cast them away. Following that policy, we end with a poverty-stricken language.

5. Thesis I declares:
 

The fundamental truths of Christianity, as they are expressed in Holy Scripture, in the Apostles' Creed, and in that of Nicea and Constantinople are binding on all partner churches of the one Church to be.

Thesis II states that beyond the above statements of faith, "nothing may be rejected decisively and confessionally in one partner church which is binding dogma in another partner church." Nor are such subsequent creedal statements to be imposed on others.

Thesis III states that different "partner churches" will be allowed to exist in the same territory.

Thesis IV is divided into two parts: Thesis IVA declares,
 

All partner churches acknowledge the meaning and right of the Petrine service of the Roman pope to be the concrete guarantor of the unity of the Church in truth and love.

Thesis IVB states,
 

The pope, for his part, explicitly commits himself to acknowledge and to respect the thus agreed upon independence of the partner churches. He declares . . . . that he will make use of his highest teaching authority (ex cathedra), granted to him in conformity with Catholic principles by the First Vatican Council, only in a manner that conforms juridically or in substance to a general council of the whole Church. . . .

Thesis V notes that all the partner churches have bishops at their head, and concedes that they need not be chosen according to the "normally valid manner" in the Roman Church.
 

Thesis VI provides that through fraternal exchange, the "previous history and experience" of each can "become effective" in the life of the others.
 

Thesis VII declares that without prejudice to previous practices of ordination, in the future, all partner churches will "conduct ordinations with prayer and the laying on of hands, so that acknowledging them will present no difficulty for the Roman Catholic partner church either."

Thesis VIII provides for "pulpit and altar fellowship between the individual partner churches."

6. Unity of the Churches, pp. 14, 15.

7. Unity, p. 15.

8. Ibid., p. 15.

9. It must also be asked, Are the Apostles Creed and that of Nicea-Constantinople normative on the same level as Scripture? And which Nicea-Constantinople Creed is meant? The original, which is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the one later revised by addition of the "filioque" clause, which the Western Church uses? In 675, the Synod of Braga added the "filioque clause" to the Creed, which was adopted by Rome. It affirmed that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father "and the Son." To this day, filioque remains a barrier between the Western and Eastern Churches. Indeed, the question remains, Which version of the Creed of Constantinople is to be mandated? The original of 381, or the revised one of 675?

10. Apparently, the Graeco-Roman mind demanded definitions of the divine mysteries and hence the theological, Christological, and Pneumatological debates of the subsequent centuries followed. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed presumably represents the faith of the "ancient, undivided Church." However, it was not to be undivided for long. "Filioque" is but a sign of the long succession of creedal controversies which have not only separated Christians from the world, but from each other.

11. This provision validates our observation above by its attempt to obviate the divisive effect of the great creeds of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, some of which were accompanied by bitter anathemas against those who believed otherwise.

12. Unity, p. 32.

13. Rahner says, "Even their continued existence with the unity of faith in the one Church would not be possible, because the formal principle of their existence as such would be in clear contradiction to the essence of the common faith. But these reflections may be superfluous, since these Christian communities will reject such unity on their own." Unity, p. 52.

14. What is this "formal principle" of these communities' existence which contradicts "the essence of the common faith"? Don't they believe in Jesus? Of course. So the "essence of the common faith" to which Rahner must refer to something other than faith in the Person of the Living Lord Jesus Christ. It must then be the mere existence of these "gathered churches" which understand themselves to be called together by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. As communities of witness they call the "great churches" to repentance and reformation.

Rahner perhaps rightly fears that the mere presence of such communities would constitute a challenge to the proposed agreement of Thesis II, that "nothing may be rejected decisively and confessionally in one partner church which is binding dogma in another partner church." Some of these communities would probably not be inhibited in "decisively rejecting" such dogmas as the Assumption of Mary, which was proclaimed by the Pope in 1950.

15. In many places one may see the effects of the old principle of cuius regio eius religio--"whose the region, his the religion." That is, the religion of the prince determined that of the people. This produced a patchwork of Protestant and Catholic communities throughout much of Europe. But if Fries and Rahner considered Thesis III needful in Europe, it has little relevance in the United States and much of the world.

16. Unity, p. 43.

17. The long story of the growth of papal power is replete with the whole catalogue of human nature from saints to reprobates, compassionate pastors to grasping, power hungry imperialists, from reformers to obscurantists. The lesson of that history would seem to teach that the office cannot be separated from the person who occupies it. Simply to discuss the office apart from the persons who have occupied it is unrealistic, for the office gives power to the person who sits in the chair, and whose decisions in return reflect on the validity of the office.

18. Unity, p. 62.

19. In 1950, Pius XII had done just that when he issued Munificentissimus Deus which defined the dogma of the Assumption. Without reference to a council and with almost no appeal to Scripture, but on the questionable authority of a tradition, the pope issued this infallible decree that Mary the mother of Jesus was assumed bodily into heavenly glory. Anyone who dares "willfully to deny or to call into doubt" this new dogma "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." Michael P. Duricy of the Marian Research Institute defends this as an "infallibly revealed dogma" which "rests on the living authority of the Church as the interpreter of Scripture." Such "scriptural interpretations accomodated [sic] to Mary by 'prophetic expandability' may be legitimate. . . as signs of the 'protection of the Spirit of Truth' in the Church." (DURICY@data.lib.udayton.edu.). This dogma flung down another challenge to the Christian world at large. Unity, pp. 62, 63.

20. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church has consistently refused to acknowledge the primacy of the pope in the explicit form enunciated by Vatican I. For their part, Anglicans agree with the principle of primacy, but emphasize the importance of reception by the community of faith. Wolfhart Pannenberg calls for the pope to demonstrate concern for the non-Roman Catholic churches and their thought if he wishes his claim to primacy to be taken seriously. Unity, p. 74.

21. The process of "Restructure" which led to the formal denominational establishment of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was a move in the opposite direction, toward more solidarity and uniformity. It is significant that while Fries and Rahner were urging Rome to move toward more freedom and flexibility, leaders of the Disciples of Christ were pressing for a "more churchly" structure--that is more institutionally cohesive.

22. See Harvey Cox, The Silencing of Leonardo Boff The Vatican and the Future of World Christianity (Oak Park, 1988).

23. See Mk. 10:30ff; Lk. 22:24ff.

24. Even now, it is not uncommon for Protestant congregations to be pastored in an authoritarian manner which in its own sphere is not unlike that of popes. Indeed, some advocate such a "leadership style" in the name of "executive efficiency."

25. Rather than awaiting the definition of dogma from above, the Free Church way is to "talk up a consensus" under the Word of God. Of course, as Free Church members have recognized, "it takes vast patience to talk up a consensus." It is when that patience fails, the temptation arises to look to some "higher authority" to resolve the matter. Efficiency, which is highly valued in our time, often encourages congregational abdication of authority to some "higher level." This is welcomed by many church members for it fits in with our era of specialization, in which every area of activity has its "experts" who accept responsibility for their own fields and none other. But far too many Christians view their Christian life this way. Living issues of Christian faith are mandated to "the religious," who are "experts." Thus Christians are released from the undoubted burden of spiritually responsible discipleship.

26. Rahner then turns to papal elections, seeking some way in which non-Roman churches could participate. It is evident, however, that whatever arrangement might evolve, the pope would still have preeminent influence, for no non-Roman representatives to an election board could "hold their position without his agreement." Unity, p. 92.

27. Unam Sanctam was promulgated November 18, 1302. It concluded with the following sentence:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

28. Issued in 1864 by Pius IX, the Syllabus condemned the right of revolution [63]; freedom of religion [15, 77]; and separation of Church and State [55]. See Raymond Corrigan, The Church and the Nineteenth Century (Milwaukee: Bruce), pp. 289ff.

29. Munificentissimus Deus was proclaimed by Pius XII on November 1, 1950. It declared,
 

. . . by authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Michael P. Duricy of The Marian Library defends this dogma on the ground of Scripture interpreted according to "prophetic expandability." http://www.udayton.edu/mary/maryq14.html

30. See The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery (1804) (Indianapolis: International Convention of Disciples of Christ, 1949).

31. This was published in the same volume as the Last Will and Testament noted above.

32. Thomas Campbell's famous definition read,
 

THAT the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be truly and properly called christians. [sic]

33. Amidst a generation which remembered the writing of the American Constitution, He called the New Testament a "constitution" of the Church.

34. Declaration and Address, p. 40. William Robinson calls the record of the "creative period" of the Church's life. See William Robinson, The Biblical Doctrine of the Church (St. Louis: Bethany, 1948), p. 133.

35. Declaration and Address, Proposition 5, p. 17.

36. Some heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement may express dissent to this question, for as Roman Catholics, Fries and Rahner were christened in infancy and most probably not "immersed believers." But this does not negate the fact that they could sincerely "confess their obedience." The word, "confess" in Thomas Campbell's statement is specific in reference to faith--"profess their faith," while it is understood to extend also to the word, "obedience." Thus, it would read, "profess their faith in Christ and [profess] obedience to Him in all things according to the Scripture."

Indeed, this is all believers can do--to obey according to the full measure of their understanding, and to profess that obedience. Every disciple should anticipate growth in understanding of the will of the Lord, and bring their obedience into conformity with that increasing understanding. If such growth does not occur, it is to be questioned whether such a person is a true disciple--a true learner.

All believers are exhorted to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (II Pet. 3:18 ASV). Growth in grace and knowledge is the key to the Christian life.

37. There is nothing inferior about being a local Church. The ecumenical Church is local--it is located on earth and in heaven. Indeed, the whole "Church of Christ on earth" is composed of local assemblies which are bound in love, each recognizing that "their Lord is our Lord" (I Cor. 1:2). It is localism which perverts the Church and its mission in the world. A congregation imbued with localism absolutizes its "locatedness," seeing itself as an end in itself, ignoring the gifts and needs of other congregations. Such congregations which repudiate their responsibility to the whole Church are not worthy to be called "Christian."