As soon as Ut Unum Sint was published, ten years ago this very day, its importance was immediately recognised. Pope John Paul II had spoken clearly to the whole
Christian world. Nobody now could assert that the search for Christian unity was a matter of little or only marginal concern to the Roman Catholic Church.
The Pope himself had stated plainly that it lay at the heart of the ministry to which he had been called as Bishop of Rome.

There was an immediate Anglican response. Within five days of its publication Dr George Carey, who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a statement on
behalf of the Church of England welcoming the Encyclical’s “reaffirmation of the ecumenical vision of the Second Vatican Council and its commitment to the
goal of Christian unity.” He listed many points of wholehearted agreement and committed the Church of England to further work on outstanding matters of difference. “In particular, we look forward to exploring more deeply the ministry of unity which belongs to the Bishop of Rome.”1

Two years later in 1997 a full response from the House of Bishops of the Church of England was published, picking up the title of the Pope’s Encyclical, May They
All Be One. Although this is the only official Anglican response actually to have been published. I am told that the Encyclical has also been discussed in
other provinces of the Anglican Communion, sometimes together with Roman Catholic partners. Among responses from individual theologians I would mention
in particular a lecture on “The Future of the Papacy” given by Rowan Williams in 1997.2  I mention this with the caveat that, as Archbishop of Canterbury since 2003, Dr Williams is no more bound to opinions he expressed as an Oxford Professor or as Bishop of Monmouth than is Pope Benedict XVI to those expressed by Professor or Cardinal Ratzinger.

Reading Ut Unum Sint once again, I was struck not only by its solemn and comprehensive reaffirmation and development of the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio but also by the Pope’s evident personal engagement. Of course other people played their part in the preparation of the document. Nevertheless the Encyclical bears characteristic marks of John Paul II’s own vision and perspectives. Herein lies much of its rhetorical power. This in itself says something about the office of Bishop of Rome: like that of every bishop, it is a personal one.

Person and role are inseparable. Unsurprisingly, this link between person and role, or person and office, raises questions. We shall come back to some of them later.
You may have noticed that Archbishop Carey’s first response to Ut Unum Sint takes “the ministry of unity which belongs to the Bishop of Rome” as a given. He looks forward to a deeper exploration of that ministry, to be undertaken together with the Roman Catholic Church. But the ministry itself is not in question.
This should be seen in the context of the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of 1988 which, after consultation throughout the Anglican Communion, recognised
“the Agreed Statements of ARCIC I in ‘Eucharistic Doctrine, Ministry and Ordination’, and their Elucidations, as consonant in substance with the faith
of Anglicans…”

The Conference also welcomed the ARCIC I’S statements on “Authority in the Church” “as a firm basis for the direction and agenda of the continuing dialogue on authority…”, whilst asking for the further exploration of “the basis in Scripture and tradition of the concept of a universal primacy, in conjunction with collegiality,
as an instrument of unity” as well as “character of such a primacy in practice…”3 The dialogue was taken further by ARCIC II in its Agreed Statement
The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church III. Completed in 1998 but published in 1999, this was able to take Ut Unum Sint into account.

Anglicans are as clear as Roman Catholics that work on authority is vital and central to the whole quest for Christian unity. Archbishop Carey and Pope John Paul II
stated this plainly when they met together in 1996: “Without agreement in this area we shall not reach the full, visible unity to which we are both committed.”4 For Anglicans, the issue of authority at a universal level and its proper relation to local or regional authority is no merely theoretical matter. Contemporary issues such as the ordination of women and sexual ethics and how to handle them have made these questions a matter of practical urgency. The Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission which came before the Lambeth Conference of 1998 put the issue for Anglicans in the following terms. You will notice that the Commission looked beyond questions of Anglican unity to the horizon of Christian unity: The world-wide Anglican assemblies are consultative and not legislative in character.

There is a question to be asked whether this is satisfactory if the Anglican Communion is to be held together in hard times as well as in good ones. Indeed there
is a question as to whether effective communion, at all levels, does not require appropriate instruments, with due safeguards, not only for legislation,
but also for oversight. Is not universal authority a necessary corollary of universal communion? This is a matter currently under discussion with our
ecumenical partners. It relates not only to our understanding of the exercise of authority in the Anglican Communion, but also to the kind of authority and
communion we look for in a visibly united Church.

Perhaps the most fundamental piece of work achieved by ARCIC II was its Agreed Statement on Church as Communion. This statement “paid particular attention to the sacramentality of the Church; that is, to the Church as a divine gift, grounded in Christ himself and embodied in human history, through which the
grace of Jesus Christ is mediated for the salvation of humankind.”

This study may be seen as fundamental in that it tackles the issue which is seen by so wise a theologian and ecumenist as Cardinal Walter Kaspar as the fundamental
issue between the divided churches. “The central point of their disagreement and controversy, though not the only point, is their different understanding of the Church.”7   Church as Communion takes forward the approach to a fundamental understanding of the Church as koinonia or communion which was outlined in The Final Report of ARCIC I,8 making explicit the overall context in which all the Commission’s other work is to be understood.

The scriptures, tradition and the creeds, the sacraments, ministry and ordination, the moral life, Mary and the saints, and the nature and exercise of authority in the service of communion and unity – all are aspects and expressions of that communion with God the Holy Trinity and with one another to which human beings are called in Christ as the fulfilment of their creaturely existence. This understanding of the Church as essentially sacramental in nature lies at the heart of the Anglican
as of the Catholic commitment to visible, ecclesial unity as the goal of the ecumenical journey.

This understanding has an important corollary which is sometimes overlooked. It is that the essential structures of the Church’s life are a gift of the risen Christ, means of grace given with the gift of the Church itself. To be specific, the essential powers and responsibilities of the apostolic ministry are inherent in the gift of this ministry. They may be ordered or given particular shape by human law, but they are not the creation of human law. So, to take a particular example, if bishops, as Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree, have an inherent responsibility for the maintenance of communion within and between Christian communities, it is ultimately beside the point to assert that the Lambeth Conference or the meeting of Anglican Primates has only “consultative” and not “legislative” authority. The fact is that, as a body of bishops, duly called together to deliberate for the good of the Church, they are the bearers of an inherent authority, collective and personal, which they have received
from Christ himself in service of the Church’s unity and mission.

To take the argument further, if the Bishop of Rome is accorded a special place in
the college of bishops, with a particular ministry of unity, then it is important
to be clear whether we see this ministry as an accident of history or as
inherent in his role as successor
of Peter. In other words, is the Petrine ministry, as exercised by the Bishop
of Rome, integral to the fullness and integrity of the life of the Church on
earth? Is it a matter of ius divinum? If so, then it is indeed for the Church
to try to discern what is essential and what is accidental to the nature and
exercise of this office, and to give institutional or canonical shape to that
perception. The Petrine ministry itself, like the episcopal office of which it is
a particular case, will be seen as a gift to the Church, not as a creature of
the Church.

It will take some time for the Anglican Communion as a whole to evaluate, to
receive and to own the work which has already been done in this area by ARCIC
and otherinstruments of dialogue. Prayer, patience and hope will be required.
We shall need the active participation of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters,
both as an expression and a deepening of the communion that we already share,
but also to ensure that we are dealing not with fantasies but with real
partners in dialogue.

We shall also need to remember that we are only a part of a much wider dialogue,
involving our brothers and sisters of other Christian traditions and
communities. There are many areas in which, because of our shared inheritance,
Anglicans andRoman Catholics find it comparatively easy to understand one
another. Anglicans have a liturgical culture, centred on the celebration of the
Holy Eucharist. They understand ministerial and episcopal office as a gift of
God to the Church. They understand their bishops and pastors to stand in a succession
of ministry derived from the apostles, and the episcopal office as an
expression and guardian of communion.

They understand episcopal office as having personal as well as collegial and
communal dimensions. They experience their bishops as pastors and teachers, as responsible
for the integrity of the ministry of Word and sacrament, as well as for
themaintenance of unity and the exercise of discipline. They also have experience
of the role of primates in acting as a focus of order and unity within each
province. In these areas of lived experience, they also know that, because the
Church is composed of frail and imperfect human beings and because no earthly
institution is perfect, there will always be a gap between the ideal and the
experienced. They are accustomed to imperfect bishops and accept their
ministry, knowing, in the sixteenth-century language of the Thirty-Nine Articles
of the Church of England, that the “the unworthiness of the ministers… hinders
not the effect of the sacraments.”9

This is the context in which Anglicans are ready to welcome a deeper exploration of
(to use Archbishop Carey’s words) “the ministry of unity which belongs to the
Bishop of Rome,” that is, of a primate with a personal responsibility for the
service of universal communion. They see what the question is about. Nevertheless
Anglicans are wary, partly because of inherited myths and memories, partly
because they read newspapers which are not always friendly to the papacy, and
partly because, unlike their lived experience of the ministry of their own
diocesan bishops and provincial primates, the particular ministry of the Bishop
of Rome is not one of which they have direct experience. They therefore have to
beware of demanding a perfection in the exercise of such an office, as a condition
of its acceptance, such as they do not demand as a condition of continuing to
accept the exercise of those offices and ministries which they already enjoy.

This is of course a point that has wider relevance in the search for the search for
ecclesial and sacramental unity. On earth we may look for signs and sacraments
of heaven, not for heaven itself. In recent years Anglicans have felt the
inadequacy of their own instruments of communion. How many of them would want
more adequate instruments if they were turned against themselves rather than
their adversaries is another question. The fact is that, for reasons good and
bad, most Anglicans are deeply attached to their traditions of local or regional
instruments of authority. They believe that decisions should be made at a level
close to that at which their effects will be felt. They have been less good at
facing the fact that some ostensibly local decisions have a global impact on
other communities within the Anglican Communion who have not been effectively
consulted, to say nothing of their effect on their relations of imperfect
communion with other Christian communities. A few years ago they observed, with
some bewilderment, the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the
affairs of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, whose structures had effectively
collapsed. Legalists might say that he had no right so to intervene. Others
recognised that he was exercising a responsibility inherent in his office as first
bishop of the Anglican Communion.

But if the Archbishop of Canterbury can be recognised as having such a
responsibility in a crisis, in what conditions and under what limitations
should it be exercised? The question was in fact put in the mandate which the
Archbishop of Canterbury gave to the recent Lambeth Commission on Communion: …
to make recommendations… as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions
under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop
of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral
oversight) , support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of
a province not his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said
province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.10

One recognises the nature of the question. There is in fact no widespread or well
founded desire to turn Canterbury into a quasi-papacy. The fundamental reason was
clearly set out by Archbishop Robert Runcie in his address to the 1988 Lambeth
Conference on “The Unity We Seek.” Stressing the radically provisional character
of the Anglican Communion as claiming to be no more than a part of the one holy
catholic and apostolic Church, he continued: “We have no intention of
developing an alternative papacy. We would rather continue to deal with the
structures of the existing Petrine ministry, and hopefully help in its
continuing development and reform as a ministry of unity for all Christians.”11 In other words, if
there is a particular ministry of unity to be received as gift from God for the
good of the whole Church, it is the Petrine ministry which is already given in
the office of the Bishop of Rome.

There is an obvious correspondence between the words of Archbishop Runcie and the
terms of the invitation that Pope John Paul II was to issue in Ut Unum Sint, inviting
“church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and
fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies
behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of
Christ for his Church…”12

As we enter together more deeply into this shared exploration, we shall find
ourselvesaddressing a number of crucial issues and, I dare say, returning to them
more than once. Some, I suspect, can never be finally and conclusively
resolved; or if they can, only
in the context of a common life already shared. That is because they relate to
the ways in which power and authority are actually exercised in the changing circumstances
in which the Church finds itself. This was certainly the view of the members of
ARCIC I: “We suggest that some difficulties will not be wholly resolved until a
practical initiative has been taken and our two Churches have lived together more
visibly in one koinonia.13

Here are some of the issues that Anglicans will wish to address. There will be an
ongoing exploration of the ways in assertions about the nature and scope of the
Petrine ministry can be securely grounded in Scripture and the Church’s common
tradition. There is a related question: what is meant by saying that the Petrine
ministry is a matter of ius divinum? These issues were addressed in detail by
ARCIC I.14
The facts of history, which have disconcerted many believing historians, will have
to be taken seriously. It is not satisfactory that, when confronted by the theological
errors of past popes, theologians should insist on the very limited scope of
the assertion of papal infallibility, if this is combined with a culture of
incontestability around practically any and every utterance of a living
pontiff. The assertions of dogma must be able to survive such a judgement as this:
The mediaeval papacy may have been a vastly significant cultural and political
phenomenon, but I’d have to say that – from an Anglican, as from an Orthodox
point of view – almost everything said theologically about the papacy between
1000 and 1500 is at best outrageous and at worst materially blasphemous.

It may be important to understand why intelligent and (by the standards of the day)
quite moderate men of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seriously believed
the bishop of Rome to be Antichrist…15

Anglicans will also bring with them a certain methodological scepticism about the
workings of a bureaucracy such as the Roman curia. Whose ends does it serve?
How does it treat people on the receiving end of its operations? Can it, as an
institution, bear to give away power? How far do its organs continue to issue
instructions and directives, simply because they are accustomed to doing so?
Once again, dogmatic assertions must be able to survive such questions.

The Agreed Statements of ARCIC have laid great stress on the need for a
properbalance between conciliarity and primacy.16 That is why, responding to Ut
Unum Sint, the Church of England’s House of Bishops “regretted that the
Encyclical makes so little reference to Ecumenical Councils and other conciliar
forms of consultation and discernment in the Church.”17 Anglicans will wish to
see the particular Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome in the context of the
Petrine ministry which St Cyprian ascribes to
every bishop. The ministry of unity belongs to all bishops. They will not be content
to see such an understanding contradicted by practices which appear to make of
the Bishop of Rome a “super-bishop”, whether this is an issue of government
(because the “apostolic see” – I deliberately use impersonal shorthand – is seen as exercising powers
that properly belong to local churches or groups of churches) or whether it is
a matter of the inappropriate projection of the person of the Pope himself.

I quote the same theologian, this time on the subject of papal visits: There is
some urgency about rediscovering how a universal ministry avoids being one of
the empty signs of globalisation; and that can only be done by asking how a
papal visit to a local
church actually participates in the life of that church rather than taking it
over.18 As we
have said before, the episcopal office, and therefore the Petrine office, is
irreducibly personal. This, in the religion of the incarnation, is in fact one
of its strengths: the role takes flesh in a person. A person can love and be
loved, a person can function as a representation of Christ the Good Shepherd,
fulfilling the charge entrusted to Peter, in ways that are simply not possible
for any collective body.

But
the role must be used in such a way as not to overwhelm but to create space and
liberty for the members of the flock.  The fundamental theological question is this: in what does the Petrine
ministry essentially consist? How far does it entail a function
of
government? That the Bishop of Rome is responsible for the government of the
diocese of Rome is evident. But does the Petrine ministry really entail the
active involvement in the government of other churches such as is exercised
today? Here is the root of Anglican (and Orthodox and other) unease about ordinary
immediate jurisdiction. There is no problem about seeing Petrine office as a
focus of unity. One can also grant that, if the Bishop of Rome is to function
as centre of unity, he must be recognised as needing powers and resources
commensurate with his responsibility. One may also acknowledge that the
fundamental issue for the First Vatican Council was to assert the proper freedom
of the Bishop of Rome to act when necessary for the good of the whole Church,
both in matters of teaching and in matters of government, “according to the
specific and changing necessity of the Church.”
 

But
as Cardinal Walter Kaspar has written, The problem is not the actual dogma of
the First Vatican Council but its maximising interpretation… This has turned what
was considered an exceptional situation into a normal situation. The
exceptional case has been, so to speak, stretched in time and made permanent.19 If that “maximising
interpretation” is a problem for Cardinal Kaspar, it is certainly a problem for
Anglicans and others as they think what unity with the see of Rome might mean.
We may recall the celebrated words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger spoken in
1982: “As for the doctrine of primacy, Rome should not demand from the East
more than was formulated and lived in the first millennium.”20 Without being historically
fundamentalist – we cannot ignore the developments, on all sides, of the
intervening centuries – this raises once more the question of what is essential
to the Petrine ministry of unity and what is not, if it indeed belongs to the
fullness of the life of the Universal Church. Here is an issue that belongs as
much in the field of doctrine and devotion as in that of jurisdiction and
government. As Pope John Paul II himself said, we must not impose unnecessary
burdens on one another.21

Ever
since the official dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman
Catholic Church was started in the 1970s, we have been striving to find common understanding
of those areas of the one Christian faith in which one or other church has
produced authoritative formulations of its own while in a state of separation
from a community with which it now seeks reconciliation. We have been following
the path set out by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey when they met in
1966, when they inaugurated “a serious dialogue which, founded on the Gospels
and the on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth, for
which Christ prayed.”22 The most recent of ARCIC’s statements to follow this path with results which,
one hopes, will also prove fruitful for other dialogues, is the Agreed
Statement on Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ which was published only last week.
The Preface by the Co-Chairmen contains a notable statement of the theological
method followed by the
Commission:In
framing this Agreed Statement, we have drawn on the Scriptures and the common
tradition which predated the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. As in
previous [ARCIC] documents, we have attempted to use language that reflects
what we hold in common and transcends the controversies of the past. At the
same time, in this statement we have had to face squarely dogmatic definitions
which are integral to the faith of Roman Catholics but largely foreign to the
faith of Anglicans.

The
members of ARCIC, over time, have sought to embrace one another’s ways of doing
theology and have considered together the historical context in which certain
doctrines developed. In so doing, we have learned to receive anew our own
traditions,
illuminated
and deepened by the understanding of and appreciation for each other’s
tradition.23

The
same method has been used in other dialogues in order to arrive at statements
of the one Christian faith in areas which have been marked by polemical and controversial
dogmatic statements, characteristically formulated in times of conflict.

A
notable example is the Lutheran-Roman Catholic theological dialogue which led
to the Joint Declaration on Justification which was signed in Augsburg in 1999.
Another is the dialogue between Rome and the Ancient Oriental Churches which
did not accept the christological formula of the Council of Chalcedon of 451. A
new understanding of the philosophical differences that underlay the disputes of
the fifth century made it possible for the churches to recognise each other as
professing one faith. “This
understanding
has enabled the churches to maintain their common faith in Jesus Christ without
imposing on each other their respective formulae. The ultimate outcome has been
unity in a diversity of ways of expression.”24 It is to be hoped that the same
method will prove fruitful in dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and
the Orthodox Churches in resolving the hitherto intractable issue of the
Filioque. From a theological point of view the key issue, as Cardinal Kasparhas
written, is that we should read later and controversial formulations in the
light of earlier formulations that are recognised and normative for all; in
this case the Filioque must be read in the light of the creed of 381, and not
the other way round.25

Lurking
here is the sensitive issue of reception and what has come to be called
rereception (a word I first learned from the late Fr Jean Tillard).26 Anglicans have made
it absolutely clear that for them the recognition of the infallibility, freedom
from error
or
irreversibility of any authoritative statement of faith, whether conciliar or
primatial,is inseparable from its reception by the Church. This is not to say that
reception by the faithful is in any way constitutive of the infallibility,
freedom from error or irreversibility of a dogmatic statement, but that it is
necessary for its recognition assuch.27

Here
there are two particular points to be made. First one may observe that, as a
matter of fact, reception can take quite a long time. The process of
discernment and reception that led to the final determination of the canon of
the New Testament lasted for some three hundred years. It took half a century
for the creed of Nicaea to be generally received as authoritative. This is one
of the points at which dogmatic assertion has to tempered by the recognition of
historical fact.

Secondly,
to confess that a statement of faith is free from error and irreversible does
not entail the proposition that it is incapable of reinterpretation or
restatement.  Especially in the case of formulations
drawn up in circumstances of conflict, reinterpretation is sooner or later
likely to be needed. It is striking that the Christological definition of
Chalcedon presents itself as a clarification or reinterpretation of the
authoritative creed of Nicaea. We have already seen how, in modern times, the
formula of Chalcedon in its turn has, for the sake of unity, required a
re-reading. The Lutheran and Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification was
similarly founded on a shared re-reading both of the Scriptures and of
theauthoritative documents of
the
Council of Trent and the Lutheran Reformation.

Applying
the principle of re-reception to the issue of the ministry of the Bishop of
Rome at the end of its Agreed Statement on The Gift of Authority, ARCIC concluded:

•
that Anglicans be open to and desire a recovery and re-reception under certain
clear conditions of the exercise of universal primacy by the Bishop of Rome;

•
that Roman Catholics be open to and desire a re-reception of the exercise of
primacy by the Bishop of Rome and the offering of such a ministry to the whole
Church of God.28

But
what would it mean for Anglicans to re-receive the Petrine ministry of the
Bishop of Rome? And what would it mean for the Roman Catholic Church so to
re-receive and re-conceive this office and ministry that other churches and
communities could perceive it not as burden but as a gift? There would have to
be a shared re-reading of history leading to a sharing and purification of
memories. There would be a shared study of authoritative judgements which have
been made by churches in a state of separation, in order better to understand
the circumstances in which they were formulated and to discern more clearly the
aspects of Christian truth to which they bear witness. It will be recognised
that a consequence of the circumstances of the First Vatican Council has been
to foster an unhealthy concentration on matters of jurisdiction and dogma at
the expense of other and arguably more fundamental aspects of the Petrine
ministry. Other Christians will want to see evidence of less anxiety about
control and conformity; a ministry of encouragement rather than discipline;
more listening and less instruction; above all, less central government.

Speaking
personally, there are for me two images of the Petrine ministry which stand out
from Pope John Paul II’s words in Ut Unum Sint. The first is that of “a
ministry which presides in truth and love.”29 Whether consciously or not, these words
echo
words
addressed to the Pope himself by Archbishop Robert Runcie when he visited Rome
in 1989. The Archbishop was speaking at a celebration of Vespers in the church
of San Gregorio from which Pope Gregory the Great had sent Augustine and his
companions to England at the end of the sixth century. So he was thinking of the
Petrine ministry in the perspective of mission as well as of unity For the
universal Church I renew the plea I made to the Lambeth Conference: could not
all Christians come to re-consider the kind of primacy the bishop of Rome
exercised within the Early Church, a “presiding in love” for the sake of the
unity of the Churches in the diversity of their mission? In Assisi, without compromise
of faith, we saw that the bishop of Rome could gather the Christian Churches
together. We could pray together, speak together and act together for the peace
and well-being of humankind, and the stewardship of the precious earth. At that
initiative of prayer for world peace I felt I was in the presence of the God
who said “Behold I am doing a new thing.30 Secondly, Pope John Paul II stresses the
weakness of Peter as a witness to grace. “It is important to note how the
weakness of Peter and of Paul clearly shows that the Church is founded upon the
infinite power of grace.”

Before
Peter could strengthen his brethren he needed conversion and forgiveness.
“Associating himself with Peter’s threefold profession of love, which corresponds
to his threefold denial, his Successor knows that he must be a sign of mercy.
His is a ministry of mercy, born of an act of Christ’s own mercy.” 31

Rowan
Williams, speaking in 1997 as Bishop of Monmouth, developed this theme: That
the early communities – or some of them – honoured Peter as the first witness
of the resurrection was bound in with the experience of conversion and restoration
by the Risen Jesus: and as John 21 implies, it is out of this experience and
encounter that his pastoring and encouraging of his apostolic colleagues and
fellow believers comes.

So
Peter is in some sense the primary witness to the resurrection, charged with
proclaiming what it means in terms of mercy and restoration or recreation to the
community of believers… Perhaps here is what we should look for, not a Petrine
office, but a Petrine charism, the special gift at the foundation of the Church
of proclaiming not only the fact but the significance of the resurrection… To
be a witness of the resurrection in the fullest sense is to know authoritatively
God’s freedom to forgive.32 It is one thing for theologians to discuss and to propose. It is another
for their proposals and agreements to be received (I use the word deliberately)
and to bear fruit in the life of the churches. For these things to happen,
trust, good will and friendship are required. That is why Pope John Paul II was
right to insist on the absolute necessity for conversion, prayer, and the
purification of past memories.33

One
of my own experiences, during the years of my participation in the work of
ARCIC, was that of the gift of friendship in the setting of shared prayer,
shared study and shared life together. We can too easily underestimate the
sheer inertia of the churches as human institutions. To fight back against this
inertia, we need the weapons of the Spirit, of which the chief are faith, hope
and love.

In
1989, I was one of the party that accompanied Archbishop Robert Runcie on his
official visit to Pope John Paul II. No one who was present will have forgotten
the Holy Father’s parting words to the Archbishop: “Affective collegiality will
lead to effective collegiality.”

1 May They All Be One, London 1997, p.23
2 “The Future of the Papacy: An Anglican View” available
on-line at http://bfpubs.demon.co.uk/anglican.htm
3 Resolutions of the twelve Lambeth Conferences 1867-1988
edited by Roger Coleman (Toronto1992) pp.202f.
4 Quoted in The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church
III (London, Toronto and New York 1999)
5 The Virginia Report (Harrisburg PA 1999) p.40
6 From the Co-Chairmen’s Preface to The Church as Communion
(London 1991) p.5
7 Walter Kaspar, That They May All Be One (London and New
York 2004) p.41
8 “ Introduction” to The Final Report (London1982) pp.1-4
9 Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion
10 The Windsor Report 2004 (london2004) p.13
11 Robert Runcie, The Unity We Seek (London 1989) p.7
12 Ut Unum Sint para.96
13 “Authority in the Church II para.3, in The Final Report
p.98
14 “Authority in the Church II paras.2-15, ib.pp.64f.,81-88
15 Rowan Williams, The Future of the Papacy
16 “Authority in the Church I” paras.19-23, “Authority in
the Church II” para.33, ib.pp.62-64,97f., The Gift of Authority paras45-48,
pp.32ff.
17 May They All Be One para.28, p.11
18 Rowan Williams, The Future of the Papacy
19 Walter Kaspar, That They May All Be One p.146
20 Quoted in Walter Kaspar, That They May All Be One p.152,n.34
21 Ut Unum Sint para.78
22 Quoted in The Final Report p.118
23 Mary: Grace and Truth in Christ (Seattle 2005)
24 Walter Kaspar, That They May All Be One p.18
25 ib. p.111f.
26 See The Gift of Authority paras.24-25
27 May They All Be One, para.46; Towards a Church of England
Response to BEM & ARCIC (London 1985) paras.224-231; see also The Final
Report, “Elucidation of Authority I” para.3
28 The Gift of Authority para.62
29 Ut Unum Sint para.97
30 Quoted in Adrian Hastings, Robert Runcie p.122
31 Ut Unum Sint para.91-93
32 Rowan Williams, The Future of the Papacy
33 Ut Unum Sint para.2