Abstract
English translation by Robert Kelly
Introduction
The theme of the presentation we have been invited to give at this Congress of Societas Liturgica concerns an ecumenical approach to formation through the liturgy. It is a topic related to our own teaching practice, through a cooperation that has been going on for about twenty years now. We would therefore like to take this opportunity to share with you our own experience and the insights which flow from it about being “formed ecumenically through the liturgy.”
We would like to emphasize that what we are going to share with you has been developed in our usual way of working together, so that it comes from all three of us. So, even though we will be taking turns to speak, what you hear is the fruit of a shared common thinking. Our discussion therefore will fall into three parts.
Firstly, we will describe the genesis of our teaching practice, situating it in the more recent decades in which it came to be launched and how it evolved; and then linking it to the more distant intuitions of the Second Vatican Council.
Secondly, we propose to share with you the main insights that have arisen from this shared teaching, as regards the way in which we can be “formed ecumenically through the liturgy,” which will be offered by advancing a number of methodological principles.
The third and final part will highlight the positive achievements of such an experience, but also its limitations. Our hypothesis here is that any training in liturgy and through liturgy which adopts an ecumenical scope demands hard work and availability, insofar as it is a reflection of the way in which we consider ecumenical commitment to be urgent and essential in our own Churches.
A Retrospective Overview
How the Project Began
It was in the Spring of 2006 that the Council of the Institut supérieur d’études œcuméniques (ISEO) of the Catholic University of Paris (ICP), at the suggestion of Professor Jacques-Noël Pérès, then Director of the ISEO, took the decision to create a “three-voice” (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) liturgy seminar to be held in the first semester of the 2006–2007 academic year. The theme was obvious: “The authority of the liturgy,” a topic that was to be addressed ecumenically during the 53rd Semaine d’Études Liturgiques of the Institut Saint-Serge of Paris in June 2006. The members of the team who led the seminar at that point were Isaïa Gazzola, Job Getcha and Raphaël Picon—the latter being a colleague from the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Paris (who died in 2016).
The seminar's objective was formulated as follows: “In its books, in its functions and in its operation, the liturgy regulates certain aspects of life in the Church. The seminar will endeavor to address, in an ecumenical way, the questions raised by the place of the liturgy in each of the Christian confessions.” Clearly, the seminar was based on the presupposition that the liturgy expressed and manifested the ecclesial experience of the respective Churches, and should therefore deal with subjects such as the status and authority of the liturgical books in each Christian confession; the theological issues concerning the organization of liturgical space: the importance and value of liturgical prayers, hymnography and preaching: as well as the role of baptism, the Eucharist and the other sacraments in the life of the Church. The seminar was soon given the title “The Meaning of the Liturgy: Ecumenical Perspectives.”
The success of this seminar, in terms of both its content and its methodology, prompted the management of the Institut Supérieur de Liturgie (ISL) to entrust our trio with the course on “The sacraments in the ecumenical debate,” scheduled for the first semester of the 2007–2008 academic year. We need to specify that Archbishop Job had already contributed to this course in both 2003 and 2005, but it was organised in a different way, featuring a series of speakers, each of whom was invited to present a particular aspect or confessional approach to the Christian sacraments. However, feedback from the students regretted that there was a great deal of repetition across the different sessions, and—because the speakers changed from one session to another—there was no real link among them. Consequently, we were tasked with rethinking the course into three parts, whose main aim would be to set out the various questions which have been debated in ecumenical dialogue concerning the sacraments, with the hope that the seminar would itself become a forum for theological debate on these issues. For this reason, we thought it appropriate to concentrate on key terminology, on the meaning of the terms “mystery” and “sacrament,” and on the history of the development of designating seven sacraments, before concentrating on the questions about baptism, the eucharist and ministries. Exploring these questions ecumenically also gave students the opportunity to take part in the lively debate which our course engendered in working on the “BEM” document, produced by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches (WCC). 1
In Spring 2010, our team, now joined by Emeritus Professor Monique Brulin and therefore enriched with her expertise in anthropology, was entrusted by the ISL with a research seminar on “Rites, liturgies and rituals.” It would be fair to describe this research seminar as “the offspring” of the ISEO liturgy seminar, since it was in the latter that we were led to consider the question of rites and rituals, and we thought it would be interesting to investigate liturgy using an interdisciplinary approach involving theology and anthropology. This is how the presentation of this seminar was defined: “Situated at the crossroads of an interactive ecumenical and theological approach on the one hand, and an interactive anthropological and sociological approach on the other, [the course] will review current research into contemporary liturgies and religious rites, by seeking to interpret the liturgical tradition of each Christian denomination from the perspective of rituality.”
After the death of Raphaël Picon in 2016, Nicolas Cochand, professor at the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Paris and newly-elected director of ISEO, joined the initial group. Our fruitful and friendly collaboration over almost twenty years, in the context of our various teaching posts of both the ISL and ISEO, has enabled us to sketch out what we believe can be called an “ecumenical liturgy methodology.” Our three-voice presentations at various conferences held within the Theology Faculty of the Catholic University of Paris bear witness to this. We would like to share with you today what we have learnt from this experience, setting it in relation to the intuitions of the Second Vatican Council, which inspired, among other things, the founding of the ISEO in 1967.
Three-Voice Teaching of the Liturgy in Light of the Vatican II
It is interesting to note how the pilot project, launched by the ISEO in 2006, matches the wish expressed to the Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Paris by Jean Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon, in his address to the ISEO Conference on 29–31 January 2008. This is what the eminent Orthodox theologian had to say at the time: Given that confessionalism cannot easily be eliminated from theological research, an ecumenical approach to theology would be strengthened if all theological subjects were studied simultaneously from the perspective of the three main traditions (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). This would be more appropriate in the case of dogmatic theology, as is already done in the form of what is called comparative or “symbolic” theology. But this could be extended to other subjects of theological study, such as the Bible, patristics, liturgy and so on. The student should have a panoramic view of each of these subjects and not primarily or exclusively a confessional view. This should be done not in a polemical way or as apologetics, as in the past, but in a way that is descriptive and as objective as possible.
2
Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of a historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts. It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.
3
It is obvious that such an approach to theological teaching from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church only became possible after the Second Vatican Council, which introduced a distinction between the canonical limits of the Church and its charismatic limits and also recognised that the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit can act beyond the canonical limits of the Roman Catholic Church. This is what we can read in an earlier paragraph from the same Decree Unitatis redintegratio: Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
4
It is important to remember, however, that Vatican II not only recognized the legitimacy of the value of these things, which are the fruit of the grace of the Holy Spirit acting beyond the canonical limits of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Council also positively encouraged the faithful of that Church to derive personal benefit from them. Here is how the Decree on Ecumenism expresses this: Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise. Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
5
Moreover, the choice of liturgy as the subject for the ISEO seminar mentioned above, rather than another theological discipline that might have been perceived as “more important,” was certainly not a trivial one. It corresponds to the central importance Vatican II gave to the liturgy, which went so far as to define liturgy as the central place of Christian experience. This was clearly proclaimed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium)—symbolically the first document to be promulgated by the Council in December 1963—where it is stated that “the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” 6
However, the liturgy, “the source and summit of the Church's life,” is also at the heart of the Decree on Ecumenism, which emphasizes, among other things, the riches of the liturgical and spiritual tradition of Eastern Christians, urging the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church to draw inspiration from it: Catholics therefore are earnestly recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of the divine. The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known, venerated, preserved and cherished by all. They must recognize that this is of supreme importance for the faithful preservation of the fullness of Christian tradition, and for bringing about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians.
7
This same Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes that the liturgy, and in particular the question of the sacraments, must be the subject of ecumenical dialogue, and especially with those of the Protestant communities: Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.
8
The Decree notes that this does not mean that the value of Protestant worship should be disregarded: The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. Moreover, their form of worship sometimes displays notable features of the liturgy which they shared with us of old.
9
We believe we can say that, in a way, the practice of teaching theology “in three voices” is in line with the wishes expressed by the Vatican II and is perfectly consistent with its legacy.
The Emergence of a Method
However, it would be a mistake to imagine that our teaching is based solely on the directives outlined by this Council, which was so decisive for the life and renewal of the Roman Catholic Church in the second half of the twentieth century. It is clear that this pilot project was also inspired by the “Comparative Liturgy” method developed in the first half of the twentieth century by the German Orientalist Anton Baumstark (1872–1948). 15 Starting from the presupposition that the liturgy is constantly evolving while retaining a constant core, he applied the comparative method to the study of the various liturgical traditions. His aim was to describe liturgical forms that had evolved while retaining fixed elements. According to Baumstark, limiting oneself to the study of a single liturgical tradition while ignoring the others would be the equivalent of limiting oneself to the study of the Gospel according to Luke while ignoring the other synoptics. This method is therefore just as valuable for the historico-archaeological study of the liturgy as it is for its theological interpretation.
Our teaching has also benefited enormously from the under-exploited heritage of the Semaines d’études liturgiques [Liturgical Study Weeks] of the Paris Institut Saint-Serge. These were founded in 1953 by Fathers Cyprien Kern and Nicolas Affanassieff, who both believed that the ecumenical movement could progress through the study of the liturgy, so that this might become a vehicle for the growth of the ecumenical movement. The aim of these Congresses—still being held today—is to study the origins and development of the Christian liturgy from an ecumenical perspective. To this end, the organizers have always taken care to invite renowned specialists and researchers in the field of liturgical science, and to ensure that the program is broadly representative of all Christian liturgical traditions. Father Cyprien Kern, who was the main architect of this project until his death in 1960, included among his closest collaborators Dom Bernard Botte, who, three years after the Saint-Serge Semaine, was appointed director of the newly-established Institut Supérieur de Liturgie. 16 It is therefore important to remember that the ISL, founded in 1955, some ten years before the 1967 founding of the ISEO, already had a degree of ecumenical openness through the study of the liturgy, being in a way one of the co-organizers of the Saint-Serge Semaines, which in turn made a major contribution to the ecumenical study of the liturgy. It is easy to see why our joint teaching has been inspired by this innovative approach and continues to draw on the wealth of work published each year in the proceedings of these conferences.
Some Principles for an “Ecumenical Liturgy” Methodology
We would therefore like to share with you the results of this experience, which may well be unique in the world of theological education, by presenting some guiding principles of a new method for the study of the liturgy, which we propose can be called “ecumenical liturgy.”
The aim of this “ecumenical liturgy” methodology is not to go back to the source of a common liturgy, or even to study liturgies which “deviate” from fixed common elements, but rather to offer insights which can make the liturgy and the theology of each confession more understandable and meaningful for Christians today and their witness in the world. The first presupposition is that the liturgy expresses a certain theology, according to the fundamental principle of liturgical theology and as the famous patristic adage reminds us: Lex orandi, lex credendi. However, the liturgy is also conditioned by a certain theology developed at a precise moment in the history of Christianity and in a particular context. The liturgy has evolved over the centuries according to theological presuppositions, both old and new. Consequently, the changes observed in the liturgy over the course of history are not necessarily “deviations” from a primitive liturgy that would have been perfect, but rather may reflect the experience of the life of the Church at a particular time and in a particular space. Consequently, each liturgical tradition is the reflection of a historical, geographical or cultural context, but it is also the heritage of a long and complex previous tradition and takes shape in relation to this. Each liturgical tradition is therefore an expression of the identity of a religious group, a Christian denomination, which has sometimes deliberately sought to distinguish itself from others through its liturgy. So, the so-called “deviations” in liturgical development are sometimes a reflection of a denomination's own identity. For this reason, it is important to take the time to get to know, both at the level of research, but also through visits and personal contacts, the way in which other confessions understand the liturgy. For this reason, the “ecumenical liturgy” methodology aims to encourage mutual understanding between the various liturgical families, in the spirit of Vatican II, which invited Roman Catholics to discover the riches of Eastern Christians and the value of Protestant worship. This is why research in the form of a three-way seminar is undoubtedly the most appropriate, as it makes it possible for students and teachers of different faiths to meet and exchange ideas. This mutual “getting to know each other” also enables us to distance ourselves from the stereotypes and preconceptions that each denomination has inherited in its relationship with others. It also makes it possible to put into perspective—or at least to consider in a new way, in a different context—the different “divisions,” “entanglements” or vagaries in the history of Christianity. The “ecumenical liturgy” methodology seeks to highlight the “harmonics,” the constants that can be observed in each great liturgical tradition, which may either express deep convictions of Christianity or reflect problems that are common to all Christian confessions. The aim of “ecumenical liturgy” is to emphasize the fact that, over the centuries, the different liturgical families have been led to confront common problems and to respond to them either in similar or in radically opposed ways. The “ecumenical liturgy” methodology is also careful to highlight in each great liturgical tradition the particular genius of its respective confession. In this way, the “dissonances” that can be heard between the various liturgical traditions are not necessarily signs of incompatibility, but can sometimes prove to be complementary, offering the various Christian confessions the opportunity for mutual enrichment. The mutual understanding that the “ecumenical liturgy” methodology provides also makes it possible to take a critical look at the contemporary liturgical practice of each liturgical tradition. It is an approach that also makes it possible to envisage avenues for possible liturgical renewal—a perennial question for every Christian denomination.
These, then, are the guiding principles, which have emerged from almost twenty years of experience, of the various three-voice teachings that have implemented this approach. It has been an experiment in a method of teaching we believe is unique in the teaching of Christian theology. As such, it is clearly an experience that is short and unfinished. This is why theological research in this area of liturgy, as encouraged by Vatican II, is continuing at the Theology Faculty of the Catholic University of Paris, always in the same spirit and with the same enthusiasm. We hope that the sharing of our experience with you will encourage you to imitate it in your particular academic or pastoral circumstances.
Benefits and Challenges
In terms of the title we were invited to present, “Formed ecumenically through liturgy,” here is how we can summarize our point of view. We consider that ecumenical teaching of the liturgy—complementary to the ordinary teaching given in each faculty—has consequences for the liturgical discipline itself, for the perception that one has of the various liturgical and ecclesial traditions, as well as for the way of understanding and living one's own tradition.
The first thing to note from our experience is the diversity of points of view among the three tutors, not only because of our respective ecclesiastical affiliations, but also because of our academic disciplines and fields of study. The three-voice approach broadens the perception of a discipline that could be too one-sidedly historical, dogmatic or practical, to mention just three possible broad orientations.
In some faculties liturgy is a discipline in its own right, but not in others. In Protestant theology, for example, liturgy, as an area of study and teaching, is generally classified as practical theology. This implies that liturgy will be considered as a practice, as a situation of communication with multiple actors, where attention will be paid not only to the content, the texts, what is said, but also to the context, how the liturgy is perceived and received, taking into account the varied points of view of the different participants. A practical theology approach also looks to insights from the social sciences, for example, anthropology, as indicated above for the dimension of rituality. Practical theology relates these approaches to a critical re-reading of the practice analyzed, a re-reading carried out on the basis of reference documents, which is an exercise in critical theological research. This is not the place to discuss the methodological debate specific to practical theology, but we do simply want to point out that it is a question of establishing correlations between actual practice and the reference texts, with a view to a better understanding and an improved practice, but sometimes also to a revision of the interpretation of whatever the standard reference may be.
An ecumenical approach significantly broadens this aspect of theological re-reading. Rather, we prefer to highlight each tradition and establish relationships among the elements covered, listening—according to the musical metaphor that has become classic in our courses—to both harmonics and dissonances.
As we have emphasized, a historical and comparative approach is of great importance. This enables us to become aware of the developments and changes in liturgical practices within each tradition. If we each remain rooted in our own tradition, there may be a tendency to emphasize its continuity and fidelity to a presumed “authentic” origin.
It is clear that the myth of an original liturgy does not stand up to scrutiny. Each tradition has developed in a context of plurality, so that historical and comparative work also enables us to situate our own tradition within a wider whole. This means we can observe similar or parallel developments among different traditions, but also take into account moments of divergence, either because of different specific contexts, or because of factors specific to a theological and ecclesial tradition.
Comparative work also makes it possible, of course, to move away from an insufficiently informed and often inaccurate or even inappropriate view of the traditions under discussion, and so obliges us to try to take better measure of their internal complexities.
Thereafter, the aim is to gain a better understanding of the texts and documents which serve as the reference points in each tradition, and to understand the way in which they are authoritative and how they are received and interpreted. The three-part course has a dual function here. It seeks to encourage both a scientific and an ecumenical approach. The approach is scientific insofar as it involves adopting the point of view of the liturgical traditions studied, understanding their references and inherent logic rather than applying external reading grids, often inherited uncritically from one's own tradition. The approach is ecumenical in the sense that, as we have already seen with the metaphor of harmonics and dissonances, working this way allows us to perceive both similarities and differences, thus sharpening a critical eye whose first and foremost focus is our own liturgical tradition.
Finally, the ecumenical perspective helps us to become aware of the way in which we relate to our own tradition and that how we sometimes attribute authority to practices is questionable. To give a recent example, from our course on “The sacraments in the ecumenical debate” in Spring 2023, we addressed the question of the relationship between confession and communion. Is it necessary to go to confession before taking part in the eucharist? What our discussion revealed is the fact that practices vary and sometimes deviate from the theological positions of the Churches. In some parts of Orthodoxy, for example, confession is seen as an imperative whenever people wish to receive Holy Communion, so much so that the priest is sometimes faced with a large influx of people asking for confession just before the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. The theological work which strives to highlight the sacrament of confession or reconciliation as a process, distinct from participation in the eucharist, from both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspectives, comes up against practices and conceptions that are strongly rooted in the piety of some of the faithful. Conversely, Protestants, who have not adopted confession as a sacrament, may re-emphasize self-examination. In the Lutheran tradition, this question is framed by texts from Luther's Small Catechism, part of which deals with the ministry of the keys and which includes, as an appendix, a self-examination questionnaire to be completed personally before receiving communion. By comparison, in contemporary Reformed practice, self-examination is not based on a common catechetical element. It is sometimes understood as free access, forgetting that, in the past, the less frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper was systematically preceded by celebrations centred on repentance. In other parts of the Reformed world, on the other hand, authorisation must be actively requested from the minister in order to have access to communion. So here we can see discrepancies between ecclesiastical theological discourse and practice. The ecumenical approach to these issues helps to make these discrepancies clearer.
So far we have touched on some useful aspects of ecumenical teaching of liturgy in an academic setting. Is there an interest and an advantage for the Churches, given that the training is given to current and future ecclesial actors? We believe that ecumenical training in liturgy plays a partly prophetic role, at a time when the ecumenical perspective is no longer necessarily central or a priority in ecclesial concerns. We leave it to our listeners to judge whether this is an act of hope or a rear-guard action.
Conclusion
The formation we have presented is one that contributes to a better understanding of the liturgical experience, by situating one's own tradition within a wider history, in time and in ecumenical space. Following on from the liturgical renewal of the twentieth century, we are trying to highlight the valuable elements that link each tradition to the entirety of Christian tradition, without in any way seeking to “standardize.” It is necessary to know and understand the liturgy of other denominations, and in this way to foster the evolution out of caricatured visions which correspond neither to the theological meaning nor to the lived practice of these traditions.
We also believe that it is good to encourage a critical look at one's own tradition and local practices. The elements already highlighted at the academic level can contribute to a more conscious and perhaps more open approach to liturgical life. In all events, it is useful to reflect on the authority of the reference texts and on the processes of reception and interpretation of these texts; to become aware of the gaps between attachments to traditional forms received locally and other ways of inhabiting and interpreting the same tradition. In short, it is a question of welcoming the plurality of liturgical forms as a richness.
Finally, however, we must signal that this undertaking remains fragile. Ecumenical teaching which brings together students from Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faculties remains dependent on certain choices being made regularly in each faculty, which can lead to such a course being included in a curriculum or, on the contrary, making it optional, thereby weakening its viability.