Vatican II and Church Structures

Today the concept of Church-communion is central to theological reflection. But in what does it consist? What consequenes does this concept imply for Church structures and for the mission of the Church in history? These are some of the fundamental problems which are addressed in this interview with Piero Coda, proferssor of theology at the Lateran University, and consultor at some of the recent Synods of Bishops.

Piero Coda

Being One: The extraordinary Synod of Bishops (1985) affirmed that the ecclesiology of communion was "the central and fundamental idea" in the documents of Vatican II. In explaining what is meant by this concept they identify it with the "Church as Eucharist" since the Eucharist makes us one. What is the relationship between the Eucharist and communion in the Church?

It is true that in discussing the ecclesiology of communion in Vatican II, a eucharistic ecclesiology certainly played a decisive role, especially in its Eastern origins (in the Orthodox Church ). There have been and there are indeed studies of great value upon this very theme. However, it does seem to me to be a little reductionist to identify the ecclesiology of communion with eucharisrtic ecclesiology, because two other elements should be kept in mind in order to understand the richness of this reality.

The first, very much present in Vatican II, is that of the primacy of the Word of God, which was also discussed in the 1985 Synod, which speaks of the Church sub Verbo Dei. The Church is born from both the Word of God and the sacrament and this must always be kept in mind. Among other things, remembering this establishes a link with the heredity of the Protestant reformation.

The second element that we should take account of is that of lived charity among people. And here I want to refer to a very profound intuition which Chiara Lubich has presented many times with great simplicity but which I feel goes to the heart of the Christian mystery, emphasizing that the Church is born out of three elements: the Word of God, baptism and in fullness the Eucharist, mutual love. These three elements are linked to each other inseparably. The Word and the Eucharist are, in fact, nothing other than the sacramental transmission of the grace of God in Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit. But this transmission of grace which culminates in the Eucharist, must be an active reality in the lives of the disciples as mutual love and service. If this free and active translation into life of the grace received from the Word and from the sacrament of the Eucharist is lacking, well then this grace is not historically efficacious, in other words, it does not lead to newness of life of the Church in history.

This is as much elementary as it is decisive, but it is suprising that sometimes this ultimate (and original) consequence of receiving the Eucharist is not given due attention. It is in mutual love and service that the mass becomes a lived reality and the grace of what we receive is realized. It is only in this way that we have the "perfection" of love that 1 Jn. speaks about, in the sense of grace/charity given which becomes a tangible and credible event in history.

This is the real explanation for the relationship between Eucharist and communion: lived charity, in virtue of the Word and the Eucharist, is fully expressed in unity, which is the presence of the risen Christ in history. This is the most profound reality of the Church! It is not the Christ who dwells by virtue of grace in the individual believer who has listened to the Word and received the Eucharist, but it is the presence of the risen Christ which is fully realized where two or three, united in the name of Christ ( cf. Mt. 18:20 ) through receiving the Word and the Eucharist, live out the commandment of mutual love and the commandment of service of the least. Only in this way do the disciples progressively become - through unity and in unity- another Christ. This is the Church as lived communion.

The ecclesiology of the movements

Being One : I once heard you say that the new movements in the Church represent a new ecclesiology. What do you mean by this?

We must firstly clarify and examine what we mean theologically by movements in the Church . Normally the reality of movements is dealt with in terms of their pastoral consequences or of their characteristics in terms of spiritual renewal. But since they are a gift of the Holy Spirit in the Church of today, they also have a theological significance. The undeniable fact of the presence of the great charisms within the Church, given by the Holy Spirit, represents a moment of the deepening of the Christian mystery and a new energy for putting the Christian message into practice in a way which meets the historical demands of our times and which, indeed, develops human history. A great spiritual movement, like the Franciscan one from the past, has at its origins a charism, that is, a light and new capacity to read and incarnate the Gospel in historical time or kairos.

Rahner and von Balthasar in some of their already famous works — the first on the dynamic element of the Church, the second on the presence of charisms and holiness in the life of the Church — have underlined, with admittedly different emphasizes but agreeing in substance, that a great charism, because of its ecclesial function, brings into play a discovery of the nature of the Church herself: a discovery in which the Church finds herself before a greater and newer image than it actually originally had of herself. A great charism always takes the form of stimulating a renewal of the Church's self-understanding and re-shaping of her own form. This belief does not come solely from the tradition of the Church but also from Scripture itself. Think of the Paraclete Discourses in John's Gospel which speak of the Spirit which guides towards all truth (cf. Jn. 16:13) who, "taking" from what Christ has revealed, reveals it even more fully (cf. Jn. 16:14-15) and gives the disciples, in the course of history, a capability of understanding and living that which in an earlier time they were not yet able to "bear" (cf. Jn. 16:12).

In this sense it seems to me that some of the new movements — those in which it is clear that there is a great spiritual charism at its origin — certainly constitute a re-reading and capacity to realize a wider and deeper vision of the Church. To take but one famous historical example, it is enough to think about what the Mendicant Orders represented for the Church in terms of her own self-understanding and ecclesiology. Ratzinger outlined this in his famous study on this theme the consequences not in terms of the birth of a new form of religious life, but also for the figure of the ordained minister and the relationship between these new forms of religious life and the petrine primacy. On one part, theology is quite behind in this consideration: perhaps because the movements have not yet been able to theologically reflect upon and express the richness of their own charisms, and also because theology has not been attentive to reading and understanding the novelty which the Holy Spirit, has offered to the Church through the charisms.

The common Priesthood and the Marian profile

One of the elements of novelty which I would like to emphasize in this ecclesiology which emerges from the movements and which is in complete harmony with that of Vatican II, is communion. Here we are talking about a renewal in relationships and vocations within the Church in terms of charity and communion. In some of the main Church movements of today, people of all vocations live the original charism of the particular founder, sharing a style of life which is according to models of relationship which are not the traditional ones of the past associated with a Church community. This does not negate the traditional meaning of such relationships (those for example between laity, ordained ministers, the religious life) but rather re-examine them while maintaing their own identity in a perspective in which baptismal equality is underlined and in which relationships are seen and lived in the light of the communal, relational, and trinitarian. And in this context an important theme that has to be reflected upon both pastorally and theologically is the "structural" relationship between the reception of the Council and the action of the Holy Spirit through the charisms in history.

Another example—and here I want to make specific reference to the charism of unity of the Focolare movement - comes from the emergence of what von Balthasar and John Paul II call the "marian profile" of the Church. This fact suggests not just the emergence of one of the Church's typical characteristics - that of its marian along with the apolostic-petrine profile- but a real and definite historical shape of this profile. The consideration of this profile of the Church is not meant to remain merely on the level of a mystical intuition but finds expression in the historical working of the Church. It is indeed difficult to predict the outcome of this novelty within the Church.

Schools of an ecclesiology of communion

Being One: Obviously a Church as communion can be built only by those who are experts in living unity. In one of your articles you talked about the need for "schools of an ecclesiology of communion". What do you mean by this ?

The expression "schools of ecclesiology of communion" comes from John Paul II, who gave the Synod for the Church of Rome the task of being a school which could practice, live and experience the ecclesiology of communion of Vatican II so that the final document would be full of this vision and would become the working pastoral principle.

This point seems very important to me because today more than ever we need a pedagogy of Church life based upon new criteria proposed from the ecclesiology of communion of Vatican II. This is not something which one can improvise on. Vatican II certainly represents the epochal transition from a juridical-societal ecclesiology to an ecclesiology of communion, but this requires people, and above all "pastors" who, having made their own the spirit of this ecclesiology, know how to concretely guide and animate their own communities to understand and live the reality. Indeed it is obvious that in talking about an ecclesiology of communion, the best way to understand and live it is only by the mutual love that exists between the various vocations. So there is a need of schools of an ecclesiology of communion in the sense that there is a need to experience the living reality of what Vatican II talks about in regard to communion.

Often courses on the ecclesiology of Vatican II remain too theoretical and abstract and do not pay attention to the quality of relationships. They fail to see that these schools could be a fruit of the Holy Spirit who initiated the Vatican Council itself. From my own personal experience of the meetings of the Focolare movement, I know that the life of unity between the members of different vocations represents a great school for an ecclesiology of communion. This forms the members of the movement not only on a personal level, but makes them able to become in their different roles in the church and in society a leaven and animators able to animate others.

Church structures: The historical incarnation of communion

Being One: What is the relationship between the new awareness of communion which is developing within the Church and the structures, the means, the organizational features whereby that communion must be realized?

Well, I feel that there is a fundamental relationship here. At times, due probably to a certain fatigue and disappointment, one notices that the new forms of participation and co-responsibility initiated by the Second Vatican Council (e.g. Priests councils, pastoral councils, Synods... ) are undervalued. But it is important to realize that these structures are absolutely necessary for the ecclesiology of communion not to remain just on the level of principles, but rather to become flesh and blood of the whole people of God, notwithstanding all the human difficulties and slow pace. These structures are necessary also because they can become the instruments and places in which the experiences of the life of communion which have already blossomed like, for example, in the new movements, can enter the great trunk of the Church as the people of God and interact with all the other realities. These structures are not only places where the ecclesiology of communion can become a reality but they are also points where all the experiences of the Church over the last few years can meet: I'm thinking here of bible groups, basic Christian communities, prayer groups, voluntary aid groups, social action groups...

Another fundamental factor which the ecclesiology of Vatican II stresses is the need to pay a lot of attention to dynamic of incarnation of the Christian life within history. It is true that the ecclesiology of communion is a pneumatological one, because, on the basis unity in Christ, it highlights the spiritual dynamism of relationships and their interiority in the Trinitarian life. But, at the same time, it is an ecclesiology which requires an incarnation, because this novelty of the Spirit is realized in history through structures. I remember Chiara Lubich speaking about a relationship of analogy between on the one hand the divinity of the Word and his humanity, and on the other, between the profound life of the Church and its structures. This theme is dealt with in LG 8. Therefore the relationship between the principle of communion and the structures incarnating that communion is a relationship of theological necessity and not just strategic, because it reflects the mystery of the incarnation. At the same time it must be a relationship which I would call "provisional", because the incarnation of structures must always take into account the surpassing nature of mystery and of that which we call today the "escathological reserve" . We mean by this the relativity of every historical translation of the mystery and its striving towards the "definitive" which is always a work of God.

Why do the structures not work well?

Being One: What do you think about the structures of communion proposed by Vatican II and which are now at all levels of the Church? Do they work?

Certainly a great effort has been made to give life to these structures. In terms of the universal Church there has been the setting up of the Synod of Bishops and the promotion of the Episcopal Conferences; and at the more local level there have been the setting up of pastoral, diocesan, parochial and priests councils etc. The efforts have therefore been considerable and there are many fruits. I must say, however, that, also on the basis of concrete experience, I feel that these structures aren't managing to work fully. I have taken part in a Synod of the universal Churh (as an expert) and so I saw how it worked. I also took part in the local Synod of the Church of Rome, and I have been very involved in diocesan and parochial councils. All of these structures function with difficulty (as structures of communion and participation) because, it seems to me, the majority of people called upon to be part of them and work them have not had an opportunity of the necessary formation, spiritual and practical, in terms of the principles of an ecclesiology of communion. All are needless to say convinced of the need of the importance of the ecclesiology presented by Vatican II but the reality is that they do not know how to live it. These principles involved in living an ecclesiology of communion are of two types.

First and foremost, they are of a spiritual nature. We can remember here the words of the late Yves Congar: Before Vatican II the Church had a type of spirituality forged upon the principle of obedience; while the ecclesiology of Vatican II requires a spirituality of communion which implies a profound spiritual renewal in our relationship with the Word, the Eucharist, with our brothers and sisters in the one people of God, in the distinction of their roles, but based upon the dignity of their common baptism. In many of these organs one sees that there is not the capacity - and this is not out of bad will on the part of anyone, but rather because of a lack of adequate formation - to live concretely communion with others, to listen, to accept the other as a gift, to work towards unity, to respect legitimate and enriching differences.

Secondly, the principles involved are of a functionary nature. These principles try to find the adequate formulae and mechanisms involving participation and co-responsibility which incarnate this spiritual renewal: they would be the methodology of dealing with an issue, how to read the situation, to reach consensus, decision making, the communication and realization of this in terms of the community. It is a whole new area with much to be covered.

I remember that at the end of the Synod of Church of Rome, I was asked to give a talk to a group of parish workers where I said these same things. At the end everyone said that this was the first and indeed only thing to do, in order to make real this ecclesiology.

I believe this lack of formation and practice of the concrete forms of putting the ecclesiology of communion into action demands an urgent and considerable effort by the Church. If we do not do this, there is the great danger of disillusionment on one side, and with this the temptation to retreat to back to a form of Church life which shelters in the private (of the individual or of groups); on the other hand, there is the danger, perhaps more subtle but no less serious, of "instrumentalising" these structures of communion, leaving the form intact but emptying it of the substance. This is a great danger because it would mean not taking up the novelty of the Second Vatican Council

Social "Trinitarian" structures

Being One: The encyclical "Solicitudo rei socialis" speaks about "a world subject to structures of sin". What importance have Church structures of communion in order to overcome this?

The structures of communion in the life of the Church have a very important value, in the sense that they make present the profound meaning and significance of the Church within history. Lumen gentium says that the Church is sacrament, that is, the sign and instrument in Christ "of the intimate union with God and of the unity of the whole human race" ( LG 1 ). This is not just a mystical reality but a concrete one when the Church becomes historically the perceptible sign and efficacious instrument of this communion with God and of unity amongst peoples. This happens where communion is lived, where the Word and Eucharist are translated into mutual love and service of others and when all of this is expressed in a structure of Church life which is an adequate form and instrument of this communion.

The strength of the sign and instrument of communion is of course firstly due to the grace of God, in theological terms we call this ex opere operato. But we must not forget that this involves and implies on the other hand, the ex opere operantis in the sense of the active adherence of the one receiving the grace and putting it into practice. In this regard the Church has a lot of steps to take in terms of reaching this maturity, not only on the spiritual level but also on the structural level. A Church in which the relationships between the different vocations results in too much verticalism, or bureaucracy, one which does not allow the dynamic of unity, pluriformity and equality in difference emerge, will not of course be an efficacious and perceptible sign and instrument of unity.

Starting from this reality of communion, the Church in this sense is called to be the living presence of the novelty of the trinitarian love in history, which should be a leaven for a new sociality, a new way of being in society. At times it seems to me that we do not manage to see what the salvation Christ brought and which the Church bears witness to means. In what sense has Christ saved us and how is the Church the sacrament of salvation? In the sense of making us live the fullness of life in terms of the plan of God for humankind: and that plan is the life of communion. Salvation is therefore identical to communion, a communion which is lived in history and in which men and women are realized as much as possible already now in history, even if this awaits eschatological fulfillment. And it is this kind of communion, that salvation becomes not an idealistic "utopia" but a real, concrete one where the world and society can expect to find elements of renewal and insight for its own journey. In saying this we don't want to be too ecclesiocentric. Gaudium et Spes tells us that in this journey of realising herself, the Church as a sign and instrument of communion, and as a real utopia of unity, learns from the Word of God; but she also learns much from the world or rather from the Holy Spirit who speaks through the aspirations, conquests as well as the suffering and serious problems of the world.

In being a utopian sign which goes against the current of the structures of sin in the world, the Church knows and indeed must learn how to concretely choose the royal way of dialogue, working together, meeting and openness to the gifts of all people in which there are present the seeds of the Word and the groanings of the Spirit.