IEC2012 Theology Symposium 6-9 June 2012 St. Patricks College, Maynooth, Ireland.

Ut Unum Simus: What I learnt from Jean-Marie Tillard Nicholas Sagovsky Tillard and Ut Unum Sint1 Some time after 1995, I was sitting in a session of ARCIC 2, next to Jean Tillard. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint had recently been published. Its whole approach was

extraordinarily supportive of the work of ARCIC, which was no surprise as it was widely rumoured then and now that Tillard was the main drafter.2 I was curious about this and to amuse myself had engaged in a little source criticism, highlighting in my copy key phrases which were typical of Tillard such as from the time of Abel the just one. There were rather a lot of such highlights, so I was somewhat embarrassed when, wishing to quote from the text, Tillard reached over and took my copy. He never asked me why those phrases were

highlighted and I never knew whether he guessed. Rereading Ut Unum Sint now, regardless of the input Tillard did or didnt have, it represents a wonderful affirmation of all that he stood for. The encyclical is remembered above all for one paragraph about the ministry of the Bishop of Rome:

Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject [i.e. the ministry of the Bishop of Rome], 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 and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea that they may all be one so that the world may believe that you have sent me (Jn 17:21). (96)

This paragraph captured the imagination of ecumenists across the world. It was, I guess, the product of Tillards theological vision because it reflects a number of his major themes. It is predicated on the real but imperfect communion that exists between the churches. This fundamental insight, affirmed by Vatican II in Unitatis Redintegratio and elsewhere, was the groundbase of all Tillards ecumenical work. Throughout his life he sought to explore that real but imperfect communion and to deepen it. Then , in a slightly odd perhaps Gallic -

phrase, the Pope speaks about Church leaders and their theologians. Tillard was a theologian at the service of the Church and of its leaders. In all his work there is a robust confidence in the distinctive task of the theologian, researching and teaching in, with and for the Church. Then there is the theme of dialogue, which is the leitmotif throughout Ut Unum Sint. As a member of the dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox Churches and the Disciples of Christ, and as a Vice-President of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, Tillard must have spent more time in ecumenical dialogue than any other ecumenist of our time. Ut Unum Sint contains the fruit of his rich reflection on dialogue. It describes simply and clearly the approach which Tillard brought to all his dialogues: Bilateral theologica l dialogues carried on with the major Christian Communities start from a recognition of the degree of communion already present, in order to go on to discuss specific areas of disagreement. (49) The intention of that further discussion was clear: intole rant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations. Authentic ecumenism is a gift at the service of truth. (38) Perhaps the best example of a dialogue which has produced such fruit is one in which Tillard was not involved: the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue which produced the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999), but the strategy is evident throughout the work of ARCIC. It is a way of leaving useless controversies behind. The Popes appeal in Ut Unum Sint makes explicit reference to John 17, Jesus great prayer that they may all be one. Tillards lifework was dedicated to that aim. I first met him in the early 1970s, when he made a number of visits to teach at English theological colleges. By 1992, when I joined ARCIC, he was the dominant theological influence on the Commission. For that meeting we paid a return visit to St Georges, Windsor. At the end, the Dean thanked us for coming and said he hoped we would be back before too long. Afterwards, Jean was utterly dismissive. I dont want to keep coming back to Windsor, he stormed. I want unity. It was the most important lesson he ever taught me: he was not playing at being an ecumenist, visiting interesting places for prestigious meetings round the globe. There was an urgency and a seriousness about his commitment to unity because unity is so clearly the will of the Lord.

The quotation of John 17 in the Popes appeal reminds us of something else that was vitally important for Tillard. Christs prayer for unity to the Father was so that the world may believe. Tillard believed that the communion at the heart of the Christian Faith is nothing other than the reality of Gods salvation, and that this communion is open to all. communion of the Church is a communion in which all humanity can be reconciled. What Tillard achieved and I think it probably was his achievement was to cast the Pope in the role of one who listens. Earlier in the encyclical, the Pope says, I am obeying the Lord, and with a clear sense of my own human frailty (4) words which are re-echoed in the ARCIC statement, the Gift of Authority (48). This stance of the Pope, as one who wishes to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue and, we might say, as one who affi rms the work of his theologians in doing the same, is immensely appealing to non-Catholics. It has opened the way to a reimagining of what the papacy could be for all Christians something which The Gift of Authority explores in considerable depth. It is characteristic of Tillard to emphasise the role of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and to remind us that the local church of Rome was founded on the witness of both Peter and Paul. 3 Several times, Ut Unum Sint emphasises that the ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement is to re-establish [note re-establish] full visible unity among all the baptized. (77) The sign and the seal of that unity will be participation in the eucharist. Nothing less than this will do: From this basic but partial unity it is now necessary to advance towards the visible unity which is required and sufficient and which is manifested in a real and concrete way, so that the Churches may truly become a sign of that full communion in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which will be expressed in the common celebration of the Eucharist.(78) Tillard believed that the way to this unity was to establish and deepen consensus in faith and that an indispensable part of that work takes place in bilateral and multilateral theological dialogues where differences and disagreements can be examined in a reconciling light. Looking at paragraph 79 of Ut Unum Sint, it reads like a prospectus for the ongoing work of ARCIC: The

It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved: 1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God [this was discussed in The Gift of Authority, published in 1999 and, of all the ARCIC documents, the one most deeply indebted to Tillards insights]; the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of

Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit [this was discussed in the first ARCIC Statement on the Eucharist of 1971]; Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate [this was discussed in the ARCIC Statement on Ministry and Ordination of 1973]; the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Popes and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith [this was discussed in The Gift of Authority]; the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christs disciples and for all humanity [this was discussed in Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, which was published in 2004, four years after Tillards death].

Tillard thus ensured that the work of ARCIC which he had so carefully nurtured remained on track. Here is something else I learnt from him: he was an extraordinarily shrewd and determined operator. In ARCIC sessions he was always one jump ahead. When he was content with the drift of a discussion, he would be silent for considerable periods, but then he would spring to life and argue tenaciously for something he really cared about, and, if the point was carried, sit back, look around and beam. Just occasionally, a point would not be carried. Then he was likely to sit back and, sotto voce, complain that whoever it was who had objected had missed the point! Behind his thinking there was always an extraordinary depth of research and an unfailing focus on the task in hand. One of the most creative moves in The Gift of Authority is to begin from the recognition of the authority of Christ by an individual believer. The Yes of the individual to Christ and the Amen of Christ to the individual as described in The Gift of Authority began life in a preliminary paper by Tillard4 as a double yes on the part of the individual to Christ and the Church. It was his generative insight tha t this double yes should be contextualised within the life of a local church and that the authority of Scripture and Tradition immanent within the local church could then be related to the ministry of episcopacy (oversight) before going on to relate this to collegiality, synodality and ultimately to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. This was vintage Tillard. He published his book on The Bishop of Rome in 1982, and his magisterial study of The Local Church in 1995.5 He had thought out his position in a way that that was deeply true to his own Catholic tradition, but open to Anglicans as well. He knew what would be the sticking points for Anglicans and thus, for example, repeatedly emphasised the way that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exercised within the body of bishops, and not independently of them.

In the same way, before anyone else on ARCIC had begun seriously to think about how to approach the work on Mary, Tillard presented a paper on Mary as icon of the Church. He wanted us to steer us away from taking the defined dogmas about the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary head on, just as he had steered us away from taking papal infallibility head on. As always, he was determined to ensure that the words which defined our differences would be subsumed within a wider understanding of communion and of ecclesiology. Tillard had an extraordinarily clear sense as to where consensus lay, in terms of the Scriptures and of the tradition of the early centuries, both Eastern and Western. It was on this consensus that he wanted to build. At ARCIC meetings, Tillard didnt stay around for small talk. Behind the dazzling smile one sensed his mind was already at work on something you hadnt yet thought of - but you knew that the fruits of his research would become evident at the strategic moment. He was a sharp operator, with a touch of theological genius. Tillard and the Eucharist Tillard was 37 when in 1964 his first major book, LEucharistie, Pque de lEglise 6 appeared. This was during the time he was a peritus at Vatican 2, advising the Canadian episcopate on the religious life. This study of the eucharist was central to all his later concerns. Sharing of the eucharist was indispensable for the communion de vie [we might say, living communion] in Jesus. The book was number 44 in the Unam Sanctam series of the The same series already included four books by its

Dominican Editions du Cerf.

founder,Yves Congar, de Lubacs Catholicisme and Hamers Lglise est une Communion, so the lineage is clear. Tillards work was embedded within the Ressourcement7 associated with names such as these. His opening words are that This book attempts simply to bring to the light the roots of a truth that is traditional in ecclesiology and in sacramental theology: The Eucharist makes the Church.8 In his book he does two things of huge importance for his future work: first, he relates the eucharist to its Jewish roots in the narrative of the Passover and the memorial narrative of the Jewish Passover meal. With that, he relates the eucharist to the future hope of the Church, the hope of salvation. Central to his study is the notion of anamnesis as a living memorial of the past and as a remembrance before God of the future. Tillards understanding of the term anamnesis helped ARCIC find a way through the deadlock set up by simplistic understandings on both sides of the once -for-all sacrifice of Christ and of the eucharist as a repeated sacrifice. He helped to change the way Anglicans

like myself understood the Lords words, Do this in memory of me, 9 to break down rigid divisions between past, present and future when thinking about the meaning of living communion. It was from this reflection on anamnesis, I guess, that Tillard developed his commitment to the need for a ministry of memory within the Church, something he attributed not so much to theologians as to bishops. For him, apostolic succession was linked to communion in the apostolic tradition, which was based upon the faithful witness of the Apostles (the deposit of faith). Teaching that is faithful to apostolic tradition is thus in itself an anamnesis: it is a sharing in the teaching of the Apostles in their witness to Christ and also a sharing in the full knowledge of Christ that is to come. Memory calling to mind is an exploration both of the past and of the future. Tillards knowledge of patristic theology was vital to his whole project. It enabled him to see how Greek terms could often go behind the Latin terms that had been made the subject of minute analysis and distinction by the theologians of the medieval Schools. Terms like anamnesis and koinonia could be used with a flexibility indebted to the New Testament and the Fathers of the Early Church. In LEucharistie, he notes that communion has been used to translate the Greek term koinonia, which he calls one of the key terms of the theology of the Church, of salvation and of grace.10 Increasingly, koinonia became a keyword for ecumenical theology. It was used as the central, integrating motif for the work of ARCIC 1. 11 Something else that is striking about LEucharistie is the depth of Tillards scholarship in the study of the Bible, the Fathers and the liturgy of the early Church. For him, these were the resources of the undivided Church, shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans alike. As a Dominican, he readily turned to Aquinas for further illumination, but to few other medieval writers. His way of reading Scripture and the Fathers was alert to the best critical scholarship, but it was more akin to Lectio Divina. He read these texts with the trust of one who believed that here are the riches of the Apostolic Tradition and within the Apostolic Tradition are to be found the entire resources needed for the Christian life. For him, there were still many things for the Church to learn from Apostolic Tradition, but in essence everything has already been revealed. Tillard, The Bishop of Rome and the Ecclesiology of Communion

Through the years that followed Vatican II, Tillard write extensively on religious life. I shall not comment on this aspect of his work, important though it is, because I did not engage with it directly. It was, however, essential to his identity: I was conscious that he was a

Dominican through and through. In any rounded account of his achievement this would

have to be explored.

Alongside his reflections on holiness and religious life, as his

experience of the ecumenical movement grew, he was in these years developing and deepening his ecclesiology of communion . Not, however, till 1985 did he lay out his ecclesiology of communion systematically - in glise dglises.12 This provided essential background for ARCICs work on Church as Communion (1990), which was a short agreed statement of the ecclesiology of communion that underlay all the work of ARCIC to that point. Needless to say, it drew heavily on Tillards expertise. Three years earlier Tillard published his groundbreaking study of The Bishop of Rome, the one book of his that was well translated into English. The Bishop of Rome (1982) was essential to The Gift of Authority (1999), ARCICs third statement on Authority. The two earlier statements of ARCIC I on Authority had left unresolved questions around the Petrine texts, the use of the term jus divinum to describe the universal papacy (was it according to the specific will of God?), the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and also papal infallibility. 13 At precisely this time Tillard was working on his own study of the papacy in the context of an ecclesiology of communion which made it possible to address these questions afresh. Tillards vision of the Church as a communion of communions was for me one of his most important and liberating insights. For him, the identity of the Church was in the proper sense a mystery: what makes the Church the Church is not its institutional continuity but its participation on the life of God. Tillard showed me that the Church catholic is not a monolith: it is constituted of local churches in communion with one another. 14 Through his scholarly work and his ecumenical engagement he reminded me of the diversity of communities, rites and canon law within the Roman Catholic Church and especially of the importance of Eastern Rite Catholicism. For an Anglican, this mirrors the diversity within the Anglican Communion, whilst at the same time raising the question as to whether Anglican churches could ever constitute a communion or communion of communions within the Roman Catholic Church in the famous words of Dom Lambert Beauduin at the Malines Conversations united not absorbed. Language about a communion of communions of course raises the question as to what holds the local churches together. For Tillard, it must be participation in the one eucharist, shared with all the bishops and, in particular, with the Bishop of Rome. Anything else is not truly communion. It also raises the question as to the role of the college of bishops and the papacy within the whole body of the Church. Tillard extended my imagination to see that

Anglicans can and should, for excellent historical and theological reasons, long to accord to the Pope the primacy of honour accorded to the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium,

something we can approach through our experience of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares amongst the bishops of the Anglican Communion.

What Tillard did not teach me

Jean Tillard died on November 13, 2000. Towards the end of his life, the provinces of the Anglican Communion began to ordain women as priests and bishops. He could see that things would get markedly more difficult ecumenically. In the last months of his life, he had a series of conversations conversations in Winter - with the theological journalist Francesco Strazzari. They began by discussing words supposed to have been uttered by Yossel Rakover from within the Warsaw Ghetto: I believe in the God of Israel, although he has done everything to shatter the faith which I have in him. 15 For Tillard, the convergence of the churches for which he had worked throughout his life and in which he had believed seemed to have been reversed. He didnt say that his faith had been shattered, but he did, in a late paper, put the question, Are we the last Christians? Since the time of his death the process of divergence has accelerated.

Tillard would be the first to say that what has been achieved through fifty years of ecumenical dialogue since Vatican II has been achieved through the concerted efforts of many contributors. His contribution was that of a theological visionary who was able to inspire others and draw them with him. The problem was that his vision only partially

corresponded to the reality, and the reality has now to a considerable degree overtaken the vision. I believe the fundamental difficulty was this. Tillards view of koinonia never gave full weight to the reality of conflict and its place in the development of koinonia.16 His account of koinonia was, in the end, entirely positive. One key text for him was Acts 4:32 : Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. Common ownership was of course something Tillard practised as a Dominican. Consensus was, for him, characteristic of the life of the monastery and of the early Church.

Tillard was increasingly troubled by the lack of consensus within the churches that he had so longed to see reunited. I do not think his theological equipment allowed him to recognise persistent and unresolved conflict within the life of the Church as something that could be brought about by the Holy Spirit.17 Yet, without such conflict it is impossible to see how the Church can be brought to face new challenges and, in effect, to change its mind, as it has done, for example, in its teaching on slavery. This re -reception involved a radical rereading

of Scripture and the tradition of the Church, which until the nineteenth century was entirely accepting of slavery. The same could be argued of human rights. Tillards reading of history was, then, in this sense idealistic. He tended to view the struggles and disagreements of the Church through the lens of the conciliar process by which they were resolved. He spoke of the sensus fidei as a kind of olfactory sense by which the believer is able to intuit sound doctrine, the lay person perhaps in advance of the bishop. 18 He had a high regard for the sensus fidelium or the consensus fidelium which was vital for the Churchs discernment of the truth. What troubled him were instances where there has evidently been no such sensus or consensus, or the consensus has been opposed to the official teaching of the Church. One example might be the widespread lack of reception within the Roman Catholic Church for its teaching on birth control . Tillard wasnt

sympathetic to the reading of history from the perspective of the marginalised or the excluded. For him, the life of the Church was situated within the Great Tradition of the undivided Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. It allowed little space for the darkness of not knowing, for conscientious dissent and prophetic adventure. When ARCIC II turned to the moral teaching of the Church, having outlined our common vision of human flourishing within koinonia, we discussed the differing teaching of Anglicans and Roman Catholics on marriage after divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexual relations. I think the

discussion troubled him. On the relation between communion and dogmatic teaching he had absolute clarity; on the relation between communion and moral teaching he was outside his comfort zone.19 The trouble was that the ecclesiology of communion had been developed over against an ecclesiology of the church as institution. Tillard wrote about the friction of the two theologies in Lumen Gentium.20 So strongly did he want to emphasise the Church as in its essence communion in the Holy Trinity that he had little time for the canon law which undergirds the institutional life of the Church. This came home to me not so long ago, when I was asked to reflect on The Contribution of Canon Law to Ecumenism for a colloquium of Roman Catholic and Anglican canon lawyers.21 Up to that point, I had simply not thought about the facilitative role played by canon law in protecting space for ecumenical activity and regulating that activity for the good of the Church. The awkwardness around the creation of the Ordinariate shows very clearly that if and when there is to be a renewed sharing of eucharistic communion, the structures within which this takes place have to be very carefully thought out. This is a task for canon lawyers and ecumenically alert theologians to work on together.

This links with a further problem. Tillard did not know Anglicanism (or English!) as well as he thought he did. He found affirmation and encouragement in Anglican friends who could see the immense resonances for Anglicans in all that he stood for. In his friendships with

Anglicans, I think he also found relief from the pressures of his high-profile position as a leading Roman Catholic ecumenist. His approach was immensely attractive to any Anglican nurtured in the tradition of Michael Ramsey or the participants in the Malines Conversations. Tillard refreshed our sense of the catholicity and apostolicity of Anglicanism, circumventing the divisive legacy of the Oxford Movement. But there are many Anglicans worldwide to whom these things mean little. They would not agree to the notion of a double yes: that a yes to Christ means a yes to Christs Church. For many Anglicans, both evangelical and liberal, the imperative of mission means that the Church must be prepared to grow and change far more that Tillard would have accepted for instance by recognising the ministry of women as priests and bishops. For many Anglicans also, decisions about the evolving identity of the Church can be safely taken at provincial level. They see no need for appellate jurisdiction beyond the level of provincial or national churches. It is not that they do not

recognise the exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome; they do not want it. Where are we now?

If Tillard were alive today, he would be in a difficult position.

It has become increasingly

clear that concern for the theology of communion must be balanced by a concern for the juridical structures which undergird it. At a time when it is difficult to see what further

progress can be made in areas such as ministry and authority, when we may seem to be moving further away from, rather than nearer to, sharing the eucharist, it is clear that the ecumenical agenda has changed. ARCIC III has begun its exploration of The Local Church and the Church Universal and of the discernment of moral teaching within the local church. These themes are well-chosen to take us to the heart of our current ecumenical difficulties, but I do not think they would have appealed to Tillard. Here, there are no clear communiondividing issues like those listed in paragraph 79 of Ut Unum Sint.

Tillard, of course, contributed massively to our understanding of the local church, and he never lost his concern for its authentic catholicity of the local church. As he told Francesco Strazzari, I have never said or written that the Church of God comes about from the sum or addition of local churches I make quite a different point: that the Church of God is the communion (the koinonia) of local churches that exist, have existed, or will exist. 22 Though, prompted for example by Lumen Gentium to reflect on the role of the apostles (19), the bishops (22) and the Pope within The Universal Church, for him the local church had

10

priority. He describes the shift from the ecclesiology of Vatican 1 to that of Vatican II as the movement from an ecclesiology starting with the idea of the universal church divided into portions called dioceses, to an ecclesiology which understands the Church as the communion of all the local churches: the universal Church, he says, arises from the communion of churches.23 One promising development in the post-Tillard era has been the appearance of Receptive Ecumenism.24 This has been defined in a number of different ways but it seems to me two ideas are central. One is that ecumenism consists in the receiving and giving of gifts within the (impaired) communion of the churches. He second is that it is within the actual life of

the churches that we discover what those gifts may be. This second perspective leads into study of the churches as they really are, something that is needed as a complement to the somewhat idealistic functioning of the life of the church as described by Tillard. The first is something for which Tillards theology prepares the way. From his early work on the epiclesis in the eucharist, he was profoundly interested in the gifts that are given by the Spirit within the communion of the churches and how they may be used to build up the Church as a whole. He often returned to Ephesians chapter 4 as a key ecumenical text. He was himself an extraordinarily gifted person. As an Anglican, it is easy to see how he points to gifts within the tradition of the Church, both East and West that can and must be re-received to enrich the life of the Church today. Perhaps the most important of these gifts is his deep awareness that The eucharist makes the Church and that we cannot rest until we have reached that point of full, visible unity in which Christians of divided traditions are reunited in communion at the eucharist. In his time, by his commitment to the ecumenical movement and to bilateral dialogue, he was a pioneer and an explorer. Without his extraordinary contribution to what we might call the practical ecclesiology of communion, the churches would be far farther apart than we are today. He was a man restless for unity and from that restlessness I learnt more than I can say.

Nicholas Sagovsky has been a member of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission since 1992. He is a Visiting Professor at Liverpool Hope University.

11

I must record my thanks to Dame Mary Tanner, who knew Jean Tillard well. She read this paper in See, for example, C. Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology (New

full, making several suggestions for its improvement.

2

York: Herder and Herder, 2006), p. 5.

3 4 5 6 7

The Bishop of Rome (London: SPCK, 1983, e.g. pp. 77-86). Published as Faith: The Believer and the Church in Mid-Stream 94 (1995), 45-60. Lglise locale, Ecclsiologie de communion et catholicit (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1995). LEucharistie, Pque de lEglise, Unam Sanctam 44 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1964). Cf. the recent study edited by Gabriel Flynn and Paul Murray, Ressourcement, A Movement for For the background to the phrase The Eucharist makes the Church, see P. McPartlan, The

Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

8

Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1993).
9

Tillard was not alone in this. He himself refers to J. Jeremiass groundbreaking The Eucharistic

Words of Jesus (Oxford: 1955) which interprets the words of Jesus as, in effect, a prayer to the Father, pleading his coming sacrifice and in faith anticipating the Fathers response (cf. LEucharistie, p. 179).
10 11

LEucharistie, p. 244. See, The Final Report (London: SPCK/CTS, 1982), Introduction: Fundamental to all our glise dglises, Lcclsiologie de communion (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1987). The Final Report, Authority in the Church II, pp. 81-100. See the excellent study by Christopher Ruddy on Tillards understanding of The Local Church. William Rusch ed., I Believe, Despite Everything, Reflections of an Ecumenist (Collegeville, Minn.: I have discussed this in Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion

Statements is the concept of koinonia. (p. 5).

12 13 14 15

Liturgical Press, 2003), p. 1.

16

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 206-7.

17

Brian T. Flanagan argues in Community, Diversity and Salvation, the Contribution of Jean-Marie

Tillard to Systematic Ecclesiology (London/New York: T and T Clark, 2011), pp. 119-33 that one major lacuna in his thought is his lack of a direct connection between his understanding of communion and the concrete reality of the church.
18 19

Lglise locale, pp. 314-16. For a splendid discussion of koinonia and the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, see

John Mahoney, The Making of Moral Theology, A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).
20

See, for example, The Church of God is a Communion. The Ecclesiological Perspective of Vatican

II, One in Christ 17 (1981), 117-31.

12

21

The Contribution of Canon Law to Anglican-Roman Catholic Ecumenism, Ecclesiastical Law I Believe, Despite Everything, p. 24. In The Local Church, Ruddy discusses in depth the debate

Journal 13:1 (2011), 4-14.

22

between Benedict XVI and Cardinal Kasper about the priority of the universal or the local church. He stresses that for Tillard there is a simultaneity of the local and universal church (pp. 100-109), which stems from the creation of the Jerusalem church on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts (cf. Lglise locale, pp. 29-37).
23 24

The Bishop of Rome, p. 37. Paul Murray ed., Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2010).

13