41
Roman
Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue:
Contribution to Christian
Unity
A
Jerry
L.
Sandidge*
There is
roughly the
Unity
on
history
had to occur
of some
a
60-year period
between the formation of
first Pentecostal denominations and the
beginning
of inter- national
dialogue
between the Vatican Secretariat for Promot- ing
Christian and some members of the Pentecostal churches. It is obvious that
something significant
both sides before there could even be the
suggestion kind of discussion at the
dialogue
table. This article is an
to trace the
origins
of the
Dialogue
and to summarize
of this
unique theological exchange.
Con-
will also be
given
to the
way
the
dialogue process works and to a discussion of
theological
issues. A few remarks
be given about the ecumenical
significance
of the
Dialogue, and in conclusion, some comments will be made on the future of
attempt the
ten-year sideration
will
the
Dialogue.
Historical
Aspects
of the
Dialogue
origins become mid-1950’s.
expanded
the
meeting Andrews,
Scotland. from
Oxford, Plessis
give
a report went to Rome
From his
with some of the leaders
Illinois,
in 1954.
Roman Catholic contact at
at St.
S.J.,
Du
Stransky, Unity. Cardinal sion of the
The
story
of David J. du Plessis is well-known.’
as an “extreme Pentecostal” in South
Africa,
he grew to
an “ecumenical Pentecostal” in the United States
by the
He served as
secretary
in the
opening years
of the Pentecostal World Conference and was
always very
concerned for
unity among
the Pentecostals of the
world. This vision was
when he became
acquainted
of the World Council of Churches and attended the Second Assembly
of the WCC in
Evanston,
In 1960 he had his first
significant
of Faith and Order of the World Council
There he met Fr. Bernard
Leeming,
who asked him to visit
Rome,
after
hearing
on world Pentecostalism.2 The next
year
he
and met
Augustin
Cardinal
Bea,
Fr. John Wille- brands, (since 1969,
Cardinal
Willebrands),
and Fr. Thomas F.
all of the Secretariat for
Promoting
The outcome of this contact was that he was invited
by
Bea as the
only
Pentecostal observer to the third ses-
Vatican Council
( 1964).3
It was
shortly
after this that Du Plessis met and became friends with Fr. Kilian
McDonnell,
CSP,
O.S.B.,
with
whom,
together,
Christian
the
reality
of a
dialogue
was
1
42
eventually
realized.
with
with
It
was, then,
from the contacts made
by
David J. du Plessis (and
the Rev.
Ray Bringham4)
the Secretariat for Promot-
in the 1960’s and his close
friendship
McDonnell that
eventually
led to the
Vatican/ Pentecos-
But these events were
accompanied by three
other
the
acceptance
of Pentecostals
by
the
church
world, (i.e.,
the National Association of Evangeli-
alliances,
and the World Council of
renewal within historic Protest-
and
3)
the Second Vatican
about the
ing
Christian
Unity
Kilian
tal
Dialogue.s
crucial
developments: 1) larger
cals,
various
evangelical Churches6); 2)
the charismatic antism and Roman Catholicism; Council.
l.
Origins of
the
Dialogue
Before Roman Catholics international
possibility
meetings
in
Cardinal
dialogue.
“small,
informal
whether
and Pentecostals could conduct an
dialogue,
there had to be discussion
of
dialogue.
This took
place
in a series of three Rome. In June, 1970 David du Plessis wrote to John
The first
preliminary
ing
was
an interest in
considering
Willebrands and
expressed
Willebrands
responded
the same
month,
in favor of a
and
private meeting
in
September
to
explore
it is
possible
to have such a dialogue,
and,
if
so,
what the method
might
be. “‘
discussion was held in
September
1970. After two fruitful
days
of
meeting,
it was decided to meet
again and discuss the
possibilities
further. A second
preliminary
meet-
was held in June 1971. Each side
presented
the other side with five “hard
questions”
related to their
special
concerns. This second
meeting
resulted in four
important
decisions:
1) there
a unanimous desire to enter into
dialogue; 2) there should be six to
eight persons
on each side in the
sessions; 3)
there would be five
meetings
over the next three
years;
and
4) topics would be decided
by
a
Steering (or Executive)
Committee.8
The
Steering
Committee met in October 1971 and outlined the details of the
dialogue.
There would be five
meetings
Pentecostal
participants
would include both classi- cal Pentecostals and charismatics
(neo-Pentecostals)
from the historic Protestant churches. There would be a
permanent Executive Committee with three members from each side to
quennium).
(a quin-
plan
and direct the
Dialogue.
select
topics
and ask
theologians
on these
topics
to be read and discussed.
session there would be an
agreed
statement
were two other
important
decisions
of this
Dialogue. 1)
It would not concern
There and function
The Executive Committee would
on each side to
prepare papers
At the close of each
and
press
release.9
as to the
purpose
itself
2
43
“with the
problems
of imminent structural union but with
unity in
prayer
and common witness.”
2)
It would not concern itself directly
“with the domestic
pastoral problem
of the
relationship of Catholic Pentecostalism to the Roman Catholic Church.”‘o 2. First
Quinquennium ( 1972 – 1976)
The first series has been well documented
by
the German Lutheran scholar, Arnold
Bittlinger,
who was a first-hand
par- ticipant.
His
dissertation,
done under the direction of Professor W.J.
Hollenweger
at the
University I
of
Birmingham
in
England is
entitled, Papst
und
Pfingstler.”
The
agreed
accounts of the
Dialogue (including
the Final Report)
can be found in Kilian
McDonnell;O.S.B. (ed.),
Pres- ence, Power, Praise, 3:373 – 395.12 Most of the
theological pap- ers
presented during
the
five-year period
can be found in One in Christ, 9:1 (1973); 10:2 (1974); 12:4 (1976); 13:1 (1977).
Some of the
topics
dealt with in this series included:
baptism in the
Holy Spirit,
Christian
initiation,
water
baptism, Scrip- ture and tradition,
spiritual gifts, corporate worship,
and prayer
and
praise.
Most of these
topics
are of
special impor- tance and relevance to the Pentecostal movement and the cha- rismatic renewal within the historic churches.
At the end of the five
years
several
topics
were
suggested
for further discussion, most of which were
presented
in the second five-year
series. The Final
Report
made it clear that the conclu- sions reached did not
necessarily
reflect the official
teaching
of the Roman Catholic Church or of the classical Pentecostal churches. The
report
did not bind them to the
theological posi- tions
expressed. “Rather,
the
reports
are the result of serious study by responsible persons
who submit the
reports
to the churches ‘for suitable use and reaction’. “13
3. Second
Quinquennium ( 1977 – 1982)
John Cardinal Willebrands authorized a second series
of dis- cussions in
August
1976.’4
The first quinquennium
was com- posed
of persons involved in the charismatic renewal within the historic churches – Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, and others. It was decided that for the second series only classi- cal Pentecostals would be invited to the
Dialogue
with Roman Catholics.’S There were at least three reasons for this change. First,
the Roman Catholics wanted to
get
closer to the world- wide Pentecostal movement. Second, there
were national or international
dialogues already going
on between Roman Catholics and
the various non-Roman churches
represented by the Charismatics in the first series of
dialogue. Third,
the Pen- tecostals desired to involve more of the Pentecostal denomina-
3
44
David du Dialogue.16
His desire
(since were
spread
But so as not to
dominate the discussion Catholics),
the observers were
mostly “absorbing” have its
problems
but tecostal attendance
tions in the
dialogue process.
Plessis introduced the idea of “observers” to the
to
get
word of the
Dialogue among Pentecostals,
he
argued,
could be facilitated
by allowing a
larger
number of Pentecostals to attend.
So,
at times there were twelve or more Pentecostals
present.
there were
only
nine Roman
limited in their
participation
and
the
dialogue process.
This
plan
did
was some
help
in
getting
a broader Pen-
at the
Dialogue.
of “hard
into the
process. 17 papers
into “hard
questions”
Catholic
papers
McDonnell,
quickly
into the substance of
elected
Pope
questions”
was introduced
to
get
the
theological
four
years. 19 Consequently
After 1977 the
concept
This was an
attempt
the hands of
participants early
so
they
could write
about the
papers
to the writers of those
pap- ers. Pentecostals wrote “hard
questions”
on the Roman
and vice versa. This
suggestion,
from Kilian
did much to move the
dialogue
sessions more
the
theological aspects
mentioned in the
papers.
The
Dialogue
for 1978 was cancelled due to the death of
Pope John Paul He died on
September 28, 1978
and the
Dialogue was scheduled for October 16 – 20. Karol Cardinal
Wojtyla
was
on October 16, the same
day
the
Dialogue
was to begin. This, along
with other
factors,
caused the 1977 session to loose
continuity
with the
remaining
it was
probably
the weakest of the five
years.
The
theological papers
and the Final
Report
of this series of
are in the
process
of
being published.20
The
joint
release
(or
a small new
item)
for each
year
can be found in the Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity’s quarterly,
Service.21
Process Worked
(1977 – 1982)
Dialogues press
Information
How the
Dialogue 1. Schedule
together.
Each
day’s tional time
together ( 10 –
on the same schedule evening
with a meal
In
general
the
dialogue
week
operated
each
year.22
It
usually began
on a Monday
followed
by
a short
period
of orientation. All meals were eaten
work
began
and ended with a brief devo-
15 minutes).
which time the
participants
could
mingle, get
and discuss
together
some
personal
the Roman Catholic
participants
the Pentecostal
delegates
mass which did
not).
There were breaks
during
better
acquainted, interest of the
dialogue.
For there was an
early morning
could observe
(but usually
4
45
Following
breakfast and
prayer (devotions)
there was a meet- ing
in
plenary
until lunch time. On the first
day,
this involved reading
and
discussing
one of the
theological papers.
In the afternoon,
discussion
continued, followed
by the reading
of the second
paper
on the same
topic.
Discussion followed. The second
day repeated
the same
procedure
but dealt with the other two
papers
on the other
topic.
Near the end of the second
day each side met
separately
to draft a list of “hard
questions”
for the other side to answer. The third
day
was
spent
in
going
over the hard
questions
and in breaking
up
into small
(mixed) groups to
begin drafting
the
“press
release” and
“agreed
account.” The final
day
was
spent
in
plenary revising
the
drafts, clarifying points, reconsidering
issues not
covered,
and
preparing
the final
copies.
By
the end of the week
(which usually
went all too fast and seemed to leave so much more to be
discussed, clarified,
and refined) everyone
was well
acquainted
with each other on both sides.
Friendships
were
being
established.
Anticipation
for the following year
was
expressed.
There had been almost
five full days
of
theological discussion,
mealtimes and
prayer times, informal discussions and
walks,
coffee breaks. There was not total
agreement
on the
theological
issues. But there was mutual agreement
on the value of
dialogue.
In the annual
coming together
of two
very
different
traditions,
each side found that there was more in common than was at first
thought possible. Understanding
was
growing
between them.. Preconceived notions were
slipping away.
Polemics was
replaced
with ireni- cism. There remains a great difference between these two tradi- tions,
but a
good
start has
begun.
The
positive
effects of this “second”
attempt
are reflected in the Final
Report (1977 – 1982). The
Dialogue “has
been characterized
by
the seriousness of the exchange
as
participants
seek to reflect in all
fidelity
the doc- trine of their church and at the same time to learn from their opposite partners
in dialogue what their true faith stance is.”23 2.
Participants
First,
in
a joint
Executive Committee
meeting,
the
topics
for the
following year
were discussed and decided. This included preparing
titles for two
theological papers.
Each
side, meeting separately,
would then decide who to invite to write and
present the
theological papers
for their side. Each side chose its own participants.
The usual
composition
of the
dialogue
team for each side would include:
the
respective Steering
Committee – three
persons
presenters
of
papers –
two
persons
.
5
46
other
participants –
four
persons
observers
(Pentecostals only) –
three to five
persons
The Roman Catholic
participants were,
for the most
part, theologians
from various seminaries or universities in the Uni- ted States or Western
Europe.
A number of
religious
orders were
represented:
Benedictines, Dominicans,
Holy
Ghost Fathers, Passionists,
White Fathers. The few that were not professors
or who did not work in the Secretariat were either officials in their order or in some other
offices,
an editor of a theological journal,
or
they
were involved in an ecumenical center.
Noticeably
absent were
priests
involved in the charis- matic
renewal, parish priests,
and third-world
representatives.
The Pentecostal side was a more diverse
group
than the Roman Catholic side. Some of the Pentecostal denominations represented
included:
Apostolic
Church
(New Zealand), Apos- tolic Faith Mission
(South Africa),
the Assemblies of God (USA),
Elim
Fellowship (USA),
International
Evangelical Church
(USA, Brazil),
the Pentecostal Holiness Church
(USA), some
independent
Pentecostal
churches,
and some from non- Pentecostal denominations.
Over the
five-year period
there were Pentecostal
pastors,
mis- sionaries, evangelists,
Bible
college
or
university instructors, and a religious
publisher.
In
comparison
to the
Catholics,
there was a shortage of Pentecostal scholars. There
was,
as with the Roman Catholic
side,
a noticeable lack of
participants
or observers from the third-world. Black Africa, Latin
America, India,
and the Orient were not
represented.
This non- involvement of the third-world has been noted on both sides and in the third
quinquinnium (to begin
in
1985)
there will be a definite
attempt
to include at the
dialogue table, representatives from
parts
of the world other than North America and Western Europe.
Theological
Reflection
on the
Dialogue
1.
Topics ( 1977 – 1982)
The Final
Report
is
18-manuscript pages (98 paragraphs) divided
among
the
dialogue years
as follows:
6
47
There are some observations which can
immediately
be made. The first
year
was one-third the
length
of each of the other subjects.
The
important subject
of tradition was discussed two years
in succession.
(Tradition
came
up
as part of the discussion on
hermeneutics.)
Discussion about
Mary
took the
major por- tion of the
report. Ministry
also was
given
central
place,
for the important
matter of ordination and
apostolic
succession was discussed.
to
The
subjects
were rather divided between
topics appealing Roman Catholics and those of concern to Pentecostals.
Speak- ing
in
tongues
was a Pentecostal
subject, suggested by
the Pen- tecostal side. The same
applied
to
healing.
The
topic
of faith and experience
was a Roman Catholic
suggestion.
The
topic
of hermeneutics was a
subject
of mutual
interest, following
the 1977 session, for this was “one of the main
problems”
which revealed itself. Roman Catholic scholars
accept
and use the historical-critical method in their
approach
to
Scripture.
Pen- tecostals,
on the other
hand,
are more inclined to use “a
spiritual interpretation,”
and
largely reject
the other method.24
The
subject
of the Church as a worshiping community was a Roman Catholic concern. The matter of tradition
grew
out of the
previous year’s
discussion on hermeneutics.25 It seems that not much was resolved on that
question,
but the
key
issues became more clear. Within the context of discussion of tradi- tion
(1980),
the
subject
of
Mary
arose. It
was, therefore,
at the request
of the Pentecostals that the
topic
of
Mary,
the Mother of Jesus was
put
on the
agenda
for 1981. Certain Roman Catholics resisted this
slightly,
for fear that it
might
be the end of the Dialogue.
It is from the discussion on the Church and
worship (1980) that the
subject
of
ministry
in the Church was
suggested.
If the Church is central
to a Christian’s
spiritual existence,
then
by
7
48
whom and how that
ministry
is
performed
is
important.
Here there arose a definite difference in the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal
approaches.
The former
emphasized
the sacra- ments, priestly function,
and
apostolic participation.
The latter were more concerned with the call of God to
ministry,
the exercise of
spiritual gifts,
and less institutionalism.zb
It should be
pointed
out that the two
papers
on
ministry
were prepared
for the 1981
Dialogue,
but the discussion on
Mary took the entire week, so the
ministry papers
were
only
read and discussion
postponed
until the next
year.27
Without a doubt the 1981 session was the one most
widely publicized,
the one which stirred
up
the most
controversy (afterwards),
but in some
ways the most
important.28
At the 1982
session,
a draft of the Final
Report (minus
the discussion on
ministry)
was
distributed, having
been drawn in advance
by
William
Carmichael,
the Pentecostal
secretary,
in consultation with Kilian McDonnell, the Roman Catholic chairperson.
This draft was discussed in plenary
session,
follow- ing
the
presentation
of the
ministry papers. Next,
small
groups (composed
of members from each
side)
met to do the
editing
and refining.
One
group
dealt with the Final
Report,
a second
group wrote the
portion
of the Final
Report dealing
with
ministry (having just
been
presented),
and a third
group
met to draft the press
release.
By
the end of the
week,
the
major
work was completed except
for the
“brushing up”
of the Final
Report. This had to be done later
[since
time ran
out] by the two secretar- ies,
the Reverend William Carmichael and Fr. Jerome Vereb, C. P. Due
primarily
to
illness, busy schedules,
and
distance,
this final
editing
did not occur until
August 1983,
almost a year after the
Dialogue
session. There were minor
adjustments
made in the report
in the office of the Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian Unity
in the
ensuing months,
so that the Final
Report
was not ready
for
publication
until the conclusion of an executive Committee
meeting
in Rome in
May,
1984.29
2.
Comparisons of the
Two
Quinquennia
The Roman
Catholic/
Pentecostal
Dialogue,
in the second five-year series,
moved into some of the
major subjects
which separate
the non-Roman churches from the Roman Catholic Church. Most other bilateral
dialogues involving
Roman Catholics have dealt with
essentially
the same issues as the dialogues
held with the Pentecostals. The first
quinquennium dealt more with
specific
issues related to the Pentecostal move- ment and the charismatic renewal within the historic churches. But in the second
quinquennium, though
“Pentecostal” issues
,
8
49
were not
ignored,
there was a delving more
deeply
into the more substantive issues-where
disagreement
is more
likely
to occur-
i.e., hermeneutics, tradition,
In June,
1979,
Pierre
Duprey, ariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity Roman
Catholic/
Pentecostal
Dialogue,
Episkepsis
about the Roman dialogue.30
classical Pentecostals with
Anglicans
Spirit.”This,
however,
Church, Mary, and
ministry.
W. F.
secretary
of the Secret-
and
participant
in the
published
an article in Catholic Church in ecumenical
with
In this article he contrasted Rome’s
dialogue
and other churches. The Roman
dialogue
seeks the
goal of “complete
communion of faith and sacramental life.” But with the
Pentecostals,
the
object
is to share
“principles
of the life of
prayer
and
principles
of life in the
is difficult to do without first
discussing the
larger questions
of
sacramentalism, Christology,
and
went on to contrast the
dialogue
with Pentecostals with that with the Orthodox Church. With the
ecclesiology. Duprey
Orthodox one
Catholic/
trines
hierarchy,
it is simpler because of a highly structured
knows to whom one is
speaking.
But such is not the case ‘
with the Pentecostals.»
Fr.
Duprey’s insights
are valid. In order for the Roman
Pentecostal
Dialogue
to be most effective there must
be
theological
discussion on the difficult and fundamental doc-
of the Christian faith.
Although
dialogue
in 1972 with the Pentecostal
the second
quinquinnium
catholic
(universal)
concerns
that further and additional
necessary-to begin really
to
get
to
two traditions.32
tions, more reason
ating
these
3. Ecumenical
The co-chairman logue,
Kilian
McDonnell, ecumenical
importance “One
is
the other
Significance
of the Roman
prised
it was
necessary
to
begin
and charismatic
ques- has
begun
to touch
upon
the
of the faith. It is for this
dialogue
sessions are the
weightier
matters
separ-
Catholic/
Pentecostal Dia-
to the
question
of the
Fr. Kilian writes:
must see
Gospel.
tion other than their own. “34
has
spoken
of this
Dialogue.
of the more obvious results of this kind of formal
dialogue
the death of
mythologies.”33 Ignorance
on both sides about
is cleared
up
and a broader
understanding
of each other is gained. (Example: one Pentecostal was
pleasantly
sur-
at how the Roman Catholic scholars handled
Scripture.)
A further effect of the
Dialogue
will be for Roman Catholics to re-evaluate “the
personal
dimensions of faith.” Pentecostals
their need to “re-evaluate the social dimensions” of the
Both sides need to “examine
typologies
of sanctifica-
9
50
Finally,
it is
possible Roman Catholics and classical ecumenical
they ticipant.
Rome
of
that formal
Pentecostals themselves, Churches
of the
dialogue Rome.36 Since set
up
the
dialogue
will
help
both Pentecostals to rethink their “If Pentecostals aren’t inter-
said one Pentecostal
par-
Catholics
Council
and of
presuppositions.”35
ested in
dialogue
are
sectarian,”
must not think or
speak
of unity
merely
in terms
“return.” Pentecostals must not be so suspicious of organiza- tional structures in an ecumenical context.
Not
only
is the
Dialogue
relevant to Roman
but also for the World
(WCC).
A first contact of the WCC with
participants
took
place
on Pentecost
Sunday (1975)
in
then there has been a working
group
of the WCC
as a subunit on Renewal and
Congregational
Life to
study
charismatic renewal in the world.3?
This
Dialogue speaks
to the entire Christian
to take other ecclesial families
seriously. must be the
attempt
to come to a greater understanding, ally,
of what it means to be a Christian and what it means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. To do this as one voice to an
unbelieving
world is a
great hope.
in the events of Roman
and
willingness
world of the need
There
mutu-
Such
hope
is Catholic/ Pentecostal
that
grew
out of these sessions
of this
Dialogue
with the charismatic
partici-
Presbyterian
In Bel-
dialogues
there was direct influence
dialogue
In New
Zealand,
a Pentecostal
pant
was able to an
Apostolic Church/
as well as an
Apostolic/ Baptist Dialogue.39
there are
periodic (but scheduled) meetings
between
repre-
of the Flemish Pentecostal churches and leaders in
charismatic renewal.4? In South
Africa,
the
Faith Mission
(AFM)
initiated a bilateral
of the Dutch Reformed
These sessions have been
going
on since 1978.
Furthermore,
of the AFM voted in August 1981 to create a
their
Church,
that of “Ecumenical Liaison.”
symbolized
dialogue.
There were national as well. For
example,
upon
the start of a Pentecostal renewal in
Germany.38
initiate Dialogue,
gium
sentatives
the Roman Catholic
Apostolic
with each of the three branches
Executive Council
new
position
in
Justus T. du
Plessis,
the
retiring
dialogue Church.
the
General
Secretary,
was asked
of the Pente-
to
accept
this
position
in
April
1982.41 Members
costal
Steering
Committee of the
Dialogue
have been invited as ecumenical observers to the last two International Leaders’
Catholic Charismatic
Rome
(held
in 1981 and 1984
respectively).
Conferences
of the Roman
Renewal
in
10
The Future of the
Dialogue
The Executive Committee 1982
Dialogue,
allow
Report.
would
ment
throughout
on
misunderstanding Dialogue (This, however,
On
John
service
by
Catholic.
by
the Vatican Pontifica award, both chairmen Roman Catholic
met
.
five-year
of the Executive
51
due in
part
to the unfortunate
events
following
the 1981
have been
recognized by
the
work.)
Executive Committee
Catholic/
Pentecostal
to continue for another
this time. Both
agreed
in session, at the close of the
to take a two or three
year
break.42 This would
time to
publish
the
theological papers
and the Final
It
might
also
provide
time to initiate local
dialogues.
It
allow time for the Pentecostal side to seek
greater
involve-
of
persons
from the
major
Pentecostal denominations
the world.
(This
was a concern
expressed strongly
the Catholic
side.)
It is also true that
perhaps,
and
subsequent
concerning Mary,
it was felt wise to take a “breather.”
was not a specific reason
given
for a break.)
November 9, 1983 David du Plessis was honored in Rome by Pope
Paul II. He was awarded the Benemerenti medal.43 This medal is given to those who
provide outstanding
to all
Christianity.
It is the first time that such an honor has been
given
the Roman Catholic Church to a non-
The
day before,
John Cardinal Willebrands officiated at a special
banquet
in honor of David and Anna du Plessis.
(It
is also
interesting
to note that Fr. Kilian McDonnell was honored
in October. 1983 he was
given
the Pro Ecciesia et
recognizing
his work in ecumenism.44
Thus,
of the
Dialogue
Church for their ecumenical
During
this time in Rome the
Dialogue
to discuss the future of the Roman
Dialogue.
There was
general approval
series.45 Details were to be worked out in a later meet- ing
Committee.
There was another
important
Kilian McDonnell and David du
Plessis,
who had served as co-chairs of the
Dialogue
They sought
to continue to serve on the Dia- logue
Executive and to attend the sessions,
as “chairmen emeritus.” This would
from three members to
four,
from six members to
eight.
T. du
Plessis,
the Ecumenical Liaison Apostolic
Faith Mission of South Africa.46 He has been in the
since 1974 and for several
years
served on the Pentec-
Committee. As a
younger
brother of
David,
he
the
ministry
of the
Dialogue
in the same
spirit
but
1972, resigned.
Committee
Committee Committee chair is Justus
Dialogue ostal Steering will
carry on
event which occured in Rome at
since its
inception
in
but now enlarge
each
Steering
and the Executive The new Pentecostal
of the
11
52
After careful
review,
the McDonnell to serve as
the Roman
Steering
Committee met
improvements
were
of
theologians, pastors,
Pentecostal from several countries.
2)
chairman of the Roman Catholic
secretary,
take another
the
Secretary
In
February
and discussed the future.
1) Every
effort dialogue
denominational executives, denominations,
Qualified theologians
of study and
expertise. 3) day
before the official acquainted,
and discuss ally entering
into the sessions. background reading
for the
dialogue
The Executive
Committee, discussed
eral :
1) the third five-year 1985, probably
with his own
special gift
of
leadership.
Roman Catholic side asked Kilian
Catholic side.
Also,
Jerome
Vereb,
has left the Secretariat to
position. Thus, Mnsgr.
Basil
Meeking
will serve as
for the next few
years.
1984 the Pentecostal
Four
procedural
suggested.
will be made to create a “mix” on the
team each
year, composed
various
and
representation
will be
sought
to
give papers
in their area
The Pentecostal team would meet one
Dialogue
the
dialogue
week
together
before actu-
New
participants
will be given
on the
Dialogue
as well as some
guidelines
sessions.4′
,
repeat
for a time to
pray, get
4)
meeting
in Rome on
May 5, 1984,
Their decisions were sev-
will
begin
in
May
as entrance
responsibility; 4) the
possibility
right to
invite
observers,
Perhaps
of ecumenical
exchange costals would be to
quote Report
the future of the
Dialogue.
series of
dialogues
in
Rome; 2) the topic
for 1985 will be
“Baptism and the Communion of Saints;” (This
grew
out of the discussion on
Mary,
since the context for
talking
about her is the commun- ion of saints.
Baptism
was studied in
1974,
so the intent is not to
that
subject, except
in relation to its function
into the communion of
saints.) 3) if no topics emerge
in 1985 of immediate
concern,
then in 1986 the
topic
will be on missions and
evangelization,
common
witness, proselytism,
and social
the use of “observers” will be
continued,
with
that the Roman Catholic side will exercise their
which
they
have not done before.48
the most
fitting
conclusion to this review of ten
years
between Roman Catholics and Pente-
from the conclusion of the Final
( 1977 – 1982).49
The members of the
dialogue
have
experienced
mut- ual respect and acceptance,
hoping
that the major of difference will
points
provide
an occasion for
dialogue
to our mutual enrichment.
continuing
It is the consensus of the participants that the dialogue should continue in this same
spirit. Every
effort will be made to
encourage opportunities
for similar bilateral
conversation at the local level.
theological
12
53
…….. I
Finally,
the participants wish to affirm the dialogue as an
ongoing
instrument of communication.
of the Assemblies of God
University
of
Leuven,
of the Assem-
*Jerry
L.
Sandidge (USA).
He is completing Pentecostal
Belgium.
blies of
part
secretary,
Vatican/
is a minister
a dissertation on the Roman Catholic
Dialogue
for the Catholic
He served in
Belgium
as a
missionary
God from 1972 – 1982. In
September
1984 he became a of the Pentecostal
Steering Committee, serving
as co-
for the third
quinquennium (1985 – 1989),
of the
Pentecostal
Dialogue.
‘ . David J. du
Plessis,
The Spirit Bade Me Go (Plainfield, NJ: revised
Logos,
edition, 1970);
David J. du Plessis as told to Bob
Slosser, A Man Called Mr. Pentecost
(Plainfield,
NJ:
Logos, 1977).
2For the text of du Plessis’ remarks see: Commission on Faith and
3Augustin September 7, “By through
Bringham
Bringham
Order. Minutes of the Commission
Meeting
held at St. Andrews, Sco- tland
August
3rd to
8th,
1960 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, Commission on Faith and
Order, 1960), 60 – 64.
Cardinal Bea letter to David J. du
Plessis,
Vatican
City,
1964, SPCU, Prot No A 2613/ 64. The letter said in
the
part:
gesture
of our invitation and
your acceptance
we pray that
the
Holy Spirit your presence
as a Guest will be an efficacious contribution to an ever
increasing
and esteem between all those who believe in Christ,
understanding
our common Lord and Master.”
4The contacts and influence of
Ray
those of David du
Bringham
are not as
widely known as Plessis,
yet
was instrumental in the initial
process
of negotiation with
Bringham
those in the Vatican Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity.
was a pastor in the Church of God
(Anderson, Indiana)
in the
early
1960’s. In 1962 he became involved in the charismatic move- ment and
consequently
left his
pastorate
to devote his time to the renewal. In 1968 he met Fr. Alfonso Duran from
Spain,
who asked
if he would
go to Rome with him.
The
following year (1969) Ray Bringham
went to Rome with Fr. Duran and visited the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. On Bringham’s second
trip
to Rome he met
again
with Cardinal
Willebrands,
as well as Fr. Basil
Meeking.
their
conversations,
the
possibility
of a dialogue between the Secretariat and
representative
of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements was discussed.
Prior to making these
visits. Du Plessis
trips, Ray Bringham
informed David du Ples- sis about his intended encouraged him to visit
the Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity.
Du Plessis then wrote to Cardinal Willebrands,
asking
him to receive
Ray Bringham
when he visited Rome. After
returning
to
America, Bringham reported
to Du Plessis about his visits. (For a more
complete
discussion of the role of
During
13
54
Der
Ray Bringham
see: Arnold
Bittlinger, Papst
und
Pfingstler: r5misch
katholisch-pfingstliche Dialog
und seine 6kumenische Rela- vanz
(Franfurt
am Main: Peter
Lang, i978), 21, 22, 332 –
338. after
Shortly
Bringham’s
visits to Rome in 1969, David du Plessis read the text of Cardinal Willebrands’ talk
given
at the annual of the Secretariat in Rome, November 1969. In his address,
plenary
the
meeting
Cardinal expressed
concern about not
being
able to make some ecumenical contact with certain Christians,
including
the Pentecostals. The which
caught
the
eye of Du Plessis was
9.
part
Paragraph
The problem
of establishing
an ecumenical contact with
the Christians who do not
belong
to any of the Churches
and ecclesial communities created
by the
Reformation
of the sixteenth
century
remains an one. I am
thinking
of those who are
open
sometimes called “conserva-
tive
evangelicals,”
for
example Pentecostals,
the Sev-
enth
Day
Adventists and others. As a result of their
fanaticism and their refusal of any form of institution
they
are often considered as sects.
They
a
of Christians. In Latin America large they
represent
and growing group
constitute between 80 and 90% of the non-Catholic
Christians. Even after the
integration
of the Interna-
tional
Missionary
Council into the World Council of
Churches the latter still does not include more than
about one third of all Protestant
missionary activities,
largely
because of the missions of these
independent
groups. Session. November
“Plenary
18 – 28, 1969,” Information Service, No. 9 (February 1970/ 1), 7.
5The opening
paragraph
of the Final
Report (1972 – 1976) summar- izes how the
origins
of the
Dialogue
rest
primarily
with David du Plessis and Kilian McDonnell.
.
The series of talks described as the Roman
Catholic/-
Pentecostal
dialogue
had its
beginning
in the contacts
made
by
individual members of the Pentecostal
Churches with the Vatican Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity
in 1969 and 1970. With the assistance of
Rev. David Du Plesses, an international Pentecostal
leader,
noted
figure among
Pentecostals and a guest at
the Second Vatican Council, and Fr. Kilian
McDonnell,
OSB,
Director of the Institute for Ecumenical and Cul-
tural Research,
Collegeville, USA,
the initial
and concrete
impulse
was clarified
proposals began
to emerge.
Kilian
McDonnell, OSB, (ed.), Presence, Power,
Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal,
(Collegeville,
Minn.:
Liturgical Press, 1980),
1:385.
6At least three Pentecostal denominations are charter members of the NAE: Assemblies of God, Church of God
(Cleveland),
Interna- tional Pentecostal Holiness Church. Since the founding of the NAE in 1942, eight additional
Pentecostal
groups have joined: Church
of God
‘
14
55
of the Mountain
Assembly, Inc.,
Elim
Fellowship,
Full Gospel Pentec- ostal Association, International Church of the
International Pentecostal Church of
Foursquare Gospel,
Christ, Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc., Pentecostal Church of God, Pentecostal
Church.
Evangelical
,
The Pentecostal denominations and churches have been
full participants in the National Association of
icals. In addition to
Evangel-
being represented
on our Executive
Committee, Board of Administration, individuals from
Pentecostal denominations have filled
leadership
including
that of President. Dr.
roles,
Thomas F. Zimmerman
(Assemblies
of
God)
and
Bishop
J.
Floyd
Williams
(International
Pentecostal Holiness have each
served a two-year term as
Church)
President. Dr.
of
Ray Hughes
(Church God, Cleveland)
is the current First Vice
President of NAE.
– Billy
A. Melvin, NAE Executive
Director,
written communication (with)
enclosures to Jerry L. Sandidge,
Wheaton, IL, October 5, 1984.
In England the Assemblies of God and the Elim Pentecostal Church belong
to the
Evangelical
Alliance. Some of the African and West Indian Pentecostal churches
(in Britian)
have
sought membership
in the British and World Council of Churches – Krister
Ottosson,
The Pentecostal Churches
(Oxford:
Education
Press, 37.
At the Third
Religious
Assembly
of
1977),
World Council of Churches in New Delhi
(1961),
two small Pentecostal
meeting
denominations were wel- comed into the world
body. They
were both from
Chile;
the Pentecostal Church of Chile
(Iglesia
Pentecostal de
Chile)
and the Pentecostal Mission Church (Mision
Iglesia Pentecostal).
In 1969 the
Pentecostal Church “Brazil for
Evangelical
Christ”
(Igreja
Pentecostal “0 Brazil
para Christo”) joined
and in 1973 the Evangelica International
Evangel- ical Church – Ans. J. van der Bent, ed., Handbook. Member Churches, World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC, 1982), 213, 214,
.
252, 253.
7 John Cardinal Willebrands letter to David J. du
Plessis,
Vatican City,
June
25, 1970, SPCU,
Prot No.
2636/70.
8″Catholic
Pentecostal
Meeting,
Rome 22 – 23, June
1971, Plenaria 1971 secr aug 71:12, “unpublished SPCU document, 1-4, Cf. Bittlinger, Papst
und
Pflingstler,
33 -44.
9″Report
of the
Steering
Committee Between
for
Meeting Representa- tives of the Secretariat
Promoting
Christian and Representa- tives of Pentecostal Churches
Unity
and in the Charismatic
within Protestant and Anglican
Participants
Movement Churches – Rome October 25 –
26, 1971,” unpublished
SPCU
document, pp
I – 7 (including the Press Release).
II See
l.oIbid., pp. 1,
2.
above, note
4.
12The Final
Report (1972 – 1976) can also be found in: Bittlinger, Ibid, 151-162; Information Service,
No. 32 ( 1976/ 111 ), 32 – 37; One in Christ
12:4 ( 1976) 309 – 318;
Michael
Harper,
Three Sisters
(Wheaton,
15
56
IL:
Tyndale House, 1979),
109 – 122.
13McDonnell, Presence, Power, Praise,
3:376. (This sentence, for the last five
except
words,
is that of Kilian McDonnell
documents of the first
introducing
the
five-year dialogue).
14john Cardinal Willebrands letter to David J. du
Plessis,
Vatican City, August 25, 1976, SPCU,
Prot No 2791 / 76. The letter said in
I am
happy
to inform that the
part:
you
Secretariat for
Promoting
Christian
Unity
is authorized to continue the
dialogue
with the Pentecostal Churches for another
period
of five years, beginning in 1977.
We shall now be able to
begin
concrete
plans
for the
first
meeting
which can be held as proposed, in October
1977,
in Rome.
15Bittlinger, Ibid., 141; “Steering
Committee”
(personal
notes
by David J. du
Plessis) May 29, 1976, Rome. (Actually,
there is a differ- ence in opinion between
Bittlinger
and Du Plessis on how the decision came about to restrict the
participants
on the Pentecostal side
only
to classical Pentecostals.
Bittlinger suggests
that it was within the Steer- ing
Committee
meeting,
whereas Du Plessis
says
it was discussed in plenary
with the entire
dialogue
team
present.)
16David J. du Plessis letter to Basil
Meeking, Oakland, CA, April 15, 1972. (at this
time [ 1971 ] observers
were not allowed. “This is not our practice
for other
dialogues.” –
Basil
Meeking
letter to David J. du Plessis,
Vatican
City, May 8, 1972, SPCU,
Prot No
1971/72.
But observers were allowed to attend the
Dialogue during
the second five-
year series).
17Kilian McDonnell letter to Basil
Meeking, Collegeville, Minn., November
5,
1978. Fr. Kilian described a hard
questions
as
… one which
pushes
hard
(even
too
hard)
on what the
questioner
sees as a deficiency,
weakness, misreading
of
the scriptures, failure in theological method,
to a
attributing
exaggerated importance given emphasis (It might
be
found in the
scriptures
but do the same
as one’s tradition
they give
it
importance does?).
Hard
questions
do
not
attempt
to be fair.
18Msgr.
Ramon Torrella letter to David J. du Plessis, Vatican October
3, 1978, SPCU,
Prot No
City,
3119/78.
The letter
explained
the reasons for
postponing
the
dialogue:
… the sudden death of Pope John Paul has
given
the
office of the Secretariat for Christian
Unity many
unex-
pected responsabilities [sic].
It will be our
duty,
for
example,
to look after the
many delegations
from other
Christian denominations who come to attend the fun-
eral.
Following
the funeral, of course, come the prepara- tions for the election of a new pope…
There is also a second reason
why it was
to the norms
necessary
to postpone. According given by the late Pope Paul VI, the Cardinals
heading
Vatican
Congregations, suspend
their
authority
and all formal business is delayed.
16
57
19There were other factors
contributing
to the 1977 session
being
less effective. Fr. Kilian could not attend due to a heart
attack, although his paper
on
tongues
was read in his absence. Vinson
the sessions after he finished
Synan
had to leave
immediately reading his own paper on tongues. Thus,
there was little or no to interact with the authors of these two
opportunity
papers. Also,
the use of “hard
questions”
was not introduced until 1979, which left 1977 without benefit of this procedure.
20At the time of
writing, only
the from 1977 are published:
One in Christ 19:4 ( 1983), 306 –
Dialogue papers
354. Most of the
others, however,
will follow in this Catholic ecumenical review.
2′ Information
Service
(SPCU, Rome) publishing
of Dialogue docu- ments for the second series
(1977 – 1982).
zzp rather
typical daily program
was followed each
year,
with some variation.
z3″Final
Report
of the Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promot- ing
Christian
Unity
of the Roman Catholic Church and some Classical Pentecostals,
1977 –
1982,” dialogue
document in process of publica- tion, manuscript, 18, May 9,
1984.
24″agreed
Account of the Roman
Catholic/
Pentecostal
Dialogue, Rome,
October 3 – 7, 1977,” unpublished
3.8.
dialogue document, Secr/
Oct 77:50, para
zspne of the
major topics suggested
in the first Final to be considered in the second series of talks was that of the interpretation
Report
of Scripture.
In the 1979 Dialogue the
subject
of hermeneutics received a great
deal of attention.
26″Final
Report…
1977 –
1982,” May 9, 1984, paras 79, 84, 85, 86, 89.
27″Roman Catholic Pentecostal
Dialogue:
Tenth
Session, College- ville, Minnesota,
October 25 –
29, 1982,” Information
Service 50:4 (1982),
128. “The session included the discussion of the topic of minis- try.
This
topic
was discussed at the
previous gathering
of the dialogue in
insufficient. ”
Vienna (1981)
but it was felt that the time allotted then was
28The Pentecostal reaction to the session in which
Mary
was dis- cussed was immediate and far
reaching. By January 15, 1982,
the Executive
Presbytery
of the Assemblies of God
(USA)
had issued a
17
58
“Statement of the Assemblies of God
Regarding Mary
as Intercessor and Mediatrix.” It was published in the Pentecostal
Evangel
in March 1982. In an article in the
April
1982 issue of Pentecost: International Report
there was a denial of the mediatorship of Mary by Pentecostals. A British
magazine,
Pentecostal Times also disavowed Marian doc- trines in an editorial
by Percy
J. Brooke.
Midnight
Call (March an extreme fundamentalist ran a critique
1982),
publication,
entitled “Pen- tecostals Embrace
Mary.”
=9It was at the
joint Steering
Committee in Rome in 1984 that of the Final
meeting May
afinal edition Report
could be fully
both
approved by
sides. It is unfortunate for the
Dialogue
that so much time between the end of the
five-year
series and the full
lapsed Final
acceptance
of the
Report.
30Pierre
Duprey, “L’Eglise catholique
et le dialogue
oecumenique,” Episkepsis
10:212
( 15 juin 1979) 6 – 16.
311bid., 9,
10.
32During
an informal conversation with Pierre
Duprey,
I asked him about the possibility of dialogue continuing between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals. This was in 1983, several months after the close of the second series of discussions. I expressed that ten years is a long time for Pentecostals and that some
may
be getting impatient,
asking:
“What good
does it do to talk to Rome? What has come out of ten
years
of conversations
together?”
to this Pierre
replied:
“Here in Rome we do not think in terms of years but in terms of decades.” This is an impor- tant
insight
into how these two traditions view
history.
We learn that for Rome a ten-year
dialogue is just the beginning.
But it is a beginning!
33Kilian
McDonnell,
“Classical
Pentecostal/
Roman Catholic Dia- logue : Hopes
and
Possibilities,”
in Russell P.
Spittler, ed., Perspec- tives on the New Pentecostalism
(Grand Rapids:
Baker Book
House, 1976), 247.
3·Ibid., 254,
255.
3slbid.,
265.
36Arnold
Bittlinger, Ibid.,
209 – 210. (Bittlinger has a whole on “The Ecumenical Relevance of the
Dialogue,” p
205 –
chapter
226 which traces the
impact
of the first series of dialogues both within and outside these two
traditions.)
Seventeen men, of whom thirteen
(both
Roman Catholic and Pen- tecostal)
were members of the
Dialogue team,
came
together
to discuss “steps
which
might
be taken to hold a conference of theologians on the Holy Spirit
and also to see how wider relations
might
be
between member churches of the
opened up
WCC, members of Charismatic Renewal movements and the Pentecostal Churches.” The Rev. Rex Davis outlined the World Council of Churches Two recommendations surfaced from this meeting: 1) that perspective. the World Coun- cii be asked to convene a theological consultation on the
experience
of the
Holy Spirit, including participants
from the charismatic
renewal, member churches of the WCC, Pentecostal churches and the Roman Catholic Church; and
2) “that as soon as convenient an
Ecumenical Congress
of the Charismatic Renewal be held to celebrate and
expe-
18
59
rience the theological, pastoral,
and
community significance
of the work of the Holy Spirit in the
renewal of the church and the world in our time.” – “Memorandum
of a
Meeting
Held at the Centro Pro Unione,
30 via St. Maria dell’Anima, Rome,
Italy, Tuesday, May 20,
1975,”
recorded
by Rex Davis, pp
1 – 5. (The Faith and Order Commis- sion’s sub-unit on Renewal and Congregational Life, led by Rex Davis, sponsored
this
meeting.)
37Arnold
Bittlinger, ed.,
The Church is Charismatic Geneva: WCC, Renewal and Congregational Life, 1981.
38Gerhard
Bially, “pfingstlich-charismatischer Dialog,”
Charisma, No 39 (April, Mai, Juni, 1983) 8 – 10.
39Jerry
L.
Sandidge
interview with James E. Worsfold, Houston, Texas,
June 1 l, 1983.
pastor Paul Van Kesteren is chairman of the Pentecostal and Fr. Jan Van der Veken is chairman of the
side
Roman Catholic side. The first
dialogue meeting
was held on December
13,
1982 in which
they discussed the text of the Belgian Roman Catholic bishops
of 1979, “The Charismatic Renewal:
A Pastoral Assessment.” –
Jerry
L. Sandidge memorandum to the Flemish Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue team, Leuven, Belgium, September 24,
1982.
4’Jerry
L.
Sandidge
interview with Justus T. du
Plessis, Houston, TX,
October 3, 1984.
42The Final
Report
reflects this
decision,
for
para.
97 says, in part, that “the
dialogue
enters into a
period
of assimilation to
digest
the results of the first two phases of exchange and to give broader exposure to mutual efforts undertaken to promote better understanding.”
43NSC Newsletter 9, 3 (March 1984), 6. “The award was given
to manifest
appreciation
for his ministry of ‘forgiveness and
unity’
in all Christianity.”
44He was also granted the Pax Christi award
by St. John’s University, Collegeville,
Minnesota,
in honor of his ecumenical achievements. (David
du Plessis was
given
the Pax Christi award in 1976
by
St.
John’s.)
as”Minutes of the Executive
[Steering] Committee,
November 8, 1983 in Rome,” unpublished document. “Pierre [Duprey] began
the discussion
by indicating
that the Vatican Office for
promoting
Chris- tian
Unity
was very desirous of continuing the Roman Catholic/ Pen- tecostal
Dialogue.
The pentecostal delegation indicated their desire to continue as well” (P1).
a6lbid., p
2. A letter from the General Secretary of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South
Africa to Justus du Plessis
expresses approval for his appointment.
During
the recent
meetings
of the Executive Council
notice was given that you had been appointed
chairman
of the Pentecostal group having dialogue
with the
Roman Catholic Church in Rome.
I have
pleasure
in advising that the Executive Council
approved
this
appointment
and I also wish to add my
personal congratulations
with the esteemed honour bes-
19
60
towed on
you.
We are confident that
you
will be a
worthy
ambassador for Pentecost in those circles.
Letter of Jannie F. le Roux to Pastor J.T. du Plessis,
Lyndhurst,
Tvl [Transvaal], January
31, 1984,
Ref: EC 003/ 23/ 1 / 84.
47″[Pentecostal]
Executive Committee
Meeting, 2-17-84, Portland, Oregon,” unpublished
document, p
2.
48″Minutes of the Executive
Steering Committee, May 5,
1984 in Rome at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity,”
unpublished document, p
2.
49″Final
Report…
1977 –
1982,” May 9, 1984, paras. 95, 96, 98.
20
Leave a Reply