"Catholic
theology has become progressively more aware of what was implied by this unity
of the Church-as-Communion [(Heilsgemeinschaft)] corresponding to its
unity-as-institution [(Heilsanstalt, communion in [1] the deposit of the
faith, [2] the deposit of the sacraments, and [3] the apostolic powers)]. It has realized more clearly that it was not
only a question, for individuals or for local communities, of a conformity of [1]
faith, [2] worship and [3] constitution, at least in all which was part of the
apostolic tradition, but that the Church was called to form a single people, a
single Communion. To keep Communion is
not only to participate faithfully in the means of salvation of the
church-institution; it is to form a community and to act, not as an autonomous
subject, but as a member of a single people or body. The sin of schism betrays a separatist
attitude which destroys this reference of a part to its whole.
"In this
perspective, as Canon Lacey has already shown (Unity and Schism, p. 56 et
seq.), there cannot properly be 'inter-communion' [(il ne peut exister à proprement parler d' « intercommunion »)]. There is or there is not Communion, but Communion is of its nature universal and indivisible, like the Church herself
of which it is an aspect. Either one has
or one has not Communion in the Church, with the Church; if one has it, one has
it wherever the Church is to be found, allowance having been made for local
particularities, sometimes considerable but always respectful of the apostolic
deposit, of which one could say, adapting a saying of St. Cyprian, repeated by
St. Augustine: Licet, salvo jure
communionis, diversum sentire [(It is licet, without violation (i.e. forfeiture) of the right of
communion, to think diversely)]. That is
why a member of the Church, if he is not 'excommunicated', may communicate
sacramentally wherever he finds the Church, and relive the blessed experience
of Abercius of Hierapolis: 'Everywhere I
have had brothers. . . . Faith led me
everywhere. Everywhere it supplied me
with a fresh-water fish, large, pure, that had been caught by a pure virgin.' Inversely, the general custom was,—although
history presents some exceptions—and the Councils demanded, that any one of the
faithful who had broken off Communion with his bishop or who has been
excommunicated should be nowhere received at Communion. This was a disciplinary rule which can be understood
if one keeps in mind the homogenous and indissoluble unity of the Church, whose 'Sacrament', as St. Cyprian says, resides in the unity of the episcopate, whose
members hold the charge in solidum.
It should only be added—and this St. Cyprian misunderstood—that the
local churches were not alone in having received from the Lord and the Apostles
their unified structure. The Church is
constructed, as far as the apostolic powers which are transmitted by succession
are concerned, not solely on the plane of the local churches, but on the plane
of her ecumenical, universal reality. . . .
". . . some will perhaps say: since the Sacrament engenders the Church, let
us communicate in the Sacrament, and we shall thus come better to communicate
in the Church; let us celebrate and pray together, we shall soon form a single ecclesiastical
body. . . . This reasoning would perhaps
be valuable if the Sacrament were a means outside the Church, which one
could use in order to enter or to build her, as one takes a key to enter a
house, and stones to build one. But not
one of the constitutive of the Church is exterior to her: not faith, nor the Bible, nor tradition, nor
the sacraments, nor the apostolic succession and powers. They can only be truly found and held in
her. Faith is the faith of the
Church, the sacraments are the sacraments of the Church. It is she, in reality, who celebrates, we
have only the rank of ministers in her.
Hence, in regard to reunion, intercommunion, as has been justly written,
could be a fruit, an expression or an exercise of unity; it cannot be the
principle of it if it does not exist.
Besides, as we have already said, when unity is given, it is not of
intercommunion that we should speak, but quite simply of Communion. At present we are, and very really, united in
Christ—through grace and spiritual gifts, through certain sacraments,
through the Holy Bible, etc. . . . that
which unites us is already considerable!—but we are not united in one Church. The aim of the ecumenical movement is
precisely to pass, if God wills it and grants to us to do it, from an invisible
unity in Christ to a visible unity in the Church. Then, we would celebrate and communicate
together. Until then, intercommunion is,
alas, impossible."
Yves Congar, “Amica
contestatio,” in Intercommunion: the
report of the theological commission appointed by the Continuation Committee of
the World Conference on Faith and Order together with a selection from the
material presented to the Commission, ed. Donald Baillie and John Marsh
(London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952), 143-144
(141-151), and in Yves Congar, Chrétiens
en dialogue; contributions catholiques à l'oecuménisme (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1964), 243-254. The Augustinian maxim derives from De bapt. 3.4-5: "donec enim persuadeatur et nobis, si hoc
persuaderi ueris rationibus potest, securos nos de iure catholicae communionis
facit ipse Cyprianus. sequitur enim et dicit: «superest ut de hac ipsa re
singuli quid sentiamus proferamus, neminem iudicantes aut a iure communionis
aliquem si diuersum senserit amouentes». non solum ergo mihi saluo iure
communionis adhuc uerum quaerere sed etiam diuersum sentire concedit," "For
till such time as we are also convinced (if there are any arguments of truth
whereby this can be done), Cyprian himself has established our security by the
right of Catholic communion. For he goes
on to say: 'It remains that we severally
declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one
of the right to communion if he differ from us.' He allows me, therefore, without losing the
right of communion, not only to continue inquiring into the truth, but even to
hold opinions differing from his own" (trans. J. R. King and Chester D.
Hartranft, APNF 4, p. 437). As for the inscription by Abercius, see J. B. Lightfoot, The apostolic fathers 2.1 (1889), p. -496- (and the subsequent scholarship, as listed, for example, in the Encyclopedia of ancient Christianity, ed. Di Bernardino (2014), sv Abercius, which, however, does not, of course, list anything published since, for example Allen Brent, "Has the Vita Abercii misled epigraphists in the reconstruction of the inscription?," in The first urban churches, vol. 5, Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea (2019), pp. 325–61).
