Pope John Paul II & Unity
A Reflection on Ut Unum Sint
Take any group of Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Orthodox, Charismatics, or “Nones” and then imagine what one of these men’s breakfast groups might look like. The bell rings as you open the diner door. The smell of bacon hits your nostrils. The waitress at the door takes you to your table, “You looking for the guys? Right this way.” It’s 6:00 am, and you’re the last one they are waiting for before the “real conversation” can start. The waitress takes your order and starts to pour your coffee. As the hot liquid splashes against the bottom of the cup, it’s as if a starter pistol has been fired.
A lover of theology and heated discussion, your friend John Doe gets off the line before anyone else, “Hey, what do you guys think Jesus is talking about in John 6 when he says to eat his body?” And now you and your friends are off on a theological adventure for the next two hours.
“That’s not actually what that means…according to the Greek word…[something no one understands]…it’s a metaphor”, says Jack Smith, the associate pastor who oversees the group. To which ole Bill might say, “I don’t know Greek, so I’m not sure I agree.” To which the young and zealous member responds, “So if I go to seminary and learn Greek, then I’ll unlock all the secrets of the Universe! To eternity and beyond!”
“Ok, settle down there, Cotton. Wait, who’s Cotton?”
“Sorry, I’m new. This is my first time here.”
The breakfast ends with the men checking their watches, saying they need to get to work. A long line forms at the cash register preventing the patient and lovely waitress from getting to the rest of her customers. Jokes are cracked, tips are given, goodbyes are made, and the bell rings as each man heads out to work to evangelize the world and forget exactly what was said that morning.
This is a silly example to show that whatever is said at these breakfasts, their content does not carry the weight of the institutions that their members represent. This is because, whether it’s a men’s breakfast or an individual armed with just his Bible, his opinion does not carry an authority for the men at the table. What does carry weight at that table — and I’m not talking about the guy who finished off the Lumberjack Special — is not the Bible, but the denomination through which those men read the Bible.
In general, with the exception of the founders, every denomination has been passed on to those who inherited it. Given this fact, if a Christian within said denomination contradicts or rejects his denomination’s doctrines, he will be in heresy and asked to leave the group. Note that he could be affirming an interpretation from the Bible that his denomination rejects, i.e. sacraments vs ordinances, only male pastors, homosexuality is a sin, all of which one can use scripture to support. This leads to a problem, one I did not see clearly until earlier this year as I read Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, That They May Be One.
That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)
As I entered into my first year as a Catholic, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on unity helped me understand the complicated state of affairs modern Christians now find themselves in, and the challenge Catholics face in evangelizing the world. As I read his encyclical, it felt like I was an audience member who kept thinking the speaker was talking to me, only to find out he was talking to someone behind me or to the side of me. Each paragraph, I would think, “Oh, he’s talking about the Protestants” only to realize he was talking about the Eastern Church, or some other group that shares the essential dogmas of the Catholic Church, but were not in communion with the Catholic Church (i.e. schism, which is different than heresy). It wasn’t till very late in the book that a lightbulb turned on and I realized I had been reading the encyclical as if all denominations were equally separated from Rome. In paragraph 66, John Paul II quotes the Vatican II decree titled, “Decree on Ecumenism” and it was here that I realized the real problem with Protestantism.
The Second Vatican Council did not attempt to give a “description” of post-Reformation Christianity, since ‘in origin, teaching and spiritual practice, these Churches and Ecclesial Communities differ not only from us but also among themselves to a considerable degree.’ Furthermore, the Decree observes that the ecumenical movement and the desire for peace with the Catholic Church have not yet taken root everywhere. These circumstances notwithstanding, the Council calls for dialog.
— That They May Be One, 66., Pope John Paul II, emphasis mine.
Unity is important, and not the kind of unity that is found merely in using the same “words” or even the same documents. Unity that is as real as the unity between the members of the Trinity is only possible if we agree the fullness of Christianity and the role Christ’s Church plays in it. On the night that he was betrayed, Jesus expressed his desire for Christians to be one.
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
— Jn. 17:20-21, emphasis mine.
In short, in order to be one with the Father as Christ is, we must submit to the teachings of Christ, which Christ clearly states will come through the word of his teachers. In other words, anyone can believe that Jesus is Lord, and this is sufficient for cooperation, but it is not sufficient for unity. In order for unity to manifest in the world, the believers must be in agreement on what Christ taught, not just partially, but fully.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
— Mt. 28:19-20, emphasis mine.
“If there are multiple religions, how can Christianity be the only true religion?” in seminary, this was a regular question at outreach events and conferences. It’s a fairly easy question to satisfy because of the ample evidence that shows that it is at least reasonable that Christ existed, did miracles, and rose from the dead. If it’s reasonable that these events happened, then it’s reasonable to believe its implications, i.e. those religions opposed to such events and claims are definitionally in error.
Prior to becoming Catholic, I didn’t understand how important unity was to Christ. Protestantism is united in name only, not in practice or in essentials. Once I became Catholic, I realized what a gift it is to have the Church. As one Catholic put it, “I could spend my time living the faith, rather than trying to figure out what it taught.” This doesn’t mean that you stop studying, but that scripture and history are now in High Definition. What was shaky ground before was now firm ground, but something I knew I wanted to learn more about. So I started reading the Vatican II documents and John Paul II.
I wanted to understand how the Church related to other denominations. Second, I wanted to gain information to accurately evangelize the Faith to those around me. If you believe something is true, then you are necessarily implying those that do not believe it are believing something false. Granted, not everything other Christian expressions believe is false; there is overlap, but there are substantial differences. I believe this is why John Paul II calls the Eastern Churches to unity, and the Protestant “Ecclesial Communities” to dialog.
Protestantism & Relativism
What is Protestantism? It means something different to everyone who claims its banner. Let’s return to our breakfast example, but instead of having a group of men from the same denomination, let’s pick three men, a Baptist, an Anglican, and a Catholic. Let’s pour the coffee, and now ask them what they think of the following passage in John 6. Note the eternal consequences attached to one’s interpretation of this passage.
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him…”
— John 6:51, 53-56, emphasis mine.
What does this passage mean? Note that you can’t say “I’ll just cross reference more stuff”. This is because Christ clearly expected his own audience to understand what it meant without Bibles. Secondly, we are already in the Bible. Third, these are just three guys at breakfast. They lack authority because they are not in charge of their denominations' doctrines. This doesn’t mean that an individual cannot discover the proper interpretation. What it means is that without authority, his interpretation cannot be obligatory for the body of believers of which he is a member.
Institutions are the only ones capable of defining and making normative claims that affect their members. This is true of tribes, cities, states, countries, country clubs, chess clubs, game clubs, book clubs, Baptist potlucks, missionary organizations, and any other assembly of individuals whose aggregation brings about the spontaneous generation of an authority for the individuals that participate in it. The assembly confers authority to its leaders, and it’s by virtue of the assembly’s authority, initially possessed by its founder, that the leader/leaders have the authority to define and enforce what it means to be a member of that body. To demonstrate this, we’ll look at the Baptist, Anglican, and Catholic positions on the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.
Baptist, Anglicans, and Catholics
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
src: Baptist Faith & Message: VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
They say it is a “symbolic act of obedience” that is merely memorial and nothing more. Yet, they leave the reference to John 6 out of their citations on the website. They do cite Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians, which the Catholic Church also uses to justify its stance the elements becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus. So there is still clear disagreement. Furthermore, the word “symbol” never appears in these passages.
The Church of England puts forward a more relativistic interpretation of these passages on its website, but then completely contradicts this statement with its liturgy. After citing Matthew 26:26-28, the Church of England states the following,
The Eucharist (also known as Holy Communion, the Mass, or the Lord’s Supper), can take many different forms across the Church of England, and it may be understood by Christians in different ways, but at the heart of the celebration there is always a special prayer of thanksgiving, or ‘Eucharistic Prayer’ (eucharistein means ‘to give thanks’ in Greek). This is offered by the priest who presides at the service in the name of all who are gathered, giving thanks for all that God has given us in Christ.
This is odd for their official website to say that this doctrine “may be understood by Christians in different ways…”. While factually accurate that this doctrine is understood in different ways, it’s incoherent when one reads the Book of Common Prayer’s liturgies.
We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and we offer you these gifts. Sanctify them by your Word and Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son Jesus Christ. Sanctify us also, that we may worthily receive this holy Sacrament, and be made one body with him, that he may dwell in us and we in him.
— The Book of Common Prayer (2019), “Prayer of Consecration”, emphasis mine.
Now some might see the word “memorial” and think, “see, they use the same words we do.” But then you go to the “Prayer of Humble Access” and it becomes explicit what the congregants are expected to believe. After the priest prays the prayer above, he then breaks the bread and prays the following with the congregants:
…Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most previous blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
— Ibid., “Prayer of Humble Access”, emphasis mine
Whatever you think about these two denominations, they cannot both be right, despite them operating within their institutional authority. The bread and wine cannot be only symbolic on the Baptist view and whatever you want it to be on the Church of England’s view. If we add in the Catholics, the challenge to unity becomes even clearer.
Every time [the Mass] is celebrated, ‘the work of our redemption is carried on’ and we ‘break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ.’
The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his body which is the Church.
— Catechism of The Catholic Church, 1405, 1407.
When we return to Christ’s prayer for unity, we realize that the importance of unity is not merely cooperation with other groups who claim to be Christians, but a unity only attained through a miracle. That miracle is the Eucharist. Anyone can say that Jesus is Lord — even demons can — but it’s only the Church that can tell us what that means so as to bring about unity. This is demonstrated by reason and the nature of hierarchical realities, as well as scripturally, historically, and presently. Scripture testifies to the Church being founded by Christ, history demonstrates how the Church has been preserved, and our experience with the Church in our present moment shows Christ’s promise, that Hell will not prevail, has not been broken.
John Paul II’s writing is an amazing work on unity. I have only shared a small paragraph today, but it’s an excellent work to begin understanding the importance of unity among Catholics, the Eastern Churches, and the other denominations who are far from the Church. I read John Paul II’s work as a Christlike desire to call all the baptized back into unity which leads to salvation. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical may not necessarily make you a Catholic, but what it will do is help you to understand that the divisions that have proliferated since the Reformation are not the unity that Christ desired before he died. It’s clear to me now, that true unity is only found when we are in Christ and he is in us, but this is only possible by entering through the narrow way of the Eucharist, the sign of Christian unity on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Before the greatness of this mystery, St. Augustine exclaims, ‘O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!’ The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent our prayers to the Lord that time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.
Ibid., 1398.
Next time I write, I intend to reflect on John Paul II’s encyclical titled, On The Eucharist.
Until then, keep thinking.
— DR.