Juridical ecumenism and the Canons of Nicaea: comparing the Nicene Canons (325) and the Statement of Principles of Christian Law (2016)

This study explores the work of the Christian Law Panel of Experts which met in Rome 2013-2016 and produced a Statement of Principles of Christian Law. The statement of principles is the result of a study, by Panel members, of systems of church law, order, and polity in eight church families worldwide: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Baptist. The ecumenical movement to-date has not examined the potential of these legal systems. The movement has developed on the basis primarily of theological and doctrinal enquiry and dialogue and the fruits of this for greater visible unity between Christians worldwide. However, a study of the laws of institutional churches, across the Christian traditions worldwide, is the missing link in ecumenism. From the similarities between these legal systems emerge principles of law fundamental to Christian identity and order. These juridical similarities indicate that the churches share common principles and that their existence suggests the category 'Christian law'. Whilst dogmas may divide the churches of global Christianity, the profound similarities between their norms of conduct reveal that the laws of the faithful, whatever their various denominational affiliations, link Christians through common forms of action. For this reason, comparative church law should have a greater profile in ecumenism today

This study explores juridical aspects of the ecclesiology presented in the World Council of Churches' Faith and Order Commission Paper, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (2013). It does so in the context of systems of church law, order and polity in eight church families worldwide: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian and Baptist. Common Vision does not explicitly consider church law, order and polity or its role in ecumenism. However, many themes treated in Common Vision surface in church regulatory systems. This study examines how these instruments articulate the ecclesiology found in Common Vision (which as such, de facto, offers juridical as well as theological principles), translate these into norms of conduct and, in turn, generate unity in common action across the church families. Juridical similarities indicate that the churches share common principles and that their existence suggests the category ‘Christian law’. While dogmas may divide the churches of global Christianity, the profound similarities between their norms of conduct reveal that the laws of the faithful, whatever their various denominational affiliations, link Christians through common forms of action. For this reason, comparative church law should have a greater profile in ecumenism today.1

Principles in Modern International Law (Certain Issues of Concept, Nature, Genesis, Substance and Scope)

Christian Law: Contemporary Principles offers a detailed comparison of the laws of churches across ten distinct Christian traditions worldwide: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, United, Congregational and Baptist. From this comparison, Professor Doe proposes that all denominations of the faith share common principles in spite of their doctrinal divisions; and that these principles reveal a concept of 'Christian law' and contribute to a theological understanding of global Christian identity. Adopting a unique interdisciplinary approach, the book provides comprehensive coverage on the sources and purposes of church law, the faithful (lay and ordained), the institutions of church governance, discipline and dispute resolution, doctrine and worship, the rites of passage, ecumenism, property and finance, as well as church, State and society. This is an invaluable resource for lawyers and theologians who are engaged in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue, showing how dogmas may divide but laws link Christians across traditions.

In the ecumenical dialogue between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, the issue of the status of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided early Church has been of fundamental importance. All Roman Catholics and a great many Anglicans accord considerable authority to those councils as the 'Voice of the Church' on matters of doctrine. The point at which their differences was revealed in earlier stages of the dialogue, as the Canadian Anglican champion of Anglican/Roman-Catholic dialogue Eugene Fairweather pointed out on the eve of Vatican II, was the question of how an ecumenical council's authority was to be recognized.

Reviewed by: Marriage Litigation in the Western Church, 1215-1517 by Wolfgang P. Müller Richard H. Helmholz Müller, Wolfgang P. Marriage Litigation in the Western Church, 1215-1517. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2021. Pp. viii, 270. $99.00. ISBN: 978-1-10884-542-7. A little more than fifty years ago the late Michael Sheehan published an article in Mediaeval Studies devoted to the church's matrimonial law as it was applied in English practice. His article was based upon evidence he had found in fourteenth century court records from the diocese of Ely. It was something new—an experiment—and a successful one. A flood of scholarly studies like the one he initiated have come into existence during the years that followed. This would probably have been a surprise to him. The prevailing attitude among scholars then was that the law of the church was fully stated in the Corpus iuris canonici. Cases from the courts were regarded simply as examples of the results the formal law required. They were of no special significance. Today this attitude among scholars has changed. Studies of the history of marriage and divorce derived from medieval record sources have multiplied, and they have come from many European lands. By my count, the bibliography of secondary sources in the book under review contains 235 scholarly books and articles devoted to the history of the canon law of marriage. Of that number only nineteen predate Sheehan's article, and virtually all of them were studies of the formal canon law. What a change! How should we account for it? There is certainly more than one plausible explanation. Perhaps the initial revelation that there was a divergence between formal law and law in practice itself encouraged further research. Once it had been recognized, scholars changed their mind about the sufficiency of the older and more formal approach to the subject. Or perhaps it was the Anglo-American assumption drawn from common law that encouraged further study drawn from court records. No common lawyer would draw a legal conclusion without looking at the relevant case law. Why should the church's law be an exception? Or maybe it was the fact that the voices and the [End Page 233] interests of women came to the fore in matrimonial disputes in a more direct way than they did in disputes over tithes or ecclesiastical benefices. Paying attention to matrimonial disputes was itself may have been spurred by the greater numbers of women entering the academy during the past fifty years. Or perhaps it was just something new and different. Novelty is a path to tenure. Is there a correct answer to the question? I can only guess. What I can say with more confidence is that the comparative approach does prove appropriate for this subject, and indeed that, once undertaken, it has proved to be a healthy development. It was time, therefore, that someone should undertake a large and more general comparative view of the subject. Müller's work is the first book length work to undertake a Europe-wide approach to this subject, and it is a good development. Of course, this approach is not an invention. Prior scholarship from the pen of Charles Donahue has demonstrated what can be learned from taking a comparative approach. His two edited volumes in Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History that were published by Duncker & Humblot in 1989 and 1994 have also encouraged a wider approach by calling attention to the contents of ecclesiastical archives in many lands. However, no one has attempted anything as ambitious as Müller's monograph. It is drawn from record evidence found in French, German, English, Italian and Spanish archives, and it opens up the subject in useful ways by taking this geographical scope. Most fundamental of the results is the author's conclusion that a real divide existed between the South (Italy and Spain) and the North (England and Germany). The former adopted a notarial culture; the latter did not. This meant that most marriage contracts in the South were entered into and their full terms put into writing by notaries public rather than being contracted orally...

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

This article researches six church sites founded in Rogaland during the early stages of Christianisation in Norway in the High Middle Ages. The areas selected for investigation are the coastal skipreider (administrative units) Time and Klepp incentral Jæren, and Jelsa and Suldal in non-coastal Ryfylke. The sites have been assessed in relation to their surroundings, to shed light on the issues of actor, time and choice of location. The investigation revealed two types of church site: siteswith proprietary churches erected by a local magnate or middle-ranking landowner, and churches built by the villagers as a collaborative enterprise, in accordance with provisions in the section on church law in Gulatingslova (the Gulating Law) –called Kristenretten (Christian Law). The location of church sites relative to older pagan cult sites was assessed, to ascertain to what extent the location of a particular church represented continuity or change. The issue of monumentality appears to have been central in determining the location of proprietary churches, while accessibility seems to have been a consideration that influenced the location of churches built collaboratively by members of the community.It is suggested that Kristenretten was instrumental in spreading Christianity in Norway, in that the provisions on church building and related regulations encouraged the building of churches by a class of middle-ranking landowners.

No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism. By Margaret O'Gara. Edited by Michael Vertin. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2014. xxvi + 253 pp. $29.95 (paper).This collection of essays is posthumous testament to Margaret O'Gara's commitment to ecumenism. O'Gara planned this volume as a sequel to her earlier work, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange (1998), and chose many of the essays prior to her passing. Edited by Michael Vertin, her spouse and colleague at St. Michael's College, Toronto, the essays range addresses at ecumenical gatherings to scholarly articles, with a mixture of previously published and newly available work.The volume is divided into two sections. The first intends a broad audience, and introduces the work of ecumenism through the lens of O'Gara's personal experience. In clear, accessible writing, she portrays ecumenical dialogue as a process of transformation rooted in relationships. For example, O'Gara describes the importance of friendship among dialogue partners, which establishes a context of collaboration rather than competition, provides a pathway for insight into another's perspective, and helps to sustain participants in their dialogue: working in ecumenism share the same poignant experience of love for their own church traditions and restlessness within them, a cognitive and affective dissonance peculiar to ecumenists. Friends diverse church communions offer one another intellectual and emotional hospitality on the journey toward full (pp. 35-36). Ecumenism is also envisioned as an ascetical practice involving occasional fasting from celebrations of the eucharist when not in full communion with the presider, careful study that only gradually yields understanding, painful review of the trespasses committed and experienced by one's own communion, and awareness that one's labors are feared or suspected by others within one's communion (p. 35).O'Gara provides insight into the process of ecumenical dialogue as a spiritual endeavor shaped by prayer. She writes: Listening to the prayers of others is a bit like listening to other languages, and of course sometimes we begin to learn the language of our ecumenical partners as well-we learn a second language-and the ear of our heart is opened (pp. 24-25). Learning the language of one another's prayers is an entree to receiving and joining in the richness of doxology, which O'Gara finds is essential to the shared discovery of truth. Conversion of hearing through prayer is complemented by new vision through memory: When the historical memoiy of Christians is purified a new vision of oneself and the other church traditions emerges, dialogue becomes an experience not just of information but of transformation, of conversion (p. …

Preface

“Church’s law is first and foremost lex libertatis”—this proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI (2008) inspired the author, a Catholic canonist, to attempt an aspectual reflection on the question of the quality and relevance in Ecclesia of contemporary legislation, keeping in mind the universal (ecumenical) goal of Church law: salus animarum. For in the face of today’s “signs of the times”, it is impossible to avoid the question of how, in legislating this law, interpreting and applying it, to safeguard and optimize the operability of communion bonds (bonum commune) along with the realization of subjective rights (bonum personae)? It is necessary to ask what contemporary proposals for legislative activity can serve to stimulate “organic development in the life […] of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it” (John Paul II)? The inescapable context for this reflection today is the epochal enunciation, according to some, of Pope Francis “it is clear that ecumenical dialogue […] enriches canon law”. In the author’s opinion, the last decade has brought two interesting answers to the questions formulated above. The two “ecumenical enterprises”—to use Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s apt phrase—“fill the historical juridical deficit”; especially since theologians and jurists from different traditions have not yet worked together to demonstrate the ecumenical potential of church law. The results of this work—offering original methodologies—are the idea of “receptive ecumenism”, by Catholic canonist Paul Murray, and Norman Doe’s project, culminating in the Statement of Principles of Christian Law, produced by the International Panel of Experts. Both “ecumenical enterprises” give new impetus to ecumenical initiatives, but also, according to Francis’ quoted words, carry with them the potential to enrich church law and serve its renewal.

Welsh jurist and Anglican theologian Norman Doe has pioneered the modern study of comparative ‘Christian law’, analysing the wide variety of internal religious legal systems governing Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches worldwide. For Doe, religious law is the backbone of Christian ecclesiology and ecumenism. Despite the deep theological differences that have long divided Christian churches and denominations, he argues, every church – whether an individual congregation or a global denomination – uses law to balance its spiritual and structural dimensions and to keep it straight and strong, especially in times of crisis. This makes church law a fundamental but under-utilised instrument of Christian identity and denominationalism, but also unity and collaboration on many matters of public and private spiritual life, both clerical and lay. Doe has developed this thesis in a series of impressive scholarly projects and books – first on Anglican law, then comparative Anglican-Catholic canon law, then all Christian laws and other Abrahamic laws, and their interaction with secular legal systems. This article offers an appreciative analysis of the development of Professor Doe's scholarship, and situates his work within the broader global field of law and religion studies.

Although the much-postponed subject of papal primacy in the ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches finally got to a formal start in 2007, it was set in a wider framework of synodality or conciliarity. Thus the Roman primacy is theologically twinned with the ecumenical councils. In this context the article draws attention to the Council in Trullo (692). Neglected in the post-Tridentine West, in the East it had long been regarded as an ecumenical council. This council is of interest not only for canon law but for theology, liturgy, sacred art, and church history as well.

The relationship between the church and the secular law is one of the most complicated matters of law theory. The present research featured the law of the Russian Church and its structure with its internal and external church law. The article introduces the opinions of pre-revolutionary and contemporary authors, as well as a historical analysis of the main normative acts of the Russian Church that regulate its internal structure. The church law was defined as a special legal system, similar to public law. Historically speaking, the core of the Russian church law remained unaffected by the genesis of the state and legal structure, the changes in the system of church authorities, and the development of state-confessional relations. The central core of the church law still maintains the form of the rules of the apostles, the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and Holy Fathers.

One of the most important problems for contemporary Catholicism is its dialogue with the contemporary world. In recent years, the leaders of the Catholic Church have been speaking of this with increasing frequency. The Catholic journal La Civiltà cattolica has even written of the need to found a "theology of dialogue" (November 21, 1964). The recent papal encyclicals — "Mater et Magistra" (1961), "Pacem in Terris" (1963), and "Ecclesiam suam" (1964) — express the effort of the leaders of Catholicism to establish more intimate contacts with the world in which the religious people of today find themselves. It is therefore no accident that this problem of dialogue was taken up in discussions at the Second Ecumenical Council and particularly at its third session held in the autumn of 1964.