Comments on the text of the Degree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio

The central themes that arise in the Roman Catholic Church regarding the ecumenical movement – that had originated with the Protestant Churches –, are three: Is the community unified by the same faith, are there the same sacraments celebrated, and is the rightful pastor, that is the pope, governing (Hilberath. Bernd Jochen. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über den Ökumenismus Unitatis redintegratio” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 3, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath. 69–223. 75. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder)?

In view of the ecumenical dialogue, Cardinal Bea claimed that truth and love have to be a persistent part of the Council’s perspective. The theological foundation of this claim consists in the fact that the separated sisters and brothers by baptism are members of the mystical body of Christ (ibid. 89). The hierarchical government of the Roman Catholic Church under the absolutist primacy of the pope is the principal obstacle for the inner structural reform of the Roman Catholic Church as well as for the ecumenical dialogue (ibid. 91).

Unitatis Redintegratio consists of an introduction (Unitatis Redintegratio 1) and three chapters. Chapter one writes on the Catholic principles of ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio 2–4). Chapter two is on the practice of ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio 5–12) and chapter three deals with Churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Roman Apostolic See (Unitatis Redintegratio 13–24).  Cardinal Bea was a biblical scholar by profession and many exegetes and experts in biblical studies worked at his Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Since the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity signs as major author of Unitatis Redintegratio, we observe an extensive use of the Bible in the document. In the first chapter, there are 18 references and three citations of the Bible. In the second chapter, there are two references and five biblical citations and in the third chapter there are one reference and seven citations of the Bible.

Introduction

Unitatis Redintegratio 1,1 affirms “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council” and confesses the “division openly contradicts the will of Christ”. The Second Vatican Council rather promotes unity with the help of ecumenism, reunification is not really the aim of the Council (Hilberath 2005b, 108). Unitatis Redinteratio 1,2 assesses “In recent times more than ever before, the Lord has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity”. The Council speaks of an ecumenical movement. Concerning the “separated brothers” the declaration cites from the first article of the constitution of the World Council of Churches (WCC) the definition of the ecumenical movement “Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior”. Unitatis Redintegratio does not refer to the WCC. The WCC does not have a self-understanding as something like a Super-Church. The WCC gives room to all Churches, that accept the WCC as a community of Churches who recognize Jesus Christ as God and Savior (ibid 112). Unitatis Redintegratio 1,3 claims that this decree gives the Catholics “the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call”.

First chapter: Principles of ecumenism.

The Catholic principles of ecumenism, the title of the first chapter of the declaration, speak of the same ecumenism as the WCC (ibid. 113). It is ecumenically important that there is no isolated Roman Catholic ecumenism. The Roman Catholic Church or simply the Catholic Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ. Catholics confess in the Creed the Church of Jesus Christ with the words “una, sancta, catholica et apostolica” that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (ibid. 114). Hilberath insists reading Unitatis Redintegratio 2 based on the pneumatological understanding of the body-of-Christ-ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium 2–4 and 8,1 (ibid. 115). “Ubi spiritus, ibi Ecclesia”, where there is the Holy Spirit there is Church, expresses the theology of the Reformation. “Ubi eucharistia, ibi ecclesia”, where the Eucharist is celebrated there is Church, expresses Orthodox theology and “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia”, where there is Peter there is Church, is the Catholic point of view (ibid. 116). 

Lumen Gentium 2 affirms that the Church was made manifest “by the outpouring of the Spirit” (Lumen gentium). In Lumen Gentium 4 we read, “the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might continually sanctify the Church, and thus, all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father (Ephesians 1, 18). He is the Spirit of Life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal (John 4, 14; 7, 38-39). To men, dead in sin, the Father gives life through Him, until, in Christ, He brings to life their mortal bodies (Romans 10, 8-11) The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (1 Corinthians 3, 16; 6, 19). In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons (Galatians 4, 6 and Romans 8, 15-16; 26) The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth (John 16, 13) and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits (Ephesians 1, 11-12, 1 Corinthians 12, 4,  Galatians 5, 22).”

The reference of Lumen Gentium 4 to Ephesians 1, 18 indeed makes Paul pray the Father of Jesus Christ for each individual of his community, for every believer who is baptized, “to give you a spirit of wisdom”. Paul clearly addresses the individual believer. Lumen Gentium 4 underlines the Church as object of the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Second Vatican Council and Hilberath do not understand that the body-of-Christ is made up of individual believers who have received the Holy Spirit. Lumen Gentium 4 and Hilberath’s interpretation do not deny that “the Spirit of Life … brings to life their moral bodies” that is the life of the individual believers, they do not deny that “the Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple”. John 4, 14 and 7, 39-39, to whom Lumen Gentium 4 refers, speak of the individual believer who receives and “drinks” the Holy Spirit, Romans 10, 8-11 speak to the individual believer, 1 Corinthians 3, 16 and 6, 19 speak of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the individual believer, Galatians 4, 6 and Romans 8, 15-16; 26 speak of the individual believer and of the Saint Paul together with the collective of believers, Paul using the personal pronoun “us”. Lumen Gentium 4 abuses of the group of Paul and his individual believers to turn the attention exclusively on the Church. John 16, 13 is part of the farewell discourse of Jesus who is directed to the Apostles and not to the Church. Neither Ephesians 1, 11-12, nor 1 Corinthians 12, 4, nor Galatians 5, 22 speak of an equipment and direction of the Church by a Church hierarchy, as the Second Vatican Council pretends.  On the contrary, Galatians 5, 22 affirms as fruits of the Holy Spirit “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and self-control” for the individual faithful, and not the social structure of an absolutist hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

The ecumenical principle of the Roman Catholic Church, “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia”, where there is Peter there is Church, does not correspond with the New Testament, his papal principle, or as Luther says, this papist principle, contradicts the Gospel.  Jesus tells his Apostles in the farewell discourse “You call me Master and Lord, and rightly; so I am. If I, then, the Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you must wash each other’s feet. I have given you an example so that you may copy what I have done to you (John 13, 13-15).

The claim of Lumen Gentium 8, that the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolutist monarchy, that is “the visible social structure of the Church serves the Spirit of Christ” constitutes a perversion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unitatis Redintegratio 2,1 starts as Lumen Gentium 1 with the oikonomia, the economy of the Trinity, of the Trinity realizing salvation (ibid.). Jesus Christ is the center of Christian faith “In His Church He instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of His Church is both signified and made a reality. He gave His followers a new commandment to love one another (John 13,34) and promised the Spirit, their Advocate (John 16,7) who, as Lord and life-giver, should remain with them forever”. Unitatis Redintegratio 2,1 is a beautiful paragraph, a good principle for ecumenical dialogue.

Unitatis Redintegratio 2,2 affirms “the Lord Jesus poured forth His Spirit”, the Spirit dwells in those who believe and calls them “into a unity of faith, hope and charity”. There is “one Lord, one faith, one Baptism (Ephesians 4, 4–5)”. This acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit as the principle of “a unity of faith, hope and love” stands in line with the WCC and may be seen as catholic recognition of the ecclesiological realities of non-Catholic Churches (ibid. 117). Hilberath praises the catholic recognition of the ecclesiological realities of the non-Catholic Churches. He is right and I agree. At the same time, we have to assess that the same Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio will judge the non-Catholic Churches as deficient, as long as they are not willed to accept the Roman pope as symbol of the unity of the faithful. The Reformation is right proclaiming as principle of unity the Spirit, who dwells in those who believe and calls them “into a unity of faith, hope and charity”. The principle of Orthodox theology and faith “Ubi eucharistia, ibi ecclesia”, where the Eucharist is celebrated there is Church, corresponds to the Gospel, and the principle of the Reformation “Ubi spiritus, ibi Ecclesia”, where there is the Holy Spirit there is Church, corresponds with the Gospel; the principle “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia”, where there is Peter there is Church, does not correspond with the Gospel. Hilberath does not see the point. He is right claiming, faith, hope and love have to be taken as the criteria for judging the realization of the church of Jesus Christ (ibid). Hilberath is blind on the social structures of the Roman Catholic Church, that contradict the Gospel. Hilberath points at Lumen Gentium 4; 7,1–3; and 13,1 as testimony of the compliance of the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio with the Holy Spirit. This demonstrates that 40 years after the Second Vatican Council Catholic theologians did not yet take notice of the important teaching of Onclin (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748). The community of the followers of Christ, the people of Go’d, are one aspect of the Church. The societal aspect of the Church is the monarchic government of the Church by the hierarchy (ibid. 733).

Unitatis Redintegratio 2, 3 claims “In order to establish this His Holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying (Matthew 28, 18–20 and John 20, 21–23)”. I take a look at these Biblical references that serve to justify the institution of the College of the Twelve by Jesus Christ. Matthew 28, 16 speaks only of eleven and not of twelve. Moreover, from the verses Matthew 28,18–20, it is not clear that there is an institution of an institution. Looking at John 20, 19, we read of the disciples that were together, and Jesus spoke to these disciples. We are allowed to see the use of the term disciples not only telling that more men were present than the eleven apostles. We are also allowed to understand that among these disciples there were women. At least women are not excluded yet. We are allowed to think of the case that Jesus sent women empowered by the Holy Spirit on the mission to preach the Gospel and to heal and to lead communities. I am thinking of the testimony of women’s ministry in the Letter to the Romans 16,1–16.

Unitatis Redintegratio 2,4 assesses the so-called apostolic succession without pretending any legitimizing reference to the Scriptures “Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors – the bishops with Peter’s successor at their head – should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love”. This assessment of the absolute governing, teaching and sacrificing power of the pope that he lends to the bishops, is the end of any ecumenical dialogue. I do not know why Hilberath does not see this assessment of the Roman Catholic Church as a human society, as an absolutist monarchy. He sticks to the divine aspect of the Catholic Church and her government, that is a government of the Church as a service of the Holy Spirit (ibid). He is right claiming that Unitatis Redintegratio 2,3 and 2, 4 have to be read together with Lumen Gentium 8, 1 (ibid). I fear Hilberath ignores in his reading the societal aspect of the Catholic Church as an absolutist monarchy.  Lumen Gentium 8, 1 speaks very clearly of the Catholic Church as “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ”, as “one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element”.

Looking at the Gospel, we see that there is no talk of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolute monarchy. Peter is not the pope with jurisdiction over a Catholic Church when Jesus speaks to him in Matthew 16,19 and in Matthew 18,18. There is no indication by Jesus of a pope’s government in Luke 22,32. Jesus has to pray for Peter and already in Luke 22, 34, Jesus tells Peter of his coming betrayal by him. John 21, 15–18 speaks of Jesus and nobody else. Peter is the stone but not any pope, and it is already an enormous grace that is given to the betrayer and emphatically ignorant and weak Peter. Bea is very shrewd to cite and claim in Unitatis Redintegratio 2, 3 with Ephesians 2, 20 and 1 Peter 2,25 that from the beginning till the end Jesus Christ will be our cornerstone and shepherd of our souls.

Unitatis Redintegratio 2,5 proclaims “the Church serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace (Ephesians 2,17–18 and Mark 16,15)”. Ephesians 2,17–18 speaks of peace and Mark 16, 15 speaks of all humankind. The declaration speaks of the Church of Jesus Christ? Or does it speak of the Roman Catholic Church? The preacher in Ephesians 2, 17–18 is Jesus Christ and in Mark 16,15 Jesus Christ commands to preach the Gospel to all creation. Referring to Mark 16,15, the Council misses the opportunity to overcome its anthropocentrism and reach out to our responsibility for the whole creation. Climate change and pollution of the earth, the seas and the atmosphere were not yet on the agenda of the Council.

Unitatis Redintegratio 2, 6 speaks of the mystery of the unity of the Church as the mystery of the Trinity. The pilgrim way of the Church of the Trinity and its eschatological perspective allow to consider many elements of the Roman Catholic Church – and presumably also elements of other Churches – as what they are, namely elements that will perish after they lost their service functions for the Holy Spirit. I pray that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church will open to becoming a loving democratically living community.

According to Hilberath, Unitatis Redintegratio 3 is the key for understanding the relations of the separated brothers from the Orthodoxy as from the Reformation with the Roman Catholic Church according to the Council (Hilberath 2005b, 119). Unitatis  Redintegratio 3,1 claims the classical Roman Catholic position, that the Church of Christ, one, catholic and holy, subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. Although the separated Churches and communities do not cease to be Churches, the claim of the Council in my eyes is not a realization of love. The following assessment in Unitatis Redintegratio 3,1 is better. Despite all rifts and obstacles “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church”. Unitatis Redintegratio 3,2 again takes up the Toronto-declaration of the WCC that speaks of the announcement of the Word, the interpretation of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments as elements of the Church of Christ. Unitatis Redintageratio 3, 2 speaks of “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” but does not name the sacraments. In the same way, Unitatis Redintegratio 3,3 speaks of “liturgical actions” but not of sacraments. After all these ecumenical efforts Unitatis Redintegratio 3,4 returns to the hubris claiming that the separated Churches and communities are “deficient in some respects”. I wonder if there is more to this deficiency than not recognizing the primacy of the Roman pope. Unitatis Redintegratio 3, 5 seems to verify my suspicion assessing that “only through Christ’s Catholic Church” the separated brothers and sisters “can benefit fully from the means of salvation” because these are entrusted “to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head” that is in the self-understanding of the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Pontiff.

Much of Unitatis Redintegratio 4 instructs the Roman Catholic faithful about their part in ecumenism (Hilberath 2005, 128). Unitatis Redintegratio 4, 1 invites the Catholics “to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism”. Unitatis Redintegratio 4,2 speaks of mutual relations of fairness and with truth, of the necessity of the dialogue by experts in order to learn from each other and even of reform within the Roman Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintegratio 4, 3 is fearful of the ecumenical dynamics of the Roman Catholic faithful and puts all their ecumenical activities under the vigilantia, that is vigilance and control of the bishops. The term vigilance does not testify of the perspective of spiritual ecumenism (ibid. 130). Again, there is the claim that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Hilberath comments that the Orthodox Churches and the Churches of the Reformation claim the same for them (ibid). In 2017, the year we remember 500 years of Reformation, the pope constitutes the most important obstacle to unity with the Christians of the Reformation. The way the bishops are held to instruct and watch the Catholics who want to engage in the ecumenical dialogue is authoritarian and therefore dialogue is difficult within the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops can kill at any time any efforts of the laywomen, -men and -queer. A social structure like that of the Roman Catholic Church does not permit open and free dialogue between the faithful, theologians and bishops within the Roman Catholic Church and is not capable of dialoguing with other Churches either.

Unitatis Redintegratio 4,4 clarifies that conversion is not the aim of ecumenism though ecumenism does not exclude the possibility of conversions (ibid. 131). Unitatis Redintegratio 4,5 encourages the Roman Catholic faithful to approach the members of separated Christian communities, “But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself”. Unitatis Redintegratio 4,6 moralizes aiming at Christian perfection. Unitatis Redintegratio 4,7–4,9 seem to accept a certain pluralism within the life of the Roman Catholic Church “all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth”. Hilberath dryly comments that, in the decades after the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Curia defined “proper freedom” as freedom granted by the interests of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church (ibid. 133). Unitatis Redintegratio 4,8 acknowledges that the separated brothers give “witness to Christ” and suffer martyrdom. Unitatis Redintegratio 4,9 thanks for “the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren” as means of our edification. Unitatis Redintegratio 4, 10 confesses that the division among Christians impedes the realization of the fullness of catholicity. Unitatis Redintegratio 4,11 assesses the growing ecumenical work of the faithful.

Second Chapter: practice of ecumenism

With Unitatis Redintegratio 5 starts the chapter on the practice of ecumenism. “The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church” and the decree apparently speaks of the Roman Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintegratio 6, 1 affirms that the first step in realizing ecumenism is the renovation and reformation of the own Roman Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintagratio 6,2 makes clear that at the center of this reform stands Jesus Christ who calls the Christians. This is the actual model of ecumenism. In as much as the Christians answer this call to come to Christ, they are realizing the unity (ibid. 136). The deficiencies of the Catholic Church in “moral conduct or discipline” that is church order, “or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated” should be set right. Unitatis Redintegratio 6,3 says that ecumenism is under way and “The Biblical and liturgical movements, the preaching of the word of God and catechetics, the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality of married life, and the Church’s social teaching and activity – all these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism”. Catholic documents usually start enumeration these church functions with the function of liturgy (liturgia), they continue with the testimony of the faith (martyria), and end with the service (diakonia). Naming liturgy first helps ecumenism. The declaration does not want to discriminate the activities that Catholics and other Christians realize together (ibid. 137).

Unitatis Redintegratio 7 talks about personal conversion and the personal conduct of life. Unitaits Redintegratio 7,1 is a moralizing and unrealistic exhortation for the renewal of one’s mind. Unitatis Redintegratio 7,2 piously but without convincing says “So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us”. Protestants already in the 1920 Lambeth-Conference and repeatedly thereafter (Amsterdam 1948; Evanston 1953) had expressed their regret for the responsibility of all parts in the separation of the brothers and sisters (Hilberath 2005b, 139). Unitatis Redintegratio 7,3 claims that the unity of Christian faith and the concrete social choices realize love.

Unitatis Redintegratio 8 speaks about the necessity of prayer for unity and for one another. Unitatis Redintegratio 8,1 calls the conversion of the heart, holiness of life and private and public prayer for the unity of Christian “spiritual ecumenism”. Unitatis Redintegratio 8,2 takes the so-called priestly prayer of Christ “That they may all be one” (John 17,20) as the model prayer for unity. Unitatis Redintegratio 8,3 speaks of the prayer for unity of Christians during ecumenical gatherings. The official circumstances for these prayers were rare at the time of the Second Vatican Council. It was an absolute novelty for the Roman Catholic universe that Paul VI, at the end of the last session of the Second Vatican Council, celebrated a liturgy of the Word, an ecumenical religious service together with the observers at the council (Hilberath 2005b, 140). Unitatis Redintegratio 8,4 claims two Catholic principles for the sacramental fellowship of the pulpit and the altar. The Churches of the Reformation of the WCC established full altar and pulpit fellowship at the so-called Leuenberg Concord in 1973 (ibid.). The common understanding of the Gospel formed the basis for this concord. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox, this criterion is not a sufficient foundation of altar fellowship (ibid). The sacramental altar and pulpit fellowship depends on two principles: Unity of the Church(es) and “sharing in the means of grace” (Hilberath 2005, 141). It is up to “the local episcopal authority, unless the bishops’ conference according to its own statutes, or the Holy See, has determined otherwise” to decide on interdenominational celebration of the sacraments. Because there are few bishops like bishop Elchinger of Strasbourg who published guidelines for interdenominational and mixed marriages and families, there is a growing impatience among Christians on the matter (ibid. 142). 

Unitatis Redintegratio 9 encourages experts of both sides to meet and discuss the theological problems of ecumenism. Naturally this dialogue must be approved by the bishops.

Unitatis Redintegratio 10 naively claims that theology itself is ecumenical. Unitatis Redintegratio 10,1 claims that theology “must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts”. Unitatis Redintegratio 10,2 makes “future shepherds and priests” master ecumencial theology. In 1965 it is not yet on the mind of the Catholic bishops that lay women, men and queer also study theology. In 2020 CE, “the instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious” does not any more depend on priests as claims Unitatis Redintegratio 10,3. Unitatis Redintegratio 10,4 is clear about the fact that only the cooperation of Christians successfully realizes the proclamation of the Gospel in missionary territories.

Unitatis Redintegratio 11 speaks about the expression of the Catholic faith to others. This expression should hide nothing of the faith in the dialogue with other Christians (Unitatis Redintegratio 11,1), should be understandable for others (Unitatis Redintegratio 11,2) and “must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith” (Unitatis Redintegratio 11,3).

On November 25, 1963, bishop Pangrazio from Gorizia, a diocese where the cultures of Italy, Austria, Slovenia and Croatia meet, speaks in the aula of the Council of “a hierarchy of truths” concerning the history of salvation (Hilberath 2005, 149). In the discussion, Cardinal König from Vienna took up the expression ‘hierarchy of truths’ constructing circles of sentences with the truth value true around the center of the faith that is Jesus Christ. Accordingly, there are sentences with the truth value true, such as for example many moral sentences, that are very far from the center that is Christ (ibid). So far the exact hierarchy of these truths has not been spelled out by theologians, they are still at work (Hilberath 2005, 154–56).

Unitatis Redintegratio 12 encourages all who believe in the triune Go’d to cooperate for realizing unity and “This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place. Be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth”. “The just evaluation of the dignity of the human person” does not include a wholehearted proclamation of the Human Rights of the UDHR of 1948 (Unitatis Rredintegratio 12). Therefore, women, men and queer Christians protest their multiple discrimination by the Roman Catholic Church authorities and hierarchical structures.

Chapter three: Churches and Ecclesial Communities.

Chapter three of Unitatis Redintegartio is on Churches and Ecclesial Communities separated from the Roman Apostolic See. Speaking of separated “Churches and ecclesial communities” shows respect for the ecumenical process (Hilberath 2005b, 159). Unitatis Redintegratio 13 preludes the two parts of the chapter. Unitatis Redintegratio 14–18 treats the Churches of the East, and Unitatis Redintegratio 19–23 speaks about the separated Churches and communities of the West (ibid). “Division” started between the “Eastern Patriarchates” and the “Roman See” (Unitatis Redintegratio 13,2). “Other divisions” occurred with the Reformation (Unitatis Redintegratio 13,3). Unitatis Redintegratio 13,4 proposes “prudent ecumenical action”.

Unitatis Redintegratio 14,1 describes very positively the first thousand years of Christianity in the East and West as “sister Churches”. Nevertheless, their communion (Greek: koinonia. Latin: communio) got lost.

Unitatis Redintegratio 14,2 assesses that the West has drawn “extensively” from the treasury of the Churches of the East. This treasury is made up of “liturgy, spiritual tradition and law”, the East defined the Trinitarian Creed and the dogmas of Christology (Hilberath 2005b, 168). In this context, it is very important that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that “To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much” (Unitatis Redintegratio 14,2).

Unitatis Redintegratio 14,3 confesses “diversities of mentality and conditions of life” and “a lack of charity and mutual understanding” as causes of the divisions. Unitatis Redintegratio 14,4 claims that the Churches of the East and the Roman Catholic Church “must take full account of all these factors”, if a dialogue that hopes for a future full communion is to be realized.

Unitatis Redintegratio 15 speaks about the liturgical and spiritual tradition of the Churches of the East. Unitatis Redintegratio 15,1 speaks about the Eucharist that builds the Church of God “in each of these churches”. Unitatis Redintegratio 15,2 praises the liturgical worship of “Mary ever Virgin, the Mother of God and the saints” in the East. Unitatis Redintegratio 15,3 affirms that the East “possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy”. Celebrating the sacraments in communion nevertheless needs the approval of the Roman authorities. I observe that this communion therefore is an exception to regular ecumenical practice. Unitatis Redintegratio 15,4 encourages the West to study the Church Fathers and “the riches of monastic life” coming from the East.  Unitatis Redintegratio 15,5 claims “for bringing about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians” it is important that “The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known”, and declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them

It is of significant ecumenical importance that Unitatis Redintegratio 16 “declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them” (Hilberth 2005b, 171).

Unitatis redintegratio 17,1 holds that the different developments of “various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting”. Unitatis Redintegratio 17,2 empathically affirms “All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church”. The praising allusion to Eastern Churches “living already in full communion” with Rome is not very much appreciated by the majority of Eastern Churches who want to stay independent from Rome (Hilberath 2005b, 175).

Unitatis Redintegrato 18 indirectly points at decisions of “Councils and Roman Pontiffs” that have to be accepted for full communion, but directly simply speaks of dialogue and friendship, of closer relations and “the spirit of love”. The official German translation of Unitatis Redintegratio speaks of the “Roman bishop” and not of the “Roman Pontiff”, but this does not change the Roman position. Therefore, there follow no far-reaching consequences from the German translation as Hilberath claims (Hilberath 2005b, 175). The last sentence of Unitatis Redintegratio 18 and the last sentence on the Churches of the East of the decree invokes the Council of Florence (1439–1442) that had tried to restore unity between the East and the West. The intention for union came from the top that is the emperor who came with the Patriarchs and 700 dignitaries to Florence to get military assistance from the West against the Muslims. Unity was a means for a deal that should save power and influence, unity was not aspired because of suffering from separation. The Christians of the remaining Byzantine Empire were not interested in this kind of union and the whole effort failed. The West had no intention of helping the East militarily. We may learn from the history of this failure that successful ecumenism works bottom up and that initiatives from the top down rarely function (ibid. 178). As long as the Roman Catholic Church functions from the top down, ecumenism is doomed to fail anyways.

Despite separation from the “Apostolic See of Rome” the Churches and communities of the Reformation “have retained a particularly close affinity with the Catholic Church” claims Unitatis Redintegratio 19,1. Because of the considerable difference between the Churches of the Reformation and all ecclesial communities Unitatis Redinteratio 19,2 does not start describing them all. Unitatis Redintegratio 19,3 admits “that in these Churches and ecclesial Communities there exist important differences from the Catholic Church”, nevertheless the following considerations serve “encouraging a dialogue”.

Unitatis Redintegratio 20 thinks of the Christians who confess Christ as the Lord and yet, there are considerable differences in the considerations of Christ. The decree rejoices “to see that our separated brethren look to Christ as the source and center of Church unity”.

Unitatis Redintegratio 21,1 respects “the love and reference for the Sacred Literature” of our “separated brethren”. Unitatis Redintegratio 21,2 recognizes that “invoking the Holy Spirit” our separated brothers seek in the Scriptures God, and they contemplate what Jesus Christ “did for our salvation, especially the mysteries of His death and resurrection”. Unitatis Redintegratio 21,3 rightly sees that the separated brothers hold the Sacred Scriptures as divine authority for the faith, whereas the Roman Catholic Church attributes to the teaching authority of the Church the power to interpret the Bible. Unitatis Redintegratio 21,4 afirms that the Sacred Literature is of highest importance for unity.

Unitaits Redintegratio 22 is on sacramental life. Hilberath argues that recognition of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus, is incorporation into the body of Christ since the beginning of the life in faith with baptism, that constantly gets renewed and nurtured in the celebration of the Eucharist, inevitably leads to the celebration of the Eucharist at a common table. The Roman Catholic resistance to overcome the separated tables of the Eucharist in the context of faith amounts to a great scandal (Hilberath 2005b, 185). Unitatis Redintegratio 22,1 affirms that the administering of baptism in the way of the Lord, incorporates into Christ. Unitatis Redintegratio 22,2 claims the union of baptism but the lacking Eucharistic communion. According to Unitatis Redintegratio 22,3 the Protestants lack full unity, they lack the fullness of the Eucharistic communion because of the “absence of the sacrament of Orders”. On the one hand, the decree affirms that the Protestants celebrating the Eucharist “profess life in communion with Christ”, at the same time this profession is deficient, because without a valid sacrament of Orders - episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate -, there is no Eucharistic reality. The Roman Catholic Church insists that the mission Jesus entrusted to his Apostles, continuous to be exercised by the sacrament of Orders. This argumentation is contradictory, because the confession of Christ does not need the sacrament ordination (Hilberath 2005b, 186). If the separated brothers and sisters hear of their deficiencies concerning the complete profession of faith, and the necessity of ordination as means of salvation, they will not really feel encouraged to dialogue with the Catholics concerning “the fullness of life in Christ” (ibid). Sacrosanctum Concilium uses very often the terms ‘paschal mystery’ and ‘mystical body of Christ’ when treating the Eucharist. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the term ‘paschal mystery’ is not used in Unitatis Redintegratio.

Unitatis Redintegratio 23 affirms that the Protestants share baptism, hearing the word of God, and “some notable features of the liturgy from old times” with the Catholics. Unitatis Redintegratio 23, 2 affirms that the faith of the Protestants is responsible for “a strong sense of justice and a true charity toward their neighbor”. In the 1920s, there was an ecumenical movement between Protestant Churches, especially in mission countries like India, that developed the justice principle of equal dignity, freedom and rights of all humans. Catholics did not take part in this movement. Their fight for Human Rights is of a later date and the Roman Catholic hierarchy never joined this fight. Unitatis Redintegratio 23,3 claims an ecumenical dialogue about the different views on moral conduct as wished by the Gospel.

Unitatis Redintegratio 24,1 “exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity”. Unitatis Redintegratio 24,2 “professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective – the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ”. On November 21, 1965, Pope Paul VI promulgates the decree.

Three decennia of engaged ecumenic dialogue between Christians of the Reformation and Roman Catholic Christians lead to a conciliatory joint declaration, a confession of mutual understanding, final agreement and honest affirmation of dissents.  

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine Justification

“The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine Justification is a historic agreement, signed by Lutherans and Catholics on 31 October 1999 in Augsburg Germany, resolving divisions on the “basic truths” of salvation as a free gift from God” (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification | The Lutheran World Federation). Consequently, the homepage of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity of the Vatican publishes the same text (1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification)

I want to join the thanks to the Lord, that express the last sentences of the joint declaration. “We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ's will” (ibid. Number 44).

I keep citing from the Joint Declaration, because I am moved by the realization of a common understanding and wording after centuries of misunderstanding each other and a terribly violent polemic against Martin Luther (1483-1546) on the part of the official Roman Catholic Church.

“The doctrine of justification was of central importance for the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century (The Smalcald Articles, II,1; Book of Concord, 292)” and the “ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines (‘Rector et judex super omnia genera doctrinarum’ Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works (WA), 39, I,205)” (Joint Declaration 1999. Number 1).

In 1998, the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church came to a common understanding of our justification by Go’d’s grace through faith in Christ, and the Joint Declaration “shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations (ibid. Number 5).

I want to copy numbers 11 and 12 of the joint declaration because they really give testimony to the fruits of finally understanding each other.

“Justification is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Romains 3,23–25; Acts 13,39; Luke 18,14), liberation from the dominating power of sin and death (Romains 5,12–21) and from the curse of the law (Galatians 3,10–14). It is acceptance into communion with God: already now, but then fully in God’s coming kingdom (Romains 5,1f). It unites with Christ and with his death and resurrection (Romains 6,5). It occurs in the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism and incorporation into the one body (Romains 8,1f, 9f; 1 Corinthians 12,12f). All this is from God alone, for Christ’s sake, by grace, through faith in ‘the gospel of God’s Son’ (Romains 1,1–3)” (ibid. Number 11).

“The justified live by faith that comes from the Word of Christ (Romains 10,17) and is active through love (Galatians 5,6), the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5,22f). But since the justified are assailed from within and without by powers and desires (Romains 8,35–39; Galatians 5,16–21) and fall into sin (1 John 1,8,10), they must constantly hear God’s promises anew, confess their sins (1 John 1,9), participate in Christ’s body and blood, and be exhorted to live righteously in accord with the will of God. That is why the Apostle says to the justified: ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure’ (Philippians 2,12f). But the good news remains: ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romains 8:1), and in whom Christ lives (Galatians 2,20). Christ’s ‘act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all’ (Romains 5,18). What remains to be said is that tradition allows us to speak of the Holy Spirit as the gift we receive in order to operate the renewal of our hearts and calling us to good works” (ibid. Number 12).

I am thankful for the affirmation “Lutherans and Catholics share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who alone is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (1 Timothy 2,5f) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts” (ibid. Number 18). Thanks to God, Lutherans and Catholics now together “place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it” (ibid. Number 25).

It is interesting and a kind of sad, that Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians in the Joint Declaration do not describe a little bit the faith experience itself. It is true, the best way to describe a faith experience is to try to describe one’s own faith experiences. The texts of the Second Vatican Council and the Joint Declaration do not speak of a personal faith experience. In the faith experience, that is the experience while praying “I believe in Go’d” and staying silent and receiving the grace of peace and the mercy of salvation, there is no other will and motivation than doing good, better, than doing what I experience I desire to do. I experience for example the desire to follow Jesus’ healing with words and his teaching with deeds of love. Not that I am loving, healing or teaching, but that I am experiencing Jesus’ love, healing, and teaching. Luther writes of this experience in “The Bondage of the Will”. If Go’d moves my inner life, I experience the Holy Spirit softly changing my emotions in a way that there is love, and a will to realize the happy inspiration. Luther is convinced that nothing and nobody would be capable of destroying, deviating or defeating this inclination and free motivation to will the good, nurture and realize the good, to caress the good and forget the bad he was doing before (De servo abbitrio. 1525. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 219-662. 291. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig).

Paul writes in the Letter to the Galatians, “On the other hand, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these” enhances our integrity, and gives happiness (Galatians 5, 22-23). Faith lets us participate, take part, and enjoy Go’d’s and Christ’s love for us (De la Potterie, Lyonnet. 1965. La vocation Chrétienne a la perfection selon Saint Paul. In: De la Potterie, Lyonnet La Vie selon l’esprit. Condition du Chrétien 217-238. 231. Paris: Les Éditions du CERF). De la Potterie and Lyonnet are two Catholic theologians and Biblical scholars who know about the faith experience from their practice of meditation and prayer according to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), a Roman Catholic contemporary of Luther. Ignatius did not like Luther and Luther detested the papist Ignatius of Loyola. Ignatius’ faith experience of finding in meditation the will of God describes an experience that was familiar to Luther too, although in a very different cultural context. Ignatius tries to identify the will of God by interpreting his feelings and emotions in meditation and prayer.

Ignatius teaches in his Spiritual Exercises (Loyola, Ignatius de. 1987. Ejercicios espirituales, introduced and annotated by Candido de Dalmases, S.I. Santander: Sal Terrae) that one has to check, “If Pure receptivity to God, as concretely achieved, not theoretically claimed or reflected, produces peace, tranquility, quiet, so that true gladness and spiritual joy ensue, the joy of pure, free, undistorted consciousness, or whether instead of smoothness, gentleness and sweetness, sharpness, tumult and disturbance arise” (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church.158. London: Burns & Oates). In number 329 of the Spiritual Exercises, we read the expression “true joy and tasting spiritual joy”, in number 333 we read “peace, tranquility and silence”, in number 334 we read “sweetness and tasting spiritual joy”, in 334 we read “sweet, light and soft silence” that describe the experience of consolation (ibid. 163).  Reading Ignatius and Rahner we must bear in mind that they say what they mean, they do not say who God is. (See my Postings “Spirituality needs emotions, feelings, and choices”, and “Christian life in the first and 21st century CE”).

Ignatius claims that it is not the moral value of the social choice that determines good or bad, right, or wrong; it is the certainty of the individual who knows the origin of her or his spiritual experience of consolation, of inner peace and tranquility, God’s grace and mercy that determine the moral value of a social choice (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church.163. London: Burns & Oates).

Protestants and Catholics “confess together that in baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person. But the justified must all through life constantly look to God’s unconditional justifying grace” (ibid. Number 28). Being justified by faith and at the same time “struggling with the selfish desires of the old Adam” brings up the theme of sin in the justified. Lutherans and Roman Catholics have a different understanding of this theme (ibid. Number 29). “Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being ‘at the same time righteous and sinner’” (ibid). This understanding expresses already a very modern understanding and a holistic view on women, men and queer, because it centers faith on the individual person who believes with the help of the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ, his words and deeds. The Roman Catholic understanding expresses a different perspective on the human condition.

Apparently, a joint declaration helps the Catholic theologians to present their point of view in an understandable way even when dealing with difficult themes like sin and personal sinning and justification. “Catholics hold that the grace of Jesus Christ imparted in baptism takes away all that is sin ‘in the proper sense’ and that is ‘worthy of damnation’ (Romains 8,1). There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concupiscence) which comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, according to Catholic conviction, human sins always involve a personal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination, Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense. They do not thereby deny that this inclination does not correspond to God’s original design for humanity and that it is objectively in contradiction to God and remains one’s enemy in lifelong struggle” (ibid. Number 30).

In the 21st century CE, I am ashamed of those Roman Catholic authorities who use the term concupiscence of the time of Saint Augustine for defamation of sexual lust and pleasure. Superficially the Roman Catholic anthropology seems to hold a positive view on the capabilities of women, men and queer. Although the Joint Declaration affirms, Protestants and Catholics “confess together that in baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person”, there follows immediately the sentence “But the justified must all through life constantly look to God’s unconditional justifying grace” (ibid. Number 28). For Martin Luther this signifies, if there is not the believer’s unconditional faith in the free and merciful grace of Go’d, there is damnation even for the baptized. This seems to affirm the assessment of a very negative anthropology of Luther and the Reformation. Indeed, this is not the case, because for the individual person salvation is grace and faith. This faith and the experience of the gift of salvation forms Luther’s conjunction of anthropology and theology. Unless there is salvation, anthropology must confront life with misery, sin and desperation. Theology of the Reformation claims the validity of the theological definition of man, as we read it in Martin Luther’s short and most precise interpretation of Romans 3, 28, “a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the Law tells him to do”: Hominem iustificari fide (Disputatio D. Martini Lutheri De Homine 1536. Thesis 32. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 663-670. 668. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig). Härle comments with assertive confidence that Luther shows in the above citation concerning anthropology, the doctrine of justification embodies the Christian view on faith as if it were a sum of the Gospel (Härle Wilfried 2006. Einleitung In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. XI-XLII.  XXXVII).

I do not think that Luther carelessly mixes empirical categories with concepts of faith, beliefs with empirical facts. Luther just is convinced that faith in Go’d’s grace and mercy is effective, and empirical knowledge is of negligible significance for man. In the 21st century empirical knowledge doubled the life expectancy of Luther’s time. However, 20 % of the world population profit from the rise of life expectancy and the benefits of empirical science. Thinking of the millions of women, men and queer in the Global South who had no access to a COVID-19 vaccination and died of the disease, today the art of theology has to confront the growing gap between the rich and the poor and empirically empower justice on earth. In order not to become exasperated with the challenge and getting depressed because of the constant failure to achieve some progress in justice, faith in Go’d’s grace and mercy remain significant and effective.  

The Joint Declaration affirms too, that thanks to God, Lutherans and Catholics now together “place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works” (Joint Declaration 1999. Number 25).

I am on the side of Luther, “I do not believe in myself, I believe in Go’d”! I insist on my capability for the lifelong struggle for my integrity and dignity. Being capable of operating integrity is a gift. Who is operating on my integrity? It is my body who has the capability to do so. Therefore, I do not belief in myself, because one cannot believe in a gift. One can accept a gift, one can ask for a gift and give thanks for it. My body operates my integrity, if I ask him to do so. What else am I doing? I am conscious that my integrity is restored, ok, and functioning. The individual woman, man and queer is operating one’s biological, psychic, social, cultural, economic, spiritual, political etc. integrity often in the sense that one’s body is operating this integrity and all I know is that my body makes my integrity function again, but I cannot say how the body is doing this. Often, I know very well how I am restoring, assessing and nurturing my integrity, I know about the social choices that I have to take to realize my integrity. Working for one’s integrity is a permanent task of the individual. Most of the time our body operates the physical and emotional integration work below the level of consciousness. In case of malfunction, we feel sick, depressed, and in effect suffer diseases. Restoring our integrity and being able to give sense to our lives then is the primary objective. Personal integrity concerns the biological systems and the psychic and all the others. Working for psychic integrity and balancing the various emotions, feelings and states of well-being or sufferings, joys, fears and happiness, is part of the integration work but personal integrity depends on much more. In the 21st century, we understand the integrity of the individual woman, man and queer dependent on the climate on earth, dependent on the fauna and flora and on the whole cosmos. There are millions of women, men and queer who are not granted the integrity of their body and lives and who suffer from all kinds of deprivations, violence and diseases. There is no answer to the question: why is there suffering in the world that is not caused by human social choices? There is no answer to the question: why is there life and death? As a Christian, I do not have any answer to these questions, although Christian faith helps my social choices, but faith does not keep me from dying one day. The hope for an afterlife is hope and not empirical knowledge.

As a Christian, I believe in Go’d, I believe that the cosmos and life are given. Anthropologically speaking, a gift usually is given by a person, nevertheless I think that calling the giver, who sustains the cosmos and life, Go’d, amounts to giving a name to somebody whom I do not know. This is a contradicting behavior. This contradicting behavior is excused by the fact that my behavior is logically coherent as an exception to the rule of a very low level of coherence.  Since I am speaking of Go’d, I have to learn that speaking is a function of myself. I am speaking, my Umwelt taught me to speak and keeps telling me to speak, and speaking is an important part of assuring my integrity. Usually speaking is a conscious social choice and being conscious that I speak leads to the insight that my conscious brain activity produces with the help of my body sentences that express names like Go’d. Therefore, it is important to search for Go’d within myself as an experience and not as a name. I believe in Go’d, I am capable of describing my beliefs. I am not capable of describing Go’d.

Colloquial language exercises the use of predictors by giving examples. If I want to explain to a child what the expression “fruit” means, I say, an apple is a fruit, for example. I am using the expressions “fruit” and “apple” as predictors, and I call the sentence “A fruit is for example an apple” a predication. In empirical sciences we use predictors that the scientific community had explicitly agreed on with the help of rules for predictors. We define the expression “term” as a predictor that had been explicitly agreed on as an element of a scientific language (Kamlah, Wilhelm, and Paul Lorenzen. 1973. Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. 78. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut). For constructing a definition, I need at least two rules for predictors. The first rule says: The object x is called “term” passes to x is called predictor. The second rule says: x is called “term” passes to x is explicitly agreed on (ibid.). For defining the term “whale” the scientific community explicitly agrees to the predictor “mammal”: A whale is a mammal (ibid. 77).

Predication investigates how predictors refer to objects in speech-acts of empirical science. Predictors are so to say characteristics, significant differences, descriptions of a small cutout of reality, or elements of a picture. The problem with the expression “Go’d” arises that all religions of the world can agree on their use of the expression, but nobody is capable of presenting an empiric predictor for “Go’d”. This is a mandatory reason, why empirical science does not use the word “Go’d”. The expression “Go’d” does not refer to an object of science. The expression “Go’d” should be used in theology and by women, men and queer believers in Go’d in a very humble and cautious way. If I would be coherent with the agreed logic, that we cannot know Go’d, but that we can believe in Go’d, we can speak of our inner experiences, that is, we can form predictors describing our experiences, but we cannot speak of Go’d. It does not make sense to use the name Go’d, other than to indicate that we do not know any predictor that we could use to describe Go’d. Logically, speaking of Go’d means, I am caught in a contradiction. Taking seriously, that we cannot say anything about Go’d, because we do not know anything about Go’d, Martin Luther has a strong point in claiming that I cannot want anything concerning Go’d, because I simply do not know anything about Go’d, there is no free will. I cannot want something that I cannot know. I want something that I know. This is the reason why I have to work for my integrity and cannot hope that Go’d is doing that work for me. Women, men and queer have got everything necessary for sustaining their integrity and dignity. Martin Luther is right, that I am called to believe in Go’d, and to put my whole existence at the disposal of faith and the experiences of faith, that is the experience of the certitude of my salvation.

The Joint Declaration really testifies the common faith of Lutherans and Catholics in Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding this confession of the common faith in Jesus Christ, the center of a Christian existence, the joint celebration of the Eucharist is not possible. The separation of the tables celebrating the Eucharist is not ended by the Joint Declaration. On matters of Church structure, the Roman Catholic hierarchy sticks to its privileges and the faithful of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church must suffer from this separation in their families, with their friends, sisters, and brothers in Christ. It is true what Hilberath says commenting Unitatis Redintegratio 22: The resistance to overcoming the separated tables of the Eucharist because the Lutheran Church does not follow the Roman Catholic dictates of the primacy of the Roman pope, amounts to a great scandal (Hilberath 2005b, 185).