Archbishop Eames introduces the Church of Ireland response to Dominus Iesus at the Inter-Church Consulation held in Dundalk on 5th December 2000

I have rarely if ever come to an inter-Church gathering with a heavier heart or more troubled mind. I feel sad that this meeting is necessary. As an Anglican and a convinced ecumenist I believe that the pilgrimage of Christians towards full understanding of each other's views is not of our making. It is a response to the call of Christ. That pilgrimage has at times been painfully slow - at times its speed has been breathtaking. But it has I believe been marked by growing maturity - and nowhere more clearly than here in Ireland. Through dialogue at the highest level and co-operation at parish level has come humility. With dialogue has come new evidence of trust. With dialogue has come a new koinonia. But dialogue depends on human language and human thought forms. It is therefore disappointing when the frailty of language exposes attitudes which can be perceived to place obstacles to that greater understanding rather than encouragement to greater understanding of God's purpose for His Body, the Church.

I find myself addressing the issue on two levels. Here at home in the Church of Ireland we have rejoiced as co-operation and shared understanding has become so visible in the realities of everyday experience of inter-Church witness. Things are possible today which would have been unthinkable when I was ordained. Friendship between clergy at all levels has never been more visible. Over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland events which could have divided have often had the effect of drawing us closer together.

But I also address this discussion as a Primate of the Anglican Communion. At that international level conversations, dialogue and discussions over the years have produced so much which is valuable, so much which is worthwhile and so much which has shown us the will of the Spirit for the Churches. I am certain that when the Primates of the Anglican Communion meet in the United States next March under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury we will be considering the document at that international level.

Let me now try to 'speak the true in love' from a Church of Ireland perspective.

As Anglicans we were encouraged by the positive nature of the Anglican-Roman Catholic consultation at Mississauga, Toronto, earlier this year. It had been convened by Cardinal Cassidy and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Official Statement spoke of the participants' profound sense of 'spiritual communion'. It said that those who had participated believe that our two communions had 'reached a very significant new place on our journey.' There was also reference to a 'new stage of communion in mission.' This heartening sense of hope for the future seemed to have brought some warmth into what many had felt was an 'ecumenical winter.' But that hope was not to last for long because of the declaration, Dominus Iesus. So much of Dominus Iesus is devoted to the relationship between Christianity and other faiths and we feel it is inappropriate that relationships between the Churches should be dealt with in that context. However we acknowledge and can identify with the emphasis in Dominus Iesus on the uniqueness of the Christian revelation in the context of inter-faith relations, even if it is put somewhat starkly.

The general tone of Dominus Iesus is in fact surprisingly uncompromising. It does not reflect the atmosphere and manner in which we have become accustomed to relate to one another and certainly reflects nothing of the tone of the Mississauga Statement.

Dominus Iesus appears to us simply to restate the position of the Roman Catholic Church on its understanding of the Church as enunciated by Vatican II.

Disappointingly it does not show any sign that all the ecumenical dialogue since then has made any impact on Vatican thinking. Indeed the decades since Vatican II have been marked by so much inter-Church dialogue - both bilateral and multilateral - that they might even be described in historical terms as an era of dialogue. But in what way has this in fact borne fruit in the SCDF's understanding of the Church? What influence has all this dialogue had on Vatican thought-processes? Apparently none.
Dominus Iesus, like One Bread One Body, seems to us to be quite out of touch with attitudes in general. Many Roman Catholics have spoken to us of their embarrassment by these documents. These texts appear to us to be out of touch with the sensus fidelium and they clearly are out of touch with our times. Some people have now sadly questioned - and even worse, doubted - the point of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. That is nothing less than a tragedy.

The central thrust of Dominus Iesus in terms of ecclesiology is that those Churches which Rome does not think have preserved a proper ministry and sacraments are not proper Churches. Rome is the standard and the more like Rome one is the more authentic as a 'Church' one is. But no Church can claim that degree of perfection.

Is it possible to be the Church only to a certain degree as Vatican II's ecclesiology holds? Can there really be degrees of ecclesial-ness? Rome recognises our baptism and calls us Christians. Yet, how can there be Christians who are not fully part of the Body of Christ, the Church? It is our view that the ecclesiology of Vatican II is flawed in this way. That flaw was repeated in One Bread One Body and now has been repeated in Dominus Iesus. But people generally, even many Roman Catholics, are discovering how wrong the basic Vatican II ecclesiological presuppositions are.

We welcomed Vatican II because it was a significant advance on what had gone before, but not because we agreed with all that it said. It is not for any Church to try to determine the boundaries of the Church of God by juridical means. The Church is in fact determined not by being in communion with any human being but by being 'in Christ'. There is mystery to this and for that reason the Church and its boundaries are better discerned by us rather than determined by us.

Vatican II encouraged and even inspired a previous generation. But what encourages and inspires one generation will not necessarily do the same for the next. Actual ecumenical movement is vital, for without it we quite simply have ecumenical stagnation.

Where is Dominus Iesus taking us? What does it say to an increasingly sceptical world? It surely does not so much speak of Christians loving one another but rather more of Christians judging one another. Is that what we want to show the world? Is that the message that we want to give the world - a Christianity that is not even at ease with itself let alone with the rest of the world? Surely not. What is the vision for ecumenism that underlies Dominus Iesus, if it is not simply to be a case of returning to the Roman fold? Ecumenical dialogue has not been marked by that kind of demand and it would be highly unfortunate to say the least if that is in fact the underlying message of Dominus Iesus. Without exaggerating we would then have to sit down and re-map the entire ecumenical landscape. That is surely not where any of us wants to be.