(In the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops (10-24 October, 2010), each member was allotted five minutes for an initial intervention, to be submitted in writing beforehand.)
In many languages, the word “church” has a variety of meanings. A church is a building where people pray. “Teachings of the church” refers the magisterium. “Local church” often refers to the geographical area of a diocese or eparchy. “Sui iuris church” implies both a geographical area and a body of the Christian faithful bound by similar laws, heritage and customs.
Years ago, Cardinal Avery Dulles published a theological work called “Models of the Church”. He suggested that the mystery of the Church can be described from various points of view, none of which is adequate to describe its entire reality.
We use “models” of church, whether we are conscious of it or not. For example, if you studied in a pre-Vatican II seminary, you learned the classic description of the church as a perfect society. The encyclical, “Mystici Corporis Christi”, balanced this with an emphasis on the invisible, spiritual reality of the church. Vatican II offered the image of the church as the “pilgrim People of God”. These are all models.
What was the early model of church, before Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire? It shows itself in the early church’s understanding of unity. Unity was fostered and recognized by ties of “pax et communio.”
This aspect of the church is a central theme of our deliberations. It stresses that the church is held together not primarily by juridical or sacramental ties but by the action of the Holy Spirit and personal bonds among its members. These bonds are nurtured, as the word “communio” suggests, by frequent and regular communication.
Our contemporary world understands this model very well — it is the essence of the internet, the powerful communication tool that is revolutionizing modern society. The name is very accurate; it truly is a network. The church itself, as a “communio”, has this aspect of a personal communications network in the Spirit.
Why bring up these considerations of ecclesiology? Because unconsciously our models of church affect our practical decisions and preoccupations.
For example, the question of jurisdiction over Eastern Christians in “the diaspora”: According to the Eastern Code, the jurisdiction of Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops is limited to their historical homelands; this presumes a territorial, geographical model of a sui iuris church. If we view such a church more as a personal network, geography is less significant and restriction of authority, less appropriate.
A second example, the immemorial principle of one bishop for each place: This presumes that “local church” means a body of Christian people living in a defined geographical area. However, if participation and communication in a personal network describe a local church, geography ceases to be the defining factor. There can be many different personal networks and many “local ordinaries” functioning in the same area.
A related example concerns interchurch relations: Since, in the perspective of church as a personal network, the peaceful coexistence of many different rites and churches in the same territory is normal, rivalries and attempts by one rite or church to recruit members from and to dominate another are inappropriate.
Canon law tends to favor a geographic notion of church. For example, there is a presumption that people live “in” a parish — but in most urban areas, people chose their parish regardless of where they live. In this case, seeking recommendations and permissions from their local, territorial pastor is awkward and usually pro forma.
Emigration can be seen in a similar way: If our concern for Middle East Christians is predominantly geographic — that they stay “in” their homelands — it is distressing to witness the steadily declining number of native Christians. However, if our concern for Middle East Christians East is personal, we can celebrate the flourishing life of those who choose to live in other parts of the world.
The “communio” of the church grows with increasing, deeper, and more effective communication. From this perspective, as we look at the churches in the Middle East and around the world, thanks be to God the church of Christ is gradually becoming more and more “one”. On the other hand, if our model of church union and unity is predominately societal and jurisdictional, then full union is an unattainable ideal.
Finally, understanding “communio” as stemming not so much from juridical or merely sacramental ties as from participation in a personal network animated by the Spirit of Christ is very important not only regarding ecumenism but also interreligious relations.
Building interreligious relations has the same challenge of increasing personal communication. Through sharing of resources, exchange of visits, common reflection, and better understanding of ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences, personal networks can and will grow — not only networks joining together believers in the one God but also joining together all spiritual and religious persons and all men and women of good will — ultimately, the whole human family.