¹ This term was originally used by Rudolf Bultmann, who, despite his demythologizing the New Testament, sought in the Christusereignis as a present experience a replication of Martin Luther's fides ex auditu (Rom 10:17), appealing also to John 5:24f. How, partly under the influence of Gerhardt Ebeling, the term Christ Event came to be used by church historians also for the past, the complex of the life and death of Jesus and the interpretation thereof as Christology and soteriology, I have touched upon in “Christianity,” Religion, Whaling, Frank, ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1983).Google Scholar

² Scherer, Jean, ed., Sources Chrétiennes 67 (1960)Google Scholar; English and German translations also available. With respect to the theme of Part I, my topic has been dealt with in [Lukas Vischer], Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, WCC Studies 5 (1968); [Werner Küppers], Councils, Conciliarity, and Genuinely Universal Council, Faith and Order Paper, No. 70.Google Scholar

³ The 8th Ecumenical Council by Roman reckoning had oikoumenical significance within very narrow bounds, involving at most the person of the scholarly Photius (ca. 810–ca. 895) and competition between Rome and Constantinople over the missionizing of the Bulgarians and the stand of Photius against the Filioque. Although the Council of 869–70 confirmed in Constantinople the anathema of the synod of Rome of the same year against Patriarch Photius, at a council of 879–80 in Constantinople the papal legates reversed the condemnation of a decade earlier, though that council is still reckoned as “ecumenical” and decisive. Francis Dvornik, a Catholic, clarified the situation: The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1948; reprint ed., 1970).Google ScholarMeyendorff, John rightly asks: “Can we today jointly accept the [second] Photian Council of 879–80 as ecumenical?” (collected essays, Living Tradition, Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World [Crestwood, NJ: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1978] 11).Google Scholar Dvornik, in another work, is the source of the idea that the ecumenical conciliar protocol was derived from the Roman Senate and its counterpart after 330 in Constantinople (“Emperors, Popes, and General Councils,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951] 1–23Google Scholar, esp. 19–23) in this going beyond the Catholic Modernist Pierre Batiffol; also most recently, see Sieben, Hermann J., Die Konzilsidee der Allen Kirche (Paderborn: Schönigh, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Meyendorff, John, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantine-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (London: Cambridge University, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵ See Hallerbach, Marion, Das Religionsgespräch als Mittel der Konfessionellen und Politischen Auseindandersetzung im Deutschland des 16. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt/Bern: Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1982)Google Scholar; Patterson, W. Brown, “King James I's Call for an Ecumenical Council,” in Councils and Assemblies, Cuming, C. J. and Baker, Derek, eds., Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1971) 267–75.Google Scholar

⁶ The text is readily accessible in Constantin Patelos, G., ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statement 1902–1975 (Geneva: WCC, 1978) 40–43.Google Scholar

⁷ Of the many accounts, the most recent is that of Hooft, W. A. Visser 't, The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC, 1982)Google Scholar, which carries the story through the meeting of the Central Committee in Toronto of 1950, with its Statement on “The Church, the churches and the World Council of Churches,” included among the five appendices. The standard work for the development before Amsterdam is that edited by Rouse, Ruth and Neill, Stephen C., A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517–1948 (2d ed. with revised bibliography; London: SPCK, 1970).Google Scholar In chap. 12, Lukas Vischer of Faith and Order and the chief representative of the WCC at Vatican II deals with “The Ecumenical Movement and the Roman Catholic Church” from the end of World War II through the participation of designated Roman Catholics in the Uppsala Assembly of 1968 and the permission for Catholic theologians to become full members of the Faith and Order Commission but closes before the arrival of Paul VI himself in Geneva in 1969. Johnson, David E. rehearsed major events in Uppsala to Nairobi, 1968–1975 (London: SPCK; New York: Friendship, 1975)Google Scholar and Leon Howell did something comparable for 1975–82 in Acting in Faith: The World Council of Churches since 1975 (Geneva: WCC, 1982).Google ScholarLefever, Earnest W. critically assessed the support of freedom fighters in the Third World in Amsterdam to Nairobi (Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, Georgetown University, 1979).Google Scholar

⁸ Harakas, Stanley S., Something is Stirring in World Orthodoxy: Issues at the Forthcoming Great and Holy Council (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1978).Google Scholar

⁹ Gregorios, Paulos, Lazareth, William H., Nissiotis, Nikos A., eds., Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology (Geneva: WCC, 1981). The non-Chalcedonians here are the Monophysites, with whom the Orthodox could agree, since “our common Father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria,” had used both one physis and one hypostasis with reference to God's Word incarnate. Agreements from the first meeting in Aarhus are printed, along with other documents of a date much earlier than that of the publication, as, for example, an intervention of Georges Florovsky (d. 1979) on symmetric and asymmetric Christology of the two natures.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wolf, Hans Heinrich, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirch: Moers, 1958).Google Scholar

¹¹ Baker, J. Wayne, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant )Athens, OH+Ohio University, 1980).Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Preus, James Samuel, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther )Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969) Part II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ (Geneva: WCC, 1981) 44–63, esp. 48–49.

¹⁴ I have put a provisionally benign interpretation of the reserve of the Pope in dealing with the WCC, for he had planned to go to Geneva when stopped short of his goal by the attempt on his life, 13 May 1981. For his preference for bilateral consultations, see The Mind of John Paul II (New York: Seabury, 1981)Google Scholar chap. 10:8, “The Ecumenism of John Paul II,” JES (Fall 1982)Google Scholar, not identical with “The Ecumenical Intentions of Pope John Paul II,” HTR 75 (1982) 141–76Google Scholar, wherein the eschatological context of papal thought is stressed; and for the socio-political context, The Contours of Church, State, and Society in John Paul II (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lutheran World Federation, Agenda of the Executive Committee (1975); quoted by Duchrow, mentioned in the paragraph, p. 185.

¹⁶ “Versöhnte Verschiedenheit: Korrekturen am Konzept der ‘Konziliaren Gemeinschaft,’” Lutherische Monatshefte 14 (1975) 678Google Scholar; more fully in Ökumenische Rundschau 17 (1978) 377–400. Duchrow holds that local conciliar fellowship leads to organic union and that reconciled diversity is a disguised perpetuation of fundamental diversity based on world denominational families and inimicable to the deepest yearnings of the churches and the assignment laid upon them by Christ.

His stand, as a Lutheran, should be assessed in historical context. At the founding of the WCC in 1948, Lutherans in general and from the U.S. in particular, notably those bodies grouped around the United Lutheran Church in America (destined in 1962 with others to form the Lutheran Church in America), as five charter member denominations, insisted that the emergent WCC represent church bodies (not agencies or councils) with due consideration of both confession and geography and that it merely “receive” rather than “adapt” reports lest it be gradually transformed into an ecumenical superchurch. See Flesner, Dorris A., American Lutherans Help Shape World Council (St. Louis: Lutheran Historical Conference, 1981).Google Scholar

¹⁷ This work is continuous with the previous survey of Orthodoxy in the WCC, noted above, n. 6.

¹⁸ Loc. cit., 71.

¹⁹ Besides the two modern studies mentioned above (n. 2), there are What Kind of Unity? (Faith and Order Paper 69; Geneva: WCC, 1974)Google Scholar and Song, Choan-Seng, Growing Together into Unity (Texts of the Faith and Order Commission on Conciliar Fellowship; Madras: Diocesan Press of the Church of South India; Geneva: WCC, 1978).Google Scholar The place of publication of the latter is itself symptomatic of the special sense of urgency for organic unity in parts of the world where Christianity is a minority religion and where the technical language of the schisms of 431, 451, 1054, and 1517 seems remote. In the last signed article of the second work cited above, Lukas Vischer writes of the “Origin and Meaning of the Concept ‘Conciliar Fellowship,’” 182–94. Although Vischer seems to have originated the term, the best history and pre-history of the concept is that of Nelson, J. Robert (“Conciliarity/Conciliar Fellowship,” Mid-Stream 17 [1978] 97–116), who at the time of composition thought the concept might be “a deliberate inhibition of the full, visible union.” He is the only one to have wrestled with whether in positive conciliarity denominations disappear.Google Scholar

²⁰ Councils (1968) 10.Google Scholar

²¹ The Uppsala Report 1968, Goodall, Norman, ed. (Geneva: WCC, 1968) 7–20, esp. 15; and 222–28, esp. 223.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 17, 19; see again Lukas Vischer, “Drawn Together by the Reconciling Power of Christ,” Unity 7–31, esp. 29–30.

²³ The Salamanca formulations are accessible in Unity, 119–30, esp. 121.

²⁴ Breaking Barriers: Nairobi 1975: The Official Report of the Fifth Assembly, Paton, David M., ed. (London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 60.Google Scholar

²⁵ Norgren, William A., director, Mid-Stream 21 (1982) 243–68.Google Scholar

²⁶ The two documents arè numbered respectively Faith and Order Paper 111 and 113.

²⁷ The Uppsala Report, pp. 13 n. 27, 17 n. 20.

²⁸ Growing Together, vi. The beginnings of the Church of South India antedate the independence of India after World War II.

²⁹ The Consultation was proposed in a sermon by Eugene Carson Blake in 1960 in Grace Cathedral in San Francisco during the episcopate of James Pike, and the Blake-Pike proposal became the Consultation in Washington, D.C. in 1962. The Midpoint was thus in reference to the expected consummation of Union by 1982.

³⁰ Nelson's original work was published in Leiden (Brill, 1971); the co-edited German version in Frankfurt (Lembeck, 1973).

³¹ On convergence, see Mühlen, Heribert, “Konvergenz als Strukturprinzip eines Kommenden universalen Konzils aller Christen,” Ökumenische Rundschau 3 (1972) 289–315. See further, Küppers, Councils, 21 n. 18. For a succinct assessment of Ecclesiam suam in context, see Lukas Vischer, “Catholic Church,” Ecumenical Advance, 337. For my succinct remarks about John Paul II, see my writings on him cited in nn. 1 and 14.Google Scholar

³² I have not included here the Anglican Branch Theory of the church, as it no longer enters into ecumenical discussion. Although it has a seventeenth-century origin, the term developed in the Oxford Movement and found its fullest expression in William Palmer (above near p. 12), Treatise of the Church of Christ (1838). Though an organic model, it grew from the soil of a continent destined to be utterly ravaged a century later. In holding open the Reformed and the newer “Lutheran” proposal model of unity as alternative to conciliar fellowship leading to organic union, I simply take note of a mood described by Lukas Vischer in 1979: “It is as if, after years of strenuous endeavour on behalf of the common witness of Christians, a certain fatigue had set in. The more immediate circle of unity is preferred to the wider fellowship.” Quoted by Howell, Faith, 60. Moreover, as a church historian I have observed that in the ecclesiastical mathematics of merger 1 plus 1 often equals not 2 but 4.Google Scholar

³³ An early volunteer was Poulton, John, The Feast of Life: A Theological Reflection on the Theme—Jesus Christ: the Life of the World (Geneva: WCC, 1982).Google ScholarNelson, J. Robert anticipated the Vancouver theme in “Ecumenism in Quest for Life,” JES 13 (1976) 162–69.Google ScholarFiorenza, Francis Schüssler in “Christology after Vatican II,” The Ecumenist 17:6 (1980) 81–89Google Scholar, while not directing his remarks toward the, at the time, unknown Vancouver theme, makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Christocentrism of Catholic theological work that has its influence on the Vancover theme. Raiser, Konrad in “Jesus Christ—the Life of the World: A Meditation,” Ecumenical Review 23 (1981) 232–44Google Scholar, traces the way in which the master themes have functioned, which he would like to think of as “a continuous exegesis of the Basis enlarged in 1961, of the WCC as a fellowship of churches” (p. 233), but observed that there has been, in fact, little interconnection or cross-reference. Samartha, Stanley in “Unwrapping the Gift of Life: Some Reflections on the Vancouver Assembly,” Ecumenical Review 33 (1982) 104–16Google Scholar, writing from an Indian perspective, spoke of death as the great equalizer and then with a glance at religions other than Christianity: “On the river of life there are many boats seeking to cross over to the other side.” Ans van der Bent supplied in the same issue a valuable “Documentary Survey of the Sixth Assembly Theme,” Ibid. 117–27.

³⁴ Chalcedon, 121–26, esp. 123; see my own “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948–1965)” GOTR 11 (1965) 7–107Google Scholar, supplemented by the Faculty Minute, Harvard Gazette (1 October 1982) 5, 11.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lyons, J. A., The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin (Oxford: Oxford University, 1982).Google Scholar

³⁶ Uppsala Report, 224, 223; cf. 11–18.

³⁷ Unity, 122, item 1.

³⁸ Concilium 118 (8/1978): Ecumenism (New York: Seabury/Crossroad, 1979).Google ScholarPubMed

³⁹ “Jesus Christ—the Life of the World: Five Theological Questions,” Ecumenical Review 34 (1982) 147–58; quotations in foregoing paragraph, 148, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (Jezus: het verhaal van een Levende, 1975; New York: Seabury, 1979)Google Scholar; Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord (New York: Seabury, 1980)Google Scholar; Ministry: Leadership in the Community of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1981).Google Scholar John Nienhuis in his review of the christological achievement of Schillebeeckx to date, entitles it “The Ecumenical Christ,” JES 17 (1980) 125ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Brown, Raymond Edward, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979)Google Scholar and The Epistles of John with Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1982).Google Scholar

⁴² Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, pastor and scholar of the Netherlands Reformed Church, in a paper read in Odessa, October 1981, wrote incisively, in the form of several theses, what I have set forth for the New Testament Epoch and the Patristic Age. In Thesis 5 she says that the New Testament assigns to Jesus Christ three functions: mediatorship of creation, revelation of God, and the salvation of humankind. In Theses 1 and 2 she deals with Jesus Christ as Kurios, but she does not refer directly to “the subversive fulfilment” (Josiah Royce) of the prophecy of righteous kingship (the messianic rule). For her paper, see Visible Unity, 2. 101–12. She is further helpful in saying that Jewish theology was “relational” rather than “ontological.” Pannenberg, Wolfhart (Grundzüge der Christologie [Gutersloh: Mohr, 1964] 121–23) limits the mediatorial role to the cosmological and soteriological function.Google Scholar

⁴³ Lohse, Edward, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968)Google Scholar; Wengst, Klaus, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (Bonn: Universität Bonn, 1967)Google Scholar esp. 173. Percy, Ernst (Die Probleme der Kolosser—und Epheserbriefe [Lund: Gleerup, 1946] 68)Google Scholar asserted that no other Pauline passage had “such a high Christology” and it has been a major factor in sanctioning the cosmic Christology important in the the twentieth century. For the modern history of the treatment of the Colossian hymn modified by the author of Colossians, see Hans-Jakob Gabathuler, Jesus Christus, Haupt der Kirche—Haupt der Welt: Der Christushymnus Colosser 1:15–20 in der theologischen Forschung der lelzen 130 Jahre (Abhundlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 45; Zurich: 1965). In a most recent study, “Christological tendenz in Colossians 1:15–20: A Theologia Crucis” (Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. MacArthur, Berkey, Robert F. and Edwards, Sarah A., eds. [New York: Pilgrim, 1982] 123–38)Google Scholar, Wayne G. Rollins is disposed to return to insights of Lohse, arguing that “this cosmological train of thought [is by Paul, as presumptive author, given] a new direction by designating the church as a place where in the present Christ exercises rule over the cosmos,” and Rollins adds: “the theologia crucis in Colossians remains the controlling christological motif.”

However exalted the cosmological texts in the New Testament may be and also in the pre-Nicene theologians and synodal decisions, there was a subordinationist motif with respect to the Hypostasis embodied in Jesus Christ; and this motif has for some acquired the term in German of Engelcristologie (the pre-existent Christ, for example, present at the oaks of Mamre with Abram and Sara); see Werner, Martin, Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas problemgeschichtlich dargestellt (Bern/Leipzig: Haupt, 1941)Google Scholar and Kretschmar, George, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitäatstheologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1956) 64–124.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Georgi, Dieter, “Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2:6–11,” Zeit und Geschichte., Dinkier, Erich, ed. (Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann; Tübingen: Mohr, 1964) 262–93.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bardy, Gustave, Recherche sur saint Lucien d'Antioche el son Ecole (Paris: Beauchesne, 1936).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The documents, many of them tendentious, and modified to supply a heretical pedigree for later Nestorians or Apollinarians, are chronologically ordered and interpreted; see Bardy, Gustav, Paul de Samosate: Etude historique (2d ed., completely redone; Louvain, 1929)Google Scholar; and most recently by Riedmatten, Henri de, Les Acres du procé de Paul de Samosate (Fribourg, 1952).Google ScholarSample, Robert L. (“The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268 C.E.) Reconsidered,” CH 48 [1979] 18–26)Google Scholar is most interested in the Christology of the Origenist party and allies who dethroned Bishop Paul but holds, against Riedmatten, that the best reading of Paul can be obtained from The Letter of Six Bishops, probably written in connection with the first assault of 264 when they might have thought they could persuade Paul to change his position. He also holds that Bardy confuses the Triadology and Christology of Bishop Paul by wrongly insisting that the presbyter Malchion featured in the Acta expresses the same doctrine as the six bishops. The otherwise quite useful work of D. D. Wallace-Hadrill does not deal with some of the above studies. (Christian Antioch: A Study of Christian Thought of the East [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982] 64–76, 80–85).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Wolfson, Harry A. (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1970] 3. 192–231) traces how the Philonic two-stage theory of the Logos, beginning with Justin Martyr and continuing in Lactantius, became the single-stage, eternally generated Logos, first perceived by Irenaeus: “For a time this single-stage theory flourished by the side of the two-fold stage theory and then supplanted it” (192–231, esp. 198). Wolfson notes that there was never a conciliar decision condemning the two-stage theory of the interpretation of John's prologue, but it survived as orthodox, fleetingly in Clement of Alexandria; and there was one largely unnoticed relapse into the two-stage theory in Zeno of Verona.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ It was in The Letter of the Six Bishops, article 9 (Bardy, Paul, 18), that the cosmological passages cited earlier from Scripture, beginning with Lam 4:20, are adduced to make Christ preexistent within the Godhead in opposition to Bishop Paul.

⁴⁹ Schaff, Philip, Creeds of Christendom (3 vols; 3d revised and enlarged ed.; New York: Harper, 1881) 2. 25–28Google Scholar; also accessible in Greek and another English translation with updated interpretation of the conciliar situation, Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.; Singapore: Longman, 1972) 268–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Gregg, Robert C. and Groh, Dennis E., “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism,” ATS 59 (1977) 260–78Google Scholar, in which they largely absorbed their jointly authored Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Simonetti, Manlio, La crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (Studia Ephemeridis ‘Augustinianum’ 11; Rome: Institutum Patristicum, 1975)Google Scholar; Lorenz, Rudolf, Arius judaizans?: Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979)Google Scholar; Kopecek, Thomas A., A History of Neo-Arianism (2 vols.; Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979).Google Scholar

⁵² Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16; 17; 22; cf. 1 Cor 6:18, also a function with reference to the Father from Hos 1:10 and Isa 43:6.

⁵³ Orationes contra Arianos 2 (the Logos Pantokrator), PG 26. 329B; Epistola de decretis Nicaenae Synodi 30 (Logos, Sophia, Huios: Pantokrator), PG 25. 472B; Epistola II ad Serapionem, 2 (the Son: Pantokrator), PG 26. 609C; Epistola de synodis Arimini et Seluciae celebratis 49 PG 26 780C. It is here, in quoting I Cor 8:6 where Paul speaks of Christ “through whom are all things,” that Athanasius came close to saying lesous Christos Pantokrator.

⁵⁴ PG 7. 1039.

⁵⁵ PL 172. 956. For illustrations, see Martin, Stanley Werner, The ‘Majestas Domini’ and the Eastern Penetration of Hiberno-Saxon Art: Study of Iconographic Sources (New York: New York University, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Liber III, distinctio vi; PL 192. 767A–71B; for the extensive secondary literature, see the 3d critical ed., Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 2 vols. (Grottaferrata: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1971; 1981) 2, 49–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Liber III, distinctiones xv-xx, particularly xiv. 6 and 7; PL 192. 785A–800B. For the development of Triadology between II Constantinople and IV Lateran, see Margerie, Bertrand de, S.J., The Christian Trinity in History (French ed., 1974; Still River, MA: St. Bede's, 1981)Google Scholar chap. 3. For the attempts of the schoolmen to solve afresh in Latin terminology the problem of the hypostatic union, see Principe, Walter Henry's Theology of the Hypostatic Union in the Early 13th Century (4 vols.; Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1963) esp. 1. 9–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Letter to the archbishop of Ravenna, 1198; PL 214. 21. The monopolization of the judgment of the spiritual man comes from 1 Cor 2:15 by way of the Dicatus Papae, item 19.

⁵⁹ Lubac, Henri de in Corpus mysticum: L'eucharistie et l'Eglise an moyen âge (2d ed.; Paris: Aubier, 1949)Google Scholar showed how in the course of the eucharistic controversy, climaxing in the IV Lateran definition, earlier references to the eucharistic body as corpus mysticum became unacceptable and by virtue of the dogma of transubstantiation it became known as corpus Christi with the consequence that the medieval term corpus Christi mysticum was released to serve as a term for the church and Christendom. Ernst Kantorowicz took over this observation important for his study of medieval political theology, The King's Two Bodies (Princeton: Princeton University, 1957).Google Scholar See also on sacral kingship his earlier Laudes regiae (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California,, 1946).Google Scholar The defiant Norman archbishop of Rouen, possibly Archbishop Bona Anima, had actually used unctus and christus of the English king and Norman duke. See my Norman Anonymous of ca. 1100 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951)Google Scholar; Koch, Gottfried, Auf dem Wege zum Sacrum Imperium (Vienna: Bhlaus, 1972).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ The use of the unconsecrated wafer seems to be distinctively Polish. I show the background of the custom in The Mind of John Paul II, 42, 48.

⁶¹ The principal theorist was Alexander von Roes. I mention him and discuss the transfer of the university theme connected with the triplex munus Christi in my “Translatio studii: The Puritans' Conception of Their First University in New England, 1636,” Festschrift für Heinrich Bornkamm, ARC 66 (1966) 152–81.Google Scholar For a recent comprehensive account, see Schick, Ludwig, Das Dreifche Amt Christi und der Kirche (Frankfurt/Bern: Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1982).Google Scholar

⁶² Luther's Three Symbols is printed in the Werke (Weimar Ausgabe) 50. 262–83. A recent study of Luther, rehearsing his views on the Trinity from 1520 to 1546, is that of Jansen, Reiner, Studien zu Luthers Trinitätslehre (Bern/Frankfurt: Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1976).Google Scholar For a less conventional interpretation, see Loeschen, John R., The Divine Community: Trinity, Church, and Ethics (Kirksville, MO: Northeast Missouri State University, 1981)Google Scholar, which brings together Luther, Menno Simons (who had only a vestigial doctrine thereof), and Calvin. For the problem of the Mediator in Calvin, Pannenberg notes the novum (Christologie, 122). I have not fully developed or documented the Christology of Calvin here directly, having done that in some detail in “Strains in the Christology of the Emerging Polish Brethren,” The Polish Renaissance in its European Context, Fiszman, Samuel, ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1983).Google Scholar

⁶³ The authority here is Willis, E. David, Calvin's Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin's Theology (Leiden: Brill, 1966) with ample sections on Christ the Mediator and the triplex munus Christi. Willis represented the Reformed position in an impressive way in Kung & Moltmann, An Ecumenical Confession, in an answer wherein he seems to have found a place even for the papal magisterium.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. the work of another Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan, who took the New Delhi theme as his own for the Gray, James A. Lectures at Duke University in 1960, The Light of the World: A Basic Image in Early Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ New York: Harper, 1941.

⁶⁶ Neu Delhi, Dokumente, Lüpsen, Focko, ed. (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1962) 3–11.Google Scholar The counterpart English Report (Hooft, W. A. Visser 't, ed. [London/New York: Association Press, 1962])Google Scholar does not give Sittler's address, since it had already been published in Ecumenical Review 14:2 (January 1962).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. above, n. 35.

⁶⁸ Uppsala Report, 293–303.

⁶⁹ Among the many preparatory papers, we have noted several: nn. 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 33, 38, 39, 42, 70.

⁷⁰ These appear in Ecumenical Review 34 (1982) 290–95Google Scholar; 285–94; and 391–411. The Orthodox Statement is printed also in the larger Jesus Christ the Life of the World: An Orthodox Contribution to the Vancouver Theme, Bria, Ion, ed. (Geneva: WCC, 1982) 1–14.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cited were Basil the Great Refutation of Eunomius's Apology 2.18; Athanasius Contra Arianos 3.12–4; Gregory of Nyssa Contra Eunomium 11.3.

⁷² Adversus haereses 2.22.6; based on John 7:56–57.

⁷³ Adversus haereses 3.18.1; 4.34.1.

⁷⁴ Pannenberg deals with the problem of christologically anchored freedom in Christologie, 302–11.

⁷⁵ This is the title of Lutheran Jaroslav Pelikan's Thomas Jefferson Lecture for 1983, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, D.C.

⁷⁶ Lifton, Robert Jay, “Medicalized Killing in Auschwitz,” Psychiatry 45 (November 1982) 283–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁷⁷ The phrase has a Revolutionary origin, to be sure; the state is New Hampshire.