Catholic World News News Feature
Restoring Communion between East and West February 01, 2005
Michael J. Miller
After many centuries, the relics of two Greek Fathers of the Church, former Patriarchs of Constantinople, have finally gone home.
In November of last year, Pope John Paul II returned the relics of St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen to Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople during a solemn ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica. The Holy Father’s momentous goodwill gesture was greeted by the Orthodox Synod in what is now Istanbul, Turkey, as “a very important step toward full unity between our two churches.” It appears that the immediate consequence will be the resumption of the official Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue, which has been stalled since the last meeting of the Joint International Commission in Baltimore in July 2000.
SO NEAR AND YET SO FAR
Bishops from all five continents who had gathered at the Second Vatican Council declared that the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to the ecumenical effort. This call to work for the reunion of Christians met at first with great enthusiasm, because there was a widespread sentiment in the Western world during the 1960s that the world was becoming a smaller, more interconnected place.
True ecumenism, however, is not just a passing trend or an optimistic reading of the signs of the times. It is a theological imperative, based on Christ’s own words. On the night he was betrayed, Jesus gave himself to his disciples in the Eucharist and then prayed for them to his heavenly Father, “That they may all be one.” (Jn 17:21) This unity is part of the Lord’s “last will and testament” and remains an essential feature of the Church that he founded.
The Catholic Church, while proclaiming herself to be that one true Church, has always acknowledged that the fullness of the Eucharist, the priesthood, and the other sacraments has been preserved also in the separated Orthodox churches of the East.
In December 1965, as the fourth and final session of Vatican II was reaching its conclusion, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople withdrew the mutual excommunications of 1054 AD, which had perpetuated the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity. After the Council, fraternal relations began between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches, with delegations exchanging visits on the feast days of Saints Peter and Paul and Saint Andrew, their respective patrons.
Because Catholics and Orthodox Christians are so close in their profession of faith and in their celebration of the same sacraments, the official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue raised high hopes when it began in 1980. For a variety of complex reasons, unfortunately, the sporadic meetings of a Joint International Commission of Catholic and Orthodox scholars have produced disappointing results.
A SCHOLARLY ASSESSMENT
Father Adriano Garuti, OFM, a professor of ecclesiology and ecumenism at the Atonianum in Rome, has served with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 30 years. In 2000 he published a collection of his scholarly articles under the title, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue. (An English-language edition became available in 2004). The second chapter of the book explains “The Orthodox View of the Primacy,” and painstakingly analyzes the documents of the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue with respect to this subject. In his view, the picture that has emerged is “far from rosy.” All too often the dialogue has been at the mercy of external circumstances. The war in Bosnia made scheduling meetings with the Orthodox difficult during the early 1990s. A planned 1996 meeting was canceled “because of the rift created between the patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow on account of the Orthodox Church of Estonia.” Although the plenary meeting finally did take place in Baltimore in 2000, the Joint International Commission decided on that occasion not to issue a document. Since then the official talks have been suspended indefinitely because of bitter complaints from the Orthodox side about aggressive Catholic “proselytism” in Eastern Europe.
Perhaps even more significant are the structural weaknesses in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue itself. Understandably, the initial focus was “on those questions concerning which there was hope of arriving at a consensus” with the Orthodox. Hence the topic of papal primacy was not confronted directly in the documents issued in 1982, 1987, 1988, and 1993. In Father Garuti’s opinion, this led, in effect, to an uncritical acceptance of the Orthodox “eucharistic ecclesiology” as the very basis for the dialogue.
Developed by the Russian Orthodox theologian Afanassieff, “eucharistic ecclesiology” sees the Church as present wherever the Eucharist is celebrated. This perspective emphasizes “the reality of the local Church gathered in the name of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist and under the guidance of the bishop.” According to this theory, the unity of the universal Church results from a dynamic whereby each local Church “receives the testimony” of the others; juridical relations among the local churches are limited almost exclusively to regional or ecumenical councils.
Father Garuti warns that from the Catholic perspective, “a uniquely eucharistic ecclesiology is insufficient, and it reflects a romantic and idealistic view.” The ecclesiology of communion is, indeed, the central and fundamental idea about the Church set forth by the Second Vatican Council and developed in Catholic theology since that time. But the Catholic concept of communion between churches means more than the celebration of the same Eucharist; it also includes the hierarchical structure that is implicit in the sacrament of Holy Orders (upon which the Eucharist depends). The teaching of Vatican II affirms that the Church’s constitution is sacramental, but rejects the presumption that the local Church is self-constituted and self-sufficient. In the Catholic understanding of ecclesiology, there is no antithesis between local Church and universal Church.
THE QUESTION OF PRIMACY
In the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, however, it has been practically impossible for the Catholic side to voice such caveats. (The mere mention of the word “primacy,” according to an eyewitness, reduced one of the plenary meetings of the Joint International Commission to a Babel of shouting in many languages.)
Clearly, the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox in the 1980s and 1990s papered over essential disagreements. In concluding his chapter on the subject, Father Garuti notes “a tendency to relativize the major differences between the two Churches and to speak at length in generic platitudes….” The joint statements have been couched in language that is excessively abstract, artificial, and “at times incomprehensible.” He asks rhetorically whether it might be more appropriate to speak of a “dialogue of theologies” rather than a “doctrinal dialogue.” The theologies being proposed are novel ones at that, reflecting “the Joint Commission’s own view, which not only questions several aspects of Catholic doctrine, but also fails to find complete acceptance even on the part of Orthodox theology, even though it is largely inspired by it.”
The Catholic-Orthodox dialogue must eventually deal with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Yet Father Garuti is skeptical about what an examination of the topic could produce, given the ecclesiology underlying the dialogue thus far.
Indeed, in this respect there has been no progress at all since 1967, when Pope Paul VI remarked with dismay that “The Pope is undoubtedly the greatest obstacle on the path of ecumenism.” The present Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, has gone on record characterizing the Church’s doctrinal teachings regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as “theologically erroneous claims” that constitute “the greatest and most scandalous stumbling block” in the way of Catholic-Orthodox reunion.
In other words, the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I concerning the papacy have been declared completely unacceptable to the Orthodox churches of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
THE ENCYCLICAL ON ECUMENISM (1995)
Against this inauspicious background, the historic significance of the Holy Father’s 1995 encyclical “On Commitment to Ecumenism,” Ut Unum Sint, becomes more strikingly apparent.
While invoking the Second Vatican Council in the opening paragraph, Pope John Paul II emphasizes that it is “Christ [who] calls all his disciples to unity.” Christians “must profess together the same truth about the Cross.” To do this, they not only have to resolve doctrinal differences, but also must meet the challenge of overcoming “long-standing misgivings… misunderstandings and prejudices.” The Pope wrote:
With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples… are called to re-examine together their painful past and … to acknowledge the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy. (UUS 2, emphasis in the original)
A change of heart is “the essential condition for every authentic search for unity,” and this is possible only through prayer (UUS 26). Dialogue with non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities “has become an outright necessity, one of the Church’s priorities.” The local or particular churches within the Catholic Church share with the Holy See the responsibility for this dialogue. (UUS 31)
The second part of the encyclical examines “The Fruits of Dialogue.” Paragraphs 50 through 61 deal specifically with the Eastern Orthodox churches, in particular the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. (Paragraphs 62-63 are dedicated to the even more ancient churches of the East.)
The third section of Ut Unum Sint is entitled, in Latin, “Quanta est nobis via?” which could be translated: “What sort of a road lies ahead of us?” In looking to the future of ecumenism, Pope John Paul II gently but firmly insists that a special ministry of unity has been entrusted by Christ to the Bishop of Rome, and that communion with the Church of Rome is a necessary condition for unity among all particular churches.
After explicitly mentioning papal primacy and infallibility as components of that ministry of unity, the Holy Father invites the pastors and theologians of the separated Christian churches and ecclesial communities to engage in “a patient and fraternal dialogue” so as to seek with him “a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.” [UUS 95-96; see sidebar for the entire passage.]
THE SYMPOSIUM ON THE PETRINE MINISTRY (2003)
The Holy Father’s encyclical on ecumenism elicited official responses from the Church of England and the [Lutheran] Church of Sweden. His unprecedented invitation to discuss possible future modes of papal primacy also “prompted a spate of new studies on the subject,” as Father Garuti duly notes in the preface to his book, “as well as two symposia here in Rome” in the late 1990s.
The magisterial teaching in Ut Unum Sint, along with the many articles, books, and conferences on the subject in the years immediately following its publication, greatly clarified the issues that must still be dealt with in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. Lamentably, the official theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches has been in limbo during that same decade.
Fortunately, Pope John Paul II is not one to be deterred by bureaucratic snags. A personalist philosopher as well as a pastor, he views the path of ecumenism in much broader terms, as a process of mutual listening, learning, forgiving, and healing. Even if the leading churchmen won’t talk to one another, surely the scholars will still have something to say on the subject.
And so it happened that Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity among Christians, held an academic symposium in Rome in May 2003, with the ministry of the Apostle Peter as its theme. Participants included bishops and theologians from the Catholic Church and all the major Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe (except the Russian Orthodox).
In his introductory presentation, Cardinal Kasper made three observations about the structure of the symposium. ? It was an ecclesial event. Invitations were sent, not to individuals, but to churches, which then designated speakers to represent their respective traditions. ? Yet the symposium was academic in nature—an “Areopagus” rather than a synod. Those who participated had no authority to make decisions, and the gathering was not meant to replace the official ecumenical dialogue. ? The proceedings were not open to the public, although a list of participants had been announced previously and the group ultimately decided to make the papers available in print. (These were published with some fanfare in Rome in October 2004 as Il ministero petrino [The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue], with texts of the talks in Italian, English, and French.)
The four-day series of 10 talks was very well organized. Following Cardinal Kasper’s presentation on Catholic hermeneutics (or principles of interpretation), one Catholic and one Orthodox theologian spoke on each of the following subjects: Scripture and the ministry of Peter; Tradition and the Bishop of Rome; ecumenical councils and papal primacy. Then there were specialized papers on St. Maximus the Confessor (a Byzantine monk who appealed to the Pope to combat a heresy) and the Vatican I teaching on the papacy, and finally a survey of opinions of 20th-century Orthodox theologians on the primacy. Each presentation was followed by a discussion, the main lines of which are also recorded in the book.
Cardinal Kasper posed the most basic dilemma at the outset of the symposium: if the binding Catholic teaching of Vatican I on papal primacy is unacceptable to the Orthodox because of their theological view of the true Church, then “what room is left in which to maneuver?” He went on to say that the conciliar definition must be correctly interpreted in the context of the full Catholic doctrine about the Church (ecclesiology), in conformity with Tradition, with an appreciation of historical circumstances of the formulation, and in the light of the Gospel.
Some highlights from the scholarly exchange on the subjects of Scripture, Tradition, and Church councils follow.
Scripture: Msgr. Joachim Gnilka, professor emeritus at the University of Munich, briefly restated the classical arguments that Christ appointed Peter the Rock on which his Church would be built (Mt. 16:16-19) and his vicar to feed his sheep. (Jn 21:15-17) He forcefully made the point that occurrences of these images in the Old Testament enable us to appreciate their full meaning. For example, the role of St. Peter as keeper of the keys is prefigured and explained by Isaiah 22:20-24.
The Rev. Theodore Stylianopoulos, who teaches at the Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, admitted that the traditional Orthodox interpretation of passages about Peter’s ministry is based more on the homilies of the Church Fathers than on the Scriptural texts themselves (e.g. viewing the “rock” as Peter’s confession of faith, rather than as a reference to the apostle himself). Scientific Biblical criticism has clarified many other doctrinal misunderstandings, and Christians should have the humility to listen to what the texts say. Yet he questioned the fundamental importance of the passage in Matthew, since the other Evangelists and St. Paul say little on the subject, whereas there are many New Testament passages that show Jesus conferring authority on all the apostles. He concluded with the perennial Orthodox claim that the Petrine ministry is that of a primus inter pares: first among equals.
Tradition: Vlassios Phidas, a theology professor at the University of Athens, tried to demonstrate that papal primacy is an exclusively Western development of the second millennium. He sketched a theory of how Church administration evolved. The local Church, which initially possessed the right to ordain and the right to judge bishops, yielded these rights to the provincial synod. Churches in major cities, “metropolitan sees,” then acquired oversight over smaller synods, and finally in the late 4th century an ecumenical council defined the jurisdictional authority of five “patriarchal” Churches over other metropolitan sees. The Church of Rome holds a purely honorary seniority within this pentarchy, effective only during an ecumenical council. The idea that the Bishop of Rome has direct jurisdiction over the worldwide college of bishops is, according to Orthodox ecclesiology, a later and unfounded claim.
The voluminous contribution of Father Vittorino Grossi, professor of patristics at the Pontifical Lateran University, surveyed the kinds of evidence for a special Petrine ministry in the earliest centuries of the Church: archaeological (the tomb of St. Peter and the graffiti inscribed on it); literary (treatises and letters by the Church Fathers); and historical (e.g. papal interventions). In early polemics with the Jews, Christian apologists claimed for the Church the title of the “New Israel,” with Peter as their legal representative, a new “Moses.” More often, St. Peter is portrayed in patristic writings as the apostolic founder of the Church of Rome, where he was martyred. St. Irenaeus acknowledges Rome as the “principal Church” in Christendom, and St. Cyprian of Carthage calls the See of Peter the “source of priestly [i.e. episcopal] unity.” Papal primacy in the post-Nicene era, as well as the medieval and modern periods, is simply the elaboration of this fundamental and special role. Father Grossi granted that the complex issues raised by this topic require an interdisciplinary approach, but patristic testimonies converge on the singular importance of the Bishop of Rome in all parts of the early Church.
Councils: Prof. Vittorio Peri, a Catholic member of the Joint International Commission, discussed “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in Ecumenical Councils.” From the very beginning the Church had “a hierarchy of moral and organizational authority,” although centuries of persecution obscured that structure. Hierarchy and collegiality are both essential: canon 34 of the Apostles states that bishops should do nothing important without the approval of the protos, or first among the members of a synod, while the protos should preserve unanimity by consulting his suffragan bishops. One reason that the churches in the East and the West were unable to hold an 8th ecumenical council together was the decline of the imperial power that had sponsored or supported the first seven. Historical features of Church governance must not be mistaken for metaphysical realities. The letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century show that Christian unity was understood as doctrinal harmony with Rome.
Father V. Nicolae Durä, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, sharply contrasted the language of Catholic magisterial teaching on papal primacy with “the canonical legislation of the ecumenical councils in the first millennium.” He dutifully restated the few canons concerning the status of the Church of Rome and explained the traditional Orthodox view (which he considers inadequate) that these “define” a primacy of honor, not of governance. In his opinion a comprehensive study of the Church’s Tradition is necessary to determine what is of divine right and what is merely human custom “so as to reach a better understanding of the leading role of the Bishop of Rome in the service of unity in the ecumenical Church.” The subsequent discussion pointed out that, in order to understand a conciliar decree, the correspondence that preceded the council and other supporting documents should be taken into consideration.
The eighth paper in the symposium, by Serbian-Orthodox patrologist Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet, examined in depth the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor, in order to correct and nuance the claim of Catholic apologists that his appeal to the doctrinal authority of the Pope was evidence for a full-fledged “Western” understanding of the papacy in 7th-century Byzantium.
