Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?: Volume 2: Ecumenical and Practical Perspectives on the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Dialogue (Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue) 3030554570, 9783030554576

Citation preview

PATHWAYS FOR ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy? Volume 2: Ecumenical and Practical Perspectives on the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Dialogue Edited by

Vladimir Latinovic Anastacia K. Wooden

Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue Series Editor Mark D. Chapman Ripon College University of Oxford Cuddesdon, Oxford, UK

Building on the important work of the Ecclesiological Investigations International Research Network to promote ecumenical and inter-faith encounters and dialogue, the Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue series publishes scholarship on such engagement in relation to the past, present, and future. It gathers together a richly diverse array of voices in monographs and edited collections that speak to the challenges, aspirations and elements of ecumenical and interfaith conversation. Through its publications, the series allows for the exploration of new ways, means, and methods of advancing the wider ecumenical cause with renewed energy for the twenty-first century. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14561

Vladimir Latinovic  •  Anastacia K. Wooden Editors

Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy? Volume 2: Ecumenical and Practical Perspectives on the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Dialogue

Editors Vladimir Latinovic University of Tübingen Tübingen, Baden-­Württemberg Germany

Anastacia K. Wooden Catholic University of America Washington, DC, USA

ISSN 2634-6591     ISSN 2634-6605 (electronic) Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue ISBN 978-3-030-55457-6    ISBN 978-3-030-55458-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Dedicated to Msgr. Paul McPartlan, mentor and friend A. K. W.

Preface

The cause of Christian unity has gained much through various bilateral ecumenical dialogues. Today there is almost every possible combination of such dialogue one could imagine. Yet, a rare exception is an absence of dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. Throughout their shared history, these two traditions have lived through a very complex and sometimes tense relationship—not only theologically but also politically. In most cases these tense relationships remain to this day; indeed, some have even increased in difficulty (e.g., in Ukraine). The main contention in this relationship remains the interpretation of the historical events surrounding the birth of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the subsequent understanding of their ecclesial status. Regardless of the historical accuracy, many Orthodox still refer to these churches as “stolen,” while many Catholics seen them as bridges to the Orthodox traditions—a perspective which, again, many Orthodox strongly reject. Naming is of course the smallest problem in relationship between these churches. Historically, relationships between them have been all but non-problematic. To address these issues, the Academy of the Diocese of Rottenburg-­ Stuttgart as part of the project “Treasure of the East,”1 and in cooperation with the Ecclesiological Investigations Research Network,2 decided to give impulses for the much-needed theological dialogue between these Churches by organizing the conference titled “Stolen Churches or Bridges 1 2

 See: https://www.akademie-rs.de/projekte/schatz-des-orients/  See: http://ei-research.net/

vii

viii 

PREFACE

to Orthodoxy? Impulses for Theological Dialogue Between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches,” which took place from 19 to 21 July 2019 in Stuttgart, Germany.3 This conference brought together representatives of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as theologians from different geographical contexts where tensions are greatest. This truly unique gathering—the very first of its kind—brought together Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians from diverse backgrounds with an in-depth and sustained level of engagement. Nearly 90 delegates from 12 different countries were present, including representatives of the official representatives of both these Christian Churches as well as scholars (theologians and historians). A special effort was made to include many younger academics— the voices of tomorrow’s dialogical encounters. Diversity of participants was reflected in the variety of historical and ecclesiological perspectives presented in the scholarly papers delivered at the conference. Collectively those present delved deeper into the question of what shapes and maintains their differing positions, what constitutes essential features of their traditions, and what serves as perpetual sources of division. As a result, partners in dialogue came to appreciate the sensitivities involved in dealing with ecclesial stand-offs of key historical moments as well as of recent decades. But they also acknowledged the similarities between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions and moved closer to finding ways to build new relationships. This building of concrete relationships was perhaps the biggest achievement of the conference. The organizers from the start wanted this gathering to be a venue where people of opposing views can meet face to face in search for the ways if not to reconcile but to transcend their differences in brotherly love. For that purpose, the conference offered different types of engagement in addition to the scholarly dialogue. The respective liturgies from the differing traditions which took place during the conference were truly moving experiences and highlights for all present. In the Eastern Catholic liturgy, the Eucharistic prayer was recited by nine different priests, each in his own native language  including  Ukrainian, Russian,  and Hungarian. The harmonious interactions throughout the duration of the conference inspired still greater mutual engagement and understanding— often amid laughter and merriment.

 See: https://oec.dialogue.group/stuttgart2019/

3

 PREFACE 

ix

In general, the conference was characterized by the high academic standards of materials presented, a willingness to engage in dialogue, general openness to new ideas, and the courage to deal with problems and wounds that we have inherited from the past. Two key outcomes of the conference deserve a special mention. First, in order to facilitate the continuation of the vital dialogue started here, a formal group called the Orthodox-­ Eastern Catholic Dialogue Group was established and entrusted with carrying forward this pioneering work.4 Second, the papers presented at the conference were put together in the two volumes in order to make its insights available to the wider audience. This second volume that came out of this event explores ecumenical and practical themes that could serve as impulses for the furtherance of the dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. The first part of this volume discusses suggestions of how ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches could move forward. In the first contribution of this part titled “Church Unions of the Early Modern Period in Relation and Contradiction to the Council of Ferrara/Florence,” Barbara Hallensleben compares ecclesiological views reflected in the documents of the Council of Ferrara-Florence and the later church unions.5 She shows that the unions of parts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches with the Church of Rome did not follow the ecclesiology of former but were shaped by the dominant Roman Catholic centralist ecclesiology consolidated around the Pope and established as part of the counter-Reformation efforts. The chapter looks at as a point of reference for union efforts, its reception in the face of historical ruptures as well as ecumenical perspectives. In the second chapter “‘They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares’: Orthodox-Eastern Catholics Conflicts and the Ecumenical Progress That They Generated,” Radu Bordeianu addresses historical tragedies that were shared by both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the persecution by the Communist regimes, and the unifying aspects of these common experiences. The chapter also addresses the question of preserving the Eastern identity by these churches. Craig A.  Phillips in his contribution which constitutes third chapter with the title “Giorgio Agamben’s Stasis (Civil War): An Illuminating  See: https://oec.dialogue.group/  Please note that the following is compiled based on the formulations from authors abstracts. 4 5

x 

PREFACE

Paradigm for Ecumenica Studies?” shows how heuristic application of Agamben’s paradigm of stasis (civil war) may shed light on the dynamics of ecumenical discourses, particularly in relation to the contemporary conflicts and engagements of the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Fourth chapter “The Church of England as a Bridge Church” written by Mark D. Chapman discusses the concept of a “bridge church” as it has been developed in the Church of England in the work of two leading nineteenth-century Irish Anglicans, Alexander Know and John Jebb. Chapman shows how the concept of the via media has in practice served to caricature other churches and opened up Anglicans to the charge of complacency. Instead, he suggests that any churches seeking to build bridges must acknowledge its own imperfection and a need to cross over to the “extremes” it has been avoiding. In the next (fifth) chapter “Kenotic Ecumenism: What Can Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Learn from the Parable of the Grain of Wheat?” Ukrainian scholar Pavlo Smytsnyuk proposes a fresh theological reflection on the dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches based on the concept of kenosis (self-emptying). He argues that, in order for Eastern Catholic Churches to accomplish their mission of being the “bridges” between East and West, their attitude towards the Orthodox should be kenotic, asymmetrical, and eschatocentric. Chapter six “Eastern Catholic Churches and the Theological Dialogue Between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church Seen Through the Category of Prophetic Dialogue” written by Sandra Mazzolini discusses the concept of prophetic dialogue, which could allow to understand the ecclesial unity in terms of recognition and integration of diversity. She uses this concept to reframe the possible role of the Eastern Catholic churches as “bridges” with a particular emphasis on their identity. The final chapter of this part is a contribution by Vladimir Fedorov “An Answer of an Orthodox Missiologist to the Question ‘Stolen Churches’ or ‘Bridges to Orthodoxy’?” The author wants to bring missiological perspective into the dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics over ecclesiological and canonical problems based on his analyses of the “Concept of Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).” The author urges the churches to work against fundamentalist enthusiasm present in all sides involved by learning from each other. The second part of this volume is dedicated to practical and canonical issues. It begins with the chapter “How Modern Orthodox Ecclesiology

 PREFACE 

xi

Hinders the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue on Uniatism: Romantic Approach, Nationalism, and Anti-colonial Narrative” written by Russian scholar Andrey Shishkov. The author discusses ecclesiological as well as political perspectives that influenced the Orthodox attitude towards the Eastern Catholic Churches. He finds that “romantic paradigm in the Orthodox ecclesiology” which makes special emphasis on the people of God who becomes the guardian of faith and is responsible for the distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy hinders the Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue on Eastern Catholic Churches. In the second chapter “Ordination of Women: A ‘Bridge’ or a ‘Brake’ for Christian Unity?”, Patricia Madigan OP, discusses various theological and historical aspects of ordination of women. Among other things, she engages the Catholic feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson in a dialogue with an Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas demonstrating how a three-­ way engagement which would include the Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and a wider Catholic Church could assist a growth of ecumenical unity. The third chapter is written by Irina Borshch and titled “Ecclesiological Differences and Law: Is the Eastern Churches Canon Law a Bridge Between the Western and the Eastern Canonical Tradition?” Here the author looks at the potential of seeing the canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches as an instrument in ecumenical dialogue. It considers several attempts which were made in the twentieth century to create a bridge between Catholic and Orthodox juridical traditions in legislative texts of the Catholic Church. In their joint chapter “The Principle of Synodality: Similarities and Differences Between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Canon Law”, Burkhard J. Berkmann and Tobias Stümpfl compare legal heritage of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches and show how the congruent elements in the legal structures of these churches could constitute a vital component of ecumenism. One of these elements is the concept of synodality, which is firmly established in the Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches. The fifth chapter “The Canonical Territory Concept and the Eastern Catholic Churches: Challenges on the Ukrainian Example,” written by Ukrainian scholar Ihor Rantsya, brings up topics concerning the concept of canonical territory and its use in the inter-church relations as well as in the ecumenical dialogue. He discusses the problems of this concept on the example of the Ukrainian context and insists that this concept should be

xii 

PREFACE

re-interpreted in the light of the new geo-ecclesiological circumstances in a way that goes beyond any political ideology. Theodore Dedon in the sixth chapter “Fr. John Long on Ukraine Between the Three Romes” looks at the work of a Fr. John Long, S.J., who engaged in ecumenical activity between Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Catholics during the second half of the Cold War. According to Dedon, Long’s positioning of Ukraine between the three “Romes” of Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow, helps to recognize its unique status as a contested ecclesiastical and political space which deeply impacts ecumenical engagement. In the  chapter “An Ecumenical Revolution in Ukraine?: Perspectives for a Regional Greek-­Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue” Dietmar Schon OP, analyzes the document “The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-­ Catholic Church.” According to Schon, this document marks the first instance in recent times of an Eastern Catholic Church proposing a comprehensive design for regional ecumenical engagements. As such, the document opens a door to overcoming the ecclesiastical confrontations of the past through a locally envisioned dialogue with one another. In his contribution, “Orthodox-­Catholic and Greek Catholic Relations After the Ukrainian Crisis,” which constitutes the eighth chapter of this volume, Petros Vassiliadis gives an overview of the situation of the Uniate Churches as it was affected by the Balamand Declaration and especially by the present crisis of the Ukrainian Orthodox connected with the granting of autocephaly to the united Orthodox Church of Ukraine. He sees the potential of Greek Catholics to serve as agents of Christian reconciliation in Ukraine which can be seen, in the words of Pope John Paul II, as a “laboratory of ecumenism.” In a fitting conclusion to this volume, in the chapter  “The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Furtherance of Catholic-­ Orthodox Unity: Three Possible Paths,” A. Edward Siecienski points out to at least three possible ways in which Eastern Catholic Churches could serve the cause of unity and become true bridgebuilders between East and West. In his view,  they could either become “the Orthodox voice” within Catholic Church, or continue to explore the possibility of a dual communion with both Rome and Constantinople, or return to those Orthodox Churches from which they originally sprang, serving within Orthodoxy as an antidote to anti-Catholicism. Whichever way will be chosen, it is for the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves to do so.

 PREFACE 

xiii

We hope that you will enjoy reading this volume as much as we enjoyed putting it together. If you would like to continue to explore these topics together, please do get involved: subscribe to the newsletter of the Orthodox-Eastern Catholic Dialogue Group, https://oec.dialogue. group/newsletter/, visit and contribute to some of our future conferences, recommend this book to your colleagues, or do anything else that would move this dialogue forward. Let us do it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in following the exhortation of Apostle Paul from 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made in the same mind and in the same judgement.” Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany Washington, DC, USA

Vladimir Latinovic Anastacia K. Wooden

Contents

Ecumenical Impulses   1  Church Unions of the Early Modern Period in Relation and Contradiction to the Council of Ferrara/Florence  3 Barbara Hallensleben “They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares”: OrthodoxEastern Catholics Conflicts and the Ecumenical Progress That They Generated 19 Radu Bordeianu Giorgio Agamben’s Stasis (Civil War): An Illuminating Paradigm for Ecumenical Studies? 35 Craig A. Phillips  The Church of England as a Bridge Church 53 Mark D. Chapman  Kenotic Ecumenism: What Can Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Learn from the Parable of the Grain of Wheat? 69 Pavlo Smytsnyuk

xv

xvi 

Contents

 Eastern Catholic Churches and the Theological Dialogue Between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church Seen Through the Category of Prophetic Dialogue 85 Sandra Mazzolini  Answer of an Orthodox Missiologist to the Question An “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy”?103 Vladimir Fedorov

Practical Impulses 123  How Modern Orthodox Ecclesiology Hinders the OrthodoxCatholic Theological Dialogue on Uniatism: Romantic Approach, Nationalism, and Anti-colonial Narrative125 Andrey Shishkov  Ordination of Women: A “Bridge” or a “Brake” for Christian Unity?139 Patricia Madigan OP  Ecclesiological Differences and Law: Is the Eastern Churches Canon Law a Bridge Between the Western and the Eastern Canonical Tradition?161 Irina Borshch  The Principle of Synodality: Similarities and Differences Between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Canon Law179 Burkhard J. Berkmann and Tobias Stümpfl  The Canonical Territory Concept and the Eastern Catholic Churches: Challenges on the Ukrainian Example201 Ihor Rantsya  John Long on Ukraine Between the Three Romes221 Fr. Theodore Dedon

 Contents 

xvii

 Ecumenical Revolution in Ukraine?: Perspectives for a An Regional Greek-Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue235 Dietmar Schon OP  Orthodox-Catholic and Greek Catholic Relations After the Ukrainian Crisis253 Petros Vassiliadis  The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Furtherance of Catholic-Orthodox Unity: Three Possible Paths269 A. Edward Siecienski Index289

Notes on Contributors

Burkhard J. Berkmann  (Austria) is a professor of Catholic Canon Law at the Klaus-Mörsdorf-Institute, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich (Germany). He holds the chair for theological principles of canon law, general norms, constitutional law of the church, and oriental canon law. His research interests include comparative law of religions and the legal status of religion in Europe. He belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. His recent publications include the chapter on the sources of Christian Law in Bottoni, Rossella/Ferrari, Silvio (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Religious Laws, London 2019. Radu Bordeianu  (USA/Romania) is an Associate professor of Theology at Duquesne University and an Orthodox priest. His research focuses on ecumenical ecclesiologies, and the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. He is the author of Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (T&T Clark, 2011, 2013). He served as the President of the Orthodox Theological Society of America and is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation. He is a co-convener of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue in Pittsburgh and is involved in local ecumenical dialogues. Irina  Borshch (Russia) is a senior researcher at the Ecclesiastical Institutions Research Laboratory in St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University. She is a Russian Orthodox. She is the author of Russian Science of Church Law in the First Half of the 20th Century (2008) and Nikolai Alekseev as a Legal Philosopher (2014). She obtained a degree of Doctor of Missiology (2012) from the Pontifical Urbaniana University with the thesis “Charism and Law xix

xx 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

in the Church Mission: in the dialogue with S. Bulgakov and E. Corecco.” She works on the project “Orthodox Church and International Law.” Mark D. Chapman  (Great Britain) is a Professor of the History of Modern Theology at the University of Oxford and Vice-Principal and Academic Dean at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, a priest of the Church of England, and Canon of Truro Cathedral. He is vice-chair of the Ecclesiological Investigations Research Network and a member of General Synod and cochair of the Meissen Theological Conference, which promotes dialogue with the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). He has written widely in modern theology and church history and edits the series Pathways for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Dialogue for Palgrave Macmillan. Theodore  Dedon (USA) is a PhD candidate in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Georgetown University (Washington, DC) specializing in Religion and International Affairs. He is unaffiliated religiously but was raised in the United Church of Christ. His work is focused on the intersection between Christianity and nationalism, especially on the new Christian nationalism as a global challenge to the postwar liberal world order. He is also interested in the role of Christian identity and Christian history in furnishing nationalism both in the East and in the West, especially in Russia and Ukraine. Vladimir  Fedorov  (Russia) is an archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). He graduated from the Leningrad Orthodox Theological Academy in 1977 and holds PhDs in theology and philosophy. He is a distinguished professor of the Russian Christian Academy of Humanities and the director of the Orthodox Research Institute of Missiology, Ecumenism, and New Religious Movements (PIMEN) in St Petersburg. He also lectures on Religious Conflictology at the St Petersburg Orthodox Theological Academy and lectures  on psychology of ethno-religious conflicts at the Psychological Department of Psychology of the St Petersburg State University. Barbara Hallensleben  (Switzerland) is a professor of dogmatics and theology of ecumenism at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland; director of the Study Centre for Eastern Churches; editor of the collections Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, Epiphania, and Epiphania Egregia; member of the International Theological Commission, Vatican (2004–2014); member of the International Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church; consultant of

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xxi

the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Her diverse research interests include ecclesiology in ecumenical perspective, reception of the political philosophy of Giorgio Agamben into theology, and Sergii Bulgakov as economist, philosopher, and theologian. Vladimir  Latinovic (Germany/Serbia) lectured in Patristics at the University of Tübingen and project manager of the project “Treasure of the East” at the Academy DRS in Stuttgart. He holds an undergraduate degree from the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade and a PhD from the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Tübingen. He serves as director and vice-chair of the Ecclesiological Investigations International Research Network and as co-­ chair of the Network’s American Academy of Religion unit. His latest monograph is titled Christologie und Kommunion: Liturgische Einführung und Rezeption der homoousianischen Christologie published by Aschendorff in 2020. He belongs to the Serbian-Orthodox Church. Patricia Madigan OP  (Australia) is a director of the Dominican Centre for Interfaith Ministry, Education and Research (www.cimer.org.au) and a sessional lecturer in Church History at Divine Word University (Papua New Guinea). She was Director of the Commission for Ecumenical and interfaith Relations in the Catholic Church in Sydney, Australia, in 1997–2013. Her publications include “Women During and After Vatican II” in Catholicism Opening to the World and Other Confessions, eds Vladimir Latinovic, Gerard Mannion and Jason Welle OFM (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), and Women and Fundamentalism in Islam and Catholicism: Negotiating Modernity in a Globalized World (2011). Sandra  Mazzolini (Italy) is an ordinary professor at the Faculty of Missiology at Pontifical Urbaniana University (Rome). She graduated from the History Department of the Faculty of Modern Literature and Philosophy (University of Trieste) and received her doctorate in Systematic Theology from the Gregorian University (Rome) in 1998. She has collaborated with many academic institutions, and her various contributions have appeared in specialistic journals, reviews, and collected works. Her latest monograph is titled Voci ecumeniche. In dialogo per l’evangelizzazione (Città del Vaticano, Urbaniana University Press, 2018). Craig A. Phillips  (USA) is the rector of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Arlington, Virginia. He serves as an adjunct faculty at Virginia Theological Seminary. He is a former assistant professor at Temple University.

xxii 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Completing his doctorate in Theology and Ethics at Duke University, he also holds an MDiv from Harvard University and an AB in Religious Studies and Classics from Brown University. His research focuses on the intersections of literary theory, philosophy, critical social theory, and contemporary theology. His recent publications examine how the work of the philosopher Giorgio Agamben might be employed in contemporary theological discourses. Ihor Rantsya  (Ukraine/France) is a doctoral student of theology at the Catholic University of Paris. He graduated from the National University of Lviv (PhD in Geography), the Ukrainian Catholic University (master of Theology), and  the Catholic University of Paris, France (Licentiate of Sacred Theology). He is also a priest of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and serves as a rector at St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral and a Head of the Ecumenical Commission of Paris eparchy. His doctoral research is focused on the intersection of geography and theology. Dietmar  Schon  OP (Germany) is a private lecturer at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Regensburg and a Roman Catholic priest in the Dominican Order. He is a director of the Institute for Eastern Churches of the diocese of Regensburg since 2016. He also served as Prior Provincial of the Dominican Province of Southern Germany and Austria (2002–2011). He habilitated in 2017 with a thesis on “Orthodoxy in Interreligious Dialogue with Islam” in the field of Middle and New Church History with special emphasis on Eastern Christianity and ecumenical theology. Andrey  Shishkov  (Russia) is the director of the Center for Advanced Theological Studies (Moscow), editor-in-chief of the Department of Society of the “Big Russian Encyclopedia,” and senior lecturer of the Ss. Cyril and Methodius Institute for Post-graduate Studies. He teaches ecclesiology and political theology. As a secretary of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church (until February 2020), he was a member of the drafting group of the d ­ ocument “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church.” A. Edward Siecienski  (USA) is Clement and Helen Pappas Professor of Byzantine Culture and Religion at Stockton University (New Jersey). A member of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA), he received his BA in Theology/International Relations from Georgetown University

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xxiii

(Washington, DC) and his PhD in Historical Theology from Fordham University. Siecienski is the author of The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate, and Orthodox Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, all published by Oxford University Press. Pavlo Smytsnyuk  (Ukraine) is a director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies and a senior lecturer at the Theology Faculty of Ukrainian Catholic University (Lviv). He also lectures  in theology at Kyiv Theological Seminary (Kniazhychi) and Institute of St Thomas Aquinas (Kyiv). He studied philosophy and theology in Rome, Athens, and St Petersburg, and holds a Doctorate from the University of Oxford. His main interests are in ecumenism, modern Orthodox thought, interreligious dialogue, and political theology. He is a member of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Tobias  Stümpfl  (Germany) is a research and teaching assistant at the chair for Canon Law, particularly for Theological Principles, General Norms, Constitutional Law, and Oriental Canon Law at Klaus Mörsdorf Institute of Canon Law, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich. He is a member of the Catholic Church. Petros Vassiliadis  (Greece) is a biblical scholar and emeritus professor in the Department of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He is President of the Center for Ecumenical, Missiological, and Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES) and the World Conference of Associations and Theological Institutions and Educators (WOCATI). He studied theology and mathematics at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki as well as conducted postgraduate studies in biblical criticism and biblical theology at British King’s College London and German Heidelberg universities. He is a member of the Orthodox Church. Anastacia  K.  Wooden (USA/Belarus) is a managing director of the Institute for the Study of Eastern Christianity at the Catholic University of America (Washington, DC), where she also teaches systematic theology. Her research interests include ecclesiology, ecumenism, Vatican II, and especially the interaction between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic theologians in Paris in the 1930s–1960s. She received her PhD from the Catholic University of America writing on ecclesiology of Nicholas Afanasiev.  She is a member of the Adult Faith Formation team at St. Francis of Assisi parish (Roman Catholic Church). Native of Belarus, she resides with her husband and four children in Maryland, USA.

ECUMENICAL IMPULSES

Church Unions of the Early Modern Period in Relation and Contradiction to the Council of Ferrara/Florence Barbara Hallensleben

In order to understand the church unions and their ecumenical consequences, a historical review of the Council of Florence is helpful, even inevitable. On this basis, the following chapter will show how contemporary ecclesial and theological tensions can be adequately understood and potentially resolved.1

1  I strongly recommend the book of Ernst Christoph Suttner who translated the most relevant historical sources on the Church Unions into German, presenting also the Latin documents: Ernst Christoph Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, 2nd edition (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag 2017).

B. Hallensleben (*) Center for the Study of Eastern Churches, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_1

3

4 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

1   The Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438/1439) The motives of the church unions since the sixteenth century clearly and essentially refer to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438/1439). The Union Bull Laetentur Caeli did not find an immediate reception, but it repeatedly gave occasion to remember the period of common ecclesial life and to seek the restoration of full communion. In 1071 Byzantium had suffered a great defeat at Manzikert against the Seljuks. The crusades began in response to the Byzantine Emperor’s call for military support in the struggle for free access to the holy sites in Palestine. Unfortunately, they were soon associated with Western political expansionist interests and with Western efforts to “latinize” the Christian East. Initially, however, no separate patriarchates and dioceses were established for Latin Christians, but Latin bishops were appointed to the existing Greek sees. The Western rulers at that time, in addition to increasing their own influence, also wanted to reunite Greek and Latin Christians2 who had developed apart. Although both sides regretted the differences in church traditions, they acknowledged the sacramental life of the others. In spite of a certain suspicion, the existing differences on both sides were not regarded as a division in faith which would have prevented a mutual recognition as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ. In this situation, there developed an idea to seek ecclesial unity through the establishment of common church structure by appointing (Latin) hierarchs.3 The Fourth Lateran Council explicitly recognized this way of proceeding by determining: Since there are many areas where people of different languages live in a colourful mixture within the same city and diocese, who have the same faith but different rites and habits, we issue the following strict regulation: The bishops of such cities or dioceses appoint suitable men to celebrate liturgy for these people in the different rites and languages, to administer the ecclesiastical sacraments to them and to instruct them by word and also by example. We prohibit without exception that the same city or diocese has different bishops. It would be like a body with several heads, as it were a monster. If, however, it should be absolutely necessary for the reasons mentioned, the 2  As in the sources of the historical period dealt with here, in the present contribution the Christians with a Western ecclesial life are called “Latins” and those following the Byzantine tradition are called “Greeks”—without regard to their actual mother tongue and national origin. 3  Cf. Ernst Christoph Suttner, “Kircheneinheit im 11. bis 13. Jahrhundert durch einen gemeinsamen Patriarchen und gemeinsame Bischöfe für Griechen und Lateiner.” In Ostkirchliche Studien 49 (2000) 314–324.

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

5

local Bishop will wisely and prudently appoint a Catholic4 Superior of ­corresponding nationality as his deputy for the tasks mentioned, who as a subordinate is obliged to obey him in everything.5

The skepticism toward the Greek customs of church life remained, however, as the decisions of the IV Lateran Council also make clear: We would like to show our favour and respect to the Greeks who in our days return to the obedience of the Apostolic See, and we support their ways of life and rites as far as we can in the Lord. Nevertheless, we are not willing and allowed to agree with them in what endangers souls and damages the reputation of the Church.6

So it is hardly surprising that after the era of the crusades, the unity achieved through the methods adopted by the IV Lateral Council came to an end, and the suspicion spread that the division may have truly affected the faith itself. This question was to be examined at the Council of Ferrara-­ Florence in order to put an end to the schism and to reestablish full ecclesial communion. In spite of the fact that the Eastern delegation was under pressure to obtain military help against the Ottoman Empire, the situation was balanced out by the fact that Pope Eugen IV also urgently needed some success against the conciliarism of the Council of Basel. The actions of the delegation from Constantinople at the Council of Ferrara-Florence were sincere as there is no reason to assume that their signature under the final decisions was a pure strategic maneuver without ecclesial significance. The strongest evidence of this sincerity is the inscription on the tomb of Patriarch Joseph II. He died during the Council on 10 June 1439, before the Union Bull Laetentur caeli was signed on 6 July 1439, and was buried in the Church Santa Maria Novella in Florence. I was Bishop of the Church and a wise man of Europe. Here I lie: Joseph, great in faith. I wanted one thing, inflamed with marvellous love: one worship of God and one faith for Europe. That is why I hurried to Italy and we entered into a union. Under my direction, faith is united with Rome. In order not to be defeated immediately, may Florence now be at my service. On account of this city, this Holy Council flourished. I am happy because, during 4  “Catholic” does not mean the Western Latin tradition here, but as a term opposed to members of schismatic circles. 5  Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien, 239. 6  Canon 4 of the IV Lateran Council 1215, entitled: “About the arrogance of the Greeks against the Latins”: Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien, 235.

6 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

my life, I have dedicated myself to such a great task, and I have died, blessed with what I had been longing for and in full possession of my power: Joseph, Archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.7

The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439) was supposed to heal the fragile communion of the Eastern and Western Churches and did so by clarifying four central topics: (1) the filioque, (2) the purgatory, (3) the matter of the Eucharist (usage of leavened or unleavened bread), and (4) the primacy of the Pope and the dignity of the other patriarchs. The mere fact that this Council was attended by the Bishops of the East and the Byzantine Emperor shows that it was seen as the expression of the one Church, albeit in need of reconciliation. For the first three questions, a theological compatibility of the doctrine in East and West was established. The brevity of the debate on the papacy is remarkable. The Union Bull Laetentur Caeli signed on 6 July 1439 says: The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Bishop have precedence over the whole world and he, the Roman Bishop, is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the First of the Apostles, and true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church and Father and Teacher of all Christians, and to him in Blessed Peter is given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power to nourish, lead and direct the universal Church, as it is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical synods and the holy canons.8

The second part of the same decision is decisive: We also renew the order of the other Venerable Patriarchs handed down in the canons: The Patriarch of Constantinople is the second after his Holiness the Bishop of Rome, the third is the Patriarch of Alexandria, the fourth the Patriarch of Antioch and the fifth the Patriarch of Jerusalem, of course respecting all their privileges and rights.9

7  Ecclesiae antistes fueram qui magus Europae/hic iaceo magnus religione Ioseph/hoc unum optabam miro imflammatus amore/unus ut Europae cultus et una fides/Italiam petii foedus percussimus unum/iunctaque Romanae est me duce gratia fides/nec mora decubui nunc me Florentia servat/qua tunc concilium floruit urbe sacrum/felix qui tanto donarer munere vivens/qui morerer voti compos et ipse mei/Joseph Archbishop of Constantinople (in Greek letters). The English text is my translation. 8  Latin and Greek text: Josef Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien, vol. 2 (Paderborn: Schöningh 2000), 528. 9  Ibid.

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

7

Since in the fifteenth century there was no longer a common emperor for Greeks and Latins who could have ensured the adoption of conciliar decisions everywhere, as it was done by the emperors for the early ecumenical councils, a pastoral effort of the hierarchies would have been necessary in order to create a broad agreement within the Churches. The lack of reception in the East, indeed the explicit rejection of the Council’s decisions, requires a thorough analysis, which cannot be offered here. In the West the Council likewise did not receive any further attention: in Rome, the Council’s acts were transferred to the archives. Only after a delay of more than hundred years did Pope Gregory XIII unofficially and anonymously printed the Greek acts of Florence and distributed them among Greek monks. This explains why some Eastern hierarchs got access to the Council decisions of Florence and could refer to them during the period of the unions that started in the late sixteenth century. It was not until the time of the aforementioned period of the unions that in Rome the Council was remembered again, but the new circumstances led to an interpretation which nearly contradicted the idea of the union of Florence.

2   The Reception of the Council of Florence in the Face of Historical Ruptures The achievements of the Council of Florence are strongly questioned by the failure of immediate reception. However, a look at the great historical events easily reveals an even more tragic fact: any new attempt to reexamine the Council of Florence will be conditioned by the essential ecclesial and theological ruptures that occurred shortly after the Council of Florence both in the East and in the West. This means that an immediate re-reception of the council was no longer possible. On the Eastern side, these events included the fall of Constantinople and the rearrangement of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as model of the Ottoman “millet” system10 that radically changed the situation of the Eastern Churches. In the West, these events included preoccupation with the ruptures within the Latin tradition caused by the Reformation, leading to an anti-Protestant centralism which accentuated communion with the bishop of Rome in a new way as a criterion for true faith and thus for salvation.

 See footnote 11.

10

8 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

2.1  The Fall of Constantinople The failure of the reception of the Union of Florence was due in particular to the radical disruption in 1453. The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and its ecclesiastical structures, with its center in Constantinople, by the Ottoman conquest in 1453 inevitably led to a complete restructuring of the self-understanding of the “Greek” Church and its ecclesiology. The emperor as the guarantor of the unity of the Church, justified theologically by his role as representative of Christ as Pantokrator, did not find a (Christian) successor. In 1454 the Patriarchate of Constantinople received a completely new shape and was almost refounded. With the fall of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Constantinople was put in a hitherto unknown situation, which implicitly provoked the development of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches in their modern constitution. A significant illustration dating from the year 1980 is to be found in the entrance hall of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul in the form of two mosaics: on the left wall is depicted the Apostle Andrew as the founder of the Patriarchate and his successor Stachys, the first bishop of Byzantium; on the right side, Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople, reestablishes the Patriarchate by handing over to Patriarch Gennadios a document on his new responsibility within the “millet” system. From that moment on, the Patriarch was subject to the Sultan and responsible for all Christians in the territory of the Ottoman Empire.11 Therefore, nations 11  “On the east entry wall of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Istanbul is a modern mosaic featuring the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios, the first patriarch invested following the conquest of the city in 1453. The image shows Sultan Mehmet II offering a document promising Patriarch Gennadios all the privileges of preceding patriarchs. For the patriarchate and historians alike, this moment captured in stone represents the establishment of the millet system, a system wherein the Church governed as a state within a state, with the patriarch serving as the communal leader (millet başi) or ethnarch. The millet system became the dominant paradigm employed to describe non-Muslims under Ottomans rule. This powerful mosaic, and its counterpart on the opposite wall depicting the Apostle Andrew and his disciple Stachys, the first bishop of Ancient Byzantion, was commissioned in the late 1980s. They dramatically remind to those who enter that the Patriarchate of Constantinople possesses ancient authority and prerogatives from Apostolic times, authority that was confirmed by none other than the conquering Sultan Mehmet II. The mosaic announces the patriarchate’s authority as the legitimate leader of the Greek millet of the Ottoman Empire. The implication is that this authority must continue uncontested to the present”: Tom Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries (Oxford University Press 2015), 10.

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

9

seeking independence from the Ottoman Empire were forced to proclaim their independence from the Ecumenical Patriarchate giving birth to the present difficulty to express panorthodox unity. In fact, the emergence of Islam in the seventh century and its dynamic spread in the territories of the Eastern Churches had a lasting effect on the fate of Orthodoxy. During the period of Muslim rule, the Orthodox Church as an institution never came into public conflict with the political power of Islam. Not least due to the spread of Islam, the “pentarchy” lost more and more importance and gave way to the coexistence and sometimes the confrontation of “Latins” and “Greeks.” On the one hand, with the foundation of the “Ottoman” Patriarchate and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a leader among the other hierarchs on the territory of the Empire was confirmed. On the other hand, other “Greek” Churches outside the Empire or the ones that refused to submit to Muslim rule had to seek political and ecclesiastical independence at the same time. The Russian Church was the first to do so by the establishment of the Patriarchate in 1589, followed by other churches including the Church of Greece, an act that given the linguistic and cultural proximity of Greece to the Patriarchate of Constantinople remains incomprehensible without taking into consideration the political circumstances. What can we expect if such an ecclesiality without an ecclesiology capable of dealing with the historical circumstances rediscovers the brothers and sisters of the Churches of the West? 2.2  The Anti-Protestant Centralism of the Latin Church of the West The “Latins” of the Council of Florence also found themselves in a fundamentally different situation after the Council: the Reformation and the previous reform movements absorbed all the attention and all the resources. The synodal and conciliar life of the Western Church developed more and more independently of what happened in the Eastern Churches. The features of the new denomination of “Catholics” were multiple: the internal Reformation; the dynamism of mission; and a centralism where the Pope was not only the guarantor of unity, but in a new way also the criterion of true faith and therefore of salvation. The ecclesiology of the West had remained implicit for a long time. Even in the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas there is no ecclesiological

10 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

treatise. His Christology in the Tertia pars includes an article on “the grace of Christ as head of the Church”12 and finds its immediate continuation in the treatise on the sacraments: wherever Christ is encountered in the celebration of the sacraments, the Church as the body of Christ is also present. Explicit Western ecclesiology was born with the polemic of the Reformation and the reform movements that preceded it. This ecclesiology can be called “filia irae,” daughter of anger. During the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Dominican father John of Ragusa (1385–1443) was involved in the cause of the Hussites and wrote his Tractatus de Ecclesia in which the crucial question appears: Ubi est ecclesia?, “Where is the Church?” that is, Where is the true Church, and where is it not to be found? In the debates of the fifteenth century on the priority of the Pope or the Council, the definition gets more rigid: to the Church belong those qui in fide et obedientia Apostolicae sedis perseverant,13 “who persevere in faith and in the obedience to the Apostolic See.” The expression “Ecclesiologia” first appears in 1677 as the title of a book by Johannes Scheffler (1624–1677), the famous poet Angelus Silesius, who converted to Catholicism in 1653 and displayed in his book a polemical attitude toward the Lutherans. What can we expect if such an exclusivist ecclesiology rediscovers the brothers and sisters of the Churches of the East? 2.3  The “Confessionalist” Tendencies in Relations Between the East and the West The “confession of faith” at the basis of the life of the Church was increasingly transforming into a confessionalist attitude. The word “Catholic,” which in Florence had brought together “Latins” and “Greeks” without major problems, is now used to distinguish the “true Church,” faithful to tradition, from Protestant heretics. At the same time, the Latin word protestari, which originally meant nothing more than “to confess,” “to bear witness,” is also transformed into a confessional attribute to distinguish oneself from the followers of a Church that had betrayed the Gospel. The united “Latin” partner no longer exists, at least not since the Council of Trent. The united “Greek” partner also no longer exists, at least not since the fall of Constantinople and the loss of the Christian emperor. The word  STh III,8: De gratia Christi, secundum quod est caput ecclesiae.  Cf. Yves Congar, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte III/3d: Die Lehre von der Kirche (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1971), 32. 12 13

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

11

“Orthodox,” well capable of describing the one and only Church with “true doctrine” and “true veneration of God,” became the expression qualifying the separation between East and West. However, according to Suttner, the confessionalist movement was only fully evolved in the eighteenth century: “In the 18th century, the ‘Latins’ and ‘Greeks’ who had been in schism for a long time, while recognizing each other as Church, began to question or even deny the ecclesiality of the other. They began to see themselves as two ‘denominations,’ clearly cut off from each other and ‘separated in faith.’”14

3   The Church Unions After the Sixteenth Century: An Insufficient Hermeneutics The attitude toward the Council of Florence changed abruptly after the end of the Council not only on the Eastern side. Political factors certainly played a big role in these developments. The Latin West was busy with its own challenges of reformatio in capite et membris abandoning the project of financial support to defend the brothers and sisters in the East against the Ottomans. The disappointment and mistrust of a “betrayed union” among the “Greeks” was probably deeper than the various theological debates. In the changed conditions, new hermeneutics of the Council of Florence led to an interpretation in clear contradiction to the ecclesiological achievements of this Council. Sometime around the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585–1590) onward, the idea that Orientals had to correct their “insufficiencies” before being admitted to the union spread in the Roman curia. This was a far cry from the reciprocity of conversion and joy expressed in Florence. Let us for example examine the Union of Brest (1595/1596) in its ecclesiological dimension. Without any doubt, the initiators of the union wanted to carry out the decisions of the Council of Florence, unfortunately without being able to free themselves from their post-conciliar perspectives which blocked the access to the decisions of the Florentine fathers. Among the “Ruthenians,” that is, the “Greeks” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with Slavonic as their language for liturgy, the message of the Western reformers had considerable appeal, especially in higher circles,  Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen, 219.

14

12 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

because the need of reform in Church life was obvious. In 1589, Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople visited the Kiev Metropolitanate, concerned about the growing attractiveness of the Reformation, especially in the higher circles of the Ruthenian Church.15 He requested the Kiev hierarchy to convoke regular synods in order to promote a renewal of church life in correspondence with the canonical regulations. In this light, the closer contact with the Church of Rome, decided by the Kievian Synod in 1595, was seen as part of the synodal reform efforts. The request for the establishment or renewal of ecclesial communion on the basis of the Union of Florence was combined with a list of 33 points which insist on the legitimate differences in theology and ecclesial life and also claim political equality. The first point on the list takes up the most difficult debate at the Florence meeting around the Filioque: “1. Since there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Roman Church and the Greek religion on the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is the main obstacle to the Union, and this for almost no other reason than the fact that we do not want to understand each other, we demand that we should not be obliged to belong to another denomination, but to be able to follow what we find transmitted by the Greek religion in the writings of the Gospels and the Holy Fathers, namely that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from two principles and not by a double procession, but from one principle, as from one source, from the Father through the Son.”16 The second point insists on the preservation of the liturgical customs: “2. May the worship and all morning, evening, and night prayers be kept intact for us according to the custom and traditional practice of the Eastern Church, but especially the three liturgies of Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphany, which are celebrated during Lent with pre-sanctified gifts, and all other rites and ceremonies of our Church which we have performed up to now; and as in Rome too, under the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, this has been granted as a possibility, we may still be allowed to do all this in our own language.”17 Married priests are also considered a legitimate custom: “9. Priestly marriages may remain intact, except in cases of bigamy,”18 that is, 15  Cf. Oskar Halecki, From Florence to Brest (Rome 1958), 223–235. Presumably the patriarch himself advocated a rapprochement with the Church of Rome. 16   Latin text with German translation in: Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen, 35. 17  Ibid. 36. 18  Ibid. 40 with comments on pp. 40–41.

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

13

if a priest remarries after the death of his wife. The political aspects can be seen, for example, in point 12: “But in order that we may have greater authority and be more appreciated and respected by our sheep, we ask that the Metropolitan and the Bishops of our rite be admitted to the Senate of the Holy Royal Majesty, for many just reasons.”19 The Papal Nuncio in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth transmitted the 33 points to Rome and wrote to the Synod in Kiev on 1 August 1595: Some of those points which concern the Pope, refer to divine dogma, while others concern questions de iure humano. As far as those questions which refer to divine dogmas are concerned, since they coincide with the Catholic faith and did not grow out of human desires, but out of divine revelation, and since they are prescribed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence to be believed by the whole Church, it is without doubt certain that the Pope will approve and accept them.20

So far, we recognize the spirit of Florence—but the situation will change: The Synod of Brest sent two bishops as delegates to Rome, and with them Pope Clement VIII concluded the union on Christmas Eve 1595. While the 33 points were not rejected, they were in fact neither accepted nor even mentioned. This occasion was marked by the publication of the papal bull Magnus Dominus in which Pope Clement VIII reinterprets the reconciliation within the one Catholic Church at the Council of Florence as a “return” (reversio) to the true Church: When the two bishops and speakers Ipatij and Kyrill were graciously admitted by us to the audience and to the conversation with us and had handed over to us the letters also signed by them, they humbly begged our and the Apostolic See's grace and begged to be accepted into the bosom of the Catholic Roman Church […]. For their part, they declared themselves ready to condemn all heresies and schisms and to reject all false doctrines which the Holy Catholic Roman Church condemns and rejects, especially those on the basis of which they had hitherto been separated and segregated from that very Roman Church; they are also ready to confess the Catholic faith according to the regulations and, finally, to be obedient and submitted to us

 Ibid. 43–44.  Anastasiy G.  Welykyj, Documenta Unionis Berestensi eiusque auctorum (Roma 1970), 112–113; quoted in: Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen, 56. 19 20

14 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

as the true vicar of Christ and to the Holy Apostolic See, and to vow it forever.21

In the confessional formula presented to the bishops, the four points of the Council of Florence are mentioned in detail, but the decisive clause “of course, respecting all their privileges and rights” is omitted. In this formula, the bishops are not treated as representatives of their churches, but as individuals willing to convert. On the one hand they are addressed as venerable brothers, and on the other hand, they are described as lost sheep who find their way back to salvation and treated as “noble Protestants of the East” whose souls must be saved. Union with Rome, from the Pope’s perspective, required a rupture in communion with the Eastern hierarchs. Several times the Pope asserts that the Ruthenians must eradicate their errors of faith acquired during the period of separation from the Latin tradition. He unconditionally submits them to the doctrine of the Filioque and to many other teachings of the Latins, including those of the Council of Trent. The bull also states that a synod similar to the regional synods of the Latins has to publish the Union, and the Pope orders the composition of this body without taking note of the already existing Ruthenian synod. This way of proceeding was in flagrant contradiction to the decisions taken in Florence, according to which the “privileges and rights” of the “Greeks” were to be preserved. As a result, a split occurred within the Ruthenian Church and a non-unionist counter-hierarchy was established. In 1622, when the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda Fide) was founded, the competences formulated in the decree of 1595 were even extended, and the Congregation was entrusted with full control over the ecclesiastical life of the Ruthenians united with Rome. Twice (in 1624–1629 and 1636–1648) the Ruthenians tried to free themselves from their subordination to the Roman Curia and to unify the two Ruthenian hierarchies. The first attempt failed because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in no way wanted to recognize the competence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the territories of the United Churches. The second attempt was launched when Petr Mogila, Orthodox Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Church (1633–1647), obtained equal rights in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the  Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen, 67.

21

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

15

opponents of the Union by the Polish king Władysław IV Vasa. In 1644, Mogila sent a memorandum to Rome, declaring that the Ruthenian opponents of the Union and the Ruthenian party united in Rome were in no way separated in faith. It was false behavior on the Roman side in concluding the union, not theological difference, that had prevented the consensus of the Church and had led to new and worse tensions. It had not been the preservation of the two communities and their association by a common bond according to the ancient designation “union” (unio) that was sought, but a fusion (unitas), that is a transformation of the Greek religious community into a Roman community, a transsubstantiatio [religionis] Graecae in Romanam. This is why the result of the process should not be called “union.”22 According to Mogila, a solution can only be found if one party yields to the other or if something new is given by the Holy Spirit as mediator […]. Such a way is truly given: Primacy can be recognized by all, and the Apostolic See must be satisfied with it, but apart from this nothing of the principles and foundations will be changed or abandoned, for it is a union that is sought, not a mutation (mutatio). But this is the very essence of a union, to combine two things and to preserve each in its original integrity: what was before should persist also now, and what did not exist before should be completely eliminated.23

The memorandum did not receive any reaction from Rome, and the negotiations quickly came to an end, because Petr Mogila died quite young, in 1647, and Kiev was soon occupied by the Russians. Suttner presents a balanced evaluation of the events and their historical consequences: According to the understanding of the bishops of Kiev [sic], the sessions of the Autonomous Synod of the Metropolia [sic] of Kiev should have been continued from 1596 onwards. From the perspective of Rome, it was only necessary to confirm—according to the order of the Roman Pontiff—what had already been approved in Rome. In the same way, there were different opinions in Rome and Kiev with regard to the key topics of the agreement. It had not been clarified what happens in a “union” and what kind of ­obedience is owed to the Pope. The fact that such important questions had  Cf. Suttner, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen, 97.  Quoted ibid. 106.

22 23

16 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

not been clarified—without paying attention to the contradictions or thinking that they could be neglected—explains why the events of 1595–96 did not lead to unity, but to a new, even more painful schism.24

Only in the eighteenth century that designations “Latins” and “Greeks” within the one Church of Jesus Christ were finally replaced by separate confessional entities called the “Catholic Church” and the “Orthodox Church.” In 1729 the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith issued a decree strictly prohibiting any prayer, worship, and sacramental communion in Eastern countries between “Catholics” in communion with the Pope and Christians separated from the Pope, declaring any violation of this provision a sin that could only be forgiven in confession. In 1755 the Greek Patriarchs—without the consent of the Moscow Patriarchate—even decided to consider Latin Christians as unbaptized and all their sacraments as invalid. So, if a date for the separation between Eastern and Western Churches has to be indicated, it is certainly not 1054, but 1755 (except, however, the position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which stuck to the unity of the Church tradition).25

4   How to Continue “Memory and Reconciliation”—under this title the International Theological Commission published a document in time for the Jubilee Year 2000, which was broadly received in the Catholic Church and beyond. Christians became conscious in a new way that the past is not simply behind us as a closed affair, but is entrusted to us today as a task. Thus the “memory” of the history of the Church Unions can become a source for “reconciliation” today. First, if the failure of the ecclesiastical unions from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries had their origin in a deficient hermeneutics of the Council of Florence, due to a lack of perception of the profound ecclesial and ecclesiological changes, a new reception of the Council has to seek a new and common appreciation of the historical specificities in the East as well as in the West. From this perspective, a project of writing the history

 Suttner, op. cit., 87.  Cf. the paragraph “Die griechische Orthodoxie entscheidet sich neu”: Ernst Christoph Suttner, “Die eine Taufe zur Vergebung der Sünden.” In: Nikolaus Rappert (ed.), Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag 2003), 279–282. 24 25

  CHURCH UNIONS OF THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD IN RELATION… 

17

of the Council of Florence together would give us a chance for a continuation without denying discontinuities. Second, if the “unions” since the sixteenth century are the fruit of an unclarified ecclesiology, misunderstandings and wounds are inevitable. True reconciliation is needed, even if one should not suspect any ill will. Even the Pope was moved by the noblest motive imaginable: the salvation of souls. A real “healing of memories” and acts of reconciliation and forgiveness will be necessary, rather than struggling for who is right and who is wrong. Instead of victimizing others, we need to be prepared for sacrifice in the model of the sacrificial love of Christ. Third, it must be taken into consideration that on the Catholic side, the Second Vatican Council corrected the one-sided approach in ecclesiology in an almost revolutionary way, however, not all the necessary consequences have been drawn from it. As was confirmed in the Declaration Dominus Iesus of the year 2000, communion with the Bishop of Rome is no longer considered as a criterion of the true faith and, therefore, of salvation, even if this communion remains explicitly a criterion of the bene esse of the Church: The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.26 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy.27

Four, the 7th canon of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 787 states that “if anyone does not confess that Christ our God is limited (circumscribed; circumscriptus; περιγραπτός) according to humanity, let him be anathema.”28 What is admitted of the human nature of Christ, must a fortiori be admitted for the body of Christ which is the Church. As it is 26  Cf. can. 369 CIC, which clearly shows that the definition applied here corresponds exactly to the definition of the particular Church within the Catholic Church: “A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to a bishop for him to shepherd with the cooperation of the presbyterium, so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular church in which the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.” 27  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_ cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html; no. 17. 28  DH 606; canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 787.

18 

B. HALLENSLEBEN

said in the Scripture, “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor 4:7). The weakness of the historical shape does not prevent the presence of the fullness of truth and salvation. It is in this certainty that we consider with mercy the quarrels and separations born in human history to open us to the hope of the coming of the Kingdom of our Lord, to which the Church bears witness in the fragility of her human and visible body. * * * The re-reception of the Council of Florence was symbolically inaugurated on 14 December 1975 during the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the lifting of the 1054 anathemas, solemnly proclaimed by the Churches of Rome and Constantinople on 7 December 1965. On that Sunday, Pope Paul VI celebrated the Holy Liturgy in the Sistine Chapel, in the presence of a delegation from Constantinople. At the end of the liturgy, Paul VI approached the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Menton of Chalcedon, got down on his knees, and kissed his feet.29 As each symbol, this act may have a many-faceted significance. But it was certainly meant as an act of penance and reconciliation. Paul VI reversed the action that his predecessor, Pope Eugene IV, had demanded from the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Council of Ferrara-Florence and that Patriarch Joseph II had refused during the Council of Ferrara/Florence. The Sicilian artist Salvo Giordano was commissioned to design a statue commemorating this event. There are pictures of the model—which was never realized, and which later went missing, despite multiple investigations, for unknown or all too well-known reasons. Other perspectives can be found—if only the attitude that the Pope proposes will penetrate our minds.

29  Cf. His Eminence Dr. Athanasios Papas, Metropolitan of Helioupolis and Theirai, Rome & Constantinople. Pope Paul VI & Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute 2004).

“They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares”: Orthodox-Eastern Catholics Conflicts and the Ecumenical Progress That They Generated Radu Bordeianu

Are Eastern Catholic Churches “bridges to Catholicism”? Are they “bridges to Orthodoxy”? Both of these options imply a combative attitude that attempts to seize the other church’s faithful into one’s fold and understands Christian unity after the return model.1 If this is the case, 1  The return model of Christian unity starts from the belief that one Christian denomination contains the fullness of truth and Church life to the exclusion of other Christians, who have splintered away from this fullness. The way to Christian unity is to simply absorb back the schismatics, who are called to repent of their errors and return to the fullness of the Church found in that specific denomination. While this return model dominated especially the Catholic Church until the beginning of the twentieth century and it is still found in some Orthodox circles, it is now clearly not the way toward a united Church that, at their best, either of the two churches advocates. For more on this subject, see: Radu Bordeianu, “The Unity We Seek: Orthodox Perspectives,” in The [Oxford] Handbook of Ecumenical Studies, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul McPartlan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

R. Bordeianu (*) Department of Theology, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_2

19

20 

R. BORDEIANU

Byzantine Catholic churches are not bridges that one crosses freely and knowingly, connecting different lands; they are swords menacingly wielded at the other. Throughout history, this has often been the case, and the swords were not only allegorical but also used for literal forms of violence. I propose that Byzantine Catholic Churches could teach us how to cross the bridge toward a land that was once fruitful, but is now forgotten—a united Church that is neither the Orthodox Church nor the Catholic Church in their present forms. As the unity of the Church is not currently manifested in its fullness, unity can be compared to a land that needs to be rediscovered, purged, and recultivated, and for this we need to beat our swords into plowshares. Prophet Isaiah foresaw a time when the Lord’s house shall be established in Zion—that Promised Land of unity, when they shall beat their swords into plowshares,      and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation,      neither shall they learn war any more.2

Before highlighting important historical markers that have shaped the relationship between the Orthodox, Roman, and Byzantine Catholic churches, as well as the ecclesiological considerations that they raise, two terminological clarifications are necessary. First, in this chapter the term “Uniatism” is regarded as pejorative, but it cannot be avoided in citing statements by other authors. Moreover, in this chapter the terms “Byzantine Catholic,” “Eastern Catholic,” “Oriental Catholic,” “Greek Catholic,” and “Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite” are used interchangeably.

1   Historical Considerations 1.1  Writing a Common History The history of the interactions between East and West as they relate to Eastern Catholic Churches is illustrative of how Orthodox-Catholic unity might look, but also how it should not look. This history is mostly an allegorical (and sometimes literal) sword, marred by opposing readings of

2

 Isaiah 2:2–4

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

21

history.3 Since these opposing readings of history have exacerbated the conflict, it is important to reconcile our memories and arrive at a common narrative. An unofficial dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic theologians, the St. Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group, accomplished the challenging task of writing a common history in their document, Serving Communion: Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality.4 They show that after Trent, “loyalty to the papacy has developed into a distinctive mark of Catholic identity.”5 This development proved crucially important when thousands of Byzantines living in Magna Grecia lost their autonomous status, and the 1596 Perverbis Instructio decree submitted them to the authority of the local Latin bishop, while allowing them to maintain their liturgical traditions. Reduced to a rite tolerated within the Catholic Church (ecclesia ritualis), they were granted a titular bishop who ordained the community’s priests and deacons in the Byzantine rite.6 This decree and its implementation mirrored a similar process that was taking place further East at the same time. Orthodox communities in Eastern Europe could not have the same access to education, property, or titles of nobility as their Catholic conationals. Rome promised these rights in exchange for recognition of papal authority, with the assurance that the Orthodox could maintain their traditions such as married priesthood, the calendar, unleavened bread, or the Creed without the Filioque. Some Orthodox bishops and faithful accepted the unions of Brest (1596) in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; the union of 1611, in which Serbs living in Croatia remained in communion with both the Orthodox patriarchate of Peć (Serbia) and the pope; the 1646 union of the eparchy of Mukačevo (now in Ukraine); and the 1700 union in Transylvania (later Romania). The St. Irenaeus Group describes the atmosphere in which these unions took place as a period of exclusion and of extreme theological positions: “Given the exclusivist ecclesiology which came to dominate after Trent as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, both Catholics and Orthodox questioned whether a 3  For more information, see: Ronald Roberson. The Eastern Churches: A Brief Survey, 7th ed. (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute Press, 2005). 4   St. Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group, “Serving Communion: Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality,” Graz: 2018. https://www. moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2018_graz_serving_communion.pdf 5  Ibid., 9.5. 6  Ibid., 9.6.

22 

R. BORDEIANU

community in schism could serve as an instrument of salvation.”7 This clash of exclusivist ecclesiologies went well beyond the level of competing theologies. It soon morphed into full-fledged conflicts, exacerbated by the forceful transfer of church property to Rome and by the violence with which sometimes the union was imposed, even by military aggression.8 1.2  Persecution Orthodox historians have rightly documented the suffering of those united with Rome who were not given the rights promised to them, especially in terms of access to education, landownership, and titles of nobility. Likewise tragic was the suffering of the Orthodox who refused the union.9 However, many Orthodox are reluctant to discuss the role of their churches in the persecution of the Eastern Catholics, such as when the Communist regimes in the Eastern Bloc abrogated Eastern Catholic Churches, with the tacit or explicit approval of the Orthodox Churches. Efforts to absorb Byzantine Catholics into the Orthodox Church precede Communism. After the 1793 partition of Poland brought two million Greek Catholics into the Russian Empire, in 1794, Empress Catherine the Great embarked on a massive campaign to bring them into the Orthodox Church. Her “tolerant” approach—which included offering pensions to Greek Catholic clergy who refused to convert—contrasts Nicholas I’s later campaign to eliminate the Greek Catholic Church in 1839.10 Even more cruel was Stalin’s suppression of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. His systematic campaign began in 1945. Eleven Greek Catholic bishops were either executed or sent to Siberian labor camps. By 1962, only Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj had survived.11 Swords turned into  Ibid., 9.10.  Mircea Pacurariu. Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane [The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church] Vol. 2, Bucuresti: EIBMBOR, 1994, 298–315. 9  Ibid. 10  For more, see: Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-Century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009). 11  As Anastacia Wooden shows, the Metropolitan’s release was a priority for Pope John XXIII, who “was truly concerned with Slipyj’s condition and even kept the Metropolitan’s picture on his desk.” See: Anastacia Wooden, “‘The Agent of Christ’: Participation of Fr. Vitali Borovoy in the Second Vatican Council as an Observer from the ROC,” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 36, no. 4 (2016): 21. 7 8

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

23

plowshares when the Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican II transmitted to the Communist authorities Rome’s plea for Slipyj’s amnesty and Khrushchev released the Metropolitan to live in Rome, where he was able to once more celebrate Eastern Liturgy in Slavonic.12 In Romania, when the Communist regime outlawed the Greek Catholic Church in 1948, some Orthodox hierarchs and theologians—even of the stature of Dumitru Staniloae—approved such violation as restorative justice. They regarded it as a reversal of the forced union with Rome in 1700 and especially of the violence that followed the union. Between 1948 and the 1989 Revolution that marked the fall of Communism, approximately 600 Greek Catholic priests were imprisoned; churches, schools, and cemeteries were either given to the Orthodox Church or seized by the state. And so, on June 2, 2019, when Pope Francis visited Romania, he declared “blessed” seven Greek-Catholic martyr bishops, including one cardinal.13 But that is not the full picture. Both Orthodox and Catholics underwent unspeakable suffering at the hand of a common oppressor—the militant atheist regime. Out of Communist persecution of both churches arose “ecumenism behind bars”—the union that Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic martyrs experienced together in prison. Unfortunately, this sense of martyred unity could not be sustained after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989–1990, when Byzantine Catholic churches re-emerged from the underground.14 1.3  Post-Communist Reemergence With the restoration of the Byzantine Catholic churches and the reemergence of the Orthodox Churches after Communist persecution, the conflicts over church patrimony got especially bitter. Orthodox parishes  Johannes Willebrands and Thomas Stransky, who were in attendance, regarded this episode as one of the most gratifying moments of their long service. See: Radu Bordeianu, “Orthodox Observers at the Second Vatican Council and Intra-Orthodox Dynamics,” Theological Studies 79, no. 1 (2018): 103. 13  The names of these martyr bishops are: Iuliu Hossu, who had been imprisoned in 1954, died in the hospital in 1970, and Paul VI had secretly elevated to the rank of cardinal but at his request only revealed this elevation after his death; Vasile Aftenie, who died in prison in 1950; Ioan Balan, imprisoned 1950–1954, he died in a monastery in 1959; Valeriu Traian Frentiu, who died in prison in 1952; Ioan Suciu, who died in prison 1953; Tito Liviu Chinezu, died in prison 1955; and Alexandru Rusu, who died in prison 1963. 14  The latest census in Romania (2002) counts the Greek Catholic population at 195,481, or 0.9% of the population. http://www.infotravelromania.ro/recensamant.html 12

24 

R. BORDEIANU

wanted to maintain their churches, built by their ancestors before the union, and returned to them by the Communist authorities. Eastern Catholics claimed these same churches that were used by their ancestors for centuries, since the union, and were unjustly seized by the Communists. The conflict was aggravated by the existence of two parallel canonical traditions. In the Orthodox tradition, the church building belongs to the community, so when these Orthodox parishes joined Rome, they took their buildings with them. But in the Catholic tradition, the patrimony belongs to the diocese, so even if the majority of the faithful wanted to be Orthodox (as was often the case after decades of Communism), they were unable to retain possession of their church buildings. This impasse required the intervention of secular authorities, which considered the number of faithful who needed a church and mediated the sharing of churches. By being unable to solve their conflicts directly, without the intervention of the secular state, the credibility of both churches suffered and the faithful became disillusioned by such actions and polemics; since the fall of the Iron Curtain, church attendance rates have been falling continuously in the East. These patrimonial disputes accompanied by the expansion of Catholic structures parallel to the Orthodox determined several Orthodox Churches to protest that their territories have “come to be considered by our brother Catholics as terra missionis.”15 The accusations of proselytism abounded and as a result, in 1992 the Greek Orthodox Church even asked the Greek government to break its diplomatic relations with the Vatican.16 Similarly, in 2002 the Vatican created several Catholic dioceses in the territory claimed by the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly denounced this decision.17 Increasingly, Moscow employed the rhetoric of “canonical territory”—a rather novel expression that claims the East as Orthodoxy’s 15  See Vladimir Kharlamov, “Vatican II on Ecumenism and the Eastern Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38, no. 2–3 (2001): 183–84. 16  As Kharlamov explains, “when in December 1991, John Paul II convoked the Synod of European Bishops, the Orthodox delegates invited to this meeting barely participated. To explain the reason for their absence, the Ecumenical Patriarch sent his representative, who proposed two issues that caused tension between the East and the West: the rebirth of Uniate Churches, and the expansion of Catholic structures parallel to the Orthodox that exceed the need for spiritual nourishment of Catholics living in these territories.” Vladimir Kharlamov, “Vatican II on Ecumenism and the Eastern Church,” 183–84. 17  Ibid., 186–87.

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

25

territory but a concept that does not seem to apply to Moscow’s presence in the West, which would presumably be Catholic canonical territory.18 Moscow also decried “Western expansionism,” which presupposes the dichotomy between East and West with their artificially imposed identities, in opposition. Relevant to our topic, Moscow blamed the schism in Ukraine on pro-Western elements instigated by Constantinople (allegedly an American tool) and Ukrainian Catholics—Western Europe’s allegorical swords in Moscow’s view. Also significant was the statement that Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill signed in Havana, in 2016. The Primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, publicly expressed his concerns with the distorted interpretation of the situation in Ukraine and how the statement belittled the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches. As Peter Galadza rightly observes, “the Statement referred to them as ‘ecclesial communities,’ a term […] reserved for Protestants. Moreover, the fact that Greco-­ Catholics were informed of their ‘right to exist’ […] was viewed as a patronizing concession to what is actually a Church of true martyrs.”19 Surprisingly, in this case Moscow seems to have fallen on its own sword (namely its anti-Western propaganda), because some Orthodox nationalists in Belarus, Moldova, and Russia have ceased their public commemorations of Patriarch Kirill merely because he met with the Pope. 1.4  Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue To understand the impact that the restoration of Eastern Catholic Churches had upon the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, one must go back to the meeting of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic International 18  The Balamand Statement #29 stipulates that “it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.” Noteworthy is the allusion to canonical territory even in this pan-Orthodox statement that mentions “regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church.” Moreover, the Moscow Patriarchate has reportedly spent 73 million Euros for the purchase of a Parisian property near the Eifel Tower, on which it built a large cathedral complex. 19  Peter Galadza, “Relations of the Orthodox Church with ‘Uniates’: A Plea for Removing One More Skandalon in an Increasingly Secularized World,” in Toward the Holy and Great Council: Theological Reflections, ed. Nathanael Symeonides (New York: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 2016), 53–54, also available at: https://publicorthodoxy. org/2016/05/27/relations-of-the-orthodox-church-with-uniates/

26 

R. BORDEIANU

Commission in Freising-Munich, in 1990, which was consumed with the reemergence of Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. The dialogue previously addressed the topic of these churches in Valamo in 1988, before the fall of the Iron Curtain; a draft was produced in Vienna in January 1990, which Rome found unsatisfactory, but some of whose principles would eventually make it six months later into the Munich statement. At Munich the tensions were high. Constantinople tried in vain to bring the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia to the table. These six churches refused to send representatives as a protest against what they considered Byzantine Catholic proselytism in their territories. The Romanian representatives protested the consecration of five Greek Catholic bishops and the Greek Catholic intention to recover all its possessions appropriated by the Communists, as opposed to letting the local congregation decide.20 The situation in Western Ukraine was similarly tense over church property and accusations of proselytism.21 It was in such a fraught context that in 1993, the same International Commission issued the Balamand Document.22 From the beginning, the document adopts a belligerent tone, illustrating the tensions between the members of the Commission: 1. At the request of the Orthodox Churches, the normal progression of the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church has been set aside so that immediate attention might be given to the question which is called “uniatism.” 2. … “we reject it as method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches.” 3. … Oriental Catholic Churches, … as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful (italics mine).

20  Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy: Twenty-Five Years after Vatican II,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 35, no. 3 (1990): 233. 21  Ibid., 234. 22  See full statement in John Borelli and John H.  Erickson, eds., The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 175–83.

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

27

Paragraph 123 shows that this document attempts to bring back those Orthodox Churches that withdrew from the dialogue by assuaging their concerns. Moreover, the statement that “uniatism” is not a method to reestablish unity is significant and has its own merit. As Ukrainian Greek Catholic Major Archbishop Shevchuk explained recently, this method “breaks a Church and makes part of this breach be absorbed by another Church, [which] creates divisions and do not help to heal the wounds.”24 But, to put it candidly, it is important to admit that the opening paragraphs of Balamand are far from celebrating Eastern Catholic Churches, who do not need the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to grant them the right to exist. The document continues: 12. Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in their relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of “missionary apostolate” described above, and which has been called “uniatism,” can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

One might applaud the use of the expression “sister Churches” for Orthodox-Catholic relations. Since the Orthodox customarily use this expression for the relationship among national Orthodox Churches, it is significant that even in this fraught context, Balamand applied it to inter-­ Church relations!25 But is it enough to go past the irony in the expression (derogatorily placed between quotation marks) “missionary apostolate”? In fact, the US Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation’s response to Balamand notes that “The Document’s forceful treatment of 23  See also #35 of the same document: “By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself altogether again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.” 24  July 2019 interview with Catholic News Agency. https://www.catholicnewsagency. com/column/ecumenism-the-dream-of-a-patriarchate-shevchuk-wraps-up-on-popefrancis-meeting-with-the-ukrainian-greek-catholic-church-4040 25  The ecumenical use of the expression “sister churches” has earlier precedents, including during Second Vatican Council. See more in Will Cohen, The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Münster: Aschendorff, 2016).

28 

R. BORDEIANU

­roselytization needs to be balanced by a proper understanding of p mission.”26 In other words, each of our churches is entitled to its own missionary efforts, which are different from proselytism. In the end, Balamand did not secure full Orthodox participation in the Commission. The Orthodox conditioned the continuation of the international dialogue on the solution of these dissentions regarding Byzantine Catholic churches, leading to a six-year hiatus in their works.27 At its ninth plenary session in Belgrade in 2006, swords once again turned into plowshares, and the international Commission resumed its works, making significant progress on primacy and synodality. But the earlier Balamand statement contained a key recommendation: 20. In order to move forward, we must have “a will to pardon.”

This recommendation is essential in order to move forward.28 A deep healing of memories is needed on both sides, who presently (and understandably so) focus primarily on their own victimization at the hand of the  #12. See full response in Borelli and Erickson, eds., The Quest for Unity, 184–90.  Obviously, the North American dialogue continued. Speaking from the two years of my own experience on the North American Consultation, the participation of Eastern Catholic theologians (Chorbishop John Faris, Fr. Alexander Laschuk, and Fr. David Petras) is not only welcome, but it is crucial for the success of our works. I simply cannot imagine our consultation without our Byzantine Catholic participants. The animosity of the international dialogue in the Balamand era could be nothing further from our deep sense of friendship and collaboration. On the same positive note, Peter Galadza—a past member of the North American Consultation—lists some “striking examples of Orthodox-Eastern Catholic rapprochement: In the mid-1960s Patriarch Athenagoras declared to Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, that the latter had ‘spoken for the Orthodox’ at Vatican II.  In the USA, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School welcomed Melkite Greek Catholic seminarians for years. … In Canada, the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies has hired not only a long list of Orthodox scholars as adjunct faculty, but was blessed to have the [former] chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America [John Jillions] as a full-time, tenured professor. Finally, the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv frequently hosts presentations by scholars of the Moscow Patriarchate, and hires lecturers of various Orthodox Churches.” Galadza, “Relations of the Orthodox Church with ‘Uniates’: A Plea for Removing One More Skandalon in an Increasingly Secularized World,” 54, also available at: https://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/05/27/relations-of-the-orthodox-church-with-uniates/ 28  To give just one example of Balamand’s reception, “Bishop George Gutu, the Apostolic Administrator for the Greek Catholics in Romania, sent a letter to Pope John Paul II in 1994 criticizing precisely those parts in the document in which Uniatism was rejected as a method contradicting the tradition of the two Churches” and charged the Romanian Orthodox Church for not admitting its role in the coopting of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church 26 27

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

29

other. To move closer to unity, both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics need to acknowledge the hurt that they have caused to the other, to receive the confession of the other, and be willing to forgive.

2   Ecclesiological Considerations This brief history highlighted several underlying ecclesiological questions that need to be addressed: Is the recognition of the papacy sufficient for unity? Is the process of Latinization inherent in union with Rome? And how does one preserve the Eastern identity and guarantee its equal status in a united Church? Let us look now at some of these questions more thoroughly. 2.1  Papacy and Latinization The genesis of Eastern Catholic Churches, perhaps inadvertently, showed the recognition of papal primacy as a sufficient condition for unity. Rome did not regard the Filioque,29 purgatory, azymes, and clerical celibacy as church-dividing issues that Easterners had to accept as preconditions for unity. Papal authority stood alone in this category, even while missionaries and apologists fervently defended the remaining issues against the Orthodox. The recognition of papal primacy, however, was followed by a systematic process of Latinization, lest one opposed a Pope declared infallible at Vatican I in 1870. Examples of Latinization include the insertion of the Filioque in liturgical books, Roman missionaries trying to introduce the use of unleavened bread, and the obstruction of married priesthood. The Congregation for the Oriental Churches issued in 1929 the decree, Cum data fuerit. It states that “priests of the Greek-Ruthenian Rite who wish to go to the United States […] and stay there, must be celibates.”30 Greek Catholics protested this decree and around 200,000 Ruthenian in the Orthodox Church “by means of violence and terror in 1948.” Kharlamov, “Vatican II on Ecumenism and the Eastern Church,” 185. 29  For Congar’s commentary on the lack of obligativity for Oriental Catholic Churches to use the Filioque and the implication that it is a theological opinion and not an obligatory dogma, see: Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit: The River of the Water of Life Flows in the East and in the West, trans. David Smith, vol. 3 (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 195–206. 30  “Introduction” in Adam DeVille’s forthcoming volume Married Priests.

30 

R. BORDEIANU

faithful in America passed to Orthodoxy, forming the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church in 1936.31 But for the remaining Byzantine Catholics in North America, the decree was strictly enforced. Some bishops, however, allowed married men to study in their seminaries, sent them “on a visit” to Ukraine where local Greek Catholic bishops ordained them, and upon their return to North America, their own American bishops appointed them in parishes. On June 4, 2014, The North American Consultation recommended the lifting of the restriction on ordinations of married candidates in Eastern Catholic Churches in order to affirm the Eastern Catholic tradition and to assure the Orthodox that full communion does not mean the questioning of their traditions.32 Without ascribing causality, eight days later on June 14, 2014, Pope Francis authorized Cardinal Sandri to lift this ban, affirming that Eastern hierarchy have the faculty to ordain Eastern married candidates coming from the respective territory with the obligation to inform beforehand in writing the Latin bishop of the candidate’s residence, in order to have his opinion and any relevant information. [Italics added.]

The document still subordinates the Eastern Catholic bishop to the Latin bishop, since the latter does not have the obligation to inform the Eastern bishop in writing of his intention to ordain priests in the Roman rite. This imbalance is disheartening for Eastern Orthodox theologians who seek Christian unity and it further inflames the suspicion that, in a united Church, the East would have a second-class status. Hopefully an even more pronounced ecumenical implementation of this document will both alleviate such concerns and eliminate this instance of Latinization. Having said that, it is only fair to acknowledge that several popes tried to prevent Latinization. For example, Benedict XIV’s encyclical, Allatatae Sunt (On the Observance of Oriental Rites, 1755) is a response to missionaries who asked whether Armenians and Syrians united with Rome should adopt Latin practices. Citing a long list of popes who supported Greek practices, Benedict responded in the negative, stating that Oriental Catholics should  Victor Pospishil’s estimation. See: “Introduction” in Adam DeVille, Married Priests.  h t t p : / / w w w. a s s e m b l y o f b i s h o p s . o r g / m i n i s t r i e s / o r t h o d o x - c a t h o l i c / agreed-statement-married-eastern-catholic-priests 31

32

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

31

observe fully their ancient rites which are not at variance with the Catholic religion or with propriety. The Church does not require schismatics to abandon their rites when they return to Catholic unity, but only that they forswear and detest heresy.33 Its great desire is for the preservation, not the destruction, of different peoples-in short, that all may be Catholic rather than all become Latin.34

Later on, Benedict the XVth established the Pontifical Oriental Institute (or the “Orientale”) in Rome and created in 1917 the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church, the institutions that were meant to both protect the rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches and ensure the unity of the Catholic Church—a two-edged sword, one might say. Last but not least, prior to his pontificate, Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) was an apostolic delegate for twenty years in Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece, which explains why the agenda that he set for Vatican II paid special attention to the East—both Catholic and Orthodox. In all these instances in which various popes tried to prevent Latinization, the Orthodox might still bemoan that Rome intervened so decisively. But Catholics would be right to emphasize the positive character of the intervention of Rome—“the Church that presides in love.”35 2.2  Eastern Identity and Equal Status A second ecclesiological question concerns the preservation of the Eastern identity and guarantee of its equal status with the Latin tradition. In 1962, before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, a commission was formed to draft a document on the Eastern Catholic Churches. When the draft was sent to the Council in 1964, many Eastern bishops protested the style of the document that compared Eastern Churches with the Roman “standard”; some critics even contemplated the possibility of not having a document on the Eastern Churches at all. And yet, after three days of debate, Orientalium Ecclesiarum36 was adopted almost unanimously, affirming that the Catholic Church is made up of various churches or rites  Presumably, “heresy” here refers to the Eastern rejection of papal primacy.  #48. https://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14ALLAT.HTM Italics added by myself. 35  Ignatius of Antioch. Romans (greeting). 36  The Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite  – Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Promulgated by Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964) 33 34

32 

R. BORDEIANU

of equal dignity. The Decree clearly states that Eastern Catholics have the “right and duty” to organize their own parishes, hierarchy, and seminary formation. They may decide to celebrate Easter with the other Christians in their area or to celebrate the Divine Office in accordance with their traditions. However, they need Rome’s approval when they determine, transfer, or suppress feast days common to all the Eastern Churches or when they regulate the use of liturgical languages. Also, Catholics should remain in the Catholic community in which they were born, without changing rites.37 Orientalium Ecclesiarum thus describes Byzantine Catholics not as branches of Rome, but as churches in communion with Rome, the latter retaining its primacy. This statement, of course, has to be seen within the larger ecclesiology of the Council, which conditions the existence of the 37  Par. 2–3, 20, 22, 19, 23, 4. These conciliar statements about the Oriental Orthodox Churches show a great degree of appreciation for the Eastern tradition. The same respect for the East was the root motivation of the Council’s references to Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly in regards to procedures for conversion and mutual sacramental recognition. The same Orientalium Ecclesiarum decree affirms: 25. If any separated Eastern Christian [i.e. Orthodox] should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority. Then the decree goes beyond the means of accepting Orthodox into Catholicism and the recognition of Orthodox orders, to address other sacraments, including the Eucharist: 27. Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those nonCatholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. … 29. This conciliatory policy with regard to communicatio in sacris (participation in things sacred) with the brethren of the separated Eastern Churches is put into the care and control of the local hierarchs, in order that, by combined counsel among themselves and, if need be, after consultation also with the hierarchs of the separated churches, they may by timely and effective regulations and norms direct the relations among Christians. This later reference to Orthodox hierarchs was introduced in the last minute at the insistence of Orthodox observers. Noteworthy, however, is that the Orthodox observers did not close the door to the possibility of intercommunion.

  “THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES”… 

33

various local and particular churches upon their relationship with the Pope,38 which in a way weakens Orientalium Ecclesiarum’s affirmation of Eastern Catholics as churches that are not inferior to other rites. These ecclesiological principles enunciated by the Council were later legislated. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is a testimony to both the Eastern charism that Rome wants to preserve and the authority of John Paul II, the pope who promulgated it in 1990. Orthodox theologians have called into question the very fact of codification of canons because the Eastern canonical tradition is based on precedent and a collective memory of various prescriptions, and not a consistent legal code. While such Orthodox critiques would be more credible if Orthodoxy had a consistently canonical life and practices, we still need a larger discussion about whether the 1990 codification of canons preserves or diminishes the Eastern canonical tradition. Regardless of the answer to this question, one needs to note the progress that the Code makes by calling Byzantine Catholic churches “sui iuris,” meaning that, although remaining under the authority of the bishop of Rome, they are churches in their own right, enjoying a significant degree of autonomy.39 38  Lumen Gentium 23 affirms: “This collegial union is apparent also in the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and the faithful. The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church. For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity. […] By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties. This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.” 39  Code 27 reads, “A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.”

34 

R. BORDEIANU

In conclusion, I attempted to argue that Byzantine Catholic Churches are neither bridges to Catholicism, as means to proselytize Orthodox faithful toward Rome, nor bridges to Orthodoxy, in an imagined return to their roots. Byzantine Catholic Churches are not a perfect model of unity, either. But they provide a model of coexistence and mutual influence of Eastern and Western traditions in regard to the two liturgical and canonical traditions forming an organic unity-in-diversity, especially during and after the Second Vatican Council. Byzantine Catholic churches also show how, when faced with the common threat of Communist persecution, different churches come closer by engaging in ecumenism behind bars. Eastern Catholics are also a model of resilient defense of one’s charism, showing that unity does not equal uniformity, as in the cases of married priesthood and papal disapprovals of Latinization. Thus, Byzantine Catholic churches are bridges toward a united Church—a land still to be discovered, a land in which we shall beat our swords into plowshares.

Giorgio Agamben’s Stasis (Civil War): An Illuminating Paradigm for Ecumenical Studies? Craig A. Phillips

This chapter employs the writings of Giorgio Agamben on stasis (the ancient Greek word for “civil war”) to show how his analysis might shed light on ecumenical discourses, particularly as it applies to relationships between Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches. At first it might seem counterintuitive or shocking to hear the words “civil war” uttered in the context of ecumenical discourses and engagements. Is it not the intention of ecumenical discourse to bring ecclesiastical bodies at least into a greater harmony and at best into a more organic union? How then could a theory of civil war be helpful for these purposes? It is the contention of this chapter that an exploration of stasis not only illuminates the characteristics of the conflict itself, but the nature of the “peace” achieved after the resolution of the conflict. The first section of this chapter investigates Giorgio Agamben’s analysis of stasis, locating its importance and role in Agamben’s larger philosophical

C. A. Phillips (*) Virginia Theological Seminary, Arlington, VA, USA © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_3

35

36 

C. A. PHILLIPS

and political project. Agamben often begins his inquiries with a philological investigation of a word, an idea, or a citation—in this case stasis—and then without a discernable break, his argument becomes a philosophical investigation. Because for Agamben the philological is the philosophical and vice versa, he investigates the identified word or citation further by taking it out of its original context so that it can be redeployed for his own purposes in an entirely different context.1 The second section of the chapter employs elements taken from Agamben’s discussion of stasis, mutatis mutandis, to illuminate the document “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion” issued by the seventh plenary session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon in 1993 (the Balamand Statement).2 The juxtaposition of the work of Agamben with this ecumenical document offers insights about the nature of the conflict and into its possible resolution, not otherwise available in an analysis of the ecumenical document alone. Finally, the chapter employs the paradigm of stasis heuristically, focusing on Agamben’s analysis of the Athenian Civil War and conflicts between ancient Greek city states, and the mode of their resolution, applying it to Orthodox–Eastern Catholic conflicts and engagements.

1  In October 2001, Agamben presented two seminars at Princeton University, which were published with minor variations under the title, Stasis: Civil War as Political Paradigm. This volume was identified as Part II, 2 of Agamben’s multivolume Homo Sacer project. The name of the series comes from Agamben’s 1995 book Homo Sacer that began his in-depth investigations into the nature and function of political sovereignty in Western democracies. See Giorgio Agamben, Stasis: La guerre civile come paradigm politico (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri editore, 2015); English edition: Stasis: Civil War as Political Paradigm, trans. Nicholas Heron (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2015). See also Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1998). Because of the brevity of these Princeton seminars, Agamben’s discussion of stasis is more suggestive than complete, leaving the reader with the task of filling out the implications and application of his work. 2  The Seventh Plenary Session, Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Balamand, Lebanon, June 17–24, 1993. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_ orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

37

1   Stasis The word stásis (στάσις) is derived from the ancient Greek verb histēmi (ἵστημι) which designates the act of rising or standing firmly upright.3 The Oxford Classical Dictionary provides a succinct derivation and definition: Stasis (lit. “standing”), a Greek word commonly used for a group of men who take a stand in a political dispute, i.e. a party or faction, and by extension for the dispute itself, especially when the prosecution of the dispute goes beyond normal political activity to plotting and violence.4

Stasis, in other words, was a term first employed in a narrow sense to describe taking a position or a “stand” that later came in a larger sense to refer to civil war in general, that is, from a place where there are political factions in dispute to outright war between the factions.

2   Stasis: Civil War as Political Paradigm Stasis is mentioned infrequently in Agamben’s writings and is one of the less developed paradigms in his Homo Sacer series; it has an important place, even if that place is not immediately evident. When Agamben does discuss it, it is usually in relation to one of the most important constituent parts of all his writings, “the state of exception.” Agamben’s discussion of the “state of exception” is based on his engagement with the work of Carl Schmitt who defined the sovereign as the one who has the power to suspend the law, that is to declare a state of exception to the law.5 Stasis, for Agamben, is a political paradigm. Agamben asserts that he employs figures such as stasis, the homo sacer (the figure of Roman jurisprudence who could be killed with impunity but not sacrificed), the “state of exception” to the law, and the concentration camp (among others) as “paradigms” whose role is “to constitute and make intelligible a broader historical-problematic context.”6 “[… A] paradigm,” he notes, “is simply 3  The transliteration of stasis is printed without an accent in the English translation of Agamben, Stasis. This chapter will follow this usage, except for this instance. 4  P.  J. Rhodes, “Stasis” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, eds. Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1430. 5  Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George D. Schwab (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), 5. 6  Giorgio Agamben, The Signature of All Things: On Method, trans. Lucio D’Isanto with Kevin Attell (New York: Zone Books, 2009), 9.

38 

C. A. PHILLIPS

an example, a single case that by its repeatability acquires the capacity to model tacitly the behavior and research practices of scientists.”7 One of the central characteristics of Agamben’s philosophical, aesthetic, and political writings is that he often applies his analysis of a particular paradigm, idea, or concept to an idea or concept from an entirely different context, so that new insights might be gleaned from his study. In an essay, “The State of Exception,” published prior to his later book of the same title, Agamben states, as he does in Stasis, that he does not intend to develop a “stasiology,” that is a theory of civil war, but rather to use stasis as a paradigm to assist in his larger investigation of the nature and functioning of political sovereignty and biopolitics in Western democratic societies.8 Agamben notes that the reason for the lack of a “stasiology” in political science is “the proximity between civil war and the state of exception” to the law, the suspension of normal laws put into effect by the states at moments of extreme crisis. “Since civil war is by definition the opposite of the normal situation it moves in a zone of undecidability with respect to the state of exception, which is the usual response of state power to extreme internal conflicts.”9 Agamben concludes: Modern totalitarianism could thus be defined as the establishment by means of a state of emergency of a legal civil war that results in the physical elimination not only of political adversaries but also of whole categories of citizens who for some reason cannot be integrated into the political system. Since then, the willing creation of a state of perpetual emergency seems to have become one of the essential tasks of contemporary states, including so-called democratic ones.10

“The inner link between the state of exception and civil war,” Agamben asserts, “comes fully to light in an institution of Roman law that can be considered as the true archetype or paradigm of the modern Ausnahmezustand: the iustitium.”11 The Latin word iustitium, derived  Agamben, The Signature of All Things, 11.  Giorgio Agamben, “The State of Exception” in Politics, Metaphysics, and Death: Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer, ed. Andrew Norris, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), 284–297. 9  Giorgio Agamben, “The State of Exception,” 284–5. This is restated in Agamben, Stasis, 4: “A theory of civil war is not among the possible objectives of this text.” 10  Agamben, “The State of Exception,” 285. 11  Agamben, “The State of Exception,” 285. 7 8

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

39

from ius-stitium, means to bring the law to a stop. “As the Roman grammarians explained, it is ‘when the law stands still’ (quando ius stat).”12 As such, it is the “abeyance of the law” altogether. If a situation seemed “to threaten or endanger the res publica” the Senate could issue a decree declaring a tumultus, “that is to say, a state of emergency arising from inner disorder or an insurrection.” “There is a close connection,” Agamben notes, “between tumultus, that is to say, civil war) and iustitium (that is to say, the state of exception).” Together they, “form a kind of system, in which each term requires the other.”13 Because the iustitium, Agamben argues, “allows us to observe the state of exception in its paradigmatic form, we will use [it …] as a miniature model as we attempt to untangle the aporias that the modern theory of the state of exception cannot resolve.”14 Agamben restricts himself to examining “two moments” in the history of stasis, which represent “the two faces […] of a single political paradigm,” Ancient Greece and the thought of Thomas Hobbes—one moment representing “the necessity of civil war” and the other, “the necessity of its exclusion.”15 These opposing necessities maintain a “secret solidarity between them,” which the book Stasis seeks to grasp. This chapter focuses only on the “necessity of civil war” from Ancient Greece.16

3   Civil War as a War at Home In the first of the two seminars that make up the book Stasis, Agamben explores the work of Nicole Loraux whose scholarly investigations focus on civil war as war waged in the family in Ancient Greece and more pointedly on the amnesty granted in 403 B.C. at the end of the Athenian Civil 12  Agamben, “The State of Exception.” 286. (In this phrase we see the linguistic relationship between the Greek word stasis and the Latin word iustitium.) 13  Agamben, “The State of Exception,” 287. 14  Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (Homo Sacer II.1), trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 41. 15  Agamben, Stasis, 4. 16  Agamben, Stasis, 4. In the second part of the book, Agamben highlights the circular nature of the argument in the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes, in which Hobbes argues that the “people” can only be represented as a “dissolved multitude.” “[I]f the dissolved multitude—and not the people—is the sole human presence in the city,” Agamben concludes, “and if the multitude is the subject of civil war, this means that civil war remains always possible within the State,” even if that possibility must be avoided. See Agamben, Stasis, 52.

40 

C. A. PHILLIPS

War.17 Loraux begins her extensive study of the Athenian stasis with the following assertion: “I begin with a project: to understand what motivated the Athenians in 403 B.C. to swear ‘not to recall the misfortunes of the past’.”18 Her analysis of civil war serves as a lesser paradigm from which Agamben develops his own paradigm of stasis, which he then employs to uncover truths about the exercise of contemporary political sovereignty. In the Menexenus, Plato describes civil war as taking place within the home or the household (οἰκος), that is within the larger city state. He writes: [O]ur civil war at home (ὁ οἰκεῖος ἡμῖν πόλεμος) was waged in such a way that—if men are fated to engage in civil strife—there is no man but would pray for his own State that its sickness might resemble ours […]. And the cause of all these actions was nothing else than that genuine kinship which produces, not in word only but in deed, a firm friendship founded on community of race. And of those who fell in this war also it is meet to make mention and to reconcile them by such means as we can under present conditions,—by prayer, that is, and by sacrifice,—praying for them to those that have them in their keeping, seeing that we ourselves also have been reconciled. For it was not through wickedness that they set upon one another, nor yet through hatred, but through misfortune. And to this we ourselves, who now live, can testify; for we who are of the same stock as they grant forgiveness to one another […].19

In other words, in Classical Greece the community of citizens was understood to form a household, a kind of family. In this citation from the Menexenus the most telling sentence is the first: “Our civil war (ὁ οἰκεῖος ἡμῖν πόλεμος) was fought (ἐπολεμήθη), followed by the parenthetical phrase, “if men are fated to engage in civil strife (στασιάσαι)” (ὁ οἰκεῖος ἡμῖν πόλεμος οὕτως ἐπολεμήθη, ὥστε εἴπερ εἱμαρμένον εἴη ἀνθρώποις 17  Nicole Loraux, La Cité divisée: L’oubli dans la mémoire d’Athènes (Paris: Payot et Rivages, 1997). English translation: Nicole Loraux, The Divided City: On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens, trans. Corrinne Pacha with Jeff Fort (New York: Zone Books, 2006). 18  Nicole Loraux, The Divided City, 15. See 29. 19  Plato, Menexenus, 243e–243e4, trans. R.  G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library 234 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), 362–363. “After these happenings, when we were at peace and amity with other States, our civil war at home was waged in such a way that—if men are fated to engage in civil strife—there is no man but would pray for his own State that its sickness might resemble ours.”

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

41

στασιάσαι). It is important to note that Plato uses the same linguistic root for “war” as he does for the verb translated here as “fought.” Literally, it might be translated somewhat awkwardly into English with the words, “our home war was warred.” The same sentence, then, ends with the verbal form of the noun stasis, στασιάσαι.20 After the Athenian amnesty, in a speech of Kleokritus reported by Xenophon, the orator asserts that once again “they lived together as citizens (πολιτεύεσθαι),” that is, they lived together in the polis as citizens.21 For Agamben, the collapsing of the distinction made in the Classical world between bios, that is life lived in the polis—thus political life—and zō e, the natural life that humans have in common with animals, has resulted in the emergence of biopolitical life, or what Agamben calls the politics of bare life. Mirroring the distinction between zō e and bios, Agamben contrasts the non-political realm of the household (oikos) with the always already political realm of the city. Stasis defines the moment when the non-­ political passes into the political and vice versa. “Civil war” thus defines a “threshold of indifference” between oikos and polis from which its functioning can be seen and understood. Stasis, he concludes, therefore, “can never be eliminated from the political scene of the West.” Agamben writes: The stasis […] takes place neither in the oikos or in the polis, neither in the family nor in the city; rather, it constitutes a zone of indifference between the unpolitical space of the family and the political space of the city. In transgressing this threshold, the oikos is politicized; conversely, the polis is “economized,” that is, it is reduced to an oikos.22

The concept of the threshold appears frequently in Agamben’s studies. Agamben notes that he uses this concept to refer to “exteriority,” as is 20  In spite of what Plato says in this context, Nicole Loraux observes more generally that in the Classical Greek world, “each city preferred to place its own divisions under the allencompassing heading of diaphorá, whereas the civil wars of its neighbors were categorized as stásis.” See Nicole Loraux, “Reflections of the Greek City on Unity and Division” in eds. Anthony Molho, Kurt Raaub, and Julia Emlen, City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 33–51. See 49. 21  Xenophon, Hellenica, 2.4.43, trans. Carleton L. Brownson, Loeb Classical Library 88, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918), 170–171. In 2.4.22 we read similarly: “And when we might live in peace as fellow citizens, these men bring upon us war with one another, a war most utterly shameful and intolerable, utterly unholy and hated by both gods and men.” Loeb Classical Library 88, 156–7. 22  Giorgio Agamben, Stasis, 16.

42 

C. A. PHILLIPS

reflected in many European languages in which the notion of the outside is expressed with a word that means “at the door.” “The outside,” he explains, “is not another space that resides beyond a determinate space, but rather is the passage, the exteriority that gives it access—in a word, it is its face, its eidos.” The threshold, for Agamben then, is “the experience of the limit itself, the experience of being-within an outside.”23 As witness to this “threshold of politicization and depoliticization” in Greek politics, Agamben locates a passage in Solon’s law, cited by Aristotle in The Athenian Constitution, which punished citizens with atimia (lit. dishonor), that is, with political disenfranchisement or “the loss of civil rights”:24 And as [Solon] saw that the state was often in a condition of party strife (στασιάζουσαν), while some of the citizens through slackness were content to let things slide, he laid down a special law to deal with them, enacting that whoever when civil strife prevailed did not join forces with either party was to be disfranchised (ἄτιμον εἶναι) and not to be a member of the state (τῆς πόλεως μὴ μετέχειν).25

Commenting on this passage, Agamben notes that taking sides in the civil war was a necessary requirement for the citizen. “Not taking part in the civil war amounts to being expelled from the polis and confined to the oikos, to losing citizenship by being reduced to the unpolitical condition of a private person.”26 As such, stasis “functions as a reactant which reveals […] the threshold of politicization that determines for itself the political or unpolitical character of a certain being.”27 In this case, the threshold provides a window into the biopolitical status of the citizen. During the civil war citizens had to take sides. At the end of the conflict, however, they were asked not to remember that which had divided them, so that they once again could be united as fellow citizens. The 23  Giorgio Agamben, The Coming Community, trans. Michael Hardt (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 66. 24  Agamben, Stasis, 16–17. Agamben notes that Loraux does not specifically mention this passage in her article, Nicole Loraux, “La guerre dans la famille,” Clio: Histoire‚ femmes et sociétés, 5, 1997. See Agamben, Stasis, 5. 25  Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, trans. Horace Rackham, Loeb Classical Library 285 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), 30–31. See 8.5. 26  Giorgio Agamben, Stasis, 17. 27  Giorgio Agamben, Stasis, 17.

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

43

clearest explanation of the nature of the Athenian amnesty is found in Xenophon:28 And, pledged as they were under oath, that in very truth they would not remember past grievances, the two parties even to this day live together as fellow-citizens and the commons abide by their oaths.

In his philological analysis of the Greek verb mnēsikakein (μνησικακειν), Agamben argues that “the Athenian amnēstia is not simply a forgetting or a repression of the past, but rather an exhortation not to make bad use of memory.” “Mnēsikakein,” Agamben asserts, “means less ‘to have bad memories,’ than ‘to do harm with memory, to make bad use of memories.’”29 It functions therefore as a “legal term” that “refers to the fact of prosecuting someone for crimes committed during the stasis.”30 Agamben continues: Insofar as it constitutes a political paradigm inherent to the city, which marks the becoming-political of the unpolitical (the oikos) and the becoming-­ unpolitical of the political (the polis), the stasis is not something that can ever be forgotten or repressed; it is the unforgettable which must remain always possible in the city, yet which nonetheless must not be remembered through trials and resentments.31

Stasis, therefore, reveals the constitutive elements of the city, its internal and external relationships between distinct persons acting as a political community. Stasis is ever-present even in its seeming absence. In the preface to Stasis, written at the time of publication, Agamben asks his readers to determine the extent to which the “fundamental threshold of politicization in the West in civil war” (as he argued in the first seminar) and the lack of a central constitutive element of the modern state, namely a people, (as he argued in the second seminar) “still apply, or 28  Xenophon, Hellenica, 2.4.43. Loeb Classical Library 88, 170–171. See Nicole Loraux, “La guerre dans la famille,” Clio: Histoire‚ femmes et sociétés, 5, 1997. We find a similar account of the amnesty in Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 39, 6: “And that there be a universal amnesty for past events, covering everybody except the Thirty, the Ten, the Eleven, and those that have been governors of Peiraeus, and that these also be covered by the amnesty if they render account.” Loeb Classical Library, 285, 110–111. 29  Agamben, Stasis, 21. 30  Agamben, Stasis, 21. 31  Agamben, Stasis, 21–22.

44 

C. A. PHILLIPS

whether, to the contrary, the passage into the dimension of global civil war has altered their meaning in an essential manner.” Whether the assertion that all of us are now living in a state of global civil war is a realistic assessment or a pessimistic one, Agamben’s analysis of the civil war as a threshold allows us a way to see into the operation and functioning not only of our modern political institutions, but also into ecumenical and inter-­ religious conflicts, most particularly as they occur within a distinct political community.

4   Civil War as a Paradigm for Ecumenical Engagement Ecumenical discourses often operate within the paradigm of consensus as they seek to develop a common foundation that can bring conflicts and disagreements between religious factions or parties to an acceptable resolution, and if that is not possible, at least to a peaceful recognition and identification of their respective differences, with the hope that one day these differences will cease to be a source of disagreement or division. “The paradigm of consensus,” Agamben observes, that “dominates both contemporary political action and theory, seems incompatible with the serious investigation of civil war, a phenomenon that is as least as old as Western democracy.”32 Stasis, or civil war, accurately describes the situation of conflict within the family of a religious tradition. Where on the one hand we might have no issue with interpreting inter-religious conflict in terms of stasis, on the other hand we might avoid interpreting conflicts within religious traditions as a form of stasis so as not to sound extreme. It might be, however, that civil war is the most accurate way to describe and interpret these conflicts. This is nowhere more evident than in conflicts between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics that divide religious communities on the local level in such places as Ukraine. On both sides of these conflicts, proselytism and the forcible seizure of religious buildings and property have led to fundamental mistrust and misunderstanding of the motives and actions of the other party. When we examine conflicts such as this from the perspective of stasis, we readily see how they have hardened over many years into a state of permanent war between the parties, between citizens of the same  Agamben, Stasis, 2.

32

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

45

nation, and as a war within the family, as Loraux calls civil war, “une guerre dans la famille.”33 The elements that led to the resolution of the Athenian Civil War were the declaration of amnesty, the recognition of the honor of having taken a position to defend in the conflict, the admonition not to remember the “bad” things that were done, and the resolve of the people to live and work together once again in a shared political space. The second element is perhaps the most intractable. Once the conflict abates or ends with a political resolution, particularly with the “victory” of one party over the other, how does one honor the previous need to take sides? How is the honor of taking a “losing” side upheld when the conflict abates and full citizenship is once again made available to those on both sides of the conflict? This is a perennial problem, played out in numerous conflicts around the world to this day.34 Agamben’s analysis of the resolution of Athenian Civil War situated within wider conflicts between Greek city states offers a cogent analysis of the nature of conflict within the family and the larger nation-state. The final section of this chapter employs Agamben’s analysis of stasis heuristically to Orthodox–Eastern Catholic conflicts and engagements.

5   Stasis and Orthodox–Eastern Catholic Engagement What if we were to understand stasis as opening a threshold, that is a space in which ecumenical engagement might take place? When understood as a threshold, following Agamben, stasis does not demarcate a space external to the conflict, but rather is a passage into the face of the conflict itself and an encounter with the contours and limits of that conflict.35 When we employ stasis as a way to gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of ecumenical conflicts, the term “engagement” is more appropriate to this situation than the more commonly used term, “dialogue.” The use of the term “dialogue” tends to obscure the inherently politicized nature of the conflict, which is better accounted for by an analysis of stasis. This is particularly the case in an analysis of the conflict between Orthodox and  See Loraux, “La guerre dans la famille.”  An example of a partial resolution of this problem might be found in the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the end of apartheid in South Africa. 35  Giorgio Agamben, The Coming Community, 66. 33 34

46 

C. A. PHILLIPS

Eastern Catholic Christians. In civil war (stasis), Agamben asserts, the oikos (family and household) is politicized and the polis (the larger political body) becomes a family or a household. Both the household and the city, and by extension one’s religious family and the larger town, village, even sometimes the nation-state, are politicized, while at the same time people within these larger structures see themselves as members of a family. That oikos, however, is always already political to its core and conflicts within it are shaped by the conflicts in the polis and vice versa. The resolution of a “home war,” a war between citizens, via an amnesty or pledge to forget the bad things that were done, is a step toward the recognition of the honor and dignity of persons on each side of a conflict that divides the household. In ancient Athens amnesty restored the fabric of civil society, such that people became fellow citizens again united within the domain of the political. After the amnesty they attained a newfound political status as fellow citizens (the Latin word status is linguistically related to the Greek word, stasis), allowing them the opportunity once again to live and work in the polis together. Civil war in ancient Athens was a conflict particular to blood kinship and thus inherent to the family. Because the family “lies at the origin of the stasis, the family is also what contains its possible remedy.”36 The need for amnēstia and forgetting within the family is signaled in one of the most important ecumenical statements of the twentieth century, the “Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I,” issued on December 7, 1965, at the end of the Vatican II Council. 4. Since […] they recall the command of the Lord: “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother” (Matt. 5:23–24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that: A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period. B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has

 Agamben, Stasis, 7.

36

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

47

hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.37

In this important statement, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch declared an amnesty. As with Athenian amnesty centuries before, they agreed to forget the events and actions that had divided them—the memory of the “bad” things that were done—and pledged to move forward with a new commitment to love and charity between the respective churches which they represent and lead. This ecumenical amnesty lays the foundation for subsequent Orthodox–Eastern Catholic engagements, including the work of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, to whose work at Balamand this chapter now turns.

6   The Balamand Statement Reiterating what had been stated at the previous meeting in Freising in 1990, the meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993 produced the statement “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion.” The document rejects what is called “uniatism” “as a method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches,”38 outlines its reasons for doing so, and begins to outline a more acceptable “method in the present search for full communion.”39 The Balamand Statement is divided into two parts: “ecclesiological principles” (§ 1–18) and “practical rules” (§ 19–35).40 While the document notes “the unceasing desire to seek the full communion that existed for more than a thousand years between our Churches,” it does not make full communion a prerequisite for further work and dialogue between the respective churches. Rather, it suggests ways in which the respective 37  “Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I,” December 7, 1965. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/ speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html. [Emphasis added.] 38  “The Balamand Statement,” §2. 39  “The Balamand Statement,” §4. 40  “The Balamand Statement,” Communiqué.

48 

C. A. PHILLIPS

churches might cooperate with one another until the “necessary climate” develops “for deepening the theological dialogue that will permit arriving at full communion.”41 The subtitle of the Balamand Statement, “Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion” uses a political term, “union,” and a theological term, “communion.” The document, thus, can be interpreted as an attempt to move the debate from the language of the polis, or the language of the political, into the language of the oikos, that is, the household of God, the Church. The image of the church as a household, an oikos, is found in numerous places in the New Testament. We find it, for example, in Eph. 2:19: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God” (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ).42 The stress given to the church as a household or a family within the New Testament writings is important to note in relation to the earlier discussion in this chapter of stasis as war within the family, or the household, that can only be resolved by recourse to the constitutive elements of household and family. There are many on both sides of this conflict who insist that full communion between the two churches must be established prior to any practical cooperation between them, and that was a criticism commonly leveled at the Balamand Statement. If, however, we interpret the conflict between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as a civil war between the parties, that is, a feud within the oikos, then for any reconciliation to take place, that reconciliation must first take place within the household or the family (oikos), before it can take hold in the wider political sphere (polis). For this reason, the enunciation of “practical rules” as a first step toward the healing of divisions, and not the establishment of full communion, is the most appropriate place to begin. The Balamand Statement asserts that the [Uniate] Oriental Catholic Churches, “as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful.”43 Given that “Catholic churches” and the “Orthodox churches” share in the profession  “The Balamand Statement,” § 20.  See also Heb. 10:21, “and since we have a great priest over the house of God”; 1 Timothy 3:15, “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”; 1 Pet 4:17, “For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” 43  “The Balamand Statement,” §3. 41 42

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

49

of apostolic faith, participate in the same sacraments, share one priesthood, and the apostolic succession of bishops, the document states that they are now in the position to “recognize each other as sister churches.”44 Once again, it is important to note in relationship to our previous analysis of stasis that the language of family in this document is the most resonant voice. Future ecumenical work together, the document continues, will entail “the search for perfect communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love.”45 Perhaps the most important facet of Orthodox–Eastern Catholic engagements begins, as the Balamand Statement notes, with the recognition of the other’s right to exist, that is in their dignity as persons and as fellow citizens.46 That is followed by a commitment to end the mutual proselytizing and attempts at the conversion of partisans of one side of the divide by the other and the forcible removal of congregations from their buildings and places of worship by the other party.47 The statement maintains that to begin “[t]o pave the way for future relations between the two Churches,” Uniatism must be rejected, and that the Uniate churches must move beyond “the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church […].” Moving forward, special attention should be given to “the preparation of future priests” of the two churches so that they will have a “comprehensive knowledge” of what the two churches share in common. This will lead “to an awareness that faults leading to separation belong to both sides, leaving deep wounds on each side.”48 While the statement promotes what it calls “practical rules” to reduce conflicts and misunderstanding so as to “develop confidence,” it notably does not discuss mutual forgiveness as a path forward.49 The closest it comes is with the admission that the practical rules set forth in the document “will not resolve the problems” confronting the respective Churches, “unless each of the parties concerned has a will to pardon […].”50 It may well be that the stage of conflict is still too high at the  “The Balamand Statement,” §14.  “The Balamand Statement,” §14. 46  “The Balamand Statement,” §3, 15, 25. 47  “The Balamand Statement,” §10, 18, 25, 28, 31. 48  “The Balamand Statement,” §30. 49  “The Balamand Statement,” §29. 50  “The Balamand Statement,” §20. “These rules will not resolve the problems which are worrying us unless each of the parties concerned has a will to pardon, based on the Gospel and, within the context of a constant effort for renewal, accompanied by the unceasing desire 44 45

50 

C. A. PHILLIPS

moment for this sort of pardon to take place, but mutual forgiveness and the forgetting of past wrongs, as set forth in the December 7, 1965, declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, remain the best path forward toward a reconciliation between the two churches.

7   Conclusion The ecumenical engagement that led to the production of the Balamand Statement began as an oikos within, and at the same time removed from, the extended political space in which the roots of the conflict remain present and in which conflict continues unabated. What emerges from ecumenical engagements often is not readily accepted by the wider religious bodies to whom these participants report, because those outside this engagement were not a part of the process of reforming a household of trust and fidelity to each other. Given this fact, it is not surprising that the statement to date has not been consensually received. Eastern Orthodox voices, outside of those who had participated in the formation of the community that resulted in the Balamand Statement, for example, promptly criticized the recognition of the freedom of religious conscience and recognition of the Eastern Catholic Churches as sister Churches.51 Ecumenical engagements between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians, including that which took place in Balamand, are threshold spaces in which people from different sides of an ecumenical divide get to know one other well, that is, they gain a tacit knowledge of one another allowing the growth of mutual trust and respect. Often what is arrived at in such meetings is accepted inside the group of participants who have invested time and energy to learn about the lives and the theological positions of their ecumenical counterparts. In such engagements, a small family begins to take shape, an oikos from which through mutual to seek the full communion which existed for more than a thousand years between our Churches. It is here that the dialogue of love must be present with a continually renewed intensity and perseverance which alone can overcome reciprocal lack of understanding and which is the necessary climate for deepening the theological dialogue that will permit arriving at full communion.” 51  “The Balamand Statement,” §14. See for example, the letter from All Representatives and Presidents of the Twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos, December 8, 1993, and the letter from the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain of Athos, 11th/24th May which assert that the Roman Church continues to be “heterodox” and therefore cannot be regarded as a “sister church.”

  GIORGIO AGAMBEN’S STASIS (CIVIL WAR): AN ILLUMINATING… 

51

love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, broader solutions to end the conflict might emerge. While the Balamand Statement has not been consensually received by the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches, the document recognizes appropriately and constructively that mutual recognition and the lessening of hostilities between the churches must begin with practical steps, however small, that will allow for the cultivation of tacit interpersonal understandings of the members of the other party. Because the oikos is at the root of the conflict, it is the only place from which real and lasting reconciliation might begin. It is only within the oikos, (the family and the household of God) that such divisions with the wider political sphere (polis) can begin to heal. At the same time, without a genuine desire to forgive and let go of past wrongs, no lasting reconciliation can take place. The Athenian stasis and amnēstia suggest a way of life that seems impossible in the biopolitical context of today. Yet a lasting reconciliation can only come through a decision not to make bad use of memory and to let go of the remembering of past wrongs.52 In the threshold of the stasis between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians, we see the face of the conflict more clearly. While the parties in this ecumenical engagement may not yet be ready to be fully reconciled, the vision of amnēstia, at once both theological and political, illuminates a path forward, with an opportunity to make inoperative what is, so that something new and more mutually beneficial might become possible.

52  For an excellent study on the need to forget past wrongs, see Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006).

The Church of England as a Bridge Church Mark D. Chapman

1   The Via Media or Bridge Church This is not a chapter that is explicitly about either the Eastern Orthodox or the Eastern Catholic Churches, although it has many possible applications for any churches seeking to work out how they might be able to engage in constructive ecumenical dialogue. It is principally a discussion of the concept of a “bridge church”, one of the themes of the Conference. This relates chiefly to the concept of catholicity, particularly as it has been understood within the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion. My main concern is to discuss the not uncommon idea that somehow the Church of England acts as a “bridge church”1 or is some sort of via media between Protestants and Catholics (and Orthodox). According to the Anglo-Catholic priest and founder of the Catholic

 See Richard Langford James, The Bridge Church: an Outspoken Essay, with a preface by Sidney Dark (London: Philip Allan for the Catholic Literature Association, 1930). See also the rather more nuanced discussion by the early Anglican ecumenist, Oliver Chase Quick: Catholic and Protestant Elements in Christianity (London: Longmans, 1924). Yves Congar, Divided Christendom (London, Geoffrey Bles, 1939), 163. 1

M. D. Chapman (*) Ripon College Cuddesdon, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_4

53

54 

M. D. CHAPMAN

League for the Unity of Christians, Richard Langford James, the term “bridge church” applied to Anglicanism appears to have emerged at the Lausanne Conference of Faith and Order in 1927, although the use does not appear to have been recorded in the proceedings.2 The idea certainly appears much earlier. For instance, the first Anglo-Catholic Bishop, Alexander Penrose Forbes of Brechin in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, noted that the Anglican Church had a particular “providential position” as a church “stretching forth one hand to the Protestant bodies, and the other to the Latin and Greek Churches”.3 In his short book Langford took issue with such understandings of Anglicanism, describing the “central churchman” (rather than the Anglo-Catholic)4 as the one most likely to build a bridge since he is able to comprehend a form of catholicity broader than that of either the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Churches. The Bridge Church in this sense was a tertium quid, “a fresh presentation of the Christian religion which shall be a real blend of Catholicism and Protestantism”.5 To the intractable Anglo-Papalist, Langford James, however, the form of religion of the enlightened central party seemed to have died a death with Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the great Victorian Dean of Westminster. This left Protestants and Catholics within the Church of England to fight it out between themselves and to make their own ecumenical moves in different directions.6 At the same time, he held, there was still a possibility for “bridge building” which might emanate from different places: rather than one bridge there would be two.7 For Anglo-Catholics it was crucial to resist Protestantism and Modernism within the Church of England and to oppose all those who sought to build bridges to Protestant Churches,8

2  James, The Bridge Church, 13. See H N Bate, ed., Faith and order: proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3–21, 1927 (London: SCM, 1928). More generally, see Damian J.  Palmer, ‘Negotiating the Historic Episcopate: Christian Unity Discussions Between the Anglican and Non-Episcopal Communions, 1888–1938’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Charles Sturt University, 2014. 3  Alexander Penrose Forbes, An Explanation of the thirty-nine Articles: Volume One: Arts I–XXI with an Epistle Dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pusey D.D. (Oxford: Parker, 1867); Volume Two: Arts XXII–end (Oxford: Parker, 1868), here vol. 1, pp. xxx–xxxi. 4  James, The Bridge Church, 23. 5  Ibid., 60. 6  Ibid., 88. 7  Ibid., 94. 8  Ibid., 114.

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

55

in order to promote “the work of building the Catholic bridge”,9 which would lead across the ultimate bridge to reunion with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, which was Langford’s chosen route.10 There is consequently much at stake in such an innocent sounding idea as the bridge church. As I will show in the chapter, discussion of Anglican understandings of catholicity, which make use of the idea of the “bridge church” and via media, reveals something important about the nature of ecclesial identity more generally. What emerges is a complex set of issues that might have lessons to teach others engaged in ecumenical dialogue. I show that different observers have emphasised three different aspects of Anglican identity: the first is an ecclesial incoherence where different church parties are locked in battle and where the wider church lacks any discipline. The second model is a more or less perfectly balanced via media or “bridge church” that is neither Catholic nor Protestant but the best of both and which thus provides the ideal ecumenical partner that stands open to all Christians. As Yves Congar, who was perhaps the most acute Catholic observer of other churches, including Anglicanism, put it in his early work, Divided Christendom: “The myth (in the Sorelian sense)11 of a special ecumenical vocation seems to play a large part in the interest of Anglicans and their Church about unity”.12 The third model is based on a different form of catholicity that is orientated to the future and which sees the distinct Anglican vocation as pointing all churches forwards in humility. While none of these pictures is necessarily wholly accurate, what is important is that each reveals something of the pitfalls of Anglican ecclesiology, at least as perceived by those outside the Anglican fold. These three models, I would suggest, also have lessons for other churches since none is uniquely Anglican.

 Ibid., 113.  Ibid., 128. 11  On this, see David Ohana, ‘Georges Sorel and the Rise of Political Myth’, History of European Ideas 13:6, (1991): 733–46: ‘It seems there is no other political theoretician in the twentieth century whose fame arose from a search for new myths and for cultural rejuvenation (ricorso)’ (734). 12  Divided Christendom, 163. 9

10

56 

M. D. CHAPMAN

2   Yves Congar and the Incoherence of Anglicanism Congar’s observations about Anglicanism are informative and clearly point to some of the issues that have emerged from its participation in the ecumenical movement. In Divided Christendom he devoted a lengthy and largely descriptive chapter to Anglicanism,13 where he observed that “each of the great schisms which have become great Christian communities represents, in its positive aspect, certain genuine values, even if it is tragically astray in those aspects in which it is negative, exclusive and peculiar to itself”.14 Later, in Dialogue Between Christians, he republished an article that he had first published in 1957,15 and where he spoke of Anglicanism as representing “a traditional and Catholic trend, a Protestant and Puritan trend, [and] a critical and rational trend”, none of which it had been able to eliminate completely: “The Anglican Church has grown up from an infancy which was definitively and simultaneously traditionalist, reformed, critical and humanist”.16 The lack of a “real magisterial authority”, he went on, “permits the coexistence of extreme and even logically contradictory views within the national organization constituted by the old Church of England”.17 What made the Church of England distinct from other Churches that had developed from the Reformation was its retention of the Catholic and medieval, which was to a large extent dependent on the elevation of natural law in Richard Hooker’s theology “which comes close to that of St. Thomas Aquinas, and which exerted and still exerts a considerable influence”.18 This was later developed by the Caroline Divines, especially Lancelot Andrewes, who “appeals not only to Scripture but also to the Fathers and the early history of Christianity, all references compatible with 13  Divided Christendom, 145–97. On Congar’s contributions to ecumenism and characterisation of Anglicanism, see Aidan Nichols OP, Yves Congar (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), 116–24. More generally, see Douglas M. Koskela, Ecclesiality and Ecumenism: Yves Congar and the Road to Unity (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2008), esp. 21–68. 14  Divided Christendom, p. 40. 15  Dialogue Between Christians (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), 249–85. First published as ‘A Short History of the Trends of Thought in Anglicanism’, Istina 4 (1957): 133–64. 16  Ibid., 250. 17  Ibid., 250–51. 18  Ibid., 252.

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

57

a Church which is traditional but bereft of any hierarchical magisterium”.19 According to Congar it was the aftermath of the English Civil War that marked the beginning of the triumph of the rationalist and liberal spirit in the Church of England which became so prominent in the eighteenth century.20 The desire for peace among many at the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 led many to resist the imposition of one ideology on others that had resulted in what he called “catastrophic deadlock” in the preceding years.21 The great revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were in many ways reactions to the spirit of rationalism. This was particularly true of the Oxford Movement and its revival of the doctrine of the catholicity and apostolicity of the Church. Congar regarded it as “a truly great religious movement” which “ranks as a genuine awakening. Its strength stemmed from the authenticity and quality of its prime sources which were at once historical, traditional in doctrine, and mystical.”22 The renewed interest in history led to what he called a theological restoration and religious reform on the basis of a sound knowledge of the Christian past, the Fathers, the liturgy, medieval theology and the great Anglican classics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Moreover, the “Tractarians” outdid the “Caroline Divines” in their recourse to Catholic tradition on a still more extensive scale, for example in eucharistic questions. In the end, they achieved a very real revival of Catholic, or if one will, “Church Principles”.23

After a brief account of the development of Anglo-Catholicism and some of the major doctrinal cases of the second half of the nineteenth century, including that of Bishop Colenso in South Africa,24 Congar describes some of the trends of the twentieth century including Modernism.25 In his brief concluding section he notes the report Doctrine in the Church of England26 which had resisted any claim that there was a  Ibid., 254.  Ibid., 260–63. 21  Ibid., 258. 22  Ibid., 271. 23  Ibid., 271–2. 24  Ibid., 274–5. 25  Ibid., 278–81. 26  Doctrine in the Church of England (London: SPCK, 1938). 19 20

58 

M. D. CHAPMAN

­ istinctive doctrine of the Church of England but merely examined the d different positions held by the different groups which had become “an infinite variety of shades of opinions”.27 This did little more than express the inherent incoherence of the Church: The Church of England, as a Christian body, devoid as it is of a hierarchic magisterium, enshrines many shades of opinion which would be misleading to categorize and label. The English like personalities to express themselves freely and take an interest in the original contribution of each one. The Church of England provides an ideal framework for this process.28

After noting the prevailing discussions on the nature of the ministry, Congar then moved on to offer some brief reflections on reunion and the ecumenism and the notion of “Church”, which had become one of his major preoccupations. Indeed, he suggested that the “Faith and Order” Movement “can be said to reflect the whole temperament of Anglicanism itself and its task of enlarging areas of agreement between Christian communions in a “Catholic” sense in order to bring them first to intercommunion and then to “full communion””.29 He concluded tersely by pointing to the dangers of standing between what he called “Protestant left” and “Catholic right”: whatever Anglicans may think or say, it is by no means certain that their pursuit of a via media is altogether desirable. To us they often appear to be precariously balanced between authentic Catholic principles which are not pursued to their logical conclusions and Protestant and humanist points of view which they are reluctant to renounce.30

What this indicates is that for Congar, a church that has sought to embrace comprehensiveness will become incoherent or resort to other non-­ecclesial forms of unity based on nationalism. At the beginning of his essay he had made this abundantly clear: the prime characteristic of its theology is to share in this relatively unique inseparability from the march of national history and of the general  Dialogue Between Christians, 282.  Ibid., 281. 29  Ibid., 283. 30  Ibid., 284. 27 28

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

59

­ ovement of ideas within the nation. Is this because Anglicanism is so m closely linked with the life of the nation and is itself by predilection its·‘spiritual mouthpiece’? The fact remains that it is impossible to follow the history of Anglican theology without constantly bearing in mind the chief events in the political, social or cultural life of the British people.31

3   Via Media Anglicanism from the Outside: William H. Van de Pol and Ecumenical Anglicanism Other Roman Catholic interpreters, however, have seen things differently from Congar: in 1965, for instance, William H. Van de Pol, a Dutchman who had moved from the Reformed Church through the Church of England before his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest, published his Anglicanism in Ecumenical Perspective in the aftermath of the ecumenical movement and the Second Vatican Council.32 It is a well-informed and generous account of the role of the Anglican Communion in ecumenism (and here he is different from Congar whose sole focus is on the Church of England), including the establishment of new united churches, most importantly the Church of South India.33 In his opening chapter, he describes the “special and original character” of the Ecclesia Anglicana as the “conscious striving of the bishops and theologians of the sixteenth century to preserve [its] equilibrium amidst the severe ecclesiastical storms of that time”.34 This meant that it had “consistently tested and compared all Roman teachings with those of the undivided Church of the first ten centuries”, while at the same time comparing “all post-reformational, puritanical teachings and practices with the original intentions of the reformers”. This meant that the via media of Anglicanism was “not a mean between the Catholic Church and the Reformation; but it is explicitly the middle between the extreme devotions of the late Middle Ages, on the one hand, and the post-Reformation extreme puritanism on the other. But at the same time it has refused to relinquish the Catholic Church.”35 What this indicates—and here Van de Pol is typical of commentators both inside and outside Anglicanism—is an emphasis on the idea of Anglicanism as a  Ibid., 249.  William H. Van de Pol, Anglicanism in Ecumenical Perspective (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965). 33  Ibid., 170–99. 34  Ibid., 24. 35  Ibid., 25. 31 32

60 

M. D. CHAPMAN

form of ecclesial identity that somehow stands between extremes. Where Congar had pointed to the dangers of the via media, Van de Pol sees it as a unique strength. Indeed, he regards this understanding of Anglicanism as a via media, or “bridge church”, that is the fundamental aspect of its ecumenical vocation. However, here Van de Pol’s picture is closer to Congar’s, for such a bridge to convey traffic requires a rather delicate balancing act, which means that “the Anglican Communion presents us […] with a microcosm of the Ecumene”.36 Later in his book, Van de Pol discusses what he calls (tellingly) “The Anglican Dislike of Being Called “Protestant””,37 suggesting that, even though the Anglican Church “is a conglomeration of the most diverse and contradictory dogmatic, and ecclesiological ideas”,38 there are nevertheless very few Anglicans who would see the sixteenth century in absolute terms. Consequently, he suggests that the via media picture forces a deabsolutising of all claims to certainty, which means that the Reformation period is seen as no more than “a transitory episode in the history of their churches”.39 Indeed, he notes that for many Anglicans the word “Protestantism” conjures up images of the worst forms of sectarianism and puritanism.40 Anglicanism, then, cannot be forced into the corner of Protestantism; instead, at least for Van de Pol, it was something different: at its best it was not simply the anarchic denomination of comprehensiveness that Congar had observed, albeit sympathetically, but was the “best of both worlds”. It embraced the best from different traditions forged into a new if precarious unity.

4   Via Media Anglicanism from the Inside: Richard Montagu, Alexander Knox and John Jebb There are many precursors of Van de Pol’s description of Anglicanism from within the Anglican world itself. The via media was a frequent trope of early writers from the Church of England. This is hardly surprising given the dominant model of education that was based on classical

 Ibid., 37.  Ibid., 94–101. 38  Ibid., 97. 39  Ibid., 99. 40  Ibid., 100. 36 37

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

61

learning.41 This meant that the Aristotelian golden mean between excess and deficiency naturally led to measuring dilemmas in terms of a middle way. In 1624, for instance, Richard Montagu (1577–1641), Bishop of Chichester and then of Norwich, wrote that God should raise up leaders in the Church of England to fill “in the gapp against Puritanisme and Popery, the Scilla and Charybdis of antient piety”.42 The English Church, he claimed, was a ship sailing in the dangerous narrows of the clear water between extremes on either side.43 Many years later, in 1813, the prolific Dublin lay theologian and politician Alexander Knox (1757–1831)44 declared in a letter to his friend John Jebb (1775–1833), Rector of Abingdon, County Limerick, and afterwards elevated to the Church of Ireland Bishopric of Limerick, Ardfert, and Aghadoe: What perverse influence the nick-name protestant has had upon our Church! Ever since this epithet became fashionable, its vulgar definition has had more authority with churchmen themselves, than all the settled standards to which they were bound; and the consequence has been, a steady increase of ignorance, coldness, and vacillation.45

41  On Aristotle and the Curriculum at the University of Oxford, see Mordechai Feingold, ‘The Mathematical Sciences and New Philosophies’, in Nicholas Tyacke, ed., The History of the University of Oxford vol. 4: Sixteenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 389–404. 42  Letter from Richard Montague to John Cosin, 28 June 1624 in George Ornsby (ed.), Correspondence of John Cosin (Durham, London and Edinburgh: Surtees Society, vol. 52, 1869), part one, 21. See also 97. Spelling unmodernised. 43  On heroism in the seventeenth century, see Reid Barbour, ‘The Caroline Church Heroic: The Reconstruction of Epic Religion in Three Seventeenth-Century Communities’, Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997): 771–818, esp. 786. 44  On Knox, see Peter B.  Nockles, ‘Alexander Knox’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: https://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:4563/10.1093/ref:odnb/15778 (accessed, 24 July 2019). See also M.  G. Jones, Hannah More (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), 214; and Anne Stott, Hannah More: The First Victorian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 261–2. On the impact of earlier high churchmanship on the Oxford Movement, see Peter B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760–1857 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), esp. 102–3. 45  Knox to Jebb, 5 January 1813, in Charles Forster (ed.), Thirty Years’ Correspondence between John Jebb and Alexander Knox (London: Carey, Lea and Blachard, 1835), 2 vols, vol. 2, 86.

62 

M. D. CHAPMAN

Coming from an early nineteenth-century Irish churchman who was a friend of the great Evangelicals William Wilberforce and Hannah More, this denigration of the term “protestant” was perhaps somewhat surprising. Yet Knox had moved from the Methodism of his parents. Instead he emphasised in a letter of 1806 the via media and what he regarded as the antiquity of his position: I am a Churchman in grain—not a Tory Churchman, for that is a disease in the Church, not its constitutional turn; nor yet a Whig Churchman, for they do not value enough the distinguishing features of our Establishment. But, if I may use the term, I am a primitive Churchman; primitive; prizing in our system, most cordially, what it has retained from Christian antiquity, as well as what it has gained from the good sense of the Reformers in expurgating it from later abuses.46

He went to declare that he was “not one whit puritanic”. Instead, he noted: I love Episcopacy, the surplice, festivals, the communion table set altar-wise, antiphonal devotions, i.e. versicle and response; and I am somewhat un-­ puritanic in doctrine too,—being much more engaged by the sublime piety of St. Chrysostom, than by the devotional dogmas of St. Austin or any of his followers.47

According to Knox, which distinguished him from many more establishment figures at the time, what was crucial was that in understanding the church there had to be a sense of catholicity which steered it between extremes and towards the primitive church. He wrote to Jebb in 1813: It will, perhaps, be at length discovered, that there is a medium between the two extremes, which combines the advantages, and shuts out the evils of both; which Vincentius Lerinensis48 clearly marked out, in the fifth century; and which at this day exists no where, but in the genuine central essence of 46  Letter to Thomas Stedman, March 1806, in J.  Hornby (ed.), Remains of Alexander Knox, Esq (London: Duncan and Malcolm, third edition, 1844), 4 volumes, vol. 4, 206–12, here 206–7. 47  Hornby (ed.), Remains of Alexander Knox, vol. 4, 207. 48  The reference is to the so-called Vicentian Canon with its threefold test of catholicity which had been laid down by St Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century: ‘what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all’ (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

63

our own reformed episcopal church. You will observe, I do not say it exists in our church, in a perfect form; I think rather it exists in it, as the little bird in the egg, when incubation has gone a certain length, but is not yet completed. Perhaps even incubation is yet to come; but we have the principle, as it is not elsewhere to be found.49

The genuine essence of the Church was thus to be found in a via media between the extremes of one side or the other. Reunion had been in the air in the 1820s and had even been mentioned in parliament in the context of Roman Catholic Emancipation. In an unusual move for the time, James Warren Doyle (1786–1834), Roman Catholic Bishop of Kildare, had suggested reunion of the churches, which he felt did not differ in any essential points,50 on the basis of the recommendations of “Protestant and Catholic Divines of learning and conciliatory character” summoned by the crown.51 The result “might be far more favourable than at present would be anticipated”.52 In a letter to Thomas Newenham (1762–1831), formerly MP for Coolmore, Co. Cork in the old Irish Parliament, Knox similarly claimed that the English Church had exercised deference to what he called “the Catholic Church”, by which he meant the Vincentian Canon. It was for this reason that he preferred it to “every other visible form of Christianity”.53 Nevertheless he regarded the modern Roman Catholic Church as “part of the great Christian organization”, and did not regard it as idolatrous and even regarded the doctrine of transubstantiation as not insurmountable.54 Neither did he wish to see Catholics convert to some “indefinite Protestantism” but sought instead a concordat where they would be built up to be “good Christians in their own way”.55 Where the Roman Catholic Church went wrong, he felt, was in its elevation of those matters that were extraneous to the Catholic Church, which resulted in its requirement of “unqualified acquiescence in every matter of belief imposed by the ruling powers of the Church [Knox’s  Knox to Jebb, 5 January 1813, in Charles Forster (ed.), Thirty Years’ Correspondence, 85–6.  Doyle to A. Robertson MP, 13 May 1824, in Letters on the Re-Union of the Churches of England and Rome from and to the Rt Revd Dr Doyle, R.C. Bishop of Kildare, John O’Driscol, Alexander Knox, and Thomas Newenham esquires (Dublin: Moore Tims, n.d. (1824)), 9. 51  Doyle to A. Robertson MP, 13 May 1824, Letters on the Re-Union, 8. 52  Ibid., 9. 53  Knox to Newenham, 7 July 1824, Letters on the Re-Union, 27. 54  Ibid., 28. 55  Ibid., 29. 49 50

64 

M. D. CHAPMAN

italics]”. This principle, he went on, could “no more be relinquished, then [sic] the Popedom could be annihilated”.56 While the Church of England allowed her members the right to individual judgement in matters of faith, the Church of Rome, “on the contrary, in equal contradiction to the Church of England and to Vincentius […] withholds all such right from individuals, however qualified, and reduces this ancient Catholic principle into implicit subjection to all the existing rulers of that Church pronounce or enjoin”.57 Elsewhere Knox developed his understanding of the via media: “Hitherto”, he noted in a long letter entitled “On the Situation and Prospects of the Established Church”, “the Church of England, though more temperate in her measures than any other portion of the reformed body, has manifested no sentiment with such unremitting intensity, as dread of whatever could be deemed Popery”. Yet this proved a false move since, while it had perhaps been necessary in the past, “it has given safety to the Church of England at the expense of perfection”. Perfection could be achieved only by “proving all things, and holding fast what is good; and this discrimination can be practised only in the absence of prejudice”. Indeed, anti-Romanism had severe dangers: As matters are, dread of transubstantiation has made the sacrament a ceremony; and, to ward off infallibility, every man has been encouraged to shape a creed for himself. The most certain cure for this extreme, will be to experience its fruits.58

On the other hand, however, Knox speaks of the problems of what he calls “dissenterism”, which carries with it an equal set of dangers: if Popery can be a Charybdis, there is a Scylla, on the other side, not less dangerous. But it will be still more useful to learn, that, in the mixed mass of the Roman Catholic religion, there is gold, and silver, and precious stones, as well as wood, hay, and stubble and that every thing of the former nature is to be as carefully preserved, as every thing of the latter nature is to be wisely rejected.59  Ibid., 26.  Ibid., 27. 58  Letter of 4 June 1816 to an unnamed correspondent, ‘On the Situation and Prospects of the Established Church’, in J. J. Hornby (ed.), Remains of Alexander Knox, vol. 1, 53–69, here 58. 59  Ibid., 58–9. 56 57

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

65

Knox’s friend John Jebb, whom he had got to know at Londonderry Grammar School, agreed: The Protestant communions on the continent have not so much as pretended to revere antiquity. The Church of Rome has not been wanting in the pretension; but instead of revering antiquity she has idolized herself. The Church of England alone has adopted a middle course; moving in the same delightful path and treading the same hallowed footsteps with Vincentius and the Catholic bishops and ancient Fathers; proceeding as far as they proceeded; and stopping where they stopped.60

Knox and Jebb here display their shared understanding of the United Church of England and Ireland as a perfect via media. Unlike Protestant Churches, it had retained its catholicity whilst resisting falling into the idolatry of Romanism. It was thus as close to perfection as it was possible for any church to attain in this world.

5   George Tavard and Anglicanism: A Catholicity of the Future The idea of the Church of England as the most perfect bridge church was obviously challenged by many. From a Roman Catholic perspective, The Quest for Catholicity: A Study in Anglicanism61 by George Tavard (1922–2007) illustrates this well. This book by a Frenchman remains one of the best guides to the development of Anglicanism from the sixteenth century onwards. While admitting that his picture is one-sided, and that he is interested principally only in those who would eventually be labelled “Anglo-Catholic’’,62 Tavard nevertheless expounds a huge range of Anglican writing with an extraordinary depth of knowledge and a rare sympathy. He outlines the concept of the via media and how it relates to both catholicity and Protestantism, for which the so-called Caroline Divines, including the martyred Archbishop William Laud, are the key sources: “This Anglicanism”, writes Tavard, “cannot be called Protestant. It 60  John Jebb, Sermons on subjects chiefly practical; with illustrative notes, and an Appendix relating to the Character of the Church of England, as distinguished both from Other Branches of the Reformation, and from the modern Church of Rome (London: Cadell and Davies, 1815), Appendix, pp. 357–98, here 378. 61  George H.  Tavard, The Quest for Catholicity: A Study in Anglicanism (London: The Catholic Book Club, 1963). 62  Tavard, The Quest for Catholicity, vii.

66 

M. D. CHAPMAN

has, on the contrary, preserved, through a rewording, the pre-­Reformation concept of the Church’s transmitting the deposit of faith.”63 While this was shattered under the Commonwealth and the rule of Oliver Cromwell after the period of the Civil War in the mid-seventeenth century, the Restoration restored something approaching the earlier settlement, despite the non-­juring schism later in the century. What emerged through this period, according to Tavard, was a concept of catholicity as “the gathering of the Church around its bishop unites it to the heavenly “bishop and guide of our souls””.64 Later on in Anglican history, according to Tavard, this picture of catholicity was maintained by the great figures of the Oxford Movement, including Newman, Keble and Pusey, although he felt that in many ways they opted for a very static picture of catholicity that was fixed in the early centuries.65 According to Tavard, the problematic nature of this Tractarian model was revealed by the great Victorian theologian, F.  D. Maurice, whose Catholic vision pointed forwards rather than backwards.66 Newman’s departure from Anglo-Catholicism also revealed the weakness of the method.67 In response to Newman’s conversion, Tavard asked: “Did this climax of the Anglican search for Catholicity denote, as Newman believed, a basic fallacy in the quest? Or did it, by pointing out blind alleys, prepare new ways of reasserting the principles of Anglo-Catholicism?”68 In his final chapter, Tavard traces the different trajectories of Anglo-­ Catholicism in the early twentieth century: rather than the more dogmatic inheritors of the Oxford Movement, his hero is Charles Gore (1853–1932), Bishop of Oxford and editor of the first work of Anglo-Catholic Biblical criticism, Lux Mundi in 1889, who understood catholicity as something relative and limited. It was not completely given, but had to be worked towards; it was “less a fact than a hope’’.69 Tavard concludes with obvious sympathy: “The artificial and at all times unsatisfactory branch-theory has made way for a theory of a Catholic-Church-in-becoming, to the development of which all who aspire to Catholicity may contribute”.70 While most  Ibid., e.g. 51.  Ibid., 92. 65  Ibid., 161. 66  Ibid., 173–7. 67  Ibid., 177. 68  Ibid., 178. 69  Ibid., 189. 70  Ibid., 200. 63 64

4  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A BRIDGE CHURCH 

67

of Tavard’s book is descriptive and analytical, he nevertheless offers a few more systematic thoughts in his epilogue,71 which build on this fundamental difference in understandings of catholicity: what was crucial for Tavard was that the sort of unity that was implied in any ecumenical future should shy away from rigidity and uniformity. This rested on one simple lesson that Anglicanism had taught him: The winding history of the efforts made in the Church of England to preserve and develop a theology of Catholicity is a striking testimony to the permanence of the Catholic idea in spite of schisms and heresies. That this theology should never be fully developed fits the dynamic nature of this mark of the Church. Catholicism as a system of thought and worship evolving in a given institutional framework can be adequately described; but the underlying Catholicity, the spiritual power giving life to the system, is a mystery of participation in the fullness of him who is All in all, that may never be totally grasped and satisfactorily formulated.72

6   Conclusion These reflections on different perceptions of Anglicanism reveal a clearly contested phenomenon which hovers between incoherence, via media perfection and a relativism based on an openness to the future. The second model, which has been so popular among Anglicans themselves as well as those from outside, can at first sight look like an attractive version of bridge church theology that can hover between the extremes of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. In practice, however, it can lead to the sense of effortless complacency that has characterised many Anglicans through history, not least in the colonial era. The narrative runs like this: unlike the Italians or Irish on the Catholic side, and the Germans and Scots on the Protestant, the English did not tend to any excess but steered the middle path between these two poles. The problem, however, which is equally true for any form of via media, is that it requires the creation of extremes, between which the truth is to be found. Those who are different are consequently made into extremists. As a rhetorical strategy this is not uncommon, but it can have the side effect of elevating the middle ground into the perfect form, the golden mean, which makes Anglicanism the form of church as close as it can be to the perfection of the Church of the  Ibid., 201–208.  Ibid., 207.

71 72

68 

M. D. CHAPMAN

Fathers. Ironically, then, the bridge church idea which might look so enticing could itself easily become a colonialist idol, cutting itself off from both banks. More promising, perhaps, for an ecumenical future is a form of catholicity that resists boundaries and systems which looks far more like George Tavard’s characterisation of Charles Gore. While this can so easily slide into nationalism and is prone to Congar’s charge of incoherence, it can nevertheless continue to locate a sense of identity in Catholic structure and history. Consequently, it may well be that Tavard’s solution which locates catholicity both in the past and in a future mystery that can never be fully known but where God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28), is the best of the alternatives, not simply for Anglicans but for all Christians who are committed to ecumenism. But its success might be risking far too much for those for whom absoluteness is a requirement for catholicity, not least those many Anglicans who are in search of firm answers to the problems of sexuality in the contemporary world. Catholicity and incoherence remain high on the Anglican agenda, and there is no solution in sight. This may act as a warning to other churches in their own search for comprehensiveness. The history and development of via media Anglicanism and the idea of the “bridge church” have a complex and contested history: it will be important for other churches—especially when they share so much as with the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches—that any learning from other churches is made with open eyes and that there is a proper recognition of the historical contexts in which idealised models of churches develop. Anglicans, after all, are not the only Christian community that is open to idealising its concrete forms and defining them over and against other “lesser” churches. Ecumenism requires an openness and humility to recognise that all may not be well within one’s own communion, and it is only then that people might see the reason to start building bridges.

Kenotic Ecumenism: What Can Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Learn from the Parable of the Grain of Wheat? Pavlo Smytsnyuk

Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Jn 12: 24–25

The Second Vatican Council invited the Eastern Catholic Churches (ECC) to promote Christian unity in a special way (Orientalium Ecclesiarum 24). The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) proclaims to be happy with such a task and wants to serve as a mediator between Eastern and Western Christianity.1 Paradoxically, however, Ukrainian Greek Catholics

 Cf. The Synod of Bishops of UGCC, The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian GreekCatholic Church (Lviv: Koleso, 2016), §11 [p. 49], §34 [p. 57], §53 [65]. 1

P. Smytsnyuk (*) Institute of Ecumenical Studies, Ukrainian Catholic University, Lviv, Ukraine © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_5

69

70 

P. SMYTSNYUK

are often perceived by the Orthodox and others as the paramount obstacle to ecumenical dialogue. One could perhaps propose an analogy with the See of Rome: the primacy of the Pope, the rock of faith, which is intended to serve the unity of Christians, became a stumbling block to achieving this unity.2 Today, the Orthodox have much better relations with the Roman Curia and Latin dioceses around the world than with the Greek Catholics. Can this be changed? Lubomyr Husar, the late Primate of the UGCC, was asked in an interview whether the lack of unity between Christians is a consequence of the reluctance or unwillingness to unite on the part of the churches themselves. He replied: “It seems it me that [we are separated] because we ourselves do not want [to be united]. We are not ready to sacrifice anything. [W]hat is needed is the readiness to sacrifice our benefits, our interests […]. We all talk about unity. All without exception. […] But what are we ready to sacrifice to be united?”3 This chapter offers a reflection on what I suggest are the presuppositions and repercussions of Lubomyr Husar’s intuition on Christian unity. Husar grasped the key to ecumenical success, both in Ukraine and on a broader scale. This key consists in sacrifice, rejection of one’s legitimate interests, or, to use more theological language, kenosis. Husar’s idea could be pushed a bit further and to reflect on the concept of kenosis, in its both Christological and ecclesiological implications. It will be argued that, in order for ECC to accomplish their mission of being the “bridges” between East and West, their attitude toward the Orthodox should be kenotic, asymmetrical, and eschato-centric: ECC should (a) consider themselves as a means of unity of the Body of Christ, (b) reject the model of reciprocity, and (c) embrace the eschatological perspective, which transcends the logic of mundane successes, and models itself after the “grain of wheat” which is not afraid to die (Jn 12:24–25).

2  See Pierre Lathuilière, “Le ‘stumbling block’ du ministère papal,” Lumière & Vie 56, no. 274 (2007): 93–104. 3  Lybomyr Husar, “Chrystyjanstvo v Ukrayini. Chy mozhlyva yednist? Interview by Inna Kuznetsova,” Religija v Ukrajini (2011), https://www.religion.in.ua/zmi/ukrainian_ zmi/11207-xristiyanstvo-v-ukrayini-chi-mozhliva-yednist.html. My translation.

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

71

1   Kenosis First of all, I would like to argue that ECC should be kenotic in relationship to churches with which they are not in complete unity. Churches often tend to follow a logic of success, according to which the defeat of the other is one’s own victory and the weakness of the others is one’s own strength. This logic is at odds with the ethos of the Gospel, which is permeated by kenosis. The theology of sacrifice is epitomized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This sacrifice is often described with the Greek term kenosis, or self-emptying. The apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians, says that by becoming human, Jesus Christ emptied himself: “though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied [ekenō sen] himself, by taking the form of a servant, […] he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name” (Phil 2:6–9). The apex of Jesus’ kenosis is his death on the cross. The innocent Christ does not simply die; he dies abandoned by God.4 While reflecting on whether Jesus could have escaped death or whether his death was contingent, Walter Kasper argues: “Jesus’ death on the cross is not just the ultimate consequence of his courageous activity, but the resumé and sum of his message. […] This death is the form in which the Kingdom of God exists under the conditions of this age, the Kingdom of God in human powerlessness, wealth in poverty, love in desolation, abundance in emptiness, and life in death.”5 Kasper emphasizes that the martyrdom of Christ is neither an accident nor one option among others, but the interpretative key of Jesus’ story.6 The kenotic life and death of Christ require an answer, a reaction from God, otherwise it will remain what it seemed at first glance: the complete 4  Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. [V.  Green], New ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 106. 5  Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 107. 6  “Jesus’ obedient death is therefore the distillation, the essence, and the final transcendent culmination of his whole activity. That does not mean that his redemptive work is restricted to his death, but that his death gives it final clarity and definitiveness. […] The helplessness, poverty and insignificance with which the Kingdom of God appeared in his person and activity came to a final, even scandalous culmination in his death. Jesus’ life ended in a final uncertainty. The story of Jesus, and its end, remain a question to which only God can give the answer” (Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 109).

72 

P. SMYTSNYUK

defeat of Christ’s mission on earth.7 Resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God shows that Christ’s method was correct. The self-emptying of Christ, abandoning himself completely to God, gives God the opportunity to accept Jesus’ life, transforming it with love in a divine life.8 According to Kasper, “The decision for or against Easter faith is […] taken on the grounds […] on whether one is ready to see reality from God’s viewpoint and to rely totally upon that God in living and in dying. In making such a decision, therefore, what has to be considered is whether one feels one can live from one’s own potentialities or whether one dares to live from what absolutely cannot be controlled, from God.”9 The following conclusions can be drawn from Kasper’s reflection that are relevant for our discussion. First, the great paradox of the Easter faith is that death and resurrection not only completely contradict each other, but somehow completely coincide. Second, the Easter faith reverses and turns upside down the way in which a Christian looks at the world: the martyr’s death is not a defeat, but a victory, because the Lord does not leave kenosis or desolation, in the name of his truth, unanswered. Or, to push Kasper’s argument a bit further, there is no victory without defeat. Third, if Christ realizes the Kingdom of God in his life, if Christ himself is “the Kingdom of God among us,” then one must accept the fact that, in this world, the Kingdom of God has no other expression than kenosis— self-emptying and self-denial. In the light of Christ’s victorious kenosis, we can better understand the Johannine parable of the Grain of Wheat (Jn 12:24–25). We can see in this parable a vaticinium ex eventu, a prophecy from the event, a synthesis and explanation of the very story of Jesus Christ, dead grain which bears fruit into the Kingdom of God. Can we imagine this kenosis in ethical terms at an anthropological and communitarian level? Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, commenting on the Hymn of Philippians (Phil 2:5–11), said that the example of Christ teaches believers obedience, understood as “the direction of life that reaches to the bottom of the soul and empties the soul from all selfishness

 Cf. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 112.  “The Resurrection is the fulfilled and fulfilling end of the death on the cross. It is therefore not a separate event” (Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 138). 9  Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 133. Cf. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 197. 7 8

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

73

[…], leads to a sacrifice, to a self-renunciation; does not let [the soul] rest, forces it to go as far as far as you can go.”10 Christos Yannaras grounds kenosis in the freedom of God: God is free from necessity of his nature. The ontological freedom of God consists in the fact that he is not conditioned by the divine nature, but freely realizes his being as communion of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The human person is the image of God when she lives in love, communion, and in freedom from nature, understood by Yannaras as freedom from innate selfishness and self-centeredness. The sin of Adam is the sin of “autonomy and existential self-­ sufficiency.”11 Therefore, the only way out of the tragedy of human self-­ sufficiency offered by the Gospel is to “lose one’s soul” in order to “save” it (Lk 9:24). Yannaras understands by this “the destruction of every transitory self-defense and certainty in order that life be saved; it is an achievement of life and therefore a ceaseless risking, an adventure of freedom.”12 Such a vision constitutes the basis on which Yannaras criticizes what he calls ‘religionization’ of the church event. Yannaras points out that religiosity can often serve to satisfy the egoistic needs of human beings, and firstly that of self-preservation. To feel protected, man wants to control, to tame the supernatural power, and he does this through worship and morality. They reassure and liberate man from the fear of punishment, and guarantee salvation. The benevolence of Deity could be also secured through ethics: the deity in this case would be “bound by the merits of human beings, obliged to guarantee them protection.”13 Lived in this way, religiosity is nothing but a “sanctified narcissism.”14 Members of the church are called to live ecstatically (from Greek word ek-stasis, to stand outside oneself). A Christian must go beyond her selfish interests and give herself up to others. In this way, the relations in the 10  Andrey Sheptytsky, cited in Myroslav Tataryn, “Zaklyk do samozrechennya v bogoslovskomu myslenni Mytropolyta Andreya Sheptytskogo,” Naukovi Zapysky UKU - Bogoslovya 8, no. 3 (2016): 141. My translation. 11  Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 80. 12  Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 144. 13  Christos Yannaras, Against Religion: The Alienation of the Ecclesial Event, trans. Norman Russell (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2013), 6. On Yannaras’ critique of religion, see Vasilios N. Makrides, “Église contre religion et critique de la religion dans la théologie orthodoxe grecque,” Contacts 69, no. 259–260 (2017): 356–401. 14  Yannaras, Against Religion, 7. Cf. Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 5–6.

74 

P. SMYTSNYUK

church are identified with eros, as a reflection of the Trinitarian eros. As Pseudo-Dionysius says, “[the] divine yearning brings ecstasy so that the lover belongs not to self but to the beloved.”15 I consider that the kenosis, as articulated by Sheptytsky, Kasper, and Yannaras, can be applicable to relations between various churches. The Christian ethos requires our communities to abandon our natural instincts of self-affirmation and self-sufficiency, and to give ourselves to others. In ecumenical theology, as in Christology and anthropology, the worldly logic is totally reversed: self-giving and not self-affirmation is the path to follow. As far as ECC are concerned, I believe that, ultimately, the metaphor of the bridge is not as bad as it might seem. Of course, mediation between the “East” and “West” cannot be seen as their “final purpose.” ECC qua churches, have a paramount vocation to participate in the “procla[mation of] the Gospel to every creature, [and] bring[ing] the light of Christ to all men” (cf. Lumen Gentium 1). But I would suggest that we should not be afraid of recognizing our “provisionality,” as it were. Even without a perspective of ecumenical encounter, the churches should regard their existence not as an aim in themselves but as an “instrument” and a “sacrament.” This brings us to the very core of ecclesiology, in its relationship with Christology and eschatology. Now, from very early on, the church has been conceived as the Body of Christ.16 The culmination of this theology has been the quasi-identification of the church with Christ, as is the case, for example in the work of John Zizioulas. Zizioulas proposes to read Christ as “corporate personality,” which, besides including the “individual” Christ, does not exist without the multitude of the members of the church.17 Gaëtan Baillargeon, in his critique of Zizioulas, insists on the need of keeping a certain distance between Christ and the church. It is 15  Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, 4, 13 [Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 712A (p. 82)]. On divine ecstasis in Pseudo-Dionysius, see Filip Ivanovic, Desiring the Beautiful: The Erotic-Aesthetic Dimension of Deification in Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019), 212ff. 16  There exists vast literature on the topic. For a general overview, see Cettina Militello, “Corpo di Cristo,” Dizionario di ecclesiologia, ed. Gianfranco Calabrese, Philip Goyret, and Orazio Francesco Piazza (Roma: Città Nuova Editirice, 2010), 359–74. 17  John Zizioulas, “The Ecclesiological Presuppositions of the Holy Eucharist,” Nicolaus 10 (1982): 333–49; John Zizioulas, “Le Mystère de l’Eglise dans la tradition orthodoxe,” Irénikon 60, no. 3 (1987): 331.

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

75

better, Baillargeon argues, to speak of the church as the sacrament of salvation in order to emphasize the reality of the church in via.18 What is important for my argument here is this sacramentality, that is symbolicity, instrumentality, of the church rather than being res, the thing, and the reality of salvation itself.19 This distinction between the church and Christ is pointed out well by Konstantinos Agoras. The church cannot be self-­ referential, but can exist only as a reference to Christ and his Kingdom.20 Let us now return to the question of the ECC being a bridge that connects, by allowing itself to “be walked upon.” Looking from the sacramental perspective, outlined previously, I do not see why the ECC should not be seen as instruments and means to unite the Body of Christ, which appears to our eyes as torn apart and divided. This, of course, could not be done in any other way than through that which Christ himself went.

2   Asymmetry My second point is that ECC, in their relationship with the Orthodox, should reject the model of reciprocity and utilitarian exchange, and instead practice forgiveness and creative initiative. The need to abandon the logic of reciprocity has been grasped by Søren Kierkegaard and Emmanuel Lévinas. Their intuition merit consideration due to its importance for the purpose of the argument developed here. Kierkegaard and Lévinas, in different ways, emphasize the asymmetry between myself and the other. According to Søren Kierkegaard, by abolishing the principle of Jewish retaliation, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” whose ethical requirement is to treat the other as she treats me, Christianity establishes a new type of reciprocity, the criterion of which is only God.21 A Christian must treat the other not the way the other relates to her, but as she (the 18  Gaëtan Baillargeon, Perspectives orthodoxes sur l’Église-Communion: L’oeuvre de Jean Zizioulas (Montréal: Éditions Paulines, 1989), 255–58. For a similar critique, see Pascal Nègre, “‘Ceci est mon corps’: Traversé de l’ecclésiologie eucharistique de Jean Zizioulas,” Nouvelle revue théologique 130, no. 2 (2008): 194–219. 19  Cf. Walter Kasper, La théologie et l’Église, trans. Joseph Hoffmann (Ed. du Cerf, 1990), 343–65. 20   Konstantinos Agoras, “Dialogikē epikairopoiēsē tēs christianikēs paradosēs kai systēmatikē theologia,” Synaxi 139, no. 3 (2016): 35. 21  Søren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, trans. David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949), 302–10. Cf. M. Jamie Ferreira, Love’s Grateful Striving: A Commentary on Kierkegaard’s Works of Love (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 209–27.

76 

P. SMYTSNYUK

Christian) wants God to treat her: “From the Christian standpoint it does not concern you what the others do to you, it does not concern you personally; it is curiosity, an impertinence, a lack of sense to meddle in things which are as entirely irrelevant to you as if you were absent. You need only concern yourself with what you do to others […]; the direction is inward, essentially you have only to do with yourself before God.”22 God, says Kierkegaard, is “the pure reproduction of what you yourself are.”23 If you accuse the other, God is your accuser; if you forgive, God forgives. Emmanuel Lévinas often quotes from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov that “each of us is guilty in everything before everyone, and I most of all.”24 This statement is, according to Lévinas, nothing less than the recognition of my responsibility before the other. My responsibility to the other, which is the starting point of my being as a human being,25 does not depend on whether I did anything wrong to her,26 but exists a priori, precedes my every action.27 I am not free to extricate myself from this responsibility; it essentially makes me a hostage.28 The other, from the height of her nakedness and poverty, “orders and commands”29 to serve her.30 The execution of such an order is “the most radical of all possible commitments, a total altruism.”31 My duty to serve the other, my responsibility to her, is unilateral, or, as Lévinas says, asymmetrical. I am responsible for the other, but I cannot demand from her the same attitude. When questioned whether “the Other [is not] also responsible in my regard?” Lévinas answers: “Perhaps, but this is his affair.”32  Kierkegaard, Works of Love, 309.  Kierkegaard, Works of Love, 309. 24  Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 289. 25  Emmanuel Lévinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo, trans. Richard A. Cohen (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985), 100–01. 26  “Innocence is not the zero degree of conscience, but merely an exalted state of responsibility […] the more innocent we are, the more we are responsible” (Emmanuel Lévinas, “Ethics and Politics,” The Levinas Reader, ed. Seán Hand (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 291). 27  Emmanuel Lévinas and France Guwy, “L’asymétrie du visage,” Cités 25, no. 1 (2006): 119; Lévinas, “Ethics and Politics,” 290. 28  Lévinas and Guwy, “L’asymétrie du visage,” 119. 29  Lévinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo, 97. 30  Emmanuel Lévinas, “Transcendence and Height,” Emmanuel Lévinas: Basic Philosophical Writings, ed. Adriaan Theodoor Peperzak, Simon Critchley, and Robert Bernasconi (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 17. 31  Lévinas, “Transcendence and Height,” 18. 32  Lévinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo, 98. 22 23

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

77

The reciprocity on the part of the other does not concern us. To demand such reciprocity would imply “turning initial responsibility into trade, into exchange, into equality […]. First of all, asymmetry means that my attitude to myself and my duties, as I understand them, are not part of the relationship between two equal beings, where the other plays the same role as myself. I am the one who is obliged, while the other is foremost the one to whom I am obliged.”33 Now, let us get back to the ecumenical dialogue. It could be argued that asymmetry should be made into one of the principles of ecumenical dialogue. If we wait until the other changes and if we postpone our forgiveness until the other asks for it, we might well wait until the end times. When Ukrainian Greek Catholics demanded the Orthodox to condemn the council of Lviv (1946), which tried to dissolve the Greek Catholic Church in the Soviet Union, the Orthodox answered that first the Council of Brest (1596) should be condemned.34 The spiral of non-forgiveness is infinite. We must love first, as God loved first. The ethos of reciprocity and retaliation, which is often the logic of interstate relations, should not become the ethos of the church. Reciprocity presupposes that we are bound, conditioned, and, one could even say, enslaved by the actions of the other churches. It makes us dependent by taking our agency away. Asymmetry makes us free and allows us to keep the initiative in our hands: it is a Christian politics of power. To prevent this discourse from becoming too abstract, let me cite two examples of how an asymmetrical approach in ecumenism has already been suggested by two official documents of the Catholic Church. First, the document General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent

 Lévinas and Guwy, “L’asymétrie du visage,” 121.   The Message of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to the Faithful and the People of Ukraine on the 60th Anniversary of the Return of Greek-Catholics to the Bosom of the Orthodox Church (Svyashchennyj Synod UPC, “Zvernennya do pastvy j ukrajinskogo narodu z nagody 60-richchya povernennya greko-katolykiv u lono Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy,” Ofitsijnyj vebsajt UPC (2006), http://archiv.orthodox.org.ua/page-2149.html.). Cf. remarks by Metropolitan Hilarion (Hilarion Alfeyev, “Kamnem pretknoveniya v pravoslavno-katolycheskom dialoge po-prezhnemu ostaetsia uniya,” Interfax-Religion (2016), http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=interview&div=431.) 33 34

78 

P. SMYTSNYUK

States of the Pontifical Commission Pro Russia (1992).35 The document suggests that Catholic pastors in post-Soviet regions should not only avoid competition with the Orthodox clergy and inform them of major pastoral initiatives (e.g. the erection of a parish), but even “cooperate with the Orthodox bishops in developing pastoral initiatives of the Orthodox Church” (§ 4), without asking the Orthodox to reciprocate in what one might call “traditionally Catholic countries.” The second document is The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (2015).36 In the context of a climate of polemics (the document was issued only a year after the Maidan Revolution), UGCC faithful were invited to avoid “unfriendly actions and expressions [towards the Russian Orthodox Church], that would give rise to or aggravate mutual prejudice and distrust” (§ 58).37 Now, it is true that the document implies that successful dialogue would require “the good will of both parties,” but it does not postulate the ban on hostile polemics on the condition that the other party follows suit.

3   Eschato-centrism My third point is that the ecumenical approach of the ECC should be eschato-centric. They must try to look at their Orthodox brothers in a proleptic (or futurist, if you want) way, taking not history but the coming Kingdom as the point of departure. As suggested earlier, the eschatological answer of God transcends the logic of mundane achievements and successes, and fructifies the “grain of wheat” which is not afraid to die (Jn 12:24–25). The eschaton is the moment of the definite judgment on what was and what was not successful in the eyes of God. Now, as theology of the twentieth century has taught us, the eschatological Kingdom of God is not just one chapter among others of dogmatics, but the very paradigm of theologizing.38 John Zizioulas likes to comment on St Maximus the 35  Pontifical Commission Pro Russia, “General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States,” Ostkirchliches Institut Regensburg (1992), https://www.oki-regensburg.de/fsoviete.htm. Cf. [Irénikon], “Chronique des églises,” Irénikon 65, no. 2 (1992): 255ff. 36  UGCC, The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. 37  UGCC, The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, 67. 38  Antonio Nitrola, drawing on Moltmann, K. Rahner and Pannenberg, argues that from being a discipline within theology, eschatology has become the very “perspective, through

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

79

Confessor’s expression, “the things of the Old Testament are shadow; those of the New Testament are eikon; truth is the state of the future things.”39 Zizioulas concludes that the eschaton is, therefore, the focal concentration of the truth.40 This has a profound ecclesiological implication: “The Church does not derive its identity from what it is but from what it will be.”41 Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini went so far as to speak of Christian relativism, by which he meant “the reading of things in relation to the moment in which history will be visibly judged […] and the works of men will appear in their true value.”42 Martini argued that it is in the light of the eschaton that Christians must read their daily life. What is needed is discernment, “in order somehow to anticipate, to get in tune with the judgment of God on human history.”43 I would like to suggest that the centrality of eschatology may have some important ecumenical consequences. A question could be put forward, of whether the eschatological Kingdom—understood as the reunion of dispersed people with God— does not relativize the existent confessional divisions. Here, by “relativize” I do not mean to render irrelevant and negligible the difference of belief and praxis of the communities of the baptized. What I rather mean is that eschatology situates those differences in a due relation with the already-but-not-yet attained unity. Applying this to ecumenical relations, one could argue that the criterion of churches’ action should not be the painful history of recent conflicts, not even the “pre-lapsarian” unity of the first millennium, but the which to read, or re-read the whole of theology” (Antonio Nitrola, Spunti per un pensare escatologico, Trattato di escatologia, vol. 1 (San Paolo, 2001), 26–28. Citation from p. 28. My translation). 39  Cited in John Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 300. 40  Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 300. 41  Zizioulas, “Le Mystère de l’Eglise dans la tradition orthodoxe,” 326. My translation. 42  Carlo Maria Martini, “Homily for the 25th Anniversary of Episcopate,” ARCC Light Newsletter of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church 28 (2006), http://www. arcc-catholic-rights.net/arcc_light_28_2.pdf. Martini’s homily was delivered on May 8, 2005, a few weeks after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in a homily, which preceded his election as the Bishop of Rome, condemned modernity’s “dictatorship of relativism” (Joseph Ratzinger, “Homily at the Mass ‘pro eligendo romano pontifice,’ 18 April 2005,” (2005), h t t p : / / w w w. v a t i c a n . v a / g p I I / d o c u m e n t s / h o m i l y - p r o - e l i g e n d o - p o n t i f i c e _ 20050418_en.html) 43  Martini, “Homily for the 25th Anniversary of Episcopate” [6].

80 

P. SMYTSNYUK

faith that in the Kingdom of God there will be neither Jew nor Greek, neither Orthodox nor Greek Catholic (Cf. Gal 3:28). Paraphrasing St Maximus’ words, cited earlier, one could say that “the model of the church unity of the second millennium is shadow; that of the first millennium is eikon; truth is the state of the future things.” If one believes, as I do, that, at the heavenly banquet, Greek Catholics will be sitting together with the Orthodox, then there is a sense in which this eschatological icon has more truth than the actual status quo, the reality which we experience now. If the Eucharist is the anamnesis not only of the Last Supper, but rather, and more importantly, of the banquet in the New Jerusalem,44 then our Eucharistic practice should not ignore this eschatological perspective. In other words, this implicitly demands us to draw some practical ecclesiological implications. An intermediary step—between the present condition of division and eschaton—could be imagined, which could encourage a more future-­ oriented ecumenism. Hyacinthe Destivelle, in his recent reflection on ecumenism, suggests the following: “Can we not imagine a blessed day, when the communion between Catholics and Orthodox will be achieved, and a Catholic bishop in Moscow will serve as an auxiliary to the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, while one of the Orthodox bishops in Paris will become auxiliary to the Archbishop of Paris?”45 Destivelle’s insight can be pushed a bit further, and it may be argued that at least some of our church policies could be grounded in this imaginary unity. Perhaps this creative imagination—grounded in eschatological hope—could help churches achieve what their fixation on the protological despair could not.

4   Utopia? Let me now raise some possible objections to what has been suggested previously. The first can be formulated as follows: Does kenotic ecclesiology, a self-giving till the very end, imply the disappearance of Greek Catholics? I am afraid that some Orthodox theologians and clergymen would welcome such a possibility as the recipe for unity. In fact, when the late Lubomyr Husar proposed that the Orthodox churches in Ukraine 44   See Jean Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and the World (London: T&T Clark, 2011). 45  Hyacinthe Destivelle, Conduis-la vers l’unité parfaite: Ecuménisme et synodalité (Paris: Cerf, 2018), 253.

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

81

move in the direction of the communicatio in sacris, without breaking their links with Moscow (not unlike the proposal by Melchite Archbishop Elias Zoghby),46 the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church replied by proposing “that those members of the UGCC, who identify with the Eastern Christianity, return to Orthodoxy, and those for whom the relationship with the Roman Church is important, switch to this church.”47 This passage points out that ecclesiological asymmetry might be perceived as particularly problematic in those cases where a Christian community still feels the wounds of recent conflict with another community, as is the case in Ukraine. Unlike in Western Europe, where the struggles between denominations concluded centuries ago, in Ukraine the memory of real or perceived suffering at the hands of fellow Christians is still very vivid. In this context, asymmetry may seem a surrender to the “enemy.” If Eastern Catholics decide to sacrifice something for the sake of Christian unity, this sacrifice must be free and not imposed by the Vatican, as a step of Ostpolitik, or by the Russian Orthodox Church, as a step toward the homogenization of the “Russian World.” But the question remains whether the UGCC or its hierarchy could take steps in this direction. In other words, would self-sacrifice be the solution? Or, to put the question another way: Does the principle, according to which the Other always is superior to me, preclude the very concept of justice? A second objection has to do with mission. The Patriarchate of Moscow dislikes the missionary activity of the UGCC outside of Galicia and considers any missionary activity to be proselytism in its canonical territory.48 46  Elias Zoghby, Tous schismatiques? La robe déchirée (Beyrouth: Litco, 1981). Cf. [Irénikon], “Relations entre les Communions,” Irénikon 68, no. 3 (1995): 369–71. For a recent reappraisal, see Gabriel Hachem, “The concept of ‘double communion’ in Bishop Zoghby’s project. What model of unity?,” Cristianesimo nella storia 38, no. 3 (2017): 867–80. 47  See the Response of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to the Head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite to His Beatitude Cardinal Lubomyr Husar (Svyashchennyj Synod UPC, “Vidpovid Golovi Ukrayinskoyi Katolytskoyi Tserkvy vizantijskogo obryadu Blazhennishomu kardynalu Lyubomyru Guzaru na Zvernennya [shcho] nadijshlo na adresu Predstoyatelya Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy,” Svyashchennyj Synod UPC - Ofitsijnyj sajt (2008), https://sinod.church.ua/2014/01/15/zasidannya-16-lipnya2008-roku/.). My translation. 48  See the Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the establishment of new Catholic dioceses in Ukraine (Svyashchennyj Sinod RPC, “Zayavleniye v svyazi s uchrezhdeniem novykh katolicheskikh eparkhij na Ukraine,” Mospat - Official web site of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church (2005), https://mospat.ru/archive/page/synod/2002-2/447.html.). For a recent reflection on

82 

P. SMYTSNYUK

It has vehemently protested against both the transfer of the See of the Primate of Ukrainian Catholics from Lviv to Kyiv and the creation of new eparchies in Eastern Ukraine.49 In this regard, the question of whether the respect of the “canonical territory” between the separated Churches is possible, formulated by Destivelle, acquires its importance.50 In the case of Ukraine, this question should be formulated in an even more radical way: To what extent the legitimate spiritual and institutional requests of Greek Catholics could be sacrificed in the name of ecumenical relations, for the sake of an eventual (and perhaps abstract) unity with the Orthodox? Leaving aside the institutional aspect of this issue, and granting that the churches should not compete for human souls, as it were, the question remains of to what extent the missionary endeavor of the church, which, as Vatican II says, is in the very nature of the church, can be put aside for ecumenical reasons?51 Those questions do not have an easy answer and need serious discernment. Lévinas says that, besides me and the other, there is also the “third party,” all the other people who are also my neighbors. If I do not care about my own justice, I must still demand justice for them.52 The presence of this third party, which restrains the privilege of the asymmetry of the Other, makes me think about how my responsibility toward both of them should look, taking into account their relationship with each other.53 the question of canonical territory in the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, see Destivelle, Conduis-la vers l’unité parfaite: Ecuménisme et synodalité, ch. 10. 49  Hilarion Alfeyev, “Interview to Anna Gorpinchenko, UNIAN,” Mospat - Official web site of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church (2011), https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/12/29/news55861/. On the canonical aspects of the transfer of the See of the UGCC’s Primate to Kiev and the change of his title, see Thomas Mark Nemeth, “Recent Structural Developments in the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (2011–2015). Progress and Challenges by the Erection of New Metropolias,” Kanonika 22 (2016): 393–407. 50  Destivelle, Conduis-la vers l’unité parfaite: Ecuménisme et synodalité, 252. My translation. 51  Cf. Unitatis redintegratio 4. For a defense of the principle of individual conversion, see Walter Kasper, “Le radici teologiche del conflitto tra Mosca e Roma,” Civiltà cattolica 1, no. 3642 (2002): 531–41. 52  Lévinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo, 99. 53  Lévinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo, 89–90; Lévinas, “Peace and Proximity,” 168. Adriaan T.  Peperzak summarizes Lévinas’ thought in the following way: “The moral perspective itself, the very relation of intersubjective asymmetry, not only demands an infinite respect for somebody who confronts me as (a) You; it also imposes a general care for all human others whose face and word I cannot perceive personally” (Adriaan Theodoor Peperzak, To the Other: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1993), 31).

  KENOTIC ECUMENISM: WHAT CAN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX… 

83

I think here might lie the key to answer our questions. Kenotic and asymmetrical theology cannot impose a sacrifice on this third party. Any theology which does not take into account the agency and needs of the baptized members of church is a bad theology. My third objection will take into consideration the church-state relationship. Should churches tolerate, or even aspire, to an asymmetrical treatment by the civil authorities? In Ukraine, the issue of the discriminatory attitude of the government toward different Christian denominations—especially during the period immediately before and after the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine—has been widely debated. It would seem that the churches feel comfortable to be objects of governmental favors, but in the moment that they lose their privileged position, they appeal to the principle of secularism, constitutional separation of church and state, and the equality of denominations vis-à-vis the state. Finally, a fourth objection might be that the vision delineated above is unrealistic. Indeed, is kenosis utopian? Moltmann, in his Theology of Hope, argues that the distinction between the spirits of utopia and eschatology lies in the story of Jesus Christ: what Jesus underwent cannot ever be considered utopian.54 If one accepts such a criterion as a valid one, kenosis becomes eschatological, but never utopian. On the other hand, Moltmann argues that the Christian hope is contradicted by the present experience,55 and a person that has this hope can never fully adapt to human laws and ways of doing.56 It might be argued, however, that in a certain sense, eschatological perspective can be justified even at a non-theological level. In order to make my argument clearer, I will briefly engage with Martha C. Nussbaum and Charles Taylor. The “realism” of faith is well expressed  Jürgen Moltmann, Teologia della speranza: Richerche sui fondamenti e sulle implicazioni di una escatologia cristiana (Brescia: Queriniana, 1970), 11. 55  Moltmann, Teologia della speranza: Richerche sui fondamenti e sulle implicazioni di una escatologia cristiana, 12. 56  Moltmann, Teologia della speranza: Richerche sui fondamenti e sulle implicazioni di una escatologia cristiana, 12–15. This intuition is further developed by Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, one of Moltmann’s commentators: “As can also be seen from the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, discipleship leads to the cross, to suffering and dying. It hands itself over to the tribulation and the pain of love which cannot be content with the rebellious world, which is neither redeemed nor reconciled, and precisely here it attests the future of the resurrection, which means the triumph of life and the splendour of the righteousness of God in the midst of the everyday world” (Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, The Kingdom and the Power: The Theology of Jürgen Moltman, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 2000), 51). 54

84 

P. SMYTSNYUK

by Nussbaum in her psychological interpretation of a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “If faith is, as Saint Paul said, ‘the evidence of things not seen’ [Heb 11:1], then we need faith any time we engage with another […]. We need to think of our opponents as having capacities for reasoning and a range of human emotions […]. People are always larger than their deeds, capable of growth and change. […] Feeling that they were seen as capable of good, people usually tried to live up to that expectation.”57 This logic would entail that a kenotic and asymmetrical approach to another community has the potential to change that community from within. Moreover, such a benevolent approach can address possible defense mechanisms grounded in suspicion and mistrust. Let me illustrate this by referring to Charles Taylor and his speculation on enemy construction. Taylor observes that, often, the enemy construction is gratuitous and purely imitative. He contends that “[e]ach community has the sense that the other united first against its unsuspecting members and that its own mobilization is secondary and defensive in nature. The tragedy is that often neither is right.”58 If Taylor is right about the often-constructed nature of intergroup hostility, a kenotic and asymmetrical approach could perhaps contribute to cutting through this vicious cycle of imaginary and mimetic hatred. To conclude, since the idea that I am trying to delineate here implies rejection of reciprocity, I am proposing this as a model for my own church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. By this, I do not want to suggest that it is not a viable model for the Orthodox. I think it is, but it is up to the Orthodox to reflect on it and it should not be set as a condition on the Catholic side that “we will be kenotic only if you also are kenotic.” Today, the ecumenical dialogue is deadlocked by the logic of compromise and reciprocity: in Ukraine, everyone expects concessions from the other side and each partner sees the victory of the other as its own defeat; the confessions are dominated by the logic of do ut des which, ultimately, is the logic of the market, utilitarian exchange. In such a situation, the kenotic approach to dialogue can become a way out of the impasse. As humans, we are, and perhaps should be, afraid of self-emptying and self-denial but, if the Easter faith means anything, it means that giving yourself for others and to others will not be without God’s answer. 57  Martha C. Nussbaum, The Monarchy of Fear: A Philosopher Looks at Our Political Crisis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 215–18. 58  Charles Taylor, “Nationalism and Modernity,” The Morality of Nationalism, ed. Robert McKim and Jeff McMahan (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 48.

Eastern Catholic Churches and the Theological Dialogue Between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church Seen Through the Category of Prophetic Dialogue Sandra Mazzolini

In the theological dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, many relevant ecclesiological questions are still open. In a few words, they also concern the identity of the Church and, consequently its unity, which is the conditio sine qua non for the fulfillment of the ecclesial evangelizing mission,1 according to the Great Commission (see Matthew 1  “The divisions still existing among Christian Churches openly contradict the will of Christ” (see John 17: 20–23) and scandalize the world and damage “the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature” (Unitatis Redintegratio 1). In fact, the lack of full and real unity “still harms the authenticity of the fulfillment of God’s mission in the world” (Together Towards Life 61) or, in other words, “the credibility of Christian message would be greater if Christians could overcome their divisions” (Evangelii Gaudium 245; see also 246).

S. Mazzolini (*) Faculty of Missiology, Pontifical Urbaniana University, Rome, Italy © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_6

85

86 

S. MAZZOLINI

28:16–20). Today, “there is a need to open up our reflections on church and unity to an even wider understanding of unity: the unity of humanity and even the cosmic unity of the whole of God’s creation,”2 at the same time identifying and practicing increasingly ways of common witness. In the course of time, each ecclesial body has followed its own path, developing its own tradition and way of understanding and expressing the ecclesial nature and mission, and the like. Nonetheless, there is today an undeniable commitment to integrate the different positions, as can be verified in statements and other documents of global Christian bodies, which, among other things, allow Christians, whatever their ecclesial membership, to recognize fundamental common principles, as well as new theoretical and practical perspectives for further shared developments. From this viewpoint, it is doubtless necessary to implement dialogical processes, which allow Christian traditions both to deepen their own identity within a relational network and—consequently—to remove the obstacles which prevent a full communion between them all. Could this issue be investigated through the lens of the concept of prophetic dialogue? Could this concept be useful in order to understand the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches with reference to the theological dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, in particular to the understanding of the ecclesial identity? This twofold question underlies this chapter, the purpose of which is simply to introduce succinctly some of the main elements of this issue. The contribution is in three parts: the first introduces some remarks concerning the category of the prophetic dialogue; the second focuses on some consequent ecclesiological implications, which must be also assessed from an ecumenical perspective; the third rereads in this framework the role and contribution of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the theological dialogue between the See Council Vatican II, Decree on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio (November 21, 1964). http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_ decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html; [accessed November 30, 2019]; Together Towards Life. Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes. New WWC Affirmation on Mission and Evangelism (September 5, 2012). https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/ documents/commissions/mission-and-evangelism/together-towards-life-mission-andevangelism-in-changing-landscapes [accessed November 30, 2019]; Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013). http://www.vatican.va/content/ francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_ evangelii-gaudium.html [accessed November 30, 2019]. 2  Together Towards Life 61.

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

87

Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, using the image of bifocal lenses and placing a particular emphasis on the identity of each of the ecclesial subjects involved in the dialogical processes, because its recognition is a conditio sine qua non of ecclesial unity.

1   Sketching Out Some Elements of Prophetic Dialogue Rooted in the mystery of the Triune God, the Church at the same time is rooted in human history, sent to announce the Good News addressed to each and every human being. Theologically founded, ecclesial identity takes shape in specific spaces and times, so that it is always dynamic and changing. Therefore, its proper understanding is not merely the result of a solitary desk-bound theological reflection. On the contrary, it also needs to be clarified and developed within a relational network, as the communion with God and among human beings constitutes the actual identity of the Church, although it must be translated into contextualized communitarian forms, so that, on the one hand, they are multiple and, on the other, can be reformed, if and when necessary.3 From this viewpoint, the reflection both on ecclesial identity and on its ecumenical implications could benefit from the concept of the prophetic dialogue, used today by some scholars. This concept needs to be introduced briefly, before assessing some of its main ecclesiological implications, which also concern ecumenical dialogue. The concept of prophetic dialogue, proposed by two American missiologists Steve Bevans and Roger Schroeder in “the final chapter of Constants in Context4 as a synthesis of the three major theologies of 3  The ecclesial reform does not concern the constitutive elements of the Church in themselves, because they depend on the divine revelation. It must be properly understood in the perspective of the theandric nature of the Church, which reminds us that the Church is also a human institution, although rooted in the Trinitarian mystery. The ecclesial reform, which also entails personal and communal conversion, contributes to shape a dynamic view of the Church and its structures. Since the beginning onward, the ecclesial reform has been based on principles, which have been referred to specific ecclesiological model, as well as to the coeval context. See Yves Congar, Vraie et Fausse Reform dans l’Eglise (Paris: Cerf, 1950); Sandra Mazzolini, “Riforma e conversione: un imprescindibile rapporto dinamico,” in Riforma nella Chiesa, Riforma della Chiesa, ed. Luigi Sabbarese (Città del Vaticano: Urbaniana University Press, 2019), 49–71. 4  See Stephen B.  Bevans and Roger P.  Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 348–395.

88 

S. MAZZOLINI

­ ission that had been articulated in the last half of the twentieth century,”5 m has been “adopted and developed […] as an expression of a comprehensive theology of mission,”6 as well as “an overarching umbrella for an understanding of the various elements in the practice of mission—witness and proclamation; liturgy, prayer, and contemplation; justice, peace, and integrity of creation; interreligious dialogue; inculturation; and reconciliation.”7 Briefly, the concept of prophetic dialogue “can refer to a practice of good communication, an attitude of respect that enlivens the evangelizing mission of the church, or the practice of openness, fairness, and respect for other traditions. Bevans and Schroeder choose the second option—a basic attitude or spirituality ‘that enables the minister or missionary to perceive a particular context in a new way—as their understanding of dialogue.”8 In spite of the fact that this approach would seem to concern more about how to live out human relations rather than their theological foundation, nonetheless it is not right to exclude a priori the idea that the concept of prophetic dialogue allows one to reflect theologically as well. According to Laurie Brink, the expression “prophetic dialogue” can be understood from the perspective that dialogue is itself prophetic, as well as that dialogue concerns the subject of prophecy. In the first case, “then the actual act of dialogue witnesses to faith”;9 in the second, dialogue is a conversation about faith,10 which also entails theological dialogue.

5  Stephen B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Prophetic dialogue. Reflections on Christian Mission Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011), 2. The three major theologies of mission, developed in the last half of the twentieth century, are: mission as participation in the mission of the Triune God (missio Dei); mission as liberating service of the Reign of God; and mission as proclamation of Jesus Christ as universal Saviour. See Bevans and Schroeder, Constants in Context, 348. 6  Bevans and Schroeder, Prophetic Dialogue, 2. According to them, the term was originally “used by the 2000 General Chapter of our religious congregation, the Society of the Divine Word (SVD), currently the largest explicitly missionary congregation of men in the Roman Catholic Church. The term was the fruit of a processes of Chapter delegates from all over the world who drew on their theology and experience of mission in many different contexts,” Bevans and Schroeder, Prophetic Dialogue, 2. 7  Bevans and Schroeder, Prophetic Dialogue, 2. 8  Laurie Brink, “In Search of the Biblical Foundation of Prophetic Dialogue: Engaging a Hermeneutic of Otherness,” Missiology: An International Review 41, no. 1 (2013): 11. 9  Brink, “In Search of the Biblical Foundation,” 15. 10  Brink, “In Search of the Biblical Foundation,” 15.

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

89

In this regard, it is sufficient to point out that this concept refers to both prophecy and dialogue, whose theological contents are already acknowledged. Thus, the concept of prophetic dialogue, firstly, reminds one to understand better these contents within the framework of the welcoming and acknowledgment of the otherness. Secondly, to recognize if and how this specific understanding could be useful for the achievement of a closer ecclesial unity, based on the recognition and integration of diversity. An ecclesial unity which entails conversion and reform as well. Prophecy has several aspects, which are often intertwined, and is accomplished through words and deeds. Prophecy includes both “speaking forth,” because the prophet proclaims “a vision of what God has in store for people in God’s plan of salvation,” and “speaking out” as a word of challenge and critique when the community fails to live according to God’s covenant.11 With regard to dialogue, the whole history of humanity’s salvation is one long, varied dialogue, which begins marvelously with God and which God prolongs with men and women in many different ways.12 This divine communication, which implies a response from human beings, creates effective possibilities of communal relationships between God and humankind, as well as between human beings themselves. The Church participates in that divine, dialogical nature, so that dialogue is more than just yet another means of communication.13 In the perspective of the ecclesial identity, we can note that both concepts—prophecy and dialogue—refer, firstly, to the fact that they create  Bevans and Schroeder, Prophetic Dialogue, 42–43.  See Ecclesiam Suam. Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Church 72 (August 6, 1964). http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_ enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html [accessed November 30, 2019]; Council Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 58 (December 7, 1965). http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_ const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html [accessed November 30, 2019]. 13  It is a style of meeting and living with the others, a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment. “It is demanded by deep respect for everything that has been brought about in human beings by the Spirit who blows where he wills,” Redemptoris missio 55 (December 7, 1990). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html [accessed November 30, 2019]. Basically, dialogue implies to discover and acknowledge the signs both of Christ’s presence and of the action of the Spirit in the “others” and, at the same time, to examine more deeply ecclesial identity. With reference to theological implications of dialogue, see Angel M. Navarro Lecanda, ‘Colloquium salutis.’ Para una teología del diálogo ecclesial. Un dossier (Vitoria-Gastein: Editorial Eset, 2005), 289–303. 11 12

90 

S. MAZZOLINI

and shape relationships by means of the word; secondly, that they originate a complex relational network. Each and every stage of history of salvation, from the creation to the eschatological fulfillment, testifies it, focusing moreover on the interconnection between the divine Word and the human one, which is accomplished, so to speak, in the mystery of Incarnation. But from the beginning onward (see Genesis 3), human sin has affected the development of the salvific dialogue between God and human beings, and also problematized human relations, as the history of Israel, the people of God, has attested. This historical framework, in which the divine fidelity is more evident when compared with the infidelity of the chosen people, allows one to understand not only the mission of the prophets in general terms but also—more specifically—its implications.14 By means of the prophetic preaching, which has also a dialogical structure, God calls upon Israel to live according to its own identity, that is to be the people of God, and to accomplish its mission among the other peoples. God wants people not only to receive the prophetic preaching but also to live and act accordingly to its precepts. Prophecy and dialogue are actually two sides of the same coin. Their link can also be understood in an ecclesiological sense, in particular with reference to ecclesial identity. From this viewpoint, we can mention Acts 2,15 which—among other things—highlights the intrinsic link between 14  “Scripture recognizes prophecy as a ‘medium of divine communication.’ As seen from a more general perspective, Israel possessed three basic classes of human media for revelation, each with its own particular function: the law, the word, and the counsel. As expressed in Jeremiah 18:18, ‘The law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word [or vision, Ezek 7:26] from the prophet.’ That is, while the wise, Israel’s compilers of proverbial wisdom, were inspired to communicate principles for the direction of life, and while the Levitical priests, informed by Yahweh’s law book, were equipped for the restoration of those who had fallen short of the divine standard, it was the prophet who occupied that central position of revealing God’s will, His specific ‘word’ for men, reproving their sin against His ‘counsel’ and guiding them repentantly to seek His ‘law’ from the priests,” J.  Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment, 8th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), 3. On the interpretation of biblical prediction, see Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, 3–150. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel. Revised and Enlarged (Louisville-London-Leiden: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). 15  See C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. I: Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I-XIV (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 127–162; The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Joseph A.  Fizmeyer, Anchor Bible no. 13 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 247–267. Also, analyzing the vision of the Church according the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles,

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

91

the Church and the divine Word, announced by means of human words. In fact, Peter’s kerygmatic announcement, which is analogous to the prophetic preaching and is structurally dialogical, somehow produces a change in its listeners: “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles: ‘What are we to do, my brothers?’ Peter (said) to them: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. […] Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day’” (Acts 2: 37–38. 41).16 These New Testament verses shed light on the fact that the kerygma produces a significant change, which is both personal and communal at the same time,17 confirming that ecclesial identity in itself has to be basically understood in terms of both convocation (convocatio) and congregation (congregatio), which depend on the essential dynamics of the divine call and human answer.18 There is, therefore, such an intimate and ­essential union between the self-communication of the Triune God and the Church Antón focuses a very relevant ecclesiological datum, that is “el valor fundacional de la proclamación y de la escucha de la palabra de Dios en la convocación de la comunidad cristiana. […] La palabra de Dios proclamada en el Espíritu engendra la vita y congrega la comunidad de cuantos la escuchan y la acogen en la fe. La palabra de Dios es, por esto, un elemento constitutivo de la comunidad cristiana,” Angel Antón, La Iglesia de Cristo. El Israel de la Vieja y de la Nueva Alianca (Madrid: BAC, 1977), 445 (see also 445–458). 16  Fitzmeyer highlights that the “verb ‘were added’ is to be understood as a theological passive,” The Acts of Apostles, 267 (see also 264–267). “The goal of proclamation in the hearers is faith rather than understanding. […] For the Bible is not concerned primarily with the vision of God nor with action. What counts is the faith which arises through the hearing of the word and this faith is content with the simple word. […] The true hearing of preaching involves more than listening; it is also obedience. This act of obedience is not a work of man. It is effected by God’s Word. The faith which the Word demands of man is also a gift of the Word.” Gerhard Friedrich, “Ƙηρύσσω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 2nd ed., vol. 2: θ-κ (Grand Rapids, MI: W.M.B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 712 (see also 697–714). 17  “Del escuchar su mensaje de salvación ha venido a la existencia la Iglesia en cuanto comunidad de los que creen y aceptan el kerygma cristiano. El destinatario primero de esta comunicación eschatológica de Dios hecha en Cristo es la comunidad, mientras el individuo participa de este mensaje de salvación a través de la comunidad eclesia.” Antón, La Iglesia de Cristo, 65. 18  See Severino Dianich, “Questioni di metodo in ecclesiologia,” in Pontificia Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale-sezione San Luigi, Sui problemi del metodo in ecclesiologia. In dialogo con Severino Dianich, Antonio Barruffo ed. (Cinisello Balsamo, MI: San Paolo, 2003), 44–51.

92 

S. MAZZOLINI

as the community of believers that the former determines the existence of the latter, as well as its raison d’être in the human history.19 It follows, firstly, that the Church’s existence derives from the divine self-­ communication in the revelation; secondly, that this revelation implies the Church to be the eschatological community of believers which accepts the divine self-communication, as well as making it virtually present in its historical pilgrimage.20 Although the Church is holy by divine constitution, “her members are not perfect; they bear the mark of their human limitations. Consequently, her transparency as sacrament of salvation is blurred. This is the reason why the church herself […] and not only her members, is constantly in need of renewal and reform (cf. UR 6).”21 It means that the Church in history is always called upon by the word of God, in whatever form it is expressed, to be faithful to its identity and mission; it means that it is called to convert and, consequently, to reform itself in order to be more and more a “sacrament,” that is a sign and instrument of that salvation, which was accomplished by Christ, the Incarnate Word of God.

2   Some Ecclesiological Implications for Today Within this framework, ecclesial identity must be understood first and foremost as a relational identity, due to its intrinsic link with the word of God, which is announced, celebrated, and lived in each and every church. This identity, referred to the Church rooted in human history, is dynamic, that is, it has to be translated into many figures, which, while respecting the ecclesial constitutive elements according to the Revelation, are at the same time consistent with the instances of the many various contexts.22 Briefly, it means that the development of ecclesial identity cannot 19  “Esta implicación mutua constituye el fundamento de por qué la comunidad creyente non puede existir sin la revelación y en qué sentido ésta se transmite en y a travérs de la Iglesia. Aludiendo a esta implicación mutua de la revelación y de la Iglesia, y a la virtud creatora de la palabra, se dice en teología que la Palabra crea la comunidad creyente y que la ‘Ekklêsia’ es creatura de la Palabra.” Antón, La Iglesia de Cristo, 65. 20  See Antón, La Iglesia de Cristo, 65. 21  Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, Dialogue and Proclamation. Reflection and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue And The Proclamation Of The Gospel Of Jesus Christ 36 (May 19, 1991). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html [accessed December 8, 2019). 22  It entails a capacity to scrutinize and interpret the signs of the times, that is the “authentic signs of God’s presence and purpose in the happenings, needs and desires in which this

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

93

disregard either the relationships between the ecclesial subjects within each and every church, recognizing their specific identity, which depends on sacraments, charisms, ministries, or from those both with the other churches in the frame of the communio ecclesiarum and with humankind. Therefore, ecclesial commitment with dialogical processes is not optional. On the contrary, a more extended dialogue is required, that is, a dialogue involving all relations which the church must establish with the surrounding world in which it lives and works.23 In brief, this dialogue is necessary, because encountering dialogically the otherness, whoever they are, reinforces the awareness of each and every church of its actual identity, as well as shedding light on limits and sins, which affects its specific identity. Encountering the otherness helps the church to discover, appreciate, and recognize the specific identity of the others, due to the fact that dialogue is also a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, so that mirroring itself in the others, whoever they are, the church can rediscover its very own identity, at the same time freeing itself from those incrustations that have variously disfigured its identity over the times. In fact, within a relational framework, the church is led to compare its ideal identity, referred first and foremost to the Trinitarian and Christological mystery, and the actual image which it presents to the world today,24 and, consequently, to implement processes of conversion and reform. There are many ecclesiological implications that derive from the use of prophetic dialogue as a key for understanding the relationships between churches, having as their standpoint the relational identity of each of them. Regarding the theological dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, it is sufficient to mention both the theme of the local church and that of the communio ecclesiarum. These two correlated issues recur firstly in the today’s agenda of the Latin Church,25 called upon to People [ndr. the people of God] has part along with other men of our age” (Gaudium et spes 11; see also no. 4). 23  The Latin Church has been called upon by Pope Paul VI to extend dialogue, according to four concentric cycles: dialogue with humankind, dialogue with worshippers of the One God, dialogue with Christians, and dialogue with the Catholics (see Ecclesiam suam 96–115). 24  See Evangelii Gaudium, 26. 25  See, for instance, some passages of Evangelii Gaudium, in which pope Francis has qualified the local church as the “primary subject of evangelization” (see no. 30), or remarked that the status of episcopal conferences has not yet been sufficiently elaborated (see no. 32), or affirmed that the People of God is a people of many faces, due to its incarnation in the people of the earth (see ns. 116–118), and the like.

94 

S. MAZZOLINI

deal with ecclesiological issues, such as the ecclesial synodality understood not only in practical terms, but also as an essential aspect of ecclesial identity; the relationships between the ordained ministries and the charisms; the relevance and implications of the sensus fidei; the relations with human cultures and religions; the decentralization in view of the accomplishment of its proper evangelizing mission, and the like;26 secondly, in today’s agenda of ecumenical dialogue,27 as it seems to be suggested by a passage of the World Council of Churches’ (WCC) document The Church: Towards a Common Vision. It recognizes that although there is a certain agreement among some Christian traditions, “the expression ‘local church’ may nonetheless be used in varying ways. In our common quest for closer unity, we invite the churches to seek more precise mutual understanding and agreement in this area: what is the appropriate relation between the various levels of life of a fully united Church and what specific ministries of leadership are needed to serve and foster those relations?”28

26  These themes variously recur in the magisterium of Pope Francis, in his words and actions, as well as in its reform project of the church, figure of which is essentially described by him in terms of the church which goes forth, namely a synodal, dialogical, and decentralized church. While these issues acknowledge some main perspectives of the Vatican II, at the same time they develop the conciliar approach. In fact, the Council dealt with the ecclesiological issues, assuming as its standing point that of the universal Church. Regarding the local church, it limited itself to introducing some main elements, concerning, on the one side, the constitutive elements of the local church and, on the other, its relationship with the context in which each and every ecclesial community is rooted. See Henri Legrand, “La réalisation de l’Église en un lieu,” in Bernard Lauret and François Refoulé, Initiation à la pratique de la théologie, vol. 3: Dogmatique 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1983), 151–155; Olegario Gonzáles de Cardenal, “Genesi di una teologia della Chiesa locale dal concilio Vaticano I al concilio Vaticano II”: in Chiese locali e cattolicità. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Salamanca (2–7 aprile 1991), eds. Hervé Legrand et  al. (Bologna: EDB, 1994), 27–61; Donato Valentini, “Chiesa universale e Chiesa locale: un’armonia raggiunta?,” in Id., Identità e storicità nella Chiesa. Saggi teologici sulla Chiesa locale, il ministero petrino e l’ecumenismo, ed. Amaible Musoni (Roma: LAS, 2007), 102; S. Mazzolini, “Chiese particolari: profili ecclesiologici,” in Pontificio Istituto Orientale and Pontificia Università Urbaniana, Circoscrizioni ecclesiastiche erette nella forma dell’ordinariato. Atti della giornata di studio, Roma, 4 dicembre 2018, ed. Georges Ruyssen (Roma: Valore italiano, 2020), 19–55. In addition, Vatican II paid more attention to the communio episcoporum, rather than to the communio ecclesiarum. 27  See the WCC document, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (March 6, 2013), ns. 31–32, https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/faith-andorder/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/the-church-towards-a-common-vision [accessed December 12, 2019). 28  The Church: Towards a Common vision 32.

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

95

How to receive and understand this invitation from the viewpoint of the ecclesial tradition such as the Latin Church? It is clear that this invitation entails to rethinking its own identity, in the perspective of the local church, which “is the concrete manifestation of the one Church in one specific place, and in it ‘the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative. It is the Church incarnate in a certain place, equipped with all the means of salvation bestowed by Christ, but with locale feature.”29 Two other questions could be correlated. How to rethink this identity in a relational network, using—in the frame of prophetic dialogue—bifocal lenses, so to speak, because they allow one to see what is close, that is in this case one’s own ecclesial identity, and what is at a distance, namely the other’s ecclesial identity? And finally, what could be the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the theological dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church?

3   Sketching Out the Role of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Theological Dialogue Between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church The aim of the third main part is not to answer comprehensively the abovementioned questions, but to focus briefly on some reliefs on the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the theological dialogue, which is prophetic, between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church.30 Before dealing with this role, it is appropriate to introduce some points concerning the identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Given the intrinsic correlation between the identity and the role that each and every church is called upon to accomplish in history, to reflect properly on the

 Evangelii Gaudium 30.  Although the understanding of catholicity as an essential element of ecclesial identity has legitimized the ritual-ecclesiological plurality, nonetheless the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches has been perhaps overshadowed by the possibility of a direct dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. In addition, some people and theologians think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are an embarrassing presence, or even an ecclesiological paradox. See Filippo Santi Cucinotta, “L’apporto della teologia delle Chiese Orientali,” in: Storia della teologia, ed. Rino Fisichella, vol. 3: Da Vitus Pichler a Henri de Lubac (Bologna: EDB 2015), 592. 29 30

96 

S. MAZZOLINI

issue of the ecclesial identity is an unavoidable step.31 The starting point of this reflection is the fact that the concept of identity can be understood in different ways, from which derive its consequent historical translation into different forms. From the theological-ecclesiological viewpoint, identity, which is both personal and communal, refers to the divine salvific project. It is a call, a vocation, often a promise. It is a creation of God in preparation for a mission.32 It does not necessarily oppose cultural identity, which is assumed in the broader framework of God’s salvific plan, where differences are not a factor of division.33 But, as this identity is a treasure, carried in the clay pots that represent our humanity, it is exposed to the temptation of infidelity, opposition, and exclusion. From this arises the need for memory healing and reconciliation processes,34 which are intertwined. 31  Assessing the bibliography and other documents on this subject, that is the identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches, one can note the complexity of the subject, the different— sometimes divergent—viewpoints, some main unsolved problems. See, for example, Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche. Atti dell’incontro di studio dei vescovi e dei superiori maggiori delle Chiese orientali cattoliche d’Europa. Nyíregyháza (Ungheria) 30 giugno-6 luglio 1997 (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999). 32  Van Parys remarks that, even if the term “identity” does not recur in the Bible, some biblical elements can be referred to its contents. In fact, on the one hand, identity is essentially a name, attributed to a person who is called upon by God; it follows, firstly, that identity can be realized by putting into practice what the attributed name entails and, secondly, that a change of name means a change of identity. On the other hand, identity is also defined by means of the acknowledgment of the divine call, so that one recognizes his or her identity by confessing to God. See: Michel Van Parys, “Comprendere e vivere l’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche: un approccio teologico,” in: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche, 29. See also Borys Gudziak, “Sulla questione dell’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche: Identità come categoria teologica e sua definizione,” in Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche, 71–82. 33  From this point of view, it is very interesting to note that in the early church the gospel was proclaimed to all people, without partiality, breaking down the barriers that separate people in the world. This was regarded merely not as a result of the evangelical announcement, but as an essential aspect of the gospel itself. The Church grew and grew across cultural barriers; living in many different contexts within the Roman Empire and outside it, Christian communities witnessed that, despite undeniable and variously motivated difficulties, the principle of the ecclesial unity is not uniformity. See C. René Padilla, “The Unity of the Church and the Homogeneous Unit Principle,” in: Landmark Essays in Mission and World Christianity, eds. Robert L.  Gallagher and Paul Herting (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009), 90–91 (see also 73–92). 34  See Van Parys, “Comprendere e vivere,” 30. Even if these processes entail the commitment of each and every Christian tradition, as well as that of each and every ecclesial subject,

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

97

Here, it is sufficient to mention that historical disagreements and conflicts can, and not infrequently do, impede reconciliation processes; it follows that, while the past cannot be changed, what and how one remembers can be transformed.35 This approach to the theme of ecclesial identity suggests that to understand it properly one cannot prescind either from the relationship with the otherness, whoever they are, or from the reference to specific contexts. Regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches, the awareness of their own ecclesial identity seems to be weakened today, because they are facing many challenges, which derive, for example, from recent geopolitical scenarios,36 as well as from socioeconomic reasons and their implications.37 In addition, there are other challenges which arise from the problems of our time, which is characterized by new and complex phenomena, such as human mobility, economic and cultural globalization, the pervasive use of new technologies, the processes of urbanization, the explosion of violence and wars, which are at the same time local and global, pollution, and the like. All this matter also affects the understanding of the ecclesial identity of the Eastern Catholic Church. The bifocal lenses allow one to see what is close. It follows that the Eastern Catholic Churches should acquire a greater awareness of their own ecclesial identity, recognizing firstly that it is founded in the mystery of the Church, which takes shape in churches that are rooted in human nonetheless Christians should not forget that reconciliation between them is founded on the reconciliation with God. In Christ, the Incarnate Word, diversity is no longer a cause of separation (see Ephesians 2:14–16). 35  See Joint Statement on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation (Lund, 31 October 2016). https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20161031_omelia-svezia-lund.html [accessed December 14, 2019]. 36  After the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), the rapid disappearance of the atheist and totalitarian regimes of Central and Eastern Europe changed the conditions of existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. They were able to reorganize their life and mission, as well as to participate actively, although with delay, in the updating process that has involved the Catholic Church since Vatican II. See Van Parys, “Comprendere e vivere,” 30–32. Also, the dramatic impact of the today’s geopolitical scenarios of the Middle East on the churches of this area must be mentioned. 37  The phenomenon of the so-called diaspora, the meaning of which needs to be further clarified, also refers to economic and political reasons. Within it, the Eastern Catholic Churches are called upon to preserve their specific ecclesial identity. See Van Parys, “Comprendere e vivere,” 32.

98 

S. MAZZOLINI

history.38 There are two main consequences, which derive from this ­recognition. The first consequence concerns the fact that these churches share the same fundamental ecclesial identity, understood eschatologically because the Church derives its own identity more from what it will be, rather than from what it is. At the same time, this fundamental ecclesial identity guarantees and expresses the specific and peculiar identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Within the framework of the providential design of the Triune God, the unique eschatological identity of the Church takes place within the history of peoples, cultures, and humanity by mean of the specific identity of each and every church. The second consequence, which is also correlated to the first one, is that the Eastern Catholic Churches should reappropriate the peculiar understanding of the ecclesial mystery according to their own tradition, which is their inalienable heritage and permits them to look at their future accordingly.39 In doing so, they should also understand their identity not in a static way, but dynamically, committing themselves both to listening to the words that the Holy Spirit addresses to the churches today (see Revelation 2–3) and to paying attention to the implications and needs of the evangelizing mission of the Church. In other words, the Eastern Catholic Churches are called upon to bring from their storeroom both the new and the old, remembering at the same time their foundation in the mystery of the Church and their proper tradition. In this perspective, they 38  “Senza una riflessione teologica viva sul mistero della Chiesa, così come ciascuna delle Chiese orientali cattoliche lo vive sotto il profilo sacramentale e spirituale secondo la propria inalienabile tradizione, il rischio di un’ulteriore assimilazione latinizzante non è illusorio,” “L’attività della Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali negli ultimi decenni,” in: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, Oriente Cristiano, ed. Gianpaolo Rigotti, 5th ed., vol. 1 (s.l.: Valore Italiano, 2017), 121. 39  “Fortemente nutrita da immagini bibliche questa ecclesiologia [ndr the Oriental ecclesiology] si fonda soprattutto sul tema paolino del corpo, ma si sviluppa ancora di più nella linea della divinizzazione. L’umanità di Cristo è la modalità della nostra assimilazione alla divinità. Secondo una formula spesso ripresa: in Cristo, Dio è diventato ciò che siamo noi perché noi potessimo diventare ciò che è lui. La nostra incorporazione a Cristo avviene mediante il Battesimo, in cui la fede viene ricevuta secondo la tradizione della Chiesa, e mediante l’Eucaristia che ci divinizza in quanto ci unisce a Cristo realizzando pure l’unità di tutti in un solo corpo. La Chiesa è la riproduzione terrena della Chiesa celeste. È il Paradiso ritrovato di cui la Vergine Maria è una sorta di anticipo personale. La sua liturgia è sulla terra un riflesso mistico della liturgia degli angeli,” Paul Tihon, “La Chiesa,” SD 4, 371–372. See also, Jean Zizioulas, L’être ecclésial (Gèneve: Labor et fides, 1981); Georges Florovskj, “The Church: Her Nature and Task,” in: Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, ed. Petros Vassiliadis, (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2013), 34–45.

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

99

are called upon, among other things, to assess critically their history, acknowledging their past objectively with all its lights and shadows.40 At the same time, remembering the past cannot be reduced to a merely archeological operation, so to speak; rather it must push these churches toward processes of evangelical conversion and reform, with the aim of reconciliation of Christians and Christian churches, as well as of the proclamation of the Gospel to men and women, who are looking for God in many diverse ways.41 The Eastern Catholic Churches are called upon to commit themselves to dealing with many open questions concerning, on the one hand, their identity, which cannot be defined by contrast or by opposition to the Latin tradition, which represents the majority from a numerical point of view, or to the Orthodox Churches, because they share with them the same ecclesial heritage;42 on the other, their formative processes, which should be coherent to their specific ecclesial identity.43 This commitment could help to disambiguate the “bridge image” attributed to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the framework of the ecumenical dialogue, which on the

40  According to Gudziak, there are three significant stages of the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which need to be deepened: the origins, the union with the Roman See, and the time of martyrdom and resurrection in the XX century. See Boris Gudziak, “Sulla questione dell’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche: identità come categoria teologica e sua definizione,” in: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Cattoliche Orientali, 78–81. On a historical approach to the identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches, see the contribution of Enrico Morini, “L’identità delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche. Prospettive storiche,” in: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Cattoliche Orientali, 35–70. 41  The ecclesial identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches takes shape in their historical plurality. It means that each of them should assume both its eschatological identity and its historical particularity. A twofold anamnesis is requested, that is memory and history. See Van Parys, “Comprendere e vivere,” 33. 42  Van Parys correctly affirms that the identity of each and every Church must never become exclusive. On the contrary, it must include the universal and the particular at the same time, accordingly to the essential catholic dimension of each and every Church. See Parys, “Comprendere e vivere,” 28. On catholicity and its implications, see John N.D. Kelly, “Catholique et apostolique aux premièrs siècle,” in Istina 14 (1969): 33–45; Francis A.  Sullivan, The Church We Believe In. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988), 84–108; Robert J. Schreiter, The New Catholicity. Theology Between the Global and the Local (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997). 43  See Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Cattoliche Orientale, 101–117.

100 

S. MAZZOLINI

other hand could support their search for their specific identity.44 From this point of view, in fact, the image of bridge cannot be referred to any form of “return” of one or other of the dialogue partners, which is the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, to the unique and true fold. It must rather be understood with reference to the main purpose of dialogue, that is the reciprocal knowledge of the dialogue partners, which allows them to enrich one another mutually. The evangelizing mission of the Church, essentially linked to the ecclesial unity, will also benefit from it. Adopting the image of the bridge and in the framework of the ecumenical dialogue, which is prophetic, the bifocal lenses allow the Eastern Catholic Churches to see what is at a distance, namely the ecclesial identity of the Latin and Orthodox Churches, recognizing at the same time that, as Orientale lumen 28 states, “[t]he words of the West need the words of the East, so that God’s word may ever more clearly reveal its unfathomable riches.”45 It thereby follows that the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches must be understood in terms of favoring the encounter between the two abovementioned dialogue partners, enhancing at the same time the specificity of their own identity. In other words, they are called upon to implement and to put into practice the role they began to play at Vatican II.46 From the point of view of the Latin Church, for example, this role was very useful for describing ecclesial identity theologically, as well as for its evangelizing mission, overcoming their previous and more juridical understanding. The analysis of the conciliar debates and the correlated documentation, both published and unpublished, allows one to verify that the conciliar Fathers from the Eastern Catholic Churches took part in the discussion on various issues, albeit in different manners, sometimes offering a significant contribution according to their own tradition.47 44  See the section “L’ecumenismo come condizione per l’identità,” in Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese Cattoliche Orientale, 147–207. 45  John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen to mark the centenary of Orientalium Dignitas of Pope Leo XIII (May 2, 1995). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/ en/apost_letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19950502_orientale-lumen.html [accessed December 15, 2019]. 46  From the Second Vatican Council onward, the Latin Church has progressively rediscovered the ecclesial dignity of the Eastern Catholic Church. See Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali, “L’attività della Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali,” 120–125. 47  It is sufficient to mention, for example, the fact that many of their proposals contributed to found the very missionary nature of the Church, as well as to broaden the theological understanding of the ecclesial evangelizing mission. This contribution can be also verified in the preparatory phase of Vatican II.  See, for example, Roberto Morozzo della Rocca, “I ‘voti’ degli orientali nella preparazione del Vaticano II,” in: À la veille du Concile Vatican

  EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE… 

101

The question about the abovementioned role of the Eastern Catholic Churches did not arise either during the Vatican II or after it. Undoubtedly, the ecclesiological-ecumenical perspectives of the Council sketched a broader framework in which this question could have been discussed. But, the question in itself preceded the Council, closely connected with that of the recognition of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ ecclesial identity, as attested, for example, by the collection Voix de l’Eglise en Orient. Voix de l’Eglise melchite. Choix de Textes du Patriarche Maximos IV et de L’episcopat grec-melchite catholique.48 In an article,49 Maximos IV Saigh dealt with the theme of the mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches, suggesting that this mission is a dual one. According to him, these churches are called upon, on the one hand, to commit themselves to rejecting the identification between Catholicism and Latinization, which are not synonymous, as well as reminding Roman Catholics that Catholicism must remain open to each and every culture, to the genius of all people, and to each and every form of ecclesial organization, which is compatible with the unity of faith and love. On the other hand, the Eastern Catholic Churches are called upon to testify to Orthodoxy that a bond with the Chair of Peter could be created without giving up Orthodoxy, or anything that fundamentally constitutes the spiritual wealth of the apostolic and patristic East, though it has also to be open to the future.

4   Although these suggestions need to be rethought in today’s ecumenical context, nonetheless they could be useful with a view to deepening some ecclesiological themes concerning, for example, both the identity of the local church and the communio Ecclesiarum. Without doubt, they are crucial in the framework of the ecumenical dialogue between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. Since the writing of Maximos IV Saigh, several decades have passed and many steps forward have been taken. However, the path to be followed still remains open and perhaps requires a renewed and contextualized understanding, because it is true that the Spirit “blows where he wills […], but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (John 3: 8). II. Vota et réactions en Europe et dans le catholicisme oriental, eds. Mathias Lamberigts and Claude Soetens, (Leuven: Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1992), 119–145. 48  See Voix de l’Eglise en Orient. Voix de l’Eglise melchite. Choix de Textes du Patriarche Maximos IV et de L’episcopat grec-melchite catholique (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1962). 49  Maximos IV, “Orient catholique et unite chrétienne. Notre vocation d’unisseurs,” in: Voix de l’Eglise en Orient, 20–32.

An Answer of an Orthodox Missiologist to the Question “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy”? Vladimir Fedorov

It is the Day of Resurrection, let us be radiant for the feast, and let us embrace one another. Let us say, Brethren, even to them that hate us, let us forgive all things on the Resurrection, and thus let us cry out: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.1

An answer to the question of “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy” requires not only ecclesiological, but, above all, missiological perspective and analysis. It is worth turning to the past to qualify the legal, moral, ecclesiastical, and political factors that determined divisions and conflicts between churches. However, it cannot replace looking into the 1  Stichera from Paschal Matins of the Byzantine tradition of both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/triod_tsvetnaya/zvet00u.shtml https://mci.archpitt.org/liturgy/Pascha_1.html [Accessed: 10. September 2020].

V. Fedorov (*) Orthodox Research Institute of Missiology, Ecumenism and New Religious Movements, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_7

103

104 

V. FEDOROV

future and seeking for a path to reconciliation. This is a mission of the church. In the twentieth century reflections on this mission both in the East and in the West formed a special theological discipline, missiology. Although church mission is a multidirectional and multifaceted reality, many people in our society and in our churches reduce mission to Christian missionary activity aimed at the geographic spread of Christianity, that is to Christian preaching (in the narrow and literal sense) to a non-Christian world. No doubt, such a task of witness, proclamation, self-expression, and growth does exist; it is a natural and intrinsic process within the church life. According to a traditional definition of mission at the beginning of the last century in Russia, “Mission is preaching of one religious teaching among people of another faith.”2 As a rule, such a definition summed up how people understood missionary activity among the pagan peoples of the far-flung Russian Orthodox state, or even beyond its borders. It was always assumed that Russian people, living in a country where the church was tightly linked to the state, were deeply Orthodox. Such an understanding was not adequate then and in the current situation it compels us to an even greater degree to deepen our understanding of mission. Sadly, today Russian society remains as it was during the period of state atheism and the Church that used to exercise a foreign, external mission is faced with the task of an internal mission for which it needs a new, contemporary understanding of the mission of the Church. For that, we need to be able to see the phenomenon of Christianity in contemporary society through secular eyes: it is very important to know how Christianity and Christian mission are perceived by society if we want this mission to be successful. It seems reasonable to turn to the specificities of Orthodox mission and of the Orthodox understanding of mission. In the last 30 years Moscow Patriarchate published several missiological documents, three of which deserve special attention: “The Concept of Reviving Missionary Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church” (1995),3 “The Concept of the 2  Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia Soikina, vol 2, p. 1572. [Polnyii pravoslavnyii bogoslovskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar]. T.2. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Spravochniki/ polnyj-pravoslavnyj-bogoslovsko-entsiklopedicheskij-slovar/1350 3  The Concept of the Revival of the Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church / Концепция возрождения миссионерской деятельности Русской Православной Церкви (1995) (2007). http://xn%2D%2D%2D%2D7sbzamhkhkpaf1p.xn%2D%2Dp1ai/ blog/2014/03/07/koncepciya-vozrozhdeniya-missionerskoj-deyatelnosti-russkoj-pravoslavnojcerkvi/ [Accessed: 4. June 2020].

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

105

Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church” (2007),4 and “On the External Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church today” (2013).5 The latter document is devoted to a detailed elaboration of external mission as one of the forms of missionary work.

1   Reconciliation Is the Mission of God and Mission of the Church The Concept of 2007 outlines five areas of the Church’s mission, one of which is reconciliation. This is very important for the purposes of this chapter: In the modern world in which globalization processes, social stratification, mass migrations of people are accompanied by heightened violence, manifestations of terrorist extremism and ethnic and confessional tensions, evidence and proclamation of the possibility of reconciliation between people of different nationalities, ages and social groups, should become one of the key contents of the Orthodox Mission.6

Concept of mission as Missio Dei that was well developed in modern western missiology later came to be understood in terms of reconciliation being the primary content of God’s mission: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [the Son], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Colossians 1:19–20).7 The theme of “Reconciliation is the Mission of God” is well developed in Catholic missiology. It implies that missionary model for globalized and pluralistic world carries an important and essential dimension, which is the concept of reconciliation. This concept is discussed in the Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, an apostolic exhortation by Pope John Paul II, delivered on December 2, 1984, which grew out of the Sixth General Assembly of the 4  The Concept of the Revival of the Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church / Концепция миссионерской деятельности Русской Православной Церкви (2007). https:// azbyka.ru/katehizacija/kontseptsija-missionerskoj-dejatelnosti-russkoj-pravoslavnojtserkvi.shtml 5  On the Modern External Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church / О современной внешней миссии Русской Православной Церкви (2013). https://mospat.ru/en/ documents/o-sovremennojj-vneshnejj-missii-russkojj-pravoslavnojj-cerkvi/ 6  On the external mission of the Russian Orthodox Church today. https://mospat.ru/en/ documents/o-sovremennojj-vneshnejj-missii-russkojj-pravoslavnojj-cerkvi 7  See also 2 Corinthians 5:17–20a; Matthew 5:44–45; Galatians 3:27–28.

106 

V. FEDOROV

Synod of Bishops held in 1983. It presents Jesus as the Reconciler of a shattered world. “Here we have the result of the joint work of the fathers, who included the representatives of the Eastern churches, whose theological, spiritual and liturgical heritage is so rich and venerable, also with regard to the subject that concerns us here.”8 In the first part Pope John Paul II spoke of the church in the carrying out of her mission of reconciliation, in the work of the conversion of hearts in order to bring about a renewed embrace between man and God, man and his brother, man and the whole of creation. In the second part he indicated the radical cause of all wounds and divisions between people, and in the first place between people and God: namely sin. At the end Pope John Paul II indicated the means that enable the church to promote and encourage full reconciliation between people and God and, as a consequence, of people with one another. The American theologian Robert Schreiter developed an application of the concept of reconciliation in the contemporary missionary model.9 He considers healing and reconciliation as the most important dimension of missionary activity today. According to Schreiter, the possibility of healing and reconciliation in a divided society is one of the most important messages of the Gospel in today’s world. The letter of the apostle Paul to Ephesians presents reconciliation as a fruit of a mission in a deep and expressive manner. In Ephesians 2:11–22 Paul talks about reconciliation through Christ’s blood that accomplished the demolition of walls of division and hostility, the enthronement of peace, and the creation of a new man who becomes through the Holy Spirit inhabitant of house of God For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put 8  Pope John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation and Penance: To The Bishops Clergy And Faithful on Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church Today. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html  [Accessed: 10. October 2020]. 9  R.J.  Schreiter, “Reconciliation and Healing as a Paradigm for Mission,” International Review of Mission, 94 no. 372 (2005): 74–83.

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

107

to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (Eph. 2, 11–22)10

Two other American theologians, Bevans and Schroeder, point out that reconciliation takes place at several different levels. In the first place, there is the personal level of reconciliation (e.g., healing for victims of violent crimes or for those who have suffered due to natural disasters); at the second level is the cultural reconciliation (healing for people of cultural groups whose cultural identity has been ignored or disparaged); the third level is the political reconciliation (e.g., in situations of violence among ethnic groups or tribes, healing for refugees and victims who have escaped genocide); and at the fourth level there is reconciliation within the church itself (e.g., healing for victims of a clerical abuse).11 The context of the times does point to the importance of a special focus today on a way of doing mission that has reconciliation as a central missionary focus when the church preaches, serves, and witnesses to the “already” but “not yet” reign of the triune God. The possibility of reconciliation is one, if not the most compelling way of expressing the meaning of the gospel today. In the midst of unspeakable violence, unbearable pain, and indelible scars on people’s memory, the church as God’s minister of reconciliation proclaims that in Christ and in his community, healing and reconciliation is possible. In 2005, 47 Christian leaders from around the world published a paper titled “Reconciliation as the Mission of God. Christian Witness in a World of Destructive Conflicts.”12 It begins with: The mission of God in our fallen, broken world is reconciliation. Sacred Scripture witnesses that God’s mission of reconciliation is holistic, including relationships with God, self, others, and creation. This mission has never changed from the Fall to the new creation in Christ, to its fulfilment in the coming of Jesus in the eschaton.  New International Version (NIV).  Stephen B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (New York: Maryknoll – Orbis Books, 2004), 391–392. 12  Reconciliation as the Mission of God. Christian Witness in a World of Destructive Conflicts, 2005. https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/cfr/reconciliaton-as-the-mission-of-god.pdf [Accessed 14. March 2020]. 10 11

108 

V. FEDOROV

The church is called to be a living sign of the one body of Christ, an agent of hope and holistic reconciliation in our broken and fragmented world. Christians participate with God’s mission by being transformed into ambassadors of reconciliation where the blood of ethnicity, tribe, racialism, sexism, caste, social class, or nationalism seems to flow stronger than the waters of baptism and our confession of Christ. While the church’s suffering faith is evident in many conflicts, the guilt of Christians in intensifying the world's brokenness is seriously damaging our witness to the gospel. The church’s captivity is both direct and indirect: by either actively furthering destruction and division or by remaining silent or neutral in the face of it, the church promotes false gospel.13

Let us turn again to the Concept of the Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 2007: The mission of reconciliation presupposes “social dialoguing” through which people of different faiths work together to achieve civil peace, prevent conflicts and extremist threats. Acting together for creative traditional spiritual and moral values and fair laws, protecting the sacred gift of life and confronting certain dangers of globalization, we can achieve peace between conflicting peoples, nationalities, cultures, social groups and countries.14

This principle simply and clearly defines the best tactics of mastering a new pattern of communication between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches: common works of Christian charity. Whatever we undertake, whether it be religious education of children, visiting prisoners in penitentiary institutions, or solving ecological problems—all this is possible to accomplish independently of reconciliation of our ecclesiological views. Refusal to participate in this work based on theological disagreements is a rejection of the church’s mission in the world and an open opposition to the will of God. Acquaintance with most important ecclesiastical documents (Orthodox as well as Catholic) allows us to understand that in both traditions mission  Ibid., p. 5.  The Concept of the Revival of the  Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (2007). https://azbyka.ru/katehizacija/kontseptsija-missionerskoj-dejatelnosti-russkojpravoslavnoj-tserkvi.shtml 13 14

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

109

is recognized as relevant and necessary. Among the documents of the Orthodox Holy and Great Council on Crete in 2016 is a document “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World.”15 Although the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church was not present at the council, the ROC participated in the preparation of this document and its draft is posted on the ROC’s official website. What it says about the mission of the church is quite consonant with the understanding of the mission in the documents of the Catholic Church such as Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (1964) of the Second Vatican Council and the declaration Dominus Jesus (2000) posted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The mission of the Church is “to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom.”16 The Orthodox document also warns against manifestations of aggression and proselytism: The conveyance of the Gospel’s message according to the last commandant of Christ, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19) is the diachronic mission of the Church. This mission must be carried out not aggressively or by ­different forms of proselytism, but in love, humility and respect towards the identity of each person and the cultural particularity of each people. All the Orthodox Church have an obligation to contribute to this missionary endeavor.17

The need for cooperation between the Orthodox and the Catholics in the cause of the Christian mission is clearly and definitely stated in the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Cyril, signed on February 12, 2016 (also known as Havana Declaration):

15  The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World. Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/ mission-orthodox-church-todays-world 16  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 5. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_ 19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html 17  The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World. Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/missionorthodox-church-todays-world [Accessed 05. February 2020].

110 

V. FEDOROV

We wish to combine our efforts to give witness to the Gospel of Christ and to the shared heritage of the Church of the first millennium, responding together to the challenges of the contemporary world. Orthodox and Catholics must learn to give unanimously witness in those spheres in which this is possible and necessary. Human civilization has entered into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges requiring a shared response.18

Paragraph 13 of this Joint Declaration specifically emphasizes the need for inter-religious dialogue: “Interreligious dialogue is indispensable in our disturbing times. Differences in the understanding of religious truths must not impede people of different faiths to live in peace and harmony.”19 In our current context, religious leaders have a particular responsibility to educate their faithful in a spirit which is respectful of the convictions of those belonging to other religious traditions. Attempts to justify criminal acts with religious slogans are altogether unacceptable. No crime may be committed in God’s name, “since God is not the God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33). In paragraph 16 the Joint Declaration also addresses a regional case of mission: The process of European integration, which began after centuries of blood-­ soaked conflicts, was welcomed by many with hope, as a guarantee of peace and security. Nonetheless, we invite vigilance against an integration that is devoid of respect for religious identities. While remaining open to the contribution of other religions to our civilization, it is our conviction that Europe must remain faithful to its Christian roots. We call upon Christians of Eastern and Western Europe to unite in their shared witness to Christ and the Gospel, so that Europe may preserve its soul, shaped by two thousand years of Christian tradition.20

Having such a commission and obedience to the Church, how do we imagine the inter-religion dialogues? Why do the Catholics dialogue with Muslims separately from the Orthodox? Christians lament, at times, that it is impossible to lead a full-fledged dialogue with the Muslims since they 18  Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. http:// p2.patriarchia.ru/2016/02/13/1238676766/eng.pdf [Accessed 05. February 2020]. 19  Ibid. 20  Ibid.

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

111

are divided, whence Shiites are not ready to sit next to Sunnis. But Christians have the same problem—despite the fact that the churches proclaim reconciliation as a mission of the Church. There is another argument in favor of the missiological approach to assessing the relationship between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic communities. Missiological approach is a holistic analysis taking into account all factors of the conflict—psychological, political, cultural-­ historical, and even aesthetic. To give an example, in the late 1980s, when gradual liberalization allowed Eastern Catholic communities in Ukraine to emerge from the underground, then the Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko), refused any contacts and negotiations with them, citing the fact that many supporters of the Union collaborated with German fascists. Thus, psychologically, the Uniates were automatically identified with fascism. Such an attitude can be found in secular political journalism in today’s Russia as well. So, hostility and intolerance of the Orthodox toward the Eastern Catholic is determined not only by ecclesiological, ecclesiastical, and canonical motives but even more so by psychological ones. Still, the most effective way for reconciliation in this area is cooperation in missionary tasks. Of course, the same attitude toward cooperation is natural with reference to other confessions. But the Catholics of the Eastern rite and the Orthodox should understand each other much better on a deeper level, and love much more, because the rite is not a mechanical acquisition of historical heritage, but a fruit of spiritual life. The Concept of the Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (2007) states: One of the important aspects of the reconciliation mission is “reconciliation in memory,” when reconciliation takes place in the sociopolitical consciousness of people. It is expected to remove conflicts, divisions and alienations caused by civil wars and sharp ideological polarization of society. In a world torn by political, social and religious conflicts, missionaries must realize that the ministry of reconciliation and peace is given to us, “because God in Christ reconciled the world to Him, not imputing [people] their crimes, and gave us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5, 19).21

21  The Concept of the  Revival of the Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (2007). https://azbyka.ru/katehizacija/kontseptsija-missionerskoj-dejatelnosti-russkojpravoslavnoj-tserkvi.shtml

112 

V. FEDOROV

Today the ROC participates in a governmental program of memorializing the victims of political repressions. A similar joint program of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics might be a valuable contribution to the cause of reconciliation. After all, as then Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Alexy (Ridiger)22 declared at the 1988 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church: “We reconciled with peoples of those countries, Protestants and Catholics, with whom we fought in the Second World War. Why then can we not be reconciled with our Catholic brothers who at that time were on the side of the enemy?”23 Common Christian understanding of mission. Development of missiology in the twentieth century led to the close cooperation of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox researchers. It is enough to get acquainted with activities of the International Association for Mission Studies (IAMS). It is an international, interconfessional, and interdisciplinary professional society for the scholarly study of Christian witness and its impact in the world and the related field of intercultural theology. IAMS was inaugurated in 1972. Since then, every four years an international conference has been held on different continents. There are now more than 400 scholars who are members of IAMS as well as over 50 institutions that are corporate members. Orthodox members are in minority, but it is possible to conclude that the Orthodox understanding of mission is acceptable to other Christian denominations. It is precisely this which unites us and permits us to speak about the possibility and the necessity for combining our strengths and programs in the work of mission. Regrettably, the missiological idea still remains vague for the mass consciousness. So far, the Eastern Catholics are accused by the Orthodox side of what they call strategies of the Roman Catholic proselytism; it is very important to differentiate between the concepts of proselytism and missionary outreach. The job should be started by clarifying the concepts of “mission of the Church,” “missionary outreach,” “conversion,” “evangelization,” “Christianization,” “witness,” and “proselytism.” A thorough

 In 1990–2008 Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’.  These words were spoken at the Council in 1989, but they are no longer available in a published text. I happened to see the prepared text of the Patriarch on the eve of his report, and a few months later I saw its German version at the editorial office of the magazine “Stimme der Orthodoxie.” 22 23

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

113

analysis of the relationship between these concepts was made by an Orthodox missiologist Petros Vassiliadis back in 1996.24 If we agree that the mission is common and similarly understood, then our discussion can focus on developing evaluation criteria: to determine what serves to accomplish the mission and what prevents or contradicts the mission of the Church, and what divides and breeds conflict.

2   Intraconfessional Tensions However, a missiological evaluation of interconfessional relationships of the past three decades admits the presence of intraconfessional conflict present in any denomination: namely a confrontation between creative and fundamentalist approaches or attitudes. This confrontation is much deeper than the opposition of conservatives and liberals. Such a conflict does not allow to resolve interconfessional conflicts since it’s like a collision of two types of personalities (each of which has an analogue on the side of the opponent). If at least one side of the conflict is dominated by fundamentalism, reconciliation is very doubtful. This would only be possible through the cultivation of a culture of reconciliation, tolerance, freedom of conscience, religious pluralism, and spiritual asceticism. A vivid example of the intraconfessional conflict is the attitude of the Russian Orthodox toward ecumenism. Although the Russian Orthodox Church has officially taken part in the World Council of Churches (WCC) for over 60 years, the reaction of the clerical and lay opponents of this cooperation become more and more acute as time goes by. So, in particular, the Balamand Declaration, prepared 26 years ago and accepted by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was established by the Holy See and 14 autocephalous Orthodox churches, is still not widely received and there is less and less hope for its adoption. Suffice it to recall the wave of protests in Russia against the meeting and the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill in Cuba in 2016.25 One of the main centers of the 24   Petros Vassiliadis, “Mission and Proselytism: An Orthodox Understanding,” International Review of Mission, April, 1996. 25  See for example Sergei Chapnin, “Heretic and traitor”: Fundamentalists term Orthodox Patriarch Kirill who met with Pope Francis in Cuba. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/ Heretic-and-traitor:-Fundamentalists-term-Orthodox-Patriarch-Kirill-who-met-with-PopeFrancis-in-Cuba-36820.html [Accessed: 04. May 2020].

114 

V. FEDOROV

protest media campaign is the website “Moscow, the third Rome.”26 It has gathered all of the material of the opposition to the ecumenical line of the patriarch. Among other things, on the site you can download a leaflet entitled “Appeal to the Orthodox youth,” which contains the entire “inventory” of the sins of priests and bishops, and which states: “You’ve covered your enslavement to the Vatican with concern for Christians who die in the Middle East.” This testifies to a serious problem of fundamentalism in Russia. But it is essential to point out that in the normative documents of the 2016 Council of Crete fundamentalism is condemned and qualified as “morbid religiosity.” The explosions of fundamentalism observed within various religions represent an expression of morbid religiosity. Sober inter-religious dialogue helps significantly to promote mutual trust, peace, and reconciliation. The oil of religious experience must be used to heal wounds and not to rekindle the fire of military conflicts. “The Orthodox Church unequivocally condemns the extension of military violence, persecutions, the expulsion and murder of members of religious minorities, forced conversions, the trafficking of refugees, the abductions, torture and abhorrent executions.”27 Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church states: “We are experiencing today an increase of violence in the name of God. The explosions of fundamentalism within religious communities threaten to create the view that fundamentalism belongs to the essence of the phenomenon of religion”. The truth, however, is that ­fundamentalism, as “zeal not based on knowledge” (Rom 10.2), constitutes an expression of morbid religiosity. A true Christian, following the example of the crucified Lord, sacrifices himself and does not sacrifice others, and for this reason is the most stringent critic of fundamentalism of whatever provenance.28 Orthodox and Catholic fundamentalists are equally alien to the concepts of “renewal” and “aggiornamento.” Rejection of the Second Vatican Council resulted in the emergence of alternative communities. In Russia, there are many Orthodox priests who share the archbishop Lefevre’s views. To give an example, a lecturer at the Moscow  See: http://3rm.info  Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/message [Accessed 05. February 2020]. 28  Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/ encyclical-holy-council [Accessed 05. February 2020]. 26 27

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

115

Theological Academy, archpriest Aleksandr Shargunov, wrote an enthusiastic introduction to the translation of Lefebvre’s book “They have Uncrowned Him: From Liberalism to Apostasy, The Conciliar Tragedy.” Shargunov quotes from Lefevre: “The church should not be ecumenical, it should be missionary. A missionary church aims at conversion to the true faith while ecumenical one wants to recognize what is true in the errors and to stop at this level. This means denial of the Truth of the church.”29 The above confirms that the fundamentalist factor in our divided churches is the same.

3   What Is an Answer to the Question: “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy”? The very formulation of this question as “either-or” choice is not appropriate because, for an Orthodox, the answer may be “both.” “Stolen Churches” is a category that evaluates the past implying sharply negative attitude of the Orthodox toward uniatism, while the image of a “bridge” alludes to the future and gives us a hope. It is also important to emphasize that the word “orthodoxy” in this context should be interpreted the way it used to be interpreted by the Church authorities of the fourth century. So, the father of the Church history, Eusebius of Caesarea, uses the word to denote true and authentic faith. In the third and fourth books of his “Historia Ecclesiastica” we read: “And that evangelist John was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.”30 In the next chapter we find: “And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.”31 29  Александр Шаргунов, Вступительная статья. Архиепископ Марсель Лефевр. Они предали Его. От либерализма к отступничеству. СПб., 2007. https://www.blagogon.ru/ biblio/249/ [Accessed 05. February 2020]. 30  Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia Ecclesiastica. 3,  23,  2. http://www.newadvent.org/ fathers/250103.htm [Accessed 15. March 2020]. 31  Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia Ecclesiastica. 3,  25,  7. http://www.newadvent.org/ fathers/250103.htm [Accessed 15. March 2020].

116 

V. FEDOROV

Later, the word “orthodoxy” came to mean the totality of the dogmas and institutions of the Church, the traditional and universal teaching of the Church. In fact, through the patristic period, the Church was called not “ορθοδοξος,” but Catholic (καθολικη). For the first time we meet this word with St. Ignatius of Antioch: “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.”32 Referring to what we call today the Orthodox Christians, in contrast to Arians, St. Athanasius the Great wrote “we are all Catholics” (καθολικοι). Since the word “καθολικη” means general, whole, and total, its initial usage emphasized precisely universal faith, as opposed to local or heretical traditions. Since the Reformation, to signify their difference from Protestants, it became the name of those who did not join the Reformation movement and now are known as the Catholic Church. So, Orthodoxy is supposed to connote not so much the administrative or legal aspects, but the Eastern tradition as a whole, with its liturgical, ascetic, aesthetic, spiritual, and theological specificities. “Bridges to Orthodoxy” should be interpreted as bridges to unity. At first glance, the same rite should have brought the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox parties together. Seemingly, the same rite testifies to the identical nature of spirituality. Those in doubt can be advised to read Cardinal Tomáš Josef Špidlík’s book La spiritualité de l’Orient chrétien. Manuel systématique.33 Then why is the hostility of the relationships between the Orthodox and ‘Uniates’ even stronger than the relationships between the Orthodox and Catholics observing the Latin rite? If our common mission is to strive for Christian unity, we need to be clear to what extent similarities and agreement in all spiritual aspects are important. First of all, we should understand whether or not we are striving for unity in the administrative and legal terms, or whether we can be satisfied with unity without formal unification and integration. Anyway, psychological and financial-pragmatic factors in a situation of competition cause jealousy. In addition, a negative attitude is reinforced by the memory of cultural, historical, and political grievances, as well as by the narrowly understood confessional

32  St. Ignatius Of Antioch. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 8. https://www. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3836 [Accessed 15. March 2020]. 33  Ed. Orientalia Christiana, Roma 1978. Russian translation: Фома Шпидлик, Д уховная традиция восточного христианства – Систематическое изложение. Перевод прот. Димитрия Сизоненко. (Rome: Centro Aletti, 1999).

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

117

patriotism.34 Three levels of the Orthodox negative position can be distinguished: general rejection of interconfessional relations and cooperation, the antipathy of the Orthodox toward Catholics, and a special attitude toward those who are called ‘Uniates’. As to the general rejection of interconfessional relations and cooperation, there is a fairly extensive literature on the causes and motives for rejection by the Orthodox of ecumenical movement.35 As to the Orthodox attitude toward Catholics, it is certainly different for those who have never encountered the Catholics and those who have had positive experience of communication. However, even today, there is a good few among the Orthodox clergy who are thinking much like the authors of the eleventh-­ century text Polemics with the Latins,36 which appeared in Kievan Rus’ in the second half of the century. This document consists of Russian translations of several dozens of Greek arguments, including the grotesque ones like “Their priests eat beaver meat during fasts saying that since beavers live in water, it is fish.” The text is very close to the list of accusations of the Latins by Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius which relates to the event of the so-called Great Schism of 1054 when Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, O.S.B., excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Of some three dozen accusations contained in the above document, only one is dogmatic, that is filioque; the rest are of the sort “they eat from the same dishes with dogs.” A vivid proof that the wild attitude of some Orthodox toward Catholicism exists even today is found

34  It should be noted that two Benedictine monastic communities are incorrectly considered by some of the Orthodox to be ‘Uniate’. These are Roman Catholic Benedictine monasteries: Chevetogne Abbey, also known as the Monastery of the Holy Cross, in Belgium, and Niederaltaich Abbey, in Bavaria. In order to live a life of Christian unity, the monasteries have both Western (Latin Rite) and Eastern (Byzantine rite) chapels which hold services every day. While the canonical hours of the daily monastic office are served separately, the monks share their meals together and are united under one abbot. Along with prayer, the monks in Chevetogne engage in publishing a journal, Irénikon, since 1926 and make recordings of church music. For many years, these communities have been true bridges between Christians in the West and East. Practicing the strategy of searching for the unity, these communities prove an efficient model for reconciliation. 35  See Vladimir Fedorov, “Barriers to Ecumenism: An Orthodox View” Russia//Religion, State & Society 26. no. 2 (1998): 129–141. 36  Георгия митрополита Киевскаго стязание с латиною, вин числом 70. Златоструй. Древняя Русь. X–XIII вв. М., 1990. С. 140–145/. http://school.bakai.ru/oldruslit/booksoldruslit12century/georgiya_mitropolita_kievskogo_styazanie_s_latinoju_vin_chislom_70

118 

V. FEDOROV

in an Orthodox anti-Catholic catechism37 published with the blessing of Simon, the bishop of Murmansk and Monchegorsk in 2003. It makes no sense to quote from the book. It is enough to read at the very beginning of the publication that its purpose is “to bring to the wide circles of Orthodox laity and clergy the falsity of innovations and the pagan essence of modern Roman Catholicism, its incompatibility with Orthodoxy, and hopelessness of any attempts to reunite it with the Orthodox church.”38 In thinking about how to remove barriers against unity, it is very important to pay due attention to psychological mechanisms. In particular, the experience of overcoming radical and dangerous nationalism helps to understand the threat of confessionalism. It is useful to recall that back in 1925, at King’s College in London, during the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, an outstanding Russian theologian-exegete Prof. Glubokovsky spoke of “malicious confessional chauvinism.”39 Analyzing the danger of confessional chauvinism, we have to admit that it is underlain by a psychological agent that forms the fundamentalist consciousness. Such a consciousness cannot accept tolerance and pluralism as positive values and cannot allow creative initiatives in confessional cultures (like in the Orthodox Russia, translation of the worship into contemporary Russian).

4   Practical Peacemaking Steps The tactics of implementing the peacemaking strategy requires the involvement of a rich arsenal of psychological practices of personality growth. So, for example, to change someone’s attitude toward a person or group, it is useful to know that it is customary to distinguish three components of attitude: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. If you change your behavior and behave as if the object of communication is rated highly, your opinion tends to change for the better, and followed by appearance of positive emotions. Ecumenical movement and collaboration in different projects constitute such behavioral component.

37  Православный противокатолический катехизис Трифонов Печенегский монастырь. М.: Ковчег, 2003. http://www.inform-relig.ru/lib/detail.php?ID=11257 38  Ibid. p. 5. 39  Глубоковский Н., “Христианское единение и богословское просвещение в православной перспективе.” Пуmь №4, Paris, 1926? p. 141.

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

119

We should not flatter ourselves that we shall be able to change soon the Orthodox negative attitude toward Catholics: it was formed over many centuries of political and cultural confrontation between Greek and Latin cultures, between East and West of Europe; we should not underestimate significance of the emergence of a socialist camp in Europe in the twentieth century with its atheist ideology. Although communities of Eastern Catholic Churches are scattered across all regions the topic of our conference is especially relevant to the regions of Eastern and Central Europe. The conflict lurked and deepened in Eastern and Central Europe for a long time before it escalated in the twentieth century due to clashes of totalitarian ideologies. The story of Christianity in Eastern Europe during the twentieth century is inextricably bound with the tumultuous political history of the region. The disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in 1918 had an irremediable impact on large parts of Eastern Europe. The two World Wars brought drastic changes to the situation of Christians and indeed all religious believers throughout the region. The Russian Revolution of 1917 ended the monarchy which had upheld the faith of the Orthodox Church. In October of that year, power was seized by the Bolsheviks who began to impose atheist ideology on the citizens. After some 70 years in power, however, the Soviet Communist Party collapsed, and in 1991 the USSR itself ceased to exist. Between 1989 and 1991, the Communist bloc broke up. Germany was reunited and the early twentieth century saw a number of Eastern European countries being admitted to the European Union. The length of the tragic experience of communist rule varied from 40 to 50 years in some countries to over 70 years in others. Atheistic persecutions also differed in scope and intensity, but every country and every religious community involved acquired martyrs and confessors during this period. The post-communist period brought religious freedom and the revival of church life. This was welcomed by many as a miracle of Resurrection, as a new Easter. But practically everywhere rebirth of religious life and restoration of human rights entailed numerous problems and challenges. It should be obvious for Christians that we have not only a Christian resource for reconciliation but also a missionary duty to be peacemakers. In post-­ communist countries of the Eastern and Central Europe this task is especially relevant.

120 

V. FEDOROV

5   Eastern Europe and Christian Mission Today On several occasions Pope John Paul II referred to the Eastern and the Western Churches in Europe as “the two lungs of Europe.”40 While statistics suggests an exciting rise of interest in religion and the revival of church life in post-communist Europe, problems are evident and they are yet to be adequately explained. The most serious issue is the not infrequently underestimated power of the ever-intensifying processes of secularization and globalization. Other problems include lack of awareness of the principle of freedom of conscience in a number of countries, absence of religious tolerance and openness to pluralism, inattentiveness to the danger of clericalism, and failure to develop a system of religious education that could be accepted by society, overcoming both religious and liberal fundamentalisms. Peculiar to some countries of the region are splits within Orthodoxy itself, strains between sister autocephalous Churches, and failures to form healthy relationships between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. Even today, accusations of proselytism may be heard, often arising from lack of understanding of missiological approach. Today, more than ever, there is an urgent need for interchurch cooperation for the sake of Christian mission. Yet few show an awareness that it is not the mission that serves the Church, but the Church that serves a mission. The most promising strategy to overcome this deficiency seems to be renewal of religious and theological education which should be treated as a special sacred service, as a liturgy before the Liturgy.

6   Conclusion Regretfully, peacemaking and reconciliation are not paid enough consideration in theological and religious education. One cannot but agree with a well-known psychologist, specialist in creative thinking Edward de Bono who notes: Whatever the conflict—internal, interpersonal or international—Christians have the means to settle it. Then why, with the growth of the Church, does not peace add to our long-suffering planet? Among a multitude of answers— sociological, spiritual, prophetic—there is one that cannot be avoided. A 40  This weighty utterance is a quotation from the prominent Russian poet Vyacheslav Ivanov who emigrated from Russia after the 1917 revolution.

  AN ANSWER OF AN ORTHODOX MISSIOLOGIST TO THE QUESTION… 

121

reason that the world does not become calmer is that Christians have lost sight of the ways to peace and the skills of peacemaking.41

To fill this deficit, a year ago, a new original course, Religious Conflictology and Irenology, was introduced by the governing body into the Master’s program of the Church Praxis Department at the Theological Academy in St. Petersburg. 2020 winter semester will be the third year of my experience of teaching this subject. The closest in content to this course academic discipline in the Anglophone world is “[p]eace and conflict studies.” Our conference suggests that the conflict between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches should be brought into the focus of disciplines of this kind, and they may prove to be a beneficial space for evaluation of the interaction of historical, cultural, political, theological, psychological, and other factors that hinder our unity, while the portion of such a course called irenology would inspire the students to rethink tactics and strategies of achieving unity. The course might also address the problematic issues from other disciplines.

41  де Боно Эдуард, Конфликm и примирение. Издатель: ИРХЛ, 112 стр. https://bookap. info/sociopsy/de_bono_konflikt_i_primirenie/

PRACTICAL IMPULSES

How Modern Orthodox Ecclesiology Hinders the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue on Uniatism: Romantic Approach, Nationalism, and Anti-colonial Narrative Andrey Shishkov

The themes of Eastern Catholic Churches and the phenomenon of Uniatism remain quite painful for the Orthodox. This issue has already been addressed in the official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue, but the result of discussions represented by the Joint International Commission’s Balamand document cannot be called successful. It caused great criticism in the Orthodox churches.1 The Eastern Catholic Churches 1  See, for example, an overview of the discussion about the Balamand document in the ROC made by the Synodal Theological Commission of the ROC in 1997: “The Synodal Theological Commission Studies Issues Related to the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches,” DECRMP official web-site, accessed February 3, 2019, https://mospat.ru/archive/en/1997/07/ve110771/

A. Shishkov (*) Saints Cyril and Methodius Institute for Post-Graduate Studies, Moscow, Russia © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_8

125

126 

A. SHISHKOV

are still seen as a negative phenomenon by the Orthodox majority. So, for example, in the document of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in 2016, this topic is mentioned in a negative context: “The Orthodox Church […] believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the “ineffable joy” of the Gospel (1 Pt 1:8), eschewing every act of proselytism, uniatism [highlight mine], or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition.”2 The Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill provides a more diplomatic formulation: “It is today clear that the past method of ‘uniatism’, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re-establish unity.”3 I believe that the reason for this negative attitude toward Uniatism and the Eastern Catholic Churches lies at the very heart of modern Orthodox ecclesiology.

1   Eastern Orthodox Anti-colonial Narrative The narrative that forms the modern Orthodox identity and conciseness is a history of colonization and decolonization, where “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”4 A prominent Orthodox theologian Fr. Alexander Schmemann writes in his famous book The Historical Road of the Eastern Orthodoxy (1954): “The Byzantine period in the history of Orthodoxy begins with estrangement between East and West. It ends in complete separation. Henceforth the Orthodox East has separated from the Roman West by an impenetrable wall. Orthodoxy finally becomes ‘Eastern.’”5 The reason for the construction of this wall was the growing division between Eastern and Western Christianity, which, as Schmemann says, began as a “theological dispute of the hierarchs” in 1054 and entered the “flesh and blood 2  “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, accessed November 15, 2019, https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world 3  “The Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia,” DECRMP official web-site, accessed November 15, 2019, https://mospat.ru/ en/2016/02/13/news128178/ 4  This is a line from Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The Ballad of East and West” first published in 1889. 5  Alexander Schmemann, Istoricheskij Put’ Pravoslavija [The Historical Road of the Eastern Orthodoxy] (New York: Chekhov Publishing House, 1954), 301.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

127

of the church people” thanks to the crusades and the union projects of the Roman Church, which finished by a “spiritual catastrophe”—the Council of Florence 1438–1439.6 The “dark times” that followed after that for Orthodoxy led to the decline of the theological tradition, which opened the way for “Latin propaganda.” Schmemann writes: “Entire armies of skillful propagandists trained in special schools were sent to the East. […] The network of Roman dioceses covered the entire Orthodox East.”7 In the description of Schmemann, the same thing happened in Russia. In the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries “Latinism” first penetrated into Kyiv, and then to Moscow. He adds: “The Church could not oppose anything to these influences. […] It was not a free meeting of Orthodox tradition with the West, it was the conquest of unarmed Orthodoxy by ‘Latinism.’”8 Here Schmemann follows the paradigm of “Western captivity” of the Orthodox theology, proposed by another outstanding Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, Fr. George Florovsky, in 1937  in his book Ways of Russian theology.9 In other words, the non-Orthodox ecclesiastical West during the entire period of “dark times” carried out the territorial and cultural colonization of the Orthodox ecclesiastical East. In other words, the main Orthodox historical narrative formed in the nineteenth to twentieth centuries and fueling modern Orthodox identity says: after the schism in 1054, the history of Orthodox-Catholic relations is a continuous series of attempts by the ecclesiastical Rome to colonize Orthodoxy. This is exactly what we read in such popular works as Ways of Russian Theology by Fr. Georgy Florovsky, or The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. We also can find this narrative in works of Fr. John Meyendorff and Vladimir Lossky, Christos Yannaras and Fr. John Romanidis, as well as in other theologians who belong to the theological trend of the neo-patristic theology, which occupies a dominant position in Orthodox theology from the 1930s. And these are the most enlightened examples of the anti-colonial narrative written with respect to the opponents. Much more popular among ordinary believers are anti-Catholic treatises of modern monks from the  Ibid., pp. 297–301.  Ibid., pp. 330–331. 8  Ibid., pp. 373–374. 9  George Florovsky, Puti Russkogo Bogoslovija [Ways of Russian Theology], 2nd ed. (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1981). 6 7

128 

A. SHISHKOV

Mount Athos and other important monasteries, where the degree of demonization of the enemy exceeds all conceivable limits. In the Orthodox anti-colonial narrative, this colonization took different forms from the conquest of territories during the crusades and various unions to the Western captivity of Orthodox theology—the form of cultural colonization. The resistance of this colonization began only in the middle of the nineteenth century, thanks to such Orthodox theologians as Alexei Khomyakov, one of the earliest and most important protagonists of the concept of sobornost’. Both Schmemann and Florovsky describe the revival of Orthodox theology after the Western captivity as decolonization—a process of finding own religious and cultural identity. The opposition of the East and the West is an important element of neo-patristics as a method. As George Demakopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou note: “The category of the West has played an important role in the Orthodox imagination. It has functioned as an absolute marker of difference from what is considered to be the essence of Orthodoxy, and thus, ironically, has become a constitutive aspect of the modern Orthodox self.”10 In other words, the religious and cultural identity of the modern Orthodoxy is forged from opposition to the colonizing power of the ecclesiastical West, which is perceived as something alien, foreign, incompatible, and radically Other.

2   Uniatism in the Orthodox Decolonization Narrative The decolonization narrative makes extensive use of the image of the people opposing to the colonizing force of ‘Empire’ and its own collaborationist elites. The romantic historical myth of the colonized people’s resistance to colonizing power should include a figure of a hero who remains on the side of the people in a situation of choice to cooperate with the colonial administration. Also there is an anti-hero, who betrays his people and goes to the side of the enemy. Decolonization itself begins with the people’s awareness of their commonality inside the circle of friends and their otherness to the enemy.

10  George E.  Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Orthodox Naming of the Other: A Post-Colonial Approach,” in Orthodox Constructions of the West (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), 2.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

129

So, the Council of Ferrara-Florence was one of the triggers for the decolonization process. Orthodox authors construct their narrative on the juxtaposition of the Byzantine emperor and the church hierarchs who concluded Union with the Roman Church to the people who rejected this Union. Accordingly, St. Mark of Ephesus becomes the romantic hero of the struggle and Vissarion of Nicaea and Isidore of Kyiv—the romantic villains. The latter is described in the best traditions of denunciation of the “fifth column.” For example, the Church historian Anton Kartashev focuses on the fact that Metropolitan Isidore was a humanist while presenting humanism as a phenomenon alien to the true ecclesiality.11 Today Isidore would probably be called a liberal and an ecumenist. Interestingly, the same authors don’t use the concept of “the people” in the descriptions of Church life “under heretics” in earlier periods of history. The people in them do not play a significant role either in the fall of Semi-­Arian, Monophysite, and Monothelitistic projects of Byzantine authorities, nor the failure of the earlier Union projects of the Roman Church such as the Union of Lyons (1274). Instead, the opposition to the Brest Union of 1596 is described in terms of the people’s liberation movement. In fact, decisions to reject the Union were made at the level of Church and political elites, but the romantic myth of the people-protector of piety and faith has firmly entered the modern Orthodox historical narrative. In this narrative, Catholic “unional colonialism” has a number of characteristics. Territorial colonization is described in it as a series of attempts to subordinate the Orthodox to the jurisdiction of the Pope, some of which were successful, and the other part as, for example, the Florentine Union failed due to “public resistance.” Religious and cultural colonization is linked to the need to renounce ancestral faith and adopt new dogmas and new rites. Of course, union projects provide an opportunity to preserve the Eastern rite, but the Uniates are described in this narrative as those against whom the laws of segregation operate. They are not considered full Roman Catholics, endowed with all rights, although subject to the jurisdiction of the Pope. Alexei Khomyakov described Uniates as

11  Anton Kartashev, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoj Tserkvi, Tom 1 [Essays on the History of Russian Church, Vol. 1] (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1959), 353.

130 

A. SHISHKOV

“semi-citizens.”12 All these negative features are designed to emphasize the need to fight for their own religious and cultural identity.

3   The Romantic Paradigm in Ecclesiology The emergence of Orthodox anti-colonial narrative is closely connected with the assertion of the romantic paradigm in Orthodox theology (and primarily in ecclesiology). The romantic understanding of the Church is associated with the idea of the Church as an organic community, the main characteristic of which is unity. In Catholic theology, Johann-Adam Möhler was a prominent representative of romantic ecclesiology, in the Orthodox theology—Alexei Khomyakov.13 In the ecclesiology of Khomyakov, the unity of the Church is similar to the unity of “many members in the living body.”14 He also uses organic metaphors to describe the boundaries of the ecclesial body: “Within the Church, that is to say, within her members, false doctrines may be engendered, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism, and no longer defile the sanctity of the Church.”15 Khomyakov calls the Roman Church (from which the Protestant communities are subsequently separated) among the numerous fallen parts. He writes: “The Western Schism is the unprovoked exclusion of the whole East, the usurpation of the monopoly on divine inspiration—in a word, moral fratricide.”16 Paul Valliere notes that, from Khomiakov’s viewpoint, the sin of the “Western Schism” is “not just in what the Western Church did, but in acting as it did, in particular, by acting unilaterally rather than in fellowship, by executive decision rather than by consensus.”17 Parts of the organic body of the Church cannot act autonomously and controversially, but should reveal a constant “unity in the multitude.”

12  Alexei Khomyakov, Polnoje Sobranie Sochinenij, Tom 2 [Complete Works, Vol. 2] (Moscow: Moscow University’s Typography, 1886), 70. 13  Cyril Hovorun, Meta-Ecclesiology: Chronicles on Church Awareness (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 83–85. 14  Khomyakov, Polnoje Sobranie Sochinenij, 3. 15  Ibid., p. 5. 16  Ibid., p. 90. 17  Paul Valliere, “The Conciliar Fellowship of the Church in Karl Barth and Modern Orthodox Theology,” in Correlating Sobornost: Conversations between Karl Barth and the Russian Orthodox Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 14.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

131

In Khomyakov’s romantic ecclesiology, special emphasis is placed on the Church people. It becomes the guardian of piety and faith and is responsible for the distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. In the text of 1858, Khomyakov writes: Let the Russian sovereign fall into delusion […] let the clergy betray […] and then millions of souls will remain unshakable in the truth, millions of hands will raise the unconquerable flag of the Church and form the rank of the laity. There are, however, in the immeasurable Eastern [Orthodox] world at least two or three bishops who will not betray God; they will bless the lower ranks, they will constitute the whole bishopric, and the Church will not lose anything in strength or in unity; it will remain a Catholic Church, as it was in the time of the apostles.18

A similar idea could be found in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848: Neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers.19

However, as Andrzej Walitsky notes, Sobornost [in Khomyakov] is not a parliamentarism, the invariably infallible opinion of “the whole Church” is not an arithmetic result of the private opinions of all its members, taken separately. In order to properly understand Khomyakov’s ecclesiology, it should be remembered that he understood the freedom of the church not as an individual, “Protestant” freedom of individual believers, but the freedom of the Church as a supra-individual, cohesive whole.20

Further, these ideas were continued in the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Metr. John Zizioulas. Here we also see the idea of the Church as an

 Khomyakov, Polnoje Sobranie Sochinenij, 183.  The Encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of 1848, § 17. 20  Andrzej Walicki, V Krugu Konservativnoj Utopii: Structura i Metamorphozy Russkogo Slavjanofil’stva [In the Circle of a Conservative Utopia: Structure and Metamorphosis of the Russian Slavophilia] (Moscow: NLO, 2019), 240. 18 19

132 

A. SHISHKOV

organic community, in which individual differences between members are erased beyond recognition. Zizioulas writes about the personality in the Church: Only in the Church man has the power to express himself as a catholic person. Catholicity, as a characteristic of the Church, permits the person to become a hypostasis without falling into individuality, because in the Church two things are realized simultaneously: the world is presented to man not as mutually exclusive portions which he is called upon to unite a posteriori, but as a single whole, which is expressed in a catholic manner without division in every concrete being; simultaneously the same man, while relating to the world precisely this catholic mode of existence that he has, comes to express and realize a catholic presence in the world, a hypostasis which is not an individual but an authentic person. Thus the Church becomes Christ Himself in human existence, but also every member of the Church becomes Christ and Church. The ecclesial hypostasis exists historically in this manner as a confirmation of man’s capacity not to be reduced to his tendency to become a bearer of individuality.21

And again, the same idea, but in connection with the Eucharist: The Eucharist is, first of all, an assembly (synaxis), a community, a network of relations, in which man “subsists” in a manner different from the biological as a member of a body which transcends every exclusiveness of a biological or social kind. … There Christ is “parted but not divided” and every communicant is the whole Christ and the whole Church.22

In other words, the ecclesial realization of the person is to overcome the human individuality through its inclusion into, talking in terms of Zizioulas, a “corporate personality” (each member becomes Christ and the Church), which is formed in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This situation implies a synergistic compound of the wills of all members in a “corporate” will. Any individual free will destroys this unity. That’s why Zizioulas needs a special understanding of freedom. He writes: The freedom given by the Christ-truth to creation is precisely this freedom from division and individualization, creating the possibility of otherness 21  John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1997), 58. 22  Ibid., pp. 60–61.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

133

within the community. But if this truth's foundation as freedom within the Church, then clearly a new concept of freedom is being born, determined not by choice but by the movement of a constant affirmation, a continual “Amen.” The people of God gathered together in the Eucharist realize their freedom under the form of affirmation alone: it is not the “yes” or the “no” together which God offers in Christ, but only the “yes,” which equates to the Eucharistic “Amen.” 23

The problem with the romantic concept of the Church as an organic community is that it is repressive toward any individuality and does not involve dialogue.24 This is almost a classic case of positive freedom, in terms of the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin, which cannot provide the individual with freedom from interference and put him in dependence on the collective body. In the situation of “continual Amen” dialogue (both, internal and external) is impossible. But the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas today is still the basis for the Orthodox-­ Catholic theological dialogue. Thus, we can state a “democratic” (but not “liberal”) turn in the Orthodox ecclesiology in the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

4   Romanticism and Nationalism The “democratic turn” in ecclesiology, which occurred in the nineteenth century, cannot be considered in isolation from the political philosophy of its time. The concept of the people who is the guardian of piety and orthodoxy is a tracing of the thesis of sovereignty of the people. This tumbling of the power structure of the Church is similar to what was happened in the political life of Europe. Democracy pressed the monarchy. And people of God replaced bishops who are the princes of the Church as ecclesiastical sovereign. The emergence of romantic ecclesiology is closely linked with the political philosophy of romanticism and the rise of nationalism. No wonder Alexei Khomyakov himself is known not only as an Orthodox theologian but also as a political philosopher. As the leader of the Slavophile  Ibid., p. 121.  See: Andrey Shishkov, “The Problematic Issues of Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Context of Contemporary Political Theology,” in Political Theologies in Orthodox Christianity: Common Challenges and Divergent Positions. (Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 189–206. 23 24

134 

A. SHISHKOV

movement, he was one of the “first Russian nationalists.”25 Walitsky notes that Slavophile ecclesiology is a part of Slavophile social or political philosophy: “the attitude of the church to the state in the Slavophile doctrine is quite similar to the relationship between the state and society.”26 Another aspect of the formation of the new Orthodox ecclesiology was the rethinking of the concept of autocephaly during the emergence of national states in the Balkans and the subsequent proclamation of independence of national churches. It can be said that what we call church autocephaly today corresponds to what is meant by sovereignty in the political international sphere. The principle of autocephaly implies non-­ interference in the internal affairs of the autocephalous church by other autocephalous churches, inviolability of the borders of its canonical territory, and equality of autocephalous churches as subjects of interchurch relations. The difference between the modern understanding of autocephaly and the medieval ones lies in this identification of autocephalous and sovereign.27 The first autocephaly of a new type was proclaimed in Greece in 1833 as a result of the Greek national liberation struggle against the Ottoman Empire. Romantic ecclesiology could be (but not necessary) quite organically combined with nationalism because they are banded by the idea of the organic unity of the community that they describe, and an emphasis on sovereignty, and also by an understanding of freedom, where collective interests dominate over individual ones. And in the Orthodox ecclesiology this combination became a mainstream. Fyodor Dostoevsky artistically expressed this link between romantic ecclesiology and nationalism in the concept of the people the God-bearer. He meant the Russian Orthodox people. Here we can see a combination of ecclesial and national identities. Prince Myshkin who is the protagonist of the novel Idiot says: “In the future, the renewal of all mankind and its resurrection, will be possible only by Russian thought, the Russian God and Christ.”

25   See: Andrey Teslya, Perviy Russkij Natsionalism … i Drugie [The First Russian Nationalism … and Others] (Moscow: Europa Publishing, 2014). 26  Walicki, V Krugu Konservativnoj Utopii, 240–241. 27  See: Andrey Shishkov, “Church Autocephaly as Sovereignty: A Schmittian Approach,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60.3 (2016): 369–395.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

135

5   Uniatism in the Perspective of Romantic Ecclesiology Romantic understanding of political unity in conjunction with romantic ecclesiology can be expressed in the thesis: one people–one faith. In this perspective, the Uniates are those who destroy unity, since they become non-Orthodox, although they are similar in ritual. For Orthodox, they become the competitors in the struggle for the soul of the political nation. For the majority of Orthodox Christians, the romantic hybrid of religious and national identity in combination with the anti-colonial historical narrative is becoming the main ideology that forms their identity. And in this bundle, the national subordinates the religious one. The popular expression “Russian means Orthodox” in Russia, on the one hand, shows that the Orthodox is wider than Russian, but, on the other hand, religious identity is subordinated to the national one.28 In the nationalistic people’s mind, you cannot be a full-fledged Russian without being Orthodox. Russian Catholic or Russian Baptist are perceived as the fifth column, traitors of the faith, culture, and nation. And this is despite the fact that Russian Catholicism and Russian Baptism have a long tradition. There are similar attitudes in other national Orthodox contexts. Bernard Yack puts the moral problem of nationalism in the following way: those who stand in the way of our nation, trying to gain control over their political affairs, seem to us to be lawless, and not just competitors or enemies. In this capacity, they are considered not only worthy of resistance, but also punishment. And this combination of judgments greatly deepens our hostility toward them. Nationalism becomes morally problematic precisely because of this combination of belief in justice and feelings of loyalty to the community.29 The same can be said about the ideology that results from the combination of romantic ecclesiology, nationalism, and anti-colonial narrative. Similarly, the Orthodox adherents of this ideology regard non-Orthodox as lawless heretics. The romantic Orthodox concept of the Church as an organism is not able to recognize non-Orthodox elements as something “alive” and belonging to this organism. Parts of the organic body of the Church 28  Similar situation can be found in other Orthodox countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and so forth. 29  See, Bernard Yack, Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

136 

A. SHISHKOV

cannot act autonomously and controversially but should reveal a constant “unity in the multitude.” According to George Fedotov, for Khomyakov “inside the Church there is no place for tragic tensions, struggle for truth, for new forms of life. Heresy is marked with a seal of non-churchliness from the very beginning.”30 No wonder Khomyakov formulates his ecclesiology mainly in a polemic with Catholics and Protestants. Also, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 carries a powerful anti-Catholic character.31 For Florovsky and the early Schmemann, Orthodox theology has been enslaved for centuries by Western (Catholic and Protestant) captivity. It is easy to see, then, why the idea of fighting Western captivity is formulated in terms of restoring justice. Uniates here are the worst enemy because they are described in terms of betrayal and collaborationism.

6   Postcolonial Instead of Anti-colonial The Orthodox decolonization narrative, as well as other decolonization narratives, face one big problem: they seek to form a religious and cultural identity that is ‘pure’ from colonial influence. Thanks to neo-patristics, the period of colonization is described as a pseudomorphosis and captivity, and Orthodoxy liberated from colonial influence appears as a standalone in the truth against heresies. Moreover, for the accusation of heresy, it is enough to find a little non-Orthodox influence. This is due to the fact that the romantic Orthodox concept of the Church as an organism is not able to recognize non-Orthodox elements as something “alive” and belonging to this “organism.” Despite the fact that Western influence on Khomiakov, Florovsky, Lossky, and others is well known in academia, it is not customary to discover the non-Orthodox roots of theological teachings and concepts in contemporary Orthodox theology, which is strongly influenced by the romantic tradition. To see it, we need a completely different optics, which goes beyond the framework of the Orthodox identity constructed in this paradigm. 30   George Fedotov, “Predshestvennik Khomyakova (Mueller)” [“The Khomyakov’s Predecessor (Mueller)”]. Put’ 58 (1938–1939): 65. 31  The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 was prepared in response to a letter from Pope Pius IX. It was polemical in nature and continued the tradition of anti-Catholic documents of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries.

  HOW MODERN ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY HINDERS… 

137

Unlike decolonialism, the postcolonial approach is sensitive to the complexity of the issue of identity. It calls into question any statement about pure faith, pure culture, and pure ethnos. Moreover, it reveals the monstrosity of the movement to the purification of faith, culture, or ethnos itself. Homi Bhabha, an American researcher of postcolonialism with Indian roots, speaks on the creation of a pure national identity: “The very idea of a pure, ‘ethnically cleansed’ national identity can only be achieved through the death, literal and figurative, of the complex interweavings of history, and the culturally contingent borderlines of modern nationhood.”32 The same is true for the construction of pure Orthodox identity because in many ways it is formed according to the same principles. We see how the dominant Orthodox historical narrative literally destroys a topic of Orthodox-Catholic cultural exchange in favor of the discourse of the Orthodox-Catholic struggle. The boundaries of the Orthodox identity, built on the opposition to non-Orthodoxy, artificially remove beyond its borders those who are not ready to see non-Orthodox people as radically others. This optics allows one to see, for example, that the revival of the Orthodox theology, which Florovsky described in terms of liberation from captivity, is not the awakening of the original Orthodox thought in contrast to the “damaged” or “graceless” Western religiosity, but a complex synthesis of the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and secular elements. Moreover, this approach makes it possible to see that the problem of Orthodox authors constructing the decolonization narrative lies in the fact that they, perhaps without knowing it, ‘orientalize’ Orthodoxy and act as colonizers themselves. One of the founders of the postcolonial approach, Edward Said, gives this definition to Orientalism: “Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident.’”33 As part of the Western theological elite, these Orthodox authors describe Orthodoxy as something radically different from the West, as the exotic mystical Orthodox East. As a rule, the history of positive mutual influence and exchange between Orthodox and Catholics remains in brackets during the period described by them as colonization and decolonization.

 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, New York: Routledge, 1994), 5.  Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 2.

32 33

138 

A. SHISHKOV

In postcolonial optics, ‘pure’ Orthodoxy turns out to be inhabited by a multitude of “alien” essences and becomes “hybrid.”34 This hybridism extends to all spheres of church life, including doctrine. The new cultural sensitivity of postmodernism, which plays an important role in the postcolonial approach, allows not only to recognize many different entities and components in what was previously seen as a monolith, but also to build on their basis a narrative of the common fate of the Orthodoxy and the Catholicism.

 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 5–6.

34

Ordination of Women: A “Bridge” or a “Brake” for Christian Unity? Patricia Madigan OP

In the West the topic of ordination of women had been a point of growing major contention in the churches during the course of the twentieth century, especially since the 1960s with the advent of second-wave feminism. The question was not an existential one for the Orthodox Christian world, which was in a very different sociopolitical context from Western Christianity, until later in the twentieth century. The Eastern Catholic Churches which, due to pressures of forced migration, now had members spread throughout many different countries and cultures, including those of the West, often found themselves struggling and negotiating between culture and ecclesial tradition in their various contexts. I will first provide a general overview of whether and how each group of churches—Latin Rite, Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic—has so far approached the question of the ordination of women as a theological question, and then make some suggestions about a possible way forward for dialogue and

P. Madigan OP (*) Dominican Centre for Interfaith Ministry, Education and Research, Dominican Administration Centre, Sydney, Australia © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_9

139

140 

P. MADIGAN OP

collaboration. Since there is not one agreed position by all the Eastern Catholic Churches, I will use the Maronite Church in Australia as an example.

1   Roman Catholic Teaching on the Ordination of Women In the most authoritative Catholic teaching that we have up to this time, that of the Second Vatican Council, the baptised faithful are not described according to gender roles but in accord with their participation in the mystery of Christ through baptism. The Council refrained from adopting a theology of complementarity or of ascribing a set of charisms to women and another to men, one role for women and another for men. Women were presented as full participants in the life of the church and society.1 This still needs further development and reception in official church teaching and law. In the constitution Lumen gentium, both the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are described as being in their “own special way” a “participation in the one priesthood of Christ.”2 There is, in Christ and in the Church, no distinction on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because “there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all ‘one’ in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; cf. Col. 3.11).3 As well as intimately linking them to his life and his mission, Christ “gives men and women a sharing in his priestly function of offering spiritual worship for the glory of God and the salvation of all.”4 The Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes taught that all people “possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny.” Accordingly, “with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on

1  Catherine Clifford, Decoding Vatican II: Interpretation and Ongoing Reception (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2014), 74. 2  Catholic Church, Lumen gentium (LG) 10, 21 November 1964, https://www.vatican. va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_ lumen-gentium_en.html, 3  LG, 32. 4  LG, 34.

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

141

sex, race, colour, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.”5 1.1  The Years Following Vatican II Yet in the years following the council a patriarchal politics of identity which has been given a religious justification can be seen to be taking hold at multiple levels in the Catholic Church.6 A chasm has continued to open up between the “social teaching” of the Church and its teachings on the role of women. Instead of developing a theology and anthropology which would promote a full vocational “flourishing” for each and every Christian, the focus has been on defining a positive and idealised role for women in the Church and the world which at the same time will protect the Church hierarchical and patriarchal power structures from the challenges posed by giving equal status to women. Three key documents were issued in the 25 years leading up to the end of the millennium: Inter Insigniores (1976),7 Mulieris Dignitatem (1988),8 and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994),9 with none being the product of any

5  Catholic Church, Gaudium et spes (GS) 29, 7 December 1965, http://www.vatican.va/ archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_ 19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html 6  See also Patricia Madigan, “Women During and After Vatican II.” In Catholicism Opening to the World and Other Confessions, edited by Vladimir Latinovic et al., (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). 7  Inter Insigniores (II): On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood was issued as a Declaration on 15 October 1976 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) with the approval of Pope Paul VI. http://www.vatican.va/roman_ curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_interinsigniores_en.html 8  Mulieris Dignitatem (MD), On the dignity and Vocation of Women on the Occasion of the Marion Year, an apostolic letter by Pope John Paul II on the dignity of women, written in conjunction with the 1987–1988 Marian Year was published on 15 August 1988, http:// www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_ apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html 9  Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (OS): On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone was an apostolic letter issued by Pope John Paul II to the bishops of the Catholic Church on 22 May 1994 in which he affirmed “the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone” and declared “that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/do, cuments/hf_jp-ii_apl_ 19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

142 

P. MADIGAN OP

kind of conciliar process. These documents were followed up by a Letter to Women by John Paul II in 1995.10 The aforementioned Vatican documents contain the church teachings as they are currently reasoned: • the Church’s constant and universal tradition of reserving the apostolic ministry to men (II; OS) • this tradition cannot be explained by the social and cultural vagaries of history (II; MD; OS) • it stems from the will and institution of Christ himself (II, “the wisdom of the Lord of the universe” OS) • the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women (II; OS) • the argument from theological meaningfulness—the consonance of an all-male priesthood with God’s plan of salvation. That is, in choosing only men, Christ gave the Church a “theological anthropology” in terms of the nuptial mystery between Christ and the Church, that is the priest in celebrating the Eucharist represents Christ the bridegroom and acts in persona Christi (The central theological argument of II; MD) However, when subjected to rigorous investigation, many aspects of these teachings have been found to rest on very shaky foundations. According to Dennis Ferrara,11 the theological tradition prior to Vatican II knows only one intrinsic argument against the ordination of women, and that is the “faulty” argument from women’s traditionally alleged inferior status, an argument which is linked to the priest’s hierarchical role as leader of the community rather than any sacramental role. As Elisabeth Behr-Sigel explains, this classic Catholic theological anthropology elaborated by St Thomas Aquinas recognised the essential equality between men and women as human beings. It was, however, limited by its  John Paul II, Letter to Women, written just before the Fourth World Conference on Women to be held in Beijing was published on 29 June 1995, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html 11  Dennis Ferrara, “The Ordination of Women: Tradition and Meaning,” Theological Studies, Volume 55, no. 4 (1984): 706–19. 10

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

143

­ nderstanding of the order of creation and of the soul as asexual. According u to the natural order, woman in her body was inferior to man. In the eschatological order, equality would not be fully recognised except in the resurrection of the dead. The situation of inferiority (status subjectionis) of women excludes them in the here and now from the hierarchical priesthood, which signifies a kind of superiority.12 Acknowledging that this “intrinsic” argument has been dropped in the post-Vatican II documents, Ferrara goes on to assert that new “extrinsic” arguments, such as the assertion that the non-ordination of women is the constant and universal tradition of the church grounded in the will and institution of Christ, are proposed in a historical and intellectual vacuum. This is the case also in attempts in both Inter Insigniores and Mulieris Dignitatem, to justify the maleness of the priest via the notion of “representation of Christ” by way of nuptial imagery or, more technically, by invoking the in persona Christi maxim, as well as to justify the maleness of the priest by appealing to the normativeness of Christ’s call of the Twelve. Ironically, he says, such arguments represent what the magisterium itself might call a “novelty” since, far from restating the older theological tradition, they inaugurate what can be seen to be a new tradition. Inter Insigniores can be described as marking a theological watershed, for it is the first time a Catholic Church document justifies the exclusion of women from the priesthood not on anthropological but on theological and especially christological grounds. Ferrara states that the Vatican has yet to explain convincingly its position on the alleged link between sexual difference and the nature of the priesthood. As the essential functions and operations of the priesthood are traditionally summed up as the threefold “office entrusted by Christ to his apostles of teaching, sanctifying, and governing the faithful”, theologians must continue to question: What is it in these priestly functions that requires that they be exercised by a man? Precisely because of its ministerial essence, the priesthood transcends the sexual difference.

12  Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “Mary and Women,” in Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, edited by Michael Plekon and Sarah E. Hinlicky (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 105.

144 

P. MADIGAN OP

2   Orthodox Teaching on the Ordination of Women Up until now the question of the ordination of women has been seen by Eastern Orthodox churches as largely a Western debate, posed from the outside. Nevertheless, renowned Orthodox theologian, metropolitan John Zizioulas has acknowledged that there are actually no theological reasons that would prevent the ordination of women,13 and other Orthodox leaders such as Bishop Kallistos Ware have noted that there is much to learn from both sides of the arguments for and against women priests.14 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel15 recognises that it has also become an internal problem for serious theologians, men and women, in light of the contradictions posed by the changing roles of women in the Church.” More focused discussion around women’s role and participation in the Orthodox churches began in the Orthodox Christian world around the same time as in the churches of the West. The first international conferences of Orthodox women which examined the issue were held at • the Monastery of Agapia in Romania (1976), and later at • the Orthodox Academy of Crete (1989); • the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of Rhodes (1988) on the “ordination of women and the place of women in the Church,” was convoked and organised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, at which the decision to restore the diaconate for women was unanimously adopted; • this same wish was energetically revisited by the Orthodox Christian women who met at Damascus (October 1996) and in Istanbul (May 1997) at conferences organised according to the Gospel saying “interpret the signs of the times” (Matt 16: 3);

13  Division of Studies, World Council of Churches, Study Encounter 4, no. 4 (1968): 193 §G. See Vladimir Latinovic, “The Viewpoint of an Orthodox Theologian.” In Ecclesiology and Exclusion: Boundaries of Being and Belonging in Postmodern Times, edited by Dennis M. Doyle et al. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012). 173. 14  Kallistos Ware, “Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ,” in Elisabeth Behr-Sigel & Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000), 50. 15  Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “Women in the Orthodox Church,” in Discerning, 121.

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

145

• the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, Greece, which hosted the Inter-Orthodox Consultation “Participation of Orthodox Women in the Ecumenical Movement” (June 2008). The Volos Consultation concluded that “many of the concerns of women have not yet been fully addressed within the life of the Church and are still relevant today” including a yearning for women “to more fully serve within the liturgical assembly and other ministries and to better serve the needs of women and men in the Church” as well as “a holy desire for the restoration of the order of Deaconess and a rejuvenation of all diaconal work.”16 Although she acknowledges that the ordination of women to priesthood remains unacceptable to most Orthodox for reasons having to do with liturgical symbolism, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel asks: “[D]oes ordination of women constitute a genuine heresy, a rupture with the teachings of Christ?”17 She holds that it is indeed “necessary to examine this problem in the light of Orthodox theological anthropology, Orthodox soteriology, and a true Christian theology of the ministries, most especially the presbyteral or priestly ministry”18 and that it is only “within the heart of this vision of the Church as a symbolic reality, a divine-human reality, the anticipation of the kingdom of God that both is and is to be, that the Orthodox approach the question of the exercise of authority in the Church, must be addressed.”19 2.1  Orthodox Theology of Ordination: Tradition Behr-Sigel draws attention to the fact that traditional churches and the Orthodox churches in particular have never taught that Christian women, because they are women, are deprived of the authority that through baptism belongs to every one of Christ’s disciples. She notes that the notion 16  World Council of Churches, “Participation of Orthodox Women in the Ecumenical Movement  – Report of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation,” 12 June 2008, https://www. oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/ecumenical-movement-inthe-21st-century/women/participation-of-orthodox-women-in-the-ecumenical-movement 17  Behr-Sigel, Women, 121. 18  Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “Orthodox Theological Formation in the 21st Century: The Tasks Involved,” in Discerning, 19. 19  Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “The Bible, Tradition, the Sacraments: Sources of Authority in the Church,” in Discerning, 86.

146 

P. MADIGAN OP

of the royal priesthood of all the baptised, both men and women, has always existed in the depths of the Church, even though it was the “treasure hidden in the field” of the Gospel parable. The personal, spiritual authority of certain women has always been recognised, for example messengers of Christ’s resurrection, martyrs, married women, and mothers of families. However, at the same time, she acknowledges that women have gradually, almost from the beginning of Christianity, been kept aside from the functions or ministries that would give to them an institutional form of authority.20 Thomas Hopko, writing in 1983, argued that for the Orthodox there is neither “development of doctrine” nor a “magisterium” that guarantees the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. It is not that the issue of ordination of women has yet to catch up with the Orthodox. “It is rather that the body of the faithful recognizes that the life and faith of the Church, inspired and guided by the Spirit of God in its Holy Tradition, precludes such a development.” He asserts that “in his actions in and toward the world of his creation, the one God and Father reveals himself primarily and essentially in a ‘masculine’ way. This is the biblical and liturgical mode of expression which cannot be altered or abandoned without changing and ultimately destroying the revelation itself.”21 However, various other Orthodox theologians have put forward contrasting views on the meaning of Tradition. For Nonna Verna Harrison, “Tradition is a communion of love and prayer which extends throughout time and space, across all the boundaries of history and culture into eternity.”22 For John Meyendorff, Tradition is not a question of a return to the past, but of a permanence and a faithfulness to revelation. True Tradition is always a living Tradition. It changes because it faces different situations, not because its essential content is modified.23 Kallistos Ware24 sees Tradition, rightly understood, as dynamic, not static and inert. It is something received and lived by each generation in its own way, tested and enriched by the fresh experience that the Church is  Ibid., 87–88.  Thomas Hopko, “Women and the Priesthood: Reflections on the Debate – 1983,” in Women and the Priesthood, edited by Thomas Hopko (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999), 235–36, 240. 22  Nonna Verna Harrison, “Orthodox Arguments Against the Ordination of Women as Priests,” in Women and the Priesthood, 167. 23  Quoted in Behr-Sigel, Orthodox, 15. 24  Ware, Man, 65, 70. 20 21

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

147

continually gaining. Tradition does not mean that nothing can ever be done for the first time. He says if it took the Church around 1800 years to recognise the wickedness of slavery, it is also possible that the Church today is being called to end its unjustifiable discrimination against women. He also draws attention to the fact that an appeal to Tradition is often nothing more than an argument from silence. It is true that Christ nowhere instructed his disciples to ordain women, but equally he nowhere forbade them to do this. 2.2  Orthodox Theology of Ordination: Scripture It is often argued against the ordination of women that Christ chose only men to be apostles. Women serving as bishops or priests in the Christian church would be contrary to Christ’s gospel. But this belief is contested by many Orthodox theologians and others. In fact, many would acknowledge, as does Georges Barrois,25 that the New Testament writings leave us dramatically short of information on the organisation of the Church during the decades following the resurrection. In the New Testament Christ is at times seen as the Bridegroom, while the Church is his Bride (Matt 9:15; 25: 1–12; Jn 3: 2; Rev 21: 2, 9; 22: 17) and to some it will seem patently absurd that the Bridegroom should be represented by a woman. However, Jesus also made reference to himself as female likening himself to a mother hen, longing to gather her chicks under her wings (Matt 23: 37). So, as Kallistos Ware points out, there is no intrinsic absurdity, provided that we make proper allowance for the subtlety and polyvalence of symbols.26 2.3  Orthodox Theology of Ordination: Liturgical Symbolism One argument against the ordination of women which is most often cited in both Roman Catholicism and in Orthodox Christianity is that in choosing only men Christ gave the Church a theological anthropology in terms of the nuptial mystery between Christ and the Church, that is the priest in 25  Georges Barrois, “Women and the Priestly Office according to the Scriptures,” in Women and the Priesthood, edited by Thomas Hopko (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999) 74–75. 26  Ware, Man, 88.

148 

P. MADIGAN OP

celebrating the Eucharist represents Christ the bridegroom and acts in persona Christi. Writing in 1983, Hopko states that the sacramental priest “is the image of Jesus Christ, who makes known the Father in the Spirit within the life of God’s Church.” Quoting Inter Insignores he elaborates: “(W)hen Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this ‘natural resemblance’ which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.”27 Hopko also expounds further, outside of the liturgical necessity, on the iconic importance of the priest being male: As Jesus, the personal image of God the Father, is the head and husband of the Church which is his body and bride, so the Christian man is to be the head and husband of his wife, and the presbyter/bishop the head and husband of his church […]. The fatherhood, headship and husbandhood which belongs to believing men in Christ and the Church cannot be exercised by women, and cannot be exercised without them. As there is no man without woman, no head without body, no bridegroom without bride, no husband without wife, and even no Christ without the Church […].28

Hopko states that God has established a structure of communion in the Church in which “the presbyter/bishop as its husband and head, keeps his church fully in communion with all the other churches of Christ which are headed and husbanded by a man like himself, sacramentally called and ordained to this service.”29 Hopko’s reflection goes far beyond anything expressed in Roman Catholic theology. It is also questioned by a number of Orthodox theologians. Nonna Verna Harrison points out that Orthodox Christian reasoning that the priest serves as an icon of Christ and therefore should be male can appear unconvincing to many and indeed offensive to women and their Creator. She responds that all human persons bear the image of God and all the baptised bear the image of Christ. A difficulty is that in the Orthodox tradition the concept of image is multidimensional and the  Hopko, Women, 241–42.   Thomas Hopko, “Presbyter/Bishop: A Masculine Ministry,” in Women and the Priesthood, 158. 29  Ibid., 157. 27 28

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

149

character of liturgical symbolism is complex.30 She looks to the anthropology of the Fathers to discover the different ways that gender concepts function literally and allegorically in their thinking. In his theology, she points out, St Gregory of Nyssa at times envisages all human persons as feminine. One is called to become virgin through spiritual as well as bodily purity and give birth to virtues and to Christ in imitation of the Mother of God. She also expands on how, at the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit came upon Mary forming within her Christ’s incarnate presence, and the epiclesis extends this divine action into the Eucharist. So the priest is in some sense an icon of the Mother of God who fulfilled the universal human vocation of royal priesthood better than any other person, receiving the Son into herself and offering him to the Father. In this work of receiving and bringing forth divine life both men and women function in a feminine way. Therefore, she says, it can be seen that iconic symbolism and the spiritual life made known through it operate at many levels, none of which can be regarded as exhaustive or exclusive. Kallistos Ware is also of the opinion that when Orthodox theologians term the priest as an “imitation” or an “icon” of Christ they cannot mean that there is a physical resemblance of the two. He suggests that it would be “crass and naïve” to suggest that a ministerial priest in the Liturgy must actually look like Christ in some outward and visible fashion, as if he were an actor on the theatrical stage. He believes that “the Fathers never interpreted liturgical typology in such exterior and materialistic terms as that.”31

3   Differing Eucharistic Understandings Between East and West While the basic idea of the priest as alter Christus, the image, sign, or representative of Christ, is common to both the Greek East and the Latin West, there is a significant difference in the way that the priest’s role at the Eucharistic consecration is understood.32 In the West since medieval times, the priest is understood as acting in persona Christi. When the celebrant recites the Words of Institution, “This is my Body … This is my Blood” (Matthew 26:26) he speaks these words as if he were himself Christ; or  Harrison, Orthodox, 181.  Ware, Man, 86. 32  Ibid., 85. 30 31

150 

P. MADIGAN OP

rather, Christ himself is understood to be speaking these words through the priest. In the Byzantine rite, on the other hand, throughout the consecratory anaphora the celebrant speaks not in persona Christi but in persona Ecclesiae, as a representative not of Christ but of the Church. When the priest says “This is my Body … This is my Blood,” at no point does he speak as if he himself were Christ. The priest acting in union with the people and in their name asks the Father to send down the Spirit and so to effect the consecration. At this crucial moment, as throughout the Eucharistic prayer, he is not Christ’s vicar or icon, but—in union with the people—he stands as a supplicant before God. What you have come to is nothing known to the senses […]. You have come near to Mount Zion, to the City of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, with its innumerable angels. You have come to the solemn feast, the assembly of the firstborn of God, whose names are written in heaven. There is God, Judge of all, with the spirits of the upright, brought to perfection. There is Jesus the mediator of the new Covenant, with the sprinkled blood that cries out more effectively than Abel’s. (Heb 12: 18, 22–24)

Thus, at the consecration in the Roman rite, as commonly interpreted, the priest represents Christ to the people; but at the consecration in the Byzantine rite the priest represents the people to Christ. This is why the Orthodox prefer the priest to face eastward, as the people do, not on the side of God, but on the side of the people.33 An even more significant difference is that while the Roman Catholic Church has always stressed making the Word of God real in our lives and living it in the hope of eternal life, in the Eastern Liturgy “one enters into an ineffable mystery above our power of understanding. As the celebration unfolds through sacred action, music and reverencing of icons, creature meets Creator, and with all earthy cares set aside, heaven descends on earth.”34 Standing with his back to the people, the priest represents the people as he faces in the direction of the Source of Light, the Risen Son. The icon screen then serves as a visible symbol of a spirituality which values the transcendence and otherness of God. Participation in the liturgy is not synonymous with looking either at the screen or at the Eucharistic 33  Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, “Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ,” in Women and the Priesthood, 48. 34  Joan L. Roccasalvo, The Eastern Catholic Churches: An Introduction to Their Worship and Spirituality (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992), 21.

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

151

elements as this is a practice that was introduced only in the late thirteenth century. For the Orthodox Christian, the liturgy is an awesome vision full of mystery. While Roman Catholics complete their Eucharistic worship with an exhortation to take the Gospel to the world by the way they conduct their lives, Orthodox liturgical worship reminds us that Christians do not worship a passing world but pass through this world to a more lasting one—an eternal reality. The faithful return home ennobled in mind and heart by the living God they have been privileged to experience in contemplation.35 Laurent Cleenwerck,36 an Orthodox scholar, has suggested that both Orthodox and Latin Rite Churches are in a process of rediscovering Eucharistic ecclesiology and are becoming increasingly aware that they need each other: Rome needs Orthodoxy to reform itself liturgically and theologically while the East could use Rome’s sense of organisation and universality to engage in an authentic spiritual and liturgical renewal. 3.1   Cultural Differences Between East and West Another factor which impinges on the debate over the ordination of women as priests is the impact of the different experiences of economic and cultural development in the worlds of the East and West. While Orthodox theologians such as Hopko acknowledge the reality of such cultural shifts, the favoured response is to look inward, to the life and faith of the Church, inspired and guided by the Spirit of God, as currently expressed in its Holy Tradition,37 rather than be open to how God may be speaking truth from beyond such boundaries. In contrast, Catholic scholar Massimo Faggioli acknowledges: Without a doubt, there is an ongoing shift in the roles of power and authority in the Church […]. Pope Francis' emphasis on synodality and the Church as “a people” is of great help […]. But this theological emphasis is only one part in the larger picture of the potentially massive changes in the alignments of power in global Catholicism […]. The access of women to power  Ibid., 22–27, also 56–58.  Laurent A.  Cleenewerck, His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Washington DC: Euclid University Consortium Press, 2007), 139. 37  See Hopko, “Women and the Priesthood: Reflections, 235ff. 35 36

152 

P. MADIGAN OP

in the Church also depends on local social and cultural expectations about the role of women. And this cannot be changed only by what canon law says about the laity.”38

Catholic theologian Lavinia Byrne believes that as women move from the invisibility and obscurity of centuries of hidden service, the glory of Christ can be revealed in them in ways that have hitherto been unimaginable, and “if women are really made in the divine image and likeness, then we are talking about an altered perception of God as well as of women.”39

4   Maronites in the Middle To enquire whether the Eastern Catholic Churches may have some resources to help both Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches to reexamine their differing traditional, scriptural, theological, liturgical, and cultural perspectives makes sense in an Australian context. The Eastern Catholic Churches in Australia have at times described themselves as “orphans”40—with their identities questioned both within the Eastern Orthodox family of Churches and at times within the Roman Catholic Church. However, it would seem that these churches, each with their unique historical blend of cultural and theological elements drawn from both the East and the West, might have much to contribute to ecclesiological discussions and discernment, including the topic of ordination of women. There are members of almost all the Eastern Catholic Churches present in Australia today, primarily as the result of post-World War II migration from Eastern Europe and the more recent turmoil and upheaval in the Middle East. The Maronite Church in particular has quite a visible presence and is one of the most flourishing Eastern Catholic Churches. Since there is not yet any stated agreed position by the Eastern Catholic Churches on many of the disputed issues mentioned this study will explore 38  Massimo Faggioli, “Failure of the episcopate; new alignment of power in the Church,” La Croix International, 18 June 2019. 39  Lavinia Byrne, Woman at the Altar: The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church (London: Mowbray, 1994), 89, 122. 40  This has occurred in the context of some ecumenical gatherings in Australia when members of Eastern Catholic Churches are not welcomed by representatives of Orthodox churches while they can also feel a lack of inclusion by Catholic Church representatives.

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

153

ways in which the Maronite Church in Australia might provide a “middle position” on some of the issues associated with the ordination of women and therefore provide a source of unity, not division, between our churches. As the present Maronite Bishop of Sydney, Antoine Tarabay, recounts, The experience of communion between the Maronite Church and the Roman Church at the beginning of the fifteenth century led to a Church which is a complicated mixture of a patriarchal system, typical of Eastern Churches throughout the first millennium, and a Roman hierarchical system for the Catholic Church, which has unilaterally developed since the start of the second millennium. The Maronites became part of the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome, while retaining a large portion of their liturgical rituals and ecclesiastical organisation.41

The Maronite and Latin liturgies differ in their traditional prayers, hymns, chants, modes, and vestments, as well as in the theological aspects expressed by the prayers. If the emphasis of Orthodoxy in its theology and celebration takes us “up to heaven” with its choirs, incense, and icons, the emphasis in Roman Catholicism assists in bringing us “down to earth” with its petitionary prayers, artworks, and relics as reminders of the self-­ giving and various apostolic works of the saints during their earthly existence, and its constant reminders that the Christian vocation is to take the message of the Gospel to the world. So, while the theology of the Occident has always stressed the actualisation of the Eucharist by an engagement of the Christian in the world, and while the theology of Byzantine Christianity continues to celebrate the divine liturgy which the risen Lord accomplishes in His heavenly glory, the Maronite liturgy celebrates the Eucharist in the expectation of the coming of the Lord. The Maronites in their liturgy42 are painfully aware of the fact that we are not actually in the glory of the Lord and in the plenitude of His Redemption— that we are awaiting it. … The Maronite liturgy emphasises the ideas of the early Christians who were awaiting the second coming of the Lord. This

41  Antoine Tarabay et  al., The Maronite Church: Roots and Mission (Jounieh: Kreimi, 2014), 57. 42  Perhaps remembering a long history of suffering including during the Monophysite controversy of the fifth century, and forced migration from Syria to Lebanon in seventh and eighth centuries).

154 

P. MADIGAN OP

idea is clearly stressed in the Maronite divine liturgy after the Words of Consecration: “Do this in memory of Me … UNTIL I COME AGAIN.”43

These words, “until I come again” contained in the liturgy of an Eastern Catholic Church would seem to link these two liturgical worlds, the “heavenly” world of Byzantium and Roman Catholicism with its “earthly” focus. Could it be that the so-called Uniate or Eastern Catholic Churches, with an emphasis on the “already and the not yet” hold a key, and can show a way forward for the Christian churches of East and West to unite around their differences? For this we would also require a unifying theology—one that could create a bridge between the cultural and liturgical differences that have developed between the East and the West and over the centuries. Joseph Azize explains that the Maronite teaching on prayer is similar to that of the universal Catholic Church, while at the same time, he says, “we emphasise certain aspects of the faith, and we de-emphasise others.” For example, “we often ask forgiveness for our sins and we often mention the second coming of the Lord (but) we say less about what we might call ‘social justice’ than some other churches do.”44 He goes on to say: “From the liturgical action as a whole, we also absorb a sense of what it means to be a Maronite. The way the priest and the servers move, the way the liturgy is chanted, the gestures of the hands, often with the hand-cross, the altar, crucifixes, icons, statues, candles, all the furnishings of the church to play a part in creating a sense of the sacred.” He believes that absolutely fundamental to this is the orientation of the church to the East, so that when the sun rises in the East, it rises about the altar, and its rays can enter the windows above the altar.45 In discussion of the meaning of the Eucharistic prayer in the Divine Liturgy, there appears to be an emphasis in the Maronite liturgy on the role of the Holy Spirit and less on the person of the priest. The prayers and actions of the Maronite Eucharist all seem to show an understanding of the liturgy as “an act of heaven taking place upon the earth, and the priest being an intermediary between the two realms in a 43  Francis Zayak and Abdo Khalife, The Maronite Rite: Questions on the Maronites (Sydney, Australia: Maronite Diocese of Saint Maroun, 1978), 25–26. Capital letters in the original text. 44  Joseph Azize, An Introduction to the Maronite Faith (Redland Bay, Qld: Connor Court Publishing, 2017), 153. 45  Ibid., 281 (italics in original text).

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

155

unique way”. At the epiclesis “the celebrant kisses the altar, signs the offerings with the Cross, and prays that the Holy Spirit may come down and cause the bread to be the Body of Christ and the mixture of wine and water to be the Blood of Christ. To each petition the people respond ‘Amen’.”46 Joseph Takchi says: “The Service of the Divine Mysteries reflects, from beginning to end, glory to God for God’s loving mercy. The attitude of the worshipper is unworthiness of and readiness for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the principle minister in the liturgy. The Spirit is the beginning, the end and the perfection of all things. We pray in the Liturgy “Glory to the Father who for our sake sent the Son; Adoration to Jesus who by his cross saved us; Thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit who begins, perfects and completes the mystery of our salvation.”47 The question remains: is it possible that the Eastern Catholic Churches, with their combination of elements of traditional Orthodoxy together with their Roman Catholic cultural and theological influences, with their emphasis on the “already and the not yet,” and their strong theology of the action of the Holy Spirit in their Eucharistic liturgies, have something of value to contribute to an ongoing discussion regarding the question of the ordination of women? Could they become an integral part of a way forward for the Christian churches of East and West to unite around their differences? Since the cultures and theologies of the Eastern Catholic Churches generally reflect a combination of elements from both East and West, their perspectives can be understood to be included as we now look at two important theologians, one Orthodox and one Roman Catholic, who have already begun to move in this unified direction.

5   A Way Forward for Both East and West: A Theology of “Communion” Two contemporary theologians who may be able to contribute to a theology to bridge differences between East and West are Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas and Catholic theologian Elizabeth Johnson.

 Ibid., 293, 297.  Joseph Takchi, “The Maronite Catholic Church in Australia.” The Australasian Catholic Record 73, no 1 (1996): 17. 46 47

156 

P. MADIGAN OP

Zizioulas’s theological principles and his ecclesiology reflect the development of a neo-patristic theological approach in Greece since the 1930s. His work represents a commitment to setting out the original theological contribution of Orthodoxy, especially in its application to ecclesiology. Robert Turner48 points out that Zizioulas recognises three difficulties in contemporary theological exploration: How events are understood in time determines (a) either an ethical or ontological approach to Christian life; (b) our understanding of the role of Church instructions and structures; and (c) the relation of humanity to the environment. Turner suggests that Western theology tends to limit ecclesiology (or even theology as a whole) to the economy, the historical content of faith, and to project realities belonging to history and time into the eternal existence of God. In this way the dialectic of God and the world, the uncreated and the created, history and the eschata is lost. The West risks being tied to history, either in an extreme form of Christocentrism—an imitatio Christi—lacking the essential influence of pneumatology or in the form of a social activism which plays the role of the image of God in the Church. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, can often present itself as a type of Christian Platonism, as a vision of future or heavenly things without interest in history and its problems, and runs a risk of historically disincarnating the Church.49 Turner sees Zizioulas’s theology as making four important contributions: 1. Zizioulas renews the theological importance of Trinity and creation for the understanding of salvation. 2. He renews christology in terms of the ontological significance of historical events in the life of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit, without limiting christology simply to an ethical significance, and without reducing the Holy Spirit to an adjunct to christology. 3. He represents the Church in terms of the renewed understanding of Trinity, creation, and christology conditioned by pneumatology.

48  Robert Turner, “Eschatology and Truth,” in The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church, edited by Douglas H. Knight (Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2007) 22. 49  Ibid., 23; See also John Zizioulas, Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press and London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985), 19–20.

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

157

4. His theological ontology integrates dogmas as they contribute to setting out salvation in terms of communion, divine and ecclesial.50 In her work Johnson51 has described how, in ancient times, characteristics of the classical idea of God—omniscience, omnipotence, impassibility—were superimposed on the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. She believes that in contemporary theology the direction is being reversed. What in effect is being produced is a theology of God from below with Christology forming one of its major sources. As a result, a major problem for women is that Jesus’s maleness has been implicitly transferred to God’s own being and has ensured that God is essentially understood as male. This view is intensified by the almost exclusive use of father-son metaphors to interpret Jesus’s relationship with God. An unnecessary logical connection has been made between the maleness of Jesus’s historical person and the disclosure of a male God. She believes that Christ is the key symbol that must be freed from its distorted, sexist accretions if the doctrine of God is to be successfully reclaimed as Good News for women. A further issue for Johnson is that the dogmatic formulations of Christology and the Trinity of the first centuries of Christianity have in modern times tended to become definitions instead of remaining pointers towards the Divine Mystery, despite the strong insistence on the incomprehensibility and transcendence of God on the part of so many theologians of the East and the West. She notes how with a growing need to proclaim unambiguous certainties in the face of the growth of nominalism and the Reformation, the importance of the negating power of analogy was neglected, and it has only been in the twentieth century and beyond that the subtlety of analogy, including its negative component has been restored. The very limited use of mainly male images for God has seriously confined who God can be for humanity as a whole. It has limited our capacity to engage with the divine. The androcentric imagination has meant a certain leakage of Jesus’s human maleness into the divine nature, so that maleness appears to be of the essence of the God made known in Christ. Johnson holds that it is not

 Turner, 33.   See Patricia Fox, God as Communion (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2001), 112–13. 50 51

158 

P. MADIGAN OP

Jesus’s maleness that is doctrinally important but his humanity in solidarity with the whole suffering human race.52 Johnson also argues that, as there was no way to express the fullness of humanity’s experience of God without using female images, they very soon were displaced and transferred solely onto Mary, the Mother of God. In aspects of popular Catholic tradition, Mary has been substituted in a particular way for the action of the Holy Spirit. Mary is called intercessor, mediatrix, helper, advocate, consoler, counsellor—all names or attributes which properly belong to the Spirit of God.53 The Marian figure has functioned to some degree in a compensatory way vis-à-vis the three divine persons of Father, Son, and Spirit. Marian theology and devotion have adopted female language and symbols that properly belong to God. Yet many biblical metaphors explicitly convey God’s maternal, compassionate power. In Isaiah 42: 14 she cries out in painful labour to deliver a new creation of justice, she suckles the newborn, comforts, teaches, fiercely protects, and never forgets the child of her womb (Isa 46: 3–4; 66: 13; 49: 15; Hos 11: 3–4; 13: 8). In short, Johnson’s ideas can be summarised as described by Patricia Fox who states that the language a faith community uses about God implicitly represents its values and at the same time powerfully shapes its identity and directs its practice.54 She argues that what is at stake is the truth about God which cannot be separated from the situation of human beings, and the identity and mission of the faith community itself.55 Fox brings women’s experience into dialogue with Christian tradition as she attempts to construct “a footbridge between classical and feminist Christian wisdom” with the aim of emancipation and transformation,56 and reminds us that the dogmatic formulations of Christology and the Trinity of the first centuries of Christianity are best understood not as definitions, but pointers towards the Divine Mystery.57 Johnson recognises that language for God has functioned for millennia to “support an imaginative and structural world that excludes or subordinates women” and this, in turn, undermined women’s human dignity as  Ibid., 114.  Ibid., 115, 117. 54  Ibid., 101. 55  Ibid., 102. 56  Ibid., 104. 57  Ibid., 105. 52 53

  ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A “BRIDGE” OR A “BRAKE” FOR CHRISTIAN… 

159

equally created in the image of God.58 The significance of the concepts of person and relation in Zizioulas’s theology also means that his theology of “communion” has much that is highly congruent with Johnson’s theology, although he makes no connections between right speech about God and the “pervasive exclusion of women from the realm of public symbol formation and decision-making.”59

6   Zizioulas and Johnson: A Convergence? The correlation of Zizioulas’s and Johnsons’s methodologies illustrates that both theology from “above” (a theology that begins with tradition) and theology from “below” (a theology that begins with critical issues of humanity and creation) offer perspectives that are essential for a recovery of the triune symbol of God.60 Both are convinced of the practical significance of the symbol of God for humanity and the world. Both argue that the doctrine of the Trinity has profound and particular contributions to make towards contemporary understanding of personhood, humanity, and the whole of creation. Zizioulas focuses on what the Trinitarian mystery reveals about the nature of personhood. Johnson explores how the triune symbol provides a powerful challenge for Church and society with respect to what full humanity can mean for both women and men. Both acknowledge the need to situate Trinitarian theology within the history of salvation and explore what the symbol of Christ can mean for understanding true personhood, power, and freedom, with an emphasis on the cosmic and eschatological significance of the whole Christ. Both acknowledge that all the doctrines of the Church can become fossilised and irrelevant unless they are brought into constant dialogue with contemporary realities. Zizioulas is acutely aware of the gulf between Eastern and Western theological tradition, Johnson is acutely aware of the neglected experience of women in the formulation of the Church’s tradition and its leadership, life, and liturgy. Both theologians understand their task to be recovery of the inherent wisdom of the tradition in order to engage it with the questions and issues of today’s world. Zizioulas focuses on the true nature of personhood while  Ibid., 216–17.  Ibid., 219. 60  Ibid., 219ff. 58 59

160 

P. MADIGAN OP

Johnson’s focus is on the full humanity of every person. Both are convinced that difference flourishes in communion. Both present a strong vision of an inclusive, eschatological, cosmic Christ in their christologies. Johnson notes that “with the inclusive and eschatological character of Christ kept firmly in view, the maleness of Jesus can be reinterpreted in the whole Christ without distortion.” Both theologians rely on the Christic formulations of the early Church to validate the importance they place on the whole Christ, and they engage this vision with critical issues from contemporary questions and scholarship. Both Johnson and Zizioulas understand that all speech about God can only be analogous.61 Instead of being a symbol that reinforces and validates structural injustice, the Trinity could truly be a symbol that summons the Church to be a community of brothers and sisters in kinship with the earth.62

7   Conclusion The eventual reunification of the churches will require that Orthodox and Roman Catholic (including Eastern Catholic) theologians come to agreement on the equal evangelical dignity, diverse charismatic offices, and the one eschatological mission both of the sacramental orders of Christians and the sacramental orders of their pastoral leaders.63 The Christian churches locally and universally will need to become as God is, namely, “Diversity in Communion.” When the Trinitarian symbol is placed at the centre of an ethos that effects transforming action, it both facilitates the participation of believers within God’s life and within the human community and provides the basis for a truly Christian ethic and praxis. The question about the ordination of women, while presently a “brake” on church unity, could equally as well become a “bridge” to communion among the churches, and lead to a church which is fit-for-purpose which can genuinely celebrate the heavenly mysteries, witness to the Good News of the Gospel, and bring about the Kingdom of God in today’s world.

61  See also Azize, An Introduction, 199 where he notes that “symbols are fluid, and melt and merge depending on what seems to be appropriate.” 62  Fox, God, 221. 63  Philip Rossato SJ, “The Ordination of the Baptized: The Laity as an Order of the Church,” in The Theology of John Zizioulas, 170.

Ecclesiological Differences and Law: Is the Eastern Churches Canon Law a Bridge Between the Western and the Eastern Canonical Tradition? Irina Borshch

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are separated not only through doctrinal and cultural differences but also through their canonical traditions. The variety of traditions arises from different answers to historical challenges in the main centers of church government in the first millennium. Nevertheless, we can speak not only about local and historical differences but also about certain ecclesiological differences. It is ecclesiology and theology in principle that play a major role in the development of these canonical traditions. Here lie the fundamental differences between church and state law: the former has obvious theological grounds.1 1  See Francesco Coccopalmerio, “Fondare teologicamente il diritto della Chiesa?” in Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Settentrionale (ed.), La teologia italiana oggi. Ricerca dedicata a Carlo Colombo nel 70° compleanno (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1979), 395–410.

I. Borshch (*) Theology Department, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Moscow, Russia © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_10

161

162 

I. BORSHCH

The codification of the church law of the Eastern Catholic Churches in twentieth century can be regarded as an attempt to create legal and cultural synthesis. It is the synthesis, which combines the historical canonical material of the Eastern tradition with the Western canonical doctrine and juridical technology. All canonists consider this attempt to be of great value although it also provokes many questions. First of all, how deep are the Canonical differences between Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Second, can the separation, based on these differences, be overcome? Third, what role did ecclesiology play in the development of legal differences? Fourth, does the unity of the church mean the unity of the church law systems? Currently, there are no exhaustive studies on these questions, focused on the experience of codifications in the twentieth century. It’s causing problems for researchers of more specific topics in the field of comparative theology. The main question of this chapter is whether the Eastern Catholic law can serve as a bridge between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. To answer this question, it is necessary to consider two codification projects of the Eastern Catholic Church law in the twentieth century and the project Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis, which preceded two Canonical Codes of 1980s.2 The apostolic constitution Sacri canones3 by which John Paul II promulgated Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO)4 in 1990 traces the historical background of the so-called Eastern code. The very title Sacri canones means to pinpoint the origins of CCEO in the sacred canons of the councils of Eastern Churches. Given this bridge with the sacred canons of the first millennium, the constitution Sacri canones in fact proposes CCEO as a vehicle for future ecumenical dialogue. But can we really see it like the bridge between canonical traditions? The approach presented in this chapter assumes that Eastern Catholic law is rather a pier/berth than a bridge. Moreover, it is the pier built from the “Latin” side and built in such a way that it is quite difficult for the Orthodox Church to approach it, if not directly impossible. As this 2  Codex Iuris Canonici auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus. (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983). Abbreviated as “Latin Code” or “CIC.” 3  John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones, Acta Apostolicae Sedes 82 (1990): 1033–1044. 4  Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990. Abbreviated as “Eastern Code” or “CCEO.”

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

163

chapter will demonstrate, it is difficult for the Orthodox to “moor” to this “pier” in ecumenical dialogue because of the ecclesiological differences which cannot be hushed up.

1   The Century of Codification in the Catholic Church and the Origins of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches The church law of the Catholic Church today is very different from the orthodox canon law not only in content but also in the way it is produced, interpreted, and applied. The church law in the West and the East developed differently throughout the history, especially in the second millennium. The differences became even more profound at the end of the twentieth century. While for the Catholic Church it was a century of great codification work in the line with the Vatican I (1869–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965) Councils, for the Orthodox Churches it was mainly a century of persecution in communist countries and of unsuccessful attempts to systematize the canonical norms and to adapt it to modern realities. The contemporary law of Eastern Catholic Churches has its origins in the very process of codification that covered the Catholic Church at the beginning of the twentieth century. The landmark date for this law is not the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1445), the symbol of Church union, but the establishment of what is now known as Congregation of Eastern Churches in 1917.5 After the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) in 1917, a project for codifying Eastern canon law was formally proposed by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in 1927. On November 23, 1929, Pius XI established the Commission of Cardinals for the Preparatory Studies of the Eastern Codification, under the presidency of cardinal Pietro Gasperri, Vatican’s State Secretary. It is significantly that the work on the new Eastern canon code was led by the same person (Gasperri), who successfully realized earlier the codification of Latin canon law. It is interesting to notice that also the successor of cardinal Gasperri on the post of the State Secretary, Eugenio Pacelli, later 5  The Congregation as the autonomous department of the Roman Curia was found by the motu proprio Dei Providentis of Pope Benedict XV on May 1, 1917, and was named Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali (Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church). Pope Paul VI gave it its current name by adopting the plural Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus with the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae of August 15, 1967.

164 

I. BORSHCH

played a key role in the process of the codification for the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus, the work of the codification required leaders with a state mode of thinking. The first Eastern canon code was not compiled; it was promulgated partly in the form of motu proprio in 1949–1957.6 The first and the most important part was about marriage. The canons in this project were divided into titles, like other collections of a genuine Eastern tradition, but the language and the content conformed to the Latin code (1917). The history of the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, however, began much earlier than twentieth century, and its driving reasons were not only Roman Curia’s initiatives but also asking letters from missionaries and hierarchs from the eastern regions of the Catholic mission.7 Anyway, the request for unification of the Eastern canon law in the code was formulated by the Roman Pontiff and was only a part of a big process of methodological unification between the canon law and the civil law of continental Europe. The circumstances of the “Vatican captivity” of the popes (1861–1929)8 played an important role in the emergence of contemporary Catholic law. Considering themselves as an island among the ocean of nation-states and the governments declared the secular interests,

6  Pius XII promulgated ten of twenty-four titles of the Code, woven together by the aforesaid commission, in the form of apostolic letters motu proprio. The others, in a text approved at the same time by the cardinal members of the commission and for the most part printed “for promulgation,” by pontifical mandate, remained in archives of the commission, because it was the last day of the Pontificate. The next epoch, which began with the announcement by Pope John XXIII of the Second Vatican Council, was marked by the new codification project (compiled as CCEO) (See about these historical milestones John Paul II, Sacri canones, 1033–1044). 7  On March 27, 1631, at the home of Cardinal Luigi Capponi on a plenary of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide seven cardinals and a councilor of the Holy Office met together to examine some doubts and petitions made by Capuchin missionaries operating in the East, among which was the question whether to avail themselves of the faculties granted to them by the Congregation of the Holy Office, the missionaries must request the permission of the schismatic bishops. See Federico Marti, “Il Codice del 1917 e l’Oriente. Presupposti storici e teorici,” in Diritto canonico e culture giuridiche. Nel centenario del Codex Juris Canonici del 1917, edited by Jesús Miñambres (Roma: EDUSC 2019), 149. 8  Captivus Vaticani (a prisoner of the Vatican) is how Pope Pius IX was described following the capture of Rome by the armed forces of the Kingdom of Italy on September 20, 1870. For the next 59 years, the popes refused to leave the Vatican in order to avoid any appearance of accepting the authority wielded by the Italian government over Rome. The period ended in 1929, when the Lateran Treaty created the modern state of Vatican City.

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

165

the church supreme authorities in Rome created its own self-sufficient law in the mode of the state codification.9 Of course, the canonical code of the church was not the same as state codes in its content, but the form expresses the content. Up to the present day there has been the ambivalent attitude of church lawyers to the codification progress of the nineteenth century. Péter Szabó says10 that both Eastern and Latin canonical codifications certainly did not completely follow the ideological program of the Napoleonic code model, even if their elaborations were strongly influenced by this paradigm.11 However, the event of codification had the meaning far beyond the contexts of the modern era. In the perspective of two millennia the event meant that the legal codification technique finally defeated the logic of systematic collections in Catholic Church. Even if the word “systematical” still has different meaning for the historians of canon law,12 new legal methods (codification) are clearly distinguishable from the previous ones. Choosing the path of codification, the Catholic Church was in a completely new position, different even from the states with their codes. This choice received special significance due to the fact that the Roman Church 9  This motive—the existence among states in the modern era—is indicated in detail by C. Fantappiè. “Código de derecho canónico de 1917 ysu repercusión en la vida de la Iglesia,” Ius communionis 5 (2017): 209–224. “En segundo lugar, entraba en juego un conjunto de motivos políticos. No se debe olvidar el contexto histórico en el que se desarrolla el pontificadode Pío X. La iglesia romana se sentía asediada por los Estados nacionales deideología liberal. Éstos, no solo habían privado a la Iglesia de buena parte desus propiedades en muchos países de Europa y de América Latina, sino quele negaban cualquier tipo de reconocimiento jurídico de su autonomía y laequiparaban a tantas otras asociaciones que estaban sujetas a control estatal. Desde el punto de vista político, el código canónico pío-benedictino puede interpretarse como un instrumento de oposición jurídica y política de la Iglesia frente a la pretensión de someter su propia organización al ordenamiento del Estado liberal. La Iglesia quiso así reivindicar una posición de igualdad y, al mismo tiempo, de superioridad moral frente al Estado liberal, mediante un universalismo jurídico-espiritual, que no excluye el ordenamiento estatalal reconocerlo como válido y necesario en su propio ámbito de competencia. En este sentido, la codificación canónica se puede considerar una forma de “imitación por oposición” de la Iglesia frente al Estado modern” (Ibid. 212–213). 10  P. Szabó, “Tradizioni orientali e codificazione orientale,” Ius Ecclesiae 29, no. 3 (2017): 635–658. 11  Ibid. 638–639. 12  Church always used different systematical collections of law, but development of a single collection which could be used in all courts did not happened in the West until the Middle Ages. The role of the Eastern councils still is defined differently by legal historians. They are seen as tribunals which formed the canon collections or as legislators who promulgate them.

166 

I. BORSHCH

was a 2000-year-old institution and its law in the past had a sacred status (sacred canons). That is why a great debate among canonists was sparked on the relationship between the new, codified, law and the old one. The most important question in this debate was about the substitution of the ancient canon law (ius vetum) with a new codified law. Indeed, if the codes are the only and exclusive source of the current church law, the idea of such substitution seems inevitable. Therefore, although some scholars believe that the new codes do not abolish the previous historical law of the Christian East,13 most of canonists see them as the almost exclusive sources of law, in view of the practical necessity for the functioning of church justice.14 From the Orthodox point of view, however, it is important that the Catholic codes replaced, first of all, the Corpus Juris Canonici15 as a basic instrument and a regulator of the juridical life of the Latin Church.16 Therefore, the ecumenical dialogue on canonical traditions should begin with a discussion of the canonical reforms of the first half of the second millennium in the light of ecclesiology, and not from the codes of the twentieth century.

2   Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis (1965–1981) The most important attempt to combine eastern and western canonical traditions in the twentieth century was the project Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis (LEF), started at the closing of the Vatican II but abandoned in 1981. The Lex Fundamentalis was projected as a basic law of the Catholic Church, a foundation for all other legal documents, for all canon codes

13  See, for instance, Dimitrios Salachas, “Principi di interpretazione del ‘Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium,’” in Attuali problemi di interpretazione del Codice di diritto canonico. Atti del Simposio Internazionale in occasione del I Centenario della Facoltà di Diritto Canonico, Roma, 24–26 ottobre 1996, edited by Bruno Esposito (Roma 1997): 266. 14  P. Szabó, Written, 639. 15  The Corpus Iuris Canonici is a collection of significant sources of the canon law of the Catholic Church used in canonical courts from the thirteenth century. 16  J. Sedano, “Dal Corpus Iuris Canonici al primo Codex Iuris Canonici: continuità e discontinuità nella tradizione giuridica della Chiesa latina,” Folia theologica et canonica 26/18 (2015): 215–238.

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

167

and decisions, either western or eastern.17 The Lex was named Fundamental because it was meant to express the ecclesiological teaching, the very essence of the church’s dogmatic nature in juridical language.18 And as far as it would express the roots of ecclesiology, going back to the origins of undivided Church, it was thought to be the basis for legal developments of all culturally different ecclesial traditions. On November 20, 1965, Pope Paul VI told to the members of the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon law19 about the possibility of the fundamental constitutional law as a universal juridical base for the two codes. The pope spoke directly about the Fundamental Code, the source of Constitutional Law of the Church20 and that was the beginning of the Lex Fundamentalis project. In 1965–1980 seven official concepts of the fundamental church law Lex Fundamentalis and two alternative concepts were developed. Two alternative concepts were prepared by the Evangelist study group at Heidelberg and by the Institute for Canon Law at the University of Munich.21 Although everything testifies to the exceptional ecumenical importance of the project, it was abandoned in 1981. Nevertheless, great part of it was included in the second book of the Code of Canon Law 1983 and influenced the second title of the Eastern Code. The main reason for the failure of the LEF project was that many began to perceive it as a charter of rights of the Christian faithful (christifidelis). Not a church, but a person, universal and abstract person in her struggle for her rights was regarded as a fundamental center of this document. The ideas of secular constitutionalism and human rights brought the work to a standstill. But that reason was not formally called by the commission. When the LEF was abandoned, an excuse was found in the argument that to create the constitution of the Church as a purely legal document is impossible. Such document, being legal, always would be too Latin and would cause problems in ecumenical progress. Besides, they said, we 17  See Giuseppe Alberigo (ed.), Legge e Vangelo. Discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa. (Brescia: Paideia 1972). 18  G. Thils, “La Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis remaniée,” Revue Theològique de Louvain 2, no. 2 (1971): 243–249. 19  Pontificium Consilium Codici Iuris Canonici recognoscendo, founded by the pope John XXIII. 20  L.  Rosa, “La Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis  – il lungo e faticoso iter di un Progetto,” Aggiornamenti sociali 28, no. 5 (1977): 319–337. 21   See Olav G.M.  Boelens, Synopsis Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis (Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2001).

168 

I. BORSHCH

already have the Gospel as a Fundamental Law of the Church and also the Second Vatican Council documents.22

3   The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990) The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990) is obviously the result of a hard work and great achievement in the field of canon law. It embodies the best ideas of the Second Vatican Council and has ecumenical principles in its foundation.23 But is it possible to assert with certainty that it reflects the canonical traditions of the East in the same meaning as the Orthodox understands them? Even if it employs the eastern terminology of hierarchy and regulates a lot of practices which are atypical for Latin Catholicism of the second millennium but which are more typical for Orthodoxy (e.g., married priests), the question of its closeness to Orthodoxy is quite ambiguous. To discuss the closeness of the Eastern Code to the Orthodox tradition, I will touch two, perhaps, the most controversial issues: the question of church autonomy in terms of the church sui iuris and the question of marriage. The canons of CCEO devoted to the definition of the autonomy of churches sui iuris in fact is the addition to the canons of the Latin code. Moreover, presenting the plurality of particular churches sui iuris within the Catholic Church, the Eastern Code says almost nothing about such an important point in their administrative functioning as the Roman Curia. One of the reasons of this lacunae is the fact that the third title (CCEO III), dedicated to the Supreme Authority, supplements the Latin code. In this respect, the Eastern Code can be compared to a model of a civil code, which does not mention the public order of the state, because it presupposes the existence of public codes. In other words, it exists together with public law codes in the same legal system. The legal system of the Catholic Church is organized in the way, that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990) develops in juridical 22  Hubert Jedin (ed.), The Church in the Modern Age (London: Burn&Oates 1981). Vol. 10, 173–177. 23  See the chapter “Ecumenical character of CCEO” (p.20) in Comissione della Revisione del Codice del Diritto Canonico, “Principi direttivi per la revisione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale.” Nuntia 3 (1976): 3–24.

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

169

terms of the teachings proposed by the Second Vatican Council and completes the canonical ordering of the entire Catholic Church. It is accomplished with the previously issued Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church (1983) and the Apostolic Constitution concerning the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus (1988), which is added to both Codes as a chief instrument of the Roman Pontiff in his mission. I would suggest that the very necessity to determine the church sui iuris emerges from the condition of these churches within the whole legal system: they have a supplementary character in relation to the ordinary local churches of the CIC. This leads to a rather cumbersome and unclear definition of the “сhurch” as a group of believers headed by a hierarchy— “a community of the Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law and which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui iuris by the supreme authority of the Church” (CCEO c. 27). In this definition, the moment of place (in ancient language) or territory (in modern legal terms) is completely lost. The key words of this definition are community, hierarchy and supreme authority. The only reason why this definition cannot be applied to any group of believers in the form of a congregation or church movement is simply that the supreme authority did not recognize them as a church. It is far from accidental that the canonists of the era of Paul VI and John Paul II did not succeed in arriving at a unified terminology in relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches. While the Eastern Code called the self-­ governing Catholic Churches as churches sui iuris, the Latin Code used the terms “ritual Church” (CIC cc. 111 §1 and 112 §1, 3°), “ritual Church sui iuris” (CIC cc. 111 §2 and 112 §1), or “rite” (CIC c. 383 §2).24 I would like to suggest that in these canons we can observe not just a difference in terminology, but rather a difference in ecclesiological concepts. Paradoxically, the cautious discussion of canonists in the field of Latin law on particular church as a portion of the people of God (CIC, c. 369)— turns out to be much closer in its prudent and circumspect tone, to some

24  Pope Francis letter in 2016 was an attempt to bring uniformity to terminology. See Francis, motu proprio De Concordia inter Codices, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 108 (2016) 602–606.

170 

I. BORSHCH

Orthodox canonists, who worked on the same problems on the eve of the Moscow Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (1918).25 Another example and disputable question of CCEO is the vision of the legal validity of marriage. Here we can see the inevitable transplantation of the Latin canonical doctrine on marriage. According to Victor Pospishil, “in joining the Catholic Church of Rome, the various Eastern Catholic communities had to accept the doctrinal axiom and its practical application of indissolubility, and, consequently, there are now hardly any differences between the marriage law of the various Catholic Churches.”26 The same canonist explained the difference between Catholic and Eastern non-­ Catholic position in the indissolubility: “[I]n Catholic marriage law, every aspect of a marriage is evaluated by this requirement, while the Eastern non-Catholic Churches see no practical need to dwell on questions of the validity of a marriage in terms of the existence of some impediments of human law … why concern oneself with such problems when these Churches offer to their members the possibility of remarriage after divorce?”27 As long as CCEO presents the Western version of the marriage law, it does not mention an important idea for the Eastern tradition: different disciplines of marriage for clerics and laity. The marriage of clergy is not regarded as a special marriage case by CCEO. In the Orthodox perspective the idea of different marriage modes was elaborated in canons and in canonical doctrine. According to John Meyendorff, the canons only tolerated the second marriage for laymen, excluding clergy from this toleration, “the prohibition of marriage after ordination is, of course, of different nature than that which requires that a priest be married only once, and that his wife be neither a widow, nor a divorcee. While in the first case, what is involved is only pastoral propriety and discipline, in the second case the Church, by requiring absolute monogamy of the clergy protests the scriptural, doctrinal and sacramental teaching on marriage.”28 25  For example of the Russian Orthodox reflections on canonical and ecclesiological problems in the relation to the term “people of God” see Николай Аксаков, Духа не угашайте (Петроград: Печатня Евдокимова 1895) [Nikolai Aksakov, Duha ne ugashaite (Petrograd: Pechatnya Evdokimova 1895)]. 26  Victor Pospishil. J., Eastern Catholic Church Law (Brooklyn, New  York: Saint Maron Publications, 1996). 347. 27  Ibid. 28  John Meyendorff, Marriage. An Orthodox Perspective (Crestwood, New  York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press 2000). 67.

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

171

The catholic interpreters of the Eastern Code often emphasize its links with the law of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. It is important, however, to note that such links were declared by the church legislator as an official position, presented also in the current Latin Code. This position was in the preface to the 1917 Code, written by cardinal Gasparri.29 Such interpretation—the absolutely continuous evolution of law in its movement from the Christian east to the west—was not required only by ecumenical considerations. It was the attempt to strengthen authority of the new codification.30

4   The Asymmetry of East and West Historical Canon Law in the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition This chapter began with the idea that after a century of codifications in the Catholic Church the differences between Catholic and Orthodox canon law became more visible than ever before. But the 1917 Latin Code is the fruit of almost eight centuries of canonists’ deliberation, though it took only several decades to prepare its text.31 In Catholic canonical scholarship (and especially in Eastern-Catholic canonical scholarship) it is customary to talk about the equivalence of the two codes (CIC and CCEO) and the two legal traditions, but in practice we are dealing with an asymmetric relationship between Latin and Eastern canonical “evolution” or “progress.” It is essential for the discussion of our main problem (whether the Eastern Catholic law is a bridge for ecumenical dialogue) to understand also the asymmetry in the relation of the Catholic and Orthodox Church law to the Roman law.32 What is still more 29  See Petrus Gasparri, Praefatio: “Id fuit constans catholicae Ecclesiae propositum, ex quo potissiumum tempori imperii romanileges sunt in Corpus iuris redactae, ut sacri item canones in unum colligerentur […]. Episcopiplerique et nonnulli etiam Purpuratis Patres Apostolicae Sedi instabant adhuc, ut ius canonicumemendaretur et in aptiorem componeretur ordinem, capto a recentioribus omnibus civitatibusexemplo, quemadmodum Gregorius IX Iustinianum imitare non dubitaverit” (Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917): XIX). 30  Carlo Fantappiè, Chiesa romana e modernita giuridica (Milano: Giuffrè 2008). 4. 31  See P.  Gherri, “Codificazione canonica tra tecnica e sistema,” Eastern Canon Law 2 (2013) 1–110. 32  See for instance D. Ceccarelli Morolli, “Justinian’ s Novels and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium. A Concrete Case of the Influence of Roman Law in the Code of

172 

I. BORSHCH

important is an asymmetry in the relations between the periods of canon law and civil law in the West and in the East. These differences become even more relevant for researchers precisely in the second half of the twentieth century, because for the medieval church law this century became a true “renaissance” of historical studies of canon law, which opened up a whole new perspective in this area.33 In this line the studies of the impact made by canon law on the “Western legal tradition”34 were also very important. Given this historical perspective, rediscovered in the second half of the twentieth century, is it correct to say that Orthodox Churches find themselves in the same position which the Catholic Church had before the 1917 codification?35 In other words, does the Orthodox Church stand on the eve of the codification, even with certain delay compared to the Catholic one? (The similar idea is expressed by those who believe that a pan-Orthodox council is a stage on the path to such progress.36) We should describe the situation in which the Catholic Church was on the eve of the legal reform in 1917 in order to show the difference to the Orthodox Church. It is important to understand here that the authors of the 1917 Code did not “re-write” the previous collections of canons for the twentieth century. They rely on those choices that have already been made by the Western Church throughout the entire second millennium, with all their pros and cons. They come from the whole period of jus novissimum, which stretches from the Council of Trent (1545–1563) to the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. All this was accompanied by the study of Canon Law as science, in which the main methodological school in XIX century was Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticum.37 Canons of the Eastern (Catholic) Churches Today,” Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 20, no. 1 (2016), 55–62. 33  Here it is worth mentioning such important figures in this field as Stephan Kuttner (1907–1996), Hubert Jedin (1900–1980), Paolo Prodi (1932–2016) and Brian Tierny (1922–2019). 34  See Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983). 35  Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law. 675–676. 36  See B.  Archondonis, “A Common Code for the Orthodox Churches,” in Kanon: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen 1 (Vienna: Herder, 1973): 45–53. 37  On different periods of canonistics see Eugenio Corecco, Considerazioni sul problema dei diritti fondamentali del cristiano nella Chiesa e nella società. Aspetti metodologici della questione in Eugenio Corecco, Ius et communio: scritti di diritto canonico (Lugano-Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1997), vol. 1, 245–278.

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

173

But we cannot say the same about the Orthodox East except perhaps for the school discipline of “church law,” which was greatly influenced by modern canonistic works of Western churches or the methodology of late scholasticism.38 In the second millennium time did not stop for the Orthodox Church, which also evolved (in different countries with its own characteristics), responding to the challenges of the Middle Ages, modernity, revolutions and global conflicts, without neither losing the sacramental structure of the first millennium nor creating a kind of institutions, founded by the Western churches in Rome (the Papacy and the Curia). The Orthodox structures found other political and canonical solutions, mainly developing the ecclesiastical law in relations with civil authorities. That is why denying for them the definition “before 1917” we also cannot determine them as “pre-trident” or “pre-Gratian.” It is even more difficult to compare the Catholic and Orthodox ways of legal thinking in the second half of the twentieth century, or rather, between the Second Vatican Council and the adoption of codes of the 1980s. For example, in the second half of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church adopted the international law doctrine of human rights and included it in its canon law.39 The idea of the rights of believers occupies an important place in the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches. In Orthodox Churches, individual rights are part of social and moral teaching, but, so far, they have not been included in the system of church law. Another example presents the idea of a legislator as applied to the supreme church authority. This idea took shape in the Catholic Church before the “age of codifications.” In the twentieth century, this idea was further developed and supplemented. Thanks to the mass media and the new digital possibilities, a broad and almost “democratic” discussion by people was added to the authority of the legislator and to the work of canonists. But was such an idea of a church legislator characteristic of the legal culture of antiquity, including Christian antiquity? Orthodoxy, which is still trying to maintain the perspective of the Christian culture of the first millennium, still does not have a stable relationship with the idea of the 38  The Russian example of the teaching of the church law in theological schools see Irina Borshch, Carisma e diritto nella missione della Chiesa: in dialogo con Sergiy Bulgakov ed Eugenio Corecco (Roma: Pontificia Università Urbaniana, 2012). 39  See for instance Daniele Menozzi, Chiesa e diritti umani (Bologna: Mulino, 2012).

174 

I. BORSHCH

church legislator. The mission of the promulgation of church laws in the East Roman Empire was undertaken by emperors. Today, without clarifying many canonical problems, most Orthodox Churches live according to the state laws on religion in their countries. They participate, as far as possible, in the creation of such laws and also adopt their own internal rules and statutes. The main problem still consists in the cooperation of the Orthodox Churches on the international level and in creating common norms in the perspective of the universal church mission. On the first pages of the Apostolic Constitution Sacri canones Pope John Paul II shows these two different legal paradigms—one that addresses the authority of a repeating tradition and the other that focuses on the willful act of the legislator and the complex technical work of drafting the law. In the introduction, the Pope begins with the memory of the canonical regulation of the seventh ecumenical council in Nicea in 787. Here he uses very accurate terminology, stating that the Council brought forth and confirmed the canons already existed in the tradition, the roots of which date back to apostolic times. The Council Fathers declared those canonical norms to be those which, according to the tradition, came from the sacred Apostles, “the six holy and universal Synods and Councils which gathered locally,” and “from our holy Fathers.”40 At the same time, the Pope emphasized that the law of the church, starting with Nicaea, existed as one Сorpus, a “Code” for all of the Eastern Churches (unum Corpus legum ecclesiasticarum duxit idque veluti Codicem pro omnibus Ecclesiis orientalibus confirmavit). However, then John Paul II changes the style and language of presentation. Instead of confirmations and declarations, he makes an accent on promulgation of the canons by the supreme authority and on the hierarchy of the sources of law. This is no longer the language of Councils theology, which is still important for Orthodox theologians, but the legal science concepts of the last two centuries. The main question is whether a “bridge” is possible between these two visions or, in other words, paradigms. On the one hand, we have the vision of Council, which does not invent laws, but confirms, acknowledges and reconstructs the traditional norms and the best solutions. On the other hand, we have the vision of Roman bishop, who promulgate new laws and through the laws heals complex problems. In my view, these two visions have remained unreconciled in the twentieth century.  John Paul II, Sacri Canones, 1033.

40

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

175

5   Conclusion: The Gap Between the Legal Traditions of the Churches Marks the Challenge for the Future Despite the fact that the Eastern Catholic law can hardly be considered as a bridge in ecumenical dialogue, it is still important for Orthodox canonists to study thoroughly the legal experience and norms of the Eastern Churches. The Eastern codification was a great legal work and a significant attempt to adapt the Eastern canonical material to modern church life. And it is unfortunate that until our time, the words of the Orthodox canonist John Erickson, written more than twenty years ago, are still relevant: “The 1990 CCEO has been greeted with polite silence […] this lack of response may itself be significant. Quite possibly the Orthodox at this point find the new code irrelevant to their own needs and circumstances, rendering moot the question of reception in any form.”41 But even if the East Catholic Code is important for the canonical science of all churches, including the Orthodox ones, it still remains a modern adaptation, the existence of which was due to the indeed special situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. This attempt does not fill the gap, historically formed between the legal traditions of the East and the West, but it allows the believers of the Eastern rite to exist with dignity within the Catholic legal system. The Eastern Code in thirty years of its existence did not contribute in resolving the problems of ecumenical dialogue.42 It means that the solution for these problems is still the task for the future. There are still the ecumenical questions of understanding between the Western and the Eastern Christianity in the field of law, the acquisition of the memory of common origins and a common vision of the history of canon law. For this, the Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches should continue their joint scientific research, keeping the practice of joint research

41  John Erickson, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches (1988): A Development Favoring Relations Between the Churches? in La recepción y la comunión entre las Iglesias. Actas del Coloquio internacional de Salamanca, 8–14 abril 1996, eds. H.  Legrand, J. Manzanares, A. García y García, Salamanca 1997, 359. 42  Introducing the CCEO John Paul II in the end of his speech addressed the Orthodox and expressed the hope that the Code will contribute to a fruitful ecumenical dialogue. See Ioannis Pauli PP.  II, “Allocutio occasione praesentationis Codicis Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium,” Octobre 25, 1990 in AAS 83 (1991) 486–493.

176 

I. BORSHCH

groups, conferences and projects. This should primarily relate to the study of various traditions of canon law and the history of canon law. Even though Christian Churches of the West and the East do not have a common history of canon law or even a common history of the councils, the dialogue in this area remains valuable and fruitful. Even if attempts to create a common history of the councils will suffer the same failure that the Catholic Church suffered trying to create a common code of Eastern and Latin law (the history of Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis), there is still hope. The examples of synodal experience in different churches will still remain living and spiritual examples, even if they have no binding legal force. This discussion can help the participants to clarify their own canonical consciousness, their own memory of Tradition, and even understand better the possible errors in the process of juridical modernization. Perhaps in the process of such a discussion, it will be possible to dispel many useless myths of the past. For example, exploring the issue, we can remove the sharp contrast between Caesaropapism and Papism in the context of the church and states relation in the second millennium.43 It is also important to study coexisting traditions from the time of the undivided church, no matter if those traditions are common or different. And here it is possible to name not only the eastern oiconomia or the western equitas, but also various alternative ways of developing the canonical tradition (e.g., Ivo Chartres in the West, whose approach to canon law has more intersections with Orthodox collections of canons than modern codifications of Eastern canon law).44 In a joint discussion on the canon law of Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox it is also important to distinguish between ecclesiological differences and legal ones, related, for example, to doubts about the appropriateness of certain legal methods. After all, even within the Catholic Church there has always been a wide range of disagreement and doubt

43  Paolo Gherri states that the situation of the alliance between the ecclesiastical and secular authorities did not differ too much in the West and East, in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism before the processes of revolutionary secularization began. The difference in practical implementation was not so significant between the Catholic West and the “Caesaropapist East.” P. Gherri, Written, 40–41. 44  See Stefano Violi, Il Prologo di Ivo di Chartres. Paradigmi e prospettive per la teologia e l’interpretazione del diritto canonico (Lugano: EUPRESS 2006); Cristof Rolker, Cs anon Law and the Letters of Ivo of Charters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009).

  ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND LAW: IS THE EASTERN CHURCHES… 

177

about the methods of legal reforms,45 and the same can be said about internal Orthodox discussions.46 In the end, some Orthodox and Catholic opinions are much closer to each other than to their opponents within their own respective churches. It seems to me that nowadays the canonical discussion in a comparative perspective without ignoring the differences would be the only real “bridge” between ecclesial legal systems. This discussion is possible both in the form of joint scientific research and in the form of the exchange of synodal experience.47 The issues of ecclesiological differences cannot be glossed over or hushed up. In the open recognition of the differences there are more opportunities for mutual understanding. When we recognize our disagreements, perhaps unexpectedly we will have much more agreement on other issues, because in the end, different canonical traditions grew out of one common foundation of the first millennium undivided Church of the Fathers.

45  On the different position and debate among of the Catholic canonists, where some of them doubted or even denied the need for codification, see J. Sedano, “Dal Corpus Iuris Canonici al primo Codex Iuris Canonici: continuità e discontinuità nella tradizione giuridica della Chiesa Latina,” Folia theologica et canonica 26/18 (2015): 224. 46  See N.  Afanasiev, “The Canons of the Church: Changeable or Unchangeable?” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 11 (1967): 54–68. 47  See Francis, “Address to participants in the conference promoted by the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches,” September 19, 2019, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/september/documents/papa-francesco_20190919_diritto-chieseorientali.html

The Principle of Synodality: Similarities and Differences Between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Canon Law Burkhard J. Berkmann and Tobias Stümpfl

1   The Importance of Canon Law in Inter-Church Relations When it comes to dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches, the dimension of canon law cannot be ignored. With regard to canon law, too, the question may be asked: Is it something “stolen” because a large part of the body of law that goes back to the sources of early Christianity is identical? Or is it a bridge because one function of the law is to secure peace and establish links between people and between institutions? There are but few studies that examine the relations between different churches from a canon law perspective. The first chapter1 of this essay will 1

 Written by Burkhard J. Berkmann.

B. J. Berkmann (*) • T. Stümpfl (*) Faculty of Catholic Theology, Klaus Mörsdorf Institute of Canon Law, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Munich, Germany © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_11

179

180 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

demonstrate the importance of canon law for ecumenism in general. On this basis, the second chapter2 will deal with a very specific research topic: the principle of synodality in Eastern Catholic canon law and in the law of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1.1  Encouraging the Adoption of a Canon Law Perspective Some official documents and speeches relating to ecumenical dialogue encourage the study of canon law. A very recent example is a conference held in Rome and organized by the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary ( September 16–20, 2019). The title of the conference included the question “How Canon Law Assists in the Ecumenical dialogue?” The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew gave the introductory keynote speech in which he emphasized that “[…] the canons are not juridical walls between the separated churches that distinguish those within the Church from those outside of it. On the contrary, […] the ecclesial regulatory instruments are considered as essential components for the advancement of the ecumenical movement […].”3 The conference also included a private audience with Pope Francis, who pointed out that “canon law is not only an aid to ecumenical dialogue, but also an essential dimension. Then too it is clear that ecumenical dialogue also enriches canon law.”4 This is not only a topical issue, however, but also one that has been taking centre stage in ecumenical dialogue for some time. As early as 1974, the World Council of Churches, or, more precisely, its Commission on Faith and Order, adopted a document entitled “The Ecumenical Movement and Church Law” at its conference in Accra. Even then it was recognized:  Written by Tobias Stümpfl.  Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Keynote Address “The Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches 50 Years Later and the Ecumenical Movement” (September 16, 2019), http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/ chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/relazioni-bilaterali/patriarcato-ecumenico/altridocumenti-ed-eventi/2019-conference-du-patriarche-bartholomee-a-l-occasion-du50eann.html 4  Pope Francis, “Udienza ai partecipanti al Convegno promosso dalla Società per il Diritto delle Chiese Orientali,” Bolletino Sala Stampa della Santa Sede, No. B0714, (September 19, 2019), https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/ pubblico/2019/09/19/0714/01466.html#inglese 2 3

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

181

On the whole, the ecumenical discussion on the unity of the Church has concentrated on issues of doctrine and worship as the most obvious causes for the division of the Church. With the advance of the ecumenical movement, the debate will need to include more and more constitutional and legal issues. Wherever churches consider concrete steps on the way towards the unity of the Church, they face, inevitably the question as to how their different orders can be brought closer to one another.5

This document from Accra also specifically provided for a working group to be established in order to develop a comparative study or typology of forms of the Church from a legal perspective.6 However, this attempt did not bear fruit.7 1.2  Approaching the Issue from the Canon Law Perspective Although this first attempt was not successful, the canon lawyers have repeatedly addressed such questions. Their work certainly shows an ambivalent relationship between ecumenical theology and canon law. Heribert Hallermann named a book he published in 2000 Ökumene und Kirchenrecht—Bausteine oder Stolpersteine? (Ecumenism and Canon Law—Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks?).8 In fact, whether a block becomes a building block or a stumbling block very much depends on what one does with that block. But even a stumbling block can have a healing function by bringing some heaven-storming idealists back down to the ground of reality. It cannot be denied that the clarity and definitiveness inherent in legal language make some remaining divergences more apparent. However, the legal approach in particular also has its merits. Human beings are involved in a wide variety of relationships with one another. If these relationships involve a particular degree of binding force based on claim of justice, they can assume a legal dimension. Then it becomes 5  Commission on Faith and Order, Document IV.8 The Ecumenical Movement and Church Law (1974), in Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963–1993, edited by Gunther Gassmann 283–288 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993), 283. 6  Ibid. 288. 7  H.  Engelhardt, “Zwischenkirchliche Beziehungen,” Österreichisches Archiv für Recht und Religion 68, no. 1 (2011): 77–136, 88. 8  Heribert Hallermann, Ökumene und Kirchenrecht. Bausteine oder Stolpersteine? (Mainz: Grünewald, 2000).

182 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

possible to speak of a legal relationship. Law is essentially something that connects persons and institutions; it is a bridge, so to speak. At the same time, it is precisely its formal and abstract character which offers the advantage to create connections between people and institutions that are otherwise quite different: a bridge between very different shores. And such is the opportunity that is presented in the relations between different Christian traditions and their adherents. Even before the ecclesiological status of other Christians or other ecclesial communities has been fully clarified, they can be formally recognized as legal entities, and legal relationships can be established on this basis alone, for example by contracts. On this subject, Pree writes: The law—and only the law—makes it possible to abstract from the substantive differences between the churches and thus to recognize the same legal capacity of the dialogue partner as a purely formal factor, without having to deal with all the content relating to the faith, morality, sacraments and discipline of the other partner or without having to surrender one's own identity. Rather, ecumenical dialogue presupposes the confessional identity of each partner.9

At this legal level, it is also easier to recognize the formal equality of the subjects involved. The fact that dialogue takes place on equal terms is a principle that is widely recognized in inter-church relations.10 1.3  Various Approaches to Canon Law What approaches to canon law can be followed to explore interdenominational issues? Five approaches are presented below. Theological Foundation: The first approach concerns the question of whether canon law is theologically founded in the various Christian traditions and how this is done. The diverse ecclesiological perspectives play a 9  H. Pree, “Par cum pari. Rechtliche Implikationen des ökumenischen Dialogs,” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 174, no. 2 (2005): 353–379, 362. 10  G. Larentzakis, “Welche kirchlich-theologische Einheit strebt die Orthodoxe Kirche an? Grundkonzept und Perspektiven im neuen Europa,” Orthodoxes Forum 19, no. 1–2 (2005): 175–192, 182; Pree, Par, 354; Helmuth Pree, “Kirchenrecht in der Ökumene,” in Dienst an Glaube und Recht. Festschrift für Georg May zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Anna Egler and Wilhelm Rees (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2006), 527–539, 533. Both authors refer to Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium 11.

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

183

decisive role in this. In the Catholic sphere, for example, the kerygmatic-­ sacramental theory of the Munich School should be mentioned11; in the Russian Orthodox sphere, the Sobornost doctrine is of legal and theological significance for the foundation of the synodal constitution of the Church.12 In the Orthodox tradition, for example, Sergei Bulgakov presented a remarkable attempt at establishing the theological foundation of canon law, which suggests a comparison with approaches of the Munich School.13 Regulating the Relations with other Christians: The second approach consists in examining those provisions in our own legal system that regulate the status of members of other Christian communities.14 Under what conditions can they receive sacraments or enter into a mixed marriage? In 2018, the Catholic Church in Germany engaged in a heated debate about whether a non-Catholic spouse in a mixed marriage should be entitled to receive holy communion.15 Conflict of Laws: The third approach goes a step further. It looks at those situations involving the legal systems of different churches. In order to avoid conflicts of norms, rules are required to indicate in which case the law of which church applies. Such rules are called “conflict-of-law rules.” For example, what law does a Catholic tribunal apply in trials relating to marriages if one or both parties belong to a non-Catholic denomination? The relevant rules are laid down in Articles 2–4 of the Dignitas Connubii16 instruction.17 11  Cf. Klaus Mörsdorf, “Zur Grundlegung des Rechtes der Kirche,” in Schriften zum Kanonischen Recht, edited by Winfried Aymans et  al. (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1989), 21–45, 23. 12  Cf. Richard Potz and Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht: eine Einführung, 2nd ed. (Freistadt: Plöchl, 2014), 282. 13  Cf. Irina Borshch, Carisma e diritto nella missione della chiesa. Nel dialogo con S. Bulgakov ed E. Corecco: Tesi di Dottorato in Missiologia, Pontificia Università Urbaniana, Facoltà di Missiologia (Roma: unpublished, 2011). 14  For example Heribert Hallermann, “Die Rechtsstellung nichtkatholischer Christen im Codex von 1983,” in Ökumene und Kirchenrecht—Bausteine oder Stolpersteine?, edited by Heribert Hallermann (Mainz: Grünewald, 2000), 30–48. 15  The discussion resulted in a document which was adopted by a great majority of German bishops: “Mit Christus gehen—Der Einheit auf der Spur: Konfessionsverbindende Ehen und gemeinsame Teilnahme an der Eucharistie,” Orientierungshilfe (February 20, 2018). 16  Pontificium Consilium de Legum Textibus Interpretandis, Instructio: Dignitas Connubii (January 25, 2005), (Vatican City: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 2005). 17  Burkhard J.  Berkmann, Die Ehen von/mit Nichtkatholiken vor der lateinischen Kirche. Das neue Ehe-Kollisionsrecht in Dignitas Connubii (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008).

184 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

Inter-Church Law, for example Contracts: Inter-church contracts represent a further step in the pursuit of ecumenical understanding.18 Whereas conflict of laws is a unilateral arrangement, contracts represent bilateral or multilateral regulations.19 They are binding on the churches and ecclesial communities which have signed them and form a kind of inter-church law. One example is the Magdeburg Declaration of 2007.20 It contains a formal agreement between eleven signatory communities on the mutual recognition of baptisms performed in Germany. Comparison (Common Principles of Law): Finally, the fifth approach consists in comparing the various ecclesial legal systems. The aim of the comparison is to uncover differences and similarities. Christianity has a common family tree, meaning that the same genes are to be found in all communities to some extent. Legal genes are not an exception. The law of the Early Church, which is laid down in the Bible, in the ancient church orders, in resolutions of the councils and in the writings of the Church Fathers, lives on to varying degrees until today. By extracting these genes, the comparative method can make a significant contribution to ecumenical understanding. An outstanding example of this approach is a research project led by the Anglican canon lawyer Norman Doe.21 Under his direction, a platform of experts from eight Christian traditions developed a “Statement of Principles of Christian Law” between 2013 and 2016.22 Doe explains his methodology as follows:

18   Cfr. Engelhardt, Beziehungen, 88s.; Heribert Hallermann, “Ökumenische Vereinbarungen auf unterster Ebene,” in Ökumene und Kirchenrecht—Bausteine oder Stolpersteine?, edited by Heribert Hallermann (Mainz: Grünewald, 2000), 215–220. 19  In addition, there are multilateral documents and declarations without legal force, such as the Charta oecumenica of April 22, 2001. The protestant professor of canon law Dietrich Pirson, however, considers it possible that a legal relationship is created by way of voluntary commitment, cfr. Dietrich Pirson, “Rechtliche Implikationen der Charta Oecumenica,” Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 50, no. 3 (2005): 307–323, 321. 20  Magdeburger Erklärung (April 29, 2007), Orthodoxes Forum 21 no. 2 (2007): 282. 21  Cfr. Norman Doe, “The Ecumenical Value of Comparative Church Law: Towards the Category of Christian Law,” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 17 no. 2 (2015) 135–169, 169: “While dogmas may divide churches, profound similarities between their norms of conduct produce juridical convergence. This reveals that the juridical norms of the faithful, whatever their various denominational affiliations, link Christians through their stimulation of common forms of action. […] This must count for something in the ecumenical enterprise.” 22  Mark Hill and Norman Doe, “Principles of Christian Law,” in: Ecclesiastical Law Journal 19 no. 2 (2017): 138–155.

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

185

A comparison of the juridical instruments of churches, in a global compass, reveals profound similarities between the Christian traditions in their treatment, as to both internal and external relations, of church ministry, governance, doctrine, worship, ritual, ecumenism, property and public activity in the State and wider society. From these similarities emerge principles of Christian law common to the churches studied.23

1.4  The Principle of Synodality from a Comparative Perspective This comparative method which is also used in the present article is particularly promising when it comes to the comparison of Orthodox canon law with the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Both draw with particular fidelity and appreciation on the patrimony of the Early Church. For reasons of space, the chapter is limited to the Russian Orthodox Church. The principle of synodality was chosen as the object of comparison. This is an important element of the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Orthodox Churches have long experience in holding synods. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is usually characterized by a monocratic leadership that culminates in the papal primacy. However, the Second Vatican Council is a great example of synodality in the Catholic Church. It emphasized the principle of episcopal collegiality and empowered national bishop’s conferences. The frequent convocation of synods of bishops by Pope Francis has led to a new appreciation of synodality in the Catholic Church. As an example of the ecumenical relevance of canon law, Pope Francis mentioned synodality in the aforementioned private audience: When translated into established institutions and procedures of the Church, synodality expresses the ecumenical dimension of canon law. On the one hand, we have the opportunity to learn from the synodal experience of other traditions, especially those of the Eastern Churches […]. On the other hand, it is clear that the way in which the Catholic Church experiences synodality is important for its relations with other Christians. This is a challenge for ecumenism.24

The following chapter applies the comparative method to the principle of synodality. 23  Norman Doe, Christian Law. Contemporary Principles, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013): 384. 24  Pope Francis, Udienza.

186 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

2   Comparing Two Legal Traditions In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis emphasized that “in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality.”25 However, if one scours the codes of the Catholic Church, one will find that the concept of “synodality” is not mentioned in them at all. But the term “synod” does occur and can be subjected to examination “because, in the synodal bodies of the ecclesiastical order, what can be called synodality in the abstract takes on tangible form.”26 2.1  The Russian Orthodox Church The Orthodox Church consists of a number of autocephalous churches. “Autocephalous” means that they regulate their internal affairs independently. All churches, however, share a common faith, the same liturgy and the same canon law.27 Nine of the fourteen autocephalous churches are organized as patriarchates, whose leaders bear the title of patriarch, while the heads of the other churches bear the title of archbishop.28 The synod, on the other hand, is the “supreme authority in all matters of doctrine, spirituality, liturgy and rites.”29 It elects both the head and the bishops of the respective church and represents it to the outside world, including in

25  Pope Francis, “Evangelii gaudium” (November 24, 2013), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 105, no. 12 (2013): 1019–1137, no. 246. 26  Stephan Haering, “Autorität und Synodalität im Gesetzbuch der lateinischen Kirche,” in Autorität und Synodalität. Eine interdisziplinäre und interkonfessionelle Umschau nach ökumenischen Chancen und ekklesiologischen Desideraten, edited by Christoph Böttigheimer and Johannes Hofmann (Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, 2008), 297–320, 297. 27  Anargyros Anapliotis, Ehe und Mönchtum im orthodoxen kanonischen Recht. Eine Kanonsammlung mit den Kanones der Lokalsynoden und der Kirchenväter, 2nd ed. (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2019), 11. 28  Grigorios Larentzakis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Ihr Leben und ihr Glaube, 3rd ed. (Vienna– Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2012), 14–15. 29  Konrad Onasch, “Synode,” in Kunst und Liturgie der Ostkirche in Stichworten, unter Berücksichtigung der Alten Kirche, edited by Konrad Onasch (Vienna–Cologne–Graz: Böhlau, 1981), 347–349, 347.

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

187

the rights and duties which it delegates to the Patriarch and, through him, to the bishops.30 The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is the largest Orthodox Church. It has about 150 million members who live in different countries around the world. The ROC consists of autonomous and self-governing churches, exarchates, metropolitan areas, dioceses, vicariates, synodal institutions, deaneries, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, sisterhoods, theological educational institutions, missions, representations and metochions, which canonically comprise the Moscow Patriarchate.31 The legal basis of the ROC is formed by the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition, the canons and rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers, the resolutions of its Local and Bishops’ Councils, the Holy Synod and the decrees of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the present Statute (Ustav) of the ROC, which was adopted in 2000.32 2.1.1

 he Synods in the Central Organization of the Russian T Orthodox Church According to Chapter I, Article 6 of the Statute, the ROC has a hierarchical structure of governance. The supreme bodies of the church authority and governance are: (1) the Local Council; (2) the Bishops’ Council; (3) and the Holy Synod headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.33 The individual synods are briefly presented below. Just a few comments on each of them will have to suffice. The Local Council (Pomestnyj Sobor) was first convened in 1917–1918. It restored the patriarchate in the ROC and introduced a series of reforms which did not, however, see the light of day. With the October Revolution of 1917 began a period of unprecedented persecution of religion in all parts of the former Russian empire, resulting in a far-reaching destruction of church life.34

 Onasch, Synode, 347.  Chapter I, Article 2 of the Statute of the ROC. The statute is available on the official website of the ROC (http://www.patriarchia.ru/). For an English translation see the following website: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/ 32  Chapter I, Article 4 of the Statute of the ROC. Changes and amendments were made to this statute in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016 and 2017. 33  Chapter I, Article 7 of the Statute of the ROC. 34   Alexej Klutschewsky et  al., “Das Statut der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche,” in Kirchenverfassungen, edited by Carl G.  Fürst and Richard Potz (Egling: Roman Kovar, 2006), 41–72, 48. Further literature can be found in: Potz/Synek, Kirchenrecht, 127–129. 30 31

188 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

According to the current statute of the ROC, the Local Council is the highest assembly of the faithful of the entire Church. Participants in the Local Council are bishops, priests, monks, nuns, and lay people with ordinary voting rights.35 Decisions are taken by a simple majority of votes. In theory, clerics, monks, nuns and lay people can outvote even the bishops because they are in the majority in the Local Council. However, a decision of the Local Council cannot be enacted in law if it is rejected by two-thirds of the bishops.36 The Local Council has various rights and obligations, which cannot be discussed in detail here. Its most important tasks include the awarding of autocephaly and autonomy as well as the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.37 According to the Statute of the ROC of 1917–1918, the Local Council was to be convened at regular intervals, for at least every three years.38 In recent years, however, the Local Council has lost much of its significance in the ROC.39 In fact, Local Councils are only very rarely convened, usually for the election of the new Patriarch. The last Local Council met in 2009, when it elected Kirill as Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia.40 The Bishops’ Council (Archierejskij Sobor) is the highest assembly of bishops in the ROC. All bishops in the entire ROC, that is both eparchial and vicar bishops, participate with ordinary voting rights.41 Decisions are taken by a simple majority of votes. The Patriarch, like any other bishop, has only one vote.42 Therefore, he can be outvoted by the other bishops at the Council. Lay people can be invited as advisers but do not have the right to vote.43 The Bishops’ Council is the supreme body of the Russian Orthodox Church in doctrinal, canonical, liturgical, pastoral, administrative and other matters concerning both the internal and external life of the Church. It is also responsible for maintaining fraternal relations with other Orthodox Churches and defining the character of relations with  Chapter II, Article 3 of the Statute of the ROC.  Chapter II, Article 13 of the Statute of the ROC. 37  See Chapter II, Article 5, b) and c) of the Statute of the ROC. 38  Klutschewsky, Statut, 48. 39  See Sect. 2.3.1 of this chapter. 40  J.  Oeldemann, “Die Synodalität in der Orthodoxen Kirche,” Catholica 70, (2016): 133–148, 141. 41  Chapter III, Article 2 of the Statute of the ROC. 42  Chapter III, Article 13 of the Statute of the ROC. 43  Chapter III, Article 12 of the Statute of the ROC. 35 36

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

189

non-­Orthodox confessions and non-Christian religious communities as well as with states and secular society.44 The Bishops’ Council is also the ROC’s highest court. As part of the Local Council the Bishops’ Council decides in the first and last instance on dogmatic and canonical deviations in the activities of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. In the last instance the Bishops’ Council decides on disagreements between two or more bishops and on ecclesiastical misdemeanours of bishops and heads of Synodal institutions.45 The Bishops’ Council is convened only on certain occasions or at certain times. However, it must be convened at least once over a period of four years.46 Usually Bishops’ Councils are convened at intervals of two to three years. In the period between two Bishops’ councils, the ROC is governed by the Holy Synod (Svjaščennyj Sinod) with the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia as its head.47 The Holy Synod consists of fifteen members: the Patriarch alongside nine permanent and five temporary members.48 Lay people can be invited as advisers but do not have the right to vote in the Holy Synod.49 However, the Holy Synod and the Patriarch are accountable to the Bishops’ Council.50 All decisions of the Holy Synod must also be confirmed by the Bishops’ Council.51 The Holy Synod meets in two session periods. The summer session period lasts from March to August and the winter equivalent from September to February of the following year.52 2.1.2 Other Synodal Bodies There are other executive bodies in the ROC in addition to the councils and synods. The Supreme Church Council (Vysšij Cerkovnyi Sovet), which consists of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the heads of the synodal institutions, and members appointed by the Holy Synod, coordinates

44  Chapter III, Article 5 of the Statute of the ROC. Rights and obligations of the council are listed in Chapter III, Article 5 of the Statute. 45  Chapter III, Article 6 of the Statute of the ROC. 46  Chapter III, Article 3 of the Statute of the ROC. 47  Chapter V, Article 1 of the Statute of the ROC. 48  Chapter V, Article 3 of the Statute of the ROC. 49  Chapter III, Article 7 of the Statute of the ROC. 50  Chapter IV, Article 2; Chapter V, Article 2 of the Statute of the ROC. 51  Chapter III, Article 5, o) of the Statute of the ROC. 52  Chapter V, Article 6 of the Statute of the ROC.

190 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

the activities of the synodal and other church institutions.53 On the other hand, the Inter-Council Presence (Mežsobornoe Prisutstvie) is primarily responsible for preparing the decisions of the Local Council and Bishops’ Council and the Holy Synod. It meets in the period between two Local or Bishops’ Councils.54 According to Johannes Oeldemann, the ROC thus “has a sophisticated system of church leadership that bundles responsibility at different levels which can, if necessary, correct each other.”55 In practice, however, the Holy Synod plays the key role.56 2.2  The Eastern Catholic Churches There are twenty-four autonomous particular churches (ecclesiae sui iuris) within the Catholic Church, the Latin Church (Ecclesia latina) being only one of them. According to the documents of the Second Vatican Council, these churches “are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.”57 The twenty-three Eastern Catholic Churches differ from each other in respect of the liturgical and theological traditions from which they emerged.58 Like the Orthodox and Oriental Churches, they see themselves as genuine heirs to the eastern ecclesiastical tradition:59 “The various churches within the Catholic Church all have their own liturgical customs, theological and legal patrimony and their own legal discipline—yet they all partake in one faith, the same sacraments and the same ecclesiastical

 Chapter VI, Article 3; Chapter VI, Article 6 of the Statute of the ROC.  Chapter VII, Article 1 of the Statute of the ROC. 55  Oeldemann, Synodalität, 141. 56  Ibid. 57   Second Vatican Council, “Orientalium ecclesiarum” (November 21, 1964), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57, no. 1 (1965): 76–89. 58  Andriy Mykhaleyko, Die katholischen Ostkirchen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 12. The history of the identity of these churches is extremely complex and cannot be traced in detail here. For further information, see: ibid. 34–153. 59  Ibid. 12. 53 54

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

191

leadership or, as Lumen Gentium 23d puts it, the one divine constitution of the whole church (unica divina constitutione).”60 The Eastern Catholic Churches have their own code, known as the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO). The CCEO was promulgated by Pope John Paul II on October 18, 1990, and entered into force on October 1, 1991.61 The legal definition of the term Ecclesiae sui iuris is contained in Canon 27, which says: A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.62

The Ecclesiae sui iuris are ranked in four categories in the CCEO which distinguishes between: . Patriarchal churches (cc. 55–150 CCEO) 1 2. Archiepiscopal churches (cc. 151–154 CCEO) 3. Metropolitan churches sui iuris (cc. 155–173 CCEO) 4. Other Ecclesiae sui iuris (cc. 174–176 CCEO) The patriarchal churches (Ecclesiae patriarchales) represent the first and highest degree of an Ecclesia sui iuris.63 The structure of the archiepiscopal churches is almost identical to that of the patriarchal churches.64 Differences arise above all in the election of the Patriarch or of the Major Archbishop.65 Whenever the patriarchal churches are referred to in the following, the archiepiscopal churches are included as well.

60  H. Pree, “Eine Kirche in vielen Völkern, Sprachen und Riten,” Archiv für Katholisches Kirchenrecht 178, no. 2 (2009): 396–426, 396. 61  Pope Johannes Paul II., “Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium” (October 18, 1990), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 82, no. 11 (1990): 1061–1353. 62  Canon 27 CCEO. 63  John D.  Faris, “The Patriarchal Churches,” in A Guide to the Eastern Code. A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, edited by George Nedungatt (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2002), 155–200, 155. 64  Pree, Kirche, 397. 65  See Sect. 2.3.4.

192 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

2.2.1 The Synods of the Patriarchal and Archiepiscopal Churches All patriarchal churches have a synodal constitution: “The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.”66 The Synod of Bishops (Synodus episcoporum) is the highest assembly of bishops in a patriarchal church. It is convened and led by the Patriarch.67 All the bishops of this church, that is both the eparchial and the titular bishops, must be invited to the Synod of Bishops.68 Other hierarchs who are not bishops can also be invited, as can advisers, but they do not have the right to vote at the Synod.69 According to c. 110 § 1 CCEO, only the Synod of Bishops has the right to enact laws that apply at the level of the patriarchal church as a whole.70 The Synod of Bishops is also the highest court of this church, albeit only within the limits of its territory and without prejudice to the competence of the Apostolic See.71 It elects the Patriarch, the bishops, and the candidates for the offices mentioned in c. 149 CCEO.72 The synod of bishops of the patriarchal church is not competent for administrative actions unless the Patriarch determines otherwise for certain actions or common law reserves some actions to the synod, with due regard for the Canons which require the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal church.73 The Synod of Bishops is convened only on certain occasions or at certain times. This can take place annually if provided for by the canon law of the particular church.74 The Permanent Synod (Synodus permanens) consists of the Patriarch and four bishops who

 Second Vatican Council, Orientalium ecclesiarum 9.  Canon 103 CCEO. 68  However, the voting rights of the titular and eparchial bishops who are employed outside the territory of the patriarchal church may be restricted by the particular law of this church. See Canon 102 §§ 1 and 2 CCEO. 69  Canon 102 § 3 CCEO. 70  Canon 110 § 1 CCEO. 71  Canon 1062 § 1 CCEO. 72  Canon 110 § 3 CCEO. 73  Canon 110 § 4 CCEO. 74  Canon 106 CCEO. 66 67

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

193

are appointed for a period of five years.75 It is convened and led by the Patriarch.76 The Permanent Synod has no legislative or judicial authority in the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, merely possessing certain administrative powers. In certain cases, the Patriarch must obtain the counsel (consilium) or the consent (consensus) of the Permanent Synod.77 The Permanent Synod must be convened at fixed times but at least twice a year, as often as the Patriarch deems it useful and as often as matters are to be discussed in respect of which the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches requires the consent or the counsel of the Synod.78 2.2.2 The Patriarchal Assembly In addition to the synods, there are also various advisory bodies in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Comparable to the Latin “synods” (e.g. diocesan synod) and “councils” (e.g. pastoral council, council of priests), they have no deliberative voting right (votum deliberativum), but only an advisory one (votum consultativum)79: The Patriarchal Assembly (Conventus patriarchalis) is a consultative group of the entire Church over which the patriarch presides and which assists the patriarch and the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church in dealing with matters of major importance especially in order to harmonize appropriately the forms and programs of the apostolate and ecclesiastical discipline with the current circumstances of the time, taking into account the common good of its own Church as well as the common good of the entire territory where several Churches sui iuris coexist.80

 Canon 115 § 1 CCEO.  Canon 116 § 1 CCEO. 77  In 10 cases the CCEO requires consultation with the Permanent Synod; in 34 cases the Patriarch must obtain the consent of the Permanent Synod. A list of the individual canons can be found in: Thomas M.  Németh, Eine Kirche nach der Wende. Die Ukrainische Griechisch-Katholische Kirche im Spiegel ihrer synodalen Tätigkeit (Freistadt: Plöchl, 2005), 71, no. 282. 78  Canon 120 CCEO. 79  Canon 140 CCEO; Helmuth Pree, “Die Synoden im Recht der katholischen orientalischen Kirchen,” in Unverbindliche Beratung oder kollegiale Steuerung? Kirchenrechtliche Überlegungen zu synodalen Vorgängen, edited by Wilhelm Rees and Joachim Schmiedl (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014), 247–263, 249. 80  Canon 140 CCEO. 75 76

194 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

Participants in the Patriarchal Assembly are clerics, lay people and religious members in accordance with c. 143 CCEO.  Persons from other churches sui iuris can also be invited and can take part in it according to the norm of the statutes. Some observers from non-Catholic churches and ecclesiastic communities can also be invited to the Patriarchal Assembly.81 The Patriarchal Assembly must be convened whenever the Patriarch— with the consent of the Permanent Synod or the Synod of Bishops—deems it useful, but at least once in a period of five years.82 2.3  Comparison of Laws In the following, the synods of the ROC and the patriarchal churches of the Eastern Catholic Churches are compared. The presentation focuses on the participants and the competences of the synods. 2.3.1 The Different Types of Synods The synods in the law of the Eastern Catholic churches are purely episcopal assemblies: “The right to participate in the sense of membership exists only for consecrated bishops (omnes et soli Episcopi ordinati).”83 This applies to both the Synod of Bishops and the Permanent Synod. Other clerics who are not bishops and lay people may be invited as advisers. However, only the bishops have ordinary voting rights.84 The ROC, on the other hand, distinguishes between purely episcopal assemblies (e.g. the Bishops’ Council and the Holy Synod) and so-called mixed bodies85 (e.g. the Local Council). Whereas only bishops with ordinary voting rights can participate in the Bishops’ Council and the Holy Synod, clerics, monks, nuns and lay people can take part in the Local Council.86 Clerics and lay people with ordinary voting rights are involved in the synods not only of the ROC but also of other Orthodox Churches. For example, “it is characteristic of the Romanian Orthodox Church and most Slavic churches that, alongside or above the ‘Synod of Hierarchy,’ there is also a national church assembly with the participation of clerics  Canon 143 CCEO.  Canon 141 CCEO. 83  W.  Aymans, “Synodale Strukturen im Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium,” Archiv für Katholisches Kirchenrecht 160, no. 2 (1991): 367–389, 374. 84  Canon 102 § 2 CCEO. 85  Potz/Synek, Kirchenrecht, 456. 86  Chapter II, Article 3 of the Statute of the ROC. 81 82

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

195

and lay representatives.”87 According to the law of the ROC, the clerics and lay people thus have certain rights and duties at the Synod. It should be critically noted, however, that the national council has lost much of its importance in recent years. According to the Statute of the ROC of 1917–1918, the “supreme legislative, administrative, judicial and control authority in the Russian Orthodox Church […] rests with the Local Council, which is convened periodically at certain intervals and consists of bishops, clerics and lay people.”88 In 2000, the ROC adopted a new statute. In this context, many of the powers of the Local Council were transferred to the Bishops’ Council.89 According to the Statute of 2000, it is no longer the Local Council but the Bishops’ Council, which has the supreme authority in matters of the doctrine of faith, liturgy, canon law, pastoral care and administration.90 These transfers of competence have dramatically weakened the position of the laity, while the position of the bishops has been strengthened. The curtailments of the powers of the Local Council have also led to an intensive discussion on questions of synodality in the ROC.91 2.3.2 Legislation In the ROC, laws can be enacted by both the Bishops’ Council and the Holy Synod. All laws enacted by the Holy Synod must, however, also be approved by the Bishops’ Council.92 In the Eastern Catholic Churches, on the other hand, only the Synod of Bishops has the right to legislate at the level of the patriarchal churches as a whole.93 The Permanent Synod has no legislative power but only certain administrative powers.94 According to Thomas Németh, it is more like a kind of “congregation of the Patriarch”95 which has the task of “limiting the authority of the Patriarch  Ibid.  Peter Hauptmann and Gerd Stricker, Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Rußland. Dokumente ihrer Geschichte (1860–1980), (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 642. 89  Klutschewsky, Statut, 63–65. 90  Chapter III, Article 1 of the Statute of the ROC. 91  Potz/Synek, Kirchenrecht, 374. 92  Chapter III, Article 5, o) of the Statute of the ROC. 93  Canon 110 § 1 CCEO. 94  The weak position of the Permanent Synod in the law of the Eastern Catholic churches is criticized by some authors. See: J.  Hajjar, “Die Patriarchalsynoden im neuen Codex Canonicus für die katholischen Ostkirchen,” Concilium 26, (1990): 319–325. 95  Németh, Kirche, 71. 87 88

196 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

in important matters by requiring that his decisions be ratified or discussed in an advisory capacity by the Permanent Synod.”96 In the patriarchal churches of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the laws and decisions of the Synod of Bishops are promulgated by the Patriarch.97 The Synod of Bishops has the right to determine the form and timing of the promulgation of laws and the publication of decisions.98 In the ROC, the laws are published in the name of the Holy Synod. Promulgation by the Patriarch is not provided for in the law of the ROC.99 Differences can also be observed between the patriarchal churches of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the ROC in terms of the interpretation of laws. In the ROC, the Holy Synod is responsible for the interpretation of the laws in the period between two councils.100 In the Eastern Catholic Churches, however, the authentic interpretation of laws in the period between two Synods of Bishops is the competence of the Patriarch, after having consulted with the permanent synod.101 In the ROC, the laws enacted by the Bishops’ Council or the Holy Synod apply throughout the world, that is both within the canonical territory of the ROC and in the so-called diaspora. In the patriarchal churches of the Eastern Catholic Churches, however, the laws enacted by the Synod of Bishops apply only within the territory of the church concerned.102 If, on the other hand, the laws of the Synod of Bishops have been approved by the Apostolic See, they will then apply all over the world.103 However, the imperative that the laws of the Synod of Bishops should apply only within the territory of the patriarchal church is proving

 Ibid. 70.  Canon 112 § 1 CCEO. 98  Canon 111 § 1 and Canon 1489 § 2 CCEO. Acts regarding laws and decisions are to be sent to the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible (mittantur). Certain acts or even all of them should be communicated to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches according to the judgment of the synod. Canon 111 § 3 CCEO. 99  Chapter III, Article 17 of the Statute of the ROC. 100  Chapter V, Article 25, e) of the Statute of the ROC. 101  Canon 112 § 2 CCEO. 102  Liturgical laws, on the other hand, apply all over the world. Canon 150 § 2 CCEO. 103  Canon 150 § 2 CCEO. “Eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, who desire to do so, can attribute the force of law to disciplinary laws and other synodal decisions in their own eparchies, provided they do not exceed their competence; if however these laws or decisions are approved by the Apostolic See, they have the force of law everywhere in the world.” Canon 150 § 3 CCEO. 96 97

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

197

problematic in the light of the increase in migratory movements.104 After all, in some Eastern Catholic Churches the majority of the faithful already live outside the territory of their own church sui iuris.105 This situation is likely to become more commonplace in the future, with all the concomitant legal issues and problems. In this context, the possibility of reforming Eastern Catholic canon law should be considered. 2.3.3 Court The Bishops’ Council is the highest court in the ROC. It rules in the first and last instance on dogmatic and canonical deviations in the activities of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. However, the judgement will not enter into force until it has been ratified by two-thirds of the members of the Local Council.106 It is the Supreme General Court of the Church (Vysšij Obščecerkovnyi Sud) which rules in the first instance on cases of ecclesiastical misdemeanours committed by bishops and heads of the Synodal institutions.107 However, all such decisions must be ratified by the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia and by the Holy Synod.108 If the Patriarch and the Holy Synod do not agree with a decision, the matter is referred to the Bishops’ Council, which, as the highest court of the ROC, decides in the second and last instance.109 In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Synod of Bishops does not have the right to hand down judicial rulings on the Patriarch or to remove him; it cannot carry out proceedings against bishops and does not have judicial power over bishops outside its territory. This is because, in the Catholic Church, these rights are the sole prerogative of the Pope.110 The Synod of Bishops has far fewer powers in the law of the Eastern Catholic Churches than in that of the ROC: “In respect of proceedings against bishops, one can even discern a step backwards behind the cover of the ‘Sollicitudinem Nostram’: Whereas the Patriarch and the Permanent Synod were able to 104  For further information see: L. Lorusso, “Estensione della potestà patriarcale e sinodale in diaspora: designazione dei Vescovi, erezione di circoscrizioni ecclesiastiche, clero uxorato,” Angelicum 83, (2006): 845–870. 105  Pree, Kirche, 114, no. 49. 106  Chapter III, Article 6; Chapter IV, Article 12; Chapter IX, Article 4 and Article 27 of the Statute of the ROC. 107  Chapter IX, Article 18 of the Statute of the ROC. 108  Chapter IV, Article 7, p); Chapter V, Article 25, s) of the Statute of the ROC. 109  Chapter III, Article 6, b); Chapter IX, Article 23 of the Statute of the ROC. 110  Canon 1060 § 1, 2° CCEO.

198 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

prosecute causae criminales minores against bishops and at least initiate causae maiores, according to CCEO all criminal proceedings against bishops are a matter for the Pope (c. 1060 § 1 CCEO).”111 2.3.4 Election of the Patriarch and Bishops As has already been mentioned, in the ROC the election of the Patriarch takes place at the Local Council. In other words, representatives from the ranks of clerics, monks, nuns and lay people with ordinary voting rights also take part in the election of the Patriarch.112 In the patriarchal churches of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Patriarch is elected by the Synod of Bishops.113 Following the election, the new Patriarch must request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand as soon as possible.114 Clerics and lay people are not actively involved in the election of the Patriarch. The election of the Major Archbishop corresponds to that of the Patriarch. Unlike the Patriarch, however, the Major Archbishop must petition the confirmation of his election from the Roman Pontiff in a letter signed in his own hand.115 Different regulations also apply to the election of bishops. In the ROC, bishops are elected by the Holy Synod.116 The CCEO sets out two different procedures for the appointment of bishops. Within the territory of the patriarchal church, the bishops are elected by the Synod of Bishops. Outside this territory the Synod of Bishops, fulfilling the norms of the canons on the election of bishops, has the right to elect at least three candidates for filling the office of eparchial bishop, coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishop outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and, through the Patriarch, propose them to the Roman Pontiff for appointment.117

111  Németh, Kirche, 63. The Motu Proprio Sollicitudinem Nostram was promulgated by Pope Pius XII and was part of the pre-conciliar Eastern Code. Pius XII., Motu Proprio Sollicitudinem Nostram, 06.01.1950, in: AAS 42 (195) 5–120. 112  Chapter II, Article 3 of the Statute of the ROC. 113  Canon 110 § 3 CCEO. 114  Canon 76 § 2 CCEO. 115  Canon 153 § 2 CCEO. 116  Chapter V, Article 26, a) of the Statute of the ROC. 117  Canon 110 § 3; Canon 149 and Canon 181 CCEO.

  THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNODALITY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES… 

199

3   Concluding Remarks According to Helmuth Pree, the synodal element “is essentially part of the common patrimony of the Eastern Churches as well as of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church (cf. c. 177 §1 CCEO).”118 However, the synodal element may be structured differently in nature and intensity.119 Comparing the law of the Eastern Catholic churches with that of the ROC, it can be seen that both similarities and differences can be observed with regard to the participants and the competences of the synods. In order to serve as a common theological basis between the two churches, the synodal principle would have to be subjected to further clarification. A promising study pursuing this goal has been elaborated by the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group for many years and is called: “Serving Communion. Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality.” One conclusion of this study is: Together, we affirm that we have much to learn from one another concerning issues of primacy and synodality. The Catholic Church has been able to sustain a strongly functioning primacy, even if some of its manifestations are viewed as problematic by the Orthodox. The Orthodox, on the other hand, have mostly been able to preserve strong synodal structures at local, regional, and more recently, global levels, even if these at times result in difficult situations that give Catholics pause. Thus each side exhibits both strengths and weaknesses, which we can all acknowledge.120

In this context, the role of the laity must also be addressed. After all, the idea of synodality refers to the participation of the whole People of God in the life and mission of the Church.121 This chapter has made it clear, above all, that synodality is a common gene in the family tree of Christianity, albeit one which is realized legitimately in different ways. A similar conclusion is reached by the so called Chieti-Document, which says:  Pree, Synoden, 262.  Cf. Winfried Aymans, “Synodales Prinzip,” in Lexikon des Kirchenrechts, ed. Stephan Haering and Heribert Schmitz (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004): 929s., 929. 120   Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group, Serving Communion. Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality, Graz 2018, No. 17.11. 121  Cfr. International Theological Commission, “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church,” (March 2, 2018): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html, § 7. 118 119

200 

B. J. BERKMANN AND T. STÜMPFL

Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of love. […] This common heritage of theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices from the first millennium constitutes a necessary reference point and a powerful source of inspiration for both Catholics and Orthodox as they seek to heal the wound of their division at the beginning of the third millennium.122

Thus, the principle of Synodality is not something “stolen” but something “inherited.” There should be no dispute over inheritance between siblings. Legal instruments can form a bridge between them.

122  Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church (Chieti, September 21, 2016), No. 20–21, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

The Canonical Territory Concept and the Eastern Catholic Churches: Challenges on the Ukrainian Example Ihor Rantsya

With regard to both the controversy regarding Uniatism and internal conflicts, the Orthodox Church often uses the concept of “canonical territory” which before has never been a direct issue in the Catholic-Orthodox or inter-Orthodox theological dialogue. Despite the fact that it is one of the most widespread territorial concepts of traditional ecclesiology, its practical usage has political and even military undertones: the existence of someone’s territory means that there is someone who possesses, protects or extends this territory, even by the annexation of the territories of others. As a matter of fact, the Church of Christ not only has a sacramental dimension as the mystical Body of Christ but is also manifested as a territorially organized institution that exists not only in geographical but also in human dimension. The latter has recently undergone major transformations for which the church has proved to be unprepared. In an institutional sense, while remaining strictly hierarchical, the church finds itself in a de-hierarchized and de-structured society in which relations,

I. Rantsya (*) Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Paris, Paris, France © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_12

201

202 

I. RANTSYA

communication, and mission as such function on a network principle. Under these circumstances, the usage of traditional territorial categories clashes with the reality of the church and is a great challenge for ecclesiastical theological thought. This state of affairs gives rise to a new interest in territorial concepts of ecclesiology in order to rethink the new human and geographical realities in which the postmodern church has found itself. Canonical territory, one of the most interesting and the most controversial geo-ecclesiological concepts, is being denied by the Catholic Church, exaggerated by the Orthodox Churches and ignored by the Protestant Churches.

1   Principal Issues Concerning the Concept of Canonical Territory from the Point of View of Ecclesiology and Canon Law The concept of canonical territory has been in usage since the 1930s. From the early 1990s it was promoted by Russian theologians, Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyayev),1 and priest Vsevolod Chaplin2 as an ecclesiological concept with the purpose of arguing the impossibility of separating the Orthodox Churches in the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union from the Moscow Patriarchate. The idea of canonical territory was also used by the Russian Orthodox Church to limit the development of so-called heterodox churches in the Russian Federation with the beginning of religious freedom after the collapse of the Soviet regime in 1991 as well as to prevent the proselytism.3 At the same time, the other Orthodox Churches utilized the Russian idea of canonical territory to serve their own interests, including in the field of inter-Orthodox relations. While some local churches in the Balkan and Baltic regions addressed the territorial limits of their jurisdiction in virtue of the concept of canonical territory, the patriarchate of Constantinople used it for their own

1  In 1989–2009, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2  In 1991–1997, head of the Section of public relations of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. 3  Jaroslaw Buciora, “Canonical Territory of the Moscow Patriarchate: an Analysis of Contemporary Russian Orthodox Thought,” http://www.orthodox-christian-comment. co.uk/canonical_territory_of_the_moscow_patriarchate.htm [Accessed: January 30, 2020].

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

203

benefit, thereby justifying its exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora. Evidently, the initial idea applied in the twentieth century to the concept of canonical territory has always existed in practical ecclesiology since the period of legalization of Christianity during the Roman Empire, at which time church structure was coordinated definitively within regional power structures. This principle postulates that one concrete territory must have only one ecclesiastical authority, represented by one bishop. Being generally similar to the regional government of the Roman Empire (each province has one vicar who represents one emperor), this principle has also been argued in ecclesiological terms: for a particular local church, especially in the liturgy,  the bishop represents Christ who  himself is also one and unique. The complicated system of administrative divisions in the Roman Empire gave rise to a complicated ecclesial structure.4 Throughout church history, various local and ecumenical councils confirmed the principle that a given territorial circumscription must have only one hierarch, whose rights must be protected against intervention by other hierarches. Given the complexity of the structures involved, this principle functioned on different levels: local (parish—parish pastor, “curé,” “paroccco”), regional (diocese—bishop), and global (patriarchate—patriarch), and so on. Here are some examples of the early Christian tradition: canons 14, 15, 34, 35 of the Apostolic Canons (the fourth century) prohibit a bishop and a presbyter from practicing outside of their own diocese or parish; canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) strictly and directly forbids the presence of two or more practicing bishops in the same city; and canons 6 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) and 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381) grant some dioceses in the most important cites the authorization to wield authority over the adjacent dioceses, thereby laying the foundations of the future Pentarchy system. From the geographical point of view, the latter process caused a territorial complication of the global church structure. All these and many other ancient canons were inspired by the same idea: each ecclesiastical authority has its own exclusive geographic sector of legal pastoral and sacramental responsibility and jurisdictional power. 4  The creation of dioceses as the regroupings of provinces during Diocletian’s reform in the end of the third century caused the emergence of the metropolitan dioceses, that is metropolitanates.

204 

I. RANTSYA

Evidently, this principle retains its relevance today and is reflected in Catholic canon law: both Eastern and the Western Catholic codes of law distinguish between “someone’s own territory” and the “territory of someone else”5 as well as between the territory within the confines of a church or diocese and the territory outside its limits.6 These juridical concepts are similar to the idea of canonical or non-canonical territory. Nevertheless, Catholic canon law allows a parallel hierarchy on the same territory.7 As opposed to that, modern Orthodox canon law is not codified: it exists as a non-systematized corpus of canonical rules fixed by ecumenical and local councils, where the term “canonical territory” is neither defined nor used directly. Russian Orthodox schollars are very active in their attempts to introduce this term into canon law and ecclesiological terminology as well as into inter-church relations. The following is a description of their main arguments. Some researchers attempt to ground their canonical territory concept in the political and sub-ethnical division of the promised land of Israel into twelve Jewish tribes. They also try to explain the exclusive link between some churches and territories by analogy with the exclusive links between God’s chosen people and the promised land. Evidently, the New Testament narrative of the foundation of certain local churches by the apostles and the disciples of Christ has been interpreted post-factum in terms of canonical territory.8 An important contribution to the theological rethinking of the concept of canonical territory was made by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev,9 who defined it as “a cornerstone of Orthodox ecclesiology.”10 However, there is a certain inconsistency in his assertions regarding this concept. On the one hand, he states that it is an internal principle of Orthodox ecclesiological tradition, and on the other hand, he applies it to  Canons 91, 136, 447, 491, 508, 579, 628, 862 of the Code of Canon Law.  Canons 57–58, 146–150 and others of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. 7  Canons 32,1013 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. 8  “Русская каноническая территория,” http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/ r_c_t_r.html, [Accessed: December 13, 2019]; Всеволод Чаплин, “Понятие канонической территории в межправославном, межхристианском и церковно-общественном контексте,” http://www.religare.ru/2_48189.html [Accessed: December 13, 2019]. 9  Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations since 2009. 10  Иларион Алфеев, “Принцип канонической территории в православной традиции,” http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2005/02/10/princip_kanonicheskoj_territorii_v_ pravoslavnoj_tradicii [Accessed: December 13, 2019]. 5 6

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

205

the relations between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In some cases, he accepts that the canonical territory must coincide with state borders, but in other cases, he declares that the state border has nothing to do with determining territorial jurisdiction of a church. He accepts the existence of the Orthodox dioceses on the territory of the Western Europe and America for the pastoral care of the Orthodox diaspora, but, at the same time, he protests against the Catholic dioceses on the so-called canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate where the Catholic diaspora is present.11 Still, Alfeyev’s suggestion that the principle of canonical territory should become a means of achieving solidarity, cooperation, and mutual respect between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is worthy of attention and application in ecumenical dialogue.12 Some Russian scholars distinguish different types of Russian canonical territory: geographical (all countries that have at any time been a part of the Russian state), cultural (people all over the world, even non-­Christians, influenced by Russian culture), ethnic (ethnic Russians all over the world, regardless of their beliefs), missionary (all territories where Russian missionaries were chronologically first or could have been first, or all non-­ baptized Russians), pastoral canonical territory (all baptized Russians “wherever they are”),13 and so on. The problem is that these researches often were unwilling to recognize that not only the Russian Orthodox Church, but also other churches could have their own geographical, cultural, ethnic, pastoral, and even missionary territories within the territory of today’s Russian Federation. Thereby, from my personal point of view, the unilateral application of this terminology as well as the double standards of its usage would not promote better understanding and higher level of trust, neither between Catholic and Orthodox Church, nor

11  Ibid. See also the same text in English translation under another title: Hilarion Alfeyev, “One City, One Bishop, One Church,” http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/ HilarionOneBishop.php; http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HilarionOneBishop2. php [Accessed: January 30, 2020]. 12  Иларион Алфеев, “Принцип канонической территории в православной традиции,” http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2005/02/10/princip_kanonicheskoj_territorii_v_ pravoslavnoj_tradicii [Accessed: January 30, 2019]. 13  For example, see “Русская каноническая территория,” http://www.catholic-church. org/church-unity/r_c_t_r.html; Иларион Алфеев, “Принцип канонической территории в православной традиции,” http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2005/02/10/princip_ kanonicheskoj_territorii_v_pravoslavnoj_tradicii [Accessed: January 22, 2019].

206 

I. RANTSYA

between the Orthodox Churches.14 Yegor Kholmogorov,15 for example, defines the canonical territory directly as a geopolitical concept and introduces the category of canonical space. In his opinion, canonical space is an abstract and imaginary concept, while canonical territory is a concrete one. To be more precise, canonical territory is a canonical space that has undergone a certain legal and institutional design. Kholmogorov considers the canonical space as a space of sacramental or ecclesiastical power. He also introduces the concept of boundaries of the canonical territory, distinguishing two types: internal canonical boundaries (within the boundaries of one local church between dioceses) and external canonical boundaries (between churches). Therefore, taking into consideration the above-mentioned ecclesiological ideas, as well as the fact that from the etymological point of view, the term “canonical territory”16 can literally be rendered as a “normalized, legitimate territory or region,” a territory under the jurisdiction of a given ecclesiastic authority should be named its canonical territory, that is, its legal or rightful territory. This jurisdiction is always exclusive, so that actions of any other ecclesiastic authority on this given territory are considered to be illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, invalid or non-canonical. On the one hand, this term is ecclesiological, on the other, it is geographical. The latter characteristic allows a possibility of unrolling a whole terminological system of concepts, that is, to propose the terms of canonical space, canonical center, canonical borders, canonical subdivision of territory and so on that form a specific domain of thought and investigation called geoecclesiology.17 In general, Roman Catholic canon law, as well as Orthodox

14  Moreover, it raises suspicions of hidden motivations and goals. It is worth mentioning here a doctrine of “the Russian world” that is very relevant to a widely interpreted principle of Russian canonical territory. The doctrine is widely using by both by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and by Russian President Vladimir Putin and consist of See: Патриарх Московский и всея Руси Кирилл, “Текст выступления на III Ассамблее фонда «Русский мир»,” https://www.russkiymir.ru/fund/assembly/the-third-assembly-of-the-russian-world/pat. php, [Accessed: Octobre 27, 2019]. 15  Russian Orthodox publicist and blogger. 16   From the ancient Greek “κανών”—norm, law, and Latin “territorium”—territory, region. 17  Cf.: Philippe Blaudeau, “Qu’est-ce que la géo-ecclésiologie?: éléments de définition appliqués à la période tardo-antique (IVe-VIe s.)” in Costellazioni geo-ecclesiali da Costantino a Giustiniano: dalle chiese ‘principali’ alle chiese patriarcali: XLIII incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana (Rome, Studia Ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 147, 2017), 40.

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

207

canons, accepts the territorial principle of church organization.18 The problem is that the idea of so-called canonicity is exaggerated in some cases by the Orthodox Churches, that is below illustrated on the Ukrainian example.

2   Evaluation of the Concept of Canonical Territory in the Context of Ecclesial History and Praxis Throughout church history an idea similar to canonical territory, despite real ecclesiological and theological meaning of this idea, was used to maintain spheres of influences or to protect the identity of the church. Several examples illustrate this thesis. The episcopal ordination in 372 by the metropolitan of Caesarea, Basil the Great, of his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus was an intervention on the territory of a new metropolitanate of Tyana, which Basil unsuccessfully tried to keep under his control. Sometimes this fact is interpreted as one of the first examples of the violation of the principle of canonical territory. In addition to that the heretical movements in the fifth century caused the emergence of three completely parallel systems of Eastern Christianity existing to this day: the Orthodox Church,19 the so-called Miaphysite Churches20 and the so-called Nestorian Church.21 Similarely, Uniate movements in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led to the jurisdictional transition of the dioceses and the metropolitanates of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, and North Africa to the Roman Catholic Church or, in current terms, their inclusion into the canonical territory of the Roman Catholic Church. The restoration of the Orthodox dioceses by their maternal churches on the same territories created a situation of parallel hierarchies which exist to this day. In this case, it is a question of the same liturgical rite but under another ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The church history also presents some examples of direct violations of the principle “one bishop-one territory” that later was laid in the foundation of the principle of canonical territory. The most outstanding  For example, canons 12, 13, 372, 431, 518 of the Code of Canon Law.  Byzantine patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. 20  Syrian, Coptic and Armenian Churches. 21  Assyrian Church. 18 19

208 

I. RANTSYA

examples deal with the era of the Crusades, when the Catholic Church created its artificial dioceses and even its patriarchates on the territories of the Eastern Churches where there had been no Roman Catholic presence. This is very different from the majority of cases of the Uniate movements because jurisdictional transformation during the Crusades was not done on the initiative of the local church. Other examples, frequently accompanied by violence and martyrdom, deal with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the Russian Orthodox Church, after the Russian Empire or subsequently the Soviet Union’s annexation of territories of neighboring countries, forcefully integrated into its structure the dioceses situated on the annexed territories, both Orthodox22 and Greek-Catholic.23 To this list we can add examples of how some churches that often appeal to the principle of canonical territory do not consider their actions on the extraneous territories as violating the canonical territory principle. For instance, the Russian Orthodox Church not only created its dioceses on the traditional territory of the Roman Catholic Church but also gave them the same titles as those of the Roman Catholic dioceses. In this situation, the Catholic Church is in fact more faithful to the principle of canonical territory (although it refuses its interpretation in the Orthodox

22  For example, the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Orthodox on the territory of modern Moldova was imposed after the annexation of Bessarabia in 1812 by the Russian Empire in consequence of Russo-Turkish War. There was no Moscow jurisdiction over the Church in Bessarabia before. This is the basis of the current controversy between the Moscow and the Romanian Patriarchates on the question about canonical affiliation of the territory of Moldova. Also, while the Estonian Orthodoxy showed a steady tendency toward autonomy in the structure of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the annexation of Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1940 and then in 1944 returned the Estonian Church into jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarchate. The independence of Estonia in 1990 caused the resaturation of the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction. 23  This is a short chronicle of the inclusion of the dioceses of Kyivan metropolitanate, united with Rome from 1596, into the Russian Orthodox Church after the different annexations of the territories of the corresponding states (Cossack Hetmanate, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish Republic, Czechoslovak Republic etc.) by the Russian empire or the Soviet Union: 1654—the Archeparchy of Smolensk; 1795—the Eparchy of Pinsk and Touraw, the Eparchy of Volodymyr and Brest; 1875—the Eparchy of Chełm; 1839—the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Kyiv, the Archeparchy of Polatsk and Vitebsk, the Eparchy of Lutsk and Ostroh; 1946—the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Lviv, the Eparchy of Stanyslaviv (Ivano-Frankivsk), the Eparchy of Peremyshl (Przemyśl); 1949—the Eparchy of Mukachevo.

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

209

way), since the titles of its dioceses on the territory of traditionally Orthodox countries are chosen in the non-typical indirect way.24 The problem is complicated by the fact that the Orthodox Churches does not seem to be capable of implementing its own principle of canonical territory within its own territorial limits. As a rule, the idea of canonical territory is often used to justify the territorial expansion of a particular Orthodox Church to its desired limits. In general, this idea was not present in Orthodox practice until the First World War (1914–1918), before the mass migration of the Orthodox population to the West and before parallel Orthodox jurisdictions came to existence. The emergence in some Eastern European countries in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries of so-called schismatic (from the point of view of that epoch) jurisdictions did not give rise to the existence of any ecclesiological concept similar to canonical territory. The Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922 and the resulting Asia Minor Catastrophe caused the liquidation of nearly all parishes and dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the territory of the Republic of Turkey. After that the patriarchs of Constantinople turned their attention to the Greek immigrants to European and American countries, where a number of the Russian Orthodox dioceses already existed. These had separated themselves from the Moscow Patriarchate that was accused of collaboration with the Soviet regime. The Patriarchate of Constantinople began to create its own structures claiming that all of the Orthodox diaspora was under its jurisdiction according to canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451). In other words, the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was considered to be equivalent to the territory of the ancient Patriarchate of Rome according to the above-mentioned principle of pentarchy; thereby the term “Constantinople as the New Rome” found its proper sense. The development of the geopolitical doctrines of the Third Rome and the Russian World was meant to negate Constantinople’s pretensions over the totality of the diaspora. Therefore, all sides of this conflict used the principle of canonical territory as an 24  The Greek Orthodox bishop of Brussels is entitled as “metropolitan of Belgium,” the Russian Orthodox bishop of Vienna is entitled as “archbishop of Vienna and Budapest,” while the Roman Catholic bishop of Moscow is entitled as “Archbishop of the Eparchy of the Mother of God in Moscow,” the Roman Catholic bishop of Sofia is entitled as “Bishop of the Eparchy of Saint John XXIII in Sofia,” the Greek Catholic bishop in Paris is entitled “bishop of the eparchy of Saint Volodymyr the Great in Paris,” etc.

210 

I. RANTSYA

argument in favor of their expansion beyond their territorial borders in order to reach the desirable objectives.25 As a result, we have many territories which are, or which were the object of discussion, tension and even conflict among particular Orthodox Churches concerning their canonical appurtenance:26 • Territories of hot conflict: Ukraine (Moscow Patriarchate vs Church of Ukraine vs Patriarchate of Constantinople). • Territories of partially resolved or minor conflicts: Moldova (Moscow Patriarchate vs Romanian Church), Abkhazia (Moscow Patriarchate vs Church of Georgia). • Territories of resolved conflicts: Poland (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Czech Republic and Slovakia (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Finland (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Latvia (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Northern Greece (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Church of Greece), Qatar (Patriarchate of Antioch vs Patriarchate of Jerusalem). • Territories of frozen or potential conflicts: USA and Canada (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Estonia (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Japan (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), China (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Belarus (Patriarchate of Constantinople  vs  Moscow Patriarchate), Montenegro (Serbian Church  vs  Patriarchate of Constantinople), Macedonia (Serbian Church vs Patriarchate of Constantinople). 25  The Moscow Patriarchate, according to its own unilateral synodal decision in 2016, included 15 countries besides Russia into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church: Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Estonia, and Japan; see: “Определение о внесении изменений и дополнений в Устав Русской Православной Церкви,” http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4367659.html [Accessed: December 16, 2019]. It can be assumed that the next declaration of the Moscow Patriarchate on its canonical territory will relate to Thailand, whose government, in 2008, transferred ecclesiastical jurisdiction over all Orthodox of the kingdoms to the Russian Orthodox Church; see: “Православие в Таиланде,” https://www.orthodox.or.th/index.php/content=history/ sub_content=orthodox/lang=ru [Accessed: December 16, 2019]. 26  Cf.: Ігор Ранця, “Принцип канонічної території у православному віровчення та міжцерковних взаєминах,” Релігієзнавчі нариси, no. 3 (2012): 62–73.

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

211

Some Orthodox researchers insist that the concept of canonical territory relates to eucharistic ecclesiology and its principle of the unity of the Eucharist at a given place. But eucharistic ecclesiology is not capable of explaining the real complexity of modern church structure, especially in terms used by John Zizioulas and other theologians that based their works on the work of Nicholas Afanasiev. To be more exact, the methodological potential of the eucharistic ecclesiology has not been completely mobilized for this matter. The primary notion  of this ecclesiology is that only the local bishop can be the head of the eucharistic celebration in a certain territory.27 However, if an external bishop (or a presbyter who is not associated with the local bishop) celebrates the Eucharist outside of his territory, then it is unclear who in this case should preside at the eucharistic celebration: the local bishop or the actual celebrant. Also the Catholic Church, despite the infrequent use of the term canonical territory, presents an extreme case of this concept: the whole world is interpreted as being the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome because of his right to intervene anywhere according to the canon law.28 Although the concept of canonical territory is an ecclesiological one, its practical application is always necessarily connected with geopolitical questions, the political history of states and the strategical interests of involved churches. If we compare this to the situation in Germany, we would notice that it  would be unimaginable for the German Bishops’ Conference to consider Baptism effected in the Evangelical Church of Germany as non-­valid, because the latter is operating on Catholic canonical territory. However, statements of this kind are not infrequent for some countries where the Orthodox Church is divided into two or more jurisdictions.

 Николай Афанасьев, Церковь Духа Святого (Москва: Quo Vadis, 2010), 169–170; Николай Афанасьев, Трапеза Господня (Москва: Quo Vadis, 2010), 56, 63, 70; Jean Zizioulas, L’Eucharistie, l’évêque, l’Église durant les trois premiers siècles (Paris: Cerf, 2011), 91–97; Jean Zizioulas, L’Être ecclésial (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1981), 100–101. 28  Canon 333 of the Code of Canon Law. 27

212 

I. RANTSYA

3   The Specific Case of Ukraine as One of the Most Disputed Canonical Territories Among the traditionally Orthodox countries, Ukraine is actually the most controversial because of its canonical territorial affiliation. The country has the complex history of state, building during which it was diversely turned towards and balanced among three major ecclesiastical centers: Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow. The Moscow Patriarchate considered the Kyiv Church to be its existential source, while the Kyiv Church has always manifested a tendency towards rupture from Moscow both in terms of identity and jurisdictional independence. The presence of political and geopolitical parameters in the Churches of Eastern Slavic countries led to frequent subordination of the churches to state interests.29 Inter-Orthodox discussion about the canonical affiliation of the territory of Ukraine was heightened by the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine on January 6, 2019. The two patriarchates, of Constantinople and of Moscow, considered Ukraine to be their exclusive canonical territory because of the divergent interpretation of the synodal letters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople dated 1686 according to which the Kyiv Metropolitanate was transferred from the jurisdiction of Constantinople to the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate. For Moscow, this letter signified a complete and unconditional transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate, so that the territory of the Metropolitanate became a part of the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. As a result, any other Orthodox Church automatically became non-canonical on the territory of Ukraine and sacraments administered by it considered invalid.30 For the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the reintegration of Ukraine into its own jurisdiction that took place on December 15, 2018 (the day of the Unification Council of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine), was equal to the automatic re-inclusion of all Orthodox Christians of the 29  The similar factors in Lebanon, where the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Armenian Apostolic Church, Maronite Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church and Armenian Catholic Church exist together, do not provoke discussion about canonical territory. 30  Based on this argument, some clergy, including bishops, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) consider the baptism administered in the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (proclaimed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople) non valid and justify the re-baptism of those who were baptized in this “non-canonical” church.

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

213

territory of Ukraine to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Based on this argumentation, all bishops of the Moscow patriarchate on the territory of Ukraine are automatically considered by Constantinople to be bishops of its Patriarchate despite the fact that they do not recognize its jurisdiction. In other words, after the signing of the Tomos of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople on January 6, 2019, these bishops (with exception of the two who at that point recognized the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction) became a kind of titular bishops without dioceses, whose sacramental service is valid but not legitimate because of the loss of jurisdiction. For the Catholic Church, Ukraine is an example of territory where parallel dioceses, existed even long before the complexities of the contemporary situation. For example, from 170031 to 193832 Lviv was an example of a city with three catholic hierarchs having the same city title: the Ukrainian bishop of the Byzantine rite, the Polish bishop of the Latin rite, and the Armenian bishop of the Armenian rite.33 The current existence in Ukraine of two completely parallel ecclesial structures: the Greek-Catholic (comprising of seventeen dioceses) and the Roman Catholic (comprising of seven dioceses) that are not united in one episcopal conference like in all the other countries is an exception.34 The situation is more complicated than it would appear, since the majority of the monastic orders have their own canonical space, separate from the diocesan structures. Hence, the canonical territory of Catholic Church consists of different parallel stratums within the same country: dioceses, monastic provinces, military ordinariates, and so on. Thereby the Catholic Church accepts as being normal a situation whereby various hierarchs simultaneously wield power in the same geographical space, each dealing with its own people, or with its proper “flock.”

31  A year of union of Lviv Orthodox diocese with the Metropolitanate of Kyiv, united with Rome in a result of Brest union in 1596. 32  A year of death of the last Armenian archbishop Joseph Teodorowicz of Lviv. Since then Lviv Armenian Archeparchy is officially considered to be vacant. 33  Another interesting observation: from 2001 to 2005 Lviv was the only city, whose two archbishops, Greek-Catholic and Roman Catholic, were cardinals. 34  In the neighboring country with a similar situation, Romania, there is one episcopal conference that unites 6 Roman Catholic dioceses, 6 Greek-Catholic dioceses (that also have its own Synod of bishops presided by the Major Archbishop), and one Armenian Catholic diocese considered to be vacant.

214 

I. RANTSYA

The complexity of the situation in Ukraine was often mentioned during the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue. Cardinal Walter Kasper35 rejected the use of the canonical territory principle in this dialogue, explaining that the Russian Orthodox Church amalgamates the principles of the functioning of the church and the principles of the functioning of the state. Moreover, he denounced the idea of canonical territory as an “anachronistic heresy,” which supports the identification of Russian Orthodoxy with Russian ethnic culture and the Russian state. He explained that this concept can function only within the confines of the same church.36 The creation, by the Catholic Church, of a metropolitanate consisting of four dioceses in the Russian Federation on February 11, 2002, was interpreted by the Russian Orthodox Church as an invasion by the Catholic Church of the territory of Russian Orthodox Church, because historically until that point there was no Catholic dioceses on the Russian territory37 and because of the risk of proselytism. The phenomenon of proselytism is interpreted differently by Eastern and Western ecclesiologists. From the Western point of view, only the direct conversion of a person from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, or the reverse, as well as from the Eastern to the Roman rite in the inter-Catholic case, should be considered as proselytism.38 From the Orthodox point of view, proselytism also includes conversion to the Catholic Church of anybody—baptized or not—who lives on Orthodox canonical territory defined in the broadest terms (geographical, ethnical, cultural, missionary, etc.). To be more precise, on its own canonical territory, the Russian Orthodox Church allows the “heterodox” churches to evangelize only among their own adherents, because the population of Russia as such is considered to be the potential flock of the Russian Orthodox Church. 35  Retired cardinal of the Catholic Church, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity from 2001 to 2010. 36  Walter Kasper, “Le radici teologiche del conflitto tra Mosca e Roma,” La Civiltà Cattolica, Mars 16, 2002. 37  From 1798 to 1917, in Russian empire existed a Roman Catholic province with the metropolitan see in Mogilev (actually, Belarus), that included 5–7 dioceses. The last one was subordinate to the metropolitan archbishop of Mogilev, that also had his second cathedral see in the capital of the Russian empire Saint Petersburg. In 1917, a Russian Greek-Catholic exarchate was also created in Saint Petersburg. 38  That is why the Eastern Catholic canon law severely restricts changing of the rite; that is why the Eastern Catholic Churches have got unusual titles for theirs dioceses on the “canonical territory” of the Roman Catholic Church: Eparchy of Holy Family in London for the Ukrainians, Eparchy of the Holy Cross in Paris for the Armenians, etc.

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

215

The structural evolution of the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine and the creation of two new dioceses in the same year, on May 5, 2002, was not met with accusations of violation of the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. Such accusations, however, were brought up when the primate see of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was transferred from Lviv to Kyiv on August 21, 2005.

4   The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Other Eastern Catholic Churches as a Factor That Complicates the Concept of Canonical Territory What is the principal problem concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches and the concept of canonical territory? If we start from the meaning of this concept as it is interpreted by the Orthodox theologians, we will conclude that the Eastern Catholic Churches are doomed to exist on the canonical territory of either the Orthodox or the Catholic Churches. In general, the Orthodox do not contest the existence of Eastern Catholics on Roman Catholic territory since Eastern Catholics are not considered to constitute a church as such but practice specific rites within the Catholic Church, operating like its national or extra-territorial subdivisions. At the meeting which took place in Aricci, Italy, on June 10–15, 1991 (preparatory to the 6th plenary session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at the Balamand Monastery in Lebanon, June 17–24, 1993), when the only question on the agenda was uniatism in the framework of the confrontation between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics in Western Ukraine, the Orthodox priest Nestor Zilaev39 proposed to introduce the concept of canonical territory in the final document with the purpose of limiting the activity of the Eastern Catholic Churches. This proposal was rejected by the Roman Catholic bishop

39  Priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, member of the Joint International Commission at that time, in 1993–1998—representative of the Moscow Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

216 

I. RANTSYA

Pierre Duprey,40 who referred to the argument that the Orthodox also have their ecclesiastical structures on traditional Catholic territories.41 The Balamand document, entitled “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion,” was promulgated on June 23, 1992, at the 6th plenary session of the Joint International Commission. It condemns all forms of violence regarding the religious conscience of individuals and communities. But the document does not condemn that form of violence that could be called the “fate ensue from the canonical territory”: human beings are limited in their ability to be received into the church of their choice if the territory where they live is not the canonical territory of that church. In 2004, Cardinal Walter Kasper made an official visit to Ukraine and Russia in order to examine the possibility of creation of a patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches did not accept the idea of this patriarchate, having reacted negatively in response to the Holy See’s additional requests about it. In fact, the Russian Orthodox Church provoked a negative pan-Orthodox reaction to this idea simply by invoking the concepts of “proselytism” and “violation of the patriarchal structures of the East” on the “canonical territory” of Russian Orthodox Church.42 For a long time, the existence of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church was an insurmountable obstacle to the meeting of the Patriarch of Moscow with the Pope of Rome. The apostolic visit of Pope John Paul II to Ukraine in 2001 was ignored and criticized by the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine, as well as by the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia, postulating that Roman Pontiff needs to have an official invitation from the Moscow Patriarch to come to the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, changes in the political environment in 2015–2016 and new circumstances in inter-Orthodox relations unexpectedly helped to overcome this obstacle: Greek-Catholic presence on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, allowing patriarch Kirill to meet Pope Francis at the Havana airport in 2016.

40  Bishop of the Roman Curia, in 1983–1999 Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, at the time—member of the Joint Commission, deceased in 2007. 41  Patrice Mahieu, Se préparer au don de l’unité: La commission internationale catholiqueorthodoxe 1975–2000 (Paris: Cerf, 2014), 390–391. 42  “Все Православные Церкви негативно оценивают перспективы создания грекокатолического патриархата на Украине,” https://mospat.ru/archive/2004/02/6387-1 [Accessed: September 23, 2019].

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

217

5   Conclusion: Could the New Geo-­ecclesiological Paradigm Respond Successfully to Challenges Concerning the Concept of the Canonical Territory? The church as an institution must acknowledge its territorial and geographic dimensions, since even the Christ’s command to evangelize has a spatial dimension (Acts 1,8). Before the coming of Christ, Israel as  the Chosen People maintained a special relation with their land of settlement, implying the deification of that geographical space (the Holy Land), its inclusion into the Divine Destiny (the Land of Promise), the sacred division of geographical space (the twelve tribes of Israel), the existence of a unique pan-Israelite center of divine geographical “gravitation” (the Temple Mount), and the sacred possibility and even obligation to annex the territories of God’s enemies, as well as a strict distinction between Israelites and “foreigners” on their territory, the Promised Land. The church was born in the context of this relation, but it has subsequently changed a great deal. Firstly, the links between the Jewish nation, God’s people of the Old Testament, and Christians, the people of the New Testament, the new gathering of the people of God, are not of cause and effect. Secondly, the configuration of the geographical space of the Roman Empire affected the spatial organization of the church. As a result, the initial geographical situation of the Roman Empire crystallized into the territorial dispositions of the church’s canon law, whose numerous norms have a territorial dimension. Consecutive historical processes upset the geographical organization of the church, but the church has always tended to remain faithful to its original rules, even though their consistent application proved to be impossible. The principle of canonical territory has deeply penetrated the relationship among the churches. The ecclesiological uncertainty of this principle leads to certain applications which can be used in a manipulative way.43 Hence, building up its own vision of the canonical territory, each church 43  Cf.: Ярослав Буцьора, “Канонічна територія Московської патріярхії: аналіз сучасної російської православної думки,” https://risu.org.ua/ua/index/studios/studies_of_religions/10251/ [Accessed: September] 13, 2019); Олег Турій, “Історичні аспекти поняття «канонічної території,” Релігійна панорама, no. 11 (2007): 54–60; Darrell Jackson, “Canonical Territory and National Security: Patriarch, President, and Proselytism in the Russian Federation,” Baptistic Theologies, no. 2 (2010): 59–81.

218 

I. RANTSYA

considers its relationship with others from the point of view of its own interests. Despite frequent disputes over the concrete canonical territories, churches do not discuss the meaning of this principle neither for the inter-­ church dialogue, nor in the ecumenical dialogue. The situation with the uncertainty of the essence of the canonical territory is profitable for all disputing sides. The universal church cannot deny the rights of a person or a community, and even a particular church, to act freely, including the possibility of changing jurisdiction. This freedom is not absolute in the sense that actions are always limited by historical and geographical circumstances, by personal motivations, by canon law and so on. Proselytism, which outrages religious freedom in an insidious way, is not acceptable. By the same reasoning, interpretations of the concept of canonical territory which limit religious freedom are not acceptable. The second half of the twentieth century was marked not only by transformations in the geographical environment of the church, but also by the changes concerning territoriality of society as such. For example, in the modern era, the organization of geographical space was two-dimensional (two horizontal coordinates on the plane of the earth’s surface), whereas in the postmodern epoch we have reason to ascertain the appearance of a third dimension (vertical layers of churches interpenetrating each other in the same geographical space). Although until today the territorial relations were structured in a hierarchical way, their functioning tends to be more and more organized according to a network principle. This trend is a considerable challenge for the church, having existed as a hierarchical structure over a long period of time. From our point of view, in these new circumstances, the classical concept of canonical territory cannot function because it is based on principles evolved during the late Roman Empire and the Middle Ages. Perhaps we need a “Copernican revolution” in the ecclesiology. Just as accumulation of a new empirical data on the structure of our universe in the 15th century required a new paradigm in astronomy, so is today we need a new paradigm in understanding of the role of territoriality in the life of the church. The church is not primarily a territory, but first and foremost the people of God; the local church is not a territorial circumscription or subdivision, but a community of people. A transition needs to be made in ecclesiology:

  THE CANONICAL TERRITORY CONCEPT AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC… 

219

• From the meaning of the concept of canonical territory as one of the constitutive factors of the church that forms some canonical and ecclesiological principles • to the understanding of territory as the geographical space of the church, the external environment for use by the people of God and by its eucharistic community; the environment that does not play an ecclesiastically constitutive role and serves only a secular principle for church organization. The post-modern era requires re-thinking of exclusive identification of a particular church with a particular territory. A given territory can be home to several particular or local churches, interacting with each other, with or without eucharistic communion, but always manifesting other kinds of communion: communion in faith, baptism, diaconia, charity and even martyrdom. Practice shows that the formation of churches that overlap each other in geographical space, existing and interacting in a parallel manner, is irreversible. Ecclesiologists and ecumenists should reflect on how to build bridges between geographically co-existing churches, so that their parallel situation would not contribute to deepening isolation. The new societal reality, projected onto both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, must lead to the consideration of a new phenomenon: churches in a given geographical location (city, region, country), in addition to the interconfessional links that exist among them, are deeply bound by an intrinsic supra-confessional ecclesiastic unity of a sacramental nature which is Baptismal Unity. Surely, a certain type of ecclesial unity is founded on the unity of Baptism. From the point of view of the church, territory can be only the temporary environment of its existence, unlike for the Jewish people, for whom the Land of Promise is an integral part of their testament with God (Dt 31,20). The church, as a new gathering of the people of God, participating in an alliance which is eschatological, exists with reason in the territorial dimension by creating local structures that correspond to structure of society. But these structures can only be temporary, because a new Earth will appear (Rev 21,1). Ecclesiology has therefore grounds to accept the continued existence of many particular and local churches in the same geographical area. In the condition of minority because of secularization and globalization, these churches would accompany believers, through sacramental grace, towards eternity, towards the kingdom of God that is near.

220 

I. RANTSYA

This is the context where the concept of canonical territory could be correctly interpreted. Here we would like to emphasize the opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper according to whom the concept of the canonical territory cannot be used for the limitation of one church by another. Here I would like to postulate that both his opinion and the opinion of Hilarion Alfeyev, according to whom the concept of canonical territory should function for the purpose of cooperation and common assistance among churches, bring us closer to the fundamental purpose of this concept. A re-interpreted concept of canonical territory could constitute an effective rule for the internal management and regulation of territories within the limits of one church jurisdiction. It would allow the church to function in according to the historical hierarchical manner in the condition of network society. In the global church space of our time, the concept of canonical territory should be applied for building bridges between the churches, not for breaking them, not for isolating the territories, annexing or destroying them.

Fr. John Long on Ukraine Between the Three Romes Theodore Dedon

In April 2016 at Georgetown University, there was a celebration of the legacy of Fr. John Long, a Jesuit who worked on Orthodox-Catholic engagement during the twilight of the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s. This celebration was held to inaugurate the fact that his archives would now be held at the Georgetown University library and would therefore be catalogued and explored. Here we will examine one of his still unpublished papers (written in October 1989 and revised in April 1990) where he discusses the historical observations on the origin and development of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.1 This text broadly traces the outlines and developments of how the church came to be, how it came under the yoke of the Roman Catholic Church, and also how the Union of Brest may have been a model in the past but does not sufficiently 1  John Long, “Historical Observations on the Origins and Development of the Ruthenian (Greek) Catholic Church,” Unpublished (April, 1990). This article is the main text we will be using, alongside other unpublished analyses on Long’s contribution to both a Roman Catholic understanding of Ukrainian Catholics and ecumenism.

T. Dedon (*) Department of Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_13

221

222 

T. DEDON

account for the future of ecumenical engagement. This essay, written on the eve of Ukraine’s declaration of sovereignty (July 16, 1990), and well before the creation of its constitution (June 28, 1996), is a particularly interesting time-capsule. On the one hand, it offers a reflection on ecumenical engagement between what he calls Ukrainian Catholics and Roman Catholics, with the assumption that the Soviet Union was there to stay. On the other hand, he accurately predicts that the religious situation of the Soviet Union was one wherein Christianity was on the verge of a resurgence.

1   The Ecumenical Career of Fr. John Long Because he is not known to the wide audience, it is important to note who Fr. John Long was or why his perspective might matter today. He was, according to John Borelli, “one of the pope’s storm troopers ready to be spirited into the Soviet Union once the Stalinist Empire had collapsed.”2 John Borelli, one of the archive’s main curators, noting what treasures we might find, described Fr. Long in his college days. A student of Russian at Georgetown University during the height of the Stalinist era, he was inspired by the message of Fatima to draw Russia nearer to the Catholic faith for eschatological reasons. His life was something out of a Cold War thriller. Beginning his Jesuit training at Georgetown in the 1940s by studying Russian, he was thrust into what Fr. Brian Daley, S.J. described as, “what now seems like a mixture of spy-novel romance and ecumenical insensitivity—to begin preaching the Gospel again in what Westerners then assumed was a totally de-Christianized culture.”3 Fr. Thomas Stransky, a friend and collaborator of Fr. Long’s, said of this: “We naïve Paulists were under the impression the group was a kind of Jesuit CIA, training people to parachute into Russia, sprinkle about earth from Fatima,

2  John Borelli, “Who was John Long, S.J.? Reflections Inspired by a Conversation with Thomas F.  Stransky, C.S.P., Former Colleague at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Life-long Friend,” at A Legacy to Ecumenism: The Gifts and Archives of Rev. John F. Long, S.J., Unpublished, (April 21, 2016). Delivered at Riggs Library, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University), 2. 3  Brian E.  Daley, “The Gift of Mutual Understanding: Fr. John F.  Long, S.J., and Orthodox-Catholic Relations,” at A Legacy to Ecumenism: The Gifts and Archives of Rev. John F. Long, S.J., Unpublished, (April 21, 2016). Delivered at Riggs Library, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University), 1–2.

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

223

and begin the work of reconverting the eleven time zones.”4 Developing a passion for the academic study of Russian, Fr. Long, before being whisked off to serve in the Vatican, studied at the Oriental Institute the history and theology of the Eastern Churches. In the Spring of 1963, his superiors suspended his study, sending him to the join the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU) under the supervision of Augustin Cardinal Bea. As a staff member of Cardinal Bea, Long served as an intermediary between Soviet officials, the remaining Orthodox officials, and the SPCU.  Fr. Stransky said of Long that his service was undeniably important because, [Fr. Long and Fr. Stransky] became teachers of Bea and [his successor Cardinal Jan] Willebrands on the complicated world of Orthodoxy, its tensions, personalities, etc. Until the end, Long was the best of all of them [with regard to] the Russian Orthodox during the Cold War [… Metropolitan] Nikodim trusted Long more than any other Roman Catholic. The boy from Brooklyn spoke perfect Russian […].5

Fr. Long became well-known as a “superb ghost-writer,” and someone who sought little accolades for himself. He was a trustworthy member of the staff, having personally written the Ecumenical Directory in 1967 and 1970 and collaborating on its revision under Pope John Paul II in 1993.6 By the time of the 1964 pilgrimage and embrace of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, much had been brewing behind the scenes which is only now coming into full view. Fr. Daley says, “Nine months later, on November 21, 1964, the Council’s document on the Catholic Church and ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, was finally approved, at the end of the third session.” Proclaiming “the restoration of unity among all Christians” to be “one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Synod,” the document labels the divisions among Churches and communities that have marked Christian life since its beginnings as “clearly contrary to Christ’s will.”7 This was further marked by “[a]cknowledging that  Daley, “The Gift of Mutual Understanding,” 2.  Borelli, “Who was John Long, S.J.? Reflections Inspired by a Conversation with Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P., Former Colleague at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Life-long Friend,” 4. Nikodim was the Metropolitan of Leningrad (r. 1963–1978), the Moscow Patriarchate’s main liaison with the Churches of the West. 6  Borelli, “Who was John Long, S.J.,” 5. 7  Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism: §1. 4 5

224 

T. DEDON

all those who believe in Christ and are validly baptized are in some kind of communion with the Catholic Church, even if that communion is not complete.”8 But like many of the issues still today, the same suspicions were present fifty years ago when Orthodox and Catholic leaders met for the first informal meetings in September 1965. Fr. Long, a participant in these dialogues, described them moving, “somewhat shakily,” which Fr. Daley says was “because the presence of three Eastern-rite Catholic priests led some of the Orthodox to suspect this was all a cover for new Catholic efforts to promote ‘uniatism’—representatives on both sides worked hard, then and in the following months, to build mutual trust.”9 The goal of the following decade’s ecumenical development was not to solve the great theological divides; rather, it was to foster a new climate of understanding and a stimulus for what Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI called “the dialogue of love” between the Orthodox and the Catholics.10 The question of Roman primacy and presidency, however, lingered throughout Fr. Long’s career. Fr. Daley describes Fr. Long’s consultative work on the document Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future, where it says, After summarizing some of the main differences in structure and the exercise of authority that have characterized our Churches since late antiquity, the statement asks whether these simply condemn us, on ecclesiological grounds, to permanent division. “It seems obvious to us,” it continues, “that what we share, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, significantly overshadows our differences”—especially when we compare ourselves theologically and in practice to other Christian bodies. Both our Churches emphasize the continuity of Apostolic teaching, as contained in Scripture and the creeds; the central, Church-constituting role of the Liturgy; the foundational importance of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist in forming each Christian believer. Both Christian families tend to conceive of themselves today in what is called an “ecclesiology of communion,” by which the Church itself is seen as represented most perfectly in the Eucharistic community presided over by a legitimately ordained bishop or one of his presbyters, who embodies the continuity of Apostolic authority and teaching. Both our Churches venerate Mary, the Mother of God; honor the Church’s saints; value asceticism and various forms of the monastic life;  Ibid., §3.  Daley, “The Gift of Mutual Understanding: Fr. John F.  Long, S.J., and OrthodoxCatholic Relations,” 6. 10  Ibid., 8. 8 9

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

225

emphasize the importance of contemplative prayer as a way to holiness. In light of all that we share, and of the increasing social homogenization of modern society, it seems all the more tragic that we continue to see ourselves as spiritually and sacramentally alien to each other.11

Fr. Long worked in the Soviet Union through the final stages of the Cold War with certain theological convictions, but began to see things another way towards the end. There was at that time speculation and rumors that there had been 500 Jesuits deployed to Siberia, ready for the missionary task, but Borelli said he told him, “there are 36 Jesuits in the whole of the Soviet Union and the former satellite republics of eastern Europe.” Borelli noted that “[when the] empire [began to] collapse in 1989, when none of us could believe our eyes at the rapid breakdown, a little more each night on the evening news, […] Fr. Long had [already] come to see the shortcomings and flaws of a mission to convert Russians to Catholicism instead of reconciliation through dialogue and ecumenical fraternity, and offered needed corrections and criticism, even if some enthusiasts did not wish to hear them.”12 At the time Fr. Long got into the project of ecumenical engagement, it was a critical function of the Holy See’s diplomatic mission in the world. One of the critical reasons Pope John XXIII called Vatican II was for it to be an outreach to other Christians. This is why throughout the 1960s there were many new ecumenical moments which fundamentally transformed the public’s perception of Christian relations. By 1960, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was established. By the end of that year, the Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher had visited Pope John XXIII. By January 5, 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met on the Mount of Olives—the first time the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of New Rome had met face to face since 1438 at the Council of Florence. Their joint declaration addressed Christians to be bold and passionate calling for unity, that “his disciples may be ut unum sint (John 17.21).”13 This basic representation of Christian unity to the world was 11  Daley 8–9; cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Oct 2010), 4–5. 12  Borelli, 3. 13  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Oct 2010), 5.

226 

T. DEDON

something which had, for centuries before, been virtually inconceivable. And this was precisely the moment in which Fr. Long entered into the ecumenical project as a diplomatic agent for the Holy See. It seemed to be, bluntly, a kairotic moment—the kind of moment which breaks historical time and inaugurated something new.

2   The 1989 Reflections on the History of the Ruthenian (Greek) Catholic Church But was it really? With this question in mind, exploring Fr. Long’s commentary on the historical development of the Ukrainian Catholics is especially helpful. The novelty and excitement of the 1960s, naturally, has worn off. The Soviet Union is gone. Christianity in Western Europe has declined. If the expectations of the 1960s were of the drawing nearer of the Christians to the universal church, it has surely been tempered. While arguably relations between Rome and Constantinople are still good, other features of the contemporary religious landscape have changed dramatically. Today, the division between Constantinople and Moscow is perhaps more pronounced than any time since the Council of Florence. The emergence of the Ukrainian nation-state and a national Ukrainian church has become a singular wedge against the prospect of ultimate church union. In a 2017 Pew Research report all Orthodox Christians in Eastern and Central Europe, except in the cases of Ukraine and Greece, favored primarily their own national patriarch first and the Patriarch of Moscow second. There are several critical data points we can highlight which draw out the divide between Moscow and Constantinople and most all of them are vis-à-vis a concept of resistance against the West. With the advent of the new ecumenical moment and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the East-­ West divide did not end but shifted its focus from territorial geopolitics to geopolitics of values, and even over Christianity itself.14 14  This point cannot be made casually. While it is certainly true Moscow’s game over Ukraine is more than a “geopolitics of values,” the politicization of values is also a central aspect of competitive statecraft. While Ukrainian nationhood and sovereignty is a challenge to the territorial legitimacy some Russians see over Ukraine, the dispute is also a cultural one. This has led some researchers, such as Kristina Stoeckl and Jose Casanova, to see this as an extension of the culture wars. Stoeckl’s grand theory is that Russia has imported the culture war from the United States after seeing how successful it has been and is in the process of exporting it to continental Europe to swing culture in its direction. This is especially apparent, she believes, with respect to issues related to gender and family—cornerstones of the

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

227

This demonstrates several things. The post-Soviet context is unique in terms of the re-linking of national and religious identities. It also demonstrates how critical value-based issues are to generic worldviews. Further, it shows most importantly that a strong Russia and a strong Moscow Patriarch are critical to many Orthodox Christians as a bulwark against not only the West, but secular liberalism. It is true, as many point out, that church attendance is not necessarily all that high for many Orthodox Christians.15 But what is more important than their behavior and belief is culture wars in the United States. For example, there is a tremendous controversy over whether or not there should be LGBTQ Pride Parades held in public. In Russia they are banned, whereas in Ukraine recently had its largest ever public demonstration. The point Stoeckl makes with respect to this sort of issue is not one primarily wherein the question is of their legitimacy, it is about their politicization in the globalized culture wars and how that impacts statecraft. It may be said, reasonably, that a celebration of these things would then be seen as a sub-representation or example of supporting “Western” values over “Russian” or “Christian” ones, and vice versa. For more information see the Universität Innsbruck’s Postsecular Conflicts (POSEC; https://www.uibk.ac.at/projects/postsecular-conflicts/ index.html.en), wherein they follow the money and networks of what they call the “Moralist International,” an international body politic politicizing traditional values against the “West.” 15  Pew Research Center, “Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe,” (May 10, 2017). A way this was measured by Pew was through positioning the question “% who agree that a strong Russia is necessary to balance the influence of the West among those who” either agree or disagree that “there is a conflict with Western countries” (37). The report maintains that “across the region, people in Orthodox-majority countries are more likely than those in Catholic-majority countries to agree with the statement.” Further, through a regression analysis, Pew found that “even after controlling for age, gender, education, ethnic Russian identity, religious observance, and country of residence, the perception that there is a values conflict with the West and Orthodox religious affiliation are both strongly correlated with the view that a strong Russia is needed to balance the influence of the West.” What they found is that 10 of the 18 countries they polled, roughly half or more of respondents believed such a thing. These were not only Orthodox-majority nations wherein roughly half believed as such. The Orthodox-majority countries were: Serbia (78%), Russia, (73%), Armenia (71%), [How did they count Armenia among the Orthodox-majority countries?] Greece (70%), Georgia (65%), Moldova (52%), Romania (51%). Of the Catholicmajority countries only Poland (at 52%) was over half. Of the religiously mixed countries, only Bosnia (at 63%) met the threshold. And of the religiously unaffiliated countries, only the Czech Republic (at 51%) met the threshold. To be clear, the strong correlation between the given country having values-conflicts with the West and the notion that a strong Russia is needed to balance the values of the West was true only in Orthodox-majority countries. With respect to the notion that a strong Russia was necessary to balance the influence of the West they found a median of 66% in Orthodox-majority countries. This can be taken in conjunction that a median of 62% believed “it’s in our country’s interest to work closely with the U.S. and Western powers,” signaling that there is overlap between the two questions, least of all in Russia (at 85% versus 55% respectively).

228 

T. DEDON

their sense of belonging, largely having unified national and religious identity. Ukraine, in this theoretical contest between Russia and the “West” which represents liberalism, globalism, and secularism, is caught in the middle. Ukrainian Catholics are caught in the middle even more so. Fr. Long anticipated many of these things. Both at the beginning and at the end of his study, Fr. Long laments the “emotional, nationalistic, polemical, and personal viewpoints,” of those engaged in the ecumenical project. Certainly, before the rise of the new nationalism in Europe, he was dealing with the problem of nationalism’s arrival as a result of the failed imperialism of the Soviet Union. If Ukraine has historically been caught between the three “Romes” of Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow, there is now a fourth in Brussels. The long history of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, according to Fr. Long in The Historical Observations on the Origins and Development of the Ruthenian (Greek) Catholic Church, has been fraught with so much tension that he has said it has bred more than just misunderstanding, but hatred. This hatred he sees is between virtually everyone in every party for a variety of reasons—mostly over historical grievances. The large problem in Fr. Long’s eyes is the historic formulation of the Union of Brest and its application throughout the several centuries which follow. When the Ruthenian bishops assembled in Brest, he says, they unanimously sought union with the Catholic Church on the basis of the “Articles of Union” which had been prepared. Some of the reasons they gave were their general responsibility and duty to guide their flocks to concord and union; that they saw many of their people go astray and lose faith in the Trinity, having separated from their “Roman Lords,” making it difficult to approach the topic; further, that they were fundamentally afraid of the prospect of falling under the “Turkish yoke” as others already had.16 For these reasons they believed a re-articulation of the Union established at Florence in the century prior was necessary, despite any perceived difficulties. To preserve the identity of their church, the Ruthenian bishops insisted that traditional rites and disciplines be preserved (e.g. married clergy and communion under two kinds) and that they not be Latinized—as had been the immediate procedure after Florence, causing a rift between

16  By “Roman Lords,” Fr. Long does not mean landed lords in the feudal system. He is speaking rhetorically using the word to imply a power differential.

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

229

Metropolitan Isidore (the Apostate) and Grand Prince Vasilii II.17 The Ruthenians argued that in order to preserve their independence they needed to present their own candidates for the bishopric and ordain their bishops themselves. To preserve the integrity of the church, they asked for strict regulations about the change of rite, mixed marriages, recognition of their property, and disciplinary action being under their jurisdiction. Further, they sought to raise the social status of their church and her servants with seats in state senate, rights before tribunals, and the same general privileges as the Latin clergy had, with Uniates under Latin jurisdiction. This was also met with calls for general reform, such as strengthening the bishops’ role in directing the confraternities, in caring for their own clergy and those appointed by temporal lords, and the guarantee of their freedom from temporal authorities in other aspects—especially for property. The long and troubled history of how this was drawn out is so complicated it is impossible to treat in our current context. But Fr. Long’s ultimate determination is that “the immediate result of the union was division.” Though the Ruthenian nobility was originally indifferent to the union and the divisions were only at first individually maintained, they grew into larger camps and began to effect how the union was received. Fr. Long made five general observations about how we should understand this. First, the attempt at achieving union between the Metropolitan of Kiev and the Catholic Church was not realized. Second, the bishops’ objective to achieve internal religious reform and the raising of the educational level of the clergy saw significant results—this was also met with a similar reaction among the Orthodox with the foundation of elementary schools, a printing press, and the reform of the common life in older monasteries. Third, the desire to raise the social level of their people and the church was generally unsuccessful. Fourth, the support of King Sigismund III to the Union was sincere and frequent; however, the internal political situation and the necessities of foreign policy influenced him to make concessions to the Orthodox nobility and townspeople. Fifth, there is no doubt that the union was the cause of agitation and violence in areas of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Discrimination among Catholics 17  Borys A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 43–59. An example of this is Metropolitan Isidore carrying in the Latin cross during Mass and reading the Pope’s name during liturgy, offending Grand Prince Vasilii II, which was the immediate cause of his imprisonment.

230 

T. DEDON

against Orthodox and reciprocal violence escalated quickly and was directly influenced by these events. The Union, he argues against many who suggest it is so, was not held together through force. The important aspect of what Fr. Long is drawing out is that through the failure of the Union to concretize, it puts the Ruthenian population into a permanently weak position vis-à-vis greater imperial powers, both national and papal. They are in effect always a pawn in a greater chess game. And because their request for true independence and a raise in social standing never came to fruition in the way they desired, it would remain this way through virtually throughout the next several centuries. The most important era he analyzes, however, is the dissolution of the external structures of the Ruthenian Catholic Church are in 1946—a sequence of events that still felt raw in 1990 when the essay was written. Long says that with the final integration of Galicia into the Soviet Union in 1944 there were radical changes to the church. In April 1945 all the Ukrainian Catholic bishops were arrested, tried on various charges of treason and anti-Soviet activity, and given long prison sentences or killed. After the Initiative Group started by Gabriel Kostelnik of Lvov was established, it was recognized by the Ukrainian Soviet Republic as the only body authorized to speak and act for the Greek-Catholic Church—on the grounds it was seeking union with the Russian Orthodox Church, itself deeply jeopardized by the Soviet state. The Union was eventually established and the Greek-Catholic Church lost its legal existence in the Soviet Union and was incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church. Over a thousand Eastern Catholic priests, he says, were imprisoned for not accepting this decision and thus a deep hatred developed between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the Soviet Union. Though Fr. Long describes this tension as “hatred,” it may be wiser to suggest it is a deepened animosity. These events, undoubtfully, were to blame for the Greek-Catholic resentment and suspicion of the Russian Orthodox in the 1990s. Long doubts the validity of the re-unification of the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine with the Russian Orthodox Church basing his arguments not on the legality of the proceedings, as they were surely legal under Soviet conditions, but on a lack of proper conciliarity necessary for establishing a union of the churches. That is particularly interesting given that conciliarity has no legal grounding in this situation and implies Fr. Long is approaching a historical moment theologically and ecclesiologically. The structure of the Ruthenian church being gone at the time he was writing this did not

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

231

negate the fact that there were many Greek Catholic still practicing. Could Fr. Long have ever anticipated that only a few months after he produced his study that then-General Secretary and future President Mikhail Gorbachev in December of 1989 allowed the church to effectively function again? If he did, he certainly did not mention it between his amendments from October 1989 to April 1990. Perhaps by April 1990 this was still not nearly as clear as it is today. Immediately upon the new policies of Gorbachev, the Eastern Catholic Church, sponsored by the nationalist organization Rukh—the People’s Movement of Ukraine and later by the Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-­ UNSO) started demanding their property back. One Greek-Catholic priest said, “even if the whole village is now Orthodox and one person is Greek Catholic, the church [property] belongs to that Catholic because the church was built by his grandparents and great-grandparents.”18 This hatred was predicted by Fr. Long, who noticed amplified tensions between Moscow and the Vatican. So with the situation in the late 1980s being so radically different from the ecumenical context of the 1960s, what were Fr. Long’s prescriptions for promoting Christian Unity in a time of struggle and change? He said, There is no doubt that political and cultural factors have played a significant role in this development. However, the deeply religious sentiments of the millions of Ruthenians—now identifying themselves as Ukrainians—who struggled to maintain the union and communion with the See of Rome as part of their religious life and commitment is clear. … The Ukrainian Catholics seeking legalization in the Soviet Union today are conscious of being part of this centuries old tradition and are justified in wanting to live it openly and with the ecclesial structures sufficient for maintaining its life and vitality.19

One may question, he says, the theology behind the Union of Brest—– and its application to later periods. According to Fr. Long, “One strongly 18  Andrew Wilson, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 246. 19  John Long, “Historical Observations on the Origins and Development of the Ruthenian (Greek) Catholic Church,” 22. The long argument in the unpublished essay is that there have always been outside influences (Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, and even Poland, etc.) competing for interest or control in the territory. Ukraine, to use our language, is caught between the Three Romes.

232 

T. DEDON

deplores the fact that what was meant as an act of reconciliation and resumption of communion actually resulted in a new division within a great Christian Slavic family. New ways of achieving reconciliation and full communion between Catholics and Orthodox are being sought today.”20 But he does not mention what those new ways of achieving reconciliation are. Instead, Long appeals to “the right of the Ukrainian Catholic community in the Soviet Union to express its faith and ecclesial communion in a way consonant with its long history and tradition.” The Catholics and the Orthodox, therefore, are faced with the “enormous challenge of seeing that this be accomplished in a spirit of evangelical love and reconciliation.” To do this, he says, there needs to be a “purification of the minds and hearts of the memories of the past.” This requires, “a spirit of humility, resentence and reciprocal pardon must be developed to overcome the effects of this past which cannot be undone but which must no longer be a determining factor in the decisions taken today.”21 This is indeed a daunting task that in light of the current situation may not even look possible. In a longer statement, he suggests, Both Churches must be sincere in their recognition of the ecclesial nature of each other, with resulting communion, real, even if not complete, which already exists. Furthermore, it must be clear that freedom to make an ecclesial choice without interference or pressure is primarily a religious matter, a matter of the intimate relation of a person and a community with God. Other factors—culture, nationality, etc.—may have a legitimate place in this choice—but they are subordinate to, and dependent on, the basic religious and ecclesial convictions of the person and his community. Finally, it must be recognized that the decisions to be made now and in the near future are to take place within the framework of the new ecumenical relations which have developed between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. Each is committed to seeking reconciliation and full communion in the profession of the authentic faith delivered to the Church, in the sacramental life given by Christ in the Holy Spirit to build her up and nurture her children in the structures of support willed by the Lord to strengthen and guarantee the fidelity of the Church in currying out its mission to the world.22

 Ibid., 21–22.  Ibid., 22. 22  Ibid. 20 21

  FR. JOHN LONG ON UKRAINE BETWEEN THE THREE ROMES 

233

This, he believes, is something agreeable to most church leaders and theologians. But his concern is the issue on the ground—how the secular authorities and the laity can appreciate the topic of ecumenical union. The problem deeper than anything, he argues, is the hatred held between the different groups. To combat this he said, “The authorities and Church leaders must therefore undertake a program of working together at the different levels of the Church and community life to inspire and encourage the principles given above.”23 But further, “Emotional, nationalistic and personal difficulties have arisen which could impede these discussions and could create grave obstacles to carrying out their recommendations.” What’s ultimately needed is fidelity to Christ and to his Church; the ecumenical commitments of Catholics and Orthodox to dialogue and a renewed search for full communion. This leaves him with the final assessment, “the pressing demands of a common action for serious evangelization of the millions and millions of people in the Soviet Union who are without God today—all these do not permit to any one the luxury of struggling between Catholics and Orthodox and further tearing at the robe of Christ.”24 How visionary this all is. But how idealistic it is as well. We are currently in a landscape wherein the nationalisms of both Ukrainians and Russians are challenged by the globalism of the Liberal World Order. Ukraine has historically been situated between the three Romes—Constantinople, Moscow, and Rome herself—but she contends with the fourth in Brussels and it is dramatically shaping the ecumenical project, indeed further tearing at the robe of Christ. To conclude, an anecdote from John Borelli at the occasion of the inauguration of Fr. Long’s archives summarizes this well: When we take a look at past history of ecumenical relations and Fr. John Long’s entry into that exciting and new arena of official Catholic involvement fifty years ago and then look ahead, I am reminded what my wife learned from a good on her fiftieth wedding anniversary. Annette surprised my wife Marianne when she revealed how her second twenty-five years were far more enjoyable than the first twenty-five years. “But, you were young and newly married with your lives ahead of you,” Marianne responded in

 Ibid., 23.  Ibid.

23 24

234 

T. DEDON

disbelief. “Well,” Annette replied, “in the second twenty-five, I quit trying to change Bill and they were far more pleasant years.”25

Which way will it go for Ukraine and the Ukrainian Catholics? Will the ecumenical task continue to change her through Latinization, Russification, or Westernization? Or will we learn from our mistakes and live out far more pleasant years in ecumenical marriage?

25  John Borelli, “Reflections on the Future of Ecumenical Relations. On the Occasion of Celebrating a Legacy to Ecumenism: The Contributions and Archives of John F. Long,” at A Legacy to Ecumenism: The Gifts and Archives of Rev. John F. Long, S.J., Unpublished (April 21st, 2016), Delivered at Dahlgren Chapel, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University), 1.

An Ecumenical Revolution in Ukraine?: Perspectives for a Regional Greek-Catholic/ Orthodox Dialogue Dietmar Schon OP

The year 2016 saw the publication of the document “The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church” (UGCC).1 This ecumenically oriented text can be regarded as something new in the efforts of a catholic eastern church to overcome the schism of the Church. Its time of publication is overshadowed by recent conflicts in Ukraine, which beside (geo)political also have confessional connotations. The current confrontation contains a component of political power; it includes the This paper, translated into English by Dr. J. Ritzke Rutherford (Regensburg), draws on a more extensive treatment of the topic; see Dietmar Schon, “‘Die Ukraine als ‚Laboratorium der Ökumene’—Perspektiven des Ökumenedokuments der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche”, Ostkirchliche Studien 67 (2018): 149–186. 1

 Cf. The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, (Lviv: Koleso, 2016).

D. Schon OP (*) Eastern Churches Institute of the Diocese Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_14

235

236 

D. SCHON OP

struggle for a political stabilization of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the “hybrid war” in the Eastern Ukraine. Part of the commixture is also a component of church politics, perceptible in the competing presence of various Orthodox churches, but also in the competitive mentality between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian churches. The document is divided into three main parts. Historical aspects are discussed, followed by a theological analysis and practical applications.

1   Positioning on the Basis of Historical Experience The first part of the document consists of 21 sections. The goal of this exposition can be called positioning the UGCC in the “landscape” of the churches and confessions. The first of these positions regards the relationship to the Roman Catholic Church. Here the focus is on the complete communio of the UGCC with the Roman Church as an indispensable component of the self-image and ecclesiology of this church. Nevertheless, there are also critical demands. For example, “defective theological grounds” are postulated for the results of ecumenical dialogue in the twentieth century.2 It might seem at first sight to be a critique of the Balamand Statement3 agreed by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in 1993. But concealed behind this is an attack on the description of the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches as “ecclesia sui iuris” in can 27 of the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (CCEC); it is said to comprise not enough real autonomy. In respect to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the first positioning consists of a reminder of the historical fact that the Metropolitanate of Kyiv was a mission church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which its byzantine legacy derived.4 The resultant permanent bond of the Metropolitanate with the Ecumenical Patriarchate is said to have remained,  Cf. The Ecumenical Position, No. 11.  Cf. “Dokument der Gemeinsamen Internationalen Kommission für den theologischen Dialog zwischen der Katholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche Balamand/Libanon 1993” in: Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, Vol. 3, edited by Harding Meyer et al., (Paderborn: Bonifatius Druck, 2003), 560–567. 4  Cf. The Ecumenical Position, No. 5. 2 3

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

237

even after the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders. Such view is confirmed by historical research5: in fact the continued nomination and consecration of the Metropolitan of Kyiv by the Ecumenical Patriarchs during their exile in Nicea is a clear indication of this.6 Contact only broke off after the Union of Brest. As a part of the faithful wanted to remain in communio with Constantinople, for them a parallel orthodox hierarchy (1620) and separate jurisdiction (1632) had been established.7 The Patriarchate of Moscow hardly plays any role in the first part of the ecumenical document.8 Instead the document focuses on a political power component: the three divisions of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795) are stressed, as well as the annexations by the Russian realm, a territory that was once again expanded in 1939 (annexation of Galicia by the Soviet Union). These expansions of the Russian sphere of influence westward are viewed as precedents for various attempts to unite the UGCC with the Patriarchate of Moscow. The years mentioned (1839, 1871, and 1946) mark attempts by the Tsarist Empire followed by the Soviet Union to unify church denominations through coercive measures in the territory of what is today the independent state of Ukraine. The reminder that such destruction of the UGCC was attempted not just through the Pseudo-­ Synod of Lviv in 1946 but also through coercive governmental measures already in the nineteenth century appears a significant contribution to historical veracity. A further positioning of the UGCC consists in the univocal commitment to ecumenism, as founded in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) of Vatican II, a document of comprehensive and universal orientation. However, the text of “Ecumenical Position” mostly deals with a special unity in regard to the historical Metropolitanate of Kyiv.9 So, for instance, Metropolitan Slipyj is quoted in saying that it is important “to foster hope for the restoration of unity of the self-governing Church of

5  Cf. Sophia Senyk, A History of the Church in Ukraine Vol. I, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 243, (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1993), 315–316. 6  Cf. Andrzej Poppe, “Die Metropoliten und Fürsten der ‘Kiever Rus’,” in Christentum und Theologische Literatur in der Kiever Rus’ (988–1237), edited by Gerhard Podskalsky (München: Beck, 1982), 295–301. 7  Cf. Daniel Stone, The Polish-Lithuanian State 1386–1795, A History of East Central Europe Vol. IV, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), 147–148. 8  Exceptions are to be found in The Ecumenical Position, No. 9. 9  Cf. The Ecumenical Position, Nos. 6 und 9.

238 

D. SCHON OP

Kyiv.”10 Similar wording is used in sections 1711 and 2212 of the document while section 24 speaks of “restoration of unity of all the churches of the Kyivan tradition.” Therewith, the goal of the document is clearly stated: a restoration of the fragmented unity of the church based on regional criteria. This thought is elaborated upon in sections 15 and 16 of the text. The collapse of the Soviet Union is seen as an opportunity for new perspectives on ecumenical collaboration and approach in the Ukraine. This movement is said to be “ecumenical by its nature, for it is rooted in 17th c efforts to unite Rus’ with Rus’, undertaken by Metropolitans Veliamyn Josyf (Rutsky), Yov (Boretsky) and Petro (Mohyla).”13 Here the names of the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan Rutsky, as well as the Orthodox Metropolitans Boretsky and Mohyla stand for an attempt to bridge the confessional fracture lines between the Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.14 Serhij Plochij summarizes the basic idea—presented in the Annual Report 1624 of Metropolitan Rutsky to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith15—as follows: The Orthodox were prepared to accept Catholic dogmas, but would not submit to the direct authority of Rome. As a possible solution to the  Ibid., No. 12.  In a reference to Major Archbishop Lubachivsky it is stated in ibid., 17: “of Ukrainian ecumenism Rus’ with Rus’ might again … restore to Christians of Ukraine the faith they had during the reign of … Volodymyr, when the church was undivided”. 12  The decisive statement in ibid., 22 refers to a Pastoral Letter published in 2004 with the programmatic title: “One people of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv,” cf. “Das eine Volk Gottes im Land der Kyiver Berge” in Einheit: Auftrag und Erbe, Anthologie von Texten der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche zu Fragen der Kircheneinheit, edited by Andriy Mykhaleyko et al. (Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University Press, 2012), 143. 13  The Ecumenical Position, 16. 14  Cf. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Staaten und Kirchen in der Völkerwelt des östlichen Europa. Entwicklungen der Neuzeit, Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 49, (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2007), 315–321. Cf. Serhii Plochij, The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine, (Oxford: University Press 2001), 124. For a detailed description of the year-long negotiations and tactics, see: Mykhailo Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, Vol. 8, (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2002), 3–15, 57–75. 15  Evgenij Shmurlo, Le Saint-Siège et l’Orient Orthodoxe Russe 1609–1654, Publication des Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, 1. sér., no. 4, 2. Teil, Éditions Orbis Prague 1928, 35–40. Cf. summaries of Rutsky’s proposals and an instruction by Cardinal Ciampoli, ibid., 40–42. 10 11

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

239

­ roblem, Boretsky and Smotrytsky proposed, according to Rutsky, to leave p the united Ruthenian Church under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, which in turn would recognize the supremacy of Rome, as under the terms of the Union of Florence. The other alternative put forward by the Orthodox […] was that of establishing a Ruthenian patriarchate in a vaguely defined union with Rome. The proposal amounted to a form of autokephaly for the Kyivan metropolitanate, and in this connection the Orthodox alluded to the popularity of the idea of a patriarchate among the faithful in general and the Cossacks in particular. It was planned to attract the people and the Cossacks with the alluring title of patriarch.16

However, these proposals can hardly be called successful. Rome saw it as a chance of expansion of the Union of Brest to include the remaining Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Rutsky’s suggestions in regard to a modification of the Union were rejected by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on June 4, 1629.17 The Orthodox gave a completely opposite interpretation of the project as a “return” of the Uniates under the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and to Orthodox dogma.18 The attempt of a member of the Orthodox hierarchy to involve the Patriarch of Constantinople, Kyrill Lukaris, in the project of regional reunion by means of a letter from August 1627 received no response.19 Thus the idea of a double communio of the ancient Kyivan Metropolitanate to Rome and Constantinople can be dismissed from this side. One of the main players, the orthodox Bishop Smotrytsky, had made himself untrustworthy in his church through long years of strategizing in word and writing; he finally converted to the Greek-Catholic Church.20 An ecumenical perspective cannot be drawn from such precedents. It is not compatible with returning to earlier phases marked by strategizing, polemics, and competitive thinking. The historically oriented part of the document leads in subtitle 1.2. into an account of various initiatives and arguments drawn from contemporary history (Nos. 17–25). The terms “reconciliation” and “commitment for  Serhij Plochij, The Cossacks, 125.  The documents were published in Evgenij Shmurlo, Le Saint-Siège et l’Orient Orthodoxe Russe, 54–58. 18  Serhii Plochij, The Cossacks, 124. Cf. Hrushevsky, History, 14. 19  Cf. Hrushevsky, History, 13. 20  See a letter of Pope Urban VIII to Smotrytsky dated 7th of October 1628 in Athanasius Welykyj, Documenta Pontificum Romanorum Historiam Ucrainae Illustrantia, Vol. I, (Romae: PP. Basiliani, 1953), 467. 16 17

240 

D. SCHON OP

the unity of the Church” in No. 19 can be seen as an expression of the UGCC’s fundamental desire to overcome mistrust and division between different churches and nations. Among the approaches offered in Section 1.2., No. 17 stands out as it is addressed to the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Russian people: Following Christ’s spirit, we extend our hand of forgiveness, reconciliation, and love to the Russian nation and the Moscow Patriarchate. […] Let us respect one another, let us learn to live together, conscious of the fact that we are united by the same faith of our Saviour.21

No. 20 calls attention to the importance of mutual respect and tolerance: any behavior by the faithful that can be interpreted as lack of respect, divisiveness, and hate is to be avoided. No. 22 recalls again the pastoral letter “One People of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv” and quotes its subtitles to offer a concise summary of an agenda for discussion points with the other churches of the Ukraine.

2   The Theological Foundations for the Ecumenical Commitment of the UGCC The second part of the document analyses the theological foundations for the ecumenical efforts of the UGCC (Nos. 26–38). The first sections draw above all on Holy Scripture and Vatican II. In this respect the perspective is universal. The larger part of the text, however, deals with “self-­ governance of the one Kyivan Church.” No. 30 treats the specific meaning of a “national-cultural identity.” No. 32 demands that evangelization of the church should be “clothed” in the mentality and culture of diverse nations. Thus, referring to the concept of inculturation, a national element is introduced into the theological interpretation of ecumenism. It is questionable whether this is appropriate. The Catholic understanding of “inculturation” is rooted in No. 22 of the decree Ad gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church of Vatican II. In it both syncretism and false particularism are explicitly excluded. As an objective, the Council emphasized to accommodate Christian life to the genius and the dispositions of each culture. The best way to achieve this is 21  The Ecumenical Position, No. 17 with reference to a speech of Major Archbishop Lubachivsky from November 6, 1987.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

241

to borrow from the customs and traditions of their people, from their wisdom and their learning, from their arts and disciplines, all those things which can contribute to the glory of their Creator, or enhance the grace of their Savior, or dispose Christian life the way it should be.22

This clearly shows that the Council’s view of “inculturation” does not include an opening to a “nationalization” of the Church, especially not in the context of ecumenical efforts. In this respect the document of the UGCC introduces new standards. The desired goal of such considerations is described as follows: The self-governance of a united Kyivan Church will have a unitive character, allowing for all to retain that which is valuable within the accumulated heritage of the present-day Churches of the Kyivan tradition.23

This is to give rise to a “Ukrainian Christian community.”24 Therewith, the national criterion takes precedence over the ecclesiastical. Implied by the formulation “Christian community.” something entirely new is to arise on a regional level: a Ukrainian community which is neither Orthodox nor Catholic in the usual confessional sense of the word. Nevertheless, both lines of tradition are to be found accumulated and unique in a kind of autocephaly. This is meant to be an enrichment of both the “self-­ governing Churches of the East and West” and at the same time of the “denominational branches of the Kyivan Church.” The theological development in the second part of the document “Ecumenical Position” remains, on the whole, surprisingly cursory. Many of the elements worked through in the first part such as the openness to discussion and dialogue (Nos. 23, 25), to reconciliation (Nos. 17, 19, 21), and to a shared reorientation on the basis of the Gospel (No. 24) could have been theologically deepened. Also an outstanding opportunity to draw on the rich theological insights of Vatican II, papal encyclicals on ecumenism, other documents of ecumenical relevance or the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism25 and to apply them for a regional context seems largely missed.  No. 22 of the decree Ad gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church.  The Ecumenical Position, No. 38. 24  Ibid., No. 38. 25  Cf. “Direktorium zur Ausführung der Prinzipien und Normen über den Ökumenismus”, Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 110. Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen 22 23

242 

D. SCHON OP

3   Ecumenical Goals The third part of the document (Nos. 39–65) subsequently discusses the concrete ecumenical tasks which the UGCC wants to address in the future. Here we find numerous relevant elements collected, which are designed to overcome conflicts and to prevent them, steps to take for church rapprochement and promotion of collaborative efforts above and beyond confessional boundaries. Of course, all these suggestions can get realized on a regional basis, that is in the special context of Ukraine. The various proposals cannot be presented comprehensively here, so I will restrict myself to six examples of particular interest for this chapter: 1. Section 47 of the text deals with the possibility and task to reappraise historical experience, while violent forms of reunification, polemical theologizing, and proselytism are expressly mentioned as aberrations. In this section, some of the most controversial conflicts of twentieth century are named. In the background stands the forced reunification of the UGCC with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) on Stalin’s orders in 1946 and its bloody persecution under the Soviet totalitarian regime. Only a meeting between President Michael Gorbachev and Pope John Paul II in Rome on December 12, 1989, paved the way for the official reconstitution of the UGCC.26 That the emergence of an entire Church out of legal prohibition and the forced union with the ROC would be connected with problems was predictable and foreseen by those responsible. Unfortunately, the attempt to manage the transition through dialogue in the framework of a joint commission failed.27 Instead, quarrels broke out, which led to suspiciousness of ecumenical dialogue on the one hand,28 and, on the other hand, to polemical patterns of interpretation and accusations of proselytism which was Bischofskonferenz, 1993. 26  Cf. Katrin Boeckh, “Reformkräfte. Die katholischen Kirchen und die Perestrojka”, Osteuropa 67, Heft 9/10 (2017), 175–190. 27  Cf. Hansjakob Stehle, Geheimdiplomatie im Vatikan. Die Päpste und die Kommunisten, (Zürich: Benziger, 1993), 381–383. 28  Referring to the Pastoral Letter “One people of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv” in No. 22 of the document is denounced an “ecumenism of ultimatums.” Such a harsh assessment of decades of ecumenical efforts seems hardly appropriate. A similar critical view is given expression in Nos. 11 and 14. In contrast the text lists in No. 13 successes of the ecumenical dialogue.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

243

once thought to be a thing of the past. Only gradually two important ­documents received the deserved reception: a letter of Pope John Paul II dated May 31, 1991, to the Bishops of the European Continent and the well-balanced set of rules in the “General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)” issued on June 1, 1992.29 Since then the situation has grown quieter, but it has not yet been resolved. That is the reason why we see the particular significance of No. 47 of the document so far unfolded. Indeed the topics listed in No. 47 could and should be dealt with on a regional level. At the same time every step onto an “healing of memories” in the Ukrainian context would be a service to both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches as a whole, in so far as concrete insights and conclusions from such a process could achieve similar attempts in other parts of the world. 2. No. 48 once again takes up the idea of a united Kyivan Metropolitanate. Here an additional important goal is added: Thus, the Ukrainian Churches would significantly contribute towards the consolidation of the Ukrainian nation and towards overcoming its regional and ideological divergencies.30

An additional function would result from a regionally united Kyivan Metropolitanate: In addition, the above-mentioned normalization of interchurch relations would prevent Ukraine from once again becoming a zone of conflict between influential states.31

It appears problematical to connect the question of church unity with the goals of domestic and even foreign policy. The historical experience with the Council of Ferrara-Florence should be a warning: The union of 29  Both documents are published in the booklet: Allgemeine Prinzipien und praktische Normen für die Koordinierung der Evangelisierung und des ökumenischen Engagements der katholischen Kirche in Russland und in den anderen Ländern der GUS, Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 109, (Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1992). 30  The Ecumenical Position, No. 48. 31  Ibid.

244 

D. SCHON OP

1439 ultimately suffered failure due to the connection of church unity with the goal of stabilizing the Byzantine Empire and warding off the Ottoman threat.32 3. In Section 49 the contributions of institutions from the religious and social-political areas to a solution of “inter-denominational” conflicts in Ukraine are weighed and acknowledged. Any step towards conflict resolution or conflict prevention should always be free from political, economic, and administrative pressure. In fact, the situation in Ukraine could be greatly improved if the representatives of the churches would speak with one another rather than about one another and set aside the attempt to win (political-governmental) support for their own respective position. In this respect No. 49 contains an effective approach to problem solving through ecumenical dialogue of churches of different denominations in Ukraine. 4. The same can be said for Section No. 50 of the text, in which thoughts on conflict resolution are further developed in a larger context: Inter-­church reconciliation and collaboration could mean a great opportunity to overcome the devastating consequences of Communism and other totalitarian regimes. There is truth in this due to the fact that the churches are largely attributed with intact credibility in a country where the population maintains a deep faith. At the same time this represents the challenge of working through contemporary history, which is highly sensitive in the present atmosphere. 5. No. 56 addresses a further area of practical ecumenism by proclaiming the readiness to reappraise historical misunderstandings through common efforts together with the Orthodox partners in dialogue. Three rather general main points are listed. The perspective for reaching agreement about these is a regional one. The following section No. 57 stresses again the particular historical relations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the Mother Church. The desire for “res32  Cf. Dietmar Schon, “Positionsdenken als Barriere ökumenischer Verständigung—Zur Methodik einer Annäherung zwischen katholischer und orthodoxer Kirche”, in Dialog 2.0— Braucht der der orthodox-katholische Dialog neue Impulse?, Schriften des Ostkircheninstituts der Diözese Regensburg Bd. 1, edited by Dietmar Schon (Regensburg: Pustet, 2017), 229–236.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

245

toration of that unity” while at the same time retaining communio with the Roman bishop once again points to a special path limited only to the church denominations having their roots in the ancient Metropolitanate of Kyiv. Such a view ignores the fact that the unimpaired communio during a relatively short period of the tenth and eleventh centuries based on the relations between the five Patriarchates existing at that time. The Metropolitanate of Kyiv didn’t occur in this context as a more or less independent “sixth partner,” but its involvement into communio was mediated through the Mother Church of Constantinople. The historical context at the beginning of the second millennium offers no argument why communio could have become a regional matter at the beginning of the third millennium. 6. No. 58 deserves special attention for the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is clearly addressed and named as a dialogue partner for the UGCC. The main points of view are “Healing the Wounds of the Past” and “Reconciliation.” The offer of dialogue is vividly formulated and suggests—very practically oriented—a whole series of individual points that require discussion. These include in particular the evaluation of governmental repressions like the forced integration of the UGCC into the ROC. Formulation of the dialogue’s guiding principles is both realistic and welcoming. In relation to Ukrainian Orthodoxy the authors of the document also mention historical and contemporary misunderstandings that present a burden to the mission of all the churches concerned (No. 59) and that need to be resolved in the spirit of love and reconciliation.

4   The Kyivan Church in a Specific Vision of Unity In all three parts, the document “Ecumenical Position” attributes a special role to the ecclesial legacy of the Kyivan Rus’ and the unique bond of the churches which originate from it.33 In this context the document emphasizes the desire for a future restoration of the historical unity of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv, a vision which appears often combined with aspects definitely not given in the mentioned time like “self-governing” or

 Cf. The Ecumenical Position, Nos. 12, 17, 18, 24, 37, 38, 46, 51, 57.

33

246 

D. SCHON OP

even “patriarchate.”34 This seems historically questionable. In some portions of the text such a recourse to the time of a united metropolitanate of Kyiv culminates in the idea of a completed church unity on a regional level.35 The corresponding perspective is oriented towards the future and has a visionary character. This is expressed in many ways, for instance with terms such as “vision” (No. 65), “hope” (No. 12), “process” (Nos. 19, 46), “development” (No. 23), and “goal” (No. 57). It is said that a search for “new models”36or for new “solutions”37 is needed. At the same time the authors of this document strive to prevent misunderstandings from arising as far as possible: The particularities of the Ukrainian ecclesial situation should be treated not as a violation of the only possible order for interchurch relations, but as processes determined by the natural development of the Ukrainian Churches.38

The reason for this caution is rooted in the fact that the view of Vatican II in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio regarding the restoration of communio is comprehensively and universally oriented. It focuses the hope for future communio especially with the Orthodox Church in its integrity, not based on regional churches or countries. This principle of the Council is explicitly adopted several times by the ecumenical document of the UGCC.39 In complete accordance with the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio these sections of the document “Ecumenical Position” develop multiple initiatives which could and should serve the cause of rapprochement,

34  It is expressed with particular clarity in No. 12: “to foster hope for the restoration of unity of the self-governing Church of Kyiv”. Cf. also No. 65: “lies in the revival of a Kyivan church united in one Patriarchate.” 35  It is expressed with particular clarity in No. 51: “efforts to restore church unity on a local level.” Cf. also No. 65 and No. 57 of the document. 36  The document states in No. 12: “and seek new models to restore Christian unity”. Ibid., No. 22 speaks of a “model of development on different levels” and of an “inclusive model of the Kyivan Church.” Similarly in ibid., No. 46: “inclusive forms of unification of the Kyivan Church.” 37  Ibid., No. 45. 38  Ibid., No. 46. 39  Cf. ibid., No. 26–31, 39–44, 51, 55. With corresponding clarity it is emphasized that Union with the Roman Catholic Church and with the Pope are indispensable for the UGCC, cf., for example, in ibid., No. 52.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

247

particularly with the Orthodox churches in this region.40 Nevertheless, in other parts of the text it remains a specific feature that the outlined rapprochement is to lead to regionally completed unity: We believe that the path towards the renewal of this faith lies in the revival of a Kyivan church united in one Patriarchate, in communion with the Bishop of Rome and with other self-governing Churches.41

The perspective becomes even clearer in conjunction with another passage of the text: While she enjoys the spiritual gifts, which arise from unity with the Roman Apostolic See, the UGCC, nevertheless, grieves over the loss of Eucharistic communication with the Mother-Church of the historical Kyivan Church— the Church of Constantinople. Restoration of that unity without the loss of unity with the bishop of “Old” Rome remains a desirable objective for the UGCC.42

It would be too simple to dismiss the idea of a regionally completed church unity mentioned here by saying that it is not provided for in Unitatis Redintegratio. Why should a visionary further thinking of the Council’s principles be inadmissible? However, the question arises whether the UGCC and the other church denominations in the Ukraine are not overchallenged with such a vision for the future. Historical experience demands caution. We need only to recall that the Union of Brest (1596) was conceived by its initiators as a resumption of the communio with Rome according to the formal results of the Council of Florence (1439). The danger that this would be accompanied by a breaking off of communion with Constantinople was seen,43 a consequence which then actually occurred and finally let to the division of the metropolitanate. The later negotiations of the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan Rutsky, as well as those of the Orthodox Metropolitans Boretsky and Mohyla in favor of reunion of the original Kyivan Metropolis in the seventeenth century and to bridge  Cf. especially ibid., Nos. 55–59.  Ibid., No. 65. 42  Ibid., No. 57. 43  Cf. Borys A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform. The Kyivan Metropolitanate, The Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 228. 40 41

248 

D. SCHON OP

the division between Constantinople and Rome also led to a dead end, as was mentioned earlier. A new attempt is connected with Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky who ranks as an outstanding advocate (particularly in No. 12) for the persisting hope of restoring the unity of an independent Church of Kyiv in twentieth century. This hope found tangible expression in an exchange of letters with the Orthodox Metropolitan Antonij Chrapovickij from 1903 to 1908, as shown in the research of Georgij Avvakumov.44 He summarizes—translated from the original German into English—as follows: So it finally also came to no mutual rapprochement or even agreement; on the contrary the opposition between the two men of the church became increasingly clearer. […] In the course of his further action Antonij Chrapovickij attacked the Catholic Church and the Uniates with increasing severity.45

In spite of Vatican II and its rediscovery of a quite close relationship to the Eastern Churches in Unitatis Redintegratio 15, the existing boundaries have not simply disappeared. This is clearly shown by an initiative first begun in 1974 and then taken up again in 1995 by the Greek Melkite-­ Catholic Archbishop of Baalbeck (Lebanon), Elias Zoghby, towards the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.46 He suggested a transitional union between Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Church and pleaded for a double communio of the Greek Catholic Church with both Rome and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The Orthodox Synod did not comment on this point; Rome rejected the model in an official statement in 1976. The reason given was a contradiction with Catholic ecclesiology 44  Georgij Avvakumov, “Metropolit Andrej Sheptyc’kyj und die Problematik der christlichen Einheit in Rußland”, in Konfessionelle Identität und Nationsbildung. Die griechischkatholischen Kirchen in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Hans-Christian Maner and Norbert Spannenberger (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2007), 51–63. 45  Ibid., 59. In the original German text Avvakumov’s concluding is: “So kam es schließlich auch zu keiner gegenseitigen Annäherung oder gar Übereinstimmung; vielmehr wurde der Gegensatz zwischen den beiden Kirchenmännern immer deutlicher. […] Im Laufe seiner weiteren Tätigkeit griff Antonij Chrapovickij die katholische Kirche und das Uniatentum mit zunehmender Schärfe an.” 46  Cf. Assaad Elias Kattan, “Ex Oriente spes? Zu Höhe- und Tiefpunkten ökumenischer Erfahrung im Vorderen Orient”, in Dialog 2.0—Braucht der orthodox-katholische Dialog neue Impulse?, Schriften des Ostkircheninstituts der Diözese Regensburg Bd. 1, edited by Dietmar Schon (Regensburg: Pustet, 2017), 78–83.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

249

and the inseparability of the local and universal levels of the Church.47 The controversial discussion and its ultimate failure incurred frustrations which, even today, represent a tangible burden for the ecumenical ­relationship in Lebanon. Zoghby’s project bears great resemblance to the vision in the document “Ecumenical Position.” Therefore the reasons given in 1976 for its rejection carry great weight to assess the UGCC’s actual proposal. Considering all these ecclesiastical and historical findings, any tangible realization of the vision of a regionally restored church unity in the Ukraine lies in the far distant future. The intensity with which such a vision is described in the document “Ecumenical Position” remains hard to understand.

5   The Urgent Need for Regional Ecumenical Dialogue The strong emphasis of the document “Ecumenical Position” on the historical roots in the same Kyivan Metropolitanate has a side effect: it highlighted the unifying aspects between the UGCC and the Orthodoxy in Ukraine. This is particularly true for the inter-church responsibility for the faith and the faithful in Ukraine. Furthermore the document addresses the historical and contemporary alienation without getting entangled in the details of an analysis. Highlighted are areas and themes which could represent points of departure for improvements in the current regrettable situation of parallel churches or even antagonistic churches. The corresponding insights are dealt with in depth in sections Nos. 17–25 and 39–65. Here we can differentiate between elements of preparation for dialogue and points of reference for ecumenical dialogue. Laying the groundwork for dialogue includes basic attitudes such as readiness to forgive, reconciliation, and love for one another (for instance in Nos. 17, 21, 45). The text offers a clear perception that reconciliation arises from finding ways to heal open wound. Everything is to be avoided that could intensify lack of respect, division, and hate. This includes not only restraint from physical or verbal violence, but also everything that can lead to contempt or harm towards other Christians (No. 20, 23). Barriers to friendly relations, as well as misunderstanding and prejudice, must be removed (No. 42). What is needed are restraint from ultimatums and a spirit of cooperation and 47  Ibid., 79. The project was taken up again in 1995 and failed despite some modifications for the same reasons, see ibid., 81–82.

250 

D. SCHON OP

partnership (No 46). The main requirement for reconciliation consists of a culture of mutual understanding and exchange of God’s gifts according to gospel values (No. 25). Last but not least, Nos. 26–31 and 39–41 offer reassurance on the basis of the Holy Scripture regarding unity as part of the mission of the Church. These approaches can easily lead to cooperation and shared efforts by the Churches on concrete projects.48 In conjunction with this insight, suggestions for shaping the content of dialogue or collaboration are brought forward mainly in its groundbreaking section No. 22 which summarizes the programmatic pastoral letter “One people of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv.” In it, the points of departure and goals of togetherness are identified as follows: “from equalizing exclusivism to communion-based complementary,” “from an ‘ecumenism of ultimatums’ to partnership dialogue,” “from mutual denominational confrontation to a primacy of love.” The consequences of the practice of a thousand years since the beginning of the schism, namely indoctrinating the faithful in the spirit of a confrontation, are rightfully lamented. The same is true of the four centuries old practice since the Union of Brest of transmitting a spirit of rivalry.49 This indirectly addresses the area of education, including catechesis and evangelization, which are to be examined if traces of outdated spiritual attitudes are to be eliminated. Last but not least, rivalries need to be reduced in the social context and energies freed up by this process invested in the ongoing transformation process of Ukraine.50 Furthermore great practical relevance is to be seen in the invitation to reexamine history with a goal of cleansing historical memory and healing the wounds of the past.51 This means the formulation of ambitious goals for ecumenical cooperation on the regional and local levels. This perspective, however, is not new. The regional aspect of ecumenical efforts and their concrete realization were already the subject of a document of the Secretariat for Promoting

48  RISU Information Service reported an actual initiative of the UGCC: “The hierarchs of the Synod considered the initiative of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations to announce 2018 the Year of the Word of God in Ukraine. It was decided to support this proposal of the AUCCRO”, RISU Information Service, https://risu.org.ua/ en/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/70168/ (accessed October 2, 2019). 49  Cf. The Ecumenical Position, No. 47. For further aspects in the area of education, cf. ibid., Nos. 42, 43, 50. 50  Cf. ibid., Nos. 48, 49. 51  Cf. ibid., Nos. 56 b) and 58.

  AN ECUMENICAL REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE?: PERSPECTIVES… 

251

Christian Unity in 1975.52 Also the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 emphasizes the importance of working together on local and regional levels and interprets this as an integral component of the obligation of the Catholic Church to serve the re-institution of communio on all levels.53 Further references are offered in documents of the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, as well as in various documents of the Catholic Church, that refer to the necessity to realize on regional and local levels the basic ecumenical principles worked out on universal level.54 Why the elements of ecumenical efforts recorded in these documents receive no or only inadequate treatment in the document “Ecumenical Position” by the UGCC remains an open question. In addition the document “Ecumenical Position” gives only little attention to the question of how the perspectives and connections for regional ecumenical rapprochement are to be realized. However, the complex ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine is calling for practicable solutions. These could result from the orientation towards an already proven ecumenical model. In fact such a model has existed for decades: The Middle East Council of Churches (MECC).55 The organization was founded in 1974 as a regional 52   Päpstlicher Rat zur Förderung der Einheit der Christen, Die ökumenische Zusammenarbeit auf regionaler, nationaler und örtlicher Ebene, Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 27, 2nd. ed., (Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1980). 53  Päpstlicher Rat zur Förderung der Einheit der Christen, Direktorium zur Ausführung der Prinzipien und Normen über den Ökumenismus, Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 110, (Bonn: Sekretariat der deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1993), Nos. 26–29 and Nos. 166–171. 54  Cf. “Sixth plenary meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church,” in The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, ed., Information Service 73 (1990), 53, Nr. 7 a–c. See also “Dokument der Gemeinsamen Internationalen Kommission für den theologischen Dialog zwischen der Katholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche Balamand/Libanon 1993” in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, Vol. 3, edited by Harding Meyer et al., (Paderborn: Bonifatius Druck, 2003), 560–567. See also “Allgemeine Prinzipien und praktische Normen für die Koordinierung der Evangelisierung und des ökumenischen Engagements der katholischen Kirche in Russland und in den anderen Ländern der GUS,” Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 109, (Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1992), Nos. 20, 22. 55  For more details about a possible model status of MECC to encourage an ecumenical approach in Ukraine cf. Dietmar Schon OP, “Ökumene auf Orts- und Regionalebene—eine Chance zum Miteinander der Kirchen in der Ukraine?”, in Die Ukraine – Ausgangspunkt der Christianisierung der Rus’  – Ausgangspunkt christlicher Versöhnung heute?, edited by Universität Freiburg Schweiz- Institut für Ökumenische Studien (Fribourg, 2002), 102–114.

252 

D. SCHON OP

ecumenical council representing the Orthodox, Oriental-­Orthodox, and Protestant churches in the Middle East. In 1990 the Catholic family of churches present in the region joined the MECC. The goals of this organization are facilitation of a regional ecumenical dialogue, a shared Christian witness which involves mutual support, as well as the promotion of understanding and mutual respect between the Christians and the faithful of other religions.56 The specific character of the MECC’s commitment is to combine ecumenical dialogue—that is an exchange of perspectives, traditions and experience—with concrete cooperation in areas where this is (already) possible. This takes place particularly through solidarity with one another and through the area of social service by the Church.57 Naturally this raises the question whether the ecumenical situation in the Middle East and Ukraine is similar enough to justify an orientation towards the methodology of the MECC. A survey of the periodical Proche-­ Orient Chrétien, as well as other publications and the homepage of the MECC58 together with the topics of discussions, initiatives and projects of the Middle East Council of Churches mentioned there present strong parallels to the desiderata worked out in the document “Ecumenical Position” of the UGCC.59 Taken altogether they invite comparison along the lines of the need for Christian witness on the part of regionally present churches.60 In addition a regional ecumenical structure is needed in Ukraine. Although a “Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations”61 already exists since 1966, its interreligious orientation cannot substitute for a regional ecumenical council, which requires a completely different self-identification.62 This provides encouragement for the idea that Ukraine should profit from the valuable experience of the Middle East and strive to establish a Regional Ecumenical Council of the Churches. 56  Cf. Middle East Council of Churches, https://www.mecc.org/mission-and-history (accessed October 2, 2019). 57  To the characteristics of MECC cf. Schon OP, Ökumene auf Orts- und Regionalebene, 104–106. 58  Cf. Middle East Council of Churches, Annual Report 2018, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c817e417a1fbd595de870e9/t/5ce507e24cee030001edd86e/ 1558513713315/MECC+2018+Annual+Report.pdf (accessed October 2, 2019). 59  Cf. Schon OP, Ökumene auf Orts- und Regionalebene, 108–113. 60  Ibid., 106–107. 61  Cf. Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, https://www.irf.in. ua/files/publications/2016.12.27-UCCRO-%D0%905-ENG.pdf (accessed October 1, 2019). 62  Cf. Schon OP, Ökumene auf Orts- und Regionalebene, 107–108.

Orthodox-Catholic and Greek Catholic Relations After the Ukrainian Crisis Petros Vassiliadis

1   Preamble One of the most significant initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in addition to his determination to bring into completion, after nearly 70 years of preparation a Pan-Orthodox Synod,1 was his  Only a few years ago there were some Orthodox circles who seriously considered, or even pressed in the direction of, abandoning all ecumenical dialogues, both multilateral and bilateral. The recent Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016) has definitely put an end to these trends and officially determined the ecumenical character of Orthodoxy, reaffirming its commitment toward the search for the visible unity of the Church and its struggle for the unity of humankind and the integrity of the entire created world. There is no doubt that a leading figure in the ecumenical dialogue is His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The successful and pleasant outcome of the official theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which broke communion with the still undivided One Holy Catholic Church since the fifth century AD, but kept despite their separation the same teaching, even the Christological one, with the mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy, was one such clear indication, though the entire project of re-unification is still unfinished. Another, and most important 1

P. Vassiliadis (*) CEMES, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_15

253

254 

P. VASSILIADIS

Patriarchal and Synodical initiative to heal the painful schism in Ukraine by granting an autocephalous status to a united Orthodox Church in Ukraine. This initiative, although it was taken according to all canonical preconditions,2 was strongly and vehemently opposed by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), to the extent that she broke Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP). The ROC spoke of the EP’s initiative as an invasion into their own territory and an act which may result in the major schism since the 1054, even threatening that this initiative may lead to a new religious war. To most observers the entire situation is characterized as an intra-Orthodox “Ukrainian crisis,” perhaps the most serious within the family of the Orthodox Churches. What lies behind this regrettable crisis is the dispute on an effective primacy role to deal with inter-Orthodox secondary issues, because of the Russian Orthodox Church’s refusal to accept the ages-old canonical and ecumenically decreed prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Unfortunately, for many centuries, especially after the second half of the second millennium, we, the  Orthodox, have unconsciously developed a “negative” Orthodox identity: we are not what our tradition has left us as a legacy, but what the others, mainly the Catholics, are not, that is, without a primacy, a visible expression of the Church’s unity, accompanied, of course, by synodality. The present Ukrainian crisis has revealed and brought to the surface yet another problem, indirectly related to primacy: Uniatism.3 This historical structure within the Catholic Church, rightly or wrongly,4 has been one, was the convocation of the Holy and Great Council, which has declared: “The Orthodox Church, which prays unceasingly ‘for the union of all,’ has always cultivated dialogue with those estranged from her, those both far and near. In particular, she has played a leading role in the contemporary search for ways and means to restore the unity of those who believe in Christ, and she has participated in the Ecumenical Movement from its outset and has contributed to its formation and further development.” Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, par. 4. 2  Cf. a critical assessment of the Phanar-Moscow debate in Greek in https://cemes.weebly. com/pialpharhoepsilonmubeta940sigmaepsiloniotasigmaf.html, in Italian in http://www. settimananews.it/ecumenismo-dialogo/ucraina-teologia-unita-dellortodossia, and in English in https://cemes-en.weebly.com. 3  I avoid the Slavic neologism “unija,” and use the commonly agreed term in the Balamand Declaration. 4  Uniatism, as the most reliable Greek Catholic scholar, and expert in Byzantine liturgy, the late Robert Taft, pointed out, “far from restoring the broken communion between East and West … led to new divisions” (“Anamnesis, Not Amnesia: The ‘Healing Memories’ and the

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

255

­ egatively affecting the progress of the bilateral dialogue in the ecumenin cal era between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Initiated historically mainly in that area, the issue of the existence of the Greek Catholic Churches has brought to a temporary halt the official bilateral theological dialogue between them after the collapse of the communist rule in almost the entire Central and Eastern Europe.

2   The Balamand Declaration The thorny issue of Uniatism for Orthodox-Catholic relations was clearly demonstrated as such by the rejection of a perfectly drafted document by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during its 7th plenary session, held in 1993 at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon. This document, entitled “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion,” widely known as the “Balamand Declaration,” was written in the hope to smoothen the tensions that had arisen between Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox Churches and their Catholic counterparts in different countries, but most evidently in Ukraine,5 after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The document thoroughly discussed ecclesiological principles and suggested practical rules for both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, in an attempt to improve their relations by reciprocally avoiding interfering in each other’s affairs and not using history in a polemical manner. According to Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the Catholic co-chairman of the Commission at that period, the report contained three principles: that individuals have the freedom to follow their conscience, that Eastern Catholic Churches have the right to exist, and that Uniatism is not the current method of full communion. The two further points of the declarations were that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are “sister churches” and that rebaptism should be avoided. The Eastern Orthodox rejected the Balamand Declaration, because it did not call for the abolition of the Uniate Churches while most of the Greek or Eastern Catholics rejected it, “because it seemed to imply, they Problem of ‘Uniatism’,” December 1, 2000, Lecture at the University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, at www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Taft_Anamnesis_Not_ Amnesia.html). 5  For the historical mistreatments of the issue see Y. P. Avvakumov’s chapter, “Caught in the Crossfire: Toward Understanding Medieval and Early Modern Advocates of Church Union” (Vol. I).

256 

P. VASSILIADIS

should never have existed.” Of course, the Orthodox were always demanding within the framework of the official theological dialogue and beyond that the Eastern Catholic Churches, considered as the Trojan Horse to proselytism, should either return to the Orthodox Church or be fully absorbed by the Catholic Church without following the Eastern rite. That demand was regularly put forward in recent years by the ROC, insisting that the “problem of Uniatism” should be solved before any substantial progress can be made in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. And that was the reason of the temporary break of the official bilateral dialogue for nearly a decade, only to start again with another disagreement by the Russians, this time on the “Ravenna Document.” This time it was a disagreement on the importance of primacy,6 basically for having a different understanding of the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch, always avoiding to call him this way using instead the title Patriarch of Constantinople, had consequences also for the progress of the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue. A notable exception on this issue was the reaction of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, the head of which, His Beatitude Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, welcomed the Balamand Declaration. In a letter to Cardinal Edward Cassidy, he said: “I commit myself, my brother bishops, clergy and faithful to applying the practical rules of the Balamand Document to the best of our ability.”7 In another letter written to the Catholic members of the international dialogue in August 1993, while he expressed some reservations about certain aspects of the text, he stated that Balamand had proven that the fears of some of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic faithful about the work of the dialogue with the Orthodox were unfounded. Last year, marking the 25th anniversary of the Balamand Declaration, a colloquium was held to reread again that document, investigating: (a) whether the theology of “sister churches” was sufficiently received in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and (b) whether the “problem of Uniatism” should have been better examined in specific geographical contexts (especially that of Ukraine, but also of Romania,8 the Balkans 6  Cf. also R. Bordeianu’s chapter, “‘They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares’: OrthodoxEastern Catholics Conflicts and the Ecumenical Progress That they Generated.” 7  “Letter to Cardinal Cassidy (August 3, 1993) by Myroslav Ivan Cardinal Lubachivsky,” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies vol. 35 (1994) Nos 1–4, 417–424, p. 423. 8  More on the Romanian situation in L.  Stanciu’s chapter, “Identity and Institutional Allegiance in Romanian Uniate Church History (1700–1900)” (Vol. I).

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

257

and the Middle East9), rather than providing a general answer to the problem. In that colloquium, a Ukrainian Professor at the Loyola ­ Marymount University and Huffington Ecumenical Institute, Rev. Cyril Hovorun, presented a very interesting observation. He connected the problem of Uniatism with the intra-Orthodox dispute on primacy,10 the way this chapter already mentioned above.11

3   A New Perspective in the Orthodox-Greek Catholic Relations? This one-sided negative assessment of Uniatism,12 despite its central place in all ecclesiological and ecumenical discussions, even in the above-­ mentioned Balamand Declaration, was not so widespread among 9  Cf. the interesting remark by Bishop M. Tawfiq of the Coptic Eastern Catholic Church, who insisted that “the Catholic Oriental Churches are quite conscious that their reason of existence is to be bridges (links) for exchange and intercourse, passages of union between the Orient and the Occident. History is a witness to that. It was mostly the refusal from the side of the Orthodox Churches to acknowledge (the “Uniates”) and the limits which the West set to them, that had restricted their role of a mediator and a link between East and West” (“The Role of the Oriental Catholic Churches in the re-Establishment of Unity between the Orient and the Occident,” in A. Stirnemann and G. Wilflinger, The Vienna Dialogue on Ecclesiology, Booklet 7, 115). 10  Fr. Cyril’s very telling title was, “Uniatism as a Scapegoat in the Exchanges between Moscow and Constantinople” (his presentation was recorded in dropbox.com/s/ jtte9r1ibt1jmvm). 11  More in D. Keramidas’ chapter, “The Question of “Uniatism” in the Framework of the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue and the Ecclesiological Option of Communio” (Vol. I); cf. also I. Jinjolava’s chapter, “Synodical Principle as the Key to Church Unity” (Vol. I). 12  See from the traditionalist Old-Calendarist side “The Balamand Union. A Victory of Vatican Diplomacy,” in the Greek periodical. Orthodoxos Enimerosis, published by the Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece, No. 14 (July–September), 1993, translated into English by the Center of Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, St Gregory Palamas Monastery, Etna CA 96027, with the subtitle, “Official Recognition by the Orthodox Ecumenists of Papism as a ‘Sister Church.’” Also, Petros M. Toulis’ M.Th. thesis, supervised by an anti-ecumenist dogmatic theologian D.  Tsellegidis, under the title, The Balamand Document and its Assessment in the International Bibliography, written one and a half decade later, Thessaloniki 2007. “According to (his) opinion, the agreement of Balamand was a false move of Orthodox delegation. … The acceptance of theory of “Sister Churches” is judged unacceptable, because only the Orthodox churches have the right to call each other “sisters” (from his own English conclusions, p.  91). J.  Romanidis similarly  called the Balamand Declaration a Catholic “trap” to the Orthodox. (“Orthodox and Vatican Agreement, Balamand, Lebanon, June 1993,” Theologia 6, 4 (1995) 570–580.

258 

P. VASSILIADIS

Orthodox theologians, except those within the areas mentioned above. And I am not referring to the issue of the “Stolen Churches” of the title of this conference,13 which is only the last chapter in the history of Ukrainian Uniatism. Less than a year ago, the renowned Church historian Rev. John Erickson of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) warned the Orthodox in a quite self-critical manner: “We ‘remember’ the Frankish sack of Constantinople in 1204 and many other events of the past very vividly. At the same time, we are inclined to forget atrocities in which we ourselves have been complicit, such as the forced suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches during the communist period in Russia and Eastern Europe.”14 The most serious examination of the positive contribution at a theological level of the Greek Catholic communities occurred within the process of Vatican II.15 There the theological intervention of Neophyte Edelby, a Greek Catholic (Melkite) Archbishop of Edessa in Osrhoene, who participated from 1962 to 1965 at the four sessions of Vatican II, and contributed as no one else in bringing back the treasures of the Eastern Orthodox tradition in the theology of the Catholic Church.16 If all Orthodox agree that the essence of the authentic Orthodox tradition in contemporary Orthodox theological thinking is brought forward by the theologians of the Russian diaspora (Florovsky, Meyendorff, Schmemann), the theological views of Archbishop Edelby submitted in the proceedings of Vatican II and preserved in its archives have proved that contemporary Orthodox and Greek Catholic views are almost identical. At the aftermath 13  I limit myself only to the situation after the Ukrainian crisis. For its pre-history see B.  Hallensleben’s chapter “Church Unions of the Early Modern Period in Relation and Contradiction to the Council of Ferrara/Florence.” 14  John Erickson, “The Temporal Dimension of Discernment: History and Memory,” 2018 Bose Monastery Lecture. Cf. also from the Greek Catholic side Robert Taft, “Anamnesis, Not Amnesia,” and an earlier one by Ernst C. Suttner, Church Unity. Union or Uniatism? Catholic-Orthodox Ecumenical Perspectives (Rome/Bangalore: Dhamaram Publications, 1991). 15  For the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops at Vatican II see more in M. Ivaniv’s chapter, “The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Bishops at the Second Vatican Council: The Participation in the Council and Contribution to the Discussions of Conciliar Documents.” (Vol. I) 16  Abp. Neophyte insisted that “within the Catholic field they are witness of unity in diversity, and within Orthodoxy they are witness of Catholicity. Their function is to bring Orthodoxy as well as the Latin West to appreciate the Universality of the Church.” N. Edelby, “Between Orthodoxy and Catholicism,” in Maximos IV Sayegh, Eastern Churches and Catholic Unity, Freiburg, 1963, 71. More in his Souvenirs du Concile Vatican II (11 octobre novembre 1962–8. 1965). Grec Melkite Catholic Centre de Recherche, Beyrouth 2003.

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

259

of Vatican II, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, after a meeting with the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV,17 recognized that the latter had “spoken for the Orthodox” at Vatican II.18 The Greek Orthodox liturgist Joannis Fountoulis of the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki courageously brought his ideas into the Greek Orthodox academic field with his pre-doctoral dissertation article “Towards a Reformation of the Divine Liturgy,”19 and almost simultaneously favorably reviewing Archbishop Edelby’s Liturgicon, in the official journal of the Greek Orthodox Church, Θεολογία.20 Fountoulis was not an isolated case in the Theological School of Thessaloniki and in Greek ecclesiastical circles.21 At the time of the unfortunate break of the official dialogue after the collapse of the Berlin Wall between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, on the demand of the ROC, the Greek-Catholic scholar of Canon Law, later Bishop, Dimitrios Salachas, of Greek nationality, was a regular visiting scholar at the Orthodox Theological School of Thessaloniki, and one of pioneers in keeping the theological Orthodox-Catholic alive between academic institutions (the Orthodox Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Catholic Department of Spirituality of the Pontifical Ateneo Antonianum University of Rome), early in the 1990s, after the break of their official ecclesiastical dialogue. Salachas’ positive assessment 17  Patriarch Maximos IV, acknowledging that Vatican II emphasized the ecumenical duty (unfortunately not “mission”) of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the work of reconciling East and West (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 24) underscored this duty of the Catholic Oriental Churches saying: “The Oriental Catholic Churches are for Christian unity a mighty and indispensable factor. In spite of our small number, we are fully conscious of being charged with a great mission.” J.  Madey, Orientalium Ecclesiarum More Than Twenty Years After, Kottayam, 1987, 150. More on the Melkite Greek Catholics in Th. Bremer’s paper. “The Theological Self-profile of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church vis-à-vis Orthodoxy and Islam: Dialogue and Confrontation,” and Cherian Karukaparambil’s article, “The Reality of the Catholic Eastern Churches in the Context of Vatican II Ecumenism: Model and Bridge for Unity?” Asian Horizons, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2014, 455–468. 18  It may not be accidental that quite recently (April 30) his successor at the present, Patriarch Bartholomew warmly welcomed another Eastern Catholic Patriarch, the SyroChaldean Cardinal Mar Louis Raphael I Sako of Iraq (http://fanarion.blogspot. com/2019/04/mar-louis-raphael-i-sako.html). 19  Gregorios o Palamas (1960) 401–409 and 444–450, translated also in French for POC 11 (1961) 49–56. 20  (Abp.) Neophyte Edelby, Liturgicon, Missel byzantine a l’ usage des fideles, Beyrutth, 1958, in Theologia 31 (1960), 655–658. 21  See however the exception in note 12 above that proves the rule!

260 

P. VASSILIADIS

of the Balamand Declaration was even published in the progressive Orthodox journal Kath’ Odon.22 Another example of a positive reference to Uniatism, this time from the Orthodox diaspora in the West was A. Schmemann, who commenting on the Orientalium Ecclesiarum23 he wrote: “It is one more step, and a decisive one, toward the recognition of the Eastern tradition as ‘equal in dignity’ to that of the West. Of utmost importance is its emphasis on the temporary character of its provisions: ‘until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity.’ This seems to indicate a rather significant shift in the very understanding of the function of the Eastern Catholic communities called now to serve as bridges to, rather than substitutes for, the Orthodox East.”24 Even more significant for our theme is the case of the Orthodox monastic communities of the New Skete, originally belonging to a small community of Byzantine-Rite Franciscans of the United States. After studying their monastic and liturgical tradition, eventually evoked an ecclesial question of where they belonged. While the broad themes of renewal and authentic tradition initiated by Vatican II were an inspiration for them, the actual changes eventually implemented in the Roman Catholic church during the 1960s and 1970s did not pertain to their Eastern liturgical practice. This led them, with the blessing of their superiors, as they confessed, to seek actual ecclesiastical affiliation with the Orthodox Church. Mediated by the gifted professor-priests Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff, as they said, they sought and received incorporation into the Orthodox Church in America and were given the status of stavropegial communities. And even more important for our theme is that they courageously assessed the contribution to an ecumenical reconciliation of their former Uniate brothers with Orthodoxy in certain early publications of liturgical and typicon books.25 And two decades ago, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew made another courageous statement on how to deal with this burning issue: 22  D.  Salahas, “Perspectives of Dialogue. Is Today a Dialogue of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Orthodox Church Possible, in the Framework of the New Situation in Central and Eastern Europe, for the Future of Christianity?” Kath’ Odon 5 (1993), pp. 61–72. 23  Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches of Vatican II 1964. 24  A.  Schmemann, “A Response,” in Walter M.  Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, London, 1972, 387. 25  More information in the monastery’s website https://newskete.org/

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

261

“Revisiting the past and examining human faults must continue in all directions […] because whoever consents to the misdeeds of another or tolerates them by his silence, shares the responsibility of their author.”26 In 2011, Archimandrite Robert Taft, perhaps  the most important Greek-Catholic theologian of our age, joined the Board of Trustees of Saint Filaret’s Christian Orthodox Institute of Moscow. They consider him, “in addition to be an encouragement to (them) in ecclesiastic and academic terms, their relationship with him strengthening (their) hope of overcoming divisions between Christians.”27 The break of the Eucharistic communion by the Patriarchate of Moscow with the Ecumenical Patriarchate—a temporary I hope and wish—officially declared with the decision of October 15, 2018, on the occasion of the Ukrainian autocephaly, was not an isolated case among Orthodox Churches in recent years (the case of Estonia among others). Previously, the absence of ROC from the Holy and the Great Council of 2016, and their veto to the completion of the pre-conciliar document on autocephaly, was widely explained at an ideological and geopolitical level as a quite reasonable attempt to prevent the loss of Ukraine, something that would weaken the novel theory of the Russian leadership (political and ecclesiastical) about Russkii Mir,28 and at a theological level because of their refusal to accept the primatial role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This, of course, will, in my oppinion, destroy the basis of the Church’s unity, that is, the imperative necessity of having a primus (Πρώτος) at a universal level, despite the fact that such an ecclesiological principle exists in 26  Irénikon 73 (2000) 112. Of course, in the preparatory stage of the Holy and Great Council (Crete 2016) the official site of the Orthodox Theology Studies Center of the Fordham University publicorthodoxy.org hosted an appeal to deal with the scandal of Uniatism by a Greek-Catholic, the Very Rev. Peter Galadza, Professor of Liturgy and Acting Director of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, of Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada (https://publicorthodoxy.org/tag/peter-galadza/). 27  https://psmb.ru/en/a/otoshel-ko-gospodu-arkhimandrit-robert-taft.html. It is important to remember that contrary to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic constant opposition to both “latinization” and “russification” of their identity, both the Kyivan and Moscovite Rus religious identity was developed in opposition to the Greek Catholics for geopolitical and cultural reasons. On the contrary, Greek Orthodoxy, due in generally to their more ecumenical vision, experienced minimal to nearly zero presence of Greek Catholics in predominantly “Greek” environments and context. 28  Some analysts believe that in the back of their mind is the hegemony over all of Orthodoxy, being the continuation of, or something similar to, the earlier theory of a “Third Rome.”

262 

P. VASSILIADIS

metropolitan, episcopal and parish level. Their novel perception of Church unity is primarily based—in addition to many other reasons—on the fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow happens to be the ecclesiastical eparchy of a dominant imperial power, as previously was the case of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the city of New Rome in the Roman Empire. These views do not seem to be shared by Ukrainian Orthodoxy, even by the UOC-MP.29

4   The Ukrainian Autocephaly an Ecumenical Miracle? The new situation in Ukraine with the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox in that country30 unexpectedly brought also an ecumenical revival in the country.31 And ironically enough with the overall c­ ontribution 29  In addition to their earlier appeal for autocephaly, with the signature even of their current primate, Metr. Onuphry, there was also in November 2014 a “Memorandum of single and unified Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church,” signed by a number of Bishops of all the church denominations (including UOC MP and the Greek Catholic). At that period there were negotiations, supported by all of Ukraine’s Presidents, even the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich, requesting a United Orthodox Church. Almost immediately, of course, UOC MP and the Greek Catholic Bishops withdrew their signatures. As for the situation today, there can be only one explanation for the persistence of the Russian Church: Because they have lived their rivalry and controversy with the Catholic Church because of Uniatism, they continue even in the era of universal reconciliation to consider themselves the proponents of the authentic (Orthodox) Christian faith, and Greek Orthodoxy under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not only fallen into Uniatism, but also too tolerant and quite open to the ecumenical dialogue. It is no coincidence that the Russkii Mir narrative has as its constituent element the confrontation with the “corrupted” West, to which Greek Orthodoxy also indirectly belongs. Being an advocate of the unity of the Orthodox Church, as of course of the entire Church of Christ, although I completely disagree with these views, both for missiological and for theological reasons, I believe that a genuine and sincere dialogue with the Russian views is necessary more than ever. 30  This is rejected not only by the Moscow Patriarchate, but also by the community in Ukraine affiliated to it (UOC-MP), an Orthodox community that demographically is heavily declining after the war in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea. 31  Obviously, this paper exclusively focuses on the present situation, after the decision of the EP to grand autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine. For the origins of Uniatism the reader can consult the most reliable treatment on the issue, written by a Russian historian and theologian (of Ukrainian origin, born in Odessa), G. Florovsky. He started his chapter on “Uniatism” in the second part of his Ways of Russian Theology, with the following accurate assessment: “The Unia was less an act of religious choice than cultural and political selfdetermination. Neither reasons of faith nor reasons of doctrine were fundamental to the secession of the bishops. The early Uniates were quite sincere in contending that ‘they did

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

263

of the Eastern Catholic Churches  in religious reconciliation in Ukraine and their openly expressed views in favor of the Ukrainian autocephaly. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, for nearly half a millennium a problem in the Ukrainian/Russian history, and in my view the most serious obstacle for the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in the past (cf. the Balamand Declaration) has suddenly emerged as one the main players in fostering ecumenical relations.32 In addition to their signing the 2014 “Memorandum of single and unified Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church,”33 following the announcement of the EP’s determination to grant autocephaly, in a survey under the title “What the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Can Teach Each Other,”34 the Ukrainian Greek Catholics did not hesitate to answer: “Broad participation in church government,” something so important in the “venerable Orthodox tradition.” And after the Ecumenical Patriarchate invited ordinary clergy and laity as well as bishops to the December 15 unification council, they declared: “Without neglecting the conciliar tradition of the Catholic Church, the Greek-Catholic Ukrainian Church can also learn from the strong Orthodox traditions of synodality and lay participation. This applies not only to the conduct of major councils, but to the election of bishops and priests,”35 and I would add to the entire ecclesiastical life, the liturgical one included, from parish to the universal expression of it. His Beatitude Mgr. Sviatoslav (Shevchuk) underlined that “in Ukraine there is an interesting perspective for ecumenical dialogue in the context of new possibilities.”36 And in an interview37 he went as far as expressing a bold not change the faith.’ They felt they were only transferring jurisdictions and seem really to have believed that the ‘Latin faith’ and the ‘Greek faith’ were identical.” (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/way_russian_theology_florovsky.htm#). 32  See also D. Schon’s chapter, “An Ecumenical Revolution in Ukraine?: Perspectives for a Regional Greek-Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue.” In this chapter I avoid any assessment on the origins of the Ukrainian Orthodox-Ukrainian Eastern Catholic relations. 33  See n. 30 above. 34  See also P. Smytsnyuk’s chapter, “Kenotic Ecumenism: What Can Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Learn from the Parable of the Grain of Wheat?” 35  https://Risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/authors_columns/asorokowski_ column/74140/ 36  http://news.ugcc.ua/en/photo/the_leaders_of_the_ugcc_and_the_ocu_spoke_in_ favor_of_deepening_the_cooperation_between_the_churches_85095.html 37  https://glavcom.ua/country/society/blazhennishiy-svyatoslav-jednannya-katolikiv-ipravoslavnih-ne-je-utopijeyu-559594.html. This brought the immediate reaction by the

264 

P. VASSILIADIS

optimistic view, that “the restoration of Eucharistic communion between Rome and Constantinople is not utopian thinking, as some people call it. This is the goal of the ecumenical movement. This is the fulfillment of the commandment of Christ, ‘that all may be one.’”38 It is no wonder, therefore, what Pope John Paul II few decades ago prophetically called Ukraine “a laboratory of ecumenism.”39 Similarly, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who, during the 1991 St. Peter and Paul feast in Rome, acknowledged at St. Peter’s Cathedral: “With historic changes, especially in the last two years, opportunities for cooperation have been created for the common witness and a deeper unity of our Sister Churches.”40 So, in this sense, the Primate of the Greek Catholics in Ukraine expressed his desire “to cooperate with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. We have even agreed with His Beatitude Epiphanius, to work out a certain ‘road map,’ acknowledging that his own Church “carries the mystical ecclesiastical memory of the undivided Christianity of the first millennium […] we consider our Mother Church to be the Church of ancient Constantinople.”41 Equally, on the Orthodox part, the newly elected Primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Metropolitan of Kyiv and the whole of Ukraine Epiphanius, declared: “We want to start a fruitful cooperation between the Orthodox and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church that existed before, but we want to deepen it, in order to work together in the future.”42 Well before the above encouraging developments in Ukraine, a similar concern was expressed by some members of an ad hoc scientific committee of the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental friendly to the Moscow Patriarchate western Orthodox site http://orthochristian. com/118536.html 38  Also, from his interview in glavcom.ua, in the above note. 39   This was discussed at the conference in I. Shaban’s paper, “Religious Peace in Ukraine— Unity in Diversity.” which is unfortunately not part of these volumes. 40  Episkepsis, no. 464 (July 1, 1991), pp. 4–5. Patriarch Bartholomew categorically recognized the right of the Greek Catholics to exist, (“There is No Frenzy Against Catholics in Constantinople,” interview with Patriarch Bartholomew in the French La Croix, March 1992). 41  Ibid. 42  https://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/74357/. This is, of course, contrary to the attitude and present moves of Metropolitan Filaret (Denishenko), still holding at the age of 92 much of the old Soviet, and imperial, Russian ideas. My intervention on the Ukrainian issue before the convocation of the unification council (https://Risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/open_theme/7332/), Metr. Filaret’s initial reservations had in mind.

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

265

Studies “Metr. Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), assigned with the task to scientifically assess the theological arguments in the Ukrainian crisis. In their Final Report, endorsed by CEMES, mainly in view of the decision of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate to break communion with her mother Church, it was stated: in view of the possibility of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church joining the new Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), after taking of course the necessary canonical steps,43 many devoted Orthodox would possibly prefer the unity with the Roman Catholic Church, especially with the Present Pope, rather than with the Russian Church, especially with her current Russkii Mir theory, which in very many respects is contrary to the more holistic mission document of the Holy and Great Council, under the title The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World, a document for which the Russian Orthodox Church, after all, has officially the most reservations.44

43  It is interesting to note, what Emeritus Professor of Orthodox Canon Law at the University of Athens, P.  Boumis, has recently remarked: “Of course, if the faithful Greek Catholics of Ukraine become the cause and mediators, or even supporters of such miraculous development of inter-Christian affairs (reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches), then it is no longer necessary to be received into the Orthodox Church by (the lower condition, i.e.) being anointed with the Holy Myhr, as being officially members recognized by the Western (Catholic) Church” (panorthodoxsynod.blogspot.com/2019/06/orthodoxygreek-catholic-and-catholic.html?m=1, in Greek). 44  From the CEMES Final Report. See above n. 2. One can hardly disagree with A. Shishkov’s concern, who in his chapter “How Modern Orthodox Ecclesiology Hinders the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue on Uniatism: Romantic Approach, Nationalism, and Anti-colonial Narrative,” pointed out that modern ecclesiology hinders the quest for Church unity, despite of not being as self-critical as one would expect. Ecclesiology is, in fact, a modern theological construction, prompted by the fragmentation of the “One” Church of Christ. In the first millennium the undivided Church—mainly concerned with the second person of the Holy Trinity—focused exclusively on Christology; even Pneumatology was underdeveloped theologically. For the undivided Church, “the Church was a reality we live in, rather than an object we analyze and study” (P. Evdokimov, Orthodoxy, Gr. Transl. Thessaloniki 1972, 16). Cf. also, V.  Fedorov’s paper, “An Answer from an Orthodox Missiologist to the Question “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy”? (from the Russian Orthodox side); and S.  Mazzolini, “The Missionary Nature of the Church. Suggestions for a Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches” (from the Roman Catholic side).

266 

P. VASSILIADIS

5   Conclusion Will, or can, Uniatism play a positive role in God’s plan for the unity of Christianity, as it did in the preliminary stages of Vatican II, bringing the theological treasure and spirituality of the New Rome to the great stream of Western Christianity and the Old Rome in particular? Can one of the main reasons of separation between the Old and the New Rome, though not theological, but administrative and jurisdictional, become a medium towards unity? Especially after the rejection of the Balamand Declaration of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic official theological dialogue both by the conservative circles in the Orthodox Church, but also by certain Greek Catholics in Ukraine? Why not!45 We must never forget that the Holy Spirit works, especially with regard to the ecumenical relations, in unexpected and unimaginable ways.46 Will the Holy Spirit blow in similar unexpected and unimaginable ways to our Churches now, especially of the Old and the New Rome? Are these main traditions of Christianity ready to move in the Holy Spirit? Can they become transforming disciples of our Lord and bearers of witness in Christ’s Way?47 We pray that Pope Francis, whom I consider as the closest to the Orthodox Christian tradition, among nearly all his predecessors, to closely and prayerfully consider this sign of the Spirit, as he did nearly five years ago in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, when he said: “The unity

45  This is what I wrote in my “Ukrainian Autocephaly: A Cause of an Intra-Orthodox Crisis or a Possible Ecumenical Miracle?” ENHMEPΩΣΙΣ. Newsletter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation of the WCC, January 2019. A similar optimism was expressed a year ago in my “‘Moving in the Spirit.’ But … the Orthodox Way. The 2018 World Mission Conference and Inter-Orthodox Relations,” academia.edu/36237362. 46  This is after all what our Bible tells us: “The Spirit blows wherever s/he wills” (Jn 3:8). This famous saying is reported in the Gospel of John in the context of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus and His insisting on the need of a spiritual birth of us all. This birth by the Spirit, unlike natural birth, is the work of God that no one can control, just as so happens to the wind. The pneuma blows wherever it wills. We hear the wind’s sound, but we do not know from where it comes or where it goes. And then, the evangelist moves from the meaning of the wind to that of the Holy Spirit, since the Greek pneuma has both meanings. “Thus, it is with everyone who is born of the Holy Spirit” (3:8). For this reason, the proper worship of the community has to be “in spirit and in truth” (4:24). 47   (Archbishop of Albania) Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Mission in Christ’s Way, HC Orthodox Press/WCC Publications: Brookline/Geneva, 2010.

  ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC AND GREEK CATHOLIC RELATIONS… 

267

of Christians—we are convinced of this—will not be the fruit of refined theoretical discussions in which each will try to convince the other of the truth of their opinions. The Son of Man will come and will find us again in the discussions. We must recognize that in order to reach the depth of the mystery of God we need each other, to meet and to confront ourselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversity and overcomes conflicts, reconciles diversity.”48 And we pray, as in the World Mission Conference of the World Council of Churches in Athens (2005), the first in a predominantly Orthodox country: “Come Holy Spirit, heal, and reconcile.” In my view, even if a radical step the Old and the New Rome are not ready to take at top level—something needed on both sides—the example and paradigm of the New Skete is one, though not the only, thoroughly ecumenical precedent that will certainly promote full Eucharistic unity between the Christian East and West.

48  Let us remind ourselves what Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras half a century ago used to jokingly say about blocking all theologians to an island until they agree on the “dialogue of truth” about the unity of the One Church of Christ, and he himself with his counterpart in the Old Rome continue the “dialogue of love.” The present Pope went one step further, when he spoke of a “dialogue (ecumenism) of blood” on the occasion of the martyrdom of the executed Copts in Libya by jihadists of the ISIS, thus extending it to the PreChalcedonians. Similarly, R. Taft said in the aforementioned passionate article on Uniatism: “We can change the future, but we cannot change the past. It is the bitter heritage of this past that is blocking all ecumenical progress today. The hostilities created by that dolorous past are deep-rooted in the psyche of Eastern Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, so deep-rooted that the average westerner finds them perplexing, at times even infantile and ridiculous. All of which provides stark confirmation of the need for ‘the healing or purification of memory.’ In the twofold process of [1] facing up to the past and [2] then moving beyond it to a better future, step 2 is the work of the official ecumenical dialogue between our two Churches. Step 1, however, ‘the purification and healing of memories,’ involves everyone.”

The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Furtherance of Catholic-Orthodox Unity: Three Possible Paths A. Edward Siecienski

1   Introduction For most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and especially over the last thirty years, people have talked about the deleterious effect the Eastern Catholic or “uniate” Churches have had on Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement. Ecumenical progress, these individuals claim, which was swift throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, has stalled almost completely since the resurrection of the Eastern Catholic Churches in 1989. Instead of “bridges to Orthodoxy,”1 these churches have become the chief barriers to restored communion—ecumenical stumbling blocks in need of removal. However, as appealing as this narrative may be to 1  Among the many interesting discussions that took place at the conference, both in formal sessions and in informal conversations, was the appropriateness of this term in describing the Eastern Catholic Churches.

A. E. Siecienski (*) Stockton University, Galloway, NJ, USA © The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3_16

269

270 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

some, it neglects the oft-forgotten truth that over the centuries there also have been several occasions when Eastern Catholics actually served the cause of unity; when they acted, or had the potential to act, as true “bridges” between East and West. Perhaps a way forward might thus be found by looking back to those moments when the Eastern Catholic churches were seen not as barriers to, but as champions of, church unity. Gleaned from history, these examples provide three possible paths for Eastern Catholics today, although which, if any, the most productive option might be under the present circumstances I leave for others to decide.

2   The Loyal Opposition The first possible path is that the Eastern Catholics continue to remain part of the Catholic communion of churches, but at the same time increasingly work to become “the Orthodox voice” within it. This would entail not only continued resistance to theological and liturgical Latinization, but also, when necessary, actively opposing those Roman policies, practices, and doctrines that they believe contrary to the faith of the Eastern Church. They would essentially become “the loyal opposition” to the governing bureaucracy of the Roman curia—loyal because they would maintain communion with the See of Peter and the essential teachings of the Catholic faith, and an opposition because as autonomous churches within the Catholic communion they would be free enough to speak out on issues of concern to their Orthodox brothers and sisters. Historically there are at least two examples of how this might work. The first is Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef (1864–97), who at Vatican I was one of the strongest voices raised against the dogmas contained in Pastor Aeternus. Of course, the debate on the pope’s jurisdiction and his infallibility were of great interest to the Christian East whose bishops had long questioned the extent of the pope’s authority. However, the Orthodox had refused Pope Pius IX’s invitation to attend the council,2 and thus it seemed that they could only watch and wait to see how the 2  Tactlessly the invitation was published in the Italian newspapers prior to being sent to the patriarchs, so Patriarch Gregory VI of Constantinople (1835–40, 67–71) knew of its contents before the Pope’s representatives had even arrived. Gregory returned the letter unopened, telling the papal delegation that he could not attend such a gathering. The Patriarch of Alexandria similarly rejected Pius’s letter, asking the papal envoy how he could attend a council scheduled to open on the “Feast of the Immaculate Conception,” which

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

271

conciliar proceedings unfolded. That said, it would be inaccurate to say that the voice of the Christian East was not heard at Vatican I. The historic concerns of the Orthodox vis-à-vis the papacy were raised, and to a great extent ably defended, by many of the bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches who continued to oppose the ultramontane tendencies of both the pope and his supporters.3 Chief among them was Patriarch Gregory II Youssef. Youssef intervened on several occasions during the council to speak against the promulgation of the pope’s universal jurisdiction and infallibility, citing not only the obstacle these doctrines would place in the way of East-West unity, but also the limitations they would place on the historic rights of the patriarchs. Youssef argued that one could not view the pope as an “absolute monarch,” lest the function of the bishops be distorted and the nature of the church itself changed.4 He pleaded that the document should content itself with repeating the Florentine definition of the primacy, with the rights of the other patriarchs confirmed. He said: The Eastern church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, but in a manner where the plentitude and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of the most ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very important cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are now asked to define without exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. This is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to admit it.5

Youssef’s’ efforts on behalf of the Eastern Church did not go unnoticed. In a famous story, whose historicity is now deeply suspect,6 Youssef was summoned to an audience with the pope following one of his speeches. celebrated “a dogma wholly unknown to the church.” “The Pope and the Patriarch,” Queabeyan Age, July 29, 1869, 1. 3  See especially Constantin Patelos, Vatican I et les évêques uniates: une étape éclairante de la politique romaine à l’égard des Orientaux (1867–1870) (Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme, 1981); Wilhelm de Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens (München: K. Alber, 1963). 4  He suggested an amendment to this effect, but it was rejected. 5  Patelos, Vatican I et les évêques uniates, 482. 6  At the Second Vatican Council Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV raised this event with Pope John XXIII (who had introduced Pius IX’s cause for sainthood) claiming that at the council’s final ceremony the pope had kicked Gregory in the head and said “Testa dura.” See Henri de

272 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

According to the story, “when Youssef kissed the foot of Pius IX in the traditional fashion, the pope placed his foot on the patriarch’s head (some said his neck) after the manner of a pagan conqueror, and said, ‘Gregor, you hard head you.’ ”7 The Chaldean Patriarch Joseph VI Audo (1847–78), another champion of the patriarchal rights of the Eastern Church, allegedly had a similar meeting with an enraged Pius IX, who locked the door behind him and told the elderly patriarch that he would not be allowed to exit the room until he had given his full assent to the bull Reversurus.8 According to Edward Farrugia, even if these stories are not historically accurate they are still reflective of the relative position of the Eastern Catholics, which was still one of subservience.9 For example, the preparatory commission “On the Mission and Churches of the Oriental Rites” was spearheaded by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, who suggested as one of the “reforms” the introduction of mandatory celibacy for Eastern Catholic priests.10 Latinization, not independence, was the order of the day. Lubac, Vatican Council Notebooks: Volume One, trans. by Andrew Stefanelli and Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015), 160–61. 7  August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, trans by Peter Heinegg (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 89. 8  Ibid., 88–89. Audo had angered Pius on several occasions for his continued refusal to bow to papal dictates. In 1872 Pius IX wrote an encyclical to the Chaldean Church (Quae in Patriarchatu) chronicling Audo’s alleged misdeeds. Pius IX wrote how at Vatican I “We quickly noticed that he who had shown Us many signs of reverence and obedience had changed very much […]. We ordered him to make a declaration of support and submission to the Constitution on the Church of Christ which was published in the fourth session of the ecumenical Vatican Council, which he had not attended […]. He first devised delays and sought evasion and then declared stubbornly that he would be more useful after he had returned to his See […]. Once he returned to Mesopotamia, he consorted with promoters of novelties and said many things rashly which, as it is reported, could be reconciled neither with the office of a Catholic bishop nor with the orthodox faith.” 9  Edward Farrugia, “Vatican I and the Ecclesiological Context in East and West,” Gregorianum 92 (2011): 451–69. Luis Bermejo notes, for example, that the Eastern bishops were tightly controlled by the Congregation of Propaganda, “presided over by authoritarian Cardinal Barnabò, a confirmed infalliblist.” When sixteen bishops “signed the postulation against the proposed definition [of infallibility] […] they were forced by Barnabò to withdraw their signatures.” Luis Berjemo, Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1992), 123. 10  Constantin Patelos suggested that among the positives of the council’s early adjournment was the failure to ratify all the “projects prepared by this commission that would have widened the gap between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and rekindled the old tensions and polemics.” Patelos, Vatican I et les évêques uniates, 546.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

273

Yet despite the various attempts to silence them, Patriarch Youssef and the other Eastern bishops held their ground. When a trial ballot on Pastor Aeternus was held on July 13, Patriarchs Youssef and Audo, along with five other Eastern hierarchs, were among the eighty-eight bishops who voted non placet.11 Since the pope desired that the document be passed with “moral unanimity,” most of the minority bishops, including Youssef and Audo, left Rome before the final balloting, which took place five days later. Of the sixty-one Eastern bishops who had attended the council, only twenty-two were present on July 18 when Pastor Aeternus passed by a vote of 533–2.12 When later asked to subscribe to the teachings of the council, Patriarch Youssef and his synod complied, but not before adding “save for the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs.”13 In July 1872 Patriarch Joseph Audo also made his affirmation, albeit reluctantly, clarifying that he only did so “with the reservation conserving all the rights, distinctions, privileges, favors, usages, and traditions enjoyed by the ancient patriarchs of the East, both general and specific, without change or difference.”14 If Gregory’s defense of the rights of the Eastern Churches angered some, it also brought the admiration of others. In this latter group was Pius IX’s successor, Leo XIII, whose 1894 apostolic letter, Orientalium Dignitas Ecclesiarum, reaffirmed many of the principles Gregory had advocated, including the end to Latinization and the expansion of the Melkite patriarchate to include all “those faithful of the same rite who reside within the Ottoman Empire.”15 Within his own church Gregory became a model, especially for those intent on preserving the rights of their own churches while serving the cause of Christian unity. 11  There were 601 votes, with 451 placet, 88 non-placet, and 62 placet iuxta modum. Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council 1869–1870 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1962), 400. 12  Patelos, Vatican I et les évêques uniates, 507: They included: the Armenian Patriarch and six of his bishops, six Chaldeans, two Maronites, two Syrians, three Melkites, one Coptic bishop and one Bulgarian. 13  Ibid., 535. 14  Ibid., 536. 15  “Inasmuch as this diversity of liturgical form and discipline of the Eastern Churches is approved in law, besides its other merits, it has redounded tremendously to the glory and usefulness of the Church. They ought not figure any less as subjects of Our charge. So much is this the case that it is in the best interest of all that their discipline not haphazardly borrow anything that would be ill-suited from Western ministers of the Gospel whom love for Christ compels to go to those peoples.” Leo XIII, Orientalium Dignitas Ecclesiarum.

274 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

Among this group, and the second example of Eastern Catholicism’s “loyal opposition” to Roman centralization, was Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh (d. 1967).16 At the Second Vatican Council, Maximos consistently reminded the assembled bishops that “Latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous,”17 and for this reason the Eastern churches could not be treated as mere appendages of the larger Latin church. When told that cardinals were to be given precedence over the patriarchs in the council’s opening procession, he refused to participate, believing that as head of a church he ranked higher than the clergy of the diocese of Rome. This was done, he argued, not out of pride of place—he had on several occasions already declined the cardinal’s hat since he believed it beneath a patriarch to accept a lower rank in the Latin Church— but out of concern for the dignity of the patriarchal churches.18 At the council itself he alone refused to speak in Latin, the gathering’s official language, since he maintained that Latin was the language of the West, and not the church universal. Instead, he spoke in French. At the council Maximos continually defended the equality of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the patriarchal/collegial ecclesiology to which it adhered. Even before the council, the Melkite bishops had submitted their responses to the preparatory committees synodally, which Robert Taft noted exercised “collegiality ante factum, long before the

16  According to Robert Taft, Maximos “was the first to acknowledge the synodal, collegial nature of the Melkite enterprise, and other major Melkite council figures like Archbishops Elias Zoghby, Neophytos Edelby, Peter Medawar, and our own Archbishop Joseph Tawil, also made the trenchant and eloquent ‘Voice of the East’ heard at Vatican II.” Robert Taft, Introduction to The Greek Melkite Church at the Council: Discourses and Memoranda of Patriarch Maximos IV and the Hierarchs of His Church at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (Newton, Mass: Eparchy of Newton, 2014). The book was originally published in French as Maximos IV Sayegh, L’église grecque melkite au Concile; discours et notes du patriarche Maximos IV et des prélats de son Église au Concile œcuménique Vatican II (Beruit: Dar al-Kalima, 1967). 17  See, for example, Maximos IV Sayegh, ed., The Eastern Churches and Catholic Unity, trans. by John Dingle (Freiburg: Herder, 1963); Gaby Hachem, “Primauté et œcuménisme chez les melkites catholiques à Vatican II,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 93 (1998): 394–441. 18  When Maximos did eventually accept the cardinal’s hat in 1965, it was only after Paul VI clarified that, unlike other cardinals, patriarchs would be neither members of the Roman clergy nor assigned to a titular Roman diocese or church. This was still not enough to satisfy the patriarchal vicar for Alexandria, Elias Zoghby, who resigned his post in protest.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

275

later work of the Council had made this ecclesiology common coin.”19 Echoing what the Orthodox had been saying for centuries, Maximos made it clear that Christ founded the church not only on Peter, but also on all the Apostles, for “neither chronologically nor as an idea does the primacy of Peter come before the ministry of the Twelve. Even while possessing this primacy of leadership, Peter remained one of the Twelve, an Apostle like them, sharing the power which was given to them jointly and severally, not only as a member of the college, but also as president and chief of the college.”20 In a similar manner, “the Roman pontiff is a member of the episcopal college and at the same time the head of this college. The head commands the body, but it is not outside the body.”21 Bishops, Maximos maintained “in union with their head, the Bishop of Rome, and under his direction […] have the collective responsibility for the whole church, and they exercise with him, in some manner, a collective power over the universal church. This is what we mean when speaking of episcopal collegiality.”22 Roman ecclesiology may have “blurred” this “rich idea” in recent centuries, both in its theory and practice, but Maximos hoped that the council would soon rectify this mistake.23 Aside from emphasizing the principle of synodality, Maximos is credited with helping the Latin Church adopt other Eastern practices, including “the use of the vernacular in public worship; eucharistic concelebration and communion under both species, [and] the permanent diaconate.”24 Maximos’s defense of traditional Eastern concerns led Patriarch Athenagoras to praise him as “the voice of our common hopes” since at the council he “spoke for Orthodoxy.”25 Like Patriarch Gregory before 19  Robert Taft, Introduction to The Greek Melkite Church at the Council. Referenced at https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction 20  Maximos IV Sayegh, The Greek Melkite Church at the Council. Referenced at https:// melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/ chapter-5. 21  Ibid. 22  Ibid. 23  Ibid. 24  Joseph Amar, “The Liturgy Was Made for All People and Languages, Not Just Latin” America, August 13, 2019. Referenced at https://www.americamagazine.org/ faith/2019/08/13/liturgy-was-made-all-people-and-languages-not-just-latin 25  According to a report of the conversation, Maximos told Patriarch Athenagoras that it was his goal “to be the voice of the Great Absent One at Vatican II.” “Every time I spoke,” he said, “I thought of you.” Athenagoras’s reply was “You spoke for Orthodoxy […] You were the voice of our common hopes.” Cited in Emilios Inglessis, Maximos IV: l’Orient conteste l’Occident (Paris: Cerf, 1969), 72.

276 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

him, Maximos made it clear how Eastern Catholic bishops could, without breaking the bonds of communion that joined them to the Latin Church, speak with an Orthodox voice and serve by their presence (and occasional criticism), as a bridge between the two worlds. There have been, of course, other examples of this principle over the years, but more recent Eastern Catholic bishops have not been as outspoken as their predecessors. One could, of course, speculate as to the reasons for this, but it appears to help the cause of unity, or the Catholic claim to “catholicity,” very little if the only thing the Eastern churches bring to the table is another Latin voice wearing Byzantine dress.

3   Via Media A second suggestion is that the Eastern Churches continue to explore the possibility of dual communion with both Rome and Constantinople as was proposed by Melkite bishop Elias Zoghby in his 1996 book Tous Schismatiques?26 Commonly known as the Zoghby Initiative, the plan would have allowed the Melkites to maintain their ties with Rome while entering into communion with the Orthodox, requiring but two concurrent confessions: “I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches” and “I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.”27 This sort of dual communion was possible, Zoghby claimed, because both sides now recognized that the faith of the two churches was so close as to be identical. The fact that Patriarch Maximos V and twenty-four of his twenty-six fellow bishops signed the statement suggested that the Melkites themselves believed this to be the case.

26  Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, trans. Philip Khairallah (Newton, MA: Educational Services, 1996). Zoghby had been advocating this approach for almost twenty years, see Gabriel Hachem, “Un projet de communion ecclésiale dans le patriarcat d’Antioche entre les Eglises grec-orthodoxe et melkite-catholique,” Irenikon 72 (1999): 453–78. See also Suzane Mary Aboueid, Archbishop Elias Zoghby and Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation: An Exposition in the Light of Contemporary Ecumenical Thought (Fairfax, VA: Easter Christian Publications, 2007). 27  See Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, trans. by Bishop Nicholas Samra (Fairfax, Va.: Eastern Christian Publications, 1998).

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

277

However promising it might have been, the Zoghby Initiative did not receive a warm welcome from either side.28 Although the Greek-Orthodox Metropolitan of Byblos and Batroun, George Khodr, endorsed the profession as “the necessary and sufficient conditions to re-establish the unity of the Orthodox churches with Rome”29 the rest of the Antiochene Synod was not as optimistic. In October 1996 it issued a statement that said that “our church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible […] our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith […] Inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first.”30 From the Catholic side the then-head of the CDF, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to Zoghby in 1997 criticizing the initiative, claiming that “with respect to the declaration on the part of Greek-Melkite Catholics of complete adherence to the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy, one must keep in mind the fact that the Orthodox churches are today not yet in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adherence is thus not possible so long as there is not from both sides an identity of professed and practiced faith.”31 This was especially true of the Orthodox refusal to acknowledge the “primacy of the Roman Pontiff,” which although “subject of some development within the elaboration of the church’s faith through the ages […]. must thus be upheld in its entirety from its origins all the way to the present day.”32 28  Zoghby’s original 1975 proposal had been rejected by Rome in a 1976 letter that noted both churches “exclude totally the possibility, either temporary or provisional, of a double communion or a double allegiance.” Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, 97. See also Gabriel Hachem, “The concept of ‘double communion’ in Bishop Zoghby’s project. What model of unity?” Cristianesimo nella Storia 38 (September 2017): 867–80. 29  Quoted in Waclaw Hryniewicz, “Outliving the Schism,” in The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue (Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2007), 258. 30  As quoted in a Melkite Greek Catholic press release (September 1996), an online version of which can be found at http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm (accessed October 25, 2007). 31  “Letter of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches addressed to His Beatitude Maximos V Hakim, the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch (June 11, 1997),” 30 Days 11 (1997): 15. 32  Ibid., Interestingly this idea, that the Eastern Churches must explicitly affirm all of the legitimate second-millennium developments that took place in the West regarding the papacy, seemed to run contrary to the proposal that Cardinal Ratzinger had first floated at a talk in Graz in 1976. The “Ratzinger formula,” as it became known, held that East-West reunion required only that the Orthodox accept the primacy as it existed before the schism

278 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

As novel as Bishop Zoghby’s proposal might have seemed, the historical truth is that dual communion was hardly a new idea, and that many of the Eastern Churches, including the Kyivan Metropolitanate, enjoyed communion with both Rome and Constantinople for decades after the schism. This, it should be noted, is a reference neither to those isolated pockets where intercommunion between believers was tolerated or tacitly allowed—this, we know, occurred throughout the Mediterranean until the eighteenth century33—nor to the situation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church during the Soviet period, when persecution led to widely acknowledged sacramental sharing between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox.34 Rather, this references the fact that for several years between the councils of Florence and Brest the Kyivan Metropolitanate was in communion with both the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that the “Zoghby Initiative” is not a twentieth-­ century invention, but was instead suggested as far back as the seventeenth century by Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. For Boris Gudziak, the unique position of the metropolitanate, in the years following the Great Schism is largely explained by its relative without the need to consent to all the “legitimate and orthodox […] developments that took place in the West in the second millennium.” Ratzinger wrote: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras […] designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.” Joseph Ratzinger, “The Ecumenical Situation: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism,” in Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), 198–99. 33  Frans Bouwen cites numerous examples of this, including an eighteenth-century letter to the pope by the monks of Sinai indicating that “from one side and the other, intercommunion was still considered to be in force.” Frans Bouwen, “Ouverture du dialogue théologique entre l’église catholique et l’église orthodoxe,” Proche orient chrétien 29 (1979): 316. See also Kallistos Ware, “Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?” in Derek Baker, ed., Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Studies in Church History, 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 259–76. 34  In December 1969 the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate officially sanctioned this practice, stating that “in cases where Old Believers and Catholics ask the Orthodox church to administer the holy sacraments to them, this is not forbidden.” See Eastern Churches Review 3 (1970): 91–93. This decision was interpreted by most as applying only to the Soviet Union, at that time living under religious persecution, where Catholics and others might not have any access to their own ministers. This action was explicitly condemned by the Church of Athens the following year.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

279

isolation—that is, “because of the geographical and theological remoteness of the Kyivan metropolitanate from the respective jurisdictional and theological centers of the opposing Greek and Latin ecclesiastical worlds” the polemic that so dominated in other parts of the East “largely bypassed the church of Kyiv.”35 For the Ruthenian bishops recognizing the primacy of Rome did not preclude acknowledging the historic rights of the Constantinopolitan Church as its mother, nor the right of the patriarch (not the pope) to confirm the Ruthenians’ choice of metropolitan. In 1476, for example, Metropolitan Mysail (1475–80) sent a lengthy letter to the Pope Sixtus IV (1471–84) addressing him as “universal pope” and maintaining his adherence to the Florentine union, and yet he signed as “metropolitan-elect” since his appointment had not yet been confirmed by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, whose jurisdiction over him he continued to recognize.36 For evidence that this idea of a dual communion did not die, we have the witness of the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv, Peter Mohyla, and his 1644 memorial to Pope Urban VIII, Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni graecae religionis.37 Believing that the Union of Brest had brought only 35  “Like a child in the midst of chronic family discord, the Kyivan church occasionally repeated formulations overheard in a distant debate, but for the most part avoided, or even ignored, the conflict within the senior generation.” Borys Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 48–49. See also Kallistos Ware, “Response to the Presentation by His Grace Bishop Basil (Losten): ‘The Roman Primacy and the Church of Kyiv,’ ” Logos 34 (1993), 107–16. 36  Mysail compared the pope to the “source of four rivers [i.e., patriarchates] watering all creation” and wrote that “there is no difference among Greeks and Latins concerning Christ” since both are part of “one and the same faith […] called to live according to their respective traditions” The letter is found in Andriĭ Sheptytsʹkyĭ and Alexander Baran, eds., Monumenta Ucrainae Historica. Supplement 9–10, 1076–1632, n. 4 (Rome: Editiones Universitatis Catholicae Ucrainorum. 1970): 5–55; Eng. trans: Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, 50. For more on the letter see Petro Bilaniuk, “The Five-Hundredth Anniversary of the Letter of Misael, Metropolitan-Elect of Kyiv, to Pope Sixtus IV. (1476–1976),” and “A Theological Analysis of the Letter of Misael, the Metroploitan-Elect of Kyiv, to Pope Sixtus IV” in idem, Studies in Eastern Christianity, vol. 2 (Toronto, 1982): 129–142, 143–55. 37   See Waclaw Hryniewicz, “Orthodoxy and the Union of Brest: The Ecumenical Significance of the Memorial of Metropolitan Peter (Mohyla) to Pope Urban VIII (1644–1645),” in The Challenge of Our Hope, 243–52. For more on Mohyla see Ihor Ševčenko, “The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla” in Ukraine between East and West: Essays on Cultural History to the Early Eighteenth Century. (Edmonton: Canadian Inst. of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2009): 164–186.

280 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

schism and damaged the church because it did not properly protect Orthodoxy (opting instead for the gradual transformation of the Orthodox into Latins), Mohyla suggested a solution.38 The Bishop of Rome, he wrote, has always been recognized as “first and supreme in the Church of God (semper primus ac supremus in ecclesia Dei), as the Vicar of Christ, the Chief. May that be conserved today! But we have never read that a Latin has ever exercised a direct jurisdiction over the Greek rite (nusquam fuisse ut ritui Graeco Latinus directe superintenderet).”39 For this reason Mohyla suggested that the Kyivan church should acknowledge the primacy of the pope and enter communion with Rome, but do so: 1. without ceding jurisdictional authority over the Kyivan Church as had happened at Brest 2. without breaking the bonds of communion with Constantinople, Kyiv’s “mother church” from whom she received faith and holy baptism (neque a Patre nostro Patriarcha, a quo initiate sumus sacro Baptismate recedentes)40 This move, Mohyla recognized, was only provisional, until such time as the patriarch could free himself from the stranglehold of the Turks and personally lead the whole “Greek religion” into a salutatory concord (ad hanc salutarem concordiam) with the West.41 Until then the Kyivan Church would remain semi-autonomous, with its metropolitan seeking confirmation neither from Rome nor from Constantinople, even though it would send synodal letters as had been done in earlier centuries. For Mohyla even if the patriarchs of those churches had temporarily broken off communion with each other—a situation he still regarded as temporary—this did not 38  Peter Mohyla, Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni graecae religionis; Atanasij Grigor Velikij, ed., “Un progetto anonimo di Pietro Mohyla sull’unione della Chiese nell’anno 1645,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, Vol. 3: Orient Chrétien, 2ème parti (Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964): 451–473. See also Bernard Dupuy, “Le dialogue Rutki-Moghila en vue de l’union des Ruthènes (1624–-1647),” Istina, 35 (1990): 50–75; Ernst Christoph Suttner, “Metropolit Petr Mogila und die 1644 verfasste Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni graecae religionis über die Einigung der Kirchen,” Ostkirchliche Studien 50 (2001): 106–116. 39  Peter Mohyla, Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni graecae religionis in Velikij, ed., “Un progetto anonimo di Pietro Mohyla,” 471–72. Eng. trans: James Likoudis, “Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope by a 17th c. Russian Orthodox Prelate,” Social Justice Review (1992): 25–27. 40  Ibid., 472. 41  Ibid., 473.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

281

mean one had to choose sides, for as Peter III of Antioch had demonstrated in 1054, fights between patriarchs need not involve everyone else.42 Thus by maintaining its bonds with both sees, the Church of Kyiv could achieve “a happy union and peace,” finally ending the divisions caused by the Union of Brest.43 It is interesting to note that despite opposition from Polish Catholic bishops, the initial Roman reaction to Mohyla’s plan was relatively positive, and it was only the metropolitan’s premature death in 1647 that prevented negotiations moving forward. There are those, and here one could include both the former and current Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishops of Kyiv-Galicia, Lubomyr Husar and Sviatoslav Shevchuk, who have suggested a similar plan for the Eastern Catholic Church in Ukraine. Of course, there are several problems with such a scheme, chief among them being that neither the Roman nor Orthodox authorities have expressed any willingness to support it. And yet in 1992 the Kyivan Church Study Group proposed the idea of dual communion along the lines of the Zohgby Initiative as a way of moving the dialogue forward. Even after the Vatican’s 1997 statement there are those on the Catholic side who think it deserving of (at the very least) further study, and among the Orthodox there are still a few hierarchs and scholars who continue to advocate a reappraisal. The Zoghby Initiative may not have the same momentum it did twenty years ago, but it remains a viable option moving forward.

4   Canary in the Coal Mine44 For decades Eastern Catholics have claimed that the Orthodox world closely monitors the Vatican’s dealings with the (so-called) “uniate” churches, the logic being that in these interactions the Orthodox receive a 42  According to Zoghby, “the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch knew the meaning of double communion” better than most, and until the seventeenth century “received Catholic missionaries in their churches and gave them the tasks of preaching and of helping in the development of Orthodox youth.” In fact, the Patriarchate of Antioch seems to have maintained communion with Rome and Constantinople for long stretches between 1054 to 1724, until the election of Cyril VI eventually brought about a permanent break. Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, 94–95. 43  Peter Mohyla, Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni graecae religionis in Velikij, ed., “Un progetto anonimo di Pietro Mohyla sull’unione della Chiese nell’anno 1645,” 471–72. 44  Beginning in the early twentieth century, caged canaries were used in mines to detect carbon monoxide and other toxic gases. Because of their small size, the birds would get ill or

282 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

“preview” of how Rome would treat them if/when union is achieved. The argument is simple: If, as has increasingly happened since Vatican II, the Eastern Catholic Churches can truly remain “Orthodox” in their liturgy, theology, and ecclesiological structures, the Orthodox will come to understand that union with Rome does not necessarily lead to latinization or subordination.45 However, if the Orthodox see the rights and traditions of the Eastern Church trampled underfoot and uniates increasingly treated as second-class Christians within the Catholic communion, there is little incentive for Orthodoxy to restore relations with Rome. In this sense, at least, the Eastern Catholics have come to see themselves as scouts or the “canary in the coal mine,” witnessing to the Orthodox world what it might look like to be Orthodox in communion with Bishop of Rome.46 The third possibility is that cause of church unity might better be served if the Eastern Catholic Churches continued in this role as “canary in the coal mine” but in the other direction—that is, for the Eastern Catholics to return to those Orthodox Churches from which they originally sprang, becoming witnesses to an Orthodoxy stripped of the anti-Roman bigotry that has become one of its most distinguishing features. Naturally this would necessitate a temporary break with the successor of Peter, something for which the Eastern Churches have suffered greatly over the centuries, but it must be stressed that this is envisioned as a short-term measure taken to diminish the true roadblock to unity—the historic and deeply ingrained anti-Roman/anti-Catholic feeling among the Orthodox. As those involved in ecumenism know, solving the theological problems is nothing compared to overcoming centuries of suspicion, mistrust, and die long before the gases affected humans, giving miners time to evacuate. Thus they became a metaphor for someone/something tasked with testing potential dangers ahead. 45  “By our fidelity to maintaining our patrimony, by our refusal to be assimilated, the Eastern Churches render a most precious service to Rome in still another area of Church life. Latinizing this small number of Easterners would not be a gain for Rome; rather it would block—perhaps forever—a union of the separated Churches of the East and West. It would be easy then for Orthodoxy to see that union with Rome leads surely to ecclesiastical assimilation. Thus it is for the sake of ecumenism—to create a climate favorable to the union of the Churches—that the Eastern Catholic must remain faithful to his tradition.” Archbishop Joseph Tawil “The Courage to be Ourselves: 1970 Christmas Pastoral Letter” Referenced at https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/the-courage-to-be-ourselves 46  In their role as scouts, “united Easterners are like a child warning his older brother against an unsuspected danger,” walking the road ahead “with the courage to precede [their siblings] at some personal risk along the road we all must travel.” Sayegh, “The Eastern Role in Christian Reunion,” in The Eastern Churches and Catholic Unity, 54.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

283

sometimes open hostility. In fact, one could perhaps make the argument that exchanging (at least in the short term) full eucharistic communion with the pope for “all but perfect communion” is the greatest service the Eastern Catholics could perform for Peter’s successor—sharing with their Orthodox brothers and sisters their experience of, and emotional links with, Rome in order to lessen the anti-Catholic prejudice that currently poison relations between the churches. Instead of serving as a witness outside the Orthodox communion, they would begin to change hearts and minds by living within it. Once again, such a plan has many problems, not the least of which is the resistance of many Eastern Catholics to surrender something—communion with the Bishop of Rome—for which their ancestors suffered and died. In a January 2019 interview following the granting of autocephality to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk was asked about Greek-Catholics joining the new church.47 While claiming that some individuals inevitably would, Shevchuck argued that it would probably be few, since Eastern-Catholics “remember very well the martyrs and confessors of our church during communist times, who gave their lives in order to witness to unity with the successor of the Apostle Peter […]”. “This unity” he said, “is an integral part of our identity.”48 And yet at the same time there is the truth, often forgotten, that the Eastern Catholic churches have a unique vocation within the Roman communion, since part of their calling is eventually to cease to be. They were created as temporary measures, not as permanent structures, since the assumption was always that on the day full communion between the Roman and Orthodox Churches is achieved the Eastern Catholics would and should simply return to their ancestral homes and disappear as separate entities. According to Archbishop Neophytos Edelby, Too often, unfortunately, uniates […] act as though they were themselves always to remain as they are today. They fail to see that their function is to scout on ahead and that they have no meaning except in relation to the army 47  Rumors, true or not, circulated in the days surrounding the Tomos that Patriarch Bartholomew hoped that the creation of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church free from Moscow’s jurisdiction would lead the Eastern Catholics to join the new body. 48  Interview with His Beatitude Sviatoslav, Glavcom, January 9, 2019. English trans: http://news.ugcc.ua/en/interview/his_beatitude_sviatoslav_unity_of_catholics_and_ orthodox_is_not_utopian_thinking_85020.html

284 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

that is to follow. They forget, too, that their position is essentially temporary […] in the sense that, once union comes about, they will rejoin their churches of origin, henceforth united with them as though they have never departed.49

Edelby’s position, valid though it is, makes many Eastern Catholics uncomfortable, and one can certainly understand why. After four centuries it is hardly surprising if Eastern Catholics have come to regard their churches as permanent, or the preservation of their unique history/heritage as part of their ecclesial identity. However, if their vocation is to return to their churches of origin, the question is not if they return, but when. The obvious answer, of course, is on the day of full communion between Orthodoxy and Rome is achieved, but given present realities this is not going to happen at any time in the near (or even distant) future.50 The question thus becomes whether to hasten this day another “scouting party” is necessary, and whether the Eastern Catholics, who have played this role before, are not perfectly positioned to serve as the vanguard. Yes, they would return home ahead of schedule (i.e., before the day of full restored communion), but only as witnesses to an Orthodoxy untainted by the anti-Romanism/anti-Catholicism that continues to hinder all efforts at reunion. As an historical example of what this might look like one can turn to the United States, which in the twentieth century saw a large number of Eastern Catholics return to the Orthodox Church. In fact, despite the encomiums heaped upon Sts. Innocent and Herman and the Russian missionaries to Alaska, the reality of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) is that many of its parishes, especially in Northeast Pennsylvania and Ohio, were once Eastern Catholic Churches, brought to Orthodoxy by Alexis Toth (1853–1909) and his successors.

49  Archbishop Neophytos Edelby, “Between Orthodoxy and Catholicism,” in Sayegh, ed., The Eastern Churches and Catholic Unity, 69. Over thirty-five years later Bishop John Michael Botean of the Romanian Greek-Catholic church shocked many of his co-religionists at one of the early Orientale Lumen Conferences in Washington DC when he repeated Edelby’s point—that the vocation of the Eastern Catholic churches was to become extinct. 50  Avery Cardinal Dulles, himself a longtime participant in ecumenical dialogues, once despaired that reunion between the churches is so far from realization that it could only be understood as an eschatological event. Avery Dulles “Paths to Doctrinal Agreement: Ten Theses,” Theological Studies 47 (March 1986), 32–47.

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

285

Toth’s own story, of course, is well known. As a widowed Eastern Catholic priest, Toth was told after coming to the United States that he should seek out the local Latin hierarch, John Ireland, with whom he met on December 18, 1889. Like most of the bishops of the United States, Ireland had little love for the “uniates” or their traditions, as soon became clear.51 According to Toth’s own account: [N]o sooner did he read that I was a “Uniate” than his hands began to shake […]. “Have you a wife?” “No.” “But you had one?” “Yes, I am a widower.” At this he threw the paper on the table and loudly exclaimed, “I have already written to Rome protesting against this kind of priest being sent to me!” “What kind of priest do you mean?” “Your kind.” “I am a Catholic priest in the Greek Rite, I am a Uniate. I was ordained by a lawful Catholic bishop.” “I do not consider you or this bishop of yours Catholic.”52

The audience, which became increasingly acrimonious on both sides, soon ended, and an enraged Ireland then directed Polish Latin Rite priests to denounce Toth from the pulpit, which only made matters worse.53 Toth, for his part, decided that if Rome was going to treat him thus, he would enter into full communion with the Orthodox, which he did, bringing along thousands of Eastern Catholics in his wake.54 In the years that 51  Bodhan P.  Procko noted in his dissertation that “the majority of Latin hierarchy and clergy in the United States were unfamiliar with the usages of the Byzantine Rite” and thus their hostility often sprang from their complete ignorance of Eastern Catholic tradition and history. Bodhan Procko, The Byzantine Catholic Province of Philadelphia: A History of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the U.S.A. (PhD diss, University of Ottawa, 1963), 34. 52  Quoted in John Erickson, Orthodox Christians in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 66–67. See also D. Oliver Herbel, Turning Toward Tradition: Converts and the Making of an American Orthodox Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 25. 53  A similar fate greeted Father Ivan Wolansky, an Eastern Catholic priest from Lviv who tried to meet with the archbishop of Philadelphia, Patrick J. Ryan, in order to discuss the care of uniates in the diocese. Ryan refused to meet with him and the archbishop’s vicar general told Wolansky that there would be no meeting since there was no room for a married priest in the United States. Ivan Kaszczak, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky and the Establishment of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States (Toronto, CA: The Basilian Press, 2013), 18. 54  According to Erickson, by the time of his death in 1909 Alexis Toth had led 65 Byzantine Catholic parishes with more than 20,000 faithful back to Orthodoxy. Erickson, Orthodox Christians in America, 64.

286 

A. E. SIECIENSKI

followed there were several more waves of conversions, as the Vatican continued to issue decrees restricting the rights of Eastern Catholics in the United States. In 1907 there was Ea Semper, which not only forced certain Latin practices upon the Eastern Catholics (e.g., the separation of chrismation and baptism), but also forbade the ordination of married priests. In 1929 Pope Pius XI issued Cum Data Fuerit, prohibiting all married Eastern Catholic priests from serving in the United States, leading Father (later Metropolitan) Orestes Chornock of Bridgeport CT and thirty-seven Eastern Catholic parishes to form the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. The truth is that Orthodoxy in America was largely born out of the Eastern Catholic Church, and that John Ireland is probably responsible for more souls being brought to Orthodoxy than the Russian missionaries the OCA praises so highly. It is true that these conversions originally brought with them lawsuits over church property and even the ending of lifelong friendships—Toth and longtime friend Fr. Nicephor Channath would only reconcile as Channath lay dying in 1898.55 However, by the latter part of the twentieth century these tensions were largely forgotten, and relations between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the United States warmed immensely. For example, in 1997 the Orientale Lumen Foundation was formed under the auspices of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom, with annual conferences taking place since 1998. The brainchild of Jack Figel, a Byzantine Catholic from Virginia, for over twenty years the Orientale Lumen Conferences have brought together Orthodox, Roman, and Eastern Catholics for both study and prayer. Having attended several of these conferences myself, what struck me most was the obvious fraternal bond between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, all of whom lamented the jurisdictional (but not spiritual) lack of unity between them. My reason for citing this history is this—one interesting phenomenon in the United States is that the remarkable cordiality between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics found at these conferences is not the exception, but rather the rule. Orthodox Christians in the United States, especially in the OCA, do not share the anti-Roman biases so prevalent elsewhere in the world, perhaps because for most of the OCA, whose family histories or even current family situations have roots in the Eastern Catholic Churches, 55   Anthony Clark, “Fr. Alexis Toth, Bishop John Ireland, and the Grace of Reconciliation,” Catholic World Report, May 18, 2016; https://www.catholicworldreport. com/2016/05/18/fr-alexis-toth-bishop-john-ireland-and-the-grace-of-reconciliation/

  THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND THE FURTHERANCE… 

287

it is impossible to maintain the old polemics. The Orthodox Monks of New Skete, who themselves left the Byzantine Rite Franciscan Order to found the monastery in 1966, testify to this reality. Even today they continue to celebrate the feast of St. Francis (a post-Schism Western saint), with icons of Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa, and Pope John XXIII on their chapel’s walls. For these monks becoming Orthodox did not completely break their emotional and spiritual links with Rome, allowing them to serve as a witness from inside the Orthodox communion of the kind of unity ecumenists dream of.

5   Conclusion As was stated at the beginning, these three possible roads are just some of the options open to the Eastern Catholic Churches, for there are an infinite number of other paths they could take.56 This is merely an attempt to draw lessons from history, allowing the cause of church unity to move forward by examining the past. In order to work each of the options discussed would demand a level of change and even sacrifice from the Eastern Catholics, and a certain amount of flexibility from both the Orthodox and Latin churches. Unfortunately, if the history of the schism has taught us anything, it is that flexibility is not the strong suit of either. However, can either side look at what the Eastern Catholics have endured, especially this past century, and the kind of sacrifices they might be asked to make in the future, and not respond? A new path forward demands new thinking, even if these “new paths” have very ancient roots.

56  Following my presentation I had dinner with some of the Eastern Catholic representatives at the conference. “You forgot at least one option, perhaps the most important,” one Ukrainian deacon told me disapprovingly. “Instead of doing this or that in order to break the Catholic-Orthodox deadlock, what the Eastern Catholics most need to do is continue their own spiritual renewal, preparing themselves theologically and spiritually for the day union comes. On that day the Ukrainian Catholic Church must be strong and vibrant in order to serve, and that is the irony, because this will only take place when we finally stop obsessing about how the Romans or Orthodox see us, and we focus instead on how God sees us.”

Index1

NUMBERS AND SYMBOLS 33 points, 12, 13 1917 Latin Code, 171 A Agamben, Giorgio, x, 35–51 Alexandria, 207n19, 274n18 Alfeyev, Metropolitan Hilarion, 204, 205, 220 Anamnesis, 80, 99n41 Anathemas, 18 Anglican Communion, 53, 59, 60 Anglican identity, 55 Anglicanism, 54–68 Anglicans, x, 53n1, 55, 57–60, 65–68, 184 Anglo-Catholicism, 57, 66 Anointing of the Sick, 32n37 Anti-Catholic, 118, 127, 136, 136n31, 282, 283 Antioch, 26, 207n19, 281

Apostle Andrew, 8, 8n11 Apostolic See, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 192, 196, 196n103, 247 Athenagoras, Patriarch, 28n27, 46, 50, 223–225, 258, 267n48, 275, 275n25, 278n32 Autocephalous churches, 27n23, 120, 134, 186 Autocephaly, xii, 83, 134, 188, 212, 213, 241, 261–265, 262n29, 262n31 Azymes, 29 B Balamand Declaration, xii, 113, 254n3, 255–257, 257n12, 260, 263, 266 Balamand Statement, 28, 36, 47–51, 236 Baptized, 79, 83, 91, 205, 212n30, 214, 224

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s) 2021 V. Latinovic, A. K. Wooden (eds.), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy?, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55458-3

289

290 

INDEX

Bartholomew, Patriarch, 180, 213, 253, 253n1, 259n18, 260, 264, 264n40, 283n47 Belarus, 25, 210, 210n25, 214n37 Benedict XIV, Pope, 30 Bible, 91n16, 96n32, 184, 266n46 Bishops, 4, 21, 59, 80, 131, 174, 185, 198, 203, 224, 245, 256, 270 Body of Christ, 10, 17, 70, 74, 75, 108, 155, 201 Brest, 228, 278, 280 Bridge Church, 53–68 Bridge, vii, x, xi, 20, 34, 54, 55, 60, 68, 70, 74, 75, 100, 115, 116, 117n34, 139–177, 179, 182, 219–234, 238, 247, 257n9, 270, 276 Bridgebuilders, xii Bridges to Catholicism, 19, 34 Bridges to Orthodoxy, 19, 34, 103–121, 265n44, 269 Bulgaria, 26, 31, 135n28 Byzantine Catholic, 20, 23, 26, 28–30, 28n27, 32–34, 285n54, 286 Byzantium, 4, 8, 154 C Canonical, x, 12, 33, 82n49, 111, 117n34, 162, 163, 165, 166n15, 169–171, 170n25, 173–177, 188, 189, 197, 200, 204, 206, 208n22, 210, 212, 213, 219, 254, 265 Canonical boundaries, 206 Canonical reforms, 166 Canonical territory, 24, 25, 25n18, 81, 82, 82n48, 134, 196, 201–220 Canonical traditions, viii, 24, 33, 34, 161–177

Canon law, xi, 152, 161–177, 179–200, 202–207, 211, 214n38, 217, 218, 259, 265n43 Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, 30 Catechism, 118 Catholic community, 32 Catholicity, 33n38, 53–55, 57, 62, 62n48, 65–68, 95n30, 99n42, 132, 258n16, 276 Catholic tradition, 24, 57, 158 Centralist ecclesiology, ix Chair of Peter, 101 Charism, 33, 34, 93, 94, 140 Chieti-Document, 199 Christian denominations, 19n1, 83, 112 Christian East, 4, 166, 171, 267, 270, 271 Christian unity, vii, 19, 19n1, 30, 69, 70, 81, 116, 117n34, 139–160, 225, 231, 273 Christology, 10, 74, 156–158, 160, 265n44 Church-dividing issues, 29 Church Fathers, 184 Church law, 162, 163, 166, 167, 172–174, 173n38 Church of England, x, 53–68 Church of Kyiv, 237, 281 Church of Rome, ix, 12, 12n15, 64, 65, 277 Church unions, ix, 3–18, 163, 226 Clerical celibacy, 29 Clericalism, 107, 120 Clerics, 32n37, 170, 188, 194, 195, 198 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEC), 33, 162–166, 168–171, 236 Codification, 162–166, 171–173, 175, 176, 177n45

 INDEX 

Codification of canons, 33 Cold War, xii, 222, 223, 225 Communicatio in sacris, 32n37, 81 Communio ecclesiarum, 93, 94n26, 101 Communist regimes, ix, 22, 23 Concept of Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church, x Concept of synodality, xi Congar, Yves, 29n29, 55–60, 68 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), 14, 109, 141n7, 277 Congregation for the Oriental Churches, 29 Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14, 238, 239 Congregation of Eastern Churches, 163 Constantinople, xii, 5, 7–10, 12, 18, 25, 26, 203, 207n19, 209, 212, 213, 226, 228, 231n19, 233, 237, 239, 247, 248, 258, 264, 276, 278, 280, 281n42 Corporate personality, 132 Corpus Juris Canonici, 166 Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438/39), ix, 3–18, 129, 243 Council of Florence, 3, 7–11, 13, 14, 16–18, 127, 225, 226, 247 Council of Trent, 10, 14, 172 Cultural, 9, 55n11, 59, 96n33, 97, 107, 109, 116, 119, 121, 127–129, 137, 138, 140, 142, 151–152, 154, 155, 161, 162, 205, 214, 226n14, 231, 261n27, 262n31 Cultural identity, 96, 107, 128, 130, 136 Czechoslovakia, 26

291

D Declaration, 45, 50, 174, 184n19, 210n25, 222, 255, 272n8, 277 Declaration Dominus Jesus, 109 Decree “Ad gentes” on the Mission Activity of the Church, 240 Dialogue, 21, 45, 78, 86, 110, 139, 176, 179, 214, 224, 235–252, 254n1, 281 Dialogue of love, 50n50, 224, 267n48 Division, viii, xiii, 4, 5, 27, 44, 48, 51, 79, 80, 85n1, 96, 103, 106, 108, 111, 126, 132, 153, 181, 200, 203, 204, 217, 223, 224, 226, 229, 232, 237, 240, 247–249, 254n4, 261, 281 Doctrine of the Primacy, 17 Doctrine of transubstantiation, 63 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 109 Dominus Iesus, 17 Dumitru Staniloae, 23 E Eastern and Western traditions, 34 Eastern Bloc, 22 Eastern Catholic, viii, x–xii, 20, 22, 24, 28n27, 30, 32–34, 44, 48, 68–84, 111, 112, 116, 121, 139, 160, 162, 170, 171, 175, 176, 179–200, 215, 230, 255, 260, 269, 270, 272, 276, 278, 281–287, 282n45, 283n47, 284n49, 285n51, 285n53, 287n56 Eastern identity, ix, 29, 31–34 Eastern Orthodox Churches, ix, x, 35, 68, 144, 255 Eastern-rite Catholic, 224 Ecclesial communities, 25, 94n26, 182, 184

292 

INDEX

Ecclesial identity, 55, 60, 86, 87, 89–92, 89n13, 94–101, 95n30, 97n37, 99n41, 284 Ecclesial reform, 87n3 Ecclesial unity, x, 4, 87, 89, 96n33, 100, 219 Ecclesiological, viii–xi, 9, 11, 16, 20, 29–34, 60, 70, 79–81, 85–87, 87n3, 90, 91n15, 92–95, 95n30, 101, 103, 108, 111, 152, 161–177, 182, 202, 204, 206, 207, 209, 211, 217, 224, 257, 282 Ecclesiological principle, 33, 47, 219, 255, 261 Ecclesiology, ix, 8–10, 17, 21, 22, 32, 49, 55, 74, 80, 98n39, 126, 130–136, 151, 156, 161, 162, 166, 167, 201–207, 211, 218, 219, 224, 236, 248, 256, 265n44, 274, 275 Ecumenical amnesty, 47 Ecumenical Commitment, 78n35, 233, 240–241, 243 Ecumenical conflicts, 45 Ecumenical dialogues, vii, ix, xi, 53, 55, 70, 77, 84, 87, 94, 99–101, 162, 163, 166, 171, 175, 175n42, 180, 182, 205, 214, 218, 236, 242, 242n28, 244, 249–252, 253n1, 262n29, 263, 267n48, 284n50 Ecumenical discourses, x, 35, 44 Ecumenical engagement, xii, 44–45, 50, 51, 222, 225 Ecumenical movement, 56, 59, 117, 118, 180, 181, 254n1, 264 Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP), 8, 9, 144, 236, 254, 261–263, 262n29, 262n31 The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, xii, 78, 235

Ecumenical Studies, 35–51 Ecumenical theology, 74, 181 Ecumenist, 53n1, 129, 219, 287 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 131, 136, 136n31 Eschatological perspective, 70, 80, 83 Eschatology, 74, 78n38, 79, 83 Ethnic, 105, 107, 205, 214, 227n15 The Eucharist, viii, 6, 17, 17n26, 32n37, 80, 132, 133, 142, 148, 149, 153, 211, 224 Eugene IV, Pope, 5, 18 Evangelii Gaudium, 93n25, 186 Evangelizing Activity, 78n35, 243 F Faith and Order, 58, 180 Feminist, xi, 158 Filioque, 6, 12, 14, 21, 29, 29n29, 117 Florovsky, George, 127, 128, 136, 137, 258, 262n31 Fourth Lateran Council, 4 Francis, Pope, 23, 25, 30, 93n25, 94n26, 151, 169n24, 180, 185, 216, 266 Freising-Munich, 26 Full communion, 4, 17, 30, 47, 48, 50n50, 58, 86, 232, 233, 255, 277, 283–285 G Galadza, Peter, 25, 28n27 Galicia, 81, 230, 237 Gaudium et Spes, 140 Gennadios, Patriarch, 8, 8n11 Geographical, viii, 201–203, 205, 206, 213, 214, 217–219, 256, 279 Greece, 9, 31, 134, 145, 156, 226, 227n15

 INDEX 

Greek Catholic, xii, 20, 22, 23, 23n14, 26, 27, 29, 30, 70, 80, 82, 208, 209n24, 213, 213n33, 213n34, 214n37, 215, 216, 230, 231, 235–267, 283 Greek-Ruthenian Rite, 29 Greeks, 4, 4n2, 5, 7–12, 14–16, 24, 30, 35–37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 71, 73, 80, 117, 119, 134, 140, 209, 259, 271, 279, 279n36, 280 Gudziak, Boris, 99n40, 278 H Havana, 25, 216 Healing, 17, 28, 48, 96, 106, 107, 181, 243, 250, 267n48 Hermeneutics, 11–16 Historical tragedies, ix Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, 114, 126, 253n1 Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School, 28n27 Humbert, Cardinal, 117 Husar, Lubomyr, 70, 80, 281 I Identity, x, 21, 25, 68, 79, 85–87, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 96n32, 98–101, 99n41, 99n42, 109, 110, 126, 127, 134–137, 141, 152, 158, 182, 190n58, 207, 212, 227, 227n15, 228, 240, 254, 261n27, 277, 283 Identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches, 95, 96n31, 97, 98, 99n40, 99n41 Inculturation, 88, 240, 241 Infallible, 29, 131

293

Integration of diversity, x, 89 Intercommunion, 32n37, 58, 277, 278, 278n33 International dialogue, 28, 28n27, 256 Interreligious dialogue, 88, 110 Iron Curtain, 23, 24, 26 Isidore of Kyiv, 129 IV Lateran Council, 5 J Jeremiah, Patriarch, 12 Jerusalem, 26, 150, 207n19 John Paul II, Pope, xii, 24n16, 28n28, 33, 105, 106, 120, 141n8, 141n9, 142, 162, 169, 174, 175n42, 191, 216, 223, 242, 243, 264 John XXIII, Pope, 22n11, 31, 164n6, 225, 271n6, 287 Joint Declaration, 110, 225 Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Cyril, 109, 113, 126 K Kenosis, x, 70–75, 83 Kenotic, x, 70, 71, 80, 83, 84 Kenotic Ecumenism, 69–84 Khomyakov, Alexei, 128–131, 133, 136 Khrushchev, 23 Kiev Metropolitanate, 12 Kirill, Patriarch, 25, 188, 206n14, 216 Kyiv, 12, 13, 15, 82, 82n49, 127, 208n23, 213n31, 215, 229, 236, 237, 245, 246, 248, 264 Kyivan metropolitanate, 208n23, 239, 243, 249, 278, 279 Kyivan Rus, 245

294 

INDEX

L Laetentur Caeli, 4–6 Last Supper, 80 Latin, 3n1, 4, 4n2, 7, 9–11, 14, 16, 21, 30, 38, 46, 54, 70, 116, 117, 119, 127, 153, 162–165, 168–171, 176, 193, 213, 229, 229n17, 280, 285, 286 Latin Church, 9–10, 85–101, 166, 169, 190, 274–276, 287 Latinization, 29–31, 34, 101, 234, 261n27, 270, 272, 273, 282 Latinize, 4 Latin tradition, 7, 14, 31, 99 Lausanne Conference of Faith and Order, 54 Legal heritage, xi Legal system, 168, 169, 175, 177, 183, 184 Liturgical books, 29 Liturgical languages, 32 Liturgical rite, 207 Liturgy, viii, 4, 11, 12, 18, 57, 88, 120, 149–151, 153–155, 159, 186, 195, 224, 229n17, 254n4, 282 Local church/local churches, 33n38, 93–95, 93n25, 94n26, 101, 169, 202–204, 206, 208, 218, 219 Lossky, Vladimir, 127, 136 Lumen Gentium, 33n38, 74, 109, 140, 191 Lviv, 28n27, 77, 82, 208n23, 213, 213n32, 213n33, 215, 285n53 M Magisterial authority, 56 Maronite Church, 140, 152, 153, 212n29 Married priesthood, 21, 29, 34 Married priests, 12, 168, 285n53, 286

Martyrdom, 71, 99n40, 208, 219, 267n48 Martyrs, 23, 23n13, 25, 72, 119, 146, 283 Maximos IV Saigh, Patriarch, 28n27, 101 Mehmet II, Sultan, 8, 8n11 Metropolitan, 13, 14, 18, 22n11, 23, 112, 129, 133, 144, 187, 202, 203n4, 207, 208n23, 214n37, 262, 279, 281 Meyendorff, John, 127, 146, 170, 258, 260 Michael I Cerularius, 117 ”Millet” system, 7, 8, 8n11 Missiological, x, 103, 104, 111–113, 120, 262n29 Mission, x, 9, 28, 70, 72, 81, 85, 85n1, 86, 88, 88n5, 88n6, 90, 92, 94, 96, 97n36, 98, 100, 100n47, 101, 104–113, 116, 120, 140, 158, 160, 164, 169, 174, 187, 199, 225, 232, 236, 245, 250, 265 Missionary apostolate, 27 Missionary efforts, 28 Missionary/missionaries, 29, 30, 81, 82, 88, 88n6, 100n47, 104–107, 109, 111, 112, 115, 119, 164, 164n7, 205, 214, 225, 281n42, 284, 286 Missionary model, 105, 106 Mistrust, 11, 44, 84, 240, 282 Misunderstanding, 17, 44, 49, 228, 244–246, 249 Model of reciprocity, 70, 75 Model of unity, 34 Mogila, Petr, 14, 15 Moldova, 25, 208n22, 210, 210n25, 227n15 Moscow Patriarchate, 16, 24, 25n18, 28n27, 104, 111, 187, 202,

 INDEX 

202n1, 202n2, 205, 208n22, 209, 210n25, 212, 212n30, 213, 215n39, 216, 223n5, 240, 262n30, 265 Munich School, 183 N Nationalism, 58, 68, 108, 118, 125–138, 228, 233 Nationality, 5, 105, 108, 140, 232, 259 New Skete, 260, 267, 287 Nicholas I, 22 North American Consultation, 28n27, 30 O Openness, ix, 67, 68, 88, 120, 241 Ordained ministries, 94 Ordination of women, xi, 139–160 Oriental Catholic, 20, 30, 48 Orientale, 31 Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 31–33, 32n37, 69, 260 Orthodox Church, 8, 9, 16, 20, 22–24, 25n18, 26, 27, 27n23, 28n27, 29n28, 36, 47, 48, 78, 80, 83, 85–101, 109, 113, 114, 118, 119, 121, 125, 144, 145, 152n40, 161–163, 171–175, 179, 185, 187, 188, 194, 201, 202, 205–207, 209–212, 215, 216, 236, 238, 243, 246, 247, 253n1, 254–256, 257n9, 257n12, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265n43, 266, 272n10, 277, 278n34, 282–284 Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, xii, 25–29, 256, 263 Orthodox ecclesiology, xi, 125–138, 204

295

Orthodox observers, 23, 32n37 Orthodox-Roman Catholic International Commission, 25–26 Orthodox tradition, vii, 24, 127, 148, 168, 183, 258, 263 Ostpolitik, 81 Ottoman Empire, 5, 8, 8n11, 9, 134, 273 Oxford Movement, 57, 66 P Palestine, 4 Papal authority, 21, 29 Papal primacy, 29, 31n33, 185 Paradigm, x, xi, 8n11, 35–51, 78, 127, 130–133, 165, 174, 217–220, 267 Paradigm of consensus, 44 Partition of Poland, 22 Pastoral canonical territory, 205 Patriarchates, 4, 8, 8n11, 9, 186, 187, 192, 202, 203, 207n19, 208, 212, 213, 216, 239, 245–247 Paul VI, Pope, 18, 23n13, 46, 50, 93n23, 163n5, 167, 169, 223–225, 274n18 Penance, 18, 32n37 Perverbis Instructio, 21 Petro (Mohyla), 238 Philaret (Denisenko), Metropolitan, 111 Pius IX, Pope, 136n31, 164n8, 270, 271n6, 272, 272n8, 273 Pius XI, Pope, 163, 164n6, 198n111, 286 Poland, 26, 210, 227n15, 231n19, 237 Polatsk, 208n23 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 11, 13, 14, 21, 208n23, 229, 238, 239

296 

INDEX

Political, xi, xii, 4, 9, 11–13, 36–46, 36n1, 48, 50, 51, 55n11, 59, 97n37, 103, 107, 111, 112, 116, 119, 121, 129, 133–135, 173, 201, 204, 211, 212, 216, 229, 231, 235–237, 244, 261, 262n31 Pontifical Commission Pro Russia, 78 Practical, ix, x, 33n38, 47–49, 51, 80, 86, 94, 118–119, 159, 166, 170, 176n43, 201, 203, 211, 236, 244, 250, 255, 256 Practice of mission, 88 Prejudice, 32n37, 64, 192, 249, 283 Priesthood, 32n37, 49, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149 Primacy, 15, 17, 28, 32, 199, 200, 224, 250, 254, 256, 257, 271, 275, 277, 277–278n32, 279 Primacy of the Pope, 6, 70, 280 Primitive church, 62 Principle of synodality, 179–200, 275 Problem of Uniatism, 256, 257 Prophetic dialogue, x, 85–101 Proselytism, 24, 26, 27n23, 28, 44, 81, 109, 112, 120, 126, 202, 214, 216, 218, 242, 256 Proselytization, 28 Pseudo-Dionysius, 74 Purgatory, 6, 29 R Reconciliation, xii, 6, 13, 16–18, 48, 50, 51, 88, 96, 97, 97n34, 99, 104–114, 117n34, 119, 120, 225, 232, 239–241, 244, 245, 249, 250, 260, 262n29, 263 Reformation, 7, 9, 10, 12, 56, 59, 60, 116, 157 Religious communities, 15, 44, 114, 119, 189

Rites, 4, 5, 12, 13, 21, 30–33, 111, 116, 129, 150, 169, 175, 186, 190, 192, 213–215, 214n38, 228, 229, 256, 273, 280 Roman Catholic, ix, xii, 27, 55, 59, 64, 65, 101, 112, 129, 140–143, 148, 151, 155, 160, 206, 208, 209n24, 213, 213n33, 213n34, 214n37, 215, 221n1, 222, 223, 256, 260, 265n44 Roman Curia, 11, 14, 70, 163n5, 164, 168, 169, 270 Romania, 21, 23, 23n14, 28n28, 135n28, 144, 213n34, 227n15, 256 Roman Pontiff, 15, 33n38, 164, 169, 190, 192, 196n98, 198, 216, 271, 275, 277, 278 Roman See, 99n40 Rome, xii, 5, 7, 12–15, 17, 21–24, 26, 29–34, 70, 127, 151, 153, 164n8, 165, 170, 173, 180, 208n23, 211, 213n31, 226, 228, 231, 233, 238, 239, 242, 247, 248, 259, 264, 273–280, 277n28, 278n32, 281n42, 282–285, 282n45, 287 Roncalli, Angelo, 31 Russia, 25, 78n35, 104, 111, 113, 114, 120n40, 127, 135, 197, 210n25, 214, 216, 222, 226–227n14, 227, 227n15, 228, 243, 258 Russian, viii, xi, 15, 104, 117, 118, 120n40, 131, 134, 135, 173n38, 202, 205, 214, 222, 223, 225, 226–227n14, 227n15, 233, 237, 240, 256, 258, 261, 262n29, 262n31, 263, 264n42, 284, 286 Russian canonical territory, 205, 206n14

 INDEX 

Russian Empire, 22, 187, 208, 208n22, 208n23, 214n37 Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), x, 24, 78, 81, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111–113, 125n1, 170, 180, 185–190, 187n31, 187n32, 194–199, 205, 208, 208n23, 210n25, 212, 214–216, 215n39, 230, 232, 242, 245, 254, 256, 259, 261, 265 Russian World, 81, 206n14, 209 Ruthenian, 11, 14, 15, 29, 221n1, 226–234, 279 Ruthenian Church, 12, 14, 230, 239 Rutsky, Metropolitans Veliamyn Josyf, 238, 238n15, 239, 247 S Sacraments, 4, 10, 16, 32n37, 49, 64, 74, 75, 83n56, 92, 93, 98n38, 132, 182, 183, 190, 212, 278n34 Scheffler, Johannes, 10 Schism, 5, 11, 13, 16, 22, 25, 56, 66, 67, 127, 130, 235, 250, 254, 277n32, 278, 280, 287 Schismatics, 5n4, 19n1, 31, 164n7, 209 Schmemann, Alexander, 126–128, 136, 258, 260 Second Vatican Council, 17, 31, 34, 59, 69, 100n46, 109, 114, 140, 164n6, 168, 169, 173, 182n10, 185, 190 Self-governing churches, 187, 237, 241, 246n34, 247 Seljuks, 4 Sensus fidei, 94 Serbia, 21, 26, 135n28, 227n15 Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, 28n27, 261n26 Sheptytsky, Metropolitan Andrey, 72, 74, 248

297

Shevchuk, Sviatoslav (Archbishop), 25, 27, 263, 281, 283 Silesius, Angelus, 10 Similarities, viii, 116, 179–200, 184n21 Sister Churches, 27, 27n25, 49, 50, 50n51, 255, 256 Sixtus IV, Pope, 279 Sixtus V, 11 Slavonic, 11, 23 Slavophile movement, 133–134 Smotrytsky, Bishop, 239 Sobornost doctrine, 183 St. Irenaeus Group, 21 St. Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group, 21, 199 St. Thomas Aquinas, 56, 142 Stalin, 22, 242 Stasis, 35–51 Stolen Church, 103–121, 258, 265n44 Sui iuris, 33, 33n39, 168, 169, 191, 193, 194, 197 Summa theologiae, 9 Supreme authority, 33n39, 165, 169, 174, 186, 191, 195 Synod of Lviv, 237 Synodality, 28, 94, 151, 179–200, 254, 263, 275 T Taft, Robert, 254n4, 261, 267n48, 274, 274n16 Terra missionis, 24 Territorial concepts of ecclesiology, 202 Theological dialogue, vii, xi, 26, 27n23, 48, 50n50, 85–101, 125–138, 201, 253n1, 255, 256, 266 Theology of mission, 88 Theology of Ordination, 145–149

298 

INDEX

The third Rome, 114, 209 Tomos, 213, 283n47 Totalitarianism, 38 Toth, Alexis, 284–286, 285n54 Tradition/traditions, vii, viii, xi, 4, 4n2, 5n4, 10, 16, 21, 28n28, 30, 32, 32n37, 44, 47, 57, 60, 86, 88, 94, 95, 96n34, 98, 100, 103n1, 108, 110, 116, 127, 129, 135, 136, 136n31, 139, 142, 143, 145–147, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 167, 170–172, 174–177, 182, 184–198, 204, 231, 232, 238, 241, 252, 254, 260, 263, 266, 273, 282, 285, 285n51 Transylvania, 21 Turkey, 31, 209 U Ukraine, vii, xii, 21, 25, 26, 30, 44, 70, 80–84, 111, 210, 210n25, 212–216, 235–252, 254–256, 261–264, 262n29, 262n30, 262n31, 265n43, 266, 281 Ukrainian, viii, x, xi, 201–220, 226, 226n14, 231, 233, 241, 243, 246, 253–267, 287n56 Ukrainian autocephaly, 261–265, 262n31 Ukrainian Catholic University, 28n27 Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), 22, 69, 70, 78, 81, 82n49, 84, 215–216, 236, 237, 240–242, 245–247, 249, 251, 252, 263–265 Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), 81, 212n30, 213, 283, 283n47 Uniate, 28n27, 48, 49, 111, 116, 117, 117n34, 129, 135, 136, 154,

207, 208, 229, 239, 248, 257n9, 257n12, 260, 281, 282, 285, 285n53 Uniate Churches, xii, 24n16, 255, 269 Uniatism, 20, 26, 27, 28n28, 47, 49, 115, 125–138, 201, 215, 224, 254, 254n4, 255, 257, 260, 261n26, 262n29, 262n31, 266, 267n48 Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion, 36, 47, 48, 216, 255 Uniformity, 34, 67, 96n33, 169n24 Union, ix, 4, 5, 7, 11–17, 21–24, 29, 33n38, 35, 48, 91, 99n40, 111, 126–129, 150, 213n31, 228–231, 233, 239, 242, 243, 248, 257n9, 275, 281, 282, 282n45, 284, 287n56 Union in Transylvania, 21 Union of Brest, 11, 221, 228, 231, 237, 239, 247, 250, 279, 281 Union of the eparchy of Mukačevo, 21 Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), 223, 237, 246–248 Unity-in-diversity, 34, 258n16 Unity of faith, 33n38, 101, 277 Unity of the Body, 70 Universal Church, 6, 33n38, 94n26, 174, 218, 226, 275 Unleavened bread, 6, 21, 29 V Valamo, 26 Valid sacraments, 32n37 Vatican I, 29, 163, 270, 271 Via media, x, 53–55, 58–65, 67, 68, 276–281 Vitebsk, 208n23

 INDEX 

W Ware, Bishop Kallistos, 144, 146, 147, 149 Western, 4, 4n2, 10, 11, 25, 36n1, 38, 44, 105, 136, 137, 144, 156, 159, 161–177, 214, 227n14, 227n15 Western captivity, 127, 128, 136 Western legal tradition, 171–174 Western Schism, 130 Władysław IV Vasa, 15 World Council of Churches (WCC), 94, 113, 180, 215n39, 267

299

Y Yannaras, Christos, 73, 74, 127 Youssef, Melkite Patriarch Gregory II, 270–273 Z Zizioulas, John, xi, 74, 78, 131–133, 144, 155, 156, 159–160, 211 Zoghby, Melchite Archbishop Elias, 81, 248, 249, 274n16, 274n18, 276, 277, 281n42 Zoghby Initiative, 276–278, 281