The Catholic Church and Its Orthodox Sister Churches Twenty-five Years After Balamand (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 326) 9789042949386, 9789042949393, 9042949384

Citation preview

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS ORTHODOX SISTER CHURCHES TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER BALAMAND JAROSLAV Z. SKIRA – PETER DE MEY – HERMAN G.B. TEULE

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS ORTHODOX SISTER CHURCHES TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER BALAMAND

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

Louis-Léon Christians – Henri Derroitte – Wim François – Éric Gaziaux Joris Geldhof – Arnaud Join-Lambert – Johan Leemans Olivier Riaudel (secretary) – Matthieu Richelle Joseph Verheyden (general editor)

EDITORIAL STAFF

Rita Corstjens – Claire Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCCXXVI

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS ORTHODOX SISTER CHURCHES TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER BALAMAND

EDITED BY

JAROSLAV Z. SKIRA – PETER DE MEY – HERMAN G.B. TEULE

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4938-6 eISBN 978-90-429-4939-3 D/2022/0602/66 All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated data file or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. © 2022 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jaroslav Z. SKIRA – Peter DE MEY – Herman G.B. TEULE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

PART I THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT AND ITS HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

Edward G. FARRUGIA (Roma) Balamand before Balamand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

Jaroslav Z. SKIRA (Toronto) The Balamand Document on Uniatism in the Context of the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Barbara HALLENSLEBEN (Fribourg) „Schwesterkirchen“ – Perspektiven nach Balamand für einen in Ungnade gefallenen Begriff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Amphilochios MILTOS (Volos) Églises sœurs ou Una Ecclesia? Imaginer l’église locale après Balamand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

PART II THE RECEPTION OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Pantelis KALAITZIDIS (Volos) The Eastern Catholic Churches: Bridge or Barrier for Full Ecclesial Communion between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

Cyril HOVORUN (Stockholm) The Issue of Unia in Relations between Moscow and Constantinople. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Andrew T. ONUFERKO (Ottawa – Toronto) The Balamand Document and Its Positive Impact on the Ecumenical Commitment of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church . . . . 131 Ihor RANTSYA (Paris) La Déclaration de La Havane de 2016 et son interprétation en Ukraine dans le contexte de la réception du document de Balamand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Mihail-Simion SĂSĂUJAN (Bucharest) Die Rezeption des Dokuments von Balamand und das aktuelle Verhältnis zwischen der Rumänisch-Orthodoxen Kirche und der Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche in Rumänien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Goran SEKULOVSKI (Paris) Advances and Crises in the Relations between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in the Balkans in the Wake of Balamand . . . 179

PART III THE RECEPTION OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Bogdan-Gabriel DRĂGHICI (Oxford) The Pro Oriente Consultations and Their Ecumenical Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Nagi EDELBY (Clermont-Ferrand) Balamand et les Églises orientales: les retombées ecclésiales et pastorales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Samuel NOBLE (Leuven) Going beyond the Balamand Document: Obstacles to OrthodoxCatholic Convergence in the Patriarchate of Antioch . . . . . . . . 227 Stefanie HUGH-DOVONAN (†) Olivier Clément: A Reflection on the “Antiochian Paradigm” of Relations between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the Middle East for Today’s Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 John WHOOLEY (London) In the Shadow of Balamand: Recent Relations between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church 261

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

Herman G.B. TEULE (Nijmegen – Leuven) The Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Church and the Roman Catholic Church: An Attempt at Understanding Their Interrelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Index of Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

INTRODUCTION

Modern-day Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is historically rooted in a series of pan-Orthodox consultations advocating for ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. This ecumenical openness had preceded the Catholic Church’s deliberations in the Second Vatican Council (19621965), primarily on its decree on ecumenism. A significant moment of Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement was in 1965 when Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I mutually nullified the unfortunate anathemas promulgated in 1054. This paved the way to the formal establishment in 1975 of an official ecumenical dialogue whose goal was the re-establishment of full communion between the two major traditions. Just over a decade since its first agreed statement, in 1993 the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church promulgated what became known as the Balamand Document, Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion. While the first agreed statements aroused great enthusiasm and hope, Balamand interjected a period of instability in Catholic-Orthodox relations that has persisted to this day. The Balamand Document’s tone and genre represented a departure from the dialogue’s highly lauded previous agreed statements. Over twenty-five years have passed since Balamand was first proclaimed and now over forty years have passed since the first official Catholic-Orthodox meeting in 1980. With these anniversaries in mind, it seemed opportune to review the fate of the debates over the Eastern Catholic Churches and of uniatism. This collection of essays emerged out of a conference organized by the Louvain Centre for Eastern and Oriental Christianity (LOCEOC) of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of KU Leuven (26 to 28 November 2018), under the leadership of Profs. Peter De Mey and Herman Teule, on the silver anniversary of the promulgation of the Balamand Document. The conference entitled, “The Reception of the Balamand Document (1993-2018) and Current Relations between the Orthodox and Oriental Churches and Their Catholic Counterparts”, brought together an impressive international array of Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic scholars whose contributions are reflected in these pages. The focus of a majority of the essays is on the Catholic Church and the Eastern Christian Churches of the Byzantine tradition, though the

XII

INTRODUCTION

issue of uniatism and the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches does indeed have implications for the other two great traditions of Eastern Christianity, namely, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the largest of the Eastern Churches, with over 220 million faithful, followed by the Oriental Orthodox Churches with 60 million and the Assyrian Church of the East with 400,000 faithful. The Eastern Catholic Churches (23 churches in total) are a small minority of 18 million believers compared to the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church’s 1.3 billion members1. Instead of being portrayed as a homogenous group, these essays reveal a great diversity among the Eastern Catholic Churches, especially in their relations with the Orthodox Churches. In these essays, we have preferred to use the term Eastern Catholic to refer to all those churches rooted in Eastern Christian theology, liturgy and spirituality, but who had historically entered into communion with the Catholic Church. The term “Uniate”, although prevalent in historical studies and still used by some to refer to Eastern Catholics, has come to reflect pejorative and un-ecumenical connotations and, therefore, we have avoided its usage where possible. Conceptually, in the Balamand Document the term “uniatism” (as a method or model of union) and the proper name “Eastern Catholic” (as nomenclature for a church) are two distinct yet related realities, though one will find some citations in these essays that show that these two terms are either not sufficiently differentiated or are used synonymously. A hermeneutical key is thus required to differentiate such ambiguities. In some cases, it is particularly difficult to discern condemnations of uniatism which do not also carry with them the tacit rejection of the right to the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches. In other cases, sadly, the ambiguity signals the rejection of both uniatism and Eastern Catholics and, in a few instances, there is clear advocacy for the immediate elimination of Eastern Catholic Churches either by their absorption into the Roman rite or their “return” to their mother Orthodox Churches. A majority of these essays and citations, nevertheless, are in the spirit of Balamand and affirm the right of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the dignity of their millions of faithful. The essays reflect a broad spectrum of approaches to the notion of reception that can be generally categorized as being kerygmatic or 1. See R.G. ROBERSON, The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey, Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 71995. Cf. also The Congregation for the Eastern Churches, The Catholic East, ed. E.G. FARRUGIA – G. RIGOTTI – M. VAN PARYS, Roma, Valore Italiano, 2019.

INTRODUCTION

XIII

practical2. For the “kerygmatic”, some essays show examples of reception or non-reception through the acts of formal ecclesial structures or institutions, in synods and pastoral letters or encyclicals. Even the work of theologians, such as in this volume, should be included as part of such reception. The realm of the “practical” reception of Balamand is also examined more at the local level, of how Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue has impacted the daily lives of believers. This is closest to the pastoral realm, and includes such areas as catechesis, social outreach, the formation of laity and clergy, worship and sacramental sharing. All the essays show the complexities of the reception of the Balamand Document, along with numerous examples of its non-reception. The essays also attest to the various levels of the capacity of these churches to receive such a document, each affected in different ways according to their own unique historical, intellectual and socio-political contexts. The first section of this book presents some of the context of modern Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue. What is often at stake in movements of reconciliation are disagreements over history or selective readings of history alongside painful memories of the past. Edward Farrugia’s essay provides a historical excursus of both Roman Catholic and Orthodox acts of proselytism and uniatism. In many cases, such acts were rooted in a soteriological exclusivism, of each church believing it possessed the sole means of salvation. In a number of cases too, political and economic pressures served to incentivize conversion of individual faithful or parts of the other church. Here a balance is struck for a more objective, truthful appeal to history to foster the reception of Balamand’s precepts. Jaroslav Skira’s essay then turns to more recent historical developments in Orthodox-Catholic relations. Agreed statements leading up to the Balamand Document are highlighted to show the remarkable unity these churches have already manifested in trinitarian theology and christology, on the sacraments of initiation and on ordained ministries. As part of the truth and reconciliation that each of the churches needs to continue to undergo, he echoes the call of others in this volume for an ecumenical historiography in a common understanding of history which must involve Eastern Catholics as active dialogue partners. This essay also shows the problematic aspects of the use of the term “uniatism” which have been at the root of the lacklustre reception of Balamand. The examples of Anglican ordinariates in the Catholic communion and Western Rite 2. This understanding of reception is adapted from G. ROUTHIER, La périodisation, in ID. (ed.), Réceptions de Vatican II: Le Concile au risque de l’histoire et des espaces humains (Instrumenta Theologica, 27), Leuven, Peeters, 2004, 225-244.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

communities in the Orthodox communion are brought to the fore to ask if they too should be seen as forms of modern “uniatism” which violate Balamand’s precepts. Barbara Hallensleben’s essay examines the concept of “sister churches” used in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue as the basis of affirming the equality of each church’s self-understanding of being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And even here, like the notion of uniatism, the usage of the term has had an uneven application in the historical relations of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and in Catholic magisterial documents. For some Orthodox, the term is reserved exclusively for designating those churches of the East which are in communion with each other. Like other essays in this collection, she provides instances of the non-reception of Balamand by some Orthodox who object to seeing the Catholic, let alone any other non-Orthodox church, as a sister church and points to inter-Orthodox disputes over autocephaly, primacy and the communion among Orthodox Churches. A theology of sister churches would invariably require that in any pastoral endeavours each church treat the other as “sister”, and thus engage in cooperation rather than in any pastoral activities which might be perceived as acts of proselytism (e.g., the setting up parallel hierarchies). In its practical principles, Balamand rejects the use of violence among sister churches. In neither of the examples cited in this volume are Eastern Catholics referred to as “sister churches” in relation to the Orthodox, with the predominant imagery begin of their relationship to their “mother churches”. However, Vatican II’s language of particular (sui iuris) or local churches could lend itself to an interpretation of seeing Eastern Catholics as sister churches within the Catholic communion. Amphilochios Miltos similarly describes how the theology of “sister churches” underlies the Balamand Document and its rejections of uniatism. He notes some key moments in the modern origin of the term. The actual ambiguity of the term comes to light in its practical expressions in the local church, in both the Catholic Church’s multiple parallel jurisdictions in the same locale (of Roman and Eastern Catholics) and in Orthodox so-called “diaspora” communities, where multiple Orthodox hierarchies exist. What is at play in such instances is the relationship of the local churches to an understanding of the one Church. A tension exists thus between territoriality as a unifying principle and the plurality of various ritual and cultural minorities within that one local territory. In Orthodoxy, in traditionally Orthodox territories, Orthodox ecclesial minorities are subsumed within the historically dominant hierarchy to affirm the unity of the local, particular church.

INTRODUCTION

XV

This book’s second section treats the reception of the Balamand Document in Central and Eastern Europe. Pantelis Kalaitzidis also advocates for an ecumenical historiography, while showing some of the problematics of the reception and non-reception of the Balamand Document in the Greek Orthodox Churches. His essay serves to show some of the differences in the manifestations of historical Catholic attempts at uniatism unique to Greek Orthodoxy in Greece and modern-day Turkey, and why further reconciliation and the healing of memories is necessary. Such history saw the violent establishment of parallel Latin hierarchies and churches in traditionally Orthodox jurisdictions which, to this day, exist as very small minorities in these regions. In a number of instances, Kalaitzidis shows the quite negative reactions of some Greek Orthodox to not only Balamand, but to ecumenical dialogue in its entirety. A trio of essays engage topics related to Eastern Christianity in Ukraine, in a country home to one of the largest Orthodox populations and the largest Eastern Catholic Church. Cyril Hovorun’s contribution sketches the origins of Christianity in Kyivan Rus’ (modern day Ukraine, including parts of Poland and Belarus) from this ancient metropolia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and how a distinct second ecclesial tradition later emerged in what is now modern-day Russia. The complex history in this region also covers the historical origins of the Eastern GrecoCatholic Church. The changing historical and political fortunes of these churches have, in recent times, brought to the fore the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in granting autocephaly and of the primacy and territorial jurisdiction claimed by that see. The article thus highlights interOrthodox issues complicating Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue and the reception of agreed statements of the dialogue. The departure of the Russian Orthodox delegation from the Ravenna meeting of the CatholicOrthodox dialogue, their last-minute refusal to attend the pan-Orthodox Council (2016) and their unilateral breaking of eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2019), have partially destabilized Orthodox unity among sister churches. Continuing the topic of Ukrainian Christianity, Andrew Onuferko shows some of the flashpoints of the history surrounding Balamand in the emergence of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, which had for decades existed as a clandestine church after it was forcibly incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church in 1946. He also notes undercurrents in relations between Rome and the Russian Orthodox Church which served to sideline Ukrainian Catholics in ecclesial relations between Rome and Moscow. However, he also details recent attempts by the

XVI

INTRODUCTION

Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy to seek reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox Church, which were not reciprocated. He later describes the work of the Kievan Church Study Group, whose unofficial consultations between Ukrainian Catholics and representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate explored the question of a “double communion” of the Ukrainian Catholic Church with both Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The notion of “double communion” had its roots in the churches of the Antiochian tradition, described below in this book’s third section. The core of Onuferko’s essay, nevertheless, is the profound reception of the Balamand Document by the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church immediately after its promulgation. Ihor Rantsya examines the Havana Declaration (Cuba) between Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kiril in 2016, and some of the ways in which the declaration represented a trajectory receiving the Balamand Document. The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, not to mention the two other Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions (at the time, not canonically recognized by other Orthodox), were incensed that the declaration adopted Russian propaganda by referring to the war waged by Russia in Eastern Ukraine as simply a “civil conflict”. His article serves as an example of how, since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church and its Ostpolitik has sought to court favour with one of the largest Orthodox Churches. Havana like Balamand, decried uniatism. Like Balamand, the Havana declaration affirmed the right of Eastern Catholics to exist, but nowhere calls them churches but merely “ecclesial communities”. Mihail-Simion Săsăujan deals with Orthodox-Catholic relations in connection with the re-emergence of the Romanian Eastern Catholic Church in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. His article shows how historical memories of injustices, both near and far, still remain in the consciousness of all Romanian faithful and impede progress in ecumenical relations. He also mentions that a joint Orthodox-Eastern Catholic commission, as advocated by Balamand, was established to deal with disputes over church property and the reception of the practical rules to avoid acts or perceptions of proselytism in the erection of new ministries or buildings, especially in areas where one of the churches was in a minority. Striking are the statistics showing a significant recent decline in the numbers of Eastern Catholic faithful after their church was declared illegal by the communist regime. Goran Sekulovski describes the reception of the Balamand Document in the Balkans, though primarily dealing with North Macedonia. He again raises the issue of sister churches, of the limitations of using such terminology where the fullness of a unity of faith is felt not to exist. Here one

INTRODUCTION

XVII

wonders about the reception of the importance of the earlier documents of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue at Munich, Bari and Valamo, where all churches agreed on basic tenets of trinitarian theology, christology and pneumatology; on the sacraments of initiation and of orders; and on apostolicity. Like in other cases after the fall of the Soviet empire, Sekulovski catalogues the problems associated with the expansion of Catholic missions and the re-emergence of the Eastern Catholic communities in these traditionally Orthodox regions. Nevertheless, in a nod to Balamand’s practical rules, Sekulovski shows how the spirit of these has been received at the local parish level in some common pastoral initiatives. The third section engages the Balamand Document in the Middle East and extends to the treatment of the other two great Orthodox traditions – that of the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the essay by Bogdan-Gabriel Drăghici, the author highlights key achievements of the Pro Oriente Foundation, which had major successes on a common christological formula between the Catholic Church and both the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Even prior to Balamand, at the onset of Catholic-Oriental Orthodox dialogue, the Pro Oriente dialogue partners took up the question of Eastern Catholics, rejecting them as bridge churches, yet they encouraged ecumenical cooperation with them in their respective local contexts. In these dialogues, the notion of sister churches was employed to describe relationships between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Echoing the importance of the local reception of the agreed statements, Nagi Edelby turns to the examples of the churches of the Antiochian tradition (both Orthodox and Melkite Eastern Catholic) largely in the regions of the Middle East. The “Zoghby Initiative” (named after Melkite bishop Elias Zoghby) was an effort toward an Eastern Catholic Church achieving a “double communion” – with both Rome and the Orthodox Church – which was innovative, though was eventually not formally accepted by each church’s hierarchies. Here, in contrast to Central and Eastern European examples, there existed a creative and cordial official dialogue between an Eastern Orthodox Church and an Eastern Catholic Church (even to the point of invitations to their respective synodal sessions). Subsequent accords reached by these churches show concrete examples of common pastoral care for the faithful of these churches (who exist as minorities in largely Muslim milieus); for those in mixed marriages; in catechesis; and, where necessary, sacramental sharing. Here, one can see a reception of Balamand’s principles and practical rules. Samuel Noble further details ecumenical rapprochement between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, even amidst the dangers of the former

XVIII

INTRODUCTION

context of ISIS/ISIL rule, in the Patriarchate of Antioch. Here, necessity partly motivated formal cooperation between these churches. The importance of the local church is singled out as a determinative driver for Christian unity. However, Noble does also point out that any attempts at formal unity would be impeded by the Orthodox principle, agreed upon at various pan-Orthodox meetings, that no single church can establish communion without the other Orthodox Churches. Like some other authors in this volume, he shows how inter-Orthodox disagreement over issues of primacy, jurisdiction and conciliarity not only detract from inter-orthodox unity, but also impede progress in formal international ecumenical dialogues. Unanimity has a value in accommodating each church’s ecumenical and pastoral needs, but the right to veto a decision of a majority in pan-Orthodox consultations has impeded the exercise of collegiality among sister Orthodox churches. The late Stefanie Hugh-Donovan similarly presents the paradigm of Eastern Christianity in the Antiochian tradition, which exists in a predominantly Muslim milieu, as a basis for seeking ecumenical cooperation in other Orthodox contexts. Using some of the theological and ecclesiological principles of French Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément on Antiochian Christianity, she points to how ecclesial pluralism in these areas can be a model of the co-existence of Eastern Churches in modern day Eastern Europe. John Whooley continues with similar themes, on the common christological declarations between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church through the Pro Oriente Foundation’s work. Again, notable was the participation of Eastern Catholics in the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox consultations, whose participation was not met with the same intensity of objections as in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. In the re-emergence of the Armenian Catholic Church after the fall of the Soviet Union, tensions did arise with the Armenian Orthodox Church. However, there have been numerous instances of fraternal relations between these churches that have esteemed to avoid acts and perceptions of proselytism. Although the Armenian Orthodox did not participate in the Balamand process, echoes of Balamand’s “practical rules” are embodied in Armenian ecumenical relations. Our final essay is on the Assyrian Church of the East, which was not part of the Balamand deliberations, but Herman Teule shows how this church can be seen as falling within the scope of a reception of the Balamand Document. In this example, unlike with other Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church had found itself numerically smaller than its Eastern Catholic counterpart, the Chaldean Church. And yet, the two churches

INTRODUCTION

XIX

met together in the post-Balamand period to draft guidelines for pastoral cooperation (e.g., catechesis, formation of clergy, collaboration between parishes). Each church’s synod signed a joint synodal degree for promoting unity, which has no parallels in the Central and Eastern European contexts. Though, as in other cases, the fears of latinization, proselytism and Roman primatial claims persist in the consciousness of these churches as impediments to fuller unity. One of the areas one sees in these essays in which there are radically disparate practices is the direct engagement of Eastern Catholics in ecumenical dialogue. These range from the active participation of Eastern Catholics in Orthodox-Catholic dialogues as minority participants (in dialogues dominated by Orthodox and Roman Catholic representatives); to the direct engagement of Eastern Catholics as equals with their Orthodox mother churches; to a refusal by some to even acknowledge Eastern Catholics as dialogue partners. In the first two instances, such ecumenical openness predominates in contexts where Eastern Churches – both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic – are minority churches, in liberal democracies or where their religious freedoms are curtailed. Opposition to Eastern Catholics as equal ecumenical interlocutors is predominant in contexts where the Orthodox Church is the dominant or majority church, as in Central and Eastern Europe. Inextricably tied up with this, though not fully explored in all essays, are how each church conceives of religious freedom and human rights alongside ecclesial affiliation of members of communities. Regional ecumenical dialogues in “diaspora” communities, such as in North America and France, have been quite successful and fruitful, as are the relations between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the Middle East. In these areas, Balamand’s principles of the rejection of uniatism but the acceptance of Eastern Catholic Churches have largely been received. The same cannot be universally said of Central or Eastern Europe, where local or regional ecumenical dialogues or commissions are a rarity. Two exceptions to the above are grassroots ecumenical exchanges with the Kievan Church Study Group (noted earlier), which tended to be more international, and the European-based St. Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group (founded 2004). Similarly, a number of academic institutes exist whose goals include the promotion of Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical relations which actively engage Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholics (some of which support academic journals cited in this volume). A selective list of these would include the Louvain Centre for Eastern and Oriental Christianity (Belgium); the Pro Oriente Foundation

XX

INTRODUCTION

(Vienna, Austria); the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Rome, Italy); the Institute of Eastern Christian Studies (Nijmegen, The Netherlands); the Orthodox Christian Studies Centre (Fordham University, New York); the Ecumenical Institute (Ukrainian Catholic University, Ukraine); the Volos Academy of Theological Studies (Greece); Istina: Centre d’études œcuméniques (Paris, France); the Met. A. Sheptytsky Institute for Eastern Christian Studies (University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto); the Institut für Orthodoxe Theologie (Munich, Germany); the Collegium Orientale Eichstätt (Germany); the Ostkirchliches Institut Regensburg (Germany); the Institute of Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristics (Graz, Austria); the Zentrum zur Erforschung des christlichen Orients (Salzburg, Austria); the Association of Theological Institutes in the Middle East (Lebanon); and the St. Ephraim Ecumenical Research Institute (Kottayam, India). Overall, the Balamand Document has largely been received at the level of the theoretical condemnation of uniatism with its undercurrents of soteriological exclusivism. Balamand’s practical principles have had an uneven reception, despite numerous laudatory examples of ecumenical collaboration, willingness to dialogue and prophetic voices. What is obvious from this volume too is that the issue of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, their place in the Catholic communion and their place in a vision of full communion with their mother Orthodox Churches is far from resolved – and perhaps much to the chagrin of Eastern Catholics themselves. The Catholic-Orthodox dialogue of truth and love must continue toward that unity willed by Christ, but it also must include the voices of all those involved, inclusive of Eastern Catholics, if reconciliation and unity are to have truly authentic and lasting significance. * * * We recognize that our essays are solely in English, French and German, though the sources they cite are in a rich diversity of languages. These sources significantly expand our knowledge of the churches studied in this volume which exist in multiple socio-political, cultural and ethnic contexts. We have thus esteemed to provide translations where necessary and transliterations according to ISO standards. On a final note, we wish to express our sincerest thanks to those who assisted in the preparation of the conference or the publication of this volume, of whom we include Prof. Dr. Annemarie Mayer (Universität Trier), Dr. Viorel Coman (KU Leuven) and Dr. Anthony O’Malony (Blackfriars Hall, Oxford).

INTRODUCTION

XXI

These chapters were all written prior to Russia’s expansion of its war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, from the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine, to a massive invasion from the north, south and east. Russia’s callous bombardments have seen thousands of innocent civilian casualties and deaths, creating dire living conditions and millions of displaced persons and refugees. The most scandalous aspect of this is not the Russian Orthodox Church leadership’s silence on condemning the war, but its open support for it. The Russian Orthodox leadership of Pat. Kiril of Moscow and Met. Hilarion of Volokolamsk has more recently explicitly advanced a “Russian world” national origin mythology, which has guided its ecumenical and inter-Orthodox relations, and inspired its overt ethno-nationalism in collaboration with the Russian state. A number of this book’s authors provide examples how such ideological motives have impeded more fruitful ecumenism and Christian reconciliation. We hope, nevertheless, that the spirit of truth and Christian love characterize the lasting significance of this volume. Jaroslav Z. SKIRA Peter DE MEY Herman G.B. TEULE

PART I

THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT AND ITS HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

Reviewing the dossier of the Balamand Document at a distance of a quarter of a century (1993-2018) one might easily be tempted to speak of “Balamand after Balamand”, in other words to serve a variant of “Byzance après Byzance”1, liturgy after the Liturgy or Ecumenism after ecumenism. Would it not be better, for a change, to look at the truth retrospectively – reculer pour mieux sauter! – with a train of thought in reverse and say “Balamand before Balamand”? In a way, this is a truism, for if there is a Balamand after Balamand, surely there is also, without any palindrome, a Balamand before Balamand. Yet in a way the expression “Balamand before Balamand”, far from being a truism, represents an easily overlooked aspect of the truth of what Balamand had to say, so contested in the follow-up, so salutary in the re-considering; and it is this neglected aspect that catches the eye in the present study. The point is not to be anachronistic but, if anything, “kata-chronistic” – knowing the full story to judge it from a vantage-point. Even that will not do, for the “before” is not meant to say that we want to go backward. The point of investigation is to ask why Balamand, in the last analysis, did not carry the day – why it failed to create that consensus which would have smoothed the way towards the full re-establishment of communion. Yet though the Balamand Document marked a major breakthrough in the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, it faced much opposition in its reception2. If we thus use the expression “before Balamand”, it is not to negate much that is illuminating in it, but to try to distinguish what should absolutely be retained from what is less tenable. We want to go 1. N. Iorga’s phrase. See A. MITESCU, Iorga, Nicolae (1871-1940), in E.G. FARRUGIA (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East, Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2 2015 (henceforth: EDCE), 989-990. 2. “Realistically, and with just a few ambiguous exceptions, Balamand was not truly accepted, either by Catholics or by Orthodox. Only the Romanian Orthodox Church officially approved it. The Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Antioch, rather disposed to do so, finally decided to cautiously wait in the face of Moscow’s reserve and the rejection by Athens and Jerusalem. The reservations sometimes came from the suspicion that the Church of Rome was not sincere in its commitment to no longer support uniatism. Rome for its part went back and forth, from a clear position in favour of it to another more nuanced. Even the Eastern Catholic Churches involved assumed attitudes that varied between excessive enthusiasm and a clear rejection”, in M. JALAKH, Ecclesiological Identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2014, p. 237.

4

E.G. FARRUGIA

backward in the hope of being able to move forward, retaining all that is positive in the statement. This essay’s title is thus a methodological sign, not least of which is about the use of history and about going deep into the sources, to the foundations. Why is it that the Balamand Document, so much praised by John Paul II as having marked significant progress in dialogue3 and extolled by Olivier Clément as being a “prophetic text”4, ran aground and necessitated a sequel meeting in Baltimore (2000)? Was it due to the great expectations it aroused which, however, did not entirely correspond to the prevailing state of affairs on both sides of the equation in the East and which it thus was quite unable to deliver? This short study takes a fresh look especially at the history entailed in the Balamand Document, since that part seems to be the weakest. I shall thus first take a look at history as a key indicator of the fortunes of this document, which will then lead to considering, as a preliminary, reversing the timeline of history to see uniatism itself in a new light. The ensuing result sees history as a process, that is identity-building and a work in progress, and which sometimes leads to identities being at war, where some historical fallacies supply the ammunition. This will allow us to entertain the question whether there was any “uniatism” before the uniatism decried in the Balamand Document. I. GOOD AND BAD USES OF HISTORY: METHODOLOGICAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT 1. A Sense for History Many broach issues without it ever occurring to them that they would need a good grasp of the history concerned to get started. So let us have a quick glance at “On the Use and Disadvantage of History for Life”5 by F. Nietzsche (d. 1900), to see whether we can glean some insights from it. Nietzsche starts out by warning that there is a way of ruminating history which is not only useless, but also harmful for the lone individual, his/her people and his/her culture6. Such would be the case nowadays if 3. In his encyclical, Ut unum sint (1995), n. 60. 4. O. Clément stated: “Malheureusement, encore trop peu connu du peuple de Dieu, ce texte prophétique n’a été vraiment accepté, à de rares exceptions près et souvent dans l’ambiguïté, ni par les catholiques ni par les orthodoxes”, in O. CLÉMENT, Introduction, in Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, 21-25, p. 25. 5. F. NIETZSCHE, Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben, in ID., Werke I, ed. K. SCHLECHTA, München, Carl Hanser, 1972, 209-283. 6. Ibid., p. 213.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

5

one were to write history in order to triumph over one’s self-proclaimed or carefully dissimulated enemies. Such would be the case with a confessional history rather than one which, being self-critical, is aware of its own limitations and seeks to respect differing viewpoints. On the other hand, Nietzsche warns that too pronounced a sense of history can only hinder the free development of life7. A historical sense is needed to guide us through the complications of life, not to raise roadblocks which enhance them. Human beings need a historical sense so as to be free to act without past trammels, to cherish and preserve what can still serve them for the future8. The first need is met by a monumental sense of history, which can individuate heroes and past guides serviceable for the present, sometimes even the anti-heroes of a foiled enterprise. The second need is an antiquarian sense of history, which is interested in history for its own sake; while the third need is a critical sense which, in evaluating the first two senses, enables us to learn from the lessons of the past9. Monuments are a kind of “nota bene” to help us remember the past from which we come and not to dishonour it. By monuments we need not think only of the great moments of the past, but also those memorials which should always be before our eyes, such as the classical documents or monumental decisions which changed the course of history10. In order that the monumental may not degenerate into the grotesque, the care of monuments calls for critical discernment and a sharpening of a critical sense11. A critical discernment enables us to preserve what merits to be preserved12, provides a sense of the past and antiquity in general13 and, at the same time, allows for the possibility of rising above it all14. Indeed, this way of proceeding is remarkable because it at once illustrates the thesis I have in mind: Geschichtsvergessenheit, the forgetfulness (amnesia) of history or worse, its distortion, can account for a serious imbalance in the attempt to grasp the import of a problem accurately15.

7. Ibid., p. 219. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., p. 222. 11. Ibid., p. 223. 12. Ibid., p. 225. 13. Ibid., p. 229. 14. Ibid. 15. In his well-researched article, R.F. TAFT gives an abundance of examples to substantiate his case, with eloquent sub-titles for his plaidoyer “Anamnesis, Not Amnesia”, in The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories”: Anamnesis, Not Amnesia, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 41-42 (2000-2001) 155-196, pp. 186-187.

6

E.G. FARRUGIA

Cutting ties to history by forgetting it, because we have not “gotten over” it16 or integrated it as a whole, with its negative and positive facets, digs a ditch on our way to dialogue. Yet, we need history so as not to be duped by mistaking our wishful thinking with reality and also not to impose our personal approach as if it were common patrimony. An epistemological shortcut, which only hindsight can afford, seems to go along with some sort of Horizontverschmelzung (Hans-Georg Gadamer), of the fusion of horizons of two or more who think alike and feel the same17. This is useful when the fused horizons remain clearly distinguishable, united and not confused, but the fusion can wreak havoc when one assumes identities while skipping the toils of historical investigation. At other times, actually, one wonders whether one shares the same firmament at all with one’s partner in dialogue. All this, however, is thrown out of joint by the question: Can history solve the problem at all?18. All this warns us not to feel all too readily justified in our ways, in our own method. The Eastern Fathers and traditional Eastern theology consider the right way of proceeding in theological method precisely not to consist in justifying one’s own method – which should not at all preclude accounting for the method one uses! – but rather in directing the glory of the enterprise to God. So, to the question whether history can help us out, my frank answer is no and yes. No, because the questions with which Balamand deals go far deeper than skin-deep impressions, or even the heart that is hurt. The problem at stake is “metaphysical”, for the hurting heart is in touch with the hand that made it and can heal it. For this reason, Pavel Florensky (d. 1937) spoke of the “inverse time-perspective” of dreaming, parallel to the inverse (place) perspective of icons. It is the alarm clock that rudely awakens me that touches off the stream of consciousness19 which makes up the dream 16. The Maltese Semitic word, ħafer (forgive), cognate with the Hebrew Kippur in Yom Kippur, the day of atonement for forgiveness and reconciliation, suggests just that. So understood, forgiving starts with forgiving oneself, reconciliation starts with reconciling oneself with oneself. In Arabic, the roots ġ-f-r mean forgive sins, in the sense of “covering” them by “getting over” a problem subjectively and the “covering” of a debt objectively (Italian: andare oltre, superare il peccato, mettersi una pietra sopra). Cf. IBN AL-MANẒŪR, Lisān al-‘arab [1290], vol. 2, Beirut, Dar Sadir, 2005, p. 1000. 17. H.-G. GADAMER, Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1975, pp. 289290. Gadamer sees in the “fusion of horizons” an epistemological constant. 18. Cf. T. BREMER and S. SENYK’s question, in Can History Solve the Question about Ukrainian Autocephaly?, https://publicorthodoxy.org/2018/10/12/history-ukrainianconflict/ (accessed 25 April 2020), here applied to the current critical problem between Constantinople and Moscow and the spectre of schism. 19. For “stream of consciousness” see under this term: J.A. CUDDON, A Dictionary of Literary Terms, London, Penguin, 1977, pp. 660-662.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

7

and enables us to remember it20. As far as I can tell, the real focus of the story in the Balamand Document is not even the past factual damage Catholics have done over the last four centuries through proselytism and uniatism, but it was the upheaval consequent to the downfall of the atheistic communist regimes in the East (beginning in 1989) which aroused painful memories. The importunate Eastern Catholics calling for the restoration, integrally and at once, of the goods they once had and of which they had been violently deprived, served as that alarm clock that ticked backwards to origins. However much one may regret the lack of a timely and systematic arbitration approved by both sides, one must regret even more the excruciating suffering on both sides and feel morally obliged to relieve it within one’s capacities to do so. 2. The Use of History in the Balamand Document One of the unfortunate aspects of the Balamand Document is the way both sides use history. The Orthodox admit right away – and one must admire their frankness – that it was they who derailed the reciprocally pre-established programme of the dialogue in order to confront head-on the problem of “uniatism” (n. 1). Balamand nn. 7-10 depict with bold strokes the damage done by “uniatism”. In the course of the centuries, “not only have efforts at re-establishing unions not succeeded, but they have hardened the opposition between the Churches” (n. 7); whereas attempts at partial union between Rome and the Orthodox led to division among the Orthodox and brought suffering also for the Catholics (n. 8). The major unions meant are those of the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) at the synod of Brest in 1596; the Uksoki (i.e., refugees from the Ottomans in Serbia to Austria, some of whom concluded a treaty with the Catholic Church in Croatia at the monastery of Marča) in 1611; and, the union between the Orthodox of Transylvania (Romanians) and Rome in 170021. While leaving aside the question of the sincerity of the good will to implement Christ’s desire “that all may be one” (Jn 17,21) on the part of those who promoted these partial unions (n. 9), the unity between the “Church of the East” and the “Church of the West” – a rather quaint way of designating two states of affairs which surely brook more differentiation – remains unstable, poisoned precisely by those very unionist 20. P. FLORENSKY, Iconostasis, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996, p. 41: “Thus, time in the dream runs, and acceleratedly runs, towards the actual and against the movement of time in waking consciousness”. 21. For a fuller account see E.C. SUTTNER, Unions of Eastern Churches with Rome, in EDCE (n. 1), 1882-1887.

8

E.G. FARRUGIA

efforts22. As a consequence, ensuing missionary activity aimed at converting individuals and groups to return to the Catholic Church on the basis of an exclusivist ecclesiology which considered the Catholic Church as the sole depository of salvation. Of course, it is perfectly correct to say that the Catholic Church pursued a proselytizing policy of conversions ensconced in a “return” theology23. Although at the time it seemed to be precisely a moral imperative to save otherwise imperilled souls, as a method and a model for re-establishing communion in the present it must be absolutely abandoned. Unity, or rather the re-establishment of communion, cannot amount to absorption or even fusion, but a freely willed communion of equals24. Nowhere, however, is it said in the Balamand Document that both sides practised it, in spite of the fact that there are whole dossiers to prove it25. The most unfortunate statement in the whole of the Balamand Document is n. 11, for it asserts that “certain civil authorities tried to bring the Eastern Catholics back to their church of origin ‘by unacceptable means’”. Were it an understatement, or litotes, it would be remarkable indeed; in effect it ignores enormous crimes perpetrated against Eastern 22. Political interests are often present in religious movements, but does that necessarily invalidate them? See C. SIMON, Toth, Alexis, in EDCE (n. 1), 1841-1845. 23. This version of things seems to be simplistic. Even in the catechism lessons well before Vatican II, the Orthodox Church was presented as having an apostolic succession and true sacraments, especially a valid Eucharist. These were the basic requisites for Vatican II to recognize a church as a true church, and not simply an ecclesial communion. In 1951, Pius XII, answering the invitation to send a delegation to Athens for the nineteenth centenary celebrations of St. Paul’s arrival in Greece, addressed the then archbishop merely as Archbishop Spyridon, but not as archbishop of Athens; see D. SALACHAS, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la Chiesa cattolica-romana e la Chiesa ortodossa: Iter e documentazione, Bari, Centro Ecumenico “S. Nicola”, 1986, p. 8. P. DUPREY repeats the gist of the Balamand Document, that these explanations are simplistic, in Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe: Balamand, 17-24 juin 1993, in G.R. EVANS – M. GOURGUES (eds.), Communion et Réunion: Mélanges J.-M.R. Tillard (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 121), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1995, 115-123, p. 116: “Nous simplifions un phénomène historique complexe et divers. Il nous suffit ici de le réduire à ce caractère essentiel”. If we want to attain progress, it is important to dig deeper into the complexity of the situation. 24. “À Balamand, catholiques et orthodoxes ont convenu ensemble que l’unité devrait être recherchée sur d’autres bases. Celles qui y ont été adoptées sont susceptibles de créer les conditions d’un avenir commun: ‘une communion parfaite et total qui ne soit ni absorption ni fusion, mais rencontre dans la vérité et l’amour’”, in B. DUPUY, La situation ecclésiologique des évêques ruthènes au moment de l’Union de Brest, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 107-117, p. 117. A quote from John Paul II’s Slavorum Apostoli in the Document of Balamand n. 14 says that much. 25. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 15), p. 163, offers many examples, and concludes: “The Orthodox condemn all proselytism except their own”. Even then, in fairness to the Orthodox, one should not over-generalize; one must distinguish.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

9

Catholics without the slightest hint of complicity on the part of the Orthodox. It is obvious from the start that in the Balamand Document Eastern Catholics form part of the problem and in no way part of the solution, whereas the Orthodox as such in the Balamand Document are nowhere criticized, although the document wants to regulate just measures in dealing with the Eastern Catholics. In order to do justice to a document, one has to keep in mind the genre it uses. The genre of the Balamand Document is that of an ecumenical gathering, trying to promote union by peaceful and diplomatic means, and not a court of law aiming at establishing legal responsibilities26.

One of the more balanced reactions is that of Myroslav Ivan Cardinal Ljubačivs’kij (Lubachivsky). He criticized the Balamand Document for rejecting uniatism not only as a method, but also as a model, and for its failure to assign at least indirect responsibility in the suppression of the Ukrainian Eastern Catholics to the Russian Orthodox Church27. Nonetheless, he praised the document for its principles and promised to implement them28. Furthermore, the Balamand plenary session, despite dealing with the Eastern Catholics (pejoratively called “uniates”), talked about them but not with them, irrespective of the fact that only two Eastern Catholics were present as full members of the dialogue29. II. REVERSING THE TIMELINE OF “UNIATISM” Since the question of the origins of “uniatism” was set in the Balamand Document stemming from the time of the Counter-Reformation after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), we would be well-advised to look at the issue by inverting our normal approach. This entails using a 26. E.G. FARRUGIA, Balamand and “Uniatism”: Reactions and Reflections, in Jesuits in Dialogue. Consultation: The Role of Jesuits in Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Europe: Past, Present, Future, Roma, Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue, 2002, 51-70, p. 67. 27. E.C. SUTTNER, Die katholische Kirche in der Sowjetunion, Würzburg, Der christliche Osten, 1992, especially pp. 48-88 for the persecution, and pp. 89-106 for the tensions after perestroika. Suttner’s report is all the worthier because as a committed ecumenist he excludes the patriarch of Moscow from direct responsibility in the suppression of the Eastern Catholics. 28. E.G. FARRUGIA, Balamand and Its Aftermath: The Challenges of Evangelization and Proselytism, in Jesuits in Dialogue. Consultation: Ecumenism: Hopes and Challenges for the New Century, Roma, Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue, 2003, 6-21, p. 15. 29. However, in honesty to the official Joint Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, it must be pointed out that right from the start, when the question was raised whether to include Eastern Catholics as members of the dialogue, it was decided to include them. See FARRUGIA, Balamand and Its Aftermath (n. 28), p. 7.

10

E.G. FARRUGIA

different order for the timeline, starting from the beginning of Christianity to our times. We would discover that in the beginning it was not latinization, often invoked as a natural ally of proselytism, itself a cousin to uniatism, but Hellenization30! What secular modernization means for us nowadays, the shock it spells for many to see their traditional values and customs upset, is what Hellenization then meant for many. One need only open the first book of Maccabees: “After Alexander son of Philip … had defeated King Darius of the Persians …, he succeeded him as king” (1 Macc 1,1)31. Although the Maccabees fought this wave of globalization with all their might as a pagan deviation, it cannot be denied that this imposition of koine Greek, in the long run, brought us such a gift as the Septuagint and the even more stupendous gift of the New Testament. As is well known, A. von Harnack (d. 1930) tried to draw grist for his mill from Hellenization and argued that the influx of Greek philosophical categories distorted the Christian faith. Harnack has been effectively refuted. That said, it cannot be denied that Hellenism as a civilization eventually was invisibly linked to early Christendom so that those who accepted it saw their own culture levelled to a certain extent with that of other Christians. From this datum, Michelangelo Guidi (d. 1946) drew a distinction between those Christian areas which succumbed to the influence of Greek and those who withstood it. He talks of two Christian Orients: the original Christian Orient, made largely of what we call the Oriental Christian Churches and the (Assyrian) Church of the East and, of course, Greece, and the derivative Christian East of the Byzantine and the Slavic forms32. This version of things shows us that not all influences, not even when social pressures are exerted, are necessarily and in every way negative. A second monument of history is the Byzantine occupation of central Italy from Justinian I (527-565) to about 750 (i.e., the fall of Byzantine Ravenna). The emperor could harass the popes, send Pope St. Sylverius (d. 537) to the mines and put Pope Vigilius (d. 555) under house arrest, precisely because of this Byzantine predominance. As a result of the council that Justinian I engineered in 553 (Constantinople II), a schism 30. For the situation from a Jewish point of view, see G. BOHAK, Hellenism, in R.J. ZWIWERBLOWSKY – G. WIGIDEN (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997, 315-316. 31. New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989. 32. M. GUIDI, Oriente Cristiano, in Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti 25 (1935) 550; see also V. PERI, Orientalis Varietas: Roma e le Chiese d’Oriente, storia e diritto canonico (Kanonika, 4), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994, pp. 144-145.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

11

was unleashed in the West, the Schism of the Three Chapters33, that lasted roughly a century and a half34. A third monument in this timeline is the iconoclastic crisis, in which Emperor Leo III dismembered much of the pope’s “diocese” by re-directing Eastern Illyricum35 from the pope’s jurisdiction to that of the patriarch of Constantinople. Was this uniatism? If it was not, it was much worse because the pope lost by sheer force a huge part of his faithful to an emperor who would be later condemned as a heretic in the Synodikon read every first Sunday of Great Lent on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. A century and a half later, Pope Nicholas I (d. 867) demanded that Patriarch Photius (d. 891) give back this territory36. Though peace was eventually attained and Photius was satisfied that the schism had been lifted, the territory was never returned. For Catholics to make the same demand now would be the height of absurdity. Would it be different for the Orthodox in analogous cases? A fourth monument concerns the “monophysite” crisis because it lends itself to comparison of coercive unions practised both by Catholics and Orthodox. The first criterion for comparison of coercive unions is provided by John Meyendorff: the setting up of a parallel hierarchy in another church’s historical territories. Meyendorff finds this exemplified in the occupation of Constantinople on Good Friday of 1204 by mutineer Venetian and Frankish troops and the creation of a parallel Latin hierarchy with a Latin patriarch of Constantinople. Even if this was also retribution for the massacre of Latins in 1182 (and Pope Innocent III later roundly condemned the Crusaders’ excesses), it accounts for the nadir of Catholic-Orthodox relations and is often reckoned as the real beginning of the schism between East and West37. The whole episode finds a comparable parallel in the way the Byzantine emperors38, starting with Justinian I and with the collaboration 33. The three chapters were Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (d. c. 466) and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457), condemned as Nestorians at Constantinople II by Justinian II to appease the “monophysites”. 34. G. FEDALTO, Lo scisma tricapitolino e la politica giustinianea, in Cristianità d’Occidente e Cristianità d’Oriente (Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 51), Spoleto, Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004, 629-659. 35. C. CAPIZZI, Illyricum, Eastern, in EDCE (n. 1), 974-976. 36. J.N.D. KELLY, The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, New York, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 108; also: pp. 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 87 and 88. 37. J. MEYENDORFF, Églises sœurs: Implications ecclésiologiques du “Tomos Agapis”, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 303-322, pp. 307-308. 38. They were not the first. As Macha states, “While early gnostic movements had led only to the formation of cultic groups and sects, the Protest movements over the reconciliation of apostates and compromisers during times of persecution led to the establishment

12

E.G. FARRUGIA

of their patriarchs, tried to impose a parallel hierarchy to coerce union with the Egyptian fellahin, otherwise loyal to the Byzantine emperors, because they felt that their salvation was at stake39. Why is this not a case of “uniatism before uniatism”? Is it so completely different from examples of coerced unions on both sides in the time of the Counter-Reformation? A fifth monument concerns the delegation Pope Leo IX sent to Constantinople in 1054. It was not meant to excommunicate anyone, but to forge an alliance against the advance of the Normans in Italy with the Byzantine emperor, who was willing to go along even with the doctrinal agenda of setting matters straight on the azymes. The project was, nonetheless, frustrated by Patriarch Cerularius. Both Cardinal Humbert da Silva Candida and Cerularius exceeded their bounds and hurled excommunications at each other; but what a difference in approach. Humbert was intolerant for the sake of a misguided church reform; Cerularius was intolerant because of his political ambitions40. The sixth monument took place at the union councils of Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1438-1439). Florence failed, in part, because the negotiations were held under duress and fear of the advancing Turks. Lyons II was a diktat which the Emperor Michel VIII had to sign, without denying that previous discussions between Greeks and Latins had taken place over the preceding decades. With the Turks at the doors, Florence even hardened the break, although the long discussions were free. Besides, the council was vitiated, according to J. Erickson, by too many arguments and too little pneumatology41. For the seventh monument in history, Pope Clement VIII, in his Perbrevis instruction of 1595 in the year of the agreement of the Ukrainian bishops of Brest, forbade intercommunion between Catholics of different of rival hierarchies”, in J. MACHA, Ecclesiastical Unification: A Theoretical Framework together with Case Studies from the History of Latin-Byzantine Relations (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 198), Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1974, p. 316. 39. J. Macha says this explicitly of Byzantine attempts to restore union with the “monophysites”: “Attempts at reunion of the resulting national churches with the Catholic church did not cease. First, they were conducted unsuccessfully by the church of the Byzantine Empire, largely by political means”, ibid., pp. 318-319. The similarity to post-Tridentine Catholic proselytism is very close indeed. Union with the Apostolic See is the express aim of the missionaries everywhere, whether Jesuits or Capuchins. 40. E.G. FARRUGIA, Peter of Amalfi, Emblem of Mid-Eleventh Century Ecclesiological Crosscurrents, in ID. (ed.), Amalfi and Byzantium: Acts of the International Symposium on the Eighth Centenary of the Translation of the Relics of St Andrew the Apostle from Constantinople to Amalfi (1208-2008), Rome, 6 May 2008 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 287), Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2010, 141-169, esp. pp. 152-157. 41. J.H. ERICKSON, The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991, pp. 157-169; E.G. FARRUGIA, Florence in the Contemporary Discussion, in EDCE (n. 1), 809-810.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

13

rites in Southern Italy and Sicily42. Such a harsh-sounding measure shows that analogous harsh-sounding measures with the Orthodox, however regrettable, have to be interpreted in the context of the time. All these examples are mentioned only to redress the balance because many of the writings about Balamand seem to imply that only the Latins indulged in exercising coercive unions. As Ernst Suttner has convincingly shown, the Synod of Brest of 1596 was a perfectly free synod, with a parallel anti-synod, equally free, by those who were against the union with Rome43. By inverting the timeline, one can at once see how arbitrary it is to start the story of uniatism with the century of the Brest union. If uniatism after Brest brought hardships, uniatism before was not less pernicious. The real difference was not whether the coercion was done by Catholics or Orthodox but, rather, by whoever had the upper hand. The difference between the two periods is sometimes seen as being that with Trent (15451563), Catholic ecclesiology became exclusivist44; exclusivist tendencies, however, are tangible on both sides, especially after 172945. It is hard to say who hurt whom most, but one should avoid raising the impression that only the Eastern Catholics hurt the Orthodox; unfortunately, there was Catholic and Orthodox proselytism. The right reaction to these woes is not to bear grudges but to preach reconciliation based on justice. As Pope Paul VI taught: justice is the other name of peace46. III. IDENTITY IS

A

WORK IN PROGRESS: THE NEW STAKES BALAMAND’S REJECTION

AFTER

History can thus help us to avoid paths that lead nowhere – Holzwege47; and so, we have to investigate within which parameters we are likely to fathom realistic possibilities for getting out of a quandary of our 42. R.G. ROBERSON, Italo-Albanian Church, in EDCE (n. 1), 1087-1089. 43. E.C. SUTTNER, Die Anfänge der Brester Union, in ID., Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt, Würzburg, Augustinus, 2003, 339-370; see also R.F. TAFT, Reflections on “Uniatism” in the Light of Some Recent Books, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 65 (1999) 153-184, p. 165. Interestingly, Suttner indicts both Catholic and Orthodox proselytism (he gives detailed examples of both), but comes to the defence of Aleksey’s alleged destructive role vis-à-vis the Ukrainian Catholics in the pseudo-synod of L’viv (1946). 44. See DUPREY, Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe (n. 23). 45. With the recognition by Rome in 1729 of the run-away Antiochian patriarchate in 1724. 46. Paul VI, Message for the Fifth World Day of Peace (1 January 1972), entitled “If you want peace work for justice”. 47. M. HEIDEGGER, Holzwege, Frankfurt a.M., Klostermann, 2003. The word literally means “forest paths”.

14

E.G. FARRUGIA

own making. And yet, if history is not the answer, what is the question? Even if we might not always have a common horizon, yet, what would we do if we had to operate on a patient in all urgency – would we hesitate in order to gather more information? Of course, the Balamand Document’s two parts, prefaced with a short introduction (nn. 1-5), were the Ecclesiological Principles (nn. 6-18) and the Practical Rules (nn. 19-35), the latter of which was essentially practice-oriented, and one of its best aspects. Here, however, in the questions at stake, we have to turn to fundamental issues. We have to re-order our ecumenical priorities after Balamand. Granted that Balamand has been rejected by those for whom it was intended, what lessons can we draw which are future-oriented? 1. Ordering Literature on Balamand At this point one should sort out some haphazardly chosen literature on Balamand to have at least some idea of an issue on which so much has been written, with a penchant for history. The pertinent literature may be said to fall into a number of categories. The first category is of those who had official roles in the various forms of the dialogue who later produced commentaries. Many commentators happened to be members of the official international Joint Catholic-Orthodox dialogue such as André de Halleux, Emmanuel Lanne, Ernst C. Suttner and Dimitrios Salachas, besides, of course, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. On the Orthodox side, there are Metropolitan Stylianos of Australia, Olivier Clément, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, along with Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople and Bartholomew I of Constantinople. The second category consists of literature of those who wrote in the immediate aftermath of Balamand. Such is the work of the Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France48. The members, half Orthodox and half Catholic, had been chosen by the corresponding metropolitan and episcopal conferences to discuss the issue for the ten years prior to the seventh plenary session at Balamand (1993). The work is very informative, but here and there one senses a naïve (i.e., uncritical) optimism about the achievement of Balamand. The third category includes historical studies in the sociology of the unions of Florence and Brest. One is Josef Macha’s Ecclesiastical Unification49, a book almost never used in the discussions and yet which has something to say because it resorts to sociological categories without 48. See Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4). 49. See n. 38.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

15

reducing ideas to sociology. Two very important studies on the union of Brest are (Met.) B.A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of Brest (1596-1996)50, and the co-edited work Four Hundred Years of the Union of Brest (1596-1996): A Critical Re-Evaluation51. A final category includes commentaries which appeared a considerable time after the seventh plenary session of Balamand. These include Taft’s two studies52 and M. Jalakh’s Ecclesiological Identity, to give but two examples among many. The shifting interests of what is at stake in the Balamand Document can be gauged by taking into account the time when the contributions were written. 2. Particular Issues in the Balamand Document At stake in discussions on uniatism is the identity of a church, the identity of churches and the distinctiveness of warring identities. The most basic element here is not the individual church, for no church is an atom and no man is an island53. And just as an individual, however talented, remains isolated so long as he/she does not enter into a relation with others, establishing communion with them, so churches remain isolated and may show signs of aggression and hostility so long as they do not (re)establish communion with other churches. This raises the question of the identity of a particular church and warring identities, i.e., ecclesial entities in conflict. a) The Idea of a Church Identity, Old and New The idea many have of an identity, and especially of an Eastern Church identity, is one regulated by stability, almost as if it were a still-life picture. Its subconscious model would be one closely following the idea of a classic language, such as Latin, which is now dead and gone and cannot change. Changes, if allowed, would be minimal in quantity and peripheral in quality. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially for a church which would like to consider itself as brimming with vitality 50. Cambridge, MA, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1998. 51. Eds. B. GROEN – W. VAN DEN BERCKEN (Eastern Christian Studies, 1), Leuven, Peeters, 1998. 52. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 15) and Reflections on “Uniatism” in the Light of Some Recent Books (n. 43). 53. This is the line from John Donne (d. 1631), Meditation XVII, from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions. He was a member of the “metaphysical poets”, not because they had anything to do with formal metaphysics, but because their striking images opened a window upon the real. Cf. CUDDON, A Dictionary of Literary Terms (n. 19), pp. 392-393.

16

E.G. FARRUGIA

and dynamism in its way of operating, not characterized by stagnation but rather by such progress so as not to tamper with the essential constitution Christ gave his Church54. I was amused when, in my Russian class at the Pushkin Institute, we were told by one of our teachers that Russia has a history with a variable past. Such statements are typical of regimes, such as the Soviet Union, which are revisionist and dictatorial to the point of dictating history. The state of affairs is the exact opposite when we come to identity in general. It is never completely fixed by heredity, itself a historical process, but also by the environment, by history, a work in progress throughout the history of an individual or a church. These compelling forces forge the future; they do not tamper with the past. In the reactions to Balamand, some authors have been very open in accepting facts as they are. Such is D. Salachas, who has written on one of the more sensitive concrete issues in Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations: the Byzantine Exarchate in Greece55. It originated in 1856 by a Latin priest, J.H. Marangos, whose movement gathered momentum thanks to the Assumptionists, a group of religious to whom Pius X assigned an apostolic exarchate in Constantinople in 1911, with Mgr. Isaïe Papadopoulos as titular bishop. When in 1920 the latter became an assessor at the Oriental Congregation, he was replaced by Mgr. George Calavassy56. As a consequence of the immigration of peoples in the context of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the Holy See erected in Greece an apostolic exarchate alongside the Orthodox one already existing in Constantinople57. The model that guided Rome in this had been operative since the sixteenth century and foresaw the conversion of the Orthodox to the Catholic Church58. At the time, Latin missionaries authorized to pass to the “Greek rite” felt they had a free hand to proselytize59. Although “return” ecclesiology goes by the presumption that the Catholic Church is the sole depository of salvation, Salachas acknowledges that the missionaries acted in good faith. Since the perspective of the Latin Church has now changed to the search of full communion, no such conversions are sought60. The alternatives of “integration into Latin Catholicism or return to Orthodoxy” are not viable options. These are not mentioned in the 54. E.G. FARRUGIA, Within Living Memory: Tradition, the Shape of the Future, in ID., Tradition in Transition: The Vitality of the Christian East, Roma, Mar Thoma Yogam, 1996, 145-160. 55. D. SALACHAS, L’Église unie en Grèce: Un exemple de la diversité des Églises orientales unies, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 173-178. 56. Ibid., p. 173. 57. Ibid., pp. 173-174. 58. Ibid., p. 174. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid., p. 177.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

17

Balamand Document but are noted in the Ariccia document (1991) produced two years before61. The Greco-Catholic Ukrainians did not fare any better. O. Clément has expressed it in clear terms: In 1945-1946, Stalin simply wanted to destroy them. The words of Patriarch Aleksey I added insult to injury62, and so actually injected a good dose of defiance into the Ukrainians. These brave Christians were still living on the religious vitality bequeathed by the forty-five years of inspiring governance of Andrij Šeptyc’kyj (d. 1944), metropolitan of Halyč63. In view of the revamped debate on uniatism so soon after their liberation in the late 1980’s, Michel Hrynchyshyn (Hrynčyšyn) comments bitterly: “This time, the threat did not come from a totalitarian atheist government but from theologians and pastors”64. b) Clash of Identities “Conflicts are inevitable”, says St. Paul (1 Cor 11,19), which induces us to think that, instead of trying to avoid conflicts at all costs, there are times when it is better to face them directly. A conflict can assume many forms, one between the individual and his/her God, one between individuals or groups, or even a clash of civilizations. Indeed, if we read the Fathers, and especially the Fathers of the desert, the request that was constantly posed to them: “Tell me, father, a word about saving my soul!” – this aimed at saving one’s soul before God but, it did not exclude saving one’s face before men65. Actually, the two meanings go together in Latin. At Vatican II, Abbot Hoeck ended his famous plaidoyer in favour of the patriarchates by saying: “Dixi, et salvavi animam meam” – “I have finished, thereby relieving my soul”66. The pursuit of salvation need not go counter to a smoother functioning within society, neither for the individual within society nor for inter-church relations. 61. Ibid., p. 178. 62. M. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église grécocatholique ukrainienne, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 277-285, pp. 277-278. Different is the perspective of E.C. SUTTNER, Die Unterdrückung der Ukrainischen Unierten Kirche unter Stalin und das Moskauer Patriarchat, in Stimmen der Zeit 211/8 (1993) 560572, where the sufferings of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholics at Stalin’s hands are well brought out, with the further remark, however, that Patriarch Aleksey I showed no rejoicing (“kein Jubel”) at their suppression; ibid., pp. 568-572. Suttner considers Aleksey’s encyclical in question to be a falsification. 63. S. SENYK, Šeptyc’kyj, Andrej, in EDCE (n. 1), 1658. 64. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne (n. 62), p. 278. 65. Cf. G. and T. SARTORY (eds.), Lebenshilfe aus der Wüste: Die alten Mönchsväter als Therapeuten, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1981, p. 77. 66. J. HOECK, Primum Regnum Dei: Die Patriarchalstruktur der Kirche als Angelpunkt der Wiedervereinigung, Oberammergau, Benediktinerabtei Ettal, 1987. See Acta Synodalia III/5, p. 75.

18

E.G. FARRUGIA

IV. HEALING IN RECONCILIATION: THE IDENTITY OF WARRING IDENTITIES Healing will take an eternity, like two parallels that never meet, so long as we are fixated on our wounds, instead of re-orienting ourselves to a transfigured society, fixing our gaze on Christ, our common hope, the future of the Church and of its members (Heb 12,2). 1. Testing the Balamand Document in Ukraine: Success in Failure Identity being the product of history, inherited or in progress, wars arise from two different strands of history that are incompatible. I am thus drawing closer to some of the more fundamental underpinnings of the complex of problems associated with uniatism67. Here we have to set the record straight. Ukrainian Greco-Catholics emerged from the catacombs in no mood to dialogue, partly because they had their own wounds to tend, and partly because the faithful were completely unfamiliar with the documents of Vatican II. For Ukrainian Greco-Catholics, the term by which they willingly described themselves before the Council, “Uniates”, has become offensive, as offensive as calling the Orthodox “dissenters” as they were known before the Council. Neither expression should be used any more in this sense. From this perspective we may gather why, for all its merits, the Balamand Document’s formulation was rejected: it is at once negative and defensive. M. Hrynchyshyn explains: Sa formulation est à la fois négative et défensive. On reconnaît dans le premier paragraphe que le document est le résultat d’une forme de chantage ecclésiastique. Depuis 1991, quelques Églises orthodoxes ont pratiqué un boycott. Le boycott n’est guère une forme acceptable de dialogue œcuménique, le “dialogue de l’amour”. Préparé en hâte et sous la contrainte, le document manque d’inspiration biblique et théologique68.

The document was consequently negatively received among the Ukrainian Greco-Catholics, both clergy and the faithful. Cardinal Myroslav Ljubačivs’kyj did his best to save the situation by writing, within 67. E.C. SUTTNER, Der von der orth.-kath. Dialogkommission verurteilte Uniatismus, in ID., Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt (n. 43), 572-582. 68. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne (n. 62), p. 279. For more on this, see A.T. ONUFERKO, The Balamand Document and Its Positive Impact on the Ecumenical Commitment of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, in this volume, 131-151.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

19

three months of its publication, a positive reading of Balamand69, recognizing a conscientious effort to come to grips with the situation and affirmed that remarkable progress had been reached in comparison to the text of Ariccia70. While fully agreeing that division goes counter to Christ’s express will of unity among Christians and rejoicing at the affirmation of the primacy of liberty of conscience (Balamand, n. 15), he found the invitation that Greco-Catholics should participate fully in the dialogue of charity and of truth particularly encouraging71. More than the words, however, what helped calm the situation was the way the cardinal embraced reconciliation towards Russia, following in the footsteps of his immediate predecessors Šeptyc’kyj and Josyf Slipyj72. As Slipyj, in spite of all he had gone through as a prisoner in Soviet Siberian labour camps, put it: À l’Église russe, nous souhaitons la sainteté et le progrès spirituel dans l’esprit du Christ. Nous sommes prêts à reconnaître tous ses droits. Mais nous exigeons un respect équivalent de nos droits du patriarcat de Moscou73.

With the then situation in the Greco-Catholic Church in Ukraine in mind, Hrynchyshyn winds up by saying that in the end the Balamand Document was accepted by all74. However, it was the general negative reaction to Balamand that finally won the day. 2. Tomos Agapis The date of 1054 is a conventional date for a blow-up between Orthodox and Catholics by two impetuous leaders, which in turn has been blown out of proportion. It can in no way represent the definitive schism between East and West, a sobriquet it attained because all subsequent attempts to heal this irregular state of affairs ultimately failed. It was not so irregular, however, for Orthodox on the Ionian islands kept inviting Jesuits and Capuchins to preach Lenten retreats and administer the 69. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne (n. 62), pp. 279-280. 70. The text of Ariccia (1991) had been a sell-out: Eastern Catholics would have to choose, in the event of re-established communion, between joining the Latin Church or the Orthodox Church. For this reason, the text had been leaked to the press, hoping thereby to canvass more support for it. 71. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne (n. 62), p. 280. 72. C. VASIL, Slipyj, Josef (d. 1984), in EDCE (n. 1), 1689. 73. HRYNCHYSHYN, La réception du document de Balamand par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne (n. 62), pp. 282-283. 74. Ibid., p. 283.

20

E.G. FARRUGIA

sacraments until shortly before 1729, when Rome recognized the runaway patriarchate of Antioch as Catholic75. The official closure of Vatican II committed the event of 1054 to oblivion, thereby assuring that this date would be remembered all the same, albeit as something devoid of meaning. It is like a “black hole” in astrophysics, a star that no longer exists, but that is still radiant because light takes ages to reach us from such a long distance. The happy occurrence of the lifting of the anathemas was recorded in a Tomos Agapis (Book of Love)76, a title chosen as an answer to a book of the same name by Dositheus Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 169877. Since the anathemas did not create the schism in the first place, their removal alone could hardly be expected to re-establish communion78. As it was estrangement which created the schism, it is real love, based on mutual forgiveness and starting afresh, that can restore communion79. The estrangement can only be healed by an equally slow but steady “rapprochement”, and not by means of an abrupt twist of fortune80. One may wonder, at this point, why I have not devoted more space to what is generally considered to be the dogmatic key to the whole document – the fact that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church look at one another as “sister churches” (n. 12)81. The reason is simple: this aspect, however important, does not fall directly under my theme, although one can perhaps see an indirect link between sister churches and uniatism in the classical sense as between a positive figure and its negative shadow82. Cardinal Kasper, as Prefect of the Pontifical Council for 75. To be sure, the quarrel had not been instigated by Catholics, just as Jesuits were in favour of the Ukrainians becoming Latin rite Catholics, not Greek Catholics. See FARRUGIA, Florence in the Contemporary Discussion (n. 41). Cf. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 15), p. 165. 76. Pro Oriente (ed.), Tomos Agapis: Dokumentation zum Dialog der Liebe zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und dem ökumenischen Patriarchat, 1958-1970, Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 1978 (orig. pub. 1970). 77. MEYENDORFF, Églises sœurs (n. 37), pp. 303-304. 78. D.J. MELLING, Michael Kerularios, in The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, Oxford, Blackwell, 1999, 316. 79. MEYENDORFF, Églises sœurs (n. 37), pp. 306-307. 80. Ibid., p. 316. 81. H. LEGRAND, L’ecclésiologie des Églises sœurs, clé de la déclaration de Balamand, a-t-elle plein droit de cité dans l’Église Catholique?, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 356-400, p. 357. 82. M. STAVROU, Les “ambigua” du document de Balamand pour sa réception du côté orthodoxe, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 4), 323-342, p. 341. While he is right on this point, his criticism of Maximos IV Saïgh for having said that the Eastern Catholics had the vocation of promoting the union with the Orthodox, which for him is the quintessence of uniatism (ibid., p. 330), ignores that Orientalium ecclesiarum, n. 30 requires of Eastern Catholics a “kenotic” self-effacing way of waiting, possibly also of self-sacrificing,

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

21

Promotion of Christian Unity, made some interesting comments on the “Note sur l’expression ‘églises sœurs’”, affirming on the one hand that the explanations therein contained are “logical, easy to understand and theologically well founded”, but, on the other hand, they remain formal and do not answer the pertinent question as to what the universal Church means83. J.H. Erickson notes that it is inaccurate to say that the term “sister church” can only be used among Orthodox Churches who share total doctrinal agreement. He cites both Assistant Ober-Procurator N.A. Muraviev and Metropolitan Platon of Kyiv, who both called the Western Church a sister church to the Eastern Church, as did Patriarch Alekesy I who so described the Roman Church84. Erickson thinks it ironic that the Balamand Document should be criticized for the expression sister churches by the Orthodox, since they conceive of the Church as being a koinōnia of sister churches and they have been trying so hard to promote such a notion85. 3. Some Conclusions Since the Balamand Document has not been accepted, we cannot simply adopt its positive conclusions and leave aside the others. We had better see, first of all, its problematic conceptualization of uniatism. At the time, the problem of uniatism seemed to be an insurmountable roadblock on the way to re-establishing communion. If the problem of uniatism remains as a top item on the agenda, then a new methodology has to be adopted because one of the reasons for the failure of Balamand was the onesided methodology that was adopted. Should the problem of “uniatism” persist, this time both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics should be given equal voice and encouraged to talk to one another on equal terms; the symbolic presence of a few Eastern Catholics in the dialogue will until the situation is clear. Intimated by that article itself is therefore a Christian way of promoting union – a prophetic way of waiting which is anything but uniatism in its classical sense, but a completely new and creative way of being present by not being in the way. 83. W. KASPER, Questioni aperte nell’ecclesiologia delle “Chiese sorelle”, in ID., Vie dell’Unità: Prospettive per l’ecumenismo, Brescia, Queriniana, 2006, 108-136, pp. 118-119. For Kasper, the universal Church is not the Roman Church, for the universal Church includes the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. 84. Among those who recognized the Catholic Church as church we can add St. Filaret of Moscow. See G. CIOFFARI, La Sobornost’ nella teologia russa: La visione della chiesa negli scrittori ecclesiastici della prima metà del XIX secolo, in Nicolaus 5 (1977) 259-324, pp. 272, 322. 85. J.H. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997) 25-43, p. 37.

22

E.G. FARRUGIA

not do. The Balamand Document’s n. 11 is outrageous for ignoring any Orthodox responsibility in the past and the recent pressures and violence to which Eastern Catholics were subjected. These grievances would have to be aired and openly discussed, alongside the grievances against Latin and Eastern Catholics. The stronger partner in a debate should be prepared not to voice at once grievances on his side. Erickson goes so far as to say that the Balamand Document “deliberately refuses to render specific judgments or to apportion blame in a precise way, in order to correct the uncritically received misinformation on both sides”86. However, in the long run such an attitude distorts the dialogue of truth into one of appeasement. It is the truth, to be sure, that makes us free (Jn 8,32). Uniatism, as Erickson rightly points out, is too heterogeneous a concept because the origins of the churches which are so designated are so different; we cannot take the Union of Brest as the typical example. While the rift at Antioch that led to the formation of the Melkite Church has been tempered and accompanied by so much desire to restore communion, as witnessed in our days with Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby’s project of a local fusion between the two churches87, the Byzantine Exarchate in Greece, erected with a pronouncedly return ecclesiology, has been a bone of contention ever since88. We indeed have to distinguish between a “uniatism” before Trent and a uniatism afterwards, in the sense that the ecclesiological presuppositions were quite different, and yet the phenomenon bears in the two cases too many resemblances. What they both have in common is not only the temptation to resolve schism by force, but also that both sides practised it. The Balamand Document n. 30 may be somehow suggesting this by saying that the blame for the schism has to be apportioned to both sides (though it does not add equitably so). Uniatism should be used to describe a method and model employed by both sides, wherever they prevailed, but both approaches must be relegated to the past. What has been just said of uniatism, may also be said of a phenomenon such as latinization, often considered to be a next of kin to proselytism: it has been practised on both sides. Thus, at around the time of Theodore Balsamon (d. 1195), the byzantinization of the liturgy within the same Orthodox Church in communion with Constantinople had advanced to such a degree that the original Orthodox liturgy at Alexandria and 86. Ibid., p. 39. 87. E. ZOGHBY, Tous schismatiques? La robe déchirée, Beirut, Heidelberg Press, 1981. 88. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 85), p. 39.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

23

Antioch had practically disappeared. And, on the other side, Russification was sometimes combatted by Ukrainians adopting Latin para-liturgical manners89. In the meantime, more positive signs as to Balamand have been signalled. In the meeting in Cuba in February of 2016 with Pope Francis, Patriarch Kiril referred to one of the most important accords that had been reached at Balamand: the right of Eastern Catholic Churches to exist and take care of their flock (Balamand, n. 16). Another sign in the same direction is that among the documents which were presented at the pan-Orthodox Council held in Crete (2016), none concerned uniatism. There are many promising aspects in the Balamand Document but, first of all, we cannot do as if they were already shared by all or even the majority. As for the use of “sister churches”, this in itself accounts for a great change in the climate between Orthodox and Catholics. Although this was not the main focus in this paper, one must focus on what is new in this designation. Even before Vatican II, it was generally affirmed that the Orthodox had valid sacraments, including the Eucharist. What is new is that a designation more commonly used previously in inter-Orthodox relations between the autocephalous churches has now been extended to Orthodox-Catholic relations. Moreover, all that the “Note sur l’expression ‘églises sœurs’” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wanted to do was to account for a more correct use of the term90. All this points to one thing: the Balamand Document has not been accepted. We cannot pretend that it has. We need, rather, to go back to the drawingboard and together analyse critically in greater depth not only theologically, but also historically, the problem of uniatism. V. CONCLUSION What are we to think of the Balamand Document, after so many discussions and especially after its rejection by both sides? In spite of initial euphoria in several quarters, Balamand has in the long run failed to create that concord it was expected to do. And yet, it has marked a very important and, in certain respects, inalienable progress. The task of the essays in this volume has been to distinguish these results. There is an 89. E.g., E.G. FARRUGIA, Latinization, in EDCE (n. 1), 1119-1123. 90. For the documentation, see C. PATELOS, The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902-1975, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1978, pp. 40-41; cf. E.G. FARRUGIA, Lumen gentium in the Light of Involvement in the Ecumenical Movement, in One in Christ 52 (2018) 206-225, esp. pp. 210-212.

24

E.G. FARRUGIA

unbalance in Balamand in the way the suffering of the Orthodox is presented. Nowhere is it said that the Orthodox proselytized, although there are glaring examples of millions of Catholics being incorporated unwillingly into Orthodoxy (twice in Russia, for example)91. There will be no peace until the suffering of both sides is accepted in a spirit of reconciliation. Neither the suffering of the Orthodox nor that of the Eastern Catholic Churches can be dismissed summarily in one or two phrases. The suffering of the Eastern Catholics is dismissed in one simple phrase, ascribing certain “unacceptable means” (Balamand, n. 11) to civil authorities, with no complicity whatsoever of any religious Orthodox Church or its members being acknowledged. In this sense, Baltimore (2000) was the nemesis of Balamand and, in this sense, this work has to be re-done, precisely as recommended – but not practised – by Baltimore. By that I mean not only requiring the participation of Eastern Christians at all levels, but effecting a “dialogue of love” and a “dialogue of truth”. Many of the statements about Eastern Catholics are simply ignored by the Orthodox. The fact that Patriarch Kiril, in the Cuba meeting with Pope Francis, could evoke one of Balamand Document’s clauses, namely that the Eastern Orthodox have a right to live and function pastorally, helps save Balamand’s face up to a point. The document also helped show to pretend to achieve a breakthrough in dialogue by not adressing with the attention they deserved the wrongs both partners, Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, suffered, blocks dialogue. Proselytism and uniatism were practised by all within the absence of ecumenical perspectives prevailing at the time, in the hope of clutching souls from the jaws of hell. The only problem is that we do not know who would emerge as the guiltier. Uniatism as a formula failed since its solution to the question of unity suppressed that part of the equation which required seeing others as full partners. As I have written elsewhere: OE [Orientalium ecclesiarum, n. 30] does not want to impose anything, least of all the indiscriminate dismantling of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but simply refuses to pre-determine the future so as to favour the greater good of a restored full communion without posing unnecessary limits to it. So why should we not give hope a chance? At one stage in Church history, tensions between various religious orders ran so high that it seemed they 91. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 15), pp. 185-187. Moreover, his review article, Reflections on “Uniatism” (n 43) is a documentation of the injustices Eastern Christians suffered. E.g., pp. 157-158 and Taft’s conclusion on p. 163: “In the same vein, when talking of ‘proselytism’, fairness demands admitting that the Orthodox are not so much opposed to proselytism, as to any proselytism but their own”.

BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND

25

would never be on speaking terms again. Those times are happily gone by. There were times when Catholics and Orthodox felt the same way about one another, but those times, too, belong to the past. So why should we think that the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholic Eastern Churches will not succeed?92.

Much has been done for a theology of sister churches at Balamand. And although Balamand made real progress on the practical factors of Catholic Eastern Churches, their right to exist and to exercise their ministry, it has done mighty little to develop a critical theology of these Eastern Churches, a critical and – why not, so long as it is done in a self-effacing (OE n. 30), rather than a self-imposing manner? – an ecumenical theology of these churches. If we want to go beyond Balamand, but retaining all that is positive in the statement, the step of Orthodox engaging with Eastern Catholics in direct dialogue is inexorable. This can become possible if Balamand’s principles are accepted, but without the historical “forgetfulness” which would render the dialogue not a balanced search based on truth, but one based on a one-sided version of the situation. Without a mutual sensibility to these things no ecumenical breakthrough can be expected. Pontificio Istituto Orientale Piazza S. Maria Maggiore 7 IT-00185 Roma Italia [email protected]

Edward G. FARRUGIA

92. E.G. FARRUGIA, Re-Reading Orientalium ecclesiarum, in Gregorianum 88 (2007) 352-372, p. 370.

THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT ON UNIATISM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

What follows is an overview of the history of modern OrthodoxCatholic relations with a view to locating in this history the Balamand Document on “uniatism” on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its promulgation. This essay thus focuses on the international ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches1, the latter including all those Orthodox Churches of Byzantine or Slavic traditions2. Such a topic invariably includes the Eastern Catholic Churches, that is, those Eastern Christian Churches who entered into communion with the Catholic Church3. I will also illustrate how diverse notions of “uniatism” (broadly defined as a partial union of one church to another church) and the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches have been recurrent areas of tension and misunderstanding in modern Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical relations, and will conclude with areas where ecumenical progress might be achieved within a new ecumenical historiography. I. THE MODERN ROOTS OF ORTHODOX AND CATHOLIC ECUMENISM The early roots of modern Eastern Orthodox ecumenism can be traced back to the 1920 encyclical of Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, 1. The official title of the dialogue is the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For Orthodox and Catholic involvement in other multilateral dialogues dealing with mission, proselytism and uniatism, most notably at the level of the World Council of Churches and Faith and Order see A. HOUTEPEN, Uniatism and Models of Unity in the Ecumenical Movement, in Exchange 25/3 (1996) 202-221; K.M. GEORGE, Local and Universal: Uniatism as an Ecclesiological Issue, in G. LIMOURIS (ed.), Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement 1902-1992, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1994, 228-232. 2. Beyond the scope of this essay are the Catholic Church’s ecumenical relations with the other two major Eastern Orthodox Church traditions, namely, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Almost all the Eastern Catholic Churches emerged from one of these three great Orthodox Church traditions. 3. See The Congregation for the Eastern Churches, The Catholic East, ed. E.G. FARRUGIA – G. RIGOTTI – M. VAN PARYS, Roma, Valore Italiano, 2019.

28

J.Z. SKIRA

followed by a series of other similar encyclicals4. By the early 1960s, the preparatory meetings for a pan-Orthodox Council affirmed support for ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church, provided that the dialogue was conducted on the grounds that both churches treated each other as equals. Among the themes discussed during these preparatory consultations were ecumenism; mission; uniatism and proselytism; and, primacy and authority. The final decisions of the pan-Orthodox Council (2016) will be addressed later in this historical excursus (in section VII). On the Catholic side, a watershed moment for the Catholic Church was the calling of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Vatican II promulgated four texts of importance for the Christian East: On the Church, On Ecumenism, On the Eastern Catholic Churches and On the Liturgy. All of these texts contain numerous positive affirmations of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. A number of Vatican II’s themes would later be echoed in the documents of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, such as an ecclesiology of communion; a theology of “sister churches” to characterize the relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; and the affirmation of the rights and obligations of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The promulgation of these four main Council documents eventually led (in 1965) to the mutual nullification of the anathemas of the so-called “schism of 1054” by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I. This represented an ecumenically significant moment in the relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and precipitated the formal establishment of an ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. II. THE INAUGURATION OF THE FORMAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE In 1975, on the tenth anniversary of the nullification of the anathemas, both churches announced that they were inaugurating a theological dialogue with each other. This dialogue of “love” and “truth” had as its goal the establishment of full communion. On the insistence of the Orthodox Church, the dialogue would begin with topics on which the two 4. The 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere is also considered a pivotal document in modern Orthodoxy’s rapprochement with non-Orthodox churches. A further encyclical, in 1952, by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I framed the Eastern Orthodox Church’s involvement in the World Council of Churches (WCC) and had important implications for future relations with the Roman Catholic Church.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

29

churches were in basic agreement. The plan of the first series of dialogues dealt with the Church, the sacraments and ministry resulting in the production of six agreed statements between 1982 and 20165. The first plenary session (28 May – 4 June 1980) of the official Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was held in Patmos and Rhodes (Greece). This is where we encounter the first indication that the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the issue of “uniatism” would be recurring points of controversy in Orthodox-Catholic relations. At this meeting, the Orthodox delegation presented a draft document concerning the presence of Eastern Catholics (or pejoratively, “Uniates”) on the Commission6. The Orthodox delegates stated that the membership of Eastern Catholics on the Commission created a problem for the Orthodox Church, and that the Orthodox tolerance of the presence of Eastern Catholic members did not signify recognition of the Eastern Catholic Churches nor support for any form of “uniatism”7. An agreement was reached that the Catholic Church had a right to choose its own delegates. III. THE FIRST AGREED STATEMENTS: MUNICH, BARI AND VALAMO The first agreed statement of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue was “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity” (Munich, 1982). It was premised on the trinitarian communion as foundational for the Church which is visibly manifested in the celebration of the Eucharist. Such an ecclesiology of communion also made the Church both a local and universal reality, with its catholicity depending on its communion with other local “sister churches”. This communion presupposed unity in the same faith, but also a will for communion in love and in service. The next agreed statement was “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church” (Bari, 1987). In recognizing the validity of each other’s sacraments, the agreed statement notes that there have been a diversity of practices and expressions of faith in the worship of the East and West, 5. For many of these agreed statements see J. BORELLI – J.H. ERICKSON (eds.), The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue. Documents of the Joint International Commission and Official Dialogues in the United States, 1965-1995, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. 6. See Chronique des Églises, in Irénikon 53 (1980) 264-265. 7. N. RUSSELL, Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Patmos and Rhodes, in Sobornost 3/1 (1981) 86-92, p. 87.

30

J.Z. SKIRA

but these should be seen as complementary rather than as divisive. The document also relates the sacramental life to the role of the ordained ministry and episcopacy in fostering communion and develops some common language around the role of synods and ecumenical councils. At Bari, due to a Vatican exhibit of icons from Macedonia, the Cypriot and Serbian delegations walked out of the meetings because of what they perceived as “Western proselytism” by Eastern Catholics8. A communiqué at the end of the plenary session also reiterated the Commission’s rejection of proselytism and encouraged further discussion on the topic of “uniatism”9. Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I issued a joint declaration rejecting all forms of proselytism. It was a harbinger of some of the themes contained in future documents on uniatism (discussed in section V)10. The third agreed statement, on the “Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church with Particular Reference to the Importance of Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God” (Valamo, 1988), re-affirms the principles of communion ecclesiology, linking it with the synodal and conciliar life of the Church and its apostolicity. The document hints at the topic of primacy, anticipating more fulsome future discussions. However, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 precipitated a period of critical relations between the Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church11.

IV. THE CRISIS IN EASTERN EUROPE Beginning around 1988, the emergence of the Eastern Catholic Churches from the underground in the former Soviet Union, after years of persecution and suppression by the Soviet communist regime, sparked a crisis in Orthodox-Catholic relations. The Eastern Catholic Churches began reclaiming churches and monasteries that were forcibly taken from 8. C. DAVEY, “Clearing a Path through a Minefield”: Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue, 1983-1990 [Part 1], in One in Christ 26 (1990) 285-307, pp. 286-291. 9. Ibid., p. 292. 10. On 7 December 1987, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/fr/speeches/1987/ december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19871207_dichiarazione-comune.html (accessed 1 May 2019). 11. Even before the crisis in Eastern Europe, the issue of uniatism arose when the patriarch of Jerusalem decided to withdraw in June 1988 from ecumenical dialogues since he felt these dialogues were being used to support proselytism in the Holy Lands. See C. DAVEY, “Clearing a Path through a Minefield”: Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, 1983-1990 [Part 2], in One in Christ 27 (1991) 8-33, p. 17.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

31

them during the Soviet era, which occasioned accusations of violence on all sides. Alongside this, the Catholic Church began establishing new hierarchies in the territories of the former Soviet Union to serve the pastoral needs of its small communities of faithful. The latter was seen as an incursion into the traditional canonical territories of the Orthodox Churches and as acts of proselytism toward the Orthodox faithful who had only just begun recovering from years of oppression. To deal with this crisis a Quadripartite Commission was formed (comprised of the Roman Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church). It held several meetings in Kyiv and L’viv (Ukraine), beginning in January 1990, eventually issuing the document, “A Message of the Quadripartite Commission for the Normalization of Relations between the Orthodox and Catholics of the Eastern Rite in Western Ukraine”12. This document had a number of its key statements repeated in subsequent drafts of what would become the Balamand Document13. The Ukrainian delegation, significantly, was not a signatory to the text since the Russian Orthodox refused to recognize the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church as a church; there were on-going disputes over the restitution of confiscated church property; and since the Commission failed to condemn a 1946 pseudo-sobor that led to the persecution and liquidation of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church14. In light of these conflicts in the former Soviet-bloc countries, the Vatican’s “Pro Russia” Commission later developed a document entitled, “Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)” (1 June 1992)15. The text speaks about the Catholic Church needing to respond to the pastoral needs of its faithful without setting-up competing structures of “evangelization”16. To this end, cooperation was encouraged between the Catholic 12. PCPCU, Information Service 71 (1989/III-IV) 131-133. 13. See J.H. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997) 25-43, pp. 28-29. 14. DAVEY, “Clearing a Path through a Minefield” [Part 2] (n. 11), pp. 8-33, 24-25. In Romania, the conflict revolved around the Romanian Eastern Catholic Church’s demands that all property confiscated during the 1948 liquidation of the church be returned in its entirety. See D. IONESCU, The Orthodox-Uniate Conflict, in Report on Eastern Europe (2 August 1991) 29-34. 15. See Origins 22/17 (8 October 1992) 301-304. 16. W. HRYNIEWICZ, The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue (Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Challenge. Series IVa: Eastern and Central Europe, 32), Washington, DC, Council for Research in Values & Philosophy, 2007, pp. 171-175, details some of the history of the establishment of formal structures of ministry by the Catholic

32

J.Z. SKIRA

and Orthodox Churches in the traditional canonical territories of the latter churches. Similar themes would continue in subsequent drafts of documents on uniatism. V. THE BALAMAND DECLARATION – UNIATISM AND THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES During this period of crisis, the Orthodox-Catholic Commission met in Freising (June 1990), followed by the development of a draft document on uniatism at Ariccia (June 1991)17. Although the draft text was not intended for publication, it was publicly leaked18. The seventh plenary session later convened in Balamand, Lebanon (17-24 June 1993), issuing an agreed statement entitled Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion19. The two fundamental precepts of the Balamand text are: first, the churches reject uniatism as a “method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our churches” (n. 2) and, second, that the Eastern Catholic Churches have “a right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful” (n. 3)20. The Commission held that a defective theology of soteriological exclusivism was at the root of proselytism and uniatism and, in contrast, since the Orthodox and Catholic Churches saw each other as Church in the traditional “canonical territories” of the Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe, and some of the controversy associated with Cardinal Walter Kasper’s critique of what can be described as ecclesial “protectionism” by the Russian Orthodox Church, which Kasper sees as masking ideological issues. The section also summarizes Patriarch Kiril’s justification for establishing pastoral ministries in the west. Kasper’s critique is found in Le radici teologiche del conflitto tra Mosca e Roma, in La Civiltà Cattolica 3642/I (16 March 2002) 531-541. 17. For a commentary on these texts, see A. DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion – Le texte catholique-orthodoxe de Freising, in Revue Théologique de Louvain 22 (1991) 3-29; and on the Ariccia text, R.G. ROBERSON, Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Post-Communist Europe: Ghosts from the Past and Challenges for the Future, in Centro Pro Unione Semi-Annual Bulletin 43 (Spring 1993) 17-31, pp. 23-24. 18. For example, it appeared in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 10 (1991) 60-62; Irénikon 65 (1992) 491-498. 19. See Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion, in Origins 23/10 (23 August 1993) 166-169. The entire issue of Ecumenism 107 (1992) is devoted to a discussion of the crisis, with articles by Eastern and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Cf. P. DUPREY, Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe: Balamand, 17-24 juin 1993, in G.R. EVANS – M. GOURGUES (eds.), Communion et Réunion: Mélanges J.-M.R. Tillard (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 121), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1995, 115-123. Six autocephalous Orthodox Churches did not attend this meeting. 20. Note here E. LANNE, Eastern Catholics: Religious Freedom and Ecumenism, in One in Christ 26 (1990) 308-327.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

33

“sister churches” they no longer accepted “uniatism” as a method or model for seeking unity21. Union is achieved not in the absorption or fusion of parts of churches, but in truth and love (nn. 14-15). Here, a theology of “sister churches” within an ecclesiology of communion was juxtaposed to an antithetical ecclesiology of “uniatism”22. The agreed statement notes that past attempts geared towards restoring ecclesial communion were guided by external factors or bodies (n. 8). These misguided union attempts saw the lands of the East as “mission territories” to be conquered through proselytism (n. 10)23. These activities led to the union of parts of the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church, effectively causing such groups to break communion with their “mother churches of the East” (n. 8), leading to further divisions between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (n. 9) and giving rise to the birth of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The document also utilizes the phrase “unacceptable means” to characterize the forced return by civil authorities (no mention is made of the complicity of Orthodox Churches) of Eastern Catholics to their Churches of origin (n. 11). This is a gross and offensive understatement since the faithful of such churches were subject to decades of persecution, deprivation of religious freedom, imprisonment and death. Nevertheless, whatever their historical origins, Balamand says that these Eastern Catholic Churches today have a right to exist and to minister to their faithful. The international Commission also agreed that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be inserted into this ecumenical dialogue “in mutual respect and reciprocal trust” (nn. 16, 34). The implication was that the Eastern Catholics also have a right to direct their own ecumenical relations with Orthodox and Roman Catholics and their own pastoral activity in their respective countries24. The pastoral activity of the Catholic 21. For an analysis of the theology of sister churches see E. LANNE, United Churches or Sister Churches: A Choice to be Faced, in One in Christ 12 (1976) 106-123, and W.T. COHEN, The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 67), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016. 22. H. LEGRAND, Enjeux ecclésiologiques de l’uniatisme, in Science et Esprit 65 (2013) 117-132, pp.119ff., provides a number of examples of the abandonment by Rome of an ecclesiology of communion in favour of an ecclesiology of “submission” to Rome. Cf. his La théologie des Églises sœurs: réflexions ecclésiologiques autour de la déclaration de Balamand, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 88 (2004) 461-496. 23. Cf. Statement of the Catholic Members of the Consultation (31 Oct. 1992), in Ecumenical Trends 22 (January 1993) 14-15, p. 14, n. 3, from the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation of the U.S.A. 24. Ibid., p. 15, n. 7. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 13), p. 36 notes that paragraph 16 was a new addition to the Balamand Document, which was not present in the earlier Ariccia draft.

34

J.Z. SKIRA

Church, with this attitude in mind, no longer aims at proselytization among the Orthodox (n. 22); but not mentioned is whether the inverse was also true. Reciprocal exchanges of information and meetings should occur where various pastoral projects and initiatives are to be pursued (nn. 22-25)25. The Balamand statement’s practical guidelines for the regulation of ecclesial relations direct bishops of the same territory to “consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects” in traditionally Orthodox Church lands, avoiding parallel pastoral activities which could give rise to competition or conflicts (n. 29). Joint local commissions should be established for resolving disputes about such matters (e.g., the possession of churches and church property or jurisdictional issues) (n. 26). This section of the document also rejects all forms of violence, whether verbal or physical; enmity of other Christians (nn. 27-28); and proselytism. The “religious freedom” of all Christians must be respected (n. 24). The practical rules also include encouraging the ecumenical formation of priests (n. 30) and the sharing of churches for liturgical celebrations. The reception of the Balamand Document was mixed, from acceptance, to various degrees of critique to outright rejection – topics which are addressed in more detail by other contributors to this volume26. The 25. Such was the attitude adopted by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Russia, now called the Permanent Interdicasterial Commission for the Church in Eastern Europe (as of January 1993), in its statement entitled: General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.), in Origins 22/17 (8 October 1992) 301-304, nn. 4-7. 26. For a survey of the reception of Balamand see R.G. ROBERSON, Patriarch Bartholomew as a Leader in Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, in W.G. RUSCH (ed.), The Witness of Bartholomew I: Ecumenical Patriarch, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, 80-101, pp. 93-94; see also ID., Catholic Reactions to the Balamand Document, in Eastern Churches Journal 4/1 (1997) 53-74 and B. BOURGINE, La réception de la déclaration de Balamand, in Irénikon 74 (2001) 538-580. M. STAVROU, Les “ambigua” du document de Balamand pour sa réception du côté orthodoxe, in Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, 323-342, pp. 327-328 highlights ambiguities in Balamand which may deter the Orthodox Churches from fully receiving the text. J.S. ROMANIDES, Orthodox and Vatican Agreement, in Teologia 64 (1993) 570-580 is an example of a severe Orthodox critique of Balamand. For the Ukrainian Churches, Major Archbishop Myroslav Ljubačivs’kyj’s encyclical On Christian Unity (7 April 1994) is a good example of how the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church positively received the Balamand Document toward implementing its recommendations, including a recognition of the validity of Orthodox sacraments, while leaving to the judgement of the Orthodox Churches on how to deal with those faithful who have been accused of complicity with the atheistic Soviet regime. Cf. also A.T. ONUFERKO, The Balamand Document and Its Positive Impact on the Ecumenical Commitment of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, in this volume, 131-151.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

35

Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States, in its favourable response to Balamand, described it as a “strong and positive contribution to the theological dialogue between our churches”27. The response did comment that further work on the ecclesial status of the Eastern Catholic Churches needs to be done within the work of the international dialogue (nn. 4, 7). The “greatest strength” of the document was in its guidelines for relations between both churches (n. 10), but even these are seen as transitory towards arriving at a definitive solution (n. 17). The Catholic-Orthodox Mixed Commission in France (19 November 1993) also supported the Balamand Document’s main ecclesiological principles, of the rejection of uniatism and yet the affirmation of the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist. In concrete terms, the French mixed committee decided to invite Eastern Catholic members to be part of its dialogue and appreciated the Balamand clause (n. 21) that the Catholic Church should assist Eastern Catholics in preparing for full communion between Orthodox and Catholics, and that the Orthodox should do the same for their communities in the complex situation in Eastern Europe28. This is a theme to which I shall return later in this chapter (in section X). In the year after Balamand, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I gave what was seen as typical response of the Orthodox to the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches. He stated: [Through] all that is said about the rights and pastoral needs of the ecclesiastical communities of the Eastern rite issued from Uniatism, which are in full communion with the bishop of Rome, it becomes evident that the Orthodox tolerate an ecclesiologically abnormal situation, for the sake of peaceful coexistence of the quarrelling parties in the areas of conflict, until the Uniate [sic Eastern Catholic] churches finally understand where they belong29.

27. N. 17 in Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue regarding the “Balamand Document” (Brighton, MA, 15 October 1994), http://www. usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/ response-balamand-uniatism-union-and-search-for-communion.cfm (accessed 10 October 2018). See also their earlier Joint Statement on Tensions in Eastern Europe Related to “Uniatism” (Brookline, MA, 28 May 1992), http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/tensions-eastern-europe-uniatism.cfm (accessed 10 October 2018). 28. L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (1993): Déclaration du Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 26), 429-434. 29. PCPCU, Information Service 85 (1994/I) 38-39. See also a similar synopsis in D. PETRAS, The Balamand Statement and Hierarchical Reception, in Eastern Churches Journal 1/2 (1994) 69-88, p. 77.

36

J.Z. SKIRA

For Bartholomew, the Orthodox “tolerated” the Eastern Catholics by “economy” as a “temporary measure in accordance with a special dispensation”, which does not accord them any special canonical status within Orthodox-Catholic relations30. None of these sentiments are contained in the Balamand Document, though they do typify a majority of Orthodox attitudes toward Eastern Catholics.

VI. CONCILIARITY, AUTHORITY AND PRIMACY A few years later in 2000, the Orthodox-Catholic Commission returned to the theme of uniatism in Emmitsburg (USA) to review a draft document prepared in Ariccia, Rome (1998) by the Commission’s Coordinating Committee entitled “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism”31. The report of the meeting was very frank in stating that there were disagreements among the members. What is interesting in the report is that despite Balamand’s rejection of “uniatism”, the Commission reported that “agreement was not reached on the basic theological concept of uniatism” and that the Commission “sees the need for further study of the theological, pastoral, historical and canonical questions related to this issue”32. This leads one to wonder what specific conceptions of uniatism from the Balamand Document were being condemned or not received by the Commission. Cardinal Edward Cassidy, in reflecting on the impasse, stated that the way forward was related to common agreement on the exercise of primacy in the Church: The key was a common understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church. For the Orthodox, there cannot be two canonical Churches having the same rite, the same tradition, and the same discipline. If one is canonical, the other is not. For the Catholic Church to consider the Eastern Catholic Churches within its communion is, for the Orthodox a denial of their canonicity, despite the statements of the Catholic Church to the contrary33.

30. Patriarch Bartholomew I, A Crisis in Dialogue: The Non-Implementation of the Balamand Document, in Sourozh 68 (1997) 18-20. 31. Communiqué, 9-19 July 2000, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/ rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html (accessed 6 October 2018). 32. Ibid. See also E. LANNE – M. VAN PARYS, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe à Baltimore-Emmitsburg, in Irénikon 73 (2000) 405-418. 33. E.I. CASSIDY, Relations between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Today, in J. SUTTON – W. VAN DEN BERCKEN (eds.), Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe (Eastern Christian Studies, 3), Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA, Peeters, 2003, 55-68, p. 65.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

37

And so the dialogue would need to address the foundational ecclesiological issues that underlie historical uniatism and the Eastern Catholic Churches through a study of universal primacy and authority in the Church34. After a long six-year hiatus in the dialogue, the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue came back to the table to deal with the controverted issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The first step in the resumed dialogue was to develop a text on conciliarity, collegiality and authority. The dialogue met in Belgrade, Serbia (2006) to work on a draft text: “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Conciliarity and Authority in the Church at Three Levels of Ecclesial Life: Local, Regional and Universal”. Based on these discussions in Serbia, at a second meeting in Ravenna in 2007, the Orthodox-Catholic consultation approved the statement: “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”. The history of this document’s ratification came in the context of some lingering tensions surrounding the issue of uniatism. Adding to the tensions in the dialogue, the Russian Orthodox representatives walked out of the Commission’s final meetings in protest over the presence of Estonian Orthodox representatives, whom they did not recognize canonically. Here was an inter-Orthodox disagreement on authority and primacy in the Orthodox Church, which manifested itself as conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church35. The rest of the Commission, nevertheless, remained and eventually approved the 2007 Ravenna statement. The Ravenna agreement affirms that all members of Church share in the Church’s authority since they bear the conscience of the church (ekklesiastike syneidesis) or the sense of faithful (sensus fidelium). Like the first agreed statement, this text affirms again that the catholicity of 34. These are the reflections of Cardinal Kurt KOCH of his experience of the Emmitsburg meeting, in Perspectives du dialogue œcuménique entre l’Église catholique et les Églises orthodoxes, in Roczniki Teologiczne 62/7 (2015) 5-26, pp. 11-12. See also A. KUŹMA, Międzynarodowy dialog teologiczny Kościoła prawosławnego z Kościołem rzymskokatolickim [International Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church], in Elpis 16 (2014) 11-18, pp. 17-18. 35. The Russian Orthodox Church has increasingly contested any primatial role played by the Ecumenical Patriarch. In its official press releases it regularly omits the designation “Ecumenical” from the official title of the Patriarch of Constantinople. A similar jurisdictional conflict, though of a slightly different nature, exists between the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. Antioch broke-off communion in 2014 with Jerusalem since the latter consecrated a bishop for Qatar – which was the historical canonical territory of the Church of Antioch.

38

J.Z. SKIRA

the local church must manifest itself in communion with other churches. This communion expresses the local dimensions of conciliarity and authority through each local church’s synods, councils, episcopal conferences and primacies (of metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs). The document uses the language of a primatial “first” or “head” to affirm a centre of authority, who nevertheless cannot do anything without the consent of the others and recognizes that Rome “presided in love” in this taxis (n. 41). Where the document does not delve further is on the exercise of the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome, which the consultation frankly admits is a point of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics36. The Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches objected to the final Ravenna document, which eventually led to re-visiting the notion of primacy in the Chieti document of 2016 (discussed later in section VIII). Whereas the Ravenna document concentrated on issues of collegiality and communion, only alluding to issues of primacy in the Church, the most recent stage of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue has spanned from 2009 up until 2016. The initial phases of the period dealing with primacy began with the eleventh plenary session in Paphos, Cyprus (2009) on the topic of “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”, followed by the twelfth plenary session in Vienna, Austria (2010). Of interest to note is that the Paphos communiqué issued by the dialogue reported that the Orthodox delegation met separately to discuss “negative reaction to the dialogue by certain Orthodox circles, and unanimously considered them as totally unfounded and unacceptable, providing false and misleading information”37. Here again we see tensions within the Orthodox Churches themselves, with some segments rejecting ecumenical dialogue altogether. The subsequent Commission meeting in Vienna (2010) also did not produce an agreed text, establishing instead a sub-commission to “begin consideration of the theological and ecclesiological aspects of primacy in its relation to synodality”38. 36. The text ends with the same affirmation from Vatican II, that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church. This is coupled with an identical Orthodox affirmation of its self-understanding as the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Rather than this being interpreted as exclusionary, both churches actually need to make such statements in order for them to see in the other a “sister church”, who recognize each other’s sacraments, ministry and apostolic faith. 37. Communiqué (Cyprus), 22 October 2009, http://www.prounione.it/dia/o-rc/DiaO-RC-21-Paphos.pdf (accessed 1 May 2019). 38. Communiqué (Vienna), 26 September 2010, http://www.prounione.it/dia/o-rc/DiaO-RC-22-Vienna-2010.pdf (accessed 1 May 2019).

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

39

The thirteenth plenary session at Amman, Jordan (2014) also did not result in an agreed statement. The communiqué from that meeting reported that the coordinating committee produced a draft text (from its meeting in Paris, France, 2012)39. However, owing to a critique of the text by both churches, a new text was drafted and discussed at the meeting. This draft was further revised in 2015 by a smaller sub-committee, which was then to be brought forward for discussion at the plenary session in 2016 (in Chieti, discussed in section VIII below)40. VII. RELATED RECENT ECUMENICAL DEVELOPMENTS The year 2016 saw two ecumenically related events unfold that impacted the Orthodox Churches. The first of these was a meeting in Havana, Cuba (February 2016) between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kiril, Patriarch of Moscow. In their joint declaration they spoke about a common patrimony of a bygone era of the first millennium when the churches were in communion with each other, to lamenting the historic wounds of division between the churches and the present search for full communion41. Relevant for this essay are the declaration’s paragraphs 24-28 on proselytism and uniatism. As with Balamand, there is an affirmation of religious freedom coupled with a rejection of proselytism (n. 24), where proselytism is construed as seeing other churches as “competitors and not brothers [sic]” and using “disloyal means” of conversion (n. 24). Akin to Balamand, the declaration stated that Eastern Catholics have “the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co-existence” (n. 25). Patriarch Sviatoslav Ševčuk (Shevchuk), primate of the Ukrainian GrecoCatholic Church, praised the positive features of the declaration, like the affirmation that Eastern Catholics have a right to exist and to minister to 39. 22 September 2014, https://www.patriarchate.org/announcements/-/asset_publisher/ MF6geT6kmaDE/content/joint-international-commission-for-the-theological-dialoguebetween-the-roman-catholic-church-and-the-orthodox-church-13th-plenary-session-ammanjorda (accessed 6 October 2018). 40. Communiqué (Chieti), 21 September 2016, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_documentochieti_en.html (accessed 2 November 2018). 41. Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kiril of Moscow and All Russia, 12 February 2016, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/february/documents/ papa-francesco_20160212_dichiarazione-comune-kirill.html (accessed 2 November 2018).

40

J.Z. SKIRA

their faithful, and that they are also called to reconciliation with the Orthodox (n. 25). However, he took exception both to the declaration’s adoption of Russian propaganda saying that there was no war in Ukraine (only a “civil conflict”) and to any insinuation that churches in Ukraine promoted the war since 2014 (cf. n. 26, in reference to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of parts of eastern Ukraine). He further noted that the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church still does not have a right to exist on the territories of the Russian Federation42. Another important Eastern Orthodox event in 2016 was the calling of the historic Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 19-26 June 2016). Significantly, not in attendance at the Council were the Church of Antioch, the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, the Orthodox Church of America and the Russian Orthodox Church43. Manifest in the absence of these churches, again, were divisions within the Orthodox Churches over ecumenism, canonical territory and authority in the church44. The Council’s document on ecumenism, “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”, affirms the importance of dialogue, in mutual understanding and love, but eschewed “every act of proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative acts of inter-confessional competition” (n. 23). Also, in a tacit rejection of a precept of uniatism (whereby only a “part” of a church enters into communion with another church) the Council affirmed that there must be a consensus of all the Orthodox Churches on formal unions: “Upon the successful conclusion of the work of any theological dialogue, the 42. “Two Parallel Worlds” – An Interview with His Beatitude Sviatoslav [Ševčuk], 14 February 2016, http://news.ugcc.ua/en/interview/two_parallel_worlds_an_interview_ with_his_beatitude_sviatoslav_75970.html (accessed 10 October 2018). Metropolitan Hilarion, who was present at the Havana meeting, had shown his support for the declaration, but had a biased critiqued of the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s response, in The 14th Plenary Session of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Completes Its Work (22 September 2016), https:// mospat.ru/en/2016/09/22/news135848 (accessed 2 November 2018). The Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk on the First Anniversary of the Meeting in Havana, Fribourg (12 February 2017), contains some virulent polemic against Eastern Catholic Ukrainians: https://mospat.ru/en/2017/02/13/news142297 (accessed 26 September 2018). For the Ukrainian response to Havana, see Kyïv’skyj patrijarxat vidpoviv Papi Ryms’komu i patrijarxy Kyrylu [The Kyivan Patriarchate Responded to the Roman Pontiff and Pat. Kiril] (16 February 2016), Ukraïns’ka Pravda, http://pda.pravda.com.ua/news/id_7099158 (accessed 2 October 2018). 43. The pan-Orthodox Council promulgated six documents, along with an encyclical: https://www.holycouncil.org/home. 44. Two documents dealing with authority and canonical territory are Autonomy and the Means by Which It Is Proclaimed and The Orthodox Diaspora, ibid. A document on autocephaly (or “self-governance”) was rejected as an agenda item prior to the actual pan-Orthodox Council.

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

41

pan-Orthodox decision about the restoration of ecclesiastical communion must, however, rest on the unanimity of all the local Orthodox Churches” (n. 15)45. Unlike Vatican II’s numerous references to the Orthodox Churches in its decrees and constitutions, there is no explicit mention in the pan-Orthodox Council documents of the Roman Catholic Church, nor of its being a “sister church”46. VIII. RESUMING DIALOGUE – SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM The fourteenth plenary session of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue took place in Chieti, Italy (16-21 September 2016) producing the document on “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church”. The document has similarities to the Ravenna document’s structure, examining primacy at the level of the parish and eparchy (diocese), patriarchal primacy and universal primacy (which includes the primacy of Rome, though no mention was made of the primatial role of the Ecumenical Patriarch). This document is about half the length of the Ravenna document47. While Ravenna explicitly mentions the issue of uniatism, the Chieti document does not. The Russian Orthodox Church’s report of the meeting disclosed that the Russian Orthodox members had wanted a discussion on uniatism, within the context of discussions of the role of primacy in the second millennium. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, who is a member of the dialogue, stated: Our Church agreed to this proposal on the condition that within the context of the theme of primacy and synodality the Commission will explore the 45. Emphasis mine. The Council’s The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World, echoes this with a similar principle that the mission of the Church “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” (intro.). Ibid. 46. The only references in the Synod’s documents to any ecumenical dialogues or bodies are to the World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the Middle East Council of Churches and the African Council of Churches. No non-Orthodox churches are referred to explicitly by name. 47. For commentary on primacy in the Crete documents see R.G. ROBERSON, CatholicOrthodox Relations: Two New Developments, 5 February 2017, https://www.paulist.org/ the-conversation/catholic-orthodox-relations-two-new-developments (accessed 5 September 2018); and N. KAZARIN, The First Test for Orthodox Unity after the Holy and Great Council: The Chieti Document, in Public Orthodoxy, https://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/ 10/18/the-chieti-document (accessed 5 September 2018).

42

J.Z. SKIRA

canonical and ecclesiological consequences of Uniatism. However, for ten years from 2006 to 2015 the Commission has never revisited this theme. The logic of our dialogue requires that, after completing the document on primacy and synodality in the Church of the first millennium, we should move to considering synodality and primacy in the Churches of East and West in the second millennium. And here we will have to deal with the issue of the 1054 schism and also the issue of Uniatism as one of the central ones in the second millennium. I can predict that there will be many divisive issues and that we will not agree on every point. However, the aim of our dialogue is not simply to agree on the points of which we agree anyhow, but we have to explore also the points of disagreement. And the issue of Uniatism is one such extremely burning issue48.

All this significantly happened, as noted, during a period of heightened tensions as a result of Russia’s 2014 war in eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea49. IX. MODERN DAY UNIATISM? ANGLICAN ORDINARIATES AND WESTERN RITE ORTHODOXY So far, the preceding overview has largely focused on the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, but other concurrent ecumenical developments should be raised as a juxtaposition to highlight some of the complexities of how inter-ecclesial dialogue and church unions are conceived and effected50. Current discussions on “uniatism” need to provide some 48. In The 14th Plenary Session of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Completes Its Work (n. 42). Further, Metropolitan Hilarion, a member of the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, continued his invectives against the Ukrainian Catholic Church, in Metropolitan Hilarion: Unia Remains the Major Stumbling Block to Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue (17 September 2016), https://mospat.ru/en/2016/09/17/news135787 (accessed 1 October 2018). 49. Of additional import, T. Bremer has noted that some of the work on the Commission could be seen as being more “encumbered by inner-Orthodox tensions, and by a misperception of the stumbling blocks between the Churches, than by the theological differences themselves” and by a “high-degree” of tensions between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow Patriarchate, in Issues Addressed and Issues Neglected: Official Orthodox-Catholic Relations (10 October 2016), in Public Orthodoxy, http://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/10/21/chieti-orthodox-catholic-relations (accessed 5 November 2018). This tension between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate was being played-out in Ukraine, with the very recent move by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (January 2019), to which Moscow reacted by unilaterally breaking eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, controversially claiming that its canonical territories had been violated by Constantinople. 50. I am here leaving out a discussion of the Russian Orthodox mission among the Assyrians. See J.F. COAKLEY, The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission, Oxford, Oxford University Press,

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

43

sort of account of the creation of Anglican “ordinariates” and “Western Rite” Orthodox Churches. The ordinariates in the Catholic Church51 have provided a means for Anglican parishes to enter into union with Rome, allowing them to largely preserve their liturgical, spiritual and theological patrimony along with their own hierarchy. The root causes of such unions were not due to any acts of external coercion but emerged in varying degrees out of the disenchantment of Anglican communities over their own Church’s teachings (e.g., on the ordination of women, homosexuality, liturgical reform, among other issues). Some have argued that these ordinariates constitute a form of uniatism, since their creation resulted in the union of “parts” of an ecclesial communion52. The continued existence of such ordinariates could then be magnified into a form of tacit proselytism, in that they provide a conduit for further such partial unions of other Anglican communities53. Equally interesting is the issue of “Western Rite” Orthodox Churches (i.e., “Western Orthodox” Churches). Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff recognized that the Orthodox Church was admitting into communion “small (or big) splinter groups” of Western Christians who preserved their own Western rites54. The complicating factor is that some of these groups were not necessarily preserving their own rite, but adopting or morphing other liturgical rites, despite their “byzantinization” (i.e., their adopting Orthodox liturgical vestments, or being inserted into Orthodox polity)55. Alexander Schmemann, in being critical of its liturgical morphisms, held that the presence of Western rites affirmed the Orthodox 1992, pp. 218-220, 231-232, from the later nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. The model of union of parts of parishes was similar to that of other “uniatisms”, namely, the retaining of the liturgical rite and orders, though accompanied by attempts at russification, all also supported by political and financial resources. 51. Anglican ordinariates were created through Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus (2009). 52. R. MURRAY, A New Ecumenism: Is Rome’s Anglican Outreach a Step Backward?, in Commonweal (25 January 2010), https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/new-ecumenism (accessed 26 September 2018). 53. R.G. ROBERSON, What Is Uniatism? An Exploration of the Concept of Uniatism in Relation to the Creation of the Anglican Ordinariates, in Ecumenical Trends 40 (September 2011) 6-8, 14, p. 8. 54. J. MEYENDORFF, A Debate on the Western Rite, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 24 (1980) 253-255, p. 254. For other studies on Western Rite Orthodoxy, see also J.-F. MAYER, L’Orthodoxie doit-elle être byzantine? Les tentatives de création d’un rite orthodoxe occidental, in G. IVANOFF-TRINADTZATTY (ed.), Regards sur l’Orthodoxie: mélanges offerts à Jacques Goudet, Lausanne, L’âge d’homme, 1997, 191-213 and A. VAN BUNNEN, L’Orthodoxie de rite occidental en Europe et aux États-Unis: bilan et perspectives, in Irénikon 54 (1981) 53-61, 211-221, 331-350. 55. On this see A.J. SOPKO, Western-Rite Orthodoxy: A Case Study Reappraisal, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 24 (1980) 255-265, pp. 260-263.

44

J.Z. SKIRA

Church’s universality56, and enriched the Church’s liturgical patrimony, while others have argued that such Western rites could serve as vehicles of Orthodoxy’s evangelization of the West57. Ironically, these very principles would be resolutely rejected by the Orthodox when used by Catholics to justify the existence of Eastern Catholics. Where some of the similarities between Western Rite Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics end is that the former churches do not have their own distinct hierarchy (they are too small) and so they fall under an Orthodox vicariate, nor were they the result of any political interference or extensive proselytism58. And yet, the fact that they represent partial unions with the Orthodox Church, Jack Turner concludes, “Western Rite Orthodoxy, like the Eastern Catholic Churches, presents a unique obstacle to any ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and the West”59. In the same way that Eastern Catholic polity and relations with Rome currently do not represent a model for Orthodox union with Rome, Western Rite Orthodoxy cannot possibly represent a model of union with the Orthodox Church. X. CONCLUSION – (MIS)UNDERSTANDING UNIATISM AND FUTURE DIALOGUE At this point I would like to return to the question of what is meant by uniatism. I have been trudging along in my presentation here making references to uniatism arising in the context of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. The term “uniatism” is a neologism that has acquired pejorative connotations and is nowadays de-personalizing when referring to Eastern Catholic faithful. What is common in the range of meanings of “uniatism” is that it is sometimes used by the Orthodox as a synonymous referent to “Eastern Catholics” (i.e., the “Uniates” or those who entered the Unia [union]), so that a confusion can arise in some minds when these words are used interchangeably60. A hermeneutical key is required 56. A. SCHMEMANN, Some Reflections on a “A Case Study”, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 24 (1980) 266-269, p. 269. 57. For a brief review of the historical development of Western Rite churches, see J. TURNER, Western Rite Orthodoxy as an Ecumenical Problem, in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 47 (2012) 541-554, pp. 541-547. 58. Ibid., p. 548. 59. Ibid., p. 549. See also a similar rejection of Western Rite Orthodoxy by Bishop VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997) 221-243, p. 229. 60. See the comments by R.F. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories”: Anamnesis, not Amnesia, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 41-42 (2000-2001) 155-196; C. CANNUYER, Uniatisme, in G. JACQUEMET (ed.), Catholicisme:

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

45

to differentiate the rejection of historical uniatism by some theologians and hierarchs that does not also imply a rejection of the existence of Eastern Catholics. In its basic sense, I have shown that the term “uniatism” denotes the union of a “part” of one church to a larger or dominant church. The union may have been the result of various forms of political coercion or economic incentives, coupled with acts of proselytism by the church with the greater degree of power in a given socio-political and religious context. Power in such cases could be exhibited as “hard” power, like actual physical violence or coercion. Such power could also be exhibited as “soft” power, such as subtle forms of socio-political marginalization of a community (privileging a ruling political elite affiliated with a majority church) or through the use of material enticements (like education, social supports). Numerous historical studies have shown that both churches – Orthodox and Catholic – have engaged in “uniatism”61. Uniatism is not

hier, aujourd’hui et demain, vol. 15, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1948, 455-483, pp. 455-456; and T. KHOMYCH, Eastern Catholic Churches and the Question of “Uniatism”: Problems of the Past, Challenges of the Present and Hopes for the Future, in Louvain Studies 31 (2006) 214-237, p. 217. Even the United States Orthodox-Catholic consultation employs the same term as having two meanings: “n. 5. In reviewing the various documents which have dealt with recent tensions between our churches, we find that expressions like ‘Uniatism’ have been used and understood in diverse ways. We believe that such expressions require more careful analysis. Among other things, a distinction should be made between ‘uniatism’ understood as an inappropriate, indeed unacceptable, model or method for church union, and ‘uniatism’ understood as the existence of convinced Eastern Christians who have accepted full communion with the See of Rome as part of their self-understanding as a church. ‘Uniatism’ in the former sense is no longer accepted by either of our churches”. Joint communiqué, 28 May 1992, at http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/dialogue/ orthodox-catholic/a-joint-communique-of-the-united-states-orthodoxroman-catholic-consultation-on-tensions-in-eastern-europe-related-to-uniatism-u.s.-theological-consultation-1992 (accessed 2 November 2018). 61. For numerous examples of uniatism by both churches, see TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 60); E.C. SUTTNER, Church Unity: Union or Uniatism? Catholic-Orthodox Ecumenical Perspectives, Roma, Centre for Indian and Inter-Religious Studies, 1991; DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion (n. 17); and C. KOROLEVS’KIJ, L’uniatisme: définition, causes, effets, étendue, dangers, remèdes (Collection Irénikon, 5-6), Amay-sur-Meuse, Prieuré d’Amay-sur-Meuse, 1927. Taft even takes a different tact in looking at the history of Eastern Catholic unions, concluding that uniatism was not the creation of a Latin Church which sought to subsume the Orthodox Churches under papal primacy; uniatism was the creation of the Orthodox Churches themselves in seeking union with Rome while desiring to retain their Orthodox faith, tradition and identity, in R.F. TAFT, Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today: Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future, in G.E. DEMACOPOULOS – A. PAPANIKOLAOU (eds.), Orthodox Constructions of the West, New York, Fordham University Press, 2013, 23-44, p. 32. Similarly, see B.A. GUDZIAK, How Did They Drift Apart? The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 34 (1993) 43-66.

46

J.Z. SKIRA

solely a Catholic phenomenon, which is the erroneous impression one might get from the Balamand Document. Whatever the causes or reasons for a part of a church, big or small, uniting to another church is that such “uniatisms” go counter to modern fundamental principles of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches who see each other as “sister churches” within an ecclesiology of communion. Such historic attempts at “mission” and Christian unity, despite the seemingly good intentions of their proponents, resulted in further painful divisions62. And yet, Orthodox-Catholic dialogue still needs to provide a more robust account of the existence of millions of faithful Eastern Catholics; support their spiritual care; and not deny them their dignity. Without a doubt, the Catholic Church has historically done much to support the spiritual and material needs of Eastern Catholics. However, there is a sense in the documents of the Catholic Church that the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches is provisional in nature, in anticipation of the establishment of full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The decree On the Eastern Catholic Churches in its conclusion declares: “All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity” (n. 30)63. With this also comes an ecclesiological anomaly of their existence, since neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church would ascribe to them any designation as also being a “sister church”64. Eastern Catholics, themselves, ought to no longer tolerate colonial attitudes towards them. The question thus becomes what conclusions could be arrived at by further ecumenical dialogue on Eastern Catholics and uniatism, in anticipation of the restoration of full communion between Orthodox and Catholics. If one takes seriously the unreasonable demands of some Orthodox hierarchs, then the Eastern Catholic Churches should cease to exist immediately and become Latin, or that they should abandon communion with Rome and return to Orthodoxy. The latter would seem like an impossibility without some form of reconciliation, given the vilification of Eastern Catholics by some Orthodox theologians and hierarchs65. 62. See LEGRAND, Enjeux ecclésiologiques de l’uniatisme (n. 22), p. 121. 63. On this see additional commentary by LANNE, Eastern Catholics: Religious Freedom and Ecumenism (n. 21), pp. 316-317; J. KALLARANGATT, Theology of Sister Churches or Uniate Churches, in Christian Orient 22 (1991) 7-19, p. 18. See also the insights of E.G. FARRUGIA, Re-Reading Orientalium ecclesiarum, in Gregorianum 88 (2007) 352-372. 64. STAVROU, Les “ambigua” du document de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 340-341. 65. Such vilification, for example, surprisingly has come from Orthodox members of the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, such as: Metropolitan Hilarion (see notes 42, 48); Archbishop STYLIANOS OF AUSTRALIA, A Comment on the Papal Encyclical Orientale

THE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

47

It would also be difficult to seriously consider that the Eastern Catholics would allow anyone to decide their fate without them having a voice in their own destiny, that is, without them entering into Orthodox-Catholic dialogue as active participants66. The issue of reconciliation is an important one for dialogue to progress. The principles of various “truth and reconciliation” movements throughout the world are based upon “truth telling”, as geared towards the honouring and the healing of memories and restoring relationships. That has yet to happen on the topic of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, both hearing the voices of the Orthodox and Catholics on past “uniatisms” but also hearing the voices of Eastern Catholics themselves. Balamand certainly envisions such an approach (nn. 20, 21), though Balamand in another section seems to want to gloss over history and to leave it to the “mercy of God” (n. 23). The late Robert Taft bluntly stated: Until the phenomenon of “Uniatism”, in its origins and the factors behind those origins, in its history, and in its present reality, comes to be viewed with more respect for historical trust, I see little hope for any lasting substantial progress in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism67.

Balamand does seem to call for such an “ecumenical historiography” as part of the ecumenical formation of clergy (n. 30), and thus as part of “truth telling”68. From all that I have said in the above, what is largely settled in Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue is a categorical rejection of historical “uniatism” in the range of manifestations I have shown it to have. What still needs further work is the full reception of Balamand’s statements on the dignity of the Eastern Catholic Churches and its practical recommendations, along with a “healing of memories” within an ecumenical lumen, in Phronema 10 (1995) 51-60 and T. ZISSIS, Uniatism: A Problem in the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 35 (1990) 21-31. See also P. KALAITZIDIS, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Bridge or Barrier for Full Ecclesial Communion between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church?, in this volume, 91-117. 66. In advocating that Eastern Catholics be more intentionally included in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogues, see F. BOUWEN, L’avenir des Églises orientales unies, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 26), 401-412, p. 411; cf. VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand (n. 59), p. 230. 67. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 60), p. 191. 68. Suttner similarly calls for an “ecumenical historiography” in revisiting past Orthodox and Catholic attempts at unity, the contexts of their well-intentioned goals and their defects, in SUTTNER, Church Unity (n. 61), pp. 142-150, p. 142. Cf. also section VII: “The Burden of History and the Need for Ecumenical Historiography”, in KALAITZIDIS, The Eastern Catholic Churches (n. 65), pp. 114-117.

48

J.Z. SKIRA

historiography. And, finally, what has yet to be definitively determined is the place Eastern Catholic Churches ought to occupy, or ought to demand, in ecumenical dialogue and in a vision of full communion between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Regis College 100 Wellesley St. W. Toronto, ON M5S 2Z5 Canada [email protected]

Jaroslav Z. SKIRA

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“ – PERSPEKTIVEN NACH BALAMAND FÜR EINEN IN UNGNADE GEFALLENEN BEGRIFF

Im Jahr 2010 promovierte Will T. Cohen, Assoziierter Professor der Theologie an der University of Scranton in Pennsylvania und Subdiakon der Orthodox Church in America, mit einer Arbeit zum Thema „The Concept of ‚Sister Churches‘ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II“ an der School of Theology and Religious Studies der Catholic University of America, Washington, unter Leitung von Prof. Paul McPartlan. Seine Dissertation wurde 2016 in der Reihe „Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia“ des Instituts für Ökumenische Studien der Universität Fribourg beim Aschendorff Verlag Münster publiziert1. Viele Hintergründe und Zusammenhänge, auf die im vorliegenden Beitrag nicht ausführlich eingegangen werden kann, sind in diesem Werk aufgearbeitet. Um die Bedeutung der Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ im heutigen orthodox-katholischen theologischen Dialog einzuschätzen, sind die beiden Vorworte von Metropolit Kallistos Ware und Kardinal Kurt Koch besonders aussagekräftig: Metropolit Kallistos geht von einer skeptischen Haltung aus und findet in der ausgewogenen Darstellung von Will Cohen Anlass zu einem gewissen Umdenken: Ich selbst gehöre zu den Orthodoxen, die Vorbehalte gegen den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ haben. Persönlich habe ich es immer vermieden, diesen Ausdruck in meinen eigenen Schriften zu verwenden. Dr. Cohen hat mich veranlasst, noch einmal über das ganze Thema nachzudenken, und obwohl ich nicht sagen kann, dass ich meine Meinung völlig geändert habe, hat mich sein Buch sicherlich in einer Weise herausgefordert, die ich beunruhigend, aber auch positiv finde (VI).

Unklar findet er nicht nur die präzise Bedeutung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“, sondern auch ihre Verwendung in orthodox-katholischen Beziehungen: „Seine Benutzung wird auf römisch-katholischer Seite abgelehnt …, jedenfalls wenn sie sich auf die römisch-katholische und auf die orthodoxe Kirche in ihrer Gesamtheit bezieht“ (V). Kardinal Kurt Koch ist aus katholischer Sicht beunruhigt über die Beunruhigung: „Die Feststellung, mit der Will Cohen seine Studie beginnt, 1. W.T. COHEN, The Concept of „Sister Churches“ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 67), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016.

50

B. HALLENSLEBEN

signalisiert etwas sehr Beunruhigendes: ‚Dieser Ausdruck ... ist jetzt in Ungnade gefallen‘ (S. 5)“ (VII). Der Ausgangspunkt des Kardinals unterscheidet sich markant von der Einschätzung der katholischen Sicht durch den Metropoliten: „Der Ausdruck ‚Schwesterkirchen‘ ist für die Katholische Kirche keine beliebige Option. Indem sie die Orthodoxen Kirchen als wahre Teilkirchen betrachtet, erkennt sie sie als Schwesterkirchen an“ (VIII). Dieser Ausgangspunkt unserer Untersuchung zeigt die Unübersichtlichkeit der Lage: Der für die Gespräche mit den Ostkirchen zuständige Kardinal der Katholischen Kirche hält die Theologie der Schwesterkirchen für eine fraglose katholische Position; der in demselben Dialog seit langem engagierte Metropolit der Orthodoxen Kirche betrachtet den Ausdruck als einen von katholischer Seite verworfenen Begriff. Noch gravierender formuliert: Die orthodoxen Gesprächspartner nehmen offenbar die Anerkennung als „Schwesterkirchen“ von katholischer Seite nicht wahr, vertrauen ihr nicht oder fühlen sich dadurch gerade nicht in ihrem Selbstverständnis bejaht – während der Kardinal diese Bejahung der ostkirchlichen „Schwestern“ für selbstverständlich hält. Es ist also damit zu rechnen, dass die Rede von den „Schwesterkirchen“ in jedem einzelnen Kontext eine sorgfältige Analyse erfordert. Offenbar gibt es keine vorausgehende eindeutige Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“, die mehr oder weniger authentisch auf katholischer und orthodoxer Seite rezipiert wird. Die Studie von Cohen2 lehrt das bereits anhand der wechselvollen Geschichte der schwesterlichen Terminologie für das Verhältnis von Kirchen untereinander mit ihren elementar biblischen Wurzeln: In 2 Joh 13 lautet die Anrede: „Es grüßen dich die Kinder deiner auserwählten Schwester“ – um die Grüße einer lokalen kirchlichen Gemeinschaft an eine andere auszudrücken3. Die zunächst verbreitete Terminologie der gegenseitigen Bezeichnung von Lokalkirchen als „Schwestern“ weicht mehr und mehr der Spannung zwischen „Schwesterkirchen“ und der Frage, wer als „Mutterkirche“ zu gelten hat. Weitere Komplikationen entstanden durch die Anwendung der „Schwesterkirchen“-Terminologie auf die Pentarchie und durch deren Bezug zu einer dualen Reichsidee von Westrom und Ostrom, die trotz der politischen Auflösung im kirchlichen Bewusstsein weiterwirkte. Es ist also 2. Vgl. ibid. (Chapter 1: „The Concept of ‚Sister Churches‘ Prior to Vatican II“), S. 5-47. 3. So erwähnt es auch die Note über den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre vom 30. Juni 2000, Nr. 2: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_ge.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

51

damit zu rechnen, dass die Verwendung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ der theologischen Arbeit nicht vorgegeben ist, sondern den jeweiligen Kontext des kirchlichen Lebens ekklesiologisch reflektiert und daher auf diesem Hintergrund zu deuten ist. Angeregt werden diese Reflexionen durch die Begegnung mit einer kirchlichen Wirklichkeit, die sich nicht vollständig in die eigenen ekklesialen und ekklesiologischen Kategorien einordnen lässt. I. DER AUSDRUCK „SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“ ZWISCHEN DEM II. VATIKANISCHEN KONZIL UND DEM DOKUMENT VON BALAMAND Cohen wählt für die Ausprägung einer Theologie der Schwesterkirchen im Umkreis des II. Vatikanischen Konzils die Eckdaten 1958 und 1972: Mit dem Jahr 1958 beginnt die Dokumentensammlung unter dem Titel Tomos Agapis, die gemäß der Einleitung „gestatten will, die Entwicklung in den Beziehungen zwischen der Kirche von Rom und dem Ökumenischen Patriarchat zu erfassen“4. In diesem Vorblick liegt bereits ein hermeneutischer Schlüssel: Zwei Lokalkirchen – von Rom und von Konstantinopel – treten miteinander in Dialog; sie haben jeweils eine besondere Verantwortung für die Kirchengemeinschaft, die sie repräsentieren, sind aber nicht gleichzusetzen mit „Westkirche“ und „Ostkirche“. Im Jahr 1958 verstarb Papst Pius XII., und Papst Johannes XXIII. trat sein Amt an. Während der Tomos Agapis 1970 endet, wählt Cohen als zeitliche Begrenzung seiner Strukturierung das Jahr 1972 als Todesjahr von Patriarch Athenagoras I. In Nr. 10 der insgesamt 284 chronologisch angeführten Dokumente des Tomos Agapis findet sich die erste Erwähnung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ durch Patriarch Athenagoras in einem Brief vom 12. April 1962 als Antwort auf einen Brief von Kardinal Augustin Bea vom 28. Februar desselben Jahres. Der Patriarch schreibt: Nicht ohne tiefe Bewegung konnte ich lesen, was Eure verehrte Eminenz über die Sehnsucht nach der Annäherung der Schwesterkirchen und der Wiederherstellung der Einheit der Kirche Christi generell sagt. Wir haben bereits mehrfach unsere Bereitschaft zum Ausdruck gebracht, mit all unserer Kraft zur Wiedererrichtung dieser Einheit beizutragen5. 4. Tomos Agapis, Vatican – Phanar (1958-1970), Roma – Istanbul, Impr. polyglotte vaticane, 1971, S. 13. Die Einleitung ist unterzeichnet von Archimandrit Damaskinos Papandreou, später Metropolit der Schweiz, und von Archimandrit Bartholomaios Archondonis, dem gegenwärtigen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, auf orthodoxer Seite, auf katholischer Seite von Pierre Duprey und P. Christophe Dumont o.p. im Namen des Einheitssekretariats. 5. Ibid., S. 40-41 (griechisch / französisch).

52

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Patriarch Athenagoras erweckt den Eindruck, er habe die Rede von den „Schwesterkirchen“ gleichsam dem vorausgehenden Brief seines katholischen Gesprächspartners entnommen. In dem Schreiben vom 28. Februar ist jedoch von Schwesterkirchen nicht die Rede; Kardinal Bea spricht von der „konstruktiven Arbeit, die wir gemeinsam zu verwirklichen suchen zur Suche der Einheit“6. Er verwendet allerdings das Wort „Kirchen“ im Plural: „Möge die liturgische Zeit der heiligen vierzig Tage, die bald beginnen wird, für unsere Kirchen eine Zeit des Gebetes und des Nachdenkens sein, die uns hilft, besser auf dem Weg voranzuschreiten, der zur Einheit führt, und möge das Licht der Auferstehung uns auf ganz besondere Weise erleuchten“7. Obwohl man also von einer Art Gegenseitigkeit in der neuen Wiederverwendung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ sprechen kann, blieb es für einige Jahre bei einer Asymmetrie in der Sprachgestalt: Die katholische Seite spricht von „brüderlichen Beziehungen“, allerdings reich gefüllt mit der Bestätigung der Gemeinsamkeit in Taufe, Sakrament des Ordo und Eucharistie. Patriarch Athenagoras greift mehrfach und nachdrücklich auf den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ zurück, etwa in einem Telegramm zum Osterfest 1964: Ich entbiete Eurer geschätzten und geachteten Heiligkeit einen herzlichen und brüderlichen Gruß anlässlich des lichtvollen Festes der Auferstehung, das am kommenden Sonntag von der Schwesterkirche des Westens gefeiert wird, und wir bitten den Herrn, dieser Schwesterkirche überreich seine Gnade zu gewähren und unsere Liebe wachsen zu lassen zum Lob seiner Herrlichkeit8.

In diesem Text bleibt es uneindeutig, ob die Kirche von Rom als Lokalkirche oder die katholische Kirche als ganze gemeint ist. Nicht zu vernachlässigen ist in der Analyse der Texte die wachsende Gegenseitigkeit zwischen Papst Paul VI. und Patriarch Athenagoras in der Anrede als „Brüder“ (im Bischofsamt). Am 18. April 1964 redet Paul VI. den Patriarchen erstmals als „geliebten Bruder in Christus“ an. Hier wird nicht einfach das Wort „Bruder“ als äquivalent zu „Schwester“ verwendet, sondern es zeigt sich eine andere, ekklesiologisch relevante Differenz: Die Rede von den „Schwesterkirchen“ bezieht sich auf die gesamte Lokalkirche samt ihrem hierarchischen Oberhaupt, das sie unverzichtbar benötigt; die Anrede als „Bruder“ im Bischofsamt bezieht sich auf das hierarchische Oberhaupt, das immer als Repräsentant seiner kirchlichen Gemeinschaft zu betrachten ist. Wird die notwendige innere 6. Ibid., S. 38-39, Nr. 9 (französisch / griechisch). 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid., S. 130-131, Nr. 58 (griechisch / französisch), 27. März 1964.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

53

Zuordnung von Lokalkirche und hierarchischem Oberhaupt respektiert und „mitgehört“, so ist es sekundär, ob von „Schwesterkirchen“ oder von „Brüdern“ im Bischofsamt gesprochen wird. Allerdings spricht vieles für die Annahme, dass in der westlichen Ekklesiologie die antiprotestantische Betonung der Ämter und die Konzentration auf die Gestalt des Papstes diesen Bezug aus dem Gleichgewicht gebracht haben zugunsten einer einseitigen Betonung des Hierarchen unter Vernachlässigung der jeweiligen Lokalkirche. Zumindest kann es als eine konsequente Entwicklung betrachtet werden, wenn Papst Paul VI. die brüderliche Anrede an den Patriarchen schließlich auch in der Terminologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ zum Ausdruck bringt. Dem nicht offiziell überlieferten Text von Bischof Willebrands vom 22. November 19659 folgt als bedeutendes Dokument das Breve Anno ineunte Papst Pauls VI. vom 25. Juli 1967, das die „Schwesterkirchen“ unter dem Vorzeichen der Beziehung zwischen Lokalkirchen einführt: Der Papst schreibt: In jeder Ortskirche ereignet sich dieses Geheimnis der göttlichen Liebe; liegt nicht hier der Ursprung jenes traditionellen Ausdruckes, mit dem sich die Kirchen verschiedener Orte untereinander als Schwestern zu bezeichnen begannen? Unsere Kirchen haben über Jahrhunderte als Schwestern gelebt, gemeinsam die ökumenischen Konzilien gefeiert und das Glaubensgut gegen jede Abweichung verteidigt. Nach einer langen Zeit der Spaltung und des fehlenden gegenseitigen Verständnisses gibt uns jetzt der Herr trotz der Schwierigkeiten, die in der vergangenen Zeit unter uns entstanden sind, die Möglichkeit, dass wir uns als „Schwesterkirchen“ wiederentdecken10.

Am gleichen Tag bezieht sich Patriarch Athenagoras I. in seiner Ansprache an Paul VI. in der Kathedrale des Phanar auf „unsere beiden Kirchen“11, offenbar im Sinne der Ortskirche von Rom und der Ortskirche von Konstantinopel, denn die Ansprache endet in einer Aufzählung mit einer graduellen Erweiterung: „Wir begrüßen das Kommen Eurer Heiligkeit bei uns als Morgenröte des neuen und großen Tages des Herrn in der Geschichte unser zwei Kirchen, der von Rom und der von Konstantinopel, der katholischen und der orthodoxen Welt, der ganzen Christenheit und der gesamten Menschheit“12. Selbstverständlich werden die „zwei 9. Ibid., S. 266-267, Nr. 123 (französisch / griechisch): „Die Kirche des alten Rom hat Kenntnis genommen von den Empfindungen und Wünschen seiner Schwester, der Kirche des neuen Rom, bezüglich der tragischen Geschehnisse von 1054, insbesondere bezüglich der gegenseitigen Exkommunikationen, die seither einen Zustand des Konflikts und der Feindschaft zwischen den zwei Kirchen geschaffen haben“: Ansprache zu Beginn der Sitzung der Gemeinsamen Theologischen Kommission (22. November 1965). 10. Ibid., S. 388-391, Nr. 176 (lateinisch / griechisch). 11. Ibid., S. 382-383, Nr. 173 (griechisch / französisch). 12. Ibid.

54

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Kirchen“ von Rom und Konstantinopel dabei zugleich in ihrer besonderen Verantwortung für die kirchlichen Traditionen betrachtet, die sie repräsentieren. In diesem kostbaren Zeugnis der Annäherung sind unverkennbar die Errungenschaften des II. Vatikanischen Konzils eingeflossen, das seine Aufmerksamkeit neu auf die Ostkirchen richtet. Dabei wird die Rede von den „Schwesterkirchen“ in der Form einer beobachtenden Beschreibung eingeführt: Das Konzil möchte neben den übrigen Dingen von großem Gewicht allen in Erinnerung rufen, dass mehrere Teil- bzw. Ortskirchen im Osten blühen, unter denen die Patriarchalkirchen den ersten Platz innehaben und von denen sich nicht wenige rühmen, ihren Ursprung von den Aposteln selbst zu haben. Daher war und ist bei den Christen des Ostens die Bemühung und Sorge sehr groß, jene brüderlichen Beziehungen in der Gemeinschaft des Glaubens und der Liebe zu wahren, die unter den Ortskirchen wie unter Schwestern herrschen müssen (Unitatis redintegratio, Nr. 14).

Die „brüderliche“ und die „schwesterliche“ Terminologie sind hier verschmolzen. Die Aussage bezieht sich ausschließlich auf das Verhältnis der Ostkirchen untereinander. Für das katholische kirchliche Selbstverständnis vollzieht das Konzil eine entscheidende Wende, die dem ostkirchlichen Verständnis der „Schwesterkirchen“ zuarbeitet. Der Plural Kirchen wird nicht mehr – wie in der Nachreformationszeit üblich – als Prinzip der Spaltung gesehen, sondern als authentischer Ausdruck des Kirche-seins. Die dogmatische Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen gentium beschreibt parallel das Verhältnis der Bischöfe im Bischofskollegium zueinander und zum Bischof von Rom – und das Verhältnis der Ortskirchen als „Teilkirchen“ (ecclesiae particulares) untereinander und zur Kirche von Rom. Das Prinzip der „Schwesterkirchen“ bildet das komplementäre Prinzip zur Kollegialität der Bischöfe: Die kollegiale Einheit tritt auch in den wechselseitigen Beziehungen der einzelnen Bischöfe zu den Teilkirchen wie zur Gesamtkirche in Erscheinung. … Die Einzelbischöfe hinwiederum sind sichtbares Prinzip und Fundament der Einheit in ihren Teilkirchen, die nach dem Bild der Gesamtkirche gestaltet sind. In ihnen und aus ihnen tritt die eine und einzige katholische Kirche hervor (Lumen gentium, Nr. 23)13.

Bei dieser Gelegenheit ist anzumerken, dass die übliche Übersetzung; „In ihnen und aus ihnen besteht die eine und einzige katholische Kirche“, 13. Eine Anmerkung an dieser Stelle verweist auf Cyprian, Epist. 66,8: „Der Bischof ist in der Kirche und die Kirche im Bischof“.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

55

zu blass bleibt im Vergleich zur dynamischen Bedeutung des lateinischen Verbs exsistere, das zunächst bedeutet: hervortreten, ins Leben treten, erscheinen14. Im II. Vatikanischen Konzil werden die ekklesialen Wirklichkeiten der Teilkirchen und der Schwesterkirchen nicht ausdrücklich zueinander in Beziehung gesetzt, es zeigt sich jedoch die Grundlage für eine Bewegung der Konvergenz.

II. BALAMAND ALS WENDEPUNKT Das Dokument der Gemeinsamen Internationalen Kommission für den theologischen Dialog zwischen der Katholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche, das 1993 in Balamand/Libanon verabschiedet wurde, trägt den Titel: „Der Uniatismus – eine überholte Unionsmethode – und die derzeitige Suche nach der vollen Gemeinschaft“. Es kann für die Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ als ein Wendepunkt betrachtet werden. Dies zeigt sich im Dokument selbst, das im ersten Abschnitt eine „Unterbrechung“ signalisiert: „Auf Verlangen der Orthodoxen Kirche wurde der normale Fortgang des theologischen Dialogs mit der Katholischen Kirche unterbrochen, um mittelbar die Frage des Uniatismus anzugehen“. Dem thematischen Wechsel entspricht eine Änderung der Blickrichtung des Dialogs: Statt der Suche nach verbindenden Themen, wie in den vorausgehenden Arbeitsphasen der Kommission15, richtet sich die Aufmerksamkeit nun auf eine kontroverse Frage. Noch dazu erfolgte diese Akzentverlagerung in einer Phase verstärkter Spannungen aufgrund der nachkommunistischen Zeit, die einerseits neue Freiheiten für die orthodoxen Kirchen und neue Begegnungsmöglichkeiten zwischen Ost und West mit sich brachten, zugleich aber auch Anlässe zu Misstrauen und Enttäuschung bot. 14. Die offizielle englische Übersetzung wählt die Formulierung: „in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church“: http://www.vatican.va/ archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_ en.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020). 15. München 1982: Das Geheimnis der Kirche und der Eucharistie im Licht des Geheimnisses der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit; Bari 1987: Glaube, Sakramente und Einheit der Kirche; Valamo 1988: Das Weihesakrament in der sakramentalen Struktur der Kirche, insbesondere die Bedeutung der Apostolischen Sukzession für die Heiligung und für die Einheit des Volkes Gottes, http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/it/ dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mistainternazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo.html; deutsch: in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, auffindbar gemäß der Jahreszahl (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

56

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Aus heutiger Perspektive lässt sich die Bilanz ziehen: Niemand war 1993 wirklich vorbereitet, im Rahmen eines „theologischen Dialogs“ die Problemfelder aufzuarbeiten, die unter dem Stichwort „Uniatismus“ gefasst waren. Hier standen nicht ekklesiologische Konzepte zur Debatte, die in klimatisierten Tagungsräumen mit Übersetzungskabinen diskutiert werden können, hier fanden Umwälzungen in historischen Identitäten statt. Viele orthodoxe Kirchen Osteuropas tauchten aus Jahrzehnten der Verfolgung, des Martyriums und der Zerstörung von Kirchen und Kirchengütern wieder auf. Die griechisch-katholischen Christen verlangten eine neue Unabhängigkeit ihrer Kirchenstrukturen und affirmierten ihre „ostkirchliche“ katholische Identität gegen die „orthodoxe“ Identität. Unumgänglich begann eine Phase der neuen Identitätsfindung, die stets gern über Abgrenzungen verläuft. Erfuhren Christen des Ostens in dieser Zeit die Mitchristen aus dem Westen als „Schwesterkirchen“? Erwiesen sich die Christen aus dem Westen als „Schwestern“ in der Arbeit des kirchlichen Neuaufbaus, zum Teil aus den Ruinen der Zerstörung? Eher geschah das Gegenteil, wenn auch oft ohne bösen Willen: Osteuropa wurde als Missionsgebiet betrachtet, die Lokalkirchen galten verbreitet undifferenziert als Kollaborateure der totalitären Regime, Parallelhierarchien wurden errichtet ohne Konsultation mit den orthodoxen Lokalkirchen, also ohne auf den Widerspruch zum Prinzip der „Schwesterkirchen“ zu achten. Viele der katholischen Bischöfe in Osteuropa hatten ja in der Tat nicht die Gelegenheit gehabt, sich an der Rezeption und offenen Diskussion der Dokumente des II. Vatikanischen Konzils zu beteiligen. Wäre nicht ein neuer „Dialog der Liebe“ erforderlich gewesen, bevor man zum theologischen „Dialog der Wahrheit“ ansetzte? Die vatikanische Kommission Pro Russia zeigte für diese Fragen eine besondere Sensibilität, als sie 1992, ein Jahr vor der Beschlussfassung von Balamand, in einem kurzen Dokument „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“ in Erinnerung rief, die durchaus für andere Regionen Osteuropas analog gelten können. Hier werden die pastoralen Konsequenzen der Offenheit für die Ostkirchen sorgsam formuliert. Das Dokument verwirft nicht nur einen bewusst oder vielleicht unbedacht erfolgenden Proselytismus, es ruft auch positiv zu einem schwesterkirchlichen Umgang der christlichen Traditionen auf: Nicht im Wettstreit miteinander, sondern in dem gemeinsamen Bemühen um die von Christus gewollte Einheit sind die katholische Kirche und die orthodoxe Kirche dazu aufgerufen, ihren Sendungsauftrag so zu erfüllen,

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

57

dass ihr Zeugnis sowohl in dem, was jede Kirche für sich tut, als auch im gemeinsamen Handeln voll und ganz dem Willen Christi entspricht16.

Die „Prinzipien“ betonen: „Wenn die Umstände es erlauben, sollen sich die Hirten der katholischen Kirche ... für eine Zusammenarbeit mit den orthodoxen Bischöfen bei der Entwicklung von pastoralen Initiativen der orthodoxen Kirche einsetzen und sich freuen, so zur Heranbildung guter Christen beitragen zu dürfen“17. Auch sollen sie darauf achten, „dass keine Aktivität innerhalb ihres kirchlichen Jurisdiktionsbereiches Gefahr läuft, als eine ‚parallele Evangelisierungsstruktur‘ ausgelegt zu werden“18. In der Zusammenarbeit mit den orthodoxen Kirchen in allen nur möglichen Bereichen soll die Nächstenliebe „als Präludium zur vollen kirchlichen Gemeinschaft (communio) herrschen“19. Das Dokument von Balamand ist durchaus von einer ähnlichen pastoralen Aufmerksamkeit geleitet. Es verbindet knapp gehaltene „Ekklesiologische Grundsätze“ mit einem ausführlicheren Teil über „Regeln für die Praxis“. In die ekklesiologischen Grundsatzerklärungen fließt eine Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ ein, die der ersten Phase der (Neu-)Entwicklung dieser ekklesialen Idee allerdings nicht voll entspricht, weder aus katholischer noch aus orthodoxer Perspektive, die zugleich aber die gewichtige Rolle einer Kriteriologie für das Ergebnis des Textes erhält. Nr. 12 geht beschreibend auf die jüngsten Entwicklungen ein: Auf Grund der Art und Weise, wie Katholiken und Orthodoxie sich in ihrem Bezug zum Geheimnis der Kirche von neuem anschauen und sich als Schwesterkirchen wiederentdecken, kann diese Form des „missionarischen Apostolats“, die soeben beschrieben wurde und die „Uniatismus“ genannt wurde, in Zukunft weder als zu befolgende Methode betrachtet werden noch als Modell für die angestrebte Einheit unserer Kirchen20.

In Nr. 14. heißt es sehr grundsätzlich: „Aus diesem Grunde erkennen sich die Katholische Kirche und die Orthodoxe Kirche gegenseitig als Schwesterkirche an, die gemeinsam dafür verantwortlich sind, dass die 16. 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 (1. Juni 1992) (Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls, 109), Bonn, Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1992, S. 17. 17. Vgl. ibid., II,4. 18. Ibid., II,2. 19. Ibid., I,8. 20. Der Uniatismus – eine überholte Unionsmethode – und die derzeitige Suche nach der vollen Gemeinschaft. Dokument der Gemeinsamen Internationalen Kommission für den theologischen Dialog zwischen der Katholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche, Balamand/Libanon, 1993, in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 3: 1990-2001, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 2003, 560-567, S. 562.

58

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Kirche Gottes ihrer göttlichen Bestimmung treu bleibt, vor allem in Bezug auf die Einheit“21. In dem Austausch zwischen Patriarch Athenagoras und Papst Paul VI., zwischen der Kirche von Konstantinopel und der Kirche von Rom, war die Anrede als „Schwesterkirchen“ in einen „Dialog der Liebe“ und der gegenseitigen Begegnungen eingebettet. Sie hatte eine dienende und erläuternde Funktion für eine Erfahrung kirchlicher Annäherung. Und sie überschritt nie grundsätzlich den Bezug zu den Schwesterkirchen Rom und Konstantinopel. Das wird bestätigt durch die anfangs erfolglose Einladung von orthodoxen Beobachtern aus allen byzantinischen Kirchen zum II. Vatikanischen Konzil über das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel. Am 24. Juli 1962 teilte Kardinal Bea Patriarch Athenagoras mit: Ich übersehe nicht die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen sich in dieser delikaten Frage das Ökumenische Patriarchat konfrontiert sieht. So hat nach reiflicher Überlegung unser Sekretariat gemeint, es sei besser, eine besondere Einladung direkt an jede der autokephalen Kirchen der Orthodoxie zu senden, unter sorgfältiger Erwähnung der Kontakte, die mit dem Sitz von Konstantinopel bestehen22.

Die autokephalen orthodoxen Kirchen legten offenbar Wert darauf, je für sich als Schwesterkirchen ernstgenommen und angesprochen zu werden. Das Dokument von Balamand kann sich in seiner Begriffswahl auf Aussagen von Papst Johannes Paul II. stützen, der in Nr. 14 des Dokuments mit einer Aussage aus dem Rundschreiben Slavorum Apostoli vom 2. Juni 1985 zitiert wird; dort hieß es: Cyrill und Methodius sind für uns Beispiele und zugleich Fürsprecher in den ökumenischen Anstrengungen der Schwesterkirchen des Ostens und des Westens, um durch Dialog und Gebet die sichtbare Einheit in der vollkommenen und umfassenden Einheit wiederzufinden … . Cyrill und Methodius sind in ihrer Persönlichkeit und in ihrem Werk Gestalten, die in allen Christen „eine große Sehnsucht nach Gemeinschaft und nach Einheit“ zwischen den zwei Schwesterkirchen des Ostens und des Westens wachrufen23.

Während die erste Erwähnung des Ausdrucks einen Plural von Kirchen in Ost und West bezeichnen könnte, bestätigt die zweite Erwähnung die im Dokument von Balamand gewählte Terminologie der Dualität von zwei Kirchen. So hatte Papst Johannes Paul II. es auch ausdrücklich am 21. Ibid. Der englische und der französische Text sprechen hier von „Schwesterkirchen“ im Plural. 22. Tomos Agapis (24. Juli 1962), Nr. 19, S. 56-57 (französisch / griechisch). 23. Rundschreiben Slavorum Apostoli (2. Juni 1985), Nr. 27: http://www.vatican.va/ content/john-paul-ii/de/ encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_19850602_slavorum-apostoli.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

59

26. Februar 1984 anlässlich einer ökumenischen Begegnung in der Basilika St. Nikolaus in Bari in seiner Ansprache formuliert, auf die Slavorum Apostoli Bezug nimmt24. Zweimal ist hier von „den zwei Schwesterkirchen“ des Ostens und des Westens die Rede25. Im Vorblick ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass diese Rede von den „zwei Kirchen“ noch während der Amtszeit von Johannes Paul II. durch die Note über den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ der Glaubenskongregation für theologisch unangemessen erklärt wurde, wie weiter unten zu erläutern sein wird. So kann für das Dokument von Balamand bezüglich der Terminologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ die Bilanz gezogen werden: Das Dokument von Balamand stützt sich an argumentativ zentraler Stelle auf einen theologisch ungeklärten und inkohärenten Begriff der „Schwesterkirchen“. Die Rede von der Katholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche (jeweils in ihrer Gesamtheit) ist nicht herzuleiten aus der „Schwesterkirchen“-Theologie, die sich im „Dialog der Liebe“ herausgebildet hat und im Tomos Agapis dokumentiert ist. Die theologische Unzulänglichkeit bestätigt sich darin, dass für die „katholischen Ostkirchen“, die den Stein des Anstoßes für die orthodoxen Gesprächspartner bilden, der Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ keine Verwendung findet, ja finden kann. In den „Regeln für die Praxis“ ist nur noch ein einziges Mal in einem recht unspezifischen Sinne von „Schwesterkirchen“ die Rede, wo es darum geht, „Gewaltanwendung seitens eigener Gemeinden gegen Gemeinden einer Schwesterkirche“ zu verurteilen26. Es hätte der Klärung bedurft, in welchem Verhältnis die „katholischen Ostkirchen“ (im Plural) zur Orthodoxen Kirche als Schwesterkirche (im Singular) stehen. Auch deren ekklesiologische Zuordnung zur „Katholischen Kirche“ in ihrer Gesamtheit oder auch zu den in Lumen gentium erwähnten „Teilkirchen“ (ecclesiae particulares) bleibt näher zu bestimmen, nicht zuletzt weil das Dekret Orientalium ecclesiarum diese „Teilkirchen“ anders als in Lumen gentium als „Ritenkirchen“ aus mehrere Diözesen versteht. III. EIN IN UNGNADE GEFALLENER BEGRIFF Weder die katholischen Gesprächspartner noch die griechisch-katholischen Kirchen verweigerten die Rezeption des Dokuments von Balamand. 24. In Fußnote Nr. 43 und 44; die Fußnoten fehlen in der deutschen online-Fassung des Textes, können aber in den anderen Sprachversionen eingesehen werden. 25. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1984/february/documents/ hf_jp-ii_spe_19840226_ incontro-ecumenico.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020). 26. Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, Band 3 (Anm. 20), S. 565.

60

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Nach Ernst Christoph Suttner, der zu dieser Zeit Mitglied der Kommission war, gehörte Großerzbischof Kardinal Myroslav Ljubačivs’kyj als Oberhaupt der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche zu den ersten Hierarchen, die öffentlich und ungeteilt das Dokument begrüßten. Die kritischen Stimmen kamen aus den orthodoxen Kirchen, namentlich von denen, die nicht an der gemeinsamen Arbeit von Balamand teilgenommen hatten und die die Erfahrungen und Besorgnisse des post-kommunistischen Kampfes um Religionsfreiheit nicht teilten. Zu den kritischen Punkten gehörten einerseits die „Regeln für die Praxis“, die als zu positiv für die unierten Kirchen betrachtet wurden27. Doch die schroffe Abwehr, die das Dokument von Balamand auslöste und die schließlich zu einer langjährigen Unterbrechung der gemeinsamen Arbeit führte, lässt sich nur durch grundlegendere Probleme erklären: Der Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ hatte den theologischen Begründungsrahmen für das Dokument von Balamand gebildet – und so muss die ungeklärte Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ letztlich auch als Grund des Scheiterns der Bemühungen von Balamand angeführt werden. Hervé Legrand o.p. berichtet, dass 2007 in Baltimore bei der Vollversammlung der Internationalen Dialogkommission, die das Thema von Balamand weiterführen wollte, „der griechische Delegierte in Baltimore es entschieden abgelehnt habe, die katholische Kirche als Schwesterkirche der orthodoxen Kirche anzusehen“28. 2002 stellte der polnische katholische Theologe Wacław Hryniewicz fest: „Dieser Ausdruck ... ist nun in Ungnade gefallen“29. Diese beunruhigende Bilanz ist auf dem Hintergrund der aufgezeigten Entwicklungen verständlich. Die in Balamand verwendete Terminologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ war nicht auf Zukunft hin anknüpfungsfähig. Die Tragik ist wohl darin zu sehen, dass die Bemühungen um theologische Klärung im katholischen und im orthodoxen Bereich weitgehend je unabhängig erfolgte, nicht im Austausch miteinander und im Bemühen um einen tragfähigen Konsens.

27. Mündliche Mitteilung von Prof. Ernst Christoph Suttner. 28. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Weggemeinschaft des Glaubens. Kirche als Communio. Festgabe zum 75. Geburtstag, hg. vom Schülerkreis, Augsburg, Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2002, 187-209, S. 205ff. 29. „This term … has now fallen into disgrace“, abgedruckt in W. HRYNIEWICZ, The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue (Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Challenge. Series IVa: Eastern and Central Europe, 32), Washington, DC, Council for Research in Values & Philosophy, 2007, S. 201; zit. nach COHEN, The Concept of „Sister Churches“ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Anm. 1), S. 1; vgl. die Aufnahme im Vorwort von Kardinal Kurt Koch (S. VII; cf. supra, S. 50).

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

61

1. Katholische Bemühungen um den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ Die katholische Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ erlebte paradoxerweise nach Balamand ihren Höhepunkt – zu einer Zeit, als der Begriff als Grundlage für die Bestimmung gegenseitiger kirchlicher Beziehungen bereits untauglich geworden war. a) Ut unum sint (1995) Papst Johannes Paul II., der im Dokument von Balamand als Referenz für die Anwendung der „Schwesterkirchen“-Terminologie auf die „zwei Kirchen“ von Ost und West angeführt wird, setzte in seiner Enzyklika Ut unum sint über den Einsatz für die Ökumene vom 25. Mai 1995 einen Meilenstein in der katholischen Präzisierung der Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“. In der narrativ gehaltenen Enzyklika spricht der Papst anfänglich von den Schwesterkirchen des Ostens. In Bezug auf seinen ersten Besuch im Phanar in Istanbul bei Patriarch Dimitrios I. am 29. November 1979 heißt es, „dass damals bereits die Vorbereitungen für die Einberufung des künftigen Konzils der orthodoxen Kirchen im Gang waren. Die Suche nach ihrer Eintracht ist ein Beitrag zum Leben und zur Lebendigkeit jener Schwesterkirchen, und das auch im Hinblick auf die Funktion, die zu erfüllen sie auf dem Weg zur Einheit berufen sind“30. In ähnlicher Weise wie Unitatis redintegratio, Nr. 14, werden hier die Ostkirchen in ihrem Verhältnis untereinander als Schwesterkirchen bezeichnet. Der kostbarste Beitrag der Enzyklika liegt allerdings dort, wo Papst Johannes Paul II. die Gleichsetzung des Begriffs „Schwesterkirche“ mit der innerkatholischen Strukturierung der Kirche in „Teilkirchen“ (ecclesiae particulares) vollzieht. Ein ganzes Kapitel der Enzyklika steht unter dem Titel „Schwesterkirchen“31. Johannes Paul II. knüpft an Unitatis redintegratio, Nr. 14, an und fährt fort: Nach dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil und im Zusammenhang mit jener Tradition wurde die Gepflogenheit wiedereingeführt, den um ihren Bischof versammelten Teil- oder Ortskirchen die Bezeichnung „Schwesterkirchen“ zuzuerkennen (Nr. 56).

Schwesterkirchen sind also Teilkirchen, die in sich die Kirche Jesu Christi voll verwirklichen und gerade dadurch wesentlich und notwendig in Communio mit allen anderen Teilkirchen stehen. Wer diese Aussage 30. Papst Johannes Paul II., Enzyklika Ut unum sint über den Einsatz für die Ökumene (25. Mai 1995), Nr. 52; online: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/de/encyclicals/ documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020). 31. Ibid., Nr. 55-58.

62

B. HALLENSLEBEN

aufgreift, darf ab jetzt in sinngemäßer Übertragung der Aussage aus Lumen gentium, Nr. 23,1, formulieren: „Die einzelnen Bischöfe sind sichtbares Prinzip und Fundament der Einheit in ihren nach dem Bild der Gesamtkirche gestalteten Schwesterkirchen, in denen und aus denen die eine und einzige katholische Kirche hervortritt“32. Die Katholische Kirche besteht in und aus Schwesterkirchen, weil Teilkirchen ihr Wesen nur als „Schwesterkirchen“ angemessen verwirklichen. Die Anrede als „Schwesterkirche“ impliziert unweigerlich die Erklärung der Communio oder zumindest das Angebot der Communio und das Ringen um sie. Durch die theologische Äquivalenz zwischen „Teilkirchen“ und „Schwesterkirchen“ formuliert der Papst ein Kriterium, das die innere Einheit der Kirche nach demselben Prinzip beurteilt wie die Suche nach der Einheit an den Stellen, wo sie noch nicht oder nicht mehr ungebrochen „hervortritt“ (exsistit). Die Theologie der Schwesterkirchen wird auf diese Weise zum Leitmotiv der Ökumenischen Bewegung: „Die traditionelle Bezeichnung ‚Schwesterkirchen‘ sollte uns auf diesem Weg ständig begleiten“33. Es ist nur konsequent, wenn Papst Johannes Paul II. aus seiner Theologie der Schwesterkirchen die Frage nach dem Dienst an der Communio dieser Schwestern ableitet und formuliert: Als Bischof von Rom weiß ich sehr wohl, und habe das in der vorliegenden Enzyklika erneut bestätigt, dass die volle und sichtbare Gemeinschaft aller Gemeinschaften, in denen kraft der Treue Gottes sein Geist wohnt, der brennende Wunsch Christi ist. Ich bin überzeugt, diesbezüglich eine besondere Verantwortung zu haben, vor allem wenn ich die ökumenische Sehnsucht der meisten christlichen Gemeinschaften feststelle und die an mich gerichtete Bitte vernehme, eine Form der Primatsausübung zu finden, die zwar keineswegs auf das Wesentliche ihrer Sendung verzichtet, sich aber einer neuen Situation öffnet34.

Wenn „Schwesterkirchen“ Kirchen in voller kirchlicher Communio sind, dann braucht es eine Einigung über das Kriterium, das für die Zugehörigkeit zu dieser Communio gilt. Die katholische Tradition in ihrer westlichen konfessionellen Ausprägung der Nachreformationszeit hatte die Communio mit dem Bischof von Rom zu einem solchen Kriterium erklärt – sogar in der soteriologischen Verschärfung, dass ohne die Communio zugleich der kirchlich vermittelte Zugang zum Heil verloren geht. 32. Der lateinische Originaltext in Lumen gentium, Nr. 23 lautet: „Episcopi autem singuli visibile principium et fundamentum sunt unitatis in suis Ecclesiis particularibus, ad imaginem Ecclesiae universalis formatis, in quibus et ex quibus una et unica Ecclesia catholica exsistit“. 33. Ut unum sint, Nr. 56. 34. Ut unum sint, Nr. 95.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

63

b) Note über den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ (2000) Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger handelte konsequent, als er in seiner Aufgabe als Präfekt der Glaubenskongregation die Rede von „zwei Kirchen“ für die Katholische Kirche und die Orthodoxe Kirche für theologisch unzulänglich erklärte. Er versuchte auf verdienstliche Weise, einen – aus verständlichen Gründen – in Ungnade gefallenen Begriff durch Präzisierung für die theologische Verwendung zu retten35: Man kann von „Schwesterkirchen“ im eigentlichen Sinn auch im Zusammenhang mit katholischen und nicht katholischen Teilkirchen sprechen; deshalb kann auch die Teilkirche von Rom „Schwester“ aller Teilkirchen genannt werden. Wie jedoch bereits betont wurde, kann man richtigerweise nicht sagen, dass die katholische Kirche „Schwester“ einer Teilkirche oder eines Teilkirchenverbandes ist. Es handelt sich dabei nicht nur um eine terminologische Frage, vielmehr geht es darum, eine grundlegende Wahrheit des katholischen Glaubens zu beachten: die Wahrheit von der Einzigkeit der Kirche Jesu Christi. Es gibt nur eine einzige Kirche, darum ist der Plural „Kirchen“ nur auf die Teilkirchen anwendbar. Um Missverständnisse zu klären und theologischer Verwirrung zuvorzukommen, ist folglich die Verwendung von Formulierungen wie „unsere beiden Kirchen“ zu vermeiden, weil sie – wenn angewandt auf die katholische Kirche und das Gesamt der orthodoxen Kirchen (oder einer orthodoxen Kirche) – unterstellen, dass es einen Plural nicht nur auf der Ebene der Teilkirchen, sondern auch auf der Ebene der im Credo bekannten einen, heiligen, katholischen und apostolischen Kirche gibt, deren tatsächliche Existenz dadurch verdunkelt wird36.

Christliche Gemeinschaften, die das Heil von der sichtbaren Gestalt der Kirche nicht nur unterscheiden, sondern trennen, und die folglich die heilstiftende Wirklichkeit für unsichtbar und die geschichtliche Gestalt der Kirche für Menschenwerk erklären, sind nicht unmittelbare Partner in der Bemühung um volle Communio der Schwesterkirchen. Der Dialog mit ihnen ist auf die volle sakramentale Konstitution der Partner als Schwesterkirchen hingeordnet. c) Dominus Iesus (2000) Wenige Wochen später bekräftigte Kardinal Ratzinger in der Erklärung Dominus Iesus (6. August 2000) der Glaubenskongregation die Konsequenzen dieser Lehre: Die Kirchen, die zwar nicht in vollkommener Gemeinschaft mit der katholischen Kirche stehen, aber durch engste Bande, wie die apostolische Sukzession und die gültige Eucharistie, mit ihr verbunden bleiben, sind echte Teilkirchen. 35. Vgl. Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre, Note über den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ (Anm. 3). 36. Ibid., Nr. 11.

64

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Deshalb ist die Kirche Christi auch in diesen Kirchen gegenwärtig und wirksam, obwohl ihnen die volle Gemeinschaft mit der katholischen Kirche fehlt, insofern sie die katholische Lehre vom Primat nicht annehmen37.

Der Verdacht, die gewählte Beschreibung könnte eine Abschwächung des Kirche-seins der orthodoxen Kirchen enthalten, lässt sich ausräumen, denn die Formulierung entspricht quasi wörtlich der Definition der katholischen Teilkirche aus dem Codex Iuris Canonici 1983, can. 369: Eine Diözese ist der Teil des Gottesvolkes, der dem Bischof in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Presbyterium zu weiden anvertraut wird, indem sie ihrem Hirten anhängt und von ihm durch das Evangelium und die Eucharistie im Heiligen Geist zusammengeführt wird, bildet sie eine Teilkirche, in der die eine, heilige, katholische und apostolische Kirche Christi wahrhaft gegenwärtig ist und wirkt38.

Da die Erklärung Dominus Iesus insbesondere zu einer Auseinandersetzung mit den protestantischen Gemeinschaften um das Kirche-sein „im eigentlichen Sinne“39 führte, blieben die geradezu revolutionären Konsequenzen der Aussage in Bezug auf die Ostkirchen unbemerkt: So sehr die Communio mit dem Bischof von Rom aus katholischer Perspektive das Kriterium der Communio bleibt, die zwischen Teilkirchen als Schwesterkirchen „hervortreten“ soll, so wird doch hier nicht länger das soteriologisch relevante Kirche-sein an diese Communio gebunden. Hier zeigt sich die Bedeutung der korrekten Übersetzung des Verbs exsistere in Lumen gentium, Nr. 23: Ohne ein Zeichen der vollen Communio „ex-sistieren“ die Teilkirchen nicht als Schwesterkirchen, d.h. sie treten nicht ins Leben in ihrer Einheit. Insofern ist dem umstrittenen Schreiben der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre „Über einige Aspekte der Kirche als Communio“ (28. Mai 1992) recht zu geben, wenn dort hervorgehoben wird:

37. Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre, Erklärung Dominus Iesus über die Einzigkeit und die Heilsuniversalität Jesu Christi und der Kirche (6. August 2000), Nr. 17, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_ 20000806_ dominus-iesus_ge.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020). 38. „Dioecesis est populi Dei portio, quae Episcopo cum cooperatione presbyterii pascenda concreditur, ita ut, pastori suo adhaerens ab eoque per Evangelium et Eucharistiam in Spiritu Sancto congregata, Ecclesiam particularem constituat, in qua vere inest et operatur una sancta catholica et apostolica Christi Ecclesia“. 39. In demselben Abschnitt 17 heißt es: „Die kirchlichen Gemeinschaften hingegen, die den gültigen Episkopat und die ursprüngliche und vollständige Wirklichkeit des eucharistischen Mysteriums nicht bewahrt haben, sind nicht Kirchen im eigentlichen Sinn; die in diesen Gemeinschaften Getauften sind aber durch die Taufe Christus eingegliedert und stehen deshalb in einer gewissen, wenn auch nicht vollkommenen Gemeinschaft mit der Kirche“.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

65

Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom und das Bischofskollegium sind Wesenselemente der Gesamtkirche, „die sich nicht aus der Partikularität der Kirchen ableiten“, die aber dennoch auch jeder Teilkirche innerlich zu eigen sind40.

Die gemeinsame Erwähnung des Bischofs von Rom und des gesamten Bischofskollegiums steht dem Verdacht entgegen, die wahre Kirchlichkeit der Teilkirche gemäß Lumen gentium, Nr. 23 werde durch Unterwerfung unter den Papst aufgehoben. Die Aussage ließe sich auch – ein wenig abstrakter – wie folgt formulieren: Teilkirchen sind ihrem Wesen nach – nicht durch willkürliche Entscheidung zur Aufnahme externer Beziehungen – Schwesterkirchen, d.h. hingeordnet auf die Communio mit allen anderen Teilkirchen in ihrem Wesen als Schwesterkirchen. Dieses Merkmal soll nicht nur „existieren“ als theologische Definition, sondern „ex-sistieren“, d.h. hervortreten, lebendig zur Erscheinung kommen. d) Antworten auf Fragen zu einigen Aspekten bezüglich der Lehre über die Kirche (2007) Mindestens ebenso problematisch wie die fehlende theologische Arbeit an einem ökumenischen Konsens zur Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ ist auf katholischer Seite die noch unzulänglich vollzogene Rezeption des II. Vatikanischen Konzils: Was bedeutet es für eine katholische Teilkirche, wenn ihr das Konzil das volle Kirche-sein und die innere Communio mit der gesamten Kirche Jesu Christi zuspricht? Sie kann nicht länger eine selbstzufriedene Ortskirche sein, sondern ist ihrem Wesen nach auf Communio ausgerichtet: innerkatholisch in der Mitverantwortung für alle anderen Teilkirchen der katholischen Communio, ökumenisch in der Offenheit für alle in anderer Form geeinten Teilkirchen und christlichen Gemeinschaften, mit denen diese Einigung noch nicht „hervorgetreten“ ist; missionarisch in der Offenheit für alle Menschen und die ganze Schöpfung, insofern diese zur Teilhabe an der Fülle der göttlichen Communio berufen ist. Weder eine rein äußerliche Unterwerfung unter römische Anordnungen noch ein Beharren auf der selbstbezüglichen Identität wird der Berufung der Teilkirche als „Schwesterkirche“ gerecht. In den Antworten der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre „auf Fragen zu einigen Aspekten bezüglich der Lehre über die Kirche“ ist überwiegend die Besorgnis spürbar, die Katholische Kirche könne durch neuere ekklesiologische Entwicklungen die Einzigartigkeit ihres Selbstzeugnisses 40. Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre, Schreiben an die Bischöfe der Katholischen Kirche über einige Aspekte der Kirche als Communio, Nr. 13, http://www.vatican.va/roman_ curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_ ge.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

66

B. HALLENSLEBEN

verlieren. In Frage 4 wird auf die Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ Bezug genommen: Warum schreibt das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil den Ostkirchen, die von der voller Gemeinschaft mit der katholischen Kirche getrennt sind, die Bezeichnung „Kirchen“ zu41?

Die Antwort beginnt mit dem eher äußerlichen Hinweis auf den „traditionellen Gebrauch dieser Bezeichnung“. Es fehlt nicht nur der Bezug zu Dominus Iesus, Nr. 17, sondern die dort ausgesprochene Anerkennung der Ostkirchen als wahre Teilkirchen wird implizit negiert: „Weil aber die Gemeinschaft mit der katholischen Kirche, deren sichtbares Haupt der Bischof von Rom und Nachfolger des Petrus ist, nicht eine bloß äußere Zutat zur Teilkirche ist, sondern eines ihrer inneren Wesenselemente, leidet das Teilkirche-sein jener ehrwürdigen christlichen Gemeinschaften unter einem Mangel“. Zwar ist anschließend auch von der „Wunde“ der Katholischen Kirche die Rede, da ihre katholische Universalität nicht voll sichtbar werden (exsistere?!) kann, doch die in Dominus Iesus vollzogene Anerkennung „wahrer Teilkirchen“ trotz fehlender Communio mit dem Bischof von Rom wird nicht durchgehalten. Dieselbe ängstliche Zurücknahme der Gleichsetzung von Teilkirchen und Schwesterkirchen, die Johannes Paul II. vollzogen hatte, spricht auch aus der Erläuterung des subsistit aus Lumen gentium, Nr. 8, in Frage 2: Hier werden ohne die übliche Differenzierung zwischen den Ostkirchen und den kirchlichen Gemeinschaften, die aus der Reformation hervorgegangen sind, implizit auch die Ostkirchen auf die „Elemente der Heiligung und der Wahrheit“ beschränkt, in denen „die Kirche Christi gegenwärtig und wirksam ist“. Das Wort „subsistiert“ wird hingegen nur der katholischen Kirche allein zugeschrieben, denn es bezieht sich auf das Merkmal der Einheit, das wir in den Glaubensbekenntnissen bekennen (Ich glaube ... die „eine“ Kirche); und diese „eine“ Kirche subsistiert in der katholischen Kirche.

Diese Aussage ist nicht „falsch“, aber sie ist nicht vermittelt mit einer Subsistenz, die bereits das II. Vatikanische Konzil als eine Subsistenz „in und aus“ (Lumen gentium, Nr. 23) dem Hervortreten der Teilkirchen bestimmt hatte. Die Kirche als Schwesterkirche ist ein subjekthaftes, um nicht zu sagen: personales Gegenüber; die „Elemente der Heiligung und 41. Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre, Antworten auf Fragen zu einigen Aspekten bezüglich der Lehre über die Kirche (29. Juni 2007), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_ge.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

67

der Wahrheit“ bilden eine apersonale Sammlung von Eigenschaften, die nun quasi exklusiv ihre Subsistenz in der katholischen Kirche finden können. Die innere Konsistenz und ökumenische Offenheit der Position von Ut unum sint bis Dominus Iesus, Nr. 17, ist verlassen. Die nicht geringen theologischen Bemühungen um Begriff und Wirklichkeit der Schwesterkirchen dürfen hier unberücksichtigt bleiben, a) weil sie zu umfangreich für eine detaillierte Analyse sind; b) weil Cohen die wichtigsten Autoren sorgsam ausgewertet hat: Emmanuel Lanne, Yves Congar, Wacław Hryniewicz, Adriano Garuti und Hervé Legrand; c) weil die Fruchtbarkeit des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ von ihrer offiziellen kirchlichen Rezeption abhängt. Auf offizieller kirchlicher Ebene ist zu konstatieren, dass die Anrede als „Schwesterkirchen“ aus den Begegnungen mit orthodoxen kirchlichen Oberhäuptern verschwunden ist. Ein markantes Zeichen dafür war das 50jährige Jubiläum der Begegnung zwischen Papst Paul VI. und Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem, das wiederum in Jerusalem mit einem Treffen von Papst Franziskus und dem Ökumenischen Patriarchen Bartholomäus begangen wurde. Die aus diesem Anlass abgegebene „Gemeinsame Erklärung“ vom 25. Mai 2014 verwendet die Terminologie der „brüderlichen Begegnung“42. Die jüngste Bestätigung findet sich in der Predigt von Papst Franziskus zum Fest der Apostel Petrus und Paulus am 29. Juni 2020: Trotz corona-bedingter Abwesenheit einer Delegation aus Konstantinopel erwähnt der Papst die Tradition „brüderlicher Besuche“, die nicht ekklesial, sondern mit der Verwandtschaft der Apostel Petrus und Andreas begründet werden, „um gemeinsam auf das Ziel zuzugehen, das der Herr uns zeigt: die volle Einheit“ – deren schon gegebenes Bestehen in der Form der Schwesterkirchen nicht mehr erwähnt wird43. 2. Orthodoxe Entwicklungen in der Verwendung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ Im innerorthodoxen Umgang mit der Terminologie liegt keine vergleichbare „lehramtliche“ Entwicklung vor, die anhand offizieller Texte aufgezeigt werden könnte. In der Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ sind mehrere markante Entwicklungen zu beobachten, die untereinander nur bedingt kompatibel sind: 42. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2014/may/documents/papafrancesco_20140525_terra-santa-dichiarazione-congiunta.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020). 43. Homilie von Papst Franziskus in der Petersbasilika (29. Juni 2020), http://w2. vatican.va/content/francesco/de/homilies/2020/documents/papa-francesco_20200629_ omelia-pallio.html (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

68

B. HALLENSLEBEN

a) Beibehaltung der Rede von „unseren beiden Kirchen“ gemäß der Ausdrucksweise von Balamand Dieser Weg zeigt sich in dem Briefwechsel aus den Jahren 2000/2001 zwischen Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger und Metropolit Damaskinos (Papandreou) als Metropolit der Schweiz und Exarch von Europa. Grundlegend stellt sich die hermeneutische Frage der Interpretation der vorausgehenden Verwendung der „Schwesterkirchen“-Terminologie. Metropolit Damaskinos bestreitet, dass sie sich im Breve Anno ineunte von Papst Paul VI. wesentlich auf die Ortskirchen von Rom und Konstantinopel bezogen habe: Diese Formulierung darf nicht nur von der „Teilkirche“ von Rom an die „Teilkirche“ von Konstantinopel verwendet werden, sondern sie betrifft auch die gegenseitige Anerkennung der römisch-katholischen Kirche und der orthodoxen Kirche als Schwesterkirchen44.

Metropolit Damaskinos liest den Entdeckungsweg der Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ zwischen Papst Paul VI. und Patriarch Athenagoras im Lichte der Terminologie von Balamand. Hinzu kommt die ekklesiologische Frage: Wenn man gemäß der „Note“ des Jahres 2000 die Schwesterkirchen auf der Ebene der Teil- oder Lokalkirchen situiert, so hegt Metropolit Damaskinos den Verdacht, die Mutterkirche werde mit der Kirche von Rom identifiziert: Der Begriff „Teilkirche“ als Wechselbegriff zu „Lokalkirche“ kann überdies zu einer universalistisch strukturierten Ekklesiologie führen, die die Lokalkirchen als untergeordnete Teile der Una Sancta auffasst45.

Entscheidend ist für Metropolit Damaskinos offenbar – gerade wegen der Anerkennung als Schwesterkirchen – die Möglichkeit zu einer vollkommenen Identifikation jeder „Schwester“ mit der einen, heiligen, katholischen und apostolischen Kirche des Nizäno-Konstantinopolitanischen Glaubensbekenntnisses. In diesem Falle lautet die Grundfrage: Kann eine Kirche, sobald sie ihre eigenen Grenzen mit denen der einen, heiligen, katholischen und apostolischen Kirche identifizieren lässt, eine andere Kirche als Kirche anerkennen, ohne ihren eigenen Anspruch auf Kontinuität aufzugeben oder wenigstens zu relativieren? Kann man hier ein „Sowohl-als auch“ anwenden oder verpflichtet uns der kanonische Charakter 44. Briefwechsel zwischen Metropolit Damaskinos und Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger über die Erklärung der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre Dominus Iesus und die „Note“ der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre [über den Ausdruck] „Schwesterkirchen“, in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Weggemeinschaft des Glaubens (Anm. 28), 187-209, S. 195. 45. Ibid., vgl. 194f.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

69

der Kirche von dem „Entweder-oder“ auszugehen? Beide Kirchen vertreten die Ansicht, die eine, heilige, katholische und apostolische Kirche fortzusetzen, ohne dabei unbedingt ausschließend zu sein46.

In diesem Rahmen zitiert der Metropolit eine nicht näher identifizierte „panorthodoxe Stellungnahme“, die ohne Zweifel einen Vorläufertext des Synodendokuments von Kreta 2016 darstellt: Im Bewusstsein der Wichtigkeit der gegenwärtigen Struktur des Christentums erkennt unsere heilige orthodoxe Kirche, obwohl sie die eine, heilige, katholische und apostolische Kirche ist, nicht nur die ontologische Existenz dieser Kirchengemeinschaften an, sondern glaubt auch fest, dass alle diese Beziehungen zu ihnen auf einer möglichst raschen objektiven Erhellung des ekklesiologischen Problems und der Gesamtheit ihrer Lehre beruhen müssen47.

Die Antwort von Joseph Ratzinger bekräftigt die bereits vorgestellten Aussagen aus Dominus Iesus und aus der Note über den Ausdruck „Schwesterkirchen“ vom Jahr 2000. Von Bedeutung sind insbesondere einige Erläuterungen zur „Note“: Wenn wir nach Ratzinger von orthodoxer Kirche und katholischer Kirche als zwei Schwesterkirchen sprechen würden, so stellen wir einen Plural auf, über dem kein Singular mehr erscheint. Auf der letzten Ebene des Kirchenbegriffs würde ein Dualismus bleiben und die eine Kirche so zu einem Phantom, zu einer Utopie werden, während ihr doch gerade das Leibsein wesentlich ist48.

Wegweisend ist vor allem die Klarstellung, was angesichts der „Schwesterkirchen“ die „Mutterkirche“ bedeutet: „Mutterschaft“ kann „nur die Abbildung für die eigentliche Mutter-Kirche sein – das obere Jerusalem, von dem Paulus spricht (Gal 4,26)“49. Deshalb gilt: „Die Präzedenz der Universalkirche vor den Teilkirchen zu behaupten, ist kein Votum für eine bestimmte Form von Kompetenzverteilungen in der Kirche, kein Votum dafür, dass die Ortskirche von Rom möglichst viel an Vorrecht an sich ziehen müsse“50. Die Frage, auf welche Weise die Communio der Teilkirchen als Schwesterkirchen hervortreten kann, bleibt in Ratzingers Sicht dem Mysterium der „Hochzeit des Lammes“ nachgeordnet und kann daher sogar „in Frage gestellt werden“, wie Papst Johannes Paul II. es in Bezug auf seine Primatsausübung in Ut unum sint getan hat.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Ibid., S. 197. Zit. ibid., S. 196ff. Ibid., S. 205. Ibid., S. 206. Ibid., S. 207.

70

B. HALLENSLEBEN

b) Exklusivität des Kirche-seins Für Metropolit Damaskinos setzt die Anknüpfung an die Terminologie der „zwei Schwesterkirchen“ in Balamand voraus, dass die Affirmation des vollen Kirche-seins der eigenen Tradition mit der Wahrnehmung einer ecclesia extra ecclesiam zu verbinden ist51. Wo keine Lösung für diese in der Tat nicht leichte Frage gefunden wird, bleibt nur die Position der Exklusivität. Sie ist in gewisser Weise aus katholischer Sicht mit hohem Respekt zu behandeln, weil sie von der soteriologischen Relevanz der leibhaften Kirche ausgeht, die katholische und orthodoxe Christen miteinander teilen. In diesem Sinne kam es nach Balamand mehr und mehr zu einer Radikalisierung der Fragestellung: Die erneut monolithische Präsentation der Katholischen Kirche (in ihrer Gesamtheit) in Balamand und in katholischen Äußerungen ruft nicht nur die Frage hervor, ob diese Kirche aus orthodoxer Sicht als „Schwesterkirche“ zu betrachten ist, sondern ob sie überhaupt den Titel einer „Kirche“ verdient. Diese kritische Frage zeigt sich insbesondere in der Stellungnahme der Orthodoxen Synode von Kreta 2016. Das Dokument „Beziehungen der orthodoxen Kirche zu der übrigen christlichen Welt“ wäre an der Frage nach der Kirchlichkeit anderer christlichen Gemeinschaften fast gescheitert. Die Kompromissformulierung, die sich schließlich als mehrheitsfähig erwies, lautet: „Ihrer ontologischen Natur nach kann die Einheit der Kirche niemals gestört werden. Die Orthodoxe Kirche anerkennt jedoch die historische Benennung anderer nichtorthodoxer christlicher Kirchen und Konfessionen, die nicht mit ihr in Gemeinschaft stehen“52. Der Vergleich mit dem von Metropolit Damaskinos angeführten Vorgängertext ist aufschlussreich: Alles deutet darauf hin, dass mit „ontologische Existenz“ mehr gemeint war als das „faktische Dasein“, insofern der verabschiedete Text mit der Rede von der „ontologischen Natur“ eindeutig das Wesen der Kirche ausdrückt. Entsprechend positiv reagierte Joseph Ratzinger auf diese Formulierung, in der er ein Äquivalent zu den Aussagen in Dominus Iesus und zu der katholischen Formulierung des subsistit in Lumen gentium, Nr. 8, sah53. Nach der Synode von Kreta ist der eklatante Mangel an Gegenseitigkeit nun unübersehbar: die zumindest nominell weiter geltende Anerkennung der orthodoxen Kirchen als Schwesterkirchen mit voller Kirchlichkeit von katholischer Seite – die fehlende Bereitschaft auf orthodoxer Seite, den 51. Vgl. ibid., S. 197. 52. Nr. 6, in B. HALLENSLEBEN (Übers. und Hg.), Einheit in Synodalität: Die offiziellen Dokumente der Orthodoxen Synode auf Kreta. 18. bis 26. Juni 2016 (Epiphania Egregia, 12), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016, S. 79; online-Version der Texte in den offiziellen Sprachen der Synode (griechisch, russisch, englisch, französisch): https://www.holycouncil.org. 53. Vgl. Briefwechsel (Anm. 44), S. 208.

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

71

katholischen Kirchen in der Communio der Katholischen Kirche eine wie auch immer geartete ekklesiale Qualität zuzusprechen. Nach dieser schmerzlichen Feststellung bleibt am Ende die Dankbarkeit, dass diese Minimalaussage zum einen das Dokument selbst zu retten vermöchte und dass die Kirchlichkeit der katholischen Seite zumindest nicht explizit ausgeschlossen wurde, sondern einer weiteren Klärung offensteht. Zur Fortsetzung der Terminologie und Denkweise von Balamand gehört nicht zuletzt die immer konsequentere Verwendung der Selbstbezeichnung des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel als „Mutterkirche“54, nicht in Bezug auf besondere Bande der Gründung einer „Tochterkirche“, sondern als grundlegende geistliche Verantwortung in Form eines „Primats“ aufgrund der Entscheidungen der frühen Konzilien55. Als Folge dieser Selbstbezeichnung der Kirche von Konstantinopel regt sich zunehmender Widerstand der übrigen autokephalen Kirchen, die dem Ökumenischen Patriarchen vorwerfen, als „Papst der Orthodoxen Kirche“ eine der Orthodoxie fremde Ekklesiologie von Rom übernommen zu haben. Gerade bei einer globalen Rede von „unseren beiden Kirchen“ tritt die Versuchung ein, die ungeklärte Rede von „der Schwesterkirche“ letztlich entgegen ihrem Sinn zu verwenden und darunter die völlig Unabhängigkeit dieser „anderen“ Kirche von der eigenen Tradition zu verstehen – mit der Folge des strikten Prinzips der „gegenseitigen Nichteinmischung“. Zumindest optisch wird ein solches Bild erzeugt, indem zu Beginn jeder Vollversammlung der Internationalen orthodox-katholischen theologischen Gesprächskommission die zwei Delegationen sich zu internen Gesprächen treffen. So entsteht eher der Eindruck einer strategischen Vorbereitung auf Koalitionsverhandlungen als der Einstimmung auf eine Begegnung unter Teilkirchen als Schwesterkirchen. c) Verlagerung der Aufmerksamkeit auf die Frage der innerorthodoxen Einheit Die Frage nach der Weise, wie die orthodoxen Lokalkirchen als autokephale Kirchen ihre Einheit als „Schwesterkirchen“ gestalten, brach durch die Diskussion über das Dokument von Ravenna der Internationalen Theologischen Gesprächskommission 2007 in neuer Schärfe aus. Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche hatte an der Arbeitssitzung von Ravenna nicht teilgenommen aus Protest gegen die ohne Konsultation getroffene 54. Vgl. B. HALLENSLEBEN (Hg.), Orthodoxe Kirche in der Ukraine – wohin? Dokumente zur Debatte um die Autokephalie (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 92), Münster, Aschendorff, 2019, v.a. S. 37, 41, 43f, 86-89. 55. Vgl. ibid., S. 43.

72

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Entscheidung des Ökumenischen Patriarchats, die Estnische Apostolische Orthodoxe Kirche zur Teilnahme an der Arbeit der Kommission als offizielles Mitglied einzuladen. Es folgte eine Auseinandersetzung über die Tragfähigkeit der Ekklesiologie, die dem Dokument von Ravenna zugrunde liegt und die weitgehend durch die theologischen Positionen des orthodoxen Ko-Präsidenten Metropolit Johannes Zizioulas geprägt ist. So verlagerte sich die Aufmerksamkeit auf die innerorthodoxe Frage, nach welchen Kriterien die autokephalen Kirchen miteinander in Communio stehen und auf gesamtorthodoxer Ebene ihre Einheit synodal und primatial verwirklichen. Diese Debatte wird nicht in der Terminologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ geführt, weist aber durchaus eine ekklesiologische Parallele zur katholischen Debatte über das Verhältnis von Teilkirche und Universalkirche auf. Bereits im Umfeld der Orthodoxen Synode von Kreta 2016 zeigt sich die Schwierigkeit, dass vier Autokephale Kirchen – die Orthodoxen Kirchen von Antiochien, Bulgarien, Georgien und Russland – die Teilnahme an der von Patriarch Bartholomäus einberufenen Synode kurzfristig absagten. So konnte die Synode von Kreta ihr wesentliches Ziel, ein Zeichen für die innere Einheit der Orthodoxen Kirche zu sein, nur bedingt erreichen. In der Auseinandersetzung um die Autokephalie der „Orthodoxen Kirche in der Ukraine“ verschärfte der Konflikt sich zum Bruch der Communio mit dem Patriarchat von Konstantinopel durch die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche des Moskauer Patriarchats, verbunden mit der ausbleibenden Anerkennung der neuen Kirche durch die Mehrheit der übrigen Autokephalen Kirchen. Ohne auf Einzelheiten dieses Konflikts einzugehen, lautet die Bilanz im Hinblick auf die Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“: Innerhalb der Orthodoxen Kirche byzantinischer Tradition herrscht gegenwärtig kein Konsens über die Kriterien, wie Lokalkirchen als „Schwesterkirchen“ zur Communio der Orthodoxen Kirche als der einen, heiligen katholischen und apostolischen Kirche des Glaubensbekenntnisses gehören. Folglich kann auch das ekklesiologische Kriterium für die Anerkennung von Kirchen anderer Tradition als „Schwesterkirchen“ derzeit schwerlich bestimmt werden. Auch in diesem Zusammenhang werden hier Einzelstimmen orthodoxer Theologen nicht näher untersucht, da auf die Darstellung von Will Cohen zurückgegriffen werden kann. Er listet unter den orthodoxen „Verteidigern“ der „Schwesterkirchen“-Theologie John Meyendorff, Metropolit Maximos Aghiorgoussis von Ainou, John Erickson und Metropolit Damaskinos auf; als Kritiker werden neben einer Stellungnahme der Gemeinschaft des Berges Athos John S. Romanides, George Metallinos und Erzbischof Dmitri Royster von Dallas angeführt. Wichtige Beiträge

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

73

liefert auch ein Sammelband mit Beiträgen von Mitgliedern des „Comité mixte de dialogue catholique-orthodoxe en France“, das „Les enjeux de l’uniatisme“ unter Heranziehung zusätzlicher Experten ausführlich behandelt hat; die Dokumentation geht wiederholt ausdrücklich auf die Erklärung von Balamand und ihre Folgen ein56. IV. IST DER

AUSDRUCK „SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“ NOCH ZU RETTEN?

THEOLOGISCHE

Die Klärung des Ausdrucks „Schwesterkirchen“ hat neue Aktualität gewonnen. Um den stockenden internationalen Dialog wieder aufzunehmen, war nach der Vollversammlung von Baltimore entschieden worden, eine neue Thematik zu behandeln, anschließend aber zu der ungelösten Frage der Unierten Kirchen zurückzukehren. In der Einleitung zum Dokument von Ravenna heißt es: Von 1990 bis 2000 war „Uniatismus“ das Hauptthema, das die Kommission diskutierte (Balamand-Dokument 1993; Baltimore 2000), ein Thema, das wir in naher Zukunft weiter bedenken werden57.

Im Wechsel der Thematik zeigt sich allerdings durchaus eine innere Kontinuität: Wenn mit der Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ die Frage auf dem Spiel steht, wie Teil- bzw. Lokalkirchen miteinander ihre Communio ausdrücken und verbindlich leben, dann muss die Verbindung zwischen ekklesiologischen Prinzipien und kanonischen Konsequenzen für das Leben der Kirche ad intra und ad extra diskutiert werden. Auf der Grundlage der bislang in der Kommission vollzogenen „gemeinsamen Bekräftigungen unseres Glaubens müssen wir nun die ekklesiologischen und kanonischen Konsequenzen ziehen, die sich aus der sakramentalen Natur der Kirche ergeben“58. Diese Grundfrage leitete auch die Arbeit an dem 2016 in Chieti verabschiedeten Dokument zum Thema „Synodalität und Primat im ersten Jahrtausend. Auf dem Weg zu einem gemeinsamen Verständnis im Dienst der Einheit der Kirche“59. Die Diskussion um die 56. Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004. 57. Ekklesiologische und kanonische Konsequenzen der sakramentalen Natur der Kirche. Kirchliche Communio, Konziliarität und Autorität, in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 4: 2001-2010, Paderborn – Leipzig, Bonifatius, 2012, 833-868, S. 834. 58. Ibid. 59. Deutsche Übersetzung, https://www3.unifr.ch/iso/de/assets/public/files/Dokumentation/Memoria/Memoria%202016/Ereignisse/Chieti_Dokument_D_final.pdf (konsultiert am 16. Juli 2020).

74

B. HALLENSLEBEN

Weiterführung der Arbeit ergab eine Konvergenz zwischen der folgerichtig anstehenden Frage nach „Synodalität und Primat im zweiten Jahrtausend“ und der vorgesehenen Rückkehr zur Thematik des nicht voll rezipierten Dokuments von Balamand. Sind wir heute besser vorbereitet als 1993, um die vielschichtigen, spannungsvollen Implikationen zu thematisieren? Die Frage ist wohl mit „Nein“ zu beantworten. Kann die Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“, wie Papst Johannes Paul II. es postuliert hat, „uns auf diesem Weg ständig begleiten“60? Sicher nicht ohne eine erhebliche theologische Klärung, die beide kirchlichen Traditionen je für sich, unbedingt aber auch gemeinsam zu leisten haben, damit die weitere Verwendung des Ausdrucks auf einem tragfähigen Konsens und anerkannten Kriterien beruht. Dazu ist eine – hier ansatzweise versuchte – Klärung der Genese und Entwicklung der neueren Verwendung und Verwerfung der „Schwesterkirchen“Theologie unverzichtbar, um sich auf dieser Grundlage auf einen gemeinsam akzeptierten theologischen Gehalt des Ausdrucks zu einigen. Im besten Falle können sich dabei die Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ und die Theologie der „Synodalität“ gegenseitig klären: Schwesterkirchen sind Teil- bzw. Lokalkirchen in verbindlicher Communio. Synodalität ist die Form, in der Schwesterkirchen ihre Communio kanonisch regeln und leben. Es geht um die Frage, wie die eine, heilige, katholische und apostolische Kirche „in und aus“ dem Plural ihrer lokal verfassten Kirchen hervortritt (exsistit). Auf diesem Weg müssen die kirchlichen Gesprächspartner sich gegenseitig in ihrer konkreten kirchlichen Verfasstheit ernst nehmen. Es kann nicht darum gehen, das kirchliche Leben in einer abstrakten Operation in Teilkirchen zu sezieren und für diese ein neues Prinzip der Zusammengehörigkeit zu etablieren. Sie sind bereits Kirchen, die nicht in der Isolation, sondern in bestimmten Formen der Communio leben. Sie sind mehr als Ansammlungen von „Elementen der Wahrheit und Heiligung“, vielmehr geschichtlich handelnde Subjekte im Bewusstsein ihrer sakramentalen Qualität. Sie „subsistieren“ im Geheimnis der Kirche Jesu Christi – und sind zugleich verwundet angesichts der Unvollkommenheit im „Hervortreten“ ihrer geschenkten Einheit. Insofern hat Will Cohen mit der grundlegenden These seiner Forschungen Recht: Eine Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ wird keinen Konsens finden, wenn sie sich nicht als fähig erweist, die kirchlichen Strukturen „mittlerer Ebene“ in die Konstitution der Communio einzubeziehen. Anzustreben ist die Äquivalenz zwischen dem Kriterium kirchlicher Communio ad intra und ad extra – 60. Ut unum sint, Nr. 56.

75

„SCHWESTERKIRCHEN“

wie sie in der Gleichsetzung von „Teilkirchen“ und „Schwesterkirchen“ durch Papst Johannes Paul II. erreicht worden ist. Nicht eine feststehende Theologie der „Schwesterkirchen“ wird dabei auf die orthodoxen und die katholischen lokal bestehenden Kirchen angewandt, sondern eine solche Theologie ist Ergebnis ihrer Bemühung um gemeinsames Kirche-sein. Gemeinsam Kirche zu sein und kirchlich zu handeln, steht dabei nicht am Ende eines zunächst abstrakten theologischen Klärungsprozesses, sondern es ist zugleich der Weg zu dieser Klärung. Keine Kirche kann sich selbst als wahre Kirche Jesu Christi verstehen, wenn sie nicht ihr Wesen als „Schwesterkirche“ hervortreten lässt und mit ihren Schwestern und für diese lebt. Insofern bleibt der Dialog der Liebe das Herz des theologischen Dialogs der Wahrheit. Zentrum St. Nikolaus für das Studium der Ostkirchen am Institut für Ökumenische Studien Avenue de l’Europe 20 CH-1700 Fribourg Schweiz [email protected]

Barbara HALLENSLEBEN

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA? IMAGINER L’ÉGLISE LOCALE APRÈS BALAMAND

Un théologien éminent, le Père Bernard Sesboüé, dans une intervention1 a repris la proposition d’un certain Joseph Ratzinger de repenser le ministère de l’unité, assuré par l’Église de Rome, sous une forme nouvelle (par exemple, par la création de nouveaux patriarcats), qui permettra à la pluralité des Églises de se retrouver dans la communion de l’Église unique, «car seule la foi est indivisible»2, l’unité de l’Église n’étant pas synonyme d’Église unitaire3. Ayant alors cité Ratzinger4, Sesboüé poursuit: L’auteur étend même la perspective aux Églises séparées d’Occident. Pourquoi ne pas penser à «une forme spéciale de chrétienté réformée»? En prolongeant sa pensée, ne peut-on pas espérer que la Fédération luthérienne mondiale, l’Alliance réformée mondiale, ou la Communion anglicane forment un jour de grandes Églises dans l’unique Église, à l’instar des patriarcats d’autrefois? On voit la fécondité d’une réforme décentralisatrice de l’Église romaine. Toute Église pourrait alors pressentir ce que serait son statut futur dans la communion retrouvée5.

Nous pourrions dire que mutatis mutandis le cas des Églises orientales catholiques se trouve dans la même perspective. En effet, le rétablissement de la communion entre ces Églises et l’Église romaine et son chef fut considéré par Rome comme un exercice de son ministère de l’unité. Certes, on sait également que l’Orthodoxie n’a pas vu les choses de la même manière et que cette divergence a bloqué leur dialogue théologique officiel, qui a produit à ce sujet les documents de Freising (juin 1990) et de Balamand (juin 1993). Ce dernier a rejeté l’uniatisme comme méthode 1. B. SESBOÜÉ, Pour une articulation nouvelle entre primats et primauté, dans S. SELARU – P. VLAICU (éds), La primauté et les primats: enjeux ecclésiologiques, Paris, Cerf, 2015, 13-25. 2. J. RATZINGER, Primauté et épiscopat, dans ID., Le nouveau peuple de Dieu, Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 1971, 42-72, p. 67. 3. Ibid., p. 68. 4. Avant de citer les passages de Le nouveau peuple de Dieu de J. Ratzinger, SESBOÜÉ précise avec honnêteté que «depuis qu’il est pape, Benoît XVI n’a pas permis que ce petit livre soit republié» (Pour une articulation nouvelle entre primats et primauté [n. 1], p. 16) et que c’est la même personne qui a supprimé le titre de patriarche d’Occident. Cela, comme le dit Sesboüé, invalide d’une certaine manière les propos du jeune Ratzinger, propos qui n’étaient bien pas vus au sein de la Commission théologique internationale (pp. 16-17). 5. Ibid., p. 19.

78

A. MILTOS

de l’union6, sur la base d’une théologie des «églises sœurs»7. Selon le n. 14 du document de Balamand, «L’Église catholique et l’Église orthodoxe se reconnaissent mutuellement comme Églises sœurs et responsables ensemble du maintien de l’Église de Dieu dans la fidélité au dessein divin, tout spécialement en qui concerne l’unité»8. Pour H. Legrand, cette formulation constitue la clé doctrinale de la déclaration qui, au plan des principes, «permet de mettre un terme à l’uniatisme, contentieux séculaire entre les deux Églises, perçu comme si contraire à la fraternité»9. Si la théologie des «églises sœurs» est considérée comme un remède au problème de l’«uniatisme», on sait que la réception de cette théologie au sein de l’Église orthodoxe est problématique10. C’est par ailleurs une des questions que la collection d’essais dans ce volume était appelée à scruter. En même temps, le contenu théologique de l’expression «églises sœurs» fait aussi débat au sein de la théologie catholique11. Ainsi, une 6. Signalons que s’il est ainsi et si, en même temps, «l’Église catholique considère les Églises unies aussi comme une aide sur le chemin du rétablissement de l’unité» (Cardinal Kurt Koch, dans Métropolite EMMANUEL DE FRANCE – Cardinal Kurt KOCH, L’esprit de Jérusalem, Paris, Cerf, 2014, p. 73), il reste à préciser de quelle manière elles contribuent à cette cause. 7. Sur la notion d’«églises sœurs» dans le cadre du rapprochement entre catholiques et orthodoxes, voir d’abord l’étude ad hoc récente, complète et importante de W.T. COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 67), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016. Voir aussi l’introduction de J.E. DESSEAUX dans Le livre de la charité, Paris, Cerf, 1984, pp. 34-42 et D. SICARD, L’utilisation de l’expression «Églises sœurs» dans les dialogues de 1962 à 1997 entre Église orthodoxe et Église catholique, dans Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, 343-355. Cf. le bref aperçu de H. DESTIVELLE, Pour une théologie du dialogue de la charité, dans Conduis-la vers l’unité parfaite, Paris, Cerf, 2018, 59-61. 8. Pour le texte du document voir La Documentation catholique 90/2077 (1993) 711-714. 9. H. LEGRAND, La théologie des Églises sœurs: réflexions ecclésiologiques autour de la Déclaration de Balamand, dans Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 88 (2004) 461-496, p. 462. La même étude est publiée dans le volume mentionné plus haut Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 7). Une même approche œcuménique positive on trouve dans l’article de B. HALLENSLEBEN, Églises sœurs: principe herméneutique dans les relations entre Églises ad intra et ad extra, dans Contacts 65 (2013) 534-548 (Actes du colloque «Comprendre les enjeux du prochain Concile de l’Église orthodoxe», Paris, 18-20 octobre 2012). 10. Voir par exemple, M. STAVROU, Les «ambigua» du document de Balamand pour sa réception du côté orthodoxe, dans Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 7), 323-342, pp. 334342 et COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 7), pp. 182-240. 11. Il suffit peut-être de lire l’article mentionné de Legrand et surtout la présentation détaillée de COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 7), pp. 111-181. Voir aussi B. HALLENSLEBEN, «Schwesterkirchen» – Perspektiven nach Balamand für einen in Ungnade gefallenen Begriff, dans ce volume, 49-75.

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA?

79

Note de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi, publiée le 30 juin 2000 et signée par J. Ratzinger, son président à l’époque, a récusé l’application de l’appellation «église sœur» à l’Église catholique ou à l’Église orthodoxe dans son ensemble, car, d’après ce document, elle insinue une pluralité au niveau de l’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique12. L’ambiguïté du sens de l’expression n’a sans doute pas facilité sa réception catholique. En tout cas, cette théologie d’«églises sœurs» n’a apparemment pas servi dans la poursuite du dialogue. Vu les difficultés que crée la notion d’«églises sœurs», la question qui se pose est de savoir si cette théologie peut finalement nous aider à atteindre le but du dialogue bilatéral, c’est-à-dire la réalisation de la pleine communion entre l’Église catholique et l’Église orthodoxe. Afin d’éclairer cette question, il nous semble que l’unité ecclésiale au niveau local constitue un «case study» pour la question plus large de la réalisation de la pleine communion ecclésiale dans le cas de l’union entre catholiques et orthodoxes. Certes, cette étude de cas présuppose le principe ecclésiologique fondamental, selon lequel l’Église se réalise toujours dans un lieu et non pas dans l’abstrait13. Cette brève étude examinera donc la théologie des églises sœurs à la lumière de la théologie de l’Église locale dans la perspective de l’unité ecclésiale. Pour cela, nous évoquerons d’abord succinctement le sens de l’expression «églises sœurs». Cela nous incitera à revenir ensuite sur une redéfinition de l’Église locale ainsi que sur la question de la territorialité. Enfin, nous montrerons la signification du rapport entre Église locale et unité ecclésiale.

I. LE SENS DE L’EXPRESSION «ÉGLISES SŒURS» À quoi se réfère cette expression? Le cadre de cet exposé ne nous permet pas de retracer l’histoire de l’usage moderne et du sens de l’expression «églises sœurs» qui fait débat tant au sein de la théologie catholique que parmi les théologiens orthodoxes14. S’agit-il respectivement de l’Église catholique et de l’Église orthodoxe ou, par exemple, de l’Église de Rome et de l’Église de Constantinople? 12. Voir La Documentation catholique 97/2233 (2000) 823-825. 13. Voir sur ce principe: H. LEGRAND, La réalisation de l’Église en un lieu, dans Initiation à la pratique de la théologie. T. III: Dogmatique 2, Paris, Cerf, 1983, pp. 143-345. 14. Pour cela voir le livre de COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in CatholicOrthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 7).

80

A. MILTOS

Dans Le livre de la charité15, nous constatons que soit le signifié par «église sœur» n’est pas clair, soit on se réfère plutôt à l’Église locale de Rome ou de Constantinople. Certes, dans différents moments des échanges entre pape Paul VI et patriarche œcuménique Athénagoras, l’expression semble être explicitement appliquée dans leurs deux Églises respectives16. De même, dans la déclaration commune du pape Jean-Paul II et du patriarche Dimitrios (par laquelle ils ont annoncé le commencement du dialogue théologique bilatéral) le 30 novembre 1979, les Églises catholique et orthodoxe sont très clairement appelées «églises sœurs»17. C’est cet usage donc que retient le document de Balamand. Pour ceux qui soutiennent ce sens, «la théologie des églises sœurs» constitue un fruit de Vatican II et plus particulièrement du décret sur l’œcuménisme18. Toutefois, c’est également sur ce même texte conciliaire que s’appuie entre autres le document de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi en 200019, déjà mentionné, pour récuser cette application. Il est clair que le paragraphe 14 d’Unitatis redintegratio utilise l’expression pour les Églises particulières ou locales. Comme le montre bien le bref aperçu historique présenté par la Note de la Congrégation, il s’agit d’une expression classique et traditionnelle qui s’applique à une Église locale ou aux regroupements d’Églises, comme les patriarcats. L’usage moderne de cette expression pour l’Église catholique ou orthodoxe, fruit de leurs «retrouvailles» extraordinaires du XXe siècle, est, comme le constate aussi Cohen, «sans précédent dans l’antiquité ou le Moyen Âge»20. Ce n’est donc que plus récemment que des documents comme Balamand, avalisent la désignation retrouvée d’«églises sœurs» pour caractériser les relations entre l’Église catholique romaine et l’Église orthodoxe. L’enjeu ecclésiologique pour le dicastère romain est l’unicité de l’Église du Christ, qui est mise en péril dans le cas d’un tel emploi. Comme Ratzinger a essayé d’expliquer cet argument plus tard, «si nous

15. Il s’agit d’une publication qui présente des lettres, discours et différents échanges entre les papes et les patriarches œcuméniques de 1958 à 1978 et complète le Tomos Agapis, Vatican – Phanar (1958-1970), Roma – Istanbul, Impr. polyglotte vaticane, 1971. Voir Le livre de la charité (n. 7). 16. P. ex. voir à titre indicatif la déclaration commune de Paul VI et Athénagoras, Rome, 28 octobre 1967, Le livre de la charité (n. 7), p. 131. 17. Ibid., p. 213. 18. Voir p. ex. LEGRAND, La théologie des Églises sœurs (n. 9), pp. 462-464. 19. N. 6. 20. COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 7), p. 106 (notre traduction). Voir aussi des exemples de l’usage byzantin de la notion cités par STAVROU, Les «ambigua» du document de Balamand (n. 10), pp. 338340.

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA?

81

évoquions l’Église orthodoxe et l’Église catholique comme deux Églises sœurs, nous mettrions un pluriel au-dessus duquel n’apparaîtrait plus un singulier»21. J. Meyendorff, commentant le bref Anno ineunte de Paul VI remis en 1967 au patriarche Athénagoras (dans lequel le pape utilise l’expression), souligne que la notion d’églises sœurs est une idée classique de l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe. Il continue: «La base théologique de cette affirmation réside, d’après le texte, dans le mystère de la présence sacramentelle du Christ. Ce mystère ‘s’opère en chaque Église locale’, et, par conséquent, ‘la communion (entre nos Églises), bien qu’imparfaite, existe déjà’»22. La remarque de Meyendorff est la suivante: «Il y a donc ici les fondements d’une méthode œcuménique, basée sur la théologie de l’Église locale, qui fut de tout temps celle des Orthodoxes et qui, maintenant, semble être officiellement adoptée par Rome» 23. La notion d’églises sœurs nous renvoie fondamentalement à une théologie de l’Église locale. Tant son usage traditionnel que sa reprise œcuménique moderne dans le cadre d’une compréhension eucharistique de l’Église24 nous conduisent à l’Église locale (ou à un regroupement régional d’Églises). Il nous semble donc plus opportun de rester dans ce sens traditionnel afin d’approfondir l’expression en question et son rôle pour l’unité ecclésiale. 21. J. RATZINGER, Correspondance avec le métropolite Damaskinos, dans ID., Faire route avec Dieu, Paris, Parole et Silence, 2003, 221. Cet échange est très intéressant et mérite discussion. Le métropolite Damaskinos Papandreou de Suisse se montre favorable sur l’application de la notion contestée par Ratzinger, en recourant à l’idée d’une «ecclesia extra ecclesiam» (p. 213). C’est sur la base de cette idée, formulée par Damaskinos Papandreou et combinée avec les vues de G. Florovsky sur les limites de l’Église, que COHEN, The Concept of «Sister Churches» in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 7), essaye de fonder la pertinence de l’usage de la notion d’«églises sœurs» pour les Églises catholique et orthodoxe (voir pp. 277-284). Les arguments de Cohen méritent d’être discutés mais cela excède le cadre de notre propos. Bornons-nous à signaler que nous sommes très réticents sur la conclusion de cette étude qui semble être fondée plus sur le plan œcuménique que sur le plan proprement dogmatique (voir par exemple, «If there is any dogmatic content to the concept of sister churches, it is certainly to be found here: sister churches are those that realize they cannot know they have no need of one another», p. 280). L’auteur propose cette utilisation de la notion dans la perspective d’une future union de deux Églises et la reconnaissance a posteriori de leurs sacrements etc., mais il nous ne convainc pas, entre autres, comment cela évite le danger, souligné par Ratzinger, de mettre en question l’unicité de l’Église une. 22. J. MEYENDORFF, Églises-sœurs: Implications ecclésiologiques du «Tomos Agapis», dans Istina 20 (1975) 35-46, p. 42. Les citations internes sont du bref Anno ineunte: Le livre de la charité (n. 7), p. 121. 23. Ibid. 24. Voir aussi l’article d’E. LANNE, Églises-sœurs: Implications ecclésiologiques du Tomos Agapis, dans Istina 20 (1975) 47-73.

82

A. MILTOS

II. REDÉFINIR L’ÉGLISE LOCALE Au lieu de faire un discours théorique sur l’Église locale, regardons de près la réalité ou la situation ecclésiale («la praxis») à ce niveau local dans les différentes Églises aujourd’hui. D’après le document de Balamand, les Églises catholiques orientales ont bien le droit d’exister même si l’uniatisme comme méthode n’est plus acceptable (n. 12). Dès lors, les Églises de rite oriental (que le Code du droit canonique appelle sui juris) existent bien en parallèle avec l’Église latine, souvent dans le même lieu25. Dans l’Orthodoxie, on constate que les Églises autocéphales, appelées entre elles «églises sœurs», prétendent très souvent à une juridiction en dehors de leur territoire (dans la «diaspora»), ce qui a conduit à avoir plusieurs évêques orthodoxes dans la même ville ou le même pays en Europe occidental, aux États-Unis ou en Australie. Comment se manifeste alors l’unité de l’Église entière ou même son unicité? Les orthodoxes maintiennent au niveau mondial entre eux une unité assez lâche, basée sur l’identité de la foi et la communion eucharistique. Si l’unité de l’Église entière pour les orthodoxes reste donc un peu floue en pratique, dans le catholicisme cette unité universelle se réalise grâce au ministère de l’évêque de Rome. C’est exactement ce qui se manifeste aussi dans le cas des Églises orientales catholiques, ainsi que dans l’hypothèse de Bernard Sesboüé pour les autres groupes confessionnels, proposition que nous avons présentée au début de cet exposé. Il nous faut cependant nous interroger sur la légitimité ou la pertinence ecclésiologique d’un tel modèle d’union qui assure la réalisation de l’una Ecclesia seulement à l’échelle universelle et permet une pluralité d’Églises au niveau local. Cette réalité (qui existe tant chez les uns que chez les autres) avec une multiplicité d’Églises locales et une juxtaposition des juridictions parallèles dans le même endroit ne met-elle pas en péril (au même titre que l’usage de l’expression «églises sœurs» pour l’Église orthodoxe ou catholique dans leur ensemble) l’unicité de l’Église? Une réponse négative à cette question signifierait que l’unité et même l’unicité de l’Église ne se réalise qu’au niveau universel. Qu’est-ce que donc l’Église locale? Selon nous, une redéfinition de l’Église locale s’impose non seulement dans le cadre du dialogue œcuménique, mais d’abord à l’intérieur de chaque Église. Dans le langage catholique, il semble que l’expression «Église particulière» s’impose de plus en plus, laissant 25. P. ex., outre la situation complexe au Moyen Orient, il existe à Paris un évêque ukrainien et un évêque maronite.

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA?

83

inévitablement penser à un rapport de type d’«une partie au tout»26. Chez les orthodoxes, ce que représente le syntagme «Église locale» manque souvent de clarté: est-ce le diocèse ou est-ce le patriarcat ou une Église autocéphale, voire nationale? Dans le sillage du Concile Vatican II27 le sujet ecclésiologique de l’Église locale a connu un développement remarquable. Faut-il encore argumenter sur son importance? Il nous semble que oui. La théologie de l’Église locale (i.e. le diocèse) n’est pas seulement menacée par un paradigme universaliste, qui la considère comme une partie d’un tout, soit dans la version du centralisme romain soit dans celle d’un certain autocéphalisme orthodoxe28. Elle encourt aussi le risque de ne plus être locale, mais de devenir une Église particulière ou une circonscription ecclésiastique, définie par son caractère propre. C’est le critère de la territorialité ou localité qui est en jeu. Dans le contexte multiconfessionnel de nos sociétés et dans l’époque de la fin des territoires, des voix de théologiens de renom (comme B. Sesboüé) s’élèvent pour revendiquer l’organisation d’une Église selon d’autres critères (national, culturel, confessionnel, rituel ou linguistique) que celui du lieu. Selon nous, il est extrêmement urgent non seulement de préciser ce qu’on entend par Église locale, mais aussi d’approfondir le principe de territorialité par rapport à l’unité ecclésiale.

26. Cf. D. PAPANDREOU, Lettre au Cardinal Ratzinger, dans RATZINGER, Faire route avec Dieu (n. 21), 211: «Le terme d’‘Église particulière’ comme corrélatif de ‘Église locale’ peut par dessus le marché mener à une ecclésiologie structurée de manière universaliste qui comprend les Églises locales comme parties inférieurs de l’Una sancta». Pour les enjeux du débat voir G. ROUTHIER, Église locale ou Église particulière: querelle sémantique ou option théologique, dans Studia canonica 25 (1991) 277-344 et L. VILLEMIN, Le diocèse est-il une Église locale ou une Église particulière? Quel est l’enjeu de ce vocabulaire, dans H. LEGRAND – C. THEOBALD (éds), Le ministère des évêques au concile Vatican II et depuis: hommage à Mgr Guy Herbulot, Paris, Cerf, 2001, 75-86. 27. Selon Lumen gentium, n. 23 c’est dans les Églises particulières et à partir de celles-ci que se réalise l’Église catholique une et unique. Pour K. Rahner ce que Vatican II a apporté de plus neuf est l’idée de l’Église locale comme la réalisation de l’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique. Voir K. RAHNER, Das neue Bild der Kirche, dans ID., Schriften zur Theologie 8, Zürich, Benziger, 1967, 329-354, pp. 333s. E. Lanne parle, au même sujet, d’une «révolution copernicienne». Voir E. LANNE, L’Église locale et l’Église universelle, actualité et porté du thème, dans Irénikon 43 (1970) 481-511, p. 490. Voir surtout sur la question le volume classique de J.-M. TILLARD, L’Église locale, ecclésiologie de communion et catholicité (Cogitatio Fidei, 191), Paris, Cerf, 1995. 28. Voir A. MILTOS, Collégialité et synodalité: vers une compréhension commune entre catholiques et orthodoxes (Unam Sanctam, nouvelle série), Paris, Cerf, 2019, chapitre 8.

84

A. MILTOS

III. PRINCIPE DE TERRITORIALITÉ ET UNITÉ ECCLÉSIALE Ce principe, si fermement demandé par les canons des conciles œcuméniques et anciens29 dont le 8e de Nicée I (un évêque par cité), signifie que dans un lieu ou territoire ne peut exister qu’une seule Église, à savoir une seule organisation ecclésiale, dont l’unité se manifeste par sa hiérarchie30. Peut-on abandonner ce principe, suite aux évolutions du deuxième millénaire? S’agit-il simplement d’un principe du passé qui est de facto dépassé de nos jours ou préserve-t-il une valeur ecclésiologique toujours valable? Il importe de rappeler que le principe de la territorialité est lié à l’axiome (exprimé, en général, par l’ecclésiologique patristique et la tradition canonique) de l’identification entre évêque et Église locale. L’existence d’un second évêque dans une même ville signifie automatiquement l’existence d’une autre Église, c’est-à-dire un schisme. Pour quelle raison, se demande le père Alexander Schmemann? Mais précisément parce que l’unicité de l’Église en chaque lieu donné est la première réalisation concrète de l’unité dont nous avons vu qu’elle constituait l’essence même de l’Église et de sa vie, unité de ceux qui ont été restaurés dans la nouvelle vie en Christ et qui ont «un Seigneur, une foi, un baptême» (Ep. IV, 5). C’est pourquoi il ne saurait y avoir aucun autre principe d’organisation de l’Église sinon le principe local ou territorial, parce que l’adoption de tout autre principe signifierait le remplacement de l’unité surnaturelle et fondée sur la grâce en Christ par quelque critère naturel: national, racial ou idéologique. Aux divisions naturelles de ce monde l’Église oppose l’unité surnaturelle en Dieu, qu’elle incarne par son organisation31.

Nous apercevons ici la signification de la territorialité pour l’unité ecclésiale. L’Église, en tant que communauté eucharistique, ne peut pas se réaliser dans un cadre abstrait mais toujours dans un lieu donné. Selon 29. Cf. les canons 12 de Chalcédoine, 39 de Quinisexte, 57 de Carthage. 30. Cf. G. PAPATHOMAS, Au temps de la post-ecclésialité: la naissance de la modernité post-ecclésiologique: de l’Église une aux nombreuses Églises, de la dispersion de l’Église à l’anéantissement du Corps du Christ, dans Kanon 19 (2006) 3-21; le même article: Istina 51 (2006) 64-84, p. 68: «L’expérience ecclésiologique du premier millénaire était que, dans un lieu donné, l’unique critère canonique permettant la fondation et l’existence d’une Église ‘locale’ ou ‘établie localement’ était la territorialité exclusive et la monojuridiction ecclésiologique». L’expression «établie localement» se réfère aux Églises régionales. Notons que la notion de juridiction est toujours liée à une espace territoriale. Cf. aussi V. PHIDAS, Le primat papal et la pentarchie patriarcale dans la tradition orthodoxe, dans W. KASPER (éd.), Il ministero petrino, cattolici et ortodossi in dialogo, Roma, Città Nuova, 2004, 73-89, p. 88: «Les critères canoniques de territorialité des juridictions ecclésiales et de conciliarité dans le fonctionnement du corps ecclésial sont depuis toujours des principes fondamentaux de la tradition patristique concernant l’Église locale». 31. A. SCHMEMANN, Église et organisation ecclésiale, dans Le Messager orthodoxe 146 (2008) 39-69, p. 46 (publié en russe d’abord en 1949 dans Messager ecclésiastique).

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA?

85

L. Villemin, «Dire donc que l’Église de Dieu se réalise en un lieu ne signifie pas qu’elle trouve son principe constitutif dans la géographie. C’est dire que le territoire semble être un principe d’organisation permettant au principe socioculturel de contribuer à l’ecclésialité sans s’y opposer»32. Faute d’autre principe, le lieu demeure le seul critère théologiquement adéquat pour l’organisation ecclésiale et pour préserver sa catholicité. Comme le remarque H. Legrand, «la territorialité est à la fois signe et garantie de catholicité»33, car, comme il le souligne ailleurs, «Seul le principe territorial élimine dès l’abord tout exclusivisme»34. «L’espace est en effet la catégorie la plus inclusive de nos vies quotidiennes» ajouterait G. Papathomas35. Toutefois, il existe aujourd’hui la tendance à minimiser la portée de ce principe à la fois ecclésiologique et canonique, afin de légitimer les Églises sui juris et de protéger les minorités rituelles et culturelles. Cette tendance cherche à résoudre le vrai problème de l’existence de plusieurs évêques et églises/communautés dans un même lieu, en tenant compte non seulement des principes anciens, mais aussi de la praxis d’aujourd’hui, c’est-à-dire la reconnaissance par Rome des Églises orientales catholiques comme sui juris. Ainsi, on pourrait proposer36 une certaine dissociation entre l’épiscopè et le mono-épiscopat (tout en affirmant l’unicité de l’Église locale). Selon nous, cette tendance est extrêmement dangereuse, car c’est la catholicité de l’Église qui est en jeu. Il ne faut pas résoudre le problème en légitimant cette dérive ecclésiologique. Cette situation pourrait être résolue par exemple au niveau des paroisses, solution qui permettrait de garder l’unicité de l’épiscopat, sans céder à l’admission d’une ecclésiologie ritualiste, nationaliste ou confessionnaliste.

IV. CONCLUSION Dans le cadre restreint alloué à cette contribution, nous avons essayé de poser plutôt que d’examiner au fond la question suivante: comment imaginons-nous, catholiques et orthodoxes, la réalité de l’Église locale 32. VILLEMIN, Le diocèse est-il une Église locale ou une Église particulière? (n. 26), p. 82. 33. LEGRAND, La réalisation de l’Église en un lieu (n. 13), p. 174. Pour une analyse de l’importance du lien Église-lieu voir surtout pp. 156-180. On pourrait également citer nombreux textes de plusieurs théologiens sur ce point: J. Zizioulas, E. Lanne, J.-M. Tillard et al. 34. H. LEGRAND, Inverser Babel, mission de l’Église, dans Spiritus 11 (1970) 323-346, p. 337. 35. PAPATHOMAS, Au temps de la post-ecclésialité (n. 30), p. 76. 36. À la suite de l’article de H. LEGRAND, Un seul évêque par ville, dans Irénikon 77 (2004) 5-43 (qui pose plutôt le problème et son enjeu).

86

A. MILTOS

d’après la théologie des églises sœurs soulignée par le document de Balamand? Comment, finalement, imaginons-nous l’union ou le rétablissement de la pleine communion entre nos Églises dans le niveau de la réalisation fondamentale de l’Église, à savoir le niveau local? Nous comprenons que la question qui se trouve derrière est celle du rapport entre l’un et le multiple, à savoir l’Église entière et les Églises locales. Nous sommes tous d’accord que la première n’est pas la somme des dernières37. Pour une ecclésiologie eucharistique, l’Église locale est l’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique, sans être évidemment toute l’Église. S’il existe donc une mystérieuse identification entre les Églises locales et l’Église entière (appelée si souvent d’une manière problématique «Église universelle»38), la question qui se pose est la suivante: pourquoi deux «Églises universelles» ne peuvent pas être sœurs, une fois que leurs Églises locales respectives le sont? Pour éclairer cette question, il convient de considérer deux éléments, l’un théologique (ou méthodologique), l’autre pratique. D’abord, le problème qui nous occupe est né avec les divisions des chrétiens, survenus au cours du deuxième millénaire, et avec un certain confessionnalisme. Ainsi, pour la théologie patristique, la pluralité ne pouvait être qu’entre Églises locales. Mais le problème n’est pas historique mais systématique. La présente situation œcuménique avec la pluralité des Églises confessionnelles, nous conduit à confondre le plan universel avec le plan local. Néanmoins, d’un point de vue méthodologique ou de la théologie systématique, il nous semble qu’on ne peut pas alterner sans conditions l’ecclésiologie eucharistique et l’ecclésiologie universaliste, ni même provisoirement. C’est exactement le problème qui surgit avec l’application de la théologie d’«églises sœurs» aux Églises confessionnelles. Ainsi, dans l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe, la notion d’Églises sœurs ne s’avèret-elle pleinement pertinente que dans le contexte d’Églises locales partageant la communion eucharistique. Parler, comme le fait Balamand, d’Église sœur de l’Église catholique pour l’Église orthodoxe considérée comme un tout rassemblant les Églises orthodoxes répandues dans le monde est très problématique à cet égard: on mêle une approche propre à une ecclésiologie universaliste à une notion liée à l’ecclésiologie eucharistique39.

Ensuite, il nous semble que si nous nous contentons à une théologie des «églises sœurs», nous risquons d’oublier le but de l’Una Ecclesia. Nous devons finalement choisir entre rester des «églises sœurs» qui se 37. Voir A. MILTOS, Les Églises locales et l’Église universelle: une relecture orthodoxe du débat Ratzinger-Kasper, dans Istina 58 (2013) 23-39. 38. Ibid., pp. 36-37. 39. STAVROU, Les «ambigua» du document de Balamand (n. 10), p. 336.

ÉGLISES SŒURS OU UNA ECCLESIA?

87

côtoient au niveau local, à l’instar du modèle d’une unité conçue comme diversité réconciliée et existant uniquement au niveau universel, ou chercher à former une seule Église, l’Una sancta, qui se réalise à tous les niveaux. Si nous restons enfermés dans la logique de la simple reconnaissance de nos Églises romaine-catholique et orthodoxe comme des églises sœurs, nous risquons de vider l’Église locale de son contenu ecclésiologique et de perdre l’espoir de former une seule Église40. Dans le cadre de l’Église une, nous serons évidemment des églises sœurs mais en tant que Églises locales. Nous croyons dès lors que la théologie des «églises sœurs» dans son sens moderne confessionnel, à savoir appliquée à nos Églises respectives dans leur ensemble, ne nous aide pas à former l’Una sancta, mais au contraire elle prolonge le problème du séparatisme, qui se manifeste comme nationalisme dans l’Église orthodoxe ou comme confessionnalisme dans le protestantisme et le mouvement œcuménique ou même comme uniatisme ou ritualisme dans le rapport entre l’Église catholique romaine et les Églises catholiques orientales. Accepter une pluralité ecclésiale au niveau local n’est pas possible d’un point de vue orthodoxe, non pas parce que le localisme est l’obsession des orthodoxes, mais parce qu’on ne peut pas séparer le local de l’universel. Avoir plusieurs Églises locales signifierait immédiatement avoir plusieurs Églises. Il nous semble donc que le dialogue bilatéral avant de creuser d’autres divergences ecclésiologiques, doit préciser une compréhension commune de l’Église locale et du modèle de l’unité auquel nous aspirons. Volos Academy for Theological Studies P.O.Box 1308 GR-38001 Volos Greece [email protected]

Amphilochios MILTOS

40. Voir les remarques de J. ZIZIOULAS, The Local Church in a Perspective of Communion, dans ID., Being as Communion, London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985, 247-260.

PART II

THE RECEPTION OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES BRIDGE OR BARRIER FOR FULL ECCLESIAL COMMUNION BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS1 There are undeniable differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches regarding the understanding of the role or place of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Orthodox-Catholic relations. With some exceptions, almost all Orthodox treat the Eastern Catholic Churches with rejection, suspicion, and an overall strong polemical spirit2, as it is the case, for example, with the Orthodox Church in Greece, which will be the main (but not the exclusive) focus of this essay. But from the Catholic side too, there are voices which seriously consider and try to take in account the

1. I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Grosshans, Director of the Institute for Ecumenical Theology and Dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Münster University, Germany, for the generous grant and the hospitality offered to me at the Institute and its library, thanks to which I was able to finalize the present paper. Sincere thanks are also due to Prof. Dr. Clemens Leonhard, Dean of the Faculty of Catholic Theology, Münster University, Mr. Lars Grimm, Librarian of the same Faculty, Prof. Dr. Assaad Elias Kattan, Chair of Orthodox Theology at Münster University, and Andrej Lyundup, PhD candidate in the same university, for special access to the library material. I would like also to extend warm thanks to Dr. Viorel Coman, Post-Doctoral Researcher at KU Leuven, and to my colleagues Dr. Nikolaos Asproulis, Deputy Director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, Valila Giannoutaki and Philoktimon StamopoulosSamaras, staff of the Volos Academy, for their precious help during the preparation of the present essay. 2. See for example, G.D. METALLINOS, Unia: The Face and the Disguise, Melissochori, Greek Orthodox Books Publications, 2015; Greek orig. Athens, 1992); T. ZISSIS, Unia: He katadikē kai hē athōōsē, sto Freising kai sto Balamand [Unia: Its Condemnation and Acquittal, in Freising and Balamand], Thessaloniki, Bryennios, 2002; Abbot G. KAPSANIS (Grigoriou Holy Monastery, Mount Athos), Unia: Hē methodos tou papokentrikou oikoumenismou [Unia: The Method of Papocentric Ecumenism], in Parakatathiki 60 (May-June 2008) 3-10; A. PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (Istoria, keimena, problēmata) [Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics (History, Texts, Problems)], Thessaloniki – Athens, Kyriakidis, 1996, pp. 20, 146. For a more sympathetic Orthodox approach to the Eastern Catholics, see Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop (later Archbishop) VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997) 221-243. Throughout this chapter, I have retained the term “Uniate” (as a referent to the Eastern Catholic Churches) as it appears in the original sources.

92

P. KALAITZIDIS

Orthodox concerns3, or oppose the idea of the Eastern Catholic Churches serving as a bridge between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church4. Looking again at the Orthodox side, in 1990, Metropolitan Bartholomew of Chalcedon (now Ecumenical Patriarch) clearly stated that “For the Orthodox, Catholic communities of the Eastern rite are not ‘bridges’, as some Catholic senior officials claimed several times, but merely elements of division”5. Also, the late Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I stated: If Rome does not control the situation [in Ukraine], Orthodoxy’s theological dialogue with her and relations in general will be negatively influenced; this is something we do not want, because we know with how much effort and prayer these relations between the two churches have developed during these three decades, becoming more positive and fruitful6.

Bishop (now Metropolitan) Hilarion Alfeyev did not hesitate to declare that the Orthodox see Eastern Catholics “as a contradiction to their [Orthodox] interpretation of ecclesiology and as a betrayal of Orthodoxy”7. Therefore, it is not by chance that most of the ecumenically oriented pan-Orthodox conferences of the twentieth century condemned uniatism, and with it, Eastern Catholicism. The Orthodox, with very rare exceptions, do not accept the reality of the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches nor recognize their ecclesiological status and have always claimed that the only ecclesiologically acceptable solution is the abolishment of uniatism and the incorporation of the Eastern Catholic faithful either into the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Generally speaking, in the traditionally Orthodox countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Greece, the Orthodox are more hostile towards the Eastern Catholics than in the Middle East. In other continents, 3. R.G. ROBERSON, Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Post-Communist Europe: Ghosts from the Past and Challenges for the Future, in Centro Pro Unione Semi-Annual Bulletin 43 (Spring 1993) 17-31, p. 20: “the Orthodox have always viewed the formation of Byzantine Catholic Churches as a sign of the hostile intentions of the Catholic Church towards them. They saw it as an attempt to weaken them by fomenting divisions within their communities, and as an implicit denial of their ecclesial status by the Catholic Church”. 4. E. LANNE, Églises unies ou Églises sœurs: un choix inéluctable, in Irénikon 48 (1975) 322-342, p. 339. English translation, United Churches or Sister Churches: A Choice to be Faced, in One in Christ 12 (1976) 106-123, p. 121: “I do not believe that the united Churches as such could be bridge-Churches; they are more of a barrier between East and West”. 5. See Episkepsis 444 (1 September 1990) 8. 6. As reported in Irénikon 63 (1990) 402. 7. Service orthodoxe de presse 327 (avril 2008) 7-9, p. 8.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

93

especially in the USA and Canada, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic faithful are ecclesial minorities in a secularized society; live side by side and practice mixed marriages; and, are largely untouched by the tensions that complicate relations in Europe8. The negative feelings in Central and Eastern Europe, where there is a sizable presence of Eastern Catholics, could be easily explained by historical union councils and the dispute and rivalry among the churches. However, the case of Greece has some significant differences. In Greece, uniatism was not successful and no formal union councils of any kind took place. Out of approximately 11,000,000 inhabitants, Catholics constitute around 250,000 faithful and Eastern Catholics (the so-called “Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate”) only 6,0009. According to John H. Erickson, the radical rejection of uniatism in Greece should be sought in the activity of the Exarchate which represents “some of the worst aspects of uniatism. It was created by proselytization precisely as a token of Rome’s opposition to the ecclesial claims of the established Orthodox Church, without even pretending to be a real union of churches. Its continued maintenance by Rome today is understandably taken as a deliberate affront by the Orthodox of Greece”10. In my opinion, things are more complex since the Greek antipathy to uniatism is coupled with anti-Western feelings and has more profound historical roots not limited to Rome’s proselytist activity of the so-called “Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate”. Historically, these roots go back to the Fourth Crusade (1204) and the West’s sack of Constantinople and the consequent shrinkage and marginalization of Hellenism11. Later, this was continued in the unfortunate Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) up to Catholic proselytizing aggression against Greek Orthodoxy in the eighteenth century. The Greek Churches also recall the Greek national Revolution of 1821 against the Ottoman Empire to which Vatican diplomacy was firmly opposed; the defeat of Greece in the war of Anatolia; and, the forced exodus of 8. Cf. R.G. ROBERSON, The Dialogues of the Catholic Church with the Separated Eastern Churches, in U.S. Catholic Historian 28 (2010) 135-152, p. 150; ID., Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Post-Communist Europe (n. 3), p. 26; VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand (n. 2), pp. 229-230. 9. For data information see: https://www.cathecclesia.gr/hellas/ and https://www. catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dgrby.html/. 10. J.H. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997) 25-43, p. 35. Cf. S. VARNALIDIS, L’ecclésiologie de l’uniatisme dans la création des Exarchats de Constantinople et d’Athènes, in Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, 157-171, esp. pp. 168-171. Cf. infra, section IV. 11. Cf. P. KALAITZIDIS, Orthodoxy and Hellenism in Contemporary Greece, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 54 (2010) 365-420, especially pp. 368ff.

94

P. KALAITZIDIS

1,500,000 Greek Orthodox with the consequent eradication of all the historic Christian Churches from Asia Minor, 1919-1923 (an event for which the Vatican sent congratulations to the Turkish government). Similarly, the Vatican’s strict neutrality meant there was also a lack of solidarity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox community in the face of the pogrom in Istanbul in 195512. For all these tragic developments, rightly or wrongly, the Greek Orthodox take Westerners as a whole (Eastern Catholics included) as responsible for cultivating animosities. On the Roman Catholic side, the focus is less on the difficult and painful past and more on the present and the future of Catholic-Orthodox relations. Here, a spirit of rapprochement seems to prevail along with a clear tendency to underplay the burdens of history and wounded memories, as well as the problems posed by uniatism. Especially after the shift from uniatism to ecumenism as a method of rapprochement between the two ecclesial traditions, Eastern Catholic Churches are still viewed by some as a bridge between Orthodox and Catholics13. This view is shared by both traditional Catholics attached to the vision of uniatism and by Catholic theologians influenced by Vatican II who are critical of the ecclesiology of uniatism and its effects14.

12. Cf. I.Th. KOLITSARAS, Hoi Ounitai [The Uniates], Athens, Athēnai adelthotes theologōn ē zōe, 1959, pp. 92-93. Cf. also Ekklēsia 32/17-18 (20 October 1955) 214, and the Editorial of Irénikon 28 (1955) 361-362. R.F. TAFT, Perceptions and Realities in OrthodoxCatholic Relations Today: Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future, in G.E. DEMACOPOULOS – A. PAPANIKOLAOU (eds.), Orthodox Constructions of the West, New York, Fordham University Press, 2013, 23-44, p. 29, and p. 264, n. 18, reports also such openly hostile actions of Vatican authorities against the Greek Orthodox sensitivities regarding the great church of Hagia Sophia in 1919 Constantinople and in the post-WWI context. Cf. Ekklēsia 3/17 (25 April 1925) 130; and 3/20 (16 May 1925) 124. 13. See for example, the expression “bridge to unity” by Pope John Paul II and in the press release of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic hierarchy (26 June 1990) in Irénikon 63 (1990) 247 and 251. Cf. Voix de l’Église en Orient, Voix de l’Église Melkite: Choix de textes du Patriarche Maximos IV et de l’épiscopat grec-melkite-catholique, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1962, pp. 20-32; H. LEGRAND, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe: Quelques enjeux ecclésiologiques de la crise actuelle autour des Églises unies, in Centro Pro Unione Semi-Annual Bulletin 43 (Spring 1993) 3-16, p. 14. Cf. also the constructive remarks of Antiochean Orthodox T. MITRI, L’uniatisme et le patriarcat d’Antioche: Notes sur l’histoire et la situation actuelle, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 10), 135-146, pp. 142-144. The primates of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church have often described the mission of their church to be a “mediator” between East and West, as in L. HUSAR, The Ecumenical Mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Vision of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, in A. ARJAKOVSKY, Conversations with Lubomyr Cardinal Husar: Towards a Post-Confessional Christianity, L’viv, Ukrainian Catholic University Press, 2007, 93-126, p. 96. 14. See for example, LEGRAND, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe (n. 13), p. 14.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

95

II. MODERN ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC DIALOGUE Since the second half of the twentieth century, Orthodox-Catholic relations have experienced significant progress toward the re-establishment of full eucharistic communion, as well as moments of discontinuity and deception reminiscent of the painful situation of past centuries. Following their historic meeting in Jerusalem in 1964, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI jointly agreed in December 1965, with their common lifting of anathemas, to “remove from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication” of 1054 which had divided the two churches for centuries. Along with many other highly symbolic events, the two church leaders sought to overcome the hostility and the isolation between the Eastern and the Western Churches15 by inaugurating an ecumenical “dialogue of charity”16. Following the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, all Eastern Orthodox Churches entered into a “dialogue of truth” with the Roman Catholic Church whose goal was the re-establishment of full eucharistic and ecclesial communion17. The official announcement of the beginning of the theological dialogue was jointly made by John Paul II and Dimitrios I in Istanbul on the occasion of the official papal visit to the Church of Constantinople on the thronic feast of St. Andrew (30 November 1979)18. The official Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was to include bishops and theologians in equal numbers from both churches19. The novelty of this dialogue and its difference from previous Eastern and Western dialogues in the pre-modern era lies in the fact that there were no external political or economic pressures20. It was to be a dialogue among equals. 15. Cf. J. CHRYSSAVGIS (ed.), Dialogue of Love: Breaking the Silence of Centuries, New York, Fordham University Press, 2014. 16. For excellent documentation on Catholic-Orthodox relations see Tomos Agapis, Vatican – Phanar (1958-1970), Roma – Istanbul, Impr. polyglotte vaticane, 1971. 17. PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 2), pp. 40-41. 18. See, e.g., Archbishop STYLIANOS OF AUSTRALIA, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 [Memories from the Dialogue, 1980-1990], Athens, Ekdoseis Domos, 1991, p. 24. 19. For more details on the dialogue, see J. BORELLI – J.H. ERICKSON (eds.), The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue. Documents of the Joint International Commission and Official Dialogues in the United States, 1965-1995, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996, pp. 47-52. 20. STYLIANOS, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 (n. 18), pp. 52, 34-37; A. DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion – Le texte catholique-orthodoxe de Freising, in Revue

96

P. KALAITZIDIS

During the first decade of its existence the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue reached fundamental theological agreements on trinitarian, christological, ecclesiological and sacramental issues in three common documents of excellent quality21. The texts adopted were: “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity” (Munich, Germany, 1982)22; “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church” (Bari, Italy, 1987)23; and, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God” (New Valamo, Finland, 1988)24. At New Valamo it was agreed that the topic for the next plenary meeting in 1990 would be “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Structure of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church”. As it is admittedly recognized, the level of trust, confidence and cooperation among the members of the Joint International Commission was excellent, in an atmosphere of charity and mutual understanding25. There was pervasive optimism that the two churches had left behind the burdens of history and realized their deepest agreement on fundamental theological and ecclesiological issues.

Théologique de Louvain 22 (1991) 3-29, p. 27; P. KALAITZIDIS, Theological, Historical, and Cultural Reasons for Anti-Ecumenical Movements in Eastern Orthodoxy, in ID. et al. (eds.), Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism: Resources for Theological Education. “That They All May Be One” (John 17:21), Volos – Geneva – Oxford, World Council of Churches, 2014, 134-152, p. 145. 21. For a Greek Orthodox evaluation of the dialogue see Metropolitan CHRYSOSTOMOS (GEORGIOS) SAVVATOS, Orthodox Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, in KALAITZIDIS et al. (eds.), Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism (n. 20), 487-489. Cf. from the Catholic side, see W. HRYNIEWICZ, Labour and Hope: Fifteen Years of Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue, in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995) 339-360. 22. English trans. in The Quest for Unity (n. 19), pp. 53-64. 23. English trans., ibid., pp. 93-104. 24. Ibid., pp. 131-142. 25. Cf. P. MCPARTLAN, Towards Catholic-Orthodox Unity, in Communio 19 (1992) 305-320; G.D. MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou tēs Orthodoxou me tē Rōmaiokatholikē Ekklēsia [Evaluation and Perspectives of the Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church], in ID., Orthodoxia kai sygchronoi dialogoi [Orthodoxy and Contemporary Dialogues], Thessaloniki, Purnaras, 2008, 191-236, esp. pp. 191-218. Cf. also PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos Dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 2), p. 137. See also P. DE MEY, An Investigation of the Willingness to Develop a Eucharistic Ecclesiology in Roman Catholic Magisterial Teaching on the Church and in the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue, in ET Bulletin 19 (2008) 78-99, esp. pp. 93-98.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

97

III. THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE CONFLICT OVER UNIATISM AND THE FREISING DOCUMENT Everything seemed to change following the radical political upheavals in Eastern Europe from 1989-90, which seriously affected the relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches26. The collapse of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe raised new challenges in the political, economic, cultural and religious domains. Christian churches and communities regained their freedom and with it, unfortunately, the old demons of religious rivalry and hostilities re-emerged, thus creating a major crisis in Catholic-Orthodox relations. The tensions were generated mainly by the re-emergence of Eastern Catholic Churches that had been suppressed and forcefully integrated by the Orthodox Church under the former communist regimes in places like Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine (being then part of the Soviet Union). The fall of communist regimes not only allowed for religious freedom, but also led to claims for the return of those Eastern Catholic church buildings that had been turned over to the Orthodox in the 1940s. This clash reached its climax when the International Commission for Theological Dialogue was gathered in plenary session in June 1990, at Freising, in which six Orthodox Churches were absent (Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Lands and Slovakia)27. 26. Cf. the position statement of Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, see Proche-Orient Chrétien 40 (1990) 284; cf. also the interview (June 30, 1990) of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Peristerion (Representative of the Orthodox Church of Greece in the Joint International Committee) as reported ibid., 289-290. For the immediate context of Balamand in Eastern Europe, see ROBERSON, Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Post-Communist Europe (n. 3); LEGRAND, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe (n. 13), pp. 3-16; DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion (n. 20), pp. 3-10. 27. Reports on the Freising plenary can be found in Proche-Orient Chrétien 40 (1990) 278-285, 287-291; Irénikon 63 (1990) 215-218, 221. For a commentary see G.M. LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou kai tēs Ekklēsias tēs Ellados kai hē sumbolē tōn duo Ekklēsiōn stous dimereis theologikous dialogous me tē Rōmaiokatholikē Ekklēsia kai tēn Ekklēsia tōn Palaiokatholikōn [The Inter-Orthodox Diakonia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Church of Greece, and the Contribution of the Two Churches to the Bilateral Theological Dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the Old Catholics] (PhD Thesis, Thessaloniki, 22009), pp. 201-207. Cf. also PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 2), pp. 149-157. For the Freising Document see Greek Orthodox Theological Review 35 (1990) 155-158 (all references to the Freising Document hereafter are from here). The publication of the Freising Document in Phronema 5 (1990) 48-49 was preceded by a Prefatory Note by Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos, which stated: “For all the above reasons the agreed Joint Statement on uniatism, and the related problem of proselytism, must be particularly welcomed by the Orthodox Churches, as expressing the sincere intention of the Roman Catholic Church not to repeat methods and tactics similar to those of the ‘Unia’, which are entirely

98

P. KALAITZIDIS

Given these new developments, the Orthodox delegation insisted that the draft document on conciliarity and authority be put aside, while the question of the origin and present status of the Eastern Catholic Churches be the only topic of discussion. Before the Freising meeting, in January 1990 in Vienna, a mixed sub-commission prepared a draft text on uniatism which served as the basis of the Freising Statement28. The intensely charged atmosphere was described by André de Halleux as follows: Freising’s early days were spent in listening to the complaints of the Orthodox, expressed sometimes with vividness and passion, but always in a spirit of fraternity, animated by a deep desire to reconciliation. Given the emotional load of resentments that history has imprinted in the collective memory of Orthodoxy, this free “release” was essential. … But the Orthodox participants believed that only a clear-cut position of principle would be likely to preserve the dialogue from the wreck that threatened it. … In view of the forced haste which preceded its elaboration and discussion, [the Freising] text, of a high quality, is remarkable … [and] it is of considerable importance, not only because of the psychological impact it should have on public Orthodox opinion, but especially because of the ecclesiology that underlies it29.

This description is partly confirmed by the Greek Orthodox theologian Fr. Theodoros Zissis, who is known for his anti-ecumenism. He unilaterally presented Freising as a triumph for Orthodoxy since it was a clear denunciation of uniatism as “an unacceptable method and invention of the Jesuits” based on the erroneous soteriological exclusivism of Rome30. The Freising statement acknowledged that uniatism had become “an urgent problem to be treated with priority over all other subjects to be discussed in the dialogue” (n. 6a). It defined uniatism as “the effort which aims to bring about the unity of the Church by separating from the Orthodox Church communities of Orthodox faithful without taking into account that, according to ecclesiology, the Orthodox Church is a sister church which itself offers the means of grace and salvation” (n. 6b). The Commission’s uses of the word uniatism refers not to the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches, but rather to a method of achieving unity. In this way, it rejected “uniatism” as “a method of unity opposed to the common Tradition of our churches”. Uniatism failed to achieve its goal of unity incompatible with the ecclesiology of communion to which both parties in the Dialogue have officially declared their allegiance”. 28. On the Vienna meeting see Service orthodoxe de presse 146 (March 1990) 9-10 or Episkepsis 433 (15 February 1990) 5-6; and LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 197-201. 29. DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion (n. 20), pp. 8-10. 30. ZISSIS, Unia: He katadikē kai hē athōōsē (n. 2), p. 23.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

99

and provoked new divisions, that have “deeply marked the memory and the collective consciousness of the two churches” (n. 6c). The Commission further stated that at a time when Catholic-Orthodox relations are developing on the basis of a communion ecclesiology between sister churches, “it would be regrettable … by going back to the method of ‘uniatism’” (n. 6d). For many Orthodox, this is exactly how things have developed since the beginning of the 1990s and the re-emergence of the Eastern Catholics in Eastern Europe. Freising held that religious liberty is a “right which must be totally respected” (n. 7a), which meant that beyond the rejection of uniatism, the Eastern Catholic Churches would continue to exist. Nevertheless, growing among the Orthodox was an unrealistic expectation of a definitive and radical solution of the problem of uniatism, whereby Eastern Catholics would be integrated into the Orthodox Church or the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. A characteristic example of this in Orthodoxy is, again, Fr. Zissis31, who propagated the idea that Freising was a triumph for the Orthodox which should lead to the dissolution of the Eastern Catholic Churches. This misleading depiction of the developments led him to the radical rejection of the later Balamand Document (cf. infra, section IV) which he considered a betrayal of Orthodoxy, a recognition and justification of uniatism and, at the same time, a nullification of the achievements of Freising. Regarding previous Orthodox reactions to the problem of uniatism in the framework of the official theological dialogue, it is worth noting that the Orthodox representatives of the Joint International Commission objected to the participation of Eastern Catholics (8 out of 28) as members of the official Catholic delegation at the onset of the dialogue in 1980. A common statement of the Orthodox Committee was submitted to the plenary in which it was highlighted that: a) “the presence of ‘brothers of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ in the Roman Catholic Committee does not imply the recognition of uniatism by the Orthodox Church”; and b) “the issue of uniatism remains open as one of the issues to be discussed during the dialogue”32. Prior to this, Orthodox theologians, mainly from the Orthodox Church of Greece, appealed for the abolishment of uniatism 31. For his presentation to the joint sub-commission (Vienna, 26-31 January 1990), see T. ZISSIS, Uniatism: A Problem in the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 35 (1990) 21-31. 32. STYLIANOS, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 (n. 18), p. 46; ZISSIS, Uniatism: A Problem in the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (n. 31), p. 22; MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), pp. 198-199. Cf. A. DE HALLEUX, Inauguration du dialogue théologique entre les Églises catholique et orthodoxe (Patmos-Rhodes, 29 mai – 4 juin 1980), in Revue Théologique de Louvain 11 (1980) 394-398, p. 396.

100

P. KALAITZIDIS

and Eastern Catholic Churches as a condition for theological dialogue, typically referring to the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference of Rhodes (1964) to support their position33. Returning to Freising, the statement includes a series of practical and pastoral recommendations (nn. 7ff.) condemning all types of violence but encouraging fraternal collaboration among pastors with a view to lasting reconciliation (n. 7). It further went on to condemn proselytism between Catholics and Orthodox as a “wrong orientation of pastoral energy” (n. 7b). Dialogue is the most suitable way of overcoming current problems, particularly that of uniatism (n. 8). The Freising Document was subsequently sent for further consideration to three sub-commissions and, eventually, to the Ariccia meeting (June 1991)34. The next Ariccia draft was seen by the Orthodox as highly favourable to their position, while Eastern Catholics felt it was a betrayal. Nevertheless, the Ariccia draft became the basis of the dialogue at Balamand in 1993, eventually being adopted with minor changes. IV. THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT Meantime, in addition to conflicts of the ownership of ecclesiastical property in post-communist Europe, on the Orthodox side the lack of trust in the Vatican considerably increased35. In this complex context, the 33. C.-G. ZAPHIRIS, A Problem and an Appeal: A Necessary Presupposition for the Beginning and the Success of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, in Theologia 50 (1979) 856-868; cf. ID., Le dialogue théologique des Églises orthodoxe et catholique-romaine: Relations des Églises orthodoxes avec le reste du monde chrétien, in Theologia 57 (1986) 329-342, pp. 339-340. However, there is some confusion regarding the purported decision of the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference which supported the incorporation of the Eastern Catholic Churches either into the Roman Catholic Church or into the Orthodox Church as a precondition for the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church. See more in ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), p. 28. Cf. F. BOUWEN, Freising 1990: VIe session de la Commission internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Église catholique et l’Église orthodoxe, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 40 (1990) 272-298, p. 276, n. 5; Irénikon 63 (1990) 65; DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion (n. 20), p. 29, n. 114. 34. On Ariccia see Istina 37 (1992) 415-421; Episkepsis 464 (1 July 1991) 6-12. Cf. PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 2), pp. 178-191; LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 207-208. 35. See H. LEGRAND, La théologie des Églises sœurs: réflexions ecclésiologiques autour de la Déclaration de Balamand, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 88 (2004) 461-496, p. 464. STYLIANOS, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 (n. 18), p. 48, along with his praise for Pope John Paul II’s interest in unity, cited a number of ecumenically insensitive acts. Others have noted some concrete gestures of reconciliation, cf. ROBERSON, The Dialogues of the Catholic Church (n. 8), p. 145; BOURGINE, La réception

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

101

Synaxis of all the Primates of the Orthodox Churches met in the Phanar, Istanbul (13-15 March 1992) with the aim of defending pan-Orthodox unity and countering aggressive Catholic uniatism in Central and Eastern Europe. In their official message they stated that the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church would not proceed without reaching an agreement on the burning issue of uniatism36. After a year-long postponement of the dialogue, the plenary session in Balamand, Lebanon37 approved what is known as the Balamand Document: Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion (23 June 1993)38. The Balamand Document is an example of bold self-criticism by both churches, so very necessary for reconciliation toward the re-establishment of full eucharistic communion39. French Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément described the document as the “miracle of Balamand” and a “prophetic text”. He deplored the lack of reception of this document by both churches and the ambiguity with regard to its ecclesiological implications for the Catholic Church (communion ecclesiology) and for the Orthodox Church (namely, the explicit Orthodox recognition of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, notably baptism)40. In the words of Erickson, few “ecumenical statements to which the Orthodox have been party have gained the notoriety” of the Balamand Document41. de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 271-272. Cf. TAFT, Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today (n. 12), pp. 32, 266, n. 27; cf. R.F. TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories”: Anamnesis, not Amnesia, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 41-42 (2000-2001) 155-196, p. 182; VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand (n. 2), p. 225. For other Orthodox negative reactions see Episkepsis 582 (30 April 2000) 5-6. 36. For the meeting and the message see Service orthodoxe de presse 166 (March 1992) 1-2; 167 (April 1992) 23-27; cf. LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 215-217. 37. Absent were six Orthodox Churches: Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia, while the resurrected Orthodox Church of Albania took part for the first time in the work of the commission. 38. A. DE HALLEUX, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe (Balamand-Liban, 17-24 juin 1993), in Revue Théologique de Louvain 24 (1993) 521-524; ROBERSON, The Dialogues of the Catholic Church (n. 8), p. 144; PAPADOPOULOS, Theologikos dialogos Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 2), pp. 205-222; LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 220-222. 39. Reports on Balamand can be found in Irénikon 66 (1993) 210-215 or Episkepsis 493 (30 June 1993) 11-12. For the text of Balamand see BORELLI – ERICKSON, The Quest for Unity (n. 19), pp. 175-183. All quotations from the Balamand Document are taken from this volume. 40. O. CLÉMENT, Introduction, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 10), 21-25, pp. 24-25. Cf. a similar observation, concerning the non-reception of Balamand, by LEGRAND, La théologie des Églises sœurs (n. 35), p. 463, who raises also the importance of non-theological factors for the non-reception of Balamand. 41. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), p. 25.

102

P. KALAITZIDIS

The Balamand text is composed of an introduction and two parts: a) ecclesiological principles; and, b) practical rules. The introduction to the document contains two key statements (nn. 2 and 3), which can be considered as an exchange of reciprocal guarantees between the two churches. The Catholics recognize, following the Freising Statement, that “uniatism” should be rejected as a method of achieving unity (n. 2), while the Orthodox recognized that the Eastern Catholic Churches, as part of the Catholic communion, have the right to exist and to act in order to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful (n. 3)42. As noted by members of the Joint Committee for Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue in France, the Balamand Document “unambiguously rejects uniatism as a method and model of union, while being careful not to confuse the historical phenomenon with the people and communities involved in it”43. Michel Stavrou, nevertheless, maintains that the ecclesiologically abnormal situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches is tolerated by the Orthodox only “by economy”, undergirded by the principle of the freedom of conscience44. Stavrou holds that such churches constitute an “objective sign of division” between the Christian East and the West, and that Eastern Catholic Churches are not necessarily destined to disappear for the Orthodox in the short or medium term (although some wish so, it must be honestly acknowledged), but they must be converted to the ecumenical dialogue instilled by Vatican II, the only possible path to healing and to the union of all, humbly accepting to lose the privileged role that Rome had gradually assigned to them until Vatican II and beyond45.

1. Regarding the Ecclesiological Principles (nn. 6-18) As stated in the document, “the division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity willed by Christ” (n. 6). During the last centuries various initiatives have been undertaken to restore communion between East and West (n. 7). In some cases, union attempts gave rise to the union of certain communities with Rome simultaneously leading to the breaking of communion with their mother churches in the East. These unions took place with the interference 42. DE HALLEUX, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe (Balamand-Liban, 17-24 juin 1993) (n. 38), p. 522. 43. Présentation, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 10), 5-8, p. 7. 44. M. STAVROU, Les “ambigua” du document de Balamand pour sa réception du côté orthodoxe, in Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 10), 323-342, p. 332. 45. Ibid., p. 332.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

103

of extra-ecclesial interests leading to the emergence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. This situation created a serious conflict and further division between East and West and became a source of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics (nn. 8-9), while an aggressive proselytizing missionary activity, based on an exclusivist soteriology, was initiated by Roman Catholics. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church adopted a similar attitude of soteriological exclusivism. At the same time and in certain cases, unacceptable means were used by civil authorities to bring back Eastern Catholics to the mother churches (n. 11). However, since the Churches of East and West recognize each other as sister churches this sort of “missionary apostolate”, namely “uniatism”, is no longer considered a legitimate method to be followed toward unity (n. 12). The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize each other as “sister churches” responsible for maintaining the unity of the Church of God which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (n. 14). In the path toward unity there is no question of the conversion of people from one church to another; rather what is at stake is to achieve the will of Christ and the design of God for the Church (n. 15). To this end, the Eastern Catholic Churches should follow the principles of Vatican II in their relationship with the Orthodox Churches in the context of the dialogue of love while avoiding any forms of proselytism (nn. 17-18). 2. Practical Rules (nn. 19-35) According Balamand’s practical rules, what is required is a spirit of mutual pardon in the context of the dialogue of love (n. 20) and to end whatever causes hatred and division between the churches. In a spirit of charity and justice, “the authorities of the Catholic Church will assist the Eastern Catholic Churches and their communities so that they themselves may prepare for full communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner toward their faithful” (n. 21). The pastoral activity in Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches is no longer concerned with proselytism among the Orthodox nor has it the desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church, but should address the spiritual needs of their faithful by cooperating in various pastoral projects, overcoming in this way the spirit of mistrust and suspicion between the churches (n. 22). Since the relationship between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches has been marked historically by various wounds, by persecution and suffering, the time has come to leave them to the mercy of God so that the churches can in the future

104

P. KALAITZIDIS

better conform to the will of Christ (n. 23). Philanthropic activity and social assistance shall avoid the threat of any violation of religious freedom (nn. 24-25). An open dialogue between the local ecclesiastical authorities will be necessary to find solutions to concrete problems always in a spirit of truth, love, justice and peace (n. 26); to eliminate suspicion; and condemn mutual violence (n. 27). Faith in sacramental reality implies respect for the liturgical life of the respective churches. To pave the way for future relations between the two churches special attention should be given to the ecumenical education of future priests (n. 30). Any difference between the respected churches and communities should be resolved through fraternal dialogue, without recourse to civil authorities. “This applies particularly to the possession or return of ecclesiastical property. These solutions should not be based only on past situations or rely solely on general juridical principles, but they must also take into account the complexity of present realities and local circumstances” (n. 31). It is in this common and fraternal spirit that the joint task of the churches is to evangelize (n. 32). In some cases, the celebrations of other churches should be made easier by putting one’s own church at their disposal for alternate celebration at different times in the same building (n. 28). Special mention is made in the document to the coming of the churches together in order to express respect to those who suffered and confessed their faith (n. 33). The plenary meeting in Balamand strongly recommended that these practical rules be put into practice by the churches involved, including the Eastern Catholic Churches who are called to take part in this dialogue (n. 34). In its concluding paragraph, the hope was that Balamand’s rejection of proselytism and uniatism would overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Orthodox Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue (n. 35). V. THE RECEPTION OF BALAMAND IN GREEK ORTHODOXY AND BEYOND Regarding the reception of Balamand, Michel Stavrou thought that maybe Balamand came out too late and its acceptance by the different churches remained more than uncertain. Despite its fine advances, Stavrou believed Balamand “hardly aroused much enthusiasm on the whole, and this is no doubt due to the essentially negative form of the message (denying uniatism as a method and model of union)”46. For the Orthodox, 46. Ibid., pp. 327-328.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

105

the first church to unequivocally accept Balamand was the Romanian Orthodox Church (6-8 July 1993). Its Holy Synod affirmed that the text of Balamand is an indication for the Orthodox hierarchs, clergy and the faithful regarding the way they should behave toward both Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics47. Ironically, the Orthodox Church of Antioch, which hosted the Balamand plenary and which was very enthusiastic about its final outcome, did not make a final decision about its reception. As for the Russian Orthodox Church, whose representatives signed the Balamand Document, its Theological and Synodal Commission finally expressed its reservation about the document (February 1997), mainly as regards the use of the expression “sister churches”, for which it asked pan-Orthodox discussion and consultation48. Regional bi-lateral dialogues received Balamand very positively, like the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States and the Orthodox-Catholic Joint Commission in France49. Generally speaking, the Balamand Document received favourable responses from Orthodox theologians living in the West, while it provoked no public discussion (apart from negative reactions) in the majority of the traditionally “Orthodox countries”. Yet, the radical rejection of Balamand was particularly exhibited by the Orthodox Church of Greece and the monastic community of Mount Athos. The Church of Greece, which did not participate in the Balamand meeting, had its Holy Synod (8 December 1994) send a letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in order to express its radical opposition to the agreed statement as “unacceptable from an Orthodox point of view”50. For them, Balamand represented a step back with regard to Freising (1990). They would have preferred to reject both uniatism as a model and Eastern Catholics as a historical reality. The Church of Greece also opposed the explicit mutual recognition of Orthodox and Catholics as “sister churches” and both having the means necessary for salvation since only the Orthodox Church was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church51. 47. Irénikon 66 (1993) 370-371; cf. BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 265-266. 48. Istina 44 (1999) 276-277; BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), p. 263. 49. For the French dialogue see Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 10); for the North American dialogue see BORELLI – ERICKSON, The Quest for Unity (n. 19). 50. Published in Ekklēsiastikē Alētheia (16 January 1995). Cf. also 14 December 1994. 51. See Proche-Orient Chrétien 50 (2000) 311; LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 222-223; ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), pp. 25-26, n. 2, 35; BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 270-272. The latter, in order to give an idea about the general

106

P. KALAITZIDIS

The same radical rejection of Balamand was previously exemplified by the monastic community of Mount Athos in a letter (8 December 1993) addressed to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. As in the case of the Church of Greece’s soteriological exclusivism, the Athonite letter held that the Orthodox Church is aware that it has been the sole repository of salvation as “the unadulterated continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ”52. Second, the concept of “sister churches” in Catholic ecclesiology is unacceptable since it is nothing else than a “totalitarian ecclesiology”, a humanistic, syncretistic and secularized ecclesiology in the service of the Vatican, by which the latter tries to achieve unity by downplaying doctrinal differences in the hope of absorbing Orthodoxy. The Athonite letter mentions also the “heresies” of the Catholic Church (the Filioque, papal primacy and infallibility, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, created energies, and created grace, etc.), because of which the Catholic faith cannot be recognized as “apostolic”, and the rebaptism of Catholics coming to the Orthodox faith is justified53. Reflected in the Mount Athos letter are the main theological and ecclesiological ideas of the late Abbot Archimandrite Georgios Kapsanis (Gregoriou Holy Monastery), who refused to recognize the Roman Catholic Church, spoke of the “heresy of papism” and regarded the ecumenical movement with great suspicion54. It is equally clear that the letter of the Church of Greece against Balamand reflected the anti-ecumenical soteriological exclusivism of Fr. Zissis (mentioned above), treating Roman

anti-Catholic atmosphere prevailing in Greece, specifically mentions (pp. 270, n. 1-2 and 271, n. 1) the case of the then Metropolitan Christodoulos of Demetrias in Volos (the now late Archbishop), and his comments and reactions against Balamand. Cf. Irénikon 66 (1993) 425-427. 52. Letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Twenty Monasteries of Mount Athos, in Orthodoxos Typos (18 March 1994). English trans. Orthodox Life, 44/4 (1994) 27-39, quoted in ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), p. 40. 53. BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 272-273. Cf. Irénikon 67 (1994) 512-515; ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), p. 25, n. 2, and pp. 35, 40; A.E. SIECIENSKI, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate, New York, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 408-409. For a detailed analysis of the Athonite letter on “sister churches”, see W.T. COHEN, The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 67), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016, pp. 205-210. 54. Cf. for example his comments in Hē krisis theologias kai oikoumenismou en Amerikē [The Crisis of Theology and Ecumenism in America], Athens, 1968; Orthodoxia kai humanismos, Orthodoxia kai papismos [Orthodoxy and Humanism, Orthodoxy and Papism], Mount Athos, Grigoriou Holy Monastery, 21995; Unia: Hē methodos tou papokentrikou oikoumenismou (n. 2).

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

107

Catholicism in terms of “heresy”55. Zissis is the founder of the very anti-ecumenical “Society of Orthodox Studies” and its journal Theodromia (The Way of God), in which he published many of his articles against Balamand. He regarded the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016) as heretical and as a betrayal of the genuine Orthodox spirit (mainly because of the synodal document on ecumenism). Since 2016, facing ecclesiastical censure, he has voluntarily suspended his ecclesial communion with his church. The same types of approaches to ecumenism are also shared by others, like members of the Greek delegation in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Peristerion and Prof. Megas Farantos. Fr. Georgios Metallinos, representative of the Church of Greece in the Official Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogue, who became notorious for his “anti-papism” and anti-Westernism56, also verges on a soteriological exclusivism57. Greek-American Fr. John S. Romanides, who served for many years as the representative of the Church of Greece to the official Orthodox-Lutheran theological dialogue, also exhibited such anti-ecumenism58. The above monastics, clerics and lay theologians formed a very powerful anti-ecumenical group, whose influence is now spread all over the Orthodox world59. 55. See ZISSIS, Unia: He katadikē kai hē athōōsē (n. 2). Cf. ID., Uniatism: A Problem in the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (n. 31), pp. 21-31. For an Orthodox response to this argument, see ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), pp. 25-43. 56. Cf. METALLINOS, Unia: The Face and the Disguise (n. 2). 57. G.D. METALLINOS, I Confess One Baptism…: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos: A Contribution to the Historico-Canonical Evaluation of the Problem of the Validity of Western Baptism, trans. Priestmonk Seraphim, Mount Athos, St. Paul’s Monastery, 1994. Cf. COHEN, The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 53), pp. 216-230. 58. See, e.g., J.S. ROMANIDES, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay between Theology and Society, Brookline, MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981; ID., Orthodox and Vatican Agreement, in Teologia 64 (1993) 570-580. See for critical remarks P. KALAITZIDIS, The Image of the West in Contemporary Greek Theology, in G.E. DEMACOPOULOS – A. PAPANIKOLAOU (eds.), Orthodox Constructions of the West, New York, Fordham University Press, 2013, 142-160, pp. 144-150; ID., La découverte de l’hellénicité et l’anti-occidentalisme théologique chez trois théologiens grecs des années soixante: le Père Jean Romanidis, le Père Basile Gondikakis et Christos Yannaras, in Contacts 259-260 (2017) 402-442, pp. 407-413; A. DE HALLEUX, Une vision orthodoxe grecque de la romanité, in Revue Théologique de Louvain 15 (1984) 54-66; W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 511-515; COHEN, The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II (n. 53), pp. 210-216. 59. For Orthodox anti-ecumenism and ecclesiological exclusivism cf. KALAITZIDIS, Theological, Historical, and Cultural Reasons for Anti-ecumenical Movements in Eastern Orthodoxy (n. 20), pp. 137-139, 146-148, 149-150.

108

P. KALAITZIDIS

Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, Orthodox co-chairman of the Joint International Commission, did not hesitate to sharply criticize not only the persons involved on behalf of the Church of Greece in the dialogues (Metropolitans Chrysostomos and Christodoulos [now, late Archbishop]), Farantos, Zissis, Romanides, as well as other Greek monastics, theologians and religious brotherhoods (abbot Georgios Kapsanis, monk Theoklitos Dionysiatis, and the brotherhood of the ultra-conservative late Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotis). His criticism also included the Orthodox Church of Greece for its extreme conservatism and defensive spirit as well as for its negative and non-constructive role in the two decades he has been the Orthodox co-chairman60. This powerful anti-ecumenical trend, latent or overtly manifested within Orthodoxy, was manifested at the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016), when one Greek bishop and a group of Serbian bishops did not sign the quite moderate, or even conservative, synodal document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”61. It should be noted that of particular interest for the reception of Balamand was the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who, on behalf of the Orthodox, has the primary responsibility for the Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue, and whose representative in the Balamand plenary signed the document. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew initially supported the Balamand Document and its provisions, of the condemnation of uniatism as well as the right of the Eastern Catholic communities to exist, in a greeting on the patronal feast day of St. Andrew (30 November 1993) in the following way: [By] all that is said there about the rights and pastoral needs of the ecclesial communities of Eastern rite issued from uniatism, which are in full communion with the bishop of Rome, it becomes evident that the Orthodox tolerate an abnormal ecclesiological situation out of love for the peaceful 60. STYLIANOS, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 (n. 18), pp. 39-42; ID., Peri tēn kakodaimonian tou episēmou theologikou dialogou Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn [The Trials and Tribulations of the Official Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue], in EETHSAPTH, Nea seira: Tmēma theologias [Academic Yearbook of the Faculty of Theology of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki] 13 (2003) 17-41, pp. 27-31; cf. pp. 38-40. It should be noted that during the last years (starting already since the time of the late Archbishop Christodoulos, mainly after the visit of Pope John Paul II in Greece, May 2001, and his visit to Vatican, December 2006), the Orthodox Church of Greece started changing its attitude, becoming more positive, and more constructive in its ecumenical engagement. 61. Cf. P. KALAITZIDIS, The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church between Synodal Inertia and Great Expectations: Achievements and Pending Issues, in H. TEULE – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Eastern and Oriental Christianity in the Diaspora (Eastern Christian Studies, 30), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2020, 77-153, especially pp. 110-120.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

109

coexistence of the disputing parties in the regions of conflict, until the Uniate Churches finally understand where they belong62.

Later on, and in an interview on the concurrent developments in Central and Eastern Europe, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew seemed to relativize his initial perspective pointing out “the mistrust of the Orthodox Churches towards such retractions [on uniatism by Catholics] must be correctly understood; they are important, of course, but they are tactical retractions”63. At the first official meeting between the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope John Paul II on 27 June 1995 in Rome, Patriarch Bartholomew addressed the Holy Father and crossed an additional threshold by criticizing the abusive exploitation of Balamand by the Holy See and by the Eastern Catholic Churches. Some, mainly on the Catholic side64, saw in this a hardening of attitudes of Patriarch Bartholomew due to pressures exerted upon him by other Orthodox Churches. Some others, mainly on the Orthodox side, interpreted the strong statement by Ecumenical Patriarch as a fair corrective. Patriarch Bartholomew’s address affirmed that the Orthodox had exhibited a leniency to Eastern Catholics, but that the pope’s encyclical Orientale lumen (1995), despite its positive attributes, affirmed the equality of Eastern Catholic “communities of the East” and the Orthodox Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarch felt that the encyclical “granted a total amnesty to the irregular regime of uniatism accepted only according to the principle of ecclesial economy and only provisionally” and “as a definitively regularized situation and therefore as a legitimate ecclesial model”. He unambiguously concluded that the Orthodox “will never accept” such a conception65. Echoing similar sentiments, Archbishop Stylianos declared: “We have complaints and we are disappointed ... by the [Catholic] ecclesiastical authorities that do not respect the results of the dialogue”66. This is an almost perennial complaint by the Orthodox against the Vatican as regards the sincerity, the respect and the implementation 62. Cf. Episkepsis 499 (31 December 1993) 8-9; Irénikon 66 (1993) 500-501. 63. See Irénikon 67 (1994) 383. 64. Cf. for example, BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 269-270. 65. Istina 40 (1995) 429-430. Cf. BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), pp. 268-269. Cf. a similar criticism in the interview by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Catholic News Service, in Irénikon 69 (1996) 230-231. Cf. also MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), pp. 228-229. 66. Interview mit Erzbischof Stylianos zum Stand des Dialogs, in Ökumenisches Forum 16 (1993) 114-121, p. 118. Cf. MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), p. 228; cf. p. 235.

110

P. KALAITZIDIS

of the results of the theological dialogue on the issue of uniatism. However, the Orthodox, with very few exceptions, almost never raise the issue of respect and the application of the provisions of the agreed statements by the Orthodox too (this includes the mutual recognition of the sacraments and the Catholic Church as a sister church)67. As an exception, Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos (later Archbishop) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate) stated: I fully assent to these affirmations of the Balamand Statement. I genuinely believe that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are Sister Churches, that the “profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops” are fully present in both communities, and that the tragedy of our estrangement is that each has failed to appreciate the full reality of the other. … I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is our Sister Church. But I am forced to admit that she has not always acted that way68!

The concept of “sister churches” is precisely a theme that the Orthodox on the international level have been trying hardest to advance. “In employing the language of ‘sister churches’, the Orthodox have in mind the ecclesiology which was characteristic of the first millennium of the Church’s life and is still characteristic of Orthodoxy, according to which the Church is conceived as a koinōnia (communion) of local sister Churches”69. The concept of “sister churches” does not include, however, according to Stavrou’s analysis, the Eastern Catholic Churches since this concept is in fact dependent on an ecclesiology of communion of which uniatism as a method expressly constitutes the negation70. Stavrou’s position rejecting Eastern Catholic Churches as sister churches of the Orthodox Churches is overwhelmingly shared by Orthodox theologians71. 67. Hervé Legrand maintains “sister churches” is the “doctrinal key” of the Balamand Document, in LEGRAND, La théologie des Églises sœurs (n. 35), pp. 461-462. For the concept of “sister churches” in the Freising Document, see DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion (n. 20), pp. 24-25. Cf. also a similar idea in J.Z. SKIRA, Ecclesiology in the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (1996) 359-374, p. 373. 68. VSEVOLOD OF SCOPELOS, Reflections on Balamand (n. 2), p. 224. Cf. for a similar statement by the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae [Corneanu] of Banat, Irénikon 66 (1993) 370-371, p. 370. 69. ERICKSON, Concerning the Balamand Statement (n. 10), pp. 37-38. Cf. Bishop MAXIMOS AGHIORGOUSIS, Towards Healing of Wounds: The Balamand Statement, in Eastern Churches Journal 4/1 (1997) 6-23. 70. STAVROU, Les “ambigua” du document de Balamand (n. 44), pp. 340-341. 71. For similar Catholic approaches cf. LANNE, Églises unies ou Églises sœurs: un choix inéluctable (n. 4).

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

VI. IN

THE

AFTERMATH

OF

111

BALAMAND

Since there was no universal consensus on Balamand, the Inter-Orthodox Committee for the dialogue with the Catholic Church convened in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the Phanar, Istanbul (July 1995). The Committee acknowledged that the text of Balamand was “a step in the right direction”, but deemed it necessary that the Joint International Committee continue its work on uniatism, insisting on the importance of the participation in the dialogue of all the Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox-Catholic dialogue resumed seven years after Balamand in Baltimore (July 2000) on the “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism”. However, again, five Orthodox Churches were absent: Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia and the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The two sides failed to reach an agreement on the ecclesiological status of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Their status, according to the Orthodox, should be characterized as “abnormal” since it is not compatible with the ecclesiology of the undivided Church of the first millennium. The Orthodox delegation held that the Eastern Catholic Churches should finally decide to become fully Roman or leave the Catholic Church and to join their “mother” Orthodox Churches72. From the Catholic perspective, the persistent impression was that many of the Orthodox Churches did not recognize the Catholic Church as a church and avoided clear statements concerning the recognition of baptism and the other sacraments of the Roman Church. Somewhat later, Archbishop Stylianos revealed that a year before the Baltimore meeting, John Paul II sent a letter to Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, Catholic co-chairman of the dialogue, which said: “It should be declared to the Orthodox that for the Church of Rome, the Eastern Catholic Churches enjoy the same esteem as any other Church in communion with Rome”73. This letter was then sent by Cassidy to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who copied it to Archbishop Stylianos. The latter wrote the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate (2 November 1999) saying that this is a 72. For a detailed presentation of the Baltimore meeting see F. BOUWEN, EmmitsburgBaltimore: VIIIe session plénière de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Église catholique et l’Église orthodoxe, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 50 (2000) 309-326. Cf. the reports and notes of Istina 45 (2000) 285-291 and Episkepsis 586 (31 August 2000) 4; LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 241-247; MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), pp. 230-232. Cf. also the paper by E. LANNE – M. VAN PARYS, Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe à Baltimore-Emmitsburg, in Irénikon 73 (2000) 405-418. 73. STYLIANOS, Peri tēn kakodaimonian tou episēmou theologikou dialogou Orthodoxōn kai Rōmaiokatholikōn (n. 60), p. 37.

112

P. KALAITZIDIS

strictly internal matter for the Roman Catholics and raising the issue in the international dialogue would have adverse effects. The letter was widely circulated, seriously affecting Catholic-Orthodox relations and deepening the mistrust of the latter and hampering further the reception of Balamand. For this, and other reasons too, Archbishop Stylianos wrote that the plenary in Baltimore “will remain in the memory of those who lived it personally, as one of the most shameful pages in the history of the dialogue”74. He also published a very severe critic of the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II’s Orientale lumen75. The new apostolic letter, instead of improving relations with the Orthodox, increased Orthodox mistrust of the Vatican76. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (cf. supra part V) criticized above all that the Eastern Catholic Churches were placed on the same footing as the “old Orthodox Churches, the same ones which perpetuate without interruption the authentic tradition of the first Christian millennium”, thus contradicting Balamand’s fundamental ecclesiological principles which expressed an unreserved common condemnation of uniatism77. The whole atmosphere created by all of the above led to the failure of the Baltimore plenary and a deepening of mistrust among Catholics and Orthodox. The inter-Orthodox Delegation in the Baltimore plenary, deeply disappointed by the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards uniatism made the following statement: The concessionary moves made in Balamand towards the Uniates should be regarded as null and void, seeing that Rome did not take proper cognizance of them. Therefore, on the well-known thorny issue of uniatism, we return again to zero. This means unequivocally that from now on we must deal with it with all the rigour now required, by no means recognizing the “canonicity” of the existence of such an ecclesiastical body, since such recognition would mean on our part a denial of the very canonicity of the Orthodox Churches of the East, which the Uniates, supported by Rome, continue to challenge without fear of God and without due deference to historical truth78. 74. Ibid., pp. 37-38. 75. Archbishop STYLIANOS OF AUSTRALIA, A Comment on the Papal Encyclical Orientale lumen, in Phronema 10 (1995) 51-60. 76. Ibid., p. 52. Cf. BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand (n. 26), p. 257, n. 1. For a critique to the statements by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox representatives against Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics, see Editorial, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 38 (1997) 1-12, republished in Eastern Churches Journal 4/3 (1997) 107-132. 77. Istina 40 (1995) 429-430. 78. Cf. Ekklēsia 77 (2000) 952; Cf. also MARTZELOS, Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), p. 233. Cf. LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos diakonia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou (n. 27), pp. 246-247.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

113

The divergent approaches of the two sides reveal that Orthodox and Catholics do not understand the rejection of uniatism, and the ecclesiological implications of this rejection, in the same way. This led theologians on both sides to realize that the historically complex issue of uniatism should be addressed in a wider ecclesiological framework without the emotional charge that characterized previous discussions79. Thus, the Orthodox moved to a consensus that the issue of uniatism in the dialogue could not be resolved without addressing the underlying theological questions of authority in the Church. For this reason, the text of the Joint Coordinating Committee of Ariccia (1998) on “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism” was put aside in order to advance a theological text previously prepared in Moscow (February 1990) on conciliarity and authority. Thus, after six years of interruption post-Baltimore, the Joint International Commission resumed its works with its ninth plenary session in Belgrade (September 2006)80. This meeting was of a crucial importance for the continuation of the dialogue due to the participation of all the Orthodox Churches (with the exception of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which withdrew from all ecumenical dialogue in 1988). The plenary at Belgrade was able to make some progress on questions such as the relationship between the local and universal Church; conciliarity and authority; and, primacy at local, regional and universal levels. Eventually, at the tenth plenary session in Ravenna, Italy (2007), the official statement “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church” was unanimously approved81. This was done in the absence of the Orthodox Church of Russia, which left the meeting early because of its objection to the participation of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox 79. G.D. MARTZELOS, Hē epanenarxē tou theologikou dialogou tēs Orthodoxou me tē Rōmaiokatholikē Ekklēsia. To keimeno tēs Ravennas [The Resumption of the Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church: The Ravenna Document], in ID., Orthodoxo dogma kai theologikos problēmatismos (Meletēmata Dogmatikēs Theologias, D΄) [Orthodox Doctrine and Theological Problematics (Studies in Dogmatic Theology, 4)], Thessaloniki, Purnaras, 2011, 417-476, p. 419; cf. ID., Axiologēsē kai prooptikes tou theologikou dialogou (n. 25), pp. 234-235. 80. For reports on the Belgrade plenary see Proche-Orient Chrétien 56 (2006) 277-289; Service orthodoxe de presse 311 (September-October 2006) 12-14. 81. On the Ravenna plenary see Proche-Orient Chrétien 58 (2008) 59-78, 79-94; Irénikon 80 (2007) 598-603; Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority, in J. CHRYSSAVGIS (ed.), Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, vol. 1, New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016, 405-420. Cf. Metropolitan K. WARE, The Ravenna Document and the Future of Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, in The Jurist 69 (2009) 766-789.

114

P. KALAITZIDIS

Church82. The principle that runs through Ravenna’s Document is the interdependence between the one and the many where there is no ecclesial communion without the function and the service of primacy: “Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent” (n. 43). Primacy exists at the local (episcopal), regional (metropolitan and patriarchal) and universal levels alongside the sacramental equality of every bishop and the catholicity of each local church (n. 44). However, historically there were divergences on Scriptural and theological foundations and on how primacy was to be exercised. Certainly, historically, Rome “presided in love” and occupied the first place in the taxis (order) but that this primacy was “already understood in different ways in the first millennium”83. In the years after the turning points represented by Belgrade and Ravenna, meetings of the Joint International Committee and its various sub-committees were held in Crete, Greece (2008); Paphos, Cyprus (2009); Vienna, Austria (2010); Amman, Jordan (2014); Chieti, Italy (2016); and Bose, Italy (2019). They dealt with the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first and the second millennium, which is a discussion still in progress. VII. THE BURDEN OF HISTORY AND THE NEED HISTORIOGRAPHY

FOR

ECUMENICAL

A major difficulty and obstacle to the significant advancement of the theological dialogue, to the unanimous reception from the Orthodox side of the Balamand Document, and of its ecclesiological and practical implications, and finally to a fair solution of the problem of uniatism seems to be a series of ambiguities, still pending issues and unfortunate incidents and events, as well as confessional hermeneutics instead of objective scholarship. One could therefore criticize the Catholic side for the persistent 82. See Service orthodoxe de presse 327 (April 2008) 7-9, p. 8; Proche-Orient Chrétien 58 (2008) 74-76. Cf. P. DE MEY, The Arduous Journey from Exclusion to Communion: Overcoming Relationships of Distrust between Orthodox and Catholics, in D.M. DOYLE – T.J. FURRY – P.D. BAZZELL (eds.), Ecclesiology and Exclusion: Boundaries of Being and Belonging in Postmodern Times, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 2012, 307-315, pp. 310-311. In 2013, the Russian Church issued its own response to the Ravenna Document claiming that the only primacy recognized in Orthodoxy is a “primacy of honour” otherwise “ascribing to the primus on the universal level the functions of governance inherent in primates on other levels of Church … is ‘papism’”, something the Orthodox have correctly rejected (as quoted in SIECIENSKI, The Papacy and the Orthodox [n. 53], pp. 414-415). This conflict reflected a larger conflict on the issue of primacy, pitting the Russian Orthodox Church against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 83. SIECIENSKI, The Papacy and the Orthodox (n. 53), pp. 413-414.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

115

ambiguity of acts and words of Pope John Paul II, the Roman Curia and some Ukrainian Catholic hierarchs before and after Freising (1990) and Balamand (1993) (e.g., the praise of the role of bridge-churches of the Eastern Catholics at the First Special Assembly for Europe of the Synod of Bishops, 28 November – 14 December 1991; the official celebrations and the encyclicals issued at the occasion of the anniversaries of the acts of the Union of Brest (1596), Uzhorod (1645) and Transylvania (1698-1700); the way the Apostolic Letter Orientale lumen treated the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches; the use of the unfortunate formula “Per vos, mei Rutheni, Orientem convertendum spero” by Cardinal Myroslav Ivan Ljubačivs’kyj in his response to the Pope during the Synod of all Ukrainian Catholic bishops, 24-27 June 1990). Questions and criticisms are also directed to the Catholic side for the lack of a clear recognition of the role played by political powers in the expansion of uniatism such as in the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or even the French foreign policy and consular authorities in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. With regards to the Orthodox, critiques should be addressed for their inability to accept historical evidence regarding Orthodox initiatives in relation to the Brest union and for holding the Vatican and the Jesuits as solely responsible for this union; for the refusal to assume, at the institutional level, their responsibility for the pseudo-synod of L’viv under Stalin in 1946; and, for the apparent difficulty of many Orthodox to clearly accept the right of Eastern Catholic Churches to exist and to understand that Ukrainian Catholics could also act as individuals and not just as a monolithic homogenous group and that, in some cases, especially when it comes to their identity and historical self-consciousness, they consider the distinctive existence of their church within the Roman Catholic communion as an integral part not only of their ecclesial identity, but also of their ethno-cultural one. In my opinion, what is further at stake on the side of the Orthodox is not so much the reception or non-reception of Balamand, but merely the reluctance or ambiguity of many Orthodox with regard to ecumenical dialogue and rapprochement with Christians of other traditions. The Orthodox reaction to uniatism is a particular case of this attitude, as it is also linked to historical memory, rancour, or resentment. Uniatism is an extremely complex and controversial phenomenon which is radically rejected, with few exceptions, by many Orthodox of any rank or ethnic origin. Historical acts of uniatism made the Orthodox to feel like the losers or the defeated in their encounter with the West. The Orthodox experienced uniatism as a collective trauma – as a wound inflicted upon them by the West at moments of their political, economic and national

116

P. KALAITZIDIS

weakness84. Perhaps the most serious misunderstanding with regard to uniatism is that while some Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics consider the latter as a bridge to the Orthodox, the members of the Eastern Church look at uniatism as the reason of further divisions or as a betrayal of their ancestral or traditional faith. However, due to the atmosphere created by the “dialogue of love”, prominent Greek Orthodox theologian Nikos Nissiotis did not hesitate to state that “instead of viewing Uniates as apostates, it would be more appropriate to see them as an additional means of dialogue”85. Nevertheless, another prominent Roman Catholic theologian, Fr. Yves Congar, in his attempt to explain to a Western readership the ways the Orthodox consider this controversial issue, wrote that “uniatism appears to the Orthodox as being, by its profound presuppositions, the very caricature and contradiction of unity”86. Metropolitan John Zizioulas for his part, who served for many years as the Orthodox co-chairman of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, maintained that: For the Orthodox, this issue [uniatism] has been a typical example of proselytism and has caused bitterness between them and Roman Catholics …. The entire problem [of uniatism] with all its difficulties and complexities could, perhaps, be transcended in the context of the growing common understanding and ecumenical spirit in which the two traditions find themselves today87.

Furthermore, one should seriously reflect on how the Orthodox people (and the Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, the Balkans and Eastern Europe) perceive the Crusades, the politico-religious expansion of the West and its attempts at colonization. In these attempts Eastern Catholics are considered by the Orthodox, rightly or wrongly, to be, if not at the forefront, then for sure an integral part of ecclesial colonialism since they are viewed as the “Trojan horse” of the forced union with Rome. If we criticize (and rightly so) the Russian Orthodox Church for its passive stance during the forty-five years of the severe oppression of the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine at the time of Soviet Union, and for the recuperation 84. Cf. TAFT, Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today (n. 12), p. 25. Taft, however, is very severe in his critique of the Orthodox victimization discourse and in many cases in his paper he lists examples of Orthodox oppression against Eastern Catholics and other ethno-religious groups. 85. N.A. NISSIOTIS, Qu’est-ce qui nous sépare encore de l’Église catholique romaine? La réponse d’un orthodoxe, in Concilium 54 (1970) 21-30, p. 30. 86. Y. CONGAR, After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, New York, Fordham University Press, 1959, p. 38. 87. J.D. ZIZIOULAS, Reflections of an Orthodox on Proselytism, in ID., The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church and the World Today, ed. G. EDWARDS, Alhambra, CA, Sebastian Press, 2010, 360-364, p. 364.

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

117

of their churches, what should we say about the centuries of oppression, interdictions, forced conversions, privation of citizenship and many other oppressive measures that the Orthodox had to endure for centuries in many places in Eastern and Central Europe, the Balkans, and even the Middle East? As is now commonly accepted, non-dogmatic or non-theological factors, as well as historical events and memories, play a decisive and formative role in the shaping of schisms and conflicts between ecclesial communities. The conflict over uniatism is no exception. A common reading of history is urgently required – of an ecumenical reading, an ecumenical historiography or an ecumenical scholarship that unites us88. Wounded memories and the traumas of history are still alive on all sides. We are not responsible for all these, as we are not responsible for the past and its failures. As Christians, however, we have a responsibility to imperatively work for the future, for the mutual pardon, the healing of memories and the reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox – and between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox89. Self-criticism on all sides and the prevalence of theological and ecclesiological criteria over historical traumas, bitterness, rancor and resentment, will improve mutual trust and understanding and better ecumenical cooperation. Above all, this will strengthen our spiritual struggle toward repentance and forgiveness and the successful completion of theological dialogue which will lead to unity and the re-establishment of full ecclesial communion. Volos Academy for Theological Studies P.O.Box 1308 GR-38001 Volos Greece [email protected]

Pantelis KALAITZIDIS

88. Ideas echoed by TAFT, Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today (n. 12), pp. 38ff. See similar sentiments in J.Z. SKIRA, The Balamand Document on Uniatism in the Context of the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue, in this volume, 27-48. 89. STYLIANOS, Sto perithōrio tou dialogou, 1980-1990 (n. 18), pp. 38-39; TAFT, The Problem of “Uniatism” and the “Healing of Memories” (n. 35), p. 181. Cf. also E.G. FARRUGIA, Within Living Memory: Tradition, the Shape of the Future, in P. PALLATH (ed.), Catholic Eastern Churches: Heritage and Identity (Mar Thoma Yogam Publications, 7), Roma, Mar Thoma Yogam, 1994, 212-228 and his article, Balamand before Balamand, in this volume, 3-25.

THE ISSUE OF UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE I. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE BETWEEN 988 AND 2018 To understand the current tensions between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow, and how they affect Catholic-Orthodox relations, one has to go back a thousand years when the medieval state of Rus’, one of the largest in Europe at that time, decided to adopt Christianity. Formally, the year 988 is regarded as the year when the inhabitants of Kyiv, the capital, were urged by their ruler grand knjaz’ (prince) Volodymyr (reigned 978-1015) to get baptized in the river Dnipro. Of course, there was a long prehistory and an even longer post-history, of when the Christianization of Rus’ began and when it was completed. It is important to remember that Volodymyr chose for his people the Byzantine tradition of Christianity. This happened when the Churches of the East and West, despite having tensions in their relations, perceived themselves as an undivided community. With the baptism of the Kyivans, the Church of Kyiv was established and incorporated into the complex system of extra-Byzantine metropolises. Such a metropolis at that time was a large administrative unit accountable to the primate of the Church in the capital of the empire – the patriarch of Constantinople. It included smaller units of dioceses whose bishops gave account to the metropolitan. The metropolis was expected to uphold several rules in its relations with Constantinople. The first rule was that the patriarch of Constantinople should be commemorated by the metropolitan. The second rule was that a newly elected metropolitan had to go to Constantinople to be confirmed there by the patriarch. Finally, the supply of the holy myrrh for chrismation should come from Constantinople and not from elsewhere. The Kyivan state was vast, but fragile. It was torn by internal arguments about succession of the knjazes (princes) and challenged by frequent invasions. In 1169, knjaz’ Andrew of Vladimir (reigned 1157-1174) pillaged Kyiv and in 1240, the Mongols burned the city down altogether. Kyiv would emerge again as a significant political centre only in early modernity. The decline of Kyiv affected the status of the Church there in an unusual way. The Church ended up being divided into two parts, which geographically

120

C. HOVORUN

had different centres, but in theory were the sees of Kyiv. These two metropolises or, as it were, two “clones” of the same Metropolis of Kyiv corresponded to two states that had emerged from one Rus’ and claimed their succession to it. On the one hand, there was the principality of Halyčyna-Volynja (Galicia-Volhynia) and on the other, the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal’. The former was incorporated to the grand duchy of Lithuania in the fourteenth century. The principality of Vladimir-Suzdal’ became a part of the grand duchy of Moscow around the same time. The two duchies turned into antagonists, which extended also to who would control the Orthodox Metropolis of Kyiv. This resulted in a “cloning” of the metropolis. One “clone” was relocated towards south-west and resided in different times in the Lithuanian cities of Galych, Novgorodok and Vilno. Another “clone” moved north-west and had its center in Vladimir-upon-Kljazma and later Moscow. While the former “clone” of the Kyivan Church remained faithful to Constantinople, the latter one unilaterally proclaimed its independence in 1448. The new metropolitan of Kyiv with residence in Moscow (Jonas), was installed without having been confirmed in Constantinople. This was the beginning of a schism affecting the Moscow part of the Kyivan Metropolis, that lasted until it was brought back to communion with other Orthodox Churches in 1589. The pretext of why Moscow broke the rules, that had applied to the Metropolis of Kyiv since its establishment, was the Council of BaselFerrara-Florence (1431-1445). At that council, the reunification between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople was attempted. While the Lithuanian part of the Kyivan Metropolis, to a significant extent, complied with the council, the Moscow part rejected it altogether. Whatever the ecclesial pretexts of Moscow’s decision, the independence of its part of the Metropolis of Kyiv was a political move. It was initiated and enforced by the authority of the great knjaz’. That the “uniatism” of Constantinople was just a pretext for Moscow to break with Constantinople can be concluded from the fact that Moscow did not restore its relationship with Constantinople, even after the latter denounced the Council of Florence. The Church of Constantinople eventually accepted the self-proclaimed autocephaly of the Muscovite part of the Kyivan Metropolis, in part because there was no way of bringing it back to the control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, in part, because Moscow grew into an important financial, political and military power, which the Church of Constantinople desperately needed under the circumstances of the Ottoman state. At the same time, the Lithuanian part of the Kyivan Metropolis steadily preserved its faithfulness to Constantinople. This Church constituted a minority within the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth (since

UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE

121

1569), which was predominantly Catholic. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, this state supported and promoted the creation of the third “clone” of the Metropolis of Kyiv through the Council in Brest (1596), which led to the birth of the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) GrecoCatholic Church. This Council continued the work of the Council of Florence causing tensions not so much within the Muscovite part of the Kyivan Metropolis, as within the Lithuanian part of it. The latter became divided. While many of its bishops accepted the “Union of Brest”, the majority of laity turned against it. This majority became an oppressed minority within the dominion of the Polish-Lithuanian Rzeczpospolita. The oppression against this minority eventually led to the situation of the Lithuanian part of the Kyivan Metropolis, which remained faithful to the Church of Constantinople, seeking to join the Muscovite part, which had earlier proclaimed its independence from Constantinople. This was the fateful year of 1686. The interpretations of the events in 1686 vary, and they still define the ecclesial situation in Ukraine and in global Orthodoxy. The protagonist of the events was the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV (who was primate five times: 1671-1673, 1676-1679, 1682-1684, 1686-1687 and 16931694). With the signatures of the members of his Synod, he promulgated two acts which changed the canonical status of the Lithuanian part of the Metropolis of Kyiv1. These acts, and their interpretation, have led to the current events in Ukrainian Christianity. The decrees from Constantinople featured some keywords that can help us better understand their meaning, namely the pair of antonyms hupokeimenos and huperkeimenos. The former one means subordination, and in the synodal letters it refers to the Metropolis of Kyiv. The latter one (huperkeimenos) means superiority and applies only to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Constantinople, according to the decrees, remains huperkeimenos for both Kyiv and Moscow. At the same time, the texts do not mention that Moscow is huperkeimenē regarding Kyiv, even though Kyiv is huperkeimenos in relation to Moscow. The English word “subordination” does not reflect one important nuance of the Greek huperkeimenos, namely that the subject of subordination retains its autonomy in the capacity of being to huperkeimenon (i.e., it does not disappear or dissolve in what it obeys – in this case, Moscow). 1. The originals of the letters have not survived, but their copies have been published by V.H. ČENCOVA, Kievskaja mitropolija mezhdu Konstantinopoliem i Moskvoj. 1686 [The Kyivan Metropolis between Constantinople and Moscow. 1686], Kyiv, 2020, pp. 391-420. For the union at Brest, cf. W.P. VAN DEN BERCKEN – B. GROEN (eds.), Four Hundred Years Union of Brest (1596-1996): A Critical Re-Evaluation (Eastern Christian Studies, 1), Leuven, Peeters, 1998.

122

C. HOVORUN

The drafters of the synodal letters made sure to stress that the subjection of Kyiv towards Moscow is inferior to its subjectivity with respect to Constantinople. The latter remains intact, while the former only adds to it. Constantinople, according to the rhetoric of the letters, is the “source” (pēgē), the “beginning” (archē) and “superior” (huperkeimenon) to all other churches, including Moscow and Kyiv. This superiority of Constantinople is implied to be ontological (ontōs). In contrast to it, the newly granted superiority of Moscow over Kyiv is presented as conditioned by historical circumstances, such as difficulties of travel (to tou topou huperballon diastōma) and wars (anametaxu tōn duo basileiōn machas). The letters specify that the superiority of Moscow is limited because it is limited to installing new metropolitans of Kyiv only: “Let the most holy Eparchy of Kyiv be subjected to the most holy patriarchal throne of the great and God-saved city of Moscow, meaning laying hands on the Metropolitan of Kyiv”2. Constantinople permitted (didontos adeian) Moscow to install the Kyivan metropolitans not because such is the order of things. The text contains repeated references that this was a dispensation and compromise (tropoi sunkatabatikoi, oikonomikōs). Constantinople has emphasized that it remains the patriarchal see for Kyiv, while the patriarch of Moscow is just “the elder and the president” for Kyiv (geronta kai proestōta). It is worth noting that in the same period, the patriarch of Constantinople issued another letter, in which he defined the relationship between the patriarch of Jerusalem and the archbishop of Sinai. In that letter, the role of the patriarch of Jerusalem vis-à-vis the archbishopric of Sinai, which constitutes a semi-autonomous part of the Church of Jerusalem, was described as “patriarch and elder” (tōi patriarchei kai geronti autou)3. It was the same terminology that described the new relationship between Moscow and Kyiv. For Kyiv, therefore, Constantinople and not Moscow remained the original patriarchal see. In this vein, Constantinople clearly spelled out the requirement that at each liturgy the metropolitans of Kyiv, even though they are installed by Moscow, must commemorate the patriarch of Constantinople. Constantinople thus outsourced to Moscow the first rule (about confirming the new metropolitans of Kyiv) from the original list of rules, mentioned earlier, but preserved the second rule (i.e., the commemoration of the patriarch of Constantinople). However, this rule was not practiced for a 2. ČENCOVA, Kievskaja mitropolija mezhdu Konstantinopoliem i Moskvoj. 1686 (n. 1), p. 394. 3. V.H. ČENCOVA, Sinodal’noe rešenie 1686 g. o Kievskoj mitropolii [Synodal Decisions of 1686 on the Kyivan Metropolis], in Drevnjaja Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 68/2 (2017), p. 99.

UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE

123

long time and was soon ignored by both Moscow and Kyiv. The violation of this rule was, in part, used by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2018 as an excuse to annul its decisions of 1686. II. THE EVENTS

2018: THE SUSPENSION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE OF

On 9-11 October 2018, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul held an ordinary session. Its decisions, however, were extraordinary. According to the communiqué published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate4, the Synod decided to take a number of important steps. The most important of them was to declare that the Orthodox faithful of the non-canonical churches in Ukraine “have been restored to communion with the Church”. This declaration meant an end of the schism that had existed in Ukraine since 1992. This schism had affected two self-proclaimed churches: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC)5. Together they had millions of faithful who were not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox local churches. The Ecumenical Patriarchate reconciled them with global Orthodoxy6. However, it did not recognize the UOC-KP or the UAOC Churches. In other words, they were not legalized nor canonically recognized. Instead, they were supposed to dissolve themselves and to establish a new ecclesial group which would receive recognition. The new Church was established on the basis of the Metropolis of Kyiv under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. This metropolis was restored by the same synodal decision in October 2018. The Synod in Constantinople annulled the documents of 1686 that had granted the Church of Moscow the temporal and conditional, according to Constantinople, management over the Metropolis of Kyiv. Based on this decision of Constantinople, all the bishops from the UOC-KP and the UAOC, and two bishops from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), met together on 15 December 2018. They annulled the UOC-KP and UAOC and set up 4. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/communiq-1 (accessed 26 March 2020). 5. For more on this see the collection of essays in A. KRAWCHUK – T. BREMER (eds.), Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis, Cham, Springer, 2016 and N.E. DENYSENKO, The Orthodox Church in Ukraine: A Century of Separation, DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press, 2018. 6. See my brief synopsis in Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Post-Truth: An Orthodox Perspective, Catholic World Report (25 November 2018), https://www.catholic worldreport.com/2018/11/25/ukraine-the-ecumenical-patriarchate-and-post-truth-anorthodox-perspective (accessed 12 April 2020).

124

C. HOVORUN

a new church called the Orthodox Church of Ukraine7. They also elected their first primate of this Church, Metropolitan Epiphany (Dumenko). On 6 January 2019, Metropolitan Epiphany went to Istanbul and received from the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew the tomos of Ukrainian autocephaly (literally, independence). As soon as Constantinople announced its intention to offer such a solution to the Ukrainian schisms, the Russian Orthodox Church warned about dire consequences for Orthodox unity. On 14 September 2018, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took the decision: To suspend the liturgical prayerful commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. To suspend the concelebration with hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To suspend the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in all Episcopal Assemblies, theological dialogues, multilateral commissions and other structures chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople8.

On 15 October 2018, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took a further step and decided to suspend eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, declaring: In the wake of the ongoing anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to acknowledge as impossible the further Eucharistic communion with it. … To ask the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kiril to inform the brothers primates of the local Orthodox Churches about the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the threat of the destruction of the unity of world Orthodoxy and to call them to jointly find ways out of the difficult situation that has emerged9.

At the very beginning of the process towards granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, in Spring 2018 the official spokesmen of the Russian Church warned that they would retaliate against Constantinople with a schism equal in its scale to the one between the Eastern and Western Churches in the eleventh century10. These statements sowed fear in some 7. For a brief analysis of the new tomos, see my, Markery zmin: Komentari do Statutu Pravoslavnoji Cerkvy Ukraïny [Indicators of Change: Comments on the Statutes of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine], in LB.ua (3 January 2019), https://lb.ua/society/2019/01/03/ 416364_markeri_zmin_komentari_statutu.html (accessed 12 April 2020). 8. Minute n. 69, http://www.patriarchia.ru/en/db/text/5268268.html (accessed 26 March 2020). 9. Minute n. 71, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5283687.html (accessed 26 March 2020). 10. For example, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk in his interview to the Greek news outlet Romfea stated: “The division within the Global Orthodoxy, which will follow this wrong movement, could be compared only with the division between the East and the West

UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE

125

Orthodox Churches but did not prevent Constantinople from acting. Eventually, the steadfastness of the Ecumenical Patriarchate prevailed. The Russian Orthodox Church did not cause a fully-fledged schism. The decision of the Russian Church was unilateral, which meant that the Church of Constantinople did not reciprocate breaking communion. From the perspective of Constantinople, there was no break in relations between Constantinople and Moscow. The same standpoint was adopted by most other Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Moscow Patriarchate, in the meantime, embarked on a full defamation campaign against Constantinople. The statements issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (on 7, 14 September and 15 October 2018) contained the following polemical points against the Ecumenical Patriarchate: 1. Constantinople took decisions unilaterally, without consent of the Moscow Patriarchate and its Church in Ukraine. 2. Constantinople wants to legalize the schism and not to heal it. As a result, it walked a path towards schism. 3. The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s motives are ill-intentioned, as it aims at weakening the Russian Church. 4. There are political interests of the United States behind the intentions of Constantinople. 5. The Ecumenical Patriarchate wants to impose a papal model (“papism”) on global Orthodoxy. 6. Therefore, Constantinople’s ecclesiological tenets are not Orthodox anymore. 7. Finally, there is a hidden Uniate [Eastern Catholic] agenda underpinning these decisions. They best serve both the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches, and not any of the Orthodox Churches.

These points were widely disseminated through both official and unofficial statements; they were channelled through the Russian state-controlled media and through the armies of “trolls” on social networks. Some of those statements were articulated in relatively modest language, and some were wrapped in hate speech. Some tropes of this speech, which in the past had been reserved exclusively for the Ukrainian “schismatics”, now became projected to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Particularly, voices in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) became outspoken in bringing accusations against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Most of their accusations, however, were not substantial, but rather hysterical and absurd. For example, its primate Metropolitan Onufrij Berezovs’kyj accused the Church of Constantinople of making the Byzantine empire a Muslim state. Now, the Metropolitan stated, Constantinople wants to do in 1054”, at https://www.romfea.gr/sinenteyxeis/21508-bolokolamsk-ilarionas-fobamai-naskefto-ti-tha-ginei-ean-dothei-autokefalo-stous-sxismatikous (accessed 26 March 2020).

126

C. HOVORUN

the same in Ukraine11. The official speaker of the same Church, Archbishop (now Metropolitan) Kliment Večerja suggested anathematizing the Ecumenical Patriarchate12. Metropolitan Luka Kovalenko, in his comments to the BBC, went as far as to state that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has abolished itself and does not exist anymore13. The abbot of the Kyiv-Pečerska Lavra Metropolitan Pavel Lebed suggested abolishing the autocephaly of the Ecumenical Patriarchate14. He stated that for a ransom of money Constantinople can abolish God or say that Jesus is not God15. The official Moscow Patriarchate underlined that their representatives would abstain from any ecumenical dialogue in which the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate participated. This effectively meant that Moscow would not participate in all official ecumenical dialogues because all of them are co-presided by hierarchs from Constantinople. The decision of Moscow, however, did not halt the dialogues but perhaps temporarily limited their outcome and reception – Moscow would not accept the outcome of any dialogue without participation of its representatives. As Archbishop Sviatoslav Ševčuk of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC) remarked in one of his interviews, the entire paradigm of the ecumenical encounters would change as a result of the situation in and around Ukraine: This step by the Church of Constantinople has destroyed certain schemes of ecumenical dialogue that took hold during the time of the Cold War. The primary and privileged interlocutor in this dialogue in the context of the Cold War and Ostpolitik was always Moscow. Dialogue with the entire Orthodox world was understood in this direction. Now, it has to be rethought, not only in terms of how to conduct the dialogue, which has to be updated, but the entire concept has to be rethought16.

III. RENEWED ATTENTION TO UNIATISM IN ORTHODOX-ROMAN CATHOLIC RELATIONS As was mentioned earlier, in the past Moscow’s narrative presented the union (Unia) signed at the Council of Florence as an excuse for Moscow to separate from Constantinople. In its modern narrative, Moscow has scapegoated the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church for all “mischiefs of 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOBp3lWiVu8 (accessed 26 March 2020). 12. https://tass.ru/obschestvo/5665318 (accessed 26 March 2020). 13. https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-45899214 (accessed 26 March 2020). 14. https://lavra.ua/o-sovremennyh-raznoglasiyah-vo-vselenskom-pravoslavii (accessed 26 March 2020). 15. https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/2849103.html (accessed 14 January 2021). 16. https://cruxnow.com/synod-of-bishops-on-youth/2018/10/17/ukraine-prelate-saysorthodox-independence-is-affirmation-of-rights (accessed 26 March 2020).

UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE

127

Ukraine”, as it has put it. The scheme of this polemical narrative holds that Greco-Catholics constitute the core of Ukrainian nationalism in the west of Ukraine and pushed the entire country away from Russia. Granting the Ukrainian Church autocephaly was just another step for the country in the same direction, moving away from Russia to the West. The ultimate purpose of this movement was to eventually convert the predominantly Orthodox Ukraine to Catholicism through uniatism. This narrative, however, overlooks such important events as the annexation of Crimea in 2014; the Russian hybrid war in the east of the country; the role of the Russian Church in the Russian aggression against Ukraine; and, popular support for the idea of an Orthodox autocephalous Church in Ukrainian society (which is, by far, larger than the number of Greco-Catholics). Moscow has consistently pushed the issue of Unia to the centre of Orthodox-Catholic relations through the official dialogue and bilateral relations. Thus, uniatism became a focal point of the famous “Havana declaration”17. Pope Francis and the Patriarch of Moscow Kiril met in Havana, Cuba, on 12 February 2016. The declaration they signed touched on the Ukrainian situation and called the sides of the conflict to dialogue and reconciliation. However, from the Ukrainian perspective, the declaration missed some important points18. For example, while calling upon “the parts involved in the conflict” in Ukraine to engage in dialogue, the Havana declaration did not explicitly identify the sides of the so-called “conflict” (which is, in reality, a hybrid war). Nor did it say a word about the role of Russia in it. The text paints Russia in bright colours, as a country which benefited from an “unprecedented renewal of the Christian faith”. In contrast to it, Ukraine is painted in dark colours, as a country in “deep economic and humanitarian crisis”. Such a juxtaposition of the two countries is coherent with the message propagated by the Russian media. These and other words that have been said, and that have not been said, in the Havana declaration embarrassed and offended many people in Ukraine. Many of them were Greco-Catholics. At the same time, the Havana declaration confirmed the right to exist for the Eastern Catholics, and this was accepted by Moscow. The declaration in this regard followed the lines of the Balamand Document (1993)19. 17. Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, 12 February 2016, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/february/documents/ papa-francesco_20160212_dichiarazione-comune-kirill.html (accessed 2 November 2018). 18. For additional commentary on this see also, J.Z. SKIRA, The Balamand Document on Uniatism in the Context of the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue, in this volume, 27-48. 19. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion (1993), http://www.christianunity.va/content/

128

C. HOVORUN

This declaration, on the one hand, condemned uniatism as a method of achieving Christian unity. On the other hand, it confirmed that the Eastern Catholic Churches cannot be dismantled or ignored. The Havana declaration, in particular, on the same issue stated: It is our hope that our meeting may also contribute to reconciliation wherever tensions exist between Greek Catholics and Orthodox. 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. Nonetheless, the ecclesial communities which emerged in these historical circumstances have the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co-existence20.

The Havana declaration also addressed the issue of the Orthodox schisms in Ukraine. Apparently, this was done on the insistence of the Russian side. Nevertheless, the Havana declaration can be viewed from the perspective of the events in 2018-2019, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted the tomos of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The declaration does not contradict the process of healing Ukrainian Orthodox divisions chosen by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is the way of canonical order, which the Patriarchate of Constantinople claims it is implementing. The Havana declaration regarding this states: It is our hope that the schism between the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine may be overcome through existing canonical norms, that all the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine may live in peace and harmony, and that the Catholic communities in the country may contribute to this, in such a way that our Christian brotherhood may become increasingly evident21.

IV. CONCLUSION It is now possible to conclude that the idea of “uniatism” has been embedded in the narratives produced in Moscow since its emergence as a political power in the late Middle Ages. Quite often it tried to justify Moscow’s own mistakes. Thus, Moscow justified its uncanonical separation unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testoin-lingua-inglese.html (accessed 16 April 2020). 20. Article 25, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/february/ documents/papa-francesco_20160212_dichiarazione-comune-kirill.html#Joint_Declaration (accessed 26 March 2020). 21. Ibid., Article 27.

UNIA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE

129

from the Church of Constantinople by the supposed “uniatism” of Constantinople, even after this church denounced the Unia of Florence. Uniatism became a comfortable scapegoat, which helped Moscow to avoid blame for its own mistakes. This has become the case even more in the recent developments in Ukraine. The Russian aggression against this country in 2014, which was supported by the Russian Orthodox Church, accelerated the process of granting autocephaly to those Ukrainian Orthodox who wanted canonical independence22. The majority of them belonged to the schismatic groups of the Orthodox Church of the Patriarchate of Kyiv and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Although claiming its canonical responsibility for Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarchate did nothing substantial to heal the schism within Ukrainian Orthodoxy. After the “schismatic” groups abolished themselves and established a “new” Church – the Orthodox Church of Ukraine – the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted this Church the tomos of autocephaly. This, however, caused an extremely negative reaction by the Russian Orthodox Church. Instead of acknowledging its own responsibility for the situation in Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarchate started blaming others. As noted above, one of their main targets became the Ukrainian GrecoCatholic Church. This is the practice, known in psychology, of projecting one’s own fault upon others, or of scapegoating. The Ukrainian GrecoCatholic Church became a scapegoat for the mistakes made by others. Noteworthy is that despite the Russian Orthodox Church’s refusal to acknowledge or dialogue with neither the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church nor the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine, these two latter Ukrainian Churches today have so far exhibited some warming in ecumenical relations23. St. Ignatios College Nyköpingsvägen 22 151 32 Södertälje Stockholm Sweden [email protected]

Cyril HOVORUN

22. Cf. C. HOVORUN, War and Autocephaly in Ukraine, in Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal 7 (2020) 1-25. 23. For more on the ecumenical attitudes of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, see A.T. ONUFERKO, The Balamand Document and Its Positive Impact on the Ecumenical Commitment of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, in this volume, 131-151.

THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT AND ITS POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECUMENICAL COMMITMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

In this chapter, I will focus on the ecumenical position of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC) in the early to mid-1990s and its initial reaction to the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue’s Balamand Document on uniatism and the Eastern Catholic Churches1. I will then summarize further ecumenical developments in the UGCC over the last two decades and offer some concluding comments. I. THE INITIAL RECEPTION OF THE BALAMAND DECLARATION IN THE UGCC 1. Myroslav Ivan Ljubačivs’kyj (1984-2000) My presentation begins with His Beatitude Myroslav Ivan Ljubačivs’kyj’s (Lubachivsky) letter to Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy (dated 3 August 1993), written in response to the Balamand Document2. A copy of this letter was sent simultaneously to all the members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as to the primates of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Ljubačivs’kyj began by recognizing the complex reality facing the Catholic-Orthodox Commission and of the complex reality that the UGCC had found itself in after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its re-emergence from the underground. He, nevertheless, affirmed that the “apprehensions of our faithful, clergy and indeed bishops regarding the work of the Joint International Commission, although understandable 1. Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion (Balamand, Lebanon, 1993), http://www.christianunity.va/content/ unitacristiani/it/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/1993documento-di-balamand---luniatismo--metodo-dunione-del-pass/testo-in-lingua-inglese.html (accessed 8 April 2020). 2. M.I. Cardinal LJUBAČIVS’KYJ, Letter to Cardinal Cassidy (3 August 1993), in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1994) 418-424.

132

A.T. ONUFERKO

considering the present interconfessional climate, have proved unfounded” (p. 418). Ljubačivs’kyj focused on a number of elements of the Balamand Document that he saw as positive, such as the notions that Christian disunity is contrary to the will of Christ (Balamand, n. 6); that past attempts at union with Rome “were based on an authentic desire to be faithful to Christ’s commandment ‘that all may be one’” (n. 9); and, that Balamand affirmed the inviolability of the freedom of conscience of believers (n. 15). Nevertheless, historical divisions between Orthodox and Catholics have been painful for both churches (n. 8). He particularly affirmed the inclusion of Eastern Catholics as participants in the “dialogue of love” (n. 16). He also showed his appreciation for the theology of “sister churches” and, surprisingly, applied it to the Eastern Catholic Churches in their relationship with the See of Rome (Balamand, nn. 13-14). This affirmed an ecclesiology of the Church as communion that recognizes each other as “sister churches” who profess the same apostolic faith; participate in the same sacraments, especially the Eucharist; and, who possess an apostolic succession of bishops. For him, the notion of “sister churches” also “relates to the Church over which [he presides], since an Eastern Catholic Church should also be seen as a ‘sister church’, both in relation to the local Orthodox Churches (see Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 14-15), as well as to the Church of Rome”. Further, addressing the document’s condemnation of “uniatism” he points out a nuance that was overlooked: Having said this, I would like to make a few additional observations. Paragraph 12 states that “uniatism” as a form of “missionary apostolate” is an unacceptable method and model for unity. Here a distinction between method and model should have been made, since method speaks of the means of unification, whereas “model of unity” refers to the end or result. One cannot change historical events and methods of the past, and today “uniatism” as a means of Church union should be discarded as inappropriate. Nonetheless, it is possible to change the results of “uniatism”, the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves. In other words, it is possible to change the model. This involves not only a commitment on the part of Eastern Catholics to rediscover their own theological and spiritual heritage, as Vatican II so encourages, but also a commitment on the part of the See of Rome to change the canonical relationship between herself and the Eastern Catholic Churches, so that indeed they may become an acceptable ecclesiological model for the Orthodox. Reading between the lines, one can assume that the new Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches is the model, which Balamand finds unacceptable3. 3. Ibid., pp. 419-420.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

133

In view of the history of persecution of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, he lamented a certain lack of honesty on the part of the Orthodox Churches. The Balamand Document in nn. 10-11 does not sufficiently acknowledge “anti-uniatism” – of cases where Eastern Catholics were forcibly “reunited” back into the fold of the Orthodox Church, and suggests that the moral responsibility for “anti-uniatism” lies with the Catholic Church, since, the argument goes, the Orthodox merely developed their own theological vision of salvational exclusivism “in reaction” to the Catholic Church’s understanding of itself and its mission. Even more disturbing is the apparent unwillingness or inability of the Orthodox Church to acknowledge an even partial role in individual historical cases of suppression of Eastern Catholic Churches, conveniently placing all responsibility for the use of “unacceptable methods” on “certain civil authorities” (Balamand, n. 11).

Historical evidence of the forcible suppression of the Ukrainian GrecoCatholic Church at the pseudo-sobor of 1945-46 implies complicity of the Russian Orthodox Church. He stated, that while he previously has personally reached out to the Orthodox with a hand of forgiveness, he was: [D]eeply saddened by the fact that the Orthodox seem incapable of dealing honestly with their own history. Until she is ready to do so, the Orthodox Church will continue to see herself as a victim and will resist the process of internal healing which is necessary for her to respond positively to the call of preaching the Gospel of Our Lord, and indeed to act as a fair and equal partner in ecumenical dialogue at various levels. I understand this well since my own Church has emerged from years of victimisation, both political and ecclesial, and is undergoing its own difficult healing process4.

Moving to the practical recommendations of the second part of the document, Ljubačivs’kyj expressed his understanding of the challenges and obstacles for the implementation of these recommendations. “After years of estrangement, mutual distrust and even active disinformation from political and, sadly, church sources”, he spoke of the need for both forgiveness and repentance (Balamand, n. 20). He acknowledged that he has extended his hand in forgiveness, but that it was not reciprocated by the Moscow Patriarchate. In reference to the particular insight of the Balamand Document regarding the need for imagination and creativity in envisioning a Church 4. Ibid., p. 420. See the comments on mutual forgiveness in J.Z. SKIRA, Affirming Sobornicity: The Ukrainian Catholic Church and Modern Ecumenism, in P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), Believing in Community: Ecumenical Reflections on the Church (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 261), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters, 2013, 555-566, pp. 564-565.

134

A.T. ONUFERKO

already united as part of the ecumenical process, Ljubačivs’kij noted the efforts of his immediate predecessors towards Christian unity. He cited the Servant of God, Metropolitan Andrej Šeptyts’kyj (1865-1944), who “never saw as his mission the conversion of the Orthodox to the Eastern Catholic side, but rather encouraged all to remain open to ‘possibilities, which no one has yet thought of’”. Also, his predecessor the Confessor of the faith Josyf Slipyj, “in spite of his personal suffering and that of his Church, never lost sight of the overall goal of Christian Unity”. As primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Ljubačivs’kyj committed himself, his brother bishops, clergy and faithful to applying the practical rules of the Balamand Document to the best of their ability, referencing separately each point (nn. 21-33). Regarding the situation in Ukraine, he recognized that divisions within the Orthodox community present a particular challenge to the practical recommendations of Balamand. At the same time, his letter proved prophetical regarding the most recent granting of autocephaly to, and the movement towards autocephaly for, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine5. I would like to take for granted the Orthodox commitment to adhere to these same practical principles in Ukraine. But I also realize that the current divisions within the Orthodox community do not favour such adherence. I assure you, Your Eminence, that the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church does not wish to exploit the internal strife within Ukrainian Orthodoxy for its own benefit. Instead, I express to you my sincere hope that the Orthodox Church will soon find the internal strength to accept in ecclesial terms that, which has become a reality of political life. The Church of Kiev should be allowed to stand on her own since she is, after all, the Mother Church of all Rus’. The ecclesial stability necessary for the implementation of the principles delineated at Balamand depends on a positive resolution of this question6.

Ljubačivs’kyj closed his Letter with a commitment to further educate his Church on the developments of the ecumenical dialogue, offering a blessing and a prayer that the Lord open all hearts to “possibilities, which no one has yet thought of”. Ljubačivs’kyj’s letter represents a conscious decision by the head of an Eastern Catholic Church to respond positively and constructively to an imperfect document. Given the atmosphere leading up to the meeting in 5. The Ecumenical Patriarchate signed a tomos (decree) of autocephaly on 5 January 2018, toward establishing an independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine and healing the division there affecting tens of millions of Orthodox faithful. See also the e-book published by the Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle: E. SOTIROPOULOS (ed.), The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly: Historical, Canonical, and Pastoral Perspectives (2019). For the history of this, see also the essay by C. HOVORUN, The Issue of Unia in Relations between Moscow and Constantinople, in this volume, 119-129. 6. LJUBAČIVS’KYJ, Letter to Cardinal Cassidy (n. 2), pp. 423-424.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

135

Balamand, this was not something that could have been taken for granted. The deviation from the mutually agreed sequence of theological topics by the International Commission, and the refusal of the Orthodox side in Freising (1990) to proceed until the “problem of uniatism” was addressed, put the Eastern Catholics in Eastern Europe on the defensive. They found themselves accused of interconfessional violence, unjustly in their view, and were described as “an obstacle” to further dialogue. The perception was that the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches was being put into question. Furthermore, Rome initially did little to keep the Eastern Catholics informed and to reassure them regarding their future, and so the dialogue was seen as a discussion that marginalized Eastern Catholics in discussions about them. When the subcommittee of the international dialogue convened in Ariccia in June 1991, it was evident that some progress had been made in that a commitment to continue the dialogue was reaffirmed and that both sides had made an effort to articulate fundamental theological principles and their practical application. Furthermore, the Ariccia draft represented an opening to the role Eastern Catholic Churches might play “to make their particular contribution toward whatever the full communion between the two Sister-Churches requires” (Ariccia draft, n. 13)7. When the Balamand plenary scheduled for June 1992 was postponed due to ongoing tensions, the positive result was that the additional year allowed for further reflection and discussion on the Ariccia draft. In responding to the efforts in Balamand, Ljubačivs’kyj made a conscious decision to err on the side of hope. In its historical context, Ljubačivs’kyj’s letter succeeded in a number of areas. It immediately signalled to the bishops, clergy and laity of the UGCC that the ecumenical dialogue is not something that Eastern Catholics should fear, but is rather a stirring of the Spirit that requires our engagement and support, while demonstrating to both sides of the dialogue that the UGCC is ready to contribute constructively in the movement of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches towards full communion. The letter also illustrated that Eastern Catholics have a broad appreciation of the theological and practical issues that need to be addressed in ecumenical dialogue. And finally, it opened up a period of cooperation between the UGCC and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, at least under the presidency of Cardinal Cassidy (1989-2001). Ljubačivs’kyj’s letter was subsequently followed by several significant initiatives. 7. See Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Commission, Le document d’Ariccia: L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, in Irénikon 65 (1992) 491-498.

136

A.T. ONUFERKO

2. The Pastoral Letter “On the Unity of the Holy Churches” (1994) On 7 April 1994, Ljubačivs’kyj fulfilled a promise made in his letter to Cardinal Cassidy and issued a pastoral letter on ecumenism: “On the Unity of the Holy Churches”8. The pastoral letter was an effort to bring the Church in Ukraine up-to-date regarding ecumenical developments within the Catholic Church. Addressed to all members of the Church, it was nonetheless primarily intended for the bishops, the clergy and seminarians. One should remember that the intended readers were isolated from ecumenical developments for the better part of the twentieth century. For this reason, this pastoral letter was most significant. The letter highlighted that the Church of Kyiv throughout its history has sought to preserve or re-establish the eucharistic unity, which existed between East and West when Prince Volodymyr of Kyiv accepted “the precious pearl, the Orthodox faith” in 988. The Union of Brest in 1596 re-established unity with Rome and in the following centuries many efforts were made to renew the internal unity which was subsequently lost within the Church of Kyiv and Halyč9. The pastoral letter also referenced Ljubačivs’kyj’s predecessors, Metropolitan Andrej Šeptyc’kyj and Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, who saw ecumenism as an important part of their ministry. All of us are called to take part in the efforts for Christian unity, notwithstanding the obstacles of recent history and those of the present. To understand better the task in Ukraine, we should first acquaint ourselves with the ecumenical experience of the Catholic Church. This has included the rapprochement effected by Pope John XXIII and Patriarch Athenagoras, and the presence of Orthodox observers at the Second Vatican Council. The Council’s decree On Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) spoke of the richness of the Christian East and of the role the Eastern Catholic Churches are called to play toward Christian unity (Orientalium ecclesiarum, n. 24). Also significant were the historic visit of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem 1964; the nullification of the anathemas of 8. Pastyrs’ke zvernennja Blažennišoho Myroslava Ivana Kardynala Ljubačivs’koho pro Jednist’ svjatyx Božyx Cerkov [Pastoral Letter of His Beatitude Myroslav Ivan Cardinal Ljubačiv’skij on the Unity of God’s Churches] (L’viv, 1994), http://book.dyhdzvin. org/dokumenty-tserkvy/pastyrske-zvernennya-blazhennishogo-myroslava-ivana-kardynalalyubachivskogo-pro-yednist-svyatyh-tserkov.html (accessed 2 April 2020). 9. See B. GUDZIAK, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press for the Ukrainian Research Institute, 1998. Cf. W.P. VAN DEN BERCKEN – B. GROEN (eds.), Four Hundred Years Union of Brest (1596-1996): A Critical Re-Evaluation (Eastern Christian Studies, 1), Leuven, Peeters, 1998.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

137

1054 in 1965; and, later patronal feast visits to Constantinople and Rome in 1967. Such rapprochement was continued by the UGCC through the 1976 pastoral letter of Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, “On Unification in Christ”. The year 1979 was also important, in that Pope John Paul II wrote to Cardinal Slipyj announcing the celebrations of 1,000 years of Christianity in Ukraine, and whose letter contained particular emphasis on the ecumenical vocation of the UGCC. The rapprochement following Vatican II, and the ecumenical openness of the Orthodox Churches during their preparations for a pan-Orthodox synod, led to Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I announcing in 1979 the commencement of an international ecumenical dialogue, a “dialogue of truth”. As is noted by others in this volume, this dialogue saw the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue meet in a number of plenary sessions that produced important ecumenical statements, notably in Patmos-Rhodes (1980), Munich (1982), Crete (1984) and Bari (1986-87). Ljubačivs’kyj’s pastoral letter noted that 1985 was the 1,100-year celebrations of St. Cyril and Methodius, marked by the encyclical Slavorum Apostoli which spoke of Church unity as “neither absorption nor fusion”. Two years later, the Marian Year encyclical Redemptoris Mater (1987), with its particular emphasis on the devotion to the Most Holy Mother of God in the East, expressed hope that this richness of praise would hasten the day when the Church would once again breathe with both her lungs of East and West. Significant also were the celebrations for the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine (1988) and the ecumenical dimension of the encyclical Magnum baptismi donum (1988). The celebrations in Rome of the millennium of Christianity were closely followed by Eastern Catholics in Ukraine who had slowly begun to emerge from the underground, alongside such churches in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Their resurgence led to accusations levelled against them of being stumbling blocks to theological dialogue. The Freising Statement (1990) and the Ariccia Draft (1991) on uniatism were responses to the resurgence of these formerly persecuted churches10. At the same time, incidentally, the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church was developing its own ecumenical initiatives with its participation in the visit of Patriarch Dimitrios I to the United States (1990) and the presence of Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos (Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Ecumenical 10. See A. DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion – Le texte catholique-orthodoxe de Freising, in Revue Théologique de Louvain 22 (1991) 3-29. The Ariccia draft document can be found at Le Document d’Ariccia – L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, in Irénikon 65 (1992) 491-498.

138

A.T. ONUFERKO

Patriarchate) at the first Synod of the UGCC Church held in L’viv, Ukraine (May 1991). Also important was the beginning of a dialogue group between members of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, called the Kievan Church Study Group11, whose first consultation met in Oxford in August 1992, at a time when the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue failed to convene (in June 1992). And finally, Ljubačivs’kyj’s pastoral letter dedicates nine pages to the Balamand Document of 1993. He described the UGCC’s reception of Balamand in the following words: Like every document, this Statement has its imperfections and does not always reflect all points of view, nor relate the full historical reality. But we consider it more constructive to stress that which is positive in this Statement, for we believe that “the signs of the times” require this from our Church.

The pastoral letter quoted entire passages from Balamand. In particular, it dwelt on Balamand’s themes that Church disunity is contrary to the nature of the Church; that proselytism has a false theological basis; and, that both Orthodox and Catholics have suffered because of ecclesial divisions. The pastoral letter noted that Balamand recognizes the wrong done to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the past, and that today we are called to a new understanding of relations between Catholics and Orthodox; that Eastern Catholics are sister churches; that freedom of choice and conscience must be respected; and that all actions which would indicate a lack of respect should be avoided. In particular, Ljubačivs’kyj wrote, “In accordance with this point, we remind all those entrusted with the care of souls that it is not our goal or aim to induce Orthodox faithful to join the Greco-Catholic Church, but rather to encourage the churches to find full communion and healing”. Ljubačivs’kyj welcomed the challenge of Balamand that the Eastern Catholic Churches be invited to participate in the “dialogue of love”. In a spirit of cooperation, Ljubačivs’kyj called for the creation of joint commissions both for dialogue, as well as for conflict resolution. In practical matters he called on all denominations in Ukraine to refrain from using charitable works to induce individuals to change their religious or national identity; he encouraged the joint use of places of worship where possible; and, he offered to share what little resources he had with those communities in need. In conclusion, Ljubačivs’kyj wrote: The forces of atheism, secularism and irreligion have magnified the disagreements between the churches, to the serious discredit of the Holy Gospel. We pray and believe that the movement of Christian unity, the common 11. See section II.2, below.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

139

effort toward the restoration of full communion between Catholics and Orthodox and the search for a complete healing of the divisions in our own Church of Kyïv will be a profound, convincing witness to the power of the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and an irresistible means of evangelization among our Ukrainian people, who thirst for Jesus Christ after so many years of deprivation. Thus, Orthodox and Catholics, we shall give common witness in response to the prayer of Our Lord “that all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they may be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me” (Jn 17,21).

Again, I note that while most of the ideas expressed in the pastoral letter were not unique, its significance lies in the fact that the subject matter was formally addressed in post-Soviet Ukraine for the first time, and that for Ukrainian Greco-Catholics it carried with it the authority of the Church’s leading hierarch. II. LOCAL UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH INITIATIVES 1. Ecumenical Seminar for Byzantine-Rite Eastern Catholic Churches (1994) One of the best examples of cooperation between the UGCC and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity following Balamand was an Ecumenical Seminar, organized by the UGCC in coordination with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Venice, 26-29 September 1994). Its participants included representatives from eleven Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine-Constantinopolitan tradition. It should be noted that this was the first such formal gathering of representatives of these churches on any subject matter since Vatican II. The seminar featured a three-part program of expert presentations on the history of the ecumenical dialogue12; reports from the individual churches on their local ecumenical situations and challenges; and, workshops and discussion groups on common ecumenical goals and a possible plan of action for the future13. 12. Representative speakers included: Melkites: Bishop Nicholas (Samra); Ukrainians: Monsignor Iwan Dacko; Romanians: Bishop Virgil (Bercea); Eparchy of Mukačevo (Ukraine): Bishop Ivan (Semedi); Eparchy of Križevci (Croatia and Former Yugoslavia): Bishop Slavomir (Miklovs); Eparchy of Prešov (Slovakia): Bishop Ján (Hirka); Eparchy of Hajdúdorog (Hungary): Bishop Szilárd (Keresztes); Eparchy of Lungro (Italy): Bishop Ercole (Lupinacci); Eparchy of Passaic (USA): Monsignor John Sekellick; Apostolic Exarchate of Greece: Father Georges Sargologos; Apostolic Exarchate of Bulgaria: Auxiliary Bishop Christo (Proykov). 13. Since the author was chief coordinator of the Seminar, the presentation here is based on personal notes as well as on reports submitted by the author to Ljubačivs’kyj and

140

A.T. ONUFERKO

Presentations on the history of the ecumenical dialogue with perspectives for the future included speakers such as Johannes Cardinal Willebrands (Past-president, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity); Achille Cardinal Silvestrini (Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches); Bishop Pierre Duprey (Secretary, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity); and Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy (President, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). The Venice program also included workshops and discussion groups under the direction of Father Anthony A. D’Souza, SJ. The Ukrainian Church had the opportunity of working with Fr. Anthony in the past and it was most fortunate that he agreed to share his particular skills as facilitator for the benefit of all the churches represented at the seminar in Venice. The workshops were usually organized in smaller study groups, with the results presented and discussed in joint sessions. The first workshop was designed to help the seminar’s participants articulate their expectations and express their hopes for the seminar’s success. Among these were that Greco-Catholic Churches may better know one another; that they establish a better understanding with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity so as to discuss common ecumenical problems; and, that they may establish closer collaboration among themselves and plan for future encounters. The purpose of another workshop was to focus on those behaviours and attitudes which advance ecumenical understanding and cooperation, that should therefore be reinforced, and on those behaviours and attitudes which only increase tensions and misunderstandings and should therefore be avoided. Key points were the following: Positive attitudes: – Recognizing errors of the past with the assurance that they will not be repeated. – Recognizing the importance of the theological basis of Vatican II and a theology of “sister churches”. – Organizing common prayer and participation in worship whenever and wherever possible. – Sharing the patrimony of the Eastern Church with the Universal Church. – Developing personal relations between clergy and laity. – Jointly participating in social and civil events and in works of charity.

to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity following the event. The work of the seminar remains unpublished.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

141

– Taking care of proper ecumenical education. – Avoiding polemics in relationships. Negative attitudes: – Triumphalism. – Excessive nationalism (phyletism) in the churches. – Intransigence on both sides. – Incapability to forgive (including the martyri – lapsi). – Confusion regarding Eastern Christian identity. – Exploitation of other’s weaknesses. – Un-ecumenical attitudes of clergy due to lack of education and narrowmindedness. – Improper use of the media. – Incoherence of Latin Church policy in relation to the Eastern Churches. – External influences of the Latin Church on controversial issues: the nomination of bishops; the understanding of primacy; restrictions for married clergy, etc. – Unreasonable fear of involvement in ecumenical endeavours. – Lack of unity among Eastern Catholics themselves. From this understanding of positive and negative ecumenical behaviours and attitudes there evolved a commitment for action. These included a desire to be engaged in the “dialogue of love” as expressed in concrete gestures for building trust between churches; the development of joint projects with the Orthodox (charitable works, social assistance, liturgy, education); providing for the ecumenical education and training of clergy; fostering an authentic Eastern Christian identity; prayers for unity (both within our communities, as well as jointly with the Orthodox); having courage to take ecumenical initiatives; and, developing a sense of accountability (responsibility) for ecumenism. A final exercise consisted of strategic planning of establishing ecumenical goals and developing a strategy for the implementation of these goals. Ultimately, the seminar’s participants recognized three further fields of action, which related not only to ecumenism per se, but reflected an understanding of what should form a basis of ecumenical work within Eastern Catholic Churches. These were a renewal of an authentic Eastern Christian identity with special emphasis on the education of clergy and faithful; of the coordination and sharing between the Eastern Catholic Churches; and, the development of relations and eventual dialogue with the Orthodox Churches. The significance of this Ecumenical Seminar is that it provided an opportunity for representatives of churches from Eastern Europe to learn

142

A.T. ONUFERKO

first-hand of the developments of the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue from its chief architects. Equally valuable was the encounter with other Eastern Catholics; the hearing of the challenges facing them in other countries and regions; and, learning from their positive experiences, while discussing together ways of moving forward. 2. Kievan Church Study Group (1992-1996) The Kievan Church Study Group was also another local church initiative of individual hierarchs and scholars of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, largely in response to attacks levelled against the former following its emergence from the underground. It was conceived as an unofficial gathering, held with the blessing of the heads of the two respective churches. The understanding was that the successes of the group would be to the credit of their respective churches. At the same time, if individual presentations, or if the group collectively, were to go in a direction which either of the churches later found to be problematic, the churches would be able to properly disassociate themselves. In total, the group met for seven consultations: Oxford, UK (8-10 August 1992); Stamford, USA (12-14 October 1992); Ottawa, Canada (21-23 April 1993); Stamford, USA (5-7 October 1993); Chevetogne, Belgium (1-3 August 1994); Rome, Italy (23-20 June 1995); and, Halki-Constantinople (16-20 April 1996). The group’s membership was somewhat fluid. Only three members were present at all seven consultations: Bishop Kallistos (Ware), Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) and Fr. Andrew Onuferko. A significant number were present at six consultations: Bishop Vsevolod (Majdansky), Bishop Basil (Losten), Archimandrite Boniface (Luykx), Fr. Andriy Chirovsky and Fr. Peter Galadza. A number of members were present for four of the consultations: Archimandrite Ephrem (Lash), Fr. Anthony Ugolnik and Dr. (now Met.) Boris Gudziak. In total, there were twelve participants from the Ecumenical Patriarchate and fifteen from the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church. At least nineteen major papers presented dealt primarily with ecclesiology, church history, papal primacy and the restoration of full communion (ecumenism)14. In addition to the major presentations, which were traditionally followed by a formal response and informal discussion, the 14. A number of papers and statements of the Study Group are published in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 34 (1993) 8-199, 355-463; 35 (1994) 77-255; 36 (1995) 125-270.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

143

consultations also produced a number of statements and documents, most notably, “Reflections on the Ariccia Working Draft by the Kievan Church Study Group” (Ottawa, April 1993)15, which Ljubačivs’kyj also mentioned in his letter to Cardinal Cassidy. The consultations in Rome and Halki were particularly notable moments in the history of the group. The gathering in Rome (1995) coincided with the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and the presence of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as a guest of honour. The Study group was received in audience by both Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Group was also received at the PCPCU and met for close to an hour with its President, Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy and its Secretary, Bishop Pierre Duprey. In Halki (1996), the group met as guests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, being received in audience with him, and were present for a Pontifical Divine Liturgy on Thomas Sunday at Saint George’s Cathedral in the Phanar (Istanbul). Halki was the last encounter of the Kievan Church Study Group. There were calls to expand the group to include representatives from other jurisdictions and of holding a meeting in Kyiv, though none of these ideas materialized. In some ways, the Kievan Church Study Group suffered the same fate as the international dialogue, allowing practical concerns to distract it from constructive and imaginative theological dialogue. Financial issues also came into play as individual members had to frequently rely on personal funds in order to participate in the consultations. Nonetheless, among the most noteworthy contributions of the Kievan Church Study Group is the fact that the UGCC in its own right for the first time participated in a sustained and vibrant ecumenical dialogue, and that the bonds of friendship and trust that were established in the group would continue to bear fruit well beyond its last encounter. 3. The Translation of the 1993 “Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism” As a further sign of its commitment to ecumenism, the UGCC undertook the task of translating the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 into Ukrainian16. The translation work was completed in 1996 and included 15. Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 35 (1994) 79-81. 16. Paps’ka Rada Dlja Spryjannja Xrystijans’kij Jednosti: Dovidnyk zastosuvannja pryncypiv i norm ekumenizmu [Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: Directory of the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism], 25 March 1993 (Vatican). The Ukrainian translation included a Foreword by Cardinal Ljubačivs’kyj (2 June 1996, L’viv).

144

A.T. ONUFERKO

an introduction by Ljubačivs’kyj. The publication of this text was significant in that it provided Ukrainian Greco-Catholics with an authoritative document of the Holy See that addressed both the theory and practice of ecumenism. In particular, the Directory provided clear guidelines for common activity in three key areas: Christian teaching, prayer-spiritual life and social action. Copies of the Ukrainian translation were sent to Orthodox hierarchs in Ukraine so that they too might be aware of the principles and norms that guide Catholic ecumenical activity and to show that the UGCC is committed to following these principles and norms. 4. Bilateral Conversations – The Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow On 7-8 May 1997 in Cassano delle Murge, Bari, Italy, a regular bilateral meeting was held between the delegations of the Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow, headed respectively by Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and His Eminence Kiril, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Greco-Catholic Church in Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia were invited to take part in the conversations17. During the meeting a wide range of problems were considered, connected with the relations between Greco-Catholics and Orthodox in Ukraine. The overall atmosphere was cordial, even when contentious issues were raised. A joint communiqué was issued following the meeting. The agenda of the Russian delegation seemed to be to convince the Eastern Catholics to denounce nationalism. The Eastern Catholics refused to discuss the issue outright, saying that nationalism is simply not a factor in the life of the church. Attempts to introduce the topic of “nationalism” in the joint communiqué were rejected by the Catholic side. However, on 12 May the Moscow Patriarchate issued a press release about the communiqué and mentioned “nationalism” anyway18. The Moscow delegation 17. The author of this chapter was invited by the Pontifical Council to serve as EnglishItalian-Ukrainian translator. 18. The press release was originally posted at: http://www.russian-orthodox-church. org.ru/newsen09.htm, which has since been removed. References to “nationalism” were subsequently removed in the official record of the report to the Holy Synod from the Department for External Affairs on 17 July 1997. See archive: https://mospat.ru/archive/en/1997/ 07/se170771/ (accessed 20 April 2020). The accusation of nationalism was particularly ironic, given that Metropolitan Kiril was a key speaker at the nationalist IV World Council of the Russian People, held at the Danilovsky Monastery in Moscow immediately prior

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

145

also raised the issue of violence against the Orthodox allegedly perpetrated by Eastern Catholics. However, when challenged by the Catholic co-chair to produce even one example, Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Kiril (of Smolensk) quickly changed the topic. This bilateral meeting was significant both for the Pontifical Council as well as for Greco-Catholics. Particularly regarding the false accusations of violence, the Catholic side essentially signalled to Moscow that ecumenical dialogue entailed speaking truthfully. It is, therefore, not surprising that under the presidency of Cassidy little progress was made in the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. When the international Commission finally met again in 2000 in Emmitsburg-Baltimore to discuss the “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism” they were unable to reach an agreed statement on the subject.

III. LJUBOMYR CARDINAL HUSAR (2001-2011) From 1995, Ljubačivs’kyj increasingly suffered from health issues. In 1996, Bishop Ljubomyr Husar was appointed Auxiliary for the L’viv Archeparchy, providing considerable assistance to Ljubačivs’kyj in his pastoral duties and also presiding at the Synod of Bishops in Ljubačivs’kyj’s name. Following Ljubačivs’kyj’s death in December 2000, Husar was elected to succeed him. In terms of the ecumenical commitment of the UGCC after the fall of the USSR, the groundwork laid by Ljubačivs’kyj continued to bear fruit under both his successors. There were many ecumenically significant initiatives under his primacy. 1. The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church has been an active member of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations since its creation in 1996. Ukraine is a religiously pluralistic society, and this particular forum provides regular opportunities for Christians, Jews and Muslims to discuss issues of mutual concern in dialogue with one another. The Council also allows the religious communities in Ukraine to speak to the meeting in Bari, 5-7 May 1997. For a description of Metropolitan Kiril’s role in the event see R. DELLA CAVA, The IV World Council of the Russian People [IV Vsemirnij Russkij Narodnij Sobor]: “The Nation’s Health”, Moscow 05-07 May, 1997, published as a research project commissioned by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research (23 June 1997).

146

A.T. ONUFERKO

before the civil authorities with a common voice. In this forum, Husar was a highly regarded moral authority. 2. Papal Visit to Ukraine (2001) The visit of Pope John Paul II to Ukraine (23-27 June 2001), as a “pilgrim of hope to Kyiv and L’viv”, was a time of incredible blessing for the entire country, but also a lost ecumenical opportunity for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP)19. The visit was protested by the leadership of the Church of Moscow, and the Orthodox Church in Ukraine demonstrated its lack of autonomy when it followed the Moscow Patriarchate’s call for a boycott of the visit. Ironically, the only Orthodox clergy to attend one of the papal eucharistic celebrations was a priest from Moscow, who was given an opportunity to greet the pope personally following the Divine Liturgy in L’viv on June 27. Earlier in Kyiv, the Pope attended a special meeting of the afore-mentioned All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations20. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP), regrettably, boycotted the session. On a positive note, due to its fearmongering regarding possible religious violence in Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarchate’s negative publicity, ironically, contributed to publicizing the trip well beyond anything that the Catholic Church in Ukraine could afford with its limited resources. The papal trip to Ukraine was covered by 4,000 accredited journalists from across the globe. 3. Transfer of the Primatial See of the UGCC to Kyiv (2004) Following its emergence from the underground, the UGCC became increasingly aware of the presence of Ukrainian Greco-Catholics throughout Ukraine, along with the need for establishing a permanent administrative presence in Kyiv for the purposes of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue and church-state relations. When asked by Rome to present historical, canonical, pastoral and ecumenical arguments for such a presence, 19. As noted earlier, prior to 2018, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) was the only canonically recognized Orthodox Church in Ukraine, existing alongside churches not recognized as canonical, though cumulatively having tens of millions of faithful, namely, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). 20. The address of His Holiness to the members of the Council can be found at: https:// w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2001/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010624_ ucraina-meeting-panucr.html (accessed 1 April 2020).

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

147

the leadership of the UGCC sought to make a convincing case to transfer the see of its primate to Kyiv, as the historical title of the Metropolitan who signed the Union of Brest (1595-1596) was that of “Kyiv-Halyč”. Rome accepted the presented arguments to extend the territory of the UGCC to all of Ukraine (with the exception of Transcarpathia) and officially on 6 December 2004 recognized His Beatitude Ljubomyr Husar as “Major Archbishop of Kyiv and Halyč” and “Archbishop of Kyiv”. Earlier that year, Husar wrote a thoughtful piece titled, “One People of God in the Land on the Hills of Kyiv” (13 April 2004) laying the groundwork for the anticipated move21. Leaving the past to God, Husar advocated for the ecclesial autonomy (pomisnist’) of the UGCC, rejecting degrading exclusivism in favour of a communion of mutual enrichment and social ministry, and decrying denominational competition in favour of a primacy of love. The official transfer of the primatial see took place in 2005, however, patriarchal administration offices remained in Kyiv and L’viv (largely for financial reasons). Of more than symbolic significance is the construction of the Patriarchal Sobor of the Holy Resurrection along the Dnipro river on the left (East) bank. With foundations laid in 2002, the first Divine Liturgy was celebrated in 2005, while work on iconography and the completion of other structures in the complex continues. When asked why the Church is not accepting government funding for its construction, Husar explained in 2011: We hold such a position that we do not wish to receive donations from official organs. The reason is that this always carries with it, shall we say, a certain “gratitude”. We wish to be a free Church, so that donations do not prevent us from speaking the truth when it needs to be said22.

4. Institute for Ecumenical Studies (Ukrainian Catholic University, L’viv) Also in 2005, at the request of Husar, the Ukrainian Catholic University in L’viv established an Institute for Ecumenical Studies (IES) as a place for creative ecumenical discussion and formation. In addition to academic programs and lectures – offered to clergy, seminarians and lay students – the institute coordinates an annual Ecumenical Social Week in L’viv; hosts the Ukrainian Christian Academic Fellowship; and sponsors an 21. In Odyn Bozhyj Narod u kraji na Kyïvs’kyx horax: Slovo Blažennišoho Ljubomyra, mytropolyta Kyjevo-Halyc’koji mytropoliï Ukrayins’koji Hreko-Katolyc’koji Cerkvy, z nahody započatkuvannja povernennja osidku mytropolyta do Kyjeva (4 April 2004, Kyiv). 22. Traditional Christmas Day interview on Ukraine’s Channel 5 (7 January 2011).

148

A.T. ONUFERKO

annual award competition in journalism (“Reporters of Hope in Ukraine”). In September 2019, it held an Ecumenical School for Dialogue, titled “Creating Friendship through Dialogue: Ecumenism in Action”. IV. SVIATOSLAV ŠEVČUK (2011-) Husar resigned from his office on 10 February 2011. His successor, Bishop Sviatoslav Ševčuk (Shevchuk), Apostolic Administrator for the Eparchy of Santa María del Patrocinio en Buenos Aires, was elected on 23 March and confirmed by Rome on 25 March. Already in August 2011 he gathered with bishops, clergy, religious and laity in Prudentopolis, Brazil for the sixth session of the Patriarchal Assembly (Sobor) on the theme of Monastic and Religious Life. In Brazil, he also presided over his first session of the Synod of Bishops and adopted a program, initiated by his predecessor, for strategic development to 2020 in key areas of church life. A central component of this development is a program called “The Vibrant Parish: A Place to Encounter the Living Christ”, which also places emphasis on ecumenism in one of its key elements: “CommunionUnity (Koinōnia)”. The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (2016) While still auxiliary to Ljubačivs’kyj, Husar invited theologians and intellectuals to draft a document articulating the principles which characterize the approach of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church to ecumenism. The results of that effort were published in 2000 under the title “An Understanding of the Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church”23. Building further on this document, a new document was drafted in 2015, approved by the Synod of Bishops, promulgated by Ševčuk on 1 December 201524. As noted earlier, the UGCC has had cordial relations with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Churches and supported the granting of a tomos of autocephaly 23. Koncepcija ekumeničnoji pozyciji Ukraïns’koji Hreko-Katolyc’koji Cerkvy [The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church], in Ljudyna i svit [Person and World] 7 (2000) 36-42. 24. Ekumenična koncepcija Ukraïns’koji Hreko-Katolyc’koji Cerkvy – The Ecumenical Position of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church (L’viv, 2016), http://ecumenism.com. ua/images/1011%20Ecum.%20Koncep.pdf (accessed 6 April 2020).

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

149

to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in 2018. The “Letter from the Synod of Bishops of the UGCC” (September 2018) stated that the ecumenical goal of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church remains the unification of all churches deriving from the Baptism of St. Volodymyr in Ukraine into one autonomous (pomisna) Church, in full communion with the Roman See of the Chief Apostle Peter and with the See of Constantinople-New Rome, our Mother Church, as it was in the time of the Baptism of Rus’-Ukraine25.

It further elaborated that the historical schism between Rome and Constantinople was not created by the ancient Kyivan Rus’ (Ukrainian) Church. Owing to the suffering and witness of the Ukrainian Churches gives Ukrainians “the right, and places on [them] the responsibility to participate in the general Christian movement towards confessional reconciliation and unity”. V. ECUMENICAL INVOLVEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE UGCC Of the many individual members of the UGCC involved in ecumenism, it is worth mentioning three individuals. Rev. Dr. Peter Galadza, a former member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation (1997-2014), is a professor emeritus of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies (University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto). During Galadza’s tenure as member of the consultation, significant reports and documents were drafted and published including those on sacraments, the ministry of reconciliation, the Filioque, a common date for Easter-Pascha and “Steps towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future (2 October 2010)”26. Rev. Dr. Iwan Dacko, since 2005, has been a member of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. As a Commission member, Dacko participated in numerous sessions, notably at Ravenna (2007) on “The 25. Materijaly Synodu Jepyskopiv Ukrayins’koji Hreko-katolyc’koyi Cerkvy: Specvypusk Blahovisnyka Verxovnoho Arxyjepyskopa Kyjevo-Halyc’koho Ukrayins’koji HrekoKatolyc’koji Cerkvy 2018 roku [Proceedings of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church: Special Issue of ‘Blahovisnyk of the Supreme Archbishop of the Kyiv-Halych Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 2018], L’viv, 2019, pp. 131-133 (translation mine). 26. A full listing of statements can be found at http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ ministries/orthodox-catholic.

150

A.T. ONUFERKO

Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority” up to Chieti’s promulgation of “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church” (2016). Most recently, Dacko attended the coordinating committee meeting held at the Comunità di Bose (2018), reviewing themes centred on primacy and synodality in modern times. And finally, Fr. Ihor Šaban, as Head of the UGCC Commission for Interdenominational and Interreligious Relations from 2008 to the present, represents the UGCC nationally and internationally; coordinates annual meetings of eparchial ecumenical officers in Ukraine and Western Europe (Germany, France, Poland); organizes UGCC participation in the annual Prayer for Christian Unity Week; and, is editor of Ekumenizm v Ukraïni [Ecumenism in Ukraine]27. VI. CONCLUSION From the perspective of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, the Balamand Document provided an opportunity both for internal growth and greater ecumenical sensitivity, as well as for broader ecumenical engagement on a national and international level. The ecumenical position of the UGCC remains consistent. Its primary focus is that of restoring communion in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. Each territory on the face on the earth where there is a diversity of Christian denominations has a particular responsibility to contribute in this movement, seeking ways of cooperation and dialogue in mutual respect for the other’s Christian witness. The Ukrainian people have suffered more than most from the schism between East and West. That places upon them a greater responsibility as well but, in Ukraine’s case, the task is made much more difficult not because of internal factors, but rather because of foreign interference and intervention. As far as relations with the Ukrainian state go, the UGCC rejects the unhealthy model of collusion between church and state that characterizes the relationship between the Church of Moscow and the Kremlin. Dutifully patriotic and dedicated to the good of all people in Ukraine, but not subservient to the political power of the day28, the UGCC is fully aware 27. http://ecumenism.com.ua. 28. See Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church: Christ – Our Pascha, Kyiv – Edmonton, Synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, 2016, par. 969-974, found at http://catechism.royaldoors.net/catechism.

BALAMAND AND THE UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC CHURCH

151

of its social responsibility as a church and cherishes its freedom to speak prophetically on political and social issues affecting Ukrainian society, while tacitly encouraging its Orthodox brethren to do the same. The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto and Eastern Canada 4 Bellwoods Avenue Toronto, ON M6J 2P4 [email protected]

Andrew T. ONUFERKO

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE DE 2016 ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE DANS LE CONTEXTE DE LA RÉCEPTION DU DOCUMENT DE BALAMAND I. INTRODUCTION Le 12 février 2016, à Cuba, a eu lieu un événement que l’on peut qualifier d’historique, le pape François a rencontré le patriarche Cyrille de Moscou à l’aéroport de La Havane. C’était la première rencontre entre le pape de Rome et le patriarche de Moscou, chefs des deux Églises chrétiennes les plus grandes et les plus puissantes. Cette rencontre, entourée par de nombreuses prémisses énigmatiques, a eu une importante résonance œcuménique et politique. La rencontre a été couronnée par la signature de la Déclaration commune, un document qui concerne plusieurs problèmes contemporains – économiques, sociaux, politiques, ecclésiaux, œcuméniques, etc. – prétendant devenir une certaine «feuille de route» des relations entre les deux Églises. Pour les deux, la Déclaration est devenue un exemple de la réussite du dialogue inter-ecclésial après le document de Balamand «L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion», promulgué en 19931, dans la période de la résurgence des Églises orientales catholiques après décennies de leur suppression dans l’Union Soviétique et après la collapse de communisme. En comparant les deux documents, nous arrivons à la conclusion que les paragraphes 4, 5, 7, 15, 24, 25 et 28 de la Déclaration de La Havane présentent la réception directe des idées de Balamand, tandis que les paragraphes 26 et 27 sont consacrés à la situation particulière en Ukraine et aux Églises ukrainiennes, y compris l’Église gréco-catholique. En ce qui concerne la réception du document de Balamand, il importe de souligner qu’après sa promulgation, il y a un quart de siècle, la Déclaration de La Havane est devenue le premier document inter-ecclésial catholiqueorthodoxe à intégrer certaines idées et positions de Balamand sur l’uniatisme, dans une tentative de les approfondir. De ce fait, la Déclaration de La Havane est devenue une partie importante du corpus des documents du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe. 1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/ rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html (consulté 26 mai 2020).

154

I. RANTSYA

En ce qui concerne l’Ukraine, cette Déclaration est le premier document bilatéral, promulgué par les autorités religieuses externes au pays (Rome et Moscou), qui prétendent traiter le territoire ukrainien en tant que zone sous leur responsabilité. Cette prétention a régulièrement été mise en doute, non seulement par la société civile ou par les pouvoirs étatiques de l’Ukraine, mais aussi, d’une certaine manière, par les corps ecclésiastiques soumis à la juridiction de Rome ou de Moscou. L’objectif de cette recherche est d’analyser la réception de la Déclaration de La Havane en Ukraine dans le contexte de la réception du document de Balamand, tout en cherchant à découvrir le rapport entre les deux, dans un environnement gréco-catholique, sans subjectivisme. Nous nous baserons sur des sources telles que les documents officiels des Églises, les discours et interventions des personnes officielles des Églises, ainsi que sur les réactions de la société ukrainienne dans les médias et les réseaux sociaux. II. ATMOSPHÈRE AUTOUR DE L’ORGANISATION À LA HAVANE

DE LA RENCONTRE

Malgré les aspects positifs du document de Balamand et son approche nouvelle du problème de l’uniatisme, le renouveau et la mission réussie de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne dans certaines régions de l’Ukraine occidentale restaient, formaient un obstacle sérieux pour le côté orthodoxe concernant la rencontre entre le pape de Rome et le patriarche de Moscou. Cela a d’ailleurs été exprimé à plusieurs reprises par les représentants officiels de l’Église orthodoxe russe. Il y a même eu des déclarations synodales à ce sujet, par exemple: Envisagé: L’état des relations avec l’Église catholique romaine au stade actuel en ce qui concerne la possibilité de la rencontre des primats des deux Églises – Sa Sainteté le patriarche de Moscou et de toute la Russie Alexis II et Sa Sainteté le pape de Rome Jean-Paul II en Autriche. Décidé: Constater avec regret qu’actuellement la rencontre entre les primats des deux Églises n’est pas suffisamment préparée et qu’il n’existe pas un certain nombre de conditions dans lesquelles une telle rencontre pourrait être fructueuse2.

2. Zasiedanije Svjašiennogo Sinoda 10 ijunja 1997 goda, Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov’, Arhiv oficial’nogo sajta Moskovskogo Patriarhata, 1997-2007 [Réunion du Saint Synode 10 juin 1997, L’Église orthodoxe russe, Archives officielles du patriarcat de Moscou, 1997-2007], http://mospat.ru/archive/1997/06/sr090671 (consulté 17 novembre 2018) (notre traduction).

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

155

Cette emphase sur la non-possibilité d’une rencontre entre le pape de Rome et le patriarche de Moscou a souvent été répétée. Voici un exemple datant de l’année précédant la rencontre à La Havane: Question du journaliste: Il n’y a pas si longtemps [novembre 2014], le pape, en visite à Istanbul, a exprimé le souhait de rencontrer le primat de l’Église orthodoxe russe. Le patriarcat de Moscou a immédiatement réagi à ces propos en déclarant que cette réunion était entravée par les actes des gréco-catholiques ukrainiens. Les Uniates [sic; gréco-catholiques] d’Ukraine sont-ils vraiment la seule raison pour laquelle la rencontre du patriarche et du pape est impossible? Réponse du porte-parole du patriarche de Moscou: La position de notre Église a rendu cette raison décisive3.

Contre toute attente, la rencontre des primats a bien eu lieu. Ayant été préparée dans le secret le plus profond, la rencontre a été annoncée par la presse seulement une semaine avant la date. Dans ses commentaires ultérieurs, l’Église orthodoxe russe s’est abstenue de prendre position par rapport à l’obstacle ci-dessus mentionné de manière qu’on doit poser la question si le problème est toujours d’actualité. Le métropolite Hilarion Alfeyev, chef des relations extérieures du patriarcat de Moscou, s’exprime comme suit: L’Église catholique romaine et l’Église orthodoxe russe ont des positions communes sur de nombreuses questions, notamment la situation des chrétiens au Moyen-Orient …. Dans la Déclaration commune, le pape et le patriarche ont souligné la nécessité d’unir les efforts des orthodoxes et des catholiques là où cela était possible et nécessaire …. Les résultats des deux dernières années montrent qu’une réponse chrétienne commune aux défis de la civilisation moderne s’est révélée efficace4.

Ces constatations laissent à penser que la rencontre était conditionnée par des facteurs non-ecclésiastiques et non œcuméniques. Certains observateurs ukrainiens incluent parmi ces facteurs: l’influence de l’État sur l’Église orthodoxe russe, ayant pour but de réduire le degré d’isolationnisme de la Russie au niveau international; la rivalité entre les sièges constantinopolitain et moscovite; le souhait de l’Église orthodoxe russe 3. M. FAUSTOVA, Diakon Aleksandr Volkov: Ves’ 2014 god Russkaja Cerkov’ molilas’ ob Ukrainie, Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov’ [Diacre Alexander Volkov: Tout de 2014, l’Église russe a prié pour l’Ukraine, L’Église orthodoxe russe], http://www.patriarchia.ru/ db/text/1678692.html (consulté 5 mars 2019) (notre traduction). 4. I. ALFEJEV, Doklad na konferencii, posvjašiennoj vtoroj godovšinie gavanskoj vstreči (Vena, 12 fevralja 2017 goda), Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov’, Otdel vnešnih cerkovnyh svjazej’ [Rapport à la conférence consacrée au deuxième anniversaire de la réunion de La Havane (Vienne, 12 février 2017), L’Église orthodoxe russe, Département des relations extérieures], https://mospat.ru/ru/2018/02/13/news156637 (consulté 19 mars 2019) (notre traduction).

156

I. RANTSYA

de s’exprimer contre la tenue du Concile panorthodoxe (prévue pour la même année 2016, quatre mois plus tard)5. III. RÉCEPTION DE LA DÉCLARATION PAR L’ÉGLISE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE UKRAINIENNE La réaction des personnes officielles de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne était vive et aiguë. Le lendemain de la rencontre à La Havane, le 13 février 2016, le primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne, Mgr. Sviatoslav Chevtchouk (Ševčuk) de Kyiv et Halyč, a déclaré: Nous pouvons dire, en nous basant sur notre expérience de plusieurs années: quand le Vatican et Moscou organisent des réunions ou signent des textes communs, nous ne pouvons en attendre rien de bon …. Le Saint Père François a survécu à cette réunion en tant qu’événement tout d’abord spirituel …. Le patriarche de Moscou a immédiatement fait sentir qu’aucun Esprit, aucune théologie, aucune autre affaire religieuse, ne lui plaisait, seulement politique. Aucune prière commune. J’ai l’impression qu’ils se trouvaient dans deux mondes parallèles. Ces réalités parallèles se sont-elles croisées lors de cette rencontre? Je ne sais pas, mais les mathématiques enseignent que les lignes parallèles ne se croisent jamais6.

L’initiative de défendre les victimes des guerres et des violences terroristes et de tirer l’attention sur le sort des réfugiés et les séquestrés7, a été reçue de manière sceptique dans l’environnement ukrainien. Il s’agissait également de prières pour le rétablissement de la paix, ainsi qu’un appel à la coexistence fraternelle entre les diverses Églises8. Les auteurs évoquent le fait que toutes les Églises, hormis l’Église orthodoxe russe, sont discriminées en Crimée, et que certains clercs orthodoxes russes bénissent l’armement pour les forces militaires russes en Syrie, où la guerre a été qualifiée de «sainte guerre» par certaines représentants officiels de l’Église orthodoxe russe9. 5. Jak vplyne Havans’ka deklaracija na ukraïns’kyx hrystijan? [Comment la Déclaration de La Havane affectera les chrétiens ukrainiens], dans Credo (3 mars 2016), https:// credo.pro/2016/03/153483 (consulté 15 mars 2019). 6. I. JACIV, Zustrič, jaka ne vidbulasja? – Blažennišyj Svjatoslav (13 ljutoho 2016), Departament informaciji UHKC [Une réunion qui n’a pas eu lieu? – sa Béatitude Sviatoslav (13 février 2016), Département d’information de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne], http://news.ugcc.ua/interview/zustrich_yaka_ne_vidbulasya__blazhennishiy_svyatoslav_ 75960.html (consulté 13 mars 2019) (notre traduction). 7. Pape François et patriarche Cyrille de Moscou, La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016), dans La Documentation catholique 113/2522 (2016), nn. 9-10. 8. Ibid., n. 11. 9. Russian Church: The Fight in Syria is a «Holy War», dans Al-Arabiya News Channel (30 septembre 2015), http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/09/30/Churchsays-Russia-fighting-holy-battle-in-Syria.html# (consulté 15 mars 2019).

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

157

La rencontre du pape François avec le patriarche Cyrille a été vue par les Gréco-catholiques ukrainiens comme le retour du Vatican à l’Ostpolitik10. Les réseaux sociaux des Ukrainiens ont profité de l’occasion pour accuser le Vatican, et certains orthodoxes ont même invité les Grécocatholiques à rompre la communion avec lui. Le terme de «confrontation en Ukraine»11 a été considéré comme fortement injuste si l’on considère l’agression extérieure de Russie, ensemble avec la propagande russe selon laquelle il existe une guerre civile en Ukraine. À son tour, l’appel «à ne pas soutenir un développement ultérieur du conflit»12 fut considéré par l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne comme un reproche à son encontre. Le Synode de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne a initié, toujours en 2016, différents événements à Kyiv avec la participation du nonce apostolique de l’Ukraine, Mgr. Claudio Gugerotti, et du secrétaire d’État de la Cité du Vatican, le cardinal Pietro Parolin, ainsi qu’à Rome, avec la participation du préfet de la Congrégation pour les Églises orientales, le cardinal Leonardo Sandri, comme aussi avec le pape François, qui a rencontré le primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne et son synode permanent pour parler de la réception de la Déclaration en Ukraine. Le plus grand résultat de ces événements était une initiative du Saint-Siège d’organiser une quête financière pan-européenne pour aider les victimes de la guerre en Ukraine.

IV. TENTATIVE D’EMPÊCHER L’AUTOCÉPHALIE DE L’ÉGLISE ORTHODOXE EN UKRAINE? Contre toute attente, la Déclaration de La Havane évoque un problème inter-orthodoxe: les deux primats, le pape et le patriarche, ont exprimé leur espoir que «le schisme au sein des fidèles orthodoxes d’Ukraine sera surmonté sur le fondement des normes canoniques existantes»13. Quelques mois après cette déclaration, en juin 2016, l’Église orthodoxe russe a refusé de participer au Concile de Crète, dit panorthodoxe, ouvrant par-là la voie vers la proclamation de l’autocéphalie de l’Église orthodoxe en Ukraine de manière unilatérale par le patriarcat de Constantinople14. 10. O.-D. VIL’ČYNS’KYJ, Havans’ka deklaracija (častyna II) [La Déclaration de Havan (II parte)], dans Katolyc’kyj ohlyadach [Catholic Observer] (18 février 2016), http:// catholicnews.org.ua/gavanska-deklaraciya-chastina-ii (consulté 14 mars 2019). 11. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 26. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., n. 27. 14. Le patriarcat de Constantinople a déclaré son intention de proclamer l’autocéphalie de l’Église orthodoxe en Ukraine en avril 2018 et l’a réalisée le 6 janvier 2019, tandis que

158

I. RANTSYA

Le n. 27 de La Havane cité ci-dessus contient deux ambiguïtés. La première concerne l’expression «le sein des fidèles orthodoxes d’Ukraine». D’une part, on peut voir en ces termes (i.e., en évitant le terme «Église orthodoxe d’Ukraine»), une tentative d’empêcher n’importe quelle mention de l’ecclésialité particulière en Ukraine (autonomie, autocéphalie). D’autre part, les Orthodoxes «non-canoniques»15 sont placés du même côté que les Orthodoxes «canoniques»16, réunis par le même terme «les fidèles Orthodoxes d’Ukraine», tandis que les Orthodoxes non-canoniques ne sont pas reconnus, ni même en tant que chrétiens baptisés, par l’Église orthodoxe russe. La deuxième ambiguïté concerne les «normes canoniques existantes». Bien évidemment, c’est l’Église orthodoxe russe qui a introduit le n. 27, afin d’y introduire sa propre interprétation. Cependant, le patriarcat de Constantinople a une interprétation différente, selon laquelle le schisme «au sein des fidèles orthodoxes d’Ukraine» devait être surmonté, ce qui a été réalisé en cette année 2019. Ainsi, le paragraphe 27 n’était-il pas une tentative de la part du patriarcat de Moscou de trouver une sorte de support moral auprès du Saint-Siège concernant sa juridiction sur le territoire de l’Ukraine, en prévision des problèmes ultérieurs susceptibles d’arriver en cas d’un développement du mouvement autocéphale en Ukraine, y compris avec le support du patriarcat de Constantinople17? V. SOCIÉTÉ CIVILE EN RUSSIE ET EN UKRAINE DANS LE TEXTE ET DANS LE CONTEXTE DE LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE La Déclaration de La Havane constate que la Russie connaît actuellement un renouveau «sans précédent» de la foi chrétienne18. En Ukraine, cette thèse a résonné autrement qu’à Cuba ou au Vatican, ou encore en Europe occidentale. L’augmentation du nombre de structures ecclésiales comme les diocèses, les nombreuses ordinations épiscopales, la construction des églises grâce au financement de l’État ou des oligarques après des décennies de destructions par les communistes, et l’image de Vladimir Poutine comme dirigeant chrétien de l’État ont contribué, à un développement l’Église orthodoxe russe a rompu la communion eucharistique et réduit les relations avec Constantinople le 15 octobre 2018. 15. Il s’agit de l’Église orthodoxe d’Ukraine – le patriarcat de Kyiv et l’Église orthodoxe autocéphale d’Ukraine. 16. Il s’agit de l’Église orthodoxe d’Ukraine (du patriarcat de Moscou). 17. Pour l’histoire contemporaine de l’autocéphalie en Ukraine, voir C. HOVORUN, The Issue of Unia in Relations between Moscow and Constantinople, dans ce volume, 119-129. 18. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 14.

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

159

ecclésial «sans précédent», surtout en comparaison avec l’Europe occidentale où l’on ferme les églises. Mais d’autre part, le développement des infrastructures de l’église ne reflète pas la foi des fidèles, et les sondages sociologiques montrent les mêmes tendances de sécularisation en Russie qu’en Europe. Les campagnes de haine, les agressions, la grande quantité d’avortements, l’alcoolisme et toutes sortes d’autres déviations sociales permettent aux observateurs ukrainiens de conclure que l’affirmation sur le renouveau «sans précédent» de la foi chrétienne en Russie n’est qu’une exagération. Les mêmes caractéristiques se retrouvent dans la société ukrainienne, ce qui leur permet de bien comprendre la réalité russe. La situation concernant les droits de l’homme est comparable. La Déclaration critique, à juste titre, la restriction de la liberté religieuse et la discrimination des droits des croyants19 dans le monde, tout comme l’avait fait précédemment le document de Balamand20. Mais, les différentes structures internationales signalent également l’aggravation des mêmes phénomènes en Russie, notamment la discrimination des droits de certaines confessions religieuses chrétiennes, ainsi que la liberté de l’homme. Dans la mentalité ukrainienne, à cause de la situation de la guerre avec la Russie, la rencontre du pape François avec le patriarche russe a été interprétée de manière négative. Les patriotes orthodoxes non-pratiquants ont élevé leurs voix pour l’indépendance de toutes les Églises ukrainiennes des centres extérieurs, aussi bien de Moscou que du Vatican, tandis que les Gréco-catholiques se sont sentis trahis par le Vatican et ont critiqué la Curie romaine. Le primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne, dans son entretien, a déclaré que la rencontre de La Havane était «une rencontre sans aucune rencontre»21. De leur côté, les milieux conservateurs des Orthodoxes «canoniques» en Ukraine, y compris l’épiscopat, ont déclaré que le patriarche Cyrille de Moscou avait contaminé, par cette rencontre, la pureté de la foi orthodoxe22. Pour éviter ce type d’accusation,

19. Ibid., n. 15. 20. Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Église catholique et l’Église orthodoxe, L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (Balamand, 1993), dans La Documentation catholique 90/2077 (1993), 711-714, p. 713, nn. 24-25. 21. JACIV, Zustrič, jaka ne vidbulasja? (n. 6) (notre traduction). 22. Episkop UPC obvinil Patriarha Kirilla v eresi, perestal ego pominat’ i prizval izvinit’sja pered Cerkov’ju [Un évêque de l’UOC a accusé le patriarche Kiril d’hérésie, a cessé de le commémorer et appelé à s’excuser auprès de l’Église], dans Religija v Ukraïni [Religion en Ukraine] (29 mars 2016), https://www.religion.in.ua/news/vazhlivo/32360episkop-upc-obvinil-patriarxa-kirilla-v-eresi-perestal-ego-pominat-i-prizval-izvinitsyapered-cerkovyu.html (consulté 11 mars 2019).

160

I. RANTSYA

aucune prière n’avait été prévue lors de la rencontre à La Havane, bien que les deux primats se soient retrouvés comme «des frères dans la foi chrétienne»23 et que les deux Églises ont souligné «la commune Tradition spirituelle du premier millénaire du christianisme»24. VI. RÉACTION DU PATRIARCAT DE MOSCOU ET DU SAINT-SIÈGE À CAUSE DE LA «NON-FIDÉLITÉ» DES GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUES UKRAINIENS AU PONTIFE ROMAIN Le Saint-Siège a immédiatement saisi la réaction des Gréco-catholiques ukrainiens au sujet de la rencontre à l’aéroport de La Havane, et a pris des mesures pour apaiser les Ukrainiens. Le 14 février 2016, Mgr. Claudio Gugerotti, nonce apostolique de l’Ukraine, à la fin de la Divine liturgie, présidée par le primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne le Métropolite Sviatoslav Chevtchouk dans sa cathédrale primatiale de Kyiv, s’est exprimé devant l’assemblée des fidèles de la manière suivante: Ces jours-ci, nous avons regardé les nuages dans le ciel, où il y avait des avions. Un arrivait d’une direction, un autre arrivait d’une autre direction, et ils se sont croisés à un endroit…. Si les avions se rencontrent, les personnes aussi se rencontrent. La rencontre entre les personnes est toujours le mystère de Dieu…. Je sais que beaucoup d’entre vous souffrent ces jours-ci de ce que vous avez vu, des différentes interprétations de ce qui est arrivé. Je sais que les Ukrainiens souffrent dans leur corps à cause d’une difficulté de compréhension. Soyez patients: on ne peut pas toujours dire tout ce que l’on voudrait dire…. Les gens se souviennent des embrassades, car les embrassades sont saintes. Vous pouvez me dire que Judas a embrassé Jésus et qu’ensuite il l’a trahi. Parfois, nous sommes tous des petits traîtres…. La politique passe, les politiciens passent. Regardez le ciel et soyez capables de voir le soleil25.

Évidemment, les premières réactions sur la Déclaration de La Havane au sein de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne, comme celle de son primat ci-dessus mentionnée, ont été critiquées par l’Église orthodoxe russe, qui s’est empressée de protéger le pape et sa dignité. Dans un entretien, le 17 février 2019, le métropolite Hilarion Alfeyev s’est révolté: Ils [les Gréco-catholiques ukrainiens] ne peuvent trouver une langue commune ni avec les Orthodoxes, ni avec leur propre dirigeant ecclésiastique. 23. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 1. 24. Ibid., n. 4. 25. Apostol’s’kyj nuncij pryvitav monašestvo, a takož prokomentuvav zustrič Papy z Patrijarxom Kyrylom [Le Nonce Apostolique a salué le monachisme et a également commenté la rencontre du Pape avec le Patriarche Cyrille], dans zhyve.tv (14 février 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=33&v=5Rreaqgx1IA (consulté 15 mars 2019) (notre transcription et traduction).

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

161

Regardez, comment offensivement il [le primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne] s’exprime à propos du pape. Honnêtement, j’ai été choqué d’apprendre ça. Je peux comprendre qu’il insulte notre patriarche…. Mais, quand le chef de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne parle de cette façon à propos de son propre pape, cela provoque bien sûr une grande surprise et confusion26.

Cependant, le Saint-Siège n’a pas vu de signes de trahison ou de manque de respect à propos du pape de la part des Gréco-catholiques ukrainiens. Le 19 février 2016, le pape François, dans un entretien à bord de son avion, rentrant à Rome après son voyage apostolique au Mexique (le même voyage lors duquel il a rencontré le patriarche Cyrille), a commenté l’entretien du primat de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne: J’ai lu l’entretien, et je dirai ceci : «Sviatoslav Chevtchouk se déclare fils de l’Église, en communion avec l’évêque de Rome» … . Le document? C’est un document discutable. Et il y a autre chose à ajouter: le fait que l’Ukraine est dans un temps de guerre, de souffrances, avec de nombreuses interprétations …. Et dans ce contexte … on comprend ce que disent les fidèles, parce que Sviatoslav Chevtchouk a dit: «De nombreux fidèles m’ont appelé et écrit en disant qu’ils se sentaient profondément déçus et trahis par Rome». L’on comprend qu’un peuple dans cette situation ressente cela. Le document est discutable sur cette question de l’Ukraine27.

Suite à ces paroles, de la part de Rome, des actions très significatives ont été entreprises: quelques voyages du nonce apostolique de l’Ukraine Mgr. Claudio Gugerotti en zones occupées par les séparatistes pro-russes (où l’accès est interdit au clergé gréco-catholique), l’activité diplomatique du secrétariat d’État de la Cité du Vatican, la quête financière pan-européenne déjà mentionnée. Cette dernière action, connue sous le titre «Le pape pour l’Ukraine», gérée par le cardinal Peter Turkson, préfet du Dicastère pour le service du développement humain intégral, qui a visité l’Ukraine en 2018, est devenue une mission humanitaire en zone de guerre en Ukraine: lors des deux années 2016-2018, quatre-vingt-dix mille personnes victimes de la guerre dans l’Est ukrainien, ont bénéficié d’une aide matérielle, médicale, financière, évaluée à seize millions d’euros. 26. O. LIPIČ, Mitropolit Ilarion: vse dolžn’i vstat’ na put’ primirenija [Le métropolite Hilarion: tout le monde doit s’engager sur la voie de la réconciliation], dans RIA Novosti [RIA News] (17 février 2016), https://ria.ru/20160217/1375977438.html (consulté 14 mars 2019) (notre traduction). 27. La conférence de presse du pape François lors du vol de retour de son voyage au Mexique, dans La Croix (17 février 2016), https://www.la-croix.com/Urbi-et-Orbi/Documentation-catholique/Actes-du-pape/La-conference-presse-pape-Francois-lors-retourvoyage-Mexique-2016-03-02-1200743716 (consulté 15 mars 2019).

162

I. RANTSYA

VII. CONFIRMATION PAR LA HAVANE DES POSITIONS DE BALAMAND CONCERNANT L’UNIATISME La Déclaration de La Havane demeure fidèle à celle de Balamand, récupérant deux affirmations ecclésiologiques principales: le rejet de l’uniatisme comme un moyen pour retrouver l’unité entre les Catholiques et les Orthodoxes et la reconnaissance du droit d’exister pour les Grécocatholiques. Voici quelques comparaisons de deux textes: Document de Balamand28

Déclaration de La Havane29

Au sujet de la méthode qui a été appelée «uniatisme», il a été déclaré à Freising (juin 1990) que «nous la rejetons comme méthode de recherche d’unité parce qu’opposée à la tradition commune de nos Églises».

Il est clair aujourd’hui que la méthode de l’uniatisme du passé, comprise comme la réunion d’une communauté à une autre, en la détachant de son Église, n’est pas un moyen pour recouvrer l’unité.

En ce qui concerne les Églises orientales catholiques, il est clair qu’elles ont, dans le cadre de la communion catholique, le droit d’exister et d’agir en réponse aux besoins spirituels de leurs fidèles.

Cependant, les communautés ecclésiales qui sont apparues en ces circonstances historiques ont le droit d’exister et d’entreprendre tout ce qui est nécessaire pour répondre aux besoins spirituels de leurs fidèles, recherchant la paix avec leurs voisins.

En développant l’idée de Balamand, la Déclaration accentue le droit des Gréco-catholiques «d’entreprendre tout ce qui est nécessaire pour répondre aux besoins spirituels de leurs fidèles». On peut voir ici, dans l’expression «entreprendre tout ce qui est nécessaire», une tentative de la partie catholique de protéger les Gréco-catholiques contre les limitations de leur activité, imposées par la notion orthodoxe russe de territoire canonique. D’autre part, on peut également constater une tentative de la partie orthodoxe d’empêcher le prosélytisme, par la limitation de la mission de l’Église gréco-catholique à s’occuper uniquement «des besoins spirituels de ses fidèles». Ainsi, la Déclaration de La Havane répète les idées de Balamand, desquelles il découle que les Églises catholiques orientales ne peuvent exercer leur mission ecclésiale, missionnaire et évangélisation que parmi leurs propres fidèles. Le problème de l’espace de la mission des Églises catholiques orientales est toujours discuté, gardant 28. L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (Balamand, 1993) (n. 20), nn. 2-3. 29. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 25.

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

163

l’urgence pour tous, à savoir, pour les Gréco-catholiques, les Orthodoxes ainsi que pour les Catholiques romains. Il est intéressant de noter que la Déclaration de La Havane n’utilise jamais le terme «églises sœurs», ce qui est devenu presque protocolaire dans le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe, malgré sa critique par plusieurs théologiens et même par les représentants officiels de l’Église catholique. De plus, dans leurs discours à l’occasion des trois premiers anniversaires de la rencontre à La Havane, ni le métropolite Hilarion Alfeyev, ni le cardinal Kurt Koch, n’ont évoqué la formule «églises sœurs»30.

VIII. DÉFINITION DE L’UNIATISME ET L’IDENTITÉ DES GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUES UKRAINIENS Après une décennie tout entière de dialogue théologique catholiqueorthodoxe consacré au problème de l’uniatisme (1990-2000), la Commission mixte internationale n’est toujours pas parvenue à donner une définition claire et définitive de ce phénomène ecclésiale. Concernant cette définition, le document de Balamand s’était référé au document de Frisingue31, qui avait défini l’uniatisme comme un effort qui vise à réaliser l’unité des Églises par la séparation de l’Église orthodoxe des communautés ou des fidèles orthodoxes, sans tenir compte de l’ecclésiologie, selon laquelle l’Église orthodoxe est une église sœur de l’Église catholique32. Or, cette définition contient un préjugé, car elle exclut la possibilité, même théorique d’un «uniatisme orthodoxe», au détriment de l’Église catholique33. La Déclaration de La Havane est plus neutre, en divinisant l’uniatisme comme la réunion d’une communauté à une autre, en la détachant de son Église, qu’elle soit catholique ou orthodoxe34. On observe donc, dans la Déclaration de La Havane, un progrès par rapport à celle de Balamand en ce qui concerne la définition de l’uniatisme. Toutefois, il convient de 30. Les discours sont accessibles en ligne sur les sites du Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité des chrétiens (http://www.christianunity.va) et du Département des relations ecclésiales extérieures du patriarcat de Moscou (https://mospat.ru/ru). 31. L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (Balamand, 1993) (n. 20), n. 2. Pour Frisingue, voir Déclaration sur l’uniatisme (Frisingue, 15 juin 1990), dans Irénikon 65 (1992) 491-498. 32. Déclaration sur l’uniatisme (Frisingue) (n. 31), n. 6b. 33. Par exemple, les paroisses du rite latin existent au sens de l’Église orthodoxe d’Amérique. Pour une discussion des «rites occidentaux» dans l’Église orthodoxe, voir J.Z. SKIRA, The Balamand Document on Uniatism in the Context of the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue, dans ce volume, 27-48, section IX (pp. 42-44). 34. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 25.

164

I. RANTSYA

reconnaître l’existences des prototypes de l’uniatisme chez les Catholiques ainsi que les Orthodoxes: l’Église catholique a réussi réunissant les communautés anglicanes dans les années 2000, l’Église orthodoxe a inventé une sorte d’«uniatisme interne», où les communautés orthodoxes migraient d’une juridiction orthodoxe à une autre, souvent selon la conjoncture politique qui influence la compréhension de la canonicité juridictionnelle. Confirmant le droit des Catholiques orientaux d’exister, la Déclaration de La Havane utilise le terme de «communauté ecclésiale»35 pour les identifier, tandis que le document de Balamand parlait «d’Églises orientales catholiques»36. Cette régression de La Havane, concernant l’identité ecclésiale des Églises catholiques orientales, a évidemment été critiquée par les théologiens gréco-catholiques ukrainiens. Mais, cette régression n’est qu’une indication de la réalité d’un problème plus large, qui existait déjà au début du catholicisme oriental: l’Église catholique ne possède pas tous les concepts ecclésiaux nécessaires pour accueillir les Églises catholiques orientales en son sein selon leur propre ecclésiologie. Il importe ici de souligner que l’Église catholique, malgré sa catholicité, n’est pas toujours capable de réfléchir de façon vraiment catholique, tombant souvent dans la catholicité latine ou romaine37. Une telle situation est acceptable pour les Églises orthodoxes (il s’agit de l’intégration des communautés catholiques orientales dans les structures épiscopales de l’Église catholique romaine) et, d’un certain point de vue, utile en pratique pour les Églises catholiques orientales (il s’agit de la protection des Catholiques orientaux avec le «parapluie» de l’Église catholique romaine).

IX. FAUSSE INTERPRÉTATION DE L’HISTOIRE ECCLÉSIASTIQUE PAR LA DÉCLARATION Les ecclésiologues gréco-catholiques ukrainiens ont critiqué deux affirmations de la Déclaration de La Havane, les ayant estimées fausses du point de vue historique. La première critique concerne l’avis selon lequel les Catholiques et les Orthodoxes, depuis presque mille ans, ont été privés de la communion eucharistique38. Pourtant, dans les années 35. Ibid. 36. L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (Balamand, 1993) (n. 20), n. 3. 37. Les Églises catholiques orientales sont souvent traitées comme des «rites catholiques orientales», par exemple: Orientalium ecclesiarum, n. 10. 38. La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 5.

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

165

1439-1443/1450, la communion entre les Églises d’Occident et d’Orient existait malgré tout. Le fait que l’Union de Florence n’est pas mentionnée dans la Déclaration de La Havane, s’explique par l’une des deux raisons suivantes: ou bien, l’historiographie ecclésiastique russe était dominante dans le Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité des chrétiens; ou bien, la préparation de la Déclaration s’étant faite à la hâte et en secret, les spécialistes de l’histoire ecclésiastique ou œcuménisme n’ont pas pu s’impliquer dans le processus de préparation du document39. Après La Havane, le métropolite Hilarion Alfeyev40 s’est référé à cette idée de rupture millénaire de la communion eucharistique. Ainsi on est tenté de préférer la première explication41. La deuxième position critiquée concerne la constatation qu’il s’agissait de la première rencontre, dans l’histoire, entre les primats des Églises catholique et russe orthodoxe, ce qui est vrai pour le pape François et le patriarche Cyrille personnellement. Mais, dans son discours célébrant le premier anniversaire de la rencontre, le métropolite Hilarion Alfeyev a parlé d’une première rencontre «du primat de l’Église orthodoxe russe et de l’évêque de Rome»42. En fait, il y a bien eu des rencontres entre le primat de l’Église de l’ancienne Rus’ [de Kyïv]43 (à l’époque, le métropolite Isidore de Kyiv qui siégeait à Moscou44) et l’évêque de Rome (à l’époque, le pape Eugène IV) dans les années 1430 et 1440. Par de telles affirmations, l’Église orthodoxe russe contredit sa propre historiographie, qui, traditionnellement considère le siège de Moscou comme primatial pour l’Église de toute la Rus’, y compris les territoires 39. Le Synode permanent de l’Église gréco-catholique ukrainienne, lors de sa session tenue à Rome du 29 février au 8 mars 2016, a organisé des rencontres avec le cardinal Leonardo Sandri, préfet de la Congrégation pour les Églises orientales, et avec le cardinal Gerhard Müller, préfet de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi. Tous deux ont témoigné que ces dicastères n’étaient pas impliqués dans le processus de la préparation du projet de la déclaration de La Havane. 40. Slovo mitropolita Volokolamskogo Ilariona na meroprijatii po slučaju pervoj godovšiny Gavanskoj vstreči (Friburg, 12 fevralja 2017 goda), Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov’, Otdel vnešnih cerkovnyh svjazej’ [Discours du métropolite Hilarion de Volokolamsk à la rencontre en l’honneur du premier anniversaire de la rencontre de La Havane (Fribourg, 12 février 2017), L’Église orthodoxe russe, Département des relations extérieures], https://mospat.ru/ru/2017/02/13/news142297 (consulté 12 mars 2019). 41. Certains ajoutent que cela peut être le signe de la prétention de l’Église orthodoxe russe de parler au nom de l’ensemble de l’orthodoxie en concurrence avec le Patriarcat de Constantinople. 42. Slovo mitropolita Volokolamskogo Ilariona na meroprijatii po slučaju pervoj godovšiny Gavanskoj vstreči [Discours du métropolite Hilarion de Volokolamsk a la rencontre en l’honneur du premier anniversaire de la rencontre de La Havane] (n. 40). 43. Ukraine, Biélorussie et Russie contemporaines. 44. Qui dans l’historiographie ecclésiastique russe est considéré comme le primat de l’Église orthodoxe russe de 1433 à 1448.

166

I. RANTSYA

kyiviens. Il est donc nécessaire, ou bien, de reconnaître que la dernière rencontre entre les primats de deux Églises, catholique et russe orthodoxe, a eu lieu tout au moins en 1439 lors du Concile de Florence, quand le métropolite Isidore de Kyiv était encore reconnu en tant que primat de l’Église de toute la Rus’; ou bien, de reconnaître que le métropolite Isidore de Kyiv n’avait rien à voir avec l’Église de la principauté de Moscou, née après l’union de Florence et s’opposant à elle, et de compter le métropolite Jonas de Moscou en tant que premier primat de l’Église orthodoxe russe. Uniquement, dans le dernier cas, la thèse de La Havane, selon laquelle en 2016 c’était la première rencontre entre les primats des Églises catholique et russe orthodoxe, serait juste. Donc, la Déclaration de La Havane ignore tout ce qui concerne l’Union de Florence. Bien évidemment, cette dernière étant conditionnée par les événements de l’histoire civile, n’a pas établi définitivement l’unité entre les Églises catholique et orthodoxe, et selon l’interprétation orthodoxe, elle est souvent imprégnée de l’esprit de l’uniatisme, lui-même rejeté par le document de Balamand. C’est peut-être la raison que le Concile de Crète de 2016 ne l’a pas mentionnée? Cependant, l’Union de Florence est un exemple du rétablissement de la communion eucharistique, et cela ne devrait pas être négligé, surtout quand on évoque l’histoire de la communion eucharistique. X. CONCLUSION La déclaration commune du pape François et du patriarche Cyrille de Moscou a été rédigée dans un esprit œcuménique, soulignant la tradition spirituelle commune de l’Église de Rome et celle de Moscou, telle qu’elle existait au premier millénaire45, la reconnaissance que la perte de l’unité est la conséquence de la faiblesse humaine et du péché46, la nécessité de collaborer pour annoncer l’Évangile47 et l’évocation de l’idéal de la liberté religieuse dans le contexte de l’œcuménisme48. Il s’agit d’une bonne réception des intuitions du document de Balamand, mais malheureusement dépourvue de nouveauté essentielle. La Déclaration de La Havane doit sans doute être placée parmi les documents les plus intéressants concernant la réception du document de Balamand. Elle propose une définition renouvelée de l’uniatisme, qui semble être plus ecclésiologique et plus objective 45. 46. 47. 48.

La déclaration commune (La Havane, 12 février 2016) (n. 7), n. 4. Ibid., n. 5. Ibid., n. 28. Ibid., n. 15.

LA DÉCLARATION DE LA HAVANE ET SON INTERPRÉTATION EN UKRAINE

167

que celle de la Déclaration de Frisingue de 1991, reprise ensuite par celle de Balamand de 1993. La Déclaration a rejeté l’uniatisme en tant que méthode du passé, tout en ignorant les faits historiques concernant l’union de Florence. Sa préparation à la hâte et en secret a occasionné certaines lacunes et inexactitudes sur la vérité historique. Il faut reconnaître que les Gréco-catholiques ukrainiens n’ont pas profité de tous les avantages pour leur Église, concernant d’abord le renforcement de leur propre identité ecclésiale, et leur première réaction sur La Havane était colorée d’émotions. Les autres parties engagées dans le processus de La Havane ont aussi été riches en émotions. Dans cette recherche, nous avons utilisé certaines sources de presse, non scientifiques en tant que telles, comme les entretiens des hiérarques avec les journalistes ou leurs déclarations privées devant la presse. Cependant, ces sources reflètent la réalité des relations inter-ecclésiales, qui n’est pas tant ce qui est mis sur le papier et caché dans les archives, mais plutôt ce qui est inscrit dans le cœur des gens. Le dialogue ne se produit pas sans rencontre, et pour cela, il faut hautement apprécier la rencontre historique entre le pape François et le patriarche Cyrille de Moscou. Cette rencontre n’était pas exclue des contextes œcuménique, social et politique, mais les faiblesses qui l’entourent peuvent devenir des points forts, s’il y a une bonne volonté d’être ouvert à la réconciliation dans la vérité. En tant qu’événement historique, la rencontre à La Havane a élargi la très importante voie du dialogue catholiqueorthodoxe. Malheureusement, à cause de la rupture des relations de l’Église orthodoxe russe avec le patriarcat de Constantinople, cette voie risque de devenir une autre voie parallèle. Cathédrale Saint Voldymyr le Grand de Paris 51 Rue des Saints-Pères FR-75006 Paris France [email protected]

Ihor RANTSYA

DIE REZEPTION DES DOKUMENTS VON BALAMAND UND DAS AKTUELLE VERHÄLTNIS ZWISCHEN DER RUMÄNISCHORTHODOXEN KIRCHE UND DER GRIECHISCHKATHOLISCHEN KIRCHE IN RUMÄNIEN I. DER UNIATISMUS – DAS DOKUMENT VON BALAMAND (23. JUNI 1993) Im Februar 1990 hat der Koordinierungsausschuss in Moskau für die Plenarsitzung der Internationalen Gemischten Kommission für den theologischen Dialog zwischen der Orthodoxen Kirche und der RömischKatholischen Kirche (Juni 1990, Freising), das Projekt eines gemeinsamen Dokumentes vorbereitet: „Die ekklesiologischen und kanonischen Konsequenzen, die sich aus der sakramentalen Natur der Kirche ergeben: Synodalität und Autorität in der Kirche“. Der Text wurde aber nicht mehr diskutiert, da Angelegenheiten in Verbindung mit der Umstrukturierung der Griechisch-Katholischen Kirchen in der Ukraine und in Rumänien anlässlich des Zusammenbruchs des Kommunismus zwischen 1985-1989 im Vordergrund standen1. Diese Entwicklungen haben seit 1990 den „Uniatismus“ als einziges Thema im theologischen Dialog zwischen den Orthodoxen Kirchen und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche hervorgehoben. Das wurde schon von der dritten Vorsynodalen Panorthodoxen Konferenz (Chambésy, 1986) und, mit Nachdruck, von allen Vertretern der Orthodoxen Kirchen (Konstantinopel, 1992) beantragt, die gegen den katholischen Proselytismus protestiert haben, der unter dem Wiederaufleben des Uniatismus verborgen sei. Unter diesen Umständen führten die sechste und siebte Plenartagung der Internationalen Kommission für den Orthodox-Römisch-Katholischen Dialog zur Veröffentlichung zweier gemeinsamer Dokumente zum Uniatismus: „Das Dokument von Freising“ (15. Juni 1990) und das Dokument von Balamand (23. Juni 1993): „Uniatismus, der frühere Weg zur Einheit, und die heutige Suche nach Wegen zur Einheit“.

1. Für eine kompetente Darstellung der Geschichte des orthodox-römisch katholischen Dialogs, cf. den Beitrag eines Mitglieds der obengenannten Kommission, I. ICĂ, JR., Important acord teologic ortodox-catolic pe tema sinodalității și autorității (20 Oktober 2007), https:// www.scribd.com/doc/188518270/Important-acord-teologiv-Acord-Teologic-Ortodox (konsultiert am 27. Mai 2020).

170

M.-S. SĂSĂUJAN

Das Wiederaufleben der mit Rom unierten Kirchen in Osteuropa stellte eine komplizierte Erfahrung für die Orthodoxen Kirchen dar, die es als Einführung einer neuen Version des historischen Uniatismus wahrgenommen haben. Wegen der Unstimmigkeit zwischen den Aussagen und Handlungen des Vatikans, wurde der Dialog der Liebe zwischen den Orthodoxen Kirchen und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche aufgehoben und ist der theologische Dialog der Wahrheit zum Stillstand gekommen2. Um aus dieser Sackgasse herauszukommen, veröffentlichte die Kommission in Balamand ein gemeinsames Dokument, welches einen Unterschied macht zwischen „Uniatismus als heute inakzeptable Methode der Einigung“ und der Realität der aktuellen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirchen3, welche vom Vatikan völlig akzeptiert, aber von den Orthodoxen nur als „Teil der katholischen Gemeinschaft“ anerkannt sind. Der Uniatismus wurde in Balamand als inakzeptable Methode und inakzeptables Modell zur Vereinigung gesehen, auf der Basis der gegenseitigen Anerkennung der Katholischen und Orthodoxen Kirche als „Schwesterkirchen“, da beide gleichermaßen erlösende Mittel besitzen (Nr. 12-14). Obwohl für den Vatikan das Balamand-Dokument eine zufriedenstellende Lösung dargestellt hat, und letztendlich auch von den GriechischKatholischen Kirchen des Nahen Ostens und der Ukraine akzeptiert wurde, löste es in den Orthodoxen Kirchen eine echte Krise aus. Es wurde vom Rumänischen Patriarchat und den Patriarchaten von Konstantinopel, Alexandrien, Antiochien und Moskau, sowie von den Kirchen von Zypern, Polen, Albanien und Finnland akzeptiert; doch wurde es von den in Balamand abwesenden Kirchen kategorisch abgelehnt, der Griechischen Kirche, sowie dem Serbischen Patriarchat, dem Bulgarischen Patriarchat und dem Patriarchat von Jerusalem. Das Dokument wurde von einem Teil der Orthodoxen Kirche (Rumänien, Antiochien) als prophetisches Dokument begrüßt, aber von anderen als Verrat an der Orthodoxie und als erster Schritt in Richtung einer verborgenen Vereinigung angeklagt – hauptsächlich aufgrund der Anerkennung der Katholischen Kirche als „Schwesterkirche“ mit gültigen Sakramenten, bevor die dogmatischen Themen zwischen den beiden Kirchen diskutiert und gelöst wurden: Primat, Filioque, Fegefeuer, Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes usw. 1995 schien der Dialog zum Stillstand gekommen zu sein. Nach dem Besuch des Ökumenischen Patriarchen Bartholomäus I in Rom (27.-29. Juni 1995), beschloss die interorthodoxe Kommission im Fanar (1995), 2. Ibid. 3. Manchmal auch als „Unierte Kirchen“ bezeichnet, obwohl dieser Begriff heute als abwertend angesehen wird.

DIE RUMÄNISCH-ORTHODOXE UND GRIECHISCH-KATHOLISCHE KIRCHE

171

den Dialog über die „ekklesiologischen und kanonischen Implikationen des Uniatismus“ fortzusetzen. Die folgenden Treffen waren in Baltimore (9.-19. Juli 2000), Belgrad (18.-25. September 2006), Ravenna (8.-15. Oktober 2007), Paphos (18.-23. Oktober 2009), Wien (20.-27. September 2010), Amman (15.-23. September 2014), Havanna (12. Februar 2016), Chieti (15.-21. September 2016), Leros (5.-9. September 2017), Bose (13.-17. November 2018) und Bose (11.-15. November 2019). Bei einigen dieser Treffen wurde das Thema des Uniatismus wieder aufgenommen.

II. DAS VERHÄLTNIS ZWISCHEN DER RUMÄNISCH-ORTHODOXEN KIRCHE UND DER GRIECHISCH-KATHOLISCHEN KIRCHE IN RUMÄNIEN NACH 1989 Die Beziehungen zwischen der Orthodoxen Kirche und der GriechischKatholischen Kirche in Rumänien in den ersten postkommunistischen Jahrzehnten wurden von zahlreichen Ereignissen geprägt, und kannten leider eine komplizierte Entwicklung, besonders bezüglich der Eigentumsrechte an Kirchengebäuden. Aufgrund des rumänischen Staatsgesetzes Nr. 126/1990 sollte die Frage der umstrittenen Kirchen und Pfarrhäuser von einer gemeinsamen orthodoxen – griechisch-katholischen Kommission gelöst werden. Daher war das Prinzip des Dialogs von Anfang an einer der wesentlichen Punkte, mit denen man versuchte, dauerhafte Beziehungen zwischen den beiden rumänischen Kirchen aufzubauen. Eine neue Hoffnung entstand durch die positiven Ergebnisse der Orthodoxen – Römisch-Katholischen Begegnung in Balamand (1993) und des dort veröffentlichten Dokuments, mit dem die Vertreter der GriechischKatholischen Kirche in Rumänien ebenfalls einverstanden waren, um es später abzulehnen4. Obwohl seit langer Zeit eine positive Antwort von der Rumänischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche erwartet wurde, damit der offizielle Dialog zur friedlichen Lösung aller Streitigkeiten führen sollte, wurde diese verzögert. In einigen Bistümern wurde auf Initiative einiger orthodoxer Bischöfe auf lokaler Ebene versucht, die Spannungen zu lösen. Obwohl die Ergebnisse den Erwartungen nicht entsprachen, hoffte die Rumänische

4. In einem Brief an Papst Johannes Paul II. vom 8. Juli 1993 schrieb der griechischkatholische Bischof von Cluj-Gherla George Guţiu: „Die mit Rom Unierte Rumänische Kirche (Griechisch-Katholische), akzeptiert nichts aus den Texten von Rhodos, Freising, Arricia und Balamand und erklärt die Signaturen dieser Texte für null und nichtig“, in Viața creștină 20 (1993) 1.

172

M.-S. SĂSĂUJAN

Orthodoxe Kirche weiterhin, dass der Dialog der einzige Weg bleiben sollte, um alle Streitigkeiten zu lösen. Dies sollte auch der Standpunkt der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche sein, der durch die Unterzeichnung des Balamand-Dokuments (1993) zum Ausdruck gebracht wurde und durch die Rede von Papst Johannes Paul II. vor den rumänischen griechisch-katholischen Bischöfen im Rahmen ihres Besuches im Vatikan (Januar 1994) verstärkt wurde5. Inoffizielle Gespräche zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Rumänischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche fanden anlässlich des 79. Symposiums der Pro Oriente-Stiftung statt, das vom 29.-31. Mai 1996 in Wien abgehalten wurde. Weitere Versuche, die Konflikte zu lösen, wurden durch den „Appell zur Versöhnung und zur Einheit“ der Heiligen Synode der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche (1997), durch die Erklärung zum ökumenischen Engagement der Orientalisch-Katholischen Kirchen (Juni-Juli 1997) und durch die Erklärung des griechisch-katholischen Metropoliten Lucian Mureşan vor Papst Johannes Paul II. (Januar 1998) gemacht6. In ihrer Arbeitssitzung vom 19. Februar 1998 setzte die Heilige Synode der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche eine Zentralkommission für den Dialog mit der Rumänischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche ein, deren vorrangiges Ziel darin bestand, die örtlichen Patrimonial-Streitigkeiten zwischen den beiden Seiten zu lösen. Zwei Monate später haben nachdrückliche Forderungen der Heiligen Synode der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche dazu geführt, dass der rumänische griechisch-katholische Metropolit Lucian positiv reagierte und die Bereitschaft der griechisch-katholischen Hierarchie zum Dialog mit der vom rumänischen Patriarchat vorgeschlagenen Zentralkommission zum Ausdruck brachte7. Die Orthodoxe Kirche äußerte die Hoffnung, dass alle patrimonialen Differenzen auf diese Weise gelöst werden 5. Zum besseren Verständnis wird die Rede des Papstes wiedergegeben: „Wir wissen, dass es einige Hindernisse und immer noch Schwierigkeiten für die volle und sichtbare Geschwisterlichkeit der Christen gibt, die jedoch so notwendig ist, um das Evangelium zu bezeugen. Hinsichtlich dessen hatte ich die Gelegenheit zu sagen: Es muss die Überzeugung aller sein, dass auch im Falle eher zufälliger und praktischer Missverständnisse der Dialog das geeignetste Instrument sei, um die geschwisterliche Diskussion weiterzuführen, die auf die Lösung der betreffenden Probleme zielt“, in Papst Johannes Paul II, Brief an die Bischöfe des europäischen Kontinents bezüglich der Beziehungen zwischen Katholizismus und Orthodoxie, in der neuen Lage in Mittel- und Osteuropa [auf Italienisch], in Osservatore Romano (22. Januar 1994), S. 5. 6. Relațiile actuale dintre ortodocși și greco-catolici în Romania [Aktuelle Beziehungen zwischen Orthodoxen und Griechisch-Katholiken in Rumänien], Cluj-Napoca, Renaşterea, 2011, S. 34. 7. Ibid.

DIE RUMÄNISCH-ORTHODOXE UND GRIECHISCH-KATHOLISCHE KIRCHE

173

könnten. So wurde gezeigt, dass das sogenannte Boilă Gesetz, das im Juni 1997 im rumänischen Senat abgestimmt wurde und das restitutio in integrum vorgeschlagen hatte, nicht der richtige Weg wäre, die Rechtsstreitigkeiten zwischen den beiden Kirchen zu lösen. Die Heilige Synode der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche hat im August 1998 gezeigt, dass es im Hinblick auf den Beginn des Dialogs notwendig ist, die Grundsätze festzulegen, nach denen der Dialog geführt werden sollte. Die orthodoxe Kommission hatte am 2. September 1998 ihr erstes Treffen. Es wurden mehrere Grundsätze des Dialogs formuliert: a. Akzeptanz des Dialogs als einzige Möglichkeit zur Versöhnung zwischen den beiden Kirchen und die Bereitschaft, die gewalttätige Besetzung von Kirchen, Klagen in den Medien und jedwede Form des Proselytismus aufzugeben. b. Man soll die wirkliche Lage vor Ort berücksichtigen: wie viele Kirchen die Griechisch-Katholischen im Verhältnis zu ihren Gläubigen haben (Kirchen, die von den Orthodoxen zurückgegeben wurden, Kirchen, die gewaltsam übernommen wurden, neu errichtete Kirchen und Kirchen, an denen abwechselnd die Gottesdienste durchgeführt werden); im Vergleich zu den Orthodoxen, wie viele Immobilien haben sie vom Staat erhalten. c. Nachdem die wahre Lage vor Ort festgestellt werden sollte, wird dort, wo es in einer Ortschaft nur eine einzige Kirche gibt, die Mehrheit in dieser Kirche bleiben, und der Minderheit wird geholfen, eine neue Kirche zu bauen (im Falle der Griechisch-Katholischen: mit Hilfe der RömischKatholischen Kirche und der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche). d. Im Hinblick auf die unterschiedliche Lage in den Dörfern: wenn eine beträchtliche Anzahl griechisch-katholischer Gemeindemitglieder, die sich heute in einem Dorf befinden, eine der beiden Kirchen fordern, sollen die Gläubigen der orthodoxen Gemeinde befragt werden. e. In Städten, wo es wenige Kirchen gibt, werden die beiden Konfessionen selbst neue Kirchen errichten8.

Es gab acht Treffen der Gemischten Kommission für den Orthodox – Griechisch-Katholischen Dialog in Rumänien (1998-2003): 28. Oktober 1998 (Bukarest); 28. Januar 1999 (Blaj); 10. Juni 1999 (Kloster Râmeţ); 4. November 1999 (Oradea); 28. September 2000 (Sâmbăta de Sus); 27. September 2001 (Lugoj); 1. Oktober 2002 (Arad); und 23. September 2003 (Baia Mare)9. Die Siebenbürgische Metropolitansynode hat am 24. Februar 2004 im Kloster Sâmbăta de Sus (Kreis Brașov) die Lage des bisherigen Dialogs mit der Rumänischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche analysiert und hat folgendes entschieden: 8. Ibid., S. 35. 9. Ibid., S. 36-43.

174

M.-S. SĂSĂUJAN

Wir verlangen von unseren unierten [sic Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche] Partnern, dass sie sich bis zur nächsten Nationalen Konferenz der Katholischen Bischöfe Rumäniens oder bis zu unserem nächsten Treffen von 28. Sept. 2004, entscheiden sollen für entweder Dialog oder rechtliches Verfahren. Wenn sie sich für den Dialog entscheiden, dann sollten die beiden Seiten auf jedes justizielle Verfahren verzichten. Wenn sie sich eher für das Gerichtsverfahren entscheiden, dann bedeutet es, dass sie auf den Dialog verzichtet haben. Wir werden jedwede Haltung respektieren, aber unserer Meinung nach, soll der Dialog fortgesetzt werden10.

Rechtsverfahren über Eigentumsrechte sind auch nach dem Jahr 2004 eingeleitet worden. III. DER GESELLSCHAFTLICHE RAHMEN

IN

RUMÄNIEN

1. Religionszugehörigkeit Von der überwiegenden Mehrheit der Bevölkerung (99,8%) wurde bei der Volkszählung von 2002 die Religionszugehörigkeit bekanntgegeben11. Die Personen, die sich explizit als atheistisch (8.524) oder ohne Glaube (12.825) deklarierten (in Summe: 21.349)12 betrugen nur 0,1% der Gesamtbevölkerung (21.680.974)13. 11.734 Personen haben ihr religiöses Bekenntnis nicht angegeben14. Die äußerst geringe Zahl derjenigen, die angab, atheistisch oder ohne religiöses Bekenntnis zu sein, ist ein klarer Beweis dafür, dass es dem sozialistisch-kommunistischen politischen Regime der ehemaligen Sozialistischen Republik Rumänien nicht gelang, traditionelle religiöse Bindungen aufzulösen. Trotz vierzig Jahren atheistischer Propaganda und Kommunismus ist die Bevölkerung weithin kirchlich gebunden. Das heißt allerdings nicht, dass die Angehörigen der Kirchen auch wirklich praktizierende Christen sind. Die Ideologie der kommunistischen Regierung, die Säkularisierung der Gesellschaft, der Bruch mit der traditionellen Lebensweise seitens beträchtlicher Teile der Bevölkerung, die Migration der Landbevölkerung in die Städte, die die Menschen aus dem traditionellen Dorfmilieu herausriss, haben sich auch stark auf die religiöse Praxis ausgewirkt. 10. Ibid., S. 44. 11. Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Recensământul populaţiei şi al locuinţelor din 18 martie 2002. Bd. IV: Populaţie: Structura etnică şi confesională, Bucureşti, Institutul Naţional de Statistică, 2003, S. VIII. 12. Ibid., S. 295. 13. Ibid., S. 294. 14. Ibid., S. 295.

DIE RUMÄNISCH-ORTHODOXE UND GRIECHISCH-KATHOLISCHE KIRCHE

Jahr

Gesamtbevölkerungszahl

Orthodoxe

% der Gesamtbevölkerungszahl

GriechischKatholische

1930

18.057.028

13.108.227

72,6%

1.427.391

7,9%

1992

22.810.035

19.802.385

86,8%

223.327

0,98%

2002

21.698.181

18.806.428

86,7%

195.481

0,9%

2011

20.121.641

16.307.004

86,5%

150.593

0,8%

175

% der Gesamtbevölkerungszahl

Tabelle 1: Statistik über die orthodoxen und griechisch-katholischen Gläubigen Rumäniens, gemäß den Ergebnissen der Volkszählung in den Jahren 1930, 1992, 2002 und 2011.

Wenn man die Volkszählungszahlen von 193015 und 2002 vergleicht, so zeichnet sich jedenfalls ein markanter Schwund von griechisch-katholischen Gläubigen ab. Im Jahre 1930 waren die Rumänen in Siebenbürgen, Crişana und Maramureş jeweils etwa zur Hälfte orthodox und griechischkatholisch. Allein in Siebenbürgen hatte die Orthodoxe Kirche nach der Volkszählung von 1930, 893.176 Angehörige, während sich zur GriechischKatholischen Kirche 1.001.527 Personen bekannten. In Crişana und Maramureş kam die Orthodoxe Kirche im selben Jahr auf 511.887 und die Griechisch-Katholische Kirche auf 350.246 Gläubige16. Als die Griechisch-Katholische Kirche in Rumänien 1948 durch das „Dekret zur Feststellung der rechtlichen Situation der früheren griechisch-katholischen Kultgemeinschaft“17 vom damaligen politischen Regime für aufgehoben erklärt wurde18, zählte sie insgesamt etwa 1,8 Millionen Angehörige19 und hatte ca. 2.500 Kirchen mit 1.700 Priestern. Nach 40 Jahren, in denen die Griechisch-Katholische Kirche in Rumänien nur als Untergrundkirche weiter existieren konnte und sich ihre Angehörigen zum Großteil in orthodoxe oder auch römisch-katholische Pfarrgemeinden 15. Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Recensământul general al populaţiei României în 1930. Bd. II: Populaţie – structura social-economică, Bucureşti, Institutul Naţional de Statistică, 1938, S. XXX. 16. Ibid. 17. Episcopia Greco-Catolică (Unită) din Cluj-Napoca (Hg.), Biserica Română Unită. Două sute cincizeci de ani de istorie [Unierte Rumänische Kirche. 250 Jahre Geschichte] (Document Madrid 1952), Cluj-Napoca, Casa de Editură Viaţa Creştină, S. 363, cf. die französische Übersetzung in L. HÉBERT, Le drame de l’Église unie de Roumanie, in La Documentation catholique 46/1046 (1949) 833-891, 923-936, hier S. 888. 18. Vgl. zu den Ereignissen von 1948 Kapitel 2; näherhin E.C. SUTTNER, Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte der Rumänen, Wien, Herold, 1978, pp. 55ff.; 183 ff. (mit Literatur). 19. Secretariatul de stat pentru culte, Viaţa religioasă din România: Studiu documentar [Religiöses Leben in Rumänien: Dokumentarische Studie], Bucureşti, Editura Paideia, 1999, S. 34.

176

M.-S. SĂSĂUJAN

integriert haben, sind diese nur teilweise in die Kirche ihrer Vorfahren zurückgekehrt, als sich diese seit dem Jahre 1989 zu reorganisieren begann. 2. Statistik über Bistümer, Dekanate, Pfarreien, Priester und Diakone Aus den offiziellen Daten, die vom Kultusamt im Internet veröffentlicht wurden, wird folgendes festgestellt: a. Die Rumänisch-Orthodoxe Kirche: 29 Diözesen, mit 182 Dekanaten, 11.674 Pfarrgemeinden, 2.658 Filialen und 14.578 Pfarrern und Diakonen, 11.298 Pfarrkirchen und 2.239 Filialen. b. Die Rumänische Griechisch-Katholische Kirche: 5 Diözesen mit 75 Dekanaten, 763 Pfarrgemeinden und 761 Pfarrern und Diakonen, 574 Kirchen: 193 wurden nach 1989 von den Orthodoxen übernommen (77 durch Dialog, 94 durch gewalttätige Besetzung, 22 durch Entscheidungen der Gerichte und in 26 Kirchen wird abwechselnd zelebriert und gepredigt), 233 sind neue Kirchen, 42 sind im Bau; dazu zählen auch die ungefähr 106 Kapellen20. 3. Unterstützung der Kirchen vom Rumänischen Staat In Rumänien gibt es 18 Religionsgemeinschaften, die vom rumänischen Staat anerkannt sind. Aufgrund der staatlichen Verfassung, Art. 29 „sind die religiösen Kulte autonom gegenüber dem Staat und erfreuen sich der Hilfe des Staates“. Für alle diese territorialen Verwaltungsstrukturen, sowohl orthodoxe als auch griechisch-katholische, werden Beiträge aus dem Staatsbudget für die Gehälter des kirchlichen Personals (13.845 finanzierte Stellen für die Rumänische Orthodoxe Kirche und 531 für die Griechisch-Katholische Kirche) und für den Bau und die Reparatur von Gotteshäusern gewährt. a. Das Staatssekretariat für Kulte unterstützt jährlich den Bau und die Reparatur griechisch-katholischer Kirchen und gewährt ihnen 2% des Budgets, obwohl gemäß dem „Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit“ festgelegt im Gesetz Nr. 489/2006, nur 0,8% gewährt werden sollte. b. Bezüglich der Gehälter des kirchlichen Personals erhält die GriechischKatholische Kirche ebenso höhere Zuschüsse als nach dem „Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit“ erwartet werden könnte. Sie wird also doppelt finanziell unterstützt, mehr als angemessen wäre. 20. Relațiile actuale dintre ortodocși și greco-catolici în România (Anm. 6), S. 48.

DIE RUMÄNISCH-ORTHODOXE UND GRIECHISCH-KATHOLISCHE KIRCHE

177

c. Bezüglich der Kirchengebäude, besitzt die Griechisch-Katholische Kirche 413 Kirchen, was 1,51% der gesamten Kirchen in Rumänien entspricht. Daher gibt es eine Kirche für 365 griechisch-katholische Gläubige, verglichen mit einer Kirche für 994 orthodoxe Gläubige21. IV. POSITIVE ENTWICKLUNGEN FÜR EIN GEMEINSAMES CHRISTLICHES BEKENNTNIS IN DER HEUTIGEN WELT Zu den wissenschaftlichen Projekten, die den Dialog zwischen der Katholischen und der Orthodoxen Kirche auf Weltebene wie auch den Dialog zwischen der Orthodoxen und Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche in Rumänien fördern, gehört die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wiener Stiftung Pro Oriente. Im Vorwort des Buches bezüglich des obengenannten Themas schreibt Johann Marte, der Präsident der Stiftung Pro Oriente, folgendes: Seit 2001 bemüht sich eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wiener Stiftung Pro Oriente aus Theologen und Historikern, die Geschichte der Siebenbürgener Kirchenunion und des Widerstandes gegen sie anhand der Quellen zu erarbeiten und auf eine Darstellung hinzuwirken, die nicht aus konfessioneller oder nationaler Einseitigkeit, sondern – wie die Geschichtswissenschaft es fordert – sine ira et studio vorgelegt werden kann. Mitarbeiter der Arbeitsgemeinschaft sind Angehörige der römisch-katholischen, der orthodoxen, der griechisch-katholischen, der lutheranischen und der reformierten Kirche sowie Historiker, die keiner Kirche angehören. Denn die bisherigen hinreichend bekannten parteiischen Darstellungen aus verschiedenen kirchlichen bzw. weltlichen Gruppen haben viel unchristlichen Streit zwischen den Rumänen verursacht. Ziel des Forschungsvorhabens ist es, ein allen gemeinsames Verständnis der Geschehnisse zu erreichen, um hoffentlich bald zu einer Verständigung zwischen allen Beteiligten zu kommen22.

Der gemeinsame orthodox-katholische Arbeitskreis St. Irenäus wurde im Jahr 2004 in Paderborn (Deutschland) gegründet – zu einer Zeit, als der offizielle internationale Dialog zwischen der katholischen und der orthodoxen Kirche in einer schwierigen Phase war. Der Gruppe gehören je dreizehn orthodoxe und katholische Theologen aus verschiedenen Ländern (derzeit aus Argentinien, Bulgarien, Deutschland, Frankreich, 21. Die obengenannten Informationen stammen vom Staatlichen Sekretariat für die Kulte in Rumänien. 22. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Stiftung Pro Oriente zum Studium der Siebenbürgener Kirchenunion, Die Union der Rumänen Siebenbürgens mit der Kirche von Rom / Unirea românilor transilvăneni cu Biserica Romei, hg. J. MARTE mit V. IONIŢĂ – I. MÂRZA – L. STANCIU – E.C. SUTTNER, Bukarest, Editura Enciclopedică, 2010, p. 6.

178

M.-S. SĂSĂUJAN

Griechenland, Großbritannien, Italien, Libanon, Malta, Niederlande, Österreich, Rumänien, Russland, Serbien, Ukraine und den Vereinigten Staaten) an. Die Mitglieder des Arbeitskreises werden nicht als Delegierte von ihren Kirchen ernannt, sondern aufgrund ihrer theologischen Kompetenz in den Arbeitskreis berufen. Der Irenäuskreis ist daher keine offizielle Dialogkommission, sondern versteht sich als inoffizieller Gesprächskreis von Experten, der allerdings in der Intention zusammenkommt, den orthodox-katholischen Dialog auf internationaler Ebene zu fördern23. Der Verfasser dieses Beitrags ist davon überzeugt, dass die beiden rumänischen Kirchen nicht nur sine ira et studio ihre Geschichte gemeinsam erforschen sollten, sondern auch gemeinsame pastorale Initiativen entwickeln. In einer Zeit des Pluralismus und der Säkularisierung mit so vielen Herausforderungen brauchen die Menschen ein gemeinsames christliches Zeugnis. University of Bucharest Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Justinian the Patriach” Sf. Ecaterina Street, no. 2, sector 4 Bucharest 040155 Romania [email protected]

Mihail-Simion SĂSĂUJAN

23. Sehe Im Dienst an der Gemeinschaft: Das Verhältnis von Primat und Synodalität neu denken. Eine Studie des Gemeinsamen orthodox-katholischen Arbeitskreises St. Irenäus, Paderborn, Bonifatius, 2018.

ADVANCES AND CRISES IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS IN THE WAKE OF BALAMAND

The emergence of the Eastern Catholic Churches professing canonical communion with the Roman Apostolic See began to make modest, but no less important, progress in the Ottoman Balkans in the second half of the nineteenth century. Indeed, the entering into communion with the Catholic Church while retaining the Eastern rite had established itself as a viable option for some communities in the Balkans (especially Bulgaria and Macedonia) who wanted to break their ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This situation has continued up to today in the Strumitsa region in Macedonia1 while undergoing important identity re-compositions. After the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), World War I and until 2001, the Greco-Catholic Eparchy of Križevci in Croatia had full jurisdiction over all Eastern Catholics throughout the entire territory of former Yugoslavia in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and the Republic of Macedonia. After the formation of independent successor states from what had been Yugoslavia, in 2001 a separate Greco-Catholic Exarchate of Macedonia was formed. In 2003, a new Exarchate was created for Greco-Catholics in Serbia and Montenegro (until 2013). Its centre is in Ruski Krstur (Vojvodina), while the jurisdiction of the Eparchy of Križevci was confined to Croatia, Slovenia and BosniaHerzegovina. Since 2013, the Eparchy of Križevci and the Greco-Catholic Exarchate of Serbia together constitute the Greco-Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia as a sui iuris Eastern Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite (while all Greco-Catholics in Montenegro are entrusted to the local Latin Bishops). Owing to the fact that Eastern Catholics constitute small minorities in the Balkans, and that there is a paucity of literature on Orthodox-Catholic relations there, I will concentrate on Macedonia whose situation I know better than other former Yugoslav states. The purpose of this paper is not to turn to the turbulent history of the Eastern Catholics in the Balkans,

1. Since 12th of February 2019 and following the Prespa agreement, the name of the country is “North Macedonia”.

180

G. SEKULOVSKI

which I have dealt with elsewhere2. The aim of this paper is to focus on what impact the Balamand Document had on the Orthodox Balkan space, in particular in Macedonia, as well as on the relations between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in the region.

I. ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THE EASTERN CATHOLIC QUESTION: THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT The contemporary conflict between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics is largely a result of mutual misunderstanding and prejudices inherited from a past historical context. Even though an “ecclesiological hardening”3 occurred on both sides, a process of reconciliation was initiated by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in order to find an adequate resolution to the Eastern Catholic question, giving rise to the Balamand Document (adopted at the Monastery of Our Lady of Balamand in Lebanon, June 1993). The document entitled Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Current Search for Full Communion4 decided, among other things, to condemn uniatism as a “method to be followed” and as a “model of unity” sought by the churches5, “excluding for the future any proselytism and any desire for the expansion of Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church”6. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church committed itself to respect by “economy” – by considering the people and the human realities with compassion and understanding – the existence of the Eastern Catholic communities. As at the meeting of Freising, Germany, three years earlier7, but also in the meeting in Ariccia, near Rome, in 1991, in Balamand’s article 8 uniatism is rejected as a

2. See G. SEKULOVSKI, Uniates in the Balkans – Geographical Considerations on a Religion of the “Lands between” in the Republic of Macedonia, in L’Espace géographique 44/2 (2015) 174-189, https://dx.doi.org/10.3917/eg.442.0174 (accessed 27 March 2020). 3. See B. BOBRINSKOY, L’uniatisme à la lumière des ecclésiologies qui s’affrontent, in Irénikon 65 (1992) 423-438, p. 438. 4. The text of this statement can be found in Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, pp. 11-20. The quotes in this paper are taken from the edition cited above. 5. Ibid., p. 13. 6. Ibid., p. 20. 7. See A. DE HALLEUX, Uniatisme et communion – Le texte catholique-orthodoxe de Freising, in Revue Théologique de Louvain 22 (1991) 3-29.

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

181

method of seeking unity, but only in the sense of a violent, non-evangelical method as had been practiced throughout history8. The Balamand Document has only been partially accepted by Catholics and Orthodox because of the problems that persist, in particular, between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the Eastern European countries9. Thus, the opposition of the former Patriarch of Moscow Aleksey II, during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Ukraine after the fall of communism, was largely motivated by the ongoing conflicts between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Patriarchate of Moscow in Ukraine around the possession or restitution of church property.

II. RECEPTION OF

THE ECCLESIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

Turning to the Balkan region, one can ask how the Balamand Document is perceived in that area despite the fact that the Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece did not attend the meeting. As is well known, the text consists of two parts: ecclesiological principles and practical directives. The basis of both parts of the document is the “theology of Sister Churches” as officially set out in article 13, to which I will return later. The introduction of the document (nn. 1-5) contains two crucial statements (nn. 2 and 3), which can be considered as an exchange of mutual guarantees10. Catholics, for their part, recognize that “Uniatism can no longer be accepted, neither as a method to follow, nor as a model of unity sought by our Churches” (n. 12). For their part, the Orthodox recognize that the Eastern Catholic Churches, as part of the Catholic Church, “have the right to exist and act to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful” (n. 3). 8. See the text L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, in Irénikon 65 (1992) 491-498. 9. The agreement was signed by the representatives of nine Orthodox Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Romania, Cyprus, Poland, Albania and Finland. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia and Czechoslovakia did not attend the meeting. 10. This part of my paper is based on the analysis of the study of Nahum (Ilievski), Orthodox Metropolitan of Strumica (Macedonia), evaluating the Balamand statement in an Orthodox perspective: Dijalog, in Slovo od Vodoča, Strumica, Manastir Sveti Leontij-Vodoča, 2002, 170-200. The article was first published under the title Soglasnosta od Balamand vo svetlina na pravoslavnoto predanie [The Balamand Document in an Orthodox Tradition Perspective], in Domostroj: Spisanie za pravoslavna duhovna kultura 3/9-10 (1995) 172-187.

182

G. SEKULOVSKI

According to Metropolitan Nahum of Strumica – of the diocese with the most Eastern Catholics in Macedonia – the key to understanding the Balamand statement is certainly article 13: On both sides, we recognize that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of the apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, especially the unique priesthood celebrating the unique sacrifice of Christ, apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context, it is obvious that re-baptism is entirely excluded11.

For Nahum, the novelty that attracts the most attention is the fact that in this article of the Balamand statement, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church “are assimilated and confused”12. Indeed, the two churches identify themselves as guardians and bearers of the true apostolic faith and apostolic succession, participating in the same sacraments, especially the divine Eucharist. In simple terms, as true sister churches both form the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church13.

To support this opinion, the author refers to St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who emphasized the perfect and inseparable unity between the Church, the true faith (i.e., orthodoxy) and the Eucharist: “Our way of thinking is in agreement with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in return confirms our way of thinking”14. In this sense, Balamand’s statement is not acceptable for Nahum because the existence of true ontological unity, in grace between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics, requires a unity in faith. This unity in true faith consists in sharing the “same uncreated grace”. However, Nahum says that there is, unfortunately, no unity of faith between the two churches. This is recognized by the signatories of the Balamand Document in n. 15. On the one hand, it is asserted that the two churches are “sister churches”. On the other, it is recognized that there is no consensus in the faith, which is precisely “the great contradiction” of the document, according to Nahum. In Balamand’s article 15 one reads: In the effort to restore unity, it is not a question of seeking the conversion of persons from one Church to another to ensure their salvation. It is a question of realizing together Christ’s will for his people and God’s plan 11. See NAHUM, Dijalog (n. 10), p. 172. 12. Ibid., p. 174. 13. Ibid. 14. See Irenaeus of Lyons, Contre les hérésies, IV, 18, 5 (Sources Chrétiennes, 100), Paris, Cerf, 1952-1979, p. 611.

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

183

for his Church through a common search among Churches, with full agreement on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is continued in the ongoing theological dialogue.

However, the theological dialogue shows that there are differences on the questions of faith between Orthodox and Catholics. According to the great theologian and representative of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Amphilochios (Radović), Metropolitan of Montenegro: “The difference between the two churches is such that if we take only the example of the Filioque which refers to the monarchy within the Trinity, it alone changes the immutable faith of the Church not only on the lexical plan but also on the logico-dogmatic level”15. It is with the same arguments concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit that Nahum refers to St. Gregory Palamas: knowing from the living experience that the knowledge of the Truth, of the true faith, has an existential meaning, soteriological, and not only logical and theoretical, St. Gregory addresses the Catholics: “We will never receive you in communion as long as you say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son”16.

“According to the foregoing, for us Orthodox”, continues Nahum, “as well as for our Fathers who have spoken through the councils and personally, the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be accepted as ‘the confession of the apostolic faith’, as stated in the Balamand Declaration, nor can this Church be a sister church”17. This very critical attitude calls into question the validity of the ongoing dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The fact that Orthodox and Catholic theologians today recognize each other as “sister churches in the context of theological dialogue”, supporting such a declaration and signing it publicly, “undermines the testimony of the Fathers, the Holy Synods, and the experience of the Church of God”. It seems, according to Bishop Nahum, that the Balamand methodology is “a diametrically different approach and understanding of the historical-ecclesiastical reality between the Fathers and some modern Orthodox theologians”18. The attempt to “unite Churches without union in faith” reminds Nahum of the philosopher Barlaam of Calabria (fourteenth century), a representative of 15. See Metropolitan AMPHILOCHIOS (RADOVIĆ), Le mystère de la sainte Trinité selon saint Grégoire Palamas, Paris, Cerf, 2012, p. 146. 16. See Gregory Palamas, Traités apodictiques sur la procession du Saint-Esprit, p. 26 quoted by NAHUM, Dijalog (n. 10), p. 181. 17. Ibid., p. 183. 18. Ibid., p. 184.

184

G. SEKULOVSKI

Constantinople, who said in his speech to Pope Benedict XII that church union could be realized on the basis of the common faith in the Holy Trinity. With regard to the Filioque, Barlaam stated, both sides should keep their teachings while “the wise, if they want to, can debate it”. This allows Nahum to rhetorically ask the question: “Who will we follow: St. Gregory Palamas or Barlaam?”19. Any church union that would eventually be achieved without unity in faith, that is, apart from the uncreated grace of truth, would be “a unity captured in time and space and condemned to death and decomposition”, according to Nahum. Such a union would remain without the community in the Spirit and without eschatological dimensions. It would not testify to the salvific unity “in the image and likeness” of communion in the Holy Trinity. The profound union of the Church, which frees us from the limits of time and space, is accomplished, experienced, lived and revealed in the mystery of unity, in the mystery of the Church itself, in the Eucharist. III. LOCAL CHURCHES AND SACRAMENTAL UNITY However, there is an important aspect of the reception of the Balamand Document: the local churches themselves. Each local Orthodox church, in a distinct way but also together through its bishop in the Holy Eucharist, unites everyone in grace and identity thus constituting one Church as Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. All the local Orthodox churches are identified with the Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which also means that they are identified with the first Church of God established in Jerusalem and with the eschatological Church of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. According to Nahum, only these churches can really be called sister churches because they are not just united in faith, but also united in a charismatic and ontological identity and communion. Sacramental unity between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church ceased to exist in practice or theory ten centuries ago, causing great pain for all. This is why sacramental communion with non-Orthodox is not possible for Bishop Nahum. According to the holy canons in the Orthodox Church, the non-orthodox bishops, priests and faithful are not to be commemorated in the Holy Liturgy; their presence in the liturgy during the consecration of the Holy Mysteries is not authorized; and, they cannot communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. That is why, according to Nahum, in the theological dialogue with the Catholics, “the 19. Ibid., p. 185.

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

185

Orthodox use in an irregular way and without real content, Orthodox eucharistic ecclesiology as a kind of justification for the search for unity or for a union to be realized in the future”20. This point of view is directly related to the negative reception of the Balamand Document. In the end, writes the Orthodox bishop: [In] addition to our positive appreciation of the work accomplished and of the need for theological dialogue as well as our respect for the Orthodox participants, we must be honest and confess that the Orthodox people of God are very concerned and worried by the joint document of Balamand because, as we have seen, contradictory and unorthodox ecclesiological attitudes have been adopted21.

In a situation where, according to the Macedonian bishop, we still see today no positive change in the attitude of the Vatican, we can only consider the consent made at Balamand as “a relativization of the truth: theological dialogue is transposed from an ontological point of view to a psycho-sentimental or political level, and it constantly loses its seriousness in our eyes”22. The Orthodox theologians who signed the document, despite their sincere faith and good intentions, are visibly at odds with the Orthodox reaction in different local churches. To support this negative perception of Balamand, Nahum makes a particular a reference to the Romanian example. In fact, the Balamand text of June 1993 recommended that churches not appeal to state authorities to resolve disputes about the real estate of the Church; the matters should rather be settled by mutual agreement between the parties. However, the Eastern Catholics of Romania refused to recognize the Balamand statement on this point and appealed to the state. Also, in the Balkan area, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece sent a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in which the document of Balamand was declared unacceptable for the Orthodox. The end of the letter reads as follows: The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece considers the text of the Balamand declaration of unity as unacceptable from an Orthodox point of view, as totally foreign to the millennial Orthodox tradition and the opposite of all the decisions adopted by the Pan-Orthodox Conferences concerning the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. The good evaluations of the Balamand declaration of unity preserved here and there in the text disappear in its basis, darkened ecclesiologically, and lose all their meaning for the dialogue and for its future. For this evaluation of the text of the Balamand declaration of unity, 20. Ibid., p. 187. 21. Ibid., p. 188. 22. Ibid., p. 189.

186

G. SEKULOVSKI

which is necessary to calm the conscience of the people of God of the Church in Greece, according to custom, we also inform the Mother Church (of Constantinople), so that the evil does not become bigger23.

Any recognition of the Church and the Holy Eucharist, without the existence of true faith, in this Balkan Orthodox reading of the document, would constitute an un-Orthodox teaching and contribute to the foundation of confessional syncretism and an unauthentic ecclesiology that would have a negative effect on the ecumenical movement. From the foregoing, it is obvious that any form of consent, cooperation or union with Catholics – which, according to the apostolic and patristic tradition, would be prejudicial to the Orthodox faith – constitutes “a betrayal of the Revelation, the true faith given by God and kept in the Church and would cause new divisions and splits”, according to Nahum. As he himself notes: “No activity or ecclesiastical-political practice in the life of the Church has any place in the plan of God’s providence unless it is inspired from above and unless it expresses, with absolute faith, the truths of authentic, Christian teaching”24. Local Orthodox churches are invited in this world to witness not only to unity in faith, but also to unity in love. However, some Orthodox bishops and priests still seem unable to get rid of the temptation of ethnophylitism in the Church, which is a heresy. Even today, the words of the Holy Apostle Paul are not observed in a coherent way: “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no longer a man and woman, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3,28). As a eucharistic community, the Orthodox Church should overcome the divisions caused by ecclesiastical nationalism – as a reality belonging to the fallen world – and should unite the divided Orthodox brethren in sincere, sacrificial love. Therefore, for the Orthodox, repentance means a return to the eucharistic and hesychast way of life which is at the very heart of the Orthodox tradition. Without the “purification of the heart”, there is no sense of the catholic-eucharistic life of the Church, nor knowledge of its boundaries, nor witnessing to the Trinitarian way of life in history (Jn 17,21: “That all are one, like you, Father, you are in me, and I in you, let them be one in us, too, so that the world may believe that you sent me”). Nor is there a burning heart of love for all creation; nor will we find the path of our disunited brothers. “Unity is therefore a gift that the Triune God reveals to those who have a pure heart”25. 23. See the text in Ekklēsiastikē Alētheia 393 (16 January 1995) 5-7. 24. NAHUM, Dijalog (n. 10), p. 190. 25. Ibid., p. 192.

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

187

IV. RECEPTION OF THE PRACTICAL RULES OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT The second part of the Balamand text located its “practical rules” for “mutual respect between Churches in difficult situations” in “an evangelical desire to forgive” and in “a constant effort of renewal”. These attitudes are the only ones likely to restore trust and create the conditions for the “dialogue of love”, which banishes discord, contempt and hatred (nn. 20-21, 27). On two particularly delicate points of current local conflicts, the “practical rules” of the Balamand Document are unequivocal. On the one hand, “the use of violence to seize a place of worship” is said to contradict “the faith in the sacramental reality” of the other church’s liturgical celebrations. In cases of church property ownership disputes, it is therefore recommended to conclude agreements “allowing to celebrate alternately at different times in the same building” (n. 28). And, on the other hand, as regards “the possession or restitution of ecclesiastical property”, the text discourages simply referring to “past situations” or “to rely solely on general, legal principles”. It recommends taking into account above all “the complexity of present pastoral realities and local circumstances” (n. 31). The fair application of these rules was intended to help dispel tensions in Central and Eastern Europe; some signs indicate that they are already being calmed. In the first place, the revival of the churches united to Rome has created tensions that everyone understands. They began by the Eastern Catholics’ wanting to get back the churches and properties they possessed before 1947. In parallel, the Vatican policy in the Balkans and in Russia gave rise to misunderstandings. The Orthodox world, far beyond the Serbian Patriarchate, was worried about the fact that the Holy See was the first, after Germany, to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. The Vatican has usually waited for the settling of such disputes before recognizing new borders. I mention finally the objective difficulties of communication between the two churches which still must learn the language of the other. With regard to the Macedonian case, although the relationship and mutual cooperation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in North Macedonia can be described as rather cordial, it is necessary to mention the factors that have contributed to the emergence of certain disagreements between the two churches around the rightful ownership of church property. This problem had already arisen at the end of the nineteenth century with the institutionalization of ecclesiastical property

188

G. SEKULOVSKI

and buildings, or, in other words, the legal definition of parishes in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Changes in power and the transfer of parishes to different authorities in the past resulted in the seizure and non-attribution of church property and buildings, thus creating problems around the jurisdiction and management of these properties that belonged to different churches. One of the consequences of these political conditions in some parts of Macedonia was that questions about the legal provisions remained unresolved, especially when it came to restoring old ecclesiastical buildings or building new ones. For these reasons, many churches, monasteries and other ecclesiastical properties remained completely ruined, destroyed or simply disappeared, and only a small part of them were rebuilt as a result of the agreements reached. In recent years, a controversy has taken on significant dimensions revolving around obtaining building permits for new Eastern Catholic Churches in the Strumica region. The Macedonian Orthodox Church found it unacceptable to give up its ecclesiastical buildings and at the same time to watch the creation of new Eastern Catholic Churches on its canonical and geographical territories, where the majority of the population is Orthodox. It was unacceptable not only from the legal point of view (obtaining building permits) for the new Eastern Catholic installations, but also from social and religious points of view. The establishment of new Eastern Catholic Churches was felt by the Orthodox as a weakening of their Church, and even of Christianity in general. Further complicating the matter is that the Macedonian Orthodox Church is not canonically recognized by the whole Orthodox world because of its self-proclaimed “autocephaly” in 1967. Despite some disagreements and the rather reserved attitude of the Macedonian Orthodox Church toward uniatism, the institutionalization and recognition of newly built Eastern Catholic Churches in North Macedonia have been achieved with the positive agreement of the two sides, with the exception of the case of the village of Sekirnik. According to the information gathered in the field, the construction of the Eastern Catholic Church in Sekirnik has become an issue of contention because the question was posed on a political basis. This provoked the discontent of the local population who considers that religion should not allow the interference of politics in ecclesiastical affairs. The attitude of the Eastern Catholic priests of the Strumica region, who took an active part in these events, is not different from that of the people: We had a concrete problem here in Sekirnik, which we urgently needed to solve. Even a delegation from the Ministry of Religious Affairs came there. We were all in Bosilovo [the capital city], even the Orthodox Bishop

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

189

Nahum was there to negotiate, and I am very grateful to him. We were asked to explain the reasons for building such a church and to justify the Catholic presence in the village of Sekirnik26.

The village of Sekirnik is important not so much because of the number of Eastern Catholics as by the controversies surrounding the construction of the Catholic church in this predominantly Orthodox village27. Until 2001, the year in which the Eastern Catholic Church of Macedonia wanted to lay the foundations for a new church, many people had not even heard of the neighbouring village of Radovo. Since this event, Sekirnik has become a hot topic and at the same time a difficult subject not only for relations between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the village, but also between Macedonia and the Vatican. Resistance of the local population in Sekirnik lasted for five years with the main objection being that there is only one Catholic person in the village28. “This violent way of building a church did not even exist in the Ottoman era. Better to build a hospital or something else that will be useful for us”, one of the villagers reacted angrily29. However, following the intensification of negotiations involving representatives of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, state officials and villagers, three of the villagers declared themselves Catholics, which was the necessary condition for beginning the construction of a sacred place30. The consecration of the church eventually took place in December 2007 by the cardinal and apostolic nuncio Santos Abril y Castelló and by special representatives of the Vatican. Politically, this strengthened the relations between Macedonia and the Vatican and also enabled the Macedonian State and the Macedonian Orthodox Church to continue sending its delegations to Rome 26. Interview with Georgi Dinov, born in 1980 (Sekirnik, September 2009). 27. This village is in the municipality of Bosilovo and in 2002, 315 families were registered with 1,194 inhabitants, all Macedonians including 1,192 Orthodox and 1 Eastern Catholic. It is indeed this very limited number of Catholic faithful which encouraged the Orthodox population to prevent in 2001 the construction of a Catholic church which was demanded not only by the Eastern Catholic Church in Macedonia, but also by the Vatican. 28. Read the official reaction of the representatives of the Orthodox Church Council in Sekirnik and the Village Council under the title Vistinskite sostojbi vo Sekirnik [The Real Situation in Sekirnik], on 30 January 2006, available on the official website of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, http://www.mpc.org.mk/vest.asp?id=1113 (accessed 19 November 2018). 29. Interview with Dončo Ivanov, born in 1954 (Sekirnik, September 2009). 30. This is what was written in the reaction of the inhabitants of Sekirnik: “If the representatives of the Uniate Church [sic Eastern Catholics] who are interested in acting in the village of Sekirnik find at least two or three families who declare themselves as Uniates [sic], we are ready to welcome them and leave them in peace to lay the first foundation stone for the construction of their church”. See The Real Situation in Sekirnik (n. 28).

190

G. SEKULOVSKI

to attend the traditional prayer service at the tomb of St. Cyril, which is held each year at the Roman Church of “San Clemente”. Beyond the process of latinization, and sometimes proselytism, the Eastern Catholic Church is often criticized for having no real pastoral need to build churches in certain places where there are not enough Eastern Catholics to pray and attend the services. One Orthodox faithful commented: “It is paradoxical, but the current policy of the Catholic Church is to build parishes wherever there are no Uniate [sic Eastern] Catholics”31. In the eyes of the Orthodox Church, such an attitude on the part of the Catholic Church represents a transgression of the concept of canonical territories shared by the Christian East and West during the first millennium. And, at the same time, it is an alteration of the theological and spiritual traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches for there has been already a partial latinization of the communities concerned. And finally, such an attitude does not respect the practical rules of the Balamand Document, in particular n. 31: “to avoid relying on the intervention of the civil authorities for the practical solution of problems between Churches or local communities, especially for the possession or restitution of ecclesiastical property”. Despite some tensions still palpable today between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, new Catholic churches have been built in the villages around Strumica where the Eastern Catholic population lives. It should be noted that almost all the new ecclesiastical buildings have been built during the last ten years, after the arrival of Kiro Stojanov, bishop of the Eparchy of Eastern Catholics in North Macedonia. This shows that with more flexibility of the two sides and successful negotiations, disputes can be overcome. However, it is difficult to predict how long this situation will last because political interference influences, today as yesterday, the search for a solution that would be based on the ecclesiology of each of the churches32. V. CONCLUSION: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO RECEIVING THE BALAMAND DECLARATION? Only the mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of the other can, in the light of the common ecclesiology of the first Christian millennium, lead to a proper evaluation of Roman primacy and the autocephalies of 31. Interview with Anatolij Klinčarski, born in 1978 (Bansko, September 2009). 32. Of note is that the titular seat of Strumitsa was removed by Pope Francis on 31 October 2018, following the reconstitution of the diocese.

ORTHODOX AND EASTERN CATHOLICS IN THE BALKANS

191

the Orthodox Church, as crucial points of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in the wake of Balamand. Faced with the impossibility of the Orthodox Church accepting the Roman primacy in its current form and for the Catholic Church to accept autocephaly, as it is implemented in contemporary Orthodoxy, is there any other way out than to seek just and appropriate Christian solutions together? Such solutions could be more easily found not by one church working separately from the other, nor by one church working against the other, but by a church working with the other. However, the question to be solved cannot be restricted to ecumenism; it belongs primarily to systematic and pastoral theology, as well as to canon law. It must be resolved obviously in relation to other questions. These come up when we consider the tension between what is local and what is universal, between unity and differences in today’s societies that are becoming more and more globalized. The stakes are high: our service and our witness in a world, so feeble when faced with its divisions, will depend directly on the way in which we integrate the perspectives opened up by Balamand, or on the ways we reject them. By putting back in place the pieces of the puzzle characterizing the Eastern Catholics, let me draw some general and relative conclusions regarding the Eastern Catholic Church in North Macedonia and, more generally, to both churches, Orthodox and Catholic. These conclusions are to be taken in addition to the reception of the practical rules of “Balamand” noted above. The Eastern Catholic Churches must keep from defining their identity only in terms of their particularity. They must not establish their identity in contrast or in opposition to the numerically superior Roman Catholic tradition, to the sister Eastern Catholic Churches of different ethnic groups, nor to the Orthodox Churches whose cultural and ecclesial heritage they share. The identity of a church cannot become exclusive; it is destined to include, by a constant effort, the universal and the particular. Concretely, this means that the Eastern Catholic Churches are called to assume both their ecclesiastical (eschatological) identity and their singular historical identity. By applying these criteria, we can see the urgent need for historical and academic research far from any apologetics that extends to the whole of a church’s particular history, including Eastern Christian heritage; on the encounter with the Latin Catholic Church, with its positive and negative influences; and finally, on the rupture of union between the two churches. There is need then for an act of memory which means to receive the past with its lights and shadows, its successes and its failures. Nationalist obsessions make forgetting history the privileged way to erase memory and thus to dominate the consciousness of people. The act of memory implies an assent to the past,

192

G. SEKULOVSKI

and even a taking of responsibility for it. The goal is to open a present and, especially, a future to churches that correct mistakes and errors and develop the best way forward. CNRS UMR 8504 Géographie-Cités 5 cours des Humanités FR-93322 Aubervilliers France [email protected]

Goran SEKULOVSKI

PART III

THE RECEPTION OF THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS AND THEIR ECUMENICAL METHODOLOGIES When I took note of this disagreement that separates them [Jacobites, Nestorians and Chalcedonians] and that which distinguishes them, and the accusation of infidelity raised against each other; I examined it in a veritable manner, without passion or partisan spirit. I found that, in no manner, is there a difference between them. They are in fact unanimous in confessing the divinity of Christ our Lord and his humanity, and profess his union and the fact that there was no separation or disjunction between the humanity and divinity1. ꜤAli ibn Dawud al-Arfadi (c. 11th cent.)

Centuries ago, during a period of literary, artistic and theological renewal in the Syriac Churches, commonly known as the Syriac Renaissance2, the West Syriac theologian al-Arfādī compared the three main christological positions to travellers going to the same village but following different paths. During the same time-span, in Egypt, Al-Ṣāfi ibn Al-‘Assal (d. 1265) was in the process of developing what we could nowadays call a theory of “religious pluralism”3. As we shall see, they were not alone in this irenic or “ecumenical” approach to Christianity, and which has relevance for the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue’s Balamand Document on uniatism (1993)4. This is to prove, as Edward Farrugia develops in his article in this volume, that the use of expressions such as “Balamand before Balamand” or “ecumenism before ecumenism” is as warranted as “Balamand after Balamand”5. More to the point, in 1. G. TROUPEAU, Le livre de l’unanimité de la foi de ꜤAli Ibn Dawud al-Arfadi, in Parole de l’Orient 5 (1969) 197-219, text p. 201, trans. p. 200. 2. See H.G. TEULE – C. FOTESCU-TAUWINKL (eds.), Syriac Renaissance (Eastern Christian Studies, 9), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters, 2010. 3. S.K. SAMIR, L’accord des religions monothéistes entre elles selon al-Safī Ibn al-‘Assal, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 36 (1968) 206-224. Al-‘Assal notes that there are differences between the three religions (exterior), but also between different communities (interior) (e.g., between the Stoics and other philosophers, Karaites and Rabbinists, Assyrians (Nestorians) and Melkites, Mu‘tazilites and Zahirites). According to Al-‘Assal, this variety is intended by God, who has a mysterious, economic plan because none of the opinions of the religions and sects can fully define God. More interestingly, all the nuances offered by the different factions would disappear if everybody would belong to a sole religion. 4. The Balamand Document, L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 43 (1993) 82-90. 5. See similar sentiments in E.G. FARRUGIA, Balamand before Balamand, in this volume, 3-25.

196

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

the words of Gérard Troupeau, “l’œcuménisme n’est pas une attitude entièrement nouvelle”6, and most importantly, as Khalil Samir noted, “l’œcuménisme n’est pas une nouveauté en Orient”7. One important landmark in the history of ecumenical dialogue preceding Balamand is the work carried out by the Pro Oriente Foundation. In the following, I will sketch the history of Pro Oriente and highlight its most important achievements, with a brief analysis of relevant documents. Afterwards, I will compare the accomplishments of Balamand and Pro Oriente and conclude by suggesting a way forward out of the current ecumenical standstill in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. I. THE PRO ORIENTE FOUNDATION The Pro Oriente Foundation was established by the Archbishop of Vienna, Franz Cardinal König (1905-2004) on 4 November 1964 as an Ecclesiastical Foundation of the see of Vienna. Its initial aim was to “establish and promote contacts with the East of Europe in all intellectual fields, particularly between representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches”8. Shortly after its establishment, somewhat contrary to its proclaimed aims, the foundation initiated a series of consultations with Oriental Orthodox Churches. They were held in Vienna in 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978 and 1988 and were followed, due to a dampening of ecumenical sentiments on the Oriental Orthodox side, only by a series of “Study Seminars”9 and “Regional Symposia”10. The results of these meetings were published by Pro Oriente and some were translated into French and Arabic11. 6. TROUPEAU, Le livre de l’unanimité de la foi (n. 1), p. 197. 7. S.K. SAMIR, Un traité du cheikh Abū ῾Alī Naẓīf ibn Yumn sur l’accord des Chrétiens entre eux malgré leur désaccord dans l’expression, in Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 51 (1990) 329. 8. From the statute, as it was formulated on the November 5, 1964. Quoted in Le dialogue de Vienne entre théologiens catholiques et pré-chalcédoniens et l’étude menée sur Nestorius et le nestorianisme, in Istina 40 (1995) 1; reprinted in La Tradition Syriaque: rencontre non officielle tenue sous les auspices de la Fondation Pro Oriente, Vienne, 24-29 juin 1994, Paris, Pro Oriente, 1995, 1. 9. See the Oriental Orthodox Dialogue Series booklets: On Primacy (1993), On Councils and Conciliarity (1992), On Ecclesiology (1994), Authority and Jurisdiction (1996), at https://www.pro-oriente.at/?site=st20050118183321&lp=en (accessed 16 April 2020). 10. The aim of these events was only to inform the broader public about the achievements of the Vienna consultations: Wadi Natroun (1991), Kerala (1993), Kaslik (1994), Kröffelbach (1997). D.W. WINKLER, Growing Consensus: The Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Ortodoksia 53 (2013) 84-113, p. 85. 11. A. STIRNEMANN – G. WILFLINGER (eds.), Syriac Dialogue, vols. 1-3, Wien, Horn, 1994-2003; J. MARTE – G. WILFLINGER (eds.), Syriac Dialogue, vol. 4, Wien, Horn, 2001;

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

197

After the first meeting, the Foundation’s statute was changed to reflect that its aims became the “promotion of scientific research, publications and contacts of all kind which can contribute to a better knowledge of the East, especially in order to serve the cause of a better understanding between Christians of the East and of the West”12. After the fourth meeting of 1978, this aim was further nuanced to highlight the current activities of the foundation, namely, to “develop and promote ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, Pre-Chalcedonian and Pre-Ephesian Churches”13.

II. PRELUDE TO DIALOGUE The first attempt at initiating a dialogue was organized under the auspices of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and engaged Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians. Based on a growing “desire to know each other and to restore our unity in the one Church of Christ”14, theologians gathered in connection with the meeting of the Faith and Order Commission in Aarhus (1964)15. Unsurprisingly, the christology of the P. HOFRICHTER – G. WILFLINGER (eds.), Syriac Dialogue, vols. 5-6, Wien, Horn, 20032004; D.W. WINKLER (ed.), Syriac Churches Encountering Islam (Pro Oriente Studies in the Syriac Tradition, 1), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2012; ID. (ed.), Syriac Christianity in the Middle East and India (Pro Oriente Studies in Syriac Tradition, 2), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2013. French translations: La Tradition Syriaque: rencontre non officielle tenue sous les auspices de la Fondation Pro Oriente, Vienne, 24-29 juin 1994, Paris, Pro Oriente, 1995; La Tradition Syriaque: deuxième rencontre des Églises de tradition syriaque. Fondation Pro Oriente, Vienne, 22-27 février 1996, Paris, Pro Oriente, 1998; La Tradition Syriaque: troisième rencontre des Églises de tradition syriaque. Fondation Pro Oriente, Mundelein, IL, 8-11 juillet 1997, Paris, Pro Oriente, 1998. Arabic translations: Syriac Dialogue 1 and Syriac Dialogue 2, Aleppo, Mardin Publishing House, 1994 and 2002. 12. Appendix: Information about Pro Oriente, in Wort und Wahrheit Supplementary Issue 1 (1972) 185. 13. “Die Stiftung Pro Oriente hat die Aufgabe, die ökumenischen Beziehungen zwischen der römisch-katholischen Kirche und den orthodoxen, prä-chalzedonensischen und prä-ephesinischen Kirchen zu pflegen und zu fördern, die ökumenische Gesinnung unter den Christen zu vertiefen und ökumenische Aktivitäten zu unterstützen”, at https://www. pro-oriente.at/Satzung (accessed 25 March 2020). 14. J.S. ROMANIDES – P. VARGHESE – N.A. NISSIOTIS (eds.), Unofficial Consultation between Theologians of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, August 11-15, 1964: Papers and Minutes, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10/2 (1964-1965) 7-160, p. 14. 15. The participants on the Oriental Orthodox side were: Mar Severius Zakka Iwas of Mosul, former observer at the Second Vatican Council and future Syrian Orthodox Patriarch; Metropolitan Mar Thoma Dionysius and his assistant, Rev. Fr. Dr. N.J. Thomas; Like Siltanat Habte Mariam Worqineh, Chief of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Emperor Haile

198

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

Council of Chalcedon and “the well-known phrase used by our common Father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria” stood at the centre of the meeting and common statement. Very much in line with al-Arfadi, the conclusion of the meeting was that: “On the essence of the christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw the same truth expressed”16. While it was acknowledged that there are many issues to be discussed further, they could be tackled in future meetings only because it was established that “we recognize in each other the one orthodox faith of the Church”17. Naturally, the christological issue persisted, and so at the second unofficial meeting in Bristol (1967) further common ground was sought. In the final declaration it was stated that: Ever since the fifth century, we have used different formulae to confess our common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man … both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without divisions, without separation. The four adverbs belong to our common tradition18.

While the prospect of the meetings was positive, an extensive common christological statement was not issued until the meeting at Wadi Natroun (1989). III. UNOFFICIAL ECUMENICAL ORIENTAL ORTHODOX AND ROMAN CATHOLIC CONSULTATIONS19 Ever since the decree On Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) of Vatican II, the Catholic Church has also been involved in theological dialogue with the Oriental Churches (Pre-Ephesian and Pre-Chalcedonian), although the latter represent different ends of the christological spectrum and object to different elements in the phraseology of the Chalcedonian Selassie’s Private Cabinet; Rev. Prof. V.C. Samuel; Dr. Karam Nazir Khella; Dr. Getachew Haile; Rev. Fr. Paul Varghese, WCC and Principal of the Orthodox Theological Seminary; Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan; Bishop Karekin Sarkissian. 16. ROMANIDES et al., Unofficial Consultation (n. 14), p. 15. 17. Ibid., p. 14. 18. D.J. CONSTANTELOS – N.A. NISSIOTIS – T.P. VARGHESE (eds.), Papers and Discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Theologians: The Bristol Consultation, July 25-29, 1967, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 13/2 (1968) 131-320, p. 133. 19. As explained by the Communiqué prepared during the last working session of the “Non-Official Consultation between Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church” on 11 September 1971, the theologians gathered in Vienna “for an ‘unofficial Ecumenical Consultation’ at the invitation of the Foundation Pro Oriente”. In Communiqué, in Wort und Wahrheit Supplementary Issue 1 (1972) 182.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

199

formula20. Modelled on and following the same ecumenical spirit as that of the meetings with Orthodox theologians, the first non-official ecumenical consultation with Catholic theologians was held in Vienna, 7-12 September 1971. It was attended by representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Syrian Orthodox Church of India21. This was the first phase of the dialogue which, as we shall see, had different official outcomes than the unofficial meetings with the Orthodox theologians. The premise was that participants genuinely “feel united in a spirit of brotherhood in our faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, God and Saviour, and recognise equally the commission and prayer of our Lord that we may all be one”22. This feeling was particularly fostered by the unofficial nature of the consultations, which allowed for frank conversations and openness to other’s understanding of their own tradition. Both aspects are reflected not only by the joint statements, but also in the

20. It is not the aim of this article to outline the theological intricacies that led to the fallout. For survey works, see: A. GRILLMEIER – T. HAINTHALER, Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604). Part 2: The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century, trans. J. Cawte – P. Allen, London – Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1995; S. BROCK, The “Nestorian” Church: A Lamentable Misnomer, in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78/3 (1996) 23-35; R.A. NORRIS, The Christological Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1980; G. CHEDIATH, The Three Crucial Terms in Syriac Theology – Kyana, Qnoma and Parsopa, in The Harp 15 (2002) 59-65. 21. The participants on the side of the Oriental Orthodox Churches were: Bishop Amba Shenouda, future Pope Shenouda III; Prof. Saleeb Sourial, later assigned with the establishment of Coptic Churches in Germany; Tiran Nersoyan, Archbishop Primate of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America; Bishop Karekin Sarkissian, observer at the Second Vatican Council, Pontifical Legate of the Eastern Prelacy of Armenia’s Holy Apostolic Church of America and later Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia; Vardapet Dr. Mesrob K. Krikorian, Prelate of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Austria, member of the theological Advisory Council of Pro Oriente, and future Pontifical Legate for Central Europe and Sweden; Like Siltanat Habte Mariam Worqineh; Fr. M.V. George, Vice Principal of the Orthodox Theological Seminary; Dr. K.C. Joseph, member of the WCC; Rev. Prof. V.C. Samuel, Dean of the Theological Faculty of the Haile Selassie University; Rev. Fr. Paul Varghese, future Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios. The Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Mosul, Mar Severius Zakka Iwas, according to the records of the first meeting was prevented to attend due to illness. 22. Communiqué (n. 19), p. 182. This conviction was reiterated in every communiqué: “We have in an increasing measure experienced the same spirit of fraternal unit in the faith in one Lord Jesus Christ, God and Saviour as we did two years ago. We were impelled by the same loyalty to the prayer of our Lord that ‘they all be one’”. And, “Once again we acknowledge with grateful hearts the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our work here, which was throughout characterized by genuine openness and desire to understand each other”. In Five Vienna Consultations between Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978 and 1988, Wien, Pro Oriente, 1993, pp. 171, 225 respectively.

200

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

minutes of the consultation. The meeting was centred on academic papers given by representatives of both sides. While the task was “to analyse the historical facts, to explore the respective motivations and to examine critically the issues of agreement and disagreement in expression and faith”23, discussions around the issue of the christological definition of Chalcedon and its implications quickly developed into insightful reflections on aspects of power and politics in the Byzantine empire and the functions of councils and of tradition. The Vienna Christological Formula Having listened to papers that objectively analysed the theological obstacles, the commission not only issued a summary statement, but in its 1972 communiqué it incorporated a theological passage which became known as the “Vienna Christological Formula”. This document, briefer than the declaration of Aarhus, was essential for any advancement of dialogue. It stated: We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate; perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without com[m]ixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehensible or expressible24.

The formula consciously avoids the problematic terms “substance” and “nature” and any sort of intricate theological explanations. In this sense, it is reminiscent of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed25. This broad yet ground-breaking creed constituted the basis for the elaboration of further consensus. The definition refers to Christ as the Incarnate Son and, in Chalcedonian terms26, as being perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity27. In fact, during the Syriac Renaissance both Gregory Bar 23. W. DE VRIES, The Reasons for the Rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Wort und Wahrheit Supplementary Issue 1 (1972) 54-63, p. 61. 24. Communiqué (n. 19), p. 182. 25. For an explanation of this aspect see: A. OLMI, Il consenso cristologico tra le chiese calcedonesi e non calcedonesi (1964-1996) (Analecta Gregoriana, 200), Roma, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2003, p. 411. 26. Olmi points out that the expression employed by the Vienna formula references Chalcedon, which in return references the Formula of Union (433). Ibid., p. 411. 27. “Teleion ton auton en theotēti kai teleion ton auton en anthrōpotēti”, H. DENZINGER, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1921, p. 66.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

201

Hebraeus (d. 1226) and ꜤAbdishoꜤ of Nisibis (d. 1318) used a similar expression in the development of their “ecumenical” christology28. The following sentences of the formula simply develop the first declaration in order to explain the christological stances of the churches involved in the dialogue. The incontestable reality of the existence of different christological stances that nevertheless express the same truth is highlighted by the following paragraph: We see that there are still differences in the theological interpretation of the mystery of Christ because of our different ecclesiastical and theological traditions, we are convinced, however, that these differing formulations on both sides can be understood along the lines of the faith of Nicea and Ephesus29.

These distinctions, however, are understood as “different emphases in the theological and dogmatic elaboration of Christ’s mystery”. That is to say that linguistic misunderstandings and not dogmatic errors led to the theological crisis. Notwithstanding the differences, the rich symbiosis between the lex orandi and lex credendi of these churches were employed to create the formula of concord. For example, the expression “not for the twinkling of an eye” was taken from the Coptic liturgy of Saint Basil30 and excludes a mutually anathematized Eutychean understanding of christology. In comparison with the Orthodox approach, however, Antonio Olmi has astutely pointed out that the Vienna formula is more complex and indicates a more inclusive approach31. In a way, the Aarhus statement tries to legitimize the Council of Chalcedon. It seeks to include other 28. Bar Hebraeus: “Christ is by nature perfect God and perfect man” (hu mshiḥō alōhō mshamlōyō w-barnōshō mshamlōyō), Grégoire ABOU’LFARADJ, Le candélabre du sanctuaire, ed. and trans. J. KHOURY (Patrologia Orientalis, 31/1), Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1964, pp. 190-191. “And when I thought and dwelt upon this practice I became convinced that this dispute of Christians among themselves is not a matter of fact but rather of words and appellations, for all of them that Christ our Lord is perfect God and perfect man, without mixture, confusion and corruption of natures”, in P. BEDJAN (ed.), Liber Columbae, Leipzig, Harrassowitz, 1898, p. 60. ꜤAbdishoꜤ b. Brikha all confess a Christ perfect God and perfect Man (alāhā mshamlāyā barnāshā mshamlāyā), cf. ꜤABDIŠOꜤ MITROFOLITO D-ZURO, ktābā d-marganitā d-‘al shrārā d-kristiyanutā, Mossul, 1924, p. 25. 29. Communiqué (n. 19), p. 182. 30. F. BOUWEN, Le consensus christologique, in Proche-Orient Chretien 43 (1993) 324-353, p. 330. For a detailed analysis see: D.W. WINKLER, Ein Passus aus der koptischen Basileiosliturgie und der syrischen Vita Dioscori als Quellen der Wiener Christologischen Formel, in S. EMMEL – M. KRAUSE – S.G. RICHTER – S. SCHATEN (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit. Vol. 1: Materielle Kultur, Kunst und religiöses Leben (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 6.1), Wiesbaden, Reichert, 1999, 534-545. 31. OLMI, Il consenso cristologico (n. 25), p. 418.

202

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

theological approaches into its own “denominational christology”. Whereas the Aarhus statement focuses on Chalcedon and on the common heritage of St. Cyril, the Vienna formula straightforwardly admits christological plurality and frames the mystery in such a way that embraces the different “emphases”. However, it should be pointed out that the declaration does not concretely indicate how to proceed for the deepening of this bond and accomplishment of unity. Nevertheless, one should not go as far as to criticize the final statement for not offering guidelines for the creation of a new christology32. The clearest argument for this is the fact that the participating theologians themselves were split over several issues such as the specific aims of the meetings33. That being said, the first non-official ecumenical consultation led to an unexpected meeting between Pope Paul VI and Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Ya’qub III and a mild yet meaningful declaration that acknowledged the validity of each other’s churches. The declaration dated 27 October 1971 underlined “the common profession of faith in the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ …, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both churches, the great Fathers and Doctors” and that “there is no difference in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man”34. IV. VIENNA, 1973 The second non-official ecumenical consultative meeting took place between 3-9 September 1973, reuniting theologians belonging to the Coptic Orthodox Church, Syrian Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church. Continuing the work of the first consultation, the theologians 32. “La principale difficoltà che emerge nel consenso cristologico di Vienna (1971) è però – a nostro aviso – una certa indeterminatezza del consenso stesso … non dà alcuna indicazione su come realizzare la nuova cristologia …. Da questo punto di vista … già partire dalla dichiarazione di Aarhus (1964) avevano prefigurato il modello neocalcedonese come ‘cristologia portante’ dei successivi approfondimenti, perfezionamenti e conferme del consenso cristologico inter-ortodosso”. OLMI, Il consenso cristologico (n. 25), p. 419. 33. Archbishop Nersoyan described his opinion with regard to those problems as follows: “We are concerned with the present. The problems have changed. For the major part, history is an obstacle. We should not engage ourselves too much with the aspects of the past. Bishop Shenouda, on the other hand, warned that the past ought not to be overlooked, and yet, he said, ‘we must forgive one another’”. In Third Working Session, in Wort und Wahrheit 1 (1995) 63. 34. Common Declaration of H. H. Paul VI and H. H. Ignatius Yacoub III, in Wort und Wahrheit 1 (1995) 184.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

203

discussed issues related to christological definitions, ecumenical councils, the infallibility of the Church, heresy, schisms and anathemas. Building on the foundation of the communiqué of the first meeting, the Vienna formula was supplemented with valuable theological additions. Following the usual thanksgiving and outline of the reason for the gathering, the final statement declares: We all agree that our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father in his Divinity Himself became consubstantial with us in His Humanity. He perfectly unites in Himself perfect Godhead with perfect Manhood without distinction, without separation, without change, without commixture. The flesh possessing rational soul did not exist before the union35.

The communiqué particularly contributed to an underexplored aspect, namely, that of language. It demonstrates how it is possible to bring together formulations that historically belong to different areas of the christological spectrum. The approach distinguishes itself not only from Aarhus, but also from the methodology outlined in Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio of “unity in diversity”. Instead, it offers a model of unity in the essentials of the faith with distinctions of the ways in which faith is interpreted36. This approach ensures that the different formulations are now understood as the theologians intended them, and not through the distorting lens of triumphalist orthodoxy: We recognize the limits of every philosophical and theological attempt to grasp the mystery in concept or express it in words. If the formulas coined by the fathers and doctors of the churches have enabled us to obtain an authentic glimpse of the divine truth, we recognize that every formula that we can devise needs further interpretation. We saw that what appears to be the right formulation can be wrongly understood, and also how even behind an apparently wrong formulation there can be a right understanding. We understand that when our common father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of the one Incarnate nature of God’s Word, he does not deny but rather express the full and perfect humanity of Christ. We believe also that the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, rightly understood today, affirms the unity of person and the indissoluble union of Godhead and Manhood in Christ despite the phrase “in two natures”37.

35. Communiqué, in Wort und Wahrheit 2 (1974) 175. It should be noted that the expression “rational soul” eliminates the suspicion of Apollinarianism (the Logos took the place of the rational human soul or mind). The addition also introduces the double consubstantiality, which is of Chalcedonian origin. 36. OLMI, Il consenso cristologico (n. 25), p. 419. 37. Communiqué (n. 35).

204

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

V. BALAMAND BEFORE BALAMAND? The context of the Balamand Document is quite unique in that while the premise of God-willed unity is the same as with the theologians of Pro Oriente, the impediments are different. That being said, with the participation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the non-official consultations, one can notice a few similarities between Balamand and the statement of the fourth consultation (1978)38. The Pro Oriente participants39 agreed that they should work “towards a goal of full union of sister churches with communion in the faith, in the sacraments of the Church, in ministry and within a canonical structure”, which will express itself through “the exchange of letters of peace, the public liturgical remembering of the Churches and their primates by each other, the placing of responsibility for convoking general synods”40. Paragraph 13 of the Pro Oriente consultation is the most important for the present comparison as it shows how eleven years before the fall of the Soviet communist regimes, the Catholic Church became ecumenically sensitive to the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches: Oriental Catholic Churches will not even in the transitional period before full unity be regarded as a device for bringing Oriental Orthodox Churches inside the Roman Communio41. … . The Oriental Orthodox Churches … cannot be fields of mission for other Churches. The sister Churches will work out local solutions, in accordance with differing local situations, implementing as far as possible the principle of a unified episcopate for each locality42.

38. An interesting aspect is that at the fourth consultation, uniatism was not seen as an “attempt to re-establish unity”, as in the Balamand Document, L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (n. 4), p. 83. Rather, the Pro Oriente consultation saw uniatism as the result of an ideology produced by “the disappearance of the Greek empire and the arrival on the scene of a Catholicism with worldwide dimensions; the development of the concept of ‘rite’, which took the place of the concept of the particular Church; the decline and disappearance of Eastern monasticism before Western centralized forms of religious life, whose efficiency had proved itself in the ‘mission’”, in E. LANNE, The Connection between the Post-Tridentine Concept of Primacy and the Emerging of Uniate Churches, in Five Vienna Consultations (n. 22), p. 241. 39. Representatives of the Coptic, Syrian and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches; Armenian Apostolic Church; Syrian Orthodox Church of India; Coptic and Armenian Catholic Churches; Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church; and, the Roman Catholic Church. 40. Communiqué, in Five Vienna Consultations (n. 22), p. 275. 41. The formulation seems to be slightly unfortunate. While, just as the Balamand Document, it acknowledges the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches and recognizes their validity as distinctive ecclesial entities (and it reassures the Orthodox participants), it does indicate a problematic approach of the Catholic Church towards the Oriental Catholic Churches. 42. Ibid., pp. 275-276.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

205

The statement of the fourth consultation seems to anticipate a few ideas that we later find in Balamand. Most notably, the reference to the participant ecclesial bodies as “sister churches” should be highlighted as it was considered a novelty introduced by Balamand43. Sections 14 and 18 of the Pro Oriente statement were anticipated with the statement that the other churches “cannot be fields of mission”. Lastly, the solution offered is not as clearly outlined as in Balamand, however, just like Balamand, it takes into consideration the local realities and allows for a variety of practical approaches. VI. THE ASSYRIAN ISSUE One should note that the Assyrian Church of the East was neither present at the consultations with the Orthodox Church, nor at those with the Catholic Church. It was not until 1994 that the Church participated in the Pro Oriente dialogue. To this point, there are two divergent aspects that should be mentioned. First, while regrettable and somewhat ecumenically insincere, the absence of the Assyrian Church contributed to a broader basis for agreement between the Orthodox, Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic Churches. The 1964 declaration states: “Since we agree in rejecting without reservation the teaching of Eutyches as well as Nestorius, the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either heresy”44. Similarly, the communiqué of the 1971 consultation stated: “We find our common basis in the same Apostolic tradition … we all agree in rejecting both the Nestorian and Eutychian positions about Jesus Christ”45. Second, however, the rejection of Nestorius as a person proved to be problematic when the Assyrian Church joined the consultations46. It should be added that the 43. J. CORBON, Le document de Balamand 1993 et son impact œcuménique au Proche-Orient, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 43 (1993) 127. See n. 14 of the Balamand Document. 44. ROMANIDES et al., Unofficial Consultation (n. 14), p. 14. It should be added that the statement of Bristol (1967) further complicates the issue as the theologians agreed that “it is sufficient for the confession of our true and irreproachable faith to say and to confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos (Hom. 15, cf. Ep. 39)”. See G. CHEDIATH, Christology, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 2002, p. 163. 45. Communiqué (n. 19). 46. It should be pointed out, however, that already by the time of the fifth Vienna consultation the common declaration stopped using the name of Nestorius. However, the communiqué states that “the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God could not be exhaustively formulated in words, and that within the limits of condemned errors like Arianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, a certain plurality of expressions was permissible in

206

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

position of the Assyrian Church was thoroughly ignored since the Vienna formula is based also on the acceptance of Ephesus, a council rejected by the Assyrian Church of the East because it deposed Nestorius. Although Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV met with Pope John Paul II in 1984, the Assyrian Church of the East did not participate in any of the five Vienna consultations. Encouraged by this meeting, the Catholicos applied to join the Middle Eastern Council of Churches (MECC) but was faced with strong opposition, particularly by the Coptic Orthodox Church. The same negative reaction was reflected in the minutes of Pro Oriente’s regional symposium held in Wadi Natroun (1991), when the participation of the Assyrian Church was debated47. Only with the initiative of Pro Oriente to host a series of non-official consultations within the Syriac tradition was the Assyrian Church of the East more seriously included in the ecumenical discussions. The meeting held in Vienna (1994)48 was meant to remove serious misunderstandings from the past. The discussions were hijacked by the christology of Nestorius rather than that of the Assyrian Church. It was clarified that the two could not be equated and that a distinction must be made between the views of Nestorius as understood by the other churches; the figure of Nestorius as perceived by the Assyrian Church; and, the actual teachings of Nestorius presumably contained in the Book of Heraclides (which was translated into Syriac only in the sixth century)49. The most important result of this consultation was relation to the inseparable and unfocused hypostatic union of the human and the divine in the one Lord Jesus Christ”. In Communiqué, in Wort und Wahrheit 5 (1989) 149. 47. A “rather lengthy exchange about the opportunity to engage Pro Oriente in a dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East”. See S. BROCK, The Syriac Churches in Ecumenical Dialogue on Christology, in A. O’MAHONY (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics, London, Melisende, 2004, 44-65, p. 53. 48. It reunited representatives of the Assyrian New and Old Calendar Churches, Chaldean Church, Malabar Catholic Church, Syrian Orthodox Church (Antioch and the Church of India) and Syrian Catholic, Maronite and Malankara Catholic Churches. 49. The importance of this distinction is reflected in one of the early papers of the meeting presented by Mar B. Soro and J.M. Birnie: “The position of the Church of the East on the rejection of ‘Nestorianism’, however, will all depend on what the participants in previous Vienna consultations and others understand the term ‘Nestorian’ or ‘Nestorianism’ to mean. If, for example, the term ‘Nestorian’ as mentioned in the text of the Vienna Christological Formula is perceived to describe a union of the two natures of our Lord which results in ‘one and another’ or ‘Two Sons’ in Christ, or suggests that Christ is an ‘ordinary man’ whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and prophets of old, then the Church of the East will also condemn and reject such teaching regardless of the ‘name’ it has been presented under. The fact must be taken into account that historically the Church of the East has never understood the term ‘Nestorian’ to mean what has been suggested above”. B. SORO – J.M. BIRNIE, The Vienna Christological Formula in an Assyrian Perspective, in Syriac Dialogue 1 (n. 11), 34-41, p. 36.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

207

the common declaration between John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV in November of the same year. While embodying, like the Syrian Orthodox Church, a different tradition of christology50, the statement represents an orthodox teaching. A further agreement was reached through which both the Catholic and Assyrian Churches recognize the legitimacy of the expressions: Mother of Christ (Christotokos) and Mother of God (Theotokos). Aside from further positive developments during the second non-official consultation (of 1996)51, in March 1998, Pope Shenouda III convened a meeting of the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs during which it was decided that the churches should only partake in theological dialogue together, and no single Oriental Orthodox Church should engage on its own in such ecumenical dialogues. This effectively put an end to the proposed bilateral commission between the Syrian Orthodox and Assyrian Church. It also caused a serious problem for the Pro Oriente consultations, whereby all future consultations became simple communal “Study Sessions”. VII. BALAMAND AND PRO ORIENTE The main point of distinction between Balamand and Pro Oriente is the fact that the two endeavours had different premises. As mentioned in the Balamand Document, “the commission hopes that it has eliminated the obstacle that pushed certain autocephalous churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church 50. S. BROCK, Constantinople Lecture 1999: The Syriac Churches in Recent Theological Dialogue, in Eastern Churches Newsletter 45 (2000), p. 29. 51. Most notably, the clarification of the Church of the East’s understanding of Syriac christological terminology. “It has also become very clear from our two Consultations that it is always essential to realize that, in the context of Christology (as opposed to the situation in Trinitarian theology), there is a clear and important difference between the understanding in the Church of the East of the term qnoma (i.e., individuated, but not personalized nature) and that of other Syriac Churches where qnoma is regularly understood as the equivalent of hypostasis in the sense of person. Thus the following explanation of the term of ‘Qnoma’ has been presented by the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syro-Malabar delegations of the Church of the East: ‘In christology, as expressed in the synodical and liturgical sources of the Church of the East, the term qnoma does not mean hypostasis as understood in the Alexandrine Tradition, but instead, individuated nature. Accordingly, the human nature which the Holy Spirit fashioned and the Logos assumed and united to Himself without any separation, was personalized in the Person of the Son of God. When we speak of the two natures and their qnome, we understand this very much in the same sense as two natures and their particular properties’”. In Joint Communiqué of the Second Non-Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, at http://www.prooriente.at/dokumente/2SyrCons1996.doc.

208

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

could continue the theological work which was begun in such a fortunate way” (n. 35)52. The Balamand Document was meant as a way, in the context of the fall of the communist regimes, of reinitiating dialogue with the Orthodox Churches by clarifying the thorniest issue – the practice of uniatism. It similarly served as a clarification of the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches and as a means to gloss over the tumultuous history that led to the creation of these churches. The Pro Oriente consultations, however, had from the very beginning the ambitious aim of achieving unity by tackling precisely the obstacles that caused schism and had prevented for so long the theological dialogue on the christological issue53. While the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue did not seek to write the history of uniatism, the Pro Oriente consultations actively sought to trace the development of different christological expressions and to explain their origin and interpretations. Furthermore, the Pro Oriente unofficial consultations had more far-reaching results in that they effectively helped to further dialogue and led to official statements between the heads of the various churches involved. The Balamand Document was issued with the hope that its concrete and numerous solutions would allow for the ecumenical dialogue to continue after the fall of the communist regimes. On the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Pro Oriente only offered vague directives on how to proceed, leaving the initiative with the local churches. While both initiatives came to a grinding halt at different points, the Pro Oriente consultations, as we have seen, had positive outcomes that have endured up to today. 52. L’uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et la recherche actuelle de la pleine communion (n. 4), p. 90. 53. One does not need to go far in order to retrace why, just as the Eastern Catholic Churches constituted a more important issue than the Filioque, christology was the main problem that had to be tackled before the primacy of Rome, for example. In essence, the christological issue was never solved as the ruptures were fossilized by the Arab Muslim Conquest. Already from the first consultation it was determined that “what has caused the separation between the two sides [and maintained throughout the ages] appears now to have been primarily cultural, political and terminological. The division has been sustained through the centuries by force of mutual suspicion, mutual caricaturing and ecclesiastical inertia”. In P. VARGHESE, The Relevance of Christology Today, in Wort und Wahrheit Supplementary Issue 1 (1972) 166-178, p. 177. Furthermore, as argued by Varghese (“A discussion on whether Christ is en duo physesin or ek duo physeon would not sound most relevant to many theologians today, not to speak of most laymen”) and recently cogently outlined by Jack Tannous, the christological issue was problematic particularly for the limited literate segments of the population, whereas until the Arab Muslim conquest Christians throughout the Empire did not entirely take note of the directives from Constantinople (ibid., p. 167); J. TANNOUS, The Making of the Medieval Middle East, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2018, chapter 2.

THE PRO ORIENTE CONSULTATIONS

209

VIII. A WAY FORWARD? Through dialogue, silent separation was transformed, for a while, into living interrelation but, because of objective reasons, it was not followed by efficacious intensification. However, the Syriac mediaeval tradition can certainly contribute to the furthering of the dialogue54, particularly against the backdrop of the current overwhelming political climate. The re-readings of Chalcedon and thorough academic study, offered throughout the non-official consultations with and within the Syriac tradition, are of immeasurable value. However, they can be supplemented by the developments of theologians such as ꜤAli ibn Dawud al-Arfadi (11th cent.), Michael the Syrian (d. 1126), IshoꜤyahb Bar Malkon (d. 1245), Bar Hebraeus, Rabban YeshuꜤ (c. 12th cent.), ꜤAbdishoꜤ Bar Brika of Nisibis55 and even Dionysius Bar Salibi (d. 1171). One does not need to necessarily start from the powerful “ecumenism” of al-Arfadi, but further dialogue can take into consideration stances such as that of Bar Salibi who, while disillusioned by the treatment of the Byzantines, strongly believed that the unity of Christians is God-willed: Let it be also known to you that it is very pleasing and agreeable to God that there should be no divisions in the Churches of Christians…. As I said above, I warned several times the Greeks of Melitene that they and the Syrians and Armenians should love one another and not to growl at one another like wolves and lions, but their madness reached such a pitch as to say like their fathers: “You are not Christians”, and other similar ugly offensive words which are in keeping with their iniquity56.

Clearly, the epitome of such a patristic-grounded approach is a new ecumenical christology that would not necessarily repair the wounds of the past, but would certainly offer a stable and orthodox path grounded in tradition. This ecumenical christology could even include new terminology that would better reflect the philosophical complexities of the various christological stances. To this point, an eloquent example is the christology 54. It is yet unclear why neither during the five consultations nor during the Syriac dialogues “ecumenical” theologians of the Syriac Renaissance were not taken into consideration as a source of inspiration for the advancement of ecumenical dialogue. 55. See G.P. BADGER, The Nestorians and Their Rituals with the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842-1844 and of a Late Visit to Those Countries in 1850, vol. 2, London, Nabu Press, 1987, pp. 380-426; A. WENSINCK, Bar Hebraeus’s Book of the Dove Together with Some Chapters from His Ethikon, Leiden, Brill, 1919; G. GIANAZZA, I libri dei Misteri (Patrimonio Culturale Arabo Cristiano, 12), Roma, Aracne, 2017. 56. A. MINGANA, A Treatise of Barṣalībi against the Melchites (Woodbroke Studies, 1; Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic and Garshūni, 1/1), Cambridge, Heffer and Sons, 1927, p. 62.

210

B.-G. DRĂGHICI

developed by Bar Hebraeus, who wrote that Christ is by nature perfect God and perfect man but made out of a “double nature formed from two natures, divine and human”57. In a reconciliatory and theologically sound manner Bar Hebraeus clearly states that duality is suppressed on account of unity, but a certain duality or duplication58 does not cease, because the one nature is made out of the union of two natures without mixture. Such a refreshing and theologically challenging perspective is perhaps what the current standstill in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue needs. Wolfson College Linton Road Oxford OX2 6UD United Kingdom [email protected]

Bogdan-Gabriel DRĂGHICI

57. dab-kyōnō hu mshīḥō alōhō mshamlōyō w-barnōshō mshamlōyō kyōnō dēn bram ‘afīfō d-min trēn kyonīn alohōyō w- nōshōyō, in Le candélabre du sanctuaire, ed. KHOURY (n. 28), pp. 190-191. 58. ‘afīfutō.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES LES RETOMBÉES ECCLÉSIALES ET PASTORALES

I. INTRODUCTION Je voudrais dans ce chapitre décrire la réception du document de Balamand, tout d’abord dans l’Église melkite et ensuite dans l’ensemble des Églises catholiques orientales. Une enquête auprès les differents évêques me révéla que très peu parmi eux pouvait une réponse développée sur la question. Mon évêque, théologien reconnu, s’est limité à me confirmer la réception du document par notre Église grecque melkite catholique, chose que je savais déjà. Ceci dénotait, a priori, que le document n’a pas vraiment atterri. Et pourtant, à le lire, on voit bien son actualité. Même les théologiens, à qui la question fut posée, me renvoyèrent à des études historiques ou dogmatiques sur l’uniatisme. Ceci est fort utile pour moi et permet de se refraîchir la mémoire à propos d’anciennes lectures et d’anciennes préoccupations. Mais ceci n’engendrait guère de satisfaction, et cette insatisfaction était due à un principe de base, voire une conviction, à savoir: «la théologie, et en particulier la théologie œcuménique, était au service de la tâche pastorale de l’Église»1. En fait, depuis le document de Balamand était bien divisé en deux parties, la seconde étant une partie «pratique», je dirais composée de principes de pastorale. Ceci m’a fait penser à une phrase que j’entendis de la bouche de Mgr. Pierre Duprey (1922-2007), quand je le rencontrai quelques semaines avant son décès, et qui me confirma dans mon intuition: «Les réalisations œcuméniques, il faut commencer à les faire atterrir dans les paroisses». En effet, tout discours sur la réception du document de Balamand doit tenir compte de ce côté pastoral qui reflète la réalité la plus importante de l’Église: la dimension pastorale. Cette idée a été exprimée dans l’introduction de l’article de Benoît Bourgine dans l’ouvrage collectif Les enjeux de l’uniatisme publié par le Comité mixte catholique orthodoxe en France2. Il écrit: 1. «La théologie pratique est le service réflexif de l’action de l’Église aujourd’hui». Voir l’article de M. DONZÉ, Objectifs et tâches de la théologie pratique, dans Revue des Sciences Religieuses 69 (1995) 292-302, p. 295. 2. Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004.

212

NAGI EDELBY

Il convient d’attirer l’attention sur le double registre de la Déclaration [de Balamand]: principes ecclésiologiques d’une part, règles pratiques d’autre part. La réception doit donc porter sur les principes énoncés, qui résultent d’un jugement ecclésiologique sur l’uniatisme comme méthode d’union, mais aussi sur les règles pratiques, destinées à induire très concrètement des attitudes ecclésiales cohérentes avec les principes adoptés3.

Il ajoute: «On perçoit déjà tout l’enjeu de la ‘réception’ de ce document dès lors que la sincérité des intentions est appelée à trouver dans l’épreuve des faits une publicité immédiate»4. Et plus loin: «C’est pourquoi, avant de traiter de la réception de Balamand par le Saint-Siège et par les Églises orthodoxes, il faut l’envisager à l’intérieur même des Églises orientales catholiques»5. En parlant de la réception de Balamand dans l’Église melkite, Bourgine donne, comme exemple de prise de position officielle, le projet de réunification de son Synode avec l’Église orthodoxe d’Antioche, au terme de sa session de juillet 19966, ce que nous appelons «l’initiative Zoghby». Il est vrai que Balamand n’a pas eu une influence directe sur cette initiative mais, sans aucun doute, il lui créa une atmosphère propice et, sûrement, Mgr. Elias Zoghby7 vit le moment venu pour voir fructifier les différentes positions qu’il eut et auxquelles il a tenu depuis Vatican II. D’un autre côté, Balamand eut une application directe en 1996 à l’intérieur des Églises d’Antioche, dans ce qu’on appelle l’accord pastoral de Charfeh8 qui, en réunissant les chefs des Églises catholiques et orthodoxes dans leur large diversité, a contribué à résoudre, sur le plan pastoral, des problèmes pratiques qui pesaient sur le quotidien de la vie de ces Églises.

II. «L’INITIATIVE ZOGHBY» Cette «initiative» de 1996, date de son adoption par le Synode grec melkite catholique, s’enracinait dans Vatican II et dans le rôle joué par 3. B. BOURGINE, La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand, dans Dans le sillage de Balamand (n. 2), 247-275, ici p. 248. 4. Ibid., p. 248. 5. Ibid., p. 249. 6. Ibid., pp. 253-255. 7. Mgr. Elias Zoghby (1912–2008) était archevêque de Baalbek (Liban), et président de la commission des affaires œcuméniques au sein du synode grec-melkite catholique d’Antioche. Il est l’auteur d’un projet de rapprochement entre les deux Églises orthodoxe et catholique d’Antioche. 8. Voir le texte de l’accord au lien suivant: http://infocatho.cef.fr/fichiers_html/oecumenisme/uniteaccords/accordcharfeh.html (consulté 21 octobre 2020).

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

213

les prélats de l’Église melkite au Concile9. L’activité des prélats melkites sous la direction de patriarche Maximos IV est bien connue10. Mais déjà Zoghby se démarquait de l’équipe11, défenseur infatigable de la relation avec l’orthodoxie. Il n’en demeure pas moins, qu’encouragé par les avancées ecclésiologiques du Concile, il vit le moment venu pour mettre un terme au schisme de 1724 au patriarcat d’Antioche, considérant la situation dans laquelle baignaient les Églises orientales ambiguë et intenable12. Ces Églises, supposées être, après Vatican II, un pont entre l’Orient et l’Occident, devenaient un obstacle sur le chemin de l’unité. Le modèle duquel Zoghby s’inspirait dans sa réflexion était celui de la communion qui prévalait au premier millénaire13. Cette communion était pour lui à maintenir coûte que coûte, malgré les différents schismes qui ont eu lieu entre Rome et l’Orient byzantin. Le moyen en était de reconnaître de la part des deux pôles de l’Église, un pluralisme tant théologique qu’ecclésiologique. Plus tard, il était encouragé par des gestes prophétiques au niveau des deux branches de l’Église d’Antioche, à savoir le «Congrès liturgique» de 197214, où des théologiens et des membres des deux Églises ont pu échanger leur patrimoine liturgique et prié ensemble et, aussi, l’échange de délégations entre les deux synodes en mai 1974 et août 1975, un geste qu’il considéra riche de signification15. À la suite de cela, toujours en 1975, alors archevêque de Baalbeck et président de la commission œcuménique du synode, Zoghby élabora son projet de «double communion» et en approfondit le concept et le contenu, qu’on pourrait exprimer en ces termes: les grecs catholiques peuvent 9. G. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion dans le projet de Mgr. Zoghby: Quel modèle d’unité?, dans Cristianesimo nella storia 38 (2017) 867-880. Avant cet article Hachem avait écrit: Un projet de communion ecclésiale dans le patriarcat d’Antioche entre les Églises grec-orthodoxe et melkite-catholique, dans Irénikon 72 (1999) 453-478. 10. Pour l’activité des prélats melkites au Concile voir N. EDELBY, Souvenirs du Concile Vatican II (11 octobre 1962 – 8 décembre 1965). Texte établi et traduction des notes de l’italien par Nagi EDELBY, Raboueh, Patriarcat grec melkite catholique – Centre de recherche; Beyrouth, CEDRAC, 2003. Voir aussi, ID., L’Église grecque melkite catholique au Concile dans le diaire de Mgr. Edelby, dans ID. (éd.), Actes du colloque international: Vatican II et les Églises orientales, 7 au 10 mai 2014, Beyrouth, Centre de recherches et de publications de l’orient chrétien; Ghazir, Séminaire Patriarcal Maronite, 2016, 221-232. Voir aussi dans ce dernier volume l’article de S. BECHEALANY, L’uniatisme: de Vatican II au document de Balamand (juin 1993). L’apport de Jean Corbon, 137-152. 11. Voir EDELBY, L’Église grecque melkite catholique au Concile (n. 10), pp. 224-227. 12. Voir HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 868. 13. Voir ibid. 14. Ce congrès eut lieu au couvent du Christ-Roi, au nord de Beyrouth, du 10 au 12 février 1972. Voir HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 869. Voir aussi ID., Un projet de communion ecclésiale (n. 9), p. 453. 15. Voir HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 869.

214

NAGI EDELBY

rétablir la pleine communion avec les orthodoxes, tout en gardant l’union avec Rome16. Il se réfère particulièrement au fait que «les deux Églises ont conservé l’essentiel des dogmes et de la structure sacramentelle, bien que l’expression de ces dogmes et l’organisation de l’Église soient aujourd’hui différentes. Car il lui semble qu’au-delà des différences, il y a une foi identique. Et c’est sur cette identité de la foi que l’unité et la communion peuvent être rétablies»17. Les réactions à ce projet parvinrent des deux Églises d’Antioche et de la Curie romaine. De la part des gréco-catholiques, au synode d’août 1975, quelques pères ont prôné la nécessité d’agir avec prudence, ce qui amena le patriarche Maximos V à former une commission pour étudier la question avec une commission orthodoxe18. Du côté orthodoxe, deux réactions surgirent: la première de la part du P. Athanase Saliba qui a considéré que le projet est inconsistant et contradictoire, et la seconde de la part de Mgr. Khodr qui a déclaré que l’union entre les deux branches grecques est possible à condition de considérer les conciles occidentaux tenus après le schisme de 1054 comme des conciles locaux n’impliquant que l’Église catholique19. Cette considération lui semblait susceptible d’ouvrir la porte à une éventuelle «revisite» de ces conciles en vue d’une réception par toutes les autres Églises. La Curie romaine, à laquelle le Synode a communiqué le projet, a rejeté le concept de «double communion», à cause de la question de la primauté romaine qui constitue une divergence entre les deux Églises, fait partie intégrante du dépôt de la foi catholique et touche à la nature même de l’Église20. En 1981, Zoghby publie son livre intitulé Tous schismatiques?, dans lequel il donne une structure à son projet, en affirmant son refus catégorique d’adhérer au schisme qui perdure entre les deux patriarcats antiochiens, à travers un credo personnel qui proclame «son amour, son attachement et son appartenance indéfectibles à l’Église romaine et à l’Orthodoxie»21. L’ouvrage suscite une réflexion commune surtout auprès des mouvements de jeunes et des paroisses, tant catholiques qu’orthodoxes, mais les deux Églises antiochiennes s’abstinrent de prendre une position officielle22. 16. Ibid. 17. Voir Une déclaration du Synode grec-melkite catholique en vue de l’unité au sein du patriarcat d’Antioche, dans Istina 3 (1996) 311, cité par HACHEM, Le concept de doublecommunion (n. 9), p. 869. 18. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 870. 19. Ibid. 20. Voir ibid., pp. 870-871. 21. E. ZOGHBY, Tous schismatiques? La robe déchirée, Beyrouth, Heidelberg Press, 1981, p. 150. Cité par HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 871. 22. Voir HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 871.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

215

En 1995, Zoghby concrétisa ce credo personnel par une profession de foi qu’il publia, co-signée par son successeur sur le siège de Baalbek, Mgr. Cyrille Bustros, et par Mgr. Georges Khodr du côté orthodoxe. Les trois signataires considèrent que cette profession de foi pose déjà les bases nécessaires pour le rétablissement de l’unité entre les Églises romaine et orthodoxe. En voici le texte: J’aime l’Église romaine et j’aime autant l’Orthodoxie orientale, et je donnerais volontiers ma vie pour rendre témoignage à l’une ou à l’autre. Ne pouvant, avant d’achever ma course, les voir se décider à proclamer leur communion canonique et persuadé qu’en demeurant en communion avec l’une, à l’exclusion de l’autre, je suis et je mourrai en rupture avec une partie intégrante du Corps du Christ, je me permets de prendre la liberté de les associer, toutes deux, dans une même profession de foi personnelle, rendue publique, qui m’intègre dans l’Église une et indivise à égalité catholique romaine et orthodoxe. – Je crois en tout ce qu’enseigne l’Orthodoxie orientale. – Je suis en communion avec l’Évêque de Rome, dans les limites reconnues par les Saints Pères d’Orient, au premier millénaire, et avant la séparation, au premier parmi les Évêques23.

En juillet 1995, après le synode grec catholique, cette profession de foi fut signée par la majorité des évêques, en y ajoutant les conséquences suivantes: – l’abolition de la rupture ecclésiale uniate de 1724. – La pleine communion de foi des signataires avec le Patriarcat grec-orthodoxe d’Antioche. Et, conséquemment, la reprise de la communicatio in sacris. – La continuité de la communion ecclésiastique des évêques signataires avec le premier de tous; mais la communion telle qu’elle a été reconnue et vécue par les Saints Pères d’Orient, durant le premier millénaire et avant le grand schisme24.

Aux dires de Mgr. Zoghby, le patriarche Hazim accueillit positivement cette profession de foi et promit de faire intéresser les membres du synode orthodoxe. En effet, le synode orthodoxe déclara: qu’«il était temps que la blessure d’Antioche se referme sur la terre où elle est apparue», et que les Pères, «dans l’espoir de l’union complète, envisageaient avec impatience des actions communes capables de relever d’une détresse qui les a trop longtemps éloignés les uns des autres»25.

23. Voir ibid., pp. 871-872. 24. Voir Une déclaration du Synode grec melkite catholique en vue de l’unité au sein du patriarcat d’Antioche, dans Istina 3 (1996) 309-313, p. 310. 25. Ibid., p. 313, cité par HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 872.

216

NAGI EDELBY

En 1996, le projet Zoghby est adopté par le Synode de l’Église melkite et revêt ainsi une dimension ecclésiale en exprimant le désir de l’Église melkite de restaurer la communion ecclésiale avec l’Église grecque orthodoxe. La réaction du synode grec orthodoxe est prudente, la rendant tributaire de l’avis possible de l’Église romaine et du patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople. Les émissaires des synodes partirent consulter les deux Églises en question. L’attitude du patriarche œcuménique semblait être assez ouverte en respectant la liberté d’action d’Antioche et, du point de vue romain, la Congrégation pour les Églises orientales a donné le feu vert au synode grec catholique pour poursuivre ses efforts œcuméniques, en préconisant la synodalité comme cheminement commun, en autorisant une certaine participation mutuelle dans les offices liturgiques comme les mariages et les funérailles, mais en émettant des réserves concernant la communion eucharistique26. Voici pour les faits historiques! Il s’agit maintenant d’essayer d’évaluer le projet du Synode melkite, basé sur l’initiative de Zoghby. Certes, Zoghby a fait preuve de beaucoup de courage et d’ardeur œcuménique qui restent à admirer, mais son projet n’a pu survivre, à cause de plusieurs facteurs. Tout d’abord, et particulièrement au Moyen-Orient, toute initiative ecclésiale doit tenir compte du cadre socio-historico-culturel dans lequel baignent les Églises orientales. Le moins qu’on puisse dire est qu’il s’agit d’un contexte extrêmement complexe, marqué par l’histoire et par la situation minoritaire des Églises, dans un milieu à majorité musulmane. Ceci empêche une simple et rapide solution du problème de l’union des deux Églises27. Ensuite, sur le plan ecclésiologique, l’initiative de Zoghby, soutenue par les évêques grecs catholiques, péchait par une ambiguïté ecclésiologique notoire. En effet, une «double communion» ne pouvait se réaliser avec deux Églises qui ne sont pas elles-mêmes en communion, simplement par le biais d’une adhésion à l’essentiel de la foi, et en prenant l’exemple de la communion du premier millénaire, tout en affirmant que la primauté romaine était le seul obstacle qui séparait les deux Églises. Surtout que, de la part de l’Église orthodoxe, la communion sacramentelle ne peut être envisagée que comme résultat et conséquence de la communion plénière, car elle est l’expression même de l’unité fondamentale dans la foi28. Mgr. G. Khodr insiste sur le fait que l’économie, arrangement pastoral par miséricorde, est exclue en matière de communion 26. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 873. 27. Ibid., p. 874. 28. Ibid., pp. 874-875.

217

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

eucharistique. Pour lui, il ne suffit pas que les gréco-catholiques prétendent leur communion dans la foi pour qu’elle soit un fait réel29. Il s’avère donc évident que les deux Églises n’ont pas la même perception théologique et ecclésiale de la communicatio in sacris et il est important de conclure un accord théologique sur cette question avant d’entreprendre des démarches ecclésiales et pastorales30. Un problème de divergence herméneutique dont souffre cette question de «double communion» est développé par Gabriel Hachem dans deux articles, à deux périodes différentes31. Je cite ici le plus récent: Les grecs catholiques, en général, et Mgr. E. Zoghby en particulier, se réfèrent d’habitude à des «citations» dégagées de leur contexte. Ils appliquent une herméneutique propre à eux quant à l’interprétation des textes conciliaires et des décrets pontificaux. Ils négligent également l’importance de la réception des textes élaborés par la commission théologique internationale mixte et considèrent que leur publication suffit pour leur octroyer une autorité théologique et une valeur «dogmatique» incontestable. Cette divergence herméneutique se manifeste également dans l’admission du concept de «double communion». Les orthodoxes et les autorités romaines lui reprochent son ambiguïté et trouvent qu’il ne peut pas être admis dans une vision ecclésiologique saine et cohérente puisqu’on ne peut pas prétendre être en communion ecclésiale avec deux Églises qui ne sont pas en communion l’une avec l’autre. Il en résulte que, pour les uns comme pour les autres, les divergences dogmatiques et théologiques qui existent encore entre catholiques et orthodoxes ne permettent pas le rétablissement de la communion ecclésiale entre les deux branches du patriarcat grec d’Antioche32.

III. L’ACCORD DE CHARFEH (14

OCTOBRE

1996)33

Le deuxième volet de ce chapitre touche un résultat direct de Balamand qui s’est exprimé sur le plan pastoral. Il s’agit de l’accord de Charfeh du 14 octobre 1996. Cet accord fut établi durant le VIe Congrès des 29. G. KHODR, Le projet d’union des Melkites catholiques, dans le quotidien libanais An-nahar, supplément du 5 octobre 1996. 30. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), p. 875. 31. Il s’agit de HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), et ID., Un projet de communion ecclésiale (n. 9). 32. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion (n. 9), pp. 878-879. 33. Voir F. BOUWEN, Accord pastoral entre catholiques et orthodoxes: Charfeh 14 octobre 1996, dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 46 (1996) 336-401. Voir aussi, J. CORBON, Accord catholique-orthodoxe sur trois questions pastorales importantes (Charfeh 14.10.96), dans Courrier œcuménique du Moyen-Orient 29-30 (1996 II-III) 8-17.

218

NAGI EDELBY

Patriarches catholiques d’Orient qui s’est tenu du 13 au 18 octobre 199634. Étaient invités du côté orthodoxe, comme il a été décidé au Congrès de l’année précédente35, en plus des prélats catholiques, le patriarche Hazim pour les grecs orthodoxes, Ignatius Zakka pour les syriaques orthodoxes, et Aram Ier Kechichian pour les arméniens orthodoxes. À l’ordre du jour, il y avait trois questions pastorales urgentes, qui avaient souvent été sources d’incompréhension ou de frictions entre les Églises, et surtout sources d’accusations mutuelles de prosélytisme: a. La question des mariages mixtes, b. Le catéchisme commun dans les écoles du gouvernement, c. La première communion dans les écoles catholiques. Cette réunion de Charfeh a été préparée longtemps avant sa tenue, et rien que le fait de se réunir pour en discuter était une réponse à l’esprit de Balamand36. 1. Le problème des mariages mixtes Ce problème n’était certes pas nouveau, même si le mouvement œcuménique et les changements de la vie sociale au Liban le posaient avec une nouvelle acuité. Les Églises catholiques et orthodoxes ont la même position de principe à ce sujet: elles préfèrent et recommandent fortement le mariage entre conjoints de la même foi. Toutes les deux ont prévu des dispositions canoniques visant à protéger ce mariage. Le Concile in Trullo (691-692)37 déclara mêmes nuls les mariages entre orthodoxes et hétérodoxes, et ce canon n’a jamais été révoqué. Une traduction du canon 814a, du nouveau code de droit canonique oriental (catholique), dans la version arabe, a fortement heurté, à juste titre, les Églises orthodoxes et a rendu une solution commune vraiment urgente38. Le danger à éviter dans les mariages mixtes y est traduit par l’expression «danger d’apostasie», 34. Voir VIe Congrès des Patriarches catholiques d’Orient, dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 46 (1996) 458-460. 35. CORBON, Accord catholique-orthodoxe (n. 33), p. 8. 36. Voir le document de Balamand, surtout les numéros 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29 et 30. 37. Canon 72. 38. Il s’agit de ce texte du canon 814 a du Code des canons des Églises orientales (en latin CCEO) qui dit en latin: «pars catholica declaret se paratam esse pericula a fide deficiendi removere atque sinceram promissionem praestet se omnia pro viribus facturam esse, ut omnes filii in Ecclesia catholica baptizentur et educentur». C’est le «pericula a fide deficiendi», qui a été rendu par «murūq», terme péjoratif arabe qui veut dire «apostasie», ou «sortir carrément de la foi». Ce terme, provenant du milieu musulman primitif, s’appliquait aux Ḫawāriǧ.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

219

alors que l’original latin signifierait plutôt «danger d’affaiblissement de la foi». C’est la reconnaissance grandissante comme églises sœurs qui a permis de parvenir à cet accord, donnant ainsi une acceptation officielle à une pratique qui était entrée peu à peu dans les faits. Le texte de l’accord prévoit donc que tant les Églises catholiques que les orthodoxes renoncent à certaines exigences canoniques. Les orthodoxes y admettent explicitement le mariage mixte, les catholiques ne parlent plus des exigences du canon cité. En Occident, on pourrait s’étonner des numéros 2 et 3 de l’accord, qui prévoient que le mariage se tiendra toujours dans l’Église de l’époux et que les enfants seront baptisés dans l’Église de leur père, au lieu de laisser davantage de liberté au choix des époux. Mais c’est là une coutume ancienne en Orient, étroitement liée à la question du statut personnel des chrétiens dans les pays à forte population musulmane. La présence au mariage et la participation active du «curé de l’autre partie» est un autre signe de fraternité qui sera fortement apprécié par les fidèles39. 2. Le «catéchisme commun» Le besoin d’une catéchèse commune s’est fait déjà sentir dans les années 1960. Plusieurs essais et documents ont été réalisés, par plusieurs instances ecclésiastiques, notamment par le Conseil des Églises du Moyen-Orient (en 1985). D’ailleurs, le texte de l’accord de Charfeh, à propos du «catéchisme commun» en explique bien la genèse40. Dans la période de l’après-guerre du Liban surtout, le besoin se faisait urgent surtout dans les écoles officielles en certains pays arabes où l’enseignement de la religion chrétienne est admis si toutes les Églises présentent un programme ou un manuel commun. C’est le cas pour le Liban, la Syrie et la Jordanie. Au Liban, dans les écoles privées dirigées par les congrégations religieuses catholiques, le catéchisme enseigné représentait surtout la doctrine catholique, tandis que le public provenait des différentes confessions chrétiennes. Sans vouloir généraliser, on y voyait une certaine tendance, inconsciente quelquefois, au prosélytisme. Or, depuis Vatican II surtout, avec le développement du mouvement œcuménique, et surtout après la réunion de Balamand, la tendance générale, tant catholique qu’orthodoxe, était de trouver un enseignement qui puisse être l’expression de la tradition antiochienne commune, tout en respectant les particularités 39. Accord de Charfeh, 1er point, conclusion 2. 40. Pour la genèse du catéchisme commun, voir l’article de G. HACHEM, Les défis d’une catéchèse commune au Moyen-Orient, dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 65 (2015) 59-73.

220

NAGI EDELBY

et le pluralisme des Églises41. L’accord de Charfeh a répondu à ces besoins en 5 points: – Le premier point porte sur la nécessité d’un programme commun «qui devra être adopté dans toutes les écoles du Liban et éventuellement du Moyen-Orient». – Le deuxième point précise «qu’il ne correspond qu’à une seule des nombreuses étapes de l’enseignement chrétien authentique qui comprend la famille, la vie liturgique dans la paroisse et les mouvements de jeunesse. Le catéchisme est œuvre de la Tradition dans et par l’Église». – Le troisième point insiste sur la «présentation du mystère de la foi chrétienne adaptée aux possibilités et aux besoins de chaque âge». Loin d’exclure le principe des compétences en vogue dans les établissements scolaires, ce dernier point préconise, au contraire, la meilleure adaptation possible. – Dans le quatrième point, les signataires affirment que les «principes fondamentaux communs de ce catéchisme se trouvent dans la tradition antiochienne identique dans toutes nos Églises». – Quant au cinquième point, il rappelle que ce «programme unique a pour but d’offrir un livre qui soit une référence pour les enseignants et les élèves … et que cela n’empêche pas de montrer en note les différences dans l’enseignement et dans la praxis qui existent toujours entre nos Églises et ne cessent d’être un obstacle à la pleine communion entre elles».

Pour donner suite à ces décisions, une commission mixte a été constituée de représentants des différentes Églises, dans le but d’établir un catéchisme commun. Cette commission a travaillé pendant des années et, au fur et à mesure, a publié les manuels avec les livres de maître. Elle ne s’est pas seulement intéressée au contenu, comportant les éléments doctrinaux communs à la foi de toutes les Églises, mais aussi aux aspects pédagogiques de l’enseignement catéchétique, selon les âges, en insistant sur l’aspect liturgique, celui de la célébration de la foi. Jusqu’au moment de la rédaction du présent article, la commission a déjà publié les manuels des classes allant de la première année primaire jusqu’à la première année secondaire (EB110), soit dix volumes. En réalisant ce travail, et en continuant à le faire, la commission s’est toujours rendue disponible aux suggestions et aux applications pratiques de la méthode suggérée, pour rendre ce travail dynamique et ouvert aux améliorations. Comme la préface du premier volume l’a si bien exprimé, ces manuels veulent être des références aux catéchisés et aux catéchistes, et non des obstacles à la créativité des uns et des autres. La parution de ces volumes a été applaudie par l’ensemble du milieu des écoles officielles au Liban et une bonne partie des écoles privées dirigées par les congrégations religieuses, mais une autre partie, assez considérable, a exprimé des réticences, voire son opposition à cette 41. Voir J. CORBON, Une catéchèse orthodoxe catholique est-elle possible dans les Églises d’Antioche?, dans Proche-Orient Chrétien 40 (1990) 56-78.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

221

«aventure» œcuménique. Un document en ce sens a même été adressé aux évêques, avec les arguments suivants: – Les manuels privilégient une théologie orthodoxe au détriment de l’enseignement dogmatique de l’Église catholique qui semblerait négligé. – L’annonce de la Parole est d’inspiration protestante-évangélique. – La doctrine des sacrements est quasi absente et il y aurait là une menace sérieuse pour la foi catholique. L’initiation à la pratique des sacrements est en danger à cause de la prédominance de la liturgie byzantine au détriment de la liturgie maronite. – Les manuels ne tiendraient pas en compte des directives du pape JeanPaul II dans le catéchisme de l’Église catholique, ni le système des compétences scolaires et privilégieraient une méthode «directive»42.

On demanda à la Commission épiscopale pour les relations œcuméniques de l’Assemblée des patriarches et des évêques catholiques au Liban (APECL), de donner son avis sur ce document. La commission constata que les auteurs du document sont restés sur une conception de la catéchèse comme enseignement scolaire, laquelle conception reste imprégnée de l’esprit des «missions» avec une connotation prosélyte. Partant de bonne intention, ils ne prenaient en considération ni le progrès du dialogue théologique ni les fondements œcuméniques et n’étaient nullement inspirés par la théologie de communion préconisée depuis le Concile ni les directives du document de Balamand. Leur point de vue, malgré toute sa valeur pédagogique en matière de compétences, était loin de constituer un grief valable contre les manuels de la catéchèse commune. Ce rapport contribua pendant un moment à calmer les esprits. Toutefois, à partir de ce moment, les positions des évêques ne furent plus unanimes visà-vis des manuels et du projet de catéchèse commune. Ce fait se refléta dans le maintien de trois commissions pour la catéchèse sans assurer un lien de communication ou de collaboration entre elles: 1) la commission épiscopale pour la catéchèse (APECL); 2) la commission de catéchèse pour le MoyenOrient; 3) la commission œcuménique chargée de produire les manuels de la catéchèse commune43.

Certes, la position des Patriarches du Moyen-Orient est restée inchangée, à savoir celle de soutenir la catéchèse commune, mais il n’en demeure pas moins qu’une situation dualiste s’est créée, et beaucoup d’écoles privées catholiques et orthodoxes ne la suivent pas, malgré le fait qu’elle est imposée dans les écoles officielles. En dépit de ces obstacles, la commission créée pour le catéchisme œcuménique continue son travail fructueux et avance dans la publication des manuels. Le facteur temps ici est important! 42. Voir HACHEM, Les défis d’une catéchèse commune (n. 40), p. 65. 43. Ibid., pp. 65-66. Dans son article, Hachem ajoute l’expérience d’autre pays arabes à ce niveau.

222

NAGI EDELBY

3. La «première communion» Cette troisième question, traitée par l’Accord de Charfeh, est une question extrêmement sensible dans la plupart des pays du Moyen-Orient. Avant cet accord, «la première communion» était célébrée dans les écoles catholiques, dans le rite auquel appartenait l’école, abstraction faite du rite d’appartenance des enfants. Ceux-ci, catholiques et orthodoxes, suivaient le même enseignement religieux et étaient ainsi préparés ensemble à la communion et, le jour de la célébration, les enfants orthodoxes se voyaient privés d’y participer. Cette situation ne manquait pas d’engendrer des réactions contradictoires de la part des parents des enfants orthodoxes qui, soit taxaient les responsables des écoles de fanatisme, soit, à la suite des positions de leurs responsables ecclésiastiques, les accusaient de faire du prosélytisme. Il faut ajouter à cela, la pratique orthodoxe de donner la communion au baptême et, du coup, on ne pouvait considérer cette célébration de communion comme «première». Avec le temps, cette célébration était devenue un passage obligé, festif et mondain, prisé par les familles, orthodoxes ou catholiques. Pour beaucoup, il reste vidé de son sens, ou du sens qui lui est donné par l’Église occidentale, où la célébration est liée (non dans le temps) aux autres sacrements de l’initiation, et accompagnée par une profonde préparation catéchétique dans les paroisses. L’Église melkite a repris la communion eucharistique au baptême et après l’administration du Saint-Chrême après Vatican II, depuis 196444. Du coup, elle est tombée dans un dilemme de choix entre deux fidélités, à savoir celle de revenir à la tradition orientale commune avec l’Église orthodoxe, ou bien celle de poursuivre l’usage populaire acquis depuis l’union de 1724 qui sépare l’eucharistie des deux autres sacrements de l’initiation, bien que le Synode ait laissé le choix. Donc, la décision de Charfeh de célébrer les premières communions uniquement dans les paroisses «semble être non seulement la seule solution pratique, mais encore renvoie les enfants et leurs familles au centre même de leur vie chrétienne»45. De plus, cette décision «fait avancer le renouveau de la vie paroissiale souhaité de tout côté et demandé expressément au Synode spécial pour le Liban (1995)»46. Certes, la situation de la «première communion» dans les paroisses, à la suite de l’accord de Charfeh, est une solution au problème, et a engendré un acheminement 44. Décision du synode melkite, Bayān al-sīnūdus al-muqaddas al-sanawī (Communiqué du Saint Synode annuel), dans Al-Maçarrat (1964) 548. 45. BOUWEN, Accord pastoral entre catholiques et orthodoxes (n. 33), p. 398. 46. CORBON, Accord catholique-orthodoxe (n. 33), p. 17.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

223

vers le renouveau de la vie paroissiale, comme le dit si bien Corbon, mais cela ne fut pas sans problèmes. Tout d’abord, un problème se pose, seulement pour l’Église melkite, au niveau de la dénomination. Si un curé veut être fidèle à la tradition orientale en donnant la communion au baptême, il se trouve mal à l’aise de l’appeler ainsi, obligé par les coutumes de célébrer une première communion. La solution proposée par l’usage commun actuel, à savoir de l’appeler «communion solennelle», n’en est pas une, car toute communion célébrée dans une eucharistie est sensée être «solennelle». C’est là que j’ose avancer une solution que j’ai pratiquée depuis que je suis curé, de parler plutôt de «renouvellement des promesses du baptême». En effet, l’enfant, arrivé à un âge où il est capable d’exprimer sa foi en toute conscience – car, au baptême, cette expression revenait plutôt au parrain/ marraine – et, après avoir été préparé à cela par une catéchèse qui complète celle de l’école qu’il fréquente, surtout au niveau liturgique, renouvelle dans une liturgie divine les engagements baptismaux et fait son entrée comme membre actif de la paroisse. Ce renouvellement ne doit pas être limité à l’âge de l’enfance, mais doit aussi être répété plus tard aux différents âges du développement psychologique de la personne (adolescence – âge adulte – troisième âge, etc.). Chacune de ces étapes devrait être précédée ou accompagnée d’une catéchèse adéquate qui marque les étapes de développement psychologique et spirituel de chaque chrétien, développement qui s’enracinerait dans sa vie de tous les jours. Ceci met en relief la relation entre vie paroissiale et catéchèse. Un autre problème, celui de l’embarras dans lequel se trouve le prêtre/ curé catholique quand des parents fidèles de l’Église orthodoxe demandent de célébrer la première communion dans l’Église catholique. La demande vient en général de parents unis par un mariage mixte. La partie généralement catholique du couple est habituée à cet événement qui relève aussi de la tradition familiale. Ou bien, leur enfant, qui partage sa vie scolaire avec des enfants à majorité catholique, veut lui aussi, par imitation, faire comme les autres enfants et participer à cette célébration avec les amis qu’il côtoie tous les jours. Le prêtre catholique se tire d’affaire en demandant une permission expresse de la part du curé orthodoxe du demandeur. En général, ce dernier ne l’octroie pas, ce qui ne manque pas de vexer les parents et l’enfant lui-même qui manifestent leur incompréhension. Il faut ajouter que beaucoup de curés catholiques acceptent les enfants orthodoxes à la célébration de la première communion sans se référer à leur curé ou sans les renvoyer à leur Église. Si le but de l’accord de Charfeh est de pousser chaque chrétien à reprendre contact et approfondir son engagement dans sa propre paroisse

224

NAGI EDELBY

et église, tout en demeurant en communion avec les autres paroisses et églises, qu’en est-il alors des cas d’acceptation des candidats à la première communion entre les Églises catholiques elles-mêmes? Ou entre les paroisses de la même Église catholique? Ces remarques ne sont pas pour nier le pas de géant réalisé par l’accord de Charfeh en renvoyant la première communion dans les paroisses respectives des fidèles. Mais faut-il en rester là? Il est certes nécessaire que toute disposition doive être soumise à l’évaluation continue après son application. Elle doit être sans cesse critiquée et analysée théologiquement et pastoralement. Elle doit aussi permettre des initiatives qui encouragent plus de communion et de collaboration entre les Églises, au niveau du noyau paroissial, dans un contexte pluraliste, en tenant compte des mentalités, de leur compréhension et de leur évolution, en ayant toujours, sans cesse, l’avènement du Royaume de Dieu comme but plénier. IV. CONCLUSION Il y aurait beaucoup à développer sur les questions soulevées par ce chapitre, mais il est temps de conclure, en partant de la question soulevée au début au sujet de la réception de Balamand dans les Églises orientales. Tout d’abord, il nous faut définir le concept de réception ecclésiologique. Emmanuel Lanne, dans un excellent article sur le sujet datant de 1994, adopte deux définitions, l’une par Yves Congar et l’autre par le cardinal Johannes Willebrands, tout en préférant la seconde47. Voici celle de Congar: «La réception est l’acte par lequel le peuple chrétien, le peuple de Dieu … reconnaît son bien et reconnaît qu’une décision est pour lui un apport de vie»48. Et celle du Willebrands: [La réception est] un processus grâce auquel le peuple de Dieu, dans sa structure (son organisation) différenciée et sous la conduite du Saint-Esprit, reconnaît et accepte des compréhensions nouvelles, des témoignages nouveaux de la vérité et de leur expression, parce qu’il estime qu’ils sont dans le droit fil de la tradition apostolique et en harmonie avec le sensus fidelium de toute l’Église. Parce que de tels témoignages de nouvelles compréhensions et expériences sont reconnus comme des éléments authentiques d’apostolicité et de catholicité, ils tendent fondamentalement à être acceptés et inclus dans la foi vivante de l’Église49. 47. E. LANNE, La notion ecclésiologique de réception, dans Revue Théologique de Louvain 25 (1994) 30-45, ici p. 31. 48. Y. CONGAR, La réception comme réalité ecclésiologique, dans Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 56 (1972) 369-403, p. 370. 49. J. WILLEBRANDS, The Ecumenical Dialogue and Its Reception, dans Centro Pro Unione Semi-Annual Bulletin 27 (Spring 1985) 3-8.

BALAMAND ET LES ÉGLISES ORIENTALES

225

La deuxième définition est plus englobante certes et ajoute un élément nouveau en parlant de la «réception ecclésiologique» comme «processus» et, ainsi, fait ressortir son caractère dynamique50. C’est donc un mouvement qui s’étale dans le temps, qui n’est pas à l’abri des difficultés et des obstacles, puisqu’il s’offre à l’histoire, aux réalités socio-culturelles et aux mentalités présentes dans l’Église, dans leurs différences et dans leurs pluralités, et interagit avec elles. C’est à travers les données de ces deux définitions que nous nous proposons de lire la question de la réception du document de Balamand dans les Églises orientales catholiques. Les deux exemples que nous avons donnés plus haut ne peuvent pas faire exception. Car le processus déclenché par Balamand est là, suscitant des réactions diverses dans les différentes Églises certes. À la rigueur, même la «non-réception» en fait partie. L’initiative Zoghby, si nous la prenons dans son élément spatio-temporel a été vouée à l’échec, pour les raisons que nous avons citées plus haut. Seulement, il faut toujours tenir présent le fait que sa genèse n’était pas le résultat direct de Balamand. Cet objectif de réaliser l’union avec l’Église orthodoxe d’Antioche est ancien dans l’Église melkite. Dans l’histoire, il s’est exprimé de diverses manières, et atteignit son apogée au cours de la célébration de Vatican II. Zoghby avait certes sur le sujet des positions extrêmes, mais il n’en demeure pas moins que l’Église melkite s’est toujours considérée comme «pont entre l’Orient et l’Occident» et voulut constamment faire ce chemin en s’ouvrant vers l’Église orthodoxe d’Antioche. Voilà pourquoi, en 1996, le synode grec melkite, dans sa grande majorité, soutint Zoghby dans son initiative. C’est bien parce que, depuis Vatican II, le désir intime de l’Église melkite était de rétablir la communion avec l’Église orthodoxe d’Antioche, et ce désir est constant jusqu’à maintenant. Diverses manifestations pastorales le montrent bien51. L’initiative Zoghby est l’exemple concret que la réception ne se limite pas aux propositions avalisées par les instances ecclésiastiques, mais a besoin d’une réception au niveau des mentalités et des situations socioreligieuses et culturelles. Cette persistance de ce désir dans l’Église melkite permettra, nous l’espérons, une reprise du dialogue entre les deux Églises, jusqu’à la réalisation de cette communion.

50. E. Lanne continue de manière remarquable son analyse, surtout quand il l’étend au point de vue de Mgr. Jean Zizioulas. Voir LANNE, La notion ecclésiologique de réception (n. 47), pp. 41-44. Mais ceci dépasse notre propos. 51. La célébration commune de la Pâque dans la localité de Ḍhūr al-Šuayr au Liban est un exemple. Mais aussi plusieurs tentatives de collaboration entre les paroisses.

226

NAGI EDELBY

Le document de Balamand a ranimé le feu de ce désir de l’Église melkite, et c’est surtout la notion d’églises sœurs qui est le fondement de l’initiative. Mgr. Zoghby est décédé sans voir fructifier ce désir, mais son initiative avait des adeptes, non seulement du côté catholique, mais aussi du côté orthodoxe. Malgré les erreurs qu’elle contient, cette initiative a ravivé un feu latent qui persiste dans une réalité concrète des Églises. C’est l’Esprit-Saint qui fera en sorte que les mentalités se préparent à ce signe du Royaume qu’est l’unité! Si, comme le dit le cardinal Willebrands, la réception est conçue comme un «processus», l’initiative Zoghby est peut-être le début de ce processus. C’est l’avenir qui le montrera! La même réflexion pourrait être avancée pour l’accord de Charfeh. Mais cette fois-ci, on doit parler d’une réussite. Cet accord répond clairement à un désir exprimé par le document de Balamand, incitant les Églises à collaborer et à trouver ensemble des solutions à leurs problèmes concrets. L’invitation de Balamand à condamner toute forme de prosélytisme a trouvé sa réponse positive dans l’accord de Charfeh, et le bien réalisé est immense dans la vie des Églises qui commencent à collaborer sur des sujets et des projets précis. Mais les caractéristiques de la réception, comme «processus» tendu vers l’avenir, s’appliquent ici aussi. Balamand a déclenché, Charfeh a réalisé, mais le processus n’est pas terminé, il a besoin d’être sans cesse évalué pour y apporter des améliorations. Le dialogue entre les Églises est d’une grande importance et d’un grand apport dans cette marche ensemble. À cause de Balamand et de Charfeh, les relations sont plus paisibles, plus sereines. La collaboration pastorale n’a pas encore atteint son point culminant, mais elle commence à se réaliser à plusieurs niveaux. 6, rue de Riom FR-6300 Clermont-Ferrand France [email protected]

Nagi EDELBY

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT OBSTACLES TO ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC CONVERGENCE IN THE PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The period between Vatican II and the mid-1990s witnessed an intense interest in unity between the Orthodox and Melkite Catholics of Antioch. This led to two serious attempts at reunion both of which resulted in failure. Since that time, relations have taken a path of politically and sociologically driven convergence between Christian communities that has left little mark on ecclesiology. In what follows, I will attempt to outline some of the factors that led to this state of affairs and the questions they raise for the present1. In contrast to Eastern Europe, modern relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics in the Middle East have been characterized by a palpable imbalance in the burden of remembering the past. If the historiography of the schism of 1724 is littered with highly polemic and very often tendentious accounts written by both sides in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries2, by the twentieth century we find very little interest in these among the Orthodox3. In fact, the fiercest polemic in the twentieth century, over such a key and controversial question as the canonicity of the consecration of the first Catholic Patriarch Cyril VI, was waged between two Catholic priests, Paul Bacel4 and Qustantin

1. I would like to thank Peter De Mey, George Ghandour, Tarek Mitri and Carol Saba for their helpful advice during the preparation of this paper. All errors of fact or analysis are, of course, my own. 2. On these “dueling chronicles”, see C. PANCHENKO, Arab Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans 1516-1831, Jordanville, NY, 2006, pp. 278-284. 3. One of the only modern Orthodox reflections on the history of the Melkite Catholic Church can be found in T. MITRI, L’uniatisme et le patriarcat d’Antioche: Notes sur l’histoire et la situation actuelle, in Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France, Catholiques et orthodoxes: Les enjeux de l’uniatisme. Dans le sillage de Balamand, Paris, Cerf, 2004, 135146. 4. P. BACEL, Le patriarche Cyrille VI et les Chouérites (1731-1735), in Revue des Études Byzantines 60 (1906) 283-287. It is noteworthy that while traditional Orthodox objections to the validity of Cyril VI’s episcopal consecration (he was not yet a bishop when elected patriarch) centre on the fact that two out of three of his consecrators themselves had dubious consecrations and he was neither elected nor accepted by his holy synod, Bacel

228

S. NOBLE

Basha5, who represented the competing historical consciousnesses of the Shuwayrite and Salvatorian orders, respectively. The quasi-official Orthodox history of the Patriarchate from its beginnings until the twentieth century, Asad Rustum’s History of the Church of the Great City of God, Antioch, treats neuralgic matters with a gentle touch and at least one edition of the work was published by the Melkite Catholic Paulists of Harisa6. I do not think, however, that this is a sign of some sort of healing of memory so much as a holy forgetfulness on the part of the Orthodox. For all the rancour and occasional bloodshed (largely, but by no means exclusively, by the Ottomans, spurred on by the Orthodox against Catholics)7 of the decades following the schism, it is not an identityforming event for the Orthodox in the way it very much is for the Catholics. To put it another way, the wound that the schism created is felt unequally and, for the most part, the wound that the modern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch most longs to heal is that of 451, not 1724. To take this a step further, if the Orthodox of Antioch (more particularly, of Lebanon) have a Catholic “other”, it is not the Melkites but the Maronites8. As a consequence of this imbalance, there is a rich body of historically informed ecclesiological reflection by Melkite Catholic writers of the twentieth century, starting with Cyril Charon (later Korolevs’kij) in the early part of the century and continuing with Jean Corbon and Elias argues that his election was invalid because it was decided by the lay elites of Damascus rather than ecclesiastical authorities. 5. C. BACHA, L’élection de Cyrille VI Thanas au patriarcat d’Antioche, in Revue des Études Byzantines 65 (1907) 200-206. 6. A. RUSTUM, Kanīsat madīnat Allāh Anṭākyā [The Church of the City of God Antioch], 4 vols., Beirut, Manshūrāt al-Nūr, 1988. 7. A. GIRARD, Quand les “grecs-catholiques” dénonçaient les “grecs-orthodoxes”: la controverse confessionnelle au Proche-Orient arabe après le schisme de 1724, in C. BERNAT – H. BOST (eds.), Discours et représentations du différend confessionnel à l’époque moderne (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences Religieuses, 151), Turnhout, Brepols, 2012, 157-170. 8. In fact, arguably one of the earliest cases of local Orthodox-Catholic “ecumenism” (as opposed to proselytism) in the Middle East is the proposal by the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch Dorotheus III (r. 1540-1543) to allow joint services and intermarriage between the Orthodox and Maronites, evidently without reference to Rome. On this, and the unresolved question of whether it led to his being deposed by the other Orthodox patriarchs, see PANCHENKO, Arab Orthodox Christians (n. 2), pp. 253-254. A more recent case of Orthodox-Maronite ecumenism is the proposal by the Maronite thinker Youakim Moubarac, who advocated that the Maronite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church distance themselves from Rome and Constantinople, respectively, with a view to a pan-Antiochian synod for an eventual comprehensive unity of Christians of the Antiochian space. On this, see A. FLEYFEL, La théologie contextuelle arabe: Modèle libanais, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2011, pp. 124-131.

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

229

Zoghby in the 70s and 80s, but little written by Orthodox thinkers. Within the context of this Catholic literature, the word “uniate” becomes a term of self-examination and self-criticism9. When the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch signed and later ratified the Balamand Document, it was according to this use of the term, especially as found in Zoghby’s Tous schismatiques?, with its implications of proselytism, latinization and theological, canonical and bureaucratic dependence on Rome10. Orthodox engagement with these issues, however, has been almost entirely reactive – or, to choose a more positive term, responsive – to this discourse. The Orthodox came to feel capable of being responsive as the result of internal developments within the Church of Antioch in the mid-twentieth century. If the process of forgetting earlier history is to some degree due to the relative intellectual (and, for that matter, material) impoverishment of the Antiochian Orthodox under Constantinopolitan Greek control11, the period immediately following Lebanese independence in 1942 witnessed an educational and spiritual revival that eventually made ecumenical engagement possible. This is perhaps somewhat ironic because this revival was brought about largely through the Orthodox Youth Movement, an organization founded by Orthodox students at the Jesuit Université Saint-Joseph in Beirut as a reaction to perceived proselytization by the Jeunesses Étudiantes Catholiques12. With time, however, the Youth Movement brought about a level of theological expertise, revived monasticism (and the sense of authenticity that this brings) and contacts with the West via the Institut Saint-Serge in Paris. This gave the 9. Early examples of this include C. KOROLEVS’KIJ, L’uniatisme: définition, causes, effets, étendue, dangers, remèdes (Collection Irénikon, 5-6), Amay-sur-Meuse, Prieuré d’Amay-sur-Meuse, 1927; O. KÉRAMÉ, Unionisme, uniatisme, arabisme chrétien, Beirut, Bulletin d’orientations œcuméniques, 1957; E. ZOGHBY, Uniatisme et œcuménisme, Nubia, Sudan, Éditions du Lien, 1963. 10. Zoghby characterizes uniatism as a “caricature of unity” and states that the so-called “uniate” (Eastern Catholic) Churches “have not been united, but annexed to the Roman Church, like branch offices of the Latin Church”. E. ZOGHBY, Tous schismatiques? La robe déchirée, Beirut, Heidelberg Press, 1981, p. 73. All translations from French and Arabic are my own. 11. This only ended in 1899 with the election of Meletius II Doumani, but it is somewhat harder to date the start, as recent research has shown that the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch elected in 1724, Sylvester, was, despite his Cypriot background on his father’s side, a cousin of Athanasius Dabbās who was equally comfortable in Arabic and Greek. See, PANCHENKO, Arab Orthodox Christians (n. 2), pp. 257-259. 12. On the early history of the Orthodox Youth Movement, see J. HAJJAR, Hiérarchie et laïcat dans le patriarcat orthodoxe d’Antioche, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 4 (1954) 322332 and T. PULCINI, Lay Charism and Ecclesial Renewal: The Orthodox Youth Movement’s Revitalization of the Antiochian Patriarchate, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 57 (2013) 177-195.

230

S. NOBLE

Antiochian Orthodox a newfound confidence and ability to speak theologically (and in French) at the same level as their Catholic neighbours. Indeed, one of the founders of the movement, Georges Khodr (from 1970 until 2018, metropolitan of Mount Lebanon) was until very recently the singular voice of Antioch’s ecumenism. Reflecting on these developments in 1996, Khodr explicitly tied the turning-point of ecumenical relations occasioned by the Melkite Catholic attitude at Vatican II to theological revival among the Orthodox: Tension accumulated between the two groups [i.e., the Catholics and the Orthodox] until the Second Vatican Council, where Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh called for holding fast to the Eastern tradition and the Eastern order [niẓām] and Bishop Elias Zoghby insisted on Orthodox values more clearly. It appeared at that time that the Greek Catholics were turning from “poaching” to rapprochement due to their rediscovery of the Orthodox tradition in the blessings of the revival that has appeared among the Orthodox here and throughout the world and the assiduity of the Greek Catholics in studying the fathers of the East and Orthodox theology in the Russian emigration. There blazed among them a longing for the Mother Church, despite the influence of Latin theology on many…13.

II. THE ZOGHBY INITIATIVE OF 1975 Intense contacts between the Orthodox and Catholic holy synods began in the spring of 1974, just as the controversy over the Melkite Catholic Metropolitan of Beirut, Grégoire Haddad, was reaching its apex14. Both synods were holding their regular spring meeting in Lebanon and on May 1, the Orthodox metropolitans of Tripoli and North America, Elias Corban and Philip Saliba, were sent from the Orthodox meeting at the Monastery of Mar Elias in Shwayya to the Melkite Catholic synod’s meeting in Ain Traz as an expression of solidarity. This would be the first contact of this sort in history between the churches. The following day, the Melkite Catholic Metropolitans Elias Zoghby of Baalbek, Neophytos 13. G. KHODR, Al-Muṭrān Khuḍr lil-kāthūlīk fī Kaslīk: al-ṭarīq ilā Rūmā wa-min Rūmā ilā al-orthudhuks [Metropolitan Khodr to the Catholics in Kaslik: The Way to Rome and from Rome to the Orthodox], in al-Nahār, 5 December 1996. 14. An outspoken activist for Lebanon’s socially and economically marginalized and a campaigner for interreligious unity against the country’s sectarian system, Haddad was forced to retire in 1975. The role of this affair in spurring closer contact between the Melkite Catholics and the Orthodox has never been fully elucidated. Indeed, Haddad’s entire thought and career are ripe for re-assessment. For an overview of Haddad’s thought and social activism, see FLEYFEL, La théologie contextuelle arabe (n. 8), pp. 147175.

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

231

Edelby of Aleppo and Grégoire Haddad reciprocated the visit15. In his speech to the gathering, Zoghby laid out his vision for unity between the two churches: Individual meetings between us have been numerous and fraternal, but yesterday’s was a meeting of synod to synod and of Church to Church, between the two fractions of the Church of Antioch; for we consider ourselves an inseparable part of this Church …. We all suffer from the separation that affected the Patriarchate of Antioch two and a half centuries ago and we do not understand why this separation should continue, since the causes that were at its origin and the mentality that prevailed in that era have ceased to exist. Metropolitan Elias Corban has declared, during his visit to our synod, that the Orthodox Church of Antioch wants to reinforce her ties with all the sister Catholic Churches and to collaborate with them. We wholeheartedly welcome this rapprochement and collaboration. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that, even if your Church has many sisters, she only has one sister from the same mother and father, our Church. We pride ourselves on this title and are attached to it; all the more: we look to the Orthodox Church of Antioch as our Mother Church. Collaboration between our two Churches already began several years ago … . But we feel a certain reluctance on your part regarding this rapprochement and collaboration. We understand this reluctance and its motives. Indeed, everyone knows that our Church was born and developed to the detriment of your people. You were obliged to be on your guard. Now we feel that your reluctance has diminished with regard to the past, but we would like for it to disappear. And, so that it may disappear, we would like to work to create in stages a real unity between our Churches, without waiting for union between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches16.

On June 1, the Orthodox Patriarch Elias IV Mouawad visited his counterpart Maximos V Hakim and discussed concrete steps towards practical unity, including a unified date for Easter and adoption by the Melkite Catholics of the recently promulgated Orthodox regulations for parish and diocesan councils17. In the fall meeting of the Melkite Catholic holy synod, further steps were taken, including communications with the Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem18. The synod also delegated Zoghby to travel to Europe to discuss his plan with various Orthodox and Catholic ecumenists. Upon his return, he proposed immediate 15. Développements de “l’affaire Grégoire Haddad”, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 24 (1974) 188-194, pp. 192-193. 16. Une proposition œcuménique de Mgr Zoghby, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 25 (1975) 200-201. 17. These regulations have still to this day not been fully implemented in all dioceses of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. 18. Relations entre les deux Églises sœurs des patriarcats melkites, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 24 (1974) 398.

232

S. NOBLE

unity with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch while still maintaining communion with Rome. This was met with little enthusiasm at the time from the other bishops of his Church and was sharply rejected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith19. There was also an earnest, if perhaps even more quixotic, initiative on the part of the Orthodox in response to Zoghby’s proposal. As Georges Khodr described it: On August 22, I went along with my brother Bishop Spyridon (Khoury) to Ain Traz and the Melkite Synod received us in their meeting hall. Here I gave a speech and said that we want to have this unity between us without going back to any point of reference outside the country. The fathers applauded loudly and I did not see anyone who refrained from agreeing. However, the Catholic Patriarchate issued a statement on August 28 which talked about rapprochement and insisted on the necessity of affirming Roman primacy. Following this [proposal], Patriarch Elias IV delegated me to go to Rome on a visit he intended to be secret, bearing with me the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Greek Catholics. Pope Paul VI received me for 57 minutes in the presence of Fr. Pierre Duprey. I proposed to His Holiness the idea that the Greek Catholics suspend – with his good pleasure and blessing – their communion with him. I invented this phrase, suspension of communion, basing my argument on the fact that the Greek Catholics, by joining with Rome, created a schism in the Church of Antioch. I said that the Second Vatican Council affirmed the importance of the local (or regional) church and that in it the universal Church is realized in all its attributes. I continued by saying that there is a problem – on account of the theology of the local church – in the Greek Catholics not being with us and that they will restore their unity with the Papal See when we ourselves restore it. Paul VI kept silent and I understood that he was not prepared for such an opening20.

Although the Lebanese Civil War drastically hindered ecumenical contacts and created political divisions within and between Lebanon’s Christian confessions, the momentum created by these events of 1974 and 1975 never completely died out. From the late 1970s until the Balamand Document in 1993, there continued to be frequent talk of unity and reunion among the Orthodox and Catholics, most notably Jean Corbon’s book L’Église des Arabes (1977) and Zoghby’s Tous schismatiques? (1981), both of which set forth in their own way projects of reunion between the 19. T. PULCINI, Toward an Acceptable Byzantine Catholic Ecclesiology, in Diakonia 15 (1980) 8-12; ZOGHBY, Tous schismatiques? (n. 10), pp. 130-133; G. HACHEM, Le concept de double-communion dans le projet de Mgr. Zoghby: Quel modèle d’unité?, in Cristianesimo nella storia 38 (2017) 867-880. 20. KHODR, Al-Muṭrān Khuḍr lil-kāthūlīk (n. 13).

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

233

two churches. On the Orthodox side, enthusiasm for unity was not limited to union with the Melkite Catholics. Expressing a vision of panAntiochian unity at a conference held by the Pro Oriente Foundation in 197821, the soon-to-be Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, then metropolitan of Lattakia, declared: Antioch would not have been torn into five patriarchates if, at every crisis, an Antiochian council could have been held, free from any external pressure, whether political or ecclesiastical. Today, the preparation and holding of such a council is not impossible. Today, the immediate preparation and mediumterm holding of such a council are no longer impossible. The very weakness of our churches is a guarantee of their freedom. But why a council? The point of departure for the new Antiochian entity should be synodal, because the cause of every break-up was the obscuring of the synodal sense22.

III. THE ZOGHBY INITIATIVE OF 1995 The end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990 allowed the ecumenical concerns of the mid-1970s to regain their impetus. Over the first part of the decade, there was a flurry of substantive agreements between churches in the Middle East, including a sweeping pastoral agreement between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox in 199123, the Zoghby Initiative in 1995 and the Charfet pastoral agreement in 199624. Compared to them, the 1993 Balamand Document itself borders on the banal. At least from the Antiochian Orthodox perspective, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive of relations with the Melkite Catholic Church. The results of these agreements have, however, been mixed. While the agreement with the Syriac Orthodox exists now somewhere between partial implementation and limbo, and the Charfet agreement has largely born positive fruit, the Zoghby Initiative, due to its evident ambiguities, served chiefly to clarify and highlight the unfeasibility of institutional reunion at the present time. Zoghby’s initiative of 1995 was a virtual restatement of his proposal twenty years earlier. At the Melkite Catholic holy synod meeting in late 21. For other activities of the Pro Oriente Foundation, see B.-G. DRĂGHICI, The Pro Oriente Consultations and Their Ecumenical Methodologies, in this volume, 195-210. 22. I. HAZIM, Une vision antiochienne de l’unité de l’Église, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 28 (1978) 202-208, p. 204. 23. For the text of this agreement and its approval by the Antiochian Orthodox holy synod, see Approbation donnée par le Synode du patriarcat grec d’Antioche au rapprochement avec le patriarcat syrien d’Antioche, in Istina 40 (1995) 226-229. 24. For the text of this agreement, see Accord pastoral entre catholiques et orthodoxes, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 46 (1996) 396-401. See also N. EDELBY, Balamand et les Églises orientales: les retombées ecclésiales et pastorales, in this volume, 211-226.

234

S. NOBLE

July and early August of that year, he distributed a pamphlet in French entitled “United Orthodox, yes! Uniate, no!” containing the following profession of faith, which had been pre-approved by Georges Khodr and the Melkite Catholic metropolitan of Baalbek (now of Beirut), Cyril Bustros: – I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. – 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 separation25.

Remarkably, this statement was signed by twenty-three of the twentyfive bishops present. The signatories stated that this declaration had the following immediate consequences: 1. The abolition of the uniate [sic] ecclesiastical split effected within the Patriarchate of Antioch in 1724 according to the methods of a bygone era (in the words of the Mixed Commission of Balamand in 1993). 2. Full communion of faith of the signatories with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and, consequently, the recovery of communicatio in sacris. 3. The continuation of the signatory bishops’ ecclesiastical communion with the Holy See of Rome, recognized by Orthodoxy itself as being the first of all; but communion as it was recognized and lived by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium and before the Great Schism. N.B. The Patriarchate of Antioch should be progressively reunified26.

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch’s initial response was positive but cautious. The statement from its holy synod meeting of October 1995 stated, “It is time that Antioch’s wound be closed in the land where it appeared. In the hope of our full union, we look forward to joint actions capable of raising us from a distress that has for too long separated us from each other”27. A mixed commission was established, consisting of Georges Khodr and the metropolitan of Beirut Elias Audi from the Orthodox with Elias Zoghby and Cyril Bustros from the Catholics. At its meeting in July 1996, Melkite Catholic holy synod reviewed the work of the joint commission and stated that, given that there was agreement on the essentials of the faith, “communicatio in sacris today is natural”, while leaving the practicalities of this up to future decisions by the

25. Une déclaration du Synode grec-melkite catholique en vue de l’unité au sein du patriarcat d’Antioche, in Istina 41 (1996) 309-313, p. 309. 26. Ibid. 27. Réponse de l’assemblée patriarcale d’Antioche, in Istina 41 (1996) 313.

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

235

Orthodox and Melkite Catholic synods28. They further declared that they will remain in communion with Rome “while at the same time seeking dialogue with it over the relations to establish with it after the restoration of the unity of the Patriarchate of Antioch, taking into account the exigencies of this unity”29. Following this meeting, a delegation was sent to Rome to explain the project of unity, while Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim travelled to Istanbul to discuss the matter with the Patriarch of Constantinople. The response to this from the Antiochian Orthodox holy synod was noticeably cooler than the year before. In the decision from their meeting in October that year, they stated that while the Melkite Catholics believe that communion of faith already exists, the Orthodox Church believes that examination of this issue with Rome is only beginning. A first step on the path to unity would be for the Melkite Catholic Church to adopt Zoghby’s assertion30 that post-schism councils (in particular, Vatican I) are not ecumenical and are inapplicable outside the Latin Church. Nevertheless, a “double communion” of the sort envisioned by the Melkite Catholic Church is unfeasible, as it “cannot be separated from the recovery of communion between the See of Rome and all of Orthodoxy”31. In practice, this meant that from the perspective of the Orthodox Church of Antioch, short of the Melkite Catholic Church suspending communion with Rome (as proposed in the 1970s), any unity between the churches could only come with a global overcoming of the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy. In 2011, Khodr revisited these issues, not without evident sadness and frustration: Within Christian society, do we find signs of unity? An attempt at rapprochement with the Melkites completely failed despite the evident progress of the Greek Catholics toward the Eastern tradition. The challenge proposed by these brothers was to live within a double jurisdiction, that of the Papacy and that of the Orthodox Church of Antioch. The Orthodox saw in that proposal an impossible duality, that of accepting Orthodox doctrine without pronouncing on the doctrine of infallibility. The other rites of the East do not manifest any rapprochement with Orthodoxy. The great progress seems to be summarized in a profound love between Christians, an experience without proselytism. The sentiment of unity can be summed up thus: there is nothing realizable outside of the dialogue of the Churches at the highest level and with a universal scope. The Church of the Arabs has not yet been created32.

28. Orient 29. 30. 31. 32.

J. CORBON, Autour du projet de réunification du patriarcat d’Antioche, in ProcheChrétien 46 (1996) 402-408, p. 404. Ibid., p. 405. Tous schismatiques? (n. 10), pp. 51-54. CORBON, Autour du projet de réunification (n. 28), p. 407. G. KHODR, Vers une vocation antiochienne, in Istina 56 (2011) 339-342, p. 340.

236

S. NOBLE

IV. THE PRESENT SITUATION With that in mind, I will now turn briefly to the current state of affairs. The tenure of John X Yazigi, which began in 2012, coincided with the civil war in Syria (he is thus the third consecutive Orthodox patriarch of Antioch to face a civil war) as well as a series of crises within the Orthodox communion, events that have strongly coloured the nature of his ecumenical engagement. With regard to the Balamand Document in particular, it should be noted that he was, as an archimandrite, the Antiochian delegate to the 1993 consultation alongside Georges Khodr. During his irenic visit to the Phanar in June 2013, he addressed the need for Orthodox ecumenism with the following words: The world is also expecting from us that we seek seriously to re-establish the unity of all Christians, with the non-Chalcedonians first and then with the western Churches. After centuries of disputes and mutual anathemas, of rejecting and neglecting each other, it is time for the weakened community of disunited Christians who wish to incarnate the message of Christ to understand the prayer of Jesus that the world will not believe in Jesus if those who believe in Him are not united. Why don’t we follow seriously the decisions of Balamand and Chambesy for example? We should acknowledge that schism today is not only between the Churches, but also within each of them. While we are called to learn from each other, each of us is searching for Christ in his own way and sings for Him with their own particular words and rituals. We have to love the face of Christ as He is seen by the other. Only then will our experiences complement each other; and we shall discover that the wall of enmity and schism does not grow so high as to reach the heavens. We have to restore the dynamism that prevailed in our openness together in the days of your great predecessor. We need prophetic sayings and prophetic actions that will influence the people of God and restore to them the hope that the unity of Christians can be realised in the near future. God is knocking on our doors saying to us that the days are evil and that we should not stop at formalities. Instead, we should look for the truth in love and understand that if we believe, we can move mountains. We should not forget that true love must be unconditional33.

If any of this has proven to be prophetic, it is his observation that “schism today is not only between the Churches, but also within each of them”. Antioch, in recent years, has become preoccupied with issues of maintaining Orthodox unity in the face of the 2014 break in communion with Jerusalem following the latter’s violation of Antioch’s canonical 33. Address of His Beatitude John X, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, at the Phanar, http://ww1.antiochian.org/address-his-beatitude-john-x-patriarch-antioch-and-alleast-phanar (accessed 27 March 2020).

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

237

territory in Qatar34 and, not unrelated, the utter failure (from Antioch’s perspective) of the planned Great and Holy Council on Crete in June 201635. A year after Patriarch John’s visit to Istanbul, in June 2014, an “Antiochian Unity Conference” was held at Balamand. But what sort of unity did it address? The overweening concern was with the internal unity of the Orthodox Patriarchate – between the homeland and the diaspora, between the various dioceses, and in terms of improving the various institutions and structures of the Church. A nod was given to broader ecumenical unity, but only a nod: the patriarchs of the other Syrian and Lebanese churches were invited to certain events and there was even a joint meeting between the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Catholic holy synods. The gesture itself was certainly important, but in terms of substance it amounted to a courtesy call. The war in Syria has created its own sort of ecumenism. In April 2013, Patriarch John’s brother, Metropolitan Paul Yazigi was kidnapped alongside Metropolitan Yuhanna Ibrahim, his Syriac Orthodox counterpart as metropolitan of Aleppo. To this day there is no news about them and, as Patriarch John stresses at every turn, deafening silence from all the outside powers intervening in the country. It is too early to say what the effects of this (likely) shared martyrdom will be, but it has no doubt created a sense of common suffering and common purpose between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox. More broadly, a combination of fear of Western military intervention and need for Western material assistance has led to a seemingly endless stream of joint statements between various combinations of patriarchs in Syria, both Orthodox and Catholic. This marks a transition from an earlier era of ecumenism focused on the faith 34. From the perspective of Antioch, the issue is not the pastoral oversight of the Orthodox parish in Qatar by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has been necessary due to political circumstances and began with Antioch’s assent. The territorial violation consists of the wholly gratuitous and deliberately provocative appointment of a titular “Archbishop of Qatar” for that parish. 35. Technically speaking, the decision to hold the council, despite Antioch’s refusal to sign the agreement convoking it, violated the principle of unanimous consensus that had been practiced since the beginning of the pre-conciliar process and agreed to at the Rhodes Conference of 1961. This was also the case with the adoption of the document on marriage over the objections (on opposite grounds) from the Churches of Antioch and Georgia. The Patriarchate of Antioch has published an important book-length reflection on its experience of the preparatory process for the Council of Crete, documenting its frustrated aspirations for the council and growing alarm at Constantinople’s unilateralism, written by one of Antioch’s representatives at several of the pre-conciliar meetings: J. GHANDŪR, La-᾿illā taḍī῾ al-ḥaqīqa [Lest the Truth Be Lost], Beirut, 2016. See also the account by another of Antioch’s designated representatives to the council: R. RIZK, “Saint et Grand Concile” ou concile source de tensions?, in Contacts 255 (July-September 2016) 358-368.

238

S. NOBLE

to a perhaps necessary but, nevertheless, also more superficial era of practical and political cooperation. This change corresponds to a deeper sociological shift. If we set aside our focus on clergy and look at the situation for ordinary believers in Syria and Lebanon, we find the reality of extremely high rates of intermarriage – a majority of marriages in the Orthodox Archdioceses of Mount Lebanon and Tyre and Sidon, for example, are mixed OrthodoxCatholic36. These are not the only dioceses where this is the case, alongside the tacit acceptance and widespread practice of lay intercommunion. This has to some degree diminished feelings of sectarian particularity in favour of a common, even “generic”, Christian identity. Nevertheless, sectarian affiliation remains the foundation of the Lebanese political system and the deciding factor for personal status law in both Syria and Lebanon, neither of which statutorily permits civil marriage. This raises the question of what the purpose of ecumenism in Antioch actually is. Is it to achieve the unity of all Christians in the historic territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch, along the lines of Corbon’s Church of the Arabs37? If so, recent social and political developments might be seen as a welcome progression of grassroots unity, a reality already observed by the future Patriarch Ignatius IV in his 1978 speech at Pro Oriente: Elsewhere, the process can be different. The Church of Rome, for example, and the Church of Greece can each work for an internal renewal while ignoring the other, then a day will come when one of the fruits of these renewals will be full communion between the two Churches. Here, in Antioch, we are all the same local church where the five current Churches are intertwined at all levels: families, parishes, cities and villages. The pious fraud consists, on the contrary, in living “as if” each Church could on its own resolve the tragic situations in which our people are found38.

Or is it, as some Melkite Catholic voices have proposed, a project of bridge-building between Rome and Orthodoxy? In this case, the efforts surrounding the Balamand Document and Zoghby Initiative must largely be judged as a failure except in one small but very crucial way: they demonstrate that the Orthodox and Melkite Catholic Churches may, despite the past, work as partners rather than rivals39. 36. F. RABBAT, L’Église orthodoxe d’Antioche, le marriage et le marriage mixte, Paris, Cerf, 2016, pp. 33-34. 37. As elaborated in J. CORBON, L’Église des arabes, Paris, Cerf, ²1997. 38. HAZIM, Une vision antiochienne de l’unité (n. 22), p. 206. 39. An illustration of the importance of this partnership as a witness to other Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches is: Message commun des patriarches Ignace IV et Maximos V aux chrétiens en Europe de l’Est, in Istina 37 (1993) 370-371.

GOING BEYOND THE BALAMAND DOCUMENT

239

The inability of the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Catholics to go beyond the Balamand Document can, to some degree, be attributed to the Orthodox view of events within the Melkite Catholic Church entirely through the lens of Georges Khodr’s friendship with Jean Corbon and Elias Zoghby and, at least initially, an almost incredibly overoptimistic reading of the ecumenical opening initiated by Vatican II. On a deeper level, however, it is due to the insistence of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on seeing the problem of the reunion of churches as primarily a local one. The common theme of Antioch’s ecumenical and interOrthodox relations in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century is a strong sense of the primacy of the local. This has meant a certain degree of suspicion towards both Rome and Constantinople40 and the inevitable failure of projects that require agreement and cooperation from the outside. The challenge of the Antiochian Orthodox Church at present is to resist the temptation to fall back on its fierce localism as an excuse to look inward and instead to translate its particular experience and identity into a distinct vision that can be articulated at the global ecumenical and pan-Orthodox levels. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4 box 3100 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Samuel NOBLE

40. In a sense, the tendency to pursue ecumenical rapprochement as part of a project of asserting local independence was already anticipated a millennium ago in the career of Patriarch Peter III (r. 1054-1056), as he worked to bridge the nascent schism between Rome and Constantinople while also insisting in no uncertain terms that “the Apostolic See of Antioch is not under that of Constantinople”. On his relationship with the other sees of the Pentarchy, see K.P. TODT, Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen: Die Rolle der griechischen-orthodoxen Patriarchen von Antiocheia in den politischen und kirchlichen Auseinandersetzungen des 11.-13. Jh. in Byzanz, in M. GRÜNBART – L. RICKELT – M. VUČETIĆ (eds.), Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantischen Mittelalter, I, Berlin, Lit-Verlag, 2011, 137-176, esp. pp. 160-162.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT A REFLECTION ON THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM” OF RELATIONS BETWEEN EASTERN CATHOLICS AND EASTERN ORTHODOX IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR TODAY’S EUROPE

The life of French Orthodox thinker Olivier Clément spans across nine decades, from 1921-20091. In the light of Olivier Clément’s mature theological and ecclesial vision of Christianity, this essay offers a brief introduction to Olivier Clément, then discusses aspects which characterize an “Antiochian paradigm” of ecumenical relations. The “Antiochian paradigm” encompasses the following areas: the historical, topographical and cultural context of Antioch; the development of the Melkite Church; Christian ecumenical and interreligious dialogue within a Muslim milieu; the plurality of Christian expressions living alongside diverse expressions of Islam; relations between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox; and, Middle Eastern Christian dialogue with the Catholic Church. Clément transposes this dialogical Middle Eastern paradigm into a European context that has particular relevance for Ukraine2 and the West3.

1. For Oliver Clément (1921-2009) and his wider ecumenical and ecclesiological context see, for example, my earlier studies: Olivier Clément on Orthodox Theological Thought and Ecclesiology in the West, in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 10 (2010) 116-129; and An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Europe and Catholicism: A Study in the Thought of Olivier Clément, in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 63 (2011) 234-254. 2. K. GIRLING, Comparative Contexts in Ukrainian and Melkite Christianity: The Attendance of Patriarch Gregory III Laham at the September 2016 Ukrainian Catholic Synod, in Eastern Theological Journal 3/1 (2017) 103-136. For the on-going absence of Eastern Christianity in European political imagination see S.M. THOMAS – A. O’MAHONY, Postsecularity and the Contending Visions of the European Political Imagination in International Relations, in L. MAVELLI – F. PETITO (eds.), Towards a Postsecular International Politics: New Forms of Community, Identity and Power, London, Palgrave, 2014, 105128. 3. See A. ARJAKOVSKY, Russie–Ukraine, de la guerre à la paix?, Paris, Parole et Silence, 2014; A. BRÜNING, “Project Ukraine” under Threat – Christian Churches in Ukraine and Their Relations, 1991-2015, in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 67 (2015) 103-142: M. KOZELSKY, Religion and the Crisis in Ukraine, in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 14 (2014) 219-241; N.E. DENYSENKO, Chaos in Ukraine: The Churches and the Search for Leadership, in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 14 (2014) 242-259.

242

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

I. INTRODUCTION Antioch lies at a crossroads of cultures in which churches, communities, peoples and civilizations have engaged in a multi-plural dialogue. A paradigm emerges from this diverse cultural and ecclesial environment that reveals key advantages. First, it fosters opportunities for an ecumenical movement to emerge centred on unity in its indigenous plurality. Second, it promotes inter-religious dialogue between Middle Eastern Christians and the multiple expressions of Islam in Syria and Lebanon. And finally, it recognizes now that difference and diversity, previously rejected as alien, can bring positive contributions to the churches and the public domain locally and in Middle Eastern dialogue with the west. Clément recognizes the global importance in Christians demonstrating a paradigm of unity in diversity in Christian dialogue with a so-called “secularized” society and an increasingly pluralistic European community. He perceives that neither ecclesial nor political Western governance has appreciated the need to protect and support the Christian presence in the Middle East, which has for so long acted as a force of social cohesion within predominantly Islamic States. Modern Western society has largely failed to recognize that by removing Christianity from its own public discourse it has silenced an important ally in the defence of Western civilization, with its values of reason and freedom, leaving itself open to the emergence of totalitarian ideologies4. II. OLIVIER CLÉMENT Olivier Clément was born in southern France into a family with socialist and atheistic beliefs, and thus had no Christian formation. He encountered Christianity as an adult in Paris through émigré Russian theologians and philosophers living in exile after the Russian Revolution. These Russians creatively sought to answer questions which haunted and challenged Clément and western post-war society on atheism and “our state of hopeless nihilism”5. Clément was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church 4. See H. HANSEN – P. KAINZ, Radical Islamism and Totalitarian Ideology: A Comparison of Sayyid Qut’b’s Islamism with Marxism and National Socialism, in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 8/1 (2007) 55-76 and N. ROBINSON, Sayyid Qutb’s Attitude towards Christianity: Sura 9.29-35 in Fi Zilal Al-Qur’an, in L. RIDGEON (ed.), Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, London, Routledge, 1997, 159-178. 5. O. CLÉMENT, The Roots of Christian Mysticism, trans. T. Berkeley, London, New City Press, 2002, p. 10. Orig. pub. Sources: Les mystiques chrétiens des origines: textes et commentaires, Paris, Stock, 1982.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

243

in Paris in 1951 at the age of thirty, and worked consistently for his remaining fifty-seven years to make Eastern Christianity known in the west, and to bring about unity and communion between Christians. Clément became part of the cultural and linguistic change that occurred in the theological expressions of Orthodox Russians exiled in Paris. Rowan Williams noted in 1997, “that Orthodoxy in France is now overwhelmingly Francophone, and its leading constructive theologian, Olivier Clément, … has succeeded in constructing an Orthodox theology very deeply engaged with the mainstream of Western European culture”6, which was “formed, but not restricted by the Greek patristic vision”7. Progress in technology and global civilization has resulted in a greater need than ever for recognition of the influence of the Holy Spirit at work in both temporal and ecclesial societies. Clément believed it was “time for Christians to remember [that] the infrastructure of history is nothing other than the relationship between humanity and the living God”, that the “meaning of history is in Christ”, and a creative movement towards bringing about the Kingdom is sparked by the co-action of the Spirit8. Like other leading thinkers, Clément attempted to “build bridges of understanding, friendship and cultural exchange, human and spiritual, between people of all faiths in order to sustain the culture of love and peace, ‘where the temporal remains charged with religious values’ and … seen to ‘participate in the same humanity’”9. That Clément stands as an important thinker between East and West is exemplified by his extensive literary and ecumenical contribution, and his desire for Christians to break out of a fossilized status quo mentality and acceptance of a thousand-year schism between East and West. With the papacy seen as the greatest stumbling block to full Christian unity, Clément responded to John Paul II’s invitation in the encyclical Ut unum sint (1995)10 for theologians of all denominations to engage in fraternal discussion on 6. R. WILLIAMS, Eastern Orthodox Theology, in D.F. FORD (ed.), The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Wiley, 2 1997, 499-513, p. 511. On William’s consideration of Eastern Christianity as a paradigm for dialogue in the context of Christian-Muslim relations see R. SUDWORTH, Encountering Islam: Christian-Muslim Relations in the Public Square, London, SCM, 2017. 7. WILLIAMS, Eastern Orthodox Theology (n. 6), p. 512. 8. O. CLÉMENT, On Human Being, London, New City Press, 2000. Cf. ID., You Are Peter: An Orthodox Theologian’s Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy, trans. M.S. Laird, London, New City Press, 2003, p. 98. See also S. HUGH-DONOVAN, An Eastern Orthodox Reflection on Papal Primacy: Olivier Clément’s Response to Ut unum sint and the Ecclesial Legacy of Patriarch Athenagoras I, in The Downside Review 134/3 (2016) 70-87. 9. Mgr. Joe Vella Gauci’s Response, at the Catholic Commission of Bishops Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), Conscience Protection and Religious Freedom Conference (2012). 10. John Paul II, Ut unum sint (25 May 1995).

244

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

the role of the papacy. Clément’s reflection Rome autrement points to a significant ecclesial event which occurred a month after the publication of Ut unum sint as a way towards reconciliation. When the synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church took place in Lebanon nearly all the bishops present signed a profession of faith that stated first, “I believe everything that the Orthodox Church teaches”, and second, “I am in communion with the bishop of Rome, in the role that the Eastern Fathers accorded him before the separation”. The text was approved by Orthodox Metropolitan Georges Khodr of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, with the agreement of Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East)11. Khodr declared he considered “this profession of faith to set the necessary and sufficient conditions for re-establishing the unity of the Orthodox Churches with Rome”. Clément judged, in spite of a very modest recognition and silence from the Vatican and the autocephalous churches, a healing of wounds had begun12. Clément’s mature theological and ecclesial reflection also examined the religious plurality of expression found in Antioch and the Mediterranean countries of the Middle East where the streams of Christianity are expressed in five different patriarchates – in balanced relationships between Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians in a dominantly Muslim environment – to find pointers towards Christian unity in Europe as an essential witness and support for world peace and human flourishing. This is discussed in what follows. III. THE ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM: A CONTEXTUAL HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Antioch, situated at the heart of the Arab and Islamic world in historical Syria, but at present in the Turkish Republic, is the “cradle of Christianity”, where Christians first received that name. From Antioch, the faith spread geographically creating, by the second century, churches that differed ethnically and culturally, but which remained in communion with each other expressing their unity through synodal meetings, the exchange of letters or visits, or liturgical commemorations13. 11. See K. CRAGG, The Tragedy of Lebanon, in ID., The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1991, 204-232. See also S. NOBLE, Going beyond the Balamand Document: Obstacles to Orthodox-Catholic Convergence in the Patriarchate of Antioch, in this volume, 227-239. 12. CLÉMENT, You Are Peter (n. 8), pp. 88-89. 13. J. CORBON, The Churches of the Middle East: Their Origins and Identity. From Their Roots in the Past to Their Openness to the Present, in A. PACINI (ed.), Christian

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

245

Jean Corbon affirms this historical heritage reveals a common thread with which the identity of the diverse churches has been woven, a common thread which includes also the geography and the individual people14. Greek culture, Hellenistic Judaism and Roman civilization streamed together to become the Antiochian Middle-Eastern Christian tradition of Cilicia (today’s southern Turkey), Syria and Lebanon, under the rule of the Roman Empire. Jesus began his ministry in Galilee; “his fame went throughout Syria” (Mt 4,24), followed by Jesus himself as he went into the southern area of today’s Syria, to Caesarea Philippi in the region of the Golan. Less than five years after the resurrection there were many followers of Christ in Damascus15, which for political reasons today has become the seat of three Patriarchates of Antioch, namely, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church; the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. These patriarchs largely recognize each other as representing authentic patriarchal churches that share a common heritage. Clément’s Antiochian paradigm is here characterized by universality. The Churches of Antioch claim apostolic descent from the first Christian community founded by the Apostle Peter, Antioch’s first Bishop, and St. Paul, who are Antioch’s patron saints. St. Luke records that Barnabas and Saul preached at Antioch for a whole year, and that it was at Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11,26). The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Jews who fled to Syria from Jerusalem after Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 11,19-21)16, bringing Christianity to the Gentiles of Syria. As well as being an Apostolic See, Antioch has a rich patrimony of celebrated writers and saints that includes Sts. Ephraim the Syrian, Ignatius of Antioch, Isaac the Syrian, John Chrysostom and John of Damascus17. The official language was Greek but the spoken language of the people was Aramaic, the language of Jesus, and there has been a continuous presence of Christians using Syriac as their spoken and liturgical language down through the centuries18.

Communities in the Arab Middle East: The Challenge of the Future, Oxford, Clarendon, 1998, 92-110, pp. 93-94. 14. Ibid., p. 98. 15. I. DICK, Christian Syria, in Living Stones Yearbook 2013. Christianity in the Middle East: Theology, History, Politics, and Dialogue, London, Living Stones of the Holy Land Trust, 2013, 70-83, p. 71. 16. Ibid. 17. See, e.g., S. BROCK, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Cistercian Studies, 101), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1987. 18. S. BROCK, The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East, in A. O’MAHONY – E. LOOSLEY (eds.), Eastern Christianity in the Middle East, London, Routledge, 2010, 13-24, p. 13.

246

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

Aramaic is still used in the liturgy of the Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Maronite, the Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, although many churches now celebrate the liturgy in Arabic19. An important distinction developed between churches now referred to as Oriental Orthodox and those that collectively refer to themselves as Eastern Orthodox. This resulted from a major christological controversy in the fifth and sixth centuries20. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), rejecting the notion of a single nature, declared Christ has two natures in one person21, without mixture, separation, change or confusion22. The rupture in the unity of the Church of Antioch resulted in an opposing hierarchy being established against the Chalcedonian hierarchy. Those who stayed in communion with Rome and Constantinople were called Melkites (supporters of the Emperor)23. Those churches which rejected the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and recognized only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea [325], Constantinople [381], and Ephesus [431]) became known as the Oriental Orthodox. After the Islamic conquests of the seventh century, these “non-Chalcedonian” churches were cut off politically from the “Chalcedonian” Byzantine Empire24. Extraordinary progress in healing past wounds and movement towards ecclesial unity has developed in recent years where ecumenical dialogue has opened a space for communication by overcoming polemic and revealing a common understanding on christological questions. After the Second Vatican Council, attitudes changed and rapprochement was established between Catholic and Orthodox Churches largely due to the promotion of East-West dialogue by the Pro Oriente Foundation (established in 1964)25. Although not all doctrinal differences have been overcome, a significant christological agreement led to the signing of the “Common Declaration of Faith” by Pope John Paul II and leaders of the Syrian, Coptic and Armenian Orthodox Churches26. 19. Ibid. 20. See ibid. 21. For definition of the key terms physis/nature and hypostasis that led to misunderstanding see S. BROCK, The Syriac Churches of the Middle East and Dialogue with the Catholic Church, in A. O’MAHONY – J. FLANNERY (eds.), The Catholic Church in the Contemporary Middle East, London, Melisende, 2010, 107-118, p. 109. 22. See O. CLÉMENT, L’Église Orthodoxe, Paris, PUF, 1961, at p. 7. 23. BROCK, The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East (n. 18), p. 14. Cf. DICK, Christian Syria (n. 15), p. 73. 24. BROCK, The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East (n. 18), p. 14. 25. Ibid. 26. At http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html (accessed 13 May 2020).

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

247

IV. THE ADVENT OF ISLAM AND THE MELKITE CHURCH Early divisions between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches were exacerbated by the conquest of Syria after the rise of Islam in the early seventh century. Christians remained the majority in Syria until the ninth century, but their influence was reduced to a status of dhimmitude27 under Islamic rule, later leading to more severe restrictions and political and ecclesial isolation. The Melkites, however, remained in communion with Rome and Constantinople, sending representatives to the ecumenical councils held in Constantinople, when Melkite patriarchs acted for the caliphs as emissaries to the Byzantine Emperor28. With the advent of Islam, Arabic gradually became the language of all the Christians in Syria, to which the Melkite community quickly adapted. “This community’s [Melkite] enculturation into the world of Islam … was principally accomplished through adoption of the … Islamicized Arabic language as an ecclesiastical language”29. The translation of the Sacred Scriptures, liturgy and the writing of new works in Arabic provided the opportunity “to proclaim the Gospel in a new social and political context”30. This created a space for discourse which nourished the faith of existing Christians and opened up religious dialogue with Muslims. Scholars from all the Syriac Churches were involved in the Abbasid “translation movement” of the late eighth and ninth centuries, in which Greek philosophy and medical and scientific works were translated into Arabic, thus contributing to the intellectual wealth of the Islamic world. Medieval western scholarship was also to benefit when the writings of Arab philosophers and commentators on Aristotle were later translated into Latin31. Another positive aspect of the translation movement was that Christian and Muslim scholars worked together, in spite of the clash of theologies and social implications of dhimmitude32. Arabs regarded Christians as blood-brothers, and with Christians and Muslims living together as neighbours a certain Islamic-Christian relationship developed. Sidney Griffith judges that this is a model for today: 27. Dhimmitude refers to the lower legal status of a non-Muslim subject of an Islamic State. See the classic studies by A. FATTAL, Le statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d’Islam, Beirut, Imprimerie catholique, 1958; N. EDELBY, L’autonomie législative des Chrétiens en terre d’ Islam, in Archives d’ Histoire du Droit Oriental 5 (1950-51) 307-351. 28. DICK, Christian Syria (n. 15), p. 74. 29. S.H. GRIFFITH, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 50. 30. Ibid., p. 57. 31. BROCK, The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East (n. 18), p. 15. 32. GRIFFITH, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque (n. 29), p. 158.

248

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

[I]n the world of the twenty-first century, Muslims are no longer just “over there” … They are here among us, our neighbors, friends, co-workers and cobelievers in the one God.… Surely then we have much usefully to learn from the study of the works of the Jews and Christians who first seriously engaged the Muslims in their own world so long ago, and in their own language of faith33.

This fruitful collaboration changed when hegemony passed to the hardline Seljuk Turks at the end of the eleventh century, when Christians and non-Muslims became a marginalised and humiliated minority34. Antioch and Jerusalem were occupied by the Crusaders at the end of the eleventh century, but this brought no relief to local Christians. After the Crusader capture of Antioch in 1098, the Melkite Patriarch John V found his position usurped and took refuge in Constantinople during the period of the crusades, a factor which contributed to the “Byzantinization of the Melkites”, their liturgy and canonical practices35. Antioch was razed to the ground in 1268 by the Mamluks of Egypt, who defeated the crusaders, and the Melkite patriarchs retreated to Damascus. The Church’s main concern was survival and the patriarchal structure enabled this to be achieved36. Little changed after the Ottoman conquest of Syria in 1516, but from the seventeenth century Christians were able to emerge from isolation and establish contact with Constantinople and the Eastern Greek world. European trade developed, especially in Aleppo and Damascus, and a rich educated Christian middle class emerged. The arrival of Catholic missionaries, however, triggered a movement which favoured western and Roman practices causing internal disagreements among Christian communities. This at first did not bring division, but a decisive split of the Melkites occurred in 1724. Foreign ecclesial intervention, nevertheless, provided local churches and schools where education was of a high standard, and allowed broader contributions to each church’s respective local culture. The era of the French mandate, 1920-1945, brought Christians an equality of citizenship formerly denied to them, while a Christian demographic increase in Syria and Lebanon resulted from three waves of Christian emigrants fleeing persecution and massacres in Turkey during the First World War. The Christian population became integrated into national life and affiliated to different political parties; however, they were in many ways disadvantaged within Muslim majority rule37. Ignace 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Ibid., p. 22. DICK, Christian Syria (n. 15), p. 75. Ibid., p. 76. Ibid. Ibid., p. 78.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

249

Dick judges that Syria’s Christianity, the majority religion before Islam, has contributed to Arab civilization and national prosperity both in the classical period and in modern times, and “best attests to the possibility of living freely in a country of ancient Arab and Islamic culture”38.

V. THE ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM: DIALOGUE AND UNITY Clément also sees a paradigm for Christian unity and inter-religious dialogue in the dialogical and spiritual theology which has emerged from the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch. The Patriarchate of Antioch is historically considered third in rank among the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates, after Constantinople and Alexandria39. It has survived 1,400 years in a homeland dominated by Islamic culture and power, and in Christian witness in charity with Muslims with whom there is a shared Arab identity40. The Antiochian paradigm illustrates an ecumenical movement which is centred on unity in its indigenous plurality. In Bishop Antoine Audo’s recollections41 – of Melkite Catholic Neophytos Edelby (19201995, an Arab Christian of Syrian origin) and Maronite priest, Afif Osseïrane (1919-1988, a Shi’ite Muslim from Lebanon who converted to Christianity in 1945)42 – he compares likenesses and differences in order to understand 38. Ibid., p. 79. 39. CORBON, The Churches of the Middle East (n. 13), p. 94. 40. See A. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity: A Catholic Perspective, in O’MAHONY – FLANNERY (eds.), The Catholic Church in the Contemporary Middle East (n. 21), 19-36; cf. G. HACHEM, Pluralisme ecclésiologique et communion, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 52 (2002) 76-91. ID., The Current Situation of Christianity in the Middle East, Especially after the Synod of the Middle East’s Final Declaration (September 2012) and the Papal Visit to Lebanon, in Living Stones Yearbook 2012: Christianity in the Middle East: Theology, History, Politics and Dialogue, London, Living Stones of the Holy Land Trust, 2012, 1-17. On Audo’s theological and ecclesial thought from an Eastern Catholic perspective in the context of the Muslim world of the Middle East see A. O’MAHONY, Eastern Christianity and Jesuit Scholarship on Arabic and Islam: Modern History and Contemporary Theological Reflections, in A. ABRAM – M. KIRWAN – P. GALLAGHER (eds.), Philosophy, Theology and the Jesuit Tradition: ‘The Eye of Love’, London, T&T Clark, 2017, 159-186. The Synod for the Middle East was a unique event in which Eastern Catholics and Christian concerns in the Middle East became the primary ecclesial and geo-political-theological concerns for the Holy See. Pope Benedict XVI had a singular awareness of the situation of Christianity in the Middle East vis-à-vis Islam political-religious presence in society and culture as both historical and contemporary. See R. VIVIANO, Benedict XVI, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, in The Downside Review 135/1 (2017) 55-75. 41. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), pp. 19-36. 42. For a biography, see J. KERYELL, Afif Osseïrane: Un chemin de vie, Paris, Cerf, 2009.

250

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

the message for Christians and Muslims today from two men of prayer who inspired respect and affection. Edelby and Osseïrane lived through political change and upheaval from the end of the Ottoman Empire up to the Lebanese War. Both were rooted in Arab Muslim culture and were fluent in Arabic. Edelby, also fluent in French and Italian, also knew Greek and Latin, while Osseïrane spoke French, English, Hebrew and Persian. Both had lectured in Islamology, philosophy and theology in universities. Ignace Dick points to Edelby’s wisdom and his love of religions and openness to the East and to world culture43. The Arab word moussayara (lit. “to walk in company with”) expressing Eastern and Arabic generosity, a trait rooted in the Gospel words of Christ44, was deeply characteristic of Edelby. Moussayara is “the feeling of profound, complete, concrete charity towards everyone, to brothers and sisters in humanity … Moussayara is an attitude of welcome, of patience, of balance”45. As for Osseïrane, Youakim Moubarac describes a remarkable outcome of Osseïrane’s conversion to Christianity: it brought him into closer fidelity with his family and the Shi’ite Muslim tradition of his Islamic environment because he lived out “his Christian difference in their midst”46. Osseïrane was a man of radical action. As well as teaching, he witnessed through a life of solidarity with the poor, dedicating his life to living in poverty with delinquent children. A Maronite priest observed how Osseïrane’s “spirit of prayer ... made me love Islam”47. Afif could recite the Beatitudes using a Qur’anic melody, which was filled with respect and admiration and conveyed a prophetic message to the young Christians he served. The Second Vatican Council was a landmark for both men. Edelby attended the Council as auxiliary bishop to Patriarch Maximos IV, the latter of whom exerted an outstanding influence at Vatican II on behalf of both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Andrea Riccardi recollects that Edelby was a man of “intellectual finesse” with a great capacity for friendship48. Edelby, who integrates several identities – Arab, Eastern, 43. P. MASRI, Mélanges en mémoire de Mgr Néophyte Edelby (1920-1995), Beirut, CEDRAC, 2005, p. 26, in AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 23. 44. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 23. 45. Ibid. The author quotes from a 1972 radio broadcast by Edelby: “The Virtue of moussayara”. 46. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 21. 47. Ibid., pp. 23-24. 48. A. RICCARDI, Recollections of the Second Vatican Council (1996), cited in AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 26. See also M. TATARYN, The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Paradox of Vatican II, in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 13/2 (2013) 83-95. The ecclesial character in the Eastern Catholic tradition

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

251

Byzantine and Catholic – is “the bearer of a call to communion in respect of difference”49. Osseïrane was ordained as a Maronite priest of Beirut in 1962. He was deeply influenced by the spirituality of Charles de Foucauld50. Audo sees a mysterious connection between de Foucauld, called to return to Christianity after seeing Muslims praying in the desert, and Osseïrane, a convert from Islam to Christianity who remained a friend of both. Audo proclaims: “Disinterested charity, acceptance of the other just as they are, are the road to reconciliation and peace”51. Twenty-five years after his death, Audo defined Osseïrane’s message for Christians everywhere: do not be afraid of “political” Islam, instead appreciate its mystical and humanist dimensions. He calls Christians in a Muslim environment to give witness through their prayer and attitude of adoration, to infuse politics with grace, love and justice in order to liberate it from tendencies of power and possession. VI. THE ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM: ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT AND MEDITERRANEAN GENIUS Jean Corbon judges that the will to survive, especially in the countries along the eastern Mediterranean shore, has encouraged interpersonal communication, since Christians had to be multilingual as they co-existed with many different ethnic and cultural groups. The Christian communities contributed far beyond the size of their communities to the civilization of the region52. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, with Clément and Albert Camus53, refer to characteristics of the region as is one of deep plurality both in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. See A. O’MAHONY, “... Again to breathe fully from two lungs”: Eastern Catholic Encounters with History and Ecclesiology, in The Downside Review 134/4 (2016) 107-118. See also the special issue of the Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 67/3-4 (2015) on “Eastern Catholics in Modern Europe”. 49. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 28. 50. I. LATHAM, Charles de Foucauld (1858-1916): Silent Witness for Jesus “In the Face of Islam”, in A. O’MAHONY – P. BOWE (eds.), Catholics in Interreligious Dialogue: Studies in Monasticism, Theology and Spirituality, Leominster, Gracewing, 2006, 47-70; P. DALL’OGLIO, Massignon and Jihad, through de Foucauld, al-Hallaj and Gandhi, in J.J. DONAHUE – C.W. TROLL (ed.), Faith, Power and Violence (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 258), Roma, Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1998, 103-114. 51. AUDO, Eastern Christian Identity (n. 40), p. 27. 52. CORBON, The Churches of the Middle East (n. 13), p. 100. 53. See study by L. STARKEY, Albert Camus: The Ethics of Moderation, in Parrhesia 21 (2014) 144-160. A. Camus, 1913-1960: Algerian born Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1957, and friend and colleague of Clément in Paris.

252

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

“Mediterranean humanism” and “Mediterranean genius”54. They assess these to be inclusive, dialogical, building peace through the rediscovery of principles that once flourished in that region: the recognition of the “sacred character of each person, with a love which, through compassion, forgiveness, justice and peace, transcends all boundaries and does not discriminate”55. Over time, diverse Christian cultures in Syria and Lebanon created a model of inter-religious encounter within an Islamic milieu which, during the twentieth century, led to a deep vocational call to ecumenical dialogue, as an evolutionary step toward Christian unity within the context of indigenous plurality and diversity. Pope Francis has identified this journey of Christians in the Middle East as an “ecumenism of suffering”56. Difference had been increasingly seen as division, yet it is precisely difference in the twentieth century that has become the axial point of unity. This is demonstrated in the leadership of Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Lebanon who was a key founding member of the Orthodox Youth Movement in Lebanon in 1942. Khodr “brought new vitality and vision into the Church through deepened awareness of its spiritual meaning, through social action and ... a clergy close to the people”57. Khodr spent decades working with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius IV Hazim, to bring about an Orthodox revival. In 1988, Hazim founded the University of Balamand in Lebanon as a centre of excellence committed to values based on freedom, tolerance, plurality and human dignity. Khodr has committed his ministry to ecumenism and dialogue with Islam. And finally, one should also mention the ecumenical progress between the Catholic Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church. A christological consensus was reached in the signing of a Common Declaration of Faith (23 June 1984), between Pope John Paul II and Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. 54. O. CLÉMENT, Conversations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997, p. 211. Clément cites from a letter by Bartholomew to Yasser Arafat. 55. Ibid., p. 211. 56. Pope Francis spoke of the Christians in the Middle East during his Apostolic visit to Patriarch Bartholomew in Turkey, 28-30 November 2014. Francis seeks to bring to his engagement with the world of Islam of the Middle East ideas for a “culture of encounter”, located in the historical moments as contemporary events. Cf. S.M. THOMAS, A Trajectory toward the Periphery: Francis of Assisi, Louis Massignon, Pope Francis, and MuslimChristian Relations, in The Review of Faith and International Affairs 16 (2018) 16-36; ID., St. Francis and Islam: A Critical Appraisal for Contemporary Muslim-Christian Relations, Middle East Politics and International Relations, in The Downside Review 136/1 (2018) 3-28. 57. K. CRAGG, The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1991, pp. 204-232.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

253

VII. EASTERN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY: MELKITE AND UKRAINIAN GRECO-CATHOLIC RENEWAL Corbon holds that what is common among the theologians of the Eastern Churches, whether Armenian, Coptic, Melkite or Syrian, is their vast culture, making their work on apologetics and controversy valuable for Muslim and Christian thinkers. He concludes that ecumenism existed in the Middle East well before its discovery in the West, and that Christian-Islamic dialogue existed long before modern inter-faith dialogue. Edward Farrugia judges that the “primordial Christian Orient was an undifferentiated union of plural Churches which slowly emerged as a differentiated whole under the pressure of events”, and “its theology was likewise plural, vibrant and undifferentiated”58. The ecumenical witness of the Melkite Greco-Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in Antioch has importance for Christian unity and for Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church came into existence at the Union of Brest in 159659. Christianity had been introduced into Kyivan Rus’-Ukraine60 in 988, from Constantinople; however, the Ukrainian Church did not follow Constantinople into schism with the West in 1054. During the sixteenth century the influence of Constantinople in the Slavic world was in decline and the power of the Moscow Patriarchate in ascendency, engendering a complex situation involving political and religious sensibilities. In spite of vicissitudes, even martyrdom, the Ukrainian Church knew an internal vitality and flowering. Eastern Catholic theology derives richness from Orthodox theology, and to a degree from Roman Catholic theology, but is a cultural reality in itself. Robert Taft judges it to be a theology “that seeks to breath with both lungs” bringing oxygen to both sides of the East-West Christian divide61. He affirms, “Nothing whatever can be understood apart from its history, and that is doubly true here”. He identifies the beginnings of a renewal of Eastern Catholicism started at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), at which the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, particularly the 58. E.G. FARRUGIA, The Study of the Christian East on the Church’s Priority List (2010), http://www.uia.mx/shapingthefuture/files/1-Frontier-Theology/Theology-Culture-Farrugia-DIR.pdf (accessed 14 May 2020). 59. GREGORIOS III LAHAM, The Ecumenical Commitment of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, in The Downside Review 135/1 (2017) 3-20. 60. Kyivan Rus’ is the ancient name of the territories largely in today’s Ukraine, and parts of Poland and Belarus. 61. R.F. TAFT, Eastern Catholic Theology: Slow Rebirth after a Long and Difficult Gestation, in Eastern Churches Journal 8/2 (2001) 51-80, at p. 52.

254

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

Melkite Patriarch, objected to the lack of understanding of the Catholic East62. The election of Pope Leo XIII brought recognition of the patrimony of Eastern Churches63, further promoted under Pope Benedict XV. Key figures who took rapprochement further were Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960)64, French born Cyril Korolevs’kij (1878-1959)65 and Andrij Šeptyts’kyj (1879-1944, Archbishop of L’viv and primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church)66. Partly to ensure the training of priests, who would not be “latinized”, Šeptyts’kyj founded the L’viv Theological Academy in 192867. Recognized as a sign of intellectual and theological renewal in the Church68, it grew from the vision of these Eastern Catholics. This work continues today through the Ukrainian Catholic University in L’viv, as well as its Institute of Ecumenical Studies, the latter of which was founded by the French Orthodox scholar Antoine Arjakovsky, a student, colleague and friend of Olivier Clément. Arjakovsky’s Conversations with Lubomyr Cardinal Husar69 highlights the importance of Ukraine as the geographical centre of Europe and the judgement that the future of Europe, both politically and spiritually, will depend on what happens in Ukraine. Husar, primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, longed for a Ukrainian Church in communion with both Rome and the Orthodox Churches, faithful to the heritage of Rome and Constantinople (despite the reality that most Orthodox hold that it is not possible “to be Catholic and Eastern at the same time”)70. The Eastern Catholic Churches consider that a church in communion with the Roman Apostolic See remains a particular church in the full theological and canonical sense. Arjakovsky suggests that no Orthodox could quarrel with such a concept of union71. The author seeks to show that Eastern Catholic Churches are “objective witnesses to the universality of the Church, completely Catholic and Eastern”72. 62. Ibid., p. 54. 63. See J. HAJJAR, Les chrétiens uniates du Proche-Orient, Paris, Seuil, 1962, pp. 301309. 64. His monastic community is at Chevetogne and publishes Irénikon. 65. Cf. C. KOROLEVS’KIJ, L’uniatisme: définition, causes, effets, étendue, dangers, remèdes (Collection Irénikon, 5-6), Amay-sur-Meuse, Prieuré d’Amay-sur-Meuse, 1927. 66. TAFT, Eastern Catholic Theology (n. 61), p. 58. 67. The academy was forcibly closed by the Soviet regime for fifty years, opening again in 1994 and then developing into today’s Ukrainian Catholic University. 68. Ibid., p. 59. 69. A. ARJAKOVSKY, Conversations with Lubomyr Cardinal Husar: Towards a PostConfessional Christianity, L’viv, Ukrainian Catholic University Press, 2007. 70. Ibid., p. 97. 71. Ibid., p. 123. 72. Ibid., p. 127.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

255

The Melkites followed and absorbed the changes in attitudes of Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV, noted above, which culminated in their important contributions to Vatican II, especially in the person of Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh73. In explaining why he had been able to take a leadership role for the Eastern Churches, Maximos judged that Catholic Melkites had never lost touch with their Orthodox roots and had not become closed in on themselves. They were thus better able to distinguish what was “Catholic” from what was “contingent”, enabling them to act as a counterbalance to Latin Catholic unilateralism. The Melkite’s practice of episcopal collegiality demonstrated an Eastern Christian ecclesiology which the Council would later vote to establish in the form of an Apostolic College of bishops74. The French-speaking Melkite bishops had been in dialogue with twentieth century French Catholic intellectuals and theologians, and “allowed the voice of the East to be heard at Council sessions”75. The courteous courage and eloquence of Maximos IV and the synodal nature of the Melkite endeavour was pivotal in successfully making a case for the Eastern Churches. Maximos IV spoke at the Council in French, not Latin, affirming that “every language is, in effect, liturgical”76. The contributions made at the Council by the Melkite bishops included: the use of the vernacular; support for eucharistic communion under both species; the restoration of the permanent diaconate; new attitudes and language in ecumenical dialogue; and the recognition and acceptance of Eastern Catholic communities as “particular or local churches” and not simply as “rites”. All these suggestions were agreed to in Council documents concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches. A similar witness of Eastern Christian particularity was Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk who, in tandem with the Melkites, proposed the creation of an apostolic college and advocated for ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches77.

73. For a study of the Melkite presence at Vatican II see G. HACHEM, Primauté et œcuménisme chez les Melkites catholiques à Vatican II, in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 93 (1988) 398-441. 74. TAFT, Eastern Catholic Theology (n. 61), pp. 64-65. 75. Ibid., p. 66. 76. Ibid., p. 68. 77. See J.Z. SKIRA – P. DE MEY (eds.), Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk, Vatican II and the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (Eastern Christian Studies, 31), Leuven, Peeters, 2020.

256

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

VIII. THE ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM: MIDDLE EASTERN CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE WITH THE WEST Clément believed we need to enter into constructive dialogue with “secular” society, “secularism” being the daughter of Christianity since it has held on to spiritual values such as liberty, equality or fraternity78. But, he wrote that not “only is Christianity something strange to people today, it cannot even attract by its strangeness, because people are familiar with the distortions and caricatures of it”79. Clément was aware that “many people in Western Europe consider the Orthodox Church to be a safe place against the decadency of history and modernity”, but he believed that secularization will be a lasting event and “all Churches in Europe, and especially in Western Europe will ultimately have to find a new place for themselves in a secularized society”80. An irenic and pluridimensional dialogical approach is part of Clément’s mature analysis which he hopes will bring about a socio-cultural evolution which allows individuals and peoples to flourish, and to choose peace, non-violence and life – against war, violence and death. Syrian Patriarch John X, Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, in a recent interview, requested world governments to find a peaceful solution to the violence through dialogue for the whole region, rather than singling out any particular group for assistance. He stresses that the Church is alive, it has roots in the past and a vision for the future, always connecting the past through its Tradition with the future81. This is reiterated by the Melkite Greco-Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III: “reaching a political solution to the crisis in Syria is key to peace in the Arab world and the whole world”82. The Christians of Antioch and the Middle East are deeply important for all the Christian Churches worldwide. While the Christian presence in the Middle East is small numerically, constituting only one per cent of Christianity worldwide83, and much reduced by emigration over recent 78. A. ARJAKOVSKY, Russie Ukraine: De la guerre à la paix, Paris, Parole et Silence, 2014, p. 25. 79. Ibid., p. 9. 80. P. DE MEY citing Clément in The Church from a European Perspective, in G. MANNION – L.S. MUDGE (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Oxon, Routledge, 2008, 364-385, p. 374. 81. J. PECQUET, Syrian Patriarch: To Help Christians, Stop Flow of Weapons, interview in Al-Monitor (12 December 2014), http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/12/ syrian-christian-patriarch-john-x-stop-weapons.html (accessed 12 May 2020). 82. GREGORIOS III, The Syrian Crisis Spring 2014, Annual Lecture, Embrace the Middle East, St. James Church, Piccadilly, London (6 May 2014). 83. A. O’MAHONY, Christianity in the Middle East: Modern History and Contemporary Theology and Ecclesiology, in Journal of Eastern Studies 65/3-4 (2013) 231-260, p. 233.

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

257

decades, “the vigour that believers bring to the region far outstrips their numerical importance”84. Those Christians who remain will need a “prophetic imagination”85 that is able to look towards the “horizons of a new tomorrow”86. For Europe, important characteristics of this paradigm of Antiochian diversity are hospitality; dialogue; cultural exchange and tolerance; conviviality; and, welcoming the stranger. Clément’s thought on the dignity and value of the human person and the Christian “call” to resemble God in a lived unity with all humanity, are deeply rooted in an Eastern Orthodox theology of trinitarian unity in diversity. “Just as essential unity of God is realized in personal love, so we are called to resemble God in realizing our essential unity with all humanity”87. A perpetual Pentecost, that has continued since the Church began, ensures that the life-giving Holy Spirit calls each of us into communion with others, but sin, Clément points out, can turn “this diverse unity into a hostile multiplicity”88. We are called to repentance and humility89. Clément stresses the importance of the universality of Christ’s message, when he indicates that eventually: “All the nations will be gathered before him” (Mt 25,32)90. IX. THE ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM: DIALOGUE WITH ISLAM The approach to Islamic-Christian dialogue by Clément and M. Talbi in their book on faith and dialogue, Un respect têtu, is “hard-headed respect”. It conveys a sense of robust, unsentimental respect for the “other”, that rules out simplistic syncretism or barren polemics. Clément and Talbi endeavour to keep their search for truth unbiased by nationalistic loyalties. Clément judges that for Christians, the prophecy of Mohammad has a place in the design of God to which Christians are called to participate. 84. A. O’MAHONY, A Vital Presence: Crisis in the Middle East, in The Tablet (4 February 2011) 6-7, 12. 85. D. NEUHAUS, Alternatives on a Horizon beyond Walls: Pope Francis in the Holy Land, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 64 (2014) 54-68, p. 54. Neuhaus cites W. BRUEGGEMANN, The Prophetic Imagination, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1978, p. 13. P. COLWELL, From Crisis to Grace: Theological Reflections on Developing Trends in Jewish-Catholic Relations, through Aspects of the Work of David Neuhaus, SJ, in Living Stones Yearbook 2019: The Inter-Relationship between Religion and Politics in the Middle East, London, Living Stones of the Holy Land Trust, 2019, 99-121. 86. NEUHAUS, Alternatives on a Horizon beyond Walls (n. 85), p. 54. 87. O. CLÉMENT, On Human Being: A Spiritual Anthropology, trans. J. Hummerstone, London, New City Press, 2000, p. 43 (orig. pub. 1972). 88. Ibid., p. 46. 89. See, CLÉMENT, The Roots of Christian Mysticism (n. 5), p. 154. 90. M. TALBI – O. CLÉMENT, Un respect têtu, Paris, Nouvelle Cité, 1989, p. 139.

258

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

He believes the ancient Churches of the Middle East and Christianity in Europe need to identify with each other. Plurality can be seen as division, but it can also be recognized as a diversity like that which grounds Antioch in a rich fabric of linguistic and spiritual human experience of co-existence and communion. The linguistic and cultural identities found among the Eastern and Oriental Christian presence in the Middle East with Syriac, Greek and Arab cultures (with Syriac Maronite, Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics; the Greek Orthodox and the Greek-Catholic Melkite) are surrounded by a dominant Arab culture of Islam, itself characterized by plurality (i.e., Sunni, Shi’a, Alawite, Ismailia, Druze and the mystical-ascetic form of Islam-Sufism). The impact of militant Islam (like ISIS) and civil war has led to growing political marginalization and has decimated Christian communities. Religious affiliation in the Middle East can often replace ethnic identity. However, the Christians of Syria are proud to be Arabs, since they too have played an active role in the development of predominantly Arab Muslim societies91. The recognition of the importance of prayer within all these groups, and contemplation within Christian Churches and Shi’a Islam92, creates a space for dialogue and encounter. This challenges contemporary western culture and society; cultures of “indifference”; and those who minimize the contributions religious groups in the Middle East can make toward maintaining peace. In a parallel to Eastern Europe, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew made a call for peace and solidarity that links the experiences of Antioch to Ukraine: As Christian leaders, we call on all religious leaders to pursue and to strengthen interreligious dialogue and to make every effort to build a culture of peace and solidarity between persons and between peoples. We also remember all the people who experience the sufferings of war. In particular, we pray for peace in Ukraine, a country of ancient Christian tradition, while we call upon all parties involved to pursue the path of dialogue and of respect for international law in order to bring an end to the conflict and allow all Ukrainians to live in harmony93. 91. S. KHALIL SAMIR, The Christian Communities, Active Members of Arab Society throughout History, in PACINI (ed.), Christian Communities in the Arab Middle East (n. 13), 67-91. 92. For wider discussion see A. O’MAHONY – W. PETERBURS – M.A. SHOMALI (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality, London, Melisende, 2004; IID. (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a Engagement: Faith and Reason in Theory and Practice, London, Melisende, 2007; A. O’MAHONY – T. WRIGHT – M.A. SHOMALI (eds.), A Catholic-Shia Dialogue: Ethics in Today’s Society, London, Melisende, 2008. 93. Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew Sign Joint Declaration (30 November 2014), http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/11/30/pope_francis_patriarch_bartholomew_ sign_joint_declaration/1113026 (accessed 13 May 2020).

OLIVIER CLÉMENT AND THE “ANTIOCHIAN PARADIGM”

259

All this recognizes that Ukraine too has its religious pluralism – of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics – alongside minorities of Jews and Muslims, among others. X. CONCLUSIONS As I have illustrated above, the “Antiochian paradigm” fosters opportunities for ecumenical exchanges centred on unity but in indigenous plurality. Olivier Clément saw the ancient Eastern Churches and Christianity in Europe as needing each other. He was a Christian thinker witnessing to the possibility of unity between East and West, who made ecumenism a focus of his Christian witness, endeavouring to help the churches recognize the rich liturgical and spiritual gifts the Christian East and West can offer each other. The pluralism of cultures, which characterize the Eastern Churches, enriches the expression and witness of the Christian Church in the world. This openness is not displayed by some in Ukraine and Russia where Russian Orthodoxy holds the view that it is impossible “to be Catholic and Eastern at the same time”94. The five Patriarchates of Antioch recognize a common heritage of apostolic descent and the Orthodox include the Eastern Catholic Churches of Antioch as part of this universal inheritance. Eastern Catholics are an expression of Christianity and a cultural reality that has sought to breathe with both lungs of the East-West Christian divide since they are churches that have retained a liturgy and synodal system that remains Orthodox while living in communion with the Catholic Church. A new attitude of ecumenical dialogue on the part of the Catholic Church and the Moscow Patriarchate should be inspired by the Antiochian paradigm of ecumenism and dialogue. The Antiochian paradigm demonstrates that inter-religious dialogue between Middle Eastern Christians and the multiple expressions of Islam in Syria and Lebanon can succeed; that difference and diversity, previously regarded as alien, can bring positive contributions to the churches and the public domain locally and in Middle Eastern dialogue with the West. Dick judges that Syria best expresses a possibility of living freely together in plurality in an Arabic and Islamic culture. Moussayara – “a walking in company with” – while distancing oneself from violence, is characteristic of the Antiochian paradigm. Prayer can play an important role in bringing Muslims and Christians into peaceful dialogue as it creates a space for 94. S. HUGH-DONOVAN, The Eastern Catholic Movement in Russia, in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 67 (2015) 305-327.

260

S. HUGH-DONOVAN

dialogue. The Syrian Orthodox Patriarch John X reiterates the paradigm of Antioch: “the only way to live with the other is in peace”. In the midst of the present crisis and suffering brought on by radical Islamist factions, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew have signed a joint declaration committing their two churches to an “ecumenism of suffering” built on the martyrdom of the Christians in the Middle East. They encourage a resolution of conflict through dialogue and reconciliation that enables Christians to remain in their homeland. As noted above, the irenic and pluri-dimensional dialogical approach of the Antiochian paradigm is part of Clément’s mature analysis that seeks to bring about a socio-cultural evolution which allows individuals and peoples to flourish, and to choose peace, non-violence and life. The most profitable starting point, nevertheless, remains that any Christian dialogue requires a degree of ecclesial unity, and here the experiences of the Antiochian churches serve as a model for other churches. Stefanie HUGH-DONOVAN†

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND RECENT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH AND THE ARMENIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

I. OFFICIAL DIALOGUES1 In September 2002, a letter was sent to all the primates of the Oriental Orthodox Churches by Cardinal Walter Kasper, then President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. An invitation to participate in an official dialogue with the Catholic Church was addressed to the following churches: Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, SyroMalankara, as well as the Armenian (represented by the Catholicosate of All Armenians [Etchmiadzin, Armenia] and the Catholicosate of Cilicia [Antelias, Lebanon]). Delegated representatives from all these churches, except the Ethiopian, met in Rome in January the following year, forming the Preparatory Committee for the Catholic Church-Oriental Orthodox Churches International Joint Commission for Dialogue. It was co-chaired by Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta of the Coptic Church. Agenda, procedures and methodologies were established for the Joint Commission. Beginning in 1971, a number of consultations had already taken place in Vienna between Catholic and Oriental Orthodox theologians. These had been organized by Pro Oriente2 which published the following year 1. On the background history and contemporary ecclesial context of the Armenian Catholic Church see my earlier studies: J. WHOOLEY, The Armenian Catholic Church in the Middle East – Modern History, Ecclesiology and Future Challenges, in The Downside Review 134/4 (2016) 119-146; The Armenian Catholic Church in Modern Europe, in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 67 (2015) 329-346; The Armenian Catholic Church: A Modern History Until the Synod of Rome 1928, in A. O’MAHONY (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East: Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics, London, Melisende, 2008, 263-327; Armenian Christianity: An Historical and Theological Overview, in One in Christ 40/3 (2004) 59-72; The Mekhitarists: Religion, Culture and Ecumenism in Armenian Catholic Relations, in A. O’MAHONY (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics, London, Melisende, 2004, 452-489; The Armenian Church in the Contemporary Middle East, in A. O’MAHONY – E. LOOSLEY (eds.), Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East, London, Routledge, 2010, 78-106; The Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia: The Question of Renewal, in Studies in World Christianity 15 (2009) 259-275. 2. The Pro Oriente Foundation was founded in 1964 at the initiative of Cardinal König of Vienna, one of the four Moderators at the Second Vatican Council. It has continually

262

J. WHOOLEY

the important “Viennese Christological Formula” (Wiener Christologische Formel), which affirmed a common understanding of the christology of the Council of Chalcedon (451) that was acceptable to both the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches3. There had also been individual agreements with the various Oriental Churches at local levels, all contributing to the initiation of this more formal dialogue. The Vienna Christological Formula, based on a proposal by the Coptic Church, is as follows: We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate; perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehensible or expressible.

At this preparatory meeting were ten representatives of the Catholic Church. Most importantly, among them were four from the Oriental Catholic Churches: the Coptic, the Ethiopian, the Syriac and the Armenian Catholic (represented by the Archbishop of Aleppo, Boutros Marayati). Two Armenian Apostolic delegates were present: Archbishop Khajak Barsamian, until recently primate of the Eastern Diocese of the USA, representing Etchmiadzin, and Bishop Nareg Alemezian, Ecumenical Officer of the Catholicosate of Cilicia. This gathering took place exactly a decade after the publication in 1993 of the Balamand Document: Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion. Though this document specifically concerned the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it could be said that it has had some influence on the dialogue between the Catholic and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As is well known, the Balamand Document had been issued as an attempt to assuage the anger felt by a number of Orthodox representatives over the question of “uniatism”, suddenly brought to the fore by the events following the then recent collapse of the Soviet Union. Neither the document itself nor the term “uniatism” were ever mentioned by name in the various proceedings of the dialogue between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Nevertheless, Balamand has two sought greater understanding and closer ties between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. 3. Cf. Five Vienna Consultations between Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978 and 1988, Wien, Pro Oriente, 1993.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

263

sections that are of relevance for such ecumenical relations between these two churches. First, paragraph 4 states that: “Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful”, and second, paragraph 34 has a recommendation for representatives from the Eastern Catholic Churches to participate in future meetings of the Joint International Commission4. The Balamand Document and its recommendations were not welcomed universally and caused a further delay of six years until the next Catholic-Orthodox plenary session in 2000 (Emmitsburg, USA). The draft presented there for discussion, “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism” caused a charged atmosphere. In addition, it would appear that the presence of a Romanian Greek Catholic bishop was only barely tolerated by a number of Orthodox participants5. After great efforts made “behind the scenes” during the following six years, especially by Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew – the latter with a Pan-Orthodox meeting at the Phanar in September 2005 – it was finally possible to resume official meetings (the first being at Belgrade, 2006). The dialogue continues today and is making progress, but “uniatism” is still a sensitive matter, especially from the Russian Orthodox point of view. At the 2017 meeting of the Coordinating Committee of the Joint International Commission held on the Greek island of Leros, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, continues to be under obligation to reiterate this concern about uniatism, a concern that hangs as a sword of Damocles over future proceedings6. 4. The term “Oriental” could be misleading in some cases since in a number of official Catholic documents in English the term refers to all “Eastern” Christians (as derived from the Latin), as compared to a more specific designation for those churches of the Alexandrian (non-Chalcedonian) tradition, as in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. 5. Cf. W. Hryniewicz, theologian and former director of the Ecumenical Institute at the Catholic University of Lublin, speaking to Jonathan Luxmoore about his experience at Emmitsburg: J. LUXMOORE, Orthodox-Catholic Relations at an Impasse after Baltimore Talks, in Ecumenical News International (9 August 2000). Luxmoore continues, “Hryniewicz told ENI that the atmosphere at the Baltimore talks had been ‘generally tense’ because of the complexity of the issues and some personal animosities. He added that Orthodox delegates had had to ‘argue hard among themselves, sometimes exceeding the rules of courtesy’. The Roman Catholic co-chairman of the talks, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had at one point staged a walkout”. 6. Cf. R.G. ROBERSON for a detailed description of the course of these developments: Relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, from the official website for the visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Jerusalem (24-27 May 2014), marking the fiftieth anniversary of the meeting there between Pope Paul VI and

264

J. WHOOLEY

II. CATHOLIC AND ORIENTAL ORTHODOX DIALOGUE These details illustrate that, most fortunately, the progress of the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches has not been marred by such delays, disputes and fractures7. This must have been, and must still be, a matter of some relief to the two presidents of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity who have co-chaired the proceedings – Cardinals Kasper (2003-2010) and Koch (2011-2018). Apart from one meeting up until the year of his death in 2018, the Oriental Churches’ co-chairman had continued to be Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta. In addition, the numbers of participants are less unwieldy and some of them have been very regular in their annual attendance over sixteen years. Regarding the Armenian Catholic side, Archbishop Marayati of Aleppo has attended all sixteen meetings; Professor Levon Zekiyan of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, fifteen (and later, as Armenian Archbishop of Istanbul, the last four meetings). On the Etchmiadzin side, among other representatives, there have been Archbishop Barsamian of the Eastern Diocese of the USA (ten meetings)8, and among those for Antelias, Archbishop Choloyan of the USA (eleven meetings) and Archbishop Nareg Alemezian (13 meetings). Such stability year by year is important for the success of such encounters as the participants remain constant and thus have come to know each other well9. Of all these meetings, two documents have so far been published: “The Nature, Constitution and Mission of the Church” (2009) and “The Exercise of Communion in the Life of the Early Church and its Implications for Our Search for Communion Today” (2015).

Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. Cf. also https://www.apostolicpilgrimage.org/purpose (accessed 15 May 2020). 7. The heightened tension between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Patriarchate led to the Russian Orthodox unilaterally breaking communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in October 2018. This is the latest and possibly the most serious challenge yet to the continuation of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue. 8. Archbishop Barsamian has now been appointed as “Pontifical Legate for Western Europe and Official Representative of the Armenian Church to the Vatican” [sic], having retired from the Eastern Diocese in 2018. He was present in his new capacity at the 2019 meeting, making that his eleventh attendance. 9. Of the other Oriental Churches, the Eritrean, due to local political conditions, has not been able to send a representative for the past nine years, and even before that there were difficulties. In 2004 during the period of the stalemate, in a private interview at the Phanar with the author of this chapter, one of the participants of the dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy pointed out that one of the weaknesses of that dialogue was its lack of continuity and another as being the changing of personnel, leading to unease.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

265

III. RECENT RELATIONS To understand how this dialogue has obtained such remarkable progress, I will briefly trace the recent path leading to the present situation of the relations between the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches. Thus, with a few exceptions, the often difficult and bitter experiences prior to the First World War will not be my subject10. The important role of the Roman Church has, however, to be taken into account in the unfolding narrative. Apart from earlier attempts at reconciliation between the Armenian Orthodox Church and those Armenians who, while retaining many of the customs of the “mother church”, had decided to come into communion with Rome11, nothing was forthcoming in this matter until the immediate aftermath of the First World War12. The devastation wrought upon the Armenian people during that conflict, whether they were Apostolic, Catholic or Protestant, and the necessity to care for the refugees in the capital, led the three communities during the allied occupation of Constantinople to unite, not for religious dialogue, but in charitable endeavours under the combined leadership of the three religious leaders of the city13. However, the arrival of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with his 10. For a review of those experiences, cf. J. WHOOLEY, The Armenian Catholic Church: A Study in History and Ecclesiology, in The Heythrop Journal 45 (2004) 416-434. 11. The attempt, for example, by Patriarch Boghos I of Constantinople (1815-1823) with An Invitation to Love, promulgated on 18 April 1820. 12. It is worthy of note that on 10 September 1915, Pope Benedict XV had written personally to Sultan Mehmed V, appealing for mitigation of the persecution of the Armenian Ottoman population. “The Holy See also attempted the diplomatic route, primarily with the Austrian and Bavarian governments, achieving a certain amount of success, as shown by the warm thanks that the patriarch of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Constantinople, Zaven, sent to the pope in 1919 upon his return from deportation”. M. CAROLLA, Vatican Diplomacy and the Armenian Question: The Holy See’s Response to the Republic of Armenia, 1918-1922, London, Gomidas, 2010, p. 6. 13. Cf. H. GEORGELIN, La Renaissance and the Aftermath of World War I, in R.G. HOVANNISIAN – S. PAYASLIAN (eds.), Armenian Constantinople, Costa Mesa, CA, Mazda, 2010, 401-430, pp. 408-409; C.R. JOHNSON (ed.), Constantinople To-day: or The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople. A Study in Oriental Social Life, New York, Macmillan, 1922, pp. 131-132; J. NASLIAN, Les mémoires de Mgr. Jean Naslian: évêque de Trébizonde. Sur les événements politico-religieux en Proche-Orient de 1914 à 1928, vol. 2, Beirut, Naslian, 2008, pp. 449-460; R.G. HOVANNISIAN, The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 2: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920, Berkeley, CA – London, University of California Press, 1982, p. 327, note 31. Concerning Armenian Apostolic parochial schools in Beirut: “Although the teaching staff was changed frequently, these educational institutions functioned without interruption until 1915 when the monastery [St. Nishan] and schools were first confiscated and then demolished by the local Turkish government. Immediately after the armistice, however, the leaders of the national and Catholic communities established a single school under the supervision of a joint board of trustees. This establishment

266

J. WHOOLEY

forces on 4 October 1923, immediately after the departure of European troops from the city, finally caused the dismantlement of this communal effort. Each denomination then continued, but separately, to turn to their own scattered faithful wherever they had managed to settle. Most were located in the Middle East, where a number of “colonies” had already long been in existence, but also in Greece and France. Others were to find refuge in Argentina, the United States of America and elsewhere. In some quarters, rivalries and prejudice were to continue, though not as sharp as before; communal pain and loss had softened antagonism. Understandably, anger had been the inevitable consequence of divisions in the “family”, especially as it had suffered for its attachment to the Christian faith for centuries. It had last experienced a state of its own with the Kingdom of Cilicia, brought to an end by the conquest of the Mamluks of Egypt in 1375. With no successor states, the possibility of some formal political protection by and for its own people was removed. In consequence, the Apostolic Church had assumed the role whereby Armenians were able to continue to have a sense of identity14. In addition, the Armenian language helped prevent assimilation into the dominant Ottoman, Persian and, later, Russian cultures. It could be said that those Armenians who adopted Islam were certainly no longer considered to be Armenian by fellow Armenians, no matter how close their blood connections. Those who left the Apostolic Church for the Catholic were considered by many almost as being in the same light; while those who, from the nineteenth century, were attracted to the Protestant denominations were anathematized. The latter were necessarily more distant due to their interpretation of some aspects of the Christian faith, whereas the Catholics were much nearer in that respect, especially as regards the liturgy and other customs of the Apostolic Church (apart from questions on the christology of the Council of Chalcedon and papal primacy). Nevertheless, the foundation of the Armenian Catholic Catholicosate in 1742 with its base, first in Bzommar, Lebanon, and then its presence in functioned under the new arrangement until 1921, when the two communities could afford to open separate schools”, in A.K. SANJIAN, The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965, p. 84. It would seem that the Armenian Catholic schools had suffered the same fate as those of the Armenian Apostolic Church. See also G.-H. RUYSSEN, La questione armena, vols. 1-7, Roma, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 2013. 14. The sudden appearance of an independent Republic of Armenia in 1918 was warmly welcomed; it proved to be short-lived, however, being subjected to the Soviet Union within two years. One consequence of this misfortune was the deepening of the division between Etchmiadzin and Antelias, a relationship now much improved.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

267

Constantinople from 1867, was seen as a direct challenge to the Apostolic Church15. On the other hand, Armenian Catholics felt that they were still truly of the “nation” and were convinced that union with Rome did not undermine or deny their identity. They felt that the accusation of being “Franks” was not only unjust, but a dangerous one to wave before the eyes of the Sublime Porte. Much oppression came their way before the establishment of the Katolik Milleti in 1830. For the Protestants, a similar arrangement was forthcoming with their own millet, formally established in 1850. For the Armenian Apostolic millet, these “defections” were understandably a source of anguish, anger and frustration, and also of embarrassment. The first leader of the Protestant millet was no less than the brother of Patriarch Matteos II, while great “national” achievements were to mark the work of the Mkhitarists, both of Venice and Vienna, a monastic order founded in 1701 by Mkhitar of Sebaste (1676-1749), a former Apostolic vartapet. Embarrassment, too, occurred for the Armenian Catholic community when one of its most notable figures, Malachia Ormanian, went over to the Apostolic Church in 1879, eventually being appointed Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople. IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN RELATIONS: JOHN XXIII AND VATICAN II (1962-1965) Such were some of the issues that strained relations between the three denominations after the Great War. However, as the twentieth century progressed circumstances slowly began to change, especially as regards the relations between the Apostolic Church and the Latin Catholic Church. One contribution, it could be argued, came with the appointment of Angelo Roncalli as Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece. He came to Constantinople from his ten-year posting as Apostolic Delegate to Bulgaria, leading to contacts with an even greater variety of Christians, of not only Latins, but also Syriac, Greek and Armenian Catholics. In addition, the presence of the two patriarchs in the city, the Ecumenical and the Armenian Apostolic, meant contacts were possible16. Matters for 15. Due to developments in the Turkish Republic, founded in 1923, the synod of the Armenian Catholic Church held in Rome in 1928 decided that the Catholicosate should return to Bzommar in Lebanon. 16. Cf. Constantinople: Une fête unioniste à Cadi-Keuy, in L’Union des Églises, sixième année, 24 (10 Mai-Juin 1927), 277-281. While Roncalli was acting as Apostolic Delegate, the communities of Eastern Rite Catholics to be found in Istanbul consisted of Armenians,

268

J. WHOOLEY

Christians in the Republic were by no means easy: the imposition of the Varlık Vergisi (wealth tax) of 1942, for example, was a particular demonstration of pressure on the ever-dwindling Christian minority, as well as on the Jewish community17. Roncalli’s years in the region gave him experience of both nations and knowledge of their particular circumstances, while his understanding of those Christians not in communion with Rome increased. His character and sympathetic approach would eventually facilitate the acceptance of invitations to send observers to attend the Second Vatican Council, which he announced shortly after his election as Pope John XXIII in 195818. These invitations were issued through the newly established Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (1960), by the widely respected ecumenist Cardinal Bea, its first President19. Among the Second Vatican Council’s observers were two from each of the two Armenian Apostolic jurisdictions of Etchmiadzin and Antelias. The question of ecumenism was one of no small importance during the debates in the Council, and one of particular interest for all attending observers20. There emerged a new approach to those Christians not in communion with the Roman Church, one that was less haughty, with such terms as “dissident” and “submission” finally being abandoned. However, it brought into focus a new perspective as regards the role of those churches that were already in communion with Rome, including the Armenian Catholic Church. Patriarch-Catholicos Bedros Agagianian XV (1895-1971), its primate and a permanent member of the Curia, had resigned the patriarchate on the eve of the Council in order to continue his involvement in its preparatory work. After the election of Pope Paul VI Syrians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Melkites. Since that time, the last three communities have virtually disappeared, being replaced in recent times by the Chaldeans, coming largely as refugees from eastern Anatolia. Cf. John XXIII, Journal of a Soul, London, Bloomsbury, 1965, p. 258. 17. A law passed in 1932 (n. 2007) forbade Christian entry into certain professions and trades. In 1941, there was “forced conscription into labour battalions (amele taburları) of all Christian and Jewish males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five …. This discriminatory mobilization, and the hardships imposed, led not only to the death of many conscripts but to the terrorizing of their communities”. Cf. S. VRYONIS, The Mechanism of Catastrophe: The Turkish Pogrom of September 6-7, 1955 and the Destruction of the Greek Community of Istanbul, New York, Greekworks, 2005, pp. 32-41. Roncalli would have witnessed many of these developments and their consequences. 18. His reputation in Turkish circles finally led to diplomatic relations being established between Turkey and the Holy See in 1960. 19. In 1988, the Secretariat became the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Of note is that the invitations from Pius IX to Orthodox leaders to attend the First Vatican Council (1870-1871) had been ignored, which was very different to the positive responses received by Pope John XXIII to Vatican II. 20. The decrees On Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and On the Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium ecclesiarum), were both to be promulgated on 21 November 1964.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

269

in 1963, he was chosen as one of the four moderators to contribute toward a smoother running of the Council proceedings. As patriarch, he was succeeded by Ignatius Bedros XVI Batanian whose defence of the conservative Curia was not welcomed by the majority of the assembly21. Apart from this intervention, the Armenian Catholic bishops present seemed quiescent; understandably, their dependence on curial support after the trauma of the Genocide explains their hesitation, in contrast to the activity of the Melkite Patriarch, Maximos IV Sayegh. Agagianian, unlike his three colleagues, never addressed the Council Fathers, perhaps realizing the import of their change in mood and direction. However, there were friendly exchanges with the Armenian Apostolic delegations and visits to the Armenian College in the city. As referred to earlier, in January 1964, in Jerusalem – on “sacred ground”, yet possibly also considered as neutral – Pope Paul VI met with Athenagoras, the Ecumenical Patriarch. The visit was also the occasion for the pope to meet the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of the city, Archbishop Yeghishe Derderian, probably the first such encounter between a pope and an Armenian Apostolic patriarch. This was followed in 1967 by the pope’s visit to Istanbul, primarily to greet Athenagoras again, but it was also an opportunity to pay respects to the Armenian Apostolic community under the leadership of Patriarch Shnorhk Kaloustian. In 1970, the visit to Rome of the Catholicos of All Armenians, Vazgen I (1908-1994), with the involvement of Cardinal Agagianian, marked a moment of historical import22. The implosion of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and the declaration of independence by Armenia in September 1991, were remarkable and unexpected developments. For the Armenian Apostolic Church, a daunting task lay before it: the re-evangelization of the population which had endured atheistic propaganda for the previous seventy years, along with the severe curtailment of the Church’s life and pastoral role23. It had to rebuild itself in order to begin to meet the demands of such a task. 21. Cf. G. ALBERIGO – J. KOMONCHAK (eds.), History of Vatican II. Vol. 3: The Mature Council, Second Period and Intersession, September 1963 – September 1964, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis; Leuven, Peeters, 2000, p. 138, note 71. For the unfolding views of the Armenian Catholic Capuchin bishop, Cyril Zohrabian (1881-1972), see F.S. CUCINOTTA, Un vescovo armeno al Vaticano II: Le memorie di mons. Cirillo Zohrabian, Roma, Sciascia, 1998. 22. F. Corley reported a remark of the Catholicos regarding his visit to Rome: “Asked by a foreign correspondent just before the visit whether he often went there, he replied with a sense of history as well as humour: ‘Oh no, we haven’t had any contact since the fifth century. But I’ll talk to him about it when I go’”. In Obituary: Vazken I, in The Independent (20 August 1994). 23. Cf. F. CORLEY, The Armenian Church under the Soviet Regime. Part 1: The Leadership of Kevork, in The Keston Journal: Religion, State and Society 24/1 (March 1996) 9-53; The Armenian Church under the Soviet Regime. Part 2: The Leadership of Vazgen, in The Keston Journal: Religion, State and Society 24/4 (December 1996) 289-343.

270

J. WHOOLEY

Furthermore, the Church was faced with some consequences of the new freedom enjoyed in the changed political situation, such as the entry of various religious bodies, Christian and non-Christian, keen on bringing their own message to the population at large, and sometimes with some success24. This was painful as the Armenian people seemed now yet again in danger of falling away from their own national Church despite it having served them throughout the centuries. There were also a number of Armenian Catholics in that population, especially in the region surrounding the city of Gyumri (formerly Leninakan) in the north of the country. They now began to emerge from the suppression by the Soviet regime, and their churches were gradually restored to them. The Armenian Catholic Patriarch, Hovhannes Bedros XVIII Kasparian, issued a Circular Letter (7 June 1992) expressing the hope that Armenian Catholic clergy could revitalize the spiritual life of these faithful as well as those in Georgia. However, the Apostolic authorities took exception to this appeal. For them, not only did it misrepresent the religious history of the nation, but it seemed to imply that such revitalization was aimed also at the general population25. An ecclesiastical delegation was sent to Rome to protest against the action of the Catholicosate; this indeed represented another low ebb in relations between the two churches26. Paradoxically, the year before, Catholicos Vazgen had welcomed the appointment by Pope John Paul II of Nerses Der-Nersessian as the ordinary for Armenian Catholics in Eastern Europe; in addition, he had given him hospitality at Etchmiadzin until he was able to take up residence in Gyumri27. This first such ordinary was extended this welcome 24. Concerning religious minorities in the early years of the Third Republic of Armenia, including what are sometimes termed “New Religious Movements”, cf. CORLEY, Face to Face with the Government and the Church: Minority Faiths in Today’s Armenia, in Armenia Forum 1/4 (1998-1999) 1-18. 25. Cf. Y. PETROSIAN, On the Circular-Letter Entitled “Return to Armenia” of the Armenian Catholic Patriarch Hovhannes Petros, and P. HAKOBIAN, Armenian Catholicism in the Light of Historical Criticism, both in A Critical Examination of Armenian Catholic Communities in Transcaucasia: Their Late Origins, Historical Development and Contemporary Status, New York, St. Vartan Press, 1994, 1-12 and 13-98 respectively. 26. The previous most serious disagreement between the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate and the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin arose in 1948 when Cardinal Agagianian had openly opposed the policy of Soviet Armenia that encouraged diaspora Armenians to be repatriated to the “motherland”, a policy supported by Catholicos Gevork VI (1945-1954). 27. According to Archbishop Nerses Pozapalian (1937-2009), who had acted as locum tenens after the death of Vazgen in 1999, the late Catholicos was concerned about the beleaguered Armenian Catholic faithful during the Soviet period, providing them some spiritual care whenever possible, but always respecting their allegiance to Rome. In addition, it was he who had specially invited the Mkhitarists of Venice to care for the Catholic faithful

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

271

as, specifically, he was a member of the Mkhitarist Congregation whose achievements had come to be regarded with appreciation by the Apostolic Church28. Members of that Congregation, including its founder, had perhaps not always been in favour of the establishment of the Catholic Catholicosate of 1742, at the time seeing it as a possible future cause of furthering too sharp a division between the Armenian Apostolic Church and those Armenians who favoured union with Rome. For them, a more cautious approach might have eventually borne fruit29. V. PAPAL MEETINGS WITH APOSTOLIC CHURCH LEADERS Meetings between Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis and the Catholicoses of Etchmiadzin, Karekin I (elected 1994) and Karekin II (elected 1999), and the Catholicos Aram I of Antelias (elected 1994), as well as the patriarchs of Istanbul and Jerusalem, became ever more frequent. One of particular note was the meeting between John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I (formerly Karekin II of Antelias). A Common Declaration was issued in Rome on 13 December 1996, which underlined advances made in the deepening of the relations between the two churches. Reference was also made to the christological question that had divided the Oriental Eastern Churches from those of Rome and Constantinople, as they welcomed the great advance that their Churches have registered in their common search for unity in Christ, the Word of God made flesh. Perfect God as to his divinity, perfect man as to his humanity, his divinity is united to his after the fall of the Soviet system (from a conversation with the author, Kınalı Adı, Istanbul, 2004). 28. Even Ormanian, an arch critic of the Roman Church, regarded the Mkhitarists and their achievements with respect. Cf. M. ORMANIAN, The Church of Armenia: Her History, Doctrine, Rule, Discipline, Liturgy, Literature and Existing Condition, London, Mowbray, 1955, p. 68. For an overview of the achievements of the Congregation: K. BARDAKJIAN, The Mekhitarist Contributions to Armenian Culture and Scholarship, Cambridge, MA, Harvard College Library, 1976. 29. However, once Benedict XIV had chosen to recognize Abraham Ardzivian as Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia for the Armenian Catholic faithful, Mkhitar accepted the papal decision. Importantly, Mkhitar may be seen as a worthy successor to Nerses Snorhali and Nerses of Lambron, leading Armenian clergy of the twelfth century, both of whom were irenic in their approach to both Latins and Orthodox. Cf. L. ZEKIYAN, The Religious Quarrels of the 14th Century Preluding to the Subsequent Divisions and Ecclesiological Status of the Armenian Church, in Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 1 (1997) 164-180; G. DÉDÉYAN, Le rôle complémentaire des frères Pahlawuni Gregor III, Catholicos, et Saint Nersēs Šnorhali, Coadjuteur, dans le rapprochement avec les Latins, à l’époque de la chute d’Édesse (v. 1139 – v. 1150), in Revue des Études Arméniennes 23 (1992) 237-252.

272

J. WHOOLEY

humanity in the Person of the Only-begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation30.

Five years later, on February 2, 2001, the Apostolic Letter of John Paul II was issued marking the “1,700th Anniversary of the Baptism of the Armenian People”. This was to be followed by a three-day visit of the Pope himself to Armenia in late September of the same year. During that visit another Common Declaration was signed by the Pope and Catholicos Karekin II, containing references to “the first Genocide of the twentieth century”, a reference which was to evoke the anger of the Turkish government. On April 12, 2015, both Apostolic Catholicoses, Karekin II and Aram I, were present in St. Peter’s (Rome), for a mass celebrated by Pope Francis commemorating the centenary of the Genocide. Concelebrating with him was the Armenian Catholic Patriarch, Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni. With the agreement of the Apostolic Church, this was also the occasion when Gregory of Narek (951-1003), a spiritual thinker and writer in the Apostolic tradition, was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church. A statue of the saint was unveiled in the Vatican Gardens on 5 April 2018, given to the pope by the President of Armenia, Serge Sargsyan, two years before. The president himself attended, along with the two Apostolic Catholicoses, as well as the Armenian Catholic Patriarch, Krikor Bedros XX Gabroyan31. Another similarly symbolic statue, almost 18 feet in height, this time of St. Gregory the Illuminator, is found in one of the niches on the exterior of St. Peter’s (Pope John Paul II had blessed it on 19 January 2005).

VI. THE ARMENIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: GROWTH IN CONFIDENCE? These various events – and not all are listed here – represent the growing contacts and warmth between the highest levels of the Catholic and the Armenian Apostolic Churches. But what of the Armenian Catholic 30. Third paragraph of the Declaration. Regarding Chalcedon, cf. K. SARKISSIAN, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, New York, The Armenian Church Prelacy, 1965. Sarkissian, who had acted for a time as an observer at the Council, was later elected to the See of Antelias as Karekin II and then, as mentioned above, of Etchmiadzin, as Karekin I, the first such development in the history of the Apostolic Church. 31. This was to be one of the president’s final engagements, for on the 23rd of that month he was obliged to resign as a consequence of the “Velvet Revolution” led by Nikol Pashinyan.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

273

Church itself? As with the other Eastern Catholic Churches, the former importance given to it as a paradigm of an apparently successful experiment of union with the Roman See, of acting as a “bridge” between the Roman and Armenian traditions and representing an “ecumenism of return”, was no longer acceptable. As so-called “uniates”, seen by the Orthodox as products of misguided Western missionary activity, these churches had been shunned by and frequently in conflict with what were now being termed by Rome as “sister churches”32. Were they now being shunned by Rome herself after centuries of loyalty and because of the animosity shown to them by many of their “co-nationals”? Both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches were being wooed by Rome, and sincerely so; and they were willing to be so wooed, as long as their Eastern Catholic “counterparts” were excluded from any form of official rapprochement. Yet such rapprochement on the wider ecumenical stage has indeed become more common, precisely the result of such warmth and courtesy being displayed between the leaders of the churches, as examples to all and sundry, for prelates, clergy and laity. This, however, seems more evident with the Oriental Churches. It could be argued that this irenicism was founded on the fundamental change of attitudes on the part of Rome during the unfolding of the Vatican Council. Regarding the Armenian ecclesiastical situation, matters have now eased considerably between the two churches, that is, the Armenian Catholic and Apostolic. Two very early examples, seemingly insignificant, are of consequence. In 1965, for one of the ceremonies marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Genocide, the Armenian Catholic Patriarch, Batanian, at the invitation of Catholicos Vazken, was present in Etchmiadzin along with other guests for the dedication of the Khachkar Monument (on October 31)33. Earlier that same year, in September, he had been received with great honour at the

32. The accusation of being “uniate” is strongly objected to by the Armenian Catholic Church, not only because of its pejorative application but, more particularly, its historical inaccuracy. Cf. The Armenian Nation and the Armenian Catholic Church, New York, Apostolic Exarchate for Armenians, 1994, pp. 63-70. Concerning Chalcedonian Armenians, cf. I. AUGÉ, Le choix de la foi chalcédonienne chez les Arméniens, in Cahiers d’études du religieux: Recherches interdisciplinaires 9 (2011), http://cerri.revues.org/871 (accessed 12 May 2020); V.A. ARUTJUNOVA-FIDANJIAN, The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians, in Revue des Études Arméniennes 21 (1988-1989) 345-363; A. LIDOV, The Wall Paintings of Akhtala Monastery: History, Iconography, Masters, Moscow, Dmitry Pozharsky University, 2014. 33. Cf. Z. ARZOUMANIAN, The Armenian Apostolic Church in Recent Times 1955-1995: A Path to the 21st Century. Pontificate of Vasken I Catholicos of All Armenians, Burbank, CA, Zaven Arzoumanian, 2010, p. 113.

274

J. WHOOLEY

Armenian Apostolic Patriarchate in Kumkapı, Istanbul34. Such encounters are now almost de rigueur. On a more personal level, the annual commemoration of the Genocide throughout the diaspora on April 24 usually brings the communities together. The presence of representatives of the Armenian Churches, including the Evangelical, at functions organized by one or other of their “co-nationals” is now more in evidence. It has become so much the norm that for ordinary Armenian faithful, whether Catholic or Apostolic, the divisions between them often seem incomprehensible, as well as the times of internal conflict between Etchmiadzin and Antelias35, or between Etchmiadzin and the patriarchates of Istanbul and Jerusalem. An echo of this may be seen in that Etchmiadzin and Antelias each send representatives to the ongoing official dialogue with Rome36. It would seem that there is now a greater understanding by Rome of the difficulties being endured by the Eastern Catholics. There has been an abandonment of any dismissive view of them that may have been held by some during the search for union with their various “mother churches”. The establishment of an official dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the direct participation of the Armenian Apostolic Church and Eastern Catholics, is a remarkable achievement. Such a process is proving fruitful and is giving confidence to the Armenian Catholic Church as well as to the other Oriental Catholic participants. Regarding the victims of the Genocide, after some deliberation, both Catholicosates of the Apostolic Church finally, at the same ceremony at Etchmiadzin on 23 April 2015, declared them to be martyrs for the faith and therefore to be recognized as saints. The new Armenian Catholic Cathedral in Gyumri, consecrated that same year, was dedicated to the “Holy Martyrs”37. Due to the usually lengthy process involved in the 34. H. TCHOLAKIAN, L’Église Arménienne catholique en Turquie, Istanbul, Ohan Matbaacilik, 1998, p. 355. 35. For an example of tensions between the Catholicosates, see Un synode de l’Église arménienne, in Proche Orient Chrétien 19 (1969) 351-353. 36. Both jurisdictions have been represented separately at the World Council of Churches since 1962. Both again were represented separately at the Great Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches held in Addis Ababa in 1965 at the invitation of Emperor Haile Selassie. In addition, the presence of two separate hierarchs representing each of the Catholicosates may be found in the same territory (for example, in the United States where, incidentally, this division began to consolidate as a consequence of the murder of Archbishop Levon Tourian by political opponents in the Church of the Holy Cross, New York, on 24 December 1933). 37. The relative speed by which the Armenian Catholic Church was given legal recognition by the newly independent Republic of Armenia, along with other “traditional religious organizations”, was an important moment for the self-esteem of the Armenian

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

275

decision to canonize individuals or groups of individuals, the Catholic Church has not taken a similar step as regards the Armenian Catholic victims of the genocidal policy of the Young Turk regime. Of those victims, only one so far has been beatified, Ignatius Shoukrallah Maloyan, Archbishop of Mardin, who was martyred outside his city in 1915, and was beatified by the pope on October 7, 200138. The dedication of the cathedral in Gyumri, therefore, had a special significance as it demonstrated solidarity with a decision of the Apostolic Church39. Among those present at the consecration of the new cathedral were President Sargsyan as well as representatives of the Apostolic Church, once again reflecting the amicable relations that now officially exist between the Armenian Catholic Church and the “mother church” – as many Armenian Catholics regard the Apostolic Church40. Nevertheless, despite official acceptance of the activity of both Armenian Catholics and Evangelicals in the country, or indeed elsewhere, it is inevitable that from time to time there will be misunderstandings with local Apostolic clergy and people. The work of the Armenian Catholic Sisters in Gyumri and nearby districts, for example, inevitably brings them into contact with ordinary Apostolic faithful and, as with other such day-to-day contacts, great care has to be taken that accusations of proselytism not arise41. Any tensions need to be resolved as amicably as possible. The present search for reconciliation, especially as regards the Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches, is now sought for, so that there need not be fear of fellow Armenian “rivals” in the field of pastoral care42.

Catholic clergy and laity, and not only for those in Armenia itself. No objections were made by the influential Apostolic Church, whereas its negative views on a number of sects that were establishing themselves in the country were being clearly stated in the public forum. The Armenian Catholic Church was also encouraged by the establishment of full diplomatic relations between Armenia and the Holy See in 1992. For a discussion of the 1991 law, the 1993 decree and the 1997 amendments concerning freedom of religion, cf. CORLEY, Face to Face with the Government and the Church (n. 24). 38. Cf. N. NAAMAN, Ignace Maloyan: l’homme, le martyr et le bienheureux, Bzommar, Couvent Notre-Dame de Bzommar, 2001. 39. Originally, the building was to be dedicated to St. Gregory the Illuminator. 40. This could also be said of many Armenian Evangelicals, both in Armenia and the diaspora. 41. The Congregation of the Armenian Sisters of the Immaculate Conception was founded in Constantinople by Patriarch-Catholicos Hassoun in 1847. Their headquarters are now in Rome. 42. These and related matters – to facilitate communication and the avoidance of tension – were spoken of in some detail in the Balamand Document under the section: Practical Rules, recommendations, nn. 19-35.

276

J. WHOOLEY

VII. MOTIVATIONS There have been a number of motives that have promoted all these developments. There is first the need to fulfil the desire expressed by Christ for unity among his followers, so that his message might be more efficacious in a world not necessarily predisposed to hear and absorb it43. Aware of the failures of the past in this respect, and more aware of the reasons for such failures, the churches in the quest for unity have been led to an examination of the period when such unity did in fact exist. For the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches paradigmatic is the period prior to Chalcedon. This historical reflection resulted in the second document44 issued by the International Joint Commission in 2015: “The Exercise of Communion in the Life of the Early Church and Its Implications for Our Search for Communion Today”45. There are also practical necessities to take into consideration and these not unconnected to the former. For both the Armenian Catholic and Apostolic Churches, there has been the dangerous political context in the Middle East in recent years, notably among Israel and Palestinians, but also by the centuries of conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, as well as the recent devastation wrought by ISIS/ISIL46. Though the region in question is clearly not the original homeland of the Armenian people, great numbers of refugees had settled there. The original “colonies”, founded for trading purposes, were therefore considerably enlarged by these new arrivals, many of whom were survivors of the Genocide. Now, however, the Armenian communities have found themselves under pressure to leave once again for safer lands due to the instability in the region. This has affected all the Christian communities and has led to the serious diminution of their presence in the very region where Christianity originated. Christian religious leadership, therefore, particularly since the Second Vatican Council, has been energized into seeking better relations with one another and not indulging in rivalries, or worse, proselytism. 43. Cf. Jn 17,21. 44. The first document, Nature, Constitution and Mission of the Church, was issued in 2009; it is regarded as the result of “the first phase of the dialogue, from 2003 to 2009” (cf. Address of Benedict XVI to members of the Joint International Commission, 28 January 2011). 45. A similar document was issued the following year by the Joint International Commission for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches: “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church”. 46. ISIS: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; also known as ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

277

Even among Eastern Catholic Churches there was often preference to live and act in isolation. The Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) founded in 1974 had no Catholic involvement until 1990 when not only the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, but also the Eastern Catholic Churches of the region, were able to participate. This included the Armenian Catholic Church, which came into official contact with the Apostolic Church. A number of local circumstances have encouraged the churches to act together. It could be said that the MECC might have acted as a model contributing to the establishment of the present official dialogue between Rome and the Oriental Churches with the active presence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. As a corollary to the exodus of Christians from the Middle East, there is the problem of far-flung diaspora communities, and the preservation of their ancestral faith and customs. Attempting to hold communities together in often very different cultural contexts, and to provide spiritual support for the faithful, is a continual struggle. One major problem is the natural inclination of the young, in general, to wish themselves to be identified with the dominant culture. For both the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches to preserve the Armenian identity, language and faith in these circumstances has brought them closer together in this endeavour, at least as far as it is possible to do so47. This is not unique to the Armenians, but to all the members of other Christian Churches “exiled” from their troubled homelands. Russia contains a considerable Armenian population, with most, though, having only a cultural connection to their Church. There is also the factor that substantial numbers of Armenian Catholics have reappeared since the fall of communism, most of these scattered throughout the Russian Federation48. The question of evangelization, itself a problem in Armenia, is exacerbated when Russia itself comes into focus. The Armenian Catholic Church is ill-equipped at present to deal with such numbers. For the sake of the Christian faith in its particular Armenian expression, it is becoming clear that the final unity of these two Armenian Churches, now less estranged, would be of considerable importance in the pursuit of evangelization. It is understood that the hierarchy of the Armenian Catholic Church, as part of the move towards unity, would be 47. Cf. J. WHOOLEY, Reflections on the History of the Armenian Church and Community in Argentina, Especially in Buenos Aires, in C. ESCHE-RAMSHORN (ed.), Reflections on Armenia and the Christian Orient: Studies in Honour of Vrej Nersessian, Yerevan, Ankyunacar, 2017, 285-301. 48. Cf. Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA), Eastern Catholic Churches, Statistics 2017: Ordinariate for Eastern Europe, compiled by R.G. ROBERSON.

278

J. WHOOLEY

willing to relinquish their hierarchical ranks if circumstances called for such a need. However, problems within the Apostolic Church, already referred to, need to be addressed. Further, the Balamand Document has played a discrete role in the unfolding of better relations. In addition, a gradual move on the part of Rome itself toward a more ecumenical ecclesiology, one more in line with earlier centuries, allowing greater subsidiarity in the area of local church self-government, could help provide a definitive solution.

VIII. POSTSCRIPT Regrettably, Metropolitan Anba Bishoy of Damietta died on 2 October 2018, at the age of 76. The new Co-President of the Commission is also a Coptic Orthodox prelate: Bishop Kyrillos of the Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California and Hawaii. Perhaps significantly, he is the first American-born Coptic Orthodox bishop. He was chosen at the first session held by the members of the Oriental Orthodox delegation on the morning of 28 January 2019. This choice may have been decided upon beforehand and, presumably, the approval of Pope Tawadros II (elected 2012) would have had to have been sought before the choice was finally made public. It is understood that Bishop Bishoy had been a controversial figure on occasions, as was indeed the former Coptic Pope Shenouda III. The appointment of Kyrillos may indicate a change of policy as regards the ecumenical approach of the Coptic Church. Up to that point, Kyrillos had only once attended the annual gatherings in the capacity of an observer (2017)49. At the sixteenth meeting of the International Commission, the customary presence of Archbishops Zekiyan and Marayati was notable, representing the Armenian Catholic Church, as was that of Archbishop Barsamian for Etchmiadzin. Fr. Shahe Ananyan, Director of Interchurch Relationships, also represented Etchmiadzin for the seventh consecutive meeting. Bishop Ashkarian (Vicar of the Armenian Prelacy, Teheran), and Fr. Boghos Tinkjian (Dean of the Theological Seminary, Antelias), both representing the See of Cilicia, were also familiar faces. The recently published report states that the participants studied the sacrament of marriage as understood by the traditions of the churches concerned, thus 49. In 2018, he was to return again as an observer, but was unable to attend.

IN THE SHADOW OF BALAMAND

279

continuing the theme of the seven sacraments of the previous four meetings. Following the 18th meeting, held at Atchomah, Lebanon, in January 2020, the following two meetings for 2021 and 2022, due to the Covid Pandemic, had to be held on line. Nevertheless, progress was made. According to information issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, a document on the nature and number of the sacraments is likely be issued at a plenary session of the Commission to be held in Rome in June 2022, the third such document of import to be forthcoming since the dialogue began. The next matter for discussion is due to be “The Virgin Mary in the teaching and life of the Church”. Such is the progress in this particular dialogue that it inspires hope for the eventual attainment of full communion between these churches. Church of St Anthony of Padua 22 The Crosspath Radlett Hertfordshire WD7 8HN United Kingdom [email protected]

John WHOOLEY

THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST, THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AN ATTEMPT AT UNDERSTANDING THEIR INTERRELATION

The Balamand Document, written by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is, of course, not directly relevant in discussing the relationship between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Church of Rome and the place, therein, of the Chaldean Church. However, the “Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East”1, signed only one year after Balamand (1994), triggered a set of questions, comparable to the issues discussed in the aftermath of Balamand, especially on the role of the Chaldean Church. This justifies this contribution in the present volume. Before giving an analysis of the present-day situation, it is useful to give a brief historical overview of how, throughout history, the Church of the East and the Church of Rome have viewed their relationships with each other. This is important because the history of separation is much longer than in the case of the Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox Churches. This separation was partly due to religious factors and the accusation of “Nestorianism”, but also to political developments as the Nestorian (Assyrian) Church developed its ecclesiastical structures in the Persian Empire outside the Greco-Roman world and, later, in the lands of Islam since the seventh century. Still, it seems that the Church of the East, more than the other Eastern non-Chalcedonian Churches, has had a long history of reflection on the primacy of the see of Peter2. This history plays a role in present-day discussions including, for example, the views in this respect expressed by the former Assyrian and now Chaldean Bishop Bawai Soro (discussed later in this essay).

1. For the text, see H. TEULE, Les Assyro-Chaldéens: Chrétiens d’Irak, d’Iran et de Turquie, Turnhout, Brepols, 2008, pp. 103-106. 2. Cf. H. TEULE, Autonomie patriarcale, ministère pétrinien et attitude de l’Église d’Orient envers l’Église romaine, in Science et Esprit 65 (2013) 65-82.

282

H.G.B. TEULE

I. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION The issue of the relationship with Rome hardly played a role in the formative years of the Church of the East in the fifth and sixth centuries. This was the period during which the Easterners established their autonomy vis-à-vis the Western Patriarchates, reflected in several conciliar or synodical texts preserved in the so-called synodicon orientale, composed around 800, possibly by Patriarch Timothy I. This picture is confirmed in some later patriarchal statements or canonical documents which emphasized the universal primacy of the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. For Patriarch Timothy, the issue is clear. In a letter to the Bishop of Mosul, Maranzekha, he explains that Rome may have been founded by the first of the Apostles, but that the first place or rank (taksa qadmaya) goes to the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon because the Church of Seleucia was founded by the master of Peter, Jesus Christ himself3. In the Fiqh al-Naṣrāniyya, The Lawbook of the Christians, composed at the beginning of the eleventh century by the Nestorian scholar from Baghdad Abu l-Faraj ‘Abdallah ibn al-Ṭayyib, we find that the “four patriarchates” (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch) are equal in rank. Basing himself on the pseudo-canons of Nicea, he gives a certain priority to the Pope of Rome, who is said to be the qā’im maqām, the locum tenens one could say, of Peter4. This became the classical position of the Church of the East, which is also reflected in some contemporary historiographical works containing important chapters on the “Patriarchs of Rome”5. This recognition of a certain Roman primacy had, however, no practical or canonical consequences. Rome after all, from the perspective of the Orientals, was in those days situated in a distant land. A new period began in the thirteenth century, when Dominican missionaries were sent to Mesopotamia, the heartland of the Church of the East, and to other regions under Mongol rule. In 1256, an East-Syrian monk 3. For this letter, see O. BRAUN, Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae, vol. 1 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 74), Louvain, Secrétariat du CSCO, 1915, pp. 148-149; F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET et al., Lettre du patriarche Timothée à Maranzekha, évêque de Ninive, in Journal Asiatique 288 (2000) 1-13 (Fr. trans.) and V. BERTI, Vita e Studi di Timoteo I (+823), Patriarca Cristiano di Baghdad, Paris, Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2009, pp. 184-185. In this letter, Timothy speaks of five patriarchates but, apart from Seleucia-Ctesiphon, without mentioning their names. 4. Cf. W. HOENERBACH – O. SPIES, Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyib. Fiqh an-Naṣrānīya, Das Recht der Christenheit, vols. 1 and 2 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 161-62), Louvain, Secrétariat du CSCO, 1956, p. 32 (trans. p. 28). 5. See for example the Mukhtaṣar al-akhbār al-bi‘iyya, a “shorter ecclesiastical history” composed in the eleventh century, ed. B. ḤADDĀD, Baghdad, 2000, pp. 57-59.

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

283

called Simeon, representative of the Patriarch in Tabriz in Mongol territory, sent a letter to Rome. It was probably an answer to the famous bull by Pope Innocent IV Cum simus super (1245), in an attempt at explaining the idea of Roman primacy to the heads of various Eastern and Oriental Churches6. Simeon was most impressed when he received this letter (or any another papal document) feeling, as he says, like his New Testament namesake of the Gospel of Luke when he took the child Jesus in his arms. In his answer, he addressed the Pope in the most praising terms, calling him the “Father of Fathers, the sun of justice shining over the four climates of the earth, Peter, Pope of Rome and of all the climates of the world”7. Samuel Giamil, the Chaldean monk who at the beginning of the twentieth century studied the relations between Rome and the Assyrian Church, understood this letter as if Simeon had accepted the primacy and authority of the Pope8. Unfortunately, this letter has only been preserved in the Latin translation made by the Dominican André de Longjumeau. Simeon’s letter marked the beginning of fifty years of intensive contacts and epistolary exchanges between the pope and the hierarchs of the Church of the East. A well-known encounter was the meeting between Rabban Sauma, the envoy of the Nestorian Patriarch Yahbalāhā III, and Pope Nicholas IV who allowed his Nestorian guest to celebrate qorbana according to his own rite and a few days later, on Palm Sunday, admitted him to Holy Communion (1288)9. This gesture was interpreted by Cardinal Eugène Tisserant (1884-1972), Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in his famous article on the Nestorians, that Rome considered him as Catholic10. Interestingly, when Rabban Barsaumā was interrogated about his faith, he gave the classical presentation of Nestorian christology. We may assume that the report of this encounter was drafted some time later, at the beginning of the fourteenth century. It shows that in the eyes of the theologians of the Church of the East of those days, the traditional christology of the Church of the East had to be upheld against 6. Cf. P. JACKSON, The Mongols and the West 1221-1410, Abingdon, Routledge, 2005, pp. 62-66. 7. For the Latin translation of this letter, see Pontificia Commissio ad redigendum codicem iuris canonici orientalis (ed.), Fontes III.4, Acta Innocentii PP. IV, Roma, Pontificia Commissio ad redigendum codicem iuris canonici orientalis, 1962, pp. 95-98. 8. S. GIAMIL, Genuinae relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldeorum Ecclesiam, Roma, Loescher, 1912, pp. xxx-xxxi and 1-3. 9. P.-G. BORBONE (ed.), Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauwma: Cronaca siriaca del XIV secolo, Moncalieri, Lulu Press, 2009, pp. 36*-37* (trans. pp. 81-82). 10. E. TISSERANT, Nestorienne (l’Église) – relations avec Rome, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 11, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1931, cols. 221-222.

284

H.G.B. TEULE

the suggestions of adopting other christological formulas in various letters sent by popes to Mesopotamia. In this respect, a most famous document is the letter sent by Patriarch Yahbalaha III to Pope Benedict XI in 1304 on the occasion of his enthronization. In this letter, Yahbalaha seems to accept the filioque, an important issue for the Roman authorities competent in the relations with the Church of the East; is prepared to call Mary Theotokos; and, moreover, puts himself under the obedience of the Pope (et nos sub obedientia ejus sumus). It is this letter, as well as the document of Simeon, which led Cardinal Tisserant to conclude that Yahbalaha and the Church of the East were in favour of a structural union with Rome11. For his interpretation, Tisserant based himself on the Latin text of this letter, which had been drafted by the Dominican Jacques d’Arles sur Tech. When one looks, however, at the original text written in Arabic with some Syriac additions, one quickly discovers that the dogmatic and jurisdictional concessions to Rome are completely absent from the original and had apparently been added by the Dominican friar12. Thus, despite an undeniable openness to Rome, there is no question of any theological concession on the side of the Church of the East. Regarding the issue of the primacy of the pope, despite the fact that Yahbalaha and some other leaders were prepared to accept a certain Roman pre-eminence and were eager to entertain relations, in their eyes these did not have any canonical implication. Less than forty years later, in 1340, however, the Nestorian community of Cyprus, through their local leader, signed a Catholic profession of faith and an act of submission to Pope Benedict XII at a local council convened by the Latin archbishop of Nicosia. It encompassed, however, only the local community and was short-lived. A century later, the same Nestorian community of Cyprus, represented by the metropolitan of Tarsus, accepted a Catholic profession of faith at the Council of Ferrara-Florence but, again, without any consequences for the Church of the East at large13. This changed in the next century with the creation of an Eastern Catholic Chaldean Church. The genesis of this Church is extremely complicated, with several false starts: an Eastern Catholic faction (the Sullaqa line) 11. Even some members of the Assyrian Church believe that Yahbalaha was in favour of a union with Rome which would, however, not be accepted by the other bishops of the Synod, see Voice of the East 62/7-8 (2015) 13-14. 12. For more details, see H. TEULE, Les professions de foi de Jean Sullāqā, premier patriarche chaldéen et de son successeur ‘Abdisho‘ d-Gāzartā, in M.-H. BLANCHET – F. GABRIEL (eds.), L’Union à l’épreuve du formulaire: professions de foi entre Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2016, 259-269, especially pp. 260-262. 13. Ibid., p. 262.

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

285

returned to Nestorianism and the rival traditional Nestorian community entered into communion with Rome14. Three points should be mentioned here. First, when the first union was achieved with John Sullāqā, it did not imply that the Orthodox or Nestorian faction was radicalized into an anti-Roman attitude. The latter continued relations with Rome (for example, several Nestorian patriarchs of Rabban Hormizd courted Latin missionaries and wrote letters to the Pope). In addition, the community that to-day constitutes the Assyrian Church of the East, originating from the Sullaqa line, had a history of having been in union with Rome for almost a century. Second, the second start of the Chaldean Church by the end of the seventeenth century, the so-called Joseph line of Diyarbakir, was the beginning of a strong process of latinization in the fields of liturgy, spirituality and theology, a development that continues until today (and is much resented by members of the Assyrian Church of the East). And finally, the third point is that unlike the other Eastern Catholic Churches in the Middle East (for example the Syrian Catholic Church), the members of the Chaldean Church soon outnumbered the faithful of the mother church. What is more, the historical circumstances which led the Assyrian Patriarch to move his see from the Middle East to the United States (in the thirties of the last century), allowed the Chaldeans to feel that they were the Middle Eastern continuators of the tradition of the Church of the East, who have fought for the continuation of their presence in their homeland, often in very difficult circumstances.

II. THE OFFICIAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST In November 1994, Pope John Paul II and the Assyrian PatriarchCatholicos Mar Dinkha IV issued a “Common Christological Declaration”. A few months earlier, in June of the same year, a first so-called “non-official consultation on dialogue within the Syriac tradition” had taken place in Vienna15. Despite the reference to the general Syriac tradition, this meeting, organized by the Austrian ecumenical Foundation Pro Oriente, was focused on the theology of the Church of the East. It was Pro Oriente’s first step in reaching out to this pre-Ephesian Church 14. See for example D. WILMSHURST, The Martyred Church, London, East & West Publishing, 2011, pp. 316-367. 15. The Acts were published by Pro Oriente, Syriac Dialogue: First Non-Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Wien, Horn, 1994.

286

H.G.B. TEULE

after the fruitful discussions Pro Oriente had organized between theologians of the Roman Catholic Church and the non-Chalcedonian Churches. As a matter of fact, the famous so-called Vienna Christological Formula, adopted in 1971, had paved the way to a number of common declarations between heads of several miaphysite or Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) and the Roman Pontiff16. Some elements of this Vienna formula are echoed also in the official Common Declaration of 1994. This document accepts the validity of the traditional christological formulas of both churches, especially the issue of the Theotokos-Christotokos, and declares that the divisions of the past were in large part due to misunderstandings. Before the official signing of the agreement, the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East unanimously approved the text because the declaration preserved “the faith, liturgy, order and leadership of each individual Church”. Though liturgy and church order, or leadership, are hardly mentioned in the declaration, this statement reveals a certain fear that such an agreement could implicitly lead to undesired concessions towards the Roman Church regarding church order and primacy. Nevertheless, this Christological Declaration was seen by both churches as a starting point for further dialogue, especially on the issue of the sacraments and the nature of the Church, including the position of the Pope. For this purpose, a Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the two churches was created, which met regularly in the subsequent years17. As a matter of fact, the importance of the 1994 agreement should not be underestimated. It was the first initiative that brought the Assyrian Church of the East out of the isolation in which it had found itself for many centuries, of not having been taken seriously by the Roman Catholic Church, which had preferred to reach out to the Christians of this Eastern tradition through the Chaldean (Catholic) Church. Within the framework of the present study on the Balamand Document, we should examine too the question of the place and role of the Chaldean Church in these discussions. During the official presentation of the Common Christological declaration, Pope John Paul II assured Catholicos Mar Dinkha that all the Chaldean bishops were in favour of the new declaration and supported the idea of achieving unity. Indeed, the declaration 16. Cf. B. SORO – J. BIRNIE, The Vienna Christological Formula in an Assyrian Perspective, ibid., 34-41. Cf. also B.-G. DRĂGHICI, The Pro Oriente Consultations and Their Ecumenical Methodologies, in this volume, 195-210. 17. Rome, 1995; Adma, 1996; Rome, 1997; London, 1998; Venice, 1999; Arezzo, 2000; Rome, 2001, 2002, 2003; London, 2004; Rome, 2017, 2018, 2019 (but see also infra).

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

287

seemed to mark the beginning of new ways of cooperation between the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. In 1995, the patriarchs of both churches, Mar Dinkha IV and the Chaldean Patriarch Raphael I Bidawid, met in Southfield, Michigan, and signed a Joint Patriarchal Statement that committed their two churches to working towards reintegration and pledged cooperation on pastoral questions (such as: the drafting of a common catechism; the setting up of a common seminary in the Chicago-Detroit area; the preservation of the Aramaic language; and, other common pastoral programs between parishes and dioceses around the world). On 15 August 1997, the two patriarchs met again, and ratified a “Joint Synodal Decree for Promoting Unity”, that had been signed by the members of both Holy Synods. It restated the areas of pastoral cooperation envisaged in the Joint Patriarchal Statement; recognized that Assyrians and Chaldeans should come to accept each other’s diverse practices as legitimate; formally implemented the establishment of an AssyrianChaldean “Joint Commission for Unity”; and declared that each church recognized the apostolic succession, sacraments and Christian witness of the other18. While both churches wanted to promote the knowledge of the Aramaic language and culture, and emphasized the necessity to study together their common heritage, they were realistic enough to acknowledge the de facto situation of separation, due to several centuries of rivalry. For this reason, the Assyrians underlined the importance of retaining their autonomy and their faithfulness towards the patriarchal structure, whereas the Chaldeans affirmed the necessity of maintaining full communion with Rome. In 2001, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued a statement which recognized the validity of the eucharistic celebration of the Assyrian Church, even though the anaphora of Addai and Maria, the most important of the three anaphoras used in the Church of the East, does not have an institution narrative. The Vatican recognized that though the words of the institution are not present ad litteram, they are not absent from the anaphora and are in a certain way a reality underlying the whole eucharistic prayer19. This statement opened the possibility that in case of pastoral necessity, Chaldean faithful were allowed to attend 18. Cf. Joint Synodal Decree for Promoting Unity between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Church (15 August 1997), in A. STIRNEMANN – G. WILFLINGER (eds.), Third Non-Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Wien, Pro Oriente, 1998, 185-188. 19. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Roma, 2001. Cf. A. NICHOLS, Rome and the Eastern Churches, San Francisco, CA, 22010, pp. 77-80.

288

H.G.B. TEULE

qorbana in an Assyrian Church and receive Holy Communion and vice versa. These initiatives between the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches are great steps forward after almost two centuries of mistrust, arrogance, rivalry or simply ignoring each other. In this respect, it is significant that like in the case of the discussions between the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches, representatives of the Chaldean Church participate in the meetings of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue. One of the important architects behind the rapprochement between the Roman Catholic and the Assyrian Church was Mar Bawai Soro. Bawai Soro was bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East, resident in San José in California, and had studied at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, and then at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, where he defended his doctorate in 2002 on the christology of the Church of the East, putting theological issues into a historical perspective20. At the Pro Oriente consultation of 1994, he tried to understand how the Vienna Christological Formula, written in view of a reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church and the miaphysite (Oriental) churches and containing a strong condemnation of Nestorianism, could be re-interpreted for the Roman Catholic and Assyrian dialogue. Unfortunately, in 2005 Bawai Soro was suspended by the Holy Synod from his episcopal office due to an internal conflict, not related to his (ecumenical) viewpoints regarding Assyrian-Catholic dialogue. In 2008, he joined the Chaldean Church, together with a substantial number of Assyrian faithful, mainly from California. To justify this step, he mentioned that besides the christological consensus, he had always felt that the office of Peter, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, was not incompatible with the ecclesiology of his own Church (referring to some of the historical documents I mentioned in my introduction). As a matter of fact, he was not officially received into the Chaldean Church as a bishop. The Chaldean bishop of San Diego in California, Sarhad Jammo took him under his personal protection and gave him an unofficial position within his diocese, however without any approval by Rome. It is clear that this conversion of an Assyrian bishop and his acceptance, though not official, into the Chaldean Church aroused fears that the ultimate aim of the consultations between both churches was proselytism and imposing a form of unity along the lines of the classical model of uniatism (namely, conversion into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church). As a result, the 20. B. SORO, The Church of the East: Apostolic and Orthodox, San José, CA, Adiabene Publications, 2007.

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

289

consultations were interrupted for several years21. The official reason given in a public statement by the Holy Synod in 2005 was that it would be impossible to move forward to the next step in the dialogue if the eventual aim would be – or should be – the acceptance of papal authority by the Church of the East. Among the Assyrians, there was the general feeling that the old fears and hesitations surrounding the Christological Declaration were justified. In the course of time, the tension ebbed away so that the official consultations could resume after a period of silence. Apparently, the fact that Bawai Soro, in 2014, was officially received into the Synod of the Chaldean Church, and in this way overcame his marginal and uncanonical situation, was no longer a stumbling block. In 2017, he was officially appointed bishop of Toronto for the Chaldeans. In the same year, both churches issued a common statement “on sacramental life”, the result of the former discussions, and expressed their commitment to continuing dialogue, now focused on ecclesiological issues. In his address to the pope during the meeting of November 2017, the head of the Assyrian delegation spoke of a long road, paved with “divergent ecclesiologies and different points of departure”22. To understand this Assyrian sensitivity, it is necessary to discuss an ecumenical initiative launched by the Chaldean Church in the year 2015. III. AN ATTEMPT AT UNIFICATION In the spring of that year, the co-architect of the Christological Declaration of 1994, Patriarch-Catholicos Dinkha IV passed away. The preparation of the elective synod was the momentum that initiated two important developments. First, the decision was taken that the see of the patriarchate would be relocated to Iraq, more specifically to Ankawa/ Erbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan. It put an end to the strange situation where the leader of the Church of the East had his residence in the West, in Chicago, and this since the interbellum period23. The Assyrians would now again become the immediate neighbours of the Chaldean Church, numerically the most important Church in Iraq24. Second, it was felt that it was time to put an end to the schism within the Church of the East which, in 1968, was split into two different branches on account of divergent views 21. Between 2005-2016, see supra note 17. 22. See The Voice of the East 64/11-12 (2017) 13-15. 23. Cf. TEULE, Les Assyro-Chaldéens (n. 1), pp. 36-38, 162-165. 24. Cf. K. GIRLING, The Chaldean Catholic Church: Modern History, Ecclesiology and Church-State Relations, Abingdon, Routledge, 2018.

290

H.G.B. TEULE

concerning the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by the Assyrian Patriarch in Chicago. This split-off church, officially called the Ancient Apostolic Church of the East, then elected its own patriarch and established its own ecclesiastical structures, centralized in Baghdad. It is well known that next to liturgical considerations, tribal and political factors were equally important for the creation of this second pre-Ephesian Church. The present patriarch is Mar Addai II, who still has his residence in the Iraqi capital. This small church has always been an active participant in the Pro Oriente informal discussions and, in this respect, was not totally absent from the ecumenical rapprochement between the Assyrian and the Roman Catholic Churches. The demise of Mar Dinkha seemed the right moment for reunification of the two branches, especially since the Mar Addai faction, on an earlier occasion, had already indicated its willingness to accept the Gregorian calendar. To give the Mar Addai faction some time for further reflection, the Assyrians decided to postpone the election of a new leader for a few months. These three issues together – the election of a new patriarch, the relocation of the centre of the Assyrian Church to Iraq and the possible reunification between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Apostolic Church of the East – prompted the Chaldean Patriarch Rufail Louis Sako to launch a new and totally unexpected initiative: the reunification of the Chaldean Church and the two “Orthodox” Churches. He himself declared that he was prepared to step down as patriarch, invited Mar Addai to do the same and suggested that the bishops of the three churches together would constitute a joint synod and then elect a new patriarch25. Two issues are important in Patriarch Sako’s proposal. The three churches should abandon their ethnic names (Assyrian, Chaldean) – he speaks of factional (fi’awiyya in the Arabic text) denominations – and unite under the common traditional name of “Church of the East”. Second, this Church of the East would be in communion with the “Holy Roman See”, but would “maintain its independence of administration, laws and liturgies, and other traditions” with respect for the authority of the Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops. He does not make clear whether this model would be different from the traditional conception of the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is clear that the situation of weakness and dwindling numbers of Christians in Iraq played a role in launching this initiative. The Patriarch spoke of a new roadmap being needed.

25. L. SAKO, The Unity of the Church of the East, declaration issued by the Chaldean Patriarchate in English and Arabic (25 June 2015), http://saint-adday.com/?p=8711 (accessed 21 July 2020); cf. GIRLING, The Chaldean Catholic Church (n. 24), pp. 226-229.

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

291

After a few months of embarrassed (?) silence, then came an answer: the Ancient Church of the East had already decided to keep its autonomy and was not willing to merge into the Assyrian Church26, let alone the greater Church of the East, as proposed by Sako. The Assyrian Church formulated an elaborate answer, that I would like to analyse in some detail because it shows that the traditional suspicions of the Assyrians towards the powerful Roman Catholic Church are still present in the minds of many, despite the theological consultations at the highest levels. The answer was formulated by Bishop Mar Awa Royel of Modesto, California, who was a former student at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome27 and a member of the joint Roman Catholic and Assyrian theological commission28. First, he was under no illusion as to what full communion with the Roman See would mean: subordination to the Roman Pontiff. This would mean that the Church of the East would be under the jurisdiction of a western bishop – which is emphasized several times by him – by which the Church of the East would cease to be the Church of the East. In other words, it would put an end to the “sacred canonical vocation and duty” of this Church “to the lands of the East”. The “East” is the territory of the Church of the East and cannot be given to foreigners or outsiders to the region, who never had a legitimate or historical presence there. The “East” is here understood to be the territory east of the former Roman Empire, of the former Sasanian Empire, but also inclusive of the whole of Asia where the Church of the East was the first to bring the message of the gospel. Despite the fact that today the Assyrian Church is reduced to Iraq and India, it has never given up the claim of universality and its capacity of reaching out to different cultures. Despite its current name Assyrian, the Church of the East is not an ethnic community and, as a universal Church, it stands alongside the Roman Catholic Church. Second, Mar Awa recognized that the Church of the East has always accepted the principle of pre-eminence of the Pope of Rome who, he says, was styled in the canonical tradition of the Church of the East as 26. Voice of the East 62/9-10 (2015) 5. 27. Cf. Mar AWA ROYEL, Mysteries of the Kingdom: The Sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, Modesto, Edessa Publications, 2011. 28. Mar AWA ROYEL, Authenticity in Unity: A Personal Reflection on Present-Day Questions concerning the Unity of the Church of the East, published on the official website of the Assyrian Church of the East, https://news.assyrianchurch.org/authenticity-in-unitya-personal-reflection-on-present-day-questions-concerning-the-unity-of-the-church-of-theeast (accessed 21 July 2020). Cf. GIRLING, The Chaldean Catholic Church (n. 24), pp. 225229.

292

H.G.B. TEULE

the “Patriarch of the West”29. But, he rejects the pretence of Rome to demand total jurisdiction over its fellow churches. Third, the Church of the East is the only church which has preserved the ancient Eastern heritage as expressed by the Aramaic fathers of Mesopotamia in the fields of liturgy, theology and spirituality, without any concession to foreign influences. Here Mar Awa strongly criticized the many latinizing elements which in the course of history have been accepted by the Chaldean Church in the fields of liturgy, of fasting, sacraments, canon law, spirituality, etc. He even speaks of latinization as a spiritual persecution and calls upon Chaldeans to return to the genuine Eastern tradition as preserved in the Church of the East. Retaining only some Eastern elements does not do justice to the genuine Eastern tradition. Fourth, the Assyrian Church of the East is not only engaged in dialogue with the Roman Church, but is equally so with other Eastern Churches (of the Byzantine tradition) and the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox Churches. These latter are considered as sister churches, the relation with whom seems the model for the relation with the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of the East has even started a trajectory of dialogue with the Patriarchate of Moscow30. The overtures towards Rome should be read in conjunction with Russian Orthodox-Assyrian discussions. Finally, throughout the whole text, Mar Awa has a clear vision of what it means to be an Eastern Catholic Church; he knows how the Chaldean Church of Mar Sako has all the characteristics of an Eastern Catholic community and refuses to entertain such a model of union. As an example, he says it would be impossible for the patriarch to assume his role as pater et caput of the faithful, since that role would be taken over by the pope. He even speaks of a “bridled Patriarch”. In another passage, he evokes the humiliation of the Chaldean Patriarch Joseph VI Audo (1848-1878), when he tried to defend the rights of the Chaldean – or more generally, the Eastern – patriarchs and the traditional customs of the Eastern Churches

29. Unfortunately, Mar Awa Royel does not mention which canon he has in mind. It seems that the term “patriarch of the West” is normally not used in the canonical documents of the Church of the East, which only mention in a general sense the “western patriarchs”, i.e., the incumbents of the sees of Rome, Constantinople (or Ephesus, in ancient layers of canonical texts), Alexandria and Antioch. See, for example, the Synod of 424 (J.-B. CHABOT, Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens, Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1902, pp. 51 and 296). “Patriarch of the West” is a term distinguishing Rome from the Eastern patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, relevant in Roman Catholic-Orthodox discussions. 30. After an initial meeting between Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV and Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk in 2014, several theological encounters between representatives of both churches have been organized. The fourth official meeting took place in November 2019.

THE ASSYRIAN, THE CHALDEAN AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

293

during the First Vatican Council31. What happened to Joseph Audo was, in his eyes, not a personal or a historical issue, but is characteristic of Roman attitudes and policies towards the Eastern Catholic Churches. Mar Awa even refers to some problematic examples of the Ukrainian GrecoCatholic Church. In other words, for him the choice is between “Roman with some Eastern elements” or keeping the faith whole as handed down by the Apostles (which requires fidelity to the tradition instead of the numerous Latin adaptions as can be witnessed in the Chaldean Church). IV. CONCLUSION Mar Awa’s letter makes us aware of the extant fear among the Assyrians that rushing into a form of unity would cause them to lose not only their autonomy but, even more, their tradition and their faithfulness to a history of Semitic Christianity, which they feel would be sacrificed on the altar of unity. From this it is clear that the next stage in the discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church, on ecclesiology, is not going to be easy. I wholeheartedly agree with Mar Awa that in order to take the discussions a step further, it might be a good idea to study the process of alienation between the two churches since the period of John Sullaqa, when there was only one Church of the East. As indicated in my brief historical introduction, this was not just a history of black and white, of one clear pro-Roman and one anti-Roman faction. Second, we should also ask ourselves what faithfulness to the tradition means. From Mar Awa’s message, one gets the impression that any deviation from traditional practice (for example, in the field of fasting or the use of Syriac as a liturgical language) would be a sort of betrayal, whereas Mar Sako emphasizes the need of faithfulness to the tradition taking into account the sociological reality of the faithful. Again, this opposition is somewhat artificial; the Church of the East too has undergone and assimilated – and still continues to do so – the influences of the different contexts of their faithful. Mar Awa himself, in other writings, emphasized the need for liturgical reform. Finally, after the decision of the Assyrian Church of the East to elect its own patriarch and its refusal of the proposal of Patriarch Sako, the 31. On this issue, see J. HAJJAR, Les chrétiens uniates du Proche-Orient, Damascus, Dar al-Tlass, 21995, pp. 301-309. A more general study on Audo is much needed; despite his clear anti-Roman position at Vatican I, some of his writings and decisions show the usual Chaldean latinizing tendencies. For example, he commissioned a poem on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

294

H.G.B. TEULE

Chaldean Church seems to have developed a new strategy. Whereas in the past, Mar Sako expressed his preference for not using ethnic labels for both churches32, the Chaldean Church seems to have developed a new policy, with an emphasis on the unique character of the Chaldean Church which is opposed to the Assyrian Church. Whereas Sako, in the past, argued that the Churches of the East should work together for the survival of Christianity in the Middle East, not of the individual churches, his creation of a Chaldean league is an expression of a certain disappointment about the reception of his proposal. All of the above reflects many of the complex issues inherent in discussions about Christian unity, Eastern Catholics and the problems of uniatism, and the relevance (and tacit reception) of some of the principles contained in the Balamand Document for dialogue with the Assyrian Church. Chronological update: In September 2021, Mar Awa was elected as the new Patriarch-Catholicos of the Church of the East after Mar Ghiwarghis III had stepped down for reasons of health. He was enthroned on the 13th of September 2021 in Erbil and adopted the official name of Mar Awa III. Mar Addai II passed away on February 11, 2022. On May 9, 2022, delegates of both Churches met to discuss plans for reunification. KU Leuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Sint-Michielsstraat 4 box 3100 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Herman G.B. TEULE

32. See supra his proposal at unification and H. TEULE, Christianity in Iraq and Chaldean Identity, in R. KITCHENER (ed.), The Future of Syriac Studies and the Legacy of Sebastian Brock (Eastern Christian Studies), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, forthcoming.

INDEX OF NAMES ῾ABDISHO῾ BAR BRIKA 209 ABOU’LFARADJ, G. 201n ABRAM, A. 249n ADDAI II 290, 294 AGHIORGOUSIS, M. 72 ALBERIGO, G. 269n ALEKSEY I 13n, 17, 21 ALEKSEY (ALEXIS) II 181 ALEMEZIAN, N. 262, 264 ALFEYEV (ALFEJEV), H. Æ HILARION ALFAYEV OF VOLOKOLAMSK ALLEN, P. 199n AL-SĀFI IBN AL-῾ASSAL 195 AMPHILOCHIOS (RADOVIC) 183 ANANYAN, S. 278 ANDREW OF VLADIMIR 119 ARAFAT, Y. 252n ARAM I (KECHICHIAN) 218, 271, 272 ARCHONDONIS, B. 51 ARDZIVIAN, A. 271n ARJAKOVSKY, A. 94n, 241n, 254, 256n ARUTJUNOVA-FIDANJIAN, V.A. 273n ARZOUMANIAN, Z. 273n ASHKARIAN, M. 278 ASPROULIS, N. 91n ATATÜRK, M.K. 265 ATHENAGORAS I XI, 5, 28, 51, 52, 53, 58, 67, 68, 80, 81, 95, 136, 264n, 269 AUDI, E. 234 AUDO, A. 249, 250n, 251 AUGÉ, I. 273n AWA (Royel) III 291, 292, 293, 294 BACEL, P. 227 BACHA, C. 228n BADGER, G.P. 209n BARDAKJIAN, K. 271n BAR HEBRAEUS (GREGORY) 201, 209, 210 BARLAAM OF CALABRIA 183, 184 BAR SALIBI (DIONYSIUS) 209 BARSAMIAN, K. 262, 264, 278

BARTHOLOMEW I 14, 35, 36, 67, 92, 106, 108, 109, 112, 124, 143, 185, 251, 252n, 258, 260, 263 BASHA, Q. 227-228 BASIL (THE GREAT) 201 BAZZELL, P.D. 114n BEA, A. 51, 52, 58, 268 BEAUDUIN, L. 254 BECHEALANY, S. 213n BEDJAN, P. 201n BEDROS AGAGIANIAN XV 268, 269, 270n BENEDICT XI 284 BENEDICT XII 184, 284 BENEDICT XIV 271n BENEDICT XV 254, 255, 265n BENEDICT XVI 14, 43n, 77n, 249n, 265n, 271, 276n BEREZOVS’KYJ, O. 125 BERKELEY, T. 242n BERNAT, C. 228n BERTI, V. 282n BIRNIE, J.M. 206n, 286n BISHOY, A. 261, 264, 278 BLANCHET, M.-H. 284n BOBRINSKOY, B. 180n BOGHOS I 265n BOHAK, G. 10n BORBONE, P.-G. 283n BORELLI, J. 29n, 95n, 101n, 105n BOST, H. 228n BOURGINE, B. 34n, 100n, 105n, 106n, 109n, 112n, 211, 212 BOUWEN, F. 47n, 100n, 111n, 201n, 217n, 222n BOWE, P. 251n BRAUN, O. 282n BREMER, T. 6n, 42n, 123n BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. 282n BROCK, S. 199n, 206n, 207n, 245n, 246n, 247n BRUEGGEMANN, W. 257n BRÜNING, A. 241n

296

INDEX OF NAMES

BUSTROS, C. 215, 234 CALAVASSY, G. 16 CAMUS, A. 251 CANNUYER, C. 44n CAPIZZI, C. 11n CAROLLA, M. 265n CASSIDY, E.I. 36, 111, 131, 135, 136, 140, 143, 144, 145, 263n CASTELLÓ, S.A. Y 189 CAWTE, J. 199n ČENCOVA, V.H. 121n, 122n CERULARIUS I 12 CHABOT, J.-B. 292n CHARON, C. 228 Æ KOROLEVSKIJ, C. CHEDIATH, G. 199n, 205n CHEVTCHOUK, S. Æ ŠEVČUK, S. CHIROVSKY, A. 142 CHOLOYAN, O. 264 CHRISTO (PROYKOV) 139n CHRISTODOULOS (OF DEMETRIAS) 106n, 108 CHRYSOSTOMOS OF PERISTERION 96n, 97n, 107, 108 CHRYSSAVGIS, J. 95n, 113n CIOFFARI, G. 21n CLEMENT VIII 12 CLÉMENT, O. 4, 14, 17, 101, 241-260 COAKLEY, J.F. 42n COHEN, W.T. 33n, 49, 50, 51, 60n, 67, 72, 74, 78n, 79n, 80, 81n, 106n, 107n COLWELL, P. 257n COMAN, V. XX, 91n CONGAR, Y. 67, 116, 224 CONSTANTELOS, D.J. 198n CORBAN, E. 230, 231 CORBON, J. 205n, 217n, 218n, 220n, 222n, 223, 228, 232, 235n, 238, 239, 244n, 245, 249n, 251, 253 CORLEY, F. 269n, 270n, 275n CRAGG, K. 244n, 252n CUCINOTTA, F.S. 269n CUDDON, J.A. 6n, 15n CYPRIAN (OF CARTHAGE) 54n CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA 190, 198, 202, 203 CYRIL I 58, 137 CYRIL VI 227 DACKO, I. 139n, 149, 150

DAMASKINOS (PAPANDREOU) 51n, 68, 70, 72, 81n DA SILVA CANDIDA, H. 12 DAVEY, C. 30n, 31n DÉDÉYAN, G. 271n DE FOUCAULD, C. 251 DE HALLEUX, A. 14, 32n, 45n, 95n, 97n, 98, 99n, 100n, 101n, 102n, 107n, 110n, 137n, 180n DELLA CAVA, R. 145n DE LONGJUMEAU, A. 283 DEMACOPOULOS, G.E. 45n, 94n, 107n DE MEY, P. XI, XXI, 96n, 114n, 133n, 227n, 255n, 256n, 260n DENYSENKO, N.E. 123n, 241n DENZINGER, H. 200n DERDERIAN, Y. 269 DESSEAUX, J.E. 78n DESTIVELLE, H. 78n DE VRIES, W. 200n DE WITTE, P. 133n DICK, I. 245n, 246n, 247n, 248n, 249, 250, 259 DIMITRIOS I 14, 30, 61, 80, 92, 95, 137 DINKHA IV 206, 207, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 292n DINOV, G. 189n DIONYSIATIS, T. 108 DIONYSIUS IV 121 DONAHUE, J.J. 251n DONČO, I. 189n DONNE, J. 15n DONZÉ, M. 211 DOROTHEUS III 228n DOSITHEUS NOTARAS 20 DOYLE, D.M. 114n DRĂGHICI, B.-G. XVII, 210, 233n, 286n D’SOUZA, A.A. 140 DUMONT, C. 51n DUPREY, P. 8n, 13n, 32n, 51n, 140, 143, 211, 232 DUPUY, B. 8n EDELBY, NAGI XVII, 213n, 226, 233n, 247n EDELBY, NEOPHYTOS 231, 249, 250 EDWARDS, G. 116n ELIAS IV MOUAWAD 231, 232 EMMANUEL (OF FRANCE) 78n EMMEL, S. 201n

INDEX OF NAMES

EPHRAIM (THE SYRIAN) 245 EPIPHANY (DUMENKO) 124 ERCOLE (LUPINACCI) 139n ERICKSON, J.H. 12, 21, 22, 31n, 72, 93, 95n, 100n, 101, 105n, 106n, 107n, 110n ESCHE-RAMSHORN, C. 277n EUGENE IV 165 EVANS, G.R. 8n, 32n FARANTOS, M. 107, 108 FARRUGIA, E.G. XIIn, XIII, 3n, 9n, 12n, 16n, 20n, 23n, 25, 27n, 117n, 195, 253 FATTAL, A. 247n FAUSTOVA, M. 155n FEDALTO, G. 11n FLANNERY, J. 246n, 249n FLEYFEL, A. 228n, 230n FLORENSKY, P. 6, 7n FORD, D.F. 243n FOTESCU-TAUWINKL, C. 195n FRANCIS I XVI, 23, 24, 39, 67, 127, 153, 156, 157, 159, 161, 165, 166, 167, 190n, 252, 258, 260, 271, 272 FURRY, T.J. 114n GABRIEL, F. 284n GADAMER, H.-G. 6 GALADZA, P. 142, 149 GALLAGHER, P. 249n GARUTI, A. 67 GAUCI, J. V. 243n GEORGE, K.M. 27n GEORGE, M.V. 199n GEORGELIN, H. 265n GEVORK VI 270 GHANDOUR, G. 227n GHANDŪR, J. 237n GHIWARGHIS III 294 GIAMIL, S. 283 GIANAZZA, G. 209n GIANNOUTAKI, V. 91n GIRARD, A. 228n GIRLING, K. 241n, 289n, 290n, 291n GOURGUES, M. 8n, 32n GREGORIOS III LAHAM 253n, 256 GREGORY OF NAREK 272 GREGORY PALAMAS 183, 184 GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR 272, 275n GRIFFITH, S.H. 247

297

GRILLMEIER, A. 199n GROEN, B. 15n, 121n, 136n GROSSHANS, H.-P. 91n GRÜNBART, M. 239n GUDZIAK, B.A. 15, 45n, 136n, 142 GUGEROTTI, C. 157, 160, 161 GUIDI, M. 10 GUTIU, G. 171n HACHEM, G. 213n, 214n, 215n, 216n, 217, 219n, 221n, 232n, 249n, 255n ḤADDĀD, B. 282n HADDAD, G. 230, 231 HAILE, G. 198n HAILE SELASSIE 197-198n, 274n HAINTHALER, T. 199n HAJJAR, J. 229n, 254n, 293n HAKOBIAN, P. 270n HALLENSLEBEN, B. XIV, 70n, 71n, 75, 78n HANSEN, H. 242n HASSOUN (ANDON BEDROS IX) 275n HÉBERT, L. 175n HEIDEGGER, M. 13n HERMANIUK, M. 255 HILARION (Alfayev) OF VOLOKOLAMSK XXI, 40n, 41, 42n, 46n, 92, 124n, 155, 160, 163, 165, 165n, 263, 292n HIRKA, J. 139n HOECK, J. 17 HOENERBACH, W. 282n HOFRICHTER, P. 197n HOUTEPEN, A. 27n HOVANNISIAN, R.G. 265n HOVHANNES BEDROS XVIII KASPARIAN 270 HOVORUN, C. XV, 129, 158n HRYNCHYSHYN (HRYNČYŠYN), M. 17, 18, 19 HRYNIEWICZ, W. 60, 67, 96n, 263n HUGH-DONOVAN, S. XVIII, 243n, 259n, 260 HUMMERSTONE, J. 257n HUSAR, L. 94n, 145, 146, 147, 148, 254 IBAS OF EDESSA 11n IBN AL-ṬAYYIB, ABU L-FARAJ ‘ABDALLAH 282 IBN DAWUD AL-ARFADI, ῾ALI 195, 209 IBRAHIM, Y. 237 ICĂ, I. 169n

298

INDEX OF NAMES

IGNATIUS IV HAZIM 215, 218, 233, 235, 238, 244, 252 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH 245 IGNATIUS BEDROS XVI BATANIAN 269 IGNATIUS SHOUKRALLAH MALOYAN 275 IGNATIUS YA’QUB III 202 IGNATIUS ZAKKA I IWAS 218, 252 INNOCENT III 11 INNOCENT IV 283 IONESCU, D. 31n IONIŢĂ, V. 177n IORGA, N. 3n IRENAEUS OF LYONS 182 ISAAC THE SYRIAN 245 ISIDORE OF KYIV 165, 166 IVAN (SEMEDI) 139n IVANOFF-TRINADTZATTY, G. 43n IVANOV, D. 189n JACIV, I. 156n, 159n JACKSON, P. 283n JACQUEMET, G. 44n JALAKH, M. 3n, 15 JOACHIM III 27 JOHN V 248 JOHN X (YAZIGI) 236, 237, 256, 260 JOHN XXIII 51, 136, 267, 268 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 245 JOHN OF DAMASCUS 245 JOHN PAUL II 4, 8n, 14, 30, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 69, 74, 75, 80, 94n, 95, 100n, 108n, 109, 111, 112, 115, 137, 143, 146, 154, 171n, 172, 181, 206, 207, 221, 243, 246, 252, 263, 270, 271, 272, 285, 286 JOHNSON, C.R. 265n JOSEPH VI AUDO 292, 293 JOSEPH, K.C. 199n JUSTINIAN I 10, 11 JUSTINIAN II 11n KAINZ, P. 242n KALAITZIDIS, P. XV, 47n, 96n, 117 KALLARANGATT, J. 46n KANTIOTIS, A. 108 KAPSANIS, G. 91n, 106, 108 KAREKIN I 271, 272n KAREKIN II 271, 272 KASPER, W. 20, 21n, 32n, 84n, 261, 264

KATTAN, A.E. 91n KAZARIN, N. 41n KELEHER, S. 142 KELLY, J.N.D. 11n KÉRAMÉ, O. 229n KERESZTES, S. 139n KERYELL, J. 249n KHELLA, K. N. 198n KHODR, G. 214, 215, 216, 217n, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 239, 244, 252 KHOMYCH, T. 45 KHOURY, J. 201n, 210n KIRIL (OF MOSCOW) XVI, XXI, 12, 23, 24, 32n, 39, 124, 127, 144, 145, 153, 156n, 157, 159, 161, 165, 166, 167 KIRWAN, M. 249n KITCHENER, R. 294n KLINČARSKI, A. 190n KOCH, K. 37n, 49, 60n, 78n, 163, 264 KÖNIG, F. 196, 261n KOLITSARA, I.T. 94n KOMONCHAK, J. 269n KOROLEVS’KIJ, C. 254 Æ CHARON, C. KOVALENKO, L. 126 KOZELSKY, M. 241n KRAUSE, M. 201n KRAWCHUK, A. 123n KRIKOR BEDROS XX GABROYAN 272 KRIKORIAN, M. K. 199n KUŹMA, A. 37n KYRILLOS (ABDELSAYED) 278 LAIRD, M.S. 243n LANNE, E. 14, 32n, 33n, 36n, 46n, 67, 81n, 83n, 85n, 92n, 110n, 111n, 204n, 224, 225n LASH, E. 142n LATHAM, I. 251n LEBED, P. 126 LEGRAND, H. 20n, 33n, 46n, 60, 67, 78, 79n, 80n, 83n, 85, 94n, 97n, 100n, 101n, 110n LEO III 11 LEO IX 12 LEO XIII 254, 255 LEONHARD, C. 91n LIANTAS, G.M. 97n, 98n, 100n, 101n, 105n, 111n, 112n LIDOV, A. 273n LIMOURIS, G. 27n

INDEX OF NAMES

LIPIČ, O. 161n LJUBAČIVS’KYJ (LUBACHIVSKY), M.I. 9, 18, 34n, 60, 115, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139n, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148 LOOSLEY, E. 245n, 261n LOSTEN, B. 142 LUXMOORE, J. 263n LUYCKX, B. 142 LYPYCH, O. Æ LIPIČ, O. LYUNDUP, A. 91n MACHA, J. 11n, 12n, 14 MALKON, ISHO῾YAHB BAR 209 MANNION, G. 133n, 256n MANẒŪR, IBN AL- 6n MARANGOS, J.H. 16 MARANZEKHA (OF MOSUL) 282 MARAYATI, B. 262, 264, 278 MARTE, J. 177, 196n MARTZELOS, G.D. 96n, 99n, 109n, 111n, 112n, 113n MÂRZA, I. 177n MATTEOS II 267 MAVELLI, L. 241n MAXIMOS IV SAÏGH (SAYEGH) 20n, 213, 230, 250, 255, 269 MAXIMOS V HAKIM 214, 231 MAYER, A. XX MAYER, J.-F. 43n MCPARTLAN, P. 49, 96n MEHMED V 265n MELETIUS II DOUMANI 229n MELLING, D.J. 20 METALLINOS, G.D. 72, 91n, 107 METHODIUS 58, 137 MEYENDORFF, J. 11, 20n, 43, 72, 81 MICHAEL THE SYRIAN 209 MICHEL VIII 12 MILTOS, A. XIV, 83n, 86n, 87 MINGANA, A. 209n MITESCU, A. 3n MITRI, T. 94n, 227n MKHITAR OF SEBASTE 267, 271n MOUBARAC, Y. 228, 250 MUDGE, L.S. 256n MÜLLER, G. 165 MURAVIEV, N.A. 21 MURRAY, R. 43n NAAMAN, N. 275n

299

NAHUM (ILIEVSKI) OF STRUMICA 181n, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189 NASLIAN, J. 265n NERSES BEDROS XIX TARMOUNI 272 NERSES OF LAMBRON 271n NERSOYAN, T. 198n, 199n, 202n NESTORIUS I 205, 206 NEUHAUS, D. 257n NICHOLAS (SAMRA) 139n NICHOLAS I 11 NICHOLAS IV 283 NICHOLS, A. 287n NICOLAE (CORNEANU) OF BANAT 110n NIETZSCHE, F. 4, 5 NISSIOTIS, N.A. 116, 197n, 198n NOBLE, S. XVII, XVIII, 239, 244n NORRIS, R.A. 199n OLMI, A. 200n, 201, 202n, 203n O’MAHONY, A. XX, 206n, 241n, 245n, 246n, 249n, 251n, 256n, 257n, 258n, 261n ONUFERKO, A.T. XV, 18n, 34n, 129n, 142, 151 ORMANIAN, M. 267, 271n OSSEÏRANE, A. 249, 250, 251 PACINI, A. 244n, 258n PALLATH, P. 117n PANCHENKO, C. 227n, 228n, 229n PANNENBERG, W. 107n PAPADOPOULOS, A. 91n, 95n, 96n, 97n, 100n, 101n PAPADOPOULOS, I. 16 PAPANDREOU, D. 51n, 67, 81n, 83n PAPANIKOLAOU, A. 45n, 94n, 107n PAPATHOMAS, G. 84n, 85 PAROLIN, P. 157 PASHINYAN, N. 272n PATELOS, C. 23n PAUL VI XI, 13, 28, 52, 53, 58, 67, 68, 80, 81, 95, 136, 202, 232, 263n, 268, 269 PAULOS MAR GREGORIOS Æ see VARGHESE, P. PAYASLIAN, S. 265n PECQUET, J. 256n PERI, V. 10n PETER III 239n PETERBURS, W. 258n PETITO, F. 241n

300

INDEX OF NAMES

PETRAS, D. 35n PETROSIAN, Y. 270n PHIDAS, V. 84n PHOTIUS I 11 PIUS IX 268n, 293n PIUS X 16 PIUS XII 8n, 51 PLATON OF KYIV 21 POZAPALIAN, N. 270 PROYKOV, C. 139n PULCINI, T. 229n, 232n RABBAT, F. 238n RAHNER, K. 83n RANTSYA, I. XVI, 167 RAPHAEL I BIDAWID 287 RATZINGER, J. 63, 68, 69, 70, 77, 79, 80, 81n, 83n Æ BENEDICT XVI RICCARDI, A. 250 RICKELT, L. 239n RIDGEON, L. 242n RIGOTTI, G. XIIn, 27n RIZK, R. 237n ROBERSON, R.G. XIIn, 13n, 32n, 34n, 41n, 43n, 92n, 93n, 97n, 100n, 101n, 263n, 277n ROBINSON, N. 242n ROMANIDES, J.S. 34n, 72, 107, 108, 197n, 198n, 205n RONCALLI, A. 267, 268 Æ see also JOHN XXIII ROUTHIER, G. XIIIn, 83n ROYSTER, D. 72 RUSCH, W.G. 34n RUSSELL, N. 29n RUSTUM, A. 228 RUYSSEN, G.-H. 266n SABA, C. 227n ŠABAN, I. 150 SAKO, R.L. 290, 291, 292, 293, 294 SALACHAS, D. 8n, 14, 16 SALIBA, A. 214 SALIBA, P. 230 SAMIR, S.K. 195n, 196, 258n SAMUEL, V.C. 198n, 199n SANDRI, L. 157, 165n SANJIAN, A.K. 266n SARGOLOGOS, G. 139n SARGSYAN, S. 272, 255 SARHAD JAMMO 288

SARKISSIAN, K. 198n, 199n SARTORY, G. 17n SARTORY, T. 17n SĂSĂUJAN, M.S. XVI, 178 SAUMA, R. 283 SCHLECHTA, K. 4n SCHMEMANN, A. 43, 44n, 84 SEKELLICK, J. 139 SEKULOVSKI, G. XVI, XVII, 180n, 192 SENYK, S. 6n, 17n ŠEPTYTS’KYJ, A. 17, 19, 134, 136, 254 SESBOÜÉ, B. 77, 82, 83 ŠEVČUK (SHEVCHUK), S. 39, 126, 148, 156, 160, 161 SEVERIUS ZAKKA IWAS (OF MOSUL) 197n, 199n SHENOUDA III 199n, 207, 278 SHEPTYTSKY, A. Æ ŠEPTYTS’KYJ, A. SHEVCHUK, S. Æ ŠEVČUK, S. SHNORHK I KALOUSTIAN 269 SHOMALI, M.A. 258n SICARD, D. 78n SIECIENSKI, A.E. 106n, 114n SILVESTRINI, A. 140 SIMON, C. 8n SKIRA, J.Z. XIII, XXI, 48, 110n, 117n, 127n, 133n, 163n, 255n SLAVOMIR (MIKLOVS) 139n SLIPYJ, J. 19, 134, 136, 137 SNORHALI, N. 271n SOPKO, A.J. 43n SORO, B. 206n, 281, 286n, 288, 289 SOTIROPOULOS, E. 134n SOURIAL, S. 199n SPIES, O. 282n SPYRIDON (KHOURY) 232 SPYRIDON (OF ATHENS) 8n STALIN, J. 17, 115 STAMOPOULOS-SAMARAS, P. 91n STANCIU, L. 177n STARKEY, L. 251n STAVROU, M. 20n, 34n, 46n, 78n, 80n, 86n, 102, 104, 110 STIRNEMANN, A. 196 STOJANOV, K. 190 STYLIANOS (HARKIANAKIS) 14, 46n, 95n, 97n, 99n, 100n, 108, 109, 111, 112, 117n SUDWORTH, R. 243

INDEX OF NAMES

SUTTNER, E.C. 7n, 9n, 13, 14, 17n, 18n, 47n, 60, 175n, 177n SUTTON, J. 36n SYLVERIUS I 10 TAFT, R.F. 5n, 8n, 13n, 15, 20n, 24n, 44n, 45n, 47, 94n, 101n, 116n, 117n, 253, 254n, 255n TALBI, M. 257 TANNOUS, J. 208n TATARYN, M. 250n TAWADROS II 278 TCHOLAKIAN, H. 274n TEULE, H.G.B. XI, XVIII, XXI, 108n, 195n, 281n, 284n, 289n, 294 THEOBALD, C. 83n THEODORE OF BALSAMON 22 THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA 11n THEODORET OF CYRUS 11n THOMA DIONYSIUS 197n THOMAS, N.J. 197n THOMAS, S.M. 241n, 252n TILLARD, J.-M. 83n, 85 TIMOTHY I 282 TINKJIAN, B. 278 TISSERANT, E. 283, 284 TODT, K.-P. 239n TOURIAN, L. 274n TROLL, C.W. 251n TROUPEAU, G. 195n, 196 TURKSON, P. 161 TURNER, J. 44 UGOLNIK, A. 142 VAN BUNNEN, A. 43n VAN DEN BERCKEN, W.P. 15n, 36n, 121n, 136n VAN PARYS, M. XIIn, 27n, 36n, 111n VARGHESE, P. 197n, 198n, 199n, 208n VARNALIDIS, S. 93n VASIL, C. 19n VAZGEN I. 269, 270 VEČERJA, K. 126

301

VERHEYDEN, J. 108n VIGILIUS 10 VIL’ČYNS’KYJ, O.-D. 157n VILLEMIN, L. 83n, 85 VIRGIL (BERCEA) 139n VIVIANO, R. 249n VOLODYMYR (THE GREAT) 119, 136 VON HARNACK, A. 10 VRYONIS, S. 268n VSEVOLOD (MAJDANSKY) OF SCOPELOS 110, 137, 142 VUČETIĆ, M. 239n WARE, K. 49, 142 WENSINCK, A. 209n WHOOLEY, J. XVIII, 261n, 265n, 277n, 279 WIGIDEN, G. 10 WILFLINGER, G. 196n, 197n WILLEBRANDS, J.G.M. 53, 140, 224, 226 WILLIAMS, R. 243 WILMSHURST, D. 285n WINKLER, D.W. 196n, 197n, 201n WORQINEH (WORKNE), L.S.H.M. 197n, 199n WRIGHT, T. 258n YAHBALĀHA III 283, 284 YAZIGI, P. 237 YEGHISHE DERDERIAN 269 YESHUC, R. 209 ZAPHIRIS, C.-G. 100n ZEKIYAN, L. 264, 271n, 278 ZISSIS, T. 47n, 91n, 98, 99, 106, 107, 108 ZIZIOULAS, J. 14, 72, 85n, 87n, 116, 225n ZOGHBY, E. XVII, 22, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 225, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239 ZOHRABIAN, C. 269n ZWIWERBLOWSKY, R.J. 10n

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Peter De Mey is the chair of Ecclesiology and Ecumenism at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (Belgium). Bogdan-Gabriel Drăghici is a D.Phil. (candidate) in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford, Wolfson College (United Kingdom). Nagi Edelby, is a priest of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of the eparchy of Beirut, Former Deputy Director of the Center for Research and Publications of the Christian East (CERPOC), St. Joseph University of Beirut, teacher of Patristics and Arabic Christian Literature at the same university and at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology of the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik and at the Institute of Theology of St. John Damascene of the University of Balamand (Lebanon). Edward G. Farrugia, SJ is emeritus Professor of Dogma and Eastern Patristics at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome (Italy). Barbara Hallensleben is Professor of Dogmatics and Theology of Ecumenism at the Faculty of Theology, University of Fribourg (Switzerland). Cyril Hovorun is Professor in Ecclesiology, International Relations and Ecumenism at the St. Ignatios College, Stockholm School of Theology (Sweden). Stefanie Hugh-Dovonan, sadly, passed away on December 9, 2018, just after completing her final contribution for this volume. She was a research associate at the Centre for Eastern Christianity, Heythrop College, University of London (United Kingdom). Pantelis Kalaitzidis is the Director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies (Greece). Amphilochios Miltos is an Orthodox priest (Metropolis of Volos), Member of the Academic Team of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies and of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (Greece).

304

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Samuel Noble is a Junior Researcher on the ERC-funded project TypArabic at the Institute of Southeast European Studies of the Romanian Academy. Andrew T. Onuferko is Vicar General of the Eparchy of Toronto and Eastern Canada, and a former Spiritual Director of Holy Spirit Ukrainian Catholic Seminary (Edmonton) and lecturer at the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies (University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto) (Canada). Ihor Rantsya (PhD, Geography) is a doctoral student in theology at the Institut Catholique, Paris and rector of St. Volodymyr’s Ukrainian Cathedral of Paris (France). Mihail-S. Săsăujan is a priest of the Orthodox Archdiocese of Bucharest and Professor of Church History at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Bucharest (Romania). Goran Sekulovski is a research associate at the Joint Research Unit (UMR) Géographie-Cités in Paris and research data project manager, Université Paris VIII (France). Jaroslav Z. Skira is Associate Professor of Historical Theology, and Director of Advanced (Graduate) Degree and Ecclesiastical Degree Programs, Regis College (in the University of Toronto) (Canada). Herman G.B. Teule is Professor Emeritus in Eastern Christianity, Radboud University of Nijmegen (The Netherlands) and KU Leuven (Belgium), and former Head of the Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, University of Nijmegen. John Whooley, a Catholic priest in the Diocese of Westminster, conducted research in the modern history of Armenian Christianity and the Armenian Catholic Church at the University of London (United Kingdom).

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. 75 € Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. 75 € Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds. A Clash of 53 € Socio-Economic and Cultural Paradigms, 1998. XI-453 p. A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in 95 € den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et 75 € de la théologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, Actes et acteurs à Vatican II, 1998. XXIV-602 p. F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € 90 € E. BRITO, Heidegger et l’hymne du sacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 60 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. Festschrift James M. Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur: Bibliographie primaire et secondaire - Primary 75 € and Secondary Bibliography 1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related 75 € Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p.

[2]

BETL

150. F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 € 151. B. DOYLE, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking. A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), The Myriad Christ. Plurality and the Quest 75 € for Unity in Contemporary Christology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaire du Symbole des apôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members 84 € in Origen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: Twilight of Renaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. Festschrift 60 € J. Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 162. U. BUSSE, Das Johannesevangelium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, 180 € 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), Resurrection in the New 70 € Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M. LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), Vatican II and Its Legacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P. DIEUDONNÉ, La Paix clémentine. Défaite et victoire du premier jansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls 60 € and in the Biblical Tradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians, 75 € 2003. LVII-468 p. 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-Bernard Van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € State Relations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 €

BETL

[3]

172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € Relational Theology, 2003. XIII-923 p. 173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, 60 € 2004. XII-336 p. 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne (Matthieu 20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by 60 € K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 179. H. GIESEN, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche. Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church, and Christian Unity. Proceedings of the Consultation Held at the Monastery 70 € of Bose, Italy (14-20 October 2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Luke and His Readers. 65 € Festschrift A. Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis: Exploring Theological 80 € Method with Pierre Bourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS 70 € Johannine Writings Seminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guide technique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic 80 € Problem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious Experience and Contemporary Theological Epistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, Paulus und die Gesinnung Christi. Identität und Entschei80 € dungsfindung aus der Mitte von 1Kor 1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of 70 € Johan Lust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérance de Job, 2006. XXIV-653 p.

[4]

BETL

194. C. FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 60 € 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 € 196. M. SIMON, La célébration du mystère chrétien dans le catéchisme de Jean85 € Paul II, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Lay Bibles in Europe 145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, In God’s Hands. Essays on the Church and 90 € Ecumenism in Honour of Michael A. Fahey S.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, 2007. XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), Interreligious Learning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic55 € Theological Studies, 2007. X-305 p. 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, Les sources judaïques du Nouveau Testament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana: Studies on Martyrdom and Persecution in Early Christianity. Collected Essays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI286 p. 74 € 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography. L’historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne, 2007. XXXVIII372 p. 75 € 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007. X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € Christian Religious Experience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schrift Utrecht Universitätsbibliothek 1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur l’Antiquité 88 € Chrétienne. Recueil d’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité, fondement de la personne humaine dans 85 € l’œuvre d’Edith Stein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in 80 € the Context of Early Judaism, 2008. X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of 76 € True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 2008. XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September 12-16, 2005), 2008. XII-716 p.

BETL

[5]

217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. 75 € Festschrift Roger Burggraeve, 2008. XLVI-413 p. 218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John. Festschrift Ulrich Busse, 2008. XVIII-287 p. 78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), Augustine and Postmodern 80 € Thought: A New Alliance against Modernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse 85 € dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX-609 p. 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early Modern 80 € Period, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. Primary and Secundary Bibliography 1935-2008, Compiled and updated in colla80 € boration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), Repetitions and Variations 85 € in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophie moderne et christianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p. 130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious 95 € Practice of His Time, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’s Voices: Children’s Perspectives in Ethics, Theology and Religious Education, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), For and Against David: Story and History in the Books of Samuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Une analyse comparée d’Esther TM et LXX: Regard sur deux 76 € récits d’une même histoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “Godhead Here in Hiding”: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, La vie dans le Christ dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intrigue dans le récit biblique. Quatrième colloque international du RRENAB, Université Laval, 68 € Québec, 29 mai – 1er juin 2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 €

[6]

BETL

239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 € 240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), Paul Ricœur: 79 € Poetics and Religion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Ancient Christianity. 78 € Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, La prière chrétienne dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € Camille Focant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: la reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010, 2012. XXIV-648 p. 90 € 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € Traditions in Dialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540-1773). Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3-5 December 2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes 79 € Cardinal Willebrands (1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Household of God and Local Households: Revisiting the Domestic Church, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), Religious Modernism of the Low Coun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, Une Théo-logique du Don: Le Don dans la Trilogie de Hans Urs von 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”: The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in the Late Medieval 84 € and Early Modern Era, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p.

BETL

[7]

259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper: Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 € 260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € Christian Theology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), Believing in Community: 90 € Ecumenical Reflections on the Church, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tion and the Normativity of History, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, Ben Sira. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology. Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The 85 € René Draguet Case (1942) in Its Context, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, The Articulation between Natural Sciences and Systematic Theology: A Philosophical Mediation Based on Contributions 94 € of Jean Ladrière and Xavier Zubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € des Hieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour 90 € of Marc Vervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 215 € 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, Dialogue et Communion: L’itinéraire œcuménique 98 € de Jean-Marie R. Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième Colloque International du RRENAB, Université Catholique de Louvain, 85 € 24-26 mai 2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village 85 € Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, La théologie comme science herméneutique de la tradition de foi: Une lecture de «Dieu qui vient à l’homme» de Joseph Moingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses: Les rédactions successives du livre de Job, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), Mediating Mysteries, Understanding Liturgies: On Bridging the Gap between Liturgy and Systematic Theology, 2015. X-256 p. 78 € 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), Origeniana Undecima: Origen and Origenism in the 125 € History of Western Thought, 2016. XVI-978 p.

[8]

BETL

280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Le quatrième évangile. Recueil d’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p. 282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History: Theological Truth and Tradition in the Tension between Church 78 € History and Systematic Theology, 2016. XII-273 p. 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere in Interdisciplinary Perspective: Textual, Iconographic and Contemporary Inter89 € pretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception 96 € History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: 115 € Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2016. X-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Vernacular Bible and Religious Reform in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’est ta face que je cherche … La rationalité de la théologie 92 € selon Jean Ladrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), Commitments to Medieval Mysticism within 79 € Contemporary Contexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 98 € 2017. X-644 p. 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € Confrontation of Rationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Le Récit: Thèmes bibliques et 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification: Christian Doctrines 84 € of Divinization East and West, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), The Books of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets – 105 € Major Theologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à 95 € André Wénin, 2018. XL-362 p. 297. A.C. MAYER (ed.), The Letter and the Spirit: On the Forgotten Documents 85 € of Vatican II, 2018. X-296 p. 298. A. BEGASSE DE DHAEM – E. GALLI – M. MALAGUTI – C. SALTO SOLÁ (eds.), Deus summe cognoscibilis: The Current Theological Relevance of Saint Bonaventure International Congress, Rome, November 15-17, 2017, 2018. XII-716 p. 85 € 299. M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL (eds.), Louvain, Belgium and Beyond: Studies in Religious History in Honour of Leo Kenis, 2018. XVIII-517 p. 95 € 300. E. BRITO, De Dieu. Connaissance et inconnaissance, 2018. LVIII-634 + 635-1255 p. 155 €

BETL

[9]

301. G. VAN OYEN (ed.), Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-first Century: Method and Meaning, 2019. XXIV-933 p. 105 € 302. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY – O. IRSHAI – A. KOFSKY – H. NEWMAN – L. PERRONE (eds.), Origeniana Duodecima: Origen’s Legacy in the Holy Land – A Tale of Three Cities: Jerusalem, Caesarea and Bethlehem, 2019. XIV-893 p. 125 € 303. D. BOSSCHAERT, The Anthropological Turn, Christian Humanism, and Vatican II: Louvain Theologians Preparing the Path for Gaudium et Spes 89 € (1942-1965), 2019. LXVIII-432 p. 304. I. KOCH – T. RÖMER – O. SERGI (eds.), Writing, Rewriting, and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. Essays in Honour 85 € of Cynthia Edenburg, 2019. XVI-401 p. 305. W.A.M. BEUKEN, From Servant of YHWH to Being Considerate of the Wretched: The Figure David in the Reading Perspective of Psalms 35–41 69 € MT, 2020. XIV-173 p. 306. P. DE MEY – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Ecclesia semper reformanda: Renewal 94 € and Reform beyond Polemics, 2020. X-477 p. 307. D. HÉTIER, Éléments d’une théologie fondamentale de la création artistique: Les écrits théologiques sur l’art chez Karl Rahner (1954-1983), 2020. XXIV-492 p. 94 € 308. P.-M. BOGAERT, Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions conservées et l’addition du supplément sous le nom de Baruch. Recueil de ses travaux réunis par J.-C. HAELEWYCK – B. KINDT, 2020. LVIII-536 p. 95 € 309. D. VERDE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, 85 € 2020. X-395 p. 310. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), The Song of Songs in Its Context: Words for Love, 95 € Love for Words, 2020. XXXIV-643 p. 311. A. WÉNIN (ed.), La contribution du discours à la caractérisation des personnages bibliques. Neuvième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain95 € la-Neuve, 31 mai – 2 juin 2018, 2020. XX-424 p. 312. J. VERHEYDEN – D.A.T. MÜLLER (eds.), Imagining Paganism through the Ages: Studies on the Use of the Labels “Pagan” and “Paganism” in 95 € Controversies, 2020. XIV-343 p. 165 € 313. E. BRITO, Accès au Christ, 2020. XVI-1164 p. 314. B. BOURGINE (ed.), Le souci de toutes les Églises: Hommage à Joseph 93 € Famerée, 2020. XLIV-399 p. 315. C.C. APINTILIESEI, La structure ontologique-communionnelle de la personne: Aux sources théologiques et philosophiques du père Dumitru Staniloae, 90 € 2020. XXII-441 p. 316. A. DUPONT – W. FRANÇOIS – J. LEEMANS (eds.), Nos sumus tempora: Studies on Augustine and His Reception Offered to Mathijs Lamberigts, 98 € 2020. XX-577 p. 317. D. BOSSCHAERT – J. LEEMANS (eds.), Res opportunae nostrae aetatis: Studies on the Second Vatican Council Offered to Mathijs Lamberigts, 2020. XII578 p. 98 € 318. B. OIRY, Le Temps qui compte: Construction et qualification du temps de l’histoire dans le récit des livres de Samuel (1 S 1 – 1 R 2), 2021. XVI-510 p. 89 €

[10]

BETL

319. J. VERHEYDEN – J. SCHRÖTER – T. NICKLAS (eds), Texts in Context: Essays on Dating and Contextualising Christian Writings from the Second and 98 € Early Third Centuries, 2021. VIII-319 p. 320. N.S. HEEREMAN, “Behold King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding” A Symbolic-Diachronic Reading of Song 3,6-11 and 4,12–5,1, 2021. XXVIII-975 p. 144 € 321. S. ARENAS, Fading Frontiers? A Historical-Theological Investigation into 80 € the Notion of the Elementa Ecclesiae, 2021. XXXII-261 p. 322. C. KORTEN, Half-Truths: The Irish College, Rome, and a Select History of 98 € the Catholic Church, 1771-1826, 2021. XII-329 p. 323. L. DECLERCK, Vatican II: concile de transition et de renouveau. La contribution des évêques et théologiens belges, 2021. XVIII-524 p. 97 € 324. F. MIES, Job ou sortir de la cendre: Étude exégétique, littéraire anthropologique et théologique de la mort dans le livre de Job forthcoming 325. J. LIEU (ed.), Peter in the Early Church: Apostle – Missionary – Church 160 € Leader, 2021. XXVIII-806 p.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706