publicorthodoxy
A Plea for Removing One More Skandalon in an Increasingly Scandalized World
Allow me to begin by suggesting that today’s “new circumstances and challenges” referenced in the Draft Document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” (par. 24) require a radical kenosis
among Christians.
The rapid rejection of Christ’s truth in the West,
and the equally widespread secularization of the educated classes in the
East, demand a new commitment to “modeling the new man in Christ” (cf. par. 23). This “new man in Christ” blesses those who curse him and does good to those who hate him (cf. Mathew 5:44). This kind of love shatters secularism’s self-assuredness.
In 1987, the Primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Cardinal
Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, publicly asked forgiveness of the Russian
Orthodox Church in the following words:
“Following the Spirit of Christ, we extend our hand of forgiveness,
reconciliation and love to the Russian nation and the Moscow
Patriarchate. We repeat the words of Christ that we spoke during our act
of reconciliation with the Polish nation: ‘Forgive us, as we forgive’
(Matthew 6:12).” Unfortunately, this gesture has remained unanswered to
the present day. Can Orthodox and “Uniates” not begin a new era of
relations by having their Protohierarchs send – and respond to – such
letters on a regular basis?
The present Primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Major
Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, has continued his predecessor’s legacy.
Contrary to some perceptions, he welcomed the recent meeting of
Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis The concerns he expressed related
only to the phrasing of three paragraphs of the otherwise superb Havana
Statement (pars. 25, 26 and 27). These presented a distorted
interpretation of the situation in Ukraine, and belittled the ecclesial
status of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Statement referred to them
as “ecclesial communities,” a term in Catholic parlance reserved for
Protestants. Moreover, the fact that Greco-Catholics were informed of
their “right to exist” (par. 25) was viewed as a patronizing concession
to what is actually a Church of true martyrs. In any case, the Balamand
Agreed Statement had already asserted this right almost 25 years ago.
Notwithstanding this, Ukrainian Greco-Catholic hierarchs sincerely hope
to see encounters like the Havana Meeting occur more often – and at
different levels – so that each successive gathering might bring the
participants closer to the Truth.
Recent history provides striking examples of Orthodox-Eastern
Catholic rapprochement. In the mid-1960s Patriarch Athenagoras declared
to Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, that the latter had “spoken for the
Orthodox” at Vatican II. In the USA, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox
Theological School welcomed Melkite Greek Catholic seminarians for years
– with wonderful results evident to all. In Canada, the Sheptytsky
Institute of Eastern Christian Studies has hired not only a long list of
Orthodox scholars as adjunct faculty, but was blessed to have the
current chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America as a full-time,
tenured professor. Finally, the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv
frequently hosts presentations by scholars of the Moscow Patriarchate,
and hires lecturers of various Orthodox Churches.
Eastern Catholics understand the sense of vulnerability that prevents
many Orthodox from reciprocating such gestures. However, in the
meantime, we hope for at least a change in attitude among those Orthodox
who continue to view Eastern Catholics as either “traitors to
Orthodoxy,” or “heretics.” The question of “treason” is too broad to be
discussed here. However, as regards “heresy,” it is odd that while
Eastern Catholics accept the same teachings as Roman Catholics, they are
frequently treated with far greater disdain.
In any case, more Orthodox need to understand the reasons that so
many Eastern Catholics remain Catholic. In part, at least, it relates to
some of the unresolved issues that continue to generate division within
Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics have found them resolved as a result of
union with Rome – imperfect as that union has been. Jurisdictional
strife, for example, is essentially absent from Eastern Catholicism.
Also, the ethno-phyletism that plagues parts of Orthodoxy is challenged
by communion with a universal primate. Of course, Eastern Catholics can
be just as guilty of the same ethno-phyletism (though, ironically, its
proponents within Eastern Catholicism insist that they simply want a
“national Church” – “just like the Orthodox”). However, as culpable as
Eastern Catholics may be of this ecclesiological heresy, they
nonetheless recognize the right of the Bishop of Rome to reprove and/or
discipline Catholic leaders who would foment or tolerate nationalist
hatred. And while the Pope’s admonitions may not always be heard, no one
in the Catholic Church questions his right to exercise universal
primacy in this way. These problems are not adduced here to point to
“Orthodox failings.” They are only mentioned to illustrate why even
those Eastern Catholics who passionately love Orthodoxy remain Catholic.
In conclusion, two concrete initiatives for strengthening the bond of
peace (Ephesians 4:3) – and thus removing hindrances to the gospel –
seem quite feasible:
- The creation of an international theological dialogue involving official representatives of the Byzantine Catholic (or, Greek Catholic) Churches on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches on the other. Presently, the Eastern Catholics who participate in the International Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue do so as delegates of the Vatican – not their own Synods. In any case, theological meetings of Eastern Orthodox and Catholics of the Byzantine tradition would facilitate focused discussions of issues particularly germane to these Churches. Such a dialogue could develop, for example, a common historiography of the 1946 Pseudo-Synod of Lviv. Some of the same Orthodox who appropriately decry proselytism continue to champion the Synod as a legitimate “return to Orthodoxy.”
- The publication by the Holy and Great Council – or a subsequent Conciliar commission – of theological and practical principles for Orthodox relations with Eastern Catholics. Naturally, different regions will adapt these principles according to diverse sensibilities. But certain uncharitable attitudes and behaviors, witnessed occasionally even in North America, would hopefully be declared unacceptable.
Finally, to end where we began: The concluding paragraph of the Draft
Document reads: “The Orthodox Church is aware of the fact that the
movement for the restoration of Christian unity takes new forms in
response to new circumstances and new challenges” (par. 24). In the
present circumstances of global strife and antipathy towards our
Churches, truly committed Christians within Eastern Catholicism and
Eastern Orthodoxy will “cleanse out the old leaven… the leaven of
malice” and become new dough heated by the Holy Spirit so that we might
again celebrate together “in sincerity and truth” (I Cor. 5:8).
Archpriest Peter Galadza is Kule Family Professor of Liturgy and
Acting Director of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of
Eastern Christian Studies, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada.This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in America’s Special Project on the Holy and Great Council and published by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.