.png "English"){kind=small}
A. Edward Siecienski
Ecumenical Patriarchate Press Office
Before Orthodoxy can properly address
the question of the ecclesial nature of other Christian bodies, it is
perhaps necessary to deal with the question of whether the True Church
of Christ is found exclusively in Orthodox Church or whether elements of
it exist outside of her.
Although the fathers and Orthodox tradition
have wrestled with this before, both as a theological question and as a
pastoral one, now more than ever a clear answer is required if Orthodoxy
is to engage with other Christians in the effort to fulfill the will of
Christ that “all may be one.”
The Roman Catholic Church famously addressed this same question at the Second Vatican Council in the document Lumen Gentium, where it stated that “the one Church of Christ . . .subsists in
the Catholic Church” (LG par. 8). This was a change from the draft
document, where “is” rather than “subsists” was used, which seemed to
allow for elements of the True Church to exist outside the institutional
boundaries of the Catholic Church to the degree that other Christians
had preserved elements that the Catholic Church had maintained in its
fullness. According to this line of thinking, the Orthodox, having
maintained everything except full communion with the successor of Peter,
were fully a “church” who enjoyed “all but perfect communion” with the
Church of Christ.
Could a similar solution be acceptable
to the Orthodox? Could Orthodoxy affirm, that “The Orthodox Church, as
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” recognizes features of
that Church in other Christian bodies who have maintained, to one degree
or another, elements that she has preserved in its fullness? For
example, in that Roman Catholicism contains “apostolic succession” and
many aspects of “the patristic tradition” despite some important
differences with the Orthodox, could the Catholic Church be described as
a “church” in the proper sense of the word? Could not Orthodoxy
recognize that in preserving these elements Catholicism already enjoys
some relation to the True Church of Christ, and that through dialogue on
issues like the filioque and the primacy we hope to come closer to full communion with them?
Historically the way the Church has
addressed the ecclesial status of the non-Orthodox has often depended on
the theological and pastoral context in which the question was asked.
Debate over the re-baptism of Christians seeking to enter the Orthodox
Church is an oft-cited example, with the rigorist policies of Patriarch
Cyril V and the 1755 synod considered by some to express the patristic
consensus on the mater. Even those who do not demand re-baptism often
do so only as a matter of oikonomia — i.e., not because they
recognize non-Orthodox sacraments as valid or other Christian bodies as
“churches.” And yet Orthodox history provides ample examples of other
views.[i]
Even the decisions of the 1755 synod, which themselves were not
universally applied in the Orthodox world, recognized that they were
changing the longstanding practice established in 1484 by the synod that
rejected the Council of Florence. There it was stated that: “Latin
converts to Orthodoxy should be received into the Church only by
Chrismation and by signing an appropriate Libellus of faith which would
include denunciation of Latin errors.”
Thus it would be possible for the
Orthodox Church to maintain that those Christian bodies who have
maintained, in their faith and practice, key elements of the True Church
of Christ, are “churches” in the proper sense even if they are
deficient in other aspects. Validly performed Baptisms carried out in
these churches gives the individual believer a relationship with the
True Church of Christ (and thus the Orthodox Church), despite the fact
that s/he is not yet fully in communion with it. By coming to Orthodoxy
with the desire for full communion the individual seeks to move from
impartial communion (established by his/her baptism and other means of
sanctification found in his/her church) to full communion (established
by chrismation and/or profession of the Orthodox faith) with the True
Church of Christ.
How then to proceed? I would propose
that the council could, in its deliberations on the question, put
forward the following ecclesiological and ecumenical truths in order to
make its position clear:
- That the Orthodox Church has within itself the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
- That the Orthodox Church, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, seeks to bring all into full communion with that reality and for this reason has always been an important part of the ecumenical movement
- That other Christian bodies, now separated from full communion with the Orthodox Church, still retain elements of the True Church of Christ to the degree that they have preserved those aspects of the One Church (e.g., “apostolic succession” and “the patristic tradition”) that Orthodoxy contains in its fullness. For this reason these bodies can properly be called “churches.”
- Those churches, like the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have within them many elements of the True Church of Christ, remain close to Orthodoxy and through dialogue should be brought closer.
- That in its practice the Orthodox, recognizing the ecclesial reality of other Christian bodies and their relationship, though imperfect, to the One Church, should accept any member of these churches seeking full communion with Orthodoxy by chrismation and/or profession of the Orthodox faith, provided they have already received valid Trinitarian baptism.
- Edward Siecienski, PhD, is Associate Professor of Religion at Stockton University in New Jersey.
[i]
See, for example, the paper of Fr. George Dragas, “The Manner of
Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44 [1999]: 235-71.
