Thomas Bremer, Public Orthodoxy
On September 21st, at the end of its plenary session in
Chieti, Italy, the “Joint International Commission for Theological
Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church”
adopted a joint document titled “Synodality and Primacy During the First
Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of
the Church.“
This might seem to mark progress in the relations between
both Churches. However, there are more important issues in the
background of these relations which are not addressed at all, or at
least neglected. One could argue that the Commission’s work is instead
encumbered much more by inner-Orthodox tensions, and by a misperception
of the stumbling blocks between both Churches, than by the theological
differences themselves. Therefore, since it misses important issues, it
cannot easily achieve progress in inter-church relations.
The previous document adopted by the very same group after its
meeting in Ravenna (Italy) in 2007 was named “Ecclesiological and
Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church.
Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.” The Ravenna document
deals with the topic of synodality and primacy during the first
millennium, the same topic that was again treated now in Chieti. This
strange phenomenon is indicative of the state of the official dialogue
between both Churches, which is marked to a high degree by
inner-Orthodox tensions between the Ecumenical and the Moscow
patriarchates.
Great hope was once put in this dialogue. When the Joint Commission
was established in 1979, and after the publication of its first
documents, there was much enthusiasm about the theological depth of the
texts. However, when after the collapse of the communist regimes in
Central and Eastern Europe the Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches (the
“Uniates”), which were suppressed in almost all communist countries,
could re-emerge again, and when many formerly Orthodox believers joined
them, the Orthodox Churches regarded this development as an aggressive
act by the Catholic Church, and suspended all talks that would not
address the issue of “uniatism,” as it was labeled by the Orthodox side.
In 1993, a statement that declined “uniatism” as a means for church
unity was agreed upon, but the dialogue drifted into a crisis; it was
only in 2007 that the next document, from Ravenna, was adopted.
The fact that the issue of conciliarity and primacy had to be treated
a second time is an expression of the inner-Orthodox tensions. The
delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) had abandoned the
Ravenna meeting because of the presence of representatives of the
Estonian Orthodox Church, an autonomous Church under the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, whereas the ROC regards Estonia as its “canonical
territory.” The Moscow synod later rejected the Ravenna document (which
had been unanimously adopted by all members of the Commission present)
and said that its contents neglected the Orthodox tradition in favor of
Catholic positions. In the years to come, the synod formulated its own
text on the issue, which evoked a debate with theologians from the
Ecumenical Patriarchate about the idea of primacy within the Orthodox
Church. Metropolitan Ilarion (Alfeyev), head of the ROC’s department for
External Church Relations, campaigned for a revision of the Ravenna
document, and both the Russian and Georgian delegations to the
Commission rejected it as a document of the Commission and refused to
work with it. After several attempts to come to an agreement, the
Commission adopted the Chieti text, which was drafted two years ago by a
subcommittee. The text was decided on unanimously, with the Bulgarian
Orthodox Church not participating in the meeting, while the
representatives of the Georgian Orthodox Church expressed objections
against some paragraphs (allegedly nine—but is was not specified which
ones).
In comparison of the two texts, it is conspicuous that the Ravenna
statement (which, with some 5,700 words, is almost twice as long as the
Chieti one) refers much more to the former documents of the group,
whereas the Chieti document does not even mention the preceding text.
Both documents deal with the issue of primacy on the level of the local,
the regional and the universal Church, but Ravenna offers a much better
and deeper theological analysis and contextualization. At the local
level, Chieti emphasizes more strongly the role of the bishop, Ravenna
sets him as the primus/protos in the communion of his local church. It
is obvious, that any allusion to the theology of Metropolitan John
(Zizioulas), the former co-chair of the Commission, was eliminated,
along with any mention of Ravenna.
The Ravenna document speaks about the 1993 joint statement on
“uniatism” and says it is “a subject to which we shall give further
consideration in the near future.” Chieti does not mention the issue;
however, Metropolitan Ilarion pointed to it many times already before
the Chieti meeting and also in an interview after it. He refers above
all to the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, which is very strong in the
Western part of the country (which has been in Soviet times at least
formally a stronghold of the ROC), and demands that “uniatism” should be
the exclusive topic to be addressed next by the commission. The Russian
hierarch accused the Ukrainian Catholics of the Eastern rite of fueling
the Ukrainian conflict by taking sides and by supporting schismatic
Orthodox groups even when he was invited to Rome to give a greeting
address to the Catholic Synod of Bishops’ in autumn 2014 (which was
dedicated to family issues). Later, he spoke of an “aggressive
anti-Orthodox campaign of Ukrainian Greek-Catholic leaders.”
These accusations shed light on a frequently-overlooked dimension of
Orthodox-Catholic relations: The Greek Catholic Churches are not so much
a question of primacy and its implications, but rather one of identity,
politics, and interests. And they are frequently misunderstood by
Orthodox church leaders as a homogeneous block within the Catholic
Church.
However, there is no clear understanding of the role of the Eastern
Catholic Churches within themselves. Some of them are narrowly linked to
a national idea; some have good relations with the respective local
Orthodox Church; some try to gain the greatest possible autonomy from
Rome; some again lean as closely as possible to the Holy See. To be
clear: There is no Eastern Catholic Church which would strive for
complete independence, and for breaking communion with Rome—they all see
their safeguard for being Church in their communion with the Pope. But
there is a high degree of diversity among them, and not all of them have
bad relations with the Orthodox.
The primacy issue, moreover, is also discussed within the Catholic
Church itself; it is not only an issue between the Orthodox and the
Catholic Churches. Some Greek Catholic Churches have developed
theological ideas about their position in the Catholic Church and the
impact of papal primacy on them, and so have Bishops’ Conferences in the
Latin Church. The realm and the range of the papal authority are not
undisputed at all within the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis
encouraged (as did also his predecessors) by his teaching and by his
actions Catholic theologians to think in new directions in this regard.
So the unity of Orthodoxy cannot be regarded as given, and the
Catholic Church is much more diverse than many Orthodox expect. On the
other hand, the relationship towards national identity, towards the
state in which they live, and towards politics is an issue all local
churches—Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic—have to address,
especially in the circumstances of today’s world. These are challenges
which concern all Christian Churches. All agreements on primacy and
synodality in history—as important as they are—will fail to contribute
to a rapprochement of the two Churches, as long as these issues are not
addressed and discussed properly.
Thomas Bremer is professor of Ecumenical Theology and Eastern
Churches Studies at the Faculty of Catholic Theology at Münster
University, Germany.