.png "English"){kind=small}
September 2016, Chieti, Italy. The Joint International Commission for
Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox
Church, established in 1979, gathered once again. But this meeting was
crucial in many ways, and not only for Orthodox-Catholic relations.
It
was also the first test at a global level for inter-Orthodox unity on a
topic that is far from consensual among the Orthodox Churches, namely
ecumenism.
Post-Conciliar Challenge
The Orthodox Churches that canceled their participation in the Holy
and Great Council (HGC), in June of this year, in Crete, expressed their
deep concerns about the document entitled “The relations of the
Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World”, but they were
also, generally speaking, very worried about the Orthodox Church’s
involvement in inter-Christian fora at the expense of Orthodox
faithfulness to truth and salvation. In the words of Fr. John
Chryssavgis, in an insightful interview which is available in English on
the Huffington Post website:
“I feel that there is an unhealthy form of competition for ‘genuine’
orthodoxy within some circles and even among some churches. Why do we
presume that someone who condemns other Christians is a ‘champion of
Orthodoxy’, while someone who works for dialogue is a ‘traitor of
Orthodoxy’?”
Three of the four Churches that were missing in Crete -Antioch,
Georgia and Russia – were present in Italy. Only the Church of Bulgaria
persists in its ecumenical isolation, which is becoming deeply
problematic for the unity of the Orthodox Church itself. However, the
presence of these three Churches in Chieti diminishes the argument that
ecumenical dialogue is “the” central reason for not participating in the
HGC. These reasons, which appear to be of a different nature –
geopolitical tensions, fundamentalism, isolation, etc. – did jeopardize
the bond of communion within the Orthodox Church.
Moreover, the Orthodox delegation in Italy showed an image of unity,
creating the first stage of the reception of the conciliar document on
ecumenical relation. Whether we like it or not, the Orthodox commitment
to inter-Christian initiatives, and more specifically in official
theological dialogues with non-Orthodox Churches, exists under the
reality – not to say the authority – of the Orthodox conciliar document.
For example, the conciliar document declares: “The contemporary
bilateral theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church and her
participation in the Ecumenical Movement rest on this self-consciousness
of Orthodoxy and her ecumenical spirit, with the aim of seeking the
unity of all Christians on the basis of the truth of the faith and
tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.” (The
relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World,
par.5) This is exactly what happened in Italy, confirming and accepting
the Orthodox commitment to pursue the bilateral dialogue with the
Catholic Church not only as part of the history of a rapprochement
between these two Churches, but also as based on a conciliar decision,
an expression of the life and conscience of the one Orthodox Church.
Not only were the Orthodox Churches present in Chieti, they also
signed a joint document, meaning that they agreed among themselves,
although the Communiqué
issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World
Council of Churches does state that, “Disagreement with some paragraphs
of the document was expressed by the delegation of the Georgian
Patriarchate.” They agreed on the document despite the clearly expressed
reservations of one Church: this is exactly what the HGC tried to
implement in Crete through a conciliar decision-making process which was
also based on consensus – very different from unanimity.
The Chieti Document, Nine Years After the Ravenna Document (2007)
The Chieti Document,
entitled “Synodality and Primacy during the first millennium: towards a
Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church,” was, of
course, issued and agreed on by the Catholic-Orthodox Commission, nine
years after the Ravenna Document, entitled “Ecclesiological and
Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church Ecclesial
Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”. By way of comparison, the
Ravenna Document was almost 5,600 words long, while the Chieti Document
is roughly half its length.
The difference in the length of the document shows, in my opinion,
that the goal was not only to find common ground on primacy and
synodality during the first millennium, but also, and I would say above
all, to restore or reinitialize the dialogue process between the two
Churches, based on the new composition of the Orthodox delegation –
Metropolitan John of Pergamon has left his seat to the forty-year-old
Archbishop Job of Telmessos as head of the Orthodox delegation and
co-chair of the Commission.
It should be borne in mind that the impasse reached after the Ravenna
Document was issued primarily due to an internal power play, not only
between the Orthodox Churches in favor of or opposed to ecumenical
dialogue, but also between two understandings of the articulation of
primacy and conciliarity, opposing the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the
Patriarchate of Moscow. The debate resumed in winter 2013 after the Holy
Synod of the Church of Russia issued a document on “Primacy in the
Universal Church”, followed a few weeks later by an answer of
Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa entitled “First without equal.”
Hopefully the Chieti document will create new common theological
ground shared by all the Orthodox Churches. The document closes with the
words, “Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the
West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the
apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality
inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as
a service (diakonia) of love. Though the unity of East and
West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious
of belonging to the one Church.” (par.20)
To be conscious of belonging to the one Church was, indeed, the
mission of the HGC, as it remains today the mission of the
Catholic-Orthodox Commission.
Rev. Dr. Nicolas Kazarian is a research associate at The French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs
(Paris, France), where he heads up the Observatory on Geopolitics and
Religions. He is a lecturer at the Saint-Serge Institute (Paris) and
also teaches at the Catholic University in Paris.