THE LONG ROAD FROM THE EXCOMMUNICATION TO THE RESTORATION OF COMMUNION

Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity

On the ecclesiological significance of removing the excommunications issued in 1054 from the memory and midst of the Church

Kurt Cardinal Koch

“Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the heavenly calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3, 13-14). With this confession, the Apostle Paul expresses his deep longing for full communion with Jesus Christ. This confession can also serve as a guiding principle on the long path of reconciliation and the search for the restoration of communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. On this long journey, too, the first step is to forget “what lies behind us”, namely the ever-increasing alienation between Rome and Constantinople, which ultimately led to the separation in the Church between East and West and was followed by centuries of misunderstandings and polemics. Such forgetting, whose deepest meaning must be forgiveness, is the prerequisite for reaching out to “what lies ahead”, namely, that the Churches of Rome and Constantinople encounter each other in faith and that ecclesial communion is restored.

1. The ecclesial relevance of the events of 1965

This long journey of reconciliation began with the historic meeting between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Paul VI, on 5 and 6 January 1964 in Jerusalem. The mutual desire expressed at that time to restore love between the two Churches, sealed with a brotherly kiss, remains before our eyes as a lasting icon of the willingness to reconcile. The memorable meeting in Jerusalem paved the way for another historic event on 7 December 1965, the day before the closing session of the Second Vatican Council, when the highest representatives of the two Churches, in the Patriarchal Church of St George in Phanar in Constantinople and in St Peter's Basilica in Rome, removed the mutual anathemas of 1054, as stated in the joint declaration, “from the memory and the midst of the Church” “so that they could no longer be an obstacle to reconciliation in love.”[1] By consigning the tragic events of 1054 to forgetfulness in this way, it was also declared that they no longer belonged to the official record of the Churches.

With this mutual act, the historical poison of excommunication was removed from the organism of the Church and the “symbol of division” was replaced by the “symbol of love”, as the then theologian Joseph Ratzinger interpreted this event theologically: “The relationship of <cold love>, of <contradictions, mistrust and antagonisms> has been replaced by a relationship of love and brotherhood, symbolised by the kiss of brotherhood.”[2] This expresses the fact that the act on 7 December 1965 was an event with ecclesiastical binding force.

In this respect, it differs fundamentally from the event in 1054, when Cardinal Humbert de Silva Candida and his companions placed the bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia against, as the text states, “Pseudo-Patriarch Michael” and Archbishop Leon of Ochrid and their auxiliaries, and when, only a few days later, Patriarch Michael Kerullarios pronounced a counter-excommunication against the author of the bull of excommunication. This makes it clear that the bulls of excommunication were directed solely against individual personalities and not against Churches. Cardinal Humbert did not pronounce a formally valid excommunication of the Byzantine Church, especially since his sentence of excommunication could not have had any canonical validity anyway, as Pope Leo IX had died three months earlier. The fact that the ban was not aimed at the Church can also be seen from the fact that in the same bull the Cardinal praised the Emperor and citizens of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”. In the eyes of Patriarch Michael, too, the scandal of 1054 did not constitute a schism. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras also recalled this important fact in their “Joint Declaration” of 7 December 1965, in which they specifically named the persons affected by the excommunications and added that the censures were “directed against persons and not against the Churches” and that they had not intended “to break the ecclesial communion between the Sees of Rome and of Constantinople.”

With Hyacinthe Destivelle, the fundamental difference between the tragic events of 1054 and the joyful events of 1965 can be summed up as follows: “While the events of 1054 affected two individuals, those of 1965 affected two Churches.”[3] This naturally raises the question of the ecclesiological significance of removing the excommunications of 1054 from the memory and midst of the Church.

If we take the difference between the events of 1054 and 1965 seriously, we must first note that there was no schism in 1054. Certainly, the scandal of 1054 placed a painful strain on ecclesiastical relations between Rome and Constantinople at that time. However, it was not considered at the time to be the cause of the later separation. This only happened later, when the events of 1054 were set as the date of the beginning of the schism between Latins and Greeks. It seems that people were no longer aware that there had been no definitive mutual formal condemnation in the Church between East and West, either in 1054 or at any later date. The Orthodox theologian Grigorius Larentzakis from Graz summed up this significant fact with the phrase “No schism, yet separated”.[4]

Since no schism took place in 1054, the act of removing the excommunications from the midst of the Church in 1965 cannot yet signify the end of the separation in the Church between East and West and the restoration of ecclesial communion, which will find its goal in the resumption of eucharistic communion. However, this goal is hoped for by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, as they express in the “Joint Declaration” that the mutual will for reconciliation and dialogue will lead the Catholic and Orthodox Churches “for the greatest good of souls and the coming of the Kingdom of God, to restore full communion of faith, fraternal harmony and sacramental life, as existed between them during the first millennium of the Church’s life”.

2. Ecclesiological implications of removing excommunications

In order to achieve this ambitious goal, further steps must be taken. This therefore raises, all the more, the question of the ecclesiological and ecclesio-pratical implications and consequences of removing the excommunications of 1054 from the memory and midst of the Church.

a) Dialogue of love and dialogue of truth

While the acts of excommunication in 1054 led to further alienation in the Church between East and West and ultimately to a widespread breakdown in relations, the joint act of lifting the excommunications in 1965 became the starting point for the restoration of dialogue of love and dialogue of truth. The dialogue of love refers to the cultivation of friendly relations between representatives of the various ecclesial communities, which are subject to an important principle of learning psychology, according to which negative emotions from the past cannot be overcome simply by information, however good they may be, but only by positive counter-emotions. Direct encounters and mutual acquaintance therefore have a fundamental theological significance for the restoration of unity.

This soon became effective after the promising act in 1965 in the friendly relations between the Catholic Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, especially with the beautiful tradition of mutual visits by representatives of the two Churches on their respective patron saint's days or on other important occasions. It has become a remarkable custom for the respective Pope to travel to the Phanar in Constantinople shortly after the beginning of his pontificate to visit the Ecumenical Patriarch; by contrast, it was a telling sign of mature ecumenical friendship when Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I came to Rome for the inauguration ceremony of Pope Francis, which can be hailed as a first in ecumenical relations.

The dialogue of love has led Christians and Christian communities in East and West to rediscover the “fraternity” that Pope John Paul II counted among the most important fruits of ecumenical relations.[5] The numerous encounters and mutual visits between the Churches have created a network of friendly relations that provides a solid foundation for further ecumenical relations. The decisive fruit of this practice is evident above all in the fact that Christians belonging to different church communities no longer regard each other as strangers or even adversaries, but perceive each other as brothers and sisters in faith on the basis of their common baptism.

Joseph Ratzinger rightly pointed out that such a dialogue of love is not simply a private matter, but that the restoration of love is an “ecclesial” act. For it is not merely a humanitarian love, but a theological love, more precisely, the “community of love from bishopric to bishopric, from church to church”. Even if such ecclesial agape cannot yet be regarded as eucharistic communion, it can already be appreciated as an “ecclesial connection” that “connects Churches as Churches”.[6]

The ecclesial character of the dialogue of love therefore also implies that the dialogue of love and the dialogue of truth are inextricably linked. On the one hand, the dialogue of love is a prerequisite for even beginning a dialogue of truth. On the other hand, this is not a beginning that can ever be left behind, but rather a beginning that must always accompany the dialogue of truth. Such a dialogue of truth, understood as a serious theological examination of the factors that have caused the separation in the Church, is necessary in order to come closer to the ecumenical goal of unity in faith, as Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew emphasised in their Joint Declaration in Jerusalem in 2014, stating that this dialogue is about “deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit.”[7]

b) Cleansing the memory

An important step in initiating and implementing these two forms of dialogue is to come to terms with the history of many events and statements that have severely strained relations between Constantinople and Rome in the past and continue to have an impact in the present. But how is it possible to come to terms with the past, given that the past is and remains the past and we cannot change it in the present? Or can we?

In this regard, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras were guided by the insight that the past can only be brought into the present through memory. For “the past is present through memory.”[8] The past can therefore only be changed if memory is changed. This makes clear the actual meaning of the Joint Declaration of the Pope and the Patriarch, namely that the excommunication sentences of 1054, by virtue of being removed from memory and from the heart of the Church, no longer belong to the official teachings of the Churches. And by “regretting” the hurtful words, unfounded accusations and condemnatory gestures, the representatives of the two Churches express that the deepest content of the changed memory is forgiveness. Since the old memory of the past, which was a memory of mistrust and accusations, has been replaced by a new memory, namely the memory of love, it becomes apparent that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were, as it were, destroyed in the act of forgiveness in 1965.

What happened in concrete terms was expressed by Pope Paul VI in his letter to Patriarch Athenagoras shortly after the act of removing the excommunications from the memory of the Church, saying that it was his wish “to leave the past in God’s hands, so that we may be completely free to prepare for a better future”.[9] The Pope was guided by the profound truth of the confession of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians, quoted at the beginning of the lecture: “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead.” This refers to the forgetting that is described in the ecumenical movement as “purification of memory”, which is aimed at healing. Such purification of memory proves to be the negative prerequisite for the positive event of the restoration of love.

Since a look back at the past shows that political reasons often lay behind the difficult disputes between Latin and Greek Christians, which led to schisms, the cleansing of memory should not only include theological teachings and pastoral practices; rather, the question that has hardly been addressed in ecumenical dialogues to date should also be discussed, namely the question of the relationship between faith and politics, between Church and State. Such an examination is already obvious because very different concepts have developed in the Church in the East and West in this regard, which have had a significant impact on relations between Greeks and Latins to this day. This also opens up a further perspective.

c) Ecclesial exchange of gifts

Culturally determined differences in spirituality played a significant role in the processes of mutual alienation in the Church between East and West. These included different theological approaches too, which originally did not represent significant conflicts, but which later led to the great controversy over the so-called “Filioque”, which has increasingly been seen as the actual reason for the later schism in the Church. However, the growing lack of understanding and mistrust has also been linked in part to issues which we today regard either as superficialities, such as the wearing of beards by clergy, or other differences in disciplinary instructions, or which we understand as expressions of legitimate diversity within a given unity, such as differences in rites or the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the celebration of the Eucharist. Particularly with regard to the dispute over unleavened bread, which had already flared up in the run-up to the scandal of 1054, the Catholic Eastern Church historian Hans-Joachim Schulz rightly spoke of a “grotesque disproportion between doctrinal relevance and ecclesial consequences”.[10]

While such differences were once regarded as contradictions and even as divisive for the Church, ecumenical dialogue has made it clear that these are largely differences that can be perceived not only as legitimate but also as enriching within the framework of a rediscovered unity. The protagonists of the ecclesiastical act in 1965 had already thought along these lines. In a speech during Cardinal Augustin Bea's visit to Constantinople, Patriarch Athenagoras emphasised that we certainly do not underestimate the multiplicity or the gravity of the problems we face, but that the restoration of love allows us to “see the differences in a whole new light”.[11] Pope Paul VI expressed a similar sentiment in the Cathedral of Phanar: “In the light of our love for Christ and our brotherly love, we discover even more the profound identity of our faith, and those points on which we still have differences must not prevent us from perceiving this profound unity.”[12]

Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI have already accomplished what is referred to in the process of ecumenical understanding as an “exchange of gifts”. Behind this lies the conviction that no church is so rich that it does not need to be enriched by gifts from other Churches, but also that no church is so poor that it cannot make its own contribution to the ecumenical community. This mutual enrichment cannot, of course, be about finding a compromise on the lowest common denominator. Rather, it is about bringing the strengths of one side into dialogue with the strengths of the other in order to learn from each other, as expressed, for example, by the Orthodox-Catholic Working Group of St. Irenaeus with regard to the relationship between synodality and primacy: “Above all, the Churches must strive to achieve a better balance between synodality and primacy at all levels of church life, namely by strengthening synodal structures in the Catholic Church and by accepting a certain primacy within the worldwide community of Churches in the Orthodox Church.”[13] In this way, unity in faith can be regained despite all the legitimate and enriching diversity of theological thinking and pastoral practice.

3. On the path to full church communion

Let us return from considering the ecclesiological and ecclesial implications of the 1965 Act to its actual purpose. By consigning the tragic events of 1054 to historical oblivion in a legally binding manner, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI also declared that the bulls of excommunication should no longer have the weight they had exerted for so long throughout history, poisoning the relations between Latins and Greeks. This declaration certainly does not yet mean that Church communion has been achieved, but it does represent what Hyacinthe Destivelle describes as the beginnings of an “ecclesiology of sister Churches”.[14]

This ecclesiology implies that, as a first step towards the future restoration of church communion, the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Rome should mutually recognise each other as Churches. Where do we stand today in this regard?

At their Great Synod in Crete in 2016, the Orthodox Churches held an in-depth discussion on whether there could be a church outside the Orthodox Churches. After lengthy and controversial discussions, the Synod attempted to resolve the issue with a compromise whereby the Orthodox Church recognises “the historical designation of other, non-Orthodox Churches and denominations that are not in communion with it”, although the unity of the Church “by its ontological nature” can never be disturbed.[15] What ecclesiological consequences the Orthodox Church will draw from these statements with regard to the theological appreciation of the Church of Rome is, of course, a matter for the Orthodox Church itself.

At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church already paid special tribute to the Churches in the East and saw them as forming a fundamental communion “between local Churches as sister Churches”, because they have the episcopal office in apostolic succession and all the valid sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and thus possess the essential elements that constitute them as individual Churches. Above all, in recognition of the preciousness of the holy sacraments, it is said of the Churches in the East: “Thus, through the celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist in these individual Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows.”[16]

Of course, it is not enough for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to simply recognise each other as two different Churches, as is still commonly expressed in the phrase “our two Churches” in the sense that both Churches are referred to as two different church communities. This, however, asserts a plurality of Churches, above which the singular “church” can no longer appear; and thus, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger rightly criticised, a “dualism” remains “at the ultimate level of the concept of the Church”, and the one Church becomes a “utopia” or even a “phantom”, “even though its very essence is that it is to be a body”.[17]

Mutual recognition as Church is the first step towards resuming church communion. This must be followed by a second step, namely the resumption of eucharistic communion. For where fraternal love – agape – exists in a serious sense as an ecclesial reality, it must also become eucharistic agape in order to be credible, insofar as being a body of the Church urges itself to become a binding community in the eucharistic body of the Lord.

Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras already expressed this meaning in 1968 in a telegram to Pope Paul VI with these urgent words: “The hour of Christian courage has come. We love one another; we profess the same common faith; let us set out together on the path before the glory of the common holy altar to fulfil the will of the Lord, so that the Church may shine, so that the world may believe and the peace of God may come upon all.”[18] In the same way, Pope Paul VI too had already expressed his hope in his telegram of 9 December 1967 to Patriarch Athenagoras that “together we may be able to communicate the precious blood of the Saviour”.[19]

Only with the resumption of eucharistic communion will the ecclesiological implications and ecclesial-practical consequences be fulfilled and thus the goal of all ecumenical efforts, which were promisingly initiated with the ecclesiologically important act on 7 December 1965, be achieved. And only with the resumption of eucharistic communion will the undivided Church in East and West be restored.

[1] Déclaration commune du pape Paul VI et du patriarche Athénagoras esprimant leur décision d´enlever de la mémoire et du milieu de l´Église les sentences d´excommunication de l´année 1054, dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome – Istanbul 1971) Nr. 127.

[2] J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Rom und die Kirchen des Ostens nach der Aufhebung der Exkommunikationen von 1054, in: Ders., Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (München 1982) 214-230, zit. 229.

[3] H. Destivelle, Pour une théologie du dialogue de la charité. La signification ecclésiologique de la levée des anathèmes de 1054, dans: Idem, Conduis-la vers l´unité parfaite. Oecuménisme et synodalité (Paris 2028) 35-65, cit. 57.

[4] G. Larentzakis, Kein Schisma, trotzdem getrennt, in: Die Tagespost vom 27. Juni 2021.

[5] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, nos. 41–42.

[6] J. Ratzinger, Rom und die Kirchen des Ostens nach der Aufhebung der Exkommunikationen von 1054, in: Ders., Theologische Prinzipiemlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (München 1982) 214-230, zit. 222.

[7] Joint Declaration by Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew during their private meeting at the Apostolic Delegation in Jerusalem on 25 May 2014.

[8] J. Ratzinger, Rom und die Kirchen des Ostens nach der Aufhebung der Exkommunikationen von 1054, in: Ders., Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (München 1982) 214-230, zit. 222.

[9] Lettre du pape Paul VI. au patriarche Athénagoras au sujet de la cérémonie du 7 décembre et lui présentant ses voeux pour les fêtes de Noel, dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican – Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome – Istanbul 1971) Nr. 131.

[10] H.-J. Schulz, Die Ausformung der Orthodoxie im byzantinischen Reich, in: W. Nyssen, H.-J. Schulz und P. Wiertz (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde. Band 1 (Düsseldorf 1984) 49-132, zit. 99.

[11] Allocution du patriarche Athénagoras recevant le cardinal Bea, dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome-Istanbul 1971), nr. 94.

[12] Allocution prononcée par le pape Paul VI dans la cathédrale du Phanar lors de sa visite au patriarche Athénaoras, dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome-Istanbul 1971), Nr. 172.

[13] Im Dienst an der Gemeinschaft. Das Verhältnis von Primat und Synodalität neu denken. Eine Studie des gemeinsamen orthodox-katholischen Arbeitskreises St. Irenäus (Paderborn 2018) 94.

[14] H. Destivelle, Pour une théologie du dialogue de la charité. La signification ecclésiologique de la levée des anathèmes de 1054, dans: Idem, Conduis-la vers l´unité parfaite. Oecuménisme e synodalité (Paris 2018) 35-65, bes. 59-61.

[15] B. Hallensleben (Hrsg.), Einheit in Synodalität. Die offiziellen Dokumente der Orthodoxen Synode auf Kreta 18. bis 26. Juni 2016 (Münster 2016) 79.

[16] Unitatis redintegratio, Nr. 15.

[17] Briefwechsel zwischen Metropolit Damaskinos und Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in: J. Cardinal Ratzinger, Weggemeinschaft des Glaubens. Kirche als Communio (Augsburg2002) 187-209, zit.. 205.

[18] Télegramme du patriarche Athénagoras au pape Paul VI à l´occasion de l´anniversaire de la levée des anathèmes le 7 décembre 1969 , dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome-Istanbul 1971), Nr. 277.

[19] Télegramme du pape Paul VI répondant au patriarche Athénagoras, dans: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome-Istanbul 1971), Nr.. 201.