Orthodox and Catholics agree on document on Primacy and Synodality
The Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has reached unanimous consensus on the “Chieti text”. This is a positive achievement that is not to be underestimated!
Orthodox faithful
 |
22/09/2016
rome
The dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches over the exercise of primacy and synodality in the Church is proceeding at a slow pace but without stopping. The working session held by the mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held in the Italian city of Chieti between 15 September and today, concluded with the unanimous approval of the document titled: “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church”. The meeting focused on the exercise of the primacy and synodality in the Church before the great Eastern schism. The outcome was welcomed with a liberating applause from the members of the Commission, after the previous session, which took place in Amman in September 2014 reached a stalemate. This was because of the objections raised by many Orthodox representatives with regard to a working draft which did not differ much from the one that was approved yesterday. According to the press release published at the end of the meeting, only the delegation representing the Georgian Orthodox Church expressed its disagreement with some of the passages in the “Chieti document”.
The document approved during the Chieti session, hosted by the archdiocese led by the bishop-theologian Bruno Forte, is an additional working text that follows along the same lines as the first document jointly drafted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the primacy issue and approved in Ravenna in 2007. What is new is the unanimous approval of the latest text.
The Ravenna document of 2007 contained a shared definition of the principle of primacy, as well as the confirmation that – albeit with differences in accepted meanings and nuances between the Eastern and Western Churches – the Bishop of Rome was recognised by all as the primus, being the holder of the Prima Sedes (first see), the Church of Rome. But in Ravella, in 2007, the representatives of the Patriarchate of Moscow made a dramatic exit, abandoning the session before the discussions had even got going properly and the Russian Orthodox Church never gave official recognition to that document.
The document signed in Chieti is obviously not a binding text but its unanimous approval is still a positive sign, the importance of which should not be underestimated given the uncertain success of the meetings, mostly due to new upheaval at the heart of the Orthodox world.
The success of the meeting was aided by the collaborative rather that argumentative spirit shown this time by members of the Russian delegation. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, who headed the Russian delegation, had insisted - since the preliminary coordination meeting held at Chieti with other Orthodox representatives – on the importance of raising the Uniatism (the union of an Eastern Rite church with the Roman Church in which the authority of the papacy is accepted without loss of separate liturgies or government by local patriarchs) issue during the course of the discussions. Hilarion reiterated that “the actions of Greek Catholics in Ukraine and their aggressive rhetoric towards the Orthodox Church are confirmation that Uniatism remains an open wound in the body of Christianity and the principal obstacle in the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches”. Hilarion’s statement, however, did not have an impact on yesterday’s discussions.
It was seen as an “act of duty” to mark the position of the Russian Patriarchate with regard to problems that exist also within the Orthodox world and which the Patriarchate of Moscow is currently facing in the Ukraine. The Catholic-Orthodox theological Commission had already addressed the issue if Uniatism back in the 1990s. Regarding this very issue – which sparked tension once again, after the fall of the Soviet empire in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries – the document prepared by the mixed theological Commission in Balamand in 1993 emphasised the “right to exist”. It also stressed the continuity of the Eastern Catholic Churches that grew out of these processes and acknowledged that the method of partial unions as a way of building unity between the two Churches is now obsolete as it harms the generosity that should inspire relations between the two “sister Churches”.
Another unknown with regard to the outcome of the Chieti discussions was also the “generational” change of guard in the leadership of the Orthodox delegation. This time, the mixed Commission’s Orthodox co-president was no longer the 85-year-old Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The elderly Ioannis, whom many considered to be the greatest living Christian theologian handed over his post to the 41-year-old Metropolitan Iob Getcha of Telmessos, also from the ecumenical Patriarchate. In recent years, Ioannis had played a decisive role in helping to trace the theological contours that would advance the dialogue on synodality and the primacy. But perhaps it was precisely his theological authority that inspired unease and underlying hostility in some representatives of the Orthodox Churches. After some initial resistance from some Orthodox delegates – reported by blogs with connections to Greek Orthodox circles – his young successor of Ukrainian descent was appreciated by all because of the discreet way in which he exercised his co-presidency.
The general compliance shown by the Orthodox delegation could also be seen as a collateral effect of the synodal dialogue recently experienced by the Orthodox Churches are he pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. The Patriarchs of Moscow, Antioch, Georgia and Bulgaria were all absent from that gathering. It was the document on relations with the Christian world as a whole that sparked such a heated debate, that the approved text had to refrain from making any detailed references to the ecclesial nature of the other Churches. But despite all obstacles, the synodality experienced ab intra between the Orthodox Churches may have fostered an attitude of openness and willingness with regard to dialogue with non-Orthodox Churches, first and foremost the Catholic Church.
Within each individual Orthodox Church, elements of the episcopate and organised anti-ecumenical groups – which Zizioulas refers to as “the Orthodox Taliban” are accusing their Patriarchs and Metropolitans of “servility” towards the Roman Catholic Church, which they have branded the “Whore of Babylon”. This is partly why it is best to avoid sugary optimism and defeatist pessimism when judging the forced stops, U-turns and abrupt restarts in the journey the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have embarked on to overcome age-old divisions and restore sacramental unity. The texts approved by the mixed Commission for theological dialogue are still just working documents and will only become legal if and when the Pope and the Synods of Orthodox Churches recognise and approve them. In the meantime, the slow pace of this process is no grounds for claiming that the theological dialogue over the Primacy issue is totally futile. The dialogue process is moving forth slowly and remains open. In the full awareness that no one will follow Orthodoxy’s ecumenical avant-guarde if a return to communion with the Bishop of Rome is perceived as “eating humble pie”.
The document approved during the Chieti session, hosted by the archdiocese led by the bishop-theologian Bruno Forte, is an additional working text that follows along the same lines as the first document jointly drafted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the primacy issue and approved in Ravenna in 2007. What is new is the unanimous approval of the latest text.
The Ravenna document of 2007 contained a shared definition of the principle of primacy, as well as the confirmation that – albeit with differences in accepted meanings and nuances between the Eastern and Western Churches – the Bishop of Rome was recognised by all as the primus, being the holder of the Prima Sedes (first see), the Church of Rome. But in Ravella, in 2007, the representatives of the Patriarchate of Moscow made a dramatic exit, abandoning the session before the discussions had even got going properly and the Russian Orthodox Church never gave official recognition to that document.
The document signed in Chieti is obviously not a binding text but its unanimous approval is still a positive sign, the importance of which should not be underestimated given the uncertain success of the meetings, mostly due to new upheaval at the heart of the Orthodox world.
The success of the meeting was aided by the collaborative rather that argumentative spirit shown this time by members of the Russian delegation. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, who headed the Russian delegation, had insisted - since the preliminary coordination meeting held at Chieti with other Orthodox representatives – on the importance of raising the Uniatism (the union of an Eastern Rite church with the Roman Church in which the authority of the papacy is accepted without loss of separate liturgies or government by local patriarchs) issue during the course of the discussions. Hilarion reiterated that “the actions of Greek Catholics in Ukraine and their aggressive rhetoric towards the Orthodox Church are confirmation that Uniatism remains an open wound in the body of Christianity and the principal obstacle in the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches”. Hilarion’s statement, however, did not have an impact on yesterday’s discussions.
It was seen as an “act of duty” to mark the position of the Russian Patriarchate with regard to problems that exist also within the Orthodox world and which the Patriarchate of Moscow is currently facing in the Ukraine. The Catholic-Orthodox theological Commission had already addressed the issue if Uniatism back in the 1990s. Regarding this very issue – which sparked tension once again, after the fall of the Soviet empire in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries – the document prepared by the mixed theological Commission in Balamand in 1993 emphasised the “right to exist”. It also stressed the continuity of the Eastern Catholic Churches that grew out of these processes and acknowledged that the method of partial unions as a way of building unity between the two Churches is now obsolete as it harms the generosity that should inspire relations between the two “sister Churches”.
Another unknown with regard to the outcome of the Chieti discussions was also the “generational” change of guard in the leadership of the Orthodox delegation. This time, the mixed Commission’s Orthodox co-president was no longer the 85-year-old Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The elderly Ioannis, whom many considered to be the greatest living Christian theologian handed over his post to the 41-year-old Metropolitan Iob Getcha of Telmessos, also from the ecumenical Patriarchate. In recent years, Ioannis had played a decisive role in helping to trace the theological contours that would advance the dialogue on synodality and the primacy. But perhaps it was precisely his theological authority that inspired unease and underlying hostility in some representatives of the Orthodox Churches. After some initial resistance from some Orthodox delegates – reported by blogs with connections to Greek Orthodox circles – his young successor of Ukrainian descent was appreciated by all because of the discreet way in which he exercised his co-presidency.
The general compliance shown by the Orthodox delegation could also be seen as a collateral effect of the synodal dialogue recently experienced by the Orthodox Churches are he pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. The Patriarchs of Moscow, Antioch, Georgia and Bulgaria were all absent from that gathering. It was the document on relations with the Christian world as a whole that sparked such a heated debate, that the approved text had to refrain from making any detailed references to the ecclesial nature of the other Churches. But despite all obstacles, the synodality experienced ab intra between the Orthodox Churches may have fostered an attitude of openness and willingness with regard to dialogue with non-Orthodox Churches, first and foremost the Catholic Church.
Within each individual Orthodox Church, elements of the episcopate and organised anti-ecumenical groups – which Zizioulas refers to as “the Orthodox Taliban” are accusing their Patriarchs and Metropolitans of “servility” towards the Roman Catholic Church, which they have branded the “Whore of Babylon”. This is partly why it is best to avoid sugary optimism and defeatist pessimism when judging the forced stops, U-turns and abrupt restarts in the journey the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have embarked on to overcome age-old divisions and restore sacramental unity. The texts approved by the mixed Commission for theological dialogue are still just working documents and will only become legal if and when the Pope and the Synods of Orthodox Churches recognise and approve them. In the meantime, the slow pace of this process is no grounds for claiming that the theological dialogue over the Primacy issue is totally futile. The dialogue process is moving forth slowly and remains open. In the full awareness that no one will follow Orthodoxy’s ecumenical avant-guarde if a return to communion with the Bishop of Rome is perceived as “eating humble pie”.
No comments:
Post a Comment