RESEPTIO 1/2009 in This Issue

RESEPTIO 1/2009 In this issue

The 12th General Assembly of the Conference of the European Churches, heldTässä in numerossa Trondheim July 2003, recommended that the outcome of ecumenical dialogues touched upon the CEC member churches should be assessed more closely. As a result of this, the CEC’s Commission ChurchesSuomen evankelis-luterilaisessain Dialogue launched in kirkossa 2007 an on evaluation 30 vuoden project ajan ontoimi- the dialoguesnut työryhmä, between jonka Orthodox tehtävänä andon ollut other edistää CEC kirkonmember ja juutalaisenchurches. Inseura- the frameworkkunnan vuoropuhelua. of the project, Työryhmä the CiD on organized viime vuosina in June järjestänyt 2008 a consultation lyhyitä ”Ik- inkuna Pullach, juutalaisuuteen” Germany, -kursseja,to collect joilla surveys syvennytään and evaluations kristinuskon from juuriin twelve ja differenttarkastellaan dialogues juutalaista on global, uskoa jaEuropean juutalaisuuden and local historiaa. level. EachTässä dialoguelehdessä wasjulkaistaan observed työryhmän from the valmistelemaa viewpoint of bothaineistoa partners lokakuussa in dialogue. pidetyltä kurs- silta. ThisVuotta issue 2007 contains on vietetty all the myös papers Mikael presented Agricolan at thejuhlavuotena. Pullach consultation, Reformaat- astorin well ja suomenas a general kirjakielen bibliography isän kuolemasta including on documentary kulunut 450 vuotta. and research Resep- materialtio liittyy onjuhlaan the dialoguesjulkaisemalla which kaksi were Suomen included ekumeenisen in the evaluationneuvoston projectAgricola-seminaarissa. pidettyä puheenvuoroa.

* * *

Dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC Member Churches RESEPTIO 1/2009

II CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CHURCHES: COMMISSION ON CHURCHES IN DIALOGUE

CONSULTATION ON DIALOGUES BETWEEN ORTHODOX AND OTHER CEC MEMBER CHURCHES

Contents

Introductory words / Päätoimittajan esipuhe ...... 3 Tomi Karttunen

Preface ...... 5 Kaisamari Hintikka and Viorel Ionita

Consultation on Dialogues between Orthodox and other Member Churches of CEC Pullach, Germany, 23–25 June 2008 ...... 9

The dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Lutheran World Federation. An Orthodox Evaluation ...... 12 Viorel Ionita

The Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission ...... 21 Risto Saarinen

The Theological Bilateral Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. An Evaluation from an Orthodox Point of View . . 31 Dorin Oancea

The Dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Churches Taking stock from a Reformed point of view ...... 43 Michael Weinrich

Considerations on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue ...... 55 Ioan Mircea Ielciu

Anglican – Orthodox Dialogue ...... 64 Paul Avis

Evaluation of the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue (1975–1987) ...... 76 Urs von Arx

The Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue. Estimation of the Present Stage ...... 99 Ioan-Vasile Leb

Evaluation of the Dialogue between Representatives of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe and Orthodox Theologians: Orthodox Position . . 109 Ciprian Burlacioiu 1 Evaluation of the Dialogue between the CPCE-Churches and the Orthodox Churches of CEC: Consultations of Crete 2002, Wittenberg 2004 and Istanbul 2006 ...... 121 Friederike Nüssel

Theological Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Porvoo Communion ...... 133 Ionut-Alexandru Tudorie

A Brief Review on the Eastern Orthodox-Porvoo Dialogue 2005–2008 ...... 141 Matti Repo

The Dialogues of the Evangelical Church in Germany with the Orthodox Churches: A Preliminary Review ...... 151 Reinhard Thöle

Assessment of the Dialogue between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany (1979–2006) ...... 165 Daniel Benga

The Theological Dialogues between the German Evangelical Churches and the Russian Orthodox Church. A General Assessment (1959–2008) ...... 180 Andrei Eliseev

Evaluation and Reception of the Dialogues between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church ...... 182 Juhani Forsberg

Evaluation on the Dialogue between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Finland ...... 191 Pekka Metso

The Discussions between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Finland, 1989–2007 ...... 204 Kalevi Toivainen

Bibliography on Dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC Member Churches . 211 Kaisamari Hintikka

ISSN 1235-8878

RESEPTIO/kirkkohallituksen ulkoasiain osasto, teologiset asiat osoite: PL 185, 00161 Helsinki, p. 09-1802287, kotisivu: http://www.evl.fi/kkh/kuo/ toimitus: TT Tomi Karttunen, TM Tapani Saarinen (toimitussihteeri) Takakannen kuva: Matti Repo Logon suunnittelu: Juha Silvo Paino ja taitto: Hakapaino Oy

2 Introductory words

In the Christian life of Finland, you can to publish this documentary of the re- quite clearly notice the influence of both search project of the Dialogue commis- the eastern and the western heritage. We sion concerning the theological dia- have two traditional folk churches: the logues between the Orthodox and the Evangelical Lutheran and the Orthodox other member churches of CEC. You Church. In its response to the working can find this bulletin also from our papers of CEC for Lyon 2009 the Evan- website: http://www.evl.fi/kkh/kuo/ gelical Lutheran Church of Finland reseptio.shtml. underlined that “the mandate of CEC covers the whole Europe and its vocation is to gather the churches of Europe, The Revd. Dr. Tomi Karttunen [...]. It is the pleasure and honor of the Executive Secretary for Theology Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland Department for International Relations

3 Päätoimittajan esipuhe

Kahden kansankirkon maana sekä län- nen saavuttaminen, kuten ekumeenisen tisen ja itäisen kirkon perinteen kohtaus- metodologian kehittäminen, edellyttää paikkana meillä Suomen luterilaisilla on kuitenkin työn jatkamista edelleen. Jo erityinen intressi edistää reformaation nyt on saatu kokoon arvokasta tietoa ja kirkkojen ja ortodoksien välistä ekume- kokoavia näköaloja, joita voidaan käyt- niaa. Vastauksessaan Euroopan kirkko- tää tulevissa dialogeissa hyödyksi. jen konferenssin (EKK) Lyonin työpa- pereihin kirkkomme korostikin, että Suomalaisille lukijoille haluaisin erityi- ”EKK:n mandaatti kattaa koko Euroo- sesti huomauttaa, että Reseptio on 1/08- pan ja sen kutsumus on koota Euroopan numerosta alkaen luettavissa myös ul- kirkot, mukaan lukien EKPK [Euroo- koasiain osaston internet-sivuilla osoit- pan katolisten piispainkokousten ko- teessa: http://www.evl.fi/kkh/kuo/ kous], yhteen”. Niinpä KUO:n teologis- reseptio.shtml. Tarkoituksena on panos- ten asiain yksikön ilo ja kunnia on jul- taa tulevaisuudessa internetin kautta ta- kaista tiedotuslehdessään EKK:n orto- pahtuvaan tiedonvälitykseen entistä doksisten ja muiden jäsenkirkkojen vä- enemmän. Tähän liittyvää palautetta voi listen dialogien tutkimusprojektin satoa. toimittaa allekirjoittaneelle ([email protected]) Työalasihteeri, TT Kaisamari Hintikka tai kirjeenvaihtaja-sihteeri Minna Väli- on toiminut EKK:n dialogikomission aholle ([email protected]). projektitutkijana 2007–2009. Pullachin konsultaation (2008) nyt julkaistava do- kumentaatio on ikään kuin projektin vä- Tomi Karttunen, litilinpäätös. Tavoitteiden täysimääräi- teologisten asiain sihteeri

4 Preface

Kaisamari Hintikka

Viorel Ionita

Less than fifteen years after the Second last two decades. Even though in the World War, the first steps were taken framework of these dialogues the in theological dialogue between the churches were able and willing to con- Russian Orthodox Church and the centrate mostly on theological issues the Evangelical Church in Germany dialogues were also affected by the (EKD). Even though also theologically historical and political context in which motivated, the cooperation between the the discussions took place. two churches – living in counties which were still seen by many as enemies of Some of these dialogues, like the pro- war – can be understood as part of the cess between the Russian Orthodox joint effort of the European churches to Church with the EKD on one side and heal the wounds of the war. In the same with the Evangelical Lutheran Church year 1959, the Conference of European of Finland on the other side, discussed Churches (CEC) was founded in order at length in the course of the 1970s and to bring together churches of the conti- 1980s such contemporary issues as nent divided now by a very different peace or reconciliation. These issues kind of war. The Cold War was the were nevertheless approached theologi- context in which a variety of other dia- cally, although they were at least sup- logues, both at the national and inter- ported by the political climate of that national levels, were launched between period of time. After the fall of Com- the Orthodox Churches and the Churches munism, in the process of European of the Reformation. Each dialogue has integration, new social challenges, such taken place within a specific historical as common witness of the churches in and political context, many of which contemporary societies, were taken into have changed dramatically during the the agenda of the dialogues. It was not

5 only the discussion on socio-ethical theological factors affecting the respec- issues that was affected by the time and tive dialogues as well as to the process place, but also the work on classical of reception of these dialogues. theological topics which was in interplay with the cultural and political back- In July 2003, the Trondheim General grounds of the partners in dialogue. Assembly of CEC recommended that the outcome of both bilateral and multi- When compared to the severe criticism lateral dialogues touched upon CEC which has occurred especially among member churches should be evaluated the Orthodox Churches towards the and focused in cooperation with other international ecumenical organizations ecumenical bodies as well as communi- before but especially after the political cated to the member churches. Based on changes in Central and Eastern Europe, the Trondheim recommendations, the it is noteworthy how the churches have Churches in Dialogue Commission been able to continue theological coope- (CiD) of the Conference of European ration and discussion in the framework Churches sought clarity on how to pro- of bilateral dialogues. After these spec- ceed in assessing the theological dia- tacular changes with direct influences logues between the Orthodox Churches on the life of the Orthodox Churches in and the other member churches of CEC. that part of the world, these churches Four goals were set for this process: invested somehow more into their bilateral dialogues with other churches 1. to explore the relationships be- than in the multilateral dialogue pro- tween the bilateral and the multi- moted through the ecumenical organi- lateral dialogues; zations. The two forms of dialogue are 2. to identify the central theological actually not at all in competition with questions dealing with the dia- each other, but rather complementary. logues, and thus, to establish indi- Since the late 1990s increasing attention cators or criteria to measure their has been paid to the so-called non- process; theological – cultural, political and 3. to evaluate more carefully the social – factors of the dialogues among methodology applied in the dia- the European churches. Furthermore, logues; many of the dialogues have been going 4. to clarify the prevailing processes on between the European churches for or mechanisms of reception in some decades as there was an obvious different churches, as well as need to look back and evaluate what had formulating methods, structures been achieved thus far. Following the and concrete steps that could be CEC General Assembly in Graz (June taken to improve the reception of 1997), four consultations were orga- the results of the dialogues in nized between 1997 and 2001 in order different churches. to assess the results of the dialogues between the Orthodox Churches and the In this respect, the CiD set a project in Churches of the Reformation. In these 2007 to assess and look for good expe- consultations a considerable amount of riences of the dialogues between the attention was paid both to the non- Orthodox Churches and the other mem-

6 ber churches of CEC. Three different upon in relation to certain dialogues but levels of dialogues were included in the more profound discussion is still needed evaluation project. Besides dialogues in relation to this topic. Furthermore, between the CEC member churches, the aims and objectives of dialogues are four global dialogues (Anglican- Eastern not always pronounced clearly enough. Orthodox; Anglican-Oriental Orthodox; There is no definite methodological Old Catholic-Orthodox; Lutheran World pattern which should or could fit in Federation-Orthodox and World Alliance every dialogue and the methods have of Reformed Churches-Orthodox) and varied from dialogue to dialogue. one local, Finnish Lutheran- Orthodox, Sharing experiences and analyzing the dialogue were also taken into conside- methodology used can however open ration. By including global, European new and more fruitful approaches to and local levels in the evaluation, a future theological discussions. wider perspective was sought not only to the theological discussions but also On the basis of the evaluation it became to the different mechanisms of dialogue, evident that the reception process is as well as reception of the different dia- very often left without attention in the logues by the respective churches. Each actual dialogues themselves. Some of dialogue was evaluated from the view the dialogues – especially those between point of the two partners in dialogue. the Orthodox and the Old Catholics, the The invited evaluators had not neces- one between the Orthodox and Re- sarily been delegates of their respective formed as well as the dialogues of the churches in this particular dialogue but EKD – are very well documented and were however asked to look at this par- their results efficiently published. How- ticular dialogue from the view point of ever, in most of the dialogues included the respective partner in dialogue. in the evaluation project the actual Based on this material, a consultation reception happened only at the top level was organized from 23–25 June 2008 of the churches and not at all levels of in Pullach/Munich, Germany, in order the church life. Thus, in its final com- to bring together the results of different muniqué, the Pullach Consultation paid dialogues and to assess their outcomes attention to the fact that despite the in relation to each others. consensus achieved in many of these dialogues, more attention should be paid Even though the consultation was consi- to the communication of the results of dered by the participants as indispen- the dialogues at all levels of the church sable and fruitful in bringing together life. the parallel lines and different levels of dialogues, it is clear that the objectives The evaluation papers presented at the set in Trondheim were met only partly. Pullach Consultation on dialogues be- The Pullach consultation managed to tween the Orthodox Churches and other take stock of the material on dialogues member churches of CEC in June 2008 but more work is needed in order to are published now in this special issue reach the level where deeper analysis of Reseptio, the information bulletin of and comparison can take place. Methods the Unit for Theology in the Department used in the dialogues were touched for International Relations of the Evan-

7 gelical Lutheran Church of Finland. The Viorel Ionita is priest of the Romanian editors wish to thank all those who Orthodox Church, professor for church contributed to the consultation as well history at the Orthodox Theological as to this publication. Faculty of the University Bucharest, Romania and Director of the Churches * * * in Dialogue Commission of the Con- ference of European Churches (since Kaisamari Hintikka is Doctor of 1996). He is a member of the Orthodox Theology (University of Helsinki). She Commission for the dialogue with the is Associate Secretary of Theology at Lutheran World Federation. the Department for International Rela- tions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Since 2007 she has been working as coordinator of the CiD project on dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC member churches.

8 Consultation on Dialogues between Orthodox and other Member Churches of CEC Pullach, Germany, 23–25 June 2008

Communiqué Old Catholic – Orthodox Evangelical Church in Germany The Conference of European Churches (EKD) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Commission Churches in Dialogue EKD – Russian Orthodox Church invited theologians who are members EKD – Romanian Orthodox Church of the Orthodox Churches and Churches EKD– Bulgarian Orthodox Church shaped by the Reformation and reform Evangelical Lutheran Church of movements to meet to evaluate past and Finland – Russian Orthodox Church current bilateral theological dialogues. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Two observers from CCEE were also Finland – Finnish Orthodox Church present. Participants met in the Pullach- Communion of Protestant Churches seminary of the United Evangelical in Europe – Orthodox Lutheran Church in Germany. The Communion of the Porvoo Churches – Orthodox. We are grateful for the hospitality we received in the seminary with its prayer- ful atmosphere. We discussed a series Common topics that we of papers (mentioned in the footnote) discussed from both sides of each dialogue. The following dialogues were included: The accounts of the dialogues were positive in all instances. Topics covered World Alliance of the Reformed included among others some aspects of Churches – Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian theology, Christology and Lutheran World Federation – Soteriology. It is evident that ecclesiology Orthodox is still a matter of division among tradi- Anglican Communion – Eastern tions. In discussion we discovered that Orthodox despite the convergence and consensus

9 achieved in certain areas, further steps theological questions in different ways. could be taken to deepen that for a more This can cause problems of ambiguity fruitful outcome. We have taken notice when the statements are read by others that in most of our churches these posi- not involved in the dialogue. It has tive outcomes have not been com- become clear that in some instances we municated to all levels of church life. read the same document in different ways and interpret terminology differ- In discussion it became evident that ently. This needs to be considered when even among ourselves we are not the documents are being created. always fully aware of the ecclesiological self understanding of our dialogue It is imperative that the Churches repre- partners. We realize that it is incumbent sent themselves consistently with every on us all in dialogues to begin to under- dialogue partner. stand the other from his or her respective Church tradition. The goal of deeper mutual understanding requires the dialogues to focus not We recognized that the dialogues and only on traditional systematic themes the subsequent documents produced but also on the liturgical life and witness were created within a specific time and of our Churches in contemporary political context; the context for many society. of these dialogues no longer obtains for all our churches. We can not ignore the The danger of commitment to the dia- contextual and social implications when logues becoming the narrow preoccu- a dialogue takes place. Many participation of a few is to be avoided. It is pants in the dialogue may not have been recommended that the common state- fully aware of these external factors. ments adopted should also consider the appropriate means of their reception. There is a need to clarify the aim and The documents should clarify explicitly objectives of each dialogue. The the ecumenical achievements of the methodology adopted should not only dialogues. Awareness of the importance be consonant with the intended aims of of and sensitivities involved in dialogues the dialogue but also involve a self should make the process of reception critical reflection about the process. We more readily achieved. are grateful that in the majority of cases the results are published. In many instances it could be possible for a Further questions subsequent dialogue to build on the and recommendations previous outcomes to avoid duplication. The statements should always be Do the outcomes differ if we are in- published in the languages of all the volved in “Conversations” rather than participant churches. “Dialogues”?

More account must be taken than in the In what ways can the participating past of the fact that dialogue partners Churches improve the current process evaluate the respective importance of of reception?

10 Each dialogue should consider the The participants of this consultation at appropriate mode of reception in their Pullach recommend that the CEC respective churches for the agreed continue this consultation process with statements; regard of the bilateral dialogues.

Pullach, 25th of June 2008

11 The dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Lutheran World Federation An Orthodox Evaluation

Viorel Ionita

The theological dialogue between Ortho- cularly through their cooperation in the dox and Lutherans at the world level is framework of the large Ecumenical to be considered in the brother context Movement. The common experience of of the relationship between these two multilateral dialogue through the World church traditions. Contacts between Council of Churches at the world level these two traditions started already in as well as through the Conference of the century of the Reformation, first of European Churches at the continental all through the initiative of Philip Me- level, constituted a solid basis for the lanchthon to send the Confessio Augus- preparation of the official dialogue tana to Constantinople in Greek trans- between the two families of churches. lation and afterwards through the well known correspondence between the This official dialogue was possible first Lutheran theologians from Tubingen of all due to the decisions taken at the and the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias Pan-Orthodox level. The first Pan- II (1573–1581). The relationship be- Orthodox Conference from Rhodes tween Orthodox and Lutherans was (1961) had defined the position of the sometimes tensioned already during the Orthodox Churches towards the other 16th century mainly through the pros- Christian Churches around the globe as elytising actions of some Lutherans well as towards the international ecu- among the Orthodox. During the 20th menical organisations, particularly the century the relations between these two World Council of Churches. In the church traditions were improved parti- document adopted at the Rhodes con-

12 ference the Lutheran Churches were dox delegates for the dialogue with mentioned in the chapter D, subchapter LWF are nominated by their respective b under the heading “churches which churches and supported by them. If the are at a bigger distance from Ortho- first category of delegates is responsible doxy”1 . The fourth Pan-Orthodox Con- to the LWF, the second one is respon- ference (Chambésy, Switzerland, 1968) sible to their respective churches. This recommended to the Autocephalous aspect could have considerable conse- Orthodox Churches to start bilateral con- quences for the reception of this dia- versations with the Protestant Churches, logue. specifically with the Lutheran ones, in order to help the preparation of the Lu- The theological dialogue between the theran-Orthodox dialogue at the world Orthodox Churches and the LWF began level. Finally the first Pan-Orthodox in 1981 in Espoo, Finland. The plan for Pre-conciliar Conference, held also at that first meeting was to start with the Chambésy in 1976, noted that many of theme called Participating in the Mys- the bilateral conversations between tery of the Church. The members of the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as the international Joint Commission wanted different exchanges at the academic so to start addressing central ecclesio- level between theologians from both logical questions right from the besides, registered considerable progress. ginning. The two delegations discovered Therefore this conference recommended pretty soon that there are first a lot of to the Orthodox Churches to start the methodological questions to be clari- practical preparation for the official fied. Therefore the meeting in Espoo, theological dialogue between Orthodox as well as the next one in Cyprus (Li- and Lutherans at the world level. massol, 1983) did not lead to any concrete result.2 The first joint declaration One of the difficulties this dialogue had in this dialogue was adopted at its third to face from the beginning was the fact meeting in Allentown, PA. (USA, 1985) that LWF is not a church, but a federa- on the theme of Divine Revelation. tion of churches, which are not only Lu- theran, but also united. The Lutheran The first common statement of this delegates in this dialogue are not repre- dialogue is rather short (only 6 para- senting their respective churches, but graphs) and constitutes a common point the LWF, which is inviting and support- of view without nuances between the ing them. On the other side the Ortho- two traditions. One of the most repre- dox Churches even as individual or sentative paragraphs is the 5th one which autocephalous churches build together states: “The holy scriptures are an the one Orthodox Church. The Ortho- inspired and authentic expression of

1 Cf..Athanasios Basdekis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche, Otto Lembeck Verlag, 2001, p. 125 2 See the bibliography in Orthodoxie im Dialog. Bilaterale Dialoge der orthodoxen und der orientalisch-orthodoxen Kirchen 1945–1997. Eine Dokumentensammlung, hrsg. von Thomas Bremer, Johannes Oeldemann und Dagmar Stoltmann, Paulinus Verlag, 1999, p. 225.

13 God’s revelation and of the experience “sola scriptura” was always intended to of the church at its beginnings. In the point to God’s revelation, God’s saving church’s ongoing experience of its life act through Christ in the power of the in Christ, in the faith, love and obedi- Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy ence of God’s people and their worship, Tradition of the church, as expressed the holy scriptures become a living book in this paper, against human traditions of revelation which the church’s keryg- that darken the authentic teaching in the ma, dogma and life may not contradict. church”4 . This is not only a substantial Because through the guidance of the contribution to the clarification of how Holy Spirit the dogma of the church is the two traditions consider the transmis- in agreement with the Holy Scriptures, sion of the apostolic faith throughout therefore the dogma itself becomes an the centuries, but also a very good theo- unchangeable witness to the truth of logical basis for this dialogue. revelation. Thus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, divine revelation is living The third common statement was in the church through Holy Scripture adopted at the fifth meeting in Bad- and holy Tradition”3 . This statement Segeberg, (Germany, 1989), on The constitutes a good start for the dialogue Canon and the Inspiration of the Holy between the Orthodox Churches, which Scriptures.5 As for the understanding value so much the Holy Tradition of the Scriptures in the two theological together with the Holy Scripture, and traditions the statement from Bad-Sege- the Lutheran Churches, which value berg indicates that they “have one mainly the Scripture. common holy scripture. We read it in our worship services; we use it catecheti- The second common statement was cally. In the liturgy the reading of the adopted at the fourth meeting of the gospel is always the conclusion and the Joint Commission in Crete (1987), on high-point in a series of biblical texts. Scripture and Tradition. With this Jesus Christ is the centre of the holy statement the dialogue addressed one of scripture, the key to its understanding, the most important differences in the the fulfilment of all of God’s promises”6 . theological approaches of the two In relation to the inspiration of the Holy churches. In this respect the Crete Scriptures the same statement underlines statement underlined that regarding “the that the “question regarding the inspira- relation of scripture and Tradition, for tion of the books of the holy scripture centuries there seemed to have been a points back to the working of the Spirit deep difference between Orthodox and in their production, that is to say, the Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with inspiration of the authors, and points satisfaction the affirmation of the forward to the working of this same Lutheran theologians that the formula Spirit in the church who teaches how the

3 http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html 4 Ibidem 5 See Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. Agreed Statements, 1985–1989, Geneva, 1992. 6 http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi

14 scriptures are to be understood and leads and of the Church. In relation to this the faithful to their goal”7 . subject the common statement underlines first that for both Lutherans and The Bad-Segeberg statement constitutes Orthodox “the teachings of the ecu- the summary of all discussions in menical councils are authoritative for relation with what we would consider our churches. The ecumenical councils the introductory matters for this dia- maintain the integrity of the teaching logue. With this meeting a considerable of the undivided Church concerning the introductory work as well as methodo- saving, illuminating/justifying and glori- logical clarifications has been done so fying acts of God and reject heresies that the official dialogue could address which subvert the saving work of God from that point on more central doctrinal in Christ”9 . issues important from the view point of both church traditions. On the conclu- The eighth encounter of the Lutheran- sions arrived at with regard to these Orthodox Joint Commission (Limassol, topics, the third Pre-Conciliar Pan- Cyprus, 1995) discussed the second Orthodox Conference in 1986, in subtheme of the overall topic about Chambésy, Switzerland, noted that “this Authority in and of the Church and this dialogue has begun with favourable was the question of the Understanding prospects, and (this body) hopes that of Salvation in the Light of the Ecume- both the academic and the ecclesio- nical Councils. After different common logical elements will be equally empha- reflections on this topic, the final state- sised and developed.”8 ment adopted in Cyprus concluded that “Lutherans and Orthodox still need to After intensive discussions, the meeting explore further their different concepts of the international Lutheran-Orthodox of salvation as purification, illumina- Joint Commission in Moscow (1990) tion, and glorification, with the use of proposed the theme Authority in and of synergia, which is the Orthodox teach- the Church, which marks the beginning ing and tradition and as justification and of the third stage in this dialogue. The sanctification, with the use of sola fide, theme proposed in Moscow was to be which is the Lutheran teaching and considered as an overall theme and to tradition..”10 The discussion at that stage be dealt with through various sub- addressed not only central doctrinal themes. The seventh meeting of the issues for both traditions, but also Orthodox-Lutheran dialogue (Sand- specific concepts which expressed the bjerg, Denmark, 1993) discussed The respective issues, such as synergia on Ecumenical Councils and Authority in one side and sola fide on the other side.

7 Ibidem 8 Grigorios Larentzakis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Ihr Leben und ihr Glaube (The Orthodox Church: its life and faith). Graz: Styria Press, 2000, p. 201. 9 www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi 10 Ibidem, see also The Revd Prof. Dr. Viorel Ionita, Short Presentation of the Orthodox- Lutheran Dialogues, in Reseptio, Helsinki, 1/2006, p. 18–26.

15 We should also underline the progress the Church was: Salvation: Grace, Jus- of the dialogue in relation to these issues tification and Synergy, discussed at which were never discussed so deeply ninth meeting of the Lutheran-Orthodox and openly by the two theological tradi- Joint Commission (Sigtuna, Sweden, tions together. 1998). The joint statement on this topic mentioned among others that “Luther- The question of the authority in and of ans, together with the Orthodox, affirm the Church offered to this dialogue the that salvation is real participation by best opportunity to make the link grace in the nature of God as St. Peter between the discussion on Scripture and writes: “that we may be partakers of the Tradition and the approach of the Eccle- divine nature.” (II Pet. 1:4) That happens siology. In this respect the statement through our participation in the death from Limassol stated: “Ecumenical and resurrection of the Lord in His councils are the epitome of biblical body, in Whom all the fullness of God theology and they summarize main dwells (cf. Col. 2:9). This is the way in themes of the Holy Tradition. They are which salvation is realized as purifi- not merely of historical significance but cation, illumination and glorification, are irreplaceable events for the Church’s also referred to as deification (theosis). life. Through them the apostolic faith This terminology has not been central and tradition, brought about by the in Lutheran tradition. Lutherans prefer saving revelation of God in Christ, was to speak of the sanctification in the body confirmed by the consensus of the gath- of Christ who is Himself present in the ered representatives of the Church led faith of the believers. Lutherans, to- by the Holy Spirit”11 . In this phase the gether with the Orthodox, affirm the topic of the nature of the church was reality of the believers’ participation in dealt with only indirectly, through the the divine life, in which they grow by issue of authority and from the perspec- the grace of God”13 . On this stage other tive of salvation. However, this made it important theological key concepts are possible to reach a series of agreements, brought into discussion and the progress which can be very significant as basis in the clarification of these issues is con- for the further development of dialogue, siderable. The discussions in Sigtuna precisely with regard to the discussion concluded the considerations on the of ecclesiology12 . theme about the Authority in and of the Church. At the same meeting the joint The third and final subtheme of the Lutheran-Orthodox Commission pro- overall topic about authority in and of posed another general theme for its

11 www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi 12 Michael Staikos, Metropolit von Austria, Sola scriptura sine traditione ? Aktuelle Perspektiven über “Schrift und Tradition” im Ökumenischen Dialog, insbesondere zwischen der Orthodoxie und dem Lutherischen Weltbund, in “Kirche : Lernfähig in die Zukunft ? ” Festschrift für Johannes Dantine zum 60. Geburtstag, hg. von M. Bünker und Th. Krobach, Innsbruck – Wien, 1998, pp. 49–66. 13 www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi

16 further work which was The Mystery of means of imparting the saving grace that the Church. the Father gives through the Son in the Holy Spirit to the church for the salva- The first subtheme of the topic proposed tion of the world”15 . The significance in Sigtuna entitled The Mystery of the of this statement is not only in relation Church: A. Word and Sacraments (mys- to the discussion about Word and teria) in the Life of the Church was Sacrament, but also in relation to a discussed at the tenth meeting of this deeper understanding of the mysteria/ dialogue held in Damascus (Syria, sacraments. 2000). One of the first important affirmation in the Damascus document The second subtheme of the broader was that the “church as the body of ecclesiological theme was the question Christ is the mysterion* par excellence, of The Sacraments (mysteria) as Means in which the different mysteria / sacra- of Salvation, which was discussed at the ments find their place and existence and eleventh meeting in this dialogue (Oslo, through which the believers participate Norway, 2002). The statement adopted in the fruits of the entire redemptive in relation to this topic underlined that work of Christ”14 . We find in the same “salvation imparted by means of the statement the explanation that the “mys- sacraments must be appropriated per- teria of the church are grounded in the sonally, by faith and life in Christ, historical redemptive work of Christ, through the Holy Spirit. Lutherans have and as such they differ radically from expressed this point by saying that the Hellenistic, pagan and neo-pagan mys- sacraments are objectively valid by the teries connected with magic. The word word and command of Christ, while “mysteria” does not have the same they depend for their efficacy on the meaning for the Orthodox tradition as believer’s faithful reception. The lan- the word sacrament. “Sacramentum” is guage of “validity” and “efficacy” is not the Latin translation of the Greek “mys- used by the Orthodox in this context. terion” and it is from this Latin word Lutherans and Orthodox, however, both that specific theological concepts have seek to avoid two extremes, one of developed in the West. Mysteria refers which would make the sacraments to the ineffable action of the divine grace depend for their efficacy on the worthi- imparted in and through the specific acts ness of the celebrant or administrator, performed in and by the church. Lu- the other of which would insist that the therans use the word “sacrament” in sacraments confer grace by the mere accordance with the Latin tradition in performance of an act”16 . Although the which these ineffable actions are the dialogue addressed in this respect ques-

14 Ibidem 15 Ibidem. In relation to the issue of mysteria/sacraments the LWF-Orthodox dialogue could have made use of the outcomes of similar Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues at the regional level, such as the dialogues of the Evangelical Church in Germany with different Authocephalous Orthodox Churches. Unfortunately this dialogue didn’t look into the results of other dialogues. 16 Ibidem

17 tions which were debated already in the In the joint statement there was under- 4th century, the purpose of these clarifi- lined that Orthodox and Lutherans cations was to indicate precisely the “found that the three components of today teaching of the two church tradi- Christian initiation are to a large extent tions in this respect. included in each other’s rites. These components find their fulfilment in the The Oslo statement specified also that Christian’s full participation in the life “Orthodox and Lutherans, discussing of Christ and his church through eating the sacraments on a preliminary basis, his body and drinking his blood in the agree to give emphasis to the sacra- holy Eucharist”18 . The 13th meeting of ments of initiation of the ancient church, Lutheran – Orthodox Joint Commission that is, baptism, chrismation, and the (2–9 November 2006, Bratislava, eucharist. We also agree that baptism Slovak Republic) discussed the fourth takes place with water, in the name of ecclesiological subtheme: The Holy the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Eucharist in the Life of the Church. In Spirit. It brings the forgiveness of sins, relation to this topic the final statement and is a participation in the death and from Bratislava underlined that “Ortho- resurrection of Christ which incorpo- dox and Lutherans agree that the Eucha- rates the believer into the body of Christ rist is also a gift of communion granted as a member of the church. For the to us by Christ. In this communion we Orthodox this incorporation is com- are fully united with him and with the pleted through chrismation, in which members of his body.”19 the baptized receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For Lutherans, anointing with the The fifth and final ecclesiological sub- Holy Spirit takes place within the rite theme discussed so far in this dialogue of baptism itself, and finds its ex-pres- was the issue of The Holy Eucharist in sion in the laying on of hands after water the Life of the Church. Preparation, baptism”17 . These remarks were a clear Ecological and Social Implications indication on what should be the next (Paphos, Cyprus, 2008). Continuing the step in this dialogue. discussion from Bratislava on the significance of the Holy Eucharist, the The 12th Plenary of the International Paphos statement specified that “Lu- Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission therans and Orthodox carefully prescribe (2004, in Duràu, Romania, 2004) how to celebrate the Eucharist properly. discussed the third subtheme of the Currently, they do not share Eucharistic ecclesiological overall theme namely fellowship. However, both agree on about Baptism and Chrismation as many important aspects, such as care Sacraments of initiation into the Church. for the liturgy and its provisions (vest-

17 Ibidem 18 Ibidem 19 Ibidem, see also Pr. Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniþà, The 12th encounter of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission, (Romanian), in “Vestitorul Ortodoxiei”, Anul XVI, Nr. 346, 30 Noiembrie 2004, p. 4.

18 ments for priests and altar, vessels, tion to their social and environmental Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine, responsibility, the purpose of this debate etc.). Because of their more elaborate was mainly to indicate to the relation- liturgy, Orthodox have many and ship between the more specific and specific stipulations, e.g. use of leavened intimate life of the Church, which is bread and red wine, times for the cel- expressed in the Holy Eucharist, and the ebration, consumption of the sanctified responsibility of the same Church elements at the end of the celebration, towards the whole creation. We should commemorations of Episcopal author- add that with the Paphos meeting the ities, etc. While Lutheran practice may Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission include some of these provisions, Lu- concluded its discussion around the therans do not consider complete ritual general topic of the Mystery of the agreement a necessity. Nonetheless, Church and recommended to continue closer agreement between the two tradi- its ecclesiological consideration this tions of liturgical practice would facili- time in relation to the Nature and tate better understanding between Attributes/Marks of the Church. Lutherans and Orthodox and help them to move closer to their mutual goal of As a first point in our evaluation of the joint communion”20 . These observa- Orthodox-LWF dialogue we should tions were meant to complete the underline the fact that a large number achievements of the previous meeting of theological questions, which could in this dialogue. have appeared before as controversial or at least difficult between the two As for the social implications of the church traditions were clarified. This Holy Eucharist, the Paphos statement exercise showed that the two church mentioned that “Orthodox and Luther- traditions have much more in common ans together affirm that their participa- as one could have supposed before this tion in the Eucharist challenges them dialogue. In the same time we have to to respond to the needs of the world as underline that this dialogue left open a stewards of God’s grace. The Eucharist large amount of questions in relation to has an essentially communal character the topics addressed. From the Ortho- which manifests concretely the body of dox perspective the consensus achieved Christ, the church, which is sent to serve in this dialogue is not complete and God’s salvific embrace of the whole consequently not valid without the clari- cosmos. Christ is the gift par excellence fications of all aspects of the respective to all believers, transforming all that doctrinal issues. exists. As receivers of that most holy gift, the believers are themselves trans- Secondly we have to indicate that the formed from receivers”21 . Although the reception of this dialogue is still open. statement mentioned some concrete In our considerations we referred ex- actions taken by both traditions in rela- clusively to the statements adopted at

20 www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi 21 Ibidem

19 the different encounters in this dialogue. communion between the respective In order to have a complete view of this churches, as long as open questions dialogue one should also use the papers which could be church-dividing are still which were presented by both sides at pending issues. On the other side, this each meeting. Unfortunately, neither dialogue did not clarify its methodology these papers nor some minutes or notes from the beginning and this lack of from the different meetings have been clarity put the dialogue in the situation published so far. We should congratu- to change its original thematic direction. late Prof. Risto Saarinen22 from Finland We should also refer to the fact that this for his great work of publishing all joint dialogue never looked into a long-term statements together and this is the only agenda, although some overarching overall publication in relation to this topics were suggested. Nevertheless, the dialogue so far. In the beginning of this specific theme of an encounter is decided dialogue the proposal was made that only at the previous meeting of the Joint two different centres should be estab- Commission. In this perspective the lished to collect documentation in rela- members of the Joint Commission have tion to this dialogue. The Evangelical no idea which will be the theme of the Theological Faculty from Erlangen, next two or three meetings, or even Germany was supposed to take the worse; they cannot say which the long responsibility for the Lutheran side and term aim of this dialogue is. We trust Espoo was supposed to do the same for all these aspects will be taken into the Orthodox side. Unfortunately these consideration for the benefit of this projects were not consequently con- dialogue and in the end for the benefit tinued. All these aspects are major of the respective churches. obstacles on the way to the reception of this dialogue in the churches involved. * * *

As for the methodology used in this Viorel Ionita is priest of the Romanian dialogue we should first indicate that it Orthodox Church, professor for church tried to follow the model of consensus, history at the Orthodox Theological convergence and open questions, a Faculty of the University Bucharest, methodology very much appreciated by Romania and Director of the Churches the LWF. This methodology is very in Dialogue Commission of the Confer- helpful at least for a certain time in a ence of European Churches (since dialogue, but if it tries to find out only 1996). He is a member of the Orthodox what is in common and to leave aside Commission for the dialogue with the what is different or even church-di- Lutheran World Federation. viding, such a dialogue cannot lead to a

22 He published also one of the best evaluation of the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues at all levels. See Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959–1994, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1997.

20 The Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission

Risto Saarinen

1. Evaluation of the Dialogue theran-Orthodox Joint Commission from 1994 to 2006. The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) conducts a global bilateral theological From 1981 to 1993, the first phase of dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy since the dialogue dealt with introductory 1981. The historical background of topics like revelation, Scripture and these conversations is found in diverse tradition and the significance of the regional dialogues and in the contacts ecumenical councils. Since 1994 the between the LWF and the Ecumenical Joint Commission has been occupied Patriarchate, both of which started in the with soteriology and the sacraments. late 1950s.1 In comparison with many Thus it has moved to a second phase of regional dialogues, the global Lutheran- its work, namely discussions regarding Orthodox Joint Commission has pro- the doctrinal content of faith. ceeded very carefully. I have described the twelve first years of this dialogue While the Lutheran participants are elsewhere2 ; in the present paper I will nominated from among the member primarily evaluate the work of the Lu- churches of the LWF, the Orthodox

1 See Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959–1994 (Göttin- gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1997). All original English common texts from 1981 to 2006 can be found in my website: www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin; German translations until 2000 have appeared in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, Bde. 1–3, Hg. Harding Meyer et alii (Frankfurt: Lembeck 1983–2003.) All unpublished manuscripts are available at the Lutheran World Federation. 2 Saarinen 1997, 179–209.

21 delegates represent all churches that are Limassol 1995: Soteriology in communion with the Ecumenical of the Ecumenical Councils Patriarchate as well as with the Patri- archate of Moscow. Lutherans thus lack The preparatory group of the Joint the participation of Missouri-related Commission came together to discuss churches, whereas the Orthodox delega- “Soteriology” in Venice from October tion does not include some branches of 5 to 10, 1994. On the basis of two pre- American Orthodoxy. Greek theolo- paratory lectures, first draft of a state- gians have been especially active in the ment “Understanding of Salvation in the Joint Commission; the Lutheran interest Light of the Ecumenical Councils” was has concentrated on the areas in which written and sent to the participants. In local dialogues have taken place, in this first draft the Lutheran doctrine of particular Germany, USA, Finland and justification was presented as forensic Romania.3 and relational event. The draft is unclear of whether the Orthodox side approves The working procedure of the Joint of this description of salvation.4 Commission consists of plenaries and preparatory group meetings. The prepa- The plenary then met at Limassol, Cyp- ratory group meets every second year, rus, from August 1 to 8, 1995. Finnish presents first versions of discussion Lutheran bishop Kalevi Toiviainen papers and drafts a proposal for a criticized the draft because of its common statement to be discussed by forensic and relational emphases. He the next year’s plenary. Sometimes the also lifted up the view of Christ present preparatory draft has been completely in the faith of the justified person as an rewritten during the plenary meeting, alternative which may serve as bridge and always it has become significantly between Lutheran and Orthodox sote- revised. Since the joint statements are riologies. Toiviainen’s initiative thus written during the meetings, both parties brought the results of regional Finnish- must be able to have drafters who can Russian and German-Romanian dia- draw together and formulate very rapidly logues to the Joint Commission.5 the intensive discussions of both the preparatory group and the plenary.

3 For all regional dialogues cf. Saarinen 1997 and also Risto Saarinen, “Ostkirche und Ökumene am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts”, Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 18, 2001, 222–239. My above-mentioned website attempts at offering updated information on all Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues. 4 Present were in Venice: Lutherans: William Lazareth (co-chair), Anna Marie Aagaard, Gerhard Krodel, Eugene Brand; Orthodox: John Romanides, Albert Laham, Gennadios Limouris 5 Toiviainen, “Some Comments on the Paper ‘Understanding of Salvation in the Light of the Ecumenical Councils’”, Manuscript, LWF. Present were: Lutherans: Lazareth (co- chair), Aagaard, Ruth Albrecht, Karl Christian Felmy, G. Johnson, Georg Kretschmar, Bruce Marshall, Toomas Paul, Hermann Pitters, Tasgara Hirpo, Kalevi Toiviainen, Risto Saarinen and Eugene Brand. Orthodox: Spiridon of Venice (co-chair), Gennadios, Vlassios

22 A new draft was elaborated in which rather disappointed with the outcome of Toiviainen’s proposals were taken into this plenary. account. It was nevertheless extremely difficult to find common ground. This Churches say together in the common was not due to Lutheran accents but statement of Limassol 1995 that salva- rather to the insistence of the Orthodox tion is understood as “liberation from drafters who claimed that the threefold the dominion of the devil and the sequence of “purification, illumination restoration of our communion with and glorification” is the only acceptable God” (L6). The threefold structure of characterization of salvation. This purification, illumination and glorifica- claim, put forward with great emphasis tion also appears in the text. It is presen- by John Romanides, did not seem to ted as outcome of the salvific commun- provide many points of convergence ion and understood in the light of several with the Lutheran doctrine of justifica- biblical texts. (L6) This was a compro- tion. For this reason, the final text of mise that receives some concepts of Limassol 1995 remains very general in mystical theology while embedding its common affirmations.6 them into a biblical framework.

In this text one should first look at how Lutherans formulate their own doctrine. Sigtuna 1998: Justification, Justification is understood as forgiveness Theosis and Synergy of sin and the gift of new life. As such justification becomes a participation in The difficulties experienced at Limassol Christ present in faith. The believer delayed the rhytm of the next prepara- participates in Christ and all his gifts in tory meeting. After more than two the church. (L9) This Lutheran descrip- years’ interval it took place in Princeton, tion keeps the door open towards a USA, from October 9 to 11, 1997. From sacramental and ontological understand- the Lutheran side, Bruce Marshall had ing of salvation, as emphasized by the prepared an extensive background Orthodox churches. With a similar Lu- paper titled “Salvation as Justification theran move it had already been possible and Deification”, whereas the corre- to formulate common statements in the sponding Orthodox paper by Vlassios regional dialogues7 . But since this was Phidas dealt with “Synergy”.8 Marshall not possible at Limassol, Lutherans were reviewed extensively the soteriological

Phidas, Basil Anagnostopoulos, Albert Laham, Aleksei Osipov, Viorel Ionita, Crysanthos of Limassol, Romanides, Basil Doroszkiewicz, Chrystoforos of Moravia, Olavi Merras. 6 In the following, the paragraph number of the text is given in brackets as follows: L = Limassol 1995, S = Sigtuna 1998, D = Damascus 2000, O = Oslo 2002, D = Durau 2004, B = Bratislava 2006. 7 Especially in the Finnish-Russian and German-Romanian dialogues, see Saarinen 1997. 8 Marshall’s paper has later been published as “Justification as Declaration and Deification”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, 2002, 3–28. – Present were: Lutherans: Lazareth (co-chair), Aagaard, Marshall, Saarinen, Sven Oppegaard; Orthodox: Spiridon (co-chair), Chrysanthos, Gennadios, Phidas.

23 outcome of various regional dialogues. jointly that grace does not work out of Thus his paper offered a theological necessity. Human beings can resist support for the Lutheran view expressed grace. The Orthodox side now also in Limassol. The text of Phidas formu- emphasizes the absolute initiative of lated many points of convergence re- God in the process of salvation. (S5) garding the difficult topic of salvific co- Both churches affirm the reality of grace operation. With the help of these two as a participation in God. Lutherans are constructive papers the Princeton able to affirm the biblical meaning of meeting was able to draft a preparatory theosis (2 Peter 1:4 and Col. 2:9). statement “Grace, Justification and Traditionally, Lutheran theology does Synergy”. It was further developed and not speak about theosis but about discussed at the plenary meeting in Sig- sanctification or the presence of Christ tuna, Sweden, from July 31 to August in faith. Although Lutherans have not 8, 1998.9 received the doctrine of theosis as such, the view of Christ present in faith can The Sigtuna meeting was an exception- be employed as a theological parallel ally constructive plenary in the history to the Orthodox understanding of salva- of the Joint Commission. It did not tion. In this sense both churches can create much new, but the plenary was affirm the reality of the believer’s par- able to adopt the outline of Princeton ticipation in divine life. In this context text. Thus the Joint Commission finally the theology of the cross is underlined. received many of the soteriological (S6-7). insights of earlier regional dialogues. The common statement of Sigtuna was For several reasons it may be said that titled as “Salvation: Grace, Justification the text adopted in Sigtuna remains the and Synergy”.10 In eight long para- most important theological result of the graphs, a biblical outline of salvation Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission history and the doctrine of grace is thus far. The Orthodox side presents the outlined. Sigtuna text emphasizes the doctrine of theosis in such a manner that human powerlessness and God’s the Lutherans were able to understand initiative in salvation. Grace is totally it as a biblical view. On the other hand, and fully the gift of God. Only the Holy Lutherans introduced the concept of Spirit can enlighten and strengthen the sanctification, or the insight concerning human will. (S4-5). the presence of Christ in faith, from their tradition and used it to argue that the Concerning the paragraph on the Protestant doctrine of justification is not interplay between God and the human completely alien to the idea of partici- will, in other words: synergy, it is stated pation in divine life. The Sigtuna text

9 Present were: Lutherans: Lazareth (co-chair), Kretschmar, Aagaard, Lars Eckerdal, Toiviainen, Eeva Martikainen, Albrecht, Felmy, Hirpo, Johnson, Paul, Pitters, Oppegaard; Orthodox: Spiridon (co-chair), Gennadios, Romanides, Phidas, Ionita, Osipov, Merras. 10 Bo Holm, “Den luthersk-ortodokse dialog (1997–2000)”. Nordisk ekumenisk orientering 3 (2002), 5–10, has published the English text of both Princeton 1997 and Sigtuna 1998.

24 employs biblical language and avoids then becomes introduced in a manner stating anything on the extremely diffi- that is both kerygmatic and trinitarian. cult issue of whether this participation Word and sacrament have their founda- exclusively consists of God’s “energies”, tion in Christ. The sacramental grace as the Palamitic version of Orthodox flows from the sacrifice of Christ in mysticism has claimed.11 Golgatha. (D4-5). When the believers confess the faith of the church and participate in the sacramental life of the Damascus 2000: church, a human response to the Word Word and Sacrament of God is performed (D6). In this dynamics of word and response the Ortho- The preparatory group met again at dox idea of synergy also finds its ex- Khania, Crete, from October 9 to 13, pression. In this framework the word 1999. It drafted a text titled “Word and can be said to have a temporal priority Sacraments (Mysteria) in the Life of the in relation to the sacraments. But the Church”. The draft was strongly revised text also states that word and sacrament at the tenth plenary meeting of the Joint are interdependent. (D6) Commission at Damascus from No- vember 3 to 10, 2000.12 This text also In spite of these convergences it was begins a new overall topic “The Mys- difficult in Damascus to achieve a more tery of the Church”. precise common understanding of the nature of the church and its ministry. In The Damascus text contains a general its final paragraphs the common text presentation of the concept of sacrament says that Lutherans and Orthodox and a joint discussion concerning the understand the church as the body of Word of God. In the beginning, the Christ which is both a divine and a biblical concept of mysterion is charac- human reality. The church exists as a terized and the church is described as community of the faithful through the the body of Christ. The grace of the history. The Damascus statement sacraments is conceived as a free gift confirms that the proclamation of the of God. (D1-3). gospel and the administration of the sacraments by the ordained ministers For the Lutheran participants it was of are essential for the life of the church. great importance that the Word of God In the sacrament created things become

11 See also the insightful analyses by Johannes Oldemann, “Rechtfertigung und Theosis im Kontext des ökumenischen Dialogs mit der Orthodoxie”, Catholica 56, 2002, 173–192. 12 Holm 2002 has published the English text of both Khania 1999 and Damascus 2000. – Present at Khania were: Lutherans: Lazareth (co-chair), Kretschmar, Aagaard, Saarinen, Oppegaard; Orthodox: Gennadios (co-chair), Laham, Phidas, Elpidophoros Lambriniadis. – Present in Damascus were: Lutherans: Lazareth (co-chair), Aagard, Musa Biyela, Lars Eckerdal, Felmy, Kretschmar, Mickey Mattox, Pitters, Saarinen, Klaus Schwarz, Jeffrey Silcock; Orthodox: Gennadios (co-chair), Lambriniadis, Christos Voulgaris, Osipov, Ionita, Wsiewolod Konach, Merras, Saba Esber.

25 symbols of Christ’s sacrifice and res- Oslo 2002: Sacraments as Means urrection. When the text finally says that of Salvation the sacraments enable a participation in the koinonia of the triune God, it The preparatory committee met again becomes clear that the “symbol” com- in St. Petersburg from February 19 to prises the reality of salvation. (D7-8). 23, 2002. It commented the papers by Christos Voulgaris, “The Sacraments of The Damascus text employs the two the Church as Means of Salvation” and background papers, “The Life of the Jeffrey Silcock, “The Sacraments as Church in Word and Sacrament” by Means of Salvation”. It also prepared a Georg Kretschmar, and “The Word of draft “Mysteria/ Sacraments as Means God and Sacraments in the Life of the of Salvation”. Again the theology of Church” by Vlassios Phidas.13 It was ministry remained in the background; important for Lutherans that word and both the papers and the draft concentrate sacrament could be elaborated in a theo- on the number and theological meaning logical and, in particular, ecclesiological of sacraments.14 manner. The good experiences from Sigtuna, as well as the readiness of Lu- At the eleventh plenary of the Joint therans to speak of salvation as partici- Commission in Oslo, October 3 to 10, pation in divine life, contributed to this 2002, we were glad to see that the state of affairs. But it was also evident Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Church in Damascus that the basic ecclesiolo- of Serbia were represented in the Ortho- gical differences are not found in this dox delegation. The Orthodox involve- topic, but rather in the churches’ view ment in our ecumenical dialogue was of ministry. It is therefore understand- thus strengthened at the same time while able that the new general rubric, “The many Orthodox exercised criticism at Mystery of the Church” still remains in the ecumenical movement. The draft the background. from St. Petersburg was almost completely rewritten in Oslo.15 Some topics, for instance the eucharistic sacrifice, were extensively discussed in the background papers and in the plenary, but left unmentioned in the common state-

13 Manuscripts, LWF archive. 14 Manuscripts, LWF archive. Present were: Lutherans: Kretschmar (co-chair), Saarinen, Oppegaard, Mattox, Silcock; Orthodox: Gennadios (co-chair), Voulgaris, Osipov, Ionita, Laham, Lambriniadis. 15 The final text of Oslo is available in English in and in German in Ökumenische Rundschau 52, 2003, 227–229.Present were: Lutherans: Kretschmar (co-chair), Oppegaard, Felmy, Esbjörn Hagberg, Marshall, Martikainen, Pitters, Roman Pracki, Saarinen, Schwarz, Silcock, Mattox; Orthodox: Gennadios (co-chair), Lambriniadis, Phidas, Laham, Aristarchos of Constantin (Jerusalem), Osipov, Vajko Spasojevich (Serbia), Ionita, Georgios of Arsinoe, Wsievolod Konach, Merras, Meletios Ulm.

26 ment. In spite of these limitations the Both churches affirm the real presence statement was able to reach some inter- of Christ in the eucharist. The Orthodox esting convergences. do not say, however, that the body and blood of Christ are “in, with and under” The opening paragraphs outline the the bread. Instead, they claim that after salvatory significance of sacraments the epiclesis there is no more bread and and connect the topic with ecclesiology. wine, but the body and blood of Christ. A careful elaboration of eucharistic This formulation does not mean an ecclesiology can be recognized. As in affirmation of transsubstantiation, but Damascus 2000, the church is described it only emphasizes the reality of the as mysterion and as the body of Christ. change in elements. (O7) In spite of the This time, however, the description is expressed convergence on the issue of distinguished from the Roman Catholic real presence, the eucharistic theology view of the church as sacrament. (O1-2). still needs to be developed in future discussions. The issue of sacrifice needs The iure divino character of ordained to be addressed; the Oslo formulations ministry is underlined. Although both further allow for different interpretations churches can say that the ordained mi- of the real presence in the eucharist. nister in some sense performs the office “in persona Christi”, it remains clear Although many tasks still remain, Oslo that different views of ministry under- 2002 common statement brings the lie the common affirmation. (O3) Con- global dialogue more or less to the level cerning the effect of the sacrament, how- achieved in some regional dialogues ever, a genuine convergence is achieved: concerning sacramental theology. Both both churches reject on the one hand in Damascus 2000 and in Oslo 2002 the the Donatist heresy and on the other Orthodox participants have been able hand the view that the sacraments would to approach the specific doctrinal issues be effective by the mere performance of Lutheran sacramental theology. This of an act (ex opere operato). (O4-5). mutual understanding is especially visible in chapters dealing with “ex The Oslo text also deals with the number opere operato” and the real presence. of sacraments. Both churches affirm an At the same time, the theology of or- open concept of sacramental reality and dained ministry remains open. say that although a given number of sacraments – seven or two – is traditional, this need not be the only theolo- Durau 2004: The threefold gical possibility. Salvation is, however, structure of Christian initiation invariably connected with the sacraments, even though both churches In spite of the above-stated lacunas in affirm the freedom of God’s salvatory eucharistic theology, the plenary in Oslo action. The text further emphasizes the decided to discuss as its next topic importance of the three sacraments of “Baptism and Chrismation as Sacra- initiation, baptism and the eucharist ments of Incorporation into the Church”. being the proper means of salvation. For this purpose, a preparatory meeting (O5-6). was held in Ierapetra, Crete from 1 to 6

27 October 2003.16 The plenary meeting churches traditionally hold that their held in Durau, Romania, 7 to 15 Octo- approval of the validity of Western ber 2004, was given the task of elabora- baptisms is only an “economical” emer- ting the results of this preparatory gency solution, the text of 2004 clearly meeting.17 move beyond this position and states a theological convergence with regard to The text approved in Durau understands baptism. the Christian initiation as threefold reality, consisting of “death with Christ, Even though a discussion of baptismal resurrection with Christ, and the sealing theology can be regarded as a necessary with the Holy Spirit”. Using Lutheran step in the deeper understanding of and Orthodox liturgical texts, the Joint sacraments, one cannot avoid the con- Commission argues that water baptism clusion that the treatment of ecclesio- in both churches comprises the two first logy and in particular the theology of elements. Whereas the Orthodox iden- ministry were again postponed. It is tify the event of chrismation in the im- obvious that the most difficult problems mediate context of baptism as the third are found in this area. Given the failure element of initiation, Lutherans say that of regional dialogues to produce real in baptismal rite “the gift of the Spirit progress regarding church and priest- is connected with the laying on of hands hood18 it is understandable that the and either a post-baptismal blessing or global Joint Commission hesitates to a prayer for the Spirit”. Lutherans thus discuss the nature and purpose of the continue the Western tradition but do church. not omit the third element, the sealing with the Holy Spirit, in their rite of baptism. (D 2,8). Bratislava 2006: Eucharistic Sacrifice and Real Presence The presence of this threefold structure in both churches allows the Joint After the treatment of Christian initia- Commission to say together that “the tion, the dialog returned to the eucha- three components of Christian initiation ristic issues of Oslo 2002. The prepara- are to a large extent included in each tory group met in Erlangen, October 8- other’s rites”. (D 11) This argumenta- 13, 2005, and discussed the Lutheran tion may become ecumenically fruitful papers prepared by Felmy and Hagberg in the future. Whereas many Orthodox and the Orthodox paper by Viorel

16 Present: Lutherans: Kretschmar (Pres.), Martikainen, Mattox, Oppegaard. Orthodox: Gennadios (Pres.), Phidas, Ionita, Voulgaris. 17 Present: Lutherans: Kretschmar (Pres.), Oppegaard, Stephanie Dietrich, Hagberg, Donald McCoid, Martikainen, Pitters, Saarinen, Schwarz, Silcock, Kenneth Appold. Orthodox: Gennadios (Pres.), Lambriniadis, Ishak Barakhat, Aristarchos, Irenej of Backa, Ionita, Georgios, Andrzej Minko, Nathan Hoppe, Mattias Palli. – The final text of Durau 2004 is available on www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin. 18 Cf. e.g. Saarinen 1997, 261–263.

28 Ionita.19 The plenary met from Novem- blood of Christ by the words of institu- ber 2 to 9, 2006 in Bratislava. The tion and the act of the Holy Spirit plenary also commemorated the 25th (B4a,b). The language of real presence anniversary of the dialogue.20 and the language of metabole both pre- suppose that the bread and wine do not The plenary drafted and adopted a fairly lose their essence in the sense of medi- long statement titled “The Holy Eucha- eval doctrine of transsubstantiation rist in the Life of the Church.”21 Both (B4c). sides agree that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice “once and for all” – ep- The Bratislava document also discusses hapax. It is not the celebrant priest but the proper use of the eucharistic ele- Christ who offers and is offered as the ments (B6) and underlines the believer’s sacrifice. (B2) The Orthodox regard the proper preparation (B3). Lutherans are eucharist as sacrifice in the sense that called to re-think their position with the church brings the bread and wine regard to the handling of the elements which are united with Christ by the after the eucharistic service (B6c). The action of the Holy Spirit (B2c). This eucharistic sacrament is seen by both convergence in the ecumenically signi- sides as an anticipation and foretaste of ficant issue can be regarded as a clear the coming kingdom of God (B7-8). progress from the formulations of Oslo The relationship of the Eucharist to the 2002. ordained ministry requires full discussion at a later stage (B9). The Bratislava document also discusses the issue of real presence extensively. In sum, the Bratislava document can be Lutherans and Orthodox agree that “in regarded as a satisfactory treatment of the Eucharist the bread and wine the issues concerning sacrifice and real become Christ’s body and blood to be presence. The Orthodox statements con- consumed by the communicants. How cerning these two topics are particularly this happens is regarded by both as a irenic; they proceed more or less to the profound and real mystery”. (B4) This level achieved earlier in the regional consensus is differentiated by holding dialogue between the EKD and the Ro- that while Lutherans speak of the real manian Orthodox Church. Both parties presence “in, with and under” the bread part clearly distinguish themselves from and wine, Orthodox profess a real the medieval Roman Catholic interchange (metabole) into the body and pretations of these two topics.22

19 Present: Lutherans: McCoid (Pres.), Oppegaard, Felmy, Wasmuth, Hagberg. Orthodox: Gennadios (Pres.), Ionita, Laham. 20 Present: Lutherans: McCoid (Pres.), Oppegaard, Dietrich, Felmy, Hagberg, Martikainen, Pitters, Schwarz, Silcock, Appold. Orthodox: Gennadios (Pres.), Theodoros Meimaris, Gearge Dragas, Hoppe, Ionita, Vaclav Jezek, Laham, Makarios of Kenya, Osipov, Palli, Rauno Pietarinen, Voulgaris 21 After Damascus, Oslo and Durau, this was part D. of the overall topic “The Mystery of the Church”. The document is available at www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin. 22 Cf. Saarinen 1997, 252–254.

29 2. Assessing the Method ed a more profound and comprehensive treatment. But at least our dialogue has Many features relevant for the evalua- continued with some integrity and the tion of the method, for instance, regard- participating churches have been able ing preparation, authority and structures, to draft modest common statements. have already been spelled out in part 1. There are not many other areas in which above. I will therefore only make some similar Lutheran-Orthodox cooperation brief remarks concerning the relative has taken place. It may be possible to success or failure as well as the recep- replace a theological dialogue with tion of this dialogue. some other form of confidence-building cooperation. Church leaders should The work of Lutheran-Orthodox Joint honestly consider such other forms of Commission from 1994 to 2006 should mutual contacts. But at least until Lu- be read against the sometimes very criti- therans and Orthodox find other fruitful cal and many-sided background of and long-standing forms of cooperation wider ecumenical movement. The bi- and common exercise of Christian faith, lateral discussions described above may we are called to continue our doctrinal appear as tedious and old-fashioned. No dialogue in this modest but nevertheless participant of our dialogue would claim, continuous and constructive fashion. I think, that decisive ecumenical breakthrough has taken place. But it is also The reception of this dialogue has for evident that the second twelve years the most part occurred among experts. (1994–2006) of the Joint Commission’s The manifold simultaneous regional work has been more fruitful than its first dialogues24 between the Lutherans and twelve (1981–1993). Given that during the Orthodox have, however, signifi- the second twelve years the Orthodox cantly increased the local awareness of have been critical of Western churches the bilateral relations between these two in many other ecumenical forums, it is church families. encouraging to note that they have at the same time worked very constructi- * * * vely in the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. Similar observations can Risto Saarinen is professor of ecu- be made concerning some regional dia- menics at the University of Helsinki. He logues as well.23 has been a member of the international Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission Of course this does not mean that we since 1999, and has published several should be satisfied with the results of studies and articles on Lutheran-Ortho- Lutheran - Orthodox Joint Commission. dox dialogues. Many thematic items would have deserv-

23 See Saarinen 2001. 24 In addition to footnote 3, see my paper on regional Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues from 1994 to 2005, delivered in the CEC/ CiD group in Tallinn, June 2006. That paper will appear in the Festschrift for Eric Gritsch, Fortress Press 2008.

30 The Theological Bilateral Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches An Evaluation from an Orthodox Point of View

Dorin Oancea

To begin with this evaluation will intro- Churches are very much interested in duce some elements regarding the this dialogue because their partner is not beginnings of this dialogue, followed the Western world as a whole, but the by short presentations of the Common most radical of the traditional Evan- Statements the members of the Com- gelical Churches emerging from the mission were able to agree upon. Finally Reformation, which tried to go back to I shall reflect upon the results and the origins of Christian identity. The perspectives of the dialogue. Orthodox Churches understand themselves in the continuity of those origins, henceforth the hope to come closer to I. Historical Preliminaries visible unity with a Christian community by means of this dialogue. Actually The theological dialogue between the the dialogue is important for both sides, Orthodox Churches and the WARC is because certain sensitive themes can be aiming at restoring the visible unity approached without the polemical edges between the Christian confessional which separated the Churches belonging families and groups, which are inter- to the Reformed tradition from the ested in surpassing the obstacles which Roman-Catholic Church. Without these have prevented them from sharing full polemics some difficult problems can communion in Christ. The Orthodox be approached, of ecclesiological nature,

31 for example, and by solving them one some strong elements of consensus in might discover important convergences the common faith of the first Christian or elements of consensus between these centuries, in order to approach after- two major Christian families. wards more difficult problems like priesthood and intercommunion with Historically speaking this dialogue better perspectives to reach conver- started not a very long time ago, in gences. Following this line the first two 1988, but preliminary discussions had meetings at Leuenberg (1988) and Minsk taken place as early as 1977 between (1990) concentrated upon the Holy Prof. T.F. Torance, at that time mod- Trinity. The next two from Kappel erator of the Church of Scotland, and (1992) and Limassol (1994) had a the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios. Christological content. This means that After unofficial discussions in 1979, during this first step the dialogue dealt 1981 and 1983, the Ecumenical Patri- with the first two articles of the Nicean archate invited the other autocephalous Creed. Ecclesiology became a theme at Orthodox Churches to take part in this Aberdeen (1996) and was discussed dialogue, an intention which was con- afterwards during the following meetings firmed during the third Pan – Orthodox in Zakynthos (1998), Pittsburgh (2000), Preconcilliary Conference in Cham- Sibiu (2003) and Beirut (2005). The last besy, in 1986. A mixed commission for meeting, which took place in Volos the theological dialogue was established (2007) was dedicated to the last article between the different Orthodox of the Creed. It is necessary to have a Churches and the Reformed Churches closer look at the results of the discus- represented by the Alliance. It was also sions related to these themes. decided that the Commission should meet every two years, being hosted by an Orthodox or a Reformed Church II. The content of the dialogue alternatively.1 The second part of my evaluation is As regards the content of the dialogue, dedicated to the different Common in order to have a solid discussion Statements the Commission agreed foundation, the Orthodox accepted the upon during its meetings. As we shall proposal coming from the Reformed see some themes were dealt with in that it should deal with the Nicean more than one meeting, some others Constantinopolitan Creed, especially required only one meeting to reach the with its Trinitarian, Christological, ec- much desired convergences. clesiological and eschatological aspects. The two churches wanted to identify

1 For details regarding the historical background of the dialogue, see Thomas F. Torrance (Ed.), Theological dialogue between orthodox and reformed churches, Edinburgh, Scottisch Academic Press Ltd, 1985, the Introduction.

32 1. The Common Statement his triadicity and the unity of his eternal on the Holy Trinity and unchangeable essence.

We already said that the first two ses- A strong accent was laid upon the unity sions were dedicated to the Holy between the inner and outer triadic Trinity. They were concluded with a relations of the three persons. It was the Common Statement, but the Commis- main intention of this statement to solve sion felt like publishing commentaries the great difficulty related to Trinitarian on the Statement. Some of the members theology, separating the Christian East had their own commentaries too. One and West. I mean by that the filioque of them belonged to Iain Torrance, the clause. The major theological reflection new leader of the Reformed side and at of the commission succeeded to avoid the same time the son of the theologian the whole filioque problem, when who initiated the dialogue. So many dealing with Trinitarian theologian, i.e. commentaries following the Common that both traditions were able to agree Statement are unusual, to a certain with this result without giving up a extent at least, and they show how keen centuries old identity. In order to avoid the Commission was to avoid any mis- the above mentioned difficulty, a special understandings related to this theme and attention was given to the problem of to agree upon it in perfect agreement perichoresis. The Statement gives up the with the whole Holy Tradition. At the monarchy of the Father in favour of a same time the theme was approached monarchy of the whole Trinity, as a in a new manner. The members tried to consequence of the perichoretical re- formulate a new Trinitarian theology lations between the three Persons of the and this is certainly unusual for the great Holy Trinity. This idea was taken over majority of the dialogues. at Kappel, indicating the creative dimension of this theological dialogue. The Minsk document starts with a very encouraging statement and analysis in The Reflexion from Kappel (Switzer- its different sections the Trinitarian land) gave two explanations to the doctrine. (It is obvious that the Com- Minsk declaration. First of all it dealt mission members tried to stay in con- with the Trinitarian language normally sensus with the doctrine of the Holy used in Dogmatics. The starting point Fathers, quoted quite often, and this was the conviction that the reality of reflects an unusual openness of the God surpasses all possibilities of human Reformed side for the Orthodox theol- language, which means, for example, ogy.) First of all the statement under- that traditional terms like hypostatsis, lines the unity of God, which cannot be ousia and physis are not being used with separated from his triadicity, which also their original meaning anymore. There- can be understood only related to the fore they should not lead to a merely theo- same unity. The next step is dedicated retical understanding of God’s reality. to each Person of the Holy Trinity, Hence a conclusion of utmost importance: which is permanently understood with the Trinitarian doctrine articulated by the regard to the one action of God and to Commission is that of one God and

33 three persons and not of three persons to be the only arche in the Holy Trinity and one nature. The uniqueness of God was neglected during these reflections is not understood in terms of essence, and this was not necessary at all. The or ousia as some abstract idea, but Statement brought convincing argu- “”One Being” of God does not refer to ments for the Monarchy of the Holy some abstract essence, but to the “I am” Trinity, but it should have preserved the (ego eimi) of God, the eternal living Father’s specific attribute of being the Being which God is of himself.”2 only arche. This exclusion also leads to certain difficulties related to the The second important item which was relation between the theological and the taken over by the Reflection from the iconomical Trinity. Classical Orthodox Statement links with the divine monar- theology did not agree with this identity chy. In order to avoid the filioque and avoided the filioque difficulty by difficulty, the Reflection introduces distinguishing the theological and here a new argument, referring back to iconomical Trinity. In my opinion this the authority of Church Fathers like is one of the important difficulties put St.Gregory the Theologian or St. Athan- forward by this Statement and the sius the Great: the monarchy belongs Reflexion upon it. to all the three persons of the Holy Trinity and not to the Father alone. The idea is certainly interesting because it 2. The Common Statement puts forward the ontological dynamics on Christology within the Holy Trinity, against allega- tions that Orthodox thinking is static in The Common Statement from Limassol its essence. According to this pattern, comes with some important conver- each person takes part in the actions gences in Christology. The conver- specific to the other two because of the gences reflect the different ways for the communicational structure: the Holy two traditions to express similar doctri- Spirit does not proceed from the Father nary convictions. Anyway, this State- alone, but from the Father who is in ment required also two sessions, one in perichoretical communion with the Son. Kappel (Switzerland), the other one in Likewise, one should say that the son Limassol (Cyprus). is not begotten by the Father alone, but by the Father who is in communion with One of the points of convergence was the Holy Spirit.3 the connection between the doctrine on Trinity and the one on Christology. The On the other hand it seems to me that two sides also underlined their different the characteristic attribute of the Father but compatible ways of approaching

2 Agreed statement on the Holy Trinity, in „The Greek Orthodox Theological Review”, vol.43, Nos. 1–4, p.224. 3 Actually, the Statement does not include such an assertion, but it might have, according to the logic of the argument.

34 this connection. The Orthodox start standing of nature, as a process: “the from the history of salvation, as docu- term ‘nature’ should not be understood mented by the Holy Scriptures, inter- statically, or abstractly … this language preted by the Holy Tradition and expe- directs us toward … the reality of God rienced in Liturgy, whereas the Re- assuming”. Actually it is not clear formed concentrate upon the biblical enough if nature itself is dynamic or the history of Jesus of Nasareth. hypostatic union. One should remember that in the context of nature “statically” Another important point of interest in means „with no determinations”, whereas Kappel and Limassol was the consensus any “dynamical” understanding belongs regarding the person of Jesus Christ. to the hypostatical existence of God. Quite interesting was the assertion that, Therefore, I think that the second under- given the historical reality of Jesus standing was probably intended because Christ, the human is not altogether the process understanding of nature different from the divine: “The Incar- would exclude the fundamental distinc- nate Son as a concrete historical person tion between an undetermined nature demonstrates that human nature is not and the hypostatical determination fundamentally foreign to God”.4 This expressed by the names Father, Son and conclusion is based on the one hand Holy Spirit. This would also exclude the upon the person of Jesus and on the fundamental complementarity of nature other upon the existing communion and hypostasis, as it is present in the between God and man, because in the Capadocian model of an undetermined case of an absolute difference commu- nature which cannot exist without a nion wouldn’t be possible at all. corresponding hypostasis, with determinations as expressed in the names In this context of Christology this Father, Son and Holy Spirit. second Statement takes over an idea already present in the previous one: This Statement from Kappel/Limassol nature is not an abstract reality but “the was able to identify important elements reality of God”. In this understanding of consensus and convergence, as the union of natures in the person of already mentioned, but also recognized Jesus Christ means “the reality of God some divergences. For example the assuming the reality of man in Jesus different understanding of the Holy Christ, an orientation of God towards Icons, which is directly related to Chris- humanity and of humanity towards tology, according to the Orthodox tradi- God, as experienced in the unity of his tion. The partners demonstrated their person and history”.5 It is interesting to capacity to identify these problems and see that the second declaration puts at the same time their willingness to forward a somehow different under- approach them on another occasion.

4 Agreed Statement on Christology, in „The Greek Orthodox Theological Review”, vol. 43, Nos. 1–4, p. 434. 5 Ibidem, p. 435.

35 3. The Statement(s) on the Church of Christ”, including the relation between the Church and the Holy Sacra- Ecclesiology is certainly a most difficult ments of initiation. This theme shows problem, “a hot iron” (heisses Eisen) of the readiness of the two churches, of the modern theology, of ecumenical rela- two commissions to approach a very tions, and it was quite natural for the difficult problem, which seems to Commission members to deal with its separate the two traditions in a final way. different essential aspects during several It is not only a readiness to approach meetings. They were organized in Aber- the problems, but also a willingness to deen – Scotland (1996), Zakynthos – solve those difficulties. Greece (1998), Pittsburgh – USA (2000), Sibiu (Sâmbãta Monastery) – Romania It seems to me that one of the most (2003), and Beirut (2005). important ideas put forward at Za- kynthos was the understanding of the The meeting in Aberdeen. The first Church as an absolute reality of com- session to concentrate upon ecclesio- munion with God and his creation. logy was the one in Aberdeen, Scotland. Therefore the Commission speaks about I say “to concentrate” because the “a first Church” referring to the pri- problem had been mentioned before. mordial communion between God and the angels, which was extended upon In Aberdeen the Commission members the reality of Paradise. In the context of were able to affirm a clear convergence original sin, this communion was lost, with regard to Church as a gift of the to a certain extent at least, but persisted Triune God in Jesus Christ through the in a disrupted form during the history Holy Spirit. Therefore they were able of Salvation, within the old Covenant. to share the conviction that beyond its It was achieved again and fulfilled in institutional dimension the Church has an absolute way in the person of our a sacramental character, so that one can Lord Jesus Christ. hold an ecclesiology “from above” and “from below,” reflecting the two natures At Zakynthos the relation between of Christ. This makes it obvious that the Christ – the second Adam, recapitu- Church can be never separated from lating the whole of humanity – and the Christ, it is his Body. Another point of Church as the place where the faithful convergence was the distinction be- participate in this reality lead to the tween the undivided Body of Christ and question of the members of the Church. the believers who are incorporated into Who are these members? Is there an it through baptism. And it was exactly amount of unity amongst them, despite this problem of Baptism which demanded the differences separating the Christian further reflexion during another follow denominations? The Communique was up session. able to give an affirmative answer, stating that “Those who receive the The meeting in Zakynthos. This next Gospel and freely believe in it, through meeting was organized in Zakynthos baptism are incorporated into the (Greece) and had as its main point of Church which is the Body of Christ. interest the “Membership of the Body They are engrafted into Christ, put on

36 Christ, are regenerated in Christ, so that the sacraments of initiation – Baptism, in him they may be restored to their true Chrismation and Eucharist. The Re- nature and fulfilled in the Church. What formed see the apostolicity of the Christ has done objectively for all in and Church related not to the historical through his humanity is now appro- continuity of the orders but to preaching/ priated by those who believe and freely hearing the Gospel and celebrating the submit to him as their Lord and Savior.” sacraments. On the other hand the Commission was perfectly conscious that some problems While each of the partners expressed the need a more thorough approach and full belief in the apostolicity of his therefore it decided to deal with “Mem- Church, they appreciated together that bership and Incorporation into the Body a greater convergence might be possible, of Christ” during its meeting which starting from an already existing con- took place in Pittsburgh (United States) sensus with regard to Trinitarian and in 2000. Christological theology: “Both the Orthodox and the Reformed are certain The meeting in Pittsburgh. In Pittsburgh that their convergence on the funda- the Orthodox and Reformed succeeded mental doctrines of the Trinity and to underline the common faith related Christology and their common accept- to the unity between Christ and the ance of the Scriptures constitute a suf- faithful, which is the very essence of ficient basis for building up greater the Sacrament of Baptism, but they did convergence in the future by the Lord’s not succeed to agree upon the Sacra- grace and inspiration.” ment of Chrismation. For the Orthodox it means a special gift of the Holy Spirit, This last conclusion seems very signi- whereas the Reformed see this gift asso- ficant to me because it puts forward the ciated with the Baptism itself. Another convergences already reached upon, the difficulty was related to the Holy conviction that they are the starting Eucharist, which is also a Sacrament of point for new convergences in this initiation together with Baptism and matter, or in any other matter as difficult Chrismation, according to the Orthodox as this, the confession of one’s own understanding, but which does not present failure and the firm belief that enjoy the same status for the Reformed. any progress in these matters comes from God. During this meeting the Commission also dealt with another attribute of the The meeting in Sibiu (Sâmbãta Mo- Church, its Apostolicity, without being nastery). It was dedicated to the holiness able to reach significant convergences. of the Church. The two sides agreed The Orthodox insisted upon the essen- upon the fact that sanctity of the Church tial significance of Apostolic succession is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has a as continuous action of the Holy Spirit Trinitarian foundation. A very interest- in the Church, leading from the Lord ing moment of this session, showing Jesus Christ through the Apostles to our both convergences and differences times and giving power to all sacra- referred to the saints. According to the mental acts of the Church, i.e. also to Orthodox, they reveal the sanctity of the

37 Church, as the body of Christ, without ties in the Holy Eucharist and this is one any restriction of His unique saving of the major meanings of catholicity. work and of His being the absolute This common understanding is being Mediator between God and man. The expressed by each of the two churches Reformed accepted the existence of a according to their own tradition. For the real communion between God and men Orthodox „catholicity of the Church is after their departure from this earthly the extension of the apostolic commu- life, but were not ready to agree with nity as the concrete and historical their role as intercessors. Anyway, from manifestation of the mystery of Christ an Orthodox point of view it was very in all space and time and among all important to notice this willingness to peoples. This extension is manifested accept the reality of a communion in each of the Local Churches.” The between Christ and the departed. In Reformed are convinced that „the Sibiu/Sâmbãta the Orthodox could not possibility of union with Christ is open escape the feeling that the Reformed to all human beings and this is one of refusal to accept the intercessory role the ways of understanding the meaning of the saints is part of past misunder- of the catholicity of the Church as stated standings within the Western Christian in the Nicene Creed”. At the same time world and that one could reach an they also believe that „no local Church agreement starting from the line of argu- should claim the exclusive right to be ment based upon the idea of commun- called the Catholic Church”. Both sides ion: communion with Christ, commun- share the conviction that „each local ion with the departed. Church should be a true manifestation of the one Catholic Church”. The meeting in Beirut. It was dedicated to the last attribute of the Church which This intensive sense of catholicity must had not been discussed during the have an extensive dimension too and previous meetings – its catholicity. One this one is achieved by means of mission, could say that Beirut was a meeting of which aims at „summoning the whole numerous convergences and of almost world to be reconciled to God”. Accord- no differences. It is worth mentioning ing to this understanding mission has some of those convergences. nothing to do with worldly ambitions of power and domination, it is the Both Orthodox and Reformed agreed extended „restoration of the image and on the Trinitarian and Christological the likeness of God to every human basis of understanding the catholicity being in and through the Church”. of the Church: the life of Christ is at a Extended catholicity means the all deeper level the life of love and com- embracing communion with God of all munion which constitutes a mode of those who experience in the Church the existence in the Trinity and is now reality of their image and likeness of communicated and reflected on the God being restored. human and cosmic level. It is also worth mentioning that the This communion is experienced by all Commission members do not only the faithful and all the local communi- identify these convergences regarding

38 catholicity but understand them as a situation is similar to the one in Sibiu, means „to transcend past conflicts and with regard to the saints. misunderstandings”.

The meeting in Volos. The main theme III. A final reflection was „Eschatology”, so that, by dealing with the last article of the Nicean Creed, My final reflection upon the results of this meeting concluded the common the dialogue includes several considera- reflection upon it, without having ex- tions, regarding the process as a whole. hausted the discussions upon it. 1. The first general evaluation refers to The meeting shared something very the dialogue as a whole: it has been valuable with the one in Beirut, in the extremely efficient and by that I mean sense that it was also a meeting of first of all the structure of the whole convergences. One could say that the process. doctrine of the two churches is practi- a. The dialogue was extremely well cally similar, although there are certain prepared, assuming the significance of items which find different expressions such a task for the mutual understanding in the different traditions. The Common between the Orthodox and the Western Statement agreed upon notices, for tradition. Evaluating the first agreement example, that the universal presence of on the Holy Trinity, Lukas Vischer was Christ is being experienced in the able to underline the importance of this Orthodox tradition mainly in the cel- enterprise not only for the participating ebration of the Eucharist, whereas in the churches, but for the ecumenical move- Reformed tradition „the presence of ment as a whole too.6 Christ is encountered in the preaching b. The dialogue process itself started of the Word and the celebration of the from a thorough analysis of what was Sacraments”. Another difference refers supposed to be a common belief – the to the Orthodox conviction that the Trinitarian and Chrystological articles living are called to intercede for the of the Creed. The Commission obviously departured, whereas the Reformed do wanted to transform this supposition not have this practice. One should notice into a certitude, because it concerns the that the Reformed had no objections common heritage of the two traditions, against this Orthodox practice but said the only element which can be the that they simply abstain from it. The starting point for convergences regard-

6 Lukas Vischer in the Introduction to the Agreed Statements from the Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue, Geneva, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 1998: “The dialogue with Orthodoxy confronts us with the deepest division in Christianity. To reach its ultimate goal the ecumenical movement must deal with and overcome this division. For the full communion of the churches, mutual recognition of the two traditions in East and West is prerequisite. Precisely for this reason it is imperative to explore the nature of this division.”

39 ing the time when Eastern and Western which would lead to differences. It is Christianity stopped having some es- true that the results obtained should not sential things in common. be considered in opposition to verified models of expressing the Christian truth At this point the Commission was able but as complementary to them. Under to discover not only that certitude of a these circumstances they might become shared truth, but also points of disagree- a significant contribution to the progress ment, which need a future effort of of Christianity towards its unity by deepening the mutual understanding. means of a progress in theological c. The second step was dedicated to the analysis and experience. major difficulties implied by ecclesiology. Difficulties because the whole 2. The second point of evaluation con- process which led to the emergence of siders the results of the dialogue from the Reformed Churches had a major the point of view of future perspectives. ecclesiological dimension, different In my opinion they show to which from the mainstream ecclesiological extent the different churches which trend of the Western Church. During the came out of the Reformation, in this several meetings dedicated to this case the Reformed Church, for example, problem the Commission articulated will be able to better understand certain both convergences and differences, elements of faith belonging to the older which were regarded not as obstacles Christian tradition with which they did impossible to surpass but as different not agree within their original Western ways to experience the true communion environment provided by the Roman with God. Catholic Church. I mean, for example, d. The third step included less difficult the icons or the intercession of the problems, with real possibilities of saints. If the Lord wills, this will lead convergences so that the general feeling to convergences too. As a matter of fact is that the dialogue moves along the one should mention a real humbleness right path. of the Commission members, who clearly confessed that the progress in The second way of being efficient refers dialogue will be achieved first of all by to the theological quality of the dialo- the Lord himself and not through gue. I do not mean by that the accuracy human efforts. of describing one’s own position, which is most certainly very important and at 3. As I said during the second part of the same time expected, but especially this evaluation, the Commission the openness for new ways of approach- members did not succeed to discuss all ing problems. I mentioned already the the aspects of the Nicean Creed, they problem of the divine and human na- were perfectly conscious of that and ture, of the dynamical character of recommended them for further discus- nature, of the Trinitarian monarchy. The sions. I mention here only one of them Commission members were able to find as formulated by the Orthodox: “What new ways for articulating their common is the Reformed view of the Virgin faith by avoiding lines of argument Mary? Does their reluctance to call

40 Mary the Mother of God imply a 5. One final remark about the theo- rejection of the Theotokos? Does it logical models defended by the Com- involve a separation of the two natures mission members. This remark concerns in Christ?” There are certainly similar both the Reformed and the Orthodox questions which could and will be raised side. The members come from different by the Reformed. It is obvious that the churches and reflect a theological tradi- Commission members have a continuity tion specific to their confessional family of the dialogue in mind, although the and to their own church. An Orthodox first aim – the discussion of the Nicean theologian coming from Romania or Creed has been achieved. By taking Greece, for example, represents the over some of the problems never dis- common Orthodox understanding of cussed or those which encountered one or another problem – let us say of certain misunderstandings during the Trinitarian theology – according to a dialogue the Commission will have Romanian Orthodox model of articu- enhanced chances to go a step further lating the Orthodox tradition. In Roma- on the path leading to convergences, nia we refer to Rev. Prof. Dumitru Sta- because it can build upon a large foun- niloae as its most prominent represen- dation of already attained convergences. tative. If the Orthodox members of the Commission (Greeks, Russians or 4. Keeping in mind these open questions whatever they are) are not familiar with coming from the past, we know that the his theological reflection, they might dialogue will have to deal with other have difficulties with accepting it as a problems of the common faith too, legitimate expression of the common important for the contemporary world. Orthodox faith. Henceforth they start I don’t think of transforming the dia- clarifying the problem amongst them- logue in a reflection upon practical selves and this is, I dare say, the worst matters regarding modern life, although possible investment of time and energy, it might be necessary, but of theological which prevents the meeting to reach themes which emerged in recent times. agreements which might be other way One of them is most certainly the rela- possible. The same is true with the Re- tion between the different religions, formed members too: at a certain which could have been dealt with during moment, for example, the Orthodox the last two sessions of the dialogue. noticed so important differences be- When speaking about Catholicity of the tween their partners’ understanding of Church and its Mission, in Beirut, or the present significance of Calvin, that about the Eschata, in Volos, the Com- they were not able to relate it to the mission could have reflected upon this Reformed identity known to them. problem too, or at least it could have mentioned it. Nevertheless it is impera- I think that the situation is similar in all tive to discuss it over, because the Chris- multilateral dialogues. Therefore the tian communities cannot ignore the suggestion, which might reach some of present interreligious reality and it the people in charge with organizing would be a great enrichment to share them, to have previous consultations be- opinions on such a matter during the tween the members of each side, maybe proceedings of the dialogue. via internet, in order to make the meet-

41 ings even more effective. But looking Dorin Oancea is priest of the Romanian back to this dialogue I am confident that Orthodox Church and professor of the good work done up to now will be history and philosophy of Religions at continued, so that the Commission the Orthodox Theological Faculty members will succeed to use their ex- „Andrei Saguna“of the University perience to do what our churches, all „Lucian Blaga“ Sibiu, Romania. He is Christian Churches expect from them. a member and secretary of the Orthodox Commission for dialogue with the * * * World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

42 The Dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Churches Taking stock from a Reformed point of view

Michael Weinrich

In these reflections I shall take three I. steps. Firstly, it is a question of situating the dialogue with a few, broad strokes Following the Second Vatican Council, in the historical context of the ecumeni- at which the Roman Catholic Church cal movement (I). Then, I shall try to had shown a decisive openness towards do justice to what has been achieved and the ecumenical movement of the 20th to the present stage of the dialogue (II) century, the Pontifical Council for the in order, finally, against the background Promotion of Christian Unity (as it is of some evaluation from the point of called today) entered into numerous view of my Reformed tradition, to cast dialogues with the many churches a glance at possible further develop- “separated from Rome”. One result of ments (III)1 . this development was that the churches “separated from Rome” also began to conduct dialogues among themselves. The World Council of Churches in Ge-

1 Cf. also, on the whole issue, K. Blei, Reformed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox in Dialogue, in: John W. Coakley (ed.), Concord makes strength. Essays on Reformed Ecumenism (The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, Vol.41), Grand Rapids/MI 2002, 137–158.

43 neva had already stimulated a general a possible dialogue – the nature of the awareness that the minimum condition dialogue, its aim, content and method. for overcoming the clichés and prejudi- These exploratory encounters with the ces existing between the confessions Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constanti- was at least to begin to get to know one nople took place in 1979 (in Istanbul) another. In addition to the ecumenical and in 1981 and 1983 (in Geneva) and dialogues related to Geneva, a large it was agreed to launch an official dia- number of bilateral dialogues came into logue on the basis and within the frame- being. Despite all their differences, what work of the creed of Nicaea-Constanti- features do they have in common? How nople (381) and the Christological should the differences be assessed and decisions of Chalcedon. This corre- what is their importance for mutual sponded to the prospects presented by relationships? The Orthodox-Reformed Torrance at the first planning consul- dialogue which is to be examined here tation: “The conversations could aim at was part of this development and also a clarification of the understanding has to struggle today with the diffi- which East and West, in this case the culties which have confronted this Orthodox and the Reformed, have of variant of recent ecumenical develop- their common foundation in the Ale- ments at the latest since the beginning xandrian and Cappadocian theology, to of the 21st century. which the Conciliar Statements [i.e. Nicaea-Constantinople and Chalcedon] The leading Scottish dogmatician, Tho- are so heavily indebted.”2 One parti- mas F. Torrance, who died recently, was cular problem which could only partly able to persuade the World Alliance of be solved here was the question dis- Reformed Churches in the seventies to cussed at the second and third explora- approach the Ecumenical Patriarch of tory consultations, namely the mandate Constantinople with a request for an and authority the delegates to the dia- official dialogue with the Orthodox logue had to be able to start such an Churches on the international level. In undertaking with an appropriate sense 1977, as Moderator of the Church of of its significance for theology and Scotland, Torrance led an initial ex- church policy. Following the positive ploratory conversation on behalf of the outcome of these preparatory confer- World Alliance of Reformed Churches ences, all the autocephalous and autono- with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Dimit- mous Orthodox Churches were invited rios, and various representatives of the to this dialogue. The third session of the Greek Orthodox Churches in the Middle Pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference East. It was agreed that exploratory had recommended the project in 1986. consultations would be organised with And the World Alliance of Reformed representatives and theologians from Churches had also nominated its dele- both churches in order to reflect together gates to the dialogue. The aim retained on the conditions for and feasibility of was modest, namely to clarify the differ-

2 Cf. T. F. Torrance, Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Reformed Churches, Vol. 1, Edinburgh 1985, 11.

44 ent approaches to basic aspects of the every respect to give account to our- Christian creed. In 1988 the official dia- selves about what has been achieved logue then began on the Leuenberg near and on the question of the most helpful Basle and it was followed to date by way of developing a constructive nine more meetings – the latest in 2007 approach for the relationship between at Volos in Greece. these two church families. This is the sense in which the last sentence of the The content of the track followed by this communiqué of October 1st 2007 from dialogue started with the Trinitarian the recent meeting in Volos should be understanding of God and progressed understood: “At the end of the meeting via Christology (especially the under- the joint commission adopted a common standing of the incarnation) and its statement on Eschatology, noting that relationship with creation to certain this completed a general review of central aspects of ecclesiology and es- themes from the Nicene-Constantino- chatology. The idea behind this was the politan Creed, while also observing that importance for the dialogue firstly to discussion of the Creed was not ex- make it possible to recognise the hausted.” different ways in which the common basis was perceived before the obvious The significance of the Orthodox-Re- differences in ecclesiology and in the formed dialogue resides precisely in the conception of the ministry related to it difficulty of its subject matter. It is could then also be discussed in a mean- connected with the deep divide between ingful way. Fundamentally, this also the tradition of the East and the tradition proved to be a suitable approach. The of the West which preceded the Refor- bibliography listed below provides mation by one thousand years. Lukas further information about the issues Vischer has called this the deepest discussed and the results of nine of the division in Christendom. In this sense, ten dialogue encounters. The documen- from the very beginning the dialogue tation on the tenth consultation is not had to discuss more than the obvious yet complete; the meeting took place in differences between the Orthodox and the autumn of 2007. Its discussion of Reformed Churches. When evaluating the so-called “last things” concluded an what they have in common, assessing initial examination of the Nicene creed. the differences and testing out the Although it is more than clear to all the reliability of new bridges, it is a matter participants in this dialogue that these of contributing to overcoming the mutual ten consultations were far from suffi- alienation between the Eastern and cient to deal adequately to any extent Western traditions. In this respect, the with the depth and breadth of the content Reformation Churches have a special of this creed, or to produce a compre- significance because, irrespective of hensive evaluation of the convergences their internal differences, they are to a and divergences between the two tradi- major degree the outcome of an impetus tions, it still seems meaningful to pause to lead the church back to its origins. In at this point and take stock of the results addition to the biblical witness, it was and their significance for the churches to the ancient creeds of the church, involved. It can only be beneficial in understood as based on the Bible, and

45 to the church fathers (and not only on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity” Augustine although he certainly had a (1990) with an explanatory commen- special role) that the Reformers referred, tary “Significant features – a joint not in order to establish a new church reflection on the statement on the Holy but to reunite it with the living sources Trinity”. The common basic principle that had nourished its life in the early is the fundamental recognition that God centuries. Naturally, no one is able can only be known by God, i.e. God is simply to represent the origins and every not the confirmation of any kind of claim to originality is inevitably a con- human perceptions of a higher being but struct to a considerable degree, but rather a reality which can only make precisely in just this way Orthodoxy is itself evident of its own accord. It is a natural relative of the Reformation God’s revelation of God’s self in Father, Churches since the preservation of and Son and Holy Spirit to which our under- fidelity to the original tradition is a standing and hence also our concepts constitutive element of how the Ortho- have to respond even though they will dox understand themselves and order never be able completely to grasp God’s their lives. However, reference to this nature. As a non-biblical doctrine, the common feature is simultaneously a doctrine of the Trinity is an inevitable mention of a far-reaching difficulty consequence of the fundamental New which has so far hardly been tackled, Testament statement that Christ is Lord. because the ways of preserving and Christ is Lord as the Son of the Father safeguarding are so many-facetted that and this is something which we can merely examining the origins on a perceive through the Holy Spirit, i.e. doctrinal basis offers only very limited again through God’s own working. If, promise and cannot do justice either to on the one hand, the unity of God is not the nature of Orthodoxy or to the claims to be endangered and, on the other, the of the Reformers. I shall come back to divinity of the three modes of God’s this difficulty again at the end of my appearance are not to be graded, it is reflections. What needs to be empha- necessary to conceive of both together sised here is the fact that the dialogue in the most harmonious way possible, as such is a sign of a new mutual atten- as was attempted in the Early Church’s tion and of the recognition of common doctrine of the Trinity. In the common ties which transcend all the differences statement on the Holy Trinity, the that need to be discussed. Orthodox Churches affirm together with the Reformed delegates from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches II. that they consider the Early Church’s doctrine of the Trinity to be an appro- The dialogue started its work by dis- priate understanding of the Christian cussing the Trinitarian structure of the faith in God. The Trinity understood as Christian understanding of God (1988 a unity with nuances must always be Leuenberg, 1990 Minsk and 1992 seen strictly as the mutual coincidence Kappel/Switzerland). This resulted in of trinity and unity. The common state- the drawing up of a common statement ment emphasises this balance between “On the way to a theological agreement trinity and unity along the lines of

46 Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus also the origin of the Spirit in the same and thus links the Eastern and Western way as the former. That is then the traditions, because the Greek emphasis source of the mutual objections: the which moves from trinity to unity is West accuses the East of considering complemented by the Latin emphasis the possibility of a relationship with the on the movement from unity to three- Father mediated by the Spirit to be con- fold expression. In this sense, the state- ceivable while completely bypassing ment on the eternal Trinity of God un- the Son. Whereas the East criticises the derlines the complementarity between Western position for a one-sided fixation the conception of God as “three in One” on Christology which leaves no room and the conception of “One in three”. It for the Spirit as such because the Spirit is not so much a matter of the formula is somehow absorbed into Christology; – the mystery of God is precisely not and the consequence is then supposed supposed to be defined by the doctrine to be that the consciousness of the of the Trinity but protected by it; what Trinitarian nature of the understanding matters is the perception of its funda- of God is overshadowed by Christology mental significance for all other state- and thus generally emaciated and this, ments made by theology; everything in turn, has led to an authoritarian usur- that can be said about God and God’s pation of the Church and later of the acts follows insights and rules which are Bible, because the reticence required by covered by the doctrine of the Trinity. respect for the Spirit’s own role has Ian R. Torrance compares the impor- been eliminated. The joint statement tance of the doctrine of the Trinity with found a way beyond the conflict thus the importance of grammar for a lan- outlined when both sides recognised guage3 . that the approach of their particular tradition should not be understood as Even though the joint statement does exclusive. Although the two types of not directly refer to the delicate dispute conception seem logically to be mutually about the filioque, it does imply a exclusive, they are not in fundamental recognisable pointer to understanding opposition and can certainly also be for a rapprochement between the understood as complementary along the Eastern and Western traditions. Whereas lines of the joint statement. Both appro- the Eastern tradition sees the three aches imply an important element of the “persons” as one because the second truth and their logical incompatibility and third persons both have their origin finally reminds us above all that we are in the first – the divinity of the Spirit is dealing in any case only with provision- rooted in same way in the Father as that al attempts at explanation limited by our of the Son –, the Western tradition fo- own possibilities and which by nature cuses primarily on the equality between can only do very partial justice to the Father and Son; since the Son is God in true reality of God. What is really im- the same way as the Father, the latter is portant is that, on both sides, the under-

3 Cf. T. R. Torrance, A theological interpretation of the agreed statements on the Trinity and the incarnation, in: Agreed statements (cf. bibliography below), 25–35, 28.

47 standing of the Holy Spirit continues to the joint statement on the Trinity was be consistently integrated into a Trini- concerned with the nature of God which tarian understanding of God. cannot be distinguished from God’s acts, in the Christological declaration This applies in a comparable way to the acts of God are at the centre of Christology as well, the subject to which attention although they also must not the dialogue turned at its fourth consul- be isolated from God’s nature. God’s tation in 1994 at Limassol/Cyprus: omnipotence is defined by God’s “Joint Orthodox-Reformed declaration commitment to creation which is a re- on Christology”. In line with the different minder to us that we are created for the approaches outlined to an understand- sake of our relation to God and to our ing of the Trinity, there are also different fellow creatures. It is the fatherly love approaches to Christology in the East of God that determines both God’s and the West. Whereas the East chooses existence as Creator and the incarnation the mystery of the incarnation as the key in which God becomes one of God’s to understanding and thus emphasises own creatures. To this extent, the mys- the cosmic significance of the Christ tery of God’s creative work is revealed event, the West concentrates on the in a special way. The new creation redemptive importance of the life, death places the old in a new light. It can be and resurrection of Jesus and hence the seen as an act of God’s self-limitation historical dimension of the Christ in creaturely reality by means of which event4 . This difference, in turn, has far- our understanding of the greatness and reaching consequences but should sovereignty of God is broadened and equally not be understood as a funda- enriched. The resurrection of Jesus mental contradiction. What both under- finally demonstrates the limitlessness of standings have in common is that their the love of God. That is a dimension Christology is rooted in the eternal which has been increasingly marginal- being of God and they emphasise ised by the traditional substitutionary Christ’s truly human nature which in no atonement theology of the West with way contradicts his equally divine its juridical emphasis although it nature (Council of Chalcedon). The certainly does not contradict it. tone of the joint declaration here emphasises that Christology in the Trinitarian After this successful beginning, in its perspective also leads to a deeper under- second phase the course of the dialogue standing of the Creator and creation, naturally became more difficult because provided that the significance of the it then began to look at ecclesiology. motif of the incarnation is taken into Whereas, up to this point, it had con- account in an appropriate way. While centrated on discussing the different

4 “... the Reformed understand who Jesus Christ is (in his two natures, human and divine) from what he does (in his threefold office, in his work of atonement), the Orthodox understand what Jesus Christ does (recapitulating human nature and the whole of creation) from who he is (in the personal unity of his two natures).” K. Blei (cf. Note 1), 152.

48 understandings of the foundation re- human inadequacy. Although the cognised as common, the challenge was Orthodox and the Reformed are united now the opposite: to look for common in the fundamental definition of the points which could be identified despite Church as the body of Christ, the basic the fundamental difference. Here it was difference to which we have referred clearly felt that the debate was not only recurs immediately in their under- about different ways of understanding standings of this image. The difficulty but about different forms of existence is connected with a different under- which had also influenced the menta- standing of reality that should already lities in different ways. Of course, the have been examined in greater detail in partners in the dialogue were aware that the context of the discussion on the first historical factors had played an in- and second articles of the creed but comparably greater part in ecclesiology which was evidently not considered than in other realms of theology, but this necessary then and has now proved to awareness was only of marginal signifi- be an error. Whereas the Orthodox cance in the dialogue. The complexity conception of reality is fundamentally of theological, historical, cultural and ontological and cosmological in psychological implications introduced character, the Reformed approach to a new tension into the dialogue to which reality can better be described as histo- it was in danger of succumbing at certain rical and teleological. What is perceived stages; this was certainly also a conse- by the one side as an expression of the quence of the fact that the method origi- being and glory of God is viewed by nally chosen for the dialogue was simply the other side as the great deeds of God pursued without question. The docu- in a history which is under God’s control. ments on ecclesiology can hardly be Of course, one can maintain that these described as documents of convergence are two sides of one and the same reality, but they do state the different starting but at the same time it must be admitted points and list the common points of that the difference gives rise to two reference which could help in a mean- profoundly different mentalities, each ingful search for some tangible conver- with a conception of its own particular gence. In the process, at some points the life. It makes a considerable difference dialogue came to some very risky con- whether the eternity of God is perceived clusions which, on closer examination, predominantly in being or in time; natu- constitute less of a clarification than a rally the two always belong together but general levelling off – at least, that is how significant differences which need to be I see it from a Reformed point of view. examined come to light at the latest when these mentalities then enter into At the fifth meeting in 1996 in Aber- existential conflict with one another in deen, the basic differences in the varying ecclesiology. The difference described conceptions of the church’s existence in various ways in the published sum- were the focal issue. The mystery of the mary of the discussion could have sacramental reality of the church was indicated a productive dimension if compared with a church which draws there had been a clearer consciousness its dynamics from the insurmountable of the different dynamics in the two tension between divine institution and theological traditions.

49 The embarrassment reflected in the logy with reference to the second Aberdeen document then continued to coming of Christ, the resurrection of the accompany the dialogue as it continued, dead and the last judgment, as found in which is hardly surprising. The results the creed. The joint statement empha- of the encounters on Zakynthos (1998) sises broad agreement, on the one hand, and in Pittsburgh/USA (2000), in parti- although the discussion showed, on the cular, make it clear that the combination other hand that obvious differences on of problems related to systematics was these issues also existed within the two repeated, but this was not taken up as delegations, but that can be viewed an issue for the dialogue. In certain of more as a sign of the vitality of the the formulations – especially in the debate than as opposition between the document from Zakynthos – it is not positions put forward. There can be no quite clear who is really speaking, doubt that the fundamental significance although it is obvious that some of the of the resurrection of Christ in connec- statements make sense only in relation tion with the hope of the resurrection to one of the two traditions. The joint of the dead constitutes the authentic declaration from Pittsburgh finally starting point for the church’s develop- draws its remaining optimism above all ment and thus also for its being. This from a reference back to the conver- sheds decisive light both on the under- gence noted earlier in relation to the standing of the present and also on the doctrine of the Trinity, to Christology perfection of the new creation which and to the fundamental importance of already started with Christ as the the biblical witness. The discussion perspective of Christian hope. It seems proved more productive, however, with to me characteristic of this statement regard to the characteristics named in that, despite its necessary brevity, it is the creed, especially Holiness (Sibiu really basically too long because it in 2003) and the Catholicity of the Church fact lists a number of complicated (Beirut 2005). However clear the re- elements of eschatology without really maining differences also on these being able to provide a clear theological questions may be, substantial points of definition of them, so that the agreement contact can also be found here, which reached here is also more a consent to a are more than polyvalent general defi- common agenda than the adoption of nitions. The dialogue has shown that the any common theological teaching. Catholicity of the Church, in particular, comprises aspects which are of immediate and also practical relevance to the III. mutual relationship between the two churches. It is still clear that the differ- To take up this question immediately, ences have their roots in different under- the special difficulties related to this standings of the reality of the church dialogue between two traditions which and that this needs to be discussed in have been fundamentally alienated from greater depth. one another by their particular histories do not question whether dialogue makes The last meeting at Volos (Greece) in sense; on the contrary, they indicate the autumn of 2007 dealt with eschato- how necessary the dialogue is. The two

50 traditions which are meeting here repre- communication better or finding the sent two profoundly different concep- optimum methodology. But it does mean tual worlds which have undergone a that stagnation in the communication long and influential history to a large process can be overcome with the ap- extent independently of one another. It propriate methodological instruments, would be a problematic ecumenical and clear grounds must be given for a approach to maintain that observing far- standstill on an issue. Since there is no reaching mutual estrangement consti- clear, objective reason to be given for tuted an argument against the impor- the standstill, its grounds must be sought tance of dialogue. in the methodology of the dialogue.

However, a dialogue of this kind, if it In the long term, it would be an under- is to be conducted meaningfully in the estimate of ecumenism if it were to be long term, needs some critical self- satisfied merely with engaging in mutual examination which should be expected explanation of how each party under- to name, analyse and then also evaluate stands itself. Ecumenism would be tide the difficulties. It is possible that it may down to its prolegomena if it were to not make sense to start a dialogue by see its purpose only as one church de- discussing the conditions for its pos- scribing its faith to another. In the long sibilities and expectations but if, in the term, a comparison of traditions, which longer term, it is to be protected from is essentially a conservative method, producing its own new prejudices and would remain a rather depressing busi- alienation, it will not be able to avoid ness without a creative approach to its reflecting on its own historical and results, because there would be no real hermeneutical conditions. If this does mutual relationship and only, at the not happen, it is condemned from the most, the satisfaction of noting this or start to expend a tremendous amount of that parallel. If the different ways of energy in order, time and again, to come handling such observations are not take up against similar if not the same barri- up as the subject in a dialogue, one can ers. The attraction of déjà vu experiences hardly expect any relevant reception of fades at the point where doubts arise dialogue results to come about. And, about the productivity of the effort in- without reception, a dialogue is of im- vested. It is not so much exhaustion portance only for those who participate caused by the debates on content but in it. This raises a desirable issue which more a sense of weariness from repeat- the dialogue itself has so far not yet edly being confronted with similar taken up. combinations of problems which seem to set a limit to the dialogue. Going round In contrast to the climate of the world, in circles or a standstill are, however, one can observe a general cooling down not insurmountable events that inevi- of the climate in relations between tably result from the issues in the dia- Orthodoxy and Protestantism since the logue; on the contrary, they are the “Wall” came down. The Protestant product of the communication process. Churches repeatedly find themselves – This is not to imply that all problems even in published statements – faced could be easily solved by organising the with massive accusations from certain

51 Orthodox Churches which cast doubt results do not come about automati- at least on the way in which dialogue cally; what a dialogue can achieve, and has been conducted to date. Here one what not, depends to a large degree on recognises the fragility of a mutual the leadership and methodology of the relationship beyond which the dialogue dialogue. As soon as one consents to at its different levels has so far not yet enter into a dialogue, it is necessary also really been able to go. In this connec- to explore its possibilities and breadth tion, it has become clear that churches in order to make it possible to use this which enjoy an undisputed majority instrument to its best advantage. Even position in their countries are usually in situations where no thought is given less inclined to mutual dialogue than to methods and hermeneutical ap- churches in regions with a mixture of proaches, methods and hermeneutical confessions5 . conceptions are involved but without being discussed, so one cannot exclude There has been repeated talk about a the possibility that different perceptions “Protestantisation” of the ecumenical may constitute more of a mutual obsta- movement. But the practical results cle than a help. This dialogue – and produced by the dialogue thus far tend certainly not only this one – has probably rather to point in the opposite direction. so far given too little consideration to At the methodological level, there may such questions6 . perhaps be some “Westernisation” when progress in ecumenism is measured by As far as the content is concerned, as I the results of dialogues, and then also understand it, one should also give some “Protestantisation” when dia- account of the difficult relationship logues are confronted conceptually with between truth and theology or dogmatic the demand for self-critical, hermeneu- statements in the context of the complex tical differentiation. However much a of problems described. How close to the dialogue may also be an encounter truth are theological statements which between persons and between the are expressed in human formulations traditions which they represent (and in about realities brought about by God? this respect this dialogue was richly Another related question is that of the blessed with experiences), its purpose room really given to theology and thus equally clearly goes beyond an encounter to doctrine in the life of a church. This as such because it is clear that the en- question is not insignificant when eva- counter takes place with a specific task luating what can and should finally be and will finally be assessed by the results expected from dialogues in practical connected with its stated task. But these terms. Concentration on theological

5 For example, I experience the dialogue which the Evangelical Church in Germany is conducting with the Orthodox Church in Romania as more flexible and theologically productive than the Orthodox-Reformed dialogue at the international level which has clearly been increasingly influenced by Greek Orthodoxy. 6 In addition, there has been a lack of really professional accompaniment of the dialogue both on the Reformed and on the Orthodox side.

52 dialogue as a method must be seen in a The fact that it is ecclesiology, above realistic and sober way if ecumenism is all, which is the fundamental point of not to succumb to an unfounded de- disagreement in the relationship between pendency on a monopoly use of a the Orthodox and Reformed Churches, specific instrument. can certainly be interpreted theologically in very different ways. In an Ortho- Another problem, which is hard to dox understanding, this would probably handle but also essential, is the question be seen as a sign of the fundamental of the reception of the dialogue in the distance between the two traditions respective churches. Our dialogue which are still at the very beginning of shares this problem with other dia- their efforts to communicate. From a logues, the results of which sometimes Reformed point of view, however, it play no part beyond the publication of could be claimed with some relief that the documentation. At this point, I do it is only ecclesiology which divides us, not wish to engage in a detailed dis- whereas we can at least identify solid cussion of the issue although the time common points of agreement on central has certainly come to address this in all basic theological issues where we can seriousness. Suffice it to say that the also name important things we have in results of the dialogue appear to have common. But, on closer examination, been formulated above all for those who one cannot really consider either the negotiated them (and also for a few Orthodox pessimism or the Reformed experts who are working on the issues optimism to be correct because ecclesio- discussed). Even the bodies in the logy is certainly not something that churches which are expressly concerned remains unchanged; it is always also a with ecumenism are often incapable of logical reflection of what one thinks undertaking an appropriate evaluation about the Triune God and God’s his- of the consequences of dialogue results. torical dealings with humankind. What As a rule, the documents adopted fail one can expect of human beings and to formulate the relevance of the results their possibilities to grasp God as a so clearly that they enjoy the attention present reality depends precisely on that of those who were not participants in approach. In this sense, one can certainly the dialogue. The results of a dialogue state that a hopeful common start has should be presented in a form which indeed been made, but that the dialogue makes the decisive points of contact for has not yet really grown beyond this reception explicit, so that the discovery initial phase and that will also hardly of the objective ecumenical benefit does be possible unless it examines itself self- not just depend on the initiative of the critically and gives itself a productive receiving churches7 . account of its present situation.

7 It is possible that then responses to the results achieved would not turn out to be so random and embarrassingly inapposite as the three commentaries by Anna Case-Winters, O.V. Jathanna and Abtinio de Gogoy Sobrinho in the bibliography listed below edited by Lukas Vischer.

53 * * * World Alliance of Reformed Churches 1998 (German translations in: Doku- Michael Weinrich is professor of mente wachsender Übereinstimmung, systematic theology in the Protestant ed. H. Meyer et al,. Vol.2, Paderborn/ Theological Faculty of Ruhr-University Frankfurt a. M. 1992, 316–330 and Bochum, Germany, and director of Vol.3, 2003, 151–160). Ecumenical Institute. He is teaching dogmatics and ecumenics and involved Orthodox-Reformed international in numerous ecumenical dialogues on dialogue: convergences on the doctrine national and international level. of the Church (1996–2005), in: Reformed World 57 (2007), 86–101.

Bibliography Thomas F. Torrance (ed.), Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Agreed statements from the Orthodox- Reformed Churches, Vol.1, Edinburgh: Reformed Dialogue, ed. Lukas Vischer Scottish Academic Press 1985 and (Studies from the World Alliance of Vol.2, Edinburgh 1993. Reformed Churches 38), Geneva:

54 Considerations on the Anglican- Orthodox Theological Dialogue

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

I. Introduction and c) through the union of the two “traditions” a complex religious moral Shortly after the Reformation in the 16th living could be achieved and an im- century, the Church of England focused portant progress could be made in the its eyes towards the Eastern Orthodox field of theological study. Church, the possessor of the treasury of true Apostolic Faith, establishing Within the framework of these contacts contacts of rapprochement and mutual visible similarities have been discovered acquaintance. between the Church of England and the Orthodox Church. Among these, the The causes leading to co-operation following stand out: 1) the Episcopate; between the two churches are manifold. 2) the administrative organization of the Among these we mention: 1) the main two churches; 3) the universalistic tendency of the churches in the Anglican feature (the geographic character) of Communion to return to the sources of both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy; 4) the primitive Church and 2) the desire mutual desire for unity, etc. for unity of the two churches. At the various meetings between Angli- It is expected that all relationships and cans and Orthodox throughout the contacts at all levels between the two centuries varied issues concerning the churches should bear fruit: a) through Faith were addressed (i.e. Holy Scripture unity Anglicans should find themselves and Sacred Tradition, Revelation and in a church of Apostolic origin; b) through Inspiration, Church, Holy Trinity, Sacra- co-operation and unity between Angli- ments, Ecumenical Councils, Creeds, canism and Orthodoxy the Christian Divine Worship, Veneration of Saints, Church in general would be strengthened Intercommunion, etc.) and certain doc-

55 trinal agreements were reached. In spite there are a lot of difficulties. Our intel- of these, there were also disagreements lectual procedures, the theological and other issues remaining to be dis- mentality, the historical background are cussed even at the present time. often different. All these give me the feeling that the dialogue would not be Although Anglican-Orthodox relations an easy one. (...) This is the reason for between the 16th and the 19th centuries which I personally believe that the did not lead to the concrete results for reciprocal perseverance, the striving for both these churches, they did manage agreement and first of all the power of to clarify the doctrinal differences the Holy Spirit would help us to materi- between these Christian communities alize together an important thing for all and to anticipate a closer co-operation Christian world, to find a way to form which could lead to their unity in the in today’s living terms the permanent future. truth which the Orthodox Church through its confession of faith and cult, At the beginning of the 20th century, and always kept, as no another occidental until the VIIth decade, Anglican-Ortho- church did it.” dox relations have been intensified and began to take shape in a series of official These statements of the English theolo- visits at the highest level, made by the gians in connection with the Anglican- Archbishop of Canterbury in Constanti- Orthodox dialogue represent a real nople as well as in other capitals of guideline for the future approach of the Orthodox countries (e.g. Athens, problems and relations between the Moscow, Bucharest, Sophia) and also Orthodox Churches and the Commu- the visits of the Ecumenical Patriarch nion of the Anglican Churches. and other church leaders in Great Britain. These contacts gave a positive development to the relations between these churches and prepared the beginning of II. The Anglican-Orthodox official dialogue between them. The Theological Dialogue foundation of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Committee for the dialogue After a long preparation, beginning in with the Anglicans and the Inter- 1966, the first official meeting of the Anglican Dialogues Committee was Anglican-Orthodox dialogue took place also a step forward made by these two in Oxford between 6–13 July 1973, with churches in their attempt for unification. representatives of the Anglican Com- munion as well as of all the Orthodox The opinion of the Reverend Donald A. Churches taking part. M. Allchin is that the aim of these Committees was “to attain a common At the end of the first session of the statement of the inseparable Church’s Anglican-Orthodox dialogue it was faith.” Talking about the perspectives decided that the debates for “common and the future of Anglican-Orthodox doctrinal discussions” between the dialogue, he made a relevant statement: Orthodox Church and the Anglican “On the one hand, I have to admit that Church should be continued in three

56 sub-commissions, in 1974 and 1975, it ensures the true interpretation of the each commission having the obligation Bible. to discuss one of the three proposed subjects: 1. Inspiration and Revelation The second sub-commission which in Holy Scriptures; 2. The Synod’s discussed the subject: “The Ecumenical Authority; 3. The Church as Eucharistic Synods’ Authority”, took place at Ram- Community. nicu-Valcea, Romania, (9-14 July 1974) and took the following common The fist sub-commission met in Gonia decisions: (Chania), Crete, on 1–6 July 1974. At the end of the discussions the following 1. In the Orthodox Tradition the first “axiomatic theses” were enunciated: seven Ecumenical Synods form a historical, theological and spiritual unity 1. The Bible has a double character, which centres on the teaching of being divine and human at the same Trinitarian and Christological Faith of time: it is God’s word, exposed in the Church, with basic implications for human speech. ecclesiology. But, in Anglicanism it was believed that this wording was suffi- 2. In its quality as God’s word, the Bible ciently expressed in the decisions of the is unique. Our approach to the Bible is first four Ecumenical Synods. through submission and obedience to the revelation of God Himself, given to 2. In the Orthodox Tradition, the 7th us by Him through it. Ecumenical Synod is considered as belonging to the synodical heritage, and 3. We know, receive and interpret the its dogmatic content as deriving directly Scripture through the Church and in the from the Synod’s decisions that pre- Church. The Church cannot ignore the ceded it. The attitude of Anglican results of scientific researches con- Churches is concerning this Synod cerning the Bible, no matter from which inclined to be negative, partly because side it could come, but it tests them. of the confusions concerning the historical circumstances in which it took 4. The books of the Scripture included place. in the Canon are authoritative because the Church recognizes in them the 3. The Orthodox Tradition understands authentic Revelation of God. the Synods entirely as being supreme expressions of Church infallibility. In 5. Any separation between Scripture the Anglican theology it was usually and Tradition which would treat them discussed about the Church as being as two isolated sources should be re- indefectible, this difference resulting moved. Both are correlative. The Scrip- from the Anglicans insistence con- ture is the criterion through which the cerning the recognition of human im- Church examines the traditions to perfection in the Church history and it decide if they truly belong to The Holy is connected to the Anglican thinking Tradition or not. The Tradition com- between the “essential” and “non-es- pletes The Scripture in the meaning that sential”.

57 The third sub-commission discussed the the uncreated divine energies God is subject: “The Church as Eucharistic present in immanent and the believer is Community” and met on 8–12 July always in communion with the Heavenly 1974 at Garden City (New York). It was Father. The Anglicans don’t use this concluded that there were many points distinction, but they try to explain that of reciprocity and understanding God cannot be understood and at the between the two churches concerning same time He is intelligible for people. the teaching about the Holy Eucharist. If the Orthodox Church describes the Then, the dialogue underlined the plenitude of human holiness through the identity of Jesus Christ both with his patristic expression theosis kata charin mystical Body (the Church) and in the (the deification through grace), the Holy Eucharist which acts in the Church. Anglicans consider this speech as being All the believers who receive the “deceptive and dangerous”. However, Saviour’s Body and Blood, become part they don’t reject the doctrine that this of the unique Body of Jesus Christ (the speech expresses; probably such knowl- Church) and a body with Him, they edge could be found in their doctrine, receive the forgiveness of their sins and too. they get everlasting life. The performer of the Holy Eucharist (the bishop or the 2. The inspiration and the authority of priest) in his liturgical action has a double the Holy Scripture service: as Christ’s icon and as the The Holy Scripture constitutes a coherent representative of the community that whole, which includes the Divine Rev- works in the name of Jesus Christ for his elation, expressed in human speech. It believers. is received and interpreted through and in the Church. Both the Anglican and The International Commission of the Orthodox Churches make a distinction Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dia- between the canonical books of the Old logue continued its debates during the Testament and the non-canonical books following years. The positive results of (good for reading); however, the utility the Anglican-Orthodox Theological of the last is recognized for the spiritual Dialogue were set out in the Moscow construction of the believers. Also, both Agreed Statement of 1976. This agree- the Anglicans and the Orthodox use ment can be summarized as follows: them at different services.

1. God’s knowledge 3. Scripture and Tradition God is immanent and transcendent at The Scripture and Tradition are the two the same time. Through faith and obedi- sources of the Divine Revelation, which ence, the believers participate in divine complete each other, and the Church can life and are united with God in the Holy never define new dogmas which don’t Trinity. The Orthodox Church makes a have basis in the Holy Scripture and in distinction between the divine essence Holy Tradition. From the Orthodox point ousia and the uncreated divine energies. of view, a truth of faith cannot be While the divine essence remains dogmatized if it has its basis only in the beyond the human understanding and Holy Tradition, it is absolutely necessary knowledge, transcendentally, through to have its basis in the Holy Scripture.

58 4. The Synod’s Authority Orthodox sub-commission which met Both churches agreed that the notions at Garden City (New York) in 1974. In of Church and Scripture are inseparable, the Moscow Agreement (1976) it is recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit indicated that in the future the issue of not only in the Scripture and in the the relationship between the priest and Church, but also in the Synods; although his bishop, as well as of the bishops the Anglicans believe in a “hierarchy” between themselves should be studied. of the Ecumenical Synods, emphasizing the first four except the decrees of the 7. The invocation of the Holy Spirit at 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Synods. How- the Eucharist ever, a detailed research is necessary, The Holy Eucharist is the action of the on the Anglican side, of the problems Holy Trinity. The act of holiness of the concerning the last three ecumenical Eucharistic elements includes the Synods and especially the 7th concerning following: the content, the anamnesis the veneration of the icons; the deep- and the epiclesis. Through the invocation ening of the word “infallibility” on the and the descent of the Holy Spirit, as an Anglican side is also highlighted and answer to the Church’s prayer, the bread that of “indefectibility” on the Ortho- and the wine transform in the Saviour’s dox side. Body and Blood. The Anglicans consider that the culminating decisive moment of 5. “Filioque” addition the sanctifying of Eucharistic elements Concerning this addition, a distinction can occur through the instituting words must be made between the problem of or through the epiclesis, while for the the Holy Spirit’s origin (“that it sets out Orthodox it is only the epiclesis. “At from Father for ever” – John 15, 26) Church’s prayer, the Holy Spirit de- which is different from that of sending scends not only above the Eucharistic in lime and that of the Holy Spirit’s elements but also above the community mission in the world (John 14, 26 and and through the Eucharist the believers 15, 26). Because of this, and because receive the forgiveness of their sins and the “Filioque” addition did not exist in they increase in obedience and holiness the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed towards everlasting life.” from the beginning, and because it wasn’t introduced through the authority The meetings in Moscow (July–August of an Ecumenical Synod, the Anglicans 1976) between the Anglicans and agreed that it doesn’t belong to the Orthodox lead to a better mutual knowl- Creed. edge of the two parts, bringing certain positive results in the doctrinal field in 6. The Church as Eucharistic spite of the existence of some disagree- Community ments. Concerning the Eucharist, it is declared again that between the two churches, The agreements reached by the Inter- there was a Common Agreement, national Commission of the Anglican- achieved at Bucharest in 1935. This Orthodox Theological Dialogue in the issue is further elaborated in the second stage were set out in the Dublin Common Declaration of the Anglican- Agreed Statement of 1984. In its present

59 third phase, which began in 1989, the offering and is configured within the Commission has been examining eccle- ecclesial and thus Eucharistic Com- siological issues in the light of our faith munity to the priesthood of Christ. And in the Holy Trinity, the Person of Christ so, the First Letter of Peter rightly and the Holy Spirit. understands the community of the baptized to be “a spiritual house, to be In 2001 at Volos, Greece, the Commis- a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sion focused on the ordained ministry sacrifices acceptable to God through of the Church and approved an Interim Jesus Christ ... a chosen people (gen- Agreed Statement on Episcope, Epi- eration), a royal priesthood, a holy scopos and Primacy. This was followed nation” (I Peter 2, 5,9). The Church is in 2002, at Abergavenny, Wales, by faithful to her priestly calling in the another Interim Agreed Statement, on ministry of reconciliation, participating Priesthood, Christ and the Church. in the priestly self-offering of the Son There the Commission began to con- to the Father in Spirit. This “Eucharistic centrate on an examination of the issues life” of the Church includes sacrificial surrounding the ordination of women service to the world. to the priesthood. The discussion of non-ordained ministry was also begun. As the Commission has observed: “... Discussion on both issues continued in from authors of the New Testament Addis-Ababa in 2003. themselves, from their understanding and conception of Christ, we attest that In “Priesthood, Christ and the Church”, Christian priesthood is directly related the Commission affirmed that there is with Christ’s ministry. If the Church is only one priesthood in the Church and Christ Himself extended into history, that is the priesthood of Christ. Since equals Christian priesthood is Christ’s the Church is Christ himself extended priestly office realized and extended in into history, his priestly office is realized every historic period of the life of the and extended throughout history in the Church. It is, so to speak, the reflection life of the Church. The Commission has and the projection of the saving work so cogently enunciated that the priest- of Christ throughout the centuries.” hood of Christ is the reflexion and the projection of the saving work of Christ. It is also mentioned that in Christ there This priesthood of Christ is inextricably is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, bound with Trinitarian theology. Only male nor female (Gal. 3,27). “National, through the Spirit are we drawn into the racial, socio-economic and gender economy of Son. It is through the Holy barriers are overcome in the peace made Spirit that the priestly work of Christ is by the blood shed on the Cross at the present in the ecclesial life: “The priestly heart of the universe.” Pertinent to the character of the Church is related in the question of women, men, and the priest- Spirit to the priesthood of Christ”. hood, Anglicans and Orthodox agree that within the baptismal and Eucha- It was also affirmed that through bap- ristic Koinonia of the Church as a tism, the human person enters in the whole, women and men share equally priestly movement of Christ’s self in the priestly character of the Church

60 which is fundamentally the priesthood the dogmatic teaching remains open to of Christ. discussion and to “an open process of reception.” But the question whether In 2004, at Canterbury, the Commission such an ordination can be “received” in received the first draft of an Agreed terms or recognition and “reception” of Statement on Lay Ministries in the ministry affects the acceptance and Church and on the question of the communion of the ecclesial commun- ministries of women and men, including ities at the level of the actual life of the the question of ordination to the dea- church, including such matters as sacra- conate, presbyterate and episcopate. mental communion. One may disagree Consideration of this latter topic was with someone on certain theological postponed until further work could be questions, and still be in Eucharistic completed on the presentations of communion with him (this is not Orthodox understanding of these unusual among the Orthodox who often matters. accuse one another of “heresy”.) Questions of faith can be discussed for Papers on Heresy and Schism were a long time, but matters of “order” and received from Professor William Green ministry must be “practiced”; as they (on the Anglican side) and Basil of affect reception in an immediate way. Sergievo (on the Orthodox side) and discussed by the Commission. The The last meeting of the International Commission went on to receive and Commission of the Anglican-Orthodox discuss papers on Reception from Pro- Theological Dialogue took place in the fessor John Riches (on the Anglican Holy Royal and Stavropegic Monastery side) and Metropolitan John of Perga- of Kykkos, in Cyprus, from Thursday, mon (on the Orthodox side). June 2nd to Wednesday, June 8th, 2005, as guests of the Church of Cyprus and In his paper, Metropolitan John Zi- of the Most Revd Bishop Nikiforos of zioulas approached the problem of Kykkos, the Abbot of the monastery. reception from two angles: the reception The Commission wish to record their of the faith and the reception of the gratitude to His Eminence the Abbot, ecclesial structure. These must also be the brothers and staff of Kykkos Mon- mutually received by the churches if astery for the warmth of their welcome, unity among them is to become a reality. and to Bishop Vasilios of Trimithus who has organized and coordinated the Thus the theologians involved in the many aspects of this meeting, together Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dia- with the staff of the Ecumenical Re- logue seem to be pre-occupied with the lations Office of the Church of Cyprus. question of whether the ordination of women to the priesthood and the epis- The Commission consists of representa- copate is a “heresy” or not, and tend to tives of the Orthodox Churches and of forget that the problem has to do mainly the Anglican Communion. The dia- with the Church’s ministry. The question logue began its work by exploring theo- whether this kind of ordination is logical and doctrinal issues of concern “heretical or not, whether it contradicts for dialogue between the Anglican and

61 Orthodox Churches in 1973. Agree- anew the work of the Triune God in ments reached in its first two stages giving life to His Church, and draw us were set out in the Moscow Agreed closer to that unity which is His will for Statement of 1976 and the Dublin all the faithful. Agreed Statement of 1984. In its present third phase, which began in 1989, the Looked at from this angle, the ordi- Commission has been examining our nation of women to the presbyterate is understanding of the Church in the light not as problematic from the view point of our faith in the Holy Trinity, the of reception as the extension of this Person of Christ and the Holy Spirit. ordination to the episcopate would be. From 1989, the Commission has met on an annual or biannual basis, completing All official theological dialogues, in- Statements on Trinity and the Church; cluding the Anglican-Orthodox Theo- Christ, the Spirit and the Church; Christ, logical Dialogue, have as their ultimate Humanity and the Church (all 1998); goal the reception of our churches by Episcope, Episcopes, and the Church each other in Faith as well as in ministry (2001); Christ, the Priesthood and the and church structure. This goal must be Church (2002). kept constantly in our minds in whatever we discuss, decide or do. In 2003, at Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, the Commission began its current round While we are content and glad that of study on the subject of the ministries certain points of faith agreements have of women and men in the Church, of been reached between the Anglicans and questions of Heresy and Schism, and of the Orthodox, likewise we must be aware Reception. of the fact and see with clear eyes the obstacles hindering the union of the two In Kykkos, the Commission completed churches. For this reason a joint effort is the work on these Agreed Statements, required both from the Anglicans and the and decided to meet next year to finalize Orthodox in order to break down all the the text of the complete cycle of State- obstacles that hinder the realization of ments agreed in the current phase from union between the Anglican Commun- 1989 to date in preparation for publi- ion and the Orthodox Church. cation. In conclusion we can say that the Ortho- In 2006 the International Commission dox Church is in favour of sacramental for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Communion with the Anglican Church- Dialogue reached The Cyprus Agreed es but only as a result of the restoration Statement entitled The Church of the of full unity in the truth of faith between Triune God. This report represents the the two “families” of churches. Certainly, fruit of the Commission’s work and this seems to be extremely difficult at carries only the authority of its members, the present, even impossible, but there but it offered to the Anglican and Ortho- are hopes that on the one hand the dox Churches the hope that, as it is Anglican wisdom and flexibility and on studied and reflected upon, it will help the other the Orthodox love and under- Christians of both traditions to perceive standing will lead to the union of the

62 Anglican and Orthodox Churches. This Ioan Mircea Ielciu is priest of the will be an important step on the road to Romanian Orthodox Church and pro- the unity of all Christians, desired by fessor for Patrology at the Orthodox the Lord Jesus Christ (John 17,11 and Theological Faculty „Andrei Saguna“ 21). of the University „Lucian Blaga“ Sibiu, Romania. He has participated in the * * * Anglican-Orthodox dialogue.

63 Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue1

Paul Avis

At the end of January 2007 the Inter- as guest of the Archbishop of Canter- national Commission for the Anglican- bury, Rowan Williams. The Archbishop Orthodox Theological Dialogue and the Patriarch took part in a liturgy (ICAOTD) launched the dialogue’s of thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey third agreed statement at a ceremony at and this was followed by a celebratory Lambeth Palace, London. Bartholomew dinner under the auspices of the Ni- I, the Ecumenical Patriarch, was present kaean Club.

1 This paper incorporates the work of the Revd Canon Hugh Wybrew, the Revd Dr Jonathan Baker and the Revd Thomas Seville CR. A document similar to the present one, but also including an extended commentary on the text of The Church of the Triune God, was provided to resource a debate in the General Synod of the Church of England in York on 4 July 2008. The debate was introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and Metropolitan John of Pergamon addressed the Synod. The following motion was passed unanimously:

That the Synod:

Thank the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue for the Cyprus Agreed Statement The Church of the Triune God and commend the Statement for study in the Church of England, where possible with members of the Orthodox Churches, and with other ecumenical partners;

Note the points raised in the commentary and assessment provided in the briefing paper on this statement, produced by the Faith and Order Advisory Group;

Welcome the degree of theological agreement between Anglicans and the Orthodox revealed in the Agreed Statement and encourage the continuation of dialogue in those areas on which agreement has not yet been achieved.

64 Completed in 2005 at the Monastery of intercommunion with the Old Catholics. Kykkos, the Cyprus Agreed Statement Anglicans wished the filioque and the is entitled ‘The Church of the Triune Anglican understanding of comprehen- God’, and its publication concluded the siveness to be added, as well as pastoral, third phase of the Anglican-Orthodox liturgical and spiritual issues. Such pre- international theological dialogue. Its paration for the dialogue took six years, principal theme is the doctrine of the and it was only in 1973 that the first Church, but it includes also a study of full meeting of A/OJDD took place in the ordained ministry of the Church, and Oxford. deals with the thorny question of who may be ordained to it. It ends by examining the two related topics of heresy The First Phase of the Dialogue and schism, and reception in the Church. We return to the Cyprus Agreed State- The first phase of the dialogue never- ment later. theless made some progress, despite a sense among some on the Anglican side that the dialogue was not viewed by the Twentieth-century background Orthodox as one between equals. Three sub-commissions worked on topics While contacts between Anglicans and agreed to be priorities, and produced Orthodox go back several centuries, documents which were submitted to the official discussions began in the 1920s, full Commission in Moscow in 1976. and were pursued through the 1930s, Statements on ‘The Knowledge of God’, 1940s and 1950s. It was in 1962 that ‘The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Patriarch Athenagoras I and Archbishop Scripture’, ‘Scripture and Tradition’, of Canterbury Michael Ramsey agreed ‘The Authority of Councils’, ‘The Filio- to take the first steps towards setting up que Clause’, ‘The Church as Eucharistic a joint commission to examine doctrinal Community’, and ‘The Invocation of agreements and disagreements between the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist’, were the Anglican and Orthodox Churches. revised, agreed, and published in the Each Church nominated its represen- Moscow Agreed Statement of that tatives, who 1966 began meeting sepa- year. Among the fruits of this first phase rately, at the wish of the Orthodox, to – in which the different emphases in the determine what topics should be on the theological traditions of East and West agenda of the Anglican/Orthodox Joint were much to the fore – was that the Doctrinal Discussions (A/OJDD). Anglican members of the Commission agreed at Moscow to recommend to In the course of the earlier talks from their churches the removal of the clause the 1920s onwards a number of topics from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan had emerged as outstanding between Creed when they next undertook litur- the two Churches. These were included gical revision. They did so, however, in a list, drawn up by the Ecumenical for historical and ecumenical reasons, Patriarchate, which also contained and were careful to pass no judgment matters to be examined at the beginning on the Trinitarian theology involved in of the dialogue. These included Anglican the debate.

65 The Moscow Agreed Statement regis- agreement on the role of the Spirit in tered a good deal of agreement on the the eucharistic action, as in the whole topics discussed. It also noted areas of life of the Church, and on the Church difference. ‘The Knowledge of God’ as community which becomes fully spoke of divine self-revelation and itself in celebrating the Eucharist, which human communion with God. It noted in turn actualizes the Church. that the Orthodox Church ‘draws a distinction between the divine essence, But if the Moscow Agreed Statement which remains for ever beyond man’s was a positive achievement, there was comprehension and knowledge, and the a cloud on the near horizon. The Com- divine energies, by participation in mission had agreed at Moscow to conti- which man participates in God.’ Angli- nue its work, still in sub-commissions, cans, it also noted, do not normally use though meeting in the same place (in this distinction, although believing that the first phase sub-commissions met se- ‘God is at once incomprehensible, yet parately). Three topics had been identi- truly knowable by man.’ Nor do Angli- fied for study: ‘The Church and the cans normally speak of salvation as churches’, ‘The Communion of Saints theosis, divinization by grace, although and the departed’, and ‘Ministry and the doctrine that term seeks to express priesthood’. But the Orthodox were is to be found in liturgical texts and aware of Anglican debates on the ordi- hymnody. On ‘The Inspiration and nation of women, and a resolution was Authority of Holy Scripture’ and ‘Scrip- passed, drawing attention to the existence ture and Tradition’, both sides agreed of a grave problem: ‘The Orthodox that that the two are correlative rather members of the Commission wish to than separate sources of revelation. state that if the Anglican Churches Scripture is the criterion of authentic proceed to the ordination of women to Tradition, which completes Scripture in the priesthood and episcopate, this will the sense of safeguarding the integrity create a very serious obstacle to the of the biblical message. Both sides development of our relations in the agreed too that Holy Tradition is ‘the future. Although the Anglican members entire life of the Church in the Holy are divided among themselves on the Spirit.’ While in broad agreement about theological principle involved, they ‘The Authority of the Council’, Angli- recognize the strength of Orthodox cans pointed out that their tradition convictions on this matter and undertake distinguished the first four Councils to make this known to their Churches.’ from the last three of the ecumenical seven, and accepted the seventh in so far as it defends the incarnation. But The Ordination of Women while ‘they agree that the veneration of icons as practiced in the East is not to The second phase of the dialogue began be rejected, [they] do not believe that the following year, when the Commis- that it can be required of all Christians.’ sion met in Cambridge. The Secretary In ‘The Church as the Eucharistic Com- General of the Anglican Communion, munity’ and ‘The Invocation of the Bishop John Howe, reported on the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist’ there was present state of the ordination of women

66 in the several provinces of the Com- There was only one Orthodox position; munion. It came as a shock to the Ortho- and in view of the discussion of this dox members, sometimes more aware issue in The Church of the Triune God, of the Church of England than of the the following quotations from the Anglican Communion as a whole, to Orthodox section of the Athens Report learn that the ordination of women was are worth noting: already a fact in the life of some Angli- can Churches. Some of the Orthodox We see the ordination of women, not wished to bring the dialogue to an as part of the creative continuity of immediate end; others wondered what tradition, but as a violation of the meaning it could now have if it con- apostolic faith and order of the tinued. It was agreed that a special meet- Church … By ordaining women ing of the Commission should be held Anglicans would sever themselves in 1978 ‘before the Lambeth Confer- from continuity in apostolic faith and ence, in order, by expounding the spiritual life. Orthodox position, to enable their Ang- lican brethren to come to what, in their The ordination of women to the view, would be a proper appreciation of priesthood is an innovation, lacking the matter. For the Orthodox the future any basis whatever in Holy Tradition. of the Dialogue would depend on the The Orthodox Church takes very resolutions of the Lambeth Conference.’ seriously the admonition of St Paul, where the Apostle states with em- In 1978 he Commission duly met in phasis, repeating himself twice: ‘But Athens. For much of the time the two if we, or an angel from heaven, sides met separately, working on state- preaches to you anything else than ments of their respective positions. The what we have preached to you, let Anglican section of the Report recorded him be anathema. As we have already the variety of Anglican positions on the said, so I say to you now once more: ordination of women: there were those if anyone preaches to you anything who believed that it is ‘in no way con- else than what you have received, let sonant with a true understanding of the him be anathema’ (Gal.1: 8–9). Church’s catholicity and apostolicity, but rather constitutes a grave deforma- It was the lowest point in the dialogue. tion of the Church’s traditional faith and order’; there were others who saw it as ‘a proper extension and development of The Second Phase of the Dialogue the Church’s traditional ministry, and a necessary and prophetic response to the The Lambeth Conference of 1978 took changing circumstances in which some account of Orthodox objections to the churches are placed’; and there were ordination of women, but recognized those who ‘see no absolute objection to the right of individual Anglican Churches it’ but ‘regret the way the present action to make their own decision on the has been taken and believe that the time matter. The Orthodox members of the was not opportune nor the method Commission were agreed that the dia- appropriate for such action’. logue should continue. In the light of

67 the decision of the Lambeth Confer- The Dublin Agreed Statement (1984) ence, some thought the status of the dia- contained three main sections, ‘The logue should be changed, and continue Mystery of the Church’, ‘Faith in the only ‘as an academic and informative Trinity, Prayer and Holiness’, and exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial ‘Worship and Tradition’. The first endeavour aiming at the union of the section looked at New Testament two churches.’ Others thought it could images of the Church, and at its four continue as before. At a Steering Com- credal marks of unity, holiness, catho- mittee meeting in 1979 it was agreed licity and apostolicity. With regard to that the dialogue should continue, but unity it acknowledged that ‘our divi- with a different approach to its work: sions do not destroy but … damage the basic unity we have in Christ.’ It went The ultimate aim remains the unity on: ‘Anglicans are accustomed to seeing of the Churches. But the method may our divisions as within the Church: they need to change in order to empha- do not believe that they alone are the sise the pastoral and practical dimen- one true Church, but they believe that sions of the subjects of theological they belong to it. Orthodox, however, discussions. Our conversations are believe that the Orthodox Church is the concerned with the search for a unity one true Church of Christ, which as his in faith. They are not negotiations body is not and cannot be divided.’ The for immediate full communion. Orthodox conceded, however, that ‘at When this is understood the discov- the same time they see Anglicans as ery of differences on various matters, brothers and sisters in Christ who are though distressing, will be seen as a seeking with them the union of all necessary step on the long road Christians in the one Church.’ towards that unity which God wills for His Church. That paragraph highlights a fundamental issue in all dialogues between That decision relieved the Commission the Orthodox and other Churches. One of the necessity of trying to solve the of the objections of many Orthodox to question of the ordination of women the World Council of Churches was pre- and other outstanding problems as a cisely the use of the word ‘Churches’ condition of continuing the dialogue. As in the plural, for to them there is only a consequence the second phase of the one Church. ‘The Mystery of the dialogue, as the Introduction to the Dub- Church’ dealt at some length with another lin Agreed Statement said, was ‘more ecclesiological issue, the question of free to explore together and understand primacy. This is a crucial question in better the faith we hold and the ways in all dialogues involving the Roman which we express it.’ The first para- Catholic Church. In the Dublin Agreed graph of the Statement observed that the Statement Anglicans and Orthodox Joint Commission had tried in its disagreed that primacy, or seniority, should cussion to keep in mind the link between be understood in terms not of coercion theology and sanctification through but of pastoral service. A primate, at prayer, and between doctrine and the whatever level, had no right ‘to inter- daily life of the Christian community. vene arbitrarily in the affairs of a dio-

68 cese other than his own.’ They pointed done useful work. An Epilogue to the out that neither the Ecumenical Patri- Dublin Agreed Statement summed up arch not the Archbishop of Canterbury achievements as well as issues still to claims a primacy of universal juris- be resolved. Prominent among the latter diction within their respective families was the ordination of women. The Epi- of self-governing national or regional logue noted that ‘We have failed to churches. On this point it was felt in reach agreement concerning the pos- some quarters that the Anglican mem- sibility, or otherwise, of the ordination bers of A/OJDD were taking a rather of women to the priesthood. The Ortho- different line from their colleagues on dox affirm that such ordination is im- the Anglican-Roman Catholic Interna- possible, since it is contrary to Scripture tional Commission. and tradition. With this some Anglicans agree, while others believe that it is ‘Faith in the Trinity, Prayer and Holi- possible, and even desirable at the pre- ness’ linked trinitarian doctrine with sent moment, to ordain women as priests. participation in the grace of the Holy There are however many related issues Trinity, and went on to consider the that we have not so far examined in any nature of Christian prayer – one of the detail, particularly the following: how few dialogues perhaps to do so. A we are to understand the distinction section on the filioque included a within humanity between man and reaffirmation of the 1978 Anglican woman; what is meant by sacramental recommendation to exclude it from the priesthood, and how this is related to creed, and noted that some Anglican the unique high priesthood of Christ and Churches had already acted on it. ‘Wor- to the royal priesthood of all the baptized; ship and Tradition’ included an affir- what, apart from the sacramental priest- mation of the inseparability of faith and hood, are the other forms of ministry worship, and stated that ‘all the saving within the Church’ (Epilogue IV 103 truths of the faith are doxologically and (h)). liturgically appropriated’. There was a fine sub-section on ‘The Communion If the ordination of women was promi- of Saints and the Departed’; and with nent among the issues still to be re- regard to icons another sub-section solved, there was another on which it included the statement that ‘in the light seemed agreement would be hard to of the present discussion the Anglicans achieve. It concerned, as the Epilogue do not find any cause for disagreement put it, ‘the account to be given of the in the doctrine as stated by St John of sinfulness and division which is to be Damascus.’ This represented a remark- observed in the life of Christian com- able development in Anglican thinking: munities. For Anglicans, because the the Lambeth Conference of 1888 had Church under Christ is the community said that it would be difficult for Angli- where God’s grace is at work, healing cans to have closer relations with the and transforming sinful men and women; Orthodox so long as the latter main- and because grace in the Church is me- tained their use and veneration of icons. diated through those who are themselves undergoing such transformation, The second phase of the dialogue had the struggle between grace and sin is to

69 be seen as characteristic of, rather than its intention to address the question of accidental to, the Church on earth. ecclesiology which hopefully will in- Orthodox, while agreeing that the hu- clude the increasingly significant con- man members of the Church on earth cept of ‘reception’, the issue of ecclesial are sinful, do not believe that sinfulness diversity and the inter-relationship be- should be ascribed to the Church as the tween faith and culture in which it is body of Christ indwelt by the Holy expressed, believing that these are press- Spirit’ (Epilogue IV 99 (d)). ing issues which affect both our Com- munions…’ (Resolution 6.4). The Epilogue expressed the view that none of the points of disagreement it mentioned ‘is to be regarded as insoluble, The Third Phase of the Dialogue but each is to be regarded as a challenge to this Commission … to advance more The full Commission met again in 1989 deeply in its understanding of the truth.’ at New Valamo. In the interval since It was a challenge taken up by the third 1984 it had been re-constituted, and phase of the dialogue. provided with new co-chairmen. Metro- politan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon had been appointed for the Orthodox, An Interlude and Bishop Mark Dyer for the Angli- cans. With these changes came a fresh After the publication of the Dublin approach and a changed atmosphere. Agreed Statement there was a hiatus in That new start was symbolized in the the dialogue. An Executive Committee new name given to the Commission: the was set up to consider the direction in International Commission of the Ang- which the dialogue should continue. lican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue The ordination of women and the alleged (ICAOTD). The continuation of the doctrinal vagaries of some Anglicans dialogue was agreed, and by the time continued to provoke strong feelings of the next full meeting in Toronto in among the Orthodox and warm discus- 1990 the two co-chairman were able to sion among members of the Committee. present a programme for the Com- A planned meeting of the full Com- mission’s work for the next few years. mission in 1987 was postponed by the It was decided to study together the Orthodox: the dialogue was in danger, doctrine of the Church, including a it seemed, of running into the sands. consideration of Christ and humanity and Christ and culture, and within that But on both sides there was a desire to context to study the ministry of the continue the dialogue, and both sides Church, including lay ministries, and saw its goal as unity in faith and the the relation of the ordained ministry to restoration of unity. The Lambeth the high priesthood of Christ and the Conference of 1988 passed a resolution priesthood of all the baptized. Two on Anglican-Orthodox relations. It ‘en- related issues, that of heresy and schism couraged the work of the Commission and that of reception of new ideas and towards the restoration of that unity for practices in the Church, would conclude which Christ prayed, particularly noting this new phase of the Commission’s

70 work. In 1991 the new Ecumenical remarkable convergence. The agree- Patriarch Bartholomew I gave his sup- ment on the mystery of the church, so port to the dialogue, expressing his long a difficult area between Orthodox intention ‘to continue with faithfulness and Anglicans, is impressive and de- the long tradition of fraternal relations serves a warm welcome. To place the with the Anglican Church’. He expressed dynamics of culture and mission, church too his ‘desire to promote our theolo- and openness to time and change in the gical dialogue until we achieve the unity acceptance of us by the God who is of faith.’ Thus encouraged the Com- Father, Son and Holy Spirit will repay mission worked harmoniously until its long and sustained engagement. Some programme, initiated in 1990, was con- observations of a critical nature might cluded at its meeting at the Monastery be made, however, and they touch nine of Kykkos in 2005. The Cyprus Agreed areas. Statement, ‘The Church of the Triune God’, is its fruit. A. The theology of the statement is influenced strongly by the thought of Throughout this third phase of the dia- John Zizioulas, one of only four out of logue there was a sense, lacking perhaps 33 Orthodox participants who have in the previous two phases, that Angli- been on the Commission since 1989 cans and Orthodox were studying ques- (perseverance is better on the Anglican tions of common concern together. In side, seven out of 28). The writings of their Preface to the published Statement this great theologian have been widely the co-chairmen quote the view of a appreciated. To ground the being of the member of the Commission, who said church in the mission of Christ and the of its work: ‘Now it is a conversation Spirit and so in the Trinity is something of delight and illumination. Like all true which reflects the best of both churches’ conversations, it has had its moments theologising; to do so in such a way as of surprise and strangeness … But then to respond to the challenge of changes it is good to be drawn into a conversa- in culture on the one hand and the inter- tion which engages in profound and related ministries of the church in the sustained reflection on what it is that eucharist around the bishop on the makes the Church the Church and to other, is surely something to be wel- affirm the hidden life of the Trinity at comed. However, Zizioulas’ approach the heart of our communities.’ has not been without its critics. The Tri- nitarian approach adopted here reflects an approach to the relation between the Assessment of The Church Trinity and the Church which has be- of the Triune God come popular in recent years, almost the house style in the English speaking The Church of the Triune God is a no- world, and it has entered Anglican ec- table achievement, a tribute to the efforts clesiology2 . Yet the analogy between of the participants and represents a the life of God and the life of the Church

2 As in the Virgina Report.

71 may not be as firmly based as the state- should have no place in such a document assumes. For example, there is a ment, if anywhere at all. On the other tension between the discussion of God hand, there is the recognition of the role in the statement and the ecclesiological of the church of Rome in a future united arguments that are based on this Trini- church. These views do not seem to be tarian analogy. The first acknowledges harmonised and one wonders about the that God is ‘beyond our ken’ and that appropriateness of using common fears there is therefore a limit to what one can of an absent third in order to further say about the Trinity and the second agreements3 . bases arguments for a way of ordering the Church on the nature of the relations C. For the statement it is the Spirit who within the Godhead. It is not clear that determines the identity of Christ. In these two approaches are compatible. II,14 it is conceded that this is an appro- Furthermore, there is an order in the ach that “challenges views held by some persons of the Trinity which finds em- Orthodox and Anglican theologians” phasis in Orthodox trinitarianism, but who have viewed the Word rather than is less present in Western social models. the Spirit as the source of Christ’s iden- It might have been appropriate to re- tity and activity. This is a considerable mark this, given the comparative stran- understatement, for it seems to put to geness to Western ears of the ‘Father’ the side Anglicans such as Hooker or as the cause of the processions. Issues Andrewes in the classical period, Aqui- which bear the mark of Zizioulas which nas from an earlier age and Anglican may repay examination are: the relatio- writers of more recent times. In the nal ontology; the extent to which an statement, the Word is hardly if ever occasionalism undermines the kind of spoken in terms which describe it in community/ecclesiology which he and relation to the Incarnation as active. the Report seek to commend; the al- This may be a sustainable view, but it leged link between filioquism and me- cuts across a wide swathe of Western dieval decline; the fear of any abiding (and Eastern) Christology. It would be distinctions within the church. good to have further reflection on this rather important area. St Irenaeus fa- B. At times, the statement makes judg- mously compared the Spirit and the Son ments about Rome, a common dismissal to the two hands of God4 , but it would of what is seen as the Roman Catholic seem a curious way of correcting this view. There was no Roman Catholic imbalance to untie the left hand of God, observer to consult. To put this diploma- only the to tie up the right one. It is tically, the judgments do not seem to surely right to treat of the Spirit and the be nuanced; to put it bluntly, this is Word as both active ad extra in the gratuitous anti-papal polemic, which Incarnation and to recognise that the

3 As one finds in the Agreed Statement on Christology by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission (2002) with respect to the absent Assyrians. 4 E.g Adversus Haereses V.xvii

72 Spirit has not had such a place in many treatment of the nature of Christ’s work Western expositions, but the presenta- for our salvation and our need of the tion is indeed of the two hands of the cross is something which needs to be Father, but with one tied firmly behind remedied. Although it is not right to his back. look for everything a report such as this, it is something which perhaps should D. With respect to the glorified humanity have been treated, the more so as the of Christ (IV 13, 14), some might wonder language of the respective traditions can at the measure of consistency attained give the impression of wider divergence here5 . As noted above, the view of some in substance than is in fact the case. Greek Fathers that human sexual polarity disappeared as part of this trans- F. In general, the Anglicans seem to figuration is cited with approval, but have been loath to cite their own with the observation that this does not teachers or to use their own tradition entail “the destruction of human nature (not a new phenomenon among Angli- in its gendered form”. This approach to can ecumenists). Almost all the Fathers the person of Jesus Christ has implica- cited are Eastern; there is one citation tions for how the goodness of difference of Leo, none of Augustine, Ambrose, and of sexual identity is redeemed. Even Tertullian, Cyprian, still less of St Tho- allowing for the positive things said mas. This leads into a discounting of about difference here, some might positions more typical of the Anglican wonder whether a glorified body of inheritance and the owning of language Christ beyond the human polarity of and conceptuality more typical of gender would be in continuity with the Orthodoxy (e.g. energies, iconicity). Jesus Christ who lived among us. Some These are not familiar to Anglicans as might also ask in what measure is this working concepts and they both need view of the last things owing to Chris- further exposition and critique. tologies with inadequate accounts of the true humanity of Christ?6 G. The presentation of the subject of priestly order is likely to draw eyes E. The account of the end of the incarna- away from more fundamental questions tion, of filiation or of huiosetheia, is a and it is important to note that this issue fitting way of treating that for which is not one which is discussed in order Christ came, died and is raised, but in to move one side to another view, but the light of the emphasis put in Western in order to see whether such an inno- Christianity, and in particular Protes- vation justifies continued division or tant, on the atonement, the lack of a merits rejection as heretical. As noted,

5 There is a sideswipe at the “origenistic belief that the body will be annihilated in the world to come”, but the view that was condemned in 553 is surely that the risen body, of Christ and of the redeemed, is ‘ethereal, having the form of a sphere’ (10th Anathema against Origen). 6 It is perhaps interesting that neither side uses such views of the eschatology of the human body to argue either before or against the ordination of women.

73 the presentation of arguments is not the time as a sufficient condition for the strongest part of the report, but not much existence of the church, this would be should be made of this as it is not the an eccentric one, even for an Anglo- point of the discussion. Some Anglicans Catholic, especially for a Roman Catho- will find it hard to hear the Orthodox lic. It risks minimising the role of se- side; some Anglicans will find it hard quential ordination in the apostolic to hear their own side, and the same, to tradition or suggesting that it is less im- a very different degree will apply to the portant than it is. Clarification of this Orthodox. It is important that the pre- issue should have been included in the sent disputatiousness of the Anglican report, not least in the light of the caution communion on this issue does not in this regard from well-disposed Ortho- undermine the remarkable meeting of dox commentators to the Porvoo pro- minds which this dialogue has achieved cess7 . between the two parties, where before there was something approaching con- I. Such a way of presenting the argu- demnation. ment means that an opportunity is lost to give a narrative to how we have come H. Running through the statement is a to be different and apart. How we have mode of presentation in which a positive come to be who we are is not incidental assertion is qualified by a denial of a to our lives as members of the Church, generality without any concrete exam- indeed to being the churches we are and ple. This runs the risk of lending the a narrative might have avoided the argument an appearance of authority contentious presentation of mediaeval that it may not possess, or at least leav- decline from a golden patristic age. It ing it as master of the battlefield. A good would also have allowed the Orthodox example of this is the treatment of the to expand on how their bishops, in the apostolic succession. Apostolic succes- diaspora Orthodoxy of Western Europe, sion is seen in terms of successions of fulfil the missionary role of the bishop, churches represented by their bishops, a role which is passed over in the state- “rather than as a succession of indivi- ment. This is also the environment in duals with power and authority to con- which Orthodox are most likely to come fer grace apart from their communities” across Anglicans and vice versa. (15). Such a phrase seems unhelpful. No specific theologian or view is identified, These reservations do not stand in the and though there has been a view of a way of welcome to this report. The linear succession of ordination through Orthodox have dealt with Anglicans as

7 Peter Bouteneff The Porvoo Statement An Orthodox Response in O. Tjorhom Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement (World Council of Churches, 2003), pp. 231–244. This is a contrasting view to that presented at V 15: “… the Anglican- Lutheran Porvoo Common Statement recognised the succession of bishops as a necessary aspect of ecclesial life, but insufficient by itself without the succession of local ecclesial communities”.

74 a ‘church’, without saying so. Until re- of Exeter Cathedral, Research Fellow cently, there were but a few signposts in the Department of Theology, Uni- which Anglicans and Orthodox could versity of Exeter, and a Chaplain to Her use together and use them we did, but Majesty the Queen.He is the executive now a map has been found which both editor of ‘Ecclesiology’. His recent can read and understand. books include ‘Beyond the Reforma- tion? Authority, Primacy and Unity in * * * the Conciliar Tradition’ and ‘The Iden- tity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Ang- Paul Avis is the General Secretary of lican Ecclesiology’ (both published by the Council for Christian Unity of the T&T Clark). Church of England, Canon Theologian

75 Evaluation of the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue (1975–1987)

Urs von Arx

1. Whoever sets out to evaluate the each text: “In the view of the Joint Orthodox – Old Catholic Theological Orthodox – Old Catholic Theological Dialogue is bound to be confronted with Commission, the above text on The a paradoxical situation. On the one hand Holy Trinity [etc.] represents the teach- the dialogue was concluded in 1987 in ing of the Orthodox and Old Catholic accordance with the program established Churches”. In the same way a final text in 1973. Within 12 years 26 consensus articulates the shared “Presuppositions texts were produced on a series of theo- and Consequences of Ecclesial Com- logical topics that were bilaterally munion”.1 There is no other Orthodox deemed necessary to be included in a dialogue with a Western church that was joint articulation of what should be seen on face value as successful as this one. as reflecting the essential of the faith shared by the two churches. 25 texts On the other hand next to nothing has under the headings of “The Doctrine of come out of it since the last plenary God, Christology, Ecclesiology, Sote- session of the Joint Commission at riology, The Doctrine of Sacraments, Kavala GR in 1987. The next step on Eschatology” manifest this common the way to the final goal of the dialogue understanding, as is made plain from – ecclesial, i.e. canonical-liturgical the recurring set phrase at the end of communion – would have been an eva-

1 For the text editions, see U. von Arx, *60. [Asterisked figures refer to the ‘Bibliographie zum orthodox-altkatholischen theologischen Dialog’ attached to this paper. Unlike the bibliography in Greek, contributions in Orthodox ecclesiastical journals in other Eastern and Middle European languages are far less well documented. I welcome any respective information.]

76 luation and, hopefully, a reception of The dissentient response of the German the commission work by the mandating church had prevented the IBC from bodies of the two churches, i.e. the Heads making a common statement on the of the Orthodox Churches (through the dialogue. In autumn 2007, however, the agency of the Ecumenical Patriarch) German synod amended its earlier and the International Old Catholic verdict and no longer asked for a revi- Bishops’ Conference (IBC). I am not sion of the dialogue texts. Thus the IBC aware that this has been the case on the may now produce an official Old Catho- Orthodox part, and I know it has not lic statement on the dialogue texts, on been the case on the Old Catholic part the basis of a common mind ascertained so far. in a formal synodical procedure. This would be the second international Old The dialogue texts, however, have been Catholic response to the dialogue after submitted to the synodical bodies of the Statement of the International Old most of the individual Old Catholic Catholic Theologians’ Conference in Churches of the Union of Utrecht (USA 1988,3 which set the model of later 1990, Austria 1991, Switzerland 1992, positive pronouncements of national Germany 1994, Czech Republic 1997, Old Catholic synodical bodies: grateful Poland 1998, the Netherlands 1998).2 acknowledgement of the common faith With one exception, these bodies ac- as it is witnessed to in the consensus cepted the texts as a basis for pursuing texts; the wish to see certain passages the way to ecclesial communion; some on different ecclesiastical practice in of them added comments on how they East and West clarified; the theological understood this or that particular state- conviction that ecclesial communion ment in the dialogue texts or on what with the Orthodox is not bound to lead they thought could be rephrased or to a necessary termination of the Old amplified in order to make it more rel- Catholic ecclesial communion with the evant to the contemporary situation, Anglicans. To this point I will come which, after all, is different from the back later, too. time of the Fathers. The Old Catholic Church in Germany, however, asked for Let me add some comments. Firstly, the a number of changes in the dialogue synods of the Old Catholic Churches texts themselves, including for example comprise clergy and lay members. Al- the admissibility of ordaining women though the Old Catholics duly published to the priesthood or of eucharistic sharing the complete dialogue texts – according before visible ecclesial communion. to the wish of the Orthodox co-chair These are, of course, the catchwords for Metropolitan Damaskinos in 19874 – the main Orthodox criticism of Old and made them available in a printed Catholic ecclesiastical practise on trilingual edition, theological expertise which I shall say more later. to evaluate them was naturally restricted

2 See U. von Arx, *87. 3 See Bericht, *59. 4 See Metropolit Damaskinos, *54.

77 to clergy conferences or to the teaching the Union of Utrecht ever experienced. staff of theological faculties and semi- The agreement of the Old Catholic naries. To a large degree, it depended Church and the Evangelical Church in on their attitude to the dialogue and on Germany on eucharistic sharing in their effort to highlight the positive 19857 – which did not find the approval achievements of the consensus texts as of the IBC and thus led to an unprec- well as areas of further common Ortho- edented tension within the IBC and the dox – Old Catholic work whether or not member churches – was not so much the synods came to their decision. This the cause of the crisis, but rather the sign may partly explain the diverging results of what looked like the demise of of the reception process in the synods.5 mainstream Old Catholic tradition, a Secondly, the reception process was sort of eclipse of an earlier more or less overshadowed by another agenda which unified ecclesial conscience. This is not was much more burning for the average the place to go into any details and Old Catholic in the West European attempt an explanation – all the more countries: the debate about the ordina- so as I think that the crisis has been tion of women to the priesthood.6 As overcome. most of the Old Catholic faithful had a vague notion that ordaining women to I have touched on what can be reported the priesthood would rather constitute from the Old Catholic Churches as far a setback in the Old Catholic – Ortho- as an initial response to the dialogue and dox relationship, no enthusiasm for the its 26 consensus texts is concerned. I latter could develop. am not aware that something similar has happened on the Orthodox part,8 but Thirdly, the process of the beginning this may simply be due to my ignorance. reception of the Orthodox – Old 2. Let me now give a short evaluation of Catholic dialogue texts, which was the dialogue 1975–1987, i.e. its results supposed to become the climax of a and its methodology. It is situated in a century-old relationship was not only renewal of earlier official relations and overshadowed by the ordination debate, theological exchange between Ortho- but both of them fell in a period which doxy and Old Catholicism – a renewal was marked by the greatest inner crisis launched by the First Pan-Orthodox

5 This is particularly true for the decision of the German synod in 1994. 6 Cf. Urs von Arx, ‘Die Debatte über die Frauenordination in den Altkatholischen Kirchen der Utrechter Union’, in: Wolfgang Bock and Wolfgang Lienemann (eds.), Frauen- ordination. Studien zu Kirchenrecht und Theologie III (Texte und Materialien der For- schungsstätte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft e.V. [FEST], Reihe A Nr. 47), Heidelberg 2000, pp. 157–200. See also‚ IBK-Sondersession in Wislikofen Juli 1997’, in: IKZ 87 (1997), pp. 225–240. 7 Cf. ‘Vereinbarung über eine gegenseitige Einladung zur Teilnahme an der Feier der Eucharistie’ in: Ökumenische Rundschau 34 (1985), pp. 365–367. Among the many Old Catholic reactions I refer to the IBC statement of 1994 only – see below note 19. 8 The Russian Church has issued an official comment on the texts of the first session 1975; cf. Journal of the Russian Patriarchate 8 (1976).

78 Conference at Rhodes in 1961.9 From and thus developed a dynamism that an Old Catholic perspective, the list of made it possible to conclude the work theological points to be clarified con- within 12 years. There is a further cerning the Old Catholic position which reason for this success: difficult points, was drawn up by the Inter-Orthodox which had not been cleared up before Commission in Belgrade in 1966 gave the joint commission first met (as, for the shocking impression that there had example, the filioque issue), were not been no clarifications and agreements taken up later. Prime among these points reached earlier and the dialogue had to was the Old Catholic – Anglican ec- restart from scratch. In retrospect, the clesial communion. It is true that “The many queries coming from the Ortho- problem of intercommunion” figured dox side initiated a concerted action of on the list adopted in 1973 as the last the IBC and the Old Catholic members item of the ecclesiology section, but it of the planned joint commission, which was – as well as other issues11 – some- resulted in a number of documents and what inexplicably dropped in the course articles that seemed to satisfy the of time, or possibly postponed for later Orthodox.10 consideration.12 After the news about the German eucharistic agreement So in 1973 the way was paved to draw mentioned above had roused a storm of up the program and the methodology. indignation among the Orthodox and Two individual theologians from each embarrassment among the Old Catholic side were to prepare a paper on one of members meeting in 1985 it was decided the agreed topics; a joint sub-commis- that a final ecclesiological text should sion was to produce a single paper to delineate a common understanding of be submitted to the plenary commission, the close relation between eucharistic which would finalize the paper and if sharing und ecclesial communion both possible pass it as a consensus text. The presupposing a common dogmatic joint commission was soon filled with belief. I shall return to this text later. mutual confidence and great enthusiasm

9 See e.g. the (equivocal) statement of the First Pan-Orthodox Conference, Rhodes 1961, in: Constantin G. Patelos (ed.), The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements 1902–1975, Geneva: WCC, p. 72: ‘Advancement of relations with [the Old Catholics] in the spirit of former theological discussions and their stated intentions and inclinations to unite with the Orthodox Church [pros henosin meta tes Orthodoxou Ekklesias]’. 10 See U. Küry, *15, and Dokumente, *18. 11 The issue of the canonicity of the Old Catholic hierarchy was considered to be the object of an official pan-Orthodox pronouncement and was therefore not analyzed by the commission (see I. Karmiris. *25, and W. Küppers, *31). Other issues that the Old Catholics in 1967 had suggested for a joint consideration, but were not adopted, included the following: sacramental communion between churches without full dogmatic agreement; marriage of clergy after ordination, married bishops; see Dokumente,*10 (pp. 65–67). 12 In a way it was a wise decision not to tackle this thorny problem at the beginning of the dialogue, because this enabled the commission to start and proceed on relatively easy ground (Doctrine of God, Christology).

79 For the most part the 25 consensus texts tian Churches and confessions differ are not very spectacular, but this, after not only in unessential respects, but all, was not the goal. A clear emphasis also do not teach the same in even is put on the ecclesiological texts.13 fundamental points of Christian They witness to a common under- doctrine. This led among other things standing of the local church around her to the false and unacceptable theory bishop who is the first presider of the that the true visible Church, the eucharistic assemblies, this local church, Church of the age of the Apostles and insofar as she is in communion with Church Fathers, no longer exists other local churches and in continuity today but that each of the individual with the apostolic faith, being a mani- Churches retains only a portion, festation of the One Catholic Church. greater or less, of the true Church and Communion and unity among the local that none of them, therefore, can be churches are maintained by a process regarded as a genuine and essentially of synodality of the bishops as represen- complete re-presentation of the true tatives of their local churches, a process Church. that eventually includes the element of reception by what the Orthodox call the 3. But from the day it was founded pleroma. What was hardly addressed right down to our own day, the true was the synodical process within the Church, the one, holy, catholic and local church and the participation of the apostolic Church, has gone on exist- laity as sacramentally fully initiated ing without any discontinuity wher- members of the body of Christ. ever the true faith, worship and order of the ancient undivided Church are The most remarkable ecclesiological preserved unimpaired as they are text is possibly the one that deals with reflected and formulated in the defi- “The Boundaries of the Church” (III/ nitions and canons of the seven Ecu- 3), and this in view of the avowed fact menical Synods and the acknowl- of the still existing lack of visible unity edged local synods and in the Fathers of “the Church”. I quote a longer pas- of the Church. sage: 4. Our Joint Commission gives heresy ... Journeying through history, the and schism the appropriate signifi- Church of Christ has become divided cance and regards communities which into many Churches which disagreed continue in heresy and schism as in with each other because the faith and no sense as efficacious sites of salva- doctrines handed down from the tion parallel to the true visible Church. Apostles were debased. Today Chris- It nevertheless believes that the

13 I skip interesting points in the other topical sections, so e.g. the interrelatedness of Scripture and Tradition in: ‘I/1 Divine Revelation and its Transmission’, para. 5. Cf. Peter-Ben Smit, ‘The Old Catholic View on Scripture and Tradition: A Short Study of a Theological Organism’, in: IKZ 97 (2007), pp. 106–123.

80 question of the Church’s boundaries I offer two brief comments. Firstly, this can be seen in a larger light. Since it perspective opens a way to consider the is impossible to set limits to God’s ecclesiality of communities other than power whose will it is that all should one’s own; unfortunately it is not spelt find salvation and come to know the out in detail what this could mean for truth and since further the Gospel their ecumenical pilgrimage. Secondly, clearly speaks of salvation by faith compared with a passage in the Angli- in the unique Son of God – “He who can-Orthodox Dublin Statement of believes in the Son has eternal life; 1984 dealing with the fact of divisions he who does not obey the Son shall there is no Orthodox self-reference as not see life” (Jn. 3:36) –, it can be being “the one true Church of Christ, considered as not excluded that the which as his Body is not and cannot be divine omnipotence and grace are divided”. 14 I do not mean to say that present and operative wherever the this conviction has simply been given departure from the fullness of truth up in our text, but it is interesting to see in the one Church is not complete that in a consensus text, as is typical for and does not go to the lengths of a the Orthodox – Old Catholic dialogue, complete estrangement from the any wording that in the last resort truth, wherever “God Himself is not “unchurches” the dialogue partner has called in question”, wherever the been avoided. This (partial or total) source of “life, the Trinity, is since- “unchurching” would be implied wher- rely proclaimed and the mystery of ever the notion “only we” is operative. the divine economy in the incarna- I think that in the process of a dialogue tion is acknowledged” (Petrus III of where two partners seek to recognize Antioch, Letter to Michael Cerula- and then acknowledge ecclesial com- rius of Constantinople 14 – PG munion already existing in the triune 120.805,808). God, an epoché of judgment is prefer- able, if not spiritually required.15

14 Cf. Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue. The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984, London: SPCK, 1985, p 11. 15 Cf. Urs von Arx, ‘Unity and Communion, Mystical and Visible’, in: Urs von Arx / Paul Avis / Mattjis Ploeger (eds), Towards Further Convergence: Anglican and Old Catholic Ecclesiologies. The Papers of the Anglican – Old Catholic Theologians’ Conference, Leeds, 29 August – 2 September, 2005 = Supplementary issue to IKZ 96 (2006), pp. 140– 173, here p. 168. See also the critical remarks of Olivier Clément, in: The New Valamo Consultation. The ecumenical nature of the Orthodox witness. New Valamo, Finland, September 24–30, 1997, Geneva: WCC, s.a., pp. 27f. For a recent Orthodox discussion, see Grigorios Larentzakis, ‘Die eine Kirche und ihre Einheit. Aspekte aus der Sicht der orthodoxen Theologie’, in: Konsultationen zwischen der Konferenz Europäischer Kirchen (KEK) und der Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Europa (GEKE) / Consultations between the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE), Wittenberg / Phanar, 25.–27.6.2004 / 27.–30.4.2006, ed. by Michael Beintker et al. (Leuenberger Texte 11), Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck, 2007, pp. 29–69, here pp. 33–40 [English translation: pp. 70–105, here pp. 73–79].

81 Two further observations may be added. textbook perception of the past and The texts often refer to the Eastern and seem to vacillate between a descriptive – to a lesser degree – the Western fathers, and prescriptive mode of speaking but never to any modern bilateral or without making a sufficiently clear multilateral theological dialogue. This distinction when drawing consequences may be partly explained by the fact that for the present or the desired common the Old Catholic – Orthodox relation- future.17 Again the general goal of the ship antedates the Faith and Order Mo- texts that lies beyond them should not vement as well as the various bilateral be lost out of sight, and due benevolence dialogues of the last 40 years and that it should be paid to the specific genre of aims at ecclesial communion between texts that are often – and not only in the two churches. On the other hand the this case – the result of commissions expectation was sometimes expressed putting together passages from different that this dialogue could serve as a model authors and traditions. at least for a rapprochement between what is still called East and West.16 I 3.1 Let me return to the two or three wonder how much this is a realistic issues I postponed for later discussion. assessment beyond dialogues conducted As noted above the agreement on between churches of a – phenomeno- eucharistic sharing between the Old logically speaking – catholic type, since Catholic and the Evangelical Church in here many issues that turn up in a dia- Germany caused some turbulence in the logue with churches having passed commission and gave rise to the final through the Western Reformation do not text on ‘Ecclesial Communion: Presup- appear on the agenda. But be this as it positions and Consequences’. What this may, the Orthodox – Old Catholic dia- text states corresponds in my view to logue texts are a little isolated within the the traditional Old Catholic position that field of worldwide ecumenical conversa- eucharistic communion requires the tions: to my knowledge they have hardly same faith and that divided churches influenced other dialogues nor have they cannot re-establish eucharistic com- taken benefit from them. Whether this munion during continuing separation applies to other texts analyzed in this without being forced to have recourse consultation remains to be seen. to the conception of an already existing invisible unity which the eucharist pro- It has often been criticised in academic claims (and possibly mediates). Eucha- Old Catholic quarters that the consensus ristic communion, then, is no longer the texts when referring to the Ancient sign and manifestation of concrete Church or to the Fathers make dubious visible unity in the Spirit-given reality historical statements, reflect a traditional of Christ.18 The indissoluble connection

16 Thus Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandrerou), the co-chair of the Joint Commission since 1981, on various occasions, so in: Episkepsis 14 (1983), no 302; *57. 17 For an otherwise sympathetic Anglican voice in this vein, see J. Robert Wright, *75. 18 The concept of growing together in steps, as it is often advocated in Western churches, usually sees eucharistic sharing as the first step and ministerial sharing or interchange as

82 of eucharistic and ecclesial communion of eucharistic and ecclesial communion, as a principle is clearly expressed in an as it has been restated as an Old Catholic IBC statement of 1992, which offers a theological principle by the IBC. One clarification of the issues raised by the should not forget, however, the extreme eucharistic agreement.19 It does refer, diaspora situation of Old Catholics however, to an Old Catholic practice of wherever they are. A great portion of administering Holy Communion to them live in mixed marriages, and in individual baptized members of other terms of extended families I think nearly churches who share the faith of the all of them must be denominationally Ancient Church and believe in the real mixed. The only alternative would be presence of the eucharistic Christ. And to retreat into an ecumenical and conse- it stresses that this practice is to be con- quently social ghetto (without enjoying sidered as “an application of the prin- the moral support of knowing that there ciple of oikonomia, i.e. an attitude that exists a more or less monolithic block exclusively serves pastoral needs and of co-religionists in ‘mother’ countries). spiritual aid”.20 Thus Old Catholic theology makes a distinction between 3.2 In the last phase of the official eucharistic sharing between churches Orthodox – Old Catholic dialogue the that are united in ecclesial communion issue of eucharistic sharing in a situation on the one hand and administering the of ongoing ecclesial division was mixed eucharist to individual baptized mem- up with the issue of what was still termed bers of still separated churches on the “intercommunion” between the Old other. In the latter case the question of Catholic and the Anglican churches;21 the ecclesiality of these separated a more appropriate term in the modern churches remains open. ecumenical context would be “ecclesial communion”.22 The formal theological It cannot be denied that this practice basis of this communion between the may obscure the inherent relationship Old Catholic Churches of the Union of

the last and therefore – apparently – as the distinct sign of visible unity and communion. This seems to me an odd (and clerical) reversal of values. Cf. also the ‘Conclusions of the 38th International Old Catholic Theologians’ Conference, Elspeet NL, August 29, 2003’, in: IKZ 93 (2003), pp. 209f. 19 Cf. ‘Eucharistiegemeinschaft und kirchliche Einheit’ in: IKZ 84 (1994) 62–63; this appears to be a partial amendment of the statement of the 26th International Old Catholic Theologians’ Conference at Leuven B, September 1987, in: IKZ 77 (1987), pp. 207f. 20 It may be doubted whether this intention is really observed if in some Old Catholic churches or parishes there is an express general invitation to individual members of other churches in good standing who happen to be present. 21 See above all ‘The Decisions of the Third Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference on the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Chambésy, Switzerland 1986’, in: *53 (pp. 9f.); Metropolitan Damaskinos in his opening address of the 6th plenary session in 1985. in: Episkepsis 16 (1985), no. 344.; idem, *54. 22 Cf. Harding Meyer / Heinz Schütte, ‘Abendmahl’, in: Hanfried Krüger et al. (eds.), Oekumene Lexikon. Kirchen – Religionen – Bewegungen, Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck / Knecht,

83 Utrecht and the worldwide Anglican The wording of para. 3 of the Bonn Communion is the so-called Bonn Agreement makes it clear that ecclesial Agreement of 1931. It runs like this: communion presupposes a common dogmatic faith (“all the essentials of the 1. Each communion recognises the Christian faith”).23 However, these “es- catholicity and independence of sentials” have never been specified or the other and maintains its own. analyzed in any detail. This is a weak- 2. Each communion agrees to admit ness of the agreement, which cannot be members of the other communion exculpated from being ambiguous.24 to participate in the sacraments. 3. Intercommunion does not require Another problem is given by the recent from either communion the ac- fact that various national Anglican ceptance of all doctrinal opinion, Churches are now in full communion sacramental devotion, or liturgical with other churches in the same global practice characteristic of the other, region. A notable example in Europe is but implies that each believes the what might conveniently be called the other to hold all the essentials of Porvoo Communion, embracing the the Christian faith. four Anglican Churches of the British Isles and six Nordic and Baltic (Luther- The same formula has been used in an) Churches (1994/95). There is no 1965 when the IBC declared the Old extension of this communion to the Catholic Churches to be in communion Union of Utrecht. This entails a rather with the Philippine Independent Church strange consequence in terms of liturgi- (and two other churches on the Iberian cal symbolism: Since the 1930s Old peninsula, which since 1980 are under Catholic bishops have often been invi- the metropolitical authority of the Arch- ted to lay on hands at episcopal con- bishop of Canterbury and thus belong secrations in the Church of England; to the Anglican Communion). now they do this together with bishops of churches with which they are not in

1987, pp. 2–10, here p. 6f.; Geoffrey Wainwright, Art. ‘Intercommunion’, in: Nicholas Lossky et al. (eds.), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: WCC, 2002, pp. 586–589. 23 See also Bishop Léon Gauthier (Bern), the then Old Catholic co-chair of the Joint Commission, in an interview on the problem of Old Catholic ‘intercommunion’ with other churches and confessions: “Notre réponse demeure ce qu’elle a toujours été: l’intercommunion que nous avons avec les Eglises de la communion anglicane repose sur la reconnaissance commune de la catholicité, donc sur la reconnaissance d’une même foi catholique présente dans les deux Eglises ... Donc pour nous la foi précède l’intercommunion, elle ne la suit pas” ; cf. Episkepsis 4 (1973), no. 81. 24 Cf. Harald Rein, Kirchengemeinschaft. Die anglikanisch-altkatholisch-orthodoxen Beziehungen von 1870 bis 1990 und ihre ökumenische Relevanz. Vol. 1: Allgemeine Einführung. Die anglikanisch-altkatholischen Beziehungen, Bern: Lang, 1993, pp. 93– 449.

84 communion, although according to taking into account the global (in)signi- tradition the liturgical act would preci- ficance of Old Catholicism. sely manifest such a communion.25 However, what has been said about the This highlights a certain dilemma on the especially close relationship between Old Catholic part: In their perception Old Catholicism and Anglicanism – and Anglicans represent a church that has this, I repeat, in Old Catholic perspec- been especially close to Old Catholi- tive – is only one side of the medal. cism and its ecclesiological and ecume- The same must be said in view of Ortho- nical vision since early times, and Old doxy. There is an obvious historical Catholic – Anglican (mostly British) reason for this Old Catholic assessment. ways of exchange from theological con- The post Vatican I ecclesiastical organi- sultations to youth meetings on an inter- zation of Old Catholic Churches in national, national and parochial level German speaking countries was coter- have witnessed to this commonly held minous with a factually trilateral initia- conviction for decades. This is certainly tive to find ways for a reunion of Chris- not (or no longer, if ever) the case in tians on the common basis of the An- Anglican perception: In their ecumeni- cient Church. The starting point was in cal dynamism of the last decades they September 1872, when representatives have established agreements with other of the Old Catholic movement and of churches that elicit much more interest Orthodox and Anglican ecclesiastical and offer many more possibilities of associations met at the Congress of theological and ecclesiastical exchange; Cologne and set out the principles of they are surely not to be blamed for that, the common work.26 This eventually led

25 See the IBC statement on this problem, in: IKZ 94 (2004), pp. 140f. The ‘transitivity’ of communion was not unknown to the Old Catholics in 1931, where this issue was discussed, but not integrated into the text of the Agreement; see the German version of the minutes in: U. Küry, *35 (p. 477). This point is missing in the English version of the minutes; cf. ‘Report of the Meeting of the Commission of the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Churches held at Bonn on Thursday, July 2, 1931’; in: Lambeth Occasional Reports 1931–8, London: SPCK, 1948, 1–38, here pp. 26f. Concerning the rarely discussed problem of transitivity cf. e.g. ‘Facing Unity. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue (1984)’, in: Jeffrey Gros et al. (eds.), Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982–1998, Geneva: WCC / Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI 2000, 443–484, here 476 (paras. 146–148). 26 These associations were the Anglo-Continental Society and the St. Petersburg branch of the Society of Friends of Spiritual Enlightenment (Obšèestvo ljubitelej duchovnago prosvešèenija). Their representatives took part not as delegates of their respective churches, but with express knowledge of their ecclesiastical authorities; among them were the Rt Revd Edward Harold Browne, Bishop of Ely; the Rt Revd William Rollinson Whittingham, Bishop of Maryland; Protopresbyter Ivan Leontoviè Janysev, Rector of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg; Colonel Aleksandr Kireev, Secretary of the St. Petersburg branch of the said Society. For the text of the “Principles”, see U. Küry, *35 (p. 462).

85 to the Bonn Reunion Conferences of Anglican, Orthodox and Old Catholic 1874 and 1875, organized and presided conversations agreed upon in the wake over by Ignaz von Doellinger.27 For of the Lambeth Conference of 1930.29 various reasons this trilateral enterprise It remains a mystery why Orthodox was discontinued, but it was somehow reservations against the theological engraved in the Old Catholic conscious- presuppositions of the Old Catholic – ness. This may be seen from the list of Anglican Agreement in June 1931 were Orthodox and Anglican representatives apparently not discussed three months who had participated at the International later in October 1931 when the first Old Catholic Congresses since 1890 and (nearly pan-) Orthodox – Old Catholic even more so from the fact that up to Conference met and came to such con- the 1970s Orthodox and Anglican rep- clusions that many of the participants resentatives were often evenly invited on either side thought that ‘sacramental as speakers to address a specific topic communion’ should be possible. Thus within the permanent subject of the Old it came as a somewhat grievous surprise Catholic ecumenical vision: rapproche- for Old Catholic bishops and theolo- ment and even communion between gians to learn after 1966 that Metropoli- those (three) churches who in the first tan Germanos (Strinopoulos) in a Greek half of the 20th century were deemed to journal had already in 1932 expressed be the Catholic wing of the then Ecume- his concern about the theological basis nical Movement.28 Last but not least, of Old Catholic – Anglican ‘intercom- the Bonn Agreement of 1931 was an munion’30 . element in a clearly tripartite set of

27 A reprint of the proceedings is now available in: Bericht über die 1874 und 1875 zu Bonn gehaltenen Unions-Conferenzen. Herausgegeben von Heinrich Reusch. Nachdruck der Ausgabe in zwei Bänden von 1874 und 1875, mit einer Einführung von Günter Esser (Geschichte und Theologie des Alt-Katholizismus. Schriftenreihe des Alt-Katholischen Seminars der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Reihe A: Quellen 2), Bonn: Alt-Katholischer Bistumsverlag, 2002. 28 In the last decades the nature of the Congresses has changed: They no longer serve as sometimes rather theological or academic platforms in the service of long standing ecumenical projects of Old Catholicism, but are much more places in the format of a ‘Kirchentag’ (with a still significant Anglican and a weakened Orthodox presence). 29 See my unpublished contribution ‘The Historical Background to the Bonn Agreement’ (originally a paper delivered at the Conference to mark the 75th anniversary of the Bonn Agreement, Leeds 2005). 30 Cf. his ‘Mysteriake Koinonia metaxy Palaiokatholikon kai Anglikanon’, in: Orthodoxia 7 (1932), pp. 82–88; 117–121. He was the co-chair of the Orthodox – Anglican and of the Orthodox – Old Catholic Commission, which met in October 1931. An early controversy about incompatibilities of [Evangelical] Anglican with Old Catholic and Orthodox teaching can be found in: J. Janyschew, Ueber das Verhältniss der Altkatholiken zur Orthodoxie, Wiesbaden: Bechtold, 1891, esp. p. 27; idem, Ist die Glaubenslehre der anglo-amerika- nischen Kirche wirklich orthodox-katholisch? Ein Anhang zu dem Aufsatz: ‘Ueber das Verhältniss der Altkatholiken zur Orthodoxie’, Berlin: Stankiewicz, 1892. The trilateral relationship was never without problems; sceptical observers may speak of an age-long Old Catholic illusion...

86 When towards the end of the official absent third party. The Orthodox mem- dialogue the Old Catholic faithful began bers rather expected the Old Catholics to suspect – whether correctly or wrongly to take the necessary initiatives or to – that ecclesial communion with the give a satisfying explanation. The IBC Orthodox Church would require a Statement on ‘The Relations of the rupture or modification of the commun- Union with other Churches’ of 1993 – ion with Anglican Churches,31 they if it was really known to them – would were not in a position to understand not have answered all the queries.32 what to them (not theologically trained) looked like an impossible choice: It 4. It would be premature to conclude hopelessly interfered with their percep- that what looked like a successful dia- tion of the supra-local ecumenical logue has come to a dead end. But the aspirations of traditional Old Catholi- entire process is in need of spiritual and cism; it did not fit their expectations of theological oxygen. Basically there are what was the way forward in an ecu- two ways forward. menical age; and last but not least, the majority of them had for years expe- 4.1 On the one hand theologians may rienced much more of an Anglican – discuss and study the two points that Old Catholic than an Orthodox – Old were – correctly or not – identified as Catholic affinity, because there had the main obvious obstacles to ecclesial been far more opportunities for meeting, communion: the ordination of women exchange, common action and prayer to the priesthood (which became an with the former than with the latter. This issue only after 1987) and the nature and is unfortunately still the case, although presuppositions of Old Catholic – Ang- now Orthodox Christians predominant- lican (and IFI) ecclesial communion.33 ly no longer live as dispersed refugees This is done by an Orthodox – Old or guests in Western countries, but in Catholic Working Group that was consolidated parishes and large numbers. jointly constituted by the Ecumenical It would be wrong to suggest that the Patriarch and the IBC, after an Old Joint Commission failed to squarely Catholic delegation, led by the Arch- address and analyze the details of the bishop of Utrecht, had visited the Patri- theological basis of the Anglican – Old archate in September 2003 and asked Catholic ecclesial communion; this for a revitalisation of the century-old would have implied to speak about an relationship.34 The Working Group

31 Cf. e.g. Metropolitan Damaskinos, in: *54; *57; *58; *66. 32 ‘Die Beziehungen der Utrechter Union zu anderen Kirchen’, in: IKZ 83 (1993), pp. 250– 254. Some paragraphs now look rather dated anyway. 33 Apart from this, the Third Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference 1986 referred to ‘difficulties of the Old Catholic Church to fully introduce into her life and put into practice the agreed doctrinal texts’, cf. above note 21. Old Catholics still do not know for certain what exactly this evaluation has in mind. It may have to do with the Western practice of sacramental initiation; cf. U. von Arx, *97 (pp. 674–678). 34 Cf. IKZ 93 (2003), p. 266; Episkepsis 34 (2003), no. 629.

87 comprises three members of each The liturgical and canonical conse- church,35 and it has met four times so quences, which result from ecclesial far.36 Due to a number of technical diffi- fellowship, will be elucidated and culties it could not do much more than regulated by the Church on the basis present reasons, objections and queries of the tradition of the undivided with respect to either position concern- Church. This fellowship does not ing the ordination of women and – as signify uniformity in liturgical order far as possible – clarify the theological and ecclesial practice, but rather basis and the (often exaggerated) extent embodies an expression of the fact of official ‘intercommunion’ establish- that the historically legitimated ed by the Union of Utrecht.37 But without development of the one faith of the a more differentiated hermeneutical ancient and undivided Church is approach to these issues and the socio- preserved in each of the participating cultural presuppositions of the argu- Churches. This fellowship also does mentation on either side, this investiga- not require the subjection of one tion will hardly shed new light on what Church with its tradition to the other seems to be a deadlocked situation.38 Church, for this would contradict the reality of the fellowship ... A further field of investigation has been left untouched so far, although it might 4.2 On the other hand, wherever present considerable interest to other Orthodox and Old Catholic parishes are dialogues as well. Para 8 of the final in the same place they could organize text ‘Ecclesial Communion: Presuppo- regular meetings to provide a platform sitions and Consequences’ delineates a for better mutual knowledge or for common task which somehow would discussing burning ethical issues.39 The have to break new ground instead of Old Catholic – Orthodox relations have rehearsing old issues: overwhelmingly been confined to en-

35 Metropolitan Jeremias (Kaligiorgis), Chambésy CH (co-chair); Metropolitan Maximos (Agiorgousis), Pittsburgh USA; Prof. Vlassios Phidas, Athens GR/Chambésy CH; Bishop Joachim Vobbe, Bonn D (co-chair); the Revd. Prof. Urs von Arx, Bern CH; the Revd. Oliver Kaiser, Hannover D. Metropolitan Maximos was appointed on the assumption that the Polish National Catholic Church in USA and Canada was still a member of the Union of Utrecht und would delegate a representative into the Working Group. As the PNCC terminated membership in the Union late in 2003, there was no point of his travelling to Switzerland, and he did not take part in any session. The Orthodox side was reconstituted in April 2008: Metropolitan Michael (Staikos), Vienna A (co-chair); Prof. Grigorios Larentzakis, Graz A; Prof. Konstantinos Delikostantis, Athens GR. 36 17 February 2005, Chambésy; 24 November 2005, Bern; 16/17 April 2007 Chambésy; 11/12 December 2007, Chambésy. 37 Papers were submitted by Professors Phidas and von Arx. 38 A certain start was made with the non-official Orthodox – Old Catholic consultation, organized with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Utrecht under the auspices of Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandreou) and Bishop Hans Gerny in 1996, cf. U. von Arx / A, Kallis, *81. 39 Cf. A. Kallis, *96. See also for a Dutch example A. Berlis, *91.

88 counters of bishops and theologians; final goal of the dialogues is the visible why not find new ways of exchanges unity of the Church. Broadly speaking, for the faithful of both churches who the issues discussed in the dialogues now live in the same society and are concern trinitarian theology, soterio- often confronted with challenges for the logy, ecclesiology etc. And the dia- faith (orthodoxia, orthopraxis)? The logues are expected to go on. latest resolution of the International Old Catholic Theologians’ Conference of Now, from the point of view of the 2007 has issued such an invitation to Orthodox – Old Catholic dialogue, it the Old Catholic side.40 This might may, perhaps boldly, be said that most establish ways of dialogue on a level issues of this kind have been dealt with that cannot be neglected if ecclesial and are no longer considered to be an communion concerns the pleroma of the obstacle to the establishment of ecclesial church and its reception, not just experts communion. A stumbling-block of an of an academic process, which might apparently church-dividing character, sometime be in danger of becoming an however, is the ordination of women to end in itself. the priesthood.

5. The papers presented at the Pullach Since all the CEC churches that enter- Conference prompt me to make a short tain dialogues with the Orthodox, ordain concluding remark. All the bilateral women,41 it may be asked how, in the dialogues that were under review evi- long term, this affects the seriousness dence a clear theological commitment. of the bilaterally stated goal of these And more than once it was said – from dialogues. Orthodox and non-Orthodox – that the

40 “The ecumenical vocation of the Union of Utrecht and its member churches is firstly to apply and deepen, in the context of the local Church at the level of parish communities, that which has been theologically clarified and achieved together with the Anglican and Orthodox Churches. To this end the International Bishops’ Conference is called upon to pass a resolution that each national Church develops a concept to encourage selected Old Catholic parishes to establish contacts with Orthodox and Anglican parishes or deepen existing relations and so form Places of Encounter and Co-operation. With this aim in mind each national Old Catholic Church would take up appropriate contact with the Episcopal leadership of the respective Orthodox and Anglican parishes.” Cf. IKZ 98 (2008), pp. 3f. 41 This issue has been, though not finally, addressed in the remarkable report: The Church of the Triune God. The Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue 2006, London: Anglican Communion Office, 2006. I wonder whether the Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Church of England has quite recognized the indirect and thus rather adroit way of dealing with the theological presuppositions of the issue; cf. The Council for Christian Unity: Faith and Order Advisory Group, The Church of the Triune God. Briefing Paper for members of the General Synod, GS 1706, pp. 23–25 (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/gs1706.rtf).

89 Urs von Arx is a member of various Old Catholic Faculty of the University international dialogue commissions. Dr. of Berne 1986–2008. Dr. theol. h.c. Arx taught New Testament, Homiletics Warsaw (1996) and New York (2008). and History of Old Catholicism at the

Appendix: Bibliographie zum orthodox – altkatholischen theologischen Dialog (ab 1961)

IKZ = Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift (Bern)

01 ANDREAS RINKEL, Altkatholisch und 08 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Orthodox. Vortrag auf dem 18. Inter- Palaiokatholikismos I: He D’ Pan- nationalen Altkatholiken Kongress, orthodoxos Diaskepsis tou Beligradiou, Haarlem 1961, o.O. (De Oud-Katho- Athen 1966, 98 S. [Sonderabzug aus lieke Pers), 1962. 21 S. „Ekklesia“. Deutsche Teilübersetzung 02 STEFAN ZANKOW, Beziehungen zwischen als: (a) Die dritte Panorthodoxe Altkatholiken und Orthodoxen Konferenz von Rhodos. Der Dialog Kirchen, in: IKZ 52 (1962) 25–37 zwischen der orthodox-katholischen [bulgarisch 1960] und der altkatholischen Kirche, in: IKZ 03 WERNER KÜPPERS, Die Panorthodoxe 57 (1967) 70–82; (b) Referat, gehalten Konferenz in Rhodos, 24. September vor der interorthodoxen theologischen bis 1. Oktober 1961, in: IKZ 52 (1962) Kommission für den Dialog mit den 38–47 Altkatholiken, in: IKZ 57 (1967) 83– 04 BERTOLD SPUHLER, Die Orthodoxie und 109 – auch französisch in: Istina 13 die ökumenische Bewegung, in: IKZ (1968) 404–424; (c) Bericht der in 53 (1963) 65–77 Belgrad vom 1.– 15. September 1966 05 DIMITRIJ DIMITRIJEVIÆ, Eine Wesens- tagenden innerorthodoxen theolo- und Standortsbestimmung der Ortho- gischen Kommission für den Dialog mit doxen Kirche, in: IKZ 55 (1965) 232– den Altkatholiken, in: IKZ 57 (1967) 253 110–119 – auch französisch in: Istina 06 ARCHEVÊQUE BASILE (KRIVOŠEJN), Le 13 (1968) 425–432] XIXe congrès international vieux- 09 CHRISTIAN OEYEN, Chronologisch- catholiques [sic] à Vienne, in: Messager bibliographische Übersicht der Unions- de l’exarchat du Patriarche Russe en verhandlungen zwischen der ortho- Europe occidentale 13 (1965) 201–209 doxen Kirche des Ostens und der alt- 07 METROPOLIT MAXIMOS [CHRISTOPOULOS] katholischen Kirche der Utrechter VON SARDES, Palaiokatholikismos kai Union, in: IKZ 57 (1967) 29–51 Orthodoxia, Athen (Kalkantzakos) 10 Dokumente zur Vorbereitung des 1966, 190 S. [wiederabgedruckt in: altkatholisch-orthodoxen Dialogs. ders., Sylloge meleton kai keimenon, Vorbemerkung , in: IKZ 57 (1967) 65– hg. von Metropolit Damaskinos [Pa- 70 [enthält den altkatholischen „Vor- pandreou der Schweiz, Katerini GR schlag eines Arbeitsprogramms für die 1998, 291–474] gemischte altkatholisch-orthodoxe

90 Kommission“ vom April 1967; auch gikes Epitropes epi tou Dialogou meta französisch in: Istina 13 (1968) 433– ton Palaiokatholikon, Athen 1970, 32 437] S. [Sonderabzug aus „Theologia“. 11 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Deutsche Teilübersetzung als: Bericht Palaiokatholikismos II: He ekklesio- der in Genf-Chambésy vom 16. bis 24. logia para tois Palaiokatholikois, Athen Oktober 1970 zusammengetretenen 1967, 80 S. [Sonderabzug aus „Theo- ständigen Interorthodoxen Kommis- logia“] sion für den Dialog mit den Alt- 12 ILIJA CONEVSKI, Pregovori me¾du katholiken, in: IKZ 61 (1971) 71–74; Pravoslavnata i Starokatolièeskata französisch auch: Episkepsis 1(1070), cãrkvi za sbli¾enie i sãedinenie [Ver- Nr. 17] handlungen zwischen der orthodoxen 18 Dokumente zum orthodox-altkatho- und der altkatholischen Kirche für lischen Dialog, in: IKZ 61 (1971) 65– Annäherung und Wiedervereinigung], 70 [„Glaubensbrief“ und „Erklärung Godišnik na Duchovnata Akademija zur Filioque-Frage“ der Interna- „Sv. Kliment Ochridski“ 16/2 (1966/ tionalen Altkatholischen Bischofs- 67) 39–126 konferenz (IBK)] 13 D.K. SURMA, Die Bemühungen um eine 19 METROPOLIT STYLIANOS (CHARKIA- Annäherung der orthodoxen und NAKES), He hypo tes Palaiokatholikes altkatholischen Kirchen [russisch], in: Ekklesias episemos epidosis Homo- Je zegodnik pravoslavnoj zerkvi v logias Pisteos eis to Oikoumenikon Cechoslovakii [= Jahrbuch der ortho- Patriarcheion, in: Kleronomia 3 (1971) doxen Kirche in der Tschechoslo- 193–206 wakei], Prag 1968, 34–60 20 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, Enemerotikai 14 VICTOR CONZEMIUS, Katholizismus ohne eisegeseis kata ten B’ Diaskepsin tes Rom. Die altkatholische Kirchenge- Diorthodoxou Theologikes Epitropes meinschaft, Zürich (Benziger) 1969, epi tou Dialogou meta ton Palaiokat- 126–136 holikon kai neotata synaphe palaio- 15 URS KÜRY, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand katholika keimena, Thessaloniki 1971, der orthodox-altkatholischen Bezie- 69 S. [Sonderabzug aus „Epistemonike hungen, in: IKZ 59 (1969) 89–99 epeteris Theologikes Scholes APTH“] [enthält ein „Memorandum“ der 21 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Gespräche, die der schweizerische Palaiokatholikismos IV: He G’ Dia- Bischof im Herbst 1968 mit den skepsis tes Diorthodoxou Theologikes Häuptern der serbischen und bulga- Epitropes epi tou Dialogou meta ton rischen Kirchen führte, welches in der Palaiokatholikon, Athen 1972, 22 S. Folge mit Zustimmung der IBK allen [Sonderabzug aus „Ekklesiastikos Häuptern der orthodoxen Kirche Pharos“. Deutsche Teilübersetzung zugestellt wurde] als: Bericht der vom 22. bis 30. Juni 16 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, Der altkatholisch 1971 in Bonn zusammengetretenen – orthodoxe Dialog, in: IKZ 60 (1970) Interorthodoxen Theologischen Kom- 322–347 mission für den Dialog mit den Alt- 17 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai katholiken, in: IKZ 62 (1972) 83–86] Palaiokatholikismos III: He B’ 22 WERNER KÜPPERS, Stand und Perspek- Diaskepsis tes Diorthodoxou Theolo- tiven des altkatholisch-orthodoxen

91 Dialogs, in: IKZ 62 (1972) 87–114 lechtheisa epi te hekatontaeteridi autou [griechisch in: Gregorios Palamas 56 1874–1974, Athen 1975, 22 S. [Son- (1973) 8–24; 109–123] derabzug aus „Theologia“. Gastvor- 23 WERNER KÜPPERS, Der orthodox- lesung an der Christkatholisch-Theo- altkatholische Dialog nimmt Gestalt an, logischen Fakultät der Universität in: IKZ 63 (1973) 182–192 [enthält S. Bern aus Anlass der Hundertjahrfeier 188–192 das Beschlussprotokoll der der Fakultät und der Verleihung des Zusammenkunft der Gemischten Ehrendoktorats an den Referenten] Orthodox-Altkatholischen Kommission 29 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai vom 9. bis 14. Juli 1973 im Athener Palaiokatholikismos VIII: B’ Syndia- Interorthodoxen Zentrum (Penteli), wo skepsis tes Miktes Orthodoxoo-Palaio- Thematik und Methodik der Kommis- katholikes Theologikes Epitropes epi sionsarbeit umschrieben werden; vgl. tou Dialogou metaxy ton Ekklesion auch Episkepsis 4(1973), Nr. 81] Orthodoxou kai Palaiokatholikes, 24 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Athen 1975, 37 S. [Sonderabzug aus Palaiokatholikismos V: A’ Syndia- „Ekklesia“. Vgl. auch: IKZ 66 (1976) skepsis tes Miktes Orthodoxou-Palaio- 15–20. Die Sitzung in Chambésy 1975 katholikes Theologikes Epitropes epi wird später als die erste der sieben tou Dialogou metaxy ton Ekklesion Vollversammlungen gezählt] Orthodoxou kai Palaiokatholikes, 30 THEODOR NIKOLAOU, Das Bemühen der Athen 1973 [Sonderabzug aus „Ek- orthodoxen Kirche um Einheit und ihre klesia“. Vgl. auch IKZ 63 (1973) 188– Vorstellung von Kircheneinheit, 192] dargelegt am Beispiel des orthodox- 25 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai altkatholischen Dialogs, in: IKZ 66 Palaiokatholikismos VI: Ekklesiologi- (1976) 149–162 kai eisegeseis pros ten Mikten Theolo- 31 WERNER KÜPPERS, Orthodox-altkatho- giken Epitropen epi tou Dialogou lischer Dialog, in: IKZ 66 (1976) 1– metaxy Orthodoxon kai Palaiokatholi- 33, bes. 1–23 [enthält: (a) S. 15–20 den kon, Athen 1973, 83 S. [Sonderabzug Bericht über die Arbeitstagung der aus „Theologia“] orthodox-altkatholischen Dialogkom- 26 WERNER KÜPPERS, Die II. These des mission vom 25.–28 September 1974 Luzerner-Kongresses 1892 im Lichte im Bildungszentrum Antoniushaus des orthodox-altkatholischen Dialogs „Mattli“ bei Morschach/Schweiz, heute, in: Hundert Jahre Christkatho- sowie Auszüge aus den Gruppenbe- lisch-theologische Fakultät, Beiheft zu richten; (b) S. 20–23 das Beschluss- IKZ 64 (1974) 24–40 protokoll der ersten Vollsitzung der 27 HERWIG ALDENHOVEN, Orthodoxes und Gemischten Theologischen Kommis- altkatholisches Kirchenverständnis, in: sion für den orthodox-altkatholischen Hundert Jahre Christkatholisch-theolo- Dialog vom 20. bis 28. August 1975 gische Fakultät, Beiheft zu IKZ 64 im Orthodoxen Zentrum des Ökume- (1974) 41–55 nischen Patriarchates in Chambésy bei 28 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Genf] Palaiokatholikismos VII: Homilia peri 32 CLAIRE ALDENHOVEN, 17. Internationale tes anelixeos tou Orthodoxou-Palaio- Altkatholische Theologenkonferenz, katholikou Theologikou Dialogou, in: IKZ 67 (1977) 30–52 [Berichter-

92 stattung zum Konferenzthema „Ort- toude poreias tou dialogu toutou, in: hodox-Altkatholischer Dialog“] Kleronomia 11 (1/1979) 129–213 33 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, B’ en holomeleia 38 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai Syndiaskepsis tes Miktes Orthodoxo- Palaiokatholikismos X: He D’ Syndia- Palaiokatholikes Theologikes Epit- skepsis tes Miktes Orthodoxo-Pa- ropes epi tou Dialogou metaxy ton laiokatholikes Theologikes Epitropes Ekklesion Orthodoxou kai Palaio- epi tou Dialogou metaxy ton Ekklesion katholikes, Thessaloniki 1978, 35 S. Orthodoxou kai Palaiokatholikes, [Sonderabzug aus „Gregorios ho Athen 1979, 29 S. [Sonderabzug aus Palamas 61 (1978)] „Ekklesia“. Sitzung in Bonn 1979] 34 IOANNIS KARMIRIS, Orthodoxia kai 39 WERNER KÜPPERS, Orthodox-Alt- Palaiokatholikismos IX: Syskepsis katholischer Dialog, in: IKZ 69 (1979) Hypoepitropes Dialogou Orthodoxon 244–260, bes. 244–256 [enthält u.a.: kai Palaiokatholikon, Athen 1978, 15 (a) Protokoll der Arbeitstagung der S. [Sonderabzug aus „Ekklesia“] Gemischten Subkommission im ortho- 35 URS KÜRY, Die Altkatholische Kirche. dox-altkatholischen Dialog vom 24. bis Ihre Geschichte, ihre Lehre, ihr An- 31. August 1§978 im Interorthodoxen liegen. Ergänzte und mit einem Nach- Zentrum der Kirche Griechenlands, trag versehene 2. Auflage [1. Auflage Kloster Penteil bei Athen; (b) Protokoll 1966] hg. von Christian Oeyen (KW der dritten Vollsitzung der Gemischten 3), Stuttgart (EVW) 1978, bes. 111– Theologischen Kommission für den 116; 388–396; 416–419 [Nachtrag von orthodox-altkatholischen Dialog vom Oeyen] 20. bis 24. August 1979 in der 36 WERNER KÜPPERS, Orthodox-Altkatho- griechisch-orthodoxen Metropolie lischer Dialog, in: IKZ 68 (1978) 29– Deutschlands in Bonn-Beuel; vgl. auch 47, bes. 29–40 [enthält: (a) Protokoll Episkepsis 10 (1979), Nr. 216] der Arbeitstagung der Gemischten Sub- 40 METROPOLIT CHRYSOSTOMOS (ZAP- kommission im orthodox-altkatho- HEIRES), He B’ en holomeleia synantesis lischen Dialog vom 27. September bis tes Miktes Theologikes Epitropes tou 2. Oktober 1976 im Interorthodoxen dialogou Orthodoxon kai Palaio- Zentrum Penteli bei Athen; (b) Proto- katholikon, Athen 1979, 46 S. [Son- koll der zweiten Vollsitzung der Ge- derabzug aus „Ekklesia“] mischten Theologischen Kommission 41 IOAN VASILE LEB, Die Entwicklung der für den orthodox-altkatholischen orthodox-altkatholischen Beziehungen Dialog vom 23. bis zum 30. August bilateral und im Rahmen der ökume- 1977 im Orthodoxen Zentrum des Öku- nischen Bewegung, Diss. theol. menischen Patriarchates in Chambésy Heidelberg 1981, 471 S. [vgl. DERS., bei Genf] Relaþiile ortodoxo – vechi-catolice, 37 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, G’ en holomeleia bilateral ºi în cadrul Miºcãrii Ecume- Syndiaskepsis tes Miktes Orthodoxoo- nice, Diss. theol. Bucureºti 1985] Palaiokatholikes Theologikes Epit- 42 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, D’ Genike Syne- ropes epi tou Dialogou metaxy ton leusis tes Miktes Theologikes Epitropes Ekklesion Orthodoxou kai Palaio- epi tou Dialogou metaxy ton Ekklesion katholikes, eis ta plaisia kai tes geni- Orthodoxou kai Palaiokatholikes, koteras kritikes theoreseos tes mechri Athen 1982

93 43 PETER AMIET, Orthodox-altkatholischer 50 METROPOLIT DAMASKINOS [PAPANDREOU] Dialog, in: IKZ 73 (1983) 70–81, bes. (Hg.), Theologikai Dialogoi. Mia 70–72 [vgl. auch Episkepsis 12 (1981), Orthodoxos Prooptike (Dialogos 1), Nr. 259] Thessaloniki (Kyriakidi) 1986, 241– 44 ABRAHAM RUDOLPHUS HEYLIGERS, Die 285 [die damals schon vorliegenden Wiedervereinigungsverhandlungen Texte in der griechischen Fassung] zwischen der Altkatholischen Kirche 51 GEORGES N. LEMOPOULOS, Le dialogue und der Orthodoxen Kirche des Ostens théologique entre l’Eglise orthodoxe et als ökumenisches Problem, Diss. l’Eglise des vieux-catholiques, in: IKZ [Faculté de Théologie Protestante] 76 (1986) 161–190 Strasbourg 1983, 145 S. [reicht bis 52 PETER AMIET, Orthodox-altkatholischer 1976] Dialog, in: IKZ 77 (1987) 37–52, bes. 45 Ansprachen der beiden Ko-Präsidenten 37–43 [enthält u.a. einen besorgten Metropolit Damaskinos (Papandreou) Text der altkatholischen Mitglieder der und Bischof Léon Gauthier, in: Epis- Subkommission „Die ökumenische kepsis 14 (1983), Nr. 302 Aufgabe der altkatholischen Kirche“ 46 PETER AMIET, Orthodox-Altkatholischer (S. 40–43); vgl. auch Christkatho- Dialog, in: IKZ 74 (1984) 195–202, lisches Kirchenblatt 109 (1986) 127f.; bes. 195 [vgl. auch Episkepsis 14 Altkatholische Kirchenzeitung (Wien) (1983), Nr. 302, bes. die Ansprache von 21 (1986), Nr. 6; vgl. auch EWpiskepsis Metropolit Damaskinos] 16 (1985), Nr. 344, bes. die Ansprache 47 JOHANNES KALOGIROU, Hypomnemata von Metropolit Damaskinos zur AKD- vergangener und gegenwärtiger Vor- EKD-Vereinbarung] gänge bei dem orthodox-altkatho- 53 Die Beschlüsse der III. Vorkonziliaren lischen theologischen Dialog und Panorthoxen Konferenz, in: Una Sancta seiner ökumenischen Aufgabe, mit 42 (1987) 4–28, hier 10 [vgl. auch: besonderer Berücksichtigung der Orthodoxes Forum 5 (1991) 329–356, neueren Diskussion über die Frage des hier 335f.] Ausgangs des Heiligen Geistes, in: 54 METROPOLIT DAMASKINOS, Ansprache Epistemonike Epeterida Theologikes des orthodoxen Ko-Präsidenten [zum Scholes APTh 26 (1981) 464–567 Abschluss der Kommissionsarbeit am [auch als Sonderabzug 1984] 18. Oktober 1987 in Kavala GR], in: 48 VASIL T. ISTAVRIDIS, Historical Pres- US 42 (1987) 334–339 [vgl. auch uppositions of the Dialogues, in: Les Episkepsis 18(1987), Nr. 397; IKZ 78 dialogues œcuméniques hier et (1988) 44–47] aujourd’hui (Études théologiques de 55 SIGISBERT KRAFT, Erklärung des Chambésy 5), Chambésy GE 1985, deutschen Bischofs des Katholischen 142–168, hier 147–149 Bistums der Alt-Katholiken in Deut- 49 THEODOR NIKOLAOU, Gesamtwürdigung schland zur Rezeption des orthodox/ der Methode und der Ergebnisse der altkatholischen Dialogs (3.12.1987), in: bilateralen Dialoge, in: Les dialogues Una Sancta 42 (1987) 339 œcuméniques hier et aujourd’hui 56 PETER AMIET, Der altkatholisch- (Études théologiques de Chambésy 5), orthodoxe theologische Dialog ist Chambésy GE 1985, 207–232, hier abgeschlossen, in: IKZ 78 (1988) 42– 212f. 218. 222f. 62, bes. 42–50

94 57 METROPOLIT DAMASKINOS, Der ortho- 1254; Enchiridion Oecumenicum III, dox-altkatholische Dialog. Ein Modell 1995, 1149–1175 (italienisch). Eine für die Überwindung der kirchlichen polnische Übersetzung findet sich in: Spaltung zwischen Abendland und Urs Küry, Ko¶ció³ Starokatolicki. Morgenland?, in: IKZ 78 (1988) 79– Historia, nauka, d±¿enia. T³umaczenie 89 [Vorlesung, gehalten am 4. Februar i opracowanie naukowe pod kierun- 1988, im Zusammenhang mit der kiem bpa. prof. dr. hab. Wiktora Wy- Verleihung der Ehrendoktorwürde soczañskiego, Warszawa (Chrze¶ci- durch die Universität Bern am 5. jañska Akademia Teologiczna) 1996, Dezember 1987] 556–601. Die einzelnen Texte wurden 58 METROPOLIT DAMASKINOS[PAPANDREOU], jeweils nach ihrer Publikation ver- Theologischer Konsens und kirchliche öffentlicht in: Episkepsis (Chambésy Gemeinschaft. Die Einheit zwischen GE), griechisch und französisch; der Orthodoxen und der Altkatho- ®urnal Moskovskoj Patriarchii (Mos- lischen Kirche, in: IKZ 79 (1989) 44– kau), russisch; Ortodoxia (Bucure¶ti), 52 [Referat auf der 27. Internationalen rumänisch] Altkatholischen Theologenkonferenz in 61 HERWIG ALDENHOVEN, Charakter, Innsbruck, September 1988] Bedeutung und Ziel der Dialogtexte, in: 59 Bericht über die 27. Internationale ebd. 27–44 Altkatholische Theologenkonferenz in 62 URS VON ARX, Kurze Einführung in die Innsbruck vom 5. bis 10. September Geschichte des orthodox-altkatho- 1988, in: IKZ 79 (1989) 29–79 lischen Dialogs, in: ebd. 11–26 [Abdruck von fünf Referaten von 63 EUGEN HÄMMERLE, Altkatholiken und Herwig Aldenhoven, Damaskinos Orthodoxe im Gespräch, in: Material- Papandreou, Urs von Arx, Peter Amiet dienst des Konfessionskundlichen und Urs von Arx, sowie einer „Er- Instituts Bensheim 40 (1989) 3–5 klärung der 27. Internationalen Alt- [griechisch in: Episkepsis Nr. 420 vom katholischen Theologenkonferenz“ 1. Juni 1989; englisch als „Old zum Dialog] Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue“ in: One 60 URS VON ARX (Hg.), Koinonia auf in Christ 26 (1990) 155–159] altkirchlicher Basis. Deutsche Gesamt- 64 CHRISTIAN OEYEN, Ekklesiologische ausgabe der gemeinsamen Texte des Fragen in den orthodox-altkatholischen orthodox-altkatholischen Dialogs Kommissionstexten, in: IKZ 79 (1989) 1975–1987 mit französischer und 237–265 [Referat gehalten auf der 27. englischer Übersetzung, Beiheft zu IKZ Internationalen Altkatholischen Theo- 79 (1989), 229 S. [mit Korrekturen von logenkonferenz in Innsbruck – siehe Versehen. Vgl. auch den Abdruck der oben] Texte in: Orthodoxes Forum 4 (1990) 65 HERWIG ALDENHOVEN, Le dialogue des 238–291, sowie in Sammlungen wie: Églises vieilles-catholiques et des DWÜ I, 1983 / 21991, 23–53; DWÜ II, Églises orthodoxes, in: Unité chrétien- 1992, 19–49; Growth in Agreement I, ne, no. 100, Nov. 1990, 57–73 1984, 389–419; Growth in Agreement 66 METROPOLIT DAMASKINOS [PAPAND- II, 2000, 248–268 (mit abweichenden REOU], Die Bedeutung der Utrechter englischen Übersetzungen); Enchiri- Union aus orthodoxer Sicht, in: dion Oecumenicum I, 1984, 1213– Orthodoxes Forum 4 (1990) 139–149

95 [Festansprache auf der Hundert- 73 PETER ANTHONY BAKTIS, Old Catholic- jahrfeier der Utrechter Union am 22. Orthodox Agreed Statements on September 1989 in Utrecht. Vgl. La Ecclesiology: Reflection for a Para- signification de l’Union d’Utrecht du digm Shift in Contemporary Ecume- point de vue orthodoxe, in: Episkepsis nism, in: IKZ 84 (1994) 229–235 20 (1989), Nr. 427] 74 FRANZ JÖRG STAFFENBERGER, Der 67 IOANNIS KALOGIROU, Henas Theologikos orthodox-altkatholische Dialog, Diss. Dialogos tes Orthodoxias bainon syn theol. Graz 1994, 238 S. Theo epitychos pros to terma. Ho 75 J. ROBERT WRIGHT, Ekklesiologischer Heortasmos tes Hekatontaeteridos tes Kommentar zu den orthodox -altkatho- Deloseos tes Utrechtes ton Palaio- lischen Dialogtexten und Über- katholikon (1889–1989), hypo ta „Se- legungen zu möglichen Folgerungen meia“ tu apoperatothentos Ortho- für das neue Europa, in: IKZ 84 (1994) doxou-Palaiokatholikou Theologikou 77–91 Dialogou, in: Gregorios ho Palamas 73 76 IOAN-VASILE LEB, Orthodoxie und (1990) 8–42, 424–448; [3. Folge in:] Altkatholizismus. Eine hundert Jahre Gregorios ho Palamas, Panteleemoni ökumenische Zusammenarbeit (1870– B’ to panagiotato Metropolite Thessa- 1970), Cluj-Napoca (Presa Universitarã lonikes. Teuchos aphieroterion, Thes- Clujeanã „Babe¶-Bolyai“) 1995, 262 S. saloniki 1991, 285–346 [bis 1970 reichender Teildruck der 68 THEODOR NIKOLAOU, Der offizielle 1981 in Heidelberg eingereichten Orthodox-Altkatholische Dialog, in: Dissertation; rumänisch: Ortodoxie ¶i Orthodoxes Forum 4 (1990) 173–184 Vechi-Catolicism sau Ecumenism 69 HARALD REIN, Der orthodox-altkatho- înainte de Mi¶carea Ecumenicã, Cluj- lische Dialog ist abgeschlossen. Folge- Napoca (Presa Universitarã Clujeanã) rungen und Perspektiven aus altkatho- 1996, 332 S.] lischer Sicht, in: Orthodoxes Forum 4 77 GEORGES TSETSIS, The Bilateral (1990) 151–171 Dialogues of the Orthodox Churches. 70 DIETRICH G. SCHULD, Rezension zu Problems arising from the Reception of „Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis“, in: their Agreed Statements, in: Ortho- Sobornost 12 (1990) 184f. doxes Forum 9 (1995) 231–241, bes. 71 PIERRE ERNY, Vieux Catholicisme et 235 [Referat gehalten auf dem „Sixth Orthodoxie. Études et Essais, Paris Forum on Bilateral Dialogues“, (Centre Orthodoxe d’Éditions et de Bossey/CH, 8.–13. Oktober 1994] Diffusion) o.J. [1993], 68 S. 78 ERICH GELDBACH, Taufe. Ökumenische 72 HARALD REIN, Kirchengemeinschaft. Studienhefte 5 (BensH 79), Göttingen Die anglikanisch-altkatholisch-ortho- (V&R) 1996, 92–94 doxen Beziehungen von 1870 bis 1990 79 VITALIJ BOROVOJ, Zum 100-Jahr- und ihre ökumenische Relevanz. Band Jubiläum der Rotterdamer und Peters- 2: Die anglikanisch-orthodoxen Be- burger Kommission, in: IKZ 87 (1997) ziehungen. Die orthodox-altkatholi- 141–183 schen Beziehungen. Das ekklesiologi- 80 URS VON ARX, Der orthodox-alt- sche Selbstverständnis und die Bezie- katholische Dialog. Anmerkungen zu hungen dieser drei zu anderen Kirchen, einer schwierigen Rezeption, in: IKZ Bern (Peter Lang) 1994, 572 S. 87 (1997) 184–224 [auch polnisch in:

96 Rocznik Teologiczny (Warszawa) 40/ der Gemischten Orthodox-Altkatho- 1–2 (1998) 55–93] lischen Theologischen Kommission 81 URS VON ARX / ANASTASIOS KALLIS 1975–1987. Eine Dokumentation im (Hg.), Bild Christi und Geschlecht. Auftrag der IBK zusammengestellt und «Gemeinsame Überlegungen» und herausgegeben von URS VON ARX, Bern, Referate der Orthodox-Altkatholischen Juli 2000/ November 2007, unver- Konsultation zur Stellung der Frau in öffentlichtes Typoskript, 41 S. der Kirche und zur Frauenordination als 88 JOHANNES OELDEMANN, Die Apostoli- ökumenischem Problem, Levadia zität der Kirche im ökumenischen (Griechenland) und Konstancin (Polen) Dialog mit der Orthodoxie. Der Beitrag 1996, in: IKZ 88 (1998) 65–348 [Der russischer orthodoxer Theologen zum ganze Band (ohne griechische und ökumenischen Gespräch über die lateinische Zitate) erschien auf englisch apostolische Tradition und die Suk- – übersetzt von Duncan Reid – in: zession der Kirche (KKS 71), Pader- Anglican Theological Review 84 (3/ born (Bonifatius) 2000, 47–67, 299– 2002) 489–755] 317 82 HUBERT KIRCHNER, Wort Gottes, Schrift 89 OLIVER SCHUEGRAF, Der einen Kirche und Tradition (Ökumenische Studien- Gestalt geben. Ekklesiologie in den hefte 9 = Bensheimer Hefte 89), Göttin- Dokumenten der bilateralen Konsens- gen (Vandenhoeck) 1998, 80–86 ökumene (Jerusalemer Theologisches 83 URS VON ARX, Vertane Chancen. Der Forum 3), Münster (Aschendorff) Dialog zwischen der Altkatholischen 2001, bes. 144–152 und der Orthodoxen Kirche, in: Bischof 90 URS VON ARX, Ein Porträt der christ- Evmenios von Lefka u.a. (Hg.), Die katholischen Lehranstalt, in: Günter orthodoxe Kirche. Eine Standort- Esser / Matthias Ring (Hg.), Zwischen bestimmung an der Jahrtausendwende. Freiheit und Gebundenheit. Festschrift FS Anastasios Kallis, Frankfurt (Lem- zum 100jährigen Bestehen des Alt- beck) 1999, 199–222 Katholischen Seminars der Universität 84 THOMAS BREMER u.a. (Hg.), Orthodoxie Bonn (Geschichte und Theologie des im Dialog. Bilaterale Dialoge der Alt-Katholizismus. Reihe B: Dar- orthodoxen und der orientalisch ortho- stellungen und Studien 1), Bonn doxes Kirchen 1945–1997. Eine Do- (Bistumsverlag) 2002, 209– 237, esp. kumentensammlung (Sophia 32), Trier 218–218 [ein Viertel aller an der (Paulinus) 1999, 187–190 Christkatholisch-Theologischen 85 OLIVER SCHUEGRAF, Ist der Freund Fakultät der Universität Bern über meines Freundes auch mein Freund? längere oder kürzere Zeit immatri- Strukturelle Probleme ökumenischer kulierten Studierenden waren Ortho- „Dreiecksverhältnisse“, in: Ökume- doxe] nische Rundschau 48 (1999) 347–360 91 ANGELA BERLIS, Zur Rezeption der 86 BORYS PRZEDPE£SKI; Dialog Staro- orthodox – altkatholischen Dialogtexte, katolicko-Prawos³awny w latach 1871– in: IKZ 94 (2004) 135–139 1987, Diss. theol. ChAT, Warszawa 92 KARL-WILHELM NIEBUHR, Das Alte 2000, 327 S. Testament in der orthodoxen und der 87 URS VON ARX, Altkatholische Stellung- „westlichen“ Bibelwissenschaft. Zum nahmen zu den Gemeinsamen Texten Stand und zu den Perspektiven des

97 Gesprächs, in: Ivan Z. Dimitrov u.a. [englisch: 100f.] (Hg.), Das Alte Testament als christ- 96 ANASTASIOS KALLIS, Erfolgreicher liche Bibel in orthodoxer und west- Dialog ohne Folgen. Zur Rezeptions- licher Sicht. Zweite europäische ortho- problematik im Hinblick auf die dox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz im altkatholisch-orthodoxe Gemeinschaft, Rilakloster vom 8. – 15. September in: IKZ 96 (2006) 1–8 2001 (WUNT 174), Tübingen (Mohr) 97 URS VON ARX, Ouketi proso? [Ouvke,ti 2004, 365–400, hier 370–372 pro,sw;] Ein traurig-besorgter Blick auf 93 Conclusions of the Inter-Orthodox den orthodox-altkatholischen Dialog, Theological Conference on “Ecume- in: Ekklesia – Oikumene – Politike. nism: Origins, Expectations, Disen- Charisteria ston Metropolite Adrianou- chantment”, Thessaloniki September poleos Damaskeno. Hg. Diakoinobou- 20–24, 2004, A 6 [“The Dialogue with leutike Syneleuse Orthodoxias, Athen the Old Catholics”], http:// 2007, 669–692 www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ 98 RICHARD POTZ/EVA SYNEK unter thess_conclusions.aspx Mitarbeit von Spyros Troianos, Ort- 94 GRIGORIOS M. LIANTAS, Diorthodoxos hodoxes Kirchenrecht. Eine Ein- diakonia tou Oikumenikou Patri- führung (Kirche und Recht 25), archeiou kai tes Ekklesias tes Hellados Freistadt (Plöchl) 2007, 386–391 kai he symbole ton dyo Ekklesion stous 99 MATTIJS PLOGER, Celebrating Church. dimereis theologikous dialogous me te Ecumenical Contributions to a Romaiokatholike Ekklesia kai ten Liturgical Ecclesiology (Netherlands Ekklesia ton Palaiokatholikon, Thes- Studies in Ritual and Liturgy 7), saloniki (Kornelia Sphakianake) 2005, Groningen (Instituut voor Litur- 319 S. giewetenschap)/Tilburg (Liturgisch 95 ANDRÉ BIRMELÉ, Die Taufe in öku- Instituut) 2008, bes. 443–454 menischen Dialogen, in: Wilhelm Hüff- 100 Grundprinzipien der Beziehung der meier/Tony Peck (Hg.), Dialog Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche zu zwischen der Europäischen Baptis- Andersgläubigen. Bischofskonzil der tischen Federation (EBF) und der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche, Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen Moskau, 13. – 16. August 2000, in: in Europa (GEKE) zur Lehre und Kyrill [Gundaev], Patriarch von Praxis der Taufe / Dialogue between Moskau und der ganzen Rus’, Freiheit the Community of Protestant Churches und Verantwortung im Einklang. in Europe (CPCE) and the European Zeugnisse für den Aufbruch zu einer Baptist Federation (EBF) on the neuen Weltgemeinschaft (Epiphania 1), Doctrine and Practice of Baptism hg. von Barbara Hallensleben u.a., (Leuenberger Texte 9), Frankfurt a.M. Freiburg Schweiz (Institut für Öku- (Lembeck) 2005, 52–78, hier 75 menische Studien) 2009, 186–219, hier 204f.

98 The Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue Estimation of the Present Stage

Ioan-Vasile Leb

Introduction having become “Catholicism without Rome”.2 Having taken the expression As well known, the Old Catholic Church Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod was born as a reaction to the new papal semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est3 dogmas defined at the Council Vatican of Vincent of Lerin as their basic prin- I of 1870: the papal infallibility and the ciple, the Old Catholics considered jurisdictional primacy of the Bishop of themselves a sort of bridge between Rome, by which he considered himself Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so that the leader of the entire Christian world since the Congress of Munich, of 22– and the last instance of appeal.1 As they 24 September 1871, they hoped in a re- refused to accept these dogmatic inno- union both with the Eastern Greek vations, the challengers set up a separate Church and with the Russian Church, Church, keeping the Catholic funda- “whose separation was done with no ments and eliminating the renewals, basic reasons and based on no dogmatic

1 J. Fr. von Schulte, Der Altkatholizismus, Giessen, 1885, reed. Aalen, 1965; Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche. Ihre Geschichte, ihre Lehre, ihr Anliegen, in col. Die Kirchen der Welt, Bd. III, Evangelisches Verlagswerk Stuttgart, 1966; Ioan-Vasile Leb, Ortodoxie ºi vechi-catolicism sau ecumenism înainte de Miºcarea Ecumenicã, PUC, Cluj-Napoca, 1996. 2 Victor Conzemius, Katholizismus ohne Rom. Die altkatholische Kirchengemeinschaft, Benziger Verlag, Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln, 1969. 3 Gerhard Rauschen, Des heiligen Vinzenz von Lerin Commonitorium, in „Bibliothek der Kirchenväter“ (BKV), Bd.XX, p. 19 and p. 9, nota 1; Marinus Kok, Vincenz von Lerinum und sein Commonitorium, in „Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift“ (further on IKZ), 52, 1962, p. 75–85.

99 difference not to be overcome.” 4 They their teaching of faith. The results of this have also taken into consideration the confrontation materialised in the many Anglicans and Protestants, so that theological-scientific works that the Old before long we would attend a first Catholics, as well as the Greek, Russian, encounter between the representatives Romanian, Bulgarian, Serb, Czech, of these confessions, in Bonn, in 1874. Polish, Finn and more recently the American Orthodox drafted. In spite of all the difficulties present – as the Old Catholics had hardly been Considered from the point of view of set up as a Church – their relations with the commitment of the two Churches, the Orthodox Church in view of their the history of the dialogue between union have always been a priority in them can be divided into two great their ecumenical strategy. Orthodoxy phases, namely an unofficial one and represented for them the guarantee and an official one. It is not appropriate to support for the purpose. The Orthodox present here the history of the relations Church, in her turn, manifested, from between the two Churches, on which the very beginning, a vivid interest for lots of researchers insisted.5 Yet, we re- the Old Catholics, as she saw in them member the fact that the results of the the possibility of re-establishing the Old unofficial discussions allowed the Joint Undivided Church in the West. Commission for the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue to function with very The Orthodox-Old Catholic relation- good results. However, a rather long ships influenced positively both parts. period was necessary for the two On one hand, the Old Catholics found Churches to start the dialogue. We support in Orthodoxy and, on the other remember here especially the union hand, the Orthodox were determined to conferences from Bonn, from 1874 and discuss more intensely with the Old 1875, the exchange of reports between Catholic theologians and to better study the Commission from Sankt Petersburg

4 I.V. Leb, Ortodoxie ºi vechi-catolicism…, p. 19. 5 See, for example: C. Oyen, Chronologisch-bibliographische Übersicht der Unionsver- handlungen zwischen der orthodoxen Kirche des Ostens und der altkatholischen Kirche der Utrechter Union, IKZ 57 (1967) 29–51; Ioan-Vasile Leb,; Orthodoxie und Alt- katholizismus, Presa Universitarã Clujeanã, “Babeº-Bolyai” Universität, Cluj-Napoca, 1995; Idem, Ortodoxie ºi Vechi-Catolicism sau Ecumenism înainte de Miºcarea Ecumeni- cã, PUC, Cluj-Napoca, 1996; Harald Rein, Kirchengemeinschaft. Die anglikanisch- altkatholisch-orthodoxen Beziehungen von 1870 bis 1990, 2 B-de, Peter Lang, Bern, Berlin, New York, 1993/1994; Urs von Arx, Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis, Bern, 1989; J. Finsterholzl, Ignaz von Döllinger, Styria Verlag, Graz, Wien, Köln, 1969; Peter Neuner, Döllinger als Theologe der Ökumene, Paderborn, München, 1979; Ignaz von Döllinger, Über die Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Kirchen. Sieben Vorträge, gehalten zu München im Jahr 1872, Nördlingen, 1888. Soon these speeches were translated into English (1872) and French (1881). Friedrich Heinrich Reusch, Bericht über die am 14., 15. und 16. September zu Bonn gehaltenen Unionskonferenzen. Im Auftrage des Vorsitzenden Dr. von Döllinger, Bonn, 1874, p. 33–50 (further on B.I.).

100 and Rotterdam, as well as the imple- members of the Joint Commission. In mentation of the inter-communion 12 years time (1975–1987), the fol- between the two Churches. It was also lowing common texts were discussed necessary that the world should pass and signed: I. Teaching About God through two world wars to be aware of (Theology): I/1 The Divine Revelation the need of mutual rapprochement in and Its Transmission; I/2 Canon of the view of re-establishing church unity. It Holy Scripture; I/3 The Holy Trinity, was, finally, necessary to have collabo- II. Christology: II/1 The Incarnation ration within the Ecumenical Move- of the Word of God; II/2 Ipostatic ment and in the Pan-Orthodox Confer- Union; II/3 Mother of God; III. ences so that the atmosphere of colla- Ecclesiology: III/1 The Being and boration should allow the beginning of Characteristics of the Church; III/2 the inter-church dialogues. This is why Unity of the Church and the Local after much effort for preparing, the Churches; III/3 Boundaries of the official dialogue – between the 14 Church; III/4 Authority of the Church Orthodox Churches and 8 Old Catholic and in the Church; III/5 Infallibility Churches, members of the Utrecht of the Church; III/7 Necessity of the Union – could start in 1975 through the Apostolic Succession; III/8 The Head meeting of the first General Assembly of the Church; IV, Soteriology: IV/1 of the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Saving Work of Christ, our Lord; IV/ Theological Commission. 2 The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and Salvation; V. The Holy After overcoming the first obstacles, the Sacraments: V/1 The Sacraments of dialogue unfolded at three levels: certain the Church; V/6 Sacrament of the Holy theologians of each part were commis- Unction; V/7 Sacrament of Priesthood; sioned to prepare the concept of a text V/8 Sacrament of Wedding (Marriage); for a certain theme in the dialogue VI. Ecclesiology: VI/1 The Church agenda established in 1973, conveyed and the End of the World; VII. Church then to a joint sub-commission; then, Communion. Premises and Conse- the sub-commission drafted the common quences. text that was to be submitted to the Joint Commission; this one discussed, if it The seventh General Assembly of the was necessary, modified the project and Joint Commission held in Kavala, approved the final text that was to be Greece, in October 1987, ended the dia- signed by all the members of the com- logue as it had been scheduled.6 It mission. Finally, the text was submitted should be mentioned that at the end of to the leadership of the two Churches. every text the following things are Every text was drafted in the two official mentioned: “The text above, on …. languages: Greek and German, both renders, according to the Joint Orthodox versions having been submitted to the – Old Catholic Commission, the

6 Dokumente zum orthodox-altkatholischen Dialog, IKZ 1/1988, 78. Jahrgang, Bern 1988, p. 49–62

101 teaching of the Orthodox and Old 1931 for our dialogue, or moreover, Catholic Churches” 7, emphasising in what does the “Bonn Agreement Con- this way the common official character cerning Inter-communion” (1931) of the texts. represent for us? 8

Although the Joint Commission for- Study and Perspectives mulated answers to these questions, “the question still refers to the way in which Therefore, at present, the leaderships of these answers will be included in the the Orthodox Churches and of the Old teaching and life of the two Churches Catholic Ones own 26 texts, which of ours.”9 And, although this task identify a large Orthodox – Old Catholic exceeds the competence of the Joint consensus. Although the theological Commission, as it is up to the officials work ended, there remained “serious of the Churches participating in the problems unsolved”. His Eminence dialogue to treat it, the activity of the Metropolitan Damaschinos Papandreou dialogue must be “completed through reminded them ever since October 1986, a responsible report, submitted to the in Chambesy, that: “do the theological Churches and showing the methods agreements we reach engage the worthy to be taken into consideration, Churches we represent? How can they in order to turn to good account the be included in the church life without necessary theological consensus needed risking schism? Do we refer to the for the ecclesiastic communion”10 mutual relationship between the bilateral According to His Eminence Metropo- and multilateral dialogues and, if so, litan Damaschin, such a report drafted what are they? For example, can an by every group must “reflect the spirit agreement between the Old Catholic prevailing during the discussions of the Church and the Orthodox Church seven General Assemblies of the Theo- concerning the church authority or the logical Commissions of the Theological head of the Church relate the official Commission and be the result of the dialogue between Orthodox and Roman common texts which we all signed Catholics? What may be the theological together”. 11 and ecclesiological consequences of the statements of the Old Catholic Church In this sense, every report must take into and of the Anglican Communion of consideration the following six points:

7 Stefan Alexe, In sprijinul dialogului teologic ortodoxo-vechi-catolic. Texte comune ale Comisiei teologice mixte ortodoxo-vechi-catolice. Traducere ºi prezentare de…, in “Ortodoxia”, 1–2/1978, p. 5–12 (and the following issues); Urs von Arx, Koinonia…, p. 23. 8 Damaskinos Papandreou, Discours prononcé le 18 octobre 1987, in “Episkepsis” nr. 387, 1.11.1987. 9 Ibidem, p. 13. 10 Ibidem 11 Ibidem

102 “1. to turn to good account, the ensem- of Germany in view of their participa- ble of the commission’s work, pointing tion in the Eucharist, the agreement of out the common thesis adopted on every some Old-Catholic theologians in theological difference, as they have Louvain (1987) and been included in the text; 6. to express the common conscience 2. to use especially the theological and desire of all the members of the content of the common texts, referring Commission concerning the possibility to the official theological purpose, that of our Churches to turn to good account is the re-establishment of the ecclesiastic the theological work of this commission communion between the Old Catholic in view of re-establishing the unity that Church and the Orthodox Church; will enrich the spiritual experience of the two Churches.” 13 3. to underline the patristic infra-structure of the method the commission followed Then, while pointing out that “the end in its work and especially in the drafting of the session of the Theological of the common text of every theme; Commission established the conditions for following our common way to the 4. to suggest the need and way of ecclesiastic communion”, His Eminence including the theology of the common drew the attention to the fact that texts into the official education and in according to the discussions had, “any the church life too, so, in the catechesis unilateral digression or application of and rite. In order to do that, the common the common theology would neutralise texts must be published in several the work the Joint Commission done languages12 in order to make possible with so much effort”. Then, when refer- their progressive inclusion in the life of ring to the Old Catholics, His Eminence the local Churches; said: “We understand the difficulties of the Old Catholic Church, but it is 5. to point out clearly the difficulties difficult for us to accept that diaconia present beyond the common texts for may develop harmoniously without restoring the ecclesiastic communion consequently referring to the basic between the Orthodox Church and the principles of our faith, even to those we Old Catholic Church, such as the sacra- formulated and signed together in all the mental inter-communion of the latter common texts of our dialogue, thanks one with the Anglicans, the agreement to the criteria of the patristic tradition between the Evangelical Church of of the Old Church.” 14 Germany and the Old Catholic Diocese

12 These texts have been translated and published into Romanian by Rev. Prof. ªtefan Alexe, member of the Joint Commission, published in Ortodoxia magazine, at the same time with the works of the respective assemblies. 13 Ibidem, p. 13. 14 Ibidem, p. 13–14.

103 The successful end of the theological tely, each of these texts may be both dialogue between the Orthodox and Old shortened and enriched. This is why, in Catholics gave the Orthodox hierarch spite of the consensus reached, there the hope that the Joint Commission still were, just from the very beginning, “would have a positive multi-directional discussions concerning the formulation influence, so that the effort for unity of some of these texts. For example, text should be turned to good account in the I/1, Divine Revelation and Its Trans- Church with the same spirit of love and mission, was unanimously approved mutual understanding that guided our due to the clear expression of the com- dialogue.”15 So, this is the only dialogue mon teaching in this regard, based, first carried out up to the end so far, accord- of all, on texts of the Holy Scriptures, ing to the plan established together. and of the Holy Fathers as well as on Then, very important is the fact that the decisions of the Inter-Orthodox according to the opinion of the Joint Commission for the Preparation of the Commission, every text renders “the Holy Great Synod of 15–18 April 1971. teaching of the Orthodox Church and Very important is the stress laid on the of the Old Catholic one”, as they are close relationship between the Holy texts of theological consensus con- Scripture and Tradition, pointing out cerning the dogmatic tradition of the that the Scripture and Tradition are not two Churches, although there are still a different expressions of the divine few differences. Finally, here we have revelation, but ways of expressing one the only dialogue in which all the and the same apostolic Tradition. This Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches is why it is out of question to talk about participated, engaging them to the same the superior aspect of one of them extent in the support of the effort the compared to the other, as both of them Joint Commission made in view of have the same power for faith. The Holy achieving the church unity. 16 Scripture is understood through Tradi- tion, and Tradition keeps its purity and Unfortunately, the hope His Eminence the criteria of its truth through the Metropolitan Damaskinos expressed, Scripture and in those included in the remained only a desire, as instead of Scripture. The Church keeps and inter- implementing the results of the dialogue, prets the apostolic Tradition and conveys new problems appeared which stopped it unchanged to the next generations.17 the reception process of the common It is important to underline this consen- texts and generated many questions on sus concerning the relation between the future of the mutual relations. Scripture and Tradition, as, at a certain moment in time, the Old Catholics used Yet, we must mention the fact that these to emphasise the importance of the texts expressed a large consensus at the Scripture from a Protestant point of time the dialogue ended. Taken separa- view. A special agreement was also

15 Ibidem, p. 14. 16 Urs von Arx, Koinonia…, 24–25. 17 Ibidem, ip. 47.

104 established in the second text I/2, The text I/3 The Holy Trinity, in which the Canon of the Holy Scripture, on which unity and identity of the divine being there were a series of discussions. In are specified. Although rather short for essence, the text does not include any the issues it treats, this common text difference to separate the two Churches. establishes in a concise precise manner For example, besides a few inversions the points of teaching of the two in the books of the Old Testament and Churches. We remark especially the the absence of the Anaghinoskomena specific position towards Filioque books, the text comprises just the Bible addition. If for quite a long time this books the Holy Synod of the Romanian was a point of disagreement between Orthodox Church drafted in 1982. Here the two parts, as the Old Catholics did we find the boundaries of the canon of not want to remove it completely from the writings of the Old Testament, the Creed, the common text condemns presented differently in the Eastern not only its not canonical character, so Church and in the Western One, even the formal part, but also the error it from ancient times. All these things made in the understanding of the were caused by the differences between teaching on the Holy Trinity, so in the the Judaic canon and that of the Sep- material part. By doing this, the Old tuaginta. The West stressed the differ- Catholics made an important step to ence between the fully canonical books their rapprochement to Orthodoxy, (soon after called “inspired”) and the observing the same teaching of the apocryphal ones (which did not belong undivided Church. In this context, this quite to the inspired writings).18 But this common text, together with the other text did not refer to this issue, or to any ones, constitutes a real benefit for the other one. It rather tends to an equalising rapprochement of the two Churches. position, to be used in the ecumenical dialogue. But it specifies the following: But not everybody was completely “The canonical books are characterised satisfied. For example, the Commission by the special authority that has been for the Inter-church Relations of the uninterruptedly recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church reacted Church; but it gives special honour to through a detailed letter on the common the Anaghinoskomena books too (that texts of the first meeting of the Joint is books good for reading) which have Commission, asking for an exhaustive belonged to the canon of the Holy treatment of the issues. That meant the Scripture from ancient times”.19 A large resumption of the entire work unfolded consensus has also been established on till then. This is why the commission

18 W. Kuppers, Orthodox-altkatholischer Dialog, IKZ, 66/1976, p. 11. 19 Further on the remark of the Old Catholics is mentioned concerning the Esdra books (Vulgata III Esdra; Slaona II Esdra) and Maccabbees: these two books are not rejected by their Church, but they are not included in the Old Catholic collections of the Bible books coming from the Latin tradition. The International Conference of the Old Catholic Bishops was to explain this point, Cf. Ibidem, p. 26; Urs von Arx, Koinonia…p. 48.

105 decided not to implement this letter, and proposes to the other confessions with the respective issues to be resolved whom they have dialogue. within the process of reception, especially since the changes required were Similar reactions have been registered not considered essential. But a tougher on some other texts too, but mentioning reaction came from the Old Catholics, them would exceed by far the limits of through Prof. Christian Oeyen who, this study. As far as we are concerned, although a member of the Joint Com- we think that according to the way they mission, strongly criticised especially are drafted, the common texts mean a the assertions concerning Filioque, great benefit for both parts. The fact that refusing to sign certain texts. Even the further evolution of the events special meetings were needed in this exceeded or even created difficulties to regard, without reaching a consensus, the dialogue, does not diminish their which fact proves the difficulties pre- value. On the contrary, the dialogue sent among the Old Catholics.20 The should be resumed just to discuss this great fear of Prof. Oeyen was that the new evolution, as we are faced with a majority of the Old Catholic members confuse situation, through the inter- of the Joint Commission, wishing to communion of the Old Catholics with achieve communion as soon as possible, some confessions presenting serious were inclined to give up their own ec- gaps in the dogmatic teaching.22 clesiology in order to accept the Ortho- dox one. But the other ones’ answer was We mentioned above only the issue of that the respective texts referred only the Old Catholics’ relations with the to the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue, Anglicans, with the Lutherans and the not to the entire ecumenical dialogue.21 women’s ordination,23 all of them gen- On the other hand, the texts express the erating disagreements even among the common teaching of the undivided Old Catholics. And, although many pro Church, which the Orthodox part and against articles and studies were

20 See H. Rein, op. cit., vol. II, p. 170–171; Ioan-Vasile Leb, Relaþiile ortodoxo-vechi- catolice, bilateral ºi în cadrul Miºcãrii Ecumenice. Doctorate Thesis, Bucharest, 1985, p. 210–213 (and the German version, p. 254–256). 21 H. Rein, op. cit. p. 172. 22 For example, the document signed on 29 March 1985 with the Evangelical Church of Germany is short and lacunary, stressing the Reformed teachings. Here they speak only of four ecumenical synods, salvation only through faith is stressed, rejecting good deeds, only Baptism and Eucharist are emphasized, without remembering the other Holy Sacraments, having been in clear contradiction with the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue documents. All this makes us wonder how imperative these texts are. On the other hand, the Anglicans’ inter-communion with other neo-protestant confessions, such as the Methodists, put us in the same confuse situation. 23 The latest information we have in this regard is the ordination of Ms. Anne-Marie Kaufmann as priest, on 21 May 2005, in the Old Catholic Church in La Chaux-de-Fonds/Switzerland. Cf. Présence mensuel des paroisses catholiques-chrétiennes de Suisse romande, Supplé- ment nr. 3/2005, p. I–III.

106 written, there is no full consensus within sary, taking into account both the “Do- the Utrecht Union yet,24 a fact proved minus Jesus” encyclica, and the new by the position of the Old Catholic affirmations of Pope Benedict XVI. Church of Holland.25 Neither must we This is why one should expect the Old forget that among the Old Catholics Catholics to clarify their own inner there are tendencies of rapprochement problems first, and then to talk unitary to the Roman Catholics. We remember with the Orthodox. Last but not least, here only the document signed in 1999 consensus is needed in regard to the by the Roman Catholic Bishop Karl ordination of women, a problem that Lehmann and by the Old Catholic one, divided the Utrecht Union again, as the Joachim Vobbe, both of them from Ger- efforts made within the conferences many, concerning the mutual acceptance from Levadia (Greece) and Konstancin of the priests from one Church in the (Poland) in 1996, did not have a special service of the other one. Here we have echo in the two Churches.26 Then, the a strange situation of the Old Catholics presence of some ecumenical documents as on one hand they accept the Re- as BEM (1982), Porvoo Common State- formed minimalism and, on the other ment (1992) or Niagara Report (1987) hand, the Roman Catholic maximalism. makes their common debate a must as Very strange is the position of the they raise a series of problems con- Roman Catholics too, who prove a real- cerning the apostolic succession, the ly aggressive conservativeness through achievement of church communion and, the papal documents, but which are implicitly, of the Christian unity.27 implemented in a suspect relativism in Germany. In this context, a new discus- Besides, the reception of the common sion of these problems would be neces- texts turned out to be very difficult, if

24 Here are a few articles on the theme: 120 Session der Nationalsynode der Christkatho- lischen Kirche der Schweiz 7 und 8 Juni 1991 in Liestal, p. 98–105; 121 Session der Nationalsynode der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 12 und 13 Juni in Starrkirch/ Dulliken, p. 83–103; Urs von Arx, Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis, Beiheft zur IKZ, 79 Jahrg (1989), 4 Heft, 259p.; Urs von Arx und Anastasios Kallis (ed.), Bild Christi und Geschlecht, “Gemeinsame Überlegungen” und Referate der Orthodox-Altkatholischen Konsultation zur Stellung der Frau in der Kirche und zur Frauenordination als ökume- nischem Problem, 25 Februar – 1 März 1996 in Levadia (Griechenland) und 10–15 Dezember in Konstancin (Polen). Sonderdruck IKZ 88 (1998), Heft 2, 334p.; Urs von Arx, Der orthodox-altkatholische Dialog. Anmerkungen zu einer schwierigen Rezeption, IKZ, 87 (1997), Heft 3, p. 184–185: Idem, Eine verpasste Chance, IKZ, 87 (1997), Heft 4, p. 292–297; Idem, Neuer Aufbruch? Bericht über die Anglikanisch – Altkatholische Theologenkon ferenz von Guildford, 1993, IKZ 84 (1994), 2 Heft, p. 66–76. 25 See H. Rein, op. cit. passim. 26 Urs von Arx & Anastasios Kallis eds., Bild Christi und Geschlecht. “Gemeinsame Überlegungen” und Referate der Orthodox-Altkatholischen Konsultation zur Stellung der Frau in der Kirche und zur Frauenordination als ökumenischem Problem, Sonderdruck IKZ 88 (1998), Heft 2. 27 Martien Parmantier (Ed.), The Ecumenical consistency of the Porvoo Document, Amersfoort, 1999.

107 not almost non-existent, so that, there priests, or to begin a programme of are voices who wonder, with good visits of the hierarchs or between com- reason, if this dialogue has still any munities, in order to have mutual knowl- perspective. That is because, when edge and overcome the present stagna- leaving aside the discussion of these texts tion. It is quite strange the fact that the among the Old Catholics – where there number of the scholarships of study were even very hard critical comments diminished, instead of increasing. These on them 28 – in the Orthodox literature are only a few of the possibilities at hand they were debated only accidentally. 29 for both churches, which make us affirm that this dialogue can overcome the It is true that one of the major causes, present difficulties and contribute to which influenced this state of things was smoothing the way to inter-church the fall of the iron curtain and the libe- rapprochement. In this sense, we fully ration of the Orthodox countries from the agree with Prof. Urs von Arx when he bondage of communism, as these ones emphasises the need of implementing the had to re-organise themselves in order texts “on the spot” 30 , to make them to live a new life, in freedom. Some time known to the faithful, so that wherever seemed to be needed for decanting and there are communities of the two identifying their own positions in various Churches, they may know each other fields of life, in which the Churches were better and cooperate in the way Christian called to tell their opinions. unity needs. Obviously, the Old Catholics should resolve their inner problems in But a rather long time passed, so that order to resume the talks with the the Orthodox – Old Catholic talks Orthodox on the differences existent. should be resumed, this time at inter- And they should do that in a most church level. In this sense, the publi- coherent way. cation of these texts in the language of the Churches participating in the dia- * * * logue is a must, so that they should be known within the parishes too, as well Ioan-Vasile Leb is a Professor of the as of some works to popularise the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in the results of the bilateral discussions. It is University of Babes-Bolyai, Cluj-Na- also necessary to resume the mutual poca, Romania. exchange of students, professors or

28 Abraham Rudelphus Heyligers, Die Wiedervereinigungs-verhandlungen zwischen der Altkatholischen Kirche und der Orthodoxen Kirche des Ostens als ökumenisches Problem, Diss., Strasbourg 1983; Chr. Oeyen, Ekklesiologische Fragen in den orthodox – altkatholischen Kommissionstexten, IKZ, 79 (1989) 237–265; Herwig Aldenhoven, Charakter, Bedeutung und Ziel der Dialogtexte, in Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis, 27–44; Franz Jörg Staffenberger, Der orthodox-altkatholische Dialog, Diss. Theol. Graz 1994, p. 238. 29 Georges Tsetsis, The Bilateral Dialogues of the Orthodox Churches. Problems arising from the Reception of their Agreed Statements, in “Orthodoxos Forum”, 9 (1995) p. 231– 241; Ioan-Vasile Leb, Ortodoxie ºi Vechi-Catolicism, Cluj-Napoca, 1996, p. 330. 30 Urs von Arx, Koinonia…, p. 25.

108 Evaluation of the Dialogue between Representatives of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe and Orthodox Theologians Orthodox Position

Ciprian Burlacioiu

1. Introduction 2004 in Wittenberg, Germany and the third 27 March – 2 April 2006 in Con- Since 2002 the Protestant-Orthodox stantinople. At all these meetings the dialogue has been enriched by a new main theme was the doctrine of the dimension: a new theological dialogue Church. The working method character- has been initiated. Orthodoxy was rep- istically involved pairs of presenters, resented by theologians from various one from each side. Some of the papers autocephalous churches which are to be presented were available to these members of the Conference of European co-presenters before the consultation, so Churches (CEC). On the other side were that they could prepare their own papers Protestant theologians representing the as responses. During the meetings, the Community of Protestant Churches in plenary discussions played an important Europe (CPCE). The organisers were role. The debates were very lively and CEC and the CPCE. contributed a great deal to the content of the consultations. The results were Three consultations have been held so written up as joint communiqués in far, at two-year intervals. The first took which the most important points in the place on Crete, 28 November – 1 De- debates were included. cember 2002, the second 25–27 June

109 The task of evaluating this dialogue is ploring together the possibilities for structured as follows: first, reflection on future ventures. Thus there is no pressure the context in which it took place; to adopt a final document at the end that second, focus on the different eccle- represents capacity for consensus but siological aspects of the debate; third, also remains true to the confessions presentation of problems concerning the represented. Nevertheless, this action is sacraments, with a particular focus on taken seriously by the Orthodox side baptism; fourth, a concluding overall because of the way the committee was evaluation of the dialogue and the constituted; it was chaired by a bishop prospects for future possibilities. and included well-known theologians as members. Secondly, however, this form leads to difficulties with the recep- 2. Remarks on the context tion of the results. They will have less of the dialogue influence than other ecumenical papers and initiatives beyond the circle of the From the Orthodox viewpoint, this participants themselves. dialogue is considered something new. There are various reasons for this. It is worth noting that in the case of this Previous relations through dialogue had dialogue, Orthodoxy has shown flexi- been structured as follows: in some bility with regard to the new realities dialogues, individual Orthodox Church- within European Protestantism; the es met in bilateral relationships with creation of the Leuenberg Church Fel- churches of various confessions; in lowship/CPCE (1973), the Scandina- others, all Orthodox Churches together vian-Anglican Porvoo Communion met as dialogue partners with other (1993), and to a lesser degree the Meis- confessional families, such as the Lu- sen Declaration (1988), have trans- theran World Federation or the World planted Orthodox-Protestant dialogue in Alliance of Reformed Churches. In Europe into a different church scene. addition there is cooperation through These relations among Protestants and the World Council of Churches (WCC) Anglicans, which bring with them or through regional ecumenical organi- completely new theological content, sations such as CEC. This dialogue with have moved European Orthodoxy to the CPCE is different from these previ- participate in this new form of dialogue. ous models. This is due to the mixed structure of the CPCE, which is not regarded as a church in either the Ort- 3. The doctrine of the Church hodox or the Protestant view. It is rather an alliance of the many Protestant The dialogue was mainly devoted to the Churches in Europe. doctrine of the Church. The organisers’ idea in planning it thus was, rather than This fact has consequences for the comparing isolated items of doctrine dialogue. First of all, it is not considered from the theology of each side, to let as an “official” dialogue between the doctrinal context of each side be the churches. These are conversations be- central consideration. And the doctrine tween professional specialists, ex- of the Church was regarded as the place

110 where confessional identity can be most undertaken into mutual recognition, completely seen. church order and structure, apostolicity, catholicity, and the unity of the church. In the Orthodox tradition, ecclesiology These issues – apart from church order is relatively new as a systematically or- and structure – also determine the coor- ganised doctrine. Not until the intercon- dinates of this new dialogue between fessional contacts between Orthodox Orthodox theologians and representa- Churches and other churches in the 19th tives of the CPCE. and more so in the 20th century were Orthodox theologians moved to reflect systematically on the position of their 3.1 The essence of the Church own church in the context of pluralistic societies. Traditionally, this topic has The document for discussion at the first been regarded as the question of “Ortho- consultation on Crete in 2002 was the doxy” as opposed to “heresy”. At least study The Church of Jesus Christ by the end of the 20th century, the [Leuenberg Text 1, 1995]. One of the increasingly pluralistic societies of the chapters of this study is entitled “The different traditionally Orthodox coun- Essence of the Church as the Commun- tries, but also the presence of Orthodox ion of Saints”. In a paper, Michael Be- Christians in other geographical areas, intker referred to this study and pre- made it necessary to consider the con- sented the Church as “founded on Jesus duct of Orthodoxy towards other church- Christ alone”.1 He regarded as equally es. Practical matters have confronted not important the distinction between the only Orthodoxy, but in the same way ground and the form of the Church, all churches with the problem of living which was recorded as a principal theme and working together with other church- of ecclesiology. Consequently, a further es or confessions. distinction was made between divine and human actions in the Church. However, this practice-oriented per- “What makes the Church to be the spective was not possible until theolo- Church in the first place and precedes gical decisions had first been taken. all human reactions and actions, is the Such questions had to be clarified as, justifying, liberating action of God whether the other churches are churches which is witnessed through the preaching in the real sense, whether their minist- of the gospel and celebrated through the ries are valid, whether these ministries sacraments.”2 This statement points to administer valid sacraments, and wheth- the importance of the Confessio Augus- er a change of confession represents a tana VII for the Leuenberg Agreement problem. Theological enquiries were in particular and for the Protestant

1 Michael Beintker, “The Study ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ from the Protestant Viewpoint” (Paper presented in Crete 2002), at the Consultation between the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Leuenberg Church Fellowship (LCF) on the Question of Ecclesiology (hereafter cited as Leuenberg Texts 8), Frankfurt/M. 2004, pp. 73–88. 2 ibid., p. 78.

111 Churches in general. The logical con- Christ is the one about the Holy Spirit clusion here is that “invested with the as “the power of community originating authority of God” cannot be attached from the Father and the Son”5 , which to the church as an institution.3 indicates a view including the filioque. However, the question remains open as From the Orthodox perspective, Grigo- to whether the principal ecclesiological rios Larentzakis notes on two occa- theme of distinguishing between the sions4 that to define the Church, what ground and the form of the Church can it is according to its essence, is difficult be reconciled with the concept myste- and appears to be impossible. There are rion. This calls for reflection on the role two reasons for this: first, the Church is of justification for the Church, especial- a mystery; second, it is a living thing, ly since, in the Protestant view, this not a theory, and as the body of Christ doctrine is articulus stantis et cadentis it is beyond any definition. As stated Ecclesiae. Larentzakis regarded the clearly in the communiqué from the theme of justification as specifically 2004 Wittenberg consultation, the word anchored in the dispute between the mysterion is, for the Orthodox side, the Western churches, and drew the con- appropriate expression for the reality of clusion that this doctrine “is [not] the Church. congruent with the Orthodox view”.6

The statement about the work of God A clarification of the Protestant dis- as the foundation of the Church is to be tinction between the visible and the affirmed, from the Orthodox viewpoint. invisible Church is also indicated. La- Equally worthy of affirmation is the rentzakis interprets the statement in the conception of the Church as the body study,7 about the Church as the object of Christ. The preaching of the gospel of faith and as a visible community, as and the sacraments underline the pneu- a perichoretic view. The Church is not matological dimension of the Church, limited to its social reality, but rather is and through it the Church lives as a a work of God and of human beings. community. The only problematic state- As Christoph Markschies8 emphasised, ment in the study The Church of Jesus this – although it is often falsely inter-

3 ibid., p. 80. 4 Grigorios Larentzakis, “Ecclesiology in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship: Remarks from an Orthodox point of view” (paper presented in Crete 2002), in Leuenberg Text 8, pp. 117–140, here p. 117; and “The One Church and Its Unity. Some considerations from the Viewpoint of Orthodox Theology” (paper presented in Wittenberg 2004), in Consultation between the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) on the Question of Ecclesiology (cited hereafter as Leuenberg Text 11), Frankfurt/Main 2008, pp. 70–105. 5 The Church of Jesus Christ, I, 1.3, p 120. 6 Larentzakis, “Ecclesiology in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship”, p. 110. 7 The Church of Jesus Christ, I, 2.2. 8 Christoph Markschies, “The One Church and its Unity” (paper presented in Wittenberg 2004), in Leuenberg Text 11, pp. 105–118, here p. 110.

112 preted among Protestants – does not ideas of unity, Saarinen drew the con- mean in any way that the Church is clusion that there is a tension in Protes- separate from the body of God. Again, tant theology between the local and the Luther’s distinction between a true and universal dimension, between one’s a false Church refers only to the visible own identity or autonomy on one hand Church. and unity on the other. This makes it possible to speak of “different ‘ecclesial densities’” and the distinction between 3.2 The boundaries and the unity “Church [as] autonomous entity” and of the Church “church community”.11

Three papers from the Protestant side9 This set of problems was discussed in discussed, directly or indirectly, the three papers by the Orthodox side.12 boundaries and the unity of the Church. Larentzakis had already noted at the Beintker mentioned the notae ecclesiae Wittenberg meeting that, for Orthodox (which Markschies also mentions, as theologians, the question of the bounda- “characteristics of the true Church”), ries of the Church can be answered in according to the Confessio Augustana two possible ways: on one hand, many VII as criteria for unity. Markschies would identify the “one, holy, catholic described Martin Luther’s position, in and apostolic Church” with the Ortho- which Luther refuses to consider the dox Church; on the other hand, the other confessional parties as being the Orthodox Church is seen in the conti- Church, because he “saw in them that nuity and continuation of identity with the word [of the gospel] was being the church of Christian origins. In the obscured or not preached at all”.10 Risto case of identification of the canonical Saarinen took up the theme in more boundaries of the Orthodox Church detail. He observed in Protestant theo- with those of the “one, holy, catholic logy a certain anxiety in the face of and apostolic Church”, the direct formal criteria for the catholicity of the granting of divine grace by the Lord to Church, and spoke of an “‘internalism’ those outside its canonical boundaries, or ‘spiritualism’”, although this is not heretics or schismatics, is not accepted. carried through consistently. However, This raises the question as to whether the notae ecclesiae remain necessary as any church can exist outside the Ortho- “outward sign”. On the basis of WCC dox Church. This question is answered

9 Beintker, “The Study ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’....”; Markschies, “The One Church and its Unity”; Risto Saarinen, “Unity and Catholicity of the Church” (paper presented in Constantinople 2006), in Leuenberg Text 11, pp. 164–180. 10 Markschies, “The One Church and its Unity”, p. 108. 11 Saarinen, “Unity and Catholicity of the Church”, pp. 174–175. 12 Larentzakis, “Ecclesiology in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship” and “The One Church and its Unity”; Konstantinos. Delikostantis, “Identity as Communion. Basic Elements of Orthodox Ecclesiology” (paper presented in Constantinople 2006), in Leuenberg Text 11, pp. 198–213.

113 positively with documents from various the schismatic condition of the one Orthodox authors: such a church is con- undivided Church. If we do not forget ceivable where the unity of the faith this, we have an opportunity for meta- and, very closely bound up with it, the noia, repentance and overcoming the apostolic succession are present. The chaos. We have an example of the way Third Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Con- to conduct a meaningful debate on the ference in Chambésy in 1986 recogni- boundaries of the Church in the words sed “the factual existence of all churches of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. He wonders and confessions”13 , but did not draw who is “in” the Church and who is any practical consequences from this. “out”. “Just as there are many among In the same way, the patriarchal en- us, among our fellow Christians within cyclica from 1920 onwards, addressed the church, who are not really with us “to all churches of Christ everywhere”, because in their way of life they have and the efforts, which are to be taken alienated themselves from the Body in seriously, of Orthodoxy together with which we share, just so there are many all other churches to restore koinonia, who are outside, not part of us, but who are to be assessed as factual recognition. have attained faith through their way of It should nevertheless be pointed out life, and they are lacking only the name, that there is no standard and official since they already possess the reality.”14 Orthodox position on the issue of the Here, other criteria for the boundaries boundaries of the church. No pan- of the Church are noted. Orthodox synod has declared itself on the subject. The koinonia within the Trinity, for example as described in the Gospel of This issue is closely bound up with John, Chapter 17, serves as a model for aspects of salvation. As is well known, the unity of the Church. This koinonia the Church has always regarded the is made possible by the bond of love. eternal salvation of schismatics and This model makes of the Church “the heretics as impossible. Today, however, immanent which contains the transcen- the debate on the boundaries of the dent within itself; it is communion with Church can no longer be carried out the divine Persons of the Trinity, who within this paradigm of schismatic are full of infinite love for the world, heresy. As new approaches in Orthodox and in this the church finds itself in an theology maintain, today we should unending movement of self-transcend- speak more of a general schismatic si- ence in love.”15 Only the form of unity tuation. It is not that there are schismatic following the example of the Trinity can persons, but rather the historical be the model for the unity of the Church. churches with their divisions represent As a concrete model for unity, a “fede-

13 Larentzakis, “The One Church and its Unity”, pp. 70–105. 14 ibid., quoted on p. 79. 15 Dunitru Staniloae, Orthodoxe Dogmatik II, pp. 162–163, quoted in Larentzakis, “The One Church and its Unity”, p. 97.

114 rated community of autonomous church diversity” – correct on both the Pro- structures”16 is proposed, which allows testant and the Orthodox side – have to for the diversity of ways of expressing be made concrete and precise. This is the faith. But simple coexistence and not a quarrel over concepts, but rather tolerance of others, in a context of hos- about clarifying the possibilities for pitality, cannot be the goal of efforts putting the theoretical consensus into toward unity. The unity of the Church practice. is to seek more than unity, and not to affirm the status quo of today’s confessional divisions. Konstantinos Delikos- 3.3 The understanding of the tantis took as his model the ecclesiology classical “notae ecclesiae” of the Eucharist. The unity of the Church takes place in the Eucharist, which is So that there will be no ambiguity about “also the foundation of the unity of local terminology, we are speaking here churches in a global church. Since all about the classical notae ecclesiae, as local churches draw their being as they are named in the Nicaeno-Constan- churches and catholicity from the tinopolitan Creed. Protestant theology Eucharist, they cannot be thought of also speaks of notae ecclesiae, or marks apart from their unity with one anoth- of the true Church and of church unity, er.”17 Just as a true Eucharist overcomes with reference to the criteria mentioned the divisions in a place, in the same way in Confessio Augustana VII; the [right] it bestows on a local church unity with preaching of the word and [the right other church communities in the world. administration of] the sacraments. How- The office of bishop also, in Orthodox ever, Protestant theology does not dis- theology, is only properly understood pute the high value accorded to the ecu- in the perspective of the eucharistic menical notae. Since the preceding gathering. In this way, synodality be- paragraph has already spoken of the one comes the framework for the unity of Church, we now turn to the other three: the Church. holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.

It is not the overall picture of ecclesio- 3.3.1 Holiness of the Church logy which is problematic for dialogue. Theologians on both sides have empha- According to the Orthodox understand- sised that the representations of their ing, the Church owes its holiness to the dialogue partners can very well be God the Three in One as the source of reconciled with their own theology. For life and to Jesus Christ as head of the example, the trinitarian, christological Church. This is where the trinitarian and and pneumatological dimensions of the christological dimensions of the Church Church are unanimously upheld. Diffi- are visible. The act of worship is carried culties arise, however, when the content out in the Church through the working of some expressions such as “unity in of the Holy Spirit through mysteria and

16 Larentzakis, “The One Church and its Unity”, p. 98. 17 Delikostantis, “Identity as Community”, p. 202.

115 through the word of God. Human error Saarinen also presented a relevant eva- and individual guilt are nevertheless not luation of two contemporary Protestant excluded. The Church is therefore not representations of ecclesiology. First he the assembly of the saints, but rather of quoted from Hans-Peter Großhans, who sinners praying to God for their salva- regards catholicity as an effort to pre- tion. serve one’s own historical identity and ascribes a central role to “re-formation” Although the holiness of the Church in upholding catholicity. His vision is was not a main theme for discussion, in that the Church is the earthly space for both Crete and Wittenberg it was felt to the truth of the gospel. This also lends be a point of dissent. The Protestants emphasis to the importance of its presence joined Martin Luther in calling the in time and space. Saarinen also brought Church “the greatest sinner”. According into the debate the analysis of K. Van- to the Orthodox understanding, how- hoozer, who sees the canonical Scriptures ever, such an undifferentiated statement as the standard and guarantor of unity. about the Church as the divine organ of Protestant theology differs from Roman worship was unacceptable. They asked Catholic or Orthodox theology in that how we can think of the Church in which neither the tradition nor the teaching we believe as “the greatest sinner”. This authority of the church is the standard lack of agreement remains. for interpreting the Scriptures, but rather the church itself. This brings about a sort 3.3.2 Catholicity of the Church of “soft identity”, which according to Paul Ricoeur is seen as “ipse-identity”. Two papers18 presented in Constanti- “In Ipse-identity, we do know who you nople lifted up catholicity as a central are even though you sometimes adjust theme. For the Protestant side, Risto your change views and react to new si- Saarinen lectured on the various models tuations. Ipse-identity is not pluralism, of catholicity as found in texts of the but a non-identical repetition of central World Council of Churches. He ob- practices.”20 Thus he assumes that there served that Protestant theology shows can be, consciously or unconsciously, a reticence towards global structures, changes in the interpretation of Scripture. which conceals a tension between the local and universal dimensions. He The Orthodox side addressed the theme concluded that “For these reasons, many of catholicity of the Church in two pre- Protestants tend to favor the model of sentations. Larentzakis saw this attribute ‘catholicity of each local church’, as an avoidance of any limitations on because it is a complacent solution to the Church. “The quantitative and qua- the problem of Christian universa- litative catholicity of the Church is lity”.19 therefore above confessional conside-

18 Saarinen, “Oneness and Catholicity of the Church”: Delikostantis, “Identity as Commun- ity”. 19 Saarinen, “Oneness and Catholicity of the Church”, p. 155. 20 ibid., p. 162.

116 rations.”21 Delikostantis, too, under- preted in different ways: on one hand stood catholicity more in a qualitative we can see, by this means, a legitimate than a quantitative sense: “Orthodox” diversity of theological visions; on the should point to the qualitative dimen- other hand, views are being ex-pressed sion of catholicity and complete the which, while they do not contradict one spatial understanding of the concept. another directly, can indicate differing The place where catholicity is made basic theological models. For example, manifest is any eucharistic gathering. one can wonder whether the expression The model for the local church is the “local church” has the same meaning eucharistic gathering with the bishop in Orthodox and Protestant theology. presiding. Through it, the importance Further theological clarification will of the Eucharist for the catholicity of continue to be needed in this area. the Church is made visible, and the ontological equality of all bishops be- 3.3.3 Apostolicity of the Church comes the sign and guarantor of the catholicity of every local church: no The apostolicity of the Church was not particular church can be the source for a focus of the discussion. However, this the catholicity of all churches. The local theme was included by means of brief church is therefore identical with the remarks in the context of the other notae Church universal. Synodality plays an ecclesiae. important role in this. “Without synodality, unity risks being sacrificed in favour Larentzakis began with a point in the of the local church. But a synodality study The Church of Jesus Christ: “The which suppresses the catholicity and Reformation understanding of the integrity of the local church can lead to apostolic succession is the constant ecclesiastical universalism.”22 return to the apostolic witnessing.”23 It is in the interest of the study to reject a Although there are no direct contra- purely mechanistic, legalistic and magi- dictions to be found between these cal succession through the laying on of presentations, one can see how different hands only. In response to this idea, the emphases are. The Protestant side Larentzakis emphasises rightly that in accords an elevated status to the Scrip- the Orthodox understanding it is not just tures for the catholicity of the Church. the laying on of hands which effects the The Orthodox positions begin with the apostolic succession, but rather the eucharistic dimension of the Church. laying on of hands within the eucharistic The relation between local and uni- synaxis and in connection with the versal also is expressed differently. creed: “The laying on of hands is neces- These differing statements can be inter- sary in the sacramental act of consecra-

21 Larentzakis, “Ecclesiology in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship”, p. 122 22 J. Zizioulas, “The Church as Communion”, an offprint from St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1994, No.11, quoted from Delikostantis, “Identity as Community”, p. 203–204. 23 The Church of Jesus Christ, I, 2.3, p. 122.

117 tion, not in itself, but rather as a sign 4. Sacraments/Mysteria and symbol, and only in the context of the existing prerequisites for faith and The final session of the consultation in for the Church.”24 The bishop therefore Constantinople in 2006, with two pa- stands, not as individual guarantor for pers presented,27 was devoted directly the apostolicity of his church, but al- to the problems of baptism and indirect- ways in his presiding role in the eucha- ly to the wider, complex theme of the ristic assembly, without being isolated sacraments/mysteria. The inclusion of from the people and in community with this topic seemed to make sense, for two the other bishops. A bishop has no right reasons: first, in the earlier consultations to exist on his own. “There is in fact the dialogue partners had emphasised nothing that warrants the dignitaries or the importance of the sacraments for even the bishops remaining in the true their own theology; second, a debate on faith within the Church. There are bish- baptism was inevitable in the context ops and patriarchs and popes that have of the issue of mutual recognition as renounced the true faith ...”25 churches.

Although apostolicity and the apostolic The Protestant side had repeatedly succession have not been adequately pointed out the necessity of mutual discussed in the context of this dialogue, recognition as churches. This should be a difference in relation to the criteria for the first step on the way to church unity. apostolicity can be noted. The guarantee Baptism accordingly became a funda- of apostolicity through the historical mental issue. The Orthodox practice, office of bishop is firmly rejected by customary in many places, of “re-bap- Protestant theology. On the other hand, tising” non-Orthodox Christians who Protestant theology as well as Orthodox wanted to join the Orthodox Church, understands apostolicity as faithfulness was problematic. Other practical diffi- to the apostolic witness. In order to culties such as baptism within mixed move forward on this issue, the issue marriages and the confession of god- of the office of bishop and synodality parents in Orthodox baptisms also were must be discussed directly, all the more catalysts for this debate. because Protestant theology has asked whether the Protestant churches are From the Orthodox side, as always, the lacking something, with regard to apos- view was being heard that recognition tolic succession, and if so, how can this of non-Orthodox baptism cannot be defectus be remedied.26 undertaken in isolation, but only in the

24 Larentzakis, “The One Church and its Unity”, p. 92. 25 Larentzakis, “Ecclesiology in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship”, p. 123. 26 Markschies, “The One Church and its Unity”, p. 128. 27 Hans-Peter Großhans, “Baptism – a Sacramental Bond of Church Unity. A contribution from the Protestant perspective on mutual recognition of baptism between Protestant and Orthodox churches” (paper presented in Constantinople 2006), in Leuenberg Text 11, pp. 242–267; Grigorios Larentzakis, “Baptism and the Unity of the Churches. Orthodox Aspects”, (paper presented in Constantinople 2006), in Leuenberg Text 11, pp. 294–319.

118 context of its ecclesiology, since the The two papers presented the content main interest is actually recognition of of baptism with similar words and one another’s churches. And in the arguments for its importance both for Orthodox view, precisely the question the individual person and for the church of the aim of recognising baptism was as community. Differences in the pre- very important: “What outcome we sentations may be observed, where La- want? Do we want “coexistence and rentzakis presents baptism in the context cooperation between our churches”, of Orthodox sacramental life: “....Bap- “proper relations between churches of tism in the Orthodox Church does not different confessions”, or the “visible take place in isolation. Baptism is unity of the Church of Jesus Christ in administered together with chrismation, the one faith”?28 an unction signifying confirmation, so that the two sacraments are accepted and respected as two, but at the same time 4.1 Baptism are regarded as an inseparable unity. When these two sacraments are ad- It was soon apparent that there was a ministered, one cannot tell where one common position on the term myste- ends and the other begins.”29 In this rion, as being more theologically appro- sacramental unity, the Eucharist is also priate than sacrament. However, this included and given to the person being will not be readily accepted by Western baptised as part of the same liturgical theology. act. This Orthodox ecclesiological context shows that the question of bap- For the Protestant side, Hans-Peter tism cannot be regarded in isolation, and Großhans’ paper recalled a statement in that other themes come together here: the final communiqué of the theological “For example the relation between bap- dialogue between the Evangelical tism and confirmation, the Holy Eucha- Church of Germany (EKD) and the rist and the ministry. The inner relation- Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in ship between these and among all 2004. This statement affirmed that, sacraments in general is a given, so that although the two churches do not have it is not possible to isolate them. Even a a relationship of church communion, mutual recognition of baptism which is they nevertheless recognise one anoth- only a matter of canon law, without the er’s baptism, even in case of a person’s greater context of the other sacraments change of confessional membership. and of ecclesiastical reality itself, does This provided a solid basis for the not seem very meaningful.”30 Thus we discussion. cannot yet speak of a final clarification of the question of baptism.

28 Larentzakis, “Baptism and the Unity of the Churches”, p. 298. 29 ibid., p. 300. 30 ibid., p. 312.

119 5. Overall Evaluation lack of receptivity on the part of the dialogue partners, and the fear of be- The problems around baptism point to traying one’s own position. In addition many fundamental difficulties. Although there is the fact that the given frame- Orthodoxy has granted that it in fact work and the status of this dialogue does recognise the baptism of other were not clear to all participants from churches – and this is occasionally the beginning. All these elements could, given clear expression, as in Constan- in many instances, have given the im- tinople in 2004, in the bilateral dialogue pression of stagnation. Nevertheless, a between the Ecumenical Patriarchate certain maturity can be observed in the and the EKD – we cannot speak of an presentations in Constantinople in 2006. explicit recognition which would have The effort was made – even when the theological consequences. From the theological positions were not the same Orthodox side, we are right to have – to carry on a constructive discourse asked, with what aim in mind and in and thus to outline some points of con- what context such recognition should vergence. Further discussion sessions take place. If it is only for the sake of can be expected to confirm this positive coexistence and cooperation between development. In this regard, reading the our churches, or for proper relations Church fathers together, as Christoph between churches of different con- Markschies proposed in Wittenberg, fessions, nothing much has been gained could be a meaningful exercise. beyond the ecumenical state of affairs today. * * *

The entire dialogue actually faces the Ciprian Burlacioiu is assistant pro- same dilemma. Since it began as an un- fessor for church history at the Univer- official “conversation among theo- sity of Munich. He has published his logians”, this dialogue has largely re- PhD thesis in 2008 about the Leuenberg mained unnoticed beyond the circle of Church Fellowship and Meissen Ag- its participants. reement. He is a participant in the consultation process between Orthodox With respect to the dialogue so far, it theologians and representatives of the can be observed that we keep coming Community of the Protestant Churches back to many of the same questions in Europe (Leuenberg Church Fellow- from the ecclesiological context of ship). problems. This is because of a certain

120 Evaluation of the dialogue between the CPCE-Churches and the Orthodox Churches of CEC Consultations of Crete 2002, Wittenberg 2004 and Istanbul 2006

Friederike Nüssel

1. Introduction and to support the growing together of European countries thereby. In 2002 the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Communion The focus on ecclesiological questions of Protestant Churches in Europe was chosen for several reasons. First of (CPCE) started a series of consultations all, in reviewing previous dialogues be- on ecclesiology between representatives tween Orthodox Churches and Church- of Protestant, Orthodox and Old Oriental es of the Reformation, both sides realised Churches in Europe. The idea to have that ecclesiological issues had “never an Orthodox-Protestant dialogue was received sufficient attention” (LD 8, developed by both sides, CEC and 13)1 . Secondly, it seemed to be reason- CPCE. Both organisations felt that a able to benefit from the fact that in 1994 dialogue on a European level would be the CPCE had adopted a study docu- needed to strengthen interconfessional ment on ecclesiology titled “The Church relations between European churches of Jesus Christ”, which was explicitly

1 Wilhelm Hüffmeier/Viorel Ionita (Eds.), Consultation between the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Leuenberg Church Fellowship (LCF) on Ecclesiology, Leuenberg Documents Vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main 2004 (Abbreviation in the continuous text: LD 8, page).

121 intended to be discussed in ecumenical the interpretation of the Christian faith dialogues, as the subtitle indicates: “The as expressed in Christian doctrine. It Contribution of the Reformation towards was regarded not only as an option but Ecumenical Dialogue on Church Unity”. as a duty to initiate ecumenical dia- The third reason for an ecclesiological logues on theological questions. focus resulted from the fact that the text of the study document “The Church of Method: Jesus Christ” was recognized to be In order to gain a proper basis for dis- “strongly influenced by the conversa- cussing theological differences both tions among Protestant Churches and sides agreed that a deeper mutual under- dialogues with the Roman Catholic standing of the different church tradi- Church” (LD 8, 13). Therefore, the tions and the liturgical practice of CPCE felt that it would be necessary to churches would be needed. Therefore, discuss the study document with Ortho- at each consultation four papers were dox Churches in order to explore the presented and discussed – two papers impact of the ecumenical approach from the Orthodox side and two papers recommended in the study document from CPCE-members. The aim of dis- for the dialogue with the Orthodox cussions was to identify convergences, Churches. CEC and CPCE have suc- divergences and items in need of further cessfully established a consultation-pro- clarification. The instrument of a final cess by organizing three meetings in communiqué was used to sum up results Crete 2002, in Wittenberg 2004 and in of the consultation and to inform the the Phanar in Istanbul 20062 . A fourth public about it. consultation is planned for November 2008 in Vienna. Both sides agreed to start the dialogue on ecclesiological questions by discussing a concrete ecumenical approach. 2. Aim, Method, Participants Therefore, it seemed suitable for the first consultation to take the CPCE-study Aim: document “The Church of Jesus Christ” At the first consultation in Crete, CEC- as a basis for discussion in order to and CPCE-members affirmed that ecu- identify ecclesiological convergences, menical dialogues between Orthodox to define major ecclesiological differ- and Protestant Churches should serve ences and to investigate possibilities of as an instrument to overcome differ- increasing mutual understanding. For ences dividing the church and to allow the second and third consultation the churches to mutually share the Eucha- topics of ecclesiology and baptism were rist. Both sides agreed that it was inevi- chosen without reference to a certain table to discuss differences referring to document.

2 Michael Beintker/Martin Friedrich/Viorel Ionita (Eds.), Consultations between the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE), Leuenberg Documents Vol. 11, Frankfurt am Main 2007 (Abbreviation in the continuous text: LD 11, page).

122 Participants: lectures referring to the Leuenberg- a) First consultation: moderated by Prof. model of church fellowship and its Dr. Ionita and President Dr. Hüffmeier, ecumenical impact were given, two by eight delegates from both sides; one CPCE-delegates, two by members of advisor (Prof. Dr. Frieling); one obser- Orthodox Churches. ver (Rev. Dr. Charles Hill); three members of staff (Prof. Dr. Ionita, General Papers: Secretary Rev. Dr. Clements, President The consultation process was initiated Hüffmeier); two interpreters. by a survey of the theological dialogues b) Second consultation: moderated by between Orthodox Churches and the Prof. Dr. Ionita and President Dr. Hüff- Churches of the Reformation presented meier, eight CPCE-delegates and nine in a paper by Prof. Dr. Viorel Ionita. delegates from Orthodox Churches; two He pointed out that Orthodox Churches advisors (Prof. Dr. Frieling and Rev. Ca- were among the founders of the ecu- non Dr. Hill); one guest: PD Dr. Gross- menical movement, realising that ecu- hans; host: Propst Siegfried Kasparick; menical efforts for unity were a duty four members of staff (President Dr. against Jesus Christ. With respect to Hüffmeier, Rev. Dr. Christine-Ruth Mül- former dialogues, Ionita clarified that ler, General Secretary Rev. Dr. Cle- there had been a lack of open confron- ments, Prof. Dr. Ionita); two interpreters. tation while core questions of eccle- c) Third consultation: moderated by siology had been avoided. Accordingly, Metropolitan Prof. Dr. Gennadios of he stressed the necessity to have an open Sassima, Prof. Dr. Michael Beintker; discussion of controversial questions twelve delegates from Orthodox and different ecclesiological appro- Churches, eleven delegates from CPCE; aches. As Ionita indicated, it was an in- two observers (Rev. Dr. Repo from dispensable precondition for Orthodox Porvoo-Communion, Prof. Dr. Nüssel Churches to agree on the understanding from CEC’s Churches in Dialogue of the nature of the church in order to Commission); three members of staff obtain church fellowship. At the end of (Prof. Dr. Ionita as study secretary, Rev. his paper Ionita points at the aim of the Dr. Christine-Ruth Müller, OKR Rev. dialogue: “Through the exchange of Udo Hahn), two interpreters. thoughts at this consultation, the LCF should test its ecclesiological basis with From this list one can easily see that the new partners who stand outside the constellation of delegates was modified Reformation tradition. The Orthodox each time. At the third consultation most theologians, for their part, should fami- of the Orthodox participants were new. liarise themselves with a church fellowship which has come about as a result of theological dialogue. In this way new 3. The first consultation ecumenical perspectives can be opened in Crete 2002 for both sides” (LD 8, 39).

The first consultation was held from 28 In a second step President Dr. Wilhelm November to 1 December 2002 at the Hüffmeier gave an introduction to the Orthodox Academy of Crete. Four Leuenberg Church fellowship, ex-

123 plaining the ecclesiological idea and the Christ”, demonstrating the constructive foundation process, the tasks and ob- impact of the relation of foundation and jectives of the Fellowship. He alluded shape, as origin “gives rise to shape” to the fact that Christian unity is based (LD 8, 81). Furthermore, he elucidated on Christ and defined as unity in truth the document’s interpretation of the given by Christ himself. Since Chris- essential attributes of the church and its tians cannot bring about unity by them- concept of church fellowship as based selves, the CPCE conceives unification upon the 16th century Reformation as a result of unity given in and by Christ, concept of unity, today being articulated thereby differentiating between unity as “unity in reconciled diversity” (cf. and unification. As Hüffmeier explained, LD 8, 85-88). the Leuenberg Agreement (LA) conceives a consensus in understanding the In the fourth paper Prof. Dr. Grigorios gospel as a necessary condition for the Larentzakis commented on the CPCE- churches to declare and exercise church study document from an Orthodox point fellowship consisting in table and pulpit of view. With respect to the ecumenical fellowship as well as in the mutual re- task declared in the Charta Oecumenica cognition of ordination. According to I,1 he said that an ecumenical perspec- the LA, it is not necessary for a church tive could only be achieved on the basis fellowship to agree and adapt a certain of an including ecclesiology. In his set of confessions. If churches agree on commentary on “The Church of Jesus their understanding of the gospel, this Christ” he mentioned important conver- is sufficient for declaring church fellow- gences with Orthodox convictions like ship. the trinitarian and christological foundation of the church (cf. LD 8, 121f) and In the third paper Prof. Dr. Dr. hc. the fact that apostolicity cannot be Michael Beintker commented on the guaranteed by historical succession of study document “The Church of Jesus bishops (cf. LD 8, 122f). As a major Christ” from a Protestant perspective. difference he pointed out the Protestant He demonstrated that multilateral and understanding of the church as the bilateral ecumenical experiences had “greatest sinner” (LD 8, 122/126; cf. led the CPCE to reflect ecclesiological WA 34/I, 276, 8–13). With respect to issues. “This entailed the hope of under- the issue of sacramental life Larentzakis standing the ecumenical dialogues stressed that this problem needed to be specialised in ecclesiological or eccle- discussed apart from the context given siology-related particular themes on the by classical controversies between horizon of the basic doctrine embracing Catholic and Protestant theology (cf. them” (LD 8, 77). Beintker explained LD 8, 128f)3 . One of the most crucial the distinction between the foundation, questions Larentzakis raised referred to shape and mission of the church de- the possibility of a church fellowship veloped in “The Church of Jesus among churches who maintain their

3 Cf. LD 8, 129: “if the Leuenberg Church Fellowship wants to be an ecumenical model, it must free itself from the restrictive and overwhelming problems of the West”.

124 doctrinal and confessional convictions as sinful was mentioned. Furthermore, (cf. LD 8, 131). In contrast to this he the question was raised whether a com- pointed to the fact that the Charta Oecu- mon understanding of the gospel was a menica II,6 (cf. LD 8, 131) regards a con- clear and sufficient criterion for devel- sensus of faith as a necessary part of oping an ecumenical model of church ecumenical endeavour. Referring to the fellowship. concept of unity as reconciled diversity Larentzakis asked for a definition of “the borders between necessary unity and 4. The second consultation legitimate meaningful and necessary in Wittenberg 2004 plurality” (LD 8, 131f). Finally, since the doctrine of justification is addressed as The second consultation was held from the key-concept for an adequate under- 25 to 27 June 2004 in Wittenberg. standing of the gospel in “The Church Whereas at the first consultation the of Jesus Christ”, Larentzakis offered Protestant concept of ecclesiology and some helpful remarks on this topic from its ecumenical impact had been dis- an Orthodox point of view. cussed, the second consultation concentrated on the Orthodox ecclesiolo- Results: gical understanding of the nature of the Both sides agreed “that overcoming church and the Orthodox ecumenical doctrinal condemnations is an indis- vision in order to identify ecclesiologi- pensable prerequisite for church unity” cal convergences, controversial issues (LD 8, 15). With respect to the study and matters in need of clarification. As document “The Church of Jesus Christ” this consultation was shorter than the (CJC) both sides agreed that the origin first one, only two papers were pre- of the Church was the Word of the triune sented. God. Accordingly, the divine origin of the Church is “the source of its effective Papers: power” (LD 8, 14). They pointed out the At the beginning of the consultation unifying work of the Holy Spirit and “the President Dr. Wilhelm Hüffmeier gave pneumatological dimension of the an introduction reviewing convergences gospel’s living witness” (LD 8, 14). and differences that had been discussed Furthermore, both sides could agree on at the first consultation. He explained the CJC’s explanation of the apostolicity the impact of Wittenberg as a place of the Church: “According to the under- where the 16th century Reformation in standing of the Reformation, the manner Germany commenced. Moreover, he of practising the apostolic succession is pointed to the particular context of the continuous return to the apostolic Europe and its challenges for all Chris- witness. This obligates the church to the tian churches. With respect to the task authentic and missionary witness of the of the dialogue he said that mutual gospel of Jesus Christ in faithfulness to understanding of different thinking and the apostolic message ...” (CJC I, 2,3). language traditions and a common reflection on the apostolic message and Among the controversial points the the early church tradition should lead Protestant characterisation of the church to “the attempt to pave the way for

125 further steps towards more practical to the unity of the church he regarded cooperation on already acknowledged “the divisions into many churches [...] and familiar common grounds” (LD 11, the scandal which damages the credi- 27). In concrete, he indicated that “mu- bility of the church, both in its own tual acknowledgement of baptism in the bounds and outside in the non-Christian name of the triune god” could serve as world” (LD 11, 89). With respect to the “an important link of church unity in apostolicity he explained that the apos- faith and love“ (LD 11, 27). tolic succession was necessary to pre- serve the true apostolic church, but it As a basis for discussing Orthodox “must not be understood in a legalistic ecclesiology Prof. Dr. Grigorios Larent- and static way, as a direct line consisting zakis offered an extended paper on “The only of the laying on of hands from One Church and Its Unity”. First of all, bishop to bishop, in isolation from the he stressed that there is no “exact and church to which each belonged” (LD exhaustive definition which expresses 11, 91). As Larentzakis stated, the the essence of the church in itself” (LD laying on the hands has to be understood 11, 72) due to the fact that the church is “as a sign or symbol” (LD 11, 92) refer- conceived as a mystery. Second, he dis- ring to the continuity of the apostolic cussed the boundaries of the church and faith of the church. Furthermore, he named the belief in the triune God as explained the relation of local church an “absolutely necessary” (LD 11, 79) and universal church conceiving the criterion for a church being a true universal church as a communion of Christian church. Since the church is local churches. In a fifth step, Larent- founded in the very being of the triune zakis stated that the Orthodox desire for God, “the koinonia of the churches, the the unity of the church would not entail communio ecclesiarum, and the rela- uniformity, but rather “unity in the es- tionship between the universal church sentials of the Christian faith, diversity and the local churches and their unity” in the forms of expression of this faith (LD 11, 81) is dependent upon the Trin- and practice of the Christian life” (LD ity, too. In a third step, Larentzakis 11, 95). In order to clarify the concept explained the christological, pneuma- of unity he referred to the trinitarian, tological and historical dimension of the soteriological dimension expressed by existence of the church. With respect Jesus in John 17:21 as well as to Jürgen to the existence of the church in history Moltmann’s interpretation (LD 11, 99). he stressed that “the church is not a rigid organisation, but rather a living organ- With the second paper, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. ism” (LD 11, 86). Correspondingly, he Christoph Markschies responded to supported a dynamic understanding of Larentzakis’s lecture. Being an expert the church tradition and the principle in patristics, Markschies suggested that of “sola scriptura” as developed in the a common reading and inquiry in the international Orthodox-Lutheran dia- patristic tradition could support ecume- logue (cf. LD 11, 86-88). In a fourth nical reflections (cf. LD 11, 119). Re- step, Larentzakis analysed the Orthodox ferring to Larentzakis’ interpretation of understanding of the four essential “unity in diversity” as a “terminologi- attributes of the church. With respect cal diversity in expressing the one faith”

126 (LD 11, 119f), as realised by some the idea of love realised by the imma- church fathers, Markschies recom- nent being of the Holy Trinity as ex- mended that this “impressive com- isting in mutual perichoresis was taken bination of interpretative accuracy and as “an important impulse for the under- tolerance should indeed serve as a standing of the unity of the Church” model for ecumenical dialogue” (LD (ibd.). Whereas both sides declared to 11, 120). After reflecting Larentzakis’ agree “on the basic meaning of the four explorations of the boundaries of the essential attributes of unity, holiness, church in the light of the distinction catholicity and apostolocity of the between visible and hidden church (cf. Church” (ibd.), they pointed at differ- LD 11, 121-125)4 , Markschies pointed ences concerning the interpretation of at three major points for further reflec- those attributes. The most important one tion, each of them concerning the Ortho- refers to the interpretation of the holi- dox explanation of notae ecclesiae ness of the Church and the question presented by Larentzakis: the problem whether the Church can be addressed of the filioque, the problem of ministry, as a sinner. The summary of the discus- culminating in the problem of women’s sion in the communiqué indicates that ordination, and the problem apostolic during the discussion of ecclesiological succession (cf. LD 11, 127-129). Re- differences in conceiving the nature of ferring to Larentzakis’ reflections on the the Church, a growing mutual under- ecumenical vision he hinted at the idea standing of guiding ideas behind those that the concept of church fellowship differences was achieved. proposed by the CPCE could be somehow specified in the light of the Ortho- dox model of autocephalous churches. 5. The third consultation in Istanbul 2006 Results: Both sides agreed that ecclesiology “can For the third consultation CEC- and only be dealt with properly within the CPCE-representatives were invited to context of the doctrine of the trinity, the the Phanar Greek Orthodox College in context of Christology, pneumatology, Istanbul from 27 to 30 April 2006. In a soteriology and theological anthropo- first part of the consultation, the mem- logy” (LD 11, 16). With respect to the bers discussed the issue of catholicity existence of the Church both sides and unity of the Church again. The affirm that the universal Church “exists second part concentrated on the doctrine as a community of equally valid local of baptism and liturgical questions with churches, without any overriding im- regard to the celebration of baptism. portance or subordination of any of Like in the first consultation four papers these churches” (ibd.). Most importantly, were presented, two of them referred to

4 In order to overcome misunderstandings with regard to the distinction between visible and hidden church it is important to acknowledge the close relation of Luther’s distinction to the Augustinian understanding stressed and explored by Markschies (cf. LD 11, 122, esp. footnote 12).

127 ecclesiology, two papers gave an intro- the fact that the Orthodox understanding duction to the issue of baptism. of the Church based upon the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is understood to Papers: be “the ground of the catholicity of In his introductory paper Metropolitan every local Church” and “the founda- Prof. Dr. Gennadios of Sassima appre- tion of the unity of local Churches in a ciated the fact that Protestant Churches global Church” (LD 11, 202). Ac- in Europe had been able to establish cordingly, the “theology of episcopate church fellowship. He also asked some is also centred on the Eucharist” (LD questions referring to the intention of 11, 203). The Church is conceived as the Leuenberg Agreement and pointed koinonia, communio, existing as a com- to a lack of christological-trinitarian and munity of believers and as a community ecclesiological reflection in the docu- of local Churches and their bishops ment. organizing itself within collegial structures (cf. LD 11, 204). “Church unity The first paper given by Prof. Dr. Risto must be expressed in such a way as not Saarinen explored the unity and catholi- to affect the integrity of the local city of the Church from a protestant per- Church. On the other hand, the identity spective. First of all, he investigated the of the local Church must of course be issue of the church’s catholicity in the realized in such a way as to ensure the so-called unity statements of WCC (cf. unity of all local Churches in the global LD 11, 150–156) and demonstrated Church” (LD 11, 205). Finally, he de- how the local element of catholicity dis- monstrated how within the Orthodox appeared step by step. Furthermore, he tradition and teaching the Church is stated a similarity between the expla- understood as a place of freedom. “Ec- nation of the catholicity of the Church clesial being, being a person, is the gift in “The Church of Jesus Christ” and the of liberated, concrete freedom” (LD 11, document of Porto Alegre 2006. In a 209f). second step, Saarinen argued that the WCC-statements “reflect certain ten- The third paper by PD Dr. Hans-Peter sions present in the self-understanding Grosshans reflected on baptism as a of the churches as well as in the models sacramental bond of church unity, of unity employed in ecumenism” (LD intending a contribution from a Pro- 11, 150, cf. 156–160). Thirdly, he testant perspective on the mutual recog- related the new WCC-text to contempo- nition of baptism between Protestant rary Protestant positions as presented by and Orthodox Churches. In a very sys- Hans-Peter Grosshans and Kevin Van- tematic way Grosshans developed a hoozer. theology of baptism, explaining the institution of baptism, the understand- In the second paper Prof. Dr. Konstan- ing as a sacrament, the salvatory mean- tinos Delikostantis explained basic ing of baptism and the role of ministry elements of Orthodox ecclesiology. At and liturgical elements in the cele- first, he reflected ecumenical practice bration of baptism within the service, and advised theologians to be apophatic thereby distinguishing between indis- (cf. LD 11, 200). Secondly, he explored pensable liturgical elements and addi-

128 tional elements (cf. LD 11, 261-264). liturgical order of the administration of With regard to the Lima-Document’s baptism. In a third step, he presented description of the ecumenical signifi- prospects for an efficient ecumenical cance of baptism Grosshans said: “The development. First of all, he pointed at sacrament of baptism is only really the fact that in ecumenical encounter, understood when it is recognised that it Orthodox Churches acknowledge the brings about the unity of the people of existence of other churches as churches. God” (LD 11, 265). Accordingly, one In order to deepen ecumenical dialo- “way of expressing the unity of the gues, he recommended ecclesiological people of God could the mutual recog- clarifications referring to the theological nition of baptism between the denomi- understanding of sacraments, to the nations, which would, unmistakably connection of baptism and confirmation and before the whole world, symbolise and to the role of ministry in particular. this basic agreement of the churches on Furthermore, he pointed out the neces- their unity endowed by Jesus Christ and sity of sharing one faith by confessing made reality and expressed in baptism; the creed of the Second Ecumenical and also bear witness to the reconcilia- Council held in Constantinople in 381, tion and renewal of mankind in our and suggested to reflect on the under- world brought about by Jesus Christ” standing of schisma and heresy. In the (LD 11, 266). By pointing out the im- end, he explained the ecumenical vision pact of common baptism for “a joint of Orthodox Churches: “In no case do mission of all Christian churches in we seek uniformity, of a rigid unity, Europe” (LD 11, 267) Grosshans actual- purely contractual or based on eccle- ly indicated a crucial aspect of how siastical law; nor a unity that represents ecumenical encounter on a European a return, or any kind of subordination. level could support the growing togeth- Orthodoxy calls for the restoration of er of European countries. unity in the essentials of the Christian faith, as it must be recognised and con- Finally Prof. Dr. Grigorios Larentzakis fessed by all Christians and all churches presented an extended paper on the together, in the diversity of the different Orthodox view on baptism and church dimensions which do not touch on the unity. He started with a review of the essentials and which cannot be dis- difficult ecumenical situation of Ortho- cussed individually here. This means dox Churches within the WCC, never- the unity of the One Church in the theless affirming that “the Orthodox diversity of the autonomous, federal, Church remains consistent regarding polycentric administrations of regional the necessity of ecumenical theological churches, in the liturgical diversity of dialogue, and it will keep to this po- many liturgical rites and liturgical orders, sition, so that we will find answers that and in the diversity of forms of expres- we can share” (LD 11, 297). Secondly, sion of the same content of the Christian Larentzakis referred to the relevance of faith. This is the will of the Orthodox baptism in the Orthodox Churches of Church, this is what it calls for and sup- past and present times, explained the ports unceasingly, and this is what it intimate connection between baptism also expects from the other churches in and confirmation and demonstrated the the ecumenical movement” (LD 11,

129 318). Referring to John 17:21, Larent- to the essential elements of celebrating zakis stated: “Thus the will of Jesus is and administering baptism a consensus made plain, that the original picture and was stated. example for church unity is the unity, the koinonia of the three divine Persons Regarding the ecumenical vision, both through the bond of love, and that the sides agreed that unity should not be goal of this unity is also koinonia with understood as uniformity. the three divine Persons” (LD 11, 319). At the consultation in the Phanar, the Results: delegation was received for an audience In the discussion both sides agreed that with the Ecumenical Patriarch His All- the catholicity of the Church may not Holiness Bartholomew I, who encour- be separated from its oneness, holiness aged the delegation to continue the and apostolicity and “that the relation- consultation process. ship between unity and catholicity has to be found in the local church” (LD 11, 137). Catholicity – expressing a 5. Spirituality dimension that transcends the locally visible life of the community – is fully At all consultations, participants came realised and “manifested through com- together for common prayers every day. munion in the Eucharist with other local Furthermore, they mutually shared spi- churches” (ibd.). Furthermore, it was ritual experiences by attending the Holy possible to state commonly “that the Liturgy at the Orthodox Academy in connection between the local churches Crete and at the Valoukli Monastery in is guaranteed by means of synodality” Istanbul for the feast of the Life-giving (ibd.). source of the Mother of God.

Concentrating on the issue of baptism both sides agreed “on the fact that 6. Résumé and baptism with water in the name of the recommendations Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be repeated. It presupposes true The consultations dealt with a number faith of the church as well as of the of topics in a very coherent way. Starting individual candidate” (LD 11, 138). from discussing the Protestant model of While taking place in a particular local church fellowship realised in CPCE, the church, baptism “also brings about a discussion went on to the understanding catholic dimension” (ibd.). Referring to of the nature of the Church and finally the salvatory effect of baptism, both ended up with the concrete issue of sides affirmed that baptism “effects – baptism as the initiation into becoming through the Holy Spirit – cleansing from a Christian and joining a Christian sin, rebirth, incorporation into the body church. Accordingly, in the third con- of Christ and adoption as a child of sultation the question of an official mu- God” (ibd.). The pastoral challenges tual recognition of baptism was in- arising from interconfessional mar- sinuated. Since in Germany an official riages were acknowledged. With respect recognition of baptism was signed by

130 the Roman-Catholic Church, Protestant the sacramental life of the church. Churches and some Orthodox Church- Therefore, it seemed reasonable to focus es, it appears reasonable to investigate on baptism in the second half of the the conditions and implications of an third consultation, because baptism official recognition of baptism on the offers individual redemption within the European level. community of the Church as the body of Christ and therefore is a vehicle of It proved to be good practice to start unity. the first consultation with an overview of former Protestant-Orthodox dialo- For the next consultation one may hope gues in order to remember the ecume- that the issue of baptism will be discussed nical aim and initiative, to reflect the again. There ought to be enough time for progress achieved and to analyse the a mutual interrogation regarding the present situation5 . Furthermore, it was relevance of baptism within the life of very helpful at the beginning to focus the churches and for a deepening of the on an ecumenical document elaborating mutual understanding of the celebration the ecumenical vision of one party. of baptism in both churches in order to Along with this, both sides offered avoid wrong ideas, which might cause substantial introductions to their con- scepticism and misunderstandings. fessional tradition, their teachings and Furthermore, the relevance of a mutual their church life. Thus, the consultation recognition of baptism for Protestant process helped with a deeper mutual and for Orthodox Churches should be understanding. discussed and compared. For Protestants, it might be helpful to learn about the In the discussion, it became evident that meaning of the Orthodox distinction members of the Orthodox delegation between the recognition of baptism missed a confessional and liturgical kat’oikonomian and kat’akribeian. For uniformity within the Church Fellow- Orthodox members of the delegation, it ship of CPCE while they appreciated might be interesting to learn about the the trinitarian, christological and pneu- practice of baptism as part of a process matological foundation of Protestant leading to confirmation and participation ecclesiology. In the second consultation in the Holy Supper. the idea was mentioned to compare the model of church unity of CPCE with With regard to the modus operandi of the community of autocephalous the consultations, it appears to be wise churches within Orthodoxy. It might to initiate a more detailed documentation have been fruitful and innovative to of the discussions subsequent to the discuss this idea a little further. How- lectures. This might enhance the pro- ever, it was made obvious by the Ortho- ductiveness of the dialogues, as a lot of dox papers that the issue of church fel- controversial issues but also common lowship cannot be discussed apart from features are specified more precisely

5 LD 8, 29–39.

131 and discussed more openly here. A Looking at the consultation process distinct elaboration of the differences altogether, one may say that the Ortho- and convergences between the churches dox-Protestant encounter on a European in a paper as they are seen by the re- level focusing on basic ecclesiological spective lecturer could also help to questions is a promising endeavour that avoid superficialities and to further the should be continued. The progress is intensity and accuracy of discussion. supported by the fact that all documents Therefore, a clarification of certain of the consultations have been pub- terms used by either of the parties re- lished in due course in English and Ger- spectively seems to be required in order man. This is a very important precon- to overcome misconceptions and addition for the reception process within vance towards a better understanding of the churches. one’s counterpart. Especially the exact content of the ideas of “faith consen- * * * sus”, “essentials” and “apostolic succession” as well as an unambiguous defini- Friederike Nüssel is professor of tion of sacraments, ministry and the systematic theology and the director of visible and invisible church would be the Ecumenical Institute at the Univer- helpful for the deepening of the ecume- sity of Heidelberg. nical dialogue.

132 Theological Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Porvoo Communion

Ionut-Alexandru Tudorie

One of the most recent theological * dialogues initiated by the European Churches Conference is that among the For a historian, having Northern Europe Eastern Orthodox Church and the as his main area of research – especially Porvoo Communion. First of all, the in this year (2009) – the city of Porvoo idea is very attractive at the documen- (Borgå in Swedish) is not only the name tary level, because such an encounter of a Finnish small town situated near introduces for the Eastern Orthodoxy Helsinki, Finnish capital, but also the the new realities and ecclesiastical place of a well-known Legislative As- changes from the Western Christianity. sembly of four Estates (nobility, clergy, Secondly, for an Orthodox theologian, burghers and peasants) of Russian an open dialog with Christian otherness occupied Finland, called Diet of Porvoo is interesting because it challenges to a (Porvoon maapäivät, March–July careful research and argumentation to 1809). This historical event has marked its own ecclesiastical basis. the establishment of semi-autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland under the The case being that the dialogue partner Russian authority of Tsar Alexander I, of the Orthodox Church is not a simple when the representatives of the Estates local Church, but a communion of swore allegiance in the Porvoo churches by a very recent date (too little Cathedral (29th of March, 1809). known in the Orthodox world) in the first introduction of this report some On the other hand, for a theologian, the brief information about the Porvoo name of Porvoo is closely linked with Communion will be presented. an important theological agreement

133 finalized in the fall of 1992 at Järvenpää applicable to all the signatory churches: (Finland).1 Fruit of a theological dia- the acceptance of other Churches’ be- logue initiated back at the beginning of lievers as their own members; mutual the 20th century,2 this agreement was admission of ordained persons from a signed and successively ratified by ten bishop to serve without re-ordination, Anglican and Lutheran local Churches: in bishop, priest or deacon places, ac- Church of England, Church of Ireland, cording to their status before; the invi- Scottish Episcopal Church, Church in tation of bishops from other Churches Wales, Church of Sweden, Church of to participate at the laying on of hands Norway, Evangelical-Lutheran Church in the Episcopal ordination; the es- of Finland, Evangelical-Lutheran tablishment of structures for concilia- Church of Iceland, Estonian Evangeli- tion and consultation concerning the cal-Lutheran Church and Evangelical- most important issues of faith, consti- Lutheran Church of Lithuania. Although tution, life and action (§ 58A). they have participated in the dialogue, both the Church of Denmark and As you may find it, this agreement and Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Latvia the ecclesial communion that followed have not ratified the agreement. it is not only interesting because it implies a number of approximately 50 The joint declaration by the end of the million believers, but also because, for document contains the following points: the first time in the history of theological mutual recognition as churches be- dialogues, it is been talked about pos- longing to the One, Holy, Catholic and sibility of interchangeability of mi- Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, and nistries between Churches that represent – most important – mutual acknowled- two different confessional families: gement of ordained ministries, including Anglican and Lutheran. Especially for the Episcopal ministry (§ 58A). On the this reason Porvoo Agreement has been basis of these acknowledgements, some viewed as a breakthrough in the ecu- practical commitments were added, menical movement.3

1 The full text of this agreement is available in: Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe. Conversations between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches (GS 1083), Church House Publishing, London, 1993, pp. 1–33. Also, are available different other translation in Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, Icelandic, Welsh, German, Italian and French of this English official text. 2 For a detailed presentation of this previous dialogues between Church of England and Lutheran Churches from Northern Europe see: Vilmos VAJTA (editor), Church in Fellow- ship: Pulpit and Altar Fellowship among Lutherans, Augsburg Publishing House, Minnea- polis, 1963, pp. 177–221 (without any reference to the dialogue between Church of England and Evangelical-Lutheran Churches from Latvia and Estonia). 3 See the initial discourse of prof. Ola TJØRHOM in: „Porvoo-rapporten – et mulig økumenisk gjennombrudd?”, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke, 64. Årgang (1993), Hefte 3, pp. 173–188 [republished in English in: One in Christ, vol. XXIX (1993), no. 4, pp. 302– 309; Pro Ecclesia, vol. III (1994), no. 1 (Winter), pp. 11–17; The Ecumenical Review, vol. 46 (1994), nr. 1 (January), pp. 97–102].

134 The result is surprising, especially be- bishops or superintendents were con- cause there are well-known differences secrated by priests following what was in perspective between the two Chris- believed to be the precedent of the early tian traditions, especially on Episcopal Church. […] The interruption of the ministry, which would normally ask for Episcopal succession has, nevertheless, the invalidation (non-acknowledgment) in these particular churches always been of the sacramental ordination. More accompanied by the intention and by specifically, in this issue the Anglicans measures to secure the apostolic conti- insist on the normative nature of Epi- nuity of the Church as a Church of the scopal history and tactile apostolic Gospel served by an episcopal ministry. succession, while the Lutherans empha- The subsequent tradition of these church- size the intention to return to the es demonstrates their faithfulness to the Church’s life in the first centuries, apostolicity of the Church.” (§ 34) showing large reserves to the idea of the concentration of decision-making’s Porvoo Communion became visible and authority in the hands of a single person, operational since the fall of 1996 when seated in this function for a indefinite there were three special communion period. However, we should emphasize celebrations (Trondheim, Tallinn and that some Lutheran churches in the London). Although during this period Northern Europe (especially the Church (1996–2008) we may see a gradual of Sweden, and the Evangelical Lutheran increase of the relationship between the Churches of Finland, Estonia and Lat- 10 signatory Churches (a notable num- via) have managed that during the Re- ber of Lutheran priests have chosen to formation period to keep the line of serve in Anglican churches; common apostolic succession, the Episcopal mi- strategies for re-evaluation of diaconal nistry being perceived more as a sacra- ministry), however there were distin- mental ministry and not a managing one. guished views in total disagreement: the participation of Churches in the Porvoo Thus, from this bivalent reality, stemmed Communion (ecclesial communion with the need to avoid the obligation of nor- a Episcopal structure) as well as in the mative character of succession (suc- Leuenberg Communion (ecclesial com- cessio manuum) using over-evaluation munion without Episcopal structure – intention of ensuring the continuity of see the cases of Norway, Estonia and the apostolic church (successio sedis): Lithuania); ordination of women for „At the time of the Reformation all our Episcopal ministry; acceptance of mar- churches ordained bishops (sometimes riage between persons of the same sex; the term superintendent was used as a etc. synonym for bishop) to the existing sees of the Catholic Church, indicating their To distinguish more clearly the interest intention to continue the life and mi- generated by this agreement in Europe, nistry of the One, Holy, Catholic and it should be stressed that the theological Apostolic Church. In some of the terri- document signed in Porvoo was presented tories the historic succession of bishops and analyzed in special conferences or- was maintained by episcopal ordination, ganized by both the Leuenberg Com- whereas elsewhere on a few occasions munion (6–10 September 1995, Lieb-

135 frauenberg – France)4 and the Old Cat- * holic Church (30 August – 4 September 1999, Wislikofen – Switzerland).5 A The initiative of the Conference of Eu- comparative analysis between the theol- ropean Churches to propose the opening ogy found in the Porvoo Agreement and of an unofficial theological dialogue the teachings of the Old Catholic Church between representatives, both laymen reveals at least one major difference: and clergy, of the different Orthodox Episcopal service is not an optional for Church, on the one hand, and the existence of the Church – as shown in Anglican and Lutheran Churches from the Anglican-Lutheran dialogue, but Porvoo Communion, on the other hand, Episcopal service is indestructible falls within the trend of deepening the connected to the existence of Church latest results of the theological dialo- being the One, Holy, Catholic and gues in Western Europe. Also, is good Apostolic – according to the faith of the to know that between Orthodox Church- Old Catholic Church.6 es and Church of England (Anglican) and Church of Sweden (Lutheran) has The attempt of the Anglicans to approach been a very fruitful dialogue and coope- the Lutherans led to ambivalent ex- ration during the first part of 20th century. pressions of faith (it is a kind of eccle- That means that now it is a new oppor- siastical diplomacy!), and gave birth to tunity for the Orthodox Church to re- critics both from conservative Angli- open in a very different context some cans (who perceive it as a derogation of its very old ecumenical relations at from the principle of historic succession least with some of the Churches from in the episcopate)7 and from evangelical Porvoo Communion. Lutherans (who perceive the implemen- tation of this declaration as a dangerous Within this dialogue, so far, there were approach to the Roman Catholic posi- held two joint meetings: the first was tion and as something that raze their held between 1–4 December 2005 at own ecclesial identity).8 Järvenpää (Finland) – exactly in the

4 The papers are available in: Wilhelm HÜFFMEIER & Colin PODMORE (editors), Leuenberg, Meissen and Porvoo: Consultation between the Churches of the Leuenberg Church Fellowship and the Churches involved in the Meissen Agreement and the Porvoo Agreement (Liebfrauenberg-Elsaß, 6. bis 10. September 1995), coll. Leuenberger Texte, Heft 4, Verlag Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt am Main, 1996 5 Some of the papers are available in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 90. Jahrgang (2000), Heft 1/429 (Januar-März). 6 See the article of Prof. Martien PARMENTIER, „Die Altkatholische Ekklesiologie und das Porvoodokument”, Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 90. Jahrgang (2000), Heft 1 (Januar-März), pp. 30–49. 7 See the position of John HUNWICKE, „Letters: The Porvoo leap”, The Tablet, vol. 249, no. 8057 (7 January 1995), pp. 15–16; no. 8060 (28 January 1995), p. 111; „Porvoo or not Porvoo?”, New Directions, vol. I (1995), no. 2 (July), pp. 7–8. 8 See the articles of Tom G.A. HARDT, „The Borgå (Porvoo) Common Statement”, Logia, vol. VII (1998), no. 3 (Holy Trinity), pp. 45–52; Kjell Olav SANNES, „Karakteristikk og

136 same place where the document was concrete examples of joint action of all finalized – and the second took place the Churches involved in this commu- between 27–30 March 2008 at Brânco- nity (Stephanie Dietrich). The last two veanu Monastery / Sâmbãta de Sus (Ro- essays were dedicated to the main theme mania). At both meetings, in addition to of this first meeting („Since one of the representatives of the three confessional characteristics of the Porvoo Agreement families (Orthodox, Anglican and Lu- is among others the bishop’s ministry, theran) have been invited also observers the consultation may like to focus its from the Community of Protestant discussion on the bishop’s ministry as Churches in Europe (CPCE), Armenian element of the Church unity.”)9 Apostolic Church and Church of Den- mark. Thus, were presented a series of reflections on ecclesiology of Porvoo Agree- ment from an Anglican (John Hind) and Järvenpää meeting Orthodox perspective (Ionuþ-Alexandru Tudorie). The Anglican ecclesiology Each of the said two meetings was portrayed in this document is positive opened with an informative part, in- and could be concentrated in the follow- cluding presentations on the results of ing phrases: „There is a single mission, the international theological dialogues temporally rooted in the uniqueness of between the three Christian traditions. the apostolic tradition, historically me- Thus, in this direction, during the meeting diated. Full partnership in this mission in Järvenpää were presented three special requires unity in faith, sacramental life essays, which have provided to the and ministry. A shared Episcopal structure commission members all the informa- is seen as evidence rather than a require- tion they needed on Orthodox-Anglican ment. Meeting around these characte- dialogues (Ioan Mircea Ielciu), Ort- ristics has enabled mutual recognition hodox-Lutheran (Viorel Ioniþã) and as sister churches. Although what that Anglican-Lutheran (Matti Repo). The implies is not theologically spelt out, it transition from the introductory part to clearly suggests that the One Church is the main topic of the meeting was not so much a single organization but designed by an overview of the structure an organism with interrelated members, of the Porvoo Communion and some communities as well as individuals.”10

vurdering av Porvoo-erklæringen som økumenisk dokument”, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke, 68. Årgang (1997), Hefte 2, pp. 83–96; Ingolf DALFERTH, „Amt und Bischofsamt nach Meißen und Porvoo”, Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim (MD), 47. Jahrgang (1996), nr. 5 (September/Oktober), pp. 91–96; nr. 6 (November/ Dezember), pp. 111–118 [republished in German and English in: Visible Unity and the Ministry of Oversight: The Second Theological Conference held under the Meissen Agreement between the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany, West Wickham, March 1996, Church House Publishing, London, 1997]. 9 All the papers from Järvenpää, including the Communiqué, were published in: Reseptio, 1/2006, pp. 3–72. 10 Cf. John HIND, „Some Anglican Reflections on the Ecclesiology of the Porvoo Common Statement”, Reseptio, 1/2006, p. 56.

137 On the other hand, the Orthodox posi- outside the Church were considered by tion towards the ecclesiology of this the theologians invited at Järvenpää as document revealed a number of notable the most interesting general themes that differences: “The Orthodox ecclesio- will be detailed during the dialogue be- logy, when relating to the apostolicity tween the Orthodox Churches and Por- of the Church, stresses both the un- voo Communion. altered preservation of the revealed teachings and the apostolic succession. […] Thus, in the Church there is both Brâncoveanu Monastery / an external transmission of revealed Sâmbãta de Sus meeting teachings and an internal transmission of the gift of hierarchy. Consequently, The second meeting of this joint com- in the Orthodox ecclesiology the apos- mission was held between 27–30 March tolic succession is strictly linked to the 2008 at Brâncoveanu Monastery / Sâm- historic succession of bishops. To the bãta de Sus (Romania). Due to many contrary, the Porvoo Agreement states objective reasons many of those who that historic succession should not be participated in the first meeting (es- perceived as a guarantee of the apos- pecially the Orthodox participants) of tolicity of the Church, but as a sign or this dialogue could not be present at means of continuity between many this date. The information part from the others. […] For any Orthodox, historic beginning of this second meeting succession is much more than a sign provided background data on the latest through which the Church communi- results of the Orthodox-Lutheran (Step- cates its care for continuity in the whole hanie Dietrich) and the Orthodox-Ang- of its life and mission, and reinforces lican (Ionuþ-Alexandru Tudorie) inter- its determination to manifest the perma- national theological dialogue. nent characteristics of the Church of the Apostles (§50): this episcopal succes- The central theme of the meeting at sion is one of the main and permanent Sâmbãta de Sus was: The compatibility characteristics of the Church.”11 of the understanding of the Church in the Porvoo Common Statement Also, during this first meeting of the and the Orthodox understanding of joint commission were fixed three main the Church.12 The four essays that were themes of the following consultations. planned to include the theme mentioned Thus, a) the compatibility between were grouped as follows: Nature of the Orthodox ecclesiology and the one Church in the Orthodox Ecclesiology presented in the Porvoo Agreement, b) (Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima) the relationship between ministry, mis- and The True Church of Christ and the sion and succession, and c) the Holy Concept of Church in the Porvoo Spirit: creation and growth inside and Common Statement (Samuel Ruben-

11 Cf. Ionuþ-Alexandru TUDORIE, „Porvoo Common Statement from an Orthodox Perspective”, Reseptio, 1/2006, p. 56. 12 Until now the papers have not been published.

138 son); Can Christian Unity be attained? to identify the Church with the indivi- Reflections on Church Unity from the dual Christian or a group of Christians. Orthodox Perspective (Václav Je¾ek) The Church is not an association of a and The Concept of Church Unity in the group of people that may agree or not Porvoo Common Statement: Unity and agree. It is a unity of hearts filled with Diversity (Bishop Michael Jackson). the Spirit, a unity that isn’t and cannot be threatened by diversity. As sinners The first two papers sought to detail a its members are constantly called to series of aspects surrounding the nature repentance and to a return to Christ. We of the Church from two different tradi- are still not what we are called to be. tions: Orthodox and Lutheran. Thus, the The Church is, however, already the Orthodox ecclesiological teaching is rule of Christ, is already what it will be both simple and complex at the same forever.” (Samuel Rubenson) time: “[The Church in the Orthodox perspective] Is the Church of the Triune The last two papers focused on Church God, the Church of Christ, the Church unity, and a confessional equilibrium of the Fathers, the Church of the Saints, could be noticed in the Orthodox and and the Church of the people of God. It Lutheran presentations. According to is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apos- the Orthodox presentation, the main tolic Church. Perhaps the best and cause of the lack of unity in the Church clearest eikon of this manifold perspec- is the lack of Christian love: “disunity tive of the Church is to be seen in the is not merely the consequence of the seal of the holy prosphora. Here we lack of intellectual and theological have the Church in focus in the per- unity, but primarily a lack of love. But sonal, the historical, the theological, and this does not mean a lack of love only the anthropological dimensions.” (Met- between two people or two groups, but ropolitan Gennadios) On the other hand, sometimes the inability to respond to following the comments of Martin love, and the failure to assent to love.” Luther, the Lutheran answer is: “Luther Also, “ecclesial unity cannot be achieved understands the Church as the people merely on theological grounds. This is of God, the faithful through the ages. proven by the fact that on numerous The Church is a living, praying and occasions, when the Church attempted believing body. It is made up by those to achieve unity purely on theological who believe in the Lord, since it His grounds, this has often ended in the people. […] In this sense it is an escha- opposite result. This of course happens tological reality, the fulfillment of the when theology is divorced from the life prophecies. […] Secondly and conse- of the Church of which it is merely a quently Luther insists on the Church reflection.” (Václav Je¾ek) The Ang- being in its essence a hidden reality, lican viewpoint is nothing but an something invisible, something that is attempt to apply the unity in diversity being revealed in this world in a hidden concept to the ecclesial reality of the manner, not understood or grasped Porvoo communion. Thus, “central to fully, neither by those inside or those the understanding of diversity in the outside. It is a mysterion, a secret. […] Porvoo Common Statement is the As a consequence Luther is careful not realization that diversity itself is not a

139 deficient form of being for those who pated at the two meetings one of the don’t do unity. In fact, for Porvoo, unity most interesting theological documents has built into it a need for diversity not ratified over the last years. Also, these only in the community of God the Three meetings were an excellent opportunity in One and One in Three but also in its for a much lively dialogue than the one mode of expression as dynamic rather within international bilateral dialogues, than static unity. […] The bonds of where ecclesiastical diplomacy some- communion form the unity but also times requires a certain position which support the diversity of the Porvoo annuls one’s own opinion. Communion. But there is a recognition that a type of diversity exists which goes Aside from the notable differences in beyond the tolerable. […] What is parti- viewing the only theme debated so far, cularly important about Porvoo is that it is remarkable to notice the engaging there is not an enforced uniformity but attitude and the openness for dialogue an openness to discern more about of all those who were privileged to visible unity as the churches live into participate at least at one of the two the new relationship, […].” (Bishop meetings. A special concern for the staff Michael Jackson) of the Conference of European Churches should be in relation with the Orthodox The following two meetings of the participants: there is a need of continu- commission will have as main themes: ation from a meeting to another. If we the relationship between ministry, mis- are starting from the beginning at every sion and apostolicity; the Holy Spirit: meeting it will be difficult to go further. creation and growth inside and outside the Church. Following the debate on * * * these themes, set since Järvenpää, an ample evaluation of this dialogue will Ionuþ-Alexandru Tudorie is a Lecturer become possible and very probably an at the Church History Department, official dialogue would be initiate. Faculty of Orthodox Theology – Uni- versity of Bucharest (Romania). He has * a PhD in the field of Ecumenical The- ology on the official and unofficial con- Conclusions and Suggestions versations between Anglican and Lu- theran Churches, including a special This dialogue managed to introduce to analysis of Porvoo Common Statement. the Orthodox theologians who partici-

140 A Brief Review on the Eastern Orthodox-Porvoo Dialogue 2005–2008

Matti Repo

Introduction mended that the consultations between the Orthodox and the CPCE Churches The CEC Eastern Orthodox Churches should be continued and the Porvoo and the CPCE Protestant Churches Churches be invited to take part in them. opened a series of theological consulta- Accordingly, a representative from the tions in 2002. A year later, the Policy Church of England was sent as an and Reference committee of the CEC observer to the second Orthodox-CPCE General Assembly in Trondheim under- consultation in Wittenberg in 2004. In lined the importance of theological dia- the same year, the recently established logue between the CEC member church- new CEC Commission on Churches in es, particularly between the Orthodox Dialogue recommended a similar, but and other member churches. Special separate series of consultations between emphasis should be laid on questions the Orthodox churches and the churches of Christian unity, Ecclesiology, minis- in the Porvoo Communion to be initiated. try and theological education. So far, two meetings have been held, one in Järvenpää, Finland in December As the new CEC Central Committee 20051 and another in Sambata de Sus, gathered in December 2003, it recom- Romania, in March 20082 .

1 Documentation: Communiqué. Conference of European Churches. Eastern Orthodox – Porvoo Consultation. Järvenpää, Finland, 1–4 December 2005. http://www.cec-kek.org/ pdf/EasternOrthodoxPorvooCommunique.pdf. All papers published in Reseptio 1/2006, pp. 4–72. 2 Documentation: Communiqué. Conference of European Churches. Second Eastern Orthodox – Porvoo Consultation. Sambata de Sus, Romania, 27–30 March 2008. http:// www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CiDProvooStatement2008.pdf . Papers given in the consultation are not yet published.

141 A Preliminary Remark “Protestant Churches” or “Churches of Reformation”? As a matter of fact, both of the two series of consultations between the Orthodox In a dialogue where more than one churches and the churches of the Re- family of Reformation Churches are formation should not be regarded as discussing with the Orthodox or the official dialogues between the churches. Catholic Church, certain limits of lan- They have not been agreed upon by the guage are very soon met. It is not always respective decision-making bodies in easy for the Orthodox or Catholic repre- the churches, and the delegates have not sentatives to find an appropriate name been authorized to make binding agree- for the counterpart. Attempts to use ments, but to merely represent the theol- categories like “Protestant” or “Evan- ogical tradition of their own church. gelical” or “Reformation Churches” are Such consultations between persons of used in order to cover a whole group. different theological schools or confes- Sometimes these categorizations are sional families may nevertheless prove accurate; sometimes they only manage fruitful in promoting mutual under- to articulate a prejudice on the dialogue standing and convergence. A binding partner. If one possesses a vague idea character does not only emerge from of “Protestantism”, this idea can be authorized decision-making, but also stretched and applied to all other church- from the reception of the results of a es than the Orthodox or the Catholic dialogue in the churches. In the end, Church. Consequently, the dialogue ecumenical development might very partner might feel rather uneasy if char- well be more dependent on the recep- acterizations emerging from encounter tion in the everyday teaching of the with Pentecostal or Charismatic groups churches than on the frontline dialogue are used to describe a Lutheran church of specialists. However, the CPCE and only because they all are “Protestant” the Porvoo churches, as well as the churches by some measure, no matter Orthodox churches, have sent highly how radically they might differ in their skilled theologians and academically doctrine, tradition and constituency. trained clergy and church leaders to the consultations to make the discussion as From the point of view of the Evange- advanced and relevant as possible. lical Lutheran Church of Finland, there is no such a general group as “the Pro- It is not possible to evaluate the Ortho- testant Churches”; there are churches of dox-Porvoo consultation process fully different confessional families who all at this initial stage. The two meetings have their roots in the undivided apos- have only been able to cover a small tolic and catholic Church, but who have part of topics identified to be in need of received the apostolic and catholic tradi- clarification. At this point, only a preli- tion through the Reformation. Accord- minary review with a superficial analy- ing to some theologians, the whole of sis can be offered. However, even such Christianity can be categorized in just an effort might point to relevant questions a few “megablocks” (eg. the Catholic, and assist the churches in their further the Orthodox, the Protestant and the strivings for Christian unity. Charismatic), but these generalizations

142 might as well harm any serious theol- note, and I find it more appropriate to ogical dialogue by blurring the picture call these churches either Anglican or and preventing from learning. The dia- Lutheran or “Porvoo Churches” for the logue partners need to be aware of more sake of convenience, but not simply exact differentiations in order to under- “Protestant Churches”. stand each other. Far too often, such re- quirements are not met before the con- Another important difference to the sultation, and getting to know the partner consultations with the CPCE Churches only starts in the actual dialogue itself is that the Porvoo Communion is not and occupies most of the time needed an organization, but a family of churches. for theological debate. It is not an ecumenical agency; it doesn’t have any decision-making body, no Coming from a Nordic family of Lu- general assembly nor central commit- theran Churches with a particular history tee; neither office, staff nor membership and an emphasis on the continuity of fee. It only exists as churches in com- the Church, I don’t consider my church munion, who have committed them- a “Protestant Church”; definitely not in selves to common life, to joint sacra- any “general protestant” sense without mental worship, mission and ministry, differentiation. On the other hand, the in order to serve and to witness. The consultations between the Orthodox and Porvoo Churches only act together for the CPCE Churches deliberately seem common aims in joint projects if the to be based on an assumption that the contact persons arrange any activities churches of Reformation are theologi- together, and if the church leaders or cally so close to each other that it is the presiding bishops agree on them. appropriate to call them all “Protestant Churches”. However, the theologians involved in the CPCE nevertheless do Overall Topic: Ecclesiology argue on the basis of their own respective church tradition, which, in turn, In connection with the simplified char- is either Lutheran, Reformed or belongs acterization of “Protestantism”, another to some other particular Reformation assumption is easily made, namely that tradition, although the community itself of denominationalism. It is sometimes considers all member churches “protest- assumed in the dialogue that the church- ant” in a general sense. es of Reformation are believed to be intrinsically denominationalist, i.e. they The same cannot be said about the are content with the ecclesial diversity Porvoo Churches. The churches in the and consider it natural and legitimate. Porvoo Communion are either Lutheran Up to a certain point, this is true of the or Anglican. None of them is “Protes- Porvoo churches, too, but only in rela- tant” in a general sense, rather, they all tion to their historically developed con- confess the Apostolic and Catholic faith textual, cultural and ethnic differences, in its Lutheran or Anglican form, and not to the apostolic doctrine they share. they all have preserved the episcopal Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans order and the sacramental worship of can refer to their historical confessional the Church. This is very important to writings from the Reformation era, ac-

143 cording to which it is “enough to agree dimensions is elementary to the being on concerning the teaching of the of the Church. It is the service of the Gospel and the administration of the apostolic mission of the Church. The sacraments”, whereas it is considered Porvoo Churches agree on the historic “not necessary that human traditions or episcopate and value the laying on of rites and ceremonies, instituted by men, hands in historical succession as a “sign, should be alike everywhere”.3 not guarantee” of unity and continuity and a sign of the Church’s trust in God’s It has to be remembered that the above faithfulness to his people as well as the quoted seventh article of the Augsburg Church’s intention to be faithful to Confession was originally not intended God’s initiative and gift.4 to articulate a full ecclesiology of a present-day protestant church, but at- When opening the consultation between tempted to frame a modus vivendi for the Eastern Orthodox and the Porvoo the congregations of Reformation inside Churches in 2005, Prof. Dr. Viorel the Catholic Church. What was a mini- Ionita referred in his introduction to this mum for maintaining unity in the Cat- particular characteristic of the Porvoo holic church of the 16th century cannot Churches. He supposed that the first be turned into a basis of ecclesiology consultation, which carried the overall and then refined in this minimal form topic of “Ecclesiology in the Porvoo into a sole criterion for reclaiming the Common Statement”, might like to lost unity in the 21st century. A good focus its discussion on the bishop’s min- number of basic assumptions that were istry as an element of the Church unity.5 still normative during the Augsburg It was assumed that at this point the Diet will fall out of picture; among Orthodox and the Porvoo Churches them, the continuity in the episcopal might find common understanding ministry. capable of carrying them further into ecumenical convergence than the other Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans consultations between the Orthodox and in the Porvoo Communion agree that the CPCE Churches had been able to the episcopal ministry occupies a vital reach so far. While being a relevant position in ecclesiology. While not suggestion, based on the concept of being directly part of the apostolic unity in the Porvoo Common Statement, doctrine or of the Gospel itself, epis- the consultations in 2005 and 2008 did copacy is closely related to keeping the nevertheless not focus on the bishops, true faith and passing it on to new but remained on a more general level generations. The episcopal ministry or of ecclesiology. the oversight of the bishops exercised in personal, collegial and communal

3 Augsburg Confession (1530), VII. Cf. Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith (1571), XIX. 4 Porvoo Common Statement, 43–48. 5 Viorel Ionita, Background and aims of the consultation. – Reseptio 1/2006, 8–10.

144 The Global Lutheran, Anglican them as churches of different traditions and Orthodox Dialogues to live out their recently established communion. This has proven rather The two consultations have each followed challenging, since on the one hand, it the same scheme. Both of them have has not been fully clear to the Orthodox been opened with an update on the party that Anglicans and Lutherans are dialogues between the Orthodox and the distinct traditions and not simply “pro- Anglican and between the Orthodox testant”, and on the other hand, they and the Lutheran churches. This update have been able to reconcile their differ- has provided the participants with an ences through theological dialogue. In opportunity to locate the present con- the consultations, the theologians of the sultation in a wider network of theol- Porvoo Churches have nevertheless ogical discussion. However, not parti- taken their arguments from their own cularly much has been made use of the theological tradition, not only from their framework of global dialogue. The joint agreement. outcome of the dialogues of the Ort- hodox Churches with the Anglican The Porvoo Churches have reached Communion or with the Lutheran mutual understanding in their crucial World Federation has unfortunately not questions of faith and order and entered had any noticeable impact on the con- into a communion in mission and min- sultations between the CEC Orthodox istry, in sacramental worship and in and the Porvoo Churches. episcopal imposition of hands in each other’s consecration of bishops. They An introduction into the Anglican- have become, to put it in the words of a Lutheran dialogue that had led up to previous stage in the Anglican-Lutheran Porvoo was given in the first consulta- dialogue, interdependent, yet remaining tion, but not much of its content flowed autonomous. The mutual sharing of into the discussion. This was rather resources, clergy exchange, consulta- lamentable, since many of the ecclesio- tions in vital questions of pastoral chal- logical questions at stake had already lenge, and other areas of common life, been discussed in the global dialogues. have all been raised as examples of It has to be asked, why these intro- living in communion, not as an end to ductions have played such a minor role theological debate nor as explications in the discussion that has followed them, of the agreement signed by the Church- although they were intended to assist es. In this way, ecclesiology has not the consultation. Perhaps it only is due been made a subject of solely theol- to the fact that so few of the participants ogical debate in a document, but it also have been sufficiently aware of other has been exemplified as the theological dialogues and their methodology. framework in which the churches fulfill their common mission in everyday life Another feature of the consultations is together. that representatives from the Porvoo Churches have not only operated on a purely theological level, but have also attempted to explain what it means for

145 Do the Porvoo Churches on the commitments instead of the Have a Common Ecclesiology? mutual acknowledgements. Bishop Hind only briefly quoted the State- Taking the differences in the Lutheran ment’s description of the Church, a and Anglican traditions seriously, one “portrait of a church living in the light has to ask, whether such a thing as a of the gospel”, derived from the Scriptu- “Porvoo ecclesiology” really exists. It res (para. 20) and lifted “not only the is not clear in what sense this concept content but also the method of this has been used in the consultations. Do ‘portraiture’’ up. The latter paper by the Porvoo Churches represent a Asst. Prof. Tudorie sought to point to common ecclesiology, and if they do, the problems and weaknesses of the can this joint ecclesiology be read from Statement’s theological methodology the Common Statement? To make that make it a vague basis for unity. things easier, let it be assumed that the Tudorie came to the conclusion that the Common Statement presents a unified Porvoo Agreement is not agreeable Porvoo ecclesiology. But even under from an Orthodox point of view. Hind this precondition, it has to be asked, surpassed the doctrinal definitions of where in the Statement such a common ecclesiology in the Statement since understanding is to be read – in the “scholastic treatises de Ecclesia often paragraphs which attempt to express the run the risk of reducing the Church to a common faith in doctrinal sentences, or set of propositional definitions and in those in which the churches commit thereby of missing its essential quality themselves to live out their commun- as mysterion”, whereas Tudorie warned ion? Is the “Porvoo ecclesiology” a that “during the process of building description or a declaration? unity the doctrinal issues should not be superficially treated”. In the first consultation in Järvenpää 2005, two papers were given to analyze For Bishop Hind, the first commitment the ecclesiology in the Porvoo Common in the Porvoo Declaration, to “share a Statement, one by Bishop John Hind common life in mission and service, to and the other by Assisting Professor pray for and with one another, and to Ionut Alexander Tudorie.6 The two share resources”, indicated that there is papers represented two different inter- “a single mission, temporarily rooted in pretations on the meaning of the State- the uniqueness of the apostolic tradition, ment. The first of these attempted to historically mediated”; and that “full highlight the substance of the Statement partnership in this mission requires from an Anglican point of view, by unity in faith, sacramental life and min- referring mainly to the long paragraph istry”. For Asst. Prof. Tudorie, the Por- 58 in the Declaration part of the State- voo Agreement was only possible ment and by putting special emphasis because of the “subjective interpretation

6 John Hind, Some Anglican Reflections on the Ecclesiology of the Porvoo Common Statement. – Reseptio 1/2006, 50–60; Ionut-Alexandru Tudorie, Porvoo Common Statement from an Orthodox Perspective. – Reseptio 1/2006, 61–72.

146 of a neutral ecumenical terminology” Each of these broad areas covered four and of the “use of the syncretic method” subthemes that were further discussed promoted by the BEM and of the in another group session. A joint text “compromising or relativization of the of three sections was drafted on the Episcopate’s absolute character”. – I basis of the second group discussion. feel tempted to state that the two eva- The first section concentrated on the luators unfortunately spoke past each Trinitarian basis of Ecclesiology, on the other. They could have found more in concept of visible unity, on the limits common if they both had worked on a of diversity, and on the four marks of more focused topic. The arguments in the Church. The second section pointed both of the papers emphasized unity in to the common witness of the Church doctrine and in the episcopal ministry; and to the “apostolic life, mission and the parties nevertheless aimed them ministry”, whereas the third section against each other. Surprisingly enough, discussed the Church’s role in the it was the Porvoo theologian who em- renewal of the whole creation as well phasized the Church as a mysterion as the work of the Holy Spirit “outside unfolding in the liturgical life, and the the boundaries of the Church”.7 Orthodox theologian who sketched his ecclesiology primarily by means of un- They expressed a theological richness changeable doctrine and strict historic in very short and dense sentences. It was episcopate. thus decided that the upcoming second consultation will take the first part under closer scrutiny, whereas the two other Outcome of the first sections will be postponed. In due time, consultation in Järvenpää 2005 they shall serve as a starting point for the third and fourth consultations. The consultation in Järvenpää was nevertheless very productive in identifying areas of common interest for a Second Consultation in Sambata closer look. One reason for this was the de Sus 2008 group work which was carried out in two parts. First, the participants named The second consultation gathered in three large areas for further study: Sambata de Sus, Romania in March 1) The compatibility of the understand- 2008. Again, after short updates on the ing of the Church in the Porvoo Common global dialogues, four papers on the two Statement and the Orthodox under- main topics were presented: “The true standing of the Church; 2) ministry, Church of Jesus Christ” and the “Concept apostolicity and mission; and 3) the of unity”. First, a paper written by Metro- Holy Spirit: creation and growth inside politan Prof. Gennadios of Sassima on and outside the Church. the “Nature of the Church in the Ort-

7 Communiqué. – Reseptio 1/2006, 4–7.

147 hodox Ecclesiology” was presented by their polemical writings, but instead, Prof. Viorel Ionita. The paper lifted up used biblical images to describe what the notion of the Church as one and takes place in Church. For example, in many at the same time: “Orthodox ec- the hymns of Romanos the Melodist, clesiology operates with a plurality in the Church is identified with God’s unity and a unity in plurality.” Accord- saving acts. The Church’s liturgy is ing to the Metropolitan, it is impossible anamnesis, an actualization in remem- for Roman Catholic and “Protestant brance of what has happened, through ecclesiologies” to speak of “the Church which the biblical story becomes an and the Churches”, which is theologi- interpretation of what is happening now. cally and canonically correct for the The two other papers by Dr Václav Orthodox ecclesiology but cannot be Je¾ek and Bishop Michael Jackson grasped by the Catholic claim to uni- highlighted further the concept of unity versal jurisdiction and the Protestant in both Orthodox and Anglican tradi- notion of denominationalism. tions. Dr Je¾ek wanted to distinguish the Christian unity and secular ideals of The second paper, given by Professor political unity by pointing to the faith Samuel Rubenson, also discussed the in the one God as the theological basis ambiguity of the Church and the for the former. The unity of the Church churches, taking into account that the is lived out in the holy liturgy and in Church is a divine reality but also sent love; it goes hand in hand with the to the world, in which she “shares the spiritual life of an individual but also brokenness of human community in its with that of a corporate body. Unity ambiguity and frailty”. Rubenson ela- cannot be restored plainly on the grounds borated on the Lutheran concept of the of a theological dialogue; rather, it Church as a congregatio sanctorum results from “love and life in Christ”. which is a concrete worshipping community gathered around the word and Bishop Jackson discerned between the sacraments, but the true nature of which traditional Anglican and Lutheran under- is hidden and only apparent to the faith. standings of unity. Roughly speaking, The Church cannot be identified with the former tend to think in terms of what is seen; neither with the people organic unity and the latter in terms of gathered to worship nor with the proc- reconciled diversity. In the Porvoo lamation of the Gospel and administ- Statement, however, the two concepts ration of the sacraments themselves. are recognized as distinct but not in- The Church “consists of those who are compatible. The Porvoo agreement already partakers of divine nature, does not over-prescribe the structural although this is not fully revealed”. shape of unity. Instead, the Churches Professor Rubenson made reference to have committed themselves to a com- Martin Luther’s lectures on the Psalms mon mission and ministry in a diversity and on his concept of the verborgene which corresponds to the many gifts Kirche (“the Hidden Church”). Ruben- given by the Holy Spirit to the Church. son reminded that the Greek fathers had Consequently, the role of the bishops also avoided giving an all too narrow in the Porvoo Churches is to maintain dogmatic definition on the Church in unity but also to minister in diversity.

148 The Outcome of the Sambata understanding in ecclesiology. Together Consultation it was affirmed, that “the true Church of Jesus Christ is One, Holy, Apostolic. Despite of the well-prepared papers and It is manifested in the local Eucharistic presentations, the discussion in Sambata community, where the Word is preached had difficulties in rising over certain and the sacraments administered, under obstacles and misunderstandings. A the oversight of the bishop or his repre- fundamental difficulty was faced in sentative.” … “Furthermore, we can clarifying the distinction and intercon- join in affirming that the Holy Trinity nection between the one Church of is both the source and the model of an Christ as divine reality and yet as mani- appropriate diversity in unity, and of fested in her present cultural and theol- unity in diversity, in the life of the ogical diversity. It was pointed out that Church.” However, this model based on the Porvoo representatives could join in the Trinity was not elaborated deeper, most of the theological statements on but only identified as an area for further the Church presented in the paper of study, as was also the “relationship Metropolitan Gennadios; but it was between the inner, mystical reality of asked, whether that was an image of the the Church and the particularity of Church as manifested in her present historical churches”. reality in history or an image of the Church in her eschatological fulfill- Certain key elements in a common ment. understanding of unity were nevertheless noted. Both traditions could As in Järvenpää two years earlier, the agree that “full, visible unity would theological concept of the Church and require at least the total mutual recogni- her unity on one side and the practical tion of ministries; a common theological diversity and divisions between local basis; a corresponding, coherent litur- and national Churches seemed surpri- gical and sacramental life; and full singly difficult to reconcile. The Ortho- continuity with the living tradition of dox representatives asked, how can the the Church”. Porvoo Churches remain separate if they are in communion as they say; the Porvoo representatives, on their part, Concluding Remarks responded by a similar question on how can the Orthodox claim they are only It seems that the Orthodox and the Por- one Church and yet we know there are voo Churches can affirm a lot of funda- five different Orthodox national Church- mental ecclesiological convictions es in Dublin, or fourteen in the whole together. However, these truths have not of Sweden, even with five bishops. It been too easy to reveal and to recognize. was reminded in the discussion that A lot of energy has been needed in the there is no Orthodox Church in its Irish dialogue to overcome some basic, often or Swedish expression. false assumptions. The two consultations have only started to show the way The Communiqué from Sambata never- to mutual convergence. For various theless lifted up several points of mutual reasons, the Porvoo Statement has not

149 yet been able to provide material for their new context, all according to their common understanding with the Ortho- different national and jurisdictional dox Churches, nor a model or an impulse backgrounds. In my Diocese in Tam- for the other dialogues between the pere, there is an Anglican congregation Lutherans or Anglicans and the Ort- ministered in English by Lutheran hodox. It has to be reminded that the clergy under my oversight, although the Porvoo Declaration carries the title of congregation jurisdictionally is part of “Towards closer unity”; it does not the Church of England Diocese in speak about a “full communion” but Europe and falls under the oversight of instead, shows the way to joint mission the Bishop of Gibraltar. This kind of and ministry. As such, it has become as “dual oversight”, however, has to be a basis for unity between Lutheran and considered only a temporary solution Anglican national Churches. Attempts on the way towards closer unity under have been made to compare their unity the one Lord Jesus Christ. to the one existing between the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches. * * *

Somewhat different from them, how- Matti Repo is the Bishop of Tampere ever, the Porvoo Lutherans and Angli- in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of cans are growing into only one Church Finland. He is Adjunct Professor in the on the local and national level, as various Faculty of Theology, University of immigrant groups from different countries Helsinki. He has participated in Finnish and languages integrate in their new Lutheran-Russian Orthodox dialogue country of residence. The Orthodox since 2002 and Porvoo-Orthodox immigrant churches, for their part, seem dialogue since 2005. to remain distinct from each other in

150 The Dialogues of the Evangelical Church in Germany with the Orthodox Churches A Preliminary Review

Reinhard Thöle

The Evangelical Church in Germany to offer space for an exchange on issues (EKD) can look to four official dia- and worries about the recent life of the logues that have been held with the church below the level of an official patriarchates of Moscow, Constanti- talk; the ecumenical situation of each nople, Bucharest and Sofia. These have side could be addressed and possible been designed either as ‘theological irritation deflected. Representatives of discussions’ or ‘bilateral theological the local churches and of those churches dialogues’. The dialogues came about with whom each side is in a state of in different contexts and used different communion were also invited. The theological roads but are nonetheless a members of the dialogue commissions unity as far as their approaches and were officially appointed by the sending results are concerned. They share that churches; the EKD did so for one term they are characterised as church meet- of office. The agenda of the dialogue ings, containing elements of a doctrinal was not worked through according to a dialogue just as much as meetings on previously fixed systematic theological the parish level, with institutions of scheme but for each dialogue deter- church services and with academic life. mined on the basis of the recommenda- That the commissions shared in the tions of the past meeting. A change of liturgical lives of the local churches has generations can be detected in the com- become just as natural as the morning position of the delegations. New mem- and evening offices which the delega- bers who complemented experienced tions held in alternation. Care was taken long-term participants were not always

151 able to enter the thrust of the previous crisis between the Orthodox and the talks and usages easily. The heads of other member churches in the World the delegations changed as well. The Council of Churches. It became evident dialogues always considered them- that the long-term dialogues between selves to be in the context of the talks the Orthodox Churches and the EKD, which took place between the world- which had been held in an atmosphere level denominational federations and of mutual trust, were able to overcome the pan-Orthodox Orthodox Churches; the crisis on the level of the WCC at their results were adopted even down least to a certain degree. to individual phrases. The meetings with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and It is worthwhile also to have a look at the Bucharest Patriarchate could be held the genre of the communiqués of the in German.1 dialogues. While in the beginning of the dialogues they were sometimes no more The attempt of a review is primarily than a short summary of the discussion based upon the communiqués of the in accordance with the minutes of a dialogues, as these were officially ac- participant which no-one confirmed or cepted by the supreme church authori- decided upon,2 or a recapitulation with ties after the individual meetings, there- a summary of the talks,3 a basic shape by receiving an official approval. This of the communiqués began to emerge acceptance by the church authorities at all dialogues containing the frame of was also the reason for their publication. the talks, a short version of the papers This preliminary review is also based of the individual members of the dele- upon the ‘Joint Reports’ in the dialogue gations and a more profound shared with the Moscow Patriarchate in 1995, theological balance of what had been with the Bucharest Patriarchate in 1998 expressed jointly as well as the different and with the Constantinople Patri- theological accents of both sides. One archate in 2002, which had been in- could even say that the joint work on tended as a kind of evaluation of the behalf of the communiqués of the dia- place of the dialogue. It is not by coinci- logues could be regarded as a dialogue- dence that these ‘Joint Reports’ came in-dialogue, for it was at this point that about in the period after the political unanimously and to the outside world a turnover in Eastern Europe and in a description had to be given as to what period in which there was talk about a was talked about in greater freedom at

1 Cf. Klaus Schwarz, Die Dialoge der EKD mit den orthodoxen Patriarchaten, in: Reinhard Thöle (ed.), Zugänge zur Orthodoxie (Göttingen 1998) 261–278, and Reinhard Thöle, Die Dialoge der EKD mit den orthodoxen Kirchen, in: Kirchliches Jahrbuch 1992/93 (Göttingen 1995) 57–80. 2 At the theological dialogue between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the EKD 1969, in: Dialog des Glaubens und der Liebe, Beiheft Nr.11 zur Ökumenischen Rundschau (Stuttgart 1970) 50–56. 3 At the theological discussion between representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the EKD 1959, in: Tradition und Glaubensgerechtigkeit (Witten 1961), 9–12

152 the theological discussions. The reva- we cannot deny that something new has luation of the communiqués can also be come about between our churches regarded as a revaluation of the dia- which will not be without effects on our logues for the churches involved. It goes self-understanding as churches’5 , and so far that at the last dialogue between at another place, ‘We have reached the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the theological rapprochements which have EKD, the communiqué was prefaced given rise to the hope for a comprehen- with a quotation from Holy Scripture sive understanding.’6 This fits a state- and the introduction was chosen, ‘Gat- ment by the former head of the foreign hered together in the name of God, office of the EKD, Bishop Heinz- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit […]’4 Joachim Held, who loved to emphasise that the churches involved would no A good example of the basic theological longer stand at the beginning of their and emotional mood in which the dialogues, but on a theological level dialogues were held is a statement of would still be at the beginning. the ‘Joint Report’ of the 1995 dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the EKD which is also true for the other The bilateral theological dialogues, ‘Even if we have not yet dialogue between the Russian reached the official ultimate objective Orthodox Church and the EKD of all theological dialogues in the contemporary ecumenical movement, i.e., The dialogue with the Moscow Patri- the full mutual recognition as churches archate began, after preparatory visits, in liturgy, doctrine and ministry, we officially in 1959 with the meeting in nonetheless believe that our two church- Arnoldshain. Next to the theological es have been linked in a spiritual pil- discussions, the burdens of the century grimage which has left behind the in the relationship between the two former mere side-by-side and even people needed to be dealt with. This more so the former position against each beginning meant both an example in other. We are as yet unable to present reconciliation between the churches as an ecclesiological formula for the well as a principle opening of the Rus- spiritual, ecclesiastical and theological sian Church to the ecumenical process.7 change in our mutual relationship. But Twelve meetings took place until 1990

4 Cf. Communiqué of the fourteenth meeting in the Bilateral Theological Dialogue between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the EKD, Schloss Oppurg (Thuringia), 10–15 October 2007. 5 Cf. Gemeinsamer Bericht an die Leitungen der Russischen orthodoxen Kirche und der EKD über den Stand des bilateralen theologischen Dialogs in: Bilateraler Theologischer Dialog EKD/Russische Orthodoxe Kirche 1998 und 2002 (Hermannsburg 2004) 211– 224, here 214f. 6 Ibid. 213. 7 Cf. Gerhard Besier, Zum Beginn des theologischen Gesprächs zwischen der EKD und der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, in: Evangelische Theologie (46,1986) 73–90.

153 in the so-called Arnoldshain Talks. The be repeated. Both delegations agree that Federation of Evangelical Churches in baptism, as exercised by both churches, the GDR (BEK) began a series of dia- is a God-given sacrament. The recogni- logues of its own, the Sagorsk Talks in tion of the apostolic succession in the which the shared situation of the church- Church is essential for the recognition es in their socialistic political environ- of the sacraments in it. This necessitates ment was also an issue. Seven meetings the still more detailed discussion of the took place until 1990. After the German essence and boundaries of the Church. unification both dialogues were joined […]’9 and continued by the EKD and the Moscow Patriarchate in Bad Urach. Eucharist and Sacrifice: ‘We believe Five Bad Urach meetings took place that, according to the teaching of the until 2008. apostles, Jesus Christ, the heavenly high priest, always intercedes before God for The balance of classical theological us sinners in virtue of his once-for-all issues includes: sacrifice on the cross and that, with Holy Scripture and Tradition: ‘There is praise and thanks of the Church, in a unanimity that tradition must not be mysterious way is himself “he who contrary to the Biblical witness to the offers and is offered”. […] We share the saving acts of God in Jesus Christ which belief that the Church and the Christians was promised by the prophets of the Old following Jesus Christ have been called Testament and whose fulfilment is to a life of sacrifice and self-abandon- witnessed to by the apostolic scriptures ment, by virtue of their participation in of the New Testament. Rather, the ag- the mystery of the Eucharist. We have reement of the tradition in our churches not been able to agree as to whether the with Holy Scripture is the essential Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice which is criterion of its genuineness. The issues offered to God by the Church in its faith remain to be solved as to what the cri- in Jesus Christ, and whether the Eucha- terion of accordance with the Scripture rist has atoning power.’10 means in detail and what is to be understood by binding tradition.’8 Justification and faith: ‘Salvation or justification from faith is both a once- Baptism and new life: ‘Our two churches for-all divine act of grace to us through agree in interpreting the sacrament of which we become Christians, and a Holy Baptism as an event of new birth further grace-filled happening to us through which we enter into reconcilia- through which, in the community of the tion with God, receive the gift of new Church, we are led to a life in Christ life from God and become members in and remain in Christ and grow. There the mysterious Body of Christ. […] is further need for clarifying the issues Baptism is once and for all and cannot of the quality of faith which leads to

8 Ibid. 216. 9 Ibid. 217. 10 Ibid. 218.

154 salvation, and of the significance of the ordination has a sacramental character; judgement of the works at the end of – how the apostolic succession is to be days for Christians, as witnessed to by understood in view of the mutual re- Holy Scripture.’11 cognition of the ordination; – who the bearer of the Episcopal ministry in the Sanctification and the saints: ‘The Church is and therefore has the author- holiness of the Church and of its mem- ity to ordain.’13 bers grows from the communion with its head, Jesus Christ, the risen Lord. The Joint Report calls attention to the We share in the experience that there following problems: have been individual men and women – How do we read, interpret and preach in the history of the Church and even in Holy Scripture, the authoritative word our time in whom the holiness, granted of God for the Church, today? – What by Jesus Christ, shines forth in a parti- do we understand by the binding herit- cular way. We could not agree on the age of the old undivided Church and the issue whether the saints should be Western Reformation, resp., for the invoked for their intercession before rapprochement and unification of the God and how they are remembered in churches in our time? – How do we the right way. The issue of the holiness understand the holiness of the churches of the Church could also not be dealt and their boundaries? – Why do we with.’12 walk on different roads concerning the ordination of women? – How do we see Church and ministry: ‘There is the royal the relationship between Church and and common priesthood of all baptised society, Gospel and culture, faith and on the one hand, and the special min- nation and how do we shape it in the istry of the priests or pastors, ordained light of our theological experiences? to it by the Church according to the Practical theological issues of funda- command of the Lord, on the other mental importance to which we need to hand. However, the special ministry return again and again should be under- must be clearly distinct from the royal stood better: the relationship between or common priesthood of all baptised. Scripture and Tradition as far as content It cannot be immediately deducted or and experience are concerned; the based in it as it is founded upon the cooperation of Word and Sacrament in special pastoral ministry of Jesus Christ. the liturgy of the Church and the under- But the ordained ministry and the royal standing of the essence of the liturgy; priesthood of all baptised are not the essence of the Church and of the opposed to each other. They relate to special ministry in it and its significance each other. … However, the following for God’s acting; the significance of the important issues remain to be clarified historical experiences for the way of the in this context: – whether and how the Church and, linked to it, the issue as to

11 Ibid. 219. 12 Ibid. 220. 13 Ibid. 220f.

155 which different ways God has led the also have the task to remind the state of individual churches.14 its duty to protect liberty and human dignity for all people and to shape the The dialogues Bad Urach II in Minsk law accordingly.’16 in 1998, Bad Urach III in Mühlheim in 2002, Bad Urach IV in Moscow and Sergiev Posad in 2005 and Bad Urach The bilateral theological V in Lutherstadt Wittenberg in 2005 dialogue between the focused more on the reality of the churches in the secular world and in the Ecumenical Patriarchate European context. of Constantinople and the EKD

The following can be stated as consen- The discussions between the Ecu- sus, after the example of the above- menical Patriarchate and the EKD mentioned summaries. began in 1969 as ‘dialogue of love and unity’ (Patriarch Dimitrios I). They Christian values and secular society: ‘It could be regarded as resuming the needs to be the aim to agree on a shared contacts which in the sixteenth century understanding of the spiritual life in the Reformed theologians Martin Christ. The Christian understanding of Crusius and Jakob Andreae from Tübin- the values must partly be defended in gen had had with Patriarch Jeremiah the present European society and partly II.17 The events of the Second World be brought to new ethical values and War in Greece were not excluded in this ideas.15 Concepts like liberty, responsi- dialogue. That a big Greek Orthodox bility, human dignity and human rights metropolis could come into existence need to be developed from the Biblical in Germany after foreign workers had and church tradition for Christians. been recruited added special weight to These concepts cannot simply be taken the dialogue for Germany. A specialty in an uncritical manner from different of the dialogue is that representatives justifications and contexts. The church- of the Diakonisches Werk, which from es have the task to oppose all tendencies the beginning of the so-called immi- if and when people and groups abuse grant workers movement had taken concepts like liberty and human rights responsibility for those coming from for their own purposes. The churches Greece, had also taken part in the talks

14 Ibid. 222f. 15 Cf. Kommunique des bilateralen Theologischen Gesprächs zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der EKD vom 17.04. bis 22.04.2005 in Moskau / Sergiev Posad, in: Sechzig Jahre nach Kriegsende – Christliche Werte heute, Beiheft zur ÖR 80 (Frankfurt 2007) 13–23. 16 Cf. Kommunique des bilateralen Theologischen Dialoges zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der EKD vom 22. bis 28.Februar 2008 in Lutherstadt Wittenberg. Manuscript, here 4–6. 17 Cf. Eugen Hämmerle, Tübingen und Konstantinopel, in: Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte 1983/84, 201– 210.

156 and added issues of social responsibi- rably linked to the hermeneutical tra- lity. There have been fourteen meetings dition of the Fathers of the Church and, up to now. The 2001 joint report to the for the Evangelical Christians, also of church authorities evaluates twelve of the Reformers.’20 these.18 Word and Sacrament in Divine Service: There are, among others, the following ‘Lutheran understanding regards the summaries in the classical fields of Word event in the liturgy as more than theology. a form of linguistic mediation of opinions or information. Rather, God’s word is The Holy Scripture and Tradition: ‘The experienced as a power, even as the Scripture is bedded into the early tradi- presence of God Himself. As living tion of the Church and can therefore not voice of the Gospel awakening faith, been separated from Tradition. Scrip- Christ works in the word through his ture and Tradition have since the be- Spirit. Here can also be seen the bridge ginning of the Church been in close to an understanding of the sacrament as relationship. The function of Holy mysterion, i.e., a happening in the Spirit, Scripture consists in serving the authen- that has not been shaped by Western ticity of the living experience of the categories. Where the Holy Spirit is ex- Church by defending holy Tradition perienced as God’s presence that brings from all temptations of falsifying the forth life and faith, this can lead to a faith, not by undermining the authority new ecumenical understanding of Word of the Church, the Body of Christ.’19 and Sacrament.’21

Holy Scripture and Proclamation: ‘The Eucharist and Priesthood: ‘As far as liturgical use of Holy Scripture and its participation of the ordained ministry explication in preaching leads to the in the threefold ministry of Christ is issue of reading Holy Scripture in com- concerned, “opinions that approached mon. The Evangelical theology finds an each other” were held. The relationship essential approach to exegesis in the of the common priesthood of all be- historical critical method which gives lievers to the ordained ministry remained an expression to the text with its inher- open. The Orthodox position empha- ent intention as a partner in its own right. sises the permanent authorisation which The participants in the discussion agreed the minister receives through the ordina- that this exegetical method must not be tion during the eucharistic assembly. isolated from the spiritual reading. Even Epiclesis and laying-on of hands are for theology nowadays, the hermeneuti- constitutive for the “apostolic succes- cal exegesis of Holy Scripture is insepa- sion”. The Reformed position also em-

18 Cf. Ein Dialog der Liebe und der Einheit, in: Studienheft 27 (Hermannsburg 2003) 321– 333. 19 Ibid. 324. 20 Ibid. 325f. 21 Ibid. 326f.

157 phasises that the minister receives a life- the Father and of the Son and of the long vocation through prayer (epiclesis) Holy Spirit. Although there is as yet no and laying-on of hands at the ordination. communion between our churches, we But it is not the historic continuity since mutually regard the members of the the apostles that is decisive but the faith- local churches as baptised and oppose ful handing-on of the apostolic faith in a new baptism in the case of a change the community of the whole Church.’22 of denomination.’24

Theosis and Justification: The special Significance of the councils and confes- significance of pneumatology is em- sions: ‘Both the Creed of Nicea and phasised among the theological funda- Constantinople and the Reformed Con- mentals of the dialogue, and the doc- fessions and the Barmen Theological trine of salvation is referred to under Declaration have come about in histo- the aspect of justification and theosis rical situations in which there was need with its synergeia concept. The Re- to defend the apostolic truth against formed reception of the ancient dogma false doctrine and aberration. According stresses the view that, like in the coming to Evangelical understanding it is and of Jesus Christ, in the work of the Holy remains God’s word alone that is the Spirit, too, the Triune God reveals and sole guide and rule of all doctrine. The communicates Himself totally and in Orthodox Church emphasises the unity the innermost to Man; it is not the of the revelation and shapes the form powers of the mind and the abilities of of its doctrine in consensus and conti- human subjectivity that can save. Fol- nuity with the faith handed on from the lowing the Fathers of the Church, the beginning. There was agreement that Orthodox tradition emphasises on the conciliarity and synodality of the Church other side the changing and activating is fundamental for all levels of the life transfiguration and theosis.23 of the Church. This holds also true vis- à-vis the restoration of the unity of the The thirteenth meeting at the Phanar in Church.’25 2004 and the fourteenth meeting at Oppurg Castle, Thuringia, in 2004 The dialogue stresses in several docu- yielded the following points: ments the significance of the ecumenical Creed of Nicea and Constanti- Baptism and recognition: ‘Baptism is nople (381) in its original version and God’s own and lasting work in which demands that this confession receive a He grants the believer His grace. Holy fixed place in the liturgical services of Baptism is administered in the Name of the Evangelical Churches.

22 Ibid. 327f. 23 Ibid. 328–330. 24 Cf. Die Gnade Gottes und das Heil der Welt. Beiheft zur ÖR 79 (Frankfurt 2006) 14. 25 Cf. Kommunique der 14. Begegnung im Bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen dem Ökumenischen Patriarchat und der EKD, Schloss Oppurg/Thüringen 10.–15 Oktober 2007 Manuscript, 7.

158 The bilateral theological event”. In this sense the spirit of repent- dialogue between the Romanian ance was asked in the beginning, for it Orthodox Church and the EKD is in the sense of repentance that the sin of separation can be overcome. That is also the reason why it became normal The so-called Goslar Dialogue was in the course of the discussions to begun in 1979. Invitations were also commemorate and pray for the heads always issued to representatives of the of the other churches and also the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg present heads of their delegations at Confession and of the Reformed Church each eucharistic service.’29 in Romania. Since 1995 theologians of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis, Scripture and Tradition: ‘The fact founded in 1994 for Germany and became of great importance that in this Central Europe, have also taken part. dialogue, a distinction could be made Since that time the head of the Orthodox between normative Tradition with a delegation comes from them. It should capital-T (“Holy Tradition”) and church be noted that the commissions of both tradition. There was consensus that the sides include representatives who were hermeneutical discussion was not yet able to study the life and theology of sufficient. The real use of the Scripture the other church while they were stu- in both churches has never been an issue dents. That is why a great personal and of its own. Orthodox theology is inclined objective closeness of all those involved to interpret an individual Biblical text has grown. Some evaluations consider from the whole of Holy Scripture, this dialogue as the theologically ‘most whereas Protestant exegesis rather uses successful one’.26 It is also the dialogue the individual text as a starting point and that has been followed up by the most asks about the whole of Holy Scrip- studies and research work.27 ture.’30

Eleven meetings could be held until Sacraments in theology and practice: 2006. The 1998 provisional balance ‘We further agreed upon the interpreta- looked back to eight dialogue sessions.28 tion of the presence of Christ himself in the sacramental acts as well as his Spirituality of the dialogues: ‘The theo- real presence in the Eucharist and vis- logical dialogue itself could be under- à-vis the ecclesial character of the sacra- stood and experienced as a “spiritual ments. Accordingly, the sacraments are

26 Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness (Göttingen 1997) 154. 27 Cf. Constantin Patuleanu, Die Begegnung der rumänischen Orthodoxie mit dem Protestantismus (Hamburg 2000) and Nicolae Manole, Ekklesiologische Perspektiven im Dialog zwischen den orthodoxen und reformatorischen Kirchen (Münster 2005). 28 Cf. Dialog der Annäherung im Glauben, in : Studienheft 24 (Hermannsburg 1999) 137– 148. 29 Ibid. 139f. 30 Ibid. 141f.

159 gifts of God that render the existence Man in his totality including his rela- of the Church possible and can be tionship to the world. This is the founda- administered only within the Church, tion of the mission into the world as an which is why the Church has a sacra- essential mark of the Church to pro- mental character. “Ordinary minister of claim his Gospel, to hand on his for- this sacrament (i.e., confession) accord- giveness and reconciliation, being an ing to Orthodox doctrine and practice agent of His reign in the Holy Spirit. In is solely the bishop or ordained priest our two traditions the saints who have who needs an additional episcopal run their course before God are also charge (cheirothesia) for this. In the included in the prayer for the world and Evangelical Churches, too, the admin- for each other which are a spiritual istration of the ministry of the keys is dimension of the mission of the one of the fundamental duties of the Church.’33 ministry to which there is an ordination.” There are differences in our The following can be stated from the churches concerning the issue of the ninth meeting in Herrnhut in 2000, the number of the sacraments. There was tenth meeting in Cluj-Napoca in 2002 the shared opinion, however, that Jesus and the eleventh meeting in Eisenach Christ himself is the real sacrament.’31 in 2006: Salvation in Jesus Christ: ‘In a specific sense as final perfection of the commun- Social responsibility: ‘The reign of God ion of Man with God, “theosis” means is a future which meets us already as what in the Evangelical tradition is presence in the Church, but only as first described as sanctification of Man. The payment. The Church is at service to essential distinction between Creator this world and lives out its missionary and creation is not at all challenged here. duty in it. The mission of the Church is Concerning the problem of synergeia a constitutive part of its essence. The clarification was reached that in the love that has discovered its social and Orthodox tradition no independent solidary dimension is expressed in the human work for their own salvation is political commitment of the Church for meant but the work of love to which justice and reconciliation.’ 34 the Holy Spirit enables the baptised making them “co-workers of God” (1 Unity of the Church: ‘For the Orthodox Cor 3.9).’32 Church unity of the Church in the sense of recognising a historical church as Communion of the saints: ‘Both part- Church of Jesus Christ in the full sense ners in the dialogue agreed that the com- and simultaneously beginning a koino- munio sanctorum means a continuously nia with it which also includes eucha- renewed being in Christ, comprising ristic communion is linked to four con-

31 Ibid. 142–144. 32 Ibid. 145. 33 Ibid. 146. 34 Cf. Die Kirche, ihre Verantwortung und ihre Einheit, Beiheft ÖR 75 (Frankfurt 2005) 20.

160 ditions in particular: to the principal the doctrinal definitions of the seven agreement concerning the rule of faith, ecumenical councils are also recognised, the sacraments, the threefold ministry the first four holding a decisive weight and the authority of the Church. For the and the Creed of Nicea and Constan- Evangelical Churches it is sufficient for tinople have a fundamental signifi- the true unity of the churches to agree cance.’36 in the pure and unadulterated proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the salvation promised us by him as well The theological discussions with as in the right doctrine and practice the Bulgarian Orthodox Church concerning the sacraments. According and the BEK and the EKD to Evangelical understanding there is, next to the Biblical tradition, also a The Federation of Evangelical Churches tradition in the period after the New in the GDR (BEK) initiated talks of their Testament which is indispensable for own with the Bulgarian Orthodox the faith of the Church and agrees with Church in order to render the local the Biblical witness. Both in the Ortho- contacts in the parishes easier and also dox Church and in the Evangelical to give a sign of solidarity with the Bul- Churches decisions are alive which garian Church which faced a difficult have been taken in the early Church situation at home. Four meetings of concerning the issue as to what is to be these “Herrnhut Talks” took place, until regarded as binding.’35 in 1992 the discussions were continued by the united EKD in Reinhardsbrunn. Significance of the councils: ‘The As the situation in the Bulgarian Church ecumenical councils are a gift of God was marked by internal schisms for a to His Church. Holy Scripture had a longer period after the political turn, special authority in all seven ecumenical there has not yet been a continuation of councils. Because the ecumenical this dialogue. There has not been a joint councils have kept the apostolic Tradi- evaluation up to now. The following can tion and agree with it – this holds also be stated from the reports: true for the fifth, sixth and seventh ecumenical council – they are in force Proclamation in the liturgy and sacra- also in the Evangelical Church. The ments: ‘The discussion showed far- reception of the individual decisions, reaching agreement in this encompass- however, happened in different ways in ing understanding of liturgical procla- the East and the West. The ecumenical mation. In view of the sacraments the councils are together regarded as an following was in particular held for the expression of catholicity and therefore understanding of baptism. As to the as authoritative by our theological foundation of the baptism of infants it traditions. In the Evangelical Churches is agreed that the vicarious faith is

35 Cf. Ibid. 159. 36 Cf. Kommunique der 11. Begegnung im bilateralen Theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der EKD, 1.–7.4. 2006 in Eisenach, Manuscript, 6.

161 approved of as a precondition for the Evangelical Church wishes not to do efficacy of baptism.’37 without the ministry of women any longer. The Orthodox Church also ap- Sources of faith: ‘Both sides expressed preciates the service of women. Women the tradition of the Church has to be are active on all levels of church life, questioned anew each time as to whether up to the liturgy (e.g., also for preaching). it agrees with the apostolic tradition as The Orthodox Church regards itself founded in Holy Scripture. When the unable, based on Holy Scripture as well canon was established, the Church, led as Holy Tradition, to admit women to by the work of the Holy Spirit, separated the administration of sacraments (except authentic from inauthentic tradition. for emergency baptism). That is why The tradition from outside the Bible can women are not ordained to the minist- only exist insofar as it agrees with the ry.’39 internal and substantial witness of Holy Scripture, something however that is not the sole criterion for the Orthodox Observations side.’38 Uniformity of results One could as Ministry in the Church: ‘Both churches well do again a systematic review of the regard themselves as churches in the results of all four dialogues. We will apostolic succession. They understand refrain from it here, for such a result apostolic succession as keeping the shines already through the existing Gospel of Christ and the faith in Christ results. The four branches of the dia- as well as the right tradition (proclama- logue basically reach a uniformity in tion) unadulterated. For both churches their results, despite their different con- this necessitates a church order for texts, expressions and approaches. handing on the ministry. The ministry and the common priesthood are related Surprising theological closeness to each other, none is possible without Mulling through the distillation of the the other.’ results, one realises that the present ecumenical, but also controversial situa- Ordination of women: ‘After the Evan- tion of the churches is described in gelical Church has rediscovered the similar phrases. We need to realise first spiritual power of women in the life of that a surprising theological closeness the community this century, it has called can be detected in all areas which, based women to the ministry for some decades on the centuries-long controversial now. It also practices since that time the polemics and lack of communication full admission of women to all forms between the branches of the Church, of church and liturgical acts, including could not necessarily be expected. the administration of Holy Supper. The Members of the delegations often ex-

37 Cf. Herrnhut, Studienheft 26 (Hermannsburg 2002) 27. 38 Ibid. 91. 39 For both paragraphs, ibid. 235, 238.

162 pressed surprise and relief in the course theology and piety have up to now been of the talks as to the closeness of funda- dealt with only in a complementary mental theological contexts, once old way. They should be given special stereotypes and prejudices had been left consideration. behind. Orthodox and reformed theology share in finding deep agreement Ecclesiological expectations Not and similarities in the basic faith of the everything that has already jointly been Church, even if in the concrete shape stated can have immediate conse- of the faith they went on different roads. quences in church life and politics. Un- like in the dialogue of Western churches, Artoclasia communion A liturgical partial consensus does not lead to and therefore ecclesial communion has mutual partial recognition as churches. grown in the dialogues. A communion On the other side learning processes, in prayer and shared welcome in the deep encounters and fellowship may be liturgy is possible, without eucharistic a chance if and when ultimate defini- fellowship. The celebration of artoclasia tions could not be reached or existing according to eastern tradition was held canonical norms are secretly considered at some of the meetings. This celebrates to be superior to a theological dialogue. and describes the liturgical and ecclesial Different sensibilities require much communion fittingly as communion in mutual respect so that there are no un- faith and love on the road to eucharistic intended mutual misunderstandings and fellowship. injuries due to ignorance.40

Strangeness If there were at times Political expectations The dialogues controversial moods at the dialogues, are not held in a paradise cleared from however only occasionally, they may politics. Evangelical authorities love to from our observations be explained not expect quick theologically definable only by recent protocol or organisa- progress which is also regarded as re- tional weak points, but also from some cognition of Evangelical church life. insecurity in the background. This con- That is the reason why outsiders some- sists in the fact that, despite jointly times see the dialogue with unconcealed declared theological foundation and scepticism. Orthodox authorities must also some human closeness, no church not rarely take anti-ecumenical moods communion can be stated; that is why within their own ranks into conside- it may in the end be unclear whether, ration. They may ultimately expect less despite a basic consensus that is aimed from the dialogue but have more staying at, the ecclesiological basic dissent is power for it. However, the dialogues deeper than feared. This includes the have reached the best possible results question whether in the area of the in ecumenical discussions and in stra- practice of faith strangeness could suffi- tegic considerations. ciently be removed. Issues of liturgical

40 Cf. Reinhard Thöle, Die Beziehungen der EKD zu den orthodoxen Kirchen, in: EKD Ökumene und Auslandsarbeit (Breklum 2000) 75–81.

163 Reception The publication of the Outlook For the Churches of the dialogues which often needed to be Reformation as well as the Orthodox bilingual has not rarely limped behind Churches ecumenicity is not only a duty the meetings for a long time. It has not or function of the churches but also part yet found the due place in academic of the identity and essence of the church- theology. There has been too little rese- es. The dialogues are held according to arch work on the dialogues and Evan- the promise and prayer of Christ. When gelical-Orthodox issues, and secondary Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch visited literature is hardly available. The basi- Germany in the autumn of 1997, he said cally scholastic agenda of Western dia- to the EKD, ‘Your task in the dialogue logues and the dominance of the dia- is to wake up the pneumatological logues with the Roman Catholic Church dimension of the Orthodoxy. Our task have diminished the interest in the is to remind you that true prophetism is dialogues with Orthodoxy. sacramental.’41 Our dialogues have covered quite a bit on this road already. Compatibility It is only natural that the dialogues are about the search for a * * * common theological and spiritual language, and it is legitimate that the shared Reinhard Thöle D.D., is minister of the truths find a special expression. None- Lutheran Church, since 1991 at the theless it needs to be reviewed on the Institute of Ecumenical Study and Evangelical side whether the results of Research in Benheim/Germany holding the dialogues are compatible with the the Department of Theology of Eastern results of the dialogues which Evan- Churches, teaching at Heidelberg and gelical Churches have expressed vis-à- Bucharest Universities, counselor on vis other partners, and whether the the dialogues between EKD-Churches findings of the dialogues are compatible of Germany and the Orthodox churches. with the theological positions and liturgical formulas used within the EKD and its member churches.

41 Cf. Reinhard Thöle, Theologische Nähe zwischen orthodoxen und evangelischen Kirchen entdecken, in: Anastasios Kallis, Die orthodoxe Kirche (Frankfurt 1999) 499.

164 Assessment of the Dialogue between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany (1979–2006)1

Daniel Benga

From the beginning of the 20th century, were carried out in the following years, the dialogue between the Orthodox the most noteworthy of which are: 1967 Church and the Evangelical Church in – the Orthodox and the Lutherans in Germany has been carried out within America, 1969 – the Ecumenical Patri- several theological commissions and at archy and EKD, 1970 – the Russian different levels2 . The earliest theological Orthodox Church and the Lutherans in dialogue between an Orthodox Church Finland, 1979 – the Romanian Ortho- and EKD was initiated in 1959, between dox Church and EKD, 1981 – the dia- the Evangelical Church in Germany logue between the Orthodox Church (EKD) and the Russian Orthodox and the Lutheran World Federation, at Church3 . A series of other dialogues a world-wide level.4

1 I discussed this evaluation with my students in the university year 2007/2008. I want to thank especially Tamara Guzun, Mihai Dobre, Andone Cristinel and Alexandru Barna. 2 Orthodoxie im Dialog. Bilaterale Dialoge der orthodoxen und der orientalisch-orthodoxen Kirchen 1945–1997. Eine Dokumentensammlung, in Verbindung mit Miguel María Garijo Guembe (†), herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Thomas Bremer, Johannes Oeldemann und Dagmar Stoltmann, Paulinus Verlag, Trier, 1999. 3 This is true only if we choose to ignore the dialogue initiated in Romania in 1949 by the Orthodox Church and the Protestant Churches. 4 On all these dialogues, but also on other national or regional dialogues, see : Orthodoxie im Dialog, p. 225–296 and 312–474.

165 Within the theological dialogue between Pondering upon this assessment, after EKD and the Romanian Orthodox carefully perusing the texts, I have Church (ROC), initiated in 1979 by the noticed that anybody can infer whatever EKD, eleven sessions of discussion they want from the final statements of have been held so far. The first one took the bilateral theological dialogue place in Goslar, in 1979, and the last between ROC and EKD. One can easily one in Eisenach, in 2006. Precautions note the manifold differences between against the communist authorities in the two denominations, as well as the Romania led the participant theologians manifold similarities and agreements. to avoid tackling social and political Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut cri- issues until the early 1990s, and focus terion which can establish how far we mainly on theological issues, which can go in our consensus, in order to “eventually changed into a chance for reach the unity of faith. While it is easier this dialogue”5 . While the seventh for the evangelical theology to identify (1995) and the eighth (1998) meetings the criterion and the ultimate limits of tackled issues concerning the ministry the unity of faith, the Orthodox theology of the churches in a secular society, and finds this difficult, if not impossible. their responsibility in the process of The unity among the Orthodox Churches European integration, the ninth meeting is expressed in the unity of the confes- (2000) focused on the fundamental sion of faith, of the worship, and in the issue of ecclesiology, which is currently unity of canons. If approaching these still under debate. In 1998, a first assess- three aspects in the dialogue with any ment of the dialogue was carried out and Christian faith is the sole aim and mea- passed on for analysis to the two church- sure of unity, then all the agreements es; the assessment synthesized the main reached so far meet this prerequisite theological agreements reached in the only partially. course of the dialogue. In the present assessment I have analyzed Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniþã and Prof. Dr. the final reports of each round of dis- Constantin Pãtuleanu have already cussions6 , considering them to be the made substantial assessments of the synthesis of the issues approached, dialogue between ROC and EKD, and accepted by the two churches at the identified four categories of theological highest level. Starting from their state- issues approached in the discussions: ments, I have pondered on the major the relation between Scripture and Tra- issues submitted to assessment, as for- dition, the Holy Sacraments, Christo- mulated in the reports, and I have synt- logy and Ecclesiology. hesized them into the three large cate-

5 Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniþã, „Dialogul teologic bilateral dintre Biserica Evanghelicã din Germania ºi Biserica Ortodoxã Românã“, in: Dr. Constantin Pãtuleanu, Teologia Ecumenica. Istoria ºi evaluarea dialogului teologic bilateral dintre EDK ºi BOR, cu publicarea comunicatelor finale, Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei, Craiova, 2003, p. 9. 6 I have used the Romanian translation done by Dr. Constantin Pãtuleanu, Teologia Ecumenicã, Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei, Craiova, 2003, p. 134–245.

166 gories promoted during the dialogue: 1. Assessment of the dialogue agreements, divergent points, and open between Jeremiah II, issues. Apart from this, I have also laid Patriarch of Constantinople, down personal points of view on the results achieved. I have not dedicated a and the Lutheran theologians separate analysis to the theological in Tübingen (1573–1581) dialogue between Federation of the Evangelical Churches in the GDR, and It has been justly argued that the ecu- then EKD, and the Bulgarian Orthodox menical dialogue between the Ortho- Church,7 because the five rounds of doxy and Lutheranism of the 20th discussions focused only on issues century is nothing but the continuation debated with the Romanian Orthodox of the one initiated in the 16th century.9 theologians8 . However, I have paid The theological dialogue carried out at close attention to and emphasized those a very high level between the Evange- major points of consensus or disagree- lical Church and the Orthodox Church ment which were not marked out in the started as early as the second half of the dialogue with ROC. 16th century, when the Lutheran theologians in Tübingen debated on the Before assessing the dialogue between major issues of the Christian theology ROC and EKD, I took a glance at the together with Jeremiah II, Patriarch of theological correspondence carried out Constantinople, and with other Ortho- by Constantinople and Tübingen be- dox theologians present at the Ecume- tween 1573–1581, in order to be able nical Patriarchy at that time. The dia- to assess the contemporary dialogues, logue was carried out between 1573- as compared to the theological discus- 158110 , and represents the most pro- sions between the Orthodox and the found meeting between Orthodoxy and Lutherans in the age of Reformation.

7 The dialogue between The Federation of Evangelical Churches in the GDR (BEK) and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, initiated in 1978, knew four meetings by 1986, the fifth and last one taking place in 1992, between the united EKD and BOC. Due to internal problems of BOC, the theological dialogue was brought to an end, and the BOC withdrew from the ecumenical forums at the end of the last century. 8 The five topics of discussion in the dialogue between EKD and ROC were: Preaching today (1978); The source of Faith (1981); Baptism and Eucharist (1984); Ministry in the Church (1986); The dogmatic and social aspects of Confession and Repentance (1992). 9 This was the belief of the interorthodox commission which prepared the dialogue with the Lutherans in 1979. See: Theodor Nikolau, Zur Disskussion über die Confessio Augustana aus orthodoxer Sicht, in: „Una Sancta“ (Zeitschrift für ökumenische Bewe- gung), Band 35 (1980), p. 154. 10 Although it was officially over in 1581, the personal relationships between some of the participants in the official dialogue continued after 1600, too. The number of letters exchanged between Tübingen and Constantinople was remarkably high. Apart from these three answers of each party, tens of other private letters were exchanged between the participants in the dialogue. The theological answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II and of those

167 Lutheranism in the 16th century 11 , as 4. Man is the source of evil, not God; 5. well as the most important episode of The two natures of Christ; 6. Only Jesus the Orthodox-Lutheran theological Christ is Head of the Church; 7. The dialogue which preceded the ecume- second coming, the final judgement, the nical dialogues of the 20th century.12 afterlife, the eternal rewards and punish- ments; 8. Reception of Communion The Lutheran theologians in Tübingen under both forms; 9. Rejection of papal dispatched the Confessio Augustana to indulgences, of the thesaurus of Saints, Constantinople, asking for an answer of the purgatory fire and of the clerical concerning the statements of faith celibacy. which it contained. Each party issued three official answers, covering hund- Points of disagreement: 1. The Holy reds of pages. Tradition; 2. Filioque; 3. Free will; 4. God’s eternal predestination; 5. Right- The Greek theologian Ioan Karmiris was eousness; 6. The number of Sacraments; the first to systematize the points of 7. Baptism by sprinkling or immersion; agreement or disagreement between the when to administer the Confirmation Lutherans and the Orthodox in that time: and the Holy Communion to the baptized; 8. The meaning of the trans- Points of agreement between Lu- formation of the Holy Eucharist and the theranism and Orthodoxy: 1. The use of azyme bread; 9. The infallibility authority and inspiration of the Holy of the Church and of the Ecumenical Scripture, its translation in the language Councils; 10. The cult, the holidays, the of every nation; 2. God and the Holy invocation of Saints, the worship of icons Trinity, in general; 3. The original sin and relics, fast, as well as different church and its transmission to all human beings; traditions and practices.13

in Tübingen, as well as some other private letters were included in: Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergensium, et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae: quae utriq; ab Anno M.D.LXXVI. usque ad Annum M.D.LXXXI., de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt: Graecè & Latinè ab ijsdem Theologis edita, Witebergae, M.D.LXXXIIII. An Orthodox assessment of the dogmatic importance of the answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II and of the importance of this dialogue for the relations between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy was made by Magistrand Icã I. Ioan, Importanþa dogmaticã a Rãspunsurilor Patriarhului Ieremia al II-lea, in: „Ortodoxia“, XIII (1961), Nr. 3, p. 368–392. 11 This is what the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky remarked: „It was the first systematical exchange of theological views between the Orthodox East and the new Protestant West.“ Georges Florovsky, Patriarch Jeremiah II and the Lutheran Divines, in: Christianity and Culture, Volume two in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Belmont, Massachusetts, 1974, p. 143. 12 See: Gerhard Podskalsky, Die Kritik der lutherischen Theologie in der griechischen Orthodoxie vom 16. Jahrhundert bis in unsere Zeit – ein geschichtlicher Überblick, in: „Catholica“, Band 22 (1968), Nr. 3, p. 201. 13 The points were taken from Fr. Conf. Dr. ªtefan Sandu, Primele contacte ecumenice dintre ortodocºi ºi luterani. Rãspunsurile Patriarhului Ieremia al II-lea cãtre teologii luterani din Tübingen (1573–1581), Editura IBMBOR, Bucureºti, 2001, p. 117–118. 168 Most of these agreements and disagree- (Orthodox – a.n.) doctrine for non- ments are still valid today, with other Orthodox Christians”18 . new ones joining them. Prof. Dorothea Wendebourg bemoaned the lack of The assessment of the Answers of Patri- consequences related to the consensus arch Jeremiah II also bears conse- about the Holy Trinity and Christo- quences on the ecumenical dialogue of logy14 , within the dialogue mentioned the 20th century. The more normative above. their statements are for the entire Church, the more we have to take into The theological assessment of the consideration in our contemporary dia- answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II led logues the position towards Lutheran- some theologians to list them among the ism adopted in these “Answers”. How- symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, ever, the Orthodox Church has taken no among the “Statements of Faith” of the official position towards “The Answers Orthodox theology15 . Even if they were of Jeremiah II” so far, rather, only accepted among the “Symbolic Books” individual theologians have attempted or “Statements of Faith” of the Ortho- to assess them. dox Church, these answers do not have the same importance as the resolutions From what has been said so far, we can of the seven Ecumenical Councils, but conclude that at the end of the 16th only a smaller one16 and are not the century, the ecclesiological differences expression of the faith of the united between Orthodoxy and Protestantism Church of the first millennium17 . Their were mostly identified; however, they value lies in the fact that they are “the have remained unsolved ever since. first post-patristic ‘Summa’ of the

14 Dorothea Wendebourg, Reformation und Orthodoxie. Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573–1581, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1986, p. 208. 15 Among the theologians who listed the answers of patriarch Jeremiah II among the Statements of Faith, are I. Karmiris, I. Mesoloras, Ioan I. Icã and Nicolae Chiþescu. Cf. Ioan Icã, „Die heiligen Sakramente im Leben der Kirche in den orthodoxen Glaubens- bekenntnisen des 16./17. Jahrhunderts“, in: Die Sakramente der Kirche in der Confessio Augustana und in den orthodoxen Lehrbekenntnissen des 16./17. Jahrhunderts. Zweiter Bilateraler Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland vom 24. bis 26. Oktober in Jassy, Heraus- gegeben vom Kirchlichen Außenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Verlag Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt am Main, 1982, p. 70. 16 See: Dorothea Wendebourg, ebd., p. 399–400. 17 Theodor Nikolau, „Zur Disskussion über die Confessio Augustana aus orthodoxer Sicht“, in: Una Sancta (Zeitschrift für ökumenische Bewegung), Vol. 35 (1980), p. 156. 18 Gunnar Hering, „Orthodoxie und Protestantismus“, in: Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, Akten I/2, 31/2 (1981), p. 839.

169 2. Assessment of the ROC – from the Holy Scripture, there are many EKD dialogue other truths of faith, which are not found in it, but have been preserved as part of 2.1 The relation between the Holy the Apostolic Tradition, completing the Scripture and the Holy Holy Scripture (e.g. the perpetual virgi- Tradition/traditions nity of Mary, the Assumption).

Both churches confess the normativity Consider, for example, the resolution of of the Apostolic Tradition, expressed in the Seventh Ecumenical Council in written form in the Holy Scripture, and Nicea (787) to give worship to the acknowledge a compulsory explanatory Saints, to the Holy Relics and to the church tradition or a prolonged living Holy Icons. For the Orthodox Church, tradition (C, I, I). One such example is it is a part of the Holy Tradition of the the Niceo-Constantinople Creed. The Church. The Evangelical Churches do difference between the two churches not acknowledge this resolution as part lies in the fact that „for the Orthodox of the Holy Tradition, but only as a Church, the compulsory tradition of the simple church tradition. The same is first eight centuries is deemed part and valid for other resolutions of the Ecume- parcel of the „Apostolic Tradition”, to- nical Councils, as well. Some are ac- gether with the Holy Scripture, whereas knowledged, some are not. The criterion for the Evangelical Church, the Tradi- underlying this choice is not very clear. tion of the old church is considered a Also, neither of the two parties provides church Tradition”19 . a definition of the living tradition, of the church tradition and of the Holy Although the Lutherans have under- Tradition. There are no clear cut criteria stood the principle sola scriptura to to distinguish one from the other. have a very open meaning20 , a thorough assessment of all the statements related The dialogue with the Bulgarian Ortho- to the Holy Scripture leads to the same dox Church distinguished several terms sola scriptura. They acknowledge “a which had to be considered: the Apos- prolonged, living Tradition”,21 apart tolic Tradition, the compulsory Church from the Apostolic Tradition, but the Tradition, closely connected with the criterion underlying such an acknowl- former, but whithin which we have to edgement is the conformity with the set apart different oral traditions, hagio- Holy Scripture. The Orthodox meaning graphical reports, as well as local church of this living Tradition is that, apart practices22 .

19 Dr. Constantin Pãtuleanu, Teologia Ecumenica. Istoria ºi evaluarea dialogului teologic bilateral dintre EDK ºi BOR, cu publicarea comunicatelor finale, Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei, Craiova, 2003. (C I, I). 20 Cf. Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959–1994, Göttingen, 1997, p. 142. 21 Dialogul apropierii în credinþã III, 1. 22 Bericht – Herrnhut II – V, 7 in: Herrnhut. Theologische Gespräche mit der Bulgarischen Orthodoxen Kirche, hrsg. von Rolf Koppe, Hermannsburg, 2001.

170 On the other hand, the Orthodox Church proved to be a stumbling stone ever itself has to delimit the Holy Tradition since Patriarch Jeremiah II. from all the other church traditions, ridding itself of such general statements as “that which has been believed by 2.2 Salvation in Christ – Soteriology everyone, always, and everywhere” (St. Vincent of Lerin) or “the Holy Tradition The issue of salvation was discussed comprises all the resolutions of the within three meetings between ROC and Ecumenical Councils, as well as all the EKD, which took place between 1985 teachings of the Holy Fathers”, without and 1991. The greatest accomplishment defining and presenting them clearly. of these meetings was that of finding “a Leaving these things unclear will major compatibility between the two burden the theological dialogue. visions on man’s salvation in Christ”, as well as of clarifying certain terms and These facts make it obvious that the concepts (theosis, righteousness, debate on the Holy Scripture – Holy sanctification, synergy), specific for one Tradition has only begun, with just a or the other of the two traditions, which few important aspects being emphasi- the other party looked at either in a biased zed. A much clearer consensus on this or a negative way. The compatibility issue would be very beneficial for the between the two theological traditions other theological issues, because they also lies in the way they both assume are all founded on the Holy Scripture Christ’s role as Saviour in the Church, and the Holy Tradition. The deficiencies through the work of the Holy Spirit. are not related only to the above mentioned aspects, but also to the lack of In table 1 I have described some of the reflection upon certain principles of agreements and different emphases in scriptural hermeneutics, which have the field of soteriology:

Table 1

AGREEMENTS DIFFERENT EMPHASES

1. Having the Holy Scripture and 1. The concept of theosis, so the Holy Fathers as solid important for the Orthodox grounds, our theological and Church, is not used in the liturgical traditions can describe Evangelical theology, although it this mystery of salvation in is firmly supported by the Christ using different Christmas songs of the Evan- expressions and images. We all gelical Church. On the other speak about reconciliation with hand, the term justification, so God (C IV, II, 2). important for the reformatory 2. Both churches speak about theology, is less anchored in the man’s sanctification, meaning Orthodox worship, although the the renewal of the human nature entire worship is marked by the assumed by Christ (C IV, II, 3). prayer for the forgiveness of sins

171 3. Through righteousness, the and for the help of God’s grace believer assumes the gift of (C IV, II, 2). reconciliation with God and 2. The Orthodox theology uses the renewal in (subjective) Christ, as concept of theosis for man, a new life. Through faith, which whereas the evangelical theology is shown by good deeds, man is uses the concept of justification included in this reconciliation or sanctification (C IV, II, 3; C and becomes a new creature (C V, II, 1). IV, II, 3). 3. The theology of righteousness 4. The two concepts – resorts mainly to St. Peter and righteousness and theosis – are the Apostle’s language, whereas based on the Holy Scripture (C the theology of theosis is based V, II, 2). on johannine expressions (C V, 5. Man’s righteousness and II, 2). sanctification, that is assuming 4. The Orthodox theology makes a the fruit of Christ’s work of clear distinction between theosis, salvation, are accomplished in a restricted sense, in which through the work of the Holy God only leads the Christian, Spirit in Church (C V, II, 3). after death, to perfection through 6. Righteousness and the new life communion with Christ, and are closely connected. theosis in a larger sense, which Sanctification (theosis) has its is the way to man’s sanctification origin in the Holy Spirit, through here on Earth, in his struggle whom the Triune God Himself is against sin. In the Evangelical present and active in each theology, the term righteousness believer (C V, II, 4). usually refers to God’s entire 7. The life of the believer is marked saving work in the baptized and by a permanent struggle against righteous man (C V, II, 2). sin, and a sustained effort for 5. The Orthodox theology sees the sanctification (C V, II, 4). work of the Christian on the way to his sanctification as a “synergy” of the believer with Christ, through grace. In the evangelical theology, this term is not usual, as the word “synergism” bears a negative connotation (C V, II, 5). 6. The evangelical theology emphasizes the forensic nature of righteousness, whereas the Orthodox Church lays accent on the ontological nature of righteousness, manifest in renewal, without excluding its forensic dimension (C V, II, 6).

172 The assessment made in 1998 em- ments and their administration belong phasized the fact that the two partners together, that is, we cannot approach the “have gone the furthest in soteriology. theology of the Holy Sacraments The two theological traditions have without referring to their ritual and come to ascertain that, despite differing theological significance. Thus, one of terminology and emphases, they confess the fundamental aspects of the dialogue a common faith, in the person and between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism saving work of Jesus Christ”23 . has been reached, because it has been noticed that a theoretical clarification We need to further improve this issue of the issues is not sufficient, and in our dialogues with other partners, in because, for the Orthodox Church, the order to reveal other new clarifications, ritual of administration is not a part of to discuss the different methods of adiaphora, of secondary issues to interpreting the Holy Scripture, with salvation. In other words, it is all about regard to soteriology, as well as to pay the relation between lex credendi and specific attention to the context in which lex orandi, which are inseparable in our theological and spiritual traditions Orthodoxy. were shaped, with our minds always set on the exemplary images of the Saints In order to be able to assess the agree- worshipped in the two spiritualities24 . ment on the Holy Sacraments of Bap- tism, Confession, Eucharist and Holy Orders, based on the final Communiqués 2.3 The Holy Sacraments in the between 1979–2002, I have attempted theology and practice of our to systematize the consensus, divergent Churches points and open issues reached within the dialogue, as presented in table 2. One major aspect we have to bear in mind is that the doctrine of the Sacra-

23 Dialogul apropierii... 24 Cf. C V, IIIc.

173 Table 2

BAPTISM

Theological consensus Divergent Points Open Issues • Baptism brings the remission of sins • The need to • The phrase (C III, II, 2; C V, II, 4); even Adam’s sin administer “life depends (C VI, II, 2). Confirmation on Baptism” • Baptism is considered a Holy Sacrament and Eucharist (C V, II, 4). (C III, III, 7; C VI, II,2; C VI, II, 5). immediately • The meaning • Baptism brings the renewal of the baptized after Baptism and (C III, III, 8; C VI, II, 7). (C VI, II, 7). significance of • Baptism initiates man’s sanctification on Confirmation Earth (C V, II, 2; C VII, I, 5). (C VI, II, 7). • Baptism confers the gift of the Holy Spirit • The different (C V, II, 4; C VI, II, 3). ways of • Baptism initiates salvation; man becomes a performing follower of Christ (C VI, II, 1; C VI, II, 3, Baptism in the 4). Orthodox • Baptism pours forth „life in Christ“ Church and (C VI, II, 2). the • Baptism is performed in the name of the Evangelical Holy Trinity (C VI, II, 2). Church remain • Baptism is a new creation; it is an open issue participation in the death and resurrection (C VI). of Christ; it is birth by water and Spirit (C VI, II, 2). • By Baptism, man becomes Saint, in the larger sense of the word (C VII, I, 5).

174 CONFESSION

Theological consensus Divergent Points Open Issues

• Confession brings • Although during the • Confession as a forgiveness of sins (C III, Reformation, Confession Sacrament (C II, 2). was generally considered a III, III, 7). • The ecclesial nature of Sacrament, the Evangelical • Receiving the Confession (C III, II, 2). Churches do not consider it a power to bind • Forgiveness is given by Sacrament (C III, III, 7). and to loose (C Christ, not by the church • In special situations, III, IV, 13). minister. Confession is confession can be made in • The forms of made to Christ (C III, II, 5; front of another person, confession: III, 8). rather than the church private and • Confession has a therapeutic minister (C III, III, 9). common (C III, nature, too (C III, II, 6). • In the Lutheran Church, IV, 13). • Confession is instituted by there predominates the Christ (C III, II, 2; III, 8). common Confession, with a • Forgiveness is conferred in common absolution given by faith, through the word and the church minister (C III, prayer of the church minister IV, 10; IV, 13). (C III, III, 8). • The Lutheran Church • Confession is usually made emphasizes the redemptive in front of the ordained nature of absolution, while minister (C III, III, 9). the Orthodox Church • Confession renews the new emphasizes the therapeutic life conferred through one (C III, IV, 11). Baptism (C V, II, 6; C VI, II, 6).

175 EUCHARIST

Theological consensus Divergent Points Open Issues

• The real presence of Christ in the Holy • The Epiclesis • Interpreting Eucharist (C II, II, 2). occupies a different the Holy • The existence of the Epiclesis (C I, II, place and has a Eucharist as a 7; C II, II, 2). different meaning sacrifice (C II, • The Eucharist is considered a in the liturgical II, 2.2). Sacrament (C III, III, 7). service (C II, II, 2). • The Eucharist is preceded by Baptism • The need for and Confession (C III, III, 8). The private confession Eucharist is “the meal of the baptized” prior to receiving (C VI, II, 6). the Eucharist (C • The fundamental importance of the III, IV, 13). Eucharistic liturgical assembly which constitutes the Church (C VII, I, 4; C X, II). • Christ offers Himself Eucharistically through bread and wine (C VII, I, 4). • The relational nature of the Church lies especially in the Eucharistic communion (C IX, I).

MINISTRY

Theological consensus Divergent Points Open Issues

• The need for Holy Order • For the Orthodox • Holy Order, in general to administer the Church, the sacramental (C I, III, 5; C X, VI). Sacraments (C II, II, 4.2; priesthood has a greater • The importance of C III, III, 9). importance for the unity priesthood, of the • Christ Himself and His of the Church (C X, canonical church Church work in the Holy III). service, concerning the Order C II, II, 4.2). • The Apostolic correct administration • Only the baptized can succession – basic of the Holy Sacraments receive the Holy Order (C element of the life of VI, II, 6). the Orthodox Church • All the members of the and its absence in the community are, like Evangelical Church (C priests, in a direct X, III). relationship with God (C X, II).

176 As far as the Sacrament of Baptism is four theological directions which need concerned, one can easily notice the further study and clarification: the similarities between the two doctrines, sacramental nature of ordination, the except for the necessity to receive three ranks of church hierarchy (die Confirmation immediately after Bap- hierarchische Stufung des Amtes), clari- tism. Within the dialogue with the Bul- fication of the content of the Apostolic garian Orthodox Church, the two dele- succession, and the issue of women’s gations stated that, despite the differ- ordination26. ences of ritual, “both Churches mutually acknowledge each other’s Bap- tism.”25 This was the first time the two 2.4. Ecclesiology Churches had ever mutually acknowledged a Holy Sacrament, but we have The issue of ecclesiology has been more to identify the theological reflections thoroughly discussed beginning with which led to such acknowledgement. the seventh dialogue on the “Commun- ion of Saints” (Selbiz, 1995). A consen- The issues concerning the number of the sus was reached regarding the different Holy Sacraments, their ritual of admin- definitions of the Church, thus, the istration, as well as the need for sacra- Church is not the work of man, but the mental priesthood for their adminis- work of God exclusively, constituted tration remain open. One can easily through the descent of the Holy Spirit, notice that the number of divergent and Jesus Christ is the stone on which points and that of open issues related to communio sanctorum, which includes the number of consensuses is far smaller both the living and the dead, is built in the case of Baptism and Eucharist, through the Holy Spirit (C VII, I, 4; C which EKD, too, deems among the X, III). The Church is the communion Sacraments. The most problematic of of life and love between the Triune God all the Holy Sacraments remains that of and man, through Jesus Christ, in the the Holy Order, where the divergences Holy Spirit; it is a recent divine-human are major, and refer to the Episcopal reality of history; the founding of the Apostolic succession, as well as to the Church is closely connected with the sacramental priesthood, as fundamental Kingdom of God, that we already elements of the Church. Given the experience in the Church, but only as a essential role of the Sacrament of Holy promise of the things to come (C IX, Order, on which all the other Sacra- III). We also agree on the social and ments depend in the Orthodox view, we political role which every church has can conclude that the dialogue in this to assume (C IX, I). direction closely connected to ecclesiology has to continue. The major difference in ecclesiology lies in the fact that the Orthodox Church The dialogue between BEK and the identifies itself with the One Holy, Cat- Bulgarian Orthodox Church identified holic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus

25 Bericht – Herrnhut III in . 26 Bericht – Herrnhut IV.

177 Christ, while EKD sees itself as part of Tradition, having validity in the Evan- the One Church. From an Orthodox gelical Churches, too, it was noticed that point of view, there cannot be koinonia their resolutions were differently re- between our Churches, because this ceived in the East and West. After the would also imply the Eucharistic com- meeting, at the end of which most of munion. the conclusions were formulated separately for the Orthodox and the Evan- The tenth dialogue (Cluj-Napoca, 2002) gelical Christians, the two Churches laid down the principles which can lead cannot be said to have reached a theo- to church unity in ecclesiology. The logical consensus regarding this issue, Orthodox Church imposed four condi- as the reception of the theology of icons tions: the fundamental consensus con- and aspects related to canons remained cerning the rule of faith (regula fidei), outside discussions. including the ackowledgement of all seven Ecumenical Councils; the ac- It was suggested that the next meeting knowledgement of the Seven Sacra- should consider the outcome of other ments; the sacramental priesthood (the dialogues, too, as well as tackle the issue Apostolic succession) and the Episcopal of the Apostolicity of the Church or the authority in the Church. EKD imposed ministry. only two conditions: the unaltered preaching of the Word of God and the correct administration of the two Sacra- 2.5 Eschatology ments. However, these conditions require further specifications and deli- As far as Eschatology is concerned, the mitations, as well as criteria to acknowl- consensus between Orthodoxy and edge them as fulfilled. Lutheranism was already reached in the 16th century, with the rejection of the Another major conclusion concerned doctrine of Purgatory. Although the the fact that the Orthodox Church ac- issues of eschatology, of the Last Judge- knowledges some form of ecclesiology ment, of the state of souls in the afterlife in the Evangelical Churches, while the and the resurrection of the bodies re- latter see the essential elements of ec- mained undiscussed, statements of full clesiology incarnate in the Orthodox consensus about Eschatology were Churches, according to the Gospel. made throughout the dialogue. Thus, within two of the meetings, it was stated The eleventh meeting (Eisenach, 2006) that together we are waiting for Christ’s focused on one of the four conditions coming in glory, as well as for the King- imposed by the Orthodox Church, dom of God, in which He will fulfil and necessary for the fulfilment of church perfect everything He has begun within unity, and had as topic of discussion The and with us here on Earth (C IV, II, 3, Ecumenical Councils and the Catho- 10). Moreover, we all acknowledge the licity of the Church. Although many transitory nature of the earthly form of fundamental agreements were reached, the one Church of Christ, as well as its and it was stated that the Ecumenical fundamental orientation towards per- Councils are founded on the Apostolic fection in the Kingdom of God (C X,

178 III). Nevertheless, the dialogue has to unanimous agreement, so that the dia- be focused particularly on Eschatology. logue has to be focused on purely theological issues.

Conclusions The reception of the dialogue has not been assessed yet, at least within ROC. As far as the major theological issues However, it is certain that until several are concerned, we have to point out that, years ago, not even the final communi- apart from the consensuses already qués of the discussions were translated ascertained in the 16th century, within into Romanian. Due to the outstanding the dialogue carried out between Jere- contribution of Prof. Dr Viorel Ioniþã miah II, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Prof. Dr Constantin Pãtuleanu, this and the Lutheran theologians in Tü- was done five years ago, together with bingen, namely the almost full agree- a detailed presentation of the dialogue. ment related to the Holy Trinity (al- At present, all the volumes edited by though Filioque has not been discussed EKD, which contain the reports, discus- yet) and to Christology, several new sions and final communiqués of the issues have been added, such as So- dialogue between ROC and EKD have teriology and other aspects concerning been published. The reception of this the Holy Sacraments and ecclesiology. dialogue within the church is extremely The other topics of discussion led mainly limited, because most of the priests and to the dismantling of certain prejudices, students of theology in Romania have as well as to an exact knowledge of each not even heard of it. The only means of other’s teaching; several aspects need disseminating the information are the further thorough debate, as they were courses of ecumenic taught by Fr Prof. merely stated. Although it appears that Dr Viorel Ioniþã and myself at the Fa- the issues related to the relation between culty of Orthodox Theology in Bucha- the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tra- rest. The same thing is valid for other dition led to a substantial agreement, the faculties throughout the country, where concept and terms were not cleary professors who take part in these dia- defined, and this remains a major re- logues teach similar courses. Given that quirement of the future, because the ecumenism has often been defined as a agreement on this aspect can lead to dream and an adventure of the Christians further essential theological agreements all over the world, I conclude with a line between our churches. Another key of the Romanian Christian poet Radu issue of the dialogue is ecclesiology, Gyr, who said that “the real defeats occur within which the debate on the Sacra- only when dreams are abandoned”. ment of Holy Order will play a central role for the future theological agree- * * * ments between our churches. Daniel Benga is priest of the Romanian Orthodox Church and professor at the Topics such as secularization, the re- Orthodox Theological Faculty of the lation between church and state, invol- University Bucharest, Romania. He is vement in the social issues, and other a member of the Romanian Orthodox topics related to the relation between the delegation for the dialogue with the church and the world, enjoyed an almost Evangelical Church in Germany. 179 The Theological Dialogues between the German Evangelical Churches and the Russian Orthodox Church A General Assessment (1959–2008)

Andrei Eliseev

The history of the dialogue between the apostolic writers of the New Testament. Russian Orthodox Church and the Both churches recognize that life and Evangelical Church in Germany begins actions of the Church should conform in 1959 at Arnoldshain, in West to those of the apostolic age (Arnolds- Germany. In 1974 it continues with the hain-I). The apostolicity of the Church Federation of Evangelical Churches in is discerned by its following the unique East Germany in Zagorsk, Russia. norm of the apostolic tradition (Za- Finally, both branches of these dia- gorsk-I). logues are joined together in 1992 in the so-called Bad Urach Dialogue, A question remains: what does Tra- which counts five meetings so far. All dition sine qua non mean, and what is together there were 24 meetings. the meaning of that criterion of conformity to the Scriptures?

Scripture and Tradition Baptism and a new life In both churches the Holy Scripture is recognized as basic witness of the Both churches state that baptism, as it Revelation. It is unanimously accepted is performed in both traditions, is a God- that the Tradition cannot contradict the given sacrament, which makes the biblical witness to the salvation deed, persons baptized true members of accomplished by Jesus Christ, according Christ’s Body (Arn. III & Zag. VI). to the prophets and described by the However, for the recognition of this

180 sacrament in both churches, a recogni- ments. A clarification is required for the tion of the apostolic succession is question about the concrete content of required. That is why the question of that faith which leads to a salvation, as the boundaries of the Church needs to well as the question about the last be furtherly discussed. judgment according to deeds (Jn.5,24).

Eucharist and Sacrifice General assessment

Both churches recognize that the Holy The dialogue lacks reception in the Eucharist was established by Christ for respective churches. It is necessary that us, so that we are sure, by receiving the the topics are discussed within the Holy Gifts, in the koinonia, participa- churches themselves, not only among tion and reconciliation with God. They the direct participants but theologians confess that they receive not just bread of a wider range. and wine, but Jesus Christ Himself together with His blood and body, as There are little references to other He has promised in a prayer. There is Orthodox-Evangelical meetings. It is also a common confession of the uni- probably an Orthodox problem, but we queness of the sacrifice done by Christ have to see whether there are the on Golgotha as a sign of His obedience persons who assure the coherence of to the Father. There is, however, no ag- multilateral conversations. reement for both sides, to which extent the Eucharist is a sacrifice given by the Many important topics are discussed Church on to Christ and to which extent without a systematic approach, so that it brings its propitiate force to the per- they need to be reviewed again and in a sons departed. new context of developing EKD tradition and church practices.

Justification by faith A clear predominance of socio-political matters was evident in the past. The The churches state that the salvation or subjects need to be discussed in a way justification is received by the grace of that could be understandable and rele- believing in redemption, accomplished vant for a larger church audience. A by Lord Jesus Christ. It is not done by practice of common interpreting of the means of good deeds. It has become Holy Scripture proved to be very suc- clear throughout the dialogues that the cessful. salvation or a justification has its place in the Church as community of the * * * faithful. It means that it cannot be separated theologically or in charity Andrei Eliseev is priest of the Russian practice from a salvific action of God Orthodox Church in Antwerpen, and upon humankind in word of God or the member of the Churches in Dialogue sacraments, to which people respond by Commission of the Conference of faith and observance of the command- European Churches.

181 Evaluation and Reception of the Dialogues between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church

Juhani Forsberg

Introduction ment resulted in a situation, where the Roman Catholic Church and, since the Finland has traditionally been a very 16th century, the Evangelical Lutheran monolithic Lutheran country. After the Church became predominant, and the Reformation the Church of Sweden also Orthodox Christians remained as an covered Finland, the eastern part of the object of proselytism or were compelled Kingdom, and was an Evangelical Lu- to go to exile. When Finland became theran State Church for centuries. Later part of Russia in 1809, the Orthodox it became more of a “Folk” Church, even Church became an official factor in the today having 82% of its population in religious life of Finland, but the Lutheran its membership. Church could keep its confessional status. After Finland became independ- Already at the time when Finland came ent in 1917, the Law of Religious Free- under Christian influence, it was a re- dom was passed in 1923, and since then gion where the Roman Catholic West the two “Folk” Churches, the Lutheran and the Orthodox East were competing and the Orthodox, have been living side in this northern European wilderness. by side. Due to the same Law, other reli- The Western form of Christianity be- gious communities were permitted to came dominant, but traces of Eastern exist and gather, or the people could Christianity in the Medieval Era have choose to remain outside of any reli- also been found in the western part of gious community. the country. Later historical develop-

182 During the years 1917–1939 the Ortho- The Dialogue between ELCF dox parishes were mainly found in the and OCR Eastern part (Carelia) of Finland, but when Finland lost these territories to the The background and beginning Soviet Union after World War II, the of dialogues Orthodox Christians were scattered throughout the country. Since then, In the 1960s, Archbishop Martti Simo- Orthodox Christianity and spirituality joki (ELCF) and Metropolitan Nikodim, began to become more familiar also to who was the ecumenical authority of the the members of the Evangelical Luther- ROC, participated in several multilat- an Church of Finland (ELCF). Step by eral ecumenical meetings. The first step, it was no more seen as “the church contact between ELCF and ROC took of Russians” but as a national auto- place when Simojoki visited the Esto- nomous Orthodox Church in Finland nian Lutheran Church in 1964. The under the jurisdiction of Constanti- following year, Simojoki met Nikodim nople. Since World War II, mixed or in Leningrad, and in 1967 Simojoki ecumenical marriages between Lu- made an initiative to begin bilateral theran and Orthodox Christians also doctrinal discussions between the ELCF became more common than internal and the ROC. The suggestion was ap- Orthodox marriages. It was the factor proved by the ROC, and the prepara- at the grass root level which brought the tions for the first meeting were put for- Orthodox and Lutheran traditions much ward. more in contact with each other than any other development. The formulation of Simojoki underlined the nature of this dialogue as doctrinal Contacts between the ELCF and repre- discussions. His intention was that in sentatives of the Russian Orthodox our bilateral relations we should con- Church (ROC) were very unusual during centrate on the content of Christian the post-war era 1944–1960. When the faith. Only thus it was possible to avoid ROC joined WCC in 1961, the repre- superficial general conversations or sentatives of the ELCF began to meet only reflecting political trends of a given bishops and other representatives of the time. The dialogue was initiated at the ROC in international ecumenical gath- time of the Cold War. The ROC was erings. The beginning of more regular controlled by the Soviet regime. Finland bilateral contacts took place at the end and the Soviet Union had a Treaty of of 1960s. friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, which limited the political free play scope of Finland, which maintained its neutrality in international affairs. The general political situation was totally clear for the ELCF from the very beginning, and I believe that it was also clear to the ROC. This political reality did not determine the theological content of dialogues. Maybe the only

183 result of it was that the question of peace Christian Churches today. Also under remained a permanent theme on the discussion in Järvenpää was a third agenda. The dialogues have always missiological theme, which was caused been very representative in both sides: by the controversial WCC conference the president of the ELCF delegation in Bangkok 1973/1974 “Salvation has always been the Archbishop of today”: 3) The Christian doctrine of Turku, and the president of the ROC salvation (in the New Testament and in delegation has been a bishop who has light of the Bangkok mission confer- also been a member of the Holy Synod. ence). In addition to the ecclesial hierarchy, academic theologians have been mem- Kiev 1977; 1) Salvation as justification bers of both delegations. and deification, 2) Salvation and the Kingdom of Peace. The dialogue meetings between ELCF and ROC started in 1970, and since then Turku 1980: 1) Faith and Love in the delegations have gathered regularly, Salvation 2) The theological Founda- mostly at three-year intervals, 1970, tion of the Churches’ Work for Peace. 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1995,l 1998, 2002, and Leningrad 1983: 1) The Church as the 2005. The languages of the dialogue Body of Christ (“Eucharistic Ecclesio- have been Finnish, Swedish and Rus- logy”), 2) Peacemaking Work of sian with interpretation. All papers have Churches today. been translated into both languages, but only a part of them are also published Mikkeli 1986: 1) Holiness, Sanctifica- in English. tion and the Saints, 2) Peacemaking as the Work of Churches (Sermon on the The venues and themes Mount/God’s Will for Peace).

The theme of each dialogue meeting has Pyhtitsa 1989: 1) Creation (the first been a double one: the first concentrates Article of the Creed), 2) The Human on a question of the Christian dogma Responsibility for God’s Creation. (1) and the second is an ethical theme (2). The places and themes of the Järvenpää 1992: 1) Confessing the meetings have been as follows: Apostolic Faith today, 2) Apostolic Teaching and Witness in the Life of the Turku 1970: 1) The Eucharist as the Church Today. Manifestation of the Unity of believers, 2) The theological basis of the peace Kiev 1995: 1) The Mission of the mission of the Church. Church Today, 2) Peace and Nations after the Cold War. Zagorsk 1971: 1) The Eucharist as Sacrifice 2) Justice and Violence. Lappeenranta 1998: 1) Freedom of a Christian, of Church and of Religion, Järvenpää 1974: 1) The Eucharist and 2) Church and State. the Priesthood 2) The Peace mission of

184 Moscow 2002: No special theological 1. The relation of scripture and or ethical theme. Evaluation of earlier Tradition/traditions (not as dialogues. topic, but included always) 2. Schism and heresy (1995) Turku 2005: 1) The Christian Under- 3. Doctrine of God standing of Human Being in today’s 4. Christology Europe. Salvation, Faith and Modern 5. Pneumatology Social Realities. 6. Anthropology 2005 7. Soteriology There is consensus on both sides to – Justification/Theosis; 1970, continue the dialogue. 1974, 1977, 1980 The method of the dialogue between – Faith and Sanctification ELCF and ROC has followed the same 1980, 1986, 2005 model from the beginning: Two or more 8. Ecclesiology (Concept of the speakers from both sides have first Church; Apostolicity) 1983, 1992 presented their papers on the given 9. Sacraments theme (mostly the titles of the papers 10. Baptism express some slight “modulations” of 11. Eucharist 1970, 1971, 1974 the main theme). The papers are dis- 12. Ministry 1974 cussed thoroughly in the plenary. Then 13. Eschatology smaller groups have prepared a draft for 14. Ecumenical vision and common theses, which are then ecumenical problems discussed and adopted in the plenary. 15. Pastoral challenges (like inter- It is important to note that the theses confessional marriage, are not only summaries of the dis- baptism, and conversion) cussions, but they are meant to express 16. Ethics, social questions the common opinion of both parties. – creation, 1989 The theses are accordingly expressions – peace, 1970, (1971), 1974, of a consensuss, or at least of a conver- 1977, 1988, 1983, 1986, 1995 gence. In a certain sense they are also – justice, 1971 witnessing the common faith, even – ecology, 1989 though they do certainly not represent – freedom of religion, 1998 the authority of creedal documents of – situation in Europe) the participatory churches. 17. Reception (if discussed as a substantial theological topic) The appearance of topics 2002 18. Non-theological factors (e.g. We list here the theological topics political, historical, sociological (italics) given by Prof. Viorel Ionita for context affecting the dialogue) the evaluation of the dialogues. Even though his list was not intended to be At least one topic should be added all-embracing, it can be helpful for to this list: drawing a first rough sketch of the ap- 19. Mission of the Church pearance of themes in the dialogues (Mission work of churches, between ELCF and ROC. Proselytism), 1974, 1995

185 Preliminary observations cussed. Baptism is also omitted as a of the selected topics topic, even though it could be suggested that consensus could be nearer here than Already at first glance, it can be noticed on any other question. The very first that the classic Trinitarian and Christo- dogmatic theme of the whole dialogue logical dogmas are not chosen as the series was the Eucharist, which in subject of the dialogue. This does not Orthodoxy is traditionally seen as the mean that they were treated as secondary crown of unity and which is possible to or that they had not played a funda- reach only when all other obstacles have mental role in the dialogue. Quite the been removed. In its own way, the opposite, the importance of the doctrinal ELCF also shares this order; at least it tradition of the early Church has been a has never seen the Eucharist as a means self-evident basis, not only for the to unity. Orthodox churches but also for the genuine Lutheran confessional tradi- Fourthly, peace has been a constant tion, which the ELCF has also always topic of the dialogues until the dis- strived to represent. solution of the Soviet Union. It has been suggested that this was a necessary Secondly, it is important to realize, that condition put forth by the Soviet regime soteriology has played a central role in for the participation of the ROC. the dialogue between ELCF and ROC. Without taking a stand on the truth of The deepest reason for that must be seen this thesis, it must be noted that peace in light of the fact that the question of has been a central topic of the ecumeni- salvation (justification) was at stake, cal movement from its very beginning when the Lutheran churches emerged and that in the dialogues between ELCF within the late medieval Roman Catholic and ROC, this topic was always dis- (semi-pelagian) spirituality. Further- cussed from the theological point of more, Eastern Orthodoxy did not in its view. It was very important for the own history debate the question of ELCF to avoid making a statement “grace and works” in the same way as which could be interpreted as a one- Western Christianity had done since the sided standpoint in an international controversy of St. Augustine and Pela- political conflict. gius. And finally, some top representatives of the Neo-Protestant theology Finally, it is very difficult to find out (e.g. Adolf von Harnack) maintained why exactly just the chosen themes are that the Lutheran doctrine on justifica- put on the agenda. Nevertheless, some tion was “diametrically opposed” to the general statements can be made. 1) The Orthodox concept of deification (glo- topics have been chosen in preparatory rification/theosis). Already here, there discussions, and no partner has ever were enough reasons to put the question “dictated” the theme. 2) The topics are of salvation under closer scrutiny. not accidentally selected, but they are Thirdly, attention should also be given evaluated as important by both sides, to how the sacraments are dealt with. and they belong to the central thematic The general concept of sacrament (or content of ecumenical discussions in mysterion) was not studied and dis- general.

186 Three types of evaluation The aim of this paper is to contribute to the evaluation of the Lutheran-Ortho- a) Theological evaluation dox dialogues from the Finnish Luther- The most accurate analysis and eva- an point of view. Still in the case of luation of the dialogues between ELCF deification, it is interesting to also and ROC so far has been made by Risto mention two Orthodox statements. Saarinen in his study “Faith and Holi- Firstly, the doctrinal discussions in the ness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1970s were also considered as impor- 1959–1994” (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht tant and fruitful on the Russian side, 1997). Dealing with the dogmatic topic, when Patriarch Pimen, in his address on Saarinen divides the years 1970–1994 the occasion of the 60th anniversary of into five periods (pp. 21–79): 1) The the re-founding of the Moscow Patri- Eucharistic Discussions (1970–1971), archate (1978), described the spiritual- 2) Finding the Soteriological Profile doctrinal character of ELCF as “Ortho- (1973–1975), 3) The Innovative Phase doxality” (Saarinen, 48). Secondly, in (1976–1980), 4) Extension and Frag- the context of the dialogue between the mentation (1983–1989), 5) New Ways, Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Evan- New Hopes (around 1992). gelical Church of Germany (EKD), the Greek Orthodox theologian Grigorios Without going into the details of every Larentzakis evaluates the discussion on period in Saarinen’s analysis, it is easy justification and theosis and says that it to realize, that periods 2 and 3 are, gives hope to the impression that the according to him, theologically the most evangelical and orthodox theologies are important in the dialogue. In those possibly nearer to each other than gener- years, the soteriological question on ally hitherto assumed (Larentzakis, “justification-theosis” was articulated Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Rundschau and developed, and this topic was still 79/2006 p. 90). continued in the years of “Extension” but then declined into a “Fragmenta- In the context of deification, the question tion” at the threshold of the dissolution of the cooperation between God and of Soviet Union. Saarinen depicts the man also emerged in the dialogue be- outline of discussions and debates tween ELCF and ROC, which led to a around the soteriological theme, which suggestion (Karl Christian Felmy) that has been identified as a controversy in the Finnish Lutherans had perhaps the Protestant tradition but which can “accepted the intention of the synergism genuinely be seen as different but not represented by the Orthodox tradition. contradicting expressions of the same This notion was also discussed among faith. Saarinen summarizes: “… never Finnish Lutheran theologians later. The before was the notion of deification Finnish participants responsible for the officially received in the way it was wording adopted in Kiev in 1977 refuted done in Kiev” (1977). Later, the theme the accusation of synergism in the of deification was taken onto the agendas meaning which is disregarded in the of other Orthodox - Protestant dia- Lutheran confessional writings or by logues. Luther himself. On the other side, even the positive content of cooperation in

187 the Lutheran confessional tradition is traditions (in Lutheranism, the depravity often neglected for fear of false syner- and incapability of the human will after gism. With concentration on the Chris- the Fall; in Orthodoxy, the capability tological aspect of salvation, too little of the human will also after the Fall). attention was certainly paid to the anth- A remarkable convergence on one of ropological question of salvation. The most difficult doctrinal question between next dialogue meeting (1980) tried to Lutheran and Orthodox traditions has fulfil this task by choosing “Faith and been reached in the theses of Turku Love as Elements of Salvation” as its 2005. theme. b) The evaluation of the dialogue by The anthropological question as such ELCF was first taken up on the agenda in the At the turn of the millennium, the ELCF last dialogue meeting in Turku 2005. published a short general evaluation1 of The theme of the meeting was “Chris- the dialogues with the Russian Ortho- tian anthropology in Europe Today. dox Church in which it stated: Salvation, Faith and the Modern Soci- ety”. In his greeting to the meeting, “The importance of the negotiations. Patriarch Alexei II expressed his deep The importance of the doctrinal dis- appreciation of the knowledge and cussions can be summarized in following understanding of Orthodox doctrine and points: tradition shown by the theologians of the ELCF. According to the Patriarch, 1) At the turn of the millennium, “this dialogue (between ELCF and the ELCF summarized its eva- OCR) is one of the most fruitful bilateral luation of the dialogue between negotiations in which the OCR has ELCF and ROC participated” (the Communiqué of 2) The doctrine and the spiritual Turku 2005, translation from the Finn- life of both churches have be- ish text by JF; the documents of the come more known in partici- meeting are not published in English; pating churches. the Finnish texts in Reseptio 2/2005). 3) Doctrinal agreements have not Without going into detail about the been achieved, but neither had theological content of the mutually such agreements been set as im- adopted theses on the “Christian con- mediate goals for the nego- cept of man”, it can be generally ob- tiations. Nevertheless, there a served that the theses express an anthro- convergence has developed be- pological view in which both the free- tween different doctrinal tradi- dom of the human being in creation as tions. Such convergence has well as his bounded will after the Fall been achieved, especially in the are expressed in a way which avoids soteriology. aggravating some expressions of both 4) The negotiations have promoted

1 The Finnish text to be found at http://www.evl.fi/keskushallinto/

188 the self-understanding of the both churches, or whether other moti- Evangelical Lutheran Church of vations “under the theological and ec- Finland, and thus they have also clesial surface” should also be sought. indirectly contributed to other This question arose at the same time dialogues. after the end of the Cold War, when 5) The representatives of the ROC opinions in the political discussion in have learned to know the Finland began to emerge that the official original character of the ELCF politics of Finland which had con- as a Lutheran folk Church and sciously underlined the “neutrality” of realized that the Lutheran con- Finnish foreign policy, were, in fact, fession is not identical with more “consent” politics favouring the general Protestantism. Soviet Union. “Finnlandisierung/fin- 6) The negotiations have supported landization” was the German-origin key the re-building of the Evangeli- word of the western characterization of cal Lutheran Church in Ingria. Finnish foreign policy. “Lying on his 7) The negotiations have promoted face and crawling” before the Soviet scholarship exchange between Union was the most popular abusive ELCF and ROC. expression used in the debate. This debate goes on in academic research as The dialogue meeting in Moscow 2002 well ass in the every-day discussion. concentrated as a whole in a common evaluation of the dialogue. The docu- At the turn of the millennium, the ments of this meeting will be published Department of International Relations in English in 2010. Thus far, the com- of the ELCF initiated and financed muniqué and lectures are published in research on the Finnish – Russian dia- Finnish in Reseptio 2/2002. In the docu- logues and expressed its wish that the ments of Moscow 2002, the evaluations person appointed to this task should be of the past dialogue are expressed in an academic scholar outside of the quite general language as a growth of officials who had prepared the dialogue mutual understanding. Perhaps the and participated in it. A young Estonian Finnish side was inclined to see more church historian, Riho Saard, was convergence than the Russian speakers appointed to do the work, and in 2006 as a result of the negotiations. he published the book which was based on his research, “The Great Drama of c) Theology or Politics? Love” – Doctrinal negotiations between Especially after the end of the Cold War the Evangelical Lutheran Church of and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Finland and the Russian Orthodox there has been some discussion among Church in the Cold War Era. Argo a few of the younger scholars about 2006, 240 p, Language: Finnish, with whether the background, the starting an English Summary pp. 202–223. The point, the objectives and the goals of research is based on archive materials, the dialogue between ELCF and ROC manuscripts and interviews of persons has been as theological and ecclesial as who participated in the preparations and indicated by the official information of meetings of the dialogue.

189 It is not possible here to analyze, evaluate Soviet regime was informed of the and debate the results of Saard’s book negotiations through (at least some) in detail. On the one side, it contains representatives of the ROC. In formula- important information especially from tion and adoption of theses concerning the background of Orthodox dialogues peace, the Finnish delegations were in 1950s and 1960s. The author has also always prepared not to sign texts which interviewed several persons (Finnish could be interpreted in favour of any Lutheran theologians) who participated competing parties of the Cold War. in the negotiations. Unfortunately, many statements of the book are not * * * based on a careful analysis of sources and are expressions of tendency to Juhani Forsberg is Adjunct Professor interpret the role of (hidden) political in the Faculty of Theology, University motives on both sides. He is following of Helsinki. He has participated in here the propagandistic thesis of Dr. Finnish Lutheran-Russian Orthodox Arto Luukkanen, a younger Finnish dialogue and Finnish Lutheran-Ortho- researcher, who has stated that the dox dialogues in 1994–2002. bilateral doctrinal discussions between ELCF and OCR were only a “smoke screen” for other contacts with the Sources and Literature “churchly ambassadors” of the Soviet Security Service KGB (p. 14–15). This – Archives of the Department of Inter- thesis is not based on sources, but on national Relations of the ELCF the hermeneutical starting point that all – Documents of the ELCF Nr. 3, Nr. 4, religious statements in themselves hide Nr. 7 political or social motives which are – Reseptio 2/2002; 2/2005 more important than what literally has – Mikkeli 1986, ed. by Hannu T. Kamp- been said. puri. Publications of Luther-Agricola Society B 16. Helsinki 1986 The Finnish Lutheran theologians and – Dialogue between Neighbours, ed. by church leaders were, of course, not so Hannu T. Kamppuri. Publications of naïve that they had imagined that the Luther-Agricola Society B 17. Helsinki dialogue could happen in a political 1986 vacuum. From the very beginning they – Die Gnade Gottes und Das Heil der were conscious of the possibilities that Welt. Beiheft zur Ökumenischen the theological contacts could also Rundschau. Frankfurt am Main 2006 promote the détente in the time of Cold (Grigorios Larentzakis pp. 71–91) War, and thus, for instance, promote – Saard, Riho, “Suurenmoinen rakkau- better living conditions for the Finnish den näytelmä”. Suomen evankelis-lute- origin Lutheran Church and its congre- rilaisen ja Venäjän Ortodoksisen kirkon gations in the Soviet Union. In fact, this oppineuvottelut kylmän sodan vuosina. was also one additional result of the Argo 2006 negotiations. The Finnish party was also – Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. from the very beginning, at least in Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959– principle, aware of the fact that the 1994. Göttingen 1997

190 Evaluation on the Dialogue between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Finland

Pekka Metso

The national-level dialogue between the as koinonia, which denotes “community, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland communion, participation, sharing, (ELCF) and the Orthodox Church of partnership and solidarity”.3 Finland (OCF) has been going on since 1989. During these 20 years, the partners Archbishop Johannes, the chairman of have come together in nine sessions, the Orthodox delegation 1989–2001, latest held in January 2009.1 The two pointed out in the very beginning that parties characterize the purpose of the as a local Orthodox church the OCF has dialogue as a threefold task: 1) to deepen no authority to take significant ecu- mutual knowledge, 2) to eliminate mis- menical steps without pan-Orthodox understandings and 3) to support the approval.4 Despite such a limitation, the atmosphere of Christian love and dialogue has been characterized by the unity.2 The task is compactly expressed two parties as an important one.

1 Summary of the sessions is given in the appendix. The 10th session, hosted by OCF, will be held in 2010. The two topics are: “Interpretation of the Bible in the teaching of the church“ and “Ecology and reasonable living”. 2 Communiqué Mikkeli 1989 1993, 9; Communiqué Valamo 1990 1993, 62. Communiqué Joensuu 2007 (ACAKF). See also Johannes 1993a, 13; Huotari 1995, 7; Toiviainen 1993, 63; Vikström 1993, 12. 3 Communiqué Kouvola 1996 (file 76, ACAKF). 4 Johannes 1993a, 13. The same idea is repeated in Johannes 1993b, 65.

191 Background information life of the OCF and its members. Never- theless, from the late 1960s onwards, The two churches in dialogue are the ecumenical relations began to improve two national churches in Finland. For significantly. Thus, establishing the centuries the churches have existed and dialogue between the ELCF and the operated within the one nation. Soon OCF bears first and foremost witness after the independence of Finland to the advancement of an ecumenical (1917), the state secured the OCF in atmosphere in Finland. Within the 1923 with a similar status to that of the ELCF, a liturgical renewal movement, ELCF. Long historical co-existence and reviving Eucharistic practices and a good relations between the ELCF and growing interest towards classical spir- the OCF preceding an official dialogue ituality, and doctrinal theology from were emphasized in the opening 1980s onwards have also contributed to speeches of the first session. the process.5 Furthermore, the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church However, the two churches are not equal and the ELCF since 1970, in which the partners when it comes to potentiality OCF was involved as an observer, natu- and facilities, nor to the general exist- rally paved the way for bilateral dia- ence as national church: the OCF is a logue between the two traditions, also minority church with 1% (ca. 60 000 on Finnish home ground. members in 2008) of the population, while the ELCF is the sovereign ma- The importance and connections with jority church in Finland with 82% of the international level of ecumenical the population belonging to it (ca. 4,4 dialogues has been repeatedly empha- million members in 2008). The OCF sized during the dialogue between the encountered huge challenges during the ELCF and the OCF. Both parties have first decades of the 20th century (estab- been engaged with various international lishing national Finnish orthodoxy after dialogues before entering their local withdrawal from Moscow Patriarchate, dialogue. The 1989 communiqué states: deportation of 70% of Orthodox popu- “Now the question is one of dialogue lation from the territories handed over on a Finnish basis between the two to USSR after WWII and setting up the Finnish national churches. At the same church anew in diaspora). Besides, a time the churches in question represent siege mentality and prejudices towards not only Finnish Christianity but also the Orthodox Christians – in everyday the churches’ doctrinal legacy. It a life and official church relations alike – question of a meeting of the Eastern and in a predominantly Protestant country Western traditions.”6 Thus, the dialogue labelled the first half of the 20th century. has from the beginning very been much To some degree these attitudes still affect aware of its interconnections with the

5 Orthodox influence on Lutheran theology and practices is highlighted by Bishop Huotari in 1999 opening speech of Bishop Huotari (ACAKF). 6 Communiqué Mikkeli 1989 1993, 9.

192 world-wide Orthodox – Lutheran dia- tions between the two churches and logue.7 prospects for the dialogue. The process of the actual negotiation was not described, nor the nuances of the two Methods and material traditions signalled. Already during the of the dialogue arrangements for the second round in 1990, a desire to orientate the dialogue The dialogue sits in two-day sessions into a theologically more explicit direc- with two themes on the agenda. Repre- tion was expressed by the two chairmen.8 sentatives from both delegations present Consequently, a more accurate descrip- thematic papers respectively as bases tion of the respective emphasises can be for further discussion. From the fourth detected in the Communiqué Valamo round onwards (1993), one of the themes 1990. From the third round (1991) on- of a session has been doctrinal and the wards, the length of the communiqués other socio-ethical. Similar division is has grown significantly (even up to four already seen in the second round (1990). single-spaced pages), thus giving more Presumably, such structural method was room to present the views of the two adopted from the dialogue between the traditions and points of convergence. In Russian Orthodox Church and the ELCF. Communiqué Joensuu 1999, yet another new method was adopted: the main Even though the dialogue has not pro- content of the papers presented during duced downright theological statements, the negotiations are summarized quite the process and its theological results broadly in the communiqué. Common have become more elaborated in the opinions and/or disagreements are com- communiqués over the years. Commu- pactly presented after the summary of niqué Mikkeli 1989 concentrated almost the papers. A similar structure was taken entirely on pointing out the good rela- in the communiqués of 2001 and 2007.9

7 Communiqué Mikkeli 1989 1993, 9; Communiqué Valamo 1990 1993, 61; Johannes 1993a, 13; Huotari 1995, 7. In words of Bishop Kalevi Toiviainen, the chairman of Lutheran delegation 1989–1991, “we are moving, on the one hand, on the familiar ground of our relationship, and on the other, on universal ecumenical ground.” Toiviainen 1993, 65. Due to historical presence of Orthodoxy in easternmost parts of Finland (North Karelia) Bishop Huotari characterized ecumenism as an attribute of East-Finnish identity which could even contribute internationally to processes of encountering different cultures. Furthermore, Huotari maintains that while ELCF as majority church is involved more thoroughly in the life of the people as a whole, OCF has had an effect mainly on the media and cultural life. 1999 opening speech of Bishop Huotari (ACAKF). 8 In his letter to Archbishop John from May 1990, Bishop Toiviainen suggests that from the second session onwards more accurate statement with points of convergence and divergence should be produced. The suggestion was approved by Johannes in his response from June. (file 76, ACAKF). 9 While in Communique Oulu 2001 and in Communiqué Joensuu 2007 both themes of the session are presented in the described manner (summary of papers – converges/divergences), in Communiqué Joensuu 1999 it is only the socio-ethical section that is formulated in such a format.

193 Doctrinal topics of the dialogue The doctrinal aspect of the dialogue has mainly focused on compact explication The dialogue had covered various of the basic convictions and termino- doctrinal topics. Ecclesiology and the logy of the two traditions. Based on question of authority of doctrinal and hundreds of years of co-existence in canonical tradition were given dominant Finland, the two churches already know roles in the early phase of the dialogue. each other and their respective theolo- In 1989 and 1991, ecclesiology was on gical fundamentals quite thoroughly. the agenda under the following titles: The doctrinal conclusions of the The relationship between the church dialogue, therefore, barely transcend the and the people as a theological and level of reciprocal theological knowl- historical issue (1989) and The church edge of the views of the other church as a worshipping community (1991). existing before each session of the More recently the dialogue returned to dialogue. Thus, the doctrinal contribu- ecclesiology in the 7th session (2001) tion per se of the communiqués is with the theme Prerequisites for the unity modest. The resonance is rather on the of the church. The question of doctrinal common witness and ecumenical men- and canonical authority was discussed tality laid bare in the communiqués. in 1989 under the title The authority and Obviously, both parties have willed to significance of ecumenical councils, promote substantial unity in their present and again in 1990 with the theme The state of diversity. When voicing their relation between doctrine and the traditional views, the emphasis is put canons and the ecumenically binding on common conclusions. As an illustra- nature of the canons. It is quite possible tion of such mentality, three notions are that the theme of canonical authority made. and the authority of ecumencal councils was introduced onto the agenda at the Firstly, regarding sanctification, the suggestion of OCF, while the rest of the ELCF emphasizes the importance of the doctrinal issues represent the common revival of Eucharistic practices and Christian tradition of the two churches. spirituality centralised around the sacrament of Lord’s body and blood. In pro- Other doctrinal themes include anthro- portion, the OCF accentuates procla- pology (Our churches view of man and mation of the word (or rather the Word) the present day, 1991), Christology as a central act of the chruch.10 Thus, (The incarnation in the liturgical tradi- the traditional focal element of the other tion of our churches, 1993), sacraments tradition is considered to be of a primary and ministry (The universal priesthood, nature within one’s own tradition. 1996 and Sacraments and sacred rites, 1999), soteriology (Sanctification and Secondly, sacramental life and practices striving, 2007) and inter-faith dialogue seem to form a common ground for the (Encountering other religions, 2009). two traditions. Sacramental theology is

10 Communiqué Joensuu 2007 (ACAKF). As stated above, there is a growing liturgical interest within ELCF.

194 highlighted repeatedly in several ses- the Orthodox Church, it can be detected sions: it is connected, e.g,. to soterio- that the dialogue between the ELCF and logy (and more specifically to sanctifi- the OCF has discussed similar topics as cation), the unity of the church and the world-wide Orthodox-Lutheran diaconia.11 Of the sacraments, it is the dialogue. The ecumenically binding Eucharist that is given a pivotal role. role of the canons of the ecumenical The ELCF and the OFC understand the council, however, appears to be an unity of the church as structural com- unique topic. munion based around a common Eucharist. It is emphasized that coexistence of the churches in functional Socio-ethical and pastoral topics undertakings cannot satisfy the need for of the dialogue more profound unity.12 National special characteristics are Thirdly, despite theological like-minded- echoed in the socio-ethical and pastoral ness on several doctrinal issues, the topics addressed by the dialogue. There OFC and the ELCF are not willing to are two groups of themes in this cate- abandon their traditional terminology gory: 1) themes that have aroused interest and approaches. For example, the OCF due to their topical national stature in describes sanctification through sacra- the Finnish society, and 2) themes more ments as deification, while the ELCF strictly innate from within the relation- sticks to her traditional view of it as ships of the two churches. communion with truly present Christ. Whenever common witness is openly The first category bears evidence to the stated, the two churches in dialogue yet will of the OFC and the ELCF in using presume that their traditional forms of their status as forces in society to expli- spirituality are to be maintained.13 cate common statements on issues currently discussed widely in society. When the above themes are compared Freedom of religion as a basic right in with other bilateral dialogues involving Finland (1993), Work, unemployment

11 Such a mindset is crystallized in the statement that “the aim of the churches is a living unity of prayer and worship with the content of faith (lex orandi, lex credendi). Of this consists the most characteristic language of the church when she speaks to the man who seeks for his identity and is exhausted by the modern way of life. Works of love are the most influencal way to meet his needs.” Communiqué Helsinki 2009. 12 Communiqué Oulu 2001 is the best example of the dialogue’s reflection on the relation between the Eucharist and unity of the church. 13 Communiqué Joensuu 1999 (ACAKF); Communiqué Joensuu 2007 (ACAKF). These suggestions are not accurately connected to any ecclesiological solutions made jointly by the dialogue. ELCF has emphasised reconciled diversity (“sovitettu erilaisuus” in Finnish) as the Lutheran model for the unity between churches. However, organic unity is explicitly (and implicitly) maintained by both churches as the ultimate goal of ecumenical enterprise. One should not therefore interpret the idea of maintaining one’s traditional concepts and practices as direct or indirect reference to tropos -ecclesiology as an ecclesiological solution suggested by ELCF and OCF based on their dialogue.

195 and human dignity (1996), The diaconic awake to recognize their complicity in role of the church in the life of the supporting (whether consciously or society (2001), Violence in family and unconsciously) structures and mentality close relationships (2007) and Langu- that enables the existence of violence ages of faith: How does the church meet and different forms of repression. a modern man? (2009) all exemplify such an ambition. Some of the themes In sum, the two churches act as one also share international ecumenical Christian voice in these socio-ethical tendency, like the 1999 social subject matters, thus presenting a common Churches – Hope of the world. The declaration. The two churches clearly theme of hope anticipates the millen- intend to lean on to each other when nium 2000 which the Christian churches they confront challenges of the common in Finland celebrated jointly under the societal reality. Whenever references to theme “Millennium 2000 – Year of nuances in socio-ethical teaching of the Hope”. Similarly, discussion on violence two traditions are made, the focus is still in 2007 relates to the WCC decade in the joint effort and common witness.17 against violence.14 Nevertheless, linkage to nationally relevant current issues is The second category actually consists the main motivation. An economical of one major theme, i.e. intermarriage. recessionary period in the 1990s is the The topic was introduced in 1990 root for discussion on unemployment (Orthodox – Lutheran intermarriage as and human dignity.15 Similarly, a topical a pastoral issue), and is of utmost im- national debate on the affluent society portance at least to the OCF.18 Of all motivated churches in 1999 to explicate the marriages of the Orthodox popula- a common view of the Christian church- tion in Finland, approximately 96–98% es based on the theology of creation as are currently intermarriages. One hundred metapolitical advocates of hope.16 In years ago the number was around 10%. addition, different forms of violence Since the vast majority of the Finnish (e.g. within family) are burning pastoral population are Lutheran, most non- and social concerns nationally. During Orthodox spouses of the OCF members the negotiations on violence, it was belong to the ELCF. Intermarriages emphasized that the churches must also force the OCF to face various problems

14 ELCF has also launched her own project against violence. The project coordinates the ecumenical week against violence. 15 The two churches emphatically declare that human dignity cannot be estimated by economical profit. Promoting solidarity and justice is based on their common view on the nature of the ministry of all the faithful. Yet, ELCF and OCF were not willing to make any political solutions to unemployment. Communiqué Kouvola 1996 (file 76, ACAKF) 16 Communiqué Joensuu 1999 (ACAKF). 17 E.g. in questions of diaconal responsibility and obligations. Communiqué 2001 Oulu (ACAKF). 18 Lutheran Archbishop John Vikström highlighted the problem already in his opening speech of the first session of the dialogue in 1989. He pressed that the dialogue must also openly face practical problems. Vikström 1993, 11.

196 such as: a) almost every married children and their religious edu- member of the OCF cannot receive the cation. Eucharist together with his/her spouse 2. Local parishes of the two church- (and oftentimes children as well), b) a es should support the prayer life significant number of progeny of the of both traditions in homes and Orthodox are not baptized as Orthodox participation of the entire family and become members of another in the services in both churches. church, c) families of the members of 3. All the children in one family OCF are often met with interior and should be baptized as members of exterior tensions caused by, e.g., minor- the same church. In addition, early ity-majority arrangement, unfamiliarity childhood religious education of Orthodox practices, experience of not should be according to the tradi- being able to share the sphere of spiri- tion s/he is baptized in. Later on, tuality etc., d) by the demand of Luther- the ecclesial tradition of the other an kin, many members of the OCF are parent should be introduced. not buried according to their own, but by the ELCF tradition, e) since canoni- The issue of the intermarriage is not cal restrictions prevent intermarried only a concern of Christians belonging clergy candidates to be-come priests, to the OCF. Other minority churches in there is a potential shortage of suitable Finland live in the middle of similar candidates for the priest-hood.19 pastoral reality as well. In the 1990s there were joint ecumenical projects, Of all the accomplishments of the dia- run by the Finnish Ecumenical Council, logue, the practical pastoral suggestions relating to mixed marriages. On the one explicated in Communiqué Valamo hand, two publications (from 1994 and 1990 concerning intermarriage are 1999) provided information for clergy probably the most noteworthy. The two and families alike on marital legislation churches give three recommendations: and different practices of marriage ceremony in Christian churches in 1. Prior to the marriage ceremony Finland.20 On the other hand practical, (taking place either in the Luther- spiritual and social challenges in mixed an or Orthodox church), there marriages were dealt with in 1995 in should be a pastoral discussion on the Ecumenical Family Book (in Finn- the nature of Christian marriage ish). Even though these projects are not and issues relating baptism of directly connected with the dialogue at

19 Some of the above problems (and others as well) are presented in Merras 1993. With his study on Lutheran-Orthodox intermarriage Bishop Huotari has significantly contributed to the awareness of problems caused by mixed marriages. Huotari 1975. See also Huotari 1993. The resonance of the effect of mixed marriages on OCF was strongly voiced by Archbishop John in his opening speech of the 1990 session. Johannes 1993b, 66. 20 Entering Marriage as an Ecumenical Encounter 1994 (in Finnish); Ecumenical Handbook of Wedding Priest 1999 (in Finnish).

197 hand, it is evident that the OFC and the themes bears a special import- ELFC have interacted within the two ance. The ELCF and the OCF projects, at least partly, based on their have managed to give together a initial sharing of concern on the inter- genuine Christian witness on marriage. contemporary domestic issues.

• Thirdly, the discussion in 2001 Results and achievements concerning the prerequisites for of the dialogue reaching the unity of the churches deserves to be highlighted as an Achievements of the dialogue between ambitious theological effort, the ELFC and the OCF can be assessed, which resulted in restating that firstly, on the level of specific themes organic unity culminating in one and, secondly, on the more general Eucharist is the goal of the ecu- effect of the dialogue. Of the individual menical movement. achievements, three outcomes deserve to be emphasized: With regard to the general effect of the dialogue, two aspects need to be high- • The input on intermarriage can be lighted, one being a local one and the considered as one of the most other an international one. When as- significant outcomes of the dia- sessed locally, the dialogue has given a logue. Communiqué 1990 Valamo concrete form to wilful and eager- attests that the churches did not minded interaction of the two Finnish only manage to discuss a delicate national churches. In other words, the problem that influences their dialogue as such already is a noteworthy members’ everyday lives and the ecumenical symbol. However, when Orthodox-Lutheran relations at assessing the significance of the dia- the grass roots, but also proposed logue, one finds it easy to agree with practical solutions to it. The Archbishop Johannes, who in 2001 magnitude of this achievement is stated that even though the dialogue has enhanced by the broad ecu- proven to be important for local unity, menical significance – both na- it has not managed to take such theo- tionally and internationally – of logical steps that in reality would have the issue of mixed marriages be- changed the attitudes of the two church- tween Christians of different tra- es of each other.21 ditions. Taken as a whole, the national dialogue • Secondly, the tendency to speak between the ELCF and the OCF has also as one voice on socio-ethical aimed to contribute to the international

21 Communiqué Oulu 2001 (ACAKF). In 1990 Johannes had already demanded realism in setting the goals for the dialogue. According to him, the dialogue could take small practical steps. Johannes 1993b, 65. Nevertheless, in Communiqué Joensuu 1999 (ACAKF) progress in mutual openness and trust is highlighted as an actual result of the dialogue.

198 bilateral dialogues between the two significance has become constricted, the traditions.22 International interconnec- shift can also be taken as a sign of a tion is enhanced by the project of pub- grown awareness of the importance of lishing the documents of the dialogue the national dialogue itself as a meaning- in English. However, papers and com- ful purpose on its own.23 muniqués only from the first four negotiations (1989–1993) are available in The local dialogue between the ELCF English. The publishing project has and the OCF has yet maintained its close been pending since 1996. This might relationship with the international indicate that an awareness of the inter- Orthodox-Lutheran dialogue. Several connection of the national dialogue with representatives of both sides are (or the global one have diminished since have been) involved either with other the mid 1990s. Nevertheless, there are ongoing Orthodox-Lutheran dialogues references to global Orthodox-Lutheran or other dialogues.24 Consequently, dialogues in the communiqués, speeches processes and influences of interna- and other material produced by the tional dialogues come across efficiently dialogue also after 1993. The magnitude to the dialogue between ELCF and of the local ecumenical witness has at OCF. Such interaction is illustrated by the same time, however, been emphasi- the Special Commission on Orthodox zed in the most recent sessions. Even Participation of the Orthodox Churches though one might suggest that the in the WCC, which included both a original vision of broad ecumenical Lutheran and an Orthodox member also

22 Despite Archbishop Johannes in 1989 and 1990 spoke for the importance of the dialogue and expected good prospects, even internationally, in 1993 he spoke much more demurely. He suggested that the purpose of the domestic dialogue could be reconsidered since the international Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue had more profound theological weight and ecclesial authority. Johannes 1995. 23 E.g. in Communiqué Oulu 2001 (ACAKF) and Communiqué Joensuu 2007 (ACAKF) the definition of the importance of a local dialogue by Bishop Huotari in his opening speech of is cited: the ecumenical inter-confessional importance is referred to, but the emphasis of the importance is put more on national and pastoral aspects. Furthermore, the international relation, especially to WCC, is highlighted in the communiqué of 2007. 24 At least the following representations should be mentioned. Of the Orthodox delegation: Metropolitan Ambrosius (Orthodox-Catholic Joint Commission and Special Commission on the Orthodox participation in WCC), Olavi Merras (Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission), Pekka Metso (Orthodox-WARC) and Rauno Pietarinen (Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission). Besides, Heikki Huttunen has over the years had several significant mandates in various WCC and other ecumenical bodies and Mrs. Aino Nenola is currently representative in the Faith and Order Commission. Of the Lutheran delegation: Risto Cantell (ELCF-Russian Orthodox Church), Juhani Forsberg (ELCF-Russian Orthodox Church), Bishop Voitto Huotari (ELCF-Russian Orthodox Church and Special Commission on the Orthodox participation in WCC), Eeva Martikainen (Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission and ELCF-Russian Orthodox Church), Antti Raunio (ELCF-Russian Orthodox Church) and Bishop Kalevi Toiviainen (Orthodox-Lutheran Joint Commission).

199 involved with the dialogue between the Firstly, without purposeful underesti- ELCF and the OCF.25 mation, one cannot but state that the reception of the dialogue within the two Unused opportunities provided by the churches has proceeded with little two spheres of the dialogue – domestic success. It can be argued from the and international – are consciously Orthodox standpoint that the infrequent referred to in the communiqué of the sessions of the bilateral dialogue have latest round of the dialogue: “We are been of minimum consequence when aware that our Lord’s will anticipates compared with the effect – both nega- more comprehensive fruition both be- tive and positive – of the everyday ecu- tween us [i.e. the two churches in dia- menical encounters with the ELCF. logue] and Christians throughout the When it comes to the ELCF, the mes- world.”26 sage in the communiqués hardly pen- etrates into the realities of local parishes, To put it briefly, the dialogue cannot especially in the areas of Orthodox be characterized as a success story when diaspora where there are but a handful it comes to downright theological of Orthodox Christians in range of results. When compared with the very hundreds of kilometres.27 task of increasing mutual knowledge and eliminating misunderstandings, Secondly, the dialogue has intentionally which was set up by the two churches promoted an ecumenical reception in in the beginning, the dialogue, never- Finland. Observers from the Roman theless, can be said to have attained its Catholic Church and the Finnish Ecu- goal. menical Council have been invited to all sessions of the dialogue. A link to wider inter-church relationships and Reception of the dialogue dialogues has been established through the observers with a hope to affect “the Reception of the dialogue between the whole of Christendom and all the people ELCF and the OCF can be assessed on of God in our country.”28 The Finnish two levels: within the partners of the Ecumenical Council, especially the dialogue and in the Finnish ecumenical Division of Doctrinal Issues, is the main reality. mediator in a broader national ecume-

25 Bishop Voitto Huotari acted as a co-moderator and Metropolitan Ambrosius was a member of the Steering Committee. Archbishop Johannes has proposed that OCF benefits from the knowledge and understanding of Western Christian tradition. Communiqué Oulu 2001 (ACAKF). Experiences of the representatives of OCF in various ecumenical engagements indicate that they have managed to serve as mediators between Protestant and other Orthodox churches. 26 Communiqué Helsinki 2009. 27 In 2001 Archbishop Johannes stressed that the churches should take more pains with making the results of the dialogue known among their members. Communiqué Oulu 2001 (ACAKF). 28 Johannes 1993a, 14.

200 nical reception of the dialogue. The IV IISALMI September 20th–21st 1993 extent of the ecumenical reception is • The incarnation in the liturgical more or less limited to an awareness of tradition of our churches some representatives of other Christian • Freedom of religion as a basic right denominations in The Finnish Ecu- in Finland menical Council that there exists such a project as the dialogue between the V KOUVOLA March 12th–13th 1996 ELCF and the OCF. • The universal priesthood • Work, unemployment and human * * * dignity

Pekka Metso is lecturer in systematic VI JOENSUU April 19th–20th 1999 theology at the Department of Orthodox • Sacraments and sacred rites Theology, University of Eastern Fin- • Churches – Hope of the world land. He has represented the Orthodox Church of Finland in various national VII OULU December 19th–20th 2001 and international meetings. • Prerequisites for the unity of the church • The diaconic role of the church in APPENDIX the life of the society

The sessions of the dialogue between the VIII JOENSUU February 7th–8th 2007 Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and • Sanctification and striving the Orthodox Church of Finland 1989–2009 • Violence in family and close relationships I MIKKELI September 28th–29th 1989 • The relationship between the church IX HELSINKI January 15th – 16th 2009 and the people as a theological and • Encountering other religions historical issue • Languages of faith: How does the • The authority and significance of church meet a modern man? ecumenical councils

II UUSI VALAMO October 8th–10th PUBLISHED SOURCES 1990 • The relation between doctrine and Communiqué Mikkeli 1989 the canons and the ecumenically 1993 Communiqué Mikkeli 1989. – The binding nature of the canons Finnish Lutheran – Orthodox • Orthodox – Lutheran intermarriage Dialogue. Conversations in 1989 and as a pastoral issue 1990. Documents of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. III JÄRVENPÄÄ October 7th–9th 1991 Helsinki. 9–10. • The church as a worshipping community Communiqué Valamo 1990 • Our churches view of man and the 1993 Communiqué Valamo 1990. . – The present day Finnish Lutheran – Orthodox Dia-

201 logue. Conversations in 1989 and Johannes, archbishop 1990. Documents of the Evangelical 1993a Opening speech 1989. – The Finn- Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. ish Lutheran – Orthodox Dialogue. Helsinki. 61–62. Conversations in 1989 and 1990. Documents of the Evangelical Lu- Ecumenical Family Book theran Church of Finland, N:o 4. 1995 Ekumeeninen perhekirja. Toim. Mar- Helsinki. 13–14. jatta Jaanu-Schröder, Tarja Lehmus- 1993b Opening speech 1990. – The Finn- koski, Pirjo Työrinoja. Publications of ish Lutheran – Orthodox Dialogue. the Finnish Ecumenical Council Conversations in 1989 and 1990. Do- XLVII. Helsinki. cuments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. Helsinki. Ecumenical Handbook of Wedding Priest 65–66. 1999 Ekumeeninen vihkipapin kirja. Toim. 1995 Opening speech 1991. – The Finnish Pirjo Työrinoja ja Sirpa-Maija Vuori- Lutheran – Orthodox Dialogue. Con- nen. Publications of the Finnish Ecu- versations in 1991 and 1993. Docu- menical Council LVIII. Helsinki. ments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 7. Helsinki. Entering Marriage as an Ecumenical 12. Encounter 1994 Avioliiton solmiminen ekumeenisena Merras, Olavi kohtaamisena – Säädökset ja käytäntö 1993Marriage between Orthodox and kirkoissa ja kristillisissä yhteisöissä. Lutherans as a pastoral issue. – The Toim. Pirjo Työrinoja ja Antti Saarel- Finnish Lutheran – Orthodox Dia- ma. Publications of the Finnish Ecu- logue. Conversations in 1989 and menical Council XLI. 1990. Documents of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. Huotari, Voitto Helsinki. 87–101. 1975 Orthodox-Lutheran intermarriage. Publication No. 18 of the Research Toiviainen, Kalevi Institute of the Lutheran Church in 1993 Opening speech 1990. – The Finnish Finland. Pieksämäki. (in Finnish) Lutheran – Orthodox Dialogue. 1993 Orthodox-Lutheran intermarriage in Conversations in 1989 and 1990. Finland. – The Finnish Lutheran – Documents of the Evangelical Orthodox Dialogue. Conversations in Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. 1989 and 1990. Documents of the Helsinki. 63–64. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, N:o 4. Helsinki. 102–108. Vikström, John 1995 Preface. – The Finnish Lutheran – 1993 Challenge and opportunity. Opening Orthodox Dialogue. Conversations in speech 1989. – The Finnish Lutheran 1991 and 1993. Documents of the – Orthodox Dialogue. Conversations Evangelical Lutheran Church of in 1989 and 1990. Documents of the Finland, N:o 7. Helsinki. 7–8. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Fin- land, N:o 4. Helsinki. 11–12.

202 UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Communiqué Kouvola 1996 Letter of Bishop Kalevi Toiviainen to Arch- In personal possession of the writer bishop Johannes, May 24th 1990 Communiqué Helsinki 2009 Letter of Archbishop Johannes to Bishop Kalevi Toiviainen, June 19th 1990 The archives of the Chancellery of the Archbishop of Karelia and all Finland b) 0230 The dialogue between the Finn- (ACAKF) ish Orthodox Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church 1999–2007 a) 0230 The dialogue between the Finn- 1999 opening speech of Bishop Huotari ish Orthodox Church and Evangelical Communiqué Oulu 2001 Lutheran Church 1989–1996 (file 76) Communiqué Joensuu 1999 Communiqué Joensuu 2007

203 The Discussions between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church, 1989–2007

Kalevi Toiviainen

The historical background years when Finland was an autonomous of the discussions part of the Russian empire in 1809– 1917. As a result of the Reformation in the 16th Century, the Catholic Church in As a result of the civil war which ended Finland, with all its local parishes, be- in 1918, Finland broke away from came Lutheran. However, during the Russia and gained its independence as early Middle Ages, the Orthodox faith a State. After the war, the status of the had been rippled throughout the eastern- Orthodox Church also had to be re- most part of the country, Karelia, where considered. During the so-called years a few Orthodox monasteries and some of suppression, the Orthodox Church parishes had been founded. When Finn- had gained a bad reputation due to its ish Karelia followed the destiny of the role in the State’s Russification policy rest of Finland in 1617 and was ap- which was supported by its Russian pended to the Kingdom of Sweden, part bishop. Now, however, the Orthodox of its Orthodox population fled to Russia. Church was expected to become a na- Some Finnish Orthodox remained in the tional church, even though it still had a eastern parts of the country, and in 1939 new Russian assistant bishop in January the eastern Karelian parishes by the 1918. border still had an Orthodox majority population. Besides these, Orthodox As a result of the Bolshevik Revolution parishes were founded in larger cities, in Russia, the Orthodox archdiocese in e.g. Helsinki and Turku, during the Finland had lost its contacts with the

204 Moscow Patriarchate, and its canonical home districts. In the post war situation, status needed to be reorganised. Such they were depending on the financial being the case, the Finnish minister of support of the State, which was at the education and representatives of the same time struggling with financial Orthodox Church negotiated an agree- difficulties in resettling those evacuated ment in Constantinople in 1923. It stated from the areas assigned for the Soviet that the Finnish Orthodox Church was Union, rebuilding what was destroyed no longer part of the Moscow Patri- during the war and paying indemnity archate, but was removed and placed for its former enemy. under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as an autonomous Only in 1950 did it become possible to church. Since Assistant Bishop Serafim pass a law on the reconstruction of the could not speak Finnish, he was gradu- Orthodox Church in Finland. It is note- ally released from his duties in the course worthy that the law was passed by the of the following year. As the result of Parliament, the generality of which was these alterations, the Orthodox Church Lutheran. According to the law, the in Finland became a Finnish national State paid the church buildings, chapels, church, and it was recognised as a folk graveyards and rectories of the 14 new church by the State and had the same parishes to replace the former Karelian rights and duties as the Lutheran Church. ones.

The everyday life of the church was, Already at this time, conditions existed however, more strongly affected by the for the coexistence of the two churches. change, which conjoined the winter Both the Lutheran and the Orthodox (1939–1940) and the continuation churches in Finland had for centuries (1941–1944) wars. During these years, shared the joys and sorrows of their about 420 000 Finns, among them two people. In Karelia especially, the thirds of the Finnish Karelian Orthodox churches and their believers had lived population, were forced to leave their as neighbours and learned to know each homes. As a result of this, the Orthodox other well. Even though the churches population, which thus far had lived in as such were not in dialogue, the local a relatively coherent area, was now contacts between Lutheran and Ortho- scattered all over the country. The dox clergy had become more frequent. Lutheran majority of the evacuees faced The official dialogue between the two the same destiny, but the Orthodox were churches began only after the Evange- expected to settle in districts which were lical Lutheran Church had launched its usually dominated by Lutherans. At any dialogue with the Russian Orthodox rate, the role of those evacuated was not Church in 1970, and as a result, it sug- an easy one, but the Orthodox believers, gested that similar negotiations should who were often regarded by the local also take place with the Orthodox Church inhabitants as foreign elements, had the of Finland. most difficulty. The Lutheran migrants integrated into the local Lutheran par- The negotiations between the Finnish ishes, but the Orthodox generally needed Orthodox and Evangelical Lutheran to find new congregations in their new Church are characterized by the fact that

205 they are two national churches working in Estonia sent its observer to the in the same country. For centuries both meeting held in Joensuu in 2007. have been integrated into the history and national life of the Finnish people. They In each round of discussions two have approximately the same public themes, agreed in advance, have been position. For this reason, the churches under discussion. Each theme has been feel that they have had to bear a com- studied in two papers presented by mon responsibility in serving amid the respective partners in dialogue. Besides same people. Their voice is requested, this, the delegations have participated and their assistance is expected in the in prayers according to the tradition of area of values of life. Therefore, they both churches. In each round, a joint share a common concern for issues of communiqué has been published. Thus pastoral care, church teaching and the far, the communiqués and other docu- ethics. ments of 1989–1993 have been published in English (see the list at the end of the text). The structure and the topics of the discussions The places, dates and themes of the meetings are as follows: Metropolitan John (Johannes) was elected as the Archbishop of Karelia and Mikkeli 1989 all Finland in 1988. Soon after this, he The Authority and Significance of replied positively to the invitation of the Ecumenical Councils; Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland The Relationship between the Church presented already few years earlier, and and the People as a theological and the two churches were able to start the historical issue. dialogue. Both churches selected their own delegations and hosted the nego- Valamo 1990 tiations in turn. There were some changes The Relation between Doctrine and in the composition of the delegations the Canons and the ecumenically between the rounds of negotiations, but binding Nature of the Canon; the chairpersons were standing. Arch- Marriage between Orthodox and bishop John acted as the head of the Lutherans as a pastoral issue. Orthodox delegation in the first three rounds as well as in 1996, whereas in Järvenpää 1991 the other rounds the delegation was led The Church as a worshipping com- by Metropolitan Ambrosius. In the first munity; three rounds, the Lutheran delegation Our churches’ view of man and the was led by Kalevi Toiviainen, the bish- current day. op of Mikkeli, and after his retirement his successor Bishop Voitto Huotari. Iisalmi 1993 Besides the delegations, the Ecumenical Freedom of religion as a basic right Council of Finland sent its observers to in Finland; the discussions. The Orthodox Church The incarnation in the liturgical tradition of our churches.

206 Kouvola 1996 tradition lead to a better understanding Universal priesthood, of oneself, but they also clarify what is Work, unemployment and human characteristic to one’s own confession. value. It is a well-known fact that the ecumenical dialogues have increased the Joensuu 1999 awareness of our own confession in the The sacraments and the holy services, Finnish Lutheran Church. The churches and the hope of the world. The partners in dialogue both belong to their respective denominations as well Oulu 2001 as to the larger ecumenical community, The preconditions (sine qua non) of the World Council of Churches. Under the unity of the church; these circumstances, they have both The diaconal task of the church in confessional and wider ecumenical the society. responsibility. Therefore, the question arises whether the local churches can Joensuu 2007 build a basis to a wider interdenomina- Sanctification (Theosis) and striving; tional dialogue. Besides the fact that Violence in families and in close they are bound to be faithful to their relationships. own confessions, local churches are also ecumenically obliged to look for something that, under favourable conditions, The general nature may help the churches to find a common of the negotiations way forward.

The discussion between the Evangelical Topics brought out in the discussions – Lutheran Church and the Orthodox such as religious freedom, intermar- Church of Finland are carried out by two riages, unemployment and violence in churches living in one social context but close relationships – are topical with in two different ecclesiastical traditions. each passing day. Besides the general They share the same pastoral responsi- affect, they are of great pastoral impor- bility of the people among which they tance in the domestic life of Finnish live and a majority of which belong to families. Most of these questions touch these churches. Under these circum- upon every human being, irrespective stances, they are facing common pastoral of the denomination to which he or she problems. Since these problems are belongs, and are thus of common nature. common, they can be discussed together. Some questions again come up, es- Moreover, the ways they are seen and pecially when the members of a family solved by one tradition may turn to be come from different denominational useful for the work of the other tradition backgrounds. Therefore, a certain fa- as well. miliarity as well as adaptation to the Finnish context is characteristic to these The same possibility to learn from the negotiations – and similarly a necessity other tradition relates to the matters of for their success. dogma as well. Discussions with another

207 The discussions between local churches ish society. The issue was taken upon strive towards the common witness of in the negotiations of 2007 in relation all churches “so that the world may to the WCC’s Decade for Overcoming believe” (John 17:21). Their importance Violence. All the above mentioned topics for the local people arouses from the fact have been topical as well as typical for that there has been and still may appear Finnish society, and thus, mutual for both mutual misunderstanding, prejudice as churches. The discussions relating to well as misinterpretation between the these questions have shown that the two churches and their believers. On the churches have been willing to take other hand, good mutual connections seriously the problems arisen from their strengthen a positive impression of operational environment. Christian faith among those who have become estranged from it, and increase Besides the topics typical for the Finnish the mutual understanding and respect context, the churches have also dis- among their respective members. cussed themes specific or distinctive to both traditions, such as the idea of human being, the ministry of the church, The fruition of the objectives sacraments, liturgical life and understanding of the laity. Many times, these In the beginning of the negotiation themes have been touched upon relating process, the churches became aware of to a topical or practical context. From the necessity to grab the topical questions the view point of dogmatic questions, of everyday life, questions which both it would, however, be realistic to say churches were facing and thus respon- that the meaning of these negotiations sible for. These tasks are especially refor the global or even for interdenomi- lated to the pastoral task of the churches national dialogue has been rather within Finnish society and which are limited. It can hardly be expected that a rising from this particular context. Es- Lutheran or an Orthodox local church pecially since 1993, the social-ethical takes the liberty or even has the opportu- and pastoral view points have become nity to take major ecumenical steps central for the negotiations. Already in which would lead to a world-wide ecu- 1990, the churches wanted the grab the menical breakthrough. It is something topic of inter-marriages and problems we all are expecting, but it is also some- they are causing. The questions relating thing we all have thus far been dis- to work or unemployment have become appointed with again and again. We commonplace, but also painful in Finn- need to confine ourselves to modest ish society, especially after the decline aims on the level of the local discussions of the 1990s. Unemployment has been – which is, however, not a meaningless equally faced by members of both fact. churches. Under these circumstances, it was natural to discuss these questions Besides the modest universal relevance, in the negotiations of 1996. Further- the dogmatic dialogue of the local more, the churches have not been avoid- churches is also restricted by a limited ing facing a discussion on violence, one reserve of theological expertise. Such of the most regretful problems of Finn- being the case, these kinds of negotia-

208 tions challenge the ecumenical readi- that reading the Catechism can support ness of the churches as well as the theo- Lutheran meditation and prayer, it may logical teaching in the universities and have been a viewpoint that was under- churches. standable for those coming from an Orthodox tradition. The discussions have regularly dealt with a dogmatic or liturgical theme. The The ecumenical significance of the importance of the liturgy for the Ortho- canonical tradition is a theme taken up dox Church served as a fruitful back- by the Orthodox. It has been difficult ground for the Lutheran Church, espe- for a Lutheran to understand how re- cially at the time when the Finnish ferring to the tradition of the church can Evangelical Lutheran Church was pre- form an indisputable argument when paring a liturgical reform. Liturgy has, discussing e.g. the ministry of the however, not been just a topic discussed church. However, the tradition is funda- in the meetings, but a common prayer mental also for the Lutheran under- has always been an inseparable part of standing of faith, and it cannot be the programme of the discussions. defeated by the slogan sola scriptura, Similarly, sharing the spiritual life has because it is understood correctly only deepened the understanding of each if remembered that scriptura numquam others’ doctrinal content according to sola – for the Gospel has always been the principle of lex orandi – lex credendi. understood within and on the basis of a tradition. It may also be easier for a In an ecumenical dialogue, it is crucial Lutheran than for an Orthodox to refer to be aware of one’s own confession – to the viewpoint addressed by the WCC a fact that distinguishes a dialogue from Faith and Order conference in Montreal activities of alliance ecumenism in- in 1963 stating that tradition should different to dogmatic questions. Inter- always be tested as well. The early action with another tradition opens up Lutheran insight was that everything one’s own traditional awareness. How- that is accordant to tradition does not ever, it is at least as essential to try and necessarily refer to Christ, “the author find overarching theological themes that and the perfecter of our faith” (Heb may have been lost over the decades. 12:2). The importance of ecumenical Thus, ecumenical discussion at its best talks is to help us to overcome a situa- is like digging a common treasure tion where we all read the Bible separa- hidden under decades of misdevelop- tely in light of our own traditions. ment. Finding the treasure helps us to understand not only our own, but also Assessing tradition is only one small each other’s confessions. Such being detail amongst the difficulties the the case, e.g. Luther is not an argument churches in dialogue are facing. If any- in ecumenical dialogues in general, and thing, these negotiations are locally especially not in Lutheran-Orthodox reflecting the fact that on the journey dialogue, unless we are able to show to overcome the greatest ecumenical how he is connected with the Catholic obstacle – mutual understanding and tradition of the undivided church. When recognition of the ministry – we are still the Lutheran party in 2007 appointed at the very beginning. A local dialogue

209 is not able to solve problems like this, emeritus of ecumenics at the University but it may help the process in recogni- of Helsinki. He has participated in sing the problems. With this in mind, various Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues at the Evangelical Lutheran and the national and international level. Orthodox churches in Finland have chosen not to crystallize the discussions in the form of a thesis, but have con- Literature sidered the process as an exercise in mutual understanding and tolerance. The Finnish Lutheran - Orthodox Dialogue: Conversations in 1989 and 1990. Docu- (English translation Kaisamari Hintik- ments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church ka) of Finland 4. Helsinki 1993.

* * * The Finnish Lutheran - Orthodox Dialogue. Conversations in 1991 and 1993. Docu- Kalevi Toiviainen is bishop emeritus of ments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church the Diocese of Mikkeli and professor of Finland 7. Helsinki 1995.

210 Bibliography on Dialogues between Orthodox and Other CEC Member Churches

1 Sources Sergeiev Posad. 1.1 Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue http://www.ekd.de/orthodoxie/ kommunique_moskau_ 2005.pdf N.B. See also complete list of documents on Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues until Kommuniqué der 3. Begegnung im 2005 collected by Professor Risto Saa- bilateralen Theologischen Dialog zwischen rinen at: der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/ der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland lutort.html nach dem Neubeginn in Bad Urach (Bad Urach III) [Mühlheim an der Ruhr, 2002] Statement. Conference of European http://www.ekd.de/orthodoxie/ Churches Evangelical Lutheran Church of kommunique_muehlheim.pdf Finland. Consultation on the Reception of Dialogues between the Orthodox 1.1.3 EKD-Romanian Orthodox churches and the churches of the Re- Church formation: “Are the fields ripe for Kommuniqué der 11. Begegnung im harvesting? The reception of the dialogues bilateralen Theologischen Dialog between our churches”. Helsinki, Finland, zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen 23–26 September 2001. Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in http://www.cec-kek.org/English/ Deutschland [Thüringen, 2006] HelsinkiE-print.htm http://www.ekd.de/download/ kommunique_goslar_xi.pdf 1.1.1 EKD-Patriarchate of Constantinople Kommuniqué der 10. Begegnung im Kommuniqué der 13. Begegnung im bilateralen Theologischen Dialog bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen dem Ökumenischen Patriarchat von Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Konstantinopel und der Evangelischen Deutschland (Goslar X) [Cluj/Klausen- Kirche in Deutschland. Thema: Die burg, 2002] Gnade Gottes und das Heil der Welt. http://www.ekd.de/orthodoxie/ Phanar, 16.–22. September 2004 kommunique_goslar.pdf http://www.ekd.de/orthodoxie/ kommunique_istanbul.pdf 1.1.4 EKD-Bulgarian Orthodox Church 1.1.2. EKD-Moscow Patriarchate Herrnuhut. Theologische Geschpräche Kommuniqué des bilateralen Theolo- mit der Bulgarischen Orthodoxen Kirche. gischen Gesprächs zwischen der Hg. von Rolf Koppe im Auftrag des Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Kirchenamtes der Evangelischen Kirche Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland in Deutschland. Hermannsburg, 2001. vom 17.04.–22.04.2005 in Moskau /

211 1.1.5 EKD-Oriental Orthodox Anglican Orthodox Dialogue. The Dublin Churches Agreed Statement. Crestwood, NY, St. Schlusskommuniqué. Konsultation zum Vladmir’s Seminary Press, 1984. Thema “Miteinander auf dem Weg” der http://www.aco.org/ministry/ecumenical/ EKD mit den Orientalischen Orthodoxen dialogues/orthodox/docs/the_dublin_ Kirchen März 2003. statement.cfm http://www.ekd.de/orthodoxie/ schlusskommunique_miteinander_auf_ The Church of the Triune God. The dem_ weg.pdf Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican- 1.1.6 Russian Orthodox Church- Orthodox Theological Dialogue 2006. Evangelical Lutheran Church of London, Anglican Communion Office, Finland 2006. Dialogue between neighbours. The theological conversations between the 1.3.2 Anglican-Oriental Orthodox Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland Agreed statement on Christology, and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970– Etchmiadzin 2002 1986: communiques and theses. Ed. by http://www.aco.org/ministry/ecumenical/ Hannu T. Kamppuri. Helsinki, Luther- dialogues/oriental/docs/2002 christology. Agricola Society, 1986. cfm

1.2 Reformed-Orthodox dialogue 1.4 Old Catholic-Orthodox dialogue Agreed statements from the Orthodox- See bibliography on pages 87–95. Reformed dialogue. Ed. Lukas Vischer. Studies from the 1.5 Orthodox-CPCE World Alliance of Reformed Churches Communiqué . Conference of European 38. Geneva, WARC, 1998. Churches-Community of Protestant Churches in Europe Oriental Orthodox-Reformed dialogue. (Leuenberg Church Fellowship). The first four sessions. Ed. H. S. Wilson. Consultation about the question on Studies from the World Alliance of ecclesiology. Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Reformed Churches 40. Geneva World June 25–27, 2004 Alliance of Reformed Churches 1998. http://www.cec-kek.org/pdf/Wittenberg. pdf.pdf 1.3 Anglican-Orthodox dialogue 1.3.1 Anglican-Eastern Orthodox Communiqué. Conference of European Anglican-Orthodox dialogue: the Moscow Churches-Community of Protestant statement agreed by the Anglican- Churches in Europe (Leuenberg Church Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission Fellowship). Consultation on 1976 with introductory and supporting Ecclesiology, 28 November - 1 December material. Eds. Kallistos Ware and Colin 2002 Davey. London, SPCK, 1977. http://www.cec-kek.org/English/ http://www.aco.org/ministry/ecumenical/ CommuniqueE-print.htm dialogues/orthodox/docs/the_moscow_ statement.cfm

212 Konsultation zwischen der Konferenz Resumeé of the dialogues in Finnish: Europäischer Kirchen (KEK) und der http://www.evl.fi/kkh/kuo Leuenberger Kirchengemeinschaft (LKG) zur Frage der Ekklesiologie. Bericht über 1.9 Dialogues, general die Konsultation. Referate und Schluss- Growth in Agreement. Reports and kommuniqué /Consultation between the Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conference of European Churches (CEC) Conversations on a World Level. Eds. and the Leuenberg Church Fellowship Harding. Meyer and Lukas Vischer. (LCF) on ecclesiology. Report on the con- Geneva, WCC, 1984. sultation. Papers and final communiqué. Orthodox Academy Crete 28.11.– Growth in Agreement II. Reports and 1.12.2002. Hrsg. von Wilhelm Hüffmeier Agreed Statements of Ecumenical und Viorel Ionita. Leuenberger Texte, Conversations on a World Level 1982– Heft 8. Frankfurt am Main, Otto Lem- 1998. Eds. Jeffrey Gros, Harding. Meyer beck, 2004. and William G. Rusch. Geneva, WCC, http://www.leuenberg.eu/daten/File/ 2000. Upload/doc-28-2.pdf Growth in Agreement III. International 1.6 Orthodox-Porvoo Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, Communiqué. Conference of European 1998–2005. Eds. Jeffrey Gros, Thomas Churches Eastern Orthodox – Porvoo F. Best and Lorelei F. Fuchs. Geneva, Consultation Järvenpää, Finland, 1-4 WCC, 2007. December 2005 http://www.cec-kek.org/pdf/Eastern Orthodoxie im Dialog. Bilaterale Dialoge OrthodoxPorvooCommunique.pdf der orthodoxen und der orientalisch- orthodoxen Lirchen 1945–1997. Eine 1.7 LWF-Orthodox Joint Commission Dokumentensammlung. […] hrsg. und See an updated list of documents at: bearb. von Thomas Bremer, Johannes http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/ Oeldemann und Dagmar Stoltmann. lutortjointtext.html#divi (Sophia 32). Paulinus, Trier, 1999.

1.8 Finnish Lutheran-Orthodox The Finnish Lutheran-Orthodox Dia- II Literature logue. Conversations in 1989 and 1990. N.B. See also bibliography on dialogues Documents of the Evangelical Lutheran collected by Professor Risto Saarinen at: Church of Finland 4. Helsinki, Church http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/ Council for Foreign Affairs, 1993. lutortbibl.html

The Finnish Lutheran-Orthodox Dia- Anglicans in dialogue: the contribution logue. Conversations in 1991 and 1993. of theological dialogues to the search for Documents of the Evangelical-Lutheran the visible unity of the Churches in the Church of Finland 7. Helsinki, Church 1980s. London, Church House, 1984. Council for Foreign Affairs, 1995.

213 Arx, Urs von: Vertane Chancen, Der Demke, Christoph: Erfahrungen und Dialog zwischen der Altkatholischen und Ausblick. Die Sagorsker Gespräche als der Orthodoxen Kirche, in Die Orthodoxe gesamtökumenischer Beitrag zur Kirche. Ein Standortsbestimmung an der Theologie. Stimme der Orthodoxie 28/8, Jahrtausenwende. Hg. von A. Basdekis pp. 27–29. et al. Frankfurt a. M., Lemmbeck, 1990, pp. 199–222. Dialogue East and West. Lectures delivered at a Conference arranged by the Arx, Urs von: Der orthodox-altkatho- Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius lische Dialog. Anmerkungen zu einer in Oxford, March, 1962. [s.l.] the Fellow- schwierigen Rezeption, Internationale ship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1963. kirchliche Zeitschrift 87 (1997), pp. 184– 224. Les dialogues oecuméniques hier et aujourd’hui. Chambésy, Centre Ortho- Baktis, Peter Anthony: Old Catholic- doxe du Patriarcat Oecuménique, 1985. Orthodox agreed statements on ecclesiology: reflection for a paradigm shift in Frank, G. C. L.: A Lutheran Turned contemporary ecumenism – The World Eastwards: The Use of the Greek Fathers Council and the Christian World Com- in the Eucharistic Theology of Martin munions. The Ecumenical Review, Oct, Chemnitz. St. Vladimir’s Theological 1994. Quaterly Vol 26, pp. 155–171.

Bilateral dialogues. The papers and Gaither, Linda L.: To receive a text. findings of the WARC Consultation held Literary reception theory as a key to from April 21–25, 1992 at Princeton reception. New York, Peter Lang, 1997. Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. Ed. H. S. Wilson. Studies Greschat, Martin: Neubeginn in der Kraft from the World Alliance of Reformed des Evangeliums. Zu den Anfängen der Churches 24. Geneva, WARC, 1993. Beziehungen zwischen der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland und der Russischen Birmelé, André: Le salut en Jésus Christ Orthodoxen Kirche nach dem zweiten dans les dialogues oecuméniques. Paris, Weltkrieg in Partner der Ökumene. Zeug- Cerf, 1986. nisse und Lebensarbeit von Heinz Joac- him Held. Bielenfeld, 1993, pp. 153–167. Communio and dialogue: a report from the consultation on ecumenical dialogues, Von Gott angenommen – in Christus Venice, 24–28 September 1991. Ed. by verwandelt. Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Eugene L. Brand. Geneva, Lutheran multilateralen ökumenischen Dialog. Hg. World Federation, 1992. von Uwe Swarat, Johannes Oeldemann und Dagmar Heller im Auftrag des Demke, Christoph: Rückschau und DÖSTA. Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Ausblick auf orthodox-evangelische Rundschau 78. Frankfurt a.M., 2006. Gespräche. Stimme der Orthodoxie 21/4, pp. 41–44. Henner, J.: Schrift und Tradition. Altes Problem und neue Perspektiven.

214 Ökumenisches Forum 26–27 (2003-2004) ficance of Luther’s Doctrine on Salvation. 138–164. Pneuma 24, 1 (2002), pp. 26–39.

Hodges, H. A.: Anglicanism & Ortho- Leb, Ioan-Vasile: Orthodoxie si vechi- doxy. A study in dialectical church- catolicisim, sau, Ecumencism înainte de manship. London, SCM Press, 1955. Miscarea Ecumenica. Cluj-Napoca, Presa Universitara Clujeana, 1996. International bilateral dialogues 1965– 1991. List of commissions, meetings, Larenzakis, Grekorios: Die Bedeutung der themes and reports. Compiled by Günther Heiligen Schrift und der Traditon in der Gassmann. Faith and Order paper 156. Kirche: Orthodox-Lutherischer Dialog. Geneva, WCC Publications, 1991. Ökumenisches Forum 26–27 (2003– 2004), pp. 165–184. Ionita, Viorel: Dialogues de l’églises orthodoxe avec les églises de la Reforme. Lilienfeld, Fairy von: Der theologische Unité des chrétiens 133 (2004), pp. 28– Dialog zwischen der Russisch-Ortho- 31. doxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland von 1956–1986. Kirchliches Lehren in ökumenischer Das Heilige Russland. 1000 Jahre Verplichtung. Eine Studie zur Rezeption Russisch-Orthodoxe Kirche. Freiburg – ökumenischer Dokumente erarbeitet vom Basel – Wien, Herder 1987, pp. 233–238. Ökumenischen Studienausschuss der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Manole, Nicolae: Ekklesiologishce Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD) und des Perspectiven im Dialog zwischen ortho- Deutschen Nationalkomitees des doxen und reformatorischen Kirchen. Lutherischen Weltbundes (DNK/LWB). Münster, LIT Verlag 2005. Hg. von Hermann Brandt. Stuttgart, Calwer 1986. Martikainen, Eeva: Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther and the Kretschmar, Georg: Das theologische Russian Dialogue. Ego Sum Qui Sum. Gespräch mit der orthodoxen Kirche Festschrift für Jouko Martikainen. Hg. Russlands. Lutherische Monatshefte 3/5, Tuomas Martikainen. Studier I syste- pp. 209–215. matisk teologi vid Åbo Akademi, 29. Åbo 2008, 379–396. Kretschmar, Georg: Der theologische Dialog zwischen der Russischen Ortho- Martin, R. K.: Christian Ministry as doxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Communion. Journal of Ecumenical Kirche in Deutschland. Tausend Jahre Studies 35. 3–4 (1998), pp. 405–424. Christentum in Russland. Zum Millenium der Taufe der Kiever Rus’. Hg. Karl- The new man: an Orthodox and Reformed Christian Felmy et al. Göttingen, Vander- dialogue. Ed. by John Meyendorff and hoeck&Rupprecht, 1988, pp. 973–987. Joseph C. McLelland. New Brunswick, NJ, Agora Books, 1973. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti: The Holy Spirit and Justification. The Ecumenical Signi-

215 Nikolaou, Theodor: Der Orthodox Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift Lutherische Dialog. Geschichtlicher 1988, vol. 78, no2, pp. 79–89. Überblick und gemeinsame Texte in Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Ein Standorts- Pelikan, Jaroslav: The Twentieth Century bestimmung an der Jahrtausenwende. Hg. Theology in the Making. Vol. 2, von A. Basdekis et al. Frankfurt a. M., Theological Dialogues: Issues and Lemmbeck, 1999, pp. 242–277. Resources. [s.l.], Collins. 1970.

Nissiotis, Nikos A.: Die Theologie der Reception of Dialogues between Ostkirche im ökumenischen Dialog. Orthodox and Protestant Churches. CEC- Kirche und Welt in orthodoxer Sicht. Stutt- KEK Monitor 37 (2001), p. 7. gart, Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1968. Rein, Harald: Kirchengemeinschaft. Die Oeldemann, Johannes: Die Komple- anglikanisch-altkatolisch-orthodoxen mentarität der Traditionen. Grundlagen, Beziehungen von 1870 bis 1990 und ihre Problemfelder und Perspektiven des ökumenische Relevanz. Teil 2: Die ökumenischen Dialogs mit der Ortho- anglikanisch-ortodoxen Beziehungen. Die doxie. Catholica 56/1, 44–67. orthodox-altkatholischen Beziehungen. Das ekklesiologische Selbstverständnis Oeldemann, Johannes: Orthodoxe und die Beziehungen dieser drei zu Kirchen im ökumenischen Dialog. anderen Kirchen. Europäische Hohc- Positionen, Probleme, Perspektiven. schulschriften, Band 511. Bern, Lang, Paderborn, 2004. 1994.

Oeldemann, Johannes: Die Apostolizität Report of the consultation on Lutheran- der Kirche im ökumenischen Dialog mit Orthodox dialogues. Liebfrauenberg, der Orthodoxie. Der Beitrag russischer France, March 26th-28th, 1974. Geneva, orthodoxer Theologen zum ökumenischen Lutheran World Federation, [1974]. Gespräch über die apostolische Tradition und die Sukzession in der Kirche. Kon- Rinkel, Andreas: Altkatolisch und fessionskundliche und kontrovers- Orthodox. Vortrag auf dem 18. Inter- theologische Studien, Bd. 71. Paderborn, nationalen Altkatholikan Kongress. Bonifatius, 2000. Harleem, De Oud-Katholieke Pers, 1962.

Overmeyer, Heiko: Frieden in Spannungs- Romanidis, I.: Some Soteriological feld zwischen Theologie und Politik. Die Presuppositions on the Seven Ecumenical Friedensthematik in den bilateralen Councils: Lutheran-Orthodox Preliminary theologischen Gesprächen von Arnolds- meeting, 5–10 July 1994, Venice, Italy. hain und Sagorsk. Diss. Frankfurt a. M., Theologia 70, 4 (1999), 639–645. Otto Lembeck, 2005. Rusch, William G.: Reception. An Papandreou, D.: Der orthodox-alt- Ecumenical Opportunity. LWF Report katholische Dialog. Ein Modell für die 22. Geneva, WCC, 1988. Uberwindung der kirchlichen Spaltung zwischen Abendland und Morgenland?

216 Saard, Riho: “Suurenmoinen rakkauden Seventh Forum on bilateral dialogues, 9– näytelmä”. Suomen evankelis-luterilaisen 14 May 1997 John XXIII Centre, Annecy- ja Venäjän ortodoksisen kirkon oppi- le-Vieux, France. Emerging visions neuvottelut kylmän sodan vuosina. visible unity in the Canberra Statement (Summary ”The great drama of love”, and the Bilateral Dialogues : Report and doctrinal negotiations between the papers presented. International bilateral Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland dialogues 1994–1997. List of commis- and the Russian Orthodox Church in the sions, meetings, themes and reports. Cold War era / Rezûme: ”Blestâ^sij Compiled by Alan D. Falconer. Faith and spektakl’ lûbvi”, bogoslovskie sobesedo- Order Paper no. 179. Geneva, WCC baniâ mezdu Evangelicesko-lûteranskoj Publications, 1997. cerkov’û Finlândii i Russkoj pravoslavnoj cerkov’û v gody holodnoj voiny). Theological dialogue between Orthodox Tallinna, Argo 2006. and Reformed Churches. Ed. by Thomas F. Torrance. Vol I. Edinburgh, Scottish Saarinen, Risto: Faith and Holiness. Academic Press,1985. Lutheran Orthodox Dialogues 1959– 1994. Göttingen, Vanderhoeck & Theological dialogue between Orthodox Ruprecht, 1997. and Reformed Churches. Ed. by Thomas F. Torrance. Vol II. Edinburgh, Scottish Saarinen, Risto: Der weltweite lutherisch- Academic Press, 1993. orthodoxe Dialog von 1994 bis 2002. Ökumenische Rundschau 52, 2 (2003), Thöle, Reinhard: Theologische Nähe pp. 213–223. zwischen orthodoxen und evangelischen Kirchenentdecken. Die EKD im ge- Salaris, S. C.: Christology in the Re- schpäch mit orthodoxen Patriachaten in formed –Orthodox Dialogue. Journal of Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Ein Standorts- Ecumencial Studies 38, 4 (2001), pp. 432– bestimmung an der Jahrtausenwende. Hg. 443. von A. Basdekis et al. Frankfurt a. M., Lemmbeck, 1999. Schneirla, William Sutfin: Some Ortho- dox Reflections on the Proposed Book of Torrance, Thomas F.: Trinitarian Per- Common Prayer. St. Vladimir’s Theo- spectives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement. logical Quaterly Vol 22, pp. 115–125. Edinburgh, Clark, 1994.

Schuegraf, Oliver: Der einen Kirche Wybrew, Hugh: Anglican-Orthodox Gestalt geben. Ekklesiologie in den Dialogue. Sobornost 25, 1 (2003), pp. 79– Dokumenten der bilateralen Konsens- 83. ökumene. Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 3. Diss. Münster, Aschendorff, 2001.

217 RESEPTIO 1/2009 In this issue

* * *

Dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC Member Churches