sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aloys Grillmeier, Conciliarity, Hilarion (Alfeyev), John Meyendorff, Papal primacy, Walter Kasper

Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Primacy: A Plea for a New Common Approach

By ADAM A.J. DEVILLE

(Adam A.J. DeVille is an Assistant Professor of at the University of St. Francis in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and editor of : A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies.)

(Originally published in Ecumenical Trends, Volume 37, No. 4, April 2008)

It is obvious that the forces of division land destruction, both natural and supernatural, do not desire the success of the international dialogue between the Orthodox and . Whenever the dialogue is on the verge of making progress, it is waylaid by some unforeseen secondary issue. Consider the history.1

After getting underway in 1980, the dialogue slowly began to zero in on what is universally acknowledged as the stumbling block, viz., . Just as this issue was being tackled, the dialogue began to fall apart in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reemergence from the underground of the suppressed Eastern Catholic Churches in Romania and especially Western Ukraine. The Orthodox Churches demanded the dialogue deal with the issue of these so-called uniate Churches,2 which it did in the 1993 Balamand Statement.3 That did not resolve matters to Orthodox satisfaction, however, and the dialogue began to collapse, not meeting again — and only in incomplete and abortive fashion — until 2000 in Baltimore, a meeting known to have been a complete fiasco.4 The next five years were marred by recriminations (“proselytism,” violations of “,” etc.) and demands that were bandied about with frequency but not always terminological precision, logic, or evidence.

Finally, after the election of Benedict XVI, certain hopeful noises were made about a resumption of the dialogue, which did indeed meet again in Belgrade in September 2006.5 That meeting was a quiet success, and ecumenists around the world could be heard collectively to breathe a sigh of relief and utter a prayer of thanksgiving: if a meeting in the Balkans of all places did not fall apart, perhaps there was hope after all.

And yet, at the end of that meeting, there was a substantial if little-noticed or - understood conflict.6 Unlike past conflicts, however, this was an intra-Orthodox affair in the face of which the Catholics, led by Walter Cardinal Kasper as head of the delegation, could only watch politely, distantly, and, one suspects, not a little uncomfortably.

Once more this fall, when the dialogue met in in October 2007, the same intra-Orthodox dispute erupted in greater fashion than in Belgrade. Both last year and this, Alfeyev, the Russian Orthodox bishop of and head of the Russian delegation to the dialogue, objected to what he saw as an attempt in the dialogue to unjustifiably elevate the role and authority of the Ecumenical of , about whom there is no clear consensus on the part of Orthodox canonists and ecclesiologists, to say nothing of the hierarchs themselves. (The conflict over Constantinople is not a new one. As Joseph Olsr and Joseph Gill recognized in 1951, “the Slav Churches, under the aegis of , challenge the theory of the prerogatives of Constantinople, and in practice studiously ignore them. The Oecumenical ... defends its traditional practices and refuses to yield to any part of its claims.”)7

In fact, in both 2006 and 2007, Hilarion has put his finger on a crucial difficulty and major lacuna in Orthodox that has been identified as such for many centuries, but perhaps most acutely in the last eighty-five years.8 There is no consensus on primacy in general or on particular forms of primacy, such as universal primacy, papal primacy, or the primacy exercised by Constantinople. In the face of such a lacuna, Bishop Hilarion argued that “the Orthodox participants are not authorized to ‘invent’ an ecclesiological model for the Orthodox Church similar to the one existing in the Church in order that the Patriarch of Constantinople could occupy a place like the one the occupies in the Church of .”9 In another article, Hilarion was even more explicit in saying that Orthodox-Catholic dialogue “would be possible only if an ecclesiological model in which the Patriarch of Constantinople occupies the place of an ‘Eastern Pope’ is not imposed on the Orthodox Church.”10 According to Alfeyev, “there has been no such a model in the Orthodox Church, and for instituting it at least the Pan-Orthodox Council is required and the consent of all local Orthodox Churches.”11 Such a seeking of consensus, he said, should take place first “within and after it, if possible, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.” Such a seeking of consensus is necessary because among the Orthodox Churches there is a very considerable divergence of understandings of what primacy is in general, and what any particular “primacy” exercised by Constantinople may legitimately entail. As Hilarion said, some Orthodox “rather regard this primacy as purely honourable, while others give certain coordinating functions to the patriarch of Constantinople and see him as highest court.”12 Hilarion is right on all these matters. The real issues about Constantinople’s role, its canonical status and the historical changes pertaining thereto, the relationships between it and the other Orthodox and Churches in general, and the larger question of primacy, are all far from clearly settled in Orthodox ecclesiology or, especially, practice.13

Bishop Hilarion’s objection was renewed in a stronger way in October 2007 as he led the Russian delegation in walking out of the meeting because a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was admitted — an action he was duty-bound to perform in compliance with the wishes of his . claims that the Estonian Church is dependent on it, but Constantinople has recognized a second Church in Estonia to which it has granted autonomy, which is disputed and resented by the Russians.14 In this instance as in 2006, the flashpoint is the status and authority of Constantinople. Does it have the authority to grant autonomy or autocephaly to other Churches, and if so, is that authority its own exclusive prerogative? Or do other Churches have this authority? Russia clearly thinks other Churches have this authority, and used this argument to grant independence to the Orthodox Church of America in 1970, an act still not recognized by Constantinople or many other Orthodox.15

Bishop Hilarion, an ecumenically irenic, Western-educated and very substantial Russian theologian, is not advancing here a Russocentric agenda at the expense of a weakened Constantinople. He has, as we noted above, put his finger on a lacuna in Orthodox ecclesiology. That lacuna is a lack of consensus on the question of primacy in all its forms, but especially in its “universal” form. Some among Constantinople’s defenders and apologists have been inclined, over the years, to suggest that the Ecumenical Patriarch has powers of supervision of younger Churches outside the territory of the original, ancient patriarchates, of settling intra-Church disputes, of convening global Orthodox councils, and of granting independence to newer and younger Churches.16 The Ecumenical Patriarch is thus said to act universally as “,” with more emphasis on primus than some would like.

According to Alfeyev, however, “there has been no such a model in the Orthodox Church.” Some Orthodox, he continued, “rather regard this primacy as purely honourable, while others give certain coordinating functions to the patriarch of Constantinople and see him as highest court.” The importance of resolving this question was underscored not just by Alfeyev’s declarations and actions, but also by Walter Cardinal Kasper, the Catholic co-chairman of the dialogue, who said in an interview two days after the dialogue concluded in 2006 that “if the question were to remain open, it would in fact cause a permanent difficulty for the international Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.”17

There is, then, consensus at least on what the dividing issue is among the Orthodox, and a recognition of the widespread importance of settling this issue. The reasons for this lack of consensus are several, but need not detain us here. What is important to note here is that for all the papers that have been published lamenting the lack of consensus, and all the calls over the decades for the need to come to a consensus, the plain fact is that Orthodoxy is no closer to a consensus on primacy in any form than it was a century ago. Moreover, as the actions of Bishop Alfeyev show, the prospects of coming to such a consensus any time soon seem slim indeed. One must therefore, respectfully but firmly, ask our Orthodox confreres whether we are all to wait another century or longer before this much- lamented lacuna in Orthodox ecclesiology is filled. I do not think that in good conscience any ecumenist can consent to such a wait, not least when there are alternative methods for proceeding.

What I want to draw attention to is a possible method for settling them. I want to suggest that, pace Alfeyev and Kasper, Orthodoxy does not need first to sort out its own “internal” understanding of universal primacy and the role of Constantinople in order next to come to a consensus between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the question of papal primacy. I want to suggest, rather, that Orthodoxy and Catholics do this together because universal primacy, which is to say papal primacy, is an open question for all Christians, and we need each other to solve this problem. In 1995, in an unprecedented and justly famous request, the late Pope Paul II, in his landmark Ut Unum Sint, asked for help in reconfiguring his office so that it would no longer be an ecumenical stumbling block:

as Bishop of Rome I am... convinced that I have a particular responsibility in... acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation...

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church?’8 That request remains an open invitation, and it seems infinitely more profitable and worthwhile to answer the question together. There is no point in both sides waiting for years — and likely decades or centuries — to come up with answers which would then have to be re-thought (or at the very least painstakingly synthesized) all over again once they met in dialogue. Working in isolation has not been fruitful for either side, as has been recently recognized by Zizioulas at a symposium (organized by Kasper) in Rome in 2003 on primacy. There he argued that the answer to the question of primacy “can only come as a common answer from theology, not from biblical or history.”19 Zizioulas stressed the importance of coming to a common answer to the question

whether and for what theological reasons we need a universal primus, and how we can understand his nature and function. Such theological reasons can emerge from an ecclesiology of communion.... This would mean that the justification of the Roman primacy would depend on whether we agree that the Church consists of full local churches united into one Church without losing their ecclesial fullness; and that primacy at all levels is a necessary means to realize and guarantee this balance between the many and the one.20

Zizioulas’s emphasis on solving these problems “in common” was also underscored by one of his fellow symposiasts in Rome in 2003. The Romanian Orthodox theologian and canonist V. Nicolae Dura also argued that the difficulties of sorting out questions of primacy and papacy constitute “an area still open for our common work to find satisfactory answers and solutions.”21 Dura went on to propose that in undertaking such common work

the whole tradition of the Church, Orthodox and Catholic — biblical, liturgical, patristic, historical, and so forth — must be taken into account, from the apostolic period up to our time, in order to better discover the principal role of the bishopofRome at the service of the unity of the ecumenical Church.22

Dura went on to argue that the question of primacy “needs a comparative study that can evaluate — sine ira et studio — all Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiological and canonical data.”23

Zizioulas and Dura have called for a common method and collaborative effort in solving these issues, and I want to underscore the importance of this. Yes, we need to have a clear sense of our own traditions, but these traditions are not static or one-sided but dynamic, the methods for approaching them dialogical. Neither tradition has ever existed in isolation, and neither tradition today can afford to examine problems without the collaboration and input of other Christian traditions. Only by working together on our common problems can we find the mind of Christ. We have already waited too long for unity and wasted too many years hoping for an elusive consensus on primacy to emerge first in one tradition, then another.24 When there is an open question on the table, posed by Pope John Paul II, that concerns us all, is it not possible, and eminently sensible in practical terms, to respond to that question and so come to a common mind, as Catholics and Orthodox, on the question of universal papal primacy first?

The benefit of this approach is twofold: we solve this most vexatious of issues and, in so doing, we have, ipso facto, come to a common mind about the primacy of Constantinople. For the problem of Constantinople’s primacy only emerged once the communion between it, as the “second see” of the so-called , and the see of Rome, the first see in , was broken. At that point, Constantinople was said, if never entirely clearly or authoritatively, to take over some of the “primatial” responsibilities that Rome is thought to have held in the first millennium. If, in the third millennium, we repair the breach between Constantinople and Rome — that is, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism as a whole —by resolving the last issue between us, the papacy, then it stands to reason that we will thereby have also resolved the problem of Constantinople’s primacy. Constantinople will once more resume its place as the second see of the Christian Church, and the taxis or order of the early Church will be renewed — with, no doubt, some important differences — for the good of us all, who will thus have come to a common mind about primacy.

Let us pray, then, that this intra-Orthodox dispute will not derail the dialogue once more. Let us suggest that the dialogue press on to resolve together the question of primacy so that we may come to a mind on this that is truly common and wholly one. We have already been divided for too long; we have already waited too long for the renewal of unity; we have already wasted too many years apart searching for a consensus that still eludes us. Now is the time for “holy impatience” and a desire to press on towards that that the wills for the .

Notes:

1. Some of the history, together with the early documents of the dialogue, may be located in John Erickson and John Borelli, eds., The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1996). 2. About which see Robert Taft, “The Problem of ‘Uniatism’ and the ‘Healing of Memories’: Anamnesis, not Amnesia,” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 41-42 (2000-01): 155-96.

3. The Balamand Statement may be found in John Erickson and John Borelli, The Quest for Unity, 175-83.

4. Details of the difficulties in Baltimore in 2000, the last meeting of the dialogue until 2006, are told by E. Lanne and M. van Parys, “Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe a BaltimoreEmmitsburg,” Irenikon 3-4(2000): 405-18.

5. Catholic World News linked to the comrnunique: http://portal- credo.ru/site/?actnews&id=47488 ; this is also available on the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: http://www.ec-patr.gr/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=719&tla=en .

6. See “Moscow Patriarchate’s Representative Urges Vatican Not to Impose the Patriarch of Constantinople as an ‘Eastern Pope’ on the Orthodox World,” Europaica Bulletin 106 (4 October 2006) at http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/l4/106.aspx#2 .

7. Joseph Olsr and Joseph Gill, “The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon in Dispute Between Constantinople and Moscow,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, eds., und Heinrich Bacht, 3 vols. (W\rzburg: EchterVerlag, 1951-54), 3:783.

8. One very initial and inchoate, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to look at some of these questions was the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople of 1923. On this, see the fascinating new book of Patrick Viscuso, A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress. An Analysis and Translation of its Acts and Decisions (Berkeley, CA: Inter-Orthodox Press, 2006). The Congress did not accomplish much for reasons Viscuso analyzes and discusses, and the issue of primacy was not really discussed again until ’s important article, now almost half a century old, “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 4 (1960): 49- 75. Schmemann’s plea also fell on deaf ears. Nicholas Lossky, in 1999, acknowledged that there is still no Orthodox consensus on these questions of primacy, ; and authority: “Conciliarity-Primacy in a Russian Orthodox Perspective,” in Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church: “Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue,” ed., James F. Puglisi (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999): 127-35. More recently still, the great Greek Orthodox theologian and metropolitan, John Zizioulas, has repeated the importance of consensus on this question in his “Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology,” in The Petrine Ministry:Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, ed. Walter Cardinal Kasper (: Newman Press, 2006), 23 1-48.

9. “Bishop Hilarion Voices His Protest to Cardinal Kasper against Procedure at the Orthodox- Catholic Dialogue,” Europaica Bulletin 106 (4 October 2006) at http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/106.aspx#3 . 10. “Moscow Patriarchate’s Representative Urges Vatican Not to Impose the Patriarch of Constantinople as an ‘Eastern Pope’ on the Orthodox World,” Europaica Bulletin 106.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Notwithstanding the plethora of studies on the history, authority, and structure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. See, e.g., Metropolitan Maximos of Sardes. The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1976); , “The Ecumenical Patriarch, Seen in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology and History,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24(1979): 227-44; and Lewis J. Patsavos, Primacy and Conciliarity: Studies in the Primacy of the See of Constantinople and the Synodal Structure of the Orthodox Church (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1995).

14. On the issue of Estonia, see Alexander F.C. Webster, “Split Decision: the Orthodox Clash over Estonia,” Christian Century 113 (5 June 1996): 614-21. For a more detailed account of these historical developments, see the history chapter of the Orthodox Church of Estonia’s official webpage: http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/estonia/documentsEOC/somdocu.htm. See also V. Mite, “Estonia: Two Branches of Orthodox Church Seeking to Live in One Country,” Religioscope (10 May 2002): http://www.religioscope.com/info/ notes/2002_049_ortho_estonia.htm

15. On the status of the OCA and the debate surrounding it, see, inter alia, Alexander Bogolepov, Towards an American Orthodox Church: the Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church, rev. ed. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.

16. I’ve analyzed these powers in more detail in my “A Diversity of Polities: Patriarchal Leadership in the Orthodox Churches,” The Jurist, forthcoming, 2008.

17. “Inter-Qrthodox Unity Vital for , Says Cardinal,” http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid95556 .

18. Ut Unum Sint, nos. 95-96.

19. John ZiziQulas, “Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology,” 244.

20.Ibid., 246.

21. V. Nicolne Dura “The ‘Petrine Primacy’: the Role of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canonical Legislation of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millennium: an Ecclesiological- Canonical Evaluation,” in The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, ed. Walter Cardinal Kasper (New York: Newman Press, 2006), 164 (my emphasis). 22. Ibid., 186 (my emphasis).

23. Ibid.

24. While is generally more coherent on the questions of primacy, especially papal primacy, it is important to recall that is far from monolithic or homogenous on this question. It is, in fact, vigorously debated by such as , Joseph Ratzinger, Hermann Pottmeyer, Jean Tillard, , George Nedungatt, Myriam Wijlens, Gisbert Greshake, and Michael Magee, and most recently, Geoffrey Robinson.