P a P E R S Secretariat Forinterreligious Dialogue;Curias.J.,C.P.6139,00195Romaprati, Italy; Tel
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Ecumenism: Hopes and Challenges for the New Century” The 16TH International Congress of Jesuit Ecumenists P A E R S Maryut Retreat House, Alexandria, Egypt 4-12 July 2001 Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue; Curia S.J., C.P. 6139, 00195 Roma Prati, Italy; tel. (39)-06.689.77.567/8; fax: 06.687.5101; e-mail: [email protected] JESUIT ECUMENISTS MEET IN ALEXANDRIA Daniel Madigan, S.J. A full programme, oganized expertly by Henri Boulad (PRO), kept the 30 particpants (from all six continents) busy throughout the working days and evenings, and on the Sunday the group was able to visit the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Makarios. A message from Fr. General underlined the importance of the ecumenical venture among the Society's priorities, and a select number of the participants had been involved with the group since its inception. The agenda ranged widely, focussing in part on ecumenical issues in the complex ecclesial reality of the Middle East, but also on recent developments in the wider ecumenical sphere. We had the opportunity to meet with clergy and laypeople from the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Evanglical churches, as well as with Muslims. Jacques Masson (PRO) and Christian van Nispen (PRO), with their long years of experience and study of the Church in Egypt introduced us to various of its aspects. Jacques Masson surveyed some of the ecumenical history of the oriental Churches and agreements reached especially among the Chalcedonian and non- Chalcedonian churches in recent years. Victor Chelhot (PRO) from Damascus presented developments in the local attempts to remove the obstacles to unity between the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches of Antioch. Since his last presentation to the Jesuit ecumenists in Naples, Rome has added its voice to the conversation. Three official documents were studied. The "Balamand Statement" on the still very vexed issue Uniatism and accusations of proselytism from the Seventh Plenary Session of the official Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue was introduced and analysed by Ed Farrugia (MAL) of the Orientale. Ted Yarnold (BRI), of Campion Hall, brought a trained eye to the document "The Gift of Authority," issued by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, of which he was for many years a distinguished member. Paolo Gamberini (ITA) from Naples, examined the Joint Lutheran-Roman Catholic Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and offered some important insights into the way it was produced and agreed upon. The declaration is an important model, not just for its synthesis of a disputed doctrine, but for the way in which it affirms particular doctrinal formulations and at the same time recognises that each partner understands these formulas in somewhat different ways. In addition to these papers, Georges Ruyssen (BSE) presented some of his work recently at Centre Sevres on the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the context of the Pope's appeal in Ut Unum Sint. Bob Daly (NEN) from Boston College examined the theological significance of ecumenical convergence in liturgy, especially in the eucharistic prayer. Norman Tanner was able to draw on his deep familiarity with the councils of the Church to offer profound and sometimes witty insights into the prospects for Christian unity. We hope that all the papers will be published within the next six months, as also those from the previous meeting in Kottayam, Kerala, which have not yet seen the light of day. The next meeting of Jesuits involved in ecumenical work will take place in Budapest in 2003. Anyone who would like to be kept informed of plans for the meeting, when they take shape, can contact Tom Michel (IDO) at the Curia [email protected] Balamand and its Aftermath: The challenges of evangelization and proselytism E.G. Farrugia, SJ (Rome) For the so-called “Dialogue of Truth” between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the moment of truth came with the Seventh Plenary Session held at Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993. At stake was not only the future of the Dialogue itself, but above all the fate of millions of Eastern Catholics. Known until recently as Uniates, because united to the Roman Catholic Church, a term now avoided in the polite company of theologians except to signal that for many Orthodox they are little better than traitors who abandoned their native Church to take advantage of their Roman connection, they forced the Dialogue to face full-square the hard facts born of schism, but which no wishful thinking can conjure away. Though the underlying problem of uniatism had been sounded right at the start of the official Dialogue in the early 1980's, it became acute only in the late 1980's following the collapse of the Berlin Wall; and, while it has not managed thus far to definitively disrupt the Dialogue, it has at least succeeded in temporarily derailing it. Intended as an emergency measure, Balamand did not stem the tide of incomprehension and the only follow-up thus far has been the Eighth Plenary Session, held last year during the Jubilee Celebrations of the year of the Lord 2000 in Baltimore, but ending with a draw, since about the only hope that stormy Session left was that dialogue was not meant to be stopped, but only interrupted. And so, Balamand remains, for its provocative stand on uniatism and the related issue of proselytism, the method of constraint in gaining adepts on which uniatism is supposed to thrive, a platform for further discussion not flawed through protest, for it faced the unpleasant and inevitable truth, and yet in need of being amplified, as ultimately it has failed to satisfy all partners involved. Our reflections here fall into three parts. The first deals with the events related to Balamand so as to understand its text in context; the second passes in review some representative reactions to Balamand, to help us make our own assessment; and the third reflects on the abiding issues raised in Balamand without suppressing the tone of hope that still permeates the text. 1. Balamand: the Meeting and the Message In order to unpack the specific message of Balamand, we have first of all to establish the facts that led to its being called in the first place as well as the conditions under which it took place before we can analyze the document it produced. Before Balamand, the Dialogue had taken off to a good start and was proceeding at a brisk pace. Announced on the occasion of John Paul II’s visit of Patriarch Dimitrios I for the feast of St Andrew’s, 30 November 1979, the so-called “Dialogue of Truth” marked the beginning of the official theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches. It had been preceded by the long thaw known as the “Dialogue of Charity,” that period from 1958 to 1980 characterized by good-will gestures such as reciprocal visits following the cancellation from memory of the excommunication of 1054 on 7 December 1965, vigil of the end of Vatican II, with a simultaneous ceremony at the Vatican and the Phanar. True, the problem of uniatism was present right from the start, when the question was broached whether Eastern rite Catholics should participate or not in the official Dialogue, but it was settled in their favour1. Once the international Joint Commission, composed of 30 Roman Catholics and 30 Orthodox dignitaries and experts, was formed, there soon followed six plenary sessions, in rapid and rhythmic succession: Patmos-Rhodes in 1980, Munich in 1982, which produced the first Document, “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”2, the Third Plenary Session, held in Crete in 1984, the Fourth, with a double meeting, in Bari3, a repetition rendered necessary by the 1 The question whether Eastern Catholics should participate was raised by some Orthodox Churches during the First Plenary Session of Patmos-Rhodes (29 May-4 June 1980), with the Catholic side answering that the Dialogue took place between the whole of the Catholic Church and all Orthodox Churches, not simply parts of them. The Orthodox accepted with the reservation that accepting to dialogue with Eastern Catholics did not mean that the problem was solved. See on this point E. Fortino, “Le Chiese ortodosse e le Chiese orientali come Chiese sorelle,” Oriente cristiano 2 (1993) 58-59; G.Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 276; also D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 55. 2 Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 652-659. 3 Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 660-668. 1 difficulties which arose over the Exhibition of Macedonian Icons in the Vatican4, and its document, “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church”5, the Fifth in Valamo-Finland (1988), with its document, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church”6. At this point, when by the interior dynamics of these Plenary Sessions, all seemed poised for a discussion of authority and conciliarity in the Church, the upheaval in Eastern Europe brought to the fore the need to abandon the programme and give more attention to the problem of the relationship between Oriental Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches precisely in those regions caught in the eye of the storm. For this reason, in the Sixth Plenary Session in Freising (1990) the so-called question of the Uniates, which had been brewing since Bari (1987) and Valamo (1988), where a sub-commission had already been created to study the issue, suddenly became top priority7. When the sub-commission met in Vienna in January 1990, nobody could have foreseen how dramatic the changes would be.