P A P E R S Secretariat forInterreligious Dialogue;CuriaS.J.,C.P.6139,00195RomaPrati, Italy; tel. (39)-06.689.77.567/8; fax: 06.687.5101; e-mail:[email protected] fax:06.687.5101; (39)-06.689.77.567/8; tel. The 16 Hopes and Challenges and Hopes Maryut RetreatHouse,, for the New Century New the for of JesuitEcumenists “: TH InternationalCongress 4-12 July2001 ” 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 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, , 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 , 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. At Freising, uniatism, which replaced the agenda8, was rejected as a method of the past which failed dismally in what it proposed to do, for, rather than reuniting the Churches, it served only to deepen the cleft already separating them. Moreover, while the religious liberty of individuals and communities was held up as sacrosanct, attempts to make the faithful of one community pass to that of another were branded as “proselytism.” Given the promising method of dialogue and the ecclesiology of communion on which dialogue is based, to return to the method of uniatism and make converts from one Church to another would not only be counter-productive, but would also amount to a counter-testimony. And so, in view of the urgency of the problem, it was suggested that the study of the problem already broached in Vienna the previous January would be made topic of the next Plenary Session9. Two methodological restrictions are to be noted. Since by “Uniates” in the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue are meant only Catholics of the , Catholics deriving from pre-Chalcedonian Churches are left out of consideration10. Moreover, the texts speak of uniatism as going back no further than four centuries ago (nr. 8). On both counts a rather one-sided historical picture of uniatism is given. Following the politics of certain princes in the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, certain dioceses in Ukraine, in Ruthenia, in Romania and in Croatia left the Byzantine Orthodox Church and joined the Catholic Church while at the same time retaining their Byzantine rite at Brest (1595 /6), at Croatia (1611), at U horod (1646) and in Romania (1698)11. In this way, the faithful of the same Byzantine rite found themselves divided in two groups, at odds with each other over the very same liturgy, so that the attempt to re-establish Church union through partial unions inevitably opened up new wounds. From an Orthodox point of view, a point of no return was reached with the establishing of a Melkite hierarchy in 1724. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union the problem of the Uniates became more acute than ever12. Ukrainian Uniates, repressed forcibly in

4 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 88-93. Though many classified the whole controversy as non-theological, as Salachas does, in effect it was a fore-warning of how sensitive Orthodox Churches are to regional issues. With E. Fortino, sub-secretary of the Pontifical Council to Promote Union among Christians, it would be more accurate to say that it reveals how a seemingly non-theological issue is related to the question of autocephaly; see E. Fortino, “Dialogo cattolico-ortodosso- difficoltà e problemi”, L’Osservatore Romano, 15 giugno 1986, p. 5. The problem of proselytism had already been raised by Mgr. Germanos, representative of Patriach Diodoros of , at Crete in 1964—and with that the problem of Oriental Catholic Churches became part of the agenda. 5 Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 671-679. 6 On the titles of the Documents of this Dialogue very pertinent is McPartlan’s comment that it has not been blessed with pithy titles; see P. McPartlan, One in 2000? Towards Catholic-Orthodox Unity, St Paul’s, Middlegreen, Slough, U.K., 1993, p. 126. 7 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 214. 8 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 146f. 9 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 216. 10 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 156. 11F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 157. 12 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 157.

2 1946, started reclaiming their churches as soon as freedom returned13. Similar things may be said of Romania (1989), where, however, the Orthodox metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu cooperated in restoring the churches which belonged to Catholics14. In October 1991 the Russian-Orthodox Patriarch and the Patriarchs of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia as well as the Orthodox Church in Greece let it be known that they would not participate in the European Synod planned by John Paul II15. But in March 1992 the newly elected (1991) Patriarch Bartholomew came out in favour of dialogue, and the meeting in Moscow between Cardinal Cassidy and Alexij II did the rest16. The upshot of the foregoing considerations is that Balamand marks a departure in the very method chosen by the Dialogue, which had aimed at a three-track procedure: a. the dialogue of love (1958-1980), or of re-discovered friendship, which really started with Pope John XXIII; b. the theological dialogue on matters that unite, which was interrupted; and c. dialogue on matters which still divide17. The theological dialogue which had started in 1980 had to veer course and move on to the moot issues before the time had come, which in part explains the difficulties that suddenly seemed to undo all the good that had been done up to then. 1.1. Balamand, the event After postponing the meeting scheduled for 17.-26. June 1992 by a year18, the Seventh Plenary Session of the official Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue finally took place in the Orthodox Monastery of Balamand in Lebanon on the invitation of the Greek-Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, H.B. Ignatius IV Hazim. It was held in the premisses of the Theological Faculty of St John Damascene from 17 to 24 June 1993. Of the 15 autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches 9 were represented19, included the recently established Church of Albania, following the fall of the successor of Enver Hoxha’s communist regime and the election of Sali Berish in 1992. In the words of one of the participants, and a Greek Catholic of the Byzantine rite besides, Prof. Dimitri Salachas, the meeting in Balamand took place in a spirit of fraternal sharing and concern to favour union between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches20. As a basis for discussion the Balamand Plenary Session adopted the document elaborated at Ariccia near Rome in June of 1991: “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for ”. 1.2 The Balamand Text, the introduction: setting the tone The final document, dated 23 June 1993, consists of 35 paragraphs with a short two-part introduction, detailing (a) ecclesiological principles (nr.s 6-18) and (b) regional practices (nr.s 19- 35). As the Introduction explains, the two-year rhythm established by the previous six meetings (Rhodes-Patmos 1980, Munich 1982, Crete 1984, Bari with its double session 1986-1987, Uusi Valamo 1988, and Freising 1990), had to be interrupted on the demand of the Orthodox Church (nr. 1) because, with the fall of the Communist regimes and the proclamation of the liberty of cult, the problem of uniatism, and more precisely the existence of the Byzantine Catholics, came to the fore. As the problem has already been touched upon at Valamo (1988) and then discussed at Freising (1990)21, the way both Churches would work towards a solution for the question would serve as a

13 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 158. Ukraine presents an especially difficult situation, partly because of the heavier tribute of blood Eastern Catholics had to pay and their inability in the years when they were an underground Church to make themselves familiar with the new winds of change coming from Vatican II. For a brief summary of some of the main moments of tensions, recriminations and hopes, see G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, pp. 279-286. 14 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 159. 15 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, pp. 160f. 16 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 164. 17 G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, pp. 9f. 18 G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 316. 19 G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 323. The Churches of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Jerusalem, Georgia and Czechoslovakia were absent. 20 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 149. 21 See Nr. 3 of the Freising Document (1990) in G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 271. Nr. 5 of the same document states that, due to recent events, the whole discussion revolved around Uniates, referred to here as Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches (as they prefer to be called on account of the

3 test-case for the solidity of the principles thus far elaborated in the previous sessions. In view of this Balamand not only enunciated general principles but also elaborated practical norms on the question of uniatism (nr. 5). In the very introduction uniatism is rejected as opposed to the common tradition of both Churches (nr. 2, quoting from the Freising document), while at the same time asserting that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist as part of the Catholic communion (nr. 3)22. 1.3 The Balamand Document, the main text: ecclesiology in practice Yet the main thrust of the document of Balamand is to ask what is meant by uniatism as a method of union which belongs to the past. As a missionary apostolate uniatism is described as the attempt to convert other Christians, taken individually or as groups, so as to make them “return” to their real Church23. On the basis of this approach there was developed a corresponding ecclesiology in which the Catholic Church presented itself as the sole depositary of salvation. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church advanced analogously exclusive soteriological claims, leading at times to the rebaptizing of Christians, with a consequent loss of sensitivity to religious liberty (nr. 10)24. Impelled with a desire to save souls, missionaries sometimes came to consider Orthodox countries as missionary lands. These initiatives led at times to local mergers with the of Rome and thus precipated the breakup of relations to their Mother Churches, a process aided by extra-ecclesial concerns. As a result a conflictual situation was created in which especially the Orthodox, but also Catholics suffered (nr. 8)25. Naturally, one must not forget that at the basis of these attempts to re- establish union is the breakdown of communion between Rome and the ancient patriarchates and the failure of the subsequent attempts, even at a Conciliar level, to re-establish reunion. In this way, while uniatism as a method of the past is condemned, Rome’s good will to seek that union among Christians expressed by Christ—“that they may be one” (Jn 17:21; nr. 9)—is expressly recognized26. The Document thus goes on to say that those who have established full communion with Rome and have remained faithful to it are entitled to the ensuing rights and obligations of such a union27. Here, the Document and Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio meet half ways (UR 17). Nowadays, however, a new methodology is needed to attain re-union, as both Churches recognize each other to be “sister Churches” (nr.s 13, 14). Neither absorption nor fusion will do, but encounter in love which leads to communion. In this way, while recognizing the inviolability of the individual conscience and its obligation to follow its inner convictions, the conversion of individuals from one sister Church to another is excluded28. Recognizing one another to be true pastors, the leaders of the various sister Churches are encouraged to seek the union Christ envisaged together, in a spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility. As for the Oriental Catholic Churches they have the directives of Vatican II to follow so as to engage in the dialogue of

negative connotation of the term “Uniates”). Interesting is how 6.b defines uniatism as that effort to re-establish Church union by inducing parts of the Orthodox Church to secede, an effort which goes counter to the ecclesiology of “sister Churches” (ibid., p. 272). No counter-examples, such as the horrible events of 1946, are mentioned in the Freising text. 22 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 150. 23 This ecclesiology of the “return” of the dissident Eastern Christians to the fold of Peter had been used in Pius IX.’s Apostolic Letter to the Eastern Christians, “In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede” (6.01.1848): “At vero ad Nos quod attinet, testamur et confirmamus, nihil nobis antiquius esse, quam ut Vos ad communionem nostram redeuntes nedum ulla, quae durior videri possit, praescriptione affligamus, sed ex constanti Sanctae huius Sedis instituto peramanter, et paterna prorsus benignitate excipiamus;” excerpts in M. Gordillo, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis, Romae 1950, p. 281. But this ecclesiology had been developed in post-Tridentine times; see E.C. Suttner, Church Unity: Union or uniatism? Catholic - Orthodox ecumenical Perspectives, tr. B. McNeil, Bangalore 1991, pp. 80-83. 24 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 151. 25 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 151. 26 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 151. 27 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 152. 28 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 152.

4 love at both the local and the universal levels29. In the practical norms, it is asserted that the Catholic Church has no intention to indulge in expansionism, but only to satisfy the pastoral needs of her own faithful (nr. 22). Moreover, the liberty of conscience being what it is, in case of conflict, it is incumbent on the faithful themselves to decide to which communion to belong (nr. 24; see nr. 15). The forced annexation of Catholics, under the Communist regimes, to the Orthodox Church in order to escape persecution, is nowhere directly mentioned, although nr.s 23 and 33 refer to persecutions of all Christians concerned. In a new spirit, pastoral projects that envisage the faithful of both Churches ought to be based on the consultation of both groups. And, in an effort to resolve local conflicts, it is urged to establish joint local commissions (nr. 26); every form of violence, from the moral to the verbal to the physical, is proscribed (nr. 27). Liturgical celebrations from whichever group ought to be respected and, if need be, the premises of one Church ought to be made available to the other (nr. 28). It is incumbent on the formation of priests to show how outdated the ecclesiology of “return” to the Catholic Church is (nr. 30). Besides, in order to avoid unnecessary interferences, the jurisdiction of the various communities are to be respected, and, generalizing, every occasion of conflict ought to be resolved by fraternal dialogue30. This holds true especially of the thorny question of the restitution of ecclesiastical property (nr. 31)31. 1.4 The Balamand Document, the conclusion: the parting hope The Document finishes by extolling those who have suffered persecution in the past, while exhorting them to let bygones be bygones and so offer their suffering for union (nr. 33). By excluding all forms of proselytism, the International Joint Commission hopes that, with its Document, it has removed the obstacle towards participation in further dialogue (nr.s 34-35)32.

1.5 The Ariccia Text of 1991 It is important in this context to re-read nr. 4 of the Blamand text carefully: “The document prepared at Ariccia by the joint coordinating committee (June 1991) and finished at Balamand (June 1993) states what is our method in the present search for full communion, thus giving the reason for excluding ‘uniatism’ as a method”33. As this linkage of the Balamand document to that of Ariccia will prove significant in judging the former, it is imperative to give some attention to this document worked out in Ariccia, Rome, two years before Balamand met and at the height of the crisis coming from Eastern Europe. The Sixth Plenary Session held in Freising (1990) had entrusted the three sub-commissions set up for the purpose to study two documents on uniatism: the Vienna document and the Freising Declaration. After meeting in Rome twice, both times in December 1990, and then in Vienna, in April of 1991, the three sub-commissions entrusted their work to a coordinating commission, which during its session in Ariccia from 10.-15 June 1991 produced the Ariccia document. It is composed of 25 points, with a first part without a title, which we may call Principles, running from nr.s 1 to 11, followed by a part entitled Suggestions, going from nr.s. 11 through 25. Though it overlaps with the Balamand document to a great measure, there are appreciable differences, for it is rather niggardly towards the Oriental Catholic Churches. Nr.s 1-5 of the Balmand text have been added as an introduction, afterwards nr. 6 of the Balamand text (B) corresponds to nr. 1 of the Arricia document (A), B 7 to A 2, B 8 to A 3, B 9 to A 4, B 10 and 11 correspond to A. 5, B 12 to A 6, B 13 to A 7, B 14 to A 8. B 15, 16 and 17 correspond to A 9, but the following statement of A 9 has been modified:

29 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 152f. 30 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 153f. 31 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 154. 32 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 154. 33 Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 680.

5 A 9: ... some important matters are still B 16: The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired pending; when a solution is found, the to re-establish full communion with the see of Rome Catholic and the Orthodox Church will and have remained faithful to it have the rights and re-establish full communion between obligations which are connected with this communion. them and so the difficulties posed by The principles determining their attitude towards the Oriental Catholic Churches to the Orthodox churches are those which have been stated by Orthodox Church will be definitively the and have been put into removed. practice by the popes who have clarified the practical consequences flowing from those principles in various documents published since then. These churches, then, should be inserted, on both local and universal levels, into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect and reciprocal trust found once again, and enter into the theological dialogue, with all its practical implications34. From B 18, which corresponds to A10, the quotation from John Paul II’s Letter to the Bishops of the European Continent on the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox in the new situation of Central and Eastern Europe (31.05.1991) has been omitted. The “Practical rules” of B correspond to the “Suggestions” of A: B 19 to A 11, B 20 to A 12. But whereas A13 had spoken as if the problem of disrespect shown to other Churches concerned only Catholics, B 21, corresponding to A 13, tones down the admonition addressed to Catholics and adds: “The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards their faithful”35. B 22 corresponds to A 14, B 23 to A 15, B 24 to A16, B 25 to A 17, B 26 to A 18 (but the reference to Gal 5:13 has been moved from A 18 to B 25), B 27 to A 19, B 28 to A 20, B 29 to A 21, B 30 to A 22, B 31 to A 23. B 32 is new; it says that it is in this spirit just outlined that the new evangelization of the secularized world can take place. B 33 corresponds to A 24. Also new is B 34 which urges that these practical norms be applied to our Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, “who are called to take part in this dialogue”36. B 35 corresponds to A 25. The difference between the Balamand and the Ariccia documents go long ways to establish both Balamand’s message and the malaise that followed in its wake. 2. Balamand: the aftermath If after Balamand there followed seven years of waiting for, and repeated postponing of, the next Plenary Session, which, when it was at long last agreed upon and did finally materialize, gave us the Baltimore anti-climax, one might easily succumb to the temptation of seeking for alibis and scapegoats. The dragging war in the Balkans and the unpreparedness of many of the younger Churches in possession of a freedom to which they were unaccustomed and so unable to intervene in inter-Church matters when they had their hands full back home, are certainly aspects that should not be ignored in trying to understand the driving-force behind the reactions to Balamand. But they are not enough to explain what happened. In a recent Interview with an Italian journalist Patriarch Barthomew hit the nail on the head when he expresses Orthodox preference for the Ariccia text in view of the fact that the majority of them have not “received” the Balamand document. “First of all, the Balamand document is not an agreement among the Churches, but a proposal which their respective representatives addressed to them, a proposal which has not been accepted by the majority of Orthodox Churches. For this reason it has been replaced by the Ariccia document, which has not received the vast publicity of the first. This second document has not been approved by the supreme authorities of the Roman-Catholic Church, so that the Commission

34 Balamand, “Uniatism,”p. 682. The Ariccia text is translated by me from G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 311. 35 Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 682. 36 Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 685.

6 for Dialogue, assembled at Baltimore, found itself in a blind alley. The solution proposed by the Orthodox is that Uniates unite to the Church they want so that the ecclesiastically anomalous existence of the situation of the double soul of uniatism may cease”37. Here we limit ourselves to two sufficiently representative reactions to Balamand. The first comes from Pierre Duprey, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Union Among Christians at the time Balamand took place and veteran of the dialogue since its inception; the other from John H. Erickson, noted Orthodox canonist and professor at St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, New York. 2.1 Pierre Duprey’s Position Balamand, P. Duprey argues, was the search for a theological explanation why the Orthodox generally are opposed in principle to Eastern Catholics, independently of friendship that might exist between these two groups. At Moscow in January 1990 four Orthodox and Catholic bishops worked out the plan to follow at Balamand38, an agreement which harked back to the tradition common to East and West, as found in canon 34 of The Apostolic Constitutions. According to this the bishops of a given nation ought to know who is the first among them and to undertake nothing without his accord, just as he should do nothing without everyone’s consent39. The emergence at the end of the 16th century of Eastern Catholic Churches who seceded from the Orthodox community, unlike previous fallouts between East and West which did not put in question the salvific import of the other Church, was perceived like religious “occupation” of a foreign territory40. As a result, the ecclesial vision came to insist on the canonical–rather than ontological–communion with Rome as indispensable for salvation; the real reason for the creation of Oriental Catholic Churches41. With the restoration of ontological community to its rightful priority Vatican II talked of sister Churches, a theology of communion used by John Paul II in his address to Patriarch Dimitrios in 1987 and taken up again in the Moscow talks of 199042. Orthodox Churches are opposed to Eastern Catholic Churches because they see in them Catholic rejection of Orthodox Churches. What Balamand sought to do (“le coeur de tout le document de Balamand”), therefore, was to re-affirm the ecclesial character of Orthodox Churches as “sister Churches”43. Naturally, in terms of the theology of communion elaborated together by Orthodox and Catholics, for a Church to qualify as a sister Church it has to profess the apostolic faith and participate in the same sacraments, especially in the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ and have the same apostolic succession. These gifts, constituting as they do the Church into a community of salvation, cannot be considered to be the exclusive gifts of one of our Churches44. Both Paul VI and John Paul II have qualified this “ontological communion” as “almost complete”. On the insistence of the Orthodox representatives

37 On the accord in Balamand Patriarch Bartholomew said the following: “Anzitutto il documento di Balamand non costituisce un accordo fra le Chiese, ma una proposta delle rispettive rappresentanze rivolta a loro, la quale non è stata approvata dalla maggioranza delle Chiese ortodosse. Perciò è stata sostituita dal documento di Ariccia, che non ha ottenuto una pubblicità ampia come il primo. Questo secondo documento non è stato approvato dal vertice della Chiesa Romano-Cattolica e così la Commissione per il Dialogo, radunata a Baltimora, si è trovata davanti a un vicolo cieco. La soluzione proposta dalla parte ortodossa è l’assimilazione degli Uniati alla Chiesa che preferiscono, in modo che cessi l’esistenza, ecclesiasticamente anomala della situazione della doppia anima dell’Uniatismo”; “Dialogo fra le religioni e le chiese: intervista a Bartolomeo I, Patriarca ecumenico della Chiesa ortodossa,” a cura di Giancarlo Ziziola, Rocca: Rivista della Pro Civitate Christiana, Assisi, 60 (2001) 27-33. 38 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe. Balamand, 17-24 Juin 1993,” Communion et réunion. Mélanges Jean-Marie Roger Tillard, édités par G.R. Evans & M. Gourgues, Leuven 1995, p. 115. 39 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 116. 40 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 117. 41 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” pp. 118f. 42 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” pp. 120f. 43 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p.121. 44 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 122.

7 it was added to nr. 13 of the Balamand document that the recognition of a Church as a sister Church excludes the possibility of re-baptising; nr. 13 thus marks a distinct progress over the Bari document45. Under these premisses, the search of unity and communion would lead to a discussion of the canonical implications of being united to the Church of Rome46. While this remains a long- range goal, full recognition of Eastern Catholic Churches as an integral part of the Catholic Church is one of Balamand’s more immediate achievements47. The bitter opposition on the part of Catholics and Orthodox is understandable where one still uses an outdated ecclesiology, or, worse, where the goals set by dialogue itself are rejected48. 2.2 John H. Erickson’s Review In view of the controversies Balamand raised, Erickson aims at situating it within the broader context of Orthodox / Roman Catholic relations so as to respond to major accusations levelled against the statement49. He first points out the manipulations that were used in order to present this agreed statement as faulty in principle50. As in the case of the Freising document, developed on the spot without the habitual preliminary drafting, the Ariccia document, too, was leaked to the press because it was considered advantageous to the Orthodox, with the result that Eastern Catholics considered it a sell-out of their interests51. Then, the various reasons for the absence of six Churches are reviewed, ranging from civil war and internal strife to refusal to participate in the Dialogue52. While certifying Balamand an “indirect” change of heart on the part of Rome Patriarch Bartholomew, in his visit to Rome on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 1995, criticizes her for taking “the provisional toleration of the irregular regime of uniatism, tolerated only by ecclesiastical economy” as a “total amnesty granted to uniatism”53. Whereas the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church formally accepted Balamand, Romanian Uniates attacked it for its “anti-Catholic ecumenism”54. More differentiated Cardinal Lubachivsky’s stance. While criticizing Balamand for rejecting Uniatism as both method and model and for its failure to ascribe the Russian Orthodox Church even partial responsibility for complicity in the suppression of Ukrianian Uniates, he also praised Balamand and promised to implement its recommendations55. By and large, the most negative responses came from the Old Calendarists, Mount Athos and from the Permanent Synod of the Church in Greece. Erickson suggests that, in spite of a negligible Uniate population in Greece, the “Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate” there, created as a token of Rome’s opposition to the ecclesial claims of the established Orthodox Church, represents some of the worst aspects of Uniatism56. Balamand evoked a generally favourable response from Orthodox and Catholic theologians in the West, e.g., from the French Joint Commission, including such theologians as O. Clément, N. Lossky, B. Bobrinskoy, which expressed full adherence to the great ecclesiological principles of Balamand57. Over and above the resistance of certain local Uniates to the implementation of Balamand, critics took up nr. 16 of Balamand, which, as we have seen, re-wrote

45 See “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church” (Bari, Italy, June 1987), Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 660-668. 46 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 122. 47 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” pp. 122f. 48 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 123. 49 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 42 (1997) 25-43, here 26. 50 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 27f. 51 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 29f. 52 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 30f. 53 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 33. 54 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 33. 55 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 34. 56 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 35; see, on this point, E.Chr. Suttner, Die Christenheit aus Ost und West auf der Suche nach dem sichtbaren Ausdruck für ihre Einheit, Würzburg 1999, pp. 224f. 57 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 36.

8 nr. 9 of Ariccia, as it talked of inserting Eastern Catholic Churches on all levels. Yet the much- criticised phrase from nr. 16, that Catholics of the Oriental Catholic Churches should “enter into the theological dialogue” really said nothing new, since right from its inception the International Joint Commission counted two Eastern Catholics appointed by Rome as its members58. Stylianos, Orthodox Co-Chairman of the Joint Commission, poses tangible progress in this area as a pre-condition for the continuation of dialogue59. The issues at stake are the concept of “sister Churches,” the presentation of the historical record of Orthodox / Catholic relations, and the practice of rebaptism. Noting the irony that the concept of “sister Churches” should be singled out for criticism, since this is the concept Orthodox have tried hardest to promote, Erickson remarks that the expression “sister Church” did not stop after communion ended, but it is necessary to work out its precise meaning60. Moreover, nr.s 6-10 of the Balamand Document, purporting to describe the origin of Eastern Catholic Churches and their impact on relations between Orthodox and Catholics, ran into criticism from both sides, because the Orthodox feel that these paragraphs fail to do justice to the wrongs done to their Church by the creation of these Uniate Churches, and the latter fail to recognize the Orthodox Churches’ complicity in the suppressions of 1946-194861. Moreover, in its terseness the account becomes undifferentiated, because the various Eastern Churches had different origins. Moreover, Orthodox did not acquire its conception that she exclusively possessed salvation after the arrival of Uniatism; rebaptism was prescribed for Latins only in 1755 after Propaganda forbade any communicatio in sacris with the “dissident orientals–as Erickson could have specified–after Rome’s recognition of the breakaway Melkite Patriarchate in 172962. Since there can be no “mysteries” or sacraments outside the Body of Christ, many Orthodox consider Balamand’s rejection of rebaptism dangerous. But, for one thing, the theory under consideration has been dismissed by Georges Florovsky as a private theological opinion given definitive expression in St Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s Pedalion (mid-eighteenth cenury). For another, Roman Catholic rebaptism is much better attested than the converse, at least prior to the eighteenth century63. Actually, Balamand’s strictures against reiteration of the sacraments concern much more Catholics, who, doubting of the validity of ordinations of bishops that collaborated with the communists, have sometimes wondered about their validity64. 2.3 Critical Note on Sister Churches When the “Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches’” (30.06.2000) came out, for some it sounded like the death-knell for dialogue with the East. In the Interview mentioned above Patriarch Bartholomew was more cautious and did not pronounce himself65. So one may here point out briefly the relevance of these much-discussed statements of the Congregation of Faith for our theme. As for Dominus Iesus (5.09.2000), which deals with interreligious dialogue and the strongest reactions to which came nonetheless from other Christian Churches, Francis Sullivan has drawn attention to the fact that, precisely on improved relations with the Orthodox, it scores positive points, not only because it reproduces the text of the Creed in the

58 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 36. 59 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 37. 60 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 37f. 61 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 39. 62 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 40f; E.Chr. Suttner, Die Christenheit aus Ost und West auf der Suche nach dem sichtbaren Ausdruck für ihre Einheit, Würzburg 1999, pp. 191f, 295. 63 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 41f. 64 J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 42. 65 To the question about his reaction to Dominus Jesus and to the Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches’ Bartholomew answered: “It is difficult to comment and judge with precision 23 pages, which are so dense and which are accompanied by six pages with 102 annotations. In any case, if necessary, the Orthodox Churches will officially take position on the content of the Declaration and of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter added to the Document. For the time being we can say that the theses of the Declaration concerning the concept of “sister Churches” have given rise to some perplexity, but their acceptance or rejection calls for a closer study;” “Dialogo fra le religioni e le chiese: intervista a Bartolomeo I, Patriarca ecumenico della Chiesa ortodossa,” a cura di Giancarlo Ziziola, Rocca: Rivista della Pro Civitate Christiana, Assisi, 60 (2001) 31f.

9 original, without the , but also because it calls Orthodox communities “true particular Churches”66. On the other hand, since the “Note on the expression ‘Sister Churches’” starts out by referring to the use of the expression above all in Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue (nr. 1; see also nr. 9) and suggests avoiding the expression “both our Churches” (nr. 11), it is correct to infer that, although nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Note, the Balamand Document is also meant. In fact, the expression is found in both the Ariccia67 and the Balamand68 Documents. As the Note reserves the expression “sister Churches” to those ecclesial communities who have a valid episcopate and a valid eucharist (nr. 12), again, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are given due recognition (see nr.s 3, 5, 6, 7, 8). The Note adds that “sister Churches” refers exclusively to “particular Churches,” never to the relationship obtaining between the universal Church (i.e., the Catholic Church) and particular Churches, whereby the particular Church of Rome can be described as a sister Church (nr.s 10, 11). The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not a sister, but mother of all the particular Churches. Although the theme of the motherhood of the Church goes back to pre-Nicene times—the African Church having added this qualification to the Creed, “I believe in holy mother Church”69—the theme receives different accentuations in the various periods of Church History. The expression is known in the Orthodox Church and is even found in the Balamand Document, albeit in the context of certain communities breaking communion with their “mother Churches of the East” (nr. 8). 3. After Balamand: Lessons to draw from a debate Judging by the discussion it provoked Balamand marks a significant stage on ecumenism’s progress. It illustrates once more that the history of Christianity is a—spiralling—history of divisions and attempts to heal them70. But whether this leads to uniatism or unity, that depends on the method followed, which may be proselytism or dialogue; or, at least, so Balamand would have us believe. But: is it enough to condemn proselytism? 3.1 Revisiting Proselytism. Indeed, one may wonder why Balamand had so little positive to say about evangelization except to warn against proselytism and uniatism, in spite of the fact that—unlike so many occasions when the words one uses are worn out—fresh examples of faith witnesses were not lacking and notwithstanding the fact that excruciating suffering usually relativizes even enormous past wrongs and unites opposites. Irony of ironies! In the beginning it was not so, for “proselytism” was practically synonymous with “evangelization.” Proselytism is not specific to Christianity, but exists wherever two or more religions raise the claim to be universal with a consequent duty to win followers. “Proselytes” are to be found in both the Jewish religion as well as in Islam. We come across the word proselytes in the Acts, BD@FZ8LJ@4 (Acts 2:11), which simply means converts to Judaism, here present for the event of Pentecost and thus referring to the very first class of people to whom the Gospel was preached. Later on, among the seven chosen by the Apostles to serve the tables the last-mentioned is a certain Nikolaos, an Antiochean proselyte (Acts 6:5)71. At any rate, the use came to be extended to any new convert to a given religion and to any organized attempt to induce people to change their belief. Nowadays, however, proselytism has a distinctly negative flavour, suggesting conniving at making converts through improper means72.

66 F.A. Sullivan, “The Impact of Dominus Iesus on Ecumenism,” America, 28.10.2000, 8f. 67 For example, the Ariccia Document speaks of “each of our two Churches” (nr. 5); see also nr.s 7, 8, 12, 13, 19, 22 and 25. 68 See nr.s 12, 14, 25 (but here the use is rather at the local level of the relationship between particular Churches: see also: nr.s 26, 27, 28 and 29) and 30. 69 See K. Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater chez les Pères des trois premiers siècles, Paris 1964, pp. 98, 108; see also E. Lanne, “Église soeur et Église mère dans le vocabulaire de l’Église ancienne,” B. Bobrinskoy et alii (ed.s), Communio Sanctorum, Genève 1982, pp. 86-97. 70 See J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 315. 71 G. Kuhn, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VI, pp. 742-745. 72 The real problem arises not so much with easily identifiable extreme proselytism, but with the grey area between legitimate evangelization and unlawful proselytism. All Churches are sensitive to loss of members, so that WCC 1961 in its “Christian Witness, Proselytism and religious Liberty”

10 In the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, the agreed statement “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness”73 explains the problem of proselytism through the fact that Pentecostals and Catholics do not have a common understanding of the Church, for example, regarding the relationship between Church and baptism as an expression of living faith74. Lack of recognition among those active in a given area—which, in spite of so much talk of sister Churches, is at times keenly felt among Catholics and Orthodox—can prod on to proselytism. Moreover, the logic of “established” and “newcomers,” often used as a pretext to indulge in proselytism, varies from place to place and can easily be inverted75. Condemning proselytism as going counter to the Gospel is not enough. One must move instead to a common witness of the Gospel. But before we can bear such common witness we have to make sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and that the same words are not being used with different meanings.

3.2 The goal desired: Union or Uniatism? Precisely because of its desire to be brief and to the point Balamand not only failed to lay down in unequivocal terms what it means by proselytism, but also gave an inadequate version of the origin of uniatism, to which proselytism is supposed to lead. The decision to restrict itself to the last four centuries is as arbitrary as trying to explain the Balkan wars of the last decade by stopping four centuries ago and leaving out, for example, the famous battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389. With Paul’s warnings against the Paul, Apollo, Cephas and Christ factions at Corinth in mind (1 Cor 1:10-17), we see that group-building divisive of community goes back to the beginning of Christianity. In this perspective every major Christian community may be said to have practised, at one time or another, proselytism leading to the break-up of splinter groups from the mother community. Given the wholistic approach of religion in the East according to which there is a continuum, rather than a separation, between religion and socio-political life, it often proves difficult to distinguish between secession and schism. W.H.C. Frend has pointed out that Donatism was a social movement in disguise, for, besides being a religious movement, it was also a social and political protest movement76. True, to E.L. Woodward’s thesis that heterodoxy basically and—implicitly—Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty (1965) disapproved of proselytism. While rejected by mainline Churches, proselytism is a problem among sects and has been practised in the past by everybody; so Ch. O’ Donnell, “Proselytism,” Ecclesia: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Church, Collegeville, Minnesota 1996, p. 392. In this way, all forms of constraint to adopt a creed, ranging from hatred to extreme nationalism, are condemned. 73 As the Introduction to this document says, “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness (1990-1997),” Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 753-779, here p. 753, this is a report from the participants of the fourth phase of the international dialogue (1990-1997) between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and some classical Pentecostal denominations and leaders. 74 Growth in Agreement, II, p. 765. 75 Growth in Agreement, II, p. 766. In Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, J. Macha has used somewhat different sociological categories. From the vantage point of the elite, the distribution of power among the unification elites themselves was expected to affect the unification process; ibid., p. 321. At the Union of Florence (1439), the Latin Church dealt with the Greek as an equal, but seems to have found it hard to keep this up after the conclusion of the union, at least in the Latin possessions; ibid., p. 322. So, while this led to greater commitment than at Lyons (1274), it eventually gave place to mistrust as to Rome’s intentions; ibid., p. 322. Quite different is the case with the Ruthenians: from the start, their submission was sought, but the equality they sought lay in the afterwards: equality with the rival Polish Church within the Catholic communion, with Rome considered as an ally; ibid., pp. 322f. It is the fear of Latinization, or the imposition of Latin ways at the expense of local traditions, that here as in Diamper and in Ethiopia, caused damage; the partial Latinization of the Eastern rite Churches in communion with Rome was a later spontaneous process from within; ibid., p. 323. All this leads Macha to the conclusion that egalitarian unions tend to be less decisive than elitist unions, but more capable of generating commitment; ibid., p. 324. 76 H.H. Frend, The Donatist Church, Oxford 1952, 25-75. See J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification, pp. 316f.

11 camouflaged social protest and unrest77 A.H.M.. Jones gave a celebrated answer in his study, “Were the ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise?”78, whose resoundingly negative terms could yet profit from appreciable nuances and even modifications. Such a perspective helps us see to what extent proselytism in the past, oft under the guise of imperial politics, was common.When Patriarch Theodosius I of Alexandria (536-567) was kept for thirty years under house arrest in Constantinople while Emperor Justinian tried in vain to impose his Chalcedonian patriarchs, the result lead to the formation of parallel hierarchies, thanks to the indefatigable activity of Jacob Baradaeus, consecrated bishop by Theodosius in 543, simply because the non-Chalcedonians would in no way recognize the validity of orders imparted by Chalcedonians79. Although no altar was set up against altar, as in Africa in 312, Byzantine proselytism in the sixth century inflamed the missionary zeal of the Monophysites, which led to the conversion of the three Nubian kingdoms south of the Egyptian border80. Equally tainted is the Byzantine record in Armenia. On the Western front, in 732, during the iconoclastic crisis, Emperor Leo III took a huge slice of the Pope’s patriarchate in East Illyricum and put it under Byzantine jurisdiction; the heresy was condemned in 787 and once more in 843, but the property was not returned. Behind the controversy over the Filioque in the so-called Photian schism was a scramble between Rome and Constantinople for jurisdiction over Bulgaria81. Even in our own times, the attempts at a Western-rite Orthodoxy unmasks many a charge of proselytism82. If we are to apply this to current efforts to restore unity, we have to avoid historiographic revisionism in trying to interpret the history of the past in terms of newly perceived ecclesiological priorities. Instead, we need serious historical and sociological studies. As a first step, we are therefore called to distinguish between theological and non-theological factors in the creation of schisms. Insignificance and unobstrusiveness can play a role in preventing schism; such, according to J. Macha, was the case with the Bulgarian Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite, saved by its own smallness from sharing the fate of the Catholic dioceses of the Byzantine rite in Ukraine, Romania and Czechoslovakia, and the Italo-Albanians of Calabria and Sicily83. Generally speaking, the formation of national churches is preceded by the formation of national states.With its policy of incorporating all the Orthodox of the Empire into one ecclesiastical organisation, the Orthodox Church of Imperial Russia incorporated the Metropolitan province of Kiev, part of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and left the Church of Georgia with little autonomy, though the situation improved when it passed under the Soviet Union84. On the other hand, some Oriental Catholic Churches, e.g. the and the Italo- Albanians, were not born by separating from a non-Catholic Mother Church, and, besides, the call for uniting with Rome at Brest in 1595 came from the Orthodox bishops themselves. Yet the patient bringing to light of facts can help heal the wounds only if it serves as a pre- condition for us to accept our own tradition’s failings, not only those of other Churches. Reading our traditions in the light of the Gospel suggests that mutual forgiveness is an indispensable condition for common witness. In this way, the goal sought may be defined as union without uniatism. Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis has well described the ethos of dialogue as follows: “The strong one is always the one who has the power to endure. Usually it is only the one who knows that he is in the right, and therefore is ready to endure everything for his right, who has patience”85. Ultimately, union without uniatism means communion without losers or winners, but

77 E.L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Late Roman Empire, London 1916, pp. 67- 72.

78 Journal of Theological Studies 10/2 (1959) 280-298. 79 W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972, pp. 268, 274 and 283. 80 W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972, pp. 62f, 297. 81 F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX siècle, Paris 1926; id., Le schisme de Photius: histoire et légende, Paris 1950. 82 M. Kovalevsky, Orthodoxie et Occident. Renaissance d’une Églies locale, Paris 1994. 83 J. Macha, Ecclesiasatical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 320. 84 J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 320. 85 Quoted in E.C. Suttner, Church Unity: Union of Uniatism? Catholic - Orthodox ecumenical perspectives, tr. B. McNeil, Bangalore 1991, p. 151.

12 with brothers and sisters who have learnt to forgive one another. 3.3. Re-Thinking the Identity of Eastern Catholic Churches. If one of the great merits of Balamand is to have come out strong on the right of Oriental Catholic Churches to exist and to fulfil their pastoral duties towards their members, it did not say much, however, about their new identity as Eastern Catholics in ecumenical times, seemingly an object of barter, a sine qua non condition posed by Orthodox if we want to attain unity, or even if we want to continue the dialogue. A veteran of ecumenism, E. Lanne, describes Oriental Catholic Churches as being contested from three sides: (a) from many Orthodox who see in the continuing existence of the Oriental Catholic Churches a stumbling-block to Christian unity, a sort of malformation or pseudomorphosis, at best to be tolerated for reasons of “economy,” or pastoral comprehension; (b) from Roman maximalists, who favouring Latinization and centralization, would want to bring Eastern Catholics in line with Latin ways; and (c) from certain Catholic ecumenists who, banking on Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarum, practically agree with the first group about the fact that Eastern Orthodox have their days counted and should resign themselves to their lot86. The last danger, coming from within, may be the subtlest. On the part of Eastern Catholics this has understandably led to a variety of reactions87. One unusual reaction comes from Archbishop , retired Greek-Melkite Catholic Archbishop of , who at the 1995 Melkite Synod of Bishops presented the following Profession of faith: “I. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. II. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium before the separation”88. This plan would amount to a local merger, which has its fascination, but does not answer the still pending questions, and thus far has not been “received” by the Church authorities to whom it has been addressed89119-140. Besides, see Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, tr. Bishop , Fairfax, Va, USA, 1998.. Interesting is the way he sizes up Oriental Catholic Churches’ past role as having served as interlocutors of the Roman Church in the complete absence of complete dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy90. In an article he wrote when he was Professor of ecclesiology at the Urbanian Pontifical University, Cardinal Lubomír Husar, now Major Archbishop of Lviv, points out that behind the objection to Eastern Catholics is the prejudice that for an Easterner to become Catholic is tantamount to abandoning his or her native heritage91. A much-discussed point on all this is the conclusion of Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarum, which says: “All these legal arrangements are made in view of present conditions, until such times as the Catholic Church and the separated eastern churches unite together in the fullness of

86 E. Lanne, “Un christianisme contesté: l’Orient catholique entre mythe et réalité,” in: R.F. Taft (ed.), The Christian East: Its Institutions and its Thought. A Critical Reflection, Roma 1996, pp. 85- 88. 87 R. Slesinski, Essays in Diakonia: Eastern Catholic Theological Reflections, New York 1998; R.F. Taft, “Reflections on ‘Uniatism’ in the Light of Some Recent Books”, OCP 65 (1999) 153- 184. 88 Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, tr. Ph. Khairallah, Newton, Ma, 1996, p. 7. 89 Archbishop Elias Zoghby, “Response to the critics,” We Are All Schismatics,

90 See Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, p. 138, where he also says: “It is certain that the united Eastern Churches, although latinized and submissive to a regime of absorption—which confirms Orthodoxy’s thinking that all unity with the Roman Church could only be made to the detriment of the identity of the Eastern Churches—could contribute to open the Christians of [the]West to the richness of Orthodoxy. We played this role unpretentiously by our liturgies and later by a certain capture of conscience of our entire heritage.” 91 L. Husar, “The Ukrainian Ecclesiological Thought,” Pont. Lateran University / Catholic University of Lublin, The Common Chrsitian Roots of the European Nations, II, Florence 1982, p. 186.

13 communion” (OE 30)92. In a Study Meeting of Bishops and Major Superiors of Eastern Catholic Churches of Europe, organized by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, held in Nyíregyháza, in 1997 Dimitri Salachas explained that the reason why not all Orthodox Churches accept Balamand is due to the fact that Balamand recognized the ecclesial character of Eastern Catholic Churches, and not simply their provisional status, as some have erroneously interpreted OE 30 to say93. A review in Irénikon of the same Study Meeting in Hungary, also published in the same volume by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, criticizes Salachas’ interpretation of OE 30 as erroneous, adding that it regrets that the Declaration of the Bishops is marred by the same error94. With this in mind one may perhaps draw the conclusion that the difficulty is one of hermeneutics. The question about the permanence of Oriental Catholic Churches is posed in the present in which great hurdles still remain; Orientalium Ecclesiarum speaks of a time when communion will be ripe and the difficulties surmounted, so that it will be possible to pose the question for the first time in true freedom of spirit and full mutual acceptance. Even then, with all Vatican II’s talk of the possibility of new patriarchates and of the 1996 settlement in Estonia of a conflict between Orthodox themselves which led to a double jurisdiction possibly nobody can foresee how in practice the final solution will look like. At any rate, the existence of Oriental Catholic Churches as accepted at Balamand is not at stake, though more should have said to elucidate precisely this point and allay the fears which then exploded. Incidentally, a similar difficulty exists for the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church and her sacraments, which induced Prof. Yannis Spiteris to wonder whether Orthodoxy really considers her to be a sister Church95. But just as the last-named difficulty does not lead Latins to an identity crisis, so, too, the other question should not lead Eastern Catholics to doubt of their identity. Conclusion: Did Balamand succeed or fail? Maybe it is impossible to draw a definitive balance while the jury is still sitting, especially since the Balamand debate has not yet abated. We still live ecumenically under the sign of Balamand, whether we like it or not. But such reactions had better present themselves now, when we are in a position to clarify ambiguities, rather than later on, when it is too late and we would inherit a union without a future.

* Abbreviations: D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale = D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la chiesa cattolico-romana e la chiesa ortodossa: iter e documentazione, Bari 1994. Balamand, “Uniatism” = “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion” (Balamand, Lebanon, 23 June 1993), in: J.Gros, H. Meyer and W.G. Rusch (eds), Growth in Agreement, II, Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000, pp. 680-685. G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? = G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? Cattolicesimo e Ortodossia a confronto. Il dialogo ufficiale, Milano 1999. F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog = F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog. Spannende Bewegung der Ökumene und ökumenische Spannungen zwischen der Schwesterkirchen von den Anfängen bis heute, Paderborn 1997. Growth in Agreement, II = J. Gros, H. Meyer and W.G. Rusch (ed.s), Growth in Agreement, II, Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000.

92 OE 30, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” Vatican Council II, Constitutions and Declarations, General Editor A. Flannery, New York 1996, p. 534. 93 D. Salachas, “L’ecumenismo come condizione per l’identità,” in: Congregrazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese orientali cattoliche, Città del Vaticano 1999, pp. 157f. 94 Irénikon LXX (1997) 287-292; published in Congregrazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese orientali cattoliche, Città del Vaticano 1999, pp. 277-279, here pp. 278f. 95 Y. Spiteris, “La Chiesa ortodossa riconosce veramente quella cattolica come ‘chiesa sorella’?,” Studi ecumenici, XIV/1, Gennaio-Marzo 1996, 44-82.

14 Problématique actuelle du Rétablissement de l’Unité du Patriarcat Grec d’Antioche

P.Victor Chelhot s.j. P r é a m b u l e

La création du Patriarcat Grec melkite catholique, survenue en 1724, a été le résultat d’un long cheminement et de circonstances aussi bien intérieures qu’extérieures . Certains (1) y voient surtout l’influence culturelle et économique des missionnaires latins et de leurs consuls européens, installés à Alep, ville réputée à l’époque par sa position géographique commerciale et économique. Certes Franciscains, Capucins et Jésuites (2) étaient en relation avec leur consul, mais ils exerçaient leur ministère, en référence à l’Union réalisée au Concile de Florence/Ferrare (1438-1441) qui ne survecut pas à la chute de Constantinople (1453) (3), comme aussi selon l’esprit apostolique de la réforme catholique du Concile de Trente. Et il n’était pas surprenant de voir que des chrétiens et même des clercs étaient également attirés par un nouveau souffle de vie chrétienne et ecclésiale. Le mouvement catholique prit alors, dès le début du XVIIème siècle, une grande extension à Alep, Damas et Saïda (Sidon), aussi bien parmi les membres de la hiérarchie que parmi les fidèles. Plusieurs d’entre eux, même des évêques, adoptaient la foi catholique, tout en restant orthodoxes . Et “Athanase III a été le dernier Patriarche sous lequel les orthodoxes et les catholiques aient été confondus “ (4).

A la mort de ce dernier, survenue en 1724, les catholiques jugèrent que le moment était venu pour se donner un Patriarche ouvertement uni à Rome. Les suffrages des habitants de Damas se portèrent sur leur compatriote, Sérafim Thanas, né en 1680 et neveu de Sayfi, un ardent pro-catholique de Saida. Il fut consacré par trois évêques sous le nom de Cyrille VI. Aussitôt connue la mort d’Athanase III, Constantinople a choisi et consacré Sylvestre de Chypre. En décembre 1724, Jérémie de Constantinople lançât l’excommunication contre Cyrille VI (5). Le schisme fut alors consommé. Par la suite, au XIX siècle, certains catholiques sont revenus à l’Orthodoxie, au moment où Rome a voulu imposer le calendrier grégorien aux Orientaux catholiques. En général , dit Mgr. Georges Khodr, “nous étions en situation de conflit avec les Grecs catholiques jusqu’à Vatican II” (6).

______(1) Cf. Mgr. G. Khodr, in Le Quotidien An-Nahar, du 5/10/1996 (2) En 1630, le personnel missionnaire à Alep comprenait 6 pères et frères franciscains, 5 pères et frères capucins et 2 pères jésuites (arrivés à Al ep en 1625). Cf. Musset, Histoire du Christianisme, spécialement en Orient, tome II, p.158 . (3) B. Heyberger , Les Chrétiens du Proche Orient au temps de la réforme catholique . Edition de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 1994, p. 233 . (4) Musset, p.169 . (5) Ibid. p. 174 (6) Khodr, An-Nahar, le 5/10/96 . Cf. Heyberger, p.86

I - Les retombées oecuméniques de Vatican II

1 Le Concile et le décret sur l’Oecuménisme 1. Vatican II a marqué un tournant dans les relations de Rome avec les Chrétiens non-catholiques, et en particulier avec les Orthodoxes. Nous savons qu’une des deux finalités du Concile convoqué par Jean XXIII, était le service de la cause de l’unité chrétienne. Et c’est Jean XXIII qui a invité les communions non-catholiques à y envoyer des observateurs et à leur donner le statut de travail le plus libéral, dans un climat d’ouverture et de confiance. Dans cette ambiance, la délégation de l’Eglise Grecque catholique d’Antioche se fit, pour ainsi dire, l’interprête de sa partenaire, orthodoxe d’Antioche, et fit entendre sa voix pour conscientiser les Pères conciliaires au patrimoine oriental liturgique, patristique et patriarcal . 1. Le Décret de l’Oecuménisme, fruit de longues discussions et interventions, est venu confirmer que quelque chose de nouveau s’était produit. Il reconnut que, dans les ruptures qui ont conduit à nos lamentables divisions, il y avait souvent faute des deux côtés (1). Par ailleurs, “les frères séparés de la pleine communion , justifiés par la foi reçue au baptême, incorporés au Christ, portent à juste titre le nom de Chrétiens, et les fils de l’Eglise catholique les reconnaissent, à bon droit, comme des frères dans le Seigneur “(no.3 ). S’agissant des Orthodoxes, le Concile parla franchement d’Eglises locales, d’Eglises Orientales patriarcales “ dont plusieurs se glorifient d’avoir été fondées par les Apôtres eux-mêmes” (no.14) 3. A la suite de Vatican II les Grecs catholiques d’Antioche commençèrent à redécouvrir le patrimoine orthodoxe. Par ailleurs, n’ayant plus le rôle de réconcilier l’Orthodoxie avec Rome, comme l’a avoué en 1968 la commission melkite patriarcale, ils ont commencé à penser que leur partenaire direct dans le dialogue, était le Siège orthodoxe d’Antioche. Les Orthodoxes, de leur côté, ayant remarqué l’évolution qui s’est produite dans l’Oecuménisme catholique, ont réalisé qu’il s’est passé, comme l’a dit Mgr. G. Khodr, quelque chose d’important et de profondément spirituel. Alors ils se sont dit, allons les rencontrer là où ils sont, en toute charité (2) .

Premières retrouvailles Depuis Vatican II, et grâce à l’oecuménisme qu’il a préconisé, le Grecs catholiques renonçèrent au prosélytisme et ne se préoccupèrent plus de cette question. A la suite de cette nouvelle prise de conscience et de l’éveil survenu chez les Orthodoxes, il eut lieu un échange de délégués entre les deux synodes, au moment de leur réunion respective, à une même date, en mai l974 et sans entente préalable. La délégation catholique a été reçue le 1er Mai dans la salle même où était réuni le Synode orthodoxe, au couvent St Elie de Choueir. A cette occasion, Mgr.E.Zoghbi préconisa la restauration de la véritable union entre les deux Eglises, sans attendre l’unité entre Rome et les autres Eglises orthodoxes. Et le 22 mai, la délégation orthodoxe a été reçue dans la salle même où était réuni le Synode catholique, à Ain Traz. Mgr. G. Khodr déclara que nous voulons cette union entre nous, mais sans référence venant de l’extérieur. A ces paroles, tous les Pères du Synode applaudirent vivement. Cependant le 28 Août de la même année, un communiqué émanant du Patriarcat Grec Catholique parle de rapprochement, en insistant ______(1) Documents conciliaires, l’Oecuménisme, Introduction par le P.Yves Congar, Centurion, tome I, p.179 . (2) Conférence à Kaslik-Liban, du 13 décembre l 996 sur la nécessité de reconnaître la primauté romaine (1) .

“Suspension provisoire de la communion”

2 Sans se décourager, Mgr. G. Khodr poursuivit ses tentatives. L’occasion se présenta quand son Patriarche Elias IV le délégua à Rome en une mission “qui se voulait secrète”, au sujet de Jérusalem et des Grecs catholiques . Il a été reçu par Paul VI en présence du P. Pierre Duprey. Pour ce qui concerne ces derniers, Mgr. Khodr, comme il le dit lui-même, s’évertua à ‘inventer une formule’ pour une union provisoire des deux branches du Siège d’Antioche, et cela en attendant l’union du Siège d’Antioche avec celui de Rome. Cette formule serait la “suspension provisoire” de la communion des Grecs catholiques avec Rome, et cela pour des motifs relatifs à la théologie de l’Eglise. Mgr. Khodr ajouta que Paul VI garda le silence, en précisant que le Saint- Père n’était pas ” préparé à une telle ouverture”(2) .

“Tous Schismatiques” et double communion 1. Quelques années plus tard, en 1981, Mgr. Elias Zoghby, archevêque catholique de Baalbeck, publia un livre qui attira l’attention des milieux ecclésiatiques par son titre de choc: “Tous schismatiques”. Il y relate les différentes étapes du schisme du Siège d’Antioche et de ses conséquences, à savoir l’Uniatisme. Il y parle avec un accent pathétique de son amour et de son attachement aussi bien à l’Eglise orthodoxe à laquelle il doit sa foi, qu’à l’Eglise de Rome, reconnue comme le premier Siège de la Chrétienneté et centre de l’Unité. Aussi, ne voudrait-il pas mourrir en état de schisme ni avec l’une , ni avec l’autre. Il termine en préconisant la double communion à la fois, à savoir que les melkites, tout en restant en communion avec Rome, entreront en communion avec le Siège orthodoxe d’Antioche (3) . 2. Il faudrait cependant souligner que Mgr. Zoghby , au mois d’Août 1975, avait présenté son projet de la double communion à son Synode Grec catholique, et ce dernier l’avait communiqué à Rome le 7 septembre de la même année. La Commission romaine spéciale chargée d’étudier ce projet donna le 9 avril 1976 un avis négatif tout en rappelant la recommandation de modération et de patience émanant des évêques melkites de ce Synode d’Août (4)

Document de Balamand . Cependant un évènement important, survenu en juin 1993, donna l’occasion de relancer la question par rapport au Siège d’Antioche. Il s’agit de la VIIème session plénière de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes, tenue au couvent Grec orthodoxe de Balamand, Liban. Le thème de cette session était dicté par la douloureuse situation des Eglises de l’Europe de l’Est après la chute des régimes communistes en 1989, à savoir “L’Uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et recherche actuelle de la pleine communion“. Les conclusions de cette session constituent ce qu’on appelle désormais le “Document de Balamand”. Les principes ecclésiologiques et les règles pratiques qu’il comporte offrent une base nouvelle pour résoudre les problèmes de l’uniatisme posés aux Eglises locales en Europe de l’Est et au Moyen-Orient. Il y est question d’Eglises- ______(1) Khodr, Le projet d’Unité des Grecs catholiques, in An-Nahar, 5/10/1996 (2) Ibid. (3) Elias Zoghby, Tous schismatiques,p.149, Beyrouth, 1989. (4) Ibid. pp.131-132

soeurs, de liberté religieuse des personnes et des communautés, de l’engagement des Eglises orientales catholiques dans ce dialogue, du rejet de toute forme de prosélytisme. Il y est aussi question de la corresponsabilité des pasteurs des deux Eglises dans le reconnaissance et le respect mutuel de leurs fonctions pastorales propres (1).

3 “Profession de foi unioniste” Tout cela était susceptible de faire bouger le projet d’union entre les deux branches du Siège d’Antioche. Il ne fallait pas tant pour faire revenir au devant de la scène Mgr. E. Zoghby. En février 1995, il publia sa brochure: “Orthodoxe uni ? Oui ! - Uniate? Non !”. Il y développe les raisons qui l’ont amené à sa nouvelle démarche, à savoir sa “profession de foi” unioniste. Un texte de Vatican II stipule, en effet, que le dialogue entre l’Eglise romaine et l’Orthodoxie orientale “doit être repris à l’endroit où il a été rompu”. Et un autre texte, cité par Jean Paul II, précise que le dialogue doit être repris “sans être conditionné par ce que l’une ou l’autre Eglise a pu entreprendre ou définir en l’absence de l’autre “(2) . Aussi, “à partir de la situation qui prévalait avant le schisme, et du fait que l’Orthodoxie d’aujourd’hui ne diffère en rien de celle qui a préexisté au schisme “ il déclare : “ I - Je crois en tout ce qu’enseigne l’Orthodoxie orientale. “ II - Je suis en communion avec l’Evêque de Rome, dans les limites reconnues par les Saints Pères d’Orient au premier parmi les Evêques, durant le premier millénaire et avant la séparation,. Beyrouth , le 18 février 1995”. Mgr. G. Khodr, à qui cette profession de foi a été présentée, signa le 20 du même mois la déclaration écrite suivante: “Je considère cette profession de foi de Mgr. Elias Zoghby comme posant les conditions nécessaires et suffisantes pour rétablir l’unité des Eglises orthodoxes avec Rome”. Et cinq jours plus tard, le 25, Mgr. Salim Boustros, membre catholique de la commission mixte pour le dialogue, signa, à son tour, son accord avec Mgr. G. Khodr au sujet de cette profession de foi (3) . Fort de l’accord de Mgr. G. Khodr et de l’appui de son collègue Mgr. Boustros, Mgr. E. Zoghby, présenta sa “profession de foi “ aux Pères et en marge du Synode, tenu à Raboué du 24/7 au 4/8/1995, et recueillit séparément les signatures de 23 des 25 évêques présents. Le dossier a été, par la suite, communiqué aux deux Patriarches, Maximos V (Hakim) des Grecs cath. et Ignace IV (Hazim) des Grecs orth.

II - Communiqués synodaux Grec catholique et Grec orthodoxe

Communiqué synodal Grec catholique Le Synode Grec catholique, réuni à Raboué du 22 au 27 juillet l996, a terminé ses travaux par un communiqué portant sur le rétablissement de l’unité du Patriarcat grec d’Antioche et daté du 27 juillet. Il ne fut cependant publié dans la presse que le 4 septembre suivant. C’est grâce à ce communiqué que nous apprenons le développement du projet de Mgr. Zoghby lors du Synode de juillet 1995 . Les Patriarches Grec cath. et Grec orth. ayant accueilli favorablement le projet du rétablissement de l’unité du Patriarcat byzantin d’Antioche, ils se sont entrenus de ce

______(1) Courrier oecuméniquie du Moyen-Orient, 21 (III-1993), pp.7-15 (2) E.Zoghby, Orthodoxe uni ? Oui ! - Uniate ? non !, Beyrouth, Fév. 1995, pp 5-6 (3) Ibid. pp. 6-9 .

sujet et se sont mis d’accord pour constituer une commission patriarcale mixte chargée d’étudier ce projet et les moyens de le réaliser. A Mgr. Khodr et Mgr. Zoghby, on a adjoint respectivement Mgr. E. Aoudé, orth. et Mgr. S. Boustros, cath.

4 Dans leur Communiqué(1), les Pères du Synode Grec cath., à leur tête le Patriarche Maximos V, remercient le Patriarche Ignace IV et les Pères de son Synode orth. pour l’intérêt qu’ils prennent à la restauration de l’unité du Patriarcat d’Antioche ”qui nous permettra, disent ces derniers, de conserver le patrimoine commun et le culte commun, qui constituent la source de la foi commune” . Le Communiqué développe, ensuite, le projet de cette restauration . Les Pères du Synode Grec cath. considèrent que le rétablissement de l’unité antiochienne est devenu aujourd’hui chose naturelle, grâce au progrès réalisé au plan de la foi par la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe. Cette Commission a déclaré, dans trois documents successifs(2), l’unité de foi dans les dogmes essentiels définis par les 7 premiers Conciles oecuméniques. Il faudra y ajouter le Document de Balamand qui établit les bases de la pleine communion . Pour ce qui est de la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome, le Synode s’inspire de la conception commune qu’ont vécue ensemble l’Orient et l’Occident, au premier millénaire, en s’appuyant sur le Décret de l’Oecuménisme (no. 14) et l’Encyclique Ut Unum sint( no. 61). Prenant en considération cette communion dans les vérités essentielles de la foi, les Pères du Synode estiment que la ‘communicatio in sacris’ est aujourd’hui chose naturelle, tout en laissant aux deux Synodes le soin d’en déterminer la portée et les moyens . Enfin, les Pères du Synode déclarent demeurer en communion avec l’Eglise Apostolique de Rome, avec laquelle ils chercheront à dialoguer sur leurs relations mutuelles, après la restauration de l’unité du Patriarcat d’Antioche .

Réactions et Communiqué synodal orthodoxes La publication du Communiqué synodal Grec catholique, signé le 27/7/96, et diffusé le 4/9/96 a provoqué dans la presse de nombreuses réactions orthodoxes dont les plus importantes ont été réétudiées et reformulées par le Communiqué synodal Grec orthodoxe (3), paru le 10/10/96 . Tout en soulignant qu’il a étudié le projet catholique avec sympathie, le Synode antiochien estime qu’il faudrait, d’une part, poursuivre les pourparlers au sujet de l’ecclésiologie au niveau antiochien et, d’autre part, continuer le travail de la Commission mixte internationale entre les deux Eglises puisqu’il est difficile de dissocier entre les deux plans antiochien et mondial . Dans cette perspective, l’Eglise orthodoxe interroge ses frères Grecs catholiques au sujet de la communion dans la foi, qu’ils jugent aujourd’hui possible, alors qu’elle ______(1) Le Lien, Communiqué du Synode grec-melkite catholique, 1996, no.4-5, pp.9-11 (2)“Le Mystère de l’Eglise et de l’Eucharistie, à la lumière du Mystère de la Trinité’(1982), “ La foi, les mystères et l’unité de l’Eglise”(1987), et “Le mystère du Sacerdoce dans la constitution sacramentelle de l’Eglise” (1988). A y ajouter le Document de Balamand: “l’Uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé et recherche de la pleine communion”. (3) Le lien, Communiqué du Saint Synode grec-orthodoxe d’Antioche, no.6,1996, pp.50 -51

trouve que le dialogue avec Rome, sur ce sujet, est encore à ses débuts. Le premier pas sur le chemin de l’unité, au plan dogmatique, serait de ne pas conférer le caractère

5 oecuménique aux conciles occidentaux locaux, tenus unilatéralement par l’Occident, y compris Vatican I, et, par conséquent, de ne pas y obliger les Grecs catholiques. Quant à la pratique immédiate de la “Communicatio in Sacris’, le Synode juge qu’elle est liée à une orthodoxie parfaitement claire, et qu’elle est, non un pas préparatoire, mais le dernier pas vers l’unité, Par ailleurs, l’unité antiochienne du côté orthodoxe est liée au consentement des Eglises-soeurs orthodoxes, comme la double communion préconiée par les Grecs catholiques est inséparable de la restauration de la communion entre le Siège de Rome et toute l’Orthodoxie . Enfin, si le chemin de l’unité paraît long, il ne doit pas empêcher les deux partenaires, précise le Communiqué synodal, à poursuivre leurs relations amicales, la recherche théologique commune, la coordination de leurs activités patorales et humanitaires, dans l’attente du retour de l’Eglise d’Antioche à son unité première , avec les Eglises orthodoxes orientales et les Eglises orientales catholiques . Le Communiqué se termine en se donnant, en collaboration avec les frères grecs catholiques, un rôle oecuménique, à savoir qu’ils constitueront ensemble un stimulant tant pour Rome que pour l’Orthodoxie mondiale.

III - La problématique du rétablissement de l’Unité

On peut grouper sous trois titres ce qui rend problématique le projet du rétablissement de l’unité du Siège grec d’Antioche, tel qu’il a été rapporté par la presse locale .

La communion dans la foi Le Synode grec catholique estime que la communion dans la foi est assurée grâce au progrès réalisé par la Commission internationale mixte pour le dialogue et ses quatre documents (cf. supra p.5). De plus, Mgr. S. Boustros considère que l’appel du Synode grec catholique est basé “sur notre conviction que nous et les orthodoxes nous avons la même foi sur les points esentiels de la doctrine. Les autres points sur lesquels nous ne sommes pas encore d’accord, nous les considérons comme des “théolo- gouména”, qui peuvent rester longtemps sujets à discussion” (1) . Mais, que les Grecs orthodoxes considèrent que le dialogue théologique n’ est qu’à ses débuts, “qu’il n’a pas abordé la question de la Procession du Saint Esprit qui nous sépare des Grecs catholiques” ni d’autres points, comme le péché originel et la connaissance de Dieu (2) ou la théologie des fins dernières (le jugement particulier, le purgatoire et la nature de la vision béatifique) (3). Et Mgr. G. Khodr de se demander si ______(1) Mgr. S. Boustros, in Le Lien, A propos de la réponse du Synode Grec orthodoxe, 1996, no.6, pp.52-54 (2) Mgr Khodr, in An-Nahar, Les Catholiques réservent un amour sincère aux Orthodoxes, 29/10/96 (3) Mgr. Khodr, in An-Nahar, Le Projet unioniste des Grecs catholiques, 5/10/96

les Grecs catholiques sont prêts à renoncer à certains points de la théologie occidentale. Enfin, en s’attachant à l’enseignement théologique du premier millénaire, se considèrent- ils comme non liés par les Conciles conclus au second millénaire?

6 Primauté romaine et juridiction Les Pères du Synode Grec catholique ont déclaré qu’ils demeurent en communion avec l’Eglise Apostolique de Rome et cherchent en même temps à dialoguer avec elle sur leurs relations après la restauration de l’Unité (1). Cependant Mgr. Boustros, précise, dans un interview(2), que dans la phase finale de la réunification du Patriarcat d’Antioche, Grecs catholiques et Grecs orthodoxes auront les mêmes relations avec le Siège de Rome, qui seront déterminées par l’expérience du premier millénaire. En effet la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome était un fait reconnu, durant cette longue période, par les deux Eglises d’Orient et d’Occident (3) . Le désaccord résidait cependant dans la manière d’appliquer cette primauté .

A cela, Mgr. Khodr fait remarquer qu’il n’y avait pas, au premier millénaire, une vision unifiée concernant la primauté romaine (4). Il se demande, par ailleurs, comment les Grecs catholiques, après la réunification, vont-ils dialoguer avec Rome ? Ayant perdu leur indépendance, comment pourraient-ils préciser séparément leurs relations avec Rome ? De plus, il note que, en ce point, les Grecs catholiques prennent leur distance par rapport à la Commission internationale mixte du dialogue qui n’a pas abordé encore la Primauté romaine(5). Mais il semble que le Synode Grec orthodoxe prend également sa distance par rapport à cette Commission, en préconisant qu’on ne confère pas un caractère oecuménique aux Conciles locaux tenus en Occident, y compris Vatican I, et qu’on n’y oblige pas les Grecs catholiques .

Double communion et ‘communicatio in sacris’ Cette double communion dont a parlé Mgr. Zogby dans son livre “Tous schismatiques” a été simplifiée de la manière suivante: “ Nous sommes unis avec Rome, nous allons nous unir avec les Orthodoxes, mais il n’est pas nécessaire que les Orthodoxes soient unis à Rome”. Mgr. Boustros voudrait parler de “degrés de communion”, c’est ce que veulent dire catholiques et orthodoxes en parlant de ‘communion quasi complète’ entre eux . Quoiqu’il en soit, cela ne répond pas à la question soulevée par Mgr. Khodr, à savoir qu’on est en présence de quatre partenaires : Les Grecs cath. et les Grecs orth. d’Antioche, puis Rome et les Eglises orth. dans le monde. Si Rome, dit-il, est en communion avec les Grecs cath. elle l’ est aussi avec les Grecs orth. d’Antioche. Et si les Grecs orth. d’Antioche entrent en communion avec Rome, ils y feront entrer les ______(1) Cf. supra, p. 5 (2) S.Boustros , Nous sommes d’accord avec les orthodoxes pou la doctrine de la foi et la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome, An-Nahar, 28/10/96 (3) Le lien, 1996, no.6 , p. 53 (4) G.Khodr, Le projet unioniste grec catholique, in An Nahar, 5/10/96 (5) Ibid.

les Orthodoxes du monde entier (1). Aussi la question de la communion entre Grecs cath. et Grecs orth. d’Antioche soulève une question universelle, à savoir la communion entre l’Eglise Catholique et les Deglises Orthodoxes dans le monde. Perspectives d’avenir

7 Il faudrait d’abord signaler qu’aucune des deux Eglises ne voudrait que le rétablissement de l’unité du Siège d’Antioche ne soit l’occasion d’un nouveau schisme qui consacrerait le premier . L’Eglise grecque catholique, comme l’a précisé le Patriarche (2), voudrait faire évoluer la formule en vigueur de la communionn des Eglises orientales catholiques avec le Siège de Rome. Notre communion avec le Siège d’Antioche unifié, dit-il, ne se fera pas aux dépens de notre communion avec Rome, mais aux dépens de la formule erronée pratiquée à l’heure actuelle, pour redonner à l’institution patriarcale et à son Synode leur rôle dans le gouvernement et l’administration pastorale tels qu’ils se pratiquaient au cours du premier millénaire . Il précise, par ailleurs, que le schisme de l’Eglise à travers l’histoire n’a jamais été total, ni non plus son unité. Les historiens de l’Eglise disent que le schisme de l’Eglise a connu plusieurs percées, comme d’ailleurs son unité, surtout dans le Siège d’Antioche . Il y avait des Patriarches et des Evêques orthodoxes d’Antioche qui entraient en communion avec le Siège Apostolique de Rome, tout en demeurant en communion avec l’Orthodoxie et le Patriarche de Constantinople .

Interrogé sur la double communion, le Patriarche grec orthodoxe, Mgr.Ignace IV Hazim, dit que “nous n’avons pas ce choix et nous n’en voyons pas la nécessité”(3). Grecs cath. et grecs ortho. aspirent également à une seule communion . Il souhaite par ailleurs que les relations de l’Eglise orthodoxe avec Rome soient définies telles qu’elles étaient avant le grand schisme. Mais il reconnaît qu’une évolution est en train de se produire, puisque l’Eglise orientale est désormais désignée comme une Eglise soeur. Cela voudrait dire qu’il y a , au niveau des dogmes , des ajustements à faire en sorte qu’ils ne soient plus en contradiction avec l’existence d’une Eglise-soeur .

Il s’avère donc que le rétablissement de l’unité du Siège d’Antioche est étroitement lié à l’unité entre l’Eglise orientale et l’Eglise catholique . Aussi surgit-il de nouveau le rôle que devrait jouer la Commission mixte internationale du dialogue théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe . C’est le sens de l’appel pour la continuation du dialogue, lançé le 18 janvier dernier (1997) , par des théologiens catholiques et orthodoxes réunis au monastère bénédictin de Chevetogne, et adressé au Pape Jean-Paul II (4). Quant au rôle de la Commission mixte patriarcale d’Antioche, ce sera de se réunir le plus souvent possible et de faire bouger les synodes, comme le dit le Patriarche Hazim (5). Il me semble, enfin, qu’un des rôles des théologiens oecuménistes serait d’étudier les problèmes surgis de l’expérience du rétablissement de l’unité du Siège grec d’Antioche et d’y proposer de nouvelles approches. ______(1) Ibid. (2) An-Nahar, 1/10/96 (3) L’Orient-Le Jour, 19/10/96 (4) S.O.P., no. 215, février 1997, pp.20-22 (5) L’Orient-Le Jour, 19/10/96

Problématique de l’Unité des deux Sièges du Patriarcat Grec d’Antioche

8 A D D E N D U M

présenté au XVI ème Congrès des Jésuites oecuménistes tenu à Alexandrie (Egypte) en juillet 2001

Nous parlerons dans cet addendum des Synodes Grec Orthodoxe de mai l997 et Grec catholique de juillet 1997, et de la Lettre du Siège Apostolique à S.B.Maximos V Hakim du 11 juin l997. Nous ne pourrons cependant pas clore sans parler de la visite du Saint-Père à Damas du 5 au 8 mai 2001 et des retombés oecuméniques qui ont fait jour à cette occasion.

Les Synodes de 1997 Ayant développé sa position dans son communiqué du 10 oct.1996, le synode Grec orth. de 1997 s’est contenté d’insister sur la nécessité “de la réunion de la Commission internationale mixte entre l’Eglise Orth. et l’Eglise Cath.”. Il a insisté également sur la poursuite du dialogue avec le Siège Grec Cath. d’Antioche, tout en renouvelant l’appel au rapprochement entre les deux Eglises.

De son côté, le Synode Grec cath., dans son communiqué de juillet 1997, répondit à cet appel, et les “Pères synodaux décidèrent de poursuivre l’effort pour renforcer les relations fraternelles entre les deux Eglises et à tous les niveaux, pastoral, liturgique et humain” et de participer aux mouvements oecuméniques en cours dans le monde actuel.

Les deux Synodes ont exhorté leur commission mixte quadripartite à poursuivre le travail pour réaliser la fin pour laquelle elle a été instituée.

Lettre du Saint-Siège à S.B.le Patriarche Maximos V A noter, tout d’abord, que S.B. le Patriarche Maximos V a communiqué, aux Pères du Synode de juillet 1997, la Lettre du 11 juin que le Saint-Siège l’avait inivité à recevoir à Rome, en tant que chef de l’Eglise melkite Catholique (1).

A la suite des tentatives de rapprochement entre les Patriarcat Grec-Melkite Catholique et Grec-Melkite Orthodoxe, les Responsables de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la foi, de la Congrégation pour les Eglises Orientales et du Conseil Pontifical pour l’Unité des Chrétiens ont reçu du Saint-Père la charge d’examiner les questions de leur compétence en ce domaine, et d’exprimer à Sa Béatitude quelques considérations. ______(1) Le Lien, l977, no.4, pp.32-34.

Dans une première partie, la Lettre signale que le Saint-Siège suit avec intérêt et encouragement les initiatives tendant à favoriser le chemin de la pleine réconciliation, entrepris depuis des décennies par le Patriarcat Grec-Melkite Catholique.

Les Dicastères concernés apprécient beaucoup que l’on entreprenne des initiatives pastorales communes entre les Grecs catholiques et Grecs orthodoxes, surtout dans le

9 domaine de la formation chrétienne, de l’éducation, du service commun de la charité et du partage dans la prière, quand cela est possible.

Cependant, en ce qui concerne les acquis de caractère théologique, il est indispensable d’oeuvrer avec patience et prudence pour permettre aux deux partis de parcourir un chemin commun, au niveau du langage et des catégories employées dans le dialogue pour que l’usage d’un même mot ne se prête pas à des interprêtations selon les points de vue historique ou doctrinal.

De plus, le partage du contenu du dialogue ne se limite pas aux deux seuls interlocuteurs directs: les Patriarcats Grec-Melkite Catholique et Grec Orthodoxe d’Antioche, mais implique les confessions avec lesquelles les deux Patriarcats sont en pleine communion, à savoir la communion catholique et la communion orthodoxe.

Dans une deuxième partie, la Lettre aborde la Profession de Foi de Mgr. Zoghby signée en février 1995 et à laquelle de nombreux prélats du Synode grec-melkite Catholique ont adhéré. Elle fait les observations suivantes:

1- A propos de l’adhésion complète à l’enseignement de l’Orthodoxie Orientale de la part des Grecs Catholiques, il faudrait tenir compte que les Eglises Orthodoxes ne sont pas en pleine communion avec l’Eglise de Rome, et que par ailleurs, une formulation complète de la foi implique de se référer non à une Eglise particulière, mais à toute l’Eglise du Christ qui ne connaît pas de frontière, ni dans l’espace, ni dans le temps.

2 - Sur la question de la communion avec les Evêques de Rome, on ne peut ignorer que la doctrine concernant le Primat du Pontife Romain a connu un développement au cours des temps, dans l’explicitation de la Foi de l’Eglise. Cette doctrine doit donc être tenue dans son intégralité depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours (cf. Vatican I, Vatican II: Lumen Gentium 22-23 et le Décret sur l’Oecuménisme: Unitatis Redintegratio, no 2).

3 - A propos de l’exercice du ministère pétrin, différent de la question de doctrine, le Saint-Père a rappelé qu’il était possible de chercher ensemble les formes dans lesquelles ce ministère pourra réaliser un service d’amour reconnu par les uns et les autres (Ut unum sint, 95). S’il est légitime d’en traiter au niveau local, c’est un devoir de le faire toujours en communion avec l’Eglise Universelle Aussi faudrait-il rappeler que, de toute façon, l’Eglise Catholique, dans sa praxis comme dans ses textes officiels, soutient que la communion des Eglises particulières avec l’Eglise de Rome, et celle de leurs Evêques avec l’Evêque de Rome, est une condition essentielle de la communion pleine et visible (Ut unum sint, 97)

4 - Quant aux différents aspects de la communicatio in sacris, il faudrait maintenir un constant dialogue afin de comprendre le sens de la normative en vigueur... On évitera des initiatives unilatérales prématurées... Elles pourraient créer des dommages non négligeables, y compris envers les autres Catholiques orientaux, surtout ceux qui demeurent dans la même région.

10 En somme, le dialogue de fraternité entrepris par le Patriarcat Grec-melkite Catholique, servira au chemin oecuménique, d’autant plus qu’il s’efforcera d’impliquer dans la maturation de nouvelles sensibilités, toute l’Eglise Catholique à laquelle il appartient. L’Orthodoxie partage aussi cette préoccupation en général et aussi en raison des exigences de la communion en son propre sein.

Enfin, les Dicastères concernés sont prêts à collaborer pour favoriser cet échange d’échos et de vérifications .

Ont signé la Lettre Leurs Eminences Joseph Card. Ratzinger , Achille Card. Silvestrini et Edward Card. Cassidy

Les retombées oecuméniques de la visite du Saint-Père à Damas

Nous ne pouvons pas clore sans parler de la visite du Saint-Père à Damas, entre le 5 et 8 mai 2001 et de ses retombées oecuméniques.

1-Accueil et hommage de Mgr. Ignace Hazim. Le jour même de son arrivée à Damas, le 5 mai, le Saint-Père se rendit à la Cathédrale du Patriarcat Grec Orthodoxe pour y participer à la rencontre oecuménique nationale. Le Patriarche Ignace Hazim lui réserva un accueil très chaleureux et introduisit son hommage par ces termes: ” Pierre qui s’établit d’abord à Antioche, vous accueille sur cette terre de Syrie”. Il rappela que les Pères de cette terre ont défriché les chemins de l’ascèse, de l’exégèse biblique et de la liturgie, et donné à l’espace antiochien d’être un lieu privilégié de l’Amour du Seigneur. Puis il ajouta: “Nous croyons en toute humilité que l’Eglise fondée par le Christ continue de subsister en plénitude dans l’Eglise Orthodoxe”. Aussi considère-t-il que les schismes qui ont déchiré l’Eglise sont intolérables, et souligna les points qui constituent, à l’heure actuelle, des obstacles à l’unité. Bien qu’à Balamand, en 1993, les représentants de l’Eglise Catholique et des Eglises Orthodoxes aient affirmé ensemble que l’uniatisme ne saurait être “un modèle de l’unité”, plusieurs Eglises orthodoxes se plaignent de la reprise du prosélytisme. Puis il ajoute: “Nous sommes, nous-mêmes, gênés ici par la pratique sauvage de l’hospitalité eucharistique”. Mais il espère que cette pierre d’achoppement n’entrave point davantage la poursuite du dialogue entre les deux Eglises. Ce dialogue une fois repris devrait se pencher sur “un point qui semble crucial : celui des anathèmes portés par le Concile du Vatican contre ceux qui ne reconnaissent pas l’infaillibilité papale... Il serait important d’en expliciter la portée de l’intelligence théologique actuelle de l’Eglise Catholique”. ______Osservatore Romano. hebdo. en français, no.20,15 mai 2001

2- Le Pape rappela le rayonnement de l’Eglise de Syrie. Construite sur le fondement des Apôtres Pierre et Paul, elle n’a pas tardé à manifester une immense floraison de vie chrétienne. Pour ce qui concerne les relations avec le Patriarcat grec orthodoxe, il rappela que la recherche de l’unité entre ce Patriarcat et le Patriarcat grec catholique d’Antioche s’inscrit dans le cadre plus large du processus de réunion entre l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes. “C’est pourquoi je tiens à exprimer de nouveau mon souhait sincère que la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue

11 théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes puisse prochainement continuer ses activités”. 3 -Echos dans la presse Dans le Journal an-Nahar du 23 juin 2001, l’évêque grec orthodoxe du Mont- Liban publia un article intitulé: ”La marche unioniste renouvelée”. Ayant accompagné les pourparlers oecuméniques depuis leur début, Mgr. Khodr donne un résumé des étapes et des difficultés de la Commission mixte internationale du dialogue. On pensait alors qu’il était nécessaire d’étudier d’abord les Sacrements d’initiation. Mais certaines églises orthodoxes ont soulevé la question des orientaux catholiques qui constituent une blessure dans le corps orthodoxe. Rome consentit à ce que cette question fut étudiée par la Commission mixte à la rencontre de Balamand en 1993. On parvint alors à la conclusion que l’Uniatisme n’est pas “le modèle de l’Unité”, mais les deux églises s’engagèrent à élaborer une formulation sur “l’Unité entre églises- soeurs”. Certaines églises orthodoxes refusèrent le document de Balamand. De son côté l’Eglise Catholique méconnut cette expression dans le document “Le Seigneur Jésus” émanant de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi. Cependant le Pape l’a utilisée dans son homélie à Damas: “...vus le Sacerdoce et l’Eucharistie qui unissent par des liens très étroits nos Eglises particulères qui aiment à s’appeler Eglises-soeurs”. De plus, certaines églises orthodoxes considèrent le document de Balamand comme insuffisant. La Commission mixte internationale s’est réunie, il y a un an , à Baltimore des Etats Unis. Mais, à cause de l’uniatisme, les membres se sont dispersés . Aussi devient-il imposible de poursuivre l’étude du problème fondamental, à savoir la primauté du pape et son infaillibilité. On a ajourné le discours théologique mais on n’a pas fixé de date pour réunion ultérieure de la Commision. Et Mgr. Khodr de conclure son article en précisant qu’il est profondément convaincu que les Orthodoxes ne doivent pas s’accrocher à la question de l’uniatisme, mais devront la dépasser pour étudier d’abord les questions théologiques. Le reste viendra plus tard. Il fait remarquer, cependant, que le catholique, dans le processus oecuménique de rapprochement, ne voudrait certes pas faire sortir l’orthodoxe de son bercail . Mais est-ce que sa théologie le lui permet-elle? Le document “ Le Seigneur Jésus” précise sur ce point la théologie ecclésiale romaine en ces termes: “Il existe une unique Eglise du Christ qui subsiste dans l’Eglise Catholique, gouvernée par le successeur de Pierre et les Evêques en communion avec lui” ( Cité du Vatican - 2000 - no.17). Dans ce cas, le fidèle catholique ne va-t-il pas essayer d’intégrer l’orthodoxe dans l’Eglise universelle? C’est pourquoi Mgr. G. Khodr engage les Orthodoxes à se libérer du complexe des Catholiques orientaux pour poursuivre avec l’Eglise Catholique la marche commune vers la découverte du patrimoine commun. Autrement dit, retour à la Commission mixte internationale .

P.Victor Chelhot s.j. Damas.

12 LA QUESTION DE L’AUTORITE

LE PRIMAT DE L’EVEQUE DE ROME

PROPOSITION DE REFORME Conférence tenue lors du 16ème Congrès international des jésuites en œcuménisme du 5 – 10 juillet 2001, Alexandrie Egypte

I, Introduction : Pourquoi parler du pape, de son ministère de primat ? Tout justement, parce qu’en tant que ministère qui assure l’unité dans la communion des Eglises, ce ministère est au cœur des débats œcuméniques depuis longtemps. C’est même, et je reprends ici les paroles de Paul VI prononcées en 1967 : « le pape constitue sans aucun doute l’obstacle le plus grave sur la route de l’œcuménisme ». Jean Paul reprend cette constatation douloureuse : « le ministère de l’évêque de Rome représente une difficulté pour la plupart des autres chrétiens, dont la mémoire est marquée par certains souvenirs douloureux » (U.U.S. n/ 88). Nous n’avons qu’à nous reporter au récent voyage de Jean Paul II en Grèce. En effet, il est quand même curieux et paradoxal que l’institution qui revendique être le rocher de l’unité, se soit transformé au cours de l’histoire en un bloc de rocher qui fait obstacle à l’union des Eglises. Le Cardinal Poupard parlait même de « pierre angulaire et pierre d’achoppement ». Mon point de départ de cette réflexion sur le primat de l’évêque de Rome est l’Encyclique de Jean Paul II Ut Unum Sint sur l’œcuménisme du 25 mai 1995 (Documentation Catholique, 1995, p. 567 – 597). Celle-ci reprend le projet œcuménique du pontificat de Jean Paul II, projet qui lui tient très fort à cœur. S’y trouvent exprimées sa volonté de s’engager sur les chemins de la collégialité et la proposition d’un nouvel examen du sens, du rôle et des modalités du ministère du pape. C’est surtout dans les numéros 88 à 97 de cette encyclique qu’est traité le sujet du «ministère d’unité de l’évêque de Rome ». Le Pape appelle à redécouvrir le sens évangélique de l’autorité et à convertir le pouvoir en service : « l’autorité propre de ce ministère est tout au service du dessein miséricordieux de Dieu et il faut toujours le considérer dans cette perspective. Son pouvoir s’explique dans ce sens » (n/ 92). Jean Paul II définit l’esse même du primat de l’évêque de Rome comme un « service de l’unité enraciné dans l’œuvre de la miséricorde divine… confié à l’intérieur du collège des évêques… (n/ 94, 88, 95). En tant que « principe et fondements permanents et visibles de l’unité… mon ministère est celui de servus servorum Dei » (n/ 88 & 94). Le Pape définit en quelque la structure (à distinguer de la notion de figure) fondamentale de son ministère en qualifiant sa mission de « veille », de « sentinelle » de la fidélité à la confession de foi apostolique et l’unité de celle-ci. Son ministère s’exerce donc essentiellement au profit de la communion des Eglises particulières. Ce sont les Eglises particulières qui sont à la base de la mission du primat, car celui-ci doit assurer que « grâce aux pasteurs on entende dans toutes ces Eglises la voix véritable du Christ (et) qu’ainsi se réalise dans chacune (d’elles), l’Eglise, une, sainte, catholique et apostolique ». (n/ 94) Ce service est – et le Pape le dit lui-même – « la meilleure protection contre le risque de séparer l’autorité (et en particulier la primauté) du ministère, ce qui serait en contradiction avec le sens de l’autorité selon l’Evangile (Lc 22, 27) ». En effet, c’est au moment où autorité et primauté furent séparées du sens du service, que le ministère de l’évêque de Rome fut plutôt cause de division que d’union. L’élément nouveau et inédit de cette Encyclique n’est peut-être pas tant qu’un pape mette en discussion sa primauté, mais bien qu’il invite les responsables des autres Eglises à entrer en dialogue avec lui pour chercher ensemble une forme renouvelée d’exercer le

1 ministère universel de l’unité (n/ 95 & 96). « J’écoute la requête qui m’est adressée de trouver une forme d’exercice de la primauté ouverte à une situation nouvelle, mais sans renoncement aucun à l’essentiel de sa mission » (n/ 95). En effet, étant en Egypte nous pouvons nous souvenir de l’invitation pressente que Jean Paul II adressa au Pape copte Shénouda III et qu’il répéta lors de sa visite du Monastère Sainte Catherine au Sinaï. « Chers frères, il n’y a pas de temps à perdre à ce sujet », lança le Pape. Disons aussi en petites lettres (et nous savons que celles-ci sont bien souvent les plus pertinentes) : du moment que l’Eglise catholique reconnaît l’ecclésialité plus ou moins pleine d’autres Eglises (le fameux « subsistit in » de Lumen Gentium n/ 8), elle se voit interrogée sur sa propre doctrine de la primauté par les autres Eglises et plus particulièrement sur leur refus de la conception romaine. Je n’entre pas dans la discussion proprement oœcuménique autour du primat (ne connaissant pas suffisamment la conception orthodoxe ou réformée de ce ministère). Le primat est cependant généralement perçu comme un service de l’unité (la koinonia) de tous les fidèles dans la foi et la communion. Dans ses formes d’exercice, il faut que ce ministère respecte l’héritage propre de chaque Eglise (la synodalité ou la conciliarité) et en même temps favorise la cohésion de toutes les Eglises dans leur diversité. A partir de la phrase de l’Encyclique, citée tout juste avant, on peut se poser plusieurs questions. Premièrement quelle est « cette situation nouvelle » à laquelle le Pape fait allusion ? Il y a le tournant ecclésiologique de Vatican II, l’ecclésiologie de communion, mais aussi le kairos œcuménique soutenu par « l’aspiration œcuménique de la majeure partie des communautés chrétiennes » (n/ 95). Mais on pourrait y ajouter tous les défis sociaux, économiques, politiques de la mondialisation, les aspirations des chrétiens d’aujourd’hui ayant une conscience plus vive de la dignité baptismale et de leurs responsabilités au sein de l’Eglise.

Ce qui apparaît comme la question majeure à partir du n/ 95 de l’Encyclique – et ce qui est du coup le fil rouge de mon exposé – est : comment distinguer la « forme d’exercice » de la papauté qui pourrait donc changer de « l’essentiel de la mission » qui serait immuable ? Je vais dans un premier temps essayer de préciser en quoi consiste « l’essentiel » même du primat du pape, qui serait intouchable. Quelle est donc la structure du primat de l’évêque de Rome qu’on pourrait déceler à travers toutes les figures contingentes, historiques d’exercice de la papauté. ? Dans un deuxième temps, nous pouvons nous demander sous quelle forme d’exercice adaptée à une situation nouvelle, le primat de l’évêque de Rome peut être considérée. La position tenue aujourd’hui par bon nombre d’écclésiologues est la suivante. Après l’ecclésiologie à tendance universaliste et personnaliste de Vatican I, Vatican II lance sur orbite la fameuse ecclésiologie de la communion des Eglises particulières. D’ailleurs l’Encyclique Ut Unum Sint en assume une bonne prise en compte. Une véritable ecclésiologie de communion exige cependant d’aller plus loin et requiert une meilleure articulation de la primauté pontificale sur le binôme collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une Eglise, d’une part et communion des Eglises particulières, d’autre part. Je donnerai par la suite quelques pistes concrètes pour une plus grande mise en œuvre de cette articulation. II, « L’essentiel » du primat de l’évêque de Rome : La question est beaucoup plus simple que la réponse. Le point de départ pourrait être, par exemple, la question suivante : « Est-ce que le modèle organisationnel centralisé et juridisé de la plenitudo potestatis du Pontife Romain tel que celui-ci s’est développé au cours des deux derniers millénaires appartient à l’essentiel du primat de l’évêque de Rome ? » Il faut commencer par relire la longue et riche histoire des figures contingentes de la

2 papauté pour buter sur les éléments qui nous éclairent sur la structure fondamentale et essentielle du primat. Jean Paul II fait d’ailleurs allusion à ce type de relecture à la lumière de la pratique du premier millénaire où « le Siège romain intervenait d’un commun accord si des différends au sujet de la foi ou de la discipline s’élevaient entres (les différentes Eglises) » (n/ 95). Et le Pape dit lui-même que les références pour retrouver la communion «ne seront pas les développements des structures catholiques du second millénaire… » (n/ 95). Pour reprendre les termes du Cardinal Ratzinger : « ce n’est pas en cherchant le minimum d’attributions d’exercice au cours de l’histoire que l’on peut déterminer le noyau… de la primauté. Aussi, le fait qu’une tâche déterminée ait été exercée par le primat à une certaine époque ne signifie pas en soi que cette tâche doive nécessairement être toujours réservée au Pontife Romain. Et vice versa… » (« La primauté du successeur de Pierre dans le mystère de l’Eglise », Documentation Catholique, 1988, p. 1018 – 1019). Ensuite se pose aussi la question du critère de distinction entre « essentiel » et « forme d’exercice ». C’est le Père Angel Anton qui avance le critère de compréhension suivant : celui de la vision ecclésiologique telle qu’elle apparaît dans les premiers chapitres de Lumen Gentium. La primauté doit être placée dans le mystère de l’Eglise : la Catholica comme communio ecclesiarum. Ce modèle ecclésial rejoint le modèle de koinonia des premiers siècles de l’Eglise indivise. Le Siège de Rome fonctionnait comme pierre de touche de à l’unité et de l’authenticité de la foi apostolique et présidait à la communion dans la charité et l’unité dans la diversité et l’autonomie des Eglises locales ou régionales. Je ne vais pas vous faire un cours d’histoire sur la papauté. Mais un des problèmes majeurs au cours de l’histoire est que le pape cumule en fait trois fonctions : évêque de Rome, patriarche d’Occident et primat universel. On peut se demander avec les mots du regretté J.-M. Tillard si au cours de l’histoire « l’évêque de Rome ne serait pas devenu plus qu’un évêque » ou si « dans la conscience catholique le pape n’est-il pas en fait plus qu’un pape ». Bref, les figures et les formes historiques de la papauté ont fait l’objet d’une évolution maximaliste et ont ainsi grossi le concept de primat. Nous nous concentrons brièvement sur l’histoire de la papauté avant le Concile Vatican I. Ce que nous venons de dire, s’illustre, par exemple, par le fait qu’il y a eu projection du primat patriarcal (de type plutôt administratif) sur le primat universel, surtout à partir du moment où l’évêque de Rome n’exerça plus ses fonctions primatiales de pape que sur le patriarcat d’Occident. Celui-ci après avoir perdu l’Afrique chrétienne au profit de l’Islam se repliait dorénavant sur sa partie européenne. L’impuissance de l’Empire byzantin fit aussi que le pape se tourna de plus en plus vers l’Empire carolingien. Ceci entraîna la prétention d’exercer sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise universelle – même si en pratique cela se limitait à l’Occident – le pouvoir de gouvernement que l’évêque de Rome avait sur l’Eglise latine. Poussée par les circonstances ou profitant d’occasions favorables, Rome s’efforcera progressivement de mettre sous une seule accolade sa primauté locale, patriarcale et sa primauté universelle de communion. Rome se présentait devant l’Orient avec une prétention ou une revendication que Constantinople ne pouvait admettre. C’est le choc entre deux conceptions : administration centrale versus responsabilité suprême pour l’unité et la pureté de la foi, sans exercice direct de l’administration. Le schisme de Photius (860 – 880) en est le signe précurseur et ceci se consommera définitivement dans le schisme de 1054. Il n’est pas étonnant qu’à la même époque s’accomplit la réforme grégorienne (Grégoire VII 1073 – 1085) avec les fameux Dictatus Papae (1075). Toutes les Eglise particulières sont mis au pas de l’Eglise (locale) de Rome, qui intègre dans le petit espace de l’urbs tout l’orbis chrétien. Ce tournant marquera l’extension progressive et maximalisante de la papauté tout au long du deuxième millénaire. C’est Boniface VIII (1294 – 1303) qui affirme avec la Bulle Unam Sanctam (les deux glaives) la plenitudo potestatis détenue par le Christi Vicarius, titre lancé par Innocent III (1198 – 1216). L’ecclésiologie post-tridentine souligne surtout la dépendance de l’Eglise par rapport à sa tête (Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia). Au 19ème siècle, le climat ultramontain, nourri par l’hostilité envers les thèses gallicanes et épiscopalistes, le désarroi européen après l’épopée napoléonienne, la suppression des Etats Pontificaux, considère la papauté comme devant fournir à la société et à l’Eglise l’ordre, la certitude et la stabilité. Que pouvons-nous retenir de cette histoire de la papauté ? Un tournant progressif à partir du second millénaire faisant du modèle du pape « plus qu’un pape ». L’évolution historique montre que le pouvoir pontifical a poursuivi une concentration de compétences.

3 Une telle situation résultait des invasions, des risques d’hérésies, de l’emprise du Prince, du danger de dispersion, de l’incurie voire même de l’excès dans le gouvernement des diocèses… A travers ces figures historiques contingentes, il apparaît une structure constante. Le pape est protos ou premier entre ses pairs, mais il ne l’est qu’en tant qu’évêque du Siège de Rome, potentior principalitas (Saint Irénée de Lyon dans l’Adversus Haereses au Livre III, 3, 2) en raison des martyrs de Pierre et de Paul dans cette ville. Son ministère de service de l’unité de la foi et de la communion s’exerce non dans uns solitude de monarque isolé au sommet d’une pyramide mais en communion collégiale avec « ses frères » dans l’épiscopat et le vicariat du Christ. Telle est la place de l’évêque de Rome dans le mystère de l’Eglise et ceci s’accorde avec la grande Tradition de l’Eglise indivise (Saint Léon le Grand (440 – 461) avec son Tome à Flavien au Concile de Chalcédoine (451), Saint Grégoire le Grand (590 – 604) protestant face à Euloge d’Alexandrie qui le salue du titre d’évêque universel.) Cela rejoint la définition de Jean Paul II de « veille », de « sentinelle » (et non de « commandant ») au service de l’unité dans la foi et la charité. Au Concile Vatican I, la primauté du pape englobe un pouvoir plénier, suprême, ordinaire et immédiat sur toute l’Eglise. La grosse question par rapport à ce Concile est, s’il a vraiment fait du pape cet « évêque universel de toute l’Eglise » ou un « super-évêque » dans une « monarchie pontificale ». Ceci est très certainement présent dans l’imaginaire catholique de l’époque et peut-être bien jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Il s’est instauré une espèce de « dévotion papale » qui se traduit aujourd’hui par l’intérêt très médiatique autour de la personne de Jean Paul II. Mais nous pouvons dire que malgré toutes les contingences de l’époque, les points importants de la Constitution Pastor Aeternus traduisent « l’essentiel » du ministère de la primauté, tel que nous venons de le définir. Enumérons les points majeurs de Pastor Aeternus. Ce ministère doit être compris à la lumière « de l’antique et constante foi de l’Eglise universelle » (D.S. 3052) exprimée dans le témoignage « des actes des conciles œcuméniques et des canons » (D.S. 3059). Le ministère du pape est donc clairement situé dans la tradition de l’Eglise indivise. La primauté de l’évêque de Rome découle de la primauté du Siège de Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem (D.S. 3057). Le pouvoir de juridiction, ordinaire, épiscopal et immédiat, plein et suprême découle du fait qu’il est évêque du Siège de la cathedra de Pierre. Nous retrouvons la tradition selon laquelle le privilège de la sedes rejaillit sur le sedens. La difficulté réside dans le fait que le dogme catholique rattache cette primauté de juridiction à la volonté formelle du Christ. L’orthodoxie admet que l’évêque de Rome en tant que premier parmi les égaux, exerce une charge de surveillance, mais non de gouvernement sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise. Le ministère du pape est perçu comme un service de l’unité de toute l’Eglise : « que l’épiscopat soit un et indivis et que grâce à l’union étroite des prêtres, la multitude entière des croyants soit gardée dans l’unité de la foi et de la communion » (D.S. 3051). Cela dit bien la finalité du pouvoir pontifical : plus qu’une simple tâche honorifique, il s’agit de conserver, maintenir, sauvegarder et transmettre cette unité et cette fidélité dans le foi et la communion (D.S. 3051 & 3060). C’est dans ce contexte que l’infaillibilité pontificale doit être comprise «pour qu’ils (les pontifes) gardent saintement et exposent fidèlement… le dépôt de la foi. » (D.S. 3070) On retrouve ici, la fonction traditionnelle du Siège de Rome comme pierre de touche de la foi apostolique.

Ceci correspond à ce que la Tradition appelle la tâche de veilleur, de sentinelle, mais cela n’implique pas que toute forme d’union, de cohésion, de coordination, d’uniformisation ou de centralisation à travers l’histoire constitue en soi l’unité telle que le Seigneur l’a voulue pour son Eglise. Tout ce qui tombe en dehors de ce qui est requis et nécessaire pour la conservation et la transmission de cette unité, tombe en dehors de l’exercice de la primauté. Ainsi nombre de pouvoirs qui sont de fait pontificaux, mais qui ne

4 relèvent pas de la raison formelle de l’unité, tombent en dehors de l’exercice de la primauté. Ceux-ci ne font plus partie de « l’essentiel » du ministère d’unité. Et si le pape exerce un pouvoir de juridiction ordinaire et immédiat « sur toutes et chacune des Eglises comme sur tous et chacun des pasteurs et des fidèles » (D.S. 3064 & 3060) – ce qui paraît exorbitant du point de vue œcuménique (surtout pour les orthodoxes) – ceci doit en fait être compris à la lumière de la finalité du ministère du pape. Ce ministère est inséré dans le collège épiscopal et vise l’édification de l’Eglise par l’unité de la foi et de la communion. Le pape n’étouffe donc pas la mission de l’évêque ; il lui garantit sa véritable dimension en le situant dans la koinonia. C’est dans ce sens que le pape possède une juridiction : elle garantit que la communion dont chaque évêque a la responsabilité dans son Eglise locale, débouche sur la Catholica. Et vu que la Catholica implique toutes les Eglises, tous les pasteurs et tous les fidèles, la juridiction du primat ne peut pas ne pas les avoir tous pour objet. Si le pape exerce une juridiction universelle proprement épiscopale, elle découle du fait qu’il est évêque de Rome, de sa consécration épiscopale de cette ville. Mais cela ne fait nullement de lui un évêque universel de toute l’Eglise ni un super-évêque. C’est parce qu’il est évêque de l’Eglise particulière, potentior principalitas, à qui le primat a été donnée avec l’épiscopat de l’Eglise de Rome, qu’il est aussi primus inter pares avec ses frères dans l’épiscopat. On craignait à Vatican I que le pape allait supplanter tous les évêques, vu son pouvoir ordinaire, plénier, immédiat etc… C’est la Députation de la Foi, conduite par Mgr Zinelli qui livra un excellent travail de précision. Tout d’abord, le pouvoir pontifical s’exerce non ad destructionem, sed ad aedificationem Ecclesiae. Il n’est donc pas vrai que le pape serait tout et les évêques rien. D.S. n/ 3061 dit bien que le pouvoir du pape « ne fait nullement obstacle au pouvoir de juridiction épiscopal, ordinaire et immédiat par lequel les évêques … gouvernent leurs troupeaux ». Le pape doit respecter le pouvoir également ordinaire des évêques en n’exerçant pas dans un diocèse les tâches épiscopales de l’ordinaire du lieu… sinon le pape agira ad destructionem Ecclesiae. On se trouverait face à une primauté qui absorberait l’activité épiscopale et irait ainsi à l’encontre du droit divin de la charge pastorale de l’évêque sur son troupeau. On dit bien que le pouvoir de chaque évêque est « affirmé, affermi et défendu par le pasteur suprême et universel… » (D.S. 3061 et suit alors une superbe allusion à la grande Tradition avec Saint Grégoire le Grand : … secundum illud Sancti Gregorii Magni : « Meus honor est honor universalis Ecclesiae. Meus honor est fratrum meorum solidus vigor. Tum ego vere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus non negatur. ») Le pouvoir divin du pape est en quelque sorte au service de la fonction également de droit divin des évêques. Si le pape détient un pouvoir sur chaque diocèse et sur tous les fidèles, cela est en vue de la conservation de l’unité de la foi et de la communion. Vatican I est donc loin de considérer l’Eglise universelle comme le vaste diocèse du pape dont les évêques seraient ses « vicaires ». Au contraire, le pape promeut le pouvoir des autres évêques, qui sont ses frères dans l’épiscopat, bien que l’ecclésiologie de Vatican I situe ces derniers plutôt sub Petro. Ceci tranche donc bien avec une vision ultramontaine, maximalisante et centralisatrice du primat de l’évêque de Rome. Concile Vatican II : Si dans sa Constitution dogmatique sur l’Eglise Lumen Gentium le Concile reçoit assez littéralement les énoncés de Pastor Aeternus, ceux-ci sont replacés dans une nouveau cadre ecclésiologique : celui de la communio ecclesiarum (L.G. n/ 23 & 26 et C.D. n/ 11). L’essence du service primatial d’unité du pape est placée sur l’arrière plan d’une plus grande prise en compte de l’épiscopat et de l’Eglise locale, deux autres institutions de droit divin. L’ecclésiologie de communion affirme qu’en chaque Eglise est présente l’Eglise universelle et indivisible et que cette dernière est constituée en et par les Eglises particulières. Nous arrivons à une intériorité mutuelle entre Eglises particulières et Eglise universelle, de telle sorte que la catholicité exprime une unité dans la diversité et se réalise dans la communion. Ceci tranche avec une ecclésiologie universaliste et personnaliste,

5 parce que l’Eglise n’est plus longtemps vue comme pyramide hiérarchique à partir de son chef, le pape, mais comme communion horizontale à partir des Eglises particulières et les évêques qui sont qualifiés comme vicarii et legati Christi. (L.G. n/ 18, 20, 22, 23, 24) Les évêques sont successeurs des apôtres et c’est avec le pape « chef visible de toute l’Eglise qu’ils ont charge de diriger la maison de Dieu » (L.G. n/ 18) et c’est tous ensemble avec le pape, (qu’ils représentent) l’Eglise universelle (L.G. n/ 23). Etant chacun principe d’unité de leur Eglise particulière (L.G. n/ 23), les évêques sont introduits dans le ministère d’unité de l’Eglise. A cette communio ecclesiarum correspond la collégialité épiscopale désignant par là, la nature collégiale des relations des évêques entre eux et avec l’évêque de Rome. La collégialité n’est donc pas limitée aux actes de l’ensemble du collège et de son chef, mais elle est considérée tant dans sa dimension verticale (en lien avec le chef, le pape) qu’horizontale (la solidarité collégiale s’exprime aussi dans les relations mutuelles des évêques). La porte est donc ouverte à d’autres formes possibles d’action collégiale, à côté du concile œcuménique (L.G. n/ 22 in fine). En outre, il est dit que les conférences épiscopales peuvent « contribuer de manières multiples et fécondes à ce que le sentiment collégial se réalise concrètement » (L.G. n/ 23). Qu’en est-il du pape ? Un rééquilibrage du ministère de l’évêque de Rome est opéré. Il est tout d’abord placé à l’intérieur du collège épiscopal (tout comme Pierre était placé dans le collège apostolique). Il n’est donc certes pas un « super-évêque », car avec les évêques « ils forment entre eux un tout » (L.G. n/ 22). Son pouvoir plénier, suprême et immédiat sur toute l’Eglise est éminemment épiscopal (en tant qu’évêque de Rome), mais les évêques détiennent également le pouvoir plénier et suprême sur toute l’Eglise (L.G. n/ 22 & 23). En effet comme dans Vatican I, le primat ne veut pas dire «monarque absolu », illimité d’une Societas perfecta que serait l’Eglise, mais bien qu’il est au sein de la communion ecclésiale un centrum unitatis propter potentiorem principalitatem sur lequel doit s’axer toute Eglise locale dans la foi et la charité. Primauté suppose donc communio ecclesiarum et vice versa. En effet, si en chaque Eglise, l’Eglise du Christ est présente dans un lieu précis, chaque Eglise particulière ne peut faire « cavalier seul » et ne peut se prendre pour l’Eglise universelle. Elle se doit d’être en communion, par la personne de son évêque, avec les autres Eglises particulières et leurs évêques ainsi qu’avec l’Eglise de Rome et son évêque. C’est la raison pourquoi Lumen Gentium insiste tellement sur l’unité collégiale des évêques à l’intérieur du collège et avec le primat (cfr. par exemple « … le collège épiscopal n’a d’autorité que si on l’entend uni au Pontife romain… comme à son chef » L.G. n/ 22). C’est donc une fois de plus la fonction de veille et de sentinelle du pape. En tant que primus inter pares, il est un évêque parmi d’autres évêques mais qui a le mandat de situer les Eglises particulières et ses frères évêques dans la Catholica et le collège épiscopal. C’est à ce titre, qu’il détient un pouvoir plénier et suprême et qu’il est le principe visible de l’unité. C’est « la diaconie primatiale au service de toute l’Eglise » (le mot est du célèbre Patriarche melkite Maximos Saigh IV) Le pape est situé dans et au service de la koinonia et sa mission est inséparable de la mission du collège épiscopal. Chez l’évêque de Rome la sollicitude, que tout évêque exerce en faveur de l’Eglise universelle, s’explicite de manière tout à fait spéciale et unique et cela donc sans s’assimiler personnellement à l’Eglise universelle. Si le Concile a donc bien rééquilibré la papauté en l’enracinant dans l’épiscopat et la collégialité, tout comme l’Eglise universelle dans la communio ecclesiarum on reste avec une impression de déséquilibre que l’épiscopat est au service du pape, ou reste du moins abordé en fonction de ce dernier. On écrit en caractère gras que les évêques doivent être en communion avec le pape, qui est le caput, le chef : « en union avec le Pontife romain, son chef et jamais en dehors de ce chef » et s’ils sont sujets d’un pouvoir plénier et suprême, ce « pouvoir cependant ne peut s’exercer qu’avec le consentement du Pontife romain » (L.G. n/ 22). La primauté est mentionnée une quarantaine de fois dans la Constitution ; mais dans le n/ 22, elle l’est à 14 reprises. C’est un complexe de papalisme qui mitige chaque affirmation sur les droits et

6 pouvoirs du collège. Au lieu de développer ce qui est en commun, la consécration épiscopale, on majore ce qui sépare les évêques du pape. Nulle part, il est dit que le primat est inséparable de la collégialité ou que le pape est en communion avec ses frères (ce qui sera d’ailleurs une des grandes innovations de Jean Paul II dans Ut Unum Sint n/ 95). Lumen Gentium tout comme Pastor Aeternus ne précise pas s’il y a des limites au pouvoir de l’évêque de Rome par rapport aux évêques (surtout que tous les deux sont sujets d’un pouvoir suprême et plénier, Quid ?). La Nota Explicativa Praevia est clairement une concession à la minorité conservatrice des Pères (surtout les n/ 3 & 4). On parle de la distinction entre le Pontife romain seul (seorsim) et le Pontife romain ensemble avec les évêques. « Pour régler, approuver l’exercice collégial, le Souverain pontife procède suivant sa propre discrétion, en considération du bien de l’Eglise. » Il a une marge d’appréciation pour exercer sa fonction, soit seul, soit de manière collégiale… mais il peut l’exercer ad placitum. Mais disons que même si le pape exerce se charge secundum propriam discretionem, ceci doit se faire secundum neccessitatem et intuitu boni Ecclesiae. Autrement, le pape n’agirait pas ad aedificationem, sed ad destructionem (boni) Ecclesiae ! Et disons que le « bien » de l’Eglise comprend également la structure fondamentale de l’Eglise (comme la place du Collège épiscopal, la communio ecclesiarum). L’épiscopat et la primauté sont vraiment complémentaires. Le rôle de l’épiscopat n’est pas d’imposer des limites au pouvoir suprême et plénier du pape, mais de coopérer avec lui ; de son côté la primauté n’est pas un impérialisme (« Tu n’es pas le successeur de Constantin ! » disait Saint Bernard à Eugène III), mais un pivot assurant la cohésion de l’épiscopat. Le pape est donc une fois de plus servus servorum Dei au service de l’épiscopat qui ensemble avec le pape représentent l’Eglise universelle. La période post-Vatican II : Sans vouloir entrer dans les détails, une fois de plus, depuis Vatican II on a été moins nuancé à l’égard de l’articulation entre l’épiscopat et la papauté, et cela dans le sens d’une majoration de la papauté. On pourrait presque dire que dès qu’on aborde la question de la communion des évêques, la notion est dirigée vers la communion visible avec « hypertrophie » de l’Eglise locale de Rome. (cfr. Les textes de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, « La primauté du successeur de Pierre dans le mystère de l’Eglise », n/ 6 ; Communionis notio, n/ 9, 13 ; Dominus Iesus, n/ 16. L’Eglise de Rome est dite « tête » des autres Eglises et en fait, mais sans le dire, elle est assimilée à l’Eglise universelle (telle qu’il y a une intériorité mutuelle entre Eglise universelle et Eglises particulières, il y a une intériorité du primat de Pierre à toute Eglise particulière et parmi les évêques il y un évêque « tête »). Alors que l’évêque de Rome est comme les autres évêques, un évêque d’une Eglise locale et toute la Tradition dit que c’est exactement à ce titre qu’il exerce le service de l’unité. L’Eglise locale de Rome et son évêque sont extérieurs aux autres Eglises locales, dans lesquelles se trouve totalement l’Eglise du Christ en un lieu. En fait les réflexions du Cardinal Ratzinger reflètent une idéologie papale qui veut faire du primat romain un élément dogmatique intrinsèque à la pleine ecclésialité de toute Eglise locale.) Reprenons la phrase de J.-M. Tillard dans ce qui a probablement été son dernier article, une recension du livre de Mgr Quinn, The Reform of the papacy : « la tension entre la sedes romaine et les épiscopats locaux… est pour une grand part le résultat d’un large flou dans la conception que Lumen Gentium a proposé de la collégialité. » En effet, lors des synodes des évêques à Rome (surtout ceux de 1969 et de 1985), la collégialité est devenue un des points cruciaux du débat et c’est dans ce cadre que fut posée la question du statut et de l’autorité des conférences épiscopales. Le rapport du Synode extraordinaire de 1985 est très éclairant au sujet de la collégialité. Le rapport fait la distinction entre la collégialité au sens strict (le concile œcuménique) et les diverses réalisations partielles indirectes de droit ecclésiastique (je reprends la terminologie du Rapport) de la collégialité : le synode, les conférences épiscopales, mais aussi la Curie romaine, les visites ad limina… Quel glissement opère-t-on ? La distinction entre collégialité effective et affective permet d’utiliser le concept de collégialité plus largement, tout en l’émoussant de son sens juridique et en le réduisant à un simple sentiment ou une affection. D’une part, on limite la collégialité à un acte formel du collège épiscopal avec le pape dans le concile (collégialité effective au sens juridique), tandis que d’autre part, on l’élargit à d’autres situations (… les voyages du pape, le collège des cardinaux) tout en n’y voyant qu’un simple

7 sentiment affectif sans effet juridique. Il est très dommageable de voir que les conférences épiscopales et les synodes des évêques soient mis au même plan que la Curie romaine et les voyages du pape. Ainsi, dans le cas des conférences et des synodes, on vide la notion de collégialité de son contenu. III, « Les modalités d’exercice » du primat de l’évêque de Rome axé sur la collégialité épiscopale : Commençons par indiquer les limites du Concile Vatican II, qui indiquent que le Concile n’est pas allé jusqu’au bout de son intuition initiale. Ceci formera la trame pour proposer des modalités d’exercice d’une primauté plus en accord avec le binôme collégialité épiscopale – communion des Eglises. Tout d’abord au lieu d’opérer une décentralisation, la collégialité épiscopale fut surtout axée sur le binôme collégialité – primauté. Après Vatican I, il fallait harmoniser l’épiscopat et la papauté. Si d’un côté les évêques détiennent par leur consécration la sacra potestas et forment un corps qui détient de droit divin le pouvoir plénier et suprême dans l’Eglise, cet acquis fut mis en lien avec Vatican I. On maintenu le pape dans une compréhension monarchique au-dessus des évêques, restant sous la dépendance du caput, qui à lui seul a le même pouvoir (L.G. n/ 22) et qui n’a pas d’obligation d’agir en collaboration avec le collège. Il s’agit donc surtout d’une collégialité verticale ou d’une communio hierarchica sub Petro. On a donc en fait conservé la vision monarchique et les formes collégiales ne sont en fait pas autre chose qu’un service à la primauté, alors que pour la grande Tradition, c’est la primauté qui est au service de la collégialité. De plus, on n’accepte qu’une seule forme d’acte collégial : celui du concile œcuménique, convoqué, confirmé ou accepté par le pape (L.G. n/ 22). Les conférences épiscopales et les synodes des évêques ne sont que des expressions de l’affectus collegialis. Par cette réduction de la collégialité, n’arrive-t-on pas à évacuer en pratique tout exercice de la collégialité, alors qu’elle est de droit divin ? Une seconde limite est qu’on a insuffisamment articulé la personne de l’évêque avec son Eglise particulière. Il est essentiellement membre d’un collège sous la direction du chef. Lumen Gentium n/ 22 passe sous silence que l’évêque est préposé à une Eglise particulière. Le collège reste donc beaucoup trop conçu comme collège de personnes en lien vertical avec le pape et existant préalablement aux Eglise locales, et insuffisamment comme collège de personnes en charge de la communion horizontale et mutuelle d’Eglises particulières. Il faut rééquilibrer le collège comme groupe d’évêques présidant à la communion de leur Eglise locale (et par ce biais à la communion des Eglises de leur région et de l’Eglise universelle). La collégialité et la primauté doivent donc quitter le giron de l’Eglise centralisée et se mettre pleinement au diapason de l’ecclésiologie de communion (plus la pyramide hiérarchique, mais le réseau qui évoque enchevêtrement et une approche trinitaire de l’un et du multiple). Il s’agit d’une pénétration mutuelle d’Eglises particulières et de l’Eglise universelle, du ministère de l’épiscopat et du primat et cela dans un nouveau binôme collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une Eglise – communion d’Eglises locales ou régionales, in quibus et ex quibus existit una et unica Ecclesia catholica. La collégialité dans ce cadre est plus vue comme l’expression épiscopale de la communio ecclesiarum et contient par sa nature des implications juridiques. En ce qui concerne la distinction malheureuse entre collégialité effective et affective (la position du « tout ou rien »), disons que la collégialité ne demeure pas qu’un concept abstrait ou sentimental mais exprime la communion. Ut Unum Sint souligne plus clairement qu’à Vatican II la solidarité entre les membres du collège et par là une union plus étroite entre collégialité épiscopale (dans laquelle est inclus l’évêque de Rome) et communion des Eglises. Etant remis dans le contexte de son Eglise locale, le pape est au service de l’unité en tant que signe visible et garant de l’unité (n/ 88) ou en tant que sentinelle, veilleur (n/ 94). Ce service est confié au pape, mais « à l’intérieur même du collège des évêques », « car tout cela doit toujours être accompli dans la communion » (n/ 95). L’Encyclique exprime donc une certaine

8 réciprocité dans la communion (pape – évêques). Elle est certes soucieuse de faire évoluer une papauté de juridiction plénière et suprême sur les évêques et les Eglises, revêtant une image autoritaire, sûre de soi et imposant discipline et obéissance, vers une papauté qui rejoint « l’essentiel » de sa mission en tant qu’autorité au service des Eglises et des évêques. Les modalités d’exercice de la primauté que nous proposons vont toutes dans le sens d’une meilleur articulation entre primauté et collégialité sur arrière-fond du binôme collégialité des évêques en charge d’une Eglise – communion d’Eglises particulières. La primauté est au service de l’épiscopat et les deux sont au service de la communion ecclésiale. Il s’agit concrètement de l’application d’une collégialité épiscopale réelle, effective bien que partielle, mais toujours comme expression de la communion ecclésiale et en synergie avec le primat. Il est vrai que dans ce cas, la primauté retrouverait une figure plus modeste en matière de pouvoir juridique (référence peut être faite au Concile de Sardique de 343, (Rome instance d’appel ou de cassation) ou au 34eme canon des Apôtres allant dans le sens d’une prise de décision collégiale et réciproque entre le primat et le synode permanent du pape). Je donne cinq pistes de réflexion : 1) la compétence délibérative du synode des évêques, 2) la collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales, 3) la décentralisation par la renaissance des patriarcats, 4) la décentralisation par le principe de subsisdiarité et 5) une nouveau fonctionnement de la Curie romaine. La compétence délibérative du synode des évêques : Créé dans le contexte conciliaire comme un conseil d’évêques au service du primat, le synode traduit une communion hiérarchique entre les évêques et le pape et cela selon un modèle monarchique : le pape est au-dessus du synode et détient toutes les clés du pouvoir (de sa convocation jusqu’à l’élaboration du document final). La question est alors, dans quelle mesure le synode exprime-t-il une véritable collégialité entre évêques ? Nous entendons régulièrement les frustrations des participants quant à la marche des synodes. Au sens strict, le synode ne traduit que le « sentiment collégial », car seul le concile œcuménique est un acte de collégialité au sens strict (effectif). C’est la position « tout ou rien ». Mais les évêques donnent cependant corps à la sollicitude pour les autres Eglises locales et pour l’Eglise universelle. Tout ceci n’est pas rien. Dès lors, est-ce que le synode, comme réalisation de la collégialité épiscopale et de la communio ecclesiarum ne peut pas donner lieu à un exercice de la primauté plus soucieux de promouvoir des actes collégiaux que de simplement s’en tenir à un sentiment collégial. La Commission Théologique Internationale affirme que les « conditions (de la collégialité épiscopale) qui se vérifient pour le concile œcuménique… peuvent se vérifier pour le synode des évêques. » (Thèmes choisis d’ecclésiologie, Documentation Catholique, 1986, p. 65). En cela suivant C.D. n/ 5, le synode, peut être vu comme forme partielle de la collégialité épiscopale et peut exercer un pouvoir de décision formellement collégial, parce qu’il est d’une certaine manière représentatif de tous les évêques. On rejoint l’ancienne pratique des conciles locaux, ne réunissant qu’un nombre restreint d’évêques, mais agissant en communion avec tous les autres évêques et avec le pape, qui le plus souvent confirmait le bien-fondé des décisions prises collégialement. D’ailleurs Lumen Gentium n/ 22 laisse subsister la possibilité de revenir à cette pratique fort simple et ancienne. C’est en quelque sorte une application du canon 343 du C.I.C. qui prévoit que le synode peut recevoir du pape « un pouvoir délibératif à qui il revient alors de ratifier les décisions du synode ». Bien que ce n’est alors qu’un pouvoir vicaire en non un acte collégial comme au sein d’un concile œcuménique, cela aboutirait à une meilleure prise en compte de la sollicitude des évêques pour l’Eglise universelle. Ainsi, pour des questions disciplinaires (l’ordination d’hommes mariés dans l’Eglise latine, la création de patriarcats,…), le synode pourrait s’engager sur la voie d’une collégialité plus réelle et effective. N’étant plus qu’un

9 simple conseil au service du pape, le synode reflète la communion des Eglises en favorisant l’expression plurielle de la Catholica. C’est dans ce cadre que Mgr Quinn appelle à un débat plus libre et à la pratique du vote délibératif, ce qui susciterait l’unité et la collégialité de manière plus authentique.

La collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales : Comme pour le synode des évêques on assiste d’une part à un discours élogieux et ronflant sur les bienfaits des conférences épiscopales, mais d’autre part on leur refuse tout statut ou toute autorité collégiale, doctrinale et juridique. La lettre apostolique Apostolos Suos est claire à ce sujet : la collégialité épiscopale n’appartient qu’au collège épiscopal tout entier. Les actes des conférences épiscopales doivent recevoir l’aval juridique de Rome dont les conférences sont dépendantes pour leurs compétences et la validité de leurs actes. (Au n/ 13 il est dit que c’est « le Siège apostolique qui a constitué ces organismes et leur à confié… des compétences précises. »). Alors que les conférences peuvent se considérer comme les formes modernes des anciens synodes locaux, la Commission Théologique Internationale leur refuse le label « d’instance spécifiques collégiales entendues au sens strict ». « Les conférences relèvent de l’organisation… de l’Eglise (iure ecclesiastico) ; l’emploi à leur sujet des termes « collège », « collégialité »… ne peut donc relever que d’un sens analogique, théologiquement impropre. »

C’est une fois de plus, la position du « tout ou rien ». Mais pourquoi, la collégialité doit-elle nécessairement se limiter au collège épiscopal en concile œcuménique et ne pourrait-elle pas non plus se manifester selon divers degrés de réalisation ? Ou autrement dit, pourquoi doit-on dire que c’est uniquement dans le collège épiscopal que les évêques exercent leur magistère collégialement, mais qu’en revanche dans une conférence épiscopale ils ne le feraient que conjunctim (ensemble) s’agissant non d’un acte collégial, mais simplement collectif. Pourquoi soutenir absolument que la relation entre les Eglises au sein d’une conférence épiscopale est « très différente du rapport d’intériorité mutuelle de l’Eglise universelle avec les Eglises particulières » (Apostolos Suos n/ 13). Est-ce bien une réalité différente et ne s’agit-il pas simplement d’un rapport de gradualité ?

En tant que membre du collège épiscopal, chaque évêque est investi d’une sollicitude à l’égard de l’Eglise universelle. Cette sollicitude se manifeste dans toute action commune de plusieurs évêques à l’égard de plusieurs Eglises particulières formant une unité juridique à l’intérieur d’un territoire ou d’une nation. D’ailleurs Vatican II reconnaît bien la possibilité pour les évêques en conférence épiscopale « d’exercer conjointement leur charge pastorale » (C.D. n/ 38 §1). Du fait que des évêques exercent au sein d’une conférence épiscopale de manière collégiale certaines tâches de leur charge épiscopale (et notamment la sollicitude pour l’Eglise universelle et les autres Eglises particulières), on peut soutenir que

10 la conférence épiscopale dispose d’un pouvoir de juridiction. En effet, les évêques réalisent concrètement et effectivement la collégialité. Et bien que les conférences fassent partie de la structure organisationnelle de l’Eglise, elles sont des instances de iure ecclesiastico cum fundamento in iure divino. C’est le point de vue de Karl Rahner, Walter Kasper, Congar, Tillard, Anton et Pottmeyer… Il s’agit d’une actualisation quotidienne de la communio ecclesiarum et de la collégialité épiscopale. La conférence épiscopale devient de plus en plus le lieu ordinaire et pratique du ministère épiscopal, de la sollicitude et de la collégialité fraternelle entre évêques. Et ceci est plus qu’un simple affect. Nous pouvons faire référence à la structure synodale des Eglises Orientales Catholiques au Proche Orient et en Egypte.

Tout comme les synodes des évêques, les conférences épiscopales peuvent donc être considérées comme des réalisations réelles bien que partielles de la collégialité épiscopale (le concile œcuménique restant la réalisation réelle et totale de cette collégialité). Je ne peux m’empêcher ici de citer le théologien Ratzinger dans son ouvrage écrit immédiatement après Vatican II, Le Nouveau Peuple de Dieu, p. 125 – 126 : « … les conférences épiscopales… constituent une variété légitime de l’élément collégial… On trouve parfois exprimé… que le concept de collégialité ne pourrait être appliqué qu’à l’épiscopat total… La notion de collégialité indique précisément un élément complexe et variable dans ses applications particulières. Cet élément (la collégialité)… peut être réalisé de manière diverse… Les conférences épiscopales sont donc une des variétés possibles de la collégialité, dont elles constituent des réalisations partielles… ».

Et bien qu’il n’y a donc qu’une seule collégialité épiscopale, celle-ci se réalise selon des modalités et des degrés variés. Les conférences épiscopales constituent ainsi un échelon intermédiaire entre l’universalité et la particularité diocésaine. Au sein d’une telle communion fraternelle d’Eglises, le primat de l’évêque de Rome rejoint « l’essentiel » de sa mission, étant le centrum unitatis au sein de cette communion sur lequel soit s’orienter l’unité de la foi et de la communion.

La décentralisation par la renaissance des patriarcats à l’intérieur de l’Eglise latine : Nous avons déjà indiqué que suite à l’amalgame entre le primat universel de l’évêque de Rome et le patriarcat d’Occident dans le chef du pape, la papauté est devenue « une enflure monstrueuse de ce qui n’est même pas elle ». Ceci a donné lieu à une centralisation et une uniformisation administrative sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise.

Il faut donc commencer par démêler les fils tout en faisant revivre le patriarcat d’Occident. Ceci suppose que bon nombre de compétences administratives de type patriarcal (comme la nomination d’évêques) soit tiré de la sphère du primat de communion et transféré à la sphère patriarcale. La renaissance de l’institution patriarcale dans le chef de l’évêque de Rome contribuerait à décharger la primauté et à revenir à « l’essentiel » de la mission du primat : présider à la koinonia. C’est ainsi que l’exemple de la structure patriarcale au

11 sein des Eglises Orientales Catholiques pourrait être une source d’inspiration pour retracer les compétences spécifiquement patriarcales du pape.

Dans un second temps, cette renaissance peut être élargie à l’intérieur même de l’Eglise latine sur la base des grandes assemblées continentales d’évêques. La notion de collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales peut à ce niveau être élargie au profit de ces conférences/assemblées d’évêques. Il peut d’ailleurs y avoir des conférences épiscopales comprenant « les chefs des Eglises particulières situées dans des nations différentes » et également « à un autre niveau territorial ou au niveau supranational » (C.D. n/ 37 & 38 : A.S. n/ 5 & 16). C’est ce que Hervé Legrand appelle les « Eglises régionales ».

Par ce biais, rien n’empêcherait l’instauration de divers patriarcats à l’intérieur de l’Eglise latine comme institutions de iure ecclesiastico cum fundamento de iure divino. C’est d’ailleurs la proposition du Groupe des Dombes (groupement français de dialogue œcuménique) : « la base de ces patriarcats seraient les assemblées continentales d’évêques (tel que par exemple la COM.E.C.E en Europe ou le C.E.L.A.M. en Amérique latine) dotées d’une reconnaissance canonique, d’un large domaine de compétence en matière d’organisation des Eglises, la nomination des évêques, la liturgie, la catéchèse,… ».Tous les patriarches catholiques formeraient un synode papal permanent, représentatif de tout l’épiscopat mondial et délibératif (décisions universelles touchant l’unité de la foi et de la communion) sous la présidence de l’évêque de Rome, patriarche d’Occident et primat universel.

Evidemment cela aurait un grand retentissement sur le plan œcuménique. Cela permettrait aux Eglises séparées de mieux comprendre le ministère d’unité du pape et d’entrer en communion avec l’Eglise catholique. Les Eglises orthodoxes et réformés qui ont une forte tradition synodale et/ou patriarcale, pourraient garder leur originalité. Ainsi on pourrait bien imaginer un patriarcat pour la communion anglicane, pour les Eglises luthériennes nord- européennes. Congar a même imaginé une structure de l’Eglise sous forme d’une collégialité de patriarcats : la Pentarchie, ceux de Moscou, de Roumanie… d’autres à créer comme Cantorbéry, d’Afrique, d’Amérique latine, des Indes… Une fois de plus, ceci ne serait pas en opposition avec la conception de primauté de Vatican I, dans le sens que le pouvoir plénier, suprême et universel du pape vise à assurer l’unité de la communion. Le pape doit « affermir, affirmer et défendre le pouvoir des évêques ». Il s’agirait bien d’une nouvelle forme d’exercice du primat : assurer l’unité de l’épiscopat, soutenir la coordination internationale et continentale de telles assemblées d’Eglises. Cela rend bien compte d’une primauté articulée sur le binôme collégialité épiscopale – communion des Eglises particulières, mise en œuvre dans de telles structures caractérisées par l’élément collégial et axées sur une région ou un continent.

12 La décentralisation par le principe de subsidiarité : La décentralisation peut être prolongée par le principe de subsidiarité. On l’a déjà dit ; nombre de pouvoirs retenus aujourd’hui par l’évêque de Rome et la Curie ne relèvent pas de l’essence immuable de la primauté. A travers les temps, le primat s’est arrogé des pouvoirs qui sous le coup d’une centralisation rampante à travers l’histoire ont été présentés comme appartenant à la primauté. L’exemple typique et bien connu est celui de la nomination des évêques par le pape (C’est Urbain V qui en 1363 tira un trait définitif sur l’élection des évêques). Une telle centralisation ne colle pas avec « l’essentiel » de la mission du pape, ni avec une véritable ecclésiologie de communion. Elle est même, pour reprendre le terme d’un prélat de la Curie, Mgr Benelli, une « anomalie ». Le centrum unitatis de l’Eglise devrait accepter de restituer aux Eglises locales et aux conférences épiscopales une grande part de ses possibilités d’intervention mais qui ne sont pas essentielles au primat de service de l’unité (tel la nomination et le choix des évêques, toutes les directives liturgiques et catéchétiques,…).

C’est là qu’intervient le principe de subsidiarité. Issu de la doctrine sociale de l’Eglise pour régir les rapports entre l’Etat et ses citoyens, le C.I.C. affirme que « le principe de subsidiarité doit bien plus s’appliquer dans l’Eglise, vu que la charge et les pouvoirs des évêques sont de droit divin. » (préface du Code n/ 5). La subsidiarité est donc intimement liée à la collégialité et celle-ci n’existe pas pleinement si les évêques ne sont que des récepteurs passifs des directives du pape et de la Curie. La subsidiarité renforce en quelque sorte l’autonomie qui revient à tout évêque dans sa responsabilité pour son Eglise locale, en tant que « vicaire du Christ » (C.D. n/ 8). On écarte tout ce qui déborde la stricte fonction du primat de l’évêque de Rome et on donne au groupe plus petit, par exemple une conférence épiscopale, les moyens pour incarner sa foi et régler avec ses responsables immédiats les questions de sa vie et de son identité (par exemple pour la nomination d’un évêque).

Ainsi la subsidiarité s’oppose à l’anomalie de la centralisation qui méconnaît la collégialité par la subordination de la responsabilité épiscopale à l’autorité hiérarchique, ainsi qu’à l’anomalie de l’uniformisation qui écarte la légitime pluralité. Même si le pape, comme nous l’avons dit, « possède sur toutes les Eglises la primauté de pourvoir ordinaire » (C.D. n/ 2), ce sont en premier lieu les évêques qui ont le pouvoir ordinaire, propre et immédiat pour la charge de leur diocèse (C.D. n/ 8). Le pape ne doit pas se substituer aux évêques pour l’administration ordinaire d’un diocèse. Il est investi d’une mission propre et universelle qui est de veiller au bien commun de toute l’Eglise. C’est une autorité suprême de vigilance et de sauvegarde du bien commun, de secours et d’intervention pour remédier aux défaillances ou aux difficultés d’un Eglise particulière.

13 Un nouveau fonctionnement de la Curie romaine : La question de nouvelles modalités de l’exercice de la primauté ne relève pas seulement de la personne du pape, mais aussi de l’administration pontificale. On ne peut dissocier le pape de la Curie et il est dès lors intéressant de s’interroger sur la façon dont la Curie promeut et se rattache à la collégialité. Disons d’emblée que le système curial reflète plutôt la primauté de juridiction suprême et universelle du pape et J.-M. Tillard n’hésitait pas à la taxer d’être « trop gourmande dans ses attributions et trop centralisatrice ». Pour Mgr Quinn, elle s’interpose comme un tertium genus, subordonnée au pape (mais quid lorsque le pape est très affaibli ?), mais supérieure au collège des évêques, alors que la Curie devrait être à la suite de la primauté au service de l’épiscopat et « s’exercer pour le bien de l’Eglise et au service des pasteurs » (C.D. n/ 9). Mgr Quinn fait référence aux exhortations apostoliques après un synode et au système des nonces qui peut dégéner dans un pouvoir abusif par rapport à l’épiscopat.

Loin d’être appelée à être une instance de centralisation ou d’uniformisation, la Curie devrait faire l’objet d’une réforme structurelle (soit qu’un type de synode permanent à l’exemple du synode dans les Eglises Orientales, composé de patriarches, d’archevêques et d’évêques assiste le pape dans l’exercice de son ministère d’unité, soit qu’un conseil d’évêques exerce un droit de regard sur la Curie et devant lequel la Curie serait responsable, cela en raison de la sollicitude des évêques pour les affaires de l’Eglise universelle). En tout cas, cette réforme devrait aboutir à une meilleure prise en compte de l’épiscopat et de la réalité des Eglises particulières à travers des consultations et un dialogue dans la prise de décision. Ainsi, la Curie se verrait réduire son rôle en tant qu’exécutant des délibérations issues de la collégialité épiscopale, exercée par exemple dans le synode des évêques. La Curie refléterait certainement plus « l’essentiel » de la mission de l’évêque de Rome, n’intervenant que pour le bien de toute l’Eglise (l’unité de foi et de communion) : par exemple lorsqu’une Eglise locale part à la dérive, suite à une crise interne ou externe. Ceci serait pleinement ad aedificationem Ecclesiae et se distancierait d’une omniprésence ou d’une mainmise étouffante.

Le pape est ce centrum unitatis de la foi et de la charité, ce frère « aîné » dans lequel chaque évêque peut lire sa propre responsabilité et auquel on peut demander une aide fraternelle. Reprenons à la fin de notre réflexion, les paroles émouvantes mais o combien inspirantes de Saint Grégoire le Grand dans sa réponse à Euloge d’Alexandrie : « Mon honneur est celui de l’Eglise universelle. Mon honneur est la force solide de mes frères. Alors, je suis vraiment honoré, lorsque à chacun d’eux n’est pas refusé l’honneur qui lui revient. »

14 IV, Conclusion : Le fil rouge qui traverse notre réflexion est la phrase de l’Encyclique Ut Unum Sint dans laquelle Jean Paul II dit écouter la requête « de trouver une forme d’exercice de la primauté ouverte à une situation nouvelle mais sans renoncement aucun à l’essentiel de sa mission» (U.U.S. n/ 95). Si nous avons voulu saisir au bond l’invitation lancée par Jean Paul II de « chercher les formes dans lesquelles ce ministère pourra réaliser un service d’amour » (U.U.S. n/ 95), il nous fallait d’abord délimiter « l’essentiel » de ce ministère à l’égard duquel aucun renoncement n’est possible.

En ce qui concerne « l’essentiel » du ministère papal, il est apparu que de Pierre, chef de la communauté apostolique, à l’évêque qui aujourd’hui préside sur le Siège de Rome il y a eu continuité. Celle-ci emprunte les chemins tortueux de l’histoire humaine dont les fils sont souvent difficiles à démêler. Suivant la parole du Christ : « Vous n’êtes pas du monde, mais vous êtes dans le monde », l’Eglise et avec elle la papauté se situent dans l’histoire. La constatation de l’enflure de la papauté faisant du pape « plus qu’un pape », nous amène à distinguer les figures historiques, contingentes de « l’essentiel ». S’il est incontestable que la fonction primatiale du pape découle de la primauté du Siège de l’Eglise locale de Rome, potentior principalitas, le fondement permanent reliant toutes ces figures est sans nul doute la garde (episkopè) de la communauté ecclésiale dans la koinonia de la foi et de la charité, ou encore ce que nous avons appelé le service de l’unité de la foi et de la communion. La fonction du pape à travers toute l’histoire sert, veille à cette unité sous la seule Tête de l’Eglise, le Christ, et ayant pour seul objet cette communion visible dans la Vérité et l’Agapè. Pastor Aeternus désignera « l’union (la communion) de la foi et de la charité » comme caractère essentiel de l’Eglise que Dieu veut (D.S. 3052, 3059 & 3065).

L’exercice de la primauté, ainsi placée dans le mystère de l’Eglise : la Catholica comme communio ecclesiarum, se recoupe avec l’adage ad aedificationem, sed non ad destructionem Ecclesiae. A l’intérieur de celle-ci, la fonction du pape ne s’exerce pas dans une solitude de monarque isolé au sommet d’une pyramide mais en communion avec « ses frères » dans l’épiscopat et dans le vicariat du Christ. Sa fonction spécifique est non de se substituer à la voix de l’épiscopat, mais « d’affirmer, affermir et de défendre » le pouvoir de chaque évêque en charge du troupeau au sein d’une Eglise locale (D.S. 3061).

Poussée par le kairos œcuménique, la tâche de l’Eglise catholique est aussi de se demander ce que l’Esprit attend d’elle pour que la primauté romaine, inséparable de son être ecclésial depuis les origines et qui est selon sa conviction intime voulue de Dieu lui-même pour cette koinonia, puisse répondre au désir de tous, y compris des catholiques eux- mêmes. Quel doit être le visage de la primauté au début du troisième millénaire, ère œcuménique ? Dans cette recherche, l’Eglise a mieux compris certaines certitudes. Lumen

15 Gentium a affirmé plus vigoureusement l’ecclésiologie de communion et la collégialité épiscopale. L’évêque de Rome est frère parmi des frères tous égaux dans l’épiscopat et dont chacun est principe d’unité au sein d’une Eglise particulière. La primauté est primauté dans un collège de frères, responsables comme Vicarii Christi (L.G. n/ 27) de l’ensemble des Eglises particulières, in quibus ex quibus una et unica Ecclesia catholica existit (L.G. n/ 23). La primauté est non au-dessus de ce collegium. Le sub Petro est inséparable du cum Petro. La primauté est enserrée dans la fraternité collégiale ; le « jamais sans mes frères » du pape. Il nous suffit de rappeler que le pape seul n’aurait pu accomplir ce qu’a fait Vatican II et que si le primat parle seul, ex cathedra, sa parole ne peut être que celle du consensus fraternel où s’actualise son propre affectus collegialis.

En ce qui concerne les modalités de l’exercice du primat de l’évêque de Rome, le point de départ est la collégialité. Celle-ci est perçue comme une meilleure expression de la communio ecclesiarum. Le collège épiscopal ne peut plus être vu comme un simple rassemblement d’évêques coupés d’une communion d’Eglises locales, régionales. A Vatican II on amorce le passage du binôme collégialité/primauté au profit d’une nouvelle image guide de collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une Eglise/communion d’Eglises locales ou régionales. La collégialité est articulée sur et au service de cette communion. La primauté à son tour doit être axée sur cette nouvelle image guide dans le sens que l’affectus collegialis du primat est la garantie pour lui de la présidence dans la communion et ceci ad aedificationem de l’Eglise Universelle. Son pouvoir suprême et plénier a pour effet de situer les Eglises particulières et ses frères évêques dans la Catholica dont il est le principe visible de l’unité et d’éviter qu’elles se recroquevillent sur elles-mêmes. Cette sollicitude pour l’Eglise universelle, qu’il partage avec chaque évêque, s’explicite chez lui dans une veille sur l’unité de la foi et de la communion et cela « non en juge sévère, mais en frère aîné » qui protège, aide et conseille… Il faut la primauté parce qu’en tant que catholique et communion d’Eglises, l’Eglise est nécessairement plurielle dans la diversité des multiples aspects de sa vie. Le primat est un instrument de la Divine Providence pour que les Eglises locales confiées à la fraternité du collège épiscopal vivent authentiquement en Eglises sœurs dans la communion de la Vérité et de l’Agapè.

C’est ainsi que les modalités proposées de l’exercice du primat de l’évêque de Rome tels que le statut délibératif du synode des évêques, la reconnaissance d’une collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales, la décentralisation par la renaissance de l’institution patriarcale dans l’Eglise latine et par l’application du principe de subsidiarité provoquant des répercussions sur le fonctionnement de la Curie romaine, devenant un « pur exécutant » de décisions universelles, sont quelques perspectives, parmi d’autres, qui permettent une meilleure mise en œuvre de la collégialité et par là une plus

16 grande prise au sérieux de l’ecclésiologie de communion alliant primauté universelle avec synodalité locale, régionale. La primauté retrouverait ainsi une figure plus modeste en matière de pouvoir juridique, mais serait peut-être plus conforme au modèle de la papauté des premiers siècles de la chrétienté.

C’est à ce titre que Jean Paul II insiste sur son titre de servus servorum Dei et même de « premier des serviteurs de l’unité » (U.U.S. n/ 94). La fonction de l’évêque de Rome ne peut en effet être séparée de la mission confiée solidairement à l’ensemble des évêques, qui sont ses frères dans le ministère (le modèle de la synergie ou de la périchorèse). N’est-ce pas ainsi que ce service rejoindra aussi « l’aspiration œcuménique » (U.U.S. n/ 95) de beaucoup, sinon le désir de tous, y compris des catholiques ?

A la fin de notre réflexion, nous sommes convaincu que c’est seulement en s’adaptant avec audace à cette « situation nouvelle » que le ministère du pape rejoindra pour l’avenir « l’antique et constante foi de l’Eglise universelle » (D.S. 3052), « l’usage perpétuel de l’Eglise » (D.S. 3065) ainsi que « l’essentiel » de ce ministère auquel le pape entend rester fidèle.

Résumons tout cela en disant que si Dieu veut l’unité de l’Eglise, de son Peuple, ceci implique une primauté à son service. Une unité qui ne soit ni uniformité, ni centralisation, mais communion d’Eglises enracinées dans leur terreau humain. Cette fidélité requiert cependant non un raidissement mortifère, mais le courage de lire et de s’adapter aux signes des temps.

Au moment de faire passer l’Eglise par la porte du troisième millénaire, Jean Paul II ne le cache pas : « Il reste certainement beaucoup à faire pour exprimer au mieux les potentialités des instruments de la communion, particulièrement nécessaires aujourd’hui où il est indispensable de répondre avec rapidité et efficacité aux problèmes que l’Eglise doit affronter au milieu des changements si rapides de notre temps. » (la Lettre apostolique Novo Millennio Ineunte, Documentation Catholique, 2001, p. 83)

Georges-Henri Ruyssen S.J.

Paris, le 21 juin 2001

17 P.S. Cet article est le résumé d’un mémoire dirigé par le Père B. Sesboüé S.J. et présenté en février 2001 en vue de l’obtention de la licence canonique en théologie aux facultés jésuites du Centre Sèvres à Paris.

18 The Theological Significance of Ecumenical Convergence in Christian Worship, with Special Attention to “The Great Thanksgiving” or simply Ecumenical Convergence in Christian Worship

Robert J. Daly, S.J., BOSTON COLLEGE

There are four major bits of background for this paper.1

(1) Over the past 25 years I have frequently offered courses on the Eucharist. At first, following the lead of Johannes Betz, this was done from basically traditional, post-Vatican II, Roman Catholic historical-critical perspectives. About 15 years ago, with my perspectives being broadened, by participation in the work of the North American Academy of Liturgy and the Societas Liturgica, the course title became “The Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective.” More recently, I removed the reference to ecumenism; it had become an embarrassing tautology.

(2) Since 1994, I have also offered courses on the history, literary structure, and theology of the Eucharistic Prayer or “Great Thanksgiving.” After 1996, these courses had become strongly influenced by the theology of Edward Kilmartin.

(3) After Edward Kilmartin’s death in June, 1994, I became his literary executor and edited his final book, The Eucharist in the West for posthumous publication2 This work radically modified my views on the Eucharist. What I now think, so different from my position of a mere seven years ago, is well summarized by the Liturgical Press prepublication blurb for this book:

1 This paper is part of my ongoing attempts to (1) appropriate the (ecumenical) riches of the Church's eucharistic traditions, (2) show how the work of Edward Kilmartin can contribute to that effort, and (3) illustrate how the analysis of Eucharistic Prayers and the attempt to draft new Eucharistic Prayers can be an important part of that whole process. 2 Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert J. Daly, S.J. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998). This work did not become extensive until a sabbatical year in 1996-97. An ongoing phase is constituted by the approximately two dozen papers I have presented on Kilmartin’s theology or on developments from it. An earlier version of this paper was presented for discussion with the Boston theological Society in October, 1998. I am also preparing a collection of Kilmartin’s scattered scholarly articles so that his Nachlass can be more easily studied. For information about Edward Kilmartin, see Michael A. Fahey, S.J., "In Memoriam: Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (1923–1994)," Orientalia christiana periodica 61 (1995) 5–18, and "Bibliography of Publications of Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.," ibid., 19–35. In the light of its own history, the Catholic theology of the Eucharist, as it is generally understood today, is revealed as a splinter tradition whose deficiencies call for fundamental reformulation. The valid aspects of that theology (for example, the recovery of the role of the Holy Spirit in the new Roman Eucharistic Prayers) must be identified and integrated with the faith and practice of the first theological millennium when the lex orandi was not so dominated by the lex credendi. In the third theological millennium, more attention to the content and structure of the classical Eucharistic Prayers of both East and West will result in a Catholic systematic theology of eucharistic sacrifice that is not only truer to its biblical and patristic foundations but also—of ecumenical import—closer to some of the theological insights of the Protestant Reformers.

(4) Over the past three years I have been attempting to illustrate (or test) Kilmartin’s theological vision in a practical way by using insights and principles gained from his work to compose new and possibly more liturgically adequate Eucharistic Prayers.

When, from this background, I examine the service books or worship books of some of the main-line North American Protestant communities, I observe that they are, in many respects, more “Catholic” than their official Roman Catholic counterparts. I have in mind specifically the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship,3 The United Methodist Book of Worship,4 and the Lutheran Book of Worship.5

I come to this observation from the background of the four points with which I opened this paper. But other scholars, I am sure, working with the same information, would come to a similar conclusion. To be fair, one must of course remember that the present Roman Catholic “Sacramentary” goes back to the early 1970s, while the Protestant worship books with which I compare it are of much more recent vintage. But even when one makes the newly proposed and (at this writing) not-yet-implemented Roman Catholic Sacramentary the point of comparison, the Protestant books still seem, in many respects, to remain significantly more “Catholic.” My definition of “Catholic” in this context is significantly different from what it was even as recently as ten years ago. This change reflects both my own ongoing study and my active association with the North American Academy of Liturgy and the International Societas Liturgica. But most particularly, the 3 Book of Common Worship, Prepared by The Theology and Worship Unit for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993). 4 The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1992). 5 My actual source is the “Leaders Edition,” With One Voice: A Lutheran Resource for Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995) a basically up-to-date collection of the Orders of Worship and the Eucharistic Prayers currently in use. change reflects the influence of Kilmartin. Kilmartin analyzes the historical development of what is commonly (or at least officially) taught as Roman (i.e. Latin) Catholic eucharistic theology, and exposes it as a narrow, Western, splinter tradition which took its basic shape in the early Middle Ages and has not significantly changed since. I am taking “Catholic” to mean in significant contact synchronically with what the whole Church teaches and believes about the Eucharist, as well as in significant contact diachronically with what the other Christian Churches (especially of the East) have taught and believed and are now teaching and believing about the Eucharist. Looked at this way, there seems to be important aspects of official modern Roman Catholic teaching and practice that are distinctly “uncatholic,” or put less provocatively, fall significantly short of being fully Catholic.6

The place where I find this paradoxical discrepancy to be most pronounced is in the Eucharistic Prayer(s) or Great Thanksgiving(s) that are in official use in the different churches.7

If I am right, we must look more closely at what has been happening and attend carefully to its theological and ecumenical significance. But before we look to the Eucharistic Prayer, where I find the difference between Protestant and Catholic—even in the midst of great convergence, and perhaps, precisely, because of that convergence—to be most striking, let us look at those areas of liturgical convergence where the paradox focuses not on the absence of but on the stunning success of the convergence.

(1) The Liturgical Year. Until recently, one would expect to find the worship of a church organized according the cycle of the liturgical year only in the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Eastern, and in the high church Protestant communions. But one now begins to find this even in low church bodies. A fine recent example of this is Voices United from the United Church of Canada.8

(2) The Lectionary. The three-year Sunday and Feast Day cycle of lectionary readings has become standard in most churches. Despite some differences, there are great similarities between these

6 I am, of course, using “Catholic” not in the descriptive sense of what the present, still largely eurocentric (Latin) Roman Catholic Church actually is and officially teaches, but in the more normative sense of what it is called to be, and what it (at least occasionally) is in its more ideal manifestations. For this reason I will generally capitalize “Catholic,” not as claiming something already there in the Roman Catholic communion, but as pointing, as a kind of gadfly, to what should be there and fully shared with other Christian communities. 7 There are multiple levels of paradox—if not confusion— here. For the Eucharistic Prayer/Great Thanksgiving is both one of the signs of great ecumenical convergence, and also the precise place, as we will show below, where the Latin Roman Catholic Church seems to be less Catholic than it should be. 8 Voices United: The Hymn and Worship Book of the United Church of Canada (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: The United Church Publishing House, 1996). The first and largest section, pp. 1–215, is called The Christian Year and has the subheadings: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Baptism of Jesus, Transfiguration, Lent, Palm/Passion Sunday, Holy Week and Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Day of Pentecost, Reign of Christ—quite “Catholic.” lectionaries, and in some cases, identity. For example, the Roman Catholic Ordo Lectionum Missae (2d ed. 1981) is followed by the Episcopal and several other churches in North America.9 Except for the Free Churches, on any given Sunday, Christians are likely to be hearing the same selection of Scriptures read and reflected on in their churches.

(3) The Theology of Worship. The study of liturgy has become ecumenical. Members of the North American Academy of Liturgy and the international Societas Liturgica come from all the major church communions, plus Judaism. But the free or “nonsacramental” churches are not—at least not yet—well represented. It appears that the great ecumenical divide will be less and less between East and West, or between the mainline Christian churches, and more and more between the sacramental and the nonsacramental churches.

(4) Convergence in theological understanding regarding the shape and meaning of the Eucharistic Prayer or “Great Thanksgiving.”10

To this point we have been only circling the thicket. It is time to jump in, time to become more concrete. I have indicated that the focal point of my observations is the Eucharistic Prayer. Passing over the preliminaries, there is full theological convergence regarding the elements and basic shape of the Great Thanksgiving/Eucharistic Prayer (EP). It is commonly recognized to have 10 elements in five groups: A 1. introductory dialogue 2. preface 3. sanctus B 4. post-sanctus 5. preliminary epiclesis (alternative or additional post-sanctus) C 6. narrative of institution D7.anamnesis 8. epiclesis 9. diptychs or intercessions, which may be divided E 10. concluding doxology

9 See R. H. Fuller, “Lectionary” in J. G. Davies, The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 297–99. 10 But note my remarks above in footnote 7. There is common agreement that these are the elements, and that they usually occur (when they all do occur) basically in this order.11

By recent estimates, and depending what one counts, there are more than one hundred Eucharistic Prayers in official use by the English-speaking churches throughout the world. This number multiplies considerably if one includes all the seasonal and feast-day variations. But without exception, they all follow the same basic “shape”12 which our ten points have listed. The basic “shape” of A–B–C–D–E is what is almost universally followed. At least something from each grouping of elements from A to E is found, in this order, in almost every Eucharistic Prayer/Great Thanksgiving.13

This is of profound ecumenical significance. For the first time in history, the churches of the Reformation and Counterreformation are, increasingly, preaching from the same basic lectionary, and celebrating the Eucharist with basically the same Eucharistic Prayers. For the first time in history, the theologians of the “sacramental” churches of both East and West are on the same page when talking about the basic content, shape, and meaning of the Eucharistic Prayer/Anaphora/Great Thanksgiving and its accompanying ritual action. There do remain significant theological differences as to how the Eucharist is to be understood, but the already- achieved convergence is massive. Ironically, some of the great differences that remain are not just between theologians from the different churches, but also between theologians within the same church communion. But it is also significant that the more theologians are au courant with recent developments in liturgical theology, the less likely is it that they will have major differences with other liturgical theologians.

11 See W. Jardine Grisbrooke, “Anaphora,” in The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1986) 13–21. One gets basically the same picture from any contemporary scholarly treatment such as, e.g.: John Barry Ryan, “Eucharistic Prayers,” in Peter E. Fink, S.J., The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990) 451–59; R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, 3d ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1987); and the “General Instruction” at the beginning of the 1970 revision of the Roman Missal. 12 The concept of “shape” refers to the insights of Dom Gregory Dix in his foundational Shape of the Liturgy, 2d ed. (London: Dacre, 1945); new ed. with additional material by P. V. Marshall (New York: Seabury, 1982). 13 The only actual exception that I know of—I assume that there are others (and prescinding from the arbitrary use experimental Eucharistic Prayers)—is the allowance made in some Reformation churches to omit the institution narrative from the Great Thanksgiving, since the presider has already proclaimed it the from the pulpit before descending to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the assembly (see, e.g., the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship, passim). This may be an appropriate point to recount a recent conversation with a leading liturgical scholar from one of these Reformation communities. I was saying how hard it is to wean traditional Roman Catholics away from a massive overemphasis on the Words of Institution. He replied that, in his church, the problem was the opposite. They were trying to bring it about that none of their presiders would omit them. About fifteen years ago, Henry Chadwick delivered a lecture entitled: “Is Ecumenism a Dead Balloon?” Had he been attending to what was already transpiring in the field of Christian worship, I believe that he would have had a far more optimistic assessment. He was more aware, apparently, that the time of great ecumenical advances was behind us. The effect of what is now moving forward—the effect of the different Christian churches worshipping in increasingly the same way—will necessarily take much longer to kick in. One is talking about the modification—even conversion—of religious culture, religious attitude, and religious prejudice. Even if one is talking only of what must go on within a single communion, this process is slow. For example, in terms of what needs to take place within the Roman Catholic communion, Kilmartin speaks of it as the task of the third theological millennium.14

Let us now jump to the heart of the matter and look at two contemporary Eucharistic Prayers that manifest this shape of which I have been speaking.

The Great Thanksgiving (Methodist) Type: West Syrian – Antiochene – Byzantine/Chrysostom/Basil

The pastor stands behind the Lord’s table.

A 1 The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. The pastor may lift hands and keep them raised. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise. 2 It is right, and a good and joyful thing, always and everywhere to give thanks to you, Father Almighty (almighty God), creator of heaven and earth.

You created light out of darkness and brought forth life on the earth.

You formed us in your image and breathed into us the breath of life.

When we turned away, and our love failed, your love remained steadfast.

14 See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic Theology: Towards the Third Millennium,” Theological Studies 55 (1994) 405–57. You delivered us from captivity, made covenant to be our sovereign God, and spoke to us through your prophets.

In the fullness of time you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to be our Savior, and at his birth the angels sang glory to you in the highest and peace to your people on earth. And so, with your people on earth and all the company of heaven we praise your name and join their unending hymn: The pastor may lower hands.

3 Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. The pastor may raise hands.

B 4 Holy are you, and blessed is your Son Jesus Christ.

As Mary and Joseph went from to Bethlehem and there found no room so Jesus went from Galilee to Jerusalem and was despised and rejected.

As in the poverty of a stable Jesus was born, so by the baptism of his suffering, death, and resurrection you gave birth to your Church, delivered us from slavery to sin and death, and made with us a new covenant by water and the Spirit.

The pastor may hold hands, palms down, over the bread, or touch the bread, or lift the bread. C 6 As your Word became flesh, born of woman, on that night long ago, so, on the night in which he gave himself up for us, he took bread, gave thanks to you, broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: “Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

The pastor may hold hand, palms down, over the cup, or touch the cup, or lift the cup. When the supper was over he took the cup, gave thanks to you, gave it to his disciples, and said: “Drink from this, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The pastor may raise hands D 7 And so, in remembrance of these your mighty acts in Jesus Christ, we offer ourselves in praise and thanksgiving as a holy and living sacrifice, in union with Christ’s offering for us, as we proclaim the mystery of faith.

Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again. The pastor may hold hands, palms down, over the bread and cup. 8 Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.

The pastor may raise hands. 9 By your Spirit make us one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world, until Christ comes in final victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.

10 Through your Son Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, all honor and glory is yours, almighty Father (God), now and for ever.

Amen.15

This is an excellent modern appropriation of the classical Antiochene (Byzantine/Chrysostom) Anaphora. Each of the chief elements from A to E is fully—even if only briefly and efficiently—represented, and only one of the particular elements, namely B 5, is missing. But this, as we will see, is a perfection and not a lack. But to illustrate more clearly what we are getting at, let us look quickly at a typical modern appropriation of the classical Alexandrian (Egyptian) type of anaphora.

Eucharistic Prayer II (Roman Catholic) Type: hybrid, but mostly Alexandrian/Egyptian

15 “The Great Thanksgiving for Christmas Eve, Day, or Season,” from The United Methodist Book of Worship (1992) 56–57. A 1 The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give him thanks and praise. 2 Father, it is our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary. For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people. And so we join the angels and the saints in proclaiming your glory as we say: 3 Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. The principal celebrant, hands extended, says: B 4 Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. He joins his hands. All concelebrants, with hands outstretched over the offerings, say: 5 Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. They join their hands. C 6 Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Each extends his right hand towards the bread, if this seems opportune Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. At the elevation they look at the host and afterwards bow low. Then all continue: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Each extends his right hand towards the chalice, if this seems opportune. Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. At the elevation they look at the chalice and afterwards bow low. Then the principal celebrant sings or says: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith R. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. With hands extended all say: D 7 In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or a concelebrant) says: 8 May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or a concelebrant) says 9 Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with N. our Pope, N. our bishop, and all the clergy. With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or a concelebrant) says Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory He joins his hands. through your Son, Jesus Christ. The principal celebrant takes the paten with the host and the deacon (or in his absence one of the concelebrants) takes the chalice and, lifting them up, the principal celebrant sings or says alone or with the concelebrants: E 10 Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. R. Amen.16

This is a representative example of the “hybrid”—but based on the Egyptian—type of Eucharistic prayer currently in use in the Latin Roman Catholic Church. All the officially sanctioned Latin Catholic EPs are of this basic type. It is however, very similar to the Antiochene model but for one massive exception: the placing of the epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit) over the gifts before (in B 5) the words of institution/consecration, and then the placing of an epiclesis over the assembly after (in D 8) the words of institution and as a transition to the intercessions. It is this splitting of the epiclesis that makes this a “hybrid” type that has no clear precedent in any of the major classical families of anaphoras.

By contrast, the Antiochene model places the epiclesis as a unified double epiclesis over both the communicants and the eucharistic gifts only after the words of institution (C 6) and the anamnesis- offering prayer (D 7) [which two elements form a natural unity] and before the diptychs/intercessions into which it (the epiclesis) naturally leads [which two elements form another natural unity].

Following Kilmartin, who in this respect follows the research of the Italian liturgical scholar Cesare Giraudo, S.J.,17 I see the structure of the Eucharistic Prayer to be basically bipartite. There is a (I) protasis (praise / thanksgiving / remembrance / confession / complaint, etc.) followed by an (II) apodasis (intercession, petition, etc.). The protasis (first part) is anamnetic, and the apodasis (second part) is epicletic.18 With this in mind, we can see more clearly the shape or basic structure, the basic ritual shape of the Eucharistic Prayer.

16 Text taken from Eucharistic Prayers for Concelebration (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1985) 20–23. 17 Cesare Giraudo, La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica: Saggi sulla genesi letteraria di una forma, Analecta Biblica 92 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981); Eucaristia per la chiesa: Prospettive teologiche sull’eucaristia a partire dalla “lex orandi” (Rome: Gregorian University/Brescia: Morcelliana, 1989). 18 The qualification basically bipartite is important, since many scholars hold for a tripartite structure, usually by insisting that "praise" and "thanksgiving" are two separate elements. The difference sometimes reduces to a quibble over words. Looking at the Antiochene type which we first mentioned, we note that element groups A and E are common to all Eucharistic Prayers. They can be bracketed out in our efforts to identify a basic structure, which can serve as a helpful analytical tool. This leaves us with element groups B, C, and D. This is where the basic Jewish prayer structure plays a decisive role. Giraudo points out the recurring bipartite structure of traditional Jewish prayer—the model for Christian prayer—that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. But he also notes the frequent presence of an embolism, a specific insertion in the already-existing protasis–apodasis structure. This embolism addresses the specific occasion/need/crisis of the particular prayer. The embolism is, therefore, anything but an unimportant add-on. Scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures19 point out that the embolism is precisely where one looks in order to find out what the real, concrete problem or situation might be that is precipitating the prayer.

When, with this in mind, we look to our Christian Eucharistic Prayers, we find that the narrative of institution, structurally, is an embolism, that is, an insertion into an already existing basically Jewish prayer structure. However, just as with the embolism of ancient Jewish prayers, this embolism is anything but unimportant; for it is the major, central element which most gives this prayer its specifically Christian meaning.

In our Antiochene EP (Methodist Great Thanksgiving), after the opening dialogue (A 1), we are, in A 2–3 and B 4, in an obviously anamnetic mode of praise and thanksgiving for the gifts of salvation history: creation, covenant, sin, redemption. Then inserted into this anamnesis of salvation history is the institution narrative (C 6).

That the institution narrative is an embolism (insertion) is obvious to the attentive reader or hearer. The EP is proclaimed by the liturgical presider, precisely as presider, (in the first person plural). It is addressed to God the Father, remembering, praising, and thanking God for the gifts of creation, covenant and redemption. Then come the words of institution, obviously breaking into this structure, for they are basically a quotation of Jesus’ instituting words (usually in a harmonized form) from the Last Supper. After that, the presider resumes the proclamation of the EP in the first person plural. In structural terms, the presider returns to the first-person-plural anamnetic address to the Father.

19 As Norbert Lohfink, S.J., of Sankt Georgen emphatically pointed out to me. The first structural element in this return is the “anamnesis-offering prayer” (D 7), which forms the transition to the epicletic part: the epiclesis for the sanctification of the communicants and the gifts (D 8), which naturally leads into the diptychs or intercessions for the church and world (in D 9).

Before going further, let us look to our second model, the Roman EP II, to see how it is both similar and different. The first thing we notice is that, structurally, and in terms of basic content, A 1 through B 4 are the same. Granted, the Methodist Great Thanksgiving is much richer in its inclusion of anamnetic material regarding the feast of Christmas; but the same or similar material would fit right into the Roman EP II without alteration of the basic shape or structure, and indeed this kind of amplification is found in the most recently approved Roman Eucharistic Prayers for Special Needs and Occasions.20

But the next thing we notice is indeed very significant. The Roman EP II has the element B 5, which is totally absent from the Methodist Great Thanksgiving. B 5 is a “preliminary epiclesis,” a “hard” or explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit over the gifts inserted here before the institution narrative. But after this, almost everything proceeds in basically the same order as in the “Antiochene” Methodist Great Thanksgiving. However, there are two other small but not insignificant structural differences.

First, the post-consecration acclamation is placed immediately after the words of institution (C 6). By contrast, the Methodist Great Thanksgiving places the acclamation after the anamnesis- offering prayer (D 7), in order, apparently, not to break the natural connection between the narrative of institution and the anamnesis-offering prayer. The anamnesis-offering prayer is the place where, Kilmartin observes, the assembly most explicitly enters into and “owns” the mystery it is celebrating. The “shape” of the prayer and the “shape” of the ritual suggest that the placing of the eucharistic acclamation immediately after the institution narrative turns it into an out-of-place intrusion.

Second (since there has already been a “hard” epiclesis of the Holy Spirit over the gifts before the institution narrative), the epiclesis in D 8 becomes only an epiclesis over the communicants, and a relatively “soft” one at that. 20 Several years before these EPs became available to English-speaking Roman Catholics, they had been in use in Europe, popularly known to as the “Swiss” Eucharistic Prayers. See Die Feier der heiligen Messe. MESSBUCH. Für die Bistümer des deutschen Sprachgebietes. Authentische Ausgabe für den liturgischen Gebrauch. Hochgebet für Messen für besonderen Anleigen (Solothurn & Düsseldorf: Benziger, Freiburg & Basel: Herder, Regensburg: Pustet, Wien: Herder, Salzburg: St. Peter, Linz: Veritas, 1994). See Eucharistic Prayer for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions (Collegeville, Minnesota: the Liturgical Press, 1996). These differences reflect a huge amount of liturgical-theological history, and also point to one of the most central and indeed neuralgic points of liturgical theological difference between the Latin- rite Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches including those of the East. This is also the point where I see the main-line non-Roman churches having something, in common with the churches of the East, something that is more “Catholic” than what the Latin-rite Roman Catholic Church has. This is a big claim. It requires, I think, a few broad brush strokes of liturgical history.

By the end of the high Middle Ages, that time from the 11th-century Berengar of Tours through the 12th-century Peter Lombard and the 13th-century Thomas Aquinas, that time when Catholic eucharistic theology took the definitive shape from which, only inchoatively, it has begun to move in this century, the Latin-rite Catholic theology of the Eucharist had crystallized into that teaching against which (esp. against some of its less integral manifestations) the Reformers eventually protested. This teaching, brilliantly versified in the Eucharistic hymns of Thomas Aquinas,21 but also somewhat calcified by the post-Tridentine polemic, continues to form the heart of official Roman Catholic magisterial teaching. At the core of this “average modern Catholic theology of the Eucharist” as Kilmartin calls it, and which he labels as essentially bankrupt, lie at least four basic elements:

[1] The real presence of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (with various theories to support the close relationship—almost “identity”—of the historical sacrifice of Christ with the sacramental sacrifice of the altar).

[2] Transubstantiation as the theologico-philosophico explanation of the how of this real presence.

[3] Moment-of-Consecration theology which fixes the precise moment (at the words of consecration) when the Eucharist becomes “real.”

[4] And thus seeing the words of consecration as the essential form of the eucharistic sacrament.

21 In 1264, Pope Urban IV prescribed the feast of Corpus Christi for the whole Church. The office of the feast was assembled by Thomas Aquinas, to whom we owe its eucharistic hymns: Pange lingua, Sacris solemniis, Verbum supernum, as well as the Mass sequence, Lauda Sion. Kilmartin points out that this poetry [some might insist that it is only “verse”] of superior rank offers a handy summary of the “new theology” of the altar sacrament linked with the traditional biblical and patristic concepts (Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, p, 153). See Thomas Aquinas, Officium de festo Corporis Christi ad mandatum Urbani Papae IV dictum festum instituantis (Edit Rom. Opusculum LVII) = Opusculum XXXVII in S. Thomae Aquinatis, Opuscula omnia, vol. 4 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927) 461–76. Also = Opusculum V. Officium de festo Corporis Christi in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia, vol. 15 (Parma: Typis Petri Fiaccadori, 1864) 133–38. This is not a fair summary of the eucharistic theology presently being taught by many Catholic theologians. It is, however, a fair thumbnail sketch of what is still the official Roman Catholic position (cf. for example, the relevant places in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Elements 3 and 4 point to the main reason why I claim that some representative mainline Protestant worship books are, in some important respects, more “Catholic” than their Roman Catholic counterparts.

This well-known Catholic fixation on the words of consecration, left a bit diminished but still essentially intact by recent liturgical reform, can be traced at least as far back as Ambrose who wrote:

Notice these points. He says, “Who, the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands.” Before it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ are added, it is the body of Christ. Then hear his words: “Take and eat from this, all of you; for this is my body.” And before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ have been employed, the blood is created which redeems his people. So you see in what ways the word of Christ has power to change everything. Our Lord Jesus himself therefore bore witness that we should receive his body and blood. Ought we to doubt his faith and witness?22

For many centuries, this metabolic, realistic conception of the Eucharist (associated with the 4th- century Antiochene school) still shared the Western stage with the much more Augustinian, spiritualistic (Alexandrian) school associated with the 5th-century anti-Monophysite Antiochene school, followed also by the late 5th-century Roman theologians). But, after the famous controversies ending in the condemnation of the symbolic, spiritualistic eucharistic theology of Berengar of Tours in the 11th century, the realistic conception totally won the day.

In this time, from the 11th to the 13th century, when Western eucharistic theology was being formulated in that “definitive” form which survived the upheaval of the Reformation only in an even more polemically narrowed form, the following “catholicizing” elements were—in most cases totally—missing:

(1) Awareness of the classical structure of the EP was absent. In the various Western eucharistic developments, Gallican, Mozarabic, Roman, etc., three of the ten basic structural elements outlined above were always present: introductory dialogue (A 1), narrative

22 Ambrose, On the Sacraments (De sacramentis) 4.23, quoted from Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, 145. of institution (C 6), concluding doxology (E 10). The other elements could be there; or not there; and when there, then in any particular order. There was, in other words, no sense of the structure or shape of the eucharistic prayer and rite. The only thing that was there, necessarily there, and defining everything, was the moment of consecration which came (definitively by the late 16th century) to be seen as the all-defining, all encompassing central moment, in which the entire “essential form/forma essentialis” of the Eucharist was to be found.

(2) Greek image thinking had been entirely forgotten. The (somewhat Platonic) Greek image way of thinking, which enabled one to know, feel, or sense that the image somehow participated in the reality of what it imaged, was gone. Thingly realism so reigned that one could think, e.g. of Christ being present only if Christ was really/physically/bodily present. Greek image thinking enabled, e.g. Pope Gelasius in the late 5th century to teach that the eucharistic bread remains bread, but that to it is added the power of the divinity.23 After Berengar, one could no longer say this in the West without seeming to deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Without these two elements, the devolution of Western eucharistic theology into a narrow splinter tradition became inevitable.

The final stage of this devolution of Catholic eucharistic theology to a position that, theologically, seems to be something less than Catholic, was the exclusion of everything else, and the narrow focus on just the consecration/institution narrative as the essential form of the Eucharist. This took place in the decades following the Council of Trent when Roman Catholic eucharistic theology took on that “definitive” form to which current official teaching still appeals.24

However, a significant historical aspect of this development is that the fixation on the central moment of consecration did not, remarkably, get ossified until after the Council of Trent. From the Middle Ages, up to, and even including the Council of Trent, Catholic theologians would usually point to three “essential moments” in the Eucharist: (1) the consecration, (2) the oblation (after the consecration), and (3) the communion; and most importantly, they were generally reluctant to insist

23 See Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West 24 See Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, esp. chap. 7 “From the Council of Trent to Modern Times” pp. 179–204; and Robert J. Daly, S.J., “Robert Bellarmine and Post-Tridentine Eucharistic Theology,” Theological Studies 61 (2000) 239–60. that any one of these alone constituted the essential moment of the Eucharist.25 In other words, although a precise sense of the dynamic “shape” of the eucharistic mystery had been lost in the West, there still remained a vestigial sense that there was a shape, or, at least, that there was not just one, single “magical moment” in the Eucharist. Looked at another way, and from our present more irenical ecumenical vantage point, we can see that the classical Protestant insistence on seeing the mystery of the Eucharist as essentially something in usu preserved some essentially Catholic moments of the eucharistic mystery better than did the classical post-Tridentine Catholic position.

To come back to our two Eucharistic Prayers, it should now be obvious why I am suggesting that the Methodist Great Thanksgiving is more “Catholic” than the Roman Eucharistic Prayer II. It is also, ritually, much more simple in structure, and with that, I think, more ritually powerful than the Roman Catholic EPs. The Methodist Great Thanksgiving closely follows the classical Antiochene, Byzantine (Chrysostom/Basil) structure of anamnesis–epiclesis, with the institution narrative inserted as an embolism into the anamnetic part, and the eucharistic acclamation placed naturally at the transition point between anamnesis and epiclesis. The Roman EP begins with anamnesis, switches to epiclesis (over the to-be-consecrated gifts), switches back to anamnesis, into which the institution narrative is inserted, stops everything with the eucharistic acclamation, then returns to anamnesis, before switching back again to epiclesis (relatively soft) over the communicants, and then the intercessions. Ritually, this is a complicated mess (many Catholic priests have been doing this all their lives without figuring it out). Its complexity dissipates much of the ritual power that is in the classical Antiochene structure.

This is fairly obvious to modern liturgical-ritual analysis. Why, then, has it not been remedied in the Catholic ritual? The answer is also obvious. Catholic religious psychology cannot sufficiently break away from its fixation on the moment of consecration to let the structure of the EP work “naturally.” The traditional Catholic mind cannot conceive of appealing to the Holy Spirit to come and sanctify us and these gifts only after the words of institution which are believed to do and to be the whole mystery. Thus it is much harder for Catholics to do justice to the obvious “finality” of the Eucharist. The Eucharist has not been given to the Church primarily so that the Body of Christ can be out there laying on the altar (a popular Catholic conception); the Eucharist has been given to the

25 See M. Lepin, L’idée du Sacrifice de la Messe d’après les théologiens depuis l’origine jusqu’à nos jours (Paris: Beauchesne, 1926) esp. 346–415. Beginning with the ninth century, this 815-page study quotes extensively the writings of the theologians on this theme over this eleven-century period. Church primarily to effect/begin effecting the eschatological transformation of the communicants.26 Theologically, everything is subordinate to that; the ritual should reflect this subordination.

To conclude: What is the theological significance of ecumenical convergence in Christian Worship? First, we have indeed achieved a degree of convergence that, only a few decades ago, would have been thought inconceivable. There is among liturgical theologians a growing sense of “Catholic” that transcends the particularities and weaknesses of the particular churches. I have appealed to that sense of the more authentically “Catholic” in order to critique weaknesses in current Roman Catholic liturgical practice. But most significantly, I see and hear my liturgist colleagues from the other church communions appealing to that same sense of what is more authentically “Catholic” in order to critique weaknesses in their own liturgical traditions and practices. In other words, in what is going forward in liturgical theology and in liturgical reform, both the Roman Catholic Church and the main line Churches of the Reformation are in the process of becoming more authentically CATHOLIC.

26 Cesare Giraudo has suggested that what may be most effective in helping Roman Catholicism to break out of its fixation on the moment of consecration, and thus move towards a more fully catholic eucharistic theology, might be the official adaptation of a Eucharistic Prayer which has the epicleses in the classical Antiochene position after the words of consecration. See “Anafore d’Oriente per le Chiese d’Occidente,” in Robert F. Taft, ed., The Christian East, Its Institutions & Its Thought, A Critical Reflection: Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 30 May—5 June 1993 (Rome Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1996) 339–51. Appendix Eucharistic Prayers for Marriage This appendix will (1) outline some of the principles that can be gathered from a study of the classical Eastern and Western Eucharistic Prayers; (2) illustrate them in the draft of a Eucharisitc Prayer designed for use in a Latin-rite marriage ceremony; (3) offer some comments on this draft, and (4) present the draft of a eucharistically structured prayer that might be used in the context of an interreligious Christian–Jewish Wedding.

I. Principles

Structure of the Eucharistic Celebration: Appropriate Introductory Rites Opening Prayer Liturgy of the Word Ceremony of Marriage Vows Homily [The Creed, the Prayer of the Faithful, and (usually) the Peace Greeting are omitted in a marriage liturgy] Creed Prayer of the Faithful (may come immediately after the Homily, when appropriate) This is the place for the "everyday" type of petitionary prayers as opposed to the solemn prayers for the Church and world that follow the Epiclesis of the Eucharistic Prayer. Peace Greeting Offertory Rite Lord's Prayer Preface Eucharistic Prayer Communion Final Prayer and Dismissal · The Eucharist is given to the Church first and foremost to bring about/make more real the eschatological transformation of the participants. Theologically, everything is (or should be) subordinated to this goal. This means that the ritual, the way we celebrate the Eucharist, should reflect this subordination.

· The fullest participation of the assembly (that is possible and proper) is always to be striven for.

· Keep in mind, but not slavishly follow, the common listing and order of the elements of the EP: [1] Introductory Dialogue, [2] Preface, [3] Sanctus, [4] Post-Sanctus, [5] Preparatory Epiclesis (alternative of additional Post-Sanctus), [6] Words of Institution, [7] Anamnesis, [8] Epiclesis, [9] Solemn Prayers for Church and World, [10] Concluding Doxology. · An effective integration of word (word-event) and sacrament (action-event), i.e., an appropriate ritual dramatic tension should be maintained: (a) in general from the Opening Rite through to the end of the whole celebration, but (b) above all from the Dialogue Preface through to the reception of Communion, because here, precisely, is the center of the central mystery.

· We presuppose as the basic structure of the Eucharistic Prayer the essentially bipartite fundamental structure of Jewish and Christian prayer: Anamnesis — Epiclesis.

· The Eucharistic Prayer is through and through trinitarian (addressed to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit).

· The eschatological character of the Eucharistic Prayer must, especially here in the West, be strongly emphasized.

· The Eucharistic Prayer is the prayer of the Christian Assembly (i.e. a Christian Assembly) celebrating in a particular time and in a particular place. This means that the concrete assembled community which is celebrating the Eucharist is the principal agent of what is taking place in this particular time-space situation. Thus, the fullest possible active participation (in word, in music, in dialogic structures of speaking and singing, in acclamations, in rhythmic proclamation, etc.) is not an optional but an essential part of a properly celebrated Eucharistic Prayer.

To get more specific:

· The Preface and the anamnetic part (praise and thanksgiving) of the prayer should contain some allusions—or at least echoes—to the occasion, or feast day, or liturgical season that is being celebrated.

· The relatively perspicuous bipartite structure (Anamnesis—Epiclesis) of the West Syrian/Chrys- ostom/Byzantine EPs is preferred. Here, the Institution Narrative is more smoothly inserted (as an "embolism") into the salvation-history anamnetic part of the prayer. · The Sign of Peace is relocated from its present "disrupting" location. Here we locate it (à la Matt 5:23) before the Offertory Rite.

· For similar reasons, the Lord's Prayer is moved to a different location (as is already done in some main line Christian Churches, and from time immemorial in the Catholic Syro-Malabar Rite). Here, it is one of the purposes of the proposed eschatological acclamations within the EP to mitigate the possible shock to Western sensibilities of this relocation. (Western Christians are accustomed to the Lord’s Prayer as an integral part of the rite of preparation for Communion, whether within or outside of the full eucharistic celebration.)

· We attempt to honor the two great natural unities within the EP: [1] between the Institution Narrative and the immediately following "Anamnesis Offering Prayer," and [2] between the Epiclesis and the Solemn Petitions for Church and World.

· The Anamnesis Offering Prayer (immediately after the Institution Narrative), as the point where the assembly should most consciously and most directly make its own the now proclaimed eucharistic mystery, should be so composed that it can be proclaimed or sung by the assembly.

II. A Proposed Eucharistic Prayer for Marriage27

After the Lord's Prayer: Come Lord Jesus, come Lord of love. Your kingdom come! Your will be done! A 1 The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give him thanks and praise. 2 We give you praise and thanks, eternal Father, for the wonders of your love. At the birthing of our world, and through your Spirit's breath, you brought together life and love.

27 The prayer uses basically iambic rhythms in order to aid solemnity of proclamation and to facilitate eventual musical setting. In oral (unsung) proclamation, care may be needed to avoid a sing-song effect. When time was at its full, your Spirit overshadowing the darkness of our world, you filled the Virgin's womb with life. And now, in this new bride and groom, you bring to birth again your work of life and love. And so with all their loved ones gathered here and all the hosts of heaven looking on, we raise our voice in song. 3 Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of Power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. B 4 Holy indeed are you, O Lord and ever due our grateful praise. For in creating man and woman, in shaping them as male and female, you made them in your image. You placed in them your love. You drew them to each other and made them want to give until they brought new life to birth. But even when they turned away you promised a redeemer. You made a covenant with them. You made the marriage bond itself the sign and seal of your great love. And though your people broke that covenant and often strayed to other gods, prophets came to call them back, till finally you sent your Son to give to them and all the world the last great sign of deathless love. C 6 For when his final hour had come, the night before he died, when raised on high with outstretched arms he'd draw all things unto himself, he took the bread, he gave you thanks and praise, he broke the bread, gave it to his friends and said: Take this, all or you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his friends and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. D7 Remembering his cross and death and mindful of his loving word we give you praise and thanks O Lord and offer you this bread and cup while offering ourselves until he comes again. Or: Remembering his cross and resurrection and mindful of his loving words to us we offer you in him this bread and cup until he comes in glory once again. 8 Pour out, O God and Father of love, your Holy Spirit on us, on this bride and groom, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make these gifts be for us the body and blood of Christ that we, through them, may be his true body redeemed by his blood. 9 Look, then, upon this offering of your Son. Look upon this body, which your Spirit has made us. Hear us as we pray that we, this body, enriched anew by this marriage bond, may be more fully one, with Christ in his sacrifice, and with each other, and in service to all the world. Solemn Intercessions: To be intoned preferably by a cantor or deacon. That our Holy Father, our bishops, and all ministers of our word May be eloquent signs of your love: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of Love. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done. That this married couple, _____ and _____, may be living signs of your love: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of love. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! That people across all tribes and nations may respond to your love: Come Lord Jesus Come Lord of love. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! That all couples and families may reverence, protect, and nurture your gift of life: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of life. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! For the tired and the dead, the weak and the sick; for those who desire but do not have the grace of married life: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of life. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! That all who live with strife may not lose hope in your gift of peace: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of peace. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! That the love of married couples may remind all peoples of your promise of eternal peace: Come Lord Jesus: Come Lord of peace. Your Kingdom come: Your will be done! Remain with us, O God, until Christ comes in final victory and we all sing for joy at the wedding feast of the Lamb. E10Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen. The Lamb of God is sung while the eucharistic gifts are being prepared for distribution in Holy Communion. This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are we, happy are all, past, present, and to come, who are called to his wedding feast. Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Come, receive what you are—the Body of Christ.

III.Comments on This Draft

 This is the draft of a work still in progress. It has no official standing. It is an attempt to show what might be possible in future liturgical revisions.  The Appeal "Come Lord Jesus" inserted into a prayer addressed to the Father is, of course, inconsistent. But hardly anyone seems to notice the inconsistency. Is it possibly a "logical" inconsistency that remains, paradoxically consistent within the dynamic of the lex orandi? In its favor is that it seems to be helpful in actively drawing the assembly into the liturgical action and in evoking eschatological awareness. Can these benefits override the inconsistency, or should we seek other means to evoke eschatological consciousness?  Is there agreement with my sense that the great emphasis on the eschatological is appropriate?  How do the solemn intercessions "work"? Are there too many? (Reactions from an earlier draft suggested that three or four might be too few.)  The fourth paragraph after the Sanctus switches to the first person plural (from "they" to "we"), in order to draw the assembly more directly into the salvation-history, eucharistic event. Does this work? (In this particular context it helps avoid the ambiguity of "they sinned" referring narrowly to the wedding couple.  Does the basically iambic rhythm work? Would an inattentive or routinized proclamation of this prayer devolve into a sing-song effect?  Is there an appropriate balance between the chalereuse and "rosy" tone appropriate to a wedding ceremony and the full range—negative as well as positive, sin as well as redemption—of salvation history and the paschal mystery?

I. Prayer for Interreligious Christian–Jewish Weddings

The Letters and numbers in the margin both show the structural similarity to the Christian anaphora, and also further demonstrate how Jewish-biblical is the the Christian anaphora. A 1 Bless the Lord all you children of the earth. Give praise and glory for ever. May the Spirit of God come upon us. Amen. Alleluia. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is good to give thanks to the Lord. (Ps. 92:1) 2 We give you Praise and thanks, eternal God, for the wonders of your love. At the birthing of our world and through your spirit's breath you brought together live and love. And here, in this new bride and groom, you once again create anew your deathless work of life and love. And so, with all their loved ones gathered here, and all the hosts of heaven looking on, we raise our voice in song: 3 It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to give glory to your name Most High, to proclaim your love at the break of day and your truth in the watches of the night. B 4 Holy indeed are you, O Lord and ever due our grateful praise. For in creating man and woman, shaping them, male and female, into your image and likeness, you placed in them your love. You drew them to each other and made them want to give until they brought new birth to life. But even when we turned away, your steadfast love stood firm. Prophets came to call us back, to speak to us again your loving word of deathless promise: C 6 "Behold the days are coming (Jeremiah 31:31–33) when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers and mothers when I took them by the hand to bring them up out of the land of Egypt, my covenant, which they broke, even though I was their husband says the Lord — But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord — I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts: and I will be their God and they shall be my people." D 7 Recalling, then, your mighty works, and mindful of your loving words of promise, we ask you now to bless this bride and bless this groom. 8 Let your divine spirit come upon them and write your law forever on their hearts. 9 And when they come to times of trial, bear them up on eagles's wings. (Exodus 19:4) Make their life together be a life for each other and for others. Make them be a prophetic sign of that Great Day when, on your holy mountain (Isaiah 25:6–8) you will make a feast for all peoples, when you will destroy the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations; when you will wipe away the tears from all faces and swallow up death forever. E 10 Hear, Lord, this prayer we bring to you this day For ______, for _____, for all your people. We pray in full confidence, For you are our loving God, forever mighty, forever merciful, forever true, eternally one, for ever and ever. Amen. Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Councils

by

Norman Tanner SJ

This evening I would like to share some reflections on the ecumenical councils and ecumenism: how the ecumenical and general councils of the church1 can help us in our endeavours for church unity today. Given the late hour of this presentation, after dinner, you will be glad to know that I am not proposing to work through the history of these assemblies, rather to offer some thoughts on their relevance to ecumenism today, the raison d’être of our Congress. The reflections come as the fruits of my recent work on these councils, first in editing the English version of all their decrees2 and subsequently in teaching and writing further about them, most recently in a short history.3 There are eight reflections. Most of them are encouraging, so I will begin with the one that may appear the most negative though even this, if properly understood, can lift our spirits.

1. Imperfect union as the norm and an ideal Divisions in the Church, or at least differences, have always been the norm. The councils show this clearly. Any notion that the Church has ever been fully united, except perhaps for an hour after Pentecost, is a dangerous myth. We sometimes speak of the first seven ecumenical councils, from Nicaea I in 325 to Nicaea II in 787, as the seven councils of the undivided church inasmuch as they took place before the most fundamental of all schisms in the Church, that between the eastern and western churches beginning in the eleventh century.4 Yet there were major splits and schisms before that time: Arius and his sympathisers rejected Nicaea I, Nestorian churches broke away after Ephesus, various Monophysite churches after Chalcedon – the most important being the Coptic church here in Egypt – and many other smaller divisions occurred.

1 The following twenty-one according to the traditional list of the Roman Catholic church: Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680-1), Nicaea II (787), Constantinople IV (869- 70), Lateran I (1123), Lateran II (1139), Lateran III (1179), Lateran IV (1215), Lyons I (1245), Lyons II (1274), Vienne (1311-12), Constance (1414-17), Basel-Florence (1431- 1445), Lateran V (1512-17), Trent (1545-63), Vatican I (1869-70), Vatican II (1962-5). 2 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London and Washington DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990). Abbreviated henceforth to Decrees. 3 The Councils of the Church: A Short History (New York: Crossroad / Herder, 2001). Abbreviated henceforth to: Tanner, Councils. Also in Italian, I concili della chiesa (Milan: Jaca Book, 1999), and French, Conciles et synodes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2000); Spanish translation forthcoming in BAC (Bibliotheca Auctorum Christianorum). 4 I leave out of consideration the fourth council of Constantinople in 869-70. Although it took place before the schism, it was not accepted as ecumenical by the eastern Church and scholars of the western Church are divided about its ecumenical status. See, Tanner, Councils, pp. 43 and 49, for a brief discussion of the point. Even within the churches that remained in fundamental communion during this first millennium, there were tensions and schisms: periods of formal schism between the eastern and western churches, notably while Acacius (471-89) and Photius (858-92) were patriarchs of Constantinople; the persistence of Arianism within the western church until the ninth century; and many other difficulties. Indeed, especially in proportion to the numbers of Christians – under a hundred million for the first millennium, over a billion today – the Church appears at least as quarrelsome during its first millennium as during the second. For strong language it is hard to rival the exchanges between theologians of our neighbouring Alexandria and of Antioch around the time of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon or later in 867 Photius’s encyclical letter denouncing the bishop of Rome and portraying westerners as ‘savage beasts’; The fact of this permanent tension within the Christian people in the past forces us to reflect on what kind of unity we should be seeking today. We have Christ’s prayer that his followers may be one as he and the Father are one (John 17.11 and 20-23) and we must strive for the fulfilment of this prayer. On the other hand, we should not assume too quickly that we know what this desired union represents in this life. The new Testament, with its pluralism of approaches, suggests a certain diversity as the ideal rather than tight uniformity. We should not be so obsessed with the goal of full organic unity that we live in permanent discouragement or become forgetful of intermediate steps and medium-term opportunities. Full organic unity is most unlikely every to arrive in this life. Partial or imperfect union, on the other hand, has been the norm throughout the Church’s history and in many ways has proved healthy: through debates and struggles, within a common Christian framework, growth and development in the Church have been possible. In this sense it is an ideal as well as the norm.

2. Amazing nature of existing unity While we work to heal existing divisions, we should ponder the remarkable nature of the unity that has endured. The unity is amazing on account of the greatness of the mystery and the frailty of us carriers of it. Our human limitations need no elaboration but we need to remind ourselves continually of the wonder and depth of the Christian mystery, revealed sublimely in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. We may ask why more people do not become Christians and why Christians cannot remain more united, yet the mystery of Christianity is so deep that the miracle is that anyone believes and that Christians have remained as united as they have! Other world religions, with simpler and less demanding claims, find it hard enough to remain united, indeed they are probably more divided than Christianity. As long as Christianity retains its very exalted claims and challenges, unity among Christians will always remain a miracle of grace and of the holy Spirit. Indeed, we need to rely more upon the holy Spirit in our ecumenical endeavours. Perhaps we see restored unity too much in terms of our own efforts and strategies, putting broken pieces back together again through our own ingenuity. We may think too much of human solutions. Whereas it is the holy Spirit who has preserved unity in the Church in the past – against all the odds, against all human expectations, one may say, in view of the depth of the mystery and the extent of our human frailty – so we trust She will find ways forward in the future: ways and at times that the Spirit wills. The ecumenical councils are perhaps the most striking exemplar of this. Here we see, par excellence, the holy Spirit guiding the Church and preserving as much unity as was possible. Our role, then, is to listen to the Spirit and to cooperate with her promptings rather than to rely too much upon our own plans.

3. Our remarkable conciliar tradition As well as the remarkable nature of existing unity among Christians, our conciliar tradition deserves attention. The twenty-one ecumenical and general councils, from Nicaea I in 325 to Vatican II in 1962-5, form the most notable series of assemblies in the history of the world. No other institution or body has a comparable record. In comparison with, for example, the Parliament of Britain or the Althing of Iceland, probably the oldest national assemblies in the western world with an institutional continuity, the councils of the Church yield a much longer history: the earliest Parliament is usually dated to 1257 and first Althing to 930, Nicaea goes back to 325. In size and organisation, too, they were very remarkable: some 250-300 bishops assembled at Nicaea I, 500-600 at Chalcedon in 451; large councils in the west from Lateran III to Basel-Florence especially; Trent held together for eighteen years amidst many difficulties; some 2,300 bishops from all over the world took part in Vatican II – as well as accompanying theologians, journalists, observers and others – and persevered in their work for four years. No other religion, moreover, can show a comparable record: Christianity alone has sought to update itself continuously through such a series of world gatherings. Roman Catholics can be especially grateful for this conciliar tradition. Despite human failings and sinfulness, the Roman Catholic church has preserved the mainstream of conciliar tradition after the sad schisms with the eastern church in the eleventh century and the churches of the Reformation in the sixteenth. It has remained the largest christian church and in this and other ways has preserved the mainstream of Christianity; no other Christian church has a continuous conciliar tradition of comparable importance. These councils are especially remarkable in view of the difficulty of their business. It is hard enough for a national assembly or the United Nations to agree on concrete issues such as laws or taxation. Far more difficult is it to reach agreement on the mysteries of religious faith, which transcend this world and seek to speak about the divine, however inadequately, and to update this faith into contemporary language, especially for Christianity in view of the exalted nature of its claims. In the case of a national assembly, moreover, a majority vote is usually sufficient to pass a law, while unanimity, or virtual unanimity, has traditionally been required for doctrinal statements in ecumenical councils.5 Such consensus on such difficult matters is indeed a miracle of grace and of the holy Spirit. It is important for Christians to appreciate their conciliar tradition. Unfortunately it has fallen under something of a cloud for Roman Catholics, beginning in the fifteenth century with the struggle for supremacy between the councils of Constance and Basel and a succession of popes, and continuing into the Counter-Reformation and later periods with their exaltation of the papacy. The whole tradition has been compromised in the eyes of some Catholics, seen as a rival and a threat to papal teaching and as a result has been marginalised. This is foolish and unnecessary since in principle there should be no conflict between the two institutions, rather mutual corroboration. For other churches, moreover, the medieval and later general councils are seen as irredeemably Roman Catholic and therefore are largely rejected. As a result, with a truncated conciliar history, interrupted after the second council of Nicaea in 787, there is not among these churches the interest in a living and continuous conciliar tradition that there might be. This too is a pity and may be partly resolved by the more ecumenical and relaxed approach to the councils after Nicaea II that will be suggested in the sixth reflection.

4. Is the Church too Asian? This fourth reflection is put in the form of a provocative question and it moves beyond ecumenism between Christian churches into inter-religious dialogue. My starting point is the

5 See below under no. 5, “Formula versus Content”, for more on this point. criticism, often heard today, that the church, especially the Catholic church, is too western. As a result, its theology and discipline are rejected by the younger churches of the emerging Christian world -- in Africa, Asia and Latin America -- as the outdated colonial impositions of a once dominant but now decadent church. My suggestion is that in the church of the first seven councils, from Nicaea I to Nicaea II in 787, the complaint would probably have been the opposite: that the church was too Asian, too dominated by the thought and lifestyles of the East. The point emerges from an examination of the arrangements and membership of these early councils. All of them were held in the East, in modern Turkey: four of them in Asia – Nicaea I and II, Ephesus and Chalcedon – and while Constantinople, the site of the other three, lies just within Europe, being on the western side of the Bosphorus straits, the traditional dividing line between Asia and Europe, it was considered very much a city of the East, the capital of the eastern Empire. All of them, moreover, were summoned and presided over, either directly or through their officials, and their decrees promulgated, by the eastern emperor of the day or, effectively, in the case of Chalcedon and Nicaea II, by the empresses Pulcheria and Irene. In addition to the presiding emperor or empress or officials, the large majority of participants at these councils were from the East. At Nicaea I only half a dozen, including the two papal legates, are known to have come from the western church; all the other three hundred or so were bishops of sees in the eastern Empire including Egypt. At Constantinople I in 381 all were from the East. At the next five councils – Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and III, Nicaea II – the western church was represented by papal legates and a few other bishops but again the overwhelming majority of members were from the East. The language of the councils and their decrees was that of the eastern Empire, Greek, and the preoccupations and initiatives were predominantly eastern. Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches all came from the East: the controversies about the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Christ, which dominated the first six councils, as well as the issue of iconoclasm at Nicaea II, were largely debates within the eastern church. The canons relating to church order that were promulgated by these councils, notably those of Nicaea I and Trullo in 692 (if we may include the latter, according to the tradition of the eastern church, as the ‘Quinisext’ council, the disciplinary conclusions to the fifth and sixth councils of Constantinople II and III), had mainly in mind the circumstances of the eastern churches. The initiatives at these councils came principally from the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The contribution of Ossius of Cordoba at Nicaea I is disputed: otherwise the only major contribution from the western church was the ‘Tome’ of pope Leo at Chalcedon. You will have noticed that I have been speaking more of the East than of Asia. Much of the eastern empire, it is true, lay in Europe – principally Greece and the Balkans – and Africa rather than in Asia. All three, moreover, were known then as separate continents; they are not just modern constructs. On the other hand, the divide between the western half of the Roman empire, centred on Rome, and the eastern half, with its capital of Constantinople, following the linguistic boundaries of Latin and Greek, was more significant and fundamental than the divisions of the three continents. The Greek-speaking parts of the empire in Europe were closer to Asia than they were to western Europe. Most of Turkey, the location of all seven councils and the region that probably played the most decisive role of all, lay within Asia. It might be added as a footnote, since we are in Egypt, that Alexandria was considered by many – though not, I think, by Herodotus, the ‘Father’ of Geography – to be part of Asia rather than Africa on the grounds that the boundary lay along the Nile and its delta rather than further east. This delicate question of the allegiance of the eastern, Greek-speaking part of Europe, involves the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Their enormous influence upon Christian theology – especially of Plato for the early councils – is not in doubt. What needs questioning is whether they should be identified with western Europe as intimately as they usually are. They, and ancient Greek thought more generally, it seems to me, have been hijacked for the European chariot whereas in fact they belong as much if not more to Asia. Europe, western Europe especially, has been desperate to find its intellectual roots and especially secular elements, who dislike much emphasis upon Europe’s Christian roots, have discovered them in classical Greek thought. This intellectual world, however, was much more in touch with Asian and Egyptian thought and religion than with the intellectually undeveloped West: much closer, if you like, to Persia and the Indus valley than to Gaul, Britannia or Germania. The surprise is that Asia and north Africa have not challenged more the Eurocentric claims upon the ancient Greek world and rightly laid claim to what at least partly belongs to them. This realigning of Greek thought in an Asian direction finds support from various recent scholars and I refer especially to the works of M.L. West.6 My point, for the purposes of Christian ecumenism and of inter-religious dialogue, is that the early ecumenical councils reveal the roots of the Roman Catholic church as much less western and European, much more Asian and African, than is usually portrayed. The effects of this broad base, moreover, have remained with Catholics ever since. Christians outside Europe, therefore, as well as the other world religions, whose origins and development come largely from Asia, can see the Catholic church as a friend and fellow- traveller, with many common roots, rather than as an alien body that needs to be rejected.

5. Formula versus Content Accompanying the opposition to the Catholic church and its theology as too western and European has been the argument that the early councils imposed upon the universal Church a set of doctrinal formulas that were typically tight, analytic and abstract in the western manner and have acted as a straightjacket upon Christianity ever since. It is a variation upon Adolph Harnack’s lament over the evil effects upon the Church of Hellenization. One reaction has been to reject outright these doctrinal formulas, a second and more subtle response has been to urge Christians to concentrate upon the content of the creeds and other doctrinal statements of the early councils, where freedom may be found, without paying much attention to the precise formulas in which the doctrines were expressed. Is such a distinction between formula and content right? I have already replied to one aspect of this argument by suggesting that Greek thought was closer to Asia that to western Europe. Now I would like to make a second point, that the doctrinal formulas of the councils are not tight and rigid, rather there is considerable space and flexibility within them. They are signposts pointing to open fields and warning of false trails rather than policemen with batons herding people into confined pens. The content of thought, moreover, cannot be divorced from the way in which it is expressed – there is no thought without some expression – and in this sense the content of faith cannot be divorced from its formulas. Given this measure of flexibility and elasticity within the doctrinal statements of the councils, it is usually much wiser, it seems to me, to accept them and find the space within them than to contest them sharply or reject them. Two points support this argument. First, the Greek language. One only has to look up in a dictionary three words that Christians eventually settled upon in expressing the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation to see how elastic these words are: I&<_ (ousia) for the

6 Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. one ‘being’ of God, æ"@&*_&_( (hupostasis) for ‘person’ as in the three persons of the Trinity, and .B&_( (phusis) for ‘nature’ as in the human and divine natures of Christ. The meanings of æ"@&*_&_( (hupostasis), according to Liddell & Scott’s standard Greek- English dictionary, are as follows: standing under, supporting, sediment, jelly or thick soup, duration, coming into existence, origin, foundation, substructure, argument, confidence, courage, resolution, steadiness, promise, substantial nature, substantial existence, reality, wealth, property, and various others! A similarly broad range of meanings will be found under I&<_ (ousia) and .B&_( (phusis). There is, too, much overlap in the meanings of the three words. To regard them as expressing rigidly defined concepts is manifestly wrong: there is plenty of space within them to accommodate most theological approaches. Secondly, the principle of unanimity. Ecumenical councils are not like English Parliaments or most national assemblies where a majority of one is sufficient to pass a law: in them unanimous consent, or virtual unanimity, has traditionally been required for approval. At Nicaea I all but two bishops eventually agreed to the creed and the principle of unanimity remained in force subsequently even if it often proved difficult to achieve; it continued as the norm during the medieval councils and was acknowledged as such at Trent, Vatican I and II. As a result, especially in doctrinal statements, formulae had to be found that were sufficiently elastic to accommodate the views or all, or almost all, sections of opinion. This was helped in the early councils by the fluidity of the Greek language, as mentioned. In the Nicene creed, for example, the crucial word ±_ B&_ ( (homoousios, of the same being), to express the Son’s relationship with the Father, could be interpreted in different ways. Later, as a more specifically Christian vocabulary was developed in Latin, the same point was met by finding the elasticity in sentences, paragraphs or whole decrees rather than in single words. The crucial, penultimate paragraph in Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility, for example, contained various qualifications to appease those opposed to the definition; many of Vatican II’s decrees may be described as patchwork quilts, they try to accommodate most shades of opinion roughly in proportion to their strengths among the members of the council. The implications for ecumenism are encouraging. Catholics can rest more secure with their traditional formulas and find within them plenty of room for present and future exploration. Other Christians generally share with Catholics the formulas of the first seven ecumenical councils: they may be surprised at how much common ground they can find in the later councils. Adherents of other religions may find more points of contact with Christians than of difference.

6. Status of councils after 1054? What is the status of the councils that have for long been recognised as ecumenical by the Roman Catholic church and took place after the beginning of the schism between East and West in 1054? This question is of great significance for ecumenism since almost all the points in dispute between the Roman Catholic church on the one hand, and the Orthodox Church and the churches of the Reformation on the other, depend on statements made by these later councils. They are, obviously, not recognised as ecumenical by either the Orthodox Church or the churches of the Reformation. By the former because it was not represented in any proper sense at them; by the latter partly for the same reason of the absence of the eastern church and partly because they consider the Church, at least the western church and therefore its councils, as being in a state of radical error during the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic church as continuing in this state of error during the Counter-Reformation and afterwards. What is the attitude of the Roman Catholic church to the status of these later councils? The answer is not simple. Medieval people themselves in western Christendom were uncertain about the status of their own councils and the weight of opinion seems to have been that they were not ecumenical. The point is made rather clearly by the profession of faith that the council of Constance in 1417 required of a future pope. In listing the councils that the pope should respect, the profession drew a distinction between the eight “universal/ecumenical” (Latin, universalia) councils from Nicaea I to Constantinople IV and the “general” (Latin, generalia) councils (of the Middle Ages) “at the Lateran, Lyons and Vienne”.7 The distinction is not expanded upon but it is evident that some difference in status was intended. Other evidence showing that most of the medieval councils were not then regarded as ecumenical has been summarized by Victor Peri and Luis Bermejo.8 In particular, the council of Florence (1438-45), at which the eastern church was represented and a form of reunion reached, was often referred to in the West, including by popes and their legates, as the eighth or ninth ecumenical council: that is, coming immediately after Nicaea II or Constantinople IV and excluding the earlier medieval councils. It was thought impossible to have an ecumenical council without the participation of the eastern church, as was the case in the medieval councils before Florence. The attempt to promote the medieval councils to ecumenical status came about during the Counter-Reformation. Roman Catholic apologists sought to defend the true Church as they saw it against the attacks of the Reformation by an appeal to its medieval heritage and the medieval councils formed an important part of this heritage. Robert Bellarmine, the Jesuit theologian, and Cesare Baronius, the Oratorian scholar, both cardinals, were influential in this development and so too was the publication in four volumes in 1608-12 of the so- called “Roman edition” of the councils.9 This edition, compiled by scholars in Rome including Robert Bellarmine and working under the auspices of pope Paul V, sought to decide which councils were to be counted in the list of ecumenical councils.10 In addition to the eight councils before the East-West schism, Nicaea I to Constantinople IV, it included the ten medieval councils (Lateran I in 1123 to Lateran V in 1512-17) and Trent. The list came to be widely accepted within the Roman Catholic church though it was never defined in an authoritative way. The issue was reopened in recent times. The year 1974 saw two important contributions. First, the influential Dominican theologian Yves Congar wrote a wide-ranging article on criteria for ecumenicity in councils, in which he questioned the list of twenty-one ecumenical councils (nineteen from Nicaea I to Trent plus Vatican I and II) that had become traditional within the Catholic church.11 Second, as part of the celebrations of the seventh centenary of the second council of Lyons in 1274, pope Paul VI wrote a letter to Cardinal Willebrands, president of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, in which he referred to the Lyons II and the other medieval councils as “general councils of the West” (generales synodos in occidentali orbe) rather than as ecumenical councils, a choice of language that

7 Decrees, p. 442. 8 V. Peri, “Il numero dei concili ecumenici nella tradizione cattolica moderna,” Aevum, 37 (1963), pp. 473-5. L.M. Bermejo, Church Conciliarity and Communion (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1990), pp. 77-8. 9 Entitled, )%_ |_<4_ !_ ,_____%_ &,_@4_ *å( ______å( Ö____&<_( } "__*_: Concilia generalia Ecclesiae catholicae Pauli V pontificis maximi auctoritate edita, 10 Even though the Greek part of the title spoke of “ecumenical” and the Latin “general”, thus cleverly sliding over the possible distinction between the two words, “ecumenical” came to be the preferred term thereafter. 11 “Structures ecclésiales et conciles dans les relations entre Orient et Occident”, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 58 (1974), pp. 355-90. appears intended.12 Since 1974 there has been some discussion of the issue though not as much as might be expected in view of its possible fruitfulness. There has been a general tendency even within the Roman Catholic communion to follow the lead of Paul VI and call the medieval councils “general councils of the western church” rather than cling to the ecumenical title for them. The Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) touched briefly on the issue in its first “Agreed Statement on Authority in the Church” (1976), no. 19, mentioning obliquely the distinction between ecumenical and general councils, but disappointingly it did not develop the argument. The question of whether the ten medieval councils from Lateran I to Lateran V should be regarded as general councils of the western church rather than as ecumenical councils is undoubtedly a very important one. The same arguments apply, of course, to Trent, Vatican I and II: without the participation of the churches of the Reformation these later councils may better be described as general councils of the Roman Catholic church than of the western church. Even so, they are of great significance. The ten medieval councils were the most authoritative in western Christendom and it was in the West that the large majority of Christians lived. There was still vitality in the Orthodox Church and it continued to hold major councils into the modern era – for example the councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351, which endorsed Hesychasm, and the councils of Jassy in 1642 and Jerusalem in 1672, which taught concerning the eucharist and the nature of the church – but with the advance of Islam it was for the most part, until recent times, a church on the defensive and developments were limited. Since the Reformation, moreover, the Roman Catholic church has remained the largest church and may claim to represent the mainstream of Christianity. Another point is that there were major schisms before 1054, as we have seen, so that it is false to contrast too sharply the unity of the church of the first millennium with the divisions of the second millennium and so to exaggerate the status of the early councils at the expense of the later ones. Nevertheless, the more relaxed approach to the medieval and later councils in the West, encouraged at the highest level by pope Paul VI, may form a key to ecumenical progress since it removes the necessity of Trent and Vatican I being given an absolute status and thereby remaining a block to ecumenical dialogue.

7. Preoccupation with the papacy The ecumenical councils are a good antidote to obsession with the papacy. This is my seventh reflection. Pope Paul VI said on several occasions that the papacy is the greatest obstacle to reunion among Christians and John Paul II in his encyclical Ut unum sint invited Christians to suggest ways for the papacy to become more acceptable and effective. The councils help on both scores. They show the limitations and strengths of the papacy and, perhaps of most importance, the wider context of church order in which the papacy should be seen. They help us to avoid what might be called the “Hebblethwaite” syndrome, yearning for the perfect pope and being almost permanently disappointed when he does not arrive!13 The councils teach us not to expect too much from the papacy. Pope Honorius I was condemned for by three successive ecumenical councils, those of Constantinople III, Nicaea II and Constantinople IV.14 The councils bear witness to the leading support given by popes over five centuries to forms of holy war: the crusade of

12 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 66 (1974), p. 620 13 Peter Hebblethwaite, the distinguished religious journalist and biographer of popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Only in the brief reign of John XXIII were his aspirations for the papacy realised, though towards the end of his life he became appreciative of Paul VI in his biography of him. Normally he seemed disheartened by the perceived failures of the papacy. 14 Decrees, pp. 125, 135 and 162. recapture the holy Land as well as crusades against heretics within western Christendom.15 They also bear witness to papal support for the Inquisition and its procedures.16 Clearly the papacy is not preserved from all error, even from grave errors. On the other hand, despite these lapses, we can be thankful for the holy Spirit’s continuing guidance of the see of Rome. In doctrinal matters, the condemnations of pope Honorius and the relatively few other major mistakes of the popes, during the first millennium of the Church, contrast with the more numerous and serious errors of the bishops of the other patriarchal sees of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Indeed, caution was generally a mark of the papacy during this time: perhaps a lesson for the papacy today. It was not that the popes had a direct line to the holy Spirit -- they too had to struggle with the doctrinal and other issues of their day – yet it is remarkable how, in the end, they normally emerged from these complicated controversies on the right side. They were more like goalkeepers, or long-stops if you will excuse a cricketing metaphor, preserving the Church in the last line of defence, rather than centre-forwards, fast bowlers or other front-line attackers. These strengths and limitations provide, in themselves, a context for the papacy today: helping us and other Christians to appreciate this great institution and yet not to expect too much from it. The councils also set the papacy within the wider context of the church. This is done perhaps most clearly, paradoxically, in the decree that is sometimes seen as providing the greatest exaltation and isolation of the papacy, namely Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility. For, the decree does not say directly that the pope is infallible. It says, rather, that in certain solemn situations the pope “possesses ... the infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy.”17 In other words, the pope’s infallibility is placed within the context of the church’s, not outside it, and the church, as Vatican II reminds us in its decree on the church, Lumen gentium, is primarily the people of God.18 Christ has promised an overall guidance to the people of God, which clearly has not and will not preserve it from all errors: so too for the papacy. My favourite conciliar decree situating the papacy within the wider context of the church comes from the fifth ecumenical council, the second council of Constantinople in 553. Here is shown, in beautify language, the need for broad-based authority.

“The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils (the first four ecumenical councils of Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon), have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussion, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying. The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. As Solomon says in his proverbs: ‘A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as a well established kingdom’ (Proverbs 18,19). Again in Ecclesiastes he says: ‘Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil’ (Ecclesiastes 4,9). And the Lord himself says: ‘Amen I say to you, if

15 Decrees, pp. 191-2, 233-5, 267-71, 297-301, 309-12, 350-4, 609-14 and 650-5. In all these councils the pope played a leading role in the drafting and promulgation of the decrees. 16 Decrees, pp. 233-5, 237-9 and 380-3. 17 Decrees, p. 816. 18 This decree, in its treatment and ordering of the church, puts the people of God before the hierarchy. two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Matthew 18,19).”19

8. Ecumenical councils and the future My final reflection partly summarises points already made. It is that a more conciliar approach surely represents the best way forward for ecumenism. The decree from Constantinople II just cited makes the point clearly. The Orthodox church and the non- Chalcedonian churches, as well as the churches of the Reformation, all use conciliar (synodical) forms of government and councils were fundamental to church order in the first millennium of Christianity. Any form of reunion that is likely to be acceptable to these churches will require the Catholic church to return to a more conciliar form of government. The Catholic church’s long-standing suspicion of conciliarism was mentioned in my third reflection, also how damaging and unnecessary this suspicion is. The Catholic church can not only learn from other churches regarding this aspect of church government, it also has much to contribute to the debate inasmuch as it has preserved better than other churches many other aspects of church order – the papacy is but one example – which are important complements and balances to councils. Despite this suspicion of councils, the Catholic church has in fact held exceptionally effective ones -- Trent and Vatican II are obvious examples – and so has good experience of them to offer to others. Even within the Catholic church, conciliarism offers a helpful way forward. Recently, encouraged by the pope’s letter Ut unum sint, there has been considerable discussion of reform of the Catholic church’s structures of government. Too much of the focus, in my opinion, has been upon reform of the papacy and of the Roman Curia.20 It is notoriously difficult for any institutions to reform themselves, so that waiting for these reforms may be waiting too long. The councils, on the other hand, offer another way forward, one that has its origins at the centre of the Church’s tradition and whose orthodoxy is therefore guaranteed and yet is also acceptable to other christian churches. This way forward, too, offers many possibilities for future developments. The flexibility of arrangements in the councils of the past make this same quality possible in the future. In terms of place, as mentioned, the first eight ecumenical councils were held in the modern Turkey, half of them in Asia, so future ecumenical councils could return to Asia or be held in Africa or America: Manila I or Kinshasa I or New York I? In terms of organisation, the first eight councils were summoned by the emperors or empresses of the day, presided over by them directly or through their officials, and their decrees were promulgated by them. So the laity, including women, may play a greater role in the ecumenical councils of the future. Indeed, Constantine, emperor at the time of Nicaea I, was not, strictly speaking, a Christian inasmuch as he had not yet been baptised. So maybe influences and individuals from outside the visible Church will return to play a role in the councils of the future. In many ways the councils show how inventive the Church can be in its arrangements. In government, indeed, the councils have usually been ahead of their time. Especially the early councils offered a model to secular government and society: they were more open and more democratic than their counterparts in secular life. Then, indeed, the Church as a whole, in which the councils played an integral part, was a leader in society: the Church offered more opportunities to women or to slaves, for example, than they were afforded by

19 Decrees, p. 108. 20 For example, J.R. Quinn, The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to Christian Unity (New York: Crossroad, 1999). secular society. It is a tradition that Christians, and Catholics, can be proud of. Now, on the contrary, the Catholic Church is in danger of lagging behind. It is placing excessive emphasis on the government of the Church being different from that of secular society – that it has its own hierarchical forms of government that have nothing to do with secular democracy – and on the need for the Church to be counter-cultural. Earlier the Church had less fear of other institutions: it was readier to adopt for itself the good elements in them, to use and then to improve upon them, to give a lead in society rather than to follow reluctantly or to distance itself unnecessarily. We saw a revival of this leadership in government, on the part of the Church, at the time of Vatican II, but the momentum does not seem to have been maintained. The councils open people’s eyes for hopeful possibilities for the future. To end, let me disown any wish to urge the calling soon of another ecumenical council and any ability to prophecy when the next one will take place. My feeling is that Vatican II needs more years of assimilation: another council too soon could produce rushed and divisive results – rather like Ephesus II, the “Robber” council back in 449. There is nothing surprising about this need of “reception”: major councils such as Nicaea I, Chalcedon and Trent all took at least a century for the Church to digest. Councils depend above all upon the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so it is no surprise that they often occur at times and in ways that appear unexpected to us: God’s ways are not ours, the holy Spirit is full of surprises. No more so was this the case than with Vatican II, which nobody except pope John XXIII seems to have expected. The point of this last reflection is rather to urge the importance of conciliarism within the Church at lower levels. Synod, the equivalent of council, is an evocative word formed from two Greek words meaning “together” (&B_) and “journey” (±@(). The sense is of travelling companions, people meeting for a purpose, with an unknown journey before them, in hope and expectation. A beautiful image of the pilgrim church.

6833 words