Current Developments THE DISTURBED RELATIONS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WIL VAN DEN BERCKEN* This survey of recent developments in the Orthodox Church in Russia is wholly devoted to the problematic relationship between the Russian Ortho- dox and the Roman Catholic Church. First I will analyse the ecumenical declaration of the Russian Orthodox Council of Bishops of 2000 with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. Then I will discuss non-theological factors in the relation between Moscow and Rome. Finally I will comment on the latest problems between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in Russia and the Ukraine, which has further disturbed the relations between the two churches. Although the ecumenical declaration was issued before the recent problems between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, it is an interesting indica- tor for the Russian Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic Church as a part- ner in the ecumenical dialogue. DECLARATION ON ECUMENISM The document Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the Other Christian Confessions provides a theological and ecclesio- logical argumentation about ecumenism.1 Although the content of this doc- ument was less of a surprise than that of the other document of the Russian * Dr. Wil van den Bercken is lecturer at the Institute of Missiological and Ecumenical Research at Utrecht University and professor of Slavonic Christianity at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. 1 Osnovnye printsipy otnosheniya Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi k inoslaviyu on http:/www.russ- ian-orthodox-church.org.ru/s2000r13/htm and in Yubileinyi arkhiereiskii sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: materialy (Moscow, 2000), pp. 305-328. English text without appen- dix on http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/s2000e13.htm. 228 WIL VAN DEN BERCKEN Council of Bishops, Bases of the Social Conception of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is important as the first authoritative ecumenical statement of the Russian Orthodox Church. The document consists of a general part and a more elaborate supplement with concrete information on the various partner churches in the ecumeni- cal dialogue. The text begins with a clear theological definition of the Ortho- dox Church as ‘the true Church of Christ', of which Christ Himself said, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against her', and which is ‘the One, Holy, Catholic (Sobornaya [Kafolicheskaya]) and Apostolic Church'. Her unity lies in the fact that she ‘has one head, the Lord Jesus Christ'. Her truth lies in the guarantee that the Holy Spirit leads her, as a result of which she ‘can- not transgress or even err'. That is a clear description, in which Orthodoxy remains true to itself. It might just as well be used by the Roman Catholic Church. The references to the Church in the first section of the document deserve closer analysis. The most important term is ‘catholic', rendered in Russian by both kafolicheskii (as distinct from katolicheskii, which is used for Roman Catholic) and sobornyi, which is the Old Slavonic translation of the Greek term in the Creed. In the document the Slavonic term is only used in the Creed-formula (twice), for the rest kafolicheskii always occurs (six times in sec- tion 1). In such a way the document underlines the universal character of the Orthodox Church. The term that occurs most frequently (eleven times) is ‘Orthodox' or ‘Ortho- doxy'. Thus the universal aspect is implicitly identified with Orthodoxy. The starting point of the document is not a divided Church of Christ of which the Orthodox is a part, but an identification of the one Church with the Ortho- dox, from which the other churches have broken away. That applies to the Roman as well as the Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian, Syro-Jacobite, Ethiopian, and Malabar churches. The Roman church is geographically defined as a part of ‘Western Chris- tianity', in which subsequently the reformational secessions took place. The Orthodox Church is not equated with the geographical designation ‘Eastern Church' for Orthodoxy is ‘not a national or cultural attribute of the Eastern Church'. This is obviously a correct observation, but implicitly limits the Roman Catholic Church geographically. And that is incorrect, because Roman Catholicism is not an attribute of a ‘Western' Church. DISTURBED RELATIONS 229 It is important to note that the document does not state that the Church is divided but that ‘the Christians' are divided. The scandal of that fact is fully recognised: it is a ‘historical tragedy, a source of scandal, an open and bleed- ing wound on the Body of Christ'. Thus the document recognises the real- ity of division, but it is a division outside of the Orthodox Church, as it were. The phrasing used to denote a nevertheless common element between the Orthodox Church and the other Christians is remarkable: ‘Communities which have fallen away from Orthodoxy have never been viewed as fully deprived of the grace of God'. This is a negative way of putting it. The same could have been said in positive terms, such as ‘The non-Orthodox com- munities are connected with the Orthodox Church through the grace of God'. It is a matter of wording! In spite of the theological correctness of the view that the Church as insti- tuted by Christ is holy, the document lacks a recognition that the leaders of the Church are not necessarily so and that they are in part responsible for the historical process of the disintegration of Christian unity. Nor is this recognition present in the very abstract observation that ‘one should not yield to the temptation to idealize the past'. And the observation that the church fathers ‘give an example of spiritual self-criticism' is not followed by any actual self-criticism. The blame for the schisms is put automatically on the non-Orthodox churches. After the description of the true nature of the church it is said in the sec- ond section that the Orthodox Church must strive for the restoration of ‘the unity of the Christians', not of the unity of the Church. That means a return of the other Christians to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is presented as identical with the Orthodox Church. This is a categorically theological position, which the Roman Catholic Church in her turn also held but nuanced in the Second Vatican Council. Although this sense of exclusiveness appears dogmatic to modern ecu- menists, the thesis that it is the task of the Orthodox Church to strive for unity is, on the contrary, progressive in the Russian context, for in nation- alist circles of the Russian Orthodox Church striving for ecumenism is rejected as ‘heresy'. The document says the opposite: the task is ‘of the high- est priority' and not taking part in it ‘is a sin against God’s commandment of unity'. 230 WIL VAN DEN BERCKEN If unity can only be realised in a return to the Orthodox Church, the doc- ument is consistent in rejecting all other ‘models' of unity. They are the fol- lowing: 1. The assumption that ‘Christian unity exists across denominational barri- ers and that the disunity of the churches belongs exclusively to the imper- fect level of human relations […] This model repeats the teaching on ‘the invisible Church’ which appeared during the Reformation'. 2. The model which is related to the previous one, ‘the so-called “branch the- ory'' which regards it as normal that Christianity exists in particular branches'. 3. Trying to heal the divisions by ‘compromises between denominations'. 4. Recognising the ‘equality of the denominations'. 5. The idea that in spite of all the differences there is ‘sufficient unity in “what is most important”'. Or the argument that differences can be reduced to non-theological factors of social and cultural nature. 6. The assumption that unity can be realised ‘through common Christian ser- vice to the world'. 7. Limiting unity in faith to a narrow set of necessary truths and allowing beyond that ‘freedom in what is doubtful'. All the above are relativist church concepts. The denominations are not equal and ‘those who have fallen away from the Church' can only be re- united ‘through repentance, conversion and renewal'. True unity is a ‘communion in Sacraments', which is not, however, ‘intercommunion'. All in all, therefore, there is little common ground between the Ortho- dox and the other Christians, except a pursuit of unity. The non-Ortho- dox churches and denominations are denoted in the document by the term inoslavie (‘non-Orthodoxy') or inoslavnyi mir (‘non-Orthodox world'). The title of the document translates inoslavie as ‘other Christian confes- sions'. Section 3 speaks of ‘different Christian churches and confessions' without being specific about what communities constitute ‘churches' and which do not. After a quotation from the Third Preconciliar Panorthodox Conference of 1986 the document turns to the Russian participation in ecumenism and subsequently speaks of ‘Russian Orthodox Church' instead of ‘Ortho- dox Church'. It does so after once again stating expressly that Ortho- DISTURBED RELATIONS 231 dox Christians should ‘clearly realise' that their religion has ‘a global and uni- versal (vselenskii, universal’nyi) character'. In section 4, which deals with the importance of the bilateral dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians, only Anglicans and Old Catholics are in passing referred to by name. For the rest it remains general. Nor does it indicate who the ‘best representatives' of non-Orthodox theology are, with their ‘sincere and profound interest in studying patristic heritage'. Do the composers of the document have in mind here such Catholic theologians as Congar and De Lubac? The document arouses equal curiosity by its general statement on the use of exchanges with ‘the major centres of non-Orthodox theological schol- arship'. Besides the bilateral dialogue there is the participation of the Russian Ortho- dox Church in inter-Christian organisations.