” In dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church we proceed from the fact that this is a Church which has preserved apostolic succession in its hierarchy as well as having a doctrine on the sacraments which is very similar to our doctrine. It is also very important that both Orthodox and Catholics have the same moral foundations and a very similar social doctrine.
The theological differences between Rome and the Orthodox East are well known. Apart from a number of aspects in the realm of dogmatic theology, these are the teaching on primacy in the Church and, more specifically, on the role of the bishop of Rome. This topic is discussed within the framework of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue which has been taking place for several decades at sessions of a joint commission specially established for this 
purpose.
But today a different problem is acquiring primary importance – the problem of the unity of Orthodox and Catholics in the cause of defending traditional Christianity. To our great regret, a significant part of Protestant confessions by the beginning of the 21st century has adopted the liberal values of the modern world and in essence has renounced fidelity to Biblical principles in the realm of morality. Today in the West, the Roman Catholic Church remains the main bulwark in the defence of traditional moral values – such, for example, as marital fidelity, the inadmissibility of artificially ending human life, the possibility of marital union as a union only between man and woman.
Therefore, when we speak of dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that the priority in this dialogue today should not be the question of the filioque or the primacy of the Pope. We should learn to interact in that capacity that we find ourselves in today – in a state of division and absence of Eucharistic communion. We ought to learn how to perceive each other not as rivals but as allies by understanding that we have a common missionary field and encounter common challenges. We are faced with the common task of defending traditional Christian values, and joint efforts are essential today not out of certain theological considerations but primarily because we ought to help our nations to survive. These are the priorities which we espouse in this dialogue.
I am convinced that the laity – both Catholic and Orthodox – can play and is already playing a most important role in this cause, each in his own place, to where the Lord has called him, by bearing witness to the values of the Gospel which our Churches preserve.”
To read the rest of his wide-ranging interview with Crisis: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/an-interview-with-metropolitan-hilarion-alfeyev
I hate to sound anything less than a happy note at this, but I do have some questions and hesitations. If our Lord made a revelation than the safeguarding of that revelation is more important even than protecting society from secularization, etc. In the past Christians, both of the East and West, were fierce to protect doctrinal purity as they saw it. Of course, sometimes this was less than happy, as they reacted too quickly and vehemently and without understanding the other’s position. I admit all this. Yet are we to reduce the revelation and doctrine given by Christ to his Church as simply a means, an instrument, for promoting morality in society? I also note that this loose sort of unity – or cooperation – is quite familiar to Orthodoxy, so in a sense this is promoting unity on their terms. I’m not accusing them of dishonesty in that respect, since I think he’s entirely honest about the reasons he states. Still, if “unity” of this sort is persued, we would tend to end up with the kind of loose unity that the Orthodox have, which obviously would be fine with them, and which would end up with Rome tacitly dropping her claims.
Are you proposing that we must overcome the doctrinal problems to work together to resist secularism? That may never happen.
If that is to ever happen, it is clear to me that Rome must end up, not necessarily “dropping her claims” but at least rethinking and reformulating them. Why is this a problem? I can think of numerous things in her history that have been similarly rethought and reformulated. And surely all but the most extreme ultramontanist will admit that Roman claims have been presented at times with a sort of hubris and worldliness that has done no one any good.
Well, I’m not really proposing anything, but raising some questions and cautions. For example, if we should work with anyone, regardless of doctrinal differences, to resist secularism, where do we stop: do we work with Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus? I’m aware of course that the Holy See, at the United Nations, did indeed work with Moslem representatives, and I think there are times when this is quite appropriate. But to speak of a “common missionary field” without a common doctrine?
The fact that the Catholic claims have not always been presented with humility is unfortunate, to be sure, but I’m not sure what the point of that is. The same could be said about the claims of Orthodoxy. As to rethinking and reformulating the Catholic claims, that depends entirely on what those words mean..
Yes, of course we must work with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. And we must work with socialists, anarchists, etc in the field of economic reform. You make whatever common ground you can on whatever issues you must. This does not imply ecclesial union or anything like that.
As for Roman claims, I think we need to question whether the post-schism Western Councils can in any real sense be considered “Ecumenical Councils” when 4 of the 5 historic patriarchates were not represented…
I wish it were the case that Metropolitan Hilarion’s sentiments could be characterized as standard. As it stands now it represents the kindest side of the spectrum in an sea of opinion that ranges from “sister church” to the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai addressing JP2 as the “President of Vatican State”
Yes, but it is heartening indeed that this is one of the most influential of Russian hierarchs, the rising star of Russian Orthodoxy, a church not noted for friendliness to Rome in the past.
Dan,
If we were to “question whether the post-schism Western Councils can in any real sense be considered `Ecumenical Councils’” that would in effect be admitting that the claims of the Orthodox were pretty much right all along and Rome was wrong. Obviously that’s what the Orthodox think, but it hardly seems compatible with accepting Catholic claims.
And if 4 out of 5 patriarchs refuse to attend a council or are in schism, what is the Church supposed to do? The whole matter revolves around the question of what is the rightful position of the See of Rome, and whether communion with that See is necessary to the Church of Christ. In my view both biblical and patristic evidence support the Roman claims. Of course, I realize that there are many who don’t agree with this.
Are you seriously proposing that they were invited? That Rome recognized them as part of the universal Church, requested their participation, and they obstinately refused to attend? Really?
I don’t think that admitting that the Western Councils were something short of ecumenical, which they rather starkly were not, would result in anything like such a black and white conclusion. I certainly don’t think that the local Orthodox councils were devoid of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for example. What it would do is give Rome some room for flexibility; as things stand She seems to have defined Herself into a corner.
I think that the Orthodox were invited to some of the later councils, though I might be wrong about this. But I believe I’ve read that.
As you probably know, some of the early ecumenical councils had only or almost only eastern bishops in attendance. First Nicea, I think, had only one Latin bishop plus the pope’s legates, who were not bishops.
The important question is, of course — what is an ecumenical council? The Catholic Church has one definition. The Orthodox have, at least, two (that an ecumenical council is defined by the acquiescence of five patriarchates; that an ecumenical council is defined by its subsequent reception by the universal Church.) The second important question is — how are we to know when the Church has decided on a definition of an ecumenical council, for it seems we need to have an ecumenical council to decide? And if we cannot define one, how do we know we have one?
Above Dan wrote, “Are you seriously proposing that they [i.e. Eastern Orthodox bishop] were invited [to Trent or Vatican I]?”
I’m not sure about Trent, but the following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Vatican I. “A special Brief, “Arcano divinæ providentiæ”, of 8 Sept., 1868 invited non-Uniate Orientals to appear.”
As participants, or like Vatican II as “observers”?
I think as participants, but I’ll try to find the text of the document.
I’d be very surprised by that; ecclesiology was pretty narrow in those days, and the Orthodox were dismissed as “schismatics”. And there were mutual excommunications, only lifted by Paul VI…
If there was anyone in the Eastern Orthodox world who would have ‘participated’ and not just observed at VatII, it would have been Ecumenical Patriarch Patriarch Athenagoras I. I can assure you he did not vote at VatII, or play any formally official role there, during any of the sessions.
The mention of non-Uniate Orientals almost certainly refers to hierarchs from non-Chalcedonian Orthodox bodies, and not Eastern Orthodox hierarchs. The interior politics of the Oriental Churches has not had all of the animus toward the RCC seen within Eastern Orthodoxy, and their hierarchs have long been more free to engage with the RCC. You have to understand that Patriarch Athenagoras I pressed the envelope further than any Orthodox hierarch in generations with regard to EOC-RCC relations. But had he participated fully in a RC council as a full voting member, thus giving the council official catholicity from the point of view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – there would have been wholesale schism within Eastern Orthodoxy worldwide, even with the Soviets effectively running half of the world’s Orthodox churches at the time. I can’t find any Orthodox document which uses a word other than ‘observers’ in reference to the Orthodox at VatII, and as a former Orthodox who was once very invested in Orthodox-Roman Catholic polemics, I would surely have made note of such a phenomenon had it occurred.
I don’t see how it would ‘add’ to the ecumenical status of VatII by having Eastern Orthodox bishops as voting members of a session or sessions of the Council. In that event you would have had bishops who formally and publicly dissented from Catholic dogma (decrees of Vat I on papal infallibility and papal authority, etc.) voting in college with Catholic bishops.
In my opinion, after a decade of reading and debating these issues, there simply is no coherent middle ground. When I was Orthodox I framed the issue like this – whatever one says of the weaknesses of Orthodox ecclesiology (or whether or not there even is or could be an Orthodox ecclesiology – some RC thinkers argue that there cannot be such, as do some Orthodox who argue that Orthodoxy presents an ‘anti-ecclesiology,’ if you will) the Orthodox Church clearly teaches that she is the Church, in its fullness, despite not being in communion with the Petrine See, and without holding to those dogmas regarding the Petrine Office which came out of VatI. VatI clearly states those dogmas to be dogmas. The RCC clearly states that the Petrine Office as defined in RC doctrine is integral to the Church. My argument has long been this – as soon as one of those bodies (EOC or RCC) ceases to teach it’s current position, it then logically ceases to be what it claims that it is (or ceases to posit any logical claim to have been that). If the RCC in any way makes the Petrine Office negotiable it has clearly violated Vat I and it ceases to be what it now is. As soon as Orthodox assert (or even infer) that they are not fully and completely ‘The Church’ without communion with Rome, they sever any coherent claim to have been what they now claim to be.
The so-called Ratzinger solution has been exaggerated (have you seen the clarifying texts which seem to completely undermine the popular interpretation of the so-called Ratzinger solution?) and does not provide a way out. You can’t tell the Orthodox that they can believe now as they believed in 1000 A.D. and at the same time tell them that they must agree to cease ever calling the papal dogmas of Vat I a heresy or even heterodox. Obviously, an Orthodox believer living in Athens or Damascus or wherever in 1000, upon hearing the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the papacy, was free to call such heresy or heterodoxy. To assert that someone who is Orthodox does not have to use the language of Vat I regarding the papacy, but still is not free to call those pronouncements heresy or heterodoxy, still binds them to the orthodoxy of the statements by default, and in a rather backdoor, and, frankly, half-assed manner of contriving assent from them. Ratzinger later says as much himself, when clarifying the so-called Ratzinger proposal.
Thus, I see no way forward for the Orthodox except to go the way of uniate churches (and not the Melkites, who seem to sometimes be in a de facto schism if not a formal one). There has to be a formal acceptance of the ecumenical status of all the RC Councils. The Eastern Churches can continue to have their jurisdictional rights as outlined in the eastern code of canon law and in numerous papal bulls. We can continue to have nice statements about collegiality and the pope can continue to walk on eggshells when dealing with eastern Christians. The Orthodox, when coming in as uniate churches (and it will only ever be singularly, and not as a whole, if it ever happens again), can continue to pursue their own traditions and praxis. But for a bishop to be formally in communion with Rome means to assent to universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility (it’s actually universal jurisdiction that is the biggest problem for Orthodox). There is no way around that without the RCC denying its own dogma and denying its own divine identity.
The documents of Vat I use the clearest possible terms to connote that it was the understanding of the Council fathers that the papal dogmas were universal and ecumenical and applied to every niche and corner of the Church throughout the world. To deny that the definition of universal papal jurisdiction is ecumenical in nature is to deny the RCC it’s capacity to understand itself and define dogma, and as such, it would be to deny that the RCC is what it claims to be, the Church.
OK, I found the Latin text of Pius IX’s brief or encyclical. I translated the relevant paragraph which I give also in Latin. It was addressed to all bishops of the churches of the eastern rite not having communion with the apostolic see. It was clearly not sent to only to the non-Chalcedonian bishops. The use of the word “Oriental” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the same sense as it does today. In any case, the reference to the councils of Lyons II and Florence makes this clear.
I want to state though, that the fact that the Orthodox bishops were invited and did not come is not what makes Vatican I an ecumenical council. It was ecumenical because it was accepted as such by the Apostolic See. This is what makes a council ecumenical. I post this because Dan denied first that they were invited, and when I proved they were, said surely it was in the capacity of observers only.
I also second Ochlophobist’s statement that the only way forward for unity with separated Byzantine Christians is “to go the way of uniate churches.”
The relevant paragraph runs:
Now since lately by the council of the Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinals of the Sacred Romen Church, we have announced and called together an ecumenical synod in the next year to be celebrated at Rome beginning on the 8th day of the month of December, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, we direct our voice to you again and with a greater urgency of Our mind, as we are able, we entreat, we urge, and implore, that you would wish to come to this general synod, as Your Ancestors came to the Second Council of Lyons…and to the Council of Florence..
SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI PH DIVINA PROVIDENTIA
PAPAE IX. LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE AD OMNES EPISCOPOS ECCLESIARUM RITUS ORIENTALIS COMMUNIONEM CUM APOSTOLICA SEDE NON HABENTES.
Jam vero cum nuper de Venerabilium Fratrum Nostrorum S. R. E.
Cardinalium consilio Oecumenicam Synodum futuro anno Romae celebran-
dam, ac die octavo mensis decembris Immaculatae Deiparae Virginis Mariae
Conceptioni sacro incipiendam indixerimus et convocaverimus , vocem No-
stram ad vos rursus dirigimus, et majore, qua possumus, animi Nostri
contentione Vos obsecramus, monemus et obtestamur, ut ad eamdem ge-
neralem Synodum convenire velitis, quemadmodum Majores Vestri conve-
nerunt ad Concilium Lugdunense II….et ad Florentinum Concilium…
I’m sorry, I read too quickly, I thought the reference was to VatII. Though given the precedent for invitation and the more ecumenical spirit of the times, I suppose Eastern Orthodox hierarchs must have been invited to VatII as well. Perhaps the logic at hand is that upon accepting the invitation to formally participate in a(n) (Ecumenical) Council presided over by the Pope, a bishop is thus at least implicitly accepting the notion that a Council is, finally, validated by acceptance of the Pope. Or is that perhaps too simplistic a take on the nuances of ecclesial politics here?
Ochlophobist,
Good questions and I don’t know the answers. It’s ironic, however, that if the EO bishops had come to Vatican I,there might have been enough of them, that together with the significant minority of the Catholic bishops, mostly Latin, they might have been able to vote papal infallibility down. Now wouldn’t that have been an historical twist!
Indeed.
But as Rome has said that it is not interested in “Uniatism”, but seeks corporate reunion, it appears we are at an impasse: two One True Churches waiting for the other one to give…
“But as Rome has said that it is not interested in `Uniatism.'” I think that was the Balamand Declaration that said that. I’m not sure what sort of doctrinal weight that carries. But, yes, for the time being, that kind of union is unlikely, I fear. Also, sorry if the word “uniatism” was offensive – I was only quoting
Ochlophobist.
Yeah, sorry about that word. Bad habit from my Orthodox days.
It’s worth noting that officially, so far as I can tell, documents from Rome which speak of the canonical status of the Orthodox Churches always refer to them as true particular churchES, as in plural, and never in singular. So far as I can tell, Rome does not accept the notion that there is an Orthodox Church. There are local Orthodox Churches, which are true particular Churches not in full communion with Rome. If my understanding there is correct, then the corporate reunion Rome seeks is with particular Churches – with the hope that they be taken in individually, and Rome does not recognize the Orthodox as constituting any alternative even if slightly deficient “One True Church” motif or somesuch. Hypothetically I am sure Rome would broker a reunion deal with all of the Orthodox Churches if it could, but in reality that big deal would be a series of deals, as, canonically speaking, Rome would receive each Orthodox Church on an individual basis. [Of course anyone who knows anything about pan-Orthodox ecclesial politics knows that there would never be a reunion deal involving all of the Orthodox Churches at once. Indeed, many an Orthodox with anti-Roman sentiments will tell you that this is one of the beneficial aspects of Orthodoxy being divided into national churches – the desire to maintain traditional ecclesial unity with other Eastern Orthodox brethren keeps some Synods more restrained in ecumenism than they would otherwise be.]
Well, previous “Uniate” agreements were with individual bishops, not the whole of a particular church. Yes, if an entire jurisdiction entered into union that would be a different case, and I don’t think Rome would object at all. The other unlikely scenario would be if Orthodoxy took the Anglican path and became more or less apostate. That this will not occur- despite some American Orthodox clerics- to me is a sign that they are true churches, not devoid of grace or guidance, sharing in the infallibility of the Church.
Daniel, who do you have in mind when you speak of American Orthodox clerics and the road to apostasy? I am just curious because I am not that familiar with the Orthodox Church in America.
A few clerics have cautiously floated speculation about homosexuality…
Not to play devil’s advocate, but there really isn’t any difference between “uniatism” and “corporate reunion” except insofar as the one represents a minority of an ecclesial body, and the other a majority. To illustrate this with a recent example, in 1988 Archbishop Lefevbre comitted a schismatic type act by consecrating Bishops without the mandate of the Holy Father. In response to this, several priests, I think it was 18, left the society to form the FSSP. You might say that the FSSP, then, is a uniate society. The desire of the Church, however, is that the entire SSPX be fully and canonically within the Catholic Church. If the SSPX agreed to enter, but a few Bishops and a minority of the Chapels refused, we might speak of a “schism within the SSPX”, but no one would deny that the SSPX had achieved corporate unity, despite the resistence of the hardliners.
Similarly, with a few exceptions, the Eastern Catholic Churches were constituted by a minority of Christians in the original Church. If it had been the majority that had achieved ecclesiastical union, instead of being referred as “union” it would be refered to as “corporate reunion.” The two terms actually don’t differ in substance, but rather in scope.