P A P

E R

S

Maryut Retreat House, Alexandria, Egypt4-12 July 2001

“Ecumenism:Hopes and Challengesfor the New Century”

The 16TH International Congress of Jesuit Ecumenists

Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue; Curia S.J., C.P. 6139, 00195 Roma Prati, Italy;tel. (39)-06.689.77.567/8; fax: 06.687.5101; e-mail: dialogue@sjcuria.org

JESUIT ECUMENISTSMEET 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 CopticOrthodox Monastery of St. Makarios.

A message from Fr. General underlined the importance of the ecumenical venture among the Society'spriorities, 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 theMiddle East, but also on recent developments in the wider ecumenical sphere. We had the opportunity tomeet with clergy and laypeople from the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Evanglical churches, as well as withMuslims.

Jacques Masson (PRO) and Christian van Nispen (PRO), with their long years of experience and study of theChurch in Egypt introduced us to various of its aspects. Jacques Masson surveyed some of the ecumenicalhistory of the oriental Churches and agreements reached especially among the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches in recent years.

Victor Chelhot (PRO) from Damascus presented developments in the local attempts to remove the obstaclesto unity between the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches of Antioch. Since his last presentation tothe 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 andaccusations of proselytism from the Seventh Plenary Session of the official Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue wasintroduced 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 bythe Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, of which he was for many years a distinguishedmember. Paolo Gamberini (ITA) from Naples, examined the Joint Lutheran-Roman Catholic Declaration on theDoctrine 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 inwhich it affirms particular doctrinal formulations and at the same time recognises that each partnerunderstands 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 ofRome in the context of the Pope's appeal in Ut Unum Sint. Bob Daly (NEN) from Boston College examinedthe 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 andsometimes 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 previousmeeting in Kottayam, Kerala, which have not yet seen the light of day. The next meeting of Jesuits involved inecumenical work will take place in Budapest in 2003. Anyone who would like to be kept informed of plans forthe meeting, when they take shape, can contact Tom Michel (IDO) at the Curia dialogue@sjcuria.org

1 The question whether Eastern Catholics should participate was raised by some Orthodox Churchesduring the First Plenary Session of Patmos-Rhodes (29 May-4 June 1980), with the Catholic sideanswering that the Dialogue took place between the whole of the Catholic Church and all OrthodoxChurches, not simply parts of them. The Orthodox accepted with the reservation that accepting todialogue 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

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 EasternOrthodox Churches, the moment of truth came with the Seventh Plenary Session held at Balamand,Lebanon, in 1993. At stake was not only the future of the Dialogue itself, but above all the fate ofmillions of Eastern Catholics. Known until recently as Uniates, because united to the RomanCatholic Church, a term now avoided in the polite company of theologians except to signal that formany Orthodox they are little better than traitors who abandoned their native Church to takeadvantage of their Roman connection, they forced the Dialogue to face full-square the hard factsborn of schism, but which no wishful thinking can conjure away. Though the underlying problem ofuniatism had been sounded right at the start of the official Dialogue in the early 1980's, it becameacute only in the late 1980's following the collapse of the Berlin Wall; and, while it has notmanaged thus far to definitively disrupt the Dialogue, it has at least succeeded in temporarilyderailing it. Intended as an emergency measure, Balamand did not stem the tide of incomprehensionand the only follow-up thus far has been the Eighth Plenary Session, held last year during theJubilee Celebrations of the year of the Lord 2000 in Baltimore, but ending with a draw, since aboutthe only hope that stormy Session left was that dialogue was not meant to be stopped, but onlyinterrupted. And so, Balamand remains, for its provocative stand on uniatism and the related issueof 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 andinevitable truth, and yet in need of being amplified, as ultimately it has failed to satisfy all partnersinvolved.

Our reflections here fall into three parts. The first deals with the events related to Balamandso as to understand its text in context; the second passes in review some representative reactions toBalamand, to help us make our own assessment; and the third reflects on the abiding issues raisedin Balamand without suppressing the tone of hope that still permeates the text.

1. Balamand: the Meeting and the MessageIn 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 placebefore we can analyze the document it produced.

Before Balamand, the Dialogue had taken off to a good start and was proceeding at a briskpace. Announced on the occasion of John Paul II’s visit of Patriarch Dimitrios I for the feast of StAndrew’s, 30 November 1979, the so-called “Dialogue of Truth” marked the beginning of theofficial theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches. Ithad been preceded by the long thaw known as the “Dialogue of Charity,” that period from 1958 to1980 characterized by good-will gestures such as reciprocal visits following the cancellation frommemory of the excommunication of 1054 on 7 December 1965, vigil of the end of Vatican II, witha simultaneous ceremony at the Vatican and the Phanar. True, the problem of uniatism was presentright from the start, when the question was broached whether Eastern rite Catholics shouldparticipate or not in the official Dialogue, but it was settled in their favour1. Once the internationalJoint Commission, composed of 30 Roman Catholics and 30 Orthodox dignitaries and experts, wasformed, there soon followed six plenary sessions, in rapid and rhythmic succession: Patmos-Rhodesin 1980, Munich in 1982, which produced the first Document, “The Mystery of the Church and ofthe Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”2, the Third Plenary Session, held inCrete in 1984, the Fourth, with a double meeting, in Bari3, a repetition rendered necessary by the

4 D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 88-93. Though many classified the wholecontroversy as non-theological, as Salachas does, in effect it was a fore-warning of how sensitiveOrthodox Churches are to regional issues. With E. Fortino, sub-secretary of the Pontifical Councilto Promote Union among Christians, it would be more accurate to say that it reveals how aseemingly non-theological issue is related to the question of autocephaly; see E. Fortino, “Dialogocattolico-ortodosso- difficoltà e problemi”, L’Osservatore Romano, 15 giugno 1986, p. 5. Theproblem of proselytism had already been raised by Mgr. Germanos, representative of PatriachDiodoros of Jerusalem, at Crete in 1964—and with that the problem of Oriental Catholic Churchesbecame 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 hasnot been blessed with pithy titles; see P. McPartlan, One in 2000? Towards Catholic-OrthodoxUnity, 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

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 itsdocument, “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 fora discussion of authority and conciliarity in the Church, the upheaval in Eastern Europe brought tothe fore the need to abandon the programme and give more attention to the problem of therelationship between Oriental Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches precisely in those regionscaught in the eye of the storm. For this reason, in the Sixth Plenary Session in Freising (1990) theso-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 howdramatic the changes would be. At Freising, uniatism, which replaced the agenda8, was rejected as amethod of the past which failed dismally in what it proposed to do, for, rather than reuniting theChurches, it served only to deepen the cleft already separating them. Moreover, while the religiousliberty of individuals and communities was held up as sacrosanct, attempts to make the faithful ofone community pass to that of another were branded as “proselytism.” Given the promising methodof dialogue and the ecclesiology of communion on which dialogue is based, to return to the methodof 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, itwas suggested that the study of the problem already broached in Vienna the previous January wouldbe made topic of the next Plenary Session9.

Two methodological restrictions are to be noted. Since by “Uniates” in the Catholic-OrthodoxDialogue are meant only Catholics of the Byzantine rite, Catholics deriving from pre-ChalcedonianChurches are left out of consideration10. Moreover, the texts speak of uniatism as going back nofurther than four centuries ago (nr. 8). On both counts a rather one-sided historical picture ofuniatism 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 OrthodoxChurch 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 ofthe same Byzantine rite found themselves divided in two groups, at odds with each other over thevery same liturgy, so that the attempt to re-establish Church union through partial unions inevitablyopened up new wounds. From an Orthodox point of view, a point of no return was reached with theestablishing of a Melkite hierarchy in 1724. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union theproblem of the Uniates became more acute than ever12. Ukrainian Uniates, repressed forcibly in

13 F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 158. Ukraine presents an especially difficultsituation, partly because of the heavier tribute of blood Eastern Catholics had to pay and theirinability in the years when they were an underground Church to make themselves familiar with thenew winds of change coming from Vatican II. For a brief summary of some of the main momentsof 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 ofthe 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

1946, started reclaiming their churches as soon as freedom returned13. Similar things may be said ofRomania (1989), where, however, the Orthodox metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu cooperated inrestoring the churches which belonged to Catholics14. In October 1991 the Russian-OrthodoxPatriarch and the Patriarchs of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia as well as the Orthodox Church inGreece let it be known that they would not participate in the European Synod planned by John PaulII15. But in March 1992 the newly elected (1991) Patriarch Bartholomew came out in favour ofdialogue, 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 verymethod 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. thetheological dialogue on matters that unite, which was interrupted; and c. dialogue on matters whichstill divide17. The theological dialogue which had started in 1980 had to veer course and move on tothe moot issues before the time had come, which in part explains the difficulties that suddenlyseemed to undo all the good that had been done up to then.

1.1. Balamand, the eventAfter 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 OrthodoxMonastery 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 JohnDamascene from 17 to 24 June 1993. Of the 15 autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches9 were represented19, included the recently established Church of Albania, following the fall of thesuccessor of Enver Hoxha’s communist regime and the election of Sali Berish in 1992. In the wordsof one of the participants, and a Greek Catholic of the Byzantine rite besides, Prof. DimitriSalachas, the meeting in Balamand took place in a spirit of fraternal sharing and concern to favourunion between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches20. As a basis for discussion theBalamand 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 full Communion”.

1.2 The Balamand Text, the introduction: setting the toneThe 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, UusiValamo 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, theproblem 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

negative connotation of the term “Uniates”). Interesting is how 6.b defines uniatism as that effortto re-establish Church union by inducing parts of the Orthodox Church to secede, an effort whichgoes counter to the ecclesiology of “sister Churches” (ibid., p. 272). No counter-examples, such asthe 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 beenused 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 paternaprorsus 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

test-case for the solidity of the principles thus far elaborated in the previous sessions. In view of thisBalamand not only enunciated general principles but also elaborated practical norms on thequestion of uniatism (nr. 5). In the very introduction uniatism is rejected as opposed to the commontradition of both Churches (nr. 2, quoting from the Freising document), while at the same timeasserting 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 practiceYet 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 theattempt to convert other Christians, taken individually or as groups, so as to make them “return” totheir real Church23. On the basis of this approach there was developed a corresponding ecclesiologyin which the Catholic Church presented itself as the sole depositary of salvation. As a reaction, theOrthodox Church advanced analogously exclusive soteriological claims, leading at times to therebaptizing 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 countriesas missionary lands. These initiatives led at times to local mergers with the Holy See of Rome andthus precipated the breakup of relations to their Mother Churches, a process aided by extra-ecclesialconcerns. As a result a conflictual situation was created in which especially the Orthodox, but alsoCatholics 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 andthe 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 amongChristians expressed by Christ—“that they may be one” (Jn 17:21; nr. 9)—is expresslyrecognized26. The Document thus goes on to say that those who have established full communionwith Rome and have remained faithful to it are entitled to the ensuing rights and obligations of sucha 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 recognizeeach other to be “sister Churches” (nr.s 13, 14). Neither absorption nor fusion will do, butencounter in love which leads to communion. In this way, while recognizing the inviolability of theindividual conscience and its obligation to follow its inner convictions, the conversion ofindividuals from one sister Church to another is excluded28. Recognizing one another to be truepastors, the leaders of the various sister Churches are encouraged to seek the union Christenvisaged together, in a spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility. As for the OrientalCatholic Churches they have the directives of Vatican II to follow so as to engage in the dialogue of

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

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, theliberty of conscience being what it is, in case of conflict, it is incumbent on the faithful themselvesto 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 nowheredirectly mentioned, although nr.s 23 and 33 refer to persecutions of all Christians concerned. In anew spirit, pastoral projects that envisage the faithful of both Churches ought to be based on theconsultation of both groups. And, in an effort to resolve local conflicts, it is urged to establish jointlocal commissions (nr. 26); every form of violence, from the moral to the verbal to the physical, isproscribed (nr. 27). Liturgical celebrations from whichever group ought to be respected and, if needbe, the premises of one Church ought to be made available to the other (nr. 28). It is incumbent onthe 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 variouscommunities are to be respected, and, generalizing, every occasion of conflict ought to be resolvedby fraternal dialogue30. This holds true especially of the thorny question of the restitution ofecclesiastical property (nr. 31)31.

1.4 The Balamand Document, the conclusion: the parting hopeThe 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). Byexcluding all forms of proselytism, the International Joint Commission hopes that, with itsDocument, 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 thereason for excluding ‘uniatism’ as a method”33. As this linkage of the Balamand document to that ofAriccia will prove significant in judging the former, it is imperative to give some attention to thisdocument worked out in Ariccia, Rome, two years before Balamand met and at the height of thecrisis coming from Eastern Europe. The Sixth Plenary Session held in Freising (1990) had entrustedthe three sub-commissions set up for the purpose to study two documents on uniatism: the Viennadocument and the Freising Declaration. After meeting in Rome twice, both times in December1990, and then in Vienna, in April of 1991, the three sub-commissions entrusted their work to acoordinating commission, which during its session in Ariccia from 10.-15 June 1991 produced theAriccia document. It is composed of 25 points, with a first part without a title, which we may callPrinciples, running from nr.s 1 to 11, followed by a part entitled Suggestions, going from nr.s. 11through 25. Though it overlaps with the Balamand document to a great measure, there areappreciable differences, for it is rather niggardly towards the Oriental Catholic Churches. Nr.s 1-5of 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 11correspond 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, butthe following statement of A 9 has been modified:

34 Balamand, “Uniatism,”p. 682. The Ariccia text is translated by me from G. Bruni, Qualeecclesiologia?, p. 311.35 Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 682.36 Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 685.

6

A 9: ... some important matters are stillpending; when a solution is found, theCatholic and the Orthodox Church willre-establish full communion betweenthem and so the difficulties posed bythe Oriental Catholic Churches to theOrthodox Church will be definitivelyremoved.

B 16: The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desiredto re-establish full communion with the see of Romeand have remained faithful to it have the rights andobligations which are connected with this communion.The principles determining their attitude towardsOrthodox churches are those which have been stated bythe Second Vatican Council and have been put intopractice by the popes who have clarified the practicalconsequences flowing from those principles in variousdocuments published since then. These churches, then,should be inserted, on both local and universal levels,into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect andreciprocal trust found once again, and enter into thetheological dialogue, with all its practicalimplications34.

From B 18, which corresponds to A10, the quotation from John Paul II’s Letter to the Bishopsof the European Continent on the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox in the new situationof 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 concernedonly Catholics, B 21, corresponding to A 13, tones down the admonition addressed to Catholics andadds: “The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards theirfaithful”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 (butthe 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 toA 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 thenew evangelization of the secularized world can take place. B 33 corresponds to A 24. Also new isB 34 which urges that these practical norms be applied to our Churches, including the EasternCatholic 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 establishboth Balamand’s message and the malaise that followed in its wake.

2. Balamand: the aftermathIf 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, gaveus the Baltimore anti-climax, one might easily succumb to the temptation of seeking for alibis andscapegoats. The dragging war in the Balkans and the unpreparedness of many of the youngerChurches in possession of a freedom to which they were unaccustomed and so unable to intervenein inter-Church matters when they had their hands full back home, are certainly aspects that shouldnot be ignored in trying to understand the driving-force behind the reactions to Balamand. But theyare not enough to explain what happened.

In a recent Interview with an Italian journalist Patriarch Barthomew hit the nail on the headwhen he expresses Orthodox preference for the Ariccia text in view of the fact that the majority ofthem 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

37 On the accord in Balamand Patriarch Bartholomew said the following: “Anzitutto il documentodi Balamand non costituisce un accordo fra le Chiese, ma una proposta delle rispettiverappresentanze rivolta a loro, la quale non è stata approvata dalla maggioranza delle Chieseortodosse. Perciò è stata sostituita dal documento di Ariccia, che non ha ottenuto una pubblicitàampia come il primo. Questo secondo documento non è stato approvato dal vertice della ChiesaRomano-Cattolica e così la Commissione per il Dialogo, radunata a Baltimora, si è trovata davanti aun vicolo cieco. La soluzione proposta dalla parte ortodossa è l’assimilazione degli Uniati allaChiesa che preferiscono, in modo che cessi l’esistenza, ecclesiasticamente anomala della situazionedella 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 ProCivitate Christiana, Assisi, 60 (2001) 27-33.38 P. Duprey, “Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe. Balamand, 17-24 Juin1993,” 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

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 firstcomes from Pierre Duprey, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Union AmongChristians at the time Balamand took place and veteran of the dialogue since its inception; the otherfrom John H. Erickson, noted Orthodox canonist and professor at St Vladimir’s TheologicalSeminary, 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 existbetween these two groups. At Moscow in January 1990 four Orthodox and Catholic bishops workedout the plan to follow at Balamand38, an agreement which harked back to the tradition common toEast and West, as found in canon 34 of The Apostolic Constitutions. According to this the bishopsof a given nation ought to know who is the first among them and to undertake nothing without hisaccord, just as he should do nothing without everyone’s consent39. The emergence at the end of the16th century of Eastern Catholic Churches who seceded from the Orthodox community, unlikeprevious fallouts between East and West which did not put in question the salvific import of theother Church, was perceived like religious “occupation” of a foreign territory40. As a result, theecclesial vision came to insist on the canonical–rather than ontological–communion with Rome asindispensable for salvation; the real reason for the creation of Oriental Catholic Churches41. Withthe 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 andtaken up again in the Moscow talks of 199042. Orthodox Churches are opposed to Eastern CatholicChurches because they see in them Catholic rejection of Orthodox Churches. What Balamandsought to do (“le coeur de tout le document de Balamand”), therefore, was to re-affirm the ecclesialcharacter of Orthodox Churches as “sister Churches”43. Naturally, in terms of the theology ofcommunion elaborated together by Orthodox and Catholics, for a Church to qualify as a sisterChurch it has to profess the apostolic faith and participate in the same sacraments, especially in theone 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 consideredto 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

45 See “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church” (Bari, Italy, June 1987), Growth inAgreement, 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

it was added to nr. 13 of the Balamand document that the recognition of a Church as a sister Churchexcludes the possibility of re-baptising; nr. 13 thus marks a distinct progress over the Baridocument45. Under these premisses, the search of unity and communion would lead to a discussionof 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 Churchis one of Balamand’s more immediate achievements47. The bitter opposition on the part of Catholicsand Orthodox is understandable where one still uses an outdated ecclesiology, or, worse, where thegoals set by dialogue itself are rejected48.

2.2 John H. Erickson’s ReviewIn 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 levelledagainst the statement49. He first points out the manipulations that were used in order to present thisagreed statement as faulty in principle50. As in the case of the Freising document, developed on thespot without the habitual preliminary drafting, the Ariccia document, too, was leaked to the pressbecause it was considered advantageous to the Orthodox, with the result that Eastern Catholicsconsidered it a sell-out of their interests51. Then, the various reasons for the absence of six Churchesare 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 PatriarchBartholomew, in his visit to Rome on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 1995, criticizes herfor taking “the provisional toleration of the irregular regime of uniatism, tolerated only byecclesiastical economy” as a “total amnesty granted to uniatism”53. Whereas the Synod of theRomanian Orthodox Church formally accepted Balamand, Romanian Uniates attacked it for its“anti-Catholic ecumenism”54. More differentiated Cardinal Lubachivsky’s stance. While criticizingBalamand for rejecting Uniatism as both method and model and for its failure to ascribe theRussian Orthodox Church even partial responsibility for complicity in the suppression of UkrianianUniates, 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 PermanentSynod of the Church in Greece. Erickson suggests that, in spite of a negligible Uniate population inGreece, the “Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate” there, created as a token of Rome’s opposition to theecclesial claims of the established Orthodox Church, represents some of the worst aspects ofUniatism56. Balamand evoked a generally favourable response from Orthodox and Catholictheologians 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 ecclesiologicalprinciples of Balamand57. Over and above the resistance of certain local Uniates to theimplementation of Balamand, critics took up nr. 16 of Balamand, which, as we have seen, re-wrote

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 Christenheitaus 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 ‘SisterChurches’ 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, ifnecessary, the Orthodox Churches will officially take position on the content of the Declaration andof Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter added to the Document. For the time being we can say that the thesesof 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

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 thetheological dialogue” really said nothing new, since right from its inception the International JointCommission counted two Eastern Catholics appointed by Rome as its members58. ArchbishopStylianos, Orthodox Co-Chairman of the Joint Commission, poses tangible progress in this area as apre-condition for the continuation of dialogue59.

The issues at stake are the concept of “sister Churches,” the presentation of the historicalrecord of Orthodox / Catholic relations, and the practice of rebaptism. Noting the irony that theconcept of “sister Churches” should be singled out for criticism, since this is the concept Orthodoxhave tried hardest to promote, Erickson remarks that the expression “sister Church” did not stopafter communion ended, but it is necessary to work out its precise meaning60. Moreover, nr.s 6-10of the Balamand Document, purporting to describe the origin of Eastern Catholic Churches andtheir 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 Churchby 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 becomesundifferentiated, because the various Eastern Churches had different origins. Moreover, Orthodoxdid 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 insacris with the “dissident orientals–as Erickson could have specified–after Rome’s recognition ofthe breakaway Melkite Patriarchate in 172962. Since there can be no “mysteries” or sacramentsoutside 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 aprivate 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 theconverse, at least prior to the eighteenth century63. Actually, Balamand’s strictures againstreiteration of the sacraments concern much more Catholics, who, doubting of the validity ofordinations of bishops that collaborated with the communists, have sometimes wondered about theirvalidity64.

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 theInterview mentioned above Patriarch Bartholomew was more cautious and did not pronouncehimself65. So one may here point out briefly the relevance of these much-discussed statements ofthe Congregation of Faith for our theme. As for Dominus Iesus (5.09.2000), which deals withinterreligious dialogue and the strongest reactions to which came nonetheless from other ChristianChurches, Francis Sullivan has drawn attention to the fact that, precisely on improved relations withthe Orthodox, it scores positive points, not only because it reproduces the text of the Creed in the

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 betweenparticular 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 thegrey area between legitimate evangelization and unlawful proselytism. All Churches are sensitive toloss of members, so that WCC 1961 in its “Christian Witness, Proselytism and religious Liberty”

10

original, without the Filioque, but also because it calls Orthodox communities “true particularChurches”66. On the other hand, since the “Note on the expression ‘Sister Churches’” starts out byreferring 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 reservesthe expression “sister Churches” to those ecclesial communities who have a valid episcopate and avalid eucharist (nr. 12), again, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are given duerecognition (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., theCatholic Church) and particular Churches, whereby the particular Church of Rome can be describedas a sister Church (nr.s 10, 11). The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not a sister, butmother of all the particular Churches. Although the theme of the motherhood of the Church goesback to pre-Nicene times—the African Church having added this qualification to the Creed, “Ibelieve in holy mother Church”69—the theme receives different accentuations in the various periodsof Church History. The expression is known in the Orthodox Church and is even found in theBalamand 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 debateJudging 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 ofdivisions and attempts to heal them70. But whether this leads to uniatism or unity, that depends onthe method followed, which may be proselytism or dialogue; or, at least, so Balamand would haveus 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 occasionswhen the words one uses are worn out—fresh examples of faith witnesses were not lacking andnotwithstanding the fact that excruciating suffering usually relativizes even enormous past wrongsand unites opposites. Irony of ironies! In the beginning it was not so, for “proselytism” waspractically synonymous with “evangelization.”

Proselytism is not specific to Christianity, but exists wherever two or more religions raise theclaim to be universal with a consequent duty to win followers. “Proselytes” are to be found in boththe 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 ofPentecost 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 certainNikolaos, an Antiochean proselyte (Acts 6:5)71. At any rate, the use came to be extended to any newconvert 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 makingconverts through improper means72.

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 practisedin the past by everybody; so Ch. O’ Donnell, “Proselytism,” Ecclesia: A Theological Encyclopediaof the Church, Collegeville, Minnesota 1996, p. 392. In this way, all forms of constraint to adopt acreed, 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 theparticipants of the fourth phase of the international dialogue (1990-1997) between the PontificalCouncil 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 usedsomewhat different sociological categories. From the vantage point of the elite, the distribution ofpower 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, butseems to have found it hard to keep this up after the conclusion of the union, at least in the Latinpossessions; ibid., p. 322. So, while this led to greater commitment than at Lyons (1274), iteventually gave place to mistrust as to Rome’s intentions; ibid., p. 322. Quite different is the casewith the Ruthenians: from the start, their submission was sought, but the equality they sought lay inthe afterwards: equality with the rival Polish Church within the Catholic communion, with Romeconsidered as an ally; ibid., pp. 322f. It is the fear of Latinization, or the imposition of Latin ways atthe expense of local traditions, that here as in Diamper and in Ethiopia, caused damage; the partialLatinization of the Eastern rite Churches in communion with Rome was a later spontaneous processfrom within; ibid., p. 323. All this leads Macha to the conclusion that egalitarian unions tend to beless 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

In the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, the agreed statement “Evangelization,Proselytism and Common Witness”73 explains the problem of proselytism through the fact thatPentecostals 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 ofrecognition 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, thelogic of “established” and “newcomers,” often used as a pretext to indulge in proselytism, variesfrom place to place and can easily be inverted75.

Condemning proselytism as going counter to the Gospel is not enough. One must moveinstead to a common witness of the Gospel. But before we can bear such common witness we haveto make sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and that the same words are not being usedwith 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 ofthe origin of uniatism, to which proselytism is supposed to lead. The decision to restrict itself to thelast four centuries is as arbitrary as trying to explain the Balkan wars of the last decade by stoppingfour centuries ago and leaving out, for example, the famous battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389. WithPaul’s warnings against the Paul, Apollo, Cephas and Christ factions at Corinth in mind (1 Cor1:10-17), we see that group-building divisive of community goes back to the beginning ofChristianity. In this perspective every major Christian community may be said to have practised, atone time or another, proselytism leading to the break-up of splinter groups from the mothercommunity.

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 todistinguish between secession and schism. W.H.C. Frend has pointed out that Donatism was asocial movement in disguise, for, besides being a religious movement, it was also a social andpolitical protest movement76. True, to E.L. Woodward’s thesis that heterodoxy basically

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 ecumenicalperspectives, tr. B. McNeil, Bangalore 1991, p. 151.

12

camouflaged social protest and unrest77 A.H.M.. Jones gave a celebrated answer in his study, “Werethe ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise?”78, whose resoundingly negativeterms 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 ofimperial politics, was common.When Patriarch Theodosius I of Alexandria (536-567) was kept forthirty years under house arrest in Constantinople while Emperor Justinian tried in vain to imposehis Chalcedonian patriarchs, the result lead to the formation of parallel hierarchies, thanks to theindefatigable activity of Jacob Baradaeus, consecrated bishop by Theodosius in 543, simplybecause the non-Chalcedonians would in no way recognize the validity of orders imparted byChalcedonians79. Although no altar was set up against altar, as in Africa in 312, Byzantineproselytism in the sixth century inflamed the missionary zeal of the Monophysites, which led to theconversion of the three Nubian kingdoms south of the Egyptian border80. Equally tainted is theByzantine record in Armenia. On the Western front, in 732, during the iconoclastic crisis, EmperorLeo III took a huge slice of the Pope’s patriarchate in East Illyricum and put it under Byzantinejurisdiction; the heresy was condemned in 787 and once more in 843, but the property was notreturned. Behind the controversy over the Filioque in the so-called Photian schism was a scramblebetween Rome and Constantinople for jurisdiction over Bulgaria81. Even in our own times, theattempts 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 historiographicrevisionism in trying to interpret the history of the past in terms of newly perceived ecclesiologicalpriorities. Instead, we need serious historical and sociological studies. As a first step, we aretherefore called to distinguish between theological and non-theological factors in the creation ofschisms. Insignificance and unobstrusiveness can play a role in preventing schism; such, accordingto J. Macha, was the case with the Bulgarian Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite, saved by itsown 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 ofincorporating all the Orthodox of the Empire into one ecclesiastical organisation, the OrthodoxChurch of Imperial Russia incorporated the Metropolitan province of Kiev, part of the patriarchateof Constantinople, and left the Church of Georgia with little autonomy, though the situationimproved when it passed under the Soviet Union84.

On the other hand, some Oriental Catholic Churches, e.g. the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, were not born by separating from a non-Catholic Mother Church, and, besides, the callfor 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. Readingour traditions in the light of the Gospel suggests that mutual forgiveness is an indispensablecondition for common witness. In this way, the goal sought may be defined as union withoutuniatism. 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 whoknows that he is in the right, and therefore is ready to endure everything for his right, who haspatience”85. Ultimately, union without uniatism means communion without losers or winners, but

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 certainthat the united Eastern Churches, although latinized and submissive to a regime ofabsorption—which confirms Orthodoxy’s thinking that all unity with the Roman Church could onlybe made to the detriment of the identity of the Eastern Churches—could contribute to open theChristians of [the]West to the richness of Orthodoxy. We played this role unpretentiously by ourliturgies and later by a certain capture of conscience of our entire heritage.”91 L. Husar, “The Ukrainian Ecclesiological Thought,” Pont. Lateran University / CatholicUniversity of Lublin, The Common Chrsitian Roots of the European Nations, II, Florence 1982, p.186.

13

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 saymuch, however, about their new identity as Eastern Catholics in ecumenical times, seemingly anobject of barter, a sine qua non condition posed by Orthodox if we want to attain unity, or even ifwe want to continue the dialogue.

A veteran of ecumenism, E. Lanne, describes Oriental Catholic Churches as being contestedfrom three sides: (a) from many Orthodox who see in the continuing existence of the OrientalCatholic Churches a stumbling-block to Christian unity, a sort of malformation orpseudomorphosis, at best to be tolerated for reasons of “economy,” or pastoral comprehension; (b)from Roman maximalists, who favouring Latinization and centralization, would want to bringEastern Catholics in line with Latin ways; and (c) from certain Catholic ecumenists who, bankingon Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarum, practically agree with the first group about the fact thatEastern Orthodox have their days counted and should resign themselves to their lot86. The lastdanger, 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 Elias Zoghby, retired Greek-Melkite Catholic

Archbishop of Baalbek, who at the 1995 Melkite Synod of Bishops presented the followingProfession of faith: “I. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. II. I am incommunion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognizedby the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium before the separation”88. This planwould amount to a local merger, which has its fascination, but does not answer the still pendingquestions, and thus far has not been “received” by the Church authorities to whom it has beenaddressed89119-140. Besides, see Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, tr. BishopNicholas Samra, Fairfax, Va, USA, 1998.. Interesting is the way he sizes up Oriental CatholicChurches’ past role as having served as interlocutors of the Roman Church in the complete absenceof complete dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy90.

In an article he wrote when he was Professor of ecclesiology at the Urbanian PontificalUniversity, Cardinal Lubomír Husar, now Major Archbishop of Lviv, points out that behind theobjection to Eastern Catholics is the prejudice that for an Easterner to become Catholic istantamount 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 timesas the Catholic Church and the separated eastern churches unite together in the fullness of

92 OE 30, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” Vatican Council II, Constitutions andDeclarations, General Editor A. Flannery, New York 1996, p. 534.93 D. Salachas, “L’ecumenismo come condizione per l’identità,” in: Congregrazione per le ChieseOrientali, 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’identitàdelle 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

* 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 aWorld Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000, pp. 680-685.

G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? = G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? Cattolicesimo e Ortodossiaa confronto. Il dialogo ufficiale, Milano 1999.

F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog = F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholischeDialog. Spannende Bewegung der Ökumene und ökumenische Spannungen zwischen derSchwesterkirchen 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 andAgreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000.

communion” (OE 30)92. In a Study Meeting of Bishops and Major Superiors of Eastern CatholicChurches of Europe, organized by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, held in Nyíregyháza,Hungary in 1997 Dimitri Salachas explained that the reason why not all Orthodox Churches acceptBalamand is due to the fact that Balamand recognized the ecclesial character of Eastern CatholicChurches, and not simply their provisional status, as some have erroneously interpreted OE 30 tosay93. A review in Irénikon of the same Study Meeting in Hungary, also published in the samevolume by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, criticizes Salachas’ interpretation of OE 30 aserroneous, 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 ofhermeneutics. The question about the permanence of Oriental Catholic Churches is posed in thepresent in which great hurdles still remain; Orientalium Ecclesiarum speaks of a time whencommunion will be ripe and the difficulties surmounted, so that it will be possible to pose thequestion for the first time in true freedom of spirit and full mutual acceptance. Even then, with allVatican II’s talk of the possibility of new patriarchates and of the 1996 settlement in Estonia of aconflict between Orthodox themselves which led to a double jurisdiction possibly nobody canforesee how in practice the final solution will look like. At any rate, the existence of OrientalCatholic Churches as accepted at Balamand is not at stake, though more should have said toelucidate precisely this point and allay the fears which then exploded. Incidentally, a similardifficulty exists for the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church and her sacraments, whichinduced Prof. Yannis Spiteris to wonder whether Orthodoxy really considers her to be a sisterChurch95. But just as the last-named difficulty does not lead Latins to an identity crisis, so, too, theother 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 liveecumenically under the sign of Balamand, whether we like it or not. But such reactions had betterpresent themselves now, when we are in a position to clarify ambiguities, rather than later on, whenit is too late and we would inherit a union without a future.

1

Problématique actuelle du Rétablissement de l’Unitédu 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 lerésultat d’un long cheminement et de circonstances aussi bien intérieures qu’extérieures .Certains (1) y voient surtout l’influence culturelle et économique des missionnaireslatins et de leurs consuls européens, installés à Alep, ville réputée à l’époque par saposition géographique commerciale et économique. Certes Franciscains, Capucins etJésuites (2) étaient en relation avec leur consul, mais ils exerçaient leur ministère, enréférence à l’Union réalisée au Concile de Florence/Ferrare (1438-1441) qui ne survecutpas à la chute de Constantinople (1453) (3), comme aussi selon l’esprit apostolique de laréforme catholique du Concile de Trente. Et il n’était pas surprenant de voir que deschrétiens et même des clercs étaient également attirés par un nouveau souffle de viechrétienne et ecclésiale. Le mouvement catholique prit alors, dès le début du XVIIèmesiècle, une grande extension à Alep, Damas et Saïda (Sidon), aussi bien parmi lesmembres de la hiérarchie que parmi les fidèles. Plusieurs d’entre eux, même desévêques, adoptaient la foi catholique, tout en restant orthodoxes . Et “Athanase III aété le dernier Patriarche sous lequel les orthodoxes et les catholiques aient étéconfondus “ (4).

A la mort de ce dernier, survenue en 1724, les catholiques jugèrent que lemoment était venu pour se donner un Patriarche ouvertement uni à Rome. Lessuffrages des habitants de Damas se portèrent sur leur compatriote, Sérafim Thanas, néen 1680 et neveu de Sayfi, un ardent pro-catholique de Saida. Il fut consacré par troisévêques sous le nom de Cyrille VI. Aussitôt connue la mort d’Athanase III,Constantinople a choisi et consacré Sylvestre de Chypre. En décembre 1724, Jérémiede Constantinople lançât l’excommunication contre Cyrille VI (5). Le schisme futalors consommé. Par la suite, au XIX siècle, certains catholiques sont revenus àl’Orthodoxie, au moment où Rome a voulu imposer le calendrier grégorien auxOrientaux catholiques. En général , dit Mgr. Georges Khodr, “nous étions en situationde 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

2

Le Concile et le décret sur l’Oecuménisme1. 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’unedes deux finalités du Concile convoqué par Jean XXIII, était le service de la cause del’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 unclimat d’ouverture et de confiance. Dans cette ambiance, la délégation de l’EgliseGrecque 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 aupatrimoine 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, dansles ruptures qui ont conduit à nos lamentables divisions, il y avait souvent faute des deuxcôtés (1). Par ailleurs, “les frères séparés de la pleine communion , justifiés par la foireçue au baptême, incorporés au Christ, portent à juste titre le nom de Chrétiens, et lesfils de l’Eglise catholique les reconnaissent, à bon droit, comme des frères dans leSeigneur “(no.3 ). S’agissant des Orthodoxes, le Concile parla franchement d’Egliseslocales, d’Eglises Orientales patriarcales “ dont plusieurs se glorifient d’avoir été fondéespar les Apôtres eux-mêmes” (no.14) 3. A la suite de Vatican II les Grecs catholiques d’Antioche commençèrent àredécouvrir le patrimoine orthodoxe. Par ailleurs, n’ayant plus le rôle de réconcilierl’Orthodoxie avec Rome, comme l’a avoué en 1968 la commission melkite patriarcale, ilsont commencé à penser que leur partenaire direct dans le dialogue, était le Siège orthodoxed’Antioche. Les Orthodoxes, de leur côté, ayant remarqué l’évolution qui s’est produitedans 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 Grecscatholiques renonçèrent au prosélytisme et ne se préoccupèrent plus de cette question. A lasuite de cette nouvelle prise de conscience et de l’éveil survenu chez les Orthodoxes, il eutlieu un échange de délégués entre les deux synodes, au moment de leur réunionrespective, à une même date, en mai l974 et sans entente préalable. La délégationcatholique 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 restaurationde la véritable union entre les deux Eglises, sans attendre l’unité entre Rome et les autresEglises orthodoxes. Et le 22 mai, la délégation orthodoxe a été reçue dans la salle mêmeoù était réuni le Synode catholique, à Ain Traz. Mgr. G. Khodr déclara que nous voulonscette union entre nous, mais sans référence venant de l’extérieur. A ces paroles, tous lesPères 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”

3

Sans se décourager, Mgr. G. Khodr poursuivit ses tentatives. L’occasion seprésenta quand son Patriarche Elias IV le délégua à Rome en une mission “qui sevoulait secrète”, au sujet de Jérusalem et des Grecs catholiques . Il a été reçu par PaulVI 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 provisoiredes deux branches du Siège d’Antioche, et cela en attendant l’union du Siège d’Antiocheavec celui de Rome. Cette formule serait la “suspension provisoire” de la communiondes Grecs catholiques avec Rome, et cela pour des motifs relatifs à la théologie del’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 communion1. Quelques années plus tard, en 1981, Mgr. Elias Zoghby, archevêque

catholique de Baalbeck, publia un livre qui attira l’attention des milieux ecclésiatiques parson titre de choc: “Tous schismatiques”. Il y relate les différentes étapes du schismedu Siège d’Antioche et de ses conséquences, à savoir l’Uniatisme. Il y parle avec unaccent pathétique de son amour et de son attachement aussi bien à l’Eglise orthodoxe àlaquelle il doit sa foi, qu’à l’Eglise de Rome, reconnue comme le premier Siège de laChrétienneté et centre de l’Unité. Aussi, ne voudrait-il pas mourrir en état de schisme niavec l’une , ni avec l’autre. Il termine en préconisant la double communion à la fois, àsavoir que les melkites, tout en restant en communion avec Rome, entreront encommunion 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 cedernier l’avait communiqué à Rome le 7 septembre de la même année. La Commissionromaine spéciale chargée d’étudier ce projet donna le 9 avril 1976 un avis négatif tout enrappelant la recommandation de modération et de patience émanant des évêques melkitesde ce Synode d’Août (4)

Document de Balamand . Cependant un évènement important, survenu en juin 1993, donna l’occasion derelancer la question par rapport au Siège d’Antioche. Il s’agit de la VIIème sessionplénière de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entrel’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes, tenue au couvent Grec orthodoxe deBalamand, Liban. Le thème de cette session était dicté par la douloureuse situation desEglises 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 pleinecommunion“. Les conclusions de cette session constituent ce qu’on appelle désormais le“Document de Balamand”. Les principes ecclésiologiques et les règles pratiques qu’ilcomporte offrent une base nouvelle pour résoudre les problèmes de l’uniatisme posés auxEglises 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 desEglises 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 lereconnaissance et le respect mutuel de leurs fonctions pastorales propres (1).

4

“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 lascène 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, àsavoir sa “profession de foi” unioniste. Un texte de Vatican II stipule, en effet, que ledialogue 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 doitêtre repris “sans être conditionné par ce que l’une ou l’autre Eglise a pu entreprendre oudéfinir en l’absence de l’autre “(2) .

Aussi, “à partir de la situation qui prévalait avant le schisme, et du fait quel’Orthodoxie d’aujourd’hui ne diffère en rien de celle qui a préexisté au schisme “ ildéclare : “ I - Je crois en tout ce qu’enseigne l’Orthodoxie orientale.

“ II - Je suis en communion avec l’Evêque de Rome, dans les limites reconnuespar les Saints Pères d’Orient au premier parmi les Evêques, durant le premier millénaireet avant la séparation,. Beyrouth , le 18 février 1995”.

Mgr. G. Khodr, à qui cette profession de foi a été présentée, signa le 20 du mêmemois la déclaration écrite suivante: “Je considère cette profession de foi de Mgr. EliasZoghby comme posant les conditions nécessaires et suffisantes pour rétablir l’unité desEglises 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, sonaccord 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, tenuà Raboué du 24/7 au 4/8/1995, et recueillit séparément les signatures de 23 des 25évêques 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 catholiqueLe 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 grecd’Antioche et daté du 27 juillet. Il ne fut cependant publié dans la presse que le 4septembre suivant. C’est grâce à ce communiqué que nous apprenons le développementdu projet de Mgr. Zoghby lors du Synode de juillet 1995 .

Les Patriarches Grec cath. et Grec orth. ayant accueilli favorablement le projetdu 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 chargéed’étudier ce projet et les moyens de le réaliser. A Mgr. Khodr et Mgr. Zoghby, on aadjoint respectivement Mgr. E. Aoudé, orth. et Mgr. S. Boustros, cath.

5

Dans leur Communiqué(1), les Pères du Synode Grec cath., à leur tête lePatriarche Maximos V, remercient le Patriarche Ignace IV et les Pères de son Synodeorth. 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 cultecommun, 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’unitéantiochienne est devenu aujourd’hui chose naturelle, grâce au progrès réalisé au plande la foi par la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entrel’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe. Cette Commission a déclaré, dans troisdocuments successifs(2), l’unité de foi dans les dogmes essentiels définis par les 7premiers Conciles oecuméniques. Il faudra y ajouter le Document de Balamand quiétablit les bases de la pleine communion .

Pour ce qui est de la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome, le Synode s’inspire de laconception commune qu’ont vécue ensemble l’Orient et l’Occident, au premiermillénaire, en s’appuyant sur le Décret de l’Oecuménisme (no. 14) et l’Encyclique UtUnum 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 chosenaturelle, tout en laissant aux deux Synodes le soin d’en déterminer la portée et lesmoyens .

Enfin, les Pères du Synode déclarent demeurer en communion avec l’EgliseApostolique de Rome, avec laquelle ils chercheront à dialoguer sur leurs relationsmutuelles, après la restauration de l’unité du Patriarcat d’Antioche .

Réactions et Communiqué synodal orthodoxesLa 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 lesplus importantes ont été réétudiées et reformulées par le Communiqué synodal Grecorthodoxe (3), paru le 10/10/96 .

Tout en soulignant qu’il a étudié le projet catholique avec sympathie, le Synodeantiochien estime qu’il faudrait, d’une part, poursuivre les pourparlers au sujet del’ecclésiologie au niveau antiochien et, d’autre part, continuer le travail de laCommission mixte internationale entre les deux Eglises puisqu’il est difficile de dissocierentre les deux plans antiochien et mondial .

Dans cette perspective, l’Eglise orthodoxe interroge ses frères Grecs catholiquesau 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 laTrinité’(1982), “ La foi, les mystères et l’unité de l’Eglise”(1987), et “Le mystère duSacerdoce dans la constitution sacramentelle de l’Eglise” (1988). A y ajouter leDocument de Balamand: “l’Uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé et recherche de lapleine 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 passur le chemin de l’unité, au plan dogmatique, serait de ne pas conférer le caractère

6

oecuménique aux conciles occidentaux locaux, tenus unilatéralement par l’Occident, ycompris 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 jugequ’elle est liée à une orthodoxie parfaitement claire, et qu’elle est, non un paspréparatoire, mais le dernier pas vers l’unité,

Par ailleurs, l’unité antiochienne du côté orthodoxe est liée au consentement desEglises-soeurs orthodoxes, comme la double communion préconiée par les Grecscatholiques est inséparable de la restauration de la communion entre le Siège deRome et toute l’Orthodoxie .

Enfin, si le chemin de l’unité paraît long, il ne doit pas empêcher les deuxpartenaires, précise le Communiqué synodal, à poursuivre leurs relations amicales, larecherche théologique commune, la coordination de leurs activités patorales ethumanitaires, dans l’attente du retour de l’Eglise d’Antioche à son unité première , avecles Eglises orthodoxes orientales et les Eglises orientales catholiques .

Le Communiqué se termine en se donnant, en collaboration avec les frèresgrecs catholiques, un rôle oecuménique, à savoir qu’ils constitueront ensemble unstimulant 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 durétablissement de l’unité du Siège grec d’Antioche, tel qu’il a été rapporté par la presselocale .

La communion dans la foi Le Synode grec catholique estime que la communion dans la foi est assuréegrâce au progrès réalisé par la Commission internationale mixte pour le dialogue et sesquatre documents (cf. supra p.5). De plus, Mgr. S. Boustros considère que l’appel duSynode grec catholique est basé “sur notre conviction que nous et les orthodoxes nousavons la même foi sur les points esentiels de la doctrine. Les autres points sur lesquelsnous 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’ estqu’à ses débuts, “qu’il n’a pas abordé la question de la Procession du Saint Esprit quinous sépare des Grecs catholiques” ni d’autres points, comme le péché originel et laconnaissance de Dieu (2) ou la théologie des fins dernières (le jugement particulier, lepurgatoire 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 auxOrthodoxes, 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?

7

Primauté romaine et juridictionLes Pères du Synode Grec catholique ont déclaré qu’ils demeurent en

communion avec l’Eglise Apostolique de Rome et cherchent en même temps à dialogueravec elle sur leurs relations après la restauration de l’Unité (1).

Cependant Mgr. Boustros, précise, dans un interview(2), que dans la phasefinale de la réunification du Patriarcat d’Antioche, Grecs catholiques et Grecsorthodoxes auront les mêmes relations avec le Siège de Rome, qui seront déterminéespar l’expérience du premier millénaire. En effet la primauté de l’Evêque de Romeétait un fait reconnu, durant cette longue période, par les deux Eglises d’Orient etd’Occident (3) . Le désaccord résidait cependant dans la manière d’appliquer cetteprimauté .

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 leursrelations avec Rome ?

De plus, il note que, en ce point, les Grecs catholiques prennent leur distancepar rapport à la Commission internationale mixte du dialogue qui n’a pas abordé encorela Primauté romaine(5). Mais il semble que le Synode Grec orthodoxe prend égalementsa distance par rapport à cette Commission, en préconisant qu’on ne confère pas uncaractère oecuménique aux Conciles locaux tenus en Occident, y compris Vatican I, etqu’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 “Tousschismatiques” 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 lesOrthodoxes soient unis à Rome”. Mgr. Boustros voudrait parler de “degrés decommunion”, 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, àsavoir 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 encommunion avec les Grecs cath. elle l’ est aussi avec les Grecs orth. d’Antioche. Et siles 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 laprimauté 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 entreGrecs cath. et Grecs orth. d’Antioche soulève une question universelle, à savoir lacommunion entre l’Eglise Catholique et les Deglises Orthodoxes dans le monde.

Perspectives d’avenir

8

Il faudrait d’abord signaler qu’aucune des deux Eglises ne voudrait que lerétablissement de l’unité du Siège d’Antioche ne soit l’occasion d’un nouveau schismequi consacrerait le premier .

L’Eglise grecque catholique, comme l’a précisé le Patriarche Maximos V Hakim(2), voudrait faire évoluer la formule en vigueur de la communionn des Eglisesorientales catholiques avec le Siège de Rome. Notre communion avec le Sièged’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 àl’institution patriarcale et à son Synode leur rôle dans le gouvernement etl’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 ététotal, ni non plus son unité. Les historiens de l’Eglise disent que le schisme de l’Eglise aconnu 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 encommunion avec le Siège Apostolique de Rome, tout en demeurant en communionavec l’Orthodoxie et le Patriarche de Constantinople .

Interrogé sur la double communion, le Patriarche grec orthodoxe, Mgr.Ignace IVHazim, 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 soientdéfinies telles qu’elles étaient avant le grand schisme. Mais il reconnaît qu’une évolutionest en train de se produire, puisque l’Eglise orientale est désormais désignée comme uneEglise soeur. Cela voudrait dire qu’il y a , au niveau des dogmes , des ajustements àfaire 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 estétroitement lié à l’unité entre l’Eglise orientale et l’Eglise catholique . Aussi surgit-il denouveau le rôle que devrait jouer la Commission mixte internationale du dialoguethéologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe . C’est le sens de l’appel pourla continuation du dialogue, lançé le 18 janvier dernier (1997) , par des théologienscatholiques et orthodoxes réunis au monastère bénédictin de Chevetogne, et adressé auPape Jean-Paul II (4). Quant au rôle de la Commission mixte patriarcale d’Antioche, cesera de se réunir le plus souvent possible et de faire bouger les synodes, comme le dit lePatriarche Hazim (5). Il me semble, enfin, qu’un des rôles des théologiens oecuménistesserait d’étudier les problèmes surgis de l’expérience du rétablissement de l’unité duSiège 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

9

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.MaximosV Hakim du 11 juin l997.

Nous ne pourrons cependant pas clore sans parler de la visite du Saint-Père àDamas du 5 au 8 mai 2001 et des retombés oecuméniques qui ont fait jour à cetteoccasion.

Les Synodes de 1997Ayant 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 laCommission internationale mixte entre l’Eglise Orth. et l’Eglise Cath.”. Il a insistéégalement sur la poursuite du dialogue avec le Siège Grec Cath. d’Antioche, tout enrenouvelant 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 pourrenforcer 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 àpoursuivre le travail pour réaliser la fin pour laquelle elle a été instituée.

Lettre du Saint-Siège à S.B.le Patriarche Maximos VA 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 inivitéà recevoir à Rome, en tant que chef de l’Eglise melkite Catholique (1).

A la suite des tentatives de rapprochement entre les Patriarcat Grec-MelkiteCatholique et Grec-Melkite Orthodoxe, les Responsables de la Congrégation pour laDoctrine de la foi, de la Congrégation pour les Eglises Orientales et du ConseilPontifical pour l’Unité des Chrétiens ont reçu du Saint-Père la charge d’examiner lesquestions de leur compétence en ce domaine, et d’exprimer à Sa Béatitude quelquesconsidérations. _______(1) Le Lien, l977, no.4, pp.32-34.

Dans une première partie, la Lettre signale que le Saint-Siège suit avec intérêtet 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 initiativespastorales communes entre les Grecs catholiques et Grecs orthodoxes, surtout dans le

10

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

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

De plus, le partage du contenu du dialogue ne se limite pas aux deux seulsinterlocuteurs directs: les Patriarcats Grec-Melkite Catholique et Grec Orthodoxed’Antioche, mais implique les confessions avec lesquelles les deux Patriarcats sont enpleine 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-melkiteCatholique ont adhéré. Elle fait les observations suivantes:

1- A propos de l’adhésion complète à l’enseignement de l’OrthodoxieOrientale de la part des Grecs Catholiques, il faudrait tenir compte que les EglisesOrthodoxes 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 dansle temps.

2 - Sur la question de la communion avec les Evêques de Rome, on ne peutignorer que la doctrine concernant le Primat du Pontife Romain a connu undéveloppement au cours des temps, dans l’explicitation de la Foi de l’Eglise. Cettedoctrine 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 formesdans lesquelles ce ministère pourra réaliser un service d’amour reconnu par les uns et lesautres (Ut unum sint, 95). S’il est légitime d’en traiter au niveau local, c’est un devoirde le faire toujours en communion avec l’Eglise Universelle

Aussi faudrait-il rappeler que, de toute façon, l’Eglise Catholique, dans sapraxis comme dans ses textes officiels, soutient que la communion des Eglisesparticulières 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 faudraitmaintenir un constant dialogue afin de comprendre le sens de la normative en vigueur...On évitera des initiatives unilatérales prématurées... Elles pourraient créer des dommagesnon négligeables, y compris envers les autres Catholiques orientaux, surtout ceux quidemeurent dans la même région.

11

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

Enfin, les Dicastères concernés sont prêts à collaborer pour favoriser cetéchange 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 le5 et 8 mai 2001 et de ses retombées oecuméniques.

1-Accueil et hommage de Mgr. Ignace Hazim. Le jour même de son arrivée àDamas, le 5 mai, le Saint-Père se rendit à la Cathédrale du Patriarcat Grec Orthodoxepour y participer à la rencontre oecuménique nationale. Le Patriarche Ignace Hazim luiréserva un accueil très chaleureux et introduisit son hommage par ces termes: ” Pierre quis’établit d’abord à Antioche, vous accueille sur cette terre de Syrie”. Il rappela que lesPères de cette terre ont défriché les chemins de l’ascèse, de l’exégèse biblique et de laliturgie, 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 continuede subsister en plénitude dans l’Eglise Orthodoxe”.

Aussi considère-t-il que les schismes qui ont déchiré l’Eglise sont intolérables, etsouligna les points qui constituent, à l’heure actuelle, des obstacles à l’unité. Bien qu’àBalamand, en 1993, les représentants de l’Eglise Catholique et des Eglises Orthodoxesaient affirmé ensemble que l’uniatisme ne saurait être “un modèle de l’unité”, plusieursEglises orthodoxes se plaignent de la reprise du prosélytisme. Puis il ajoute: “Noussommes, 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 dudialogue 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 reconnaissentpas l’infaillibilité papale... Il serait important d’en expliciter la portée de l’intelligencethéologique 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 lefondement des Apôtres Pierre et Paul, elle n’a pas tardé à manifester une immensefloraison de vie chrétienne.

Pour ce qui concerne les relations avec le Patriarcat grec orthodoxe, il rappelaque la recherche de l’unité entre ce Patriarcat et le Patriarcat grec catholiqued’Antioche s’inscrit dans le cadre plus large du processus de réunion entre l’Eglisecatholique et les Eglises orthodoxes. “C’est pourquoi je tiens à exprimer de nouveaumon souhait sincère que la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue

12

théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes puisse prochainementcontinuer ses activités”.

3 -Echos dans la presseDans 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 dudialogue. On pensait alors qu’il était nécessaire d’étudier d’abord les Sacrementsd’initiation. Mais certaines églises orthodoxes ont soulevé la question des orientauxcatholiques qui constituent une blessure dans le corps orthodoxe. Rome consentit à ceque cette question fut étudiée par la Commission mixte à la rencontre de Balamand en1993. 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 côtél’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 utiliséedans son homélie à Damas: “...vus le Sacerdoce et l’Eucharistie qui unissent par desliens très étroits nos Eglises particulères qui aiment à s’appeler Eglises-soeurs”.

De plus, certaines églises orthodoxes considèrent le document de Balamandcomme insuffisant. La Commission mixte internationale s’est réunie, il y a un an , àBaltimore 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 laprimauté du pape et son infaillibilité. On a ajourné le discours théologique mais on n’apas fixé de date pour réunion ultérieure de la Commision.

Et Mgr. Khodr de conclure son article en précisant qu’il est profondémentconvaincu 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 resteviendra plus tard.

Il fait remarquer, cependant, que le catholique, dans le processus oecuménique derapprochement, ne voudrait certes pas faire sortir l’orthodoxe de son bercail . Mais est-ceque sa théologie le lui permet-elle? Le document “ Le Seigneur Jésus” précise sur cepoint la théologie ecclésiale romaine en ces termes: “Il existe une unique Eglise duChrist qui subsiste dans l’Eglise Catholique, gouvernée par le successeur de Pierre et lesEvêques en communion avec lui” ( Cité du Vatican - 2000 - no.17). Dans ce cas, le fidèlecatholique ne va-t-il pas essayer d’intégrer l’orthodoxe dans l’Eglise universelle? C’estpourquoi Mgr. G. Khodr engage les Orthodoxes à se libérer du complexe des Catholiquesorientaux pour poursuivre avec l’Eglise Catholique la marche commune vers ladécouverte du patrimoine commun. Autrement dit, retour à la Commission mixteinternationale .

P.Victor Chelhot s.j. Damas.

1

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 œcuménismedu 5 – 10 juillet 2001, Alexandrie Egypte

I, Introduction : Pourquoi parler du pape, de son ministère de primat ? Toutjustement, 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 jereprends ici les paroles de Paul VI prononcées en 1967 : « le pape constitue sans aucundoute l’obstacle le plus grave sur la route de l’œcuménisme ». Jean Paul reprend cetteconstatation douloureuse : « le ministère de l’évêque de Rome représente une difficulté pourla plupart des autres chrétiens, dont la mémoire est marquée par certains souvenirsdouloureux » (U.U.S. n/ 88). Nous n’avons qu’à nous reporter au récent voyage de JeanPaul II en Grèce. En effet, il est quand même curieux et paradoxal que l’institution quirevendique être le rocher de l’unité, se soit transformé au cours de l’histoire en un bloc derocher qui fait obstacle à l’union des Eglises. Le Cardinal Poupard parlait même de « pierreangulaire et pierre d’achoppement ».

Mon point de départ de cette réflexion sur le primat de l’évêque de Rome estl’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 dupontificat de Jean Paul II, projet qui lui tient très fort à cœur. S’y trouvent exprimées savolonté de s’engager sur les chemins de la collégialité et la proposition d’un nouvel examendu sens, du rôle et des modalités du ministère du pape. C’est surtout dans les numéros 88 à97 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 lepouvoir en service : « l’autorité propre de ce ministère est tout au service du desseinmiséricordieux de Dieu et il faut toujours le considérer dans cette perspective. Son pouvoirs’explique dans ce sens » (n/ 92). Jean Paul II définit l’esse même du primat de l’évêque deRome comme un « service de l’unité enraciné dans l’œuvre de la miséricorde divine… confiéà l’intérieur du collège des évêques… (n/ 94, 88, 95).

En tant que « principe et fondements permanents et visibles de l’unité… monministère est celui de servus servorum Dei » (n/ 88 & 94). Le Pape définit en quelque lastructure (à distinguer de la notion de figure) fondamentale de son ministère en qualifiant samission de « veille », de « sentinelle » de la fidélité à la confession de foi apostolique etl’unité de celle-ci. Son ministère s’exerce donc essentiellement au profit de la communiondes Eglises particulières. Ce sont les Eglises particulières qui sont à la base de la mission duprimat, car celui-ci doit assurer que « grâce aux pasteurs on entende dans toutes cesEglises 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 duservice, 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 papemette en discussion sa primauté, mais bien qu’il invite les responsables des autres Eglises àentrer en dialogue avec lui pour chercher ensemble une forme renouvelée d’exercer le

2

ministère universel de l’unité (n/ 95 & 96). « J’écoute la requête qui m’est adressée detrouver une forme d’exercice de la primauté ouverte à une situation nouvelle, mais sansrenoncement aucun à l’essentiel de sa mission » (n/ 95). En effet, étant en Egypte nouspouvons nous souvenir de l’invitation pressente que Jean Paul II adressa au Pape copteShénouda 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 pluspertinentes) : du moment que l’Eglise catholique reconnaît l’ecclésialité plus ou moins pleine d’autresEglises (le fameux « subsistit in » de Lumen Gentium n/ 8), elle se voit interrogée sur sa propredoctrine de la primauté par les autres Eglises et plus particulièrement sur leur refus de la conceptionromaine. Je n’entre pas dans la discussion proprement oœcuménique autour du primat (neconnaissant pas suffisamment la conception orthodoxe ou réformée de ce ministère). Le primat estcependant généralement perçu comme un service de l’unité (la koinonia) de tous les fidèles dans la foiet la communion. Dans ses formes d’exercice, il faut que ce ministère respecte l’héritage propre dechaque Eglise (la synodalité ou la conciliarité) et en même temps favorise la cohésion de toutes lesEglises 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 cequi 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 seraitimmuable ?

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 del’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 formed’exercice adaptée à une situation nouvelle, le primat de l’évêque de Rome peut êtreconsidérée. 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 lancesur orbite la fameuse ecclésiologie de la communion des Eglises particulières. D’ailleursl’Encyclique Ut Unum Sint en assume une bonne prise en compte. Une véritableecclésiologie de communion exige cependant d’aller plus loin et requiert une meilleurearticulation de la primauté pontificale sur le binôme collégialité d’évêques en charge d’uneEglise, d’une part et communion des Eglises particulières, d’autre part. Je donnerai par lasuite 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 beaucoupplus simple que la réponse. Le point de départ pourrait être, par exemple, la questionsuivante : « Est-ce que le modèle organisationnel centralisé et juridisé de la plenitudopotestatis du Pontife Romain tel que celui-ci s’est développé au cours des deux derniersmillénaires 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

3

papauté pour buter sur les éléments qui nous éclairent sur la structure fondamentale etessentielle du primat. Jean Paul II fait d’ailleurs allusion à ce type de relecture à la lumièrede la pratique du premier millénaire où « le Siège romain intervenait d’un commun accord sides différends au sujet de la foi ou de la discipline s’élevaient entres (les différentesEglises) » (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 leminimum 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 unecertaine époque ne signifie pas en soi que cette tâche doive nécessairement être toujoursréservée au Pontife Romain. Et vice versa… » (« La primauté du successeur de Pierre dansle 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 compréhensionsuivant : celui de la vision ecclésiologique telle qu’elle apparaît dans les premiers chapitresde Lumen Gentium. La primauté doit être placée dans le mystère de l’Eglise : la Catholicacomme communio ecclesiarum. Ce modèle ecclésial rejoint le modèle de koinonia despremiers siècles de l’Eglise indivise. Le Siège de Rome fonctionnait comme pierre de touchede à l’unité et de l’authenticité de la foi apostolique et présidait à la communion dans lacharité 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 problèmesmajeurs au cours de l’histoire est que le pape cumule en fait trois fonctions : évêque deRome, patriarche d’Occident et primat universel. On peut se demander avec les mots duregretté J.-M. Tillard si au cours de l’histoire « l’évêque de Rome ne serait pas devenu plusqu’un évêque » ou si « dans la conscience catholique le pape n’est-il pas en fait plus qu’unpape ». Bref, les figures et les formes historiques de la papauté ont fait l’objet d’uneévolution maximaliste et ont ainsi grossi le concept de primat. Nous nous concentronsbrièvement 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 duprimat patriarcal (de type plutôt administratif) sur le primat universel, surtout à partir du moment oùl’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 partieeuropéenne. L’impuissance de l’Empire byzantin fit aussi que le pape se tourna de plus en plus versl’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 Romeavait sur l’Eglise latine. Poussée par les circonstances ou profitant d’occasions favorables, Romes’efforcera progressivement de mettre sous une seule accolade sa primauté locale, patriarcale et saprimauté universelle de communion. Rome se présentait devant l’Orient avec une prétention ou unerevendication 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 exercicedirect de l’administration. Le schisme de Photius (860 – 880) en est le signe précurseur et ceci seconsommera définitivement dans le schisme de 1054. Il n’est pas étonnant qu’à la même époques’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 petitespace de l’urbs tout l’orbis chrétien. Ce tournant marquera l’extension progressive et maximalisantede la papauté tout au long du deuxième millénaire. C’est Boniface VIII (1294 – 1303) qui affirme avecla Bulle Unam Sanctam (les deux glaives) la plenitudo potestatis détenue par le Christi Vicarius, titrelancé par Innocent III (1198 – 1216). L’ecclésiologie post-tridentine souligne surtout la dépendance del’Eglise par rapport à sa tête (Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia). Au 19ème siècle, le climat ultramontain, nourri parl’hostilité envers les thèses gallicanes et épiscopalistes, le désarroi européen après l’épopéenapoléonienne, la suppression des Etats Pontificaux, considère la papauté comme devant fournir à lasociété et à l’Eglise l’ordre, la certitude et la stabilité.

Que pouvons-nous retenir de cette histoire de la papauté ? Un tournant progressif àpartir du second millénaire faisant du modèle du pape « plus qu’un pape ». L’évolutionhistorique montre que le pouvoir pontifical a poursuivi une concentration de compétences.

4

Une telle situation résultait des invasions, des risques d’hérésies, de l’emprise du Prince, dudanger de dispersion, de l’incurie voire même de l’excès dans le gouvernement desdiocèses… A travers ces figures historiques contingentes, il apparaît une structureconstante. Le pape est protos ou premier entre ses pairs, mais il ne l’est qu’en tantqu’évêque du Siège de Rome, potentior principalitas (Saint Irénée de Lyon dans l’AdversusHaereses au Livre III, 3, 2) en raison des martyrs de Pierre et de Paul dans cette ville. Sonministère de service de l’unité de la foi et de la communion s’exerce non dans uns solitudede monarque isolé au sommet d’une pyramide mais en communion collégiale avec « sesfrères » dans l’épiscopat et le vicariat du Christ. Telle est la place de l’évêque de Rome dansle mystère de l’Eglise et ceci s’accorde avec la grande Tradition de l’Eglise indivise (SaintLéon le Grand (440 – 461) avec son Tome à Flavien au Concile de Chalcédoine (451), SaintGrégoire le Grand (590 – 604) protestant face à Euloge d’Alexandrie qui le salue du titred’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 avraiment fait du pape cet « évêque universel de toute l’Eglise » ou un « super-évêque » dansune « monarchie pontificale ». Ceci est très certainement présent dans l’imaginairecatholique 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 lapersonne de Jean Paul II. Mais nous pouvons dire que malgré toutes les contingences del’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 majeursde Pastor Aeternus. Ce ministère doit être compris à la lumière « de l’antique et constante foide l’Eglise universelle » (D.S. 3052) exprimée dans le témoignage « des actes des concilesœcuméniques et des canons » (D.S. 3059). Le ministère du pape est donc clairement situédans la tradition de l’Eglise indivise. La primauté de l’évêque de Rome découle de laprimauté du Siège de Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem (D.S. 3057). Le pouvoir dejuridiction, ordinaire, épiscopal et immédiat, plein et suprême découle du fait qu’il est évêquedu Siège de la cathedra de Pierre. Nous retrouvons la tradition selon laquelle le privilège dela sedes rejaillit sur le sedens. La difficulté réside dans le fait que le dogme catholiquerattache cette primauté de juridiction à la volonté formelle du Christ. L’orthodoxie admet quel’évêque de Rome en tant que premier parmi les égaux, exerce une charge de surveillance, mais nonde 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 leSeigneur l’a voulue pour son Eglise. Tout ce qui tombe en dehors de ce qui est requis etnécessaire pour la conservation et la transmission de cette unité, tombe en dehors del’exercice de la primauté. Ainsi nombre de pouvoirs qui sont de fait pontificaux, mais qui ne

5

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 etchacune 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 estinséré dans le collège épiscopal et vise l’édification de l’Eglise par l’unité de la foi et de lacommunion. Le pape n’étouffe donc pas la mission de l’évêque ; il lui garantit sa véritabledimension en le situant dans la koinonia. C’est dans ce sens que le pape possède unejuridiction : elle garantit que la communion dont chaque évêque a la responsabilité dans sonEglise 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 touspour objet.

Si le pape exerce une juridiction universelle proprement épiscopale, elle découle dufait qu’il est évêque de Rome, de sa consécration épiscopale de cette ville. Mais cela ne faitnullement de lui un évêque universel de toute l’Eglise ni un super-évêque. C’est parce qu’ilest évêque de l’Eglise particulière, potentior principalitas, à qui le primat a été donnée avecl’épiscopat de l’Eglise de Rome, qu’il est aussi primus inter pares avec ses frères dansl’épiscopat.

On craignait à Vatican I que le pape allait supplanter tous les évêques, vu son pouvoirordinaire, plénier, immédiat etc… C’est la Députation de la Foi, conduite par Mgr Zinelli qui livra unexcellent travail de précision. Tout d’abord, le pouvoir pontifical s’exerce non ad destructionem, sed adaedificationem 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 respecterle pouvoir également ordinaire des évêques en n’exerçant pas dans un diocèse les tâches épiscopalesde l’ordinaire du lieu… sinon le pape agira ad destructionem Ecclesiae. On se trouverait face à uneprimauté qui absorberait l’activité épiscopale et irait ainsi à l’encontre du droit divin de la chargepastorale de l’évêque sur son troupeau.

On dit bien que le pouvoir de chaque évêque est « affirmé, affermi et défendu par lepasteur suprême et universel… » (D.S. 3061 et suit alors une superbe allusion à la grandeTradition avec Saint Grégoire le Grand : … secundum illud Sancti Gregorii Magni : « Meushonor est honor universalis Ecclesiae. Meus honor est fratrum meorum solidus vigor. Tumego vere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus non negatur. ») Le pouvoirdivin du pape est en quelque sorte au service de la fonction également de droit divin desévêques. Si le pape détient un pouvoir sur chaque diocèse et sur tous les fidèles, cela est envue de la conservation de l’unité de la foi et de la communion. Vatican I est donc loin deconsidérer l’Eglise universelle comme le vaste diocèse du pape dont les évêques seraientses « vicaires ». Au contraire, le pape promeut le pouvoir des autres évêques, qui sont sesfrères dans l’épiscopat, bien que l’ecclésiologie de Vatican I situe ces derniers plutôt subPetro. Ceci tranche donc bien avec une vision ultramontaine, maximalisante et centralisatricedu primat de l’évêque de Rome.

Concile Vatican II : Si dans sa Constitution dogmatique sur l’Eglise Lumen Gentiumle Concile reçoit assez littéralement les énoncés de Pastor Aeternus, ceux-ci sont replacésdans 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 pland’une plus grande prise en compte de l’épiscopat et de l’Eglise locale, deux autresinstitutions de droit divin.

L’ecclésiologie de communion affirme qu’en chaque Eglise est présente l’Egliseuniverselle et indivisible et que cette dernière est constituée en et par les Eglisesparticulières. Nous arrivons à une intériorité mutuelle entre Eglises particulières et Egliseuniverselle, de telle sorte que la catholicité exprime une unité dans la diversité et se réalisedans la communion. Ceci tranche avec une ecclésiologie universaliste et personnaliste,

6

parce que l’Eglise n’est plus longtemps vue comme pyramide hiérarchique à partir de sonchef, le pape, mais comme communion horizontale à partir des Eglises particulières et lesévêques qui sont qualifiés comme vicarii et legati Christi. (L.G. n/ 18, 20, 22, 23, 24) Lesévêques sont successeurs des apôtres et c’est avec le pape « chef visible de toute l’Eglisequ’ils ont charge de diriger la maison de Dieu » (L.G. n/ 18) et c’est tous ensemble avec lepape, (qu’ils représentent) l’Eglise universelle (L.G. n/ 23). Etant chacun principe d’unité deleur Eglise particulière (L.G. n/ 23), les évêques sont introduits dans le ministère d’unité del’Eglise.

A cette communio ecclesiarum correspond la collégialité épiscopale désignant parlà, la nature collégiale des relations des évêques entre eux et avec l’évêque de Rome. Lacollégialité n’est donc pas limitée aux actes de l’ensemble du collège et de son chef, maiselle 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 desévêques). La porte est donc ouverte à d’autres formes possibles d’action collégiale, à côtédu concile œcuménique (L.G. n/ 22 in fine). En outre, il est dit que les conférencesépiscopales peuvent « contribuer de manières multiples et fécondes à ce que le sentimentcollégial se réalise concrètement » (L.G. n/ 23).

Qu’en est-il du pape ? Un rééquilibrage du ministère de l’évêque de Rome estopéré. Il est tout d’abord placé à l’intérieur du collège épiscopal (tout comme Pierre étaitplacé dans le collège apostolique). Il n’est donc certes pas un « super-évêque », car avecles évêques « ils forment entre eux un tout » (L.G. n/ 22). Son pouvoir plénier, suprême etimmédiat sur toute l’Eglise est éminemment épiscopal (en tant qu’évêque de Rome), maisles 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 », illimitéd’une Societas perfecta que serait l’Eglise, mais bien qu’il est au sein de la communionecclésiale un centrum unitatis propter potentiorem principalitatem sur lequel doit s’axer touteEglise locale dans la foi et la charité.

Primauté suppose donc communio ecclesiarum et vice versa. En effet, si en chaqueEglise, 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, parla personne de son évêque, avec les autres Eglises particulières et leurs évêques ainsi qu’avecl’Eglise de Rome et son évêque. C’est la raison pourquoi Lumen Gentium insiste tellement sur l’unitécollégiale des évêques à l’intérieur du collège et avec le primat (cfr. par exemple « … le collègeépiscopal 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 ale mandat de situer les Eglises particulières et ses frères évêques dans la Catholica et lecollège épiscopal. C’est à ce titre, qu’il détient un pouvoir plénier et suprême et qu’il est leprincipe visible de l’unité. C’est « la diaconie primatiale au service de toute l’Eglise » (le motest du célèbre Patriarche melkite Maximos Saigh IV)

Le pape est situé dans et au service de la koinonia et sa mission est inséparable dela mission du collège épiscopal. Chez l’évêque de Rome la sollicitude, que tout évêqueexerce en faveur de l’Eglise universelle, s’explicite de manière tout à fait spéciale et uniqueet 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 lacollégialité, tout comme l’Eglise universelle dans la communio ecclesiarum on reste avec uneimpression de déséquilibre que l’épiscopat est au service du pape, ou reste du moins abordéen fonction de ce dernier. On écrit en caractère gras que les évêques doivent être encommunion avec le pape, qui est le caput, le chef : « en union avec le Pontife romain, sonchef 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, ellel’est à 14 reprises. C’est un complexe de papalisme qui mitige chaque affirmation sur les droits et

7

pouvoirs du collège. Au lieu de développer ce qui est en commun, la consécration épiscopale, onmajore ce qui sépare les évêques du pape.

Nulle part, il est dit que le primat est inséparable de la collégialité ou que le pape esten communion avec ses frères (ce qui sera d’ailleurs une des grandes innovations de JeanPaul II dans Ut Unum Sint n/ 95). Lumen Gentium tout comme Pastor Aeternus ne précisepas s’il y a des limites au pouvoir de l’évêque de Rome par rapport aux évêques (surtout quetous les deux sont sujets d’un pouvoir suprême et plénier, Quid ?). La Nota ExplicativaPraevia 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 ensembleavec les évêques. « Pour régler, approuver l’exercice collégial, le Souverain pontife procède suivant sapropre discrétion, en considération du bien de l’Eglise. » Il a une marge d’appréciation pour exercer safonction, soit seul, soit de manière collégiale… mais il peut l’exercer ad placitum. Mais disons quemême si le pape exerce se charge secundum propriam discretionem, ceci doit se faire secundumneccessitatem et intuitu boni Ecclesiae. Autrement, le pape n’agirait pas ad aedificationem, sed addestructionem (boni) Ecclesiae ! Et disons que le « bien » de l’Eglise comprend également la structurefondamentale de l’Eglise (comme la place du Collège épiscopal, la communio ecclesiarum).

L’épiscopat et la primauté sont vraiment complémentaires. Le rôle de l’épiscopatn’est pas d’imposer des limites au pouvoir suprême et plénier du pape, mais de coopéreravec lui ; de son côté la primauté n’est pas un impérialisme (« Tu n’es pas le successeur deConstantin ! » disait Saint Bernard à Eugène III), mais un pivot assurant la cohésion del’épiscopat. Le pape est donc une fois de plus servus servorum Dei au service de l’épiscopatqui 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 lapapauté, et cela dans le sens d’une majoration de la papauté. On pourrait presque dire quedès qu’on aborde la question de la communion des évêques, la notion est dirigée vers lacommunion visible avec « hypertrophie » de l’Eglise locale de Rome. (cfr. Les textes de laCongrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, « La primauté du successeur de Pierre dans le mystère del’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 aune intériorité mutuelle entre Eglise universelle et Eglises particulières, il y a une intériorité du primatde Pierre à toute Eglise particulière et parmi les évêques il y un évêque « tête »). Alors que l’évêque deRome est comme les autres évêques, un évêque d’une Eglise locale et toute la Tradition dit que c’estexactement à ce titre qu’il exerce le service de l’unité. L’Eglise locale de Rome et son évêque sontextérieurs aux autres Eglises locales, dans lesquelles se trouve totalement l’Eglise du Christ en unlieu. En fait les réflexions du Cardinal Ratzinger reflètent une idéologie papale qui veut faire du primatromain 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 dernierarticle, une recension du livre de Mgr Quinn, The Reform of the papacy : « la tension entre lasedes romaine et les épiscopats locaux… est pour une grand part le résultat d’un large floudans 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 futposée la question du statut et de l’autorité des conférences épiscopales. Le rapport duSynode extraordinaire de 1985 est très éclairant au sujet de la collégialité. Le rapport fait ladistinction entre la collégialité au sens strict (le concile œcuménique) et les diversesréalisations partielles indirectes de droit ecclésiastique (je reprends la terminologie duRapport) de la collégialité : le synode, les conférences épiscopales, mais aussi la Curieromaine, les visites ad limina… Quel glissement opère-t-on ? La distinction entre collégialitéeffective et affective permet d’utiliser le concept de collégialité plus largement, tout enl’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 leconcile (collégialité effective au sens juridique), tandis que d’autre part, on l’élargit à d’autressituations (… les voyages du pape, le collège des cardinaux) tout en n’y voyant qu’un simple

8

sentiment affectif sans effet juridique. Il est très dommageable de voir que les conférencesépiscopales et les synodes des évêques soient mis au même plan que la Curie romaine etles voyages du pape. Ainsi, dans le cas des conférences et des synodes, on vide la notionde collégialité de son contenu.

III, « Les modalités d’exercice » du primat de l’évêque de Rome axé sur lacollégialité épiscopale : Commençons par indiquer les limites du Concile Vatican II, quiindiquent que le Concile n’est pas allé jusqu’au bout de son intuition initiale. Ceci formera latrame pour proposer des modalités d’exercice d’une primauté plus en accord avec le binômecollégialité épiscopale – communion des Eglises.

Tout d’abord au lieu d’opérer une décentralisation, la collégialité épiscopale futsurtout axée sur le binôme collégialité – primauté. Après Vatican I, il fallait harmoniserl’épiscopat et la papauté. Si d’un côté les évêques détiennent par leur consécration la sacrapotestas et forment un corps qui détient de droit divin le pouvoir plénier et suprême dansl’Eglise, cet acquis fut mis en lien avec Vatican I. On maintenu le pape dans unecompréhension 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 collaborationavec le collège. Il s’agit donc surtout d’une collégialité verticale ou d’une communiohierarchica sub Petro. On a donc en fait conservé la vision monarchique et les formescollégiales ne sont en fait pas autre chose qu’un service à la primauté, alors que pour lagrande 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 concileœcuménique, convoqué, confirmé ou accepté par le pape (L.G. n/ 22). Les conférencesépiscopales et les synodes des évêques ne sont que des expressions de l’affectuscollegialis. Par cette réduction de la collégialité, n’arrive-t-on pas à évacuer en pratique toutexercice de la collégialité, alors qu’elle est de droit divin ?

Une seconde limite est qu’on a insuffisamment articulé la personne de l’évêqueavec son Eglise particulière. Il est essentiellement membre d’un collège sous la direction duchef. Lumen Gentium n/ 22 passe sous silence que l’évêque est préposé à une Egliseparticulière. Le collège reste donc beaucoup trop conçu comme collège de personnes en lienvertical avec le pape et existant préalablement aux Eglise locales, et insuffisamment commecollège de personnes en charge de la communion horizontale et mutuelle d’Eglisesparticulières. Il faut rééquilibrer le collège comme groupe d’évêques présidant à lacommunion de leur Eglise locale (et par ce biais à la communion des Eglises de leur régionet de l’Eglise universelle).

La collégialité et la primauté doivent donc quitter le giron de l’Eglise centralisée etse mettre pleinement au diapason de l’ecclésiologie de communion (plus la pyramidehiérarchique, mais le réseau qui évoque enchevêtrement et une approche trinitaire de l’un etdu multiple). Il s’agit d’une pénétration mutuelle d’Eglises particulières et de l’Egliseuniverselle, du ministère de l’épiscopat et du primat et cela dans un nouveau binômecollégialité 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 lacommunio ecclesiarum et contient par sa nature des implications juridiques. En ce quiconcerne 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 ousentimental mais exprime la communion.

Ut Unum Sint souligne plus clairement qu’à Vatican II la solidarité entre les membres ducollège et par là une union plus étroite entre collégialité épiscopale (dans laquelle est inclus l’évêquede Rome) et communion des Eglises. Etant remis dans le contexte de son Eglise locale, le pape est auservice 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 toutcela doit toujours être accompli dans la communion » (n/ 95). L’Encyclique exprime donc une certaine

9

réciprocité dans la communion (pape – évêques). Elle est certes soucieuse de faire évoluer unepapauté de juridiction plénière et suprême sur les évêques et les Eglises, revêtant une imageautoritaire, 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 lesens d’une meilleur articulation entre primauté et collégialité sur arrière-fond du binômecollégialité des évêques en charge d’une Eglise – communion d’Eglises particulières. Laprimauté est au service de l’épiscopat et les deux sont au service de la communionecclésiale. Il s’agit concrètement de l’application d’une collégialité épiscopale réelle, effectivebien que partielle, mais toujours comme expression de la communion ecclésiale et ensynergie avec le primat. Il est vrai que dans ce cas, la primauté retrouverait une figure plusmodeste 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’uneprise 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 desévêques, 2) la collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales, 3) ladécentralisation par la renaissance des patriarcats, 4) la décentralisation par le principe desubsisdiarité et 5) une nouveau fonctionnement de la Curie romaine.

La compétence délibérative du synode des évêques : Créé dans le contexteconciliaire comme un conseil d’évêques au service du primat, le synode traduit unecommunion hiérarchique entre les évêques et le pape et cela selon un modèlemonarchique : le pape est au-dessus du synode et détient toutes les clés du pouvoir (de saconvocation jusqu’à l’élaboration du document final). La question est alors, dans quellemesure le synode exprime-t-il une véritable collégialité entre évêques ? Nous entendonsrégulièrement 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 unacte de collégialité au sens strict (effectif). C’est la position « tout ou rien ». Mais les évêquesdonnent cependant corps à la sollicitude pour les autres Eglises locales et pour l’Egliseuniverselle. Tout ceci n’est pas rien. Dès lors, est-ce que le synode, comme réalisation de lacollégialité épiscopale et de la communio ecclesiarum ne peut pas donner lieu à un exercicede la primauté plus soucieux de promouvoir des actes collégiaux que de simplement s’entenir à un sentiment collégial.

La Commission Théologique Internationale affirme que les « conditions (de lacollégialité épiscopale) qui se vérifient pour le concile œcuménique… peuvent se vérifierpour 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 lacollégialité épiscopale et peut exercer un pouvoir de décision formellement collégial, parcequ’il est d’une certaine manière représentatif de tous les évêques. On rejoint l’ancienne pratiquedes conciles locaux, ne réunissant qu’un nombre restreint d’évêques, mais agissant en communionavec tous les autres évêques et avec le pape, qui le plus souvent confirmait le bien-fondé desdécisions prises collégialement. D’ailleurs Lumen Gentium n/ 22 laisse subsister la possibilité derevenir 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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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. »

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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.

1 This paper is part of my ongoing attempts to (1) appropriate the (ecumenical) riches of the Church's eucharistictraditions, (2) show how the work of Edward Kilmartin can contribute to that effort, and (3) illustrate how the analysisof 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: TheLiturgical Press, 1998). This work did not become extensive until a sabbatical year in 1996-97. An ongoing phase isconstituted by the approximately two dozen papers I have presented on Kilmartin’s theology or on developments fromit. An earlier version of this paper was presented for discussion with the Boston theological Society in October, 1998. Iam 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.

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:

3 Book of Common Worship, Prepared by The Theology and Worship Unit for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and theCumberland 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: AugsburgFortress, 1995) a basically up-to-date collection of the Orders of Worship and the Eucharistic Prayers currently in use.

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

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, andwhat it (at least occasionally) is in its more ideal manifestations. For this reason I will generally capitalize “Catholic,” notas claiming something already there in the Roman Catholic communion, but as pointing, as a kind of gadfly, to whatshould 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 bothone of the signs of great ecumenical convergence, and also the precise place, as we will show below, where the LatinRoman 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 ChurchPublishing 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 GoodFriday, Easter, Ascension, Day of Pentecost, Reign of Christ—quite “Catholic.”

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

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.

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 dialogue2. preface3. sanctus

B 4. post-sanctus5. preliminary epiclesis (alternative or additional post-sanctus)

C 6. narrative of institution

D 7. anamnesis8. epiclesis9. diptychs or intercessions, which may be divided

E 10. concluding doxology

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 GlazierBook (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990) 451–59; R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early andReformed, 3d ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1987); and the “General Instruction” at the beginning of the 1970 revisionof 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 useexperimental Eucharistic Prayers)—is the allowance made in some Reformation churches to omit the institutionnarrative from the Great Thanksgiving, since the presider has already proclaimed it the from the pulpit beforedescending 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 theseReformation communities. I was saying how hard it is to wean traditional Roman Catholics away from a massiveoveremphasis on the Words of Institution. He replied that, in his church, the problem was the opposite. They weretrying to bring it about that none of their presiders would omit them.

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.

14 See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic Theology: Towards the Third Millennium,”Theological Studies 55 (1994) 405–57.

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 thanksto you, Father Almighty (almighty God), creator of heaven and earth.

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

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

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

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 sangglory 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 Galilee to Bethlehem and there found no roomso 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,

15 “The Great Thanksgiving for Christmas Eve, Day, or Season,” from The United Methodist Book of Worship (1992) 56–57.

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

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 allso 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 faithR. 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.

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 insistingthat "praise" and "thanksgiving" are two separate elements. The difference sometimes reduces to a quibble over words.

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.

19 As Norbert Lohfink, S.J., of Sankt Georgen emphatically pointed out to me.

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.

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 desdeutschen 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).

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.

21 In 1264, Pope Urban IV prescribed the feast of Corpus Christi for the whole Church. The office of the feast wasassembled by Thomas Aquinas, to whom we owe its eucharistic hymns: Pange lingua, Sacris solemniis, Verbum supernum, aswell as the Mass sequence, Lauda Sion. Kilmartin points out that this poetry [some might insist that it is only “verse”] ofsuperior rank offers a handy summary of the “new theology” of the altar sacrament linked with the traditional biblicaland patristic concepts (Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, p, 153). See Thomas Aquinas, Officium de festo Corporis Christi admandatum Urbani Papae IV dictum festum instituantis (Edit Rom. Opusculum LVII) = Opusculum XXXVII in S. ThomaeAquinatis, Opuscula omnia, vol. 4 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927) 461–76. Also = Opusculum V. Officium de festo Corporis Christi inSancti Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia, vol. 15 (Parma: Typis Petri Fiaccadori, 1864) 133–38.

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.

22 Ambrose, On the Sacraments (De sacramentis) 4.23, quoted from Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, 145.

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

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; andRobert J. Daly, S.J., “Robert Bellarmine and Post-Tridentine Eucharistic Theology,” Theological Studies 61 (2000) 239–60.

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

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 thistheme over this eleven-century period.

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

26 Cesare Giraudo has suggested that what may be most effective in helping Roman Catholicism to break out of itsfixation on the moment of consecration, and thus move towards a more fully catholic eucharistic theology, might be theofficial adaptation of a Eucharistic Prayer which has the epicleses in the classical Antiochene position after the words ofconsecration. 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 OrientalInstitute, Rome, 30 May—5 June 1993 (Rome Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1996) 339–51.

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.

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 RitesOpening PrayerLiturgy of the Word

Ceremony of Marriage VowsHomily

[The Creed, the Prayer of the Faithful, and (usually) the Peace Greeting are omitted in a marriageliturgy]CreedPrayer 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 theEpiclesis of the Eucharistic Prayer.Peace Greeting

Offertory RiteLord's PrayerPrefaceEucharistic PrayerCommunionFinal 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.

27 The prayer uses basically iambic rhythms in order to aid solemnity of proclamation and to facilitate eventual musicalsetting. In oral (unsung) proclamation, care may be needed to avoid a sing-song effect.

· 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.

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.

D 7 Remembering his cross and deathand mindful of his loving wordwe give you praise and thanks O Lordand offer you this bread and cupwhile offering ourselvesuntil he comes again.

Or:

Remembering his cross and resurrectionand mindful of his loving words to uswe offer you in him this bread and cupuntil 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 Christthat 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 wordMay 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 JesusCome 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 victoryand we all sing for joyat the wedding feast of the Lamb.

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. Amen.

The Lamb of God is sung while the eucharistic gifts are being prepared for distribution in Holy Communion.

This is the Lamb of Godwho 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 Christiananaphora, 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 worldand through your spirit's breathyou brought together live and love.

And here, in this new bride and groom,you once again create anewyour 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 dayand your truth in the watches of the night.

B 4 Holy indeed are you, O Lordand 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 otherand made them want to giveuntil 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 madewith their fathers and mothers when Itook them by the hand to bring them upout of the land of Egypt,my covenant, which they broke, even though I was their husband

says the Lord —But this is the covenant whichI 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 Godand 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 brideand 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 lifefor each other and for others.Make them be a prophetic signof 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 thatis cast over all peoples,the veil that is spread over all nations;when you will wipe away the tears from all facesand swallow up death forever.

E 10 Hear, Lord, this prayer we bring to you this dayFor ______, 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.

1 The following twenty-one according to the traditional list of the Roman Catholicchurch: 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); Spanishtranslation 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 easternChurch 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.

Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Councils

by

Norman Tanner SJ

This evening I would like to share some reflections on the ecumenical councils andecumenism: how the ecumenical and general councils of the church1 can help us in ourendeavours for church unity today. Given the late hour of this presentation, after dinner, youwill 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 ourCongress. The reflections come as the fruits of my recent work on these councils, first inediting the English version of all their decrees2 and subsequently in teaching and writingfurther about them, most recently in a short history.3

There are eight reflections. Most of them are encouraging, so I will begin with theone that may appear the most negative though even this, if properly understood, can lift ourspirits.

1. Imperfect union as the norm and an idealDivisions in the Church, or at least differences, have always been the norm. The councilsshow this clearly. Any notion that the Church has ever been fully united, except perhaps foran hour after Pentecost, is a dangerous myth.

We sometimes speak of the first seven ecumenical councils, from Nicaea I in 325 toNicaea II in 787, as the seven councils of the undivided church inasmuch as they took placebefore the most fundamental of all schisms in the Church, that between the eastern andwestern churches beginning in the eleventh century.4 Yet there were major splits and schismsbefore that time: Arius and his sympathisers rejected Nicaea I, Nestorian churches brokeaway after Ephesus, various Monophysite churches after Chalcedon – the most importantbeing the Coptic church here in Egypt – and many other smaller divisions occurred.

Even within the churches that remained in fundamental communion during this firstmillennium, there were tensions and schisms: periods of formal schism between the easternand western churches, notably while Acacius (471-89) and Photius (858-92) were patriarchsof Constantinople; the persistence of Arianism within the western church until the ninthcentury; and many other difficulties. Indeed, especially in proportion to the numbers ofChristians – under a hundred million for the first millennium, over a billion today – theChurch appears at least as quarrelsome during its first millennium as during the second. Forstrong language it is hard to rival the exchanges between theologians of our neighbouringAlexandria and of Antioch around the time of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon or laterin 867 Photius’s encyclical letter denouncing the bishop of Rome and portraying westernersas ‘savage beasts’;

The fact of this permanent tension within the Christian people in the past forces us toreflect on what kind of unity we should be seeking today. We have Christ’s prayer that hisfollowers may be one as he and the Father are one (John 17.11 and 20-23) and we must strivefor the fulfilment of this prayer. On the other hand, we should not assume too quickly thatwe know what this desired union represents in this life. The new Testament, with itspluralism 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 permanentdiscouragement 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, onthe other hand, has been the norm throughout the Church’s history and in many ways hasproved 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 wellas the norm.

2. Amazing nature of existing unityWhile we work to heal existing divisions, we should ponder the remarkable nature of theunity that has endured. The unity is amazing on account of the greatness of the mystery andthe frailty of us carriers of it. Our human limitations need no elaboration but we need toremind ourselves continually of the wonder and depth of the Christian mystery, revealedsublimely in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. We may ask why more peopledo not become Christians and why Christians cannot remain more united, yet the mystery ofChristianity is so deep that the miracle is that anyone believes and that Christians haveremained as united as they have! Other world religions, with simpler and less demandingclaims, find it hard enough to remain united, indeed they are probably more divided thanChristianity. As long as Christianity retains its very exalted claims and challenges, unityamong 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, puttingbroken pieces back together again through our own ingenuity. We may think too much ofhuman solutions. Whereas it is the holy Spirit who has preserved unity in the Church in thepast – against all the odds, against all human expectations, one may say, in view of the depthof the mystery and the extent of our human frailty – so we trust She will find ways forward inthe 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 waspossible. Our role, then, is to listen to the Spirit and to cooperate with her promptings ratherthan to rely too much upon our own plans.

3. Our remarkable conciliar tradition

5 See below under no. 5, “Formula versus Content”, for more on this point.

As well as the remarkable nature of existing unity among Christians, our conciliar traditiondeserves attention. The twenty-one ecumenical and general councils, from Nicaea I in 325 toVatican 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, forexample, the Parliament of Britain or the Althing of Iceland, probably the oldest nationalassemblies in the western world with an institutional continuity, the councils of the Churchyield a much longer history: the earliest Parliament is usually dated to 1257 and first Althingto 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 inthe west from Lateran III to Basel-Florence especially; Trent held together for eighteen yearsamidst 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 intheir work for four years.

No other religion, moreover, can show a comparable record: Christianity alone hassought to update itself continuously through such a series of world gatherings. RomanCatholics can be especially grateful for this conciliar tradition. Despite human failings andsinfulness, the Roman Catholic church has preserved the mainstream of conciliar traditionafter the sad schisms with the eastern church in the eleventh century and the churches of theReformation in the sixteenth. It has remained the largest christian church and in this andother ways has preserved the mainstream of Christianity; no other Christian church has acontinuous conciliar tradition of comparable importance.

These councils are especially remarkable in view of the difficulty of their business. Itis hard enough for a national assembly or the United Nations to agree on concrete issues suchas laws or taxation. Far more difficult is it to reach agreement on the mysteries of religiousfaith, 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 theexalted nature of its claims. In the case of a national assembly, moreover, a majority vote isusually sufficient to pass a law, while unanimity, or virtual unanimity, has traditionally beenrequired for doctrinal statements in ecumenical councils.5 Such consensus on such difficultmatters is indeed a miracle of grace and of the holy Spirit.

It is important for Christians to appreciate their conciliar tradition. Unfortunately ithas fallen under something of a cloud for Roman Catholics, beginning in the fifteenth centurywith the struggle for supremacy between the councils of Constance and Basel and asuccession of popes, and continuing into the Counter-Reformation and later periods withtheir exaltation of the papacy. The whole tradition has been compromised in the eyes ofsome Catholics, seen as a rival and a threat to papal teaching and as a result has beenmarginalised. This is foolish and unnecessary since in principle there should be no conflictbetween the two institutions, rather mutual corroboration. For other churches, moreover, themedieval and later general councils are seen as irredeemably Roman Catholic and thereforeare largely rejected. As a result, with a truncated conciliar history, interrupted after thesecond council of Nicaea in 787, there is not among these churches the interest in a livingand continuous conciliar tradition that there might be. This too is a pity and may be partlyresolved by the more ecumenical and relaxed approach to the councils after Nicaea II thatwill 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 beyondecumenism between Christian churches into inter-religious dialogue. My starting point is the

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 emergingChristian world -- in Africa, Asia and Latin America -- as the outdated colonial impositionsof a once dominant but now decadent church.

My suggestion is that in the church of the first seven councils, from Nicaea I toNicaea II in 787, the complaint would probably have been the opposite: that the church wastoo Asian, too dominated by the thought and lifestyles of the East. The point emerges froman 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 Iand II, Ephesus and Chalcedon – and while Constantinople, the site of the other three, liesjust within Europe, being on the western side of the Bosphorus straits, the traditional dividingline between Asia and Europe, it was considered very much a city of the East, the capital ofthe eastern Empire. All of them, moreover, were summoned and presided over, eitherdirectly or through their officials, and their decrees promulgated, by the eastern emperor ofthe day or, effectively, in the case of Chalcedon and Nicaea II, by the empresses Pulcheriaand Irene.

In addition to the presiding emperor or empress or officials, the large majority ofparticipants at these councils were from the East. At Nicaea I only half a dozen, includingthe two papal legates, are known to have come from the western church; all the other threehundred or so were bishops of sees in the eastern Empire including Egypt. At ConstantinopleI 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 legatesand a few other bishops but again the overwhelming majority of members were from theEast.

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 andhumanity of Christ, which dominated the first six councils, as well as the issue of iconoclasmat Nicaea II, were largely debates within the eastern church. The canons relating to churchorder that were promulgated by these councils, notably those of Nicaea I and Trullo in 692 (ifwe 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 andIII), had mainly in mind the circumstances of the eastern churches. The initiatives at thesecouncils came principally from the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. Thecontribution of Ossius of Cordoba at Nicaea I is disputed: otherwise the only majorcontribution 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. Muchof the eastern empire, it is true, lay in Europe – principally Greece and the Balkans – andAfrica rather than in Asia. All three, moreover, were known then as separate continents; theyare not just modern constructs. On the other hand, the divide between the western half of theRoman empire, centred on Rome, and the eastern half, with its capital of Constantinople,following the linguistic boundaries of Latin and Greek, was more significant andfundamental than the divisions of the three continents. The Greek-speaking parts of theempire in Europe were closer to Asia than they were to western Europe. Most of Turkey, thelocation of all seven councils and the region that probably played the most decisive role ofall, lay within Asia. It might be added as a footnote, since we are in Egypt, that Alexandriawas considered by many – though not, I think, by Herodotus, the ‘Father’ of Geography – tobe part of Asia rather than Africa on the grounds that the boundary lay along the Nile and itsdelta rather than further east.

This delicate question of the allegiance of the eastern, Greek-speaking part of Europe,

6 Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); The EastFace of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997.

involves the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Their enormous influence upon Christiantheology – especially of Plato for the early councils – is not in doubt. What needsquestioning is whether they should be identified with western Europe as intimately as theyusually are. They, and ancient Greek thought more generally, it seems to me, have beenhijacked 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 andespecially secular elements, who dislike much emphasis upon Europe’s Christian roots, havediscovered them in classical Greek thought. This intellectual world, however, was muchmore in touch with Asian and Egyptian thought and religion than with the intellectuallyundeveloped 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 morethe Eurocentric claims upon the ancient Greek world and rightly laid claim to what at leastpartly belongs to them. This realigning of Greek thought in an Asian direction finds supportfrom 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, isthat the early ecumenical councils reveal the roots of the Roman Catholic church as muchless western and European, much more Asian and African, than is usually portrayed. Theeffects of this broad base, moreover, have remained with Catholics ever since. Christiansoutside Europe, therefore, as well as the other world religions, whose origins anddevelopment 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 ContentAccompanying the opposition to the Catholic church and its theology as too western andEuropean has been the argument that the early councils imposed upon the universal Church aset of doctrinal formulas that were typically tight, analytic and abstract in the western mannerand have acted as a straightjacket upon Christianity ever since. It is a variation upon AdolphHarnack’s lament over the evil effects upon the Church of Hellenization. One reaction hasbeen to reject outright these doctrinal formulas, a second and more subtle response has beento urge Christians to concentrate upon the content of the creeds and other doctrinalstatements of the early councils, where freedom may be found, without paying muchattention to the precise formulas in which the doctrines were expressed. Is such a distinctionbetween formula and content right?

I have already replied to one aspect of this argument by suggesting that Greek thoughtwas closer to Asia that to western Europe. Now I would like to make a second point, that thedoctrinal formulas of the councils are not tight and rigid, rather there is considerable spaceand flexibility within them. They are signposts pointing to open fields and warning of falsetrails rather than policemen with batons herding people into confined pens. The content ofthought, moreover, cannot be divorced from the way in which it is expressed – there is nothought without some expression – and in this sense the content of faith cannot be divorcedfrom its formulas. Given this measure of flexibility and elasticity within the doctrinalstatements of the councils, it is usually much wiser, it seems to me, to accept them and findthe 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 upin a dictionary three words that Christians eventually settled upon in expressing the mysteriesof the Trinity and the Incarnation to see how elastic these words are: I&<_ (ousia) for the

one ‘being’ of God, æ"@&*_&_( (hupostasis) for ‘person’ as in the three persons of theTrinity, and .B&_( (phusis) for ‘nature’ as in the human and divine natures of Christ. Themeanings 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 foundunder I&<_ (ousia) and .B&_( (phusis). There is, too, much overlap in the meanings of thethree 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 EnglishParliaments or most national assemblies where a majority of one is sufficient to pass a law: inthem 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 unanimityremained in force subsequently even if it often proved difficult to achieve; it continued as thenorm 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 sufficientlyelastic to accommodate the views or all, or almost all, sections of opinion. This was helpedin the early councils by the fluidity of the Greek language, as mentioned. In the Nicenecreed, for example, the crucial word ±_ B&_ ( (homoousios, of the same being), to expressthe Son’s relationship with the Father, could be interpreted in different ways. Later, as a morespecifically Christian vocabulary was developed in Latin, the same point was met by findingthe elasticity in sentences, paragraphs or whole decrees rather than in single words. Thecrucial, penultimate paragraph in Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility, for example,contained various qualifications to appease those opposed to the definition; many of VaticanII’s decrees may be described as patchwork quilts, they try to accommodate most shades ofopinion roughly in proportion to their strengths among the members of the council.

The implications for ecumenism are encouraging. Catholics can rest more securewith their traditional formulas and find within them plenty of room for present and futureexploration. Other Christians generally share with Catholics the formulas of the first sevenecumenical councils: they may be surprised at how much common ground they can find inthe later councils. Adherents of other religions may find more points of contact withChristians 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 theRoman Catholic church and took place after the beginning of the schism between East andWest in 1054? This question is of great significance for ecumenism since almost all thepoints in dispute between the Roman Catholic church on the one hand, and the OrthodoxChurch and the churches of the Reformation on the other, depend on statements made bythese later councils.

They are, obviously, not recognised as ecumenical by either the Orthodox Church orthe churches of the Reformation. By the former because it was not represented in any propersense at them; by the latter partly for the same reason of the absence of the eastern churchand partly because they consider the Church, at least the western church and therefore itscouncils, as being in a state of radical error during the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholicchurch 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 latercouncils? The answer is not simple. Medieval people themselves in western Christendomwere uncertain about the status of their own councils and the weight of opinion seems to have

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”, Revuedes sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 58 (1974), pp. 355-90.

been that they were not ecumenical. The point is made rather clearly by the profession offaith that the council of Constance in 1417 required of a future pope. In listing the councilsthat the pope should respect, the profession drew a distinction between the eight“universal/ecumenical” (Latin, universalia) councils from Nicaea I to Constantinople IV andthe “general” (Latin, generalia) councils (of the Middle Ages) “at the Lateran, Lyons andVienne”.7 The distinction is not expanded upon but it is evident that some difference in statuswas intended. Other evidence showing that most of the medieval councils were not thenregarded as ecumenical has been summarized by Victor Peri and Luis Bermejo.8 Inparticular, the council of Florence (1438-45), at which the eastern church was representedand a form of reunion reached, was often referred to in the West, including by popes andtheir legates, as the eighth or ninth ecumenical council: that is, coming immediately afterNicaea II or Constantinople IV and excluding the earlier medieval councils. It was thoughtimpossible to have an ecumenical council without the participation of the eastern church, aswas the case in the medieval councils before Florence.

The attempt to promote the medieval councils to ecumenical status came about duringthe Counter-Reformation. Roman Catholic apologists sought to defend the true Church asthey saw it against the attacks of the Reformation by an appeal to its medieval heritage andthe medieval councils formed an important part of this heritage. Robert Bellarmine, theJesuit theologian, and Cesare Baronius, the Oratorian scholar, both cardinals, were influentialin 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 Romeincluding Robert Bellarmine and working under the auspices of pope Paul V, sought todecide which councils were to be counted in the list of ecumenical councils.10 In addition tothe eight councils before the East-West schism, Nicaea I to Constantinople IV, it included theten medieval councils (Lateran I in 1123 to Lateran V in 1512-17) and Trent. The list cameto be widely accepted within the Roman Catholic church though it was never defined in anauthoritative way.

The issue was reopened in recent times. The year 1974 saw two importantcontributions. First, the influential Dominican theologian Yves Congar wrote a wide-rangingarticle on criteria for ecumenicity in councils, in which he questioned the list of twenty-oneecumenical councils (nineteen from Nicaea I to Trent plus Vatican I and II) that had becometraditional within the Catholic church.11 Second, as part of the celebrations of the seventhcentenary of the second council of Lyons in 1274, pope Paul VI wrote a letter to CardinalWillebrands, president of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, in which he referred to theLyons II and the other medieval councils as “general councils of the West” (generalessynodos in occidentali orbe) rather than as ecumenical councils, a choice of language that

12 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 66 (1974), p. 62013 Peter Hebblethwaite, the distinguished religious journalist and biographer of popesJohn XXIII and Paul VI. Only in the brief reign of John XXIII were his aspirations for thepapacy realised, though towards the end of his life he became appreciative of Paul VI in hisbiography of him. Normally he seemed disheartened by the perceived failures of the papacy.14 Decrees, pp. 125, 135 and 162.

appears intended.12 Since 1974 there has been some discussion of the issue though not asmuch as might be expected in view of its possible fruitfulness. There has been a generaltendency even within the Roman Catholic communion to follow the lead of Paul VI and callthe medieval councils “general councils of the western church” rather than cling to theecumenical title for them. The Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission(ARCIC) touched briefly on the issue in its first “Agreed Statement on Authority in theChurch” (1976), no. 19, mentioning obliquely the distinction between ecumenical andgeneral councils, but disappointingly it did not develop the argument.

The question of whether the ten medieval councils from Lateran I to Lateran V shouldbe regarded as general councils of the western church rather than as ecumenical councils isundoubtedly a very important one. The same arguments apply, of course, to Trent, Vatican Iand II: without the participation of the churches of the Reformation these later councils maybetter be described as general councils of the Roman Catholic church than of the westernchurch. Even so, they are of great significance. The ten medieval councils were the mostauthoritative in western Christendom and it was in the West that the large majority ofChristians lived. There was still vitality in the Orthodox Church and it continued to holdmajor councils into the modern era – for example the councils of Constantinople in 1341 and1351, 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 ofIslam it was for the most part, until recent times, a church on the defensive and developmentswere limited. Since the Reformation, moreover, the Roman Catholic church has remainedthe largest church and may claim to represent the mainstream of Christianity. Another pointis that there were major schisms before 1054, as we have seen, so that it is false to contrasttoo sharply the unity of the church of the first millennium with the divisions of the secondmillennium and so to exaggerate the status of the early councils at the expense of the laterones. Nevertheless, the more relaxed approach to the medieval and later councils in theWest, encouraged at the highest level by pope Paul VI, may form a key to ecumenicalprogress since it removes the necessity of Trent and Vatican I being given an absolute statusand thereby remaining a block to ecumenical dialogue.

7. Preoccupation with the papacyThe ecumenical councils are a good antidote to obsession with the papacy. This is myseventh reflection. Pope Paul VI said on several occasions that the papacy is the greatestobstacle to reunion among Christians and John Paul II in his encyclical Ut unum sint invitedChristians to suggest ways for the papacy to become more acceptable and effective. Thecouncils 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 beseen. They help us to avoid what might be called the “Hebblethwaite” syndrome, yearningfor 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 wascondemned for monothelitism by three successive ecumenical councils, those ofConstantinople III, Nicaea II and Constantinople IV.14 The councils bear witness to theleading support given by popes over five centuries to forms of holy war: the crusade of

15 Decrees, pp. 191-2, 233-5, 267-71, 297-301, 309-12, 350-4, 609-14 and 650-5. Inall these councils the pope played a leading role in the drafting and promulgation of thedecrees.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 Godbefore the hierarchy.

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 thepapacy 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’scontinuing guidance of the see of Rome. In doctrinal matters, the condemnations of popeHonorius and the relatively few other major mistakes of the popes, during the firstmillennium of the Church, contrast with the more numerous and serious errors of the bishopsof the other patriarchal sees of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Indeed, caution wasgenerally a mark of the papacy during this time: perhaps a lesson for the papacy today. Itwas not that the popes had a direct line to the holy Spirit -- they too had to struggle with thedoctrinal and other issues of their day – yet it is remarkable how, in the end, they normallyemerged from these complicated controversies on the right side. They were more likegoalkeepers, or long-stops if you will excuse a cricketing metaphor, preserving the Church inthe 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 papacytoday: helping us and other Christians to appreciate this great institution and yet not to expecttoo 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 asproviding the greatest exaltation and isolation of the papacy, namely Vatican I’s decree onpapal 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 thedivine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy.”17 In other words, the pope’s infallibility isplaced within the context of the church’s, not outside it, and the church, as Vatican II remindsus in its decree on the church, Lumen gentium, is primarily the people of God.18 Christ haspromised an overall guidance to the people of God, which clearly has not and will notpreserve it from all errors: so too for the papacy.

My favourite conciliar decree situating the papacy within the wider context of thechurch 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 firstfour ecumenical councils of Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon),have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and currentproblems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when thedisputed question is set out by each side in communal discussion, the light of truthdrives out the shadows of lying.

The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates aboutquestions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. AsSolomon says in his proverbs: ‘A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like astrong 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 rewardfor their toil’ (Ecclesiastes 4,9). And the Lord himself says: ‘Amen I say to you, if

19 Decrees, p. 108.20 For example, J.R. Quinn, The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to ChristianUnity (New York: Crossroad, 1999).

two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by myFather in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in themidst of them’ (Matthew 18,19).”19

8. Ecumenical councils and the futureMy final reflection partly summarises points already made. It is that a more conciliarapproach surely represents the best way forward for ecumenism. The decree fromConstantinople 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 firstmillennium of Christianity. Any form of reunion that is likely to be acceptable to thesechurches 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 mythird reflection, also how damaging and unnecessary this suspicion is. The Catholic churchcan not only learn from other churches regarding this aspect of church government, it alsohas much to contribute to the debate inasmuch as it has preserved better than other churchesmany other aspects of church order – the papacy is but one example – which are importantcomplements and balances to councils. Despite this suspicion of councils, the Catholicchurch has in fact held exceptionally effective ones -- Trent and Vatican II are obviousexamples – 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 considerablediscussion of reform of the Catholic church’s structures of government. Too much of thefocus, in my opinion, has been upon reform of the papacy and of the Roman Curia.20 It isnotoriously difficult for any institutions to reform themselves, so that waiting for thesereforms may be waiting too long. The councils, on the other hand, offer another wayforward, one that has its origins at the centre of the Church’s tradition and whose orthodoxyis therefore guaranteed and yet is also acceptable to other christian churches.

This way forward, too, offers many possibilities for future developments. Theflexibility of arrangements in the councils of the past make this same quality possible in thefuture. In terms of place, as mentioned, the first eight ecumenical councils were held in themodern Turkey, half of them in Asia, so future ecumenical councils could return to Asia orbe held in Africa or America: Manila I or Kinshasa I or New York I? In terms oforganisation, the first eight councils were summoned by the emperors or empresses of theday, presided over by them directly or through their officials, and their decrees werepromulgated by them. So the laity, including women, may play a greater role in theecumenical councils of the future. Indeed, Constantine, emperor at the time of Nicaea I, wasnot, strictly speaking, a Christian inasmuch as he had not yet been baptised. So maybeinfluences and individuals from outside the visible Church will return to play a role in thecouncils of the future. In many ways the councils show how inventive the Church can be inits arrangements.

In government, indeed, the councils have usually been ahead of their time. Especiallythe early councils offered a model to secular government and society: they were more openand more democratic than their counterparts in secular life. Then, indeed, the Church as awhole, in which the councils played an integral part, was a leader in society: the Churchoffered more opportunities to women or to slaves, for example, than they were afforded by

secular society. It is a tradition that Christians, and Catholics, can be proud of. Now, on thecontrary, the Catholic Church is in danger of lagging behind. It is placing excessiveemphasis on the government of the Church being different from that of secular society – thatit has its own hierarchical forms of government that have nothing to do with seculardemocracy – and on the need for the Church to be counter-cultural. Earlier the Church hadless fear of other institutions: it was readier to adopt for itself the good elements in them, touse and then to improve upon them, to give a lead in society rather than to follow reluctantlyor to distance itself unnecessarily. We saw a revival of this leadership in government, on thepart of the Church, at the time of Vatican II, but the momentum does not seem to have beenmaintained. 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 ecumenicalcouncil and any ability to prophecy when the next one will take place. My feeling is thatVatican II needs more years of assimilation: another council too soon could produce rushedand divisive results – rather like Ephesus II, the “Robber” council back in 449. There isnothing 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 dependabove all upon the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so it is no surprise that they often occur attimes and in ways that appear unexpected to us: God’s ways are not ours, the holy Spirit isfull of surprises. No more so was this the case than with Vatican II, which nobody exceptpope John XXIII seems to have expected. The point of this last reflection is rather to urgethe importance of conciliarism within the Church at lower levels. Synod, the equivalent ofcouncil, 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, withan unknown journey before them, in hope and expectation. A beautiful image of the pilgrimchurch.

6833 words