Joint Internation Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
8th PLENARY SESSION Emmitsburg-Baltimore,
USA, July 9-19, 2000
The eighth plenary session of the
Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman
Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was held at Mount Saint Mary's College
and Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA from July 9 to 19, 2000. The
Commission was hosted with great generosity by Cardinal William H. Keeler,
Archbishop of Baltimore, with the assistance of the President, Rector and
others of Mount Saint Mary's College and Seminary.
The meeting was co-chaired by
Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for
Promoting Christian Unity, and Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Roman Catholic members were: Archbishops, Bishops and scholars
from the United States, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany,
Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Poland and Romania. Orthodox members were:
Metropolitans, Bishops and scholars from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, and Romania
and the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, Finland and Estonia.
During the week, the members of
the Commission attended a number of acts of worship including a Service of
Prayer at the Basilica Shrine of Saint Elizabeth Seton, a Doxology at the Greek
Orthodox Cathedral of the Annunciation in Baltimore, a solemn celebration of
the Eucharist in the Catholic Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore and a
Divine Liturgy in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Washington.
On all of these occasions they were received with great cordiality and
hospitality by the local clergy and lay people of these various places.
The theme discussed at this
plenary session was the "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of
Uniatism" based upon the preliminary document prepared in Ariccia/Rome
(1998) by the Commission's Coordinating Committee, a subject which has assumed
particular importance since the changes which occurred in Central and Eastern
Europe over the last ten years.
The Joint International
Commission has been particularly concerned with this question since its sixth
plenary session in Freising (Germany) in 1990 and in its seventh session in
Balamand (Lebanon) in 1993. Documents touching upon theological aspects as well
as practical guidelines were issued by the Joint Commission in these meetings.
Although reactions were generally positive, these documents met with some
reserve and even outright opposition, sometimes from each side. Therefore, it
was felt necessary to continue the reflection by the Joint Commission in order
to find common understanding on this extremely thorny question.
The discussions of this plenary
were far-reaching, intense and thorough. They touched upon many theological and
canonical questions connected with the existence and the activities of the
Eastern Catholic Churches. However, since agreement was not reached on the
basic theological concept of uniatism, it was decided not to have a common
statement at this time. For this reason, the members will report to their
Churches who will indicate how to overcome this obstacle for the peaceful
continuation of the dialogue.
The Commission sees the need for
further study of the theological, pastoral, historical and canonical questions
related to this issue. It understands well the complexity of the problems that
are to be solved and at the same time the importance of this dialogue for the
Churches. Despite all the difficulties, the Commission hopes that through this
process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion between
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, a process which has already made
notable progress in the plenary meetings of Munich (1982), Crete (1984), Bari
(1986 and 1987) and Valamo, Finland (1988). This year, 2000 years after the
birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Joint International Commission celebrates
the 20th anniversary of the beginning of its work at Patmos and Rhodes in 1980.
It is a beautiful opportunity to thank God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - for
what has been accomplished together during these two decades.
The Commission expresses its
gratitude to the staff of the Archdiocese and of the College and Seminary who
contributed to making this first meeting on the North American continent so
pleasant. In a special way, it thanks those individuals and groups who accompanied
its work with their constant prayers.
[Information Service 104
(2000/III) 147-148]
Source:
***
DIALOGUE WITH THE ORTHODOX
Mons. Eleuterio F.
Fortino
Undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Disagreements
remain on ‘uniatism’
The eighth plenary session of the
Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the
Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches was held in Baltimore, USA, from
9 to 19 July 2000. The commission has not been able to meet since 1993 when in
Balamand, Lebanon, it drafted and published its last document in chronological
order on Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search
for Full Communion. The reason for this long delay is partly due to
the difficulties — especially regarding ownership or the use of places of
worship — that developed between Catholics and Orthodox in various Eastern
European countries in which the Greek Catholic Churches, suppressed under
Stalin, were re-established after the collapse of the communist regimes. The
internal difficulties which had arisen in various Orthodox Churches have also
largely contributed to the delay of the dialogue. However, the seven-year
period was not a period devoid of activity. Relations with the individual
Orthodox Churches continued, and the theme of theological dialogue was ever
present in the search for the right moment for a new meeting. In the meantime,
at the local level, fraternal relations and practical cooperation were urgently
sought out, wherever Catholics and Orthodox live together in the same place,
and especially where Eastern-rite Catholics and Orthodox of the same ecclesial
and cultural tradition live side by side.
The Orthodox Churches have always
criticized the Catholic Church for the so-called method of
"uniatism". This problem has also arisen in the current theological
dialogue, ever since the first meeting (1980). Moreover, it was present in the
common preparatory document for the dialogue entitled: Plan for the Initiation
of Dialogue, agreed upon by a joint Catholic-Orthodox Committee in 1978. In
this document, the issue was placed in the context of the dialogue of charity
which has in any case always been connected with the theological dialogue. The
preparatory document for the dialogue says: "The dialogue of charity must
always accompany theological dialogue, so that the solution of problems may be
facilitated and the deepening of fraternal relations between the two Churches
reinforced, at both local and general levels. It would therefore be useful to
reconsider such unpleasant situations as, for example, those of 'uniatism',
proselytism, etc. In general, theological dialogue can only be fruitful if it
takes place in an atmosphere of love, humility and prayer".
The theme of uniatism was
initially treated in this perspective, first at Freising (1990), and then at
Balamand (1993), because the immediate post-communist period proved rather
tense. In the Balamand session the commission published the document cited above
on uniatism, which was based on three explicitly stated
principles, and offered a series of recommendations for brotherly behaviour
between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
The three principles are: a) the
agreement on the refusal of uniatism as a method of achieving unity (n. 2); b)
the common recognition of the right to existence and to pastoral action of the
Eastern Catholic Churches (n. 3); c) the affirmation of the inviolable freedom
of persons and the universal obligation to follow the dictates of their own
conscience (n. 15).
The practical recommendations of
the second part not only tended to peaceful coexistence among the communities,
but even pastoral cooperation. However, long-standing problems which even
became unconscious attitudes are difficult to resolve in a short time, above
all psychologically. Thus tension continued. Then when it became possible to
convoke the dialogue commission once again, the Orthodox asked that a new,
rather theological aspect of the issue be examined: "The
Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism". This was
the theme addressed in Baltimore. The Catholic members were almost all present,
whereas five of the 15 Orthodox Churches that make up the Orthodox delegation
were absent: the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia and the
Church of the Czech and Slovak Republics.
The discussion sought to identify
and confront the ecclesiological reasons for the existence of the Eastern
Catholic Churches. The Orthodox denied that any exist, because the presence of
the Orthodox Church in a given place would not justify the existence of another
Church of the same tradition. For Catholics, communion with the See of Rome is
necessary for general ecclesial communion. The Eastern Catholic Churches, by
their existence, affirm this principle of ecclesiology of the first millennium.
The issue of the origin of the Eastern Catholic Churches is therefore connected
with that of the primacy and the need for full communion. In brief, a solution
of this matter will be found in the agreement to be sought with the Orthodox
concerning the role of the Bishop of Rome in Christ's Church. Unfortunately, no
agreement was reached in Baltimore. The communiqué released to the press is
explicit: "Thediscussions of this plenary sessionwerefar-reaching,
intense and thorough.... However since agreement was not reached on the basic
theological concept of uniatism, it was decided not to make a common statement
at this time".
The communiqué contains other
important assertions: a) "The commission sees the need for further study
of the theological, pastoral, historical and canonical questions related to
this issue"; b) the commission "understands well the complexity of
the problems that are to be solved and at the same time the importance of
dialogue for the Churches"; c) the commission "hopes that through
this process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion
between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches". Lastly there is an appeal to
the Churches in dialogue. The communiqué adds: "Members will report to
their Churches which will indicate how to overcome this obstacle for the
peaceful continuation of the dialogue".
Nevertheless, the Baltimore
session was not useless. It made explicit the true nature of the disputed
problem. And the exact knowledge of the terms of the disputed problem
facilitates, sooner or later, its solution.
The Joint Commission challenged
the Churches in dialogue. On behalf of Catholics, the Holy Father made several
preliminary comments on the result of the meeting. Through the Catholic
delegation led by Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy, who went to the Phanar (30
November 2000) for the feast of St Andrew the Apostle, St Peter's brother, he
sent a festive Message to the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew I.
First of all, the Holy Father
stressed the importance of the fact that the meeting took place. "Such a
meeting is in itself an important event, which was an occasion to emphasize the
complexity of the issues being studied; to our deep regret, however, we must
note that it did not allow us to make any real progress in our dialogue".
Secondly, the Pope emphasized
that "the commission appropriately drew attention to the need to
continue the dialogue and to seek more suitable ways to explain and
examine the questions under discussion".
The Pope therefore
reconfirmed the Catholic Church's commitment: "I can
assure Your Holiness that I am determined to continue the dialogue of truth and
charity".
Not only this, but he made an
appeal "to the Catholic and Orthodox faithful to intensify and
strengthen their fraternal relations wherever they live, with concern
for mutual and trusting respect". He urged the local Churches to encourage
"close and disinterested collaboration between the Catholic
Church and the Orthodox Churches, avoiding any acts or gestures which might
constitute forms of pressure or even give that impression". In this
regard, the, Pope assured the Patriarch that "this desire and orientation
have been expressed to the particular Catholic Churches so that they will be
firmly committed in this direction".
In the Holy Father's reflections,
the dialogue of charity and theological dialogue are closely interwoven. It is
clearly demonstrated by the dialogue's history. When dialogue is not prompted
by charity or motivated by prayer, it becomes arid and perhaps a source of new
divisions.
To underline certain expression sin
the dialogue of charity, prayer and fraternal ecclesial relations formulated this
past year, it should be remembered that almost all the Orthodox Churches agreed
to send delegations to Rome for the Jubilee, especially for the two major
ecumenical celebrations: the opening of the Holy Door at St
Paul-Outside-the-Walls (18 January 2000) and the "Ecumenical Commemoration
of Witnesses to the Faith in the 20th Century" (7 May 2000).
The path of theological dialogue
involves the history of the various Churches and their different theological,
spiritual and disciplinary traditions through their individual believers'
awareness. That is why the process of dialogue, being so delicate, often has to
move slowly. Ultimately the restoration of full unity is the work of the Holy
Spirit who opens believers to the whole Truth. In his Apostolic Letter Novomillennio
ineunte John Paul II "puts out into the deep" upon the ocean
of faith. He writes: "I look with great hope to the Eastern Churches, and
I pray for a full return to that exchange of gifts which enriched the Church of
the first millennium. May the memory of the time when the Church breathed with
'both lungs' spur Christians of East and West to walk together in unity of
faith and with respect for legitimate diversity, accepting and sustaining each
other as members of the one Body of Christ".
Source: L'Osservatore Romano, weekly edition in
English, 11 April 2001, page 10.
Online: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/dialogue-with-the-orthodox-2363
***
Orthodox-Catholic relations
at an impasse after Baltimore talks
— Aug. 9,
2000
‘Bitter
differences’ lead to dead-end, Polish ecumenist says
by Jonathan Luxmoore,
Ecumenical News International
[WARSAW] High-level talks between
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which ended in the United States
recently were marred by “methodological deficiencies” and a “polemical
atmosphere,” leaving relations between the two Christian communions at a dead-end,
according to an expert on ecumenism who took part.
Professor Waclaw Hryniewicz, a
Catholic theologian and director of the Ecumenical Institute at Poland’s
Catholic University of Lublin, said that the leaders of Catholic and Orthodox
churches now appeared “unwilling or hesitant” to recognize their churches as
“sister churches.” Future ecumenical dialogue would depend on better relations
at the local level, particularly in Eastern Europe.
“I’m disappointed — I was
expecting a healthy compromise worthy of the name,” Hryniewicz told ENI.
“This meeting was not in vain. But when there’s a conflict between two
(partners acting in good faith), you have to reach a compromise. The fact that we
couldn’t explains why there was no joint declaration.”
The 64-year-old ecumenist was
speaking to ENI after attending the eighth plenary of the Joint International
Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church, which ended on July 19 in Baltimore without producing the
expected joint declaration on progress between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic
churches.
The two communions have much in
common, but must resolve several bitter differences, including the issue of
papal primacy, before they can come any closer to one another.
Hryniewicz said Roman Catholic
negotiators had wanted to retain the term “sister churches” to describe the
relationship between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. However, the use
of the term sister churches in past documents of the commission had been
rejected as “insufficiently thought over” by most Orthodox churches, while
Roman Catholics had also now acknowledged that it “posed certain difficulties.”
The commission’s 10-day meeting
was devoted to a key issue of dispute between Orthodox and Catholics — the
“ecclesiological and canonical implications of Uniatism.” The gathering was the
commission’s first plenary session in seven years.
A communique released at the end
of the Baltimore meeting stated that participants had expressed “reserve and
even outright opposition” to documents prepared for the meeting. Participants
at the meeting agreed that further studies were needed of “theological,
pastoral, historical and canonical issues” arising from the “exceptionally
thorny question of Uniatism.”
Uniatism refers to the historical
process by which Orthodox communities accepted the jurisdiction of Rome, but
retained their eastern liturgy. The process, which gathered momentum after the
1596 Union of Brest, continued for two centuries, during which more than a
dozen Greek Catholic (also called Eastern Catholic) churches were created in
Ukraine, Romania and other countries, in the face of vigorous opposition from
the Orthodox Church.
Hryniewicz told ENI that the
atmosphere at the Baltimore talks had been “generally tense” because of the
complexity of the issues and some personal animosities. He added that Orthodox
delegates had had to “argue hard among themselves, sometimes exceeding the
rules of courtesy.” The Roman Catholic co-chairman of the talks, Cardinal
Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had at one
point staged a walkout.
“Besides difficult moments like
this, caused by the very polemical atmosphere, the talks also lacked sound
methodological organization,” Hryniewicz said. “Such discussions should be led
in an intelligent, orderly way. If the method had been better, we could have
expected better results.”
He said that Uniatism continued
to provoke “deep divisions” among Orthodox churches, adding that some Orthodox
participants had had difficulty “tolerating” the presence of a Romanian Greek
Catholic bishop at the talks.
Some Greek Catholics had recently
shown “definite signs” of a more conciliatory attitude towards Orthodoxy,
although Orthodox leaders were still reluctant to acknowledge the past
sufferings of the Greek Catholic churches, said Professor Hryniewicz. “These
are historical complexities which require a neutral, objective approach. The
Orthodox expect a deeper understanding from Catholics, but this must apply to
both sides. No one knows how long it will take to achieve agreement. But an
honest, sincere and patient dialogue is the only way to go about it.”
Disputes over the revival of
Greek Catholic communities in Eastern Europe, most of which were suppressed
under communist rule, have dominated the official relationship between the
Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches over the past decade.
At a press conference on July 19,
Cardinal Cassidy said that Uniatism had become the “real core” of
Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, but it was too “complicated and involved” to allow
an “easy solution.”
The commission’s Orthodox
co-chairman, Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, said he believed the issue was
connected with the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, both of which were
unacceptable in their present form to the Orthodox.
In his interview with ENI,
Hryniewicz said that points of agreement that seemed acceptable to Roman
Catholic theologians were often deemed unacceptable by those “representing the
Catholic Church officially.” He said further ecumenical progress would depend
on “local improvements” in Catholic-Orthodox ties in Eastern Europe. A decision
to establish a joint inter-church commission in Ukraine, taken during a recent
visit by Cardinal Cassidy to Moscow, was a “very encouraging sign.”
“If acts of proselytism cease,
and good, local relationships emerge, this would enormously contribute to
improving the general situation,” Hryniewicz told ENI. “The commission members
must now report back to their churches, who will try to offer solutions capable
of ensuring the dialogue’s peaceful continuation. The future depends on both
sides — although we seem to have reached a dead-end, the situation isn’t yet
entirely desperate.”
Hryniewicz, who also holds the
Catholic University’s chair in Orthodox theology, was one of three Polish
delegates at the Baltimore talks. In interview with ENI in April this year, he
provoked international controversy by calling on Greek Catholics to rediscover
their eastern traditions and to open a “sincere dialogue” with Orthodoxy.
A Polish Orthodox delegate to the
talks, Archbishop Jeremiasz of Wroclaw-Szczecin, said he recognized that the
“ecclesiological status” of Greek Catholic churches affected “key elements” of
Roman Catholic teaching. But he also agreed that the Baltimore talks had been
marred by a lack of “organizational care.” Archbishop Jeremiasz said that the
term “sister churches” had been used “over enthusiastically.” But he did not
believe either side had rejected it.
“I don’t think the talks were a
failure — only that they marked a very difficult phase, in which official views
appear to have triumphed,” the 56-year-old archbishop told ENI. “Some
participants have begun to harden their positions self-defensively, while
external non-church factors have also exerted too much influence. But, given
sufficient will and theological freedom, as well as improved procedures, the
dialogue should continue.”
Source: https://ecumenism.net/2000/08/orthodox-catholic-relations-at-an-impasse-after-baltimore-talks.htm
***
"Realistically, and with
just a few ambiguous exceptions, Balamand was not truly accepted, either by
Catholics or by Orthodox. Only the Romanian Orthodox Church officially approved
it. The Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Antioch, rather disposed to do
so, finally decided to cautiously wait in the face of Moscow’s reserve and the
rejection by Athens and Jerusalem. The reservations sometimes came from the suspicion
that the Church of Rome was not sincere in its commitment to no longer support uniatism.
Rome for its part went back and forth, from a clear position in favour of it to
another more nuanced. Even the Eastern Catholic Churches involved assumed
attitudes that varied between excessive enthusiasm and a clear rejection."
Source: M. Jalakh, "Ecclesiological
Identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches," Roma, Pontifical
Oriental Institute, 2014, p. 237.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.