The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the
communion of the Churches
in the First Millenium *
[In view of the 14th Meeting of the
Joint International Committee
for the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue in Chieti
, Italy (15-22.9.2016)]
Protopresbyter
Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos
Rector of the Parish of St. Nicholas
of
the Diocese of Patra
mob: +30-6945-377621, agotsopo@gmail.com
From the careful study of the acts and decisions of
the Ecumenical Synods we can define with certainty the place of the Church of
Rome and her bishop within the communion of all the local Churches during the
era of the Ecumenical Synods:
A. The Church and Bishop of Rome
1. The increased prestige and
exceptional honor which was conferred upon the Church of Rome is clear. Consequently
the Church also recognized a primacy of honor and as the first see in the order
of that which was associated with the exceptional dignity of the Patriarchal
Thrones. The reasons are clear: a) It was the Church of “glorious Rome”, the
capital of the empire, b) it was active in spiritual life and carried out a
pastoral care for the local Churches which surrounded it and c) it was the only
city in the Latin west which had received the presence and preaching of the
First Leaders of the Choir of the Apostles who had been martyred there and
whose tombs wee located in Rome.
2. In particular, the Church
of Rome could boast of its apostolic lineage from the “leaders of the Apostolic
choir” [Sts. Peter and Paul] which came to later be limited to [a lineage from
St. Peter alone] and expressed with the term “petrine”. It is necessary to note however that in none
of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils is attribution of any dignity or rank
of honor to the Church of Rome connected with her apostolic origins which
otherwise is considered a given.
3. In the East, the meaning of
apostolicity was defined differently and thus acquired a different
significance. At the same time however, the entire Church accepted apostolicity
not as the exclusive privilege of Rome ,
but as something belonging also to the thrones in the East which were
accordingly honored with special privileges.
4. The ancient Church —in both
the East and the West— had recognized a primacy of honor and dignity; but
not a primacy of authority (of superior jurisdiction) over the entire Church.
The occasional attempts on the part of Roman agents to add to the pre-eminence
of honor a primacy of authority, of “petrine” origin, was not even something
undertaken by the majority of the bishops of Rome and it was certainly not the
set and constant ecclesiological position of the whole Latin Church of the West
in the time of the Ecumenical Synods.
5. Whenever a major issue of
faith and ecclesiastical order came to be disputed, every bishop, but even more
so the bishop of “glorious Rome ”,
possessed not only the inalienable right but even had it as a duty incumbent
upon him to intervene in the workings of another local Church. This practice
was considered completely acceptable during the first eight centuries of
Christianity. Indeed, in exceptional circumstances, ecclesiastical unity was
not necessarily always preserved by him who possessed the leadership or the
throne with seniority of rank, but by the one who in a particular circumstance
expressed the true faith; he was considered possessor of the “primacy of truth”.
This is what happened with St. Cyril at the 3rd Ecumenical Synod as well as
with St. Leo at the 4th. On the other hand, when the bishop of Rome showed himself unworthy of his episcopal
ministry, churches in the East but also in the West could and did sever
communion with him.
B. The Bishop of Rome
and the Ecumenical Synods
1. The Ecumenical Synods
constituted for the ancient Church the crowning moments of her history
revealing her unity in the Truth. Similarly, the ancient Church established
with the utmost clarity that the highest authority in the Church could not be a
single person, but only the Ecumenical Synod, an institution whose decisions
demanded universal respect.
2. The power to convoke an
Ecumenical Synod belonged exclusively to the emperor who was also responsible
for set the agenda. Certainly, it was
imperative that he consult with the first-hierarchs of the Churches and most
importantly with the bishops of Rome
and Constantinople . But the fact that the
bishop of Rome
was the first see in Christendom gave him no right either to set the agenda of
the Council, nor did he possess the power of veto its decisions.
3. At none of the Ecumenical
Councils was the reigning pope personally present, but in most cases he was
represented by a delegation of clergy. In addition, at none of the Synods did
his delegation preside. The fifth Ecumenical Synod has particular significance
for the question of the role of Pope of Rome within the communion of the Church
since in addition to the question of the Three Chapters, it pronounced
[indirectly] on this question [by] condemning Pope Vigilius after his
unjustified refusal to meet in council with the other Patriarchs. For the
ancient Church in both the East and the West, the pope was subject to synodal
judgment and authority in not only matters of faith but also in those regarding
the canonical order of the Church.
4. The main role of the bishop
of Rome in the
Ecumenical Synods as first-throne among the Patriarchs was to formulate in his
dogmatic epistle, which in a way operated as the central proposal for the
Synod, the Orthodox faith and ecclesiastical tradition regarding the
theological controversy at hand, and on the basis of which the synodal
discussions were carried out. Consequently, the position of the pope of Rome in the time of the
Ecumenical Synods was within the Synods and not above them. Only under the
presupposition of his participation in the procedures of the synod was the pope
recognized as “head and father and first” of the bishops and patriarchs
gathered together; he does not simply make a pronouncement which the others
then obey, but “he confers… together with all”.
C. The bishop of Rome
in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods
1. The Church sought by means
of the Ecumenical Synods to confront the distortion of the Orthodox faith and
the disturbance of ecclesiastical unity produced by heresy. It is obvious that
the participation, agreement, and presence of the bishop of Rome and consequently of the Church “until
the climes of the ocean” in the synodal decisions was required in order to
maintain unity and to prevent the creation of schisms. In this way, when it was
successful, the Fathers of the synod would express their joy and enthusiasm
with great intensity.
2. The Ecumenical Synod pronounced
from a place of absolute authority without depending on the will or decisions
of any individual persons. And this practice was universally accepted by the
ancient Church of both East and West.
Thus decisions were made in the absence of the bishop of Rome or even in spite of
his outright opposition. Moreover, even in cases where his suggestions were
accepted, they were first examined by the Synod, compared to the ecclesiastical
tradition and only when synodal agreement was secured would they be accepted.
The position of the ancient Church has been
recorded in an official and categorical manner in the “synodal decree”, the “Horos” of the 5th Ecumenical Synod: “During the common
deliberations, the light of truth dissipates the darkness of falsehood, once
teach of the things suggested for discussion are placed under judgment. Because
in matters of faith, no one has the right to go forward on behalf of the entire
Church since all of us have need of our neighbor”. It would be no exaggeration for us to say that the 5th
Ecumenical Synod, in the Holy Spirit, foresaw the development of the West and
censured dogmatically in an explicit and forthright manner Vatican I’s dogma of
papal infallibility. According to the
Synod, the pope cannot be infallible, either ex sese or ex consensus
Ecclesia.
3. The primacy of the bishop
of Rome but
similarly the equality of the five Patriarchs is testified to historically by
the “stamps of signature” on the synodal decisions. All of the
patriarchs as well as the bishop sign stamp or seal and in a unified fashion in
agreement with the ranking of honor among the patriarchal Thrones. Certainly,
the bishop of Rome
signed first as the first-throne of the Ecumene [the empire or civilized
world]. The pope never contested that he should be granted a special type of
signature.
D. The bishop of Rome
and the Sacred Canons
1. The holy Canons as
decisions of the Ecumenical Synods reflect as well as formulate the ethos and
practice of the Catholic Church. Consequently, disdain for their ecumenical
authority and validity is unacceptable.
2. The basic canons which
refer to the seniority of honor of the primates of the patriarchal Churches are
the 6th and 7th
canon of Nicaea
I, the 3rd canon of Constantinople
I, the 28th canon of Chalcedon
and the 36th canon of Constantinople III (Penthekti). The defining canon
concerning the position of the bishop of Rome
in the ancient Church is the 28th canon of Chalcedon which interprets the 3rd
canon of Constantinople I and constitutes the
basis for the 36th canon of Constantinople III. The importance of
the 28th canon of Chalcedon
is guaranteed by its content but
also in its means of promulgation a.)
Regarding the content: it gives
canonical weight to the seniority of rank of Rome, granting to Constantinople
“the same rank” as that of Rome, but at the same time, it places under
contention the most crucial point upon which the supremacy of the papal throne
over against the other patriarchal thrones rests---according to Rome: petrine
apostolicity and the granting of petrine authority by divine law over the
entire Church. b.) As regards the means
of promulgation: The categorical opposition and the intense reaction of Leo
the Great in Rome
not only did not invalidate this canon, nor did it even take away from its
canonical weight, strength, or ecumenical character. This is self-evident in
ecclesiastical order since it was unthinkable to the ancient Church that
decision of a synod, and especially that of an Ecumenical Synod, could be
invalidated by a local Church or by a single person. Not even the pope of Rome was recognized as
having the right to approve or reject synodal decisions. On the contrary, he
too was obligated to comply.
3. The Roman understanding
which pope Leo the Great firmly supported concerning the “petrine” and apostolic character of the
Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and the supposed conferral of an
exceptional dignity upon these sees never obtained any canonical foundation nor
did it exercise any effect upon the life of the ancient Church. Even in Rome
these ideas were never put into practice and were quickly abandoned.
E. The bishop of Rome
in the East and West: “The Principle of Unity in Diversity?”
In the official Theological
Dialogue of the Orthodox Church and Rome ,
it has been suggested that the “principle of unity in diversity” can provide a
means of overcoming the impasse which the papal dogmas have created. This
suggestion, according to its proponents, is based on the decision of the Synod
of Constantinople in 879-880[1],
but as it is currently formulated, it in essence merely carries out the program
of the Decree “concerning Ecumenism”[2] from
the Second Vatican Council[3]
and seeks the unity of the Churches in spite of differences in dogma. In the
other words, the Western Christians will accept their dogma concerning St.
Peter and the dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility as they have been
formulated by the first and second Vatican Councils, without however demanding
their imposition upon the Eastern Church, so that the Orthodox are not required
to accept them as long as they do not characterize them as an heretical falling
away from the ancient faith and practice of the Church. This was Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI came to formulate this proposal.[4]
According to this view, the ancient Church governed itself this way: the West
accepted the papal primacy of authority without imposing it upon the East and
the East tolerated this difference of Western practice without condemning it as
an ecclesiological aberration; East and West believed differently but in spite
of this, we remained in full ecclesiastical communion[5]. Put
another way, “legitimate diversity is in no way opposed to
the Church's unity, but rather enhances her splendor and contributes greatly to
the fulfillment of her mission”[6].
Before we proceed to our
necessary and brief critique of this suggestion it is necessary to understand
its true implications. Particularly revealing on this point is the speech which
Pope John Paul II gave to the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs (Uniates) in 29/9/1998 .
Among other things, he said
to the Uniate Patriarchs: “I ask you to give the Pope your help in the name
of that responsibility for re-establishing full communion with the Orthodox
Churches (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 24) which belongs to you as
Patriarchs of Churches that share so much of the theological, liturgical,
spiritual and canonical patrimony with Orthodoxy. In this same spirit and for
the same reason, I would like your Churches to be fully associated with the
ecumenical dialogues of charity and of doctrine at both the local and universal
levels”. And the pope continues, “The particular role of the Eastern Catholic Churches [he means here the
Uniates] corresponds to the one left
unfilled by the lack of full communion with the Orthodox Churches. Both the
Second Vatican Council’s Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the Apostolic
Constitution Sacri canones (pp. IX-X) which accompanied the publication of the
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches have pointed out how the present
situation, and the rules governing it, look towards the full communion we
desire between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Your collaboration with the
Pope and with one another will show the Orthodox Churches that the tradition of
‘synergy’ between Rome and the Patriarchates has been maintained — although
limited and wounded — and perhaps also strengthened for the good of the one
Church of God present throughout the world”[7].
The above texts shows
clearly how Rome desires and seeks—despite its assurances to the contrary[8]—full
communion obtained with Orthodoxy on the basis of an enhanced version of the
Unia[9]
which can also include the Orthodox[10].
Toward this aim, the contribution of the principle “diversity in unity” is
formative[11],
despite the fact that is it neither historically proven nor theologically
acceptable as presented here.
The study of the acts and
decisions of the Ecumenical Synods demonstrates as historically fabricated the
contention that in the ancient Church of the first millennium the East and
West held different beliefs about the position of the bishop of Rome . On the contrary, we
see clearly that in spite of the fact
that Church of Rome’s lineage from St. Peter was recognized, even the
Western-Latin Church never accepted any form of papal supremacy of jurisdiction
(primacy of authority) over the entire Church, nor did it recognize the pope as
possessor of an exclusive right to articulate the faith, never mind any form of infallibility. We remind the
reader succinctly of:
1. The papal legates accepted
the synodal vetting of the papal dogmatic epistles of Leo the Great, St. Agathon, and St. Adrian to determine if they were in
accord with the ecclesiastical tradition.
2. The views of St Leo the
Great against canon 28 of Chalcedon
were not even accepted by his [immediate] successors and were abandoned in the West until the time
of the Schism.
3. The refusal of the latin
bishops of the west to accept pope Vigillius’ decisions concerning the faith
and consequently his repeated condemnations by Western Synods (both before and
after the 5th Ecumenical Synod).
4. The expressed
self-understanding of the same pope Vigilius who did not once claim to possess some alleged
superior authority derived from divine right or ‘petrine’ authority which meant
that the Church and the rest of the Patriarchs ought to be subject to him.
Additionally, pope Vigilius never accused the Synod of being contrary to the
canons or invalid simply because of his disagreement or absence. On the
contrary, he explicitly promised that he would conform to the decision of the
Synod concerning the faith and considered its decision to censure him as just.
5. The convocation of the
Synod of 125 bishops from all of the regions of the jurisdiction of the
Patriarchate of Rome under the presidency of pope St. Agatho in order to refute
and pronounce on the heresy of monothelitism shows in practice the firm
ecclesiological ethos of the ancient Church of Rome. It is indicative how the
Synod of Rome mentions that they came to together with great labor “from the
climes of the ocean” in order to consult in Synod so that “that our
humble suggestion might proceed from a council of wide-spread influence, lest
if only a part were cognizant of what was being done, it might escape the
notice of a part”[12].
6. The cooperation of Rome in the condemnation
of Pope Honorius at the 6th Ecumenical Synod.
7. The West accepted the
decisive role of the emperor in the procedures of the Synod and never insisted
on presiding through the papal “apocrisarii” at the Ecumenical Synods or at the
local Synods in the West [tr.: a greek
term for a high ranking ecclesiastical deputy or similar official]
8. A series of canons from
local Synods and the Holy Fathers approved by the 2nd canon of
Constantinople III and the 1st canon of Nicaea II show that that
ancient Latin Church of the West recognized, just like the East, that the
Church of Rome and her bishop were to be given great reverence and possessed a
primacy of honor, but not a primacy of jurisdiction or an infallibility in
defining matters of faith: for example, the Acts of the Synods of Carthage in
Latin-speaking north Africa as well as their decisions to forbid final appeals
to Rome, or the dispute between pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian about the
baptism of heretics all demonstrate this.
9. Finally, the conclusion of
the letter of the Synod of Carthage already expresses the danger which the
Latin Fathers of North Africa foresaw in the first demands of Rome to extend
her jurisdiction in judging the bishops of Africa: “As for executors,
therefore, though they have been demanded by some for our Clerics, do not send
us any, nor grant us any, lest we seem to be introducing a cloud of smoke from
the world into the Church of Christ, which offers the light of simplicity and
the day of humility to those who desire to see God”[13].
All of the above demonstrate that in the Western Church in the time of the Ecumenical
Synods recognized no “petrine primacy” or “petrine function of unity”
nor any supreme authority over the entire Church or the ability to pronounce
infallibly on matters of faith. The occasional expressions of papal
representatives or of certain papal epistles which explicitly demand some kind
of primacy of authority were never representative of the understanding of the
whole Western Church nor did they reflect western theology within the
patriarchate of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Synods. Hence, we can
see that during the first eight centuries of the life of the Church, East and West held to identical views
concerning the basic ecclesiological principles which governed the role of the
patriarchal Churches including that of the bishop of Rome .
Neverthless, even if we did suppose that there existed
an important difference in views between East and West during the first eight
centuries regarding the essence and role of the primacy of honor of the bishop
of Rome — a fact which as we have demonstrated cannot be proven from the acts
and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods—we would stress that the reality we live
today is completely different. After the First and Second Vatican Councils we
have —according to Rome —
fundamental dogmas of faith which belong to the “essential and unchanging
structure of the Church”[14]
and those who deny them are anathematized by the “ecumenical” Synod of Vatican
I and this remains the case with the “ecumenical” Synod of Vatican II.
Consequently, the attempt on the part of certain
theologians to present the papal dogmas of Vatican I as having the same
intended meanings as some declarations of papal legates or papal epistles in the
early Church are clearly misleading.
Additionally, the implementation of the “principle of
diversity in unity” not merely in ecclesiastical customs of minor importance,
but in the realm of basic
ecclesiological dogmas which touch upon the very structure and being of the
Church ecclesiologically unacceptable. If, according to the papal ecclesiology
of Vatican
I, the denial of the papal dogmas is evidence of a serious ecclesiological
deficiency[15]
then we do not have a Church
of Christ , because a
Church with ecclesiological deficiencies is completely unthinkable! Moreover,
it is unthinkable that the western part of this “united Church” being
established (?) can consider as ecclesiologically fundamental the dogmas
concerning St. Peter and papal primacy and infallibility (as articulated by
Vatican I and II) while the eastern portion denies them. Never in the life of
the Church of Christ were dogmas considered obligatory
for the faithful of a particular region (or ritual) while another region was
given the ability to deny them. It is
not comprehensible how we can belong to the same “united Church” where the
Westerners must accept as a dogma of the faith necessary for salvation that the
pope is infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra while the rest of the faithful
are free to categorically deny this.
It is obviously unthinkable that the Orthodox Church
could accept the principle of “diversity in unity” as it has been articulated
recently and equally so the proposal stemming from it formulated by the
then-Cardinal Ratzinger, later pope Benedict XVI.
Hence if the “principle of diversity in unity” as it
has been presented in recent years, cannot be implemented to achieve the
much-desired union of East and West, what would a suitable proposal look like
for the overcoming of the division among Christians? I think the only hope for
the restoration of ecclesiastical unity lies exclusively honest repentance
alone; an honest repentance which presupposes and at the same time is realized
only by a return in humility to the basic theological principles and
presuppositions with the which the Church lived by in the time of the
Ecumenical Synods. Humility will draw divine Grace and then unity will be
achieved not by an untried, diplomatic compromise that relies on ambiguity of dogmatic
expression which will only contribute to further bitterness and problems, but
instead divine Grace will achieve the real and genuine “unity of faith and
communion of the Holy Spirit”.
* This article is the
conclusions of the master's thesis entitled "The Church of Rome and its bishop in the minutes and
decisions of the Ecumenical Councils", 2016, p. 400.
[1] MANSI 17, 489B : “The
holy synod said, each throne has ancient
traditional customs, and concerning
these there should be no disputation or quarreling one with another. The Church
of the Romans guards her customs and this is fitting, while the Church of
Constantinople guards her own customs which she has received from above and all
of the sees of the East do in like manner”. The Synod however, as it mentions later, speaks about mass ordinations
and not about the crucial theological issues which have implications for the
very structure and essence of the Church
and the faith such as the papal
doctrines about Rome.
[2] For a detailed analysis
from an Orthodox perspective of UR, see Fr. Peter Alban Heers, The
Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s
Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church, Uncut Mountain Press.
Simpsonville, 2015.
[3] “We can say without reservation that at
the heart of the Decree we encounter the issue of unity and diversity. And even
though the issue is raised explicitly in the three chapters of the text,
nevertheless it emerges as mean of reading and comprehending the entire text”,
See W. Henn, “At the Heart of Unitatis Redintegratio. Unity in Diversity”,
Gregorianum 88(2007) 2, 330. “Decree on
Ecumenism”, §16-18, found online at <http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html>: “16. Already from the earliest times the
Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom,
which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods,
and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church's
unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her
splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been
stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly
declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity
of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the
disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of
their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of
this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of
the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity. 17. What has just
been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be
taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine”,
See also Ut Unum Sint § 57. The proposal
of “unity in diversity” is put forth as the basis for the union of all
Christians by Pope Leo XIII. The Synod of Constantinople answer him in 1895 in
a letter contained in Karmiris’ collection of dogmatic documents, vol. 2, p.
934. [tr. An English translation is
available online at the “Orthodox Christian Information Center <http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx>].
[4] According to J. Ratzinger
: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of
primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . .
. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on
the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that
took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic
Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of
that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church
of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had”,
From his Principles of Catholic Theology,
San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
The suggestion of the then-Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland is in
the same vein («Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»[“What is permanent and
what is changeable in the petrine ministry. Thoughts from an Orthodox perspective”], Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 508, D.
Papandreou, “Ein Beitrag zur Uberwindung der Trennung zwischen der
romisch-katholischen und der orthdoxen Kirche” found in Vasilios von Aristi,
Das Papsamt: Dienst oder Hindernis für die Ökumene? Regensburg 1985, p. 162, 166-167), τοῦ H. Scutte, in Chr. Savvatos (now Metropolitan of
Messinia), Τὸ παπικὸ πρωτεῖο στὸ διάλογο μεταξὺ Ὀρθοδόξων καὶ Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν [The
papal primacy in the dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics],
Athens 2006, p. 14 καὶ τοῦ E. Lanne, in Damaskinos’
article, «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως», Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981)
516-517.
With much pain we must say
some things about what Ratzinger has written: It is very tragic for an entire local
Church, the greatest, most glorious and the most famous of the first millennium
to have fallen into such confusion so that:
• it considers as positive theological developments and progress what
occurred in the second millennium regarding papal primacy.
• it considers as theological progress the denial of the
God-inspired, canonical, ecclesiastical order and tradition of the Ecumenical
Synods.
• it considers as theological progress a papal institution based on
forgeries from the Dark Ages (such as the false “Donation of Constantine”
and the Pseudo-Decretals of Isidore)(Cretan Draft on the Role of the
Pope, § 15) ! [Tr.: This refers to this
document on the role of the papacy produced by the Joint Coordinating Committee
for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox
Church in Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, September 27 - October 4, 2008: <<http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y>>]
I ask that these
observations not be taken as hostile or polemical against Roman Catholics, but
only as an expression of grief as well as concern and vigilance for us
Orthodox.
[5] The position is explicitly
formulated in “Cretan Draft on the Role of the Pope” in §§ 15, 22 and
especially in § 32 : “The experience of the first millennium profoundly
influenced the course of relations between the Churches of the East and the
West. Despite growing divergence and temporary schisms during this period,
communion was still maintained between West and East. The principle of
diversity-in-unity, which was explicitly accepted at the council of
Constantinople held in 879-80, has particular significance for the theme of
this present stage of our dialogue. Distinct divergences of understanding and
interpretation did not prevent East and West from remaining in communion. There
was a strong sense of being one Church, and a determination to remain in unity,
as one flock with one shepherd (cf. Jn 10:16). The first millennium, which has
been examined in this stage of our dialogue, is the common tradition of both
our Churches. In its basic theological and ecclesiological principles which
have been identified here, this common tradition should serve as the model for
the restoration of our full communion“.
Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou takes a similar position in «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως», Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 508.
[6] Encyclical Letter “Ut Unum
Sint: On Committment to Ecumenism“ of Pope John Paul II, 25 May 1995 , § 50, found online at <http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html>
[7] "Address of the Holy
Father Pope John Paull II To the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs," Tuesday,
29 September 1998 <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1998/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca.html>
[8] “The
Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the
Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All
these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until
such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come
together into complete unity”, Οrientalium Ecclesiarum, § 30 available online <http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_
council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html> The Synod “feels great” at the present work of the Unia…
[9] Concerning the Unia in the
theological dialogue with Rome see Th. Zisis, Οὐνία, Ἡ καταδίκη καὶ ἡ ἀθώωση
[Unia, Condemnation or Acquittal ], publ. Vryennios, Thessaloniki 2002, G. Kapsanis, «Οὐνία, Ἡ μέθοδος τοῦ παποκεντρικοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ»
[“Unia, The Method of Papal-centric Ecumenism”], Παρακαταθήκη [Heritage], 60(2008), 3-10. For an
historical approach to the Unia, see G.
Metallinos, D. Gonis, I. Fratseas, Eu. Morarou, Bishop Athanasios (Yevtits), Ἡ Οὐνία, χθὲς καὶ σήμερα [The Unia, yesterday and today] publ. Armos, Athens 1992. For a more extensive bibliography
regarding the Unia, cf. K. Kotsiopoulos, Ἡ Οὐνία στὴν Ἑλληνικὴ θεολογικὴ βιβλιογραφία [The Unia in Greek theological literature], publ. Vryennios, Thessaloniki 1993.
[10] It is characteristic that
Rome issued its decree “Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite”
as “a kind of ‘insurance’ that the restoration of communion with Rome will
not be carried out with any renunciation of elements of the non-Latin
ecclesiastical traditions”.
[11] Th. Zisis, «Ἡ οὐνία ὡς πρότυπο ψευδοῦς ἑνότητος. Τὰ ὅρια τῆς ποικιλομορφίας ἐν σχέσει πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα» [“The Unia as a model of
false unity. The limits of diversity in relation to unity”], - «Πρωτεῖον» Συνοδικότης καὶ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Πρακτικὰ Θεολογικῆς Ἡμερίδος [“Primacy” of Synodality and Unity of the Church, Acts of a Theological
Conference],
publ. The Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Piraeus 2011, p. 107-114.
[12] From the letter of Pope
Agatho read at the Third Synod of Constantinople, available here, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm>
[13] Tr. Translation taken from
the English edition of the Rudder available online: <http://www.holytrinitymission.org
/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm>
[14] Congregatio pro Doctrina
Fidei, Letter Communionis notio, § 17.
3 (28.5.1992), available online at
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html.
[15] “Unitatis Redintegratio:
Decree on Ecumenism” from the Second Vatican Council §3 found online here <http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html>. I. Maragou, Οἰκουμενικὰ Α΄[Ecumenical Topics, vol.
1], Athens 1986, p.33, as well as the 29/6/2007 response of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei) of
the Roman Curia, found online at <www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_200 70629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html>.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου