Protopresbyter
Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos
Rector of the Parish of St. Nicholas
of the Diocese of Patra
mob: +30-6945-377621, agotsopo@gmail.com
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)]
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.
Nevertheless,
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>.
Source and thanks to> http://www.impantokratoros.gr/5F105542.en.aspx
