Communiqué – St. Petersburg 2011
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met for its eighth session from 9-13 November 2011 in St. Petersburg at the invitation of the Russian Orthodox Church. The meeting was held on the premises of the Orthodox Theological Academy of St. Petersburg. Its aim was to deepen the understanding of primacy from a Catholic, Orthodox and ecumenical point of view. Dr. Gerhard Feige, bishop of Magdeburg and Catholic Co-president of the Working Group, opened the meeting by welcoming the participants which he did also on behalf of the Orthodox Co-president, Metropolitan John Yazigi, who was unable to attend for reasons of ill health.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group is made up of 26 theologians, 13 Orthodox and 13 Catholics, from a number of European countries and the United States. It was founded in 2004 at Paderborn (Germany) and has since met in Athens (Greece), Chevetogne (Belgium), Belgrade (Serbia), Vienna (Austria), Kiev (Ukraine) and Magdeburg (Germany). During the session in St. Petersburg, the members of the group again studied the definitions of the First Vatican Council relating to the primacy of the pope, and the Orthodox reactions to the Council in various regions (Russia, Middle East, Romania). They also examined the understanding of primacy as seen by the Russian Orthodox Church and discussed proposals from other study groups (the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, the Farfa Sabina Lutheran-Catholic study group) with a view to rapprochement on the issue of primacy. The Group summarised the results of its work in the form of the following theses.
It is fundamental for us as Catholics and Orthodox to use the instruments of the historical method in order to understand Vatican I. We can thus go beyond the frequent apologetic attitudes on both sides in the 19th and 20th centuries. We can also gain access to the meaning which the fathers at the Council intended to give to the documents adopted. In this respect, it is methodologically necessary to have recourse to the explanations which preceded the vote on those documents. Only thus it is possible to grasp the exact meaning of the wording intended by the Council.
The recourse to this historical method led us to make a number of observations.
Vatican I did not dogmatise the proposition “the Pope is infallible”; on the contrary, in a much longer definition it specified under which conditions the pope can express the doctrine of the Church in an infallible way.
The wording of the Council according to which papal definitions are irreversible “of themselves and not by the consent of the church (ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae)” does not mean that he can define a doctrine in isolation from the Church.
The decisions of Vatican I were strongly influenced by the political context – safeguarding the freedom of the local churches over against the state, and also by the cultural context. The progress made in archaeology, geology, history, etc. was questioning the traditional formulations of the faith; it was necessary to find a way of expressing it in the urgency of a new situation.
The Council experienced other limitations. Its interruption by the war introduced an unintentional imbalance into its ecclesiology: dealing with primacy independently of the episcopate and of the mystery of the Church more generally. Other limitations were a very specialised, canonical terminology susceptible of erroneous interpretation and a theology insufficiently informed by Holy Scripture and church history.
This same historical investigation leads one to observe that many of the receptions of Vatican I, especially maximalistic ones, were not faithful to the dogma itself when rightly understood. For example, the infallibility of the pope is not the source of the infallibility of the Church but the other way round. Another example is that the doctrinal statements of the pope do not claim infallibility apart from ex cathedra definitions.
The reception of Vatican I by the Second Vatican Council sketches out a new equilibrium that again values the episcopate and the communion of local churches. The decree Unitatis redintegratio, which shows specific openness to the Orthodox Churches, encourages a dialogue “on an equal footing” nourished by a historical approach. In addition, the encyclical Ut Unum Sint proposes a discussion on the forms which the exercise of Roman primacy could take in a reunited Church.
We note at the same time that questions of primacy in general are also not resolved in a satisfactory way by the Orthodox in their own view. Discussions are going on in the Orthodox Churches about the interpretation of the ancient canons relating to the role of the first see of the Church in relation to other sees, taking account of contemporary ecclesiastical realities.
Our interchange leads us to consider that separately we give unsatisfactory answers to the same question of primacy and primacies. It is our hope that together we can find solutions that are relevant to our times.
We are aware that the question of primacy has been taken up in numerous responses to the encyclical Ut Unum Sint. It is good that this central issue is being examined by a large number of ecumenical groups. In view of the disparity of interpretations of Vatican I, we feel the need to develop a hermeneutic able to interpret the text correctly and to chart a way towards full communion.
The document “Steps Towards a Reunited Church” produced by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation was discussed at length. The concreteness and pro-active nature of the text was appreciated. Today the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics needs people who have a vision of our future unity and are able to make realistic proposals for the achievement of that goal.
At the end of the meeting, Bishop Gerhard Feige thanked Bishop Amvrosij of Gatchina, the rector of the Theological Academy, for his hospitality and Father Dr. Vladimir Khoulap, the vice-rector of the Academy, for his assistance in organising this session. Dr. Johannes Oeldemann (Paderborn), the Co-secretary of the Working Group, expressed gratitude on behalf of all the participants to the “Renovabis” Foundation, the Russian Office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Russian-German Forum “Petersburg Dialogue” for their generous financial support. The next meeting of the Working Group is planned for the beginning of November 2012 at the monastery of Bose in Northern Italy.
Gemeinsamer orthodox-katholischer Arbeitskreis Sankt Irenäus
|
Orthodox Co-secretary: Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Loudovikos Hortiatis 57010 Greece / Griechenland Phone: +30-2310-348004 Telefax: +30-2310-300360 E-mail: nloudovikos@mail.gr |
Catholic Co-Secretary: Dr. Johannes Oeldemann Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut für Ökumenik Leostr. 19 a, 33098 Paderborn Germany / Deutschland Phone: +49-5251-8729804 Telefax: +49-5251-280210 E-Mail: J.Oeldemann@moehlerinstitut.de |
Communiqué – Magdeburg 2010
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met for its seventh session from 17th to 21st November 2010 in the Roncalli House in Magdeburg (Germany) at the invitation of its Catholic Co-president, Bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg. At the beginning of the session, the members were welcomed by Bishop Feige and the Orthodox Co-president of the Working Group, Metropolitan Dr. John Yazigi (Paris), the head of the European Diocese of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Bishop Feige described the situation of the Catholic Church in eastern Germany which, because of its markedly diaspora situation (only 4% of the population are Catholics, more than 80% belong to no Church or religious community), is faced with numerous pastoral challenges but also has very good ecumenical contacts with other Christians locally. This was also underlined by the fact that Provost Siegfried Kasparick from Wittenberg, the regional bishop of the Evangelical Church in Central Germany, participated in the opening session and presented words of greeting.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group is composed of 26 theologians, 13 Orthodox and 13 Catholics, from a number of European countries and the USA. It was established in 2004 at Paderborn (Germany), and has since then had meetings in Athens (Greece), Chevetogne (Belgium), Belgrade (Serbia), Vienna (Austria) and Kiev (Ukraine). In its Magdeburg meeting, the group continued its series of conversations which have been attempting to go chronologically through Church history to understand and analyze the development of the interrelationship between primacy and synodality in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Churches in terms of both theology and praxis.
Following on from the previous meeting in Kiev, where the Working Group had looked closely at the definitions of the First Vatican Council, the seventh meeting of the group focused mainly on the reception of the decisions of the First Vatican Council within the Catholic Church. Papers on this were given by Thomas Bremer (Muenster), Edward Farrugia (Rome), Basilius Groen (Graz) and Rudolf Prokschi (Vienna) followed by responses from Daniel Benga (Bucharest), Assaad Kattan (Muenster), Nikolaos Loudovikos (Thessaloniki) and Paul Meyendorff (New York). Grigorios Papathomas (Athens) submitted fundamental reflections on ecclesiology from a canonical point of view to which Hervé Legrand (Paris) responded. The results of this joint study were summarized in the following theses which describe a common view of the historical developments, but do not imply any consensus on the dogmatic evaluation of papal primacy or infallibility.
(1) For an adequate interpretation of the definitions of the First Vatican Council it is necessary to know the history of the document (“Textgeschichte”), especially the background that conditioned the choice of the terms used. In addition, the history of reception, i.e. the subsequent interpretation of the resolutions by the Catholic Church’s magisterium, is of normative significance for an adequate understanding of the Council’s teaching. Within the history of reception the Response of the German bishops to Bismarck’s Circular Dispatch of 1875 is of crucial importance, because it was received by Pius IX., the Pope who convened the Council, as an authentic interpretation of the Council. According to this document, the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope does not reduce the ordinary authority of the bishops, because the episcopate is based “on the same divine institution” as the papal office. Moreover papal infallibility covers “exactly the same domain as the infallible magisterium of the Church in general and is bound to the content of Holy Scripture and tradition and to the doctrinal decisions already adopted by the magisterium”.
(2) The teachings of Vatican I contained in the constitution “Pastor Aeternus” elicited objections by a significant number of bishops, priests and faithful in the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church, it was only after some years that the decisions of the Council were accepted by all the bishops in spite of continuing reservations. Some Catholic priests and laypeople who regarded the Council as a deviation from the tradition of the Church joined the Old Catholic Church which then had an intensive dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church. During these conversations, for example at the Bonn conferences in 1874 and 1875, it became clear that many differences between the Churches in East and West (e.g. the Filioque issue) can be solved more easily if they are discussed independently of the question of primacy.
(3) The group noted that Vatican I had little impact on liturgy in which the commemoration of the Pope was already an ancient tradition. One significant exception was the introduction of an oath of obedience which participants at a Diocesan Synod had to take in the opening service. Further significant developments were in the realm of religious popular culture where the focus on the person of the Pope increased greatly.
(4) The jurisdictional primacy of the Pope and papal infallibility are two different issues. The consequence of jurisdictional primacy was that the Roman See increased in importance in the following period. On the other hand, infallibility ex cathedra was resorted to only once by the Roman Popes in the 140 years which have passed since Vatican I, namely for the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven (1950).
(5) The First Vatican Council accelerated the centralization of the Catholic Church in many fields. For example, the conciliar teaching gave new life to the process of codifying canon law which culminated in the promulgation of the Codex Iuris Canonici in 1917 as binding on the whole Latin Church. Although the decisions of the Council clearly reinforced the authority of the Pope, this did not prevent the development of a certain diversity within the Catholic Church, even in central areas like liturgy (liturgical movement) and theology (nouvelle théologie).
(6) The increased respect of the Popes for the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches which can be observed after Vatican I (cf. the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII “Orientalium dignitas”, 1894) remained within a unionist framework which was unacceptable to the Orthodox and, also from today’s point of view, is not suitable to restore the communion between our Churches (cf. the encyclical of the same Pope “Satis cognitum”, 1896). Similar positions can also be found in official texts of Orthodox Churches of that time (cf. the encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople, 1895). These documents are based on an ecclesiology of “return” and illustrate a condescending attitude expressed by the conviction of each Church that it alone possesses the fullness of the truth and that the other Church is defective in some way. Neither side at that time was willing to genuinely consider the position of the other. The psychological, historical, sociological, and political perceptions that lie behind these statements have to be considered, a methodology which has been already fruitfully applied to our study of the documents of the First Vatican Council.
(7) On the Catholic and the Orthodox sides, there are different approaches to Canon Law and different understandings of the connection between Canon Law and the Church’s doctrine and practice. Therefore, we need a more detailed discussion of the hermeneutics of the canons – within the Churches and also between Orthodox and Catholics. For example the new situation of the Church in the third millennium requires further reflection on how the ancient Church canons should be interpreted contextually in a globalized world. One example is the question whether the term “polis” as used in can. 8 of the First Council of Nicaea can easily be applied to a large multicultural megalopolis of the 21st century.
(8) Nevertheless, the tradition of Nicaea is not only of historical significance but also offers important criteria for a future common ecclesiology: the overlapping of jurisdictions contradicts fundamental convictions of both Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiologies according to which there is only one single Church of Jesus Christ spread throughout the whole world. The existence of several local Churches on one and the same territory (“polyarchia”) contradicts the early Church principle that there should only be one bishop in one city (Council of Nicaea, can. 8). In addition to the Catholic Church, a whole series of Orthodox patriarchates today also claim worldwide jurisdiction over their faithful. Therefore, Orthodox and Catholics must endeavor to pay more attention to this early Church principle, also with a view to the possible reestablishment of full unity.
On behalf of the participants, the two co-secretaries, Nikolaos Loudovikos (Thessaloniki) and Johannes Oeldemann (Paderborn) thanked Bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige for the invitation to Magdeburg, the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference for their generous financial support and the diocese of Magdeburg for its support in organizing the conference. The next meeting of the Working Group will be held in November 2011.
Communiqué – Kiev 2009
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met from 4th to 8th November 2009 for its sixth session in Kiev at the invitation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). During a meeting with His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr of Kiev and all Ukraine the members of the group expressed their deep gratitude for the hospitality and the possibility to meet in the Monastery of the Caves.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group consists of 26 theologians, 13 Orthodox and 13 Catholic from different European countries and the USA. It was founded in Paderborn (Germany) in 2004 and has held meetings in Athens (Greece), Chevetogne (Belgium), Belgrade (Serbia) and Vienna (Austria). The theme of the Working Group’s sixth session was “The First Vatican Council – its historical context and the meaning of its definitions”. It continued the series of discussions examining the doctrine of primacy in the context of the concrete exercise of primacy. The results of the common studies were formulated in the following theses:
1. The definitions of the first Vatican Council can only be understood rightly if one takes into account their historical context, which had a strong influence on the formulation of the dogmas of the universal jurisdiction and the infallibility of the pope. The Catholic Church in Western Europe in the second half of the 19th century found itself confronted by three challenges: an ecclesiological challenge expressed primarily in Gallicanism, a political challenge from the increasing state control of the Church, and an intellectual challenge from developments in modern science.
2. In Gallicanism (from Gaul, meaning France) the conception of conciliarism, aiming at subordinating the pope to the council, was revived and transformed by emphasizing the autonomy of national churches. The Gallican ideas, especially widespread in France, took a similar form in Febronianism in Germany (named after Febronius, pseudonym of the auxiliary bishop of Trier, Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim). Both Gallicanism and Febronianism were condemned by the popes of that time.
3. In the political realm, the Catholic Church found itself confronted, on the one hand, by fundamental changes in the relationship between state and church, such as the rupture between throne and altar in Germany, the instrumentalisation of the church by the state in France and in the Habsburg empire (especially under Emperor Joseph II and hence known as “Josephism”), and the loss of papal territories in Italy which deprived the pope much of his freedom of action. On the other hand, the Church was confronted by a growing influence of liberalism, which was associated in many European countries with the strong anticlericalism of governments with a secular approach.
4. The intellectual challenge consisted in the development of the modern natural sciences, in the criticism of religion in philosophy and arts, and in the application of the historical-critical method to Holy Scripture. This challenge called for a reconsideration of the relationship between faith and reason.
5. In contrast to the challenges listed above, in the countries north of the Alps the ultramontane movement developed which emphasized the necessity of being guided by the pope who lived in Rome “beyond the mountains” (ultramontane). Under Gregory XVI (1831-46) and Pius IX (1846-78) the papacy itself became one of the main actors in the ultramontane movement.
6. The ultramontane movement, supported by the new possibilities of communication which made it possible for papal declarations to be received directly by a wide public, strengthened the emotional ties of the faithful with Rome. In addition, the central role of Rome was reinforced by the missionary expansion of that time which relativised the importance of national borders. Increasingly the pope became the primary figure symbolizing the Catholic Church with whom many Catholics worldwide identified themselves.
7. Ultramontanism was not only a movement of reaction but can also be considered a form of the Church’s adaptation to the constraints of modern society. Through a reorientation towards Rome, which led to a strengthening of the powers of the papacy, the Church tried to respond to the French Revolution and its consequences (the disappearance of the imperial state church, the re-drawing of the map of the French dioceses and the sacking of all their bishops).
8. Although the First Vatican Council was primarily a response to the phenomena in Western society which have been mentioned, one should not forget its Eastern dimension. The approach of the Christian East, which placed more emphasis on the rights of the local churches, was raised at the Council above all by the bishops of the Eastern Catholic churches present there who – like a minority of the Latin bishops – failed to get the Council to consider their reservations.
9. Due to the changes in church structures in the course of the 19th century resulting from politics, the Catholic Church at the First Vatican Council strengthened the authority of the pope and enabled him to intervene in local church structures in order to preserve the unity of the church at critical moments. The acts of the Council show that universal jurisdiction does not mean that the pope becomes an absolute monarch, because he remains bound by Divine law and natural law and has to respect the rights of the bishops and the decisions of the councils.
10. The First Vatican Council defined the infallibility of the pope in a very particular sense. The pope can pronounce a doctrine of faith and morals infallibly only under precisely formulated conditions. Furthermore, he cannot pronounce a new teaching but can only give a more detailed formulation of a doctrine already rooted in the faith of the Church (depositum fidei). The relationship between the infallibility of the Church and the infallibility of the pope requires more investigation.
11. Due to the interruption of the council as a result of political circumstances, the First Vatican Council does not provide a complete ecclesiology, especially with regard to the role of bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, synods, the laity, etc. Therefore, Vatican I cannot be considered to be the final word on the question. In addition, further study is needed on the way in which the dogmas of Vatican I were actualized subsequently in the canonical tradition and practice of the Catholic Church.
12. There is a need to develop a glossary of terms used in the documents of the council, providing definitions of technical terms such as potestas immediata, plenitudo potestatis, etc., and also explaining the different nuances of meaning when a concept is expressed in Greek or Latin, etc. Besides, there is also the problem of translation, for example the term “infallibility” is translated to different languages in different ways. This gives rise to different connotations (e.g. “sinlessness” in Russian, “freedom from error” in Greek) which need to be taken into account in the debate on papal infallibility.
13. The various interpretations of Vatican I among Catholics and Orthodox point to the need to develop a common historiography of the period. Agreement on the historical facts will facilitate greater understanding of the meaning of the council’s teaching. Furthermore its teaching needs to be re-articulated in view of the needs of the present day.
On behalf of the participants, the Co-secretaries thanked the Department for External Church Affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun, for organizing the meeting, as well as “Renovabis” and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for their financial support. At the invitation of the Working Group’s Catholic Co-president, Bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg, the next meeting is planned for November 2010 in Magdeburg (Germany) and will deal with the reactions from the Orthodox to the First Vatican Council and its reception within the Catholic Church.
|
Orthodox Co-secretary: Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Loudovikos Hortiatis 57010 Greece / Griechenland Phone: +30-2310-348004 Telefax: +30-2310-300360 E-mail: nloudovikos@mail.gr |
Catholic Co-Secretary: Dr. Johannes Oeldemann Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut für Ökumenik Leostr. 19 a, 33098 Paderborn Germany / Deutschland Phone: +49-5251-8729804 Telefax: +49-5251-280210 E-Mail: J.Oeldemann@moehlerinstitut.de |
Communiqué – Vienna 2008
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group held its fifth session from 19 to 23 November 2008. At the invitation of the “Pro Oriente” Foundation it met in the Don Bosco House in Vienna. At the beginning of the meeting, the members of the Working Group were welcomed by the president of the “Pro Oriente” Foundation, Dr. Johann Marte, who underlined the common interests of the Foundation and the Working Group with regard to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. In the framework of an evening organized by the “Pro Oriente” Foundation two members of the Working Group, Prof. Dr. Job Getcha and Prof. Dr. Hervé Legrand (both from Paris), gave public lectures analyzing the present stage and the remaining challenges of the dialogue. It became clear that questions of ecclesiology and church structure are the essential aspects on which further work is required in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.
The fifth session of the Working Group was devoted to the subject of the “Doctrine and Practice of Primacy from the 16th to the 19th century”. In this way the group continued its series of discussions attempting by means of a chronological review of church history to identify and analyze the development of the understanding and practice of primacy. This year the Working Group dealt with aspects of the role of the papacy in the post-Reformation period, on the one hand, and, on the other, with the development of primatial and synodal structures within the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman and Russian Empires.
Although the authority of the papacy was emphatically questioned by the Reformers, the Council of Trent (1545-63) did not deal directly with papal primacy and thus left open the question of the authority of the pope. The reforms initiated by the Council of Trent in the fields of liturgy, catechesis and theological education nevertheless led to a centralization of doctrinal authority in the Catholic church that gave the Roman See a higher degree of importance. From that time onwards, loyalty to the papacy became a characteristic of Catholic identity.
The question of how we deal today with the characteristics of our identity which have developed in the course of history needs further analysis in the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics. Here account must also be taken of the images we have of one another and whether these images correspond to the way our partners in dialogue see themselves.
In the Ottoman Empire, the structure of the “Rum-Millet” led to centralization in the life of the Orthodox Church. Hence the Ottoman period led to a significant increase in the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the expense of the other Orthodox patriarchates, which were subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarch according to civil law. As a theological principle, however, synodality was never totally absent from the consciousness of the Church.
The development of nationalism in the 19th century resulted frequently in a lack of respect for fundamental ecclesiological principles in our churches. The territorial principle was replaced in part by an ethnic principle, whereupon, for example, a council in Constantinople in 1872 reacted by condemning ethnophyletism.
More than in almost any other country, the Orthodox Church in Russia has experienced all possible ups and downs, times of support and times of persecution by the state authorities. Its history thus clearly shows the influence of political factors on the church, but also relativises their effect because, even during periods of very strong state control, the church was able to preserve a rich spiritual life.
Our historical studies have shown that political and cultural factors had a strong influence on church structures in both East and West. This means that historical analysis must adopt a multidisciplinary approach that also takes account of factors which, although they have no dogmatic significance, still influence the factual ecclesiology of the churches. Many problems, such as the exercise of secular power, the tendency to centralization and the later strong emphasis on national identity, can be observed in both East and West. These problems require common answers which can only be found by means of a differentiated historical analysis.
The churches in East and West were often confronted with the same temptation of combining church leadership with secular power. This confusion has reinforced primatial authority at the expense of synodal structures. Although synodality was very much in the background at that time it was never completely absent from the consciousness of the church as a theological principle.
When interpreting history, we must beware of idealization. Our progress is not helped when we look for examples in history which are intended to confirm our ideal conceptions. So the mere existence of synods is not a sufficient argument to demonstrate that the principle of synodality was in fact put into practice.
The example of the theological correspondence between Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II and the Reformation theologians in Tuebingen in the late 16th century shows the difficulty of a dialogue which is not based on a common theological vocabulary. Historical analysis of the correspondence makes it clear that for a dialogue to succeed mutual agreement on the criteria for church unity is required. This would include not only confessional issues but also ecclesiological principles.
Every theological dialogue also has a hermeneutical dimension and must therefore take account of the linguistic differences, the ways of thinking and the specific emphases of the different traditions. The hermeneutical method can reveal different approaches which for their part express the riches of the faith and are not mutually exclusive. In our endeavor for a mutual understanding of our theological and canonical expressions, we must therefore take advantage of the instruments of modern hermeneutics which can help us to situate the expressions from the past in their historical context, to identify their lasting value by liberating them from anachronisms, and thus to try to make their intention relevant for today (“relecture”).
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group was founded in Paderborn (Germany) in 2004. The Working Group consists of 26 theologians, 13 Orthodox and 13 Catholic (from Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine and the USA). The co-presidents are bishop Dr Ignatije (Midić) of Braničevo (Serbia) and bishop Dr Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg (Germany). The second meeting of the Working Group was held in November 2005 in the Penteli monastery in Athens (Greece), the third in December 2006 in the Benedictine monastery of Chevetogne (Belgium), and the fourth in November 2007 in Belgrade (Serbia).
At the end of the meeting the members of the Working Group met with the Catholic Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn, and other representatives of various Christian churches and communities in Vienna for mutual information about the aims of the Working Group and the ecumenical relationships in Vienna. On behalf of the participants Bishop Dr Gerhard Feige thanked the Archbishop of Vienna and the “Pro Oriente” Foundation for their hospitality and financial support of the meeting. The next meeting of the Working Group has been planned for November 2009, probably in Damascus.
Additional information:
On the Orthodox side, the following persons participated in the meeting of the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group in Vienna: Bishop Ignatije (Midić) of Braničevo; Marios Begzos, Athens; Job Getcha, Paris; Cyril Hovorun, Kiev; Assaad Kattan, Münster; Nikolaos Loudovikos, Thessaloniki; Paul Meyendorff, Crestwood/N.Y.; Grigorios Papathomas, Tallinn; Vladan Perišić, Belgrade; Mariyan Stoyadinov, Veliko Tarnovo.
On the Catholic side, the following participants were present: Bishop Gerhard Feige, Magdeburg; Thomas Bremer, Münster; Hyacinthe Destivelle, Paris; Edward Farrugia, Rome; Basilius J. Groen, Graz; Pieter Kohnen, ’s-Hertogenbosch; Hervé Legrand, Paris; Johannes Oeldemann, Paderborn; Rudolf Prokschi, Vienna; Wolfgang Thönissen, Paderborn.
|
Orthodox Co-secretary: Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Loudovikos Hortiatis 57010 Greece / Griechenland Phone: +30-2310-348004 Telefax: +30-2310-300360 E-mail: nloudovikos@mail.gr |
Catholic Co-Secretary: Dr. Johannes Oeldemann Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut für Ökumenik Leostr. 19 a, 33098 Paderborn Germany / Deutschland Phone: +49-5251-8729804 Telefax: +49-5251-280210 E-Mail: J.Oeldemann@moehlerinstitut.de |
Communiqué – Belgrade 2007
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met from 31 October to 4 November 2007 in Serbia for its fourth session on the invitation of its Orthodox Co-president, Bishop Dr Ignatije (Midic) of Branicevo. The meeting opened with an encounter at the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade where the members of the Working Group were welcomed by the Dean of the Faculty, Bishop Dr Irinej (Bulovic) of Backa, and the Catholic Archbishop in Belgrade, Stanislav Hocevar. The members of the group then traveled to Velika Plana where the working sessions were held. The Pokajnica Monastery there provided an opportunity for a spiritual link between the meeting and the prayers of the Monastic community.The theme of the Working Group’s fourth session was “Doctrine and Practice of the Primacy in the Middle Ages”. It continued the series of discussions that had started at the last meeting in Chevetogne, examining the doctrine of primacy in the context of the concrete exercise of primacy. The meeting this year discussed the developments connected with the Gregorian Reform, the conflict between papacy and conciliarism in the West, the significance of the Union Councils of Lyon (1274) and Ferrara-Florence (1438-39), as well as statements of Eastern and Western theologians of that period.
It was noted that it is not possible to describe the development of the role of the bishop of Rome and the origin of the idea of a central papal office in the Church without taking into account the political and social conditions of the Middle Ages. The Gregorian Reform was guided by the concern to eliminate abuses in the Western church. During this process, the popes of the period increasingly limited the influence of secular rulers on the church and thus acquired more and more authority. The Orthodox attending this meeting took a critical view of the growing power thus gained by the Roman bishops, as this also had consequences for their role in the church as a whole; but they acknowledged the positive intentions behind the Gregorian Reform. The central role of the Pope in the West, however, resulted not only from the dispute with secular authorities, but was also strengthened by the development of new cultural and spiritual structures, such as the mendicant orders and the universities.
Against this background, the primatial function that was already exercised by the bishop of Rome in the first millennium changed fundamentally in the Middle Ages. The Pope increasingly assumed functions that had originally been those of the local bishop. Appeals were made directly to the Pope and he intervened when problems arose in a local church. This explains why the popes of that time increasingly claimed to exercise an episcopal function in relation to the universal church. Thus the awareness of the distinction between episcopal and primatial tasks was lost.
The Councils of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence must also be understood in their historical context. As an attempt to reestablish the unity of the Church, the Council of Florence was a failure. It is a positive factor, however, that the questions discussed at this council constitute a programme for dialogue, and that those present mutually recognized one another without question as the Church and discussed with one another as equals.
Among the factors that led to the division between the Orthodox and the Catholics – in addition to dogmatic and liturgical differences – one should not underestimate the canonical problems. The emergence of parallel ecclesiastical structures is linked to the awareness of a confrontation between two churches fed by theological differences. Only after such hierarchical structures had been established was the schism between East and West complete. The question of how the development of parallel episcopal structures at the time of the Crusades should be evaluated needs more careful historical examination in order to clarify with what intention Latin bishops were appointed in the East.
The conversations as a whole made it clear that to understand decisive statements about the papacy in the Middle Ages it is absolutely necessary to take into account the particular historical context, their importance at their own time, and also the history of their effects. A distinction must be made between the practice of primacy as it developed in reaction to particular historical circumstances and the nature of primacy. A way must therefore be found to surmount certain positions of the past and to integrate the essential elements that have been preserved in both traditions into a common understanding of primacy. Along these lines, the members of the Working Group discussed how primacy could be exercised after full communion has been achieved.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group was founded in Paderborn (Germany) in 2004. The Working Group consists of 13 Orthodox theologians (belonging to the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Estonia, as well as to the Orthodox Church in America) and 13 Catholic theologians (from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the USA). The second meeting of the Working Group was held in November 2005 in the Penteli monastery in Athens (Greece) and the third in December 2006 in the Benedictine monastery of Chevetogne (Belgium).
At the end of the meeting the members of the Working Group attended eucharistic celebrations at Orthodox and Catholic churches in Belgrade. On behalf of the participants Bishop Dr Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg (Germany), the Catholic Co-president of the Working Group, thanked the host Bishop of Branicevo for his hospitality, as well as “Renovabis” and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for their financial support of the meeting. The next meeting of the Working Group has been planned for November 2008 in Vienna (Austria).
Communiqué – Chevetogne 2006
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met from 29 November to 3 December 2006 in the Benedictine monastery of Chevetogne (Belgium) for its third session. At the beginning the abbot of the monastery, P. Philipp Vanderheyden, and the local Roman Catholic bishop, Msgr. André-Mutien Léonard of Namur, welcomed the members of the Working Group. The meeting took place during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI. to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I., a fact which inspired the Working Group in their efforts for the rapprochement between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church.The theme of the Working Group’s third session was “Doctrine and Practice of the Primacy in the First Millennium”. The work included papers on different periods and various exemplary events from that time as well as a common study of source texts. It became clear that the primacy is not a random organizational form of church administration, but belongs to the essence of the Church. The writings of the church fathers, based on the Holy Scriptures, show that there is a charism of the primate, whose special task is to safeguard the unity of the Church. This task must be accomplished on the different levels of church life. Therefore there are primatial functions on the level of the local, the regional and patriarchal churches as well as on the level of the whole Church. In the first millennium these primatial functions were always rooted in synodical structures. Therefore one cannot legitimately discuss primacy without discussing synodality, nor deal with synodality without dealing with primacy.
Concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome the studies showed that there is no uniform understanding of the Roman Primacy in the first millennium. The different models came out of specific historical contexts and therefore met particular needs of the age which cannot be generalized or transposed into our time. Although there was no uniform ecclesiological conception, we can identify a general awareness in the first millennium that the bishop of Rome enjoyed a primacy in the church as a whole. The canons of Sardica, which were agreed upon by East and West, accorded the bishop of Rome the right to order a new trial in a different jurisdiction when cases were appealed to him. The practice of primacy in the first millennium is reflected not only in the canons of the early church councils, but also in other texts of the period, such as Pope Gregory the Great’s letters to the four eastern patriarchs.
The Working Group reckons that the correlation between the “first” (protos) and the other bishops as expressed in the 34th Apostolic Canon – which supports an ecclesiology rooted in the mystery of the Trinity – is a promising criterion for the organization of the communion of local churches, not only on regional and patriarchal, but also on the level of the whole Church.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group was founded in Paderborn (Germany) in 2004. The Group understands itself to be an international, long term theological Working Group which transcends linguistic and cultural boundaries. The Working Group consists of 13 Orthodox theologians (belonging to the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Estonia as well as to the Orthodox Church in America) and 13 Catholic theologians (belonging to the Catholic Church in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the USA). The second meeting of the Working Group was held in November 2005 in the Penteli monastery in Athens at the invitation of the Church of Greece.
At the end of the meeting in Chevetogne bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg (Germany), the Working Group’s Catholic Co-president, thanked the monastic community of Chevetogne for their hospitality and the Belgian ecumenical organization “Unitas” for the financial support of the meeting. At the invitation of the Working Group’s Orthodox Co-president, bishop Dr. Ignatije (Midic) of Branicevo (Serbia), the next meeting will be held in November 2007 in Serbia.
Communiqué – Athens 2005
At the invitation of the Church of Greece the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group met for its second conference in the monastery of Penteli in Athens from 9 to 13 November 2005. Chaired by its two Co-Presidents, Orthodox bishop Dr. Ignatije (Midić) of Braničevo (Serbia) and Catholic bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg (Germany) the members of the Working Group discussed during this meeting common elements and differences in Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiology.
The Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group had its first meeting last year in Paderborn (Germany). The Group understands itself as an international, long term theological Working Group which transcends linguistic and cultural boundaries. The Working Group consists of 12 Orthodox and 12 Catholic theologians. The members of the group come from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia and the USA. The Working Group includes theological scholars who endeavor to discuss freely and openly the existing problems between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The group’s task is “to reflect on the current situation of Orthodox-Catholic relationships and, where possible, to make proposals for practical solutions; (and) to remind our churches that the present obstacles can only be overcome if we continue the dialogue” (Statement of the 2004 founding assembly in Paderborn).
The Archbishop of Athens and all Greece Christodoulos in his greetings to the members of the Working Group stressed that in the present time „a new period in the relations between the Churches in East and West“ seems to begin, in which „the need to re-establish that unity in truth and love, which for more than thousand years characterised our two churches, becomes an urgent priority“. He wished the meeting fruitful deliberations, so that it may „contribute to the further promotion of theological and ecclesiastical unity and understanding“.
During its meeting in the monastery of Penteli the Working Group concentrated on the topic of ecclesiology with the main theme „The One Church and the many churches“. In the lectures and debates it was discussed how the Catholic Church looks on non-Catholic churches and to which extent the Orthodox Church could acknowledge the ecclesial character of non-Orthodox churches. Furthermore the members discussed the relationship between local churches and the universal church in Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiology, especially the understanding of local churches and the meaning of the term “Sister Churches”. The conclusions of the deliberations will be summarized in form of theses and further elaborated during the next meeting.
The members of the Working Group expressed their gratitude to the Church of Greece, especially to the Synodal Committee on Interchristian Relations, for the hospitality they experienced. The meeting took place in a warm and open atmosphere that included common morning prayer, and left a good impression with the members. They thanked the Co-secretaries of the Working Group, Dr. Johannes Oeldemann (Paderborn) and Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Loudovikos (Thessaloniki), for their work to prepare the conference. The next meeting of the Working Group will take place in November 2006 in the monastery of Chevetogne (Belgium).
Additional information:
On the Orthodox side, the following persons participated in the meeting of the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group in the monastery of Penteli in Athens: Bishop Ignatije (Midić) of Braničevo; Marios Begzos, Athens; Job Getcha, Paris; Viorel Ionita, Bucharest/Geneva; Nikolaos Loudovikos, Thessaloniki; Paul Meyendorff, Crestwood/N.Y.; Grigorios Papathomas, Paris; Vladan Perišić, Belgrade; Viktor Savik, Smolensk; Mariyan Stoyadinov, Veliko Tarnovo; Jan Zozulak, Prešov.
On the Catholic side, the following participants were present: Bischop Gerhard Feige, Magdeburg; Thomas Bremer, Münster; Edward Farrugia, Rome; Zygfryd Glaeser, Opole; Basilius J. Groen, Graz; Pieter Kohnen, ’s-Hertogenbosch; Antoine Lambrechts, Chevetogne; Hervé Legrand, Paris; Johannes Oeldemann, Paderborn; Rudolf Prokschi, Vienna; Ronald Roberson, Washington/D.C.; Wolfgang Thönissen, Paderborn.
For further information please feel free to contact the Co-Secretaries.
|
Orthodox Co-secretary: Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Loudovikos Hortiatis 57010 Greece / Griechenland Phone: +30-2310-348004 Telefax: +30-2310-300360 E-mail: nloudovikos@mail.gr |
Catholic Co-Secretary: Dr. Johannes Oeldemann Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut für Ökumenik Leostr. 19 a, 33098 Paderborn Germany / Deutschland Phone: +49-5251-8729804 Telefax: +49-5251-280210 E-Mail: J.Oeldemann@moehlerinstitut.de |
Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
From 23 to 27 June 2004, an Orthodox-Catholic working group with international composition met in Paderborn (Germany) for its constituent assembly. At the invitation of Catholic Bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige, Auxiliary Bishop in Magdeburg, and Serbian Orthodox Bishop Dr. Ignatije (Midic) of Branicevo, 11 Orthodox and 11 Catholic theologians discussed the possibilities of giving a new impetus to the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue at the international level. The Orthodox members of the working group came from Bulgaria, France, Greece, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and the USA; the Catholic members came from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and the USA. The working group decided to use the name “Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group”, and to continue to work together as a group with the same composition. At the end of the conference the group adopted the following statement about how it sees itself:From 23 to 27 June 2004, an Orthodox-Catholic working group with international composition met in Paderborn (Germany) for its constituent assembly. At the invitation of Catholic Bishop Dr. Gerhard Feige, Auxiliary Bishop in Magdeburg, and Serbian Orthodox Bishop Dr. Ignatije (Midic) of Branicevo, 11 Orthodox and 11 Catholic theologians discussed the possibilities of giving a new impetus to the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue at the international level. The Orthodox members of the working group came from Bulgaria, France, Greece, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and the USA; the Catholic members came from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and the USA. The working group decided to use the name “Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group”, and to continue to work together as a group with the same composition. At the end of the conference the group adopted the following statement about how it sees itself:
