THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
By His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia
The Official Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics had begun with ‘golden hopes’ in 1980 (the celebratory commencement on the Holy Island of Patmos, followed by the election of the Chair and the first Plenary Sessions of the Joint Committee in Rhodes ).
The Dialogue continued, as is known, for a whole 20 years, albeit with some difficulties. Indeed, it was considered – most justifiably – as perhaps the greatest achievement of the 20th century for the entire Christian world. And this because it was obvious that if, through the ‘Dialogue of Truth’ (which came as a natural continuation of the ‘Dialogue of Love’), the two most ancient and populous traditional Churches of East and West could find the path of unity, then it would be impossible for the remainder of Christians - and, through them, the whole of humankind - not to be influenced beneficially.
Unfortunately, however, such a sacred venture which was in absolute agreement with the divine Founder of the Church ‘that they might all be one’ (Jn. 17:21), appeared from the beginning to confront huge problems which would require superhuman resolve. There was more to the matter than just the purely theological differences which, for 1000 years, had propelled the great Schism of 1054. Above all, it was imperative, on the one hand, that the ‘arrogance of power’ developed during those 1000 years by the global power Rome (with her intent on remaining both a State and a Church ) should be overcome. On the other hand, the ‘arrogance of truth’ exhibited by the Orthodox needed to be dealt with analogously since the four Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), from this position, had witnessed the Patriarch of the West, the Bishop of Rome, ‘falling out’ of communion with the ancient Pentarchy ,as it had been shaped during the first common Christian millennium.
That we would have been able to overcome the theological differences fairly quickly – with patience, humility and trust in the illumination of the Holy Spirit – was demonstrated on a practical level, to a certain degree, by the volume of mutually acceptable common papers which were certainly ‘open’(!) to further improvements as working papers. And yet, for 20 whole years, we laboured on both sides of the Joint Committee coming under ‘unholy fire’, even ‘from our own’ people, with the ungodly slanderous accusation that, each time we completed a new Text, we were supposedly depositing a ‘Confession of Faith’ in ignorance of the people of God and that, purportedly, in this manner, we were sanctioning the ‘Union with the Pope’, like Cardinal Vissarion of old!
In any event, however, despite the ‘claquers’ who were carefully ‘planted’ from the beginning in the Dialogue by ecclesiastical leaders from both sides (none more relentless and contradictory than the Church of Greece, especially under Archbishop Christodoulos!), the Dialogue continued for an entire 20 year period, with the majority of both Delegations conducting themselves in fear of God.
And, without a doubt, this sacred effort would have continued farther with unquestionably significant fruits, were it not for the revival of ‘Uniatism’ in the sudden and forceful way that it manifested itself, directly and concurrently with the fall of ‘the Socialist bloc’, primarily in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe.
The dramatic collapse of discussions at the General Meeting of the Joint Committee in Baltimore USA (July of the most sacred Jubilee year of 2000) was, to the disgrace of all Christians, indicative of the sorry state of affairs that even Leaders of Christian Churches can stoop to by actions or omissions which patently despise the unselfish voice of Theology (Ecclesiology in this case) for the sake of abject expediencies in so-called ‘ecclesiastical politics’.
This was the reason why the writer felt compelled to tender his resignation for a third time (!) from the Chairmanship of the Dialogue, insisting upon it irrevocably, having exposed in a responsible and documented manner the unholy and irresponsible conduct demonstrated relevantly by both sides (see ‘The Misfortune of the official Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics’ , Annual Review, School of Theology, Aristotelian University of Thessalonica, Volume 13, Thessalonica, 2003 and Phronema, vo.18, 2003).
Now, with the election of the declared friend of the Orthodox, the new Pope, Benedict XVI, hopes have been renewed that an effort will be made for the suspended official Dialogue to resume. Only that several strange statements do not allow for much optimism, at least for those who are familiar with certain individuals and situations!
When, for instance, Metropolitan John of Pergamum is reported to have stated recently at the Patronal Feast in Rome, on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that the Dialogue was suspended 12 years ago, this gives cause to a very important question: What does such a statement mean? Was it a mistake per chance, or does it again conceal a new cunning expediency? Those of us who time and again have come to know, from within, the attitude and mentality of the Brother in mention (who knows better than all else how much bitterness and disappointment he caused to the writer – as the second of the two representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Dialogue) do not have much reason to be optimistic. We can only pray that there might prevail an essential repentance for the elementary advancement of the sacred work of the Dialogue, so exactingly ‘undermined from within’.
Unfortunately, this pessimism is reinforced by the fact that the recently announced intention of the new Pope to visit the Phanar in Constantinople during the forthcoming Patronal Feast of St. Andrew, responding gladly to the invitation of the Ecumenical Patriarch, is strangely associated with a number of not so encouraging signs which definitely do not ‘auger well’.
Primarily, it appears as though the most thorny problem of ‘Uniatism and its associated proselytism’ is being left untouched - perhaps in a more ‘aggravated’ state - even though, as is known, it was agreed that, based on the facts, this was the singular issue which demanded a solution before all other discussions. Because it was indeed unheard of that, on the one hand, a ‘common condemnation’ of Uniatism as ‘a method of approaching unification’ had been reached at the 6th General Meeting in Freising, Bavaria, whilst, on the other hand, an unholy ‘guerrilla warfare’ appeared to be gaining a victory among the two ancient Churches in Dialogue, especially on the tragically decimated land of Ukraine and other traditionally Orthodox lands of the Christian East.
But, instead of the sacred efforts for the restoration of relations continuing with coherence for the very benefit of today’s Uniate Communities (as their late Prelate, Maximus IV, had hoped for and had officially stated at the Vatican II Council), now we hear that the topic of the new effort for the recommencement of the official Dialogue will be ‘The position of the Bishop of Rome in the Church’! So, is this the ease with which that extraordinary common conquest of the historical and theological truth, achieved during the midnight hours of the above General Meeting in Freising, can be erased?
If this change of direction, which most certainly constitutes, at least from an Orthodox standpoint, an unacceptable retreat and, indeed, a backward move for the worse, with a danger that the Uniates of the Ukraine will intensify their pressure and ambitions to be recognized as a ‘Patriarchate’ by Rome, then surely the recommencement of the Theological Dialogue will prove to be a case of ‘the last deception being worse than the first’. And, unfortunately, we must admit that it will not be enough that, through the vigorous intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and through the continuous protests by the Patriarchate of Moscow, the recognition in mention was averted at the last minute despite the pursuit for elevation of the Uniates who were supported at all times, and so provocatively until the end, by the late Pope John Paul II during his tenure.
The good relations of the new Pope with Orthodoxy, in general, as well as his theological works which are most binding for him and in which he places exceptional importance on the 1st common millennium of Christianity as the unique and stable basis for theological Dialogue, with the Orthodox at least (!), make it difficult for us to predict how his views will enable him, in contrast to his Predecessor, to deal with the issue of Uniatism which today, more than ever, remains a bleeding wound.
Indicative, nonetheless, of the unprecedented Audacity with which the Uniates conduct themselves in relation to Orthodox Clerics, even towards senior Hierarchs, and Patriarchs (!) at that, is not just the example seen by millions of television viewers featuring the most provocative presence of Uniates (of every rank) chanting ‘Christ is Risen’ in Greek at the recent funeral of the Pope in St. Peter’s Square.
An undoubtedly more audacious case could be the recent instance encountered by the writer, even judicially , with the known Roman Catholic in Melbourne, Rev. Lawrence Cross, who, unable to endure our challenge to his symptomatically (!) revealed Uniate ambitions and actions against our Canonical Flock and beyond, dared to sue us for ‘slanderous defamation’ in the civil courts of Melbourne. Of course, this suit was countered with the appropriate seriousness by the responsible Judge of the case, who expressly exonerated the defendant Primate and ordered that the suit in mention (1-7-05) be withdrawn as ‘having no substance’! However, it brings no honour upon his superiors, especially upon the current Cardinal of Sydney, George Pell, who despite being fully informed, both in writing and verbally, about the blatant injustice and audacity, restricted himself to simply issuing an unflattering (!) characterization which stereotypically had been used, from time to time, by two other known Cardinals in Australia.
Following all of the above, we pray fervently that the Papal tenure of the new Pope, elected with promising hope, will prove to be more constructive in relations with the Orthodox Church, so that Uniates across the world will comprehend with Christian realism their position and responsibilities towards Orthodoxy from which they were forcibly wrenched
This Article was published in the Greek Australian newspaper
TO VEMA July 2005