papers - The Jesuit Curia in Rome

Transcription

P A P E R S
“Ecumenism:
Hopes and Challenges
for the New Century”
The 16TH International Congress
of Jesuit Ecumenists
Maryut Retreat House, Alexandria, Egypt
4-12 July 2001
Secretariat for Interreligious Dialogue; Curia S.J., C.P. 6139, 00195 Roma Prati, Italy;
tel. (39)-06.689.77.567/8; fax: 06.687.5101; e-mail: [email protected]
JESUIT ECUMENISTS
MEET IN
ALEXANDRIA
Daniel Madigan, S.J.
A full programme, oganized expertly by Henri Boulad (PRO), kept the 30 particpants (from all six continents)
busy throughout the working days and evenings, and on the Sunday the group was able to visit the Coptic
Orthodox Monastery of St. Makarios.
A message from Fr. General underlined the importance of the ecumenical venture among the Society's
priorities, and a select number of the participants had been involved with the group since its inception.
The agenda ranged widely, focussing in part on ecumenical issues in the complex ecclesial reality of the
Middle East, but also on recent developments in the wider ecumenical sphere. We had the opportunity to
meet with clergy and laypeople from the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Evanglical churches, as well as with
Muslims.
Jacques Masson (PRO) and Christian van Nispen (PRO), with their long years of experience and study of the
Church in Egypt introduced us to various of its aspects. Jacques Masson surveyed some of the ecumenical
history of the oriental Churches and agreements reached especially among the Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian churches in recent years.
Victor Chelhot (PRO) from Damascus presented developments in the local attempts to remove the obstacles
to unity between the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches of Antioch. Since his last presentation to
the Jesuit ecumenists in Naples, Rome has added its voice to the conversation.
Three official documents were studied. The "Balamand Statement" on the still very vexed issue Uniatism and
accusations of proselytism from the Seventh Plenary Session of the official Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue was
introduced and analysed by Ed Farrugia (MAL) of the Orientale.
Ted Yarnold (BRI), of Campion Hall, brought a trained eye to the document "The Gift of Authority," issued by
the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, of which he was for many years a distinguished
member.
Paolo Gamberini (ITA) from Naples, examined the Joint Lutheran-Roman Catholic Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification, and offered some important insights into the way it was produced and agreed upon.
The declaration is an important model, not just for its synthesis of a disputed doctrine, but for the way in
which it affirms particular doctrinal formulations and at the same time recognises that each partner
understands these formulas in somewhat different ways. In addition to these papers, Georges Ruyssen
(BSE) presented some of his work recently at Centre Sevres on the question of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome in the context of the Pope's appeal in Ut Unum Sint. Bob Daly (NEN) from Boston College examined
the theological significance of ecumenical convergence in liturgy, especially in the eucharistic prayer.
Norman Tanner was able to draw on his deep familiarity with the councils of the Church to offer profound and
sometimes witty insights into the prospects for Christian unity.
We hope that all the papers will be published within the next six months, as also those from the previous
meeting in Kottayam, Kerala, which have not yet seen the light of day. The next meeting of Jesuits involved in
ecumenical work will take place in Budapest in 2003. Anyone who would like to be kept informed of plans for
the meeting, when they take shape, can contact Tom Michel (IDO) at the Curia [email protected]
Balamand and its Aftermath: The challenges of evangelization and proselytism
E.G. Farrugia, SJ (Rome)
For the so-called “Dialogue of Truth” between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern
Orthodox Churches, the moment of truth came with the Seventh Plenary Session held at Balamand,
Lebanon, in 1993. At stake was not only the future of the Dialogue itself, but above all the fate of
millions of Eastern Catholics. Known until recently as Uniates, because united to the Roman
Catholic Church, a term now avoided in the polite company of theologians except to signal that for
many Orthodox they are little better than traitors who abandoned their native Church to take
advantage of their Roman connection, they forced the Dialogue to face full-square the hard facts
born of schism, but which no wishful thinking can conjure away. Though the underlying problem of
uniatism had been sounded right at the start of the official Dialogue in the early 1980's, it became
acute only in the late 1980's following the collapse of the Berlin Wall; and, while it has not
managed thus far to definitively disrupt the Dialogue, it has at least succeeded in temporarily
derailing it. Intended as an emergency measure, Balamand did not stem the tide of incomprehension
and the only follow-up thus far has been the Eighth Plenary Session, held last year during the
Jubilee Celebrations of the year of the Lord 2000 in Baltimore, but ending with a draw, since about
the only hope that stormy Session left was that dialogue was not meant to be stopped, but only
interrupted. And so, Balamand remains, for its provocative stand on uniatism and the related issue
of proselytism, the method of constraint in gaining adepts on which uniatism is supposed to thrive,
a platform for further discussion not flawed through protest, for it faced the unpleasant and
inevitable truth, and yet in need of being amplified, as ultimately it has failed to satisfy all partners
involved.
Our reflections here fall into three parts. The first deals with the events related to Balamand
so as to understand its text in context; the second passes in review some representative reactions to
Balamand, to help us make our own assessment; and the third reflects on the abiding issues raised
in Balamand without suppressing the tone of hope that still permeates the text.
1. Balamand: the Meeting and the Message
In order to unpack the specific message of Balamand, we have first of all to establish the facts
that led to its being called in the first place as well as the conditions under which it took place
before we can analyze the document it produced.
Before Balamand, the Dialogue had taken off to a good start and was proceeding at a brisk
pace.
Announced on the occasion of John Paul II’s visit of Patriarch Dimitrios I for the feast of St
Andrew’s, 30 November 1979, the so-called “Dialogue of Truth” marked the beginning of the
official theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches. It
had been preceded by the long thaw known as the “Dialogue of Charity,” that period from 1958 to
1980 characterized by good-will gestures such as reciprocal visits following the cancellation from
memory of the excommunication of 1054 on 7 December 1965, vigil of the end of Vatican II, with
a simultaneous ceremony at the Vatican and the Phanar. True, the problem of uniatism was present
right from the start, when the question was broached whether Eastern rite Catholics should
participate or not in the official Dialogue, but it was settled in their favour1. Once the international
Joint Commission, composed of 30 Roman Catholics and 30 Orthodox dignitaries and experts, was
formed, there soon followed six plenary sessions, in rapid and rhythmic succession: Patmos-Rhodes
in 1980, Munich in 1982, which produced the first Document, “The Mystery of the Church and of
the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”2, the Third Plenary Session, held in
Crete in 1984, the Fourth, with a double meeting, in Bari3, a repetition rendered necessary by the
1
The question whether Eastern Catholics should participate was raised by some Orthodox Churches
during the First Plenary Session of Patmos-Rhodes (29 May-4 June 1980), with the Catholic side
answering that the Dialogue took place between the whole of the Catholic Church and all Orthodox
Churches, not simply parts of them. The Orthodox accepted with the reservation that accepting to
dialogue with Eastern Catholics did not mean that the problem was solved. See on this point E.
Fortino, “Le Chiese ortodosse e le Chiese orientali come Chiese sorelle,” Oriente cristiano 2 (1993)
58-59; G.Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 276; also D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 55.
2
Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 652-659.
3
1
difficulties which arose over the Exhibition of Macedonian Icons in the Vatican4, and its document,
“Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church”5, the Fifth in Valamo-Finland (1988), with its
document, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church”6.
At this point, when by the interior dynamics of these Plenary Sessions, all seemed poised for
a discussion of authority and conciliarity in the Church, the upheaval in Eastern Europe brought to
the fore the need to abandon the programme and give more attention to the problem of the
relationship between Oriental Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches precisely in those regions
caught in the eye of the storm. For this reason, in the Sixth Plenary Session in Freising (1990) the
so-called question of the Uniates, which had been brewing since Bari (1987) and Valamo (1988),
where a sub-commission had already been created to study the issue, suddenly became top priority7.
When the sub-commission met in Vienna in January 1990, nobody could have foreseen how
dramatic the changes would be. At Freising, uniatism, which replaced the agenda8, was rejected as a
method of the past which failed dismally in what it proposed to do, for, rather than reuniting the
Churches, it served only to deepen the cleft already separating them. Moreover, while the religious
liberty of individuals and communities was held up as sacrosanct, attempts to make the faithful of
one community pass to that of another were branded as “proselytism.” Given the promising method
of dialogue and the ecclesiology of communion on which dialogue is based, to return to the method
of uniatism and make converts from one Church to another would not only be counter-productive,
but would also amount to a counter-testimony. And so, in view of the urgency of the problem, it
was suggested that the study of the problem already broached in Vienna the previous January would
be made topic of the next Plenary Session9.
Two methodological restrictions are to be noted. Since by “Uniates” in the Catholic-Orthodox
Dialogue are meant only Catholics of the Byzantine rite, Catholics deriving from pre-Chalcedonian
Churches are left out of consideration10. Moreover, the texts speak of uniatism as going back no
further than four centuries ago (nr. 8). On both counts a rather one-sided historical picture of
uniatism is given. Following the politics of certain princes in the XVIth and XVIIth centuries,
certain dioceses in Ukraine, in Ruthenia, in Romania and in Croatia left the Byzantine Orthodox
Church and joined the Catholic Church while at the same time retaining their Byzantine rite at Brest
(1595 /6), at Croatia (1611), at U horod (1646) and in Romania (1698)11. In this way, the faithful of
the same Byzantine rite found themselves divided in two groups, at odds with each other over the
very same liturgy, so that the attempt to re-establish Church union through partial unions inevitably
opened up new wounds. From an Orthodox point of view, a point of no return was reached with the
establishing of a Melkite hierarchy in 1724. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union the
problem of the Uniates became more acute than ever12. Ukrainian Uniates, repressed forcibly in
4
D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 88-93. Though many classified the whole
controversy as non-theological, as Salachas does, in effect it was a fore-warning of how sensitive
Orthodox Churches are to regional issues. With E. Fortino, sub-secretary of the Pontifical Council
to Promote Union among Christians, it would be more accurate to say that it reveals how a
seemingly non-theological issue is related to the question of autocephaly; see E. Fortino, “Dialogo
cattolico-ortodosso- difficoltà e problemi”, L’Osservatore Romano, 15 giugno 1986, p. 5. The
problem of proselytism had already been raised by Mgr. Germanos, representative of Patriach
Diodoros of Jerusalem, at Crete in 1964—and with that the problem of Oriental Catholic Churches
became part of the agenda.
5
6
On the titles of the Documents of this Dialogue very pertinent is McPartlan’s comment that it has
not been blessed with pithy titles; see P. McPartlan, One in 2000? Towards Catholic-Orthodox
Unity, St Paul’s, Middlegreen, Slough, U.K., 1993, p. 126.
7
D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, p. 214.
8
D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale, pp. 146f.
9
10
F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 156.
11
12
2
1946, started reclaiming their churches as soon as freedom returned13. Similar things may be said of
Romania (1989), where, however, the Orthodox metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu cooperated in
restoring the churches which belonged to Catholics14. In October 1991 the Russian-Orthodox
Patriarch and the Patriarchs of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia as well as the Orthodox Church in
Greece let it be known that they would not participate in the European Synod planned by John Paul
II15. But in March 1992 the newly elected (1991) Patriarch Bartholomew came out in favour of
dialogue, and the meeting in Moscow between Cardinal Cassidy and Alexij II did the rest16.
The upshot of the foregoing considerations is that Balamand marks a departure in the very
method chosen by the Dialogue, which had aimed at a three-track procedure: a. the dialogue of love
(1958-1980), or of re-discovered friendship, which really started with Pope John XXIII; b. the
theological dialogue on matters that unite, which was interrupted; and c. dialogue on matters which
still divide17. The theological dialogue which had started in 1980 had to veer course and move on to
the moot issues before the time had come, which in part explains the difficulties that suddenly
seemed to undo all the good that had been done up to then.
1.1. Balamand, the event
After postponing the meeting scheduled for 17.-26. June 1992 by a year18, the Seventh
Plenary Session of the official Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue finally took place in the Orthodox
Monastery of Balamand in Lebanon on the invitation of the Greek-Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch,
H.B. Ignatius IV Hazim. It was held in the premisses of the Theological Faculty of St John
Damascene from 17 to 24 June 1993. Of the 15 autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches
9 were represented19, included the recently established Church of Albania, following the fall of the
successor of Enver Hoxha’s communist regime and the election of Sali Berish in 1992. In the words
of one of the participants, and a Greek Catholic of the Byzantine rite besides, Prof. Dimitri
Salachas, the meeting in Balamand took place in a spirit of fraternal sharing and concern to favour
union between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches20. As a basis for discussion the
Balamand Plenary Session adopted the document elaborated at Ariccia near Rome in June of 1991:
“Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for full Communion”.
1.2 The Balamand Text, the introduction: setting the tone
The final document, dated 23 June 1993, consists of 35 paragraphs with a short two-part
introduction, detailing (a) ecclesiological principles (nr.s 6-18) and (b) regional practices (nr.s 1935). As the Introduction explains, the two-year rhythm established by the previous six meetings
(Rhodes-Patmos 1980, Munich 1982, Crete 1984, Bari with its double session 1986-1987, Uusi
Valamo 1988, and Freising 1990), had to be interrupted on the demand of the Orthodox Church (nr.
1) because, with the fall of the Communist regimes and the proclamation of the liberty of cult, the
problem of uniatism, and more precisely the existence of the Byzantine Catholics, came to the fore.
As the problem has already been touched upon at Valamo (1988) and then discussed at Freising
(1990)21, the way both Churches would work towards a solution for the question would serve as a
13
F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, p. 158. Ukraine presents an especially difficult
situation, partly because of the heavier tribute of blood Eastern Catholics had to pay and their
inability in the years when they were an underground Church to make themselves familiar with the
new winds of change coming from Vatican II. For a brief summary of some of the main moments
of tensions, recriminations and hopes, see G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, pp. 279-286.
14
15
F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog, pp. 160f.
16
17
G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, pp. 9f.
18
G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 316.
19
G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 323. The Churches of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Jerusalem,
Georgia and Czechoslovakia were absent.
20
21
See Nr. 3 of the Freising Document (1990) in G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia?, p. 271. Nr. 5 of
the same document states that, due to recent events, the whole discussion revolved around Uniates,
referred to here as Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches (as they prefer to be called on account of the
3
test-case for the solidity of the principles thus far elaborated in the previous sessions. In view of this
Balamand not only enunciated general principles but also elaborated practical norms on the
question of uniatism (nr. 5). In the very introduction uniatism is rejected as opposed to the common
tradition of both Churches (nr. 2, quoting from the Freising document), while at the same time
asserting that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist as part of the Catholic communion
(nr. 3)22.
1.3 The Balamand Document, the main text: ecclesiology in practice
Yet the main thrust of the document of Balamand is to ask what is meant by uniatism as a
method of union which belongs to the past. As a missionary apostolate uniatism is described as the
attempt to convert other Christians, taken individually or as groups, so as to make them “return” to
their real Church23. On the basis of this approach there was developed a corresponding ecclesiology
in which the Catholic Church presented itself as the sole depositary of salvation. As a reaction, the
Orthodox Church advanced analogously exclusive soteriological claims, leading at times to the
rebaptizing of Christians, with a consequent loss of sensitivity to religious liberty (nr. 10)24.
Impelled with a desire to save souls, missionaries sometimes came to consider Orthodox countries
as missionary lands. These initiatives led at times to local mergers with the Holy See of Rome and
thus precipated the breakup of relations to their Mother Churches, a process aided by extra-ecclesial
concerns. As a result a conflictual situation was created in which especially the Orthodox, but also
Catholics suffered (nr. 8)25. Naturally, one must not forget that at the basis of these attempts to reestablish union is the breakdown of communion between Rome and the ancient patriarchates and
the failure of the subsequent attempts, even at a Conciliar level, to re-establish reunion. In this way,
while uniatism as a method of the past is condemned, Rome’s good will to seek that union among
Christians expressed by Christ—“that they may be one” (Jn 17:21; nr. 9)—is expressly
recognized26. The Document thus goes on to say that those who have established full communion
with Rome and have remained faithful to it are entitled to the ensuing rights and obligations of such
a union27. Here, the Document and Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio meet half ways (UR 17).
Nowadays, however, a new methodology is needed to attain re-union, as both Churches recognize
each other to be “sister Churches” (nr.s 13, 14). Neither absorption nor fusion will do, but
encounter in love which leads to communion. In this way, while recognizing the inviolability of the
individual conscience and its obligation to follow its inner convictions, the conversion of
individuals from one sister Church to another is excluded28. Recognizing one another to be true
pastors, the leaders of the various sister Churches are encouraged to seek the union Christ
envisaged together, in a spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility. As for the Oriental
Catholic Churches they have the directives of Vatican II to follow so as to engage in the dialogue of
negative connotation of the term “Uniates”). Interesting is how 6.b defines uniatism as that effort
to re-establish Church union by inducing parts of the Orthodox Church to secede, an effort which
goes counter to the ecclesiology of “sister Churches” (ibid., p. 272). No counter-examples, such as
the horrible events of 1946, are mentioned in the Freising text.
22
23
This ecclesiology of the “return” of the dissident Eastern Christians to the fold of Peter had been
used in Pius IX.’s Apostolic Letter to the Eastern Christians, “In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede”
(6.01.1848): “At vero ad Nos quod attinet, testamur et confirmamus, nihil nobis antiquius esse,
quam ut Vos ad communionem nostram redeuntes nedum ulla, quae durior videri possit,
praescriptione affligamus, sed ex constanti Sanctae huius Sedis instituto peramanter, et paterna
prorsus benignitate excipiamus;” excerpts in M. Gordillo, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis,
Romae 1950, p. 281. But this ecclesiology had been developed in post-Tridentine times; see E.C.
Suttner, Church Unity: Union or uniatism? Catholic - Orthodox ecumenical Perspectives, tr. B.
McNeil, Bangalore 1991, pp. 80-83.
24
25
26
27
28
4
love at both the local and the universal levels29.
In the practical norms, it is asserted that the Catholic Church has no intention to indulge in
expansionism, but only to satisfy the pastoral needs of her own faithful (nr. 22). Moreover, the
liberty of conscience being what it is, in case of conflict, it is incumbent on the faithful themselves
to decide to which communion to belong (nr. 24; see nr. 15). The forced annexation of Catholics,
under the Communist regimes, to the Orthodox Church in order to escape persecution, is nowhere
directly mentioned, although nr.s 23 and 33 refer to persecutions of all Christians concerned. In a
new spirit, pastoral projects that envisage the faithful of both Churches ought to be based on the
consultation of both groups. And, in an effort to resolve local conflicts, it is urged to establish joint
local commissions (nr. 26); every form of violence, from the moral to the verbal to the physical, is
proscribed (nr. 27). Liturgical celebrations from whichever group ought to be respected and, if need
be, the premises of one Church ought to be made available to the other (nr. 28). It is incumbent on
the formation of priests to show how outdated the ecclesiology of “return” to the Catholic Church is
(nr. 30). Besides, in order to avoid unnecessary interferences, the jurisdiction of the various
communities are to be respected, and, generalizing, every occasion of conflict ought to be resolved
by fraternal dialogue30. This holds true especially of the thorny question of the restitution of
ecclesiastical property (nr. 31)31.
1.4 The Balamand Document, the conclusion: the parting hope
The Document finishes by extolling those who have suffered persecution in the past, while
exhorting them to let bygones be bygones and so offer their suffering for union (nr. 33). By
excluding all forms of proselytism, the International Joint Commission hopes that, with its
Document, it has removed the obstacle towards participation in further dialogue (nr.s 34-35)32.
1.5 The Ariccia Text of 1991
It is important in this context to re-read nr. 4 of the Blamand text carefully: “The document
prepared at Ariccia by the joint coordinating committee (June 1991) and finished at Balamand
(June 1993) states what is our method in the present search for full communion, thus giving the
reason for excluding ‘uniatism’ as a method”33. As this linkage of the Balamand document to that of
Ariccia will prove significant in judging the former, it is imperative to give some attention to this
document worked out in Ariccia, Rome, two years before Balamand met and at the height of the
crisis coming from Eastern Europe. The Sixth Plenary Session held in Freising (1990) had entrusted
the three sub-commissions set up for the purpose to study two documents on uniatism: the Vienna
document and the Freising Declaration. After meeting in Rome twice, both times in December
1990, and then in Vienna, in April of 1991, the three sub-commissions entrusted their work to a
coordinating commission, which during its session in Ariccia from 10.-15 June 1991 produced the
Ariccia document. It is composed of 25 points, with a first part without a title, which we may call
Principles, running from nr.s 1 to 11, followed by a part entitled Suggestions, going from nr.s. 11
through 25. Though it overlaps with the Balamand document to a great measure, there are
appreciable differences, for it is rather niggardly towards the Oriental Catholic Churches. Nr.s 1-5
of the Balmand text have been added as an introduction, afterwards nr. 6 of the Balamand text (B)
corresponds to nr. 1 of the Arricia document (A), B 7 to A 2, B 8 to A 3, B 9 to A 4, B 10 and 11
correspond to A. 5, B 12 to A 6, B 13 to A 7, B 14 to A 8. B 15, 16 and 17 correspond to A 9, but
the following statement of A 9 has been modified:
29
31
32
33
Balamand, “Uniatism,” p. 680.
30
5
A 9: ... some important matters are still
pending; when a solution is found, the
Catholic and the Orthodox Church will
re-establish full communion between
them and so the difficulties posed by
the Oriental Catholic Churches to the
Orthodox Church will be definitively
removed.
B 16: The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired
to re-establish full communion with the see of Rome
and have remained faithful to it have the rights and
obligations which are connected with this communion.
The principles determining their attitude towards
Orthodox churches are those which have been stated by
the Second Vatican Council and have been put into
practice by the popes who have clarified the practical
consequences flowing from those principles in various
documents published since then. These churches, then,
should be inserted, on both local and universal levels,
into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect and
reciprocal trust found once again, and enter into the
theological dialogue, with all its practical
implications34.
From B 18, which corresponds to A10, the quotation from John Paul II’s Letter to the Bishops
of the European Continent on the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox in the new situation
of Central and Eastern Europe (31.05.1991) has been omitted.
The “Practical rules” of B correspond to the “Suggestions” of A: B 19 to A 11, B 20 to A 12.
But whereas A13 had spoken as if the problem of disrespect shown to other Churches concerned
only Catholics, B 21, corresponding to A 13, tones down the admonition addressed to Catholics and
adds: “The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards their
faithful”35. B 22 corresponds to A 14, B 23 to A 15, B 24 to A16, B 25 to A 17, B 26 to A 18 (but
the reference to Gal 5:13 has been moved from A 18 to B 25), B 27 to A 19, B 28 to A 20, B 29 to
A 21, B 30 to A 22, B 31 to A 23. B 32 is new; it says that it is in this spirit just outlined that the
new evangelization of the secularized world can take place. B 33 corresponds to A 24. Also new is
B 34 which urges that these practical norms be applied to our Churches, including the Eastern
Catholic Churches, “who are called to take part in this dialogue”36. B 35 corresponds to A 25.
The difference between the Balamand and the Ariccia documents go long ways to establish
both Balamand’s message and the malaise that followed in its wake.
2. Balamand: the aftermath
If after Balamand there followed seven years of waiting for, and repeated postponing of, the
next Plenary Session, which, when it was at long last agreed upon and did finally materialize, gave
us the Baltimore anti-climax, one might easily succumb to the temptation of seeking for alibis and
scapegoats. The dragging war in the Balkans and the unpreparedness of many of the younger
Churches in possession of a freedom to which they were unaccustomed and so unable to intervene
in inter-Church matters when they had their hands full back home, are certainly aspects that should
not be ignored in trying to understand the driving-force behind the reactions to Balamand. But they
are not enough to explain what happened.
In a recent Interview with an Italian journalist Patriarch Barthomew hit the nail on the head
when he expresses Orthodox preference for the Ariccia text in view of the fact that the majority of
them have not “received” the Balamand document.
“First of all, the Balamand document is not an agreement among the Churches,
but a proposal which their respective representatives addressed to them, a proposal
which has not been accepted by the majority of Orthodox Churches. For this
reason it has been replaced by the Ariccia document, which has not received
the vast publicity of the first. This second document has not been approved by
the supreme authorities of the Roman-Catholic Church, so that the Commission
34
Balamand, “Uniatism,”p. 682. The Ariccia text is translated by me from G. Bruni, Quale
ecclesiologia?, p. 311.
35
36
6
for Dialogue, assembled at Baltimore, found itself in a blind alley. The solution
proposed by the Orthodox is that Uniates unite to the Church they want so that
the ecclesiastically anomalous existence of the situation of the double soul of
uniatism may cease”37.
Here we limit ourselves to two sufficiently representative reactions to Balamand. The first
comes from Pierre Duprey, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Union Among
Christians at the time Balamand took place and veteran of the dialogue since its inception; the other
from John H. Erickson, noted Orthodox canonist and professor at St Vladimir’s Theological
Seminary, New York.
2.1 Pierre Duprey’s Position
Balamand, P. Duprey argues, was the search for a theological explanation why the Orthodox
generally are opposed in principle to Eastern Catholics, independently of friendship that might exist
between these two groups. At Moscow in January 1990 four Orthodox and Catholic bishops worked
out the plan to follow at Balamand38, an agreement which harked back to the tradition common to
East and West, as found in canon 34 of The Apostolic Constitutions. According to this the bishops
of a given nation ought to know who is the first among them and to undertake nothing without his
accord, just as he should do nothing without everyone’s consent39. The emergence at the end of the
16th century of Eastern Catholic Churches who seceded from the Orthodox community, unlike
previous fallouts between East and West which did not put in question the salvific import of the
other Church, was perceived like religious “occupation” of a foreign territory40. As a result, the
ecclesial vision came to insist on the canonical–rather than ontological–communion with Rome as
indispensable for salvation; the real reason for the creation of Oriental Catholic Churches41. With
the restoration of ontological community to its rightful priority Vatican II talked of sister Churches,
a theology of communion used by John Paul II in his address to Patriarch Dimitrios in 1987 and
taken up again in the Moscow talks of 199042. Orthodox Churches are opposed to Eastern Catholic
Churches because they see in them Catholic rejection of Orthodox Churches. What Balamand
sought to do (“le coeur de tout le document de Balamand”), therefore, was to re-affirm the ecclesial
character of Orthodox Churches as “sister Churches”43. Naturally, in terms of the theology of
communion elaborated together by Orthodox and Catholics, for a Church to qualify as a sister
Church it has to profess the apostolic faith and participate in the same sacraments, especially in the
one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ and have the same apostolic succession.
These gifts, constituting as they do the Church into a community of salvation, cannot be considered
to be the exclusive gifts of one of our Churches44. Both Paul VI and John Paul II have qualified this
“ontological communion” as “almost complete”. On the insistence of the Orthodox representatives
37
On the accord in Balamand Patriarch Bartholomew said the following: “Anzitutto il documento
di Balamand non costituisce un accordo fra le Chiese, ma una proposta delle rispettive
rappresentanze rivolta a loro, la quale non è stata approvata dalla maggioranza delle Chiese
ortodosse. Perciò è stata sostituita dal documento di Ariccia, che non ha ottenuto una pubblicità
ampia come il primo. Questo secondo documento non è stato approvato dal vertice della Chiesa
Romano-Cattolica e così la Commissione per il Dialogo, radunata a Baltimora, si è trovata davanti a
un vicolo cieco. La soluzione proposta dalla parte ortodossa è l’assimilazione degli Uniati alla
Chiesa che preferiscono, in modo che cessi l’esistenza, ecclesiasticamente anomala della situazione
della doppia anima dell’Uniatismo”; “Dialogo fra le religioni e le chiese: intervista a Bartolomeo I,
Patriarca ecumenico della Chiesa ortodossa,” a cura di Giancarlo Ziziola, Rocca: Rivista della Pro
Civitate Christiana, Assisi, 60 (2001) 27-33.
38
P. Duprey, “Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe. Balamand, 17-24 Juin
1993,” Communion et réunion. Mélanges Jean-Marie Roger Tillard, édités par G.R. Evans & M.
Gourgues, Leuven 1995, p. 115.
39
P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p. 116.
40
41
P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” pp. 118f.
42
43
P. Duprey, “Une étape importante ...,” p.121.
44
7
it was added to nr. 13 of the Balamand document that the recognition of a Church as a sister Church
excludes the possibility of re-baptising; nr. 13 thus marks a distinct progress over the Bari
document45. Under these premisses, the search of unity and communion would lead to a discussion
of the canonical implications of being united to the Church of Rome46. While this remains a longrange goal, full recognition of Eastern Catholic Churches as an integral part of the Catholic Church
is one of Balamand’s more immediate achievements47. The bitter opposition on the part of Catholics
and Orthodox is understandable where one still uses an outdated ecclesiology, or, worse, where the
goals set by dialogue itself are rejected48.
2.2 John H. Erickson’s Review
In view of the controversies Balamand raised, Erickson aims at situating it within the broader
context of Orthodox / Roman Catholic relations so as to respond to major accusations levelled
against the statement49. He first points out the manipulations that were used in order to present this
agreed statement as faulty in principle50. As in the case of the Freising document, developed on the
spot without the habitual preliminary drafting, the Ariccia document, too, was leaked to the press
because it was considered advantageous to the Orthodox, with the result that Eastern Catholics
considered it a sell-out of their interests51. Then, the various reasons for the absence of six Churches
are reviewed, ranging from civil war and internal strife to refusal to participate in the Dialogue52.
While certifying Balamand an “indirect” change of heart on the part of Rome Patriarch
Bartholomew, in his visit to Rome on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 1995, criticizes her
for taking “the provisional toleration of the irregular regime of uniatism, tolerated only by
ecclesiastical economy” as a “total amnesty granted to uniatism”53. Whereas the Synod of the
Romanian Orthodox Church formally accepted Balamand, Romanian Uniates attacked it for its
“anti-Catholic ecumenism”54. More differentiated Cardinal Lubachivsky’s stance. While criticizing
Balamand for rejecting Uniatism as both method and model and for its failure to ascribe the
Russian Orthodox Church even partial responsibility for complicity in the suppression of Ukrianian
Uniates, he also praised Balamand and promised to implement its recommendations55. By and large,
the most negative responses came from the Old Calendarists, Mount Athos and from the Permanent
Synod of the Church in Greece. Erickson suggests that, in spite of a negligible Uniate population in
Greece, the “Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate” there, created as a token of Rome’s opposition to the
ecclesial claims of the established Orthodox Church, represents some of the worst aspects of
Uniatism56. Balamand evoked a generally favourable response from Orthodox and Catholic
theologians in the West, e.g., from the French Joint Commission, including such theologians as O.
Clément, N. Lossky, B. Bobrinskoy, which expressed full adherence to the great ecclesiological
principles of Balamand57. Over and above the resistance of certain local Uniates to the
implementation of Balamand, critics took up nr. 16 of Balamand, which, as we have seen, re-wrote
45
See “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church” (Bari, Italy, June 1987), Growth in
Agreement, II, pp. 660-668.
46
47
48
49
J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,
42 (1997) 25-43, here 26.
50
J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 27f.
51
52
53
J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 33.
54
55
56
J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” p. 35; see, on this point, E.Chr. Suttner,
Die Christenheit aus Ost und West auf der Suche nach dem sichtbaren Ausdruck für ihre Einheit,
Würzburg 1999, pp. 224f.
57
8
nr. 9 of Ariccia, as it talked of inserting Eastern Catholic Churches on all levels. Yet the muchcriticised phrase from nr. 16, that Catholics of the Oriental Catholic Churches should “enter into the
theological dialogue” really said nothing new, since right from its inception the International Joint
Commission counted two Eastern Catholics appointed by Rome as its members58. Archbishop
Stylianos, Orthodox Co-Chairman of the Joint Commission, poses tangible progress in this area as a
pre-condition for the continuation of dialogue59.
The issues at stake are the concept of “sister Churches,” the presentation of the historical
record of Orthodox / Catholic relations, and the practice of rebaptism. Noting the irony that the
concept of “sister Churches” should be singled out for criticism, since this is the concept Orthodox
have tried hardest to promote, Erickson remarks that the expression “sister Church” did not stop
after communion ended, but it is necessary to work out its precise meaning60. Moreover, nr.s 6-10
of the Balamand Document, purporting to describe the origin of Eastern Catholic Churches and
their impact on relations between Orthodox and Catholics, ran into criticism from both sides,
because the Orthodox feel that these paragraphs fail to do justice to the wrongs done to their Church
by the creation of these Uniate Churches, and the latter fail to recognize the Orthodox Churches’
complicity in the suppressions of 1946-194861. Moreover, in its terseness the account becomes
undifferentiated, because the various Eastern Churches had different origins. Moreover, Orthodox
did not acquire its conception that she exclusively possessed salvation after the arrival of Uniatism;
rebaptism was prescribed for Latins only in 1755 after Propaganda forbade any communicatio in
sacris with the “dissident orientals–as Erickson could have specified–after Rome’s recognition of
the breakaway Melkite Patriarchate in 172962. Since there can be no “mysteries” or sacraments
outside the Body of Christ, many Orthodox consider Balamand’s rejection of rebaptism dangerous.
But, for one thing, the theory under consideration has been dismissed by Georges Florovsky as a
private theological opinion given definitive expression in St Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s Pedalion
(mid-eighteenth cenury). For another, Roman Catholic rebaptism is much better attested than the
converse, at least prior to the eighteenth century63. Actually, Balamand’s strictures against
reiteration of the sacraments concern much more Catholics, who, doubting of the validity of
ordinations of bishops that collaborated with the communists, have sometimes wondered about their
validity64.
2.3 Critical Note on Sister Churches When the “Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches’”
(30.06.2000) came out, for some it sounded like the death-knell for dialogue with the East. In the
Interview mentioned above Patriarch Bartholomew was more cautious and did not pronounce
himself65. So one may here point out briefly the relevance of these much-discussed statements of
the Congregation of Faith for our theme. As for Dominus Iesus (5.09.2000), which deals with
interreligious dialogue and the strongest reactions to which came nonetheless from other Christian
Churches, Francis Sullivan has drawn attention to the fact that, precisely on improved relations with
the Orthodox, it scores positive points, not only because it reproduces the text of the Creed in the
58
60
61
62
J.H. Erickson, “Concerning the Balamand Statement,” pp. 40f; E.Chr. Suttner, Die Christenheit
aus Ost und West auf der Suche nach dem sichtbaren Ausdruck für ihre Einheit, Würzburg 1999,
pp. 191f, 295.
63
64
65
To the question about his reaction to Dominus Jesus and to the Note on the Expression ‘Sister
Churches’ Bartholomew answered: “It is difficult to comment and judge with precision 23 pages,
which are so dense and which are accompanied by six pages with 102 annotations. In any case, if
necessary, the Orthodox Churches will officially take position on the content of the Declaration and
of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter added to the Document. For the time being we can say that the theses
of the Declaration concerning the concept of “sister Churches” have given rise to some perplexity,
but their acceptance or rejection calls for a closer study;” “Dialogo fra le religioni e le chiese:
intervista a Bartolomeo I, Patriarca ecumenico della Chiesa ortodossa,” a cura di Giancarlo Ziziola,
Rocca: Rivista della Pro Civitate Christiana, Assisi, 60 (2001) 31f.
59
9
original, without the Filioque, but also because it calls Orthodox communities “true particular
Churches”66. On the other hand, since the “Note on the expression ‘Sister Churches’” starts out by
referring to the use of the expression above all in Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue (nr. 1; see also nr. 9)
and suggests avoiding the expression “both our Churches” (nr. 11), it is correct to infer that,
although nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Note, the Balamand Document is also meant. In fact,
the expression is found in both the Ariccia67 and the Balamand68 Documents. As the Note reserves
the expression “sister Churches” to those ecclesial communities who have a valid episcopate and a
valid eucharist (nr. 12), again, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are given due
recognition (see nr.s 3, 5, 6, 7, 8). The Note adds that “sister Churches” refers exclusively to
“particular Churches,” never to the relationship obtaining between the universal Church (i.e., the
Catholic Church) and particular Churches, whereby the particular Church of Rome can be described
as a sister Church (nr.s 10, 11). The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not a sister, but
mother of all the particular Churches. Although the theme of the motherhood of the Church goes
back to pre-Nicene times—the African Church having added this qualification to the Creed, “I
believe in holy mother Church”69—the theme receives different accentuations in the various periods
of Church History. The expression is known in the Orthodox Church and is even found in the
Balamand Document, albeit in the context of certain communities breaking communion with their
“mother Churches of the East” (nr. 8).
3. After Balamand: Lessons to draw from a debate
Judging by the discussion it provoked Balamand marks a significant stage on ecumenism’s
progress. It illustrates once more that the history of Christianity is a—spiralling—history of
divisions and attempts to heal them70. But whether this leads to uniatism or unity, that depends on
the method followed, which may be proselytism or dialogue; or, at least, so Balamand would have
us believe. But: is it enough to condemn proselytism?
3.1 Revisiting Proselytism.
Indeed, one may wonder why Balamand had so little positive to say about evangelization
except to warn against proselytism and uniatism, in spite of the fact that—unlike so many occasions
when the words one uses are worn out—fresh examples of faith witnesses were not lacking and
notwithstanding the fact that excruciating suffering usually relativizes even enormous past wrongs
and unites opposites. Irony of ironies! In the beginning it was not so, for “proselytism” was
practically synonymous with “evangelization.”
Proselytism is not specific to Christianity, but exists wherever two or more religions raise the
claim to be universal with a consequent duty to win followers. “Proselytes” are to be found in both
the Jewish religion as well as in Islam. We come across the word proselytes in the Acts,
BD@FZ8LJ@4 (Acts 2:11), which simply means converts to Judaism, here present for the event of
Pentecost and thus referring to the very first class of people to whom the Gospel was preached.
Later on, among the seven chosen by the Apostles to serve the tables the last-mentioned is a certain
Nikolaos, an Antiochean proselyte (Acts 6:5)71. At any rate, the use came to be extended to any new
convert to a given religion and to any organized attempt to induce people to change their belief.
Nowadays, however, proselytism has a distinctly negative flavour, suggesting conniving at making
converts through improper means72.
66
F.A. Sullivan, “The Impact of Dominus Iesus on Ecumenism,” America, 28.10.2000, 8f.
For example, the Ariccia Document speaks of “each of our two Churches” (nr. 5); see also nr.s 7,
8, 12, 13, 19, 22 and 25.
68
See nr.s 12, 14, 25 (but here the use is rather at the local level of the relationship between
particular Churches: see also: nr.s 26, 27, 28 and 29) and 30.
69
See K. Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater chez les Pères des trois premiers siècles, Paris 1964, pp. 98,
108; see also E. Lanne, “Église soeur et Église mère dans le vocabulaire de l’Église ancienne,” B.
Bobrinskoy et alii (ed.s), Communio Sanctorum, Genève 1982, pp. 86-97.
70
See J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 315.
71
G. Kuhn, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VI, pp. 742-745.
72
The real problem arises not so much with easily identifiable extreme proselytism, but with the
grey area between legitimate evangelization and unlawful proselytism. All Churches are sensitive to
loss of members, so that WCC 1961 in its “Christian Witness, Proselytism and religious Liberty”
67
10
In the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, the agreed statement “Evangelization,
Proselytism and Common Witness”73 explains the problem of proselytism through the fact that
Pentecostals and Catholics do not have a common understanding of the Church, for example,
regarding the relationship between Church and baptism as an expression of living faith74. Lack of
recognition among those active in a given area—which, in spite of so much talk of sister Churches,
is at times keenly felt among Catholics and Orthodox—can prod on to proselytism. Moreover, the
logic of “established” and “newcomers,” often used as a pretext to indulge in proselytism, varies
from place to place and can easily be inverted75.
Condemning proselytism as going counter to the Gospel is not enough. One must move
instead to a common witness of the Gospel. But before we can bear such common witness we have
to make sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and that the same words are not being used
with different meanings.
3.2 The goal desired: Union or Uniatism?
Precisely because of its desire to be brief and to the point Balamand not only failed to lay
down in unequivocal terms what it means by proselytism, but also gave an inadequate version of
the origin of uniatism, to which proselytism is supposed to lead. The decision to restrict itself to the
last four centuries is as arbitrary as trying to explain the Balkan wars of the last decade by stopping
four centuries ago and leaving out, for example, the famous battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389. With
Paul’s warnings against the Paul, Apollo, Cephas and Christ factions at Corinth in mind (1 Cor
1:10-17), we see that group-building divisive of community goes back to the beginning of
Christianity. In this perspective every major Christian community may be said to have practised, at
one time or another, proselytism leading to the break-up of splinter groups from the mother
community.
Given the wholistic approach of religion in the East according to which there is a continuum,
rather than a separation, between religion and socio-political life, it often proves difficult to
distinguish between secession and schism. W.H.C. Frend has pointed out that Donatism was a
social movement in disguise, for, besides being a religious movement, it was also a social and
political protest movement76. True, to E.L. Woodward’s thesis that heterodoxy basically
and—implicitly—Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty (1965) disapproved of proselytism.
While rejected by mainline Churches, proselytism is a problem among sects and has been practised
in the past by everybody; so Ch. O’ Donnell, “Proselytism,” Ecclesia: A Theological Encyclopedia
of the Church, Collegeville, Minnesota 1996, p. 392. In this way, all forms of constraint to adopt a
creed, ranging from hatred to extreme nationalism, are condemned.
73
As the Introduction to this document says, “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness
(1990-1997),” Growth in Agreement, II, pp. 753-779, here p. 753, this is a report from the
participants of the fourth phase of the international dialogue (1990-1997) between the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity and some classical Pentecostal denominations and leaders.
74
Growth in Agreement, II, p. 765.
75
Growth in Agreement, II, p. 766. In Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, J. Macha has used
somewhat different sociological categories. From the vantage point of the elite, the distribution of
power among the unification elites themselves was expected to affect the unification process; ibid.,
p. 321. At the Union of Florence (1439), the Latin Church dealt with the Greek as an equal, but
seems to have found it hard to keep this up after the conclusion of the union, at least in the Latin
possessions; ibid., p. 322. So, while this led to greater commitment than at Lyons (1274), it
eventually gave place to mistrust as to Rome’s intentions; ibid., p. 322. Quite different is the case
with the Ruthenians: from the start, their submission was sought, but the equality they sought lay in
the afterwards: equality with the rival Polish Church within the Catholic communion, with Rome
considered as an ally; ibid., pp. 322f. It is the fear of Latinization, or the imposition of Latin ways at
the expense of local traditions, that here as in Diamper and in Ethiopia, caused damage; the partial
Latinization of the Eastern rite Churches in communion with Rome was a later spontaneous process
from within; ibid., p. 323. All this leads Macha to the conclusion that egalitarian unions tend to be
less decisive than elitist unions, but more capable of generating commitment; ibid., p. 324.
76
H.H. Frend, The Donatist Church, Oxford 1952, 25-75. See J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification,
pp. 316f.
11
camouflaged social protest and unrest77 A.H.M.. Jones gave a celebrated answer in his study, “Were
the ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise?”78, whose resoundingly negative
terms could yet profit from appreciable nuances and even modifications.
Such a perspective helps us see to what extent proselytism in the past, oft under the guise of
imperial politics, was common.When Patriarch Theodosius I of Alexandria (536-567) was kept for
thirty years under house arrest in Constantinople while Emperor Justinian tried in vain to impose
his Chalcedonian patriarchs, the result lead to the formation of parallel hierarchies, thanks to the
indefatigable activity of Jacob Baradaeus, consecrated bishop by Theodosius in 543, simply
because the non-Chalcedonians would in no way recognize the validity of orders imparted by
Chalcedonians79. Although no altar was set up against altar, as in Africa in 312, Byzantine
proselytism in the sixth century inflamed the missionary zeal of the Monophysites, which led to the
conversion of the three Nubian kingdoms south of the Egyptian border80. Equally tainted is the
Byzantine record in Armenia. On the Western front, in 732, during the iconoclastic crisis, Emperor
Leo III took a huge slice of the Pope’s patriarchate in East Illyricum and put it under Byzantine
jurisdiction; the heresy was condemned in 787 and once more in 843, but the property was not
returned. Behind the controversy over the Filioque in the so-called Photian schism was a scramble
between Rome and Constantinople for jurisdiction over Bulgaria81. Even in our own times, the
attempts at a Western-rite Orthodoxy unmasks many a charge of proselytism82.
If we are to apply this to current efforts to restore unity, we have to avoid historiographic
revisionism in trying to interpret the history of the past in terms of newly perceived ecclesiological
priorities. Instead, we need serious historical and sociological studies. As a first step, we are
therefore called to distinguish between theological and non-theological factors in the creation of
schisms. Insignificance and unobstrusiveness can play a role in preventing schism; such, according
to J. Macha, was the case with the Bulgarian Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite, saved by its
own smallness from sharing the fate of the Catholic dioceses of the Byzantine rite in Ukraine,
Romania and Czechoslovakia, and the Italo-Albanians of Calabria and Sicily83. Generally speaking,
the formation of national churches is preceded by the formation of national states.With its policy of
incorporating all the Orthodox of the Empire into one ecclesiastical organisation, the Orthodox
Church of Imperial Russia incorporated the Metropolitan province of Kiev, part of the patriarchate
of Constantinople, and left the Church of Georgia with little autonomy, though the situation
improved when it passed under the Soviet Union84.
On the other hand, some Oriental Catholic Churches, e.g. the Maronites and the ItaloAlbanians, were not born by separating from a non-Catholic Mother Church, and, besides, the call
for uniting with Rome at Brest in 1595 came from the Orthodox bishops themselves.
Yet the patient bringing to light of facts can help heal the wounds only if it serves as a precondition for us to accept our own tradition’s failings, not only those of other Churches. Reading
our traditions in the light of the Gospel suggests that mutual forgiveness is an indispensable
condition for common witness. In this way, the goal sought may be defined as union without
uniatism. Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis has well described the ethos of dialogue as follows:
“The strong one is always the one who has the power to endure. Usually it is only the one who
knows that he is in the right, and therefore is ready to endure everything for his right, who has
patience”85. Ultimately, union without uniatism means communion without losers or winners, but
77
E.L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Late Roman Empire, London 1916, pp. 6772.
78
Journal of Theological Studies 10/2 (1959) 280-298.
79
W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972, pp. 268, 274 and 283.
80
W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972, pp. 62f, 297.
81
F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX siècle, Paris 1926; id., Le schisme de Photius:
histoire et légende, Paris 1950.
82
M. Kovalevsky, Orthodoxie et Occident. Renaissance d’une Églies locale, Paris 1994.
83
J. Macha, Ecclesiasatical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 320.
84
J. Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification, Rome 1974, p. 320.
85
Quoted in E.C. Suttner, Church Unity: Union of Uniatism? Catholic - Orthodox ecumenical
perspectives, tr. B. McNeil, Bangalore 1991, p. 151.
12
with brothers and sisters who have learnt to forgive one another.
3.3. Re-Thinking the Identity of Eastern Catholic Churches.
If one of the great merits of Balamand is to have come out strong on the right of Oriental
Catholic Churches to exist and to fulfil their pastoral duties towards their members, it did not say
much, however, about their new identity as Eastern Catholics in ecumenical times, seemingly an
object of barter, a sine qua non condition posed by Orthodox if we want to attain unity, or even if
we want to continue the dialogue.
A veteran of ecumenism, E. Lanne, describes Oriental Catholic Churches as being contested
from three sides: (a) from many Orthodox who see in the continuing existence of the Oriental
Catholic Churches a stumbling-block to Christian unity, a sort of malformation or
pseudomorphosis, at best to be tolerated for reasons of “economy,” or pastoral comprehension; (b)
from Roman maximalists, who favouring Latinization and centralization, would want to bring
Eastern Catholics in line with Latin ways; and (c) from certain Catholic ecumenists who, banking
on Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarum, practically agree with the first group about the fact that
Eastern Orthodox have their days counted and should resign themselves to their lot86. The last
danger, coming from within, may be the subtlest.
On the part of Eastern Catholics this has understandably led to a variety of reactions87.
One unusual reaction comes from Archbishop Elias Zoghby, retired Greek-Melkite Catholic
Archbishop of Baalbek, who at the 1995 Melkite Synod of Bishops presented the following
Profession of faith: “I. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. II. I am in
communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized
by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium before the separation”88. This plan
would amount to a local merger, which has its fascination, but does not answer the still pending
questions, and thus far has not been “received” by the Church authorities to whom it has been
addressed89119-140. Besides, see Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, tr. Bishop
Nicholas Samra, Fairfax, Va, USA, 1998.. Interesting is the way he sizes up Oriental Catholic
Churches’ past role as having served as interlocutors of the Roman Church in the complete absence
of complete dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy90.
In an article he wrote when he was Professor of ecclesiology at the Urbanian Pontifical
University, Cardinal Lubomír Husar, now Major Archbishop of Lviv, points out that behind the
objection to Eastern Catholics is the prejudice that for an Easterner to become Catholic is
tantamount to abandoning his or her native heritage91.
A much-discussed point on all this is the conclusion of Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarum,
which says: “All these legal arrangements are made in view of present conditions, until such times
as the Catholic Church and the separated eastern churches unite together in the fullness of
86
E. Lanne, “Un christianisme contesté: l’Orient catholique entre mythe et réalité,” in: R.F. Taft
(ed.), The Christian East: Its Institutions and its Thought. A Critical Reflection, Roma 1996, pp. 8588.
87
R. Slesinski, Essays in Diakonia: Eastern Catholic Theological Reflections, New York 1998;
R.F. Taft, “Reflections on ‘Uniatism’ in the Light of Some Recent Books”, OCP 65 (1999) 153184.
88
Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, tr. Ph. Khairallah, Newton, Ma, 1996, p. 7.
89
Archbishop Elias Zoghby, “Response to the critics,” We Are All Schismatics,
90
See Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, p. 138, where he also says: “It is certain
that the united Eastern Churches, although latinized and submissive to a regime of
absorption—which confirms Orthodoxy’s thinking that all unity with the Roman Church could only
be made to the detriment of the identity of the Eastern Churches—could contribute to open the
Christians of [the]West to the richness of Orthodoxy. We played this role unpretentiously by our
liturgies and later by a certain capture of conscience of our entire heritage.”
91
L. Husar, “The Ukrainian Ecclesiological Thought,” Pont. Lateran University / Catholic
University of Lublin, The Common Chrsitian Roots of the European Nations, II, Florence 1982, p.
186.
13
communion” (OE 30)92. In a Study Meeting of Bishops and Major Superiors of Eastern Catholic
Churches of Europe, organized by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, held in Nyíregyháza,
Hungary in 1997 Dimitri Salachas explained that the reason why not all Orthodox Churches accept
Balamand is due to the fact that Balamand recognized the ecclesial character of Eastern Catholic
Churches, and not simply their provisional status, as some have erroneously interpreted OE 30 to
say93. A review in Irénikon of the same Study Meeting in Hungary, also published in the same
volume by the Congregation for Oriental Churches, criticizes Salachas’ interpretation of OE 30 as
erroneous, adding that it regrets that the Declaration of the Bishops is marred by the same error94.
With this in mind one may perhaps draw the conclusion that the difficulty is one of
hermeneutics. The question about the permanence of Oriental Catholic Churches is posed in the
present in which great hurdles still remain; Orientalium Ecclesiarum speaks of a time when
communion will be ripe and the difficulties surmounted, so that it will be possible to pose the
question for the first time in true freedom of spirit and full mutual acceptance. Even then, with all
Vatican II’s talk of the possibility of new patriarchates and of the 1996 settlement in Estonia of a
conflict between Orthodox themselves which led to a double jurisdiction possibly nobody can
foresee how in practice the final solution will look like. At any rate, the existence of Oriental
Catholic Churches as accepted at Balamand is not at stake, though more should have said to
elucidate precisely this point and allay the fears which then exploded. Incidentally, a similar
difficulty exists for the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church and her sacraments, which
induced Prof. Yannis Spiteris to wonder whether Orthodoxy really considers her to be a sister
Church95. But just as the last-named difficulty does not lead Latins to an identity crisis, so, too, the
other question should not lead Eastern Catholics to doubt of their identity.
Conclusion:
Did Balamand succeed or fail? Maybe it is impossible to draw a definitive balance while the
jury is still sitting, especially since the Balamand debate has not yet abated. We still live
ecumenically under the sign of Balamand, whether we like it or not. But such reactions had better
present themselves now, when we are in a position to clarify ambiguities, rather than later on, when
it is too late and we would inherit a union without a future.
*
Abbreviations:
D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale = D. Salachas, Il dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la
chiesa cattolico-romana e la chiesa ortodossa: iter e documentazione, Bari 1994.
Balamand, “Uniatism” = “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for
Full Communion” (Balamand, Lebanon, 23 June 1993), in: J.Gros, H. Meyer and W.G. Rusch
(eds), Growth in Agreement, II, Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a
World Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000, pp. 680-685.
G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? = G. Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? Cattolicesimo e Ortodossia
a confronto. Il dialogo ufficiale, Milano 1999.
F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische Dialog = F.R. Gahbauer, Der orthodox-katholische
Dialog. Spannende Bewegung der Ökumene und ökumenische Spannungen zwischen der
Schwesterkirchen von den Anfängen bis heute, Paderborn 1997.
Growth in Agreement, II = J. Gros, H. Meyer and W.G. Rusch (ed.s), Growth in Agreement, II, Reports and
Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Geneva 2000.
92
OE 30, “Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches,” Vatican Council II, Constitutions and
Declarations, General Editor A. Flannery, New York 1996, p. 534.
93
D. Salachas, “L’ecumenismo come condizione per l’identità,” in: Congregrazione per le Chiese
Orientali, L’identità delle Chiese orientali cattoliche, Città del Vaticano 1999, pp. 157f.
94
Irénikon LXX (1997) 287-292; published in Congregrazione per le Chiese Orientali, L’identità
delle Chiese orientali cattoliche, Città del Vaticano 1999, pp. 277-279, here pp. 278f.
95
Y. Spiteris, “La Chiesa ortodossa riconosce veramente quella cattolica come ‘chiesa sorella’?,”
Studi ecumenici, XIV/1, Gennaio-Marzo 1996, 44-82.
14
Problématique actuelle du Rétablissement de l’Unité
du Patriarcat Grec d’Antioche
P.Victor Chelhot s.j.
Préambule
La création du Patriarcat Grec melkite catholique, survenue en 1724, a été le
résultat d’un long cheminement et de circonstances aussi bien intérieures qu’extérieures .
Certains (1) y voient surtout l’influence culturelle et économique des missionnaires
latins et de leurs consuls européens, installés à Alep, ville réputée à l’époque par sa
position géographique commerciale et économique. Certes Franciscains, Capucins et
Jésuites (2) étaient en relation avec leur consul, mais ils exerçaient leur ministère, en
référence à l’Union réalisée au Concile de Florence/Ferrare (1438-1441) qui ne survecut
pas à la chute de Constantinople (1453) (3), comme aussi selon l’esprit apostolique de la
réforme catholique du Concile de Trente. Et il n’était pas surprenant de voir que des
chrétiens et même des clercs étaient également attirés par un nouveau souffle de vie
chrétienne et ecclésiale. Le mouvement catholique prit alors, dès le début du XVIIème
siècle, une grande extension à Alep, Damas et Saïda (Sidon), aussi bien parmi les
membres de la hiérarchie que parmi les fidèles. Plusieurs d’entre eux, même des
évêques, adoptaient la foi catholique, tout en restant orthodoxes . Et “Athanase III a
été le dernier Patriarche sous lequel les orthodoxes et les catholiques aient été
confondus “ (4).
A la mort de ce dernier, survenue en 1724, les catholiques jugèrent que le
moment était venu pour se donner un Patriarche ouvertement uni à Rome. Les
suffrages des habitants de Damas se portèrent sur leur compatriote, Sérafim Thanas, né
en 1680 et neveu de Sayfi, un ardent pro-catholique de Saida. Il fut consacré par trois
évêques sous le nom de Cyrille VI. Aussitôt connue la mort d’Athanase III,
Constantinople a choisi et consacré Sylvestre de Chypre. En décembre 1724, Jérémie
de Constantinople lançât l’excommunication contre Cyrille VI (5). Le schisme fut
alors consommé. Par la suite, au XIX siècle, certains catholiques sont revenus à
l’Orthodoxie, au moment où Rome a voulu imposer le calendrier grégorien aux
Orientaux catholiques. En général , dit Mgr. Georges Khodr, “nous étions en situation
de conflit avec les Grecs catholiques jusqu’à Vatican II” (6).
____________
(1) Cf. Mgr. G. Khodr, in Le Quotidien An-Nahar, du 5/10/1996
(2) En 1630, le personnel missionnaire à Alep comprenait 6 pères et frères franciscains,
5 pères et frères capucins et 2 pères jésuites (arrivés à Al ep en 1625). Cf. Musset,
Histoire du Christianisme, spécialement en Orient, tome II, p.158 .
(3) B. Heyberger , Les Chrétiens du Proche Orient au temps de la réforme catholique .
Edition de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 1994, p. 233 .
(4) Musset, p.169 .
(5) Ibid. p. 174
(6) Khodr, An-Nahar, le 5/10/96 . Cf. Heyberger, p.86
I - Les retombées oecuméniques de Vatican II
1
Le Concile et le décret sur l’Oecuménisme
1. Vatican II a marqué un tournant dans les relations de Rome avec les
Chrétiens non-catholiques, et en particulier avec les Orthodoxes. Nous savons qu’une
des deux finalités du Concile convoqué par Jean XXIII, était le service de la cause de
l’unité chrétienne. Et c’est Jean XXIII qui a invité les communions non-catholiques à y
envoyer des observateurs et à leur donner le statut de travail le plus libéral, dans un
climat d’ouverture et de confiance. Dans cette ambiance, la délégation de l’Eglise
Grecque catholique d’Antioche se fit, pour ainsi dire, l’interprête de sa partenaire,
orthodoxe d’Antioche, et fit entendre sa voix pour conscientiser les Pères conciliaires au
patrimoine oriental liturgique, patristique et patriarcal .
1. Le Décret de l’Oecuménisme, fruit de longues discussions et interventions,
est venu confirmer que quelque chose de nouveau s’était produit. Il reconnut que, dans
les ruptures qui ont conduit à nos lamentables divisions, il y avait souvent faute des deux
côtés (1). Par ailleurs, “les frères séparés de la pleine communion , justifiés par la foi
reçue au baptême, incorporés au Christ, portent à juste titre le nom de Chrétiens, et les
fils de l’Eglise catholique les reconnaissent, à bon droit, comme des frères dans le
Seigneur “(no.3 ). S’agissant des Orthodoxes, le Concile parla franchement d’Eglises
locales, d’Eglises Orientales patriarcales “ dont plusieurs se glorifient d’avoir été fondées
par les Apôtres eux-mêmes” (no.14)
3. A la suite de Vatican II les Grecs catholiques d’Antioche commençèrent à
redécouvrir le patrimoine orthodoxe. Par ailleurs, n’ayant plus le rôle de réconcilier
l’Orthodoxie avec Rome, comme l’a avoué en 1968 la commission melkite patriarcale, ils
ont commencé à penser que leur partenaire direct dans le dialogue, était le Siège orthodoxe
d’Antioche. Les Orthodoxes, de leur côté, ayant remarqué l’évolution qui s’est produite
dans l’Oecuménisme catholique, ont réalisé qu’il s’est passé, comme l’a dit Mgr. G.
Khodr, quelque chose d’important et de profondément spirituel. Alors ils se sont dit,
allons les rencontrer là où ils sont, en toute charité (2) .
Premières retrouvailles
Depuis Vatican II, et grâce à l’oecuménisme qu’il a préconisé, le Grecs
catholiques renonçèrent au prosélytisme et ne se préoccupèrent plus de cette question. A la
suite de cette nouvelle prise de conscience et de l’éveil survenu chez les Orthodoxes, il eut
lieu un
échange de délégués entre les deux synodes, au moment de leur réunion
respective, à une même date, en mai l974 et sans entente préalable. La délégation
catholique a été reçue le 1er Mai dans la salle même où était réuni le Synode orthodoxe,
au couvent St Elie de Choueir. A cette occasion, Mgr.E.Zoghbi préconisa la restauration
de la véritable union entre les deux Eglises, sans attendre l’unité entre Rome et les autres
Eglises orthodoxes. Et le 22 mai, la délégation orthodoxe a été reçue dans la salle même
où était réuni le Synode catholique, à Ain Traz. Mgr. G. Khodr déclara que nous voulons
cette union entre nous, mais sans référence venant de l’extérieur. A ces paroles, tous les
Pères du Synode applaudirent vivement. Cependant le 28 Août de la même année, un
communiqué émanant du Patriarcat Grec Catholique parle de rapprochement, en insistant
_______________
(1) Documents conciliaires, l’Oecuménisme, Introduction par le P.Yves Congar,
Centurion, tome I, p.179 .
(2) Conférence à Kaslik-Liban, du 13 décembre l 996
sur la nécessité de reconnaître la primauté romaine (1) .
“Suspension provisoire de la communion”
2
Sans se décourager, Mgr. G. Khodr poursuivit ses tentatives. L’occasion se
présenta quand son Patriarche Elias IV le délégua à Rome en une mission “qui se
voulait secrète”, au sujet de Jérusalem et des Grecs catholiques . Il a été reçu par Paul
VI en présence du P. Pierre Duprey. Pour ce qui concerne ces derniers, Mgr. Khodr,
comme il le dit lui-même, s’évertua à ‘inventer une formule’ pour une union provisoire
des deux branches du Siège d’Antioche, et cela en attendant l’union du Siège d’Antioche
avec celui de Rome. Cette formule serait la “suspension provisoire” de la communion
des Grecs catholiques avec Rome, et cela pour des motifs relatifs à la théologie de
l’Eglise. Mgr. Khodr ajouta que Paul VI garda le silence, en précisant que le SaintPère n’était pas ” préparé à une telle ouverture”(2) .
“Tous Schismatiques” et double communion
1. Quelques années plus tard, en 1981, Mgr. Elias Zoghby, archevêque
catholique de Baalbeck, publia un livre qui attira l’attention des milieux ecclésiatiques par
son titre de choc: “Tous schismatiques”. Il y relate les différentes étapes du schisme
du Siège d’Antioche et de ses conséquences, à savoir l’Uniatisme. Il y parle avec un
accent pathétique de son amour et de son attachement aussi bien à l’Eglise orthodoxe à
laquelle il doit sa foi, qu’à l’Eglise de Rome, reconnue comme le premier Siège de la
Chrétienneté et centre de l’Unité. Aussi, ne voudrait-il pas mourrir en état de schisme ni
avec l’une , ni avec l’autre. Il termine en préconisant la double communion à la fois, à
savoir que les melkites, tout en restant en communion avec Rome, entreront en
communion avec le Siège orthodoxe d’Antioche (3) .
2. Il faudrait cependant souligner que Mgr. Zoghby , au mois d’Août 1975,
avait présenté son projet de la double communion à son Synode Grec catholique, et ce
dernier l’avait communiqué à Rome le 7 septembre de la même année. La Commission
romaine spéciale chargée d’étudier ce projet donna le 9 avril 1976 un avis négatif tout en
rappelant la recommandation de modération et de patience émanant des évêques melkites
de ce Synode d’Août (4)
Document de Balamand .
Cependant un évènement important, survenu en juin 1993, donna l’occasion de
relancer la question par rapport au Siège d’Antioche. Il s’agit de la VIIème session
plénière de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre
l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes, tenue au couvent Grec orthodoxe de
Balamand, Liban. Le thème de cette session était dicté par la douloureuse situation des
Eglises de l’Europe de l’Est après la chute des régimes communistes en 1989, à savoir
“L’Uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé, et recherche actuelle de la pleine
communion“. Les conclusions de cette session constituent ce qu’on appelle désormais le
“Document de Balamand”. Les principes ecclésiologiques et les règles pratiques qu’il
comporte offrent une base nouvelle pour résoudre les problèmes de l’uniatisme posés aux
Eglises locales en Europe de l’Est et au Moyen-Orient. Il y est question d’Eglises____________________
(1) Khodr, Le projet d’Unité des Grecs catholiques, in An-Nahar, 5/10/1996
(2) Ibid.
(3) Elias Zoghby, Tous schismatiques,p.149, Beyrouth, 1989. (4) Ibid. pp.131-132
soeurs, de liberté religieuse des personnes et des communautés, de l’engagement des
Eglises orientales catholiques dans ce dialogue, du rejet de toute forme de prosélytisme.
Il y est aussi question de la corresponsabilité des pasteurs des deux Eglises dans le
reconnaissance et le respect mutuel de leurs fonctions pastorales propres (1).
3
“Profession de foi unioniste”
Tout cela était susceptible de faire bouger le projet d’union entre les deux
branches du Siège d’Antioche. Il ne fallait pas tant pour faire revenir au devant de la
scène Mgr. E. Zoghby. En février 1995, il publia sa brochure: “Orthodoxe uni ? Oui ! Uniate? Non !”. Il y développe les raisons qui l’ont amené à sa nouvelle démarche, à
savoir sa “profession de foi” unioniste. Un texte de Vatican II stipule, en effet, que le
dialogue entre l’Eglise romaine et l’Orthodoxie orientale “doit être repris à l’endroit où
il a été rompu”. Et un autre texte, cité par Jean Paul II, précise que le dialogue doit
être repris “sans être conditionné par ce que l’une ou l’autre Eglise a pu entreprendre ou
définir en l’absence de l’autre “(2) .
Aussi, “à partir de la situation qui prévalait avant le schisme, et du fait que
l’Orthodoxie d’aujourd’hui ne diffère en rien de celle qui a préexisté au schisme “ il
déclare : “ I - Je crois en tout ce qu’enseigne l’Orthodoxie orientale.
“ II - Je suis en communion avec l’Evêque de Rome, dans les limites reconnues
par les Saints Pères d’Orient au premier parmi les Evêques, durant le premier millénaire
et avant la séparation,. Beyrouth , le 18 février 1995”.
Mgr. G. Khodr, à qui cette profession de foi a été présentée, signa le 20 du même
mois la déclaration écrite suivante: “Je considère cette profession de foi de Mgr. Elias
Zoghby comme posant les conditions nécessaires et suffisantes pour rétablir l’unité des
Eglises orthodoxes avec Rome”. Et cinq jours plus tard, le 25, Mgr. Salim Boustros,
membre catholique de la commission mixte pour le dialogue, signa, à son tour, son
accord avec Mgr. G. Khodr au sujet de cette profession de foi (3) .
Fort de l’accord de Mgr. G. Khodr et de l’appui de son collègue Mgr. Boustros,
Mgr. E. Zoghby, présenta sa “profession de foi “ aux Pères et en marge du Synode, tenu
à Raboué du 24/7 au 4/8/1995, et recueillit séparément les signatures de 23 des 25
évêques présents. Le dossier a été, par la suite, communiqué aux deux Patriarches,
Maximos V (Hakim) des Grecs cath. et Ignace IV (Hazim) des Grecs orth.
II - Communiqués synodaux Grec catholique et Grec orthodoxe
Communiqué synodal Grec catholique
Le Synode Grec catholique, réuni à Raboué du 22 au 27 juillet l996, a terminé
ses travaux par un communiqué portant sur le rétablissement de l’unité du Patriarcat grec
d’Antioche et daté du 27 juillet. Il ne fut cependant publié dans la presse que le 4
septembre suivant. C’est grâce à ce communiqué que nous apprenons le développement
du projet de Mgr. Zoghby lors du Synode de juillet 1995 .
Les Patriarches Grec cath. et Grec orth. ayant accueilli favorablement le projet
du rétablissement de l’unité du Patriarcat byzantin d’Antioche, ils se sont entrenus de ce
_____________________
(1) Courrier oecuméniquie du Moyen-Orient, 21 (III-1993), pp.7-15
(2) E.Zoghby, Orthodoxe uni ? Oui ! - Uniate ? non !, Beyrouth, Fév. 1995, pp 5-6
(3) Ibid. pp. 6-9 .
sujet et se sont mis d’accord pour constituer une commission patriarcale mixte chargée
d’étudier ce projet et les moyens de le réaliser. A Mgr. Khodr et Mgr. Zoghby, on a
adjoint respectivement Mgr. E. Aoudé, orth. et Mgr. S. Boustros, cath.
4
Dans leur Communiqué(1), les Pères du Synode Grec cath., à leur tête le
Patriarche Maximos V, remercient le Patriarche Ignace IV et les Pères de son Synode
orth. pour l’intérêt qu’ils prennent à la restauration de l’unité du Patriarcat d’Antioche
”qui nous permettra, disent ces derniers, de conserver le patrimoine commun et le culte
commun, qui constituent la source de la foi commune” . Le Communiqué développe,
ensuite, le projet de cette restauration .
Les Pères du Synode Grec cath. considèrent que le rétablissement de l’unité
antiochienne est devenu aujourd’hui chose naturelle, grâce au progrès réalisé au plan
de la foi par la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre
l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe. Cette Commission a déclaré, dans trois
documents successifs(2), l’unité de foi dans les dogmes essentiels définis par les 7
premiers Conciles oecuméniques. Il faudra y ajouter le Document de Balamand qui
établit les bases de la pleine communion .
Pour ce qui est de la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome, le Synode s’inspire de la
conception commune qu’ont vécue ensemble l’Orient et l’Occident, au premier
millénaire, en s’appuyant sur le Décret de l’Oecuménisme (no. 14) et l’Encyclique Ut
Unum sint( no. 61).
Prenant en considération cette communion dans les vérités essentielles de la foi,
les Pères du Synode estiment que la ‘communicatio in sacris’ est aujourd’hui chose
naturelle, tout en laissant aux deux Synodes le soin d’en déterminer la portée et les
moyens .
Enfin, les Pères du Synode déclarent demeurer en communion avec l’Eglise
Apostolique de Rome, avec laquelle ils chercheront à dialoguer sur leurs relations
mutuelles, après la restauration de l’unité du Patriarcat d’Antioche .
Réactions et Communiqué synodal orthodoxes
La publication du Communiqué synodal Grec catholique, signé le 27/7/96, et
diffusé le 4/9/96 a provoqué dans la presse de nombreuses réactions orthodoxes dont les
plus importantes ont été réétudiées et reformulées par le Communiqué synodal Grec
orthodoxe (3), paru le 10/10/96 .
Tout en soulignant qu’il a étudié le projet catholique avec sympathie, le Synode
antiochien estime qu’il faudrait, d’une part, poursuivre les pourparlers au sujet de
l’ecclésiologie au niveau antiochien et, d’autre part, continuer le travail de la
Commission mixte internationale entre les deux Eglises puisqu’il est difficile de dissocier
entre les deux plans antiochien et mondial .
Dans cette perspective, l’Eglise orthodoxe interroge ses frères Grecs catholiques
au sujet de la communion dans la foi, qu’ils jugent aujourd’hui possible, alors qu’elle
________________
(1) Le Lien, Communiqué du Synode grec-melkite catholique, 1996, no.4-5, pp.9-11
(2)“Le Mystère de l’Eglise et de l’Eucharistie, à la lumière du Mystère de la
Trinité’(1982), “ La foi, les mystères et l’unité de l’Eglise”(1987), et “Le mystère du
Sacerdoce dans la constitution sacramentelle de l’Eglise” (1988). A y ajouter le
Document de Balamand: “l’Uniatisme, méthode d’union du passé et recherche de la
pleine communion”.
(3) Le lien, Communiqué du Saint Synode grec-orthodoxe d’Antioche, no.6,1996, pp.50
-51
trouve que le dialogue avec Rome, sur ce sujet, est encore à ses débuts. Le premier pas
sur le chemin de l’unité, au plan dogmatique, serait de ne pas conférer le caractère
5
oecuménique aux conciles occidentaux locaux, tenus unilatéralement par l’Occident, y
compris Vatican I, et, par conséquent, de ne pas y obliger les Grecs catholiques.
Quant à la pratique immédiate de la “Communicatio in Sacris’, le Synode juge
qu’elle est liée à une orthodoxie parfaitement claire, et qu’elle est, non un pas
préparatoire, mais le dernier pas vers l’unité,
Par ailleurs, l’unité antiochienne du côté orthodoxe est liée au consentement des
Eglises-soeurs orthodoxes, comme la double communion préconiée par les Grecs
catholiques est inséparable de la restauration de la communion entre le Siège de
Rome et toute l’Orthodoxie .
Enfin, si le chemin de l’unité paraît long, il ne doit pas empêcher les deux
partenaires, précise le Communiqué synodal, à poursuivre leurs relations amicales, la
recherche théologique commune, la coordination de leurs activités patorales et
humanitaires, dans l’attente du retour de l’Eglise d’Antioche à son unité première , avec
les Eglises orthodoxes orientales et les Eglises orientales catholiques .
Le Communiqué se termine en se donnant, en collaboration avec les frères
grecs catholiques, un rôle oecuménique, à savoir qu’ils constitueront ensemble un
stimulant tant pour Rome que pour l’Orthodoxie mondiale.
III - La problématique du rétablissement de l’Unité
On peut grouper sous trois titres ce qui rend problématique le projet du
rétablissement de l’unité du Siège grec d’Antioche, tel qu’il a été rapporté par la presse
locale .
La communion dans la foi
Le Synode grec catholique estime que la communion dans la foi est assurée
grâce au progrès réalisé par la Commission internationale mixte pour le dialogue et ses
quatre documents (cf. supra p.5). De plus, Mgr. S. Boustros considère que l’appel du
Synode grec catholique est basé “sur notre conviction que nous et les orthodoxes nous
avons la même foi sur les points esentiels de la doctrine. Les autres points sur lesquels
nous ne sommes pas encore d’accord, nous les considérons comme des “théologouména”, qui peuvent rester longtemps sujets à discussion” (1) .
Mais, que les Grecs orthodoxes considèrent que le dialogue théologique n’ est
qu’à ses débuts, “qu’il n’a pas abordé la question de la Procession du Saint Esprit qui
nous sépare des Grecs catholiques” ni d’autres points, comme le péché originel et la
connaissance de Dieu (2) ou la théologie des fins dernières (le jugement particulier, le
purgatoire et la nature de la vision béatifique) (3). Et Mgr. G. Khodr de se demander si
__________________
(1) Mgr. S. Boustros, in Le Lien, A propos de la réponse du Synode Grec orthodoxe,
1996, no.6, pp.52-54
(2) Mgr Khodr, in An-Nahar, Les Catholiques réservent un amour sincère aux
Orthodoxes, 29/10/96
(3) Mgr. Khodr, in An-Nahar, Le Projet unioniste des Grecs catholiques, 5/10/96
les Grecs catholiques sont prêts à renoncer à certains points de la théologie occidentale.
Enfin, en s’attachant à l’enseignement théologique du premier millénaire, se considèrentils comme non liés par les Conciles conclus au second millénaire?
6
Primauté romaine et juridiction
Les Pères du Synode Grec catholique ont déclaré qu’ils demeurent en
communion avec l’Eglise Apostolique de Rome et cherchent en même temps à dialoguer
avec elle sur leurs relations après la restauration de l’Unité (1).
Cependant Mgr. Boustros, précise, dans un interview(2), que dans la phase
finale de la réunification du Patriarcat d’Antioche, Grecs catholiques et Grecs
orthodoxes auront les mêmes relations avec le Siège de Rome, qui seront déterminées
par l’expérience du premier millénaire. En effet la primauté de l’Evêque de Rome
était un fait reconnu, durant cette longue période, par les deux Eglises d’Orient et
d’Occident (3) . Le désaccord résidait cependant dans la manière d’appliquer cette
primauté .
A cela, Mgr. Khodr fait remarquer qu’il n’y avait pas, au premier millénaire,
une vision unifiée concernant la primauté romaine (4). Il se demande, par ailleurs,
comment les Grecs catholiques, après la réunification, vont-ils dialoguer avec Rome ?
Ayant perdu leur indépendance, comment pourraient-ils préciser séparément leurs
relations avec Rome ?
De plus, il note que, en ce point, les Grecs catholiques prennent leur distance
par rapport à la Commission internationale mixte du dialogue qui n’a pas abordé encore
la Primauté romaine(5). Mais il semble que le Synode Grec orthodoxe prend également
sa distance par rapport à cette Commission, en préconisant qu’on ne confère pas un
caractère oecuménique aux Conciles locaux tenus en Occident, y compris Vatican I, et
qu’on n’y oblige pas les Grecs catholiques .
Double communion et ‘communicatio in sacris’
Cette double communion dont a parlé Mgr. Zogby dans son livre “Tous
schismatiques” a été simplifiée de la manière suivante: “ Nous sommes unis avec Rome,
nous allons nous unir avec les Orthodoxes, mais il n’est pas nécessaire que les
Orthodoxes soient unis à Rome”. Mgr. Boustros voudrait parler de “degrés de
communion”, c’est ce que veulent dire catholiques et orthodoxes en parlant de
‘communion quasi complète’ entre eux .
Quoiqu’il en soit, cela ne répond pas à la question soulevée par Mgr. Khodr, à
savoir qu’on est en présence de quatre partenaires : Les Grecs cath. et les Grecs orth.
d’Antioche, puis Rome et les Eglises orth. dans le monde. Si Rome, dit-il, est en
communion avec les Grecs cath. elle l’ est aussi avec les Grecs orth. d’Antioche. Et si
les Grecs orth. d’Antioche entrent en communion avec Rome, ils y feront entrer les
____________________
(1) Cf. supra, p. 5
(2) S.Boustros , Nous sommes d’accord avec les orthodoxes pou la doctrine de la foi et la
primauté de l’Evêque de Rome, An-Nahar, 28/10/96
(3) Le lien, 1996, no.6 , p. 53
(4) G.Khodr, Le projet unioniste grec catholique, in An Nahar, 5/10/96
(5) Ibid.
les Orthodoxes du monde entier (1). Aussi la question de la communion entre
Grecs cath. et Grecs orth. d’Antioche soulève une question universelle, à savoir la
communion entre l’Eglise Catholique et les Deglises Orthodoxes dans le monde.
Perspectives d’avenir
7
Il faudrait d’abord signaler qu’aucune des deux Eglises ne voudrait que le
rétablissement de l’unité du Siège d’Antioche ne soit l’occasion d’un nouveau schisme
qui consacrerait le premier .
L’Eglise grecque catholique, comme l’a précisé le Patriarche Maximos V Hakim
(2), voudrait faire évoluer la formule en vigueur de la communionn des Eglises
orientales catholiques avec le Siège de Rome.
Notre communion avec le Siège
d’Antioche unifié, dit-il, ne se fera pas aux dépens de notre communion avec Rome,
mais aux dépens de la formule erronée pratiquée à l’heure actuelle, pour redonner à
l’institution
patriarcale et à son Synode leur rôle dans le gouvernement et
l’administration pastorale tels qu’ils se pratiquaient au cours du premier millénaire .
Il précise, par ailleurs, que le schisme de l’Eglise à travers l’histoire n’a jamais été
total, ni non plus son unité. Les historiens de l’Eglise disent que le schisme de l’Eglise a
connu plusieurs percées, comme d’ailleurs son unité, surtout dans le Siège d’Antioche .
Il y avait des Patriarches et des Evêques orthodoxes d’Antioche qui entraient en
communion avec le Siège Apostolique de Rome, tout en demeurant en communion
avec l’Orthodoxie et le Patriarche de Constantinople .
Interrogé sur la double communion, le Patriarche grec orthodoxe, Mgr.Ignace IV
Hazim, dit que “nous n’avons pas ce choix et nous n’en voyons pas la nécessité”(3).
Grecs cath. et grecs ortho. aspirent également à une seule communion .
Il souhaite par ailleurs que les relations de l’Eglise orthodoxe avec Rome soient
définies telles qu’elles étaient avant le grand schisme. Mais il reconnaît qu’une évolution
est en train de se produire, puisque l’Eglise orientale est désormais désignée comme une
Eglise soeur. Cela voudrait dire qu’il y a , au niveau des dogmes , des ajustements à
faire en sorte qu’ils ne soient plus en contradiction avec l’existence d’une Eglise-soeur .
Il s’avère donc que le rétablissement de l’unité du Siège d’Antioche est
étroitement lié à l’unité entre l’Eglise orientale et l’Eglise catholique . Aussi surgit-il de
nouveau le rôle que devrait jouer la Commission mixte internationale du dialogue
théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe . C’est le sens de l’appel pour
la continuation du dialogue, lançé le 18 janvier dernier (1997) , par des théologiens
catholiques et orthodoxes réunis au monastère bénédictin de Chevetogne, et adressé au
Pape Jean-Paul II (4). Quant au rôle de la Commission mixte patriarcale d’Antioche, ce
sera de se réunir le plus souvent possible et de faire bouger les synodes, comme le dit le
Patriarche Hazim (5). Il me semble, enfin, qu’un des rôles des théologiens oecuménistes
serait d’étudier les problèmes surgis de l’expérience du rétablissement de l’unité du
Siège grec d’Antioche et d’y proposer de nouvelles approches.
______________
(1) Ibid.
(2) An-Nahar, 1/10/96
(3) L’Orient-Le Jour, 19/10/96
(4) S.O.P., no. 215, février 1997, pp.20-22
(5) L’Orient-Le Jour, 19/10/96
Problématique de l’Unité des deux Sièges du Patriarcat Grec d’Antioche
8
A D DE N D U M
présenté au XVI ème Congrès des Jésuites oecuménistes
tenu à Alexandrie (Egypte) en juillet 2001
Nous parlerons dans cet addendum des Synodes Grec Orthodoxe de mai l997
et Grec catholique de juillet 1997, et de la Lettre du Siège Apostolique à S.B.Maximos
V Hakim du 11 juin l997.
Nous ne pourrons cependant pas clore sans parler de la visite du Saint-Père à
Damas du 5 au 8 mai 2001 et des retombés oecuméniques qui ont fait jour à cette
occasion.
Les Synodes de 1997
Ayant développé sa position dans son communiqué du 10 oct.1996, le synode
Grec orth. de 1997 s’est contenté d’insister sur la nécessité “de la réunion de la
Commission internationale mixte entre l’Eglise Orth. et l’Eglise Cath.”. Il a insisté
également sur la poursuite du dialogue avec le Siège Grec Cath. d’Antioche, tout en
renouvelant l’appel au rapprochement entre les deux Eglises.
De son côté, le Synode Grec cath., dans son communiqué de juillet 1997,
répondit à cet appel, et les “Pères synodaux décidèrent de poursuivre l’effort pour
renforcer les relations fraternelles entre les deux Eglises et à tous les niveaux, pastoral,
liturgique et humain” et de participer aux mouvements oecuméniques en cours dans le
monde actuel.
Les deux Synodes ont exhorté leur commission mixte quadripartite à
poursuivre le travail pour réaliser la fin pour laquelle elle a été instituée.
Lettre du Saint-Siège à S.B.le Patriarche Maximos V
A noter, tout d’abord, que S.B. le Patriarche Maximos V a communiqué, aux
Pères du Synode de juillet 1997, la Lettre du 11 juin que le Saint-Siège l’avait inivité
à recevoir à Rome, en tant que chef de l’Eglise melkite Catholique (1).
A la suite des tentatives de rapprochement entre les Patriarcat Grec-Melkite
Catholique et Grec-Melkite Orthodoxe, les Responsables de la Congrégation pour la
Doctrine de la foi, de la Congrégation pour les Eglises Orientales et du Conseil
Pontifical pour l’Unité des Chrétiens ont reçu du Saint-Père la charge d’examiner les
questions de leur compétence en ce domaine, et d’exprimer à Sa Béatitude quelques
considérations.
_______
(1) Le Lien, l977, no.4, pp.32-34.
Dans une première partie, la Lettre signale que le Saint-Siège suit avec intérêt
et encouragement les initiatives tendant à favoriser le chemin de la pleine réconciliation,
entrepris depuis des décennies par le Patriarcat Grec-Melkite Catholique.
Les Dicastères concernés apprécient beaucoup que l’on entreprenne des initiatives
pastorales communes entre les Grecs catholiques et Grecs orthodoxes, surtout dans le
9
domaine de la formation chrétienne, de l’éducation, du service commun de la charité et
du partage dans la prière, quand cela est possible.
Cependant, en ce qui concerne les acquis de caractère théologique, il est
indispensable d’oeuvrer avec patience et prudence pour permettre aux deux partis de
parcourir un chemin commun, au niveau du langage et des catégories employées dans le
dialogue pour que l’usage d’un même mot ne se prête pas à des interprêtations selon les
points de vue historique ou doctrinal.
De plus, le partage du contenu du dialogue ne se limite pas aux deux seuls
interlocuteurs directs: les Patriarcats Grec-Melkite Catholique et Grec Orthodoxe
d’Antioche, mais implique les confessions avec lesquelles les deux Patriarcats sont en
pleine communion, à savoir la communion catholique et la communion orthodoxe.
Dans une deuxième partie, la Lettre aborde la Profession de Foi de Mgr.
Zoghby signée en février 1995 et à laquelle de nombreux prélats du Synode grec-melkite
Catholique ont adhéré. Elle fait les observations suivantes:
1- A propos de l’adhésion complète à l’enseignement de l’Orthodoxie
Orientale de la part des Grecs Catholiques, il faudrait tenir compte que les Eglises
Orthodoxes ne sont pas en pleine communion avec l’Eglise de Rome, et que par ailleurs,
une formulation complète de la foi implique de se référer non à une Eglise particulière,
mais à toute l’Eglise du Christ qui ne connaît pas de frontière, ni dans l’espace, ni dans
le temps.
2 - Sur la question de la communion avec les Evêques de Rome, on ne peut
ignorer que la doctrine concernant le Primat du Pontife Romain a connu un
développement au cours des temps, dans l’explicitation de la Foi de l’Eglise. Cette
doctrine doit donc être tenue dans son intégralité depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours
(cf. Vatican I, Vatican II: Lumen Gentium 22-23 et le Décret sur l’Oecuménisme:
Unitatis Redintegratio, no 2).
3 - A propos de l’exercice du ministère pétrin, différent de la question de
doctrine, le Saint-Père a rappelé qu’il était possible de chercher ensemble les formes
dans lesquelles ce ministère pourra réaliser un service d’amour reconnu par les uns et les
autres (Ut unum sint, 95). S’il est légitime d’en traiter au niveau local, c’est un devoir
de le faire toujours en communion avec l’Eglise Universelle
Aussi faudrait-il rappeler que, de toute façon, l’Eglise Catholique, dans sa
praxis comme dans ses textes officiels, soutient que la communion des Eglises
particulières avec l’Eglise de Rome, et celle de leurs Evêques avec l’Evêque de Rome,
est une condition essentielle de la communion pleine et visible (Ut unum sint, 97)
4 - Quant aux différents aspects de la communicatio in sacris, il faudrait
maintenir un constant dialogue afin de comprendre le sens de la normative en vigueur...
On évitera des initiatives unilatérales prématurées... Elles pourraient créer des dommages
non négligeables, y compris envers les autres Catholiques orientaux, surtout ceux qui
demeurent dans la même région.
10
En somme, le dialogue de fraternité entrepris par le Patriarcat Grec-melkite
Catholique, servira au chemin oecuménique, d’autant plus qu’il s’efforcera d’impliquer
dans la maturation de nouvelles sensibilités, toute l’Eglise Catholique à laquelle il
appartient. L’Orthodoxie partage aussi cette préoccupation en général et aussi en raison
des exigences de la communion en son propre sein.
Enfin, les Dicastères concernés sont
échange d’échos et de vérifications .
Ont signé la Lettre Leurs Eminences
Silvestrini et Edward Card. Cassidy
prêts
à
collaborer pour favoriser cet
Joseph Card. Ratzinger ,
Achille Card.
Les retombées oecuméniques de la visite du Saint-Père à Damas
Nous ne pouvons pas clore sans parler de la visite du Saint-Père à Damas, entre le
5 et 8 mai 2001 et de ses retombées oecuméniques.
1-Accueil et hommage de Mgr. Ignace Hazim. Le jour même de son arrivée à
Damas, le 5 mai, le Saint-Père se rendit à la Cathédrale du Patriarcat Grec Orthodoxe
pour y participer à la rencontre oecuménique nationale. Le Patriarche Ignace Hazim lui
réserva un accueil très chaleureux et introduisit son hommage par ces termes: ” Pierre qui
s’établit d’abord à Antioche, vous accueille sur cette terre de Syrie”. Il rappela que les
Pères de cette terre ont défriché les chemins de l’ascèse, de l’exégèse biblique et de la
liturgie, et donné à l’espace antiochien d’être un lieu privilégié de l’Amour du Seigneur.
Puis il ajouta: “Nous croyons en toute humilité que l’Eglise fondée par le Christ continue
de subsister en plénitude dans l’Eglise Orthodoxe”.
Aussi considère-t-il que les schismes qui ont déchiré l’Eglise sont intolérables, et
souligna les points qui constituent, à l’heure actuelle, des obstacles à l’unité. Bien qu’à
Balamand, en 1993, les représentants de l’Eglise Catholique et des Eglises Orthodoxes
aient affirmé ensemble que l’uniatisme ne saurait être “un modèle de l’unité”, plusieurs
Eglises orthodoxes se plaignent de la reprise du prosélytisme. Puis il ajoute: “Nous
sommes, nous-mêmes, gênés ici par la pratique sauvage de l’hospitalité eucharistique”.
Mais il espère que cette pierre d’achoppement n’entrave point davantage la poursuite du
dialogue entre les deux Eglises.
Ce dialogue une fois repris devrait se pencher sur “un point qui semble crucial :
celui des anathèmes portés par le Concile du Vatican contre ceux qui ne reconnaissent
pas l’infaillibilité papale... Il serait important d’en expliciter la portée de l’intelligence
théologique actuelle de l’Eglise Catholique”.
________________________
Osservatore Romano. hebdo. en français, no.20,15 mai 2001
2- Le Pape rappela le rayonnement de l’Eglise de Syrie. Construite sur le
fondement des Apôtres Pierre et Paul, elle n’a pas tardé à manifester une immense
floraison de vie chrétienne.
Pour ce qui concerne les relations avec le Patriarcat grec orthodoxe, il rappela
que la recherche de l’unité entre ce Patriarcat et le Patriarcat grec catholique
d’Antioche s’inscrit dans le cadre plus large du processus de réunion entre l’Eglise
catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes. “C’est pourquoi je tiens à exprimer de nouveau
mon souhait sincère que la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue
11
théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et les Eglises orthodoxes puisse prochainement
continuer ses activités”.
3 -Echos dans la presse
Dans le Journal an-Nahar du 23 juin 2001, l’évêque grec orthodoxe du MontLiban publia un article intitulé: ”La marche unioniste renouvelée”.
Ayant accompagné les pourparlers oecuméniques depuis leur début, Mgr. Khodr
donne un résumé des étapes et des difficultés de la Commission mixte internationale du
dialogue. On pensait alors qu’il était nécessaire d’étudier d’abord les Sacrements
d’initiation. Mais certaines églises orthodoxes ont soulevé la question des orientaux
catholiques qui constituent une blessure dans le corps orthodoxe. Rome consentit à ce
que cette question fut étudiée par la Commission mixte à la rencontre de Balamand en
1993. On parvint alors à la conclusion que l’Uniatisme n’est pas “le modèle de l’Unité”,
mais les deux églises s’engagèrent à élaborer une formulation sur “l’Unité entre églisessoeurs”.
Certaines églises orthodoxes refusèrent le document de Balamand. De son côté
l’Eglise Catholique méconnut cette expression dans le document “Le Seigneur Jésus”
émanant de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi. Cependant le Pape l’a utilisée
dans son homélie à Damas: “...vus le Sacerdoce et l’Eucharistie qui unissent par des
liens très étroits nos Eglises particulères qui aiment à s’appeler Eglises-soeurs”.
De plus, certaines églises orthodoxes considèrent le document de Balamand
comme insuffisant. La Commission mixte internationale s’est réunie, il y a un an , à
Baltimore des Etats Unis. Mais, à cause de l’uniatisme, les membres se sont dispersés .
Aussi devient-il imposible de poursuivre l’étude du problème fondamental, à savoir la
primauté du pape et son infaillibilité. On a ajourné le discours théologique mais on n’a
pas fixé de date pour réunion ultérieure de la Commision.
Et Mgr. Khodr de conclure son article en précisant qu’il est profondément
convaincu que les Orthodoxes ne doivent pas s’accrocher à la question de l’uniatisme,
mais devront la dépasser pour étudier d’abord les questions théologiques. Le reste
viendra plus tard.
Il fait remarquer, cependant, que le catholique, dans le processus oecuménique de
rapprochement, ne voudrait certes pas faire sortir l’orthodoxe de son bercail . Mais est-ce
que sa théologie le lui permet-elle? Le document “ Le Seigneur Jésus” précise sur ce
point la théologie ecclésiale romaine en ces termes: “Il existe une unique Eglise du
Christ qui subsiste dans l’Eglise Catholique, gouvernée par le successeur de Pierre et les
Evêques en communion avec lui” ( Cité du Vatican - 2000 - no.17). Dans ce cas, le fidèle
catholique ne va-t-il pas essayer d’intégrer l’orthodoxe dans l’Eglise universelle? C’est
pourquoi Mgr. G. Khodr engage les Orthodoxes à se libérer du complexe des Catholiques
orientaux pour poursuivre avec l’Eglise Catholique la marche commune vers la
découverte du patrimoine commun. Autrement dit, retour à la Commission mixte
internationale .
P.Victor Chelhot s.j. Damas.
12
LA QUESTION DE L’AUTORITE
LE PRIMAT DE L’EVEQUE DE ROME
PROPOSITION DE REFORME
Conférence tenue lors du 16ème Congrès international des jésuites en œcuménisme
du 5 – 10 juillet 2001, Alexandrie Egypte
I, Introduction : Pourquoi parler du pape, de son ministère de primat ? Tout
justement, parce qu’en tant que ministère qui assure l’unité dans la communion des Eglises,
ce ministère est au cœur des débats œcuméniques depuis longtemps. C’est même, et je
reprends ici les paroles de Paul VI prononcées en 1967 : « le pape constitue sans aucun
doute l’obstacle le plus grave sur la route de l’œcuménisme ». Jean Paul reprend cette
constatation douloureuse : « le ministère de l’évêque de Rome représente une difficulté pour
la plupart des autres chrétiens, dont la mémoire est marquée par certains souvenirs
douloureux » (U.U.S. n/ 88). Nous n’avons qu’à nous reporter au récent voyage de Jean
Paul II en Grèce. En effet, il est quand même curieux et paradoxal que l’institution qui
revendique être le rocher de l’unité, se soit transformé au cours de l’histoire en un bloc de
rocher qui fait obstacle à l’union des Eglises. Le Cardinal Poupard parlait même de « pierre
angulaire et pierre d’achoppement ».
Mon point de départ de cette réflexion sur le primat de l’évêque de Rome est
l’Encyclique de Jean Paul II Ut Unum Sint sur l’œcuménisme du 25 mai 1995
(Documentation Catholique, 1995, p. 567 – 597). Celle-ci reprend le projet œcuménique du
pontificat de Jean Paul II, projet qui lui tient très fort à cœur. S’y trouvent exprimées sa
volonté de s’engager sur les chemins de la collégialité et la proposition d’un nouvel examen
du sens, du rôle et des modalités du ministère du pape. C’est surtout dans les numéros 88 à
97 de cette encyclique qu’est traité le sujet du «ministère d’unité de l’évêque de Rome ».
Le Pape appelle à redécouvrir le sens évangélique de l’autorité et à convertir le
pouvoir en service : « l’autorité propre de ce ministère est tout au service du dessein
miséricordieux de Dieu et il faut toujours le considérer dans cette perspective. Son pouvoir
s’explique dans ce sens » (n/ 92). Jean Paul II définit l’esse même du primat de l’évêque de
Rome comme un « service de l’unité enraciné dans l’œuvre de la miséricorde divine… confié
à l’intérieur du collège des évêques… (n/ 94, 88, 95).
En tant que « principe et fondements permanents et visibles de l’unité… mon
ministère est celui de servus servorum Dei » (n/ 88 & 94). Le Pape définit en quelque la
structure (à distinguer de la notion de figure) fondamentale de son ministère en qualifiant sa
mission de « veille », de « sentinelle » de la fidélité à la confession de foi apostolique et
l’unité de celle-ci. Son ministère s’exerce donc essentiellement au profit de la communion
des Eglises particulières. Ce sont les Eglises particulières qui sont à la base de la mission du
primat, car celui-ci doit assurer que « grâce aux pasteurs on entende dans toutes ces
Eglises la voix véritable du Christ (et) qu’ainsi se réalise dans chacune (d’elles), l’Eglise,
une, sainte, catholique et apostolique ». (n/ 94) Ce service est – et le Pape le dit lui-même –
« la meilleure protection contre le risque de séparer l’autorité (et en particulier la primauté)
du ministère, ce qui serait en contradiction avec le sens de l’autorité selon l’Evangile (Lc 22,
27) ».
En effet, c’est au moment où autorité et primauté furent séparées du sens du
service, que le ministère de l’évêque de Rome fut plutôt cause de division que d’union.
L’élément nouveau et inédit de cette Encyclique n’est peut-être pas tant qu’un pape
mette en discussion sa primauté, mais bien qu’il invite les responsables des autres Eglises à
entrer en dialogue avec lui pour chercher ensemble une forme renouvelée d’exercer le
1
ministère universel de l’unité (n/ 95 & 96). « J’écoute la requête qui m’est adressée de
trouver une forme d’exercice de la primauté ouverte à une situation nouvelle, mais sans
renoncement aucun à l’essentiel de sa mission » (n/ 95). En effet, étant en Egypte nous
pouvons nous souvenir de l’invitation pressente que Jean Paul II adressa au Pape copte
Shénouda III et qu’il répéta lors de sa visite du Monastère Sainte Catherine au Sinaï.
« Chers frères, il n’y a pas de temps à perdre à ce sujet », lança le Pape.
Disons aussi en petites lettres (et nous savons que celles-ci sont bien souvent les plus
pertinentes) : du moment que l’Eglise catholique reconnaît l’ecclésialité plus ou moins pleine d’autres
Eglises (le fameux « subsistit in » de Lumen Gentium n/ 8), elle se voit interrogée sur sa propre
doctrine de la primauté par les autres Eglises et plus particulièrement sur leur refus de la conception
romaine. Je n’entre pas dans la discussion proprement oœcuménique autour du primat (ne
connaissant pas suffisamment la conception orthodoxe ou réformée de ce ministère). Le primat est
cependant généralement perçu comme un service de l’unité (la koinonia) de tous les fidèles dans la foi
et la communion. Dans ses formes d’exercice, il faut que ce ministère respecte l’héritage propre de
chaque Eglise (la synodalité ou la conciliarité) et en même temps favorise la cohésion de toutes les
Eglises dans leur diversité.
A partir de la phrase de l’Encyclique, citée tout juste avant, on peut se poser
plusieurs questions. Premièrement quelle est « cette situation nouvelle » à laquelle le Pape
fait allusion ? Il y a le tournant ecclésiologique de Vatican II, l’ecclésiologie de communion,
mais aussi le kairos œcuménique soutenu par « l’aspiration œcuménique de la majeure
partie des communautés chrétiennes » (n/ 95). Mais on pourrait y ajouter tous les défis
sociaux, économiques, politiques de la mondialisation, les aspirations des chrétiens
d’aujourd’hui ayant une conscience plus vive de la dignité baptismale et de leurs
responsabilités au sein de l’Eglise.
Ce qui apparaît comme la question majeure à partir du n/ 95 de l’Encyclique – et ce
qui est du coup le fil rouge de mon exposé – est : comment distinguer la « forme d’exercice »
de la papauté qui pourrait donc changer de « l’essentiel de la mission » qui serait
immuable ?
Je vais dans un premier temps essayer de préciser en quoi consiste « l’essentiel »
même du primat du pape, qui serait intouchable. Quelle est donc la structure du primat de
l’évêque de Rome qu’on pourrait déceler à travers toutes les figures contingentes,
historiques d’exercice de la papauté. ?
Dans un deuxième temps, nous pouvons nous demander sous quelle forme
d’exercice adaptée à une situation nouvelle, le primat de l’évêque de Rome peut être
considérée. La position tenue aujourd’hui par bon nombre d’écclésiologues est la suivante.
Après l’ecclésiologie à tendance universaliste et personnaliste de Vatican I, Vatican II lance
sur orbite la fameuse ecclésiologie de la communion des Eglises particulières. D’ailleurs
l’Encyclique Ut Unum Sint en assume une bonne prise en compte. Une véritable
ecclésiologie de communion exige cependant d’aller plus loin et requiert une meilleure
articulation de la primauté pontificale sur le binôme collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une
Eglise, d’une part et communion des Eglises particulières, d’autre part. Je donnerai par la
suite quelques pistes concrètes pour une plus grande mise en œuvre de cette articulation.
II, « L’essentiel » du primat de l’évêque de Rome : La question est beaucoup
plus simple que la réponse. Le point de départ pourrait être, par exemple, la question
suivante : « Est-ce que le modèle organisationnel centralisé et juridisé de la plenitudo
potestatis du Pontife Romain tel que celui-ci s’est développé au cours des deux derniers
millénaires appartient à l’essentiel du primat de l’évêque de Rome ? »
Il faut commencer par relire la longue et riche histoire des figures contingentes de la
2
papauté pour buter sur les éléments qui nous éclairent sur la structure fondamentale et
essentielle du primat. Jean Paul II fait d’ailleurs allusion à ce type de relecture à la lumière
de la pratique du premier millénaire où « le Siège romain intervenait d’un commun accord si
des différends au sujet de la foi ou de la discipline s’élevaient entres (les différentes
Eglises) » (n/ 95). Et le Pape dit lui-même que les références pour retrouver la communion
«ne seront pas les développements des structures catholiques du second millénaire… » (n/
95). Pour reprendre les termes du Cardinal Ratzinger : « ce n’est pas en cherchant le
minimum d’attributions d’exercice au cours de l’histoire que l’on peut déterminer le noyau…
de la primauté. Aussi, le fait qu’une tâche déterminée ait été exercée par le primat à une
certaine époque ne signifie pas en soi que cette tâche doive nécessairement être toujours
réservée au Pontife Romain. Et vice versa… » (« La primauté du successeur de Pierre dans
le mystère de l’Eglise », Documentation Catholique, 1988, p. 1018 – 1019).
Ensuite se pose aussi la question du critère de distinction entre « essentiel » et
« forme d’exercice ». C’est le Père Angel Anton qui avance le critère de compréhension
suivant : celui de la vision ecclésiologique telle qu’elle apparaît dans les premiers chapitres
de Lumen Gentium. La primauté doit être placée dans le mystère de l’Eglise : la Catholica
comme communio ecclesiarum. Ce modèle ecclésial rejoint le modèle de koinonia des
premiers siècles de l’Eglise indivise. Le Siège de Rome fonctionnait comme pierre de touche
de à l’unité et de l’authenticité de la foi apostolique et présidait à la communion dans la
charité et l’unité dans la diversité et l’autonomie des Eglises locales ou régionales.
Je ne vais pas vous faire un cours d’histoire sur la papauté. Mais un des problèmes
majeurs au cours de l’histoire est que le pape cumule en fait trois fonctions : évêque de
Rome, patriarche d’Occident et primat universel. On peut se demander avec les mots du
regretté J.-M. Tillard si au cours de l’histoire « l’évêque de Rome ne serait pas devenu plus
qu’un évêque » ou si « dans la conscience catholique le pape n’est-il pas en fait plus qu’un
pape ». Bref, les figures et les formes historiques de la papauté ont fait l’objet d’une
évolution maximaliste et ont ainsi grossi le concept de primat. Nous nous concentrons
brièvement sur l’histoire de la papauté avant le Concile Vatican I.
Ce que nous venons de dire, s’illustre, par exemple, par le fait qu’il y a eu projection du
primat patriarcal (de type plutôt administratif) sur le primat universel, surtout à partir du moment où
l’évêque de Rome n’exerça plus ses fonctions primatiales de pape que sur le patriarcat d’Occident.
Celui-ci après avoir perdu l’Afrique chrétienne au profit de l’Islam se repliait dorénavant sur sa partie
européenne. L’impuissance de l’Empire byzantin fit aussi que le pape se tourna de plus en plus vers
l’Empire carolingien. Ceci entraîna la prétention d’exercer sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise universelle –
même si en pratique cela se limitait à l’Occident – le pouvoir de gouvernement que l’évêque de Rome
avait sur l’Eglise latine. Poussée par les circonstances ou profitant d’occasions favorables, Rome
s’efforcera progressivement de mettre sous une seule accolade sa primauté locale, patriarcale et sa
primauté universelle de communion. Rome se présentait devant l’Orient avec une prétention ou une
revendication que Constantinople ne pouvait admettre. C’est le choc entre deux conceptions :
administration centrale versus responsabilité suprême pour l’unité et la pureté de la foi, sans exercice
direct de l’administration. Le schisme de Photius (860 – 880) en est le signe précurseur et ceci se
consommera définitivement dans le schisme de 1054. Il n’est pas étonnant qu’à la même époque
s’accomplit la réforme grégorienne (Grégoire VII 1073 – 1085) avec les fameux Dictatus Papae (1075).
Toutes les Eglise particulières sont mis au pas de l’Eglise (locale) de Rome, qui intègre dans le petit
espace de l’urbs tout l’orbis chrétien. Ce tournant marquera l’extension progressive et maximalisante
de la papauté tout au long du deuxième millénaire. C’est Boniface VIII (1294 – 1303) qui affirme avec
la Bulle Unam Sanctam (les deux glaives) la plenitudo potestatis détenue par le Christi Vicarius, titre
lancé par Innocent III (1198 – 1216). L’ecclésiologie post-tridentine souligne surtout la dépendance de
l’Eglise par rapport à sa tête (Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia). Au 19ème siècle, le climat ultramontain, nourri par
l’hostilité envers les thèses gallicanes et épiscopalistes, le désarroi européen après l’épopée
napoléonienne, la suppression des Etats Pontificaux, considère la papauté comme devant fournir à la
société et à l’Eglise l’ordre, la certitude et la stabilité.
Que pouvons-nous retenir de cette histoire de la papauté ? Un tournant progressif à
partir du second millénaire faisant du modèle du pape « plus qu’un pape ». L’évolution
historique montre que le pouvoir pontifical a poursuivi une concentration de compétences.
3
Une telle situation résultait des invasions, des risques d’hérésies, de l’emprise du Prince, du
danger de dispersion, de l’incurie voire même de l’excès dans le gouvernement des
diocèses… A travers ces figures historiques contingentes, il apparaît une structure
constante. Le pape est protos ou premier entre ses pairs, mais il ne l’est qu’en tant
qu’évêque du Siège de Rome, potentior principalitas (Saint Irénée de Lyon dans l’Adversus
Haereses au Livre III, 3, 2) en raison des martyrs de Pierre et de Paul dans cette ville. Son
ministère de service de l’unité de la foi et de la communion s’exerce non dans uns solitude
de monarque isolé au sommet d’une pyramide mais en communion collégiale avec « ses
frères » dans l’épiscopat et le vicariat du Christ. Telle est la place de l’évêque de Rome dans
le mystère de l’Eglise et ceci s’accorde avec la grande Tradition de l’Eglise indivise (Saint
Léon le Grand (440 – 461) avec son Tome à Flavien au Concile de Chalcédoine (451), Saint
Grégoire le Grand (590 – 604) protestant face à Euloge d’Alexandrie qui le salue du titre
d’évêque universel.) Cela rejoint la définition de Jean Paul II de « veille », de « sentinelle »
(et non de « commandant ») au service de l’unité dans la foi et la charité.
Au Concile Vatican I, la primauté du pape englobe un pouvoir plénier, suprême,
ordinaire et immédiat sur toute l’Eglise. La grosse question par rapport à ce Concile est, s’il a
vraiment fait du pape cet « évêque universel de toute l’Eglise » ou un « super-évêque » dans
une « monarchie pontificale ». Ceci est très certainement présent dans l’imaginaire
catholique de l’époque et peut-être bien jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Il s’est instauré une espèce de
« dévotion papale » qui se traduit aujourd’hui par l’intérêt très médiatique autour de la
personne de Jean Paul II. Mais nous pouvons dire que malgré toutes les contingences de
l’époque, les points importants de la Constitution Pastor Aeternus traduisent « l’essentiel »
du ministère de la primauté, tel que nous venons de le définir. Enumérons les points majeurs
de Pastor Aeternus. Ce ministère doit être compris à la lumière « de l’antique et constante foi
de l’Eglise universelle » (D.S. 3052) exprimée dans le témoignage « des actes des conciles
œcuméniques et des canons » (D.S. 3059). Le ministère du pape est donc clairement situé
dans la tradition de l’Eglise indivise. La primauté de l’évêque de Rome découle de la
primauté du Siège de Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem (D.S. 3057). Le pouvoir de
juridiction, ordinaire, épiscopal et immédiat, plein et suprême découle du fait qu’il est évêque
du Siège de la cathedra de Pierre. Nous retrouvons la tradition selon laquelle le privilège de
la sedes rejaillit sur le sedens. La difficulté réside dans le fait que le dogme catholique
rattache cette primauté de juridiction à la volonté formelle du Christ. L’orthodoxie admet que
l’évêque de Rome en tant que premier parmi les égaux, exerce une charge de surveillance, mais non
de gouvernement sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise.
Le ministère du pape est perçu comme un service de l’unité de toute l’Eglise : « que
l’épiscopat soit un et indivis et que grâce à l’union étroite des prêtres, la multitude entière
des croyants soit gardée dans l’unité de la foi et de la communion » (D.S. 3051). Cela dit
bien la finalité du pouvoir pontifical : plus qu’une simple tâche honorifique, il s’agit de
conserver, maintenir, sauvegarder et transmettre cette unité et cette fidélité dans le foi et la
communion (D.S. 3051 & 3060). C’est dans ce contexte que l’infaillibilité pontificale doit être
comprise «pour qu’ils (les pontifes) gardent saintement et exposent fidèlement… le dépôt de
la foi. » (D.S. 3070) On retrouve ici, la fonction traditionnelle du Siège de Rome comme
pierre de touche de la foi apostolique.
Ceci correspond à ce que la Tradition appelle la tâche de veilleur, de sentinelle,
mais cela n’implique pas que toute forme d’union, de cohésion, de coordination,
d’uniformisation ou de centralisation à travers l’histoire constitue en soi l’unité telle que le
Seigneur l’a voulue pour son Eglise. Tout ce qui tombe en dehors de ce qui est requis et
nécessaire pour la conservation et la transmission de cette unité, tombe en dehors de
l’exercice de la primauté. Ainsi nombre de pouvoirs qui sont de fait pontificaux, mais qui ne
4
relèvent pas de la raison formelle de l’unité, tombent en dehors de l’exercice de la primauté.
Ceux-ci ne font plus partie de « l’essentiel » du ministère d’unité.
Et si le pape exerce un pouvoir de juridiction ordinaire et immédiat « sur toutes et
chacune des Eglises comme sur tous et chacun des pasteurs et des fidèles » (D.S. 3064 &
3060) – ce qui paraît exorbitant du point de vue œcuménique (surtout pour les orthodoxes) –
ceci doit en fait être compris à la lumière de la finalité du ministère du pape. Ce ministère est
inséré dans le collège épiscopal et vise l’édification de l’Eglise par l’unité de la foi et de la
communion. Le pape n’étouffe donc pas la mission de l’évêque ; il lui garantit sa véritable
dimension en le situant dans la koinonia. C’est dans ce sens que le pape possède une
juridiction : elle garantit que la communion dont chaque évêque a la responsabilité dans son
Eglise locale, débouche sur la Catholica. Et vu que la Catholica implique toutes les Eglises,
tous les pasteurs et tous les fidèles, la juridiction du primat ne peut pas ne pas les avoir tous
pour objet.
Si le pape exerce une juridiction universelle proprement épiscopale, elle découle du
fait qu’il est évêque de Rome, de sa consécration épiscopale de cette ville. Mais cela ne fait
nullement de lui un évêque universel de toute l’Eglise ni un super-évêque. C’est parce qu’il
est évêque de l’Eglise particulière, potentior principalitas, à qui le primat a été donnée avec
l’épiscopat de l’Eglise de Rome, qu’il est aussi primus inter pares avec ses frères dans
l’épiscopat.
On craignait à Vatican I que le pape allait supplanter tous les évêques, vu son pouvoir
ordinaire, plénier, immédiat etc… C’est la Députation de la Foi, conduite par Mgr Zinelli qui livra un
excellent travail de précision. Tout d’abord, le pouvoir pontifical s’exerce non ad destructionem, sed ad
aedificationem Ecclesiae. Il n’est donc pas vrai que le pape serait tout et les évêques rien. D.S. n/
3061 dit bien que le pouvoir du pape « ne fait nullement obstacle au pouvoir de juridiction épiscopal,
ordinaire et immédiat par lequel les évêques … gouvernent leurs troupeaux ». Le pape doit respecter
le pouvoir également ordinaire des évêques en n’exerçant pas dans un diocèse les tâches épiscopales
de l’ordinaire du lieu… sinon le pape agira ad destructionem Ecclesiae. On se trouverait face à une
primauté qui absorberait l’activité épiscopale et irait ainsi à l’encontre du droit divin de la charge
pastorale de l’évêque sur son troupeau.
On dit bien que le pouvoir de chaque évêque est « affirmé, affermi et défendu par le
pasteur suprême et universel… » (D.S. 3061 et suit alors une superbe allusion à la grande
Tradition avec Saint Grégoire le Grand : … secundum illud Sancti Gregorii Magni : « Meus
honor est honor universalis Ecclesiae. Meus honor est fratrum meorum solidus vigor. Tum
ego vere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus non negatur. ») Le pouvoir
divin du pape est en quelque sorte au service de la fonction également de droit divin des
évêques. Si le pape détient un pouvoir sur chaque diocèse et sur tous les fidèles, cela est en
vue de la conservation de l’unité de la foi et de la communion. Vatican I est donc loin de
considérer l’Eglise universelle comme le vaste diocèse du pape dont les évêques seraient
ses « vicaires ». Au contraire, le pape promeut le pouvoir des autres évêques, qui sont ses
frères dans l’épiscopat, bien que l’ecclésiologie de Vatican I situe ces derniers plutôt sub
Petro. Ceci tranche donc bien avec une vision ultramontaine, maximalisante et centralisatrice
du primat de l’évêque de Rome.
Concile Vatican II : Si dans sa Constitution dogmatique sur l’Eglise Lumen Gentium
le Concile reçoit assez littéralement les énoncés de Pastor Aeternus, ceux-ci sont replacés
dans une nouveau cadre ecclésiologique : celui de la communio ecclesiarum (L.G. n/ 23 &
26 et C.D. n/ 11). L’essence du service primatial d’unité du pape est placée sur l’arrière plan
d’une plus grande prise en compte de l’épiscopat et de l’Eglise locale, deux autres
institutions de droit divin.
L’ecclésiologie de communion affirme qu’en chaque Eglise est présente l’Eglise
universelle et indivisible et que cette dernière est constituée en et par les Eglises
particulières. Nous arrivons à une intériorité mutuelle entre Eglises particulières et Eglise
universelle, de telle sorte que la catholicité exprime une unité dans la diversité et se réalise
dans la communion. Ceci tranche avec une ecclésiologie universaliste et personnaliste,
5
parce que l’Eglise n’est plus longtemps vue comme pyramide hiérarchique à partir de son
chef, le pape, mais comme communion horizontale à partir des Eglises particulières et les
évêques qui sont qualifiés comme vicarii et legati Christi. (L.G. n/ 18, 20, 22, 23, 24) Les
évêques sont successeurs des apôtres et c’est avec le pape « chef visible de toute l’Eglise
qu’ils ont charge de diriger la maison de Dieu » (L.G. n/ 18) et c’est tous ensemble avec le
pape, (qu’ils représentent) l’Eglise universelle (L.G. n/ 23). Etant chacun principe d’unité de
leur Eglise particulière (L.G. n/ 23), les évêques sont introduits dans le ministère d’unité de
l’Eglise.
A cette communio ecclesiarum correspond la collégialité épiscopale désignant par
là, la nature collégiale des relations des évêques entre eux et avec l’évêque de Rome. La
collégialité n’est donc pas limitée aux actes de l’ensemble du collège et de son chef, mais
elle est considérée tant dans sa dimension verticale (en lien avec le chef, le pape)
qu’horizontale (la solidarité collégiale s’exprime aussi dans les relations mutuelles des
évêques). La porte est donc ouverte à d’autres formes possibles d’action collégiale, à côté
du concile œcuménique (L.G. n/ 22 in fine). En outre, il est dit que les conférences
épiscopales peuvent « contribuer de manières multiples et fécondes à ce que le sentiment
collégial se réalise concrètement » (L.G. n/ 23).
Qu’en est-il du pape ? Un rééquilibrage du ministère de l’évêque de Rome est
opéré. Il est tout d’abord placé à l’intérieur du collège épiscopal (tout comme Pierre était
placé dans le collège apostolique). Il n’est donc certes pas un « super-évêque », car avec
les évêques « ils forment entre eux un tout » (L.G. n/ 22). Son pouvoir plénier, suprême et
immédiat sur toute l’Eglise est éminemment épiscopal (en tant qu’évêque de Rome), mais
les évêques détiennent également le pouvoir plénier et suprême sur toute l’Eglise (L.G. n/ 22
& 23). En effet comme dans Vatican I, le primat ne veut pas dire «monarque absolu », illimité
d’une Societas perfecta que serait l’Eglise, mais bien qu’il est au sein de la communion
ecclésiale un centrum unitatis propter potentiorem principalitatem sur lequel doit s’axer toute
Eglise locale dans la foi et la charité.
Primauté suppose donc communio ecclesiarum et vice versa. En effet, si en chaque
Eglise, l’Eglise du Christ est présente dans un lieu précis, chaque Eglise particulière ne peut faire
« cavalier seul » et ne peut se prendre pour l’Eglise universelle. Elle se doit d’être en communion, par
la personne de son évêque, avec les autres Eglises particulières et leurs évêques ainsi qu’avec
l’Eglise de Rome et son évêque. C’est la raison pourquoi Lumen Gentium insiste tellement sur l’unité
collégiale des évêques à l’intérieur du collège et avec le primat (cfr. par exemple « … le collège
épiscopal n’a d’autorité que si on l’entend uni au Pontife romain… comme à son chef » L.G. n/ 22).
C’est donc une fois de plus la fonction de veille et de sentinelle du pape.
En tant que primus inter pares, il est un évêque parmi d’autres évêques mais qui a
le mandat de situer les Eglises particulières et ses frères évêques dans la Catholica et le
collège épiscopal. C’est à ce titre, qu’il détient un pouvoir plénier et suprême et qu’il est le
principe visible de l’unité. C’est « la diaconie primatiale au service de toute l’Eglise » (le mot
est du célèbre Patriarche melkite Maximos Saigh IV)
Le pape est situé dans et au service de la koinonia et sa mission est inséparable de
la mission du collège épiscopal. Chez l’évêque de Rome la sollicitude, que tout évêque
exerce en faveur de l’Eglise universelle, s’explicite de manière tout à fait spéciale et unique
et cela donc sans s’assimiler personnellement à l’Eglise universelle.
Si le Concile a donc bien rééquilibré la papauté en l’enracinant dans l’épiscopat et la
collégialité, tout comme l’Eglise universelle dans la communio ecclesiarum on reste avec une
impression de déséquilibre que l’épiscopat est au service du pape, ou reste du moins abordé
en fonction de ce dernier. On écrit en caractère gras que les évêques doivent être en
communion avec le pape, qui est le caput, le chef : « en union avec le Pontife romain, son
chef et jamais en dehors de ce chef » et s’ils sont sujets d’un pouvoir plénier et suprême, ce
« pouvoir cependant ne peut s’exercer qu’avec le consentement du Pontife romain » (L.G. n/
22). La primauté est mentionnée une quarantaine de fois dans la Constitution ; mais dans le n/ 22, elle
l’est à 14 reprises. C’est un complexe de papalisme qui mitige chaque affirmation sur les droits et
6
pouvoirs du collège. Au lieu de développer ce qui est en commun, la consécration épiscopale, on
majore ce qui sépare les évêques du pape.
Nulle part, il est dit que le primat est inséparable de la collégialité ou que le pape est
en communion avec ses frères (ce qui sera d’ailleurs une des grandes innovations de Jean
Paul II dans Ut Unum Sint n/ 95). Lumen Gentium tout comme Pastor Aeternus ne précise
pas s’il y a des limites au pouvoir de l’évêque de Rome par rapport aux évêques (surtout que
tous les deux sont sujets d’un pouvoir suprême et plénier, Quid ?). La Nota Explicativa
Praevia est clairement une concession à la minorité conservatrice des Pères (surtout les n/ 3
& 4). On parle de la distinction entre le Pontife romain seul (seorsim) et le Pontife romain ensemble
avec les évêques. « Pour régler, approuver l’exercice collégial, le Souverain pontife procède suivant sa
propre discrétion, en considération du bien de l’Eglise. » Il a une marge d’appréciation pour exercer sa
fonction, soit seul, soit de manière collégiale… mais il peut l’exercer ad placitum. Mais disons que
même si le pape exerce se charge secundum propriam discretionem, ceci doit se faire secundum
neccessitatem et intuitu boni Ecclesiae. Autrement, le pape n’agirait pas ad aedificationem, sed ad
destructionem (boni) Ecclesiae ! Et disons que le « bien » de l’Eglise comprend également la structure
fondamentale de l’Eglise (comme la place du Collège épiscopal, la communio ecclesiarum).
L’épiscopat et la primauté sont vraiment complémentaires. Le rôle de l’épiscopat
n’est pas d’imposer des limites au pouvoir suprême et plénier du pape, mais de coopérer
avec lui ; de son côté la primauté n’est pas un impérialisme (« Tu n’es pas le successeur de
Constantin ! » disait Saint Bernard à Eugène III), mais un pivot assurant la cohésion de
l’épiscopat. Le pape est donc une fois de plus servus servorum Dei au service de l’épiscopat
qui ensemble avec le pape représentent l’Eglise universelle.
La période post-Vatican II : Sans vouloir entrer dans les détails, une fois de plus,
depuis Vatican II on a été moins nuancé à l’égard de l’articulation entre l’épiscopat et la
papauté, et cela dans le sens d’une majoration de la papauté. On pourrait presque dire que
dès qu’on aborde la question de la communion des évêques, la notion est dirigée vers la
communion visible avec « hypertrophie » de l’Eglise locale de Rome. (cfr. Les textes de la
Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, « La primauté du successeur de Pierre dans le mystère de
l’Eglise », n/ 6 ; Communionis notio, n/ 9, 13 ; Dominus Iesus, n/ 16. L’Eglise de Rome est dite « tête »
des autres Eglises et en fait, mais sans le dire, elle est assimilée à l’Eglise universelle (telle qu’il y a
une intériorité mutuelle entre Eglise universelle et Eglises particulières, il y a une intériorité du primat
de Pierre à toute Eglise particulière et parmi les évêques il y un évêque « tête »). Alors que l’évêque de
Rome est comme les autres évêques, un évêque d’une Eglise locale et toute la Tradition dit que c’est
exactement à ce titre qu’il exerce le service de l’unité. L’Eglise locale de Rome et son évêque sont
extérieurs aux autres Eglises locales, dans lesquelles se trouve totalement l’Eglise du Christ en un
lieu. En fait les réflexions du Cardinal Ratzinger reflètent une idéologie papale qui veut faire du primat
romain un élément dogmatique intrinsèque à la pleine ecclésialité de toute Eglise locale.)
Reprenons la phrase de J.-M. Tillard dans ce qui a probablement été son dernier
article, une recension du livre de Mgr Quinn, The Reform of the papacy : « la tension entre la
sedes romaine et les épiscopats locaux… est pour une grand part le résultat d’un large flou
dans la conception que Lumen Gentium a proposé de la collégialité. »
En effet, lors des synodes des évêques à Rome (surtout ceux de 1969 et de 1985),
la collégialité est devenue un des points cruciaux du débat et c’est dans ce cadre que fut
posée la question du statut et de l’autorité des conférences épiscopales. Le rapport du
Synode extraordinaire de 1985 est très éclairant au sujet de la collégialité. Le rapport fait la
distinction entre la collégialité au sens strict (le concile œcuménique) et les diverses
réalisations partielles indirectes de droit ecclésiastique (je reprends la terminologie du
Rapport) de la collégialité : le synode, les conférences épiscopales, mais aussi la Curie
romaine, les visites ad limina… Quel glissement opère-t-on ? La distinction entre collégialité
effective et affective permet d’utiliser le concept de collégialité plus largement, tout en
l’émoussant de son sens juridique et en le réduisant à un simple sentiment ou une affection.
D’une part, on limite la collégialité à un acte formel du collège épiscopal avec le pape dans le
concile (collégialité effective au sens juridique), tandis que d’autre part, on l’élargit à d’autres
situations (… les voyages du pape, le collège des cardinaux) tout en n’y voyant qu’un simple
7
sentiment affectif sans effet juridique. Il est très dommageable de voir que les conférences
épiscopales et les synodes des évêques soient mis au même plan que la Curie romaine et
les voyages du pape. Ainsi, dans le cas des conférences et des synodes, on vide la notion
de collégialité de son contenu.
III, « Les modalités d’exercice » du primat de l’évêque de Rome axé sur la
collégialité épiscopale : Commençons par indiquer les limites du Concile Vatican II, qui
indiquent que le Concile n’est pas allé jusqu’au bout de son intuition initiale. Ceci formera la
trame pour proposer des modalités d’exercice d’une primauté plus en accord avec le binôme
collégialité épiscopale – communion des Eglises.
Tout d’abord au lieu d’opérer une décentralisation, la collégialité épiscopale fut
surtout axée sur le binôme collégialité – primauté. Après Vatican I, il fallait harmoniser
l’épiscopat et la papauté. Si d’un côté les évêques détiennent par leur consécration la sacra
potestas et forment un corps qui détient de droit divin le pouvoir plénier et suprême dans
l’Eglise, cet acquis fut mis en lien avec Vatican I. On maintenu le pape dans une
compréhension monarchique au-dessus des évêques, restant sous la dépendance du caput,
qui à lui seul a le même pouvoir (L.G. n/ 22) et qui n’a pas d’obligation d’agir en collaboration
avec le collège. Il s’agit donc surtout d’une collégialité verticale ou d’une communio
hierarchica sub Petro. On a donc en fait conservé la vision monarchique et les formes
collégiales ne sont en fait pas autre chose qu’un service à la primauté, alors que pour la
grande Tradition, c’est la primauté qui est au service de la collégialité.
De plus, on n’accepte qu’une seule forme d’acte collégial : celui du concile
œcuménique, convoqué, confirmé ou accepté par le pape (L.G. n/ 22). Les conférences
épiscopales et les synodes des évêques ne sont que des expressions de l’affectus
collegialis. Par cette réduction de la collégialité, n’arrive-t-on pas à évacuer en pratique tout
exercice de la collégialité, alors qu’elle est de droit divin ?
Une seconde limite est qu’on a insuffisamment articulé la personne de l’évêque
avec son Eglise particulière. Il est essentiellement membre d’un collège sous la direction du
chef. Lumen Gentium n/ 22 passe sous silence que l’évêque est préposé à une Eglise
particulière. Le collège reste donc beaucoup trop conçu comme collège de personnes en lien
vertical avec le pape et existant préalablement aux Eglise locales, et insuffisamment comme
collège de personnes en charge de la communion horizontale et mutuelle d’Eglises
particulières. Il faut rééquilibrer le collège comme groupe d’évêques présidant à la
communion de leur Eglise locale (et par ce biais à la communion des Eglises de leur région
et de l’Eglise universelle).
La collégialité et la primauté doivent donc quitter le giron de l’Eglise centralisée et
se mettre pleinement au diapason de l’ecclésiologie de communion (plus la pyramide
hiérarchique, mais le réseau qui évoque enchevêtrement et une approche trinitaire de l’un et
du multiple). Il s’agit d’une pénétration mutuelle d’Eglises particulières et de l’Eglise
universelle, du ministère de l’épiscopat et du primat et cela dans un nouveau binôme
collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une Eglise – communion d’Eglises locales ou régionales,
in quibus et ex quibus existit una et unica Ecclesia catholica.
La collégialité dans ce cadre est plus vue comme l’expression épiscopale de la
communio ecclesiarum et contient par sa nature des implications juridiques. En ce qui
concerne la distinction malheureuse entre collégialité effective et affective (la position du
« tout ou rien »), disons que la collégialité ne demeure pas qu’un concept abstrait ou
sentimental mais exprime la communion.
Ut Unum Sint souligne plus clairement qu’à Vatican II la solidarité entre les membres du
collège et par là une union plus étroite entre collégialité épiscopale (dans laquelle est inclus l’évêque
de Rome) et communion des Eglises. Etant remis dans le contexte de son Eglise locale, le pape est au
service de l’unité en tant que signe visible et garant de l’unité (n/ 88) ou en tant que sentinelle, veilleur
(n/ 94). Ce service est confié au pape, mais « à l’intérieur même du collège des évêques », « car tout
cela doit toujours être accompli dans la communion » (n/ 95). L’Encyclique exprime donc une certaine
8
réciprocité dans la communion (pape – évêques). Elle est certes soucieuse de faire évoluer une
papauté de juridiction plénière et suprême sur les évêques et les Eglises, revêtant une image
autoritaire, sûre de soi et imposant discipline et obéissance, vers une papauté qui rejoint
« l’essentiel » de sa mission en tant qu’autorité au service des Eglises et des évêques.
Les modalités d’exercice de la primauté que nous proposons vont toutes dans le
sens d’une meilleur articulation entre primauté et collégialité sur arrière-fond du binôme
collégialité des évêques en charge d’une Eglise – communion d’Eglises particulières. La
primauté est au service de l’épiscopat et les deux sont au service de la communion
ecclésiale. Il s’agit concrètement de l’application d’une collégialité épiscopale réelle, effective
bien que partielle, mais toujours comme expression de la communion ecclésiale et en
synergie avec le primat. Il est vrai que dans ce cas, la primauté retrouverait une figure plus
modeste en matière de pouvoir juridique (référence peut être faite au Concile de Sardique de 343,
(Rome instance d’appel ou de cassation) ou au 34eme canon des Apôtres allant dans le sens d’une
prise de décision collégiale et réciproque entre le primat et le synode permanent du pape).
Je donne cinq pistes de réflexion : 1) la compétence délibérative du synode des
évêques, 2) la collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales, 3) la
décentralisation par la renaissance des patriarcats, 4) la décentralisation par le principe de
subsisdiarité et 5) une nouveau fonctionnement de la Curie romaine.
La compétence délibérative du synode des évêques : Créé dans le contexte
conciliaire comme un conseil d’évêques au service du primat, le synode traduit une
communion hiérarchique entre les évêques et le pape et cela selon un modèle
monarchique : le pape est au-dessus du synode et détient toutes les clés du pouvoir (de sa
convocation jusqu’à l’élaboration du document final). La question est alors, dans quelle
mesure le synode exprime-t-il une véritable collégialité entre évêques ? Nous entendons
régulièrement les frustrations des participants quant à la marche des synodes. Au sens strict,
le synode ne traduit que le « sentiment collégial », car seul le concile œcuménique est un
acte de collégialité au sens strict (effectif). C’est la position « tout ou rien ». Mais les évêques
donnent cependant corps à la sollicitude pour les autres Eglises locales et pour l’Eglise
universelle. Tout ceci n’est pas rien. Dès lors, est-ce que le synode, comme réalisation de la
collégialité épiscopale et de la communio ecclesiarum ne peut pas donner lieu à un exercice
de la primauté plus soucieux de promouvoir des actes collégiaux que de simplement s’en
tenir à un sentiment collégial.
La Commission Théologique Internationale affirme que les « conditions (de la
collégialité épiscopale) qui se vérifient pour le concile œcuménique… peuvent se vérifier
pour le synode des évêques. » (Thèmes choisis d’ecclésiologie, Documentation Catholique,
1986, p. 65). En cela suivant C.D. n/ 5, le synode, peut être vu comme forme partielle de la
collégialité épiscopale et peut exercer un pouvoir de décision formellement collégial, parce
qu’il est d’une certaine manière représentatif de tous les évêques. On rejoint l’ancienne pratique
des conciles locaux, ne réunissant qu’un nombre restreint d’évêques, mais agissant en communion
avec tous les autres évêques et avec le pape, qui le plus souvent confirmait le bien-fondé des
décisions prises collégialement. D’ailleurs Lumen Gentium n/ 22 laisse subsister la possibilité de
revenir à cette pratique fort simple et ancienne.
C’est en quelque sorte une application du canon 343 du C.I.C. qui prévoit que le
synode peut recevoir du pape « un pouvoir délibératif à qui il revient alors de ratifier les
décisions du synode ». Bien que ce n’est alors qu’un pouvoir vicaire en non un acte collégial
comme au sein d’un concile œcuménique, cela aboutirait à une meilleure prise en compte de
la sollicitude des évêques pour l’Eglise universelle. Ainsi, pour des questions disciplinaires
(l’ordination d’hommes mariés dans l’Eglise latine, la création de patriarcats,…), le synode
pourrait s’engager sur la voie d’une collégialité plus réelle et effective. N’étant plus qu’un
9
simple conseil au service du pape, le synode reflète la communion des Eglises en favorisant
l’expression plurielle de la Catholica. C’est dans ce cadre que Mgr Quinn appelle à un débat
plus libre et à la pratique du vote délibératif, ce qui susciterait l’unité et la collégialité de
manière plus authentique.
La collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales : Comme pour
le synode des évêques on assiste d’une part à un discours élogieux et ronflant sur les
bienfaits des conférences épiscopales, mais d’autre part on leur refuse tout statut ou toute
autorité collégiale, doctrinale et juridique. La lettre apostolique Apostolos Suos est claire à ce
sujet : la collégialité épiscopale n’appartient qu’au collège épiscopal tout entier. Les actes
des conférences épiscopales doivent recevoir l’aval juridique de Rome dont les conférences
sont dépendantes pour leurs compétences et la validité de leurs actes. (Au n/ 13 il est dit que
c’est « le Siège apostolique qui a constitué ces organismes et leur à confié… des compétences
précises. »). Alors que les conférences peuvent se considérer comme les formes modernes
des anciens synodes locaux, la Commission Théologique Internationale leur refuse le label
« d’instance spécifiques collégiales entendues au sens strict ». « Les conférences relèvent
de l’organisation… de l’Eglise (iure ecclesiastico) ; l’emploi à leur sujet des termes
« collège », « collégialité »… ne peut donc relever que d’un sens analogique,
théologiquement impropre. »
C’est une fois de plus, la position du « tout ou rien ». Mais pourquoi, la collégialité
doit-elle nécessairement se limiter au collège épiscopal en concile œcuménique et ne
pourrait-elle pas non plus se manifester selon divers degrés de réalisation ? Ou autrement
dit, pourquoi doit-on dire que c’est uniquement dans le collège épiscopal que les évêques
exercent leur magistère collégialement, mais qu’en revanche dans une conférence
épiscopale ils ne le feraient que conjunctim (ensemble) s’agissant non d’un acte collégial,
mais simplement collectif. Pourquoi soutenir absolument que la relation entre les Eglises au
sein d’une conférence épiscopale est « très différente du rapport d’intériorité mutuelle de
l’Eglise universelle avec les Eglises particulières » (Apostolos Suos n/ 13). Est-ce bien une
réalité différente et ne s’agit-il pas simplement d’un rapport de gradualité ?
En tant que membre du collège épiscopal, chaque évêque est investi d’une
sollicitude à l’égard de l’Eglise universelle. Cette sollicitude se manifeste dans toute action
commune de plusieurs évêques à l’égard de plusieurs Eglises particulières formant une unité
juridique à l’intérieur d’un territoire ou d’une nation. D’ailleurs Vatican II reconnaît bien la
possibilité pour les évêques en conférence épiscopale « d’exercer conjointement leur charge
pastorale » (C.D. n/ 38 §1). Du fait que des évêques exercent au sein d’une conférence
épiscopale de manière collégiale certaines tâches de leur charge épiscopale (et notamment
la sollicitude pour l’Eglise universelle et les autres Eglises particulières), on peut soutenir que
10
la conférence épiscopale dispose d’un pouvoir de juridiction. En effet, les évêques réalisent
concrètement et effectivement la collégialité. Et bien que les conférences fassent partie de la
structure organisationnelle de l’Eglise, elles sont des instances de iure ecclesiastico cum
fundamento in iure divino. C’est le point de vue de Karl Rahner, Walter Kasper, Congar,
Tillard, Anton et Pottmeyer… Il s’agit d’une actualisation quotidienne de la communio
ecclesiarum et de la collégialité épiscopale. La conférence épiscopale devient de plus en
plus le lieu ordinaire et pratique du ministère épiscopal, de la sollicitude et de la collégialité
fraternelle entre évêques. Et ceci est plus qu’un simple affect. Nous pouvons faire référence à la
structure synodale des Eglises Orientales Catholiques au Proche Orient et en Egypte.
Tout comme les synodes des évêques, les conférences épiscopales peuvent donc
être considérées comme des réalisations réelles bien que partielles de la collégialité
épiscopale (le concile œcuménique restant la réalisation réelle et totale de cette collégialité). Je ne
peux m’empêcher ici de citer le théologien Ratzinger dans son ouvrage écrit immédiatement après
Vatican II, Le Nouveau Peuple de Dieu, p. 125 – 126 : « … les conférences épiscopales… constituent
une variété légitime de l’élément collégial… On trouve parfois exprimé… que le concept de collégialité
ne pourrait être appliqué qu’à l’épiscopat total… La notion de collégialité indique précisément un
élément complexe et variable dans ses applications particulières. Cet élément (la collégialité)… peut
être réalisé de manière diverse… Les conférences épiscopales sont donc une des variétés possibles
de la collégialité, dont elles constituent des réalisations partielles… ».
Et bien qu’il n’y a donc qu’une seule collégialité épiscopale, celle-ci se réalise selon
des modalités et des degrés variés. Les conférences épiscopales constituent ainsi un
échelon intermédiaire entre l’universalité et la particularité diocésaine. Au sein d’une telle
communion fraternelle d’Eglises, le primat de l’évêque de Rome rejoint « l’essentiel » de sa
mission, étant le centrum unitatis au sein de cette communion sur lequel soit s’orienter l’unité
de la foi et de la communion.
La décentralisation par la renaissance des patriarcats à l’intérieur de l’Eglise latine :
Nous avons déjà indiqué que suite à l’amalgame entre le primat universel de l’évêque de
Rome et le patriarcat d’Occident dans le chef du pape, la papauté est devenue « une enflure
monstrueuse de ce qui n’est même pas elle ». Ceci a donné lieu à une centralisation et une
uniformisation administrative sur l’ensemble de l’Eglise.
Il faut donc commencer par démêler les fils tout en faisant revivre le patriarcat
d’Occident. Ceci suppose que bon nombre de compétences administratives de type
patriarcal (comme la nomination d’évêques) soit tiré de la sphère du primat de communion et
transféré à la sphère patriarcale. La renaissance de l’institution patriarcale dans le chef de
l’évêque de Rome contribuerait à décharger la primauté et à revenir à « l’essentiel » de la
mission du primat : présider à la koinonia. C’est ainsi que l’exemple de la structure patriarcale au
11
sein des Eglises Orientales Catholiques pourrait être une source d’inspiration pour retracer les
compétences spécifiquement patriarcales du pape.
Dans un second temps, cette renaissance peut être élargie à l’intérieur même de
l’Eglise latine sur la base des grandes assemblées continentales d’évêques. La notion de
collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales peut à ce niveau être
élargie au profit de ces conférences/assemblées d’évêques. Il peut d’ailleurs y avoir des
conférences épiscopales comprenant « les chefs des Eglises particulières situées dans des nations
différentes » et également « à un autre niveau territorial ou au niveau supranational » (C.D. n/ 37 &
38 : A.S. n/ 5 & 16). C’est ce que Hervé Legrand appelle les « Eglises régionales ».
Par ce biais, rien n’empêcherait l’instauration de divers patriarcats à l’intérieur de
l’Eglise latine comme institutions de iure ecclesiastico cum fundamento de iure divino. C’est
d’ailleurs la proposition du Groupe des Dombes (groupement français de dialogue
œcuménique) : « la base de ces patriarcats seraient les assemblées continentales
d’évêques (tel que par exemple la COM.E.C.E en Europe ou le C.E.L.A.M. en Amérique
latine) dotées d’une reconnaissance canonique, d’un large domaine de compétence en
matière
d’organisation
des
Eglises,
la
nomination
des
évêques,
la
liturgie,
la
catéchèse,… ».Tous les patriarches catholiques formeraient un synode papal permanent,
représentatif de tout l’épiscopat mondial et délibératif (décisions universelles touchant l’unité
de la foi et de la communion) sous la présidence de l’évêque de Rome, patriarche d’Occident
et primat universel.
Evidemment cela aurait un grand retentissement sur le plan œcuménique. Cela
permettrait aux Eglises séparées de mieux comprendre le ministère d’unité du pape et
d’entrer en communion avec l’Eglise catholique. Les Eglises orthodoxes et réformés qui ont
une forte tradition synodale et/ou patriarcale, pourraient garder leur originalité. Ainsi on
pourrait bien imaginer un patriarcat pour la communion anglicane, pour les Eglises luthériennes nordeuropéennes. Congar a même imaginé une structure de l’Eglise sous forme d’une collégialité de
patriarcats : la Pentarchie, ceux de Moscou, de Roumanie… d’autres à créer comme Cantorbéry,
d’Afrique, d’Amérique latine, des Indes… Une fois de plus, ceci ne serait pas en opposition avec
la conception de primauté de Vatican I, dans le sens que le pouvoir plénier, suprême et
universel du pape vise à assurer l’unité de la communion. Le pape doit « affermir, affirmer et
défendre le pouvoir des évêques ». Il s’agirait bien d’une nouvelle forme d’exercice du
primat : assurer l’unité de l’épiscopat, soutenir la coordination internationale et continentale
de telles assemblées d’Eglises. Cela rend bien compte d’une primauté articulée sur le
binôme collégialité épiscopale – communion des Eglises particulières, mise en œuvre dans
de telles structures caractérisées par l’élément collégial et axées sur une région ou un
continent.
12
La décentralisation par le principe de subsidiarité : La décentralisation peut être
prolongée par le principe de subsidiarité. On l’a déjà dit ; nombre de pouvoirs retenus
aujourd’hui par l’évêque de Rome et la Curie ne relèvent pas de l’essence immuable de la
primauté. A travers les temps, le primat s’est arrogé des pouvoirs qui sous le coup d’une
centralisation rampante à travers l’histoire ont été présentés comme appartenant à la
primauté. L’exemple typique et bien connu est celui de la nomination des évêques par le
pape (C’est Urbain V qui en 1363 tira un trait définitif sur l’élection des évêques). Une telle
centralisation ne colle pas avec « l’essentiel » de la mission du pape, ni avec une véritable
ecclésiologie de communion. Elle est même, pour reprendre le terme d’un prélat de la Curie,
Mgr Benelli, une « anomalie ». Le centrum unitatis de l’Eglise devrait accepter de restituer
aux Eglises locales et aux conférences épiscopales une grande part de ses possibilités
d’intervention mais qui ne sont pas essentielles au primat de service de l’unité (tel la
nomination et le choix des évêques, toutes les directives liturgiques et catéchétiques,…).
C’est là qu’intervient le principe de subsidiarité. Issu de la doctrine sociale de
l’Eglise pour régir les rapports entre l’Etat et ses citoyens, le C.I.C. affirme que « le principe
de subsidiarité doit bien plus s’appliquer dans l’Eglise, vu que la charge et les pouvoirs des
évêques sont de droit divin. » (préface du Code n/ 5). La subsidiarité est donc intimement
liée à la collégialité et celle-ci n’existe pas pleinement si les évêques ne sont que des
récepteurs passifs des directives du pape et de la Curie. La subsidiarité renforce en quelque
sorte l’autonomie qui revient à tout évêque dans sa responsabilité pour son Eglise locale, en
tant que « vicaire du Christ » (C.D. n/ 8). On écarte tout ce qui déborde la stricte fonction du
primat de l’évêque de Rome et on donne au groupe plus petit, par exemple une conférence
épiscopale, les moyens pour incarner sa foi et régler avec ses responsables immédiats les
questions de sa vie et de son identité (par exemple pour la nomination d’un évêque).
Ainsi la subsidiarité s’oppose à l’anomalie de la centralisation qui méconnaît la
collégialité par la subordination de la responsabilité épiscopale à l’autorité hiérarchique, ainsi
qu’à l’anomalie de l’uniformisation qui écarte la légitime pluralité. Même si le pape, comme
nous l’avons dit, « possède sur toutes les Eglises la primauté de pourvoir ordinaire » (C.D. n/
2), ce sont en premier lieu les évêques qui ont le pouvoir ordinaire, propre et immédiat pour
la charge de leur diocèse (C.D. n/ 8). Le pape ne doit pas se substituer aux évêques pour
l’administration ordinaire d’un diocèse. Il est investi d’une mission propre et universelle qui
est de veiller au bien commun de toute l’Eglise. C’est une autorité suprême de vigilance et
de sauvegarde du bien commun, de secours et d’intervention pour remédier aux défaillances
ou aux difficultés d’un Eglise particulière.
13
Un nouveau fonctionnement de la Curie romaine : La question de nouvelles
modalités de l’exercice de la primauté ne relève pas seulement de la personne du pape,
mais aussi de l’administration pontificale. On ne peut dissocier le pape de la Curie et il est
dès lors intéressant de s’interroger sur la façon dont la Curie promeut et se rattache à la
collégialité. Disons d’emblée que le système curial reflète plutôt la primauté de juridiction
suprême et universelle du pape et J.-M. Tillard n’hésitait pas à la taxer d’être « trop
gourmande dans ses attributions et trop centralisatrice ». Pour Mgr Quinn, elle s’interpose
comme un tertium genus, subordonnée au pape (mais quid lorsque le pape est très
affaibli ?), mais supérieure au collège des évêques, alors que la Curie devrait être à la suite
de la primauté au service de l’épiscopat et « s’exercer pour le bien de l’Eglise et au service
des pasteurs » (C.D. n/ 9). Mgr Quinn fait référence aux exhortations apostoliques après un synode
et au système des nonces qui peut dégéner dans un pouvoir abusif par rapport à l’épiscopat.
Loin d’être appelée à être une instance de centralisation ou d’uniformisation, la
Curie devrait faire l’objet d’une réforme structurelle (soit qu’un type de synode permanent à
l’exemple du synode dans les Eglises Orientales, composé de patriarches, d’archevêques et
d’évêques assiste le pape dans l’exercice de son ministère d’unité, soit qu’un conseil d’évêques exerce
un droit de regard sur la Curie et devant lequel la Curie serait responsable, cela en raison de la
sollicitude des évêques pour les affaires de l’Eglise universelle). En tout cas, cette réforme devrait
aboutir à une meilleure prise en compte de l’épiscopat et de la réalité des Eglises
particulières à travers des consultations et un dialogue dans la prise de décision. Ainsi, la
Curie se verrait réduire son rôle en tant qu’exécutant des délibérations issues de la
collégialité épiscopale, exercée par exemple dans le synode des évêques. La Curie
refléterait certainement plus « l’essentiel » de la mission de l’évêque de Rome, n’intervenant
que pour le bien de toute l’Eglise (l’unité de foi et de communion) : par exemple lorsqu’une
Eglise locale part à la dérive, suite à une crise interne ou externe. Ceci serait pleinement ad
aedificationem Ecclesiae et se distancierait d’une omniprésence ou d’une mainmise
étouffante.
Le pape est ce centrum unitatis de la foi et de la charité, ce frère « aîné » dans
lequel chaque évêque peut lire sa propre responsabilité et auquel on peut demander une
aide fraternelle. Reprenons à la fin de notre réflexion, les paroles émouvantes mais o
combien inspirantes de Saint Grégoire le Grand dans sa réponse à Euloge d’Alexandrie :
« Mon honneur est celui de l’Eglise universelle. Mon honneur est la force solide de mes
frères. Alors, je suis vraiment honoré, lorsque à chacun d’eux n’est pas refusé l’honneur qui
lui revient. »
14
IV, Conclusion : Le fil rouge qui traverse notre réflexion est la phrase de
l’Encyclique Ut Unum Sint dans laquelle Jean Paul II dit écouter la requête « de trouver une
forme d’exercice de la primauté ouverte à une situation nouvelle mais sans renoncement
aucun à l’essentiel de sa mission» (U.U.S. n/ 95). Si nous avons voulu saisir au bond
l’invitation lancée par Jean Paul II de « chercher les formes dans lesquelles ce ministère
pourra réaliser un service d’amour » (U.U.S. n/ 95), il nous fallait d’abord délimiter
« l’essentiel » de ce ministère à l’égard duquel aucun renoncement n’est possible.
En ce qui concerne « l’essentiel » du ministère papal, il est apparu que de Pierre,
chef de la communauté apostolique, à l’évêque qui aujourd’hui préside sur le Siège de Rome
il y a eu continuité. Celle-ci emprunte les chemins tortueux de l’histoire humaine dont les fils
sont souvent difficiles à démêler. Suivant la parole du Christ : « Vous n’êtes pas du monde,
mais vous êtes dans le monde », l’Eglise et avec elle la papauté se situent dans l’histoire. La
constatation de l’enflure de la papauté faisant du pape « plus qu’un pape », nous amène à
distinguer les figures historiques, contingentes de « l’essentiel ». S’il est incontestable que la
fonction primatiale du pape découle de la primauté du Siège de l’Eglise locale de Rome,
potentior principalitas, le fondement permanent reliant toutes ces figures est sans nul doute
la garde (episkopè) de la communauté ecclésiale dans la koinonia de la foi et de la charité,
ou encore ce que nous avons appelé le service de l’unité de la foi et de la communion. La
fonction du pape à travers toute l’histoire sert, veille à cette unité sous la seule Tête de
l’Eglise, le Christ, et ayant pour seul objet cette communion visible dans la Vérité et l’Agapè.
Pastor Aeternus désignera « l’union (la communion) de la foi et de la charité » comme
caractère essentiel de l’Eglise que Dieu veut (D.S. 3052, 3059 & 3065).
L’exercice de la primauté, ainsi placée dans le mystère de l’Eglise : la Catholica
comme communio ecclesiarum, se recoupe avec l’adage ad aedificationem, sed non ad
destructionem Ecclesiae. A l’intérieur de celle-ci, la fonction du pape ne s’exerce pas dans
une solitude de monarque isolé au sommet d’une pyramide mais en communion avec « ses
frères » dans l’épiscopat et dans le vicariat du Christ. Sa fonction spécifique est non de se
substituer à la voix de l’épiscopat, mais « d’affirmer, affermir et de défendre » le pouvoir de
chaque évêque en charge du troupeau au sein d’une Eglise locale (D.S. 3061).
Poussée par le kairos œcuménique, la tâche de l’Eglise catholique est aussi de se
demander ce que l’Esprit attend d’elle pour que la primauté romaine, inséparable de son être
ecclésial depuis les origines et qui est selon sa conviction intime voulue de Dieu lui-même
pour cette koinonia, puisse répondre au désir de tous, y compris des catholiques euxmêmes. Quel doit être le visage de la primauté au début du troisième millénaire, ère
œcuménique ? Dans cette recherche, l’Eglise a mieux compris certaines certitudes. Lumen
15
Gentium a affirmé plus vigoureusement l’ecclésiologie de communion et la collégialité
épiscopale. L’évêque de Rome est frère parmi des frères tous égaux dans l’épiscopat et dont
chacun est principe d’unité au sein d’une Eglise particulière. La primauté est primauté dans
un collège de frères, responsables comme Vicarii Christi (L.G. n/ 27) de l’ensemble des
Eglises particulières, in quibus ex quibus una et unica Ecclesia catholica existit (L.G. n/ 23).
La primauté est non au-dessus de ce collegium. Le sub Petro est inséparable du cum Petro.
La primauté est enserrée dans la fraternité collégiale ; le « jamais sans mes frères » du
pape. Il nous suffit de rappeler que le pape seul n’aurait pu accomplir ce qu’a fait Vatican II
et que si le primat parle seul, ex cathedra, sa parole ne peut être que celle du consensus
fraternel où s’actualise son propre affectus collegialis.
En ce qui concerne les modalités de l’exercice du primat de l’évêque de Rome, le
point de départ est la collégialité. Celle-ci est perçue comme une meilleure expression de la
communio ecclesiarum. Le collège épiscopal ne peut plus être vu comme un simple
rassemblement d’évêques coupés d’une communion d’Eglises locales, régionales. A Vatican
II on amorce le passage du binôme collégialité/primauté au profit d’une nouvelle image guide
de collégialité d’évêques en charge d’une Eglise/communion d’Eglises locales ou régionales.
La collégialité est articulée sur et au service de cette communion. La primauté à son tour doit
être axée sur cette nouvelle image guide dans le sens que l’affectus collegialis du primat est
la garantie pour lui de la présidence dans la communion et ceci ad aedificationem de l’Eglise
Universelle. Son pouvoir suprême et plénier a pour effet de situer les Eglises particulières et
ses frères évêques dans la Catholica dont il est le principe visible de l’unité et d’éviter
qu’elles se recroquevillent sur elles-mêmes. Cette sollicitude pour l’Eglise universelle, qu’il
partage avec chaque évêque, s’explicite chez lui dans une veille sur l’unité de la foi et de la
communion et cela « non en juge sévère, mais en frère aîné » qui protège, aide et
conseille… Il faut la primauté parce qu’en tant que catholique et communion d’Eglises,
l’Eglise est nécessairement plurielle dans la diversité des multiples aspects de sa vie. Le
primat est un instrument de la Divine Providence pour que les Eglises locales confiées à la
fraternité du collège épiscopal vivent authentiquement en Eglises sœurs dans la communion
de la Vérité et de l’Agapè.
C’est ainsi que les modalités proposées de l’exercice du primat de l’évêque de
Rome tels que le statut délibératif du synode des évêques, la reconnaissance d’une
collégialité réelle bien que partielle des conférences épiscopales, la décentralisation par la
renaissance de l’institution patriarcale dans l’Eglise latine et par l’application du principe de
subsidiarité provoquant des répercussions sur le fonctionnement de la Curie romaine,
devenant un « pur exécutant » de décisions universelles, sont quelques perspectives, parmi
d’autres, qui permettent une meilleure mise en œuvre de la collégialité et par là une plus
16
grande prise au sérieux de l’ecclésiologie de communion alliant primauté universelle avec
synodalité locale, régionale. La primauté retrouverait ainsi une figure plus modeste en
matière de pouvoir juridique, mais serait peut-être plus conforme au modèle de la papauté
des premiers siècles de la chrétienté.
C’est à ce titre que Jean Paul II insiste sur son titre de servus servorum Dei et
même de « premier des serviteurs de l’unité » (U.U.S. n/ 94). La fonction de l’évêque de
Rome ne peut en effet être séparée de la mission confiée solidairement à l’ensemble des
évêques, qui sont ses frères dans le ministère (le modèle de la synergie ou de la
périchorèse). N’est-ce pas ainsi que ce service rejoindra aussi « l’aspiration œcuménique »
(U.U.S. n/ 95) de beaucoup, sinon le désir de tous, y compris des catholiques ?
A la fin de notre réflexion, nous sommes convaincu que c’est seulement en
s’adaptant avec audace à cette « situation nouvelle » que le ministère du pape rejoindra
pour l’avenir « l’antique et constante foi de l’Eglise universelle » (D.S. 3052), « l’usage
perpétuel de l’Eglise » (D.S. 3065) ainsi que « l’essentiel » de ce ministère auquel le pape
entend rester fidèle.
Résumons tout cela en disant que si Dieu veut l’unité de l’Eglise, de son Peuple,
ceci implique une primauté à son service. Une unité qui ne soit ni uniformité, ni
centralisation, mais communion d’Eglises enracinées dans leur terreau humain. Cette fidélité
requiert cependant non un raidissement mortifère, mais le courage de lire et de s’adapter
aux signes des temps.
Au moment de faire passer l’Eglise par la porte du troisième millénaire, Jean Paul II
ne le cache pas : « Il reste certainement beaucoup à faire pour exprimer au mieux les
potentialités des instruments de la communion, particulièrement nécessaires aujourd’hui où il
est indispensable de répondre avec rapidité et efficacité aux problèmes que l’Eglise doit
affronter au milieu des changements si rapides de notre temps. » (la Lettre apostolique Novo
Millennio Ineunte, Documentation Catholique, 2001, p. 83)
Georges-Henri Ruyssen S.J.
Paris, le 21 juin 2001
17
P.S. Cet article est le résumé d’un mémoire dirigé par le Père B. Sesboüé S.J. et présenté en
février 2001 en vue de l’obtention de la licence canonique en théologie aux facultés jésuites du Centre
Sèvres à Paris.
18
The Theological Significance of Ecumenical Convergence in Christian Worship, with
Special Attention to “The Great Thanksgiving”
or simply
Ecumenical Convergence in Christian Worship
Robert J. Daly, S.J.,
BOSTON COLLEGE
There are four major bits of background for this paper.1
(1) Over the past 25 years I have frequently offered courses on the Eucharist. At first, following
the lead of Johannes Betz, this was done from basically traditional, post-Vatican II, Roman Catholic
historical-critical perspectives. About 15 years ago, with my perspectives being broadened, by
participation in the work of the North American Academy of Liturgy and the Societas Liturgica, the
course title became “The Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective.” More recently, I removed the
reference to ecumenism; it had become an embarrassing tautology.
(2) Since 1994, I have also offered courses on the history, literary structure, and theology of the
Eucharistic Prayer or “Great Thanksgiving.” After 1996, these courses had become
strongly
influenced by the theology of Edward Kilmartin.
(3) After Edward Kilmartin’s death in June, 1994, I became his literary executor and edited his
final book, The Eucharist in the West for posthumous publication2 This work radically modified my
views on the Eucharist. What I now think, so different from my position of a mere seven years ago,
is well summarized by the Liturgical Press prepublication blurb for this book:
1
This paper is part of my ongoing attempts to (1) appropriate the (ecumenical) riches of the Church's eucharistic
traditions, (2) show how the work of Edward Kilmartin can contribute to that effort, and (3) illustrate how the analysis
of Eucharistic Prayers and the attempt to draft new Eucharistic Prayers can be an important part of that whole process.
2
Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert J. Daly, S.J. (Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1998). This work did not become extensive until a sabbatical year in 1996-97. An ongoing phase is
constituted by the approximately two dozen papers I have presented on Kilmartin’s theology or on developments from
it. An earlier version of this paper was presented for discussion with the Boston theological Society in October, 1998. I
am also preparing a collection of Kilmartin’s scattered scholarly articles so that his Nachlass can be more easily studied.
For information about Edward Kilmartin, see Michael A. Fahey, S.J., "In Memoriam: Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.
(1923–1994)," Orientalia christiana periodica 61 (1995) 5–18, and "Bibliography of Publications of Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.,"
ibid., 19–35.
In the light of its own history, the Catholic theology of the Eucharist, as it is generally
understood today, is revealed as a splinter tradition whose deficiencies call for fundamental
reformulation. The valid aspects of that theology (for example, the recovery of the role of the
Holy Spirit in the new Roman Eucharistic Prayers) must be identified and integrated with the
faith and practice of the first theological millennium when the lex orandi was not so dominated by
the lex credendi. In the third theological millennium, more attention to the content and structure
of the classical Eucharistic Prayers of both East and West will result in a Catholic systematic
theology of eucharistic sacrifice that is not only truer to its biblical and patristic foundations but
also—of ecumenical import—closer to some of the theological insights of the Protestant
Reformers.
(4) Over the past three years I have been attempting to illustrate (or test) Kilmartin’s theological
vision in a practical way by using insights and principles gained from his work to compose new and
possibly more liturgically adequate Eucharistic Prayers.
When, from this background, I examine the service books or worship books of some of the
main-line North American Protestant communities, I observe that they are, in many respects, more
“Catholic” than their official Roman Catholic counterparts. I have in mind specifically the
Presbyterian Book of Common Worship,3 The United Methodist Book of Worship,4 and the Lutheran Book of
Worship.5
I come to this observation from the background of the four points with which I opened this
paper. But other scholars, I am sure, working with the same information, would come to a similar
conclusion. To be fair, one must of course remember that the present Roman Catholic
“Sacramentary” goes back to the early 1970s, while the Protestant worship books with which I
compare it are of much more recent vintage. But even when one makes the newly proposed and (at
this writing) not-yet-implemented Roman Catholic Sacramentary the point of comparison, the
Protestant books still seem, in many respects, to remain significantly more “Catholic.” My definition
of “Catholic” in this context is significantly different from what it was even as recently as ten years
ago. This change reflects both my own ongoing study and my active association with the North
American Academy of Liturgy and the International Societas Liturgica. But most particularly, the
3
Book of Common Worship, Prepared by The Theology and Worship Unit for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the
Cumberland Presbyterian Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).
4
The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1992).
5
My actual source is the “Leaders Edition,” With One Voice: A Lutheran Resource for Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress, 1995) a basically up-to-date collection of the Orders of Worship and the Eucharistic Prayers currently in use.
change reflects the influence of Kilmartin. Kilmartin analyzes the historical development of what is
commonly (or at least officially) taught as Roman (i.e. Latin) Catholic eucharistic theology, and
exposes it as a narrow, Western, splinter tradition which took its basic shape in the early Middle
Ages and has not significantly changed since. I am taking “Catholic” to mean in significant contact
synchronically with what the whole Church teaches and believes about the Eucharist, as well as in
significant contact diachronically with what the other Christian Churches (especially of the East) have
taught and believed and are now teaching and believing about the Eucharist. Looked at this way,
there seems to be important aspects of official modern Roman Catholic teaching and practice that
are distinctly “uncatholic,” or put less provocatively, fall significantly short of being fully Catholic.6
The place where I find this paradoxical discrepancy to be most pronounced is in the Eucharistic
Prayer(s) or Great Thanksgiving(s) that are in official use in the different churches.7
If I am right, we must look more closely at what has been happening and attend carefully to its
theological and ecumenical significance. But before we look to the Eucharistic Prayer, where I find
the difference between Protestant and Catholic—even in the midst of great convergence, and
perhaps, precisely, because of that convergence—to be most striking, let us look at those areas of
liturgical convergence where the paradox focuses not on the absence of but on the stunning success
of the convergence.
(1) The Liturgical Year. Until recently, one would expect to find the worship of a church organized
according the cycle of the liturgical year only in the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Eastern, and in
the high church Protestant communions. But one now begins to find this even in low church bodies.
A fine recent example of this is Voices United from the United Church of Canada.8
(2) The Lectionary. The three-year Sunday and Feast Day cycle of lectionary readings has become
standard in most churches. Despite some differences, there are great similarities between these
6
I am, of course, using “Catholic” not in the descriptive sense of what the present, still largely eurocentric (Latin)
Roman Catholic Church actually is and officially teaches, but in the more normative sense of what it is called to be, and
what it (at least occasionally) is in its more ideal manifestations. For this reason I will generally capitalize “Catholic,” not
as claiming something already there in the Roman Catholic communion, but as pointing, as a kind of gadfly, to what
should be there and fully shared with other Christian communities.
7
There are multiple levels of paradox—if not confusion— here. For the Eucharistic Prayer/Great Thanksgiving is both
one of the signs of great ecumenical convergence, and also the precise place, as we will show below, where the Latin
Roman Catholic Church seems to be less Catholic than it should be.
8
Voices United: The Hymn and Worship Book of the United Church of Canada (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: The United Church
Publishing House, 1996). The first and largest section, pp. 1–215, is called The Christian Year and has the subheadings:
Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Baptism of Jesus, Transfiguration, Lent, Palm/Passion Sunday, Holy Week and Good
Friday, Easter, Ascension, Day of Pentecost, Reign of Christ—quite “Catholic.”
lectionaries, and in some cases, identity. For example, the Roman Catholic Ordo Lectionum Missae (2d
ed. 1981) is followed by the Episcopal and several other churches in North America.9 Except for the
Free Churches, on any given Sunday, Christians are likely to be hearing the same selection of
Scriptures read and reflected on in their churches.
(3) The Theology of Worship. The study of liturgy has become ecumenical. Members of the North
American Academy of Liturgy and the international Societas Liturgica come from all the major church
communions, plus Judaism. But the free or “nonsacramental” churches are not—at least not
yet—well represented. It appears that the great ecumenical divide will be less and less between East
and West, or between the mainline Christian churches, and more and more between the sacramental
and the nonsacramental churches.
(4) Convergence in theological understanding regarding the shape and meaning of the Eucharistic
Prayer or “Great Thanksgiving.”10
To this point we have been only circling the thicket. It is time to jump in, time to become more
concrete. I have indicated that the focal point of my observations is the Eucharistic Prayer. Passing
over the preliminaries, there is full theological convergence regarding the elements and basic shape
of the Great Thanksgiving/Eucharistic Prayer (EP). It is commonly recognized to have 10 elements
in five groups:
9
A
1. introductory dialogue
2. preface
3. sanctus
B
4. post-sanctus
5. preliminary epiclesis (alternative or additional post-sanctus)
C
6. narrative of institution
D
7. anamnesis
8. epiclesis
9. diptychs or intercessions, which may be divided
E
10. concluding doxology
See R. H. Fuller, “Lectionary” in J. G. Davies, The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1986) 297–99.
10
But note my remarks above in footnote 7.
There is common agreement that these are the elements, and that they usually occur (when they all
do occur) basically in this order.11
By recent estimates, and depending what one counts, there are more than one hundred
Eucharistic Prayers in official use by the English-speaking churches throughout the world. This
number multiplies considerably if one includes all the seasonal and feast-day variations. But without
exception, they all follow the same basic “shape”12 which our ten points have listed. The basic
“shape” of A–B–C–D–E is what is almost universally followed. At least something from each
grouping of elements from A to E is found, in this order, in almost every Eucharistic Prayer/Great
Thanksgiving.13
This is of profound ecumenical significance. For the first time in history, the churches of the
Reformation and Counterreformation are, increasingly, preaching from the same basic lectionary,
and celebrating the Eucharist with basically the same Eucharistic Prayers. For the first time in
history, the theologians of the “sacramental” churches of both East and West are on the same page
when
talking
about
the
basic
content,
shape,
and
meaning
of
the
Eucharistic
Prayer/Anaphora/Great Thanksgiving and its accompanying ritual action. There do remain
significant theological differences as to how the Eucharist is to be understood, but the alreadyachieved convergence is massive. Ironically, some of the great differences that remain are not just
between theologians from the different churches, but also between theologians within the same
church communion. But it is also significant that the more theologians are au courant with recent
developments in liturgical theology, the less likely is it that they will have major differences with
other liturgical theologians.
11
See W. Jardine Grisbrooke, “Anaphora,” in The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (Philadelphia,
Westminster, 1986) 13–21. One gets basically the same picture from any contemporary scholarly treatment such as, e.g.:
John Barry Ryan, “Eucharistic Prayers,” in Peter E. Fink, S.J., The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. A Michael Glazier
Book (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990) 451–59; R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and
Reformed, 3d ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1987); and the “General Instruction” at the beginning of the 1970 revision
of the Roman Missal.
12
The concept of “shape” refers to the insights of Dom Gregory Dix in his foundational Shape of the Liturgy, 2d ed.
(London: Dacre, 1945); new ed. with additional material by P. V. Marshall (New York: Seabury, 1982).
13
The only actual exception that I know of—I assume that there are others (and prescinding from the arbitrary use
experimental Eucharistic Prayers)—is the allowance made in some Reformation churches to omit the institution
narrative from the Great Thanksgiving, since the presider has already proclaimed it the from the pulpit before
descending to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the assembly (see, e.g., the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship, passim).
This may be an appropriate point to recount a recent conversation with a leading liturgical scholar from one of these
Reformation communities. I was saying how hard it is to wean traditional Roman Catholics away from a massive
overemphasis on the Words of Institution. He replied that, in his church, the problem was the opposite. They were
trying to bring it about that none of their presiders would omit them.
About fifteen years ago, Henry Chadwick delivered a lecture entitled: “Is Ecumenism a Dead
Balloon?” Had he been attending to what was already transpiring in the field of Christian worship, I
believe that he would have had a far more optimistic assessment. He was more aware, apparently,
that the time of great ecumenical advances was behind us. The effect of what is now moving
forward—the effect of the different Christian churches worshipping in increasingly the same
way—will necessarily take much longer to kick in. One is talking about the modification—even
conversion—of religious culture, religious attitude, and religious prejudice. Even if one is talking
only of what must go on within a single communion, this process is slow. For example, in terms of
what needs to take place within the Roman Catholic communion, Kilmartin speaks of it as the task
of the third theological millennium.14
Let us now jump to the heart of the matter and look at two contemporary Eucharistic Prayers
that manifest this shape of which I have been speaking.
The Great Thanksgiving (Methodist)
Type: West Syrian – Antiochene – Byzantine/Chrysostom/Basil
The pastor stands behind the Lord’s table.
A 1
2
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
Lift up your hearts.
The pastor may lift hands and keep them raised.
We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right to give our thanks and praise.
It is right, and a good and joyful thing,
always and everywhere to give thanks
to you, Father Almighty (almighty God),
creator of heaven and earth.
You created light out of darkness and
brought forth life on the earth.
You formed us in your image and breathed
into us the breath of life.
When we turned away, and our love failed,
your love remained steadfast.
14
See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic Theology: Towards the Third Millennium,”
Theological Studies 55 (1994) 405–57.
You delivered us from captivity, made
covenant to be our sovereign God,
and spoke to us through your prophets.
In the fullness of time you gave your only
Son Jesus Christ to be our Savior,
and at his birth the angels sang
glory to you in the highest and peace to
your people on earth.
And so, with your people on earth and all
the company of heaven we praise your
name and join their unending hymn:
The pastor may lower hands.
3
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and
might, heaven and earth are full of your
glory. Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
The pastor may raise hands.
B 4
Holy are you, and blessed is your Son Jesus
Christ.
As Mary and Joseph went from Galilee to
Bethlehem and there found no room
so Jesus went from Galilee to Jerusalem and
was despised and rejected.
As in the poverty of a stable Jesus was born,
so by the baptism of his suffering, death,
and resurrection you gave birth to your
Church, delivered us from slavery to sin and
death, and made with us a new covenant by
water and the Spirit.
The pastor may hold hands, palms down, over the
bread, or touch the bread, or lift the bread.
C 6
As your Word became flesh, born of woman,
on that night long ago,
so, on the night in which he gave himself up for us,
he took bread, gave thanks to you,
broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Take, eat; this is my body which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
The pastor may hold hand, palms down, over the
cup, or touch the cup, or lift the cup.
When the supper was over he took the cup,
gave thanks to you, gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Drink from this, all of you; this is my blood
of the new covenant, poured out for you
and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
The pastor may raise hands
D 7
And so, in remembrance of these your mighty acts in Jesus Christ,
we offer ourselves in praise and thanksgiving
as a holy and living sacrifice,
in union with Christ’s offering for us,
as we proclaim the mystery of faith.
Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.
The pastor may hold hands, palms down, over the bread and cup.
8
Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered
here, and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of
Christ, that we may be for the world the
body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.
The pastor may raise hands.
9
By your Spirit make us one with Christ,
one with each other, and one in ministry to
all the world, until Christ comes in final
victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.
10 Through your Son Jesus Christ, with the
Holy Spirit in your holy Church, all honor
and glory is yours, almighty Father (God),
now and for ever.
Amen.15
This is an excellent modern appropriation of the classical Antiochene (Byzantine/Chrysostom)
Anaphora. Each of the chief elements from A to E is fully—even if only briefly and
efficiently—represented, and only one of the particular elements, namely B 5, is missing. But this, as
we will see, is a perfection and not a lack. But to illustrate more clearly what we are getting at, let us
look quickly at a typical modern appropriation of the classical Alexandrian (Egyptian) type of
anaphora.
Eucharistic Prayer II (Roman Catholic)
Type: hybrid, but mostly Alexandrian/Egyptian
15
“The Great Thanksgiving for Christmas Eve, Day, or Season,” from The United Methodist Book of Worship (1992) 56–57.
A 1
And also with you.
We lift them up to the Lord.
It is right to give him thanks and praise.
2
Father, it is our duty and our salvation,
always and everywhere to give you thanks
through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ.
He is the Word through whom you made
the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem
us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he took
flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.
For our sake he opened his arms on the
cross; he put an end to death and revealed
the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will
and won for you a holy people.
And so we join the angels and the saints in
proclaiming your glory as we say:
3
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and
might, heaven and earth are full of your
glory. Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
The principal celebrant, hands extended, says:
B 4
Lord, you are holy indeed,
the fountain of all holiness.
He joins his hands.
All concelebrants, with hands outstretched over the offerings, say:
5
Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to
make them holy, so that they may become
for us the body + and blood of our Lord,
Jesus Christ.
They join their hands.
C 6
Before he was given up to death, a death he
freely accepted, he took bread and gave you
thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his
disciples, and said:
Each extends his right hand towards the bread, if
this seems opportune
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my
body which will be given up for you.
At the elevation they look at the host and
afterwards bow low. Then all continue:
When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise,
gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Each extends his right hand towards the chalice,
if this seems opportune.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of
the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.
At the elevation they look at the chalice and afterwards bow low.
Then the principal celebrant sings or says:
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith
R. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ
will come again.
With hands extended all say:
D 7
In memory of his death and resurrection,
we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread,
this saving cup.
We thank you for counting us worthy
to stand in your presence and serve you.
With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or
a concelebrant) says:
8
May all of us who share in the body and
blood of Christ be brought together in unity
by the Holy Spirit.
With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or a concelebrant) says
9
Lord, remember your Church throughout
the world; make us grow in love, together
with N. our Pope, N. our bishop, and all
the clergy.
With hands extended, the principal celebrant (or a concelebrant) says
Remember our brothers and sisters who
have gone to their rest in the hope of rising
again; bring them and all the departed into
the light of your presence.
Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to
share eternal life with Mary, the virgin
Mother of God, with the apostles, and with
all the saints who have done your will
throughout the ages. May we praise you in
union with them, and give you glory
He joins his hands.
through your Son, Jesus Christ.
The principal celebrant takes the paten with the host and the deacon
(or in his absence one of the concelebrants) takes the chalice and,
lifting them up, the principal celebrant sings or says alone or
with the concelebrants:
E 10 Through him, with him, in him, in the unity
of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is
yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.
R. Amen.16
This is a representative example of the “hybrid”—but based on the Egyptian—type of
Eucharistic prayer currently in use in the Latin Roman Catholic Church. All the officially sanctioned
Latin Catholic EPs are of this basic type. It is however, very similar to the Antiochene model but for
one massive exception: the placing of the epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit) over the gifts before
(in B 5) the words of institution/consecration, and then the placing of an epiclesis over the assembly
after (in D 8) the words of institution and as a transition to the intercessions. It is this splitting of the
epiclesis that makes this a “hybrid” type that has no clear precedent in any of the major classical
families of anaphoras.
By contrast, the Antiochene model places the epiclesis as a unified double epiclesis over both the
communicants and the eucharistic gifts only after the words of institution (C 6) and the anamnesisoffering prayer (D 7) [which two elements form a natural unity] and before the
diptychs/intercessions into which it (the epiclesis) naturally leads [which two elements form another
natural unity].
Following Kilmartin, who in this respect follows the research of the Italian liturgical scholar
Cesare Giraudo, S.J.,17 I see the structure of the Eucharistic Prayer to be basically bipartite. There is a
(I) protasis (praise / thanksgiving / remembrance / confession / complaint, etc.) followed by an (II)
apodasis (intercession, petition, etc.). The protasis (first part) is anamnetic, and the apodasis (second
part) is epicletic.18 With this in mind, we can see more clearly the shape or basic structure, the basic
ritual shape of the Eucharistic Prayer.
16
Text taken from Eucharistic Prayers for Concelebration (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1985) 20–23.
Cesare Giraudo, La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica: Saggi sulla genesi letteraria di una forma, Analecta Biblica 92
(Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981); Eucaristia per la chiesa: Prospettive teologiche sull’eucaristia a partire dalla “lex orandi”
(Rome: Gregorian University/Brescia: Morcelliana, 1989).
18
The qualification basically bipartite is important, since many scholars hold for a tripartite structure, usually by insisting
that "praise" and "thanksgiving" are two separate elements. The difference sometimes reduces to a quibble over words.
17
Looking at the Antiochene type which we first mentioned, we note that element groups A and E
are common to all Eucharistic Prayers. They can be bracketed out in our efforts to identify a basic
structure, which can serve as a helpful analytical tool. This leaves us with element groups B, C, and
D. This is where the basic Jewish prayer structure plays a decisive role. Giraudo points out the
recurring bipartite structure of traditional Jewish prayer—the model for Christian prayer—that I
mentioned in the previous paragraph. But he also notes the frequent presence of an embolism, a
specific insertion in the already-existing protasis–apodasis structure. This embolism addresses the
specific occasion/need/crisis of the particular prayer. The embolism is, therefore, anything but an
unimportant add-on. Scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures19 point out that the embolism is precisely
where one looks in order to find out what the real, concrete problem or situation might be that is
precipitating the prayer.
When, with this in mind, we look to our Christian Eucharistic Prayers, we find that the narrative
of institution, structurally, is an embolism, that is, an insertion into an already existing basically
Jewish prayer structure. However, just as with the embolism of ancient Jewish prayers, this
embolism is anything but unimportant; for it is the major, central element which most gives this
prayer its specifically Christian meaning.
In our Antiochene EP (Methodist Great Thanksgiving), after the opening dialogue (A 1), we are,
in A 2–3 and B 4, in an obviously anamnetic mode of praise and thanksgiving for the gifts of
salvation history: creation, covenant, sin, redemption. Then inserted into this anamnesis of salvation
history is the institution narrative (C 6).
That the institution narrative is an embolism (insertion) is obvious to the attentive reader or
hearer. The EP is proclaimed by the liturgical presider, precisely as presider, (in the first person
plural). It is addressed to God the Father, remembering, praising, and thanking God for the gifts of
creation, covenant and redemption. Then come the words of institution, obviously breaking into this
structure, for they are basically a quotation of Jesus’ instituting words (usually in a harmonized form)
from the Last Supper. After that, the presider resumes the proclamation of the EP in the first person
plural. In structural terms, the presider returns to the first-person-plural anamnetic address to the
Father.
19
As Norbert Lohfink, S.J., of Sankt Georgen emphatically pointed out to me.
The first structural element in this return is the “anamnesis-offering prayer” (D 7), which forms
the transition to the epicletic part: the epiclesis for the sanctification of the communicants and the
gifts (D 8), which naturally leads into the diptychs or intercessions for the church and world (in D
9).
Before going further, let us look to our second model, the Roman EP II, to see how it is both
similar and different. The first thing we notice is that, structurally, and in terms of basic content, A 1
through B 4 are the same. Granted, the Methodist Great Thanksgiving is much richer in its inclusion
of anamnetic material regarding the feast of Christmas; but the same or similar material would fit
right into the Roman EP II without alteration of the basic shape or structure, and indeed this kind
of amplification is found in the most recently approved Roman Eucharistic Prayers for Special Needs and
Occasions.20
But the next thing we notice is indeed very significant. The Roman EP II has the element B 5,
which is totally absent from the Methodist Great Thanksgiving. B 5 is a “preliminary epiclesis,” a
“hard” or explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit over the gifts inserted here before the institution
narrative. But after this, almost everything proceeds in basically the same order as in the
“Antiochene” Methodist Great Thanksgiving. However, there are two other small but not
insignificant structural differences.
First, the post-consecration acclamation is placed immediately after the words of institution (C
6). By contrast, the Methodist Great Thanksgiving places the acclamation after the anamnesisoffering prayer (D 7), in order, apparently, not to break the natural connection between the narrative
of institution and the anamnesis-offering prayer. The anamnesis-offering prayer is the place where,
Kilmartin observes, the assembly most explicitly enters into and “owns” the mystery it is celebrating.
The “shape” of the prayer and the “shape” of the ritual suggest that the placing of the eucharistic
acclamation immediately after the institution narrative turns it into an out-of-place intrusion.
Second (since there has already been a “hard” epiclesis of the Holy Spirit over the gifts before
the institution narrative), the epiclesis in D 8 becomes only an epiclesis over the communicants, and
a relatively “soft” one at that.
20
Several years before these EPs became available to English-speaking Roman Catholics, they had been in use in Europe,
popularly known to as the “Swiss” Eucharistic Prayers. See Die Feier der heiligen Messe. MESSBUCH. Für die Bistümer des
deutschen Sprachgebietes. Authentische Ausgabe für den liturgischen Gebrauch. Hochgebet für Messen für besonderen Anleigen (Solothurn
& Düsseldorf: Benziger, Freiburg & Basel: Herder, Regensburg: Pustet, Wien: Herder, Salzburg: St. Peter, Linz: Veritas,
1994). See Eucharistic Prayer for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions (Collegeville, Minnesota: the Liturgical Press, 1996).
These differences reflect a huge amount of liturgical-theological history, and also point to one of
the most central and indeed neuralgic points of liturgical theological difference between the Latinrite Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches including those of the East. This is
also the point where I see the main-line non-Roman churches having something, in common with
the churches of the East, something that is more “Catholic” than what the Latin-rite Roman
Catholic Church has. This is a big claim. It requires, I think, a few broad brush strokes of liturgical
history.
By the end of the high Middle Ages, that time from the 11th-century Berengar of Tours through
the 12th-century Peter Lombard and the 13th-century Thomas Aquinas, that time when Catholic
eucharistic theology took the definitive shape from which, only inchoatively, it has begun to move in
this century, the Latin-rite Catholic theology of the Eucharist had crystallized into that teaching
against which (esp. against some of its less integral manifestations) the Reformers eventually
protested. This teaching, brilliantly versified in the Eucharistic hymns of Thomas Aquinas,21 but also
somewhat calcified by the post-Tridentine polemic, continues to form the heart of official Roman
Catholic magisterial teaching. At the core of this “average modern Catholic theology of the
Eucharist” as Kilmartin calls it, and which he labels as essentially bankrupt, lie at least four basic
elements:
[1] The real presence of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (with various theories to
support the close relationship—almost “identity”—of the historical sacrifice of Christ with the
sacramental sacrifice of the altar).
[2] Transubstantiation as the theologico-philosophico explanation of the how of this real presence.
[3] Moment-of-Consecration theology which fixes the precise moment (at the words of consecration)
when the Eucharist becomes “real.”
[4] And thus seeing the words of consecration as the essential form of the eucharistic sacrament.
21
In 1264, Pope Urban IV prescribed the feast of Corpus Christi for the whole Church. The office of the feast was
assembled by Thomas Aquinas, to whom we owe its eucharistic hymns: Pange lingua, Sacris solemniis, Verbum supernum, as
well as the Mass sequence, Lauda Sion. Kilmartin points out that this poetry [some might insist that it is only “verse”] of
superior rank offers a handy summary of the “new theology” of the altar sacrament linked with the traditional biblical
and patristic concepts (Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, p, 153). See Thomas Aquinas, Officium de festo Corporis Christi ad
mandatum Urbani Papae IV dictum festum instituantis (Edit Rom. Opusculum LVII) = Opusculum XXXVII in S. Thomae
Aquinatis, Opuscula omnia, vol. 4 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927) 461–76. Also = Opusculum V. Officium de festo Corporis Christi in
Sancti Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia, vol. 15 (Parma: Typis Petri Fiaccadori, 1864) 133–38.
This is not a fair summary of the eucharistic theology presently being taught by many Catholic
theologians. It is, however, a fair thumbnail sketch of what is still the official Roman Catholic
position (cf. for example, the relevant places in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Elements 3 and 4
point to the main reason why I claim that some representative mainline Protestant worship books
are, in some important respects, more “Catholic” than their Roman Catholic counterparts.
This well-known Catholic fixation on the words of consecration, left a bit diminished but still
essentially intact by recent liturgical reform, can be traced at least as far back as Ambrose who wrote:
Notice these points. He says, “Who, the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands.” Before
it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ are added, it is the body of Christ.
Then hear his words: “Take and eat from this, all of you; for this is my body.” And before the words of
Christ, the cup is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ have been employed, the
blood is created which redeems his people. So you see in what ways the word of Christ has
power to change everything. Our Lord Jesus himself therefore bore witness that we should
receive his body and blood. Ought we to doubt his faith and witness?22
For many centuries, this metabolic, realistic conception of the Eucharist (associated with the 4thcentury Antiochene school) still shared the Western stage with the much more Augustinian,
spiritualistic (Alexandrian) school associated with the 5th-century anti-Monophysite Antiochene
school, followed also by the late 5th-century Roman theologians). But, after the famous
controversies ending in the condemnation of the symbolic, spiritualistic eucharistic theology of
Berengar of Tours in the 11th century, the realistic conception totally won the day.
In this time, from the 11th to the 13th century, when Western eucharistic theology was being
formulated in that “definitive” form which survived the upheaval of the Reformation only in an
even more polemically narrowed form, the following “catholicizing” elements were—in most cases
totally—missing:
(1) Awareness of the classical structure of the EP was absent.
In the various Western eucharistic developments, Gallican, Mozarabic, Roman, etc., three of the ten
basic structural elements outlined above were always present: introductory dialogue (A 1), narrative
22
Ambrose, On the Sacraments (De sacramentis) 4.23, quoted from Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, 145.
of institution (C 6), concluding doxology (E 10). The other elements could be there; or not there;
and when there, then in any particular order. There was, in other words, no sense of the structure or
shape of the eucharistic prayer and rite. The only thing that was there, necessarily there, and defining
everything, was the moment of consecration which came (definitively by the late 16th century) to be
seen as the all-defining, all encompassing central moment, in which the entire “essential form/forma
essentialis” of the Eucharist was to be found.
(2) Greek image thinking had been entirely forgotten.
The (somewhat Platonic) Greek image way of thinking, which enabled one to know, feel, or sense
that the image somehow participated in the reality of what it imaged, was gone. Thingly realism so
reigned that one could think, e.g. of Christ being present only if Christ was really/physically/bodily
present. Greek image thinking enabled, e.g. Pope Gelasius in the late 5th century to teach that the
eucharistic bread remains bread, but that to it is added the power of the divinity.23 After Berengar,
one could no longer say this in the West without seeming to deny the presence of Christ in the
Eucharist.
Without these two elements, the devolution of Western eucharistic theology into a narrow
splinter tradition became inevitable.
The final stage of this devolution of Catholic eucharistic theology to a position that,
theologically, seems to be something less than Catholic, was the exclusion of everything else, and the
narrow focus on just the consecration/institution narrative as the essential form of the Eucharist.
This took place in the decades following the Council of Trent when Roman Catholic eucharistic
theology took on that “definitive” form to which current official teaching still appeals.24
However, a significant historical aspect of this development is that the fixation on the central
moment of consecration did not, remarkably, get ossified until after the Council of Trent. From the
Middle Ages, up to, and even including the Council of Trent, Catholic theologians would usually
point to three “essential moments” in the Eucharist: (1) the consecration, (2) the oblation (after the
consecration), and (3) the communion; and most importantly, they were generally reluctant to insist
23
See Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West
See Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, esp. chap. 7 “From the Council of Trent to Modern Times” pp. 179–204; and
Robert J. Daly, S.J., “Robert Bellarmine and Post-Tridentine Eucharistic Theology,” Theological Studies 61 (2000) 239–60.
24
that any one of these alone constituted the essential moment of the Eucharist.25 In other words,
although a precise sense of the dynamic “shape” of the eucharistic mystery had been lost in the
West, there still remained a vestigial sense that there was a shape, or, at least, that there was not just
one, single “magical moment” in the Eucharist. Looked at another way, and from our present more
irenical ecumenical vantage point, we can see that the classical Protestant insistence on seeing the
mystery of the Eucharist as essentially something in usu preserved some essentially Catholic
moments of the eucharistic mystery better than did the classical post-Tridentine Catholic position.
To come back to our two Eucharistic Prayers, it should now be obvious why I am suggesting
that the Methodist Great Thanksgiving is more “Catholic” than the Roman Eucharistic Prayer II. It
is also, ritually, much more simple in structure, and with that, I think, more ritually powerful than
the Roman Catholic EPs. The Methodist Great Thanksgiving closely follows the classical
Antiochene, Byzantine (Chrysostom/Basil) structure of anamnesis–epiclesis, with the institution
narrative inserted as an embolism into the anamnetic part, and the eucharistic acclamation placed
naturally at the transition point between anamnesis and epiclesis. The Roman EP begins with
anamnesis, switches to epiclesis (over the to-be-consecrated gifts), switches back to anamnesis, into
which the institution narrative is inserted, stops everything with the eucharistic acclamation, then
returns to anamnesis, before switching back again to epiclesis (relatively soft) over the
communicants, and then the intercessions. Ritually, this is a complicated mess (many Catholic priests
have been doing this all their lives without figuring it out). Its complexity dissipates much of the
ritual power that is in the classical Antiochene structure.
This is fairly obvious to modern liturgical-ritual analysis. Why, then, has it not been remedied in
the Catholic ritual? The answer is also obvious. Catholic religious psychology cannot sufficiently
break away from its fixation on the moment of consecration to let the structure of the EP work
“naturally.” The traditional Catholic mind cannot conceive of appealing to the Holy Spirit to come
and sanctify us and these gifts only after the words of institution which are believed to do and to be
the whole mystery. Thus it is much harder for Catholics to do justice to the obvious “finality” of the
Eucharist. The Eucharist has not been given to the Church primarily so that the Body of Christ can
be out there laying on the altar (a popular Catholic conception); the Eucharist has been given to the
25
See M. Lepin, L’idée du Sacrifice de la Messe d’après les théologiens depuis l’origine jusqu’à nos jours (Paris: Beauchesne, 1926) esp.
346–415. Beginning with the ninth century, this 815-page study quotes extensively the writings of the theologians on this
theme over this eleven-century period.
Church primarily to effect/begin effecting the eschatological transformation of the communicants.26
Theologically, everything is subordinate to that; the ritual should reflect this subordination.
To conclude: What is the theological significance of ecumenical convergence in Christian
Worship? First, we have indeed achieved a degree of convergence that, only a few decades ago,
would have been thought inconceivable. There is among liturgical theologians a growing sense of
“Catholic” that transcends the particularities and weaknesses of the particular churches. I have
appealed to that sense of the more authentically “Catholic” in order to critique weaknesses in current
Roman Catholic liturgical practice. But most significantly, I see and hear my liturgist colleagues from
the other church communions appealing to that same sense of what is more authentically “Catholic”
in order to critique weaknesses in their own liturgical traditions and practices. In other words, in
what is going forward in liturgical theology and in liturgical reform, both the Roman Catholic
Church and the main line Churches of the Reformation are in the process of becoming more
authentically CATHOLIC.
26
Cesare Giraudo has suggested that what may be most effective in helping Roman Catholicism to break out of its
fixation on the moment of consecration, and thus move towards a more fully catholic eucharistic theology, might be the
official adaptation of a Eucharistic Prayer which has the epicleses in the classical Antiochene position after the words of
consecration. See “Anafore d’Oriente per le Chiese d’Occidente,” in Robert F. Taft, ed., The Christian East, Its Institutions
& Its Thought, A Critical Reflection: Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental
Institute, Rome, 30 May—5 June 1993 (Rome Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1996) 339–51.
Appendix
Eucharistic Prayers for Marriage
This appendix will (1) outline some of the principles that can be gathered from a study of the
classical Eastern and Western Eucharistic Prayers; (2) illustrate them in the draft of a Eucharisitc
Prayer designed for use in a Latin-rite marriage ceremony; (3) offer some comments on this draft,
and (4) present the draft of a eucharistically structured prayer that might be used in the context of an
interreligious Christian–Jewish Wedding.
I. Principles
Structure of the Eucharistic Celebration:
Appropriate Introductory Rites
Opening Prayer
Liturgy of the Word
Ceremony of Marriage Vows
Homily
[The Creed, the Prayer of the Faithful, and (usually) the Peace Greeting are omitted in a marriage
liturgy]
Creed
Prayer of the Faithful (may come immediately after the Homily, when appropriate) This is the place for the
"everyday" type of petitionary prayers as opposed to the solemn prayers for the Church and world that follow the
Epiclesis of the Eucharistic Prayer.
Peace Greeting
Offertory Rite
Lord's Prayer
Preface
Eucharistic Prayer
Communion
Final Prayer and Dismissal
·
The Eucharist is given to the Church first and foremost to bring about/make more real the
eschatological transformation of the participants.
Theologically, everything is (or should be)
subordinated to this goal. This means that the ritual, the way we celebrate the Eucharist, should
reflect this subordination.
·
The fullest participation of the assembly (that is possible and proper) is always to be striven for.
·
Keep in mind, but not slavishly follow, the common listing and order of the elements of the EP:
[1] Introductory Dialogue, [2] Preface, [3] Sanctus, [4] Post-Sanctus, [5] Preparatory Epiclesis
(alternative of additional Post-Sanctus), [6] Words of Institution, [7] Anamnesis, [8] Epiclesis, [9]
Solemn Prayers for Church and World, [10] Concluding Doxology.
·
An effective integration of word (word-event) and sacrament (action-event), i.e., an appropriate
ritual dramatic tension should be maintained:
(a) in general from the Opening Rite through to the end of the whole celebration, but
(b) above all from the Dialogue Preface through to the reception of Communion,
because here, precisely, is the center of the central mystery.
·
We presuppose as the basic structure of the Eucharistic Prayer the essentially bipartite
fundamental
·
structure of Jewish and Christian prayer: Anamnesis — Epiclesis.
The Eucharistic Prayer is through and through trinitarian (addressed to the Father, through the
Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit).
·
The eschatological character of the Eucharistic Prayer must, especially here in the West, be
strongly emphasized.
·
The Eucharistic Prayer is the prayer of the Christian Assembly (i.e. a Christian Assembly)
celebrating in a particular time and in a particular place. This means that the concrete assembled
community which is celebrating the Eucharist is the principal agent of what is taking place in this
particular time-space situation. Thus, the fullest possible active
participation (in word, in music, in
dialogic structures of speaking and singing, in acclamations, in rhythmic proclamation, etc.) is not an
optional but an essential part of a properly celebrated Eucharistic Prayer.
To get more specific:
·
The Preface and the anamnetic part (praise and thanksgiving) of the prayer should contain some
allusions—or at least echoes—to the occasion, or feast day, or liturgical season that is being
celebrated.
·
The relatively perspicuous bipartite structure (Anamnesis—Epiclesis) of the West Syrian/Chrys-
ostom/Byzantine EPs is preferred. Here, the Institution Narrative is more smoothly inserted (as an
"embolism") into the salvation-history anamnetic part of the prayer.
·
The Sign of Peace is relocated from its present "disrupting" location. Here we locate it (à la Matt
5:23) before the Offertory Rite.
·
For similar reasons, the Lord's Prayer is moved to a different location (as is already done in some
main line Christian Churches, and from time immemorial in the Catholic Syro-Malabar Rite). Here,
it is one of the purposes of the proposed eschatological acclamations within the EP to mitigate the
possible shock to Western sensibilities of this relocation. (Western Christians are accustomed to the
Lord’s Prayer as an integral part of the rite of preparation for Communion, whether within or
outside of the full eucharistic celebration.)
·
We attempt to honor the two great natural unities within the EP: [1] between the Institution
Narrative and the immediately following "Anamnesis Offering Prayer," and
Epiclesis
·
[2] between the
and the Solemn Petitions for Church and World.
The Anamnesis Offering Prayer (immediately after the Institution Narrative), as the point where
the assembly should most consciously and most directly make its own the now proclaimed
eucharistic mystery, should be so composed that it can be proclaimed or sung by the assembly.
II. A Proposed Eucharistic Prayer for Marriage27
After the Lord's Prayer:
Come Lord Jesus, come Lord of love.
Your kingdom come! Your will be done!
A 1
2
And also with you.
We lift them up to the Lord,
It is right to give him thanks and praise.
We give you praise and thanks,
eternal Father,
for the wonders of your love.
At the birthing of our world,
and through your Spirit's breath,
you brought together life and love.
27
The prayer uses basically iambic rhythms in order to aid solemnity of proclamation and to facilitate eventual musical
setting. In oral (unsung) proclamation, care may be needed to avoid a sing-song effect.
When time was at its full,
your Spirit overshadowing
the darkness of our world,
you filled the Virgin's womb with life.
And now,
in this new bride and groom,
you bring to birth again
your work of life and love.
And so with all their loved ones gathered here
and all the hosts of heaven looking on,
we raise our voice in song.
3
B 4
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of Power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
Holy indeed are you, O Lord
and ever due our grateful praise.
For in creating man and woman,
in shaping them as male and female,
you made them in your image.
You placed in them your love.
You drew them to each other
and made them want to give
until they brought new life to birth.
But even when they turned away
you promised a redeemer.
You made a covenant with them.
You made the marriage bond itself
the sign and seal of your great love.
And though your people broke that covenant
and often strayed to other gods,
prophets came to call them back,
till finally you sent your Son
to give to them and all the world
the last great sign of deathless love.
C 6
For when his final hour had come,
the night before he died,
when raised on high with outstretched arms
he'd draw all things unto himself,
he took the bread,
he gave you thanks and praise,
he broke the bread,
gave it to his friends and said:
Take this, all or you, and eat it:
this is my body
which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended,
he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise,
gave the cup to his friends and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new
and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.
D 7
Remembering his cross and death
and mindful of his loving word
we give you praise and thanks O Lord
and offer you this bread and cup
while offering ourselves
until he comes again.
Or:
Remembering his cross and resurrection
and mindful of his loving words to us
we offer you in him this bread and cup
until he comes in glory once again.
8
Pour out, O God and Father of love,
your Holy Spirit on us,
on this bride and groom,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make these gifts be for us
the body and blood of Christ
that we, through them, may be his true body redeemed by his blood.
9
Look, then, upon this offering of your Son.
Look upon this body,
which your Spirit has made us.
Hear us as we pray that we, this body,
enriched anew by this marriage bond,
may be more fully one,
with Christ in his sacrifice,
and with each other,
and in service to all the world.
Solemn Intercessions:
To be intoned preferably by a cantor or deacon.
That our Holy Father, our bishops, and all ministers of our word
May be eloquent signs of your love: Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of Love.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done.
That this married couple, _____ and _____, may
be living signs of your love: Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of love.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
That people across all tribes and nations may
respond to your love: Come Lord Jesus
Come Lord of love.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
That all couples and families may reverence, protect,
and nurture your gift of life: Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of life.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
For the tired and the dead, the weak and the sick; for those
who desire but do not have the grace of married life: Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of life.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
That all who live with strife may not lose hope in your gift of peace:
Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of peace.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
That the love of married couples may remind all peoples of your promise
of eternal peace: Come Lord Jesus:
Come Lord of peace.
Your Kingdom come:
Your will be done!
Remain with us, O God,
until Christ comes in final victory
and we all sing for joy
at the wedding feast of the Lamb.
E 10 Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father,
for ever and ever. Amen.
The Lamb of God is sung while the eucharistic gifts are
being prepared for distribution in Holy Communion.
This is the Lamb of God
who takes away the sins of the world.
Happy are we, happy are all,
past, present, and to come,
who are called to his wedding feast.
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,
but only say the word and I shall be healed.
Come, receive what you are—the Body of Christ.
III.Comments on This Draft

This is the draft of a work still in progress. It has no official standing. It is an attempt to
show what might be possible in future liturgical revisions.

The Appeal "Come Lord Jesus" inserted into a prayer addressed to the Father is, of
course, inconsistent. But hardly anyone seems to notice the inconsistency. Is it possibly
a "logical" inconsistency that remains, paradoxically consistent within the dynamic of
the lex orandi? In its favor is that it seems to be helpful in actively drawing the assembly
into the liturgical action and in evoking eschatological awareness. Can these benefits
override the inconsistency, or should we seek other means to evoke eschatological
consciousness?

Is there agreement with my sense that the great emphasis on the eschatological is
appropriate?

How do the solemn intercessions "work"? Are there too many? (Reactions from an
earlier draft suggested that three or four might be too few.)

The fourth paragraph after the Sanctus switches to the first person plural (from "they" to
"we"), in order to draw the assembly more directly into the salvation-history, eucharistic
event. Does this work? (In this particular context it helps avoid the ambiguity of "they
sinned" referring narrowly to the wedding couple.

Does the basically iambic rhythm work?
Would an inattentive or routinized
proclamation of this prayer devolve into a sing-song effect?

Is there an appropriate balance between the chalereuse and "rosy" tone appropriate to a
wedding ceremony and the full range—negative as well as positive, sin as well as
redemption—of salvation history and the paschal mystery?
I. Prayer for Interreligious Christian–Jewish Weddings
The Letters and numbers in the margin both show the structural similarity to the Christian
anaphora, and also further demonstrate how Jewish-biblical is the the Christian anaphora.
A 1
Bless the Lord all you children of the earth.
Give praise and glory for ever.
May the Spirit of God come upon us.
Amen. Alleluia.
It is good to give thanks to the Lord. (Ps. 92:1)
2
We give you Praise and thanks, eternal God,
for the wonders of your love.
At the birthing of our world
and through your spirit's breath
you brought together live and love.
And here, in this new bride and groom,
you once again create anew
your deathless work of life and love.
And so, with all their loved ones gathered here,
and all the hosts of heaven looking on,
we raise our voice in song:
3
B 4
It is good to give thanks to the Lord,
to give glory to your name Most High,
to proclaim your love at the break of day
and your truth in the watches of the night.
Holy indeed are you, O Lord
and ever due our grateful praise.
For in creating man and woman,
shaping them, male and female,
into your image and likeness,
you placed in them your love.
You drew them to each other
and made them want to give
until they brought new birth to life.
But even when we turned away,
your steadfast love stood firm.
Prophets came to call us back,
to speak to us again
your loving word of deathless promise:
C 6
"Behold the days are coming (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
not like the covenant which I made
with their fathers and mothers when I
took them by the hand to bring them up
out of the land of Egypt,
my covenant, which they broke,
even though I was their husband
says the Lord —
But this is the covenant which
I will make with the house of Israel after those days
says the Lord —
I will put my law within them,
and I will write it upon their hearts:
and I will be their God
and they shall be my people."
D 7
Recalling, then, your mighty works,
and mindful of your loving words of promise,
we ask you now to bless this bride
and bless this groom.
8
Let your divine spirit come upon them
and write your law forever on their hearts.
9
And when they come to times of trial,
bear them up on eagles's wings. (Exodus 19:4)
Make their life together be a life
for each other and for others.
Make them be a prophetic sign
of that Great Day when,
on your holy mountain (Isaiah 25:6–8)
you will make a feast for all peoples,
when you will destroy the covering that
is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations;
when you will wipe away the tears from all faces
and swallow up death forever.
E 10 Hear, Lord, this prayer we bring to you this day
For ______, for _____, for all your people.
We pray in full confidence,
For you are our loving God,
forever mighty, forever merciful, forever true,
eternally one, for ever and ever.
Amen.
Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Councils
by
Norman Tanner SJ
This evening I would like to share some reflections on the ecumenical councils and
ecumenism: how the ecumenical and general councils of the church1 can help us in our
endeavours for church unity today. Given the late hour of this presentation, after dinner, you
will be glad to know that I am not proposing to work through the history of these assemblies,
rather to offer some thoughts on their relevance to ecumenism today, the raison d’être of our
Congress. The reflections come as the fruits of my recent work on these councils, first in
editing the English version of all their decrees2 and subsequently in teaching and writing
further about them, most recently in a short history.3
There are eight reflections. Most of them are encouraging, so I will begin with the
one that may appear the most negative though even this, if properly understood, can lift our
spirits.
1. Imperfect union as the norm and an ideal
Divisions in the Church, or at least differences, have always been the norm. The councils
show this clearly. Any notion that the Church has ever been fully united, except perhaps for
an hour after Pentecost, is a dangerous myth.
We sometimes speak of the first seven ecumenical councils, from Nicaea I in 325 to
Nicaea II in 787, as the seven councils of the undivided church inasmuch as they took place
before the most fundamental of all schisms in the Church, that between the eastern and
western churches beginning in the eleventh century.4 Yet there were major splits and schisms
before that time: Arius and his sympathisers rejected Nicaea I, Nestorian churches broke
away after Ephesus, various Monophysite churches after Chalcedon – the most important
being the Coptic church here in Egypt – and many other smaller divisions occurred.
1
The following twenty-one according to the traditional list of the Roman Catholic
church: Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451),
Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680-1), Nicaea II (787), Constantinople IV (86970), Lateran I (1123), Lateran II (1139), Lateran III (1179), Lateran IV (1215), Lyons I
(1245), Lyons II (1274), Vienne (1311-12), Constance (1414-17), Basel-Florence (14311445), Lateran V (1512-17), Trent (1545-63), Vatican I (1869-70), Vatican II (1962-5).
2
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London and Washington DC: Sheed &
Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990). Abbreviated henceforth to Decrees.
3
The Councils of the Church: A Short History (New York: Crossroad / Herder, 2001).
Abbreviated henceforth to: Tanner, Councils. Also in Italian, I concili della chiesa (Milan:
Jaca Book, 1999), and French, Conciles et synodes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2000); Spanish
translation forthcoming in BAC (Bibliotheca Auctorum Christianorum).
4
I leave out of consideration the fourth council of Constantinople in 869-70.
Although it took place before the schism, it was not accepted as ecumenical by the eastern
Church and scholars of the western Church are divided about its ecumenical status. See,
Tanner, Councils, pp. 43 and 49, for a brief discussion of the point.
Even within the churches that remained in fundamental communion during this first
millennium, there were tensions and schisms: periods of formal schism between the eastern
and western churches, notably while Acacius (471-89) and Photius (858-92) were patriarchs
of Constantinople; the persistence of Arianism within the western church until the ninth
century; and many other difficulties. Indeed, especially in proportion to the numbers of
Christians – under a hundred million for the first millennium, over a billion today – the
Church appears at least as quarrelsome during its first millennium as during the second. For
strong language it is hard to rival the exchanges between theologians of our neighbouring
Alexandria and of Antioch around the time of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon or later
in 867 Photius’s encyclical letter denouncing the bishop of Rome and portraying westerners
as ‘savage beasts’;
The fact of this permanent tension within the Christian people in the past forces us to
reflect on what kind of unity we should be seeking today. We have Christ’s prayer that his
followers may be one as he and the Father are one (John 17.11 and 20-23) and we must strive
for the fulfilment of this prayer. On the other hand, we should not assume too quickly that
we know what this desired union represents in this life. The new Testament, with its
pluralism of approaches, suggests a certain diversity as the ideal rather than tight uniformity.
We should not be so obsessed with the goal of full organic unity that we live in permanent
discouragement or become forgetful of intermediate steps and medium-term opportunities.
Full organic unity is most unlikely every to arrive in this life. Partial or imperfect union, on
the other hand, has been the norm throughout the Church’s history and in many ways has
proved healthy: through debates and struggles, within a common Christian framework,
growth and development in the Church have been possible. In this sense it is an ideal as well
as the norm.
2. Amazing nature of existing unity
While we work to heal existing divisions, we should ponder the remarkable nature of the
unity that has endured. The unity is amazing on account of the greatness of the mystery and
the frailty of us carriers of it. Our human limitations need no elaboration but we need to
remind ourselves continually of the wonder and depth of the Christian mystery, revealed
sublimely in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. We may ask why more people
do not become Christians and why Christians cannot remain more united, yet the mystery of
Christianity is so deep that the miracle is that anyone believes and that Christians have
remained as united as they have! Other world religions, with simpler and less demanding
claims, find it hard enough to remain united, indeed they are probably more divided than
Christianity. As long as Christianity retains its very exalted claims and challenges, unity
among Christians will always remain a miracle of grace and of the holy Spirit.
Indeed, we need to rely more upon the holy Spirit in our ecumenical endeavours.
Perhaps we see restored unity too much in terms of our own efforts and strategies, putting
broken pieces back together again through our own ingenuity. We may think too much of
human solutions. Whereas it is the holy Spirit who has preserved unity in the Church in the
past – against all the odds, against all human expectations, one may say, in view of the depth
of the mystery and the extent of our human frailty – so we trust She will find ways forward in
the future: ways and at times that the Spirit wills.
The ecumenical councils are perhaps the most striking exemplar of this. Here we see,
par excellence, the holy Spirit guiding the Church and preserving as much unity as was
possible. Our role, then, is to listen to the Spirit and to cooperate with her promptings rather
than to rely too much upon our own plans.
3. Our remarkable conciliar tradition
As well as the remarkable nature of existing unity among Christians, our conciliar tradition
deserves attention. The twenty-one ecumenical and general councils, from Nicaea I in 325 to
Vatican II in 1962-5, form the most notable series of assemblies in the history of the world.
No other institution or body has a comparable record. In comparison with, for
example, the Parliament of Britain or the Althing of Iceland, probably the oldest national
assemblies in the western world with an institutional continuity, the councils of the Church
yield a much longer history: the earliest Parliament is usually dated to 1257 and first Althing
to 930, Nicaea goes back to 325. In size and organisation, too, they were very remarkable:
some 250-300 bishops assembled at Nicaea I, 500-600 at Chalcedon in 451; large councils in
the west from Lateran III to Basel-Florence especially; Trent held together for eighteen years
amidst many difficulties; some 2,300 bishops from all over the world took part in Vatican II
– as well as accompanying theologians, journalists, observers and others – and persevered in
their work for four years.
No other religion, moreover, can show a comparable record: Christianity alone has
sought to update itself continuously through such a series of world gatherings. Roman
Catholics can be especially grateful for this conciliar tradition. Despite human failings and
sinfulness, the Roman Catholic church has preserved the mainstream of conciliar tradition
after the sad schisms with the eastern church in the eleventh century and the churches of the
Reformation in the sixteenth. It has remained the largest christian church and in this and
other ways has preserved the mainstream of Christianity; no other Christian church has a
continuous conciliar tradition of comparable importance.
These councils are especially remarkable in view of the difficulty of their business. It
is hard enough for a national assembly or the United Nations to agree on concrete issues such
as laws or taxation. Far more difficult is it to reach agreement on the mysteries of religious
faith, which transcend this world and seek to speak about the divine, however inadequately,
and to update this faith into contemporary language, especially for Christianity in view of the
exalted nature of its claims. In the case of a national assembly, moreover, a majority vote is
usually sufficient to pass a law, while unanimity, or virtual unanimity, has traditionally been
required for doctrinal statements in ecumenical councils.5 Such consensus on such difficult
matters is indeed a miracle of grace and of the holy Spirit.
It is important for Christians to appreciate their conciliar tradition. Unfortunately it
has fallen under something of a cloud for Roman Catholics, beginning in the fifteenth century
with the struggle for supremacy between the councils of Constance and Basel and a
succession of popes, and continuing into the Counter-Reformation and later periods with
their exaltation of the papacy. The whole tradition has been compromised in the eyes of
some Catholics, seen as a rival and a threat to papal teaching and as a result has been
marginalised. This is foolish and unnecessary since in principle there should be no conflict
between the two institutions, rather mutual corroboration. For other churches, moreover, the
medieval and later general councils are seen as irredeemably Roman Catholic and therefore
are largely rejected. As a result, with a truncated conciliar history, interrupted after the
second council of Nicaea in 787, there is not among these churches the interest in a living
and continuous conciliar tradition that there might be. This too is a pity and may be partly
resolved by the more ecumenical and relaxed approach to the councils after Nicaea II that
will be suggested in the sixth reflection.
4. Is the Church too Asian?
This fourth reflection is put in the form of a provocative question and it moves beyond
ecumenism between Christian churches into inter-religious dialogue. My starting point is the
5
See below under no. 5, “Formula versus Content”, for more on this point.
criticism, often heard today, that the church, especially the Catholic church, is too western.
As a result, its theology and discipline are rejected by the younger churches of the emerging
Christian world -- in Africa, Asia and Latin America -- as the outdated colonial impositions
of a once dominant but now decadent church.
My suggestion is that in the church of the first seven councils, from Nicaea I to
Nicaea II in 787, the complaint would probably have been the opposite: that the church was
too Asian, too dominated by the thought and lifestyles of the East. The point emerges from
an examination of the arrangements and membership of these early councils.
All of them were held in the East, in modern Turkey: four of them in Asia – Nicaea I
and II, Ephesus and Chalcedon – and while Constantinople, the site of the other three, lies
just within Europe, being on the western side of the Bosphorus straits, the traditional dividing
line between Asia and Europe, it was considered very much a city of the East, the capital of
the eastern Empire. All of them, moreover, were summoned and presided over, either
directly or through their officials, and their decrees promulgated, by the eastern emperor of
the day or, effectively, in the case of Chalcedon and Nicaea II, by the empresses Pulcheria
and Irene.
In addition to the presiding emperor or empress or officials, the large majority of
participants at these councils were from the East. At Nicaea I only half a dozen, including
the two papal legates, are known to have come from the western church; all the other three
hundred or so were bishops of sees in the eastern Empire including Egypt. At Constantinople
I in 381 all were from the East. At the next five councils – Ephesus, Chalcedon,
Constantinople II and III, Nicaea II – the western church was represented by papal legates
and a few other bishops but again the overwhelming majority of members were from the
East.
The language of the councils and their decrees was that of the eastern Empire, Greek,
and the preoccupations and initiatives were predominantly eastern. Arius, Nestorius,
Eutyches all came from the East: the controversies about the Trinity and the divinity and
humanity of Christ, which dominated the first six councils, as well as the issue of iconoclasm
at Nicaea II, were largely debates within the eastern church. The canons relating to church
order that were promulgated by these councils, notably those of Nicaea I and Trullo in 692 (if
we may include the latter, according to the tradition of the eastern church, as the ‘Quinisext’
council, the disciplinary conclusions to the fifth and sixth councils of Constantinople II and
III), had mainly in mind the circumstances of the eastern churches. The initiatives at these
councils came principally from the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The
contribution of Ossius of Cordoba at Nicaea I is disputed: otherwise the only major
contribution from the western church was the ‘Tome’ of pope Leo at Chalcedon.
You will have noticed that I have been speaking more of the East than of Asia. Much
of the eastern empire, it is true, lay in Europe – principally Greece and the Balkans – and
Africa rather than in Asia. All three, moreover, were known then as separate continents; they
are not just modern constructs. On the other hand, the divide between the western half of the
Roman empire, centred on Rome, and the eastern half, with its capital of Constantinople,
following the linguistic boundaries of Latin and Greek, was more significant and
fundamental than the divisions of the three continents. The Greek-speaking parts of the
empire in Europe were closer to Asia than they were to western Europe. Most of Turkey, the
location of all seven councils and the region that probably played the most decisive role of
all, lay within Asia. It might be added as a footnote, since we are in Egypt, that Alexandria
was considered by many – though not, I think, by Herodotus, the ‘Father’ of Geography – to
be part of Asia rather than Africa on the grounds that the boundary lay along the Nile and its
delta rather than further east.
This delicate question of the allegiance of the eastern, Greek-speaking part of Europe,
involves the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Their enormous influence upon Christian
theology – especially of Plato for the early councils – is not in doubt. What needs
questioning is whether they should be identified with western Europe as intimately as they
usually are. They, and ancient Greek thought more generally, it seems to me, have been
hijacked for the European chariot whereas in fact they belong as much if not more to Asia.
Europe, western Europe especially, has been desperate to find its intellectual roots and
especially secular elements, who dislike much emphasis upon Europe’s Christian roots, have
discovered them in classical Greek thought. This intellectual world, however, was much
more in touch with Asian and Egyptian thought and religion than with the intellectually
undeveloped West: much closer, if you like, to Persia and the Indus valley than to Gaul,
Britannia or Germania. The surprise is that Asia and north Africa have not challenged more
the Eurocentric claims upon the ancient Greek world and rightly laid claim to what at least
partly belongs to them. This realigning of Greek thought in an Asian direction finds support
from various recent scholars and I refer especially to the works of M.L. West.6
My point, for the purposes of Christian ecumenism and of inter-religious dialogue, is
that the early ecumenical councils reveal the roots of the Roman Catholic church as much
less western and European, much more Asian and African, than is usually portrayed. The
effects of this broad base, moreover, have remained with Catholics ever since. Christians
outside Europe, therefore, as well as the other world religions, whose origins and
development come largely from Asia, can see the Catholic church as a friend and fellowtraveller, with many common roots, rather than as an alien body that needs to be rejected.
5. Formula versus Content
Accompanying the opposition to the Catholic church and its theology as too western and
European has been the argument that the early councils imposed upon the universal Church a
set of doctrinal formulas that were typically tight, analytic and abstract in the western manner
and have acted as a straightjacket upon Christianity ever since. It is a variation upon Adolph
Harnack’s lament over the evil effects upon the Church of Hellenization. One reaction has
been to reject outright these doctrinal formulas, a second and more subtle response has been
to urge Christians to concentrate upon the content of the creeds and other doctrinal
statements of the early councils, where freedom may be found, without paying much
attention to the precise formulas in which the doctrines were expressed. Is such a distinction
between formula and content right?
I have already replied to one aspect of this argument by suggesting that Greek thought
was closer to Asia that to western Europe. Now I would like to make a second point, that the
doctrinal formulas of the councils are not tight and rigid, rather there is considerable space
and flexibility within them. They are signposts pointing to open fields and warning of false
trails rather than policemen with batons herding people into confined pens. The content of
thought, moreover, cannot be divorced from the way in which it is expressed – there is no
thought without some expression – and in this sense the content of faith cannot be divorced
from its formulas. Given this measure of flexibility and elasticity within the doctrinal
statements of the councils, it is usually much wiser, it seems to me, to accept them and find
the space within them than to contest them sharply or reject them.
Two points support this argument. First, the Greek language. One only has to look up
in a dictionary three words that Christians eventually settled upon in expressing the mysteries
of the Trinity and the Incarnation to see how elastic these words are: I&<_ (ousia) for the
6
Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); The East
Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1997.
one ‘being’ of God, æ"@&*_&_( (hupostasis) for ‘person’ as in the three persons of the
Trinity, and .B&_( (phusis) for ‘nature’ as in the human and divine natures of Christ. The
meanings of æ"@&*_&_( (hupostasis), according to Liddell & Scott’s standard GreekEnglish dictionary, are as follows: standing under, supporting, sediment, jelly or thick soup,
duration, coming into existence, origin, foundation, substructure, argument, confidence,
courage, resolution, steadiness, promise, substantial nature, substantial existence, reality,
wealth, property, and various others! A similarly broad range of meanings will be found
under I&<_ (ousia) and .B&_( (phusis). There is, too, much overlap in the meanings of the
three words. To regard them as expressing rigidly defined concepts is manifestly wrong:
there is plenty of space within them to accommodate most theological approaches.
Secondly, the principle of unanimity. Ecumenical councils are not like English
Parliaments or most national assemblies where a majority of one is sufficient to pass a law: in
them unanimous consent, or virtual unanimity, has traditionally been required for approval.
At Nicaea I all but two bishops eventually agreed to the creed and the principle of unanimity
remained in force subsequently even if it often proved difficult to achieve; it continued as the
norm during the medieval councils and was acknowledged as such at Trent, Vatican I and II.
As a result, especially in doctrinal statements, formulae had to be found that were sufficiently
elastic to accommodate the views or all, or almost all, sections of opinion. This was helped
in the early councils by the fluidity of the Greek language, as mentioned. In the Nicene
creed, for example, the crucial word ±_ B&_ ( (homoousios, of the same being), to express
the Son’s relationship with the Father, could be interpreted in different ways. Later, as a more
specifically Christian vocabulary was developed in Latin, the same point was met by finding
the elasticity in sentences, paragraphs or whole decrees rather than in single words. The
crucial, penultimate paragraph in Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility, for example,
contained various qualifications to appease those opposed to the definition; many of Vatican
II’s decrees may be described as patchwork quilts, they try to accommodate most shades of
opinion roughly in proportion to their strengths among the members of the council.
The implications for ecumenism are encouraging. Catholics can rest more secure
with their traditional formulas and find within them plenty of room for present and future
exploration. Other Christians generally share with Catholics the formulas of the first seven
ecumenical councils: they may be surprised at how much common ground they can find in
the later councils. Adherents of other religions may find more points of contact with
Christians than of difference.
6. Status of councils after 1054?
What is the status of the councils that have for long been recognised as ecumenical by the
Roman Catholic church and took place after the beginning of the schism between East and
West in 1054? This question is of great significance for ecumenism since almost all the
points in dispute between the Roman Catholic church on the one hand, and the Orthodox
Church and the churches of the Reformation on the other, depend on statements made by
these later councils.
They are, obviously, not recognised as ecumenical by either the Orthodox Church or
the churches of the Reformation. By the former because it was not represented in any proper
sense at them; by the latter partly for the same reason of the absence of the eastern church
and partly because they consider the Church, at least the western church and therefore its
councils, as being in a state of radical error during the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic
church as continuing in this state of error during the Counter-Reformation and afterwards.
What is the attitude of the Roman Catholic church to the status of these later
councils? The answer is not simple. Medieval people themselves in western Christendom
were uncertain about the status of their own councils and the weight of opinion seems to have
been that they were not ecumenical. The point is made rather clearly by the profession of
faith that the council of Constance in 1417 required of a future pope. In listing the councils
that the pope should respect, the profession drew a distinction between the eight
“universal/ecumenical” (Latin, universalia) councils from Nicaea I to Constantinople IV and
the “general” (Latin, generalia) councils (of the Middle Ages) “at the Lateran, Lyons and
Vienne”.7 The distinction is not expanded upon but it is evident that some difference in status
was intended. Other evidence showing that most of the medieval councils were not then
regarded as ecumenical has been summarized by Victor Peri and Luis Bermejo.8 In
particular, the council of Florence (1438-45), at which the eastern church was represented
and a form of reunion reached, was often referred to in the West, including by popes and
their legates, as the eighth or ninth ecumenical council: that is, coming immediately after
Nicaea II or Constantinople IV and excluding the earlier medieval councils. It was thought
impossible to have an ecumenical council without the participation of the eastern church, as
was the case in the medieval councils before Florence.
The attempt to promote the medieval councils to ecumenical status came about during
the Counter-Reformation. Roman Catholic apologists sought to defend the true Church as
they saw it against the attacks of the Reformation by an appeal to its medieval heritage and
the medieval councils formed an important part of this heritage. Robert Bellarmine, the
Jesuit theologian, and Cesare Baronius, the Oratorian scholar, both cardinals, were influential
in this development and so too was the publication in four volumes in 1608-12 of the socalled “Roman edition” of the councils.9 This edition, compiled by scholars in Rome
including Robert Bellarmine and working under the auspices of pope Paul V, sought to
decide which councils were to be counted in the list of ecumenical councils.10 In addition to
the eight councils before the East-West schism, Nicaea I to Constantinople IV, it included the
ten medieval councils (Lateran I in 1123 to Lateran V in 1512-17) and Trent. The list came
to be widely accepted within the Roman Catholic church though it was never defined in an
authoritative way.
The issue was reopened in recent times. The year 1974 saw two important
contributions. First, the influential Dominican theologian Yves Congar wrote a wide-ranging
article on criteria for ecumenicity in councils, in which he questioned the list of twenty-one
ecumenical councils (nineteen from Nicaea I to Trent plus Vatican I and II) that had become
traditional within the Catholic church.11 Second, as part of the celebrations of the seventh
centenary of the second council of Lyons in 1274, pope Paul VI wrote a letter to Cardinal
Willebrands, president of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, in which he referred to the
Lyons II and the other medieval councils as “general councils of the West” (generales
synodos in occidentali orbe) rather than as ecumenical councils, a choice of language that
7
Decrees, p. 442.
V. Peri, “Il numero dei concili ecumenici nella tradizione cattolica moderna,”
Aevum, 37 (1963), pp. 473-5. L.M. Bermejo, Church Conciliarity and Communion (Anand:
Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1990), pp. 77-8.
9
Entitled, )%_ |_<4_ !_ ,_____%_ &,_@4_ *å( ___ ___å( Ö____&<_( } "__*_:
Concilia generalia Ecclesiae catholicae Pauli V pontificis maximi auctoritate edita,
10
Even though the Greek part of the title spoke of “ecumenical” and the Latin
“general”, thus cleverly sliding over the possible distinction between the two words,
“ecumenical” came to be the preferred term thereafter.
11
“Structures ecclésiales et conciles dans les relations entre Orient et Occident”, Revue
des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 58 (1974), pp. 355-90.
8
appears intended.12 Since 1974 there has been some discussion of the issue though not as
much as might be expected in view of its possible fruitfulness. There has been a general
tendency even within the Roman Catholic communion to follow the lead of Paul VI and call
the medieval councils “general councils of the western church” rather than cling to the
ecumenical title for them. The Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission
(ARCIC) touched briefly on the issue in its first “Agreed Statement on Authority in the
Church” (1976), no. 19, mentioning obliquely the distinction between ecumenical and
general councils, but disappointingly it did not develop the argument.
The question of whether the ten medieval councils from Lateran I to Lateran V should
be regarded as general councils of the western church rather than as ecumenical councils is
undoubtedly a very important one. The same arguments apply, of course, to Trent, Vatican I
and II: without the participation of the churches of the Reformation these later councils may
better be described as general councils of the Roman Catholic church than of the western
church. Even so, they are of great significance. The ten medieval councils were the most
authoritative in western Christendom and it was in the West that the large majority of
Christians lived. There was still vitality in the Orthodox Church and it continued to hold
major councils into the modern era – for example the councils of Constantinople in 1341 and
1351, which endorsed Hesychasm, and the councils of Jassy in 1642 and Jerusalem in 1672,
which taught concerning the eucharist and the nature of the church – but with the advance of
Islam it was for the most part, until recent times, a church on the defensive and developments
were limited. Since the Reformation, moreover, the Roman Catholic church has remained
the largest church and may claim to represent the mainstream of Christianity. Another point
is that there were major schisms before 1054, as we have seen, so that it is false to contrast
too sharply the unity of the church of the first millennium with the divisions of the second
millennium and so to exaggerate the status of the early councils at the expense of the later
ones. Nevertheless, the more relaxed approach to the medieval and later councils in the
West, encouraged at the highest level by pope Paul VI, may form a key to ecumenical
progress since it removes the necessity of Trent and Vatican I being given an absolute status
and thereby remaining a block to ecumenical dialogue.
7. Preoccupation with the papacy
The ecumenical councils are a good antidote to obsession with the papacy. This is my
seventh reflection. Pope Paul VI said on several occasions that the papacy is the greatest
obstacle to reunion among Christians and John Paul II in his encyclical Ut unum sint invited
Christians to suggest ways for the papacy to become more acceptable and effective. The
councils help on both scores. They show the limitations and strengths of the papacy and,
perhaps of most importance, the wider context of church order in which the papacy should be
seen. They help us to avoid what might be called the “Hebblethwaite” syndrome, yearning
for the perfect pope and being almost permanently disappointed when he does not arrive!13
The councils teach us not to expect too much from the papacy. Pope Honorius I was
condemned for monothelitism by three successive ecumenical councils, those
of
14
Constantinople III, Nicaea II and Constantinople IV. The councils bear witness to the
leading support given by popes over five centuries to forms of holy war: the crusade of
12
Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 66 (1974), p. 620
Peter Hebblethwaite, the distinguished religious journalist and biographer of popes
John XXIII and Paul VI. Only in the brief reign of John XXIII were his aspirations for the
papacy realised, though towards the end of his life he became appreciative of Paul VI in his
biography of him. Normally he seemed disheartened by the perceived failures of the papacy.
14
Decrees, pp. 125, 135 and 162.
13
recapture the holy Land as well as crusades against heretics within western Christendom.15
They also bear witness to papal support for the Inquisition and its procedures.16 Clearly the
papacy is not preserved from all error, even from grave errors.
On the other hand, despite these lapses, we can be thankful for the holy Spirit’s
continuing guidance of the see of Rome. In doctrinal matters, the condemnations of pope
Honorius and the relatively few other major mistakes of the popes, during the first
millennium of the Church, contrast with the more numerous and serious errors of the bishops
of the other patriarchal sees of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Indeed, caution was
generally a mark of the papacy during this time: perhaps a lesson for the papacy today. It
was not that the popes had a direct line to the holy Spirit -- they too had to struggle with the
doctrinal and other issues of their day – yet it is remarkable how, in the end, they normally
emerged from these complicated controversies on the right side. They were more like
goalkeepers, or long-stops if you will excuse a cricketing metaphor, preserving the Church in
the last line of defence, rather than centre-forwards, fast bowlers or other front-line attackers.
These strengths and limitations provide, in themselves, a context for the papacy
today: helping us and other Christians to appreciate this great institution and yet not to expect
too much from it. The councils also set the papacy within the wider context of the church.
This is done perhaps most clearly, paradoxically, in the decree that is sometimes seen as
providing the greatest exaltation and isolation of the papacy, namely Vatican I’s decree on
papal infallibility. For, the decree does not say directly that the pope is infallible. It says,
rather, that in certain solemn situations the pope “possesses ... the infallibility which the
divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy.”17 In other words, the pope’s infallibility is
placed within the context of the church’s, not outside it, and the church, as Vatican II reminds
us in its decree on the church, Lumen gentium, is primarily the people of God.18 Christ has
promised an overall guidance to the people of God, which clearly has not and will not
preserve it from all errors: so too for the papacy.
My favourite conciliar decree situating the papacy within the wider context of the
church comes from the fifth ecumenical council, the second council of Constantinople in 553.
Here is shown, in beautify language, the need for broad-based authority.
“The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils (the first
four ecumenical councils of Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon),
have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current
problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the
disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussion, the light of truth
drives out the shadows of lying.
The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about
questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour. As
Solomon says in his proverbs: ‘A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a
strong city; he shall be as strong as a well established kingdom’ (Proverbs 18,19).
Again in Ecclesiastes he says: ‘Two are better than one, for they have a good reward
for their toil’ (Ecclesiastes 4,9). And the Lord himself says: ‘Amen I say to you, if
15
Decrees, pp. 191-2, 233-5, 267-71, 297-301, 309-12, 350-4, 609-14 and 650-5. In
all these councils the pope played a leading role in the drafting and promulgation of the
decrees.
16
Decrees, pp. 233-5, 237-9 and 380-3.
17
Decrees, p. 816.
18
This decree, in its treatment and ordering of the church, puts the people of God
before the hierarchy.
two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my
Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the
midst of them’ (Matthew 18,19).”19
8. Ecumenical councils and the future
My final reflection partly summarises points already made. It is that a more conciliar
approach surely represents the best way forward for ecumenism. The decree from
Constantinople II just cited makes the point clearly. The Orthodox church and the nonChalcedonian churches, as well as the churches of the Reformation, all use conciliar
(synodical) forms of government and councils were fundamental to church order in the first
millennium of Christianity. Any form of reunion that is likely to be acceptable to these
churches will require the Catholic church to return to a more conciliar form of government.
The Catholic church’s long-standing suspicion of conciliarism was mentioned in my
third reflection, also how damaging and unnecessary this suspicion is. The Catholic church
can not only learn from other churches regarding this aspect of church government, it also
has much to contribute to the debate inasmuch as it has preserved better than other churches
many other aspects of church order – the papacy is but one example – which are important
complements and balances to councils. Despite this suspicion of councils, the Catholic
church has in fact held exceptionally effective ones -- Trent and Vatican II are obvious
examples – and so has good experience of them to offer to others.
Even within the Catholic church, conciliarism offers a helpful way forward.
Recently, encouraged by the pope’s letter Ut unum sint, there has been considerable
discussion of reform of the Catholic church’s structures of government. Too much of the
focus, in my opinion, has been upon reform of the papacy and of the Roman Curia.20 It is
notoriously difficult for any institutions to reform themselves, so that waiting for these
reforms may be waiting too long. The councils, on the other hand, offer another way
forward, one that has its origins at the centre of the Church’s tradition and whose orthodoxy
is therefore guaranteed and yet is also acceptable to other christian churches.
This way forward, too, offers many possibilities for future developments. The
flexibility of arrangements in the councils of the past make this same quality possible in the
future. In terms of place, as mentioned, the first eight ecumenical councils were held in the
modern Turkey, half of them in Asia, so future ecumenical councils could return to Asia or
be held in Africa or America: Manila I or Kinshasa I or New York I? In terms of
organisation, the first eight councils were summoned by the emperors or empresses of the
day, presided over by them directly or through their officials, and their decrees were
promulgated by them. So the laity, including women, may play a greater role in the
ecumenical councils of the future. Indeed, Constantine, emperor at the time of Nicaea I, was
not, strictly speaking, a Christian inasmuch as he had not yet been baptised. So maybe
influences and individuals from outside the visible Church will return to play a role in the
councils of the future. In many ways the councils show how inventive the Church can be in
its arrangements.
In government, indeed, the councils have usually been ahead of their time. Especially
the early councils offered a model to secular government and society: they were more open
and more democratic than their counterparts in secular life. Then, indeed, the Church as a
whole, in which the councils played an integral part, was a leader in society: the Church
offered more opportunities to women or to slaves, for example, than they were afforded by
19
Decrees, p. 108.
For example, J.R. Quinn, The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to Christian
Unity (New York: Crossroad, 1999).
20
secular society. It is a tradition that Christians, and Catholics, can be proud of. Now, on the
contrary, the Catholic Church is in danger of lagging behind. It is placing excessive
emphasis on the government of the Church being different from that of secular society – that
it has its own hierarchical forms of government that have nothing to do with secular
democracy – and on the need for the Church to be counter-cultural. Earlier the Church had
less fear of other institutions: it was readier to adopt for itself the good elements in them, to
use and then to improve upon them, to give a lead in society rather than to follow reluctantly
or to distance itself unnecessarily. We saw a revival of this leadership in government, on the
part of the Church, at the time of Vatican II, but the momentum does not seem to have been
maintained. The councils open people’s eyes for hopeful possibilities for the future.
To end, let me disown any wish to urge the calling soon of another ecumenical
council and any ability to prophecy when the next one will take place. My feeling is that
Vatican II needs more years of assimilation: another council too soon could produce rushed
and divisive results – rather like Ephesus II, the “Robber” council back in 449. There is
nothing surprising about this need of “reception”: major councils such as Nicaea I,
Chalcedon and Trent all took at least a century for the Church to digest. Councils depend
above all upon the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so it is no surprise that they often occur at
times and in ways that appear unexpected to us: God’s ways are not ours, the holy Spirit is
full of surprises. No more so was this the case than with Vatican II, which nobody except
pope John XXIII seems to have expected. The point of this last reflection is rather to urge
the importance of conciliarism within the Church at lower levels. Synod, the equivalent of
council, is an evocative word formed from two Greek words meaning “together” (&B_) and
“journey” (±@(). The sense is of travelling companions, people meeting for a purpose, with
an unknown journey before them, in hope and expectation. A beautiful image of the pilgrim
church.
6833 words

papers - The Jesuit Curia in Rome

Transcription

Documents pareils

The Venerable David Oliver - The Anglican Diocese of Quebec

Quelques références

SOMMAIRE - Eglise Evangélique ADD de Valenciennes

dieu est-il misogyne

Feuille bi-hebdo juillet 2015 - Paroisse Saint-Front – Saint

Lectures Daniel MARGUERAT, Un admirable chris

à la rencontre - Paroisse Combs-la

Je serai à Rome pour la canonisation de Jean XXIII et Jean