What are the Doctrinal Impediments to the Reunion
of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

James Likoudis, president emeritus of the lay association Catholics United for the Faith (CUF). He has written extensively on catechetics, sex education, liturgy, and doctrinal dissent. Having become a Catholic from Greek Orthodoxy, he has written four books and many articles dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy. The following reflections regarding Reunion of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were delivered, as the last in a series of addresses at the ecumenical "Trialogos Conference" held in Tallinn, Estonia, in 2008. To view Mr. Likoudis' personal impressions on the Conference, click on "Heroic Catholics of Estonia".

 

This is indeed a fascinating question and one that has received various answers from both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox prelates, theologians, and writers over the centuries and to our own day. Somewhat conflicting answers have been given by both Catholic and Orthodox theologians:

1) There are but two major dogmatic issues which keep the Churches apart, namely, the doctrines insisted on by the Catholic Church: the primacy of universal jurisdiction claimed by the pope, and the procession of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the famous 'Filioque' clause added to the Creed.

2) There are many dogmatic and doctrinal issues between Catholics and Orthodox which serve as obstacles to the unity of faith that must characterize the true Church.

3) There are no real dogmatic issues which prevent the Reunion of the Churches for even the two historical major dogmatic teachings of the Primacy and the Procession are more the result of misunderstanding and political, cultural, and linguistic estrangement.

These teachings as well as other doctrines defined by the Catholic Church since 1054 cannot be termed heretical by the Orthodox for lack of any official definitive and binding pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council, and thus the way is open to dialogue and Reunion. It is therefore important to examine each of these theses to grasp what is the actual doctrinal situation that Catholics and Orthodox are dealing with, in order to respond fully to the High-Priestly Prayer of Our Lord that:

"all be One, even as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee; that they also may be One in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory that Thou hast given Me, I have given to them, that they may be One, even as we are One: I in them, and Thou in Me; that they may be perfected in Unity, and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and that Thou hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me" (Jn. 17: 21-23)

No one can doubt that the scandal of doctrinal divisions among those who profess to be Christians is one of the most important factors inhibiting the spread of the Gospel of Christ among the peoples and nations of the world. This has been admitted by popes, patriarchs, the World Council of Churches, international committees involved in theological dialogues, and ordinary Christian believers. It is this fact that has certainly stimulated the twenthieth century's modern ecumenical movement, wherein all Christians of good will and who love the Lord seek to restore the spiritual and visible bonds of unity which constitute the "One and only Church" that Christ founded.

As Pope John Paul II noted in a homily delivered at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls on January 25, 1984:

"Christ's work for mankind, His Cross and His Mission, entrusted by Him to His Church, to baptize and make disciples of all nations (cf. Mt. 28: 19-20), call upon all the baptized to strive for full unity in faith and sacramental life, overcoming every division and break"

It would be easy to multiply similar pleas over many years from the Orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch, Alexandria, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc., and other important prelates calling for not only a greater collaboration of all Churches and communities to meet the social and economic needs of the world's peoples, but also to engage in the quest for the restoration of that unity among Christians which is required of us by God. Indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God's commandment of unity. According to St. Basil the Great:

"all who are really and truly serving the Lord should have this one aim-to bring back into union the Churches that have been severed from one another." (Letters, 114) ⁽¹⁾

What then, in the ecumenical atmosphere of our day, is the actual doctrinal situation between Catholics and Orthodox, necessary to understand in the present-day effort to restore full communion and Eucharistic fellowship? Is it true that there are only two major dogmatic issues that prevent the definitive healing of the Schism between them: the primacy and the 'Filioque'? Certainly, for Catholics, there can be no doubt that the primacy of the pope is considered essential to the visible unity of the Church. This is a dogmatic given, as Vatican II solemnly reaffirmed (and concerning which there can be no illusions in the Catholic Church):

"Christ willed that the successors [of the apostles], the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the Sacred Synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter's successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the House of the Living God."
(Lumen Gentium, #18)

With regard to the centuries-old controversy over the procession of the Holy Spirit, Vatican II must be said to have also reaffirmed the teaching of the Church concerning the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and (or through) the Son which had been defined by the Reunion Council of Florence (1439). That council had sanctioned the use of the formula of the "Filioque" ("and the Son") which it regarded as equivalent to the expression "through the Son" familiar to the Greek Fathers of the Church. The Filioque simply gave expression to the traditional truth that the Son participates in the eternal breathing of the Spirit from the Father. Vatican II declared in conformity with the teaching of the Fathers (both Greek and Latin) that the Father in the Trinity was "the principle without principle from whom the Son is generated and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son." ⁽²⁾

Observations on Answer #1

There are but two major dogmatic issues preventing reunion. Historically, it is clear that papal primacy understood as the supreme and universal authority in the Church has not been accepted by the Churches of Byzantine Orthodoxy, which have followed the patriarchate of Constantinople in rejecting it, either in practice or in theory, to this very day.

The same cannot be said, however, regarding a total rejection of the doctrine of the eternal procession from the Father and (or through) the Son, for there have been Eastern Orthodox theologians and prelates no longer willing to declare the Filioque doctrine heretical. The doctrine embodied in the Filioque addition to the Creed can be held as a theological opinion (theologumenon). As Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (who is attached to the Ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople) has noted in a classic study, there are "hawks" and "doves" on this question.⁽³⁾ Among the hawks would be such writers as the Greek Orthodox theologian John Romanides, who has denounced the Filioque in the manner of his medieval forbears like Mark of Ephesus, who played a predominant role in the rejection of the Reunion Council of Florence (1439), and Dr. Joseph Farrell in the U.S., who repeated a standard objection: "The Filioque is the outward, efficiacious symbol of an inward metaphysical depravity." But, as Bishop Kallistos has observed:

"Among modern Orthodox theologians there are also "doves" who advocate a more lenient approach to the question. While they deplore the unilateral insertion of the "Filioque" into the text of the Creed on the part of the west, they do not consider that the Latin doctrine of the Double Procession is in itself heretical. It is, they argue, somewhat confused in its expression and potentially misleading, but it is capable of being interpreted in an Orthodox way; and so it may be accepted as a theologoumenon, a theological opinion, although not as a dogma."

...There is today a school of Orthodox theologians who believe that the "Filioque", while by no means unimportant, is not so fundamental as [Vladimir] Lossky and his [neo-Palamite] disciples maintain. The Roman Catholic understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, so this second group of Orthodox theologians conclude, is not basically different from that of the Christian east; and so we may conclude that in the present-day dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics an understanding will eventually be reached on this thorny question.⁽⁴⁾

Such distinguished nineteenth-century Russian theologians as P. Svietlov and Basil Bolotov rejected the prior teaching of Russian and Greek theologians that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and (or through) the Son was unorthodox and heretical—a position that had become since the thirteenth century the principal dogmatic question between Latins, on the one hand, and Greeks and Russians, on the other.⁽⁵⁾

The Greek Orthodox theologian Rev. Dr. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, professor at the Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, has written:

"The "Filioque" question does not signal a "great divide" between the Eastern and Western Churches... The formula "who proceeds from the Father through the Son" is a sound theological resolution of the problem in the conciliatory spirit of Maximos the Confessor (who affirmed) the active participation of the Son in the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father."

...The well known critique (of some Orthodox) that the "Filioque" subordinates the Spirit to the Son and thereby "depersonalizes" the Spirit seems to express theological polemic rather than theological truth.⁽⁶⁾ The extreme charges of some Eastern Orthodox that "the 'Filioque' doctrine has led to ecclesiasticism, clericalism, and even the dogma of the Pope", Stylianopoulos declared to be "wholly unconvincing".⁽⁷⁾ For his part, the recently deceased Ukranian Orthodox Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos stated: "With many Orthodox theologians I consider this problem [the 'Filioque'] a theologoumenon [respectable theologian opinion] which need not disturb us".⁽⁸⁾

On October 25, 2003, The Orthodox members of the "Agreed Statement on Filioque" adopted by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation agreed that in the future the Orthodox "refrain from labelling as heretical" the Catholic teaching regarding the Filioque.⁽⁹⁾

Observations on Answer #2

There are many dogmatic and doctrinal issues serving as obstacles to the reunion of the Churches. A reading of the polemical literature of past centuries reveals at times violent controversies taking place concerning:

• The primacy of universal authority of the pope and his infallibility
• The procession of the Holy Spirit as expressed by the "Filioque"
• The use of Azymes for the Holy Eucharist—a controversy begun by the patriarch Michael Cerularius, who regarded the Eucharist of the Latins as "dry mud"
• The consecration of the "precious gifts" taking place at the epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit) rather than with the narrative words of institution
• Communion under one species
• The validity of Catholic sacraments, such as Baptism lacking a trine immersion
• Whether there is a particular judgment at death
• Purgatorial fire
• The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos and the nature of original sin
• A temporal debt of punishment for sin; and Indulgences
• Rejection by some Orthodox of the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament declared divinely inspired by the Catholic Church
• Dispute over the addition of books to the Old Testament by some Orthodox: Prayer of Manasses, 3 Esdras, 3 and 4 Macabees.
• The Eastern Orthodox sanctioning divorce-and-remarriage (which involves the denial of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage) and contraception
• Mandated priestly celibacy
• The serious expansion of new grievances by the insistence of certain modern neo-Palamite Orthodox theologians (followers of the fourteenth-century Byzantine Greek theologian Gregory Palamas) who teach the following theological innovations as dogma:
  1. a real distinction between the essence of God and His "uncreated energies";
  2. that God’s "uncreated light" can be seen in this life;
  3. that it is the "uncreated energies" of God that indwells the soul of the Christian, not the Person of the Holy Spirit; and
  4. that Heaven does not involve the Saints seeing the essence of God in the Beatific Vision.⁽¹⁰⁾

For example, the Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos in Greece, has written:

"The basic distinction between the Orthodox Church and Papism is found in the doctrine concerning the uncreated nature and uncreated energy of God. Whereas we Orthodox believe that God possesses an uncreated nature and uncreated energy and that God comes into communion with the creation and with man by means of His uncreated energy, the Papists believe that in God the uncreated nature is identified with His uncreated energy (actus purus) and that God holds communion with the creation and with man through his created energies, even asserting that in God there exist also created energies. So then the grace of God through which man is sanctified is seen as created energy. But given this, one cannot be sanctified. From this basic doctrine proceeds the [heretical] teaching concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, the cleansing fire, the Primacy of the Pope, etc." ⁽¹¹⁾

It is important to stress that among all the sixteen or so autocephalous (self-governing) Orthodox Churches, there does not appear to be an "official" list of all the heretical "antievangelical innovations" constituting doctrinal obstacles to the reunion of the Churches.

Some of the above listed alleged "heresies" of the Catholic Church may assuredly be considered liturgical and sacramental divergences rather than dogmatic or doctrinal ones. Interestingly, the above theses of Gregory Palamas which were thoroughly ignored in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russia did not even appear in two of the major anti-Roman responses to Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII's overtures for reunion:

1. the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (1848), and
2. the Encyclical of Anthimus (VII), patriarch of Constantinople and the Holy Synod (1895).

Both these encyclicals reaffirm the standard, traditional objections to the reunion of the Churches:

• the Roman primacy,
• the doctrine embodied in the Filioque,
• the "use of wafers instead of real bread" for the Eucharist,
• "sprinkling instead of immersion",
• "disuse of the epiclesis",
• and adding many other accusations such as that the Apostle Peter's "apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history." ⁽¹²⁾

It must be said that various historical errors mar both encyclicals by the patriarchate of Constantinople, including the 1848 encyclical's reliance on a medieval forgery of a letter by Pope John VIII allegedly repudiating the Filioque.⁽¹³⁾ In examining these encyclicals, as well as the earlier confessions of faith by the Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Moghila (1640) and that of the patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos (1672), one is puzzled in trying to determine the degree of authority they possess as setting forth the official teaching of the Orthodox Churches, since they do not possess the degree of authority that is ascribed to the dogmatic decisions of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Moreover, there is an unfortunate mixture of doctrinal and disciplinary accusations against the Catholic Church which obscure for the sincere inquirer what constitute for the Orthodox the exact dogmatic obstacles to the reunion of the Churches. Then there is the acute problem that a number of doctrines expressed in the above encyclicals and confessions of faith evidence a lack of theological discrimination and have never received the approval of the early Councils. In addition, their doctrines have, in fact, been contradicted by various important theologians or were held merely as theological opinions, not dogmas.

The doctrinal confusion and contradictions reflected in documents possessing only a relative authority among the Orthodox are evident, and they would demand resolution were it possible, say, for a Pan-Orthodox Synod to convene to clarify matters used to justify the accusation of a thousand years, that Catholics in communion with the See of Peter were heretics.

Observations on Answer #3

There are no real dogmatic issues which prevent the reunion of the Churches. In view of the above detailing of the doctrinal issues believed by many Orthodox to demonstrate that the Catholics are schismatical and heretical, it may be surprising to note that there are Catholics and Orthodox who have held that none of the doctrinal grievances (not to mention the many liturgical quarrels which fostered enmity between Latins and Greeks in the Middle Ages and to our own day) warrant the continuation of the separation of the Churches.

This is because, to the mind of many of the Orthodox, only an Ecumenical Council can pronounce definitive doctrine. No dogma or doctrine can be declared as binding on all Orthodox by any other ecclesiastical authority than an Ecumenical Council, wherein all the Churches of their communion are duly represented. As the Russian Orthodox Archbishop Gregory Afonsky has stated (not without a certain incoherence regarding the exact organ of infallibility):

• The Church is indeed infallible...
• The highest ecclesiastical authority in expressing the true faith of the Orthodox Church is the ecumenical council. Such councils are composed of all bishops of all Orthodox Churches...
• The decisions of an ecumenical council, however, must be followed by reception by the people, who ratify the truth of these decisions.⁽¹⁴⁾

What is evident, however, is that since the separation from the Apostolic See of Rome, an Ecumenical Council has not been able to be convened among those in the Pan-Orthodox world for over 1200 years. Consequently, it is apparent that none of the negations of Catholic doctrine which have historically served to keep the Churches apart can be said to have the support of an Ecumenical Council and thus be binding on the faithful of their Churches. This fact, noted by the Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, has also been observed by a number of Catholic theologians who have also consequently inquired:

"Where there exists no supreme authority that can dogmatize in the Name of Christ, who can be said to speak in matters of doctrine for all the Orthodox?"

How then can the negations of Catholic doctrines by various authors, theologians, and even local Synods of Bishops be termed doctrines or dogmas at all? None of these could be said to be safeguarded from error in teaching a negation of Catholic doctrine. None could be said to possess the infallible authority which an infallible Church must have in order to teach with divine certainty. The conclusion would follow then that between the Catholic and autocephalous Churches of the Byzantine tradition there exists no real dogmatic divergence which prevents the restoration of the visible unity which characterized the period before 1054.

One of Soloviev's great contributions to ecumenism was precisely to engage in a profound study of Catholic and Orthodox polemical literature in order to grasp the true nature of the schism which had involved millions of Russian Orthodox "in good faith" in the separation from Rome, heralded by the Fathers, saints, and Byzantine emperors (e.g., Justinian) as "head of all the Churches of God".⁽¹⁵⁾ He observed:

"As there never had been (and according to our best theologians, never can be) any Ecumenical Councils in the East, since the separation of the Churches... our schism exists for us, only "de facto", and by no means "de jure". What reveals even more clearly the uncertain position of our Church with reference to Catholicism, is that some individuals declare publicly that they believe the "new" Catholic dogmas to be the legitimate development of Orthodox doctrine".⁽¹⁶⁾

In 1887 Soloviev addressed the following nine questions to a theological opponent, and through him to the entire Russian Orthodox hierarchy, which created a sensation in Russia and intrigued Catholic theologians in France and Germany, and in Rome itself.

1. When the canons of the Ecumenical Councils require the Nicene faith to be intact, do they refer to the letter or the meaning of the Nicene Creed?

2. Does the word "Filioque", inserted into the primitive text of the Council of Nicaea-Constantinople, necessarily involve heresy? If so, which Council has condemned this heresy?

3. This addition made its appearance in the Churches of the West in the sixth century and was known in the East towards the middle of the seventh century. If it contains a heresy, why did not the last two Ecumenical Councils (the sixth in 689 and the seventh in 787) condemn the heresy and anathematize those who accepted it, instead of remaining in communion with them?

4. If it is impossible to say with certainty that the addition of the "Filioque" constitutes a heresy, is not every Orthodox Christian free in this respect to follow St. Maximus the Confessor, who in his letter to Marinus, a priest, justifies this addition, and gives it an Orthodox meaning?

5. Besides the "Filioque", what other doctrines of the Roman Church are heretical, and what Ecumenical Councils have condemned them?

6. Is it possible that the Church of Rome should be pronounced guilty, not of heresy, but of schism? Now, schism, as defined by the Fathers, takes place when a portion of the Church (both clergy and laymen) cuts itself off from the lawful ecclesiastical authority on account of some question of ritual or discipline. This being so, we may ask from what lawful ecclesiastical authority the Roman Church cut herself off?

7. If the Church of Rome is not guilty of heresy, and if she cannot be in a state of schism, because there is no superior authority from which she could have separated, must we not recognize this Church as an integral part of the one Catholic Church of Christ, and acknowledge the separation between the Churches to have no truly religious and ecclesiastical justification, being merely the work of human politicians?

8. If our separation from the Church of Rome is based on no genuine principle, ought not we Orthodox Christians to lay more stress upon divine than human things? Is it not our duty to labour for the restoration of union between the Eastern and Western Churches, and thus to promote the welfare of the entire Church?

9. If the re-establishment of intercommunion between the East and West is for us a duty, have we any right to defer its accomplishment by pleading the sins and shortcomings of others? ⁽¹⁷⁾

In his "Answer to Danilevski" (1885) Soloviev reduced his nine questions to three.

"No matter who is to blame for it, the fact remains that the separation of the East and West was and is a worse misfortune to the universal Church, than the origin and development of Islam, which is, perhaps, the chastisement for the separation. Therefore surely no Christian should fail to seek an expiation for it. In asking my three questions I had no other object than to facilitate a peaceful settlement."

1. According to my Orthodox assailants, the supreme and final authority in the Church is the Church itself, the Church that is bound to tell me herself what the Church believes, for instance, regarding the "Filioque". I ask therefore, how the Church by herself can ratify and sanction the Councils?
2. The representatives of Orthodoxy are not agreed on the subject of Catholics. Some treat them as heathen, and even rebaptize them, whilst others, among whom are our greatest theologians, refuse to regard them as heretics. I ask, therefore, how am I to know what the Church herself teaches about Catholics and their Church?
3. As the various nationalities belonging to the Eastern Church are not agreed in their attitude to the Bulgarian Church [at the time, the Greek Church had declared the Bulgarian Church to be in schism]. I ask how am I to know the opinion of the Church herself concerning the Bulgarians? ⁽¹⁸⁾

For Soloviev, the separation between the Churches was not a formal schism but only an apparent one, since it was void of theological justification. He had the conviction that the Council of Florence which had brought about in 1439 the reunion of the Orthodox Churches (including the Russian) with Rome had not been formally abrogated and, in fact, continued to exist. The Council of Florence, at which the leading prelates and theologians of the Byzantine Church participated and agreed to the Union, was an Ecumenical Council and its decrees and decisions could not be repealed.

To his mind, Catholics and Orthodox were "one" in the same orthodox faith, being members of the two branches of the universal Church. This explains his conviction that Orthodox did not need to "formally convert" to the Catholic Church since they were already in full communion with the Catholic Church. He did not formally abjure the Orthodox faith, for he considered himself as being both Catholic and Orthodox. There can be no doubt that in the depth of his soul, he professed the Catholic doctrine of the divine institution of the Petrine primacy, a profession which he powerfully expressed in his writings, especially in his masterpiece, "Russia and the Universal Church".

Interestingly, Soloviev's view, that not only spiritually but doctrinally the separation of the Churches was not an accomplished fact, was held by some of the most eminent Catholic theologians of Greek ancestry and education, such as Leon Allatius and Peter Arcudius. Distinguishing the immutable doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils that continued to be held by the mass of Orthodox faithful from the errors of individual bishops and theologians, Soloviev insisted:

"We [Orthodox] are united with Catholicism by all that we ourselves recognize as absolute and unalterable truth, whereas the errors which separate us from Catholic unity are only opinions which have no higher authority even in the eyes of those writers who put them forward. As for the mass of the faithful of the Eastern Church, they cannot be accused of any definite error, since their faith is the same as the Catholic faith, apart from their ignorance of certain doctrinal definitions made in the West since the separation".⁽¹⁹⁾

It may be said that Soloviev helped prepare the way for the teaching of Vatican II which refrained from describing the separated Byzantine Churches either as "heretical Churches" or as "schismatic Churches", but rather used the less pejorative nomenclature of "dissident Churches" to describe them. This was assuredly because the great mass of the faithful of those Churches bore no culpability or responsibility for the unhappy situation of separation from Catholic unity in which they find themselves.

Perhaps the greatest Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century, and one who participated in Vatican II, was Cardinal Charles Journet, who in his great work "L'Eglise du Verbe Incarné" (1951) analyzed the state of a "pure schism".⁽²⁰⁾ He pointed out that a separated ecclesiastical body may well have resulted from the schismatic activities of patriarchs or bishops causing a "pure schism". However, the later generations affected, who were guilty of neither the sin of pertinacious heresy nor that of malicious schism, should not and cannot be regarded as "schismatics", but simply as "dissidents".

When earlier Catholic theologians used the term "material schismatics", they had taken care to describe the members of the separated Greek and Russian Churches who were in good faith and had no animus against the Catholic Church. They had attempted to acknowledge the lack of moral guilt in those who bore no personal responsibility for the separation, and could not be judged as bearing the moral guilt attributed to formal schismatics lacking charity. At the same time, Cardinal Journet rejected (as indeed did Vatican II and later Church documents dealing with the nature of the Church) Soloviev's eccentric notion that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches constituted two branches of the One universal Church. Cardinal Journet observed that it was a great illusion to declare, as some Catholic writers did following Soloviev, that "the Russian Orthodox Church being guilty neither of heresy or schism, was already united, already Catholic".⁽²¹⁾ Rather, Catholic doctrine has always emphasized the unicity of the Church as an undivided spiritual and visible organism across time and space.

Recent documents of the Holy See such as Dominus Iesus (2000) and Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church (2007) have had to reaffirm, against some revived errors of a "Branch Church", that there is only one Church founded by Christ, and it is that body whose members are in visible communion with the Successor of Peter. Dissident Christians possessing certain hierarchical and sacramental elements of the Catholic Church are assuredly joined to, linked to, and may be said to adhere to and to be attached to the Catholic Church, which is their true Mother.

Nevertheless, they sadly remain separated from the visible unity of the Church. The task of genuine ecumenical dialogue is to clear away the misconceptions of both Catholics and Orthodox concerning "the other", and to determine the real obstacles (doctrinal, psychological, and cultural) which impede the disciples of Christ from sharing in the full communion of the One historic and indefectible Faith.

In his many overtures for dialogue and ecumenical discussions Pope John Paul II of holy memory sought to answer the question:

"How can the previous unity between East and West that existed in the First Millennium of the Church's history be restored?"
In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (May 25, 1995), he asked all those professing to be Christians:
How can you "refuse to do everything possible, with God's help to bring down the walls of division and distrust, to overcome obstacles and prejudices which thwart the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation in the Cross of Jesus, the one Redeemer of man, of every individual?" ⁽²²⁾

From all that has been noted above, it has appeared increasingly obvious that for the Orthodox whose other historic doctrinal objections appear to have fallen by the wayside, it is the Roman primacy of universal authority and jurisdiction over all particular Churches which may be said to remain the one seemingly insuperable barrier to the restoration of unity between Catholics and Orthodox. Conscious of the fact that the doctrine of the Roman primacy as

"the visible sign and guarantee of unity, constitutes a difficulty [for the Orthodox,] whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections."

the pope joined his predecessor Paul VI "in asking for forgiveness" for the sins of Catholics which have impeded unity.⁽²³⁾

In the same encyclical he took care to explain the Roman primacy in the context of collegiality (or the traditional Eastern theology of conciliarity) and to heed

"the request made of me to find a way of exercising the Primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".⁽²⁴⁾

It should be a matter for rejoicing that in the most recent dialogue taking place between Catholic and Orthodox theologians at Ravenna (resulting in the document Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority, October 13, 2007), there is clear evidence of the willingness of some of the Orthodox Churches to reconsider the idea of a universal Petrine primacy in the Church. This development has shocked some of the anti-ecumenical elements among the Orthodox and revived "fears that the Orthodox are ceding to papal claims".⁽²⁵⁾

Actually, the document falls quite short of any acknowledgement of the Petrine primacy as of divine institution. Orthodoxy's possible incorporation of a universal primacy on the part of the pope would be the result only of a conciliar and canonical consensus and enactment. Moreover, the "Ravenna Document" has already suffered rejection by the patriarchal Russian Orthodox Church whose delegates walked out of the International Commission's meetings because of yet another jurisdictional dispute with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this time over control of the Estonian Orthodox Church.⁽²⁶⁾

CONCLUSION

What is the conclusion to be drawn from all the foregoing? What is the answer to the fundamental question that is the title of this paper: "What are the Doctrinal Impediments to the Reunion of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?"

I would submit that in the practical order of the life of Orthodox Churches, the Roman primacy is the standing impediment. However, as far as any dogmatic/doctrinal issue is concerned in the theoretical order, there is none. For in Eastern Orthodoxy any denial of the Petrine primacy of universal authority and jurisdiction in the Church has never been sanctioned by an Ecumenical Council, and therefore cannot be regarded as an immutable dogma by our Orthodox brethren.

Therefore, the way is open to a future Ecumenical Council wherein Catholic and Orthodox bishops will meet together and heal the dissidence between the Churches in a loving acknowledgement that the Roman primacy is of the essence of the hierarchical nature of the Church and instituted by the Savior for the necessary good and visible unity of all the particular Churches of God. Let us pray to the Father of lights that, through the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Mother of God, all her children be soon united in the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God, to the edification of all the angels and Saints in heaven, and that "they be perfected in unity... that the world may believe" (Jn. 17: 21-23). May that day come. Marantha, Lord Jesus! ✠

 

ENDNOTES

1. Quoted in the very important document "Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions", adopted by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, August 14, 2000.
2. Ad Gentes Divinitus, Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity, 2.
3. The Orthodox Church, 3rd ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 216.
4. Ibid., 213, 218.
5. Martin Jugie, Le Schisme Byzantine (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1941), 363, 387.
6. The Greek Orthodox Review (Fall-Winter 1986): 288.
7. Ibid.
8. Eastern Churches Journal (Summer 1998): 50.
9. Eastern Churches Journal (Autumn 2003): 129.
10. See James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthdoxy: Lettters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church (New Hope, Ken.: St. Martin de Porres Dominican Community, 2002), pgs. 191-211. Website: /jameslikoudispage.com/jlindex/htm
11. Carlton, Clark, The Truth (Salisbury, MA, Regina 1999), 218-219.
12. Chrysostomos Stratman, The Reply to Roman Catholic Overtures on Reunion (New York: Orthodox Christian Movement of St. John the Baptist, 1958), 17.
13. Carlton, op. cit.
14. Christ and the Church in Orthodox Teaching and Tradition (Crestwood, N.Y.:St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), 87, 89-90.
15. Jugie, 75.
16. Michael D'Herbigny, Vladimir Soloviev: A Russian Newman (1853-1900) (San Rafael, Calif.: Semantron Press, 2007), 170.
17. Ibid., 165-167.
18. Ibid., 168.
19. Mark Everitt, "Vladimir Soloviev: A Russian Newman", Sobornost 1, no. 1 (1979): 34.
20. See Charles Journet, L'Eglise du Verbe Incarné (Freiburg: Desclee De Brouwer, 1951), 708-60 for an extensive analysis.
21. Ibid., 739.
22. Ut Unum Sint, #2.
23. Ibid., #88.
24. Ibid., #95.
25. Archimandrite George Kapsanis, Abbot of the Mt. Athos monastery of Gregoriou, quoted in "A Lesson from Byzantium for Patriarch Bartholomew", www.orthodox-england.org.uk/a lesson.htm. The Ravenna document itself is available from www.vatican.va. A fine article "Ravenna and the Roman Primacy: the Issues Joined", by Msgr. Daniel Hamilton, Ph.D., appeared in FCS Quarterly, Summer 2008.
26. See CWNews, May 20, 2008.

 

---