Back in 1996, on St. Andrew's Day, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Church of Constantinople stated "Should not the final solution, in metanoia and truth, of the problem of uniatism which sadly has been perpetuated by an additional persuasive action of unity, a crown of worthy of the year 2000?"

Final Solution?

Is the Patriarch condemning the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Elias

O.K. I understand. No one wants to touch this one. I apologize.

Elias

Dear in Christ Elias,

I think part of the problem with responding to your statement/question is that the quote seems to be incomplete. Doesn't it seem to you that the quote which is attributed to His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomeos, is missing a phrase?Frankly I cannot tell what he is saying by this quote. Did you copy the entire thing?

unworthy monk Kyrill

I must agree with Fr. Kyrill in wondering about the quote and the context in which it was given.

The Balamand Statement, a working document produced in 1993 by the International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, clearly indicated several thoughts:

Par 2): With regard to the method which has been called "uniatism", it was said at Freising (June 1990) that "we reject it as a method for the search for unity because it opposed to the common tradition of our Churches".

Par 3): "Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful."

The major Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, and others) sent representatives who participated in the dialogue which produced this statement. Even though this working agreement did not become official (it was rejected by many Orthodox and by some Catholics) it does indicate a path for future dialogue as well as the mind set of those representing their respective Churches.

In 1996, Central and Eastern Europe was still in great turmoil following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Communists insisted for decades that there were no such creatures as "Greek Catholics" (since they had liquidated us) yet suddenly there were millions. Struggles were taking place as congregations debated to return to their Greek Catholic Church or to remain loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church to which they had been forced. For many, this was an act of faith. For others, a rejection of communism. Buildings were being fought over and, in many cases, Christ was forgotten by both Orthodox and Greek Catholics. It is within the context of the then current history that the words of his All-Holiness must be understood. I am interested in seeing a more fuller quote, the document it is quoted from, and the context in which the quote was given.

My quote of the Patriarch comes from "Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies" Vol.37 (1996) published by the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptysky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies et al. The statement was addressed to Cardinal Cassidy.

The editor(s) of the article continue stating that "Several people whom some of us know personally were in attendance when the Ecumenical Patriarch gave this address, and were startled to hear these words. No one who was present has expressed any doubt that the Patriarch meant what he said; His All Holiness has set a dated for "the final solution.""(page 29)

"It is impossible to reconcile such a demand for "the final solution, in metanoia and truth, of the problem of uniatism" with the Balamand Statement."(page 30)

Elias

Hello,

May I make an editorial speculation? I believe that the sense of the EP's statement is revealed if one replaces the word "by" with "be" (could be a typo, I think), and delete the superfluous "of" between "crown" and "worthy". When you do this, you can see why this statement is not terribly pleasing to people.

I wouldn't go so far, though, as to say that it's not reconcilable with Balamand. What the EP is saying here is that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be reunited with their Orthodox mother Churches. This is also stated as a goal in the Balamand document, although it is dealt with in a muted way. That's really all he is saying.

In any case, I think that the Balamand document is not going to go down in history among Orthodox as a tremendous piece of work. It will never be fully accepted among Orthodox because of its hints of branch theory ecclesiology (i.e., "Sister Churches" -- a concept that Orthodox do not really embrace), and the EP knows this. In his comments since Balamand, his tone has been remarkably different -- one has the sense that there is a realization that, in the laudable effort to calm down the regrettable acts that were taking place at the time between Orthodox and Uniates in Eastern Europe, the Balamand document went too far in treading upon ecclesiological territory that does not reflect the Orthodox view.

I disagree, however, that the political situation in 1996 is what motivated this statement. If anything, the situation in the early 90s was worse -- and this is what motivated both parties to sit down and discuss the issue of uniatism. I think the statements in the most recent years from the EP reflect a practiced distancing from some of the underlying principles of Balamand which, if taken to their logical conclusion, seriously undermine the view of the Orthodox Church regarding itself.

Finally, it's important to note that this is not an isolated quote. In 1998, in speech at Georgetown U., the EP said that the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches was "ontological" and not resolvable by simply looking at structures or jurisdictions or practices. He also said that the two churches were on different trajectories, and appeared to be growing further apart rather than closer together. This sparked severe critcism of the EP in the Catholic press, but I think he was really just trying to be frank, on the one hand, and also trying to make it very clear that some of the eccesiological conclusions that one can draw from the language contained in the Balamand document are not, in fact, being drawn by the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxophilos

I agree that the Ecumenical Patriarch was only trying to be frank. Not every use of the term "final solution" is an allusion to the Hitler-ish use of the term.

Let's face it, if Orthodox/Catholic unity were to come about, there would no longer be a need for "Uniate" churches. Control would logically go back to local hierarchies at some point. These remarks were also made in 1996, when one could perhaps see opportunities for closer cooperation before 2000. The EP has been more "ecumenically cooperative" than some other Orthodox jurisdictions would like him to be so it may have been a tad optimistic. Being 1999, barring something miraculous, I just don't see anything major happening.