www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog

Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialogue

The Russian Orthodox Church’s Metropolitan Hilarion has put certain conditions on theological dialogue and rifts between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople are to blame for this. They are having to open their eyes to the pastoral conversion suggested by Pope Francis

Gianni Valente
rome
6 August 2013
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...o/ecumenismo-ecumenism-ecumenismo-27006/

It is becoming increasingly clear that the reason why dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has been proceeding at baby step pace with long stand-by phases is to be found in the Orthodox playing field, characterised by reservations and divisions. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk head of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department for External Church Relations confirmed this yet again in a recent interview with KNA news agency. During the interview, Metropolitan Hilarion clearly aired his dissatisfaction at the work being done by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church – the body in charge of appeasing the two Churches on the pressing question of primacy and the exercise of authority in the Church. Metropolitan Hilarion is the top representative of the Patriarchate of Moscow in the commission and yet the tone of distance he has got across in some statements, has not gone unnoticed. “We are wrong to try to present the theological traditions of our Churches as united at the highest level,” he said. Theological dialogue must not conceal but highlight the differences between Christian denominations.



Hilarion’s remarks are further proof of the low opinion Moscow has of the joint Commission for theological dialogue. In the first plenary assembly he attended on the subject of primacy and authority in the Church, held in Ravenna in 2007, the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church walked out in protest against the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s decision to invite representatives of the Estonian Church to join the Orthodox delegation. The Estonian Church left Moscow’s jurisdiction after the fall of the Soviet Union. Last November a meeting held by the Commission’s small committee in Paris, ended without an agreement being reached, after representatives of the Patriarchate of Moscow refused to sign a document that dealt with the issue of primacy in a more theological and less historical–ecclesiological light.



The current adversities in theological dialogue are largely a side-effect of underlying conflicts that have always existed in the Orthodox Church. The politically and numerically preponderant Patriarchate of Moscow has persistently encouraged an alliance with the Catholic Church on ethical issues but has shown little interest in engaging in dialogue over theological questions. According to the Russians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, would like to play Orthodox “pope”, gaining jurisdictional powers that are not in line with the ecclesiological concept of Eastern Christianity. Meanwhile, Russia’s revival as a super power is reigniting “imperialist” sentiment in the Patriarchate of Moscow.



But the dispute within the Orthodox Church will have to face the new season of change introduced by Francis’ Catholic Church sooner or later. Bartholomew I’s presence at the Bishop of Rome’s inauguration mass and his invitation to Francis to visit Jerusalem in memory of Paul VI’s visit to Patriarch Athenagoras 50 years ago were highly symbolic gestures. The modus operandi of Peter’s current successor could help heal a mistrust that goes back generations. Francis’ reference to Russia’s literary great, Dostoevkij on the flight back from Rio did not go unnoticed in Russia. “When one reads Dostoevskij, you get a feel for Russia’s spirit, the Eastern spirit. This will do us a lot of good. We need this renewal, this breath of fresh air from the East, this light from the East,” The Pope had said. With his sensus Ecclesiae and his seductive apostolic fervour, Pope Francis could find new words to speak to the hearts of the Catholic Church’s Eastern brothers. In doing so he would bring primacy issues into perspective and show everyone that the only way to achieve unity is to embrace the mission Christ entrusted his Church with, as brothers.

It is no wonder Christianity is dying. We can't overcome our arrogant natures and unite in Christ.

I wholeheartedly agree. Unless we see things going towards the right direction for reunification, then we may have lost hope for our future.

That's right! We should use a drone strike to enforce our will!

Ecumenism between Rome and Orthodoxy tends to be highly politically naive.

It is so since it is driven by theologians in the first instance, with their idealistic notions that bypass the real social/cultural/political issues involved.

So if, tomorrow, Pope Francis were to issue an encyclical, let's call "the reintegration of Catholicism with Orthodoxy," where he outlined the major points of contention between Orthodoxy and Catholicism only to conclude that Rome is now adhering to the Orthodox Catholic Faith of the first thousand years - so what? Will that mean that the two Christianities will be any closer to unification?

Do we actually believe that would be a possibility?

The political interests that are against such a reunification would only concoct new reasons why Church unity could not take place . . . "as of yet."

Theologians of good will on both sides already don't see any reason why the mutual schism should continue on. There is no reason for Eastern chat forums to continue on topics such as the Filioque etc. as if these issues haven't already been put to rest on the theological level and within thousands of pages of theological reports.

The political/cultural aspects to the Great Divide have been woefully neglected and until theologians come down from heaven to discuss those earthly concerns, further progress (if there has been any) will continue to be halted.

Alex

Alex,

That's just it. Theologians don't run the church. Bishops do. So you will just have to wait for a council.

As I understand it, neither theologians nor bishops run the Church. The Holy Spirit does. How this union occurs may involve a Council, spontaneous lay participation, concordats by Patriarch or some other method unknown to us.

Dear Chad,

Politics/culture is the human component to ecclesiology, even if unwritten.

Until the political issues are cleared, if they ever will be, there will be no union council.

You heard it here first.

Alex

Dear Michael,

But human beings can and do mess up God's plans. The year 1054 AD comes to mind immediately . . .

Unless the political issues, and their name is legion, are addressed and somehow overcome, there will only be pious ecumenical platitudes, more desire to see "moral and social justice solidarity among the Churches" and the like.

But as for actual church union - not.

Who controls who is perhaps as good a place as any to start in all this.

And the Holy Spirit can only work in those who are willing to accept Him and what they will consider to be His "radical" demands for repentance, humility and forgiveness - but most of all, love of one another.

Alex

Alex,

But we also can not operate under the assumption that theological differences have been settled. They might be in certain groups, but not in all.

That would change the perspective as to who is and who is not following the will of the holy spirit. Ecclesiology is only a part of the greater theological picture.

Ok, I agree.

But my point is that theological differences can be either heightened or lessened within the political/cultural sphere.

John Meyendorff once wrote that Greek Orthodox were even predisposed not to turn beef-red over the Filioque when there was a pope in Rome they admired.

Alex

Ok but here we are at the crux of it. We both have a set of beliefs. And they differ, but union, of what ever kind, can only be in truth. So does that mean either one of us compromise? Is that truth?

I can agree with the statement that "Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog," but for reasons other than a rush to embrace Rome. The EP dose not speak for Orthodoxy. He speaks for his church. So when he makes statements as such, or when he does things to upset the order of churches and their territories, it will cause problems.

The good order of the Church is going to have to me addressed before anything else. So if the Bishops of the Orthodox Church have their council, then you can wait to see what happens. But I fear it wont go down like several of the academic types think it will.

I've never understood why one Orthodox church needs the permissions of the others.

If the Greeks & Antiochians are disposed towards establishing communion, why not move ahead? If the Russians have a problem with it, let them run their church as they see fit. They only have a de facto veto if people let them.

That's just it, they don't. They need the synod of Bishops that they are a part of to agree.

Why should the Orthodox Churches destroy their existing communion in order to enter into communion with Rome?

What would happen to the Greek and Antiochian Churches if they came into communion with Rome while the Roman Catholic liturgy is in utter shambles?