LECTURE MARKING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE PRO ORIENTE FOUNDATION IN VIENNA
13 March 2024
With Pro Oriente on the Way Towards Reconciliation in the Church
between East and West
“Among Christian Churches and communities, it is undoubtedly the Orthodox who are theologically closest to us; Catholics and Orthodox have maintained the same basic structure inherited from the ancient Church; in this sense we are all the early Church that is still present and new.”[1] With these words, spoken at a meeting with representatives of Orthodox Churches in Freiburg in Breisgau in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI expressed his conviction that the communion between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the East is very close. This is primarily because both church communities have retained the basic ecclesiological structure that evolved from the second century, i.e. the fundamental sacramental-eucharistic and episcopal structure in the sense that unity in the Eucharist and episcopate in Apostolic Succession are regarded as constitutive for being the Church. With respect to this basic structure there is broad consensus between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the East. It was this conviction that also guided Cardinal Franz König when he founded Pro Oriente sixty years ago and placed this Foundation at the service of reconciliation in the Church between East and West.[2]
1. Overcoming the first church divisions after the Council of Chalcedon
This common ground first became visible in the ecumenical dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches that had separated from the imperial church back in the fourth and fifth century. This was because they had not accepted the Christological doctrinal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that, since he is true God and true man, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, which are recognised as “unmixed, unchanged, non-separated and indivisible”. Hence the distinction between the Chalcedonian Churches, to which the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the churches arising from the 16th century Reformations in the Western Church belong, and the pre-Chalcedonian churches,[3] which include the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, the Patriarchates of the Armenian Apostolic Church with their seats in Etchmiadzin and in Antelias, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch – including the Malankara Syrian Orthodox -, the Orthodox Tewahedo Churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.[4]
The theological reason for the divisions occurring in the fifth century was disagreement about appropriate wording for confessing Christ. Since the very core of Christian faith was at stake, it goes without saying that the ecumenical conversations between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have primarily dealt with Christological questions. The theological dialogues soon led to a gratifying result, namely that the Christological arguments in the past had basically been a matter of language, as they had used different philosophical and theological terms, physis and prosopon, for nature and person, but fundamentally wanted to testify to the same church faith in Christ.[5]
The theological consensus reached in the ecumenical conversations paved the way for the later official church dialogues and the subsequent Christological declarations with the same theological content between the Bishop of Rome and heads of various Oriental Orthodox Churches.[6] As early as in 1971, Pope Paul VI and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Mar Ignatius Jacob III, noted in their joint declaration, “that there is no difference in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and really man, even if over the centuries difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions by which this faith was expressed”.[7] Some years later, Pope John Paul II and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius Zakk I Iwas, reaffirmed the agreement on confessing Christ and, building on it, signed a pastoral agreement enabling the faithful in particular pastoral situations to receive the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from priests of either Church. This agreement merits the attribute ‘historical’, as for the first time in history, despite continuing church separation, a limited communicatio in sacris was opened up between the two churches.[8]
The respective Bishop of Rome also made joint declarations with other Oriental Orthodox church leaders on Christological differences and overcoming them in ecumenical dialogues. This made a considerable contribution to officially settling Christological differences between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, 1500 years after the Council of Chalcedon. These pleasing developments facilitated the founding in 2003 of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches; it has meanwhile adopted three documents, which were republished to mark its twentieth anniversary in 2023 in the series Collana Ut Unum Sint.[9]
The first document, issued in 2009 and called “Nature, Constitution and Mission of the Church”, was able to point to a broad consensus on fundamental ecclesiological principles – such as the mystery of the church, the ministry of bishop in apostolic succession, synodality and primacy, and the Church’s mission; it then listed the points needing further study.
The second document, published in 2015 and entitled “The Exercise of Communion in the Life of the Early Church and its Implications for our Search for Communion Today”, examined the nature of the relations that existed between the churches on the basis of the common conviction of sharing the same faith in the period before the splits of the fifth century. It was able to show that full communion had been preserved between the churches in different fields such as in the exchange of letters and visits, at synods and councils to resolve problems of doctrine and discipline, at prayers and other liturgical ceremonies, in the venerating of shared saints and martyrs, on pilgrimages to sanctuaries and in developing monastic life in the different churches.
2022 saw the publication of the third document “The Sacraments in the Life of the Church”, in which broad areas of agreement were detected both in theology and in liturgical and pastoral practice, even though open questions remain to be worked on further.
In its fourth phase, the ecumenical commission is devoting itself to aspects of Mariology under the heading “The Holy Virgin Mary in the Teaching and the Life of the Church”. After that, the commission will again turn to ecclesiological problems and certainly also to the question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, in order to take essential steps on the path towards regaining unity.
Finally, it must be mentioned that the Catholic Church is conducting its own dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East, which only recognises the Council of Nicaea of the year 325 and the Council of Constantinople of 381, but has not accepted the Council of Ephesus of 431 and which individual Oriental Orthodox Churches regard as “Nestorian” and as not belonging to their ecclesial communion. This dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East likewise began with a Common Christological Declaration between Pope John Paul II and Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV in 1994.[10] After that, the ecumenical commission published two documents, in 2017 a “Common Statement on ‘Sacramental Life’” and in 2022 “The Images of the Church in the Syriac and Latin Patristic Traditions”.
The pleasing results of the ecumenical dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox Churches were mainly made possible due to the realisation that, behind the theological problems leading to church divisions in history, lay largely cultural differences, which contributed most to the loss of understanding between people in the Western and Eastern Churches. This estrangement on both sides was at least one of the main reasons for later divisions in the Church in the East and in the West,[11] as Cardinal Walter Kasper rightly assesses: “Christianity did not primarily grow apart through discussion and quibbling over different wording of doctrine - it happened through living apart.”[12]
2. Overcoming the separation between East and West
An analogous insight also suggests itself in view of what is called the Great Schism in the Eastern and Western Church in the 11th century. This is mostly associated with the year 1054, when Rome and Constantinople each excommunicated the other. Yet it was less a historic than a symbolic date, especially as no actual schism had taken place between East and West in the Church and no final, reciprocal condemnation took place formally – neither in 1054 nor at any other date. The Graz Orthodox theologian Grigorius Larentzakis put this aptly: “No schism, but still divided.”[13] So it is preferable not to speak of a schism but of an increasing estrangement developing between East and West in the Church.
A first, promising step was taken to clear up the reciprocal sense of estrangement when, sixty years ago, on 5 and 6 January 1964, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras met in Jerusalem and embraced in a brotherly way. This memorable encounter paved the way for the historical event on 7 December 1965 when, in the Patriarchal Church of St George in Constantinople and in the Pontifical Basilica of St Peter in Rome, the highest representatives of the two churches declared their common wish to “remove the [reciprocal] sentences of excommunication”, dating back to 1054 but still remembered today, “both from the memory and from the midst of the church”, this memory having “hindered loser relations in charity”.[14]
These significant acts became the starting point for the ecumenical dialogue of the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Churches, which was proclaimed in a joint declaration on the occasion of the first visit by Pope John Paul II to Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I on the Feast of St Andrew in Constantinople in 1979.[15] The theological dialogue seeking truth could here start from the happy realisation that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a broad basis of beliefs held in common.
The different documents published by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and which Pro Oriente has made available in its own volume,[16] show that the dialogue proved particularly fruitful during the first decade, in the years between 1980 and 1990. This is because it was possible to note extensive convergencies between Orthodox and Catholic theology in important questions such as the understanding of the Church and the Sacraments, the relationship between faith, sacrament and church unity, and the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Church’s sacramental structure.
In the second decade in the years 1990 to 2000, the ecumenical conversations became more and more difficult, increasingly focusing, as they did, on the problems of Uniatism and proselytism, in which the Orthodox side saw the greatest risk to ecumenical dialogue. After a long phase and difficult commission plenaries in Balamand and Baltimore, the ecumenical dialogue was interrupted in the year 2000 by the Orthodox side.
With the insight that the question of Uniatism cannot be separated from the primacy issue, and that progress can only be made in ecumenical dialogue when participants return to the fundamental issue, the Commission was able to resume its theological work in 2006 and, at the plenary in Ravenna the following year, adopt the important document: “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”.[17] This momentous document expresses, above all, the double theological conviction that synodality and primacy are mutually dependent in the sense that primacy cannot exist without synodality, nor can synodality without primacy, and that this correlation must be accomplished at all levels of the Church, the local, the regional and the universal. With this document Catholics and Orthodox can state together, for the first time, that the Church needs a protos even at the universal level. The document concludes by expressing the conviction that the reflections offered constitute “positive and significant progress in our dialogue” and provide a “firm basis for future discussion of primacy at the universal level in the Church” (46).
This result may be respected as a milestone in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. On this basis – again after a long, difficult phase – a new document was adopted at the plenary in Chieti in 2016: “Synodality and Primacy in the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church.”[18] While this document depicts the relationship between synodality and primacy in the first millennium shared by East and West, the plenary in Alexandria in 2023 adopted a further document on the various developments in the second millennium, entitled: “Primacy and Synodality in the Second Millennium and Today”.
In future activity the Commission will take up the topic: “Towards unity in faith. Theological and canonical questions”. Its first step will be to gather up what has already been achieved in theological dialogue, in order, as the second step, to name those theological and canonical questions that still need to be resolved so as to rediscover the unity in faith between Orthodox and Catholics that will open the way to Eucharistic communion.
3. Necessary perspectives for the further ecumenical journey
Ecumenical dialogue should find this a promising course for the future, even if it will by no means be easier, due to the shadow cast by the decision of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate no longer to attend the Joint International Commission because Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.[19] Nonetheless, the Commission will continue with its work of dialogue, aware that the aim cannot be to compromise on the lowest common denominator, and that both sides need to be willing to learn – along the lines of the Catholic Church increasingly adjusting its structures in a synodal manner and the Orthodox Churches recognizing a certain primacy within the universal communion of churches.[20]
In order for the ecumenical dialogue to be able to make progress in this direction, it will need to deal with questions that have not been discussed so far and where we will, in turn, depend on the competent assistance of Pro Oriente, in the manner this foundation has always rendered it. Marking the 60th anniversary of its founding, we especially recall hat already the very first Pro Oriente consultation, taking place in 1971 in Vienna with representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, was tasked with analysing the difficult conflict around the Council of Chalcedon and hence working through the burdensome past. As we remember with appreciation, it was able to express a broad consensus in faith in Christ in the famous “Viennese Christological formula”.[21] Since then, Pro Oriente has always dedicated itself intensively to the East-West dialogue, has taken on important ecumenical responsibilities on behalf of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, and has cooperated very well with the Dicastery, for example recently when holding conferences on the theology and practice of synodality in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, which were organised in preparation for the Synod of Bishops on synodality.[22]
A certainly sensitive but unavoidable question that I would like to commend for the ecumenical dialogue is about the relationship between faith and politics and between church and state. A study in this context suggests itself since very different conceptions have evolved in the Eastern and Western Church: it was a long, complicated process for the Church in the West to learn – but it did learn − that the appropriate organisation of the relations between church and state lies in their separation with, at the same time, partnership between these two realities.
By contrast, in the churches of the East, a close connection between the state authorities and church hierarchy came to prevail, and has remained to this day, often termed a “symphony” of church and state. It is above all expressed in the Orthodox conceptions of autocephaly and canonical territory. This idea entails a close bond between Orthodox churches and their respective nation, and they exist as national churches. Their strength consequently lies in the fact that they are encultured in the respective society in which the faithful live. There is a risk, however, that the national churches frequently show strong tendencies to promote nationalism.
Of course, the question about the relationship between church and state is urgent in ecumenical discussion today not only because of the serious political liabilities weighing on the “symphony” of state and church in some individual churches in the East, above all in the Russian Orthodox Church;[23] this question also lies behind various theological and specifically ecclesiological discussions which, to that extent, have an impact on ecumenical relations. I am thinking, above all, of the crucial issue in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue about the relationship between the local and the universal church. In this respect, too, both sides need to be willing to learn: on one hand, the Catholic Church – by contrast with a one-sided universalist unity ecclesiology in the past – expressed theological appreciation of the local churches by rediscovering the plural “churches” at the Second Vatican Council. The Catholic Church is thereby featuring more clearly in the interwoven relations between a multiplicity of local churches and the unity of the universal church. On the other hand, there is strong local church ecclesiology in Orthodoxy, which consequently means that the universal dimension of the church is largely underplayed. It is therefore desirable that Orthodoxy opens up more to the universal dimension of the church; without reaffirming this dimension it is hardly possible to reflect together about a ministry of unity at the universal level. Hence, this question lends itself to closer attention in future, along with the underlying issue about the relationship between church and state, which is one of the least explored topics in the ecumenical conversations to date.
Furthermore, in my eyes it is time the ecumenical conversations also focused intensively on liturgies in the different churches. After all, on the one hand, the pain still felt about the existing church divisions and the continuing lack of communion among Christians is nowhere so visible and tangible as in worship life. On the one hand, the ecumenical experience shows that Christians in different churches can come closer to one another in liturgical praise of God, in doxology than in theology. Since the different churches doubtless preserve their costly gifts in their liturgical life and find their greatest wealth in their liturgies, the Second Vatican Council’s definition of the essence of ecumenism as a sharing of gifts also invites the different churches to engage in exchange on the topic of their liturgical gifts. This insight is certainly also a strong motive for deepening the ecumenical dimension of liturgical celebration and reflecting on the ecumenical significance of doxology, in order to be able to make an important contribution to regaining Christian unity.[24] Digging deeper into this topic is also something I’d like to entrust to Pro Oriente, particularly as it has already devoted itself to liturgy as a “challenge for ecumenism”[25] and, what’s more, the relationship between liturgy and ecumenism is a special research focus in Liturgical Studies at the Theology Faculty of the University of Vienna.[26]
Studying these important topics would certainly fit in well with preparations for the Great Jubilee that Christians can celebrate next year − the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in church history. This took place in the year 325 in Nicaea and, countering the then widespread teachings of the Alexandrian theologian Arius, proclaimed the creed that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is “essentially identical with the Father”.[27] The council took place back in the age when the church was not yet wounded by the numerous later divisions. Its Christological confession therefore, to this day, connects all Christian churches and ecclesial communities in the East and West, and its ecumenical significance is consequently of inestimable value. After all, to ecumenically regain church unity there needs to be agreement on the basic content of faith, not just among the churches in the present day but also with the Church of the past, above all with its Apostolic origin. Hence the 1700th anniversary will be a wonderful opportunity for the whole of Christendom in ecumenical fellowship to remember this council and reassure itself of its Christological confession, while being conscious of the fact that the Arian heresy is not simply a thing of the past but is still around today.
This brings us back to the Christological question which, through its in-depth ecumenical studies, Pro Oriente very creditably addressed early on, in the awareness that unity in the East and West stands or falls with the common confession of faith in Christ in the one Church. Seeing that the Nicaea Jubilee concerns all Christians in the East and West, preparing for and celebrating it will certainly be something close to the heart of the Pro Oriente Foundation, since it has been committed to reconciliation in the church between East and West from the very beginning. The 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Pro Oriente Foundation is therefore a welcome occasion for us to reverently recall its inspirational founder, Cardinal Franz König, to sincerely thank the Foundation for its great ecumenical work and to wish it God’s blessing for fruitful endeavours in the future.
[1] Benedict XVI, Meeting with representatives of Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches in Freiburg im Breisgau, 24 September 2011. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110924_orthodox-freiburg.html
[2] D. W. Winkler, Wann kommt die Einheit? Ökumene als Programm und Herausforderung = Kardinal König Bibliothek. Band 4 (Wien 2014).
[3] E. Ch. Suttner, Vorchalcedonische und chalcedonische Christologie. Die eine Wahrheit in unterschiedlicher Begrifflichkeit, in: Ders., Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt. Neue Aufsätze zu Theologie, Geschichte und Spiritualität des christlichen Ostens (Würzburg 2003) 155-170.
[4] Ch. Lange, K. Pinggéra (eds), Die altorientalischen Kirchen. Glaube und Geschichte (Darmstadt, 2010); P. Sinicalco, Le Antiche Chiese Orientali. Storia e letteratura (Roma 2005).
[5] K. Kardinal Koch, Jesus der Christus: Grund der Einheit oder Motiv der Trennung? in: Th. Hainthaler, D. Ansorge, A. Wucherpfennig (eds), Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche. Christologie – Kirchen des Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge (Freiburg i. Br. 2019) 365-384.
[6] Th. Hainthaler, Hermeneutische Aspekte bei christologischen Erklärungen mit den Kirchen des Ostens, in: S. Ernst, G. Gade (Hrsg.), Glaubensverantwortung in Theologie, Pastoral und Ethik = Festschrift für Peter Knauer (Freiburg i. Br. 2015) 146-171.
[7] Common Declaration of his Holiness Pope Paul VI and his Holiness Mar Ignatius Jacoub III: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1971/october/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19711027_dichiarazione-comune.html
[8] J. Oeldemann, Gemeinsamer Glaube und pastorale Zusammenarbeit. 25 Jahre Weggemeinschaft zwischen der Syrisch-Orthodoxen Kirche und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche (Basel 2011).
[9] The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. 20th Anniversary (2003-2023) = Collana Ut Unum Sint 6 (Città del Vaticano, 2024).
[10] Common Christological Declaration between Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1994/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19941111_dichiarazione-cristologica.html
[11] Y. Congar, Zerstrittene Christenheit. Wo trennten sich Ost und West (Wien 1959).
[12] W. Cardinal Kasper, Wege der Einheit. Perspektiven für die Ökumene (Freiburg i. Br. 2005) 208.
[13] G. Larentzakis, Kein Schisma, trotzdem getrennt, in: Die Tagespost vom 27 June 2021.
[14] Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html, 4. B.
[15] The statement drafted in Greek and French was published in L´Osservatore Romano of 1 December 1979.
[16] Herausforderung sichtbare Einheit. Beiträge zu den Dokumenten des katholisch-orthodoxen Dialogs. Hrsg. von Johann Marte unter Mitarbeit von Faustyna Anna Kadzielawa (Würzburg 2014).
[17] Ravenna Document. Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese.html
[18] Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service of the Unity of the Church http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html
[19] B. Hallensleben (Hrsg.), Orthodoxe Kirche in der Ukraine – wohin? Dokumente zur Debatte um die Autokephalie = Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 92 (Münster 2019); J. Oeldemann, Orthodoxe Kirchen in der Ukraine. Zum Spannungsfeld zwischen Konstantinopel und Moskau, in: Stimmen der Zeit 144 (2019) 279-294.
[20] These perspectives are also found in the ecumenical conclusions of the study by the St Ireneus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working-Group entitled „Im Dienst an der Gemeinschaft. Das Verhältnis von Primat und Synodalität neu denken (Paderborn 2018). See also H. Destivelle, Conduis-la vers l´unité parfaite. Oecuménisme et synodalité (Paris 2018).
[21] D. Winkler, Ökumene zwischen Stolper- und Meilensteinen. Der Dialog von PRO ORIENTE mit den orientalisch-orthodoxen Kirchen, in: J. Marte, R. Prokschi (eds.), WERKSTATT PRO ORIENTE. Erfolgsgeschichte eines Ost-West-Dialogs (1964-2014) = PRO ORIENTE Band XXVIII (Innsbruck – Wien 2014) 100-123.
[22] Listening to the East. Synodality in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church Traditions. Ed. by Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum and Pro Oriente Foundation = Collana Ut unum sint 4 (Città del Vaticano, 2023).
[23] J. Oeldemann, Kaum noch zukunftsfähig? Krieg in der Ukraine: Ende des „byzantinischen“ Modells, in: KNA - Ökumenische Information. Dokumentation vom 22. März 2022, I-III, zit. I.
[24] K. Cardinal Koch, Liturgiereform und Einheit der christlichen Kirchen, in: G. W. Lathrop / M. Stuflesser (Hrsg.), Liturgiereformen in den Kirchen. 50 Jahre nach Sacrosanctum concilium = Theologie der Liturgie. Band 5 (Regensburg 2013) 111-124.
[25] R. Augustin u.a., Liturgie als Chance und Herausforderung für die Ökumene. Beiträge der Liturgiewissenschaft zur Einheit der Kirchen = PRO ORIENTE Band XLI (Innsbruck-Wien2018).
[26] H.-J. Feulner / D. Seper (Hrsg.), 50 Jahre Liturgiewissenschaft und Sakramententheologie an der Universität Wien. Rückblicke – Einblicke – Ausblicke = Österreichische Studien zur Liturgiewissenschaft und Sakramententheologie. Band 12 (Wien 2020).
[27] K. Cardinal Koch, Auf dem Weg zu einer ökumenischen Feier des 1700. Jahrestags des Konzils von Nicaea (325 – 2023), in: P. Knauer, A. Riedl, D. W. Winkler (Hrsg.), Patrologie und Ökumene. Theresia Hainthaler zum 75. Geburtstag (Freiburg i. Br. 2022) 320-341.