ON THE PATH TO UNITY
Challenges in the current ecumenical context
Lecture to the priests and pastoral staff of the Apostolic Vicariate in Istanbul, 1 December 2024
I. Review of the historical divisions in the Church
In the two thousand years of Christianity, a great number and variety of divisions in the Church can be observed. The ecumenical decree of the Second Vatican Council ‘Unitatis redintegratio’, however, allows a distinction to be made between two ‘special categories of divisions’, ‘through which the Seamless Robe of Christ was struck’ [1]. On the one hand, the division in the Church between East and West in the 11th century and, on the other hand, the divisions within the Western Church in the 16th century. These are different primary forms of division, which are being dealt with in various ecumenical dialogues. In order to adequately perceive the challenges in the current ecumenical situation and explore further steps on the path to unity, it therefore seems appropriate to account for the extent to which understanding has progressed in these dialogues and what the remaining issues are.
1. Overcoming the first schisms in the Church after the Council of Chalcedon
Prior to the great division in the Church between East and West in the 11th century, the first schisms in the history of Christianity already occurred in the East during the fourth and fifth centuries, as individual ecclesial communities had not accepted the Christological doctrinal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and therefore separated from the imperial Church. Hence a distinction is made between the Chalcedonian churches, to which the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the churches that emerged from the Reformations in the Western Church in the 16th century belong, and the pre-Chalcedonian churches, which include the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, the patriarchates of the Armenian Apostolic Church based in Etchmiadzin and Antelias, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch - including the Syriac Malankarian Church -, the Orthodox Tewahedo Churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea and the Orthodox Syriac Malankarian Church. [2]
The theological reason for the divisions occurring in the fifth century was the dispute over the appropriate formulation of the confession of Jesus Christ. In this regard, the Council of Chalcedon had taught that, since he is true God and true man, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, which are recognised as “unmixed, unchanged, unseparated and indivisible”. In contrast, the pre-Chalcedonian churches held to the belief, expressed in particular by Cyril of Alexandria, that the one divine nature was made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth.
This dispute struck at the heart of the Christian faith. Consequently, it is clear that the ecumenical dialogues between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches primarily centred on Christological issues. These theological discussions ultimately revealed that the Christological disagreements of the time were largely a matter of language. Different philosophical and theological concepts of "physis" (nature) and "prosopon" (person) were employed, yet the fundamental belief in Christ remained unchanged.
The theological consensus reached in the ecumenical conversations paved the way for the later official ecclesial dialogues and the subsequent Christological declarations with the same theological content between the Bishop of Rome and heads of various Oriental Orthodox Churches. These declarations shared the same theological content, allowing for a unified faith in the mystery of the Word of God who became flesh and truly human. These joint declarations have allowed for the official resolution of the Christological differences between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, 1500 years after the Council of Chalcedon. [3]
Building on these encouraging developments, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was established in 2003. Since then, this commission has adopted three documents, which have been republished in the ‘Collana Ut Unum Sint’ to mark the twentieth anniversary of its establishment. [4]
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 episcopate 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 divisions 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.
The third document, “The Sacraments in the Life of the Church,” was published in 2022, revealing broad areas of agreement in theology and in liturgical and pastoral practice, despite some open questions that still need further exploration.
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”. However, the plenary meeting last January was overshadowed by the tensions caused by the ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which led to the suspension of the dialogue. Consequently, separate meetings will be held next January to explore ways of resuming the ecumenical dialogue, with a focus on important ecclesiological issues, including the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
The Catholic Church is also in dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East, which did not adopt the Council of Ephesus in 431 and is therefore not recognised by some Oriental Orthodox churches as part of their community. This dialogue began with a Common Christological Declaration between Pope John Paul II and Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV in 1994. [5] Subsequently, the ecumenical commission published two documents: first, a Common Statement on ‘Sacramental Life’ in 2017, and then ‘The Images of the Church in the Syriac and Latin Patristic Traditions’ in 2022.
2. Overcoming the division in the Church between East and West
The positive outcomes of the ecumenical dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox Churches are largely due to the recognition that cultural differences were a significant factor behind the theological issues that have historically caused divisions. These differences played a significant role in the inability of the Church in the East and West to understand one another. To a large extent, this mutual alienation has contributed to later divisions in the church between East and West. [6] A similar insight emerges regarding the so-called Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th century, primarily linked to the year 1054, when Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other.
Yet it was less a historic than a symbolic date, especially as no schism in the true sense of the word had taken place within the Church between East and West and no definitive mutual 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.” [7] From this perspective, it seems more appropriate to speak not of a schism, but rather of an increasing alienation within the Church between East and West. [8]
To overcome this alienation, Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I announced the start of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches with a Joint Declaration on the Feast of St. Andrew in Constantinople in 1979. The various documents published by this commission [9] over the past decades demonstrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches share a significant common basis of faith convictions. Notably, during the first decade from 1980 to 1990, there were extensive convergences on important issues, such as the understanding of the Church and the sacraments, the relationship between faith, sacrament, and the unity of the Church, as well as the sacrament of Holy Orders within the Church's sacramental structure. [10]
In the second decade, from 1990 to 2000, the ecumenical conversations became increasingly difficult, with a growing focus on the problems of Uniatism and Proselytism, which the Orthodox side saw as the greatest threat to ecumenical dialogue. After a prolonged and challenging series of plenary sessions 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”. [11] This momentous document expresses, above all, the dual 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. This result may be considered 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”. [12] 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: “Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today”.
In its future work, the Commission will take up the topic: “Towards unity in faith. Theological and canonical issues”. In this context, the Coordination Committee established two subcommittees during its meeting in Bari in June 2024, each of which will prepare a document on the topics of the filioque and infallibility. 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 the restoration of Eucharistic communion.
The need for a renewed ecclesial love to lead to Eucharistic agape was expressed over fifty years ago by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, who spoke with a deep longing for unity: "The hour of Christian courage has come. We love one another; we profess the same common faith. Let us set out together before the glory of the common holy altar to fulfil the Lord's will, so that the Church may shine, so that the world may believe, and the peace of God may come upon all." [13]
3. Overcoming the divisions in the Western Church in the 16th century
The Second Vatican Council already recognised the Eastern Churches in a special way, viewing them as ‘sister churches’ in a fundamental communion of local churches. [14] This recognition is based on their shared ecclesiological structure, which developed in the second century alongside that of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches, having the ministry of Bishop in Apostolic Succession and administering all valid sacraments, are recognised by the Catholic Church as possessing the essential elements that constitute them as particular churches. In contrast, when it comes to overcoming the divisions in the Western Church in the 16th century, we face different starting conditions, as the Reformations of the 16th century produced a different type of ecclesial identity, which differs significantly from the ecclesial structure of the early Church. As a result, ecumenical dialogue with the churches and ecclesial communities that arose from the Reformations cannot merely focus on specific doctrinal differences, such as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but must address fundamental ecclesiological issues.
a) Debate about the ecumenical goal
This observation has already become clear in the ecumenical dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation, which was the first ecumenical dialogue initiated by the Catholic Church immediately after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council and has proven to be quite fruitful in recent decades. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed in Augsburg on 31 October 1999, by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, marked a significant step toward deeper communion. [15] This declaration is considered an ecumenical milestone, as it achieved a broad consensus on what was likely the most central issue that contributed to the Reformation and the subsequent schism in the 16th century. [16] However, the declaration also notes that the ecclesiological consequences have yet to be fully addressed. This indicates that clarifying the understanding of the Church must now be a primary focus of ecumenical dialogue with the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations.
This is also connected to the observation that, in dialogues with Reformation churches, a truly sustainable agreement on the goal of the ecumenical movement has not yet been achieved. The primary reason for this is that the diverse confessional understandings of the Church and its unity remain irreconcilably side by side. Since each church and ecclesial community has and realises its own distinct understanding of what it means to be the Church and to achieve unity, they also seek to apply their confessional perspectives to the ecumenical goal. As a result, there are essentially as many conceptions of the ecumenical goal as there are confessional ecclesiologies. [17]
The Catholic Church identifies the signs and criteria for the unity of the Church based on the description of the life of the Jerusalem community in the Acts of the Apostles (2:42). This passage highlights three essential elements that constitute the unity of the Church: unity in faith, in worship, and in fraternal communion. The Catholic Church, together with the Orthodox Churches, remains committed to the original shared understanding of the goal of achieving visible unity in faith, in the sacraments, and in ecclesiastical ministries. In contrast, many of the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations have largely moved away from this idea of unity, replacing it with the postulate of mutual recognition of the different ecclesial realities as Churches and thus as parts of the one Church of Jesus Christ. This does not postulate a fundamental invisibility of the church; however, the visible unity merely consists in the addition of the existing ecclesial realities.
As early as 1980, the Joint Evangelical-Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission highlighted the challenges in ecumenical relations with Protestant communities in its consensus text "Paths to Communion." It emphasised the need for a "common vision," stating, "We need a 'common vision' because we will continue to live apart unless we focus on a shared goal. If we interpret this goal differently, then, if we are consistent, we will inevitably move in opposite directions." [18] If the various partners in ecumenism do not share a common goal and instead have vastly different interpretations of what is essential for the unity of the Church, there is a significant risk that they will pursue divergent paths, only to later realise they have drifted even further apart than before.
This highlights the challenging state of ecumenism today: on the one hand, during earlier phases of the ecumenical movement, significant and encouraging consensus was reached on many previously contentious issues related to the understanding of faith and the theological structure of the Church. On the other hand, most of the existing confessional differences are concentrated in the various understandings of the ecumenical unity of the Church. This duality highlights the fundamental paradox of the current ecumenical situation, which can be encapsulated in the diagnosis of Bishop Paul-Werner Scheele: ‘There is agreement on the “that” of unity and disagreement on the “what”.’ [19]
It is essential, therefore, to establish a new consensus regarding the ecumenical goal. Given that the lack of understanding surrounding this goal largely stems from a widespread lack of clarity about the nature of the Church and its unity, it is crucial to reflect on what is meant by the Church from an ecumenical standpoint. [20] In light of this context, I proposed that the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue should focus future discussions on the topics of Church, Eucharist, and Ministry, with the aim of drafting a new Joint Declaration on these matters. I am grateful to note that this proposal has already been favourably received: The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in the United States has published a document titled "Declaration on the Way: Church, Eucharist and Ministry," [21] and the Lutheran-Catholic Commission in Finland has also recently released the results of its ecumenical dialogue under the title "Communion in Growth: Declaration on Church, Eucharist and Ministry." [22] If we could reach a greater consensus on these issues, it would undoubtedly represent a significant step towards visible church communion.
b) Pluralisation of new movements
The absence of a viable consensus on the ecumenical goal, along with the increasing pluralisation of different conceptions of the ecumenical goal over time, is also connected to the growing involvement of individuals and Christian communities in the ecumenical movement, which is, in itself, a positive development. In practical terms, this means that ecumenical encounters and dialogues now involve not only the historic mainline churches but also numerous new Christian movements, particularly within the Protestant sphere. Of particular significance in this context is the rapid and substantial growth of charismatic, evangelical, and Pentecostal groups.
Pentecostalism, in particular, with approximately five hundred million members, is the second largest Christian community after the Roman Catholic Church. It represents such an expanding phenomenon that one might refer to a current "Pentecostalisation" of Christianity or consider it as a new, distinct "fourth form of Christianity," [23] alongside the Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox churches, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations.
The rapid growth of the so-called Pentecostal churches represents one of the fundamental challenges in today’s ecumenical landscape. Since these new movements, according to their own self-understanding, do not have direct roots in the Reformations of the 16th century, but rather see themselves as the fruit of a new Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is understandable that in ecumenical dialogues with these movements, different themes are at the forefront compared to conversations with the historic mainline churches.
A sensitive distinction must therefore be made. Dialogue with communities and movements that hold anti-ecumenical views and take a decidedly anti-Catholic stance can prove difficult or even impossible; one cannot impose dialogue without undermining its very essence. However, experience shows that it is indeed possible to engage in respectful and trusting dialogue with evangelical and Pentecostal movements. Like the ecumenical dialogue with Pentecostals, this dialogue too is not aimed at achieving "organic unity" or a "structural unity," but rather seeks to bring Christians closer together “through prayer and shared witness.” [24]
A discernment of spirits is essential, particularly in light of one of the key strengths of Pentecostal communities, which is their well-defined sense of evangelistic awareness, from which the historical mainline churches could certainly benefit. However, these churches must resist the temptation to adopt the sometimes problematic evangelistic methods of individual movements. The most basic of these is the practice of attracting members from other churches. We Catholics, in contrast, must advocate that Christian evangelisation is a genuinely free process that respects the freedom of others and refrains from any form of proselytism. Just as this matter has been thoroughly examined in the fourth phase of the international dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and certain classical Pentecostal churches, [25] ecumenical dialogue with Evangelical and Pentecostal movements too must likewise prioritise a shared approach to evangelisation that avoids any semblance of proselytism. For proselytism stands in direct opposition to ecumenism.
c) Dissent on anthropological and ethical issues
Today, ecumenical dialogue with Protestant faith communities faces a significant challenge. There have been considerable tensions and divergences in the ecumenical landscape in recent years, particularly in the realm of ethics. It seems paradoxical that, while it has been possible to a large extent to overcome old denominational differences in faith—or at least to draw them closer together—major disparities have now emerged, especially concerning ethical issues. In earlier phases of the ecumenical movement, the guiding principle was: ‘Faith divides—action unites’; however, this has since been inverted, so to speak, with faith now uniting us while ethics, particularly, causes division. Serious divergences have surfaced within the ecumenical context regarding ethical matters, especially in two areas: firstly, the ethical questions surrounding marriage, family, and sexuality, particularly in light of today’s gender mainstreaming, and secondly, the bioethical challenges related to the beginning and end of human life.
For the future of ecumenism, it will be crucial to confront this challenge and engage deeply with the divergences that have emerged in the area of ethics. If Christian churches and communities cannot articulate a unified stance on the significant ethical issues surrounding human life and social coexistence, the Christian voice will diminish in today’s secularised societies, undermining the credibility of ecumenism in the public eye.
Moreover, there is another challenge: upon closer examination of the developments mentioned, there is a strong suspicion that these ethical issues primarily stem from questions concerning the concept of humanity. [26] This is because ethical guidelines can only be comprehended when we reflect on the human subject who embodies ethical behaviour. Ultimately, ethical questions are determined by the understanding of humanity that one adheres to; and this, in turn, is influenced by one's perception of God. [27] Consequently, Christian ecumenism faces the significant task of returning to the biblical understanding of humanity and, in ecumenical fellowship, giving an account of this, in order to overcome the differences in ethics and anthropology that have emerged in the meantime. Thus, in contemporary ecumenism, the restoration of a shared Christian anthropology is an urgent imperative.
II. Major jubilees as ecumenical challenges
The review of various ecumenical dialogues, their successes, and the outstanding issues and problems they encounter has demonstrated that ecumenism today faces no shortage of challenges. However, there are also significant occasions within the current ecumenical landscape that could turn out to be ecumenical milestones. Thus, two important ecumenical events scheduled for the near future warrant particular emphasis.
1. 700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council
The year 2025 promises to be a significant ecumenical moment as the entirety of Christianity commemorates the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 325. [28] In response to the then-prevalent teachings of the Alexandrian theologian Arius, who promoted a strong philosophical form of monotheism, the Council Fathers affirmed the creed declaring that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is ‘consubstantial with the Father’. Amidst the crisis of the time, sparked by the question of Christ—which had become a challenge for Christian monotheism—the Council demonstrated how the Christian confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God could be harmonised with the equally Christian belief in the one true God, in the framework of Trinitarian monotheism.
The Council of Nicaea took place at a time when the Church had not yet suffered from the numerous divisions that would follow. Its Christological confession is therefore shared by the Eastern Churches, the Catholic Church, and the churches and ecclesial communities that arose from the Reformations. This confession continues to unite all Christian churches and ecclesial communities to this day and should not be underestimated in its ecumenical significance. For the ecumenical restoration of visible unity of the Church requires consensus on the essential tenets of the Christian faith—not only among today’s churches and ecclesial communities, but also in agreement with the Church of the past, particularly its apostolic origins.
The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea presents a welcome and timely opportunity for all of Christianity to commemorate this Council in ecumenical fellowship and to reaffirm in a new way its Christological confession, in which unity in faith is deeply rooted. This reassessment is particularly relevant, as the spirit of Arius is by no means a relic of the past, even in the current ecclesial and ecumenical situation; Arian tendencies can still be observed today. As early as the 1990s, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger identified the pressing challenge of a ‘new Arianism’, or, more mildly, a ‘marked resurgence of Nestorianism’. [29] Thus, the study of the Council of Nicaea is not merely of historical interest; the ecumenical community is also called to confront today’s shared challenges during this anniversary year.
The ecumenical significance of the Council of Nicaea also stems from its engagement with disciplinary and canonical issues, which are articulated in twenty canons that provide valuable insight into the pastoral challenges and concerns of the Church at the beginning of the fourth century. Alongside matters relating to the clergy, jurisdictional disputes, and instances of apostasy, the question of the date of Easter takes centre stage. Given that the ecumenical community continues to grapple with establishing a common date for Easter today, this issue too remains particularly relevant and pressing. It would indeed be a positive sign of mature ecumenical fellowship if the anniversary of the Council were to serve as a unique opportunity to renew and strengthen efforts to determine a common date for Easter in the future.
From an ecumenical perspective, the Council of Nicaea holds particular significance as it exemplifies how the Church engaged in a synodal process to discuss and decide this fundamentally important issue during the conflict over the Orthodox confession of Christ at the time. The revitalisation of the synodal dimension of the Church, which remains crucial in ecumenism today, is not merely a new concept. Instead, today's quest for renewed synodal life and structures can draw upon the synodal traditions of the early Church. Given that synodality has evolved differently across various churches and ecclesial communities, there is much to learn from one another in ecumenical dialogues on this matter. [30] Pope Francis has consistently highlighted the close relationship between synodality and ecumenism, stating: “The path of synodality that the Catholic Church is currently undertaking must be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical path is synodal.” [31]
2. 500th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession
Another significant moment in the ecumenical discussions with ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations will be the year 2030, when we will commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Diet of Augsburg and the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V on 25 June 1530. [32] At that time, the Protestant princes and the imperial seat conducted this handover with the intention that the Confession should serve as a testimony to the Catholic faith, as is clearly stated at the end of the first part: ‘that there is nothing in it that deviates from the Holy Scriptures and from the universal and Roman Church, as we understand it from the writings of the Church Fathers’.
Unfortunately, the goal of preserving unity was not realised at that time. As a result, the Confessio Augustana later became the foundational confessional document for Lutherans. Originally, however, it was not intended to be a document of division, but rather a firm expression of the desire for reconciliation and preservation of unity. The ecumenical working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians in Germany has rightly observed: ‘It is possible that, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, the churches of Western Christianity were indeed closer to each other than they ever were afterwards.’ [33] Given this unique ecumenical significance, one can only hope that the 500th anniversary of the Diet of Augsburg and the Confessio Augustana proclaimed at that time will be celebrated in ecumenical fellowship, in keeping with its original intention, and will serve as a renewed impetus to seek and reclaim the unity that was lost during the time of the Reformations.
III. Ecumenism of the martyrs as an existential proof of credibility
Both commemorations will provide welcome opportunities to reflect on history and gather new strength and motivation for the ecumenical journey both today and in the future. They invite us to recommit ourselves with ecumenical fervour to the question of how we can restore the unity of the Church. We are also called to unity along another path in today’s world, where Christians are being persecuted to an extent that scarcely has historical parallels. For the Christian faith is currently the most persecuted religion in the world. In this context, all Christian churches and communities have their martyrs, and martyrdom today is ecumenical. [34]
Pope John Paul II gave particular attention to the ecumenism of the martyrs in his seminal encyclical on the commitment to ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint. He emphasised that, “from a theocentric perspective”, we Christians already share a ‘common martyrology’ that illustrates ‘how, at a deeper level, God maintains communion among the baptised under the supreme claim of faith, which is witnessed through the sacrifice of life’. [35] Despite the profound tragedy of the persecutions of Christians, John Paul II also recognised a positive message in the ecumenism of the martyrs, perceiving in it just a fundamental unity among us Christians. He hoped that the martyrs would assist us in achieving full communion with one another once again. For while we Christians and churches on this earth remain in imperfect communion, the martyrs are already enjoying complete and perfect communion in heavenly glory.
The blood shed by the martyrs for Christ in today’s world does not divide us Christians; rather, it unites us. In this, we encounter a profound promise in the ecumenism of the martyrs: just as the early Church believed that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of new Christians—Sanguis martyrum semen christianorum—we Christians today can also hope that the blood of so many martyrs in our time will one day prove to be the seed of full ecumenical unity for the one body of Christ, wounded by so many divisions. We can be assured that we have already become one in the blood of the martyrs, and that the suffering of so many Christians is fostering unity that proves stronger than the differences and obstacles that still separate the Christian churches.
In the ecumenism of the martyrs, we can discern the most compelling sign of ecumenism today, which confronts us with the unsettling question raised by Pope Francis: ‘If the enemy unites us in death, how can we remain divided in life?’[36] Is it not shameful that the persecutors of Christians sometimes exhibit a clearer vision of ecumenism than we Christians ourselves? They recognise that we Christians are inseparably united. The ecumenism of the martyrs brings the existential urgency of the ecumenical search for the unity of the Church into sharp focus, allowing us to see the challenges facing ecumenism today and in the future as if magnified through a burning glass.
[1] Unitatis redintegratio, Nr. 13.
[2] Vgl. Ch. Lange, K. Pinggera (Hrsg.), Die altorientalischen Kirchen. Glaube und Geschichte (Darmstadt 2010).
[3] Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Jesus der Christus: Grund der Einheit oder Motiv der Trennung? in: Th. Hainthaler, D. Ansorge, A. Wucherpfennig (Hrsg.), Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche. Christologie – Kirchen des Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge (Freiburg i. Br. 2019) 365-384.
[4] The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. 20. Anniversary (2003-2023) = Collana Ut Unum Sint 6 (Città del Vaticano 2024).
[5] Gemeinsame christologische Erklärung der Katholischen Kirche und der Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens, 1994, in: H. Meyer, D. Papandreou, H. J. Urban, L.Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 3: 1990-2001 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 2003) 596-598.
[6] Vgl. Y. Congar, Zertrennte Christenheit. Wo trennten sich Ost und West (Wien 1959).
[7] G. Larentzakis, Kein Schisma, trotzdem getrennt, in: Die Tagespost vom 27. Juni 2021.
[8] Vgl. E. Ch. Suttner, Das wechselvolle Verhältnis zwischen den Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens im Lauf der Kirchengeschichte (Würzburg 1996).
[9] Vgl. Herausforderung sichtbare Einheit. Beiträge zu den Dokumenten des katholisch-orthodoxen Dialogs. Hrsg. von J. Marte unter Mitarbeit von F. A. Kadziewala (Würzburg 2014).
[10] Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Auf dem Weg zur Wiederherstellung der einen Kirche in Ost und West, in: D. Schon (Hrsg.), Dialog 2.0 – Braucht der orthodox-katholische Dialog neue Impulse? (Regensburg 2017) 19-41.
[11] Dokumentiert in: J. Oeldemann, F. Nüssel, U. Swarat, A. Vletsis (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 4: 2001-2010 (Paderborn – Leipzig 2012) 833-848.
[12] Dokumentiert in: J. Oeldemann. F. Nüssel, U. Swarat, A. Vletsis (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 5: 2011-2019 (Paderborn – Leipzig 2021) 1006-1014.
[13] Télégramme du patriarche Athénagoras au pape Paul VI, à l’occasion de l’anniversaire de la levée des anathèmes le 7 décembre 1969, in: Tomos Agapis. Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome – Istanbul 1971) Nr. 277.
[14] Lumen gentium, Nr. 14.
[15] Dokumentiert in: H. Meyer, D. Papandreou, H. J. Urban, L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 3: 1990-2001 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 2003) 419-441.
[16] Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Ein Meilenstein auf dem Weg zur Einheit der Kirche. Die Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre als ökumenische Errungenschaft und als bleibende Herausforderung, in: B. Oberdorfer und Th. Söding (Hrsg.), Wachsende Zustimmung und offene Fragen. Die Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre im Licht ihrer Wirkung (Freiburg i. Br. 2019) 371-402.
[17] Vgl. G. Hintzen / W. Thönissen, Kirchengemeinschaft möglich. Einheitsverständnis und Einheitskonzepte in der Diskussion (Paderborn 2001); F. W. Graf / D. Korsch (Hrsg.), Jenseits der Einheit. Protestantische Ansichten der Ökumene (Hannover 2001).
[18] Gemeinsame Römisch-katholische / Evangelisch-lutherische Kommission, Wege der Gemeinschaft, in: H. Meyer, H. J. Urban, L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 1: 1931-1982 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1983) 296-322, zit. 297.
[19] P.-W. Scheele, Ökumene – wohin? Unterschiedliche Konzepte kirchlicher Einheit im Vergleich, in: St. Ley, I. Proft. M. Schulze (Hrsg.), Welt vor Gott. Für George Augustin (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 165-179, zit. 165.
[20] Vgl. K. Koch. Welche Einheit suchen wir? Reflexionen zum Ziel der Ökumenischen Bewegung in katholischer Sicht, in: IKaZ Communio 53 (2024) 545-566.
[21] Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – Evangelical-Lutheran Church in America, Declaration on the Way. Church, Ministry, and Eucharist (Minneapolis 2015).
[22] Communion in Growth. Declaration on the Church, Eucharist, and Ministry. A Report from the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue-Commission for Finland (Helsinki 2017).
[23] M. Eckholt, Pentekostalismus. Eine neue «Grundform» des Christseins. Eine theologische Orientierung zum Verhältnis von Spiritualität und Gesellschaft, in: T. Kessler, A,-P. Rethmann (Hrsg.), Pentekostalismus. Die Pfingstbewegung als Anfrage an Theologie und Kirche (Regensburg 2012) 202-225, zit. 202.
[24] Dialog zwischen Pfingstlern und der Römisch-katholischen Kirche, in: H. Meyer, H. J. Urban, L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 1: 1931-1982 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1983) 476-486, zit. 476-477.
[25] Dialog zwischen Pfingstlern und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche. Evangelisation, Proselytismus und Gemeinsames Zeugnis. Abschlussbericht der vierten Phase des Internationalen Dialogs zwischen der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche und einigen klassischen pfingstlichen Kirchen und Leitern 1990-1997, in: H. Meyer, D. Papandreou, H. J. Urban, L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Band 3: 1990-2003 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 2003) 602-638.
[26] Vgl. K. Kardinal Koch, Der Mensch als ökumenische Frage: Gibt es noch eine gemeinchristliche Anthropologie? in: B. Stubenrauch / M. Seewald (Hrsg.), Das Menschenbild der Konfessionen. Achillesverse der Ökumene? (Freiburg i. Br. 2015) 18-32.
[27] Vgl. R. Weimann, Der Glaube an den dreifaltigen Gott und das Menschenbild, in: G. Augustin, Ch. Schaller, S. Sledziewski (Hrsg.), Der dreifaltige Gott. Christlicher Glaube im säkularen Zeitalter. Für Gerhard Kardinal Müller (Freiburg i. Br. 2017) 181-197.
[28] Vgl. K. Koch, Auf dem Weg zu einer ökumenischen Feier des 1700. Jahrestag des Konzils von Nicaea (325-2025), in: P. Knauer, A. Riedl, D. W. Winkler (Hrsg.), Patrologie und Ökumene. Theresa Hainthaler zum 75. Geburtstag (Freiburg i. Br. 2022) 320-341.
[29] J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Jesus Christus heute, in: Ders., Ein neues Lied für den Herrn. Christusglaube und Liturgie in der Gegenwart (Freiburg i. Br. 1995) 15-45, zit. 40.
[30] Vgl. Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum and Pro Oriente (Ed.), Listening to the East. Synodality in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions = Collana Ut unum sint 4 (Città del Vaticano 2023); Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum (Ed.), Listening to the West. Synodality in Western Ecclesial Traditions = Collana Ut unum sint 5 (Città del Vaticano 2024).
[31] Franziskus, An seine Heiligkeit Mar Awa II, Katholikos-Patriarch der assyrischen Kirche des Ostens am 19. November 2022.
[32] Vgl. K. Koch, Die Katholische Kirche und die Confessio Augustana, in: G. Frank, V. Leppin, T. Licht (Hrsg.), Die «Confessio Augustana» im ökumenischen Gespräch (Berlin 2022) 381-398.
[33] V. Leppin / D. Sattler (Hrsg.), Reformation 1517-2017. Ökumenische Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. – Göttingen 2014) 67.
[34] Vgl. K. Cardinal Koch, Christenverfolgung und Ökumene der Märtyrer. Eine biblische Besinnung (Norderstedt 2016).
[35] John Paul II, Ut unum sint, Nr. 84.
[36] Francis, Address to the renewal in the Holy Spirit movement, 3 July 2015.