Βάπτισμα και Μυστηριακή Οικονομία. Μία κοινή δήλωση των Ορθοδόξων και Ρωμαιοκαθολικών της Β. Αμερικής (1999)

Τα μέλη της Μικτής Διεθνούς Θεολογικής Επιτροπής των Ορθοδόξων και των Ρωμαιοκαθολικών

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, 

June 3, 1999

Introduction

For the past three years the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation has directed its attention to the concluding section of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: in particular to the confession of "one baptism," and to the faith in one Holy Spirit and in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" to which this single baptism is so closely related, and with which it constitutes an indivisible unity. We have chosen to consider this topic, first of all, as part of a larger and continuing reflection on baptism's constitutive role in establishing and revealing the fundamental character of the Church as a communion. Secondly, we wish to respond to the criticisms made by various groups of the statement issued by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches at Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993, "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion," especially to protests against that statement's call for an end to the practice of rebaptism of converts (n. 13) and its reference to the Catholic and Orthodox communions as "sister churches"(n. 14). Finally, we recognize that our consideration of these protests directs us back to earlier statements which our own Consultation has issued: "The Principle of Economy" (1976); "On the Agenda of the Great and Holy Council" (1977); "On the Lima Document" (1984); "Apostolicity as God's Gift to the Church" (1986); our "Response" (1988) to the "Bari Document" issued by the International Commission in 1987; and finally our "Response" (1994) to the Balamand document itself. In drafting this present statement, we have elected to take our own advice and to offer a "deeper historical and theological investigation" of whether "our churches do in fact find the same essential content of faith present in each other" ("Response to the Balamand Statement," n. 9).

In the following sections we shall endeavor a) to summarize our findings regarding our common understanding of baptism, as well as its unity with the life of the Church and the action of the Holy Spirit; b) to elucidate the problems which, in relatively recent times, have arisen with respect to the mutual recognition of each other's baptism; and c) to present our conclusions, together with certain recommendations which we feel are necessary, in order that on various levels our dialogue be established on a solid and unambiguous foundation. Only if we have reached clarity on our common understanding of baptism, we believe, can our churches proceed to discuss, charitably and truthfully, those issues which at present appear to constitute genuine impediments to our unity in the one Bread and Cup of Christ.

I. On Baptism

A. A Matter of Faith: Baptism rests upon and derives its reality from the faith of Christ himself, the faith of the Church, and the faith of the believer.

1. The faith of Christ: With this Pauline expression we refer to the fact that baptism, like all the sacraments, is given to us first of all as the result of Christ's loving fidelity to his Father, and as a sign of his faithfulness in the Holy Spirit to fallen humanity, "so that we are justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Christ Jesus" (Gal 2.16, cf. Rom 3.22,26; Phil 3.9). Baptism is not a human work, but the rebirth from above, effected through "water and the Spirit," that introduces us into the life of the Church. It is that gift by which God grounds and establishes the Church as the community of the New Covenant, the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), by engrafting us into the body of the crucified and risen Messiah (Rom 6:3-11; 11:17-24), into the one sacrament (mysterion) which is Christ himself (Eph 1:3; 3:3; Col 1:27 and 2:2).

2. The faith of the Church: In the Church of the Apostles and Fathers, baptism was never understood as a private ceremony, but was a corporate event. This is indicated by the development of the Lenten fast in the fourth century, when catechumens attended their final instructions before baptism at the paschal vigil: their baptism was the occasion for the whole community's repentance and renewal. Likewise, the definitive statement of the whole Church's faith, the "We believe" of the Creed, was derived from the solemn questions addressed by the sacramental minister to the candidate in the baptismal font. Whoever, then, is baptized, is baptized into the unique community of the Messiah, and it is that community's common faith in the Savior's person and promises that the candidate is obliged to make his or her own. As the Church, we acknowledge the trustworthiness of him who said, "Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live" (Jn 11:25). This is the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, of the martyrs and ascetics, and of "all the saints who in every generation have been well-pleasing to God" (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). In the words of the renewal of baptismal promises in the Easter liturgy of the Roman Rite, "This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus our Lord."

3. The faith of the Christian: As just noted, every Christian is obliged to make his or her own the faith of the Church. The "We believe" of the whole Church must become the individual Christian's "I believe," whether spoken by the adult candidate for baptism on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of a child by its sponsor and the assembled community, in the full expectation that, when it has grown, the child will make the common faith its own as well. By baptism, every Christian becomes a "new creation" (2 Co 5.17), and is called to believe and to grow "into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...to the measure of the stature and fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13). Baptism is the beginning of each believer's life in the Spirit, the implanting within each of the seed of the fullness of Christ "who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23): a life on earth which is at once the present reality and the continuing vocation of each Christian, as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (I Co 6:19) and the dwelling place of divine glory (Jn 17:22-24). Christian initiation is the ground of our transfiguration "from glory to glory" (2 Co 3:18). It calls each of us to spiritual warfare as Christ's soldiers (Eph 6:10-17), and anoints us each with the oil of the Holy Spirit as priests who, in imitation of Christ, are to offer up ourselves as "a living sacrifice pleasing to God" (Rom 12:1; cf. Phil 4:18), and as prophets who are to call down upon ourselves and upon our world the fire from heaven which transforms (cf. I Kg 18:36-39; Mt 3:11; Lk 12:49). Also in baptism, we believe that we recover the royalty of Adam in Paradise, and that, as "having been clothed with Christ" (Rom 13:14), we are called to become ourselves the "christs" - the "anointed ones" - of God.

B. Baptism within the Rites of Initiation

1. One Moment in a Single Action: In ancient times, initiation into the Church was understood as a single action with different "moments." Thus in Acts 2:38-42, we find baptism with water directly followed by the reception of the Holy Spirit and "the breaking of bread" (Eucharist) by the community; other texts in Acts present the gift of the Spirit as preceding baptism (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-17). This continuity between the various stages of initiation is consistently reproduced in the oldest liturgical texts and in early patristic witnesses: baptism with water in the name of the Trinity, a post- (or pre-) baptismal anointing and/or laying-on of hands invoking the Spirit, and participation in the Eucharist. The present-day ordering of the Eastern Christian rites of initiation and the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults in the Roman liturgy preserve this unity. In the case of infant baptism, medieval Latin practice separated this unity of action, deferring confirmation by the bishop and Eucharistic communion to a later date. Indeed, the distinction which is customarily made today in both churches between baptism and chrismation, or confirmation, was never intended to separate the reception of the Spirit from incorporation into the body of Christ, whose quickening principle is the same Spirit (see, e.g., Rom 8:9-11, as well part III, B5 below).

2. The Method of Baptism: In ancient times, and in the contemporary Orthodox Church, baptism is administered as a threefold immersion in water hallowed by prayer and oil, while the baptizing minister invokes the Holy Trinity. In the Roman rite of the Catholic Church since the later Middle Ages, baptism has usually been administered by the infusion or pouring of water sanctified by prayer and the sign of the Cross, accompanied by the Trinitarian invocation. In past centuries and even today, some Orthodox have protested against infusion as being an invalid form of baptism, basing their protest on the mandate of baptismal immersion implied in such Biblical passages as Rom 6.4 ("We were buried with [Christ] by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead, we too might walk in newness of life") . This criticism, however, should be measured against the following considerations: a) "immersion" in the ancient church did not always mean total submersion--archaeological research indicates that many ancient baptismal pools were far too shallow for total submersion; b) the Orthodox Church itself can and does recognize baptism by infusion as valid in cases of emergency; c) for most of the past millennium, the Orthodox Church has in fact recognized Catholic baptism as valid (see our discussion in Part II below).

3. The Symbolism of Baptism: Baptism is at once a death and a new birth, a washing-away of sin and the gift of the living water promised by Christ, the grace of forgiveness and regeneration in the Spirit, a stripping-off of our mortality and a clothing with the robe of incorruption. The baptismal font is the "tomb" from which the newborn Christian rises, and, as the place of our incorporation into the life of the Church, the "womb" and "mother" of the Christian, the pool of the divine light of the Spirit, the well-spring of immortality, the gate of heaven, entry into the kingdom of God, cleansing, seal, bath of regeneration and bridal chamber. All these are meanings the Fathers saw in this sacrament, and all of them we continue to affirm.

4. The Non-Repeatability of Baptism: It is our common teaching that baptism in water in the name of the Holy Trinity, as the Christian's new birth, is given once and once only. In the language of fourth-century Fathers of East and West, it confers the indelible seal (sphragis, character) of the King. As the definitive entry of an individual believer into the Church, it cannot be repeated. To be sure, the grace of baptism may be betrayed by serious sin, but in such cases the modes prescribed for the recovery of grace are repentance, confession, and -- in the Orthodox usage for apostasy -- anointing with the sacred chrism; reconciliation with the Church is never accomplished by baptism, whose repetition we have always recognized as a sacrilege.

C. The Results of our Investigation: "We Confess One Baptism"

The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery. We are therefore moved to declare that we also recognize each other's baptism as one and the same. This recognition has obvious ecclesiological consequences. The Church is itself both the milieu and the effect of baptism, and is not of our making. This recognition requires each side of our dialogue to acknowledge an ecclesial reality in the other, however much we may regard their way of living the Church's reality as flawed or incomplete. In our common reality of baptism, we discover the foundation of our dialogue, as well as the force and urgency of the Lord Jesus' prayer "that all may be one." Here, finally, is the certain basis for the modern use of the phrase, "sister churches." At the same time, since some are unwilling to accept this mutual recognition of baptism with all its consequences, the following investigation and explanation seems necessary.

II. Problems in the Mutual Recognition of Baptism

1. Inconsistencies in the Reception of Adults into Ecclesial Communion

1. The centralized administration of the modern Catholic Church, and the absence of any office resembling the papacy in the modern Orthodox Church, helps to explain the contrast between the diversity in modes of reception of Catholics practiced by local Orthodox churches and the (relatively) unitary practice of the Catholic Church over the past five hundred years in receiving Orthodox. From the fifth-century writings of St. Augustine on the Donatist Schism, the Latin tradition has been able to draw on a clearly articulated rationale for recognizing the validity, though not necessarily the fruitfulness, of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church. This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then. Nevertheless, rebaptism continued to be practiced on the eastern frontiers of Catholic Europe in Poland and the Balkans - contrary to Roman policy - well into the seventeenth century. In addition, the practice of "conditional baptism," a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person's earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of "dissident" Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe. Vatican II, however, was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments (Unitatis Redintegratio 15; cf. Ecumenical Directory [1993] 99a).

2. In the Orthodox Church, a consistent position on the reception of those baptized in other communions is much more difficult, though not impossible, to discern. On the one hand, since the Council in Trullo (692), the canonical collections authoritative in Orthodoxy have included the enactments of third-century North African councils presided over by Cyprian of Carthage, as well as the important late-fourth-century Eastern collection, The Apostolic Canons. Cyprian's position, supported by his contemporary bishop Firmilian of Caesaraea in Cappadocia, was that salvation and grace are not mediated by schismatic communities, so that baptism administered outside the universal apostolic communion is simply invalid as an act of Christian initiation, deprived of the life-giving Spirit (see Cyprian, Epp. 69.7; 71.1; 73.2; 75.17, 22-25). Influential as it was to be, Cyprian and Firmilian both acknowledge that their position on baptism is a relatively new one, forged probably in the 230s to deal with the extraordinary new challenges presented by Christian sectarianism in an age of persecution, but following logically from a clear sense of the Church's boundaries. The Apostolic Canons, included in the larger Apostolic Constitutions and probably representative of Church discipline in Syria during the 380s, identifies sacraments celebrated by "heretics" as illegitimate (can. 45 [46]), although it is not clear in what sense the word "heretic" is being used; the following canon brands it as equally sacrilegious for a bishop or presbyter to rebaptize someone who is already truly baptized, and to recognize the baptism of "someone who has been polluted by the ungodly." Both Cyprian and the Apostolic Canons, in any case, draw a sharp line between the authentic visible Church and every other group which exists outside its boundaries, and accords no value whatever to the rites of those "outside." On the other hand, continuing Eastern practice from at least the fourth century has followed a more nuanced position. This position is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, which–claiming to follow the practice of "the ancients"--distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense—those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit.

3. The schism between Catholics and Orthodox, unlike the schisms of the Non-Chalcedonian and East Syrian Churches, came into being much later, and only very slowly. Relations between Catholics and Orthodox through the centuries have been, in consequence, highly varied, ranging from full communion, on occasion, well into the late Middle Ages (and, in certain areas, until later still), to a rejection so absolute that it seemed to demand the rebaptism of new communicants. There are, however, in the Orthodox tradition two important synodical rulings which represent the continuation of the policy articulated by Basil, and affirmed by the Synod in Trullo and later Byzantine canonists, rulings which we believe are to be accorded primary importance: those of the Synod of Constantinople in 1484, and of Moscow in 1667. The first ruling, part of a document marking the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate's formal repudiation of the Union of Ferrara-Florence (1439) with the Catholic Church, prescribed that Catholics be received into Orthodox communion by the use of chrism. In the service for the reception of Catholic converts which the Synod published, this anointing is not accompanied by the prayers which characterize the rite of initiation; we find instead formulas of a penitential character. The rite therefore appears to have been understood as part of a process of reconciliation, rather than as a reiteration of post-baptismal chrismation. It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day.

B. Constantinople 1755, the Pedalion of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, and "Sacramental Economy"

1. Constantinople 1755: In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to "pastoral discretion." In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).

2. Nicodemus and the Pedalion: The Orthodox world owes an immense debt to this Athonite monk, who edited and published the Philokalia (1783), as well as numerous other works of a patristic, pastoral, and liturgical nature. In the Pedalion (1800), his enormously influential edition of - and commentary on - canonical texts, Nicodemus gave form and substance to the requirement of rebaptism decreed by Cyril V. Thoroughly in sympathy with the decree of 1755, and moved by his attachment to a perceived golden age in the patristic past, he underscored the antiquity and hence priority of the African Councils andApostolic Canons, and argued strenuously, in fact, for the first-century provenance of the latter. Nicodemus held up these documents, with their essentially exclusivist ecclesiology, as the universal voice of the ancient Church. In so doing, he systematically reversed what had been the normative practice of the eastern church since at least the 4th century, while recognizing the authority of both Cyprian's conciliar legislation on baptism and the Apostolic Canons. Earlier Byzantine canonists had understood Cyprian's procedure as superseded by later practice, and had interpreted the Apostolic Canons in the light of the rulings of Basil the Great, the Synod in Trullo, and other ancient authoritative texts.

3. "Sacramental Economy" according to Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain: Nicodemus was clearly obliged, however, to reckon with the approach of Basil the Great and the ecumenically-ranked Synod in Trullo to baptism "outside" the visible Church, different though it was from that of Cyprian. His attempt to reconcile his sources with each other drew on a very ancient term, oikonomia, used in the New Testament and patristic literature to denote both God's salvific plan and the prudent "management" of the Church's affairs, and employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship. In adapting this term to differentiate between what he understood as the "strict" policy (akriveia) of the ancient Church and the apparently more flexible practice (oikonomia) of the Byzantine era, Nicodemus inadvertently bestowed a new meaning on the term oikonomia. By means of this new understanding, Nicodemus was able to harmonize the earlier, stricter practice of Cyprian with that of Basil and other ancient canonical sources; so he could read the fathers of the 4th century as having exercised "economy" with regard to baptism by Arians in order to facilitate their reentry into the Church, just as the Synod in Trullo had done with respect to the "Severians" and Nestorians, and could interpret the treatment of Latin baptism by Constantinople at the Synod of 1484 and later Orthodox rulings as acts of "economy" designed to shield the Orthodox from the wrath of a more powerful Catholic Europe. In his own day, he argued, the Orthodox were protected by the might of the Turkish Sultan, and so were again free to follow the perennial "exactness" of the Church. Latins were therefore now to be rebaptized.

4. Varying Understandings of the Phrase, "Pastoral Discretion": After the publication of the Pedalionin 1800, backed by Nicodemus's formidable personal authority, the opposed principles of akriveia andoikonomia came to be accepted by much of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy as governing the application of canon law in such a way as to allow for either the rebaptism of Western Christians (kat'akriveian), or for their reception by chrismation or profession of faith (kat'oikonomian), without in either case attributing to their baptism any reality in its own right. This is the understanding that underlies the "pastoral discretion" enjoined by the Synod of Constantinople of 1875, as well as by numerous directives and statements of the Ecumenical Patriarchate since then. In the work of some modern canonists, oikonomia is understood as the use of an authority by the Church's hierarchy, in cases of pastoral need, to bestow a kind of retroactive reality on sacramental rites exercised "outside" the Orthodox Church - rites which in and of themselves remain invalid and devoid of grace. The hierarchy is endowed, in this interpretation, with a virtually infinite power, capable, as it were, of creating "validity" and bestowing grace where they were absent before. This new understanding of "economy" does not, however, enjoy universal recognition in the Orthodox Church. We have already noted that the East Slavic Orthodox churches remain committed to the earlier understanding and practice of the Byzantine era, which does not imply the possibility of making valid what is invalid, or invalid what is valid. Even within Greek-speaking Orthodoxy, "sacramental economy" in the full Nicodemean sense does not command universal acceptance. As a result, within world Orthodoxy, the issue of "sacramental economy" remains the subject of intense debate, but the Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted in important theological and monastic circles. Although these voices in the Orthodox world are significant ones, we do not believe that they represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism.

III. Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusions

The "inconsistencies" to which we referred at the beginning of our second section turn out, on closer inspection, to be less significant than they might appear to be. Granted, a vocal minority in the Orthodox Church refuses to accord any validity to Catholic baptism, and thus continues to justify in theory (if less frequently in fact) the (re)baptism of converts from Catholicism. Against this one fact, however, we present the following considerations:

1. The Orthodox and Catholic churches both teach the same understanding of baptism. This identical teaching draws on the same sources in Scripture and Tradition, and it has not varied in any significant way from the very earliest witnesses to the faith up to the present day.

2. A central element in this single teaching is the conviction that baptism comes to us as God's gift in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not "of us," but from above. The Church does not simply require the practice of baptism; rather, baptism is the Church's foundation. It establishes the Church, which is also not "of us" but, as the body of Christ quickened by the Spirit, is the presence in this world of the world to come.

3. The fact that our churches share and practice this same faith and teaching requires that we recognize in each other the same baptism and thus also recognize in each other, however "imperfectly," the present reality of the same Church. By God's gift we are each, in St. Basil's words, "of the Church."

4. We find that this mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of baptism, in spite of our divisions, is fully consistent with the perennial teaching of both churches. This teaching has been reaffirmed on many occasions. The formal expression of the recognition of Orthodox baptism has been constant in the teaching of the popes since the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was emphasized again at the Second Vatican Council. The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era.

5. The influential theory of "sacramental economy" propounded in the Pedalion commentaries does not represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church; it is rather an eighteenth-century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today.

6. Catholics in the present day who tax the Orthodox with sins against charity, and even with sacrilege, because of the practice of rebaptism should bear in mind that, while the rebaptism of Orthodox Christians was officially repudiated by Rome five hundred years ago, it nonetheless continued in some places well into the following century and occasionally was done, under the guise of "conditional baptism," up to our own times.

B. Recommendations

On the basis of these conclusions we would like to offer to our churches the following suggestions:

1. That the International Commission begin anew where the Bari statement of 1987, "Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church," came to an abrupt conclusion, simply recognizing similarities and differences in our practice of Christian initiation, and that it proceed to reaffirm explicitly and clearly, with full explanation, the theological grounds for mutual recognition by both churches of each other's baptism;

2. That our churches address openly the danger that some modern theories of "sacramental economy" pose, both for the continuation of ecumenical dialogue and for the perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church;

3. That the Patriarchate of Constantinople formally withdraw its decree on rebaptism of 1755;

4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation; and

5. That our churches make clear that the mutual recognition of baptism does not of itself resolve the issues that divide us, or reestablish full ecclesial communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but that it does remove a fundamental obstacle on our path towards full communion.  

Μία ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμη, έγκυρη και ενημερωμένη ιστοσελίδα είναι η εξής: http://www.scoba.us

 

Αποτελούν τα δύο μου πρώτα βιβλία, που κυκλοφορούν από τις εκδόσεις Π. ΠΟΥΡΝΑΡΑΣ - ΘΕΣ/ΝΙΚΗ και συμπεριλαμβάνονται στη σειρά Φιλοσοφική και Θεολογική Βιβλιοθήκη τομ.63 και 64. Ένα τρίτο ακολουθεί από τις εκδόσεις ΣΤΑΜΟΥΛΗ, το οποίο καλώς εχόντων των πραγμάτων μάλλον θα κυκλοφορήσει εντός του 2011. 

Το πρώτο κοινό συμφωνηθέν κείμενο μεταξύ της Αγγλικανικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας

Τα μέλη της Μικτής Διεθνούς Επιτροπής του Θεολογικού Διαλόγου μεταξύ της Αγγλικανικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας κατά τη συνάντησή τους στη Ι. Μ. της Κύκκου
τον Ιούνιο του 2005.

The Moscow Agreed Statement 1976

I The Knowledge of God

1. God is both immanent and transcendent. By virtue of the divine self-revelation, man experiences personal communion with God. By faith and through obedience he shares truly in the divine life and is united with God the Holy Trinity. By grace he enjoys the pledge and first-fruits of eternal glory. But, however close this union may be, there remains always an all-important distinction between God and man, Creator and creature, infinite and finite.

2. To safeguard both the transcendence of God and the possibility of man's true union with him the Orthodox Church draws a distinction between the divine essence, which remains for ever beyond man's comprehension and knowledge, and the divine energies, by participation in which man participates in God. The divine energies are God himself in his self-manifestation. This distinction is not normally used by Anglicans, but in various ways they also seek to express the belief that God is at once incomprehensible, yet truly knowable by man.

3. To describe the fullness of man's sanctification and the way in which he shares in the life of God, the Orthodox Church uses the Patristic term theosis kata charin (divinization by grace). Once again such language is not normally used by Anglicans, some of whom regard it as misleading and dangerous. At the same time Anglicans recognize that, when Orthodox speak in this manner, they do so only with the most careful safeguards. Anglicans do not reject the underlying doctrine which this language seeks to express; indeed, such teaching is to be found in their own liturgies and hymnody.

II The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture

4. The Scriptures constitute a coherent whole. They are at once divinely inspired and humanly expressed. They bear authoritative witness to God's revelation of himself in creation, in the Incarnation of the Word and in the whole history of salvation, and as such express the Word of God in human language.

5. We know, receive, and interpret Scripture through the Church and in the Church. Our approach to the Bible is one of obedience so that we may hear the revelation of himself that God gives through it.

6. The books of Scripture contained in the Cano, are authoritative because they truly convey the authentic revelation of God, which the Church recognizes in tnem. Their authority is not determined by any particular theories concerning the authorship of these books or the historical circumstances in which they were written. The Church gives attention to the results of scholarly research concerning the Bible from whatever quarter they come, but it tests them in the light of its experience and understanding of the faith as a whole.

7. The Church believes in the apostolic origin of the New Testament, as containing the witness of those who had seen the Lord.

8. Both the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches make a distinction between the canonical books of the Old Testament and the deutero-canonical books (otherwise called the Anagino-skomena) although the Orthodox Churches have not pronounced officially on the nature of the distinction, as is done in the Anglican Articles. Both Communions are agreed in regarding the deuterocanonical books as edifying and both, and in particular the Orthodox Church, make liturgical use of them.

Ill Scripture and Tradition

9. Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate 'sources of revelation' must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (i) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the Church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of Holy Tradition or not; (ii) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scripture in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.

10. (i) By the term Holy Tradition we understand the entire life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. This tradition expresses itself in dogmatic teaching, in liturgical worship, in canonical discipline, and in spiritual life. These elements together manifest the single and indivisible life of the Church. (ii) Of supreme importance is the dogmatic tradition, which in substance is unchangeable. In seeking to communicate the saving truth to mankind, the Church in every generation makes use of contemporary language and therefore of contemporary modes of thought; but this usage must always be tested by the standard of Scripture and of the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. The mind (phronema) of the Fathers, their theological method, their terminology and modes of expression have a lasting importance in both the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches. (iii) The liturgical and canonical expressions of Tradition can differ, in that they are concerned with varying situations of the people of God in different historical periods and in different places. The liturgical and canonical traditions remain unchangeable to the extent that they embody the unchangeable truth of divine revelation and respond to the unchanging needs of mankind.

11. The Church cannot define dogmas which are not grounded both in Holy Scripture and in Holy Tradition, but has the power, particularly in Ecumenical Councils, to formulate the truths of the faith more exactly and precisely when the needs of the Church require it.

12. The understanding of Scripture and Tradition embodied in paragraphs 4 to 11 offers to our Churches a solid basis for closer rapprochement.

IV The Authority of the Council

13. We are agreed that the notions of Church and Scripture are inseparable. The Scriptures contain the witness of the prophets and apostles to the revelation of

himself which God the Father made to man through his Son in his Holy Spirit. The Councils maintain this witness and provide an authoritative interpretation of it. We recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church not only in the Scriptures, but also in the Councils, and in the whole process whereby Scriptures and Councils have been received as authoritative. At the same time we confess that the tradition of the Church is a living one in which the Spirit continues his work of maintaining the true witness to the Revelation of God, the faith once delivered to the saints.

14. We note that Anglican members, while accepting the dogmatic degrees of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Councils, have long been accustomed to lay more emphasis on the first four, and believe that the concept of 'an order or "hierarchy" of truths' can usefully be applied to the decisions of the Councils. The Orthodox members find this concept to be in conflict with the unity of the faith as a whole, though they recognize gradations of importance in matters of practice.

15. The Orthodox regard the Seventh Council as of equal importance with the other Ecumenical Councils. They understand its positive injunctions about the veneration of icons as an expression of faith in the Incarnation. The Anglican tradition places a similarly positive value on the created order, and on the place of the body and material things in worship. Like the Orthodox, Anglicans see this as a necessary corollary of the doctrine of the Incarnation. They welcome the decisions of the Seventh Council in so far as they constitute a defence of the doctrine of the Incarnation. They agree that the veneration of icons as practised in the East is not to be rejected, but do not believe that it can be required of all Christians. It is quite clear that further discussion of the Seventh Council and of icons is necessary in the dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans, as also of Western three-dimensional images and religious paintings which we have not adequately discussed.

16. We are agreed that according to the Scriptures and the Fathers the fullness of saving truth has been given to the Church. She is the Temple of God, in which God's Spirit dwells, the Pillar and the Ground of truth. Christ has promised that he will be with her until the End of the Age and the Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth (1 Cor. 3.16; 1 Tim. 3.15; Matt. 28.20; John 16.13).

17. Both Anglican and Orthodox agree that infallibility is not the property of any particular institution or person in the Church, but that the promises of Christ are made to the whole Church. The ecumenicity of Councils is manifested through their acceptance by the Church. For the Orthodox, the Ecumenical Council is not an institution but a charismatic event in the life of the Church and is the highest expression of the Church's inerrancy.

18. It is clear that further exploration and discussion of this and kindred questions will be needed. Among the points to be taken into account are:

(a) The use of the words 'infallible' and 'indefectible' in discussion of ecclesiology is of medieval and modern Western origin. (b) For Anglicans, the concept of infallibility has acquired unfortunate associations by reason of the definition of the First Vatican Council, and of the manner in which papal authority has been exercised. For the Orthodox, the concept of indefectibility has ambiguous associations on account of the way in which it has been used in modern theology. (c) A theological evaluation is required of processes whereby the teaching of Councils has been recognized and received.

V The Filioque Clause

19. The question of the Filioque is in the first instance a question of the content of the Creed, i.e. the summary of the articles of faith which are to be confessed by all. In the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly called the Nicene Creed) of 381 the words 'proceeding from the Father' are an assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Holy Spirit, parallel to the assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Son contained in the words 'begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father'. The word ekporeuomenon (proceeding), as used in the Creed, denotes the incomprehensible mode of the Spirit's origin from the Father, employing the language of Scripture (John 15.26). It asserts that the Spirit comes from the Father in a manner which is not that of generation.

20. The question of the origin of the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished from that of his mission to the world. It is with reference to the mission of the Spirit that we are to understand the biblical texts which speak both of the Father (John 14.26) and of the Son (John 15.26) as sending (pempein) the Holy Spirit.

21. The Anglican members therefore agree that: (a) because the original form of the Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, (b) because the Filioque clause was introduced into this Creed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council and without due regard for Catholic consent, and (c) because this Creed constitutes the public confession of faith by the People of God in the Eucharist, the Filioque clause should not be included in this Creed.

VI The Church as the Eucharistic Community

22. The eucharistic teaching and practice of the Churches, mutually confessed, constitutes an essential factor for the understanding which can lead to reunion between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. This understanding commits both our Churches to a close relationship which can provide the basis for

further steps on the way to reconciliation and union. Already in the past there has been considerable agreement between representatives of our two Churches regarding the doctrine of the Eucharist. We note particularly the six points of the Bucharest Conference of 1935. We now report the following points of agreement:

23. The eucharistic understanding of the Church affirms the presence of Jesus Christ in the Church, which is his Body, and in the Eucharist. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, all faithful communicants share in the one Body of Christ, and become one body in him.

24. The Eucharist actualizes the Church. The Christian community has a basic sacramental character. The Church can be described as a synaxis or an ecclesia, which is, in its essence, a worshipping and eucharistic assembly. The Church is not only built up by the Eucharist, but is also a condition for it. Therefore one must be a believing member of the Church in order to receive the Holy Communion. The Church celebrating the Eucharist becomes fully itself; that is koinonia, fellowship - communion. The Church celebrates the Eucharist as the central act of its existence, in which the ecclesial community, as a living reality confessing its faith, receives its realization.

25. Through the consecratory prayer, addressed to the Father, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the glorified Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit in such a way that the faithful people of God receiving Christ may feed upon him in the sacrament (1 Cor. 10.16). Thus the Church depends upon the action of the Holy Spirit and is the visible community in which the Spirit is known.

26. The eucharisdc action of the Church is the Passover from the old to the new. It anticipates and really shares in the eternal Rule and Glory of God. Following the Apostolic and Patristic teaching, we affirm that the eucharistic elements become, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Body and Blood of Christ, the bread of immortality, to give to us the forgiveness of sins, the new creation, and eternal life. The celebration of the Church in liturgy carries with it the sense of the eternal reality which precedes it, abides in it, and is still to come.

27. In the Eucharist the eternal priesthood of Christ is constantly manifested in time. The celebrant, in his liturgical action, has a twofold ministry: as an icon of Christ, acting in the name of Christ, towards the community and also as a representative of the community expressing the priesthood of the faithful. In each local eucharistic celebration the visible unity and catholicity of the Church is manifested fully. The question of the relationship between the celebrant and his bishop and that among bishops themselves requires further study.

28. The Eucharist impels the believers to specific action in mission and service to the world. In the eucharistic celebration the Church is a confessing community which witnesses to the cosmic transfiguration. Thus God enters into a personal historic situation as the Lord of creation and of history. In the Eucharist the End breaks into our midst, bringing the judgement and hope of the New Age.

The final dismissal or benediction in the liturgy is not an end to worship but a call to prayer and witness so that in the power of the Holy Spirit the believers may announce and convey to the world that which they have seen and received in the Eucharist.

VII The Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist

29. The Eucharist is the action of the Holy Trinity. The Father gives the Body and the Blood of Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit to the Church in response to the Church's prayer. The Liturgy is this prayer for the eucharistic gifts to be given. It is in this context that the invocation of the Holy Spirit should be understood. The operation of the Holy Spirit is essential to the Eucharist whether it is explicitly expressed or not. When it is articulated, the 'Epiclesis' voices the work of the Spirit with the Father in the consecration of the elements as the Body and Blood of Christ.

30. The consecration of the bread and the wine results from the whole sacramental liturgy. The act of consecration includes certain proper and appropriate moments - thanksgiving, anamnesis, Epiclesis. The deepest understanding of the hallowing of the elements rejects any theory of consecration by formula - whether by Words of Institution or Epiclesis.1 For the Orthodox the culminating and decisive moment in the consecration is the Epiclesis.

31. The unity of the members of the Church is renewed by the Spirit in the eucharistic act. The Spirit comes not only upon the elements, but upon the community. The Epiclesis is a double invocation: by the invocation of the Spirit, the members of Christ are fed by his Body and Blood so that they may grow in holiness and may be strong to manifest Christ to the world and to do his work in the power of the Spirit. 'We hold this treasure in earthen vessels.' The reception of the Holy Gifts calls for repentance and obedience. Christ judges the sinful members of the Church. The time is always at hand when judgement must begin at the household of God (2 Cor. 4.7; 1 Pet. 4.17).

32. Although Epiclesis has a special meaning in the Eucharist, we must not restrict the concept to the Eucharist alone. In every sacrament, prayer and blessing the Church invokes the Holy Spirit and in all these various ways calls upon him to sanctify the whole creation. The Church is that Community which lives by continually invoking the Holy Spirit.

NOTE

At their meeting in Thessaloniki in April 1977 the Orthodox members asked that it should be pointed out that, in regard to the words in paragraph 30 of the Moscow Agreed Statement it is inexact to call the Epiclesis a 'formula' since the Orthodox Church does not regard it as such.

Ο Θεολογικός Διάλογος μεταξύ της Αγγλικανικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας μέρος Β'

Τα μέλη της Διεθνής Μικτής Θεολογικής Επιτροπής - Οξφόρδη 2010

Καρπός της τρίτης φάσης του διαλόγου μεταξύ της Αγγλικανικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας αποτελεί ένα πολύ σημαντικό κείμενο με τον τίτλο "Η Εκκλησία του Τριαδικού Θεού", το οποίο παρουσιάστηκε στην Πάφο της Κύπρου το 2006. Τα κεφάλαια από τα οποία συναποτελείται το παρόν κείμενο είναι τα εξής:

1. Η Αγία Τριάδα και η Εκκλησία.

2. Ο Χριστός, το Άγιο Πνεύμα και η Εκκλησία.

3. Ο Χριστός, η Ανθρωπότητα και η Εκκλησία.

4. Επισκοπή, Επίσκοπος και το Πρωτείο.

5. Η Ιερωσύνη, ο Χριστός και η Εκκλησία.

6. Γυναίκες και Άνδρες. Λειτουργήματα και Εκκλησία.
7. Αίρεση, Σχίσμα και Εκκλησία.
8. Αποδοχή στην Ευχαριστία.

Στο κείμενο αυτό, όπως αναδεικνύεται και από τα παραπάνω κεφάλαια η κοινή επιτροπή μελέτησε το ζήτημα της εκκλησιολογίας σε σχέση με το μείζον θέμα της αποδοχής, της εκκλησιαστικής ποικιλίας και της εσωτερικής σχέσης και επίδρασης, που υφίσταται μεταξύ του πολιτισμού και της πίστης. Στο σημείο αυτό αξίζει ν’ αναφερθεί ότι ο Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαίος το 1991 κατά τον ενθρονιστήριό του λόγο ανέφερε το εξής: «...να συνεχίσουμε με πληρότητα τη μακρά παράδοση των αδελφικών σχέσεων με την Αγγλικανική Εκκλησία...και να προωθήσουμε τον διάλογο μέχρι να επιτευχθεί η ενότητα εν τη πίστει». Πράγματι η προσέγγιση και η από κοινού μελέτη των εκκλησιολογικών θεμάτων κατέστησε δυνατή την αμοιβαία κατανόηση της φύσης των διαφορών, καθώς και την σκιαγράφηση των θεμάτων στα οποία υπάρχει σύγκληση και αμοιβαία αποδοχή. Όπως όλοι οι διμερείς θεολογικοί διάλογοι έτσι και αυτός πέρασε μέσα από τη διαδικασία της άρνησης, της αποδοχής, του ενθουσιασμού και της απογοήτευσης (ειδικά την περίοδο που η Αγγλικανική Εκκλησία πήρε την απόφαση να χειροτονεί γυναίκες).

Ο Μητρ. Περγάμου Ιωάννης με τον Αρχιεπ. του Καντέρμπουρι Δρ. Rowan Williams

Γενικά ως Ορθόδοξοι δυστυχώς θεωρούμε ότι η Αγγλικανική Εκκλησία δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο παρά ένας ακόμη κλάδος του Προτεσταντισμού, ο οποίος διατήρησε την έννοια και τη λειτουργία του επισκοπάτου. Οι γνώσεις μας είναι λίγο ως πολύ συγκεχυμένες για τους Αγγλικανούς. Καίριο ρόλο στη διδασκαλία τους διαδραματίζει η αρχή και η έννοια της περιεκτικότητας (comprehensiveness), ενώ παράλληλα είναι δεκτικοί σε κάθε κριτική θεώρηση του ανθρώπινου στοιχείου  που έχει εισχωρήσει στην Εκκλησία διαχρονικά. Κύρια αφετηρία και πηγή έμπνευσής τους είναι αναμφισβήτητα η Βίβλος. Η αυτοσυνειδησία τους ωστόσο βασίζεται στην θεμελιώδη αρχή ότι αποτελούν μία μεταρρυθμισμένη Καθολική Εκκλησία απαλλαγμένη από το δόγμα του πρωτείου και του αλάθητου που πρεσβεύει ο Ρωμαιοκαθολικισμός. Ίσως θα μπορούσε να λειτουργήσει ο διάλογος, ή μάλλον καλύτερα τα αποτελέσματα του διαλόγου με την Αγγλικανική Εκκλησία, ως ρυθμιστικός μεσάζων και εξισορροπητικός παράγοντας μεταξύ της Ρωμαιοκαθολικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας.

Ας κλείσουμε αυτή τη μικρή μας αναφορά μ’ ένα απόσπασμα από το Πανορθόδοξο Συνέδριο του Βελιγραδίου του 1966: «...Θεωρούμε αυτό το πνεύμα του αμοιβαίου σεβασμού ως ένδειξη της καθοδηγήσεως του Αγίου Πνεύματος, το Οποίο θα μας οδηγήσει στον κατάλληλο χρόνο, που μόνο ο Θεός γνωρίζει, προς το τέλος που επιδιώκουμε. Η Αγιώτατη Εκκλησία μας έχει διακηρύξει το καθήκον της να συμβάλει προς την κατεύθυνση της ενώσεως των Εκκλησιών και της ειρήνης όλων των ανθρώπων».

Μία χρήσιμη ιστοσελίδα και αναμφισβήτητα η πιο ενημερωμένη είναι η εξής: 

http://www.anglicancommunion.org

Ο Θεολογικός Διάλογος μεταξύ της Αγγλικανικής και της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας

            Η Διεθνής Θεολογική Επιτροπή υπεύθυνη για τον διάλογο μεταξύ της Ορθόδοξης και της Αγγλικανικής Εκκλησίας

Εξίσου σημαντικός είναι ο θεολογικός διάλογος που διεξάγει η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία με την Αγγλικανική, ήδη από τις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα. Στη μορφή και στη δομή που πραγματοποιείται σήμερα ξεκίνησε το 1973 με την πρώτη συνάντηση να λαμβάνει χώρα στην Οξφόρδη. Ως αποτέλεσμα των συνομιλιών μεταξύ του Αρχιεπισκόπου του Canterbury Δρ. Michael Ramsey και του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχη Αθηναγόρα το 1962 αποφασίστηκε από κοινού τόσο η προσέγγιση των δύο πλευρών, όσο και η σύσταση και η λειτουργία μίας διεθνούς θεολογικής επιτροπής, που θα αναλάμβανε το όλο θεολογικό έργο. Το 1964 στη Ρόδο και στη διάρκεια των εργασιών της Γ' Πανορθόδοξης Συνδιάσκεψης ομόφωνα αποφασίστηκε η ανάληψη και η συγκρότηση της Επιτροπής από τη μεριά των Ορθοδόξων Εκκλησιών, ενώ αντίστοιχη απόφαση πάρθηκε και από την Anglican Communion. Η προπαρασκευαστική περίοδος κράτησε από το 1966 έως το 1972.

Αρχιεπίσκοπος Canterbury Rowan Williams

Την επίσκεψη του Αρχιεπισκόπου του Canterbury Δρ. Michael Ramsey στο Φανάρι ο Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης Αθηναγόρας την χαρακτήρισε ως "ένα ξεκίνημα μίας νέας πνευματικής άνοιξης, η οποία δύναται να οδηγήσει σε μία μεγαλύτερη προσέγγιση και σε μία πιο κοντινή συνεργασία όλες τις εκκλησίες". Η πρώτη φάση του διαλόγου έκλεισε με τη δημοσίευση της κοινής διακήρυξης της Μόσχας (1976), η οποία αναφέρεται στη γνώση του Θεού, στην αυθεντία της Αγίας Γραφής, στη σχέση της Αγίας Γραφής με την Παράδοση, στην εξουσία και στο ρόλο της Συνόδου εντός της εκκλησιαστικής ζωής, στο ζήτημα του filioque, στην έννοια της Εκκλησίας ως ευχαριστιακή κοινότητα και τέλος στην επίκληση του Αγίου Πνεύματος κατά την τέλεση της Θείας Λειτουργίας. Η κοινή δήλωση του Δουβλίνου εγκαινίασε τη δεύτερη φάση του διαλόγου κατά το έτος 1984. Πριν όμως φτάσουμε στο κείμενο αυτό είχαν προηγηθεί οι διαδοχικές συναντήσεις της επιτροπής στο St. Michael's College, στο Llandaff, τον Ιούλιο του 1980, στο Ορθόδοξο Πατριαρχικό Κέντρο του Chambesy της Γενεύης το 1981, στο Canterbury το 1982 και στην Οδησσό το 1983. Πρόεδρος από τη μεριά των Ορθοδόξων ήταν ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος Θυατείρων και Μ. Βρετανίας Μεθόδιος.


Σκοπός αυτού του διαλόγου μεταξύ άλλων είναι η αναζήτηση και η μελέτη εκείνων των θεμελιωδών ζητημάτων, που οδηγούν στη δογματική συμφωνία ή απόκλιση μεταξύ των δύο εκκλησιών.  Κοινή διαπίστωση όλων είναι ότι ο διάλογος συμβάλλει ιδιαίτερα στην ποιμαντική αποστολή και διακονία, στην ειρήνευση και στην καταλαγή μέσα σ' έναν κόσμο, που μαστίζεται από τις εθνικές, πολιτικές εντάσεις και από την οικονομική κρίση.


Η τρίτη φάση του διαλόγου ξεκίνησε το 1989 υπό την προεδρεία του Μητροπολίτη Περγάμου Ιωάννου και του επισκόπου Henry Hill και είχε ως σκοπό την θεώρηση και τη μελέτη από κοινού του δόγματος της Εκκλησίας υπό το φως του δόγματος της Αγίας Τριάδος. Ιδιαίτερη έμφαση δόθηκε στο ζήτημα ποιος μπορεί να χειροτονείται τόσο στο βαθμό του πρεσβύτερου, όσο και στο βαθμό του επισκόπου. Με την τρίτη φάση του διαλόγου θα ασχοληθούμε σε μία άλλη ευκαιρία.

Οικουμενικός Διάλογος: Πολυτέλεια ή Ανάγκη;

Από αριστερά: ο Duprey, o Οικουμ. Πατριάρχης Αθηναγόρας, οι Καρδινάλιοι Augustin Bea και Willebrands

Η Εκκλησία είναι τόσο οικουμενική, όσο είναι πραγματική και είναι τόσο πραγματική, όσο είναι και οικουμενική. 
Η οικουμενικότητά της δεν προέρχεται από κάποια συγκεκριμένη λειτουργία της, αλλά από το ίδιο της το είναι. Η ενότητα μεταξύ των χριστιανών δεν είναι κάτι το δεδομένο και το αυτονόητο. Και έχω την αίσθηση ότι σε μερικά χρόνια δεν θα είναι αυτονόητο ούτε για τις μεταξύ των Ορθοδόξων εκκλησιών σχέσεις. Όσο δεν συνειδητοποιούμε ότι ο διάλογος δεν αποτελεί πολυτέλεια, αλλά ανάγκη υπαρξιακή, τόσο περισσότερο "κινδυνεύουμε" μία ημέρα να βρεθούμε εγκλωβισμένοι σε μία κατάσταση χωρίς διέξοδο. Σε μία κατάσταση στην οποία αντί η Εκκλησία να ρυθμίζει τη ζωή, θα ρυθμίζεται η ίδια από τη ζωή, θ' άγεται και θα φέρεται ανάλογα με τα ποικίλα συμφέροντα που επικρατούν .κάθε φορά. Ο διάλογος αποτελεί τη πιο ύψιστη δυνατότητα επικοινωνίας τόσο μεταξύ των κτιστών όντων, όσο και μεταξύ της κτιστής πραγματικότητας με τον Δημιουργό. Βλέπουμε τόσο στην Παλαιά, όσο και στην Καινή Διαθήκη τον ίδιο τον Θεό να διαλέγεται με τον άνθρωπο. Εξάλλου και η λατρεία μας δεν αποτελεί κάτι το μαγικό, αλλά είναι μία έκφραση λειτουργική, που εξαρτάται από την αμφίδρομη σχέση μεταξύ του Θεού πρωτίστως και του ανθρώπου δευτερευόντως. Είναι μια λογική λατρεία, όπως ακριβώς και ο διά-λογος, που βασίζεται στον λόγο.

Ωστόσο, η ύπαρξη του διαλόγου από μόνη της δεν λέει κάτι, εάν δεν συνοδεύεται από το όραμα, την ελπίδα, την αγωνία, τον καημό για την επίτευξη της ευχαριστιακής ενότητας και τη συνεχή προσπάθεια. Παρά τις όποιες απογοητεύσεις και τις όποιες εντάσεις βιώνονται ιστορικά, η προσπάθεια καταλαγής και ειρήνευσης δεν πρέπει να σταματήσει.

Ο Οικουμ. Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαίος και ο Πάπας Ρώμης Βενέδικτος XVI 

Το σημείο της ευλογίας αποτελεί ευχή για ειρήνευση και αρμονία από κοινού· ενώνει τα άνω με τα κάτω. Αυτή βέβαια η πορεία δεν μπορεί να περιγραφεί ως μία πορεία ευθύγραμμη, καθώς έχει πολλές ρίζες, πολλά σημεία αφετηρίας και εκκίνησης. Όλα όμως οφείλουν να ξεκινούν και να καταλήγουν στο πρόσωπο του Χριστού εν Αγίω Πνεύματι.

JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

SECOND PLENARY MEETING

Munich, June 30 to July 6 - 1982

THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE EUCHARIST

IN THE LIGHT OF THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY

Faithful to the mandate received at Rhodes, this report touches upon the mystery of the church in only one of its aspects. This aspect, however, is particularly important in the sacramental perspective of our churches, that is, the mystery of the church and of the eucharist in the light of the mystery of the holy Trinity. As a matter of fact the request was made to start with what we have in common and, by developing it, to touch upon from inside and progressively all the points on which we are not in agreement.

In composing this document we intend to show that in doing so we express together a faith which is the continuation of that of the apostles.

This document makes the first step in the effort to fulfill the program of the preparatory commission, approved at the first meeting of the commission for dialogue.

Since there is question of a first step, touching upon the mystery of the church under only one of its aspects, many points are not yet treated here. They will be treated in succeeding steps as has been foreseen in the program mentioned above.

I

1. Christ, Son of God incarnate, dead and risen, is the only one who has conquered sin and death. To speak, therefore, of the sacramental nature of the mystery of Christ is to bring to mind the possibility given to man, and through him, to the whole cosmos, to experience the "new creation," the kingdom of God here and now through material and created realities. This is the mode (tropos) in which the unique person and the unique event of Christ exists and operates in history starting from Pentecost and reaching to the Parousia. However, the eternal life which God has given to the world in the event of Christ, his eternal Son, is contained in "earthen vessels". It is still only given as a foretaste, as a pledge.

2. At the Last Supper, Christ stated that he "gave" his body to the disciples for the life of "the many," in the eucharist. In it this gift is made by God to the world, but in sacramental form. From that moment the eucharist exists as the sacrament of Christ himself. It becomes the foretaste of eternal life, the "medicine of immortality," the sign of the kingdom to come. The sacrament of the Christ event thus becomes identical with the sacrament of the holy eucharist, the sacrament which incorporates us fully into Christ.

3. The incarnation of the Son of God his death and resurrection were realized from the beginning, according to the Father's will, in the Holy Spirit, This Spirit, which proceeds eternally from the Father and manifests himself through the Son, prepared the Christ event and realized in fully in the resurecction. Christ, who is the sacrament par excellence, given by the Father for the world, continues to give himself for the many in the Spirit, who alone gives life (Jn 6). The sacrament of Christ is also a reality which can only exist in the Spirit.

4. The Church and the Eucharist:

a. Although the evangelists in the account of the Supper are silent about the action of the Spirit, he was nonetheless united closer than ever to the incarnate Son for carrying out the Father's work. He is not yet given, received as a person, by the disciples (Jn 7:39). But when Jesus is glorified then the Spirit himself also pours himself out and manifests himself. The Lord Jesus enters into the glory of the Father and, at the same time, by the pouring out of the Spirit, into his sacramental tropos in this world. Pentecost, the completion of the paschal mystery, inaugurates simultaneously the last times. The eucharist and the church, body of the crucified and risen Christ, become the place of the energies of the Holy Spirit.

b. Believers are baptized in the Spirit in the name of the holy Trinity to form one body (cf. 1 Cor12:13). When the church celebrates the eucharist it realizes "what it is", the body of Christ (1 Cor10:17). By baptism and chrismation (confirmation) the members of Christ are "anointed" by the Spirit, grafted into Christ. But by the eucharist the paschal event opens itself out into church. The church becomes that which it is called to be by baptism and chrismation. By the communion in the body and blood of Christ, the faithful grow in that mystical divinization which makes them dwell in the Son and the Father, through the Spirit.

c. Thus, on the one hand, the church celebrates the eucharist as expression here and now of the heavenly liturgy; but on the other hand, the eucharist builds up the church in the sense that through it the Spirit of the risen Christ fashions the church into the body of Christ. That is why the eucharist is truly the sacrament of the church, at once as sacrament of the total gift the Lord makes of himself to his own and as manifestation and growth of the body of Christ, the church. The pilgrim church celebrates the eucharist on earth until her Lord comes to restore royalty to God the Father so that God may be "all in all". It thus anticipates the judgment of the world and its final transfiguration.

5. The mission of the Spirit remains joined to that of the Son. The celebration of the eucharist reveals the divine energies manifested by the Spirit at work in the body of Christ.

a. The Spirit prepares the coming of Christ by announcing it through the prophets, by directing the history of the chosen people toward him, by causing him to be conceived by the Virgin Mary, by opening up hearts to his word.

b. The Spirit manifests Christ in his work as savior, the Gospel which is he himself. The eucharistic celebration is the anamnesis (the memorial) Truly, but sacramentally, the ephapax (the "once and for all") is and becomes present. The celebration of the eucharist is par excellence the kairos(proper time) of the mystery.

c. The Spirit transforms the sacred gifts into the body and blood of Christ (metabole) in order to bring about the growth of the body which is the church. In this sense the entire celebration is anepiclesis, which becomes more explicit at certain moments. The church is continually in a state ofepiclesis.

d. The Spirit puts into communion with the body of Christ those who share the same bread and the same cup. Starting from there, the church manifests what it is, the sacrament of the Trinitariankoinonia, the "dwelling of God with men" (cf. Rv 21:4).

The Spirit, by making present what Christ did once for all Y the event of the mystery Y accomplishes it in all of us. The relation to the mystery, more evident in the eucharist, is found in the other sacraments, all acts of the Spirit. That is why the eucharist is the center of sacramental life.

6. Taken as a whole, the eucharistic celebration makes present the Trinitarian mystery of the church. In it one passes from hearing the word, culminating in the proclamation of the Gospel Y the apostolic announcing of the word made flesh Y to the thanksgiving offered to the Father and to the memorial of the sacrifice and to communion in it thanks to the prayer of epiclesis uttered in faith. For the epiclesis is not merely an invocation for the sacramental transforming of the bread and cup. It is also a prayer for the full effect of the communion of all in the mystery revealed by the Son.

In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

That is why the eucharistic mystery is accomplished in the prayer which joins together the words by which the word made flesh instituted the sacrament and the epiclesis in which the church, moved by faith, entreats the Father, through the Son, to send the Spirit so that in the unique offering of the incarnate Son, everything may be consummated in unity. Through the eucharist believers unite themselves to Christ, who offers himself to the Father with them, and they receive the possibility of offering themselves in a spirit of sacrifice to each other, as Christ himself offers himself to the Father for the many, thus giving himself to men.

This consummation in unity brought about by the one inseparable operation of the Son and the Spirit, acting in reference to the Father in his design, is the church in its fullness.

II

1. If one looks at the New Testament one will notice first of all that the church describes a "local" reality. The church exists in history as local church. For a region one speaks more often of churches, in the plural. It is always question of the church of God but in a given place.

Now the church existing in a place is not formed, in a radical sense, by the persons who come together to establish it. There is a "Jerusalem from on high" which "comes down from God", a communion which is at the foundation of the community itself. The church comes into being by a free gift, that of the new creation.

However, it is clear that the church "which is in" a given place manifests itself when it is "assembled." This assembly itself, whose elements and requirements are indicated by the New Testament, is fully such when it is the eucharistic synaxis. When the local church celebrates the eucharist, the event which took place "once and for all" is made present and manifested. In the local church, then, there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek. A new unity is communicated which overcomes divisions and restores communion in the one body of Christ. This unity transcends psychological, racial, sociopolitical or cultural unity. It is the "communion of the Holy Spirit" gathering together the scattered children of God. The newness of baptism and of chrismation then bears its fruit. And by the power of the body and blood of the Lord, filled with the Holy Spirit, there is healed that sin which does not cease to assault Christians by raising obstacles to the dynamism of the "life for God in Christ Jesus" received in baptism. This applies also to the sin of division, all of whose forms contradict God's design.

One of the chief texts to remember is 1 Cor 10:15- 17: one sole bread, one sole cup, one sole body of Christ in the plurality of members. This mystery of the unity in love of many persons constitutes the real newness of the Trinitarian koinonia communicated to men in the church through the eucharist. Such is the purpose of Christ's saving work, which is spread abroad in the last times after Pentecost.

This is why the church finds its model, its origin and its purpose in the mystery of God, one in three persons. Further still, the eucharist thus understood in the light of the Trinitarian mystery is the criterion for functioning of the life of the church as a whole. The institutional elements should be nothing but a visible reflection of the reality of the mystery.

2.KThe unfolding of the eucharistic celebration of the local church shows how the koinonia takes shape in the church celebrating the eucharist. In the eucharist celebrated by the local church gathered about the bishop, or the priest in communion with him, the following aspects stand out, interconnected among themselves even if this or that moment of the celebration emphasizes one or another.

The koinonia is eschatological. It is the newness which comes in the last times. That is why everything in the eucharist as in the life of the church begins with conversion and reconciliation. The eucharist presupposes repentance (metanoia) and confession (exomologesis), which find in other circumstances their own sacramental expression. But the eucharist forgives and also heals sins, since it is the sacrament of the divinizing love of the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

But this koinonia is also kerygmatic. This is evident in the synaxis not only because the celebration "announces" the event of the mystery, but also because it actually realizes it today in the Spirit. This implies the proclamation of the word to the assembly and the response of faith given by all. Thus the communion of the assembly is brought about in the kerygma, and hence unity in faith. Orthodoxy (correct faith) is inherent in the eucharistic koinonia. This orthodoxy is expressed most clearly through the proclamation of the symbol of faith which is a summary of the apostolic tradition of which the bishop is the witness in virtue of his succession. Thus the eucharist is inseparably sacrament and word since in it the incarnate word sanctifies in the Spirit. That is why the entire liturgy and not only the reading of holy scriptures constitutes a proclamation of the word under the form of doxology and prayer. On the other hand, the word proclaimed is the word made flesh and become sacramental.

Koinonia is at once ministerial and pneumatological. That is why the eucharist is its manifestationpar excellence. The entire assembly, each one according to rank, is leiturgos of the koinonia.While being a gift of the Trinitarian God, koinonia is also the response of men. In the faith which comes from the Spirit and the word, these put in practice the vocation and the mission received in baptism: to become living members, in one's proper rank, of the body of Christ.

3. The ministry of the bishop is not merely a tactical or pragmatic function (because a president is necessary) but an organic function. The bishop receives the gift of episcopal grace (1 Tm 4:14) in the sacrament of consecration effected by bishops who themselves have received this gift, thanks to the existence of an uninterrupted series of episcopal ordinations, beginning from the holy apostles. By the sacrament of ordination the Spirit of the Lord "confers" on the bishop, not juridically as if it were a pure transmission of power, but sacramentally, the authority of servant which the Son received from the Father and which he received in a human way by his acceptance in his passion.

The function of the bishop is closely bound to the eucharistic assembly over which he presides. The eucharistic unity of the local church implies communion between him who presides and the people to whom he delivers the word of salvation and the eucharistic gifts. Further, the minister is also the one who "receives" from his church, which is faithful to tradition, the word he transmits. And the great intercession which he sends up to the Father is simply that of his entire church praying with him. The bishop cannot be separated from his church any more than the church can be separated from its bishop.

The bishop stands at the heart of the local church as minister of the Spirit to discern the charismas and take care that they are exercised in harmony, for the good of all, in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. He puts himself at the service of the initiatives of the Spirit so that nothing may prevent them from contributing to building up koinonia. He is minister of unity, servant of Christ the Lord, whose mission is to "gather into unity the children of God". And because the church is built up by the eucharist, it is he, invested with the grace of priestly ministry, who presides at the latter.

But this presidency must be properly understood. The bishop presides at the offering which is that of his entire community. By consecrating the gifts so that they become the body and blood the community offers, he celebrates not only for it, nor only with it and in it, but through it. He appears then as minister of Christ fashioning the unity of his body and so creating communion through his body. The union of the community with him is first of all of the order of mysterion and not primordially of the juridical order. It is that union expressed in the eucharist which is prolonged and given practical expression in the "pastoral" relations of teaching, government and life. The ecclesial community is thus called to be the outline of a human community renewed.

4. There is profound communion between the bishop and the community in which the Spirit gives him responsibility for the church of God. The ancient tradition expressed it happily in the image of marriage. But that communion lies within the communion of the apostolic community. In the ancient tradition (as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus proves) the bishop elected by the people Y who guarantee his apostolic faith, in conformity with what the local church confesses Y receives the ministerial grace of Christ by the Spirit in the prayer of the assembly and by the laying on of hands (chirotonia) of the neighboring bishops, witnesses of the faith of their own churches. His charism, coming directly from the Spirit of God, is given him in the apostolicity of his church (linked to the faith of the apostolic community) and in that of the other churches represented by their bishops. Through this his ministry is inserted into Apostolic succession, therefore, means something more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in a Church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other Churches witnessing to the same apostolic faith. The see (cathedra) plays an essential role ? faith. The see (cathedra) plays an essential role in inserting the bishop into the heart of ecclesial apostolicity. On the other hand, once ordained, the bishop becomes in his church the guarantor of apostolicity and the one who represents it within the communion of churches. That is why in his church every eucharist can only be celebrated in truth if presided over by him or by a presbyter in communion with him. Mention of him in the anaphora is essential.

Through the ministry of presbyters, charged with presiding over the life and the eucharistic celebration of the communities entrusted to them, those communities grow in communion with all the communities for which the bishop has primary responsibility. In the present situation the diocese itself is a communion of eucharistic communities. One of the essential functions of presbyters is to link these to the eucharist of the bishop and to nourish them with the apostolic faith of which the bishop is the witness and guarantor. They should also take care that Christians, nourished by the body and blood of him who gave his life for his brethren, should be authentic witnesses of fraternal love in the reciprocal sacrifice nourished by the sacrifice of Christ. For, according to the word of the apostle, "if someone sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" The eucharist determines the Christian manner of living the paschal mystery of Christ and the gift of Pentecost. Thanks to it there is a profound transformation of human existence always confronted by temptation and suffering.

III

1. The body of Christ is unique. There exists then only one church of God. The identity of one eucharistic assembly with another comes from the fact that all with the same faith celebrate the same memorial, that all by eating the same bread and sharing in the same cup become the same unique body of Christ into which they have been integrated by the same baptism. It there are many celebrations, there is nevertheless only one mystery celebrated in which all participate. Moreover, when the believer communicates in the Lord's body and blood, he does not receive a part of Christ but the whole Christ.

In the same way, the local church which celebrates the eucharist gathered around its bishop is not a section of the body of Christ. The multiplicity of local synaxes does not divide the church, but rather shows sacramentally its unity. Like the community of the apostles gathered around Christ, each eucharistic assembly is truly the holy church of God, the body of Christ, in communion with the first community of the disciples and with all who throughout the world celebrate and have celebrated the memorial of the Lord. It is also in communion with the assembly of the saints in heaven, which each celebration brings to mind.

2. Far from excluding diversity or plurality, the koinonia supposes it and heals the wounds of division, transcending the latter in unity.

Since Christ is one for the many, as in the church which is his body, the one and the many, the universal and local are necessarily simultaneous. Still more radically, because the one and only God is the communion of three persons, the one and only church is a communion of many communities and the local church a communion of persons. The one and unique church finds her identity in thekoinonia of the churches. Unity and multiplicity appear so linked that one could not exist without the other. It is this relationship constitutive of the church that institutions make visible and, so to speak, "historicize".

3. Since the universal church manifests itself in the synaxis of the local church, two conditions must be fulfilled above all if the local church which celebrates the eucharist is to be truly within the ecclesial communion.

a) First, the identity of the mystery of the church lived by the local church with the mystery of the church lived by the primitive church - catholicity in time - is fundamental. The church is apostolic because it is founded on and continually sustained by the mystery of salvation revealed in Jesus Christ, transmitted in the Spirit by those who were his witnesses, the apostles. Its members will be judged by Christ and the apostles (cf. Lk 22:30).

b) Today mutual recognition between this local church and the other churches is also of capital importance. Each should recognize in the others through local particularities the identity of the mystery of the church. It is a question of mutual recognition of catholicity as communion in the wholeness of the mystery. This recognition is achieved first of all at the regional level. Communion in the same patriarchate or in some other form of regional unity is first of all a manifestation of the life of the Spirit in the same culture, or in the same historical conditions. It equally implies unity of witness and calls for the exercise of fraternal correction in humility. This communion within the same region should extend itself further in the communion between sister churches.

This mutual recognition, however, is true only under the conditions expressed in the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom and the first Antiochene anaphoras. The first condition is communion in the same kerygma, and so in the same faith. Already contained in baptism this requirement is made explicit in the eucharistic celebration. But it also requires the will for communion in love (agape) and in service (diakonia), not only in words but in deeds.

Permanence through history and mutual recognition are particularly brought into focus in the eucharistic synaxis by the mention of the saints in the Canon and of the heards of the churches in the diptychs. Thus it is understood why these latter are signs of catholic unity in eucharistic communion, responsible, each on its own level, for maintaining that communion in the universal harmony of the churches and their common fidelity to the apostolic tradition.

4. We find then among these churches those bonds of communion which the New Testament indicated: communion in faith, hope and love, communion in the sacraments, communion in the diversity of charisms, communion in the reconciliation, communion in the ministry. The agent of this communion is the Spirit of the risen Lord. Through him the church universal, catholic, integrates diversity or plurality, making it one of its own essential elements. This catholicity represents the fulfillment of the prayer of Chapter 17 of the Gospel according to John, taken up in the eucharistic epicleses.

Attachment to the apostolic communion binds all the bishops together, linking the episkope of the local churches to the college of the apostles. They too form a college rooted by the Spirit in the "once for all" of the apostolic group, the unique witness to the faith. This means not only that they should be united among themselves by faith, charity, mission, reconciliation, but that they have in common the same responsibility and the same service to the church. Because the one and only church is made present in his local church, each bishop cannot separate the care for his own church from that of the universal church. When, by the sacrament of ordination, he receives the charism of the Spirit for the episkope of one local church, his own, by that very fact be receives the charism of the Spirit for the episkope of the entire church. In the people of God he exercises it in communion with all the bishop who are here and now in charge of churches and in communion with the living tradition which the bishops of the past have handed on. The presence of bishops from neighboring sees at his episcopal ordination "sacramentalizes" and makes present this communion. It produces a thorough fusion between his solicitude for the local community and his care for the church spread throughout the world. The episkope for the universal church is seen to be entrusted by the Spirit to the totality of local bishops in communion with one another. This communion is expressed traditionally through conciliar practice. We shall have to examine further the way it is conceived and realized in the perspective of what we have just explained.