Bishop Hilarion of Vienna on relations with Catholics

[Christophoros]

http://www.zenit.org/article-20104?l=english

Orthodox Say Unity Must Be Priority

VIENNA, Austria, JULY 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The breach of Eucharistic communion between East and West is a common tragedy, and the quest for unity should be of equal importance to both, said Bishop Hilarion.

The orthodox bishop of Vienna and Austria, and the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, spoke with ZENIT about the document released Tuesday by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The document is titled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church."

The document, Bishop Alfeev said, "brings nothing new in comparison with previous documents of similar kind, such as 'Dominus Iesus.'"

Closer

Bishop Alfeev acknowledged that the document's explanation of the Church, and precisely that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, is an idea that the Orthodox do not accept.

"The distinction between 'subsists' and 'is present and operative' is probably meaningful from the point of view of Latin theological tradition, but it makes not much sense for an Orthodox theologian," he said.

"For us," Bishop Alfeev explained, "'to subsist' means precisely 'to be present and to be operative,' and we believe that the Church of Christ subsists, is present and is operative in the Orthodox Church."

However, the prelate also affirmed that the Orthodox Churches share the Catholic Church's understanding of other ecclesial communities.

"With regard to the Orthodox Churches," he said, "the document states that 'these Churches, although separated [from Rome], have true sacraments and above all -- because of the apostolic succession -- the priesthood and the Eucharist.' Thus, apostolic succession and the sacraments are indicated as essential marks of the Church.

"The Orthodox also believe that apostolic succession and the sacraments are essential marks of the Church.

"This is why the Orthodox will agree that those ecclesial communities which do not enjoy apostolic succession and have not preserved the genuine understanding of the Eucharist and other sacraments cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense."

"The division between the Orthodox and the Protestants," Bishop Alfeev underlined, "is therefore much more profound and substantial than the division between the Orthodox and the Catholics."

The Pope

The Russian Orthodox prelate spoke of one of the main points of conflict in the path toward unity between Orthodox and Catholics -- the figure of the Bishop of Rome.

Bishop Alfeev explained: "According to the document, 'communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles.'

"Therefore the Orthodox Churches by virtue of being not in communion with the Bishop of Rome 'lack something in their condition as particular churches.'

"We, the Orthodox, believe that, being not in communion with them, the Roman Catholic Church 'lacks something in its condition.'"

However, Bishop Alfeev expressed his hope that both Churches give priority to unity.

"The restoration of communion with the Orthodox Church must be as important for the Catholic Church as the restoration of communion with the Church of Rome for the Orthodox Church," he said.

"The breach of Eucharistic communion between East and West is a common tragedy, affecting both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches," Bishop Alfeev concluded. "The quest for unity should be of equal importance to both Churches."

Helpful

Orthodox Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who heads the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, said to journalists in Moscow that the document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can help to achieve unity, precisely because "for an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side."

He added, "It helps understand how different we are."

[Effie Ganatsios]

How can we have unity when, in order to have this, we must acknowledge the pope as the head of our church.

tBelow is the paragraph that concerns the orthodox church (I assume the term "oriental" refers to us...............................

"Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]"

The full text can be found at :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Actually, within its own context I found the document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refreshing.

Obviously very fundamental issues still divide us. We've now gone through 1000 years of serious doctrinal disagreement. Another fundamental issue that few think about ecclesiologically is the difference in religious culture. From within our 'space', ie the way we worship, an ascetic tone, the sacramental atmosphere, we find most western Christianity to have a profound lack of sobriety and otherworldly sense; ie salt. This as much as doctrinal issues still divides us.

I would say then that anything which moves towards overcoming these things is positive in the potential it offers. Thus the recent Roman Catholic
statements can be seen as an open return to the old hegemonistic viewpoint. But it also I think conveys within it an important sense about what the Church is. Given that most western Christianity for at least the last 50 years has been engaged in a project that amounts to being Christian while denying the Church, recent signs of a return to a Patristic standpoint should be encouraging. Even if these steps are tentative or confused does not deny the basic impulse to something more traditional- which I get the sense is what is motivating the present Pope, rather than being primarily motivated by something specifically anti-Orthodox. Also I think the statement reflects to some degree a desire among the lower clergy and faithful for something more traditional.

Of course these are only baby steps. But given their context I don't think we should completely turn our backs on them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael