What the Orthodox say: is Rome listening?

A recent Vatican document illustrates as well as anything could why the movement toward unity between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches is stalled in the water and unlikely to move. On June 15 the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion" (Origins, June 25, 1992). It is the revelation of a Roman vision of the church so thoroughly different from the Orthodox vision that there is no hope of movement in any positive direction, as long as this vision remains unchallenged.

The letter speaks of "a certain communion, albeit imperfect," that exists with non-Catholic churches."This communion exists especially with the Eastern Orthodox churches which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic church by means of very close bonds such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist and therefore merit the title of particular churches....Since, however, communion with the universal church, represented by Peter's successor, is not an external complement to the particular church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This is turn also injures the Catholic church, called by the Lord to become for all |one flock' with 'one shepherd,' in that it hinders the complete fulfillment of her universality in history."

Early on, the letter says that ecclesial communion, "into which each individual is introduced by faith and by baptism, has its root and center in the Holy Eucharist." It goes onto criticize a eucharistic ecclesiology which, "though being of undoubted value, has however sometimes placed one-sided emphasis on the principle of the local church. It is claimed that where the Eucharist is celebrated the totality of the mystery of the church would be made present in such a way as to render any other principle of unity or universality inessential."

That "it is claimed" is typical of the language of the letter (and indeed of Vatican letters in general). By whom is it claimed? Though previous papal and conciliar documents are cited throughout, this has no footnote. Two things must be said: the first is that "eucharistic ecclesiology" is a term frequently used by the Orthodox, and the insistence is that the fullness of the church is present at each local Eucharist. The local church is not a part or fragment of a whole. The second is that the lack of a citation may be because no Orthodox theologian would ever claim that "any other principle of unity or universality [is] inessential." The Orthodox would argue that unless there is an agreement in faith, on what the faith means, the very idea of communion is meaningless. That agreement in faith is the essential principle, and matters infinitely more than communion with any particular bishop.

The picture of eucharistic ecclesiology presented here is a distortion of what Orthodox believe, and the alternative vision presented in the letter assumes a centralization of Roman authority that is arguably heretical, if not blasphemous - for example, the letter's statement that the church has been called to be "one flock" with "one shepherd" is not quite said to mean that the one shepherd is the pope and not Jesus himself; but if this is what is intended it is something almost any Christian would understand, properly I think, to be heretical. Like so much in the letter, this possible meaning is not stated, but hinted at.

There are Catholic apologists who have argued that unlike the differences between the Catholic and Protestant churches, the differences between Catholics and Orthodox do not involve essential doctrinal problems. They point to the fact that the primary differences involve the filioque clause in the Creed, which Rome (unlike the Orthodox church) does not find all that striking an issue, and the nature of the church itself, which Rome (unlike the Orthodox church) does not seem to find a central doctrinal issue, but rather a kind of administrative problems. This feeling - "the differences aren't all that great" - would be nice if it were true, but in fact the nature of the church itself remains a major issue.

The Roman Catholic assumption has been that to be in union with the apostolic church one must be in union with the church of Rome, whose bishop, the pope, is understood as the successor to Peter, the first of the apostles. The "petrine ministry" unifies the church, according to this view, and real communion means a communion that includes the fullness of this unity. Without it, communion is in some sense wounded. The pope is also seen as having jurisdiction over all of the churches, and (since Vatican I) it is a matter of Catholic doctrine that when he speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair," in his official role) on matters of faith and morals, he speaks infallibly.

The Orthodox do not, of course, accept the doctrine of infallibility. But the Roman understanding of jurisdiction, the role of Peter and other apostles, the episcopacy itself, and what it means to be "in communion" are also quite different from the Orthodox understanding. For the Orthodox, the unity of the faith is not guaranteed by such external criteria as communion with a particular bishop but by the fact of our holding a common faith; we are in communion with those who share that faith, those who recognize that this shared faith is held by the bishops who oversee particular churches, Peter is not seen as the first bishop of Rome or as a bishop at all. Peter was an apostle, a witness of the Resurrection, and his office was not transferable. (For that matter, his successor in Antioch, if he could have one, would have an equal claim to sharing in the Petrine ministry - if Peter were in fact a bishop.)

The nature of the church is based on conciliarity. The Council of Jerusalem is the model: after deliberation, the Jerusalem church announced its common understanding with the words, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us..." (Acts 15:28). In point of fact, it would not be possible in the contemporary Catholic church for a Paul to confront Peter, as Paul did, over a matter of faith and morals, and prevail.

The prevailing wasn't easy, or quick; and Orthodoxy certainly has a frequently frustrating, often less-than-efficient quality. This is very much the experience of early Christianity. There are occasional breaks in relations between Orthodox churches, usually healed after a decade or so, a messy process which also echoes the early church's life. At the same time, there is an agreement in matters of faith that is stronger than that to be found in contemporary Catholicism. Our most conservative bishops and theologians might disagree with our most liberal bishops and theologians in matters of tone, in concerns over specific disciplinary and liturgical policy, but not in essential matters of belief.

Perhaps one way through this stalemate would be to challenge both the narrowest readings of eucharistic ecclesiology to be found among the Orthodox, and the legalistic reading the Vatican apparently wants to give to the idea of communion. "Validity" and "apostolic succession" can smack too much of magic, a power independent of the belief of the church communities under discussion. What strikes me is that a typical Orthodox response to this letter could err in the direction of emphasizing precisely the most destructive directions implicit in "eucharistic ecclesiology." There are Orthodox who would agree with the letter's definition of communion as something that each individual is introduced into, by baptism, and that it has its root and center in the Eucharist. The letter goes on to say, "indeed, baptism is an incorporation into a body that the risen Lord builds up and keeps alive through the Eucharist, so that this body can truly be called the body of Christ. "The looks like a place of agreement, but it shouldn't be, because it makes baptism seem like an introduction to the really important thing, the Eucharist.

But we are baptized into a reality within which the Eucharist makes sense. It is baptism that must always be first here, the Eucharist must be seen as a participation in what baptism means, and not the other way around - as the important thing, for which baptism is a kind of ticket. We are baptized into the life and death of Christ, and hope at the end of time to be told that we have been faithful and will share in the fruits of Christ's Resurrection. All other sacraments are celebrations within the context set by the new reality baptism means.

The point is the One into whom we have been baptized, and the shared belief that means, the full implications of the questions, "Who do you say that I am?" Questions of authority and validity and apostolic succession are absolutely beside the point until there is agreement at this level, and it is an agreement that must be found in more awe and terror than you usually find in Vatican documents or most ecumenical discussions. It is within the fullness of what baptism means that all the rest can be found. The best argument for giving the Eucharist to babies, as Orthodox do, is that the meaning of communion would then, like baptism, be something we would have to rediscover, almost from scratch, as adults. This rediscovery of baptism - and within the context of baptism. Eucharist - is probably the only serious basis for any ecumenical discussion.