July 2007 Print

Fr. Hervé Gresland

Eastern Orthodoxy is a vast and complex world. It is complex in its history and theology, but even more so for us Westerners because of the Eastern mindset. In order not to drown our readers under the subtleties of the mysterious Orthodox world, we will try to remain simple without being simplistic. We will first follow the fascinating chronology of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

The Preparation of the Council

The announcement by Pope John XXIII that a Council would be called was a major event for the ecumenical movement. This announcement was the cause of significant ecumenical maneuvers at the highest levels of the Church, since one of the Council's objectives was the "union of the Churches."

For the innovators, the pope who opened the council was the privileged instrument which enabled false ecumenism to make its official entry into the Church. Indeed, Msgr. Roncalli, the future John XXIII, had, as early as 1924, became a faithful friend of Dom Lambert Beauduin, a Belgian Benedictine monk who had founded at Amay (Belgium) a Benedictine monastery devoted to the union of the Churches. Later on, the monastery was moved to Chevetogne, and it was the best known and most active center of Catholic ecumenism. It was responsible for the publication of the review Irenicon. Dom Beauduin was far from being the only one to work for the ecumenical cause. For instance, Fr. Dumont, O.P., was responsible for the reviews Russia and Christianity, Istina, and Towards Unity. In spite of reproaches and exiles, Dom Beauduin kept working behind the scene. The ideas of the reformer had won the heart of the future pope. John XXIII would once say: "Dom Lambert Beauduin's method is the right one."[1]

As early as June 5, 1960, John XXIII created a Secretariat for Christian Unity. His objective was to establish contacts with the Orthodox and the Protestants and to invite them to send official representatives to the future council, to take part in it as observers. The door was beginning to open; the theories of false ecumenism, which had been prepared for decades, were going to enter the hall of the Council.

The Secretariat for Christian Unity immediately displayed intense activity. Cardinal Bea, its president, was giving conferences everywhere. The Secretariat invited the various Churches[2] to send observers to the Council.

Already at that time, optimism was prevalent. Everything began under the brightest star with the relationship with the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, the Patriarch of Moscow made an exception. Msgr. Nicodemus, speaking on behalf of Patriarch Alexis on December 27, 1960, denied the Patriarchate of Constantinople the right of taking initiative in the name of the Orthodox religion in matters of union, and added: "If there is a question of dialogue with the pope, the Russian Church will discuss the matter alone, and on her own account."[3]

To explain the situation of the Russian Orthodox Church, we must add that this Church was giving token to the Communist government, which tolerated her only inasmuch as it could make use of her. On every occasion, she would support the politics of the Soviet Union, and was certainly acting in close collaboration with the Kremlin.

At first, the Patriarchate of Moscow refused Rome's invitation to the Council, especially because in it,

it is fitting to see nothing but an effort to extend Rome's power over the Orthodox Church....We cannot agree upon the Roman conditions for this unity understood as the Christian World Union under the pope's authority.[4]

Nevertheless, long negotiations began and a secret meeting was arranged in Metz between Cardinal Tisserant and Metropolitan Nicodemus, president for the department of foreign affairs for the Patriarchate of Moscow. This latter communicated the conditions set by the Patriarchate (or by the Kremlin, for it was the same thing in this case) for the presence of Russian delegates to the Council: there will be no declaration hostile to the USSR. Msgr. Nicodemus was the man who, in November 1961, declared: "We can affirm that in our country the Church is totally independent from the State."[5] Msgr. Nicodemus publicly outlined the conditions to be fulfilled in order for the Patriarchate to send representatives to the Council:

If the schedule of the activities of the Roman Council did not contain doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox Church cannot agree (for instance, the dogma of the supremacy of Peter), and if there was no declaration hostile to the country which we love, I believe that, on our part, there will be no difficulty of principle to the sending of observers from the Russian Church to Rome.[6]

Msgr. Willebrands, secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, went to Moscow from September 27 to October 2, 1962, in order to meet again with Msgr. Nicodemus and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. He assured the Orthodox that the Council would not condemn Communism. Upon this, the Russian Orthodox Church sent two representatives to the Council.[7]

The Second Vatican Council

During the first session, in 1962, the other Orthodox Churches refrained from sending delegates. The Patriarchate of Constantinople sent observers to the Council only from the third session onwards. Thus the non-Catholic observers could attend the work of all the Council meetings as first-class witnesses, and it was most easy for them to talk with the Council Fathers, to tell them their reactions and their wishes. The Secretariat for Christian Unity organized various meetings for them with the outstanding personalities of the Council. Cardinal Bea assured them that the greatest importance would be granted to their suggestions and desiderata.[8] Their influence on the Council was real. They gave it an ecumenical twist: it is obvious that when you entertain guests you try not to offend them, but to satisfy them. On the day after the vote for the schema on ecumenism, Cardinal Bea would state: "The non-Catholic observers played a decisive part in the drawing up of the text of the decree on ecumenism."[9]

As for the members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, they occupied a very important place in the Council. Cardinal Bea wrote the drafts of the schemas, among others, including those on religious liberty and ecumenism, in collaboration with Msgr. De Smedt, vice-president of the Secretariat and with Msgr. Willebrands, the secretary, who was more specifically responsible for the relations with the World Council of Churches and with Moscow through the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow.

In the relationships with the non-Catholic world, the conciliar Church adopted the principle of dialogue to which Pope Paul VI devoted his entire Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964).

The Church must enter into a dialogue with the world in which she lives. The Church becomes word; the Church becomes message; the Church becomes conversation.

This dialogue is in itself identified with evangelization. Consequently, this evangelization

would not show itself armed with the weapons of exterior coercion, but through the only legitimate means of human education, interior persuasion and ordinary conversation she would offer her gift of salvation always in respect of the personal liberty of civilized men.

Thus, missionaries would start a "fraternal" and sincere dialogue with all men, the former expounding to the latter the truth they have found or think they have found so as to help one another in the quest for truth. The means to attain false unity is "dialogue." This ever-present word shows a change of spirit: it is no longer a question of converting and bringing back people to the truth that the Church alone possesses, but of dialoguing in order to exchange the riches and values which each one allegedly possesses.

The Application to Ecumenical Dialogue with the Orthodox

Pope Paul VI strongly encouraged this ecumenical dialogue through his example as well as through his teaching. He went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, January 5-6, 1964, to meet the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras. It was the first time a pope had met with a Patriarch of Constantinople since the Council of Florence (1439) over five centuries ago! They prayed together and exchanged a long kiss of peace. Paul VI offered to the Patriarch a gold chalice, source and symbol of the brotherhood between the two "Churches," "as a token of their conviction that one day our two Churches would together partake again of the Holy Eucharist."[10] At the end, they blessed the faithful together. Those present spoke of an historical moment and thought that unity was already achieved. Athenagoras would say: "It was the most beautiful day of my life."[11]

That same year, on September 26, Paul VI caused the head of the apostle St. Andrew, which was kept in the Basilica of St Peter's in Rome, to be "restituted" to the Orthodox. Several relics of the saints were transferred to the East in the following years.

The decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, was adopted by the Council Fathers on November 21, 1964. It puts forth the principles of the Catholic Church on ecumenism. In the section concerning the Eastern Churches, we find this sentence, which has become a basic principle for the relations between Catholics and Orthodox:

This is why among the Easterners prevailed and still prevails a particular care to keep in a communion of faith and charity the fraternal relations which must exist between the local Churches, as between sisters.[12]

In this decree, not a single allusion is to be found to the Encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI [available from Angelus Press], and even the Instruction of the Sacred Office of 1949 about the ecumenical movement is never quoted; and yet there are only 15 years between the two texts.

This conciliar schema says that the other Christian religions are "not at all devoid of significance and value in the mystery of salvation" (§4) while the one means of salvation is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church "outside of which absolutely no one can be saved."[13] Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to call this teaching a heresy.[14] This text also says: "In some circumstances, for instance on the occasion of prayer meetings for unity or during ecumenical meetings it is allowed and still more it is desirable that Catholics join their separated brethren to pray" (§8). It also advises "meetings between both parties to deal with issues particularly of a theological nature, during which all intervene on an equal footing" (§9).

The day after this text was voted on, Cardinal Bea said:

During these past years, deep evolutions have taken place in the Church, and we only gradually see the whole scope of these evolutions. In this sense, the conciliar experience of all the Christians together can be compared to the mustard seed of the Gospel which grows slowly before reaching its full development.[15]

Doubtless our Lord Jesus Christ did not foresee the same application when He spoke of the mustard seed!

With the meeting in Jerusalem between Paul VI and Athenagoras, the relations between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church began to increase in depth.

On the last day of the Council, December 7, 1965, the mutual lifting of the excommunications between Rome and Constantinople took place. The pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, represented by a delegation, made a joint declaration by which they meant to

regret the offending words, the reproaches without foundation, and the blameworthy gestures which, on both sides, stamped or accompanied the sad events of that time (the rupture); to regret also and to wipe from the memory of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed; and lastly to deplore the events which, under the influence of various factors, among which misunderstanding and mutual distrust, finally led to the actual breaking of the ecclesiastical communion.[16]

This declaration supposes that both parties are equally wrong and treats them on a par, whereas the rupture of the unity was mainly caused by the Orthodox schism.

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of this act, Paul VI would declare, on September 7, 1965,

We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.[17]

In its decree on ecumenism, the Second Vatican Council taught:

Since these Churches, though separated, have true sacraments–mainly by virtue of the apostolic succession: the priesthood and the Eucharist–which unite them intimately to us, a certain communicatio in sacris is not only possible but even advisable in favorable circumstances and with the approval of the Church authority.[18]

Two years later, the Secretariat for Christian Unity, published a guidebook[19] which put these principles into practice. Among others, it established the following points:

44. Outside of the cases of necessity, we may consider as a just reason to advise "communication in the sacraments," the material or moral impossibility of receiving the sacraments in one's own Church for a notable period of time, because of the circumstances and to prevent that the faithful be deprived of the spiritual fruit of the sacraments without legitimate reason.

46. The Easterners, who desire to do so spontaneously, may go to confession to a Catholic priest when they do not have the possibility to confess easily to a priest of their own Church.

In similar circumstances it is allowed for Catholics to go to confessors from an Eastern Church separated from the Roman Apostolic See. In this domain also, let a legitimate reciprocity be observed. However, on both parts let them be watchful not to give rise to suspicions of proselytism.

47. A Catholic who occasionally attends the divine liturgy (the Mass) in a church of separated Eastern brethren, on a Sunday or a Holy Day of obligation, is no longer bound to the precept of attending Mass in a Catholic Church. Likewise, it is fitting that on these same days Catholics attend the sacred liturgy in the church of their separated Eastern brethren if possible, when, for a just reason, they are prevented from taking part in the sacred liturgy in a Catholic Church.

52. Because "the participation in the ceremonies, or sacred things, the use of sacred places are allowed between Eastern Catholics and separated brethren, for a just reason" (decree on the Eastern Churches, No. 28), it is recommended that the use of Catholic buildings together with the other things necessary be granted to separated Eastern priests or communities for their religious rites, if they ask for them and with the permission of the local bishop, when they lack places in which they may fittingly and worthily accomplish their holy celebrations.

We can easily see how all this is far from the constant practice of the Church. Until then, a Catholic could not participate actively in non-Catholic worship; such participation was forbidden by the law of the Church.[20]

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

Up to now we have studied the relationship with the Orthodox religion as a whole. It is henceforth necessary to deal separately with the different elements composing it. As a matter of fact, there is not really one Orthodox Church. We use the term to simplify matters, but in fact, the Orthodox are divided into 16 autocephalous Churches, that is to say, independent from one another, and generally divided according to various nations. They are frequently at strife with one another. The Patriarch of Constantinople enjoys a certain pre-eminence in the Orthodox world, but the autocephalous Churches do not recognize in him the right to speak in their names. This division is an added difficulty for ecumenism with the Orthodox.

To limit ourselves to the essentials, we will only speak of the relations with Constantinople and Moscow (with a passing mention of the Greek Church). The Patriarch of Constantinople is first among his peers in the Orthodox hierarchy; the Patriarch of Moscow is the Primate of the largest Orthodox Church in the world, as far as the number of faithful is concerned. Let us consider first the relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In 1967, Paul VI went for the first time to the Phanar, the seat of the Patriarchate in Istanbul, in order to meet with Patriarch Athenagoras. He gave him in person an important message in which he told him:

Through baptism, "we are one in Christ Jesus."[21] By virtue of the apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist unite us even more intimately. Such is the deep and mysterious communion which exists between us. We are really and mysteriously each other brothers. In each local Church takes place this mystery of divine love, and is this not the reason for the traditional and so beautiful expression by which the local Churches loved to called themselves Sister Churches?

After a long period of division and reciprocal misunderstanding, the Lord grants us to rediscover each other as Sister Churches, in spite of the obstacles that were then raised between us. In the light of Christ, we see how pressing is the necessity for us to overcome the obstacle to manage to bring to its plenitude and perfection the already so rich communion which exists between us.

First of all, we must work fraternally in the service of our holy Faith to find together the adapted and progressive forms in order to develop and bring up to date the life of our Churches, and the communion which, although imperfect, is already there. Then, on both parts through mutual contacts we must promote, deepen, and adapt the formation of the clergy, the instruction and the life of the Christian people.[22]

This text is rich and calls for many comments, which we will provide later.

Patriarch Athenagoras returned the Pope's visit and went to Rome in October 1967. Cardinal Bea commented:

Pope Paul VI's visit to the Phanar, like that of the ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras I to Rome are historical events, unique in their kind. Since the time of Pope Constantine (708-15) never had a Roman Pontiff visited the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Likewise, no Patriarch of Constantinople in office had ever gone officially and solemnly to visit the Bishop of Rome.[23]

And Cardinal Lubachivsky would later explain:

When the ecumenical Patriarch went to Rome, on this occasion, and later again, he was received with all the honors due to a pope. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the only person ever who was invited to make use of the papal throne to greet his hosts.[24]

In his address during the ecumenical celebration in St. Peter's, on October 26, 1967, Athenagoras said:

The whole Catholic Church and the whole Orthodox Church in a common agreement and with the sense of their responsibility will move on towards their union.

Msgr. Chrysostomos, an Orthodox metropolitan, explained the meaning of this meeting between Patriarch Athenagoras and Paul VI as a matter of a new ecclesiology:

Until now, the ecumenical movement was in the hands of theologians; it was entrusted to their labs. Today, this ecumenical movement, these ecumenical efforts are officially the work of the Churches. Ecumenism is no longer a theory or discussion between theologians. It is a life lived by the Churches themselves....The Churches are aware of the issues which are still the objects of theological difference, but they have declared that these issues cannot prevent the Churches from seeking and rediscovering full communion in the Faith and in charity....Consequently, it is a new theology that has just been developed, the theology of communion between the Churches, which must tend towards its fullness in the Faith and in charity.[25]

When Metropolitan Meliton, representative of the Patriarch, came to Rome in 1972, Paul VI said in his address at St. John in Lateran: "Both (the Church of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople) rediscover with joy that they are branches from the same tree born of the same root."[26] And again: "There are beginnings which are like the fore-running signs of great ecumenical events towards which we turn our gaze with impatient joy while we work actively at bringing them about."[27]

On December 14, 1975, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the lifting of the anathemas, a solemn Mass was offered in Rome at the Sistine Chapel. After his address, Paul VI went up to the envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Meliton, knelt down before him and kissed his feet. Dumbfounded by this unheard of act of humility of the pope towards the Eastern Church, Meliton cried out: "Only a saint can act thus."[28]

Fr. Congar said he was struck and seduced by such a gesture:

Paul VI said many words of ecumenical scope; his texts speaking of "Sister Churches" are of great import. But his gestures are stronger still than his words. What he did on December 14, 1975, opened the theological dialogue more creatively still than his speeches. He went beyond the historical papacy and right back to the purer and more evangelical "Petrine ministry."[29]

Since 1977, the pope sends a delegation every year to represent him in Istanbul for the feast of St. Andrew, the patron saint of the patriarchate, and the patriarchate of Constantinople sends a delegation to Rome for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. These are the occasions to exchange messages.

On November 30, 1979, on the the feast of St. Andrew, Pope John Paul II went to Istanbul to visit Patriarch Dimitrios I who had succeeded the deceased Patriarch Athenagoras.

The Holy Father attended the Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom celebrated by the ecumenical patriarch in the patriarchal cathedral of St. George. The two bishops exchanged the kiss of peace before the Creed. This was an extraordinary gesture on the part of the Pope. It was absolutely unheard of that the pope of Rome would attend an ecumenical celebration with someone who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.[30]

The period which had elapsed since the Council had been baptized as a "dialogue of charity." It had for its objective to create links between Catholics and Orthodox as well as a favorable atmosphere in order to prepare for the quest of doctrinal unity. Rome had been waiting for a long time already for the moment when it could go forward and begin doctrinal discussions. But the Orthodox were in no hurry. They also had to settle this question between themselves at the "Pan-orthodox" level. After this period began the official theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church "in view of a full sacramental communion"[31] between the two Churches. John Paul II and Dimitrios I announced this together on the occasion of the meeting in Istanbul.

A few months later, in June 1980, the first meeting of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue in Rhodes took place. As usual, the Orthodox clearly put forth their positions. From the very start, the president of the Commission on the Orthodox side, Msgr. Stylianos, read a declaration: "By reason of the presence of Roman Catholics of Eastern rite, we recall that the Orthodox Church, for reason of principles, does not admit the Uniates."[32] We will come back at length on the question of the Uniates further on.

In 1981, on the occasion of the 16th centennial of the Second Council of Constantinople, the pope, who was prevented from preaching himself (because of the attempt on his life on the preceding May 13), invited Metropolitan Damaskinos to preach in his stead in St. Peter's Basilica. For the first time since the schism, an Orthodox prelate was going up to the pulpit in the basilica.

In 1985, John Paul II wrote an encyclical devoted to the apostles of the Slavs, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, in which he said:

Cyril and Methodius are like links of unity or a spiritual bridge between the Eastern and the Western tradition. They are for us the champions and at the same time the patrons of the ecumenical efforts of the Sister Churches of the East and the West to find again visible unity and full and perfect communion through dialogue and prayer. "A unity which," as I said on the occasion of my visit to Bari, "is neither absorption nor even fusion."[33]

In December 1987, Patriarch Dimitrios went to Rome. During the ceremony of December 5, in St. Mary Major, John Paul II answered the Patriarch:

If, in the course of the centuries, divergences, and often serious ones, between Western and Eastern Christian have weakened the testimony to the one Church of Christ, today repentance and the desire for union dwell in our hearts. Today we have a new proof that God has mercy on us and hears the prayers of those who ceaselessly intercede for the unity of all the Christians of His Church. To the Catholic Church and to the Orthodox Church was granted the grace to recognize themselves again as Sister Churches and to walk together towards full communion.

The next day, December 6, Dimitrios was received by the Pope in St. Peter's Basilica.

After putting on the liturgical vestments, they presided together over the liturgy of the word. The patriarch gave the homily first, after John Paul II had presented him to the people in the following terms: "With a deep joy, I now exhort you to listen to the word of the ecumenical patriarch, His Holiness Dimitrios I, our beloved brother in Christ." The pope in turn pronounced the homily, followed by the chant of the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople in Greek, the prayer of intercession and the kiss of peace....The patriarch went back up to the altar of the confession at the end of the Mass to bless the faithful.[34]

In his homily, the Pope said:

I pray to the Holy Ghost to give us His light and to enlighten all the pastors and theologians of our Churches, so that we, obviously together, may seek the forms in which this ministry [the pope's] can accomplish a service of love recognized by all.

That day, the Pope and the Patriarch proclaimed the Creed together in Greek, without the word Filioque (which means that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son), which the Orthodox reject. The next day, the Pope and the Patriarch signed a joint declaration in which they said:

This fraternity does not stop increasing and bringing forth fruits for the glory of God. We experience once more the happiness of being together like brothers.

The documents accepted by the Joint Commission seek to express what the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can already profess as their common faith about the mystery of the Church.[35]

The declaration here alludes to the "International Joint Commission for Ecumenical Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church." This commission was set up in 1980 for theological dialogue. It held eight plenary sessions from 1982 to 2000, which resulted in the publications of joint documents. "Though the reactions were as a rule positive, these documents gave rise to certain reservations, and even to open opposition on both sides," acknowledged the Commission.[36]

During the plenary session which took place in Freising, Germany, in June 1990, the Orthodox delegates insisted on suspending the theological discussion and on discussing as a priority the question of the Uniates, meaning by this the existence and function of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The seventh session, which took place at the Institute of Orthodox Theology in Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993, consequently tackled this issue, which the Orthodox consider crucial. It was a most important meeting. But to understand the problem of the Uniates, it is necessary to know the situation in Russia, which we shall now consider.

The Russian Church

In the empire of the Czars, the Orthodox faith was the state religion. Catholics, however, were quite present, and the government would regularly attempt to make them enter the Orthodox Church. The practice of Catholic worship was subject to harassment. Catholic priests could not preach in Russian to their parishioners, and thus no apostolate was possible. This persecution explains the relief of the Catholics when the Russian revolution broke out: "At the Vatican, the fall of the Czars was hailed as a liberating event," wrote the representative of France near the Holy See.[37] Obviously, they had to give up their illusions.

In 1927, through the signature of Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church pledged allegiance to the established power. The "Sergianists" caused the Church to collaborate with the Communist regime. Men docile to the government infiltrated the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church (with the exception of the Russian Church in exile "outside the country," which rightly refused this allegiance to the government). Almost all the members of the episcopate of the patriarchate of Moscow were compromised with the Communist power.

The declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 has never been annulled, nor regretted, nor even admitted as a weakness of the time, justified by the pressure exercised by the regime. On the contrary, they try to make people believe that it was legitimate, because all power exists only by the will of God. Today the civil power declares that it does not want to meddle with the internal business of the Church. But is the patriarchate truly free?

In 1948, the Patriarchate of Moscow had absolutely refused to adhere to the World Council of Churches. Some years later, in 1961, the Russian Orthodox Church entered the WCC with full membership at the New Delhi assembly. The Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis I, declared at that time: "Our mission in the present situation is to show forth to the Christians of the West the light of Orthodoxy." But it seems much more likely that this entry was done upon order from the Russian government, who thus had one foot in the door.

Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk (in charge of the Department of Foreign Relations for the Patriarchate of Moscow) acknowledged that any official intervention of the Patriarchate of Moscow at the international level had always been agreed upon before together with the Soviet and then the Russian authorities.

He also acknowledged that the entry of the Patriarchate of Moscow into the World Council of Churches in 1961 enabled it "to have access to an invaluable source of information coming from all of the Christian world." This information was destined to Soviet diplomats among others. In plain language, it means that the Department for Foreign Relations was nothing but an antenna of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and hence of the KGB, to which it passed on all the information to which it had access.[38] This confirms the very close links which existed between the KGB and the Patriarchate of Moscow, in which high dignitaries were KGB members, according to the Communist praxis of the ruling nucleus.

Each of the Communist states had its autocephalous Orthodox Church with its independent patriarch. Where this title did not exist, the Communists created it (in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia). Thus the political power had the upper hand in this Church, which it used as an assistant for the destruction of the Churches united to Rome.

 

Let us now come to the Uniates. This word designates several Eastern Churches which were separated in the past but happily returned to the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church. First the Ruthenians, a people living on the border of Poland and Belarus, became Catholics in 1596 by the Pact of Union of Brest-Litovsk, which united them to the Roman Church. Then in the following decades other peoples in Romania, the Ukraine, and so on, who, acknowledged their errors and thanks to the constant efforts of Rome to re-establish union in charity but also in truth, left their schism and came back to the One Church, while keeping their own rites and venerable traditions for which the Latin Church has a great respect. They are the symbol of true ecumenism, namely of the deep charity which urges us to convert our brethren.

After the Second World War, the Communist government with one stroke of the pen suppressed the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite (also known as Greek Catholic) in the Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. As for the Western Ukraine, when Stalin's regime suppressed the Greek Catholic Church in 1946 and sent all the bishops to prison and later on to the Gulag, there was but a very scanty Orthodox presence. The places of worship were confiscated and handed over to the Orthodox Church or affected to other uses. The Greek Catholic Church was incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church under duress.

Cardinal Lubachivsky, Archbishop of the Ukrainians in Lviv, passed the following judgment on the attitude of the Orthodox Church at that time:

More disturbing is the obvious refusal or the incapacity of the Orthodox Church to acknowledge that it had even a partial role in the historical cases of suppression of the Eastern Catholic Church. They very conveniently reject the full responsibility for the use of "unacceptable methods" upon "some civil authorities." Documentary evidence about the suppression of the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine in 1945-46 suggests much more than a passive acceptance of what was happening on the part of the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church seems to be incapable of even dealing honestly with its own history.[39]

After the Second Vatican Council, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy continued its persecuting alliance with the Communists against the Catholics. At the very time when John XXIII was receiving with great honors Khrushchev's son-in-law, Alexis Adjoubeï (March 7, 1963), the closing of churches, the sending of bishops into exile, and deportations to Siberia began to soar again. The "Ostpolitik," namely the politics of rapprochement of the Holy See with the Communist governments, whose main agent was Cardinal Casaroli, will remain an everlasting shame upon its author. During the Council of Zagorsk (USSR) in 1989, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy received many civil awards from the Soviet government and was congratulated in a decree for its fight for peace and its support to the Soviet State. This Council, at which Cardinal Willebrands was present, sent a very warm message to Mr. Gorbachev.[40] Likewise the Russian hierarchy had made an alliance with the Kremlin to delay a possible visit of the Pope to the Ukraine, which would reveal how numerous the local Catholics were.

Presently two extremely thorny questions are poisoning the relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. The two causes of disagreement on the part of the Patriarchate of Moscow are the Uniates (the issue of the Churches of the Eastern Rites united to Rome), and the "proselytism" of the Catholic Church. The Russian Orthodox Church had been forever asking for "the establishment of truly ecumenical relations between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church, excluding the manifestation of anything that could harm Orthodoxy (Uniatism, proselytism, and so on)."[41] And it happened precisely that the "dialogue" with the Orthodox in Central and Eastern Europe, and in particular with the Russian Orthodox Church, suffered from tensions due to two circumstances which were cause of great resentment for Russian Orthodox.

1) Public acknowledgment of the Greek Catholic Church

The Communist governments and the Orthodox thought they had managed to eradicate the Uniate Churches and that they now belonged to the past. After the return of religious liberty in 1989, after the long winter of persecution, the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church suddenly reappeared; it was able to rise again and become reorganized. The Orthodox, especially in the Ukraine and in Romania, found it very hard to accept the reality of a Church which they thought was dead and which had no right to exist according to them. So they made vigorous protests. These Churches thus became a serious and unforeseen stumbling block.

In 1979, Metropolitan Juvenaly of Moscow requested of the Holy See an explanation which was rather harshly phrased, denying the existence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. On January 10, 1982, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church reacted firmly to the words of Pope John Paul II who, a few days earlier, had defended the Romanian Catholic Church (the Uniates), which had not legally existed in Romania since 1948. This defense was considered by the Orthodox as an attempt to divide "the faithful of the Romanian Orthodox Church."

As it often happens, the most serious difficulty is of the material order: it has to do with the right of ownership and the use of the places of worship which in the past belonged to the Byzantine Catholic Churches, and which were confiscated by the governments and in part granted to the Orthodox Churches.

Through its suppression, the Byzantine Catholic Church had suffered a great injustice, but today the Orthodox Church is quite unwilling to remedy this injustice. It is especially the case in Western Ukraine where the contested Church properties all belonged to the Catholic Church up to 1946. Obviously, the Catholic faithful want to recuperate them, and hence a series of clashes over the ownership of these places of worship arose, along with the problem of their distribution. The Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis II, accused the Catholics of inflicting sufferings and even persecutions upon the Orthodox in Western Ukraine.

In order to overcome and resolve the difficulties which arose in this country, a meeting took place in Moscow in January 1990 between the Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow. During the meeting, the two delegations drew up "Recommendations" in view of the normalization of the relations between Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics in Western Ukraine.

In this context, on May 31, 1991, John Paul II sent a letter to the bishops of the European continent about the relations between Catholics and Orthodox in the new situation of Central and Eastern Europe. In this letter, he emphasized that the religious liberty recovered by many peoples of Eastern Europe "made possible the re-organization of the Catholic Church's Latin Rite in various nations and the normalization of the life of the Catholic Church's Byzantine Rite," but that this was accompanied by tensions and problems coming also from "the wounds caused by the sad experiences of the past."

"In Western Ukraine, today the Orthodox Church is actually destroyed,"[42] complained an Orthodox official. The Catholics, whom the Communists had tried to force to become Orthodox and who had suffered for the Faith, obviously were most anxious to again become openly Catholic as soon as they were free to do so. Their "anti-ecumenical" attitude, which is a sorrow to the Roman authorities, is explained by this avowal which we can call a gem of Msgr. Duprey, one of the officials of the Secretariat for Christian Unity:

This agreement [decided by the Roman authorities without asking their opinions] could not be fully applied because of an explosion of the passions back there, which neither the Catholic authorities nor the Orthodox authorities could control.

We must bear in mind that these Catholic faithful were unable to have contacts with the Holy See at the time when the Catholic Church was making what I would dare to call a 180° turnabout in her attitude towards the Orthodox Church in her ecumenical commitment during the Second Vatican Council and later in its application. Let us not forget either that, for 50 years at least, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church had the possibility of giving a catechetical formation enabling them to orientate their faithful in this new direction.[43]

2) The appointment of three apostolic administrators for the European part of Russia, for Siberia, and Kazakhstan by the Holy See in 1991.

In Russia, until 1917, there was an ecclesial structure that encompassed the entire territory: it was the Archdiocese of Mohilev (in Belarus), created in 1783.

The increase in the number of Catholics in the Russian empire was due to various factors, among which were the arrival of German settlers, massive deportation of Catholics from the kingdom of Poland and from Lithuania to the territories of the Russian empire; emigration of Poles and Lithuanians to Russia because of unemployment. These various causes brought about the arrival of Catholics in the territories of the Czarist empire, even in Siberia. All in all, we can say that at the beginning of the 1920's there were approximately 1,650,000 Catholics in Russia, with 580 parishes or churches and 397 priests to minister to them.

In 1923, there still existed in the territory of the present Russian Republic six Catholic "deaneries" for the Latin Rite and the "apostolic Vicariate of Siberia," erected into a diocese (Vladivostok) the same year. In 1926, in the midst of the raging persecution, Pope Pius XI divided the territory of the Archdiocese of Mohilev into five apostolic administrations, among which were those of Moscow and Leningrad, to ensure a better spiritual assistance to Latin-Rite Catholics.

But among other devastating effects, the 70 years of Communism changed the "Latin" religious topography of the Soviet Union. The map of the religious denominations changed much during those years due to the successive deportations of populations (caused by the Second World War, or arbitrarily decided by Stalin). Millions of people were obliged through violence and terror to move from one area to another across this immense territory. Consequent to these deportations, Catholics were to be found in great number all the way to Siberia and Kazakhstan. These Catholic have been practically deprived of pastors for decades.

As far as possible, the Holy See tried to get in touch with these Catholic communities. The popes, as much as they could do so at the time, tried to go towards these Catholic communities who were turning to the See of Peter to implore help.

In 1989, in the Soviet Union, the "law on liberty of conscience and religious organizations" was promulgated; it was also the beginning of official relationships between the Holy See and the USSR. The Pope's representative, Msgr. Colasuonno (now a cardinal) tried to establish an inventory of the Catholic communities which were at last able to manifest themselves.

In Moscow, the Catholics of Polish origin alone might be 40,000, not including the Catholics from other origins and the members of the numerous embassies. In St. Petersburg, there are some 12,000 Catholics of Polish origin and many Lithuanians. In the area of the Volga, there are over 40,000 faithful of Polish, German, and Lithuanian origin who were deported there by Stalin. In Siberia, in the area of Novosibirsk, it seems that there are about 40,000 Catholics of German origin and just as many of Polish origin, and in Omsk, about 50,000 of German origin. In Kazakhstan, most of the Latin rite Catholics are Germans (about 500,000 Catholics) who were deported to the diocese of Tiraspol (already erected in 1848) where there also some 100, 000 Poles.

In the present state of things, it is still difficult to know the exact number of Catholics present in the territory of the Russian Federation. We can affirm, while being close to the truth, that presently the number of Catholics in the whole Russian Federation is somewhere around 1,300,000.[44]

Consequently, on April 13, 1991, the Holy See appointed three apostolic administrators in the territory of the former USSR. This appointment was interpreted by the Patriarchate of Moscow as an attempt at missionary action in territories in which the Orthodox Church traditionally has the majority. It accused the Holy See of establishing "ecclesiastic structures parallel" to the Orthodox structures in territories where they did not exist previously. This creation may have no other purpose than to set up the conditions for future proselytism.

The Holy See tried to explain to the Russian Orthodox Church that the purpose of these appointments was merely to answer the needs of the Catholic communities in the places where they find themselves nowadays, thanks to the religious freedom at last recognized in the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, as soon as it was possible, the Holy See accomplished its duty of providing pastors for Catholics who, for more than 70 years, had been living in a situation of great spiritual distress.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Secretary of State, intervened on this subject:

I would not like a gesture of great pastoral solicitude from the Pope in favor of the Catholics in these areas to continue to be misinterpreted by anyone, and inaccurate or truly unjust affirmations to continue to be repeated.

The Holy Father has the duty to provide spiritual assistance for the Latin-Rite Catholic communities.

Consequently, the Holy Father has established three apostolic administrations for European Russia, Siberia and Kazakhstan, appointing as many apostolic administrators, who will reside in the centers having the greatest number of Catholics: Moscow, Novosibirsk, and Karaganda.

The re-organization of the Catholic Church in the countries of Eastern Europe is not done at all with the intention of making converts. The unique reason was pastoral. Personally, I would have expected a better understanding of the Pope's pastoral attitude.[45]

These measures "were in no wise motivated by proselytism. The Holy See feels a great respect and a great esteem for the Russian Orthodox Church. And it showed this on various occasions and in different manners."[46]

Since the reorganization of the Latin-Rite Church in 1991, the number of parishes in the Russian Federation increased from 10 to 220. The major seminary of St. Petersburg was reopened in 1993, and Catholic priests were ordained, something that had not happened for 80 years. But 40% of the parishes still do not have a location to celebrate Mass, because many of the churches which belonged to the Catholic Church have not been given back, especially in the areas where Catholics are a minority, hence the impossibility of practising their religion in all freedom.

On February 11, 2002, the Holy See made public the new organization of the Catholic Church in the territory of the Russian Federation. The four "apostolic administrations" (created in 1991 and 1999), structures which are temporary by definition, became full Catholic dioceses, and the former apostolic administration of Northern European Russia was even made into a metropolitan archdiocese with its see in Moscow. That same day, L'Osservatore Romano published the following explanatory notice:

With the elevation of the four present administrations to the rank of dioceses and the creation of a metropolitan see in the Russian Federation, His Holiness John Paul II wants to answer concretely to the pastoral solicitude due to those who have freely chosen and acknowledged the Catholic Church as their "home" or "family." It is not, strictly speaking, a question of introducing new ecclesiastic structures in these territories, but rather of re-establishing those which already existed previously, while adjusting them to the present situation.

The present increase in the number of Catholics in the Russian Federation certainly does not come from the passage of Orthodox faithful to the Catholic Church. The new Catholics rather come from walks of life usually removed from any religion. They came in contact with the Catholic Church, and asked to be baptized and become part of this Church. This is sufficient to wave aside any hypothesis or accusation of proselytism which are often leveled at us with assured approximation, obviously based on a partial or inaccurate reading of the facts.[47]

To this the Orthodox oppose various arguments. For the Orthodox Church and the Russian government, which agree on this point, the Russians were always the flock of the Orthodox Church, and even if many were torn away from their religion by 70 years of the Communist regime, they must now return to Orthodoxy. The new converts coming to the Catholic Church are not pagans to be converted, but descendants of the Orthodox whose religion was violently torn away from them. They must be given time to evangelize them again.

The 70 years of oppression and sometimes of very severe open persecutions have weakened our Church and deprived her of her missionary and catechetic know-how. Without having the time to catch our breath and restore forgotten traditions, we are today confronted with a serious competition in the domain of missionary action by all those who are here, from the Moonists and the new Charismatic movements to our Catholic brethren.[48]

According to the Orthodox, the Christians who are Russian citizens and who only speak Russian must be Orthodox, since Russia is a traditional territory of the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church must cease her proselytism "on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church," and should not open parishes in these "traditionally" Orthodox territories.

These two issues of the Uniates and of the proselytism of the Catholic Church in Russia cause great tensions in the relations between the Vatican and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

In order to give a more precise idea of the difficulties of ecumenism with the Orthodox, here are two examples of internal divisions in Orthodoxy. In the Ukraine, Orthodoxy is divided into three parallel hierarchies, which makes matters singularly difficult. For the Patriarchate of Moscow, the only canonical representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox is Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, primate of the autonomous Orthodox Church of Kiev (with approximately 5,500 parishes). But there also exists an "autocephalous Church of the Ukraine" (not recognized by the other Orthodox Churches), re-constituted in 1989 (with 800 parishes), and a "Ukrainian Church–Patriarchate of Kiev," created in 1992 (with 1,500 parishes). This latter is supported by the Ukrainian civil authorities favorable to a rupture with Moscow politically as well as religiously. With which one of these "Churches," which cordially hate each other, should we practise ecumenism?

Here is a question of the daily La Croix to the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis II:

On the occasion of his visit to the Ukraine (in 2001), John Paul II greeted the representatives of other Orthodox Churches established in the Ukraine but which do not depend upon the Patriarchate of Moscow. How do you react to this gesture?

This question gives rise to concern in the Russian Orthodox Church. It has to do with the ambiguous position of the Roman Catholic Church towards several schismatic "Orthodox" groups [schismatics also have their own schismatics!] present in the Ukraine. The Patriarchate of Moscow insists with the Vatican upon a mandatory and official acknowledgment by the Vatican of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the only canonical Orthodox Church in the country, and of his head as the only Orthodox primate for the all of the Ukraine. Such a measure would make it possible to avoid a further degradation of the relations between our Churches in the future.[49]

A second example: Moscow and Constantinople are in conflict concerning jurisdiction over the Orthodox of Estonia. In summary, those of Russian origin want to maintain links with the Patriarchate of Moscow, while those of Estonian origin want to be autonomous under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The visit to Estonia of Bartholomew, the present Patriarch of Constantinople, in October 2001 was considered by Moscow as an intrusion and a provocation. On November 6, the Russian Orthodox Church broke all relations with Constantinople. There are similar problems in the Ukraine. As a rule, the Patriarchate of Moscow is so touchy that we can feel ill will and blackmail in its reaction. Russian nationalism may be partly responsible, but we are forced to observe that it uses methods similar to those of the Communists. This is probably not a coincidence; its apparatchiks remain impregnated by 70 years of close contact with Communism.

How difficult would be any attempt of union with the See of Peter, even if it were done in a Catholic spirit, by reason of this complex situation!

The Greek Church

The Greek Orthodox Church deserves a special mention. It never hid its mistrust and apprehension of ecumenism, and it proclaimed it loud and clear. For instance, on the occasion of the first official visit of Cardinal Willebrands in Greece, on May 18, 1971, the Orthodox archbishop of Athens in his address expressed his mistrust of the Roman Church, which has been forever under suspicion of entertaining questionable intentions with regards to the Orthodox Church.[50]

The Orthodox Church in Greece is particularly attached to the immutable and intangible character of its doctrine. The Metropolitan of Patras declared as spokesman of this Church:

Not a single iota of the dogmas of Orthodoxy shall be removed....We must not allow that Orthodoxy be modified in anything whatsoever....Not one jot or tittle shall be taken away from the whole of the Orthodox faith.[51]

On December 16, 1969, the Russian Orthodox Church, in order to make reciprocal the Catholic decision made two years earlier, decided to allow Catholics to its sacraments. This caused an uproar in the rest of the Orthodox world, especially in Greece. The monks on Mount Athos said they were "dumbfounded" by this "incredible" decision.[52] As a matter of fact, the Russian Orthodox Church would suspend its decision in 1986.[53]

In 1972, eight out of the twenty monasteries on Mount Athos rebelled against the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and ceased to make a commemoration of him (Athenagoras, and then Dimitrios) in the liturgy, in order to manifest their opposition to the ecumenical overtures of the Patriarchate towards Rome.[54] The Patriarchate had a hard time pacifying them, and was slowed down in its ecumenical wishes by this internal opposition.

The position of the Church in Greece is probably even more radical than that of Constantinople, but it shows us well what is at the basis of Orthodoxy. Today's Orthodox want to remain themselves, namely, Orthodox. They mean to be faithful to the "undivided Church" of the first millennium, i.e., before the separation of the Latin Church. They accept only the first seven Councils. The Councils celebrated after the schism are not ecumenical and the truths defined since that date are theological opinions of the Church of Rome. For them, the Roman Church made secession and has fallen away from unity with Orthodoxy. They do not share, and rightly so, the enthusiasm of the conciliar Catholics for all the novelties, and they are much more attached to their doctrinal and liturgical tradition. But, in fact, the Orthodox bishops are mere "Museum custodians."

Many Orthodox do not agree with ecumenical organizations such as the WCC. They reject ecumenism for deep doctrinal reasons. It would seem that the Patriarchate of Moscow slows it down rather for opportunist and political reasons (it threatens to weaken its own power), but it can put forth purely doctrinal considerations. In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church held an extraordinary assembly during which she published a document on the basic principles ruling the relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with heterodoxy (namely the non-Orthodox Christians).[55]

We quote here somewhat extensive passages from this important document, because it explains the present position of a good portion of the Orthodox:

The Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, founded by Our Lord and Savior Himself, the Church that the Holy Ghost has established and which He fills, the Church of which the Savior Himself said: "I shall build my Church[56] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her" (Mt. 16:18). She is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church[57], the custodian and dispenser of the sacred sacraments in the whole world, 'column and foundation of the truth' (I Tim. 3:15). Hers is the full responsibility of diffusing the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

The Orthodox Church is the true Church, in which are kept unaltered the holy Tradition and the fullness of the saving grace of God.

Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot be united to her again in the state in which they now are: we must overcome the existing dogmatic divergences and not merely go around them.

Unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are tragic misunderstandings, that the disagreements only seem irreconcilable because of a lack of mutual love, because of a refusal to understand, and that in spite of all the difference and all the dissimilarity, there is a sufficient unity and agreement "on the essentials"....Equally unacceptable is the affirmation that what distinguishes the Orthodox Church from the Christian communities with which it is not in communion are questions of secondary importance. We do not have the right to reduce all the divisions and disagreements to various non-theological factors.

The Orthodox Church rejects a unity more apparent than real, "thanks to which the Christian will appear united on what is secondary and will continue as in the past to diverge on the essentials." In the relationships with the heterodox,

there must be a firm confession of the truth of our Ecumenical Church as the only custodian of the heritage of Christ and the unique ark of salvation and divine grace...we must reveal to them our faith and our immutable conviction that our Orthodox Church alone has kept unaltered the totality of the Christian deposit. (Quotation from a letter of the Holy Synod of 1903.)

The Orthodox Church considers as her main task to "bear a permanent and insistent testimony" to the tradition of the Church. It is "the main objective of the Orthodox participation to the ecumenical movement."

If the necessity for the Orthodox Church to bear testimony before the heterodox world does not raise any doubt, on the other hand the question of the concrete forms of this testimony, and especially the legitimacy of a participation of the Orthodox Church to the ecumenical movement and to the International Christian organizations, were the objects of careful and constant consideration and continue to be so....We cannot say that this point goes without saying for the Orthodox conscience....While participating in the ecumenical movement, the Orthodox however proclaim clearly and without ambiguity that they do not share the heterodox conception of ecumenism. They exclude all dogmatic concessions and any compromise in the domain of the faith.

We would like to find the same firmness in the Catholic pastors!

We must also mention that the Russian Church "outside the country" (the Church constituted during the 1922 emigration, which is not in canonical communion with all of the Orthodoxy) "anathematized ecumenism" in 1983.

So this is what the Orthodox think of the ecumenical dialogue. For them, there is no question of conversion or of a return to the Catholic Church.

 

This article was originally published in Nouvelles de Chrétienté in January 2003. However, since Benedict XVI considers ecumenism with the Orthodox as one of the priorities of his pontificate, this study by Fr. Gresland has lost none of its interest. Fr. Hervé Gresland, a Frenchman, was ordained in 1983. After several assignments at priories in France, he is now at the Sierre Priory in Switzerland.

 

 

¹ L. Bouyer in Dom L. Beauduin, un homme d’Eglise (Casterman, 1964), p.135.

² Let it be understood from the start that we call the different Christian communities "Churches" only for the sake of convenience.

³ La Croix, January 3, 1961.

⁴ La Documentation Catholique (D.C.), November 5, 1961.

⁵ D.C., January 21, 1962.

⁶ Interview with La Stampa, February 20, 1962. D.C., July 1, 1962.

⁷ D.C., November 4, 1962.

⁸ R. M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 124 (French edition).

⁹ Declaration of November 22, 1964, D.C., February 21, 1965.

¹⁰ Pastoral Letter of Cardinal Lubachivsky, major archbishop of Lviv of the Ukrainians, D.C., September 1994.

¹¹ D.C., February 2, 1964.

¹² Unitatis Redintegration, §14.

¹³ IVth Lateran Council, Dz. 802.

¹⁴ They Have Uncrowned Him, p. 176 (French edition).

¹⁵ November 22, 1964. D.C., February 21, 1965.

¹⁶ D.C. 1966, No.1462.

¹⁷ On December 14, 1975; D.C., January 1976.

¹⁸ Unitatis Redintegration, §15.

¹⁹ Guidebook of May 14, 1967; D.C., June 18, 1967.

²⁰ Canon 1258.

²¹ Gal. 3:28.

²² Letter Anno Ineunte, handed by Paul VI to Athenagoras on July 25, 1967. D.C., August 7, 1967.

²³ Article by Cardinal Bea. D.C., December 17,1967.

²⁴ Cf. Footnote 10.

²⁵ D.C., October 15, 1967.

²⁶ On January 24, 1972. D.C., February 20, 1972.

²⁷ On the occasion of the Angelus of January 23, 1972. D.C., February 20, 1972.

²⁸ L’Osservatore Romano, December 16, 1975 (French edition), article by Fr. Pierre Duprey. D.C., January 4 1976.

²⁹ Article by Fr. Congar in L’Osservatore Romano, September 25, 1977. D.C., January 15, 1978.

³⁰ Cf. footnote 10.

³¹ Idem.

³² D.C., July 20, 1980.

³³ Encyclical Slavorum Apostoli of June 2, 1985. The passage quoted by the Pope is taken from his address at Bari in St. Nicolas’ Basilica, on February 26, 1984.

³⁴ Report in the D.C. of January 17, 1988.

³⁵ D.C., January 17, 1988.

³⁶ D.C., September 17, 2000.

³⁷ Quoted by Philippe Prévost in L’Eglise et le Ralliement (C.E.C., 2001), p.242.

³⁸ Nouvelles du Monde Orthodoxe, November 2002.

³⁹ Letter of Cardinal Lubachivsky to Cardinal Cassidy, Rome, August 2, 1993. D.C., January 16, 1994.

⁴⁰ La Croix, June 8 and 11, 1989.

⁴¹ Interview of Patriarch Alexis I on March 1966. D.C. July 17, 1966.

⁴² Address of Fr. Yosif Poustooutov at the Fifth European Ecumenical Meeting in Santiago, November 12-8, 1991. D.C., January 5, 1992.

⁴³ Address of Msgr. Pierre Duprey at the Fifth European Ecumenical Meeting in Santiago, D.C., January 5, 1992.

⁴⁴ Article in L’Osservatore Romano, French edition, February 10-11, 2002. D.C., April 7, 2002.

⁴⁵ The historical and pastoral reasons for the recent bishops’ appointments in the USSR, the Ukraine and Rumania. Speech of Cardinal Sodano, Secretary of State on December 6, 1991. D.C., January 19, 1992.

⁴⁶ Communiqué from the Press Room of the Holy See. L’Osservatore Romano of October 14, 1991. D.C., November 17, 1991.

⁴⁷ D.C., April 7, 2002.

⁴⁸ See footnote 42.

⁴⁹ Interview of Alexis II with La Croix, published in the September 12, 2001 edition. D.C. November 18, 2001.

⁵⁰ D.C., August 1, 1971.

⁵¹ Conference given on November 1980. D.C., November 1, 1981.

⁵² D.C., March 15 and April 19, 1970.

⁵³ D.C., December 7, 1986.

⁵⁴ D.C., January 7, 1973.

⁵⁵ Assembly of Moscow from August 13-16. Text in the D.C. of April 15, 2001.

⁵⁶ This sentence falsifies the text since the "on this rock" is eliminated.

⁵⁷ Nevertheless the Orthodox recognize that "to confess that our holy Eastern Orthodox Church is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church does not means that the notes of the Church are not found and are not respected in other particular Churches separated from us." (Discourse of Msgr. Meliton, President of the Conference, at the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes on November 1, 1964. D.C., May 2, 1965.)