Inside the Vatican: Catholics and Orthodox are Christians, divided since 1054. Can that division be healed? How?

Bishop Hilarion: <…> The schism of 1054 was <…> the result of quite a long development, and not simply a matter of misunderstanding between the papal envoys and the members of the Church of Constantinople, as it is sometimes presented. Obviously, dogmatic and ecclesiological differences between East and West in the first millennium did not necessitate the complete breach of eucharistic relations between the two traditions, but they definitely contributed to the alienation that resulted in this breach.

The second millennium was marked by a continual struggle between East and West, and by the numerous attempts of the Pope to bring disobedient Easterners under his control.

The Crusades were the most striking and outrageous example of the use of violence against the Orthodox by their Western fellow-Christians. The memory of the Crusades is still alive among the Greeks: the wound is still bleeding. The late Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades before the Archbishop of Athens, which by itself was a noble action. One has to admit, however, that the apology was delayed by eight centuries. It must also be recognised that numerous remnants of the Crusaders' activity still survive, including, for example, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which was created at the time of the Crusades in order to replace the respective Orthodox Patriarchate.

Other blows dealt repeatedly to the Orthodox were the numerous attempts to bring them under the jurisdiction of Rome by means of "union". The first such attempt, made in Lyon in the 13th century, was followed the Union of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, on the eve of the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Nothing has remained of these two "unions". But the Union of Brest, proclaimed in 1596, gave birth to ecclesiastical structures that still exist and whose recent revival has contributed to aggravating Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Parallel to these processes, a continuing theological alienation between Orthodox and Catholics also grew. This was to a significant degree conditioned by the introduction of new doctrines in the Catholic Church, which were (and are still) regarded by the Orthodox as dogmatic innovations. The belief in the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is the most striking example. A teaching that was the consequence of many centuries of theological debate within the Catholic Church, it was strongly censured by the Orthodox. Indeed, this doctrine was rejected also by some traditional circles within the Western Church: hence the appearance of the Old Catholic movement, which for many decades conducted a dialogue with the Orthodox.

The struggles between the two Christian traditions in the first half of the 20th century did not differ from those of previous times in that they continued at various levels. There were, however, some latent streams within both traditions which predetermined a rather rapid rapprochement in the second half of the 20th century. Already in the 1930s and 1940s theologians from both sides began to meet on a more regular basis, and for the very first time in Christian history the possibility emerged for each to cross the borders of its own context.

The theological exchange that took place at that time contributed to the remarkable change on the part of the Catholics towards the Orthodox which was most evidently manifested during the Second Vatican Council. At this Council, the Orthodox Church was recognized as possessing the fullness of the divine grace that leads people to salvation. It is from Vatican II that the term "sister Church" with reference to the Orthodox Church stems.

This same Council predetermined the significant achievements attained by the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, which was created in 1980. The work of this Commission lasted for 20 years and then was interrupted in 2000 because of a strong disagreement on the question of Uniatism. After a five-year break the Coordinating Committee of this Commission met in the fall of 2005 in Rome to prepare the plenary session, which is to be held in Serbia in 2006.

Thus, the theological dialogue has now resumed, and it is a good sign. However, there is not much ground for excessive optimism, since the questions to be discussed are quite difficult and quite numerous. The issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, which will be addressed by the Commission in 2006, is among the most difficult ones, not only because it remains the main cause of disagreement between the Catholics and the Orthodox, but also because there is no unity among the Orthodox on the understanding of primacy in the Universal Church. I envisage long and difficult discussions, many years of assiduous work, and no immediate and visible results.

Inside the Vatican: If the division cannot be healed, can Catholics and Orthodox nevertheless work together on certain social problems, like caring for abandoned children, or supporting marriage and family life? What possibilities do you see for this type of collaboration?

Bishop Hilarion: I think there are many possibilities for such collaboration, and I regret that until now we have done very little together in the field of Christian charity. Sometimes our missions and charitable organizations act almost as competing structures, while we desperately need to learn to work together.

Caring for abandoned children and supporting marriage and family life are among the most urgent tasks in such countries as Russia. It is important, however, that these noble activities not be used for the aims of proselytism, which devalues them and makes them an obstacle, rather then a means for Christian unity.

I hope some way of closer collaboration of the Catholics with the Orthodox in the field of promoting and defending Christian values in Europe will be found in the near future. Over a year ago, on the pages of your periodical, I called for a European Catholic-Orthodox alliance to be created, and I still think this idea is quite relevant.

There are now two obvious essentially-differing versions of Christianity - the traditional and the liberal. The abyss that now exists divides not so much the Orthodox and Catholics, or the Catholics and Protestants, as the "traditionalists" and "liberals" (with all the conventions of such labels). Of course, there are defenders of traditional values in the Protestant camp (especially in the Southern churches, that is, Africa, Asia, Latin America). But a liberal attitude prevails among the Protestants.

In this situation, I suppose that a consolidation is needed in the efforts of those churches which consider themselves "Churches of Tradition," that is, the Orthodox, Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox. I am not speaking about the serious dogmatic and ecclesiological differences which exist between these Churches and which can be considered within the framework of bilateral dialogue. I am speaking about the need to reach an agreement between these Churches on some strategic alliance, pact or cooperation for defending traditional Christianity as such - defending it from all modern challenges, be it militant liberalism, militant atheism or militant Islam. When I expressed this idea for the first time, I used the word "alliance' to describe the body which, in my opinion, needs to be created. Some subsequent critics, while enthusiastic about the idea itself, did not like the term "alliance" for the military or political connotations which, allegedly, could be discerned in it.

Indeed, what matters most is not the terminology, but the idea. Perhaps we could speak about a Catholic-Orthodox Committee on Cooperation in Europe, or about a European Catholic-Orthodox Consultative Board. In any case, for the body in question, we need a word which has no ecclesiastical connotations: words like "council" or "union" should be avoided. Otherwise one may suspect that a new type of Uniatism is envisaged.

I would like to make clear that we do not need another union of the type of Ferrara-Florence, a union aimed at restoration of full Eucharistic communion but based on a theological compromise. What we do need at this stage, in my opinion, is a close and efficient strategic cooperation, for the challenge is made to traditional Christianity as such. This is especially noticeable in Europe, where de-Christianization and liberalization are occurring as persistently as the gradual and unswerving Islamization. The liberal, weakened "Christianity" of the Protestant communities cannot resist the onslaught of Islam; only staunch, traditional Christianity can stand against it, ready to defend its moral positions. In this battle, the Orthodox and Catholics could, even in the face of all the differences accumulated over the centuries, form a united front.

The primary purpose of the strategic cooperation that I propose should be the defense of traditional moral values such as the family, childbirth, spousal fidelity. These values are subjected to systematic mockery and derision in Europe by liberals and democrats of all types. Instead of spousal fidelity, "free love" is promoted, same-sex partnerships are equated with the union of marriage, childbirth is opposed by "family planning." Unfortunately, we have serious differences in these matters with most Protestants, not to speak of fundamental differences of theological and ecclesiological character <…>

source: Europaica 95 http://www.orthodoxeurope.org