Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria: The Vatican Document Brings Nothing New

The 'Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church', produced by the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007, present the position of the Catholic Magisterium on the Churches and Communities which are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In my opinion, it brings nothing new in comparison with previous documents of similar kind, such as the 'Dominus Iesus'.

The document is based on the belief that the Church of Christ is one, and that it subsists in the Catholic Church. The word 'subsists', according to the document, 'can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith'.

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. For us, '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.

With regard to the Orthodox Churches 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 is therefore much more profound and substantial than the division between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

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 the Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, likewise, 'lacks something in its condition'. 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.

The Orthodox Church does not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the 'pontifex maximus' of the Universal Church. In case of restoration of the Eucharistic communion, the Orthodox Church will recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals (primus inter pares) in the family of primates of the Local Churches. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is, for the Orthodox, that of honour, not of jurisdiction.

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

source:  Europaica 124