Ecclesiological Insights into the Orthodox–Catholic Dialogue

Abstract

The paper’s aim is to provide a synthetic and at the same time critical reading of the official theological dialogue, known as the “dialogue of truth”, between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. The paper will cover the period from the dialogue’s preparation, also known as the “dialogue of charity”, to the present day. It will analyse the ecclesiological aspects of this dialogue, focusing on sacraments, church ministries, primacy, synodality, and other related issues such as “Uniatism”. The essay will provide an overall evaluation of the dialogue, examining its reception and the need for concrete criteria of unity. Also, the paper will highlight the synodal and sacramental roots of episcopacy and their significance for the unity of the Church. The article will present insights from leading theologians, such as Joseph Ratzinger and John Zizioulas, to better understand the meaning and functions of primacy in the universal Church.

1. Introduction1

The dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church is perhaps the most important in the modern ecumenical landscape as it represents the rapprochement between the two greatest Christian traditions of the East and the West. To better understand the encounter between the two churches, it is necessary to go back to the premises of this dialogue, namely the reconciliation achieved in the 1960s, which marked a paradigm shift in their relations. For its part, the “dialogue of truth”, since its launch in the 1980s, has proved its freshness, as it is conducted with a new methodology affirming what Orthodox and Catholics have in common. The official documents of the dialogue have a considerable ecclesiological value, as they indicate a terrain in which issues that have caused conflicts in the past can be addressed in a new way.

We acknowledge that the study of this dialogue is a complex task. However, our intention is to offer a critical reading, for we believe that the dialogue is not just the publication of documents but that it has its own vision of what the Church of Christ is, without violating the ecclesiological principles proper to each church. With this in mind, we will propose a thematic-historical approach (the three phases of the dialogue),2 and then we will address the crucial issue of “primacy” with a comparison between two important and influential voices of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, namely John Zizioulas and Joseph Ratzinger,3 to end with some summary remarks.

2. Towards a New Milieu in Orthodox–Catholic Relations: The “Dialogue of Charity”

During the twentieth century, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches came together as “sister churches” after prolonged hostility and distrust. This reconciliation was encouraged by the meeting between Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, in January 1964, in Jerusalem. It was the first time the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople had met in over 500 years, that is, since the Council of Florence in 1439. A year and a half later, on 7 December 1965, the reciprocal excommunications imposed in 1054 were lifted; this opened up the possibility of reconciliation between these two major Christian traditions. In a Joint Statement, the pope and the patriarch affirmed their decision to remove the excommunications from the memory of the two churches and condemn them to oblivion.4 This marked the beginning of a new era of friendship and shared desire to purify memory and develop fraternal relationships.

Patriarch Athenagoras had received consent from other Orthodox leaders in the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1963 to establish relations with the Catholic Church and to engage in a dialogue “on equal footing.”5 This dialogue aimed to approach the two churches as ecclesiastically equal without claiming one’s superiority over the other.

Orthodoxy was already engaged in the so-called “practical ecumenism” with Protestants in the context of the WCC, aiming to promote friendship and collaboration. For Athenagoras, the “dialogue of charity” with the Catholic Church did not mean compromises in matters of faith. Still, the Orthodox Church had to decide whether or not to engage in theological discussions. It is known that the differences between the two churches had gone beyond just ecclesiastical customs, for they included different interpretations of the Christian faith in matters of doctrine, liturgical practices, canon law, and church government. The Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1964, held in Rhodes, emphasised the importance of proper preparation and the creation of a favourable psychological context before the Orthodox Church “as a whole” should enter into any theological discussion with Catholicism.

The Orthodox choice to prioritise the “dialogue of charity” meant overcoming old polemical mentalities on either side. It also sought that a sense of pacification, forgiveness, and reconciliation should be created before any theological encounter could take place. The Metropolitan of Philadelphia (now Ecumenical Patriarch), Bartholomew, commented that if the dialogue had started from the differences between the two churches, its progress would have been compromised because, from its very beginning, the churches would have faced difficulties in which the psychological distance wouldn’t have been any less critical (See Bartholomew, Metropolitan of Philadelphia 1998, p. 38). The priority of the “dialogue of charity” was expressed through gestures of forgiveness and courtesy (exchanges of delegations at the patronal feasts of Rome and Constantinople, restitution of holy relics, formal correspondence, etc.), which became tangible expressions of the common belonging to the Church of Christ.6

In the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1968, held in Geneva, the Orthodox created inter-Orthodox Commissions to prepare official theological dialogues with other churches and Confessions. Eventually, the launch of the so-called “dialogue of truth” with the Catholic Church was officially announced by Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios during the former’s visit to Phanar in 1979. Its purpose was to reconfirm the path of charity undertaken since the 1960s and draw a new theological roadmap for the future.

3. The “Dialogue of Truth”

The International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (henceforth: Commission) carried out this mandate and premised that the purpose of theological dialogue was to re-establish full communion between the two churches along the lines of faith and the shared experience of the tradition of the undivided church.7

The theological dialogue was thus understood as a display of the joint commitment to restore full unity in the way it was experienced in the undivided Church. It aimed to help, as we shall see, the hierarchies and the people of God to better understand their common traditions. To achieve such a goal, this “new” theological dialogue should now: (a) discern the elements that unite the two churches and understand them in a new way, far from apologetic mentalities, with a positive spirit that “should prevail when treating the problems which have accumulated during a separation lasting many centuries” (ibid., II, 1); and (b) pay attention to the existing problems but evaluate the different theologies developed after the schism between the East and the West, distinguishing those practices and doctrines compatible with Eucharistic communion from those that make Eucharistic sharing impossible. “Historical developments of the past must also be seen in the light both of further theological developments and of recent ecclesial practice in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.” (ibid., II, 2.)

In other words, communion in faith and sacraments should be preceded by the experience of unity around the apostolic teaching and tradition.

Let us quickly retrace the main stages of the “dialogue of truth.” From a chronological and thematic viewpoint, we can distinguish three phases: the first, in the 1980s, explored themes concerning ecclesiology, faith, and apostolic succession; the second, in the 1990s, focused on the issues of the so-called “Uniatism” and on proselytism; finally, the third phase (since 2005) took up ecclesiology and particularly the relation that exists between conciliarity and primacy.

3.1. The First Phase of Theological Dialogue: Nature on the Church, Sacraments, and Church Ministries

In the first document issued by the Commission at Munich in 1982 on “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity,”8 one can easily recognise the influence of Orthodox eucharistic theology and the Catholic ecclesiology of communion. The Commission examined the sacrament of the Eucharist and the mystery of the Church not as such (or through the lens of sacramental theology and canon law) but from the viewpoint of church unity. The Commission confirmed that the Orthodox and Catholics understand their faith as deriving from the apostolic faith. It also exalted the priority of local ecclesiology, according to which “the church exists in history as local church”; it follows that “the institutional elements should be nothing but a visible reflection of the reality of the mystery” (Munich 1982, II, 1).

The Eucharist reveals the “mystical” nature of the church per excellence, as it originates from Trinitarian communion. Church ministries must express the Trinitarian way of being, in which there is no imposition of one divine Person on the other two. Accordingly, the office of the bishop unites the local church with the other local churches through faith and sacraments; the episcopal ministry exists for the universal Church. It follows that ecclesial unity is a communion between churches (on the local, regional, and universal levels). For the Commission, “the universal and local are necessarily simultaneous” (Munich 1982, III, 2). This unity is rooted in time (the continuity of the apostolic tradition) and space (the communion between local churches).

In this way, the communion of a local church with another is sacramental, for it derives from the fact that both churches share “the same faith, celebrate the same memorial, that all by eating the same bread and sharing in the same cup become the same unique body of Christ into which they have been integrated by the same baptism” (Munich 1982, III, 1).

The document highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. It states that the Spirit transforms the consecrated gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ; eucharistic liturgy prays for this transformation (metabole) and for achieving communion with the Son. This phrasing aims to bridge the gap between the different understandings of when precisely the consecration takes place (with the institutional words, as Catholics believe, or with the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, as the Orthodox claim). The text also refers to the Spirit as the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, the Spirit of our sonship and the Spirit of the Son, thus suggesting a possible resolution of the filioque issue.

The Munich document broadly aligns with some beliefs of Orthodox ecclesiology that emphasise the importance of the local church, the centrality of the Eucharist, and the role of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic epiclesis. It also acknowledges that the “episkopé” of the universal church is entrusted to local bishops who work together in mutual communion. This communion is traditionally expressed through conciliar practice (Munich 1982, III, 4).

Some years later, the plenary session of the Commission in Bari (1986–1987) issued the document “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church.”9 The document studied the overall concept of faith, explaining that faith is a gift from God, a grace offered by the Spirit, and a response from the person who receives it. This synergy has an ecclesial character and is rooted in the apostolic tradition, the Scriptures, the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, and the Fathers. The faith is preached, lived, and passed on by the local church in communion with all other local churches. This “universal” church has existed throughout all times and is present everywhere.

Insofar as faith is one, churches can express their theological beliefs in different ways. For example, the Nicaean–Constantinopolitan Creed in the East is recited during the baptismal rite, while the Western Church uses the Apostolic Creed for baptising. In either case, it is crucial to maintain the correctness of faith. Both churches accept the Nicaean–Constantinopolitan Creed as normative for achieving full communion. It is equally important to recognize each other as the “true” Church of God and consider its followers brothers in faith.

Although different liturgical practices may not affect the unity between churches as long as apostolic faith remains intact, it is essential to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate doctrinal differences. The documents note that it is possible to speak of “legitimate differences” if the continuity of tradition and the soteriological significance of faith are preserved; conversely, differences are not legitimate if a particular formulation of faith contradicts these criteria. So, when understanding post-schism doctrines, it is crucial to determine whether they intend to explain the content of the faith without causing corruption.

In the plenary session held in 1988 in Valamo (Finland), the Commission continued the work started in the previous plenaries, addressing the topic of “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church”.10 Delegations in the session recognised that:

• The concept of apostolic succession is crucial for maintaining unity among the disciples of God, for it reflects the interconnectedness of the divine Persons in the Trinity. The sacramental nature of the ministry is linked to the reality of God.
• During the Eucharistic celebration, the whole congregation becomes “minister” through the work of the Spirit. In the local church, the bishop plays a central role in unifying everyone and expressing the fullness of the church. This “local” unity is closely tied to “universal” communion.
• Concerning the priesthood, the document asserts that the two churches essentially share the same doctrine and practice, even if there may be differentiations in some cases (e.g., celibacy in the Latin tradition).

The document discusses how the Eastern and Western churches have practised episcopal communion through synodality and collegiality. This has existed since the early Christian era, where a classification (order) between “old churches” and “young churches” or between “mother churches” and “daughter churches” was made by the Ecumenical Councils. While interpretations of the consequences of this classification may vary among the churches, this “order” is part of a common heritage.

The document also highlights the ontological origin of the “universal” church. It cites Apostolic Canon 34, which serves—especially in the East—as the juridical basis for synodality and the relationship between the collective and the individual church government and sets limits on the authority of the “First”.

3.2. The Second Phase of Theological Dialogue: The Question of Uniatism

In the late 1980s, the Commission debated the issue of Uniatism, which affected the Orthodox–Catholic relations in post-communist Eastern Europe. During the plenary sessions of Freising (1990) and Balamand (1993), the Commission addressed urgently the need to frame the existence of Eastern Catholic churches, yet in line with some Orthodox demands;11 thus, Uniatism was rejected as a method of unity for it goes against the common tradition of the two churches. The term “Uniatism” itself indicates an attempt to achieve unity by separating communities or groups of faithful from the church they belong to, and, in doing so, it does not consider the ecclesiology of communion, which recognises the Orthodox Church as a “sister” church preserving all the means of grace and salvation. The unionistic model did not lead to full unity between the Orthodox and Catholics but to local “partial” unions.

The Commission put forth a practical plan for cooperation between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, emphasising the importance of religious freedom and avoiding psychological, physical, direct, or indirect violence. This plan discouraged proselytism as a missionary goal and called for pastors of each community to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the other.

According to the document, in the past, Uniatism caused conflicts because it removed individual Christians or groups of faithful from the Orthodox Church, urging them to “return” to the Church of Rome. This model considers Rome the only church with the means of salvation. The text also mentions that the Orthodox Church adopted similar practices.

The ideas of “ecclesiology of communion” and “sister churches,” which both churches acknowledge as necessary for ecumenism, have rendered proselytism a missionary method, unacceptable for church unity. The Commission also advised against rebaptising and discouraged the conversion of believers from one church to another.

The Commission also affirmed that the Eastern Catholic churches, as part of the Catholic communion, have the right to exist and act in favour of their faithful’s pastoral and spiritual needs (as decreed by the Second Vatican Council in no 17 of UR). These churches have specific “rights and obligations” (Balamand 1993, no. 16) connected to their membership in the Catholic Church and must participate in the dialogue with the Orthodox.

Both Freising and Balamand condemned Uniatism as a model of unity and rejected proselytism as a missionary objective. Furthermore, they appreciated religious freedom and supported the ecclesiology of communion and the sistership of the two churches. On the other hand, the Eastern Catholic churches became irrevocably partners in the dialogue with the Orthodox at all levels (from local collaborations to participation in the Commission), although some Orthodox would have preferred their return to their status quo ante or their complete Latinization.

Unfortunately, a resolution of the differences was not followed up well; Eastern Christians often were left at the mercy of nationalism and local antagonisms, perhaps due to the lack of agreement on their ecclesiastical status. On the other hand, the insistence of the Orthodox in considering Uniatism as a priority agenda was understandable from the point of view of the political circumstances of the early 1990s, but it expanded the problem. It did not favour its inclusion in the optimistic spirit of the previous phase of the dialogue.

Likewise, the quasi-restoration of Uniatism in Balamand was an underestimation of its importance for the Orthodox. In any case, the Commission addressed an issue that seized the positive flow of the previous period. Nonetheless, the positive elements from Freising and Balamand may provide a starting point for a more balanced discussion whenever the issue is reintroduced into the official dialogue agenda.12

3.3. The Third Phase of Theological Dialogue: Primacy and Synodality

After a break of nearly 15 years, the Commission returned to the ecclesiological agenda of the 1980s and, in particular, on the canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the church, focusing on the question of authority and conciliarity.13 The purpose was to understand how Church communion and universal unity can be achieved.

In light of this, in 2007, in Ravenna, the Commission published the document “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.”14 The text’s central thesis is that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church—local, regional, and universal—must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy” (Ravenna 2007, no. 43).15

Based on the principle of the coexistence between a “First” and a “collective body” (synodical or collegial), the document underlines that authority must not be understood in the manner of juridical authority because it belongs only to Christ, just as synodality is based on the Trinity. The text explains the interdependence between the “one” and the “many” in the following way:

• On the local level, each church is the church “catholic” in a specific location. “The Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the Apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches” (Ravenna 2007, no. 18). The community of the faithful has a bond of obedience with its bishop, the latter being the “First” in the local church.
• On the regional level, “the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure” (Ravenna 2007, no. 22). Recalling Apostolic Canon 34, the text notes that regional conciliarity is expressed in the Orthodox Church through the patriarchal and autocephalous churches and in the Catholic Church through the episcopal conferences.
• Finally, on the universal level, local churches are in communion with the totality of local churches in time and space (Ravenna 2007, no. 32). This unity is based on faith, the Eucharist, and the episcopal ministry. In the first millennium, there was a universal hierarchical order in which the Church of Rome had a primacy over the other churches. The Commission recognised that there is still no agreement between the Orthodox and Catholics on the precise extension of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, its exercise, and its biblical–theological foundations (Ravenna 2007, no. 41).

Therefore, a local Church cannot modify a creed formulated by ecumenical councils. However, the Church must always “give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas” (Ravenna 2007, no 33, citing Bari, no. 29). The teachings of the ecumenical councils are binding for all churches and believers of all times and places (Ravenna 2007, no. 35), even though, after the schism, the two churches continued conveying general councils (in the Catholic Church some of these are considered “ecumenical”) of “bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively.” (Ravenna 2007, no. 39).

The merits of the document are that it is based on the Eucharistic ecclesiology, it affirms that unity between the local and the regional churches is achieved without the mediation of the bishop of Rome, it values Apostolic Canon 34 concerning ecclesial consensus on a regional level, and it recognises the supreme normative value of the ecumenical councils.

Still, some questions arise: the document reasonably states the binding authority of the ecumenical councils. But to what extent does a church have the right to interpret the conciliar teachings unilaterally, often also making additions to them (i.e., the filioque)? Furthermore, is it correct to affirm that the Orthodox churches express their unity through their communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople as this occurs, although “in a different way” (as the Ravenna document affirms) between the worldwide Catholic episcopate and the Church of Rome? Besides, one could argue the comparison between the patriarchal/autocephalous churches and the episcopal conferences, as the latter have a different ecclesiastical status—this analogy is perhaps incongruous.16 Finally, it is not clear what is the relationship in the universal church between the First and the synod, that is to say, whether the First limits himself only to presiding over the council and coordinating its works or whether his office implies other competencies (e.g., ratification of conciliar decisions, reformulation of their content, promulgation of implementing decrees, etc.).

After Ravenna, discussions continued along the same line, focusing on the role of the bishop of Rome in the first and second millennia. The text “Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church” continued the reflection on the relationship between primacy and synodality and was issued in Chieti in September 2016 during the fourteenth plenary session of the Commission.17 The document is evidence of the effort to understand the institutions of synodality and primacy in line with the sacramental origins of the Church without neglecting historical factors that have contextualised their exercise on a local, regional, and global level. In other words, theology and history are equally crucial for understanding the formation of ecclesiastical institutions (Chieti 2016, no. 6).

Compared to Ravenna, the Chieti document opted for a more historical slant. After declaring that “from earliest times, the one Church existed as many local churches” (Chieti 2016, no. 2), the text examines the relationship between primacy and synodality in the undivided church. According to the document, both institutions are “essential structures” in the Church (Chieti 2016, no. 7). A reference is also made to the sacramental and trinitarian foundation of communion and church unity (Chieti 2016, no. 1), to synodality as a “fundamental quality of the Church as a whole” (Chieti 2016, no. 3), to Apostolic Canon 34 as a juridical basis for understanding the relationship between the “First” and the “many” (Chieti 2016, no. 13), to the Eucharistic origin of the episcopal office (Chieti 2016, ns. 8–10), and the so-called “Pentarchy” (Chieti 2016, no 16), that is, the rule of the five ancient Patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The document states that ecclesial life has a founding nucleus, the Eucharistic assembly, which gradually opens up to meet the other local churches, in the person of their respective bishops, until reaching the universal church, where the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church” (Chieti 2016, no. 20). In short, all these are principles familiar to Eastern ecclesiology and should not pose any problem to the Orthodox reception of the text.

The document recalls the criteria for receiving an ecumenical council to highlight the correlation between primacy and conciliarity. These criteria, decided by Nicaea II, included “the agreement (symphonia) of the heads of the churches,” that is, “the cooperation (synergeia) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs (symphronountes)” (no. 18). An ecumenical council should have its proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching should accord with previous councils. The document also reminds us that “reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council” (Chieti 2016, no. 18). It can be said that the Chieti document, more than Ravenna, considers the question of synodality in itself and not just as an extension of the exercise of primacy.18 In other words, primacy does not make conciliar teachings legitimate, but it acts “synergically”, i.e., with the synod, so that the conciliar amendments can have a normative authority and be applicable.19

Regarding the role of the bishop of Rome, the document asserted that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East” (Chieti 2016, no. 19). In that sense, the “primacy of honour” of the Church of Rome excluded any administrative and jurisdictional authority over the Eastern churches. It might be right to presume that this will be the case in the framework of a reunified Church, but the Commission didn’t seem ready to offer precise indications.

As to the foundations of the papal primacy itself, the text also limited itself to noting that “the primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was the successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.” (no. 16). However, despite the hermeneutic problems that still prevent a shared vision of the relationship between the First and the synod, it is hoped that the joint documents can break down any resistance and favour a shared vision on the topic to orient the discussion towards broader consensus.20

The document “Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today” was the latest approved by the Commission during its last plenary session held in Alexandria in June 2023.21 The document took up the work that was initiated in Chieti regarding the relationship between synodality and primacy and concluded a phase of study on how ecclesial government was exercised in the East and West during the first two Christian millennia. The document aimed to offer a common reading of history, giving to both churches the opportunity to present their perception of the exercise of primacy and synodality in the context of the common heritage. Therefore, the text goes beyond being a simple historical account and is interested in drawing “lessons from the history” (Alexandria 2023, no. 0.3).

The document draws inspiration from the principles highlighted in Chieti and Ravenna regarding the interdependence between synodality and primacy (Alexandria 2023, 5.3). Building on this, and also on the fact that, according to Chieti, the “one Church” exists as many local churches and that ecclesial communion is experienced within each local church and between local churches in the form of “unity in diversity,” (Alexandria 2023, no. 0.1) the Alexandria document outlines four periods: from the schism of 1054 to the Council of Florence (1438–1439); from the Reformation in the sixteenth century to the eighteenth century; the ecclesiological developments in the nineteenth century; and the renewal and rapprochement of the last two centuries.

In paragraph 1, the document discusses the gradual separation between the Eastern and the Western Church, which was influenced by theological and other non-ecclesiastical factors such as the Latin conquest of Constantinople of 1204. These factors expedited the division of 1054. The text then revisits the period from the Gregorian Reform (eleventh century) to the affirmation of the increasingly political role of the papacy, which was established within the frameworks of juridical ecclesiology (Alexandria 2023, no. 1.3). According to this ecclesiology, the pope has the authority to govern the entire church. It also mentions the replacement of Roman synods with cardinal consistories in electing the bishop of Rome and convening provincial and general councils.

In the East, a specific form of synodality known as “Endemic (Endemousa) Synod” was practised for many centuries by the Eastern Patriarchs residing temporally in Constantinople (Alexandria 2023, no. 1.11). These synods followed the canonical principles of the first millennium and exercised conciliarity.

There were several attempts of reconciliation, such as the Councils of Lyon in 1274 and Florence in 1439, albeit unsuccessfully (Alexandria 2023, ns. 1.12, 1.17). While the papacy was dealing with conciliarism, the latter suggesting that the government of the Church is collective and that the pope is only an executive figure, the Orthodox preferred to speak with the pope rather than the conciliarists, following the pentarchical ecclesiology of the first millennium. However, the ecclesiastical developments that had occurred after the schism made it impossible to achieve unity between Greeks and Latins.

During the period between the Reformation and the eighteenth century, there were tensions between Rome and the Protestant world, while Rome formed alliances with various orthodox groups, an attempt known as “Uniatism.” The papacy became more centralized after the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century (Alexandria 2023, no. 2.2). Although provincial synods were not completely abandoned, new conciliaristic forms, like Gallicanism and Jansenism, had to be faced. In the East, the practice of synodality continued with the ecumenical patriarch calling for various councils of inter-Orthodox prestige. However, some synodal resolutions often had an anti-Catholic imprint (Alexandria 2023, no. 2.5).

During the nineteenth century, the First Vatican Council made two important decisions on universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility (Alexandria 2023, ns. 3.5–7), both of which were rejected by the Orthodox (Alexandria 2023, no. 3.11). Additionally, this century saw the emergence of national autocephalous Orthodox churches in the Balkans (Alexandria 2023, no. 3.4). While Catholics dealt with an ecclesiology that reaffirmed the pope’s universal jurisdiction and authority over all churches, the Orthodox faced a new ecclesiastical demography that would prove decisive for the exercise of conciliarity.

The twentieth century witnessed many theological developments, including the Russian concept of sobornost, which emphasized an extended synodality including all the faithful, and Eucharistic theology (Alexandria 2023, no. 4.2). There was also a renewed emphasis on the local church as the primary manifestation of the Church and the episcopal collegiality that accompanied the papal authority. While Orthodoxy had to travel a long synodal path from the beginning of the twentieth century to the Holy and Great Council of Crete in 2016 (Alexandria 2023, no. 4.6), the Catholic Church culminated its own journey, returning to the patristic, biblical, and liturgical Christian sources, with the convoking of the Second Vatican Council (Alexandria 2023, ns. 4.4–4.7 ). This period was also characterized by ecumenical encounters that overcame older exclusivist visions that had previously caused divisions between the Orthodox and Catholics.

It must be said that the exposition of the Alexandria document is clear and balanced, avoiding partial visions and unilateral readings that would have compromised its main purpose, that is, the common reading of history. The Commission has accomplished a difficult task by synthesizing divergent ecclesiological ideas on the exercise of synodality and primacy. The document deserves appreciation for its impartial tone and educative nature, which makes it a useful tool for the hierarchies, theologians, and the faithful of the two churches. The document educates the faithful to think and act according to the manners of an ecumenical mentality, beyond prejudices and apologetic condemnations. Undeniably, history plays a vital role in determining the articulation of dogmas, as every dogma has a cultural background, and ideas can significantly contribute to their shape. The two churches have tried to embody dogma in history to speak to the heart of every man and woman, responding to different challenges.

The conclusion of the document also offers some interesting insights. The Commission acknowledges that the Church cannot be seen as a pyramid governed from the top (as certain ideas of the papacy suggest), nor as a federation of self-sufficient churches (as some Orthodox churches would like). The Commission notes that the study of the second millennium has shown the inadequacy of both these views (Alexandria 2023, no. 5.1). Indeed, in the Catholic Church, synodality has had more than just a consultative role; in the Orthodox Church, primacy has never been just an honorific title. Thus, it is better to talk about synodality/primacy as a single principle of church governance rather than as two unrelated realities. Consequently, the Commission recommends that it continue on the path towards an authentic understanding of the relationship between synodality and primacy in the light of theological principles, canonical provisions, and liturgical practices of the first millennium (Alexandria 2023, no. 5.4).

On the other hand, the Commission acknowledges that relying solely on historical discussions is not enough to articulate a solid theology of synodality and primacy. Instead, the Eucharistic and communion ecclesiology is the key to achieving this. This means that the Commission has reached the end of its work of examining ecclesiological issues from a historical perspective (Alexandria 2023, no. 5.3: “Purely historical discussions are not enough”) and that it is hoped that more theological lines of work will be pursued in the future (Alexandria 2023, no. 5.3: “a eucharistic ecclesiology of communion is the key to articulating a sound theology of synodality and primacy”). However, the Commission recognizes that ecclesiology should be examined in relation to certain historical contexts and, in that sense, the “era of unity” may guide the interdependence between synodality and primacy (Alexandria 2023, no. 5.4). In other words, a new application of the founding ecclesiological principles of the “millennium of unity” is required in relation to new situations. Reading history can provide inspiration for putting synodality/primacy into practice.

4. The Synodal Origins of Episcopacy and Unity in the Universal Church

The document of Chieti states that, from the beginning, the one Church existed “as many local Churches” (Chieti 2016, no. 2). This assertion is similar to the statement in LG 23 that the “one and only Catholic Church” exists in and from the local churches. Chieti urges both churches to find a common understanding of the interrelated, complementary, and inseparable relationship between primacy and conciliarity. The question is whether these forms of church government are equally essential to the Church or stem from non-ecclesial factors. Indeed, if primacy and synodality belong to human law, can a church choose the one that best satisfies her needs, or should both be included in ecclesial government?

As the late Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas claimed, the origins of conciliarity are not rooted in external models like the senate or the Greek polis; instead, they are to be found in the Church and were already confirmed in the early Church (See Zizioulas 2015, p. 21). Zizioulas particularly recalls the Apostolic Council of 49 AD as a model for the subsequent formulation of conciliarity. He points out the structure of that council, which consisted of apostles, presbyters, and the “multitude” of the faithful, where decisions were made in common agreement. In the post-apostolic era, he notes, the apostles were replaced by the bishops (Acts 21; 1 Cor. 5), as the latter succeeded the apostles in the leadership of the local communities. From then on, councils had the right to express the will of a local church in matters of faith and discipline, and they were carried out under the episcopal authority. This structure was confirmed in the First Ecumenical Council (can. 5).22

According to this description, the bishop represents his local church before other local churches and in communion with all the churches. Moreover, he ensures that this communion is present in his own church. This “synodal” principle is fundamental, as Chieti mentions (Chieti 2016, no. 10). Keeping this in mind, the church government cannot be considered “monarchical”, as Ratzinger suggests, who believes that the monarchical episcopate is an essential structure of the Church and cannot be revoked (See Ratzinger 1996, p. 78). Instead, for Zizioulas, the role of a bishop has a twofold purpose: firstly, to unite the local church and prevent her from isolation, self-sufficiency and what he names “ecclesial individualism” and secondly, to ensure that the local church is in communion with the worldwide churches (See Zizioulas 2015, p. 24). In this way, the roots of the episcopate can be traced back to the communitarian rather than monarchical character of ancient Christianity, as the episcopal presidency is only conceivable in the context of and through the realisation of communion.

Church leadership is not born out of self-interest but to connect with other churches in faith, sacraments, and canonical order. Therefore, its relationship with conciliarity is part of its nature. According to Apostolic Canon 34, a guiding principle, as we saw, of the Orthodox–Catholic dialogue, bishops of each region must recognise and follow the First among them, who should make decisions with everyone’s consent. Each bishop, in his turn, can only decide on his diocese and the territories under his jurisdiction. The canon emphasises the importance of communion and unity, which reflects the Trinitarian communion, the model per excellence of church unity. Thus, conciliarity and primacy reflect the way in which God exists, as One and Triune, as unity in communion.

On the local level, the priest and the assembly are interdependent in the Eucharist because “the community cannot celebrate the Eucharist without a proestos, and the proestos, in turn, must celebrate with a community” (Chieti 2016, no. 8). From this comes the conclusion that the “interrelatedness between the proestos or bishop and the community is a constitutive element of the life of the local church” (Chieti 2016, no. 9).

On the regional level, the competencies of the First are limited to presiding over the conciliar assemblies and confirming the election of new bishops (Chieti 2016, no. 14). The First also has the authority to receive appeals (Chieti 2016, no. 19) and moderate disputes. However, he can make no decisions without considering the opinions of his fellow bishops.

The particular function of the First belongs to the bishop of a specific church. For example, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Caesarea were considered “Firsts” in their respective areas. However, their primatial position does not imply any superiority over the other bishops, as the authority of the “First” bishop is limited by the consent of the many, as prescribed by Apostolic Canon 34. Therefore, the prerogatives of the “First” in matters of government are not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries of the established rules and canons.

The relationship between the “one” and the “many” on a universal level is the most critical topic in Orthodox–Catholic discussions. As we saw, Chieti recognises that in the West “the primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was [the] successor of Peter, the first of the apostles” (Chieti 2016, no. 16); this interpretation was not accepted in the East, as it had a different scriptural, canonical, and theological understanding on this matter.

Synodality is the key to making universality and communion the same, according to Zizioulas. He observes that the Church cannot exist without gathering and communion (See Zizioulas 2015, p. 29). While not all Orthodox accept a pyramidal ecclesiology with universal primacy, they agree that the primacy’s purpose is to serve and not to dominate (See Zizioulas 2015, p. 25).

So, why shouldn’t the East receive the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome? Will the unity of the Church be affected if the bishop of Rome presides over her? Is it also reasonable to believe that councils without a “Head” serve the idea of unity?

In the first place, one could ask whether the existence of a universal primacy implies that local (and regional) churches are not sufficient to achieve universal communion themselves. In other words, is it possible to agree with Ratzinger that, from a normative standpoint, the Church of Rome is “the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole” [emphasis added)] (Ratzinger 1996, p. 69) It is undeniable that Rome held an indisputable moral authority in the early Church and that its “honorific” primacy was crucial for church unity. Ratzinger notes furthermore that the canon of the New Testament was first formulated in Rome, and it was in Rome that the “traditions” eventually became “Scripture” or “Tradition” (ibid., pp. 70–72). Nevertheless, one could argue that this was also defined by local councils (see, e.g., the synods of Laodicea in 363, of Hippo in 393, and of Carthage in 397). Besides, contemporary research has shown that each local community in the early Church understood herself as the “whole” Church due to her Eucharistic nature.23 This is a vision that, as we saw, has been endorsed in the dialogue documents. If these remarks are true, then primacy alone cannot provide the “fullness” that is missing from a local church; instead, it reflects (along with the synods) universally the catholicity that already exists in the communion of churches on the regional and universal level.24

Often, primacy tends to elevate the unity of the “one”, “universal” Church at the expense of the “local” churches. A unilateral understanding of primacy considers that without it the “many” churches cannot bring unity, especially on the universal level.25 This leads to two distinct and divergent ecclesiological viewpoints among the Orthodox. The first approach views primacy as an integral part of ecclesiology (Meyendorff 1982, p. 243). It suggests that the value of primacy for church unity is undeniable and essential at all three church levels. Conversely, the second approach, as a reaction to the overappraisal of primacy, believes that every local church can attain universal communion through unity in faith, love, and sacraments. As per this approach, there is no need for hierarchical primacy at any church level.26

In the second scenario, conciliarity is considered a structure of divine law and an essential part of the Church’s esse. On the contrary, primacy represents the “human” aspect of the Church and belongs to the juridical (canonical) and circumstantial order. Universal primacy, if accepted, could be exercised through rotation, the consensus of all, or the juxtaposition of local churches (See Zizioulas 2004, p. 242). However, this approach may cause local churches to become disconnected from ordinary forms of primacy that promote regional and global unity and may also lead to the coexistence of parallel and self-sufficient churches as well as to the lack of accountability for the worldwide Church, as only local primacies would prevail. Alexander Schmemann had criticised Orthodox ecclesiology for accepting the system of equal autocephalous churches, excluding universal centres of primacy to reject primacy in the form of universal jurisdictional power (See McPartlan 2013, pp. 26–27).

Zizioulas argues that “primacy” in God (Trinity) is relational and cannot exist independently from the communion of the divine Persons. This emphasises that primatial ministry cannot be individualistic and should always be realised in the context of communion. On its part, Chieti states that every church should celebrate in communion with all those who confess the true faith and participate in the same Eucharist (no. 8). This Eucharistic unity is crucial for maintaining the bond between local churches (no. 17) (See McPartlan 2013, pp. 26–27).

It can be suggested that primacy is not an institution that “validates” alone the authenticity of the faith of a given church and its fidelity to the Apostolic faith. Instead, it is a “synergic” element necessary for the authority of the councils, for “questions regarding faith and canonical order in the Church were discussed and resolved by the ecumenical councils” (Chieti 2016, no. 18).

So, the process of decentralisation of the Catholic Church, as wished by Pope Francis, and the effort of the Orthodox Church to move towards a form of government that affirms her global unity can encourage a reconsideration of the relationship between primacy and synodality. This relationship should not be one where the first obscures the second but rather a manifestation of the organic co-responsibility of the “First” and the “many.” It is essential for the “one” episcopate spread across a communion with the “multitude” of bishops (See Chieti 2016, no. 11, recalling St Cyprian) to serve the unity in the apostolic faith and the love of the one Church of Christ, without one overshadowing the other.

The process towards prioritising conciliarity over primacy in the Orthodox Church and towards emphasising the primacy’s universal “monarchy” in Catholic reflection means that there is a need to recognise the synergic meeting between these two forms of government.27 Today, Orthodox and Catholics have come to understand the importance of coordination for a global, unified Church. Chieti has served as evidence of this path, which can be achieved through direct dialogue and a commitment to view unity as communion rather than jurisdiction and as a service rather than an exercise of power. This can help combine forms of synodality and centres of primacy from the local and the regional to the universal.

5. Conclusions

It is perhaps premature to make a final assessment of the Catholic–Orthodox theological dialogue as it is an ongoing process. Therefore, its evaluation will focus on the progress made so far. In the first place, it is worth noting that both churches have expressed their dedication to working towards unity. With this in mind, the following observations can be made:

• The dialogue is not simply a meeting between technical experts who define the details of the relationship between the two churches. Instead, it is initiated with the support of the churches, and its progress is subject to evaluation by authorities within both communions. The Joint Documents produced through this dialogue do not necessarily hold magisterial authority or normative prestige but represent a step towards unity and shared faith. It is essential to recognise that these documents are not isolated from each other, as each new text builds upon the results of previous ones.
• The dialogue documents are not “decrees of union” or amendments of “union councils”; instead, they evidence a progress of mutual understanding that the church delegates present to their respective authorities.
• The dialogue ensures its ecclesiality. No particular text should be seen as a restriction on the doctrines of either church; instead, the ecumenical encounter is a process that co-occurs within both churches.
• Theology needs to complement “charity”; without theology, ecumenism becomes an empty box of activism that lacks the value of the Christian faith. Conversely, “charity” refreshes the minds and hearts of pastors and the faithful, bringing the results of theological dialogue and encouraging new ecumenical efforts.
• For this last reason, the dialogue documents must permeate the lives of the people and educate, or “catechise”, them of the need for unity. The lack of participation in the dialogue perpetuates old prejudices and exposes the faithful to the polemical attitudes of various defenders of the doctrinal purity of each church.
• The dialogue revealed a shared understanding of various theological principles such as sacraments, Eucharist, priesthood, apostolic succession, baptism, and ecumenical councils. Orthodox and Catholics agreed on the importance of faith, apostolic tradition, and the teachings of the Fathers, and emphasized the significance of the local church. They condemned proselytism as a method of unity, also known as “ecclesiology of the return.”
• There is a limit in the dialogue process, as the approved texts often need further approval by the respective church authorities. This can make the churches reluctant to persist in unity to avoid disagreements; for example, certain Roman dicasteries have insisted on the correct use of particular theological vocabularies, such as the term “sister churches.” Strong anti-ecumenical resistance also exists among the Orthodox. Isolated interventions by individual church leaders do not contribute towards promoting unity.
• It seems necessary to clarify what form of unity the churches wish to achieve. As mentioned, both churches have developed doctrines and forms of church government that do not fully correspond to the “era of unity.” The restoration of the conditions of the first millennium does not seem feasible, nor does the return to an ecclesiastical status quo ante. The question, therefore, is about the possibility of the coexistence of different forms of government and doctrine: Can the “organic unity” and “reconciled diversity”, models of unity proposed within the framework of multilateral ecumenism (WCC), be applied to Catholic–Orthodox dialogue? Or is it appropriate to converge towards the fusion of the different ecclesiastical structures in one church? Could the other local jurisdictions (Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Catholic) also come together under a single church authority, according to the monoepiscopal model? Finally, to what extent is the principle of “full” unity of faith compatible with different doctrinal formulations?

We believe these are just some challenges that pastors, theologians, ecumenists, and, above all, the faithful of the two churches must face on all levels of church life.