Ecclesiological Insights into the Orthodox–Catholic Dialogue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The writer of the article correctly refers to the phases of “Dialogue of Charity” and “Dialogue of Truth” presenting the whole historical background of the relationship between the two Episcopal thrones of Rome and Constantinople during the time of Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. In that point in my opinion the author should have made a reference to TOMOS AGAPIS, a volume which includes all the correspondence and the official letters exchanged between the two Churches during the time of their theological rapprochement. Also, Tomos Agapis could be used equally as an important tool and resource for the whole manuscript. 

2. The writer did not include the last agreed text of the Joint Official Theological Commission of the two Churches which met in Alexandria, Egypt, last May (2023). Beyond the text of Alexandria in the manuscript is included all other documents of the official dialogue, which the researcher analysed using for that purpose a variety of theological resources (books, collective volumes and articles) attracted from both traditions. Due to this methodology the writer supported balance in the work, free from bias and offensive comments, offering to the reader the opportunity to have an objective perspective of the dialogue. 

3. The manuscript ends with Conclusions, pages fourteen to fifteen, where the author epitomizes the aforementioned statements and questions about the restoration of unity in the Church based on the topic of primacy and synodality. However, on page fifteen the author speaks about some different models of ecclesiology, namely that of “reconciled diversity” and “organic unity”, without making reference to the fact that these ecclesiological models are proposals of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. I think consequently, that in this point author should have added a relative footnote explaining the important role as well as the effectiveness of the WCC to the ongoing bilateral theological dialogue in modern history.

4. I totally agree with your perspective that primacy, synodality, Eucharistic communion, apostolicity are all constructive elements of the Church unity. In other terms one cannot exist without the other; that is why the “one” and the “many” should be regarded complementary.

5. Finally, it is a fact that the author demonstrates a good knowledge of paragraph development, grammar, punctuation and composition skills. Taking into consideration that it is not an easy topic, or in other words it is an issue with manifold theological parameters, therefore, I make a positive recommendation despite the minor observations made before.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you for reviewing my paper and for your comments and suggestions. I indeed included a reference to the Tomos Agapis and to further literature (A. Panotis. Les pacificateurs, Atene 1974; E.J. Stormon, Towards the Healing of the Schism. New York 1987; Dimitri Salachas in Il dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la chiesa cattolico-romana e la chiesa ortodossa, Bari 1994).

In the revised article, there is also a section on the latest (2023) Alexandria Document on "Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today”.

I also, as you rightly suggested, reformulated my suggestions as to the models of unity as follows:

"Can the “organic unity” and “reconciled diversity”, models of unity proposed within the framework of multilateral ecumenism (WCC), be applied to Catholic-Orthodox dialogue?" 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an important article that details the history of the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue and engages with the theological topics at stake within the same ecumenical dialogue. The article is well written and the reader can easily follow the ideas of the author. Even though it offers an excellent overview of the developments in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, the major minus of the article is that it remains on a very descriptive level. While the more analytical passages are not missing in the article, the overall approach of the author remains quite descriptive.

Recommendations for improvement:

- the author should also engage with the results of the informal platforms of dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, especially with the document "Serving Communion" issued by the St Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group.

- on p. 2, line 45: "Few months later" should be replaced with "a year and a half later"

- on p. 7, line 280: full stop at the end of the paragraph.

I would like to congratulate the author for his very detailed survey of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you for reviewing my paper and for your comments and suggestions. Yes, I agree that it is fair to also mention non-official dialogue documents, such as those published by the Saint Irenaeus Working Group. I indeed included in my references the latest document on "Serving Communion Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality", even though my focus remains on the texts produced by the official International Dialogue.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is an important and welcomed analysis of the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue which clarifies essential things and proposes important questions for the further reflection. The author could add some reference literature on page 2 regarding the history of this dialogue. All the mentioned details are namely not commonly known. Also when summarizing the content of the dialogue document Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium the author could show more in detail to which parts is referred in the explanation. As a whole the essay is a useful and interesting analysis of this continuing process and its achievements so far. Regarding the questions in the end of the article the question whether a uniform ecclesial organisation should be the aim seems to be unrealistic, but it is true that it is important to make a statement regarding also this possibility.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you for reviewing my paper and your comments and suggestions. I provided some further literature (see below) for the first part of the article and mentioned the paragraphs of the Alexandria Document I refer to.

The references are:

Tomos Agapis, Rome-Istanbul 1971.

A. Panotis. Les pacificateurs, Atene 1974.

E.J. Stormon, Towards the Healing of the Schism. New York 1987.

Dimitri Salachas in Il dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la chiesa cattolico-romana e la chiesa ortodossa, Bari 1994.

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this article is important, and it is good to see academic engagement with the reports produced by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The author gives a fair presentation of the results of this dialogue and acknowledges the progress that has been made. The decision to focus on conciliarity and primacy in the second section of the article was well chosen as this remains the major sticking point. In order to keep the discussion within reasonable boundaries, the author focuses on the work of two theologians, John Zizioulas and Joseph Ratzinger. This is a reasonable choice, as they each represent a well-developed theological viewpoint in their respective church. The author notes, in dealing with Orthodox theology, that other understandings exist. However, no mention is made of different Catholic theological understandings. While these may not be as divergent as the Orthodox theological understandings, there are nuances that are important. One thinks, for example of J.M.R. Tillard, The Bishop of Rome.

Let me make some specific comments, some of which are technical matters of style, while others are more substantive.

·         Line 139 – something is missing after both. Perhaps inserting share would complete the sentence.

·         Line 172 – change notes to note.

·         Lines 236-239 – the statement regarding Eastern Catholic Churches as equal partners in the dialogue needs some comment or further explanation.

·         Lines 305-307 – the author writes, “… is it correct to affirm that the Orthodox Churches express their unity through communion with the church of Constantinople in the same way as this occurs between the worldwide Catholic episcopate and the bishop of Rome?”  This is a fair question to ask, but the author should take account of the Ravenna document no.39, “These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively” (emphasis added). A further point to note here is that the Ravenna document expresses this in terms of local churches (Rome and Constantinople), rather than their bishops. The author, in referring to Constantinople, speaks of the church, but when referring to Rome, speaks of the bishop.

·         Lines 307-309 – continues from previous point. The author notes that patriarchal/autocephalous churches and episcopal conferences have a different ecclesial status. This is indeed true, but it is not clear that this was the intention of Ravenna n.29, with its reference to “new configurations”.

·         Line 343 – the words not necessary seem redundant.

·         Lines 351-352 – the meaning of the words “as it gives the council the synodal amendments a normative force”, is unclear.

·         Lines 354-355 – claims that the Chieti document implies that the Pope held administrative and juridical authority in the East. It is not easy to draw this conclusion from Chieti no.19, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East”.

·         Line 391 – the word temporality would be better replaced by temporarily.

·         Line 422 – the word convection­ does not seem the right word and might be better replaced with either convoking or convocation.

·         Line 520 – the nuance of this sentence might be better achieved if, before the beginning of the quote, the words in the West were inserted. While the author notes that this was never accepted in the East, the text he quotes from Chieti makes it clear that it is only referring to the West when it speaks about prerogative of the bishop of Rome.

·         Lines 539-543 – in making an argument against the position of Ratzinger, the author makes an argument that does not seem consistent with earlier statements in the article (irrespective of Ratzinger). The question is framed in terms of the local church being considered “whole” on account of the Eucharist, while the “fullness” of the church is dependant on primacy (of the bishop of Rome). The argument seems to have been set up as an either/or situation and does not seem to be consistent with other parts of the article where the local church needs to be in communion with other local churches (see lines 482-483). Now, we must be careful, as the author makes clear, that the relationship between the local bishop and the community is not the same as that between the universal primate and the communion of churches. Notwithstanding this, the section of the article might be elaborated more clearly.

·         Lines 544-545 – it is not clear in this sentence why the local churches cannot act as a unified entity.

·         Line 567 – replace his with its (On its part, Chieti…)

·         Line 570 – refers to a suggestion that primacy is not the institution that validates apostolic faith. It might be helpful to indicate where the word validates has come from.

·         Lines 638-640 – this paragraph 8 examines models of unity. The suggestion in these lines 638-640 seems to propose a model that bears no relationship to the results of the dialogue as presented in the article.

Overall, the quality of the English language is good. I have indicated in my comments a few places where the choice of words could be improved or expression made clearer.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you for reviewing my article and your insightful comments and suggestions, which helped improve some sections of the paper. I attached the revised version. The parts I re-elaborated are marked in red.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf