In English:
Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia: ‘Father Sophrony was a contemporary of ours, yet he could partake of the spiritual experience of the ancient fathers’
Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority. Ravenna, 13 October 2007
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: “An inter-orthodox problem”
En français:
Le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe évalue très positivement la visite du patriarche Alexis en France
Le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise russe a approuvé la position de la délégation du patriarcat de Moscou à l'assemblée catholique-orthodoxe de Ravenne
Evêque Hilarion Alfeyev: «Le dialogue manqué»
Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Die Fülle des Göttlichen Lebens in der Dreifaltigkeit
Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia: ‘Father Sophrony was a contemporary of ours, yet he could partake of the spiritual experience of the ancient fathers’
Greeting to the participants of the International Scholarly Conference “The Elder Sophrony: A Theologian of the Uncreated Light”, Athens, 19-21 October 2007
We cordially greet all church hierarchs, clergy, theologians, and all who have come to Athens to talk about the contribution made by Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), of the blessed memory, to the development of the modern Orthodox theological thought.
One will not exaggerate the reality to say that Elder Sophronius’ life and work are truly catholic in their scale. He was born Russian yet he managed to combine in his person also the detailed knowledge of the Hellenic language and culture and the Western European learning. So he was equally close to the Russians, the Greeks, and the Western Europeans who all sought for his advice and counsel. He combined sound learning and simplicity, openness for everything around him and in-depth vision of the divine mysteries.
Father Sophrony’s unlimited tenderness had become possible due to his deep humility, openness, love for his God and his neighbor, which was opening to him every human heart. The crux of his philosophy of life was the person of God and the person of human being. This philosophy was not merely theoretic but rather experientially based upon his relationships with God and his ability to penetrate the depths of the human soul. Elder Sophrony was not a theoretic theologian but rather an ascetic who in his own life followed the example of the ancient hermits and received divine illuminations, of which we know from the biographies of the great ascetics of the past.
All these make Father Sophrony’s person and teaching so relevant for today. He was a contemporary of ours, yet he could partake of the spiritual experience of the ancient fathers. This as well as many other aspects of his spiritual heritage will be touched during this conference. We hope that the discussion will help to better understand the Orthodox spiritual way as highlighted be Father Sophrony for both those who just begin their journey and those who have long chosen this path as the only true and straight way to God.
God’s blessing be upon all participants of this meeting!
Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority
Ravenna, 13 October 2007
Introduction
1. “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17, 21). We give thanks to the triune God who has gathered us – members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church - so that we might respond together in obedience to this prayer of Jesus. We are conscious that our dialogue is restarting in a world that has changed profoundly in recent times. The processes of secularization and globalization, and the challenge posed by new encounters between Christians and believers of other religions, require that the disciples of Christ give witness to their faith, love and hope with a new urgency. May the Spirit of the risen Lord empower our hearts and minds to bear the fruits of unity in the relationship between our Churches, so that together we may serve the unity and peace of the whole human family. May the same Spirit lead us to the full expression of the mystery of ecclesial communion, that we gratefully acknowledge as a wonderful gift of God to the world, a mystery whose beauty radiates especially in the holiness of the saints, to which all are called.
2. Following the plan adopted at its first meeting in Rhodes in 1980, the Joint Commission began by addressing the mystery of ecclesial koinônia in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the Eucharist. This enabled a deeper understanding of ecclesial communion, both at the level of the local community around its bishop, and at the level of relations between bishops and between the local Churches over which each presides in communion with the One Church of God extending across the universe (Munich Document, 1982). In order to clarify the nature of communion, the Joint Commission underlined the relationship which exists between faith, the sacraments – especially the three sacraments of Christian initiation – and the unity of the Church (BariDocument, 1987). Then by studying the sacrament of Order in the sacramental structure of the Church, the Commissionindicated clearly the role of apostolic succession as the guarantee of the koinônia of the whole Church and of its continuity with the Apostles in every time and place (Valamo Document, 1988). From 1990 until 2000, the main subject discussed by the Commission was that of “uniatism” (Balamand Document, 1993; Baltimore, 2000), a subject to which we shall give further consideration in the near future. Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and reflect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority.
3. On the basis of these common affirmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which flow from the sacramental nature of the Church. Since the Eucharist, in the light of the Trinitarian mystery, constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole, how do institutional structures visibly reflect the mystery of this koinônia? Since the one and holy Church is realised both in each local Church celebrating the Eucharist and at the same time in the koinônia of all the Churches, how does the life of the Churches manifest this sacramental structure?
4. Unity and multiplicity, the relationship between the one Church and the many local Churches, that constitutive relationship of the Church, also poses the question of the relationship between the authority inherent in every ecclesial institution and the conciliarity which flows from the mystery of the Church as communion. As the terms “authority” and “conciliarity” cover a very wide area, we shall begin by defining the way we understand them1.
1Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.
1. The Foundations of Conciliarity and of Authority
1. Conciliarity
5. The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility. It is also possible, however, to take the term in a more comprehensive sense referring to all the members of the Church (cfr. the Russian term sobornost). Accordingly we shall speak first of all of conciliarity as signifying that each member of the Body of Christ, by virtue of baptism, has his or her place and proper responsibility in eucharistic koinônia (communio in Latin). Conciliarity reflects the Trinitarian mystery and finds therein its ultimate foundation. The three persons of the Holy Trinity are “enumerated”, as St Basil the Great says (On the Holy Spirit, 45), without the designation as “second” or “third” person implying any diminution or subordination. Similarly, there also exists an order (taxis) among local Churches, which however does not imply inequality in their ecclesial nature.
6. The Eucharist manifests the Trinitarian koinônia actualized in the faithful as an organic unity of several members each of whom has a charism, a service or a proper ministry, necessary in their variety and diversity for the edification of all in the one ecclesial Body of Christ (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-30). All are called, engaged and held accountable – each in a different though no less real manner – in the common accomplishment of the actions which, through the Holy Spirit, make present in the Church the ministry of Christ, “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn 14, 6). In this way, the mystery of salvific koinônia with the Blessed Trinity is realized in humankind.
7. The whole community and each person in it bears the “conscience of the Church” (ekkesiastikè syneidesis), as Greek theology calls it, the sensus fidelium in Latin terminology. By virtue of Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation) each member of the Church exercises a form of authority in the Body of Christ. In this sense, all the faithful (and not just the bishops) are responsible for the faith professed at their Baptism. It is our common teaching that the people of God, having received “the anointing which comes from the Holy One” (1 Jn 2, 20 and 27), in communion with their pastors, cannot err in matters of faith (cfr. Jn 16, 13).
8. In proclaiming the Church’s faith and in clarifying the norms of Christian conduct, the bishops have a specific task by divine institution. “As successors of the Apostles, the bishops are responsible for communion in the apostolic faith and for fidelity to the demands of a life in keeping with the Gospel” (Valamo Document, n. 40).
9. Councils are the principal way in which communion among bishops is exercised (cfr. Valamo Document, n. 52). For “attachment to the apostolic communion binds all the bishops together linking the épiskopè of the local Churches to the College of the Apostles. They too form a college rooted by the Spirit in the ‘once for all’ of the apostolic group, the unique witness to the faith. This means not only that they should be united among themselves in faith, charity, mission, reconciliation, but that they have in common the same responsibility and the same service to the Church” (Munich Document, III, 4).
10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves.
11. The Church exists in many and different places, which manifests its catholicity. Being “catholic”, it is a living organism, the Body of Christ. Each local Church, when in communion with the other local Churches, is a manifestation of the one and indivisible Church of God. To be “catholic” therefore means to be in communion with the one Church of all times and of all places. That is why the breaking of eucharistic communion means the wounding of one of the essential characteristics of the Church, its catholicity.
2. Authority
12. When we speak of authority, we are referring to exousia, as it is described in the New Testament. The authority of the Church comes from its Lord and Head, Jesus Christ. Having received his authority from God the Father, Christ after his Resurrection shared it, through the Holy Spirit, with the Apostles (cfr. Jn 20, 22). Through the Apostles it was transmitted to the bishops, their successors, and through them to the whole Church. Jesus Christ our Lord exercised this authority in various ways whereby, until its eschatological fulfilment (cfr. 1 Cor 15, 24-28), the Kingdom of God manifests itself to the world: by teaching (cfr. Mt 5, 2; Lk 5, 3); by performing miracles (cfr. Mk 1, 30-34; Mt 14, 35-36); by driving out impure spirits (cfr. Mk 1, 27; Lk 4, 35-36); in the forgiveness of sins (cfr. Mk 2, 10; Lk 5, 24); and in leading his disciples in the ways of salvation (cfr. Mt 16, 24). In conformity with the mandate received from Christ (cfr. Mt 28, 18-20), the exercise of the authority proper to the apostles and afterwards to the bishops includes the proclamation and the teaching of the Gospel, sanctification through the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, and the pastoral direction of those who believe (cfr. Lk 10, 16).
13. Authority in the Church belongs to Jesus Christ himself, the one Head of the Church (cfr. Eph 1, 22; 5, 23). By his Holy Spirit, the Church as his Body shares in his authority (cfr. Jn 20, 22-23). Authority in the Church has as its goal the gathering of the whole of humankind into Jesus Christ (cfr. Eph 1,10; Jn 11, 52). The authority linked with the grace received in ordination is not the private possession of those who receive it nor something delegated from the community; rather, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit destined for the service (diakonia) of the community and never exercised outside of it. Its exercise includes the participation of the whole community, the bishop being in the Church and the Church in the bishop (cfr. St Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8).
14. The exercise of authority accomplished in the Church, in the name of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, must be, in all its forms and at all levels, a service (diakonia) of love, as was that of Christ (cfr. Mk 10, 45; Jn 13, 1-16). The authority of which we are speaking, since it expresses divine authority, cannot subsist in the Church except in the love between the one who exercises it and those subject to it. It is, therefore, an authority without domination, without physical or moral coercion. Since it is a participation in the exousia of the crucified and exalted Lord, to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cfr. Mt 28, 18), it can and must call for obedience. At the same time, because of the Incarnation and the Cross, it is radically different from that of leaders of nations and of the great of this world (cfr. Lk 22, 25-27). While this authority is certainly entrusted to people who, because of weakness and sin, are often tempted to abuse it, nevertheless by its very nature the evangelical identification between authority and service constitutes a fundamental norm for the Church. For Christians, to rule is to serve. The exercise and spiritual efficacy of ecclesial authority are thereby assured through free consent and voluntary co-operation. At a personal level, this translates into obedience to the authority of the Church in order to follow Christ who was lovingly obedient to the Father even unto death and death on a Cross (cfr. Phil 2, 8).
15. Authority within the Church is founded upon the Word of God, present and alive in the community of the disciples. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, as the Church, through the Holy Spirit present and active within it, has discerned it in the living Tradition received from the Apostles. At the heart of this Tradition is the Eucharist (cfr. 1 Cor 10, 16-17; 11, 23-26). The authority of Scripture derives from the fact that it is the Word of God which, read in the Church and by the Church, transmits the Gospel of salvation. Through Scripture, Christ addresses the assembled community and the heart of each believer. The Church, through the Holy Spirit present within it, authentically interprets Scripture, responding to the needs of times and places. The constant custom of the Councils to enthrone the Gospels in the midst of the assembly both attests the presence of Christ in his Word, which is the necessary point of reference for all their discussions and decisions, and at the same time affirms the authority of the Church to interpret this Word of God.
16. In his divine Economy, God wills that his Church should have a structure oriented towards salvation. To this essential structure belong the faith professed and the sacraments celebrated in the apostolic succession. Authority in the ecclesial communion is linked to this essential structure: its exercise is regulated by the canons and statutes of the Church. Some of these regulations may be differently applied according to the needs of ecclesial communion in different times and places, provided that the essential structure of the Church is always respected. Thus, just as communion in the sacraments presupposes communion in the same faith (cfr. Bari Document, nn.29-33), so too, in order for there to be full ecclesial communion, there must be, between our Churches, reciprocal recognition of canonical legislations in their legitimate diversities.
II. The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority
17. Having pointed out the foundation of conciliarity and of authority in the Church, and having noted the complexity of the content of these terms, we must now reply to the following questions: How do institutional elements of the Church visibly express and serve the mystery of koinônia? How do the canonical structures of the Churches express their sacramental life? To this end we distinguished between three levels of ecclesial institutions: that of the local Church around its bishop; that of a region taking in several neighbouring local Churches; and that of the whole inhabited earth (oikoumene) which embraces all the local Churches.
1. The Local Level
18. 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. The fruit of this Eucharist and this ministry is to gather into an authentic communion of faith, prayer, mission, fraternal love and mutual aid, all those who have received the Spirit of Christ in Baptism. This communion is the frame in which all ecclesial authority is exercised. Communion is the criterion for its exercise.
19. Each local Church has as its mission to be, by the grace of God, a place where God is served and honoured, where the Gospel is announced, where the sacraments are celebrated, where the faithful strive to alleviate the world’s misery, and where each believer can find salvation. It is the light of the world (cfr. Mt 5, 14-16), the leaven (cfr. Mt 13, 33), the priestly community of God (cfr. 1 Pet 2, 5 and 9). The canonical norms which govern it aim at ensuring this mission.
20. By virtue of that very Baptism which made him or her a member of Christ, each baptized person is called, according to the gifts of the one Holy Spirit, to serve within the community (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-27). Thus through communion, whereby all the members are at the service of each other, the local Church appears already “synodal” or “conciliar” in its structure. This “synodality” does not show itself only in the relationships of solidarity, mutual assistance and complementarity which the various ordained ministries have among themselves. Certainly, the presbyterium is the council of the bishop (cfr. St Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, 3), and the deacon is his “right arm” (Didascalia Apostolorum, 2, 28, 6), so that, according to the recommendation of St Ignatius of Antioch, everything be done in concert (cfr. To the Ephesians 6). Synodality, however, also involves all the members of the community in obedience to the bishop, who is the protos and head (kephale) of the local Church, required by ecclesial communion. In keeping with Eastern and Western traditions, the active participation of the laity, both men and women, of monastics and consecrated persons, is effected in the diocese and the parish through many forms of service and mission.
21. The charisms of the members of the community have their origin in the one Holy Spirit, and are directed to the good of all. This fact sheds light on both the demands and the limits of the authority of each one in the Church. There should be neither passivity nor substitution of functions, neither negligence nor domination of anyone by another. All charisms and ministries in the Church converge in unity under the ministry of the bishop, who serves the communion of the local Church. All are called to be renewed by the Holy Spirit in the sacraments and to respond in constant repentance (metanoia), so that their communion in truth and charity is ensured.
2. The Regional Level
22. Since 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, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn.52 and 53). Communion among Churches is expressed in the ordination of bishops. This ordination is conferred according to canonical order by three or more bishops, or at least two (cfr. Nicaea I, Canon 4), who act in the name of the episcopal body and of the people of God, having themselves received their ministry from the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands in the apostolic succession. When this is accomplished in conformity with the canons, communion among Churches in the true faith, sacraments and ecclesial life is ensured, as well as living communion with previous generations.
23. Such effective communion among several local Churches, each being the Catholic Church in a particular place, has been expressed by certain practices: the participation of the bishops of neighbouring sees at the ordination of a bishop to the local Church; the invitation to a bishop from another Church to concelebrate at the synaxis of the local Church; the welcome extended to the faithful from these other Churches to partake of the eucharistic table; the exchange of letters on the occasion of an ordination; and the provision of material assistance.
24. A canon accepted in the East as in the West, expresses the relationship between the local Churches of a region: “The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is first (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the first (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit” (Apostolic Canon 34).
25. This norm, which re-emerges in several forms in canonical tradition, applies to all the relations between the bishops of a region, whether those of a province, a metropolitanate, or a patriarchate. Its practical application may be found in the synods or the councils of a province, region or patriarchate. The fact that the composition of a regional synod is always essentially episcopal, even when it includes other members of the Church, reveals the nature of synodal authority. Only bishops have a deliberative voice. The authority of a synod is based on the nature of the episcopal ministry itself, and manifests the collegial nature of the episcopate at the service of the communion of Churches.
26. A synod (or council) in itself implies the participation of all the bishops of a region. It is governed by the principle of consensus and concord (homonoia), which is signified by eucharistic concelebration, as is implied by the final doxology of the above-mentioned Apostolic Canon 34. The fact remains, however, that each bishop in his pastoral care is judge, and is responsible before God for the affairs of his own diocese (cfr. Cyprian, Ep. 55, 21); thus he is the guardian of the catholicity of his local Church, and must be always careful to promote catholic communion with other Churches.
27. It follows that a regional synod or council does not have any authority over other ecclesiastical regions. Nevertheless, the exchange of information and consultations between the representatives of several synods are a manifestation of catholicity, as well as of that fraternal mutual assistance and charity which ought to be the rule between all the local Churches, for the greater common benefit. Each bishop is responsible for the whole Church together with all his colleagues in one and the same apostolic mission.
28. In this manner several ecclesiastical provinces have come to strengthen their links of common responsibility. This was one of the factors giving rise to the patriarchates in the history of our Churches. Patriarchal synods are governed by the same ecclesiological principles and the same canonical norms as provincial synods.
29. In subsequent centuries, both in the East and in the West, certain new configurations of communion between local Churches have developed. New patriarchates and autocephalous Churches have been founded in the Christian East, and in the Latin Church there has recently emerged a particular pattern of grouping of bishops, the Episcopal Conferences. These are not, from an ecclesiological standpoint, merely administrative subdivisions: they express the spirit of communion in the Church, while at the same time respecting the diversity of human cultures.
30. In fact, regional synodality, whatever its contours and canonical regulation, demonstrates that the Church of God is not a communion of persons or local Churches cut off from their human roots. Because it is the community of salvation and because this salvation is “the restoration of creation” (cfr. St Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 1, 36, 1), it embraces the human person in everything which binds himor her to human reality as created by God. The Church is not just a collection of individuals; it is made up of communities with different cultures, histories and social structures.
31. In the grouping of local Churches at the regional level, catholicity appears in its true light. It is the expression of the presence of salvation not in an undifferentiated universe but in humankind as God created it and comes to save it. In the mystery of salvation, human nature is at the same time both assumed in its fullness and cured of what sin has infused into it by way of self-sufficiency, pride, distrust of others, aggressiveness, jealousy, envy, falsehood and hatred. Ecclesial koinônia is the gift by which all humankind is joined together, in the Spirit of the risen Lord. This unity, created by the Spirit, far from lapsing into uniformity, calls for and thus preserves – and, in a certain way, enhances – diversity and particularity.
3. The Universal Level
32. Each local Church is in communion not only with neighbouring Churches, but with the totality of the local Churches, with those now present in the world, those which have been since the beginning, and those which will be in the future, and with the Church already in glory. According to the will of Christ, the Church is one and indivisible, the same always and in every place. Both sides confess, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the Church is one and catholic. Its catholicity embraces not only the diversity of human communities but also their fundamental unity.
33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always “to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas” (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself – thus, on the very being of the Church.
34. It is because of this communion that all the Churches, through canons, regulate everything relating to the Eucharist and the sacraments, the ministry and ordination, and the handing on (paradosis) and teaching (didaskalia) of the faith. It is clear why in this domain canonical rules and disciplinary norms are needed.
35. In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches – in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.
36. The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.
37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole – by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.
38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops’ decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.
39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. 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. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.
40. During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinônia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinônia.
41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.
43. 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.
Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:
- Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
- While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.
44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.
45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinônia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
46. We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together.
Note from the editor of “Europaica”: The above text, which is included here at the request of many of our readers, is the first document adopted by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the absence of the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. Representatives of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria were also absent from the Ravenna meeting, while representatives of the Orthodox Church in America and the Orthodox Church in Japan were never invited to take part in the work of the Commission because the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognise their status. The document includes statements (in particular, in paragraph 39) that were criticized by the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation in 2006 in Belgrade. The Moscow Patriarchate will analyse the Ravenna document and present its conclusions in due course.
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: “An inter-orthodox problem”
Interview by Robert Moynihan, “Inside the Vatican”
Inside the Vatican: Bishop Hilarion, everyone wants to know why you walked out of the Ravenna meaning. How could this have happened at the last minute like this? Was the presence of the Estonian delegation something you did not know about before you arrived?
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: First, it was not only I who walked out. It was the entire delegation, which consisted of myself and Father Igor Vyzhanov. It was not my decision to walk out. It was the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church's Bishops' Council in the year 2000, which I could not disobey. Moreover, at the request of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), I phoned Metropolitan Kirill to ask what I was supposed to do, and he said that both I and Father Igor had to leave. So, it was not my decision; it was the official decision. And it was not my ultimatum; it was that of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is very important to say this clearly. I do not think I was in any way responsible for the decision, which was not mine. But each of us represents our Churches.
Second, no, the list of participants was not known before we arrived. In fact, from the very beginning of the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue in 1980 until 2007 the list of participants remained unchanged, and Ravenna was the first time when the Patriarchate of Constantinople unilaterally decided to invite the representatives of the so-called Estonian Autonomous Church. This came as an unpleasant surprise, especially because the Patriarchate of Constantinople had been aware of the position of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted at its Bishops’ Council of 2000. This Council decided that we cannot participate in an official meeting where the representatives of the so-called Estonian Autonomous Church are present.
There are a number of autonomous and autocephalous Churches which, for various reasons, are not universally recognized in the Orthodox world. For example, there is the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America and the autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan: they were never invited to such dialogues because the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognize their current status. If the so-called Church of Estonia, which is an autonomous structure under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should be invited, why not invite these other churches? Why, then, not invite the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has an autonomous status under the Moscow Patiarchate? What about the autonomous Orthodox Church of Latvia? What about the Orthodox Church of Estonia that belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate and also has an autonomous status?
If the composition of the Orthodox half of the Mixed Commission should be changed, this must be done with the consent of all Orthodox Churches. If, however, there is no such consent, it is safer to preserve the composition of the Orthodox group as it was from the beginning - until the matter is resolved at a Pan-Orthodox Council.
ITV: What is the role of the "Petrine office" in Orthodox theology and practice?
Bishop Hilarion: We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept. This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.
We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has jurisdiction over any other…
ITV: Was there something you intended or planned to say at Ravenna?
Bishop Hilarion: My intention was to work hard in Ravenna both as a member of the Mixed Commission and as a member of its Drafting Committee. In the spring of this year, the Drafting Committee met in Rome, and we successfully resolved the problems that had been created during the plenary meeting of the Commission in Belgrade in 2006. I had every reason to believe that, if our proposals were accepted in Ravenna, we would have moved forward and finished the document. Apparently, the document is now finished, but since I did not take part in the discussions I am not qualified to say whether its conclusions will be acceptable for my Church.
The absence of the Moscow Patriarchate from this stage of the work of the Mixed Commission, in my opinion, makes the whole work of the Commission problematic. I know that the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not share this opinion. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) said very clearly to me in front of all other Orthodox delegates: ‘If one Orthodox Church leaves, the others will continue the dialogue’. But the Moscow Patriarchate represents more than a half of world Orthodox Christianity. Without it, the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue will in fact be a dialogue of the Catholic Church with less than a half of the Orthodox Church.
I am aware that the Catholics regard the whole situation as an ‘inter-Orthodox problem.’ This is a comfortable position. I believe, however, that the situation should be a matter of concern also for our Catholic partners, if they want this dialogue to be truly legitimate and inclusive. Some common efforts should be made in order to avoid similar situations in the future.
ITV: What might the future hold? Will there be another meeting? Is there any chance for Christians to be in communion with one another, or will the divisions continue - perhaps another thousand years, perhaps forever?
Bishop Hilarion: I hope that by the next meeting of the Mixed Commission, which will take place probably in two years, some solution will be found which will allow the Orthodox Churches to work together in harmony and solidarity, as was the case before Ravenna. In the meantime the Russian Orthodox Church will study the whole question of primacy in the Universal Church from a theological point of view. By the decision of the Holy Synod, the Theological Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate is given the mandate to examine this question and to produce a relevant paper. This paper will form the basis of the Moscow Patriarchate’s position in the future discussion on the issue of primacy within the Mixed Commission, if we return to it. I say ‘if’, because our ability to join the Commission will largely depend on the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Only God knows whether or when the division between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches will be overcome. But I believe that we must work for it. And I am deeply saddened that ‘church politics’ undermines our work. In the time when we urgently need to find new ways for coming closer to each other we demonstrate disunity and discord.
I am glad, however, that apart from the Mixed Commission there are other mechanisms of Catholic-Orthodox collaboration, and I am sure that more such mechanisms will be created in the future. There is, for example, the whole area of bilateral relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. There is an ongoing cultural exchange, there is an exchange on the scholarly level, and there are many other examples of cooperation. This gives us hope for a major breakthrough in our relationship in the near future. Such a breakthrough would be most timely and most welcome.
Le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe évalue très positivement la visite du patriarche Alexis en France
Le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe s'est réuni sous la présidence du patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie le 12 octobre 2007 à Moscou. La première question à l'ordre du jour de cette séance fut la visite du patriarche Alexis en France, à Strasbourg et à Paris, du 1er au 4 octobre dernier. Le Synode a tenu à "souligner l'importance de cette visite dont les fruits contribueront à renforcer le témoignage orthodoxe en Europe occidentale, auront un effet positif sur la vie des communautés de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe en France, à mettre en place une coopération avec les institutions européennes et les autorités civiles françaises et à renforcer la collaboration avec l'Eglise catholique et les communautés protestantes."
Le Synode "a insisté sur la nécessité de renforcer la collaboration entre les diocèses des Eglises orthodoxes locales présentes en France dans le respect de l'esprit conciliaire propre à l'orthodoxie".
Les Pères synodaux ont noté également "l'importance du témoignage orthodoxe dans l'Europe d'aujourd'hui" et ont remercié le patriarche pour ce voyage en France.
Le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise russe a approuvé la position de la délégation du patriarcat de Moscou à l'assemblée catholique-orthodoxe de Ravenne
Le 9 octobre 2007, la délégation de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe a quitté la Xe assemblée plénière de la Commission internationale mixte catholique-orthodoxe pour le dialogue théologique, réunie à Ravenne du 8 au 15 octobre, à cause d'un désaccord avec le patriarcat de Constantinople. Cette décision a été entérinée par le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe le 12 octobre dernier.
La raison de ce départ fut la présence parmi les délégués orthodoxes de cette assemblée des représentants de "l'Eglise apostolique estonienne" du patriarcat de Constantinople, structure ecclésiale non reconnue par le patriarcat de Moscou. En effet, comme l'évêque Hilarion (Alfeyev), délégué de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe à la Commission, l'a souligné, la décision d'inclure les délégués de cette structure à la liste des participants orthodoxes a été prise unilatéralement par le métropolite Jean (Zizioulas) du patriarcat de Constantinople, coprésident orthodoxe de la Commission, alors que ces délégués n'avaient pas participé aux assemblées précédentes.
Dans la mesure où le dialogue théologique entre orthodoxes et catholiques revêt une grande importance pour l'Eglise orthodoxe russe et comporte suffisamment de difficultés en lui-même, Mgr Hilarion a souligné qu'il est important d'éviter son instrumentalisation au profit des intérêts d'une Eglise particulière. Ainsi, comme le Synode de l'Eglise russe l'a rappelé le 12 octobre dernier, afin de ne pas créer de tensions et d'obstacles supplémentaires, le patriarcat de Moscou n'a pas imposé la présence dans cette Commission des délégués de l'Eglise autocéphale orthodoxe d'Amérique et de l'Eglise orthodoxe autonome du Japon qui ne sont pas reconnues par le patriarcat de Constantinople. Jusqu'à naguère, le patriarcat de Constantinople avait agi de la même façon avec "l'Eglise apostolique autonome d'Estonie" qu'il avait créée parallèllement à l'Eglise orthodoxe autonome d'Estonie reconnue par le patriarcat de Moscou.
Contrairement à ce qui a été affirmé dans certains organes de presse, le différend au sujet de l'Estonie entre les patriarcats de Moscou et de Constantinople ne porte pas sur l'autonomie de l'Eglise dans ce pays. En effet, il existe depuis plusieurs années une Eglise autonome canonique en Estonie, présidée actuellement par le métropolite Corneille (Jacobs) et dotée de son propre Synode.
La création d'une structure parallèle du patriarcat de Constantinople en Estonie, traditionnellement reconnue comme territoire canonique de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe, avait abouti à une rupture de communion eucharistique entre les deux patriarcats. Des pourparlers entre Constantinople et Moscou ont permis le rétablissement de l'unité, mais, comme le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise russe l'a souligné le 12 octobre dernier, "le statut canonique de la structure ecclésiale parallèle du patriarcat de Constantinople à laquelle appartient une minorité des orthodoxes d'Estonie, demeure à l'ordre du jour du dialogue à venir". En attendant, voyant que les engagements pris par le patriarcat de Constantinople en 1996 n'ont pas été respectés, le concile des évêques de l'Eglise russe de l'an 2000 a recommandé aux délégués ecclésiaux de s'abstenir de toutes les manifestations interorthodoxes et interchrétiennes où participent des représentants de cette "Eglise apostolique d'Estonie" relevant du siège de Constantinople.
Evêque Hilarion Alfeyev: «Le dialogue manqué»
Dans sa réunion du vendredi 12 octobre 2007, lors de sa session d’automne, le Saint Synode du Patriarcat de Moscou, après avoir entendu le rapport de Mgr Cyrille sur la participation de la délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou russe à la Xème session plénière de la commission mixte orthodoxe-catholique pour le dialogue théologique à Ravenne, a entériné la décision de la commission russe de quitter le dialogue à cause d'un désaccord avec le Patriarcat de Constantinople. Le site officiel du diocèse de Chersonèse a publié un communiqué sur la position de l’Église orthodoxe russe à ce sujet précisant que «le Patriarcat de Moscou n'a pas imposé la présence dans cette commission des délégués de l'Église autocéphale orthodoxe d'Amérique et de l'Église orthodoxe autonome du Japon qui ne sont pas reconnues par le Patriarcat de Constantinople pour fin de ne pas créer de tensions et d'obstacles supplémentaires. Jusqu'à naguère, le Patriarcat de Constantinople avait agi de la même façon avec "l'Église apostolique autonome d'Estonie" qu'il avait créée parallèlement à l'Église orthodoxe autonome d'Estonie reconnue par le patriarcat de Moscou». Le chef de la délégation du Patriarcat de Moscou dans son interview donnée au site Internet russe NG Religii donne des explications sur le conflit qui oppose le Patriarcat de Moscou et le Patriarcat de Constantinople. Le cite internet www.orthodoxie.com a publié la traduction française de cet entretien.
Votre Éminence, pouvez-vous raconter ce que c’est passé lors de la Xème session plénière de la commission mixte orthodoxe-catholique pour le dialogue théologique à Ravenne.
Tard le soir le 8 octobre, je suis arrivé à Ravenne. Mais le lendemain matin j’ai découvert que dans la composition de la délégation orthodoxe de la commission mixte ont été intégrés les représentants de la soi-disant «l'Église estonienne apostolique», créée en 1996 par le Patriarcat de Constantinople sur le territoire canonique du Patriarcat de Moscou. Ils étaient invités par le coprésident orthodoxe de la commission le métropolite de Pergame Jean (Zizioulas) de manière unilatérale, sans accord des autres Églises orthodoxes locales.
J’ai fait savoir au métropolite Jean que si ces représentants d’une instance ecclésiale non reconnue par nous, restaient dans la liste des participants, nous serions obligés de quitter la séance.
Puis lors la réunion générale de la délégation orthodoxe j'ai exposé la position du Patriarcat de Moscou et j’ai souligné que nous ne reconnaissons pas la soi-disante «Église estonienne apostolique» en qualité de structure autonome canonique, et c'est pourquoi, si ses représentants ne quittaient pas la séance, les délégués du Patriarcat de Moscou y seraient obligés.
Le métropolite Jean y a répondu que selon la décision de la conférence inter orthodoxe, si une Église quittait le dialogue, le dialogue se prolongerait sans elle. Ainsi, il a été évident que le Patriarcat de Constantinople s’était préparé à ce développement des évènements.
Pendant la séance plénière de la commission mixte j'ai informé ses membres de la position du Patriarcat de Moscou au sujet de cette question. J’ai dit que si le Patriarcat de Moscou attachait certes une grande importance au développement du dialogue théologique avec l'Église catholique, la participation commune en séance officielle des délégués du Patriarcat de Moscou et de cette soi-disant «Église estonienne apostolique» signifierait une reconnaissance implicite par le Patriarcat de Moscou de la canonicité de cette structure ecclésiale, et que nous serions donc obligés de quitter la séance. J'ai également déclaré que le Patriarcat de Moscou serait prêt à reprendre sa participation au travail de la commission mixte, dès que le patriarcat changeait la position. Après cela notre délégation a quitté la salle d'audience.
Ni à Baltimore en 2000, ni à Belgrade en 2006 les délégués de «l'Église estonienne apostolique» n’avaient participé, et je ne comprends pas pourquoi le Patriarcat de Constantinople les a intégrés dans la composition des membres orthodoxes de la commission lors la présente rencontre.
Était-il possible, néanmoins, de trouver un compromis?
J’ai alors proposé un compromis au métropolite Jean: inscrivez les représentants de l'Estonie dans la composition de la délégation du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Le métropolite Jean a refusé. De son côté il proposait que les "Estoniens" participent, mais que dans la liste des participants nous inscrivions la remarque que le Patriarcat de Moscou ne les reconnaît pas en qualité d’Église autonome. Mais même cela, nous ne pouvions pas accepter. Nous ne sommes donc finalement pas parvenus à trouver une formule d’accord.
Je voudrais remarquer que ma position dans la commission mixte se distingue de la position du métropolite Jean. A cette séance, comme à toutes les autres, je représente exclusivement le Patriarcat de Moscou, tandis que le métropolite Jean, étant le coprésident orthodoxe de la commission, ne représente pas seulement le point de vue du Patriarcat (de Constantinople) mais qu’il est obligé de se soucier de l'unité inter orthodoxe. Si en effet, le Patriarcat de Constantinople prend position en tant que garant d'une telle unité, alors les démarches qu’il entreprend en tant que tel, malheureusement, sont à porter à son préjudice.
Il apparaît donc que Constantinople recherche à quelque prix que ce soit à introduire subrepticement «l’Église d’Estonie» dans une réunion inter orthodoxe plutôt qu’à sauvegarder l’unité de l’orthodoxie. Une fois de plus les intérêts du Patriarcat de Constantinople ont été placés au-dessus des intérêts de l’unité pan-orthodoxe.
Cela pose une nouvelle fois la question du rôle du Patriarcat de Constantinople dans la famille des Églises orthodoxes locales, de ses droits et de ses devoirs. La création d’une nouvelle Église locale et son intégration au mécanisme de dialogue entre l'orthodoxie et les non-orthodoxes, à notre avis, demandent l'accord de toute la plénitude de l'Église orthodoxe. Si le Patriarcat de Constantinople, se servant de sa primauté d'honneur, crée de manière unilatérale, des Églises autonomes sur le territoire canonique des autres Églises locales, cela ne contribue pas en aucune manière à l'unité inter orthodoxe. Puis, si le Patriarcat de Constantinople fait intégrer ces structures ecclésiales, ainsi créées, dans les commissions du dialogue entre l'orthodoxie et d'autres confessions sans coordination avec les autres Églises locales, cela aussi minera l'autorité de l'orthodoxie aux yeux de nos frères et de nos sœurs non-orthodoxes.
Quel est, à votre avis, l’avenir du dialogue orthodoxe-catholique et de la participation de l'Église orthodoxe russe à ce dialogue?
Je pense que durant la période qui s’étendra jusqu'à la séance suivante les commissions des Patriarcats de Constantinople et de Moscou tenteront de régler la situation donnée. Si on réussit à la régler, nous pourrons participer à la séance suivante de la commission mixte.
Cependant nous nous trouvons maintenant dans une situation complexe et ambigüe. Nous ne participons pas au travail d’élaboration du texte du document, qui sera finalisé à Ravenne, c'est pourquoi nous ne pourrons pas y apposer notre signature. De quelle manière pourrons-nous alors nous joindre à l'étape suivante du dialogue, si nous sommes absents à son étape actuelle? De quel mécanisme de contestation d’une ou de plusieurs positions du document de Ravenne pourrons-nous disposer, si nous n’étions pas d'accord avec? Nous n’avons pas à ce jour de réponses claires à ces questions.
Contrairement à l'opinion du métropolite Jean, j’incline à penser que l'absence de la plus grande Église orthodoxe dans le dialogue, celle dont le nombre des membres excède le nombre global des membres de toutes les autres Églises orthodoxes, met en doute le caractère légitime du dialogue orthodoxe-catholique. Cela se ramène à un dialogue non avec l'Église orthodoxe, mais seulement avec une partie de celle-ci.
Je voudrais souligner que si l'Église Russe est sortie du dialogue, la faute en revient exclusivement au Patriarcat de Constantinople. Aujourd’hui donc la reprise de notre participation au dialogue dépend exclusivement de l’attitude du Patriarcat de Constantinople.
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Die Fülle des Göttlichen Lebens in der Dreifaltigkeit
Um die Lehre von der Dreifaltigkeit für das Verstehen zugänglicher zu machen, nahmen die heiligen Väter manchmal ihre Zuflucht zu Analogien und Vergleichen. So kann man zum Beispiel die Dreifaltigkeit mit der Sonne vergleichen: Wenn wir „Sonne“ sagen, dann haben wir den Himmelskörper selbst oder auch das Sonnenlicht oder die Wärme der Sonne vor Augen. Licht und Wärme stellen eigenständige „Hypostasen“ dar, existieren jedoch nicht isoliert von der Sonne. Aber auch die Sonne existiert nicht ohne Wärme und Licht ... Eine andere Analogie sind das Wasser, die Quelle und der Strom: Eins kann nicht ohne das andere sein. Im Menschen gibt es Geist, Seele und Wort: Der Geist kann nicht ohne Seele und Wort sein, sonst wäre er seelen-los und wort-los, aber auch die Seele und das Wort können nicht geist-los sein. In Gott ist der Vater, das Wort und der Geist, und wenn – so sagten die Verteidiger des „einen Wesens“ auf dem Konzil von Nizäa – Gott der Vater jemals ohne Gott das Wort existiert hätte, dann wäre Er wort-los oder geist-los gewesen.
Doch Analogien solcher Art können nichts erklären, was das Wesentliche betrifft: Das Sonnenlicht zum Beispiel ist weder Personalität noch selbständiges Sein. Am einfachsten könnte man das Geheimnis der Dreifaltigkeit erklären, wie dies der heilige Spiridon von Trimithon, ein Teilnehmer der Konzils von Nizäa, getan hat. Der Überlieferung nach nahm er, als die Frage gestellt wurde, wie es sein kann, dass Drei zugleich Einer ist, statt einer Antwort einen Ziegelstein in die Hand und presste ihn. Aus dem Lehm, der in den Händen des Heiligen weich geworden war, schlug eine Flamme nach oben, und nach unten floss Wasser. „Wie in diesem Ziegel Feuer und Wasser sind“, sagte der Heilige, „so sind in dem einen Gott drei Personen ...“.
Eine andere Version dieser Erzählung (es kann aber auch die Erzählung von einem anderen, ähnlichen Ereignis sein) ist in den Akten des Nizänischen Konzils enthalten. Ein Philosoph stritt lange mit den Vätern dieses Konzils und versuchte logisch zu beweisen, dass der Sohn nicht eines Wesens mit dem Vater sein könne. Als schon alle auseinandergehen wollten, ermüdet durch die langen Debatten, kam plötzlich ein einfacher Starez-Hirte (der mit dem heiligen Spiridon identifiziert wird) in den Saal und erklärte, er sei bereit, mit dem Philosophen zu streiten und all seine Einwände zu widerlegen. Danach wandte er sich an den Philosophen, sah ihn streng an und sagte: „Hör zu, du Philosoph, Einer ist Gott, der Schöpfer des Himmels und der Erde, Der alles geschaffen hat in der Kraft des Sohnes und durch das Mitwirken des Heiligen Geistes. Dieser Sohn Gottes ist Fleisch geworden, hat unter den Menschen gelebt, ist für uns gestorben und auferstanden. Mühe dich nicht umsonst, Beweise dafür zu finden, was nur im Glauben begriffen werden kann, sondern antworte: Glaubst du an den Sohn Gottes?“ Getroffen von diesen Worten konnte der Philosoph nur hervorbringen: „Ich glaube“. Der Starez sagte: „Wenn du glaubst, dann lass uns in die Kirche gehen, und dort gewähre ich dir Anteil an diesem wahren Glauben“. Der Philosoph stand sofort auf und folgte dem Starzen. Beim Hinausgehen sagte er zu den Anwesenden: „Solange man Beweise mit Worten erbringen wollte, habe ich den Worten Worte entgegengesetzt, als sich aber aus dem Mund dieses Starzen die göttliche Kraft zeigte, konnten die Worte der Kraft nicht widerstehen, weil der Mensch Gott nicht widerstehen kann“.
Die Göttliche Dreifaltigkeit ist keine gleichsam erstarrte Existenz, ist nicht Unbewegtheit und Unbeweglichkeit, Statik. „Ich bin der Da-seiende“, sagt Gott zu Mose (Ex 3,14). „Der Da-seiende“ bedeutet: existierend, le-bend. In Gott ist die Fülle des Lebens, Leben aber ist Bewegung, Erscheinung, Offenbarung. Einige Göttliche Namen haben, wie wir sahen, einen dynamischen Charakter: Gott wird verglichen mit Feuer (Ex 24,17), Wasser (Jer 2,13), Wind (Gen 1,2). Im biblischen Buch des Hohenliedes sucht die Frau ihren Geliebten, der sich ihr entzieht. Diese Gestalt wurde in der christlichen Tradition gedeutet (Origenes, Gregor von Nyssa) auf die Seele, die Gott nacheilt, Der sich ihr ewig entzieht. Die Seele sucht Gott, doch kaum hat sie Ihn gefunden – verliert sie Ihn wieder, sehnt sich danach, Ihn zu erreichen, kann Ihn aber nicht erreichen, versucht Ihn zu fassen, kann Ihn aber nicht fassen. Er bewegt sich mit grosser „Schnelligkeit“ und übersteigt immer unsere Kräfte und unsere Möglichkeiten. Gott finden und einholen heisst, selbst Göttlich werden. Wie sich gemäss den physikalischen Gesetzen irgendein materieller Körper, der sich mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit zu bewegen begänne, selbst in Licht verwandeln würde, so auch die Seele: Je mehr sie sich Gott nähert, um so mehr wird sie erfüllt vom Licht und wird zum Lichtträger ...
Die Heilige Schrift sagt: „Gott ist die Liebe“ (1 Joh 4,8.16). Es gibt aber keine Liebe ohne Geliebten. Die Liebe setzt die Existenz eines anderen voraus. Eine einzelne isolierte Monade kann nur sich selbst lieben: Selbstliebe ist keine Liebe. Die egozentrische Einheit ist keine Person. Wie der Mensch sich selbst als Person nur in Gemeinschaft mit anderen Personen erfahren kann, so kann auch in Gott personales Sein nicht anders als durch die Liebe zu einem anderen personalen Sein verwirklicht werden. Die Göttliche Dreifaltigkeit ist die Fülle der Liebe, jede Person-Hypostase ist den anderen beiden Person-Hypostasen in Liebe zugewandt. Die Personen erfahren sich in der Dreifaltigkeit als „Ich und Du“: „Du, Vater, bist in Mir und Ich in Dir“, sagt Christus zum Vater (Joh 17,21). „Alles, was der Vater hat, ist Mein, darum habe Ich gesagt, dass Er von dem Meinigen nimmt und euch verkündigen wird“, sagt Christus vom Heiligen Geist (Joh 16,14). „Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott“, so beginnt das Evangelium nach Johannes (Joh 1,1). Im griechischen und im kirchenslavischen Text steht hier die Präposition „zu“: Das Wort war „zu Gott“ (pros ton Theon). Unterstrichen wird der personale Charakter der gegenseitigen Beziehungen des Sohnes (als Wort) und des Vaters: Der Sohn ist nicht nur aus dem Vater geboren, Er existiert nicht nur bei Gott dem Vater, sondern Er ist dem Vater zugewandt. So ist jede Hypostase in der Dreifaltigkeit den anderen beiden Hypostasen zugewandt. Der heilige Maximos der Bekenner spricht von der „Ewigen (der Dreifaltigkeit) in der Liebe“.
Auf der Ikone der Heiligsten Dreifaltigkeit von Andrej Rublev und auch auf anderen Ikonen desselben ikonographischen Typs sehen wir drei Engel, die an einem Tisch sitzen, auf dem eine Schale steht, das Symbol des erlösenden Opfers Christi. Der Stoff der Ikone ist der erwähnten Begebenheit mit Abraham („Die Gastfreundschaft Abrahams“ – so heisst dieses ikonographische Thema) entnommen, und alle Personen der Trinität sind so dargestellt, dass Sie einander zugewandt und gleichzeitig zur Schale hingeneigt sind. Der Ikone ist gleichsam jene Göttliche Liebe eingeprägt, die im Inneren der Dreifaltigkeit herrscht und deren höchster Ausdruck die Erlösungstat des Sohnes ist. Das ist, nach einem Ausdruck des heiligen Metropoliten Philaret (Drozdov), „die kreuzigende Liebe des Vaters, die gekreuzigte Liebe des Sohnes und die in der Kraft des Kreuzes triumphierende Liebe des Heiligen Geistes“. Das Kreuzesopfer des Gottessohnes ist ebenso eine Liebestat des Vaters und des Heiligen Geistes.
Aus dem Buch Geheimnis des Glaubens. Einführung in die orthodoxe dogmatische Theologie.
Fortsetzung folgt.