ECUMENICAL TRENDS

Vol 49 No 6 n Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute n November/December 2020

A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement

Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2021

Abide in My Love: How Jesus Teaches Us to
Respond to Polarization, Conflict, and Violence
By Andrew DeCort

W
hen the editors of Ecumenical Trends invited
me to write this essay, I was receiving dozens of
death threats. My initiative in Ethiopia, called the
Neighbor-Love Movement, works to promote seeing others
as precious neighbors across polarized identities, and some
people were not happy about the bridges we were attempt-
ing to build. Sadly, many of the most hateful threats came
from neighbors who claimed a Christian identity. As I
prayed, I asked Jesus if he had a word he wanted to speak
to my wife and me as we journeyed through that disturbing
season. What I heard was “Remain in my love.” Thus, it
was deeply meaningful to me that the editors asked me to
explore this precise passage without knowing my situation.
I share this to say that my essay is not meant as abstract
theology from the ivory tower. It is meant as an attempt to
listen to Jesus’ heart as we obey his command to remain in
his love and love one another in real life, no matter the cost.
Introduction
How should followers of Jesus live in the midst of esca-
lating polarization, conflict, and violence?
This question has growing relevance in the two coun-
tries I call home, Ethiopia and the United States, and in
many other places. We see intensifying culture wars, reli-
gious divisions, and deadly conflicts across the world.
When we read the evangelist’s story about Jesus in
John 15:1-17, we discover a strikingly similar situation, as
well as Jesus’ own answer to this pressing question. In the
face of escalating polarization, conflict, and violence, Jesus
says, “Abide in my love” (John 15:9).1 According to Jesus,
this practice of abiding, or remaining, has two dimensions:
continued on page 2
Dr. Andrew DeCort is the director of the Neighbor-
Love Movement (nlmglobal.org), which works to inspire
love, justice, and flourishing for all neighbors in Ethiopia. 
He holds a PhD in Ethics from the University of Chicago 
and has lectured in ethics, theology, and Ethiopian stud-
ies at Wheaton College, the Ethiopian Graduate School of 
Theology, and the University of Bonn. Andrew’s passion is 
seeing the precious value of each person and challenging
cultural patterns that devalue others. He is the author of
Bonhoeffer’s New Beginning: Ethics after Devastation
(Fortress,  2018)  and  writes  a  weekly  newsletter  called 
Stop & Think at www.andrew-decort.com. Andrew and
his wife Lily live and work in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

IN THIS ISSUE
Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2021 Ut Unum Sint, the Papacy, and the Orthodox
Abide in My Love: How Jesus Teaches Us to Respond PAUL LADOUCEUR....................................................14
to Polarization, Conflict, and Violence
Ut Unum Sint and the Call to Openness
ANDREW DECORT.......................................................1
DALE M. COULTER....................................................20
Asceticism, Ethics, and the Renewal of the Earth:
In Memoriam
Orthodox Christian Contributions to an Ecumenical
Geoffrey Wainwright (1939-2020)
Ecology
DAVID CARTER.........................................................24
JOHN CHRYSSAVGIS AND AARON HOLLANDER...........6
Ut Unum Sint, the Papacy, and the Orthodox
“T
he problem, Holy Father, is you.”1 This blunt
remark, reportedly made to Pope John Paul II
by a Greek Orthodox hierarch in Rome in 1982,
aptly sums up what is for Orthodox, and indeed for many
other non-Catholic Christians, the principal obstacle to the
restoration of visible unity between the Catholic Church and
other Christian churches: the status and role of the papacy in
Christendom. As Metropolitan John Zizioulas summarized
in 1997: “The most important and at the same time the most
difficult problem in Roman Catholic-Orthodox relations
is undoubtedly that of papal primacy.”2 Other differences
between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, in liturgy,
spirituality, canons, structure, practices (such as married
priests), even theology, are secondary to “the problem of
the pope.” Even the Filioque, the doctrine of the procession
of Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, accepted by
Western Christianity but not by Orthodoxy, for so long the
major theological stumbling-block between Orthodox and
Catholics, has faded into the background.3 Orthodox reac-
tion, or rather lack of reaction, to Ut Unum Sint (UUS) over
the course of the past twenty-five years must be seen in this light.
Orthodox Reactions to Ut Unum Sint
Following the publication of UUS in 1995, many Western
churches, including Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Reformed, and Free Churches, welcomed the pope’s open-
ness to dialogue on the exercise of the papal office, while
some raised yellow flags. Konrad Raiser, general secretary
of the World Council of Churches, said that the real obstacle
to reconciliation was not the mode of exercise of primacy
but rather the dogmas of Vatican I concerning papal prima-
cy of jurisdiction and infallibility.4 There were no official
responses to UUS from Orthodox churches, only comments
from Orthodox hierarchs and theologians.
Perhaps closest to an official response were remarks
in late 1995 by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on
authority in the church. Bartholomew contrasts central-
ized authority in the Catholic Church with the synodal and
decentralized Orthodox tradition and goes on to say: “The
idea that the Lord, in choosing the twelve apostles, gave
one the task of governing them has no foundation in Holy
Scripture.” Bartholomew, expressing the Orthodox under-
standing of the Lord’s order that Peter be the shepherd of
the flock, states that this was a reiteration of the Lord’s man-
date to all the Apostles, and cannot be taken as giving Peter
a pastoral responsibility superior to those of the other
disciples. The Lord ‘gave the name apostle’ (Lk 6:13)
to all his disciples equally and without any discrimina-
tion… It follows that each of us, as bishop, is personally
accountable to facilitate or to hinder the course of the
vessel of the church.5
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
By Paul Ladouceur
There were no official responses to
UUS from Orthodox churches, only
comments from Orthodox hierarchs
and theologians.
Avery Cardinal Dulles remarks: “This position, if it
were representative of the Orthodox in general, would cast
a pall on the dialogue.”6 The French Catholic periodical
Istina described Bartholomew’s remarks as “a more than
abrupt response to the open-ended propositions contained
in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint.”7 Bartholomew’s com-
ments reflect, in fact, long-standing Orthodox thinking on
authority in the church. As the French Orthodox theologian
Olivier Clément observes, UUS “passes by in silence other
interpretations [of scriptural passages that Rome, since the
third century, has invoked to ground its primacy,] which the
Fathers have given to these texts (the succession of Peter
[resides] also in the faith of the faithful and in the ministry
of the bishops, who, says Cyprian of Carthage, occupy in
solidum the throne of Peter).”8
We are left, then, with unofficial reactions to UUS by
Orthodox theologians. Avery Dulles highlights the papers
given by three Orthodox theologians at a symposium in
Rome in December 1997 on “The Petrine Ministry and
the Unity of the Church.” However, these papers by John
Zizioulas, the French theologian Nicolas Lossky, and the
Romanian theologian Dumitru Popescu do not constitute
responses to UUS in particular; rather, they reaffirm, in
slightly different ways, Orthodox views on the papacy in
general. All three speakers recognize a role for a reformed
papacy in a re-united Christendom, a role marked by a pri-
macy of honor which could include the expression of the
consensus of the entire church and the resolution of con-
flicts among bishops.9
Most substantial among the unofficial Orthodox reac-
tions to UUS was that of Olivier Clément. Clément was an
active ecumenist, close to several popes and ecumenical
patriarchs, known in Catholic circles for his Good Friday
meditations prepared at the request of Pope John Paul II in
1998.10 In his book You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection
continued on page 15
Dr. Paul Ladouceur is Adjunct Professor at the Orthodox
School  of  Theology  at  Trinity  College  (University  of 
Toronto), and Professeur associé, Faculté de théologie et
sciences religieuses, Université Laval (Quebec, Canada).
14/138 ECUMENICAL TRENDS
UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 14
on the Exercise of Papal Primacy (1995), Clément calls UUS
“the great encyclical on ecumenism,”11 and elsewhere an
“unprecedented and prophetic initiative.”12 Clément praises
in particular “the acknowledgement that ‘sanctification and
truth’ exist in other Christian traditions,” the reaffirmation
of the ecclesiology of communion, that grace is expressed
“no longer in Thomistic language but in that of scripture
and the Fathers” and is presented as “a real participation
in the divine life,” that “the ecumenical process must start
with conversion to the gospel and repentance,” and that “the
pope, like the apostle Peter, must be the first to repent, and
the Catholic Church along with him.” Comments Clément:
“Here at last is the response to Orthodoxy’s long-hoped-for
‘tears of Peter.’” “Most importantly,” concludes Clément,
“the pope indicts himself, acknowledging that the Petrine
ministry is that of a pardoned sinner, a humble opening to
grace.”13
In his book You Are Peter:
An Orthodox Reflection on the
Exercise of Papal Primacy (1995),
[Olivier] Clément calls UUS “the
great encyclical on ecumenism,”
and elsewhere an “unprecedented
and prophetic initiative.”
Clément also writes favorably of Pope John Paul’s ini-
tiatives concerning the Filioque. In his address to Patriarch
Bartholomew on June 29, 1995, the pope declared: “The
Father, as the source of the entire Trinity, is the sole origin
of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Clément cites the pope’s
“Doctrinal Note” of September 13, 1995, which contains a
more precise formulation of this doctrine: “The Holy Spirit
originates from the Father alone, as from his first principle,
of himself and without intermediary.”14 By themselves the
statements coincide with the Orthodox understanding of the
procession of the Holy Spirit from earliest times.
Clément urged the Orthodox Churches to prepare re-
flections on UUS – but to no avail. “I find it inadmissible
that the proposal has gone almost unheard,” he later com-
plains. “I would hope that the Oriental Patriarchs would get
to work and be in a position to present their reflections to
Pope John Paul II… in 1999.”15 In this respect he was echoed
by the American Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart,
who made favorable remarks concerning UUS, stating in
2001 that he was ashamed “that so few Orthodox hierarchs
have even recognized the remarkable gesture made by John
ECUMENICAL TRENDS 15/139
Paul II in Ut Unum Sint (1995), in openly soliciting advice
on how to understand his office (even indeed the limits of
its jurisdiction).”16
Five years after his favorable reaction to UUS, Clément
was very critical of the Declaration Dominus Iesus, issued
in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.17 From the outset
the reception of Dominus Iesus, even in Catholic circles,
was “overwhelmingly negative,” because it was seen as “a
statement against ecumenism,” although its real target was
religious pluralism.18 The problem lies in an attempt to link
the unicity and universality of salvation in Christ with the
Catholic Church alone as the historical continuation of the
church entrusted to Peter and his successors – the popes.
On this score, Dominus Iesus does little more than reiter-
ate the ecclesiology concerning the Catholic Church and
the universal jurisdiction of the pope contained in Catholic
documents from Vatican II onwards: “there exists a single
Church of Christ, which subsists in [subsistit in, from Vatican
II’s Unitatis Redintegratio] the Catholic Church, governed
by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion
with him.”19 Other Christian bodies, including those which
maintain apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are de-
cidedly lesser in nature; “they suffer from defects,” the chief
of which appears to be that “they do not accept the Catholic
doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God,
the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the
entire Church” (§17).
In this light, it is not surprising that Olivier Clément
was as critical of Dominus Iesus as he was encouraged by
UUS. His review of Dominus Iesus is noteworthy for its
criticism not only of its stance on papal primacy but also
of its narrow perspective on non-Christian religions. For
Clément, Dominus Iesus redefines the Vatican II notion that
the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church to
mean that “the One and Holy Church is the Catholic Church
and whatever elements of ecclesiality that can be found be-
yond its limits are in reality its emanations.”20 Concerning
both non-Christian religions and non-Catholic Christianity,
Dominus Iesus suffers from “too static a diagnosis” and
“hasty deductions concerning what others are or are not or
will not be.”21
“The Problem, Holy Father, Is You”: The Papacy and
the East-West Divide
In a broad perspective, Ut Unum Sint contains much to
commend itself to Orthodoxy. As the first papal encyclical
devoted specifically to ecumenism, UUS is a fitting re-affir-
mation of the ecumenical “turn” in the Catholic Church pro-
claimed by the Second Vatican Council, reversing earlier
rejection of the modern ecumenical movement, especially
continued on page 16
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 15
In this light, it is not surprising that
Olivier Clément was as critical of
Dominus Iesus as he was encouraged
by UUS. His review of Dominus Iesus
is noteworthy for its criticism not
only of its stance on papal primacy
but also of its narrow perspective on
non-Christian religions.
as it gathered momentum in the inter-war period, culminat-
ing in the establishment of the WCC in 1948. In UUS, the
pope states that ecumenism is an integral part of the mission
of the Catholic Church: “Ecumenism, the movement pro-
moting Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’
[emphasis original] which is added to the Church’s tradi-
tional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her
life and work, and consequently must pervade all that she is
and does” (UUS, §20).
Most striking is the pope’s discussion of the papacy it-
self, the language of which is irenic and humble. John Paul
II is aware how repugnant the papacy is for many Christians,
including Orthodox; the papacy “constitutes a difficulty for
most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain
painful recollections” (UUS, §88). The pope asks forgive-
ness for this: “To the extent that we are responsible for
these, I join my Predecessor Paul VI in asking forgiveness.”
Immediately the pope requests other church leaders to
join with him in a reflection of the papacy itself:
I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility…
above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations
of the majority of the Christian Communities and in
heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercis-
ing the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what
is essential to its mission [emphasis added], is nonethe-
less open to a new situation. … Could not the real but
imperfect communion existing between us persuade
Church leaders and their theologians to engage with
me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject…
(UUS, §95-96).
The problem, however, remains “in the details,” here
suggested by the phrase “while in no way renouncing what
is nonetheless essential to its mission.” Orthodox read this
as referring to papal supremacy and infallibility – a reading
reinforced by other statements:
Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities,
the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the
Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her ‘perpetual
and visible principle and foundation of unity.’ (UUS, §88)
The mission of the Bishop of Rome within the College
of all the Pastors consists precisely in ‘keeping watch,’
like a sentinel, so that, through the efforts of the Pastors,
the true voice of Christ the Shepherd may be heard in
all the particular Churches. … All the Churches are in
full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are
in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ.
(UUS, §94)
With the power and the authority without which such
an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must
ensure the communion of all the Churches… This pri-
macy is exercised on various levels, including vigilance
over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of
the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church’s mission,
discipline and the Christian life. It is the responsibility of
the Successor of Peter to recall the requirements of the
common good of the Church… He can also – under very
specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican
Council – declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine
belongs to the deposit of faith. (UUS, §94)
For all its merits, then, Ut Unum Sint is for the Orthodox yet
another affirmation, one of many over the centuries, of the
Roman claim to universal jurisdiction over Christianity and
to papal infallibility (however politely expressed in mod-
ern terms). The statements concerning the papacy show a
welcome openness and good will, but no flexibility on the
essentials. It is still the pope’s duty, for example, “to ad-
monish, to caution, and to declare at times that this or that
opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of
faith” (UUS, §94). The bottom line is that the pope is still in
charge. The expression “With the power and the authority
without which such an office would be illusory” implicitly
rejects the Orthodox view that historically the pope’s head-
ship over the church was honorific and symbolic of unity,
even if at times some popes acted as arbitrators in disputes
among eastern bishops. In Rome’s perspective, by contrast,
any Christian community wishing to enter into communion
with Rome (=Peter=the pope) must accept papal authority.
For the Orthodox, statements affirming the absolute
primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope are pain-
ful reminders of the sad estrangement between Eastern and
Western Christianity. This lengthy journey into the desert
of Christian disunity began with skirmishes as early as the
eighth century over the insertion of Filioque into the Creed,
and by the mid-ninth century the Filioque became linked with
papal authority in the quarrel between St Photius the Great (c.
810-893), Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Nicholas I
(c. 800-867), the great consolidator of papal authority.22
Two historical events, more than others, stand out in
Orthodox memory as major signposts in subsequent diver-
continued on page 17
16/140 ECUMENICAL TRENDS
UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 16
For all its merits, then, Ut Unum
Sint is for the Orthodox yet
another affirmation, one of many
over the centuries, of the Roman
claim to universal jurisdiction
over Christianity and to papal
infallibility (however politely
expressed in modern terms). The
statements concerning the papacy
show a welcome openness and
good will, but no flexibility on the
essentials.
gences of Christian East and Christian West. One was the
excommunication in 1054 of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius,
his associates, and “all their followers” (by implication, the
entire Orthodox Church), by Cardinal Humberto of Silva
Candida acting as the emissary of Pope Leo IX. Humberto
was acting, he claimed, because of “slander and insult to
the first, holy Apostolic See,” and “by the authority of the
undivided and Holy Trinity and that of the Apostolic See.”23
More shocking was the capture and sack of Constantinople
in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, and the subsequent estab-
lishment of Latin rule over much of the Byzantine Empire
for a century and a half. Although the pope was not direct-
ly involved in the Crusaders’ decision to sail to Byzantium
rather than Palestine, he approved the decision retroac-
tively. Despite 1054 and 1204, the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches sought to re-establish communion, notably at
the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of
Ferrara-Florence in 1439-40. At both councils, the Greeks
were obliged to accept papal authority as a condition for
reunion. But both councils were unpopular in Orthodox
lands, and neither was implemented.
Other signposts of papal authority directed against
the Orthodox Church were attempts to subordinate the
Orthodox to Rome in parts of Eastern Europe under Polish
and Austro-Hungarian rule. These measures reached a
decisive climax with the Union of Brest in 1596, by which
a number of Orthodox bishops, together with their clergy
and faithful, came under Roman jurisdiction – a move-
ment known, somewhat pejoratively, as “uniatism.” For the
Orthodox, this was a visible attempt by Rome to weaken if
not dismantle the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe.
ECUMENICAL TRENDS 17/141
In 1848, Pope Pius IX issued the apostolic letter Ad
Orientales (Epistle to the Easterners).24 Addressed to the
bishops and clergy of the Orthodox Churches, it urged them
to rejoin Rome. The Orthodox response was the Encyclical
of the Eastern Patriarchs, a letter addressed to “All the
Bishops Everywhere” by the patriarchs and synods of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.25 The
encyclical restates the Orthodox position on the major theo-
logical questions between the Orthodox and the Catholic
Churches, notably the Filioque (here called a “heresy”) and
papal supremacy – indeed, most of the encyclical is devoted
to the status and role of the pope. Against the doctrine of
papal infallibility, the patriarchs held that the preservation
of faith resides in the total body of the church:
Neither patriarchs nor councils could then have intro-
duced novelties amongst us, because the protector of
religion is the very body of the church, even the people
themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever
unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers.26
The church is thus the “people of God,” rather than an insti-
tution. The encyclical censures the papacy for Catholic mis-
sionary activities among Orthodox faithful (proselytism)
and terminates with a vibrant appeal to Orthodox clergy and
faithful to cultivate “the devotion of [their] whole soul and
heart to the blameless, holy faith of our fathers, and love
and affection to the Orthodox Church.”27 Yet two decades
later, the solemn proclamation of the dogma of papal infalli-
bility in matters of faith and morals by Vatican I in 1870 left
little doubt for the Orthodox of the uncompromising nature
of papal claims over all of Christianity, beginning with the
Orthodox Church.
Papal hostility during the interwar period towards the
modern ecumenical movement, in which Orthodox were
deeply involved, was also seen as manifesting papal claims
to universal jurisdiction. This attitude was reflected in the
encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928). The
encyclical condemns the nascent ecumenical movement
and reiterates traditional Catholic doctrine that the church
already enjoys visible organic unity in the divinely con-
stituted and protected Catholic Church, the unique church
founded by Jesus Christ. Pius XI rejected any possibility of
Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement, which
distort and rejects “true religion,” “and little by little [turns]
aside to naturalism and atheism.”28
In an Orthodox context, Mortalium Animos recalls Ad
Orientales eighty years earlier, and, like it, marked no pos-
itive development in official Catholic thinking concerning
other Christian churches, reinforcing the Catholic position
on the status, authority, and role of the papacy. Mortalium
Animos is a papal encyclical that many Catholic ecumenists
prefer to forget.
continued on page 18
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 17
Papal hostility during the interwar
period towards the modern
ecumenical movement, in which
Orthodox were deeply involved,
was also seen as manifesting papal
claims to universal jurisdiction.
The Catholic Church remained inward looking and
aloof from world Christianity for almost three decades after
Mortalium Animos. Several factors contributed to the shift
in Catholic policy towards ecumenism in the mid-1950s:
the horrors of World War II; the revival of the international
ecumenical movement, especially the establishment of the
WCC in 1948; and internal developments in the Catholic
Church itself, notably the theological renewal represented
by the nouvelle théologie and the ressourcement movements
in French Catholicism. These finally nudged the Catholic
Church to rethink its theology on other Christian churches
and non-Christian religions. The declarations of Vatican II
on ecumenism and religious diversity repudiate some as-
pects of the theology underlying Mortalium Animos – but
not all. Vatican II opened the door to Catholic participation
in the ecumenical movement, but without bringing into
question the central issue of the status and role of the pope.
Conclusion
Adam DeVille advances five reasons for the absence
of official Orthodox responses to UUS, starting with cul-
tural differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.
DeVille characterizes the latter as emphasizing ratio-
nality, dialogue, discussion, and the search for “shared
agreements,” in contrast with the historical experience of
Orthodox churches under hostile regimes, which left them
ill equipped for western-style methods of dialogue. This
certainly provides a general backdrop, but other reasons that
DeVille advances are more directly pertinent to UUS itself:
lack of knowledge of the encyclical; the steady stream of
significant papal pronouncements, especially in the spring
of 1995; the absence, claims DeVille, of “internal organi-
zational mechanisms within Orthodoxy which would allow
for a co-ordinated response”; and finally, the resurgence of
anti-ecumenism in Orthodoxy.29
Undoubtedly these factors bear on the lack of formal
Orthodox response to UUS, but none is sufficient to ac-
count for the resounding silence of the Orthodox churches.
Several mechanisms within Orthodoxy could have been
activated to produce official responses to UUS. Each
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020 18/142
independent (“autocephalous” or “local”) Orthodox Church
could act of its own accord on such a matter. There was (just
prior to UUS) another ecumenical undertaking where this
occurred, to some extent. In 1990 and 1991, representatives
of the “Eastern Orthodox Churches” (in communion with
the Church of Constantinople) and the “Oriental Orthodox
Churches” (the pre- or non-Chalcedonian churches) ad-
opted two Agreed Statements aimed at restoring commu-
nion between the two families of Orthodox churches after
their estrangement on Christology following the Council
of Chalcedon (451). Each of the Eastern and Oriental
Orthodox Churches was to ratify the Agreed Statements to
confirm restoration of communion. But the Agreements ran
into severe criticism in some Eastern Orthodox churches,
with the result that only two Orthodox churches formally
accepted them.30
Another mechanism that could have been activated
to produce a coordinated Orthodox response to UUS are
pan-Orthodox conferences. A number of such conferences
were held in the 1980s and 1990s and subsequently, many
in preparation for a general council of the Orthodox Church
(which finally took place, amid considerable controversy, in
Crete in June 2016).31 In addition, ad hoc meetings of the
primates of the Orthodox churches are held from time to
time. The initiative for convoking pan-Orthodox meetings
rests with the ecumenical patriarch – but the ecumenical pa-
triarch did not deploy his prerogatives with respect to UUS.
In a sense, the challenge extended to Orthodoxy by
John Paul II’s bold initiative in UUS was taken up by the
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church,
which got underway in 1980. Since 2000, the commission
has focused on themes relating to conciliarity, authority,
primacy, and the role of the bishop of Rome in the church
during the first millennium. The commission reached several
agreements, mostly concerning the historical experience of
the first millennium. In Ravenna (2007), the commission
agreed “that Rome, as the Church that ‘presides in love’…,
occupied the first place in the taxis [canonical order], and
that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among
the patriarchs.” Left dangling at Ravenna was the signifi-
cance of the protos: “They [the two sides] disagree, how-
ever, 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.”32 This issue was taken up in
the subsequent decade, resulting in an agreement in 2016
on “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium”:
the bishop of Rome enjoyed “a primacy of honor,” but
“did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of
the East.”33 This corresponds with the long-held Orthodox
continued on page 19
ECUMENICAL TRENDS
UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 18
understanding of Roman primacy in the first millennium.
The commission has now turned to “primacy and syn-
odality in the second millennium and today.” Agreement
on history is fine and certainly represents progress in mu-
tual understanding between the Orthodox and Catholic
Churches, but the commission still has to confront the tough
recognition that the evolution of the papacy in the second
millennium was far removed from the exercise of primacy
in the first millennium, and indeed can no longer be recon-
ciled with the consistent Orthodox understanding of prima-
cy in the church.
Despite the opening towards dialogue that Pope John
Paul II demonstrated in Ut Unum Sint, it is the firm, if po-
lite, re-iteration of the doctrines of papal supremacy and
universal authority that accounts for the absence of for-
mal Orthodox responses to UUS. Rather than respond with
the well-worn critiques of the Roman doctrine, as in the
1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Orthodox
Churches have preferred to maintain a courteous, but thun-
dering, silence to Ut Unum Sint.
Despite the opening towards
dialogue that Pope John Paul II
demonstrated in Ut Unum Sint, it is
the firm, if polite, re-iteration of the
doctrines of papal supremacy and
universal authority that accounts
for the absence of formal Orthodox
responses to UUS.
Notes:
1. Jeffrey Donovan, “Pope’s Dream of Uniting Christianity Goes
Unfulfilled,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (8 Apr 2005):
www.rferl.org/a/1058341.html (accessed 11 May 2020).
2. John Zizioulas, “Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox
Approach,” in Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church, edit-
ed by James F. Puglisi (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 116.
3. The North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, which
studied the Filioque between 1999 and 2003, concluded that “our
traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the
Holy Spirit need no longer divide us,” even though “the man-
ner of the Spirit’s origin… still awaits full and final ecumenical
resolution.” See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
“The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?” (2003): https://www.
usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/filio-
ECUMENICAL TRENDS 19/143
que-church-dividing-issue-agreed-statement (accessed 10 May
2020). The Joint International Commission for Theological
Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
has not taken up the Filioque.
4. See Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Review Essay: A New Orthodox
View of the Papacy,” Pro Ecclesia 13.3 (2003), 345.
5. “Une déclaration du patriarche Bartholomée sur les différences
entre la conception catholique et la conception orthodoxe de la
primauté dans l’Église (Zurich, 14 déc 1995),” Istina 41.2 (1996),
185-86.
6. Dulles, “Review Essay,” 345.
7. Istina 41.2 (1996), 187-88.
8. Olivier Clément, “Sur Ut Unum Sint: Dans l’élan de Vatican
II,” Contacts 47.195 (1995), 157-58.
9. See their essays in Puglisi (ed), Petrine Ministry and the Unity
of the Church.
10. Olivier Clément, Le Chemin de Croix à Rome (Desclée de
Brouwer, 1998).
11. Olivier Clément, You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on
the Exercise of Papal Primacy (New City Press, 2003), 80. See
also Dulles, “Review Essay,” 345-58.
12. Cited in Adam A. J. DeVille, Orthodoxy and the Roman
Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity
(University of Notre Dame Press, 2011), 12.
13. Clément, You Are Peter, 80.
14. L’Osservatore Romano (13 September 1995) (French and
Italian); L’Osservatore Romano (20 September 1995) (English).
Cited in Clément, You Are Peter, 81. See John F, McCarthy, “On
the Procession of the Holy Spirit”: http://rtforum.org/lt/lt66.html
(accessed 18 May 2020).
15. Cited in DeVille, Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy, 12.
16. David Bentley Hart, “The Future of the Papacy: A Symposium,”
First Things (March 2001): www.firstthings.com/article/2001/03/
the-future-of-the-papacy-a-symposium (accessed 13 Mar 2020).
17. Olivier Clément, “Une fidélité sans espérance. La déclaration
Dominus Iesus,” Contacts 53.195 (2001), 206-12.
18. Loe-Joo Tan, “‘Things Are Not What They Seem’: Dominus Iesus,
Ecumenism, and Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 48.4 (2013), 530.
19. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration
Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus
Christ and the Church” (Rome, 2000), §16-17: www.vatican.va/
roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_
doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html (accessed 10 June 2020).
20. Clément, “Une fidélité sans espérance,” 213.
21. Clément, “Une fidélité sans espérance,” 215.
22. For an overview of Greek-Byzantine attitudes, largely carried
forward to the modern era, towards Latin claims to papal suprem-
acy, see John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical trends
and Doctrinal Themes (Fordham University Press, 1974), 97-101.
continued on page 27
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
GEOFFREY WAINWRIGHT, from page 26

15. Wainwright, Methodists in Dialogue, 143-58. 17. Wainwright, Methodists in Dialogue, 179-85.
16. At the time the Russian Orthodox were affronted by the 18. Wainwright, Methodists in Dialogue, 207-22. Wainwright
appointment of four Latin Rite bishops by John Paul II and by the contrasts the self-confidence of the British and American confer-
existence of the tiny Methodist churches in Estonia and Latvia. ences with the diffidence of continental conferences, often lack-
This was despite both Catholic and Methodist assurances that ing good relations with the older churches.
these developments were not intended to proselytize amongst
the Orthodox faithful, but only to provide pastorally for existing
communities. Bishop Kallistos Ware, however, gave the idea of a
dialogue his warm support.

UT UNUM SINT, THE PAPACY, AND THE ORTHODOX, from page 19

23. Deno John Geanakoplos (trans), Byzantium: Church, Society,
and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes (University of
Chicago Press, 1984), 209.
24. Full text: https://archive.org/details/PopeAndPatriarchsLetters
OfPopePiusIxAndOrthodoxPatriarchs/page/n5/mode/2up
(accessed 22 May 2020).
25. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss (eds), Creeds and
Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, vol. III (Yale
University Press, 2003), 266-88.
26. Pelikan and Hotchkiss (eds), Creeds and Confessions of Faith
in the Christian Tradition, III:282.
27. Pelikan and Hotchkiss (eds), Creeds and Confessions of Faith
in the Christian Tradition, III:286.
28. Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928): www.vatican.va/content/
pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mor-
talium-animos.html (accessed 22 May 2020).
29. DeVille, Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy, 13-14. On
anti-ecumenism in Orthodoxy, see Paul Ladouceur, “On
Ecumenoclasm: Anti-Ecumenism in Orthodox Theology,” St
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 61.3 (2017).
30. See Paul Ladouceur, “Orthodox Critiques of the Agreed
Statements between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox
Churches,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 60.3 (2016).
31. On the Crete Council, see the official website: www.holycoun-
cil.org/home (29 Mar 2020); Brandon Gallaher, “The Orthodox
Moment: The Holy and Great Council in Crete and Orthodoxy’s
Encounter with the West: On Learning to Love the Church,”
Sobornost, 39.2 (2017); and Paul Ladouceur, “The Holy and Great
Council of the Orthodox Church (June 2016),” Oecuménisme/
Ecumenism 51.198-199 (2016).
32. Joint International Commission…, “Ecclesiological and
Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the
Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”
(Ravenna, 2007), §41: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_
doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html (accessed 20 Oct
2020).
33. Joint International Commission…, “Synodality and Primacy
during the First Millennium” (Cheili, 2016), §15, §19: www.vat-
ican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_
docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html
(accessed 25 May 2020).

Subscription Rates Adjustment

Responding to increasing costs for international shipping of the journal, and having
re-balanced our budget at Ecumenical Trends, we will be amending the subscription rates
for the journal beginning in January 2021 (all renewals that are submitted prior to January
1 will be honored at current rates). Worldwide digital-only subscriptions ($15) and 1-year
USA print & digital subscriptions ($30) will remain the same. 2-year USA print & digital
subscriptions will be reduced by $1 to $55: the equivalent of one issue free for the 2-year
subscription. International subscription rates will be increased to $42 for 1 year and $77
for 2 years, likewise reflecting the discount of one issue for the 2-year subscription. The
Editors of Ecumenical Trends thank you for your understanding and ongoing readership.

ECUMENICAL TRENDS 27/151 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020