Ecumenical Prospects for the Orthodox Church

By Benjamin Martin

In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem produced one of the most important Orthodox confessions of faith in the modern period, known as the Confession of Dositheus. Near its end, this document makes a remarkable contribution to unity in the Christian East. To refute the criticism of Western Protestants, it calls upon the witness of the Assyrian and Miaphysite Churches:

“For the Nestorians…the Armenians too, and the Copts, and the Syrians, and further even the Ethiopians…broke away from the Catholic Church; and each of these hath as peculiar only its heresy… [E]xcept their own particular heresy, as has been noted – they entirely believe with the [Orthodox] Church.”

Among certain communions of Christians, therefore, divergences are limited. Where divergences are limited, there is stronger and clearer hope for the restoration of communion. In what follows, I will consider the hope of the Orthodox Church for communion with the Miaphysite, Catholic, and Assyrian Churches.

Communion with the Oriental Orthodox

Among the ecumenical dialogues of the Orthodox Church, the dialogue with the Miaphysite Churches is the most advanced. In fact, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches has concluded that “both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition” and has on this basis recommended the restoration of Eucharistic communion (Second Agreed Statement). However, two prominent questions before the Orthodox-Miaphysite dialogue still await resolution.

First, the Joint Commission has recommended that “all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted” (Second Agreed Statement). But, it has been asked, what is the competent ecclesiastical authority for lifting such anathemas? (Communique 1993). On the Orthodox side, these are anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils. Some argue that only another ecumenical council could lift them. Others argue that not even an ecumenical council could do so without contradicting the faith of the previous councils. The question may be clarified by distinguishing between two kinds of anathemas and their functions: anathemas for heresy, on the one hand, and anathemas of a disciplinary or canonical character, on the other. The former protect the orthodoxy of the Church, and the latter protect her orthopraxy.

With regard to anathemas of the first kind – against heresy – I would propose that even the humblest hierarch is authorized to re-open a case in light of new evidence. But because the case raises a question of orthodoxy, any effort to restore communion must seek the strongest possible consensus that the anathema in question does not apply, preferably through an ecumenical council. Because the case involves new evidence, a subsequent ecumenical council is not strictly necessary. Without new evidence, I cannot imagine that any ecclesiastical authority can overturn an ecumenical council’s anathema against heresy.

With regard to anathemas of the second kind – of a disciplinary or canonical nature – again even the humblest hierarch can re-open a case. He may do so if he judges that it would serve the unity of the Church and her undivided witness to Jesus Christ. Again, the effort to restore communion must seek consensus that the circumstances which rendered the anathema most suitable for the preservation of orthopraxy and Christian unity no longer obtain and that new circumstances recommend oikonomia. Maybe only a subsequent ecumenical council could lift a disciplinary anathema – this is a purely canonical question; disciplinary judgments, even of ecumenical councils, do not enjoy infallibility. But a subsequent ecumenical council is certainly not necessary to determine that a previous anathema should no longer be enforced.

The second unresolved question concerns the reception by the Miaphysite Churches of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical councils. In 1990, the Joint Commission did not seem to consider this necessary for the restoration of Eucharistic communion (Second Agreed Statement). However, by 2005, the Joint Commission was reconsidering “the ecclesiological importance of recognizing [the later Ecumenical Councils]” and of receiving their doctrinal definitions (Communique). This ambiguity likely follows from the fact that councils and doctrinal formulations are not themselves the revelation of God but witnesses to His revelation. Consequently, doctrine concerning them, such as the enumeration of ecumenical councils, enjoys an intermediate status: The authority of certain historical councils and definitions is definitively taught by the Church but not itself formally revealed.

Ambiguity about doctrine of intermediate status affects the issue of anathemas as well. For example, the anathema against Dioscorus of Alexandria by the Council of Chalcedon was explicitly disciplinary. Yet, the Third Council of Constantinople anathematized Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch for heresy. According to the reading of Dr. Georgios Martzelos, John of Damascus clarified that Dioscorus and Severus were orthodox in every respect, except that they held the Council of Chalcedon to have departed from the orthodox faith. Theirs, then, is heresy in an extended sense – not a departure from divine revelation but opposition in a particular instance to the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, both unresolved issues of the Orthodox-Miaphysite dialogue – regarding anathemas and regarding the enumeration of ecumenical councils – raise one and the same question of the compatibility of Eucharistic communion with disagreement over doctrine of a secondary or intermediate or ecclesiastical-historical sort. On one extreme, the Orthodox could demand that the Oriental Orthodox Churches accept all seven councils and their definitions and canons and anathemas “without interpretative statements,” in the words of the Athonite monks. Such a stance, however, especially if prohibits any local interpretations, subverts the very nature of conciliar reception, obscures the completeness of divine revelation and its completion with the apostolic age, and disallows diversity among the customs of the ancient patriarchal sees, which the Council Held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom permits. On the other extreme, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches could proceed immediately to the restoration of Eucharistic communion, as the Joint Commission recommended in 1990.

Pastoral prudence might recommend a middle way – perhaps via three concessions:

1. In light of the theological work of the Joint Commission, the Orthodox recognize the orthodoxy of Miaphysite Christological formulations. Objections that Miasphysitism is a “moderate Monophysitism” and for that very reason incompatible with Chalcedon miss the mark – the Joint Commission has argued that the difference between Miaphysite and Chalcedonian Christology is merely linguistic and not theologically substantial.
2. The Orthodox approach the anathemas of Constantinople III against Dioscorus and Severus as disciplinary in character because they concern heresy only in an extended sense and as no longer useful to orthopraxy or Christian unity to enforce against their spiritual descendants. The anathemas could be lifted formally at a future ecumenical council soon or long after the restoration of communion.
3. Out of respect for their orthodox faith, the Orthodox refrain from asking the Miaphysites to receive Chalcedon and its Christological definition and anathemas.

– and three demands:

1. The Orthodox ask the Miaphysites, in light of the work of the Joint Commission, to deny that Chalcedon departed from the orthodox faith;
2. to accept Chalcedon’s enumeration as the Fourth Ecumenical Council; and
3. to receive the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Councils and their definitions, excluding only the particular anathemas and canons of these councils incompatible with their own local traditions.

Thus might the Orthodox both preserve the traditional enumeration of ecumenical councils and heal one of the most ancient schisms in the Church. Several further issues between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches may remain to be addressed, but they likely need not prolong the schism.

Communion with the Catholic Church

While the dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches has advanced closest to the restoration of Eucharistic communion, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has produced several more agreed statements. The Catholic-Orthodox schism is younger but more complex. At its start, the disagreements were largely limited to the addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of the Filioque clause during the Roman liturgy and to some details about Purgatory; tension over the authority of the Roman Pope also contributed to the schism. This schism became more complex when the Catholic Church expressed her understanding of papal authority dogmatically at the First Vatican Council, considering it an ecumenical council, and exercised this authority by proclaiming the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I will address these topics in reverse order.

First, the definition of the Immaculate Conception uses Western theological concepts, but neither of the Catholic Marian dogmas contradicts the faith of the Orthodox Church. Rather, the controversy surrounding them concerns the purported authority of the Roman Pope to define them and to obligate all the faithful to receive them. Therefore, these are better addressed in relation to disagreement over papal authority.

Thankfully, Orthodox and Catholics have largely resolved their disagreement over authority in the Church. Both acknowledge that the Church is synodal by nature and that synodality requires primatal authority, including the universal primacy of Rome. As I argued recently, the Church of Constantinople has provided an understanding of universal primacy acceptable for the Christian East: It is a primacy pertaining only to what conscience obligates the universal primate to command and what conscience permits, and therefore obligates, those commanded to obey.

The fact that primatal authority, and the universal primacy of Rome, includes the authority to teach, no one will deny. However, the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue has not yet directly addressed the Catholic dogma that the Roman Pope may teach infallibly and may obligate all the faithful to receive his infallible definitions. That he may teach infallibly, Catholics deduce from an ancient thesis of Roman indefectibility – in the words of Bernard of Clairvaux, that the faith cannot fail in Rome: If the faith cannot fail in Rome, and if the Pope of Rome authoritatively teaches the Church of Rome, then, at least in the highest exercise of his authority and limited to definitions of faith and morals, the Pope cannot err. The argument is valid, but perhaps the Orthodox judge it unsound – either because they consider the conclusion contradicted by historical reality or because they judge the thesis of Roman indefectibility to be false or at best a pious legend.

It is unlikely that the Catholic Church expects the Orthodox to receive the doctrine of papal infallibility, since it was developed during the millennium of schism, or to accept Roman indefectibility, since it has never been formally defined. More important are the effects of these on future East-West relations. In order not to subvert the exercise of synodality and in order to mirror Constantinople’s understanding of Roman primacy, the highest teaching authority of the Roman Pope could be understood in the East as pertaining only to what conscience obligates him to define and what conscience permits, and therefore obligates, the Christian East to receive. Because the Pope of Rome teaches with universal authority, any doctrine defined ex cathedra and not received by the faithful obligates further interpretation and their further synodal engagement.

Maybe this account of Roman authority will satisfy both Catholics and Orthodox. The Catholic Church likely will not ask the Orthodox Church to receive any of the historical councils or definitions that occurred during the time of schism. However, if it would strengthen Christian unity, certain definitions, such as the Catholic Marian dogmas, could be received or revisited by a future ecumenical council.

Furthermore, to acknowledge the ecclesiological, pastoral, and gnoseological superiority of councils that gather all the faithful of East and West, in comparison to those that gather only the Western Church, the Catholic Church could reduce her count of ecumenical councils, as recommended by Pope Paul VI. As I have argued recently, the Catholic Church could do so without violence to her own tradition and without denying the infallibility ascribed to the definitions of the Western Councils. In the same place, I also proposed that both Catholics and Orthodox count the First-and-Second Council of 859 and 861, the Ignatian Council of 869-870, and the Council Held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom of 879-880 together as the Eighth Ecumenical Council and “Constantinople IV.” I would propose that the Oriental Orthodox do likewise.

Such agreement would greatly simplify the situation between Catholics and Orthodox. It brings us back to the original issues of the Filioque and Purgatory, but without tension over Roman primacy. To heal the schism, Catholics will probably ask the Orthodox to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has not departed from the apostolic Christian faith. To secure this acknowledgment, however, they must address Orthodox objections to the Filioque and Purgatory.

Perhaps the clearest expression of the Orthodox objection to Catholic teaching on Purgatory appears in David Bentley Hart’s essay “The Myth of Schism”:

“The Eastern church believes in sanctification after death, and perhaps the doctrine of Purgatory really asserts nothing more than that; but Rome has also traditionally spoken of it as ‘temporal punishment’, which the pope may in whole or part remit. The problem here is it is difficult, from the Orthodox perspective, to see how it could be both. That is, if it is sanctification, then it is nothing other than salvation: that is, the transformation of our souls, by which the Holy Spirit conforms us to God, through all eternity, and frees us from the last residue of our perversity and selfishness. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are as one, after all, in denying that salvation is either a magical transformation of the human being into something else or merely a forensic imputation of sinlessness to a sinful creature: it is a real glorification and organic transfiguration of the creature in Christ, one which never violates the integrity of our creatureliness, but which—by causing us to progress from sin to righteousness—really makes us partakers of the divine nature. Very well then: what then could it mean to remit purgation? Why, if it is sanctification, would one want such remission…?”

To the objection of Dr. Hart, I can make only an amateur response, from my own experience and perspective as a Catholic: I am the father of two young sons. I have the responsibility to teach them the faith and to discipline them in virtue. At times, a young child is receptive to discipline, and at other times, perhaps due to exhaustion or hunger, he is not. This insight affected how I responded when my older son misbehaved. But the birth of my younger son introduced a new element into my approach to discipline. At times, when one misbehaved, although he was not receptive to discipline, he still had to be punished in some way, so as not to set a poor example for the other. Therefore, one and the same act for their formation often includes two elements: a disciplinary element that serves the one disciplined and a punitive element that serves the other who witnessed the bad behavior and witnesses the subsequent punishment. I hope that neither of my sons will ever resent the times that he suffered punishment for the sake of his brother. Indeed, Christ suffered likewise, for our sake and not for His own.

With this model in mind, I see two aspects of post-mortem sanctification: a purgative aspect that “frees us from the last residue of our perversity and selfishness” and an expiatory aspect that heals the Church on earth who witnessed our sins. I do not understand why Purgatory would be limited to just one aspect or the other. Certainly, as Hart has argued, no one would desire the remission of its purgative aspect. But it benefits both the Church Suffering and the Church Militant to invite the living to redeem by prayer and goods works, and thereby to remit, the expiatory suffering assigned to the dead.

Regarding the Filioque, agreement has been achieved regarding the normative and irrevocable status of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which lacked the Filioque clause. Multiple dialogue commissions have recommended its removal from Western translations of the Creed. However, its removal alone would not suffice to heal the schism. Some Orthodox theologians consider the Filioque to be symptomatic of deep theological errors in the Western tradition. This disagreement must be addressed. Furthermore, without such clarification, the removal of the Filioque would do violence to the Western tradition and prompt new schisms.

Any resolution must build from the shared faith of the first millennium and must put the Filioque clause to good use, even if it is to be rejected, by illuminating the theological questions that it has been employed to address, such as how to distinguish between the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit. This demands development in both the Eastern and Western traditions. Suggestions to the contrary – like the contention that the Filioque doesn’t call for development in the East because it is simply an unacceptable consequence of irredeemable theological inadequacies of the Latin language, in comparison to Greek – are likely ecclesiologically and pastorally inappropriate.

In 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation produced one of the most helpful documents on the topic, titled “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?” Near its end, it distinguishes between “the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.” Because the matter remains ecumenically unaddressed, the document recommends refraining from labeling either tradition heretical. Implicitly, the question is raised whether the restoration of Eucharistic communion between Catholics and Orthodox might precede the final resolution of the controversy.

In either case, the North American Consultation document recommends “new ways of expressing and explaining the Biblical and early Christian understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit.” Again, I will venture an amateur attempt in this direction: That Jesus Christ is revealed as the Son of the Father already reveals something about the Holy Spirit. God has chosen to reveal Himself to us as Father, and it is the vocation of a human father to care for his children and to form them according to the virtues and values and tradition that he himself has received. Ultimately, a father hands on to his children both his material and his spiritual goods; he chooses fatherhood because he judges these worthy of sharing. Analogously, we might understand the Holy Spirit as what the Father hands on to the Son.

Consequently, the Holy Spirit conditions the generation of the Son, for the Father would not generate the Son without having the Holy Spirit to share with Him – this illuminates the rarer taxis of Father-Spirit-Son. But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in order to be received by the Son – this suggests priority for the generation of the Son, which is reflected in the more common taxis of Father-Son-Spirit and which finds expression in the Filioque. Because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, the Holy Spirit is rightly said to proceed from the Father alone. Such an account of the Holy Spirit preserves the monarchy of the Father and doubly expresses His paternity – in the generation of the Son and in the sharing of His Spirit.

The Book of Genesis contributes a couple more facets to this model of the Blessed Trinity. First, after the Fall, Genesis presents natural fatherhood as man’s response to his mortality. Genesis also provides a beautiful image of the completion of this response in the paternal blessing of Isaac upon Jacob (27) and of Jacob upon the sons of Joseph (48) and upon his own sons (49). All three instances are marked by imperfection, but the rite clearly intends to indicate and recapitulate the successful transfer of material and spiritual goods from a worthy father to one or more worthy sons. By revealing Himself as Father who perfectly shares his Holy Spirit with His Son, God directly responds to our experience of mortality. Through Jesus Christ, God invites us to make participation in His divine life our response to our mortality and thereby to gain eternal life. It is fitting therefore that Jesus initiates His public ministry with the image of the paternal blessing: the Holy Spirit descending upon the Son as a dove with audible words of blessing from the Father (Mt 3:16-17, Mk 1:10-11, Lk 3:22).

This account does not necessarily resolve the problem of the Filioque. Western Christians are unlikely simply to accept its excision, but perhaps the foregoing might help to provide an alternative interpolation for use in the West more acceptable to the East, such as “Who proceeds from the Father like a blessing upon the Son” – qui ex Patre sicut benedictus super Filium procedit.

Apart from all the issues above, the restoration of communion between Orthodox and Catholics will require the resolution of several further issues, e.g. concerning different pastoral responses to divorce and remarriage, protocol, etc. But we may hope that these lesser matters will not prolong our division.

Communion with the Assyrian Church of the East

The Orthodox Church has not yet initiated a formal theological dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East, though I hope this will happen soon. If the Orthodox-Miaphysite dialogue meets some success, maybe it could even be a trilateral Orthodox-Miaphysite-Assyrian undertaking. Unlike Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch among the Miaphysites, the Orthodox Church has never anathematized the fathers of the Church of the East. However, in her annual “Feast of the Greek Fathers,” the Assyrian Church commemorates Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius of Constantinople, all of whom were condemned for heresy. This makes for a complex situation.

Just as with Orthodox-Miaphysite dialogue, theological dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East must begin with Christology. The Assyrian Church takes her Christology not from Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius but from Babai the Great (551-628). Unfortunately, Babai and his Christology are little known. The Assyrian Church’s current Patriarch Mar Awa III is seeking to rectify the situation with a new Syriac edition and English translation of Babai’s Book of Union, to be published by Brill later this year. If Babai’s Christology is found to differ from Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology only linguistically and not substantially, then the relationship between the Orthodox and Assyrian Churches will be similar to those with the Miaphysite and Catholic Churches.

Tradition associates the schism of the Church of the East with the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorius. However, the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils may be more relevant. Patriarch Awa cites these in particular, when writing of his hope “to come to an agreement [with all the local Apostolic Churches] on the precise nature and meaning of dogmatic definitions, such as [of] the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 533 AD and the 3rd Council of Constantinople, whose meaning and authority have not yet been fully worked out for us.” Although distinct from Theodore of Mopsuestia, Babai accepted Theodore’s strongly Dyophysite terminology. The dialogue commission will need to compare Babai’s position with the single-subject Christology of Constantinople II – i.e. the understanding that what Scripture predicates of Jesus Christ, Scripture predicates of one unique subject whose two natures are distinguished by a distinctio rationis (ratiocinatae) – and to determine their compatibility.

Apart from Christology, the Orthodox-Assyrian dialogue will face questions like those remaining for the Orthodox-Miaphysite dialogue: Will or must the Assyrian Church receive additional Ecumenical Councils? Will or must certain historical anathemas be lifted? To lift the anathemas in question would require new evidence relevant to the cases. Modern scholarship may provide some new perspective, but at present this does not seem anywhere near sufficient to overturn the positions of the Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils, against Nestorius and Theodore, respectively. Lifting the anathemas is also unnecessary for restoring communion with the Assyrian Church of the East, since Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius do not represent her. The Assyrian Church has received the teaching of these three only according to the teaching of Babai, which may yet prove orthodox. Mediated thus, their teaching need not harm the Church. Consequently, the commemoration of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius by the Assyrian Church is a canonical rather than a doctrinal issue. As Eulogius of Alexandria (†608) notes explicitly in his treatise on oikonomia preserved in 227 of Photius’s Bibliotheca, the commemoration of a heretic need not disrupt Eucharistic communion.

The Assyrian Church of the East will not abandon her Feast of the Greek Fathers. Nor will she receive the anathemas and canons of the Ecumenical Councils directed against them. But apart from these particular anathemas and canons, she very well could receive all the other components of the Ecumenical Councils and their traditional enumeration. This would resolve the oldest persisting schism among Christians.