Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: We respect the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first in

honour, but we are against viewing him as Pope of the East

Europaica Bulletin

No 122 (June 4, 2007)

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/122.aspx#3

In anticipation of a regular meeting of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission to

take place in Italy, the Russian Orthodox Church representative to European international
organizations Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, in his interview with the Interfax-Religion,
has warned in advance that at the forthcoming meeting the Moscow Patriarchate intends to
assert its own view of the problem of primacy and conciliarity in church authority.

When and where will the next round of the Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue take place?
What questions are to be considered at it?

Our meeting will take place in October 2007 in Ravenna, Italy. The meeting will complete the
discussion on a document on episcopate and conciliarity in the Church.

This document was originally drafted by the commission at its meeting in 1990 in Moscow. Then
the commission put it aside and engaged itself in the theme of Uniatism for ten years. Then a
six-year interruption followed and finally, in September 2006 in Belgrade, the commission
revisited this text.

The Belgrade meeting revealed essential differences in the participants opinion on one of the
documents paragraphs. Notwithstanding the differences, the commissions drafting committee
met in March. The committee is made up of three Orthodox representatives Metropolitan
Kallistos of Diokleia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Deacon Ioann Ica of the Rumanian
Orthodox Church and myself and three Catholics. We managed to change that paragraph to
satisfy both sides. If our amended version suits the plenary commission, the Belgrade incident
can be considered settled. I do not doubt though that we are to expect many new difficulties
ahead.

What is it that the Russian Orthodox Church is going to put forward at these talks? What will be
the principal idea or basic text it intends to assert during this dialogue?

We consider the above-mentioned text to be preparatory for a discussion on primacy in the

Universal Church. The closing paragraphs of the document deal with this subject directly, and
the commissions meetings to take place after Ravenna are to consider a separate document on
the subject. Our principal affirmation is this: primacy in the Church is necessary, also on the
universal level, but on the level of the Universal Church it cannot be the primacy of jurisdiction
but only the primacy of honour.

How far is the Russian Orthodox Church ready to discuss the primacy of the Pope of Rome?
What will it insist upon in this discussion and what theological compromises it is ready to
accept? Does this problem have any prospects at all to be approved by the Orthodox side?
There can be no compromises whatsoever in this matter. The aim of the theological dialogue is
not at all to reach a compromise. Its aim for us is rather to identify the Churchs original view of
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is the starting point from which to proceed, namely, what
place the Bishop of Rome occupied in the early undivided Church.

Historically, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Christian Church, from our point of view,
was that of honour, not jurisdiction. That is to say, the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome was
never applied to all the Churches. In the second millennium, the Pope of Rome has become de
facto the Patriarch of the West, with this title reserved for him also de jure until recent times,
whereas in the East the Church was headed by four patriarchs of local Orthodox Churches
those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

After the breakup with Rome, primacy in the family of the Orthodox Churches shifted
automatically as it were to Constantinople, though all the early canons ascribe to the Bishop of
Constantinople the second place after the Bishop of Rome; no canon speaks of the primacy of
Constantinople. Nevertheless, this primacy became an accomplished fact, only we consider it
exclusively as primacy of honour, while the See of Constantinople itself tends occasionally to
give a broader interpretation to this primacy. These are the questions, I believe, around which
principal problems will emerge.

Does the Moscow Patriarchate intend to develop a particular finalized theological document for
this meeting to express its position on the subject and to be available afterwards?

His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod have charged the Theological Commission with
drafting a document to set forth an official point of view of the Moscow Patriarchate on primacy
in the Universal Church in general and the primacy of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople
in particular. This document is to become an important landmark in the interpretation of this
serious ecclesiological problem and will help me as representative of our Church in the Joint
Commission to assert our official point of view.

Is the algorithm of the consolidated adoption of the final document by the Orthodox Church
known already? Will it be adopted by vote or consensus? As far as we can remember, there
were arguments at the previous meeting and you came out with a public protest.

Yes, I protested and will continue to protest if the questions of so important theological and
ecclesiological nature are put to vote. What is at stake here is not to identify an opinion of a
majority or a minority but to find the truth.

At the previous meeting, when Cardinal Walter Kasper (co-chairman of the Joint Commission
and president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity IF), prompted by
Metropolitan John Zizioulas (co-chairman of the Joint Commission, Patriarchate of
Constantinople IF) put that disputed paragraph to vote, the Moscow Patriarchate
representatives proved to be the only ones who voted against it. It was then stated that just one
Church had voted against that formulation. But, in the first place, that just one Church is much
larger than the rest of the Orthodox Churches in the number of the faithful, and, secondly,
whatever the size, if at least one Orthodox Church is against a particular formulation, this
formulation cannot be adopted. There must be consensus and any voting is inappropriate here.

This is how we in the drafting committee worked. Admittedly, it is much easier for six people to
work on a document then for 60 people to discuss it. Perhaps it would be more proper
methodologically to divide the bulky plenary commission into several working groups, which
meet occasionally for considering final documents. Incidentally, in Baltimore where the future of
the Joint Commission was discussed, I said that a 60-member commission is not operable and
proposed that it be halved.

Will representatives of local Orthodox Churches be given the equal right to take part in the
discussion? Do you think the delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople will insist on its
primacy in reflecting in the position of Orthodox Churches?

The representation system in the Commission fails to reflect the actual distribution of powers
and views in the Orthodox world. The millions-strong Russian Church is represented in the
Commission by only two delegates, while any other Orthodox Church, even if substantially
smaller numerically, is also represented by two delegates. A co-chairman of the Commission is
a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, so is the co-secretary. All this represents
a certain misbalance. Sometimes the Orthodox co-chairman insists on his own point of view,
which is not shared by a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate. This was the case in
Belgrade where the disputed paragraph of the document was considered.

We see in a co-chairman of the Commission first of all a moderator whose task is not to impose
his own point of view or the attitude of his own Church on other participants, but to provide
equal opportunities for speaking and to lead the Commission to a consensus. We will continue
to adhere to this point of view.

Clearly, the thaw that developed in relations between the Vatican and Moscow under Benedict
XVI is primarily of political-diplomatic nature. Can this thaw affect the theological sphere as well
to encourage the participants in the theological discussion for greater openness and mutual
understanding?

Relationships between the Vatican and Moscow belong to the sphere of bilateral relations, while
the Joint Commission includes all the local Orthodox Churches. Therefore, I would not link these
two different levels.

As is known, Patriarch Bartholomew has expressed a wish to attend the meeting in Ravenna
and proposed that Pope Benedict XVI come as well. As far as I know, the Vatican has not yet
given an official response to this proposal. However, the Joint Commission members I have
talked with have a reserved attitude to this initiative.

The point is that when the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople meet, the secular
media, which have a poor knowledge of the refinements of Orthodox ecclesiology, tend to
present it as a meeting of the heads of the two Churches Catholic and Orthodox. If the Pope
of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople attended the meeting of the Joint Commission in
Ravenna, it would be understood as if the pope led the Catholic half of the Commission, while
the Patriarch of Constantinople the Orthodox half.

However, the Orthodox Church has a structure different was that of the Catholic Church, as we
have no single universal primate, since each local Church is headed by its own primate. In other
words, in universal Orthodoxy there is no hierarch whose role would be similar to that of the
Pope of Rome in the Western Church. There must be no illusion that there is such a hierarch.
We respect the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first in honour among the primates of local
Orthodox Churches, but we are against regarding him as Pope of the East.
In the Catholic Church, the pope is the highest doctrinal authority, and in a certain sense, every
Catholic who participates in the Joint Commission is a representative of the pope, though he
can represent also his own local church or a particular educational institution at the same time.
All the Catholic members of the Commission are appointed by the Vatican. But we have a
different system as each local Church appoints its own representatives. For instance, if I come
to Ravenna, I will represent there not the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Patriarch of
Moscow and will do the will of the latter, not the former.

Will representatives of Uniate Churches participate in the meeting in Italy? Will the theme of
Uniatism as a form of church unity be considered in the discussion? Does the Moscow
Patriarchate intend to express its stand on the Uniates, especially on the policy of the Ukrainian
Greek-Catholic Church?

In the Commission there are representatives of the so-called Eastern Rite, who can voice the
Greek-Catholic point of view, if there is a discussion on Uniatism. The discussion on this acute
problem has been put off as it were for a time being, since this subject rendered impossible the
work of the Commission in Baltimore. It has not been removed from the agenda however, and
will have to be revisited sooner or later. We, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, insist
that the discussion on this subject should be continued.

Since the Joint Commission has been set up for theological dialogue, not for considering
particular situations in particular regions, we will hardly be able to deal with the policy pursued
by the Greek-Catholic Church in Ukraine. But I repeat, the subject of Uniatism will have to be
discussed, however much some members of the Commission may wish to avoid it.