What did the commission really do at Ravenna?

To read some of the catholic press after the tenth meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, one would think that the Orthodox had accepted papal infallibility, as defined by Vatican I (1870)! Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be so well calculated to upset our Orthodox brethren. It is vital to distinguish between primacy, as understood in the undivided church of the first centuries, and later developments in Europe.

What the commission actually did was to tackled some of the thorniest issues separating Orthodox and Catholics at root. The purpose is stated baldly: the participants - 30 Orthodox and 30 Catholics were invited, of whom a good number attended - looked at the ‘ecclesiological and canonical consequences’ of being a church - what it means to be in communion with one another, what it means to be a community in communion (conciliarity), and - finally - the vexed issue of authority.

The participants were radical and very canny. Instead of getting hung up on contentious issues they went slowly, step by step, starting with the earliest written agreements of the Church - before east and west were at loggerheads.

It is vital to distinguish between primacy, as understood in the undivided church of the first centuries, and later developments after the schism. The commission left the conclusions of Vatican I well alone!

Ravenna - ancient meeting place of the Christian east & west

Patriarch & Pope

The Whole Church Agrees - but What do we Agree About?

The first big gathering of the universal church was a very small gathering - when the Apostles worked out among themselves the conditions under which non-Jews could become Christians at the Council of Jerusalem. Not long after this the Apostolic Canons were formulated as a rule of thumb for Church discipline. These canons, together with those accepted by the whole Church before the schism, are still found at the beginning of the Rudder - the Orthodox equivalent of the Code of Canon Law.

Between the third and eighth centuries councils of the leading Bishops - the major Apostolic foundations of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, together with the Eastern Emperor’s see of Constantinople, met in times of controversy. When all five sees had agreed their decisions were binding on the universal Church. These Seven Councils are still accepted by both Rome and Constantinople today.

The glory of Ravenna is that - rather than concentrating on disagreements after the eighth century - the participants did no more than remind themselves what we have in common. They affirmed what is both Orthodox and Catholic. A simple obvious unexceptional thing to do - but something which lays the foundation for great shifts in relationship between the patriarchates.

Global Community in the likeness of God.

As we should, we start with the Gospel - Jesus intended us to be One Church (Jn, 17; 21). We ask the Holy Spirit to ‘lead us to full expression of ecclesial communion.’ A key principle of the Church is that practical laws should follow spiritual ones, so the delegates started from ‘the mystery of ecclesial koinonia’ (church community) and tackled the institutional edifice from this viewpoint! The question at the heart of the dialogue is ‘how can we be both One and many - how can we stay together when we are so global and multi-cultural?’ It is the same question the world is asking itself as we see a global internet culture and multi-ethnic migration become a daily reality.

Instead of starting from politics, Ravenna starts with relationship and intercommunion as integral to God. God is One - the Being who ‘is what he is’ or ‘will be what he will be,’ as he tells Moses. But God also expresses himself in three distinct but inalienable ways, described as three persons - Father Son and Holy Spirit. That relationship within the One is the model for all human relationships, whether in the family or in the multi-national company.

Our Saviour: Ravenna Mosaic

Downsizing - a move away from the mediaeval tiara to the Bishop's mitre.

Paradox - the Infallibility of the People of God

It is essential to realise that the Christian model of good government contains two paradoxes - One God expressed in three persons, and the paradox of God made man in Jesus Christ. Unusually then - but perfectly reasonable in context - the Christian organisation is founded on paradox. The Ravenna document constantly refers to a ‘check and balance model,’ in which community and authority correct each other.

Most astoundingly, it tackles infallibility head on - not papal infallibility, but the infallibility of the people of God whom, having received “the anointing that comes from the Holy One”(1 Jn. 2:20,27) , and in communion with their pastors, cannot err in matters of faith (cfr. Jn 16:13).” The crucial rider though, is that the people of God must be in communion with their pastors to be infallible - and as at least half the Bishops in the world are out of communion with one another, this somewhat undermines the whole thing!

To be ‘catholic’ - the word translates as ‘universal’ - means to be ‘in communion.’ The church is a living organism which is wounded by mutual excommunications.

A Consultative Model of Authority

Consultation is a directive given in the Gospels (Matt. 18:15-20) - we must have Councils to get things straight. The Apostolic canons also insist on recognised leadership at every level of the Church, with a recognised leader - a protos - who, in a check and balance system, must act in tandem with the rest of the clergy.

Authority in the Church is an expression of the Holy Spirit. Precisely because it is supernatural - divine - authority it can only truly operate as an expression of love - ‘it is therefore authority without domination, without physical or moral coercion.’ Ravenna 14 states bluntly ‘to rule is to serve.’ In the divine life freewill is the partner of authority.

A breath taking phrase states that ‘structure is orientated towards salvation’ - hardly what most multi-national companies would take as the aim of their management procedures! Whereas doctrine states core principles, canons are business practise modified by circumstances. The document effectively states that there is nothing wrong with the Churches having their own regulations to respond to local and national need. Unity is not uniformity.

The New Way Forward

The document traces the paradoxical character of Christian ‘authority in community’ from the parish to patriarchal level, emphasising responsible relationships at all levels. It confirms the principles laid down in the Apostolic canons - ‘each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroika) and its dependent territories’ - whether a local Bishop or a Patriarch - ‘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 in the Holy Spirit’ (24). In other words, regional decisions - whether made in Rome, Constantinople or Russia - cannot be ecumenically binding because they have not been validated by a universal Council.

By returning to the standpoint of the early Church, Ravenna underlined the dignity of the bishop of Rome - as protos of the Patriarchs - but did not equate primacy with universal jurisdiction. As Patriarch Bartholomew explained, in an interview following the meeting, he ‘does not believe that the primacy enjoyed by the Pope in the early centuries of Christianity included authority over other patriarchs. The primacy of Rome...involved precedence of honour rather than disciplinary status over the world’s bishops.’ Although the Russians were not at the session they discussed the issue at a meeting over Christmas. The theme for the next plenary session of the Commission will be ‘the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium.’ It should be interesting!

At a stroke, Ecumenical dialogue has been moved into a new, and profoundly different context. The Ravenna document is both groundbreaking and profoundly conservative. Can we, following this new approach. simply agree to agree to what we have already agreed on - in the early Universal Councils - and shelve later regional decisions, allowing them to be explored gradually in a long period of mutual discernment, eventually to be brought before a second millennium Universal Council?