Correcting Ecumenism: the "Dominus Iesus" Declaration (2000)

Ecumenical enthusiasm was strongly fueled by one of the events that, after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, seemed to signal the imminent healing of the historical schism—occurring in the year 1054—between the Catholic Church and the schismatic Eastern “Orthodox” Churches. On December 7, 1965, through simultaneous events in Rome and Istanbul, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the anathemas issued in 1054.

What the Vatican authorities seem to have never truly understood is the fact that, with a few insignificant exceptions, national “Orthodox” churches view the role of the ecumenical patriarch with great suspicion, not recognizing any de facto authority of his over their own synods. Therefore, none of his actions hold “universal” value. Moreover, autocephalous churches like the Russian Church do not recognize his authority at all. This was evident even during the aforementioned event when Metropolitan Philaret Voznesensky of the Russian diaspora community (1903–1985) explicitly condemned Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras for “canceling” the anathemas issued by Patriarch Michael Keroularios and Cardinal Humbert in 1054.1 Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens (1880–1968) had already done the same.

It is therefore abundantly clear that the exalted gesture of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras was never accepted by the national Orthodox churches—whose attitude of condemnation and rejection toward the Catholic Church has remained consistently unchanged. The Dominus Iesus declaration was yet another occasion that demonstrated (if any further proof was needed) this reality.

First Reactions: Clément, Maximos, Evdokimov

One of the most polemical responses came from the well-known French “Orthodox” thinker Olivier-Maurice Clément (1921–2009), who condemned in the strongest and most unequivocal terms the declaration approved and signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. Specifically, he stated that it is an

act of blasphemy against the church to say that the Eucharist celebrated by Anglicans and Protestants is empty.2

Rarely have I encountered a text more contradictory than that of Olivier Clément. On the one hand, he rejects any rapprochement with the Catholic Church in the name of “true faith.” On the other hand, he defends certain Reformed communities, seemingly forgetting that they, too, do not share the “true faith” on which he bases his stance. The explanation for this paradox is simple: it is often observed that “Orthodox” authors ally with Protestants solely to form a united front against the Catholic Church. Let us move forward.

Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh also analyzed the Dominus Iesus declaration from an “Orthodox” perspective, concluding that the understanding of faith in this document is flawed. The argument he put forth is crucial in understanding how Eastern schismatic theologians, especially since the 19th century, have opposed both papal primacy and the doctrine of infallibility:

Every faithful (Christian) is Peter, as much and as far as they profess the faith of Peter, that is, that ‘Christ is the son of the living God’.3

Essentially, this statement outright denies the very possibility of the existence of the papal office and its authority. If every Orthodox Christian is, at least potentially, the apostle Peter, then the Catholic teaching regarding the Pope as Peter’s successor is null. Since the entire Catholic ecclesiastical structure rests on Petrine authority, without it, the Catholic Church would simply be without foundation. The same would apply to the Catholic Magisterium and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All of this explains why, for Metropolitan Maximos, the Dominus Iesus declaration—issued by an institution that, from his perspective, has no authority whatsoever—is a document devoid of any value. These are the anti-Catholic ideas implicit in Metropolitan Maximos’ statements.

A somewhat more moderate critique was offered by Father Michel Evdokimov, a theologian active in ecumenical dialogue and extensively experienced in inter-confessional diplomacy. As with Olivier Clément, the most surprising aspect of his response is the insistence with which he refers to Reformed communities, minimizing any critical remarks about them. On the contrary, they always seem to be good allies when it comes to criticizing and attacking the Catholic Church.

After appearing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the critique of ecclesiological relativism presented in Dominus Iesus, Father Evdokimov addresses the sense of discomfort felt by the Orthodox:

(...) the Orthodox will feel hurt when reading, between the lines, that their Church would find its full completeness if it entered into communion with the Catholic Church.4

In his final reflections on the communities originating from the Reformation, M. Evdokimov does not forget to challenge papal authority, though from a different perspective than that of Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh. His argument is based on the mysticism of ecclesial unity:

There is a risk of losing sight of the mystical dimension of the one and indivisible Church, where all Christians can come together because, according to Saint Paul, it is the body of Christ, who alone is its head.5

Here we encounter yet another of the constant criticisms “Orthodox” theologians direct at the Catholic Church and its theology: the loss of the mystical dimension, which, they argue, led to an overemphasis on Catholic institutionalism. This, in turn, resulted in the dogma of infallibility and a vision in which the authority of Jesus Christ was replaced by papal authority. Of course, this type of perspective camouflages that terribly risky discussion (in support of which Saint Symeon the New Theologian is always invoked) about the disjunction between the spiritual-mystical and the ecclesial-sacramental hierarchy.