Met Antony Bashir: Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion (1964)

Met Antony Bashir's 1964 talk on Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement is interesting for the history of Orthodox responses to Vatican II and the role that that Melkite Catholic Church played in it. It should be read alongside the essay by Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos Sayegh that was published in the Word the previous year. The talk is also noteworthy for its discussion of Western Rite Orthodoxy within the context of the problem of Uniatism.

The following is taken from The Word / Al-Kalemat vol. 8, issue 5 (May 1964), pp. 3-5, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion

A convocational address  delivered in St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, Indiana, at the invitation of His Excellency, Archbishop Shulte, April 15, 1964

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

We all share the privilege of living in a most exciting, even exhilarating, time for Christian believers; the age of mutual recriminations and proliferating schisms appears to be drawing to a close and all who profess loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ feel now the challenge of His will that "all may be one." However, Christians differ from each other in their understanding of their heritage they seem to be laying hold upon the vision of a united Christendom. Orthodox and Catholics can turn from the frustration engendered by the observation of the bewildering variety of sectarian creeds and customs, and contemplate with satisfaction the truly vast area of agreement which they have in common. They can draw further comfort from the significant fact that, while orthodoxy (with a small "o") does not depend on the counting of noses, as St. Athanasius well knew, the great general agreement that includes Orthodox and Catholics in an almost unanimous tradition places the onus on Christians outside of these two bodies to justify their minority witness.

How pleasant it would be if we, Orthodox and Catholics, were able to consider our reunion only in terms of our common beliefs, perhaps 90% of all we profess! A famous Roman ecumenist once asked me, 

"Your eminence, you believe that only the Papacy separates us. The doctrine of the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of the total de fide deposit of the Catholic faith, don't you think you could find a way to accept it?"

Of course I replied,

"Father, if the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of your faith why don't you give it up and unite with us?"

Reunion will not result from reviewing with satisfaction the much that we share, but from the prayerful, charitable and patient examination of the little in which we differ. As a kind of preliminary frame of reference for the comments that follow, and to avoid any misunderstanding of my position and attitude, let me read into the record a statement that I issued when Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory, initiated the good relations that we still enjoy:

"Immediately after the first announcement of the Papal comments on exploring the possibility of Orthodox and Roman reunion the public press asked me for a reaction. At that time, and ever since, I have made the most positive and encouraging responses consistent with my responsibilities as a bishop of the Church. These have been quoted, and misquoted, in the public and church press, and elsewhere, and I have received so many inquiries from so many sources as to the exact nature of my proposals that I am issuing this statement in clarification of my basic convictions. Neither I nor anyone else can control adequately the use or abuse of my statements in the mass media of communication, and serious and sincere inquirers are well aware of this. The statement which follows outlines my ideas. Sections of it need theological amplification, and all of it must be seen against the background of the full Orthodox tradition, but it is a summary of my position.

In the history of efforts to end Christian disunity which have marked the period since the first World War, the most encouraging event from the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church has been the suggestion of the Roman Pope John XXIII that serious consideration be given to Orthodox and Roman reunion. Without analyzing the exact nature of the Papal overture in its several developing phases, the mere fact of the possibility of eirenic and practical steps were referred to, an advance over Papal action for centuries past, is a tremendous achievement. The resistance or indifference of a few Orthodox spokesmen, the evident alarm of some protestant ecumenists, and the extreme caution of later comments from Rome, do not detract from the value of this truly courageous act. The apparent intention of the Pope to pass beyond the traditional formalities and the empty euphonies of the past should enlist the utmost support of Orthodox leaders.

I find the principle excellent and endorse it fully. In my opinion maximum effectiveness of any negotiations will ultimately depend on the methods employed, among which I consider the following to be of primary importance.

a) The initial meetings and discussions must be restricted to Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. While one cannot generalize about Protestantism in its innumerable variations, it is nevertheless true that all of its branches have enormous basic doctrinal divergences from both Orthodox and Romans--the idea of a visible church, Apostolic succession and sacramentalism, the nature of Revelation and Authority, the position of the Theotokos, etc. The inclusion of Protestant spokesmen in an Orthodox-Roman dialogue could only result in chaos. If Orthodox and Roman differences were adjusted, the protestant would would numerically and psychologically be faced with a serious reassessment of its genesis and development. (In this connection it should be emphasized that Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches implies no commitment to any policies of that agency, other than its function as a vehicle for Christian reunion among its members. It does not preclude unilateral action wherever justified. The World Council of Churches exists as the servant of Christian Communions, not as their master.)

b) If the Roman Pope, was or is, sincerely interested in in more than diplomatic overtures, His Holiness must begin by addressing Orthodoxy through the Oecumenical Patriarch, as Primate of the Church, calling for a joint commission of theologians and canonists with a large Orthodox membership to prepare an appropriate agenda for inclusion in a letter carrying the signature of His Holiness the Pope as Primate of the West and His All Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch as Primate of the East, and addressed to both Churches.

c) The meeting which would follow, although it might not arrive at immediate union, would provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to act, and might well lead to eventual unity.

d) The major difficulty between Orthodoxy and Rome is the question of the basis for the Papal Primacy and the concomitant dogma of Papal Infallibility. One cannot minimize the differences, evident and implied, in these dogmas, nor forget the discouraging history of the attempts at solution, but is it not possible that the time has arrived when the two mutually exclusive but closely related teachings, an infallible Church and an infallible Primate, may be so restated as to synthesize both traditions on a new and higher level? This is a daring, perhaps rash, conception, but our Lord will not hold us guiltless if we choose lesser problems for easy solution while we neglect the divisions among those who call upon His name.

In conclusion, and to avoid any misunderstanding, or exploitation by the popular press, I insist that these proposals are made as a loyal representative of the Orthodox Church, who holds it to be the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the creed outside of which there is no salvation. I am not glossing over the schism or heresy of the West, and by no means suggesting any other solution to divisions than the reunion of all Christians with the same Orthodox Church. If reunion cannot be accomplished by a restatement of the two positions, however, I do not see it as possible by any other way."

I shall expand on one or two of these proposals today, but let me but let me begin by outlining a few of the ties that bind, or should bind, us together.

In comparison with the question of the Papacy the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are relatively minor. They spring from differences between eastern and western mentality and temperament, from differences of attitude and emphasis in the approach to common beliefs and ideas, all aggravated by our centuries-long separation from each other. I do not share the conviction of some Orthodox thinkers that the West is somehow poisoned at the root, so that all subsequent growth as well as all the fruits of the Roman faith are fatally tainted. This is, I think, a theological provincialism of which we have had more than enough for longer than the nine hundred years that we have spent apart. It antedates the schism and, human nature being what it is, might well survive reunion. We cannot over simplify true differences, but it is spiritual pride and the most vicious hypocrisy, to condemn each other for views or attitudes which are no further apart than the conflicting opinions of our own theologians! Therefore let us isolate essential differences of faith, and let us place in the proper perspective the theologoumena--or private opinions--that exist between Orthodoxy in general and Rome in general, as they exist in our respective bodies between Thomists and Scotists, and between disciples of Khomiakov and Bulgakov and Khrapovitsky and others. This is not the time to single out minor differences of mood or attitude and exaggerate them.

Let me repeat that aside from the Papacy our divergencies are relatively minor. And what a wide area of agreement we have, as my statement suggests! We need only place your theology or mine over against any of the Reformation traditions to discover that we are members of one household of faith, and that our basic attitudes and orientation are the same. The hierarchy, the sacraments, the saints, the liturgical and devotional practices that express them in life, all are one and  the same in broad outline. As we explore differences we must constantly revert in thought to this common ground for inspiration and encouragement; in order to stimulate our hope for reunion.

There is another point at which I differ from some Orthodox in seeing positive ground for hope where they see only added obstacles for understanding. That is your Uniates. I do not deceive myself about the Uniates, the so-called Greek Catholics, they were organized as the result of some of the most deceptive proselytizing campaigns ever engaged in by Christians. Commercial privileges and civil, and military, pressure brought them into being, and in many instances simple laymen were deliberately deceived. This is why there has been no Orthodox protest when, in the Ukraine and Romania, they have been recently reunited to the Church, sometimes by the forceful removal of their hierarchs. Even now Uniate propagandists willingly exploit local Orthodox difficulties to pervert our people. There are not enough Latin clergy to holy traditionally Catholic Latin America, but there are enough to staff the missions working among the Orthodox in the Middle East. All of this I deplore, but I do understand and respect the ideal of the Unia--your belief that Rome is the one, true Church of Christ, to which all must belong and in which all may worship according to their particular ancient rites. While I cannot respect the "rice Christians," I admire any faith that acts consistently with its conviction that it is the unique Christian Church.

It has been our Orthodox failure that we long spent our energies fruitlessly protesting your Uniate program rather than in imitating it, for we too claim to be the one, true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Within the last quarter of a century the Orthodox Church has tardily corrected this policy, and today there are Orthodox faithful in Europe and America who follow the Roman Latin rite. In my own diocese I have four parishes and a mission that use the Latin rite in the vernacular, and I am proud that my Archdiocese has led the way in this movement in the United States. In the last issue of Unitas magazine I read with pleasure the positive appraisal of Western Rite Orthodoxy by a Father Kelleher of the Franciscans of the Atonement.

It is my sincere conviction that Greek Rite Catholics and Latin Rite Orthodox can teach their correligionists much that will destroy the ignorance and prejudice that contributes to our separation. Proselytism, that is the tempting away of the members of one Christian communion by the propagandists of another by the use of force, or deception, or offering material advantages, is an ugly thing, especially when highly trained representatives of one body are sent to the ignorant and poor faithful of another. But the Christian missionary compassion that allows your Church or mine to accept converts of conviction and permit them to retain liturgical usages that antedate the Schism cannot be objectionable to anyone.

When the Orthodox of the Arabic speaking world think of the Uniates we think of your venerable Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This good man, and his "brain trust," are almost an Orthodox voice in your midst as the role they played in the Vatican Council showed us. If his message is heard and heeded in the Roman Church the schism will be shortened by centuries. If you cannot hear him with understanding as a first step, you will never be able to speak to us!

It is in Patriarch Maximos' analysis of what is for us the problem of the Papacy that I am most encouraged. You will remember that my statement suggested that the possibility of reunion for us would seem to lie in a new synthesis of your opinion of Papal Infallibility and our doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. Patriarch Maximos' observations on the Second Chapter, "The Episcopate," in the Vatican Council Schema, "On the Church," moves far in this direction.

Let me review his conclusions. Christ is, he says, the only head of the Church, the Pope, a successor of St. Peter, is head of the episcopal college. The Pope as head of the bishops governs them but is not distinct from them. The bishops are the true heads of their dioceses. The Orthodox Church is the result of a living Apostolic tradition in which Rome intervenes only by way of exception. The primatial power of the Pope is personal and pastoral, it cannot be delegated, and is only to be understood in light of the Pope's position as head of the episcopal college. The Patriarch assumes that these conclusions are possible even after the first Vatican Council of 1870 in which it was solemnly proclaimed that he Pope in Infallible in himself, and without the consensus of the Church. If Patriarch Maximos is correct, then we Orthodox may hope that the first Vatican Council did not shut the door forever on a reconciliation with the Latin Church.

We Orthodox approach the whole matter in a somewhat different way. We will not expect progress from the declaration of some new, or newly discovered, dogma. Rather it is by reference to tradition, to the faith and witness of the fathers, by the analogy of faith, to the ancient constitution of the Church, by retracing our two paths to the point where they converge that we will expect fruitful results. There is not now, and never can be, the slightest hope that the Orthodox Church of Christ will ever confess or accept any creed that will not conform to the ancient, traditional faith which she has always held. It would be our feeling that our Roman brethren will confirm and strengthen their own faith by reference to the ancient tradition which we shared.

Let me be quite clear about all of this. Your Church has shown great adaptability in all things: ours has not, in fact we make absolute fidelity to the past a touchstone of truth. We are very cautious about even externals and details, it is not to be expected that we shall suddenly modify our convictions about the essential structure of the Church. Add to this the fact, all too obvious to us, that your own understanding of that structure had to be formally stated, or restated so short a time ago as 1870, and you will begin to realize that we Orthodox must expect you Catholics to take the lead in any creative readjustments. There is no question of heretics or schismatics, these have been dead for centuries, and it is not the Christian spirit of this age to fasten responsibility for ancient errors on the sincere believers of today, many generations removed from the original misunderstandings. Today, who can say it is not by the grace of God the good will to reunion exists? We stand face to face and recognize each other as brothers. We cannot see the way to reunion that will commend itself to all. At least I cannot, except by loyalty to the ancient tradition which we hold, and which we will hold, and which we believe, you hold with us. But let us not despair, surely the good God who has brought us so far will not leave us in sight of each other but painfully separated. He has lifted the veil, has shown us the glorious possibility, can we do less than assault the very gates of heaven with prayer, forgive forty times forty thousand, and study and work that His will may be done in our day?