«Ὁ ρόλος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης στήν κοινωνία τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν τῆς α΄ χιλιετίας» [Ἐν ὄψει τῆς ΙΔ΄ συναντήσεως τῆς Μικτῆς Διεθνοῦς Ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦ Θεολογικοῦ Διαλόγου Ὀρθοδόξων-Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν στό Chieti τῆς Ἰταλίας (15-22.9.2016)]

Πρωτοπρεσβύτερος Ἀναστάσιος  K.  Γκοτσόπουλος, Ἐφημέριος Ἱ. Ν. Ἁγ. Νικολάου Πατρῶν

«Ὁ ρόλος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης στήν κοινωνία τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν

τῆς  α΄ χιλιετίας»#

[Ἐν ὄψει τῆς  ΙΔ΄ συναντήσεως τῆς  Μικτῆς Διεθνοῦς Ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦ Θεολογικοῦ Διαλόγου

Ὀρθοδόξων-Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν  στό   Chieti τῆς Ἰταλίας (15-22.9.2016)]

Ἀπὸ τὴ μελέτη τῶν πρακτικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποφάσεων τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων μποροῦμε μὲ βεβαιότητα νὰ καθορίσουμε τὴ θέση τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ρώμης καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου της στὴν κοινωνία τῶν τοπικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐποχὴ τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων:

Α. Ἡ Ἐκκλησία καὶ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης.

1. Εἶναι σαφὲς τὸ αὐξημένο κῦρος καὶ ἡ ἐξαιρετικὴ τιμὴ ποὺ ἀπονεμόταν στὴν Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης. Συνακόλουθα, στὸν ἐπίσκοπό της ἡ Ἐκκλησία εἶχε ἀναγνωρίσει πρωτεῖο τιμῆς καὶ προκαθεδρίας στὴν τάξη τῶν τιμηθέντων μὲ πρεσβεῖα Πατριαρχικῶν Θρόνων. Οἱ λόγοι εἶναι σαφεῖς: α) ἦταν ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς «μεγαλωνύμου Ρώμης», τῆς πρωτεύουσας τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας, β) ἦταν δραστήρια στὴν πνευματικὴ ζωὴ καὶ στὴν συναντίληψη ἄλλων ἐμπεριστάτων τοπικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ γ) ἦταν ἡ μοναδικὴ πόλη στὸ δυτικὸ-λατινικὸ κόσμο ποὺ δέχθηκε τὴν παρουσία καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν Πρωτοκορυφαίων Ἀποστόλων, οἱ ὁποῖοι ἐκεῖ μαρτύρησαν καὶ ἡ ὁποία διατηροῦσε τοὺς Τάφους τους.

2. Ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης ἐκαυχάτο  ἰδιαίτερα γιὰ τὴν ἀποστολικὴ καταγωγή της ἀπὸ τοὺς Πρωτοκορυφαίους, τὴν ὁποία, προϊόντος τοῦ  χρόνου, περιόρισε καὶ διαμόρφωσε σὲ «πέτρειο».  Θὰ πρέπει ὅμως νὰ σημειωθεῖ ὅτι σὲ κανένα κανόνα Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου ἡ ἀπόδοση πρεσβείων τιμῆς στὴν Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης δὲν συνδέεται μὲ τὴν ἀποστολικὴ προέλευσή της, ἡ ὁποία κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα θεωρεῖται δεδομένη.

3. Στὴν Ἀνατολὴ ἡ ἔννοια τῆς ἀποστολικότητος νοηματοδοτήθηκε διαφορετικὰ καὶ ὡς ἐκ τούτου ἀπέκτησε ἄλλη βαρύτητα. Ταυτόχρονα ὅμως σύνολη ἡ Ἐκκλησία ἀποδεχόταν ὅτι ἡ ἀποστολικότητα δὲν ἦταν ἀποκλειστικὸ προνόμιο τῆς Ρώμης, ἀλλὰ ἀφοροῦσε καὶ στοὺς τιμηθέντες μὲ ἐξαιρετικὰ προνόμια θρόνους τῆς Ἀνατολῆς.

4.  Ἡ ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία - σὲ Ἀνατολὴ καὶ Δύση - εἶχε ἀναγνωρίσει στὸν ἐπίσκοπο Ρώμης πρωτεῖο τιμῆς καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας .  ὄχι ὅμως πρωτεῖο ἐξουσίας (ὑπεροχικῆς δικαιοδοσίας) ἐφ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Ἡ κατὰ καιροὺς προσπάθεια ρωμαίων παραγόντων νὰ δώσουν στὰ πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς τὴ διάσταση πρωτείου ἐξουσίας, «πέτρειας» μάλιστα προελεύσεως, δὲν ἀφοροῦσε  στὸ σύνολο τῶν ἐπισκόπων Ρώμης καὶ φυσικὰ δὲν ἦταν ἡ πάγια καὶ σταθερὴ ἐκκλησιολογικὴ θέση σύνολης τῆς  Δυτικῆς-Λατινικῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐποχῆς τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων.

5. Ὅταν προέκυπτε μεῖζον θέμα πίστεως καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς τάξεως, κάθε ἐπίσκοπος, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὁ τῆς «μεγαλωνύμου Ρώμης», εἶχε ὄχι μόνο τὸ  ἀναφαίρετο δικαίωμα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τό ἐπιτακτικὸ καθῆκον ἐπεμβάσεως ἀκόμα καὶ σὲ ἄλλη τοπικὴ Ἐκκλησία.  Ἡ πρακτικὴ αὐτὴ ἦταν ἀπολύτως ἀποδεκτὴ κατὰ τοὺς ὀκτὼ πρώτους αἰῶνες τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ. Μάλιστα σὲ ἐξαιρετικὲς περιπτώσεις ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἑνότητα δὲν ὑφίστατο ὑποχρεωτικὰ στὴν κοινωνία μὲ τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν προκαθεδρία ἢ τὰ πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς θρόνο, ἀλλὰ μὲ αὐτὸν ὁ ὁποῖος στὴν συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση ἐξέφραζε τὴν ἀληθῆ πίστη καί διέθετε  τὸ «πρωτεῖο ἀληθείας». Αὐτὸ συνέβη μὲ τὸν Ἃγ. Κύριλλο στὴν Γ΄ ἢ τὸν πάπα Ἃγ. Λέοντα στὴν Δ΄ Οἰκουμενική. Ἀπὸ τὴν ἀντίθετη πλευρὰ, ὅταν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης δὲν ἀποδεικνυόταν ἀντάξιος τῆς ἐπισκοπικῆς του διακονίας ἡ κοινωνία μὲ αὐτὸν διακοπτόταν ὄχι μὸνο ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀνατολὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοπικὲς Ἐκκλησίες τῆς Δύσεως.

Β. Ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης καὶ οἱ Οἰκουμενικὲς Σύνοδοι.

1. Οἱ Οἰκουμενικὲς Σύνοδοι ἀπετέλεσαν γιὰ τὴν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία κορυφαῖες στιγμὲς φανερώσεως τῆς ἐν τῇ Ἀληθείᾳ ἑνότητός Της.  Παράλληλα, ἡ ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία κατέστησε ἀπολύτως σαφὲς ὅτι ὑπέρτατη Ἀρχὴ καὶ Αὐθεντία στήν Ἐκκλησία δὲν μπορεῖ νὰ εἶναι ἕνα πρόσωπο, ἀλλὰ ἡ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος, τὶς ἀποφάσεις τῆς ὁποίας ὑποχρεοῦνται ὅλοι νὰ σέβονται. 

2. Ἡ εὐθύνη τῆς συγκλήσεως τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων ἀνῆκε ἀποκλειστικὰ στὸν αὐτοκράτορα, ὁ ὁποῖος καθόριζε καὶ τὶς σχετικὲς διαδικασίες. Ἀσφαλῶς, ἡ συνεννόηση μὲ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους τῶν πρωτοθρόνων Ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ κυρίως μὲ τὸν Ρώμης καὶ τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἦταν ἐπιβεβλημένη. Ὅμως ἡ προκαθεδρία τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης δὲν τοῦ παρεῖχε τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ καθορισμοῦ τῶν διαδικαστικῶν θεμάτων τῶν Συνόδων, οὔτε δικαίωμα ἀρνησικυρίας.

3. Σὲ καμία Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδο δὲν παρέστη προσωπικὰ  ὁ ἴδιος ὁ πάπας, ἀλλὰ στὶς περισσότερες ἐκπροσωπήθηκε. Ἐπίσης, σὲ καμία Σύνοδο δὲν προήδρευσαν οἱ τοποτηρητές του. Ἰδιαίτερη σημασία γιὰ τὸ ρόλο τοῦ πάπα Ρώμης στὴ κοινωνία τῶν Τοπικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἔχει ἡ Ε΄ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος, ἡ ὁποία, ἐκτός τοῦ θεολογικοῦ ζητήματος τῶν Τριῶν Κεφαλαίων, ἀπεφάνθη καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ζητήματος αὐτοῦ καταδικάζοντας τὸν πάπα Βιγίλιο μετὰ τὴν ἀδικαιολόγητη ἄρνησή του νὰ συνεδρεύσει μὲ τοὺς ἄλλους Πατριάρχες. Γιὰ τὴν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία – στὴν Ἀνατολὴ καὶ τὴ Δύση – ὁ πάπας ὑπόκειται στὴ συνοδικὴ δικαστικὴ κρίση καὶ ἐξουσία σὲ θέματα ὄχι μόνο πίστεως ἀλλὰ καὶ κανονικῆς τάξεως. 

4. Τὸ κύριο ἔργο τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης στὶς Οἰκουμενικὲς Συνόδους ὡς πρωτοθρόνου τῶν Πατριαρχῶν ἦταν νὰ διατυπώσει στὴ δογματική του ἐπιστολή, ποὺ τρόπον τινὰ ἐπεῖχε θέση κεντρικῆς εἰσηγήσεως στὴ Σύνοδο, τὴν ὀρθόδοξη πίστη καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοση ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνακύψαντος θεολογικοῦ ζητήματος βάσει τῆς ὁποίας ἐπιστολῆς διεξάγονταν καί οἱ συνοδικὲς συζητήσεις. Συνεπῶς, ἡ θέση τοῦ πάπα Ρώμης κατὰ τὴν ἐποχὴ τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων ἦταν ἐντὸς τῶν Συνόδων καὶ ὄχι ὑπεράνω αὐτῶν. Μόνο ὑπὸ τὴν προϋπόθεση τῆς συμμετοχῆς στὶς συνοδικὲς διαδικασίες ὁ πάπας ἀναγνωριζόταν ὡς «κεφαλὴ καὶ πατέρας καὶ πρῶτος» τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτῷ ἐπισκόπων καὶ πατριαρχῶν . δὲν ἀποφαινόταν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ὑπήκουαν, ἀλλὰ «διασκέπτεται … μαζὶ μὲ ὅλους». 

Γ΄  Ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης στὶς ἀποφάσεις τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων.

1. Ἡ Ἐκκλησία ἐπεδίωκε μέσῳ τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων νὰ ἀντιμετωπίσει τὴν ἀλλοίωση τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως καὶ τὴ διασάλευση τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἑνότητος ποὺ προκαλοῦσε ἡ δράση τῶν αἱρέσεων. Εἶναι προφανὲς ὅτι ἡ συμμετοχή, ἡ συμφωνία καὶ ἡ συμπόρευση τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης καὶ συνακόλουθα τῆς «μέχρι τῶν κλιμάτων τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ» Ἐκκλησίας του στὶς συνοδικὲς ἀποφάσεις ἦταν ἀπαραίτητη, κυρίως γιὰ τὴ διατήρηση τῆς ἑνότητος μὲ τὴν ἀποτροπὴ τῆς δημιουργίας σχίσματος. Ἔτσι, ὅταν αὐτὸ ἐπιτυγχανόταν, ἦταν ἰδιαίτερα ἔκδηλη ἡ χαρὰ καὶ ὁ ἐνθουσιασμὸς τῶν συνοδικῶν Πατέρων τά ὁποῖα        ἐκφράζονταν μὲ ἔντονο τρόπο.

2. Ἡ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος ἀποφαίνεται ὡς ἀπόλυτη ἐξουσία ἔχουσα χωρὶς νὰ ἐξαρτᾶται ἀπὸ τὴ βούληση ἢ τὶς ἀποφάσεις μεμονωμένων προσώπων. Καὶ ἡ πράξη αὐτὴ ἦταν ἀπολύτως ἀποδεκτὴ ἀπὸ τὸ σύνολο τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας σὲ Ἀνατολὴ καὶ Δύση. Ἔτσι, λήφθηκαν ἀποφάσεις ἀπόντος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης ἢ ἀκόμα καὶ παρὰ τὴν κατηγορηματικὴ ἀντίθεσή του. Ἐπιπλέον, ἀκόμα καὶ στὶς περιπτώσεις πού γίνονταν ἀποδεκτὲς οἱ προτάσεις του, εἶχε προηγηθεῖ ἡ βάσανος τοῦ συνοδικοῦ ἐλέγχου μὲ βάσει τὴν μέχρι τότε ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοση καὶ, ἐφ’ ὅσον ἐξασφαλιζόταν ἡ συνοδικὴ συμφωνία, τότε γίνονταν οἱ προτάσεις τοῦ Ρώμης ἀποδεκτὲς.

Στὴ «συνοδικὴ ψῆφο», τὸν Ὃρο τῆς Ε΄ Οἰκουμενικῆς, ἔχει καταγραφεῖ μὲ τὸν πλέον ἐπίσημο καὶ κατηγορηματικὸ τρόπο ἡ θέση τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας : «κατὰ τὰς κοινάς συνδιασκέψεις τὸ φῶς τῆς ἀληθείας διαλύει τὰ σκότη τοῦ ψεύδους, ἀφοῦ ἐκεῖ τίθενται ὑπὸ κρίσιν τὰ ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους προτεινόμενα πρὸς συζήτησιν. Διότι εἰς τὰ ζητήματα πίστεως κανεὶς δὲν ἔχει τὸ δικαίωμα νὰ προδικάσει κάτι διὰ λογαρισμὸ τοῦ συνόλου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καθ’ ὅσον ὅλοι μας ἔχομεν τὴν ἀνάγκη τοῦ πλησίον μας». Δὲν θὰ ἦταν ὑπερβολικὸ νὰ λέγαμε ὅτι ἡ Ε΄ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος ἐν Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι προεῖδε τὴν ἐξέλιξη τῆς Δύσεως καὶ δογμάτισε καταδικάζοντας ρητῶς καὶ ἀπεριφράστως τὸ περὶ ἀλαθήτου δόγμα τῆς Α΄ Βατικανῆς:  Γιὰ τὴ Σύνοδο ὁ πάπας δὲ μπορεῖ νὰ εἶναι ἀλάθητος οὔτε ex sese, οὔτε ex consensu Ecclesiae.

3.  Ἡ προκαθεδρία τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης, ἀλλὰ παράλληλα καὶ ἡ ἰσότητα τῶν πέντε Πατριαρχῶν ἐπιμαρτυρεῖται καὶ ἀπὸ τοὺς «τύπους ὑπογραφῆς» τῶν συνοδικῶν ἀποφάσεων. Ὅλοι οἱ πατριάρχες καθὼς καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι ὑπογράφουν στὸν αὐτὸ «τόπο» καὶ μὲ ἑνιαῖο τρόπο σύμφωνα μὲ τὰ πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς τῶν πατριαρχικῶν Θρόνων. Ἀσφαλῶς ὡς πρωτόθρονος ὑπογράφει πρῶτος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης. Ὁ πάπας οὐδέποτε διεκδίκησε, καὶ οὔτε θὰ μποροῦσαν νὰ τοῦ χορηγήσουν  ἰδιαίτερο τύπο ὑπογραφῆς.

Δ.  Ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης καὶ οἱ Ἱεροὶ Κανόνες.

1. Οἱ ἱεροὶ Κανόνες ὡς ἀποφάσεις τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων ἀπηχοῦν ἀλλὰ ταυτόχρονα καὶ διαμορφώνουν τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὴν πράξη τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Συνεπῶς, δὲν μπορεῖ νὰ γίνει ἀποδεκτὴ ἡ περιφρόνηση τοῦ οἰκουμενικοῦ κύρους καὶ τῆς ἰσχύος τῶν κανόνων.

2. Βασικοὶ κανόνες ποὺ ἀναφέρονται στὰ πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς τῶν πρωτοθρόνων πατριαρχικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν εἶναι οἱ A-6, A-7, Β-3, Δ-28 καὶ Στ-36. Ὁ πλέον καθοριστικὸς γιὰ τὴ θέση τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης στὴν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία, εἶναι ὁ Δ-28, ὁ ὁποῖος ἑρμηνεύει τὸν Β-3 καὶ ἀποτελεῖ τὴ βάση τοῦ Στ-36. Ἡ σπουδαιότητα τοῦ Δ-28 ἔγκειται στὸ περιεχόμενό του ἀλλὰ καὶ στὴ διαδικασία ἐκδόσεως.                             α) Ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὸ περιεχόμενο : περιβάλλει μεν μὲ κανονικὸ κῦρος τὰ πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς τῆς Ρώμης, χορηγώντας στὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως «τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα» μὲ αὐτὰ τοῦ Ρώμης, ἀλλὰ παράλληλα προσβάλλει τὸ καιριότερο σημεῖο ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁποίου στηρίζεται ἡ – κατὰ τὴ Ρώμη – ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ παπικοῦ θρόνου ἔναντι τῶν ἄλλων πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων: τὴν «πέτρεια» ἀποστολικότητα καὶ τὴν «θείῳ δικαίῳ» χορήγηση τοῦ πρωτείου ἐξουσίας ἐφ’ ὁλοκλήρου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.                                     β) Ὡς πρὸς τὴ διαδικασία ἐκδόσεως: Ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν Μ. Λέοντα κατηγορηματικὴ ἀντίθεση καὶ οἱ ἔντονες ἀντιδράσεις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ρώμης  ὄχι μόνο δὲν ἀκύρωσαν τὸν Δ-28, ἀλλὰ οὔτε καὶ μείωσαν τὸ κῦρος, τὴν ἰσχὺ καὶ τὴν οἰκουμενικότητά του. Καὶ αὐτὸ ἦταν αὐτονόητο γιὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ τάξη, διότι ἦταν ἀδιανόητη γιὰ τὴν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία ἀκύρωση συνοδικῆς ἀποφάσεως καὶ μάλιστα Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου ἀπὸ μία Τοπικὴ Ἐκκλησία ἢ ἕνα πρόσωπο. Δὲν ἀναγνωριζόταν οὔτε στὸν πάπα τῆς Ρώμης κάποιο δικαίωμα ἐγκρίσεως ἢ ἀπορρίψεως τῶν Συνοδικῶν ἀποφάσεων ^. ἀντιθέτως αὐτὸς ὑποχρεωνόταν σὲ συμμόρφωση.

3. Οἱ ρωμαϊκὲς ἀντιλήψεις πού μὲ ἰδιαίτερο σθένος ὑποστήριξε ὁ πάπας Μ. Λέων περὶ «πετρείου» ἀποστολικότητος τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν Ρώμης, Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ Ἀντιοχείας καὶ τῆς, λόγῳ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀποστολικότητος, χορηγήσεως σέ αὐτές πρεσβείων δὲν ἀπέκτησαν κανένα κανονικὸ ἔρεισμα καὶ οὔτε ἄσκησαν κάποια ἐπίδραση στὴ ζωὴ τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας. Ἀκόμα καὶ ἡ ἴδια ἡ Ρώμη δὲν τὶς ἀποδέχθηκε ἐν τῇ πράξει καὶ σύντομα τὶς ἐγκατέλειψε.

4. Ἡ Στ΄ ἐν Τρούλλῳ (Πενθέκτη) Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος σὲ πέντε κανόνες  καταδικάζει ἔθιμα ποὺ εἶχαν ἐπικρατήσει στὴν Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης.

Ε.  Ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ρώμης  στὴν Ἀνατολὴ καὶ τὴ Δύση ^.  «ἡ ἀρ­χὴ τῆς ποι­κι­λί­ας ἐν τῇ ἑνό­τη­τι».

Στὸν ἐπίσημο Θεολογικὸ Διάλογο τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας μὲ τὴ Ρώμη ἔχει κατατεθεῖ ὡς πρόταση γιὰ τὴν ὑπέρβαση τοῦ ἀδιεξόδου ποὺ δημιουργοῦν τὰ παπικὰ δόγματα στὴν ἕνωση τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ περίφημη «ἀρ­χὴ τῆς ποι­κι­λί­ας ἐν τῇ ἑνό­τη­τι». Ἡ πρόταση αὐτὴ, κατά τοὺς εἰσηγητές της, βασίζεται στὴν ἀπόφαση τῆς Συνόδου τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως 879-880[1], ἀλλὰ μέ τόν τρόπο πού    προτείνεται, οὐσιαστικὰ ὑλοποιεῖ τὸ «περὶ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ»[2] Διάταγμα τῆς Β΄ Βατικανῆς[3] καὶ ἀναζητεῖ τὴν ἑνότητα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἐν τῇ ποικιλομορφίᾳ τῶν δογμάτων. Δηλαδή, οἱ μὲν Δυτικοὶ νὰ ἀποδέχονται τὸ περὶ τοῦ Ἀπ. Πέτρου δόγμα καὶ τὰ δόγματα τοῦ παπικοῦ πρωτείου καὶ ἀλαθήτου, ὅπως ἔχουν διατυπωθεῖ στὶς Α΄ καὶ Β΄ Βατικανὲς Συνόδους, χωρὶς ὅμως τὴν ἀπαίτηση νὰ τὰ ἐπιβάλουν στὴν Ἀνατολή, οἱ δὲ Ὀρθόδοξοι νὰ μποροῦν νὰ μὴν τὰ ἀποδέχονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ νὰ μὴν τὰ χαρακτηρίζουν ὡς αἱρετικὴ ἐκτροπὴ ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχαία πίστη καὶ πράξη τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, κατὰ τή διατύπωση τοῦ τότε Καρδιναλίου J. Ratzinger καὶ  μετέπειτα πάπα Βενεδίκτου XVI[4]!  Σύμφωνα μέ  τήν  πρόταση αὐτή καὶ ἡ ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία ἔτσι πολιτεύτηκε: ἡ μὲν Δύση ἀποδεχόταν τὸ παπικὸ πρωτεῖο ἐξουσίας χωρὶς νὰ τὸ ἐπιβάλει στὴν Ἀνατολὴ καὶ ἡ Ἀνατολὴ ἀνεχόταν τὴ διαφοροποίηση αὐτὴ τῆς Δύσεως χωρὶς νὰ τὴν καταδικάζει ὡς ἐκκλησιολογικὴ ἐκτροπὴ ^. διαφορετικὰ πίστευε ἡ Ἀνατολὴ καὶ ἡ Δύση καὶ παρ’ ὅλα αὐτὰ εἴμαστε σὲ πλήρη ἐκκλησιαστικὴ κοινωνία[5] ^. ἢ μὲ ἄλλα λόγια «ἡ νόμιμη διαφορὰ δὲν εἶναι καθόλου ἀντίθετη στὴν ἑνότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, μάλιστα αὐξάνει τὸ κόσμημά της καὶ συντελεῖ ὄχι λίγο στὴν ἐκπλήρωση τῆς ἀποστολῆς της»[6].

Πρὶν προβοῦμε στὴν ἀπαραίτητη σύντομη κριτικὴ στὴν πρόταση αὐτὴ εἶναι ἀπαραίτητο νὰ ἀποκρυπτογραφήσουμε τὴν πραγματικὴ διάστασή της. Ἰδιαίτερα ἀποκαλυπτικὸς ὡς πρὸς τὸ σημεῖο αὐτὸ ἦταν ὁ λόγος τοῦ πάπα Ἰωάννη Παύλου Β΄ στοὺς Καθολικοὺς Ἀνατολικοὺς Πατριάρχες (Οὐνίτες) τὴν 29.9.1998.

Εἶπε μεταξὺ ἄλλων ὁ πάπας στοὺς Οὐνίτες Πατριάρχες: «Σᾶς ζητῶ νὰ παράσχετε τὴ βοήθειά σας στὸν πάπα ἐν ὀνόματι τῆς ὑπευθυνότητας στὴν ἐπανασύσταση τῆς πλήρους κοινωνίας μὲ τὶς Ὀρθόδοξες Ἐκκλησίες (OL § 24). Εἶσθε ὑπεύθυνοι διότι εἶσθε οἱ Πατριάρχες τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν, οἱ ὁποῖες μοιράζονται μὲ τὴν Ὀρθοδοξία ἕνα μεγάλο μέρος τῆς θεολογικῆς, λειτουργικῆς, πνευματικῆς καὶ κανονικῆς παραδόσεως. Γιὰ τὸ λόγο αὐτὸ ἐπιθυμῶ οἱ Ἐκκλησίες σας νὰ εἶναι καθ’ ὁλοκληρίαν συνεργάτες στὸν οἰκουμενικὸ διάλογο τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ στὸν θεολογικὸ διάλογο, εἴτε σὲ τοπικὸ εἴτε σὲ παγκόσμιο ἐπίπεδο» καὶ συνέχισε ὁ πάπας «Ὁ ἰδιαίτερος ρόλος τῶν Καθολικῶν Ἀνατολικῶν  Ἐκκλησιῶν (σημ. συντ:  Οὐνιτῶν) ἀντιστοιχεῖ σὲ αὐτὸν πού παραμένει κενὸς λόγῳ τῆς ἐλλείψεως πλήρους κοινωνίας μετὰ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν. Τόσο τὸ διάταγμα Orientalium Εcclesiarum τῆς Β΄ Βατικανῆς Συνόδου, ὅσο καὶ ἡ Ἀποστολικὴ Διάταξη Sacri Canones (σ. ΙΧ-Χ) μὲ τὴν ὁποία δημοσιεύθηκε ὁ CCEO κατέστησαν σαφὲς πόσο ἡ ὑφιστάμενη κατάστασις καὶ οἱ κανόνες οἱ ὁποῖοι τὴν διέπουν εἶναι προσανατολισμένοι πρὸς τὴν πλήρη κοινωνία τὴν τόσο ἐπιθυμητὴ μεταξύ τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν. Ἡ συνεργασία σας μὲ τὸν πάπα θὰ ἀποδείξει στὶς Ὀρθόδοξες Ἐκκλησίες ὅτι ἡ παράδοση τῆς ‘’συνεργείας’’ μεταξὺ Ρώμης καὶ τῶν Πατριαρχείων συνεχίζει νὰ ὑφίσταται – ἂν καὶ περιορισμένη καὶ τετρωμένη – καὶ μπορεῖ ἀκόμη νὰ ἀναπτυχθεῖ γιὰ τὸ καλό τῆς μιᾶς Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ποὺ ἐκτείνεται σὲ ὁλόκληρη τὴ γῆ»[7].

Τὰ ἀνωτέρω καθιστοῦν σαφὲς ὅτι ἡ Ρώμη ἐπιθυμεῖ καὶ ἐπιδιώκει – παρὰ τὶς περὶ τοῦ ἀντιθέτου διαβεβαιώσεις[8] – ἡ πλήρης κοινωνία μὲ τὴν Ὀρθοδοξία νὰ ἐπιτευχθεῖ βάσει μιᾶς βελτιωμένης ἐκδόσεως τῆς Οὐνίας[9] πού νὰ μπορεῖ νὰ περιλαμβάνει καὶ τοὺς Ὀρθοδόξους[10]. Πρὸς αὐτὴ τὴ στόχευση ἡ συμβολὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς «ποικιλίας ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι» εἶναι καθοριστική[11], παρὰ τὸ γεγονὸς ὅτι οὔτε ἱστορικὰ ἐπιβεβαιώνεται, οὔτε θεολογικὰ μπορεῖ νὰ γίνει ἀποδεκτή, ὅπως παρουσιάζεται.

Ἡ μελέτη τῶν πρακτικῶν  καὶ τῶν ἀποφάσεων τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων καταδεικνύει ὡς ἱστορικὰ ἀνεπέρειστο τὸν ἰσχυρισμὸ ὅτι στὴν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία τῆς α΄ χιλιετίας διαφορετικὰ πίστευε ἡ Ἀνατολὴ καὶ ἡ Δύση ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὴ θέση τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης. Ἀντίθετα προκύπτει μὲ σαφήνεια ὅτι παρὰ τὸ γεγονὸς ὅτι ἀναγνωριζόταν στὴν Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Ἀπ. Πέτρου καταγωγή, ἐν τούτοις ἀκόμη καὶ στὴν ἴδια τὴ Δυτικὴ-Λατινικὴ Ἐκκλησία δὲν ἦταν ἀποδεκτὴ καμία μορφὴ παπικῆς ὑπεροχικῆς δικαιοδοσίας (πρωτεῖο ἐξουσίας) ἐφ’ ὁλοκλήρου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, οὔτε ἀναγνωριζόταν στὸν πάπα ἀποκλειστικὸ δικαίωμα στὴν ἔκφραση τῆς πίστεως, καὶ μάλιστα ἀλάθητο. Ὑπενθυμίζουμε ἐπιγραμματικὰ  :

1.                         Τὴν ἀποδοχὴ ἐκ μέρους καὶ τῶν παπικῶν λεγάτων τοῦ συνοδικοῦ ἐλέγχου τῶν δογματικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τῶν παπῶν Μ. Λέοντος, Ἁγ. Ἀγάθωνος καὶ Ἁγ. Ἀδριανοῦ μὲ  τὸ ἐρώτημα ἂν εἶναι σύμφωνες μὲ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοση.

2.                         Τὶς ἀπόψεις τοῦ πάπα Ἁγ. Λέοντος τοῦ Μεγάλου ἐναντίον τοῦ Δ-28, οἱ ὁποῖες δὲν ἔγιναν ἀποδεκτὲς οὔτε ἀπὸ διαδόχους του καὶ σύντομα ἐγκαταλή-φθηκαν καὶ στὴ Δύση μέχρι τήν ἐποχή τοῦ Σχίσματος.

3.                         Τὴν ἄρνηση κατ’  ἀρχήν  τῶν δυτικῶν λατίνων ἐπισκόπων νὰ ἀποδεχθοῦν τὶς περὶ πίστεως ἀποφάσεις τοῦ πάπα Ρώμης Βιγιλίου καὶ συνακόλουθα τὶς κατ’ ἐπανάληψιν καταδικαστικὲς ἀποφάσεις Δυτικῶν Συνόδων (πρὸ καὶ μετὰ τὴν Ε΄ Οἰκουμενικὴ) ἐναντίον τοῦ συγκεκριμένου πάπα.

4.                         Τὴν κατ’ ἐπανάληψιν ἐκφρασθεῖσα αὐτοσυνειδησία τοῦ ἰδίου τοῦ πάπα Βιγιλίου, ὁ ὁποῖος ποτὲ δὲν διεκδίκησε κάποια, δῆθεν θείῳ δικαίῳ, ὑπερέχουσα ἐξουσία ἢ «πέτρειο» αὐθεντία βάσει τῆς ὁποίας ὑπεχρεοῦτο ἡ Ἐκκλησία καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Πατριάρχες νὰ πειθαρχήσουν σ’ αὐτόν. Ἐπίσης, ὁ πάπας Βιγίλιος δὲν ἔθεσε θέμα ἀντικανονικότητος ἢ ἀκυρότητος τῆς Ε΄ Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου λόγῳ τῆς διαφωνίας καὶ ἀπουσίας του. Ἀντίθετα, ὑποσχέθηκε ρητῶς ὅτι θὰ συμμορφωθεῖ στὴν ὅποια περὶ πίστεως ἀπόφαση τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου καὶ θεώρησε δίκαιη τὴν κατ’ αὐτοῦ καταδικαστικὴ ἀπόφασή της.

5.                         Τό ὅτι ἡ σύγκληση  ὑπὸ τὴν προεδρία τοῦ πάπα Ἁγ. Ἀγάθωνα  τῆς Συνόδου τῶν 125 ἐπισκόπων ἀπὸ ὅλες τὶς περιοχὲς δικαιοδοσίας τοῦ Πατριαρχείου τῆς Ρώμης γιὰ τὴ συνοδικὴ ἀντιμετώπιση καὶ ἀπόφανση ἐπὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως τοῦ μονοθελητισμοῦ δείχνει τὴν πράξη καὶ τὸ στέρεο ἐκκλησιολογικὸ ἦθος τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ρώμης. Ἐνδεικτικὴ εἶναι καὶ ἡ ἀναφορὰ τῆς Συνόδου τῆς Ρώμης ὅτι «ἐμεῖς μὲ πολὺ κόπο συγκεντρωθήκαμε» ἀπὸ «τῶν κλιμάτων τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ» μὲ σκοπὸ νὰ συνδιασκεφθοῦμε ἐν Συνόδῳ «ἵνα ἐξ ὅλης τῆς  κοινότητος τῆς δουλικῆς ἡμῶν συνόδου ἡ ἡμετέρα ἀναφορὰ γενήσoιτο. μήπως ἐὰν μονομερῶς τὸ πραττόμενον γνωσθήσηται, τὸ μέρος  λάθῃ».

6.                         Τὴ σύμπραξη τῆς Ρώμης στὴν καταδίκη τοῦ πάπα Ὁνωρίου στὴν Στ΄ Οἰκουμενική Σύνοδο.

7.                         Ὅτι ἡ Δύση ἀποδέχονταν τὸν καθοριστικό ρόλο τοῦ αὐτοκράτορα στὸ διαδικαστικὸ μέρος τῆς Συνόδου καὶ ποτέ δέν ἐπέμεινε στὴ ἀνάληψη τῆς προεδρίας τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τοπικῶν Συνόδων τῆς Δύσεως ἀπὸ τοὺς παπικοὺς ἀποκρισαρίους.

8.                         Ὅτι μία σειρὰ κανόνων τοπικῶν Συνόδων καὶ Ἁγ. Πατέρων ἐπικυρωμένων ἀπὸ τὸν Στ-2 καὶ Ζ-1 ἐπιμαρτυροῦν ὅτι στὴν Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης καὶ στὸν ἐπίσκοπό της καὶ ἡ ἀρχαία Δυτικὴ-Λατινικὴ Ἐκκλησία ἀναγνώριζε, ὅπως καὶ ἡ Ἀνατολή, μεγάλο σεβασμὸ καὶ πρωτεῖο τιμῆς, ἀλλὰ ὄχι πρωτεῖο δικαιοδοσίας ἢ καὶ ἀλαθήτου καθορισμοῦ τῆς πίστεως ^.  τὰ πρακτικὰ τῶν ἐν Καρθαγένῃ Συνόδων τῆς λατινικῆς βορειοαφρικανικῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ οἱ ἀποφάσεις τους γιὰ ἀπαγόρευση τῆς ἐκκλήτου προσφυγῆς στὴ Ρώμη ἢ ἡ διένεξη μεταξύ τοῦ πάπα Ἁγ. Στεφάνου καί τοῦ Ἁγ. Κυπριανοῦ Καρχηδόνος γιὰ τὸ βάπτισμα τῶν αἱρετικῶν αὐτὸ ὑποδηλώνουν.

9.                         Τέλος, ὁ ἐπίλογος τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τῆς Συνόδου τῆς Καρθαγένης εἶναι ὁ πλέον ἐκφραστικός τοῦ κινδύνου πού διέβλεπαν οἱ λατῖνοι Πατέρες τῆς Β. Ἀφρικῆς  κάτω ἀπὸ τὴν, ἐν τῇ γενέσει της, ἀπαίτηση τῆς Ρώμης γιὰ ἐπέκταση τῆς δικαιοδοσίας της στὴν κρίση τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῆς Ἀφρικῆς: «Ἐκβιβαστάς τοίνυν κληρικοὺς ὑμῶν τινῶν αἰτούντων μὴ θέλετε ἀποστέλλειν, μήτε παραχωρεῖν, ἵνα μὴ τὸν καπνώδη τῦφον τοῦ κόσμου δόξωμεν εἰσάγειν τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἣτις τὸ φῶς τῆς ἁπλότητος καὶ τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης τὴν ἡμέραν τοῖς τὸν Θεὸν ἰδεῖν ἐπιθυμοῦσι προσφέρει».

Τὰ ἀνωτέρω ἐπιβεβαιώνουν ὅτι καί στή Δυτικὴ Ἐκκλησία κατὰ τὴν ἐποχὴ τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων δὲν ἀναγνωριζόταν στὸν ἐπίσκοπο Ρώμης «πέτρειο πρωτεῖο» ἢ «πέτρειο λειτούργημα ἑνότητος», οὔτε κάποια ὑπερέχουσα ἐξουσία ἐφ’  ὅλης τῆς  Ἐκκλησίας ἢ τὸ δικαίωμα τῆς ἀλαθήτου ἐκφράσεως τῆς πίστεως. Ἔτσι, οἱ σποραδικὲς ἐκφράσεις παπικῶν ἀντιπροσώπων ἢ ὁρισμένων ἐπιστολῶν καὶ ἂν ἀκόμα ἑρμηνευθοῦν ὡς δηλωτικὲς ἀπαιτήσεως κάποιου πρωτείου ἐξουσίας δὲν ἐξέφραζαν σύνολη τὴ Δυτικὴ Ἐκκλησία, οὔτε ἀπηχοῦσαν τὴ δυτικὴ θεολογία σὲ ὅλη τὴν ἔκταση δικαιοδοσίας τοῦ Πατριαρχείου τῆς Ρώμης κατὰ τὴν ἐποχὴ τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων. Συνεπῶς, κατά τοὺς ὀκτὼ πρώτους αἰῶνες τῆς ζωῆς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας στὶς βασικὲς ἐκκλησιολογικὲς ἀρχὲς γιὰ τὸν ρόλο τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῶν πρωτοθρόνων Ἐκκλησιῶν συμπεριλαμβανομένου καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης ὑπῆρχε ταυτότητα ἀπόψεων μεταξὺ Ἀνατολῆς καί Δύσεως.

Ἐπὶ πλέον δέ, καὶ ἂν ἀκόμα θεωρήσουμε ὅτι ὑπῆρχε σημαντικὴ διάσταση ἀπόψεων Ἀνατολῆς - Δύσεως κατὰ τοὺς ὀκτὼ πρώτους αἰῶνες, ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὴν οὐσία καὶ τὸ ρόλο τοῦ τιμητικοῦ πρωτείου τοῦ Ρώμης – γεγονὸς ποὺ ὅπως καταδείξαμε δέν ἐπιβεβαιώνεται ἀπὸ τὰ πρακτικὰ καὶ τὶς ἀποφάσεις τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων – θὰ πρέπει νὰ ἐπισημάνουμε ὅτι ἡ διαφορὰ μὲ τὴ σημερινὴ πραγματικότητα εἶναι ἀβυσσαλέα μετὰ τὴ δογματοποίηση τῆς δῆθεν ὑπεροχικῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Ἀπ. Πέτρου ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀποστόλων καὶ τοῦ παπικοῦ πρωτείου καὶ ἀλαθήτου στὶς Α΄ καὶ Β΄ Βατικανὲς Συνόδους! Τότε εἴχαμε ἀντιμέτωπες ἁπλὲς δηλώσεις ἢ ἑρμηνεῖες ^. σήμερα, μετὰ τίς δύο αὐτές Βατικανές Συνόδους, ἔχουμε – κατά τή Ρώμη – κεφαλαιώδη δόγματα πίστεως πού ἀνήκουν στὴν «οὐσιαστικὴ καὶ ἀμετάκλητο δομὴ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας» καὶ ἡ ἄρνηση τῶν ὁποίων, ὡς ἐκ τούτου, ἐπισύρει ἀναθεματισμοὺς τῆς «οἰκουμενικῆς» Α΄ Βατικανῆς, ποὺ παραμένουν σὲ ἰσχὺ καὶ μέ τὴ Β΄ Βατικανὴ «οἰκουμενικὴ» Σύνοδο.

Κατά συνέπεια, ἡ προσπάθεια κύκλων τινῶν νὰ παρουσιάσουν τὰ παπικὰ δόγματα τῆς Α΄ Βατικανῆς ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς βαρύτητος μὲ κάποιες ἀπὸ τὶς δηλώσεις τῶν παπικῶν λεγάτων ἢ τῶν παπικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι σαφῶς παραπειστική.

Ἐπίσης, ἡ ἐφαρμογὴ τῆς «ἀρχῆς τῆς ποικιλίας ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι» ὄχι σὲ ἥσσονος σημασίας ἐκκλησιαστικὰ ἔθιμα, ἀλλὰ σὲ βασικὰ ἐκκλησιολογικὰ δόγματα ποὺ ἅπτονται τῆς ἴδιας τῆς δομῆς καὶ ὑποστάσεως τῆς Ἐκκλησίας[12] εἶναι καὶ ἀπὸ ἐκκλησιολογικῆς ἀπόψεως ἀπαράδεκτη. Ἐὰν, σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν παπικὴ ἐκκλησιο-λογία τῆς Β΄ Βατικανῆς, ἡ ἄρνηση τῶν παπικῶν δογμάτων καταδεικνύει σοβαρὸ ἐκκλησιολογικὸ ἔλλειμμα[13] τότε δὲν ἔχουμε Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ, διότι εἶναι ἐντελῶς ἀδιανόητη ἡ ὕπαρξη Ἐκκλησίας μὲ ἐκκλησιολογικὲς ἐλλείψεις! Ἐπιπλέον, εἶναι ἀδιανόητο τὸ  δυτικὸ μέρος τῆς ὑπὸ σύσταση(;) νέας «ἑνωμένης Ἐκκλησίας» νὰ θεωρεῖ ὡς ἐκκλησιολογικῶς θεμελιώδη δόγματα τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἀπ. Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ παπικοῦ πρωτείου καὶ ἀλαθήτου (σύμφωνα μέ  τήν Α΄ καί τή Β΄ Βατικανή) καὶ τὸ ἀνατολικὸ τμῆμα νὰ τὰ ἀρνεῖται.  Οὐδέποτε στὴ ζωὴ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὰ δόγματα πίστεως ἦσαν ὑποχρεωτικά γιὰ ὅλους τούς πιστοὺς μόνο μιᾶς συγκεκριμένης ἐδαφικῆς περιοχῆς (ἢ ρυθμοῦ!), ἐνῶ σὲ ἄλλη περιοχή ὑπῆρχε ἡ δυνατότητά μὴ ἀποδοχῆς τους.  Δὲν νοεῖται νὰ ἀνήκουμε στὴν ἴδια «ἑνωμένη Ἐκκλησία» καὶ οἱ μὲν Δυτικοί νὰ δέχονται ὡς δόγμα πίστεως ἀναγκαῖο γιὰ τὴ σωτηρία ὅτι ὁ πάπας εἶναι ἀλάθητος, ὅταν ἀποφαίνεται ex cathedra, οἱ δὲ λοιποί κατηγορηματικὰ νὰ τὸ ἀρνοῦνται.

Καθίσταται λοιπόν προφανὲς ὅτι εἶναι ἀδιανόητη γιὰ τὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Ἐκκλησία ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς «ποικιλίας ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι», ὅπως ἐσχάτως ἔχει νοηματοδοθεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀπορρέουσα πρόταση τοῦ καρδιναλίου, τότε, καὶ μετέπειτα πάπα Βενεδίκτου  ΧVI.

Ἂν λοιπὸν ἡ «ἀρχὴ τῆς ποικιλίας ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι», ὅπως παρουσιάζεται  τελευταῖα, δὲ μπορεῖ νὰ ἐφαρμοστεῖ γιὰ τὴν πολυπόθητη ἕνωση Ἀνατολῆς-Δύσεως, ποιὰ θὰ ἦταν ἡ ἐνδεδειγμένη πρόταση γιὰ τὴν ὑπέρβαση τῆς διαιρέσεως μεταξὺ τῶν Χριστιανῶν; Νομίζω πώς μοναδική ἐλπίδα γιὰ τὴν ἀποκατάσταση τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἑνότητας ἀποτελεῖ ἀποκλειστικὰ καὶ μόνο ἡ εἰλικρινὴς μετάνοια, ἡ ὁποία προϋποθέτει - καὶ ταυτόχρονα πραγματώνεται μὲ - τὴν ἐν ταπεινώσει ἐπιστροφὴ στὶς βασικὲς θεολογικὲς ἀρχὲς καὶ προϋποθέσεις μὲ τὶς ὁποῖες ἔζησε ἡ  Ἐκκλησία τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων. Ἡ ταπείνωση θὰ ἑλκύσει τὴ θεία Χάρη και τότε θὰ πραγματοποιηθεῖ ὄχι ἕνας ἀδόκιμος διπλωματικὸς συμβιβασμὸς μὲ ἀμφίσημες διατυπώσεις, ὁ ὁποῖος θὰ προσθέσει μόνο πικρία καὶ προβλήματα, ἀλλὰ ἡ πραγματικὴ καὶ γνήσια «ἑνότητα πίστεως καὶ κοινωνία τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος».

   Πάτρα  1 . 9 . 2016

---

* Τό παρόν ἄρθρο εἶναι τά ἐπιλεγόμενα τῆς διπλωματικῆς ἐργασίας (master) τοῦ πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου Ἀναστασίου Γκοτσοπούλου, Ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης καί ὁ ἐπίσκοπός της στά πρακτικά καί στίς ἀποφάσεις τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν  Συνόδων, 2016,  σ.σ. 400.  Γιά τήν ἀπαραίτητη τεκμηρίωση στίς πηγές παραπέμπουμε στήν ἔκδοση.

[1]   MANSI 17, 489B : «Ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος εἶπεν ^.  ἕκαστος θρόνος ἔχει ἀρχαῖά τινα  παραδεδομένα ἔθη. καὶ οὐ χρὴ περὶ τούτων πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφιλονικεῖν  καὶ ἐρίζειν. φυλάττει μὲν γὰρ ἡ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησία τά ἔθη αὐτῆς  καὶ προσῆκον ἐστι. φυλάττει δὲ καὶ ἡ Κωνσταντινοπολιτῶν ἐκκλησία ἴδιά τινα ἔθη ἄνωθεν παραλαβοῦσα . ὡσαύτως καὶ οἱ τῆς Ἀνατολῆς θρόνοι». Ἡ Σύνοδος ὅμως, ὅπως στὴ συνέχεια ἀναφέρε-ται, ὁμιλεῖ γιὰ τὴν ἀθρόον χειροτονία καὶ ὄχι γιὰ  κεφαλαιώδους σημασίας θεολογικὰ ζητήματα τὰ ὁποῖα ἅπτονται τῆς ἴδια τῆς δομῆς καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῆς πίστεως ὅπως εἶναι τὰ παπικὰ δόγματα γιὰ τὴ Ρώμη.

[2] Ἀναλυτικότερα γιά τήν ἐκκλησιολογία τοῦ UR ἀπό Ὀρθοδόξου πλευρᾶς,  βλ. Π. Χίρς, Ἡ ἐκκλησιολογικὴ ἀναθεώρηση τῆς Β΄ Βατικανῆς Συνόδου, Uncut Mountain Press, Πετροκέρασα Θεσσαλονίκης 2014.

[3] «Μποροῦμε ἀνεπιφύλακτα νά ποῦμε  ὅτι στὴν “καρδιὰ” τοῦ Διατάγματος συναντοῦμε τὸ θέμα τῆς ἑνότητας καὶ τῆς διαφορετικότητας. Καὶ παρόλο ποὺ τὸ θέμα αὐτὸ δὲν ἐκτίθεται ἔκδηλα στὰ τρία κεφάλαια τοῦ κειμένου, ὡστόσο αὐτὸ διαφαίνεται ὡς τρόπος ἀναγνώσεως  καὶ συνοχῆς ὅλου τοῦ κειμένου», βλ. W. Henn, «At the Heart of Unitatis Redintegratio. Unity in Diversity», Gregorianum 88(2007) 2, 330 κἑ.  «Διάταγμα γιὰ τὸν Οἰκουμενισμὸ», §16-18, στὸ Ἡ Β΄ Βατικανὴ Σύνοδος. Διατάξεις-Διατάγματα-Δηλώσεις-Μηνύματα, ἐπιμ. Ἰω. Ἀσημάκης - Λ. Κισκινής, Analecta Theologica 8, ἔκδ. Ἀποστολικὸν Βικαριᾶτον Θεσσαλονίκης, Θεσσαλονίκη 2012, σ.  483:  «Ἤδη ἀπὸ τὶς ἀπαρχές, οἱ Ἐκκλησίες τῆς Ἀνατολῆς ἀκολουθοῦσαν  δική τους κανονικὴ τάξη, ἐπικυρωμένη ἀπὸ τοὺς ἁγίους Πατέρες καὶ ἀπὸ τὶς Συνόδους, ἀκόμα καὶ τὶς Οἰκουμενικές. Μία κάποια διαφορετικότητα ἐθίμων καὶ συνηθειῶν, ὅπως προείπαμε, δὲν ἀντιβαίνει στὸ ἐλάχιστο στὴν ἑνότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, μάλιστα αὐξάνει τὴν ὡραιότητά της καὶ ἀποτελεῖ ἀνεκτίμητη βοήθεια στὴν ἐκπλήρωση τῆς ἀποστολῆς της. Γι’ αὐτὸ ἡ ἱερὴ Σύνοδος, γιὰ νά ἐκλείψει κάθε ἀμφιβολία, δηλώνει ὅτι οἱ Ἐκκλησίες τῆς Ἀνατολῆς, μὲ ἐπίγνωση τῆς ἀναγκαίας ἑνότητας ὅλης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἔχουν τὴν ἐξουσία νὰ ρυθμίζουν τὴ δική τους κανονικὴ τάξη, ὡς περισσότερο ἁρμόζουσα στὸν χαρακτήρα τῶν πιστῶν τους καὶ καταλληλότερη γιὰ νὰ προάγει τὸ καλὸ τῶν ψυχῶν. Ἡ τέλεια τήρηση αὐτῆς τῆς παραδοσιακῆς ἀρχῆς, ἡ ὁποία εἶναι ἀλήθεια δὲν τηρήθηκε πάντοτε, ἀνήκει σὲ ἐκεῖνα τὰ πράγματα ποὺ ἀπαιτοῦνται ἀπολύτως ὡς προϋπόθεση γιὰ τὴν ἀποκατάσταση τῆς ἑνότητας. Αὐτὸ ποὺ εἰπώθηκε πρὶν γιὰ τὴ νόμιμη διαφορετικότητα πρέπει νὰ ἐφαρμοστεῖ καὶ στὴ διαφορετικὴ διατύπωση τῶν θεολογικῶν διδασκαλιῶν», βλ. καί Παπικὴ Ἐγκύκλιος Ἐπιστολὴ «Ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν» («Ut unum sint») τοῦ Ἁγίου Πατρὸς Ἰωάννου Παύλου Β΄ γιὰ τὸ οἰκουμενικὸ καθῆκον, 25 Μαΐου 1995, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Πόλη τοῦ Βατικανοῦ,   § 57. Ἡ πρόταση τῆς «ἑνότητος ἐν τῇ ποικιλίᾳ» ἐτέθη ὡς βάση γιά τὴν ἕνωση τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τὸν πάπα Λέοντα ΙΓ΄, στόν ὁποῖο ἀπάντησε ἡ Σύνοδος τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως  τοῦ  1895, στό Ἰ. Καρμίρη, Τὰ δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τ. 2, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1953, σ. 934 κἑ.  Στὸ ἴδιο πλαίσιο κινεῖται καὶ τὸ «Διάταγμα γιά τίς  Ἀνατολικές  Καθολικές Ἐκκλησίες» (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), βλ. Ἡ Β΄ Βατικανὴ Σύνοδος. Διατάξεις-Διατάγματα-Δηλώσεις-Μηνύματα, ἐπιμ. Ἰω. Ἀσημάκης - Λ. Κισκινής, Analecta Theologica 8, ἔκδ. Ἀποστολικὸν Βικαριᾶτον Θεσσαλονίκης, Θεσσαλονίκη 2012, σ.  491.

[4]  Κατά τον J. Ratzinger: «Ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὴν περὶ πρωτείου διδασκαλία, ἡ Ρώμη δὲν πρέπει νὰ ἀπαιτεῖ ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀνατολὴ κάτι περισσότερο ἀπὸ αὐτὸ ποὺ εἶχε καθοριστεῖ καὶ εἶχε βιωθεῖ κατὰ τὴν πρώτη χιλιετία… Ἡ ἐπανένωση μπορεῖ νὰ ἐπιτευχθεῖ πάνω στὴ βάση ὅτι ἡ Ἀνατολὴ θὰ παρῃτεῖτο ἀπὸ τὸ νὰ πολεμᾶ τὴ δυτικὴ ἐξέλιξη τῆς β΄χιλιετίας ὡς αἱρετικὴ καὶ θὰ ἀναγνώριζε τὴν Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία μὲ ἐκείνη τὴ μορφὴ ὡς νόμιμη καὶ ὀρθὴ ἀπὸ ἄποψη πίστης, στὴν ὁποία ἡ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία βρέθηκε μέσα ἀπὸ τὴν ἐξέλιξη τῆς β΄χιλιετίας, ἐνῶ ἀντίστροφα ἡ Δύση θὰ ἀναγνώριζε τὴν Ἀνατολὴ ὡς νόμιμη καὶ ὀρθὴ στὴν πίστη σὲ ἐκείνη τὴ μορφὴ τὴν ὁποία αὐτὴ διατήρησε στὴν ἱστορία της» (J. Ratzinger, Theologische Prinzipienehre :  Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie, Munich 1982, σ. 209). Στὸ ἴδιο πνεῦμα κινεῖται καὶ ἡ πρόταση τοῦ Μητροπολίτου (τότε) Ἐλβετίας κ. Δαμασκηνοῦ («Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως», Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 508, D. Papandreou, “Ein Beitrag zur Uberwindung der Trennung zwischen der romisch-katholischen und der orthdoxen Kirche” στὸ Vasilios von Aristi, Das Papsamt: Dienst oder Hindernis für die Ökumene ? Regensburg 1985, σ. 162, 166-167),  τοῦ H. Scutte, στὸ Χρ. Σαββᾶτος (νῦν Μητρ. Μεσσηνίας), Τὸ παπικὸ πρωτεῖο στὸ διάλογο μεταξὺ Ὀρθοδόξων καὶ Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν, Ἀθήνα 2006, σ. 14 καὶ τοῦ E. Lanne, στό Δαμασκηνοῦ, «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»,  Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 516-517.    

Ἂς ἐπιτραπεῖ μία διαπίστωση μὲ πολὺ πόνο στὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ratzinger λεχθέντα: εἶναι ἰδιαίτερα τραγικὸ μία ὁλόκληρη τοπικὴ Ἐκκλησία, ἡ μεγαλύτερη, ἡ ἐνδοξότερη καὶ εὐκλεέστερη τῆς α΄ χιλιετίας  νὰ ἔχει περιέλθει σὲ τέτοια σύγχυση, ὥστε:

νὰ θεωρεῖ θετικὴ θεολογικὴ ἐξέλιξη καὶ πρόοδο τὰ ὅσα ἔχουν συντελεστεῖ στὴ β΄ χιλιετία ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὸ παπικὸ πρωτεῖο!

νὰ θεωρεῖ ὡς θεολογικὴ πρόοδο τὴν ἄρνηση τῆς θεόπνευστης, κανονικῆς, ἐκκλησιαστικῆς τάξεως καὶ παραδόσεως τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων!

νὰ θεωρεῖ ὡς θεολογικὴ πρόοδο τὸ θεμελιωμένο πάνω στὶς πλαστογραφίες τοῦ ζοφεροῦ Μεσαίωνα (τὴν ψευδο-Κωνσταντίνειο Δωρεὰ καὶ τὶς ψευδο-Ἰσιδώρειες Διατάξεις) παπικὸ θεσμὸ (Προσχέδιο Κρήτης,  § 15)!

Παρακαλῶ ἂς μὴν ἐκληφθεῖ ἡ διαπίστωση αὐτὴ ὡς ἐχθρικὴ ἢ πολεμικὴ κατὰ τῶν Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνο ὡς ἔκφραση θλίψεως καὶ πόνου καί  ταυτόχρονα καὶ ἀνησυχίας καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως γιὰ ἐμᾶς τοὺς Ὀρθοδόξους!

[5]  Ἡ θέση αὐτὴ ρητὰ ἔχει διατυπωθεῖ στὸ «Προσχέδιο τῆς Κρήτης» στὶς §§ 15, 22 καὶ ἰδιαιτέρως στὴν τελευ-ταία  § 32 :  «Ἡ ἐμ­πει­ρί­α τῆς πρώ­της χι­λι­ε­τί­ας ἐ­πη­ρέ­α­σε βα­θειὰ τὴν πο­ρεί­α τῶν σχέ­σε­ων με­τα­ξὺ τῶν Ἐκ­κλη­σι­ῶν τῆς Ἀ­να­το­λῆς καὶ τῆς Δύ­σε­ως. Πα­ρὰ τὴν ἀ­να­πτυσ­σό­με­νη δι­ά­στα­ση καὶ τὰ προ­σω­ρι­νὰ σχί­σμα­τα κα­τὰ τὴ διά­ρκεια αὐ­τῆς τῆς πε­ρι­ό­δου, ἡ κοι­νω­νί­α ἀ­κό­μη δι­α­τη­ρεῖ­το με­τα­ξὺ Δύ­σεως καὶ Ἀνα­το-λῆς. Ἡ ἀρ­χὴ τῆς ποι­κι­λί­ας ἐν τῇ ἑνό­τη­τι, ἡ ὁ­ποί­α ἔ­γι­νε κα­τη­γο­ρη­μα­τι­κὰ δε­κτὴ στὴ Σύ­νο­δο τῆς Κων­σταν­τι­νου­πό­λε­ως ποὺ ἔ­γι­νε τὸ 879-80, ἔ­χει ἰ­δι­αί­τε­ρη ση­μα­σί­α γιὰ τὸ θέ­μα στὸ πα­ρὸν αὐ­τὸ στά­διο τοῦ δι­α­λό­γου μας. Σα­φεῖς δι­α­στά­σεις στὴν ἀν­τί­λη­ψη καὶ ἑρ­μη­νεί­α δὲν ἐμ­πό­δι­σαν Ἀ­να­το­λὴ καὶ Δύ­ση νὰ πα­ρα­μεί­νουν σὲ κοι­νω­νί­α. Ὑ­πῆρ­χε δυ­να­τὴ αἴ­σθη­ση ὅ­τι ὑ­πάρ­χει μί­α Ἐκ­κλη­σί­α, καὶ ἀ­πο­φα­σι­στι­κό­τη­τα νὰ πα­ρα­μέ­νου­με σὲ ἑ­νό­τη­τα ὡς ἕ­να ποί­μνιο μὲ ἕ­να ποι­μέ­να (Ἰ­ω­άν. 10, 16). Ἡ πρώ­τη χι­λι­ε­τί­α ἡ ὁ­ποί­α ἔ­χει ἐ­ξε­τα­σθεῖ σ’ αὐ­τὸ τὸ στά­διο τοῦ δι­α­λό­γου μας, εἶ­ναι ἡ κοι­νὴ πα­ρά­δο­ση ἀμ­φο­τέ­ρων τῶν Ἐκ­κλη­σι­ῶν μας. Στὶς βα­σι­κὲς θε­ο­λο­γι­κὲς καὶ ἐκ­κλη­σι­ο­λο­γι­κὲς ἀρ­χὲς οἱ ὁ­ποῖ­ες ἔ­χουν συν­ταυ­τι­σθεῖ ἐ­δῶ, αὐ­τὴ ἡ κοι­νὴ πα­ρά­δο­ση θὰ πρέ­πει νὰ ὑ­πη­ρε­τεῖ ὡς πρό­τυ­πο γιὰ τὴν ἀ­πο­κα­τά­στα­ση τῆς πλήρους κοινωνίας». Παρόμοια ἔχει ὑποστηρίξει καὶ ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς  Τρανουπόλεως, «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»,  Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981)  508.

[6] Ἐγκύκλιος Ἐπιστολὴ «ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν» (ut unum sint) τοῦ Ἁγίου Πατρὸς Ἰωάννου Παύλου Β΄ γιὰ τὸ Οἰκουμενικὸ καθῆκον, 25 Μαΐου 1995, § 50,  Liberia editrice Vaticana, Πόλη τοῦ Βατικανοῦ,  σ. 62. 

[7] «Le rôle particulier des Églises orientales catholiques correspond à celui qui est resté vacant à cause du manque de communion complète avec les Églises orthodoxes. Aussi bien le Décret Orientalium Ecclesiarum du Concile Vatican II que la Constitution apostolique Sacri canones (p. IX-X) qui a accompagné la publication du Code des canons des Églises orientales, ont mis en évidence combien la situation présente, et les règles qui la régissent, sont dirigées vers la pleine communion tant souhaitée entre l'Église catholique et les Églises orthodoxes. Votre collaboration avec le Pape et entre vous pourra montrer aux Églises orthodoxes que la tradition de la «synergie» entre Rome et les Patriarcats s'est maintenue - bien que limitée et blessée -, qu'elle s'est peut-être même développée pour le bien de l'unique Église de Dieu, répandue par toute la terre»,  La documentation catholique, n^o 2192, 15.11.1998. σ. 951-953 καί στό διαδικτυακό τόπο : www.la-croix.com/Urbi-et-Orbi/Documents/ Actes-du-Pape/Aidez-l-eveque-de-Rome-dans-sa-reflexion-sur-son-ministere-d-unite-2013-04-09-935467

[8] «Ἡ Ἁγία (Β΄ Βατικανὴ) Σύνοδος πολὺ χαίρεται γιὰ τὴν καρποφόρα καὶ δραστήρια συνεργασία τῶν Καθολικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀνατολῆς καὶ Δύσης καὶ ταυτόχρονα δηλώνει : ὅλες αὐτὲς οἱ κανονικὲς διατάξεις καθορίστηκαν γιὰ τὶς παροῦσες συνθῆκες, ἕως ὅτου ἡ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία καὶ οἱ διαιρεμένες  Ἀνατολικὲς Ἐκκλησίες ἑνωθοῦν στὴν πληρότητα τῆς κοινωνίας» (ΟΕ  § 30, στὸ B΄ Βατικανῆς,  Κείμενα,  σ. 504. Πάντως ἡ Σύνοδος «πολύ χαίρεται» γιὰ τὸ μέχρι τώρα ἔργο τῆς Οὐνίας …

[9]  Γιὰ τὴν Οὐνία στὸ θεολογικὸ διάλογο μὲ τὴ Ρώμη βλ. Θ. Ζήση, Οὐνία, Ἡ καταδίκη καὶ ἡ ἀθώωση, ἔκδ. Βρυέννιος, Θεσσαλονίκη 2002, Γ. Καψάνη, «Οὐνία, Ἡ μέθοδος τοῦ παποκεντρικοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ», Παρακαταθήκη, 60(2008), 3-10.  Ἱστορικὴ προσέγγιση τῆς Οὐνίας,  βλ. Γ. Μεταλληνός, Δ. Γόνης, Η. Φρατσέας, Εὐ. Μοράρου, Ἐπισκ. Βανάτου Ἀθανάσιος (Γιέβτιτς), Ἡ Οὐνία, χθὲς καὶ σήμερα, ἔκδ. Ἁρμός, Ἀθήνα 1992. Ἐκτενέστερη βιβλιογραφία γιὰ τὴν Οὐνία,   βλ.  Κ. Κωτσιόπουλος, Ἡ Οὐνία στὴν Ἑλληνικὴ θεολογικὴ βιβλιογραφία, ἔκδ. Βρυέννιος, Θεσσαλονίκη 1993.

[10]  Εἶναι χαρακτηριστικὸ ὅτι ἡ Ρώμη προβάλει τίς διατάξεις τοῦ «Διατάγματος  γιὰ τὶς Ἀνατολικὲς Καθολικὲς Ἐκκλησίες» ὡς «ἕνα εἶδος “ἐγγύησης”  ὅτι ἡ ἐπανεύρεση τῆς κοινωνίας μὲ τὴ Ρώμη δὲν συνεπάγεται καμιὰ ἀποποίηση τῶν ἴδιων στοιχείων τῶν μὴ λατινικῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν παραδόσεων»! (B΄ Βατικανῆς,  Κείμενα, σ. 491.

[11]  Θ. Ζήση, «Ἡ οὐνία ὡς πρότυπο ψευδοῦς ἑνότητος. Τὰ ὅρια τῆς ποικιλομορφίας ἐν σχέσει πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα», - «Πρωτεῖον» Συνοδικότης καὶ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Πρακτικὰ Θεολογικῆς Ἡμερίδος, ἔκδ. Ἱ. Μητρόπολις Πειραιῶς, Πειραιεύς  2011, σ. 107-114.

[12]  Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Letter Communionis notio,  § 17. 3  (28.5.1992),  στή διαδυκτιακή τοποθεσία www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html.

[13]  «Unitatis Redintegratio» («Διάταγμα γιὰ τὸν Οἰκουμενισμὸ») Διάταγμα  τῆς Β΄ Βατικανῆς Συνόδου § 3, στὸ B΄ Βατικανῆς,  Κείμενα, σ. 471.  Ἰ. Μαραγκοῦ, Οἰκουμενικὰ Α΄, Ἀθήνα 1986,  σ. 33,   καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ 29.6.2007 ἀπάντηση τῆς Ἐπιτροπῆς γιὰ τὴ Διδασκαλία τῆς Πίστεως (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei) τῆς Ρωμαϊκῆς Κουρίας, στή διαδικτυακή τοποθεσία www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_200 70629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html.
.............................................................

ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΕΙ ΤΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ ΣΤΑ ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑ

Protopresbyter 

Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos

Rector of the Parish  of St. Nicholas

of  the Diocese of Patra

mob: +30-6945-377621, agotsopo@gmail.com

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Churches

in the First Millenium *

[In view of the 14th Meeting of the   Joint International Committee

for the Orthodox-Roman Catholic  Theological Dialogue  in Chieti , Italy (15-22.9.2016)]

From the careful study of the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods we can define with certainty the place of the Church of Rome and her bishop within the communion of all the local Churches during the era of the Ecumenical Synods:

A.     The Church and Bishop of Rome

1.      The increased prestige and exceptional honor which was conferred upon the Church of Rome is clear. Consequently the Church also recognized a primacy of honor and as the first see in the order of that which was associated with the exceptional dignity of the Patriarchal Thrones. The reasons are clear: a) It was the Church of “glorious Rome”, the capital of the empire, b) it was active in spiritual life and carried out a pastoral care for the local Churches which surrounded it and c) it was the only city in the Latin west which had received the presence and preaching of the First Leaders of the Choir of the Apostles who had been martyred there and whose tombs wee located in Rome.

2.      In particular, the Church of Rome could boast of its apostolic lineage from the “leaders of the Apostolic choir” [Sts. Peter and Paul] which came to later be limited to [a lineage from St. Peter alone] and expressed with the term “petrine”.  It is necessary to note however that in none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils is attribution of any dignity or rank of honor to the Church of Rome connected with her apostolic origins which otherwise is considered a given.

3.      In the East, the meaning of apostolicity was defined differently and thus acquired a different significance. At the same time however, the entire Church accepted apostolicity not as the exclusive privilege of Rome, but as something belonging also to the thrones in the East which were accordingly honored with special privileges.

4.      The ancient Church —in both the East and the West— had recognized a primacy of honor and dignity; but not a primacy of authority (of superior jurisdiction) over the entire Church. The occasional attempts on the part of Roman agents to add to the pre-eminence of honor a primacy of authority, of “petrine” origin, was not even something undertaken by the majority of the bishops of Rome and it was certainly not the set and constant ecclesiological position of the whole Latin Church of the West in the time of the Ecumenical Synods.

5.      Whenever a major issue of faith and ecclesiastical order came to be disputed, every bishop, but even more so the bishop of “glorious Rome”, possessed not only the inalienable right but even had it as a duty incumbent upon him to intervene in the workings of another local Church. This practice was considered completely acceptable during the first eight centuries of Christianity. Indeed, in exceptional circumstances, ecclesiastical unity was not necessarily always preserved by him who possessed the leadership or the throne with seniority of rank, but by the one who in a particular circumstance expressed the true faith; he was considered possessor of the “primacy of truth”. This is what happened with St. Cyril at the 3rd Ecumenical Synod as well as with St. Leo at the 4th. On the other hand, when the bishop of Rome showed himself unworthy of his episcopal ministry, churches in the East but also in the West could and did sever communion with him.

B.     The Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Synods

1.      The Ecumenical Synods constituted for the ancient Church the crowning moments of her history revealing her unity in the Truth. Similarly, the ancient Church established with the utmost clarity that the highest authority in the Church could not be a single person, but only the Ecumenical Synod, an institution whose decisions demanded universal respect.

2.      The power to convoke an Ecumenical Synod belonged exclusively to the emperor who was also responsible for set the agenda.  Certainly, it was imperative that he consult with the first-hierarchs of the Churches and most importantly with the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. But the fact that the bishop of Rome was the first see in Christendom gave him no right either to set the agenda of the Council, nor did he possess the power of veto its decisions.

3.      At none of the Ecumenical Councils was the reigning pope personally present, but in most cases he was represented by a delegation of clergy. In addition, at none of the Synods did his delegation preside. The fifth Ecumenical Synod has particular significance for the question of the role of Pope of Rome within the communion of the Church since in addition to the question of the Three Chapters, it pronounced [indirectly] on this question [by] condemning Pope Vigilius after his unjustified refusal to meet in council with the other Patriarchs. For the ancient Church in both the East and the West, the pope was subject to synodal judgment and authority in not only matters of faith but also in those regarding the canonical order of the Church.

4.      The main role of the bishop of Rome in the Ecumenical Synods as first-throne among the Patriarchs was to formulate in his dogmatic epistle, which in a way operated as the central proposal for the Synod, the Orthodox faith and ecclesiastical tradition regarding the theological controversy at hand, and on the basis of which the synodal discussions were carried out. Consequently, the position of the pope of Rome in the time of the Ecumenical Synods was within the Synods and not above them. Only under the presupposition of his participation in the procedures of the synod was the pope recognized as “head and father and first” of the bishops and patriarchs gathered together; he does not simply make a pronouncement which the others then obey, but “he confers… together with all”.

C.     The bishop of Rome in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods

1.      The Church sought by means of the Ecumenical Synods to confront the distortion of the Orthodox faith and the disturbance of ecclesiastical unity produced by heresy. It is obvious that the participation, agreement, and presence of the bishop of Rome and consequently of the Church “until the climes of the ocean” in the synodal decisions was required in order to maintain unity and to prevent the creation of schisms. In this way, when it was successful, the Fathers of the synod would express their joy and enthusiasm with great intensity.

2.      The Ecumenical Synod pronounced from a place of absolute authority without depending on the will or decisions of any individual persons. And this practice was universally accepted by the ancient Church of both East and West.  Thus decisions were made in the absence of the bishop of Rome or even in spite of his outright opposition. Moreover, even in cases where his suggestions were accepted, they were first examined by the Synod, compared to the ecclesiastical tradition and only when synodal agreement was secured would they be accepted.

The position of the ancient Church has been recorded in an official and categorical manner in the “synodal decree”, the “Horos” of the 5^th Ecumenical Synod: “During the common deliberations, the light of truth dissipates the darkness of falsehood, once teach of the things suggested for discussion are placed under judgment. Because in matters of faith, no one has the right to go forward on behalf of the entire Church since all of us have need of our neighbor”. It would be no exaggeration for us to say that the 5^th Ecumenical Synod, in the Holy Spirit, foresaw the development of the West and censured dogmatically in an explicit and forthright manner Vatican I’s dogma of papal infallibility.  According to the Synod, the pope cannot be infallible, either ex sese or ex consensus Ecclesia.

3.      The primacy of the bishop of Rome but similarly the equality of the five Patriarchs is testified to historically by the “stamps of signature” on the synodal decisions. All of the patriarchs as well as the bishop sign stamp or seal and in a unified fashion in agreement with the ranking of honor among the patriarchal Thrones. Certainly, the bishop of Rome signed first as the first-throne of the Ecumene [the empire or civilized world]. The pope never contested that he should be granted a special type of signature.

D.    The bishop of Rome and the Sacred Canons

1.      The holy Canons as decisions of the Ecumenical Synods reflect as well as formulate the ethos and practice of the Catholic Church. Consequently, disdain for their ecumenical authority and validity is unacceptable.

2.      The basic canons which refer to the seniority of honor of the primates of the patriarchal Churches are the 6^th  and 7^th canon of Nicaea I, the 3^rd canon of Constantinople I, the 28^th canon of Chalcedon and the 36^th canon of Constantinople III (Penthekti). The defining canon concerning the position of the bishop of Rome in the ancient Church is the 28^th canon of Chalcedon which interprets the 3^rd canon of Constantinople I and constitutes the basis for the 36^th canon of Constantinople III. The importance of the 28^th canon of Chalcedon is guaranteed by its content but also in its means of promulgation a.) Regarding the content: it gives canonical weight to the seniority of rank of Rome, granting to Constantinople “the same rank” as that of Rome, but at the same time, it places under contention the most crucial point upon which the supremacy of the papal throne over against the other patriarchal thrones rests---according to Rome: petrine apostolicity and the granting of petrine authority by divine law over the entire Church. b.) As regards the means of promulgation: The categorical opposition and the intense reaction of Leo the Great in Rome not only did not invalidate this canon, nor did it even take away from its canonical weight, strength, or ecumenical character. This is self-evident in ecclesiastical order since it was unthinkable to the ancient Church that decision of a synod, and especially that of an Ecumenical Synod, could be invalidated by a local Church or by a single person. Not even the pope of Rome was recognized as having the right to approve or reject synodal decisions. On the contrary, he too was obligated to comply.

3.      The Roman understanding which pope Leo the Great firmly supported concerning the  “petrine” and apostolic character of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and the supposed conferral of an exceptional dignity upon these sees never obtained any canonical foundation nor did it exercise any effect upon the life of the ancient Church.  Even in Rome these ideas were never put into practice and were quickly abandoned.

E.      The bishop of Rome in the East and West: “The Principle of Unity in Diversity?”

In the official Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Church and Rome, it has been suggested that the “principle of unity in diversity” can provide a means of overcoming the impasse which the papal dogmas have created. This suggestion, according to its proponents, is based on the decision of the Synod of Constantinople in 879-880[1], but as it is currently formulated, it in essence merely carries out the program of the Decree “concerning Ecumenism”[2] from the Second Vatican Council[3] and seeks the unity of the Churches in spite of differences in dogma. In the other words, the Western Christians will accept their dogma concerning St. Peter and the dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility as they have been formulated by the first and second Vatican Councils, without however demanding their imposition upon the Eastern Church, so that the Orthodox are not required to accept them as long as they do not characterize them as an heretical falling away from the ancient faith and practice of the Church. This was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI came to formulate this proposal.[4] According to this view, the ancient Church governed itself this way: the West accepted the papal primacy of authority without imposing it upon the East and the East tolerated this difference of Western practice without condemning it as an ecclesiological aberration; East and West believed differently but in spite of this, we remained in full ecclesiastical communion[5]. Put another way, “legitimate diversity is in no way opposed to the Church's unity, but rather enhances her splendor and contributes greatly to the fulfillment of her mission”[6].

Before we proceed to our necessary and brief critique of this suggestion it is necessary to understand its true implications. Particularly revealing on this point is the speech which Pope John Paul II gave to the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs (Uniates) in 29/9/1998.

Among other things, he said to the Uniate Patriarchs: “I ask you to give the Pope your help in the name of that responsibility for re-establishing full communion with the Orthodox Churches (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 24) which belongs to you as Patriarchs of Churches that share so much of the theological, liturgical, spiritual and canonical patrimony with Orthodoxy. In this same spirit and for the same reason, I would like your Churches to be fully associated with the ecumenical dialogues of charity and of doctrine at both the local and universal levels”. And the pope continues, “The particular role of the Eastern Catholic Churches [he means here the Uniates] corresponds to the one left unfilled by the lack of full communion with the Orthodox Churches. Both the Second Vatican Council’s Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the Apostolic Constitution Sacri canones (pp. IX-X) which accompanied the publication of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches have pointed out how the present situation, and the rules governing it, look towards the full communion we desire between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Your collaboration with the Pope and with one another will show the Orthodox Churches that the tradition of ‘synergy’ between Rome and the Patriarchates has been maintained — although limited and wounded — and perhaps also strengthened for the good of the one Church of God present throughout the world”[7].

The above texts shows clearly how Rome desires and seeks—despite its assurances to the contrary[8]—full communion obtained with Orthodoxy on the basis of an enhanced version of the Unia[9]  which can also include the Orthodox[10]. Toward this aim, the contribution of the principle “diversity in unity” is formative[11], despite the fact that is it neither historically proven nor theologically acceptable as presented here.

The study of the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods demonstrates as historically fabricated the contention that in the ancient Church of the first millennium the East and West held different beliefs about the position of the bishop of Rome. On the contrary, we see clearly that in spite of the fact  that Church of Rome’s lineage from St. Peter was recognized, even the Western-Latin Church never accepted any form of papal supremacy of jurisdiction (primacy of authority) over the entire Church, nor did it recognize the pope as possessor of an exclusive right to articulate the faith, never mind any form of infallibility. We remind the reader succinctly of:

1.      The papal legates accepted the synodal vetting of the papal dogmatic epistles of Leo the Great, St. Agathon, and St. Adrian to determine if they were in accord with the ecclesiastical tradition.

2.      The views of St Leo the Great against canon 28 of Chalcedon were not even accepted by his [immediate] successors  and were abandoned in the West until the time of the Schism.

3.      The refusal of the latin bishops of the west to accept pope Vigillius’ decisions concerning the faith and consequently his repeated condemnations by Western Synods (both before and after the 5^th Ecumenical Synod).

4.      The expressed self-understanding of the same pope Vigilius who did not once claim to possess some alleged superior authority derived from divine right or ‘petrine’ authority which meant that the Church and the rest of the Patriarchs ought to be subject to him. Additionally, pope Vigilius never accused the Synod of being contrary to the canons or invalid simply because of his disagreement or absence. On the contrary, he explicitly promised that he would conform to the decision of the Synod concerning the faith and considered its decision to censure him as just.

5.      The convocation of the Synod of 125 bishops from all of the regions of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Rome under the presidency of pope St. Agatho in order to refute and pronounce on the heresy of monothelitism shows in practice the firm ecclesiological ethos of the ancient Church of Rome. It is indicative how the Synod of Rome mentions that they came to together with great labor “from the climes of the ocean” in order to consult in Synod so that “that our humble suggestion might proceed from a council of wide-spread influence, lest if only a part were cognizant of what was being done, it might escape the notice of a part”[12].

6.      The cooperation of Rome in the condemnation of Pope Honorius at the 6^th Ecumenical Synod.

7.      The West accepted the decisive role of the emperor in the procedures of the Synod and never insisted on presiding through the papal “apocrisarii” at the Ecumenical Synods or at the local Synods in the West  [tr.: a greek term for a high ranking ecclesiastical deputy or similar official]

8.      A series of canons from local Synods and the Holy Fathers approved by the 2^nd canon of Constantinople III and the 1^st canon of Nicaea II show that that ancient Latin Church of the West recognized, just like the East, that the Church of Rome and her bishop were to be given great reverence and possessed a primacy of honor, but not a primacy of jurisdiction or an infallibility in defining matters of faith: for example, the Acts of the Synods of Carthage in Latin-speaking north Africa as well as their decisions to forbid final appeals to Rome, or the dispute between pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian about the baptism of heretics all demonstrate this.

9.      Finally, the conclusion of the letter of the Synod of Carthage already expresses the danger which the Latin Fathers of North Africa foresaw in the first demands of Rome to extend her jurisdiction in judging the bishops of Africa: “As for executors, therefore, though they have been demanded by some for our Clerics, do not send us any, nor grant us any, lest we seem to be introducing a cloud of smoke from the world into the Church of Christ, which offers the light of simplicity and the day of humility to those who desire to see God”[13].

All of the above demonstrate that in the Western Church in the time of the Ecumenical Synods recognized no “petrine primacy” or “petrine function of unity” nor any supreme authority over the entire Church or the ability to pronounce infallibly on matters of faith. The occasional expressions of papal representatives or of certain papal epistles which explicitly demand some kind of primacy of authority were never representative of the understanding of the whole Western Church nor did they reflect western theology within the patriarchate of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Synods. Hence, we can see that during the first eight centuries of the life of the Church, East and West held to identical views concerning the basic ecclesiological principles which governed the role of the patriarchal Churches including that of the bishop of Rome.

Neverthless, even if we did suppose that there existed an important difference in views between East and West during the first eight centuries regarding the essence and role of the primacy of honor of the bishop of Rome — a fact which as we have demonstrated cannot be proven from the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods—we would stress that the reality we live today is completely different. After the First and Second Vatican Councils we have —according to Rome— fundamental dogmas of faith which belong to the “essential and unchanging structure of the Church”[14] and those who deny them are anathematized by the “ecumenical” Synod of Vatican I and this remains the case with the “ecumenical” Synod of Vatican II.

Consequently, the attempt on the part of certain theologians to present the papal dogmas of Vatican I as having the same intended meanings as some declarations of papal legates or papal epistles in the early Church are clearly misleading.

Additionally, the implementation of the “principle of diversity in unity” not merely in ecclesiastical customs of minor importance, but in the realm of  basic ecclesiological dogmas which touch upon the very structure and being of the Church ecclesiologically unacceptable. If, according to the papal ecclesiology of Vatican I, the denial of the papal dogmas is evidence of a serious ecclesiological deficiency[15] then we do not have a Church of Christ, because a Church with ecclesiological deficiencies is completely unthinkable! Moreover, it is unthinkable that the western part of this “united Church” being established (?) can consider as ecclesiologically fundamental the dogmas concerning St. Peter and papal primacy and infallibility (as articulated by Vatican I and II) while the eastern portion denies them. Never in the life of the Church of Christ were dogmas considered obligatory for the faithful of a particular region (or ritual) while another region was given the ability to deny them.  It is not comprehensible how we can belong to the same “united Church” where the Westerners must accept as a dogma of the faith necessary for salvation that the pope is infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra while the rest of the faithful are free to categorically deny this.

It is obviously unthinkable that the Orthodox Church could accept the principle of “diversity in unity” as it has been articulated recently and equally so the proposal stemming from it formulated by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, later pope Benedict XVI.

Hence if the “principle of diversity in unity” as it has been presented in recent years, cannot be implemented to achieve the much-desired union of East and West, what would a suitable proposal look like for the overcoming of the division among Christians? I think the only hope for the restoration of ecclesiastical unity lies exclusively honest repentance alone; an honest repentance which presupposes and at the same time is realized only by a return in humility to the basic theological principles and presuppositions with the which the Church lived by in the time of the Ecumenical Synods. Humility will draw divine Grace and then unity will be achieved not by an untried, diplomatic compromise that relies on ambiguity of dogmatic expression which will only contribute to further bitterness and problems, but instead divine Grace will achieve the real and genuine “unity of faith and communion of the Holy Spirit”.

---

*  This article is the conclusions of the master's thesis entitled "The Church of Rome and its bishop in the minutes and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils",  2016,  p. 400.  

[1] MANSI 17, 489B : “The holy synod said, each throne has  ancient traditional customs, and  concerning these there should be no disputation or quarreling one with another. The Church of the Romans guards her customs and this is fitting, while the Church of Constantinople guards her own customs which she has received from above and all of the sees of the East do in like manner”. The Synod however, as it mentions later, speaks about mass ordinations and not about the crucial theological issues which have implications for the very  structure and essence of the Church and the faith such as  the papal doctrines about Rome.

[2] For a detailed analysis from an Orthodox perspective of UR, see Fr. Peter Alban Heers,  The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church, Uncut Mountain Press. Simpsonville, 2015.

[3]  “We can say without reservation that at the heart of the Decree we encounter the issue of unity and diversity. And even though the issue is raised explicitly in the three chapters of the text, nevertheless it emerges as mean of reading and comprehending the entire text”, See W. Henn, “At the Heart of Unitatis Redintegratio. Unity in Diversity”, Gregorianum 88(2007) 2, 330.  “Decree on Ecumenism”, §16-18, found online at :   “16. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church's unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity. 17. What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine”, See also Ut Unum Sint  § 57. The proposal of “unity in diversity” is put forth as the basis for the union of all Christians by Pope Leo XIII. The Synod of Constantinople answer him in 1895 in a letter contained in Karmiris’ collection of dogmatic documents, vol. 2, p. 934.  [tr. An English translation is available online at the “Orthodox Christian Information Center ].

[4] According to J. Ratzinger : “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had”, From his Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.   The suggestion of the then-Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland is in the same vein («Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»[“What is permanent and what is changeable in the petrine ministry. Thoughts from an Orthodox perspective”], Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 508, D. Papandreou, “Ein Beitrag zur Uberwindung der Trennung zwischen der romisch-katholischen und der orthdoxen Kirche” found in Vasilios von Aristi, Das Papsamt: Dienst oder Hindernis für die Ökumene?  Regensburg 1985, p. 162, 166-167),  τοῦ H. Scutte, in Chr. Savvatos (now Metropolitan of Messinia), Τὸ παπικὸ πρωτεῖο στὸ διάλογο μεταξὺ Ὀρθοδόξων καὶ Ρωμαιοκαθολικῶν [The papal primacy in the dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics], Athens 2006, p. 14 καὶ τοῦ E. Lanne, in Damaskinos’ article, «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»,  Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981) 516-517.    

With much pain we must say some things about what Ratzinger has written: It is very tragic for an entire local Church, the greatest, most glorious and the most famous of the first millennium to have fallen into such confusion so that:

•          it considers as positive theological developments and progress what occurred in the second millennium regarding papal primacy.

•          it considers as theological progress the denial of the God-inspired, canonical, ecclesiastical order and tradition of the Ecumenical Synods.

•          it considers as theological progress a papal institution based on forgeries from the Dark Ages (such as the false “Donation of Constantine” and the Pseudo-Decretals of Isidore)(Cretan Draft on the Role of the Pope,  § 15) ! [Tr.: This refers to this document on the role of the papacy produced by the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, September 27 - October 4, 2008: <>]

I ask that these observations not be taken as hostile or polemical against Roman Catholics, but only as an expression of grief as well as concern and vigilance for us Orthodox.

[5] The position is explicitly formulated in “Cretan Draft on the Role of the Pope” in §§ 15, 22 and especially in § 32 : “The experience of the first millennium profoundly influenced the course of relations between the Churches of the East and the West. Despite growing divergence and temporary schisms during this period, communion was still maintained between West and East. The principle of diversity-in-unity, which was explicitly accepted at the council of Constantinople held in 879-80, has particular significance for the theme of this present stage of our dialogue. Distinct divergences of understanding and interpretation did not prevent East and West from remaining in communion. There was a strong sense of being one Church, and a determination to remain in unity, as one flock with one shepherd (cf. Jn 10:16). The first millennium, which has been examined in this stage of our dialogue, is the common tradition of both our Churches. In its basic theological and ecclesiological principles which have been identified here, this common tradition should serve as the model for the restoration of our full communion“.   Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou takes a similar position in «Τί τὸ μόνιμον καὶ τί τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἰς τὴν πετρίνειον διακονίαν. Σκέψεις ἐξ Ὀρθοδόξου ἐπόψεως»,  Στάχυς, 52-67(1977-1981)  508.

[6] Encyclical Letter “Ut Unum Sint: On Committment to Ecumenism“ of Pope John Paul II, 25 May 1995, § 50, found online at <http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html>

[7] "Address of the Holy Father Pope John Paull II To the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs," Tuesday, 29 September 1998 <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1998/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca.html>

[8]  “The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity”, Οrientalium Ecclesiarum, § 30 available online   The Synod “feels great” at the present work of the Unia…

[9] Concerning the Unia in the theological dialogue with Rome see Th. Zisis, Οὐνία, Ἡ καταδίκη καὶ ἡ ἀθώωση [Unia, Condemnation or Acquittal ], publ. Vryennios, Thessaloniki 2002, G. Kapsanis, «Οὐνία, Ἡ μέθοδος τοῦ παποκεντρικοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ» [“Unia, The Method of Papal-centric Ecumenism”], Παρακαταθήκη [Heritage], 60(2008), 3-10.  For an historical approach to the Unia,  see G. Metallinos, D. Gonis, I. Fratseas, Eu. Morarou, Bishop Athanasios (Yevtits), Ἡ Οὐνία, χθὲς καὶ σήμερα [The Unia, yesterday and today] publ. Armos, Athens 1992. For a more extensive bibliography regarding the Unia,  cf.  K. Kotsiopoulos, Ἡ Οὐνία στὴν Ἑλληνικὴ θεολογικὴ βιβλιογραφία [The Unia in Greek theological literature], publ. Vryennios, Thessaloniki 1993.

[10] It is characteristic that Rome issued its decree “Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite” as “a kind of ‘insurance’ that the restoration of communion with Rome will not be carried out with any renunciation of elements of the non-Latin ecclesiastical traditions”.

[11]   Th. Zisis, «Ἡ οὐνία ὡς πρότυπο ψευδοῦς ἑνότητος. Τὰ ὅρια τῆς ποικιλομορφίας ἐν σχέσει πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα» [“The Unia as a model of false unity. The limits of diversity in relation to unity”], - «Πρωτεῖον» Συνοδικότης καὶ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Πρακτικὰ Θεολογικῆς Ἡμερίδος [“Primacy” of Synodality and Unity of the Church, Acts of a Theological Conference], publ. The Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Piraeus 2011, p. 107-114.

[12] From the letter of Pope Agatho read at the Third Synod of Constantinople, available here, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm>

[13] Tr. Translation taken from the English edition of the Rudder available online: <http://www.holytrinitymission.org /books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm>

[14] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Letter Communionis notio,  § 17. 3  (28.5.1992),  available online at www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html.

[15] “Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism” from the Second Vatican Council §3 found online here <http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html>. I. Maragou,  Οἰκουμενικὰ Α΄[Ecumenical Topics, vol. 1], Athens 1986,  p.33,   as well as the 29/6/2007 response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei) of the Roman Curia, found online at <www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_200 70629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html>.