ECUMENICALLY CHALLENGED : An Orthodox view of Dominus Iesus

Commonweal, Dec 15, 2000 by John Garvey

The Vatican's Dominus Iesus, released on September 5, has caused a lot of comment, and it should. The usual complaints about media coverage of religion are justified: the document was often misrepresented in the press, and it doesn't retreat in any significant way from Vatican II. Nevertheless, it is a significant document, with a more negative than positive effect where ecumenical relations are concerned.

In writing about Dominus Iesus from an Orthodox point of view, let me begin by tackling a misunderstanding most Western Christians, Catholic and Protestant, have about Orthodoxy. Many standard Western histories speak of the Orthodox leaving the Roman Catholic church in 1054, following an argument over jurisdiction, a kind of prelude (from the Protestant point of view) to the Reformation when other churches left Rome. The drama, from the Western point of view, is Rome versus (or in support of) the truth.

This is, to quote Cool Hand Luke, a "failure to communicate." Dominus Iesus and its companion theological "note" on the expression "sister churches" continue the problem. Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore was quoted in a summary in Origins (September 14), saying that the document would be "comforting" to the Orthodox "because it notes the particular status of churches that have maintained bonds with the Catholic church through apostolic succession and their celebration of the Eucharist."

This fails to take into account the fact that the validity of Rome's own sacramental life is far from universally accepted by the Orthodox, nor is Rome's notion of what apostolic succession means. Apostolic succession has nothing to do (even in the opinion of those Orthodox who realize that Rome is connected with the apostolic church) with a connection to Roman Catholicism, which is seen by the Orthodox as having drifted from an apostolic understanding of the church. No comfort here.

The problem with Dominus Iesus is its tone, and its timing. The tone is one of absolute assurance--the Catholic church has nothing to learn, and everything to teach. The timing is so near the September 3 beatification of Pius IX that it is impossible to miss the sense that the Vatican is trying to assert something about dogma and papal power that does move away from a spirit to be found in Vatican II, in the words and deeds of Paul VI, and in fact in some of the words and deeds of John Paul II. No pope ever did more to cement a wedge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy than Pius IX, not to speak of the distance he put between Rome and every other Christian communion. Although Orthodoxy could not accept Roman claims to jurisdiction over all churches, it could accept the bishop of Rome as first among equal patriarchs, if he were willing to abandon the notion of universal jurisdiction. When Pius IX introduced the definition of the pope as infallible in matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra--when, that is, Vatican I made the pope a bishop uniquely unlike all other bishops--there was, arguably, a move toward heresy on Rome's part.

This is not the place to repeat all of Lord Acton's anti-infallibility arguments, or the tale of the heretical pope Honorius. The point is that Catholic and Orthodox relations, never easy, were helped when popes showed a willingness to listen to, as well as exhort, churches they were not afraid to call "sister churches."

This brings up the curious note on the use of that phrase. The note asserts once more what can also be found in the documents of Vatican II: the only churches, properly so-called, are the Orthodox churches; Protestants, though certainly Christian, have lost some of what it takes to be a church. The Anglicans have been referred to (as have the Orthodox) as sister churches, but the note fears that this is misleading, since--even when the words "sister church" are used properly--it must be remembered "that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic universal church is not sister but mother of all the particular churches."

I think the church the note means is the Roman Catholic one. But to whom can this be addressed? Partners in dialogue? Protestants can hardly be expected to say, "I guess we'd forgotten that." The Orthodox will be unlikely to say, "Thanks for the reminder, Mom."

The fact is that there are good things about Dominus Iesus, despite the tone. It worries, appropriately, about a kind of relativism that can lead to Christianity's being understood as one way to truth among many equally valid paths. While it is important for us to revere what is holy in other religions, to see that the enlightenment to be found in Buddhism is not a lie but radiant and good, to have a filial respect for the Judaism without which we would not exist as Christians, it is essential for us to hold to the fact that Jesus is Lord, that salvation comes through him, that "he who has seen me has seen the Father." Commenting on Dominus Iesus in these pages Philip Kennedy ("Rome & Relativism," October 20) wrote, "Jesus Christ is not the full revelation of God in history, but a partial manifestation of what God may be like. Since Jesus is not the unveiling of the fullness of God in the world, other religions may have their say about God's salvific nature." This is the sort of thing Rome worries about, and here Rome isn't crazy. While the fullness of Jesus' nature may never be fathomed by our thought or dogmatic definition, it is that nature which saves us, and nothing else. To assert anything else is to move away from Christianity.