Archbishop Elias on Double Communion (Part III)

Note: In the current translation, the following section of the chapter is encumbered by more than a few grammatical errors.  I have done my best to edit it so as to make the English readable while keeping my emendations minimal to reduce risk of distorting the sense of the original.

Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, trans. Philip Khairallah (Newton, MA: Educational Services, 1996), pp. 95-99.

My Project of Double Communion

Seeing that:

a) during the first millennium of the life of the Church, separations occurred in spite of ecclesial communion, and [occurred] within the one and undivided Church; and

b) during the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy in the second millennium, numerous acts of intercommunion still existed; and

c) the Roman Catholics themselves deplore the creation of the Uniate Eastern Catholic Churches at a time when dialogue was not possible, taking as an example the talk that Pope Paul VI gave at the Phanar, where he recommended to the pastors of the Churches “to know one another and to respect one another, as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ that has been confided to them, and to avoid all that may introduce confusion and thus disperse them”; (another example would be the words that Cardinal Jean Willebrands delivered when he deplored as a sad event the creation of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate); and

d) the dialogue for unity between the Roman and Orthodox Churches (Chalcedonian or not), although going on now, will not reach conclusions for a long time; and

e) the Uniate Eastern Churches, created by bypassed methods of apostolate, must not wait until the full return of communion between Rome and Orthodoxy (God knows when) and continue on their path instead of correcting as soon as possible that which is recognized to be wrong and causing dissension; and

f) the practice of life in common can sometimes ease the difficulties of principles that [or "difficulties that in principle"?] appear insurmountable, and that the local experience in a particular Church can crystallize these situations and smooth over certain difficulties in ways other than by intellectual dialogue or experienced derived from a world-wide effort;

I had proposed in 1975 to the Greek Catholic Melkite Synod a project of double communion that would allow the Melkite Greek Catholics of the Patriarchate of Antioch to prepare themselves to rejoin the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch from whom they were separated without sufficient reason; but also without rupturing their communion with the Bishop of Rome, a communion which was inspired by the situation that existed during the first millennium, and without waiting until the doctrines defined by Vatican I on primacy and infallibility of the pope are revised and reformulated by the Roman Church and Orthodoxy together.  Such an experience in a specific local Church, such as that of Antioch, would allow the Roman and Orthodox Churches to furnish proof that this coexistence may help them in their search for unity.  In any case, the almost-universal condemnation of Uniatism gives us the right, and forces us to answer the question now, instead of postponing it to the future.

Negative Reactions from Rome

My project of double communion presented to the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod held in Ain-Traz in August 1975, was communicated by this Synod to the [Congregation for the Oriental Churches] on the 7th of September that same year.  The Papal Secretary of State decided to establish a special commission made up of members from the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Oriental Churches, as well as members from the Secretariat for Christian Unity.  The Commission presented its answers to my project in four points as follows:

“1) The ecclesial understanding of both the Orthodox as well as the Catholic Churches, although divergent as to their point of origin and the nature and extent of the privileges of the Roman See, nevertheless exclude totally the possibility, either temporary or provisional, of a double communion or a double allegiance.  This is an important point of faith that touches the very nature of the Church herself, and there is no justifiable reason to state that one is willing to abandon it.

“It is true that the conciliar documents of Vatican II recognize a true, but partial, communion between separated Christians, especially between the Orthodox and Catholics, a communion which has been qualified as almost perfect by the Holy Father.  This doctrinal position has allowed certain statements to be made, under well-defined circumstances and for specific instances, that a certain communicatio in sacris is permissible, notably in the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick.

“On the other hand, it is not valid to conclude that the conciliar texts and those written after the Council give the authority for the extension of this individual and limited faculty to a collective and generalized plan, that is to say, that it can be applied indiscriminately and under all circumstances to members of one Church or community who have continued to be separated from full Catholic communion due to doctrinal or major ecclesial differences.

“2) Full intercommunion is a long-term program, especially as each side of this dialogue must carry it out in constant agreement with their higher authorities, the Holy See of Rome for the Catholic side and the totality of the sister Churches on the Orthodox side (Conference of Rhodes in 1964).  This enterprise thus has a global character, and cannot be realized in isolation.  It is not aimed at allowing the partners of the dialogue to separate themselves or to differentiate themselves, and especially to relax the bonds that unite them to the communion to which they belong.  Local unity cannot be realized except as part of a scheme for world-wide unity.

“3) The fact that this work is a long-term program should not be an excuse, as of now, to do away with the initial necessary steps.  It is thus even more important to start the dialogue immediately.  In such a case, it would be important to consider a practical program on a pastoral level.  The formation of priests and laity, catechesis, the renewal of monastic life, and the renewal of liturgical life are such examples.  One must progressively reconstitute, wherever this is possible, the groundwork of fraternal existence and collaboration before one plans more ambitious projects.  Such a pastoral program depends upon an authentic ecumenism at the local level.

“4) Without misunderstanding the particular historical links that exist between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the former must not forget the point of view of the other Churches existing in the same territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch which are already in full Catholic communion.  Ecumenical activity is the work of the whole group which Vatican II has confided to the vigilance of their pastors.  This presupposes an exchange of information between the highest authorities and a consideration of fraternal harmony.

“Also, and in a very timely fashion, the Melkite bishops in their Synod in August recommended moderation and patience because the people in both communities are far from having the appropriate psychological and spiritual dispositions necessary for reunification.  This remark is true of the Catholic faithful in the other local Churches.

“Dated, Rome, the 9th of April, 1976.”

[To be continued. Archbishop Elias' response to each of these points will follow in subsequent excerpts.]