UNIATISM AND MODELS OF UNITY IN THE

ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Anton Houtepen

Historiography, according to Yaroslav Pelikan has to overcome history by

history. David Outler, one of the architects of the Faith and Order mov-
ement, in preparing the IVth World Conference of Faith and Order in
1963 took this same saying to be the hermeneutical key of all ecumenical
dialogue. Both mission and ecumenism need this key, in order to over-
come the wounds of Christian triumphalism and separatism and of the
ecclesiastical compromise with secular power throughout the centuries.
Every new generation must re-evaluate what was inherited, in order to
continue the tradition as a living tradition. Of course it is not always easy
nor perhaps even possible to reconstruct an objective and unbiased con-
figuration of complex historical events, like separations and excom-
munications of the past or rejectable methods of reconciliation and mis-
sion, which would no longer be ours today. One of those complex his-
torical phenomena is the so-called uniatism: a rather pejorative collective
term for very diverse initiatives to restore the unity of the Eastern Chur-
ches with the Church of Rome and its bishop - the patriarch of Western,
Latin Christianity - in the course of history. Most of these initiatives took
place under tragic circumstances of political threat and violence and all of
them failed in as far as they caused new conflicts and divisions within the
communion of the Orthodox Churches. No wonder, therefore, that
uniatism and proselytism are often lumped together, especially after the
turnabouts in Eastern Europe in 1989. The Orthodox Church, thus far,
cannot but condemn the presence and activities of Roman Catholics,
evangelicals and Eastern Rite Catholics or Uniates - like the Greek
Orthodox Church of Ukraine - as illegitimate forms of mission, competing
with the pastoral and catechetical responsibility of well established and
autonomous Christian churches like the Russian, the Rumanian and the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Similar feelings must be recognized with the
Serbian Orthodox Church, the Church of Greece, the Orthodox Churches
in the Middle-East, in Ethiopia and in India.' We may find comparable
reactions with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Latin-America or in
Africa, protesting against the missionary activities of North American

1 A detailed history of all these 'reunions' with Rome of the Eastern Catholic Churches
- amountingto an estimated9 million members- is: R.G. Roberson, The Eastern
Catholic Churches, 3rd ed., Orientale, Rome 1990.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 203

Pentecostal and Evangelical Groups. Somehow churches seem to have

interiorized the political principle cuius regio, illius et religio, which
warranted a certain religious tolerance in sixteenth and seventeenth century
Europe, as their proper ground for claiming territorial monopolies. Other
Christian groups, however, claim to be sent by God in the name of the
Great Commandment of Mission (Mt.28,19-20) to so called 'mission-
fields' left lying fallow by the established churches. As early as the time
of the first missionary conferences in Edinburgh 1910, this theme of com-
peting missions has been on the agenda of the ecumenical movement.

In the 19th century some of the European Mission Societies already came to
agreements of 'comity', sharing financial resources or colonial privileges.
Edinburgh spoke of the problem of "overlapping missions" and of necessary
cooperation in view of the "unoccupied fields".2 In 1920 already, at a
preparatory conference on Faith and Order in Geneva, the elimination of
proselytism and cooperation in missions, was listed as the first point on the
future agenda. In the famous encyclical of patriarch Germanos in 1920 the
solution of the problem of proselytism was one of the main aims of his appeal
to ecumenical cooperation. In 1925, at the Stockholm Conference on Life and
Work, vehement protests were uttered by N. Glubochovski against Roman
Catholic 'pharisaic proselytism', comparing it with the activities of a land-
lord, picking the land and stealing the sheep during the illness of his neigh-
bour.' In 1956 a special committee on behalf of the Central Committee'
meeting in Evanston 1954, published the report Christian Witness, Proselyt-
ism and Religious Liberty,4 revised and received by the New Delhi Assembly
in 1961.? It remarked: "Behind the tension lies the whole ecclesiological
problem, which is a major concern in our continuous ecumenical association.
The territorial principle is an aspect of that problem. Unsolved problems of
faith and order also contribute to the tension".6 After Vatican II the problem
was taken up again by the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic
Church and the World Council of Churches, which published the report
Common Witness and Proselytism in 1970 and the report Common Witness in
1980. These reports were affirmed in the remarkable statement of the Vth
World Conference on Faith and Order, Santiago de Compostella 1993: "The
use of coercive or manipulative methods in evangelism distorts koinonia. The
evangelization or proselytising of one another's active members violates the
real though imperfect koinonia Christians already share. Such activities

2 World Missionary Conference, 1910, Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier/Fleming, Edin-

burgh/New York (1910), Vol.I, 368; II, 312 ff. For a further history of the problem,
see J.A. Hebly, Het Proselitisme. Verkenningvan een oecumenisch vraagstuk, 's-
Gravenhage Boekencentrum,
: 1962.
3 K. Bell (ed.), The StockholmConference1925, Oxford 1926, 654.
4 The EcumenicalReview9 (1956) 48-56.
5 W.A. Visser 't Hooft (ed.), The New Delhi Report, New York: AssociationPress,
151. Text in: Evanstonto New Delhi, Geneva:WCC, 1961, 239-244.
6 Ib., 239.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
204

undermine the credibility of the Church's witness to the reconciling love and
transforming power of God. "' At the same time Santiago expressed some
benevolence with regard most groups and persons engaged in those missions
for their "genuine concern for salvation". It asked for self-assessment of the
complaining churches "by considering the criticisms of those who have left
their ranks" and to avoid public allegations of proselytism without hearing the
other party's intentions and without taking proper initiatives of evangelization
and pastoral care themselves (§§ 15-17). Santiago saw the interrelation of
these problems with the issues of religious liberty (ib., § 18) and inculturation
(§ 19) as well. 'Global mission' easily tends to by-pass the missionary tasks
and possibilities of the local cultures just as 'universal unity' is in danger to
overrule the diversity of particular churches. In our actual world of global
communication conciliar collaboration of local churches is the only way to
warrant both the integrity of local cultures and the call to catholicity implied
in the concept of the missio Dei. Any 'soteriological ethnicism' (Hebly),
claiming the holiness of a nation or its identification with one particular
Christian tradition, must be avoided. This insight does not detract from the
individual's right of free choice in church-affiliation, nor from the rights of
migrant people to remain faithful to their proper religious rites and to foster
adherence to their 'mother-churches'. A certain pluralism of church-traditions
in any given country, therefore, corresponds better to both the principle of
religious liberty, cultural diversity and ethnic solidarity than any theocratic
scheme asking for the unity or symphony of Church and State. The allega-
tions of proselytism in the case of historical uniatism from the part of the
Russian Orthodox Church seem to be at least partly based on the refusal to
accept ecclesial pluralism considered to be a threat to the concept of "Holy
Russia" and to undermine the symphony of Church and State in Orthodox
tradition.

Not all historical initiatives of reunion, however, can be subsumed under

the verdict of proselytism. This may be illustrated by the very fact, that
uniatism - in the sense of partial and regional forms of reconciliation
between churches - is by no means the ambiguous privilege of Roman
Catholic-Orthodox relations alone. Other traditions, like Anglicanism,
Lutheranism or Calvinism have known of similar phenomena of partial
unions and varying affiliations, of double belonging and partial iden-
tification. Uniatism is one instance or Gestalt of the permanent interac-

7 Section IV, § 14, Fifth World Conferenceon Faith and Order Santiago de Compos-
tela 1993 (F&O Paper No. 164)Geneva: WCC, 1993, 34.
8. So e.g. the recent agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and groups of
priests and even a bishop, having left the Anglican Communionin protest against the
introduction of women's ordination, which grants them certain anglican rites and
disciplinary customs like married priesthood. Such agreements could rightly be
labelled a form of uniatism. An historical example of forced union within the
Lutheran and Reformed tradition was the so called Old Prussion Union 1830,
imposed by Friedrich Wilhelm III, which caused the schism of the Old Lutherans.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 205

tion and of the vague boundaries of cultural and religious traditions within
Christianity from the very beginning, but certainly in an age of intense
migration, mobility and communication. Uniatism in its historical forms
seems unnecessary, where we take concrete steps to make our growing
communion visible and livable in the daily life and faith of people. The
other side of the coin, however, is, apart from the fact that the Eastern
Rite Catholics have been faithful witnesses of a common faith and mutual
Christian love - up to the martyrdom of many of them -, that uniatism
represents, within the ranks of the churches in communion with Rome, a
concrete model of legitimate diversity: a precious stone for catholic
ecumenists, trying to soften the harsh structures of the Latin juridical
uniformity-complex.
It would be an historiographical mistake, therefore, to interpret the
adage to overcome history by history as demanding definitive judgements
over past history in the light of later insights. Its scope is rather to look
afresh at the hidden potential of past events for the future. In that sense I
want to look in this lecture at the potential of one of the instance of
historical uniatism, the Union of Brest of 1596, its failures and good
intentions, against the background of the wider quest for unity in the
framework of the ecumenical movement.

I will begin with a certain de-construction of the concept of uniatism (a). I

will then refer to the gradual development of more comprehensive models
of unity within the ecumenical movement (b). Finally I want to come back
to the 32 articles underlying the Union of Brest, formulated by the synod
of the Ruthenian bishops in 1595 and will try to listen to what the Spirit
says to us, post-Vatican II ecumenical Roman Catholics and post-peres-
trojka ecumenical Orthodox of today, through the witness of the cou-
rageous bishops of this time (c).

a. Uniatism: a very bad general term for manifold forms of Christian

solidarity

It is clear that the ecumenical movement as a whole, including the Roman

Catholic Church in its ecumenical documents since Vatican II, has aban-
doned with uniatism as a feasible model of unity. In the Balamand report

Unions of presbyterian churches in the Netherlands(1892) and in Scotland (1900),

though based on a majority vote within the ecclesiastical bodies of the uniting
churches, caused serious new divisions and societal problems while protesting
minorities claimed their inherited property-rights of the original churches' capital.
After 1925 many more peaceful and ecumenicalchurch-unionssucceeded, but their
relation to the Christian World Communionsstill causes problems. See: R. Groscurth
(ed.), Kirchenunionenund Kirchengemeinschaft,Frankfurt: Lembeck, 1971.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
206

of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Mixed International Commission of

19939 it was explicitly stated, that Uniatism ".. can no longer be ac-
cepted, either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our
churches are seeking" (§ 12). Moreover, it is recognised that behind
several forms of historical uniatism, false concepts of salvation were
hiding: as if salvation could be monopolized by one church as its exclusive
property (§ 10, 13) or as if unity could be established by the conversion or
return of people from one church to the other in order to ensure their
salvation (§ 15).'° The Toronto Statement" of the World Council of
Churches 1950, readily accepted by Vatican II, made an end to all ec-
clesiastical exclusivism without disclaiming the right of any church to
consider its own faith as the fullness of truth. In this light Vatican II stated
in its decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redin.tegratio (§ 3) and in Lumen
Gentium (§ 8) that there are elements of salvation and sanctification, con-
sidered to be instruments of the Holy Spirit, outside the boundaries of the
Roman Catholic Church. Some churches, among them the Orthodox
Churches of the East must be considered to be 'Sister Churches' (UR §
14). Along with their participation in the ecumenical movement, the
churches promised to avoid all forms of proselytism among one another's
members. Instead, they invited one another to embark on programs of
Common Witness.

Though the documents of Vatican II'2 and of Balamand want to pay due
respect to the existing uniate churches and call for the continuation of their
pastoral responsibilities for their members, they compel us at the same
time to more comprehensive ecumenical solutions.

9 Uniatism, Method of union of the Past, and the present search for full communion,
Report of the Joint International Commissionfor the Theological Dialogue between
the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Balamand,Lebanon, June 17-
24 1993, in: InformationService, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
Vatican City, N. 83, 1993, 96-99.
10 For the origin and the historical applications of the famous adage extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, see: F. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of
the Catholic Response,New York/Mahwah:Paulist Press, 1992.
11 The Toronto StatementThe Church, the Churchesand the World Councilof Churches
(text in: Minutes Central CommitteeToronto 1950, Geneva: WCC 1950, p. 84-90)
was jointly prepared with the Istina-Centrein Paris by WCC representatives,Roman
Catholic and Orthodox theologians. It has been the basis of a more trustful and
committedparticipationof the Orthodox Churchesand of the Roman Catholic Church
in the one ecumenicalmovement(cf. the encyclicalof Pius XII, Ecclesia Catholica
1950 which allowed Roman Catholicparticipationin ecumenicaldialogue).
12 Vatican II issued a special decree on the Eastern Rite Churches: Orientalium Ec-
clesiarum, recognizing them as particular churches within the Roman Catholic
communion of Churches with their proper rites and rights (OE § 2-6) and auton-
omous patriarchates(§ 7-11).

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 207

One of those, already tentatively expressed in the Toronto-statement'3

of the WCC 1950, was adopted by Vatican II: the recognition that divine
salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be confined within the
limits of the jurisdiction of one Church, or rather, that the ecclesial and
salvific character of separated churches cannot be denied, as long as they
intend to remain faithful to Jesus Christ and the apostolic tradition. The
famous texts of LG 8 and UR 3 were eloquent enough, though to some
extent still misunderstandable. Vatican II, in the decree on the Missionary
Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes)'4, forbade all forms of proselytism.
Successive popes began to speak about the growing communion between
sister churches. 15
In retrospective we might say, that historical uniatism was the unhappy
result of unions that failed and missions which went too far in a long
history of tensions within Christianity, precisely about its models of unity.
The concept itself presupposes the existence of separated churches or at
least conflicting affiliations of sister churches quarrelling about their
affiliation to the first, the second or even the third Rome, or rather of
competing jurisdictions trying to enhance their field of influence. The idea
is completely alien to the New Testament and to the Early Church, which
did not speak of henotès but of koinonia. The gradual shift of emphasis
from the koinonia of the local churches in view of their common mission

13 Especially IV,3, p. 87: "All the Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome,
hold that there is no complete identity between the membership of the Church
Universal and the membershipof their own Church. They recognize that there are
Church members "extra muros", that these belong "aliquo modo" to the Church, or
even that there is an 'ecclesia extra ecclesiam'. This recognition finds expression in
the fact that, with very few exceptions, the Christian Churches accept the baptism
administeredby other Churches as valid". And IV, 5: "It is generally taught in the
different Churches that other Churches have certain elements of the true Church, in
some traditions called "vestigia ecclesiae". Such elements are the preaching of the
Word of God, the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the administration of the
sacraments. These elements are more than pale shadows of the life of the true
Church. They are a fact of real promise and provide an opportunity to strive by frank
and brotherly intercourse for the realizationof a fuller unity. Moreover, Christiansof
all ecclesiological views throughout the world, by the preaching of the Gospel,
brought men and women to salvation by Christ, to newnessof life in Him, and into
Christian fellowshipwith one another".
14 AG § 6 confines the missionaryactivity of the Church to those peoples and groups, in
which she is not yet rooted and describes the missionaryprocess as a process of par-
ticular churches (cf. §§ 19-20, aiming at the constitution of other autonomousand
particular churches). In § 13 any use of force or violenceor of seductive methods of
mission is strongly forbidden, albeit in one sentence with the condemnationof all
hindrances to faith enforced through punitive sanctions or civil disadvantages. § 29
refers to the necessity of ecumenical cooperation in mission and § 41 to joint
ecumenicalmissionstudies.
15 Cf. John Paul II, Ut unumsint and Orientale Lumen 1993, passim.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
208

towards the oikoumenè under the one head of Christ and the guidance of
the same Holy Spirit of God (Mt. 24,14) towards the call for unity through
common canonical regulations, regular conciliar gatherings, a uniform
confession of faith, a common canon of scriptures and finally universal
structures of episkopè took several centuries and was only completed after
the conversion of Constantine. The original marks of the Church being
apostolicity and sanctity of life, got the company of those other claims of
unity and catholicity, strongly enhanced and coloured by the unity of the
Roman empire.
From the perspective of objective historical truth, it cannot be denied
that the patriarchal see of Rome and Christian princes from the Latin part
of the world as its allies, have been most active in this regard and were
responsible for much violence and suffering. But Byzantine centralism has
caused similar problems at the periphery of its influence as well. Roughly
about 10% of the Christian family carrying forth the heritage of the
Eastern part of the Roman empire has left or never sought communion
with the patriarchal see of Constantinople.'6 Their various conditions and
circumstances were, however, so different, that the general concept of
uniatism becomes very weak or does not even apply. Some older Byzan-
tine or Syrian communities sought communion with Rome because of
immigration in areas under Roman jurisdiction, like e.g. the Italo-Greeks
in Sicily; others at the periphery of the empire already in an early stage,
like the non-Chalcedonians, the Syro Malabares or the Bulgarians, for
different reasons not wanting or no longer wanting to be bound to Con-
stantinople ; still others only after the Great Schism between East and West
in the aftermath of the Crusades, the abortive Unions of Lyon, Florence
and Brest and the latinizing missions among the Orthodox Churches from
the seventeenth century onwards which were organized under the flag of
the Roman Congregatio De Propaganda Fide (1622).
Crusades into the muslim world and other armed expeditions like the
Latin-Ungarian attack on Galicia in 1214-1218; abortive unions like those
after the council of Lyon 1274 and Florence 1439", proselytist missions
among sisters and brothers in Christ": a painful history indeed, especial-

16 For the following, see: A. Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1992; J-C. Roberti, Les uniates, Paris: Cerf/Fides, 1992; Ignace Dick,
Sens et vicissitudes de l'"uniatisme": l'écartèlement de la double fidélité, Istina 35
(1990), p...; K.M. George, Local and Universal: Uniatism as an Ecclesiological
Issue, in: G. Limouris, Orthodox Visionsof Ecumenism,Geneva: WCC, 1994, 228-
232.
17 A. de Halleux, Le concile de Florence: union ou uniatisme?,Proche Orient Chrétien
41 (1991) 201-219.
18 W. de Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, Karl Alber, Freiburg/München
1963, 318 ff, speaks of a 'spiritual latinisation' of the East and describes manifold
instances of mission methods which went too far, like the strategy of taking over of

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 209

ly because, with the exception of the case of the Syro-Malabares and the
Maronites, the local unity of the Orthodox Churches usually split up in
those who accepted and those who opposed a Union with Rome, a tragedy
which led to measures of force by local civil authorities or which was
manipulated by political powers for their ideological or financial interest.
All or most of these tragedies began with deep religious fervour, much
sacrifice and labour up to martyrdom even, on the basis of a general
underlying conviction: outside the only legitimate Church of Christ no
salvation or, which was perhaps even worse, on the basis of the principle
cuius regio, illius et religio, to which both proponents and opponents of
Union schemes appealed. The anti-heretic dictum of St.Cyprian, in later
times generally applied to pagans and muslims, was at the end directed
against all those who refused communion with the apostolic see held
responsible for guarding faithfully the rule of faith. It became interpreted
in such way, that we forgot about all evangelical nuances, referring to the
possibly greater faith outside the boundaries of Israel, about the gifts of
God, even to Samaria, about the koinonia of Jews and Gentiles and about
the apostolic warnings against separation based on personal preferences for
Paul, Apollos or Kefas (1 Cor. 3,4-6.22-23).
The most important underlying problem, certainly, was of an ec-
clesiological nature." As Jean-Claude Roberti remarks in his fairly
objective history of the various aspects of Uniatism, the see of Rome has
continued after the Council of Florence and up to at least the end of the
XIXth century including Vatican I to treat the Churches of the East as
belonging, officially, to its jurisdiction: Latin patriarchs of Constantinople,
residing in Rome and a Cardinal's Congregation for the Eastern Churches
were the symbols of these claims. Similar trends of hellenisation from the
part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople20 are no excuse for such policy
of domination of one apostolic see over the other.
For most of us today, grown up after a few generations of religious
tolerance and accustomed to a legitimate pluralism, even within our own
confessions, it is easy enough to reject uniatism as a possible model of
unity and ecumenism, as the Second Vatican started to do and the
Balamand Statement 1993 formally repeated in a very clear way.
Meanwhile, by rejecting the solutions of the past, we should not
obliviate the concrete communities, that have been born from all the
uniatist endeavours, nor detract from the services the leading patriarchal

pastoral responsibilitiesin poor Orthodox communities in the Middle East, which

could not afford the payment of their own priests by latin missionaries,sent and paid
by the Congregatiode PropagandaFide.
19 Cf. the article of K.M. George, quoted above and E. Lanne, Églises unies ou Églises
soeurs: un choix inéluctable,Irénikon 48 (1975) 322-342.
20 Chr. Hannick, Annexions et reconquêtes byzantines: Peut-on parler d'"uniatisme"
byzantin?, Irénikon 66 (1993) 451-474.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
210

sees, both in East and West, have given to their respective communions,
both before and after the Great Schisms. The violence of forced latinisat-
ion, hellenisation, germanisation, russification or westernisation has been
the black side of fostering the unity and catholicity of all members of the
Body of Christ. It is right to deplore the wounds of that violence, but it
would make things even worse, if we in view of the failures of the past,
would give in to a seductive and non-committed pluralism of independent
churches or to the dogma of a wide-spread post-modernist scepticism
about ecumenism as such. The respect for the proper heritage and spiritual
climate of the Churches of East and West - e.g. expressed in the famous
metaphor of Christianity's two lungs - would turn out to be propaganda
for a Christian apartheid which misses all historical plausibility and any
viability in a world of ever increasing osmosis and communication. The
sharing of spiritual resources, the exchange of religious experience, the
common witness and giving account of our hope are a pre-condition for the
transmission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to future generations in both
East and West. That is both the rationale and the final goal of the Ecum-
enical Movement.

b. More comprehensive models of unity

Within the organised ecumenical movement various models of unity have

been proposed, on the basis of a pragmatic, though by no means neutral
or static ecclesiological pluralism, articulated in the Toronto-statement.
They were labelled organic unity (1960- 1961), conciliar fellowship (1973-
1975), reconciled diversity (1974-1978), legitimate diversity (1991) and
growing koinonia (1993).21 Behind these models hide various ec-
clesiologies. But in all of them uniatism is excluded as a viable model of
ecumenism.

The most far reaching model of unity is the model of organic unity,
developed in Anglican ecumenical circles in the 19th century and worked
out in greater detail as unity of witness, worship and service of all in any
place within the early Faith and Order Movement after the Edinburgh
Missionary Conference of 1910. Final goal of the ecumenical movement is
the genuine solidarity of all church members in one church, i.e. in a
visible framework of human relations which is able to manifest locally the
unity of proclamation, sacraments, diaconal activity and ministerial leader-
ship and which also constitutes the regional or even world-wide-web of
God's blessed presence of the holy - the Una Sancta - through mutual
communion of members and leaders.

21 Cf. G. Gaßmannand H. Meyer, Modelleder Einheit, LWB Bericht, Stuttgart 1986.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 211

The World Council's Assemblies of New Delhi and Uppsala, at the

instigation of Faith and Order, described this model in greater detail."
Concrete examples of organic unity were realized in the United Churches
e.g. of Canada (1925), China (1927), France (1938), South India (1947),
USA (1957), North India (1970) and various protestant churches in Africa
(Congo, Togo, Zambia, Madagascar 1968). These 'united churches' differ
from all 'uniate churches', in as far as they are really mergers of chur-
ches, while uniate churches just stay where they are, but shift or expand
their affiliation to another apostolic see, c.q. the see of Rome.

A second, more modest model of unity is labelled reconciled diversity.

From the mid-seventies arguments have been put forward from the part of
the Christian World Communions in favour of a model of unity in which
the various historical denominations might continue to exist, precisely as
world-wide communities of a particular "rite", as "typoi" of the church,
as spiritual modalities within the one world-wide framework of the church.
The reference to the possibility of different "rites" within one Christian
communion on the Catholic side was certainly a wink of the eyes to the
position of the uniate Churches within the Roman Catholic Church. The
greater Christian World Communions, in a "communion of communions",
were expected, in considerable mutual independence, to start working
together locally in common projects, without, however, being integrated in
the organic framework of one single church. One of the oldest examples
of such a reconciliation of different "rites" was the Bonn Agreement23
between the churches of the Anglican Communion and those of the Old
Catholic Union of Utrecht. The best example, realised thus far, is the
Leuenberg-agreement between 65 reformed, lutheran and united churches
in Europe in 1973.24 Similar agreements were made between Lutheran
Churches in Germany and the Anglican Churches of England and Ireland

22 W. Visser 't Hooft (ed.), The NewDelhi Report, New York: WCC, 1961, 116:
"We believe that the unity which is both God's will and his gift to his Church is
being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess
him as Lord and Saviour are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed
fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the
one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in
witness and service to all and who at the same time are united with the whole
Christian fellowshipin all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members
are accepted by all, and that all can speak and act together as occasion requires for
the tasks to which God calls his people."
Uppsala added to the clause "all in each place" the more universal idea of "the unity
of all Christians in all places" (SectionI, 18: N. Goodall (ed.), The UppsalaReport,
Geneva: WCC, 1968, 17).
23 Text in: H. Meyer and L. Vischer, Growth in Agreement,New York/Geneva:Paulist
Press/WCC, 1984, 36-38.
24 Text in: TheEcumemicalReview25 (1973) 355-359.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
212

in Meil3en 199225 and between the Anglican Churches of England and the
Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in Porvoo 1993.26 The difference with
the "uniate model" here is, that such reconciliations did nowhere imply
any kind of central or common jurisdiction.
The model of reconciled diversity was somewhat refined at the Canber-
ra Assembly into what was called legitimate diversity since then. Pope
John Paul adopted the term in the Directory for the Application of Prin-
ciples and Norms on Ecumenism 1993 and in his encyclical Ut unum sint
1995.2'

At the assembly of Nairobi in 197528 and at the Faith and Order meeting
of Bangalore in 1978 the World Council of Churches responded to these
developments within the Christian World Communions with the model of
"conciliar fellowship ".
What is especially important in this is the idea of a permanent conciliar
consultation to which the churches commit themselves, locally as well as
nationally and regionally. The Christian World Communions may play a
part in this, but the contextual and cultural challenges of the churches may
also be brought up for discussion. Representation on a geographical basis,

25 The MeiβenStatementbetweenthe Church of England and the Evangelical Church of

Germany,London: Church House Publishing, 1992.
26 Together in Mission and Ministry. The Porvoo CommonStatement with Essays on
Church and Ministry in Northern Europe, London: Church House Publishing, 19942,
22-31.
27 The CanberraAssembly, in its section III on Spirit of Unity - Reconcile YourPeople,
spoke of life-giving diversity, when it builds up the body of Christ. That same
Assembly, however, in its statement on The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift
and Calling, warned against 'illegitimate diversity', which happens, when it makes
the commonconfessionof Jesus Christ as God and Saviour the same yesterday, today
and forever (Hebr. 13, 8) impossible;or when it is detrimental to the salvation and
final destiny of humanity as proclaimed in holy scripture and preached by the
apostoliccommunity"(M. Kinnamon(ed.), Signs of the Spirit. Officialreport Seventh
Assembly,Geneva/GrandRapids: WCC/Eerdmans,1991, 173). In a similar mood the
Ecumenical Directory of 1993 warned against doctrinal confusion or doctrinal
indifferentism(§ 6).
28 D. Paton, Breaking Barriers. Nairobi 1975, SPCK/Eerdmans,London/GrandRapids
1976, 60: "The one Church is to be envisioned as a conciliar fellowship of local
churches which are themselves truly united. In this conciliar fellowship, each local
church possesses, in communionwith the others, the fullnessof catholicity, witnesses
to the same apostolic faith, and therefore recognizes the others as belonging to the
same Church of Christ and guided by the same Spirit. As the New Delhi Assembly
pointed out, they are bound together because they have received the same baptism
and share in the same Eucharist; they recognizeeach other's membersand ministries.
They are one in their common commitment to confess the gospel of Christ by
proclamationand service to the world. To this end, each church aims at maintaining
sustainedand sustainingrelationshipswith her sister churches, expressed in conciliar
gatheringswhenever required for the fulfilmentof their commoncalling".

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 213

as it is known in the Orthodox churches by way of the system of auto-

cephalia within the patriarchal jurisdictions, as practised by the World
Council of Churches, being a representative body of national churches and
as it is developing within the Roman Catholic association of churches by
way of the system of national bishops' conferences, are united in this
model. It is based also on a more spiritual basis of solidarity and genuine-
ly christian 'community', especially with a view to liberation from
oppression, poverty and discrimination. Such conciliar model could well
be expanded to the churches in communion with Rome, both Eastern Rite
and Latin Rite Catholic churches. Vatican II has shown forth many good
examples of such conciliar deliberation and often fierce criticism from the
part of the Eastern Rite Catholic bishops." The World Council of Chur-
ches considers itself as the provisional or pre-conciliar instrument of such
a future genuine and universal council of all Christian churches. But the
mutual contacts of the so-called Christian World Communions may as well
be seen as preparations for such conciliar gatherings.

A fourth and even more theological model which in different ways plays a
part in all the four models mentioned above is the model of koinonia or
growing koinonia, developed in bilateral and multilateral dialogues and
adopted as the leading vision of Faith and Order work in Santiago de
Compostella 1993.30
It is, as stated by some people, 'the overarching model'. But it is the
very nature of this koinonia that is under discussion in the three models
mentioned above. So far, in particular, it has not yet been sufficiently
clarified whether koinonia presupposes elements of the mainly episcopal
model of communio and what these would have to be. Particularly the
Western-Latin interpretation of communio, as it was worked out according
to church order in the new codex of Roman Catholic canon law, and in
which the primacy and the central jurisdiction of the see and the bishop of
Rome are held to be essential for the unity of the church, is unlikely to
meet with general consent.
Further agreement on the various aspects of the concept of koinonia
was reached recently, at the 5th World Conference of Faith and Order in
Santiago de Compostela.3'

29 Cf. Voixde l'ÉgLise enOrient, Basel/Paris:Herder/Descléede Brouwer, 1962.

30 Santiago Report, o.c., Section I, 4: "Koinonia is above all, a gracious fellowshipin
Christ, expressingthe richness of the gift received by creation and humankind from
God. It is a many dimensionaldynamic in the faith, life and witness of those who
worship the Triune God, confess the apostolicfaith, share the Gospel and sacramental
living and seek to be faithful to God in Church and world".
31 An interesting aspect is mentioned in Section I,20 ff: the complementarityof all
human beings, to be realized through kenosis - giving up the fear for the loss of
one's own identity in appropriatingthe pain, hurt and suffering of the other - and

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
214

To my opinion those four or five models of unity are not mutually exclus-
ive, but complementary on different levels of ecclesial life. The World
Council of Churches itself could well be the privileged instrument to
monitor all those forms of growing, though still imperfect communion,
which includes different degrees of mutual communion among the member
churches. If the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church
would have been both of them full members of this council, many a
quarrel about Uniatism could have been prevented and healed e.g. accor-
ding to the lines of the Balamand statement.

c. The Articles of Brest as an ecumenical agenda for Orthodox-Roman

Catholic dialogue.

The 32 Articles underlying the Union of Brest-Litovsk 159632, though by

no means being implemented at the time nor in the centuries thereafter by
any of the two parties involved, could still be called a perfect model of a
provisional and incremental koinonia between two sister churches trying to
reconcile after centuries of separation.

The historical facts are complicated enough and still not very clear. From the
time of the Council of Florence (1439) there had been successive metropoli-
tans of Kiev, living in peace and communion with Rome, but from 1480
communion was broken, in spite of the Lithuanian and Polish conquest of
West-Ukraine (Galicia and Volynia) at the end of the 14th century and the
Western influence since then. In 1569 the union of Poland and Lithuania was
rendered definitive by the pact of Lublin. In the last decade of the sixteen
century, part of the Ukrainian bishops, including the Kievan metropolitan
Michael Rahoza, pleaded for the restoration of communion with the see of
Rome, at the same time hoping to keep communion with Constantinople.
Rivalry with Moscow, heavy taxes imposed by Constantinople, a minority
position over against the latin hierarchy in the polish empire and the rapid
spread of the Reformation may have been their main motives. They formula-
ted 32 conditions accepted by the synod of bishops in 1595, presented to
Pope Clement VIII by two Ukrainian bishops, C. Terlecki, bishop of Luck
and A. Pociej, bishop of Volodymir. These were formally accepted by Rome
in the bulla Magnus Dominus and ratified, after the return of the bishops, by

the intersection of diakonia and koinonia on the basis of shared suffering (I,21),
sacrificial steps towards justice, peace and care of creation (I,23) and "spiritual
ecumenism": common growth toward holiness in heart and mind (I,27). Thus the
ethical implicationsof ecumenismare highlightedas "marks of koinonia".
32 Text in: G. Welykyj, Documenta UnionisBerestensiseiusqueAuctorum(1590-1600),
P.P. Basiliani, Rome 1970 (latin-polish). French translation: Les Articles de Brest,
in: Istina 1990, 43-49. The original text numbers 33 paragraphs, the last of them
being a solemn declarationby the signatoriesand not a further condition for reunion.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 215

the synod of Brest-Litovsk in 1596. The Union caused opposition from the
very beginning and failed, when in 1635 after the death of king Sigismond III
his successor Ladislas granted freedom of religion to the Orthodox metropoli-
tan of Kiev in order to restore religious peace after years of violent conflicts
between the two parties. In fact the conditions of the Union of Brest were
never implemented. Several metropolitans of Kiev, both Orthodox and
Eastern Catholic, have tried to restore unity and to aim at communion with
both Constantinople and Rome, but were frustrated by political circum-
stances. Polish Roman Catholic influences fostered a creeping latinisation of
the Ukrainian Catholic Church during the 18th and 19th centuries and
strengthening proselytism from the West (especially from France) before
World War II. In 1946, after the imprisonment of the Ukrainian Catholic
bishops by the Soviet-authorities, a pseudo-council at Lvov denounced the
Union of Brest and proposed the return of all church-members and clergy into
the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was then imposed by civil
authority, without audible complaints of the Russian Orthodox leadership.
Many priests, religious and laity suffered martyrdom under Stalin's terrorism.
After the collapse of the Soviet-Union in 1989, old positions were occupied
again under much stride and mischief. It will be still a long way of reconcili-
ation after such a traumatic past, but ecumenical contacts are beginning to be
restored, especially in the so called Kievan Church Study Group, in which
Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theologians and church
leaders participate. The Conference at Hernen near Nijmegen, The Nether-
lands, held at the commemoration and critical evaluation of the Synod of
Brest ( 27-31 March 1996), contributed a lot to the improvement of the
ecumenical climate between Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite
Catholics.

I will summarize the content of the Articles of Brest in nine points of

attention, looking especially for their actual value for mission and ecumen-
ism.

1. The first article formulates a request with regard to the trinitarian

structure of our faith. It contains no formal protest against the addition of
the Filioque, but stresses a real point of contention: the nature of the
procession of the Spirit "from the Father through the Son" and not "from
the Father and the Son". This was the formula of union, proposed at the
Council of Florence: ex patre, per filium.33

This formula has definite consequences, not only for the concept of God and
intra-divine life (the immanent Trinity), as it was elaborated in the Greek
Patristic doctrine of perichorèsis, but for the relation of Israel and the

33 "...postulamus, ne ad aliam confessionemstringamur, sed eam sequamur, quam in

evangelii et sanctorumPatrum religionis Graecae scriptis traditam habemus, nimirum
Spiritum Sanctum non ex duobus principiis, nec duplici processione, sed ex uno
principio velut ex fonte, ex Patre per Filium procedere".

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
216

Church, for the integrity of the Scriptures of Old and New Testament and for
the salvific value of other religions in so called economic Trinity as well.
Whereas the West has tended to ontologize God with the help of the concept
of the Oneness of God, the East has kept the idea of a dynamic and dynam-
izing God, who relates through his Spirit and through his Son with nature and
history. Whereas the West was always seduced to reduce God to some
principle of force and progress - culminating in the Hegelian idea of the
Absolute, the East spoke of God as a vivid source of being through the life-
giving dynamis and energy of the Spirit of the Holy. Where the West had to
struggle with Marcion and Pelagius, constructing each in their own way, a
"better God", immune above all changes and tragic suffering, the East kept
faithful to a merciful and compassionate God, sharing human misery, pain
and tragedy. In the West all these aspects of divine grace were ascribed to the
person and work of Jesus Christ, in the East soteriology was conceived on a
much more pneumatological basis. The intimate relation of God with all the
anointed ones and the gifts of the lifegiving Spirit, are certainly mediated for
the East as well through Jesus Christ, but they do not depend on Christ as if
there were two sources, two principles in God, which together bring forth the
Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God precedes all creation, guides all peoples in
their search for the truth, dwells as the Spirit of the Holy in the people of
Israel, generates Jesus from the womb of Mary and raises him from the dead.
There is no salvation outside the Holy Spirit of God, who calls all nations to
the adoration "in Spirit and in Truth" (John 4,23-24). There is no revelation
from God unless in the Spirit, who inspired the prophets and the apostles, but
came down in a special mode upon Jesus after his baptism in the river
Jordan, revealing him as the beloved Son of God. Through its christological
concentration, the West has suffered, in its ecclesiology, soteriology and
anthropology from a pneumatological deficit. It has caused all the historical
theological problems of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the theology of
religions, which generated the idea of the exclusive necessity of belonging to
the Church of Rome, as it was spelled out in the Catechismus Romanus in
1575. By their appeal to the Florentine pneumatological formula in the first
article of the Union, the Ruthenes made it very clear, that they did not want
to comply with the recent Tridentine triumphalism of the ecclesia romana.
They showed sufficient theological selfconsciousness to have their proper
confession of faith recognized by Rome. After so many fruitful discussions on
the Filioque34, we now see, how they were right and that the Union of Brest
was far from poor in theological content. The Ruthenian formula safeguards
the unity of God and the unity of God's salvific work much better than the
Western Filioque. The Church of Rome should recognize this as being in
concordance with the New Testament and the writings of the Greek Church
Fathers. At the same time the Ruthenes wanted to concede, with Florence,
that later additions or changes in formulation of the Creeds are not excluded.

34 Cf. L. Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ. EcumenicalReflectionson the Filioque

Controversy, London/Geneva:SPCK/WCC, 1981; J. Moltmann, Trinität und Reich
Gottes, München:Kaiser, 1980, 194-203.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 217

This, again, is an extremely important hermeneutical principle for any

dialogue on the truth. Those Orthodox Churches and theologians, which
reject the Filioque-clause on formal arguments only, as being an illegitimate
alteration of the Nicene Creed, fixed once and for ever in 381 could still
learn a much more constructive openmindedness and ability for cultural
adaptions of confessional language from those courageous bishops who
drafted the 33 Articles of Brest.

2. The local liturgical traditions - including the distribution of bread and

wine at the eucharist (art.3), the eastern baptismal rites (art.4), the special
feasts, processions( art. 24) and the communion to the sick with a public
escort (art. 23) - and the vernacular languages must be respected as part of
the local tradition, which has its proper right, because it was faithful to
the tradition and in consonance with the usage in the Church of Rome.
Here they appeal to the two classical hermeneutical criteria for legitimate
diversity: the consensio antiquitatis and the consensio universalitatis (H.J.
Sieben).

Starting point for any ecumenical ecclesiology, according to the Brest

proposals, therefore should be the faith of the local church, its baptismal
foundation and eucharistic koinonia. Any ecclesiology based on some prefixed
idea of universality results in a babylonian concept of unity or in a hypostatic
vision of the church. Only from the vantage-point of the living eucharistic
communion, a communion of communions comes in the picture as real
catholicity. Catholicity must be realized locally and does not depend on
geographical, global or universal presence. The very small communities of
the New Testament were really catholic, not because they dominated the
Mediterranean culture, but because they realized the full truth of the Gospel.
Over against the dominant latin patterns of Church life in the Polish-
Lithuanian empire and in front of the beginning posttridentine Roman
centralism, these requests of the Ruthenian church-leaders for the indemnity
of local traditions was courageous and impressive. It anticipated many of the
decisions of Vatican II. There is no reason to think, that their plea is super-
fluous today.

3. Some reforms introduced in the West are acceptable as long as they do

not interfere with other age-old feasts or customs or when they can be
further explained, like the doctrine of purgatory (art 5) and the new
calendar (art. 6). Western modernities like the feast of Corpus Christi with
its processions (art 7), or german symbolism at Easter (art. 8) are refused.
Married priests must remain accepted (art. 9). No pressure of any kind
should be exercised nor bribes be given in order that priests might be
invited to leave their wives without their wives' consent (art. 28).

The Ruthenian churches are, thus, not conservatives, nor anti-Western. But
they want to judge for themselves about all such examples of ecclesiastical

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
218

discipline and liturgical ceremonies. The issues of a married clergy and of

different forms of religious life are important for the ecumenical discussion as
well, but they have been left untouched by ecumenical dialogues until today.

4. Metropolitans and bishops must be elected from among their own

people and by the church itself, which should propose a binding list of
four candidates to the king. Candidates should be ordained before they can
exercise their functions. Such ordination lies in the competence of the
local archbishop or metropolitan, without any prevenient admission by the
pope, but elected metropolitans, not yet being bishops, must send their
letters of consecration to Rome.

This principle of episcopal election by and in the local church seems one of
the most important ecclesiological principles for any future consensus on the
episcopal ministry. It does not imply any congregationalism from the part of
the Ruthenes. It will be wise, they say, to consult the higher level of jurisdic-
tion for the appointment of a metropolitan, unless this candidate was a local
bishop before.
The very fact, that the procedures of episcopal election within the Roman
Catholic communion itself differ between the Latin-rite Code of Canon Law
and that of the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches - which
- is a small rudiment of the
variety is recognized in canon 377 § Early
Church's emphasis on the priority of the local eucharistic communities above
all higher administration and jurisdiction. The restoration of this priority
seems a conditio sine qua non for any ecumenical ecclesiology. If the popes
found this acceptable for the Ruthenes, even after the completion of the
tridentine Council, this acceptance sheds some light on the intentions of Trent
with regard to episcopal election and jurisdiction. The later centralizing
interpretations were simply false, as the First Vatican Council 1870 had
prepared to recognize in its unpromulgated Decree De Ecclesia. Vatican II
decided to leave the question open, but administrative practice seems to have
abandoned all remembrances of the older custom for the Latin rite Catholic
Churches.

5. The metropolitan and the bishops should become members of the

Parliament on an equal basis with the Latin bishops and they should be
protected by the king against possible protests against the union from the
part of the people or from the part of the Greek. In the church courts
there should also be present Orthodox representatives (art. 20). All the
clergy should share in the same privileges and immunities like the Latin
clergy. A proper independency in matters of ecclesiastical court action and

35 Episcopos libere Summus Pontifex nominat, aut legitime electos confirmat. The
Eastern Catholic tradition provides for election by the diocesan synod, such election
to be confirmedby Rome for its validity.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 219

punishment (art 28) must be warranted. Excommunications by Orthodox

bishops should be recognized by their Latin colleagues.

As there was not yet such a principle like the separation of church and state,
these requests for equal treatment in the societal system were only realistic,
but with the exception of the mutual respect for ecclesiastical decisions of the
sister churches, they do no longer apply. In fact, the Ruthenes did not get
their parliamentary see, nor were they treated on equal footing with their
Latin Rite colleagues in Poland. The most important part of their claims for
recognition, however, is the phrase about the recognition of their jurisdic-
tional acts, like excommunications. Real koinonia implies common norms and
procedures of discipline between churches. It leads to false "conversions", if
people excommunicated in one church, are without any problem received in
another church. Even, if we would plead today for the abandonment of the
excommunication-practice, it is still necessary to give common witness to the
commandments and the criteria of the reign of God.

6. It will not be allowed that Orthodox believers will shift to the Latin rite
(art. 15), but mixed marriages must be free and a free choice of rite
within marriage must be guaranteed (art. 16).

Religious competition and proselytism are prevented, but with regard to

personal relations they opt for tolerance and liberality.

7. All ecclesiastical possessions should remain as they are in the property

of the churches, under the authority of the chapter (art. 17-18). All the
churches and monasteries should be kept by the Orthodox and no one
given to the Latins (art.25). The bishops should be the only rulers of their
churches (cf. art. 26), without ingerence of the lay nobility. The King
should not allow the import of foreign functionaries who would take over
the Ruthenian jurisdiction (art. 32)

This principle wants to safeguard the public rights of the church against
dissidents and separatists. Apparently the bishops were aware of some
resistance. It is not possible in any policy, not even ecumenical policy, to
wait until complete unanimity has been reached. They foresaw the problem of
church property, which has been in the course of history and until today in
Ukraine, a major problem of church division and reunion. They oppose the
sending of foreign - i.e. Latin, Polish, Russian or Greek - missionaries. The
Ruthenes themselves have foreseen what was called 'proselytism' in later
times. The problem is acute, not only in Eastern Europe, where we see
tendencies to bypass the authorities of local churches in the sending of
'foreign missionary assistance' or in propaganda for so called international
solutions of the problem of the shortage of priests in the Western part of the
Church.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
220

8. The erection of seminaries and a free press must be warranted (art.27).

Proper theological education and communication are among the most promi-
nent conditions for ecclesiastical autonomy, credibility and socialization. The
article reacted to the Tridentine reform measures, but in fact theological
education and the care for competent ministers is one of the most important
tasks of the particular churches.

9. The union will be provisional. If the other Orthodox churches would

follow and make common decisions together with Rome on the level of
the universal church, the Ruthenian churches ask participation in those
decisions (art. 31)

This is a clear indication, that they did not want to make a schism and hoped
for support by the other churches sooner or later. It has been proven extreme-
ly important for all church union schemes, to remain open for future partners
in the union. This article could be the basis for a special ecumenical calling
of the Eastern Catholic Churches to engage in further dialogue with the
Orthodox Churches and to keep trying to restore communion with the other
patriarchal sees.
All these points of the agenda for the union were written, as the text says
"for the glory of God and for the peace of the Church" (§ 33) and submitted
to the king and to the pope for their authorization and given to the bishops
Hypati Pociej and Cyrille Terlecki, in the hope that the others, if the union
would succeed, might see that it is possible to unite with Rome and to keep
all the Ruthenian values and thus to follow their example.

Conclusion

The painful history of uniatism as an epiphenomen of cultural domination

of one church over another - be it in the form of latinisation, hel-
lenisation, germanisation, russification, americanization or westernisation
- is
rightly rejected by the ecumenical movement of the 20th century.
The specific forms of uniatism as latinisation promulgated by the Latin
Church during and after the Crusades, after the councils of Florence and
Trent up to the 19th century and up to the eve of the Second Vatican
Council were rightly rejected by the Orthodox patriarchs over the cen-
turies and condemned as anti-ecumenical endeavours by the Decree
Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II and the successive bishops of Rome
thereafter. But these rejections and condemnations cannot distract from the
necessity, within the ecumenical movement of what Jean Tillard once
called an ecumenism by steps, nor can it incriminate those bishops,
metropolitans and believers who have earnestly tried, through uniatist
movements, to obey the demand of our Lord in John 17: That all may be
one, in order that the world would believe, that Thou, Father has sent me.
Not only for their freedom of conscience or their pastoral responsibility

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn
 221

for their flocks must be recognized, but their earnest desire for at least
provisional unity as well. We know, through the ecumenical movement,
that even such provisional unity can only be realized in the real world
through the acceptance of the idea of a growing koinonia between autono-
mous and autocephalous sister-churches, represented and guided by their
respective episcopal synods and patriarchs and by no means by any forms
of proselytism or of partial covenants with groups, movements or local
parishes within the other communion of churches. Such partial agree-
ments, looking like bargaining-agreements or 'Trojan horse policy' (Ware)
and sometimes even compromising about the still remaining problems of
division, have never brought a lasting contribution to unity, nor could
such agreements be considered somehow as proleptic forms of a final full
communion at the end or the churches involved be called 'intermediate' or
'bridging' churches, as the concrete Greek Catholic Churches often were
labelled - by Rome and by themselves - until the recent past.36 The
alternative, however, should not be an 'all-or-nothing' ecumenism either,
which waits for reconciliation until some eschatological future, where we
would be able to reach full consensus and uniformity of expression on all
matters of faith and order. It is my personal conviction, that the refusal of
mutual sharing in ons another's spiritual gifts, in sacramental life and
pastoral care and in at least a process of gradual admission to one
another's eucharist and ministry by way of 'oikonomia' is one of the main
causes of stagnation in the ecumenical movement. The exchange of
spiritual experiences between East and West could be one of the important
contributions of the really existing Uniate communities in East and West,
comparable to that of United Churches all over the world and of spiritual
movements within many Churches which have followed patterns of
spiritual life borrowed from other traditions. The metaphor of separate
development of various strands of Christianity in the East and in the West,
working together as the two lungs of Christianity is a polite, but very
romantic image of Christianity in a world of ever increasing exchange and
communication. Uniatism, in spite of its historical failures, is a wondrous
protest against Christian apartheid of Eastern and Western Christianity.

Dr. Anton Houtepen is Director of IIMO and Professor of Contemporary

Theology at Utrecht University. Address: IIMO, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS
Utrecht, The Netherlands

36 Cf. E. Lanne, Églises unies ou Églises-soeurs: une choix inéluctable, Irénikon

(1975), 322 ss.

Downloaded from Brill.com04/07/2021 12:09:36PM

via Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Bonn