OCP 2020 - 2 Extracta Coman

Volumen 86 Fasciculus II 2020
ORIENTALIA
CHRISTIANA
PERIODICA
COMMENTARII DE RE ORIENTALI AETATIS CHRISTIANAE
S A C R A E T P R O FA N A E D I T I C U R A E T O P E R E
PONTIFICII INSTITUTI ORIENTALIUM STUDIORUM
E X T R A C T A
PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM ORIENTALIUM STUDIORUM

PIAZZA S. MARIA MAGGIORE, 7
ROMA
Nr. 2 / 2020
Poste Italiane s.p.a.

Spedizione in abbonamento postale.
D.L. 353/2003 (conv. in L. 27/02/2004 n˚ 46) art. 1, comma 2, DCB Roma.
Semestrale. Taxe perçue.
ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA PERIODICA
Piazza S. Maria Maggiore 7 — 00185 Roma
www.orientaliachristiana.it
tel. 0644741-7104; fax 06446-5576
ISSN 0030-5375
This periodical began publication in 1935. Two fascicles are issued each
year, which contain articles, shorter notes and book reviews about the
Christian East, that is, whatever concerns the theology, history, patrology,
liturgy, archaeology and canon law of the Christian East, or whatever is
closely connected therewith. The annual contribution is € 46,00 in Italy,
and € 58,00 or USD 76,00 outside Italy. The entire series is still in print and
can be supplied on demand.
Subscription should be paid by a check made to Pontificio Istituto

Orientale or a deposit to ccp. 34269001.
International Bank Account Number (IBAN):
Country Check Digit CIN Cod. ABI CAB Account Number
IT 54 C 07601 03200 000034269001 BIC- Code BPPIITRRXXX
Edited by Philippe Luisier (Editor), e-mail: pluisier@orientale.it; Jarosáaw

Dziewicki (Managing Editor), e-mail: edizioni@orientaliachristiana.it,
with the Professors of the Pontifical Oriental Institute.
All materials for publication (articles, notes, books for review) should
be addressed to the Editor.
SUMMARIUM
ARTICULI
Daniel L. McConaughy, Aphrahat on the Role of Holy Spirit in the

Christian Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345-363
Elie Essa Kas Hanna, Villages dans les chaînes du nord du Massif
Calcaire syrien. Territoire et bâtiments privés et publics (IVe-VIe
siècle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365-390
Peter Dufka, S.J., Il discernimento spirituale secondo Barsanufio

e Giovanni di Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391-410
Sebastian Brock, An early Syriac baptismal service (Sinai, Syriac
New Finds M47N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411-435
Marco Di Branco, The Prophet and the Kings. The Six Sovereigns of
Quúayr ‘Amra in the Light of the New Restorations . . . . . . . . . . . . 437-448
Damien Labadie, La Laudatio sancti Stephani du pseudo-Chrysosto-

me : édition et traduction de la version arabe de BHG 1664 . . . . . . . 449-463
Federico Alpi – Pietro D’Agostino, Negotiating the Union Epistolary

Exchange between the Greek and Armenian Churches in the 13th
Century: the Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465-518
Hayarpi Hakobyan, Foremother Eve in the Nativity of Christ

According to some Armenian Miniature Paintings from the 13th-
14th Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519-528
Tommaso Braccini, Tre versioni dell’“esorcismo di Gello” da mano-

scritti di Madrid, Vienna e Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529-542
Nina Glibetiò, The Late Medieval Eucharist among Slavs: The Case of
a Little-Known Manuscript, Zagreb HAZU III a 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543-570
Viorel Coman, André Scrima’s Contribution to the Ecumenical

Breakthrough in Orthodox-Catholic Relationships: A Historical
Reconstruction (1957-1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571-595
RECENSIONES
BENOIT-MEGGENIS, Rosa, L’empereur et le moine. Les relations du

pouvoir impérial avec les monastères à Byzance (IXe-XIIIe siècle)
(V. Ruggieri) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597-598
CIPOLLONE, Giulio, When a Pope and a Sultan Spoke the Same Language
of War. Tolerance and the Humanitarian Way at the Time of Jihad
and the Crusades: a new Outlook on “the Other” (Ph. Luisier) . . . . . 598-601
La conversion de Gaza au christianisme. La Vie de S. Porphyre de Gaza

par Marc le Diacre (BHG 1570). Édition critique – Traduction.
Commentaire par Anna LAMPADARIDI (V. Ruggieri) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601-602
D’ANDREA, Daniela, L’eucaristia e l’altare. Il can. 705 del Codice dei
Canoni delle Chiese Orientali. Sviluppi storico-teologici tra Oriente e
Occidente (A. Fyrigos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602-603
DAOU, Hadi, « Église-communion », « collégialité » et « synodalité » (M.

de Ghantuz Cubbe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603-604
PALLATH, Paul, Unity of Christian Initiation, with Special Reference to

the Syro-Malabar Church (E. G. Farrugia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605-610
SAIANI, Gaia Sofia (edizione critica ed introduzione a cura di), La

Passio XII fratrum qui e Syria venerunt (M. de Ghantuz Cubbe) . . . 610-614
TOSCANO, Silvia, Ján Hollý (1785-1849) cantore di Cirillo e Metodio

(P. Dufka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614-615
SCRIPTA AD NOS MISSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
INDEX VOLUMINIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617-619
ISSN 0030-5375
Viorel Coman
André Scrima’s Contribution to the Ecumenical

Breakthrough in Orthodox-Catholic Relationships:
A Historical Reconstruction (1957-1967)
A great ecumenical improvement in Orthodox-Catholic relationships

was progressively inaugurated in the 1960s. Although the openness to ecu-
menical conversation and respect for other Christians are nowadays taken
for granted, in the mid-1960s they stood as momentous and remarkable
acts on the way towards the initiation of the official dialogue between the
Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. So far, the prepara-
tory stage (1965-1980), and the fruits of the official theological dialogue
(from 1980 onwards) between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches,
have been carefully explored by scholars and academics.1 However, over
the last ten years ecumenists and historians have started to refocus their
research from the official dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism
and its preparatory stage to the origins, conditions, and actors who have
made the ecumenical turn possible.2 It is now argued that the warming of
the relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the mid-1960s did not
appear out of the blue and in a vacuum. The ecumenical shift in Orthodox-
Catholic relationships had been gradually prepared within each tradition
1 John Borelli and John H. Erickson, The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in
Dialogue (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996); Ferdinand Gahbauer, Der
orthodox-katholische Dialog. Spannende Bewegung der Ökumene und ökumenische Spannungen
zwischen den Schwesterkirchen von den Anfängen bis heute (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1997);
Giancarlo Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? Cattolicesimo e Ortodossia a confronto. Il dialogo
ufficiale (Milano: Paoline, 1999); Kallistos Ware, “The Ravenna Document and the Future of
Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue,” The Jurist 69:2 (2009), pp. 766-789; Patrice Mahieu, Paul VI et
les orthodoxes (Paris: Cerf, 2012); John Chryssavgis, Dialogue of Love: Breaking the Silence of
Centuries (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2014); P. Mahieu, Se préparer au don
de l’unité. La commission internationale catholique-orthodoxe, 1975-2000 (Paris: Cerf, 2016).
2 Viorel Coman, The Interaction between the Orthodox Neo-Patristic Movement and the
French Catholic Ressourcement through the Lens of Receptive Ecumenism (Research project,
Research Foundation-Flanders, 2017-2020); and Peter De Mey, The Parallel Contribution of
the ‘Journées œcuméniques de Chevetogne’ (1942-1963) and the ‘Conférence Catholique pour les
questions œcuméniques’ (1952-1963) to the Renewal of Catholic Ecclesiology and Ecumenism
before and during Vatican II (Research project, Research Foundation-Flanders/KU Leuven,
2017-2023).
OCP 86 (2020) 571-595

572 VIOREL COMAN
and jointly by a series of open-minded theologians, innovative movements,

and unofficial networks during the first half of the 20th century.
This article relates to the above-mentioned shift in scholarship, by fo-
cusing on an Eastern theologian who has significantly contributed to the
emergence of the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships: the
Romanian Orthodox theologian André Scrima (1925-2000). Scrima was the
personal representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Vatican II (1962-
1965), and a key figure in the process that led Constantinople and Rome
from estrangement to conversation and cooperation. Most of the scholar-
ship that explores the Orthodox impetus to this turn to dialogue focuses al-
most exclusively on the ecumenical initiatives of the representatives of the
Russian diaspora in Paris: Sergius Bulgakov, Georges Florovsky, and Vladi-
mir Lossky.3 That being the case, no solid attention was given by scholars
to the ecumenical contribution of the Romanian Orthodox diaspora and to
the groundbreaking work of André Scrima. Even though there is no other
Eastern theologian who has contributed as much as Scrima to breaking the
silence between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches prior, during, and
shortly after the Second Vatican Council, he remains a routinely neglected
theologian in the academia. For example, the 2014 Orthodox Handbook
on Ecumenism,4 which was intended by the World Council of Churches,
the Conference of European Churches, and Volos Academy to uncover in
no less than 962 pages the history of the ecumenical idea in Orthodoxy,
contains no article on Scrima and his contribution to the rapprochement
between the two branches of Christianity. The 1995 WCC publication Ecu-
menical Pilgrims: Profiles of Pioneers in Christian Reconciliation5 also failed
to include Scrima among the personalities who have made a contribu-
tion to the breaking down of the long barrier of division between the two
Churches; and the list can continue with other similar examples.6
3 John Jillions, “Three Orthodox Models of Christian Unity: Traditionalist, Mainstream,
Prophetic,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 9:4 (2009), pp. 295-311;
Tim Noble, “Springtime in Paris: Orthodoxy Encountering Diverse Others Between the Wars,”
in Andrew Pierce and Oliver Schuegraf (eds.), Den Blick weiten: Wenn Ökumene den Religionen
begegnet. Tagungsbericht der 17. Wissenschaftlichen Konsultation der Societas Oecumenica,
Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 99 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), pp.
295–310; Ivana Noble et alii, The Ways of Orthodox Theology in the West (Yonkers, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015); Ivana Noble, “Three Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism:
Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Lossky,” Communio Viatorum 57:2 (2015), pp. 113-140; Viorel Coman,
“Vladimir Lossky’s Involvement in the Dieu Vivant Circle and Its Ecumenical Journal,” Irish
Theological Quarterly 85:1 (2020), pp. 45-63.
4 Pantelis Kalaitzidis et alii (eds.), Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism: Resources for Theo-
logical Education (Volos/Geneva: Volos Academy Publications/WCC Publications, 2014).

5 Ion Bria and Dagmar Heller (eds.), Ecumenical Pilgrims: Profiles of Pioneers in Christian
Reconciliation (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1995).

6 Even if the recent article published by Bogdan Tãtaru-Cazaban and Miruna Tãtaru-Ca-
ANDRÉ SCRIMA’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECUMENICAL BREAKTHROUGH 573
Drawing mostly on a large amount of unexplored archival material, this

article fills this lacuna, offering an analysis of Scrima’s contribution to the
ecumenical shift in Orthodox-Catholic relationships during the time pe-
riod between 1957 and 1967. In so doing, the article reconstructs the key
role played by the Romanian theologian in the events that changed the
trajectory of Orthodox-Catholic relationships. To offer a complete picture
of Scrima’s role in the ecumenical improvement in Orthodox-Catholic re-
lationship within the limits of an article is an impossible task. A detailed
monograph will definitely do better justice to his ecumenical accomplish-
ments. Consequently, the scope of this section is more modest: to tell the
story of Scrima’s contribution to the gradual rapprochement between Or-
thodoxy and Catholicism in its essentials.
André Scrima’s First Encounters with Western Catholicism (1957-1961)

André Scrima was born on December 1, 1925 in Transylvania, a former
province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that reverted to Romania after
World War I. After studies in philosophy (1944-1948) at the University of
Bucharest,7 his intellectual formation continued at the Orthodox Theolog-
ical Institute (1949-1956),8 also in the capital city of Romania. Scrima’s
interest in theology grew out of his participation in the meetings of the
Burning Bush group, which emerged in 1945 around the Antim Monas-
tery in Bucharest. The group brought together fourteen Romanian intel-
lectuals, some of them clerics, who were interested in conversations of a
theological and mystical nature, as a form of spiritual survival during the
very difficult years of the newly installed atheist communist regime. In
1958, all the members of the Burning Bush group except Scrima, who lived
abroad at the time, were arrested by the communists, who unjustly accused
them of conspiracy against the political regime and incarcerated for a few
zaban focuses almost entirely on the ecumenical vision of Scrima, with little attention to the
historical context, it remains a felicitous exception — “L’unité des chrétiens et son langage.
Fragments d’un ‘journal’ orthodoxe du Concile Vatican II,” in Daniela Dumbravã and Bogdan
Tãtaru-Cazaban (eds.), André Scrima. Expérience spirituelle et langage théologique, OCA 306
(Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2019), pp. 123-140.
7 His first Bachelor thesis focused on “Logos and Dialectics in Plato.” The thesis was writ-
ten under the supervision of the famous Romanian philosopher Anton Dumitriu. Cf. Andrei
Ple›u, “Prefaã [Preface],” in André Scrima, Timpul Rugului Aprins. Maestrul spiritual în Tra-
diia rãsãriteanã [The Time of the Burning Bush. The Spiritual Master in the Eastern Tradition]
(Bucure›ti: Humanitas, 2010), p. 9.
8 His thesis in theology was entitled “An Essay on Apophatic Anthropology, in the Spirit
of Orthodox Tradition.” His thesis was published decades later: A. Scrima, Antropologia apo-
faticã (Bucure›ti: Humanitas, 2005); Apophatic Anthropology: An English Translation (Piscat-
away, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016).
574 VIOREL COMAN
years.9 Moreover, what is equally relevant is that Scrima’s participation in

the meetings of the Burning Bush group consolidated his decision to em-
brace the monastic life in the 1950s at the Antim Monastery. Towards the
end of 1952, after almost two years spent at the Neam Monastery as a high
school teacher for future clerics,10 Scrima returned to Bucharest to assume
the positions of chief librarian of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate. In
1956, when he was acting also as an interpreter for Patriarch Justinian,11
to whom he served as a close adviser, Scrima had the opportunity to meet
two Indian professors12 who helped him obtain a scholarship to pursue
a doctorate at the Benares Hindu University.13 In fact, this was his op-
portunity to escape the communist regime and flee abroad. On the way to
India towards the end of 1956, Scrima made a detour of several months to
Switzerland and France, where he developed close contacts with Roman
Catholic and Protestant theologians, as well as with several non-Orthodox
academic institutions and monastic centers.
Fortunately, the details of his stay in Western Europe have been pre-
served in a long and very touching letter sent by Scrima to Fr Benedict
Ghiu› — a close friend, and also a member of the ‘Burning Bush’ group
— on August 6, 1957. A copy of this 11-page letter that captures the begin-
ning of Scrima’s ecumenical story is kept in Bucharest in the archive of The
National Council for the Study of the Security Archives.14 According to the
information provided by this letter, at the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey
(near Geneva) Scrima became familiar with the latest developments in
Protestant theology, whereas in Paris he introduced himself to the Catholic
9 In addition to Scrima’s book on the ‘Burning Bush’ group, see Athanasios Giocas and
Paul Ladouceur, “The Burning Bush Movement and Father André Scrima in Romanian Spiri-
tuality,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 52:1-4 (2007), pp. 37-61; Anca Manolescu, Modelul
Antim, modelul Pãltini›. Cercuri de studiu ›i prietenie spiritualã [The Antim Model, the Pãltini›
Model. Circles of Study and Spiritual Friendship] (Bucure›ti: Humanitas, 2015); Andrei Ple›u,
“André Scrima e il ‘Roveto Ardente’,” in Daniela Dumbravã and Bogdan Tãtaru-Cazaban
(eds.), André Scrima, pp. 31-39.
10 Scrima’s departure to the Neam Monastery followed the attempt of the communists to
disintegrate the Burning Bush group by spreading its members around the country.
11 Cf. A. Scrima, “Autobiography,” The Archive of The National Council for the Study of
the Security Archives (hereinafter ACNSAS), File SIE (Directorate for Foreign Intelligence),
no. 2601, pp. 69-71. Although it is not dated, the short autobiographical note was most prob-
ably written by Scrima in 1952 or 1953.
12 Prof. Mohammad Habib (professor of Political Sciences) and prof. Afzar Afzaluddin.
13 The topic of the dissertation was “The Ultimate, Its Methodological and Epistemologi-
cal Connotation According to Advaita-Vedanta.” Even though his thesis was completed on
time, Scrima decided not to defend it publicly; however, he received his doctorate in Paris in
the 1960s with a new thesis on Christian apophatism.
14 A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” ACNSAS, File MAI (Ministry of Home Affairs),
no. 94690, vol. I, pp. 353-364.

intellectual élite, especially to the ecumenically minded figures associated

with nouvelle théologie.15 These theologians acquainted Scrima with their
work of renewal that was making its way at the time in Catholicism, despite
the fierce opposition to change and ecumenical openness shown by the Ro-
man Catholic Church official representatives.
As Scrima recounted to Fr Benedict Ghiu›, “Paris was the place where
I had the most authentic and enjoyable encounter with the Catholic world
[…]. My conversation with our Catholic brothers took place in all serious-
ness, filled with nostalgic longings, hopes, and accomplishments that left
an everlasting impact on me.”16 Christophe Dumont, Pierre Duprey, Jean
Daniélou, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, and Louis Bouyer are
some of the most distinguished and famous ecumenically open Catholic
theologians whom Scrima befriended on his visit to Paris. Scrima’s long-
lasting friendship with Duprey and Dumont continued to grow in the de-
cades that followed, especially in the 1960s, when the Romanian theologian
was affiliated to the Istina Center and lived shortly in one of its residences
in Paris. The Scrima archive in Bucharest, which is preserved in the li-
brary of the New Europe College, includes fragments of the original cor-
respondence in French between Scrima and Ch. Dumont OP.17 Referring
briefly to these Catholic theologians and their work in the field of Orthodox
studies, Scrima noted in the letter: “I have always admired the efforts of
those who, for the benefit of the Catholic Church, devote themselves to
the knowledge of Orthodoxy and make known the truth about it.” Scrima
went on by saying that “the interest of these people in Orthodoxy is born
out of a sincere and serious vocation to re-activate [in their own Church]
the spiritual values that belong to universal Christendom.”18 To respond
to the growing interest in Eastern Christianity among Catholics, Scrima
15 Nouvelle théologie was one of the most fascinating movements of renewal in Roman
Catholic theology in the 20th century. Its main project was concerned with a rediscovery of
the depth of biblical and patristic sources in order to bring to an end the dominance of scho-
lasticism in Catholic theology and to articulate a theological discourse able to engage in a
meaningful dialogue with the most pressing issues of modern society. See Jürgen Mettepen-
ningen, Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II
(London, New York: T&T Clark, 2010); Gabriel Flynn and Paul Murray (eds.), Ressourcement:
A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University,
2011); Hans Boersma, Nouvelle Théologie & Sacramental Ontology (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012); Jon Kirwan, An Avantgarde Theological Generation: The Nouvelle Théologie and
the French Crisis of Modernity (Oxford: Oxford University, 2018).
16 A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” pp. 354 and 355.
17 A. Scrima, “Scientific and Ecclesial Correspondence (CS) 1-16,” The Scrima Archive,
New Europe College in Bucharest (hereinafter AAS-NEC). André Scrima’s family donated his
archive and library to the New Europe College immediately after the death of the Romanian
theologian in 2000.
18 A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” p. 355.
576 VIOREL COMAN
accepted the invitations of several institutions and monastic centers to of-

fer a series of lectures and conferences on Orthodox spirituality, as well as
on the most recent theological developments in the Romanian Orthodox
Church. One of these lectures was given by Scrima at the scholasticate of
the Dominican Order in Paris, which retained the name Le Saulchoir for
their school.19 In addition to these meetings and conferences, Scrima also
published a couple of articles on Orthodoxy in some of the most prestigious
ecumenical journals of that time in the West.20 The publication of the ar-
ticle “L’Église Orthodoxe roumaine et le Buisson Ardent” in 195721 stirred
up a lot of irritation among the Romanian communists, for it alluded to
the persecutions of the members of the Orthodox Church by the political
regime back in Romania.
While in Paris, Scrima could not miss the opportunity to also meet the
famous Orthodox theologians of the Russian diaspora who settled in the
French capital after they were expelled from their homeland by Lenin at
the beginning of the 1920s.22 Vladimir Lossky, Georges Florovsky, and all
the other theologians who were forced to leave Russia and move to the
West served as a bridge between the two separated parts of Christendom,
opening up the path of their mutual understanding and ecclesial unity in
the decades before the Second Vatican Council. In fact, in his Mémoires,
the French Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément pointed out that it was in
the house of Vladimir Lossky that he stumbled across André Scrima for the
first time.23 Even though the friendship between Scrima and Lossky was of
a short duration, due to the premature death of the latter in 1958, it would
not be an exaggeration to say that Scrima was one of the theologians who
carried on his ecumenical legacy of building bridges between Orthodoxy
and Catholicism.
19 Ibid., p. 357.
20 A. Scrima, “L’avènement philocalique dans l’Orthodoxie roumaine,” Istina 3-4 (1958),
pp. 295-328; 443-474.
21 Oliver Clément (and André Scrima), “L’Église Orthodoxe roumaine et le Buisson Ar-
dent,” Réforme 644 (Saturday, 20 July 1957). The article was written by O. Clément on the
basis of the information provided to him by Scrima. It seems that the publication of this ar-
ticle led to the arrest of the members of the Burning Bush group. See Lidia Ionescu-Stãniloae,
Lumina faptei din lumina Cuvântului – Împreunã cu tatãl meu, Dumitru Stãniloae [The Light
of Deed from the Light of Word – Together with my Father, Dumitru Stãniloae] (Bucure›ti: Hu-
manitas, 2000), p. 253; and Radu Drãgan, “Une figure du Christianisme oriental au XXe siècle.
Jean l’Étranger,” in Politica Hermetica 20 (Lausanne: L’Âge d’Homme, 2006), pp. 136-138.
22 See Lesley Chamberlain, Lenin’s Private War: The Voyage of the Philosophy Steamer and
the Exile of the Intelligentsia (New York, NY: Picador, 2008). The author puts together a de-
tailed account of the story of Russian intellectuals who were deported from the new Soviet
State and lived in exile in Berlin, Prague, and Paris.
23 O. Clément, Mémoires d’espérance. Entretiens avec Jean-Claude Noyer (Paris: Desclée de
Brouwer, 2003), 127. See also A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” p. 363.
Scrima’s detour to Paris had a twofold ecumenical relevance. First,

Scrima took the pulse of the Catholic Church in France at the end of the
pontificate of Pius XII (1929-1958), and it felt like something ecumenically
important was going to happen in Catholicism. As Scrima points out in
his letter to Fr Benedict, “the Catholic Church is experiencing a crisis right
now […] It is obvious that the current crisis is generated by the Pope and
Roman Curia and that the most radical solution is the replacement of the
‘supreme’ team. For the first time after many centuries a ‘new’ team profiles
itself on the horizon.”24 Scrima proved to be right, for the pontificate of
John XXIII (1958-1963) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) were
to soon change the face of the Roman Catholic Church. In so doing, the
Council was to officialize the work of renewal started by the representa-
tives of the nouvelle théologie: an openness to the fresh air of the modern
world and a strong commitment to ecumenism. Second, Scrima discov-
ered the genuine eagerness of a large number of Catholic theologians to
go beyond the divisions of the past and rediscover the riches of Eastern
Christianity. According to Scrima, this is a “sign of the times” that cannot
be ignored by the Orthodox Church, which should both give up its attitude
of mistrust towards Catholicism and cease to define itself in opposition to
Western Christianity,25 for Orthodoxy and Catholicism have more in com-
mon than what keeps them apart. However, Scrima lamented the inability
of a large number of Orthodox theologians to engage in a constructive dia-
logue with Catholicism, due to their misconceptions, polemical approach,
and defensive attitude.26
André Scrima: A Key Protagonist of the Ecumenical Turn (1961-1967)

On January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIII announced publicly his intention
to convene a new Ecumenical Council for “the enlightenment, edification,
and joy of the entire Christian people” and as a “renewed cordial invita-
tion to the faithful of separated Churches to participate with us in this
feast of grace and brotherhood, for which so many souls long in all parts
of the world.”27 While many were enthusiastic about the new Council’s call
to unity, most of the Orthodox Churches initially looked upon it with dis-
24 A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” p. 356.

25 Ibid., p. 355.
26 Ibid., p. 355.
27 Giuseppe Alberigo, “The Announcement of the Council: From the Security of the For-
tress to the Lure of the Quest,” in Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.), His-
tory of Vatican II, vol. 1, Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II: Towards a New Era in
Catholicism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), p. 15; Alberto Melloni, Federico Ruozzi, and Enrico
Galavotti (eds.), Vatican II: The Complete History (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2015), p. 44.
578 VIOREL COMAN
favor and suspicious eyes, showing resistance to the idea of sending rep-
resentatives to Vatican II. They saw in the Council’s agenda the revival of
the unionist methods used by Rome in the past, especially at the Councils
of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence. The Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras
(1948-1972) was among the very few Orthodox leaders who, right from the
beginning, nurtured the ecumenical vision of reconciliation. In the com-
ing years, his ceaseless efforts towards Christian unity were to decisively
contribute to the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships and
to the inauguration of the preparatory stage of official dialogue between
the two Churches.
Scrima, whom Athenagoras met in Paris in 1961, was one of the rare
men who fully served the unique vision of the Ecumenical Patriarch.28 Im-
pressed by his brilliant mind, strong devotion to the ecumenical cause, and
excellent command of more than five foreign languages, including Arabic
and Sanskrit, Athenagoras made Scrima an Archimandrite of the Ecumeni-
cal Throne and a close collaborator, entrusting him with the task of work-
ing as a church diplomat for the relationships between Constantinople and
Rome. Even though most of Scrima’s work was carried out behind the
scenes, it was crucial for the success of most publicized events in Orthodox-
Catholic relationships during the conciliar period and shortly afterwards.29
The story of Scrima’s ecumenical work in the service of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople will be unfolded in strict chronological order and divided
into two main phases.
1961-1964: On the Road to the Historic Meeting in Jerusalem

The first phase shows Scrima’s initial contribution to the improvement
of the relationship between Constantinople and Rome, which paved the
way for the historic meeting between Athenagoras and Paul VI in Jerusa-
lem, as well as for the decision of Constantinople to send observers to the
third and fourth sessions of Vatican II.
The creation of the Secretariat for Christian Unity on June 6, 1960
and its decision to invite the Orthodox Churches to send observers at
Vatican II were the points of departure for Scrima’s work for the Orthodox-
Catholic rapprochement in the years before the Council. However, at this
early stage, the nature of Scrima’s ecumenical work and contacts with
28 O. Clément, Dialogues avec le patriarche Athénagoras (Paris: Fayard, 1969), p. 339.
29 Due to his important role in the rapprochement between Constantinople and Rome
in the 1960s, André Scrima was referred to “as the most interesting figure of the entire Ro-
manian diaspora.” Scrima was described this way by an agent of the Romanian Communist
Security who spied on him towards the end of the 1960s. See “Informative Note,” ACNSAS,
File SIE, no. 2601, p. 59. The document is dated on August 9, 1967.
Christophe Dumont and Pierre Duprey — who were both attached to the
Secretariat for Christian Unity — was reserved to a friendly exchange of
letters about the announced Council, as well as to personal encounters,
without any immediate implications for the official relationships between
Rome and Constantinople, which were keeping a low key at the time. Both
Dumont and Duprey informed Scrima about the latest evolutions in the
preparatory process of the Council, including the composition and the
ecumenical tasks of the newly established Secretariat for Christian Unity.30
Nevertheless, his early interest in the preparatory work of the Council and
his familiarity with the Catholic world determined Dumont to opine later
on that, if Constantinople were to send a permanent representative to
Rome or an observer to the Council, Scrima would be the most qualified for
such an important ecumenical role.31 Scrima’s work for the enhancement
of the Orthodox-Catholic relationships intensified with his nomination
in 1961 as a close collaborator of Athenagoras. From 1961 onwards, he
played an influential role in the discussions related to the presence of
Orthodox observers at the Council, as he was one of the very few within the
Patriarchate of Constantinople who supported the ecumenical openness
of Athenagoras, even at such moments as when the tensions generated by
the unexpected presence of the Russian observers at the first session of
Vatican II tended to escalate.
The First Pan-Orthodox Conference convened by Athenagoras in
Rhodes (September 24 to October 1, 1961) did not explicitly engage the
question of observers, but it called for the unity of the Orthodox Churches
in all their activities, including their future relationships with the other
Christian Churches.32 In Rome, the Secretariat for Christian Unity
followed the evolutions in the East until January 1962, when Johannes
Willebrands decided to travel to Constantinople to personally invite the
Ecumenical Patriarchate to send observers at Vatican II, as well as to ask
him to convince the less ecumenically open Orthodox Churches to do
30 Ch. Dumont, “Letter to Scrima (September 2, 1960),” CS 1, AAS-NEC, p. 1.

31 Referring to a discussion with Athenagoras, Dumont pointed out in his letter to Scrima:
“J’ai insisté sur l’utilité d’un représentant permanent ou au moins d’un messager attiré. J’ai
compris qu’il eût été inopportun d’avancer votre nom: il faut que ‘ce soit quelqu’un d’ici’. Mais
on ne voit, jusqu’ici, personne de qualifié pour un tel rôle. Ceci me paraît indépendant d’une
représentation comme observateur au concile” — Ch. Dumont, “Letter to Scrima (September
12, 1962),” CS 7, AAS-NEC, p. 1.
32 See “The First Pan-Orthodox Conference, Rhodes, 24th September – 1st October 1961,” in
Viorel Ioniã, Towards The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the
Pan-Orthodox Meetings since 1923 until 2009, Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 62 (Fribourg:
Institute for Ecumenical Studies, 2014), pp. 123-130; Antoine Wenger, Vatican II. Première
session (Paris: Centurion, 1963), 199. See also Radu Bordeianu, “Orthodox Observers at the
Second Vatican Council and Intra-Orthodox Dynamics,” Theological Studies 79:1 (2018), p. 88.
580 VIOREL COMAN
the same.33 Athenagoras was willing to send observers at the Council and
tried, without success, to convince the other Orthodox Patriarchates to
respond positively to the invitation. However, in order to keep up with the
decision taken in Rhodes that all Orthodox Churches would act in unison,
just days before the beginning of the Council the Ecumenical Patriarchate
informed the Secretariat for Christian Unity that a consensus has not been
reached within the Orthodox world; consequently, for the sake of unity,
Constantinople feels sadly obliged to decline the invitation. Nevertheless,
when the first session of Vatican II opened its doors Athenagoras was
disappointed to see that the Moscow Patriarchate did send two observers to
the Council, without the prior consent of Constantinople and all the other
Orthodox Churches. In fact, witnessing the Ecumenical Patriarch’s “lack of
persuasive power”34 with other Orthodox Churches, Willebrands took the
initiative to approach each Orthodox Patriarchate individually during the
Summer of 1962, departing from the previous practice of the Secretariat.
Upon several direct contacts with Willebrands and an unofficial visit of
the Dutch theologian to Moscow in September 1962, shortly before the
opening of the Council, the Russian Patriarchate abandoned the anti-
Vatican II approach and decided to send its own observers to Rome, without
informing the rest of the Orthodox world. In so doing, Moscow departed
from the decision of Rhodes, undermining both the coordinating role and
the position of Constantinople within the Orthodox Church.35 The episode
added to the long-seated rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople
within the Orthodox world and risked ruining the openness towards Rome
manifested by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. It was the wisdom
of Athenagoras, with the support and persuasion of Scrima, that avoided
turning the incident into a scandal. In a letter sent to Athenagoras on
33 See Karim Schelkens, “Envisager la concélébration entre Rome et Constantinople?
Johannes Willebrands et Athénagoras de Constantinople,” Istina 57 (2012), pp. 127-157;

Michel Van Parys, “Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and the Eastern Christian Churches,”
in Adelbert Denaux and Peter De Mey (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes Cardinal
Willebrands (1909-2006), Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 253
(Leuven: Peeters, 2012), pp. 155-186.
34 Mauro Velatti, Una difficile transizione: il cattolicesimo tra unionismo ed ecumenismo
(1952-1964) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), p. 311; Idem, Separati ma fratelli: gli osservatori non
cattolici al Vaticano II (1962-1965) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2014), p. 98.
35 For a more detailed presentation of the history of the presence of Russian observers
at Vatican II, see A. Wenger, Vatican II: première session, pp. 204-256; Alberto Melloni (ed.),
Vatican II in Moscow (1959–1965): Acts of the Colloquium on the History of Vatican II; Moscow,
March 30 – April 2, 1995 (Leuven: Library of the Faculty of Theology K.U. Leuven, 1997); and
Anastacia Wooden, “‘The Agent of Christ’: Participation of Fr. Vitali Borovoy in the Second
Vatican Council as an Observer from the ROC,” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern
Europe 36 (2016), pp. 1-27.
October 17, 1962, Scrima tried to convince the Patriarch that, given the
context, he should send a delegation to Vatican II. Scrima pointed out that
The Patriarchate of Constantinople should be represented in Rome by a delega-

tion of at least one or two bishops [...] This would be to confirm once again the
ecumenical attitude of Your Holiness and also to prepare the way for more im-
portant gestures for the end of the Council [....] Of course, this delegation could
arrive either a little later during the present session or at the beginning of the
next one: but a presence of the Ecumenical Throne is now normal and necessary
in Rome and it must be prepared in time.36
Even though the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not immediately

send observers to the Council, the correspondence between Scrima and
Athenagoras shows the efforts of the Romanian theologian to keep the
Patriarchate on the ecumenical trajectory. Given the tensions created in
Constantinople by the presence of Russian observers at the Council, on
November 13, 1962 Willebrands reached out to Patriarch Athenagoras
through a letter to reassure him that “given the current circumstances,
we [the Secretariat] are doing our best to avoid anything that could harm
the current contacts [between Vatican and Constantinople] or their future
development.”37 The response of Athenagoras, which was drafted by Scrima
on November 22, kindly informed Willebrands and Cardinal Augustin Bea,
the President of the Secretariat, that Constantinople will continue to “pay
its full attention to the unfolding of the Second Vatican Council, which is
intended to be an important step towards the perfect fulfilment of the di-
vine plan of unity.” The Patriarch went on by saying that “towards all those
who, like you, act in sincerity, charity, and truth to help bring brothers
together, our benevolence remains unequivocal […]. In his passing through
Rome, André Scrima will offer you a small gift, as a sign of our affection.”38
In the Spring of 1963, the idea of a bilateral dialogue with the Catholics
started to take shape in Constantinople as a much better way to proceed
further in the direction of a solid ecumenical conversation between East
and West than the presence of observers at the Council. Constantinople
came to the conclusion that, in a dialogue between the Orthodox Church
and the Catholic Church, the representatives of both sides would stand on
an equal footing, whereas at the Council the observers are mere spectators
36 A. Scrima, “Letter to Athenagoras (October 17, 1962),” The File on Vatican II (DN.
VAT.) 1, AAS-NEC, p. 1.
37 J. Willebrands, “Letter to Athenagoras (November 13, 1962),” DN. VAT. 2.1, AAS-NEC,
p. 1.
38 Athenagoras, “Letter to Johannes Willebrands (November 22, 1962),” DN. VAT. 2.1; 2.2,
AAS-NEC, pp. 2 and 3.

582 VIOREL COMAN
without voting rights. That being so, on May 14, 1963, Scrima sent an infor-
mal letter to his friend Duprey, emphasizing that “at the Phanar, the ques-
tion of observers is irremediably outdated. They propose a consultation
on the margins of the Council, at the level of bishops. I continue to believe
that Rome (the Church which presides in love) should do the impossible to
make the most of every opening of this kind.”39 In fact, from this moment
onwards, the efforts of the Patriarch of Constantinople were directed to-
wards advancing the idea of such a bilateral dialogue within the Orthodox
world. Undoubtedly, such efforts reflected first and foremost the concern
of Athenagoras and his entourage, including Scrima, for a genuine form of
dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. However,
they were also meant to minimize a bit the importance of the presence
of the Russian observers at the Council and to propose a way further in
the dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in which Constantinople
takes again the lead, not Moscow.
Meanwhile, Scrima continued to work as a bridge builder between
Constantinople and Rome, especially in the context of the Council.
Scrima tried to motivate Duprey and the Secretariat for Christian Unity
to take more action so that the conciliar discussions, primarily those of
ecumenical concern and relevance, along with the normative texts adopted
by Vatican II, would be better known by the Orthodox Churches. Given
the fact that, with few exceptions, very little information about the work of
Vatican II truly reached the Orthodox world, the proposal of Scrima was
that the Secretariat publishes regular reports (bulletins) about the work of
the Council in several Eastern European languages.40 Even though there
is no evidence that his proposal was taken up by the Secretariat, it shows
Scrima’s conviction that one of the main reasons for Orthodox Christianity’s
large disinterest41 in Vatican II was that the Eastern Churches were poorly
informed about the event that was going to change the face of modern
Catholicism. Such a lack of knowledge prevents the rapprochement between
the two Churches. As Scrima pointed out to Patriarch Athenagoras, “it is
important to be aware of all this [Vatican II] in the Orthodox Church so as
39 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (May 14, 1963),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo 4.8, p. 1,
Fondazione per le scienze religiose ‘Giovanni XXII’, Bologna.

40 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (November 27, 1963),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo
4.25, p. 5.
41 Scrima uses very often the term ‘ignorance’ to describe this lack of interest among the
Orthodox: “There is a lot of ignorance in the East about the Roman Catholic Church; people
are poorly informed about the Catholic Church” — A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (May
14, 1963),” p. 1.
not to remain with a partial and outdated image of reality [Catholicism],

while things are changing around us.”42
Three days before the second session of Vatican II, a new Pan-Orthodox
Conference was convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras
in Rhodes (September 26-28, 1963) to reach an official and commonly
accepted decision among Orthodox Churches about the future of their
relationships with the Roman Catholic Church. As expected, the Patriarchate
of Constantinople and the Churches under its influence (the Patriarchate
of Alexandria and the Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus)43
were of the opinion that a bilateral dialogue with the Catholic Church
would be a much better solution to proceed further than to send observers
to the Council. It is true that the Second Pan-Orthodox Conference took
the decision that each Orthodox Church may act freely in regard to the
question of observers, on the condition that they should not be bishops,
but clergy or laity;44 and this decision pleased Moscow very much. In fact,
it was the solution envisaged by the Russian Patriarchate as early as 1961,
especially because it neutralized the coordinating role of Constantinople.
However, with the exception of the Russian and Georgian Patriarchates,
no other Orthodox Church took the step to send observers to the second
session of Vatican II. It is true that the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided
to send André Scrima to Rome; however, he was sent as the personal
representative (apocrisiarius)45 of Athenagoras and not as an observer.
Moreover, the correspondence between Scrima and Duprey indicates that
the Secretariat for Christian Unity and Constantinople were negotiating the
presence of a personal representative of Athenagoras in Rome long before
the Second Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes.46 Nevertheless, under
the influence of Athenagoras, the most important outcome of Rhodes II
was the decision taken by the Orthodox Churches to follow the idea of
Constantinople and to propose to the Catholics the initiation of a bilateral
42 A. Scrima, “Letter to Athenagoras (October 17, 1962),” p. 1.

43 Cf. R. Bordeianu, “Orthodox Observers at the Second Vatican Council,” 97. Both Al-
exandria and Cyprus were under the influence of Constantinople, which voiced the need of
an official dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Patriarchate of Georgia, which
decided to send observers to the second session of the Council, was inevitably under the influ-
ence of Moscow and followed its politics in relation to Vatican and Constantinople.
44 V. Ioniã, “The Second Pan-Orthodox Conference, Rhodes, 26th-28th September 1963,”
in Towards the Holy and Great Synod, p. 131. See also, A. Wenger, Vatican II. Deuxième session
(Paris: Centurion, 1964), p. 266; P. Mahieu, Paul VI et les orthodoxes, p. 69.
45 Alberto Melloni, Tempus visitationis. L’intercomunione inaccaduta fra Roma e Constan-
tinopoli, Testi, ricerche e fonti, nuova serie 60 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2019), p. 34.
46 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (July 17, 1963),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo 4.16, p. 1.
584 VIOREL COMAN
dialogue “on an equal footing.”47 Even though Catholic ecumenists were

following closely the Pan-Orthodox event and commented upon its
decisions, it was Scrima’s interview offered to La Croix on November 22,
1963 that publicized the results of Rhodes II for a larger Western audience,
offering an inside perspective on the decision of the Orthodox Churches to
engage in a dialogue with the Catholic Church. As Scrima emphasized in
the interview, “the Fathers gathered in Rhodes pave the way for a creative
ecumenical event: the resumption of the face-to-face meetings between
the two Churches precisely as Churches. To me, this is something very
important.”48 However, Orthodox and Catholics had to wait two more
decades before the start of the official theological dialogue.
Even though the pre-conciliar conversations between the Secretariat
for Christian Unity and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including their ex-
change of letters and visits, launched the necessary climate of openness for
dialogue, no direct contact between the two Churches’ leadership was yet
established prior to September 1963. The moment that marks “la reprise
de relations officielles”49 between the heads of the Phanar and Vatican is
the historical letter sent by the new Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) to Patriarch
Athenagoras on September 20, 1963. As K. Schelkens pointed out, the let-
ter is “a symbolic gesture” and “the first letter of its kind since 1584.”50 In
fact, such a letter was the first result of the many efforts undertaken behind
the scenes by Willebrands, Dumont, Duprey, and Scrima in an attempt
that the contacts between Rome and Constantinople become official and
more public. The archives indicate that the letter of the Pope was drafted
by Willebrands, Dumont, and Duprey, while the Romanian theologian An-
dré Scrima was involved in the writing process of the response letter from
Athenagoras to Paul VI in November 1963. The archive of Duprey proves
that Scrima was constantly in contact with the members of the Secretariat
to make sure that the content of both letters and the ecclesiastical titles
used for the Pope and the Patriarch in the text are carefully worded to
please both Constantinople and Rome.51 What was highly relevant from
an ecumenical point of view was the fact that the letters, which initiated
the ‘dialogue of love’ between Constantinople and Rome, “listed a series
of points of agreement, publicly illustrating the already existent but yet
47 V. Ioniã, “The Second Pan-Orthodox Conference,” p. 131.

48 A. Scrima, “L’heure vient-elle d’un dialogue entre Rome et Constantinople?”, La Croix,
22 novembre 1963.
49 A. Wenger, Vatican II. Deuxième session, p. 285.
50 K. Schelkens, “Envisager la concélébration entre Rome et Constantinople?”, p. 138.
51 A. Scrima, “Letters to Pierre Duprey (November 27, 1983 and December 2, 1963),” Fon-
do Duprey, Fascicolo 4.25 and 4.26.

imperfect communion”52 existing between the Orthodox Church and the

Catholic Church.53 Both Church leaders expressed the hope of seeing
the unity reestablished in the near future. To describe the relationship
between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, Athenagoras had
no hesitation in the past to use the expression “sister churches.”54 Later on,
the expression will be appropriated by Pope Paul VI too, especially in his
brief Anno Ineunte (July 25, 1967).
The exchange of official letters passed almost unnoticed by the media
and with little debate. However, another major — yet unexpected — histor-
ic event in the relationships between Constantinople and Rome was going
to take place in less than two months: the encounter of Paul VI and Athe-
nagoras in Jerusalem (January 5-6, 1964), on the occasion of the Pope’s
pilgrimage to the Holy Land.55 Even though the decision of Athenagoras
to meet the Pope in Jerusalem took everyone by surprise and was a per-
sonal initiative rather than an official mandate from the entire Orthodox
world, this encounter, which received more public attention than the ex-
change of letters, can rightly be considered the single most important ecu-
menical event in centuries in the relationship between Constantinople and
Rome prior to their mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054 at the end of
the Council. The face-to-face meeting in Jerusalem led to an exchange of
symbolic gifts and a common prayer, as well as to a joint communiqué,
in which the two Church leaders reaffirmed their commitment to unity
and reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.56 As Scrima was
to emphasize in his interview for La Croix, the meeting in Jerusalem was
“the foretaste of unity. This unity draws its certainty and profound joy from
this event.”57 Along with the part played by Metropolitan Athenagoras of
Thyatira and Meliton of Heliopolis, Scrima’s contribution to the meeting
of Patriarch Athenagoras with Pope Paul VI is comparable to the role of
Cardinal Bea, Willebrands and the other members of the Secretariat on the

53 See E. J. Stormon, Towards the Healing of Schism: The Sees of Rome and Constantinople
Public Statements and Correspondence between the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate
(1958-1984) (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 52-54.
54 See Will T. Cohen, The Concept of ‘Sister Churches’ in Catholic-Orthodox Relations since
Vatican II, Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 67 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2016).

55 John Chryssavgis, “Pilgrimage Towards Unity: Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and
Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem Based on Correspondence and Archives,” in J. Chryssavgis (ed.),

Dialogue of Love, pp. 1-26; see also Antoine Wenger & Pierre Galllay, Pèlerinage en Terre Sainte,
4-6 janvier 1964 (Paris: Centurion, 1964).
56 E. J. Stormon, Towards the Healing of Schism, p. 64.
57 A. Scrima, “Il y a un mois, Paul VI et Athénagoras Ier se rencontraient à Jérusalem,” La
Croix, 7 février 1964.

586 VIOREL COMAN
Catholic side, whose diplomatic activities behind the scenes in December

1963 were essential for the preparation, the success, and the media cover-
age of the event.58 In addition, as Scrima explained to Pierre Duprey in a
confidential letter from January 24, 1964, he had to travel to Geneva in
the weeks after the meeting in Jerusalem in order to ease tensions with
the representatives of the World Council of Churches, especially Willem A.
Visser ’t Hooft and Lukas Vischer, who reacted negatively to the initiative
of Athenagoras to meet the Pope. The representatives of the WCC consid-
ered that the meeting in Jerusalem gave to the public the impression that
Geneva is no longer the center of ecumenism and the main coordinator
of ecumenical activities.59 As Scrima emphasized in his conversation with
Visser ’t Hooft, the event in Jerusalem was so important for the ecumenical
interconnections between Constantinople and Rome that it “exceeds our
various and different interpretations of it.”60 Years later, the Ecumenical
Patriarch Athenagoras sent a private letter to André Scrima to express his
“warm gratitude” for the contribution of the Romanian theologian to the
preparatory process and the long-term achievements of his meeting with
Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem.61
1964-1967: The Journey from Jerusalem to Rome and Constantinople

The second phase of Scrima’s contribution to the Orthodox-Catholic
rapprochement started with his participation as an observer to Vatican II
(1964-1965). It ended up with Scrima’s involvement in the lifting of the
anathemas of 1054, as well as with his contribution to the meetings between
the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope in both Constantinople and Rome
in 1967.
Before the opening of the third session of Vatican II (September 14 –
November 21, 1964), Scrima’s status at the Council was upgraded from
personal representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch to official observer.
After the positive decision of Rhodes II regarding the future of the relation-
ships between the Orthodox Church, and as a result of the historic meet-
ing in Jerusalem between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople,
Athenagoras took the wise decision during the Summer of 1964 to send

59 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (January 24, 1964),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo 4.35,
pp. 1-3.
60 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (January 24, 1964),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo 4.35,
p. 2.
61 Patriarch Athenagoras, “Letter to André Scrima,” Ecclesiastical Correspondence (CE)
66, AAS-NEC, p. 1. The date is not mentioned. The letter was probably drafted towards the
end of 1967.
Scrima to the Council as an observer. Because of that, and also due to his
nomination on August 12, 1964 as rector of the Greek Orthodox parish in
the capital city of Italy, Scrima had to change his residence for a while, too:
from Paris to Rome.62 Scrima’s arrival in Rome as an observer was accom-
panied by a letter of recommendation written by Athenagoras to Cardinal
Bea, in which the Ecumenical Patriarch pointed out that
We are convinced that the presence in Rome of the Most Reverend Father Scri-
ma, known, moreover, to Your Eminence — and who enjoys a long ecumenical
experience, having closely followed the […] aspirations of the Christian world
and, in a more direct way, the realities concerning the venerable Sister Church
of Rome — will constitute one more link between our Churches on the way
towards the sacred goal of unity. He will serve the goal of unity in a spirit of
mutual understanding, brotherhood, and fervent hope.63
As an observer, Scrima had “a marginal status but a decisive role”64 in

the Council, for he exercised an important influence on the discussions that
decided the final version of some conciliar documents, especially Lumen
Gentium VIII. During the third session of the Council,65 when the debates
on the dogmatization of Mary’s mediatory role turned the Council into
the scene of tense confrontations between the supporters of a ‘maximalist’
Mariology and the advocators of a ‘minimalist’ Mariology, Charles Moeller
and Mgr. Jozef Maria Heuschen invited Scrima to draft a short paper on
the Orthodox understanding of Mediatrix. His three-page text in French,
whose copy is preserved in the archives of Charles Moeller in Louvain-
la-Neuve,66 as well as in the archives of Mgr. Gerard Philips in Leuven67
reached a large audience within the Council and conveyed the message
62 Athenagoras, “Letter to André Scrima (August 12, 1964),” CE 45, AAS-NEC, p. 1.
63 Athenagoras, “Letter to Cardinal Bea (September 1, 1964),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo
A1.C/5a.
64 Scrima had a marginal status in the sense that he was not a member of the Council, but
a non-Catholic observer. See A. Melloni, “The Form of Vatican II: History, Images, and Maps
from the Time of the Council,” in A. Melloni (ed.), Vatican II: The Complete History (New York,
NY: Paulist Press, 2015), p. 10. See also R. Bordeianu, “Orthodox Observers at the Second
Vatican Council,” p. 100.
65 The Secretariat organized a meeting with the observers on September 22, 1964 in order
to hear their comments about Mary as mediator. Scrima was one of the participants in the
meeting and expressed his support for a ‘minimalist’ Mariology. See “Réunion avec les obser-
vateurs. 22 septembre 1964,” UC Louvain, The Archives of the Lumen Gentium Center, Ch.
Moeller papers, cod. 889a, 12 pp.
66 A. Scrima, “Notes faite à la demande de Ch. Moeller, appuyée par Mgr. Heuschen, par le
prof. Scrima. Transmis à Mgr. Philips le 4/10/1964,” UC Louvain, The Archives of the Lumen
Gentium Center, Ch. Moeller papers, cod. 00813.
67 A. Scrima, “Notes du professeur Scrima sur la théologie mariale en Orient (3 October
1964),” KU Leuven, Vatican II Archives, G. Philips papers, cod. P.046.23/1985.

588 VIOREL COMAN
that the dogmatization of Mary’s mediatory role by Vatican II would turn

into a needless theoretical formula something that in Eastern Christianity
pertains to the level of Orthodox liturgical and contemplative devotion.
Unlike the level of dogma, the level of theological meditation and liturgical
expression is the domain of symbols, metaphors, and poetic images. The
symbolic, metaphoric, and poetic language concerning Mary, which is the
expression of the liturgical experience, is not intended to define or elucidate
with dogmatic precision the mystery of the Mother of God. Springing out of
a doxological and intuitive knowledge enacted in worship, such a language
invites the believer to meditation and contemplation. When turned into
dogma and an obligatory formula, such a vocabulary is transposed into the
strict categories of something that it was not meant to be. Moreover, Scrima
claimed that such a dogmatization runs even the risk of being ecumenically
harmful, likely to cause more divisiveness, for it would publicly proclaim
as a dogma — which could become an object of misunderstandings —
something that for the Orthodox Church belongs to the inner tradition,
to the life of prayer, worship, and contemplation. Scrima’s observations
that in Eastern Christianity Mediatrix should be read with a hermeneutic
suitable to piety and liturgical language rather than with a hermeneutic
proper to dogmatic formulas provided the conciliar fathers with the key
to solve the issue of Mary’s mediatory role in a satisfactory way for both
camps, reaching a kind of compromise or via media.68 To make sure that
LG VIII received the affirmative vote of the ‘maximalist’ bishops, the term
Mediatrix is unavoidably kept in the text of the Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church (§ 62);69 however, to encourage a ‘minimalist’ reading of the
Marian chapter, Mediatrix is set within the context of devotion, liturgical
piety, and prayer. In this sense, it “shows remarkable sobriety.”70
It will go far beyond the scope and space-limits of this article to offer a
68 The contribution of Scrima to the final version of LG VIII is equally emphasized by a
series of scholars such as Cesare Antonelli, “Le rôle de Mgr Gérard Philips dans la rédaction
du chapitre VIII de Lumen Gentium,” Marianum 55:1 (1993), pp. 17-97; Idem, Il dibattito su
Maria nel concilio Vaticano II: percorso redazionale sulla base di nuovi documenti di archive
(Padova: Edizioni Messagero, 2009), pp. 548-561; Viorel Coman, “Orthodox Theologians
Observing Vatican II: André Scrima’s Contribution to Lumen Gentium VIII,” Journal of
Eastern Christian Studies (forthcoming 2020); and Peter De Mey, “Non-Catholic Observers at
Vatican II,” in Catherine E. Clifford and Massimo Faggioli, The Oxford Handbook of Vatican II
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2021).
69 See Norman Tanner (ed.), “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” in Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, vol. II: Trent-Vatican II (London: Sheed&Ward, 1990), pp. 895-896.
70 Kari Børresen, “Mary in Catholic Theology,” in Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann
(eds.), Mary in the Churches (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983), 53; Elisabeth A. Johnson, “Mary
as Mediatrix,” in H. George Anderson et alii (eds.), The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary:
Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1992), p. 321.
detailed presentation of the entire contribution of Scrima to the discussions

concerning the other conciliar documents during the third and the fourth
sessions of Vatican II.71 To indicate his strong commitment to the cause of
ecclesial unity, it suffices here to mention that Scrima had also contributed
to the climate of dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches
through a series of ecumenical conferences and lectures addressed to
Catholic audiences in the context of the Council: “Vues orthodoxes sur
Vatican II” (this lecture was delivered in front of the African bishops that
were present at the Council, 1964);72 “Perspectives œcuméniques: point de
vue d’un orthodoxe” (Catholic University of Leuven, 1965);73 “La Chiesa
Ortodossa e l’attuale momento ecumenico” (Centro Culturale San Fedele,
Milan, 1965);74 “Situation singulière des Églises orthodoxes et catholiques
à l’intérieur du dialogue œcuménique” (Rome, 1966).75 Furthermore, in
a spirit of ecumenical openness, he also provided Catholic theologians
and scholars with a series of commentaries on several documents issued
by Vatican II: “La Constitution dogmatique Lumen Gentium: simples
réflexions d’un Orthodoxe;”76 “Révélation et tradition dans la Constitution
dogmatique Dei Verbum selon un point de vue orthodoxe;”77 “La constitution
pastorale Gaudium et Spes: un point de vue orthodoxe;”78 and “Points de
vue orthodoxes sur le schéma « Des Églises orientales ».”79
During the last months of 1964, Scrima’s contribution to the Mariologi-
cal chapter of the Church paralleled his vigorous attempt to make Athe-
nagoras’ visit to Vatican possible. As the correspondence between Scrima
71 In his article on the role of the Orthodox observers at the Council, R. Bordeianu refers
to the contribution of Scrima to Dei Verbum – “Orthodox Observers at the Second Vatican
Council,” p. 100.
72 The manuscript of this lecture is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Unpub-
lished Texts (TND) 8,” 4 pages.

73 The written text has been established on the basis of the audio recording of the confer-
ence. See UC Louvain, The Archives of the Lumen Gentium Center, Ch. Moeller papers, cod.
02040, 13 pages.
74 The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Published Texts (TP)
17bis,” 14 pages. It was published in Russia Cristiana 65 (1965), pp. 3-8.

75 The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder TND 13, 13 pages.
76 Scrima, A. “Simples réflexions d’un orthodoxe sur la Constitution,” in G. Barauna and
Y. Congar (eds.), L’Église de Vatican II: études autour de la Constitution conciliaire sur l’Église,
t. III, Unam Sanctam 51C (Paris: Cerf, 1966), pp. 1279-1294.
77 Scrima, A. “Révélation et tradition dans la constitution dogmatique Dei Verbum selon
un point de vue orthodoxe,” in B.-D. Dupuy (ed.), Vatican II. La révélation divine, Unam Sanc-
tam 70 (Paris: Cerf, 1968), pp. 523-539.
78 The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Unpublished Texts
(TNN) 8,” 12 pages.

79 The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Published Texts (TP) 9.”
It was published by Scrima in Antiochena 3 (1964).

590 VIOREL COMAN
and Duprey indicates,80 Athenagoras’s willingness to visit Paul VI surfaced

earlier than 1964, but it was only during the third session of the Council
that such an idea crystallized in the mind of the Ecumenical Patriarch and
his entourage. On September 24, 1964, Yves Congar wrote in his Journal
du Concile: “I went out for a moment. Conversation with Fr Scrima […].
Fr Scrima asked me what I would think about a visit by the Patriarch to
Rome.”81 On October 20, Congar wrote again: “I saw Fr Duprey for a mo-
ment, who said to me: pray for me. I am leaving this evening. He said no
more, but I understood that he was going to prepare for Patriarch Athena-
goras’ arrival at the Council.”82 Unfortunately, Athenagoras’ intention to
visit the Pope did not materialize. As Congar mentioned in his Journal on
November 4, “I saw Fr Scrima for a moment, who had just come from
Rhodes […]. Dialogue seems to be decided on! But His Holiness Athenago-
ras will not be coming. He had intended to, not in a personal capacity, nor
as Ecumenical Patriarch, but at the head of a delegation from Rhodes.”83
Years later, during an interview offered to Jean Puyo the same French Do-
minican theologian admiratively referred to Scrima by saying that he was
“an exceptional man who served as the link between Constantinople and
Rome […]. Travelling constantly between the two cities, he was negotiat-
ing — I understood him at half a word — Athenagoras’ visit to Rome. But,
unfortunately, this could not happen.”84
In fact, the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch to give up his inten-
tion to visit the Pope was meant to save the unity of Orthodoxy. From
November 1 to 15, 1964, the third Pan-Orthodox conference was held in
Rhodes to re-discuss, among other things, the agreement of the previous
year on the dialogue with the Catholic Church. The decision to take up
once again a discussion on this issue was made because a few Patriarch-
ates showed again resistance to the idea of opening immediately the dia-
logue with Rome.85 Whereas Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and
Cyprus were of the opinion that the dialogue could start immediately, Mos-
cow, Antioch, Georgia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece started claiming that
80 A. Scrima, “Letter to Pierre Duprey (10 May 1963),” Fondo Duprey, Fascicolo 4.7. In
1963, the synod of Constantinople did not approve Athenagoras’ request to visit the Pope.
81 Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, vol. II (Paris: Cerf, 2002), p. 158.
82 Ibid., p. 213.
83 Ibid., pp. 238-239.
84 Jean Puyo, Une vie pour la vérité. Jean Puyo interroge le père Congar (Paris: Centurion,
1975), p. 147. See also the article published by Sorin-Constantin ‹elaru on Scrima’s under-
standing of ecclesial authority: “La synodalité et l’autorité au niveau régional de l’Église: de
Lumen Gentium au Document de Ravenne,” Irén 87:2 (2015), pp. 187.
85 A. Wegner, Les Trois Rome. L’Église des années soixante (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer,
1991), p. 161.
the dialogue with Rome had better begin after the “closure of the Second
Vatican Council, when all the decisions of this council will have been taken
and the Orthodox could have a clear image as to the position of Rome”86
on ecumenism and the ecclesial status of the Orthodox Church. Romania,
Serbia, and Poland were opposed to a dialogue with Rome, especially due
to “the difficulties these Churches had at home because of the Uniates.”87 In
order to reach a via media solution and avoid other possible tensions within
Orthodoxy, Athenagoras had to renounce his idea of coming to Rome.88
That being the case, the document agreed upon in the Rhodes meeting
reemphasized the desire of the Orthodox Church to engage in a dialogue
with the Catholic Church. However, the participants in the meeting de-
cided to postpone the beginning of an official theological conversation with
Rome, for such a dialogue needed to be first of all very well prepared.89 In
fact, the preparation of the dialogue lasted almost two decades, for the of-
ficial conversation between the two Churches did not begin before 1980.
Even though Rhodes III did not fully embrace the position of Constanti-
nople and seemed to go to a certain extent against Rhodes II,90 its decision
pleased Athenagoras, because the Conference made clear that each Ortho-
dox Church “is free to continue to promote in its own name and not that of
the whole Orthodoxy, brotherly relations with the Roman Catholic Church,
in the belief that in this way the difficulties currently existing could be
eliminated step by step.”91 In this sense, Rhodes III can still be considered
as a victory for Athenagoras and his supporters, including Scrima, primar-
ily because Constantinople and all the other Orthodox Churches were free
to continue the ‘dialogue of love’ with the Catholics that was initiated by
the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope a year earlier. The ‘dialogue of love’
prepared the path towards the official theological dialogue between the
Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.
Given the spirit of ecumenical openness shown by Rhodes III, in the
Summer of 1965 Constantinople took the bold initiative92 of proposing to
Paul VI the solemn lifting of the mutual anathemas of 1054 between the
two Churches. After a consultation with the experts, the Pope accepted
86 O. Clément, “La troisième conférence de Rhodes,” Contacts 17:49 (1965), p. 61.

87 Ibid., p. 61.
88 O. Clément, Dialogues avec le patriarche Athénagoras, p. 383.
89 V. Ioniã, “The Third Pan-Orthodox Conference, Rhodes, 1st-15th November 1964,” in
Towards the Holy and Great Synod, p. 134.

90 P. Mahieu, Paul VI et les orthodoxes, p. 85.
91 V. Ioniã, “The Third Pan-Orthodox Conference,” p. 134.
92 Valeria Martano, Athenagoras, il patriarca (1886-1972). Un cristiano fra crisi della coab-
itazione e utopia ecuménica (Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996), 480; O. Clément, Dialogues avec le
patriarche Athénagoras, pp. 391-392.
592 VIOREL COMAN
the proposal and two parallel commissions were formed in Constantinople

and Rome to work out the procedures and the drafts of a joint or common
declaration. From November 22-24, 1965, a mixed commission was set up
to establish the final text of the declaration, which was solemnly read out
in the presence of Athenagoras and Paul VI in St George’s Cathedral in the
Phanar and in St Peter’s Basilica in Vatican on December 7, 1965, when the
two prelates “removed from both the memory and the midst of the Church
the sentence of excommunication” dating back to 1054.93 Even though such
a symbolic gesture never implied the restoration of full union between the
Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it added to the ‘dialogue of love’
between Constantinople and Rome, eliminating from personal and collec-
tive conscience a painful event in the relations between the two Churches.
Scrima’s contribution to the lifting of the anathemas was not minor, as he
and Duprey served as the secretaries of the mixed commission94 entrusted
— together with the other members of the same commission — with the fi-
nal wordings of the joint declaration. Moreover, before the formation of the
mixed commission, which established the text of the final declaration, the
Catholic commission drafted its own version of the consensus document,
which was first shown by Willebrands to Scrima in Rome for comments
and remarks.95 In addition, a copy of the draft was brought by Scrima to the
Phanar, so that the members of the Orthodox commission were informed
of the work of their Catholic colleagues so as to prepare reactions in ad-
vance.96 When the mixed commission gathered in the Phanar to decide the
final form of the common declaration, the working text of the commission
was basically the draft proposed by the Catholic side. Interviewed about the
significance of the symbolic act of 1965, Scrima pointed out that the lift-
ing of the mutual anathemas “bears witness to the new ecumenical climate
between the two Churches […]. Moreover, just as it represents the fruit of
a charismatic act (the meeting in Jerusalem) with unforeseen implications,
so too it will lead in the future to other events”97 of ecumenical relevance.
93 J. Chryssavgis, “Pilgrimage Towards Unity,” p. 19.
94 Cf. Tomos Agapis: Vatican-Phanar (1958–1970) (Rome and Istanbul, 1971), 270. Apart
from Scrima and Duprey, the other members of the commission were: on the Orthodox side,
Metropolitan Meliton of Heliopolis, Chrysostomos of Myra, Fr. Gabriele, Fr. Georges Anas-
tasiades, and archdeacon Fr. Evanghelos; on the Catholic side, Msgr. Willebrands, Michele
Maccarrone, Alphonse Raes, Christophe Dumont, and Alphonse Stickler.
95 Leo Declerck (ed.), Les agendas conciliaires de Mgr. J. Willebrands, secrétaire du Secré-
tariat pour l’unité chrétiens (Leuven: Maurits Sabbebibliotheek Faculteit Godgeleerdheid/Pee-

ters, 2009), p. 261; A. Melloni, Tempus visitationis, p. 56.
96 M. Velati, Separati ma fratelli, p. 634.
97 A. Scrima, “La levée des anathèmes entre les Églises d’Orient et d’Occident est un acte
réparateur,” Le Monde, 22 décembre 1965. See also the English version of the article: “The
Lifting of the Anathemas: An Act of Reparation,” Eastern Churches Review 1 (1966), pp. 23-26.
Scrima was right, for the symbolic gesture of 1965 spawned new and
numerous ecumenical openings between the leaders of the two Churches,
especially Paul VI’s journey to Constantinople (July 25, 1967) and Athena-
goras’ visit to Rome (October 26-28, 1967). As expected, Scrima was again
involved in the behind-the-scene negotiations that accompanied the meet-
ings between Paul VI and Athenagoras in 1967. Two letters sent by Athe-
nagoras to him towards the end of the same year show the gratitude of the
Orthodox Patriarch for the involvement of the Romanian theologian in the
preparatory process of the two meetings,98 as well as for his entire ecumeni-
cal work in the service of the Patriarchate of Constantinople:
We are grateful for your voluntary participation in and collaboration for the
success of the dialogue that had begun between the two separated Churches so
that one day we may reach the unity and communion that allows us to partake
in the same Eucharistic chalice and cup, as it was until 1054, despite the differ-
ences that existed between us at that time.99
Looking back over the road we have travelled up to now, it is right to

say that the contribution of the Romanian theologian to the process that
brought Orthodoxy and Catholicism from mutual hostility to ecumenical
conversation makes Scrima one of the most important figures in the
ecumenical development between Eastern and Western Christianity in the
mid-1960s. Even though his contacts with Constantinople became sporadic
after 1967 and stopped altogether with the death of Athenagoras in 1972,
Scrima had never ceased working for Orthodox-Catholic unity. In fact,
from 1972 and until his return to Romania in 1991, that is, two years after
the fall of Communist regime, Scrima divided his time between Lebanon,
Rome, Paris, and the United States, carrying out Athenagoras’ ecumenical
hopes and dreams. When he was not travelling around Europe or engaging
in ecumenical activities, Scrima worked intensively as a spiritual father
of the monastery of St George at Deir-el-Harf, as well as a professor of
Orthodox theology and philosophy at the Saint Joseph Catholic University
of Beirut and the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Without abandoning the
field of ecumenism, towards the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the
1980s, Scrima’s theological interest expanded to encompass inter-religious
dialogue, too. Upon his return to Romania, Scrima became a member of
the New Europe College in Bucharest. He died on August 19, 2000 in the
capital city of Romania. In 2004, some of his papers on the Second Vatican
98 Athenagoras, “Letter to André Scrima,” Ecclesiastical Correspondence (CE) 66, AAS-
NEC, p. 1.
99 Athenagoras, “Letter to André Scrima (September 12, 1967),” Ecclesiastical Correspon-
dence (CE) 64, AAS-NEC, p. 1.

594 VIOREL COMAN
Council were translated from French into Romanian and published in

a volume suggestively entitled Duhul Sfânt ›i unitatea Bisericii: jurnal
de Conciliu [The Holy Spirit and the Unity of the Church: Journal of the
Council].100 Other theological works, which he had written under the form
of articles and short essays, followed shortly.101 In one of his last interviews
on Vatican II, Scrima perfectly summarized the perennial relevance of the
ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships. According to Scrima,
it “allowed us to see that the shortest way to ourselves is through the
other.”102
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, two main ideas need to be emphasized.
First of all, the ecumenical shift in Orthodox-Catholic relations has been
the result of the creative vision and courageous actions of a few people
who, with continuing passion for ecclesial unity, have drawn Eastern and
Western Christianity closer to each other on the path towards reconciliation
and communion. The Romanian theologian André Scrima occupies a
foremost place among the Orthodox protagonists of the reverting to
dialogue in Orthodox-Catholic relationship. Even though Scrima worked
mostly behind the scenes or en coulisse, his contribution was paramount
to the emergence of the ecumenical climate and dialogue between the two
main branches of Christianity. That being so, this article sought to offer
an overview of the individual efforts of a distinguished ecumenical figure
who, despite different obstacles and difficulties, had never lost the power to
carry on the cause of unity and love between the Orthodox Church and the
Catholic Church. Such power inspires, challenges, and nourishes creatively
100 A. Scrima, Duhul Sfânt ›i unitatea Bisericii. Jurnal de Conciliu [The Holy Spirit and the
Unity of the Church. Journal of the Council] (Bucharest: Anastasia, 2004).

101 A. Scrima, Teme ecumenice [Ecumenical Themes] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2004); Idem,
Biserica liturgicã [The Liturgical Church] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2005); Idem, O gândire fãrã
ãrmuri [A Thinking Without Realms] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2005); Idem, Comentariu in-
tegral la Evanghelia dupã Ioan [Commentary on the Gospel of John] (Bucharest: Humanitas,
2008); Idem, Ortodoxia ›i încercarea comunismului [Orthodoxy and the Trial of Communism]
(Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008); Idem, Experiena spiritualã ›i limbajele ei [Spiritual Experience
and Its Language] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008); Idem, Funcia criticã a raiunii [The Critical
Role of Reason] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2011); Idem, Timpul rugului aprins. Maestrul spiritual
în tradiia rãsãriteanã [The Time of the Burning Bush. The Spiritual Director in Eastern Tradi-
tion] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2012). So far, the only existing monograph dedicated to André
Scrima was published recently: Ioan Alexandru Tofan, Omul lãuntric. André Scrima ›i fiziono-
mia experienei spirituale [The Inner Human Being. André Scrima and the Structure of Spiritual
Experience] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2019).
102 A. Scrima, “Le Concile Vatican II… et après?,” Unité des Chrétiens 79 (July 1990), p. 5.
all those who devote themselves to the advancement of dialogue between

Christian Churches.
Secondly, in 2020 the official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue
celebrates its fortieth anniversary. After five years (1975-1980) of intense
preparations, the International Commission for Theological Dialogue be-
tween the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church met in plenary assem-
bly for the first time in 1980. Without any doubt, the inauguration of the of-
ficial Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is the fruit of the impressive ecumenical
work done in the 1970s by theologians from both camps. However, without
minimizing at all their contribution, the launch of the official dialogue be-
tween the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church would not have been
possible without the very efficient work of the key players of the ecumeni-
cal turn that took place a decade earlier. That being so, the celebration of
the fortieth anniversary of the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue should
also be a celebration of the protagonists of the ecumenical turn, including
André Scrima. In this sense, this article is an effort to commemorate the
heroes of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Research Foundation Viorel Coman

Flanders/KU Leuven
Charles Deberiotstraat 26 – box 3101
3000 Leuven, Belgium
viorel.coman@kuleuven.be
SUMMARY
The article focuses on the contribution of the Romanian Orthodox theologian André
Scrima (1925-2000) to the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships. Scrima was
the personal representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I to Vatican II (1962-
1965), and a key figure in the process that led Constantinople and Rome from estrangement
to conversation and cooperation in the 1960s. Most of the scholarship that explores the Ortho-
dox impetus to this turn to dialogue focuses almost exclusively on the ecumenical initiatives
of the representatives of the Russian diaspora in Paris. That being the case, no solid atten-
tion is given to Scrima’s role in the breaking down of the long heritage of division between
Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Drawing on unexplored archival material, this article fills this
lacuna, offering an analysis of Scrima’s contribution to the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-
Catholic relationships during the time period between 1957 and 1967. In so doing, the article
reconstructs the key role played by the Romanian theologian in the events that changed the
trajectory of Orthodox-Catholic relationships.

OCP 2020 - 2 Extracta Coman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

OCP 2020 - 2 Extracta Coman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCP 2020 - 2 Extracta Coman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volumen 86 Fasciculus II 2020

PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM ORIENTALIUM STUDIORUM

Poste Italiane s.p.a.

Subscription should be paid by a check made to Pontificio Istituto

Edited by Philippe Luisier (Editor), e-mail: pluisier@orientale.it; Jarosáaw

Daniel L. McConaughy, Aphrahat on the Role of Holy Spirit in the

Peter Dufka, S.J., Il discernimento spirituale secondo Barsanufio

Damien Labadie, La Laudatio sancti Stephani du pseudo-Chrysosto-

Federico Alpi – Pietro D’Agostino, Negotiating the Union Epistolary

Hayarpi Hakobyan, Foremother Eve in the Nativity of Christ

Tommaso Braccini, Tre versioni dell’“esorcismo di Gello” da mano-

Viorel Coman, André Scrima’s Contribution to the Ecumenical

BENOIT-MEGGENIS, Rosa, L’empereur et le moine. Les relations du

La conversion de Gaza au christianisme. La Vie de S. Porphyre de Gaza

DAOU, Hadi, « Église-communion », « collégialité » et « synodalité » (M.

PALLATH, Paul, Unity of Christian Initiation, with Special Reference to

SAIANI, Gaia Sofia (edizione critica ed introduzione a cura di), La

TOSCANO, Silvia, Ján Hollý (1785-1849) cantore di Cirillo e Metodio

SCRIPTA AD NOS MISSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

INDEX VOLUMINIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617-619

André Scrima’s Contribution to the Ecumenical

A great ecumenical improvement in Orthodox-Catholic relationships

OCP 86 (2020) 571-595

and jointly by a series of open-minded theologians, innovative movements,

logical Education (Volos/Geneva: Volos Academy Publications/WCC Publications, 2014).

Reconciliation (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1995).

Drawing mostly on a large amount of unexplored archival material, this

André Scrima’s First Encounters with Western Catholicism (1957-1961)

years.9 Moreover, what is equally relevant is that Scrima’s participation in

no. 94690, vol. I, pp. 353-364.

intellectual élite, especially to the ecumenically minded figures associated

accepted the invitations of several institutions and monastic centers to of-

Scrima’s detour to Paris had a twofold ecumenical relevance. First,

André Scrima: A Key Protagonist of the Ecumenical Turn (1961-1967)

24 A. Scrima, “Letter to Benedict Ghiu›,” p. 356.

1961-1964: On the Road to the Historic Meeting in Jerusalem

30 Ch. Dumont, “Letter to Scrima (September 2, 1960),” CS 1, AAS-NEC, p. 1.

33 See Karim Schelkens, “Envisager la concélébration entre Rome et Constantinople?

Johannes Willebrands et Athénagoras de Constantinople,” Istina 57 (2012), pp. 127-157;

The Patriarchate of Constantinople should be represented in Rome by a delega-

Even though the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not immediately

AAS-NEC, pp. 2 and 3.

Fondazione per le scienze religiose ‘Giovanni XXII’, Bologna.

not to remain with a partial and outdated image of reality [Catholicism],

42 A. Scrima, “Letter to Athenagoras (October 17, 1962),” p. 1.

dialogue “on an equal footing.”47 Even though Catholic ecumenists were

47 V. Ioniã, “The Second Pan-Orthodox Conference,” p. 131.

do Duprey, Fascicolo 4.25 and 4.26.

imperfect communion”52 existing between the Orthodox Church and the

52 K. Schelkens, “Envisager la concélébration entre Rome et Constantinople?”, p. 138.

Vatican II, Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 67 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2016).

Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem Based on Correspondence and Archives,” in J. Chryssavgis (ed.),

Croix, 7 février 1964.

Catholic side, whose diplomatic activities behind the scenes in December

1964-1967: The Journey from Jerusalem to Rome and Constantinople

58 K. Schelkens, “Envisager la concélébration entre Rome et Constantinople?”, p. 138.

As an observer, Scrima had “a marginal status but a decisive role”64 in

47 V. Ioniã, “The Second Pan-Orthodox Conference,” p. 131.