The Ecumenical Dialogue of the 21st Century. An Obstacle Course? [3]

Related to the problem of acceptance, however, is the issue of the degree of freedom of thought and action of the parties involved in the talks. The obvious question which arises as regards this point is whether and to what extent the bishops, priests, professors and theologians who take part in these dialogues actually represent the official “line” of their respective Churches and the extent to which they are merely expressing personal theological positions with which it will be impossible for the Churches which appointed them as representatives to identify later. Solving this problem will go a long way towards the prevention of misunderstandings as regards the nature of the talks and the role played in them by official Church delegates.

A preliminary evaluation of these dialogues of the Orthodox Church, on an inter-Orthodox level, in fact, was made at the 3^rd Pan-Orthodox Preconcilar Council in 1986. There has been further monitoring since then by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the basis of reports sent from time to time by the chairmen and secretaries heading the talks.

It is beyond question that such periodic monitoring contributes to defining problems and finding ways out of theological, ecclesiological or pastoral impasses. Be that as it may, however, I believe that the evaluation of these talks leads nowhere unless we simultaneously monitor the talks being held among themselves by heterodox Churches and Confessions. Particularly so when many of the issues under discussion are also on the agenda for the talks with the Orthodox Church.

In the face of so many bilateral dialogues, the most important thing to bear in mind is the achievement of cohesion and continuity in terms of their orientation and results. What our counterparts must be particularly careful to avoid in talks among themselves, is expressing views diametrically opposite to those they formulate when talking to the Orthodox[7].

The Ecumenical dialogue must, above all, be a “dialogue of truth”. This is, at least, the sense in which it was understood by the Orthodox when, some 35 years ago, through a Pan-Orthodox decision,  it inaugurated talks with various heterodox Churches, setting as their aim a common path of Christians towards their union. But when in these talks, contradictory positions are expressed for reasons of “ecumenical courtesy” or merely so that there will be some identification with the theological tradition of the interlocutor on any given occasion, then not only is the truth not manifested, but also there is no promotion of the common quest for Christian unity, which is precisely the main aim of the talks in the first place.

There are, of course, not a few people who ask directly whether it is worth the Orthodox persisting in talks with the heterodox, given that these seem not to be progressing towards the goal of Christian unity, precisely because of the road-blocks which are created.

And yet it must be confessed that, despite the difficulties that have presented themselves, these bilateral talks, as well as the multilateral dialogues being conducted at the WCC and the CEC are, in fact, a valuable means of reconciliation, a unique context within which a variety of opportunities are presented for encounters, acquaintanceships and mutual assessments between Christians. At a time of radical global turmoil, in which Christianity is being attacked on all sides, by all kinds of hostile forces, the participation of Orthodoxy in the ecumenical movement is not only a positive stimulus, but also a reminder that if we really want to play any sort of role at all in the formation of the society of the future (a role we are already claiming through official texts and unofficial, weighty declarations) we need to get ourselves out of the tightly-sealed framework in which we have trapped ourselves and to approach the “others”, who until even very recently we knew only from manuals of apologetics and or polemics.

There is no doubt that the path leading to Christian unity is rocky and trying, because it is not easy to bridge enormous gaps and make our way, here and now, round the theological altercations and a variety of other ecclesiastical-political conflicts which have accumulated over the centuries. But we should not lose heart, nor be discouraged. Rather, as the 3^rd Preconciliar Conference in 1986 stressed, convinced as we are that our Church is the bearer and witness of the faith and tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that it therefore occupies the central position in the matter of promoting Christian unity, we must continue and cultivate inter-Christian dialogue further, despite the road-blocks and obstacles on the way, in an effort to restore the unity of the Church and, as Mark of Ephesus said at the Council of Florence, the return of all “at that time when, being united, we shall all say the same thing and there shall be no schism among us”[8].