ECUMENICAL TRENDS Vol 53 No 2 n Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute n March/April 2024 A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement The Way Is Open: Synodality, Ecumenism, and the Future of a Church in Process By Nathalie Becquart, XMCJ, and Aaron Hollander A aron Hollander, for Ecumenical Trends: It is an honor to speak with you, Sr. Nathalie, on the processes and priorities of the Synod for a Synodal Church, as we are now into the final year of the process – ongoing since October 2021 – of discerning at every level and across the globe how the Roman Catholic Church can move toward a more participatory, more mission-oriented, more communal and communion-grounded reality. We can speak in more granular terms about the goals and the methods of the Synod shortly, but it would be fitting to begin by asking about your own role in the Synod and how that position has been shaped over these past couple of years. What is your background that has equipped you for this major role you now play, as one of only two Undersecretaries for the Vatican’s General Secretariat of the Synod? Nathalie Becquart, XMCJ: I have been working in this office since I was appointed by Pope Francis in February 2021. My background is somewhat eclectic, I suppose: my first postgraduate studies were in a business school, where continued on page 2 Sr. Nathalie Becquart, XMCJ, is the Undersecretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod at the Vatican. As a Xavière sister from France, her mission has largely focused on youth and synodality. Prior to her current appointment, she served as National Director of the Service for the Evangelization of Young People and Vocations in France and did research in ecclesiology at the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College. She has also studied management and entrepreneurship at HEC, philosophy and theology at Centre Sèvres (Facultés Loyola), as well as sociology at the EHESS in Paris. Dr. Aaron T. Hollander is Editor of Ecumenical Trends, Associate Director of Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute, and Adjunct Faculty in Theology at Fordham University. In 2022, he was elected President of the North American Academy of Ecumenists; he also serves on the steering committee of the Ecclesiological Investigations International Research Network and on the faculty of the Summer Course in Ecumenism at the Centro Pro Unione in Rome. He is a scholar of ecumenical theology and lived religion, with his PhD from the University of Chicago (2018). His first book, forthcoming from Fordham University Press (2025), is entitled Saint George Liberator: Hagiography and Resistance on the Island of Saints. IN THIS ISSUE The Way Is Open: Synodality, Ecumenism, and the Future of a Church in Process NATHALIE BECQUART, XMCJ, AND AARON HOLLANDER.......................................................1 Acting Synodality: A Project of the Centro Pro Unione TERESA FRANCESCA ROSSI..........................................10 Anglican Synodality and Its Ecclesiological Implications SCOTT MACDOUGALL....................................................16 Synodality: Possibilities and Pitfalls from an Orthodox Perspective RADU BORDEIANU..........................................................19 Document On the Way to Full Communion: Thinking about Christian Unity from Liturgy A Statement from Seminar on the Way, North American Academy of Liturgy......................................22 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2024 A Story of Scandal and Hope PATRICK MALLOY...........................................................26 Synodality: Possibilities and Pitfalls from an Orthodox Perspective By Radu Bordeianu aving just resigned in the middle of the Second Ecumenical Council, St. Gregory the Theologian said, “Synods and councils I salute from a distance, for I know how troublesome they are. Never again will I sit in those gatherings of cranes and geese.”1 And yet, in ecumenical circles, synodality is often regarded as an Orthodox charism. Obviously, it is not an exclusively Orthodox charism. But the Orthodox experience of synodality makes some significant contributions today, even though this experience has evolved over time. In the first millennium, the Orthodox Church was synodal at all levels: parish, diocese, regional, and universal. Since then, Orthodoxy has become less synodal at the universal level, but increasingly conciliar in the parish, diocese, and autocephalous church, with varying degrees of involvement of clergy and laity. After some brief remarks about these aspects of synodality, I will focus on the relationship between primacy and synodality. H The Orthodox Church is synodal in the parish community gathered around the Eucharist, involving the active participation of the faithful together with the priest, all ministries acting together. Synodality is also at the heart of common decision-making: the community elects the parish council to oversee its day-to-day activities in collaboration with the priest, and parishes hold general assemblies in which all members deliberate on major aspects of parish life, including the mission of the community, the well-being of its ministries, and the approval of the yearly budget, inclusive of the priest’s salary. The diocese and the national church are synodal primarily through their bishops, who exercise their ministries synodally, and not in isolation. At these levels, synodality in North America also involves laity, deacons, and priests in the Church’s charity, missions, and theological research, all of which transcend ethnic jurisdictional boundaries. Moreover, American Orthodox churches convene clergy-laity conferences, some of them entrusting the delegates – again, including both laity and parish clergy – with the election of bishops, even though the ultimate decision rests with the synod of bishops. Clearly, the Orthodox Church is synodal in a manner inclusive of all its members. The contribution of the laity, parish clergy, and theologians is crucial both in their consultation prior to councils and in the process of the reception of councils. They can be consulted today on a scale that earlier in history was simply unimaginable, now made possible by technological advances, fully illustrating that a synodal church is participative and co-responsible. ECUMENICAL TRENDS These preliminary remarks about parish, diocesan, and regional synodality lead to the discussion of synodality at national and universal levels, while placing special emphasis on the relationship between synodality and primacy. Episcopal synodality is most efficient at the level of autocephalous churches because it is sustained by primacy. At ecumenical encounters, the Orthodox have insisted on primacy as primus inter pares (first among equals), emphasizing the equality of all bishops and being hesitant to recognize more than a primacy of honor that is devoid of authority. Internally, however, the Orthodox are not hesitant about primacy. Primates of national churches have a significant degree of authority, including the calling of councils, setting their agenda, ensuring the participation of the bishops, speaking on behalf of a council once a decision is made, and representing the national church in its relations with secular authorities and other churches. Thus, the authority of the primate extends beyond his immediate jurisdiction, but only as commonly agreed within episcopal synodality, and not in a way that supersedes the authority of the local bishop. One might wrongly assume that, if all Orthodox churches adopt a real primacy within their own borders, then automatically they would all agree with this same concept of real primacy at the pan-Orthodox level. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The most common way to refer to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox world is as a “primacy of honor.” To clarify this terminology, The word primacy refers to the [early] custom … whereby the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, and later Jerusalem and Constantinople, exercised a personal ministry of oversight over an area much wider than that of their individual ecclesiastical provinces. … According to canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, … the first among continued on page 20 The Rev. Dr. Radu Bordeianu is an Associate Professor at Duquesne University. His research focuses on ecumenical ecclesiologies. He is the author of two monographs entitled, Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology, and Icon of the Kingdom of God: An Orthodox Ecclesiology. He is also the editor of It is the Spirit Who Gives Life: New Directions in Pneumatology. He served as President of the Orthodox Theological Society of America, is a member of the North American OrthodoxCatholic Theological Consultation (the official dialogue of the two churches), and is also involved in local intra-Christian and Christian-Jewish dialogues. 19/47 MARCH/APRIL 2024 SYNODALITY: POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS..., from page 19 primus in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople convenes councils pertaining to issues that affect the entire Orthodox world strikes a tragic note. Without a doubt, a greater level of authority is necessary for an efficient exercise of the universal ministry of unity and of synodality. It should be possible to exercise a pan-Orthodox form of primacy with real authority, similar to the primacy that national churches experience internally. A single primate should be able to convene synods and set their agendas, speak for the entirety of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ensure that individual bishops follow the church’s discipline within their own dioceses, hear appeals, and discipline bishops. Perhaps such a model of authority could make possible pan-Orthodox synodality and, if entrusted to the Pope in a united Church, even universal synodality. One might wrongly assume that, if all Orthodox churches adopt a real primacy within their own borders, then automatically they would all agree with this same concept of real primacy at pan-Orthodox level. Unfortunately, that is not the case. the bishops in each nation would only make a decision in agreement with the other bishops and the latter would make no important decision without the agreement of the first.2 Brian Daley showed that the early Church did not know of a purely honorific type of primacy. The second and fourth ecumenical councils understood “primacy of honor” as referring to the jurisdictional authority to make binding decisions, a first rank of leadership, pastoral responsibility, and patronage understood as reviewing and ratifying episcopal elections, ordaining bishops, mediating disputes, and being respected by the bishops who were expected to be loyal. Later on, twelfth-century Byzantine writers such as Ioannis Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon presented a primacy that became devoid of real authority and largely ceremonial, referring to the order of liturgical commemorations, listings in synodal documents, the right to wear a Phrygian cap, a chain representing the office, a scepter, and the right to ride a horse.3 Before the schism over Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarchate used to recognize Constantinople’s primacy of honor only in this latter interpretation. Rejecting this purely ceremonial conception of primacy, however, Constantinople claims a real primacy. For example, John Zizioulas applies the model of the primates of autocephalous churches discussed above to the Ecumenical Patriarch, whose authority in the Orthodox East would be real, though without thereby devolving into universal jurisdiction. Zizioulas writes: The patriarch of Constantinople could not interfere in the affairs of the other patriarchates, but would be responsible for the canonical order within them and intervene only when asked to do so in cases of emergency or disturbance and anomaly of some kind. He would also be responsible for the convocation of councils dealing with matters pertaining to the entire Orthodox [Church], always with the consent of the other patriarchs.4 After the failure of the Ecumenical Patriarch to ensure the participation of all autocephalous churches at the Council of Crete in 2016, Zizioulas’ contention that, as the MARCH/APRIL 2024 On this ecumenical note, I contend that a future united Church should ascribe primacy to Rome, although this primacy would have to be more synodal than the current Catholic understanding of papal primacy allows, and at least as synodal as national Orthodox churches led by primates with real authority. Such primacy would allow the Pope to confess the infallible teaching of the entire Church, albeit in a more synodal manner than current Catholic teaching envisions the principle of papal infallibility. In the present context of schism, however, it is practically impossible to convene an ecumenical council.5 The World Council of Churches does not claim to be such a council, although its General Assemblies come the closest to an ecumenical council in a disunited Church. Hence, denominations can experience universal synodality only internally, in separation from other denominations. In the case of today’s Orthodox Church, a pan-Orthodox council comes closest to universal synodality. The 2016 Great and Holy Council of Crete should have been an impetus for universal synodality, but the opposite happened when four of the fourteen national churches withdrew shortly before the Council, and the Ecumenical Patriarch was unable to exercise any form of primacy over them in order to bring them to the Council. Pan-Orthodox synodality is paralyzed by internal political conflicts and by fear of the segment of Orthodoxy that opposes ecumenism, openness to society, and progress. Concerning the latter, perhaps now is the time to postpone the attempts to appease them and focus instead on Orthodoxy’s immediate needs that have for too long remained unfulfilled. This inability to gather in a pan-Orthodox council regrettably must moderate Orthodox claims that synodality is its distinctive ecumenical charism. Despite the longstanding Eastern tradition of synodality and the caricaturist accusations of Catholic authoritarianism led by an infallible Pope 20/48 continued on page 21 ECUMENICAL TRENDS SYNODALITY: POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS..., from page 20 exception of seven bishops and the faithful in their dioceses), as well as the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All-Africa, while the eucharistic schism with Cyprus extends only to the level of primates. Pan-Orthodox synodality is paralyzed by internal political conflicts and by fear of the segment of Orthodoxy that opposes ecumenism, openness to society, and progress. Concerning the latter, perhaps now is the time to postpone the attempts to appease them and focus instead on Orthodoxy’s immediate needs that have for too long remained unfulfilled. And yet, on a deeper level than that of these interruptions, Orthodoxy remains one. Could this distinction help the cause of Christian unity? Should Orthodoxy continue to require eucharistic and synodal communion as conditions for unity with the Catholic Church? Could there be eucharistic unity without universal synodality – or vice versa? Author’s Note: This article represents an adaptation of materials published in Radu Bordeianu, Icon of the Kingdom of God: An Orthodox Ecclesiology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2023). Notes who renders conciliarity unnecessary, the Second Vatican Council remains the highest standard of synodality of recent history, within any given denomination. The Council of Crete also radically challenged the Orthodox vision of Christian unity. Orthodox representatives to ecumenical dialogues claim that the ideal model of unity requires that bishops gather in the same synod and receive the Eucharist together. This ideal is often imposed as a condition for Orthodox-Catholic unity, when in fact it cannot be put into practice even in world-wide Orthodoxy. Throughout history, intra-Orthodox unity endured even when local churches refused to participate in the same synod, including Crete. Moreover, eucharistic communion with a particular bishop does not represent the criterion for belonging to the Orthodox family. Occasionally, hierarchs of differing churches interrupt eucharistic communion with each other. Sometimes this interruption of communion goes even further, to apply to the faithful as well, as happened in 2018 between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople over Ukrainian autocephaly, when the former interrupted commemorations and eucharistic communion with the latter, although Constantinople did not reciprocate the gesture. Shortly thereafter, three other autocephalous churches recognized Ukrainian autocephaly, so the Moscow Patriarchate ceased eucharistic communion with the bishops and faithful of the Church of Greece (with the ECUMENICAL TRENDS 1. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 124, Poems about Himself, xvii, 91, quoted in Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church, new ed. (London, New York: Penguin Books, 1997), 35–36. 2. World Council of Churches, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2013), §55. 3. See Brian E. Daley, “The Meaning and Exercise of ‘Primacies of Honor’ in the Early Church,” in Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, Vol. 1: Historical and Theological Perspectives, edited by John Chryssavgis (Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016), 37, 49–50; and Brian E. Daley, “Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of ‘Primacy of Honour’,” Journal of Theological Studies 44.2 (1993): 529–53. 4. John D. Zizioulas, “Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach,” in Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church: “Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue”: A Symposium Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Society of the Atonement, Rome, December 4–6, 1997, edited by James F. Puglisi (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 122. Cf. John D. Zizioulas, Lectures in Christian Dogmatics, edited by Douglas H. Knight (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 144-145. 5. Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority (Ravenna, 2009), §39, states: “the break between East and West … rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term.” 21/49 MARCH/APRIL 2024 ECUMENICAL TRENDS Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage Paid Permit No. 151 Cheshire, CT Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute PO Box 333, Garrison, NY 10524-0333 Subscribe Today Read every issue of ET! Every issue of Ecumenical Trends contains the valuable news, articles, and information you want. Don’t miss an issue: subscribe today! Order online at www.geii.org/subscribe or mail this form with payment. My payment of $ Print and digital version Digital version only 1 year $30.00 United States 1 year $42.00 International is enclosed. 2 years $55.00 United States 2 years $77.00 International 1 year $15.00 Please enter my subscription to Ecumenical Trends for: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: EMAIL: Please mail payment to: Ecumenical Trends Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute PO Box 333, Garrison, New York 10524-0333 Tel: 845-690-1088 Email: ecutrends@geii.org Printed on recycled paper.