This text is a provisional working document of the Joint Commission for the
Theological Dialogue, and because of that it was not signed by representatives of
the Churches. Hegumen Nestor Zhilyaev attended the Balamand meeting in 1993 as a
representative of the Russian Orthodox Church; that is why his name is mentioned
among the members of the Commission.
The document was published in Russian in 1995 in the ‘Unity” collection (vol.II), a
periodical issued by the monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos in the Moscow
diocese, along with other documents related to Orthodox-Catholic theological
dialogue.
The reaction to the document among the Roman Catholic was rather complex;
some Uniate Churches – in Rumania, for example – greeted it with open hostility.
Bishop George Gutu, the Apostolic Administrator for the Greek Catholics in Rumania,
in 1994 sent a letter to Pope John Paul II criticizing precisely those parts in the
document where Uniatism was rejected as a method contradicting the tradition of
the two Churches, and accusing the Rumanian Orthodox Church of that “it does not
admit coopting the Rumanian Uniate Church by the Rumanian Orthodox Church by
means of violence and terror in 1948″ (Cretiens en marche, No. 43, 1994) The letter
concludes with downright rejection not only of the Balamand Document, but also of
all other fruit brought by the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue on Unia, saying this : “The
Rumanian Church in communion with Rome accepts none of the texts, signed on
Rhodes, in Freising, Ariccia and Balamand, and declares the signatures under the
texts invalid” (Ibid.) That was the reaction of the Rumanian Uniates. Some critical
comments to the Balamand Document, though in milder words and without denying
its usefulness, came from the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics Cardinal
Miroslav Lyubachivsky too.
Paradoxically, some Russian Orthodox periodicals, claiming to serve the interests
of Orthodoxy, were found “on the same side of the barricades” with the critics of the
Balamand Document and of the Orthodox- Catholic dialogue as such. Thus, in regard
to the reproduction of the Balamand text in the Sovetskaya Rossia (Appendix Rus’
Pravoslavnaya – Orthodox Russia, No 43) one could not help noticing the tendentious
tone of the comments to the document, and the text itself is not reproduced
carefully, but with cuts distorting the message, though the author/s affirm that
unabridged text is offered. The first five paragraphs making up the introductory part
are left out, whereas these five paragraphs precisely, approaching by way of
principle, give an assessment of Uniatism as a method, as follows:
“2. Already in June 1990, the meeting in Freising, with regard to the method
called uniatism, said: “we reject it as a method for the achievement of unity
because it contradicts the common tradition of our Churches.”
(…)
“4. The document worked out by the joint coordinating committee in Ariccia (June
1991) and adopted in Balamand (June 1993) specifies what methods could be
employed by both sides for the achievement of full communion today, and explains
why uniatism as a method is absolutely inadmissible.”
In addition to that, the reproduced text in par.10 (par.5 in Sovetskaya Rossia) after
the word “tendency” omits “a source of proselytism” of the original text. Likewise,
par.12 (7) after “missionary apostolate” fails to reproduce “called ‘uniatism’”.
It is absolutely clear that all these cuts are not careless omissions; without these
cuts the text would have betrayed the very message of the publication, beginning
with the title “Balamand Unia?” All the more so that the excluded passages carry a
reference to the previous work done by the Orthodox-Catholic Theological
Commission in Freising and Ariccia, which does not agree with the allegation of the
authors of the article that the Balamand Document was a fruit of some recent “plot”.
The newspaper also says that the document was signed by Hegumen Nestor
Zhilyaev, although, as we have mentioned earlier, this document was not intended
for signing or ratification by representatives of the Churches.
The term “Sister Churches” was introduced in the atheistic manner of the soviet
period and without due preliminary study. In this connection, the ecclesiological
basis of the Balamand document calls for some clarification, which we offer below.
Vatican II called the Orthodox Church a Sister Church, thus recognizing the blessed
nature of the Orthodox Church and the salvific nature of her sacraments. The
Orthodox Church, in her turn, always recognized the validity of the sacraments of
the Catholic Church. The evidence to that is the fact that the Catholic Christians are
accepted into the Orthodox Church by the so-called Third Order for joining the
Orthodox membership – not through Baptism, as non-Christians or sectarians, nor
through Chrismation, like the Protestants, but through repentance, like
schismatics. Roman Catholic clergymen are accepted in their existing orders to
which they had been ordained by the Roman Catholic Church.
It is no coincidence that Old Believers, who are also in schism from the Orthodox
Church are accepted back in the same manner as the Roman Catholic Christians.
This fact shows that despite serious fundamental differences on a number of
doctrinal and spiritual issues between the two Churches, Roman Catholicism in the
Orthodox mind and Tradition is viewed as a Christian community in schism with the
Orthodox Church which nevertheless has preserved apostolic succession.
It is precisely to clarify the nature of doctrinal differences and then overcome
them that the two Churches entered into theological dialogue with each other.
The Balamand Document adds nothing fundamentally new, but follows in the
manner of the traditional Orthodox attitude to Catholicism. At the same time , the
Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church finds it important
to clarify a number of the Document’s affirmations, including the use of the term
’sister Churches’ in the text, which was motivated by emotions rather than by
dogmatic considerations.
The Theological Commission is further proposing to open a pan-Orthodox
discussion of the Balamand Document and only after that to consider its possible
ratification by the Churches or the approval by the Pan-Orthodox Conference.
For the information of all who are interested in the Orthodox-Catholic relationship,
the Synodal Commission issues the full revised and edited translations of the
Balamand Document of the Joint International Commission for the Theological
Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.