[ Published in Phronema 33:1 (2018), 103-107 ]

John Chryssavgis, ed. Dialogue of Love: Breaking the Silence of Centuries. New York:
Fordham University Press, 2014. pp. xv + 75.

Not long has passed since the May 2014 meeting between His All-Holiness Bartholomew I
Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch, and His Holiness Pope Francis in
Jerusalem to commemorate the fifty-year anniversary of the meeting between Patriarch
Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in the same sacred space. This meeting between the leaders of
the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches on 5 January 1964 was a historic event,
especially in light of their separation since the Great Schism in 1054. Since then, these
Churches, despite their common apostolic roots and shared thousand-year history, have gone
separate ways—and subsequent negative experiences of the Orthodox such as the fourth
crusade in 1204, two so-called reunion councils in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries (that
were subsequently rejected), and the phenomenon of uniatism—marred the interim with
mutual suspicion and hostility.

The dawn of the twentieth century, however, saw a renewal in the Roman Catholic
self-understanding and approach toward other Churches—exemplified by the Second Vatican
Council (1962-65)—which in turn resulted in an optimism embraced and promoted by the
then Patriarch Athenagoras that led to that historic meeting in 1964, and, subsequently, to the
mutual lifting of the anathemas—that the Churches had pronounced against one another in
1054—on 7 December 1965 (p. 19). This initiated what has been called the “dialogue of
love” between the two Churches, which has been described meticulously by Archdeacon of
the Ecumenical throne, Revd Dr John Chryssavgis, in his contribution to this volume entitled
‘Pilgrimage toward Unity: Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem
Based on Correspondence and Archives’ (pp. 1-26). Indeed, Chryssavgis’ exploration of the
archival material on this encounter shows that it was replete with the same kind of mutual
friendship, love, and hope that we have observed in recent encounters between Patriarch
Bartholomew and Pope Francis.

The historic meeting between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Francis also led to a
tradition that has become a staple of the relationship between the two Churches, namely the
“exchange of formal annual delegations at the respective Patronal Feasts of the two sister
churches, which first commenced in 1969—in Rome on June 29 for the feast of Saints Peter
and Paul and in Istanbul on November 30 for the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle” (p. 20).
Moreover, the return from the West of the relics of Eastern Christian saints, such as those of
Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, to Constantinople by Pope John Paul II,
mentioned by Chryssavgis on p. 21, is especially significant for those who have venerated
them in the Patriarchal church of St George, and a sign of the Roman Catholic Church’s
positive overtures to Orthodoxy. In any case, following the “dialogue of love,” the “dialogue
of truth,” a continuation of the former, began in 1980: this sought to openly discuss doctrinal
similarities and differences; the most problematic of the latter being papal primacy and its
related doctrines.

The contribution of Revd Professor Brian E. Daley, S. J., ‘Breathing with Both
Lungs: Fifty Years of the Dialogue of Love’ (pp. 27-54), highlights the genuine desire for
unity between the two Churches as a motivating factor behind dialogue. But Daley also
acknowledges that this has not been without problems, and in a personal anecdote of his brief
phone conversation with “the son of a Roman Catholic mother and a Greek Orthodox father”
(p. 27) who was struggling to discover which of the two was the true Church (the topic of
confusion being the filioque), Daley shows that division still exists on the ground roots level.
Nevertheless, positive dialogue, genuine friendship and mutual understanding between
Orthodox and Catholic Christians has been expressed in various bodies such as the North
American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which is an encouraging and hopeful
sign. Throughout his chapter Daley in fact signals the hope that, by God’s providence (p. 53),
union can only be accomplished if and when both Churches adopt a self-sacrificial attitude
toward one another; a kind of mutual martyrdom. For Rome, this would be “a readiness to
accept new forms of synodal decision making and teaching that will be … less centralized
than is conceivable within the modern model of papal primacy; for the Orthodox Churches, it
will involve the development of new, open, and permanent structures for reaching binding
consensus on the essentials of the Christian life” (p. 49). This is a carefully written and
legitimate hope that, if one were to briefly survey the current ecclesiological climate in both
camps, seems far away: but that the process is worthwhile is made clear by Daley in his
gratitude to Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI on behalf of all who have taken part in
some kind of ecumenical dialogue since 1964; that the bridges built, friendships forged, and
mutual learning is due to the meeting in Jerusalem and the events that ensued.

The third chapter is by the renowned theologian, patristic scholar and Church
historian, the Russian émigré theologian Father Georges Florovsky (d. 1979). Father
Florovsky’s article, published originally in Russian and titled in English ‘“A Sign of
Contradiction”: A Reflection on the Meeting of the Pope and Patriarch’ (pp. 55-70),
ruminates on the 1964 meeting and was translated by the late Father Matthew Baker (whose
life was tragically cut short in 2015). Baker was an expert in Florovsky’s thought,
particularly his Neo-Patristic synthesis, of which his introduction to the late Russian
theologian’s chapter is an erudite yet poignant reminder (pp. 55-60). In the chapter,
Florovsky gives a history of the division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism before
embarking on his reflections on the encounter between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul
VI within the context of the ressourcement—i.e. return to the patristic sources—in the
Roman Church as generating favourable conditions for dialogue. Florovsky also warned
against hastiness. While the division between the Churches should be overcome, first,
dialogue is necessary, and the topic of reunification can only emerge and be addressed within
the context of dialogue (pp. 62-65). (But whether or not the topic of reunification is seriously
possible today, fifty years after the dialogue commenced, is a question best left to the
experts—I am not one of them.) This dialogue, asserted Florovsky, “can only be ecumenism
in time” (p. 65), by which he means a return to the common patristic sources for both Church
traditions as a way forward. The chapter ends with Florovsky clarifying the notion of ‘unity,’
which, in its primary definition does not encroach upon matters of faith but merely requires
all Christians to work together for the betterment of our troubled world. While affirming that
this is desirable, nevertheless it runs the risk of the content of faith being pushed into the
background so that “the differences between separated Christians lose practical importance”
(p. 69), which is problematic since it is precisely these differences that should be discussed if
Christians are seeking “unity in the One Church” (p. 69).
 The forward by Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, and afterward by Walter
Cardinal Kasper, both lament the division between the Churches and advocate the desire for
unity, which, they believed, would be advanced in the commemorative meeting between
Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis in May 2014. I do not know how much this cause
has advanced, if much at all, since then. The only thing I can comment on is that since 2014
the Patriarch and Pope have met several times, issuing joint statements on various issues such
as care for the environment and the positive treatment of migrants and refugees. Moreover,
unprecedented meetings have also taken place between Pope Francis and other Orthodox
prelates, including His Beatitude Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Theodoros
II, His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilus II of
Jerusalem, Palestine and All Israel, His Holiness Kyrill, Patriarch of Moscow and All-Rus’,
His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II, Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, and His Beatitude
Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece, to name a few. These meetings have further
strengthened dialogue between the two Churches, which are more and more jointly
advocating the Gospel of Christ to our fractured world.

The Dialogue of Love is a timely reminder of the events that kick-started the dialogue
between the Churches in 1964, and, since it was published before the 2014 meeting between
Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis, successfully paved the way and readied the faithful
for this encounter. As an initiative of the indefatigable Father John Chryssavgis, it is—along
with his other important work in service to holy Orthodoxy—highly commendable.

Mario Baghos
Charles Sturt University