mccormick thesis

8/9/2019 Mccormick Thesis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mccormick-thesis 1/59

AQUINAS INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY

THAT ALL MAY BE ONE IN THE EUCHARIST AND THE CHURCH:

A COMPARISON OF THE EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGIES

AND ECUMENICAL POSSIBILITIES

OF JOHN PAUL II AND SERGIUS BULGAKOV

Angela McC!"#c$

T%e&#& P!e&en'e( ' '%e Fac)l'* + '%e

A,)#na& In&'#')'e + T%elg*- Sa#n' L)#&- M#&&)!#

#n Pa!'#al F)l+#ll"en' + '%e Re,)#!e"en'&

+! '%e Deg!ee Ma&'e! + A!'& #n T%elg*

.//0© A. McCormick [email protected] 2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Chapter One: The Impact of Distinct Ecumenical Climates 7

Chapter Two: Sergius Bulgako !"

# Brief Biograph$ !"

%e$ Eents that Influenced Bulgako‟s Ecumenical #pproach !3

Bulgako‟s Sophiological &ens !'

Two (odes of Sophia )*

Sophia and the Incarnation )'

The Sophianic +nit$ of (ultiplicit$ , #ll Destined for Oneness in -od ).

# Sophiological +nderstanding of the Eucharist and the Church 3"

/ow Bulgako‟s sophiological lens shapes his ecumenical approach 33



Chapter Three: 0ohn 1aul II 32

# Brief Biograph$ 32

%e$ Eents that Impacted 01II‟s Ecumenical #pproach 3.

01II‟s Christocentric 1ersonalism: the Eucharist the Church 4 Ecumenism 5)

01II‟s 1ersonalism: Centered in the Incarnation 53

Christocentric 1ersonalism: the Church and the Eucharist *"

Chapter 6our: Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II in Dialogue on Ecumenism the Eucharist and the1ossiilit$ of 8eunion *3

Ecumenism as process of fostering a unit$ alread$ present9 *5

+nderstanding Ecumenism: #reas of Diergence etween 01II and Bulgako *.

On the Eucharist‟s 6unction and the 1ossiilit$ of Orthodo,Catholic 8eunion 25

Conclusion: The 8oad to 8eunion: ;here do we go from /ere< '"

Biliograph$ '* © A. McCormick [email protected] 3

Introduction

Eastern Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism hae much in common sharing analogous eliefsand practices as well as an intersecting past9 Their familial kinship in Christ has weathered man$moments of siling rialr$ and doctrinal s=uales oer the course of histor$9 The reaking ofEucharistic intercommunion etween the East and ;est occurred sometime after the -reatSchism of !"*5 CE and the isile separation of the Church famil$ persists in our modern da$9#t the same time the lines of communication and openness to dialogue are present now as neer efore9 Our modern situation oerflows with hope as Orthodo,Catholic ecumenical dialoguefurthers us along the road towards isile intercommunion9

# ma>or concern regarding ecumenical efforts etween Eastern Orthodo and 8oman Catholicconfessions is the =uestion of whether the Eucharist should e used to facilitate unit$9 On this

=uestion 8ussian Orthodo theologian Sergius Bulgako and 8oman Catholic theologian 0ohn1aul II seem to hold radicall$ different positions9 6or 1ope 0ohn 1aul II ?!.)",)""*@ theEucharist is the outgrowth of a communion alread$ present and is neer to e used as a meanstowards estalishing unit$ etween Christian confessions9 6ather Sergius Bulgako ?!'7!,!.55@argues for permitting eceptional cases of partial or limited Eucharistic sharing ecause it fostersand furthers unit$ Afor the sake of the good of the Church9A! Thus it appears as though Bulgakoand 01II



1 It is important to note that such partial or limited communion is termed the principle o! "conomy or economiccommunion in the "ast. C!. #ummary o! $ulgako%&s #peech in 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33.

Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius /,)A#0 2 1-334 13. $oth the Catholic understanding o! partialcommunion and the "astern 5rthodo6 understanding o! economic communion imply the idea o! the suspension o! strictly

applying canonical and disciplinary norms to certain e6ceptional cases and uni7ue situations. © A. [email protected] 8

#uch principle o! economy currently e6ists bet*een the contemporary "astern 5rthodo6 and (oman Catholic Churches+ and*ill be discussed in the conclusion o! this paper.

dramaticall$ differ in positions on the Eucharist‟s role in ecumenism and reunion howeermore unites than diides their approaches for oth theologians acknowledge that Christianconfessions must first reach a leel of agreement on ke$ issues of the faith efore proceedingforward to the Eucharistic tale9

The purpose of this thesis is oth to compare the arguments of 8ussian Orthodo SergiusBulgako and 8oman Catholic 1ope 0ohn 1aul II on the Eucharist‟s role in ecumenism and toeplore their indiidual positions on whether reunion is possile etween their respectieconfessions9 arious reasons and goals underlie m$ comparison9 I will e arguing that >ust asmore unites than diides Eastern Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism so also more similaritiesthan differences are found etween the iews of Sergius Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II on therelationship of the Eucharist and ecumenism as well as the task of Orthodo,Catholic reunion9 Inealuating these two theological >uggernauts I hope to assist the unit$ of the Orthodo andCatholic confessions $ illustrating the similarities present and illuminating the =uestions thatremain9 6urthermore I anticipate m$ comparison ma$ ring to light theological truths that haelacked sufficient discussion and could ear fruit if addressed9 ($ hope is that this ealuation willremind oth Catholic and Orthodo Christians of truths under,emphasied in their particularconfessions there$ facilitating indiidual and corporate growth in the uniersal Bod$ of Christ9In this wa$ one of the goals of m$ thesis is to proide whateer assistance I can in reedingmutual understanding etween Eastern Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism furthering us alongthe road to reunion9 © A. McCormick [email protected] 9

It is important to recognie at the outset that this thesis is geared towards a 8oman Catholicacademic audience9 I therefore epect the reader to e knowledgeale of Catholic doctrine andthe theological outlook of 0ohn 1aul II $et hae little eposure to 8ussian Orthodo$ and limited?if an$@ knowledge of Sergius Bulgako9 It is m$ aim to concentrate e=ual attention oneplicating the iews of oth theologians9 #t the same time there ma$ e occasions whereBulgako‟s position re=uires further clarification in order to e sufficientl$ grasped $ theaudience9 ;hile I will e drawing from a wide ariet$ of Bulgako‟s writings particular focuswill remain on his 0une !.33 Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion as well as two >ournal articles By Jacob’s Well ?Decemer !.33@ and Ways to Church Reunion ?0une !.32@ which he had pulished in The Journal of the Fellowship of t! "lban and t! er#ius9)

2 The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius *as later renamed Sobornost in 1-39. $ulgako% played a keyrole in the !ounding o! this :ournal as *ell as the !ounding o! the Anglican;5rthodo6 )ello*ship itsel!.

3 Ut Unum Sint is hailed by many as the <rst papal encyclical entirely dedicated to ecumenism. =hile the ma:ority o!scholars note it !or its e6plication o! the papacy as a uniti%e ministry o! ser%ice+ the encyclical itsel! largely deals *ith ,ohn>aul II&s %ision and understanding o! ecumenism in relation to the Church. )rom the outset+ ,>II stipulates that the purposeo! the encyclical is to help increase the unity o! all Christians and to pastorally encourage the e?orts o! all *ho *ork !or



the cause o! unity. C!. section 3 o! Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint of the Holy Father John !aul "" on #ommitment toEcumenism atican City4 ibreria "ditrice aticana+ 1--9. A%ailable online

The works of 0ohn 1aul II on the other hand will e more restricted ecause the late pontiffauthored a colossal numer of tets and as preiousl$ mentioned I epect m$ 8oman Catholicaudience alread$ has a leel of ackground knowledge on these works9 Thus I will

predominantl$ focus on two of 01II‟

s papal enc$clicals including his !..* pulication $t $numint and his )""3 pulication %cclesia de %ucharistia! I chose $t $num int ecause it was 0ohn1aul‟s first enc$clical addressing the topic of ecumenism and features his iews on oth the task of dialogue and the papac$ as a ministr$ of unit$93 I chose %cclesia de %ucharistia as m$ second primar$ resource © A. McCormick [email protected] B

http4***.%atican.%aholy_!ather:ohn_paul_iiencyclicalsdocumentsh!_:p;ii_enc_2991--9_ut;unum;sint_en.html.Accessed B #ept 2D. Also c!. Introduction in Carl ". $raaten and (obert =. ,enson #hurch Unity and the !apal $%ce&

An Ecumenical 'ialogue on John !aul ""(s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint )That All *ay +e $ne, 'rand (apids+ Mich4 =.$."erdmans+ 21 1?.

ecause it depicts 0ohn 1aul II‟s iew of the Eucharist‟s relationship to ecumenism and istherefore most pertinent to m$ anal$sis9 Other works authored $ 0ohn 1aul II will eincorporated throughout the thesis ut $t $num int and %cclesia de %ucharistia will remain thecentral focus9

In all m$ thesis consists of four chapters and a conclusion9 Chapter one illustrates how liing indistinct historical time frames and ecumenical climates impacted the iews of Bulgako and 01IIregarding the task of dialogue and Orthodo,Catholic reunion9 Fet chapter two egins with a rief presentation of 6ather Sergius Bulgako‟s life and ke$ eperiences and then moes on toeamine how his sophiological lens impacts his Eucharistic theolog$ as well as hisecclesiological and ecumenical understandings9 #ppl$ing the same eaminational framework to1ope 0ohn 1aul II chapter three will egin with an anal$sis of 01II‟s life and ke$ eperiencesand then moe on to discuss the lens through which the pontiff iews the Church and task ofecumenism9 Deling into the cru of the matter chapter four reiews and compares thearguments of Bulgako and 01II on the Eucharist‟s role in ecumenism and the possiilit$ ofOrthodo,Catholic reunion9 /ere I will attempt to moderate a dialogue etween Bulgako and01II so as to etter illustrate the similarities differences strengths and weaknesses of theirarguments9 6inall$ in the conclusion of m$ thesis I will reiew the ke$ findings of m$comparison scrutinie the contemporar$ state of Orthodo,Catholic dialogue and then end withm$ own recommendations on what steps still need to e made in order to adance Orthodo$and Catholicism along the road towards full isile reunion9 © A. [email protected] E

In the course of this thesis it will ecome eident oth Sergius Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II affirmthat more unites than diides 8ussian Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism9 #t the same time the$recognie the isile diision etween the two confessions causes scandal since it runs contrar$to 0esus‟ pra$er A+t unum sintA that all ma$ e one as /e and the 6ather are one ?cf9 0n!7:)"ff@9

Chapter One: The Impact of Distinct Ecumenical Climates



;e egin with an anal$sis of how liing and working in different time frames impacted the perspecties of oth Bulgako and 01II on ecumenism and the possiilit$ of Orthodo,Catholicreunion9 It is important to recognie at the outset that Bulgako and 01II lied in different timeframes and ecumenical climates which influenced their worldiews and approaches to otherChristian confessions9 6or eample Sergius Bulgako‟s academic career spans from his

entrance into (oscow +niersit$ in !'." up until his death in !.559 6urthermore operating inan ecumenical climate much different than that of 0ohn 1aul II Bulgako lied during a timewhen ecumenical dialogue etween Orthodo$ and Catholicism was irtuall$ noneistent in an$official capacit$9

1rior to atican II the 8oman (agisterium was generall$ suspicious of ecumenism andunwilling to participate in an$ formal conersations9 The unpleasant status of dialogue etweenthe 8ussian Orthodo and 8oman Catholic confessions is illustrated through Bulgako‟s seerecriti=ues of the papac$ particularl$ when Bulgako presented his paper on AThe Church‟s(inistr$A to the first ;orld Conference on 6aith and Order at &ausanne ?!.)7@9 In it he statesAChristians from all oer the world are here and the onl$ asentees are the representaties of the

8oman hierarch$ © A. McCormick [email protected] Dwhich conceies of union as inoling sumission to the asolute power of the 1ope9A 5 Fot eensi months after Bulgako‟s criti=ue 1ope 1ius GI issued his !.)' enc$clical &n Reli#ious$nity ' (ortalium "nimos that anned Catholics from an$ participation in ecumenical dialogue91ope 1ius GI effectiel$ declared that the 8oman Church contains the fullness of the truth andtherefore concluded that discussion with Christians not in union with 8ome was unnecessar$AdangerousA and AeilA9* Thus official dialog with other Christians was irtuall$ non,eistent atthe start of the twentieth centur$ howeer unofficial 8oman,Orthodo discussions did occur ona grassroots leel and are occasionall$ mentioned in Bulgako‟s own personal accounts as wellas the accounts of Catholic academics92

8 #ergius $ulgako%+ Fhe Church&s Ministry G1-2EH Faith and $rder& !roceedings of the -orld #onference August / 011203 ed. . J. $ate 'arden City+ JK4 Loubleday+ Loran Co.+ Inc.+ 1-2D4 2B3.

9 >ius NI&s encyclical states that allo*ing Catholics to dialog *ith Christians and non;Christians *ould essentially bepermitting the Oock o! the ord to be cheated by dangerous !allacies and calls on all members o! the Apostolic 5Pce toe6hibit Qeal in a%oiding this e%il. C!. section 9 o! Encyclical Letter *ortalium Animos of the Supreme !onti4 !ope !ius 5"&$n Fostering True 6eligious Unity & January 7 1208 . >ublished in The 9reat papal encyclicals Ransas City+ Mo4 Angelus>ress+ 1--D. Also a%ailable online at http4***.%atican.%aholy_!atherpius_6iencyclicalsdocumentsh!_p;6i_enc_1-2D1B_mortalium;animos_en.html. Accessed D #ept 2-.

B )or e6ample+ Catholic theologian K%es Congar %isited and dialogued *ith $ulgako% on numerous occasions in 1-3B. C!. K%es Concar+ 'ialogue +etween #hristians& #atholic #ontributions to Ecumenism trans. >hilip oretQ ondon and Lublin4'eo?rey Chapman+ 1-BB 1ES and >aul alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology & +u:hare; Solo;ie; +ulga:o; & $rthodo<theology in a new :ey ) 'rand (apids+ Mich. 4 "erdmans+ 2 2D8. )urthermore+ $ulgako% himsel! engaged in %ariousdiscourses *ith a ithuanian Catholic priest named )ather Matthe* *hen he *as in Crimea. Fhese discussions brought$ulgako% to *hat he terms his Catholic in!ection+ *hich is a phase in his li!e *hen he *as tempted to think the (omanpapacy *as stable enough to be the rallying point o! ecumenism. Fo gain a !uller understanding o! this phase in relation tothe rest o! $ulgako%&s li!e+ c!. Anastassy $randon 'allaher+ Catholic Action4 "cclesiology+ the "ucharist and the Tuestion o!Intercommunion in the "cumenism o! #ergii $ulgako%. M. Li%. diss. Crest*ood+ JK4 #t. ladimirUs 5rthodo6 Fheological#eminary+ 234 29;B. I am indebted to 'allaher&s thesis !or assisting me in understanding $ulgako%&s ecumenicalinOuences+ his sophiology+ as *ell as his proposal !or partial or limited intercommunion bet*een the Anglican and 5rthodo6Churches.

In contrast to the Hstrained‟ state of Catholic,Orthodo relations during Bulgako‟s lifetimeatican II ushered in a new era of dialogue for the 8oman Catholic © A. [email protected] -



Church97 %e$ documents like the Second atican Council‟s decree on ecumenism $nitatis

Redinte#ratio ?!.25@ and 1ope 1aul I‟s enc$clical %cclesiam uam are credited withinaugurating 8ome‟s shift towards ecumenical openness9' 0ohn 1aul II principall$ operatedwithin this open climate since his academic and ecclesiastical career spans from the !.5"s up tohis death in )""*9 #s we shall see 01II not onl$ encouraged and facilitated dialogue with his

Orthodo silings ut he elieed the task of reunion to e onl$ a matter of time9E )or a discussion o! Ut Unum Sint as *ell as atican II&s ecumenical %ision and its declaration that Catholicism isirre%ocably committed to ecumenism because o! its o*n sel!;understanding+ c!. 'eorge =eigel+ -itness to Hope& The+iography of !ope John !aul "" Je* Kork+ JK4 Cli? #treet $ooks+ 1--- EB;B.

D )or an analysis o! such documents issued by the (oman hierarchy+ c!. Cardinal =alter Rasper+ =ature and !urpose ofEcumenical 'ialog. A%ailable online4 http4***.%atican.%aroman_curiaponti<cal_councilschrstunicard;kasper;docsrc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2322E_ecumenical;dialogue_en.html Accessed 11 )eb 2-.

The idea of a Catholic pope so open to dialogue was completel$ foreign during Bulgako‟s pre,atican II historical timeframe and much of his rather harsh criti=ues of Catholicism must eiewed within this contet9 ;hile 8oman Catholic ecumenical endeaors thried under the pontificate of 0ohn 1aul II the$ were irtuall$ non,eistent during Bulgako‟s life time9 ToBulgako Catholic,Orthodo reunion seemed more of a distant ision than a realit$ whereas0ohn 1aul II elieed such reunion not onl$ possile ut made it the goal of his papac$ to doeer$thing he could to ring aout this reunion9

Een though the$ operated within different historical timeframes and ecumenical climates agreat deal of similarit$ can e found in comparing the lies of Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II9Besides haing similar influences oth made the task of ecumenism a laor of loe sacrificeand humilit$9 I will now proide a rief life s$nopsis for oth theologians which is important ecause it helps us understand more of the origins of their thoughts and worldiews96urthermore as authentic and integrated persons oth © A. [email protected] 1

Sergius Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II lied what the$ elieed therefore it is imperatie that we pause to eamine their lies in order to gain a deeper understanding of what ke$ eents affectedtheir ecumenical approaches9

Our focus now turns to Sergius Bulgako as chapter two will open with a short iographicalintroduction highlighting ke$ life eents that had a lasting impression on the theologian‟sindiidual outlooks and then moe on to eplain Bulgako‟s sophiological lens and how itshapes his Eucharistic theolog$ ecclesiolog$ and ecumenical approach9

Chapter Two: Sergius Bulgakov

Brief Biograph!

Sergei V Fikolaeich Bulgako was orn in !'7! near &ine$ which is aout two hundred andfift$ miles south of (oscow in 8ussia‟s Orel proince9. #s a child little Sergei was encouraged $ his parents to eperience Athe life of the church as a total participant9A!" Bulgako descried



his famil$‟s dail$ ritual deotions as a Alaw of natureA since nature itself seemed to follow theliturgical seasons9!! /is life found alignment with the liturg$ at an earl$ age9

- Jote that there are multiple spellings o! $ulgako%&s <rst name+ including #ergii+ #ergei+ #erge+ and #ergius.

1 Myrosla* I. Fataryn e6plains that $ulgako%&s home li!e re%ol%ed around the typicon W consisting o! the %arious phases o!

prayer o! the 5rthodo6 liturgical calendar W and thus the cycles o! !easts+ !asts and liturgical prayer dominated his earlyyears. Myrosla* I. Fataryn+ Augustine and 6ussian $rthodo<y& 6ussian $rthodo< Theologians and Augustine of Hippo & aTwentieth #entury 'ialogue anham+ Md4 International #cholars >ublications+ 2 BE.

11 alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 22D.

#lthough he was proided with a strong formation in Orthodo$ Bulgako eperienced a faith,crisis soon after he decided to ecome a priest9 ;hen he turned thirteen Sergei chose to followin the leitical footsteps of his father and grandfather and © A. [email protected] 11

>oined the Orel Theological Seminar$9 In his autoiograph$ he comments that he found himselfdouting -ods eistence shortl$ after he egan his first course9 !) Bulgako‟s faith,crisiscontinued for two $ears9 6inall$ he decided to leae it all ehind and transferred to a secularinstitution called the Elets g$mnasium9

12 In his autobiographical *ritings+ $ulgako% states+ Already at the %ery beginning o! this period+ in the <rst or secondclass o! the seminary+ a religious crisis arose+ *hich truly+ although pain!ully but not tragically+ resulted in the loss o!religious !aith !or many+ many years. )rom my !ourteenth year to my thirtieth the prodigal son *andered in a !ar;o? land.

Franslated and 7uoted by Fataryn in his book Augustine and 6ussian $rthodo<y + BE.

13 )or more biographical in!ormation on this matter+ c!. Catherine "%tuho%+ The #ross > the Sic:le& Sergei +ulga:o; and theFate of 6ussian 6eligious !hilosophy Ithaca u.a.04 Cornell Xni%. >ress+ 1--E.

18 )or a more thorough presentation o! $ulgako%&s mystical e6periences o! #ophia+ c!. 'allaher+ Catholic Action *. 'i;.diss.+ 1?. In this same section+ 'allaher does a <ne :ob e6plicating ho* $ulgako%&s li!e e6periences inOuenced hisecumenical approach.

6or siteen $ears Bulgako daled in atheism (arism and idealism efore finall$ initiatinghis return to Christianit$9 ($stical eperience held a special role in oth his >ourne$ ack to thefaith and significantl$ influenced the wa$ he approached theolog$ in general ecause iteentuall$ led him to deelop his sophiological outlook9 /is first m$stical eperience of Sophiaoccurred in !'.5 when he was traeling and caught sight of the Caucasian (ountains at sunset9Bulgako was suddenl$ oercome $ a reelation of all nature and eaut$ dwelling in -od9 !3 /elater came to descrie this as his first recognition of Sophia an epiphan$ he receied while stilla proclaimed atheist and (arist9!5 /is second m$stical eperience occurred four $ears later in!'.' when he was in Dresden9 #t the art galler$ there Bulgako was emotionall$ oercomewhen he gaed upon 8aphael‟s Sistine (adonna and felt like he was looking into his own soul

causing him to reach out to -od in pra$er9 +pon haing this second m$stical eperience he didnot immediatel$ return to the arms of Orthodo$ howeer he was moed to pra$ which wascertainl$ a step in the right direction9 © A. McCormick [email protected]

Entering the 6acult$ of &aw at (oscow +niersit$ in !'." he completed his dissertation titledCapitalism and "#riculture ten $ears later in !.""! ;hile his thesis proided him with the optionof ecoming a well,respected (arist academic he arried at the ironic conclusion that (arism



did not line up with the realit$ of life particularl$ in the areas of agriculture deelopment andcapitalism9 Bulgako perceied what one scholar descries as an Aincongruit$ etween (aristdoctrine and aspects of modern agricultural deelopment9A!* Oer time this incongruit$ ledBulgako to turn awa$ from (arism and instead emraced a form of idealism that roused himto address metaph$sical issues which is accredited $ some for stimulating his prodigal

homecoming to Orthodo$9!2 /e started inoling himself in arious Christian Socialist politicalendeaors which was =uite a radical moe since 8ussia was under strict communist rule at thetime9 Eentuall$ Bulgako full$ re>ected (arism‟s faith in progress and moed to emrace Aa progressie faith9A!7 (ore than thirt$ $ears after he left the Orthodo seminar$ he returned tocomplete his priestl$ training and went on to make his final ows in 0une !.!' >ust da$s eforehe turned the mature age of forty'ei#ht!

19 >aul alliere e6plains+ Fhe gap bet*een theory and li!e al*ays bothered him+ and it particularly bothered him as aMar6ist. alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 22-?.

1B C!. Fataryn+ Augustine and 6ussian $rthodo<y BD.

1E alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 23E.

The eginning middle and end of Bulgako‟s life aligned with the liturgical c$cle9 #s a childthe liturg$ permeated his famil$‟s routine9 Een though Bulgako drifted awa$ from the faith inhis $oung adult $ears to dale in atheism and (arism he alwa$s sought the Truth andeentuall$ found his wa$ ack to the seminar$9 /is ordination itself fell on a special da$ withinthe liturgical calendar the 6east da$ of the © A. [email protected] 13

/ol$ Spirit9 This had special meaning to Bulgako ecause of his deep loe and deotion for theDiine 1araclete9 Een the end of Bulgako‟s life was in step with the liturgical calendar9Diagnosed with throat cancer in (arch of !.3. he immediatel$ halted his ecumenical work and

instead dedicated the remaining $ears of his life to writing The %ucharistic acrifice andfocused on completing The "pocalypse of John) "n "ttempt at a *o#matic Interpretation whichwas the third and last olume of his trilog$ on -ods /umanit$9!' /e completed this last workand suffered a rain hemorrhage shortl$ after which inaugurated a fort$ da$ struggle eforegoing into a coma9 -allaher eplains that Bulgakos Afinal descent999 efits one whose life wasconsecrated to the eaut$ of holiness that is the life of the Church9A /is death -allaher clarifiesalso Aseemed timed to the rh$thms of the Churchs worshipA as Bulgako Aegan his death agon$on the ee of the feast da$ of the #postles 1eter and 1aul and999 finall$ reathed his last on thefeast da$ of the twele apostles 0ul$ !) !.559A!. Trul$ this man‟s emod$ing of a theolog$ forlife is echoed in the gift of his life‟s alignment with the liturgical calendar9

1D $ulgako%&s *orks The Eucharistic Sacri?ce and The Apocalypse of John are still not translated into "nglish. The Apocalypse of John is the third book o! *hat is called $ulgako%&s great trilogy+ the <rst installment o! *hich is The Lamb of9od and the second installment included The +ride of the Lamb. $oth the <rst and second installments o! $ulgako%&s greattrilogy are no* a%ailable in "nglish. C!. #ergius $ulgako%+ The +ride of the Lamb+ trans. $oris ,akim 'rand (apids+ Mich. 4=.$. "erdmans S "dinburgh 4 FF Clark+ 22S and The Lamb of 9od 'rand (apids+ Mich4 =.$. "erdmans >ub. Co+ 2D.

1- 'allaher+ Catholic Action *. 'i;. diss. 8E;D.

"e! Events that In#uenced Bulgakov$s Ecumenical pproach



The 8ussian 8eolution ?!.!7,!.)!@ marked changes in oth the state and the Church and rought Bulgako to make ecumenism the focus of his academic endeaors9 /e realied that the8ussian Orthodo Church had ecome too inwardl$ focused and autonomousl$ diided sodistracted $ her own interests she was losing sight of her ke$ © A. [email protected] 18

role in making the uniersal Church a isile realit$9 8ussia‟s collapse and the Church‟s turmoilalso rought Bulgako to =uestion Orthodo$‟s ecclesial structuring9 /e egan to wonderwhether a ke$ head like the 8oman pope was needed in order to assure the Church‟s stailit$96riendl$ discussions with a 8oman Catholic priest further tempted him to think the 8oman papac$ was stale enough to e the rall$ing point of ecumenism9)" /oweer this AtemptationA passed oer time and Bulgako instead concluded that the 8ussian Orthodo Church wasAchosen among all Christianit$A to e the rall$ing force and point of reunion for all Christianconfessions9)!

2 $ulgako% re!ers to this time in his li!e as his Catholic in!ection. C!. $ulgako%+ Autobiogra?ches:ie @amet:i >aris+ 1-8B+8D;9+ cited in .A. Yander Introduction+ The atican 'ogma #outh Canaan+ >A.4 #t. Fikhon >ress+ 1-9- 8.

21 C!. Conclusion+ in $ulgako%+ The $rthodo< #hurch Crest*ood+ J.K.4 #t. ladimirUs #eminary >ress+ 1-DD 1-3;8.

22 "%tuho%+ The #ross > the Sic:le D-?.

23 C!. $ulgako% in 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33.

8ussia‟s collapse fueled Bulgako‟s elief that the diisions within 8ussian Orthodo$ wouldopen the Church to ecumenism and force her to reach out to her Christian neighors9 /e wascritical of 8ussian ecclesial centraliation in the upper echelons of the Orthodo hierarch$ aswell as the authorit$ the state eercised oer the Church which he endearingl$ referred to asAcaesaropapism9A)) To Bulgako the hierarch$ is not ontological to the Church‟s eing rather

the 1eople of -od are the Church and the ones in whom the Spirit speaks and authorit$ rests9 #ssuch he emphasied the need for dialogue at a grass,roots leel if reunion is to eer come aout etween Christian confessions9)3

It was also during the eginning stages of the 8ussian 8eolution that Bulgako was asked to participate in a 8ussian local council ?!.!7,!.!'@ and act as a la$ representatie for (oscow‟shigher learning institutes9 The ecclesial unit$ manifested $ © A. [email protected] 19

the council gae him hope for the reformation of 8ussian Orthodo$ and 8ussia in general9Bulgako is known to hae reminisced that the council inspired his approach to the task of

Christian reunion9)5 It was also at this council that Orthodo ecclesial and la$ memers oted toreinstate the (oscow 1atriarchate a cause that Bulgako ferentl$ supported9)*

28 'allaher e6plains that $ulgako% *ould later look back on this council as a landmark mo%ement in the Church o!complete and creati%e ecclesiastical reconstruction+ as *ell as a uni7ue mani!estation o! the !ullness o! (ussia. 'allaher+Catholic Action *. 'i;. diss. 2.

29 C!. alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 2ED and "%tuho%+ The #ross > the Sic:le 1D-;2B



2B C!. $ulgako%+ Fhe Church&s Ministry+ 29D;2B3. alliere e6plains that $ulgako% *as elected to the ContinuationCommittee charged *ith shepherding the )aith and 5rder mo%ement until the ne6t international meeting and that$ulgako% achie%ed prominence at ausanne by deli%ering an impassioned plea to the >rotestant ma:ority to embrace the%eneration o! the irgin Mary+ *hom he hailed as the mystical ZXni<er& o! the *orld*ide church+ a proposal socontro%ersial that the section chairman[ blocked the speech !or a *eekS alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 2D3.

In !.)* Bulgako ecame one of the ke$ founders of 6rance‟s L’Institut t! er#e the first eer

Orthodo Theological seminar$ in Europe9 Its European location gae Bulgako ampledialoguing opportunities with ;estern academics9 #s the acting dean of the OrthodoTheological seminar$ for almost twent$ $ears Bulgako greatl$ influenced the Orthodo Churchand academic thought in general9 Seminarians attending L’Institute were instructed inBulgako‟s sophiolog$ and enmeshed in a ;estern culture ripe for ecumenism9 Becomingincreasingl$ known for his unitie endeaors Bugako also helped ring aout the er$institutionaliation of ecumenism through his inolement in the 6aith and Order committee thatwas part of the ;orld Council a moement that eentuall$ led to the estalishment of the WorldCouncil of Churches ?;CC@9)2 In this wa$ it can e said that Sergius Bulgako is one of the;CC‟s foundin# forefathers9

In !.33 6ather Sergius pla$ed a ke$ role in estalishing the 6ellowship of St9 #lan and St9Sergius an #nglican,Orthodo ecumenical dialogue group that inspired © A. [email protected] 1B

Bulgako‟s !.33 Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion etween the #nglican andOrthodo Churches9 The 6ellowship was an collaoration of 8ussian Orthodo and #nglicanscholars ?la$ and religious alike@ who not onl$ discussed doctrinal issues ut also actiel$ sharedAcommon pra$erA iewing it as the cornerstone of all their dialogue9

Through the 6ellowship of St9 #lan and St9 Sergius Bulgako realied the importance offostering unit$ and understanding through acti+ity rather than >ust through talk9 #s a result he

fre=uentl$ emphasied the need for action in ecumenism9 This is eidenced in his proposal that#nglican and Orthodo scholars work together to create a diine liturg$ that oth could celeratein their confessions an endeaor that Bulgako elieed would further their isile and spiritualunit$9)7 /e also formall$ proposed the 6ellowship seek permission $ their respectie ishops to participate in partial communion which would re=uire a mutual Asacrifice of loeA from othsides9)'

2E $ulgako% in 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33.

2D Ibid.

2- $ulgako% also cites e6amples o! common prayer as *ell as 5rthodo6;Anglican "ucharistic co;celebrations+ *hereby5rthodo6 di%ine liturgy *as celebrated in Anglican Churches and !or Anglican congregations. C!. #piritual

Intercommunion. #obornost 8 1-394 3.

3 Lescribing his dialoguing encounters in the )ello*ship+ $ulgako% states+ In this e6perience con!essional limitations areo%ercome in spite o! the *alls *hich separate the con!essions !rom one another. 5ne !eels and discerns a true

Bulgako‟s inolement with the 6ellowship influenced him $ strengthening his resole thatthe Eucharist can e oth a means towards communion and a strengthening of the communionthat alread$ eists9 /e argued that Eucharistic intercommunion ma$ precede full doctrinalagreement so long as oth confessions mutuall$ assented to ke$ Christological Eucharistic and



apostolic issues9 In one obornost >ournal article Bulgako eplains that the 6ellowship‟s actiesharing of common pra$er and liturgical eperiences). rought aout a deep spiritualintercommunion of Eucharistic sharing93" B$ © A. [email protected] 1E

li!e[ a unity in Christ+ *hich simply cannot be o%ercome by con!essional di%isions. $ulgako%+ #piritual Intercommunion

8.

31 $ulgako% notes that (oman Catholicism denied that the Anglican Church had any such %alidity o! orders. C!. #piritualIntercommunion 9;B.

32 Ibid.

Eucharistic spiritual intercommunion Bulgako meant that the #nglican and Orthodo memersof the 6ellowship had oth Aspiritual fellowship through our faith in Christ and our loe of /imAand also spiritual AEucharistic fellowshipA ecause the$ recognied the apostolic alidit$ of eachother ‟s priestl$ orders and the alidit$ of each other ‟s Eucharistic celerations93! ThusBulgako saw partial or limited intercommunion etween the two confessions as onl$ a natural

step forward in the ecumenical process9 /is Orthodo,#nglican dialoguing eperience in the6ellowship rought him to affirm that the spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion present etweentheir respectie confessions should ineital$ lead to officiall$ approed instances ofintercommunion9 /is proposal stipulated that such actie Eucharistic sharing etween localiedOrthodo,#nglican communities was to occur $ wa$ of the permission of their respectie ishops and was intended to uild the isile unit$ of the Church and moe them furthertowards full and open Eucharistic sharing9

Interestingl$ Bulgako did not see reunion or een spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion taking place etween Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism at least not during his lifetime9 /e commentsthat an$ prospect of spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion etween Orthodo$ and Catholicism

was AthwartedA due to 8ome‟

s Aspirit of prosel$tismA and AimperialismA93) Bulgako wasincredil$ critical of the Catholic Church‟s approach to reunion perceiing 8ome‟s iew to eone of © A. McCormick [email protected] 1D

AasorptionA33 Aanneation and su>ugation9A35 Bulgako condemned the Catholic Church forlimiting reunion to 8ome‟s asorption of all other Christian confessions an assimilation processthat demanded uniformit$ and conformit$ to the &atin wa$ of doing things rather thanmaintaining the diersit$ that Bulgako held as an intrinsic part of the Church‟s nature9 ;e mustrememer Bulgako‟s criticisms certainl$ ore merit since 8oman Catholicism had completel$remoed herself from an$ official ecumenical dialogue during his lifetime9

33 C!. $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion Sobornost 2 ,une 1-39411.

38 $ulgako%+ The atican 'ogma E2.

Bulgako‟s arious life eperiences with Catholicism such as his HCatholic infection‟ and hisencounter of Catholics ent towards prosel$tiing Orthodo memers hampered his hopes forCatholic,Orthodo reunion9 Couple this with Catholicism‟s negatie iew of ecumenism duringBulgako‟s historical time frame and one egins to understand wh$ 6ather Sergius was socritical of the 8oman Church9 ;hile he realied that Orthodo$ and Catholicism shared the same



histor$ and much of the same dogmas he knew the possiilit$ of Orthodo,Catholic reunionwould e at a standstill until 8ome ecame more open to ecumenism in general9 #s suchBulgako chose to focus his ecumenical endeaors to fostering unit$ with the #nglican Churchwhile also remaining hopeful that Catholicism would eentuall$ come around9

Bulgakov$s Sophiological %ens

It is m$ goal to introduce a simple ?ut not oerl$,simplified@ portra$al of Bulgako‟ssophiological lens through which he perceies the inter,relationship of the © A. [email protected] 1-

Church the Eucharist and ecumenism93* The challenge of s$nthesiing fort$ $ears of Bulgako‟swritings on Sophia is a massie task in itself therefore m$ aim in this section is not to ehaustthe topic ut rather to gie the audience some foundational understanding9

39 Jote !rom here on that some o! the more detailed e6planations o! $ulgako%&s thought *ill ha%e to be !ootnoted in orderto better retain coherency !or my =estern academic audience. )urthermore+ one must realiQe that my presentation in this

section is only meant to be something o! a Zreaders digest& %ersion+ since the scope o! this topic could itsel! be a doctoralthesis. I ha%e pro%ided diagrams 1 through 3 in order to assist my audience in grasping $ulgako%&s comple6 sophiology.

3B $ulgako%+=isdom o! 'od in A +ulga:o; Anthology + 18-.

3E Andre* outh+ =isdom and the (ussians4 Fhe #ophiology o! )r #ergei $ulgako%+ in -here Shall -isdom +e FoundB&-isdom in the +ible the #hurch and the #ontemporary -orld Stephen C. $arton+ ed. "dinburgh4 FF Clark+ 1--- 1EB.Also c!. Fatyryn+ *ho states+ #ophiology *as so integral to $ulgako%&s thought because it *as the instrument by *hich$ulgako% both bound and separated di%ine and created reality. #ophiology united and yet maintained the inherent tensionbet*een Creation and Incarnation. Fataryn 8. Fhe >aris 5rthodo6 Fheologains E2;8.

Sophiolog$ is the lens through which Bulgako iewed all Christian theolog$ and dogmas9Defining sophiolog$ as Aa theological or perhaps dogmatic interpretation of the world?Weltanschauun# @ within Christianit$A Bulgako argues that sophiolog$ Aears upon all

Christian teachingA and emraces all of Orthodo$‟s dogmas932 6or him sophiolog$ is othwoen throughout and ties together the doctrines of the Trinit$ Creation the Incarnation theChurch and sacramentolog$9 #ndrew &outh eplains AThe idea of the diine ;isdom Sophia iscentral to Bulgakos theological ision: it runs like a scarlet thread from his understanding ofthe doctrines of the Trinit$ and of creation through the doctrines of Christ and the Church to hiseschatolog$9 To talk of this dimension in theolog$ he used ?coined<@ the term sophiolog$9A37 It isthrough this sophiological lens that Bulgako iewed Orthodo$‟s ecumenical relations withother Christian confessions as well as Christianit$‟s oerall relation with culture9 6rom the allencompassing =uestion of how the Triune eing of -od is reflected in the world Bulgako‟ssophiological deelopment flows inward addressing the issue of the © A. [email protected] 2

Incarnation as the asis for theological anthropolog$ and then the issue of how Christianit$ andculture should relate93'

3D Luring his li!etime+ Christianity&s rele%ance to and engagement *ith culture *as a 7uestion being addressed by %ariousscholars. $ulgako% hea%ily opposed t*o o! the most popular ans*ers to this 7uestion. )irstly+ he opposed the e6tremeseparation bet*een 'od and *orld+ *hich he termed the *orld denying Manichaeanism %ie*. e disagreed *ith this%ie*&s portrayal o! 'od as entirely detached and aloo! !rom creation+ as i! 'od only *ound up creation and then *ithdre*entirely+ lea%ing the *orld to its o*n de%ices. Fhe second e6treme %ie* $ulgako% abhorred *as the complete seculariQationo! li!e and Christianity *hereby Christianity is seculariQed as it is tailored to culture. e percei%ed this %ie* to be pre%alent



in =estern scholarship and belie%ed this resulted in the escalating seculariQation o! theology. Fo combat these t*o %ie*s+$ulgako% de%eloped upon the !rame*ork lain by #olo%&e% and )lorensky among others+ and began to establish his o*nuni7ue sophiological outlook. =hile $ulgako% dra*s upon the sophiology o! #olo%Ue%+ he is critical o! #olo%Ue%Us 'nostictendenciesS there!ore+ $ulgako% does dra* !rom #olo%&e% but is care!ul to ensure that such syncretistic tendencies areremo%ed !rom his o*n sophiological understanding. $ulgako%+ The -isdom of 9od 23?. )or more in!ormation+ c!. outh+=isdom and the (ussians4 Fhe #ophiology o! )r #ergei $ulgako%+ in -here Shall -isdom +e FoundB 1E-S Michael >lekon+Sergii +ulga:o;& towards a 6ussian political theology "dinburgh4 F F Clark+ 1--- 39S Fataryn+ Augustine and 6ussian$rthodo<y BD;-S and alliere+ *odern 6ussian Theology 2-1;D+ 32B+ 33-;8+ 389+ 38D;-+ 39B;E+ 8;2.

3- e states+ 5ne must include the *orld&s creation in 'od&s o*n li!e+ coposit the creation *ith 'od&s li!e+ correlate 'od&s*orld;creating act *ith the act o! is sel!;determination. 5ne must kno* ho* to simultaneously unite+ identi!y+ anddistinguish creation and 'od&s li!e+ *hich in !act is possible in the doctrine o! #ophia+ Li%ine and creaturely+ identical anddistinct. ater on in the same section+ $ulgako% also e6plains+ 5nce it is gi;en that 'od is also the Creator+ and that theCreator is 'od+ our thought must be go%erned by the inclusion o! creation in 'od&s o*n li!e+ and this inclusion must be oncompletely e7ual principles o! di%ine necessity in !reedom or o! !reedom in necessity. Fhis means that the *orld&s beingmust be included in 'od&s o*n li!e+ must be correlated *ith this li!e+ must be understood not only in its o*n being !or itsel!+but also in its being in 'od+ in di%ine being. +ride of the Lamb 88;9.

Bulgako understood sophiolog$ as an issue of the relation etween -od and creation withhumanit$ included as a uni=ue part of that creation9 /e wanted to ensure creation‟s separatenessfrom -od while also presering creation as dwelling in -od eing guided and presered $-od‟s own hand93. Bulgako‟s sophiolog$ addresses the =uestion: how is the eing of -od as

the Trinit$ reflected in the eing of the world< /e sought to account for the independence ofcreation from -od that would lead neither to the dualistic desacraliation of creation nor to the pantheistic enmeshment of creation and -od9 Bulgako elieed his sophiolog$ was the answer ecause it ensures that creation is separate from -od while also resting in -od9 (eaning -od isseparate from creation ut creation is not eternal to -od for it rests in -od9 /is concept ofSophia allows creation to e within -od‟s domain while still remaining separate from the-odhead9 © A. McCormick [email protected] 21

Bulgako eplained that ophia which is translated as H;isdom‟ is -od‟s nature reealed9To the =uestion of what is the nature of -od Bulgako answers A-od is loeA ?! 0n 5: ' !2@9 /einterprets this passage to mean that &oe is the nature or ousia of -od95" Therefore ASophia

likewise elongs to the realm of -od‟

s &oeA ecause it is the re+elation of -od‟

s nature as&oe95! It is important to realie Bulgako eplains that Sophia is not -od‟s er$ nature utrather is sourced in -od‟s nature9 #s I understand it Sophia is the loing ?with a little Hl‟@ of the&oe ?with a capital H&‟@ that is -od95) It is the re+elation of -od‟s nature as &oe -od‟s-lor$ reealed953 This ma$ seem confusing to those coming from a ;estern ackgroundtherefore an analogical description ma$ help9

8 e states+ 'od is o%e W not lo%e in the sense o! a 7uality or a property peculiar to 'od W but as the %ery substance and%igour o! his li!e. Fhe tri;hypostatic union o! the 'odhead is a mutual lo%e+ in *hich each o! the ypostases+ by a timelessact o! sel!;gi%ing in lo%e+ re%eals itsel! in both the others. The -isdom of 9od 9D.

81 Ibid.

82 $ulgako% e6plains that #ophia is lo%e but lo%e in a special and un;hypostatic embodiment[. In this sense *e can speako! lo%e in 'od not only in the mutual relationship o! 'od to his 'odhead+ but in like manner in the lo%e o! the 'odhead !or'od. Ibid.

83 $ulgako% describes #ophia as *here 'od possesses the principle o! his sel!;re%elation. It is 'od&s eternal di%ine li!eSthe sum and unity o! all his G'od&sH attributesS the substantial being o! the di%ine spirit. $ulgako% e6plains+ Fhe tri;persona 'od has his o*n sel!;re%alation. is nature+ or ousia+ constitutes his intrinsic =isdom and 'lory alike+ *hich *eaccordingly designate under the general term Sophia. =isdom or #ophia is neither a characteristic o! 'od nor the origin o!'od&s nature but rather is the e6pression o! it. In other *ords+ 'od&s ousia or nature as o%e is re%ealed in #ophia. C!.=isdom o! 'od in A +ulga:o; Anthology 192;8S and The +ride of the Lamb 3- and 82. Also c!. Antoine Ar:ako%sky+ Fhe#ophiology o! )ather #ergius $ulgako% and Contemporary =estern Fheology+ St ladimir(s Thoelogical Cuarterly 8-4 1;2294 21-;39S and Fataryn+ Augustine and 6ussian $rthodo<y E2;8.



Diagram -: Outline of Divine Sophia and creaturel! Sophia

'od&s 'lory re%ealed

lo%ing o! the o%e that is 'od&s nature

*orld o! eternal beingS o! !ull actualiQation

realm o! Ideas or prototypes J

are li:e the blueprints o! creation as theyare the %ery seeds o! being o! each creature

act o! the absolute per!ection o! being that is 'od

re;elation o! the dynamic but unchanging nature o! the Frinity

!oundation o! all creation

image o! Li%ine #ophia in that it identi<es *ith and is a reOection o! Li%ine#ophia+ e6cept that creaturely #ophia is in the process o! realiQing itspotential

*orld o! temporal becomingS the *orld o! potentiality in the process o!actualiQation.

realm *herein both hea%en and the earth e6ist

by !ully actualiQing its potential+ creaturely #ophia *ill unite *ith Li%ine

#ophia+ as the *orld o! eternal being and temporal becoming uni!y+ so that'od may be all in all © A. McCormick [email protected] 29

Two .odes of Sophia+/

8B (e!er to Liagram 2 as an aid !or this section.

8E +ride of the Lamb 8B.

8D I ask the reader to bear *ith me as I attempt to e6plain these dual aspects o! $ulgako%&s sophiology. >lease re!er toLiagram 2 !or some help!ul in!ormation.

8- The -isdom of 9od D2. )or $ulgako%&s description o! ho* di%ine #ophia belongs to each >erson in a uni7ue *ay+ c!.

Chapter II4 Fhe Li%ine #ophia and the >ersons o! the oly Frinity in The -isdom of 9od B3;D8.

9 +ride of the Lamb 83.

Bulgako differentiates Sophia as haing two modes diine Sophia and creaturel$ Sophia9Bulgako states AThe Diine Sophia eists in a dual mode: in her own mode which elongs toher in eternit$ and in the creaturel$ mode as the world9A57 Diine Sophia is the -lor$ of -od



the world of eternal eing the act of asolute perfection the reelation of -od‟ nature9Conersel$ creaturel$ Sophia is oth a reflection and a relation of diine Sophia95'

#s the loing of -od‟ &oe within the Trinit$ diine Sophia is the world of eternal eing9 It isthe act of the asolute perfection of eing that is -od9 #s Athe self,reelation of the -odheadA

diine Sophia Aelongs to all three 1ersons of the /ol$ Trinit$ oth in their tri,unit$ and in their separate eing and to each one in a wa$ peculiar to himself9A5.

Bulgako uses the analog$ of the Burning Bush to descrie diine Sophia as -od‟ personaltrih$postatic act9 /e states:

This act issues from the triune h$postatic center which as such is the h$postatic self,affirmationand encompasses -od‟ eing the diine world the eternal fire of -od‟ loe9 #nd this actreturns to this center in the eternal c$cle of -od‟ life which has no origin and is not su>ect tochange ut which from all eternit$ is and is #enerated : a flame of diine fire feeding itself theBurning Bush urning ut not consumed9*" © A. McCormick

[email protected] 2B-od‟ potential is full$ actualied and full$ perfect9 Diine Sophia is the creatie self,reelationof -od‟ full actualiation and asolute perfection of eing9 This is wh$ -od is named the AI#(A and not H was‟nor H will e‟?cf9 Eod 3:!5@9 Bulgako eplains:

-od‟ nature isKthe creatie self,positing of diinit$ -od‟ personal trih$postatic act9 Thisact is the Diine Sophia the self,positing and self,reelation of the /ol$ Trinit$9 #s such she isthe diine world possessing all the force of eing een though this eing is nonh$postaticK inthe sense of the personal self,positing of -od she LDiine SophiaM is the creatie act of thediine tri,h$postatic person -od‟ supra'eternal creati+e act in which each of the h$postases

ac=uires its h$postatic self,determination9*!

91 +ride of the Lamb 82.

92 +ride of the Lamb 93. #ophia precedes 'od&s act o! creation because #ophia is the lo%ing o! 'od&s o%e. Fataryne6plains+ #ophia enabled $ulgako% to speak o! 'od&s lo%e as able to lo%e and then create that *hich *as not 'od+ *ithoutcompromising 'od&s o%e *hich *as at the !oundation o! 'od. $ulgako% there!ore described the di%ine

Thus Bulgako‟ iew of diine Sophia as -od‟ personal trih$postatic act results in -od eingiewed not in static terms Aut d$namicall$ as actus purusA which is asolute actualit$9 In otherwords -od is full actualit$ and full perfection of eing and Diine Sophia is the dynamic act of-od‟ personal HS,ness‟as the -reat I #(9 So diine Sophia is the world of eternal eing the actof the asolute perfection of -od‟ Trinitarian eing9

Bulgako also sees diine Sophia Aas the foundation of creationA since it is the asis of all thecreatures and cosmos9 Nuoting -enesis !:! AIn the eginning was the ;ordA Bulgakoeplains A/ere Hn the eginning‟signifies H$ the principle on the asis of the principle‟that isof the diine worldK Eternit$ ecomes the foundation for temporal,spatial multiple eing9 In thecreaturel$ world the diine world is clothed in becomin#, it is not ut ecomes9A*) The world oftemporalit$ or ecoming is called creaturely ophia $ Bulgako9 © A. [email protected] 2E



#ophia as Z'od&s *orld+ the li%ing being o! 'od& *hich already contained *ithin itsel! the lo%e that could and did create outo! nothing. Fataryn+ Augustine and 6ussian $rthodo<y E3. "6plaining $ulgako%&s understanding o! the process o! creation+enry Rarlson states+ In the Li%ine i!e+ #ophia is an integral *hole+ one *ithout parts+ and entirely simple. $ut creation isa kenotic act o! the 'odhead+ and the Li%ine >ersons take their Li%ine i!e+ Li%ine #ophia+ and remo%e their >ersonal nature!rom the Li%ine i!e+ and this becomes the mode and method o! creation. Creation is seen as the emptying !rom #ophia o!the >ersons o! the Frinity+ and !reeing it to become the creaturely. enry Rarlson+ #ophiology and )ree Apokatastasis.Xnpublished paper. Rarlson is a >hL student in Fheological #tudies at the Catholic Xni%ersity o! America. I am indebted tohim !or all o! his assistance in coming up *ith the idea !or this thesis as *ell as !or his plethora o! kno*ledge andunderstanding o! $ulgako%. Rarlson *as a %ital resource in the making o! this thesis+ as he *as the one *hom I constantlyturned *ith 7uestions regarding $ulgako%&s sophiology+ ecclesiology and sacramentology.

93 =isdom in creation is ontologically identical *ith its prototype+ the same =isdom as e6ists in 'od. =isdom o! 'od in A +ulga:o; Anthology 199. )or $ulgako%&s description o! ho* actualiQation o! potential being is connected *ith nothing+*hich thereby accounts !or !reedom+ c!. +ride of the Lamb 93?.

98 C!. =isdom o! 'od in A +ulga:o; Anthology + 199;B.

99 Fhis metaphor imprecisely e6presses the real relation bet*een the Li%ine and the creaturely #ophia+ 'od and the*orld. Fhe connection bet*een the di%ine and creaturely *orld is indisputably aPrmed here+ but it is characteriQedinsuPciently. Fhe di?erence bet*een the t*o *orlds must be understood as being much more pro!ound than only therelation bet*een a plan and its realiQation. +ride of the Lamb 99?.

Creaturel$ Sophia is the realm of potentialit$ in the process of actualiation the realm of

ecoming wherein oth the heaens and the earth eist9*3 It is important to realie the creation ofthe world is not a duplication of diine Sophia since creaturel$ Sophia is in the process of ecoming whereas diine Sophia is eternal9*5 The eternal eing reealed in diine Sophia is Athefoundation of creationA while creaturel$ Sophia is the realm of temporal ecoming where amultiplicit$ of creatures go aout the process of actualiing their potential there$ ecomingwho -od created them to e more full$9

Bulgako also rings a Feo,1latonic perspectie to his iew of Sophia‟ dual modes9 /e arguesthat diine Sophia is the realm of AIdeasA or Aprotot$pesA that are Athe er$ seeds of eingA ofeach creature9 +sing what he descries as an imprecise metaphor Bulgako elaoratesAHdeas‟or Hrotot$pes‟are so to speak the plan of creation sketched out $ the Creator9A** These

Aseeds of eingA present in diine Sophia are AimplantedA in the creaturel$ realm where the$emark on the process of actualiing their potential ecoming what -od created them to emore full$9 In this wa$ creaturel$ Sophia ?the ;isdom of this world@ identifies with and is areflection of diine Sophia9 © A. McCormick [email protected] 2D

Creaturel$ Sophia is the image of diine Sophia with the ke$ difference that creaturel$ Sophia isin the process of realiing its potential the process of ecoming9 Thus creaturel$ Sophia iscalled to full$ actualie its potential and there$ unite with Diine Sophia ?the world of eing@as a unit$ of multiplicit$9*2

9B $ulgako% e6plains+ Fhe di%ine #ophia+ as the re%elation o! the ogos+ is the all;embracing unity *hich contains *ithinitsel! all the !ullness o! the *orld o! ideas. $ut to the creature also 'od the Creator entrusts this all+ *ithholding nothing in

himsel! and not limiting the creature in any *ay.... In #ophia the !ullness o! the ideal !orms contained in the =ord isreOected in creation. Fhis means that the species o! created beings do not represent some ne* !orms+ de%ised by 'od...+but that they are based upon eternal+ di%ine prototypes.... Fhis similitude implies the e6hausti%e !ullness o! creation+ thet*o!old aspect o! *hich in%ol%es both Uhea%en and earthU+ the *orld o! angels and the *orld o! men+ and does not a?ect thegeneral postulate that the primary !oundation o! the *orld is rooted in the di%ine #ophia. $ulgako% continues4 It ispossible to ask4 is not the creation o! the *orld... a kind o! duplication o! the di%ine #ophia\ $ut the *hole conception o!correspondence is inapplicable to the relation bet*een the eternal and becoming. Indeed+ it is nearer the truth to speak o!unity+ e%en identity+ as bet*een the di%ine and the creaturely #ophia. At the same time+ ho*e%er+ and *ithoute7ui%ocation+ *e can speak o! the t*o di?erent !orms o! #ophia in 'od and in the creature. Fhey are distinguished on theone hand as the simple and simultaneous per!ection o! eternity as against temporal becoming+ and on the other di%ine+ asagainst participated+ being. Fhe identity and distinction+ the unity and duality o! #ophia in 'od and in creation+ rest on thesame !oundation. C!. $ulgako%+ =isdom o! 'od in A +ulga:o; Anthology + 198;B. Also c!. 'allaher+ Catholic Action *.



'i;. diss. 9- ?S and outh+ =isdom and the (ussians4 Fhe #ophiology o! )r #ergei $ulgako%+ in -here Shall -isdom +eFoundB 1EE.

9E $ulgako% argues that the di%ine and creaturely #ophia are made one in the Incarnation because ,esus has both t*onatures as *ell as t*o corporealities. 'allaher e6plains+ #ince the ord has t*o natures e also has t*o corporealitiesnot t*o bodies as di%ine corporeality is not a body and is certainly not Oesh+ di%ine and creaturely+ the Li%ine #ophia *hois 'od&s eternal glory and the Creaturely #ophia created out o! earth human Oesh+ *hich in the 'od;Man are unitedtrans<guring all creation. C!. $ulgako%+ The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist udson+ J.K.4 indis!arne $ooks+ 1--E 12-;132S

and 'allaher+ Catholic Action *. 'i;. diss. B.

9D The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist 13B.

Sophia and the Incarnation

The Incarnation is the union of the diine Sophia and the creaturel$ Sophia as the -od,manfull$ actualied his potential in the midst of the world9*7 Bulgako states:

0ust as the world created $ -od is sophianic in its foundation and ultimate purpose ?Athat -odma$ e all in allA L! Cor9 !*:)'M@ so the human od$ in general and the human od$ of Christ in particular is sophianic and conforms to Diinit$ is intended for glor$ and is completel$glorified in Christ in whom the creaturel$ Sophia and the Diine Sophia are identified9 Infulfilling eer$ truth the &ord fulfills in /imself the truth of the od$ giing to the od$ all theglor$ that elongs to it perfect sophianicit$9*' © A. [email protected] 2-

The primordial depths of humanit$‟ nature and sophianicit$ are full$ reealed and fulfilled in0esus Christ9*. The &ord‟ glorious #scension Awith /is od$ signifies that /is connection withthe world not onl$ is not terminated ut ac=uires a definitie indestructiilit$ for all eternit$9A2"

Bulgako sees the Incarnation as oth the fullness of humanit$ reealed and Christ‟ #scensionas the raising of all creation‟ potential to Aeternal eing9A 0esus is the unit$ of Diine eing andthe fullness of humanit$ actualied he is diine and creaturel$ Sophia full$ united andachieed9

9- Ibid. 12E and 13B. ike >ope ,ohn >aul II+ $ulgako% argues that the Incarnation is the !ullness o! humanity re%ealed.$ulgako% states+ Fhe Incarnation is[the absolute actualiQation in human beings o! the human image through theuni<cation o! the image and the >rotoimage[ umanity&s sophianicity is re%ealed and actualiQed through the Incarnation+through the union o! the creaturely #ophia *ith the Li%ine #ophia. 'od the =ord+ ha%ing come into the *orld+ is+ in iseternity+ not 'od to *hom corporeality is alien. 5n the contrary+ e eternally has corporeality in the Li%ine #ophia+ in theLi%ine *orld. C!. The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist 12D;-.

B Ibid. 19.

B1 $ulgako% states+ Christ *as[an all/man an all/indi;idual. e contained in is human nature the *hole o! mankind W allthe !ullness o! Adam&s nature and all its hypostatic images+ similarly as the <rst Adam potentially contained in himsel! allthe indi%idualities o! !uture mankind[ Adam&s humanity in redemption becomes Christ&s humanity. It represents a li%ingmulti;unity *hich has one li!e in Christ+ but at the same time it is an absolutely real multitude o! hypostatic images+ *hich

are united in this oneness o! li!e. Fhe "ucharist and the #ocial >roblems o! Modern #ociety+ JFAS 21 #eptember+ 1-33412.

6urthermore Bulgako understood Christ‟ human nature as the microcosm of all humanit$92! Soin full$ actualiing the potential of /is creaturel$ Sophia 0esus Christ gies hope for allhumanit$ to achiee diiniation through h$postatic unit$ with the Diine9 The Incarnate Christalso gies hope for the cosmic realiation and apocal$ptical fulfillment of -od‟ glor$ Athat



-od ma$ e all in allA ?cf9 ! Cor !*:!),35@ as diine and creaturel$ Sophia are made one in theEucharist the Church and the world9

The Sophianic 0nit! of .ultiplicit! 1 ll Destined for Onenessin 2od

6rom Bulgako‟ perspectie the Incarnation the Eucharist the Church and the world are allidentified with Sophia9 /e elieed that Diine and creaturel$ Sophia are full$ united in oth theIncarnation and the Eucharist9 #t the same time the process of © A. [email protected] 3

diine and creaturel$ sophianic unit$ is still eing realied in humanit$ the Church and theworld9 This process of ecoming the actualiing of creaturel$ potential is onl$ possile $ the power of diine sophianicit$ mediated through the Eucharist and the Church9 The end goal ofthis sophianic ecoming process is the unit$ of Aall in allA where$ oth the heaenl$ andcreaturel$ realm full$ actualie their potential and achiee oneness with the Diine9 The

following is an illustration of how Bulgako‟

lens shapes his iews of the Eucharist the Churchand ecumenism9

Sophiological 0nderstanding of the Eucharist and the Church

Bulgako eliees the Eucharist and the Church ring aout the union of diine and creaturel$Sophia in the midst of our world9 #s the real presence of the Incarnation the Eucharist manifeststhe union of diine,creaturel$ Sophia9 The Church on the other hand is in the process ofactualiing her creaturel$ potential and therefore looks forward to achieing sophianic unit$ andoneness in the Trinit$9

To Bulgako the Eucharist is the d$namic aiding of the Incarnation in the Church and theworld92) Bulgako teaches that 0esus aides eternall$ as the Incarnation

B2 $ulgako% argues that the Incarnation dynamically abides in the "ucharist in t*o *ays4 in the $ody and $lood o! the"ucharistic species+ and in the non;"ucharistic blood that *as poured out on all creation. $ulgako% de<nes the "ucharisticblood as that *hich is made present in the *ine by the Church&s in%ocation o! the #pirit during the Li%ine iturgy. Xpholdingthe real presence+ $ulgako% teaches that ,esus remains uni7uely and really present in the "ucharistic elements o! is $odyand $lood. $ulgako% then takes things a step !urther in distinguishing that ,esus also remains present in creation throughis non;"ucharistic blood+ *hich e poured out on the *orld !rom the cross o! Cal%ary. =hy does $ulgako% make this dual;blood distinction\ $ulgako% distinguishes bet*een Christ&s eucharistic and non;eucharistic blood in order to maintain thecontinuation o! Christ&s uni%ersal abiding on earth+ making Christ&s in%isible presence the *orld&s %ery source o! holiness.5pposing the (oman practices o! "ucharistic adoration+ $ulgako% re:ects the %eneration o! the sacrament outside o! theconte6t o! the Li%ine iturgy. As such he must <nd some other dogmatic basis to e6plain Christ&s abiding presence increation. Fhe !ull e6planation o! this !orm o! "ucharistic abiding o! the Incarnation *ithin the *orld is !ound in $ulgako%Usbook+ The Holy 9rail. In it+ $ulgako% e6plores *hat he sees as a relationship bet*een Christ&s promise to remain Zal*ays*ith us& Mt 2D42 and the outpouring o! Christ&s blood on the cross ,n 1-438. (egarding ,esus& non;"ucharistic blood+

$ulgako% uni7uely argues that the *orld itsel! is the oly 'rail+ !or it recei%ed the precious blood and *ater that ,esuspoured out on 'olgotha thereby making Christ tangibly present in creation until the end o! the age c!. Mt 2D42. As ,esus& blood and *ater Oo*ed out onto the earth+ the abiding o! the Incarnation is made !ore%er present in the oly 'rail o!creation. Fhus $ulgako% interprets the Oo*ing o! blood and *ater !rom Christ&s side on 'olgotha as a uni%ersal abiding

e%ent © A. McCormick [email protected] 31

*hereby Christ&s humanity *as poured out on the *orld+ allo*ing the ord to in%isibly li%e in the *orld *hile alsoin*ardly trans<guring the *orld to*ard a ne* hea%en and a ne* earth. Fhis non;"ucharistic blood is the po*er[o!Christ in the *orld W the li!e;gi%ing Chalice. C!. The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist 88;9 and 13E;DS and Fhe "ucharist andthe #ocial >roblems o! Modern #ociety 1D. )or a more summariQed presentation o! $ulgako%&s distinction bet*een the"ucharistic and non;"ucharistic blood o! Christ+ c!. The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist -8;-D+ 11E.



B3 $ulgako%&s use o! the *ord soborny is related to his %ision o! unity in sobornost . e understood sobornost as !reedomin lo%e+ on *hich 5rthodo6y is based. Fhis *ill be discussed in !urther detail later in this section. Also+ !or morein!ormation+ c!. Fhe "ucharist and the #ocial >roblems o! Modern #ociety 21.

B8 Ibid. 18;19.

B9 Ibid. 1B;1E.

Ain a definite point within space and timeA and he also d$namicall$ aides as the Eucharistic power of life that strengthens the process of completing the Bod$ of Christ in humanit$ on earth9In this wa$ the power of the Incarnation is reealed in the Eucharist which fortifies inspiresand accomplishes humanit$‟ Asoorn$ of life9A23 Bulgako states A-od is orn in eer$ one ofthose who partakes at the &iturg$ and eer$one of them is orn of -odA as communicantsreceie Athe power of the redeeming Sacrifice of Calar$A and are there$ increasingl$Heified‟through their reception of the Eucharist925 In other words Bulgako eliees thatEucharistic reception helps the Church as the 1eople of -od along the path of actualiing theircreaturel$ potential9 To put it in terms more understandale to m$ Catholic audience Bulgakois impl$ing that the Eucharist makes the Church and transforms the world9 #s the Eucharist helps

the Church and humanit$ along the process of actualiing their potential the Eucharist also helpsall of creation through this transformatie process92*

/aing the power to unite humanit$ and all creation the Church has a ke$ role in the creaturel$ process of ecoming and the eschatological transformation of the world9 The Church isessentiall$ Eucharistic in her nature as she is the Bod$ of Christ9 Bulgako descries the Churchas a Amulti,une humanit$Kwhich consists of man$ memers unitedKin their life in Christ9A /eeplains A#s a multipiclit$ of indiiduals it © A. [email protected] 32

Lthe Church the Bod$ of ChristM is a loing Hsoornost‟ that is such a harmonious eistence in

which oth the separate eistence of each one and of all together is complete realit$922 Comparingthe Church to a od$Kshows us oth the common life in the od$ and the multiplicit$ of itsmemers and the liing link which eists etween these memers9A27 In this wa$ Bulgakounderstands the Church‟ nature as a unity of multiplicity9 The Bod$ of Christ the Church is aoneness of multiplicit$ or a Amulti,unit$A of indiiduals a liing and loing sobornost 9 TheChurch‟ soornost is a Aunion in loeA it is Athe Bod$ of Christ which is eing accomplished A92'

Soornost is the link etween all the memers of Christ‟ Bod$9 It is the power of the Church‟ unit$ and ailit$ to unite humanit$ and with it all creation92. 6undamentall$ unitie in her er$nature the Church is central to the sophianic process of -od eing Aall in allA9

BB )or a Catholic criti7ue o! $ulgako%&s understanding o! the Church and its nature as sobornost + c!. #tanis]* ^ierkosQ+L(Eglise ;isible selon Serge +ulga:o; & structure hiDrarchiue et sacramentelle (oma 4 >ont. Institutum #tudiorum

5rientalium+ 1-D 1-9;2D. Fhroughout the !ormation o! this thesis+ I ha%e at times *ondered *hether $ulgako%&sunderstanding o! sobornost correlates *ith Catholicism&s understanding o! catholicity\ =hile $ulgako% himsel! denies this+ Ibelie%e he is denying it !rom *ithin his o*n historical situation+ meaning that the Catholic understanding o! catholicityduring $ulgako%&s li!e time *as narro* compared to that o! our modern day. )or a presentation o! catholicity and its relationto the Church&s nature+ c!. A%ery Lulles+ The #atholicity of the #hurch 56!ord4 Clarendon >ress4 1-D9 12E;18B+ and 1BE;1D. 5! particular importance is Chapter E o! this book+ *hich addresses the problem o! Catholicism&s centraliQation o!catholicity in (ome&s primacy. Is it possible this is *hy ,ohn >aul II is so adamant that the primacy o! (ome must be resol%edbe!ore "ucharistic intercommunion can take place *ith "astern 5rthodo6y\ Fhe 7uestion is intriguing and re7uires !urthere6aminationS ho*e%er+ it is outside the scope o! this thesis and *ill+ there!ore+ not be ans*ered at this time.

BE $ulgako%+ Fhe "ucharist and the #ocial >roblems o! Modern #ociety 12.



#s the 1eople of -od making up the Bod$ of Christ the Church‟ nature is to e oth aninisile m$stical life and an eternall$ isile organiation9 Thus the Bod$ of Christ isAinisile unit$ in isile multiplicit$9A Bulgako eplains that the Church is not >ust Aan eternalorganiationA rather it is primaril$ Aan inner m$stical life in Christ9A /e concludes AThereforeit must e recognised that there eists an inisile m$sterious unit$ of the whole ChurchK In

some sense the whole of Christianit$ is one Church and accordingl$ this unit$ is Orthodo9A 7) Inother words a spiritual soornostic unit$ alread$ inds the whole of Christianit$ together as oneChurch9 ;hile Christian confessions ma$ e isil$ diided an inisile spiritual onenessremains that unites them all together as one Church9

E2 $ulgako% states+ In this sense one can say that the nature o! the Church is symbolic[ It is e7ually true and e7uallyuntrue to aPrm that the Church has a merely in%isible or a merely %isible e6istence+ because it is an in%isible+ mysteriousli!e e6pressed in %isible+ e6ternal !orms. In this sense the li!e in the Church is in itsel! a perpetual sacrament o! sacraments+*hile sacramental li!e in the Church is only a particular e6pression o! this its general character. e also e6plains+mysticaloneness o! the Church+ as o! an in%isible organism+ or as o! the body o! ChristS oneness e6isted e%en among early church&smultiplicity o! di?erent local+ national and e%en !amily churches. Fhe relationship bet*een many churches and the oneChurch is an in%isible unity in %isible multiplicity. C!. Z5ne oly+ Catholic And Apostolic Church+& E+ 1E;1D+ and 21.

Bulgako understands that all creation ears and shares the Bod$ of Christ9 /is identification of

oth the Church and the Eucharist with Sophia results in creation gaining © A. [email protected] 39

eucharistic and ecclesial potential9 #rguing that the world is the A/ol$ -railA Bulgako elieedthe d$namic aiding of the Incarnation is continuall$ present in all creation9 On top of affirmingChrist‟ real presence in the consecrated Eucharistic elements Bulgako also distinguishes that0esus remains present in creation through /is non,Eucharistic lood which /e poured out on theworld from the cross of Calar$9 This ensures the Incarnation‟ inisile and uniersal aiding increation allowing the &ord to Ainisil$A lie Ain the worldA while also go aout Ainwardl$transfiguring the world toward a new heaen and a new earth9A /is non,Eucharistic lood is Athe powerKof Christ in the world the life,giing Chalice9A73 Through the aiding of 0esus‟ lood in

the /ol$ -rail of the world all creation gains eucharistic meaning and potential9

E3 Li?erentiating bet*een ,esus& "ucharistic and non;"ucharistic blood+ $ulgako% uni7uely argues that the *orld itsel! isthe oly 'rail because it recei%ed the non;"ucharistic precious blood and *ater that ,esus poured out on 'olgothathereby making Christ tangibly present in creation until the end o! the age c!. Mt 2D42. As ,esus& blood and *aterOo*ed out onto the earth+ the abiding o! the Incarnation is made !ore%er present in the oly 'rail o! creation. Fhus$ulgako% interprets the Oo*ing o! blood and *ater !rom Christ&s side on 'olgotha as a uni%ersal abiding e%ent *herebyChrist&s humanity *as poured out on the *orld+ allo*ing the ord to in%isibly li%e in the *orld *hile also in*ardlytrans<guring the *orld to*ard a ne* hea%en and a ne* earth. C!. The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist 88;9 and 13E;DS andFhe "ucharist and the #ocial >roblems o! Modern #ociety 1D. )or a more summariQed presentation o! $ulgako%&sdistinction bet*een the "ucharistic and non;"ucharistic blood o! Christ+ c!. The Holy 9rail and the Eucharist -8;-D+ 11E.

E8 C!. chapter one o! 'allaher+ Catholic Action *. 'i;. diss. -;21.

#ll creation also gains ecclesial potential through Bulgako‟ identification of the Church withSophia9 Eplaining how Bulgako iewed the Church Aas the locus of -ods self,reelation to/imself in the worldA -allaher states AThus if the Church is the manifestation of a process thatis happening in all of creation then all of creation is potentiall$ ecclesial9 The impetus forecumenism ecomes clear: in the reunion of the Churches in the Church is the eginning of the process $ which -od ecomes all in all9A75 This is how Bulgako‟ sophiological lens can eseen as shaping his ecumenical approach9 The end goal of the sophianic process is oth theoneness of all creation and © A. McCormick [email protected] 3B



humanit$ and the diiniation of all in the Trinit$ therefore the aim of ecumenism is to fosterunit$ etween Christian confessions with the end goal of reunion into one isile uniersalChurch9 Thus Bulgako‟ uni=ue recognition of the Bod$ of Christ in the Eucharist in theisile and inisile Church as well as in all creation helps >ustif$ his openness to ecumenismand inter,communion9

Chapter Three: 4ohn 'aul II

Brief Biograph!

0ohn 1aul II was orn on (a$ !' !.)" in ;adowice 1oland9 /is parents gae him the name%arol 0ef ;o>t$la after his father who was known as a >ust and upright man within the Slaiccommunit$97* &ike Bulgako 0ohn 1aul II was taught at a $oung age that faith is meant to elied in all aspects of life9 #s his mother died when he was onl$ nine $ears old 01II increasingl$looked to his father ‟ mentorship and guidance9 /is father taught him the importance of eing Aaman of constant pra$erA as he stroe to lie out the faith and put his eliefs in practice972

;itnessing his father ‟

dedication to -od left a great impression upon 01II one that he carriedforward and attempted to model oer the $ears9

E9 =eigel+ -itness to Hope 2-.

EB )or e6ample+ =eigel e6plains that ,ohn >aul II accredits his !ather&s *ay o! li!e that <rst ga%e him the idea that the li!eo! !aith has <rst to do *ith interior con%ersion. =eigel also mentions that ,>II accredits his !ather&s e6ample as his ?rstseminary + a kind o! domestic seminary. -itness to Hope 3;1.

0ohn 1aul II was er$ gifted scholasticall$9 Ehiiting an artistic inclination at a $oung age heacted in all sorts of theatre productions $ the time he was fourteen9 In !.3' he graduated fromhigh school as aledictorian and moed with his father to © A. [email protected] 3E

%rak w where he egan his schooling at 0agiellonian +niersit$9 #t nineteen $ears of age hefinished his first ook of poetr$ titled A8enaissance 1salter9A The future seemed rimming with promise9 Then ;orld ;ar II descended as -erman$ inaded 1oland9

Differing from Bulgako who ecame an atheist in his $outh 0ohn 1aul II maintained his faitheen amidst the most tumultuous times9 #nd $et 01II is similar to Bulgako in that he stoodagainst oppression particularl$ that imposed $ communist goernments9 To egin with 0ohn1aul II‟ resistance is eidenced in how he took his studies underground after !'5 professorsfrom 0agiellonian +niersit$ were arrested $ the Fais9 /is resistance to the -erman regime isalso illustrated $ his inolement in the A8hapsodic TheaterA which secretl$ performed pla$s asa wa$ of presering 1olish traditions while also culturall$ resisting the -erman occupation98esponding to the &ord‟ call in !.5) 0ohn 1aul II egan his training for the priesthood throughthe #rchdiocese of %rak w‟ underground seminar$9 Two $ears later he was hit $ a -ermanarmored ehicle and hospitalied9 During this time 01II‟ suffering was not onl$ ph$sical utmental and spiritual as well since he lost man$ friends and ac=uaintances killed $ the Fairegime9 B$ !.5* -erman$ pulled out of %rak w ut was soon replaced $ another suppressie



goernment that of the 8ussians who did eer$thing the$ could in order to smother theChurch977

EE )or a plethora o! e6amples o! the (ussian communist suppression o! the >olish Catholic Church+ c!. =eigel+ -itness toHope -?.

Soon after 0ohn 1aul II egan his new life as a priest an academic and eentuall$ an#rchishop and Cardinal9 In !.52 0ohn 1aul II was ordained to the priesthood and less than two$ears later he completed his first doctorate which inoled © A. [email protected] 3D

Saint 0ohn of the Cross‟understanding of the doctrine of faith9 /e went on to teach at the0agiellonian +niersit$ and the Catholic +niersit$ of &ulin9

In !.*' 0ohn 1aul II was ordained ishop in the Cathedral of ;ael ecoming the $oungest ishop in 1oland9 Twent$ $ears later he was elected the )25th pope of the Catholic Church andimmediatel$ egan reaking all sorts of papal records97' 1roiding a well,rounded list of the

accomplishments of 01II‟

pontificate 8ichard Bennett summaries:ED is oliness ,ohn >aul II+ $iography+ >re;>onti<cate+ Holy See !ress $%ce 28;2D. A%ailable onlinehttp4***.%atican.%ane*s_ser%icespressdocumentaQionedocumentssantopadre_biogra<egio%anni_paolo_ii_biogra<a_preponti<cato_en.html1-8B. Accessed B Mar 2-.

E- (ichard $ennett+ Fhe Accomplishments o! ,ohn >aul II+ (e!ormation Foday. A%ailable online ***.re!ormation;today.orgissuesarticles1-E:ohnpaul.pd!.

0ohn 1aul II has logged more than !!)2*5! kilometers from isits to !") countries which islike going around the earth close to 3" times9 But perhaps the most lasting imprimatur he has leftis his contriution to Christianit$s growing list of saints9 atican oserers credit the 1ope with eing the single iggest influence in the collapse of Communism and the Berlin ;all for

instance his opposition to 1olands Communist regime earl$ in his career showed him as a manwho was not >ust part of the crowd9 In !.'" in his address to the +nited Fations -eneral#sseml$ he had hoped that there would e Fo more war war neer againP In more recenttimes in the wake of .Q!! he has appealed to the Christian world not to e=uate Islam withterrorism9 The 1ope has not onl$ sought collaoration etween arious churches ut also preached reconciliation etween the religions of the world9 ;itness his gift for the grand gestureof kissing the soil of a countr$ on arrial isiting a mos=ue inserting a scroll into a creice of0erusalems ;estern ;all emracing the handicapped9 Cardinal 0ose Saraia (artins who headsthe atican office responsile for saints causes came somewhere close to assessing )* $ears of0ohn 1aul IIs pontificate when he said earl$ this month: I think this pope will deseredl$ passinto histor$ as the pope of sainthood97.

#fter accomplishing so much 0ohn 1aul II was finall$ taken home to -od on #pril ) )""*9 ©A. McCormick [email protected] 3-

"e! Events that Impacted 4'II$s Ecumenical pproach

0ohn 1aul II‟ Slaic ackground his eperience as the Cardinal of %rakow his inolement inthe Second atican Council and his life as the Bishop of 8ome all influenced his ecumenical



approach9 In Crossin# the Threshold of -ope. 01II speaks aout how his life and eperiences in1oland influenced the wa$ he went aout dialoguing with other Christian confessions9 1ope 0ohn1aul credits his 1olish cultural ackground as imuing him with the knowledge that ALmMutualrespect is a prere=uisite for authentic ecumenism9A 01II elieed the A tolerance and opennessAthat is inherentl$ part of the 1olish societ$ taught him the importance of haing mutual respect in

all dialogue9'" 6urthermore 0ohn 1aul II‟

eperiences as Cardinal %arol ;o>t$la of %rakow1oland also fostered his ecumenical commitment and sensitiit$9 /e did all that he could to promote ecumenism etween the few Christian congregations operating in %rakow whichincluded meeting regularl$ with the small &utheran Orthodo and (ariaite communities present in his diocese9 6urthermore as a cardinal 01II was an actie participant in the Chair for+nit$ Octae Aan eight,da$ period of pra$er for Christian unit$A which took place in %rakoweer$ $ear and was attended $ leaders from the arious Christian confessions9'!

D ,>II e6plained+ In the course o! its millennial history+ >oland has been a state made up o! many nationalities+ manyreligions`mostly Christian+ but not only Christian. Fhis tradition has been and still is the source o! a positi%e aspect o!>olish culture+ namely its tolerance and openness to*ard people *ho think di?erently[ Fhroughout the history o! >olandthere ha%e been concrete e4orts to bring about unity . )urther on in the chapter+ immediately a!ter emphasiQing theimportance o! mutual respect in dialogue+ he states+ "arlier+ in recalling my e6periences in my homeland+ I pointed out thehistorical e%ents that shaped >oland as a society characteriQed by a broad tolerance !or many belie!s and manynationalities. At a time in =estern history *hen heretics *ere being tried and burned at the stake+ the last >olish king o! the

,agiellon dynasty ga%e proo! o! this *ith the *ords+ ZI am not the king o! your consciences. ,ohn >aul II+ #rossing theThreshold of Hope ittorio Messori+ ed. Je* Kork+ JK4 $oroQi $ooks+ 1--8 189 and 198. e also discussed unity andecumenism in relation to his cultural heritage in his homily at ,asna 'ora+ the Jation&s #hrine on ,une 8+ 1-E-. #ummaryand e6cerpt o! this homily is a%ailable in ,ohn >aul II+ Addresses and Homilies on Ecumenism 1238/128 ,ohn $. #heerinand ,.). otchkin+ eds. =ash. LC4 X# Catholics Con!erence+ 1-D 28;9.

D1 C!. -itness to Hope 218;9. © A. McCormick [email protected] 8

The ecumenical accomplishment of the Second atican Council had an insurmountale affect on01II and his ecumenical outlook9 /e eplains that the Council itself offered him Aa uni=ueoccasion for listening to othersA and for participating in Acreatie thinking9A') 6urthermore in $t

$num int. 0ohn 1aul II recalls the Second atican Council as Aa lessed time during which the

ases for the Catholic Churchs participation in ecumenical dialogue were laid9A /e affirms thatthe presence and inolement Aof man$ oserers from arious Churches and EcclesialCommunitiesA helped form the conditions for ecumenical dialogue that are still adhered to in ourcontemporar$ da$9'3 In this wa$ atican II proided 0ohn 1aul II with more eplicit principlesand norms of ecumenism and further coninced him of the importance of dialogue with ourChristian silings9

D2 C!. )r. Fhomas Mc'o%ern&s article+ Fhe Christian Anthropology o! ,ohn >aul II4 An 5%er%ie*+ <rst published in Josephinum Journal of Theology + D 21 14 132;8E.

D3 Ut Unum Sint 3.

D8 C!. Ut Unum Sint E1;E2.

D9 #ection 33 states+ Fhere is a close relationship bet*een prayer and dialogue. Leeper and more conscious prayer makesdialogue more !ruit!ul. I! on the one hand+ dialogue depends on prayer+ so+ in another sense+ prayer also becomes the e%ermore mature !ruit o! dialogue. )or more on prayer&s importance+ c!. Ut Unum Sint 2+ 21;2D+ 38+ 8+ 88;89+ 93+ 9B+ B9+ BD+E;E1+ EB+ 1+ and 12.

;hen elected the Bishop of 8ome 0ohn 1aul II gained etensie knowledge and eperiencethrough uilding ecclesial relations with other Church denominations9'5 6or starters the pontiff ‟ participation in ecumenical pra$er with arious Christian confessions onl$ further solidified his



elief in the importance and primac$ of pra$er in the dialoguing process9'* 6urthermore 0ohn1aul II‟ papal pilgrimages to other countries also had a significant impact on his ecumenicaloutlook9 /e descried such traels as Aa great source of encouragement9A 6re=uentl$ his papal pilgrimages oerflowed with Athe &ord‟ presenceA particularl$ when Christians of all differentconfessions would come © A. McCormick [email protected] 81

together in >o$ openness solidarit$ and pra$er9'2 One moment of particular influence on hisoutlook occurred during his papal pilgrimage throughout Sweden and 6inland9 8ecalling aEucharistic celeration that was attended $ &utheran Bishops 01II eplains:

DB #ection E2 o! Xt Xnum #int states4 In an atmosphere o! :oy+ mutual respect+ Christian solidarity and prayer I met so%ery many brothers and sisters+ all making a committed e?ort to be !aith!ul to the 'ospel. #eeing all this has been !or me agreat source o! encouragement. =e e6perienced the ordUs presence among us.

DE Ut Unum Sint E2.

#t Communion time the &utheran Bishops approached the celerant9 The$ wished $ means ofan agreed gesture to demonstrate their desire for that time when we Catholics and &utherans

will e ale to share the same Eucharist and the$ wished to receie the celerants lessing9 ;ithloe I lessed them9 The same gesture so rich in meaning was repeated in 8ome at the (ass atwhich I presided in 1iaa 6arnese on the sith centenar$ of the canoniation of Saint Birgitta of Sweden on 2 Octoer !..!9'7

#pproaching 01II to receie a lessing tangil$ demonstrated the &utheran Bishops‟desire forEucharistic inter,communion with the Catholic Church9 It Amade a profound impressionA on the pope ecause it illustrated the selfless loe and Aclarit$ of faithA that &utherans possess as well aseemplified how the$ long for the reunion of all Christianit$ into one isile Church9

;hile 0ohn 1aul II saw fostering the unit$ of all Christianit$ as a ke$ priorit$ of his papal

mandate he elieed the full isile reunion etween 8oman Catholicism and EasternOrthodo$ was the most immanent and achieale9 The inailit$ to concelerate the Eucharistwith Orthodo ishops and priests remained a throing wound upon his heart and there$spurned him on to nurturing Orthodo,Catholic reconciliation9 6or eample when celerating(ass at the Cathedral of the /ol$ Spirit in Istanul in the presence of Ecumenical 1atriarchDimitrios and #rmenian 1atriarch Chnork %alustian 0ohn 1aul II commented that their inailit$to concelerate the Eucharist together was © A. [email protected] 82

Athe most painful sign of the misfortune introduced into the one church $ diision9A'' In aneffort to remed$ past wounds 01II dedicated much of his energ$ to alleiating the scandal of

disunit$9 6amousl$ imploring that Athe Church must reathe with her two lungsA 0ohn 1aul IIrepeatedl$ emphasied the importance of reunion etween the East and the ;est9'. /e elieedsuch reunion would further hasten the unit$ of all Christian confessions therefore he madeOrthodo,Catholic relations of paramount importance during the entiret$ of his pontificate9

DD ,ohn >aul II+ omily in the Church o! the oly #pirit+ in Address and Homilies on Ecumenism B3;D.

D- C!. Ut Unum Sint 98. C!. section 3 o! ,ohn >aul II+ 9eneral Audience+ =ednesday 12 May 1--- in Address and Homilies onEcumenism. Also c!. 6edemptoris *ater& !ope John !aul "" on the +lessed igin *ary in the Life of the !ilgrim #hurch



ondon4 Catholic Fruth #ociety+ 23 section 38. It is belie%ed ,>II <rst made mention o! the t*o lungs analogy in Euntesin *undum 1-DD and then *as *orked out in !uller detail in ,ohn >aul II&s 1-D9 speech to the Catholic hierarchy+ recorded inZLiscourse to the (oman Curia& o! is oliness >ope ,ohn >aul II+ 2- ,une 1-D9+ LG$bser;atore 6omano.

- )or e6ample+ one 'reek ne*spaper reports+ According to G"astern 5rthodo6H Archbishop Christodoulos... the historic%isit by >ope ,ohn >aul to 'reece in 21+ in *hich he had apologised !or (oman Catholic sins Zo! action and omission&against 5rthodo6 Christians+ had created ne* bridges o! communication+ reconciliation and cooperation bet*een the5rthodo6 and Catholic Churches. . atQikyriakou+ 'reece4 'reek ead o! #tate+ 5rthodo6 Church eaders in (ome !or

>opeUs )uneral+ 9ree: =ews& 9ree:/American -ee:ly =ewspaper 11 April 29. A%ailable online athttp4***.greekne*sonline.commodules.php\name/Je*s<le/articlesid/32-. Accessed 1 April 2-.

0ohn 1aul II was willing to make sacrifices and eercise humilit$ in order to further ecumenicalendeaors and foster the isile unit$ of the Church9 8ealiing that the histor$ etween the Eastand ;est is riddled with etra$al and pain during his isit to -reece in )""! 1ope 0ohn 1aul IIissued an apolog$ for all the 8oman Catholic Asins of action and omissionA committed againstOrthodo Christians oer the course of histor$9."

4'II$s Christocentric 'ersonalism: the Eucharist5 the Church6 Ecumenism

;hile it is eas$ to realie Bulgako iews ecumenism and ecclesiolog$ through hisunderstanding of Sophia or ;isdom the hermeneutical approach of 0ohn 1aul II is more difficultto determine9 Through m$ eamination of 1ope 0ohn 1aul II‟ writings I © A. [email protected] 83

hae come to the conclusion that the late pontiff addresses ecumenism through a lens that is othcentered in Christ and there$ the Trinit$ and the dignit$ of the human person9 #s such Iintend to argue that the phrase Christocentric personalism is an ade=uate wa$ of encapsulating01II‟ hermeneutical approach to the ecumenical task9 #fter outlining 01II‟ personalism philosoph$ and illustrating its centraliation in the Incarnation I will then eplain how the

pontiff ‟

lens of Christocentric personalism shapes his understanding of the Eucharist theChurch‟ nature and mission and his oerall approach to ecumenism9

4'II$s 'ersonalism: Centered in the Incarnation

The lens 0ohn 1aul II rings to ecumenism should e termed Christocentric personalism ecausehis personalism philosoph$ is oth grounded $ and united with his Incarnational soteriolog$9

1hilosophicall$ 0ohn 1aul II‟ personalism is an eamination of the irreducile m$ster$ of thehuman person which he defines as an indiidual of a rational nature who is united with the od$and has oth intellect and free will9.! 6rom 01II‟ perspectie humans are embodied indi+iduals

who find freedom knowledge and actualiation of self through willingl$ and positiel$engaging in the world and the people around them9 #s emodied indiiduals who are made forrelationship 01II recognies that humans are social creatures $ their er$ nature therefore self,understanding of one‟ self is onl$ gained in relationship with others9 /e argues that we learnmore aout ourseles others

-1 )or more on his personalism philosophy+ c!. ,ohn >aul II&s !erson and #ommunity& Selected Essays. #atholic thought from

Lublin. ol. 8 Je* Kork4 >. ang+ 1--3. Also c!. =eigel+ -itness to Hope 1E9;B+ and D8B;D9. © A. [email protected] 88



and the world through our participation as emodied indiiduals9 Thus humans are emodiedindiiduals who are made for relationship: made for positie participation9

In order to grow as an indiidual 0ohn 1aul II teaches one‟ freel$ willed actions must alwa$suphold the dignit$ of the person as well as maintain the intimate union of the od$ and the

indiidual9 #t the same time freedom is principall$ found when the human person freel$ choosesand acts upon the true #ood. there$ resulting in the irtuous formation of the inner self9 In 01II‟ perspectie our choices and actions can lead either to deeloping or degrading our inner self9Our actiit$ affects our inner eing9 (aking good choices helps us increase in irtue whereasmaking poor choices results in our increase in ice9 It all depends on whether we willingl$choose the true good or not9

;hile humans are social eings $ nature knowledge of this does not lead them to the fullreelation of their own identit$9 Instead 0ohn 1aul II argued that humanit$‟ Atrue identit$ is onl$full$ reealedKthrough faith9A.) Diine reelation is re=uired for human eings to come to trul$know themseles9 0ohn 1aul II argues that faith and reason like two wings of a ird are re=uired

in order for human eings to come to the fullness of their humanit$ and realie their destin$ inChrist9.3 Thus 01II‟ philosoph$ of personalism has an intrinsic theological element9

-2 $n the Hundredth Anni;ersary of 6erum =o;arum& #entesimus Annus+ =ashington+ L.C.4 5Pce !or >ublishing and>romotion #er%ices+ Xnited #tates Catholic Con!erence+ 1--1 section 98.

-3 ,>II states+ )aith and reason are like t*o *ings on *hich the human spirit rises to the contemplation o! truthS and 'odhas placed in the human heart a desire to kno* the truth`in a *ord+ to kno* himsel!`so that+ by kno*ing and lo%ing 'od+men and *omen may also come to the !ullness o! truth about themsel%es c!. "6 3341DS >s 2E4D;-S B342;3S ,n 184DS 1 ,n342. C!. Introduction o! Encyclical Letter Fides Et 6atio of the Supreme !onti4 John !aul "" & To the +ishops of the #atholic#hurch on the 6elationship between Faith and 6eason $oston4 >auline $ooks and media+ 1--D. A%ailable online at

http4***.%atican.%aholy_!ather:ohn_paul_iiencyclicalsdocumentsh!_:p;ii_enc_1911--D_<des;et;ratio_en.html . © A.McCormick [email protected] 89

Theologicall$ 01II‟ personalism affirms that human eings are made in the image and likenessof -od and therefore hae inherent dignit$ and alue9.5 #s the Trinit$ consists of 6ather Son and/ol$ Spirit Three inter,relating 1ersons so united in loe that the$ form One -od so alsohuman eings are formed in the image of the Trinit$9 ;e are social in our er$ nature9 The needfor others and the giing as well as receiing of loe is uilt into our er$ eing9 In this wa$humans are made for relationship with one another and with -od therefore 0ohn 1aul II argueswe discoer our true seles onl$ through relationship and selfless giing9

-8 )or more on ,>II and his %ie*s o! humans made in the image o! 'od+ c!. Marc 5uellet+ ,ohn >aul II and the $iblicalAntropology o! the Imago Lei+ *hich is a paper presented during the ,=' meeting in Lromantine in May 21. A concisesummary o! ,>II&s Christological approach to ecumenism is !ound in A%ery Lulles+ #.,. The Splendor of Faith& The Theologicalision of !ope John !aul "" Je* Kork4 Crossroad+ 1--- 1BE.

-9 C!. Familiaris #onsortio& The #hristian Family in the *odern -orld ondon4 Catholic Fruth #ociety+ 1-D1 section 11.

&oe and communion are the innate calling of all human eings9 #s humans are made in theimage and likeness of the Trinit$ 0ohn 1aul II instructs that humanit$s ocation is therefore oneAof loe and communion9A /e eplains:

-od created man in /is own image and likeness: calling him to eistence through loe /ecalled him at the same time for loe9 -od is loe and in /imself /e lies a m$ster$ of personal



loing communion9 Creating the human race in /is own image and continuall$ keeping it in eing -od inscried in the humanit$ of man and woman the ocation and thus the capacit$ andresponsiilit$ of loe and communion9 &oe is therefore the fundamental and innate ocation ofeer$ human eing9.*

In other words loing and communing with -od and neighor is innatel$ part of our nature andcalling as humans9 #t the same time 01II recognies that humanit$‟ tendenc$ towards sinhinders us oth from participating with others and the world and from knowing ourseles9 This iswhere soteriolog$ and the doctrine of salation through the Incarnation enters 0ohn 1aul II‟ personalism9 #lthough the image of -od was © A. [email protected] 8B

tainted $ sin humanit$ finds redemption in 0esus Christ the Incarnate Son9 The pontiffstipulated that the fullness of humanit$ is reealed onl$ in -od and the Am$ster$ of salation inChrist9A.2 Thus 01II‟ personalism is Christocentric ecause he realies that personalistic philosoph$ is lacking until it finds fulfillment through faith in 0esus Christ9

-B #entesimus Annus 98.

-E C!. #ection D o! 6edemptoris Hominis& $n the 6edeemer of *an March 1-E-. A%ailable online athttp4***.%atican.%aholy_!ather:ohn_paul_iiencyclicalsdocumentsh!_:p;ii_enc_831-E-_redemptor;hominis_en.html.Accessed - 5ct 2-. 5ne o! my criti7ues o! ,>II&s *ritings is that he !ails to use inclusi%e language and instead chooses touse traditional male;centered designations *hene%er re!erring to humanity in general. It is true that the Church andscholars ha%e habitually used mankind and man to re!er to all humanityS ho*e%er+ our culture and modern *orld hasad%anced to such an e6tent *here continued usage o! such terms can lead to the ostraciQation o! many members o! ,>II&saudience. )or e6ample+ such patriarchal language e?ecti%ely e6cludes *omen !rom the dialogue and implicitly placesauthority in the hands o! men.

-D C!. Cardinal A%ery Lulles+ ,ohn >aul II and the Mystery o! the uman >erson. America 1-.3 2 )eb 284 13.

-- ,>II presents the Incarnation as lo%e re%ealed. C!. 6edemptoris Hominis 1;12.

1 C!. Ibid. !or his take on ho* the Incarnation raises the dignity o! all humanity.

01II realies that personalism is not sufficient unless it is rooted in the Incarnation9 6or eamplehe states that the ($ster$ of the Incarnation Afull$ reeals man to himself and rings to light hismost high calling9A.7 In this wa$ humans are unale to realie the fullness of their dignit$ andtheir calling until the$ know 0esus Christ9 6urthermore $ grounding the fullness of einghuman in the Incarnation 01II makes the Christian faith entirel$ personalistic9 8ather than asing faith solel$ on astract theological concepts 01II estalishes faith upon one‟ relationshipwith 0esus Christ on a personal le+el 9.' 0esus reeals superaundant loe to us and also makesknown what the fullness of our humanit$ looks like9.. Thus faith ecomes ased on loingrelationship and Christianit$ ecomes descried as a person 0esus Christ9 It is in 0esus Christ

that humanit$‟ image nature and calling is reealed fulfilled and raised out of sin9!"" 01IIargued that eer$ human eing must foster a relationship with 0esus Christ ?whether © A.McCormick [email protected] 8E

implicitl$ or eplicitl$@ in order to e raised from sin and receie salation9!"! In this wa$salation through relationship with the Incarnation anchors 01II‟ personalism philosoph$ and hisconcept of Christianit$ in general9



11 I say implicitly or e6plicitly because o! (oman Catholicism&s belie! in the in%isible Church+ *hereby people *ho do notnecessarily kno* ,esus Christ yet sincerely seek the truth and are open to the grace 'od has placed in their li%es still ha%ethe possibility o! sal%ation through Christ. ,ohn >aul II e6plains+ )or such people sal%ation in Christ is accessible by %irtue o! a grace *hich+ *hile ha%ing a mysterious relationship to the Church+ does not make them !ormally part o! the Church+implying that they can be a lesser degree or in!ormal membership in the Catholic Church. C!. ,ohn >aul II+ "ncyclical etter6edemptoris *issio 1. Also c!. Lumen 9entium+ *hich states+ )or they *ho *ithout their o*n !ault do not kno* o! the'ospel o! Christ and is Church+ but yet seek 'od *ith sincere heart+ and try+ under the inOuence o! grace+ to carry out is*ill in practice+ kno*n to them through the dictate o! conscience+ can attain eternal sal%ation. >ope >aul I+ Lumen9entium section 1B. A%ailable online at4 http4***.%atican.%aarchi%ehist_councilsii_%atican_councildocuments%at;ii_const_1-B81121_lumen;gentium_en.html. Accessed B #ept 2D.

12 C!. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 1D+ B2.

13 C!. Lulles+ The Splendor of Faith 19-;1B.

The influence of 0ohn 1aul II‟ lens of Christocentric personalism is seen through his descriptionof ecumenism the Eucharist and the Church9 In all three areas 0ohn 1aul II repeatedl$ stressesthat human dignit$ is realied through unit$ and relationship9 6urthermore 01II argues thatecumenism the Eucharist and the Church hae the same fundamental #oal : to achieecommunion of all humanit$ Awith Christ and in him with the 6ather and the /ol$ Spirit9A!") I willnow proide the eidence illustrating how 01II‟ lens of Christocentric personalism has shaped

his understanding of ecumenism the Eucharist and the Church9

3ow Christocentric personalism shapes 4'II$s ecumenical approach

;hile some argue 01II‟ personalism philosoph$ is sufficient support for his concern withecumenism!"3 I maintain 01II approaches ecumenism throu#h the lens of his personalism philosoph$ united with his Incarnational soteriolog$9 Commenting on pages !*.,!2" of #er$Dulles‟ ook The plendor of Faith %ein E9 Schmiesing states: © A. [email protected] 8D

6inall$ personalism fuels the pope‟ concern with ecumenism in which he calls for AdialogueA

as the eperience that allows for Ahuman self,realiationAK9 The ecumenical imperatie has een a prominent theme of 0ohn 1aul‟ pontificate9 Ret his emphasis on ecumenism does notelicit a call for theological compromise instead he urges that its outcome e Aa commonmeeting in the most ample and mature fullness of Christian truth9A!"5

18 Re%in ". #chmiesing+ $ook (e%ie*4 Fhe #plendor o! )aith+ Journal of *ar:ets > *orality %ol.3 no.1 #pring 2.A%ailable online4 http4***.acton.orgpublicationsmandmpublicat_m_and_m_2_spring_schmiesing.php. Accessed BMar 2-.

19 6edemptor Hominis E.

1B Ut Unum Sint 2D.

I do agree that 01II iews ecumenical dialogue as an actiit$ that can ring aout Ahuman self,realiationA ut at the same time I also eliee there is more than >ust personalism philosoph$inoled in fueling 01II‟ ecumenical concern9

0ohn 1aul II is continuall$ adamant that all theolog$ starts with and is centered in Christ9 6oreample the pontiff states AOur spirit is set in one direction the onl$ direction for our intellectwill and heart is towards Christ the 8edeemer of man9 ;e wish to look towards him ecause



there is salation in no one else ut him the Son of -od9A!"* #s such 01II understood thatecumenical dialogue must also e centered in and oriented towards the Incarnation9

01II also teaches there is an intimate connection etween ecumenical dialogue and growth of thehuman person9 /e eplains that the ailit$ to dialogue is rooted in the uni=ue nature and dignit$

of the human person and re=uires a foundation of pra$er9 Descriing the uni=ueness of humanit$01II eplains that the human is Athe onl$ creature on earth which -od willed for itself9A #s suchhuman eings cannot full$ find themseles unless the$ participate and gie themseles inrelationship with others9!"2 0ohn 1aul II astutel$ argues ADialogue is an indispensale step alongthe path towards © A. McCormick [email protected] 8-

human self'reali/ation the self,realiation oth of each indi+idual and of e+ery human

community9A!"7 The more we gie of ourseles out of selfless loe the more we find ourselesand meaning in our lies9

1E Ut Unum Sint 2D.

1D Ibid.

1- Ut Unum Sint 2E;2D.

6urthermore 01II argues that the eistential aspect of dialogue has priorit$ oer the rationaliingdimension9 /e states A#lthough the concept of Hialogue‟might appear to gie priorit$ to thecognitie dimension ?dia,logos@ all dialogue implies a gloal eistential dimension9 It inolesthe human su>ect in his or her entiret$ dialogue etween communities inoles in a particularwa$ the su>ectiit$ of each9A!"' In other words the fullness of our humanit$ can onl$ eachieed through relationship with -od and interacting with our neighor therefore dialogue isintegral to human self,realiation oth as indiiduals and as a communit$ and on a local and

gloal leel9 ;e can onl$ come to know ourseles through discussing and relating with ourneighors9 The more we dialogue the more we grow in self,knowledge and awareness9 In thiswa$ dialogue is grounded in the dignit$ and growth of the human person and humanit$ as awhole9

;hile inter,personal dialogue is imperatie to growing in understanding oneself and one‟ relation to the communit$ and the world dialoguing with -od is also important9 0ohn 1aul IIargues that dialogue must e ased upon and supported $ pra$er if it is to e successful9Commenting on atican II‟ statements on ecumenism 01II states that pra$er is the er$ AHoul‟of ecumenical renewal and of the $earning for unit$ it is the asis and support for e+erythin# the

Council defines as 0dialo#ue’!A!". 1ra$er is imperatie to dialogue ecause it keeps us connectedand in communication with the © A. McCormick [email protected] 9

Diine9 Dialogue with -od and with our neighor is centered in the nature of the person andhelps us along the path of ecoming full$ human in Christ9

Christocentric 'ersonalism: the Church and the Eucharist



0ohn 1aul II‟ lens of Christocentric personalism is illustrated in his relational understandin# ofthe Eucharist as eing one in Christ there$ uniting us with the Trinit$ and one another9 To eginwith 01II teaches that the Eucharist is where we meet greet and eat the Incarnation9 Throughreceiing the consecrated Bod$ and Blood of Christ we emrace the Alied realit$A of theIncarnation in our eing actions and lies9!!" #dditionall$ 01II acknowledges there is a mutual

reciprocit$ in the Eucharist where$ we welcome 0esus and /e welcomes us9 6or eample in %cclesia de %ucharistia 01II eplains A;e can sa$ not onl$ that each of us receies Christ utalso that Christ receies each of us9 /e enters into friendship with us: Hou are m$ friends‟?0n!*:!5@9A!!! In this wa$ 0ohn 1aul II recognies that AEucharistic communion rings aout in asulime wa$ the mutual Hiding‟of Christ and each of his followers9A!!) ;e aide in Christ andChrist aides in us9

11 Ecclesia de Eucharistia B2.

111 Ibid. 22.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

The relational understanding of the Eucharist is further illustrated in 01II‟ discussion of how the/ol$ Sacrament rings aout the union of humanit$ in -od and the transformation of all theworld9 6or eample 01II instructs that we encounter the Aface of 0esusA in all the sacraments ut particularl$ in the Eucharist which renews and consolidates our incorporation into the Bod$ ofChrist that is the Church9!!3 B$ encountering Christ in the Eucharist we are further unitedtogether as one Church9 © A. McCormick [email protected] 91

+niting us to Christ who is the Diine 1h$sician the Eucharist strengthens us and helps us to ear witness to the world9 In this wa$ the Eucharist uilds the Church for it strengthens us in our

missionar$ task9!!5

118 Fhe late ponti? states+ In the humble signs o! bread and *ine+ changed into his body and blood+ Christ *alks beside usas our strength and our !ood !or the :ourney+ and he enables us to become+ !or e%eryone+ *itnesses o! hope. Ecclesia deEucharistia B2.

119 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 22.

11B Ibid. B2.

Through receiing the Eucharist we receie the Incarnation who aides in us feeds us andstrengthens us to e food for the world transforming us so that we ma$ ear our hope forsalation to others9 In this wa$ memers of Christ‟ Bod$ mediate the Incarnation to the world90ohn 1aul II eplains AB$ its union with Christ the 1eople of the Few Coenant far fromclosing in upon itself ecome a Hacrament‟for humanit$ a sign and instrument of the salationachieed $ Christ the light of the world and the salt of the earth ?cf9 (t *:!3,!2@ for theredemption of all9A!!* 6ed $ the Eucharist we as the 1eople of -od ecome a sacrament for

humanity and an instrument of sal+ation9 In this wa$ 01II states AThe Eucharist thus appears as oth the source and the summit of all eangeliation since its goal is the communion of mankindwith Christ and in him with the 6ather and the /ol$ Spirit9A!!2The Eucharist is the source ofsalation for it moes the 1eople of the Church outwards and strengthens them in their mission9



6urthermore the Eucharist is the summit of eangeliation ecause all nations are calledtogether to share in oneness of 0esus‟Bod$ and Blood9

The Christocentric personalism of 01II is also intertwined with his understanding of the missionof the Church9 /e sees a close connection etween the deelopment of the © A. McCormick

[email protected] 92human person and the Church‟ task of eangeliation9!!7 In Centesimus "nnus the 8oman pontiff teaches that when it comes to eangeliing culture our first task must e fosteringhuman self,understanding and formation9 #cknowledging that the Church has a Aspecific anddecisie contriutionA in this area 01II eplains the Church Apromotes those aspects of human ehaior which faour a true culture of peace as opposed to models in which the indiidual islost in the crowd9A!!' The Church seres societ$ $ proclaiming the truth of salation throughChrist to all nations9 #t the same time the dut$ to ones self and neighor is the responsiilit$ ofall human eings9 (eaning we are all responsile for our own self,understanding as well asassisting with the self,understanding of our neighors and the fullness of this self,reelation is

only achie+ed through unit$ in Christ9!!. B$ spreading the -ospel message the Church helpsilluminate to all nations the full reelation of humanit$ that is found in 0esus Christ9 #s preiousl$ eplained 01II realied that personalism alone is not enough rather faith in Christ isre=uired as /e is the fullness of humanit$ reealed9!)"

11E C!. #entesimus Annus+ 91.

11D e continues stating+ Fhe Church renders this ser%ice to human society by preaching the truth about the creation o!the *orld+ *hich 'od has placed in human hands so that people may make it !ruit!ul and more per!ect through their *orkSand by preaching the truth about the (esurrection+ *hereby the #on o! 'od has sa%ed mankind and at the same time hasunited all people+ making them responsible !or one another. #acred #cripture continually speaks to us o! an acti%ecommitment to our neighbour and demands o! us a shared responsibility !or all o! humanity. C!. #entesimus Annus 91.

11- ,ohn >aul II states+ Fhus the ChurchUs social teaching[ proclaims 'od and his mystery o! sal%ation in Christ to e%ery

human being+ and !or that %ery reason re%eals man to himsel!. Ibid. 98.

12 ike the "ucharist+ the Church is also the instrument of sal;ation in that she has recei%ed and proclaims di%inere%elation4 )or 'od so lo%ed the *orld that he ga%e his only #on+ so that e%eryone *ho belie%es in him might not perishbut might ha%e eternal li!e. ,n 341B Li%ine re%elation is imperati%e !or the disclosure o! the !ullness o! humanity. As such+the Church&s mission to proclaim the 'ospel to all the nations is re7uired in order to ensure all people come to encounterthe !ullness o! humanity that is realiQed in ,esus Christ.

Oerall 0ohn 1aul II‟ lens of Christocentric personalism is illustrated in his teaching that oththe Church and the Eucharist are centered in Christ and founded upon relationship as the Churchmakes the Eucharist and the Eucharist uilds the Church9 The © A. [email protected] 93

Church makes the Eucharist in that the 1eople of -od are the ones who gather and celerate theEucharistic liturg$ recalling and re,presenting the sacrifice of Christ while also looking forwardto the resurrection9 #t the same time 0ohn 1aul II descried the Eucharist as the er$ cause andepression of the Church and therefore central to the Church‟ growth9!)! It is the cause of theChurch in that 0esus estalished the Few Coenant at the &ast Supper and there$ estalishedthe new messianic communit$9 6urthermore Eucharistic communion is the e1pression of theChurch‟ unit$ as the Bod$ of Christ9 0ohn 1aul II eplains ALOMur union with Christ which is agift and grace for each of us makes it possile for us in him to share in the unit$ of his od$



which is the Church9 The Eucharist reinforces the incorporation into Christ which took place inBaptism though the gift of the Spirit ?cf9 ! Cor !):!3 )7@9A!)) #s the food of salation theEucharist is central to the Church‟ growth ecause it strengthens the 1eople of -od and theirmissionar$ task to are the ;ord that is 0esus to the world9

121 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 21.

122 Ibid. 23.

Chapter 7our: Bulgakov and 4ohn 'aul II in Dialogue onEcumenism5 the Eucharist5 and the 'ossibilit! of (eunion

The goal of this chapter is to mediate a ack and forth dialogue etween the positions of 0ohn1aul II and Sergius Bulgako9 ;hile the two scholars lied in different time frames andecumenical climates their oices persist through their writings9 +tiliing such primar$ sources Iwill ealuate the iews of Bulgako and 01II so as to illuminate their similarities and especiall$their differences which should not e eaded or © A. McCormick

[email protected] 98

dismissed ut rather distinguished and emraced9 The process of locating and comparing theuni=ue elements of each theologian will proe to e mutually re+elatory. as the emphases of onetheologian will likel$ illuminate the weaknesses of the other and ice ersa9 In other words $realiing which elements one author stresses and comparing it with the other a deeper and moreholistic picture ma$ e found9 Before we are ale to compare the positions of 01II and Bulgakoon the Eucharist‟ role in ecumenism and the possiilit$ of Catholic,Orthodo reunion we mustfirst address the =uestion of how each scholar understands ecumenism9

Ecumenism as process of fostering a unit! alread! present

In essence oth 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bulgako define ecumenism as the process where$Christians dialogue and nurture the oneness already present etween their respectieconfessions for the purpose of oth alleiating the scandal of diision and adancing towardsChristianit$‟ reunion as one isile Church9 Echoing points from the *irectory for the

"pplication of the Principles and 2orms on %cumenism. 0ohn 1aul II argues AThe ultimate goalof the ecumenical moement is to re,estalish full isile unit$ among all the aptied9A!)3 /especifies that the process of ecumenism is Afostered $ the grace of the /ol$ SpiritA andincreases dail$ towards Athe restoration of unit$ among all Christians9A!)5 #ffirming that such arestoration is certainl$ not an eas$ task

123 Ut Unum Sint 28+ EE;D+ D8+ --. )or more on ,>II&s discussion on ecumenism as a process+ c!. #rossing the Threshold ofHope 18-. Also c!. section 2?+ and B3+ o! 'irectory for the Application of !rinciples and =orms on Ecumenism+ >onti<calCouncil on Christian Xnity March 29+ 1--3. A%ailable online at http4***.adoremus.org"cumenismJorms.html. Accessed2- ,an 2-. =eigel also notes that ,>II understood that the 7uest !or Christian unity[*as not a negotiation but a mattero! gi%ing concrete+ historical e6pression to the unity that already e6isted bet*een Christians through their commonbaptism. C!. =eigel+ -itness to Hope 8ED;8-E. Another great summary o! ,>II&s understanding o! ecumenism can be !oundin Lulles+ The Splendor of Faith 199;1B-.

128 Ut Unum Sint 2;E. © A. McCormick [email protected] 99



Cross 0esus himself pra$ed to the 6ather for his disciples and for all those who eliee in himthat the$ mi#ht be one a liing communion9 This is the asis not onl$ of the dut$ ut also of theresponsiilit$ efore -od and his plan which falls to those who through Baptism ecomememers of the Bod$ of Christ a Bod$ in which the fullness of reconciliation and communionmust e made present9!3!

/ere 01II eplains that the unit$ of the Church and all humanit$ is the will of -od9 Its diine prerogatie therefore makes it the calling of all Christians9 Since ecumenism is the will of -od itis Aa dut$ of the Christian conscience enlightened $ faith and guided $ loe9A!3) Belieing thatecumenism is the dut$ of eer$ Christian 01II argues that our awareness of the diisions andscandal red $ denominationalism should impel Christians towards fostering unit$9

6urthermore Sergius Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II oth affirm a deep leel of spiritual communionalread$ eists etween Christians a spiritual union that transcends denominational oundariesand doctrinal arriers >oining all together as the Bod$ of Christ9 6or eample Bulgakospecifies that unit$ is er$ much alie in what seems to e © A. McCormick

[email protected] 9Ea isil$ diided Church9 B$ wa$ of scriptural analog$ he argues that modern,da$ Christianswho participate in dialogue are li+in# out the meeting etween 0esus and the Samaritan woman at0aco‟ ;ell9!33 /ere we greet the &ord who insists Christians must transcend Areligiousdiisions and discriminationsA ecause we are all part of the same Bod$ worship in the sameSpirit and are made one in the same Incarnate Christ9 Thus Bulgako argues Aa positie asisof unit$A alread$ eists etween arious Christian confessions ecause we are all >oined together $ pra$er spiritual life scripture and sacrament9!35 /e also places the asis of our dogmaticoneness in our common sharing of the creeds and recognition of the Church‟ first seenEcumenical Councils9!3* Through these areas of unit$ Bulgako eliees we as Christians are

oth spirituall$ and dogmaticall$ >oined into the one Bod$ of Christ9133 "6plaining the title o! his article as playing o? a scriptural analogy+ >lekon states+ Fhe meeting o! Christ and the#amaritan *oman[ the !orce!ul *ords o! the ord point out one most rele%ant GconnectionH to the modern era4 that pastreligious di%isions and discriminations+ e%en liturgical re7uirements *orship at the temple... *ere transcended at hiscoming+ in the light o! the kingdom. >lekon #till by ,acobUs =ell\ 12-;3.

138 +y JacobGs -ell 12?.

139 )or e6ample+ he states+ Christians must realiQe not only their di%isions but also their agreement. 5ur Creed+ theJicene Creed [together *ith the ancient Apostolic and Athanasian Creeds+ constitute the general con!ession o! 5rthodo6y+(oman Catholicism+ and >rotestantism+ and *e must ne%er lose sight o! this basis o! our dogmatic unity. e also mentionsthe <rst se%en ecumenical councils as the basis o! our unity. +y Jacob(s -ell 1D.

+nderlining the importance of dialogue Bulgako argues that what trul$ unifies the Church Aishidden in the er$ depthsA and re=uires further eamination and affirmation9 /e states:

The distinction etween arious confessions lies first of all in dogmatic differences and then inthe religious and practical discrepancies which result from them9 These are on the er$ surfaceand are apparent to all9 But that which constitutes Church unit$ that which is alread$ gien andthe striing towards unit$ which actuall$ eists as the asis of unit$ this is hidden in the er$depths9 One must realie and epress the positie spiritual asis of Christian Hcumenism‟notonl$ as an idea ut as an © A. McCormick [email protected] 9D



actualit$ eisting $ grace9!32

13B Ibid. 12.

13E C!. Ibid. 13;19S and >lekon #till by ,acobUs =ell\ 132.

13D Z5ne oly+ Catholic and Apostolic Church+& 21;22.

13- #rossing the Threshold of Hope 18E.

18 Xt Xnum #int

Eplaining Bulgako‟ meaning (ichael 1lekon states the sooner we as Christians discoer ourdiisions $ wa$ of dialogue then the sooner we are ale to realie that our Aencounter ofdifferences is the eginning of discoering our unit$9A!37 Bulgako encourages Christians torecognie the$ share a real Apositie spiritual asisA and that more unites than diides thedifferent confessions who are made one in the Bod$ of Christ9 6urthermore arguing that ourspiritual oneness flows from our Ainner m$stical life in ChristA Bulgako implores all Christians

to recognie Athere eists an inisile m$sterious unit$ of the whole ChurchK In some sense thewhole of Christianit$ is one Church and accordingl$ this unit$ is Orthodo9A!3' /e essentiall$affirms that Christians are spirituall$ united together as one Bod$ as one in+isible Church9

Similarl$ 0ohn 1aul II argues that a great degree of unit$ eists etween different Christianconfessions9 In Crossin# the Threshold of -ope he states AWhat unites us is much #reater than

what separates usK #ll of us in fact eliee in the same Christ9A!3. 01II eplains that it is paramount that we Christians acknowledge the oneness and spiritual unit$ already present

among our confessions9 In $t $num int. the pontiff catalogues the man$ similarities andsuccesses nurtured through ecumenical dialogue oer the $ears repeatedl$ emphasiing the deepleel of unit$ shared $ all Christians9!5" ;hile 01II realies ostacles to ecumenism Ahae

accumulated oer the course of the centuriesA he ehorts AIt is necessar$ therefore to ridoursel+es of stereotypes. of old © A. McCormick [email protected] 9-

habits! #nd aoe all it is necessar$ to reco#ni/e the unity that already e1ists!A!5! In this wa$01II encourages Christians to wipe awa$ an$ false perceptions of other confessions and insteademrace with certaint$ that all those who are aptied are made one in the Bod$ of Christ9!5)

181 #rossing the Threshold of Hope 18-.

182 C!. Ecclesia de Eucharistia B1 and Ut Unum Sint B+ 12;13+ 82.

183 C!. Ut Unum Sint 21;3.

188 #rossing the Threshold of Hope 188?.

6urthermore 01II elieed the degree of unit$ alread$ shared etween Christians can only

increase so long as we continue to seek the truth in charit$ and remain mutuall$ open andrespectful towards one another in our dialogue9 Our spiritual communion as the Bod$ of Christcan onl$ continue to grow through moments of pra$er discussion and social actiit$ proiding we remain centered in Christ and there$ the /ol$ Trinit$9!53 The 8oman pontiff wasadamant that ecumenical dialogue helped Christians realie that their different approaches to and



perspecties on the faith are in fact complementary9!55 In other words the more we discuss andnurture our relationship with our other Christian silings the more we come to know ourselesand our own faith9 #s such 01II was adamant that the spiritual unit$ alread$ present amongChristians can onl$ continue to grow through loing dialogue9

0nderstanding Ecumenism: reas of Divergence between 4'II and Bulgakov

Both 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bulgako identif$ ecumenism as a matter of loe howeer the$accentuate and descrie this loe in different wa$s9 ;hile Bulgako‟ sophiolog$ implicitl$defines loe as central to ecumenism 0ohn 1aul II‟ understanding is more eplicit9 6or eample01II defines ecumenism as a matter of -od‟ loe for us as © A. [email protected] B

well as our loe for -od and each other9 /e states AEcumenism is not onl$ an internal =uestionof the Christian Communities9 It is a matter of the loe which -od has in 0esus Christ for all

humanit$9A !5* In other words ecumenism egins as an internal =uestion in so far as eachChristian communit$ must decide whether to openl$ approach dialogue and emrace the learningand growth that ma$ result9 ;hile congregations are free to make this choice 0ohn 1aul IIstresses that Aan imperatie of charit$ is in =uestionA for eing respectful and open to the eliefsof our Christian silings is a matter of lo+e9!52

189 Ut Unum Sint --.

18B Ibid.

18E )or ,>II&s discussions on ecumenism as a di%ine gi!t+ c!. Ut Unum Sint 1+ 3+ 1+ 12+ 12+ 2D+ 39+ 3D+ 81+ and 9E. )orecumenism as a dialogue o! lo%e and sal%ation+ c!. Ut Unum Sint 8E;D+ B.

18D Ut Unum Sint 1-.

18- ,>II e6plains that lo%e is the per!ect source o! communion+ as lo%e is *hat unites the Frinity and is *hat unites us to'od and neighbor. Ut Unum Sint 1-+ 21+ --.

19 ,>II is also uni7ue in his understanding o! ecumenism as a dialogue o! sal%ation+ *hereby he emphasiQes that thepractice o! ecumenism re7uires con%ersion and reconciliation on both an indi%idual and corporate le%el. ,>II argues apersonal and communal change o! heart is re7uired by all *ho :oin in the ecumenical task. Fhe indi%idual and thecommunity at large must remain open to gro*th and continual con%ersion throughout the ecumenical process. =e mustopen our eyes to the operation o! the oly #pirit outside o! our o*n %isible con!ession. Fo ,>II+ all Christians are called toallo* themsel%es to be shaped and trans!ormed by their ecumenical concern. Fhe practice o! ecumenism

01II also distinctl$ identifies ecumenism as a Agift from -odA and Aa dialogue of loeA andAsalationA in which all Christians are called to participate9!57 The pontiff sees ecumenism as the

process of eercising Aa perfect communion in loeA where$ Christians dedicate themseles togrowing in their understanding of each other and -od9!5' Thus 0ohn 1aul II argues if we closeourseles off from ecumenism and refuse to communicate with our Christian silings we areessentiall$ re>ecting the grace of the /ol$ Spirit and the salific loe of -od9!5. -od wills that allChristians e one as 0esus and the 6ather are one through the Spirit therefore if a Christianconfession chooses to stand against this oneness $ opposing ecumenical dialogue the$ areessentiall$ offending -od‟ loe and diine will for all humanit$9!*" © A. [email protected] B1



Commenting on this Cardinal Cassid$ states AEcumenism is not to e seen then as a program of the Catholic Church ecumenism is the nature of eing the Catholic Church9A!** # half,heartedcommitment to ecumenism is therefore the e=uialent of going against the Church‟ er$ natureessentiall$ compromisin# the faith9

$t $num int emphasies that the Church‟

missionar$ call to Aeangelie all nationsA is thedriing force ehind the ecumenical moement9 The Church‟ er$ identit$ necessitates mission to proclaim the -ood Fews throughout the world ?cf9 (t )':!.@ howeer the isile diisionswithin Christianit$ reed scandal and hinder the world‟ acceptance of the -ospel message9!*2

01II states that Ait is oious that the lack of unit$ among Christians contradicts the Truth whichChristians hae the mission to © A. McCormick [email protected] B3

spread and conse=uentl$ it grael$ damages their witness9A!*7 B$ increasingl$ coming to realiethe hindrance that diision poses to the proliferation of the -ospel man$ Christian communitieshae started working together on missionar$ endeaors and matters of social >ustice9 !*' The$hae come to recognie that the Church‟ uniersal call to mission necessitates her call to

ecumenical cooperation and dialogue919E Ut Unum Sint -D.

19D Ut Unum Sint 32+ 8.

;hile Bulgako agrees with 01II that the goal of ecumenism is to achiee full isile reunion of all Christian confessions into one Church he does not e1plicitly emphasie the Church‟ missionar$ nature nor closel$ link it with the Church‟ task of reunion9 Instead Bulgako focusesmore on ecumenism as part of the process of actualiing the Church‟ creaturel$ Sophia9 #t thesame time I do not think Bulgako would oppose 0ohn 1aul II‟ understanding of the inter,relationship etween ecumenism and mission9 Bulgako‟ own sophiological understanding of

ecumenism implicitl$ includes the missionar$ element of all Christians haing the dut$ to loeand help their neighor to come to know Christ and actualie the fullness of their creaturel$ potential in -od9 In this wa$ mission seems to e an unspoken re=uirement for all peoples andcreation to achiee their full actualiation9 Bulgako realies that our proclaiming the ;ord to allnations hastens the coming of the new heaen and new earth our missionar$ work hastens theSecond Coming of Christ9

Fonetheless this missionar$ aspect is more implicit to Bulgako‟ sophiological iew ofecumenism and is not a ke$ focus like it is with 0ohn 1aul II9 Does the lack of emphasis oneangeliation irthed $ Bulgako‟ sophiological lens result in a detrimental minimiation ofthe Church‟ missionar$ task< 6urther anal$sis of © A. McCormick

[email protected] B8

Bulgako‟ understanding of the mission of the Church and the process of eangeliation would e necessar$ in order to sufficientl$ answer this =uestion9 #t the same time while Bulgako doesnot e1plicitly define the Church‟ nature as missionar$ nor closel$ link it with the Church‟ taskof reunion he seems to indirectl$ affirm this inter,relationship in the speech that he made at thefirst 6aith and Order ;orld Council in !.)79!*.



19- C!. $ulgako%+ Fhe Church&s Ministry+ 29D;2B3.

;hile haing their own uni=ue elements and emphases 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bugakosignificantl$ oerlap in their understanding of ecumenism9 Both men define ecumenism as the process of dialoguing and nurturing oneness etween different Christian confessions so as toachiee the goal of Christianit$‟ full isile unit$ as one Church9 Together the$ affirm that adeep leel of spiritual unit$ alread$ eists etween Christians and argue that ecumenism must eunderstood as oth a dut$ and a matter of loe9

On the Eucharist$s 7unction and the 'ossibilit! of Orthodo*1Catholic (eunion

The positions of 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bulgako on the Eucharist‟ role in ecumenism can eeasily misconstrued 9 Initiall$ it ma$ seem as though 1ope 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bulgakostand on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the relationship of the Eucharist in ecumenism96or eample when I first emarked on m$ thesis inestigation I erroneousl$ thought Bulgako

adocated using the Eucharist as a means towards estalishing communion etween Christianconfessions to such an etent that he was supporting something of an open communion free,for,all9 It was not until I looked deeper that I realied Bulgako specifies that Eucharisticintercommunion is onl$ © A. McCormick [email protected] B9

possile after a leel of agreement has een reached on ke$ dogmatic issues particularl$ thoserelated to the Eucharist9 Conersel$ I also misconstrued 0ohn 1aul II‟ repeated emphasis on theEucharist as the epression of a unit$ that alread$ eists to mean that he adocated for irtuall$complete doctrinal agreement efore Eucharistic intercommunion can occur etween theCatholic Church and another confession9 I realie now that m$ confusion was likel$ ecause ofthe uni3ue emphases 0ohn 1aul II and Sergius Bulgako ring to the relationship of the Eucharistand ecumenism9 ;hile the$ agree that the Eucharist functions as oth an epression of and ameans towards communion 01II underscores that the Eucharist is first and foremost thee1pression of a unity that already e1ists9 In contrast Bulgako places the ulk of his focus onillustrating that the Eucharist can e a means towards furtherin# the communion already

established 9

&ike Bulgako 0ohn 1aul II affirms that Eucharistic reception is ale to increase the oneness ofthe Church that is alread$ in eistence9 6or eample upholding that the AEucharist creates4and fosters communionA 0ohn 1aul II states AOur longing for the goal of unit$ prompts us to turn tothe Eucharist which is the supreme sacrament of the unit$ of the 1eople of -od in as much as itis the apt epression and the unsurpassale source of that unit$9A!2" This egs the =uestion: if theEucharist is trul$ Athe source and summit of the Christian lifeA as 0ohn 1aul II claims thenshould not the Eucharist e made central to ecumenical dialogue<!2! Taken a step further wouldnot open Eucharistic communion with our Christian sisters and rothers particularl$ those fromEastern Orthodo$ further unite -od‟ 1eople<

1B Ecclesia de Eucharisitia 8 and 83.

1B1 Ibid. 1+ 13 and 83S © A. McCormick [email protected] BB



01II agrees that the Eucharist can in fact epand the unit$ and communion alread$ present in theinisile Church howeer he adamantl$ opposes the position that opening communion to allChristian denominations would ineital$ ring aout dogmatic unit$9 Stressing that theEucharist is first and foremost the e1pression of a unity that already e1ists 01II states ATheceleration of the EucharistKcannot e the starting,point for communion it presupposes that

communion alread$ eists a communion which it seeks to consolidate and ring to perfection9A!2) /e is also adamant that Eucharistic sharing cannot occur etween twocommunities where the inisile and isile dimensions of communion hae not eenmaintained9!23 6urthermore 01II argues that if we share in the Eucharist efore first estalishingthese dimensions of communion we are actuall$ compromisin# and relati+isin# the faith! B$ participating in such open Eucharistic intercommunion without first alleiating our differences01II teaches we are essentiall$ lyin# with our actions9

1B2 Ibid. 39.

1B3 Ibid.

6irstl$ 0ohn 1aul II argues that using the Eucharist towards the end of creating unit$ etweenconfessions is essentiall$ sa$ing that the ends >ustif$ the means9 ;hile isile unit$ and thecommunion of Christ‟ uniersal Church is certainl$ a good end 01II is resolute that such an enddoes not >ustif$ the means of ob5ectifyin# the sacred m$ster$ of the Eucharist as a wa$ ofascertaining unit$9 /e eplains that until the onds of unit$ Aare full$ re,estalishedA an$Eucharistic AconcelerationA etween Christian confessions Awould not e a alid means andmight well proe instead to e an © A. McCormick [email protected] BE

ostacleA9!25 In other words 01II eliees it is morall$ wrong to use the Eucharist as a tooltowards unit$ and that such an approach eentuall$ results in hindering unit$ rather thanfostering it9 /e is adamant that we cannot allow our unitie goal to lind us from considering the

ethical grounds of the means we use to attain the goal of full isile communion91B8 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 88. Also c!. section 3+ *hich reads+ Fhe Catholic !aith!ul+ there!ore+ *hile respecting thereligious con%ictions o! these separated brethren+ must re!rain !rom recei%ing the communion distributed in theircelebrations+ so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature o! the "ucharist and+ conse7uently+ to !ail in their duty tobear clear *itness to the truth. Fhis *ould result in slo*ing the progress being made to*ards !ull %isible unity.

1B9 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 88 and the encyclical&s !ootnotes no. -3;-8.

6urthermore 0ohn 1aul II opposes using the Eucharist to foster unit$ when it means indifferentl$ignoring contrasting iews on ke$ dogmatic issues9 01II states that Eucharistic sharing eforeestalishing foundational dogmatic agreement essentiall$ weakens Athe sense of how far weremain from this goal and $ introducing or eacerating amiguities with regard to one or

another truth of the faith9A!2* #llowing intercommunion efore addressing dogmatic differencesin 0ohn 1aul‟ iew promotes the relatiiation of the faith and can actuall$ result in obstructin#

our unit$ instead of uilding it9 Speaking out against dogmatic indifference and relatiism 0ohn1aul II writes:

In this courageous >ourne$ towards unit$ the transparenc$ and the prudence of faith re=uire us toaoid oth false irenicism and indifference to the Churchs ordinances9 Conersel$ that sametransparenc$ and prudence urge us to re>ect a halfhearted commitment to unit$ and een more a



pre>udicial opposition or a defeatism which tends to see eer$thing in negatie terms9 To upholda ision of unit$ which takes account of all the demands of reealed truth does not mean to put a rake on the ecumenical moement9 On the contrar$ it means preenting it from settling forapparent solutions which would lead to no firm and solid © A. [email protected] BD

results9 The oligation to respect the truth is asolute9 Is this not the law of the -ospel<!22

1BB ,>II&s re!erence to !alse irenicism harkens back to >ope >ius NII&s encyclical Humani 9eneris 1-9. =hile irenicismattempts to achie%e the good end o! eliminating ecumenical barriers+ both ,>II and >ope >ius NII argue irenicism iserroneous in so !ar as it ignores rather than addresses the dogmatic di?erences present bet*een Christian con!essions.)urthermore+ *hen irenicism does address dogmatic di?erences+ it speci<cally !ocuses on reconciling and re!ormingdogmatic principles that are !undamentally opposed to one another. >ius NII e6plains that those ascribing to irenicism!re7uently toss out the essential la*s and principles gi%en by Christ and claim they are doing so !or the sake o! unity. C!.

,>II Ut Unum Sint E- and Ecclesia de Eucharistia 88. (egarding >ope >ius NII&s %ie* o! the dangers o! irenicism+ c!. Humani9eneris 11;1B+ and 83.

#sking whether we trul$ can achiee unit$ when the fundamentals of the faith are remoed 01IIemphasies that the Truth of the -ospel must e respected as asolute9 /e concludes that

irenicism is false and does not foster unit$ ecause it is oth ased upon and results in do#maticrelati+ism9 Being indifferent towards the Truth does nothing to resole the diisions etweenChristian communities rather it >ust ignores and compounds the prolem9 Opening Eucharisticreception etween confessions before addressing dogmatic differences >ust encourages deeperconfusion and disarra$9 If the necessar$ leel of dogmatic unit$ is not attained $ othconfessions efore Eucharistic intercommunion then the actiit$ of open Eucharistic sharing isessentially a lie9

#oe all 01II adamantl$ re>ects the idea that opening communion to all Christiandenominations ecause such Eucharistic sharing would mean we are lyin# with our actions9 Thisgoes ack to 0ohn 1aul II‟ lens of Christocentric personalism9 /umans can either grow in their

self,knowledge and participation through willing the true good and acting on good choices orthe$ can digress and alienate themseles through willing the false good and acting on adchoices9 ;e are not choosing the Atrue goodA when our ph$sical actions lie aout a unitie realit$that is not $et present9 6rom 01II‟ understanding >ust as two indiiduals who hae casual seoutside of the marital coenant are essentiall$ using each other and o>ectif$ing themseles soalso two © A. McCormick [email protected] B-

Christian confessions who open Eucharistic communion without estalishing a asic leel ofdogmatic agreement are essentiall$ l$ing aout a relationship that is not $et in eistence9 /edisputes that such Eucharistic utiliation is not Aa alid meansA towards unit$ rather it willineital$ Aproe instead to e an obstacle. to the attainment of full communion $ weakening

the sense of how far we remain from this goal and $ introducing or eacerating amiguitieswith regard to one or another truth of the faith9A!27 Instead of moing towards the fullness ofcommunion using the Eucharist to ring aout dogmatic unit$ will ineital$ hinder us fromachieing our ecumenical goal9

1BE C!. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 88

1BD )or a discussion o! $ulgako%&s understanding o! the "ucharist as a means to communion+ see >lekon&s critical summaryo! $ulgako%&s article +y JacobGs -ell. Michael >lekon+ Li;ing "cons& !ersons of Faith in the Eastern #hurch Jotre Lame4Xni%ersity o! Jotre Lame >ress+ 22 18D;198.



;hile 0ohn 1aul II stresses the Eucharist is first and foremost the epression of a unit$ thatalread$ eists Bulgako emphasies that the Eucharist can e a means towards furtheringcommunion9!2' #t the same time he still maintains that a leel of unit$ and agreement must precede Eucharistic intercommunion9

Bulgako uni=uel$ places more weight on the Eucharist as a means towards furtherin#communion etween Christian confessions9 6or him the Church‟ isile reunion is achieedthrou#h the %ucharist $ wa$ of agreement on the dogmas associated with the /ol$ Sacrament9In Ways to Church Reunion. Bulgako eplains that instead of attempting to estalish Acompleteunanimit$ on allKdogmatic pointsA Christian confessions must aim at achieing a do#matic

minimum where$ the confessions mutuall$ agree upon onl$ the fundamental dogmas necessar$for reunion to take place9 Those dogmas most necessar$ to the life of -race include all thedogmas Awithout the recognition of which the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot econtemplated9A © A. McCormick [email protected] E

Estalishing mutual agreement on the dogmas associated with the Eucharist is therefore the

dogmatic minimum necessar$ in order to make reunion possile9!2.1B- $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion -?.

1E $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion -?.

1E1 Ibid.

1E2 $ulgako% stipulates that the Anglican in%ol%ement *ould depend upon the other t*o con!essions recogniQing the%alidity o! Anglican orders. In his !roposal for !artial or Limited #ommunion he recogniQes that a conditional ordinationmight be necessary in order to ensure the apostolicity o! Anglican orders. C!. $ulgako% in 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*shipCon!erence+ ,une 1-33 12;18S and =ays to Church (eunion 11.

Bulgako argues that there are three dogmatic areas intrinsicall$ connected with the Eucharist

and there$ re=uire mutual agreement etween the respectie Christian traditions efore proceeding to intercommunion9 6irst oth confessions must agree on the real presence and truecharacter of the Eucharist as the Bod$ and Blood of Christ9 Both must also accept theChristological definitions of the Seen Ecumenical Councils of the Church Aecause apart fromthe Christolog$ of the Church there can e no true Eucharist9A!7" Thirdl$ Bulgako estalishedthat oth confessions must hae maintained ?or at least e willing to re,estalish@ the apostolicsuccession of their priesthood through the Ala$ing on of handsA9!7! #s such in Bulgako‟ opinion Orthodo$ and Catholicism hae Athe possiilit$ of uniting efore the /ol$ ChaliceA ecause oth confessions assent to the real presence the seen Ecumenical Councils and theapostolic alidit$ of their respectie priesthoods9!7)

Bulgako recognied that two confessions ma$ hae areas of dogmatic or canonical differenceoutside of these three areas of agreement howeer he was adamant that such discrepanciesshould not deter intercommunion from proceeding9 If two confessions were ale to agree on thereal presence the Seen Ecumenical Councils and the alidit$ of each other ‟ priesthoods the$could proceed to the Eucharistic tale9 #n$ remaining conflicts outside of these areas would notimpede the fullness of communion © A. McCormick [email protected] E1



for all other differences hae either no Eucharistic relation or are differences still open totheological deate9!73 In other words he argued that isile intercommunion can precede fulldogmatic agreement so long as the confessions hae agreed on the dogmatic minimumsassociated with the Sacrament of the Eucharist9

1E3 $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion -;12.

1E8 $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion D.

1E9 Ibid. 11;12.

1EB Ibid. 12;13.

8euffing those who ma$ wish to e=uate his dogmatic minimum position with dogmaticindifference or relatiit$ Bulgako disputes that Asuch distinction etween dogmas theirclassification as Eucharistic and non,Eucharistic the more important and the less importantAdoes not undermine Athe infalliilit$ and self,sufficienc$ of the Church9A!75 # dogma‟ infalliilit$ depends not on the proclamation of a council or the 8oman pontiff ut rather upon

whether it is Adiinel$ inspiredA and Ameets the needs of its dogmatic consciousness in eer$epoch9A!7* In other words we know a dogma is infallile not ecause it is some ruer,stampedecclesial document ut rather ecause it is rooted in diine reelation and is oth historicall$ anduniersall$ concrete9 Thus Christian confessions can decide on a teaching‟ infalliilit$ $ performing what Bulgako terms a A soborny inestigationA eamining whether the teachingmaintains a continual historical concreteness in its acceptance and applicailit$ throughout thelife of the Church9!72 If such teaching is found to e present and applied alwa$s eer$where and $ all in the Church then it ma$ alidl$ e considered as dogma9

Sergius Bulgako and 0ohn 1aul II agree that open Eucharistic intercommunion is onl$ possileonce ke$ faith issues are assented to etween the respectie Christian confessions neertheless

the two scholars arrie at different conclusions regarding the © A. [email protected] E2

le+el of a#reement necessary efore Eucharistic intercommunion can occur9 #lthough 01IIconcurs with Bulgako that dogmatic agreement must e reached on the real presence the seenEcumenical Councils and the apostolic alidit$ of the confessions‟respectie priesthoods 01IIadds that unit$ must e estalished on the hierarch$‟ goerning role in the Church9 Section 55 of %cclesia de %ucharistia specifies that each communit$ must first estalish agreement Ain the onds of the profession of faith the sacraments and ecclesiastical goernance9A 0ohn 1aul IIstates A1recisel$ ecause the Church‟ unit$ which the Eucharist rings aout through the &ord‟sacrifice and $ communion in his od$ and lood asolutel$ re=uires full communion in the

onds of the profession of faith the sacraments and ecclesiastical goernance it is not possileto celerate together the same Eucharistic liturg$ until those onds are full$ re,estalished9A!77

Thus 0ohn 1aul II concludes that Eucharistic intercommunion cannot occur until unit$ isestalished regarding the creeds the sacraments and the goernance of the Church9 6urthermorehe declares that settling for an$thing less than this leel of dogmatic unit$ will ineital$ presentan obstacle to attaining full communion ecause it minimies and relatiies the Truth of thefaith9!7'



1D2 Ut Unum Sint 12.

1D3 C!. Ibid. 8+ 28+ DD;-B.

1D8 C!. Ut Unum Sint section -9+ *hereby ,>II *rites4 )or a *hole millennium Christians *ere united in a brotherly!raternal communion o! !aith and sacramental li!e ... I! disagreements in belie! and discipline arose among them+ the (oman#ee acted by common consent as moderator. In this *ay the primacy e6ercised its oPce o! unity. =hen addressing the"cumenical >atriarch is oliness Limitrios I+ I ackno*ledged my a*areness that !or a great %ariety o! reasons+ andagainst the *ill o! all concerned+ *hat should ha%e been a ser%ice sometimes mani!ested itsel! in a %ery di?erent light.$ut ... it is out o! a desire to obey the *ill o! Christ truly that I recogniQe that as $ishop o! (ome I am called to e6ercise thatministry ... I insistently pray the oly #pirit to shine his light upon us+ enlightening all the >astors and theologians o! ourChurches+ that *e may seek`together+ o! course`the !orms in *hich this ministry may accomplish a ser%ice o! lo%erecogniQed by all concerned. )or a good criti7ue o! ,ohn >aul II&s tendency to preach one thing and instead practiceanother *hen it comes to ecumenism+ c!. >eter ebbleth*ait+ *ho describes the ponti?&s ecumenical commitment as beingschiQophrenic. >eter ebbleth*ait+ !ope John !aul "" and the #hurch

In 0ohn 1aul II‟ opinion disagreements in the area of ecclesial goernance appear to e the ke$ostacle currentl$ preenting Orthodo,Catholic intercommunion9 The most monumentalstumling lock to reunion appears to e the =uestion of the role of the pope which ironicall$01II depicts as one of unit$ and serice9 /e eliees working for the cause of unit$ is the specialmission and Aspecific dut$ of the Bishop of 8omeA arguing that it is the role of the papac$ to e

Athe serice of communionA and the ministr$ of merc$9 0ohn 1aul II deems that the papal missionis est illustrated through ridge,uilding dialogue seeking forgieness for past wrongs andmaking papal pilgrimages to isit arious Christian communities9!'3 In other words the role ofthe 1ope in 01II‟ e$es is meant to e one of mediating disputes and ridging differences9!'5 ©A. McCormick [email protected] E9

Ransas City4 #heed =ard+ 1--9 3-?. ans Rg o?ers similar criti7ues in The #atholic #hurch& A Short History + trans. by ,. $o*den Je* Kork4 (andom ouse Inc.+ 21 1-;1-B. )or a summary o! the changes Rg belie%ed Catholicism mustmake to the Church+ c!. pages 23;2E. In another book+ Rg argues that+ *hile the papacy is necessary+ it must notbecome the sole criterion !or identi!ying the Church. C!. ans Rg+ $n +eing #hristian+ trans. by "d*ard Tuinn 'ardenCity+ JK4 Loubleday and Co. Inc.+ 1-EB 8-8;92.

1D9 C!. Ut Unum Sint -8;B.

1DB Ibid.

1DE More on the state o! ho* dialogue on the role o! the papacy has progressed since Ut Unum Sint *ill be discussed in theconclusion o! this thesis.

Since 01II understands the Bishop of 8ome‟ mission as one of unit$ he finds it paradoical thatthe papac$ itself seems to e the most significant ostacle towards reuniting Catholicism andEastern Orthodo$9 #ttempting to address this impediment 0ohn 1aul II stresses that the pope‟ e1 cathedra pronouncements and oerall papal primac$ Amust alwa$s e done in communionAwith Athe whole od$ of Bishops who are also Hicars and amassadors of Christ‟A!'*

6urthermore he inites all Christian communities to enter into patient dialogue with 8oman

Catholicism so as to achiee some agreement on the role of the Bishop of 8ome and the popesAprimac$A eing AeercisedA as an Aoffice of unit$9A!'2 Opening the role of the papac$ to dialoguewas certainl$ a monumental step forward along the road to achieing full isile unit$ etweenChristian confessions9!'7 The opening of the pope‟ authorit$ and role to discussion acted as asign of the 8oman Church‟ willingness to dialogue9 #t the same time it remains to e seenwhether an$thing less than su>ugation to 8ome will e deemed an ade=uate result9



Besides resoling the matter of the papac$ 0ohn 1aul II eliees the other ecclesial goernanceissue that Orthodo$ and Catholicism must address efore reunion can take place is there=uirement of Acommunion of all particular Churches with the Church of 8ome9A In section .7of $t $num int. 01II eplains that communion with the Bishop of 8ome is oth Aa necessar$condition for unit$A and Aan essential re=uisite of © A. McCormick

[email protected] EBfull and isile communionK of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation9A0ohn 1aul II writes AIndeed full communionKneeds to e isil$ epressed in a ministr$ inwhich all the Bishops recognie that the$ are united in Christ and all the faithful findconfirmation for their faith9A!'' #sking ADo not man$ of those inoled in ecumenism toda$ feela need for such a ministr$<A 01II encourages fellow Christian communities to consider 8ome aspresider of the unitie ministr$ as a metaphorical captain of the ship that is the Church Aso thatthe ship999 will not e uffeted $ the storms and will one da$ reach its haen9A!'. It is uncertainwhether our Eastern Orthodo Sister Churches would e willing to acknowledge the Bishop of8ome as presiding oer the ministr$ of reunion9 The Orthodo ma$ waril$ =uestion whether the

8oman papac$ intends to shift from the role as presider of reunion and instead claim to e presider of the uniersal Church9

1DD Ut Unum Sint -E.

1D- Ut Unum Sint -D.

1- Ibid. -8.

One cannot fault the Orthodo for such wariness as there are times when 01II himself sendsmied messages9 6or eample 0ohn 1aul II reiterates oer and oer again aout the 8oman papac$ eing a ministr$ of reunion a ridge and moderator as a rother among e=uals howeer

when he speaks of the nature of Church communion he presumes it is ased on unit$ with the pope9 It is =uestionale whether the Orthodo Church can assent to 01II‟ claim that the Church‟ nature as communion depends upon all 1astors eing Ain communion with 1eter and thereforeunited in Christ9A!." If a Christian confession is not in isile communion with the 8oman pope the Successor of 1eter does that mean the$ are ecluded from unit$ in Christ< Of course 01IIdoes not © A. McCormick [email protected] EE

take it to this etent howeer he does not sufficientl$ elaorate on what communion with 8omeencompasses9 In this wa$ numerous =uestions still remain to e worked out regarding the particular Churches reuniting Ain communionA with 8ome9 Our Eastern Orthodo SisterChurches ma$ rightl$ wonder what the Acommunion of all particular Churches with the Churchof 8omeA specificall$ consists of and whether such a communion implies that their particularChurches would hae to change their liturgical practices or surrender the leel of autonom$ the$hold so dear9

;hile Bulgako would surel$ applaud 01II for opening the issue of papal primac$ to ecumenicaldiscussion he does not a#ree that the role of the Bishop of 8ome must e resoled eforeCatholicism and Eastern Orthodo$ can reunite in the Eucharist9 Instead Bulgako posits that preliminar$ dogmatic agreement etween 8oman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodo$ is not



necessarily re3uired prior to open sacramental fellowship since the Catholic and OrthodoChurches alread$ share a Aunit$ of sacramental life9A !.! /e states:

1-1 $ulgako%+ +y Jacobs -ell 111;113.

1-2 Ibid.

1-3 Ibid.

(a$ it not e that a unit$ in the sacrament will e the onl$ wa$ towards oercoming thisdifference Lin dogmas and doctrinesM< ;h$ should we not seek to surmount a heres$ in teachingthrough superseding a heres$ of life such as diision< (a$ it not e that Christians sin now $not heeding the common eucharistic call<!.)

Bulgako recognies oth Orthodo and 8oman Catholic confessions hae >urisdictionaldoctrinal and dogmatic differences9 #t the same time he argues that none of these Adestro$ theefficac$ of the sacramentsA that the$ mutuall$ share9!.3 In other words the diision etween

Orthodo$ and Catholicism is onl$ a canonical diision oer © A. [email protected] ED

>urisdictional matters therefore spiritual intercommunion remains a realit$ and isile reunion isonl$ a matter of time9

On the =uestion of how Orthodo,Catholic reunion should egin Bulgako concludes that itmust start at the altar through mutuall$ recogniing each share in Aone priesthoodKoneEucharist9A /e states A6or in response to this dogmatic unit$ will e achieed or rather amutual understanding of one another in our distinctie features9A!.5 In his iew $ the grace ofthe /ol$ Spirit Orthodo,Catholic Eucharistic intercommunion will ring the understanding

needed to accept and oercome what little doctrinal or een dogmatic differences that remain9!.*

1-8 Ibid.

1-9 Ibid.

1-B $ulgako%+ #piritual Intercommunion B.

Oddl$ enough een though Bulgako fiercel$ adocated that Orthodo,Catholic reunion muststart with Eucharistic intercommunion he did not see reunion or een spiritual Eucharisticintercommunion taking place etween Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism at least not during hislifetime9 6or eample Bulgako c$nicall$ remarks that an$ prospect of spiritual Eucharisticintercommunion etween Orthodo$ and Catholicism was AthwartedA due to 8ome‟ Aspirit of prosel$tismA and AimperialismA9!.2 +sing an analog$ from the teleision series tar Tre6. it isalmost as if Bulgako iewed Catholicism as the Bor#! #s a c$ernetic collectie of man$ dronememers the Borg went around the gala$ continuousl$ proclaiming A8ESIST#FCE IS6+TI&EPA as it assimilated eer$ humanoid race it encountered9 In a like manner Bulgakodepicts 8ome‟ approach to ecumenism solel$ as a task of su>ugating the Christian confessionsthat eist outside of the isile orders of the Catholic Church9 Thus Bulgako was © A.McCormick [email protected] E-



incredil$ critical of the Catholic Church‟ approach to reunion perceiing 8ome‟ iew to eone of AasorptionA!.7 Aanneation and su>ugation9A!.' In this wa$ Bulgako condemns theCatholic Church for limiting reunion to 8ome‟ asorption of all other Christian confessions anassimilation process that demanded conformit$ to the &atin wa$ of doing things rather thanmaintaining the diersit$ that Bulgako held as an intrinsic part of the Church‟ nature9

1-E C!. $ulgako%+ =ays to Church (eunion 11.

1-D $ulgako%+ The atican 'ogma E2. Also c!. page E3+ *here he *rites+ At present the atican dogma is the centralproblem !or the reunion o! the church W i! the ord e%er re;%eals to the *orld this miracle o! is mercy. "arlier+ at the epocho! the councils o! yons and o! )lorence the chie! sub:ect o! dogmatic disagreement *as the dogma about the oly #pirit+the ?lioue clauseS 7uestions o! papal primacy+ o! using lea%ened or un;lea%ened bread !or the "ucharist+ o! purgatory anda !e* others o! secondary importance[ all these particular disagreements are blotted out by one that is !undamental4 bypapacy gro*n strong during the centuries o! schism and established as a dogma at the atican.

1-- $y approaching the task o! reunion in this *ay+ ,>II belie%es the signs o! lessening tensions are already e%ident+thereby making the 7uest !or unity more !ruit!ul since both sides are more at ease *ith each other. C!. Ut Unum

#s if responding to Bulgako‟ accusations 0ohn 1aul II specifies that 8oman Catholicism doesnot intend to asor Eastern Orthodo$ or force asolute uniformit$9 Een though 01II makesunit$ with the pope fundamental to Orthodo,Catholic reunion he insists that the EasternOrthodo hae a right to their own organiational structures and apostolate and that this rightmust e retained throughout the reunification process9 #scriing to the methodolog$ outlined $the Joint International Commission for the Theolo#ical *ialo#ue between the Catholic Churchand the &rthodo1 Church. 0ohn 1aul II affirms that all reunion methodolog$ must alwa$s remainAthe dialogue of truth fostered and sustained $ the dialogue of loeA and alwa$s presere Atheright of the Eastern Catholic Churches to hae their own organiational structures and to carr$out their own apostolate as well as the actual inolement of these Churches in the dialogue ofcharit$ and in theological dialogue9A!.. Emphasiing he has no intention of enforcing © A.McCormick [email protected] D

Sint B. )or other *ritings by ,ohn >aul II on this matter+ c!. Letter to the +ishops of Europe on the 6elations between#atholics and $rthodo< in the =ew Situation of #entral and Eastern Europe 31 May 1--1S Apostolic Letter $rientaleLumen 2 May 1--9+ 1D+ 28+ in L($sser;atore 6omano+ 2;3 May 1--9+ 8;9S and+ 'eclaration by His Holiness !ope John !aul"" and the Ecumenical !atriarch 'imitrios " E Lecember 1-DE. )or !urther background in!ormation on the =esternperspecti%e regarding 5rthodo6;Catholic reunion methodology+ c!. the Joint "nternational #ommission for the Theological'ialogue between the #atholic #hurch and the $rthodo< #hurch Fhe #acrament o! 5rder in the #acramental #tructure o!the Church+ *ith >articular (e!erence to the Importance o! the Apostolic #uccession !or the #ancti<cation and the Xnity o!the >eople o! 'od 2B ,une 1-DD+14 In!ormation #er%ice+ BD 1-DD+ 1E3.

2 Ut Unum Sint 9. #econd atican "cumenical Council+ 'ecree on Ecumenism Unitatis 6edintegratio 1E.

across the oard uniformit$ 01II stresses the importance of retaining Alegitimate diersit$A in theareas of ecclesial structure and apostolate9 Citing from Second atican Council‟ discussion onhow to dialogue with the Eastern Churches 0ohn 1aul II argues that Alegitimate diersit$ is in no

wa$ opposed to the Churchs unit$ ut rather enhances her splendour and contriutes greatl$ tothe fulfillment of her mission9A)"" #t the same time =uestions remain as to what makes diersit$AlegitimateA in 01II‟ e$es and the e$es of the 8oman Church< ;ithout delineating such termsEastern Orthodo$ will likel$ continue guarding themseles9 Our Eastern Sister Churchesre=uire more clarification so as to alleiate an$ suspicion9

Conclusion: The (oad to (eunion: 8here do we go from3ere9



Oerall 01II and Bulgako agree that our current Orthodo,Catholic diision comes down tosupposedl$ diergent thoughts on ecclesial goernance and the role of the papac$9 Our diisionsare further compounded $ past ps$chological and historical wounds that are still in the processof mending9 /ealing takes time howeer so long as we rest in the care of the Diine 1h$sicianand rel$ upon the grace of the /ol$ Spirit this healing will come and isile unit$ will e

achieed9 /ope remains9

8egarding the Orthodo and Catholic diisions on ecclesial authorit$ I eliee Bulgako is rightin stressing that the issue of the papac$ need not e resoled efore the © A. [email protected] D1

two confessions reunite in the Eucharist9 The issues of papal primac$ and the role of 1eter in theChurch hae een a constant elephant in the room wa$ efore !"*5 and the -reat Schism etween the East and ;est9 Since patristic times oth the Eastern and ;estern hales of theChurch hae s=ualed oer the authorit$ of 8ome and $et the Eucharistic tale remained opento all9 Therefore how can the Catholic Church of our modern da$ dictate that reunion with

Orthodo sister churches are impeded onl$ $ disagreements surrounding ecclesial authorit$<The East and ;est shared different iews regarding the role of the Bishop of 8ome prior to !"*5and $et this did not hinder them from sharing Eucharisitic fellowship therefore wh$ should it pose such a arrier to intercommunion now<

#lthough Bulgako‟ writings proide some fairl$ harsh criticisms of Catholicism we mustrecall that during his lifetime the ecumenical climate etween the two Churches was =uitedifferent9 /e was alie when 1ope 1ius GI issued (ortalium "nimos. which anned Catholicismfrom participating in all ecumenical dialogue calling it Aeil9A )"! #s such Bulgako realied an$dialogue e$ond a grassroots leel etween Catholicism and Orthodo$ was irtuall$ impossileduring his age9 /e therefore decided to focus instead on uilding relations with the #nglican

Church9 This ecumenical effort ore much fruit and unit$ oer the course of his lifetimeincluding his ground,reaking proposal for partial intercommunion to e shared etween the#nglican and Orthodo confessions9 But what eactl$ was Bulgako suggesting at the #nglican,Orthodo 6ellowship of St9 #lan and St9 Sergius Conference in !.33<

21 )or reasoning behind *hy (oman Catholicism delayed in :oining the ecumenical mo%ement+ c!. uigi Accattoli+ -hen a

!ope As:s Forgi;eness& The *ea #ulpaGs of John !aul ""+ trans. by ,. Aumann Je* Kork4 Alba ouse+ 1--D -. © A.McCormick [email protected] D2

Seen,fold in nature his Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion etween the #nglicanand Orthodo Churches een egan on a radical note as his opening statement reminded his#nglican and Orthodo audience that their Aserices of worship togetherA was of an

Auncanonical natureA ecause the Orthodo Church had not $et cleared up the status of whether#nglicans were heretics9)") #nd $et Bulgako declared the Adogmatic agreementA present etween the #nglican and Orthodo memers of the 6ellowship was Amore completeA than theagreement that currentl$ eisted etween their respectie Churches as a wholeP /e pointed outthat while the Acommon worshipA pra$er and discussions shared etween the #nglican,Orthodo memers certainl$ helps prepare for reunion the 6ellowship has come to a point wheremore dramatic action is re3uired 9)"3



22 Fhe !ollo*ing is an abbre%iated %ersion o! the #ummary o! )ather $ulgako%&s speech !ound in 'eneral (eport o! the)ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33+ 12;13.

23 $ulgako% is summariQed as stating+ a%ing come to this point *e the members o! the )ello*ship0 ha%e a personalresponsibility !or the *ork o! (eunion. =e must do *hat *e can in the present historical conditions. I! *e remain !or long inthe present state *ithout mo%ing+ decomposition *ill set in. (eunion may not come until long a!ter *e are deadS but 'odcalls us to action here and no*. $ulgako%+ 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33+ 12;13.

Bulgako raised the =uestion of whether the partial or limited communion in the 6ellowship or insome other localied group ma$ further the task of reunion etween the #nglican and OrthodoChurches9 Such partial communion referred to in the East as Hhe principal of econom$‟ would re=uire #nglican priests to make Aa sacrifice of loeA and receie a AconditionalordinationA lessing from an Orthodo ishop so as to ensure apostolic succession and thealidit$ of the sacraments9 In his sith point Bulgako eplained that the principle of econom$ma$ aid the #nglican,Orthodo Aprogress towards reunionA ut that this principle is onl$ to eused in particular Aeceptional casesA and not as a general asis for intercommunion9 /e thenconcludes his address © A. McCormick [email protected] D3

stating that the #uidin# principle ehind his proposal and reunion in general must e AChristianconscience and the oice of the /ol$ Eucharist in our hearts9A)"5 Bulgako‟ proposal etween theOrthodo and #nglican confessions seemed realistic in !.33 howeer the prospect forOrthodo,#nglican reunion has greatl$ diminished in our modern da$ situation due to thechanges the #nglican Church has made regarding admitting women to the priesthood and lessing homoseual marriage9

28 Fhere is also an end note placed at the conclusion o! $ulgako%&s speech that dra*s attention to the permission *hichalready e6ists !or 5rthodo6 to recei%e $aptism and Communion !rom an Anglican priest and %ice %ersa in articulo mortisand in the case o! the absence o! their o*n priest in certain distant places. Fhis is already a beginning o! Zeconomicintercommunion&+ *hich has been allo*ed in principle be!ore the !ul<llment o! general intercommunion. It is uncertain*hether this end note *as added by $ulgako% or another memberS ho*e%er+ the Anglican tone leads me to belie%e it *as alater Anglican addition+ since it makes speci<c re!erence to $ulgako%&s suggestion being closely analogous to the AnglicanChurch&s Indian #cheme. C!. Jote in 'eneral (eport o! the )ello*ship Con!erence+ ,une 1-33+ 13.

29 )or a *ell;presented synopsis o! the gro*th that has occurred in Catholic;5rthodo6 ecumenical relations since aticanII+ as *ell as the current state o! dialogue bet*een the t*o con!essions+ c!. =alter Rasper+ That They *ay All be $ne& The#all to Unity Today ondon and Je* Kork4 $urns 5ates+ 28 2;3+ 1D;28+ 9-;B1+ BE+ E9;-1+ -B;E+ 1E;11E+ and 19B;19D.

;hile such theological issues pose new challenges for Orthodo,#nglican relations theecumenical interactions etween Eastern Orthodo$ and 8oman Catholicism hae flourishedoer the last fift$ $ears particularl$ since the Second atican Council9)"* #s such I recommendfurther eamination should e made on Bulgako‟s proposal specificall$ in regards to how itmay be applied between Catholicism and &rthodo1y9 I particularl$ eliee that Bulgako‟ proposal for limited intercommunion would est e applied to those local dioceses facing uni=uecircumstances such as those congregations who find themseles lacking Orthodo or Catholic

priests or perhaps in rural locations where one denomination ma$ not een hae a designated place of worship9 ;e must =uestion whether permitting sacramental intercommunion etweenthe Orthodo and Catholic communities who face such uni=ue © A. [email protected] D8

circumstances would in fact minimie or compromise the communio of the Church or theEucharist9



The Lamb of 7od! -rand 8apids (ich: ;9B9 Eerdmans 1u9 Co )""'9

AThe Church‟ (inistr$A L!.)7M9 In Faith and &rder) Proceedin#s of the World Conference!

"u#ust 8' 9:. :;9< 9 Ed9 /9 F9 Bate )*',)239 -arden Cit$ FR: Douleda$ Doran 4 Co9 Inc9!.)'9

AThe Eucharist and the Social 1rolems of (odern Societ$9A JF" )! ?Septemer !.33@: !", )!9© A. McCormick [email protected] DB

The -oly 7rail and the %ucharist 9 Boris 0akim trans9 /udson F9R9: &indisfarne Books !..79

The &rthodo1 Church! Crestwood F9R9: St9 ladimirs Seminar$ 1ress !.''9

The =atican *o#ma! South Canaan 1a: St9 Tikhon 1ress !.*.9

The Wisdom of 7od. " Brief ummary of ophiolo#y9 1reface $ 8e9 6rank -ain9 Few Rork:

The 1aisle$ 1ress !.379

AThe ;isdom of -od9A In Bulgako " Bul#a6o+ "ntholo#y9

A;a$s to Church 8eunion9A obornost ) ?0une !.3*@: 7, !*9

Secondary Sources on Sergius Bulgakov and His Works

#kseno,(eerson (ichail -9 AFine: Sergius Bulgako‟ Trinitarian S$nthesis9A In The Trinity

of Lo+e in (odern Russian Theolo#y) The Lo+e Paradi#m and the Retrie+al of Western (edie+al Lo+e (ysticism in (odern Russian Trinitarian Thou#ht >from olo+yo+ to Bul#a6o+?! Nuinc$

I&: 6ranciscan 1ress !..': !*.,!''9

#r>akosk$ #ntoine9 AThe Sophiolog$ of 6ather Sergius Bulgako and Contemporar$ ;esternTheolog$9A t =ladimir@s Thoelo#ical Auarterly! 5.: !,) ?)""*@: )!.,3*9

Behr 0ohn9 Editor9 ASergius Bulgako9A t =ladimir@s Theolo#ical Auarterly9 5. no !,) ?)""*@:3,)3*9

Congar Res9 *ialo#ue Between Christians) Catholic Contributions to %cumenism! Trans9 1hilip&oret9 &ondon and Dulin: -eoffre$ Chapman !.229

Etuho Catherine9 The Cross the ic6le) er#ei Bul#a6o+ and the Fate of Russian Reli#ious Philosophy! Ithaca Lu9a9M: Cornell +ni9 1ress !..79 © A. [email protected] DE

-allaher #nastass$ Brandon9 ACatholic #ction: Ecclesiolog$ the Eucharist and the Nuestion ofIntercommunion in the Ecumenism of Sergii Bulgako9A (9 Di9 diss9 St9 ladimirs OrthodoTheological Seminar$ Crestwood FR )""39



-allaher #nastass$ Brandon and Irina %ukota9 A1rotopres$ter Sergii Bulgako: /$postasisand /$postaticit$: Scholia to The +nfading &ight9A t =ladimir@s Thoelo#ical Auarterly 5.: !,)?)""*@: *,529

-effert Br$n9 AThe Charges of /eres$ against Sergii Bulgako: The (a>orit$ and (inorit$

8eports of Elogiis Commission and the 6inal 8eport of the Bishops Conference9A t!=ladimir@s Theolo#ical Auarterly )""* ol9 5.?!@: 57,22

/arakas Stanle$9 AS9 Sergius Bulgako and /is Teaching9A 7ree6 &rthodo1 Theolo#ical Re+iewol9 7 ?!.2!@: .),!"*

/ilarion ?#lfe$e@ Bishop of ienna and #ustria9 A1rospects for Orthodo 1articipation in theEcumenical (oement in the &ight of the ;ork of the Special Commission9A 1aper deliered atthe International Ecumenical S$mposium 0&rthodo1 Theolo#y and the Future of the %cumenical *ialo#ue) Perspecti+es and Problems’ in Thessaloniki ?-reece@ on ) 0une )""39

%arlson /enr$9 ASophiolog$ and 6ree #pokatastasis9A +npulished paper9 %arlson is currentl$ a1hD student at the Catholic +niersit$ of #merica9

%limoff #leis9 A-eorges 6lorosk$ and the Sophiological Controers$9A t =ladimir@s

Thoelo#ical Auarterly 5.: !,) ?)""*@: 27,!""9

&outh #ndrew9 A6ather Sergii Bulgako on the (other of -od9A t =ladimir@s Theolo#ical

Auarterly 5.: !,) ?)""*@: !5*,259 © A. McCormick [email protected] DD

&outh #ndrew9 A;isdom and the 8ussians: The Sophiolog$ of 6r Sergei Bulgako9A In Where

hall Wisdom Be Found) Wisdom in the Bible. the Church. and the Contemporary World!

Stephen C9 Barton ed9 !2.,!'!9 Edinurgh: T4T Clark !...9 Fikolae Sergei 9 ASpiritual +nit$: The 8ole of 8eligious #uthorit$ in the Disputes etweenSergii Bulgako and -eorges 6lorosk$ Concerning Intercommunion9A t! =ladimir@s

Theolo#ical Auarterly ol9 5.?!@ ?)""*@: !"!,!)39

1apanikolaou #9 AOrthodo$ 1ostmodernit$ and Ecumenism: The Difference That Diine,/uman Communion (akes9A Journal of %cumenical tudies! ol9 5) no9 5 ?6all )""7@: *)7,529

1lekon (ichael9 Li+in# Icons) Persons of Faith in the %astern Church9 Fotre Dame: +niersit$of Fotre Dame 1ress )"")9

UUUUU9 AStill $ 0acos ;ell: Sergius Bulgakos ision of the Church 8eisited9A t! =ladimir@sTheolo#ical Auarterly! 5.9!,) ?)""*@: !)*,539

UUUUU9 ASergius Bulgako: 1olitical Economist and 1riest (arist and ($stic9A In Li+in# Icons)

Persons of Faith in the %astern Church ).,*'9 Fotre Dame Ind: +niersit$ of Fotre Dame1ress )"")9



UUUUU9 er#ii Bul#a6o+) Towards a Russian Political Theolo#y! Edinurgh: T 4 T Clark !...9

Vierkos StanisWw9 L@%#lise +isible selon er#e Bul#a6o+ ) structure hiDrarchi3ue et

sacramentelle! 8oma : 1ont9 Institutum Studiorum Orientalium !.'"9

Tatar$n ($roslaw9 ASergei Bulgako: Eastern Orthodo$ Engaging the (odern ;orld9A tudiesin Reli#ionEciences Reli#ieuses! )"") ol9 3!?3@: 3!3,3))9 © A. [email protected] D-

Tatar$n ($roslaw I9 "u#ustine and Russian &rthodo1y) Russian &rthodo1 Theolo#ians and "u#ustine of -ippo ) a Twentieth Century *ialo#ue9 &anham (d: International Scholars1ulications )"""9

UUUUU9 A59 The 1aris Orthodo Theologians: Sergei Fikolaeich Bulgako ?!'7!,!.55@A 22,.29In "u#ustine and Russian &rthodo1y!

Tatar$n ($roslaw9 A/istor$ (atters: Bulgakos Sophianic %e$9A t =ladimir@s Thoelo#icalAuarterly 5.: !,) ?)""*@: )"3,!'9

alliere 1aul9 (odern Russian Theolo#y) Bu6hare+. olo+ie+. Bul#a6o+ ) &rthodo1 Theolo#y in

a 2ew ey! -rand 8apids (ich9 : Eerdmans )"""9

;illiams 8owan ed9 er#ii Bul#a6o+) Towards a Russian Political Theolo#y9 Edinurgh: T 4 TClark !...9

erno (ilita9 A+nit$ and Disunit$ Toda$9A obornost ol9 '?!@ ?!.'2@: )3,)79

4ohn 'aul II$s 'rimar! Sources

"ddresses and -omilies on %cumenism :;<G':;GH! 0ohn B9 Sheerin and 0969 /otchkin eds9;ash9 DC: +S Catholics Conference !.'"9

Crossin# the Threshold of -ope! ittorio (essori ed9 Few Rork FR: Boroi Books !..59

%ncyclical Letter. %cclesia *e %ucharistia. of -is -oliness Pope John Paul II) To the Bishops.

Priests and *eacons. (en and Women in the Consecrated Life and "ll the Lay Faithful on the

%ucharist in Its Relationship to the Church! ;ashington D9C9: +nited States Conference ofCatholic Bishops )""39 #ailale online © A. McCormick

[email protected] -

http:QQwww9atican9aQhol$UfatherQ>ohnUpaulUiiQenc$clicalsQdocumentsQhfU>p,iiUencU!7"5)""3Uecclesia,de,eucharistiaUen9html #ccessed "' Sept )""'9

%ncyclical Letter. Fides %t Ratio. of the upreme Pontiff John Paul II) To the Bishops of the

Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason9 Boston: 1auline Books andmedia !..'9



%ncyclical Letter $t $num int of the -oly Father. John Paul II on Commitment to %cumenism9atican Cit$: &ireria Editrice aticana !..*9

Familiaris Consortio) The Christian Family in the (odern World! &ondon: Catholic TruthSociet$ !.'!9

&n the -undredth "nni+ersary of Rerum 2o+arum) Centesimus "nnus! ;ashington D9C9: Officefor 1ulishing and 1romotion Serices +nited States Catholic Conference !..!9

Person and Community) elected %ssays9 Catholic thought from &ulin 9 59 Few Rork: 19 &ang!..39

AThe Eucharist a taste of eternit$ in timeA 7eneral "udience. &ctober 9. 9HHH9 #ailaleonline http:QQwww9adoremus9orgQ01IICatechesisEucharist9html #ccessed !! Sept )""'9

Redemptoris (ater) Pope John Paul II on the Blessed =i#in (ary in the Life of the Pil#rim

Church! &ondon: Catholic Truth Societ$ )""39

Redemptoris -ominis) &n the Redeemer of (an! !.7.9 #ailale online athttp:QQwww9atican9aQhol$UfatherQ>ohnUpaulUiiQenc$clicalsQdocumentsQhfU>p,iiUencU"5"3!.7.Uredemptor,hominisUen9html9 #ccessed ". Oct )"".9 © A. [email protected] -1

Secondar! Sources on 4ohn 'aul II

#ccattoli &uigi9 When a Pope "s6s For#i+eness) The (ea Culpa’s of John Paul II 9 09 #umanntrans9 Few Rork: #la /ouse !..'9

Bennett 8ichard9 AThe #ccomplishments of 0ohn 1aul II9A Reformation Today9 #ailale onlinewww9reformation,toda$9orgQissuesQarticlesQ!.7>ohnpaul9pdf9

Braaten Carl E9 and 8oert ;9 0enson9 Church $nity and the Papal &ffice) "n %cumenical

*ialo#ue on John Paul II@s %ncyclical $t $num int >That "ll (ay Be &ne?! -rand 8apids(ich: ;9B9 Eerdmans )""!9

Caridi Catherine9 AIdeolog$ or isolationism< 8ussian Identit$ and its Influence on Orthodo,Catholic 8elations9 1art III 1ope 0ohn 1aul II and a 1rospectie isit to 8ussia9A Reli#ion in

%astern %urope! )7 no 3 ?#ug )""7@: !,!59

Dulles Cardinal #er$9 A0ohn 1aul II and the ($ster$ of the /uman 1erson9A "merica !."93 ?)6e )""5@: !",))9

UUUUU9 The plendor of Faith) The Theolo#ical =ision of Pope John Paul II 9 Few Rork:Crossroad !...9



*irectory for the "pplication of Principles and 2orms on %cumenism. Pontifical Council on

Christian $nity ?(arch )* !..3@9 #ailale online athttp:QQwww9adoremus9orgQEcumenismForms9html9 #ccessed ). 0an )"".9

6ragomeni 8ichard F9 ASta$ing the Course: the alue of the Eucharist for &iturg$ and &ife9A

Litur#ical (inistry !* ?Sum )""2@: !57,!*39

-ros 0effre$9 AToward 6ull Communion: 6aith and Order and Catholic Ecumenism9ATheolo#ical tudies9 2* no ! ?(r )""5@: )3,539 © A. [email protected] -2

UUUUU9 -ros 0effre$ and Daniel S9 (ulhall eds9 The %cumenical Christian *ialo#ues and the

Catechism of the Catholic Church9 Few Rork: 1aulist 1ress )""29

/atik$riakou &9A-reece: -reek /ead of State Orthodo Church &eaders in 8ome for 1opes6uneral9A -reek Fews: -reek,#merican ;eekl$ Fewspaper ?!! #pril )""*@9 #ailale online at

http:QQwww9greeknewsonline9comQmodules9php<nameFews4filearticle4sid3").9 #ccessed! #pril )"".9

/elethwait 1eter9 Pope John Paul II and the Church! %ansas Cit$: Sheed 4 ;ard !..*9

/ol$ See 1ress Office9 A/is /oliness 0ohn 1aul II Biograph$ 1re,1ontificateA )""5,)""'9#ailale onlinehttp:QQwww9atican9aQnewsUsericesQpressQdocumentaioneQdocumentsQsantopadreUiografieQgioanniUpaoloUiiUiografiaUprepontificatoUen9htmlX!.529 #ccessed "2 (ar )"".9

/opko Thomas9 AOpen Closed Intercommunion9A The &rthodo1 Church ol9 !) no9 7 ?!.72@:

*,29

0ohnson ;illiam Stac$9 AOn the %cclesia de %ucharistia: a 8eformed perspectie9A Pro %cclesia!) no 5 ?6all )""3@: 5!5,5!29

%asper Cardinal ;alter9 2ature and Purpose of %cumenical *ialo#! #ailale onlinehttp:QQwww9atican9aQromanUcuriaQpontificalUcouncilsQchrstuniQcard,kasper,docsQrcUpcUchrstuniUdocU)""3"))7Uecumenical,dialogueUen9html #ccessed !! 6e )"".9 © A.McCormick [email protected] -3

UUUUU9 That They (ay "ll be &ne) The Call to $nity Today9 &ondon and Few Rork: Burns 4

Oates )""59

%u g /ans9 The Catholic Church) " hort -istory9 09 Bowden trans9 Few Rork: 8andom /ouseInc9 )""!9

UUUUU9 &n Bein# Christian9 Edward Nuinn trans9 -arden Cit$ FR: Douleda$ and Co9 Inc9!.729

mccormick thesis

Documents