This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]

On: 01 January 2015, At: 14:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International journal for the Study of

the Christian Church
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsc20

Ecclesial communion: The letters of St

Basil the great revisited
Annemarie C. Mayer
Published online: 20 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Annemarie C. Mayer (2005) Ecclesial communion: The letters of St Basil the
great revisited, International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 5:3, 226-241, DOI:
10.1080/14742250500355511

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742250500355511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church
Vol. 5, No. 3, October 2005, 226 – 241

Ecclesial Communion: The Letters

of St Basil the Great Revisited
Annemarie C. Mayer
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

Abstract
The German word Kirchengemeinschaft, translated as ‘ecclesial communion’ or
‘communion of churches’, is a term frequently used in contemporary ecumenical
discourse. Are ‘communion of churches’ or ‘ecclesial communion’ leading concepts for
future ecumenism? Starting from the fact that modern ecumenism and ecclesiology often
refer to communio/koivovı́a in the Early Church as their model or ideal, this article
investigates more closely how koivovía worked in that period. Basil the Great’s letters
serve as an example to show not so much the theoretical but the practical impact of
koivovı́a on everyday church life. They also demonstrate how Basil applied koivovı́a
on different levels and indicate what is required to facilitate it. Finally, they give some
indication of what this could mean for ecumenism today.

The term ‘ecclesial communion’ is used frequently in official church documents.1

Moreover, the Lutheran World Federation seriously considered changing its name in
order to make its communio-aspect more explicit,2 the Leuenberger Kirchenge-
meinschaft3 is in a process of growth, and the Porvoo Common Statement also aims at
a ‘deeper realization of communion’.4 All this may be taken to hint at the growing
influence of the notion of a ‘communion of churches’5 in ecumenical discourse. On
the one hand this new model implies real ecumenical progress, on the other hand it is
used so equivocally that it sometimes confuses rather than helps to solve problems.6
How are we to understand ‘communion of churches’? What are the tenets we are to
insist on if we wish to root it in the tradition of the Church or even base it on patristic
grounds? What are the necessary elements that constitute ‘communion of churches’?
As different notions of ecclesial communion quite often refer to koıvovı́a in the
Early Church as their ideal and model, this article takes St Basil of Caesarea as an
Early Church example and asks: ‘What did ecclesial communion mean in those
times?’ ‘What were the criteria for engaging in it and maintaining it?’ ‘How were the
elements of ecclesial communion defined?’ ‘What relevance did communion have?’
There is, however, an important limitation which should be kept in mind: we are
looking here at ecclesial communion at a time when there was not yet a communion of

ISSN 1474-225X (print) ª2005 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14742250500355511
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 227

different churches in the modern sense of denominations. This is an important difference,

for although there was no lack of heterodox movements in those times the different
groups involved did not look back on centuries of division and mutual rejection.
St Basil of Caesarea (circa 330–379) has been chosen as the source for this period
of church history because he decisively made koıvovı́a permanently prominent in
Eastern Theology. He used the term quite frequently and it appears in important
passages in his writings.7 He introduced coenobitic monasticism into Cappadocia,
thus adopting koıvovı́a for monastic life. As a priest, bishop, metropolitan and monk
he was involved in different areas of church life and thus was able – or rather
compelled – to put his ideas into practice using koıvovı́a as his main instrument.
Basil lived at a time of change, when the Church was confronted with many new
problems. Trinitarian controversies with Arianism had arisen and were growing
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

more and more serious, to such an extent that the one Church was about to break
into a number of separate churches. In order to prevent the spread of heretical
churches a consensus throughout the Church was required on the absolutely
necessary elements of faith, and institutional possibilities were needed to draw a clear
line between the orthodox and the heterodox. The orthodox standpoint had been
determined at the Council of Nicaea (325), which was to go down in church history
as the first Ecumenical Council. Yet, its decrees were by no means recognized
universally. The situation threatened to become alarming, even among those who
accepted Nicaea:

Nowhere is pity to be seen; nowhere sympathy; nowhere a brotherly tear for a

brother in distress. Not persecutions for the truth’s sake, not Churches with all
their people in tears; not this great tale of troubles closing round us, are enough to
stir us to anxiety for the welfare of one another.8

In such a situation koıvovı́a was, according to St Basil, indispensable for the survival
of the Church.
In order to show how koıvovı́a worked, this article has a twofold aim. First, to examine
how Basil used koıvovı́a in a primarily non-monastic context, and secondly, to ask what
impact koıvovı́a had on his view of the Church. The textual basis for this will mainly be
his letters,9 since they bear witness to his pastoral activities. They not only illustrate the
broad range of meaning that koıvovı́a can express, but they were themselves, apart from
meetings and synods, a very important means of maintaining koıvovı́a.

How does Basil use koıvwvı́a?

The wide range which the meaning of the word koıvovı́a already had in classical
Greek is documented by Liddell and Scott,10 showing its different dimensions. When
Basil speaks of koıvovı́a, he too assigns a lot of different nuances to it. In the context
of church policy, for example, the word has already been institutionalized so far that
Basil can use it as terminus technicus: the bishops who exchange letters amongst each
other are called koıvovıkoı́.11 Each may include others into koıvovı́a with himself,12
 228 A. C. Mayer
be included himself into koıvovı́a,13 refrain from koıvovı́a14 or avoid koıvovı́a.15
Thus, for Basil as for many of his contemporaries, koıvovı́a with other bishops is a
criterion of orthodoxy. He also has different alternative terms,16 which he uses if he
wishes to highlight a particular aspect of koıvovı́a. Thus, in his correspondence
attention has to be paid not simply to the term koıvovı́a, as the concept itself might
be disguised in paraphrases and metaphors.

Three Main Metaphors and Four Levels of koivovı́a

Sometimes a metaphor can express the different aspects of a term better than a long
and complicated explanation. Basil uses three metaphors to depict what koıvovı́a
means to him; ‘garment’,17 ‘ship’18 and ‘body’19 (which also implies Body of Christ).
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

He uses them in a twofold way; to describe successful and unsuccessful koıvovı́a.

‘Ship’ for instance can serve as a negative image; the crew is exposed to the whims of
the sea. In the tempest of heresy most of the ships (i.e. the churches of the East) are
threatened by shipwreck,20 while the churches of the West still imagine themselves in
a safe harbour.21 Another metaphor for defective koıvovı́a is that of an old garment.
Once the material had been strong and stood any test of tension, but now it is torn
apart everywhere and the holes become bigger and bigger.22 The metaphor of ‘body’
is the metaphor most frequently used. Basil himself explicitly links body and
koıvovı́a,23 stressing the aspects of being dependent on one another and unity in
diversity; no part of the body is identical to any other and yet all serve the same end
and have to rely on each other.24
Basil illustrates the different levels of koıvovı́a by transposing this metaphor to
four levels of church life. Within the parish it can be applied to baptism, penitence
and, above all, to the Eucharist. In the diocese it describes the relationship between
clergy and laity. Between the dioceses it accounts for the necessity of solidarity, and
regarding the relationship of the Eastern Churches to the West it makes their calling
for help more plausible.
From our modern point of view the term koıvovı́a is mostly associated in the Early
Church with a complicated network of inter-church relationships and alliances. Yet –
as we can see now – this corresponds only to the third and fourth levels of Basil’s use
of koıvovı́a. On these inter-church levels koıvovı́a is maintained by letters of
communion and mutual invitations to synods. Basil also tried to strengthen the
practice of koıvovı́a on the level of his diocese, as is shown in his receiving appeals,
undertaking visitations and celebrating the festivals of local martyrs more
magnificently than had been the case before his episcopate, in order to have a
forum for exchange with his clergy. Usually the diocesan synods, already stipulated
twice a year by Nicaea, were held on the evening before such a feast.25 Basil seized
that opportunity also to invite colleagues from other dioceses and during his ministry
developed the feast of the martyr Eupsychius into an inter-diocesan forum of
exchange.26 This demonstrates that in Basil’s view, koıvovı́a needs a forum and
institutional support.
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 229

Research into koıvovı́a normally concentrates on the inter-church level, because

that provides a welcome analogy to current relations between the different
denominations. However, as we wish to do justice to the difference mentioned
above between the Church then and our current ecumenical situation, we shall
examine the level of parish life more closely. This level cannot be confused with
current ecumenical ends or taken for mere diplomacy.

Koıvovı́a in the Parish

All levels of koıvovı́a are essentially based on that of the parish, which itself is
embedded in the framework of the other levels. In Basil’s thinking, baptism, penance
and Eucharist are major hallmarks of koıvovı́a in every parish.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

Baptism – the way to enter into koivovía

A rather obvious step to achieve unity and communion is to avoid something that
resembles a ‘two-class’ Christianity. Over the course of time some people had started
to remain catechumens for their entire lifetime, receiving baptism only at the end.
Institutionally the catechumens’ exclusion showed itself in the fact that they could
not receive the Holy Communion at the Eucharist, that they were not liable to obey
the penitential regulations and that they could not be bound by the Creed. There
were many advantages but few obligations. Basil mocks this way of sympathizing with
Christianity as ‘Today for me, tomorrow for God’.27 A true Christian must seek to
preserve throughout his whole life the freedom from sin that he had gained in
baptism and should not snatch it at the end by skilful planning.28 After all, no regular
parish life was possible, if the margins of the Church became so flexible and floating
that people could be members or not, just as they liked.
And there was a second important element in baptism – apart from the remission
of sins there were the gifts of the Spirit. This idea was not new, it was common
Christian tradition.29 Those who did not have the charisma of baptism could not be
full members of the parish. The actual entering into koıvovı́a, therefore, did not take
place until baptism. If one sees that connection between baptism and the reception of
the gifts of the Spirit, Basil’s relentless insistence on the baptism of heretics and
schismatics becomes more plausible. For Basil, baptism is the gateway to Christian
koıvovı́a. But if baptism constitutes membership of the Church, baptism and
orthodoxy are necessarily linked. Heretics, therefore, have to be baptized again, if the
creed they professed at their baptism omits or contradicts any article of the Nicene
Creed.30 In an exaggerated manner Basil mocks those who baptize in the name of the
Father, the Son, Montanus or Priscilla.31 He was aware of the fact that his maxim of
re-baptizing converts in cases of doubt did not correspond to the Roman practice,
which Amphilochius also used to follow.32 He even acted contrary to canon 8 of
Nicaea.33 Basil preferred to follow the tradition of Cyprian and Firmilian.
Safeguarding true koıvovı́a had priority for him. Basil seems to have been very
 230 A. C. Mayer
strict on this point. The only real exception we know of is: ‘At Epiphany 372 the
Emperor Valens attended church at Caesarea with his court. Basil disappointed
zealots who vainly hoped for a dramatic scene at which their bishop would refuse
communion to the Arianizing emperor’34 – this was probably for diplomatic reasons.

Penitence – a way of being restored to koivovı́a

From the second century onwards there existed the possibility of a paenitentia
secunda, a second chance, in addition to baptism, to gain forgiveness. There was a
system of public penance, where the culprit was excluded from koıvovı́a, especially
from the Eucharist, and gradually over many years re-established into full
membership.35 Because of its awkwardness this practice had almost been given up,36
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

when Basil started to revive it.37 In that system of penitence koıvovı́a played a major
role which was in fact twofold. The Church is the community that supports the
sinner,38 but there is also the idea that the solidarity of all is such that if one member
commits a sin this has its impact on the entire community.39 Here koıvovı́a stands
for the party that suffers and that, at the same time, gives support.40
Basil’s interest is clearly concentrated on the community of the faithful. As Watkins
puts it: ‘While the punishment of even the wilful murder has come down to twenty
years of penance; nothing short of the whole term of life will suffice for the
apostate’.41 On the other hand the canons show an inexhaustible optimism; any sin,
no matter how grave, can be forgiven, for in the end it is God who forgives. And the
Eucharist, as sacrament of communion with God and one’s fellow Christians, proves
that koıvovı́a with the Church is regained.

Eucharist – the way of expressing koivovı́a

It is from the Eucharist that it was possible even from outside to discern who was in
koivovı́a with whom. Being admitted to the Eucharist was the most distinctive
expression of koivovı́a ‘and taking part in it the activity par excellence of each of its
members’.42 Basil could identify both to such an extent that instead of speaking of




koivovı́a ton ágíon or ton ágayon he merely used koıvovı́a.43 Ideally the local
community consisted of all the faithful of a city. But faith differences were felt
immediately: Basil complains that sometimes the orthodox part of a parish would be
compelled to celebrate the Eucharist in the open air.44 The boundary line between the
different Eucharistic communities could be drawn between different groups within the
parish or between the congregation and its bishop.45 To answer the crucial question
about who can celebrate the Eucharist with whom, Basil works out some criteria.

Criteria for koivovı́a

The limits of koıvovı́a are not necessarily congruous with the limits of the Church –
universal or local. Basil concedes the possibility that the one faith can be expressed in
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 231

different ways.46 However, the indispensable basis of koıvovı́a is the Nicene Creed.
Basil makes this condition very explicit in the document which Eustathius of Sebaste
was to sign.47 Eustathius had previously been Basil’s friend and example, but after he
had spoken publicly against the Nicene Creed and withdrawn his consent to the
statement of orthodoxy which Basil made him sign, the latter had no option but to
dissociate himself from Eustathius. For koıvovı́a to be more than a merely private
matter, Basil had to draw a koıvovı́a-line between orthodoxy and heresy.48
Apart from professing the orthodox creed, there is another criterion. To act against
the canons, that is, against the rules of koıvovı́a, means to exclude oneself from the
community. On the level of the parish exclusion is temporary, and the sinner can
gradually be rehabilitated. But in the case of a bishop, irregularities in his election, for
example, could be sufficient to exclude him from the communion of his fellow
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

bishops. The rehabilitation of a bishop not canonically appointed, can only be

achieved by his already well established colleagues.49 Thus clearly orthodoxy and
acting according to the canonical regulations are the conditiones sine quibus non of
koıvovı́a.
The schism at Antioch seems to have been such a catastrophe for Basil because
it did not fit into this pattern.50 There Meletius, who by rights had been ordained
for the see of Sebaste in Armenia, had become bishop with the aid of Acacius. But
very soon Meletius turned out not to share Acacius’ Arianizing line and thus he
had to resign.51 However, people like Lucifer of Cagliari mistrusted him because of
his connections to Acacius. While Athanasius still tried to solve the problem
amicably, in 362 Lucifer went to Antioch and ordained the presbyter Paulinus as
bishop.52 Koıvovı́a was only possible with one party. Meletius too had become
bishop in a way that was not entirely canonically unblemished. This left Basil with
only one option – to suspect Paulinus of being a heretic,53 although he had
previously declared that in Antioch orthodoxy was split within itself.54 Eucharistic
communion is an ambiguous mark when heterodox groups also set up their own
Eucharistic communities. Thus, the problem of rivalry and contention arises.
Where there are different circles of koıvovı́a, the question arises as to which is the
legitimate one.
Basil tried to solve the problem by introducing a further criterion, the criterion of
quantity. Those who are in communion with the majority of bishops can be sure of
being members of the right koıvovı́a-group. The ideal clearly is only one worldwide
koıvovı́a, and Basil does not seem to suffer from scruples concerning the importance
of his own person: ‘Whoso shuns communion with me, it cannot escape your
accuracy, cuts himself off from the whole Church. Look round about, brethren, with
whom do you hold communion? If you will not receive it from me, who remains to
acknowledge you?’.55 This criterion is, primarily, applicable to bishops, but in-
dividual members of a parish also feel themselves linked through their bishop to all
the other members on his communion list. Yet the criterion of quantity only works as
long as the orthodox party is the majority: Basil’s nightmare was to be outnumbered
by heretics. According to him, the Eastern Churches were already in danger of that.
 232 A. C. Mayer
They could only be saved by pointing out that there were still ‘orthodox resources’ in
the West.

How does Basil’s Notion of koıvwvı́a Influence his View of the Church?
For Basil, koıvovı́a is a basic category of human life. Taking the famous definition of
Aristotle as his model,56 he calls man a koıvovıkòn zoon ~ – a being sociable by
nature57 – and sees the source of any human communion in the Trinity.58 When he
refers to the Trinity, Basil uses koıvovı́a not in order to describe – as one would
think – the intra-trinitarian relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the
common sharing of one godhead, the koıvovı́a t~ZB yeót~ZtoB59or t~ZB júseoB60 as
distinguished from the different hypostases. If Trinitarian koıvovı́a means above all
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

sharing in one godhead then human community, if it is to be based on the Trinity,

must primarily mean participating by sharing: yeı́osiB, deification, implies the
participation of human beings in God by God’s giving them a share in his life and
work. This idea is fundamental to Basil’s understanding of the Church – koıvovı́a is a
special case of human and divine community; it represents a basic category of church
life. In order to enable men to keep koıvovı́a among themselves and in the Church
a unification in the Holy Spirit is required, which Basil calls kata tò Pne^uma
koıvovı́a.61
Moreover, koıvovı́a is not just utopia. Basil’s starting point is the sound and
unblemished communion of which the New Testament speaks.62 He is, of course,
well aware that the present situation does not meet those ideals. But it is important to
him that the ideal had formerly been a reality and could, therefore, be achieved again.
His ideal is not merely a spiritual and unrealistic one, but is real and supported by
institutional means.63 In this respect everyday life is even more relevant to koıvovı́a
than theological treatises.64 Basil’s centre for the sick and poor had taken on the
proportions of a ‘city within the city’, thus becoming a sign of enacted koıvovı́a. The
implications of all this for koıvovı́a are obvious: in following Christ the respective
gifts of each have to be made fruitful for all. Koıvovı́a is a Christian duty, it aims at
practical application and suggumvası́a,65 the common doing of the will of God; this
practical aspect is very important for Basil, though without reducing koıvovı́a to
mere ethics.

Koıvovı́a and Ecclesial Leadership

Koıvovı́a can be a very helpful instrument for managing the Church, but its effect can
also be ambiguous. On the one hand it borders on personal friendship, on the other
on unwanted interference.
How beneficial personal friendship is to the development of koıvovı́a, is shown in
the example of Amphilochius, Basil’s friend who was Bishop of Iconium and often
sought his help. Amphilochius could also act alone and summon a synod, which he
seems to have done in Spring 375,66 though until then he had preferred to consult his
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 233

friend Basil. The latter not only gave him some good advice on church policy67 or on
provision of clergy to build up remote parts of his diocese to a point where parish life
was viable,68 but also gave theological support to the former rhetor.69 Both kinds of
relationship – personal friendship and koıvovı́a – include taking an interest in and
sympathizing with others.
On the other hand, koıvovı́a could border on a juridically established right of
intervention, which was felt to be unwanted officiousness. Without any doubt it was a
severe intervention that Basil made, when he threatened either to extend or dissolve
his koıvovı́a with the Diocese of Neocaesarea, depending on the result of the
episcopal elections there.70 The reaction of the other side was to retrench and move
away, in order to avoid Basil’s interference. Basil castigated that as self-conceited
withdrawal. He complained that the slackness of his colleagues had made concern for
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

all the churches an exception.71 Instead of helping him fight against Arianism,
Montanism and atheism in their parishes, Basil’s suffragan bishops were pursuing
their own short-sighted interests. He retaliated, reproaching them for having replaced
Christian charity with their thirst for power and accusing them of lacking solidarity.
But even those reproaches had to be on a mutual basis: Basil himself volunteered to
do72 what he expected from others.73 He invited his adversaries to check his
orthodoxy. He only asked for ‘fair play’. In a situation where charges against him
were not stated openly, distortion could easily happen, and the same importance
could be attached to his adversaries’ accusations that Basil adopted his own melodies
for psalmody in his parish (cf. Ep. 207, 2:32–34, II, 184) as to the charge of tritheism.
Koıvovı́a does not mean that everything always works smoothly. It involves
striving for a culture which allows arguments to be settled openly. Esteem and
respect, not slander, anonymous reproaches, or deliberate misunderstandings should
set the tone of mutual intercourse. Despite differences, the crossing of swords should
be fair and being convinced of one’s own point of view should not rule out
acknowledgement of the positions of others. Basil tried not to act in an absolutist
manner. For him koıvovı́a rightly understood was characterized by a sound mix of
solidarity and autonomy. But his concern and assistance were easily misunderstood
as hierarchical interference. For Basil, koıvovı́a also involved a ranking of people
according to influence and different charismata and thus made supervision and
control possible. Unfortunately the calculations of power politics were not always
totally absent from koıvovı́a. Sometimes Basil’s decisions even seem to establish an
easy transition from koıvovı́a to power politics.
In the above pattern, koıvovı́a is structured in concentric circles. The inner circle
consists of those between whom there exists a personal relationship as well as
koıvovı́a. The next circle is formed by those who – though not linked by personal
friendship – nonetheless strive for mutual exchange and help. To the outer circle
belong those who distrust the manifestations of koıvovı́a, interpreting them as
attempts at interference, but who still see themselves as members of the one Church.
The reality of church life shows that koıvovı́a does not always have to have the same
intensity – even if the ideal still remains one worldwide circle of koıvovı́a, rather than
 234 A. C. Mayer
three or more concentric circles. On the other hand, koıvovı́a is not a mere matter of
sympathy. Sympathy may help to further it, but it is not its core element.

The So-called communio hierarchica

Basil does not seem to understand koıvovı́a as an instrument of egalitarianism. The
diversity of charismata and the metaphor of the ‘body’ make this evident.
Nonetheless Basil also clearly opposes a wrongly understood connection between
hierarchy and responsibility. To be the last one in a hierarchical order does not
necessarily mean to be without responsibility. Basil tries to relate hierarchical
structures and common responsibility dialectically, using the body metaphor,74
which seems to combine both. If one part suffers, the whole body suffers, and if the
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

whole body is weakened, the individual parts are weakened also.75 This means every
member of the parish should try to be a healthy part of the body, not for selfish
reasons, but for the sake of the community. And for the same reason each is
responsible for all. The community cannot merely delegate all the responsibility to its
leaders: it also shares in their responsibility. The clergy are but the eyes, the lay people
hands and feet of the body.76 Therefore striving for unity is an important element.
On the other hand, the clergy, and above all the bishops, are by virtue of their
charismata especially responsible for the health of the whole body as well as of its
individual members. The responsibility for koıvovı́a obviously culminates in the
bishop. He is the link between his church and other churches. Without him the
Church cannot establish real koıvovı́a. Therefore, koıvovı́a is not the opposite of
hierarchy: hierarchy helps to structure koıvovı́a. The bishop is responsible for his
own koıvovı́a list. Every new bishop informs the bishops with whom he wishes to be
in koıvovı́a77 of his election. The newly elected bishop is scrutinized and, provided
there are no objections, entered on the list of koıvovı́a members78 and his letter
answered.79
Not every letter between bishops was such a letter of communion. Nonetheless,
correspondence was an important sign of koıvovı́a among them, especially when
they could not meet personally.80 Thus, bishops who had not taken part in local
synods could be informed of the outcome, and it was possible to keep in touch with
the main sees. Simple correspondence could be interpreted as koıvovı́a.81 Laymen
also used letters of communion as a form of passport when they moved from one
diocese to another or when they were travelling, and they were admitted to the
Eucharist provided that their bishop was in koıvovı́a with the bishop whose diocese
they visited.82 Stressing the criterion of orthodoxy, Fedwick remarks that ‘it should be
noted that letters of communion as a means of pastoral solicitude were not always
sent to the bishops of a see, but in cases of heresy they were addressed to the
presbyters or even private individuals’.83 That was the case, for example in Tyana
(Ep. 97) and Neocaesarea (Ep. 210).84
Among bishops there were only minor variations in rank which did not cause the
leading role to be accorded to one bishop alone. Basil chose the same form of address
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 235

(‘pope’), for Damasus and Athanasius, which means he attributed the same rank to
them. The idea of primacy did not yet exist in his understanding, apart from the
primacy of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion
From this brief sketch it is possible to conclude that Basil understood koıvovı́a not
only as a general theory in the background, but also as a principle to be applied in the
everyday context of parish and church life. He considered it an adequate instrument
to oppose the institutional and doctrinal fragmentation of the Church. He applied it
with varying degrees of political prudence – perhaps too little if it could be mistaken
for power politics – but he was always guided by what was needed in practice.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

Koıvovı́a, for Basil, is much more than mere unanimity or an impetus towards
fraternization; it affects the whole life of the Church and is a complex term related to
different levels of church life. The koıvovı́a of the triune God serves as a model of
how to maintain unity by sharing in the common gifts of God and how to keep the
right balance between unity and diversity within the Church. Unity of faith does not
lead to uniformity. Basil understands koıvovı́a as a well-structured entity with clearly
differentiated responsibilities. On the other hand, the care of all the churches85 is
common to all Christians, and everyone is responsible for it. There is a principle of
collegiality not only among the bishops, but also between the bishops and the
parishes in their dioceses.
Certain guidelines result from Basil’s idea of the meaning of koıvovı́a. The first
involves seeking communion with others and participating in this without
relinquishing truth, but holding fast to orthodoxy and to the rules of one’s
community; secondly, maintaining a balance between autonomy and solidarity;
thirdly, not requiring the same degree of koıvovı́a everywhere, but recognizing
differences of degree as legitimate; fourthly, creating a forum and an institutional
setting to support koıvovı́a, thus doing justice to the common responsibility of all;
and fifthly, developing a culture in which differences may be resolved openly.
However, in Basil’s writings, koıvovı́a is also an ambiguous term, a concept which
varies and has many aspects. To assert this is to ask whether it can be adapted to our
present situation. In Basil’s concept, some aspects of our current problems are
certainly present, yet not all by far. Some of his experiences do not have much in
common with our situation. The search for koıvovı́a for different parishes, dioceses,
or between the Eastern and Western churches is somewhat different from that of
denominations already separated for centuries. Because these have developed their
own legitimate traditions, the gap of separation is much deeper and we seriously have
to ask whether koıvovı́a alone is perhaps too feeble a tool to bridge it.
Basil does not provide absolute criteria for our present situation. He does not even
provide absolute criteria for his own situation but combines several approaches. By
stressing orthodoxy and church discipline he links unity of faith with unity of
worship and ministry. But how perfect or deep has that unity of faith to be? If we, for
 236 A. C. Mayer
instance, compare the Nicene Creed, which Basil uses as touchstone of orthodoxy, to
the criterion of common understanding of the Gospel, which the Community of
Protestant Churches in Europe favours, the latter seems somewhat vague and the
creed more explicit. However, if the Nicene Creed were enough, most churches could
already be in full ecclesial communion. Does the fact that this is not the case mean
that the churches are failing in their efforts or willingness to achieve ecclesial
communion, or is this a sign that Basil’s criteria are insufficient today? The criterion
of quantity also shows its limits if we try to apply it to Roman Catholic membership
in the World Council of Churches. Because of the sheer number of Catholics the
application of this criterion is not feasible today.
Nevertheless there are very important ecumenical lessons to be learnt from Basil. In
order to cope with the affairs of the Church he favours only one concept, koıvovı́a,
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

not different ones for different types of relationships within the Church, because he
holds fast to the principle that all Christians essentially share the same tasks. He is a
man of great vision, but in spite of his ideals he is firmly grounded in reality. His ideal
is a form of realistic utopia. Even Basil’s criteria point in a direction at which we
should look more closely: the interrelatedness of faith and Church discipline and its
impact on the relations among the churches.
In that context, too, another koıvovı́a skill takes a leading role: being convinced of
one’s own point of view must not rule out the acknowledgement of the positions of
others. In order to be able to live that in our inter-church relationships, regular
meetings and discussions are indispensable, but still different degrees of propinquity
and detachment must be possible. This means at the same time ecumenical patience
and composure as well as impatience and zeal.
Basil’s combination of contradictory elements, such as those discussed in the
context of hierarchy and responsibility or friendship and interference, are somewhat
surprising. In our way of thinking, the top of a hierarchical order is usually classified
as synonymous with the summit of responsibility. Friendship is incompatible with
this and unmistakably different from interference. Yet fear of interference, fear of
being spoon-fed by other churches, fear of too much hierarchy, form part of the so-
called non-theological factors that hinder ecumenical dialogue and ecclesial
communion. Basil is able to combine those things which we consider incompatible
and sets us an example we might find useful as we attempt to overcome our
difficulties.
Considering the present ecumenical situation in the light of all the points made
above, I cannot but close with Basil’s own words: ‘it is charity to unite what has been
divided for so long’.86

Notes
1 Cf., for example, its recent use in the EKD-document Kirchengemeinschaft nach Lutherischem
Verständnis (2001) or in chapter 4 of the Roman Catholic Ecclesia de Eucharistia, ‘‘The Eucharist
and Ecclesial Communion’’ (2003).
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 237

2 Cf. http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/LWI/EN/418.EN.html [cited 14 June 2001].

3 The former Leuenberg Church Fellowship now calls itself the Community of Protestant
Churches in Europe. Cf. its member churches: http://lkg.jalb.de/lkg/jsp/churchliste.jsp?
side_id¼8&lang¼en.
4 Cf. the Porvoo Common Statement, No. 29: http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/porvoo/eng/cont.htm.
5 I take both expressions, ‘communion of churches’ and ‘ecclesial communion’, as translations of
the German term ‘Kirchengemeinschaft’, which meanwhile has become a terminus technicus, with
‘ecclesial communion’ denoting the singular aspect (unity of the Church) and ‘communion of
churches’ the plural aspect of the German ‘Kirchengemeinschaft’.
6 Cf. as a Roman Catholic example the restrictive use of communio in the Letter to the Bishops of
the Catholic Church, 1992, and the ecumenically open one in Communio Sanctorum, 2000.
7 The term koıvovı́a can be found 302 times in Basil’s works, not taking into account the
adjective, verb or synonyms related to it. The root koiv- can be found 344 times in De Spiritu
Sancto and the letters alone.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

8 Ep. 258, 1:9–20, III, 100f. Basil, Letters and Select Works, 294.
9 Cf. Basil, Lettres I–III.
10 See Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 970, for the different meanings, ‘communion’,
‘association’, ‘partnership’, ‘fellowship’, ‘human society’, ‘joint-ownership’, ‘sexual intercourse’,
‘charitable contribution’, ‘alms’ and their respective references in Greek literature.
11 Ep. 120:4f, II, 25.
12 Ep. 204, 6:19, II, 179; Ep. 93:29, II, 17.
13 Ep. 244, 7:10f, III, 81.
14 Ep. 125, 3:25, II, 33.
15 Ep. 99, 4:25, I, 218.

16 ’AgápZ, ármologı́a, ármonı́a, Eı́rZnZ, ĕnosiB, ómónoıa (tZB pı́stEoB), suvdEsmoB (of the local
churches), suggumvasía (of the commandments), sumpáyEıa, sunáfEıa, sumfonı́a (of the
spirit) and fılı́a as synonyms or simply the switching from singular to plural, between
ékklZsı́a (the church universal) and ékklZsı́aı (local churches) can indicate that Basil speaks
about koıvonı́a.
17 Cf. Ep. 113:15–19, II, 16f.
18 Cf. Ep. 151, 2:3, II, 93.
19 Cf. Ep. 97:12–14, I, 210.
20 Cf. Ep. 70:9–11, I, 165; cf. also Ep. 70:9–11, I, 165; Ep. 242, 1:2–8, III, 65.
21 Cf. Ep. 243, 4:12, III, 72.
22 Cf. Ep. 113:15–19, II, 16f.
23 Cf. Ep. 97:12–14, I, 210 and Ep. 90, 1:26–32, I, 195.
24 Cf. Ep. 97:12–28, I, 210f.
25 Cf. Fox, The Life and Times of St. Basil, 140f.
26 Cf. Ep. 252, III, 93.
27 Basil, Homilia exhortatoria ad sanctum baptisma (PG 31,437B): TZn s Zmeron émoı́, kaı́ tZn
0
áu’ rıon to
~ Yeo.
~ Cf. also ibid. 436A–B; 433B.
28 Cf. Ep. 292:9–23, III, 166.
29 Cf. Koschorke, Spuren der alten Liebe, 114: ‘Das Besondere bei Basilius–was ihn etwa von
Augustin im Westen und Kyrill von Alexandrien im Osten unterscheidet–liegt in der
charismatologischen Ausprägung dieses Geistverständnisses: der Geist bekundet sich in seinen
energeiai, die Taufcharis in den Charismen. Diese Charismen aber sind für Basilius lebendige
Gegenwart und (vor allem in der Gemeinschaft gleichgesonnener Mitchristen) erfahrbare
Wirklichkeit’.
30 For Basil’s view of this cf. Ep. 188.
31 Cf. Ep. 188, 1:39–41, II, 122.
 238 A. C. Mayer
32 Cf. Ep. 199, 47:5–8, II, 163.
33 Cf. Joannou, ed. Discipline Générale Antique, vol. I, 1, 30 l.3–9: only the imposition of hands is
required.
34 Chadwick, The Early Church, 149.
35 The penitential system literally intended an excommunicatio. Penitents could be rehabilitated in
four stages; first they had to stand by the doors of the church and beg those who were entering
for the liturgy to pray for them. After some time they were allowed inside to listen to the
readings but had to leave the church after that. The third stage required them to kneel during
the celebration of the Eucharist, but they were still not allowed to receive the Holy Communion.
In the fourth and final stage, they were allowed to attend the whole service, but were still
excluded from the Holy Communion. This system which looks back on a long tradition in the
Early Church is best described by Basil himself in his three ‘canonical’ letters to Amphilochius,
ep. 188, 199 and 217; only Basil seems to know four, not three stages.
36 Canonical punishment did have severe secular consequences then, as all social intercourse with
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

the offender was interrupted (cf. Ep. 288:11–14, III, 158).

37 Cf. his letters Ep. 188, 199, 217.
38 Cf. Ep. 217, 84:2–4, II, 216 and Ep. 188, 2:10f, II, 124.
39 Cf. Lecuyer, ‘L’assemblée liturgique’, 138: ‘. . . la solidarité de tous est telle que le péché d’un
membre de l’Église a des répercussions sur toute la Communauté’.
40 Cf. Ep. 217, 84:2–4, II, 216 and Ep. 188, 2:10f, II, 124.
41 Watkins, A History of Penance, vol. 1, 325.
42 Lowery, Episcopal Collegiality According to Saint Basil, 19.
43 Cf. Ep. 93, 1-28, I, 203-204. This identification is also found in John Damascene, Expositio fidei
orthodoxae IV, 13, 197. The idea goes back to I Cor. 10.16f. Cf. also Cordes, Communio, 87:
‘Eucharistieempfang und Stiftung von Einheit werden so stark identifiziert, daß das Objekt, in
dem die Einheit gründet, nicht mehr ausgesprochen wird. So notwendig bedingen sich Ursache
und Wirkung, daß Leib und Blut Christi gar nicht mehr erwähnt werden; nur noch von
‘‘teilhaben’’ bzw. ‘‘teilnehmen’’ ist die Rede’.
44 Cf. Ep. 242, 2:11–18, III, 66f.
45 Cf. Ep. 90, 2:7–10, I, 196, Ep. 229, III, 33-35 and Ep. 230, III, 35–36.
46 Cf. Ep. 251, 4:3–7, III, 92.
47 Cf. Ep. 125, II, 30–34.
48 Cf. Ep. 262, 2:19–22, III, 120; cf. also can. 1 (Ep. 188, II, 121–124).
49 Cf. Ep. 122, II, 28.
50 Tragically the Antiochene schism represented exactly the different parties of the conflict on the
Nicene Creed: cf. Hauschild, Basilius von Cäsarea und das Problem der Kircheneinheit, 189–215.
51 Cf. Todt, ‘‘Meletius’’, col. 1209–1212.
52 Cf. Vogt, ‘‘Parteien in der Kirchengeschichte’’, 541. For the situation in Antioch cf. also
Joannou, Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri, 167–169.
53 Cf. Ep. 263, 5, III, 125.
54 Cf. Ep. 258, 3:7, III, 102.
55 Ep. 204,7:13–17, II, 180: Basil, Letters and select works, 245.
56 Cf. Aristotle, Politica 1253a 7–8.
57 Cf. the third rule of his Longer Rules: PG 31,917A.
58 Cf. Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis, 78: ‘Pour Basile, la koinônia prend sa source
dans le mystère trinitaire de Dieu’.
59 Ep. 189, 5:36–39, II, 137; cf. Ep. 214, 4: 1–15, II, 205; Basil, Contra Eunomium II, 30; De Spiritu
Sancto 24,55.
60 Ep. 38, 4:48, I, 85; ibid., 4:84, I, 87.
61 Cf. Ep. 90, 1:30f, I, 195; cf. also Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 9, 23.
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 239

62 He gives Acts 4.32 as an example in Ep.128, 3:11f.

63 Cf. his complaint that this is no longer the case in Ep. 243, 2:29–37, III, 70.
64 Ep. 150, 4:8–10.
65 Ep. 113:39, II, 17.
66 Cf., Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium, 19.
67 Because it was sometimes difficult to find the right man for an ecclesial ministry, Basil proposed
to move a parish from one diocese to another for the sake of securing a qualified presbyter; cf.
Ep. 188,10, II, 129f.
68 Cf. Ep. 190, 1, II, 141f.
69 Cf. for example the argument against the Arians in Ep. 233–Ep. 236.
70 Cf. Ep. 28, 3:16–18, I, 70.
71 Cf. Ep. 69, 1:4–8, I, 161.
72 See the offers to the Bishops of Pontus (Ep. 203, 4) and Neocaesarea (Ep. 204, 4) as well as his
attempts to justify himself in Ep. 207 and Ep. 210.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

73 See Ep. 126 where he urges Atarbius to free himself from the charge of Sabellianism.
74 Cf. Scazzoso, Introduzione alla ecclesiologia di San Basilio, 225: ‘Dio ha posto nella sua casa
alcuni come occhi, altri come lingue, altri ancora come mani e come piedi, a completare
organicamente le funzioni del corpo nel suo insieme’. He also points to Basil, Homilia in
Psalmum 33, 11 (PG 29,376C).
75 Cf. Ep. 136, 2:3, II, 52.
76 Cf. Ep. 222:32–37, III, 7.
77 Ep. 190, 3:14f, II, 143; Ep. 57, I, 144f, probably announcing his election to Meletius.
78 Cf. Ep. 218:18f, II, 218.
79 Ep. 133, II, 47: answer to Peter of Alexandria’s announcement of election; Ep. 161, II, 92–94:
Congratulations to Amphilochius; Ep. 190, 3:15, II, 143: Answer to an épıstolZ koınonık Z by
Sympios.
80 Cf. Ep. 195, II, 148; Ep. 254, III, 94f; Ep. 255, III, 95f.
81 On the basis of his correspondence Basil is accused of koıvovı́a with Apollinarius: Ep. 224, 2:
12–15, III, 19.
82 Cf. Elert, Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche, 111.
83 Fedwick, The Church and the Charisma of Leadership in Basil of Caesarea, 122.
84 In Ep. 151:24–27, II, 77, Basil confesses that he does not wish to take this step and not address
his letters in future to the bishop, because this would mean a breach of koıvovı́a.
85 2 Cor.11.28; cf. Ep. 114:21, II, 18; Ep. 253, III, 94.
86 Ep. 113:21, II, 17.

References
Aristotle. Politica, edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.
Basil of Caesarea. Contra Eunomium, edited by B. Sesboüé. Sources Chrétiennes 299/305. Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1982–1983.
———. De Spiritu sancto, edited by B. Prouche. Sources Chrétiennes 17bis. Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1968.
———. Homilia in Psalmum 33, edited by J. P. Migne. Patrologia Graeca. Vol. 29. Paris: Garnier,
1886: col. 349–386.
———. Letters and Select Works. Translated by B. Jackson. Vol. 8 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church, 2nd series. Repr. 1894, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
———. Lettres. Vols. I–III, edited by Y. Courtonne. 3 Vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957/1963/
1966.
 240 A. C. Mayer
———. Homilia exhortatoria ad sanctum baptisma (Exhortation to Holy Baptism), edited by J. P.
Migne. Vol. 31 of Patrologia Graeca. Paris: Garnier, 1885: col. 423–444.
———. Regulae fusius tractatae (Longer Rule), edited by J. P. Migne. Vol. 31 of Patrologia Graeca.
Paris: Garnier, 1885: col. 905–1052.
Chadwick, H. The Early Church: the story of emergent Christianity from the apostolic age to the
foundation of the Church of Rome, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1990 (Repr. 1968).
Communio Sanctorum: die Kirche als Gemeinschaft der Heiligen. Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der
Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Kirchenleitung der Vereinigten Evangelisch-
Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands. Paderborn: Bonifatius, Frankfurt am Main: Lembeck,
2000.
Cordes, P. J. Communio. Utopie oder Programm? Quaestiones disputatae 148. Freiburg, Basel, Wien:
Herder, 1993.
Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Encyclical of Pope John Paul II: 17th April 2003 [cited 8 August 2005].
Available from http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P6.HTM; INTERNET.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015

Elert, W. Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsächlich des Ostens, Berlin:
Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1954.
Fedwick, P. J. The Church and the Charisma of Leadership in Basil of Caesarea, Toronto: Pontificial
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979.
Fox, M. M. The Life and Times of St. Basil the Great as Revealed in his Works, Washington DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1939.
Hauschild, W.-D. ‘‘Basilius von Cäsarea und das Problem der Kircheneinheit.’’ In Väter der Kirche.
Ekklesiales Denken von den Anfängen bis in die Neuzeit, edited by J. Arnold. Paderborn:
Schöningh, 2004: 189–215.
Holl, K. Amphilochius von Ikonium, Tübingen: Mohr, 1904.
Joannou, P.-P., ed. Discipline Générale Antique (IIe–IXe siècle), 2 vols. Rome: Pontificia
Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale, 1962–1963.
Joannou, P.-P. Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im 4. Jahrhundert, Päpste und Papsttum 3.
Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1972.
John Damascene. Expositio fidei orthodoxae, edited by B. Kotter. Patristische Texte und Studien 12.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973.
Kirchengemeinschaft nach Evangelischem Verständnis: ein Votum zum geordneten Miteinander
bekenntnisverschiedener Kirchen. Ein Beitrag des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in
Deutschland (Evangelical Church of Germany). EKD-Texte 69. Hannover: Kirchenamt der
EKD, 2001.
Koschorke, K. Spuren der alten Liebe, Studien zum Kirchenbegriff des Basilius von Caesarea, Fribourg:
Universitäts-Verlag, 1991.
Lecuyer, J. ‘‘L’assemblée liturgique selon Saint Basile.’’ Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum
Lovaniensium 43 (1976): 137–154.
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as
Communion: 28th May 1992. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [cited 8 August
2005] Available from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html; INTERNET.
Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Lowery, B. Episcopal Collegiality According to Saint Basil the Great, Exc. Diss. Rome: Pontificia
Universitas Gregoriana, 1985.
Pouchet, R. Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis d’après sa correspondance. Une stratégie de
communion, Rome: Institutum Patristicum ‘Augustinianum’, 1992.
Scazzoso, P. Introduzione alla ecclesiologia di San Basilio il Grande, Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1975.
Todt, K.-P. ‘‘Meletius’’. In Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. Vol. V. Hamm (Westf.):
Verlag Bautz, Herzberg und Nordhausen, 1993: col. 1209–1212.
 International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 241

Together in Mission and Ministry: the Porvoo Common Statement with essays on Church and
Ministry in Northern Europe. London: Church House, 1993 [cited 8 August 2005] Available
from http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/porvoo/eng/cont.htm; INTERNET.
Vogt, H.-J. ‘‘Parteien in der Kirchengeschichte: Athanasius und seine Zeitgenossen.’’ Concilium IX
(1973): 538–545.
Watkins, O. D. A History of Penance, 2 vols. New York: Franklin, 1961 (Repr. London, 1920).
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:27 01 January 2015