SVTQ 64, 3-4 (V. Coman)

St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly
A continuation of St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly
a peer-reviewed journal published by

the faculty of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary
Dr Ionuț-Alexandru Tudorie, Editor-in-Chief
Volume 64, Numbers 3–4

2020
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 1 12/15/20 3:08:40 PM

Editorial Board
Rev. Dr Bogdan Bucur Dr Vitaly Permiakov

Rev. Ignatius Green Dr Ionuț-Alexandru Tudorie
Advisory Board
Dr Theodora Antonopoulou Rev. Dr John Jones
Rev. Dr Michael Azar Dr Nadieszda Kizenko
Dr Leslie Baynes Rev. Dr Christopher Knight
Dr Paul Blowers Prof. Jean-Claude Larchet
Dr Sandrine Caneri Dr Georgi Parpulov
Dr Alexey Fokin Dr István Perczel
Dr Nina Glibetić Dr Marcus Plested
Most Rev. Dr Alexander Golitzin Rev. Dr Alexis Torrance
Dr Tamara Grdzelidze Dr Lucian Turcescu
Rev. Dr Ioan Ică, Jr Dr Jeffrey Wickes

Editorial and Subscription Offices

575 Scarsdale Road, Yonkers, NY 10707
Tel.: +1.914.961.8313
EMail: svtq@svots.edu
Website: www.svots.edu/SVTQ
Copyright © 2020 by St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary
The views of the authors whose articles appear in

St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly do not necessarily
reflect those of the Seminary faculty.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 2 12/15/20 3:08:40 PM

Contents
Mystery upon Mystery: Mid-Pentecost as

a Christian Response to Lag BaOmer?
Theodore Pulcini �� 5
yhwh Texts in Early Judaism and the New Testament:
Disjunctive or Doxological?
Christopher B. Kaiser �� 27
Becoming Human in the Desert of Pascha
Tracy Gustilo �� 71
Mimetic Perfection:
St Gregory of Nyssa’s Poetry of the Self
Timm Heinbokel �� 97
Evagrius of Pontus, Guide to the Divine Light
Agapie Corbu �� 129
A Maximian Framework for Understanding Evolution
Mark Chenoweth �� 157
André Scrima’s Ecumenical Vision and Its Relevance
for the Post-Conciliar Orthodox Church
Viorel Coman �� 181
Alexander Schmemann’s Functional Dualism of Body
and Soul: Revisiting Andrew Kaethler’s Critique
Ruan Bessa �� 211
Book Reviews �� 235

Notes on Contributors �� 255
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 3 12/15/20 3:08:41 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 4 12/15/20 3:08:41 PM
St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 64.3–4 (2020): 181–210
André Scrima’s Ecumenical Vision and

Its Relevance for the Post-Conciliar
Orthodox Church
Viorel Coman
ABST R AC T
Even though the Romanian theologian André Scrima was one of the main
protagonists of the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships,
his vision of unity between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity
has not yet received the attention it merits in terms of research. Drawing on
a large amount of unexplored material preserved in several archival centers
in Europe, this article delineates the basic elements of Scrima’s ecumenical
theology, showing that his vision of unity was guided by a hermeneutical
and spiritual ecumenism. The article argues that Scrima’s ecumenical the-
ology could be a source of inspiration to embrace a more inclusivist doc-
trine of the Church by post-conciliar Orthodoxy and its hopefully future
councils.
KEYWORDS: André Scrima, Orthodox Christianity, ecumenism, ecclesiol-

ogy, Orthodox-Catholic relationships
T he long-anticipated Holy and Great Council of the Christian Ortho-

dox Church was finally convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bar-
tholomew on the Island of Crete in Greece from June 19–26, 2016,1 after
1I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Anca Manolescu (New Europe College) for
her assistance in guiding me through the files of the Scrima archives in Bucharest. Without
her generous help, this article would not have been possible.
For a comprehensive introduction into the Council of Crete, its documents, preparatory
process, and theological achievements, see Vasilios N. Makrides and Sebastian Rimestad,
eds., The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016: A New Era for the Orthodox Church? Interdisci-
plinary Perspectives, Erfurter Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Orthodoxen Christentums
(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2021—forthcoming); Maksim Vasiljević and Andrej
181
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 181 12/15/20 3:11:14 PM

182 S t V l a d i m i r ’s Th e o l o g i c a l Q u a r t e r l y
more than a half century of fluctuations between preparations and unfore-

seen postponements. Despite the regrettable and unexpected absence of
four autocephalous Orthodox churches—Antioch, Bulgaria, Georgia,
and Russia, the 2016 Council of Crete was a major event of contemporary
Orthodoxy, which engaged with some of the most pressing issues confront-
ing Eastern Christianity at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The
Crete Council approved, with some amendments, the six documents2 that
had been elaborated by all Orthodox churches in the course of the prepara-
tory process prior to the Synod.
The document titled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest
of the Christian World” is of a primary importance, for it focuses on the
ecumenical mission of the Orthodox Church on the basis of its ecclesio-
logical self-understanding. However, in spite of its many positive aspects,
the overall achievements of the document on ecumenism were lower than
the expectations beforehand, especially because its language leaned too
much—making concessions to outspoken critics of ecumenism—towards
an exclusivist ecclesiology, even though it condemned anti-ecumenical
attitudes and affirmed Orthodoxy’s commitment to the cause of Christian
Jeftic, eds., Synodality: A Forgotten and Misapprehended Vision. Reflections on the Holy and
Great Council 2016 (Alhambra, CA: Sebastian Press, 2017); Viorel Ioniță, Towards the Holy
and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings since
1923 until 2009, Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 62 (University of Fribourg: Institute of
Ecumenical Studies, 2014); Michel Stavrou, Peter De Mey, and Jack McDonald, eds., The
Forthcoming Council of the Orthodox Church: Understanding the Challenges, Special issue
of St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60.1–2 (2016); Pantelis Kalaitzidis, “The Holy and
Great Council of the Orthodox Church between Synodal Inertia and Great Expectations:
Achievements and Pending Issues,” in Herman Teule and Joseph Verheyden, eds., Eastern
and Oriental Christianity in the Diaspora, Eastern Christian Studies 30 (Leuven: Peeters,
2020), 77–153; Brandon Gallaher, “The Orthodox Moment: The Holy and Great Council
in Crete and Orthodoxy’s Encounter with the West: On Learning to Love the Church,”
Sobornost 39.2 (2017): 26–71.
2Apart from the Council’s Encyclical and Message, the six documents approved in Crete
are (i) “The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today;” (ii) “Relations of the Ortho-
dox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”; (iii) “Autonomy and the Means by
Which It Is Proclaimed”; (iv) “The Orthodox Diaspora”; (v) “The Sacrament of Marriage
and Its Impediments”; and (vi) “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World.”
See Alberto Melloni, ed., The Great Councils of the Orthodox Churches. Crete 2016, Corpus
Christianorum Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta 4.3 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2016), 1120–1437.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 182 12/15/20 3:11:14 PM

André Scrima’s Ecumenical Vision 183
unity. As an illustration of its exclusivist leaning, the opening paragraph

of the document identifies the Una Sancta with the Orthodox Church,
without any qualification that would make it more inclusive: “The Ortho-
dox Church, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in her
profound ecclesiastical self-consciousness, believes unflinchingly that she
occupies a central place in the matter of the promotion of Christian unity
in the world today.”3 In addition, the sixth paragraph of the same document
states that “the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-
Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion
with her.”4 To accept the historical name of other non-Orthodox churches
means to acknowledge (de jure) that throughout history they called them-
selves churches. However, from an ontological point of view (de facto), the
document seems to insinuate that non-Orthodox Christian churches fall
short of such a definition.5 Ivana Noble6 shares a similar reading of the text,
arguing that it largely reflects an exclusivist ecclesiology. Although some
scholars, such as Radu Bordeianu, Brandon Gallaher, and Johannes Oelde-
mann,7 made efforts to also identify elements of an inclusive ecclesiology
in the text,8 a more ecumenically generous interpretation of the document
3“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (§ 1),” in A.
Melloni, ed., The Great Councils of the Orthodox Churches, 1252.
4“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (§ 6),” 1256.
5I read “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”
through the lens of the sharp distinction between de jure and de facto. The document of the
Great and Holy Council of Crete does not employ this distinction throughout its pages.
6Ivana Noble, “Le Grand Concile panorthodoxe: quelques remarques issues du ‘reste du
monde chrétien’,” Contacts: Revue française de l’Orthodoxie 68 (2016): 350.
7Johannes Oeldemann, “Die Heilige und Große Synode der Orthodoxen Kirche auf
Kreta: Eine erste Einordnung aus katholischer Sicht,” Ökumenische Rundschau 66.1 (2017):
54–55; Radu Bordeianu, “Getting from Conflict to Communion: Ecclesiology at the Cen-
ter of Recent Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue and the 2016 Orthodox Council of Crete,”
Worship 91 (2017): 525. See also “Reflections on the Holy and Great Council 2016: An Inter-
view with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware,” in M. Vasiljevicć and A. Jeftic, eds., Synodality: A
Forgotten and Misapprehended Vision, 127; B. Gallaher, “The Orthodox Moment,” 49–50.
8For example, Radu Bordeianu considers that the expression “far and near” in §4
“reflects an inclusivist ecclesiology that regards all Christians as belonging to the Una Sancta
to different degrees.” See R. Bordeianu, “Getting from Conflict to Communion,” 537–38;
“The Orthodox Church, which prays unceasingly ‘for the union of all’, has always cultivated
dialogue with those estranged from her, those both far and near”—“Relations of the Ortho-
dox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (§ 4),” 1254.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 183 12/15/20 3:11:15 PM

cannot go too much beyond a mere recognition of the fact that the inclusiv-
ist ecclesiology of the document is eclipsed by its exclusivist counterpart.
The reluctance of the Holy and Great Council to embrace the language
of a more inclusivist ecclesiology is regrettable, especially since some of
the most influential Orthodox theologians of the past century—Georges
Florovsky, Sergius Bulgakov, Nicholas Afanasiev, John Zizioulas, and oth-
ers9—acknowledged at least degrees of ecclesiality beyond the canonical
structures of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, the reception of converts by
means other than baptism equally confirms that throughout the centuries
the Orthodox Church has resisted the idea of an ecclesiological vacuum
outside its sacramental boundaries.10 Hopefully, the Orthodox Church will
continue to elaborate and reflect further on the ecclesiological status of
other Christian churches, in a way that reflects more faithfully its balanced
practice and complex theology.
In view of that, this article brings to the fore the ecumenical vision of
the Romanian Orthodox theologian André Scrima (1925–2000), whose
ecclesiological reflections could serve as a source of inspiration for the
embracement of a more inclusivist doctrine of the Church by contempo-
rary Orthodoxy, and hopefully its future councils. In other words, Scrima’s
ecumenical vision and models of inter-Christian interaction, especially
between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, could foster the
adoption by the yet-to-be-convened Crete II of a theological paradigm
9See John A. Jillions, “Three Orthodox Models of Christian Unity: Traditionalist,

Mainstream, Prophetic,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 9.4
(2009): 295–311; See also Georges Florovsky, “Limits of the Church,” in Brandon Gallaher
and Paul Ladouceur, eds., The Patristic Witness of Georges Florovsky: Essential Theological
Writings (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 247–256 [Florovsky’s article was first published in
The Church Quarterly Review 117/233 (1933): 117–131, and republished with a different title
(“The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical Problem”) in The Ecumenical Review
2 (1950): 152–61]; Nicholas Afanasiev, “Una Sancta. En mémoire de Jean XXIII, le pape
de l’amour,” Irénikon 34 (1963): 436–75; Sergius Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well,” in Michael
Plekon, ed., Tradition Alive. On the Church and the Christian Life in our Time: Readings
from the Eastern Church (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 55–65 [Originally
published in The Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius 22 (1933): 7–17].
10Michel Stavrou, “Ecumenical Relations and the Baptism of Other Churches,” St Vlad-
imir’s Theological Quarterly 60.1–2 (2016): 205–18. See also David Heith-Stade, “Receiving
the Non-Orthodox: A Historical Study of Greek Orthodox Canon Law,” Studia Canonica
44 (2010): 399–426.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 184 12/15/20 3:11:16 PM

that attaches a higher positive ecclesiological value to the Christian other.

Scrima’s ecclesiological reflections are all the more interesting as they por-
tray the Romanian theologian as one of the most ecumenically open mod-
ern Orthodox thinkers. While it has become commonplace to call André
Scrima an important figure in Orthodox-Catholic relationships,11 very
little of his literary corpus and ecumenical theology is available in English,
or any other international language. Consequently, anything like “Scrima
studies” remains in its infancy among academics and scholars.
The article draws mostly on the large amount of unexplored material
from the Scrima archive, which is preserved at the New Europe College,
Institute for Advanced Study, Bucharest. The article also makes use, albeit to
a lesser extent, of the documents related to Scrima that were found in the
Duprey archive (Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII, Bolo-
gna), as well as in the archive of the Center for the Study of the Second Vatican
Council (KU Leuven).12
André Scrima: Bridge Builder between East and West

Even though he is a routinely neglected ecumenical figure,13 no other East-
ern theologian—with very few exceptions—has contributed as much as
11Olivier Clément, Dialogues avec le patriarche Athénagoras (Paris: Fayard, 1969), 339;
See also the more recent articles of Ioan Moga, “Die Offenbarungstheologie der Konstitu-
tion Dei Verbum aus orthodoxer Sicht,” in Michaela C. Hastetter, Ioan Moga, and Chris-
toph Ohly, eds., Symphonie des Wortes. Beiträge zur Offenbarungskonstitution Dei Verbum
im katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog. Festgabe des Neuen Schülerkreises zum 85. Geburtstag von
Joseph Ratzinger / Papst Benedikt XVI (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2012), 205–26; Sorin Șelaru, “La
synodalité et l’autorité au niveau régional dans l’Église: de Lumen Gentium au Document de
Ravenne,” Irénikon 88.2 (2015): 181–200; and Viorel Coman, “André Scrima’s Contribution
to the Ecumenical Turn in Orthodox-Catholic Relationships: A Historical Reconstruction
(1957–1967),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 86 (2020): 1–25 (forthcoming).
12A more detailed analysis of the findings from the Duprey archive and the archive of
the Center for the Study of the Second Vatican Council (KU Leuven) will be included in a
series of further articles dedicated to Scrima. See my forthcoming articles mentioned in
footnotes no. 11 and 27.
13The 2014 Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism—which was intended by the World
Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, and Volos Academy to
uncover the history of the ecumenical idea in Orthodoxy in no less than 962 pages—con-
tains no article on Scrima and his contribution to the rapprochement between the two
parts of Christianity. The 1995 WCC publication Ecumenical Pilgrims: Profiles of Pioneers
in Christian Reconciliation also failed to include Scrima among the personalities who have
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 185 12/15/20 3:11:17 PM

André Scrima to the breaking down of the long heritage of division between
the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s. Born
in 1925 in Transylvania, a former province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
that reverted to Romania after World War I, Scrima received his academic
training in philosophy (1944–1948)14 and theology (1949–1956)15 in
Bucharest, at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters and the Institute of
Orthodox Theology respectively. His participation in the meetings of the
Burning Bush group16—which emerged in 1945 around the Antim Mon-
astery in Bucharest as a form of spiritual survival during the very difficult
years of the newly installed atheist communist regime—consolidated his
decision to embrace the monastic life in the first half of the 1950s. In 1956,
when he was also acting as an interpreter for Patriarch Justinian,17 to whom
he served as a close adviser, Scrima had the chance to meet two Indian pro-
fessors18 who helped him obtain a scholarship to pursue a doctorate at the
Benares Hindu University.19 In fact, this was his opportunity to escape the
made a contribution to the ecumenical cause. See Pantelis Kalaitzidis et alii, eds., Orthodox
Handbook on Ecumenism: Resources for Theological Education (Volos/Geneva: Volos Acad-
emy Publications/WCC Publications, 2014); Ion Bria and Dagmar Heller, eds., Ecumeni-
cal Pilgrims: Profiles of Pioneers in Christian Reconciliation (Geneva: WCC Publications,
1995).
14His BA final thesis in Philosophy was titled “Logos and Dialectics in Plato.” This thesis
was written under the supervision of Prof. Anton Dumitriu (1902–1995).
15Scrima’s BA final thesis in theology focused on anthropology and apophaticism: “An
Essay on Apophatic Anthropology, in the Spirit of Orthodox Tradition.” This was written
under the supervision of Rev. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae (1903–1993).
16See Athanasios Giocas and Paul Ladouceur, “The Burning Bush Group and Father
André Scrima in Romanian Spirituality,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 52.1–4 (2007):
37–61.
17Scrima was an interpreter for Patriarch Justinian when the latter received external
guests at his residence in Bucharest. Cf. A. Scrima, “Autobiografie [Autobiography],”
The Archive of The National Council for the Study of the Security Archives (hereinafter
ACNSAS), File SIE (Directorate for Foreign Intelligence), no. 2601, 69–71. Even though
it is not dated, the short autobiographical note was most probably written by Scrima in
1952 or 1953.
18Prof. Mohammad Habib (professor of Political Sciences) and Prof. Afzar Afzaluddin
(professor of History).
19The topic of his doctoral dissertation was “The Ultimate, Its Methodological and Epis-
temological Connotation According to Advaita-Vedanta.” Andrei Pleșu noted that even
though his thesis was completed on time under the supervison of T. R. V. Murti (Benares
Hindu University), Scrima decided not to defend it publicly; nevertheless, according to
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 186 12/15/20 3:11:18 PM

communist regime and flee abroad, where his ecumenical trajectory started
to take shape.
Ecumenical Trajectory
The story of Scrima’s ecumenical commitment to the rapprochement
between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church will
be unfolded in straight chronological order and divided into three main
phases. A detailed monograph would definitely do better justice to
his ecumenical accomplishments. Consequently, the scope of this sub-
section is very modest: to tell the story of Scrima’s contribution to the
gradual rapprochement between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in its
essentials.20
The first phase (1956–1961) includes his initial contacts with West-
ern Christianity, particularly with Roman Catholicism. On the way to
India towards the end of 1956, Scrima made a detour of several months to
Switzerland and France, where he developed close contacts with Roman
Catholic institutions and theologians. Fortunately, the details of his stay
in Western Europe have been preserved in a long and very touching letter
sent by Scrima to Fr Benedict Ghiuș—a close friend, and also a member of
the Burning Bush group—on August 6, 1957. A copy of this 11-page letter
that captures the beginning of Scrima’s ecumenical story is kept in Bucha-
rest in the archive of The National Council for the Study of the Security
Archives.21 According to the information provided by the letter, when he
Pleșu, Scrima received his doctorate in Paris in the 1960s with a new thesis on Christian
apophaticism. See Andrei Pleșu, “Prefață [Forward],” to André Scrima, Timpul rugului
aprins. Maestrul spiritual în tradiția răsăriteană [The time of the Burning Bush: the spiri-
tual mentor in Eastern tradition] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1996, 2012), 11. However, based
on solid research, Ioan Alexandru Tofan, one of the very few specialists in Scrima’s biography
and theology, shows that Scrima never defended the thesis he wrote in India, neither in
Benares nor in Paris. This is why he always refused to be called Dr Scrima. See Ioan Alexan-
dru Tofan, André Scrima, un gentleman creștin. Portret biografic [André Scrima: A Christian
gentleman: biographical portrait] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2021—forthcoming).
20A more detailed presentation of Scrima’s ecumenical trajectory is included in my
article that will be published in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 2020. See footnote 11 for
the full reference.
21A. Scrima, “Scrisoare către Benedict Ghiuș [Letter to Benedict Ghiuș],” ACNSAS,
File MAI (Ministry of Home Affairs), no. 94690, 1:353–64. The Romanian translation of
this letter was published by Vlad Alexandrescu in André Scrima, Orthodoxia și încercarea
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 187 12/15/20 3:11:19 PM

arrived in Paris, Scrima introduced himself to the Catholic intellectual elite,

especially to the ecumenically minded figures associated with la nouvelle
théologie or French Ressourcement:22 Christophe Dumont, Pierre Duprey,
Jean Daniélou, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, and Louis Bouyer.
The French theologians acquainted Scrima with their work of renewal that
was making its way at the time in Catholicism, despite the fierce opposition
to change and ecumenical openness shown by the Catholic Church’s official
representatives. Scrima’s long-lasting friendship with Duprey and Dumont
continued to grow in the decades that followed, especially in the 1960s,
when the Romanian theologian was affiliated with the Istina Center and
lived for a short time in one of its residences in Paris. The Duprey archive
in Bologna contains more than two hundred letters between Scrima and
the French Catholic theologian.23 Recalling his meeting with the above-
mentioned French Catholic theologians, Scrima said: “Paris was the place
where I had the most authentic and enjoyable encounter with the Catholic
world. . . . My conversation with our Catholic brothers took place in all seri-
ousness, filled with nostalgic longings, hopes, and accomplishments that
left an everlasting impact on me.”24 In sum, Scrima’s detour to Paris had a
twofold ecumenical relevance. First, Scrima took the pulse of the Catholic
Church in France at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII (1929–1958),
and it felt like something ecumenically important was going to happen in
comunismului [Orthodoxy and the trial of Communism], ed. Vlad Alexandrescu (Bucha-
rest: Humanitas, 2008), 394–417.
22The Ressourcement or Nouvelle théologie was one of the most fascinating movements of
renewal in Roman Catholic theology in the twentieth century. The Ressourcement project
was concerned with a rediscovery of the depth of biblical and patristic sources in order to
bring to an end the dominance of scholasticism in Catholic theology and to articulate a
theological discourse able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the most pressing issues
of modern society. See Jon Kirwan, An Avantgarde Theological Generation: The Nouvelle
Théologie and the French Crisis of Modernity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018);
Hans Boersma, Nouvelle Théologie & Sacramental Ontology (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012); Gabriel Flynn and Paul Murray, eds., Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal
in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Jürgen
Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie—New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of
Vatican II (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010).
23“Correspondence avec A. Scrima,” The Duprey archive, Folder no. 4, Fondazione
per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXII, Bologna. The correspondence started in 1958 and
ended in 1986.
24A. Scrima, “Scrisoare către Benedict Ghiuș,” 354 and 355.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 188 12/15/20 3:11:20 PM

Catholicism: the ecumenical openness of Roman Catholicism. Second,

Scrima discovered the genuine eagerness of a large number of Catholic
theologians to go beyond the divisions of the past and rediscover the riches
of Eastern Christianity.
The second phase (1961–1967) is the story of Scrima’s work in the ser-
vice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, when he contributed to the ecumeni-
cal turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships, especially in the context of
the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). Scrima was ordained a priest in
1960 in Lebanon. One year later, Patriarch Athenagoras made Scrima an
archimandrite of the Ecumenical Throne and a close collaborator, entrust-
ing him with the task of working as a church diplomat for the relation-
ships between Constantinople and Rome. Even though most of Scrima’s
work was carried out behind the scenes, it was crucial for the success of the
most publicized events of the Orthodox-Catholic relationships during the
conciliar period, and shortly afterwards: (i) the historic meeting between
Athenagoras and Paul VI in Jerusalem ( January 5–6, 1964), on the occa-
sion of the Pope’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This encounter can rightly
be considered the single most important ecumenical event in centuries in
the relationships between Constantinople and Rome prior to their mutual
lifting of the anathemas of 1054 at the end of the Council. As Scrima was
to emphasize in his interview for La Croix, the meeting in Jerusalem was
“the foretaste of unity. This unity draws its certainty and profound joy
from this event.”25 (ii) The solemn lifting of the mutual anathemas of 1054
between Rome and Constantinople at the end of Vatican II (December
7, 1965). Even though such a symbolic gesture never implied the restora-
tion of full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic
Church, it added to the “dialogue of love” between Constantinople and
Rome, eliminating from personal and collective conscience a painful event
in the relationships between the two Churches. Scrima’s contribution to
the lifting of the anathemas was not of a minor nature, as he was one of
the two secretaries of the commission entrusted with the final wording
of the joint declaration that was read in Rome and Constantinople on
December 7, 1965.26 (iii) Paul VI’s journey to Constantinople ( July 25,
25A. Scrima, “Il y a un mois, Paul VI et Athénagoras Ier se rencontraient à Jérusalem,”
La Croix, February 7, 1964.
26Cf. Tomos Agapis: Vatican-Phanar (1958–1970) (Rome and Istanbul, 1971), 270. Apart
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 189 12/15/20 3:11:21 PM

1967) and Athenagoras’ visit to Rome (October 26–28, 1967). In addi-

tion, from 1963 to 1965 Scrima served as the personal representative of the
Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras to the third and fourth sessions of the
Second Vatican Council, where he exercised an important influence on
the discussions that decided the final version of some conciliar documents,
especially Dei Verbum and the Mariological chapter of Lumen Gentium.27
Furthermore, Scrima also contributed to the climate of dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church through a series of ecu-
menical conferences and lectures addressed to a Catholic audience in the
context of the Council. Some of his lectures were published in the 1960s,
others are preserved in the Scrima archive in Bucharest.28 In a spirit of
from Scrima and Duprey, the other members of the commission were: on the Orthodox side,
Metropolitan Meliton of Heliopolis, Chrysostomos of Myra, Fr Gabriele, Fr Georges Anas-
tasiades, and Archdeacon Evanghelos; on the Catholic side, Msgr Willebrands, Michele
Maccarrone, Alphonse Raes, Christophe Dumont, and Alphonse Stickler.
27See A. Scrima, “Notes du professeur Scrima sur la théologie mariale en Orient (3 Octo-
ber 1964),” KU Leuven, Vatican II Archives, G. Philips papers, cod. P.046.23/1985; Mauro
Velati, Separati ma fratelli: gli osservatori non cattolici al Vaticano II (1962–1965) (Bologna:
Il Mulino, 2014), 378–99; Cesare Antonelli, Il dibattito su Maria nel concilio Vaticano II:
percorso redazionale sulla base di nuovi documenti di archive (Padova: Edizioni Messagero,
2009), 548–61; Idem, “Le role de Mgr Gérard Philips dans la rédaction du chapitre VIII de
Lumen Gentium,” Marianum 55.1 (1993): 17–97; Radu Bordeianu, “Orthodox Observers
at the Second Vatican Council and Intra-Orthodox Dynamics,” Theological Studies 79.1
(2018): 86–106; V. Coman, “Mary as Mediatrix: André Scrima’s Contribution to the Mario-
logical Chapter of Lumen Gentium,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 73 (2021): 1–2
(forthcoming). This article details Scrima’s influence on the Mariological chapter of Lumen
Gentium.
28A. Scrima, “Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican II”—this lecture was delivered in front of
the African bishops who were present at the Council in 1964. The manuscript of the lecture
is preserved in the Scrima archives (AAS-NEC), Folder “Texte nepublicate [Unpublished
Texts] (TND) 8,” 4 pages; Idem, “Perspectives œcuméniques: point de vue d’un orthodoxe”
(Catholic University of Leuven, 1965)—The written text has been established on the basis
of the audio recording of the conference. See UC Louvain, The Archives of the Lumen
Gentium Center, Ch. Moeller papers, cod. 02040, 13 pages; Idem, “La Chiesa Ortodossa
e l’attuale momento ecumenico” (Centro Culturale San Fedele, Milan, 1965)—The manu-
script is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Texte publicate [Published Texts]
(TP) 17bis,” 14 pages. It was published in Russia Cristiana 65 (1965): 3–8; Idem, “Situa-
tion singulière des Églises orthodoxes et catholiques à l’intérieur du dialogue œcuménique”
(Rome, 1966)—The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder TND 13, 13
pages. Undoubtedly, the texts of all these lectures deserve to be translated into English and
published together, so that Scrima’s theology may be better known by Western academics
and scholars.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 190 12/15/20 3:11:21 PM

e cumenical openness, he also provided Catholic theologians and scholars

with a series of commentaries on several documents issued by Vatican II. In
a letter to Scrima dated on September 12, 1967, the Ecumenical Patriarch
Athenagoras expressed his profound gratitude to the Romanian theolo-
gian for his entire ecumenical work in the service of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople: “We are grateful for your voluntary participation in and
collaboration for the success of the dialogue that had begun between the
two separated churches so that one day we may reach the unity and com-
munion that allows us to partake in the same Eucharist chalice.”29
The third phase (1967–2000) covers the last three decades of Scrima’s
life. Even though his contacts with Constantinople became sporadic
after 1967, and stopped altogether with the death of Athenagoras in 1972,
Scrima had never ceased working for Orthodox-Catholic unity. In fact,
from 1972, and until his return to Romania in 1991, that is, two years after
the fall of communist regime, Scrima divided his time between Lebanon,
Rome, Paris, and the United States, working toward his ecumenical hopes
and dreams. When he was not travelling around Europe or engaging in
ecumenical and inter-religious activities,30 Scrima worked intensively as a
spiritual father of the monastery of St George at Deir-el-Harf, as well as a
professor of Orthodox theology and philosophy at the Saint Joseph Catho-
lic University of Beirut and the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. Upon his
return to Romania, Scrima became a member of the New Europe College
in Bucharest. He died at the age of seventy-five on August 19, 2000, in the
capital city of Romania. In 2004, some of his papers on the Second Vatican
29A. Scrima, “Simples réflexions d’un orthodoxe sur la Constitution,” in G. Barauna and
Y. Congar, eds., L’Eglise de Vatican II: études autour de la Constitution conciliaire sur l’Eglise,
t. III, Unam Sanctam 51C (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 1279–94; Idem “Révélation et tradition dans
la Constitution dogmatique Dei Verbum selon un point de vue orthodoxe,” in B.-D. Dupuy,
ed., Vatican II. La révélation divine, Unam Sanctam 70 (Paris: Cerf, 1968), 523–39 ; Idem,
“La constitution pastorale Gaudium et Spes: un point de vue orthodoxe”—the manuscript
of this paper is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Texte nepublicate [Unpub-
lished Texts] (TNN) 8,” 12 pages. It is regrettable though that it is not yet published in
French or translated into English; Idem, “Points de vue orthodoxes sur le schéma ‹Des
Eglises orientales›”—The manuscript is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder “Texte
publicate [Published Texts] (TP) 9.” It was published by Scrima in Antiochena 3 (1964).
30Throughout his career abroad, Scrima had equally showed interest in interreligious
dialogue, particularly in the dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity, and Islam and
Christianity.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 191 12/15/20 3:11:22 PM

Council were translated from French into Romanian and published in a

volume suggestively titled Duhul Sfânt și unitatea Bisericii: Jurnal de Con-
ciliu [The Holy Spirit and the Unity of the Church: Journal of the Council].31
Other theological works, which he had written under the form of articles
and short essays, followed shortly after.32 Nevertheless, much remains to be
published from his archive in Bucharest.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism: Ecumenical Vision
Scrima’s practical commitment to the improvement of the Orthodox-Cath-
olic relationship in the 1960s and his theology of Christian reconciliation
mutually shaped each other: his vision of ecumenism rose out of practice
and his practice of dialogue was informed by his theology of Christian rec-
onciliation. After this brief sketch of Scrima’s ecumenical trajectory, we
must ask the following question: What is Scrima’s ecumenical vision that
underpinned his engagement for the cause of Orthodox-Catholic unity?
Scrima’s ecumenical reflections on Eastern Orthodox Christianity
and Catholicism revolved around a central idea: “there is a fundamental
unity between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church,”33
despite their progressive alienation from one another throughout the
second millennium and their lack of eucharistic communion. In light of
this recurring statement, Scrima believed that, ecumenically speaking, the
31A. Scrima, Duhul Sfânt și unitatea Bisericii: Jurnal de Conciliu [The Holy Spirit and
the unity of the Church: a journal of the Council], ed. Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban (Bucha-
rest: Anastasia, 2004). This volume includes the Romanian translation of some of the most
important articles written by Scrima in the context of the Second Vatican Council.
32Apart from Scrima’s books Timpul rugului aprins and Ortodoxia și încercarea comunis-
mului, see A. Scrima, Teme ecumenice [Ecumenical themes], ed. Anca Manolescu (Bucha-
rest: Humanitas, 2004); Idem, Antropologia apofatică, ed. Vlad Alexandrescu (Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2005). English translation: Apophatic Anthropology: An English Translation
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016); Idem, Biserica liturgică [The liturgical Church], ed.
Anca Manolescu (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2005); Idem, O gândire fără țărmuri [A thinking
without borders], ed. Anca Manolescu (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2005); Idem, Comentariu
Integral la Evanghelia după Ioan, ed. Anca Manolescu [A full commentary to the Gospel
of John] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008); Idem, Experiența spirituală și limbajele ei [The
spiritual experience and its languages], ed. Anca Manolescu & Radu Bercea (Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2008); Idem, Funcția critică a rațiunii [The critical function of reason], ed.
Anca Manolescu (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2011).
33A. Scrima, “Réflexions sur l’Église orthodoxe,” Écoute 78 (1960): 21. A copy of this
article is preserved in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder TP 4.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 192 12/15/20 3:11:23 PM

Catholic Church is—or should be—“the first and most important partner
of dialogue for the Orthodox Church.”34 In fact, according to his reflec-
tions on Orthodox-Catholic relationships, “everything that essentially
constitutes the fullness of the Mystical Body of Christ pertains to both of
them: the Sacraments, the Eucharist, the Tradition, communio sanctorum,
the institutional structure of the Church.”35 Consequently, both Ortho-
doxy and Catholicism “live within the universal unity of the Church,”36 for
there was “no fundamental rupture”37 between Eastern and Western Chris-
tianity at the beginning of the second millennium. The Romanian theolo-
gian opined that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church must be
understood as “two organic forms of expression of the one and the same
apostolic heritage. . . . The canonical separation [between the two churches
in 1054] confirmed their long process of separate development, as well as
their reciprocal human and institutional estrangement.” Nonetheless, as
Scrima noted, their separation “was never the result of the disintegration
of the Church and never called into question the essential reality of the
Church.” In other words, even given their severing of canonical ties, “both
churches live separately the one and the same fundamental content of the
apostolic faith, sacramental reality, and ecclesial structure. This means that
both of them constitute two complementary ways of living the catholicity/
sobornicity of the Church.”38
Apart from Nicholas Afanasiev,39 almost no other major twentieth-
century Orthodox theologian has acknowledged the full ecclesiality of
34A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 3.
35A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 5. A similar idea is expressed by Scrima in his
article “Réflexions sur l’Église orthodoxe,” 21.
36A. Scrima, “Orthodoxe und catholiken: Ihre Besondere Situation in Geschpräch der
christlichen Ökumene,” Wort und Wahrheit 2 (1967): 90. A copy of this article is preserved
in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder TP 26.
37A. Scrima, “Orthodoxe und catholiken,” 89–90 [Scrima’s own emphasis].
38A. Scrima, “Orthodoxe und catholiken,” 92 [Scrima’s own emphasis].
39Apart from Nicholas Afanasiev’s article titled “Una Sancta,” (footnote 9), see: N.
Afanasiev, “L’Église qui préside dans l’amour,” in N. Afanasieff et alii, eds., La Primauté
de Pierre dans l’Eglise orthodoxe (Neuchâtel/Paris: Delchaux et Niestlé, 1960), 7–64. Pub-
lished in English as “The Church which Presides in Love,” in John Meyendorff, ed., The
Primacy of Peter (London: Faith Press, 1963), 57–110. For a comprehensive introduction
into Afanasiev’s ecclesiology, see the following recent dissertations: Anastacia Wooden,
“The Limits of the Church: Ecclesiological Project of Nicolas Afanasiev,” Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2019); Christophe
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 193 12/15/20 3:11:24 PM

the Catholic Church as openly as Scrima. This testifies to his ecumenical

standing and dispassionate reading of church history. Moreover, Scrima’s
ecumenical openness towards Catholicism is all the more interesting as he
acknowledged its full ecclesiality at the time when the official relationships
between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were not yet fully
detached from the climate of hostility that made them resistant to one
another for centuries. In many ways, Scrima’s vision of Orthodox-Catholic
relationships is identical to that of Afanasiev, as both of them emphasized
that the division between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
has not affected their ecclesiality. However, Scrima’s theology takes a step
further than Afanasiev and all the other major twentieth-century Eastern
Christian theologians, providing the Orthodox Church and the Catholic
Church with two important models of ecumenical interactions: hermeneu-
tical ecumenism and spiritual ecumenism. Both models are synthesized in
the next section of this article.
To unfold his argument about the full ecclesiality of the Catholic and
Orthodox Churches, Scrima divided the historical evolution of the two
parts of Christianity into three main stages. The first stage points back to
the history of the Christianity of the first millennium, when, despite the
many differences exhibited throughout Europe in church organization,
leadership, and even doctrine, the East and the West were united in preserv-
ing the apostolic faith and succession.40 According to Scrima, one of the
main characteristics of the first Christian millennium was its ecclesiologi-
cal pluralism or pluralist ecclesiology: “The East and the West communed
(first millennium) with one another within the same Church; they were
complementary to each other, forming one single Church in their legitimate
diversity.”41 What Eastern and Western Christianity were also witnessing
D’Aloisio, Institutions ecclésiales et ministères chez Nicholas Afanassieff, Collection ‘Religio’

(Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2020). Scrima was quite familiar with
the writings of the Russian theologians from the Parisian diaspora. However, his writings
on ecumenism did not refer at any point to Afanasiev’s vision of Orthodox-Catholic unity.
There is no indication in Scrima’s published and unpublished work that would allow us to
claim that his ecumenical vision was influenced by Afanasiev’s theology.
40A. Scrima, “L’Orthodoxie et Vatican II,” 1. The unpublished text of this article is pre-
served in the archives AAS-NEC: Folder devoted to Vatican II, DN. VAT 14.1. See also
“Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican II,” 1–4.
41A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 10. According to Scrima, the pluralist
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 194 12/15/20 3:11:25 PM

at the time was “a pluralism of theological formulas, which were foreign to

uniformity. . . . Their legitimate differences were perfectly compatible with
the organic and sacramental unity of the Church.”42 Even though the unity
of East and West was beset by problems and difficulties at times, Christian
bishops shared the profound conviction that all of them belong to the same
Church of Christ (Una Sancta).
The second stage of the evolution, set into motion by a progressive
distancing between Eastern and Western Christianity at the beginning
of the second millennium, brought about the crystallization of a com-
plex and unfortunate opposition between them. In fact, the bifurcation
initiated in the eleventh century and its consolidation in the coming
centuries were the result of the emergence of ecclesial attitudes unsym-
pathetic and even hostile to pluralism and legitimate diversity.43 In Scri-
ma’s account, serious tensions and animosities arose mainly because the
Western Church made an attempt to implement its own juridical eccle-
sial structures in the East, as well as its patterns of thought and behavior,
which were foreign to the Byzantine world, for they took shape in the
West as a result of its natural historical evolution.44 That being the case,
a new cycle was gradually inaugurated at the time in the West, i.e, the
Latin cycle, which was to grow and last until the First Vatican Council
e cclesiology of the first millennium had three dominant characteristics. It was (i) a pneuma-
tological ecclesiology, which implies a balance between the local and the universal dimen-
sions of the Church; (ii) an ecclesiology of communion; the convening of a council was
one of the most essential expressions of this ecclesiology of communion; and it was (iii) a
Christological and sacramental ecclesiology. The acknowledgement of Christ as the source
of this sacramentality eliminates any impulse of ecclesial self-sufficiency or triumphalism.
42A. Scrima, “Orthodoxe und catholiken,” 90 [Scrima’s own emphasis]. The Chieti
document of the International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the
Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church share similar views on the ecclesial unity of
first Christian millennium, despite local conflicts and tensions: “Throughout the first mil-
lennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith,
maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality insepa-
rably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of
love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West
were conscious of belonging to the one Church.” See Synodality and Primacy During the
First Millennium: Towards A Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church
(Chieti, September 21, 2016), § 20.
43A. Scrima, “Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican II,” 2–3.
44A. Scrima, “En attendant le dialogue,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.VAT 8, 3.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 195 12/15/20 3:11:26 PM

(1869–1870).45 Undoubtedly, the West cannot be one-sidedly blamed for

the progressive act of separation, because Eastern Christianity also shared
responsibility for the separation, as it progressively isolated itself from the
evolutions and developments that were taking place at the time in the West.
However, in spite of the so-called schism of 105446 between Eastern and
Western Christianity, “the feeling that the Church is still one was initially
not lost. Nobody was speaking about two churches. The separation was
rather a family quarrel, and the unity was not affected in any way.” Scrima
went on by saying that “sacramental communion was still preserved. In
other words, what was needed was reconciliation and not conversion.”47
Unfortunately, two events changed the situation dramatically: the fall
of Constantinople in the East and the Reformation in the West. After 1453,
the sense of unity was almost completely lost, because Eastern Christian-
ity became the “big stranger” for the Latin Church and vice-versa. Besides,
with the consolidation of the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Catholic
Church had started to approach Orthodoxy through the same lens it used
to approach the Protestant world. As a result, on both sides the language of
conversion replaced that of reconciliation, while the concept of indivisible
unity was substituted for that of reunification.48 As Scrima stated several
times in his lectures and articles, from that moment onwards
45A. Scrima, “L’Orthodoxie et Vatican II,” 1.

46Scrima was fully aware that the so-called schism of 1054 was not the decisive moment
of the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity. Such a separation was the
result of a much longer process of gradual estrangement between the East and the West,
which started during the first millennium and culminated with the Crusades, especially
with the sack of Constantinople in 1204. For a systematic presentation of the various fac-
tors—theological, political, and cultural—that led to the division between Eastern Christi-
anity and Western Christianity, see Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift
in the Church: From Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence, Oxford History of the
Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
47A. Scrima, “Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican II,” 2.
48A. Scrima, “Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican II,” 2. Patriarch Athenagoras of Constanti-
nople was of the same opinion as Scrima. According to him, “Il n’y a qu’une seule Église.
Voilà ce qu’il faut faire comprendre au peuple chrétien, dans les diverses confessions histo-
riques. Et les tensions, qu’il ne s’agit pas d’escamoter, il faut les situer à l’intérieur de l’Église.
Après tout, la diversité, voire les dissentiments, étaient grands entre les apôtres, et n’ont pas
cessé dans les siècles suivants. Mais ces approches diverses, parfois même, à vues humaines,
contradictoires, de l’inépuisable vérité, se situaient à l’intérieur de l’unique église. . . . Puis est
venue une période où cette diversité a provoqué—où justifié—le morcellement de l’Église
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 196 12/15/20 3:11:26 PM

the two worlds started to settle in opposition to each other, they

evolved, each on its own side, not only “without” the other, but explic-
itly “against” the other. It was . . . a moment of impoverishment within
this self-sufficiency, which gave us the illusion of being, each on our own
side, the holders of the whole truth, to the exclusion of the other.49
The end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the next reached a
sort of ecclesiological entropy, as they marked the peak of the second stage,
throughout which the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church had
step by step excluded one another from each other’s life. For Scrima, the
first Vatican Council was the most difficult moment in Orthodox-Catholic
relationships, and the highest point of their mounting tensions and iso-
lation, for it exclusively identified the Roman Catholic Church with the
Una Sancta and its visible head, i.e., the pope, while severely forbidding
the communicatio in sacris, which—even though rarely practiced—was still
possible at the time between the two parts of Christianity.50 To support his
argument, Scrima made reference to the negative impact of the memoran-
dum of Cardinal Jean-Baptiste François Pitra (1862) on communicatio in
sacris with the Orientals, which, while aware that intercommunion existed
between Greeks and Latins in the centuries after the schism, concluded
that such a practice was out of question and no longer possible in mid-
nineteenth century.51
en confessions séparées. On a voulu l’unité par l’uniformité, alors que le pluralisme, même
théologique, était immense dans l’Église ancienne”—Olivier Clément, Dialogues avec le
patriarche Athénagoras, 311–12. Clément’s books confirm that Scrima’s ecumenical vision
was similar to that of the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. It is very
difficult to identify who influenced whom.
49A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 2. See also Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban and
Miruna Tătaru-Cazaban, “L’unité des chrétiens et son langage: Fragments d’un ‘journal’
orthodoxe du Concile Vatican II,” in Daniela Dumbravă and Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban,
eds., André Scrima: expérience spirituelle et langage théologique: Actes du colloque de Rome,
29–30 octobre 2008, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 306 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orien-
tale, 2019), 136.
50A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 11; Idem, “Vues orthodoxes sur Vatican
II,” 2.
51See A. Scrima, “Perspective ortodoxe asupra Conciliului Vatican II [Orthodox per-
spectives on the Second Vatican Council],” in Duhul Sfânt și Unitatea Bisericii: Jurnal de
Conciliu, 113.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 197 12/15/20 3:11:27 PM

However, the Second Vatican Council was the inauguration of the third
stage in the historical evolution of the Orthodox-Catholic relationships,
for it led Rome and Constantinople from estrangement and mutual ran-
cor to conversation and cooperation. Said differently, the Second Vatican
Council, as well as the series of meetings between Athenagoras of Con-
stantinople and Paul VI in the 1960s, laid the basis of the ecumenical turn
in Orthodox-Catholic relationships,52 as the two Churches started to take
together the road back from conflict to dialogue and rapprochement. The
ecumenical turn opened up, therefore, the reverse path from ecclesial sepa-
ration and isolation to the acceptance of the Orthodox East into the life of
the Catholic West and vice-versa.53 Furthermore, according to Scrima, what
this new stage—which continues until today—is supposed to make clear
is the fact that “Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism always takes place within
the Church [se situe depuis toujours à l’intérieur de l’Église] and consists
mainly in finding the fullness of the Church, which has been until now
lived on both sides in a climate of separation.”54 For this reason, “between
the two Churches, unity is not so much to be created but actualized. To
actualize the unity that already exists [between Orthodoxy and Catholi-
cism] means objectively to begin again to live together the same reality of
the Church that has been separately lived for nine centuries, within differ-
ent historical conditions.”55 That being so, in the context of the discussions
of the 1960s about the possibility of a eucharistic concelebration between
Athenagoras and Paul VI, Scrima did not hesitate to advance the bold idea
52In fact, the ecumenical turn did not appear out of the blue or in a vacuum. On the
contrary, it had been gradually prepared within each tradition and jointly by a series of
open-minded theologians, border-crossing movements, and unofficial networks during
the first half of the twentieth century. See Peter De Mey, The Parallel Contribution of the
‘Journées oecuméniques de Chevetogne’ (1942–1963) and the ‘Conférence Catholique pour les
questions oecuméniques’ (1952–1963) to the Renewal of Catholic Ecclesiology and Ecumenism
before and during Vatican II (Research project, Research Foundation-Flanders/KU Leu-
ven, 2017–2023); and Viorel Coman, The Interaction between the Orthodox Neo-Patristic
Movement and the French Catholic Ressourcement through the Lens of Receptive Ecumenism
(Research project, Research Foundation-Flanders, 2017–2020).
53A. Scrima, “Orthodoxe und catholiken,” 97.
54A. Scrima, “En attendant le dialogue,” 2.
55A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 4; See also “Le Concile Vatican II et les per-
spectives du dialogue entre l’Église orthodoxe et l’Église catholique,” AAS-NEC, Folder
DN.ECU 86, 2.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 198 12/15/20 3:11:28 PM

that the Orthodox Church “should have intercommunion with the Roman
Catholic Church.”56 However, Scrima was not always consistent about the
possibility of having intercommunion with Rome. For example, in a pri-
vate letter sent to Patriarch Justinian of Romania, Scrima noted that the
intercommunion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
cannot be practiced yet, because there are imperative issues to be solved
prior to that.57
Models for the Orthodox Church’s Ecumenical

Interaction with Catholicism
The second part of the article takes a step further and shows how Scrima
provided Orthodoxy and Catholicism with two main models of ecumeni-
cal interaction on their path from conflict to communion. These methods
of ecumenical interactions are not spelled out as such by Scrima in his pub-
lished and unpublished texts; they emanate from a hermeneutical reading
of his texts. Furthermore, this section systematizes information from dispa-
rate sources: unpublished interviews and articles, letters, theological texts
in draft form, conference presentations, and brief notes.
56A. Scrima, “Lumea nu poate fi satisfăcută . . . [The world cannot be satisfied . . . ],”
AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 69, 1. For more information about the discussions on inter-
communion between Rome and Constantinople in the 1960s and 1970s, see Alberto Mel-
loni, Tempus visitationis: l’intercomunione inaccaduta fra Roma e Constantinopoli, Istituto
per le scienze religiose—Bologna & Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII,
Testi, ricerche e fonti, nuova serie 60 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2019). Afanasiev was another
major Orthodox theologian who claimed that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic
Church should have eucharistic communion, whereas Sergius Bulgakov advocated the idea
of intercommunion between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church. See Sergei
V. Nikolaev, “Spiritual Unity: The Role of Religious Authority in the Disputes between
Sergii Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky concerning Intercommunion,” St Vladimir’s Theo-
logical Quarterly 49.1–2 (2005): 101–23; Bryn Gefert, “Sergii Bulgakov, the Fellowship of St
Alban and St Sergius, Intercommunion and Sophiology,” Revolutionary Russia 17.1 (2004):
105–41; Brandon Gallaher, “Bulgakov and Intercommunion,” Sobornost 24.2 (2002): 9–28;
Idem, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought,” Sobornost 24.1 (2002): 24–55.
57A. Scrima, “Scrisoare către Patriarhul Justinian, 28 iunie 1967 [Letter to Patriarch
Justinian, June 28, 1967],” in Dorin-Demostene Iancu, ed., Patriarhul Justinian Marina.
Corespondență inedită [Patriarch Justinian Marina: unpublished correspondence] (Bucha-
rest: Basilica, 2020), 204.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 199 12/15/20 3:11:29 PM

Hermeneutical Ecumenism
What structures Scrima’s model of hermeneutical ecumenism is his rou-
tinely repeated claim that the Christian other is the necessary locus of and
the absolute condition for the understanding of one’s own identity. For
Eastern Christianity, the Catholic Church is the Christian other par excel-
lence, in the presence of whom Orthodoxy rediscovers and understands
itself better:
For the Catholic Church, Orthodoxy is the main and fundamental
interlocutor; by “fundamental,” I refer to an interlocutor who can
offer to me the possibility to rediscover myself better through the dia-
logue that I initiate with him/her, especially because my fundamental
interlocutor is precisely my complementary, directly complementary,
interlocutor.58
The starting point for Scrima’s further reflections on what can be
defined as hermeneutical ecumenism is encapsulated in a sentence that var-
ies very little throughout his writings and manuscripts: “the shortest path
to ourselves is through the other.”59 Therefore, Scrima is of the opinion that
the ecumenical encounter with the Catholic Church is the sine qua non
condition for Orthodoxy’s journey of self-knowledge, self-reflection, and
self-introspection, for “the discovery of oneself passes through the other.
It is impossible to know ourselves if we continue to ignore and reject the
other. Ecumenism is a matter of spiritual life.”60 This is why any dialogue or
encounter with our Christian Catholic brothers is not a peripheral option
or a low-priority task on the agenda of the Orthodox Church, but an urgent
58A. Scrima, “Perspectives œcuméniques,” 4.
59A. Scrima, “Paradoxul și anomalia situației: dialogul . . . [The paradox and the anomaly
of the situation: the dialogue . . . ],” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 76, 1. As Scrima noted
elsewhere, one cannot fully understand himself/herself without the other. The other—the
Catholic Church, in this context—is the reality that sheds light upon us, that is upon the
Orthodox Church, and vice versa. We see ourselves better through the eyes of the other.
Scrima speaks also in his published and unpublished articles about the phenomenology of
the other as follows: “phénoménologie du prochain: on ne voyait pas l’autre, on ne se voyait
pas soi-même”—“Ecumenismul poate fi început [Ecumenism can be started],” AAS-NEC,
Folder DN.ECU 78, 2.
60A. Scrima, “L’ascèse du dialogue,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 86. See also A.
Scrima, “Orient-Occident [East-West],” in Duhul Sfânt și unitatea Bisericii: Jurnal de Con-
ciliu, 216.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 200 12/15/20 3:11:30 PM

and vital demand (exigence).61 In Scrima’s opinion, the Christian other could
be the fundamental principle in the self-understanding of Orthodoxy only
if the encounter between the two meets certain criteria.
The first criterion refers to the fact that the Christian other—the
Catholic Church, in this case—is the genuine source for Orthodoxy’s
self-knowledge only if the other is experienced as the real and objective
other.62 Any denaturation or falsification of the image of the other and any
failure to meet the other as the other threaten, in fact, the authenticity of
Orthodoxy’s self-understanding and self-knowledge. There can be no genu-
ine ecumenical encounter between Eastern and Western Christianity if the
Catholic Church does not recognize itself in the image that Orthodoxy
has about it. The opposite is also true: no authentic interaction of Catholi-
cism with Orthodoxy can take place if the image of Eastern Christianity is
caricaturized or distorted.
The second criterion presupposes love towards the Christian other. Any
ecumenical encounter between Orthodoxy and Catholicism has to be ani-
mated by love, for only love is generous enough and ready to let the other
be the other: “The search of unity means the departure from solitude . . . the
rediscovery of the other, the experience of plenitude through the other. . . .
To rediscover the other in love is the only means to search for unity within
the source of unity.”63 In Scrima’s opinion, such a loving encounter entails the
abandonment of the state of mutual ignorance and mistrust, which will in
turn make Orthodoxy and Catholicism realize that they should give up any
attempt to define themselves in opposition or in resistance to one another,
but in complementary loving dialogue and reciprocal enrichment. As
Scrima notes, “we should move from a dialogue of opposition to a dialogue
of complementarity.”64 “We have to bring to an end mutual ignorance, gen-
eral mistrust, and antagonism between Christians.”65 To fully understand
61A. Scrima, “Monahul: communio sanctorum [The Monk: communio sanctorum],”
AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 38.
62A. Scrima, “Voir le vrai problème et son contexte authentique,” AAS-NEC, Folder
DN.ECU 82, 2. See also his short note titled “Résorption progressive d’un malentendu
théologique,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 37, 1.
63A. Scrima, “Căutarea unității [The search for unity],” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU
57, 1–2.
64A. Scrima, “Paradoxul și anomalia situației,” 1.
65A. Scrima, “Je me suis tenu . . . ,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 80, 2.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 201 12/15/20 3:11:30 PM

the ethos and specificity of either Orthodoxy and Catholicism, one should
not proceed by cultivating polarization and antagonism between them. On
the contrary, the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church live the same
divine mystery in a way that is unique, yet complementary, to each. This is
why, for Scrima, the life of each church illuminates and completes the other.
In other words, the identity of each of them defines itself in loving dialogue
and reciprocal enrichment with the other, rather than in opposition and
mutual exclusion. As Scrima emphasized, “fighting against the other is not
always the safest path towards the rediscovery and survival of ourself. The
movement that brings us to ourselves is the same movement that brings us
to the other, to the extent that we will not reach our own plenitude unless
we pass through the other.”66
The third criterion claims that the encounter between Orthodoxy and
Catholicism should go beyond a mere theoretical or distant knowledge of
each other. Theoretical knowledge is necessary, but there should be more
than that in any encounter between the Orthodox Church and the Catho-
lic Church. As Scrima emphasized, it is not enough to understand the other
at the theoretical level in ecumenical relations. Ecumenism is about becom-
ing the other, not in the sense of conversion, but in the sense that both parts
of Christianity must open to the other from within, welcoming the other
not as an external and distant partner of dialogue but as constituting part
of their life and identity.67 This is the real meaning of Scrima’s claim that
Orthodoxy and Catholicism need to encounter each other from within:
they should rediscover one another as the other missing half to be complete
together and partake in communion with one another the same univer-
sal mystery of Jesus Christ. To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be inclusiv-
ist towards Catholicism and vice versa,68 especially since truth is not the
monopoly of either Eastern Christianity or Western Christianity.69 The real
Church of Christ allows a plurality of voices within it,70 even when it comes
66A. Scrima, “Ligugé II,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 67, 1.

67A. Scrima, “Contribution du Vatican II à la compréhension et au rapprochement entre
individus et communautés,” AAS-NEC, Folder TNN 14, 5.
68A. Scrima, “Pentru eventualul sinod . . . [For the upcoming council . . . ],” AAS-NEC,
Folder DN.ECU 40, 1.
69A. Scrima, “Monahul: communio sanctorum,” 1.
70A. Scrima, “Pentru eventualul sinod,” 1.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 202 12/15/20 3:11:31 PM

to the question of primacy, which is not foreign to Eastern Christianity just

as synodality or collegiality is not foreign to Western Christianity.
Primarily, it is Christology that grounds Scrima’s vision of hermeneutical
ecumenism. Even though Scrima did not dig deeper into the Christological
dimension of his hermeneutical ecumenism, there are a few instances when
the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ, in whom divinity meets humanity
and humanity meets divinity, underpins his reflections on Orthodoxy and
otherness in an ecumenical key. As Scrima pointed out, “the good news of
ecumenism is that it is possible to become the other,” to move from a self-
definition by opposition to a self-definition by complementarity.71 Scrima’s
reference to the good news alludes in fact to the good news of Incarnation,
which is the moment when God encountered alterity in Jesus Christ and
vice versa. Christology is therefore the foundation of Scrima’s ecumenical
approach. At the same time, Scrima’s approach to ecumenism was equally a
pneumatological one, as the Holy Spirit is the bond of communion and fel-
lowship. In fact, his inclusivist Christology and ecclesiology were informed
by a solid pneumatology. As Anca Vasiliu rightly pointed out, the relation-
ship between Christology and pneumatology structured the entire theo-
logical and ecumenical vision of Scrima.72
Spiritual Ecumenism
Spiritual ecumenism is the second major model of Orthodox-Catholic
interaction that structured Scrima’s theology. As he repeatedly stressed in
his published and unpublished material, “ecumenism is a matter of spiritual
life.”73 Scrima did not coin this phrase, as the concept was already long in
the air, and in practice, before the Second Vatican Council. To offer just an
example, the traditional Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, which invites
Christian leaders to gather, listen, and pray together, dates back to the late
1800s and early 1900s. Given the importance of the concept, the Decree
71A. Scrima, “Unité,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.VAT 85, 1.

72“Le rapport opératoire Christ-Esprit représente l’enjeu majeur de l’œuvre entière
d’André Scrima; il nourrit sa réflexion, s’exprime dans tous ses écrits, anime toute sa vie,
le poursuit sur tous ses parcours. Mais il n’apparait pas, ou presque pas, sous des formes
‘techniques’, comme un travail académique de théologie trinitaire.” See Anca Vasiliu, “André
Scrima, l’étranger,” Contacts: Revue française de l’Orthodoxie 207 (2004): 220.
73See footnote 60.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 203 12/15/20 3:11:32 PM

on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council gave high priority to the

spiritual dimension of inter-Christian dialogue when it emphasized that
spiritual ecumenism “should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumeni-
cal movement” (UR § II,8).74 Among post-Conciliar Catholic theologians,
Walter Kasper devoted a great deal of attention to the concept of spiritual
ecumenism as the very heart of a healthy inter-Christian dialogue.75 Paul
Murray’s notion of receptive ecumenism, which invites Christians to learn
from one another, is a dynamic and genuine development of spiritual ecu-
menism.76 In Eastern Christianity, Dumitru Stăniloae is one of the theolo-
gians who alluded in his writings to the concept of spiritual ecumenism.77
Scrima did not plan to put forth a synthesis of spiritual ecumenism;
consequently, he did not reflect on the concept systematically in his pub-
lished and unpublished writings. However, elements of a spiritual ecu-
menism run like a connecting thread throughout his theological writings,
providing the notion of hermeneutical ecumenism with a complementary
model of Orthodox-Catholic relationships that emphasizes the impor-
tance of spiritual development on the path towards unity and communion.
Scrima’s spiritual ecumenism revolves around two main axes, namely the
cultivation of spiritual practices for the restoration of communion, and the
74Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent-Vatican II
(London: Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 913.
75See Walter Kasper, A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism (New York, NY: New York
City Press, 2007).
76See Paul D. Murray, ed., Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning:
Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);
Idem, “Discerning the Call of the Spirit to Theological-Ecclesial Renewal: Notes on Being
Reasonable and Responsible in Receptive Ecumenical Learning,” in Virginia Miller, David
Moxon, and Stephen Pickard, eds., Leaning into the Spirit: Ecumenical Perspectives on Dis-
cernment and Decision-making in the Church, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 217–34; Idem, “Receptive Ecu-
menism: An Introduction,” Theological Quarterly 196 (2016): 235–47; Idem, “Receptive
Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Receiving Gifts for Our Needs,” Louvain Studies 33.1–2
(2008): 30–45; See also Antonia Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism and the Renewal of Ecumeni-
cal Movement: The Path of Ecclesial Conversion, Brill’s Series in Catholic Theology 7 (Leiden:
Brill, 2019).
77Dumitru Stăniloae, “Sobornicitatea deschisă [Open sobornicity],” Ortodoxia 23.2
(1971): 165–80; See also Radu Bordeianu, Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology,
Ecclesiological Investigations 13 (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), 30. In his monograph, Bor-
deianu refers to Stăniloae’s notion of “spiritual intercommunion,” which involves common
study, prayer, and action among Christians.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 204 12/15/20 3:11:33 PM

rediscovery of Christian unity as a gift, given ultimately by God: not earned

or achieved. The two axes correspond to the two concomitant great steps
on the path towards perfection in Eastern Christianity: (i) the ascetical
step—the moving ahead of the human person towards perfection through
purification from passions and the embracement of virtues; and (ii) the
mystical step—the life of union (deification/theōsis), which is God’s gift to
the human person.78
The first axis focuses on the need of Christians—Orthodox and Catho-
lics alike—to embark on a transformative spiritual journey to overcome the
dividing and traumatic experiences of the past with an eye toward the con-
struction of a more tolerant and inclusive ecclesial future. As Scrima noted,
“an inner ecclesial renewal and purification is needed in order to encounter
the Christian other. Openness towards the other and inner renewal are
inseparably linked to one another.”79 The spiritual practice of purification
and renewal is meant for the common progress of Orthodox and Catho-
lics in the rediscovery and acceptance of each other as brothers and sis-
ters in Jesus Christ. For Scrima, it includes a constant ascetical and moral
struggle against wrong turnings: reciprocal mistrust, hostility, the spirit
of competitivity against each other, egoism, deliberate ignorance of each
other’s theological and spiritual treasures, etc.80 The spiritual instruments
available to both Orthodox and Catholics, to depart from these sinful pas-
sions that keep them separated, consist of common prayers,81 openness of
heart,82 exercising self-criticism,83 the virtue of humility,84 as well as the
healing of memories and the acceptance of a common responsibility for the
78For a comprehensive introduction into Orthodox spirituality and its stages, see
Dumitru Stăniloae, Orthodox Spirituality: A Practical Guide for the Faithful and A Defini-
tive Manual for the Scholar, trans. by Jerome Newville and Otilia Kloos (South Canaan, PA:
St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2003).
79A. Scrima, “La situation actuelle du monde chrétien et quelques perspectives d’avenir,”
AAS-NEC, Folder DN.VAT 13.1.
80A. Scrima, “Vues orthodoxes sur le Concile,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.VAT 10, 1;
See also Scrima’s notes on Orthodox-Catholic relationships that are preserved in folder
DN.VAT 11.
81A. Scrima, “Ecumenismul poate fi început,” 1.
82A. Scrima, “L’Orthodoxie et Vatican II,” 1.
83A. Scrima, “Letter à Pierre Duprey (October 26, 1964),” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU
20bis, 2.
84A. Scrima, “Căutarea unității,” 2.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 205 12/15/20 3:11:34 PM

ecclesial divisions of the past: “ecumenical action requires the purification

and discernments of spirits. It is necessary to purify oneself from the very-
often-unconscious heritage of conflicts, historical, sociological, and psy-
chological misunderstandings that run the risk of transforming dialogue
into a perpetual exchange of accusations.”85
Whereas the first axis of Scrima’s spiritual ecumenism stresses the neces-
sary human part in the ecumenical adventure, the second axis focuses on
Christian unity as a divine gift. As Scrima used to remark, the Orthodox
Church and the Catholic Church do not own, possess, or control ecclesial
unity or plenitude. On the contrary, ecclesial plenitude is offered to them as
a gift that comes always from above.86 That being so, unity and plenitude as
gifts from God call into question any possible impulse that Orthodox and
Catholics might have towards triumphalism and self-sufficiency. Conse-
quently, spiritual ecumenism is nothing but a kenotic ecumenism. Besides,
Scrima claimed that the ecumenical work between Catholics and Ortho-
dox is neither the result of human tactics, as useful as these tactics and strat-
egies might be, nor a conversion of one church into another, which has
been defined as an ecumenism of return. Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism
is ultimately a conversion to the unity of Jesus Christ, that is, to the mystery
and plenitude that are beyond and transcend our local particularities and
cultural values, which had very often collided with each other throughout
history.87
Instead of Conclusions: Contemporary Relevance

Most of Scrima’s insights on Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism that this
article referred to were formulated at the end of the 1950s and the begin-
ning of the 1960s, that is, at a time when the two main parts of Christi-
anity were still hostile and less hospitable to one another. That being the
case, they were framed with a particular context in mind, which differs
from ours in many aspects. Much progress has been made over the past
decades in Orthodox-Catholic relationships, especially after the 1980s,
85A. Scrima, “Le Concile Vatican II et les perspectives du dialogue,” 2.
86A. Scrima, “Căutarea unității,” 3.
87A. Scrima, “Lumea nu poate fi satisfăcută,” 1. See also, Scrima, Despre isihasm [On
hesychasm], ed. Anca Manolescu (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2003), 286; and Ortodoxia și
încercarea comunismului, 109.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 206 12/15/20 3:11:34 PM

when the official theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church

and the Catholic Church had just been reset into motion.88 In fact, the
opening of the official theological dialogue between Orthodoxy and
Catholicism would not have been possible in the 1980s89 without the pre-
vious ecumenical work initiated on the Orthodox side in the early 1960s
by Scrima and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, despite the
many wonderful accomplishments in Orthodox-Catholic relationships,
Scrima’s vision of ecumenism becomes relevant again, especially given the
growth of anti-ecumenical attitudes in several Orthodox countries after
the Council of Crete. It seems that the reception and implementation at
the grassroot level of the results of the official dialogue between Catho-
lics and Orthodox remain a work in progress. In order to counter a rising
opposition to ecumenical engagement, as Radu Bordeianu pointed out,
churches, including the Orthodox Church, need “structures that initiate,
support, and implement the results of the dialogue.”90 In addition to insti-
tutional structures, the Orthodox Church also needs voices from within
to rekindle and strengthen the ecumenical spirit in Eastern Christianity,
which, while not abandoned, is contested continuously, more and more,
88For a comprehensive introduction into the history and main accomplishments of the
official theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, see
John Borelli and John H. Erickson, The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996); Ferdinand Gahbauer, Der ortho-
dox-katholische Dialog. Spannende Bewegung der Ökumene und ökumenische Spannungen
zwischen den Schwesterkirchen von den Anfängen bis heute (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1997);
Giancarlo Bruni, Quale ecclesiologia? Cattolicesimo e Ortodossia a confronto: Il dialogo uffi-
ciale (Milano: Paoline, 1999); Kallistos Ware, “The Ravenna Document and the Future of
Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue,” The Jurist 69.2 (2009): 766–89; Patrice Mahieu, Paul VI et
les orthodoxes (Paris: Cerf, 2012); John Chryssavgis, Dialogue of Love: Breaking the Silence of
Centuries (The Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press, 2014); Patrice Mahieu, Se préparer
au don de l’unité. La commission internationale catholique-orthodoxe, 1975–2000 (Paris: Cerf,
2016).
89The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (NAOCTC)
is older than the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the
Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church (ICTDOCC), which was initiated at the end
of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. The first meeting of the North American Con-
sultation took place on September 9, 1965. Scrima opened up the path for the establishment
of the ITCDOCC rather than for the NAOCTC.
90Radu Bordeianu, Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology, Ecclesiological
Investigations 13 (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), 6.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 207 12/15/20 3:11:35 PM

from various sides. In this context, Scrima is an Orthodox voice that greatly
needs to be heard, especially as a much-needed alternative to the growing
anti-ecumenical voices and their activities. In addition, Scrima’s models of
ecumenism add to a tradition of reading Orthodox-Catholic relationships
in terms of complementarity, which can inspire mutual enrichment, growth
in reciprocal understanding, and common efforts in confronting the many
challenges that Christianity faces today.
Orthodox Christians have been engaged in the foundation of the ecu-
menical movement almost from the beginning, actively working towards
the restoration of communion among divided Christendom.91 While it is
true that a few anti-ecumenical groups within Eastern Christianity did not
cease to look at the ongoing ecumenical movement with irritation, for a
long time their criticism had no major impact upon the ecumenical trajec-
tory of the Orthodox Church. However, over more recent decades, Ortho-
doxy has been confronted with the rapid growth of anti-ecumenical and
anti-Western sentiments among its members, which has very often been
coupled with the more recent developments in geo-political competitions.
As mentioned in the introduction, the overall achievements of the Coun-
cil of Crete’s document of ecumenism were lower that the expectations
beforehand, as a negative result of the growing influence of the anti-ecu-
menical and anti-Western groups in contemporary Orthodoxy. In addi-
tion, the way these same groups contested what they considered to be the
more ecumenically open statements of the Holy and Great Council of the
Orthodox Church shows the swift and wide spread of opposition to ecu-
menism within Orthodox communities, especially in Eastern Europe.92 In
91Tamara Grdzelidze, “Orthodox Ecumenism,” in Geoffrey Wainwright and
Paul McPartlan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, online publication date 2018). The article is available at DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600847.013.6
92For a more detailed presentation of this phenomenon in Orthodox Christianity, see
Paul Ladouceur, “On Ecumenoclasm: Anti-Ecumenical Theology in Orthodoxy,” St Vladi-
mir’s Theological Quarterly 61 (2017): 323–55. For a comprehensive analysis of the main fac-
tors that led to the consolidation of an anti-Western rhetoric in contemporary Orthodoxy,
see Pantelis Kalaitzidis, “Theological, Historical, and Cultural Reasons for Anti-Ecumeni-
cal Movements in Eastern Orthodoxy,” in P. Kalaitzidis et alii, eds., Orthodox Handbook on
Ecumenism, 134–52; Vasilios Makrides, “Orthodox Anti-Westernism Today: A Hindrance
to European Integration?,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 9
(2009): 209–24.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 208 12/15/20 3:11:36 PM

the discourse of anti-ecumenical groups, Orthodoxy designates itself “in

juxtaposition to others, in effect making its believers intolerant towards
anything falling outside her visible boundaries.”93
First of all, Scrima’s ecumenical vision could again pave the way towards
a more ecumenical Orthodoxy, primarily but not exclusively in relation to
the Catholic Church. The openness of Scrima’s theology of ecumenism
and the theoretical principles of his vision of inter-Christian dialogue offer
a theologically deep and historically informed reflection on ecclesial unity,
which invites Orthodoxy and Catholicism to a stronger dialogue, increased
cooperation, and mutual enrichment. That being so, Scrima’s inclusivist
theology of Orthodox-Catholic relationships speaks of an Eastern Chris-
tianity liberated from the unpleasant experiences of the past, open to con-
versation, and willing to embrace the genuine experience of God as lived by
other churches. In other words, Scrima provides Eastern Christianity with
the image of an Orthodoxy vindicated by any impulse towards ecclesial
triumphalism and a ghetto mentality that is afraid of any interaction with
the Christian other, which may pollute its pristine ethos and spirituality.
An Orthodoxy that refuses to learn from, and to listen to, the Christian
other is unfaithful to Christ’s commandment of love.
Second, Scrima’s vision of Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism does not
lack boldness, courage, or creative thinking. His points of view nurture
the good in each Christian, and his vision inspires ecumenism always to
go forward and never give up faith, hope, and love. Additionally, it could
inspire Orthodox bishops and theologians in the future to embrace a more
inclusivist doctrine of the Church, which, without falling into relativism,
acknowledges the ecclesiological implications of the fact that, prior to the
eschaton, truth is not static, but dynamic. This is to say that, as long as it
lives in history, the Orthodox Church must not attach itself to all forms of
knowledge of God it possesses and to all the instances of God’s revelation
93Haralambos Ventis, “Fundamentalism as ‘Orthodoxism,’ ” Public Orthodoxy, July
3, 2018. See https://publicorthodoxy.org/2018/07/03/fundamentalism-as-orthodoxism/
[accessed on October 20, 2020]. See also Aristotle Papanikolaou and George E. Dema-
copoulos, eds., Fundamentalism or Tradition: Christianity after Secularism (New York,
NY: Fordham University Press, 2020); Vasilios N. Makrides and Sebastian Rimestad, eds.,
Coping with Change: Orthodox Christian Dynamics between Tradition, Innovation, and
Realpolitik, Erfurter Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des orthodoxen Christentums 18 (Ber-
lin–Bern–Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2020).
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 209 12/15/20 3:11:37 PM

in its history as to the final or eschatological reality. In other words, the

Orthodox Church, even though it is the possessor of Christ’s salvific pres-
ence, does not exhaust the mystery of God, but only points towards its
eschatological fullness. However, for Scrima, the Orthodox Church is an
icon of the eschatological fullness, not in opposition to Western Christian-
ity, but in dialogue and complementarity.
Last but not least, although very much neglected by academia, Scrima’s
theology would be an excellent Orthodox conversation partner for West-
ern ecumenists in their search for a receptive, hermeneutical, spiritual, and
kenotic model of ecumenism that is willing to acknowledge, in line with
Pope Francis, “what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.”94 That
being the case, it is the hope of this article to contribute in some way to
the rediscovery of a heretofore undeservedly neglected pioneer of inter-
Christian dialogue, whose vision of unity had decisively contributed in the
1960s to the ecumenical turn in Orthodox-Catholic relationships. Once
rediscovered, Scrima’s ecumenical thoughts are spiritually rewarding and
theologically enriching, both within the Orthodox Church and beyond its
canonical borders.
94Antonio Spadaro, “Intervista a papa Francesco,” La civiltà cattolica, August 19, 2013
[accessed on October 20, 2020].
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 210 12/15/20 3:11:37 PM

Notes on Contributors
John Behr (D. Phil., Oxon) is Regius Professor of Humanity at the Uni-
versity of Aberdeen and Metropolitan Kallistos Chair of Orthodox
Theology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Ruan Bessa is a Ph.D. student and research assistant for Dr Mary L. Van-
denBerg at Calvin Theological Seminary.
Mark Chenoweth (M.Div. and Th.M., St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theo-
logical Seminary) is an adjunct professor of theology at St John’s Univer-
sity in Queens, New York. He attends St Nicholas Albanian Orthodox
Church in Queens.
Viorel Coman (Ph.D., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) is a senior post-
doctoral fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) in the
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven.
Agapie Corbu (Ph.D., University of Sibiu) was formerly New Testa-
ment Assistant Professor at the Department of Orthodox Theology of
University of Arad and is now an independent scholar. He is the Abbot
of the Hermitage of the Annunciation (Almaş, Arad) in the Romanian
Orthodox Church.
Lawrence Farley (M.Div., Wycliffe College, Toronto) is the rector
of St Herman of Alaska Orthodox Church (O.C.A.) in Langley, BC,
Canada.
Adrian N. Guiu (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is professor of Com-
parative Religion, Philosophy and Humanities at Wilbur Wright Col-
lege in Chicago.
Tracy Gustilo (Ph.D., University of California, Davis) is part-time
Assistant Professor of Theology at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological
Seminary.
255
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 255 12/15/20 3:12:10 PM

Timm Heinbokel (M.D., Ph.D., Charité Medical School, Berlin) is a

medical doctor in Berlin, Germany and a Ph.D. student in theology at
the University of Aberdeen.
Christopher B. Kaiser (Ph.D., University of Colorado; Ph.D., Uni-
versity of Edinburgh) is Emeritus Professor of Historical and Systematic
Theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan.
Michael Plekon (Ph.D., Rutgers University) is Professor Emeritus,
The City University of New York, Baruch College, and attached at St
Gregory Orthodox Church, Wappingers Falls, NY.
Theodore Pulcini (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Professor Emer-
itus of Religion at Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He is a
priest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America.
Luis Josué Salés (Ph.D., Fordham University) is Assistant Professor and
Chair of Religious Studies at Scripps College.
SVTQ64_3-4.indb 256 12/15/20 3:12:10 PM

SVTQ 64, 3-4 (V. Coman)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SVTQ 64, 3-4 (V. Coman)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

St Vladimir’s

a peer-reviewed journal published by

Dr Ionuț-Alexandru Tudorie, Editor-in-Chief

Volume 64, Numbers 3–4

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 1 12/15/20 3:08:40 PM

Rev. Dr Bogdan Bucur Dr Vitaly Permiakov

Editorial and Subscription Offices

Copyright © 2020 by St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary

The views of the authors whose articles appear in

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 2 12/15/20 3:08:40 PM

Mystery upon Mystery: Mid-Pentecost as

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 3 12/15/20 3:08:41 PM

André Scrima’s Ecumenical Vision and

KEYWORDS: André Scrima, Orthodox Christianity, ecumenism, ecclesiol-

T he long-anticipated Holy and Great Council of the Christian Ortho-

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 181 12/15/20 3:11:14 PM

more than a half century of fluctuations between preparations and unfore-

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 182 12/15/20 3:11:14 PM

unity. As an illustration of its exclusivist leaning, the opening paragraph

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 183 12/15/20 3:11:15 PM

9See John A. Jillions, “Three Orthodox Models of Christian Unity: Traditionalist,

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 184 12/15/20 3:11:16 PM

that attaches a higher positive ecclesiological value to the Christian other.

André Scrima: Bridge Builder between East and West

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 185 12/15/20 3:11:17 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 186 12/15/20 3:11:18 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 187 12/15/20 3:11:19 PM

arrived in Paris, Scrima introduced himself to the Catholic intellectual elite,

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 188 12/15/20 3:11:20 PM

Catholicism: the ecumenical openness of Roman Catholicism. Second,

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 189 12/15/20 3:11:21 PM

1967) and Athenagoras’ visit to Rome (October 26–28, 1967). In addi-

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 190 12/15/20 3:11:21 PM

e­ cumenical openness, he also provided Catholic theologians and scholars

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 191 12/15/20 3:11:22 PM

Council were translated from French into Romanian and published in a

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 192 12/15/20 3:11:23 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 193 12/15/20 3:11:24 PM

the Catholic Church as openly as Scrima. This testifies to his ecumenical

D’Aloisio, Institutions ecclésiales et ministères chez Nicholas Afanassieff, Collection ‘Religio’

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 194 12/15/20 3:11:25 PM

at the time was “a pluralism of theological formulas, which were foreign to

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 195 12/15/20 3:11:26 PM

(1869–1870).45 Undoubtedly, the West cannot be one-sidedly blamed for

45A. Scrima, “L’Orthodoxie et Vatican II,” 1.

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 196 12/15/20 3:11:26 PM

the two worlds started to settle in opposition to each other, they

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 197 12/15/20 3:11:27 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 198 12/15/20 3:11:28 PM

Models for the Orthodox Church’s Ecumenical

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 199 12/15/20 3:11:29 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 200 12/15/20 3:11:30 PM

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 201 12/15/20 3:11:30 PM

66A. Scrima, “Ligugé II,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.ECU 67, 1.

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 202 12/15/20 3:11:31 PM

to the question of primacy, which is not foreign to ­Eastern Christianity just

71A. Scrima, “Unité,” AAS-NEC, Folder DN.VAT 85, 1.

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 203 12/15/20 3:11:32 PM

on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council gave high priority to the

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 204 12/15/20 3:11:33 PM

rediscovery of Christian unity as a gift, given ultimately by God: not earned

SVTQ64_3-4.indb 205 12/15/20 3:11:34 PM

ecclesial divisions of the past: “ecumenical action requires the purification

Instead of Conclusions: Contemporary Relevance

e cumenical openness, he also provided Catholic theologians and scholars

to the question of primacy, which is not foreign to Eastern Christianity just

when the official theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church