|
Father Ray Ryland on How Alexander [sic]
Soloviev Yearned to Unite East and West
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, 19 NOV. 2003 (ZENIT).
Instead of focusing on differences, Alexander [sic] Soloviev emphasized
the faith Roman Catholics share with his fellow Russian Orthodox
Christians: "Whatever is holy and sacred for us is also holy and sacred
for them."
Soloviev failed to unite the two in his lifetime (1853-1900), but his
efforts did not go unnoticed. John Paul II recently hailed him as "a
pioneer and example of dialogue between Eastern and Western Christians."
Father Ray Ryland, an expert on Soloviev, shared with ZENIT how the
pioneering Russian tried to appeal to others who desired to establish the
Kingdom of God on earth.
Father Ryland, an adjunct professor of theology at Franciscan University
of Steubenville, recently edited a version of Soloviev's book, "The
Russian Church and the Papacy" (Catholic Answers).
Q: Who was Vladimir Soloviev and why he is notable today?
Father Ryland: Vladimir Soloviev was a Russian philosopher, political
thinker, theologian, literary critic, poet and mystic. His mind ranged far
and wide among Western and even Eastern philosophies — not to be eclectic,
but to extract from many different systems of thought the truth they
contained.
Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev's "skill in the technique
of integrating all partial truths in one vision." Von Balthasar ranked
Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as "the greatest artist of order and
organization in the history of thought."
Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998's "Fides et Ratio" as
standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of
years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev's "prophetic" work
makes him one of our era's great "witnesses of the faith and illustrious
Christian thinkers."
Recently an international gathering of scholars from East and West met in
the Ukraine to discuss Soloviev's book, "Russia and the Universal Church."
Soloviev always referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the universal
Church." The first half of that book, which deals specifically with the
relation of the Russian Church to the Roman Catholic Church, has been
issued under the title, "The Russian Church and the Papacy."
Soloviev's distinguished career as a university professor was immediately
terminated when he publicly pleaded with the czar to forgive a would-be
assassin. During and after his academic career, Soloviev published many
works of logic, metaphysics, philosophy, theology and theosophy, an
integration of theology and philosophy.
Throughout his adult life he lived in Franciscan simplicity. He was almost
always without funds because he routinely emptied his wallet to anyone who
asked for help. When he had no money, if an indigent approached him he
would give the man his coat. His premature death apparently was caused by
overwork and by the physical effects of his life of stringent self-denial.
During the last two decades of his life, Soloviev became deeply interested
in Christian unity. In 1886 he submitted to a Croatian Catholic archbishop
his own proposal for bringing the Russian Orthodox Church back into
communion with Rome. The archbishop arranged an audience with Pope Leo
XIII in the spring of 1888. At that audience, the Pope gave Soloviev the
papal benediction for his efforts at reconciling the Russian Church to
Catholic communion.
In 1896, Soloviev made a profession of faith before an Eastern Catholic
priest, and was received into Catholic communion. He did not regard this
as abandoning his ties with the Russian Church, but rather as their
fulfillment.
There is an unsubstantiated report that he received last rites from a
Russian Orthodox priest, which would have been permissible had there been
no Catholic priest available. But to the end of his life Soloviev
recognized the Pope as "supreme judge in matters of religion."
Q: How did Soloviev, as an Orthodox Christian, understand the infallible
teaching of the papacy to be a perpetual gift from Christ to his Church?
Father Ryland: Soloviev rejects attempts by Russian apologists and by all
non-Catholic apologists to equate the power of the keys given to Peter
with the power of binding and loosing given to all the apostles.
The latter power, he pointed out, concerns only individual cases —
personal problems of conscience. By contrast, the power of the keys
conferred on Peter refers to the whole of the Church. He insists that
Christ focused supreme authority and infallibility on St. Peter and his
successors to guarantee the Church's unity in the truth.
He asks rhetorically: If the Russian Church can proclaim the truth apart
from Peter and his successors, how can one explain "the remarkable silence
of the Eastern episcopate" since the schism began? Soloviev does not
hesitate to use the word "schism" to designate the Russian Church's
separation from Rome.
Q: Why did Soloviev believe that union with Rome was the only way the
separated Eastern Churches could become truly Catholic?
Father Ryland: Repeatedly, Soloviev pointed out once the Russian Church
abandoned the jurisdiction of Rome it had inevitably fallen under the
control of the government. That, he said, is the fate of all purely
national churches.
The only way a national church — like the Russian Church — can avoid being
subject to the authority of the state is to have a center of unity outside
the state. That supranational center of unity can only be Rome.
Apart from Rome, the Russian Church's concept of the universal church is
purely a logical concept. "Its parts are real, but the whole is nothing
but a subjective abstraction," Soloviev said. Eastern Orthodoxy is only a
loose federation of like-minded traditions. In the East, said Soloviev,
there are only isolated national churches. Only if they return to the
divinely appointed center of unity can they be truly catholic.
Q: What did Soloviev propose as the proper relationship between the Pope
and the Eastern patriarchs?
Father Ryland: In the centuries before the split between East and West,
the popes consistently recognized the authority of the patriarchs with
their own jurisdictions.
Soloviev reminds his readers, however, that repeatedly in the early
centuries Easterners created heresies that they could not handle. Heretics
consistently enlisted the power of the emperor in their behalf. The
patriarchs were able successfully to combat the heresies only when they
appealed to the Pope for his resolution. They thereby clearly acknowledged
his supreme authority.
Q: Did Soloviev think that the Roman Catholic Church should be able to
evangelize in Russia?
Father Ryland: Soloviev does not explicitly discuss this issue in his
writings. Yet one can assume that he would not have opposed the Catholic
Church's evangelistic efforts in Russia. He did recognize the importance
of the Eastern Catholic churches by personally seeking out one of their
priests to make his act of submission to the teaching and authority of
Rome.
Q: How would Soloviev approach the particular issues facing
Catholic-Orthodox relations today?
Father Ryland: Soloviev insists that with regard to their relation to
Rome, anti-Catholic Eastern apologists deal mainly in negations. Your
religion, he said to them, consists in denying the "filioque," the
Immaculate Conception — despite the affirmation of that doctrine in
Eastern liturgies — and the universal jurisdiction and authority of the
bishop of Rome.
Let's face it, he said: "It is the last point that you are chiefly
concerned with. The others, you know well, are only pretexts; the
Sovereign Pontiff is your real bugbear." Soloviev would agree with those
Eastern Orthodox theologians who concede that the underlying issue between
themselves and Rome is the issue of authority.
He challenges the Eastern opponents of the papacy to offer some
alternative, positive principle of authority for the Church. He scoffs at
the Eastern insistence on conciliarism as the proper form of church
structure. Ecumenical councils for them constitute the final authority in
doctrinal matters. But, he said, the East had never convoked an ecumenical
council and today still cannot convoke such a council.
Soloviev could have added that no ecumenical council has ever decreed that
ecumenical councils shall be the ultimate authority for the Church.
Indeed, he says, if the proper structure for the Church is conciliar, then
the Eastern Orthodox do not have either "a true church constitution or a
regular church government," since they cannot convene an ecumenical
council.
The conciliarism urged by the Eastern Orthodox is incomplete, Soloviev
says. Jesus Christ did found his Church on the council of the apostles,
but he also established the papacy to enable the conciliar structure to
properly to function.
In many ways Soloviev challenges his fellow Russian Orthodox Christians to
be reconciled with Rome. He emphasizes the fact that the Orthodox churches
hold much the same faith as does the Catholic Church: "Whatever is holy
and sacred for us [the Russian Orthodox] is also holy and sacred for them
[the Catholics]."
There should be no division because the Orthodox churches' piety is
essentially contemplative, while that of the Catholic Church is more
active. The fact that these pieties are complementary should be a force
for unity, not division. If the Eastern churches were to be reunited with
Rome, they would not have to sacrifice anything of their unique heritage.
Soloviev speaks to those who, like himself, yearn for establishing the
Kingdom of God on earth. Those persons must also yearn for the papacy and
the universal Church, which is God's appointed means for bringing about
his Kingdom on earth. ZE03111923
|
