Mccormick Thesis

AQUINAS INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY
THAT ALL MAY BE ONE IN THE EUCHARIST AND THE CHURCH:

A COMPARISON OF THE EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGIES
AND ECUMENICAL POSSIBILITIES
OF JOHN PAUL II AND SERGIUS BULGAKOV
Angela McCormick
Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the
Aquinas Institute of Theology, Saint Louis, Missouri
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree Master of Arts in Theology
2009 A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 2
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Chapter One: The Impact of Distinct Ecumenical Climates 7
Chapter Two: Sergius Bulgakov 10
A Brief Biography 10
Key Events that Influenced Bulgakovs Ecumenical Approach 13
Bulgakovs Sophiological Lens 18
Two Modes of Sophia 25
Sophia and the Incarnation 28
The Sophianic Unity of Multiplicity - All Destined for Oneness in God 29
A Sophiological Understanding of the Eucharist and the Church 30
How Bulgakovs sophiological lens shapes his ecumenical approach 33
Chapter Three: John Paul II 36

A Brief Biography 36
Key Events that Impacted JPIIs Ecumenical Approach 39
JPIIs Christocentric Personalism: the Eucharist, the Church & Ecumenism 42
JPIIs Personalism: Centered in the Incarnation 43
Christocentric Personalism: the Church and the Eucharist 50
Chapter Four: Bulgakov and John Paul II in Dialogue on Ecumenism, the Eucharist, and the
Possibility of Reunion 53
Ecumenism as process of fostering a unity already present. 54
Understanding Ecumenism: Areas of Divergence between JPII and Bulgakov 59
On the Eucharists Function and the Possibility of Orthodox-Catholic Reunion 64
Conclusion: The Road to Reunion: Where do we go from Here? 80
Bibliography 85 A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 3
Introduction
Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have much in common, sharing analogous beliefs
and practices as well as an intersecting past. Their familial kinship in Christ has weathered many
moments of sibling rivalry and doctrinal squabbles over the course of history. The breaking of
Eucharistic intercommunion between the East and West occurred sometime after the Great
Schism of 1054 CE, and the visible separation of the Church family persists in our modern day.
At the same time, the lines of communication and openness to dialogue are present now as never
before. Our modern situation overflows with hope as Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue
furthers us along the road towards visible intercommunion.
A major concern regarding ecumenical efforts between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic
confessions is the question of whether the Eucharist should be used to facilitate unity. On this
question, Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov and Roman Catholic theologian John
Paul II seem to hold radically different positions. For Pope John Paul II (1920-2005), the
Eucharist is the outgrowth of a communion already present and is never to be used as a means
towards establishing unity between Christian confessions. Father Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944)
argues for permitting exceptional cases of partial or limited Eucharistic sharing because it fosters
and furthers unity, "for the sake of the good of the Church."1 Thus, it appears as though Bulgakov
and JPII
1 It is important to note that such partial or limited communion is termed "the principle of Economy" or "economic
communion" in the East. Cf. Summary of Bulgakovs Speech in "General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933."
Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius [=JFAS] 20 (1933): 13. Both the Catholic understanding of partial
communion and the Eastern Orthodox understanding of economic communion imply the idea of the suspension of strictly
applying canonical and disciplinary norms to certain "exceptional cases" and unique situations.
A. McCormick
angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 4
Such principle of economy currently exists between the contemporary Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and
will be discussed in the conclusion of this paper.
dramatically differ in positions on the Eucharists role in ecumenism and reunion; however,
more unites than divides their approaches, for both theologians acknowledge that Christian
confessions must first reach a level of agreement on key issues of the faith before proceeding
forward to the Eucharistic table.
The purpose of this thesis is both to compare the arguments of Russian Orthodox Sergius
Bulgakov and Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II on the Eucharists role in ecumenism and to
explore their individual positions on whether reunion is possible between their respective
confessions. Various reasons and goals underlie my comparison. I will be arguing that just as
more unites than divides Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism so also more similarities
than differences are found between the views of Sergius Bulgakov and John Paul II on the
relationship of the Eucharist and ecumenism as well as the task of Orthodox-Catholic reunion. In
evaluating these two theological juggernauts, I hope to assist the unity of the Orthodox and
Catholic confessions by illustrating the similarities present and illuminating the questions that
remain. Furthermore, I anticipate my comparison may bring to light theological truths that have
lacked sufficient discussion and could bear fruit if addressed. My hope is that this evaluation will
remind both Catholic and Orthodox Christians of truths under-emphasized in their particular
confessions, thereby facilitating individual and corporate growth in the universal Body of Christ.
In this way, one of the goals of my thesis is to provide whatever assistance I can in breeding
mutual understanding between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, furthering us along
the road to reunion. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 5
It is important to recognize at the outset that this thesis is geared towards a Roman Catholic
academic audience. I therefore expect the reader to be knowledgeable of Catholic doctrine and
the theological outlook of John Paul II, yet have little exposure to Russian Orthodoxy and limited
(if any) knowledge of Sergius Bulgakov. It is my aim to concentrate equal attention on
explicating the views of both theologians. At the same time, there may be occasions where
Bulgakovs position requires further clarification in order to be sufficiently grasped by the
audience. While I will be drawing from a wide variety of Bulgakovs writings, particular focus
will remain on his June 1933 Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion, as well as two
journal articles By Jacobs Well (December 1933) and Ways to Church Reunion (June 1936)
which he had published in The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius.2
2 The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius was later renamed Sobornost in 1935. Bulgakov played a key
role in the founding of this journal as well as the founding of the Anglican-Orthodox Fellowship itself.
3 Ut Unum Sint is hailed by many as the first papal encyclical entirely dedicated to ecumenism. While the majority of
scholars note it for its explication of the papacy as a unitive ministry of service, the encyclical itself largely deals with John
Paul IIs vision and understanding of ecumenism in relation to the Church. From the outset, JPII stipulates that the purpose
of the encyclical is to help "increase the unity of all Christians" and to pastorally "encourage the efforts of all who work for
the cause of unity." Cf. section 3 of Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint of the Holy Father, John Paul II on Commitment to
Ecumenism (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995). Available online
The works of John Paul II, on the other hand, will be more restricted because the late pontiff
authored a colossal number of texts and, as previously mentioned, I expect my Roman Catholic
audience already has a level of background knowledge on these works. Thus I will
predominantly focus on two of JPIIs papal encyclicals, including his 1995 publication Ut Unum
Sint, and his 2003 publication Ecclesia de Eucharistia. I chose Ut Unum Sint because it was John
Pauls first encyclical addressing the topic of ecumenism, and features his views on both the task
of dialogue and the papacy as a ministry of unity.3 I chose Ecclesia de Eucharistia as my second
primary resource A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 6
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html.
Accessed 06 Sept 2008. Also cf. "Introduction" in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, Church Unity and the Papal Office:
An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One) (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B.
Eerdmans, 2001) 1ff.
because it depicts John Paul IIs view of the Eucharists relationship to ecumenism, and is
therefore most pertinent to my analysis. Other works authored by John Paul II will be
incorporated throughout the thesis but Ut Unum Sint and Ecclesia de Eucharistia will remain the
central focus.
In all, my thesis consists of four chapters and a conclusion. Chapter one illustrates how living in
distinct historical time frames and ecumenical climates impacted the views of Bulgakov and JPII
regarding the task of dialogue and Orthodox-Catholic reunion. Next, chapter two begins with a
brief presentation of Father Sergius Bulgakovs life and key experiences, and then moves on to
examine how his sophiological lens impacts his Eucharistic theology, as well as his
ecclesiological and ecumenical understandings. Applying the same examinational framework to
Pope John Paul II, chapter three will begin with an analysis of JPIIs life and key experiences
and then move on to discuss the lens through which the pontiff views the Church and task of
ecumenism. Delving into the crux of the matter, chapter four reviews and compares the
arguments of Bulgakov and JPII on the Eucharists role in ecumenism and the possibility of
Orthodox-Catholic reunion. Here I will attempt to moderate a dialogue between Bulgakov and
JPII so as to better illustrate the similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses of their
arguments. Finally, in the conclusion of my thesis, I will review the key findings of my
comparison, scrutinize the contemporary state of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, and then end with
my own recommendations on what steps still need to be made in order to advance Orthodoxy
and Catholicism along the road towards full visible reunion. A. McCormick
In the course of this thesis, it will become evident both Sergius Bulgakov and John Paul II affirm
that more unites than divides Russian Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. At the same time, they
recognize the visible division between the two confessions causes scandal since it runs contrary
to Jesus prayer, "Ut unum sint," that all may be one as He and the Father are one (cf. Jn
17:20ff).
Chapter One: The Impact of Distinct Ecumenical Climates
We begin with an analysis of how living and working in different time frames impacted the
perspectives of both Bulgakov and JPII on ecumenism and the possibility of Orthodox-Catholic
reunion. It is important to recognize at the outset that Bulgakov and JPII lived in different time
frames and ecumenical climates, which influenced their worldviews and approaches to other
Christian confessions. For example, Sergius Bulgakovs academic career spans from his
entrance into Moscow University in 1890 up until his death in 1944. Furthermore, operating in
an ecumenical climate much different than that of John Paul II, Bulgakov lived during a time
when ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was virtually nonexistent in any
official capacity.
Prior to Vatican II, the Roman Magisterium was generally suspicious of ecumenism and
unwilling to participate in any formal conversations. The unpleasant status of dialogue between
the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions is illustrated through Bulgakovs severe
critiques of the papacy, particularly when Bulgakov presented his paper on "The Churchs
Ministry" to the first World Conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne (1927). In it, he states,
"Christians from all over the world are here, and the only absentees are the representatives of the
Roman hierarchy, A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 8
which conceives of union as involving submission to the absolute power of the Pope."4 Not even
six months after Bulgakovs critique, Pope Pius XI issued his 1928 encyclical On Religious
Unity - Mortalium Animos that banned Catholics from any participation in ecumenical dialogue.
Pope Pius XI effectively declared that the Roman Church contains the fullness of the truth and,
therefore, concluded that discussion with Christians not in union with Rome was unnecessary,
"dangerous," and "evil".5 Thus official dialog with other Christians was virtually non-existent at
the start of the twentieth century; however, unofficial Roman-Orthodox discussions did occur on
a grassroots level and are occasionally mentioned in Bulgakovs own personal accounts as well
as the accounts of Catholic academics.6
4 Sergius Bulgakov, "The Churchs Ministry" *1927+ Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference August 3- 21,
1927, ed. H. N. Bate (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc., 1928): 263.
5 Pius XIs encyclical states that allowing Catholics to dialog with Christians and non-Christians would essentially be
permitting "the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies" and calls on all members of the Apostolic Office to
exhibit "zeal in avoiding this evil." Cf. section 5 of Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos of the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XI:
On Fostering True Religious Unity : January 6, 1928. Published in The Great papal encyclicals (Kansas City, Mo: Angelus
Press, 1998). Also available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html. Accessed 08 Sept 2009.
6 For example, Catholic theologian Yves Congar visited and dialogued with Bulgakov on numerous occasions in 1936. Cf.
Yves Concar, Dialogue Between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. Philip Loretz (London and Dublin:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1966) 17; and Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology : Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov : Orthodox
theology in a new key (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 2000) 284. Furthermore, Bulgakov himself engaged in various
discourses with a Lithuanian Catholic priest named Father Matthew when he was in Crimea. These discussions brought
Bulgakov to what he terms his "Catholic infection," which is a phase in his life when he was tempted to think the Roman
papacy was stable enough to be the rallying point of ecumenism. To gain a fuller understanding of this phase in relation to
the rest of Bulgakovs life, cf. Anastassy Brandon Gallaher, "Catholic Action: Ecclesiology, the Eucharist and the Question of
Intercommunion in the Ecumenism of Sergii Bulgakov." M. Div. diss. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological
Seminary, 2003): 25-6. I am indebted to Gallahers thesis for assisting me in understanding Bulgakovs ecumenical
influences, his sophiology, as well as his proposal for partial or limited intercommunion between the Anglican and Orthodox
Churches.
In contrast to the strained state of Catholic-Orthodox relations during Bulgakovs lifetime,

Vatican II ushered in a new era of dialogue for the Roman Catholic A. McCormick
Church.7 Key documents like the Second Vatican Councils decree on ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintegratio (1964), and Pope Paul VIs encyclical Ecclesiam Suam are credited with
inaugurating Romes shift towards ecumenical openness.8 John Paul II principally operated
within this open climate, since his academic and ecclesiastical career spans from the 1940s up to
his death in 2005. As we shall see, JPII not only encouraged and facilitated dialogue with his
Orthodox siblings but he believed the task of reunion to be only a matter of time.
7 For a discussion of Ut Unum Sint as well as Vatican IIs ecumenical vision and its declaration that Catholicism is
"irrevocably committed to ecumenism because of its own self-understanding," cf. George Weigel, Witness to Hope: The
Biography of Pope John Paul II (New York, NY: Cliff Street Books, 1999) 760-6.
8 For an analysis of such documents issued by the Roman hierarchy, cf. Cardinal Walter Kasper, Nature and Purpose of
Ecumenical Dialog. Available online: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasperdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030227_ecumenical-dialogue_en.html Accessed 11 Feb 2009.
The idea of a Catholic pope so open to dialogue was completely foreign during Bulgakovs preVatican II historical timeframe and much of his rather harsh critiques of Catholicism must be
viewed within this context. While Roman Catholic ecumenical endeavors thrived under the
pontificate of John Paul II, they were virtually non-existent during Bulgakovs life time. To
Bulgakov, Catholic-Orthodox reunion seemed more of a distant vision than a reality, whereas
John Paul II believed such reunion not only possible but made it the goal of his papacy to do
everything he could to bring about this reunion.
Even though they operated within different historical timeframes and ecumenical climates, a
great deal of similarity can be found in comparing the lives of Bulgakov and John Paul II.
Besides having similar influences, both made the task of ecumenism a labor of love, sacrifice
and humility. I will now provide a brief life synopsis for both theologians, which is important
because it helps us understand more of the origins of their thoughts and worldviews.
Furthermore, as authentic and integrated persons, both A. McCormick
Sergius Bulgakov and John Paul II lived what they believed; therefore, it is imperative that we
pause to examine their lives in order to gain a deeper understanding of what key events affected
their ecumenical approaches.
Our focus now turns to Sergius Bulgakov, as chapter two will open with a short biographical
introduction, highlighting key life events that had a lasting impression on the theologians
individual outlooks, and then move on to explain Bulgakovs sophiological lens and how it
shapes his Eucharistic theology, ecclesiology and ecumenical approach.
Chapter Two: Sergius Bulgakov

A Brief Biography
Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov was born in 1871 near Livney, which is about two hundred and
fifty miles south of Moscow in Russias Orel province.9 As a child, little Sergei was encouraged
by his parents to experience "the life of the church as a total participant."10 Bulgakov described
his familys daily ritual devotions as a "law of nature" since nature itself seemed to follow the
liturgical seasons.11 His life found alignment with the liturgy at an early age.
9 Note that there are multiple spellings of Bulgakovs first name, including Sergii, Sergei, Serge, and Sergius.
10 Myroslaw I. Tataryn explains that Bulgakovs home life revolved around the typicon consisting of the various phases of
prayer of the Orthodox liturgical calendar "and thus the cycles of feasts, fasts and liturgical prayer dominated his early
years." Myroslaw I. Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and Augustine of Hippo : a
Twentieth Century Dialogue (Lanham, Md: International Scholars Publications, 2000) 67.
11 Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 228.
Although he was provided with a strong formation in Orthodoxy, Bulgakov experienced a faithcrisis soon after he decided to become a priest. When he turned thirteen, Sergei chose to follow
in the levitical footsteps of his father and grandfather and A. McCormick
joined the Orel Theological Seminary. In his autobiography he comments that he found himself
doubting God's existence shortly after he began his first course.12 Bulgakovs faith-crisis
continued for two years. Finally he decided to leave it all behind and transferred to a secular
institution called the Elets gymnasium.
12 In his autobiographical writings, Bulgakov states, "Already at the very beginning of this period, in the first or second
class of the seminary, a religious crisis arose, which truly, although painfully but not tragically, resulted in the loss of
religious faith for many, many years. From my fourteenth year to my thirtieth the prodigal son wandered in a far-off land."
Translated and quoted by Tataryn in his book Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy, 67.
13 For more biographical information on this matter, cf. Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the
Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Ithaca [u.a.]: Cornell Univ. Press, 1997).
14 For a more thorough presentation of Bulgakovs mystical experiences of Sophia, cf. Gallaher, "Catholic Action" M. Div.
diss., 10ff. In this same section, Gallaher does a fine job explicating how Bulgakovs life experiences influenced his
ecumenical approach.
For sixteen years, Bulgakov dabbled in atheism, Marxism, and idealism before finally initiating
his return to Christianity. Mystical experience held a special role in both his journey back to the
faith and significantly influenced the way he approached theology in general because it
eventually led him to develop his sophiological outlook. His first mystical experience of Sophia
occurred in 1894, when he was traveling and caught sight of the Caucasian Mountains at sunset.
Bulgakov was suddenly overcome by a revelation of all nature and beauty dwelling in God.13 He
later came to describe this as his first recognition of Sophia an epiphany he received while still
a proclaimed atheist and Marxist.14 His second mystical experience occurred four years later in
1898, when he was in Dresden. At the art gallery there, Bulgakov was emotionally overcome
when he gazed upon Raphaels Sistine Madonna and felt like he was looking into his own soul,
causing him to reach out to God in prayer. Upon having this second mystical experience, he did
not immediately return to the arms of Orthodoxy; however, he was moved to pray, which was
certainly a step in the right direction. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com
12
Entering the Faculty of Law at Moscow University in 1890, he completed his dissertation titled
Capitalism and Agriculture ten years later in 1900. While his thesis provided him with the option
of becoming a well-respected Marxist academic, he arrived at the ironic conclusion that Marxism
did not line up with the reality of life, particularly in the areas of agriculture, development and
capitalism. Bulgakov perceived what one scholar describes as an "incongruity between Marxist
doctrine and aspects of modern agricultural development."15 Over time, this incongruity led
Bulgakov to turn away from Marxism and instead embraced a form of idealism that roused him
to address metaphysical issues, which is accredited by some for stimulating his prodigal
homecoming to Orthodoxy.16 He started involving himself in various Christian Socialist political
endeavors, which was quite a radical move since Russia was under strict communist rule at the
time. Eventually, Bulgakov fully rejected Marxisms faith in progress and moved to embrace "a
progressive faith."17 More than thirty years after he left the Orthodox seminary, he returned to
complete his priestly training and went on to make his final vows in June 1918, just days before
he turned the mature age of forty-eight.
15 Paul Valliere explains, "The gap between theory and life always bothered him, and it particularly bothered him as a
Marxist." Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 229ff.
16 Cf. Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy 68.
17 Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 237.
The beginning, middle and end of Bulgakovs life aligned with the liturgical cycle. As a child,
the liturgy permeated his familys routine. Even though Bulgakov drifted away from the faith in
his young adult years to dabble in atheism and Marxism, he always sought the Truth and
eventually found his way back to the seminary. His ordination itself fell on a special day within
the liturgical calendar the Feast day of the A. McCormick
Holy Spirit. This had special meaning to Bulgakov because of his deep love and devotion for the
Divine Paraclete. Even the end of Bulgakovs life was in step with the liturgical calendar.
Diagnosed with throat cancer in March of 1939, he immediately halted his ecumenical work and
instead dedicated the remaining years of his life to writing The Eucharistic Sacrifice, and
focused on completing The Apocalypse of John: An Attempt at a Dogmatic Interpretation, which
was the third and last volume of his trilogy on God's Humanity.18 He completed this last work
and suffered a brain hemorrhage shortly after, which inaugurated a forty day struggle before
going into a coma. Gallaher explains that Bulgakov's "final descent... befits one whose life was
consecrated to the beauty of holiness that is the life of the Church." His death, Gallaher clarifies,
also "seemed timed to the rhythms of the Church's worship" as Bulgakov "began his death agony
on the eve of the feast day of the Apostles Peter and Paul and... finally breathed his last on the
feast day of the twelve apostles, July 12, 1944."19 Truly this mans embodying of a theology for
life is echoed in the gift of his lifes alignment with the liturgical calendar.
18 Bulgakovs works The Eucharistic Sacrifice and The Apocalypse of John are still not translated into English. The
Apocalypse of John is the third book of what is called Bulgakovs great trilogy, the first installment of which is The Lamb of
God, and the second installment included The Bride of the Lamb. Both the first and second installments of Bulgakovs great
trilogy are now available in English. Cf. Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, Mich. :
W.B. Eerdmans ; Edinburgh : T&T Clark, 2002); and The Lamb of God (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2008).
19 Gallaher, "Catholic Action" M. Div. diss. 47-8.
Key Events that Influenced Bulgakovs Ecumenical Approach
The Russian Revolution (1917-1921) marked changes in both the state and the Church and
brought Bulgakov to make ecumenism the focus of his academic endeavors. He realized that the
Russian Orthodox Church had become too inwardly focused and autonomously divided; so
distracted by her own interests she was losing sight of her key A. McCormick
role in making the universal Church a visible reality. Russias collapse and the Churchs turmoil
also brought Bulgakov to question Orthodoxys ecclesial structuring. He began to wonder
whether a key head like the Roman pope was needed in order to assure the Churchs stability.
Friendly discussions with a Roman Catholic priest further tempted him to think the Roman
papacy was stable enough to be the rallying point of ecumenism.20 However, this "temptation"
passed over time, and Bulgakov instead concluded that the Russian Orthodox Church was
"chosen among all Christianity" to be the rallying force and point of reunion for all Christian
confessions.21
20 Bulgakov refers to this time in his life as his "Catholic infection." Cf. Bulgakov, Autobiograficheskie zametki (Paris, 1946),
48-50, cited in L.A. Zander "Introduction," The Vatican Dogma (South Canaan, PA.: St. Tikhon Press, 1959) 4.
21 Cf. "Conclusion," in Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1988) 193-4.
22 Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle 89ff.
23 Cf. Bulgakov in "General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933."
Russias collapse fueled Bulgakovs belief that the divisions within Russian Orthodoxy would
open the Church to ecumenism and force her to reach out to her Christian neighbors. He was
critical of Russian ecclesial centralization in the upper echelons of the Orthodox hierarchy as
well as the authority the state exercised over the Church, which he endearingly referred to as
"caesaropapism."22 To Bulgakov, the hierarchy is not ontological to the Churchs being; rather,
the People of God are the Church and the ones in whom the Spirit speaks and authority rests. As
such, he emphasized the need for dialogue at a grass-roots level if reunion is to ever come about
between Christian confessions.23
It was also during the beginning stages of the Russian Revolution that Bulgakov was asked to
participate in a Russian local council (1917-1918) and act as a lay representative for Moscows
higher learning institutes. The ecclesial unity manifested by A. McCormick
the council gave him hope for the reformation of Russian Orthodoxy and Russia in general.
Bulgakov is known to have reminisced that the council inspired his approach to the task of
Christian reunion.24 It was also at this council that Orthodox ecclesial and lay members voted to
reinstate the Moscow Patriarchate, a cause that Bulgakov fervently supported.25
24 Gallaher explains that Bulgakov "would later look back on this council as a landmark movement in the Church of
complete and creative ecclesiastical reconstruction, as well as a unique manifestation of the fullness of Russia." Gallaher,
"Catholic Action" M. Div. diss. 20.
25 Cf. Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 278 and Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle 189-206
26 Cf. Bulgakov, "The Churchs Ministry," 258-263. Valliere explains that Bulgakov was "elected to the Continuation
Committee charged with shepherding the Faith and Order movement until the next international meeting" and that
Bulgakov "achieved prominence at Lausanne by delivering an impassioned plea to the Protestant majority to embrace the
veneration of the Virgin Mary, whom he hailed as the mystical Unifier of the worldwide church," a proposal "so
controversial that the section chairman blocked the speech for a week"; Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 283.
In 1925, Bulgakov became one of the key founders of Frances LInstitut St. Serge, the first ever
Orthodox Theological seminary in Europe. Its European location gave Bulgakov ample
dialoguing opportunities with Western academics. As the acting dean of the Orthodox
Theological seminary for almost twenty years, Bulgakov greatly influenced the Orthodox Church
and academic thought in general. Seminarians attending LInstitute were instructed in
Bulgakovs sophiology and enmeshed in a Western culture ripe for ecumenism. Becoming
increasingly known for his unitive endeavors, Bugakov also helped bring about the very
institutionalization of ecumenism through his involvement in the Faith and Order committee that
was part of the World Council, a movement that eventually led to the establishment of the World
Council of Churches (WCC).26 In this way, it can be said that Sergius Bulgakov is one of the
WCCs founding forefathers.
In 1933, Father Sergius played a key role in establishing the Fellowship of St. Alban and St.
Sergius an Anglican-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue group that inspired A. McCormick
Bulgakovs 1933 Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion between the Anglican and
Orthodox Churches. The Fellowship was an collaboration of Russian Orthodox and Anglican
scholars (lay and religious alike) who not only discussed doctrinal issues but also actively shared
"common prayer," viewing it as the cornerstone of all their dialogue.
Through the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Bulgakov realized the importance of
fostering unity and understanding through activity, rather than just through talk. As a result, he
frequently emphasized the need for action in ecumenism. This is evidenced in his proposal that
Anglican and Orthodox scholars work together to create a divine liturgy that both could celebrate
in their confessions, an endeavor that Bulgakov believed would further their visible and spiritual
unity.27 He also formally proposed the Fellowship seek permission by their respective bishops to
participate in partial communion, which would require a mutual "sacrifice of love" from both
sides.28
27 Bulgakov in "General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933."
28 Ibid.
29 Bulgakov also cites examples of common prayer as well as Orthodox-Anglican Eucharistic "co-celebrations," whereby
Orthodox divine liturgy was "celebrated in Anglican Churches and for Anglican congregations". Cf. "Spiritual
Intercommunion." Sobornost 4 (1935): 3.
30 Describing his dialoguing encounters in the Fellowship, Bulgakov states, "In this experience confessional limitations are
overcome in spite of the walls which separate the confessions from one another. One feels and discerns a true
Bulgakovs involvement with the Fellowship influenced him by strengthening his resolve that
the Eucharist can be both a means towards communion and a strengthening of the communion
that already exists. He argued that Eucharistic intercommunion may precede full doctrinal
agreement, so long as both confessions mutually assented to key Christological, Eucharistic, and
apostolic issues. In one Sobornost journal article, Bulgakov explains that the Fellowships active
sharing of common prayer and liturgical experiences29 brought about a deep spiritual
intercommunion of Eucharistic sharing.30 By A. McCormick
life a unity in Christ, which simply cannot be overcome by confessional divisions." Bulgakov, "Spiritual Intercommunion"
4.
31 Bulgakov notes that Roman Catholicism denied that the Anglican Church had any such validity of orders. Cf. "Spiritual
Intercommunion" 5-6.
32 Ibid.
Eucharistic spiritual intercommunion, Bulgakov meant that the Anglican and Orthodox members
of the Fellowship had both "spiritual fellowship through our faith in Christ and our love of Him"
and also spiritual "Eucharistic fellowship" because they recognized the apostolic validity of each
others priestly orders and the validity of each others Eucharistic celebrations.31 Thus,
Bulgakov saw partial or limited intercommunion between the two confessions as only a natural
step forward in the ecumenical process. His Orthodox-Anglican dialoguing experience in the
Fellowship brought him to affirm that the spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion present between
their respective confessions should inevitably lead to officially approved instances of
intercommunion. His proposal stipulated that such active Eucharistic sharing between localized
Orthodox-Anglican communities was to occur by way of the permission of their respective
bishops, and was intended to build the visible unity of the Church and move them further
towards full and open Eucharistic sharing.
Interestingly, Bulgakov did not see reunion or even spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion taking
place between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, at least not during his lifetime. He comments
that any prospect of spiritual Eucharistic intercommunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism
was "thwarted" due to Romes "spirit of proselytism" and "imperialism".32 Bulgakov was
incredibly critical of the Catholic Churchs approach to reunion, perceiving Romes view to be
one of A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 18
"absorption,"33 "annexation and subjugation."34 Bulgakov condemned the Catholic Church for
limiting reunion to Romes absorption of all other Christian confessions, an assimilation process
that demanded uniformity and conformity to the Latin way of doing things rather than
maintaining the diversity that Bulgakov held as an intrinsic part of the Churchs nature. We must
remember, Bulgakovs criticisms certainly bore merit since Roman Catholicism had completely
removed herself from any official ecumenical dialogue during his lifetime.
33 Cf. Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" Sobornost 2 (June 1935):11.
34 Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma 72.
Bulgakovs various life experiences with Catholicism, such as his Catholic infection and his
encounter of Catholics bent towards proselytizing Orthodox members, hampered his hopes for
Catholic-Orthodox reunion. Couple this with Catholicisms negative view of ecumenism during
Bulgakovs historical time frame and one begins to understand why Father Sergius was so
critical of the Roman Church. While he realized that Orthodoxy and Catholicism shared the same
history and much of the same dogmas, he knew the possibility of Orthodox-Catholic reunion
would be at a standstill until Rome became more open to ecumenism in general. As such,
Bulgakov chose to focus his ecumenical endeavors to fostering unity with the Anglican Church,
while also remaining hopeful that Catholicism would eventually come around.
Bulgakovs Sophiological Lens

It is my goal to introduce a simple (but not overly-simplified) portrayal of Bulgakovs
sophiological lens through which he perceives the inter-relationship of the A. McCormick
Church, the Eucharist and ecumenism.35 The challenge of synthesizing forty years of Bulgakovs
writings on Sophia is a massive task in itself; therefore, my aim in this section is not to exhaust
the topic but rather to give the audience some foundational understanding.
35 Note from here on that some of the more detailed explanations of Bulgakovs thought will have to be footnoted in order
to better retain coherency for my Western academic audience. Furthermore, one must realize that my presentation in this
section is only meant to be something of a readers digest version, since the scope of this topic could itself be a doctoral
thesis. I have provided diagrams 1 through 3 in order to assist my audience in grasping Bulgakovs complex sophiology.
36 Bulgakov,"Wisdom of God" in A Bulgakov Anthology, 149.
37 Andrew Louth, "Wisdom and the Russians: The Sophiology of Fr Sergei Bulgakov," in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?:
Wisdom in the Bible, the Church, and the Contemporary World, Stephen C. Barton, ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) 176.
Also cf. Tatyryn, who states, "Sophiology was so integral to Bulgakovs thought because it was the instrument by which
Bulgakov both bound and separated divine and created reality. Sophiology united and yet maintained the inherent tension
between Creation and Incarnation." Tataryn "4. The Paris Orthodox Theologains" 72-4.
Sophiology is the lens through which Bulgakov viewed all Christian theology and dogmas.
Defining sophiology as "a theological or perhaps dogmatic interpretation of the world
(Weltanschauung) within Christianity," Bulgakov argues that sophiology "bears upon all
Christian teaching" and embraces all of Orthodoxys dogmas.36 For him, sophiology is both
woven throughout and ties together the doctrines of the Trinity, Creation, the Incarnation, the
Church and sacramentology. Andrew Louth explains, "The idea of the divine Wisdom, Sophia, is
central to Bulgakov's theological vision: it runs like a scarlet thread from his understanding of
the doctrines of the Trinity and of creation, through the doctrines of Christ and the Church, to his
eschatology. To talk of this dimension in theology he used (coined?) the term 'sophiology'."37 It is
through this sophiological lens that Bulgakov viewed Orthodoxys ecumenical relations with
other Christian confessions as well as Christianitys overall relation with culture. From the all
encompassing question of how the Triune being of God is reflected in the world, Bulgakovs
sophiological development flows inward, addressing the issue of the A. McCormick
Incarnation as the basis for theological anthropology and then the issue of how Christianity and
culture should relate.38
38 During his lifetime, Christianitys relevance to and engagement with culture was a question being addressed by various
scholars. Bulgakov heavily opposed two of the most popular answers to this question. Firstly, he opposed the extreme
separation between God and world, which he termed the "world denying Manichaeanism" view. He disagreed with this
views portrayal of God as entirely detached and aloof from creation, as if God only wound up creation and then withdrew
entirely, leaving the world to its own devices. The second extreme view Bulgakov abhorred was the complete secularization
of life and Christianity whereby Christianity is secularized as it is tailored to culture. He perceived this view to be prevalent
in Western scholarship and believed this resulted in the escalating secularization of theology. To combat these two views,
Bulgakov developed upon the framework lain by Solovev and Florensky (among others), and began to establish his own
unique sophiological outlook. While Bulgakov draws upon the sophiology of Solov'ev, he is critical of Solov'ev's Gnostic
tendencies; therefore, Bulgakov does draw from Solovev but is careful to ensure that such syncretistic tendencies are
removed from his own sophiological understanding. Bulgakov, The Wisdom of God 23ff. For more information, cf. Louth,
"Wisdom and the Russians: The Sophiology of Fr Sergei Bulgakov," in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? 179; Michael Plekon,
Sergii Bulgakov: towards a Russian political theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999) 35; Tataryn, Augustine and Russian
Orthodoxy 68-9; and Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 291-8, 326, 339-40, 345, 348-9, 356-7, 400-2.
39 He states, "One must include the worlds creation in Gods own life, coposit the creation with Gods life, correlate Gods
world-creating act with the act of His self-determination. One must know how to simultaneously unite, identify, and
distinguish creation and Gods life, which in fact is possible in the doctrine of Sophia, Divine and creaturely, identical and
distinct." Later on in the same section, Bulgakov also explains, "Once it is given that God is also the Creator, and that the
Creator is God, our thought must be governed by the inclusion of creation in Gods own life, and this inclusion must be on
completely equal principles of divine necessity in freedom or of freedom in necessity. This means that the worlds being
must be included in Gods own life, must be correlated with this life, must be understood not only in its own being for itself,
but also in its being in God, in divine being." Bride of the Lamb 44-5.
Bulgakov understood sophiology as an issue of the relation between God and creation, with
humanity included as a unique part of that creation. He wanted to ensure creations separateness
from God while also preserving creation as dwelling in God, being guided and preserved by
Gods own hand.39 Bulgakovs sophiology addresses the question: how is the being of God as
the Trinity reflected in the being of the world? He sought to account for the independence of
creation from God that would lead neither to the dualistic desacralization of creation nor to the
pantheistic enmeshment of creation and God. Bulgakov believed his sophiology was the answer
because it ensures that creation is separate from God while also resting in God. Meaning God is
separate from creation but creation is not external to God, for it rests in God. His concept of
Sophia allows creation to be within Gods domain, while still remaining separate from the
Godhead. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 21
Bulgakov explained that Sophia which is translated as Wisdom is Gods nature revealed.
To the question of what is the nature of God, Bulgakov answers, "God is love" (1 Jn 4: 8, 16). He
interprets this passage to mean that Love is the nature or ousia of God.40 Therefore, "Sophia
likewise belongs to the realm of Gods Love" because it is the revelation of Gods nature as
Love.41 It is important to realize, Bulgakov explains, that Sophia is not Gods very nature but
rather is sourced in Gods nature. As I understand it, Sophia is the loving (with a little l) of the
Love (with a capital L) that is God.42 It is the revelation of Gods nature as Love Gods
Glory revealed.43 This may seem confusing to those coming from a Western background,
therefore, an analogical description may help.
40 He states, "God is Love not love in the sense of a quality or a property peculiar to God but as the very substance and
vigour of his life. The tri-hypostatic union of the Godhead is a mutual love, in which each of the Hypostases, by a timeless
act of self-giving in love, reveals itself in both the others." The Wisdom of God 58.
41 Ibid.
42 Bulgakov explains that Sophia is love but "love in a special and un-hypostatic embodiment. In this sense we can speak
of love in God not only in the mutual relationship of God to his Godhead, but in like manner in the love of the Godhead for
God." Ibid.
43 Bulgakov describes Sophia as where God "possesses the principle of his self-revelation." It is Gods "eternal divine life";
"the sum and unity of all his *Gods+ attributes"; the "substantial being of the divine spirit." Bulgakov explains, "The tripersona God has his own self-revalation. His nature, or ousia, constitutes his intrinsic Wisdom and Glory alike, which we
accordingly designate under the general term Sophia." Wisdom or Sophia is neither a characteristic of God nor the origin of
Gods nature but rather is the expression of it. In other words, Gods ousia or nature as Love is revealed in Sophia. Cf.
"Wisdom of God" in A Bulgakov Anthology 152-4; and The Bride of the Lamb 39 and 42. Also cf. Antoine Arjakovsky, "The
Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western Theology," St Vladimir's Thoelogical Quarterly 49: 1-2
(2005): 219-35; and Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy 72-4.
I find Rublevs icon of the Trinity provides the best pictorial depiction for explaining
Bulgakovs understanding of Sophia (cf. diagram 1). This icon depicts the Three Persons of the
Trinity around a table, each Person (or hypostasis) shares a loving gaze with the other Three
Persons (tri-hypostases) of the Trinity. This loving gaze is fully reciprocated, entirely given and
received, between each Triune member. The loving gaze is Gods nature revealed as Sophia. It is
the loving of the entirely self-giving, self- A. McCormick
emptying, self-receiving Love that is God. Bulgakov adamantly emphasizes that in no way is
Sophia a fourth hypostasis or Person of the Trinity.44 There is no fourth person sitting at the table,
no fourth member of the Trinity; rather, Wisdom is the loving gaze perfectly shared between the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the loving of the Love within the Trinity. The Love of God is
not a merely sufficient love; rather, it is superabundant, overflowing and outpouring. As such,
Bulgakov argues, it is both necessary and a free choice for God to create. It is necessary because
Gods love would be merely sufficient if it remained shared only among the Three Persons of
the Trinity. Furthermore, Gods act of creation is also a free choice because God is the perfection
of freedom, as God is the absolute perfection of being in both essence and existence.45
44 Fighting against those critics who accused him of making Sophia a fourth hypostasis or Person of the Trinity, Bulgakov
states that we must "recognize in the ousia the divinity of God, a reality other than his hypostases." He explains the ousiaSophia is neither a fourth divine hypostasis nor merely a "self-determination of the personal God". Rather, ousia-Sophia
"exists for God and in God, as his subsistent divinity." Bulgakov believed that by recognizing Sophia as present in the ousia
of God, he is thereby drawing a "distinction between the hypostatic and the essential, sophianic being of the one selfsufficient divine Spirit." Bulgakov concludes, "Such a distinction follows naturally from Trinitarian dogma, which is the
dogma not only of the hypostases of the Trinity but also of the consubstantiality of their nature." Sophia as Gods nature
revealed is neither a fourth hypostasis nor merely a "self-determination of the personal God"; rather, ousia-Sophia "exists
for God and in God, as his subsistent divinity." Cf. "Wisdom of God" in A Bulgakov Anthology 154, as well as his book
Wisdom of God 37ff. Arjakovsky explains that ousia becomes a "relational modality, as uncreated Wisdom and created
Wisdom. Put most simply, the mystery of the Trinity is the self-revelation of God in Wisdom as Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
This has led some Eastern theologians like Lossky to criticize Bulgakov for "mixing the nature and person of God."
Arjakovsky, "The Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western Theology" 223.
45 Furthermore, Bulgakov understands creation as a "supra-eternal act of Gods self-determination, an act that belongs to
Gods eternity." But creation ex nihilo is not possible in Gods own being. Nothingness or non-being and the fullness of
absolute being cannot enter into contact except through "the self-being of creaturely Sophia." He explains, "This creation is
not subject to time (contrary to the de facto view of theology). Rather, it is eternal with all of Gods eternity, as eternal as
the Holy Trinity and its self-revelation in the Divine Sophia, as eternal as Gods life. The trihypostatic God has His natural life
as the divine and the creaturely Sophia, as ousia and creation, as self-revelation in absolute, hypostatized being and in
relative, extra-hypostatic being." Cf. Bride of the Lamb 43, 51-2. I recommend that those who struggle with this aspect of
Bulgakovs sophiology read all of Section "(2) Creation," in Bride of the Lamb 43ff. For his description of how "Nothing is not
something," cf. page 54 of this book.
A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 23
An analogy for Bulgakovs understanding of Sophia is found in this famous

icons depiction of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The loving gaze shared
between each Triune member portrays Sophia or Wisdom, which is the loving
of the Love that is Gods nature. The loving gaze shared between each
Person is so fully reciprocated, so entirely given and received, that one
cannot tell where the loving of Gods nature begins nor ends (hence why I
chose to illustrate the loving gaze as a circle). In this way, Sophia is the
loving of the entirely self-giving, self-emptying, self-receiving Love that is
God.
Diagram 1: Icon of the Trinity. Painting by Andrei Rublev. Dated
approximately 1410 CE. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 24
Diagram 2: Outline of Divine Sophia and creaturely Sophia

Gods Glory revealed
loving of the Love that is Gods nature
world of eternal being; of full actualization
realm of "Ideas" or "prototypes" are like the blueprints of creation as they
are "the very seeds of being" of each creature
act of the absolute perfection of being that is God
revelation of the dynamic but unchanging nature of the Trinity
foundation of all creation
image of Divine Sophia in that it identifies with and is a reflection of Divine
Sophia, except that creaturely Sophia is in the process of realizing its
potential
world of temporal becoming; the world of potentiality in the process of
actualization.
realm wherein both heaven and the earth exist
by fully actualizing its potential, creaturely Sophia will unite with Divine
Sophia, as the world of eternal being and temporal becoming unify, so that
God may be all in all A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 25
Two Modes of Sophia46
46 Refer to Diagram 2 as an aid for this section.
47 Bride of the Lamb 46.
48 I ask the reader to bear with me as I attempt to explain these dual aspects of Bulgakovs sophiology. Please refer to
Diagram 2 for some helpful information.
49 The Wisdom of God 82. For Bulgakovs description of how divine Sophia belongs to each Person in a unique way, cf.
"Chapter II: The Divine Sophia and the Persons of the Holy Trinity" in The Wisdom of God 63-84.
Bulgakov differentiates Sophia as having two modes divine Sophia and creaturely Sophia.
Bulgakov states, "The Divine Sophia exists in a dual mode: in her own mode, which belongs to
her in eternity; and in the creaturely mode, as the world."47 Divine Sophia is the Glory of God;
the world of eternal being; the act of absolute perfection; the revelation of God nature.
Conversely, creaturely Sophia is both a reflection and a relation of divine Sophia.48
As the loving of God Love within the Trinity, divine Sophia is the world of eternal being. It is
the act of the absolute perfection of being that is God. As "the self-revelation of the Godhead,"
divine Sophia "belongs to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity, both in their tri-unity, and in their
separate being, and to each one in a way peculiar to himself."49
Bulgakov uses the analogy of the Burning Bush to describe divine Sophia as God personal
trihypostatic act. He states:
This act issues from the triune hypostatic center which, as such, is the hypostatic self-affirmation
and encompasses God being, the divine world, the eternal fire of God love. And this act
returns to this center in the eternal cycle of God life, which has no origin and is not subject to
change, but which, from all eternity, is and is generated: a flame of divine fire feeding itself, the
Burning Bush, burning but not consumed.50 A. McCormick
God potential is fully actualized and fully perfect. Divine Sophia is the creative self-revelation
of God full actualization and absolute perfection of being. This is why God is named the "I
AM," and not wasnor will be(cf. Exod 3:14). Bulgakov explains:
God nature isthe creative self-positing of divinity, God personal trihypostatic act. This
act is the Divine Sophia, the self-positing and self-revelation of the Holy Trinity. As such, she is
the divine world, possessing all the force of being, even though this being is nonhypostatic in
the sense of the personal self-positing of God, she [Divine Sophia] is the creative act of the
divine tri-hypostatic person, God supra-eternal creative act, in which each of the hypostases
acquires its hypostatic self-determination.51
52 Bride of the Lamb 53. Sophia precedes Gods act of creation because Sophia is the loving of Gods Love. Tataryn
explains, "Sophia enabled Bulgakov to speak of Gods love as able to love and then create that which was not God, without
compromising Gods Love which was at the foundation of God. Bulgakov therefore described the divine
Thus, Bulgakov view of divine Sophia as God personal trihypostatic act results in God being
viewed not in static terms "but dynamically, as actus purus," which is absolute actuality. In other
words, God is full actuality and full perfection of being, and Divine Sophia is the dynamic act of
God personal S-nessas the Great I AM. So divine Sophia is the world of eternal being, the act
of the absolute perfection of God Trinitarian being.
Bulgakov also sees divine Sophia "as the foundation of creation," since it is the basis of all the
creatures and cosmos. Quoting Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word," Bulgakov
explains, "Here, n the beginningsignifies y the principle, on the basis of the principle,that is,
of the divine world Eternity becomes the foundation for temporal-spatial multiple being. In the
creaturely world, the divine world is clothed in becoming; it is not, but becomes."52 The world of
temporality or becoming is called creaturely Sophia by Bulgakov. A. McCormick
Sophia as Gods world, the living being of God which already contained within itself the love that could and did create out
of nothing." Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy 73. Explaining Bulgakovs understanding of the process of creation,
Henry Karlson states, "In the Divine Life, Sophia is an integral whole, one without parts, and entirely simple. But creation is
a kenotic act of the Godhead, and the Divine Persons take their Divine Life, Divine Sophia, and remove their Personal nature
from the Divine Life, and this becomes the mode and method of creation. Creation is seen as the emptying from Sophia of
the Persons of the Trinity, and freeing it to become the creaturely." Henry Karlson, "Sophiology and Free Apokatastasis."
Unpublished paper. Karlson is a PhD student in Theological Studies at the Catholic University of America. I am indebted to
him for all of his assistance in coming up with the idea for this thesis as well as for his plethora of knowledge and
understanding of Bulgakov. Karlson was a vital resource in the making of this thesis, as he was the one whom I constantly
turned with questions regarding Bulgakovs sophiology, ecclesiology and sacramentology.
53 "Wisdom in creation is ontologically identical with its prototype, the same Wisdom as exists in God." "Wisdom of God" in
A Bulgakov Anthology 155. For Bulgakovs description of how "actualization of potential being is connected with nothing,"
which thereby accounts for freedom, cf. Bride of the Lamb 53ff.
54 Cf. "Wisdom of God" in A Bulgakov Anthology, 155-6.
55 "This metaphor imprecisely expresses the real relation between the Divine and the creaturely Sophia, God and the
world. The connection between the divine and creaturely world is indisputably affirmed here, but it is characterized
insufficiently. The difference between the two worlds must be understood as being much more profound than only the
relation between a plan and its realization." Bride of the Lamb 55ff.
Creaturely Sophia is the realm of potentiality in the process of actualization the realm of
becoming wherein both the heavens and the earth exist.53 It is important to realize the creation of
the world is not a duplication of divine Sophia, since creaturely Sophia is in the process of
becoming whereas divine Sophia is eternal.54 The eternal being revealed in divine Sophia is "the
foundation of creation," while creaturely Sophia is the realm of temporal becoming where a
multiplicity of creatures go about the process of actualizing their potential, thereby becoming
who God created them to be more fully.
Bulgakov also brings a Neo-Platonic perspective to his view of Sophia dual modes. He argues
that divine Sophia is the realm of "Ideas" or "prototypes" that are "the very seeds of being" of
each creature. Using what he describes as an imprecise metaphor, Bulgakov elaborates,
"deas,or rototypesare, so to speak, the plan of creation sketched out by the Creator."55 These
"seeds of being" present in divine Sophia are "implanted" in the creaturely realm, where they
embark on the process of actualizing their potential, becoming what God created them to be
more fully. In this way, creaturely Sophia (the Wisdom of this world) identifies with and is a
reflection of divine Sophia. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 28
Creaturely Sophia is the image of divine Sophia, with the key difference that creaturely Sophia is
in the process of realizing its potential the process of becoming. Thus creaturely Sophia is
called to fully actualize its potential, and thereby unite with Divine Sophia (the world of being)
as a unity of multiplicity.56
56 Bulgakov explains, "The divine Sophia, as the revelation of the Logos, is the all-embracing unity which contains within
itself all the fullness of the world of ideas. But to the creature also God the Creator entrusts this all, withholding nothing in
himself and not limiting the creature in any way.... In Sophia the fullness of the ideal forms contained in the Word is
reflected in creation. This means that the species of created beings do not represent some new forms, devised by God...,
but that they are based upon eternal, divine prototypes.... This similitude implies the exhaustive fullness of creation, the
twofold aspect of which involves both 'heaven and earth', the world of angels and the world of men, and does not affect the
general postulate that the primary foundation of the world is rooted in the divine Sophia." Bulgakov continues: "It is
possible to ask: is not the creation of the world... a kind of duplication of the divine Sophia? But the whole conception of
correspondence is inapplicable to the relation between the eternal and becoming. Indeed, it is nearer the truth to speak of
unity, even identity, as between the divine and the creaturely Sophia. At the same time, however, and without
equivocation, we can speak of the two different forms of Sophia in God and in the creature. They are distinguished on the
one hand as the simple and simultaneous perfection of eternity as against temporal becoming, and on the other divine, as
against participated, being. The identity and distinction, the unity and duality of Sophia in God and in creation, rest on the
same foundation." Cf. Bulgakov, "Wisdom of God" in A Bulgakov Anthology, 154-6. Also cf. Gallaher, "Catholic Action" M.
Div. diss. 59 ff; and Louth, "Wisdom and the Russians: The Sophiology of Fr Sergei Bulgakov," in Where Shall Wisdom Be
Found? 177.
57 Bulgakov argues that the divine and creaturely Sophia are made one in the Incarnation because Jesus has both two
natures as well as two "corporealities." Gallaher explains, "Since the Lord has two natures He also has two corporealities
(not two bodies as divine corporeality is not a body and is certainly not flesh), divine and creaturely, the Divine Sophia who
is Gods eternal glory and the Creaturely Sophia created out of earth (human flesh), which in the God-Man are united
transfiguring all creation." Cf. Bulgakov, The Holy Grail and the Eucharist (Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Books, 1997) 129-132;
and Gallaher, "Catholic Action" M. Div. diss. 60.
58 The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 136.
Sophia and the Incarnation

The Incarnation is the union of the divine Sophia and the creaturely Sophia, as the God-man
fully actualized his potential in the midst of the world.57 Bulgakov states:
Just as the world created by God is sophianic in its foundation and ultimate purpose ("that God
may be all in all" [1 Cor. 15:28]), so the human body in general, and the human body of Christ in
particular, is sophianic and conforms to Divinity, is intended for glory, and is completely
glorified in Christ, in whom the creaturely Sophia and the Divine Sophia are identified. In
fulfilling every truth, the Lord fulfills in Himself the truth of the body, giving to the body all the
glory that belongs to it, perfect sophianicity.58 A. McCormick
The primordial depths of humanity nature and sophianicity are fully revealed and fulfilled in
Jesus Christ.59 The Lord glorious Ascension "with His body signifies that His connection with
the world not only is not terminated but acquires a definitive indestructibility for all eternity." 60
Bulgakov sees the Incarnation as both the fullness of humanity revealed, and Christ Ascension
as the raising of all creation potential to "eternal being." Jesus is the unity of Divine being and
the fullness of humanity actualized he is divine and creaturely Sophia fully united and
achieved.
59 Ibid. 127 and 136. Like Pope John Paul II, Bulgakov argues that the Incarnation is the fullness of humanity revealed.
Bulgakov states, "The Incarnation isthe absolute actualization in human beings of the human image through the
unification of the image and the Protoimage Humanitys sophianicity is revealed and actualized through the Incarnation,
through the union of the creaturely Sophia with the Divine Sophia. God the Word, having come into the world, is, in His
eternity, not God to whom corporeality is alien. On the contrary, He eternally has corporeality in the Divine Sophia, in the
Divine world." Cf. The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 128-9.
60 Ibid. 105.
61 Bulgakov states, "Christ wasan all-man, an all-individual. He contained in His human nature the whole of mankind all
the fullness of Adams nature and all its hypostatic images, similarly as the first Adam potentially contained in himself all
the individualities of future mankind Adams humanity in redemption becomes Christs humanity. It represents a living
multi-unity which has one life in Christ, but at the same time it is an absolutely real multitude of hypostatic images, which
are united in this oneness of life." "The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society," JFAS 21 (September, 1933):
12.
Furthermore, Bulgakov understood Christ human nature as the microcosm of all humanity.61 So
in fully actualizing the potential of His creaturely Sophia, Jesus Christ gives hope for all
humanity to achieve divinization through hypostatic unity with the Divine. The Incarnate Christ
also gives hope for the cosmic realization and apocalyptical fulfillment of God glory "that
God may be all in all" (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-34) as divine and creaturely Sophia are made one in the
Eucharist, the Church and the world.
The Sophianic Unity of Multiplicity - All Destined for Oneness

in God
From Bulgakov perspective, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, the Church, and the world are all
identified with Sophia. He believed that Divine and creaturely Sophia are fully united in both the
Incarnation and the Eucharist. At the same time, the process of A. McCormick
divine and creaturely sophianic unity is still being realized in humanity, the Church, and the
world. This process of becoming the actualizing of creaturely potential is only possible by the
power of divine sophianicity mediated through the Eucharist and the Church. The end goal of
this sophianic becoming process is the unity of "all in all," whereby both the heavenly and
creaturely realm fully actualize their potential and achieve oneness with the Divine. The
following is an illustration of how Bulgakov lens shapes his views of the Eucharist, the Church,
and ecumenism.
A Sophiological Understanding of the Eucharist and the Church
Bulgakov believes the Eucharist and the Church bring about the union of divine and creaturely
Sophia in the midst of our world. As the real presence of the Incarnation, the Eucharist manifests
the union of divine-creaturely Sophia. The Church, on the other hand, is in the process of
actualizing her creaturely potential and therefore looks forward to achieving sophianic unity and
oneness in the Trinity.
To Bulgakov, the Eucharist is the dynamic abiding of the Incarnation in the Church and the
world.62 Bulgakov teaches that Jesus abides externally as the Incarnation
62 Bulgakov argues that the Incarnation dynamically abides in the Eucharist in two ways: in the Body and Blood of the
Eucharistic species, and in the non-Eucharistic blood that was poured out on all creation. Bulgakov defines the Eucharistic
blood as that which is made present in the wine by the Churchs invocation of the Spirit during the Divine Liturgy. Upholding
the real presence, Bulgakov teaches that Jesus remains uniquely and really present in the Eucharistic elements of His Body
and Blood. Bulgakov then takes things a step further in distinguishing that Jesus also remains present in creation through
His non-Eucharistic blood, which He poured out on the world from the cross of Calvary. Why does Bulgakov make this dualblood distinction? Bulgakov distinguishes between Christs eucharistic and non-eucharistic blood in order to maintain the
continuation of Christs universal abiding on earth, making Christs invisible presence the worlds "very source of holiness."
Opposing the Roman practices of Eucharistic adoration, Bulgakov rejects the veneration of the sacrament outside of the
context of the Divine Liturgy. As such he must find some other dogmatic basis to explain Christs abiding presence in
creation. The full explanation of this form of Eucharistic abiding of the Incarnation within the world is found in Bulgakov's
book, The Holy Grail. In it, Bulgakov explores what he sees as a relationship between Christs promise to remain always
with us (Mt 28:20) and the outpouring of Christs blood on the cross (Jn 19:34). Regarding Jesus non-Eucharistic blood,
Bulgakov uniquely argues that the world itself is the Holy Grail, for it received the precious blood and water that Jesus
poured out on Golgotha thereby making Christ tangibly present in creation "until the end of the age" (cf. Mt 28:20). As
Jesus blood and water flowed out onto the earth, the abiding of the Incarnation is made forever present in the Holy Grail of
creation. Thus Bulgakov interprets the flowing of blood and water from Christs side on Golgotha as a "universal abiding
event"
whereby Christs humanity was poured out on the world, allowing the Lord to "invisibly" live "in the world" while also
"inwardly transfiguring the world toward a new heaven and a new earth." This non-Eucharistic blood is "the powerof
Christ in the world the life-giving Chalice." Cf. The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 44-5 and 137-8; and "The Eucharist and
the Social Problems of Modern Society" 18. For a more summarized presentation of Bulgakovs distinction between the
Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic blood of Christ, cf. The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 94-98, 117.
63 Bulgakovs use of the word "soborny" is related to his vision of unity in sobornost. He understood sobornost as "freedom
in love," on which Orthodoxy is based. This will be discussed in further detail later in this section. Also, for more
information, cf. "The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society" 21.
64 Ibid. 14-15.
65 Ibid. 16-17.
"in a definite point within space and time" and he also dynamically abides as the Eucharistic
power of life that strengthens the process of completing the Body of Christ in humanity on earth.
In this way, the power of the Incarnation is revealed in the Eucharist, which fortifies, inspires,
and accomplishes humanity "soborny of life."63 Bulgakov states, "God is born in every one of
those who partakes at the Liturgy, and everyone of them is born of God" as communicants
receive "the power of the redeeming Sacrifice of Calvary" and are thereby increasingly
eifiedthrough their reception of the Eucharist.64 In other words, Bulgakov believes that
Eucharistic reception helps the Church as the People of God along the path of actualizing their
creaturely potential. To put it in terms more understandable to my Catholic audience, Bulgakov
is implying that the Eucharist makes the Church and transforms the world. As the Eucharist helps
the Church and humanity along the process of actualizing their potential, the Eucharist also helps
all of creation through this transformative process.65
Having the power to unite humanity and all creation, the Church has a key role in the creaturely
process of becoming and the eschatological transformation of the world. The Church is
essentially Eucharistic in her nature, as she is the Body of Christ. Bulgakov describes the Church
as a "multi-une humanitywhich consists of many members unitedin their life in Christ." He
explains, "As a multipiclity of individuals it A. McCormick
[the Church, the Body of Christ] is a loving sobornost that is, such a harmonious existence, in
which both the separate existence of each one and of all together is complete reality.66 Comparing
the Church to a bodyshows us both the common life in the body and the multiplicity of its
members, and the living link which exists between these members."67 In this way, Bulgakov
understands the Church nature as a unity of multiplicity. The Body of Christ, the Church is a
oneness of multiplicity or a "multi-unity" of individuals, a living and loving sobornost. The
Church sobornost is a "union in love"; it is "the Body of Christ which is being accomplished".68
Sobornost is the link between all the members of Christ Body. It is the power of the Church
unity and ability to unite humanity and, with it, all creation.69 Fundamentally unitive in her very
nature, the Church is central to the sophianic process of God being "all in all".
66 For a Catholic critique of Bulgakovs understanding of the Church and its nature as sobornost, cf. Stanisw ierkosz,
L'Eglise visible selon Serge Bulgakov : structure hirarchique et sacramentelle (Roma : Pont. Institutum Studiorum
Orientalium, 1980) 195-208. Throughout the formation of this thesis, I have at times wondered whether Bulgakovs
understanding of sobornost correlates with Catholicisms understanding of catholicity? While Bulgakov himself denies this, I
believe he is denying it from within his own historical situation, meaning that the Catholic understanding of catholicity
during Bulgakovs life time was narrow compared to that of our modern day. For a presentation of catholicity and its relation
to the Churchs nature, cf. Avery Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1985) 127-146, and 167180. Of particular importance is Chapter 7 of this book, which addresses the problem of Catholicisms centralization of
catholicity in Romes primacy. Is it possible this is why John Paul II is so adamant that the primacy of Rome must be resolved
before Eucharistic intercommunion can take place with Eastern Orthodoxy? The question is intriguing and requires further
examination; however, it is outside the scope of this thesis and will, therefore, not be answered at this time.
67 Bulgakov, "The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society" 12.
68 Ibid. 13.
69 Ibid. 20.
To Bulgakov, sacramental oneness is the Church nature, meaning, and expression. As a unity of
multiplicity, Bulgakov states, the Church is symbolic; "a perpetual sacrament of sacraments"; "an
invisible unity in visible multiplicity." He explains that "the life in the Church is in itself a
perpetual sacrament of sacraments, while sacramental life in the Church is only a particular
expression of this, it is its general A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 33
character."70 In other words, the Church is "a perpetual sacrament of sacraments," and the
Eucharist is part of the Church "sacramental lifeis only a particular expression" of the
Church character. Furthermore, diversity is affirmed and embraced in Bulgakov vision of the
Church, as the Body of Christ is understood as a multi-unity of distinct peoples, cultures,
liturgies, patriarchates and more. The meaning and expression of the oneness of the Church
nature is realized over time through the process of becoming, a process which transforms both
the People of the Church and, through them, all creation.
70 Cf. "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," JFAS 12 (June 1931): 17.
71 Cf. Valliere, Modern Russian Theology 274-6.
How Bulgakovs sophiological lens shapes his ecumenical

approach
For Bulgakov, sophiology is a dialogue between God and humanity. It is a "divine-human
conversation" as Sophia ensures collaboration without confusion of the Trinity and all creation.71
Bulgakov sophiology is intertwined with his ecclesiology, his sacramentology, and his
understanding of the core dogmatics shared by most if not all Christian confessions. As such,
Bulgakov believed his sophiological perspective is the key to ecumenism because it connects and
provides further insight into the dogmas that all Christians uphold. In this way, Bulgakov
believed sophiology can both assist the exploration of theological similarities and help locate key
areas of dogmatic and doctrinal agreement between Christian confessions.
Most of all, Bulgakov sophiology results in a more universal recognition of the Body of Christ,
which has an immense bearing on his ecumenical approach. First of all, through his sophiology,
Bulgakov gains a more comprehensive view of how the Body of Christ is manifested in the
Eucharist, the Church and the world giving all creation A. McCormick
ecclesial and eucharistic potentiality. To Bulgakov, the Body of Christ as both the Eucharist and
the Church is manifested in three ways. In the consecrated Eucharistic elements of bread and
wine, the Body of Christ is the real presence, the dynamic abiding of the Incarnation, and the full
unity of divine and creaturely Sophia. The Body of Christ is also manifested in the People of
God who are the Church visible and invisible. Lastly, the Body of Christ is manifested in all
creation since the whole earth bears and shares the Eucharist.
As the People of God making up the Body of Christ, the Church nature is to be both an
invisible mystical life and an externally visible organization. Thus, the Body of Christ is
"invisible unity in visible multiplicity." Bulgakov explains that the Church is not just "an external
organization"; rather, it is primarily "an inner, mystical life in Christ." He concludes, "Therefore
it must be recognised that there exists an invisible, mysterious unity of the whole Church In
some sense the whole of Christianity is one Church and accordingly this unity is Orthodox." 72 In
other words, a spiritual sobornostic unity already binds the whole of Christianity together as one
Church. While Christian confessions may be visibly divided, an invisible spiritual oneness
remains that unites them all together as one Church.
72 Bulgakov states, "In this sense one can say that the nature of the Church is symbolic It is equally true and equally
untrue to affirm that the Church has a merely invisible or a merely visible existence, because it is an invisible, mysterious
life expressed in visible, external forms. In this sense the life in the Church is in itself a perpetual sacrament of sacraments,
while sacramental life in the Church is only a particular expression of this its general character." He also explains,"mystical
oneness of the Church, as of an invisible organism, or as of the body of Christ"; oneness existed even among early churchs
"multiplicity of different local, national and even family churches." The relationship between many churches and the one
Church is "an invisible unity in visible multiplicity." Cf. "One Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church," 7, 17-18, and 21.
Bulgakov understands that all creation bears and shares the Body of Christ. His identification of
both the Church and the Eucharist with Sophia results in creation gaining A. McCormick
eucharistic and ecclesial potential. Arguing that the world is the "Holy Grail," Bulgakov believed
the dynamic abiding of the Incarnation is continually present in all creation. On top of affirming
Christ real presence in the consecrated Eucharistic elements, Bulgakov also distinguishes that
Jesus remains present in creation through His non-Eucharistic blood, which He poured out on the
world from the cross of Calvary. This ensures the Incarnation invisible and universal abiding in
creation, allowing the Lord to "invisibly" live "in the world" while also go about "inwardly
transfiguring the world toward a new heaven and a new earth." His non-Eucharistic blood is "the
powerof Christ in the world the life-giving Chalice."73 Through the abiding of Jesusblood in
the Holy Grail of the world, all creation gains eucharistic meaning and potential.
73 Differentiating between Jesus Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic blood, Bulgakov uniquely argues that the world itself is
the Holy Grail because it received the (non-Eucharistic) precious blood and water that Jesus poured out on Golgotha
thereby making Christ tangibly present in creation "until the end of the age" (cf. Mt 28:20). As Jesus blood and water
flowed out onto the earth, the abiding of the Incarnation is made forever present in the Holy Grail of creation. Thus
Bulgakov interprets the flowing of blood and water from Christs side on Golgotha as a "universal abiding event" whereby
Christs humanity was poured out on the world, allowing the Lord to "invisibly" live "in the world" while also "inwardly
transfiguring the world toward a new heaven and a new earth." Cf. The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 44-5 and 137-8; and
"The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society" 18. For a more summarized presentation of Bulgakovs
distinction between the Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic blood of Christ, cf. The Holy Grail and the Eucharist 94-98, 117.
74 Cf. chapter one of Gallaher, "Catholic Action" M. Div. diss. 9-21.
All creation also gains ecclesial potential through Bulgakov identification of the Church with
Sophia. Explaining how Bulgakov viewed the Church "as the locus of God's self-revelation to
Himself in the world," Gallaher states, "Thus, if the Church is the manifestation of a process that
is happening in all of creation then all of creation is potentially ecclesial. The impetus for
ecumenism becomes clear: in the reunion of the Churches in the Church is the beginning of the
process by which God becomes all in all."74 This is how Bulgakov sophiological lens can be
seen as shaping his ecumenical approach. The end goal of the sophianic process is both the
oneness of all creation and A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 36
humanity and the divinization of all in the Trinity; therefore, the aim of ecumenism is to foster
unity between Christian confessions with the end goal of reunion into one visible, universal
Church. Thus, Bulgakov unique recognition of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, in the
visible and invisible Church, as well as in all creation helps justify his openness to ecumenism
and inter-communion.
Chapter Three: John Paul II

A Brief Biography
John Paul II was born on May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, Poland. His parents gave him the name
Karol Jzef Wojtyla, after his father, who was known as a just and upright man within the Slavic
community.75 Like Bulgakov, John Paul II was taught at a young age that faith is meant to be
lived in all aspects of life. As his mother died when he was only nine years old, JPII increasingly
looked to his father mentorship and guidance. His father taught him the importance of being "a
man of constant prayer," as he strove to live out the faith and put his beliefs in practice.76
Witnessing his father dedication to God left a great impression upon JPII, one that he carried
forward and attempted to model over the years.
75 Weigel, Witness to Hope 29.
76 For example, Weigel explains that John Paul II accredits "his fathers way of life that first" gave him "the idea that the life
of faith has first to do with interior conversion." Weigel also mentions that JPII accredits his fathers example as his "first
seminary, a kind of domestic seminary." Witness to Hope 30-1.
John Paul II was very gifted scholastically. Exhibiting an artistic inclination at a young age, he
acted in all sorts of theatre productions by the time he was fourteen. In 1938, he graduated from
high school as valedictorian and moved with his father to A. McCormick
Krakw, where he began his schooling at Jagiellonian University. At nineteen years of age, he
finished his first book of poetry, titled "Renaissance Psalter." The future seemed brimming with
promise. Then World War II descended as Germany invaded Poland.
Differing from Bulgakov who became an atheist in his youth, John Paul II maintained his faith
even amidst the most tumultuous times. And yet JPII is similar to Bulgakov in that he stood
against oppression, particularly that imposed by communist governments. To begin with, John
Paul II resistance is evidenced in how he took his studies underground after 184 professors
from Jagiellonian University were arrested by the Nazis. His resistance to the German regime is
also illustrated by his involvement in the "Rhapsodic Theater," which secretly performed plays as
a way of preserving Polish traditions while also culturally resisting the German occupation.
Responding to the Lord call in 1942, John Paul II began his training for the priesthood through
the Archdiocese of Krakw underground seminary. Two years later, he was hit by a German
armored vehicle and hospitalized. During this time, JPII suffering was not only physical but
mental and spiritual as well since he lost many friends and acquaintances, killed by the Nazi
regime. By 1945, Germany pulled out of Krakw but was soon replaced by another suppressive
government, that of the Russians, who did everything they could in order to smother the
Church.77
77 For a plethora of examples of the Russian communist suppression of the Polish Catholic Church, cf. Weigel, Witness to
Hope 90ff.
Soon after, John Paul II began his new life as a priest, an academic, and, eventually, an
Archbishop and Cardinal. In 1946, John Paul II was ordained to the priesthood, and less than two
years later, he completed his first doctorate, which involved A. McCormick
Saint John of the Crossunderstanding of the doctrine of faith. He went on to teach at the
Jagiellonian University and the Catholic University of Lublin.
In 1958, John Paul II was ordained bishop in the Cathedral of Wavel, becoming the youngest
bishop in Poland. Twenty years later, he was elected the 264th pope of the Catholic Church and
immediately began breaking all sorts of papal records.78 Providing a well-rounded list of the
accomplishments of JPII pontificate, Richard Bennett summarizes:
78 "His Holiness John Paul II, Biography, Pre-Pontificate," Holy See Press Office 2004-2008. Available online
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/santopadre_biografie/giovanni_paolo_ii_biografia_pr
epontificato_en.html#1946. Accessed 06 Mar 2009.
79 Richard Bennett, "The Accomplishments of John Paul II," Reformation Today. Available online www.reformationtoday.org/issues/articles/197johnpaul.pdf.
John Paul II has logged more than 1,126,541 kilometers from visits to 102 countries, which is
like going around the earth close to 30 times. But perhaps the most lasting imprimatur he has left
is his contribution to Christianity's growing list of saints. Vatican observers credit the Pope with
being the single biggest influence in the collapse of Communism and the Berlin Wall, for
instance his opposition to Poland's Communist regime early in his career showed him as a man
who was not just part of the crowd. In 1980 in his address to the United Nations General
Assembly he had hoped that there would be 'No more war, war never again! In more recent
times, in the wake of 9/11 he has appealed to the Christian world not to equate Islam with
terrorism. The Pope has not only sought collaboration between various churches but also
preached reconciliation between the religions of the world. Witness his gift for the grand gesture
of kissing the soil of a country on arrival, visiting a mosque, inserting a scroll into a crevice of
Jerusalem's Western Wall, embracing the handicapped. Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, who heads
the Vatican office responsible for saints' causes, came somewhere close to assessing 25 years of
John Paul II's pontificate, when he said early this month: 'I think this pope will deservedly pass
into history as the pope of sainthood.79
After accomplishing so much, John Paul II was finally taken home to God on April 2, 2005.
Key Events that Impacted JPIIs Ecumenical Approach

John Paul II Slavic background, his experience as the Cardinal of Krakow, his involvement in
the Second Vatican Council, and his life as the Bishop of Rome, all influenced his ecumenical
approach. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, JPII speaks about how his life and experiences in
Poland influenced the way he went about dialoguing with other Christian confessions. Pope John
Paul credits his Polish cultural background as imbuing him with the knowledge that "[m]utual
respect is a prerequisite for authentic ecumenism." JPII believed the "tolerance and openness"
that is inherently part of the Polish society taught him the importance of having mutual respect in
all dialogue.80 Furthermore, John Paul II experiences as Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Krakow,
Poland, also fostered his ecumenical commitment and sensitivity. He did all that he could to
promote ecumenism between the few Christian congregations operating in Krakow, which
included meeting regularly with the small Lutheran, Orthodox, and Mariavite communities
present in his diocese. Furthermore, as a cardinal, JPII was an active participant in the Chair for
Unity Octave, "an eight-day period of prayer for Christian unity," which took place in Krakow
every year and was attended by leaders from the various Christian confessions.81
80 JPII explained, "In the course of its millennial history, Poland has been a state made up of many nationalities, many
religionsmostly Christian, but not only Christian. This tradition has been and still is the source of a positive aspect of
Polish culture, namely its tolerance and openness toward people who think differently Throughout the history of Poland
there have been concrete efforts to bring about unity." Further on in the chapter, immediately after emphasizing the
importance of mutual respect in dialogue, he states, "Earlier, in recalling my experiences in my homeland, I pointed out the
historical events that shaped Poland as a society characterized by a broad tolerance for many beliefs and many
nationalities. At a time in Western history when heretics were being tried and burned at the stake, the last Polish king of the
Jagiellon dynasty gave proof of this with the words, I am not the king of your consciences." John Paul II, Crossing the
Threshold of Hope, Vittorio Messori, ed. (New York, NY: Borozi Books, 1994) 145 and 154. He also discussed unity and
ecumenism in relation to his cultural heritage in his homily at Jasna Gora, the Nations Shrine on June 4, 1979. Summary
and excerpt of this homily is available in John Paul II, Addresses and Homilies on Ecumenism 1978-1980, John B. Sheerin
and J.F. Hotchkin, eds. (Wash. DC: US Catholics Conference, 1980) 24-5.
81 Cf. Witness to Hope 214-5.
The ecumenical accomplishment of the Second Vatican Council had an insurmountable affect on
JPII and his ecumenical outlook. He explains that the Council itself offered him "a unique
occasion for listening to others" and for participating in "creative thinking."82 Furthermore, in Ut
Unum Sint, John Paul II recalls the Second Vatican Council as "a blessed time, during which the
bases for the Catholic Church's participation in ecumenical dialogue were laid." He affirms that
the presence and involvement "of many observers from various Churches and Ecclesial
Communities" helped form the conditions for ecumenical dialogue that are still adhered to in our
contemporary day.83 In this way, Vatican II provided John Paul II with more explicit principles
and norms of ecumenism and further convinced him of the importance of dialogue with our
Christian siblings.
82 Cf. Fr. Thomas McGoverns article, "The Christian Anthropology of John Paul II: An Overview," first published in
Josephinum Journal of Theology, 8 (2001) 1: 132-47.
83 Ut Unum Sint 30.
84 Cf. Ut Unum Sint 71-72.
85 Section 33 states, "There is a close relationship between prayer and dialogue. Deeper and more conscious prayer makes
dialogue more fruitful. If on the one hand, dialogue depends on prayer, so, in another sense, prayer also becomes the ever
more mature fruit of dialogue." For more on prayers importance, cf. Ut Unum Sint 2, 21-28, 34, 40, 44-45, 53, 56, 65, 68,
70-71, 76, 100, and 102.
When elected the Bishop of Rome, John Paul II gained extensive knowledge and experience
through building ecclesial relations with other Church denominations.84 For starters, the pontiff
participation in ecumenical prayer with various Christian confessions only further solidified his
belief in the importance and primacy of prayer in the dialoguing process.85 Furthermore, John
Paul II papal pilgrimages to other countries also had a significant impact on his ecumenical
outlook. He described such travels as "a great source of encouragement." Frequently, his papal
pilgrimages overflowed with "the Lord presence," particularly when Christians of all different
confessions would come A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 41
together in joy, openness, solidarity and prayer.86 One moment of particular influence on his
outlook occurred during his papal pilgrimage throughout Sweden and Finland. Recalling a
Eucharistic celebration that was attended by Lutheran Bishops, JPII explains:
86 Section 72 of Ut Unum Sint states: "In an atmosphere of joy, mutual respect, Christian solidarity and prayer I met so
very many brothers and sisters, all making a committed effort to be faithful to the Gospel. Seeing all this has been for me a
great source of encouragement. We experienced the Lord's presence among us."
87 Ut Unum Sint 72.
At Communion time, the Lutheran Bishops approached the celebrant. They wished, by means of
an agreed gesture, to demonstrate their desire for that time when we, Catholics and Lutherans,
will be able to share the same Eucharist, and they wished to receive the celebrant's blessing. With
love I blessed them. The same gesture, so rich in meaning, was repeated in Rome at the Mass at
which I presided in Piazza Farnese, on the sixth centenary of the canonization of Saint Birgitta of
Sweden, on 6 October 1991.87
Approaching JPII to receive a blessing tangibly demonstrated the Lutheran Bishopsdesire for
Eucharistic inter-communion with the Catholic Church. It "made a profound impression" on the
pope because it illustrated the selfless love and "clarity of faith" that Lutherans possess as well as
exemplified how they long for the reunion of all Christianity into one visible Church.
While John Paul II saw fostering the unity of all Christianity as a key priority of his papal
mandate, he believed the full visible reunion between Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy was the most immanent and achievable. The inability to concelebrate the Eucharist
with Orthodox bishops and priests remained a throbbing wound upon his heart, and thereby
spurned him on to nurturing Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation. For example, when celebrating
Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul in the presence of Ecumenical Patriarch
Dimitrios and Armenian Patriarch Chnork Kalustian, John Paul II commented that their inability
to concelebrate the Eucharist together was A. McCormick
"the most painful sign of the misfortune introduced into the one church by division."88 In an
effort to remedy past wounds, JPII dedicated much of his energy to alleviating the scandal of
disunity. Famously imploring that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs," John Paul II
repeatedly emphasized the importance of reunion between the East and the West.89 He believed
such reunion would further hasten the unity of all Christian confessions; therefore, he made
Orthodox-Catholic relations of paramount importance during the entirety of his pontificate.
88 John Paul II, "Homily in the Church of the Holy Spirit," in Address and Homilies on Ecumenism 63-8.
89 Cf. Ut Unum Sint 54. Cf. section 3 of John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 12 May 1999 in Address and Homilies on
Ecumenism. Also cf. Redemptoris Mater: Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Vigin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church
(London: Catholic Truth Society, 2003) section 34. It is believed JPII first made mention of the "two lungs" analogy in Euntes
in Mundum 1988 and then was worked out in fuller detail in John Paul IIs 1985 speech to the Catholic hierarchy, recorded in
Discourse to the Roman Curia of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 29 June 1985, LObservatore Romano.
90 For example, one Greek newspaper reports, "According to *Eastern Orthodox+ Archbishop Christodoulos... the historic
visit by Pope John Paul to Greece in 2001, in which he had apologised for Roman Catholic sins of action and omission
against Orthodox Christians, had created new bridges of communication, reconciliation and cooperation between the
Orthodox and Catholic Churches." L. Hatzikyriakou, "Greece: Greek Head of State, Orthodox Church Leaders in Rome for
Pope's Funeral," Greek News: Greek-American Weekly Newspaper (11 April 2005). Available online at
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3029. Accessed 1 April 2009.
John Paul II was willing to make sacrifices and exercise humility in order to further ecumenical
endeavors and foster the visible unity of the Church. Realizing that the history between the East
and West is riddled with betrayal and pain, during his visit to Greece in 2001, Pope John Paul II
issued an apology for all the Roman Catholic "sins of action and omission" committed against
Orthodox Christians over the course of history.90
JPIIs Christocentric Personalism: the Eucharist, the Church

& Ecumenism
While it is easy to realize Bulgakov views ecumenism and ecclesiology through his
understanding of Sophia or Wisdom, the hermeneutical approach of John Paul II is more difficult
to determine. Through my examination of Pope John Paul II writings, I A. McCormick
have come to the conclusion that the late pontiff addresses ecumenism through a lens that is both
centered in Christ and thereby the Trinity and the dignity of the human person. As such, I
intend to argue that the phrase Christocentric personalism is an adequate way of encapsulating
JPII hermeneutical approach to the ecumenical task. After outlining JPII personalism
philosophy and illustrating its centralization in the Incarnation, I will then explain how the
pontiff lens of Christocentric personalism shapes his understanding of the Eucharist, the
Church nature and mission, and his overall approach to ecumenism.
JPIIs Personalism: Centered in the Incarnation
The lens John Paul II brings to ecumenism should be termed Christocentric personalism because
his personalism philosophy is both grounded by and united with his Incarnational soteriology.
Philosophically, John Paul II personalism is an examination of the irreducible mystery of the
human person, which he defines as an individual of a rational nature who is united with the body
and has both intellect and free will.91 From JPII perspective, humans are embodied individuals
who find freedom, knowledge, and actualization of self through willingly and positively
engaging in the world and the people around them. As embodied individuals who are made for
relationship, JPII recognizes that humans are social creatures by their very nature; therefore, selfunderstanding of one self is only gained in relationship with others. He argues that we learn
more about ourselves, others,
91 For more on his personalism philosophy, cf. John Paul IIs Person and Community: Selected Essays. Catholic thought from
Lublin. Vol. 4 (New York: P. Lang, 1993). Also cf. Weigel, Witness to Hope 175-6, and 846-850.
A. McCormick
and the world through our participation as embodied individuals. Thus, humans are embodied
individuals who are made for relationship: made for positive participation.
In order to grow as an individual, John Paul II teaches one freely willed actions must always
uphold the dignity of the person as well as maintain the intimate union of the body and the
individual. At the same time, freedom is principally found when the human person freely chooses
and acts upon the true good, thereby resulting in the virtuous formation of the inner self. In JPII
perspective, our choices and actions can lead either to developing or degrading our inner self.
Our activity affects our inner being. Making good choices helps us increase in virtue, whereas
making poor choices results in our increase in vice. It all depends on whether we willingly
choose the true good or not.
While humans are social beings by nature, knowledge of this does not lead them to the full
revelation of their own identity. Instead, John Paul II argued that humanity "true identity is only
fully revealedthrough faith."92 Divine revelation is required for human beings to come to truly
know themselves. John Paul II argues that faith and reason, like two wings of a bird, are required
in order for human beings to come to the fullness of their humanity and realize their destiny in
Christ.93 Thus, JPII philosophy of personalism has an intrinsic theological element.
92 On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum: Centesimus Annus, (Washington, D.C.: Office for Publishing and
Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1991) section 54.
93 JPII states, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God
has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truthin a word, to know himselfso that, by knowing and loving God,
men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn
3:2)." Cf. Introduction of Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio, of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II: To the Bishops of the Catholic
Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason (Boston: Pauline Books and media, 1998). Available online at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html .
A.
McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 45
Theologically, JPII personalism affirms that human beings are made in the image and likeness
of God and therefore have inherent dignity and value.94 As the Trinity consists of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, Three inter-relating Persons so united in love that they form One God, so also
human beings are formed in the image of the Trinity. We are social in our very nature. The need
for others and the giving as well as receiving of love is built into our very being. In this way,
humans are made for relationship with one another and with God; therefore, John Paul II argues,
we discover our true selves only through relationship and selfless giving.
94 For more on JPII and his views of humans made in the image of God, cf. Marc Ouellet, "John Paul II and the Biblical
Antropology of the Imago Dei," which is a paper presented during the JWG meeting in Dromantine in May 2001. A concise
summary of JPIIs Christological approach to ecumenism is found in Avery Dulles, S.J. The Splendor of Faith: The Theological
Vision of Pope John Paul II (New York: Crossroad, 1999) 167.
95 Cf. Familiaris Consortio: The Christian Family in the Modern World (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1981) section 11.
Love and communion are the innate calling of all human beings. As humans are made in the
image and likeness of the Trinity, John Paul II instructs that humanity's vocation is therefore one
"of love and communion." He explains:
God created man in His own image and likeness: calling him to existence through love, He
called him at the same time for love. God is love and in Himself He lives a mystery of personal
loving communion. Creating the human race in His own image and continually keeping it in
being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and
responsibility, of love and communion. Love is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of
every human being.95
In other words, loving and communing with God and neighbor is innately part of our nature and
calling as humans. At the same time, JPII recognizes that humanity tendency towards sin
hinders us both from participating with others and the world and from knowing ourselves. This is
where soteriology and the doctrine of salvation through the Incarnation enters John Paul II
personalism. Although the image of God was A. McCormick
tainted by sin, humanity finds redemption in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son. The pontiff
stipulated that the fullness of humanity is revealed only in God and the "mystery of salvation in
Christ."96 Thus, JPII personalism is Christocentric because he realizes that personalistic
philosophy is lacking until it finds fulfillment through faith in Jesus Christ.
96 Centesimus Annus 54.
97 Cf. Section 8 of Redemptoris Hominis: On the Redeemer of Man (March 1979). Available online at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html.
Accessed 09 Oct 2009. One of my critiques of JPIIs writings is that he fails to use inclusive language and instead chooses to
use traditional male-centered designations whenever referring to humanity in general. It is true that the Church and
scholars have habitually used "mankind" and "man" to refer to all humanity; however, our culture and modern world has
advanced to such an extent where continued usage of such terms can lead to the ostracization of many members of JPIIs
audience. For example, such patriarchal language effectively excludes women from the dialogue and implicitly places
authority in the hands of men.
98 Cf. Cardinal Avery Dulles, "John Paul II and the Mystery of the Human Person." America 190.3 (2 Feb 2004): 13.
99 JPII presents the Incarnation as "love revealed." Cf. Redemptoris Hominis 10-12.
100 Cf. Ibid. for his take on how the Incarnation raises the dignity of all humanity.
JPII realizes that personalism is not sufficient unless it is rooted in the Incarnation. For example,
he states that the Mystery of the Incarnation "fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his
most high calling."97 In this way, humans are unable to realize the fullness of their dignity and
their calling until they know Jesus Christ. Furthermore, by grounding the fullness of being
human in the Incarnation, JPII makes the Christian faith entirely personalistic. Rather than
basing faith solely on abstract theological concepts, JPII establishes faith upon one relationship
with Jesus Christ on a personal level.98 Jesus reveals superabundant love to us and also makes
known what the fullness of our humanity looks like.99 Thus, faith becomes based on loving
relationship, and Christianity becomes described as a person Jesus Christ. It is in Jesus Christ
that humanity image, nature and calling is revealed, fulfilled, and raised out of sin.100 JPII
argued that every human being must foster a relationship with Jesus Christ (whether A.
implicitly or explicitly) in order to be raised from sin and receive salvation.101 In this way,
salvation through relationship with the Incarnation anchors JPII personalism philosophy and his
concept of Christianity in general.
101 I say implicitly or explicitly because of Roman Catholicisms belief in the invisible Church, whereby people who do not
necessarily know Jesus Christ yet sincerely seek the truth and are open to the grace God has placed in their lives still have
the possibility of salvation through Christ. John Paul II explains, "For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of
a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church,"
implying that they can be a lesser degree or informal membership in the Catholic Church. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Redemptoris Missio 10. Also cf. Lumen Gentium, which states, "For they who without their own fault do not know of the
Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His
will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation". Pope Paul VI, Lumen
Gentium section 16. Available online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. Accessed 06 Sept 2008.
102 Cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 18, 62.
103 Cf. Dulles, The Splendor of Faith 159-160.
The influence of John Paul II lens of Christocentric personalism is seen through his description
of ecumenism, the Eucharist, and the Church. In all three areas, John Paul II repeatedly stresses
that human dignity is realized through unity and relationship. Furthermore JPII argues that
ecumenism, the Eucharist and the Church have the same fundamental goal: to achieve
communion of all humanity "with Christ and in him with the Father and the Holy Spirit."102 I will
now provide the evidence illustrating how JPII lens of Christocentric personalism has shaped
his understanding of ecumenism, the Eucharist, and the Church.
How Christocentric personalism shapes JPIIs ecumenical approach
While some argue JPII personalism philosophy is sufficient support for his concern with
ecumenism,103 I maintain JPII approaches ecumenism through the lens of his personalism
philosophy united with his Incarnational soteriology. Commenting on pages 159-160 of Avery
Dullesbook, The Splendor of Faith, Kevin E. Schmiesing states: A. McCormick
Finally, personalism fuels the pope concern with ecumenism, in which he calls for "dialogue,"
as the experience that allows for "human self-realization". The ecumenical imperative has
been a prominent theme of John Paul pontificate. Yet his emphasis on ecumenism does not
elicit a call for theological compromise; instead, he urges that its outcome be "a common
meeting in the most ample and mature fullness of Christian truth."104
104 Kevin E. Schmiesing, "Book Review: The Splendor of Faith," Journal of Markets & Morality vol.3 no.1 (Spring 2000).
Available online: http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/publicat_m_and_m_2000_spring_schmiesing.php. Accessed 06
Mar 2009.
105 Redemptor Hominis 7.
106 Ut Unum Sint 28.
I do agree that JPII views ecumenical dialogue as an activity that can bring about "human selfrealization," but, at the same time, I also believe there is more than just personalism philosophy
involved in fueling JPII ecumenical concern.
John Paul II is continually adamant that all theology starts with and is centered in Christ. For
example, the pontiff states, "Our spirit is set in one direction, the only direction for our intellect,
will and heart is towards Christ, the Redeemer of man. We wish to look towards him because
there is salvation in no one else but him, the Son of God."105 As such, JPII understood that
ecumenical dialogue must also be centered in and oriented towards the Incarnation.
JPII also teaches there is an intimate connection between ecumenical dialogue and growth of the
human person. He explains that the ability to dialogue is rooted in the unique nature and dignity
of the human person and requires a foundation of prayer. Describing the uniqueness of humanity,
JPII explains that the human is "the only creature on earth which God willed for itself." As such,
human beings cannot fully find themselves unless they participate and give themselves in
relationship with others.106 John Paul II astutely argues, "Dialogue is an indispensable step along
the path towards A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 49
human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human
community."107 The more we give of ourselves out of selfless love, the more we find ourselves
and meaning in our lives.
108 Ibid.
109 Ut Unum Sint 27-28.
Furthermore, JPII argues that the existential aspect of dialogue has priority over the rationalizing
dimension. He states, "Although the concept of ialoguemight appear to give priority to the
cognitive dimension (dia-logos), all dialogue implies a global, existential dimension. It involves
the human subject in his or her entirety; dialogue between communities involves in a particular
way the subjectivity of each."108 In other words, the fullness of our humanity can only be
achieved through relationship with God and interacting with our neighbor; therefore, dialogue is
integral to human self-realization both as individuals and as a community, and on a local and
global level. We can only come to know ourselves through discussing and relating with our
neighbors. The more we dialogue, the more we grow in self-knowledge and awareness. In this
way, dialogue is grounded in the dignity and growth of the human person and humanity as a
whole.
While inter-personal dialogue is imperative to growing in understanding oneself and one
relation to the community and the world, dialoguing with God is also important. John Paul II
argues that dialogue must be based upon and supported by prayer if it is to be successful.
Commenting on Vatican II statements on ecumenism, JPII states that prayer is the very "oulof
ecumenical renewal and of the yearning for unity, it is the basis and support for everything the
Council defines as dialogue."109 Prayer is imperative to dialogue because it keeps us connected
and in communication with the A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 50
Divine. Dialogue with God and with our neighbor is centered in the nature of the person and
helps us along the path of becoming fully human in Christ.
Christocentric Personalism: the Church and the Eucharist
John Paul II lens of Christocentric personalism is illustrated in his relational understanding of

the Eucharist as being one in Christ, thereby uniting us with the Trinity and one another. To begin
with, JPII teaches that the Eucharist is where we meet, greet, and eat the Incarnation. Through
receiving the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ, we embrace the "lived reality" of the
Incarnation in our being, actions, and lives.110 Additionally, JPII acknowledges there is a mutual
reciprocity in the Eucharist, whereby we welcome Jesus and He welcomes us. For example, in
Ecclesia de Eucharistia, JPII explains, "We can say not only that each of us receives Christ, but
also that Christ receives each of us. He enters into friendship with us: ou are my friends(Jn
15:14)."111 In this way, John Paul II recognizes that "Eucharistic communion brings about in a
sublime way the mutual bidingof Christ and each of his followers."112 We abide in Christ and
Christ abides in us.
110 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 62.
111 Ibid. 22.
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
The relational understanding of the Eucharist is further illustrated in JPII discussion of how the
Holy Sacrament brings about the union of humanity in God and the transformation of all the
world. For example, JPII instructs that we encounter the "face of Jesus" in all the sacraments but
particularly in the Eucharist, which renews and consolidates our incorporation into the Body of
Christ that is the Church.113 By encountering Christ in the Eucharist, we are further united
together as one Church. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 51
Uniting us to Christ, who is the Divine Physician, the Eucharist strengthens us and helps us to
bear witness to the world. In this way, the Eucharist builds the Church for it strengthens us in our
missionary task.114
114 The late pontiff states, "In the humble signs of bread and wine, changed into his body and blood, Christ walks beside us
as our strength and our food for the journey, and he enables us to become, for everyone, witnesses of hope." Ecclesia de
Eucharistia 62.
116 Ibid. 62.
Through receiving the Eucharist, we receive the Incarnation, who abides in us, feeds us, and
strengthens us to be food for the world, transforming us so that we may bear our hope for
salvation to others. In this way, members of Christ Body mediate the Incarnation to the world.
John Paul II explains, "By its union with Christ, the People of the New Covenant, far from
closing in upon itself, become a acramentfor humanity, a sign and instrument of the salvation
achieved by Christ, the light of the world and the salt of the earth (cf. Mt 5:13-16), for the
redemption of all."115 Fed by the Eucharist, we as the People of God become a sacrament for
humanity and an instrument of salvation. In this way, JPII states, "The Eucharist thus appears as
both the source and the summit of all evangelization, since its goal is the communion of mankind
with Christ and in him with the Father and the Holy Spirit."116The Eucharist is the source of
salvation for it moves the People of the Church outwards and strengthens them in their mission.
Furthermore, the Eucharist is the summit of evangelization, because all nations are called
together to share in oneness of JesusBody and Blood.
The Christocentric personalism of JPII is also intertwined with his understanding of the mission
of the Church. He sees a close connection between the development of the A. McCormick
human person and the Church task of evangelization.117 In Centesimus Annus, the Roman
pontiff teaches that, when it comes to evangelizing culture, our first task must be fostering
human self-understanding and formation. Acknowledging that the Church has a "specific and
decisive contribution" in this area, JPII explains the Church "promotes those aspects of human
behavior which favour a true culture of peace, as opposed to models in which the individual is
lost in the crowd."118 The Church serves society by proclaiming the truth of salvation through
Christ to all nations. At the same time, the duty to one's self and neighbor is the responsibility of
all human beings. Meaning, we are all responsible for our own self-understanding as well as
assisting with the self-understanding of our neighbors; and the fullness of this self-revelation is
only achieved through unity in Christ.119 By spreading the Gospel message, the Church helps
illuminate to all nations the full revelation of humanity that is found in Jesus Christ. As
previously explained, JPII realized that personalism alone is not enough; rather, faith in Christ is
required as He is the fullness of humanity revealed.120
117 Cf. Centesimus Annus, 51.
118 He continues stating, "The Church renders this service to human society by preaching the truth about the creation of
the world, which God has placed in human hands so that people may make it fruitful and more perfect through their work;
and by preaching the truth about the Resurrection, whereby the Son of God has saved mankind and at the same time has
united all people, making them responsible for one another. Sacred Scripture continually speaks to us of an active
commitment to our neighbour and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of humanity." Cf. Centesimus Annus 51.
119 John Paul II states, "Thus the Church's social teaching proclaims God and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every
human being, and for that very reason reveals man to himself." Ibid. 54.
120 Like the Eucharist, the Church is also the instrument of salvation in that she has received and proclaims divine
revelation: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life." (Jn 3:16) Divine revelation is imperative for the disclosure of the fullness of humanity. As such,
the Churchs mission to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations is required in order to ensure all people come to encounter
the fullness of humanity that is realized in Jesus Christ.
Overall, John Paul II lens of Christocentric personalism is illustrated in his teaching that both
the Church and the Eucharist are centered in Christ and founded upon relationship, as the Church
makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist builds the Church. The A. McCormick
Church makes the Eucharist in that the People of God are the ones who gather and celebrate the
Eucharistic liturgy, recalling and re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ while also looking forward
to the resurrection. At the same time, John Paul II described the Eucharist as the very cause and
expression of the Church, and therefore central to the Church growth.121 It is the cause of the
Church in that Jesus established the New Covenant at the Last Supper and thereby established
the new messianic community. Furthermore, Eucharistic communion is the expression of the
Church unity as the Body of Christ. John Paul II explains, "[O]ur union with Christ, which is a
gift and grace for each of us, makes it possible for us, in him, to share in the unity of his body
which is the Church. The Eucharist reinforces the incorporation into Christ which took place in
Baptism though the gift of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:13, 27)."122 As the food of salvation, the
Eucharist is central to the Church growth because it strengthens the People of God and their
missionary task to bare the Word that is Jesus to the world.
122 Ibid. 23.
Chapter Four: Bulgakov and John Paul II in Dialogue on

Ecumenism, the Eucharist, and the Possibility of Reunion
The goal of this chapter is to mediate a back and forth dialogue between the positions of John
Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov. While the two scholars lived in different time frames and
ecumenical climates, their voices persist through their writings. Utilizing such primary sources, I
will evaluate the views of Bulgakov and JPII so as to illuminate their similarities and especially
their differences, which should not be evaded or A. McCormick
dismissed but rather distinguished and embraced. The process of locating and comparing the
unique elements of each theologian will prove to be mutually revelatory, as the emphases of one
theologian will likely illuminate the weaknesses of the other and vice versa. In other words, by
realizing which elements one author stresses and comparing it with the other, a deeper and more
holistic picture may be found. Before we are able to compare the positions of JPII and Bulgakov
on the Eucharist role in ecumenism and the possibility of Catholic-Orthodox reunion, we must
first address the question of how each scholar understands ecumenism.
Ecumenism as process of fostering a unity already present

In essence, both John Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov define ecumenism as the process whereby
Christians dialogue and nurture the oneness already present between their respective
confessions, for the purpose of both alleviating the scandal of division and advancing towards
Christianity reunion as one visible Church. Echoing points from the Directory for the
Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, John Paul II argues, "The ultimate goal
of the ecumenical movement is to re-establish full visible unity among all the baptized."123 He
specifies that the process of ecumenism is "fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit" and
increases daily towards "the restoration of unity among all Christians."124 Affirming that such a
restoration is certainly not an easy task,
123 Ut Unum Sint 24, 77-8, 84, 99. For more on JPIIs discussion on ecumenism as a process, cf. Crossing the Threshold of
Hope 149. Also cf. section 20ff, and 63, of Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Pontifical
Council on Christian Unity (March 25, 1993). Available online at http://www.adoremus.org/EcumenismNorms.html. Accessed
29 Jan 2009. Weigel also notes that JPII understood that the "quest for Christian unitywas not a negotiation but a matter
of giving concrete, historical expression to the unity that already existed between Christians through their common
baptism." Cf. Weigel, Witness to Hope 478-497. Another great summary of JPIIs understanding of ecumenism can be found
in Dulles, The Splendor of Faith 155-169.
JPII rightly states the path to unity is "difficult but so full of joy."125 JPII goes on to explain,
"Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians
grow towards full communion in truth and charity."126 Acknowledging that a deep level of
spiritual communion already exists between Christian denominations, John Paul II still
recognizes that God wills all Christianity to be visibly one and therefore more work remains to be
done.
125 Ut Unum Sint 2.
126 Cf. Ibid. 14. By "partial communion," John Paul II is here referring to the spiritual communion existing between different
Christian traditions. This differs from Bulgakovs use of "partial communion" to mean limited Eucharistic communion
between two Christian groups. This will be further delineated in this chapter, when discussing JPII and Bulgakovs views on
the role of the Eucharist in ecumenism.
127 Bulgakov, "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" 20-1.
128 Regarding Bulgakovs article By Jacobs Well, Plekon states, "The meeting of Christ and the Samaritan woman the
forceful words of the Lord point out one most relevant [connection] to the modern era: that past religious divisions and
discriminations, even liturgical requirements ("worship at the temple...") were transcended at his coming, in the light of the
kingdom." In other words, Jesus is telling us that we are called to transcend our "religious divisions and discriminations"
because we are all part of the same Body, worship in the same Spirit, and are one in the same Incarnate Christ "Still by
Jacob's Well: Sergius Bulgakov's Vision of the Church Revisited," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 49.1-2 (2005): 129-30.
129 Bulgakov, "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," 21-22.
Similarly, Sergius Bulgakov defines ecumenism as an lreadybut ot yetprocess that is Godordained and intended to culminate with all Christianity being visibly united as one Church.
Referring to the problem of Christian multi-denominationalism, Bulgakov argues that all
Christians are increasingly made one though the "common treasure of Christian life, of love and
faith and hope" that exists between them. Achieving visible unity is therefore the goal of
ecumenism.127 Bulgakov explains that we Christians are called by Jesus to alleviate the scandal of
Christian denominationalism and transcend our divisions.128 He states, "Unity becomes for
Christianity a duty, an aim, an inner necessity For as long as the Church cannot overcome its
inner divisions, the true fullness of Church life is hindered and even rendered impossible."129 As
denominational A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 56
divisions hinder the fullness of the Church, it is the duty of all Christians to strive towards visible
unity so that all may be one and God be all in all.
Agreeing with Bulgakov, John Paul II identifies ecumenism as a divinely ordained responsibility
that all Christians are called to uphold and participate in. For example, JPII states that
ecumenism is "a duty of the Christian conscience enlightened by faith and guided by love."130
Section six of Ut Unum Sint, reads:
130 Ut Unum Sint 8
131 Ut Unum Sint 6.
132 Ut Unum Sint 8
The unity of all divided humanity is the will of God. For this reason he sent his Son, so that by
dying and rising for us he might bestow on us the Spirit of love. On the eve of his sacrifice on the
Cross, Jesus himself prayed to the Father for his disciples and for all those who believe in him,
that they might be one, a living communion. This is the basis not only of the duty, but also of the
responsibility before God and his plan, which falls to those who through Baptism become
members of the Body of Christ, a Body in which the fullness of reconciliation and communion
must be made present.131
Here JPII explains that the unity of the Church and all humanity is the will of God. Its divine
prerogative therefore makes it the calling of all Christians. Since ecumenism is the will of God, it
is "a duty of the Christian conscience enlightened by faith and guided by love."132 Believing that
ecumenism is the duty of every Christian, JPII argues that our awareness of the divisions and
scandal bred by denominationalism should impel Christians towards fostering unity.
Furthermore, Sergius Bulgakov and John Paul II both affirm a deep level of spiritual communion
already exists between Christians a spiritual union that transcends denominational boundaries
and doctrinal barriers joining all together as the Body of Christ. For example, Bulgakov
specifies that unity is very much alive in what seems to be A. McCormick
a visibly divided Church. By way of scriptural analogy, he argues that modern-day Christians
who participate in dialogue are living out the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at
Jacob Well.133 Here we greet the Lord, who insists Christians must transcend "religious
divisions and discriminations" because we are all part of the same Body, worship in the same
Spirit, and are made one in the same Incarnate Christ. Thus, Bulgakov argues, "a positive basis
of unity" already exists between various Christian confessions because we are all joined together
by prayer, spiritual life, scripture and sacrament.134 He also places the basis of our dogmatic
oneness in our common sharing of the creeds and recognition of the Church first seven
Ecumenical Councils.135 Through these areas of unity, Bulgakov believes, we as Christians are
both spiritually and dogmatically joined into the one Body of Christ.
133 Explaining the title of his article as playing off a scriptural analogy, Plekon states, "The meeting of Christ and the
Samaritan woman the forceful words of the Lord point out one most relevant *connection+ to the modern era: that past
religious divisions and discriminations, even liturgical requirements ("worship at the temple...") were transcended at his
coming, in the light of the kingdom." Plekon "Still by Jacob's Well?" 129-30.
134 By Jacobs Well 102ff.
135 For example, he states, "Christians must realize not only their divisions but also their agreement. Our Creed, the
Nicene Creed together with the ancient Apostolic and Athanasian Creeds, constitute the general confession of Orthodoxy,
Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, and we must never lose sight of this basis of our dogmatic unity." He also mentions
the first seven ecumenical councils as the basis of our unity. By Jacob's Well 108.
Underlining the importance of dialogue, Bulgakov argues that what truly unifies the Church "is
hidden in the very depths" and requires further examination and affirmation. He states:
The distinction between various confessions lies first of all in dogmatic differences, and then in
the religious and practical discrepancies which result from them. These are on the very surface
and are apparent to all. But that which constitutes Church unity, that which is already given, and
the striving towards unity, which actually exists as the basis of unity this is hidden in the very
depths. One must realize and express the positive spiritual basis of Christian cumenismnot
only as an idea but as an A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 58
actuality existing by grace.136

136 Ibid. 102.
137 Cf. Ibid. 103-105; and Plekon "Still by Jacob's Well?" 132.
138 "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," 21-22.
139 Crossing the Threshold of Hope 147.
140 Ut Unum Sint
Explaining Bulgakov meaning, Michael Plekon states the sooner we as Christians discover our
divisions by way of dialogue, then the sooner we are able to realize that our "encounter of
differences is the beginning of discovering our unity."137 Bulgakov encourages Christians to
recognize they share a real "positive spiritual basis" and that more unites than divides the
different confessions who are made one in the Body of Christ. Furthermore, arguing that our
spiritual oneness flows from our "inner, mystical life in Christ," Bulgakov implores all Christians
to recognize "there exists an invisible, mysterious unity of the whole Church In some sense the
whole of Christianity is one Church and accordingly this unity is Orthodox."138 He essentially
affirms that Christians are spiritually united together as one Body, as one invisible Church.
Similarly, John Paul II argues that a great degree of unity exists between different Christian
confessions. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he states, "What unites us is much greater than
what separates us All of us, in fact, believe in the same Christ."139 JPII explains that it is
paramount that we Christians acknowledge the oneness and spiritual unity already present
among our confessions. In Ut Unum Sint, the pontiff catalogues the many similarities and
successes nurtured through ecumenical dialogue over the years, repeatedly emphasizing the deep
level of unity shared by all Christians.140 While JPII realizes obstacles to ecumenism "have
accumulated over the course of the centuries," he exhorts, "It is necessary, therefore, to rid
ourselves of stereotypes, of old A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 59
habits. And above all, it is necessary to recognize the unity that already exists."141 In this way,
JPII encourages Christians to wipe away any false perceptions of other confessions and instead
embrace with certainty that all those who are baptized are made one in the Body of Christ.142
141 Crossing the Threshold of Hope 149.
142 Cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 61 and Ut Unum Sint 6, 12-13, 42.
144 Crossing the Threshold of Hope 144ff.
Furthermore, JPII believed the degree of unity already shared between Christians can only
increase so long as we continue to seek the truth in charity and remain mutually open and
respectful towards one another in our dialogue. Our spiritual communion as the Body of Christ
can only continue to grow through moments of prayer, discussion, and social activity
providing we remain centered in Christ and thereby the Holy Trinity.143 The Roman pontiff was
adamant that ecumenical dialogue helped Christians realize that their different approaches to and
perspectives on the faith are in fact complementary.144 In other words, the more we discuss and
nurture our relationship with our other Christian siblings, the more we come to know ourselves
and our own faith. As such, JPII was adamant that the spiritual unity already present among
Christians can only continue to grow through loving dialogue.
Understanding Ecumenism: Areas of Divergence between

JPII and Bulgakov
Both John Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov identify ecumenism as a matter of love; however, they
accentuate and describe this love in different ways. While Bulgakov sophiology implicitly
defines love as central to ecumenism, John Paul II understanding is more explicit. For example,
JPII defines ecumenism as a matter of God love for us as A. McCormick
well as our love for God and each other. He states, "Ecumenism is not only an internal question
of the Christian Communities. It is a matter of the love which God has in Jesus Christ for all
humanity." 145 In other words, ecumenism begins as an internal question in so far as each
Christian community must decide whether to openly approach dialogue and embrace the learning
and growth that may result. While congregations are free to make this choice, John Paul II
stresses that "an imperative of charity is in question," for being respectful and open to the beliefs
of our Christian siblings is a matter of love.146
146 Ibid.
147 For JPIIs discussions on ecumenism as a divine gift, cf. Ut Unum Sint 1, 3, 10, 12, 12, 28, 35, 38, 41, and 57. For
ecumenism as a "dialogue of love" and "salvation," cf. Ut Unum Sint 47-8, 60.
149 JPII explains that love is the perfect source of communion, as love is what unites the Trinity and is what unites us to
God and neighbor. Ut Unum Sint 19, 21, 99.
150 JPII is also unique in his understanding of ecumenism as a dialogue of salvation, whereby he emphasizes that the
practice of ecumenism requires conversion and reconciliation on both an individual and corporate level. JPII argues a
personal and communal "change of heart" is required by all who join in the ecumenical task. The individual and the
community at large must remain open to growth and continual conversion throughout the ecumenical process. We must
open our eyes to the operation of the Holy Spirit outside of our own visible confession. To JPII, all Christians are called to
allow themselves to be shaped and transformed by their ecumenical concern. The practice of ecumenism
JPII also distinctly identifies ecumenism as a "gift from God" and "a dialogue of love" and
"salvation" in which all Christians are called to participate.147 The pontiff sees ecumenism as the
process of exercising "a perfect communion in love," whereby Christians dedicate themselves to
growing in their understanding of each other and God.148 Thus, John Paul II argues, if we close
ourselves off from ecumenism and refuse to communicate with our Christian siblings, we are
essentially rejecting the grace of the Holy Spirit and the salvific love of God.149 God wills that all
Christians be one as Jesus and the Father are one through the Spirit; therefore, if a Christian
confession chooses to stand against this oneness by opposing ecumenical dialogue, they are
essentially offending God love and divine will for all humanity.150 A. McCormick
also increases our "sense of the need for repentance" for the wrongs we have done and the divisions we have caused with
our Christian neighbors. It is through the practice of ecumenism that the Spirit works and we undergo "renewal, conversion
and reform." Cf. Ut Unum Sint 15-16.
151 Bulgakov, "The Churchs Ministry," 263.
Like JPII, Bulgakov also defines ecumenism as a matter of love shared between God, ourselves
and our neighbors; however, Bulgakov understanding is unique in so far as it is understood
through his sophiological lens. As explained in chapter two, Bulgakov identifies divine Sophia as
the loving of the Love within the Trinity. The sophianic love shared between the Trinitarian
Persons becomes the prototype or "seed" implanted in the world creaturely Sophia, which is in
the process of its creaturely actualization or becoming. Since divine Sophia is the loving of the
Love within the Trinity, creaturely Sophia is called to become this love in the world, to become
love and bring love to all corners of the earth. However, as long as the Church oneness is
compromised by the divisions and enmity between Christian denominations, the actualization
process of all creation is hindered. Self-giving love cannot be shared when enmity and selfcenteredness exist. As such, all Christians have the duty and responsibility to foster dialogue and
unity with other denominations. Echoing the words said before the creed in Orthodoxy liturgy
of the Eucharist, Bulgakov states, "Let us love one another, unto the Confession, with one heart
and soul, of the same faith."151 In this way, Bulgakov agrees that ecumenism is a matter of love;
however, he is entirely distinct in the way he approaches it through his sophianic understanding.
Differing from Bulgakov sophianic approach, John Paul II is entirely unique in his missionary
understanding of ecumenism, specifying that he way of ecumenism is the way of the
Church.In other words, the Churchs universal call to mission necessitates her call to
ecumenical cooperation and dialogue. John Paul II explained that A. McCormick
ecumenism goal of uniting all Christians into one visible Church is bound up in the Church
mission to unite all peoples in Christ. Thus, the Church is missionary and ecumenical in her
nature because it is God plan that "all be one."152 Ut Unum Sint explains that ecumenism is an
organic part of the Church very nature. The document argues that as unity was central to
Christ mission, it must also be at the heart of the Church mission and our mission as
Christians.153 John Paul II writes:
152 Ut Unum Sint #5, 9, 18, 20.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid.
155Braaten and Jenson, Church Unity and the Papal Office 12.
156 Ut Unum Sint 5, 9, 15, 23, 43, 50, and 98. Also cf. Redemptoris Missio 1-2.
Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity,
which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not
something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission it belongs to the very
essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an
expression of the whole depth of his agape.154
Commenting on this, Cardinal Cassidy states, "Ecumenism is not to be seen then as a program of
the Catholic Church; ecumenism is the nature of being the Catholic Church."155 A half-hearted
commitment to ecumenism is therefore the equivalent of going against the Church very nature,
essentially compromising the faith.
Ut Unum Sint emphasizes that the Church missionary call to "evangelize all nations" is the
driving force behind the ecumenical movement. The Church very identity necessitates mission
to proclaim the Good News throughout the world (cf. Mt 28:19); however, the visible divisions
within Christianity breed scandal and hinder the world acceptance of the Gospel message.156
JPII states that "it is obvious that the lack of unity among Christians contradicts the Truth which
Christians have the mission to A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 63
spread and, consequently, it gravely damages their witness."157 By increasingly coming to realize
the hindrance that division poses to the proliferation of the Gospel, many Christian communities
have started working together on missionary endeavors and matters of social justice.158 They
have come to recognize that the Church universal call to mission necessitates her call to
ecumenical cooperation and dialogue.
158 Ut Unum Sint 32, 40.
While Bulgakov agrees with JPII that the goal of ecumenism is to achieve full, visible reunion of
all Christian confessions into one Church, he does not explicitly emphasize the Church
missionary nature nor closely link it with the Church task of reunion. Instead, Bulgakov focuses
more on ecumenism as part of the process of actualizing the Church creaturely Sophia. At the
same time, I do not think Bulgakov would oppose John Paul II understanding of the interrelationship between ecumenism and mission. Bulgakov own sophiological understanding of
ecumenism implicitly includes the missionary element of all Christians having the duty to love
and help their neighbor to come to know Christ and actualize the fullness of their creaturely
potential in God. In this way, mission seems to be an unspoken requirement for all peoples and
creation to achieve their full actualization. Bulgakov realizes that our proclaiming the Word to all
nations hastens the coming of the new heaven and new earth; our missionary work hastens the
Second Coming of Christ.
Nonetheless, this missionary aspect is more implicit to Bulgakov sophiological view of
ecumenism and is not a key focus like it is with John Paul II. Does the lack of emphasis on
evangelization birthed by Bulgakov sophiological lens result in a detrimental minimization of
the Church missionary task? Further analysis of A. McCormick
Bulgakov understanding of the mission of the Church and the process of evangelization would
be necessary in order to sufficiently answer this question. At the same time, while Bulgakov does
not explicitly define the Church nature as missionary nor closely link it with the Church task
of reunion, he seems to indirectly affirm this inter-relationship in the speech that he made at the
first Faith and Order World Council in 1927.159
159 Cf. Bulgakov, "The Churchs Ministry," 258-263.
While having their own unique elements and emphases, John Paul II and Sergius Bugakov
significantly overlap in their understanding of ecumenism. Both men define ecumenism as the
process of dialoguing and nurturing oneness between different Christian confessions so as to
achieve the goal of Christianity full visible unity as one Church. Together they affirm that a
deep level of spiritual unity already exists between Christians and argue that ecumenism must be
understood as both a duty and a matter of love.
On the Eucharists Function and the Possibility of OrthodoxCatholic Reunion

The positions of John Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov on the Eucharist role in ecumenism can be
easily misconstrued. Initially, it may seem as though Pope John Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov
stand on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the relationship of the Eucharist in ecumenism.
For example, when I first embarked on my thesis investigation, I erroneously thought Bulgakov
advocated using the Eucharist as a means towards establishing communion between Christian
confessions to such an extent that he was supporting something of an open communion free-forall. It was not until I looked deeper that I realized Bulgakov specifies that Eucharistic
intercommunion is only A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 65
possible after a level of agreement has been reached on key dogmatic issues, particularly those
related to the Eucharist. Conversely, I also misconstrued John Paul II repeated emphasis on the
Eucharist as the expression of a unity that already exists to mean that he advocated for virtually
complete doctrinal agreement before Eucharistic intercommunion can occur between the
Catholic Church and another confession. I realize now that my confusion was likely because of
the unique emphases John Paul II and Sergius Bulgakov bring to the relationship of the Eucharist
and ecumenism. While they agree that the Eucharist functions as both an expression of and a
means towards communion, JPII underscores that the Eucharist is first and foremost the
expression of a unity that already exists. In contrast, Bulgakov places the bulk of his focus on
illustrating that the Eucharist can be a means towards furthering the communion already
established.
Like Bulgakov, John Paul II affirms that Eucharistic reception is able to increase the oneness of
the Church that is already in existence. For example, upholding that the "Eucharist createsand
fosters communion," John Paul II states, "Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to
the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it
is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity."160 This begs the question: if the
Eucharist is truly "the source and summit of the Christian life" as John Paul II claims, then
should not the Eucharist be made central to ecumenical dialogue?161 Taken a step further, would
not open Eucharistic communion with our Christian sisters and brothers particularly those from
Eastern Orthodoxy further unite God People?
160 Ecclesia de Eucharisitia 40 and 43.
161 Ibid. 1, 13 and 43;
JPII agrees that the Eucharist can in fact expand the unity and communion already present in the
invisible Church; however, he adamantly opposes the position that opening communion to all
Christian denominations would inevitably bring about dogmatic unity. Stressing that the
Eucharist is first and foremost the expression of a unity that already exists, JPII states, "The
celebration of the Eucharistcannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that
communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to
perfection."162 He is also adamant that Eucharistic sharing cannot occur between two
communities where the invisible and visible dimensions of communion have not been
maintained.163 Furthermore, JPII argues that if we share in the Eucharist before first establishing
these dimensions of communion, we are actually compromising and relativising the faith. By
participating in such open Eucharistic intercommunion without first alleviating our differences,
JPII teaches, we are essentially lying with our actions.
162 Ibid. 35.
163 Ibid.
Firstly, John Paul II argues that using the Eucharist towards the end of creating unity between
confessions is essentially saying that the ends justify the means. While visible unity and the
communion of Christ universal Church is certainly a good end, JPII is resolute that such an end
does not justify the means of objectifying the sacred mystery of the Eucharist as a way of
ascertaining unity. He explains that, until the bonds of unity "are fully re-established," any
Eucharistic "concelebration" between Christian confessions "would not be a valid means, and
might well prove instead to be an A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 67
obstacle".164 In other words, JPII believes it is morally wrong to use the Eucharist as a tool
towards unity, and that such an approach eventually results in hindering unity rather than
fostering it. He is adamant that we cannot allow our unitive goal to blind us from considering the
ethical grounds of the means we use to attain the goal of full visible communion.
164 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44. Also cf. section 30, which reads, "The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the
religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their
celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to
bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity."
165 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44 and the encyclicals footnotes no. 93-94.
Furthermore, John Paul II opposes using the Eucharist to foster unity when it means indifferently
ignoring contrasting views on key dogmatic issues. JPII states that Eucharistic sharing before
establishing foundational dogmatic agreement essentially weakens "the sense of how far we
remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or
another truth of the faith."165 Allowing intercommunion before addressing dogmatic differences,
in John Paul view, promotes the relativization of the faith and can actually result in obstructing
our unity instead of building it. Speaking out against dogmatic indifference and relativism, John
Paul II writes:
In this courageous journey towards unity, the transparency and the prudence of faith require us to
avoid both false irenicism and indifference to the Church's ordinances. Conversely, that same
transparency and prudence urge us to reject a halfhearted commitment to unity and, even more, a
prejudicial opposition or a defeatism which tends to see everything in negative terms. To uphold
a vision of unity which takes account of all the demands of revealed truth does not mean to put a
brake on the ecumenical movement. On the contrary, it means preventing it from settling for
apparent solutions which would lead to no firm and solid A. McCormick
results. The obligation to respect the truth is absolute. Is this not the law of the Gospel?166
166 JPIIs reference to "false irenicism" harkens back to Pope Pius XIIs encyclical Humani Generis (1950). While irenicism
attempts to achieve the good end of eliminating ecumenical barriers, both JPII and Pope Pius XII argue irenicism is
erroneous in so far as it ignores rather than addresses the dogmatic differences present between Christian confessions.
Furthermore, when irenicism does address dogmatic differences, it specifically focuses on reconciling and reforming
dogmatic principles that are fundamentally opposed to one another. Pius XII explains that those ascribing to irenicism
frequently toss out the essential "laws and principles given by Christ" and claim they are doing so for the sake of unity. Cf.
JPII Ut Unum Sint 79 and Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44. Regarding Pope Pius XIIs view of the dangers of irenicism, cf. Humani
Generis 11-16, and 43.
Asking whether we truly can achieve unity when the fundamentals of the faith are removed, JPII
emphasizes that the Truth of the Gospel must be respected as absolute. He concludes that
irenicism is false and does not foster unity because it is both based upon and results in dogmatic
relativism. Being indifferent towards the Truth does nothing to resolve the divisions between
Christian communities; rather, it just ignores and compounds the problem. Opening Eucharistic
reception between confessions before addressing dogmatic differences just encourages deeper
confusion and disarray. If the necessary level of dogmatic unity is not attained by both
confessions before Eucharistic intercommunion, then the activity of open Eucharistic sharing is
essentially a lie.
Above all, JPII adamantly rejects the idea that opening communion to all Christian
denominations because such Eucharistic sharing would mean we are lying with our actions. This
goes back to John Paul II lens of Christocentric personalism. Humans can either grow in their
self-knowledge and participation through willing the true good and acting on good choices, or
they can digress and alienate themselves through willing the false good and acting on bad
choices. We are not choosing the "true good" when our physical actions lie about a unitive reality
that is not yet present. From JPII understanding, just as two individuals who have casual sex
outside of the marital covenant are essentially using each other and objectifying themselves, so
also two A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 69
Christian confessions who open Eucharistic communion without establishing a basic level of
dogmatic agreement are essentially lying about a relationship that is not yet in existence. He
disputes that such Eucharistic utilization is not "a valid means" towards unity; rather, it will
inevitably "prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening
the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities
with regard to one or another truth of the faith."167 Instead of moving towards the fullness of
communion, using the Eucharist to bring about dogmatic unity will inevitably hinder us from
achieving our ecumenical goal.
167 Cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44
168 For a discussion of Bulgakovs understanding of the Eucharist as a means to communion, see Plekons critical summary
of Bulgakovs article By Jacobs Well. Michael Plekon, Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 2002) 148-154.
While John Paul II stresses the Eucharist is first and foremost the expression of a unity that
already exists, Bulgakov emphasizes that the Eucharist can be a means towards furthering
communion.168 At the same time, he still maintains that a level of unity and agreement must
precede Eucharistic intercommunion.
Bulgakov uniquely places more weight on the Eucharist as a means towards furthering
communion between Christian confessions. For him, the Church visible reunion is achieved
through the Eucharist by way of agreement on the dogmas associated with the Holy Sacrament.
In Ways to Church Reunion, Bulgakov explains that, instead of attempting to establish "complete
unanimity on alldogmatic points," Christian confessions must aim at achieving a dogmatic
minimum whereby the confessions mutually agree upon only the fundamental dogmas necessary
for reunion to take place. Those dogmas most necessary to the life of Grace include all the
dogmas "without the recognition of which the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be
contemplated." A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 70
Establishing mutual agreement on the dogmas associated with the Eucharist is therefore the
dogmatic minimum necessary in order to make reunion possible.169
169 Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" 9ff.
170 Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" 9ff.
171 Ibid.
172 Bulgakov stipulates that the Anglican involvement would depend upon the other two confessions recognizing "the
validity of Anglican orders". In his Proposal for Partial or Limited Communion, he recognizes that a conditional ordination
might be necessary in order to ensure the apostolicity of Anglican orders. Cf. Bulgakov in "General Report of the Fellowship
Conference, June 1933" 12-14; and "Ways to Church Reunion" 11.
Bulgakov argues that there are three dogmatic areas intrinsically connected with the Eucharist
and thereby require mutual agreement between the respective Christian traditions before
proceeding to intercommunion. First, both confessions must agree on the real presence and true
character of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. Both must also accept the
Christological definitions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, "because apart from
the Christology of the Church there can be no true Eucharist."170 Thirdly, Bulgakov established
that both confessions must have maintained (or at least be willing to re-establish) the apostolic
succession of their priesthood through the "laying on of hands".171 As such, in Bulgakov
opinion, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have "the possibility of uniting before the Holy Chalice"
because both confessions assent to the real presence, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the
apostolic validity of their respective priesthoods.172
Bulgakov recognized that two confessions may have areas of dogmatic or canonical difference
outside of these three areas of agreement; however, he was adamant that such discrepancies
should not deter intercommunion from proceeding. If two confessions were able to agree on the
real presence, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the validity of each other priesthoods, they
could proceed to the Eucharistic table. Any remaining conflicts outside of these areas would not
impede the fullness of communion A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 71
for all other differences have either no Eucharistic relation or are differences still open to
theological debate.173 In other words, he argued that visible intercommunion can precede full
dogmatic agreement so long as the confessions have agreed on the dogmatic minimums
associated with the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
173 Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" 9-12.
174 Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" 8.
175 Ibid. 11-12.
176 Ibid. 12-13.
Rebuffing those who may wish to equate his dogmatic minimum position with dogmatic
indifference or relativity, Bulgakov disputes that "such distinction between dogmas, their
classification as Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic, the more important and the less important,"
does not undermine "the infallibility and self-sufficiency of the Church."174 A dogma
infallibility depends not on the proclamation of a council or the Roman pontiff but rather upon
whether it is "divinely inspired" and "meets the needs of its dogmatic consciousness in every
epoch."175 In other words, we know a dogma is infallible not because it is some rubber-stamped
ecclesial document but rather because it is rooted in divine revelation and is both historically and
universally concrete. Thus, Christian confessions can decide on a teaching infallibility by
performing what Bulgakov terms a "soborny investigation," examining whether the teaching
maintains a continual historical concreteness in its acceptance and applicability throughout the
life of the Church.176 If such teaching is found to be present and applied always, everywhere and
by all in the Church, then it may validly be considered as dogma.
Sergius Bulgakov and John Paul II agree that open Eucharistic intercommunion is only possible
once key faith issues are assented to between the respective Christian confessions; nevertheless,
the two scholars arrive at different conclusions regarding the A. McCormick
level of agreement necessary before Eucharistic intercommunion can occur. Although JPII
concurs with Bulgakov that dogmatic agreement must be reached on the real presence, the seven
Ecumenical Councils, and the apostolic validity of the confessionsrespective priesthoods, JPII
adds that unity must be established on the hierarchy governing role in the Church. Section 44 of
Ecclesia de Eucharistia specifies that each community must first establish agreement "in the
bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance." John Paul II
states, "Precisely because the Church unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord
sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the
bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible
to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established."177
Thus John Paul II concludes that Eucharistic intercommunion cannot occur until unity is
established regarding the creeds, the sacraments and the governance of the Church. Furthermore,
he declares that settling for anything less than this level of dogmatic unity will inevitably present
an obstacle to attaining full communion because it minimizes and relativizes the Truth of the
faith.178
177 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44

178 Cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 43-44 and footnotes no. 93-94.
Does JPII specify dogmatic disagreements between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism
in the areas of "the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance"? Beyond
addressing the divisions incurred due to the Catholic understanding of papal primacy and the
need for all particular Churches to be in union with Rome, JPII does not explicitly mention any
other obstacles of dogmatic disagreement. Instead, JPII seems more focused on reporting all the
areas of unity shared A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 73
between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. For example, regarding "the bonds of the profession of
faith," the Roman pontiff affirms that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy share and guard the same
"deposit of faith," the same spiritual tradition, and the same historical roots. In these ways and
others, the particular Churches of the East remain as "Sister Churches" spiritually united with the
Catholic Church, a unity deepened especially since each Church lifted the 1054 CE "mutual
excommunications" that had presented a very "painful canonical and psychological obstacle" for
nearly a millennia.179 Furthermore, JPII states that, while recognizing that various Eastern
Churches remain visibly separate from Roman Catholicism, the Catholic Church still fully
acknowledges the validity of the East "true sacraments," and recognizes the Eastern
preservation of the priesthood and sacraments through legitimate apostolic succession. JPII also
affirms the "ecclesial nature and the real bonds of communion" that link Eastern Churches and
Roman Catholicism.180
180 Ut Unum Sint 50 and 62.
181 Cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 60-2 and Ut Unum Sint 12, 50-63. Also cf. Reports from the Eastern Orthodox Roman
Catholic Dialogue, excerpts of which are found in The Ecumenical Christian Dialogues and the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, J. Gros and D. S. Mulhall eds. (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2006) 110-113.
With all this focus on the elements of unity between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism,
it can be arduous at times to differentiate between the doctrinal differences that qualify as
"legitimate diversity" and those dogmatic differences that truly separate the Churches and
therefore must be overcome. John Paul II agrees that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy mutually
share bonds in the creeds, the first ecumenical councils, the deposit of faith, the apostolic
priesthood, the sacraments, along with all the elements of sanctification and truth.181 Of note is
JPII statement that the level of unity A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com
74
shared between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is so deep that both can mutually declare that the
Eucharistic celebration "in each of these Churches" further unites and builds up the universal
Church as a whole.182 In this way, JPII recognizes that a spiritual Eucharistic communion
already exists between the Catholic and Orthodox confessions, so that their individual
Eucharistic celebration further intensifies this unity and the overall unity of the Church universal.
If Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism share such a deep level of communion, it begs the
question: what is barring us from intercommunion?

183 Cf. Ibid. 4, 24, 88-96.
184 Cf. Ut Unum Sint section 95, whereby JPII writes: "For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly
fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman
See acted by common consent as moderator". In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the
Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that "for a great variety of reasons, and
against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light.
But ... it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that
ministry ... I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our
Churches, that we may seektogether, of coursethe forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love
recognized by all concerned"." For a good critique of John Paul IIs tendency to preach one thing and instead practice
another when it comes to ecumenism, cf. Peter Hebblethwait, who describes the pontiffs ecumenical commitment as being
"schizophrenic." Peter Hebblethwait, Pope John Paul II and the Church
In John Paul II opinion, disagreements in the area of ecclesial governance appear to be the key
obstacle currently preventing Orthodox-Catholic intercommunion. The most monumental
stumbling block to reunion appears to be the question of the role of the pope, which, ironically,
JPII depicts as one of unity and service. He believes working for the cause of unity is the special
mission and "specific duty of the Bishop of Rome," arguing that it is the role of the papacy to be
"the service of communion" and the ministry of mercy. John Paul II deems that the papal mission
is best illustrated through bridge-building dialogue, seeking forgiveness for past wrongs, and
making papal pilgrimages to visit various Christian communities.183 In other words, the role of
the Pope, in JPII eyes, is meant to be one of mediating disputes and bridging differences.184
(Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995) 39ff. Hans Kug offers similar critiques in The Catholic Church: A Short History, trans. by
J. Bowden (New York: Random House Inc., 2001) 190-196. For a summary of the changes Kug believed Catholicism must
make to the Church, cf. pages 203-207. In another book, Kug argues that, while the papacy is necessary, it must not
"become the sole criterion for identifying the Church." Cf. Hans Kug, On Being Christian, trans. by Edward Quinn (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1976) 494-502.
186 Ibid.
187 More on the state of how dialogue on the role of the papacy has progressed since Ut Unum Sint will be discussed in the
conclusion of this thesis.
Since JPII understands the Bishop of Rome mission as one of unity, he finds it paradoxical that
the papacy itself seems to be the most significant obstacle towards reuniting Catholicism and
Eastern Orthodoxy. Attempting to address this impediment, John Paul II stresses that the pope
ex cathedra pronouncements and overall papal primacy "must always be done in communion"
with "the whole body of Bishops, who are also icars and ambassadors of Christ"185
Furthermore, he invites all Christian communities to enter into patient dialogue with Roman
Catholicism so as to achieve some agreement on the role of the Bishop of Rome and the pope's
"primacy" being "exercised" as an "office of unity."186 Opening the role of the papacy to dialogue
was certainly a monumental step forward along the road to achieving full visible unity between
Christian confessions.187 The opening of the pope authority and role to discussion acted as a
sign of the Roman Church willingness to dialogue. At the same time, it remains to be seen
whether anything less than subjugation to Rome will be deemed an adequate result.
Besides resolving the matter of the papacy, John Paul II believes the other ecclesial governance
issue that Orthodoxy and Catholicism must address before reunion can take place is the
requirement of "communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome." In section 97
of Ut Unum Sint, JPII explains that communion with the Bishop of Rome is both "a necessary
condition for unity" and "an essential requisite of A. McCormick
full and visible communion of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation."
John Paul II writes, "Indeed full communionneeds to be visibly expressed in a ministry in
which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find
confirmation for their faith."188 Asking, "Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel
a need for such a ministry?" JPII encourages fellow Christian communities to consider Rome as
'presider' of the unitive ministry as a metaphorical captain of the ship that is the Church "so that
the ship... will not be buffeted by the storms and will one day reach its haven."189 It is uncertain
whether our Eastern Orthodox Sister Churches would be willing to acknowledge the Bishop of
Rome as presiding over the ministry of reunion. The Orthodox may warily question whether the
Roman papacy intends to shift from the role as presider of reunion and instead claim to be
presider of the universal Church.
190 Ibid. 94.
One cannot fault the Orthodox for such wariness, as there are times when JPII himself sends
mixed messages. For example, John Paul II reiterates over and over again about the Roman
papacy being a ministry of reunion, a bridge and moderator as a brother among equals; however,
when he speaks of the nature of Church communion, he presumes it is based on unity with the
pope. It is questionable whether the Orthodox Church can assent to JPII claim that the Church
nature as communion depends upon all Pastors being "in communion with Peter and therefore
united in Christ."190 If a Christian confession is not in visible communion with the Roman pope
the Successor of Peter does that mean they are excluded from unity in Christ? Of course JPII
does not A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 77
take it to this extent; however, he does not sufficiently elaborate on what communion with Rome
encompasses. In this way, numerous questions still remain to be worked out regarding the
particular Churches reuniting "in communion" with Rome. Our Eastern Orthodox Sister
Churches may rightly wonder what the "communion of all particular Churches with the Church
of Rome" specifically consists of, and whether such a communion implies that their particular
Churches would have to change their liturgical practices or surrender the level of autonomy they
hold so dear.
While Bulgakov would surely applaud JPII for opening the issue of papal primacy to ecumenical
discussion, he does not agree that the role of the Bishop of Rome must be resolved before
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy can reunite in the Eucharist. Instead, Bulgakov posits that
preliminary dogmatic agreement between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is not
necessarily required prior to open sacramental fellowship since the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches already share a "unity of sacramental life." 191 He states:
191 Bulgakov, By Jacobs Well 111-113.
192 Ibid.
193 Ibid.
May it not be that a unity in the sacrament will be the only way towards overcoming this
difference [in dogmas and doctrines]? Why should we not seek to surmount a heresy in teaching
through superseding a heresy of life such as division? May it not be that Christians sin now by
not heeding the common eucharistic call?192
Bulgakov recognizes both Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions have jurisdictional,
doctrinal, and dogmatic differences. At the same time, he argues that none of these "destroy the
efficacy of the sacraments" that they mutually share.193 In other words, the division between
Orthodoxy and Catholicism is only a canonical division over A. McCormick
jurisdictional matters; therefore, spiritual intercommunion remains a reality and visible reunion is
only a matter of time.
On the question of how Orthodox-Catholic reunion should begin, Bulgakov concludes that it
must start at the altar, through mutually recognizing each share in "one priesthoodone
Eucharist." He states, "For in response to this, dogmatic unity will be achieved, or rather a
mutual understanding of one another in our distinctive features."194 In his view, by the grace of
the Holy Spirit, Orthodox-Catholic Eucharistic intercommunion will bring the understanding
needed to accept and overcome what little doctrinal or even dogmatic differences that remain.195
194 Ibid.
195 Ibid.
196 Bulgakov, "Spiritual Intercommunion" 6.
Oddly enough, even though Bulgakov fiercely advocated that Orthodox-Catholic reunion must
start with Eucharistic intercommunion, he did not see reunion or even spiritual Eucharistic
intercommunion taking place between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, at least not during his
lifetime. For example, Bulgakov cynically remarks that any prospect of spiritual Eucharistic
intercommunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was "thwarted" due to Rome "spirit of
proselytism" and "imperialism".196 Using an analogy from the television series Star Trek, it is
almost as if Bulgakov viewed Catholicism as the Borg. As a cybernetic collective of many drone
members, the Borg went around the galaxy, continuously proclaiming, "RESISTANCE IS
FUTILE!" as it assimilated every humanoid race it encountered. In a like manner, Bulgakov
depicts Rome approach to ecumenism solely as a task of subjugating the Christian confessions
that exist outside of the visible borders of the Catholic Church. Thus Bulgakov was A.
incredibly critical of the Catholic Church approach to reunion, perceiving Rome view to be
one of "absorption,"197 "annexation and subjugation."198 In this way, Bulgakov condemns the
Catholic Church for limiting reunion to Rome absorption of all other Christian confessions an
assimilation process that demanded conformity to the Latin way of doing things rather than
maintaining the diversity that Bulgakov held as an intrinsic part of the Church nature.
197 Cf. Bulgakov, "Ways to Church Reunion" 11.
198 Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma 72. Also cf. page 73, where he writes, "At present the Vatican dogma is the central
problem for the reunion of the church if the Lord ever re-veals to the world this miracle of His mercy. Earlier, at the epoch
of the councils of Lyons and of Florence the chief subject of dogmatic disagreement was the dogma about the Holy Spirit,
the filioque clause; questions of papal primacy, of using leavened or un-leavened bread for the Eucharist, of purgatory and
a few others of secondary importance all these particular disagreements are blotted out by one that is fundamental: by
papacy grown strong during the centuries of schism and established as a dogma at the Vatican."
199 By approaching the task of reunion in this way, JPII believes the signs of lessening tensions are already evident,
thereby "making the quest for unity more fruitful" since both sides are more at ease with each other. Cf. Ut Unum
As if responding to Bulgakov accusations, John Paul II specifies that Roman Catholicism does
not intend to absorb Eastern Orthodoxy or force absolute uniformity. Even though JPII makes
unity with the pope fundamental to Orthodox-Catholic reunion, he insists that the Eastern
Orthodox have a right to their own organizational structures and apostolate and that this right
must be retained throughout the reunification process. Ascribing to the methodology outlined by
the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church
and the Orthodox Church, John Paul II affirms that all reunion methodology must always remain
"the dialogue of truth, fostered and sustained by the dialogue of love," and always preserve "the
right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have their own organizational structures and to carry
out their own apostolate, as well as the actual involvement of these Churches in the dialogue of
charity and in theological dialogue."199 Emphasizing he has no intention of enforcing A.
Sint 60. For other writings by John Paul II on this matter, cf. Letter to the Bishops of Europe on the Relations between
Catholics and Orthodox in the New Situation of Central and Eastern Europe (31 May 1991); Apostolic Letter Orientale
Lumen (2 May 1995), 18, 24, in L'Osservatore Romano, 2-3 May 1995, 4-5; and, Declaration by His Holiness Pope John Paul
II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I (7 December 1987). For further background information on the Western
perspective regarding Orthodox-Catholic reunion methodology, cf. the Joint International Commission for the Theological
Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, "The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of
the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and the Unity of
the People of God" (26 June 1988),1: Information Service, 68 (1988), 173.
200 Ut Unum Sint 50. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, 17.
across the board uniformity, JPII stresses the importance of retaining "legitimate diversity" in the
areas of ecclesial structure and apostolate. Citing from Second Vatican Council discussion on
how to dialogue with the Eastern Churches, John Paul II argues that "legitimate diversity is in no
way opposed to the Church's unity, but rather enhances her splendour and contributes greatly to
the fulfillment of her mission."200 At the same time, questions remain as to what makes diversity
"legitimate" in JPII eyes and the eyes of the Roman Church? Without delineating such terms,
Eastern Orthodoxy will likely continue guarding themselves. Our Eastern Sister Churches
require more clarification so as to alleviate any suspicion.
Conclusion: The Road to Reunion: Where do we go from

Here?
Overall, JPII and Bulgakov agree that our current Orthodox-Catholic division comes down to
supposedly divergent thoughts on ecclesial governance and the role of the papacy. Our divisions
are further compounded by past psychological and historical wounds that are still in the process
of mending. Healing takes time; however, so long as we rest in the care of the Divine Physician
and rely upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, this healing will come and visible unity will be
achieved. Hope remains.
Regarding the Orthodox and Catholic divisions on ecclesial authority, I believe Bulgakov is right
in stressing that the issue of the papacy need not be resolved before the A. McCormick
two confessions reunite in the Eucharist. The issues of papal primacy and the role of Peter in the
Church have been a constant elephant in the room way before 1054 and the Great Schism
between the East and West. Since patristic times, both the Eastern and Western halves of the
Church have squabbled over the authority of Rome, and yet the Eucharistic table remained open
to all. Therefore, how can the Catholic Church of our modern day dictate that reunion with
Orthodox sister churches are impeded only by disagreements surrounding ecclesial authority?
The East and West shared different views regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome prior to 1054
and yet this did not hinder them from sharing Eucharisitic fellowship; therefore, why should it
pose such a barrier to intercommunion now?
Although Bulgakov writings provide some fairly harsh criticisms of Catholicism, we must
recall that, during his lifetime, the ecumenical climate between the two Churches was quite
different. He was alive when Pope Pius XI issued Mortalium Animos, which banned Catholicism
from participating in all ecumenical dialogue, calling it "evil."201 As such, Bulgakov realized any
dialogue beyond a grassroots level between Catholicism and Orthodoxy was virtually impossible
during his age. He, therefore, decided to focus instead on building relations with the Anglican
Church. This ecumenical effort bore much fruit and unity over the course of his lifetime,
including his ground-breaking proposal for partial intercommunion to be shared between the
Anglican and Orthodox confessions. But what exactly was Bulgakov suggesting at the AnglicanOrthodox Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Conference in 1933?
201 For reasoning behind why Roman Catholicism delayed in joining the ecumenical movement, cf. Luigi Accattoli, When a
Pope Asks Forgiveness: The Mea Culpas of John Paul II, trans. by J. Aumann (New York: Alba House, 1998) 9.
A.
Seven-fold in nature, his Proposal for Partial or Limited Intercommunion between the Anglican
and Orthodox Churches even began on a radical note, as his opening statement reminded his
Anglican and Orthodox audience that their "services of worship together" was of an
"uncanonical nature" because the Orthodox Church had not yet cleared up the status of whether
Anglicans were heretics.202 And yet, Bulgakov declared, the "dogmatic agreement" present
between the Anglican and Orthodox members of the Fellowship was "more complete" than the
agreement that currently existed between their respective Churches as a whole! He pointed out
that, while the "common worship," prayer and discussions shared between the AnglicanOrthodox members certainly helps prepare for reunion, the Fellowship has come to a point where
more dramatic action is required.203
202 The following is an abbreviated version of the Summary of Father Bulgakovs speech found in "General Report of the
Fellowship Conference, June 1933," 12-13.
203 Bulgakov is summarized as stating, "Having come to this point we [the members of the Fellowship] have a personal
responsibility for the work of Reunion. We must do what we can in the present historical conditions. If we remain for long in
the present state without moving, decomposition will set in. Reunion may not come until long after we are dead; but God
calls us to action here and now." Bulgakov, "General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933," 12-13.
Bulgakov raised the question of whether the partial or limited communion in the Fellowship or in
some other localized group may further the task of reunion between the Anglican and Orthodox
Churches. Such partial communion referred to in the East as he principal of economy
would require Anglican priests to make "a sacrifice of love" and receive a "conditional
ordination" blessing from an Orthodox bishop, so as to ensure apostolic succession and the
validity of the sacraments. In his sixth point, Bulgakov explained that the principle of economy
may aid the Anglican-Orthodox "progress towards reunion" but that this principle is only to be
used in particular, "exceptional cases" and not as a general basis for intercommunion. He then
concludes his address, A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 83
stating that the guiding principle behind his proposal and reunion in general must be "Christian
conscience and the voice of the Holy Eucharist in our hearts."204 Bulgakov proposal between the
Orthodox and Anglican confessions seemed realistic in 1933; however, the prospect for
Orthodox-Anglican reunion has greatly diminished in our modern day situation due to the
changes the Anglican Church has made regarding admitting women to the priesthood and
blessing homosexual marriage.
204 There is also an end note placed at the conclusion of Bulgakovs speech that draws attention to "the permission which
already exists for Orthodox to receive Baptism and Communion from an Anglican priest and vice versa in articulo mortis
and in the case of the absence of their own priest in certain distant places. This is already a beginning of economic
intercommunion, which has been allowed in principle before the fulfillment of general intercommunion." It is uncertain
whether this end note was added by Bulgakov or another member; however, the Anglican tone leads me to believe it was a
later Anglican addition, since it makes specific reference to Bulgakovs suggestion being closely analogous to the Anglican
Churchs "Indian Scheme". Cf. "Note" in "General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933," 13.
205 For a well-presented synopsis of the growth that has occurred in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relations since Vatican
II, as well as the current state of dialogue between the two confessions, cf. Walter Kasper, That They May All be One: The
Call to Unity Today (London and New York: Burns & Oates, 2004) 2-3, 18-24, 59-61, 67, 75-91, 96-7, 107-117, and 156-158.
While such theological issues pose new challenges for Orthodox-Anglican relations, the
ecumenical interactions between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have flourished
over the last fifty years, particularly since the Second Vatican Council.205 As such, I recommend
further examination should be made on Bulgakovs proposal, specifically in regards to how it
may be applied between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I particularly believe that Bulgakov
proposal for limited intercommunion would best be applied to those local dioceses facing unique
circumstances, such as those congregations who find themselves lacking Orthodox or Catholic
priests or, perhaps, in rural locations where one denomination may not even have a designated
place of worship. We must question whether permitting sacramental intercommunion between
the Orthodox and Catholic communities who face such unique A. McCormick
circumstances would in fact minimize or compromise the communio of the Church or the
Eucharist.
We must also question whether the canon laws of both the Catholic and Orthodox faiths allow
for the possibility of such a form of limited intercommunion.206 Contemporary canon law dictates
that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can only partake in each other sacraments in grave
situations whereby individual salvation is on the line. While Catholic priests are instructed that
they are able to administer the sacraments to Orthodox Christians who are in grave need (usually
interpreted as meaning the threat of death), Orthodox ecclesial laws on the position state the local
patriarch must decide whether sacraments can be administered to a Catholic who is in such grave
need. In other words, there is more interpretive and jurisdictional leeway on the side of
Catholicism than there is in that of Orthodoxy.
206 For information on Eucharistic sharing with members of the various Eastern Churches, cf. Directory for the Application
of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, sections 122-128f. Also cf. Thomas Hopko, "Open, Closed Intercommunion," The
Orthodox Church, Vol. 12 no. 7 (1976): 6.
As both JPII and Bulgakov affirm, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy share in the same
divine revelation, the same apostolic succession, the same valid holy orders, the same
sacraments, the same profession of faith, and the same history. If all this is true, then why isn't
Catholic-Orthodox concelebration an option? Why isn't Eucharistic intercommunion an option?
Now that we live in a time when the mutual excommunications between the two Churches no
longer apply, what is barring our Churches from taking the next step towards visible reunion?
What we need to do is move away from viewing Eucharistic reception between Catholicism and
Orthodoxy as solely possible in individual salvation situations. Instead, A. McCormick
we must move towards realizing that Orthodox-Catholic intercommunion is necessary in order to
overcome the grave situation of our visible divisions. I leave my reader to contemplate whether
Bulgakov proposal for limited intercommunion may be the next stage in our quest for unity.
Bibliography
Primary Sources by Sergius Nikolaevich Bulgakov.
A Bulgakov Anthology. James Pain and Nicholas Zernov, eds. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1976.
"By Jacob well." In A Bulgakov Anthology. 100-113.
"General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933." Journal of the Fellowship of St
Alban and St Sergius [=JFAS 20] (1933): 12-16.
"ne Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church. JFAS 12m (June 1931): 17-31.
"Spiritual Intercommunion." Sobornost 4 (1935): 3-7.
The Bride of the Lamb. Boris Jakim, trans. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans ; Edinburgh :
T&T Clark, 2002.
The Lamb of God. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2008.
"The Church Ministry" [1927]. In Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference.
August 3- 21, 1927. Ed. H. N. Bate, 258-263. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc.,
1928.
"The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society." JFAS 21 (September 1933): 10- 21.
The Holy Grail and the Eucharist. Boris Jakim, trans. Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Books, 1997.
The Orthodox Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1988.
The Vatican Dogma. South Canaan, Pa: St. Tikhon Press, 1959.
The Wisdom of God, A Brief Summary of Sophiology. Preface by Rev. Frank Gavin. New York:
The Paisley Press, 1937.
"The Wisdom of God." In Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology.
"Ways to Church Reunion." Sobornost 2 (June 1935): 7- 15.
Secondary Sources on Sergius Bulgakov and His Works

Aksenov-Meerson, Michail G. "Nine: Sergius Bulgakov Trinitarian Synthesis." In The Trinity
of Love in Modern Russian Theology: The Love Paradigm and the Retrieval of Western Medieval
Love Mysticism in Modern Russian Trinitarian Thought (from Solovyov to Bulgakov). Quincy,
IL: Franciscan Press, 1998: 159-188.
Arjakovsky, Antoine. "The Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western
Theology." St Vladimir's Thoelogical Quarterly. 49: 1-2 (2005): 219-35.
Behr, John. Editor. "Sergius Bulgakov." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. 49 no 1-2 (2005):
3-235.
Congar, Yves. Dialogue Between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism. Trans. Philip
Loretz. London and Dublin: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.
Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious
Philosophy. Ithaca [u.a.]: Cornell Univ. Press, 1997. A. McCormick
Gallaher, Anastassy Brandon. "Catholic Action: Ecclesiology, the Eucharist and the Question of
Intercommunion in the Ecumenism of Sergii Bulgakov." M. Div. diss., St. Vladimir's Orthodox
Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, 2003.
Gallaher, Anastassy Brandon, and Irina Kukota. "Protopresbyter Sergii Bulgakov: Hypostasis
and Hypostaticity: Scholia to The Unfading Light." St Vladimir's Thoelogical Quarterly 49: 1-2
(2005): 5-46.
Geffert, Bryn. "The Charges of Heresy against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority
Reports of Evlogii's Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops' Conference." St.
Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 2005, Vol. 49(1): 47-66
Harakas, Stanley. "S. Sergius Bulgakov and His Teaching." Greek Orthodox Theological Review
Vol. 7 (1961): 92-105
Hilarion (Alfeyev), Bishop of Vienna and Austria. "Prospects for Orthodox Participation in the
Ecumenical Movement in the Light of the Work of the Special Commission." Paper delivered at
the International Ecumenical Symposium Orthodox Theology and the Future of the Ecumenical
Dialogue: Perspectives and Problems in Thessaloniki (Greece) on 2 June 2003.
Karlson, Henry. "Sophiology and Free Apokatastasis." Unpublished paper. Karlson is currently a
PhD student at the Catholic University of America.
Klimoff, Alexis. "Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy." St Vladimir's
Thoelogical Quarterly 49: 1-2 (2005): 67-100.
Louth, Andrew. "Father Sergii Bulgakov on the Mother of God." St Vladimir's Theological
Quarterly 49: 1-2 (2005): 145-64. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 88
Louth, Andrew. "Wisdom and the Russians: The Sophiology of Fr Sergei Bulgakov." In Where
Shall Wisdom Be Found?: Wisdom in the Bible, the Church, and the Contemporary World.
Stephen C. Barton, ed., 169-181. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
Nikolaev, Sergei V. "Spiritual Unity: The Role of Religious Authority in the Disputes between
Sergii Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky Concerning Intercommunion." St. Vladimir's
Theological Quarterly Vol. 49(1) (2005): 101-123.
Papanikolaou, A. "Orthodoxy, Postmodernity, and Ecumenism: The Difference That DivineHuman Communion Makes." Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Vol. 42 no. 4 (Fall 2007): 527-46.
Plekon, Michael. Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 2002.
_____. "Still by Jacob's Well: Sergius Bulgakov's Vision of the Church Revisited." St. Vladimir's
Theological Quarterly. 49.1-2 (2005): 125-43.
_____. "Sergius Bulgakov: Political Economist and Priest, Marxist and Mystic." In Living Icons:
Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church, 29-58. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2002.
_____. Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999.
ierkosz, Stanisw. L'Eglise visible selon Serge Bulgakov : structure hirarchique et
sacramentelle. Roma : Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1980.
Tataryn, Myroslaw. "Sergei Bulgakov: Eastern Orthodoxy Engaging the Modern World." Studies
in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 2002, Vol. 31(3): 313-322. A. McCormick
Tataryn, Myroslaw I. Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and
Augustine of Hippo : a Twentieth Century Dialogue. Lanham, Md: International Scholars
Publications, 2000.
_____. "4. The Paris Orthodox Theologians: Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871-1944)," 66-96.
In Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy.
Tataryn, Myroslaw. "History Matters: Bulgakov's Sophianic Key." St Vladimir's Thoelogical
Quarterly 49: 1-2 (2005): 203-18.
Valliere, Paul. Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov : Orthodox Theology in
a New Key. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 2000.
Williams, Rowan, ed. Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1999.
Zernov, Militza. "Unity and Disunity Today." Sobornost Vol. 8(1) (1986): 23-27.
John Paul IIs Primary Sources

Addresses and Homilies on Ecumenism 1978-1980. John B. Sheerin and J.F. Hotchkin, eds.
Wash. DC: US Catholics Conference, 1980.
Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Vittorio Messori, ed. New York, NY: Borozi Books, 1994.
Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia De Eucharistia, of His Holiness Pope John Paul II: To the Bishops,
Priests and Deacons, Men and Women in the Consecrated Life and All the Lay Faithful on the
Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, 2003. Available online A. McCormick
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jpii_enc_17042003_ecclesia-de-eucharistia_en.html Accessed 08 Sept 2008.
Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio, of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II: To the Bishops of the
Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason. Boston: Pauline Books and
media, 1998.
Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint of the Holy Father, John Paul II on Commitment to Ecumenism.
Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995.
Familiaris Consortio: The Christian Family in the Modern World. London: Catholic Truth
Society, 1981.
On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum: Centesimus Annus. Washington, D.C.: Office
for Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1991.
Person and Community: Selected Essays. Catholic thought from Lublin, v. 4. New York: P. Lang,
1993.
"The Eucharist, 'a taste of eternity in time'" General Audience, October 25, 2000. Available
online http://www.adoremus.org/JPIICatechesisEucharist.html Accessed 11 Sept 2008.
Redemptoris Mater: Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Vigin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim
Church. London: Catholic Truth Society, 2003.
Redemptoris Hominis: On the Redeemer of Man. 1979. Available online at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jpii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html. Accessed 09 Oct 2009. A. McCormick
Secondary Sources on John Paul II

Accattoli, Luigi. When a Pope Asks Forgiveness: The Mea Culpas of John Paul II. J. Aumann,
trans. New York: Alba House, 1998.
Bennett, Richard. "The Accomplishments of John Paul II." Reformation Today. Available online
www.reformation-today.org/issues/articles/197johnpaul.pdf.
Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson. Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical
Dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One). Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 2001.
Caridi, Catherine. "Ideology or isolationism? Russian Identity and its Influence on OrthodoxCatholic Relations. Part III, Pope John Paul II and a Prospective Visit to Russia." Religion in
Eastern Europe. 27 no 3 (Aug 2007): 1-14.
Dulles, Cardinal Avery. "John Paul II and the Mystery of the Human Person." America 190.3 (2
Feb 2004): 10-22.
_____. The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II. New York:
Crossroad, 1999.
Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Pontifical Council on
Christian Unity (March 25, 1993). Available online at
http://www.adoremus.org/EcumenismNorms.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2009.
Fragomeni, Richard N. "Staying the Course: the Value of the Eucharist for Liturgy and Life."
Liturgical Ministry 15 (Sum 2006): 147-153.
Gros, Jeffrey. "Toward Full Communion: Faith and Order and Catholic Ecumenism."
Theological Studies. 65 no 1 (Mr 2004): 23-43. A. McCormick
_____. Gros, Jeffrey, and Daniel S. Mulhall, eds. The Ecumenical Christian Dialogues and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Paulist Press, 2006.
Hatzikyriakou, L."Greece: Greek Head of State, Orthodox Church Leaders in Rome for Pope's
Funeral." Greek News: Greek-American Weekly Newspaper (11 April 2005). Available online at
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3029. Accessed
1 April 2009.
Hebblethwait, Peter. Pope John Paul II and the Church. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995.
Holy See Press Office. "His Holiness John Paul II, Biography, Pre-Pontificate," 2004-2008.
Available online
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/santopadre_biografie/gio
vanni_paolo_ii_biografia_prepontificato_en.html#1946. Accessed 06 Mar 2009.
Hopko, Thomas. "Open, Closed Intercommunion." The Orthodox Church Vol. 12 no. 7 (1976):
5-6.
Johnson, William Stacy. "On the Ecclesia de Eucharistia: a Reformed perspective." Pro Ecclesia
12 no 4 (Fall 2003): 414-416.
Kasper, Cardinal Walter. Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialog. Available online
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasperdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030227_ecumenical-dialogue_en.html Accessed 11 Feb 2009. A.
_____. That They May All be One: The Call to Unity Today. London and New York: Burns &
Oates, 2004.
Kug, Hans. The Catholic Church: A Short History. J. Bowden, trans. New York: Random House
Inc., 2001.
_____. On Being Christian. Edward Quinn, trans. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co. Inc.,
1976.
Lindbeck, George A.. "Augsburg and the Ecclesia de Eucharistia." Pro Ecclesia 12 no 4 (Fall
2003): 405-414.
Massa, J. "The Priority of Unity in the Mystery of the Church." Journal of Ecumenical Studies v.
42 no. 4 (Fall 2007): 589-607.
McEvoy, J. J., and Maurice P. Hogan. The Mystery of Faith: Reflections on the Encyclical
"Ecclesia De Eucharistia". Blackrock, Co Dublin: Columba Press, 2005.
McGovern, Thomas. "The Christian Anthropology of John Paul II: An Overview." Josephinum
Journal of Theology 8 (2001) 1: 132-47.
Pius XI, Pope. Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos of the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XI: On
Fostering True Religious Unity. January 6, 1928. In The Great Papal Encyclicals. Kansas City,
Mo: Angelus Press, 1998. Available online
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html. Accessed 04 March 2009.
Wagschal, David. "Ecclesia de Eucharistia: some Orthodox reflections." Pro Ecclesia 12 no 4
(Fall 2003): 400-405. A. McCormick angey_blueskies@yahoo.com 94
Wainwright, Geoffrey. "Unitatis redintegratio in a Protestant perspective." Pro Ecclesia 15 no 2
(Spr 2006): 172-185.
Weigel, George. Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II. New York, NY: Cliff
Street Books, 1999.

Mccormick Thesis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mccormick Thesis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AQUINAS INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY

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

Chapter Three: John Paul II 36

Chapter One: The Impact of Distinct Ecumenical Climates

In contrast to the strained state of Catholic-Orthodox relations during Bulgakovs lifetime,

Chapter Two: Sergius Bulgakov

Key Events that Influenced Bulgakovs Ecumenical Approach

Bulgakovs Sophiological Lens

An analogy for Bulgakovs understanding of Sophia is found in this famous

Diagram 2: Outline of Divine Sophia and creaturely Sophia

Sophia and the Incarnation

The Sophianic Unity of Multiplicity - All Destined for Oneness

How Bulgakovs sophiological lens shapes his ecumenical

Chapter Three: John Paul II

Key Events that Impacted JPIIs Ecumenical Approach

JPIIs Christocentric Personalism: the Eucharist, the Church

John Paul II lens of Christocentric personalism is illustrated in his relational understanding of

Chapter Four: Bulgakov and John Paul II in Dialogue on

Ecumenism as process of fostering a unity already present

actuality existing by grace.136

Understanding Ecumenism: Areas of Divergence between

159 Cf. Bulgakov, "The Churchs Ministry," 258-263.

On the Eucharists Function and the Possibility of OrthodoxCatholic Reunion

177 Ecclesia de Eucharistia 44

182 Ut Unum Sint 12.

Conclusion: The Road to Reunion: Where do we go from

Secondary Sources on Sergius Bulgakov and His Works

John Paul IIs Primary Sources

Secondary Sources on John Paul II

Você também pode gostar