Healing the Great Schism: Catholic/Orthodox Reconciliation

9/22 | Vicomte13

[Vicomte13]

Christ prayed for the unity of His Church. Collectively, we have made quite a hash of it. What divides us? How far are we apart, really? Is reconciliation and reunification really impossible? I don't think so.

Doctrinally, there is more that separates the liberal and conservative wings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches than separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Many of the doctrinal differences that there are date back to the early centuries, but were not a bar to us all being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for more than half of the history of Christianity.

Historical missteps, and more than a little stubbornness, divide us, but this division is unnatural and indeed unholy. We cannot simply ACCEPT it as a given. It is not what Jesus wanted of us, and we have a duty to try and put back together what He made whole but what we have sundered.

But how?

For starters, look at how very much unites us still. The Orthodox Church is Holy. The Catholic Church is Holy. Both are apostolic, in unbroken lineage back to the apostles. We share the same sacraments. We believe the same things about those sacraments. In extremis, we can give confession too and take extreme unction or viaticum from one another's priests. Because somewhere, at the bottom of it, we each really do know that it's the Latin, Russian, Greek, Syrian and Coptic rites of the same Holy catholic Church.

Indeed, within the Catholic Church proper, in union with Rome, are Byzantine and other Eastern Rite churches that are for all appearances Orthodox. That the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chysostom is beautiful, and sonorous, and long, should be no barrier. There is no reason that the Orthodox rite should not remain exactly as it is. Indeed, there is a very good reason to revive, in the West, the old Latin Rite of the Catholic Church: many people want it back. Why should they be denied it? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass were Holy and are Holy. There is no reason at all they they cannot all be practiced within a reunited Church. There is no reason for Russian Orthodoxy to cease using Slavonic, and Greek Orthodoxy to cease using Greek, just as there is no reason that Latin Rite Churches should not be able to reassume Latin if their parishoners desire it. For over a thousand years the different parts of the Church used different languages, and yet we were all one Church. Today, with the vernacular, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches use many, many, many languages. None of this diminishes their Holiness. Latin, Greek and Slavonic are not holy, they are old. And there is nothing wrong with old.

So again I ask: what really divides us? There is nothing of the liturgy of either Latin or Greek or Russian rite that would need to change were the Churches to come back into unity.

All that divides us, really, is the question of authority. It is a political question, about the office of the Pope. Cut through it all, and that is what is at the heart of it.

And this can be resolved. Indeed, the tension ALWAYS existed, and flared up at different times during the long millennium of Church unity. Our spiritual ancestors had the wisdom to settle for an arrangement of metropolitans and patriarchs, with the Bishop of Rome considered one of them, but primus inter pares at the "round table". Like the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, he sets the agenda and "assigns cases", but each preserves his dignity as a co-equal justice. In order to maintain Christian unity, it was necessary for the Pope to exercise discretion in this role. And most handled it well. It also required discretion on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs. And most handled it well. It is the contrivance of the Devil that the time arose whereby stubborn (and corrupt) Pope encountered stubborn (and beleaguered, by the Muslim invasion) eastern Patriarch, and the Schism erupted.

Surely we can repair this wound in the visible Body of Christ on Earth. Indeed, it is not really optional. It is our DUTY to attempt it.

What is it that the East wants? Surely it is not to compel the Cathedral of Notre Dame to start conducting masses in Slavonic! No. It is to be recognized in its liturgy and in its territorial area. Should Latin Rite missionaries be attempting to sieze Russia for Catholicism? No. Russia should be under the Russian Rite, subject to the Metropolitan of Moscow, sovereign in his sphere, who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. I should be able to give confession and take absolution in a seamless Church from Gibraltar to Vladivostok.

What is it that the West wants? Too much, probably. At the Council of Florence, the last moment of unity in the Church, the West acknowledged the customs of the East, and the East acknowledged "the traditional privileges of the Bishop of Rome", which is to say, primus inter pares.

Now, if there were deep and abiding spiritual and doctrinal divides, such as there are between the Catholic Church and, say, the Anglican Communion or the various Protestant Churches, reunification would be out of sight. Primus inter pares would lead directly to Papal interference. But the Orthodox and the Catholic are each so doctrinally close that there need not be ANY real interference in the West by the East, or the East by the West. Indeed, it would immeasurably help the post-Vatican II Western Church to have a Vatican III at which the Metropolitan of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constatinople and their affiliated Bishops, and the Eastern Cardinals, sat, spoke, voted. The Church needs the counterweight of Orthodox Tradition to offset some of the less propitious "modernizing" elements that have run unchecked in parts of the West.

For its part, much of Eastern Orthodoxy is subject to, and under the thumb of, Islam. And abused. We see this right now even in secular Turkey. There is no religious voice on earth more powerful than Rome. And no other religion has its own seat in the United Nations. The lot of Eastern Christians would be bettered by having the full weight of Western Christianity brought to bear within the Church.

I do not believe that this is a pipe dream. Reuniting the Pentecostals and Rome might be, but bringing Moscow, Constantinople and Rome together again at the same round table should not be. It is what Jesus intended from the beginning. What God has joined, let no man sunder. With God, everything is possible. There is nothing that goes on in Orthodox Churches that would not be able to continue in unity with the West, and nothing that goes on in Latin Churches that would have to stop to be in Union with the East.

Perhaps the fears of the East would be quelled if the Patriarchs were favored for election to the Papacy.

Just a thought.

[Kolokotronis]

Have to agree with you on all of this response, Kosta.

[NYer]

Even in my Greek Orthodox parish, the majority of the Liturgy is said in English because the majority of the people there speak only English, or at least don't understand or speak Greek.

Most interesting! If you don't mind my asking, how long ago did the Greek Orthodox Church adopt the vernacular language of each country? This switch in the RC Church has been the source of much consternation. Translating Latin text into meaningful English (or any other language), has contributed significantly to the outcry from the traditionalists who weigh each word. In the process, the more liberal members of the ICEL committee, successfully implemented 'non inclusive' language. This only served to antagonize the purists. During the process of examining proposed revisions of the ICEL texts used in the English-speaking Church since 1973, it became clear that the issues surrounding translation are far deeper than matters of linguistic style; they involve substantial matters of Catholic doctrine.

Since the Maronite tradition is still new to me, I was intrigued to hear, recently, that the children of the parish would prefer to have the entire liturgy in English. From what I have understood, in many Maronite parishes, two liturgies are offered up each week. One in Syriac/Aramaic/Arabic and another in English. Our parish blends the languages together. The Entrance Rite is in Syriac, the Trisagion, Consecration and Epiclesis are in Aramaic, the readings are in Arabic and English. The balance of the liturgy is in English, with several responses in Syriac.

Father has explained to the children that these languages are their heritage and must not be lost. How did the Orthodox Churches handle this transition and does your parish also offer the Divine Liturgy in Greek?

[Vicomte13]

Kolokotronis wrote: "If people want to know what omoousios means, they sort have got to pick it up by osmosis. Phronema again."

Oh no.
Make the bad man stop!
(And pass the ouzo, please...)

[Kolokotronis]

Many, many GOA parishes have the Liturgy, or substantial parts of it in English. The Orthodox Church has always prayed the Liturgy in the language of the people. In America, when the Greek Orthodox parishes were established and for a century thereafter, all the parishioners spoke Greek, or learned fast enough Greek to understand the Liturgy. After the 1950s, the increasing number of mixed marriages (for us that is when a non-Greek marries a Greek!) brought huge numbers of non Greek speakers into the Church. The Archdiocese recognized the reality of the "ethnic" make up of the parishes and suggested that the Liturgy be prayed as is traditional, in the language of the people in the pews, but to retain the Greek heritage of the Church so far as is possible. Over the last 30 years, Greek as the liturgical language has all but disappeared in some parishes, mostly west of the Mississippi. A few parishes in big city Greek ghettos still pray the entire liturgy in Greek. Most have a mixture, some less English than Greek, some, like my parish, more English (a lot more in our case) than Greek. In our parish, since the weekday liturgies are attended mostly by old Greeks, the liturgy is prayed in Greek.

You know, if the Church were all about me, I would have it all in Greek, but it isn't and that frankly would be un Orthodox and wrong. Every Sunday I see 100% non Greek families worshiping God in our parish. The overwhelming number of converts we have wouldn't be there if it was all in Greek (though to be fair to them, a number of the adults and children are taking Greek lessons. One god daughter is driving me nuts to practice with me!). In the old days, converts used to say you had to become a Greek to become Orthodox and of course that's absurd, but once upon a time, it was a practical reality.

Let me relate a short story. About two years ago I and another attorney, who, coincidentally is Syrian and Orthodox, were preparing a 95 year old Syrian immigrant lady for a trial. During the prep, the Antiochian Archmandrite who serves in our parish came into the office. We introduced him t our client and the old lady began to tell the Abuna about coming to our town from Syria in the 1930s. She said "We didn't have a church of our own so we went to the Greeks' church." Several weeks later the women's society at church had a baby shower for a young Lebanese immigrant couple expecting their first child. The young husband got up to thank everyone and spoke about how much they loved "their" parish. The young wife's parents from the old country were there; couldn't speak a word of English, but said in Lebanese that the father said he and his wife were so happy that their children were safe within an Orthodox community, that they had a little piece of home here in America to hold onto. 70 years can make for a lot of change, for us for the good.

You related how the children of the parish want the liturgy in English but the priest told them that Arabic/Syriac was their heritage. Frankly, that mentality in a priest, even more so in an Archdiocese, bothers me. I have argued time and again in Diocesan Councils that it is no longer the role of the Greek Orthodox Church in America to inculcate Greekiness. That is my job, not the Churches' and I've done a damn fine job of it with my boys. I can see no earthly reason why John Doe, Anglo Saxon American Orthodox, should subsidize an effort by the Church to discharge a duty I owe to my children. If the GOA were still an immigrant community, that would be one thing, but we are not. We are an Orthodox Community made up of a broad spectrum of races and nationalities. We have an Hellenic character and tradition, which I pray will last long after I am gone. But Hellenism was and is always inclusive of all people who wish to embrace Hellenism (quite different from Greekiness or Greek chauvinism). How did you like that rant? :)

[Kolokotronis]

I'm sorry that I neglected to mention that in Canada there are Greek Orthodox Churches were a substantial portion of the liturgy is prayed in French. In Alaska, there are OCA and GOA parishes where the liturgy is said in Inuit. In Europe outside of Greece there are parishes under the jurisdiction of the EP which pray the liturgy in the local lingo rather than in Greek. Its not uncommon.

[NYer]

So, that means that the early Church teachings were either deficient and incomplete or that somehow the state of lesser knowldge of the world did not necessitate such teaching.

I am not a theologian, nor do I have the qualifications to address your statement. However, I see no contradiction in the catechetical preface that .... "the explanation of this revelation (no new truths have been given by anyone but Jesus) grows and develops, according to our historical time and growth in knowledge.

Scientific inquiry has necessitated a 'clarification' of religious beliefs. To cite one of the more obvious examples - abortion. The Catholic Church teaches that life must be respected from conception until natural death. We live in a society where medical science advocates contraception and has legalized abortion. The Catholic Church condemns both as interfering with the will of God.

Other christian denominations have approved the ordination of women to the priesthood. The Holy Father issued the following statement as part of an Apostolic Letter (emphasis mine):

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

The church is organic, not stagnant. The truths have always been there; occasionally, they need to be redefined for the benefit of society.

[Kolokotronis]

I think Kosta and I may have misunderstood the thrust of your post. There is no new revelation. The Faith is not, as the ECUSA bishops would have their beleaguered flock believe, "an evolving paradigm" where the Holy Spirit makes new revelations available to us.

To the extent that the Church is called upon to address new issues which arise (like giving communion to pro abortion politicians as is being discussed on another thread) of course the Church must make pronouncements on these things, but only in accordance with what the Church always and everywhere has believed.

[AlbionGirl]

I'm saving your post, because there's so much here that I want to be able to reference and draw upon.

The first step of spiritual ascent, says Climacos, consists in these three virtues: guilelessness (or truthfulness), fasting, and temperance. "All babes in Christ begin with these virtues, taking as their model natural babes. For in these you will never find anything sly or deceitful. And they have no insatiate appetite, no insatiable stomach, no body that is on fire or bestialized." These three virtues will serve, he says, as a secure foundation for the rest."

This particular part of the post struck me profoundly, and it stayed with me much of the day today.

I don't think you, or the other erudite posters on this thread realize the kind of impact you have.

[FormerLib]

I'd strongly recommend a copy of The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox by Johanna Manley. It's a compilation of the daily Bible readings through the year with commentary from the Holy Fathers, both new and old.

[Kolokotronis]

Allow me to add my recommendation also. Its an excellent book.

[AlbionGirl]

What a great analogy. And to be honest with you, I never understood the real difference in methods of acting, so that was interesting to me.

[NYer]

Theosis is NOT theosophy in any way shape or form!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never heard the term used synonymously with "sanctification"

My sincere apologies! It was a natural mistake - 'theosis' 'theosophy'. And thank you for the explanation: "the process of becoming like God". While we can NEVER be God, nor understand GOD, we can and should attempt to emulate what God has taught us. Is that correct?

Thank you, monkfan, for posting that fabulous graphic! I just love it. I am the one on rung #2 ;-D

[Kolokotronis]

"I don't think you, or the other erudite posters on this thread realize the kind of impact you have."

Perhaps some of us have had the opportunity and blessing to read a bit more than others. The stage of each of our theosis is a completely different matter. As for me, well, remember the part of the Prayers at Communion where St. John Chrysostomos says he is the first among sinners? He was wrong, its me! In any event, I trust whatever impact we all have on each other here in this truly remarkable thread will tend to grow our love and understanding for each other and our Churches and much more importantly, advance our theosis.

[NYer]

Thank you for this informative response.

Many, many GOA parishes have the Liturgy, or substantial parts of it in English. The Orthodox Church has always prayed the Liturgy in the language of the people.

Yes ... but "how" were the translations arrived at and who approved the translations? Are they the same in each English speaking church? Here is one problem facing the Catholic Church, post Vatican Council II.

You know, if the Church were all about me, I would have it all in Greek, but it isn't and that frankly would be un Orthodox and wrong.

That response makes perfect sense. In fact, this is how the catholic traditionalists feel about the use of Latin in the RC liturgy. At one time, catholic school students studied Latin. In fact, it is making a comeback in the public schools.

You related how the children of the parish want the liturgy in English but the priest told them that Arabic/Syriac was their heritage. Frankly, that mentality in a priest, even more so in an Archdiocese, bothers me.

Lol! This, after you just said that you would prefer the liturgy remain in Greek.

I respect both positions but lean towards the retention of the original language. Some aspects of language transcend translation. I once tried to translate an Italian joke into English ... it was met with blank stares. The Maronite Catholic Church, along with several others, retain Aramaic for the Consecration. This is THE language and THE words of our Lord at the Last Supper. No matter how many languages you translate them into, hearing those words in their original form and context, stirs the soul.

I am out of here for now, after nursing a virus all day. Will check in later. In the meantime, thank you again, for the clarifications on the greek words.

[Tantumergo]

"So, that means that the early Church teachings were either deficient and incomplete or that somehow the state of lesser knowldge of the world did not necessitate such teaching."

Or did the teaching come about as an explanation for the long-established practice of praying for and offering the Eucharist for the faithful departed?

Sorry to show my ignorance on this, but for all the time I've spent discussing theology with Melkites, I've never asked them if its part of the Eastern Tradition to pray for the dead. Is this a normal practice for the Orthodox?

[Tantumergo]

"As for hypostasis, really the Latin persona, often translated into English as person ( and not well translated I might add), is the best I can do.
Kosta? Tantumergo?"

Persona is probably the closest Latin word to translate hypostasis, but to be honest, hypostasis is such a familiar and essential word for our theologians that we tend to just leave it in the Greek. We don't normally bother to translate it into either Latin or English.

In theory we still have the "Kyrie eleison" in the Mass as well, but our "liturgists" (terrorists) thought it was Latin so they translated it into English.

[Tantumergo]

"Theosis is NOT theosophy in any way shape or form!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

LOL! Priceless! You don't get many Freudian slips as bad as that, NYer!

Theosophy and the theosophical movement are associated with Freemasonry and the occult. Alistair Crowley (satanist high priest) started life out as a theosophist!!!

In Western theology we would translate the term "theosis" as deification, or divinisation, although both are inexact and it is another word which is best left in the Greek if possible.

[Kolokotronis]

We have memorial services called "Mnimosyna" These are particularly beautiful devotions. We always have one at 40 days after death, and at the first and third anniversaries of a death. Often the service is held every year after death. Here is a portion of the text: "O God of spirits and of all flesh, You have trampled upon death and have abolished the power of the devil, giving life to Your world. Give rest to the soul of Your departed servant (Name) in a place of light, in a place of repose, in a place of refreshment, where there is no pain, sorrow, and suffering. As a good and loving God, forgive every sin he (she) has committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no one who lives and does not sin. You alone are without sin. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your word is truth. Priest:For You are the resurrection, the life, and the repose of Your departed servant (Name), Christ our God, and to You we give glory, with Your eternal Father and Your allholy, good and life‑giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. People:Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen." You can read the entire text at http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/MEMORIAL_SERVICE.asp This is one of the most important, and emotional, services in the Orthodox Church. At the end of the service the priest and people sing three times, "May your memory be eternal." We prepare a sweetened, boild wheat dish called Koliva which we eat after the service to remind us that the deceased, and we are like seeds which, when placed in the earth, "die" and blossom into a new life.

[Kolokotronis]

"In theory we still have the "Kyrie eleison" in the Mass as well, but our "liturgists" (terrorists) thought it was Latin so they translated it into English."

In the Russian Church, when the Bishop is present, a certain chant is sung which is in Greek. Your remark reminds me of the old Greek Orthodox story of the Russian who attended a hierarchical liturgy in Greece all in Greek and expressed satisfaction that at least a little Slavonic had been preserved in the liturgy by the Greeks!

[The_Reader_David]

MarMema pinged me, so I thought I'd weigh in with a few helpful comments.

The use of the vernacular was the normative practice of the Orthodox Church from the beginning: hence the services were done in Latin in the West, Greek in most of the East, Syriac in regions of the East where Greek was not generally know, Coptic in Egypt, Georgian in Georgia, Armenian in Armenia and so forth. When the Nestorians and Monophysite separated most of the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian speakers left the Church.

SS. Cyril and Methodius translated the services and Scriptures into a constructed slavic language which could be understood by all the Slavs whom the Evangelized (who spoke slightly different dialects).

The freezing of the Russian liturgy in Church Slavonic represents a phenomenon similar to that found in Greek, where the Liturgy is still in koine rather than demotike, though changes in Russian have made it less intelligible. The Russian missionaries always translated the services and Scriptures into the languages of the Siberian, then Alaskan peoples. St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, Confessor of the Bolshevik Yoke, when he was the Archbishop of Alaska and All-North-America commissioned a translation of the services into English (Hapgood's Service Book) which subsequently became the inspiration, if not basis, for most of the subsequent translations into Early Modern English. (As for example Bishop BASIL Essy's Liturgicon, or the Psalter and Great Horologion translated by the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery). The preference fore Early Modern English as opposed to modern vernacular English, follows the wisdom of St. Nicholas of Japan, who in the late 19th century translated the services and Scriptures into the same style of archaic, high-liturgical Japanese used in Buddhist and Shinto liturgies.

The Greek experience under the Turkokratia in which culture and Church became inextricably joined in the popular mind, leaving the immigrant churches in North America trying to cling to Greek which was no longer the language of their faithful is actually an aberation.

The Antiochian Archdiocese and the OCA (formerly the Metropolia) have been using English in North America for decades. The Greeks are running behind on this for the reason just noted.

On another matter: I am not throughly versed on all of the various Western conceptions of salvation, but my last priest, who is now the Dean of St. Herman's Seminary, Kodiak, AK, who converted from Anglicanism and was well-versed in both Western and Eastern theologies was of the opinion that the only Western idea which really resembled theosis was Charles Wesley's understanding of sanctification. Of course, maybe this isn't surprising: there is good evidence that Wesley read a great deal of the Greek Fathers, especially Chrysostom.