Healing the Great Schism: Catholic/Orthodox Reconciliation

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.

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.

Hey, any song that begins with "Yoo-hoo!" (Well, ok, "You who") is something new.

Besides, it's really just the 91st Psalm set to music, and is about the most canonical, straight biblical hymn of the Church.

I happen to like Eagle's Wings more than just about any other hymn, and I'll admit that the aggravation that particular piece of Holy Scripture seems to create in my favorite hymn's detractors only adds to the quality of the vintage, in my eyes anyway. De gustibus non disputandem.

They live in a world where the Church says "Do this or you'll go to Hell"; Pay, Pray and Obey. In the Orthodox world, as my good convert wife says, the Church says "Do this and you will become like God." See the difference?

I know this is from pretty early in this thread, but I wanted to voice my appreciation for how you put the Orthodox position. My own minister put it this way: "Faith in Jesus Christ brings salvation. Obedience to God's commands brings His blessing."

I suppose I'd better explain this publicly. Inquiring minds want to know, and not just you!

Well, unlike John Kerrey, I carry no shrapnel in my ***!The name comes from a relative of mine who was a great leader of the 1821 Greek Revolution against the Mohammaden Turks, Theodoros Kolokotronis. The name means "*** on a rock" and he was often seen sitting on a rock pondering his next move against the Turks. Kolokotronis was the greatest leader and general of the Greeks during the Revolution. The whole family was deeply involved in the fight with even the women doing their share of the killing. One nephew of his, Nikitaras, was know as "O Turko Fagos", the "Turk Eater."

Although we seem to have strayed a little bit from the theme of Catholic/Orthodox reconciliation, it's interesting the extent to which - once discussion of religion proceeds to a certain point - people start tearing at each other. It's almost as if we can't help it. (In fact, we can't completely help it, because the Devil is urging us along, and uses strongly held opinions of faith as a trap for men just like everything else.)
We've had a little bout of Catholics tearing at Catholics, or expressing their dislike of elements of Catholicism here.

As far as reconciliation goes, this is good because it shows that the "sides" are anything but monolithic. I can provoke my co-religionists by just saying I LIKE the hymn "Eagle's Wings". To the Orthodox, who no doubt do not sing "Eagle's Wings", ever, (maybe at birthday parties for their priests?)it must seem strange.
But of course, when the Orthodox start dishing out these ten syllable words with lots of o's and u's in them, it is equally baffling from our bare, hard little pews.
I have decided that this "theemato" thing that Orthodox priests swing around is what the Latins call a "thurifer", and it's full of incense. Let's see how close I got.

Anyway, I myself am not looking for sdsurfer to take up singing "Eagle's Wings" for his morning devotionals, nor even an extorted confession that the song's actually pretty good, because I don't think that agreement on such things is what's fundamental. I'm looking for Christians to be able to share communion, not every fine point of dogma.
Honestly, truly, from my perspective? "Filioque" and the Immaculate Conception are abstractions. I don't really care. Neither issue would have occurred to me in a lifetime to even think about had someone not brought them up. Now that they are brought up, honestly, truly, from my perspective? I couldn't care less. I don't know. The answer doesn't matter to me. I don't care. I don't think it should be a reason why I cannot visit a Russian or Greek Church, attend liturgy and take communion there, or vice versa.
People will find differences to fight about and peck about.
I'm just not one of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.