Posted on 09/22/2004 11:38:26 AM PDT by 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.
Your posts to this thread are excellent.
"So there really is something in our behavior or attitude I suppose, that is "readable" by those who recognize it."
Yes, I think there is. It has happened on several occasions in my practice.
Oh dear - another promising thread goes occidental! ;)
If I might appeal to everyone to cool one's tempers/disappointments and not disengage from one another, as this is surely not the way of Christ?
None of us want to arrive before God's judgement seat and be asked the question "Where is your brother?", to which we might only be able to respond "Am I my brother's keeper?"
There are some interesting points which have been raised here, which are worthy of prayer, reflection and discussion by us all.
Firstly I would like to say that my earlier contribution where I queried the point or desire for unity was not meant to be an outright nix of Vicomte13's original post. It was meant rather as a reality check in that the differences between us are definitely not susceptible to quick-fix solutions, no matter what the level of desire to overcome them. Rather than being a flash-in-the-pan schism that happened overnight, the separation of East and West was a gradual drifting apart which took centuries to mature, and in some places a practical intercommunion at the grass roots continued as late as the eighteenth century. Similarly it could take centuries to heal.
However, I do believe it will be healed, even if it is despite us, because Almighty God wills it so. The Catholics and Orthodox may be two of the most stubborn and intransigent groups of believers on this earth, but the Holy Spirit is truly Omniscient and Omnipotent. With God all things are possible.
kosta50 said:
"The Pope is the sheppard. Both churches know and recognize that. It is up to the First Bishop to lead and feed his sheep. That the Church is still divided is his cross. Only he can make us one again; we can't. He knows what is needed."
I think you rightly point out that our unity is indeed a cross that is laid on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome in a particularly burdensome way. I think it shows particularly in this current Papacy, and perhaps we needed a Slav Pope to turn the eyes of the West to the East again rather than being preoccupied with the fallout of the Reformation.
However, to say that he knows what is needed is perhaps putting a little more faith in his abilities than even conservative Catholics have a tendency to do. One problem of being the Pope is that many people will only tell you what they think you want to hear, rather than telling you how things really are. IMHO, the important things that he has emphasised are that:
a) Nothing will happen and God is not served if we can't even talk to each other (this I think is his real reason for wanting to meet Alexy)
b) If we both seriously desire the unity for which Christ prayed and are committed to seeing this come about in some form under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then at some point we have to stop calling each other heretics, schismatics or worse.
c) We have to stop proselytising each other's flocks. Unity will never be granted us if we see ourselves as being in competition for souls.
Vicomte13, I understand the frustration you feel because of some of the responses to your original post. However, I would remind you that this is Freeperland where the Catholics tend to be more Catholic than the Pope and the Orthodox tend to be more Orthodox than the Ecumenical Patriarch! Despite what you may think, there is a considerable spectrum of opinion in Orthodoxy on these matters as well as in Catholicism.
Your frustration is why you probably wrote:
"if the Eastern Precincts of the Church will not recognize that authority, than it is the duty of the Pope to send in Roman Catholic missionaries into the Patriarchate of Moscow, and elsewhere, and compete for souls."
This is not going to happen while we have a Pope who takes his responsibilities for Christian Unity seriously, if ever. Proselytising amongst souls who are ethnically Orthodox, particularly after a period when that Church has only just emerged from the catacombs of Communist oppression would be a sin against charity.
On the other hand the Russians must accept that due to their recent history, there is a real and genuine need for a substantial Catholic mission in their lands because of the activities of a certain Josef Stalin - and his ilk.
It was they who filled their land from the Urals to Siberia with ethnic Catholics from Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Slovakia etc. and these people have as much right to be ministered to by priests of their faith as do the Orthodox faithful here in the West. However, ministering to the ethnically Catholic population does not excuse proselytism. There will no doubt always be those who, of their own volition seek out the Catholic faith, as there are Catholics who will seek out Orthodoxy, but if this does not come about as a result of unsolicited inducement, it cannot be considered proselytism.
“I believe in the monarchic Church, not just as a matter of historical necessity in the West, but as commanded by God Incarnate.”
The Church has always been a monarchy in both East and West, but the king is no Pope, Patriarch, or Bishop – Jesus Christ, Sovereign and Universal King is the one true king to whom all Catholics and Orthodox alike owe allegiance.
To this extent, when Catholics compare the papacy to a monarchy, then this is a distortion of the true nature of the Papacy, and the Orthodox rightly object to it. The passage from Matthew 16,16 onwards gives us an important pointer to what the Petrine role is meant to be. When Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the Kingdom, this is an inter-testamental echo of the passage in Isaiah 22,20 onwards where Eliakin, Son of Hilkiah is given the key of the House of David along with the power of binding and loosing.
Eliakin’s appointment was as the Prime Minister of the House of David – not the king. A Minister is a very different sort of beast than is a President – a government which he heads is supposed to be one of collective decision making rather than the individual out front as in a Presidency. (One of the commonest complaints that we Brits have of Blair is that he is acting too much like a President rather than a Prime Minister.) While a Prime Minister has his authority bestowed on him by the king, so do the other ministers. He is truly a Primus inter pares, however, his role also entails responsibilities and obligations that do not devolve onto the other ministers. He is empowered to speak and act on behalf of the whole group of ministers, but the principles of cabinet government would also mean that he would not presume to speak on their behalf without consulting them and gaining consensus. The unity of the whole government also is his responsibility in a unique way.
Historical conditions over the last 1500 years have necessitated the Papacy assuming a monarchical role in the West, however, this has been a distortion. If the Catholic Church can restore a more Scriptural exercise of the Petrine role, then this would certainly be one factor which would aid the cause of unity with the East in the long term.
One more thing should be noted for the record, for the sake of Catholic understanding as much as the Orthodox: we have never understood the Pope’s authority to be “absolute” and it could never be so. Only Christ has Absolute Authority. The tendency towards an absolutisation of Papal authority over the last 200 years is Ultra-Montanism, and is not the Catholic Tradition.
What an excellent post, as usual!
"I would remind you that this is Freeperland where the Catholics tend to be more Catholic than the Pope and the Orthodox tend to be more Orthodox than the Ecumenical Patriarch! Despite what you may think, there is a considerable spectrum of opinion in Orthodoxy on these matters as well as in Catholicism."
The civil war in the GOA over the previous Archbishop is a good example of this. Many thought that Spyridon was nothing more than the EP's final move at establishing an "Orthodox Papacy". Some called the EP "the dwarf of Constantinople". At any rate, as I've written before, the Church in America rose up against the EP and Spyridon was gone. And that was done because the people in the pews, the priests and ultimately the American hierarchs, or at least most of them, thought that was the Orthodox thing to do.
Abandoning the church to go to an alien organisation? Never. THe Latin rite church is still growing, still pusling with life. stop looking at things throught he narrow prism of the US. Even if you DO insist on doing so, note that the ORthodox churchs in the US are equally corrupted by the Liberals. To reject the teachings of the Mother church and go astray is the worst thing a Catholic can do.
"Do I believe that when the churchs unite (and note I say WHEN not IF), you shoudl become a Latin rite just because you live in the West? NO. Should a Catholic in the Ukraine become Orthodox? NO. Let people choose the rite as long as the dogma, the teachings are the same"
Here in America we have a number of Orthodox Jurisdictions. This has given rise to a non-canonical situation in which there can be more than one bishop for Orthodox people in a given city or area. Canonically, there should be only one. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West and thus in a pre schism Church, everyone in the West would have been under the Pope's men in Latin rite Churches. Now we Orthodox, by reason of immigration into America, are in a non-canonical situation. I mentioned the point since in a Church made up of all of us, the canons would seem to require that I be a Latin. I realize of course that the canons could be changed.
In haste because I'm off to the office:
"Even if you DO insist on doing so, note that the ORthodox churchs in the US are equally corrupted by the Liberals."
Our "liberals", friend, are very few and far between; a couple or three at the seminaries, a feminist or two. The very definate trend in Orthodoxy is quite the opposite, both here and abroad.
"To reject the teachings of the Mother church..."
Remember the doctrine of the "Inner Forum", which would seem to contradict this.
"and go astray is the worst thing a Catholic can do."
Going "astray" would be a terrible and tragic thing.
Maybe you don't realise it but the pride of many of you Orthodox here on the forum condemn yourselves.
The Church has always been a monarchy in both East and West, but the king is no Pope, Patriarch, or Bishop – Jesus Christ, Sovereign and Universal King is the one true king to whom all Catholics and Orthodox alike owe allegiance.
How good and comforting it is for me to hear these words, and what a gift of intellect has the Good Lord bestowed upon you.
Maybe it's not pride, but love for Orthodoxy.
They could arrange an "accidental" meeting on neutral territory. If there is a wish, there is a way.
One thing I noticed is that many Catholics rub the fact that the Pope is willing to bend over backwards to make unity acceptable to the Orthodox.
First of all, I don't see Orthodoxy pleading with Rome to bend over backwards or, for that matter, to do anything other than stop its acitivites in an Eastern Patriarchate, which has been traditionally off limits to the popes even when the Church was united.
Second, if we are one and the same sacramentally, why proselytize in Orthodox lands?
The Catholic mindset is not attuned to the fact that Patriarchates were equal in authority but Rome was first in honor. It is therefore not surprising that the behavior of the other Patriarchs is considered "unauthorized."
A good example of the early Church organization would be NATO. There is a supreme commander, yet all members must approve. It's all for one and one for all principle.
I think we have beaten this horse enough. He ain't gettin' up. But, thanks for your insightful and giftedr responses.
"First of all, I don't see Orthodoxy pleading with Rome to bend over backwards or, for that matter, to do anything other than stop its acitivites in an Eastern Patriarchate, which has been traditionally off limits to the popes even when the Church was united."
There are certainly moves being made to stop proselytism on Eastern territories. The recent change of nuncio to Moscow was part of this as well as the commission that is being set up between Rome and Moscow to monitor these matters. However, ministry to our own flock in these lands is not in question.
There undoubtedly has been proselytism occurring, but nobody was authorised to do this and it will no doubt take time to change attitudes. Part of the problem is that a number of zealous lay organisations jumped in with both feet and our hierarchy is having a difficult job reigning them in.
It would certainly make it easier for the pro-Orthodox voices in our Church to be heard if the objection could not be raised that the Orthodox are also proselytising Latins in Sicily, South America, France etc.!
"Second, if we are one and the same sacramentally, why proselytize in Orthodox lands?"
I think I have given you my view of proselytism in my previous post where I said it is sinful. I also know that the Pope is against it, however, he does not have the power that he used to have - he is trying to change the way the Papacy works. I think your NATO analogy is a fairly accurate description of where JPII wants the Papacy to move to.
"The Catholic mindset is not attuned to the fact that Patriarchates were equal in authority but Rome was first in honor."
While I would maintain that there are prerogatives that Rome has always uniquely held, you are right to state that Catholic mentality is not attuned to the role of the other Patriarchs.
This is something that is changing slowly and will no doubt take some generations to come about. A seemingly trivial, but actually symbolic example of this took place at the opening of Vatican Council II. The Cardinals had assumed that they would be the ones in seats of honour with the Pope, however, John XXIII insisted that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs be seated with him as equals.
This caused some consternation among the Cardinals, but he would not be swayed. This may seem like a small thing and I know that the Orthodox have problems with the existence of the Eastern Catholics, but I do think it was a sign of a shift in mentality beginning.
One thing people forget is that there were many Latin-rite Catholics in Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. Many Germans, Poles, and others migrated to Russia to seek work. In fact, these Catholics built a magnificent church in Vladivostok before the Communist got that far east. Now, a Catholic priest from the U.S., along with some helpers, are restoring the church and ministering to the needs of the community.
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.