Posted on 07/22/2005 6:58:08 PM PDT by jec1ny
A Catholic View of Eastern Orthodoxy (1 of 4) by Aidan Nichols OP
In this article I attempt an overview in four parts.
First, I shall discuss why Catholics should not only show some ecumenical concern for Orthodoxy but also treat the Orthodox as their privileged or primary ecumenical partner.
Secondly, I shall ask why the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches occurred, focussing as it finally did on four historic 'dividing issues'.
Thirdly, I shall evaluate the present state of Catholic-Orthodox relations, with particular reference to the problem of the 'Uniate' or Eastern Catholic churches.
Fourthly and finally, having been highly sympathetic and complimentary to the Orthodox throughout, I shall end by saying what, in my judgment, is wrong with the Orthodox Church and why it needs Catholicism for (humanly speaking) its own salvation.
Part 1 First, then, why should Catholics take the Orthodox as not only an ecumenical partner but the ecumenical partner par excellence? There are three kinds of reasons: historical, theological and practical - of which in most discussion only the historical and theological are mentioned since the third sort - what I term the 'practical' - takes us into areas of potential controversy among Western Catholics themselves.
The historical reasons for giving preference to Orthodoxy over all other separated communions turn on the fact that the schism between the Roman church and the ancient Chalcedonian churches of the East is the most tragic and burdensome of the splits in historic Christendom if we take up a universal rather than merely regional, perspective. Though segments of the Church of the Fathers were lost to the Great Church through the departure from Catholic unity of the Assyrian (Nestorian) and Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite) churches after the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) respectively, Christians representing the two principal cultures of the Mediterranean basin where the Gospel had its greatest flowering - the Greek and the Latin - lived in peace and unity with each other, despite occasional stirrings and some local difficulties right up until the end of the patristic epoch.
That epoch came to its climax with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, in 787, the last Council Catholics and Orthodox have in common, and the Council which, in its teaching on the icon, and notably on the icon of Christ, brought to a triumphant close the series of conciliar clarifications of the Christological faith of the Church which had opened with Nicaea I in 325.
The iconography, liturgical life, Creeds and dogmatic believing of the ancient Church come down to us in forms at once Eastern and Western; and it was this rich unity of patristic culture, expressing as it did the faith of the apostolic community, which was shattered by the schism between Catholics and Orthodox, never (so far) to be repaired. And let me say at this point that Church history provides exceedingly few examples of historic schisms overcome, so if history is to be our teacher we have no grounds for confidence or optimism that this most catastrophic of all schisms will be undone. 'Catastrophic' because, historically, as the present pope has pointed out, taking up a metaphor suggested by a French ecclesiologist, the late Cardinal Yves Congar: each Church, West and East, henceforth could only breathe with one lung.
No Church could now lay claim to the total cultural patrimony of both Eastern and Western Chalcedonianism - that is, the christologically and therefore triadologically and soteriologically correct understanding of the Gospel. The result of the consequent rivalry and conflict was the creation of an invisible line down the middle of Europe. And what the historic consequences of that were we know well enough from the situation of the former Yugoslavia today.
After the historical, the theological. The second reason for giving priority to ecumenical relations with the Orthodox is theological. If the main point of ecumenism, or work for the restoration of the Church's full unity, were simply to redress historic wrongs and defuse historically generated causes of conflict, then we might suppose that we should be equally - or perhaps even more - nterested in addressing the Catholic-Protestant divide. After all, there have been no actual wars of religion - simply as such - between Catholics and Orthodox, unlike those between Catholics and Protestants in sixteenth century France or the seventeenth century Holy Roman Empire.
But theologically there cannot be any doubt that the Catholic Church must accord greater importance to dialogue with the Orthodox than to conversations with any Protestant body. For the Orthodox churches are churches in the apostolic succession; they are bearers of the apostolic Tradition, witnesses to apostolic faith, worship and order - even though they are also, and at the same time, unhappily undered from the prima sedes, the first see. Their Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, their liturgical texts and practices, their iconographic tradition, these remain loci theologici - authoritative sources - to which the Catholic theologian can and must turn in his or her intellectual construal of Catholic Christianity. And that cannot possibly be said of the monuments of Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed or any other kind of Protestantism.
To put the same point in another way: the separated Western communities have Christian traditions - in the plural, with a small 't' - which may well be worthy of the Catholic theologian's interest and respect. But only the Orthodox are, along with the Catholic Church, bearers of Holy Tradition - in the singular, with a capital 'T', that is, of the Gospel in its plenary organic transmission through the entirety of the life - credal, doxological, ethical - of Christ's Church.
There is for Catholics, therefore, a theological imperative to restore unity with the Orthodox which is lacking in our attitude to Protestantism - though I should not be misinterpreted as saying that there is no theological basis for the impulse to Catholic-Protestant rapprochement for we have it in the prayer of our Lord himself at the Great Supper, 'that they all may be one'. I am emphasising the greater priority we should give to relations with the Orthodox because I do not believe the optimistic statement of many professional ecumenists to the effect that all bilateral dialogues - all negotiations with individual separated communions - feed into each other in a positive and unproblematic way.
It would be nice to think that a step towards one separated group of Christians never meant a step away from another one, but such a pious claim does not become more credible with the frequency of its repeating. The issue of the ordination of women, to take but one particularly clear example, is evidently a topic where to move closer to world Protestantism is to move further from global Orthodoxy - and vice versa.
This brings me to my third reason for advocating ecumenical rapport with Orthodoxy: its practical advantages. At the present time, the Catholic Church, in many parts of the world, is undergoing one of the most serious crises in its history, a crisis resulting from a disorienting encounter with secular culture and compounded by a failure of Christian discernment on the part of many people over the last quarter century - from the highest office holders - to the ordinary faithful. This crisis touches many aspects of Church life but notably theology and catechesis, liturgy and spirituality, Religious life and Christian ethics at large. Orthodoxy is well placed to stabilise Catholicism in most if not all of these areas.
Were we to ask in a simply empirical or phenomenological frame of mind just what the Orthodox Church is like, we could describe it as a dogmatic Church, a liturgical Church, a contemplative Church, and a monastic Church - and in all these respects it furnishes a helpful counter-balance to certain features of much western Catholicism today.
Firstly, then, Orthodoxy is a dogmatic Church. It lives from out of the fullness of the truth impressed by the Spirit on the minds of the apostles at the first Pentecost, a fullness which transformed their awareness and made possible that specifically Christian kind of thinking we call dogmatic thought.
The Holy Trinity, the God-man, the Mother of God and the saints, the Church as the mystery of the Kingdom expressed in a common life on earth, the sacraments as means to humanity's deification - our participation in the uncreated life of God himself: these are the truths among which the Orthodox live, move and have their being.
Orthodox theology in all its forms is a call to the renewal of our minds in Christ, something which finds its measure not in pure reason or secular culture but in the apostolic preaching attested to by the holy Fathers, in accord with the principal dogmata of faith as summed up in the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
Secondly, Orthodoxy is a liturgical Church. It is a Church for which the Liturgy provides a total ambience expressed in poetry, music and iconography, text and gesture, and where the touchstone of the liturgical life is not the capacity of liturgy to express contemporary concerns legitimate though these may be in their own context), but, rather, the ability of the Liturgy to act as a vehicle of the Kingdom, our anticipated entry, even here and now, into the divine life.
Thirdly, Orthodoxy is a contemplative Church. Though certainly not ignoring the calls of missionary activity and practical charity, essential to the Gospel and the Gospel community as these are, the Orthodox lay their primary emphasis on the life of prayer as the absolutely necessary condition of all Christianity worth the name.
In the tradition of the desert fathers, and of such great theologian-mystics as the Cappadocian fathers, St Maximus and St Gregory Palamas, encapsulated as these contributions are in that anthology of Eastern Christian spirituality the Philokalia, Orthodoxy gives testimony to the primacy of what the Saviour himself called the first and greatest commandment, to love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength, for it is in the light of this commandment with its appeal for a God-centred process of personal conversion and sanctification - that all our efforts to live out its companion commandment (to love our neighbour as ourself) must be guided.
And fourthly, Orthodoxy is a monastic Church, a Church with a monastic heart where the monasteries provide the spiritual fathers of the bishops, the counsellors of the laity and the example of a Christian maximalism. A Church without a flourishing monasticism, without the lived 'martyrdom' of an asceticism inspired by the Paschal Mystery of the Lord's Cross and Resurrection, could hardly be a Church according to the mind of the Christ of the Gospels, for monasticism, of all Christian life ways, is the one which most clearly and publicly leaves all things behind for the sake of the Kingdom.
Practically speaking, then, the re-entry into Catholic unity of this dogmatic, liturgical, contemplative and monastic Church could only have the effect of steadying and strengthening those aspects of Western Catholicism which today are most under threat by the corrosives of secularism and theological liberalism.
To be continued ...
"The Orthodox Church is Catholic and Apostolic, and it is Eastern. How can there be "another" Eastern Catholic church? The same goes for the so-called "Greek-Catholic" church in Ukraine. It is not Greek, for sure. And the Greek Orthodox Church is fully Catholic, so what is a "Greek-Catholic" church?"
You know, I think it all started with the first Holy Roman Emperor at Aachen. There was already a Roman Emperor. And then Charlemagne came along and got the Pope of Rome to crown him Emperor of the Romans. What an absolute crock!
"Those converts to the Uniate churches who despise the term should probably take Father up on his use of the word most vociferously."
Good luck with that. Who pays any attention to them? Nobody. I'm not trying be inflammatory or anything. It's just the truth. Nobody takes them seriously, except in Lebanon I guess.
This writing boldly states what I said here many years ago.
The RC would like "union" with us to be more pure and stable,
as a direct result of acquisitioning the Orthodox church.
"Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf Luke 22:32). With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's believers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress. Theological dialogue is necessary; the investigation for the historical reasons for the decisions made in the past is also indispensable. But what is most urgently needed is that 'purification of memory', so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ. Each one of us must come before him, the supreme judge of every living person, and render an account to him of all we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all his disciples. The current Successor Peter is allowing himself to be called in the first person by this requirement and is prepared to do everything in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. Following the example of his Predecessors, he is fully determined to encourage every initiative that seems appropriate for promoting contacts and understanding with the representatives of the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities. Indeed, on this occasion he sends them his most cordial greetings in Christ, the one Lord of us all."
Nor is he speaking, as you claim, of "convincing the Orthodox to 'return' to the Church." Indeed, Pope Benedict said just the opposite to the delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarch that had come to Rome for the celebration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. The message is worth quoting at length:
The unity that we seek is neither absorption nor fusion but respect for the multiform fullness of the Church, which must always be, in conformity with the desire of her Founder, Jesus Christ, one, holy, catholic and apostolic. This recommendation finds full resonance in the intangible profession of faith of all Christians, the Creed worked out by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 15).
The Vatican Council clearly recognized the treasure that the East possesses and from which the West "has taken many things"; it recalled that the fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith were defined by the Ecumenical Councils celebrated in the East; it urged the faithful not to forget all the suffering the East had to bear to preserve its faith. The Council's teaching has inspired love and respect for the Eastern Tradition, it has encouraged people to consider the East and the West as mosaic pieces that together make up the resplendent face of the Pantocrator, whose hand blessed the whole Oikoumene.
The Council went even further, saying: "It is hardly surprising, then, if sometimes one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed them better. In such cases, these various theological formulations are often to be considered complementary rather than conflicting" (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 17). Dear Brothers, I ask you to convey my greetings to the Ecumenical Patriarch, telling him of my resolution to persevere with firm determination in the search for full unity among all Christians. Let us continue together on the path of communion and together take new steps and make new gestures that lead to overcoming the remaining misunderstandings and divisions, keeping in mind that "in order to restore communion and unity... one must "impose no burden beyond what is indispensable' (Acts 15: 28)" (ibid., n. 18).
Heartfelt thanks to each one of you for coming from the East to pay homage to Sts Peter and Paul, whom we venerate together. May their constant protection and above all the motherly intercession of the Theotokos always guide our steps. "Brothers, may the favour of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Gal 6: 18).
All that having been said, I must sadly admit that, every time I come to Free Republic and read the Orthodox postings, I wonder why the Holy Father would even bother? We surely don't need the "numbers" or the money. And do we need the grief? I mean, from the simple crude and rude behavior and words of Alexy II towards Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Kasper (with whom he would not even deign to meet), to the Greek bishops who told John Paul that he needed to repent and do penance before visiting Greece, to the nasty crabby folks posting on here . . . would any of this be "enriching" Roman Catholicism? It's hard to see how. In fact, an Orthodox bishop once said to me, as we walked toward a parish he was visiting, and saw a group of women waving to him and calling out "Vladika!" - he said to me, "You're a liturgist, I know ... so you are familiar with our 'Office of the Myrrh-Bearing Women'?" When I said yes, he chuckled, "Well, those are ANOTHER one of our traditions, 'The Venom-Bearing Women'! That particular group is the source of endless gossip about their beloved Vladika. Do you need a few extra cooks at YOUR parish bazaar? You could take them!"
As I've said before on here, I once saw pictures of Pope Paul VI kneeling to kiss the feet of the Patriarch's delegation in Saint Peter's Basilica. Apparently we need to kiss even other things and even more frequently! But, seroiusly, whenever I read the postings here, I just don't see what for - unless . . . unless it is truly to try to undergo the "conversion of heart" the Holy Father speaks about as the "necessary pre-requisite" to disposing ourselves to work toward the fulfillment of Our Lord's prayer "that all may be one."
My point is that the native liturgies in Alexandria and Antioch were "Byzantinized" to a far greater extent than the Eastern Catholics were Latinized. For instance the Melchites. And then this little historical gem:
Theodore Balsamon says that at that time a certain Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, came to Constantinople and there went on celebrating the Liturgy of his own Church. The Byzantines told him that the use of the most holy Ecumenical throne was different, and that the Emperor had already commanded all Orthodox Church throughout the world to follow that of the Imperial city. So Mark apologized for not having known about this law and conformed to the Byzantine use (P.G., CXXXVIII, 954)That's from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Alexandrine Liturgy. If you dispute their facts and if someone has the original text of Balsamon, by all means post it here for all to see.
Theodore Balsamon says that at that time a certain Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, came to Constantinople and there went on celebrating the Liturgy of his own Church. The Byzantines told him that the use of the most holy Ecumenical throne was different, and that the Emperor had already commanded all Orthodox Church throughout the world to follow that of the Imperial city. So Mark apologized for not having known about this law and conformed to the Byzantine use (P.G., CXXXVIII, 954)
I see your point. Same exact thing happened in the West during the reign of Charlemagne, and with much more catastrophic effects. It really deserves a seperate string. The Synod of Milan has made a big issue out this. See http://www.odox.net/Liturgy-Western-Culture.htm
I am not saying Milan is right about everything because, personally, I find the Western Rite much too Augustinian for my taste. And I do believe the culprit for that is Alcuin of York. But at least Milan rightly points to the past Orthodoxy of the West.
"But we all know that [RC conversion to Orthodoxy on a large scale] will never happen."
Don't be so sure. Remember Fr. Toth, and also St. John Maximovitch in Gaul and the Netherlands. Who knows but that there may be a Marionite, Melkite, or Chaldean Fr. Toth out there.
The Holy Synod of Milan is the Diocese for Western Europe of that Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox Church which (after receiving a Hierarchy with the aid of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) was united under Archbishops Akakios and Auxentios. This Diocese was granted a Tomos of Autonomy in 1984 from Archbishop Auxentios in order to pursue missionary work among the non-Orthodox people of the West.Hmm.
Missionary work.
By Russians.
In Italy.
Hmm.
"I went to that Holy Synod of Milan site you mentioned (thanks BTW). Interesting stuff."
It really deserves a seperate string. I know one of the priests in that synod, a convert from Evangelical Protestantism.
I personally have serious problems with the liturgy(s) that this synod promotes, but I also can at least applaud the scholarly efforts of Abp. Hilarion. In many ways, the Synod of Milan is a lot like the Western Rite Vicariate of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Uniatism in reverse? What most concerns me about this synod, however, is that its bishops appear to be "at large". Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.
Hmm, gee, I think I'll go for 'uniate' myself. Sounds more sophisticated!
Thanks for the post.
Bump (A. N. OP)
Speaking of what Claud picked up on, this "Tomos of Autonomy in 1984", does anybody here know what a Tomos of Autonomy is? Is that like autocephaly or something? Just asking.
Yes, but if ALL the Eastern Churches (including the non-Chalcedonians) suddenly were joined to Rome, they'd still be less than 10% of the total, due to the advanced state of decay of the membership numbers of the Slavic and Romanian Churches since the Communist catastrophe.
You are right it is pitiful. It is the result of 200 years of western inaction (or positively regressive action) led by the British in the face of the extermination of our eastern brothers by the Turks and Communists - since the time after Napoleon. How many times in the 1800's could Imperial Russia have liberated Constantinople, Pontus, Smyrna, and Rumelia if not under attack from Freemasonic Britian and Prussia and Revolutionary France? How many times did the same powers prevent Greece from her realizing her national aspirations to free New Rome and Anatolia? How many times did they ignore opportunities to smash the Communists Empire while it was still young?
So while 10-15 million Eastern Catholics may look tiny compared to 1+ billion of us Latins, keep in mind that those 10-15 million Eastern Catholics are around 15% of all Eastern Church members, due to the Eastern Churches being the front line against Islam, the Mongols, the Turks, and the Communists.
That is incorrect. I have been to the Nikolai-do Cathedral in Tokyo several times over the last couple of years and each time there were at least two Russian priests or bishops present. I personally spoke with them and they also sing parts of the Liturgy in Church Slavonic from time to time, as does the choir. The metropolitan is Japanese, and I have never seen deacons and subdeacons who were not. The clergy is impressive in their command of the English and Russian, making confession easy for all parishioners.
I was particularly impressed with the knowledge of the Japanese language of one Russian priest, who gave homily in Japanese last May. His mastery of Japanese is indeed impressive: he has been in Japan only 12 years. So, your source is incorrect.
Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps what was meant by "are now of Japanese origin" was that new clerics are Japanese. Thanks for the input.
As I see it, the problem with those Eastern churches that are in communion with Rome is that they are in a limbo, between East and West. Their small number is not all that important as much as the fact that they cannot serve as a steadfast example of Orthodoxy, having demonstrated a changing heart and, in effect, admitting that they were wrong when they were Orthodox.
I hope everyone on this forum realizes that no re-union will take place unless the faith becomes one and the same and unless both side feel that they have not morphed into the other. The Church cannot admit to having been theologically wrong. Neither Church can say, "oops, we believed wrongly in this! Now we embrace the dogma of the east (or the west)."
I think you were the one who called Serbian and other such Patriarchs "petit" (a shade better than "pitiful" -- unbeknownst to most on this forum), but there is no comparison. The "petit" patriarchs are not in the same position as the eastern churches embracing papacy.
The numbers game is also interesting. Of all the people who do go to Church, as opposed to who are registered as believers, there is a tremendous gap. We know that 75% Catholics don't go to church; the attendance has dropped to ambysmal 25%, and the attendance in Orthodox churches may be even lower.
I can tell you that of the 30,000 Orthodox Japanese, claimed by the autonomous Orthodox Church in Japan, a few hundred attend weekly Divine Liturgy on a steady basis -- oh, they fill the Cathedral almost shoulder to shoulder, especially on feast days, but it is easy to see that 30,000 would not fit into that building (and there are but a few more Orthodox churches in that country -- smaller than the Cathedral in Tokyo).
Likewise, there are Catholics and there are Catholics. Those who are minimalists and those who are maximalists. I would say there are many Orthodox among Roman Catholics, and there are many nominal Orthodox who are Orthodox on paper and not in their hearts.
The numbers claimed are meaningless in terms of "true Church." It's the true Church that the Pope wants to see (re)united. The true Church cannot become absorbed, or absorb another true Church. The question is -- how do we negotiate all the various man-made obstacles that exist in order for the true Church to exist without borders (or numbers). How do we reconcile cultural, historic, linguistic, conceptual and other hurdles and, most of all, how do we overcome political difficulties in the process and resistance within each Church?
You know as I know that of the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics on the roster, the number of those who are in the "true Church" is but a small number, just as there is but a small number of true Orthodox in that same Church.
I think the Pope, however, has recognized that the unchainging character of Orthodoxy and its strict adherence to Tradition in Divine Liturgy and teaching is that rock of faith that is valuable to the Church, that resists modernism and other Church-decaying isms. The Vatican does not hide the fact that Orthodox steadfastness in guarding the Tradition is appealing.
I am surprized that, given the 500-year Ottoman rule and almost a century of godless Communism, any Orthodoxy even survived in eastern Europe. But, then we have the common history of the first three and a half centuries of Christian persecutions that only strenghtened the faith. The Church is the strongest, if not the largest, when carrying the Cross.
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.