Friends-
Is there a reasonable book or tract that discusses the separation issue in some detail?
Most books I know say "the Catholics and Orthodox seperated in 1054" or (if they're more sophisticated) they'll talk about St. Photius, the Fourth Crusade and a gradual drifting away that was "complete" by 1453.
I hear that His Lordship, Bishop Kallistos Ware's paper: �Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion� in D. Baker (ed.), Schism, Heresy and Relgious Protest (Studies in Church History 9, Cambridge 1972) pp 259-276 sheds interesting light on the issue of when exactly the
final estrangement began.
In 1054 as far as most Christians were concerned a couple of legates had had a falling out with the Patriarch of Constantinople. It wasnt the first time in history that something like this had happened and I'm sure nobody thought it'd be permanent either. Later events like the Constantinopolitan riot in the 1180's and the retalitory strike by the Doge of Venice in orchestrating the sack of Constantinople soured relations but not irreprably.
I guess after hearing what Ware had to say in his paper, nobody really know when the schism became truly decisive. I guess after a while the world just changed and people got used to it. At the Council of Florence in the 15th century there were no formal acts of reconcilation because everyone was certain they were still one Church, just alienated from each other. Since then I guess people have just become sadly accustomed to the situation and those who seek to validate their anti-Roman, or anti-Greek positions our awkward situation back to legate Humbert's dispute with Patriarch Celarius. When things look like they've been around for a long time people are more likely to accept them.
If no big boys disputed it to arguments (apparently not) I see no reason why the See of Peter would get involved any more than sending a �Congratulations� note and making an appointment for chat. But I think the Pope of Rome is isolated and surrounded by (at times) num-skulls who like to think �Oh me - am I important - I - represent the POPE� and assume too much importance and judication to themselves in the name of the Pope. That is just my impression. Just a normal human failing I guess. I suppose it is a bit like politics where over zealous aides think they are doing the right thing for the boss - but are really doing things in ways the boss would not like if he knew.
There are elements of this post I agree with. For instance the idea that the Pope would not be likely to interfere with business outside of his own Patriarchy unless that was explicitly called for is a realistic way of viewing the role of the Roman Pontiff in a reunited Church. After all thats the way it was before.
In the ante-nicene days the Papacy was regarded as the centre of unity and Orthodoxy, which is testified to by Fathers like St Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book III chapter 3 verse 2). Appeals usually came to Rome i.e. like that of St Dionysus of Alexandria to the likenamed Roman Pontiff in the 3rd century rather than the other way around. Rarely did the Roman See reach her arm out into the affairs of other churches i.e. St Clements intervention in the Corinthian church in 80AD and Pope Victor's acts against the Asiatic churches in 190AD. Moreover, normally with good reason i.e. for the sake of Unity. Symbolic of this well intentioned interference is that, as Eusebius recounts, when Pope Victor's excommunication proved displeasing to many Bishops and when St Irenaeus negotiated with him on the behalf of Asians the Pope lifted the excommunciation.
The common practice even in the post-nicene era as St Basil the Great recounted in his letters to Rome over who should be appointed to the see of Antioch (Indeed, St Basil was quite frustrated at Rome's responses to his letters) and this comes to the fore at the Council of Chalcedon where Pope St Leo I's Tome is met with an acclamation that trumpets Leo's Petrine powers.
But Leo like the other Pope's did not see fit to meddle constantly in the affairs of the east. If you read his homily's you'll see he was quite certain of his own position as Peter's successor and the powers of the Papal office. However, like all those that had gone before him he was far more concerned with governing the Western Patriarchy and keeping it together as the Western Roman Empire fell apart than worrying about what the other Patriarch's were doing. The Tome itself is a reply to an appeal by St Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, rather than a direct intervention on the part of the boogey man styled Latinising Roman Pontiff. Now in the days of modern communications its more likely that in times of great upheaval Rome would get involved. Still, I cant imagine things being much different than they were back then.
I mean (and this might not be the greatest example because I think there is need for centralisation in the Roman Church at present) look at the Roman Church today. Since Vatican II Rome has left the Bishops to keep their own houses in order rather than interfering constantly. Rome--in my opinion perhaps too optimsitically--expected after Vatican II that the Bishops being confident in their fullness of orders would go back to their Sees and govern them well without constant appeals to the Holy See. Lumen Gentium paints the portrait of Bishops who freely and responsibly administer their dioceses in full communion with Rome and its doctrine, thus enjoying the infallibility of the Holy See in their own person. However, sadly many Bishops seem ill-equipped to handle their responsibilities and heresy, scandal, liturgical nightmares and chaos have ensued throughout the West as a result. No doubt Pope John Paul II sometimes feels like Leo I did looking at the West as both the Church and civilisation in those parts collapsed into Barbarism.
Nonetheless, you get my drift. There should be (on paper) no need for the Papacy to intervene in a diocese where the Prelate enjoys fullness of orders and competancy (though sadly the latter seems lacking in many places in the Western Patriarchy). It has been Rome's consistent policy since Vatican II to see itself as the last port of call: Problems go through the parish first, the Bishop second and Rome last. How much more with the Patriarchs of the East?
The Patriarch's need no real guidance from Rome on anything (and I'm sure the Papacy would be happy for the reprieve given the state of the Western Church in some places). Easterners are fully concious of word 'episcopus' means and are perfectly capable of stamping out heresy and ensuring Orthodoxy on their own. In a reunited Church the Roman See would assume the position it had in Leo's day and thereafter until the schism: The position of an overseer who in times of real need, for instance, a conflict between two ancient primatial See's over the faith, would then step in to ensure the deposit of faith was left unspoilt.
Here comes the point of disagreement. As you might have garnered from much of my writing I do see in many places the need for stronger more forceful and competant Bishops in the Western Church. In that sense I look East with admiration since autocephaly has granted many in the east with a sense of what the episcopal office actually means and the need to sometimes be a stern fathers with their spiritual children. In my humble opinion the Cardinals that surround the Pope are far from self-important. Indeed, they're mostly the best Bishops we have. Thinking here of men like Cardinal Arinze, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Shoenborn who have persistently defended the authentic spirit of Vatican II. All they want is the faith to be taught in its purity and their outspokeness in these areas has given many young people like myself the example and encouragement we need to defend the faith from attack both from within and without.
This is a tangent (sort of) but I fully agree with Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk. Keep a standing Synod of Bishops and get rid of all the Vatican machinery. Who is in charge? The Patriarchs and their Bishops meeting in synod, or a bunch of dicasteries?
This I also disagree with. The dicasteries are not so much running the Church as being an essential part of setting out the guideliness for the
Western Church . For the most part, at least as I understand it, except for the congregation for consulation with Eastern Churches they have little to do with Oriental Catholic Churches. They were set up to help the Western Patriarch govern the Western Patriarchy, and thank heavens! In these chaotic times if we did not have a Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments I'm certain Western Church would be in a worse state than it was in the mid-16th century.
In a united Church some of the dicasteries might undergo a name change to make it clear that the limits of their jurdistiction lay within the Western Patriarchy. Some might even become amalglamated with Orthodox bodies on some issues i.e. interreligious dialogue. I think it would be a little odd for the Universal Church not to have a single voice on such an issue that would be represenative of both lungs. Again though, I dont think much would change because the Roman Curia is almost entirely pertinent only to the Roman Church. Hence its chief's of staff are normally Cardinals, which merely means they are honourary members of the diocese of Rome and thus can choose the next Bishop of Rome. Its an honour not a distinction.
The problem people have when they see the Roman Church is that they forget that for the most part in spite of its immense size, its only one Patriarchate. My sentiments are that the Orthodox tend to worry too much about centralisation. Not even the dicasteries have the staff to sustain such an insane move. The Roman Church has grown to be what it is because it has been for the most part, for a long time, a single patriarchy governing itself with little contact with the outside and I would suspect little would change if the schism was ended tommorow. She would continue to more or less speak for her own patriarchy unless
something promted her to do otherwise, just as it was when the Church was one before Chalcedon. Although this time around it would probably be better for the lungs of the Church to spend more time sharing air than becoming more and more insular or else we'll simply repeat the mistakes of history.
The first step, and this ties to much of what has been said in this thread is for us to stop looking at people as Latin Theologians and Greek Theologians and see them simply as Catholic Theologians. Yes, we each have our own Fathers but we are one body in Christ and our Fathers and their successors simply expressed that faith from a different angle. Respecting this and remaining conscious of this is an essential aspect of unity amongst Christians. If Latins just focus on Latins and Greeks on Greeks then we'll forget about the other side once again. If we begin to believe that all we need is in our own sources then no matter what we say or do, schism is inevitable. I have spoken of one St Peter in my post but the other great St Peter discussed in this thread might be a light for us all in how to combine traditions in a way faithful both to one's own apostolic heritage and that of the Church as a whole.
God Bless Kiev, may her saints lead us down her enlightened path
Deo Gracias!
Myles
