www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Greatest Scandal of the Church

Orthodox Christians have a remarkable way of letting their traditions permeate into every aspect of their life and liturgy which creates a very wholesome experience. Let there be no doubt that the Divine Liturgy, Eastern Monasticism, and countless other gems from the East are some of the best fruits of the Christian Church.

Eastern theologians have come up with intriguing theologies that anybody could ever imagine. One cannot but appreciate the hesychastic traditions and interesting ecclesiologies that the Orthodox have come up with in recent years. Yet there is one fatal flaw in Orthodoxy, and it unfortunately has very large implications. The Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome.

So- let a person compare the average Catholic church in America to the average Orthodox Church. It is readily obvious that the Orthodox have been much more able to preserve traditional Christianity. There is no doubt that the Novus Ordo has been one of the worst disasters the Church has ever experienced. It does not do well for a Church that claims to be the exclusive historical institution of Jesus Christ to have the aesthetic feel of an evangelical Protestant church rather than a traditional liturgy. The Orthodox churches even recite the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Church as it was originally contrived, without the filioque!

Indeed, the Catholic Church faces a grave crisis. And the Church has experienced many a crisis in its history- this particular one is insignificant, for example, when compared to the French Revolution or the Reformation.

Yes, the Novus Ordo is a banal liturgy. The problems of the Catholic Church are many and grevious. So now we look at Orthodoxy. Can we vindicate the position of one Church by a process of elimination? That is, can we pick which Church we like because that Church has fewer internal problems?

The method of elimination should not be satisfactory in determining which communion is Indeed, the Orthodox Church does have many problems- an increase of autocephaly and even denominationalism, the lack of an authoritative Magisterial authority beyond the local bishop, the acceptance of contraception, to name a few. These issues are of a much different nature, and they are grave. The lack of an ordinary Magisterium has meant that an increasing number of Orthodox can hold opposing opinions to that of other Orthodox without the possibility of an authoritative canonical judgment. There are some Old Calendarists in the Russian Church outside Russia who charge the Orthodox Church of apostasy because they have accepted the Gregorian Calendar.

So, what is the solution to this problem? We are confronted with opposing ecclesiologies. On the one hand, the Orthodox Church offers an elaborate understanding of the relationship between the bishop and the eucharist, the supremacy of the local bishop, and many other fine points of ecclesiology that make it an attractive option. But this understanding of the nature of the Church does not define Orthodoxy. Catholics can and do accept these wonderful insights about the nature of the Church on the local level. They simply also accept the Petrine ministry and the supremacy of the Pope. The definition of Orthodox ecclesiology is a very simple one- it is a negative. It is essentially saying 'no' to the recieved teachings of the Church about the Petrine ministry. It is saying 'no' to the self-understanding of several heroic early Popes such as Gelasius, Hormisdas, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great.

This is what the Orthodox Church has historically relied on, and it continues to rely on for its own justification for its own existence. The principle of denial. An unwillingness to admit certain doctrines. This principle of denial is not just limited to the Petrine doctrines. This extends to other distinctly "western" theologies and ideas, such as Scholasticism and the theologies of the Western Fathers. If the Eastern Church has a problem, that problem is that the Orthodox Church is too...eastern.

That is not to say that the Western Church hasn't engaged in exclusivism. To our shame, we have often imposed the Latin rite of the Church on eastern christians who wish to celebrate the Paschal feast in their own native liturgies and styles. But it should be readily apparent that the Catholic Church is moving towards wider acceptance of non-Latin rite Christians- a true mark of catholicity. The ancient church enjoyed full communion with the Apostolic See, and at the same time had many unique-but not opposing- theological perspectives and styles of worship. Despite the setbacks encountered in recent years with liberalism, we are making large strides forward in regards to this issue. The Eastern Catholic churches show positively that it is possible to be in union with Rome and still inherit the treasures of the Christian east.

The East-West schism is the greatest scandal in the history of the Church. It is scandalous that the Catholic Church should not enjoy the richness of the eastern christian experience. It is equally scandalous that the eastern Churches should not be in communion with the Apostolic See and to lack an ordinary Magisterium to combat the pressure of liberal theology and to maintain unity amongst a world that is increasingly denominationalist. The best gift that the Church could possibly recieve in these depraved times is the gift of reunion, and the healing of a long and bitter schism.

Interesting.

I really don't think that if the Great Schism had never happened it would have prevented the general decline we are seeing of the church in the modern world. There has been a cultural sea change in modern society, everyone is affected by it.

And I hate to sound so pessimistic, but I don't believe that merely unifying the separated elements into one organic whole is the solution to the church's problems, or society's problems.

At this stage the churches, East and West are in such a state that to put them together might be like contracting a bad marriage.

I for one am glad that the Orthodox churches have said no, no, no. That ingrained pertinacity has probably spared them from dissolution and loss of their own theology and spirituality. And as well has preserved the memory and respect for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

As it is, the Apostolic See has been a poor steward to the churches of the East in it's care since the sixteenth century. The best one can say is that there have been mixed results. Until recent years many (if not most) Eastern churches were incapable of asserting their own traditions unilaterally, they ultimately required a mandate from Rome starting with the second Vatican Council, the long domination from the center had stripped them of much of their own real initiative.

The very fact that the schism remains to this day has helped encourage the Western church to revisit it's own position on episcopal collegiality and correct it's behavior towards the string of Eastern churches it is so proud of.

Perhaps if the Orthodox exercise more patience and remain resolute, there will be more spectacular improvements, it could be well worth the effort.

+T+
Michael

The greatest scandal in the Church is obviously my own presence within the Church. What could be worse?

Incognitus

"There is no doubt that the Novus Ordo has been one of the worst disasters the Church has ever experienced. It does not do well for a Church that claims to be the exclusive historical institution of Jesus Christ to have the aesthetic feel of an evangelical Protestant church rather than a traditional liturgy. The Orthodox churches even recite the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Church as it was originally contrived, without the filioque! "

Amen brother !!

Charlie,

Thank you for your well thought out post. I agree with you that the divorce between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West is a great tragedy, and is certainly the greatest scandal to the world. (Perhaps by making the world and the churches accept the idea that Christians can and should remain disunited and still be faithful to the Gospel.)

I believe some distinctions should be made here, however.

I would disagree that the Ordo of Paul VI - as it is written and intended to be celebrated - is the worst disaster facing the RC Church. Certainly, it is the hijacking of this liturgy by those who would mistranslate and misapply its principles that has created the travesty that we witness on the RC side of the communion. When done well (and I have seen it done well), the Ordo of Paul VI is a profoundly beautiful liturgy.

Your point about the fragmentation of Orthodoxy is also important. I think that there are some valiant efforts, however, especially here in the states to unify all Orthodox Christians and jurisdictions under a single (or at least fewer) over-arching jurisdiction. (If I am mistaken in this impression, some of my Orthodox brothers and sisters will correct me.)

I would only add that I do not see the ecclesiologies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as opposed, but rather as complimentary in their emphases. (This is certainly NOT my own original thought! It has been the basis for dialogue, at least for decades.) Particular points may be in opposition, but your point on the Orthodox denial of what they regard as "Roman excesses" hits the mark.

For instance, no Orthodox worth their salt would ever deny the doctrine of Petrine primacy. Rather, for them it is a question of application and certain particulars of how the RC Church has defined this doctrine. The RC Church followed an organic path of doctrinal development - but without the benefit of the communion of ALL of the Orthodox Churches. (A few Orthodox Churches were, however, in communion with Rome. And they were clearly in a minority on this point.) Rome made her definition, and now it is the large elephant in the living room everytime we invite the Orthodox over for tea! Was it a mistake to dogmatically define the Petrine primacy? You will find varying views on this, even from those like myself who support the Catholic position as defined by Vatican I. Personally, I think we could have done without the definition, but what do I know. I don't claim to have the wisdom of God in these matters. Vatican II was a clear corrective, however, appropriately emphasizing the role of the local bishop in the context of communion with Rome and completing what Vatican I could not do because it was interrupted.

My own opinion, though, is that we would be far better off debating the relationship between individual bishops and the Roman Curia. I would venture to guess that others would have more issues with authority there than with the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Many years!

Gordo

An excellent point, which I would like to share my take on, although I don't know how anyone else might feel about this.

The Eastern churches DO understand the Primacy exercised by Rome, sometimes referred to as a Petrine Primacy. Theoretically it should present no problems, and I think Othodoxy could use some sort of Pope figure.

But Christ never said (as far as we know that is) "You are Rock, go establish a Curia that can eventually usurp the prerogatives and responsibilties of your fellow Apostles, because we know that they are incompetent to do this job themselves"

The Curia has grown like a tumor in the church, no longer merely personal assistants to the Vicar of Christ on Earth, they are a swollen bureaucracy that claims to function with the authority of 'the Rock' and really constitute an alternative hierarchy. Ultramontanism has created this monstor by putting more power in Rome than the man can personally handle.

No debate is really necessary, Eastern churches should be subject to their own patriarchal synods by right.

Well, thanks for hearing me out, I needed to vent on this.

Sorry.

+T+
Michael

Slava Isusu Christu!

Charlie, this is a thought provoking commentary. You quote:

"Yet there is one fatal flaw in Orthodoxy, and it unfortunately has very large implications. The Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome."

As per recorded history, the Roman Church severed communion with the Orthodox Church, with end results that the Roman Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Churches.

Regarding this quote:
"Indeed, the Orthodox Church does have many problems- an increase of autocephaly and even denominationalism, the lack of an authoritative Magisterial authority beyond the local bishop, the acceptance of contraception, to name a few. "

The Ecumenical Councils were created to address the issues and ensure the entire Church was on the same page. The Pope of Rome always held the seat of Honor in these councils, and that model can still work today, I pray, if we ever see a full unity between the various seats of Bishops. Only then can we have another Ecumenical Council to address issues such as contraception, and ensuring all Bishops are on the same theological page. It is actually vital, based upon your comment, that the Roman Church strives to -reunify with our Eastern Bretheren to address these issues!

I do tend to wonder if you could clarify this:

"This is what the Orthodox Church has historically relied on, and it continues to rely on for its own justification for its own existence. The principle of denial. An unwillingness to admit certain doctrines. This principle of denial is not just limited to the Petrine doctrines. This extends to other distinctly "western" theologies and ideas, such as Scholasticism and the theologies of the Western Fathers. If the Eastern Church has a problem, that problem is that the Orthodox Church is too...eastern."

As I stated above, the whole Church works on the concept of an Ecumenical Council, where the Patriachs represent the entire Church. I do not see where denial comes in. A decision was made within one of the autocephalous churches, (the Roman Church), to define the power of the Papacy for the other Roman bishops. Was this done in accordance with the Ecumenical Council? No. Should the other participants of the Ecumenical Council accept this dogma? IMHO, I think not. If all were present and consulted and voted "aye", then yes, but I do not believe there was a presence available at that time.

Once again, you quote, "The definition of Orthodox ecclesiology is a very simple one- it is a negative. It is essentially saying 'no' to the recieved teachings of the Church about the Petrine ministry. It is saying 'no' to the self-understanding of several heroic early Popes such as Gelasius, Hormisdas, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great."

How can the "Church", as a whole, agree to something where there was no input? That is like me coming into your neighborhood, and saying I do not like the house colors or designs of your homes, therefore, I decree everyone will paint their homes blue going forward, and have exactly 14 plants of my specification planted in their yards exactly where I deem appropriate! If you resist, I will forclose on your home and evict you. Is that right? No, the entire homeowners association needs to make those decisions so that everyone (at least the majority) is in agreement, and then as a group, will support the change if such a radical idea catches on.

And I reiterate, the Pope of the west always held the seat of honor at the Ecumenical Councils, therefore, the implication as the "head" of the council was always accorded to the See of Peter. The way to turn a "no" into a yes, is to play by the rules that everyone as a group set.

I am a Roman Catholic who has discovered the Theology of the East, the unchanged Church of the Apostles, as taught by Our Dear Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I accept the mysteries of God for what they are, mysteries, and understand the importance of maintaining the legacy that our beloved and sainted Apostles handed down to us through traditions and Traditions. (As you can see, I am not a fan of Scholasticism). I have found the fullness of the Faith in the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I feel that any chance for "Unity in the Faith" can only occur if the west approaches the east in a style previous to the Great Schism of 1068 (year?). Then, imho, there may be a chance of a successful healing of the Body of Christ!

In Christ, Michael

Dear Friends,

It is rare that I don't have something to say on a thread like this, but AMEN to everything written thus far!

Including what Incognitus wrote . . .

Alex

Incorrect. Rome did not issue any Anathema against any Orthodox Church in 1054AD (the traditional dating of the Great Schism) including the Church of Constantinople. The Legate Humbert in an interregnum period excommunicated the Patriarch Celarius alone and likewise Patriarch Celarius excommuciated Humbert alone in 1054AD. It was not until 1459 when the Eastern Church declared the Council of Florence's decrees Anathema that the schism technically began. This is evidenced from the fact that at Florence no formal acts of reconciliation were demanded, since none of the Bishops present viewed the relationship between East and West as schismatic. Moreover as His Grace my Lord Archbishop Kallistos Ware has highlighted intercommunion between East and West continued until the 18th century. The Schism officially then at best is just over 500 years old.

Not essentially. By that reasoning the Robber Council of Ephesus was Ecumenical because there were representatives of all churches present including the Roman Church and the first Council of Constantinople should be thought of as a local Council because the church of Rome was not represented. The rule of faith as reported to Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople to Emperor Anastasius when the Emperor desired to annul the decrees of Chalcedon was that such a step was impossible without the consent of the Roman Bishop. This is evidenced by Leo the Great's refusal to accept the Robber Council of Ephesus and calling Chalcedon to replace it. Moreover, when the Muslims accused the Eastern Church of changing the revelation handed to them by Christ the Arab Byzantine Theologian Theodore Abu Qurrah (c. 750- c.825) asserted that the doctrine of the Councils could be held as believable because it was vouched for by St Peter's successors.

But the 6th Ecumenical Council doesnt just call Pope Agatho head. As well as addressing him in that manner in their official letter to Rome upon the closing of the Synod the Council Fathers declare his doctrinal letter to them as being 'divinely Inspired'. This goes beyond a primacy of honour to the sort of infallibility claimed by the Popes when they speak ex cathedra, which is what Pope Agatho effectively did. The Roman Church isnt claiming anything that cannot be referenced to statements made in the Patristic period. Need we refer again to Chaceldon where Leo is said to speak through Leo or the numerous Fathers' East and West who accept the Petrine powers of Rome include binding and loosing e.g. Sts Maximus the Confessor and Theodore the Studite.

My feelings are if the East opens up to recognise these facts and the West in due course respects the freedom of governance enjoyed by the Orient in the first millenia, exercising her universal jurdistiction in terms of faith and morals and not administration as she did in that time period. Everyone will be just dandy


PS) I love scholasticism. How can you not when you read in the Summa Theologica that God created by opening His hand and turning the key of Love. Those who think scholasticism dry in my experience have never actually read much scholasticism or even the best scholastic writers. If you're bored pick up St Bonaventure's journey of the Mind to God someday. Some of the imagery used is awesome. He speaks of the vestiges (footprints) God has left upon his creation for us to find Him. Beautiful!

Miles,

As a comment to your PS. Even the Orthodox have a legacy where many of their grate Saints loved Catholic scholastics. It is a sad that many forget this, and forget that the Orthodox even had their own versions of scholasticism. It was not only a Western enterprise, though the West excelled at it. Scholarius favored St Thomas Aquinas. He translated Aquinas' works into Greek, and wrote commentaries. He also said he wished St Thomas had been born in the East. Scholasticism, despite modern Orthodox opinion, reached into the East, and many of their great figures (and Saints) sponsored it for the Orthodox.

The confusion comes not in scholasticism itself, but when it is left merely as an academic pursuit. This was not the case of the scholastics themselves and one of the reasons they provided some of the most moving repesentations of Catholic thought ever. But many of their followers did fall into that trap. But it is a trap not merely for scholastics, but all dogmatics, and the Orthodox as well as Catholics have many well-meaning individuals who fall into this trap. It's one of the leading sources, imo, of the schism. Academics with political motivations, instead of prayerful consideration and desire for peace and unity in diversity.

Of course I think Neo-Thomists have hindered scholasticism in the early 20th century and made too much out of speculative conclusions. It is why many turned away from scholasticism. That response, while understandable, is clearly in error, but it is an error currently holding theology as a whole in a stalemate. We need another Thomas Aquinas today. That alone, I think, will end many of the crises we see in today's Christianity.

> But Christ never said (as far as we know that is) "You are Rock, go establish a Curia that can eventually usurp the prerogatives and responsibilties of your fellow Apostles, because we know that they are incompetent to do this job themselves"

The Curia has grown like a tumor in the church, no longer merely personal assistants to the Vicar of Christ on Earth, they are a swollen bureaucracy that claims to function with the authority of 'the Rock' and really constitute an alternative hierarchy. Ultramontanism has created this monstor by putting more power in Rome than the man can personally handle.

No debate is really necessary, Eastern churches should be subject to their own patriarchal synods by right. <

I totally agree with you brother Michael, the whispered rumor is the Curia wields the power.

james

Myles,

Thank you for helping me correct some of my misinformation. I also read Bishop Kallisto Ware's books and should have known better about the schism. I do retract my incorrect information and apologize for my ignorance. But I am learning... a lot!

I guess I just felt this was a derogatory attack on the Orthodox Churches, and wanted to somehow defend them.

Like marriage, when you have an argument, even if you feel/know you are right, you will never make amends if you constantly point out the other person's faults. You have to give love to receive it back. To err is human, to forgive is Divine! 18 years and rolling!

Therefore, in conclusion, forgive my bad judgement, but lets work in love for unity.

In Christ, Michael

Here's a question for our Orthodox brothers and sisters:

Would you be more inclined to re-establish communion between East and West if the Roman Curia was done away with?

TBH, I wouldn't mind seeing them dumped regardless of what Orthodoxy says. :p

&#931;&#974;&#963;&#959;&#957;, &#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949;, &#954;&#945;&#943; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#966;&#973;&#955;&#945;&#958;&#959;&#957; &#951;�&#940;&#962; &#945;&#960;&#972; &#964;&#974;&#957; &#914;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#953;&#940;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#969;&#957; &#964;&#940;&#958;&#949;&#969;&#957;!

The MO for the Roman Curia is to assist the Supreme Pontiff in the exercise of his Petrine Ministry, i.e., for the good and benefit of the universal (Catholic) Church.

This means that each of the prefects or presidents of the various dicasteries is exercising delegated authority and the powers attendant thereto.

Any act, whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature, is done with the prior approval or, at least, with the consent of the Pope. No one in the Curia has original authority nor can anyone exercise his powers de novo.

Have we forgotten the day when Pope Benedict re-appointed the entire Curia? Conversely, he could have terminated all and appointed new curial officials!

It is misguided to find fault in the Roman Curia or lay the blame on a specific dicastery: take the Pope, as Supreme Pontiff, on the carpet.

I think the beef is in the application of the sui juris status of the Eastern Catholic Churches and, therefore, the "relative" independence of their Bishops. The Eastern Code sufficiently defines these inter-relationships.

The Latin rite Bishops do not have a problem in this regard!

Amado

Dear Amado,

"The Latin Rite Bishops do not have a problem in this regard!"

Aren't they lucky!

Alex