www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Restoration of Communion

Conversation on another thread brought this to mind:

Months ago, I was talking to a Roman Catholic friend of mine. I said something that I'm sure I intended to sound very pious and sincere. I spoke of how we needed to pray for reconciliation between East and West. He asked me what that meant for the Orthodox. I said that it could only mean communion, becaue the anathemas were lifted, and it's clear that we don't need some kind of administrative union. I think I mentioned some quote I had heard to the effect that "The only thing between us and full communion is full communion." His response was difficult for me. He said: "Dave, it's already on the books as far as we're concerned. You're not waiting on us." He was referring to Vatican II, of course.

So what's the waiting for? Is it just the stubborn Orthodox holding a grudge? Does it just take more time?

Peace,

David

Dear David,

This raises a very crucial aspect with respect to ecumenical relations between East and West.

The West has tended to downplay the differences that still prevent full communion with the East from being realized.

The Filioque et al. are things the West feels are "too insignificant" etc.

But they are not for the Orthodox - who do see the West as being relativistic over these matters and which will "agree to anything" as long as Papal supremacy is agreed to by them.

How can we begin to be serious about reunion, I ask, if we cannot even take one another seriously over the issues that divide us?

Vatican II did not address the Filioque, the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, the Papal doctrines and a host of other issues that have prevented full communion from being realized in the past.

At best, it presented the papal doctrines in a "kinder, gentler" light, updated medieval Catholicism - in short, real dialogue with the East wasn't really on its mental scanner.

In terms of the "waiting for," I think the East is also waiting if the West can put its ecumenical theory where its mouth is.

Reunion will involve a transformation of both East and West in Christ and within the context of the framework of unity that once existed - during the first Millennium of the Church and of the Fathers.

When Rome ceases to view the Eastern Churches as parts of its world-wide Papal Diocese that are "in rebellion," that would be a good starting point.

If that is what papal authority is all about, then the Orthodox East should keep away from it.

And so, I would add, should the Eastern Catholic Churches currently in communion with it.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I admit that I am only and Anglican, but I think a huge problem with Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is the exaggerated and unfair rhetoric coming from the East. For example:

>When Rome ceases to view the Eastern Churches as parts of its world-wide Papal Diocese that are "in rebellion," that would be a good starting point.

I mean, is that really fair? I've read Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on the Catholic churches of the Eastern Rite) from Vatican 2 and the tone could not be more antithetical to your description of Rome's perspective? Orientalium Ecclesiarum teaches in explicit and unequivocal language that the Eastern Churches are NOT in rebellion.

Moreover, the doctrine of the filioque, Marian doctrine, purgatory, etc. were obliquely addressed in the same document in that Catholicism teaches, affirms, and believes that the East has her own expressions of faith and worship and that the Roman Patriarch has no intention in meddling with the affairs of the Eastern Churches, doctrinely or liturgically. Pope John Paul 2 has made it clear that the Orthodox do not need to recite the filioque (JP2 was recited the Creed without filioque in public liturgies), believe in the Immaculate Conception, or affirm purgatory.

Alex, I am not attacking you personally because I know that you are VERY charitable when it comes to East/West dialogue and reunion. I know that the East/West divide daily breaks your heart. I share your sorrow and if the East and West were back together it certainly would make my decision to leave Anglicanism easier (there'd only be ONE option!).

However, I think it breaks the Sacred Heart of Jesus when people portray the successor of Peter as a tyrant trying overlord a "papal diocese." Those days are over. Vatican 2 has couched Petrine authority safely within the Apostolic College of Bishops.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

PS: THANK YOU for the Akathist to St Charles I, King and Martyr. I truly appreciate it.

Hello:

Not only the Orthodox. Eastern Catholics may also use the Nicene Creed in its original form for the liturgy.

Here you are wrong. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has been defined as dogma, and no Pope can excempt anyone from confessing the Catholic faith in its integrity.

This is a tricky one. The dogmatic components of the doctrine of purgatory are actually shared by the East and the West.

The East has some issues with the theological opinions that the West has attached to the final purification/divinization after death.

Being honest, even a good number of Western Catholics (myself included) have issues with those.

Furtunately, they are not binding and therefore, shouldn't be a problem.

Shalom,
Memo.

For the past twenty years, I have watched with amazement at the overtures the present bishop of Rome has made to the Eastern Church. Pope John Paul II has demonstrated a passion for reconciliation with Orthodoxy and a willingness to bend over backwards to achieve reconciliation. All one needs to do is to read the following encyclicals:

Ut Unum Sint [vatican.va]
Orientale Lumen [vatican.va]

John Paul's insistence on viewing Orthodoxy as a sister church and his ecclesiological vision of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as being the two lungs of the whole Church of Christ are quite revolutionary. It is this vision that energized the Balamand Statement:

Balamand Statement [orthodoxinfo.com]

To a large extent, those overtures have not been reciprocated. I still remember the grief and disappointment I felt when the Patriarch of Constantinople declared in 1997 that reconciliation between East and West was virtually impossible because the two churches had become ontologically different.

As an outside observer, it is my perception that Orthodoxy has defined itself over against Catholicism in a way that Catholicism has not defined itself over against Orthodoxy. Rome really believes that the Church of Christ cannot be whole until East and West are reunited. But the Eastern Church does not really believe that the East needs the West.

Folks may find the following article by Fr Chrysostom Frank of interest here:

Orthodox-Catholic relations [praiseofglory.com]

Pax,
Alvin+

I always thought that the "two lungs" meant both the Eastern and Western Christian Traditions, and not necessarily specific Churches.

Logos Teen

I remember His Holiness John Paul II asking the presiding cleric(Damianos?) at St. Catherine's (Orthodox) Monastery in Sinai, "tell me, what do you want the Papacy to be?". Also, at Assisi, he sat in an equal throne next to His All Holiness, Ecumenal Patriarch Bartholomew, showing, I believe, equality. I believe that his overtures say that the East will continue to administer in the way that it does, and that the West will continue in its way, and that we will have *spiritual* communion, (sharing of the Holy Eucharist). Apparently, we were almost there (we who are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) after the Agreement of Balamand in 1995, until political problems between us arose in the Ukraine.

In my humble opinion, atleast from what I have ascertained in my jurisdiction, (Greek), there are age old historical animosities which are still harbored by some, and there is, most unfortunately, some pride...

There is also a tendency in some to find great differences where there really are none, in order to, I believe, impede the road to union. One might surmise that the underlying factor, besides, pride, is FEAR..fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of papal administration, etc.

That which does not factor into the equation of many, is that we have a common love for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and veneration for His Most Holy Mother. We should not think of what we, as mere mortals with limitations, want, but what God, the most Omnipotent, wants from us, and work towards that goal with open hearts and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well said.

Let's all continue to pray for Catholic-Orthodox reunion, especially during the Great Fast.

Logos Teen

Dear Marshall,

Of Pope John Paul's sincerity toward the East - I have not the slightest doubt!

The "in rebellion" thing is something I've come across reading Catholic theologians, albeit not contemporary ones, used to describe the Orthodox.

The "world-wide Diocese" perspective is certainly characteristic of the Latin Church even today -surely!

And High Church Anglicans have, in the past, discussed this (and the way the Eastern Catholic Churches were treated by Rome) as an impediment for union with Rome as far as they were concerned.

Also, if everything written in formal documents, the Union of Brest-Litovsk included, were an accurate description of the way things actually ARE, then there would be no problem and we would already have one Church - and your Anglican Church would also probably be in communion with Rome so that you wouldn't even have to worry about packing!

Is not the way Rome does administrative business a PART of the reason for your reticence (and that of other High Church Anglicans) to come into communion with it?

Do not Eastern Catholic Churches have ongoing issues with Rome over jurisdictional and other matters emanating from this root problem, in history and now?

I can assure you that there are great problems that Eastern Catholics experience, Rome's official pronouncements on a future union of the Churches and ecumenical posturing notwithstanding.

And if it was up to the Pope alone - I don't think there would be a problem either, but it isn't.

Ecumenical commissions between RC's and Eastern Churches readily recognize the problem of two different ecclesiologies as a big issue.

The one world-wide Diocese of Rome is a fairly accurate description of how Rome runs its international Latin Church. The East has another ecclesiology.

And ultimately, as an Anglican, you, by Rite and by Right, belong to Rome as your liturgical patrimony and Patriarchate, with the proviso that Canterbury, as acknowledged by RC ecumenical theologs, could and should be a Patriarchate in communion with Rome.

We belong to the other Patriarchates and the issue of how we can get along is an important one.

Let's take an example here to illustrate what I mean when I attempt to understand the Orthodox position - which is what I'm attempting to do

If Rome was TRULY serious about considering the Orthodox Churches as "Sister Churches" (there are lots of Vatican documents that use that term), the Orthodox feel this is merely posturing due to the presence of RC missionaries in Orthodox lands that really do make converts, and don't only serve the historic RC peoples there.

My in-laws were eye-witnesses to this during their visits in Ukraine and Russia and they brought me literature in case I wouldn't believe them . . .

I've then heard RC posters here say, in response to this, that "Well, after all the RC Church is the one true Church and . . ." "Sister Churches?" Real ecumenism or real posturing? It's open to debate.

But then let's not blame the Orthodox Churches for being nasty when it comes to ecumenical overtures from the West. They have been a missionary field for the Western Church for some centuries now and even we Eastern Catholics are really nothing if not the product of that Western missionizing!

Ultimately, it was Rome that added doctrines to over and above what the Seven Ecumenical Councils taught and then required the rest of the Churches to adhere to them.

Rome can legislate for itself as it pleases. To expect the East to bow to papal triumphalism is simply not on. It is incumbent on Rome to present a more agreeable model of papal primacy to the East that was never under papal jurisdiction and especially not for the first millennium.

What has really changed with Rome in terms of papal jurisdiction and the other matters that the Orthodox Church does not accept?

For Orthodoxy, unity can come about ONLY when the entire Church is united in faith. That faith involves the Filioque (not "well you Easterners don't have to use it when you recite the Creed") and other points.

For the Orthodox, Rome's feeling that it can add to the Creed is not a "simple matter" but an expression of pride and triumphalism in being able to legislate doctrines outside an Ecumenical Council, which was and should be the ultimate legislating organ of the universal Church of Christ.

And I'm happy to hear you like the Akathist!

Alex

Dear Memo,

With respect to the Immaculate Conception, there was historically and is today a difference between the "definition" of this doctrine and its substance.

Its substance is really that the Most Holy Mother of God was hallowed entirely by the Spirit from the moment of Her Conception in the womb of St Anne.

And this the Eastern Church has ALWAYS believed, especially since it has, from early times, celebrated the feast of the Conception of St Anne - meaning that it celebrated the Mother of God as a saint already in the womb of her mother.

The Roman definition in terms of Our Lady being exempted from the Augustinian "stain of Original Sin" is something no Eastern Christian can accept, since we don't accept that view of Original Sin.

The Immaculate Conception doctrine is nothing more than a doctrinal definition of the Particular Latin Church and is outside the theological, patristic and liturgical patrimony of the Eastern Churches that first honoured the feast of the Conception of St Anne.

And why should the East accept a doctrine that, in part, violates its own theological heritage while simply reiterating what it has always believed and liturgically celebrated?

This is also an instance of why Rome and Western Catholics need to do more reflection on ecumenism and see how they are themselves a stumbling block on the road to true unity between East and West.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I am still unclear about this accusation of Rome "missionizing" Orthodox lands. Aren't their Orthodox missions in Mexico, South America, and African countries with a Catholic presence? If you're going to complain about Catholicism in Russia, then the Orthodox should pull out of Mexico. Plus, I have met Orthodox in America who aggresively pursue disappointed V2 Catholics. The Orthodox should throw rocks if their going to live in glass houses.

As an Anglican, one of the biggest attractions is the papacy. The whole concept of collegiality (as the Anglicans have it) eventually leads to chaos, IMHO. Each jurisdiction does what it wants and nobody can call them on it because they're bound to their jurisdiction. If the Canadian Anglicans begin to marry gays, the rest of the Anglican Communion can't do anything about it. If the US Anglicans ordain women, nobody can do anything about it. It would be GREAT if the Archbishop of Canterbury had some clout and put his foot down. Anglicanism NEEDS a John Paul 2 and a Cardinal Ratzinger.

My fear about Orthodoxy is that liberal modernism hits them, they won't have any leadership to stomp it out. What IF the Antiochians ordain a priestess? Who would do something about it? What if the Greeks thought it was okay, but the Russians didn't? After that, melt down is inevitable. With Rome, you always have a leader to look to.

Eastern Catholicism is attractive to me because you get the rich doctrinal and liturgical tradition of the Orthodox, along with a clear leader - the pope. Would you agree, Alex?

Anyway, as Anglican, that's how I see it. Fr Kimel, since you are an Anglican priest, do you long for a pope figure or wish to continue in collegial ecclesiology similar to Anglicanism?

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Yes, of course I agree that a Petrine Minister, the Pope, is important and good for the Church!

As a monarchist , I would love it if they brought back the liturgical use of the Papal Tiara too!

As Meyendorff (+eternal memory!) himself said that the unity of the Orthodox Catholic Church was formerly expressed through the unity of Communion with Rome etc. and he gives other examples of post-schism Orthodox saying the same thing.

I guess there always will be a tension between the ideals of "Unity with Peter through Rome" and "Diversity in Particularity."

But if anything, the Orthodox, even without a Pope, have remained firmly traditional as they adhere to the Patristic and Conciliar teachings of the first Millennium and believe only an Ecumenical Council is the ultimate legislator for the Church.

In terms of "liberal vs conservative," there are many more liberals in Catholicism, papal firm hand notwithstanding. (I think it's all related to the tiara business! ).

The argument that without the Pope there would be chaos hasn't proved itself in the Orthodox experience, at least not with respect to faith or morals. There is no institutional or monolithic unity in Orthodoxy - but that is so boring anyway!

You will NEVER get an Orthodox who will think of Christ as being something less than fully Divine or that the Resurrection was only symbolic or that . . .

And everyone seems to want to pick on the Antiochians!

They are great people and firmly Orthodox. The fact that they have nurtured Western Rites within their fold and have included the Evangelical Orthodox doesn't mean they are "liberal" in any way - just truly welcoming and ecumenical.

When I was at their conference in Toronto some years back, I saw all sorts of groups coming to join them in Orthodox Communion - Old Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Anglicans (upset because they were getting a female "bishopess" as they put it), Lutherans and Roman Catholics too.

I met one disgruntled Anglican priest who said that his entire parish "went over to Antioch" leaving him alone . . .

Union with Rome in the unity of Orthodox Catholic faith would not add anything, really, to the inner harmony and joy that is the patrimony of all Orthodox Christians right now.

Alex

Dear Marshall,

I really didn't want to get into a controversial thread, but I guess I have no choice...you hit upon some very good points. I take no offense to what you said about prosletyzing (missions) in Mexico and to disgruntled RCs in the U.S., because what you say is unfortunately true. I have noticed this for a long time and have been most disturbed by it. We also put a great deal of pressure on interfaith (Orthodox and RC, of which the Greek Orthodox Church has a great deal of) couples to join our Church, whether the Orthodox spouse is religious or not. I don't think that it is fair, because we are talking about two traditions with what we both believe is the 'fullness of faith' here.

In order to pursue a constructive path to unity, each Church must look at herself critically and not defensively or self righteously.

As for not having a leader to safeguard us from heresy, I also agree with you. There is currently the desire in some jurisdictions, in some laity movements and clergy to unite Orthodoxy in the United States under its own Administration, without, (as some of the more dissident persons involved say), "foreign interference". Although in and of itself, a united Orthodox Church in America is a lofty and proper ideal, I do hear the seeds of modernism's heresies being subtly espoused here and there. Without the spiritual aegis of our Ecumenical Patriarch, I am afraid that these heresies and changes (the movement for married bishops, denial of the Assumption of the Theotokos, for instance) will forever change the face of Orthodoxy, whose very laurels rest on the fact that Holy Traditions, practice and doctrine, have not changed over the centuries and millenia!

Wouldn't that be ironic?

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,

As you say . . .

But both RC'ss and EO's will say that there is "modernism" afoot in their respective traditions and there will always be those who want to be more traditional than others.

That has nothing to do with the Pope, but is part of our times.

As an example, there are RC's who are put off by the fact that their Pope sees no problem with kissing a copy of the Koran. Some of them even feel violated by that action.

An Orthodox hierarch, no matter how "liberal," wouldn't do that - that just isn't in their tradition and I say that without criticising His Holiness the Pope for that affair.

Both Churches have their liberals and conservatives, it is just that with Orthodoxy such labels come to characterize jurisdictions and Churches while in the RC world they can characterize individual theologs, Churches in countries and the like.

For example, when the entire issue of clergy abuse of minors erupted, there were and are Vatican leaders who feel this is an "American" phenomenon . . .

Whether or not one is in communion with the Pope really would have no bearing on these matters.

That is not to say that Primacy isn't something that shouldn't be considered by the Orthodox and I think it safe to say that the Orthodox know that while the Pope of Rome is cut off from Orthodoxy and that are doctrinal differences that impede the restoration of communion, the fact remains that they were in communion with that formerly Orthodox See for almost a thousand years .

In terms of unity, both Churches lost something when they went their separate ways. Orthodoxy lost a vision of Primacy and the unity that brings, while the RC Church lost a vision of the role of the local, Particular Church within the Body of Christ.

Separation hurts everyone involved. But unity is also something that can only be entered into if one is willing to experience a transformation and become something other than what one is now, taking risks and going forth with naked faith, divested of what was formerly comfortable.

Alex

Marshall wrote:

Hi, Marshall. Actually, I do not yearn for a Pope. I just want faithful, orthodox bishops, though I can certainly see the advantages of a Petrine ministry with universal jurisdiction (of some sort).

Since my ordination twenty-two years ago, I would say that a good proportion of my classmates have abandoned the Anglican ship, with most of those joining Orthodoxy. I believe it's the liturgical foundation of the faith that draws so many of us to Orthodoxy.

I very much doubt if a Pope, infallible or not, would save Anglicanism. My tentative conclusion is that the past forty years have demonstrated that the Reformation experiment is a failure. Protestantism simply cannot faithfully maintain the Gospel and the catholic faith when confronted by modernity and historical consciousness. Contemporary concerns always trump the authority of tradition. Protestant denominations must either become oppressive fundamentalist sola scriptura sects or they must become generic liberal Protestant sects that believe nothing and everything.

Thus I find myself urging one of my sons to explore both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It breaks my heart to do so. I believe that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, in different ways, have the resources to survive modernity, though I admit that Catholicism has done a terrible job at it since Vatican II. I grieve for the destruction of the Roman Rite and the embrace of silly liturgy and liberal Protestant hermeneutics. But there are hopeful signs for Latin Christianity.

I remember hearing a lecture that Fr Hopko gave several years ago where he shared that he was very concerned about the future of Orthodoxy in the United States. He felt that Orthodoxy had to a large extent been protected from modernity by its various ethnic identities, but as these break down and Orthodoxy successfully brings ordinary Americans into its ranks, it too will have to confront modernity. One thing for sure--retreating into an Eastern ghetto is not the answer. I am encouraged by the evangelistic zeal that I have witnessed among some Antiochian priests and laymen. Intellectually, however, the Orthodox theologians with which I am acquainted have yet to creatively address the challenges of modernity.

Pax,
Alvin+