www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Have We Received the Schism?

It is often said that the Church must receive a teaching in order for that teaching to be genuinely Christian. If a teaching is not received by the people of God it loses traction, and is not considered essential to the faith. For practical reasons I went to the local Roman Catholic Church last night in order to �fulfill my obligation,� for the feast of the Ascension. Speaking to a Roman Catholic friend afterward she asked if I (and we) could also go to an Orthodox Church if they were celebrating the same feast (this year they are not). To my knowledge we cannot, as long as there is a Catholic Church nearby. Which brings me to my point. Have we, the laity, received the schism? Would it be too radical to live a life of duel communion as envisioned by Archbishop Zohgby? If the laity began to do so what would the result be? Would it force the bishops to talk with more urgency? As long as we don�t push the issue so to speak will the schism ever be resolved? I believe that some issues won�t be resolved outside of shared communion, such as the debate over primacy. I mean how it should be lived is still a debate within the RC Church, so how will ecumenical dialogue be able to resolve it satisfactorily enough for a reunion? I am curious as to what others think of this.

Bob

There can't be dual communion. The reason is simple. There cannot be two versions of the truth.

Bob - I think you point goes to the heart of the issue. Christians can demand unity and that demand can force the hierarchy to work harder to resolve problems. Of course, we always run the risk of going overboard and getting mob rule. But I think a limited use to apply pressure on a grave situation may be appropriate.

AMM - Truth is often evasive. The issues that seem to divide us now were basically present in the unified pre-schism church long before any division. Were they so big then that unity was impossible and schism the only solution? Let's not try to silence outside the box thinking (such as Bob's) with overly simplistic responses to complex matters. One size usually does not fit all.

Bob,

CHRIST IS RISEN!

I should apologize for doing this, but I can't resist. You ask:


Somehow I doubt that Archbishop Elias had any combination of communion and one or more duels in mind!


AMM - Of course there can be two versions of the truth - there usually are. Try asking two people who witnessed the same event to describe it. Neither one of them is necessarily lying, but you will get two different versions.

Fr. Serge

I didn't read, or at least didn't intend, my response as an attempt to silence ByzBob. Perhaps my response a little summary in its content, but I think it still reflects the essential point. Communion is unity of faith. Communion is the fruit of unity, not the means to it.

While I certainly agree with Fr. Serge there can be two or more perceptions of truth, I still think there has to be one underlying objective truth for something to be real. Certainly that is the case for doctrine.

Fr. Serge,

INDEED HE IS RISEN

I appreciate the good natured ribbing, but it may come down to a duel with some of my ultramontanist friends!

AMM - I appreciate that communion is the means of unity, but a fruit of union. I guess in my thinking the essential unity is still present between both of the great apostolic churches. The things that divide are secondary, and could be resolved after communion is restored (it may be the only way that they are resolved). Thanks for your thoughts thus far, I hope there are more to come.

Bob

While I believe the things that divide the churches are small in number, I do believe they are of primary and not secondary importance.

X. B!
C. I. X!

Bi-ritual, almost sounds new age. I often wondered because no one takes me seriously, could that be what was really on the table during the negotiations between Ss. Cyril and Methodius with Popes Adrian and John VIII? Everyone was complaining of Byzantine arrogance and in the Slavic mission lands there was one bishop for one city for both Western and Eastern adherences. To this day it is Rome who made the glorification of these brothers universal except for the Greeks who will not see them as heroes. Western missionaries helped the ukrainian (small U for within their borders) Greco (not Greek) priests baptized Kyiv in 988. In 1988 when the Ukrainian Church (amalgamated as catholic is a mark for the church and orthodoxy for the faith) was loosing its Millennium celebration to Moscow�s disinformation campaign, its people took matters into their own hands. Every Ukey Baba (Ukrainian granny) in the free world took their pysanky eggs out of the china cupboard and embroidered Paschal basket cover from under their bibles and gave it to their grandchildren saying �Na (here), there is a window in your office do a display for OUR Millennium�. Graduates who accepted lower tests and essay grades because they would not betray Mother Ukraine for academia�s version of Russia wrote articles under the guise of LETTERS TO THE EDITOR catching the media�s attention. When the truth of the most persecuted church in history hit the papers it gave the oppertunity for the Ukrainian church to came out of the catacombs, and it was one. When independence became a reality in Ukraine its western diasporas were not surprised over 90% voted approval, what surprised them was the Church was in four ecclesial pieces.

Even today I often see Roman Catholics worshiping in Greco Catholic churches and vice versa, and Ukrainian Catholics worshiping in Ukrainian Orthodox Churches locally without scandal. I must admit the ladder doesn�t seem reciprocal. The problem with the Filioque is not the theological perspective with the people as there are many questionable Western perspectives going back to the time of Augustine. The scandal is that the West amended THE universal Creed with it. The East ignoring the West caused the opportunity. This so called split was a political and social development, not a formal ecclesial brake. What if the Kyivan Patriarchate is established retaining communion with all three Romes? Would that not be a development from the grass roots up? Would that not be confirming the work of the Holy Spirit through the people as we celebrate it on the Sunday of Orthodoxy? After all it was the refugees from the iconoclasts who migrated north that really sewed the faith in the Slavic lands. Yes bi-ritual may be the way for the catholic church of the orthodox faith will express itself, organically. Can you see future parishes offering a Divine Liturgy within their Mass schedules?

Think outside the box. What did Christ really mean in John 17:11, one church but as a singular or plural movement? The Holy Trinity is three in one. Well that should really give my R. O. (Radical Orthodox movement) clergy acquaintances more ammunition to gag this peasants. Even Augustine is attributed with teaching "IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY. ...�

Well, er . . . I've been told by presumably serious people that the difference between the Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics is that "we kneel down for the Cherubic Hymn and they don't kneel down for the Cherubic Hymn". I could give lots more examples of that.

Fr. Serge

I have been to numerous Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgies that were scarcely discernable (even less so in Ukrainian), music included.

I have witnessed panakhydas and Molebens with Ukrainian Orthodox clergy and vice versa with representatives of both congregations present. I myself have been present and served at panakhydas offered for Ukrainian Orthodox faithful requested by Greek Catholic faithful and vice-versa, one could go on at great length with such examples.

I believe the Kyivan hierarchy did think that dual communion was possible when they advanced the Union of Brest. The documents of the Union do not concede orthodoxy.

They might be serious, but I would still say they're wrong.

FDD,

Have those documents been translated into English? Are they available anywhere?

In ICXC,

Gordo

X. B!
C. I. X!

Besides the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed without amendments what beliefs are necessary for salvation for the simple children of God in the pews? The rest seam as theological vanity for most people don�t understand nor able to care what they are arguing about. If it is a Mystery why are we suppose to understand how or why? Besides weren�t many heresies truly linguistic miscommunication? I am not a linguist but I have been told in Greek and Slavonic the Filioque is everyone�s heresy but in less succinct tongues like Latin or English it sounds plausible. We simply believers receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior despite whose hands They are given by. If this is too simplistic for some I guess it is the cross God gave them to bear, so why should we? Our people�s eight point cross is a graphic trinitarian cross of which one explanation dramatizes polemics. The top cross represents what God gave us to bear which is the smallest of the three, the central is from the world which is the largest, the bottom is the cross the bishop gives us to carry, it's crooked.

I don't think the issue is with language, if nothing else, it's a conciliar problem. The Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879-880, also known as the 8th Ecumenical Council, condemned any alterations to the creed of 381. This was the view of St. Photios the Great who the council restored. My understanding is the Roman Catholic Church accepted but then rejected this council and considers the council of 869-870 to be Constantinople IV. The North American agreed statement on the Filioque made the following recommendations


I certainly accept those as logical and good steps, and in my mind simply further reinforce my belief that the valid Constantinople IV was the latter.

Now is all of this necessary for salvation? That is hard to say, but it is certainly without question that the statement of Constantinople IV that the creed cannot be altered is binding for all Orthodox Christians. I suppose if I used an altered version of the creed in church, it would probably impact my standing in the church.

So that I think is probably the most important conciliar issue before the schism. Beyond that the Orthodox Church either rejected or simply did not participate in the councils held in the West. Those councils are valid for those in communion with Rome, and obviously not for those who aren't. I understand opinions differ as to which way and how those are binding for those in communion with Rome, and that is a popular subject of debate. I will only say for my own part the post schism councils the West considers ecumenical are an important part of the deposit of faith for anyone in communion with Rome. What this all points to me is that reception of the schism as the thread asks is not really an applicable question. The schism exists as an objective reality. That of course again in my own opinion.

Lastly, I would say because the point is raised, that shared faith is not about liturgical practices or rubrics. I think that was somewhat hinted at. The way we worship is certainly probably one of, if not the most tangible way we express our theology, but it in and of itself is not the complete deposit of faith; nor is it itself a definitive symbol of unity.

Gordo - the Union itself has been translated into English (EWTN text is a common one - http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM ). There are several histories translated into English which lead to that conclusion, but for an incomparable and exhaustive historical study, you must read the Magnum Opus of Fr. Borys Gudziak (which was an expansion of his doctoral dissertation at Harvard), Crisis and Reform.