Being In Communion

by Fr. Christian Mathis on September 12, 2010

My friend Lindsey, with whom I have been having lively conversations recently on the Twitter (conversations that involve @annaclimacus, @3liSays, @NoWealthButLife, and myself there take place VERY rapidly!) recently posted her thoughts on the challenges facing the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches with regards to restoring communion in a post entitled, The Challenges of 140 Characters.

She begins by lamenting the fact that there is often confusion about what each side understands with regards to the other’s beliefs.

And here we have the challenges of 140 characters.  See, these friends of mine are all devout Roman Catholics.  We generally see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues.  But as an Orthodox Christian, I consider there to be some rather significant theological differences between the two communions.  Unfortunately these differing views can lead to confusion as the official words from the Roman Catholic side differ from the official words from the Orthodox side.

On this point, Lindsey and I are in agreement. While I would consider the Orthodox Churches to be sound in their theology and in their Sacramental practices, I know that there are significant theological differences between us. One of the challenges facing the present day Catholic Church, in my opinion, is the fact that so many of the faithful have not been adequately catechized and as a result it is easy to miss even the not all that subtle differences in belief among Christians. I often hear someone say something along the lines of, “It doesn’t really matter which church you go to, we all basically believe the same thing.” It is ironic to note that it is often these same people who also lament family members who have left the Church.

The two biggest theological differences that are often noted between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the change made by Catholics to the Creed and our claims regarding the authority of the Pope as Patriarch of Rome.

The addition of the filioque to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed has been a source of strife between the two Churches since the addition at the local Council of Toledo in 489 and the later addition within the Roman rite in 1014. Orthodox Christians would insist that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the Father as he is the source of everything, even though the other two members of the Trinity have been around with Him since eternity. One obstacle to communion that I would note is my own observation that within the Catholic Church there is widespread ignorance of this change. It just isn’t an issue for your average churchgoer. My own thoughts are that we can come to a resolution on this one, especially since recent Popes when gathered with Orthodox Patriarchs have prayed the Creed with the filioque omitted.

The disagreement over the authority of the Pope is a bit more difficult, but I believe that there has also been progress on this front, due in no small part to the Pontificate of John Paul II. His 1995 encyclical, Ut unum sint, eloquently expresses penitence on his part for how Papal primacy has been abused in the past and asks humbly for the help of his brother bishops in searching for the proper exercise of this important ministry of unity entrusted to the successor of Peter.

Lindsey’s main point, however, was the fact that she has encountered many Roman Catholic priests who believe there is no obstacle to communion since Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence and have valid sacraments. The only cases where I have seen Orthodox Christians communing in the Catholic Church is in the case where it is impossible for them to attend an Orthodox liturgy because of lack of proximity of a church. Her point about communion being more than a simple belief in Christ’s physical presence in the form of bread and wine is an excellent one. I often relate to non-Catholics who believe we are being exclusionary by refusing to invite them to receive communion that we in fact as Catholics never refuse to invite others to communion. We want all people to be in communion with the Church and that requires a process of preparation that normally lasts at least a year and culminates in the reception of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. The Eucharist is a Sacrament of initiation into the Church that requires a commitment larger than a casual visit to a particular parish.

I would like to respectfully ask Lindsey and perhaps other Orthodox readers of this blog to comment upon an area that seems problematic to me as a non-Orthodox believer. Lindsey writes,

Moreover, the heart, mind and will of the Orthodox Church can never be expressed fully and exclusively in one person, one parish, or even one principality.  The Greek Orthodox Church does not have a monopoly on being the Church, nor does the Russian Orthodox Church have a monopoly on being the Church, nor does the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have a monopoly on being the Church.  Yet, this statement cannot be understood as an absolute because we do have models of being the Church.  In particular, the monastic communities (especially in highly regarded places such as Mt Athos) provide a universal model of what it means to be the Church.  If I had to try to summarize my current thinking, to be the Church reflects life wholly immersed in Christ, where every fiber of the community’s being has been transformed through the ascetic disciplines of prayer, fasting and almsgiving in such a way that exudes the Love and Truth of Christ.

I understand that no one person, not even the Pope, can adequately represent the entire mind of the Church. The long history of saints from the time of the Apostles through present times make that impossible. It seems to me, however,  that the lack of a central unifying authority that can undermine communion. In the United States, in particular, it is not uncommon in the Orthodox Church to have five or six bishops of various jurisdictions within the same city. I understand that this would not take away from the fact that the Christians in these Churches are in communion with each other, but it seems to communicate at least a diminished form of communion. There are also many within Orthodoxy who while rejecting the primacy of Rome, place an almost psuedo-primacy in the hands of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others appear to give the same kind of respect of primacy to the Patriarch of Moscow. I have also witnessed Greeks who used differences in jurisdiction to justify dismissing converts to the Antiochian Church or the OCA as not being authentically Orthodox. My point here is not to throw stones. We Catholics have plenty of disunity that expresses itself in other forms, but I wonder what is the solution to the visible disunity symbolized by multiple overlapping jurisdictions in the United States?

I also agree with Lindsey that prayer, fasting and almsgiving are the best tools for restoring unity among Christians. Pope John Paul II often spoke of these tools as well as the centrality of the Cross. Ultimately, it will be through Christians living as Christians that wounds are healed and divisions overcome. One way that I hope will bring me to a better understanding of and a closer communion with Orthodox Christians is my upcoming participation in the St. Stephen’s Course in Orthodox Theology that is sponsored by the Antiochian Archdiocese. It is my continued hope that through continued prayer and dialogue we may one day again be one.

Your comments, as always, are welcome.

Related Posts:

Tagged as: A Practicing Human, Catholic Church, Catholicism, communion, division, Eastern Christianity, Ecumenism, Orthodoxy, Pope John Paul II, The Twitter, unity

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post. One of the issues that you bring up regarding the particular status of the Orthodox Church in North America is that of jurisdictional unity, also termed administrative unity. While certainly a major source of scandal as all sorts of crazy things can happen if people start hopping around from bishop to bishop seeking whatever sorts of blessings those people happen to want, the historical realities of how we came to our present situation are complicated at best. Matthew Namee has a fantastic podcast to this effect called “The Myth of Past Unity,” available at http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/history/the_myth_of_past_unity

    Additionally, the administrative disunity rarely affects the life of your average parishioner. People are constantly exhorted to be a part of one eucharistic assembly [don't jump from parish to parish]. If there are problems with your priest, then that needs to be addressed with your bishop. We don’t have any cases where two bishops oversee one parish. Moving out of times of necessity [where you are wholly geographically separated from your previous community] tends to be a lot smoother when you contact the priest in the community you are moving to and also are prepared to obtain a letter from the priest in the community you are moving from.

    Now, there are times when people have made appeals to bishops outside of their affiliation. I know of one case where a single Greek parish served 3 cities but the Liturgy was conducted exclusively in Greek (which incidentally is a fairly common arrangement). English-speaking faithful entreated various bishops because their Greek bishop was unwilling to consider providing English-language options. As the community grew, it made sense to establish another mission. An Antiochian parish was started in 1 of the 3 cities, but the congregation had a difficult time finding a priest. Moreover, the priest who served the congregation alienated many people and perpetuated doctrinal issues not in accordance with Orthodox teachings [incidentally, he left the Orthodox Church entirely]. The situation dragged on for several years, and people continued to exhort the bishops for action. The disaffected parishioners continued to meet in a different city (the 3rd of the 3) and met the OCA’s requirements to begin a mission there. However, I think this situation is rightly understood as a fairly extreme situation. Moreover, working through the established administrative structures did very little to attend to the needs of these persons [and I still think the best solution to the problem would have been the Greek bishop extending his blessing over a community using a greater degree of English].

    Similarly, Orthodox Christians are generally not afforded the luxury of a parish church on every corner. I have been a part of another parish where the laity literally begged for a bishop to send a priest, any priest! The Greeks were unwilling to send a priest, the Antiochians did not have a priest available, the Russians were unwilling to send a priest, the OCA lacked a deanery in the area, and finally the Carpatho-Russian archdiocese was willing to send a priest. [Generally oversimplifying but the realities of the situation involved a large group of college-aged and newly-graduated Faithful who were trying to figure out how to drive at least 90 minutes one-way to get to an Orthodox Church.]

    As a final note of contemporary interest, the Orthodox bishops have been gathering to address many of these issues. Please pray for the Church as She sorts these issues. In my opinion, there are plenty of Orthodox Faithful in Chicago to justify having all of the parishes that are present within Chicago. But, equally of my opinion, it takes a special kind of bishop to surrender a flock under his care to another bishop. Additionally, it takes a special kind of bishop to see the honor afforded in being the bishop for the incredibly geographically isolated parishes.

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    The thought also occurred to me that non-Orthodox readers might not understand the idea about where bishops are located. In the past year, I have prayed with parishes in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana all under the OCA Bishop of Chicago (an office currently being prayerfully discerned after Bishop JOB’s sudden repose). The full title of this office is the “Bishop of Chicago and the Midwest” and, this bishop oversees parishes in 11 states (full list of parishes at http://www.midwestdiocese.org/parishdirectory.html )

    In the Antiochian Archdiocese we have Bishop MARK as the Bishop of Toledo and the Midwest overseeing parishes in 9 states (full list of parishes at http://www.antiochian.org/parishes/diocesedirectory/Diocese+of+Toledo+and+the+Midwest )

    So some slight food for thought. From what I know of Catholic bishops, their geographies are much, much, much more consolidated.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Thanks for the comment. It both helps me get a clearer understanding of how the various jurisdictions work, while at the same time making the waters more murky.

    Yes, our dioceses are much smaller, unless we are talking about Eastern Catholics, which is a whole other story.

    I think there is much good that comes from being in the minority and as a result, not having a church on every corner. It means people have to be in community with one another rather than church hopping. My parish is the only one in our county, so we understand being in the minority. I have always thought that it made better formed Catholics who need to know their faith well in order to defend it. Perhaps it is the same way in the Orthodox Church.

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    Interestingly, if the Eastern Catholics have their own bishops, then I think there is an analogous formulation of how the various archdioceses have formed over time. But I really don’t know the first thing about the Byzantine Catholics other than it seems that the Byzantine Catholics can only commune in Latin Rite Churches under extreme necessity.

    Oversimplifying for just a minute, the Greeks want Greek bishops and the Russians want Russian bishops. There are some minor differences in the rubrics between these two Orthodox traditions. However, a baptized Orthodox Christian can commune across dioceses without too much difficulties. The biggest issue for most Russian priests is they hold to a rubric where 1 confession = 1 communion so you have to make sure you schedule time for confession (generally with them) if you want to receive from them the next day.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Actually my understanding is that Byzantine Catholics can commune with us anytime, in fact there are some in my parish who do so frequently. The same would be true for the reverse. We currently have two Eastern Catholic communities in our diocese, though properly speaking they are actually in the Eparchies of Parma and Pittsburgh.

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    Incidentally, I thought Byzantine Catholics were required to maintain eucharistic communion within the Byzantine rite owing to this paragraph in Orientalium Ecclesiarium:

    para 4c. Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability (4), without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons. communities or areas, of recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts.

    But I’m really awful at reading the convoluted sentences of a lot of these decrees because I read it as saying that a Catholic must get permission from the Pope in order to observe another rite of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Yes, there is certainly a way of reading Church documents that is very much like learning a foreign language, or being within an academic discipline. From what I have seen in actual practice, there is not a problem with people receiving communion between the various rites, but one cannot switch from one rite to another, except under certain conditions. One example of this would be a marriage between Catholics of two different rites. The marriage would allow one to change to the rite of one’s spouse.

    However, I am hardly an expert when it comes to these things. Perhaps there are some Byzantine Catholics out there who can help shed more light on this.

  • http://livingwaterinanemptydesert.blogspot.com/ Dan

    I think that one of the possible reasons that union is so difficult is the tendency in Orthodoxy to define the Church by “culture.” That is, Greek Orthodox, or Russian Orthodox, or American Orthodox. As one who is outside of the Orthodox Church, this is an area that confuses me. In my rather limited experience, it seems that “union” is difficult even within Orthodoxy itself.

    Great post. I would love to read more about this topic.

    Peace+

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    It’s not so much a “cultural” thing as it is a geographical thing. The Russian Orthodox Church formed differently than the Greek Orthodox Church, where the Greek Orthodox Church is about 1000 years older. In an immigrant-minded context, you have Greek persons who find it important to retain the particulars of their Greek heritage, which includes Greek Orthodoxy for 97% of the Greek population.

    As an Orthodox Christian, I vehemently resist when people try to pigeonhole my Orthodoxy into a cultural enclave. Ethnically, I am neither Greek nor Russian. I’m not Serbian nor Romanian. I have absolutely nothing ethnically in me that maps to the historic countries regarded as the “Eastern” Rite Churches. I am quite simply an Orthodox Christian who happens to be of a Western heritage.

    I worship within the communities where I find myself without regard for archdiocesan affiliation. I have rejoiced in the Lord with parishes belonging to the Antiochian, OCA, and Carpatho-Russian archdioceses as well with monastic communities belonging to the Romanian provisional jurisdiction within the OCA, the Greek archodiocese and the Antiochian archdiocese. We are all of the same Church, and we commune together. Additionally, as is enabled by local circumstances, we celebrate our Liturgies together making special efforts to observe the various patronal feasts of the assorted parishes and significant days on the Church calendar (such as at the pan-Orthodox services associated with the Triumph of Orthodox Sunday during Great Lent).

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    Since Fr Christian likes Steve Robinson, here’s another appropriate way of understanding Orthodox administrative unity in North America: http://pithlessthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/06/chill-dudes.html

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    I’m neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox though I have family and friends who are the former and friends who are the latter. (As an aside, Fr. Mathis, though I didn’t have the time to comment on your Latin Mass post, I did have a few thoughts. My mother is a fairly late convert to Roman Catholicism after a very pluralistic journey who always tries to attend the Tridentine Mass. She’s also now the principal of a mission Roman Catholic school in a very depressed area of Arkansas, but that’s another story. Anyway, her appreciation for the Latin Mass is not one of familiarity as you mentioned in your post. It goes deeper than that. That rite has deep roots. I think Vatican II was correct in encouraging the Mass to be translated to the vernacular languages. I understand historically why the Latin church didn’t do that as the other Churches historically did — even before the schism. But I think the better approach would have been to do essentially what the Orthodox have always done and translate the liturgies themselves without a lot of other changes. Anyway, just a thought.)

    As such, I have the sort of insight an outsider can have into both communities. On the dividing issues between the two communions, I personally tend to lean more toward the Orthodox side. But the issue of jurisdictional or administrative unity among the Orthodox is an interesting one. If you look at the history of the US, it’s not too hard to see what happened. Other than the efforts in Alaska, the Orthodox did not actually send missionaries to the US. Instead, what happened was that immigrants brought their faith with them and then wanted priests from their countries of origin. That’s perfectly natural, but led to the situation you noted of now having Bishops with overlapping jurisdictions. By and large, the Orthodox recognize that situation is non-canonical from everything I’ve seen. It’s actually doing something about it that is much harder. It does seem they are trying.

    Eventually I think most people expect to see an American Orthodox Church of some sort emerge. The national description of Orthodox Churches does not describe disunity as one commenter seemed to assume. Christianity has traditionally been geographically based in nature. Unlike the Qur’an, our scriptures can and traditionally have been translated and remain the Holy Scriptures. The same is true of our liturgies. (That was actually the origin of the “Latin Rite” itself.) Each culture will express itself within the liturgies a little differently as it is redeemed and healed by Christian faith, but the similarities vastly outweigh the dissimilarities. The national descriptions mostly describe the geographic boundaries of the culture for administrative purposes.

    Those are my thoughts and observations anyway.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Thanks Scott,

    I always appreciate it when you take the time to comment. I also agree that there are ways of translating our liturgy to make it consistent with the tradition and to fit with local culture. It seems what we are currently experiencing in the US is what I hope will be a more faithful translation of the vernacular.

    I would concur with your summary of the history of how the Orthodox got to where they are with regards to many jurisdictions in one country and I do see a concerted effort towards unity, that although slow, will eventually probably end with a greater unity. Metropolitan Jonah seems very determined to push the issue.

    It is also true that even with multiple jurisdictions, there seems to be a unity among the Orthodox on the level of theology that I do not see in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps if I had a closer look I would see something different, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. This is part of what was behind my writing this post. What is that glue that holds the Orthodox together despite what would seem to be the disadvantage of having competing jurisdictions?

    Any thoughts from other readers would be appreciated.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Although it’s described as weak, I think the lack of any central authority is actually an ecclesial strength. It’s not the same sort of each local church for themselves thing that you see a lot in Protestantism because of the Bishops and the shared communion of the Eucharist. It only works if the Bishops as a whole maintain bonds of love and submission to each other. But they all know that and moreover, the people seem to know that more than not. There is also a deep awareness of their communion with the saints of the past two thousand years and a deep awareness of each Bishop’s responsibility to maintain the faith handed down from the apostles. There have been and are, of course, bad Bishops and priests. Human nature hasn’t changed, but that seems to form a deep gravity well pulling everyone constantly back toward the center — even when it seems most of the world has apostasized. (I’m reminded of the iconoclast heresy that included the emperor and the patriarch at the time. While St. John of Damascus is rightly remembered, I also believe the Pope of Rome was one of the ones who stood against iconoclasm even in the face of all that pressure and even with all the chaos in the West at the time.)

    I’m not sure why Rome has a greater problem with unity today. It could be that investing too much doctrinal authority in the Pope and the magisterium instead of the whole of the Church actually works against them today. It could be the dynamic of an interplay between the Greek philosophy Rome sometimes uncritically absorbed during the Middle Ages and the particular shape of our modern secular age. It’s also worth noting that the Eastern Church has seen a great deal of oppression in its recent past, producing many martyrs. That tends to forge unity. Or it could be some mix of the above and other factors I haven’t considered. That question is mostly far above my pay grade. But it is an intriguing one.

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    My thought about the theological unity of the Orthodox Church is that it resides in a pretty small package of the Creed. As a catechumen, I was amazed at how everything in the Church came back to that concise statement. So many things in the Church exist solely to proclaim “who for us men and our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” Because the unity of the Church depends on the love shared by all people present, I think it’s really important to have something we can all hold together.

    By contrast, I think it is much harder for Roman Catholics to hold a summary of what the Church declares theologically. While the argument certainly can be made that everything the Roman Church teaches does so to reinforce the creed, I do not think this message is clearly communicated to the Faithful. One man may indeed be able to produce voluminous encyclicals, but I think it is much harder to find clear and accessible summaries of the whole of Roman Catholic teaching.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Wow, Father, you sure can pick ‘em! (topics, that is)

    Regarding the Filioque, while it is an addition to the N-C Creed, it seems to be the mind of the Church that it is in harmony with revealed truth, that is, Sacred Tradition.

    The East seems to see a “down-grading” of the Holy Spirit here, in the sense of Arius’ “processions” or semi-divine beings from the one divine principle, but the West sees nothing of the sort in the Filioque.

    St. Thomas explains all this with remarkable clarity (http://newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm), though I know the East generally disregards him. Even so, it seems beyond man to really understand what “proceeds from” means in the context of the Divine Persons anyway.

    Perhaps the Filioque will remain in the West’s Credo, perhaps it will be removed one day. It doesn’t seem that the Faith stands or falls on this, as far as my limited viewpoint can tell.

    A side note: while a lot of folks think Benedict encouragd celebration of the “old” Mass as a concession to the SSPX, & that might be partially true, I think the larger motives were to reinvigorate Catholic identity following the inmate riots of the 70′s & 80′s, and as an overture to the East, who take their liturgy very seriously & would probably not agree to engage the West whilst it seemed they did not. I’m sure they see the promulgation of a more faithful English language Missal as a positive step, as well.

    It seems the Spirit has led the Churches back to one another, & honest discussion is underway about the reasons for disunity & the path to genuine unity. I hope & pray to see the unity of East & West during my lifetime, if it be God’s will.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    The problem of the filioque is that it violates one of the fundamental tenets of the way Christianity understands the unified divine essence. Either something we say (recognizing that anything we say is of necessity so inadequate that we must almost need to say it is not so in any sense that we have experienced it) is common to Father, Son, and Spirit and is thus a part of the divine essence or it is unique to one and thus part of their personhood. So when we say that God is love, that is a statement of the essence and applies to all three equally. Same is true of uncreated. Of eternal. And so on. However, only the Son is begotten. Only the Father is ‘Father’.

    Moreover, there is the problem of communion. the Nicene Creed is an ecumenical (universal) creed defined over the course of two councils that the Church later recognized as ecumenical and affirmed by all subsequent such councils. An ecumenical statement of faith cannot be changed by a local council that is rejected by much of the church.

    So I think it’s a more important issue than some seem to warrant.

    However, from much that I’ve heard Orthodox bishops and priests say, I think it’s the assumption of titles such as ‘Vicar of Christ’ by the Pope (at title deriving from ‘Father’ and which wasn’t originally used only by the Bishop of Rome) that is the more troublesome issue. I’ve heard Orthodox say that Christ is not absent, he is the head of the Church, and thus needs no Vicar. I think that issue is much more problematic.

    Personally, I think I may see the restoration of communion between the Orthodox and those churches who are often labeled ‘Oriental Orthodox’ in my lifetime. I’m much more pessimistic about any other possibilities. I’ve listened to both a great deal for a number of years and I don’t think the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church are very close at all to any restoration of communion. And I don’t see any hope for ever putting the humpty dumpty of Protestantism back together again.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    There are definitely issues that continue to keep us apart and I agree they are not small, yet they aren’t insurmountable.

    I would not agree with the statement that since Christ is the head of the Church he needs no vicar, if this were true there would be no need for Holy Orders at all, and it sounds very close to the more Protestant idea of just me and God.

    I do agree that there have been developments in thinking both in East and West since we went our separate ways. Certainly there has been more “change” on the Western front, but many of these changes came about as a result of later ecumenical councils where Eastern bishops were absent. It is interesting to me that in the East there has not been what the Orthodox would consider and ecumenical council for over 1,000 years! Perhaps one reason is the lack of a central figure of authority who is able to summon one easily.

    I agree that Protestantism is a whole different ballgame. It is almost like a shape shifter, always changing, and hard to pin down. I am currently reading an excellent book called Christianity’s Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath that presents the central problem within the Protestant tradition as being the idea that each person is their own interpreter of the Bible. Fascinating read.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    It was comments I heard from the Orthodox side about the titles in general after the ‘Patriarch of the West’ that I was relaying. I’m not sure I personally have much opinion one way or another. I searched and found the following article discussing the tension over that from the Catholic perspective. I’m not sure the two perspectives even now are communicating or understanding each other correctly. In a lot of ways, it looks to me like often the Orthodox and Catholic end up speaking past each other.

    Anyway, thought I would share.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603382.htm

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    The issue of ecumenical councils is an interesting one. I’ve long been interested in the many various councils and one fact about the ecumenical councils is that it was not clear that most of them were “ecumenical” until after the fact, sometimes decades after fact. Moreover, there were often competing councils seeking acceptance within the Church. And it was not uncommon for those competing councils to have both imperial and ecclesial authority behind them. We don’t much talk about or remember them today because the Church did not ultimately accept those competing councils. The ecumenical councils are ecumenical not because of some sort of top down authority, but because the whole Church accepted them as true to the apostolic teaching. (It becomes even more complicated once you start talking about Chalcedon, but that’s the general dynamic.)

    So it seems to me, studying subsequent history, that the primary reason the Orthodox have not had any subsequent ‘ecumenical’ councils is that they have not faced the sort of widespread heresy supported by those in authority that required a conciliar decision that the whole church needed to accept. A lot of that has to do with the fact that with the final collapse of the Roman Empire there was no longer any sort of authority that could push a heresy across local geographic boundaries. I’m sure there are other factors as well. But it does seem to me that the main reason the Orthodox have not had any more ecumenical councils is because they have not had any more ecumenical heresies for such councils to refute.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Scott:

    While the Church’s councils have convened to refute errors, they also teach truths gleaned from Revelation. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the East has not suffered heresies. It is the very presence of the Pope as the guarantor of revealed truth that has prevented any heresey from becoming institutionalized in Western Christendom, as opposed to those outside his influence, e.g. monophysites.

    Your explanation of the relation among the Divine Persons is lacking, though you are correct that human words are necessarily inadequate to describe divine realities. Still, my understanding is the Universal Church East & West hold that the Father alone is the Person who does not receive his being, He being ultimately the source of all else that is. Again, as St. Thomas notes, we can know what God is not; we cannot know what God is. The fact that a lack of clarity exists on this point seems a poor point on which to maintain schism.

    Note, also, that there are lots of Creeds in the Universal Church. It is an error to pit them against each other because they differ in emphasis & language. It rather reveals the richness of the Faith.

    I don’t think I can accept you earlier statement that the Office of Peter is invested with too much authority, since it is Christ himself who invested his own authority. The only other person in Scripture to whom the keys to the kingdom are granted is Eliacim in Isaiah 22:20, the passage apparently giving a warning to the stewards in charge while the king is absent. Certainly the pope took on too much of the role of a human monarch in the past, but this has entirely disappeared, esp. since the loss of the Papal States (though he still technically remains a head of state). The Office of Peter seems to have regained its proper place in Christendom as universal shepherd teaching & strengthening the brethren, as Christ commanded.

    Despite the persistent pessimism, the talks are underway. The Pope & the Patriarch of Constantinople have formally agreed to enter dialogue with the express purpose of seeking reunification (I keep & review the newspaper clipping handy & look at it often). The talks are undeway. The Churches are looking to Christ now for a solution instead of looking at the faults of each other to find reasons to stay apart. It is Christ’s prayer & his sundered Bride’s response that they may be one.

    Me? Because I know it’s in God’s hands, I’m incredibly optimistic for the future of the Church.

  • http://practicinghuman.wordpress.com practicinghuman

    From a historical perspective, I do not think one can overlook the challenges of being an outspoken Orthodox Christian bishop when living in an Islamic country. The desire to free the ancient patriarchates from Islamic rule did in large part fuel the Crusades. If government restricts freedom of movement and freedom of speech, it is very difficult to gather to proclaim Truth in a way that can be understood as an ecumenical council.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Just as a point of clarification, I did not say that the Orthodox Church had not faced heresy. In fact, there are many councils addressing a variety of heresies, including one I remember reading addressing Calvinism. And lots of others. What I said was that I don’t see any place in the last thousand years where the Orthodox Church faced the sort of very widespread heresy (often endorsed by powerful figures) that made the seven ecumenical councils universally necessary for the Church to adopt.

    Certainly those councils included other matters since the Bishops were meeting and discussing things. All councils included other issues. But nobody I know disputes the central issue for each of the ecumenical councils and the issue that renders them “ecumenical” was the central heresy each was refuting.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Scott, what you say rings true. I must have missed or mis-read an emphasis in your earlier posts. My apologies.

    Practicinghuman, the grip of Islam on the East is tragic, both hisotrically & today. I’ve read many articles about the struggles of the Syrian & Chaldean Catholic bishops, esp. in Iraq, as their flocks are either chased away or destroyed, & I’m sure it’s the same for Orthodox.

    Sounds like another good motivator for seeking unity.

  • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com priest’s wife

    Theologically, yes, there are differences- but- I think the real challenges are practical:

    in Eastern and Central Europe- the Orthodox churches are state churches. How to get around that?

    Even though Catholics have their own problems with annulments- Orthodox are allowed 6 divorces and remarriages (because of the woman at the well)- How to reconcile that?

    We Byzantine Catholics (and other Eastern Catholic rites) are seen as part of the problem- we should stay Orthodox until there is unity. Well- sorry, I’m impatient.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    HI priest’s wife,

    Thanks for visiting the blog and for your comment. I agree that there are many challenges, practical and theological. It must be very difficult for Eastern Catholics. My observation is that Eastern Catholics are misunderstood by Roman Catholics and that the Orthodox, by and large, do not like them.

    The issue of marriage is big for sure.

    Anyway, thanks again for stopping by.

    FC

  • http://www.facebook.com/kensyj Kensy Joseph

    Fr. Christian,

    Excellent post. You’ve highlighted well what unites as well as what still separates us from our Orthodox brethren. God willing we can see communion between the western and eastern lungs of the Church Universal restored in our lifetimes.

    I just want to comment on one point you made. You feel that the lack of a single unifying authority undermines communion. You give the example of multiple Orthodox bishops having jurisdiction within the same city to illustrate your point.

    I want to point out that this is not characteristic of the Orthodox. As you well know, the Catholic Church, in union with HH Pope Benedict XVI, the Bishop of Rome, is itself composed of 23 autonomous, or sui juris, churches – each with their own bishops and administrative structures and procedures. It is not unknown in regions where members of these different sui juris churches live side by side to have different bishops and fall under different jurisdictions. A Catholic resident of Ernakulam, in Kerala, India, could come under the jurisdiction of the Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly, the Archbishop of Verapoly or the Eparch of Muvattupuzha depending on whether they belong to the Syro-Malabar, Latin (Roman) or Syro-Malankara rites respectively.

    Each rite within the the Church has its own distinctive spirituality, theology and liturgical discipline. Every Catholic has the right to worship, and be instructed in, her/his proper rite (no pun intended). These rights are guaranteed by Vatican II’s declaration on the Eastern Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum.

    Because of the dominance of the Roman rite, I often find that Western Catholics often find it difficult to understand how the Church can be united in the Spirit yet diverse in worship, composed of local churches equal in dignity.

    Kensy

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

    Kensy,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I too hope that we can see a unified Church once again within our lifetimes, or at least if we do not that the faithful on both sides will do all they can to make it easier for those in the next generation.

    You make a valid point that we Catholics also have overlapping jurisdictions when taking the Eastern Churches into account. In Knoxville, for example, there are three rites that I am aware of in the same geographical area, all with separate bishops. I suppose it is easier to overlook this here as the Roman bishop is here in Knoxville and the other two are in Pennsylvania and Ohio respectively.

    I also am aware that it is not characteristic of the Orthodox for this to happen, but in this post I just wanted to point out that in this country it seems cause strife at times and hinder a stronger unity.

    My own viewpoint is that having one bishop who has at least the primacy of honor, would be of help to the unity of Christians and this may in fact look different than the current situation. Pope John Paul II in his documents on Christian Unity even asked for input as to how the Bishop of Rome could be a better agent of unity.

    At any rate, I thank you for taking the time to read my post and to comment. I hope you will visit again soon!

Previous post:

Next post:

Copyright 2012, Blessed is the Kingdom