Anthony Dr. Dragani is an Assistant Professor of
Religious Studies at Mount Aloysius College in Cresson,
Pennsylvania. He has an M.A. in Theology from Franciscan
University of Steubenville, and a Ph.D. in Systematic
Theology from Duquesne University. A Byzantine Catholic, Dr.
Dragani frequently lectures and writes on topics related to
spirituality and ecumenism
Order Anthony's critical examination of Adrian Fortescue, one of
England's foremost authorities on Eastern Christianity Place
order
|
Ecumenism
Orthodox
Claims of Superiority #1: I
have recently visited a local Russian Orthodox monastery and
attended one of their prayer services. They do insist that it is
the Western Church that split from them in 1054. Which is the
true Church?
You raise a very interesting question. According to the Eastern
Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church split from them in 1054 AD.
This is because, from an Orthodox perspective, the Pope of Rome
began to make claims to universal jurisdiction, which the
Orthodox interpreted as a departure from the faith of the
Apostles.
This is a complicated issue. You see, the Catholic Church
believes in doctrinal development - that doctrines can grow and
mature, expressing themselves in new ways. The Orthodox tend to
reject doctrinal development, choosing to express the faith only
in the language of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic
awareness of Papal universal jurisdiction is a case of doctrinal
development. In the early Church there were signs of this
belief, but it was not clearly understood until later. When the
Catholic Church became aware of Papal universal jurisdiction,
the Orthodox were turned off by it. This is largely due to how
it was presented to them.
For an excellent treatment of these issues, I would urge you to
read "Rome and the Eastern Churches," by Fr. Aidan Nichols. It
is available in many libraries, and is a fun read. It also
explains the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches in great
detail.
 Top of
Page
Orthodox Claims
of Superiority #2: The
Catholic church has added so many new doctrines that were not
even thought of in the early church such as the immaculate
conception, papal infallibility, indulgences, purgatory and
others. Who is right? It seems the orthodox church is the
original church.
You need understand the Catholic
belief in "doctrinal development." The Catholic Churches teaches
that our understanding of the deposit of faith deepens over
time, and in time new doctrines may be defined as a result.
These newly defined doctrines are not discovered or invented,
but rather are gleaned from the apostolic tradition. Thus, our
understanding of the mysteries of the faith has advanced
significantly since the tenth century.
Thus, throughout the first millennium there was no clearly
defined doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate
Conception, etc. But the seeds of these doctrines were present.
The Orthodox Church, in contrast, does not adhere to a theory of
doctrinal development. Therefore, they have a difficult time
accepting any doctrines that have been defined by the Catholic
Church since the schism. You cannot conclude from this lack of
doctrinal development that "the Orthodox Church is the original
Church." Such an outlook is too simplistic.
Top of
Page
Orthodox Claims of Superiority #3: I
was once Roman Catholic, but have since discovered the true
Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy teaches it is the true Church
established by Jesus Christ and that the Pope and his bishops
broke away from the true Church. Therefore according to Orthodox
teaching the Catholic Church is not the true Church and it is
not half of the true Church, it is a Church who has separated
itself from Christ's Church.
It is necessary to remember that it is possible to look at the
same facts from different perspectives. Often our own personal
experiences color the way that we interpret the facts at hand.
As someone who left Catholicism for Orthodoxy, your perspective
tends to focus on those things that separate and differentiate
us. As someone who has never been Orthodox, but interacts with
Orthodox friends and neighbors on a constant basis, my
perspective tends to focus on those elements that compel us
toward unity.
You write the following:
"Orthodoxy teaches it is the true Church established by Jesus
Christ and that the Pope and his bishops broke away from the
true Church."
Believe it or not, I see in this statement a sign of great hope.
The FACT that Orthodoxy believes that Christ established only
one Church, and that it is the true Church, is really a sign of
just how close we are. The Catholic Church believes the very
same thing about itself. The Protestant denominations, in
contrast, have a vague notion of the true Church being divided
among tens of thousands of different branches. In reality, they
don't believe in a single, visible, hierarchical Church. The
fact that our two Churches share such a belief is a testament to
our deep common roots.
Top
of Page
Papal Primacy #1: How
can the Orthodox deny the clear scriptural evidence for Papal
primacy?
Concerning the Orthodox view of the Papacy, it is far more
complicated than it appears. Concerning the scriptural passages
that you mentioned, the Orthodox actually believe in Papal
primacy. They believe that Christ called Peter to be the first
among the Apostles, and that his successor in Rome was gifted
with a special charism of leadership. The Eastern Orthodox
believe, however, that the Papacy began to misuse this power in
the eleventh century. By claiming universal jurisdiction, they
believe that the Papacy overstepped the primacy given to it by
Christ. Of course, I think that this is really a smokescreen for
even deeper issues.
German Roman Catholics were having numerous squabbles with the
Eastern Churches during this period in history. Because the
Germans had much easier access to the Pope's ear due to
geography, it appeared that the Popes favored the Germans over
the Easterners. The situation reached an apex when Cardinal
Humbert, a papal nuncio who was defending German interests,
excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople without the
knowledge of the Pope. In fact, the Papal throne was vacant when
this happened. Nonetheless, the Eastern Orthodox felt betrayed
by Rome, and became very suspicious of Papal authority. This was
a very tragic event in Church history, and it is my hope that
this terrible rift will soon be healed.
Top
of Page
Papal Primacy #2: Would
the Catholic Church agree that a key to ending the schism with
the Orthodox is making clear that the Pope's role as Vicar of
Christ, as head of the Universal or Catholic Church, is
different and completely separate from his role as patriarch of
the Latin Church?
While not explicitly stating the separation of roles, this
seems to be the direction that the Catholic Church is moving in.
This is clear from the fact that the Catholic Church has been
vigorously reaffirming the traditional rights and privileges of
the Eastern Patriarchs. In the past fifty years we have been
blessed to see the role of the Patriarch appreciated in the
Catholic Church once again.
First, Vatican II proclaimed that that the Churches of the East
"have the power to govern themselves according to their own
disciplines, since these are better suited to the character of
their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls"
(Unitatis redintegratio, n. 16; cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n.
9). The Council went on to solemnly decree the following:
"By the most ancient tradition of the Church the patriarchs of
the Eastern Churches are to be accorded special honor, seeing
that each is set over his patriarchate as father and head. This
Sacred Council, therefore, determines that their rights and
privileges should be re-established in accordance with the
ancient tradition of each of the Churches and the decrees of the
ecumenical councils." (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 9)
It seems that the Catholic Church is now exalting the role of
the Patriarchs as heads of self-governing Churches, and is
emphasizing the role of the Pope as one of assistance to the
Patriarchs in preserving the unity of the Church. Only recently
Pope John Paul II said the following to the Eastern Catholic
Patriarchs:
"In their own territories and in the diaspora, the Eastern
Catholic Churches offer their particular liturgical, spiritual,
theological and canonical riches. You, who are their heads, have
received from the Holy Spirit the vocation and mission to
preserve and enhance this specific patrimony, so that the Gospel
may be given in ever greater abundance to the Church and to the
world. And it is the duty of the Successor of Peter to assist
and help you in this mission." (We Extend Our Arms in
Brotherhood, no. 2)
The role of the Pope, as head of the universal Church, is first
and foremost to assure the unity of the Churches. Pope John Paul
explains that "With the power and the authority without which
such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure
the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the
first servant of unity," (Ut Unum Sint, no. 94). The Pope has
authority from Christ. However, this authority is not so that he
can reign as a dictator or monarch, as non-Catholics sometimes
think. Instead, this authority is given so that he can assure
unity. As the Holy Father explains, it would be impossible to
assure the unity of the Churches without possessing the
necessary authority.
This new ecclesiology really isn't new at all. In fact, this is
the ecclesiology of the early Church. I believe that a strong
emphasis on the rights of the Patriarchs, coupled with a proper
understanding of the Papal ministry, will eventually end the
schism. All in all, things are moving in a very good direction.
I am especially grateful to Pope John Paul II, who has gone out
of his way to make this happen. The man is truly a living saint.
Top
of Page
Papal Primacy #3: How
do you reconcile Papal Infallibility with Byzantine theology?
Regarding the Papacy, it is a profound blessing from God.
Unfortunately, WE Catholics sometimes present it in the worst
light possible. Allow me to give you an example:
A year or so ago I was eating dinner with a fellow Catholic. We
were discussing matters of religion, and an Asian gentleman
heard the conversation. He politely introduced himself, and
wanted to learn what Catholicism was. He was a recent immigrant
from Asia, and was nominally Buddhist. He asked us what
Catholics believe. Before I had a chance, my friend answered:
"We believe in the Pope! Everyone must obey him in order to be
saved."
This line of conversation went on for several minutes, with my
friend emphasizing the necessity of "submission to Rome." There
was no mention of Jesus or the Gospel message. This Asian man
was noticeably disturbed, and quickly excused himself before I
could get more than a word in. That was a lost opportunity.
In stark contrast, Pope John Paul has been striving to present
the Papacy in a positive light. He has been working hard to
explain the Papacy in the context of the Gospel message.
Frankly, the Papacy only makes sense when understood in this
context. Of all the exalted Papal titles, Pope John Paul prefers
to be called "The Servant of the Servants of God."
This issue is at the very heart of the Orthodox / Catholic
split. Eastern Orthodox Christians erroneously think of the
Papacy in terms of "submission" to an earthly power. It doesn't
help when some of us call them heretics and demand that they
"grovel before the mighty throne of Peter." Orthodox Christians
find this approach to be very distasteful, and it keeps them
very wary of reunion with Rome.
The fact of the matter is that the Papacy is a magnificent gift
for the benefit of the Church. The Papacy does not exist for its
own benefit, but for the health and well-being of the entire
Catholic Church. Pope John Paul has been stressing this in all
of his contacts with the Orthodox world. When understood in this
light, the Papacy actually becomes appealing to Eastern Orthodox
Christians. In fact, I personally know of at least one former
Orthodox priest who joined the Byzantine Catholic Church because
of this positive understanding of the Papacy.
Likewise, the great authority of the Pope only makes sense when
understood in light of the Pope's role as servant. This
authority was not bestowed for the Pope's own glory. Rather,
this authority was given by Christ as a tool to be used for the
benefit of the Church.
In my work in this forum, I am striving to follow the example of
Pope John Paul II and present an attractive and accurate
understanding of the Papal ministry. I know as a fact that many
Eastern Orthodox Christians are reading this forum, and I want
them to understand that the Papacy is a blessing, not a curse.
During the pontificate of Pope John Paul we have been blessed to
witness the Papacy at its very best. His papacy clearly
demonstrates that the Papal ministry is one of service.
For a better understanding of the Papacy, and it's past and
present relationship with the Eastern Patriarchs, I would highly
recommend reading "Rome and the Eastern Churches" by Fr. Aidan
Nichols, OP. Father Nichols is a Roman Catholic priest, and a
theologian highly respected in both the East and the West.
Unfortunately this book is now out of print, but you can order
it from interlibrary loan.
Top
of Page
Papal Primacy #4: Why
are the Orthodox unwilling to accept papal authority?
In theory most Orthodox theologians accept the notion of
papal primacy, but there is much debate over how it should be
exercised. Pope John Paul II explicitly mentioned this in his
encyclical "Ut Unum Sint," and stated that he is open to a "new
situation" with regards to how the papacy would function in a
reunited Church.
I tend to think that many Orthodox Christians are wary of what
papal primacy would mean to them. Because of historical
injustices, some Orthodox Christians are suspicious that papal
primacy would be used as a tool to eliminate their traditions
and impose Latin theology, spirituality, and discipline on them.
The (sometimes troubled) history of certain Eastern Catholic
Churches only confirms this suspicion. It is necessary for the
Catholic Church to demonstrate a real and tangible respect for
Eastern Christianity, which has been happening more and more
during the past century. When the Orthodox are truly convinced
that the Catholic Church values and respects them and their
traditions, many of the obstacles to reunion will melt away.
Top
of Page
Coptic Churches: Has
the Church been trying to bring the Coptic Church into the
Catholic Church? How many people are in the Coptic rite of the
Catholic Church?
Indeed, Pope John Paul II has made much effort to bring about a
reconciliation between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the
Catholic Church. One of the greatest triumphs in this effort has
been in the area of Christology. Originally, the Coptic Orthodox
Church split over the issue of Christ's nature. Does Christ have
one nature or two? The Catholic Church has taught that Christ
has two natures, one human and one divine. The Coptic Orthodox
have traditionally held that Christ has only one nature,
composed of the human and divine, but emphasizing the divine.
This was called Monophysitism. Through much dialogue, it has
been determined that the Coptic Orthodox no longer hold to the
Monophysite heresy. In fact, it appears to some that the
original dispute had more to do with language differences and
political motivations. Pope John Paul is on excellent terms with
Pope Shenouda, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Today, there also exists a smaller Coptic Catholic Church. It
has a total membership of approximately 210,000.
Top
of Page
Filioque #1: One
of the original issues that divided the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church was the "Filioque." Is it still the major point
of contention between East and West that it once was?
Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn't
appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the
Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a
marvelous document entitled: "The Father as the Source of the
Whole Trinity - the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and
Latin Traditions."
This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the
Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the
Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics
claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the
Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.
In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed
WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the
entire Catholic Church. It says:
"The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical,
normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one
common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol
professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second
Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a
particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression
of the faith taught by the undivided Church," (paragraph no. 2).
The Holy Father has warmly embraced this document, and has
implemented it himself. Whenever concelebrating with Eastern
bishops, or during ecumenical prayer services, the Holy Father
always celebrates the Creed minus the Filioque.
Top
of Page
Filioque #2: Why
don't Roman Catholics go back to reciting the Creed in its
original form? If a western Church like the Anglican returns to
using the Creed without Filioque, then it seems to imply that
many Western Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are
professing the "wrong" Creed.
To say that the version of the Creed with the Filioque is
the "wrong" creed would be incorrect. It is a legitimate
variation of the same Creed that is particular to the Latin
liturgical tradition.
When properly understood, the Filioque clause does not
compromise the monarchy of the Father - the notion that the
Father is the original source of the Son and the Spirit. Indeed,
the Latin theological tradition has tended to emphasis the role
of Son in the spiration of the Spirit while maintaining the
Father's monarchy. The Filioque clause expresses this Latin
theological tradition, which is part of the heritage of the
Latin Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians believe that to
remove the Filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church would be
to abandon an important part of the Latin theological patrimony.
Top
of Page
Filioque #3: Who
started the fight over the filioque? Did Charlemagne really add
it to the creed?
Concerning your question, it has been established that the
Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the request of
Charlemagne, over the vocal objection of the reigning Pope. It
had previously been recited in parts of Gaul and Spain, but it
achieved widespread use in the West through the efforts of
Charlemagne. Numerous Popes opposed this addition, and attempted
to maintain the original version of the creed for several
centuries. Indeed, not a single Pope recited the Filioque until
Pope Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Thus, when St. Photius protested the recitation of the Filioque
in the Creed, he believed himself to be following in the
footsteps of the numerous Popes who also opposed this addition.
I should also mention that some historians believe that
Charlemagne added the Filioque to the Creed precisely in order
to have an excuse for accusing the Byzantine Emperor of heresy.
Since the Byzantine Emperor refused to recite the Filioque, he
could be accused of heresy and therefore was not to be regarded
as a legitimate Emperor by Charlemagne. This meant that
Charlemagne alone was the sole true Emperor of the Christian
world. Of course, since the Pope at this time also refused to
recite the Filioque, this would also mean that he was a heretic
by Charlemagne's standards, wouldn't it? Thus, Charlemagne
painted himself into a sticky theological corner.
In any case, this issue appears to have been largely resolved in
recent years. I will be very thankful when this fight is finally
consigned to the dustbin of history.
Top
of Page
Filioque #4: Do
Eastern Catholics have to believe in the filioque?
Rome does not ask Eastern Catholics to abandon our unique
theological tradition. In fact, Vatican II has asked us to
preserve our theological traditions, which are part of the
wealth of the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Eastern
Catholics are to maintain their traditional Eastern theology of
the Trinity, which emphasizes the monarchy of the Father.
The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition. Since
we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern
Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate
understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition.
In other words, it is a true understanding of the Trinity, equal
and complementary with the Eastern understanding. While we do
not express our understanding of the Trinity in this way, it is
perfectly legitimate for the Latin Church to do so. The Eastern
and Western understandings of the Trinity are different but
complementary. So when push comes to shove, we believe that the
filioque is true, but it is not how we express the mystery.
There is an interesting history behind this. In all of its
dealings with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic
Church has never asked the Orthodox to embrace the filioque as
their understanding of the faith. On the contrary, Rome has only
asked the Orthodox to acknowledge that it is not heretical.
Unfortunately, for many centuries the Orthodox were unwilling to
concede this. Some Orthodox Christians still remain so.
Top
of Page
Intercommunion: Is
it licit for a Catholic (east or west) to receive the Eucharist
in an Orthodox Church, and vice-versa? Can a Catholic fulfill
their Sunday obligation at an Orthodox Church?
The situation concerning intercommunion between Orthodox and
Catholics is tricky. Following Vatican II, Pope Paul VI lifted
all excommunications against the Eastern Orthodox. Likewise,
Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople lifted all
excommunications against Catholics. So, judging by this action,
it would seem that we should be back in communion. But we
aren't. If we aren't excommunicated from one another, but aren't
in communion, then what the heck is the status of our
relationship?
As the matter now stands, Eastern Orthodox bishops do not allow
Catholics to receive the Eucharist. We should respect their
discipline, and refrain from doing so. When there is no Catholic
Church nearby, you can fulfill your Sunday obligation by
attending an Eastern Orthodox Church without receiving the
Eucharist.
In contrast, Eastern Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive
the Eucharist in any Catholic parish, but only if their bishop
allows them to do so.
Top
of Page
Ecclesiastical Divorces
#1: Do Eastern
Orthodox Churches issue annulments? Are these annulments
considered valid by the Catholic Church?
The Eastern Orthodox have a different understanding of
marriage and divorce than Catholics do. For starters, Eastern
Orthodox Churches do not issue "annulments." Instead, they issue
"ecclesiastical divorces." In practice these are very similar to
annulments, and require an investigation of the relationship.
Ecclesiastical divorces, unlike annulments, acknowledge that a
marriage was actually present, and then fell apart. Annulments,
in contrast, decree that a marriage was never truly present. An
ecclesiastical divorce is only granted for very good reason,
after thorough investigation. Interestingly enough, this is a
difference that predates the schism of 1054 by many, many
centuries.
The reason for this difference is because of the Eastern
theology of marriage. In the West, the sacrament of Marriage is
administered by the couple, with the priest serving as a
witness. In the East, the sacrament of Marriage is conferred by
the priest onto the couple. Hence, in Eastern theology, every
marriage celebrated by a priest IS a valid marriage. This is a
very ancient difference in understanding, which was elucidated
by numerous Eastern Church Fathers.
Today Eastern Catholic Churches also issue annulments instead of
ecclesiastical divorces. Personally, I have some concerns about
"ecclesiastical divorces." It makes it sound as if the Church
denies the indissolubility of marriage.
Top
of Page
Ecclesiastical Divorces
#2: I am not sure
how one would reconcile the doctrine of indissolubility of
marriage in the Roman Catholic Church with the practice of
ecclesial divorce in the Eastern Churches since the fourth
century, because as you know there was union between the
Churches at that time. Unless it was the case that the Roman
Catholic Church may have had a more lenient view of divorce in
the sixth century.
The system of annulments has been one that evolved in the
life of the Church. Prior to the evolution of this system, there
were differing opinions as to how to deal with divorced and
remarried Christians. The Eastern system of ecclesiastical
divorces was one such attempt to deal with this problem.
Ecclesiastic divorces were very rare, and were only granted
after thorough investigations. They were not an everyday
occurrence. During the first millennium, the Eastern
ecclesiastical divorce system was not considered an obstacle to
unity. Of course, the theological understanding of the Catholic
Church has developed considerably since the first millennium.
In the event of a Catholic/Orthodox reunion, I imagine that the
Orthodox will have to adopt the annulment system. Although the
theology is different, in PRACTICE an ecclesiastical divorce is
almost identical to an annulment. But it is the theological
difference that is the problem.
Top
of Page
Ecclesiastical Divorces
#3: Is it correct
to conclude that the teaching of the Catholic Church has changed
from what it was in the fourth century and later to permit
ecclesiastical divorces, to what it is today, whereby it is
taught that ecclesiastical divorces are not permitted?
I wouldn't conclude that "the teaching has changed," but rather
that the praxis has evolved. When the Christian religion was
first legalized in the fourth century, there was no uniform way
to deal with divorced Christians. The mind of the Church has
always held that divorce is objectively evil, but the pastoral
dilemma of how to deal with these people is a different matter.
Ecclesiastical divorces were one attempt to handle the problem
in a firm yet sensitive manner. The annulment system was another
attempt, which didn't actually evolve into its present form
until later. In both cases the Church taught the objective evil
of divorce, but was searching for a way to pastorally
re-integrate the victims of divorce into the life of the Church.
In the end the annulment system won the day. The Eastern
Orthodox Church ceased being in communion with the Catholic
Church in 1054 AD, so they are still using the previous system
that dominated in the East.
Top
of Page
Are the
Orthodox Schismatic: Aren't
Orthodox Christians schismatics since they refuse to submit to
the Pope?
I concur with the judgment of Colin Donovan, EWTN's Vice
President for Theology, who addressed this issue in his FAQ on
Heresy and Schism:
"It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic
Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy,
we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to
Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as
schismatics."
Moreover, as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches move towards
reconciliation, I don't see how it is particularly helpful to
label them as "schismatic."
I believe that it is best to follow the current teaching of the
Magisterium and the example set for us by our Holy Father, Pope
John Paul II. He has spent a considerable amount of energy
working towards reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches, and
never once has he denounced them as "schismatics" or "heretics."
For us to begin hurling such derogatory names would be
counterproductive, and on a large scale would sabotage his
efforts.
If we are indeed faithful to the Holy Father, we must honor his
wishes and address our Orthodox brothers and sisters with love
and respect.
Top
of Page
Orthodox View of Catholic
Sacraments #1: According
to a friend of mine, before she could officially be a member of
the Orthodox Church she underwent Chrismation. What did she mean
by this?
Orthodox priests traditionally chrismate (confirm) converts from
Catholicism as a sign of reconciliation with the Church. This is
not a denial of the efficacy of the Catholic sacrament of
confirmation. Rather, this means something else.
In the Eastern Christian tradition the ritual for chrismation
(confirmation) was not only used to seal people with the gift of
the Holy Spirit, but it was also used to reconcile schismatics
or heretics. These schismatics often were validly chrismated,
and no one denied that, but the ritual was used as a tangible
sign of reconciliation. The Orthodox Churches officially
consider Catholics to be in schism, so when a Catholic converts
to Orthodoxy they are chrismated as a sign of reconciliation. It
does not meant that the first confirmation was faulty or false.
Top
of Page
Sacraments #2: Does
the Eastern Orthodox Church consider Roman Catholic Sacraments
as valid?
Because the Eastern Orthodox lack a tightly organized
Magisterium, it is difficult for them to speak with a single
authoritative voice on certain theological questions. One of
these questions is the validity of Catholic sacraments.
As a general rule, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not
speculate on grace outside of Orthodoxy. Hence, the validity of
Catholic sacraments is an open question for them. However, the
vast majority of Orthodox Christians and theologians believe in
the validity of Catholic sacraments. But there are also many
Orthodox who deny that our sacraments are valid, and there also
many who are indifferent to the question.
Top
of Page
Orthodox Canon of Scriptures
#1: Is the
presence of third and fourth Maccabees in Orthodox Bibles (as
well as Ps.151) acceptable from a catholic standpoint? If a
reuniting of some or all of the Eastern churches with the
Catholic church were to take place, would these books have to
go?
In dealing with Eastern Orthodox Christians, it is Vatican
policy to place as few obstacles as possible in the path to
reunion. Currently, the Catholic Church is seeking reunification
with the Orthodox based on the model of the first millennium
Church. Pope John Paul II, writing about an eventual
Orthodox/Catholic reunion, says the following:
"In its historical survey the Council Decree Unitatis
Redintegratio has in mind the unity which, in spite of
everything, was experienced in the first millennium and in a
certain sense now serves as a kind of model... If today at the
end of the second millennium we are seeking to restore full
communion, it is to that unity, thus structured, which we must
look." (Ut Unum Sint, no. 55)
In the first millenium the disagreement on the Old Testament
Canon was not an obstacle to full communion. For that reason the
Vatican does not consider it an obstacle today. There are much
bigger fish to fry.
Top
of Page
Orthodox Canon of Scriptures #2: I
have been told that the Orthodox Church has more books in the
Old Testament. It this an obstacle to union?
In dealing with Eastern Orthodox Christians, it is Vatican
policy to place as few obstacles as possible in the path to
reunion. Currently, the Catholic Church is seeking reunification
with the Orthodox based on the model of the first millennium
Church. Pope John Paul II, writing about an eventual
Orthodox/Catholic reunion, says the following:
"In its historical survey the Council Decree Unitatis
Redintegratio has in mind the unity which, in spite of
everything, was experienced in the first millennium and in a
certain sense now serves as a kind of model... If today at the
end of the second millennium we are seeking to restore full
communion, it is to that unity, thus structured, which we must
look." (Ut Unum Sint, no. 55)
In the first millenium the disagreement on the Old Testament
Canon was not an obstacle to full communion. For that reason the
Vatican does not consider it an obstacle today. There are much
bigger fish to fry.
Top
of page
Orthodox Canon of Scriptures #3: But
I've also heard that there are different variations used among
the Orthodox Churches themselves! If the Orthodox were the true
church founded by Christ they would all use the same Bible and
they don't.
This is not a fair criteria. Yes, there are certain (minor)
variations among the Orthodox Churches concerning the Old
Testament canon. However, these same variations existed when
they were in full communion with Rome, and were part of the
Catholic Church! Does that mean that for the first thousand
years the Catholic Church was not the true Church founded by
Christ!!!???
Top
of page
Failed Attempts at Union: Even
after the Fourth Crusade, the Council of Florence almost
reestablished full communion between East and West. What went
wrong then? Do you know any interesting details and
personalities of that Council?
The Council of Florence was largely a missed opportunity. Most
of the Orthodox participants at the Council were not there out
of a burning desire for Christian unity, but because their
empire was about to fall to the Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor
hoped that by establishing reunion with the Catholic Church that
the western nations would send military aid.
Thus, the reunion was one of political expedience. Because of
this, the Orthodox representatives readily agreed to everything
proposed by the Latin representatives. There was no real
theological discussion, and no issues were resolved. Nor could
there be, for most of the Latin representatives were schooled in
scholastic theology, and addressed the Council in Latin, using
scholastic terminology that the Orthodox were completely
unfamiliar with. According to the accounts that I have read, the
Orthodox delegates sat there in bewildered silence, completely
unable to comprehend what the Latin's were talking about.
The Council itself was really doomed from the very start. As
soon as the Orthodox delegates arrived, they were greeted with a
demand by Pope Eugene IV: the Patriarch of Constantinople had to
get down on his knees and kiss the feet of the pope. This
outraged the Orthodox Patriarch, who refused to comply. After a
tense standoff Pope Eugene eventually relented, but from that
point on things were sour.
Most of the Orthodox delegates wanted to just get the reunion
over with as quickly as possible, so that they could secure help
for their people. However, one Orthodox Bishop - Mark of
Ephesus, wanted a real theological dialogue to take place. He
believed that there were serious theological controversies that
had to be discussed, and he was appalled that his fellow
Orthodox bishops put political expedience over issues of faith.
After the Council was over, and reunion was officially
proclaimed, the Orthodox bishops returned home. Upon his return
Mark of Ephesus wrote vehemently against the Council, calling it
a "false union," and he stirred up public opinion against it.
However, the Orthodox leadership remained in full communion with
Rome right up until Constantinople fell (the promised military
aid from the West never materialized). When the Muslims took
over the city, they appointed Orthodox bishops who were opposed
to the union, and it was officially dissolved.
In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the union
failed was that it was a union from the top down. The common
folk were not supportive of it, and in many cases bitterly
opposed it. For a genuine reconciliation to occur, it must be
from the bottom up. When Orthodox and Catholic Christians come
to recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, they
will be willing to work through the issues and reunite as one
Church.
Top of
Page
Eastern
Catholics Being Drawn to Orthodoxy: I'm
Byzantine Catholic, but lately I've been feeling drawn to
Eastern Orthodoxy. I feel like I'm stuck in the middle between
Rome and Constantinople, and am very uncomfortable. What should
I do about this?
The fact that you are feeling drawn to Orthodoxy is a sign that
you are becoming "one of us," for real. I experienced this draw myself several years ago, with great
intensity. I was advised by a certain subdeacon that ALL Eastern
Catholics should experience a draw toward Orthodoxy, or else
something is wrong. Although we are in communion with Rome, the
Orthodox Church is our mother Church, from which we came, and we
are supposed to feel a longing for her.
At any rate, I made no hasty decisions and remained in Eastern
Catholicism. Today I know that I belong exactly where I am, and
have no plans to ever become Orthodox. Yet where I am is
admittedly NOT comfortable. The draw toward Orthodoxy never
vanishes, because it is in reality the draw toward the fullness
of our Eastern Christian tradition.
Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable. It is possible
for Roman Catholics to feel comfortable with their separation
from Orthodoxy, for most of them aren't even consciously aware
that the Orthodox exist. Likewise, it is possible for Orthodox
Christians to become comfortable with their separation from
Rome. But for us Eastern Catholics, we must live day in and day
out with the discomfort of being separated from our mother
Church. And this discomfort is the work of God, for it compels
us to work toward unity.
Being Eastern Catholic isn't easy. It is full of frustration,
disappointments, and hardship. But somewhere within this is the
cross of Jesus Christ. We get to share in a taste of the pain
that Christ feels over the disunity of his disciples.
Top of
Page
Zoghby Initiative: What
was the Zoghby initiative? Why did it not work?
Archbishop Elias Zoghby proposed "dual communion," in which
the Melkite Church would simultaneously be in communion with
Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox Church. This step was seen by
both Rome and the Orthodox as being too radical - although there
is significant historical precedent for it. Nonetheless, the
Melkite Patriarch and his Synod have been overwhelmingly
supportive of his ideas.
Double communion (which is also called dual communion) has been
a historical reality from time to time. Well into the 17th
century the Melkite Church had dual communion with both Rome and
Constantinople. There are several other examples as well.
Today both Rome and Constantinople reject the option of dual
communion. Their attitudes could change on this, but it isn't
likely.
|
"Thus
says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will save my people from the East
country and from the West country; and I will bring them to dwell in the
midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be my people and I will be their God,
in faithfulness and in righteousness." -Zech 8:7-8