...and many Eastern churches are in union with Rome

inunionwithrome.blogspot.com

Of interest, “Rome & the Eastern Churches” by Aidan Nichols, O.P.  This book is in its 2nd ed. and has been updated.

At risk of immodesty, the best recent treatment of Orthodox and Catholic relations comes in my recent book *Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity* (University of Notre Dame Press, 2011). I also treat the Eastern Churches and scholarship on them extensively at easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com

Actually, it seems to me at least probable that the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are really already—or still—one Church, even though, unfortunately, they’re not presently in full communion. For after reading in 1971 an article by one Père M.-Vincent Leroy, the prominent 20th-century Catholic essayist Jacques Maritain was persuaded to the same point. In note 35 of Chapter XIX (“The Canticle of Canticles”) of his posthumous book Untrammeled Approaches, he wrote that “despite all the historical misfortunes, the mutual violences and the mutual excommunications, a certain unity, obscurely lived in the depths, has in fact continued to exist in spite of the schism. One would say that under the instinct of the Holy Spirit the popes, even those who expressed themselves most harshly, have always taken care that, in fact, the rupture not be pushed all the way to the end, ne soit pas poussée jusqu’au bout: be it that they have ACCEPTED practically, and in refraining from every formal interdict, a good many things that make the very life of the Orthodox Church (as the validity of the episcopal and sacerdotal ordinations and in general of all the sacraments), be it that in certain cases (as in matter of spiritual jurisdiction), they have themselves given A FREE DELEGATION.”

The really frustrating thing is that the whole schism could, I firmly believe, be worked out in a weekend by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch—if only the other Orthodox would be willing to abide by the agreement.  Substitute the Patriarch of Moscow and the same applies, though it would probably take a week or two. 

The Orthodox Churches are simply not strong enough now to end the schism. At best you could have one or two of the national churches coming at a time, and even then they would probably be divided.  We’ve tried that before, and it does not lead to the desired general reconciliation; in fact, it may throw up further obstacles.

We should not leave off praying for the conversion of Russia, as Our Lady requested.  Contrary to widespread belief, she probably did not have in mind Russia’s conversion to free-market economics.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church needs to be stronger, too.  It was disappointing, but not very surprising, to see the reaction of many “traditionalist” Catholics to the CDF’s proclamation of the heroic virtues of Paul VI; too many of them appear to really WANT Paul VI to be in Hell, at very grave risk to their own souls.  As for the problems with their opposite numbers, those are obvious.  So when we for the conversion of Russia, let’s pray for our own conversion, too.

The Orthodox Churches are simply not strong enough now to end the schism.

I don’t think strength has anything to do with it; the Patriarchate of Moscow can’t really hope for any better strength than it has now, but in my experience, they’re the most hostile to Catholicism. For example, my wife is Russian; we wanted to marry in Russia to avoid an occasion of sin, but numerous Russian Orthodox clerics refused to marry us, because I’m Catholic. It appalled a Greek Orthodox Christian who had been helping me understand some of the issues.

I’ve been Catholic for roughly 20 years, and over that period I’ve noticed that Catholics are routinely optimistic about reunion, despite any real evidence to the contrary. Catholics in the “Newish World” (US, Canada, Australia, etc.) need to keep in mind that ecumenical attitudes in our countries do no reflect ecumenical attitudes abroad—and Orthodox ecumenical attitudes HERE are not especially encouraging. Deep-seated mistrust and misunderstanding have a lot to do with it, but so do very real doctrinal differences. No conversation I’ve ever had with an Orthodox Christian who cares about the matter has given me any impression other than that the Catholic position on papal infallibility is incompatible with their understanding of the Gospel, let alone with unity.

By all means, let us work towards unity, but let’s not delude ourselves as to how realistic the possibility of reunion is.

I am a convert to [Western] Catholicism after having spent 22 wonderful years in Eastern Orthodoxy, and in assessing the relationship of the [Western] Catholic Church to the Eastern Churches I would first of all note that the Western Church and the Eastern Church were for 1,000 years (from the time of Pentecost) a single Church.  Our aim, therefore, is to restore that precious Eucharistic, canonical, doctrinal, devotional and ecclesiological unity, and key Orthodox are not opposed to this imperative.

There remain, nevertheless, certain important issues.  One is the Papacy.  Another, which we as Western Catholics need to recognize, is that whereas the Western Church prefers to spell out Christian doctrine in great detail, the Christian East does not feel a similar need and prefers to imply such doctrine devotionally and liturgically rather than propound it in great detail, i. e., the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Western Church) versus the simple use of “Mary Immaculate” in the Eucharistic Liturgies of the East.

Devotionally there are differences such as the fact that the West is willing to portray the Blessed Virgin alone in statuary and iconography, whereas the East - I think rightly so - will not show the Blessed Virgin in its iconography apart from her Son Jesus Christ, emphasizing always the Blessed Virgin’s place and role as Mother in the incarnation of God’s Son.

There remain a number of practices that are different in both East and West, but these need not become magnified into causes of schism.

Other than that, both East and West are entirely compatible in doctrine, liturgy, ecclesiological viewpoint, practices and Christian spirituality, even taking into account mutually enriching viewpoints and differences of emphasis.

I would say the one shepherd is Christ and the sheepfold are Christians. I don’t read the passage in John as having anything to do with Peter at all.

I have no idea what you mean as strength, but by strength I mean the ability to undertake something major without splintering.  Do you think that if the Greek Orthodox bishops came into union with Rome this would mean anything other than a broken communion with Moscow?  Or vice versa?  The Eastern Churches have been hit hard, first by the Ottomans and then by Communism, so I don’t think they would dare do anything extraordinary for fear of creating new schisms, both between countries and within their own countries.  Again, this has happened before, which is why we have a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church (not in communion with Constantinople), a Chaldean Catholic Church and an Assyrian Church of the East (also not in communion with Constantinople), and a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and (recently) a Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  Meanwhile there are persistent suspicions that the reason John Paul II and, to a lesser extent, Benedict XVI have ignored so much foolishness from priests, bishops, and religious is that they fear a modernist schism on the scale of the Protestant Reformation.  I do not believe this will happen, but as long as this is not unthinkable, the Catholic Church is also weak.

Even papal infallibility is in fact so narrowly defined that I don’t think it would be the ultimate obstacle, let alone liturgical differences.  The liturgical and devotional differences would simply continue, the doctrinal issues are primarily ones of emphasis, and I really think papal authority could be made less threatening in appearance.  However, one serious difference would be with the role of deacons.  I undertstand the Orthodox do not consider or intend the deacon to participate in Holy Orders, hence they would have little or no objection to deaconesses.  (The meaning of this term in the Bible and a few ancient documents is of course highly controversial.)  Even more seriously, the Orthodox sometimes allow remarriage after valid marriages end in divorce.  This is a huge obstacle of personal importance to millions and important enough to the Catholic Church that She refused to abandon it just to hold on to England.  I have heard that a pan-Orthodox council is an eschatological concept; reunion with Rome is all the more so.  Maybe the Catholci and Orthodox Churches will only reunifty in response to the Antichrist, as in Sovoliev’s story (http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/antichrist.html), but I will not give up hope.

If you believe The Creed, then you believe there is no division in The ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and you do not deny The Filioque, because you believe there can only be ONE Spirit of Love between The Father and The Son, Who proceeds from The Love Between The Father and The Son, in The Communion of Perfect Love that is The Blessed Trinity.

What The Catholic Church Has always taught is that outside The Catholic Church, there is no Salvation, but there will be some, like The Good Thief, who at the moment of their death will come late to The Fold, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Or there are those who are in real but imperfect communion with Christ and his Church and who don’t know it, such as the sheep in the parable of the sheep and the goats. We know where the Chburch is.  We do not know where it is not.

Some of the above comments reflect confusion concerning the relationship between the separated Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church thatr is unfortunatrely held by both Catholics and Orthodox. It is a serious mistake to ignore the real doctrinal differences that inhbit the Reunion of the Churches, and especially the long-standing rejection of the Successor of Peter as the visible head of the Church M1litant.The Orthodox Churches do not constitute One Church and whatever imperfect communion or Union their churches retain with the Catholic Church does not add up to the visible Unity under Peter and his successors which Christ established to identify His Church amidst the schisms and heresies of Church history. Those interested in a detailed theological examination of Orthodox objections to Catholic doctrines may seek a copy of my “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church.” (see www.jameslikoudispage.com)

There is no division in The One Body of Christ. One cannot be autonomous and in communion, simultaneously.

Nancy: One can be in real but imperfect communion with the Church.  This is, in fact, rather typical, even with members of the visible Catholic communion.

CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

Although it is true that it is rather typical these days to be in The Catholic Church physically, having left His Church spiritually, that doesn’t change the fact that you cannot be autonomous and in communion, simultaneously, (See Catholic Canon 750) nor can you be Catholic while leaving your spirit behind.

There Is only One Word of Love.

TheTruth is simple, yet profound, if you are not following The One Word of God, you are not following Christ.

Regarding “outside The Catholic Church, there is no Salvation” (“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”), in his books *Peasant of the Garonne* and *On the Church of Christ*, the Thomist essayist Jacques Maritain defends the view that altho the Catholic Church is a visible church—as Mr. Shea says above, “we know where the Church is”—and altho visible membership is accordingly the normal (I don’t say necessarily the usual) way of membership in that Church, it’s nonetheless possible for someone to be invisibly a member of that Church, which, though visible absolutely (“simpliciter”), is also invisible relatively to its supra-natural aspects, somewhat as our Lord while a “wayfarer” on earth was visible absolutely, yet invisible in His Godhood (as Aquinas pointed out). (“We do not know where [the Church] is not.”—Shea, above.)

Thanks for posting this.

On a slightly different tangent:

The Oriental Orthodox have not, it seems, fallen foul of the Nestorian controversy at all. As we now learn, the OO explain their “no show” to ecumenical councils 4-7 as being down to the fact they did not (and presumably do not) feel qualified to correctly divide Christ’s human and divine natures. I find the Oriental Orthodox childlike approach here, positively refreshing.

Taking a leaf out of the OO book, the eastern and western Churches would do well to stop verbalising potentially hurtful statements. The Lord himself would never make such proud, divisive and potentially hurtful statements to the broken human family.

As Nancy says, unity is found in LOVE.

Without commenting on anything about the Oriental Orthodox, may I point out an at least partial Biblical explanation of HOW we’re to be childlike, and how not, in the perhaps-neglected verse of 1 Cor 14.20: “Brethren, don’t become children in your thoughts (Adelphoi, mê paidia ginesthe tais phresin), but in malice be childlike (alla tê kakia nêpiazete), yet in your thoughts be becoming mature (tais de phresin teleioi ginesthe).” An adult should seek, I submit, not only virtues of childlike simplicity and humility, but also the virtue of mature magnanimity.

The Eastern Orthodox do not outright reject Peter and his successors, per e.  They reject the Pope’s authority over them in favor of their own patriarchs.  All Orthodox accept Peter as head of the Catholic Church—just not over them.  Many look to Mark instead (who brought the faith to Egypt) and to other apostles.  For a very detailed description of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholics Churches (all of whom are in communion with Rome) check out this book…it is the best one on the topic. http://www.cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

Cindy,

Thank you, I will have a look.

The organisation of the Eastern Orthodox Church today (15 autocephalus national churches, each in full communion with the other) seems to bear the imprint of the eschatological tensions experienced by Sts Cyril & Methodius, as they took the Gospel from their native Thessalonika to the Slavic nations. This is well explained in Timothy Ware’s book The Orthodox Church, in the Chapter titled The Conversion of the Slavs, here:

http://www.synaxis.org/catechist/Orthodox_Church.html#_Toc522264243

Wishing you a most blessed Nativity!

Without a final authority, there can be no cohesiveness of belief, and thus no cohesiveness of Faith.
Christ Has Revealed Himself to His Church in the Trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium. The Sacrament of The Holy Eucharist, Is The Sacrament of The Most Holy and undivided Blessed Trinity. Where The Sacrament of The Most Holy and undivided Blessed Trinity Is, there “we will find Christ in the breaking of the bread”, for God so Loved us that He sent His Only Son…

Perfect Love is desiring Salvation for one’s beloved.

Only Christ’s Life, His Passion, His Death on The Cross, through God’s Grace and Mercy, Has the power before God, The Communion Of Perfect Love that Is The Blessed Trinity, to take away sin, and lead us to Salvation.

If a proclaimed member of the Orthodox Church declares that he is “not confided to Peter and to his successors” then he is in fundamental disagreement with his Patriarch. I would suggest that he is not actually Orthodox at all but a form of protestant that is cut off from the apostolic succession in an unOrthodox manner.

Unam Sanctum does apply to the individual but it is wrong to call such a person Orthodox or to imply that his statements have any impact on Orthodox/Catholic relations. Beyond that, it is not the western Church’s business to discipline such a person, but rather the business of the relevant Patriarch and his fellow synod members however they are internally organized. For westerners to reach into such matters is exactly the sort of arrogant overreach that should not mark relations between west and east.

The denial of The Filioque is the source of all heresy, for if The Holy Spirit does not proceed from The Love Between The Father and The Son, then there would be more than One Spirit of Love.

In The Communion Of Perfect Love that Is The Blessed Trinity.

Nancy D. - Since the Patriarch of Constantinople has recited the creed with the filioque and the Pope has recited the creed without it, I suspect that you may be neither Catholic *or* Orthodox if you hew too strongly to your position. My bigger suspicion is that you are confused as to the importance of such things.

General apologies, I slightly misspoke. The creed’s been jointly said by Pope and Patriarch without filioque. There is a joint agreed statement on the filioque, hashing out whether it’s an issue that divides the Church here:
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

To deny The Filioque, is to deny the personal and relational essence of The Communion of Perfect Love that Is The Blessed Trinity. God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. Reciting The Creed without The Filioque does not necessarily mean one denies The Filioque.

Nancy, if the filioque is that important what do you make of the western Christians (Bishops of Rome included) who solemnly recited the creed without it for centuries?  It was on silver panels in St Peter’s once! If not saying it doesn’t mean I deny it, does saying it mean….Anything? In which case why not leave it out? That’s awfully close to some of the 11th century complaints about the Greeks by the west that they had “removed” the filioque from the creed.  Old arguments seem to crop up in the 21st century.  A little hat tip between Paul VI and Athenagoras in 1965 was just that, no one expects it to solve very much. It’s great to talk but frustrating to try and get past the actual questions.

It simply means The Filioque should not have been a Church dividing issue, to begin with.

Hey, close to agreement.  I have heard Orthodox teachers say filioque *may* be an OK opinion with a lot of explaining but that unilaterally putting it in the creed is simply not OK. It’s going to take a lot of explaining to convince a lot of people why the creed is broken without it, and a quick look at Wikkipedia on the topic will give most anyone a workout.  It doesn’t get to the parish level that the creed needs fixing.  In the Orthodox Church there’s a tradition of telling bishops they’re wrong if they are and those bishops being former bishops.  The laity are one of those guardians of the faith, not just ordained people.

What’s not affirmed is not thereby denied. So it’s no error to say the creed without the filioque. But it does not follow that “ex ... filioque procedit” means nothing. However, Thomas Aquinas himself pointed out long ago that the Greeks themselves freely admit that the Holy Spirit “is from” the Son, and that “proceeds from” means no more than this. So I say, Vive la différence! Let the Latin Church continue to say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”, and let the Easterns continue to say—as do the Uniats in full communion with Rome—“proceeds from the Father”, without the filioque.

Why not include The Filioque, least it appear that there can be division in The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or that there is more than One Spirit of Self-Giving Perfect Love between The Father and The Son, and thus The Word of God Is not The One Word of God?

Probably because the creed didn’t say it in the first place.  In the line in question it merely quotes John 15:26 (there I did it, the last refuge of a scoundrel, quoting the Bible!).  It was never thought it needed appending, we thought he meant what he said.  Just like in the Eucharist. When you say you mean the same thing by *saying* something that I mean by *not* saying it that opens up another difficulty I can’t address that divides Orthodox from Catholics.  Some I know call it Jesuitical reasoning but I don’t have enough background to tackle it.  You have to trust me, when it gets strange like this it makes the urgency for talks between us fade away. Things could be better but they could be worse too.  This clearly isn’t a dead issue as people tend to think and there’s just as much progress made on it in the last 15 minutes as there was in the last 700 years.

In this period of Time in History,  when there are so many denominations claiming to be following Jesus The Christ, The Doctrine of The Filioque helps to clarify that there can be no division in The One Body of Christ, and thus there can only be One denomination of Christianity.

From The Gospel according to John, a witness at Christ’s Last Supper:
...and now, Father, Glorify Me in Your presence, with The Glory I Had With You, before The World began…so that they may be ONE, As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You…that The Love with which You Loved Me may be in them, and I in them

...As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You…

Through Him, With Him, and In Him, In The Unity Of The Holy Spirit…
There Is only One Life Giving Spirit proceeding from The Ordered Union of Perfect Complementary Self-Giving Love Between The Father and His Only Begotten Son.