Benedict and Orthodox

Benedict and Orthodox
Question from on 04-22-2007:
It seems that Pope Bendict XVI is going to work hard to bring the Russian Orthodox into the fold in some sense. The Russians will lead first the Serbs and then other Eastern Orthodox back toward communion with Rome. What historical significance do you see from such events?
Answer by Matthew Bunson on 04-29-2007:
I fear that we have a ways to travel down the road of ecumenism before the dream of reunion is realized fully.

In truth, the schism did not begin abruptly; rather, there was a long process of growing cultural, religious, theological, and even linguistic differences between the Churches of East and West. Prior to the final schism of 1054, there had been several schisms and breaks – such as the Acacian Schism of the fifth century, the controversy over the Three Chapters in the sixth century, and the crisis caused by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. These temporary divisions were symptoms of a wider divide emerging between the Greek and Latin churches that really first became evident as a result of the invasion of the Roman Empire by the Germanic tribes in the 4th-5th centuries and the demise of the empire in the West in 476 with the deposition of Emperor Romulus Augustulus. The death of the Western Roman Empire ended the political and religious unity of the Greek East and the Latin West, and from that time the Christian Church was set upon a road that ended with the schism of 1054. The growing distance was manifested in numerous ways, not the least of which was in the emergence of two distinct ecclesiological outlooks. In the East, there were numerous Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles, and there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. Consequently, there was much prestige and authority vested in the great patriarchates of the East, in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and from 451, Constantinople, as well as the frequent ecumenical councils that were seen to be locus of supreme authority for the Eastern theologians.

The issue of papal authority thus became one of the major stumbling blocks in effecting a lasting reunion within the Christian Church. From the perspective of the Orthodox, the Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor in Christendom and pastoral diakonia, but he is primus inter pares among the five great patriarchates. The Orthodox do not accept that his special position as bishop of Rome grants him supreme jurisdictional authority; nor does it grant a charisma of infallibility. Above all, the Orthodox consider the power of the ecumenical council far greater than any pope.

These remain issues for ecumenical discussions, but papal primacy was only one aspect of the gulf between the Latins and Greeks, and the gap was widened further by differences that emerged in usage, various practices, and language. For example, Latin dominated in the West, and Greek was accepted in the East. In effect, the extensive theological writings that were being undertaken throughout the East and West remained largely unread by their counterparts. Dissemination required translation, and poor translations, mistranslations, and deliberate misreading created a hostile atmosphere. There was also the filioque. A formula expressing the double procession of the Holy Spirit, the filioque represents the Catholic understanding of how the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son (qui a Patre Filioque procedit). The Orthodox have rejected the formula on several bases, but chiefly they have argued that it confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between the unity and diversity in the Godhead.

It is important to recognize that the schism that erupted between the Latin and Greek Churches thus did not begin suddenly in 1054, nor did the break mean a sharp and permanent schism from that point on. The causes of the break between the Churches of East and West can be traced to various causes although the formal historical breach took place in 1054 when three papal legates, headed by Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candida, placed the bull of excommunication, In terra pax hominibus, upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Despite the fact that Pope Leo IX had died by the time the bull was promulgated thereby annulling its validity, the papal decree stated, among other things, that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, had exceeded his authority. In reply, the patriarch summoned a council and pronounced anathemas upon the legates. However, the Greeks in 1054 certainly did not consider the break a permanent one and relations in various forms were maintained over the next years. The incident of 1054 was viewed initially as unfortunate, but merely one more moment in a complicated relationship. Indeed, the personal excommunications exchanged should have lasted no longer than the lifetimes of the participants. Nevertheless, the schism of 1054 proved surprisingly difficult to end, and the reunions achieved through the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence proved fleeting. In the end, the decrees were lifted officially only in1965 by the mutual agreement of Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.

The reasons for the failure to find a restoration of Christian unity, however, stemmed not from the breach of 1054 but from events that followed. The most serious of these was the Crusading movement, climaxing from the Greek standpoint with the conquest and sack of Constantinople by the forces of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The Byzantine emperor was deposed in favor of a pro-Latin claimant, and a Latin Patriarch was installed as the spiritual leader of Constantinople. Despite his personal opposition, Pope Innocent III accepted reluctantly the new arrangement as a fait accompli. The rightful dynasty of the Palaeologi was restored in 1263 and the Latin patriarchate was dissolved, but for the Byzantines history relations ever after were colored by these events.

This provides some historical background to your question. There are still very serious theological, ecclesiastical, and other difficulties to overcome before any effective reunion can be achieved. Still, the promotion of dialogue was a major concern for Pope John Paul II and is also of great importance to Pope Benedict XVI. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint [56.2], Pope John Paul II expressed the tragic and the hopeful realities that exist within the efforts at ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches: “The structures of unity which existed before the separation are a heritage of experience that guides our common path toward the reestablishment of full communion. Obviously, during the second millennium the Lord has not ceased to bestow on his Church abundant fruits of grace and growth. Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation. With the grace of God a great effort must be made to reestablish full communion among them, the source of such good for the Church of Christ. This effort calls for all our good will, humble prayer and a steadfast cooperation which never yields to discouragement.”

The easiest way to conclude in answering your question is to put it this way: if a formal reunion is achieved with the Orthodox, its terms will by simple necessity encompass and resolve all of the differences that exist between the Catholics and Orthodox including papal primacy, the rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the resolution of other lingering theological disagreements. This is a tall order and may take some time to achieve, but it is certainly something for which we should all pray.