|
|
The Eastern
Orthodox
Christians in
Our Midst
by Thomas Ryan,
C.S.P.
Many Western
Christians are
baffled by the
complexity of
the Christian
East, which can
appear to be a
bewildering
array of
national
churches and
ethnic
jurisdictions.
There are four
distinct and
separate eastern
Christian
communions or
confessional
families of
churches: 1) the
Assyrian Church
of the East,
which is not in
communion with
any other
church; 2) the
six Oriental
Orthodox
Churches
(Armenian,
Coptic,
Ethiopian,
Syrian,
Malankara, and
Eritrean) which,
even though each
is independent,
are in full
communion with
one another; 3)
the Orthodox
Church, which is
a communion of
national or
regional
churches, all of
which recognize
the Patriarch of
Constantinople
as a focus of
unity, and
accord to him
certain rights
and privileges;
4) the Eastern
Catholic
Churches, all of
which are in
communion with
the Church of
Rome and its
bishop.
The focus in
this article is
upon the
Orthodox Church,
sometimes called
the Eastern
Orthodox Church
to distinguish
it from the
Oriental
Orthodox
Churches.
Orthodox
Christians
consider
themselves to be
part of one
church in the
sense that they
share the same
faith and
sacraments, the
same Byzantine
liturgical,
canonical, and
spiritual
tradition. All
Orthodox
recognize the
first seven
ecumenical
councils as
normative for
doctrine and
church life.
At the level of
church
government, the
Patriarch of
Constantinople
is recognized as
“first among
equals”. He does
not have
authority to
intervene in the
affairs of the
local churches
outside his own
patriarchate,
but he can
convoke the
member churches
to meetings and
exercise some
influence in
coordinating
their activity,
at times
mediating in
problematic
situations in an
effort to find
solutions.
There are
fourteen
Orthodox
Churches that
are generally
accepted as
“autocephalous,”
which in Greek
means
“self-headed”.
An autocephalous
church possesses
the right to
resolve all
internal
problems on its
own authority
and the ability
to choose its
own bishops,
including the
Patriarch,
Archbishop or
Metropolitan who
heads the
church. While
each
autocephalous
church acts
independently,
they all remain
in full
sacramental and
canonical
communion with
one another.
Today these
autocephalous
Orthodox
Churches include
the four ancient
Eastern
Patriarchates
(Constantinople,
Alexandria,
Antioch, and
Jerusalem), and
ten other
Orthodox
churches that
have emerged
over the
centuries in
Russia, Serbia,
Romania,
Bulgaria,
Georgia, Cyprus,
Greece, Poland,
Albania, and the
Czech and Slovak
Republics.
The Patriarchate
of Moscow, on
its own
initiative,
granted
autocephalous
status to most
of its parishes
in North America
under the name
of the Orthodox
Church of
America (OCA).
However, since
the Patriarchate
of
Constantinople
claims the
exclusive right
to grant
autocephalous
status, it and
most other
Orthodox
Churches do not
recognize the
autocephaly of
the OCA. This is
why it does not
take part in
such
pan-Orthodox
activities as
international
dialogues with
other Christian
Churches. In
practical terms,
it functions as
an autocephalous
church, and its
inclusion in the
American
Standing
Conference of
Canonical
Orthodox Bishops
indicates that
it has achieved
a certain
legitimacy among
Orthodox
Churches in the
United States
and Canada.
One of the most
striking facts
about the schism
between the
Eastern and
Western
Christian
Churches is that
it cannot be
dated or
identified with
any particular
event.
Historians tend
to pin it on
certain low
points in the
relationship
reflected in
specific events,
such as the
mutual anathemas
pronounced by
the papal
legates and
Patriarch of
Constantinople
against each
other in 1054,
or the pillaging
of the city of
Constantinople
by the fourth
Latin crusade in
1204.
Today it is
widely agreed
that a whole
host of factors
contributed to
the growing
separation which
spanned from the
ninth to the
thirteenth
centuries: the
interruption of
regular
communication
that resulted
from political
developments;
the loss of the
ability to
understand the
language of the
other, be it
Greek or Latin;
and doctrinal
issues. The
ineffective
reunion councils
of 1274 in Lyons
and 1439 in
Florence,
followed by a
Roman policy of
proselytism and
uniatism created
a permanent
alienation and
deep levels of
resentment yet
to be healed.
Today, Western
Christians tend
to see the
schism in terms
of differences
in church order,
but for Eastern
Christians there
are doctrinal
questions at
stake. The
Eastern Orthodox
consider the
West to have
broken away from
the common
Tradition in
adding certain
words to the
Nicene Creed,
papal
centralization,
infallibility,
the Marian
dogmas in
Catholicism, and
the ordination
of women in
Protestantism.
These represent
unilateral
developments
moving away from
the Apostolic
heritage.
We are
witnessing
concerted
efforts in our
time to reverse
this pattern of
separation and
alienation. When
in 1964 Pope
Paul VI and the
Ecumenical
Patriarch
Athenagoras
embraced in
Jerusalem, the
cradle of
Christianity,
and a year later
effected a
mutual lifting
of the
anathemas, they
dramatically
jump-started a
process of
reconciliation
between Eastern
and Western
Christians after
centuries of
estrangement. In
1965 they
invited members
of their
churches to
begin getting
reacquainted
with one another
in a “dialogue
of charity”.
Fifteen years
later, in 1980,
the dialogue of
charity was
upgraded to a
“dialogue of
truth” with the
establishment of
a formal
theological
dialogue in
which each of
the
autocephalous
churches is
represented by a
bishop and a
theologian on
the Orthodox
side, with a
corresponding
number of
representatives
on the Catholic
side. The
dialogue
commission
decided to begin
with areas that
can be affirmed
together, and
gradually
approach the
church-dividing
issues on the
basis of these
shared
convictions.
This method has
been thus far
fruitful,
producing the
following
statements: “The
Mystery of the
Church and of
the Eucharist in
the Light of the
Mystery of the
Holy Trinity”
(1982); “Faith,
Sacraments, and
the Unity of the
Church” (1987);
“The Sacrament
of Order in the
Sacramental
Structure of the
Church” (1988).
The question of
authority in the
Church was
scheduled for
study at the
1990 meeting,
but was
forestalled by
factors
associated with
the political
condition of
life in the
former Soviet
Union and
Eastern Europe
and issues
around the
Eastern Churches
in union with
Rome (uniatism).
The Orthodox
insisted that
the dialogue
find a solution
to this problem
before
continuing with
a theological
agenda.
The Joint
Commission
produced a
statement in
1993 entitled
“Uniatism,
Method of Union
of the Past, and
the Present
Search for Full
Communion,” but
many Orthodox
still found it
unsatisfactory.
A meeting in
Baltimore and
Emmitsburg, MD
in 2000 failed
to resolve the
impasse. The
Holy See has
subsequently
pursued
relations with
individual
Orthodox
churches, an
orientation that
actually
corresponds more
naturally to the
decentralized
character of
their relations
among
themselves. In a
new and positive
development,
representatives
of all the
Orthodox
Churches
signaled their
readiness to
reopen the
theological
dialogue with
the Roman
Catholic Church,
and convened
under the
chairmanship of
Ecumenical
Patriarch
Bartholomeos in
early September
to determine the
dialogue's main
points. Cardinal
Kasper,
President of the
Pontifical
Council for
Christian Unity,
said that there
would be a
preparatory
meeting in
December and a
plenary in the
spring of 2006.
Pope John Paul
II took every
opportunity to
foster positive
relations,
designating a
church in Rome
for the
liturgical use
of the Bulgarian
Orthodox in
2003, and
another for the
use of the local
Greek Orthodox
community in
2004. In 2005 he
returned an icon
of great
devotion in
Russia, the Icon
of the Mother of
God of Kazan to
the Russian
Orthodox Church,
and the relics
of St. John
Chrysostom and
St. Gregory
Nazianzen to the
Ecumenical
Patriarch of
Constantinople.
Pope Benedict
XVI, who shares
John Paul II's
conviction that
we must learn to
breathe again
with both
lungs—the
Western and the
Eastern—went
first to Bari,
long the object
of pilgrimages
by Orthodox
because the
relics of St
Nicholas of Myra
have been there
for many
centuries, to
preach at the
24th
International
Eucharistic
Congress there.
It is likely
that he will
travel to
Istanbul for the
feast of St.
Andrew, blood
brother of Peter
and patron of
the Church of
Constantinople.
For its part,
the North
American
Orthodox-Catholic
Consultation
keeps moving
forward, issuing
a major study in
2003 entitled
“The Filioque: a
Church-dividing
Issue?” North
America, with
its sizable
immigrant
populations of
Eastern
Christians and
pluralist
societal context
of good
relations with
neighboring
Christian
congregations,
represents the
best terrain for
significant
advance at every
level in the
wider dialogue
that relates to
a sharing of
faith and
practice among
the members of
Eastern and
Western
Christian
churches. Now,
more than ever,
the local
churches are the
frontlines where
historic
divisions must
be overcome
through coming
to know one
another against
as brothers and
sisters in
Christ.
|
|
