Kiss and Make Up

"Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians, held a solemn prayer service together and re-committed their Churches to the quest for unity to patch up a nearly 1 000-year-old schism."

- First reported in November 2006

EAST IS EAST, AND WEST IS WEST...

I've been studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church lately - trying to verify or confirm the things that I've frequently heard and been told about Roman Catholics by both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

The Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Church and the Roman or Western Catholic Churches were originally unified as one body, but split over a variety of political and philosophical differences back in the 11th Century.

Pope John Paul II repeatedly referred to the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity as "the other lung" of the Church and did much in his lifetime to try and re-build the unity between them. Pope Benedict XVI is also committed to doing what he can to repair the fracture.

NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET?

Now far be it from me to even try and do what scholars and deep-thinking theologians on both sides of the fence have failed to achieve over centuries of discourse and debate, but, I can't help seeing that when I look objectively beyond the cultural and somewhat habitual practices of each side, I see differences that don't seem very far from being reconcilable. The two branches are much closer to each other in doctrine and dogma than many of the Protestant Churches, who see no problem in identifying themselves as united under one Denomination.

This issue goes very deep - and from my naive perspective, much of it comes from a perspective of what I'd call "preferred interpretation."

Many Orthodox and Roman Catholics that I have met can't really articulate beyond vague generalities when it comes to explaining why they should not be re-united, or even explaining why they're divided in the first place!!! You'll hear things like "Papal Infallibility," "Immaculate Conception of Mary," "Married Priesthood," "The addition of the Filioque,"and other serious sounding statements, but in reality, when I drill-down into these topics I see that it's really more a matter of placing emphasis on certain, rather narrow, aspects of the entire issue.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY - OR - NEVER SAY NOPE TO THE POPE!!

For example, the big issue of Papal Infallibility. According to the Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, a key document from the second Vatican Council:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith"

(Lumen Gentium 25)

To me this sounds no different than the principle of conciliatory fellowship that the early councils of the Church invoked when defining the foundational doctrines of the faith like the Nicene Creed that "nailed down" the verbal expression of the "mystery" of the Trinity and the Dual Nature of Christ. Now, an Eastern Orthodox Theologian might split hairs by saying that in Orthodoxy there is less of a hierarchy in their definition of "conciliar" - but I think it is just that - splitting hairs. The bottom line is that infallibility is a charism, or gift of the Holy Spirit, promised to Peter and the other apostles (and presumably their successors in time) who gather together in agreement on a matter.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

- St. Matthew 16:19

THE FILIOQUE - OR LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON


Another big issue is the "addition of Filioque" - which, in Latin, refers to the phrase "and the son," which was added to the 4th Century Nicene Creed by the Roman branch of the church and created much controversy between the East and West for several hundred years!!!

Pre-Filioque, the relevant section of the Creed reads:

"....And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

Post-Filioque, the Creed reads:

"....And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

Again, in this matter, the Eastern Orthodox Theologians view this as an hierarchical change in the authority of the Father within the Trinitarian unity. However, most Catholics that I've discussed this with do not see this issue - they seem to interpret it to mean, and this is supported by many scripture references, that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son", or as others have expressed it "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son". Which, to me, does nothing but clarify or attempt to add definition to the statement. I don't see it as changing the intention of the original. The bottom line on this is that I've heard it reported that Pope Benedict XVI himself said that he saw no problem in omitting the filioque, as long as the intended meaning of the Creed was preserved!!

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY - BABY, WAS SHE BORN THROUGH NONE?

The final issue in the East/West topics that I mentioned is the "Immaculate Conception of Mary."

This "dogma," according to critics of the Roman Catholic church was "revealed" in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. What I'd heard was that it proposed that Mary's conception was, like Jesus, immaculate, i.e. occurred via the actions of the Holy Spirit, rather than by human intercourse. That's what I'd heard. With that understanding I could see why this would outrage the Orthodox and Protestants - it implied that Mary was divine in nature. However, on researching the dogmatic statement directly from the Catechism I see this:

"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph #491

This Dogma does not state that she was conceived immaculately - it only states that through an act of God's grace, at the moment of conception, she became sanctified. Which is exactly the same position that the Eastern Church takes on her status in the church! In the Orthodox Church the teaching is that when the Holy Spirit comes upon us and we are united with Christ spiritually - we begin the process of become divine - we are on the path to achieve "Theosis" - Divinization. This status could not be denied Mary because she was both physically united with Christ in her body, and therefore was indwelt by Him, as well as in her spirit. In fact, Orthodoxy teaches that the process of humanity's salvation began at the Annunciation of Mary - when she said "Yes" to God. (St. Luke 1:26-55) The bible clearly states that Mary was "favored by God," or "full of grace". And being full of grace does not leave room for anything else!!

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM JOIN 'EM

So, I'd like to try and do my part to bring the East and West together.

I found out that "technically" being Eastern Orthodox is basically like holding the "Trump Card" in all denominations of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church does not consider me to be an outsider to their branch of the Church, and I can take communion there. It is merely a formality of joining a Parish. Apparently, the opposite does not stand true for the Orthodox - a Roman Catholic is not allowed to take communion at an Orthodox Church.

Stay tuned......as I'm sure the plot will thicken!!!