Why Catholic-Orthodox reunion probably won't happen:
Five recent statements from Patriarch Bartholomew, and a reminder from 2009 Source
Compared to the reign of Benedict XVI there has been less talk in the current Pontificate of the reunification of Catholicism and the Separated Eastern Christians that accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (the "Eastern Orthodox") being a lot nearer or even imminent, but it has not entirely died out. We saw a bit of it when Vladimir Putin met Pope Francis last year. We are also seeing a bit of it now on the media, with Pope Francis in Constantinople on a visit that has already produced surprises such as the first papal prayer inside a mosque and the first time that a reigning Pope has publicly asked an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch for his blessing.
Do these gestures -- especially the second one -- presage an even more momentous step: the imminent reunion of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, or at least a tangible and concrete sign that such a union is imminent? We, of course, cannot predict the future, but if history is any guide what we will see tomorrow is going to be more of the same as in the last 50 years. Perhaps there will be another extravagant gesture, but by no means a declaration that the tragic division between the two is at an end.
There is also the misconception, never really spelled out but sometimes implied in Catholic reportage on Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogue, a reportage usually guilty of being very selective and politically correct with the news, that Bartholomew would reunite Eastern Orthodoxy with Rome were it not for Russian intransigence preventing him from doing so. Aside from the fact that the Russian Orthodox are hardly the only Eastern Orthodox who would refuse to unite with Rome at this time, we can read for ourselves some recent statements made by the Patriarch himself to his fellow Eastern Orthodox, statements that make it clear that Bartholomew is no "unionist". Below are some of those statements. (Emphases ours, and spelling corrected where necessary.)
The first is his speech in 2010 to the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the second largest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church in the world:
The holy 1st Ecumenical Synod drafted - dear brethren - the first Symbol of the Faith, which was later completed by the holy 2nd Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople in 381, with its five last articles. Both these holy Synods served the most sacred and loftiest purpose in the lives of Christians, which was none other than the unity, the concordance and the peace of the Church.
Through their dogmatic ruling, which is succinctly crystalized in the sacred Symbol, they outlined the "basics" of the Orthodox belief, every transgression of which places those who dare, outside the corpus of the Church.
At the Fanarion, in the old conference hall of our Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, among other depicted themes is artistically inscribed on its four walls the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople, which clearly denotes - in the likeness of a fiery circle - those sacred "basics", which no-one can possibly ignore or overstep.
It only took (much later on) the addition to the Symbol of one and only word: the familiar "Filioque", to create new cacodoxies and schisms and heresies, which, to this day holds Western Christianity a long way away from the Orthodox East.
The second is his speech at Mount Athos on October 2011:
The Ecumenical Patriarch said that he has repeatedly stressed in the past "the essential differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions." Referring especially to the dialogue with the Catholic Church he emphasized that the Orthodox Church always prays "for the union of all" and may not refuse herself when invited to a dialogue on the purpose of attaining this union, "as is desired by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself", but not without substantial conditions:
"Union is the ultimate goal, but before that there should be the identity in the faith."
"Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another" (University of Georgetown, 21 October 1997), added Mr. Bartholomew. He said further:
"Furthermore, it is not true that we overlook the preconditions to the union of churches, nor is it true that we overlook the differences which prevent union."
The reference to his 1997 speech in Georgetown is significant as it would seem to indicate that he has not changed the opinions he expressed during that speech, where (among other things) he spoke of the "ontological difference" between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and elucidated a very high bar for reunion between the two.
Compared to the reign of Benedict XVI there has been less talk in the current Pontificate of the reunification of Catholicism and the Separated Eastern Christians that accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (the "Eastern Orthodox") being a lot nearer or even imminent, but it has not entirely died out. We saw a bit of it when Vladimir Putin met Pope Francis last year. We are also seeing a bit of it now on the media, with Pope Francis in Constantinople on a visit that has already produced surprises such as the first papal prayer inside a mosque and the first time that a reigning Pope has publicly asked an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch for his blessing.
Do these gestures -- especially the second one -- presage an even more momentous step: the imminent reunion of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, or at least a tangible and concrete sign that such a union is imminent? We, of course, cannot predict the future, but if history is any guide what we will see tomorrow is going to be more of the same as in the last 50 years. Perhaps there will be another extravagant gesture, but by no means a declaration that the tragic division between the two is at an end.
There is also the misconception, never really spelled out but sometimes implied in Catholic reportage on Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogue, a reportage usually guilty of being very selective and politically correct with the news, that Bartholomew would reunite Eastern Orthodoxy with Rome were it not for Russian intransigence preventing him from doing so. Aside from the fact that the Russian Orthodox are hardly the only Eastern Orthodox who would refuse to unite with Rome at this time, we can read for ourselves some recent statements made by the Patriarch himself to his fellow Eastern Orthodox, statements that make it clear that Bartholomew is no "unionist". Below are some of those statements. (Emphases ours, and spelling corrected where necessary.)
The first is his speech in 2010 to the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the second largest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church in the world:
The holy 1st Ecumenical Synod drafted - dear brethren - the first Symbol of the Faith, which was later completed by the holy 2nd Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople in 381, with its five last articles. Both these holy Synods served the most sacred and loftiest purpose in the lives of Christians, which was none other than the unity, the concordance and the peace of the Church.
Through their dogmatic ruling, which is succinctly crystalized in the sacred Symbol, they outlined the "basics" of the Orthodox belief, every transgression of which places those who dare, outside the corpus of the Church.
At the Fanarion, in the old conference hall of our Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, among other depicted themes is artistically inscribed on its four walls the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople, which clearly denotes - in the likeness of a fiery circle - those sacred "basics", which no-one can possibly ignore or overstep.
It only took (much later on) the addition to the Symbol of one and only word: the familiar "Filioque", to create new cacodoxies and schisms and heresies, which, to this day holds Western Christianity a long way away from the Orthodox East.
The second is his speech at Mount Athos on October 2011:
The Ecumenical Patriarch said that he has repeatedly stressed in the past "the essential differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions." Referring especially to the dialogue with the Catholic Church he emphasized that the Orthodox Church always prays "for the union of all" and may not refuse herself when invited to a dialogue on the purpose of attaining this union, "as is desired by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself", but not without substantial conditions:
"Union is the ultimate goal, but before that there should be the identity in the faith."
"Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another" (University of Georgetown, 21 October 1997), added Mr. Bartholomew. He said further:
"Furthermore, it is not true that we overlook the preconditions to the union of churches, nor is it true that we overlook the differences which prevent union."
The reference to his 1997 speech in Georgetown is significant as it would seem to indicate that he has not changed the opinions he expressed during that speech, where (among other things) he spoke of the "ontological difference" between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and elucidated a very high bar for reunion between the two.
For the remainder of this post, please go to Rorate Caeli Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment