The Catholic Church and Orthodoxy

                                                                                     Antoine Lévy, OP  

What we call nowadays the Orthodox Church - that is the communion of the self-governed Churches that claim to cling to the dogmatic, liturgical and spiritual tradition associated with the ancient Church of Byzantium - holds a very remarkable place in the present consciousness of the Catholic Church. There is no full communion between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches[1] – and yet, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Church possesses all the elements that belong to the true Church of Christ. A number of statements issued by the second Vatican Council make this point clear. Suffice it to quote a passage from the Decree on Ecumenism:

                  “Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth. All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church”[2]

                  In the eyes of the Catholic Church, the only thing which hinders the Orthodox Church from partaking of the fullness of the Church of Christ, which “subsists in” the Catholic Church[3], is the recognition of the actual primacy of the pope, bishop of Rome, over the whole Church. On one hand, this exceptional status granted to the Orthodox Church is due to the character of the historical events that have torn the two Churches apart. On the other hand it owes a lot to a modern rediscovery of Byzantine tradition’s spiritual wealth and ecclesial reality. Let us examine successively the two aspects.

                  1. The Catholic understanding of the schism between the Latin (Western) and the Byzantine (Eastern) Churches

                      Conventionally, the schism is dated from the year 1054, when Cardinal Humbert, sent by the pope Leo IX, placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople’s cathedral, a bull of personal excommunication against the Patriarch Michael Cerularios and his adherents, an act which was retaliated through a solemn condemnation (“anathematization”) of the Holy See’s doings by the Patriarch. A growing diffidence between the two Churches led to this unfortunate turn of events. “Latins” and “Greeks” had been disputing for a long time over their mutual practices (the use of the unleavened or the leavened bread for the Eucharist for example) and dogmatic issues such as the Filioque[4]. As a matter of fact, those issues bearing on rites and dogmas had started at the time of Patriarch Photius (+897), who disputed the right of the pope to interfere with the Constantinopolitan Church’s principle of self-governance (autocephaly), causing by the same token a short schism that foreshadowed the lasting separation between East and West after the XIth c.  

                      On the whole, since this controversy emanated from the East, the Catholic Church has understood the attitude of the Byzantine hierarchs and theologians as witnessing some will to shun the requirements aimed at preserving the unity of the Church of Christ. The popes saw these events in one line with the growth of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s political and ecclesial significance (rapidly superseding more ancient Patriarchates like Antioch and Alexandria), an evolution that the Holy See repeatedly tried to impede[5]. This explains that, contrary to the attitude of the Church of Byzantium, the Church of Rome has linked the fact of the separation to a denial of her own jurisdictional, liturgical and dogmatic legitimacy, rather than to the positive utterance of heretical opinions by the rival siege. Accordingly, the rupture of communion associated with the events of 1054 is, from the Catholic standpoint, one of the very few cases of schisms not implying a consistent heresy on the schismatic side.

2. The rediscovery of the Byzantine heritage

                      During the period that follows 1054, the Catholic Church has shown convinced that communion with the Church of Byzantium could be re-established by means of an ecumenical council: the way seemed open to find a theological conciliation between the Greek and Latin positions on the “Filioque” and conceive an institutional form that would combine the universal authority of the Roman Pontiff with the legitimate autonomy of Eastern patriarchates bound with Byzantium. Nonetheless, despite the increasingly threatened situation of Byzantium, seeking the support of the West to handle the military pressure of the Turks, all the attempts to conclude an agreement (Lyon 1274, Florence 1439) stumbled on the fierce resistance that a part of the Byzantine society opposed to any “betrayal” of the holy Orthodox faith in favour of the West[6]. The Patriarchate of Constantinople having lost its political dimension after the fall of Constantinople (1453) and the other Orthodox Churches, like the newly erected Patriarchate of Moscow (1589), showing no willingness to recognize the Roman primacy, a long period of strained coexistence and mutual ignorance ensued. In the course of centuries, at different places of the world, various Churches or groups that had dissociated themselves at some stage from the Orthodox Church, expressed the will to join the Catholic Church without having to abandon their Eastern and/or Byzantine rite (“Maronites” in Lebanon in the XIIth c., “Chaldeans” of Mesopotamia in the XVth.c; Ukrainians in the XVIth c.“Melchites” of Syria in the XVIIIth c., etc.). This phenomenon, called “Uniatism”, gave an unexpected dimension to the Holy See’s understanding of its universal presidency over the Church, which came to be forcibly proclaimed during the first Vatican Council (1870).  However, what about the status of those who, among the members of the Orthodox Church, obstinately refused to join the ranks of the “uniate” Churches?  To what extent had the denial of the communion with the Holy See altered the faithfulness of the Orthodox Church to the pristine Church founded by Christ?  During the first half of the XXth c., more and more catholic voices, originating either from the East or from the West, started to denounce a process of “latinization” which emptied from within the purpose of the Uniate Churches. Simultaneously, more and more Catholic theologians, from their contacts with Orthodox theologians and Russian culture, developed a keen sense of the spiritual originality and the true holiness that formed a living part of the Orthodox Church down to its present state. Henceforth arose a new consciousness of the Orthodox Church’s truly apostolic character at the eve of the second Vatican Council.

                      We understand better now the emphasis of the last Council on the proximity between the two “sister” Churches.  Many steps towards the re-establishment of the communion between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have thus been undertaken since then. The most significant one is certainly the common decision of pope Paul VI and patriarch Athenagoras (1965) to “lift  up the anathems (i.e. nullify the mutual condemnations)” issued in 1054. Besides, dogmatic issues have lost a lot of their acuteness, since John Paul the II, on his visit to Greece (2001), has recited the Greek version of the Credo that does not include the “Filioque”[7]. One should not however minimize the obstacles that are still on the way towards full communion between the two Churches. Beyond momentary difficulties linked to the aftermath of communist regimes in Central Europe (coexistence of Uniate and Orthodox populations on the same soil, new presence of Catholics in Russia), the problematic issue which came up during the early centuries of the Church is still actual: between the universal mission of the bishop of Rome and the legitimate autonomy of the Eastern Patriarchs, what is the appropriate mode of collaboration for the highest good of the whole Church of Christ?