'The Myth of Schism' clarification

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshringsell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshringsell

Guest
Hi all,

Today I re-read David Bentley Hart’s article ‘The Myth of Schism’, if you’re not familiar with it, here is a link: The Myth of Schism - David Bentley Hart - Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Although an enlightening article, and one that I’m sure has hit home a little too hard for many Orthodox and Catholics, this particular portion stuck in my mind with regards to papal jurisdiction: ‘the very notion that the pope could possibly possess the authority to ‘appoint’ a patriarch in another see is an historical and theological nonsense for which the Orthodox should rightly have no patience whatsoever.’

Does anyone have any theological/historical arguments to back up this notion? Or even any Church Father quotes?

As someone who is in a constant internal conflict between Catholic and Orthodox, I’d like some peace of mind with these sorts of issues.

Thank you
 
What the Pope can do and should do are two different things. Catholic dogma on the Pope’s jurisdiction focuses on the abstract principles, because the “should” of every situation cannot be foreseen. The Pope appointing bishops, for example, is pretty new and was occasioned by certain circumstances (even then, there is a process that gives the Pope a few choices).

The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom.

But, sometimes he needs to take action to serve unity. For example, should there be a dispute as to the rightly elected Patriarch, the Pope would serve as the final court of appeal to settle the issue, so that peace would be resolved. Or say a See had been sufficiently corrupted that it became necessary for the unity of faith and charity that someone “outside” be appointed. That could serve unity.
 
I’m no expert however this is really one of the lead issues with Catholic and Orthodox reunification.
As far as I know, the Orthodox have absolutely no issue recognizing the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope) as the “first among equals”. Following the schism this went to the Bishop of “New Rome”( Constantinople). Historically it is a very complex issue which really begins following the collapse of the western Roman Empire. The fact is most people put the date as being in 1054 when the official schism occurred but it is so much more complex. Most people in the two rites just didn’t really think about it I suppose. The language barrier became more defined with time as the West spoke Latin and the east spoke Greek. The Bishop of Rome became much more powerful in a political sense whereas the patriarchs more or less lived in a state where they still were bound by emperors , or in the case of Antioch or Alexandria , Islam following the 8th century.

I have been Catholic my entire life and believe the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church however I at times have found myself agreeing with the Orthodox view more times than not. It’s one thing that bugs me about the new Trent Horn book, "Why We’re Catholic ". In one section it’s giving dates of when numerous churches were founded and it says “Eastern Orthodox-1054 by Eastern Patriarchs”. That is so far from the historical complex truth it is unbelievable. And I understand this is a Catholic website but we should acknowledge truth instead of lies. The schism was the fault of both sides. And in the 20 Answers booklet “The Church” it says Latin churches were forced to close in Constantinople. True but this was AFTER the Bishop of Rome forced the closing of Greek churches in Rome. And the sack of Constantinople in 1204 did nothing to help the situation. I think the first thing to do in reuninifictation is stop putting the blame on the other side. Both the east and the west made errors which led to the schism. Let’s be real with that.

As for your question, no it wouldn’t work in the current system. In order for reunification a council would need to be held, and this would probably be the most defining Council since the Council of Trent. The entire organization and hierarchy of the Church would be changed in order to bring reunificication. Certain dogmas would need to be changed. I’m sure the east and west would be able to retain their various traditions in view of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition however the Church would, and should for the cause of making the two one again would need to make some concessions. And the Orthodox would as well.

Making some concessions to the Orthodox is not admitting they were right and Catholics were wrong, or vice versa. Remember that Orthodox still are in apostolic succession, so in the eyes of the Church they are real successors of the Apostles, just in a state of schism.
 
To claim that the Orthodox Church was founded by anyone other than Christ, in the same manner as the Catholic Church, is just profoundly ignorant and prejudicial on that author’s part. Pre-schism Christendom wasn’t solely Latin-rite…amazing.

I suppose this is the point of the article though, both sides can become warped in their misguided intentions to defend their own position over and above fact.
 
Christ founded one Church–there is only one Church of Christ. At the time of the definitive schism (the 1054 date is debateble), particular churches–many of which founded by the Apostles, broke communion with each other–but since there is only one Church, both resulting communions cannot each be it. The Church of Christ cannot not be in communion with itself (pardon the double negative). In that sense a new society came into being at that time made up particular churches that at one time made up portions of the universal Church founded by Christ.

But yeah, it is misleading to say the EO churches were founded then (equating their founding with those of the protestant communities). As has been mentioned, the Catholic Church does acknowledge these particular churches as just that (it does not do so with respect to the Protestants).

That being said, the Catholic Church–in conformity with the Creed professing one Church–cannot admit that these churches are part of or participate in the subsistence (that permanent, perduring existence, identity, and oneness) of the one Church. And the EOs could not do so either from their perspective, if they want to be in conformity with the Creed (one thing that has hurt their identity as bearing that mark of onness, IMO, is they can and have situations where A is in communion with B, and B with C, but C and A are not).

The very point of ecumenism is to restore that communion in the one Church that will always exist as one, among all the particular churches (and all the baptized, for that matter) that are no longer one. If we were all already one, then there would be no need for the dialogues, etc.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Stumbling across this post interests me. I’m new and in RCIA. So why is the eastern chruch not in agreement with the Pope? Should I have any concern in this?
 
Last edited:
It’s complicated.
But for one thing, when we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they don’t like the “and the Son” part.
 
Could you please explain the comment on A being in communion with B etc, where has this happened?
 
Essentially at around the end of the first millennium and well into the beginning of the second, eastern and western Christendom became split for a huge variety of complicated reasons, mostly coming down to politics and theology.

Rome increasingly proclaimed universal primacy, which from their (our) perspective means that the supreme pontiff - the pope - has universal authority over the worldwide Church in all matters - a logical position for a universal body of diverse believers. The Orthodox Churches believe that Christ is the head of the Church (as do we Catholics), however, they have no central authority figure but rather patriarchs who are like head bishops of their respective patriarchates (originally made up of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem).

These patriarchs meet to discuss church matter at councils, which are believed to be infallible. EO Christians believe in only the first 7 ecumenical councils which all took place in the first millennium. The Catholic Church has had 21 councils.

There were also theological issues such as the filioque - the Latin addition of ‘and the son’ to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, so that it reads - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the son’__, as opposed to the original (still in use in the Eastern churches) which did not include ‘and the son’. This is acknowledged even by Catholics to have been inserted into the creed without ecumenical consent, however, it was done in order to combat the Arian heresy of the time.

From Rome’s point of view, unless a patriarchate acknowledges the dogma of papal supremacy, infallibility etc. they cannot be in full communion with the pope, and thus the Latin Church.

You should have no concern - however, if you want to read up on this there are plenty of books available on the subject. Both ecclesiologies have their pitfalls however I say it’s better to have the diversity and beauty of national church traditions under one roof - the papacy, rather than national churches split into patriarchates which has, unfortunately, lead to a degree of nationalism within Orthodoxy. Of course they would have their own views on this.
 
In the 18th century the patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril VI of Antioch because he was Pro-Rome. In his stead he appointed another patriarch of antioch.
Sounds like the EOC has patience for appointing the patriarch of another see when it suits them.
 
Most significantly in recent history it was the case in 1996 when Russia broke communion with Constantinople over the “re-activiation” of the Estonian Church under Constantinople’s jurisdiction, rather than Russia’s. This didn’t last long, but it was a huge deal at the time (the other Churches remained in communion with both). This was still a sore spot afterward for a while, with Russian delegations walking out of ecumenical dialogues when the Estonian delegation was present.

For a longer period, it was the case with ROCOR (they were not in communion with Moscow, but were with other Churches) until that was resolved in 2006.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top