Orthodox-Roman Catholic Relations Today

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

Where are the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Relations today? This article tries to get an answer from some of the work that has been done since 1980 and the beginning of the dialogues between the Vatican and the Orthodox Communion. In a brief article, we can only get a taste of the reality, but it should wet our appetite for more.

I. Three key documents
The first three documents of the dialogue, which includes all of the Orthodox churches, notably the Ancient (Oriental) Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox (Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarchates of Eastern Europe0 were published in the first years of the dialogue as follows:
- The Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity (Munich, 6 July, 1982)
- Faith and Sacraments and the Unity of the Church (Bari, 16 June 1987)
- The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God (Finland, 26 June, 1988).

Within eight years of the establishment of the theological dialogue in 1980 major points of doctrine and theology were discussed and common issues clarified by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. The intimate connection between the mystery of the Trinity and the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist and Orders were expressed, the hierarchical structure of the Church acknowledged, and the importance of apostolic succession for valid sacraments and the sanctification of the people of God were affirmed.

Much was happening in the world in the 1990’s. There were wars and rumors of war in the Balkans; the Berlin Wall came tumbling down with the end of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe — a new reality had to be faced. In the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue the focus was on “uniatism”, the Eastern Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Pontifical See of Rome. A document was developed called Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and Present Search for Full Communion (Balamand, Lebanon, 23 June 1993).The document rejected “uniatism” as a model. Yet the document was not entirely satisfactory to members of both sides.

II. The Ravenna Document
“Ravenna Document”, Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church, Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority (October 13, 2007), also known as the Ravenna Report, is a very important document which put the theological dialogue “back on track”, according to the overall plan for the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue. Before and after the release of this report, there were discussions about the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries of Christianity and it will continue to occupy the attention of the participants. This discussion responds squarely with the proposal of Pope John Paul II, that other Christian churches and ecclesial communions in a fraternal dialogue propose what the role of the Petrine ministry would look like in a reintegrated Christianity. There have been some premature proclamations of breakthrough and “unio subito”, but Bishop Hilarion, the “ecumenical officer” of the Patriarch of Moscow, in Vienna in 2010, was quick to point out that we are not there yet. There is much work yet to be done before that happy day arrives. Nevertheless, Ravenna is a landmark document and restores the hope that the work of the joint commission will continue to move forward with a steady and smooth pace.

III. Some Remaining Issues

One of the major issues remaining for Christian unity is authority and how it is exercised. The Ravenna document makes clear that a primacy of oversight (episcope) exists at all levels – local, regional and universal. This structure dates from early in the first millennium. It means that there is subsidiary – matters are best handled at the local level whenever possible. Regional authority or supervision is sometimes necessary to resolve matters of dispute between bishops in two or more dioceses. Finally there is a role for the patriarchal system and for Petrine authority at the universal or highest level, where the whole church is concerned. Benedict XVI rejected the title of Patriarch of the West. The idea that the Pope is the “first among equals” is sometimes used by the Orthodox, but it is not consonant with the teaching of the First Vatican Council of 1870. In the third century Irenaeus explained that the Church of Rome plays a unique role in the universal church, and is a guide to the apostolic faith for the other churches of the world.

Style is very important as well. While “the Church is not a democracy”, we no longer live in the Roman Empire; the political systems which exist today were not known in the first millennium. What we can learn from hundreds of years of constitutional monarchy and republican democracy, as well as from other models of human exchange and governance, are worthy of discussion, even if they are not necessarily adopted.
Conclusion
The East-West dialogue continues to explore the question of authority at all levels. There is common agreement that a recognition of leaders (protoi) is important to the life of the church and the continuation of the apostolic structure given to the church by Jesus Christ. The role of Peter among the Apostles and of the Bishop of Rome in the governance of the church in the first centuries and the first millennium sheds light on the search for unity and the future of authority in the church. Our thoughts and prayers accompany those who are entrusted with this study and forward movement.

(This article appeared in Bread Broken and Shared, May-June, 2013)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Russian Orthodox Church

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

Of great interest to those who study Eastern Orthodoxy is the Russian Orthodox Church, otherwise known as the Moscow Patriarchate. It has a long and venerable history with prominent heroes like Sts. Cyril and Methodius who created the Cyrillic alphabet and translated the Sacred Scriptures into the Slavic language. As our study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople indicated, there was a time when the whole world was Christian and there was great unity among all those who professed belief in Christ and were part of the great communion of churches which traced their origin to the Apostles.

The patriarchal system of government was in place for a thousand years and the identification of the Church of the East and the West was mostly geographical and political, based on whether it was part of the Western Roman Empire with its capital in Rome or the Eastern Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople (the New Rome).

The Russian Orthodox Church attributes its origin to St. Andrew and the conversion of Vladimir the Great in 988 at Rus, the capital of the modern Ukraine. With time Moscow became the capital city of what is called Russia today and it was nicknamed “The Third Rome”. From the time of its foundation until shortly after the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th century, the Russian Orthodox Church was under the patriarchate of Constantinople. Today it is in full communion with all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but it has its own patriarchate.

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) should not be confused with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) headquartered in New York, which was instituted in the 1920’s by Russian communities outside Communist Russia who refused to recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate headed by Metropolitan Sergiy Stragorodsky. The two Churches reconciled on May 17, 2007; the ROCOR is now a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The ROC also should not be confused with the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), an Eastern Orthodox Church in North America.

Salient Facts

The Russian Orthodox Church is said to be the largest of the Eastern Orthodox churches in the world; including all the autocephalous churches under its umbrella (e.g. Romanian, Serbian, etc.) it numbers over 150 million worldwide, which is half of the 300 million estimated adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Among the Christian churches, the Russian Orthodox Church is second only to the Roman Catholic Church in terms of numbers (Catholics number over a billion members.)

Monks, especially those from the monastery of St. Sergius, have had a lasting and important influence on the Russian Orthodox Church, as is true of monks in other Eastern Orthodox Churches. The authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, like that of other Eastern Orthodox Churches, is at the local levels with the priest and local congregation. It is considerably more collegial than the Catholic Church, and this is also true at the level of the bishops in synod. On the other hand, the patriarch is not another pope. He is “the first among equals” and the highest level of authority in the Church is vested in the Holy Synod which includes 7 permanent members and is chaired by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Primate of the Moscow Patriarchate.

“Although the Patriarch of Moscow has extensive powers, unlike the Pope he does not have direct authority over matters pertaining to faith. Some of the most fundamental issues (such as the ones responsible for the Catholic-Orthodox split) cannot be adequately and definitively addressed by a meeting of the Local Council and have to be dealt with by a council of representatives from all Eastern Orthodox Churches. The last time such a council was held was in 787. In 787 there was only a single Christian church. The split into Western and Eastern parts occurred with the Great Schism in the 11th century.” (Wikipedia Encyclopedia)

The Russian Revolution

We will not be able to go into the long and involved history of how Russia became dominant and the Ukraine became subordinate, and the ups and downs of the Russian Orthodox Church, including times of great religious fervor and decline, when the monks of St. Sergius brought religious reform to clergy and laity alike. However, we will add a few words about the Communist Revolution and its aftermath with the continuing growth of Orthodoxy in Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As I indicated above, there were those who refused to accept the authority of those appointed to the Patriarchate of Moscow under the Stalinist regime and these communities were “on their own” for the duration. They were reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 and were given autocephalous (self-governing) status.

Catholic/Russian Orthodox Relations

The Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue takes place with all the Orthodox Churches at the international level, and has two components: the dialogue of bishops and the dialogue of theologians. Generally speaking, they will not make decisions alone but will postpone such decisions until they can be made together. However there are a number of agreed statements that express common ground which are held by all the participants in the dialogues. The meeting in the 1990’s at Belamand on Uniatism did not receive this kind of consensus. Since the fall of Communism in Russia, there has been a great interest in moving toward Christian unity and relations have improved steadily. This began with Alexy II who died at the age of 69 on December 5, 2008. The present patriarch is Kiril I, “Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus” who was enthroned on February 1, 2009. He is very knowledgeable of ecumenical matters, having served as one of the Presidents of the World Council of Churches when he was Archbishop of Smolensk and Kaliningrad beginning on December 26, 1984. He appointed as his “ecumenical officer” (Head of External Relations) Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, formerly the bishop of Vienna in Austria, who is also an ecumenist.

Though relations have been cordial and there is genuine hope that the Pope (or his successor) may be able to visit the Patriarchate of Moscow at some future time, some tensions have emerged as a result of the creation of Catholic dioceses in Russia, later giving them an archbishop and metropolitan relations with the Vatican. This was seen as proselytism (“sheep stealing”) by the Orthodox and they let their feelings be known as a consequence.

Conclusion

Having studied both the Ancient/Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches in these several articles, it is rather easy to see how they dialogue with the Vatican and both how they differ and how they are alike. The Russian Orthodox Church enjoys a newfound freedom in the third millennium. It suffered persecution and domination under the Communist rule and continues to build the trust which is necessary to its mission.

While its relationship to Rome is more politicized than that of Constantinople, Moscow enjoys friendly relations with Rome, and a great deal of understanding was generated by Blessed John Paul II. Benedict XVI continues to promote these fraternal and cordial relations. Because the dialogue with the Orthodox Churches brings all of them together with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. They celebrate the unity of “almost full communion” at the Vatican and at the Phanar (in Istanbul/Constantinople) in prayer and some liturgical participation.

We have tried to indicate that theologically the Orthodox Churches are considered to be “sister churches” in a sense that is beyond the “real but imperfect” relation which the Catholic Church has with the churches of the Reformation and others of the West. This is the fundamental reason why according to Canon Law (#844, ¶ 2) for spiritual need and respecting the sensitivities of Orthodox communions, Eucharistic sharing is possible under certain conditions.

Though we have given a brief introduction to the Orthodox Churches in these articles, there is much more to be said and studied. I have learned much in researching these materials; I hope that you have as well.
(This article appeared in the March/April 2013 issue of Bread Broken and Shared)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Bishop Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

On February 4, 2013 the Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, the Reverend Robert Willis took the decision of the 35-strong College of Canons, made up of senior clergy and lay people from the Diocese of Canterbury, to St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and presented it to the Queen’s commission. Dr. Willis said “The decision we made this morning (January 11, 2013) is taken formally to London. They will say it is valid, legal and right and at that moment Justin Welby becomes in all powers the Archbishop of Canterbury.” He is the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury, succeeding Dr. Rowan Williams, the 104th who resigned at the end of 2012.

Bishop Welby is the bishop of Durham, the fourth-most-senior position in the Church of England, to which he was consecrated in October 2011 and automatically granted a seat in the House of Commons. Church of England bishops are appointed rather than elected, with a 16-member Crown Nominations Commission putting forward two names (a preferred candidate and a second candidate) to Downing Street. The U.K. Prime Minister then seeks approval from the British monarch, who is the supreme governor of the Church of England.

Before his ordination to the priesthood in 1992, Welby studied law and history at Cambridge University and then spent 11 years as an executive in the oil industry. After a decade in parish ministry, he was appointed a canon residentiary, and later sub-dean, of Coventry Cathedral. He served as dean of Liverpool Cathedral from 2007-2011.

Welby’s enthronement as 105th archbishop of Canterbury will be held March 21, 2013 in Canterbury Cathedral. He is married to Caroline and they have five children, aged 16-27.

Concerning his appointment, Bishop Welby said” I don’t think anyone could be more surprised than me at the outcome of this process. It has been an experience, reading more about me than I knew myself. To be nominated to Canterbury is at the same time overwhelming and astonishing. It is overwhelming because those I follow and the responsibility it has. It is astonishing because it is something I never expected to happen.”

Dr. Rowan Williams said: “I am delighted at the appointment. He has an extraordinary range of skills and is a person of grace, patience, wisdom and humor. He will bring to this office both a rich pastoral experience and a keen sense of international priorities, for church and world. I wish him –with Caroline and the family – every blessing, and hope that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion will share my pleasure at this appointment and support him with prayer and love.”

Ecumenical Significance

The goal of the movement for Christian unity, which the Catholic Church has embraced dramatically in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, is the visible unity of all Christians. Speaking of the Anglican Communion, the council emphasized that it has “a special place” because of its history, structure and influence among the Christian communions. Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Reform churches have been engaged in serious and continuous dialogue since the Second Vatican Council, and much progress has been achieved in the fifty years since the beginning of that council.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Common Celebration of Easter Closer

Posted on February 11, 2013 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

Catholic News Service announces that there is an increasing desire for the common celebration of Easter among Catholics and Orthodox especially in the Near East where families often are interchurch and a common date for Easter would help families as well as the expression of Christian unity.

Details are available at Catholic News Service

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What Does God Require of Us?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

The theme for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (January 18-25, 2013) is taken from the prophet Micah and was chosen by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the World Council of Churches. The theme was given to a working group in India composed of the Student Christian Movement of India (SCMI) which is marking its centenary and they involved the All India Catholic University Federation and the National Council of Churches in India in preparing reflections on the theme for the coming year.
“With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will God be pleased with thousands of rams, with tens of thousands of rivers of oil?…O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mi 6:6-8 ).

Those preparing the reflections decided to focus on the context of the great injustice to Dalits in India and in the church. The search for visible unity cannot be disassociated from the dismantling of casteism and the lifting up of contributions to unity by the poorest of the poor. The Dalits in India are the communities which are considered “outcastes.” They are the people most affected by the caste system, a rigid form of social stratification based on notions of ritual purity and pollution. The Dalits were placed outside the caste system and were previously called “untouchables”. Because of casteism the Dalits are socially marginalized, politically under-represented, economically exploited and culturally subjugated. Almost 80% of Indian Christians have a Dalit background.

Despite great progress in the twentieth century, the churches in India remain divided along the doctrinal divisions inherited from Europe and elsewhere. Christian disunity in India within churches and between them is further accentuated by the caste system. Like apartheid, racism and nationalism, casteism poses severe challenges for the unity of Christians in India and therefore, for the moral and ecclesial witness of the church as the body of Christ. It is both a church-dividing doctrinal issue as well as a moral one.
In this context the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity invites everyone to explore the text from Micah focusing upon the question: “What does God require of us?” as the main theme. The Dalit experience serves as the crucible from within which theological reflections on the biblical theme emerge.

While the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is observed in the northern hemisphere during the month of January, it is the peak of summertime in the southern hemisphere. Many churches and ecumenical agencies in the south prefer to schedule the observance of it at another time of the year, preferably in connection with Pentecost, when the church celebrates the descent of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of the apostolic mission to the world. The theme and reflections for the WPCU are appropriate throughout the year.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dutchess County Interfaith Council

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

The Interfaith Council of Dutchess County, New York celebrated its fortieth anniversary of faith and good deeds on August 23, 2012. The Gala Dinner celebrating the forty year legacy at Villa Borghese in Wappingers Falls, NY brought together many of the past presidents and board members as well as active members of the Council. Honorees were Rabbi Erwin Zimet, who served on the first Board of Directors, and his wife Lilli, the Reverend Hugh Miller, the Executive Director of the Dutchess County Council of Churches, and his wife Martha, who was the first Executive directory of the Duthcess County Interfaith Council, and Fr. Ernest Falardeau, SSS, first president of the DCIC. The guest speaker for the occasion was Imam Dr. Salahuddin M. Muhammad who is Senior Imam at Masjid Al Ikhlas (The Islamic Learning Center of Orange County), located in Newburgh, NY.

Early Beginnings

Rabbi Zimet, Rev. Hugh Miller and I served on the Planning Commission that explored the possibility of replacing the Dutchess County Council of Churches with the DCIC from 1970 through May 2, 1972 when the Interfaith Council was founded. It was one of the few interfaith councils in the United States. Taking the best features of the Council of Churches before its motion to adjourn “sine die” and from the five models of interfaith councils at various locations (town, city and county) the DCIC set out to bring people of faith and social awareness to work together with civic and private entities in solving some of the major problems since the 1970’s. Affordable housing for the aging was one of the earliest projects as well as participation in Crop Walk (a fund-raiser contributing to the World Church Service) for the hungry and homeless. Other programs included shared ministry at the County Correctional Center, Media (radio/TV), and ministry to singles. A Music Festival at the Vassar College Chapel provided a sharing of religious music in the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant traditions. This music festival also helped finance the work of the Interfaith Council.

Interfaith Dialogue

Pope Paul VI in his first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam wrote extensively on the purposes of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. His remarks on dialogue are extensive and suggest the idea of three concentric circles, all contributing to better understanding and the realization religious collaboration. These three circles are first the outer circle of interfaith dialogue, including people of good will who work for the common good; the second circle is the Christian dialogue with other churches, and finally the inner circle of dialogue within the Catholic Church. Paul VI emphasizes that what we have in common, namely faith in God and respect for other human beings, can be the foundation for a common effort for peace and justice. Ecclesiam Suam describes the thrust of the Second Vatican Council and the pontificate of Paul VI. It also continues the vision of Pope John XXIII for a renewal of the Church in the modern world.

In my first report as president of the DCIC I was quoted as saying “Enthusiasm, hope and courage mark our humble beginnings. Noble deeds must chart our future history, if we are to long endure.” As a community of faith, hope and love, the Dutchess County Interfaith Council has produced many significant “noble deeds” during its forty years of ministry. Most importantly it has brought people of faith together as friends and collaborators in a common cause for a better community and for people in need.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Coptic Orthodox Church

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

Among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Church is one of the outstanding. It is the Church of Alexandria, one of the five patriarchal churches and one of the churches founded by the Apostles, according to tradition, by St. Mark, who is its patron. It is predominantly the Church of Egypt, though it has many members from other parts of the world, including Iraq and other countries of the Middle East, as well as in the United States.

The Coptic Orthodox Church meets regularly with other Ancient Orthodox Churches in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church signed a Common Declaration on May 10, 1973 expressing the shared faith of Catholics and Copts especially in what concerns belief in Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God in language that reflects the Apostolic faith.
The Coptic Church is very proud of its ancient culture and heritage. Its Catechetical School was one of the two outstanding schools of the ancient Christian world, the other being the school of Antioch in Syria. Alexandria was a center of learning, culture and scientific discovery; Antioch was characterized by its exploration of the world of ideas, and other characteristics of the Eastern world. Alexandria was part of the Orthodox tradition though its culture was distinct from Rome and Constantinople and its theological ties with Rome were very deep

Origen who wrote over 6, 000 commentaries of the bible in addition to his famous Hexapla had a profound influence on the Alexandrian school and was one of its most creative theologians. Many scholars such as St. Jerome visited the school of Alexandria to exchange ideas and to communicate directly with its scholars. The school of Alexandria was not limited to theological subjects, because science, mathematics and the humanities were also taught there. Among the great Egyptian fathers of the Church was Saint Anthony, the world’s first Christian monk. St. Athanasius was Pope of Alexandria for 46 years from 327 AD to 373 AD. He was the great light of the Council of Nicea in 325. St. Cyril of Alexandria was the leading theologian of the Council of Ephesus in 451 AD.)
During the Arab conquest by Islam, the Coptic Church flourished. This is due in large measure to the fact that the Prophet of Islam had an Egyptian wife, and Mohammed instructed the Muslims to be kind to the Copts.
The Coptic Church was separated from the Church of Rome in the 5th century by the debates at the Council of Chalcedon. The Coptic Church was accused of following the teachings of Eutyches, who believed in monophysitism. This doctrine maintains that the Lord Jesus Christ has only one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine. Copts clearly believe in two natures “human” and “divine” that are united in one “without mingling, without confusion and without alteration “(from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures “did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye (also from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy.)

Catholic-Coptic Common Declaration (May 10, 1973)

In May 1973 Pope Paul VI and Pope of Alexandria Shenouda III signed a Common Declaration expressing together the common faith which Catholics and Copts share. It is a brief document incorporating common faith about God, Jesus Christ, the Church and the Sacraments, as well as traditions that have been preserved in both churches through centuries of history. There is a reconciliation and affirmation of the faith of both churches at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, though the wording of the declaration incorporates contemporary ecumenical understanding.

Pope Shenouda III has been a beacon of light for the Coptic Church and an important leader in the reconciliation of Christian Churches through the ecumenical movement and his participation in the work of the World Council of Churches as well as the Roman Catholic – Oriental Orthodox Dialogue. While Eucharistic sharing is a topic that remains an important consideration for separated Christians, the Coptic Church has not made any special overtures in this direction. It is my sense that such a move will be made jointly with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches.

(This article appeared in Bread Broken and Shared in March/April,  2011. It is reprinted because of deep interest in developments in Egypt at this time.)_____________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Eucharist in Eastern Orthodoxy

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

After Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athanagoras consigned the centuries old anathemas of 1054 AD to the “dust bin of history,” they pursued the dialogue of charity, i.e. encouraging Christians of the East and West to move toward faith in love. In 1980 Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios officially launched the theological dialogue with the Eastern churches. All of the Ancient Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox agreed to participate together with the Catholic Churches of the East and West in communion with Rome. In 1982 they were already able to publish their first agreed statement at the second meeting of the dialogue at Munich, June 30-July 6, 1982. The title of the agreed statement is: The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.

The Eucharist and the Church

The document signed at Munich is typical of the Orthodox view of the Eucharist and its inherent connection with the Church. Roman Catholics tend to simplify their faith in terms of acceptance of the infallibility of the Pope and his universal jurisdiction. Eastern and Ancient Orthodox Churches tend to express the core of their faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. It is in the light of the communion (koinonia) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that the Orthodox understand the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Eucharist. The Munich document, while it is not comprehensive, does show how the mystery of the Trinity, the Church and the Eucharist are all interconnected and a celebration of the same central mystery of the love of God who gave his Son to the world for its salvation, through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Incarnation of the Word made flesh. The same Holy Spirit completed the Christ event on Pentecost by the establishment of the Church, the body of Christ. And this same body is what we receive in the Eucharist in order to become the body of Christ which is the Church.

The Eucharist is the mystery of the Church in sacramental signs. It is the salvation of Jesus Christ made visible and present in the local church which is one with the universal church in a communion that is both eschatological and kerygmatic. This means it is both the paschal mystery realized in sacramental signs and a proclamation of the good news (gospel) of salvation in Christ through the Spirit who makes us one and holy.

Orthodox churches are characteristically aware that the local church celebrating the Eucharist participates in the liturgy celebrated eternally in heaven. Unlike the churches of the West that are immersed in history, the East is immersed in mystery. The East is more contemplative, poetic, and rich in symbol. Not that these are lacking in the West, but history has made the West more conscious of the sufferings of mankind. The Liturgy is a place to offer one’s own sufferings with those of Christ. The East is rather a place where one goes to liturgy to taste “a little bit of heaven” so that one can return to everyday life with hope and a sense that the shortness of life will open onto the everlasting, timelessness of heaven.

The Holy Spirit

Vatican II did much to emphasize the “epicletic dimension” of the Christian life. The Holy Spirit was often called the “unknown person of the Trinity”. In reaction to Aryanism in the early centuries of the Church, and other Christological errors, the liturgy of the West tended to be focused Christologically. For example many prayers dating from the fifth century onward, in the West, ended simply: “through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.” Prayers in the earlier centuries tended to be addressed to the Father, or to “God our Father.” This is the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Orthodox in general. The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil and the two Gregory’s) speak of the Father as God, simply. The Son is begotten by the Father, not born, but from all eternity he has the relationship of a son to a father. (Again, this is speaking humanly. When speaking of the Trinity, as Augustine put it, we are fully in the realm of analogy.) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The “filioque” question is one that is easy for Western Christians to minimize, but for the Eastern Christians, it is very difficult to understand in their tradition.

Epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit to give grace and salvation in Christ. In administering sacraments the view of the Orthodox is that the Spirit effects the sacraments, not the priest. The priest says the words and acts “in persona Christi” but the Spirit makes the sacraments happen. All the Orthodox formulas ask the Spirit to make the individual holy, transform the elements into the body and blood of Christ, etc. And so this term is very important for an understanding of the mystery of the Church and the sacraments.

The Celebrant of the Eucharist

Eastern Orthodoxy and indeed all Orthodox Churches are agreed that the celebrant of the Eucharist should be the presider of the faith community. As the Munich documents states explicitly, this is not merely a juridical requirement. It is rooted in the mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Church. The Trinitarian mystery in Orthodox understanding stresses the divinity of the Father. He is the “arche”, God who has no beginning, end or equal. The Son and the Spirit are not inferior “gods”. They are the Son (“eternally begotten from the Father” as the Nicean Creed says) and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father (“with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified” also from the Creed).

The Christological dimension of the celebrant is stated in both the East and the West as acting “in persona Christi”. In other words Christ gave the commandment to “Do this in memory of me” to the Apostles at the Last Supper, indeed to the Church. But this was not a democratic idea of “round robin” or “Who wants to celebrate today?” Paul’s letters make it clear that he chose presbyters and overseers (episkopoi) in each community he founded (cf. the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus). This doctrinal and theological foundation for the hierarchical nature of the Church was emphasized in the Second Vatican Council especially in Lumen Gentium’s discussion of the hierarchical nature of the Church (LG #18-29).

Finally, the Orthodox understanding of the Church is communion. It is modeled on the Trinity and also on the Word made flesh. The Church is the people of God, but not an amorphous crowd. It is a structured entity like the human body. There is a head; there are members with different functions. Everyone has his/her place. All of this grounding is not merely a matter of tradition, but of the understanding of the theology of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church and the way in which the Church is the visible expression of the Body of Christ which we become through the Eucharist.
(This article appeared in Bread Broken and Shared, September/October, 2012.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Eastern Orthodox Theology

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

Introduction

Our study of the Oriental Orthodox Churches suggests that our differences with them are more a matter of theology than a matter of faith. The agreed statements signed by the Holy Father and various patriarchs makes that clear. I think it might be useful to see the differences between Rome and Constantinople in much the same way. This is not to say that Eastern Orthodox theologians would all agree with me, but I believe it might help us to avoid magnifying our differences as we try to maximize our commonality in faith.

The Filioque Question

A classical example is the question of the filioque in the Creed Catholics and Protestants recite each Sunday. The Orthodox do not add the “filioque/and the Son” to the Creed fashioned by the Councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). The original expression, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says simply: “who proceeds from the Father.” The article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia under “filioque” reflects the complexity of the question. The expression is found in both Eastern and Western Fathers of the Church as well as in regional councils. These councils were writing against various heresies that claimed the Holy Spirit was not God, did not proceed from the Father or did not proceed from the Father and the Son. Both East and West were in accord about the faith. But as the cultural differences between both cultures became more and more pronounced, a difference of faith was asserted, even to the point of making it a matter of orthodox or heretical doctrine.

It is difficult to know who introduced the filioque into the Creed. Pope Leo III, (795-8816) while approving the expression advised that it not be added to the Creed. The reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15) is generally assigned as the time when the filioque was added to the Creed at Rome. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and later the Council of Florence (1439) decided that the Greeks (orthodox) should be allowed to recite the Creed without the filioque, and the West be allowed to do so with the addition. If the heat of debate had been lowered, the wisdom of these Ecumenical Councils would still prevail.

The Marian Dogmas

The Marian dogmas have a different history. The Eastern Orthodox recognize a special “sinlessness” for the Blessed Virgin Mary and they describe her death as a “dormition”. There was a time, and it lasted for over a thousand years, when the Church “breathed with both lungs”. East and West shared the same faith while permitting cultural and theological differences.

The main problem with the Marian dogmas for the Orthodox is that they have been defined by the Pope rather than by an ecumenical council. The Immaculate Conception (1854) was defined even before the declaration of Vatican I on Papal Infallibility (1870). The Assumption (1950) was declared to be a matter of faith (de fide) necessary for salvation. East and West share similar liturgical feasts for these Marian privileges, though each in its own way.

As Catholics, we rejoice that the Church has given new titles of recognition to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the declaration of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Those who work and pray for the unity of the Church know that there are real and difficult hurdles to overcome. Prayer, faith, hope and tolerance must find a way. Respect for ancient and venerable traditions will help.

The search for truth is not denying what others affirm, or rejecting what we profess to believe. It is rather seeing beyond our expressions of faith, the Lord of truth who calls us to love one another and to focus on what unites us rather than on our historic, cultural and theological differences.

Other Issues

There are many other theological issues that divide Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. They have to do with the minister of sacraments, the understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) when sacraments are celebrated, the nature of the Church, the relationship of the particular church/diocese and the universal church, to name a few. Eastern Orthodox have a moral theology and spiritual theology and mysticism of its own, as we do in the West. And so it is easy to find differences. The way forward is to find what unites us in faith, hope and love.

The Way Forward

The Catholic Church is not merely the church of the West. It also has Churches that have always had the culture and theology of the East. Rome must not impose its western ways on them. In the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church reaffirmed its commitment to allow the Eastern Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome to continue their long and venerable tradition. In the declaration of Belamand (1993) the Vatican and the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches agreed that uniatism is not the way to move forward toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the night before he died, and which the Church seeks.

The task of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue is, in love and mutual respect, to find the will of God for the Church in our time. If the Church allows different theologies and philosophies to exist, following Socrates, Plato and Aristotle—Thomas, Bonaventure, Scotus—Rahner, Von Balthasar and Lonergan, it can find a way to “make room” for theologies yet to be created for a better understanding of the great mysteries of our faith. The world has become a global village. There is room for everyone. But we must have the heart and the will to welcome all whom God calls to be our brothers and sisters in Christ, one flock and one shepherd.
(This article appeared in Bread Broken and Shared, March/April 2012.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Interchurch Families Meet in Minnesota

Posted on August 22, 2012 by Fr Ernest Falardeau, SSS

The American Association of Interchurch Families (AAIF) held its bi-annual conference under the auspices of the Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research in Collegeville, Minnesota from July 13 through July 15, 2012. AAIF is the American counterpart to the Association for Interchurch Families (AIF) of the United Kingdom and the Foyers Mixtes of France. The International Congresses held near Rome, July 24-28, 2003 at the Mondo Migliore Center, also included many participants from Austria and Germany.
Interchurch families “consist of two baptized Christians who are members of two different, and as yet separated Christian traditions, who have come together in the covenant of marriage to form one Christian family.”

This year’s American Conference consisted of three plenary presentations, the first on Friday evening, given by Dr. Darrell Jodock, Distinguished Professor of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College on “Living with Limits and a Sense of Humor: A Lutheran View of Intra-Christian Relations”. This presentation was a comprehensive view of ecumenism at this time from a Lutheran perspective, taking note of the historic Joint Declaration on Justification which was signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation in Germany on October 31, 1999. Dr. Jodock gave the audience a candid assessment of progress made since the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (1962-1965) which is being studied and remembered during its 50th Anniversary while planning for further progress for the celebration of the 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017.

The second presentation was given on Saturday morning by Dr. Donald Ottenhoff, executive Director of the Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research at St. John’s University. His topic was “Ecumenism in a World of Change”. Dr. Ottenhoff engaged the AAIF participants in a discussion of the kinds of change they had experienced in their lifetime. In the past the world was stable; today’s world is a place of change and instability. People are more mobile and relocate to distant places. There is less accountability. All of these changes have affected the ecumenical scene as well. Cardinal Walter Kasper in a talk in San Francisco said we face two dangers: that ecumenism remain a mere academic exercise; the other, that ecumenical activism focuses on spectacular events rather than on the slow, patient movement from below – sharing gifts, the ecumenism of life, ecumenical collaboration with a focus on our commitment to openness to the Spirit.

The third presentation was given on Saturday evening on “How Interchurch Family Prayer ‘Happens’: Models for Negotiating our Differences” by Daniel J. Olsen, PH.D, who received his Ph.D. in Constructive Theology from Loyola University, Chicago in 2008 with research on interchurch families. Using the model of Jesus the Liberator from Jon Sobrino and Virgilio Elizondo’s Galilean Journey, he indicated how this model might be helpful to interchurch families for enriching their prayer experience. He stressed that the future of the movement for Christian unity is with grass roots ecumenism; revisiting the concept of the border, of new language, Jesus as “soul of our soul” and the revealing Christ, could reveal the nature of prayer as relational, personal and communal. It is Christ forming not “a third church” but a family. It is recognizing that Christ lived “from the margins” and the interchurch families share this life in many ways.

The meeting in Collegeville did not make headlines, but it did draw the attention of Father Riccardo Burgana who wrote an article in L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, entitled “Ecumenism in the family” in the July 15th edition, commenting on the upcoming meeting and its significance for the Church and Christian unity.

(This article appeared in the Parish Bulletin of St. Jean Baptiste Church, New York, NY on Sunday, August 12, 2012.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment