ORTHODOX & CATHOLIC TOGETHER: MONREALE CATHEDRAL IN SICILY
…who can penetrate the ways and will of God, and why did each branch (Orthodox and Catholic) have to work out its separate way to salvation? Each accumulated its wisdom and knowledge according to the minds of different peoples; each became rich in a spirituality that goes deep into the nature of things, so that today both sides have stored great treasures, which, if joined together, may yet bring the world more peace and joy than we understand or can imagine.
(Princess Ileana of Romania: from “The Spirit of Orthodoxy)
When I read these words in the post on “the Spirit of Orthodoxy”, I immediately thought of the cathedral of Monreale, some miles out of Palermo in Sicily which is a glorious example of what happens when East and West collaborate. Built in the second half of the 12th Century, over a hundred years after the usual date for the schism, Norman stone masons, Sicilian and Byzantine artists, worked together in harmony to give us a wonderfully coherent vision of what the Faith is, and of a Latin-Orthodox common understanding on what a church ought to be like.
However, about fifty years later, the breath-takingly beautiful cathedral of Amiens was built. In the Byzantine style, the designers use icons to portray the union of heaven and earth brought about by the Incarnation and celebrated in the Mass; while,in Amiens, they used light to illustrate the same thing in a way that must have been extremely startling at the time the cathedral was built. Advances in technology allowed them to build huge windows; and this was accompanied by a theology of light that Orthodox commentators often say the West didn’t have. The good news is the spiritual depth shown in this style: the bad news is that we now had an architectural style different from that of the Orthodox in a context where, to an ever growing extent, neither side would tolerate differences in the other.
What was the root cause of the split that turned even legitimate differences, even ones that had caused no problems in the first centuries, into divisive evidence of heresy? The Orthodox say it was papal power; but I believe papal power and the shape it took, and the hostility shown to it in the East, were a consequence of something else, not a cause.
I believe that the root cause, the cause behind all other causes, was what happened after the conversion of Constantine. As an introduction to the problem, listen to “Constantine without Eusebius” in which the American Orthodox historian and theologian, Richard Schneider, looks at the real Constantine behind the propaganda.
The Church elevated the newly converted Emperor and his successors to a role they could not fulfil and projected onto them a sanctity they did not have. This is what the Orthodox Information Centre says of the Byzantine emperors:
The ideology that had prevailed since Constantine (4th century) and Justinian I (6th century)—according to which there was to be only one universal Christian society, the oikoumene, led jointly by the empire and the church—was still the ideology of the Byzantine emperors. At the heart of the Christian polity of Byzantium was the Emperor, who was no ordinary ruler, but God’s representative on earth. If Byzantium was an icon of the heavenly Jerusalem, then the earthly monarchy of the Emperor was an image or icon of the monarchy of God in heaven; in church people prostrated themselves before the icon of Christ, and in the palace before God’s living icon – the Emperor. The labyrinthine palace, the Court with its elaborate ceremonial, the throne room where mechanical lions roared and musical birds sang: these things were designed to make clear the Emperor’s status as vicegerent of God. ‘By such means,’ wrote the Emperor Constantine Vll Porphyrogenitus, ‘we figure forth the harmonious movement of God the Creator around this universe, while the imperial power is preserved in proportion and order.” The Emperor had a special place in the Church’s worship: he could not of course celebrate the Eucharist, but he received communion within the sanctuary ‘as priests do’- taking the consecrated bread in his hands and drinking from the chalice, instead of being given the sacrament in a spoon – and he also preached sermons and on certain feasts censed the altar. The vestments which Orthodox bishops now wear are the vestments once worn by the Emperor in church.
This ideal of “only one universal Christian society, the oikoumene, led jointly by the empire and the church”, had little relationship to world-wide political realities and was a recipe for schism.
Firstly, there were the “Assyrians” who belonged to the Persian Empire that was often at odds with Byzantium. They were not invited to the ecumenical council of Ephesus because the emperor only invited bishops within the Empire, but they were expected to accept the formula of that council, Greek words, when their own language was Aramaic, the language of Christ. On refusing to do so, they became Nestorian heretics.
Then there were those in Egypt and the part of Syria that was under the Byzantine yoke who wanted independence from Byzantium. Theology and politics were so mixed up that they became Monophysite heretics. After all, if the Council of Chalcedon was called and sustained by imperial authority, then why should churches that rejected that authority obey its decrees and change the language they normally used when talking about the Incarnation? Those who accepted the definition of Chalcedon were called “Melkites” or “king’s men”, a political title if ever there was one. Of course, if they had been westerners, they would have had no difficulty, because Pope St Leo and company believed the legitimacy of the council was based on papal authority derived from St Peter, even if the emperor helped the Church by summoning the bishops.
The retreat from western Europe of the Roman army happened quite early on in the Christian empire and forms the context for the legend of King Arthur and the Round Table in Britain. While Justinian I (527 – 565) reconquered much of the Western Empire from the barbarians, and Rome itself was nominally under Byzantine authority for the next two hundred years, it was utterly beyond the resources of the Empire to fufil even the basic functions of the state. It could neither defend the borders, nor could it keep order within them. Western Europe descended into chaos. The only bastion against chaos was the Roman Church. Western Europe learned that it could not look to Byzantium for anything: the Byzantine solution to Church-State relations simply didn’t work in the West. Thus the crowning of Charlemagne on Christmas Day, 800, or something like it, was inevitable. However, even that failed to unite the various Christian nations under one banner; and separate Christian countries threatened to divide the Church. The Church responded by ever growing centralisation under St Peter.
The Orthodox could only hold on to the unrealistic myth of “one universal Christian society, the oikoumene, led jointly by the empire and the church” by calling in question the orthodoxy of western Catholicism, which they did with gusto: a recipe for schism.
I wish I could end there. I could look across the divide and exclaim, “It was all your fault”; but that would be unfair; and we have been unfair to each other for a thousand years. Let us look now at the damage done by the ghost of Constantine on the western, Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church did not reject the notion of a world-wide Christian society: the existence of such a society was believed in by both East and West; but it identified this world-wide Christian society with itself: the disunity and even chaos that reigned in western civil society made it impossible to look to the emperor or any other civil authority to hold it together; though the Frankish emperors wanted to claim such authority – what emperor, given the chance, wouldn’t; which is why the emperors wanted the pope to make the “filioque” a necessary part of the Creed, to catch the Byzantine emperor on the wrong foot, turn him into a heretic, and thus forfeit his position as God’s representative on earth. The Popes, however, without denying that the Church is the body of Christ centred on the Eucharist, increasingly saw the Church as the universal Christian society, held together by papal jurisdiction; and he became the ”image or icon of the monarchy of God in heaven”. Emperors, kings and peoples only belonged to that society by belonging to the Church and accepting the pope in this position: a recipe for schism, at least, when applied to the East.
However, it is difficult to see how the popes could have acted otherwise. There were times when the very existence of western Christian civilisation rested on their shoulders, while raising the standards of Christian life entailed a constant intervention. The Church was one, but the states were many, even after the crowning of Charlemagne; and they were often at war with one another. Worse, each local ruler saw himself as heir to the now defunct Roman Empire and wanted to exercise control over his part of the Church. Dioceses queued up to have their bishops appointed by Rome: anything was better than leaving the appointment to the local king or baron. Worldly bishops and monasteries used the chaos to escape their obligations.Papal authority had to transcend these divisions. This centralisation wasn’t just the work of power-hungry popes. Some were power hungry, but some were saints: it was the only solution for Western Christianity. It was a battle between ordered Christian society and tribal chaos.
In the East, Christendom was made up of Church and State acting in harmony, which was all very well until Islam conquered Constantinople. Without an emperor, Orthodoxy lost the ability to act in a coordinated way, and, lacking any kind of centre, it eventually divided itself up into a number of regional patriarchates, some of which act towards each other as though they were sovereign states and jostle for position and influence in the Orthodox world. This is sometimes accompanied by a nationalism which borders on zenophobia. It is strange that a church which quite rightly accuses Catholicism of forgetting the strong dimension of eschatology in the Mass and in Christian life in general should have so mixed up Orthodoxy and Hellenism or Orthodoxy and Pan-Slavism. The Early Fathers, like the writer of the Letter to Diognetus, believed that, although Christians live on the earth, they are citizens of heaven; and they believed that such a strong connection between religion and nationality is a characteristic of the old pagan religions and is contradicted by Christianity.
Because there is no way that these “autocephalous” churches can coordinate, where there is immigration from various Orthodox countries to a place outside their canonical boundaries, there is a plethora of bishops, each caring for his own ethnic flock, each covering the same territory. This is recognised as a weakness in America, and efforts are being made to integrate the different ethnic churches into a single American church. Some even believe that the situation shows the need for some kind of universal primate.
There is no universal pattern of how an autocephalous church is organised because each has its own history which is reflected in the relationships between the component dioceses. In Greece, the dioceses are held together in a rather loose way, while the Russian Orthodox Church is highly centralised. Neither is there a universally accepted theology of primacy apart from “Orthodoxy is right and Rome is wrong.”
Seeing the Church as a “universal Christian society” unified under the jurisdiction of the pope was not, a denial of what we now call eucharistic ecclesiology. Indeed, St Peter Damian, one of the main architects of the reformed papacy, had a wonderful understanding of the Church which was was centred on the Eucharist. His concern was Church reform and the only practical way of bringing it about, through a reinforced papal authority.
Nevertheless, since Law fascinated people at that time, and lawyers were held in as high esteem as scientists nowadays, legalistic thinking gradually transformed almost all aspects of Christian thinking, so that the purpose of the Incarnation was to allow Christ to make adequate satisfaction on the Cross to the feudal Lord in the sky. Hell and Purgatory became two different classes of prison to which you were sent according to the gravity of sins committed. Other understandings of salvation were not denied, especially if they were in the Church Fathers; but they didn’t speak to these generations with the same force, except in certain theologians and mystics. The prayer life of the Church was always much wider and deeper than the explanations of theologians.
I
In this climate, the western Church lost the distinction, even the contrast, between authority as exercised by the state, an authority backed by force, and authority in the Church which is backed by a certain kind of ecclesial love. This love is the fruit of the Eucharist and is the concrete evidence of the Presence of the Holy Spirit. As St Ignatius of Antioch wrote: the Roman Church presides in love. The purpose of this presiding is to make the world-wide communion in love that springs from the Eucharist into a working force for the good of the world and for its own members. However, without ecclesial love, it ceases to function. Just as the Byzantine emperor lacked authority in the West because he lacked force, so papal authority and any other kind of church authority cannot function when ecclesial love is missing.
East and West ceased to recognise each other because they ceased to love one another. Only lack of love made it possible to look at one another and say, “I have no need of you.” Each interpreted what it saw in the other from its own very different experience. The Orthodox saw pride in the papal claims, while the Catholic Church saw survival. The West saw in Orthodox rejection of papal claims, not Christian churches rejecting a power that was simply irrelevant to the very different needs of the Orthodox East, but the corrupt self-interest of the bishops and monasteries in the West who resisted the movement of very necessary reform coming out of Rome. Neither could see the other from its own point of view.
It was made worse by the enmity between the two empires. The Western Empire adopted as a weapon the “Filioque” clause, thus turning an awkward difference with which the two sides had managed to live over the centuries into a bone of contention. Succesive popes resisted pressure to put the “filioque” in the Creed, but eventually gave in when schism seemed certain and when he wanted help from the emperor. It was a thoroughly bad move; not a sign of papal strength but of papal weakness, and I believe that the “filioque” will have to be removed in any reunion, not for doctrinal reasons but for liturgical ones. In the Creed we celebrate our common faith. “Filioque” cannot be translated into Greek without distorting its meaning: it must go.
- What are the signs that we may have begun the long way back to reunion? There is the new context in which we live. We no longer live in two totally different kinds of society which cause us to become more and more different: the world has become a much smaller place, and people are sharing their lives across the globe.
- In this world we have a common enemy, secularism, which is becoming less and less tolerant all the time. Patriarch Kiril of Moscow has suggested that we leave our doctrinal differences to one side and concentrate on combining to bear witness to Christian Truth in a secular world and to work together in the re-evangelisation of Europe. Pope Benedict XVI was in agreement, and cooperation has already started. Only a little time back, Catholic and Orthodox joined together in Paris to do a campaign of street evangelisation to mark the Year of Faith. By cooperating together we will learn to trust and love each other; and by loving each other we will be eventually able to say the Creed together with one mind, as the Divine Liturgy tells us. How terrible would it be if the theologians were to come to an agreement before we come to love one another: such an agreement would only lead to more divisions. It has happened before.
- We now have an agreed model of the Church to form the context for our discussions on our agreements and differences. Both sides accept a eucharistic ecclesiology, an understanding of the Church based on a common understanding of the Eucharist, not in abstract, but as a concrete assembly. There is complete agreement on the Eucharist, and this agreement forms the basis for any future agreement on the nature of te Church. However, I know from the internet, that many Orthodox are either unaware of this agreement, or think it is more Orthodox to repeat the arguments from the past as though they still have validity. The good news is that they don’t: scholarship has left such arguments like those over the epiclesis versus the words of institution far behind.
- We often now use the same words and mean the same thing. Thanks to the friendship between the exiled Russian theologians in Paris and their Catholic counterparts before and during Vatican II, Orthodox concepts like theosis and synergy have entered the mainstream of Catholic theology, and an exchange of ideas is becoming more and more common.
Let us now turn our attention to a wonderful monument to past East – West cooperation. May it inspire us to support more cooperation in the future. Here is an article from 2006 which contains the description of a visit to Monreale by the great liturgist Fr Romano Guardini.
THE LATEST ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN
(please click above)
FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD
parts nine and ten
out of fourteen
on a book on the sacraments
with the same name by Fr A. Schmemann
Source:
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).