[Part 1] East and West: Standing at the Crossroads
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
My thoughts towards Eastern Orthodoxy are complicated. As some of the readers of this blog or followers from my Twitter account may know, I was once a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly with in the jurisdiction known as the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). In all, I regularly attended Divine Liturgy and Vespers at a parish for about a year and a half in total, a year of which was spent as a catuchemen preparing for baptism. I began attending in late 2021, became a catechumen on Lazarus Saturday in 2022, and told the priest I was withdrawing from the catechumenate in March 2023. Given my subsequent switch to the Catholic Church after a brief stint in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), some people may be interested why I have made this switch. In this essay I will attempt to explain this, however, I will likely be explaining it in a very round-about fashion, one that meanders through history, sometimes interspersed with my thoughts, sometimes with relevant quotations, and eventually getting to my point. I don't necessarily intend to give a personal story, but I will provide a great deal of the evidence and considerations that led me to eventually choose to become a member of the Catholic Church at the end of March 2024, when I was confirmed.
This essay will begin with a definition of my terms in relation to the subject matter, and then precede into a historical summary on the nature of the East-West division, particularly on how it is often more ambiguous than one may think in some senses, and quite stark in others.
Following this, in another essay to follow this one, I will come to give my reasons for why I think the papacy is present in the first millennium among many of the prominent fathers and saints, as well as in the ecumenical councils of the Church. Then, I will speak briefly on the Filioque, and certain questions regarding epistemological concerns before summarizing my thoughts and encapsulating my ultimate decision.
Eastern Orthodoxy?
First, as a point of departure, I feel as if I must define the subject matter. When referring to "Eastern Orthodox" or "Orthodox" within this essay, I am specifically referring to the world's second largest Christian tradition, the spiritual tradition of some 250 - 300 million Christians, centered primarily in Russia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Holy Land, jurisdictionally-organized into fourteen (or sixteen) self-governing ("autocephalous") churches, mostly drawn along national lines, each headed by their own patriarch or metropolitan bishop. In this essay I will not primarily be concerned with groups such as so-called 'True Orthodox', 'Old Calendarists' or 'Old Believers', even though ecclesiologically speaking, these groups would seem to possess, just as the mainstream Orthodox Church does, valid orders and sacraments.
The Ambiguities of Separation and the Nature of Schism
It is commonly accepted that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox are two separate communions, long separated from one another since the mid 11th century. This notion, however, is not exactly supportable from the surviving historical data, making the interrelation of these two communions vastly more nuanced and complicated than one may first think. Even during the first millennium, there were many periods during which the East and West were out of communion with each other for varying lengths of time. For centuries before the schism happened, there were tensions brewing under the surface over a myriad of issues, such as practices relating to fasting customs, priestly celibacy, the use of azymes in the Eucharist, the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the creed, and many other things. Referencing the observations of Fr. Louis Duchesne, Erick Ybarra says that "The Great Schism between the Latins and the Greeks did not happen from one bad fight in the eleventh century... Rather, something borne by both sides was already brewing for a long time, which eventually led to the separation" (Ybarra 27-28). I happen to concur with this view in light of my own research. A mere look at the often fraught relations between the East and West reveal that the symbolic date of 1054 had many precursors between the time of the movement of the capital to Constantinople in 323, and the seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787. To quote Ybarra at some length in his summary of Duchesne:
"Fr. Duchesne begins with the fourth century, from the Council of Sardica (343) which had defended St. Athanasius from the Arians, until the episcopate of St. John Chrysostom (343-398), counting a total of fifty-five years where the great Sees of Constantinople and Antioch were severed from Roman communion. Into the fifth century, on account of the dispute over St. John Chrysostom (404-415), he counts eleven years. From 484 to 519, on account of Acacius and the Henotikon of the Emperor Zeno, he counts thirty-five years when all Eastern sees had been outside of visible communion with Rome. On account of the Monothelite controversy, the Eastern sees were out of communion with Rome forty-one years, he records. Finally, on account of the iconoclastic controversy, Fr. Duchesne counts sixty-one years during which the East had lacked communion with Rome. This totals 203 years of a severance in communion between Rome and sizable portions of the East between the marked years of 323 and 787, which is a span of 464. That converts to 44 percent of the time where there was a rift between the East and Rome during that span of time (323-787) (Ybarra 28)
And of course, this is not to mention later disputes such as that of the so-called Photian schism in the 9th century. It is ironic in light of this, Ybarra observes, that the span of time in question above, the so-called 'age of the Ecumenical Councils' "is the time most perceive as the "golden era" of the "undivided church"" (Ybarra 28). Clearly, things are not as simple as they might seem to be.
The immediate precipitating events of 1054 are tied with the pontificate of Leo IX (1049-1054), a reform-minded Pope intent on reorganizing the Roman Curia and asserting papal authority over and above abuses such as royal investiture, simony, and discipline-related issues such as clerical marriage. Intent to preserve the freedom of papal territory from political interference, Leo IX personally led a military force into southern Italy with the arrival of the Normans, who had begun to encroach on the patrimony of St. Peter. Southern Italy during this era remained Byzantine territory, and the Byzantine court and Church in the East detested the papal encroachment even more than they did the Normans, but even more than this, it was Leo's holding of a reform synod in southern Italy in a region traditionally under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which would have momentous ramifications in the history of the Church. Leo appointed a close advisor, Cardinal Humbert of Moyenmoutier as archbishop of Sicily, which had just been retaken from the Muslims by the Normans. The Normans favored a Latin church structure. The result was fury from the Patriarch of Constantinople, a certain Michael Cerularius, who was by all accounts anti-Latin in the extreme, who responded to the perceived interference in southern Italy by closing down all Latin-rite churches in Constantinople, and launching attacks on Western liturgical practices such as the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Mass, among other things. Pope Leo would soon pass away, but the tensions did not cool down, coming to a head in July of 1054 when Humbert, acting as papal legate, entered the church of Hagia Sophia and laid down a bull of excommunication against Michael Cerularius and his adherents on the altar. Shortly thereafter, Michael Cerularius would respond, excommunicating the Pope, who, in fact, was already dead at this time (Duffy 116-117).
The whole situation was tragicomic, especially when we read the bull of excommunication issued by Humbert, which attacked the Greeks for practices such as clerical marriage, saying it was similar to the heresy of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15), Pneumatomachianism (denial of the full divinity of the Spirit) for denying the procession of the Spirit from the Son (the Filioque), Donatism, for saying only that the Greeks had the true baptism, and their practice of rebaptizing Latins, as well as the refusal of the Greeks to receive in communion priests with tonsured hair and shaved beards (a practice of the Roman church), and numerous other things, for Michael was sowing daily "innumerable tares of heresies". Michael Cerularius the other hand was no more inclined to be irenic in these matters, attacking the Latins for their unleavened bread, their clean-shaven clergy, the Filioque, and other causes. Indeed, Cerularius himself believed that the Donation of Constantine was a legitimate document (as was universally believed in this era of course), and that the supreme authority over the world Church bestowed by the emperor on the Roman bishop was now transferred to Constantine's New Rome (Constantinople) according to the 12th century canonist and Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon (Chadwick 210-211).
The tragedy here comes, on one hand, from the great ignorance exhibited by both Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert alike. Both of them misunderstand one another, both of them in some cases believed flat-out falsehoods about the other, relied on forged documents, or on the authority of a Pope who was already dead at the time. A greater appreciation for adiaphora ('indifferent things') would have prevented much of this situation. Already from early on in the Church, people were aware of fact that practices and customs were not the same everywhere. Sometimes, this could lead to conflict, such as when Pope Victor was determined to excommunicate the churches of Asia over their custom of celebrating Easter on 14th of Nisan, in common with the Jews, but at variance from the practice of Rome.
There were also more irenic approaches to the matter though, are particularly well-exhibited by St. Augustine, who touches on the question of adiaphora in his Letter 54, written to a certain Januarius. After briefly discussing the practices that are common to the entire Christian world, Augustine turns himself over to the differences, writing:
"[T]here are other practices which vary from place to place and region to region. For example, some fast on Saturday and others do not; some receive daily the body and blood of the Lord in communion, while others receive only on certain days; in some places no day passes without the Sacrifice being offered, while in other places it is offered only on Sunday. And whatever else of the sort one notices, this whole kind of practice is open to differing observation according to choice, nor is there any discipline in these matters better for a serious and prudent Christian than to act in the way he sees the church acts to which he may have come. For what is proved neither contrary to the faith nor to good morals should be regarded as indifferent and should be observed in accord with the society of those with whom one is living (Letter 54, 2)
Thus, in the view of Augustine, these matters are not essential to the faith, but are pious customs which should be honored and observed when one is among those who practice them. Unsurprisingly, he condemned the opposite practice, i.e. that of demeaning and criticizing these indifferent things:
"I often saw with sorrow and grief that many of the weak are upset by quarrelsome stubbornness or superstitious timidity of certain brothers. For they stir up such quarrelsome questions in matters of this sort that cannot be brought to a definite end by the authority of holy scripture or by the tradition of the universal Church or by the benefit of amending one's life At the basis of their opinion, after all, there is only some sort of argument on the part of the thinker either that he has grown accustomed to it in his homeland or that he saw it elsewhere and thinks that he has become more learned the further he is from home in his travels. As a result such people judge nothing correct but what they themselves do" (Letter 54, 3)
How apt is what he writes here to the primary matters of division that led to the exchange of anathemas in 1054! Cannot the one universal Church accommodate differing disciplines regarding clerical celibacy, or different sorts of bread in the Eucharist? Today, we are more likely to sympathize with these views, but back then, especially with tensions running high and anti-Latin and anti-Greek bigotry on both sides boiling over, these views led to division.
St. Paul, writing in Romans 14, writes on the matter of honoring different days, and choosing whether to eat or abstain from various foods. The key to this section is the importance of not causing one's brothers to stumble, for if we do cause them to stumble, whether through our indulgence, or from our abstaining, we are no longer walking in love (Romans 14:15), and is not the kingdom of God a matter of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit rather than quarreling over issues like food? Thus, Paul concludes, "let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (Romans 14:19). It is love that is central here, and indeed, since God is love, we do not have God if we do not have love for our brothers. The hatred of one's brother is the sin of Cain—indeed, there is no theological virtue more important than love:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)
Why do I dwell on love? I dwell on love, because love is fundamental to the Christian life, and thus fundamental to the Church and its unity—"Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Psalm 131:1). And if love is key to the unity and well-being of the Church, what is the lack of love? It is the lack of love that we see in the events of 1054. We see two parts of the Church, East and West who have gradually over the centuries ceased to understand one another. The love grew cold (Matthew 24:12), and with that, so did the desire to understand the other, and the more this desire lessened, the more friction resulted. It has seemed to me, from my reading of Augustine, that the chief damnable sin of the schismatic is a lack of love, or charity. This we see most clearly in his On Baptism, Against the Donatists:
"I beg them to tell us whether there is any remission of sins where there is not charity; for sins are the darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying "He that hateth his brother is still in darkness." But none would create schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred of their brethren [...] Can it be that schism does not involve hatred of one's brethren? Who will maintain this, when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism consists in nothing else save the hatred of the brethren?" (On Baptism, book 1, chapter 11)
And thus, in my reading, love is the key to overcome the hatred between the East and the West. Before true reconciliation is possible, there must be this seed, or else the entire endeavor will remain sterile. And it must not be an unrequited love, it must be a deep and mutual love, one aimed at understanding, reconciliation and forgiveness. In my opinion, it is not wrong to say that there has been sin on both sides among the different participants. I do not believe it is 'indifferentism' or anything of such sort to state this.
Patriarch Peter III of Antioch
But what happened after 1054, was the severing instantaneous and irrevocable, or did it remain at times ambiguous? One will find that it was at points quite ambiguous. The Patriarch of Antioch at the time, Peter III (1052-1056) strongly opposed the act of excommunication by Patriarch Michael Cerularius, writing to him in quite strong terms that differences of custom were not Church-dividing; they were secondary, or to put it in the terms we have been using in this essay, they were essentially adiaphora (Chadwick 213). We should not get the impression from this, however, that Peter III himself was some sort of champion of papal authority, because even though he "felt strongly that unleavened bread was a serious western mistake, its use did not render the mass invalid" (Chadwick 214). Similarly, he judged the Filioque as indefensible, and had a rather low view of western Christians, writing that they
"are our brothers, even though from rusticity or ignorance they often lapse from what is right when they follow their own private choice. We ought not to expect barbarian races to attain the same level of accuracy that we ask of our people. They make many mistakes, but the remainder of our criticisms do not touch fundamental doctrines...Consider the injury that schism inflicts on the Church. I would not ask for more than correction of the creed" (Chadwick 214).
The approach of Patriarch Peter III of Antioch is much different than that of Michael Cerularius. Of course, it is clear that Peter himself shows some bigotry towards the West, but is reluctant in the extreme to sever the East from the West over these matters, even if some of them are quite disagreeable to him. Indeed, "He had no intention of removing the Pope's name from the diptychs of his church and patriarchate...The fracas did not appear to Peter sufficient ground for refusing to recognize the Pope's honor as the first bishop of the universal Church" (Chadwick 214). Thus, while Rome and Constantinople were severed from one another in 1054, Antioch remained with both. There is really no strict Catholicism versus Eastern Orthodoxy dichotomy at this stage, even though there is perhaps an inchoate tendency present, slowly driving a wedge between the two.
Interestingly, a few decades later in 1089, the emperor Alexios received a letter from Pope Urban II (1088-1099) complaining that his name was not being included on the diptychs of Constantinople, and that Latins were being excluded from communion in the sacraments if they attended Latin-rite Masses. In his letter, Urban also asked the emperor "if perhaps there was a schism of which no one had told him; to the best of his knowledge there had been no canonical decision to that effect". As if this remark from Pope Urban is not astounding enough in relation to everything we have already talked about, the reply of the emperor Alexios is even more perplexing—the answer Urban received asserted that there was no schism, but merely points of canon law that needed attention (Chadwick 222). This interesting episode illustrates well the ambiguity of 1054 and the ensuing schism, or as we see here, the lack thereof, apparently—there was an awareness that something was off, but the exact nature of it was a bit unclear.
The Fourth Crusade (1202) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
The 13th century saw several attempts to restore communion between East and West, sometimes by force of arms. The Fourth Crusade was launched in 1202 after being called for by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216). Far from liberating Jerusalem from infidel control, the army had essentially gone rogue, and had been excommunicated by Innocent at one point. The crusading Latin army was soon diverted to Constantinople at the invitation of the nephew of emperor Alexios III, who desired help to overthrow his uncle and to re-establish communion with Rome in the East. The result was the sacking of the city, against any and all intentions of Pope Innocent, but he accepted the outcome regardless. A Latin emperor was put in place, as was a new Latin patriarch. "In theory, the schism between East and West was over. In reality, the outrage of the Fourth Crusade permanently poisoned relations between Greek East and Latin West" (Duffy 150). Even still, Patriarch Nicholas I of Alexandria (1210-1243) was in communion with Rome during this period, and sent representatives to the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome in 1215 at the invitation of Pope Innocent III, even ordaining a Latin-rite priest! The council affirmed that the Roman church "through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful", and it also denounced some of the schismatic tendencies of the Greeks "who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see". This is yet another example of the ambiguity of the split between East and West at various points far past 1054.
The Second Council of Lyons (1274)
When Constantinople was finally recovered for the Greeks under Michael Palaeologus in 1261, the city remained in a precarious position politically vis-à-vis Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, and Islamic threats. The solution for the besieged emperor was a shift towards the West, and by 1263 he was assuring Pope Urban IV (1261-1264) that there was no disputed point on which he did not submit to Rome's verdict. Following this, Pope Clement IV (1265-1268) prescribed a formula of faith that required the Greeks to accept the Filioque, purgatory, the seven sacraments, papal primacy with Rome's appellate jurisdiction; and that all powers of eastern patriarchs were derived from Rome (Chadwick 246). Eventually, Pope Gregory X would announce a general council that would take place in 1274 in Lyons, sending an invitation to the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph I (1266-1275). Joseph, however, was himself among the anti-unionists in Constantinople, as was the sister of Michael Palaeologus, and various high-ranking figures in the city. Also during this time, John Bekkos, archivist at the Hagia Sophia, was imprisoned for denouncing the Filioque as heretical (Chadwick 248).
The attendance from the East at the Council of Lyons was not very impressive, admittedly. The Patriarch Joseph did not appear, but the ex-patriarch Germanos III did come along with the Metropolitan of Nicaea, Theophanes, and various other high-ranking Byzantine officials. Letters from the emperor and his son Andronicus came in supporting the union, and agreeing on the primacy of Rome, the Filioque and purgatory (Chadwick 249).
While in prison, John Bekkos had studied the works of the 5th-century Church Father St. Cyril of Alexandria, and had made an about-face on his previous anti-unionist position, and began to defend the Filioque, demonstrating that it was present in the Greek Fathers. This led to the rapid ascent of Bekkos, and the resignation of the more intransigent Patriarch Joseph in short order. Bekkos was consecrated as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1275 as an adherent of the unionist cause. This union, however, was fragile, and not to last:
"Greek distrust of the power-hungry Latins was deep. But no less formidable was the skepticism of Gregory X's successors and other Latin bishops concerning the sincerity of the emperor Michael and his son Andronicus. Successive popes after Gregory's time continued to demand individual oaths of submission not only from the emperor Michael and his son, but from all clergy; none was to be exempt from the requirement to affirm the Filioque. Such a demand ensured fanatical anti-western feeling, and bishops who assented to the union found numerous laity refusing to accept the sacraments at their hands... By invoking the principle of 'economy', whereby an unsatisfactory situation may be tolerated for the sake of achieving in time something better, a substantial body of bishops and clergy conformed to emperor's unionist policy, and the historian Pachymeres reports on the debate which this caused, with the opponents of the Council of Lyon denying that this principle could properly be invoked to justify compromise with heretics" (Chadwick 251).
Eventually, Michael Palaeologus found himself excommunicated by Pope Martin IV (1281-1285), and Michael likewise returned the favor and removed the Pope's name from the diptychs as well, creating a new schism. Michael died in 1282, and with the succession of Andronicus, Bekkos soon fell, and spent the last fourteen years of his life in prison. The union was dead in the water, though in reality, it seems to have barely existed beyond paper. The 13th century may perhaps be seen as the era when attempts were made to rectify the division between East and West by force or political agreements. Overall, it failed because that mutual love so vital and necessary to unity within the Church was lacking. And thus, it was impossible for the union to last. We have seen, of course, that even at this date, that Eastern Patriarchs could send representatives to councils headed by the Pope in Rome, but overall, by this point, there was more division than unity.
The Council of Florence (1438-1439)
The next attempt at reunion would take place in 1438-1439 at the Council of Florence. Compared to the previous attempt in the 1270s, the Council of Florence may be seen as a much more favorable and genuine attempt at reconciliation. The Emperor John VIII (1425-48) attended in person, as did the elderly Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph II (1416-1439) along with a large Greek delegation of bishops and clergy such as George Scholarius (later known as Gennadius Scholarius), Bishop Mark of Ephesus, and Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea (who was later made a Cardinal in the Latin church!). At the Council, issues such as the doctrine of purgatory, the ever-thorny Filioque, and the papacy were all discussed and debated at length, with back and forth between both Latins and Greeks, who spent long hours discussing passages from the Church Fathers.
Much like the Council of Lyons in 1274, this council was also partially motivated on the imperial side of the equation, given the fact that the Turks were rapidly approaching Constantinople and the city was seen to be in a very precarious position. This should not make us think that the entire council was purely motivated by solely political factors, however, especially given the sheer volume of learned debate over the substantive dividing issues that took place on the floor of the council. Within the council, figures from the East such as Bessarion were strong supporters of union and the Filioque on the basis of patristic texts, much like John Bekkos was in the 13th century. The same was purported to be true for Patriarch Joseph II, who, although he would soon pass away after an illness during the course of the council, was also a supporter of the union; "his last remembered words were clear that union was indispensable for the salvation of Constantinople" (Chadwick 269).
Mark of Ephesus on the other hand was a fierce opponent of the Filioque, and was convinced that it was heretical. In the short term, however, Mark of Ephesus would lose out at the council. A formula of union was soon drawn up, and all of the Greek bishops signed a formula of union which gave assent to Catholic Church and doctrines such as the Filioque, purgatory, azymes and papal claims. It was a complete capitulation. Mark of Ephesus was the only one who refused to sign. "When the Pope was informed he replied 'Then we have achieved nothing'" (Chadwick 271). Still, the union was publicly proclaimed, with both Greeks and Latins giving their consent, and Pope Eugene IV sung a solemn Te Deum. However, days after signing the formula of union, the union itself seems to have been remarkably flimsy:
"According to Syropoulus, when the Greeks served the Byzantine liturgy at St. Mark's they used their own antimensia (altar cloth) and vessels, omitted the pope's name from the diptychs, and recited the Creed without the filioque. Despite two years of prolonged debate and the solemn proclamation of ecclesiastical union, relations between the papacy and the Orthodox remained unchanged" (Siecienski 336).
The union had little support in Constantinople, though one must of course acknowledge that the name of the Pope was indeed included in the diptychs at the time of pro-unionist Patriarch Metrophanes II (1440-1443), who finally did so at the Pentecost liturgy. By 1442, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem "rejected the Florentine Union as "dirty, anticanonical, and tyrannical" Not until 1452, however, was the union formally promulgated in the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, where the Pope's name was commemorated along with the patriarch. It was not to last:
"On 7 April 1453 the Turks began to attack Constantinople by land and sea... In the early hours of 29 May the last Christian service was held in the great Church of Holy Wisdom. It was a united service of Orthodox and Roman Catholics, for at this moment of crisis the supporters and opponents of the Florentine Union forgot their differences. The Emperor went out after receiving communion, and died fighting on the walls. Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most glorious church in Christendom became a mosque." (Ware 69)
George Scholarius, once in favor of union with the Latins, was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II, taking on the name Gennadius II Scholarius. Finally, in 1484, the Florentine union was finally formally repudiated at a synod in Constantinople. Thus, sadly, another union between East and West was dead in the water. (Siecienski 337-338). The unfortunate nature of this failure is compounded by the fact that compared to the 1274 attempt, that the attempt was more genuine, substantive, and open to dialogue. Still, it was not to be.
The Union of Florence led to some interesting ecclesiological situations. Even while the Metropolitanate of Moscow remained deeply opposed to the union, the attitude in places such as Poland and Lithuania was much more open to the Latins. From this atmosphere, we get a situation in the Kievan church where it was in communion with both Rome and Moscow simultaneously! A. Edward Siecienski gives the example of Metropolitan Mysail of Kiev, who in 1476 wrote a letter to Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) addressing him as "universal pope" and maintaining his adherence to the Council of Florence (Siecienski 338-339).
Friendship and Cooperation
By the time of the 17th and 18th centuries, there is evidence of a fascinating situation on the ground in some areas of the Ottoman Empire. Roman Catholics never made up more than a small proportion of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, though they exercised an influence disproportionate to their size, especially due to diplomatic patronage, and the presence of missionary priests such as Jesuits and Franciscans who ministered to Latin congregations. However, they were also known to work among the Greeks. Even amid much hostility to Latins, we can also see evidence of friendship:
"Mixed marriages were frequent; the two sides took active part in one another's services; western missionaries, with full permission from Orthodox authorities, preached in Orthodox churches and heard the confessions of the Orthodox faithful; Orthodox received communion from Roman Catholic priests, while Greek converts to Rome were often told by the western missionaries to receive communion as before at Orthodox altars; a Roman Catholic was accepted as a god-parent at an Orthodox baptism, and vice versa. Both sides frequently acted as if the schism between east and west did not exist. The Latin missionaries, in the absence of any bishop of their own, behaved towards the local Orthodox bishop as though they recognized him as their ordinary; the Orthodox authorities, for their part, so far from repudiating the missionaries as intruders, welcomed them as friends and allies, and encouraged them to undertake pastoral work among the Greek population" (Ware, 'Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule' 18-19)
Ware goes on to mention many fascinating examples of communio in sacris, taking part in common processions together, joint-commemorations of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and examples such as Orthodox clergy censing the Blessed Sacrament as it went past in Latin processions for the feast of Corpus Christi. Unfortunately, by the end of the 18th century, this practice would be tamped down upon by both sides, as Orthodox bishops became more rigorous in their stance against communio in sacris with the Latins, with the Patriarchs of Constantinope, Jerusalem and Alexandria even refusing to recognize the validity of Latin baptisms after 1755 (Siecienski 348).
Regardless of the fact that this moment of cordial friendship between the Greeks and Latins of the Ottoman Empire was brief and not to last, I think that it shows us something important, and this is why I end the historical summary with these examples rather than advancing further towards the present (if not for reasons of length alone!). Ultimately the two churches of the East and West are not that far apart. Even in the 15th century there were examples of genuine communion between the West and the Eastern Orthodox, though the examples are few and far between admittedly. The attempts to repair the schism were often fragile and dubious in many ways, fueled by political agendas as well as genuine desire for reconciliation. But down on the ground there could much good will, friendship and love. It is for reasons such as this that agreements such as the Balamand declaration (1993), a product of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which realizes that past efforts such as Uniatism have failed to restore total communion between East and West, and that going forward there must be greater dialogue, mutual respect and reciprocal trust (Balamand declaration, 16), and that " While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation." (Balamand declaration, 15). The motive here is clear—too often the efforts made at fixing the schism have in fact worsened the schism and deepened it. This brings us back to everything I wrote earlier about the notion of schism, and the importance of love, and that as long as there is not genuine love between the East and the West, and a desire for genuine and true reconciliation, there will never be a true union between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. I do not mean to say that we should merely neglect our differences, or pretend that certain questions of doctrinal disagreement simply do not matter. Far from it, I of course think that the papacy and the Filioque are readily defensible, and that the Catholic position—despite occasional difficulties—is the more plausible position. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics must avoid the attitudes of the earlier centuries while also refusing to give in merely for the sake of a unity which hardly exists except on paper. We must understand the notion of adiaphora, and liturgical diversity, and differences in custom. As Augustine wrote, all of these must be respected. And on top of that, both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics should study the spiritual patrimonies of both churches, in particular the saints of the first millennium, but, if I may be so radical, I also suggest that Catholics familiarize themselves with figures such as Seraphim of Sarov, John of Kronstadt, Theophan the Recluse, Gregory Palamas, and innumerable others, while it would also be good for Eastern Orthodox to familiarize themselves with figures such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, etc. If both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church today can venerate St. Isaac the Syrian, a man who was never in communion outwardly with either the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics, then this is not too much to desire, is it?
Ecclesiologically, however, how are we to understand this? In some sense it is a doctrine of both communions that there is no salvation outside of the Church—Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The exact meaning of this doctrine, of course, has been subject to a variety of interpretations, some less rigorous and excluvistic than others. Both, tacitly, I would argue, do allow for the possibility of salvation outside of the institutional bounds of either communion, as we have already seen with the example of St. Isaac the Syrian, a bishop in the Nestorian church. Catholics have several further examples of saints they venerate who were not ever under Roman jurisdiction during their lifetimes, such as the twenty-one Coptic Martyrs killed by ISIS in 2015, or St. Gregory of Narek, who was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Francis in 2015, despite the fact that he was never in communion with the body of the Church during his lifetime. For both Catholics and Orthodox alike, this must indicate something for a coherent ecclesiology to coexist with the lists of the glorified saints.
The answer, I believe, lies again with Augustine:
"So too those who, by separating themselves from the society of their fellows, to the overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity, if they observe none of the things which they have received in that society, are separated in everything; and so any one whom they have joined to their society, if he afterwards wish to come over to the Church, ought to receive everything which he has not already received. But if they observe some of the same things, in respect of these they have not severed themselves; and so far they are still a part of the framework of the Church, while in all other respects they are cut off from it. Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with themselves is united to the Church in all those points in which they are not separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come over to the Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was unsound and went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church, he is not cured, but recognized—lest in desiring to cure what is sound we should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize they heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them more seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people of the Lord were smitten with the sword; but schismatics were swallowed up by the earth opening her mouth. And the apostle says, "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (On Baptism, book 1, chapter 8)
Thus, they, that is those separated brethren, "are still a part of the framework of the Church" in some mysterious way, while in some respects they are cut off. In Augustine's view, while there is true baptism and sacraments among the schismatics and heretics, they are ultimately no avail, because the existence of schism and separation from the brethren is at its root founded on a lack of love, as we have already discussed, and in such a state, no man may be saved. Can we perhaps reformulate this to some extent as 'Sine caritate nulla salus'? While indeed it may be ideal for the Christian to be united within both the body and the soul of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, historical circumstances and contigencies have led to divisions, some of them more justified than others, and thus, in the course of events, people find themselves separated from the true Church, though without necessarily existing in this state of hatred that is what truly condemns one to damnation apart from the unity of the Church. We can indeed say, however, that "Whosoever... knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" (Lumen Gentium 2.14) on some level, acknowledging effectively that there is one true Church, but also elements of this true Church apart from the Church, being transmitted in separation through the continuation of Apostolic Succession of bishops, and the Sacraments that they bring with them outside of the fold. Must we really think that any man, woman or child that has been born outside of the fold of the Church ever since the separation is damned to Gehenna for merely being born outside the Church, never to interact with the Church, and never in their life necessarily nurturing a schismatic attitude of hatred towards the unity of the institutional / canonical Church? It is true, however, that prejudices and attitudes can certainly be generational and long-lasting—one has to merely think of anti-Catholic sentiment among many Protestants in the United States. My own father, who is only Protestant / Christian in a nominal sense, remarked in jest after I said to him that I was becoming Catholic that me and him would no longer be able to get along if I became Catholic. If this is present in a man who is hardly religious at all, even more so in those Protestants who retain religiosity, and this applies analogously, of course to the situation we are dealing with here between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
This is a complicated case, and we must not act with pure sentimentalism, or quickly say how it shall be one way or another, failing to grasp the manifold complexities of the situation that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox find each other in today, especially in light of the historical unfolding of this separation that I have covered in brief in the course of this essay. It is for reasons such as this, however, that I believe that the teaching of Lumen Gentium is quite sensible in how it retains the existence of the true Church, but also acknowledges the fact that elements of this Church exist apart from it in greater or lesser extents:
"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity" (Lumen Gentium 1.8).
This is the situation that we find ourselves in today. Indeed, it is lamentable, but in some senses the hostilities between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church are less than ever, though we must acknowledge that the different autocephalous churches all respond to the Catholic Church in slightly different ways. This is only natural. Today we have access to more scholarly sources, texts and knowledge than ever before, and we can only pray that with time, greater and greater consensus will be reached. There are, however, some differences which greatly separate us, and those are the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning the primacy of Rome by divine ordinance, and the Filioque, as we have seen innumerable times in the course of this initial part of my essay. In the next essay, I hope to address some of the things I discussed at the beginning of the essay, namely, why I think the papacy is present in the first millennium among many of the prominent fathers and saints, as well as in the ecumenical councils of the Church, the Filioque, and certain questions regarding epistemological concerns before summarizing my thoughts and encapsulating my ultimate decision.
Works Cited
Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists
Augustine, Letter 54
Chadwick, Henry, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence
Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes
Siecienski, A. Edward, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate
Ware, Kallistos, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule
Ware, Timothy (Kallistos), The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity
Ybarra, Erick, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox