.JPG)
 |
| This article is part ofa series on |
| Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations |
|---|
| Overview |
|
Further division motives
|
Medieval reunification attempts
|
Modernecumenic relations
|
TheCatholic Church andEastern Orthodox Church broke communion during theEast–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of theNicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[1][2] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.
Relations between the East and West have warmed over the last century, as both churches embrace a dialogue of charity. TheSecond Vatican Council (1962–1965) ushered in a new era of relations for the Roman Church towards the Orthodox Church, fondly describing the Orthodox as “separated brethren” with valid sacraments and an apostolic priesthood.[3] TheOrthodox Church, on the other hand, encouraged local churches to prepare for future dialogue in the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes (1964), and has since engaged in several ecumenical efforts with the Vatican.[4][5] Significantly, in 1965Pope Paul VI and EcumenicalPatriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople jointly liftedthe mutual excommunications of 1054.[6] More recently, in November 2019, the current Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew, has stated he believes Orthodox re-union with the Catholic Church is inevitable.[7][better source needed]
The East and West were two centres of influence throughout Christian history.[8] While an informal divide existed prior, in 1054 mutualexcommunications were formally issued, thereby rupturing relations and causingschism.[9] Multiple attempts at healing the union have taken place, most notably at theSecond Council of Lyon and theCouncil of Florence, which were both ultimately unsuccessful.[10] The only reconciliation that has been brought about is in the creation ofEastern Catholic Churches, which are also a point of disconcertment for theEastern Orthodox.[11]
The "Great Schism" connotes the unremitting rupture of communion between the Catholic and Orthodox families.[12] Historians of the split have traditionally, following in the footsteps ofEdward Gibbon,[13] recognised 1054 as the watershed of relational breakdown between the Eastern and Western spheres of the Christian World. In this sense, the schism can be understood as an event; the mutual excommunications issued in 1054.[2][14] The idea of a definitive break has, however, been called into question by more contemporary scholarship, which minimises the importance of this specific date.[15]
This breakdown, however, was the culmination of a process of distancing which unfolded over prior centuries.[16] Therefore, the schism can also rightfully be understood as an ongoing process of separation between theGreek East and Latin West beginning around the year 900.[12]
The primary cause of the schism is often recognised to be theecclesiologicaldifferences,[17] most notably theBishop of Rome's growing claim touniversal jurisdiction. The pre-eminence of this factor, however, is a heavily contested point; with numerous scholars placing greater importance onthe theological[18][19][20] or political[21] disagreements instead.
It is unsurprising that the relationship immediately following the schism was one of animosity, consideringAugustine diagnosed the moral origin of schism as “hatred among brothers”.[22] The phenomenon of cultural alienation between the Latin West and Greek East is crucial for understanding the historic relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.[23] The difference was, for one, pronounced in the language of the respective spheres. As a result, communication became more strained and several seminal works were not translated on both sides.[24]
This led to a division in theological tradition in either milieu. The Eastern theologians relied more on the work ofGreek philosophy, while in the West it was theRoman system of law that permeated the minds of theologians. One of the key divergences that emerged was regarding the nature and function of the Church: fundamental ecclesiology. The relational breakdown was also highlighted by thefilioque controversy, where Rome in 1014 inserted the clause “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) to describe the procession of theHoly Spirit into the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox argue that this modification was made in contravention of Canon 7 of theCouncil of Ephesus.[Notes 1]
The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of Roman Catholics (called "Latins") in Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city on April 11, 1182. The massacre was sparked by a number of factors, including the growing resentment of the Byzantines towards the Latins, who had come to dominate the empire's political and economic life, and the Byzantines' fear that the Latins were trying to undermine their Orthodox faith.[25]
The massacre began when a large mob of Byzantines attacked the Latin quarter of the city. The mob killed hundreds of Latins, including women and children, and looted and burned their homes and businesses. The massacre continued for several days, until the Byzantine authorities were able to restore order. The exact number of people killed or forced to flee during the Massacre of the Latins is unknown, but it is estimated that the bulk of the Latin community in Constantinople, which was around 60,000 people at the time, was either killed or forced to flee, according toEustathius of Thessalonica. TheGenoese andPisan communities were especially hard hit, with some 4,000 survivors being sold into slavery to theSultanate of Rum.[26]
The Massacre of the Latins had a profound impact on the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The massacre led to a hardening of attitudes on both sides, and it made it much more difficult for the two churches to reconcile their differences. The massacre also damaged the Byzantine Empire's standing in the West, and it contributed to the empire's eventual decline.[27][28]
In April 1204, Catholic Crusader armies captured and lootedConstantinople, then the capital of theByzantine Empire and seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the city's sacking, most of the Byzantine Empire's territories were divided up among the Crusaders. The sack of Constantinople was a major turning point inmedieval history. The Crusaders' decision to attack the world's largest Christian city was unprecedented and immediately controversial. Reports of Crusader looting and brutality scandalised and horrified the Orthodox world; the Byzantine Empire was left much poorer, smaller, and ultimately less able to defend itself against the Seljuk and Ottoman conquests that followed; the actions of the Crusaders thus directly accelerated the collapse ofChristendom in the east, and in the long run helped facilitate the later Ottoman conquest.
Eight hundred years after theFourth Crusade,Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow for the events of the Fourth Crusade. In 2001 he wrote that "It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret." In 2004, whileBartholomew I,Patriarch of Constantinople, was visiting theVatican, John Paul II asked, "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust?".[29] In April 2004, in a speech on the 800th anniversary of the capture of the city, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepted the apology. "The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred," he said during a liturgy attended by Roman Catholic ArchbishopPhilippe Barbarin of Lyon, France. "We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade. It is a fact that a crime was committed here in the city 800 years ago."[30]
TheSecond Council of Lyon in 1274 was an attempted reconciliation called byPope Gregory X. The council had in attendance over 300 bishops, who discussed the union of the East and the West. Pope Gregory X said Mass for the Feast of Peter and Paul which was attended by both sides. The Greeks conceded the contestedFilioque clause,[citation needed] which allowed reunification to be momentarily reached. However, it was only short lived, for whileEmperor Michael VIII Palaeologus was enthusiastic about reunion,[31] the Eastern clergy were largely opposed to the decisions of the council.[32] Hence, when his sonAndronikos II Palaiologos succeeded as Emperor, he repudiated the union.
TheCouncil of Ferrara-Florence in 1438–1445 was the most notable historic effort towards achieving ecumenical unity. TheWestern Church sent letters to their Greek counterparts enthusiastic about future unity. They gathered with the intent of doctrinal agreement and ending the schism. The Greeks in attendance did eventually accept thefilioque clause, as well as the Latin perspective on theEucharist,purgatory andpapal primacy.
The bull of unity,Laetentur Caeli, brought about a complete reunification; having been proclaimed by the representatives of all five patriarchal sees. The evidence of unity was most sensationally seen in the participation in each other's liturgies,[33] as well as growing appreciation for respective patristic traditions.
This was short lived, due to the Eastern Orthodox deciding to later reject the union,[34] driven by the lower class’ anti-western sentiments and the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. Along with the antagonism was an ongoing disagreement over those theological issues dealt with in the council: thefilioque, purgatory and papal primacy.[35] The Orthodox argued that Florence should not be considered a validEcumenical Council, as it didn't follow the traditional method.[36] Ultimately, Florence served to highlight the overwhelming difficulty of unification.
Despite the failure of Florence, relations were fairly strong in the following centuries.[37] TheEastern Catholic Churches emerged from a movement which sought to enter full communion with the Pope while retaining elements of their traditional liturgical practices and canonical rules. Here is a list of Eastern Catholic Churches that have their origins in the Eastern Orthodox Church:
Many Orthodox have criticised what they pejoratively call 'Uniatism', as an inadequate method of healing the split.[38] Leading Orthodox theologian and bishop Kallistos Ware has described this approach by Catholics, especially the Society of Jesus, as a "Trojan horse policy".[39] In fact, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin has even claimed that today this is the primary factor preventing the Orthodox and Catholics from fostering better relations.[40] Those in favour of the Uniates, generally Catholics, look at these churches as a bridge between the two Christian communities that is working towards full reunification. Nevertheless, after the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church has distanced itself from uniatism as an approach to finding lasting unity.[41]
Contemporary relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been characterised by a push towardsecumenism and dialogue.[42] TheSecond Vatican Council was instrumental in changing the Catholic Churches pastoral approach to dealing with the Orthodox.[43] Despite this new openness, however, many Orthodox remain hesitant,[44] especially in light of recent developments and continued debate over topics such as theessence-energy distinction.
TheSecond Vatican Council was a watershed in terms of the Catholic Church's pastoral approach.[45] Over two thousand bishops were called to Rome between 1962 and 1965 to discuss how the Church would face the challenges of the modern world. The Church, according to Peter A. Huff, largely redirected its concern from internal stability to external dialogue.[46] Seventeen Orthodox Churches sent observers to the council who participated in discussions, specifically onecumenism between the two churches.[47] One of the council's primary concerns was to bring about the unity of all Christians.[3]
Significantly, at the close of the councilPope Paul VI andOrthodox Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted their respective excommunications in theCatholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965.[48] This, however, was largely symbolic of intentions to eventually restore full communion between the churches.[49]
The Vatican IIDecree on Ecumenism has driven Catholic efforts to reach out to the Orthodox over the last 60 years.[Notes 2] The dialogue that took place between 1963 and 1979 has been described as a "dialogue of charity".[50] This transitioned into a "dialogue of doctrine" with reference to the history and tradition of the early Church.[51] Consecutive popes have chosen to recite theNicene Creed with Eastern Patriarchs according to the text prior to the addition of theFilioque clause. The Orthodox have engaged with the Vatican on several occasions over recent decades, significantlyPatriarch Bartholomew I attending theAssisi Prayer Meeting.
TheJoint Theological Commission was set up between the Holy See and fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches. In 1980 the Commission first met in Rhodes where they released a joint preparatory document stating that a deeper understanding of thesacraments would help further dialogue.[52]
Another issue that has been made clear is the disagreement surrounding the nature of the dispute. For many Catholics the primary issue is one of authority, which relates toecclesiology. They do not regard the Orthodox asheretical but merely asschismatic, for they do not recognisePapal supremacy. Alternatively the Orthodox will often diagnose the problem as primarilytheological, pointing toCatholic dogmatic teachings on theImmaculate Conception andPapal Infallibility as being heretical.
One of the key tests today of theological harmonisation is over theessence-energy distinction.[53]Thomas Aquinas died on the way to theSecond Council of Lyon in 1274, convoked to deal with the east–west split. His “divine simplicity” explanation of avirtual distinction between God's essence and energies is one side of the debate;[54] the other side was articulated by the Mt Athos hesychast monk,Gregory Palamas, a contemporary of Aquinas, who argued for areal distinction between God's essence and energies.[55] This issue is of great relevance since it deals with how the human being knows and relates to the Creator.
In 2018 the ecumenical effort was further complicated by tensions between theRussian Orthodox Church andGreek Orthodox Church, which resulted in theEcumenical Patriarch establishing an independentOrthodox Church of Ukraine.[56]Pew Research has shown that as of 2017 35% of Orthodox practitioners are in favor of communion with the Catholic Church. Support for Orthodox/Catholic unity was highest among Orthodox in Romania with 62% in support and lowest among Russian Orthodox with 17% support. Among Catholics in the countries polled, 38% supported unity compared to 30% opposed. Support for unity was highest among Ukrainian Catholics with 74% in favor and lowest among Lithuanian Catholics with 24% in favor.[57]
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa is actively involved in ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1968, at the enthronement of thePatriarch Nicholas VI of Alexandria, the delegation of the Roman Catholic Church handed over to the Patriarchate of Alexandria a particle of the relics ofSaint Mark, the founder of the Church of Alexandria. In 2013, a meeting betweenPope Francis andPatriarch Theodore II of Alexandria took place in Rome.[58] On April 28, 2017, Patriarch Theodore II in Cairo took part in a joint ecumenical prayer with Pope Francis,Coptic PopeTawadros II and PatriarchBartholomew of Constantinople.[59]
The Catholic Church has expressed a deep desire to heal the schism in order that the Church may "breathe with her two lungs".[60] The Orthodox, however, continue to insist that the Bishop of Rome holds a primacy which is limited to one of honour.[61] This is encapsulated in the phraseprimus inter pares (Latin for "first among equals"). Given that the Catholic Church recognises more than just a distinction in honour there is clearly a need for one side to compromise on this matter. Currently there are no indications of a compromise of this sort in the near future.
Despite the enduring differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches some scholars hold that the main problem halting progress is behavioural and not doctrinal.[62] Thus, Robert F. Taft, S.J. believed that the answer to the churches' problems is ecumenical scholarship which seeks understanding rather than confrontation.[63]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)[T]he pope's legates, in A.D. 1054, deposited on the altar of St. Sophia a direful anathema... and from this thunderbolt we may date the consummation of the schism.
The [East–West Schism] should not be understood to have occurred in the mutual excommunications [of 1054] ... [Rather,] only one factor in a much longer and larger story involving cultural, political and theological factors
The divergence of the Eastern and Western churches, leading ultimately to the East-West Schism, was a process of many centuries, influenced by a host of political, cultural, and theological factors.
While analyzing the debates in Florence, it would be fair to note that the council discussed some problematic issues without reaching any decision while it decided other issues without proper discussion.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)