After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after [Michael Caerularius] had begun by striking the pope's name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were "most pious and orthodox". They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents.
The same New Advent entry also highlights at the beginning of the article that the present schism could be said to date from the year 1472, not the year 1054, and that the Orthodox and Catholic schism must not be looked at as a single event but rather as a series of contributing factors, one leading to another. But as can be seen, the Byzantine Church was never formally excommunicated in toto by the Roman Church! The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia was a publication from 1912 indicating this is the most Traditionalist perspective on the issue.
This is in concurrence with Met. Kallistos Ware's position from his monograph The Orthodox Church. Even up until the collapse of the Roman Empire in 1453, Crusaders and Orthodox Christians would hold joint services together. Something that would have been repudiated had, in fact, the Orthodox been excommunicated by the Latins! If the present schism dates only with the repudiation of the Council of Florence by the Orthodox bishops in 1472 then it is reasonable to suggest that not only were the Crusaders Latin and Catholic, they were also Latin and Orthodox! They would have been the first Western Rite Orthodox visitors of Eastern Rite Orthodox parishes.
The terms Catholic and Orthodox were essentially regional terms at first used to describe Christians. As the term Catholicus became more synonymous with the word Orthodox. The Latin describes general, universal, upholding all things, and the Greek word describes right glory. The two words have slightly different meanings but Catholicus came more and more to meaning the latter term and almost virtually met the Greek meaning. To describe the Latin Church in the West as Orthodox is not theologically invalid if it is indeed an Orthodox Church! I once was asked by two of the daughters of one our deacons at my parish if I was a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Catholic to which I replied, "of course I'm an Orthodox Catholic! All Catholics are Orthodox! Unless they're bishops, then they're heretic Catholics!"
On the schism, my own priest has also stated the inherent difficulty involved in ascribing the schism at any point in time since there are severe theological nuances, not just in the Catholic Church but also in the Orthodox Church, of what would constitute a valid unity. Current canon law upholds the validity of Orthodox sacraments and legal practices. A Catholic can in an emergency, go to an Orthodox priest for the Eucharist or Confession or to receive any other sacrament. Whether the Orthodox priest is willing is another story all together. My own priest has concelebrated a Divine Liturgy with, if I recall the story correctly, a Romanian Orthodox priest before. Since their bishops were both named the same, he only commemorated their bishops by name but omitted the name of the Pope.
The Blessed Theophylact, Bishop of Ohrid, is another primary example of the problems in dating the schism to 1054 AD. He wrote numerous commentaries on the New Testament and is referenced as a Greek Father in St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's De Controversiis. Theophylact lived from 1050-1107 and his commentaries on the New Testament were included in Latin theological manuals. Theophylact upheld the doctrine of the Petrine primacy. I include this note because one problem that Aidan Kimel brings up in his article is the obvious issue of Papal primacy. A little known fact is how the Orthodox have traditionally upheld it. The contention is that Rome fell into apostasy. Essentially, one could reasonably argue that the schismatic Orthodox were the first sedevacantists but that's another discussion. Bp. Athanasius Schneider has even commented that in a meeting he had with an Orthodox priest and a theologian, the theologian said to him, "I believe in the dogma of the primacy of the pope....But we Orthodox could never accept the papacy in the form which it is now lived and practiced by Pope Francis....We could even accept Vatican I, the primacy and infallibility, but as it was practically lived out by Leo the Great and Gregory the Great, for instance." (Christus Vincit, 140)
I think this is the primary issue for Traditionalists in both the Orthodox and Catholic Church as Traditionalists place the stronger emphasis on the consensus patrium. While the Pope is infallible, it is only an infallibility in defining already existing doctrine. Being a final arbiter in legal disputes, etc. But the primacy and infallibility has been bloated into this nonsensical idea that every word that flows from the mouth of the Pope is dogma and every action he does is orthopraxy. That's nonsense and it never would fly. Until then, I greatly appreciate the humor from Aidan Kimel!
No comments:
Post a Comment