A famous Russian explorer has decided to become a priest:

Famous Russian traveler Fyodor Konyukhov has given up exploration and world records to become an Orthodox priest, Ukraine’s UNIAN reported on Saturday.

An extensive traveler, Konyukhov has reached the North Pole three times, the South Pole, the Pole of Inaccessibility, and climbed to the top of Mt. Everest. He has set world records by crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a rowboat in 46 days, as well as crossing Greenland on a dogsled in 22 hours. He has also made several round the world trips alone on yachts.

“Something probably serious happened since I made such a decision: I thought, enough of temptation, I want to pray more,” Konyukhov said.

He said he had made the decision during his last trip to the Antarctic and will now undertake praying for those who travel. He did not name the reason why he made such a drastic change in his life.

“I have worked a lot for people and for people’s fame as well as my own fame, and now I want to work for God and the Church,” Konyukhov said.

Konyukhov, 59, had earlier sent an official letter to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, requesting to become a priest. Kirill told Konyukhov in April that he may choose which eparchy he would like to begin his priesthood.

Konyukhov decided on Zaporizhia, Ukraine, where he was born in 1951.

He made his first “expedition” when he was 15 by crossing the Sea of Azov on a rowboat. By the time he reached 50 years old, Konyukhov made more than 40 unique expeditions and climbs. He has written numerous books and painted many pictures of his travels.

God bless Konyukhov in this new stage of his life. I know one thing: he already has the beard for his new life as an Orthodox priest!

Over the past two centuries in the Western world, we have seen a fundamental shift in how people interpret the Bible. Unfortunately, much of that shift has caused the Bible to become not more clear, but more obscure. Thus, it is sometimes helpful to go back and see how Scripture was interpreted before this shift. Here are some clear steps for interpreting the Bible, written in 1786 by a Russian Orthodox prelate:

1.) Open the literal meaning, and where it is dark because of translation or an ambiguity in the language, explain it in such a way that no passage is left which students cannot understand, apart from the very rare texts which are too complex to comprehend.

2.) Interpret spiritual and mysterious meanings, especially in the Old Testament, in those passages where such meanings are transparently concealed. In doing this, one has to be cautious so as not to do this with force. Thus, one ought not to seek out a secret meaning where there is none (or where one is forced, as is noticeable with many interpreters), but where links and the parallel passages follow directly from the words. Interpret spiritual and mysterious readings in agreement with the best interpreters.

3.) For a better understanding of dark passages, find and link the parallel passages, for this will make comprehension easier, since what is said in one place is often said ambiguously and briefly in another place, and despite the similarity between the two texts, the one differs in terms of a more detailed and clearer account.

4.) In interpreting Scripture, do not forget to conclude with the moral teachings flowing from the text. Formulate it with great regard.

5.) In interpreting the books of the Old Testament Prophets, indicate clearly when and in which circumstances their prophecies were fulfilled in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

6.) Where passages of Holy Scripture seem to contradict each other, explain these texts in agreement with published sources that contain general agreement.

7.) Wherever passages are found from which some false conclusions were drawn and which subsequently led to schisms or heresies, one is obliged to clearly indicate the right and true meaning of these passages, and to invalidate the opinions and arguments of heretics and schismatics.

8.) Where passages of Scripture are found to which human wisdom might make objections, such objections must not be hidden. Instead, allow them to be seen in a clear and satisfactory form.

9.) On the part of the teacher, it is critical to consult the Church Fathers, to read scrupulously the best Church teachers and interpretors, to know Church history well, and, above all, to beseech often and diligently the Father of Light to open the eyes toward understanding the wonders in His Law.

Frankly, I think these nine steps are still valid today and following them would help anyone draw closer to Christ through the Scriptures.

H/t: Byzantine, TX

A Long Island woman fulfilled her dream of becoming a nun recently. Nothing too exceptional about that, except the fact that she is 92 years old!

Greek-born Chrystalla Petropoulou, of Long Island, NY has fulfilled a lifelong dream. At the age of 92, the Mattituck resident has become a nun in the Greek Orthodox Church…

Petropoulou, seated in her wheelchair, officially became a nun on April 17, 2010 at the new All Saints Greek Orthodox Monastery in Calverton, Long Island. Along with Elizabeth Brandenburg, aged 28, and Maria Kallis, aged 27, Petropoulou received a new religious name and a new black habit. The three women each had hair in the shape of a cross ceremonially snipped from their heads.

Petropoulou, aided by her relatives and the Greek Orthdox population in Calverton, was one of the leaders in the community effort to build this monastery. In 1997, Petropoulou herself deposited $13.00 in a special bank account. This $13.00 became the basis of the fund-raising effort to get the monastery built….

In 2005, when the monastery was completed, Sunday services began. But the monastery lacked nuns. Unfortunately Petropoulou, who had dreamt of this since childhood, was now too sick and frail to do it alone. All of that changed when Brandenburg (of St. Louis) and Kallis (of Detroit) agreed to move into the Calverton monastery last August. Petropoulou followed on their heels in September. In all, five women currently live at the Calverton Monastery, and two others are expected soon…

Born in Cyprus, Petropoulou never married and has no children. Although she’d wanted to become a nun “since the day I was born,” life stood in the way. Her family moved first to England, then to the United States, where there was no monastery available in which she could have studied. When she grew older, she stayed at home to care for her elderly parents.

In the end, the dream of her childhood has become a reality. Speaking through an interpreter, Petropoulou told Newsday reporters, “I don’t care about doctors. I don’t care about medicine. I just want to die at the monastery.”

It is encouraging to know that women like Petropoulou are praying for the Church and the world. May God grant her many (more) years!

My favorite conference is coming up soon:

Three Orientale Lumen Conferences are planned in 2010 for lay persons and clergy from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches.  One of the few ecumenical dialogue meetings that are open to the public, this year’s conferences will focus presentations on “The Councils of the Church”.  Held annually since 1997, the Orientale Lumen conferences provide a “grass roots” form of ecumenical dialogue where all persons learn from each other’s traditions.

See the link for details. Here are the speakers for the DC conference, which I hope to attend:

The second conference will be held June 21-24 at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, DC.  The speakers will be:
• Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America
• Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, DC
• Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, Professor Emeritus of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, The Vatican
• Archpriest Peter Galadza, Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky Institute, Ottawa, Canada
• Father Thomas FitzGerald, Holy Cross Theological School Boston, MA
• Mr. Elias Damianakis, Lecturer and Iconographer, Tampa, FL

That is quite a prestigious group: the Washington bishop of both the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church in America, the preeminent Catholic expert on Eastern Christianity (Taft), and other Eastern authorities. Try to make an effort to come this year for at least one day if you can!

We are very fortunate this year that Easter is being celebrated on the same day in both the East and the West. I think it is one of the more tragic consequences of our division that most years all Christians do not celebrate the most holy day of the year together. But this year we get lucky.

If you have an opportunity, you should try to make it to an Eastern Christian liturgy this week; they are quite moving and really help you enter into the Pascal mystery. Orthocath has some good resources to get you started:

Holy Week Resources

As we near the end of the Lenten Fast, I’d like to draw our attention to the differences between fasting in the Eastern church and the Western church. Actually, I’d like to draw attention more than anything to the differences between the attitude towards fasting in the East and the West.

Some people might know about the vast difference in the fasting regulations between the two great churches. In the West, we are told to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (which means one normal meal and two small meals not to equal that one normal meal) and abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday. In the East, on the other hand, a common tradition is that every day of Lent is a day of fasting and abstinence, and abstinence applies not only to meat, but also includes items such as fish, wine and oil. Why such a difference in these practices? Is it because the East is just more holy or more serious about Lent? I think the reason is due more to the underlying attitudes towards rules and regulations in the East and the West.

- In the West, a regulation is seen as the minimum requirement and failing to follow it is perceived as a serious failure, perhaps even a sin.

- In the East, a regulation is seen as an ideal to strive for and failing to follow it is perceived as an opportunity to do better in the future.

So in the West, the regulations for fasting are much less stringent than in the East, because a failure to follow them is seen as a more egregious action. In the East, the regulations are much more strict, but failing to live up to them is not seen as serious of a failure.

I do not think that either attitude is necessarily better than the other – both have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of the Western attitude is that regulations are always taken seriously, but the disadvantage is that one can become legalistic or even prideful if he follows the law. The advantage of the Eastern attitude is that one always sees the ideal as something to strive for and this keeps you humble, but the disadvantage is that the wide gap between practice and regulation might be so wide as to seem insurmountable or make the regulation appear unrealistic.

All Christians should work, with the help of God’s grace and a good spiritual director, to make sacrifices that are in keeping with their state of life. The worst thing to do, at any time, is to compare one’s own sacrifices with anyone else’s. But as we near the end of Lent, ask for God’s help in persevering in your own resolutions so that you might be properly prepared for the resurrection of our Lord at Easter!

If you are a member of the Latin Church, the answer, of course, is “yes”. In the West we have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, and those priests who are married – such as Anglican converts – are the exception, not the rule. Celibacy in the priesthood is a cherished tradition in the West, and there has never been a strong movement here to push for married priests.

Thus, Father Laurent Touze, a spiritual theology professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, was quite correct to speak of married priests as an “exception” in an interview with Zenit News Agency. However, the good Father went off the tracks a bit when he tried to apply this practice to the Christian East:

ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

This statement of Fr. Touze’s shows either an ignorance or a disrespect for the legitimate traditions of the East. As we in the West have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, so too does the East have a strong tradition of married priests (note, however, that their bishops and monks are always celibate). To wish to “promote” a celibate clergy in the East goes against their praxis which has existed for centuries.

Furthermore, it goes against the teachings of Vatican II, which commanded that the traditions of the East be respected by those of us in the West:

“…the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls,” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 5)

Vatican II also explicitly commends the practice of married priests in the East:

“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)

Finally, the code of canon law for the Eastern Churches, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, demands that the practice of married priests in the East be “held in honor”:

“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)

It is unfortunate that Fr. Touze chose to ignore these teachings of our Church in his public comments. We in the West should zealously honor our celibate clergy, and should always work to explain and defend the practice of celibacy in the priesthood. But that defense should not come at the expense of our brothers and sisters in the East, who have their own, just-as-legitimate, tradition of married priests.

Over the centuries, Christians have represented the Cross of Jesus Christ in a wide variety of forms. The original Cross was most likely a simple one, but meditation on the mysteries of the Passion have lead to more elaborate Crosses which represent many theological truths about Christ’s redemptive death.

One of my favorite Crosses is the “three-bar Cross” which is typical to the East. Here is a good explanation of that particular Cross, courtesy of Fr. Theodore Jurewicz over at Charming the Birds from the Trees:

The Top Bar – The Explanation:
The top bar is the title-board, which Pilate ordered to be hung in mockery over Christ’s head on the Cross. On this board was inscribed: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (abbreviated to the Greek initials ‘INBI’ or the Latin initials ‘INRI’ in the Western tradition). This is replaced with the Christian inscription: “King of Glory” – below the knees of the angels. On the title-board is inscribed the initials ‘IC XC’, being the first and last letters of Christ’s name in Greek. In addition, just above Christ’s arms we see the inscription: ‘NIKA’, which in Greek means: “He conquers” or “He is victorious.” Frequently, we see these last two inscriptions together: ‘IC XC NIKA’, meaning: “Jesus Christ is victorious” (over death and sin).

The Middle Bar – The Explanation:
The middle bar is that on which the Lord’s hands were nailed. On either top corner we see the depiction of the sun (left) and the moon (right), for “The sun hid its light, and the moon turned to blood.” (Joel 2:31) The inscription: “Son of God” is placed on both sides of Christ’s head, and below His arms we read the inscription: “Before Thy Cross we bow down, O Master, and Thy holy Resurrection, we glorify”. The halo of Christ is inscribed with three Greek letters meaning “The Being” or “He Who Is”, to remind us that Christ is the same God Who identified Himself with those words to Moses in the Old Law.

The Bottom Bar – The Explanation:
The slanted bottom bar is the footrest. There is some question of whether it was actually on the Cross of Christ, but it is acknowledged to be a necessary attribute of the Cross, worthy of veneration and prophetically alluded to in the words [Let us] worship the footstool of His feet… (Ps. 98:5). In prayers for the Ninth Hour, the Church likens the Cross to a type of balance of righteousness: “Between two thieves Thy Cross did prove to be a balance of righteousness: wherefore one of them was dragged down to Hades by the weight of his blasphemy whereas the other was lightened of his transgressions unto the comprehension of theology. O Christ God, glory to Thee.” The meaning of this prayer is as follows: the Cross of Christ stood for a scale of justice between the two thieves: for one of them sank in to hell, dragged down by his blasphemous words; and the other, the wise thief, ascended into heaven, because of his repentance. The church fathers attempted to render tangible the thought of the unfaithful thief going to hell for his blasphemy through the just judgment of God (the lower end of the bar), and of the wise thief going to heaven for his repentance and his praise of God (the upper end).

The Images – The Explanation:
On the Cross is our Savior, Jesus Christ. Note that He does not wear a crown of thorns, and that His feet are nailed with two nails. Behind the body of Christ, on either side, are a lance (which pierced Him) and a sponge (which was soaked with gall and offered to Christ to drink) on a pole made of reed or cane. On the body of Christ is depicted blood and water flowing forth from His side. Below the feet of Christ is four Slavonic letters meaning: “The place of the skull became Paradise”. Hidden in a cave under the earth is ‘the skull of Adam’. We are thus reminded that Adam our forefather lost Paradise through the tree from which he wrongly partook; Christ is the new Adam, bringing us Salvation and Paradise through the tree of the Cross. The city of Jerusalem is depicted in the background, for He was crucified outside the city wall.

This is an fascinating story: a Russian soldier who was killed on his 19th birthday in 1996 is being venerated in his home country as a martyr and an icon of him is giving off aromas of myrrh:

Today according to Inferfax of Russia in  Penza, an Icon of Evgeny Rodinov  gave off aromas of myrrh in the St. Lukas Church at the Penza regional oncologic dispenser. Russian soldier Rodionov was executed in Chechnya in 1996 after refusing to renounce Orthodox faith and take off his cross.

“Myrrh came out in two spots, in a palm of his hand and where one wears the cross,” the church Rector Alexy Burtsev told journalists.

According to the Church Rector, it happened during the All-Night Vigil on February 15.  Those in attendance, at the Church, stood behind praying, and took in the strange pleasant aroma.

The priest noted that on February 15, 1996, Penza-born Evgeny Rodionov was captured in Chechnya, imprisoned for hundred days and when he refused to renounce Christian faith, militants beheaded him.

Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Rodionov (Russian: Родионов Евгений Александрович) (May 23, 1977 – May 23, 1996) was a Russian soldier who was kidnapped and later executed in Chechen captivity. The purported manner of his death has garnered him much admiration throughout Russia, and even prompted calls for his elevation to sainthood.

Rodionov was born in the village of Satino-Russkoye, near Podolsk, Moscow Oblast. Though he aspired to be a cook, he was conscripted into the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in 1995. Private Rodionov was deployed to Chechnya, he served in border troops and on February 13, 1996 he was captured by Chechen rebels. They held him captive for more than three months.

On his 19th birthday Rodionov was beheaded on the outskirts of the Chechen village Bamut. According to his killers, who later extorted money from his mother in exchange for knowledge of the location of his corpse, they beheaded him after he refused to renounce his Christian faith or remove the silver cross he wore around his neck.

Yevgeny Rodionov was posthumously awarded the Russian Order of Courage. There is a growing movement within the Russian Orthodox Church to canonize him as a Christian saint and martyr for faith. Some Russian soldiers, feeling themselves abandoned by their government, have taken to kneeling in prayer before his image. One such prayer reads:

Thy martyr, Yevgeny, O Lord, in his sufferings has received an incorruptible crown from thee, our God, for having thy strength he has brought down his torturers, has defeated the powerless insolence of demons. Through his prayers save our souls.

As of 2003, religious icons depicting Yevgeny were becoming increasingly popular. Yevgeny’s mother has one herself; she has suggested that the icon of her son sometimes emits a perfume which she believes to be holy, to the extent that it actually drips with it.

Evgeny Rodinov, pray for us!

Last night I attended a talk by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware entitled “An Insider’s View: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Today”. Metropolitan Kallistos is a member of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which is the official committee charged with ecumenical talks between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches at the highest levels.

Kallistos gave a very informative and engaging talk. After reviewing a brief history of the Joint Committee, he then focused on its work over the past few years. He noted that the last official dialogue about reunion – the Council of Florence in the 15th century – spent months discussing the filioque and purgatory, but only 10 days on the role of the pope in the Church. Now there is a recognition by all parties that the papacy is in fact the most significant obstacle to unity, so the Committee has decided to focus on that.

Me with Metropolitan Kallistos

The most significant document that the Committee has produced is the Ravenna Document (2007), in which the Orthodox participants, for the first time, acknowledge the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome. As the Metropolitan emphasized last night, this was incredibly significant. Of course, what “universal primacy” means is still hotly debated.

(In fact, one of the most telling moments of the night was the final question. Someone ask Kallistos what the Orthodox mean, in practical terms, by “universal primacy”. How would it actually be practiced in the real world? The Metropolitan responded by noting that the Orthodox are very clear on what universal primacy is NOT, but have not really decided on what it IS.)

Another topic the Metropolitan discussed was the three levels of authority in the Church, as emphasized by the Ravenna Document: local, regional, and universal. He lamented the fact that the Western Church has practically ignored the regional level, and stated that a reclamation of that understanding in the West was necessary for a true understanding of universal authority within the Church. As a Western Christian, I admit that I have never had much appreciation for regional authority within the Church, so I’ll have to consider that more in-depth myself.

An important aspect of how authority is practiced in the Church, both in the East and the West,  is the concept of “protos”, which means “first”. The Church is hierarchical, and therefore in every grouping in the Church, there must be a “protos”. For example, the bishop is the “protos” of his diocese. The Patriarch is “protos” among the bishops in his patriarchy. The pope is “protos” among all the bishops in the universal Church. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this structure. But what does it mean to be “protos”? How is that role exercised? Metropolitan Kallistos pointed out Apostolic Canon 34 as a model for the role of “protos” in the Church. Apostolic Canon 34 states,

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.

It should be obvious that the problem arises from the second part of that Canon. In fact, this appears to be in direct conflict with Vatican I, which states that “definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable”. But Metropolitan Kallistos is hopeful that this Canon will be a way in which the Church can find a mutually agreeable means for the pope to practice universal primacy.

Metropolitan Kallistos also mentioned the recently leaked draft from the Committee about the papacy in the first millennium, which I analyzed here. He was very disappointed that the draft was leaked and felt strongly that the person who leaked it, thus breaking an agreement of confidentiality, should be removed from the Committee, if discovered. While respecting the need to honor a confidentiality agreement, I asked him if the very practice of confidentiality in this situation is healthy. After all, the reason the Council of Florence failed to bring about union was because the common people in the East rejected what was presented to them as a done deal. They had no involvement in the process. Would it not be better to make the Joint Committee more open to the public, thus allowing more people to be invested in it, and therefore making it more acceptable to the members of the various churches?

Kallistos agreed that it is vitally important that the leaders of the churches make these discussions a reality in the pews, and admitted that they had not done a good job of that. He asked how many people in the audience had actually read the Ravenna Document, and only about 10-15% of the audience had (and this was an audience deeply engaged in this issue). He did think it important to keep the discussions confidential during the process of creating a document, for many things in the draft might be eventually rejected and he saw no point in people getting upset about something that might eventually getting discarded. A valid point, but personally I think in today’s interconnected world more openness would be beneficial.

All in all, it was a wonderful talk, and I hope and pray that Metropolitan Kallistos is blessed with many more years of service to the Church.

By a happy coincidence, Catholics and Orthodox are celebrating Easter on the same day this year. However, Eastern Christians (both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics) observe Lent differently than Western Christians. First of all, they don’t have Ash Wednesday. In fact, their Lent began at sundown last night. Secondly, they don’t refrain from singing Alleluia during Lent liturgies.

And finally, they take the Lenten fast seriously. Very seriously.

A group of Orthodox monks in Ohio are trying to convert a hotel frequently used by a prostitutes into a retreat center:

Monks from the Syro-Russian Orthodox Catholic Church have opened the Monastery Inn, offering low-cost housing and outreach services in what had been the Canfield Colonial Motel. The monks’ leader, Bishop Timothy, says the group eventually hopes to turn the inn and surrounding acreage into a religious retreat.

Police say the motel and a sister property were used for a prostitution ring. The former owner pleaded guilty last month to promoting prostitution and will be sentenced early next month.

The monks gathered with business leaders Thursday for an official ribbon cutting in Canfield, 60 miles southeast of Cleveland.

I can’t help but think how biblical this is: God so often turned our sins and rejections of Him into avenues of grace (just look at the crucifixion). These monks are in good company.

Update: reading the article more carefully, I notice that these monks are members of the Syro-Russian Orthodox Catholic Church, which is NOT a canonical Eastern Orthodox Church. I still think what these monks are doing in this case is great, but I don’t want to appear to endorse all they hold and profess.

In the 1980’s a large number of Campus Crusade for Christ members ended up converting to Orthodoxy. Fr. Peter Gillquist (one of the leaders of this group) told their story in Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. This week, another one of their leaders, Fr. Jack Sparks, passed away:

Fr. Jack Norman Sparks–Author, Project Director for the Orthodox Study Bible, mentor to many, Founder and Dean of St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, father, grandfather and great grandfather–fell asleep in the Lord in Eagle River, Alaska, on February 8, at 7:30 a.m. Fr. Jack reposed on the twenty third anniversary of his ordination to the diaconate.

Fr. Marc Dunaway, Pastor of St. John Cathedral in Eagle River, Alaska, writes:

“It is with sadness and prayers for his family that I relay to you the news that the servant of God, the Archpriest Jack Sparks, fell asleep in the Lord early this morning. He was 81 years old. Fr. Jack did much research in the 1970’s and 80’s that helped the journey of the Evangelical Orthodox into the Antiochian Archdiocese. After this he was the principle overseer for the Orthodox Study Bible, which was just recently published with the Old Testament. Fr. Jack has lived in Alaska for the last five years and has several of his children here. Fr. John Downing, Kh. Betsy and I joined Kh. Esther Sparks and her family and prayed the Trisagion Prayers of Mercy for the Departed around him. We have truly lost a good soldier in the Church today.”

In an Ancient Faith Radio reflection, Fr. Peter Gillquist remembers Fr. Jack as one who lived a full, rich life of service to the Church and to his family. “He was a scholar and incredibly intelligent,” says Fr. Peter, “but he played football for Purdue as well, so he was really all kinds of people. Most importantly, if he knew something was true, he would commit to it, no matter what the cost.”

Fr. Jack was born on December 3, 1928 to Oakley and Geraldine Sparks in Lebanon, Indiana. After he received his PhD in 1960 he taught at the University of Northern Colorado and Penn State University. In 1968, Fr. Jack began his ministry with Campus Crusade for Christ, and after years of serving college students and studying church history, was received with the other Evangelical Orthodox, into the Antiochian Archdiocese. “He asked the question, ‘How did the early church worship?’” remembers Fr. Peter Gillquist. “And he came back and told us, the worship was liturgical and sacramental. It was pivotal.”

Pray for the soul of Fr. Sparks and for his whole family.

I mentioned a couple weeks ago that Metropolitan Kallistos Ware was coming to the Washington, DC area for a series of talks. However, the snow beat him to it, so today’s talk entitled “An Insider’s View: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Today” will be rescheduled for next Tuesday, February 16th. The schedule for the day is the same:

“An Insider’s View: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Today”
Caldwell Auditorium, The Catholic University of America
400 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
4:30 pm – Prayer Service
5:30 pm – Reception
6:30 pm – Lecture

I plan to attend – if you are going as well, let me know!

I mentioned in a previous blog post that a document prepared by a joint Catholic-Orthodox committee in 2008 was leaked to the public recently. The document dealt with the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium; I have now read it more carefully and I’d like to give an analysis of it here. I found it fascinating and insightful, and it even contained two surprises: one that might upset Orthodox polemicists and one that could potentially disturb their Catholic counterparts.

But before I dig in, I’d like to make clear the status of this document. It was prepared by the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in preparation for the official meeting between Catholic and Orthodox leaders in Cyprus in late 2009. It has no official standing and might even have been scrapped completely by the hierarchs at the Cyprus meeting, but I do think it is instructive as to the common view of important Catholic and Orthodox figures. Now on to the document itself.

The purpose of the document is to study the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium. The reason for this in the context of ecumenical relations is clear: the role of the papacy is the key stumbling block to reunion: since the first millennium Church was a united Church, it is important to see how the papacy was practiced and understood in that time frame as a possible indication of how it can be practiced and understood in a future, united Church. Obviously, reunion would not magically occur even if Catholics and Orthodox were in complete agreement as to the role of the papacy for the first 1,000 years of Christianity, but such an agreement would go a long way towards reunion.

The document breaks down its study into four categories:

1. The Church of Rome, prima sedes (”first see”)
2. The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter
3. The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion
4. The influence of non-theological factors

Each of these points are important, as they all were factors in how both the East and the West came to understand the role of the bishop of Rome in the life of the Church. Let’s take a look at each one individually:

The Church of Rome, prima sedes

One of the first things the document notes is something that might surprise your average Catholic: for the early Church, the primacy of Rome came not from Peter being its first bishop, but from the dual martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. By shedding their blood in Rome, they became the true “founders” of the Church in Rome, even though Christians lived in the Imperial Capital before either of the two apostles got there. This does not mean that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, but it shows two vital points sometimes forgotten by Catholic apologists: the importance of martyrdom in Roman claims and the role of Paul in the primacy of Rome. As we will see below, it was a later development that resulted in all papal claims being tied to Peter’s role as the first bishop of Rome.

Another important point from this section is the priority of the local church over the bishop. It is the church of Rome that has primacy, and the pope derives his authority from his position as the bishop of that local church.  As the document states, “Both East and West have continued to maintain that the primacy of the see precedes the primacy of its bishop and is the source of the latter” (paragraph 9). This just makes sense, as, for instance, Cardinal Ratzinger had no special authority until he was made bishop of Rome. It is the office which has primacy, not the person.

This section also contains the first “surprise,” and it is one that I don’t think will please hard-line Orthodox polemicists. In a discussion of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, the document notes, “Although in the first millennium Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor, no council could be recognised as ecumenical without it having the consent of the pope, given either beforehand or afterwards” (paragraph 12, emphasis added). I think that this is a significant statement, having encountered many Orthodox apologists who would like to remove the necessity of papal approval completely from a council’s requirements for consideration as “ecumenical”. Later (in paragraph 27) the document does list a number of other factors needed in order to make a council truly “ecumenical,” but I thought the explicit recognition of the need for papal consent was quite a concession on the Orthodox side.

The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter

In this section, the document relates the history of divergent East-West views of the Pope as the successor of Peter. Standard Catholic theology today states unequivocally that the reason the Pope has the authority he does is because he is the successor of St. Peter. However, as the document notes, this understanding took time to develop, and it was never really accepted in the East. In fact, I would say that this divergent development was the first real beginning of the separation between East and West. Beginning in the third century, while Eastern Christians viewed the importance of the bishop of Rome as deriving from Rome’s political importance, Western Christians tended to base that authority on apostolic – and specifically Petrine – grounds.

In this context the document reviews Pope Leo’s role at the Council of Chalcedon. At that council, Leo’s “Tome” was read in defense of the orthodox Faith, and afterwards the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” In most apologetical contexts, Catholics have used this statement to prove that the Pope is the successor to the person of Peter and therefore has his authority, whereas Orthodox Christians have either downplayed the statement or noted that it was simply a recognition that Leo had given voice to the faith of Peter. It is here that I think the document has the second surprise, this time one that might not be acceptable to many hard-line Catholic polemicists. It comes down conclusively on the Orthodox interpretation of these events: “In the early Church, both East and West, it was the succession of Peter’s faith that was of paramount importance” (paragraph 18). I know many Catholics who would challenge that claim.

But importantly, this section concludes with what I would say is the main theme of the document: that unity was preserved in the first millennium in spite of different understandings of the role of the Pope. “It is notable that these rather different understandings of the position of the bishop of Rome and the relationship of the major sees in West and East, respectively, based on quite different biblical, theological and canonical interpretations, co-existed for several centuries until the end of the first millennium, without causing a break of communion” (paragraph 22).

The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion

There is little that is controversial in this third section. Mostly it notes that many appeals were made to Rome during the various crises of the first millennium. There is general agreement between both Western Christians and Eastern Christians that the Pope has a role as a court of appeal when a controversy extends outside the border of a diocese or patriarchy, but less agreement as to the exact nature of his authority in those situations. After recounting examples of these appeals, the document simply concludes this section, “It can be affirmed that in the first millennium the bishop of Rome, as first (protos) among the patriarchs, exercised a role of coordination and stability in questions relating to faith and communion, in fidelity to the tradition and with respect for conciliarity” (paragraph 28).

The influence of non–theological factors

The final section has a “tacked-on” feeling, as it simply lists, without comment, a number of non-theological factors in the divergent views of the role of the papacy. These factors are very important, but I imagine that the Committee felt that it would take them too far afield to explore them in any depth.

The document concludes by emphasizing its overall theme: unity existed even during times of widely divergent views on the papacy. As the document states, “Distinct divergences of understanding and interpretation did not prevent East and West from remaining in communion” (paragraph 32). It implies, “we didn’t really agree back then and we were still in communion, so what is stopping us now?”

Although the findings of the Committee are unofficial and hold no authoritative ecclesial weight, I do think this is an important document. I hope that it can set the tone in every level of discussions between Catholics and Orthodox. For too long apologists have mined the first millennium looking for “proofs” of their position, often at the expense of the subtleties of what really happened. The fact is that Eastern and Western Christians have never fully agreed on the role of the Pope within the Church, so to think we will come to complete agreement in the future is unrealistic. What we can hope for, however, is a level of agreement that, while appreciating legitimate differences, is compatible with full communion between the two great Churches.

Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us!