I have an article over at Catholic Exchange called The Four Stages of the Catholic Ecumenical Movement, in which I compare the development of Catholic ecumenism with learning to drive a car (you’ll have to read the article to see if the analogy works).

Check it out!

I recently read the following advice from a Jesuit about how a Catholic can best interact with Protestants:

The first thing to keep in mind is that…he must look upon [Protestants] with great charity and love them in truth. And he must close his mind to all thoughts that would tend to lesson his affection for them. The second thing to be remembered is the need of gaining their goodwill so that they in turn shall love and think kindly of us. This can be accomplished by dealing with them in a friendly way on those subjects about which we are in agreement and by avoiding those disputed points in which one side might give the impression of lording it over the other. Rapprochement should be established with them in those areas in which there is concord between us rather than in those which tend to point up our mutual differences.

Who was the Jesuit who said this? Perhaps some 1970’s hipster who drank too much of the ecumenical Koolaid?

No, it is the words of Blessed Peter Faber, the first companion of St. Ignatius and cofounder of the Jesuits.

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.

Tito Edwards over at American Catholic is reporting that the American branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion – known as the Anglican Church in America – is formally requesting reception into the Catholic Church. Woo hoo!

It was the Traditional Anglican Communion that instigated Pope Benedict’s decision to set up a process by which entire parishes, dioceses and communions of the Anglican tradition could be received into the Catholic Church. The American branch of this Communion numbers 99 parishes throughout the United States.

Welcome home!

Or perhaps he was just being nice.

One thing that many Catholics today don’t realize is how controversial ecumenism still is in many Orthodox circles. Sure, the Catholic Church has pockets of resistance to ecumenism, and there can be some legitimate critiques about how ecumenism is practiced within the Catholic Church, but by and large most Catholics accept ecumenism as a valid activity of the Church. This is not the case inside Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox believers, after all, do not live in the West, where there is a great diversity of religious beliefs and dialogue between differing parties is considered ideal. Your typical Russian, for example, may never have met a Catholic, and only knows about the sad history between the two Churches, which is usually told from a decidedly pro-Orthodox viewpoint (as it is told from a decidedly pro-Catholic viewpoint in the West).

Ecumencial Patriarch Bartholomew, on the other hand, has been a prominent supporter of ecumenism. Over the years, he or his representatives have engaged in a multitude of ecumenical talks, ranging from encounters with Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Christian communities. Not surprisingly, this has opened him up to severe criticism within his own Orthodox Church. This past Sunday, he decided to respond to his critics in an Encyclical for the Sunday of Orthodoxy (the date is telling, for the Sunday of Orthodoxy is when the East liturgically celebrates the triumph of Orthodox Christianity over heretical groups).

A few excerpts:

Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people. Orthodoxy is always contemporary, so long as we promote it with humility and interpret it in light of the existential quests and needs of humanity in each historical period and cultural circumstance. To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be in constant dialogue with the world. The Orthodox Church does not fear dialogue because truth is not afraid of dialogue. On the contrary, if Orthodoxy is enclosed within itself and not in dialogue with those outside, it will both fail in its mission and no longer be the “catholic” and “ecumenical” Church. Instead, it will become an introverted and self-contained group, a “ghetto” on the margins of history…

Today, Orthodoxy is called to continue this dialogue with the outside world in order to provide a witness and the life-giving breath of its faith. However, this dialogue cannot reach the outside world unless it first passes through all those that bear the Christian name. Thus, we must first converse as Christians among ourselves in order to resolve our differences, in order that our witness to the outside world may be credible…

These dialogues, together with every effort for peaceful and fraternal relations of the Orthodox Church with other Christians, are unfortunately challenged today in an unacceptably fanatical way – at least by the standards of a genuinely Orthodox ethos – by certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. As if all the Patriarchs and Sacred Synods of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who unanimously decided on and continue to support these dialogues, were not Orthodox. Yet, these opponents of every effort for the restoration of unity among Christians raise themselves above Episcopal Synods of the Church to the dangerous point of creating schisms within the Church…

They disseminate false rumors that union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is imminent, while they know well that the differences discussed in these theological dialogues remain numerous and require lengthy debate; moreover, union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods. They assert that the Pope will supposedly subjugate the Orthodox, because they latter submit to dialogue with the Roman Catholics! They condemn those who conduct these dialogues as allegedly “heretics” and “traitors” of Orthodoxy, purely and simply because they converse with non-Orthodox, with whom they share the treasure and truth of our Orthodox faith. They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers.

Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue.

I am very pleased to see the Ecumenical Patriarch address the problem of anti-ecumenical Orthodox so forcefully, and I pray that his witness will help, in some small way, bring us closer to union.

Sts. Peter and Andrew, 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.

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!

The new Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church is proposing the year 2013 – the 1700-year anniversary of the Edict of Milan – for a major meeting between the Pope and Eastern Orthodox leaders:

Patriarch Irinej said that a 2013 anniversary important to Christians would be a “good opportunity … to meet and talk.”

He added that “with God’s help this (dialogue) would continue to overcome what had happened in history and take a new, Christian road.”

The year 2013 marks 1700 years since Roman emperor Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan to establish religious tolerance for Christians.

Serbia’s patriarch has suggested that the ceremony to mark the anniversary could be held in the Serbian city of Nis, emperor Constantine’s birthplace, and include Pope Benedict XVI as well as key Orthodox Christian leaders.

That would be the first ever visit by a pope to Serbia, a rare European country not visited by the Roman Catholic Pope.

This is doubly significant because the Serbian Church is known as a “hard-line” Church when it comes to ecumenical relations. But Irinej, the new Patriarch, seems to be charting a new direction for his Church.

Not surprisingly, the Vatican is enthusiastic about the possibility:

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office,…told the Belgrade paper Blic that this is a suggestion “we welcome with great joy.”

Referring to the predecessor of Patriarch Irinej, Father Lombardi added: “This is a sign that the dialogue that began at the time of Patriarch Pavle will be continued with the new patriarch.

“It would be nice if he would make a step further in order that we meet and see the possibilities for cooperation.”

It is amazing how quickly things have progressed in East-West relations in the past few years. We still have a long way to go, but the signs have been very encouraging lately.

St. Peter and St. Sava, pray for us!

Anyone who even slightly follows Catholic-Orthodox relations knows that the Petrine ministry is at the forefront of the divisions between West and East. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept a primacy for the bishop of Rome, but the biggest conflict is in interpreting what that primacy means in practice. Does the Pope have full universal jurisdiction over the Church as well as the ability declare a doctrine infallible, or does he have only a primacy which is mostly one of honor as the “first among equals”? This is the seemingly intractable problem which faces a potential reunion between the two Churches.

Much of the debate surrounds how the office of the papacy was practiced during the first millennium, when the two Churches were in full communion. This is the topic that a high-level Catholic-Orthodox commission has been discussing in recent years. Most interesting for those of us who have been following this commission over the years is that the Italian blog Chiesa has leaked a document that was written by the commission over a year ago:

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium

Take the time to read this document in full; it is fascinating reading.

One insight which the commission has emphasized, and which I have always found striking, is that East and West didn’t agree on the role of the Pope even in the first millennium, yet remained (mostly) in full communion during that time. In other words, their variant views on how the pope exercised his primacy wasn’t a communion-breaking issue. I think this tells us something important.

Of course, even if the two Churches came to agreement on how the pope exercised his primacy in the first millennium, we still have the second millennium to deal with, when the two views diverged much more widely, culminating in the Vatican I pronouncements of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. But still, an agreement on first millennium practice would be a huge step forward.

Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us!

Christianity Today has an interesting article by an Evangelical pastor about the Catholics Come Home program and other Catholic “New Evangelization” efforts. The author, Chris Castaldo (a former Catholic himself) shows a real appreciation for these programs and also gives some useful advice:

Are any Catholics listening? You’d better believe it. The number of organizations “answering the Pope’s call,” as it’s phrased, is impressive. Simply take note of the lawn signs outside of your neighborhood’s local parish advertising programs such as “Alpha” and “Theology on Tap,” or visit the Vatican’s YouTube channel, or tune into Relevant Radio or the EWTN Global Catholic Network, or now surf the web to CatholicsComeHome.org, and you’ll see it. Trenchantly conservative, devout, enterprising, organized, and above all committed to the Church, these Catholics are serious. In them, the spirit of Ignatius of Loyola lives.

I haven’t heard too many proponents of the New Evangelization compare their efforts to the legacy of Loyola and his Society of Jesus; but for me, an armchair church historian, the parallel is striking. Starting with a commitment to supporting and serving the papacy, both endeavor to promote dynamic faith among laypeople and to enrich the structures of public life. The parallel of theological substance, spirituality, innovation, and evangelistic zeal is remarkable. With this connection in mind, I would like to offer two words of caution: one for Catholics and the other for Protestants.

…my encouragement to Catholics pursuing the New Evangelization is to remain positive. While there will necessarily be moments of defining yourself over and against Protestants, don’t let this become your modus operandi.

Protestants must be equally vigilant. For many in our tradition the temptation will be to dismiss or perhaps mock the programs. After all, that’s what we’re supposed to do when we encounter error, right?

Speaking as an evangelical pastor, card-carrying Calvinist, want-to-stand-up-and-salute-when-I-hear-Luther’s-Mighty-Fortress kind of guy, I nonetheless feel secure enough in my Protestant convictions to express appreciation for elements of the Catholics Come Home programs and other New Evangelization efforts. Turning away from sin, commitment to reading Scripture, looking to the Savior, protecting the life of the unborn, serving the poor—these and other such themes are ones that Protestants can affirm, even though we disagree with the institutionalized structure of Catholic authority, the role of the sacraments, and requisite precepts surrounding them. This sort of measured response—consciously gracious while rooted in biblical principles—is more intellectually honest, more missionally compelling, and more genuinely Christian.

I can’t agree enough with Castaldo’s advice to Catholics. It is true that we must distinguish where we differ from Protestants, but that cannot be what defines us. The beauty and truth of the Catholic Faith is so much more than just “anti-Protestantism”. And it is this truth and beauty which will attract people to the Church, and we must proclaim that at every opportunity.

St. Ignatius Loyola, pray for us!

This looks like an interesting project:

I am very excited about the prospects of this new college (and frankly, any college that proclaims it is pursuing Truth is a major step ahead of most institutions of higher learning today); however, I do think it will be hard to pull off in an ecumenical setting. They will need to be sure to get faculty who are truly ecumenically minded while still being faithful to their respective confessions. Touchstone magazine has shown that this is possible in the media, but who is to say it will work in a college setting?

There are many traditions surrounding what the apostles did after the ascension of Christ – where they evangelized, who they converted, and how they died. However, many of these traditions were not written down until centuries later and after they had accrued many mythical – and even contradictory – details.

However, we have a very strong and reliable tradition when it comes to the activities of St. Thomas. Every account has him traveling to India to evangelize and our best proof of the veracity of that tradition is the fact that there has been an uninterrupted community of Christians in that predominantly Hindu land which has always considered itself founded by St. Thomas. Unfortunately, they have not been able to avoid the divisions of the larger Church and today there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches which come from that original Thomistic foundation.

Happily, it has just been announced that these churches have come to an agreement which will unite them more closely:

The bishops of Kerala– the home of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church– have reached an agreement with Syrian Jacobite and Syrian Orthodox leaders to share churches outside Kerala for Sunday Mass and to consider sharing cemeteries and the use of priests at funerals. All four churches trace their origin to the evangelization of St. Thomas the Apostle.

Underscoring the agreement’s ramifications beyond India, the Catholic delegation was led by Bishop Brian Farrell, LC, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity since 2002.

Although the sacred liturgy in both the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is celebrated in Malayalam, the former uses the Chaldean rite, while the latter uses the Antiochan rite. The Syrian Jacobite Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church are not among the Eastern Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See in 1054; rather, they are among the Oriental Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See following the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Pray for these Christians that they might be an example to us all of how we can live in a more united Church.

You know a topic is complex when a “very basic introduction” to it runs over 8,000 words. But when the topic is the filioque, it is difficult to reduce the subject to sound bites.

For those who are unaware, the filioque is Latin for “and the Son” (contrary to my post title) and it refers to the part of the Nicene Creed (which is actually the Creed of the Council of Constantinople) in which Catholics state, “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son” . In the original text, the phrase “and the Son” was not included (technically, the truly original text of the Creed, this whole line wasn’t even included). Many centuries later it was added in the West in response to heretical tendencies which wanted to subordinate the Son to the Father. This addition caused all sorts of problems between the East and the West and became one of the key points of division between the two.

Dr. Peter Gilbert, an Orthodox professor of Church History, gave the above-linked introduction to the filioque recently and I recommend it to anyone interested in East-West relations. Dr. Gilbert mostly focuses on the history of how the filioque came to be inserted into the Creed, noting both why the West came to accept it as theologically valid and why they felt it was legitimate to add it to the Creed.

My only complaint with Dr. Gilbert’s introduction is that it is too short! I think Dr. Gilbert would do a great service to the Church if he were to expand on this introduction and make it a complete book on the subject.

Update: I am currently reading “I Believe In The Holy Spirit” by Yves Congar, and he has an in-depth analysis of the entire filioque issue. I think this passage sums it up nicely:

What we have to aim at and what can, in fact, be reached is a recognition both of the unity of faith on both sides of Catholicity and of the legitimate difference between the two dogmatic expressions of that mystery. Each expression is consistent in itself, and each is impossible in the categories and vocabulary of the other side. In the course of ten centuries of discussion, neither side has succeeded in convincing the other or in persuading it to accept its point of view. There is no chance that this goal will be reached in the future. In fact, we may say quite unambiguously that this is not a goal to be pursued.

Both Eastern and Western Christians are baptized in a common faith. For both, ‘the Spirit is confessed as the third Person-hypostasis of the one divine nature-essence and consubstantial with the Father and the Son’. Both confess the Father as the Principle without principle or beginning of the whole divinity. Both profess the Son as not unrelated to the Father in the production of the Holy Spirit.

The expressions of this faith, however, are different, especially in the matter of the third of these points…

I would conclude…with a statement by Mgr. Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, who is the Director of the Orthodox Centre at Chambesy… ‘It is both possible and necessary to explain, on the one hand, the formulations of the Greek Fathers and, on the other, those of the Latin Fathers, including the Filioque, and while respecting the originality of each, to draw attention to the ways in which they are in agreement. From the fourth century onwards, the Filioque came to form part of the Western tradition, but it was never regarded as an obstacle to union until that union was ended for other reasons.’
I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume 3, Yves Congar, pp. 201-202

I have blogged previously that I think a reunion between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church right now would be unwise, because most Orthodox believers (and many Catholics ones as well) would reject the reunion, throw out the bishops responsible, and the division would just become more entrenched.

However, I now see there is another reason we should fear a Catholic-Russian Orthodox reunion: it will lead to the rise of the Beast of Revelation! That’s right, if Christians are united, that sets the stage for the end-times, at least according to a Mr. Bob Thiel, the “Church History & End Prophecy Examiner” at examiner.com. A few choice excerpts:

The Bible clearly warns of a dictator rising up in Europe (Daniel 9:26-27; 11:27-39; Revelation 13), but contrary to the implication of the Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion, this dictator will feign some type of religious background (Daniel 11:36-38). Both Catholic and Orthodox prophecies tell of a time when an ecumenical dictator (sometimes referred to as “the Great Monarch”) will rise up–we are getting closer to that time.

The Bible warns of a coming European Beast power ridden by an ecumenical church (Revelation 17:1-3). Events are lining up on a regular basis for these and other prophecies to be fulfilled.

Russian and other Orthodox should not try to unite with the Vatican and Catholics should not try to unite with the Orthodox as the Bible warns against this upcoming ecumenical religious power.

Furthermore, private prophecies from both Orthodox and Catholic mystics suggest dire consequences as well.

Christian Unity: the devil’s playground. Really, I couldn’t make this stuff up even if I wanted to.