Fr. Gabriel Bunge – Benedictine monk, well-respected patristic scholar, and author of the book Earthen Vessels: The Practice of Personal Prayer According to the Patristic Tradition – was recently received into the Orthodox Church:

[Metropolitan] Hilarion also heartily welcomed hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge), who, for more than 30 years has lived a hermetical life in the mountains of Switzerland. “You were a Catholic, but in soul you were Orthodox” – Metropolitan Hilarion said to him – “Today, before the all-night vigil, you converted to Orthodoxy, which was a natural conclusion of a long spiritual journey. ”

Metropolitan Hilarion warmly congratulated Father Gabriel on his reception into holy Orthodoxy, and gave him an icon of the Heavenly Queen, “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in memory of the fact that he was united to the Orthodox Church in this church, consecrated in honor of this icon.

One of the most influential books in East-West relations is “After Nine Hundred Years,” written by Yves Congar in the 1950’s – nine hundred years after the mutual excommunications of 1054. In this book, Congar posits that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not really in a state of schism, but of “estrangement.” By this he means that there was no formal act of schism by either side (the 1054 excommunications were not considered by anyone contemporary to them to be such an act), but instead the two churches simply grew apart over time until they finally acknowledged that they were no longer in communion with each other. Such an outlook has profound implications for how one views our current lack of communion.

I had heard about this book for years but never could get my hands on it because it is long out of print. I finally found it at a used book store about two years ago. But now, thanks to the wonders of the internet and expiring copyrights, it is available for free online. I highly recommend it.

This week I attended the 14th annual Orientale Lumen conference, held at the John Paul II cultural center in Washington, D.C. This was my third year attending, and it was quite enjoyable and informative this year. I am a very enthusiastic supporter of these conferences, as I believe that they foster, on a grass-roots level, the effort to have the Church breathe with both lungs, East and West. The path to unity is two-fold: official dialogue at the highest levels of the Church, and growing appreciation and acceptance of each other’s traditions in the pews. The OL conference works to make the second of these two objectives happen.

The theme of this year’s conference was “the councils of the church” and each of the speakers reflected on the work of the councils in the life of the Church from different perspectives.

The first plenary speaker was Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. He began by commenting on Christ’s question to the apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” and then noted that the first four ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) were the Church’s dogmatic answer to that question. One of the key events in Church history, according to Archbishop Wuerl, was Nicea’s decision that truths about Jesus could be expressed in non-biblical language. Today, we take this for granted, but this was a momentous decision at the time.

The next plenary speaker was Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America. I heard His Beatitude at last year’s OL conference, and he is my favorite hierarch today. As someone said to me, he is “charming and disarming.” His talk was a paper on the relationship between conciliarity and hierarchy in the Church. While his talk was interesting, the Metropolitan really shines during question and answer. He never avoids a question and can be quite blunt in his answers. In all his answers, one thing comes out: he is devoted to following Jesus Christ and making him the focus of all his activities. He returns to this focus on Christ constantly no matter the topic, and I found it quite refreshing.

On Wednesday morning, Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. gave the third plenary talk. His presentation was a paper on the development of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and how the councils affected that development. Those who are familiar with Fr. Taft know that he is not shy about giving his opinions and he didn’t disappoint in this regard at the conference. He was actively engaged in all the panels and shared many useful bits of information on a wide variety of topics. However, I will say that I found some of his denigrating comments about what he called “right-wing conservative wackos” (i.e. traditional Roman Catholics) to be uncharitable and stereotypical. One can disagree with other viewpoints without demeaning those who hold them and unity will only come about when we charitably engage all elements in the Church. But Fr. Taft has done a tremendous amount of good in the Church in regards to East-West relations, and we should all be thankful for his work over the years.

The Wednesday afternoon plenary was my favorite. Given by Fr. Peter Galadza, it had the provocative title “How Many Ecumenical Councils? A Test Case for Eastern Catholic Theology.” In his talk, Fr. Galadza contended at the “ecumenical” councils after Nicea II (the 7th ecumenical council) should be considered “general” councils of the West and therefore not on the same level as the first seven councils. This might sound crazy, maybe even heretical, to the ears of many Roman Catholics, but for those who know the history of the councils, he is not as far out on a limb as may initially appear. In fact, the council of Constance in the 15th century (considered ecumenical by Roman Catholics) distinguished between the first eight councils, which they called “ecumenical,” and the next six councils, which they called “general.” Fr. Galadza gave a very balanced presentation, noting reasons why councils such as Lateran I-IV or Constance should not be ecumenical but stressing that they are still authoritative and useful in many respects.

The fifth plenary talk was a bit different, as it was given by a layman, Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis. I liked the change, as it gave a different perspective to the issue of the councils. Damianakis concentrated his remarks on how the councils have personally affected him in his faith life, as well as focusing on some lesser-known individuals associated with the councils.

The speaker for the final plenary could not make it, so instead a video from the OL conference held at Seton Hall a few weeks ago was shown. Fr. John Behr, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, gave a great talk about the differences between “universal ecclesiology” and “eucharistic ecclesiology,” and how the two can be reconciled. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I thought Fr. Behr was incredibly insightful in his analysis. I only wish he were there to take questions. Fr. Behr also noted the fact that the Pope was absent at all the universally-recognized ecumenical councils. While this may have started as a historical accident, Fr. Behr thinks it might have more meaning than that. By not attending, the Pope remained “above the fray” and was therefore able to remain a court of appeal, even to a council. Fr. Behr then gave a great quote: “Perhaps we Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council in over 1200 years not because we don’t have an emperor to call it, but because we don’t have a pope who won’t be there.”

All in all, the talks were all fascinating and informative. But the OL conference is not just about the talks, it also consists of liturgical services and fellowship. And on this count, this year’s conference was exceptional as usual. The liturgical services (Matins, Vespers and an Akathist) were beautiful and prayerful, and the opportunity to talk with other participants and speakers is always a highlight of the conference. I was actually one of the few Roman Catholics there, so it was great to speak to many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox about their perspectives on East-West relations. I especially enjoyed an afternoon discussion with Elias Damianakis over a range of topics. You should make an effort to visit his website, www.orthodoxiconography.com.

Next year’s conference is the 15th annual, and director Jack Figel has big plans for it. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware already has committed to it, and Jack is working to get some (very) big other figures in East-West relations to come as well. Make an effort to attend next year!

I just returned from the Orientale Lumen conference and I’ll give a report in the next few days. But I wanted to post some pictures from the conference (click on any picture to enlarge)

Archbishop Donald Wuerl

Metropolitan Jonah (OCA)

Vespers at St. Mark's Orthodox Church

Archbishop Wuerl and Metropolitan Jonah discussing a topic

Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.

Fr. Peter Galadza (Ukrainian Catholic)

Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis

Panel discussion

Orientale Lumen Director Jack Figel

The Orientale Lumen conference here in DC begins in earnest today, and I am attending. The theme of the conference is the Councils of the Church, and there are some great speakers. Today promises to be especially interesting, as the Washington bishop of both the Roman Catholic Church (Archbishop Donald Wuerl) and the Orthodox Church in America (Metropolitan Jonah) will be speaking.

I hope to have some commentary and pictures up later this week. Pray for all those involved!

One of the great developments in theology in the 20th century, both in Catholic and Orthodox circles, was the rise of “eucharistic ecclesiology.” This is the recognition of the central place of the Eucharist in the life of the Church. Or, in the words of Henri de Lubac, “the Eucharist makes the Church.” Without the Eucharist, there would be no Church (and likewise, without the Church there would be no Eucharist). The Church is not just a gathering of like-minded people for a common cause, it is the mystical Body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the means in which this Body stays united.

But what happens when a Christian body proclaiming itself to be a “church” does not celebrate a valid Eucharist? Is it really a Church? Not according to the Catholic Church. In the language of the Church, it is an “ecclesial communion,” which basically means it is a group of Christians who are united in some fashion and its members – individually – are also connected to the Church in an imperfect way through their baptism. But the organization itself is not a church, per se, because it does not have the unifying element of the Eucharist, nor does the organization itself have a true connection to the Church. This is an important distinction that should not be glossed over, and it has far-ranging implications, especially in the area of ecumenism.

The goal of the Catholic Church in ecumenical talks is that each Christian is in communion with the bishop of Rome. In the case of the Orthodox churches – which are true churches because they have a valid Eucharist – this is pursued on a corporate level. The goal is to unite those Eastern churches – as churches – to the bishop of Rome. But in the case of Protestants, this is not the case. It is impossible to unite their corporate bodies to Rome as churches since they do not celebrate a valid Eucharist. Thus, the ideal is simply to allow these groups to join en masse to the Catholic Church, not as churches, but instead as a large group of individuals.

The case of the Anglicans might appear to be an exception, but it is sadly not. In Pope Benedict’s initiative to bring traditional Anglicans into the Church, he has allowed the set-up of personal ordinariates which would be the corporate structure for convert Anglicans to enter the Church. But it is important to note that their existing ecclesial structure would not be incorporated into the Church, but would instead simply cease to exist. If a large body of traditional Anglicans were to enter the Church, they would formally be entering as individuals, not as a body.

The most important part of what makes us a Church is not the fact that we have the same beliefs or a common goal in life. It is that we celebrate the Eucharist, which is the Body of Christ. Let us pray that all Christians will one day be able to celebrate this great mystery at one altar.

Living in the post-Vatican II ecumenical world we Catholics can sometimes get a bit ahead of ourselves when it comes to the potential for unity between Christian churches. This is especially true for our relations with the Orthodox Churches, whose beliefs and practices appear so close to ours (and in many ways are very close to ours). When I mentioned last week that it might take 500 years for Catholic-Orthodox unity to occur, I had a number of people scoff at such pessimism. But the fact remains that unity cannot occur without grassroots support for it, and in many parts of the Eastern Christian world, such support is limited and even nonexistent.

The latest example of this occurred this week as Pope Benedict travels to Cyprus, a majority-Orthodox country. The head of the Orthodox Church in Cyprus had to threaten a number of his fellow bishops with sanctions in order to keep them from boycotting a welcoming ceremony for Pope Benedict. These bishops have labeled the Pope a “heretic,” and their views are not uncommon in Cyprus, where last year protests greeted a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical gathering.

None of this should discourage us from pursuing reunion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, however. In fact, it should remind us that reunion will only be an action of the Holy Spirit, because if left in our hands, we will only have a continuation of the division of Babel. We should therefore work and pray (and pray some more!) that all parties might be docile to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to reunite us into one Body in Christ.

I am not one to think that the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are right around the corner. As I see it, relations between East and West have generally fallen into four approximately 500-year-long historical eras:

1) Complete union (0-500 A.D.) – from the time of Christ to Emperor Justinian

2) Weakening union (500-1000 A.D.) – from Justinian to the mutual excommunications

3) Deepening separation (1000-1500 A.D.) – from the mutual excommunications to the Council of Florence

4) Complete separation (1500-2000 A.D.) – from the Council of Florence to Vatican II

Now we are (hopefully) in the era of “deepening union,” which, if the past is any indication, could last 500 years before we could return to a “complete union” again. But every 500 years has to start somewhere, and it does appear that we are living at the beginning of a new era in Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Evidence of this deepening union abound. For example, there have been a number of articles recently on the “alliance” between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. Relations between these two churches are vitally important for the overall cause of Christian unity, as they are the two largest and most influential Christian churches in the world. Historically, the Russian Orthodox Church has had little interest in ecumenical relations, but recently there seems to be a thaw in their attitude towards the outside world. Specifically, they appear to realize that the restoration of a Christian Europe is only possible by working together with the Catholic Church.

Last week, there was a wonderful cultural exchange when a concert was held in Rome featuring both Russian and Italian music. It was attended by Pope Benedict and Metropolitan Hilarion, the chairman of the Department of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate. Both Benedict and Hilarion are accomplished musicians and have worked together in the past – before Benedict became pope.

The destruction of the Christian Faith in Europe has been a terrible thing to behold and has had untold negative consequences. But as usual, God works good out of man’s evil, and one good from the de-Christianization of Europe is the rediscovery of the common beliefs of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In many ways, I compare it to the “accidental” ecumenical benefits of the pro-life movement here in the United States, as Catholics and Evangelical Protestants worked towards a common goal and realized along the way that they have more in common than just opposition to abortion. Hopefully the common cause of Catholics and Orthodox against the secularization of Europe will have a similar result.

Those of us who are living in this new era are responsible for it truly being an era of “deepening union” and not a continuation of complete separation. Let us all fervently pray that East and West might again be united as one Body in Christ. We may not see that day ourselves, but our prayers can help make it happen one day.

I have written before about the new direction that Pope Benedict is taking the ecumenical movement. Gone are the days (so common in the 1970’s and 1980’s) of dialogue for dialogue’s sake. Now the Pope is directing the Church to take concrete steps to make Christ’s prayer that we might be one come true in our world. Fr. Andrew Apostoli notes this as well:

The Pontiff’s thoughts and prayers became expressed in actions. Like Pope John Paul before him, Pope Benedict has stressed the importance of charity in ecumenical dialogue for Christian unity. With the Orthodox, Pope Benedict made great strides. He met with the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox when he visited Istanbul (Constantinople). He has also had very favorable relations with the new Russian Patriarch of Moscow, whom the Pope knew when he was a cardinal.

A great step in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue was the so-called “Ravenna Document” issued by an international commission of Catholic and Orthodox theologians in October 2007. It reaffirmed the blessings we have in common, such as the holy Eucharist, the sacraments, and an ordained hierarchical priesthood. It also acknowledged some of the problems that needed to be dealt with, particularly viewing the Church on the universal level, where the primacy of the Pope will be a crucial question.

Pope Benedict XVI, responding to those Anglicans who desired full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, while preserving aspects of their Anglican spiritual and liturgical heritage, issued a new apostolic constitution that would allow the Anglicans to have “personal ordinariates,” like personal dioceses, which would allow them to be in full communion with the Catholic Church while maintaining elements of their Anglican identity.

So favorable was the Pope’s constitution that many Anglicans are considering rejoining the Catholic Church after nearly 500 years of separation! Pope Benedict has also met with the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

The Holy Father has reached out to still other groups in attempts to draw them into the ecumenical dialogue and, God willing, eventually reunion in the one Church Christ founded. They include the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Reformed Churches as well as the World Council of Churches.

His efforts at reunion for other groups that have separated from the Catholic Church over time included lifting the excommunication of four bishops from the Society of St. Pius X who were ordained without proper papal permission by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

There are no sheep that our German Shepherd does not want united within the visible flock of the Church. Let us pray that his efforts to unite all Christians might be fruitful!

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!

Probably the most important virtue needed when it comes to ecumenism is patience. It has taken 2,000 years for us to get into this mess of divisions and schisms, so it might very well take that long to get out of it. Even when it appears that we’ve reached a breakthrough, it is good to remember that reunion never comes quickly or easily.

The recent news that “100 U.S. Anglican parishes petition to become Catholic” is a good case in point. As was reported widely (including on this blog), the American branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion supposedly requested formal entrance into the Catholic Church. On closer inspection, however, this is actually not what happened. According to a document (PDF) on their website, what actually happened was that the Anglican Church in America requested that the Catholic Church create an Anglican Ordinariate here in America. But that is not the same thing as them petitioning to become Catholic. As the document states:

2. Does this mean ACA parishes will be going immediately to Rome?

No. In fact, no one is “going to Rome.” Once a US ordinariate (the structure defined in the Apostolic Constitution) has been established, each of the ACA dioceses and its constituent parishes will decide whether or not they wish to join the ordinariate. Establishing the ordinariate (the “implementation” requested by the Bishops) is thus the next step in an ongoing process, with discernment at each step.

6. Will the parishes of the ACA decide individually regarding following the national church in the final arrangements between the TAC and Rome?

Yes, and providing continued pastoral care and oversight to parishes which need time to discern their course of action is a high priority for the ACA Bishops.

In other words, after the Ordinariate is set up here in America, each and every parish in the ACA will vote whether to actually join the Catholic Church. It might be that they all vote to enter the Church, but that has not yet happened.

Furthermore, we should also remember that these parishes – and all the members of these parishes – are going to be diverse in their history, their spirituality and their receptivity to the Catholic Church. They will also have varying levels of understanding and acceptance of Catholic teaching. For example, one of the ACA parishes here in Maryland, St. Stephen’s Traditional Episcopal Church, has the following statement on their website: “Everyone is welcome to St Stephen’s and to its altar rail” (emphasis added). This, of course, is contrary to the closed communion practice of the Catholic Church. So obviously if this parish is to be accepted into the Catholic Church it will have to understand and accept the teaching of the Church in this area.

None of what I say here should be taken as opposition to the reception of these churches into the Catholic Church. I am extremely excited about the members of the TAC coming into the Church, and I welcome them warmly. But it is important to be patient with the process and make sure that everyone who is received into the Church comes in with eyes wide open and hearts full of joy. In other words, it is vitally important that we pray in earnest for this process and all involved that this might be one small step that leads us to be one again, as Christ prayed we would be.

For those who are interested, I’ll be on the Son Rise Morning Show tomorrow morning (3/23) at 8:40AM EST speaking about the stages of the Catholic Ecumenical Movement. You can stream the interview live at Sacred Heart Radio.

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.