Orthodoxy and Catholicism

I promised this blog wouldn't be very negative or controversial, but with the Pope of Rome visiting Istanbul, Turkey, including a visit to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, for the Feast of St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle (Nov. 30), traditional founder of the Christian community at old Byzantion and, as the Patriarchate's publicity notes more than once, St. Peter's elder brother(!), it's appropriate to mention what exactly is the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There's some confusion about this relationship, even among some Orthodox.

Let's point out first that since the beginning of the Modern period, "the Catholic Church" colloquially denotes a communion of Churches acknowledging, in varying ways, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Italy, commonly known, of course, as THE Pope.

(The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, also has Pope as one of his titles, as does the primate of Egypt's Coptic Church, the well-known Pope Shenouda III. Also, many priests in Eastern Churches are called pope, since it ultimately only means father, even papa in Latin and Italian. In fact, the not-uncommon Russian surname Popov originally meant the son of the priest. In addition, the Orthodox Church frequently refers to itself as Catholic, as I believe I've discussed previously. But colloquially, especially in the West, THE Catholic Church, of course, is used to refer to the Roman Communion.)

Besides the Latin Church, the one headquartered in Rome, the Pope is honored by a couple dozen Eastern Catholic Churches, most if not all of which broke away from a local Orthodox, Oriental, or Assyrian Church in the last few centuries. Among Orthodox these are frequently called Uniates (sometimes spelled Uniats) because in some languages their Unions with Rome are called Unia. Sometimes it is said they consider the term Uniate offensive, but sometimes not. They comprise about two percent of the Roman Communion, so that would be around 20 million worldwide. Many of their bishops are appointed by the Pope, but with some ECCs the Pope merely "extends communion" to their patriarch upon his election by their synod of bishops, and they function pretty autonomously otherwise. Significant numbers of "diaspora" ECs live in countries where they don't yet have their own bishops, and so they are subject to the local Latin (usually) ruling hierarch, even if they have their own parishes and clergy; conversely, Latins living in some areas of high EC concentration are subject to the local EC ruling hierarch.

Whether Latin or Eastern, theologically Orthodoxy does not distinguish between Catholics. Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are out of communion with each other. Some ECCs claim to be in communion with Orthodoxy, but whatever warm feelings or cooperative arrangements (other than Communion) may exist in some isolated cases, Orthodox can only be in communion with other Orthodox, that is, the 14 universally-recognized Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (including any Autonomous Churches they may have affiliated with them), and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).

The five ancient Patriarchates, ie, major regional Churches, of the Christian Church within the Empire of the Romans were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Within the Empire there was also the ancient autocephalous Church of Cyprus. Outside the Empire there were Churches in Armenia, Georgia (Caucasus), Persia, India, Ethiopia, and Ireland. From time to time one or more of these Churches, bishops, or patriarchs broke communion with each other temporarily. This might happen because of actual, perceived, or alleged heresy (ie, false doctrine), Church politics, or even secular politics.

The first lasting break in communion followed the affirmation by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus of the o/Orthodox doctrine that Mary is the Birth-giver of God or Theotokos, among other things. The Church of the East (often called Assyrian, usually called Nestorian despite their objections), which had previously declared its autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Antioch without permission or recognition, also denied the Ephesine teachings.

The next lasting break in communion followed the affirmation by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of the o/Orthodox doctrine of Christ being a hypostasis in two natures, human and divine. This affirmation was denied by the Church of Armenia, most of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and most of the Patriarchate of Alexandria (Copts and Ethiopians). The latter two Churches experienced schisms, wherein the majorities formed Oriental patriarchates and the minorities formed Chalcedonian patriarchates, each party claiming to elect the rightful Patriarch of that city. The Oriental Churches deny they're Monophysites or Eutychians, the heresy with which they're commonly associated by others, and in fact usually use the name Orthodox (except the Armenians, who call themselves Apostolic); the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch also rejects the nickname Jacobite by which they have been historically known by others. Dialoguing Orthodox and Oriental theological scholars have in recent years agreed they have always held the same beliefs about the humanity and divinity of Christ, merely using different language. But this agreement is not being received enthusiastically among the Orthodox at-large, in fact it is greeted with some controversy. Furthermore, the Orientals continue to refuse to embrace Chalcedonian language, nor subsequent Orthodox Councils (headlined by the condemnations of Monothelitism [the belief that Christ did not have two distinct wills, human and divine], Monoenergism [the belief that He didn't have two distinct energies or operations or activities, such as eating and working miracles, respectively], and Iconoclasm [the belief that Christians are barred from producing or venerating icons]). Be that all as it may, the Orthodox and Oriental patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria have come to pastoral agreements Orthodox critics say almost amount to reunion.

During the first Christian millenium various Churches from time to time temporarily broke communion with Rome or vice-versa, also, including Constantinople, for various reasons. In AD 1054, the usual dating for "the Great Schism," a final break occurred between these two, when bishops from each excommunicated the others. The immediate spark was a dispute over the Latinization of Byzantine parishes under Rome's jurisdiction (and Norman rule) in southern Italy, and the subsequent closure of Latin parishes in Constantinople. But issues had been brewing for years over Rome adding the filioque to the Creed (saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), asserting papal power over Eastern Churches, and Easterners resisting such papal claims. To add insult to injury, Latin Crusaders (without papal authorization, let it be said) sacked Constantinople in barbaric fashion in 1204 and established a Latin Empire there for much of that century. Before then, effects of the break had spread only slowly through the West and the East, but afterward Orthodox were pretty clear that adherents of Rome were no longer to be considered o/Orthodox Christians. There were at least two serious attempts to restore communion, the latter - the Council of Ferrara-Florence, Italy - on the eve of the 1453 Turkish conquest of Constantinople. In fact reunion was achieved between Rome and Constantinople, almost entirely on Rome's terms because the Emperor hoped for Western military help against the Turks. All other Orthodox bishops who signed the Florentine Union recanted as soon as they got home, except the ethnic Greek metropolitan of Moscow, whom the Russians promptly deposed and the Pope eventually made a Cardinal. In any case, the Western military aid was not forthcoming, and a few years later the Patriarchate of Constantinople, too, renounced the Union. As one staunch Orthodox had said prior, "Better the Muslim turban in The City [as they called Constantinople] than the Cardinal's red hat" - meaning at least under the Turks they expected to be able to retain their o/Orthodoxy...or suffer for it.

And there things stayed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for 500 years until the 1960s detente between the Popes and the Patriarchs of Constantinople. But none of the words spoken, gestures undertaken, or documents signed, from the Orthodox perspective, has restored communion yet. Rome has decided unilaterally to allow Orthodox to receive Roman sacraments in cases of need, "recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments," and "apostolic succession." But Orthodox are not permitted to receive Catholic "sacraments," non-Orthodox are not permitted to partake of Orthodox Mysteries, and converts from the Latin Church are usually received by Chrismation (ie, "confirmation").

It's common even among Orthodox to reduce the differences with Catholicism to a checklist of complaints, usually including the filioque, papal claims, purgatory, the "immaculate conception" of the Theotokos and her subsequent non-death, Original Guilt, legalism, unleavened wafers for Eucharist, Uniatism, mandatory celibacy for priests, the wrong kind of consecration prayer during the liturgy, and so forth. For Catholicism's part, they usually perceive us as closer to them than we do. But some Orthodox see Western Christianity as a whole as having largely degenerated from the experiential knowledge of the Truth, to mere human speculation about the truth, or from (big-T) Theology to philosophy-of-religion. To these, the list-items above are just symptoms of forgetting that Churches need prophets, and the spiritual, ascetical way they usually come about - that is, those who have seen God's Uncreated Energies, the Uncreated Light, the Light of Mt. Tabor, the Glory of God, the Shechinah, and spoken or written out of that experience/lifestyle, or at least relied on other prophets' experience and words, humbly. An important aspect of Latin reflection on Christianity is the principle, "If it's reasonable, God did it." But this doesn't take into account that human reason unaided by the experience of God's Revelation of Himself, and human self-discipline, is faulty, mired in the sin of the world. Furthermore, even if a Pope were to agree to wholly Orthodox doctrine, that wouldn't make his Church Orthodox. Western Christians have gotten so used to relying on the Pope - or a Reformer, or the preacher du jour, or themselves - to guard their Faith instead of guarding Orthodoxy themselves - maybe starting as far back as Augustine of Hippo - that especially in an environment rife with heterodoxy "in head and members," there may seem little else to do than the hard work of bringing each and every Westerner back to Orthodoxy one by one. As for Western "sacraments" and "apostolic succession," some Orthodox are starting to question whether the heterodox "successors" of Orthodox bishops forced out of office and martyred, as the Franks and Normans did throughout Western Europe, can even be said to possess Apostolic Succession, especially apart from Christ's Orthodox Church - like the West asserts.

This more radical critique, based in the writings of Orthodox such as Fr. John Romanides, Metropolitan HIEROTHEOS (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Greece, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and others, may be slowly growing within Orthodoxy.

"Patriarch of the West"

The Pope of Old Rome seems to have dropped the title "Patriarch of the West." It's been done without official comment, leaving Vaticanologists - and the rest of us - reading tea-leaves to figure out what, if anything, this action means. Here is the best treatment I've seen so far.

The reference there to "Western ecclesiology" would be to emphasize the Universal Church (and the Pope of Old Rome's control over it) at the expense of the Local Church. This is why when the Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate opposes Latin expansion in the Eastern world, they're talking past each other. Moscow talks about its canonical territory, but the Papacy considers the whole universe its canonical territory. Again, to Orthodox ears, surrendering "Patriarch of the West" sounds like giving up the leadership of the Latin Church; but the Latin Church doesn't consider itself territorially limited like we do, because Old Rome never canonically accepted the old Pentarchy, asserting instead its universal "primacy," yes, all the way back to the middle of the first millenium (the humble St. Gregory the Great, whose memory we keep today, and who rejected the title "Universal Bishop," notwithstanding).

"Oriental ecclesiology" - we consider it "orthodox" and not particularly eastern - recognizes that the Universal Church subsists in every Local Church - primarily the local diocese or bishopric, and in practical terms the "ecclesiastical province" - today the nation or patriarchate. In upholding the Local Church we resist the imposition of a universal primacy of jurisdiction, because all Churches are theologically equal - each Church is fully "the Church" - and all Bishops are equal, though they function within their Local Synod or Council among their brother-Bishops of the same nation or patriarchate...or within a Regional or Ecumenical Council. In fact, the human embodiment of the Universal Church is not in a universal monarch of the Church like Old Rome claims, but in the fellowship of Bishops celebrating the Liturgy at an Ecumenical Council, led ('chaired,' if you will) by their First Among Equals.

This may seem potentially divisive; in fact, there's no shortage of "politics" among Orthodox Churches. But in reality it places the burden of being The Church as far down 'the food chain' as possible, right onto the local Church. In Latin theology the bishop is the guardian of the faith, especially the Pope of Old Rome; in o/Orthodox theology we, the whole people, is. Arguably the Orthodox people 'owns' the Faith in a way the Catholic people doesn't...as maybe we are now seeing in Eastern, versus Western, Europe, both today and in the whole last 500 years.

New Patriarch of Romania; Fr. Roberson profile

His Holiness Patriarch TEOCTIST reposed at the end of July. The new Patriarch, DANIEL, has been Metropolitan of Moldavia. In Romania the Church is divided into several provinces, like the Byzantine Empire of old, one of them being Moldavia - not to be confused with the former Soviet republic now officially known as Moldova, next-door - and its Metropolitan is chief among the Ruling Hierarchs of its dioceses. The Patriarch in turn is Ruling Hierarch of Bucharest, the capital, Metropolitan of its province, and Primate of the national Church, as well as of its overseas jurisdictions.

The Patriarchate's official news release in English provides a glimpse into how one Autocephalous Orthodox Church chooses its primate. That day I read elsewhere that the procedure was taking all day and into the night, amid church services and meetings. (Also note that the Romanian Church doesn't put monastics' and bishops' family names in parentheses as do many others!)

Their official curriculum vitae for him reflects his appointment as locum tenens of the patriarchal throne in the period between Teoctist's death and his own election as patriarch, and hasn't been updated as of this writing. The locum tenens - usually already an active Ruling Hierarch elsewhere in the Local Church - serves as interim ruling hierarch there also during a vacancy, so a diocese is never left without one. (Here in America, OCA Metropolitan HERMAN is currently serving not only as OCA Primate and Ruling Hierarch of their Diocese of Washington and New York, but also locum tenens of the late Archbishop KYRILL's dioceses of Pittsburgh and the Bulgarian Diocese, until a successor to Kyrill is elected.) I note that the whole title for his Metropolitanate is "Moldavia and Bukovina": I've read elsewhere that the region of Bukovina is a somewhat ethnically diverse place, including some Orthodox Ukrainians and Carpatho-Russians I believe, all under the archpastoral supervision of the local Ruling Hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Romania. In fact, it seems Ukrainians in Romania have their own overlapping ethnic vicariate under the Patriarchate of Romania. (Go here, then scroll up a couple clicks for its official listing [in Romanian].)

This seems to be a secular media article about Daniel's election, with a little more background. The country still seems to be dealing with fallout from the Communist era.

This is the same Metropolitan Daniel of Moldova who figured somewhat humorously in English journalist Victoria Clark's Why Angels Fall, her travelogue through space and time / flirtation with Orthodoxy to try to get at the roots of the Yugoslav and Chechen wars she'd previously covered as a newspaper reporter. Over a community dinner presided at by Daniel after Liturgy one day, she asked him to comment on the "clash of civilizations" thesis that apparently took some parts of the world by storm in the late '90s as a result of Samuel Huntington's book of that title. (I was immersed in grad school at the time, so I didn't notice it! Apparently one of Huntington's 'fault lines' is between traditionally-Orthodox Europe and the rest of the continent - historically a line drawn right through Croatia and Bosnia 1,000 years ago by the East-West church split.) Daniel was inspired to respond to her in front of the whole room, placing her momentarily in fear for her safety! But Daniel was very concerned about an exaggerated emphasis on difference between East and West in Europe, and as the secular article linked above points out, is keen to collaborate with Europe's other religious leaders to 'revive' Christianity on the continent. (Although Andrew Greeley's sociological research calls into question the popular 'secularizing Europe' thesis....) In fact, a previous edition of the patriarchate's website touted the idea of their approach to Christianity being a sort of Latin Orthodoxy, due to the descent of their language from Latin, and the traditional descent of their people, in significant part, from colonists from Rome itself. This actually comes out a bit in this piece related to my secondary topic for this post, a 1993 profile of the Latin priest behind this occasionally-helpful 'Brief Survey of the Eastern Christian Churches.' It turns out he did his doctorate at the Vatican's "Oriental Institute" on the ecclesiology (theology of the Church) of well-known Orthodox Fr. Dumitru Staniloae of Romania!

Doctrine and the Church, including but not limited to the Papacy of Rome

The blogger from the previous post, Mr. Brooks Lampe in the Washington, DC, area, here tackles some heavy stuff, without it coming across too heavy! He's reporting and reflecting mostly on a book by Philip Sherrard, whose writing can be extremely dense - well-planned, well-packed, making for downright oppressive reading, like much philosophy can be - but finally rewarding to the effort. It's the sequel to Lampe's article linked to in the previous post.

A few reflections of my own:

• Fr. Gregory Matthewes-Green referenced there is the husband of Frederica Matthewes-Green, speaker, critic, and columnist about Orthodox and other topics, in person, in print, and on radio. They are the pastor and khouria (Arabic for priest's wife [priest is khoury, like the surname], apparently pronounced like Korea) of Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Church in Linthicum, Maryland, near Baltimore.
• Lampe blew me away by saying the following, even before getting to Sherrard! (emphasis added): To a large extent, in fact, I credit Western Christianity for leading me to the East.... [T]he West has always been introspective in trying to identify and return to the true faith where it perceives cracks in the truth. Anglicanism and the C.E.C. in particular, I believe, live out the agonia of a faith that has been partially damaged or compromised. For Western Christians, present-day Christianity in part means salvaging and rebuilding the Church. This is most obvious in terms of living in a world where the Church has been "broken" into multiple parts, but it is also evident in the liturgy and sacraments, where there is a sense that the inherited forms and meanings of the modern West are lesser versions of a former glory. In the minds of most high-church Westerners, that former glory can never be restored; as such, the best thing to do is stay the course and counteract the Church's entropic tendencies. Western Christianity's "agony," then, plays a large role in protecting us against complacency (although skeptics and agnostics can become complacent) and in stimulating a desire for a seemingly unreachable ideal. In studying the particular theological differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, I am beginning to see that this agony is not the necessary dead end.
  • ISTM Rome itself might disagree with such a characterization, but one might see it in Rome's, just like Protestantism's, constant searching for new ways to express what it has of the tradition, or ways to say what it has better; hence all the 'schools of theology' throughout its history and their struggles and conflicts and politics (perhaps unfairly represented, for readers/viewers of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, by the great philosophical/theological question of the debate, "Did Christ own the clothes He wore?").
• Lampe points to the insight that even when we use the same words, Orthodox and Latins are often not saying the same thing. This is a theme of Fr. John Romanides as well.
• Learning that the papacy of Rome - to paraphrase somebody in the musical 1776 ("John Adams"?) I think? - did not 'spring full-grown from the head of Christ,' but historically evolved from a local bishopric to doubt-worthy and damaging claims of universal jurisdiction, infallibility, and necessity for salvation, was key to my leaving it the first time in favor of the Quakers in 1991, returning to it 'on my own terms' in '98, and thus in the background of my leaving it again for Orthodoxy in '02.
• Where Lampe/Sherrard(?) uses the word parish, IIUC I believe we Orthodox have to usually understand bishopric or diocese (of whatever title). Some early Councils use parish not in the modern sense of a subdivision or outpost of a diocese, but the whole, presided over by its Ruling Hierarch. In truth, the Whole Orthodox Church and Christ's Body is indeed theologically present in every Eucharistic assembly, with or without the in-person presence of its Ruling Hierarch, but at least with his authorization... though this is true par excellence under his actual presidency: the Bishop, his priests, deacons, and other clergy, in the midst of the laity. This is why for us a Hierarchical Divine Liturgy is such a big deal.
• This article points to the theological importance of the Local Church better than I've ever seen before, something with which the Latin Church wrestled after its Second Vatican Council, until 'localizers' were basically 'pinned' (to extend the wrestling metaphor!) by the "tag team" of John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, his doctrinal chief, in favor of the papacy again, at least as far as official discussion is concerned. This is why the dribs and drabs that came out in connection with the "dropping of the title Patriarch of the West," from Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI - and others last March, were so unexpected, uncertain, unsatisfying... and untrusted! This presentation of Orthodoxy, and many others, starts with the Local Church; Latins instinctively look first to a "Universal Church" of which their pope is the merely-human head, and local dioceses mere outposts with an uncertain practical-theological significance, amid his universal jurisdiction even theoretically over every individual believer, even around that believer's local bishop.
  • (NB: On the subject of Local Catholic Churches - or not! - I believe the concern expressed over the 2002 establishment of 4 'normal' Latin dioceses in the Russian Federation, with one of them, in Moscow, as their 'chief,' has proved unnecessary. The Latin ecclesiastical province of "the Mother of God of Moscow" seems, like all other Latin ecclesiastical provinces in recent centuries, virtually toothless, and not an "innovation" such as an Orthodox autonomous metropolia. Each diocese's relationship with Rome remains full and direct. The four bishops do form the Russian Federation Catholic Bishops' Conference, which is for now as relatively powerless as all other Latin national bishops' conferences. The four dioceses' former post-Soviet existence as "apostolic administrations" is normally considered by Latins an interim structure, on the way to being made a diocese. [They are called "apostolic" because of their status as sort-of appendages of Rome, sometimes called by Latins "the Apostolic See."] It's true that few Latin bishops are titled "Metropolitan" as apparently their Archbishop of Moscow has been sometimes referred to as, but his formal title is normally just Archbishop; he is described as a "metropolitan archbishop" to distinguish him from the relatively few Latin archbishops who are not the mostly-titular heads of these mostly-toothless "provinces." I also note that Latins in the disputed Sakhlin Islands [between Russia and Japan] remain outside the "province" of Russia, within an undeveloped structure called an "apostolic prefecture," though their bishop in Irkutsk, Siberia, is pulling double duty as prefect of Sakhalin. And the Latin bishop of Novosibirsk was named to serve also the handful of parishes throughout the country of Russian and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics, but neither has received its own bishop otherwise either, and there are indications the Vatican has committed itself not to make a move that would be so provocative to the Orthodox. [This linked article is very partisan, but in many places throughout the world Eastern Catholics of one or more spiritual traditions remain under Latin bishops' jurisdiction... and in some places Latins are under Eastern Catholic bishops!])
• (emphasis added) ...Sherrard articulates the Orthodox belief that "unity" or "wholeness" of the Church is not found in the sum of all the parishes together, but in each local parish itself. Each eucharistic center is the Church because even though the body of Christ is distributed in many parts, each part is whole and complete in itself:* "There cannot be one local church which is more catholic or more united than another, because one manifestation of the Eucharist cannot be more, or less the manifestation of the body of Christ than another.... Christ is equally present whenever his body is manifest {eucharistically}, so the principle of catholicity and unity is equally present. The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organization or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it."
• (*--ie, Just like the Communion bread itself!)
• Not having read Metropolitan JOHN (Zizioulas') well-known work on "eucharistic ecclesiology" - just some critiques of it - I can't say if Sherrard is saying the same thing, or something different.
• A key insight of Sherrard's is something I have felt instinctively for a few years now (emphasis and brackets added): Eventually, Sherrard states explicitly that the Papacy is a misguided idea because {ironically!!} it destroys the eucharistic unity of the Church. If [Rome's] Petrine doctrine is correct then the Church is not unified through the Eucharistic celebration, but in that central organ or instrument of government that is the Pope. The responsibility of guarding the faith lies ultimately with the pope and not with the laity and clergy, not with the body as a whole. In other words, the apostolicity of the Church is reduced from the whole body to its head. The local parishes cease to be the full expression of the Church because they in themselves lack that quality of functioning as an apostolic body.
  • In effect, Rome's theology of primacy is exaggerated or overblown - "a one-man ecumenical council, even a one-man Church," I have called it elsewhere - a danger to the reality and faith of the rest of its Patriarchate and anyone else "in communion with" it. IIUC, even Eastern Catholic (aka "Uniate") patriarchates - Maronite, Melkite, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Chaldean - have to have the Pope of Rome "extend communion to" their newly-elected patriarchs, apparently functionally equivalent to the "autonomous" status of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople's Church of Finland, its Church of Estonia, I believe its Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, and possibly some others of its jurisdictions. A requirement like this is apparently all that prevents communion between Rome and the Assyrian Church of the East (aka "Nestorian"), and also organic reunion between the Assyrians and the Chaldean Catholics, now that Rome and the Assyrians have concluded they agree theologically after 1,600 years apart. In addition, I get the impression from their own printed sources that at least some Eastern Catholic patriarchs function almost like 'little popes' over their own jurisdictions, sounding much less collegial, conciliar, or synodal than even the most centralized Local Orthodox Churches. Does this come from association with Rome? I don't know enough of their history to say.
• This article also contains an excellent description of Orthodox Church conciliarity like I've never seen it before (emphasis and brackets added): The conciliar structure of the East, on the other hand, reflects the body functioning organically, in agreement and unity with itself and without reducing any local parish to being a piece of the whole: "What is intended through a council is that the identity {ie, identicalness} of the faith manifest in each local church, and vested therefore in each bishop, should be affirmed and confirmed through the mutual witness of all the bishops. It is the fact that its pronouncements affirm and confirm the unity and catholicity of the truth established a priori {ie, from the beginning!} in the Church--and through the act itself of the Church's foundation--that makes a council an authoritative organ of the Church.... It is the whole body of the Church that is the criterion of orthodoxy. It is the Church which determines the councils, not the councils that determine the Church."
• Orthodox are sometimes chided for 'theologizing everything,' especially for perceiving the Filioque even in Latin Church structure and discipline. But like I've said, Orthodox are very theological! That's why we're "o/Orthodox"!
• In fairness to the Latins, Protestants often see more than Latins do in Latins' "meritorious acts," because of Luther's errors. Technically in Latin salvation, positive virtue is optional; only avoidance of "mortal sin," or sacramental absolution of it, is necessary. When I entered the high school seminary of a Latin religious order whose main task is youth work, I learned - and experienced - one of their key principles: If you keep adolescents too busy - not necessarily doing 'good,' perhaps just 'morally neutral' - they'll have less time to sin! An idle mind, or body, is the devil's workshop, I guess. But when I encountered what some call the "positive ethics" of the Quakers much later - not just or primarily focused on avoiding evildoing, but promoting good-doing, with their self-improvement, pacifism, social justice work, "mysticism," "Divine leadings," etc. - was when I felt liberated from Latin "negative ethics" for the first time... and also had less time to sin... but felt better about it!!! (From an Orthodox perspective I see more clearly the problems with both systems now. Quakerism risks self-delusion, eg, [1] the idea that I'm frequently, consciously, authoritatively experiencing Divine input into my thoughts, perceptions, words, or deeds, without more serious work on my passions, or o/Orthodox belief or membership in Christ's Body the Orthodox Church, and [2] the idea that I'm progressing, even in humility[!], toward "the state Adam was in before he fell... even the state of Christ that never fell" [early Quaker, George Fox], ie, actual [not forensic] sinlessness and perfection even during life.)

Understanding the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Appreciating the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Patriarchate, in Turkey, may help one understand the life of this Orthodox Church in its jurisdictions around the world, especially the ethnic Greek ones.

The Patriarch is basically the leading member of an ethnic/religious minority in Asia Minor/Turkey that has been oppressed and devastated under both religious and avowedly-secular Turkish regimes increasingly for 700 years. In fact, since WW2 alone the Greek Orthodox population of the Turkish Republic has plummeted from a quarter million to just a few thousand due to genocidal political, social, economic, and violent pressures - in violation of internationally-"guaranteed" agreements - inducing massive migration into Greece and beyond. As this biased (and frequently misinformed) Turkish academic complains, the Patriarch is a religious civil rights leader. (And for the record, here's the text of the Lausanne Treaty, in which I can find none of the religious restrictions he believes are there [Can you?] - in fact quite the opposite.)

In this light, "Hellenism" in the Greek Church is as understandable as, say, "Afrocentrism" in the American Black community. And it's not just Greeks with roots in Asia Minor or Constantinople who follow these matters closely; the Greek government takes a keen interest in Greeks in other countries, in their religious as well as political and cultural affairs, as do the Greeks in other countries themselves.

Some observers in fact consider the very survival of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be in jeopardy - Orthodoxy's First Church (among Equals).

FYI: A note about "ecumenism/ecumenicity/universality": (1) In most people's minds - apparently of both Orthodox (of most ethnicities, in fact) and Turks - the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and the role "First Among Equals" have become conflated. But the Church of Constantinople was first among equals (at that time only in the East [second overall, behind Rome]) some time before its Bishop received the title Ecumenical Patriarch. The EP could unilaterally drop the title tomorrow, with no change in its role among the world's Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, nor with respect to its jurisdictions around the world - the qualities in which most people feel its "ecumenicity" lies. IMHO, it's almost like the title has become analogous to Pope, in the Roman Catholic sense, even if almost nobody in the Orthodox Church invests the EP with Roman-Papal powers or reverence.

(2) There is no way the EP could acquire the place in international law that the Roman Papacy holds. The Pope of Rome - "the Holy See," i.e., the Latin Bishopric of Rome - is a legal person under (Western-European-rooted) international law, equivalent to a sovereign entity like an independent country. This status is rooted in medieval Western legal tradition and the Pope's role in Western society since the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. Orthodoxy traditionally adamantly insists on leaving the actual handling of civil affairs to the laity - emperors, governors, etc. The Ottoman ethnarchy, and Archbishop Makarios' Cyprus, were exceptions to the rule. It's too late to invent medieval tradition! Before the European institutions, the UN, or anybody else, the Ecumenical Patriarch is just a religious leader, or the Ecumenical Patriarchate a Non-Governmental Organization.

(As Wikipedia points out, the EP *is* the Ruling Hierarch of Greece's autonomous Monastic Republic of Mt. Athos. But the Holy Mountain has never been an independent entity, it's always belonged to some other Sovereign entity. And even its traditional exclusion of females is protected by Greece's EU accession treaty, Euro Parliament protestations notwithstanding!)

Liberal Catholics and Orthodoxy

(Polished and expanded a little on 18 January 2008.)

How can Orthodoxy possibly dovetail with liberal Roman Catholicism?

• Collegiality and conciliarity; no Papal Infallibility. While the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has some very supportive supporters, he's really not supposed to be a worldwide ecclesiastical autocrat, merely "first among equals" among the bishops of the Orthodox Church, permanent chairman if you will. The Primates of Orthodoxy's regional and national Synods wield alot of influence therein - some of it comes from being effectively CEOs of denominations - but they can still be challenged, even driven from power 'from below,' as recently happened with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and a few years ago with a Greek Archbishop of America. And as far as "faith and morals" go, we place our trust in Holy Tradition, not the decrees of individual Patriarchs.
• Spirituality. See my early posts about God's Uncreated Divine Energies, Light, etc.
• Contraception. You're supposed to talk it over with your priest, but it's not the automatic sentence of mortal sin and eternal damnation like it is in the RCC ... though some disagree, and are free to.
• A sense of Church History. We're not afraid to find out that our Patriarchs' posts evolved, or that monks and laity overruled some Church Councils. Actually Church history is often liberating!
• Deaconesses. See here.
• Collaborative ministry. From the parish to the ecumenical council, priests and bishops are within their churches, not above them. Laity and lower clergy, even lay theologians, have always had a key role in the life of the Church. In some jurisdictions they even help select bishops, primates,* and patriarchs (as seen in 2007 in Romania), did anciently, sometimes since then, and may do so more again soon, for instance in the Moscow Patriarchate, whose 1917-1918 council authorized the practice as represented now in The Orthodox Church in America (OCA). (*--The Archbishop of Cyprus' election has a very "American" feel, with campaigning, the equivalent of primaries, the election of an Electoral College, controversy, secular media coverage....)
• Liturgy. It may be long, but it's great, beautiful, magnificent, etc. etc.!
• 'Physical' worship. All five senses adore the Lord in Orthodox worship; the whole body is involved, even more than in the Mass.
• Real theology. Like I've said before, theology has really fallen apart in the West; some trace it all the way back to Augustine of Hippo. I've had 10 years of parochial school, 5 years of minor seminary and novitiate, 4 years with a minor in Theology, 6 years of grad school in Western theology ... and still, every time I read Orthodox Theology, it's a revelation!
• Art and architecture. There's nothing like Orthodox icons and churches.
• Music. Good Byzantine or Russian chant just might cure you of the need for guitars!
• Divorce and remarriage; a pastoral sense, non-legalism. We don't bother with annulment, but your bishop can grant an ecclesiastical divorce, clearing the way for up to 2 more marriages. Despite (or Because of?!) being "orthodox," we have a reputation for leniency, compassion in pastoral practice. It's called economy, in Greek oikonomia, the opposite of acriveia or strictness, and called into play when an exception may be necessary rather than fear losing a soul's salvation.
• Patristics, incl. patristic social justice. The Fathers and Mothers of the Church are the source of the best Orthodox theology (though even "100 pct. of the Fathers are 85 pct. right!"). And how's this for social justice?: “The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging unused in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put in the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help” (St. Basil the Great).

A Fundamentalist who converted to the Latin Church wrote a book entitled Rome Sweet Home. I might call mine New Rome, Sweet Home: A Liberal Catholic Discovers Orthodoxy! (New Rome was the official name of Constantinople or Byzantium.)

National and Ethnic Churches

OK, what's with all these national and ethnic churches around the world and here in the West?

In brief, the Orthodox Church opposes having a strong central command entity like the Catholic Church has. Instead, the Orthodox Church is comprised of 15 commonly-recognized self-governing national or multinational Churches, each theologically equal to all the others. It's not altogether unlike the national Churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. (There's an order of honorary seniority among Orthodox Churches, but we don't need to go into that really.)

• The Church of Constantinople (Istanbul) covers most of Turkey, and eastern Greece. Also referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, an honorific going back to the first millennium.
• The Church of Alexandria (Egypt) covers all of Africa.
• The Church of Antioch (now based at Damascus) covers Syria, Lebanon, bordering areas of Turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait.
• The Church of Jerusalem covers Palestine, Israel, Jordan, and the Arabian Peninsula.
• The Church of Russia covers most of the former Soviet Union.
• The Church of Serbia covers the former Yugoslavia.
• The Church of Greece (based at Athens) covers western Greece.
• The Churches of Georgia (Caucasus), Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Albania, cover their respective countries.

That brings us to North America, and by extension, the rest of the West. For the most part, ecclesiatical jurisdiction here is disputed. There is an entity called The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) that covers the U.S., Canada, and Mexico...but not alone. Also with Western dioceses are the Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland. If a parish you're looking at belongs to any of these, it's commonly recognized as legitimate Orthodox (in the jargon, "canonical").

What does that mean? Well, it's like this. A priest, during Divine Liturgy, commemorates his Bishop. A diocesan Bishop commemorates his regional primate, an Archbishop or Metropolitan. If they belong to a Patriarchate, they commemorate their Patriarch. Finally, a top Bishop or Patriarch commemorates all the other top Bishops or Patriarchs by reading a list called the Diptychs. (Remember, there's only 14 or 15 names, and I've heard it done quite quickly: Bartholomewofconstantinopletheodoreofalexandria ignatiusofantiochirenaiosofjerusalem...!) This is the chain that links the "canonical" Orthodox Church worldwide.

(BTW, although not all Churches list the OCA Metropolitan in their Diptychs, all acknowledge them as "canonical." I think they just consider them as continuing under the Russian Patriarchate or something.)

Moving towards rejoining that chain via the Church of Russia is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), with parishes throughout the West (mostly).

BTW, at this time the churches called Oriental Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonian, or Monophysite, are not considered part of the Orthodox Church, but they're said to be fairly close in theological dialogue. This includes the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac/Jacobite, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara/Indian churches.

"Patriarch of the West" II, with clarification

The Vatican now says it abolished the papal title "Patriarch of the West" because the Western Patriarchate has been superceded by the system of national and multinational bishops' conferences, as the means of organization of the Latin Church. An example of a national bishops' conference is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (formerly NCCB). A prominent multinational bishops conference is CELAM, the one for Latin America, bringing together the various national bishops' conferences there.

This represents a reversal by Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of the Vatican's doctrinal office, in the 1990s I think, denied theological significance to the national bishops' conferences. Now they're replacing the ancient Roman Patriarchate!

Ironically, this action seems to remove the canonical basis for the Pope of Rome's rule over the Latin Church, unless, again, they prefer to emphasize his "universal jurisdiction."

In any case, the move has nothing really to do with relations with Orthodoxy, as was originally surmised by some commentators in the media.