|
|
|
If you
followed the News reports on TV over the weekend you will probably have
been confused by the demonstrations by certain priest, monks and laymen
during the start of the talks between Orthodox and Roman Catholics held in
Paphos. I think that today we should see what this trouble was all about
and if they were justified. The Joint Commission for the Theological
Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church began
in Ravenna in 2007 where a document for process towards full unity was
signed. The Ravenna document, is based on the ecclesiology of the first
millennium, when the two churches were in full communion, although even
then differences arose from time to time. The 2nd round of dialogue
between Orthodox and Catholics began in Paphos on 16th October and ends on
the Friday 23rd October. On the first day of the talks the protesters
interrupted the meeting and demanded that the Archbishop put a stop to the
talks. The protest in fact caused the cancellation of the programme. Why
were there protests to these dialogues? The protesters claim that the
dialogue between the two churches aimed in the submission of the Orthodox
Church to the Pope. As far as the Orthodox are concerned the Seat of Rome
has been vacant since the Great Schism of 1054. It doesn’t recognise any
Pope or bishop of the Roman church after that date.
The main aim of the
talks is to find common ground with the aim in restoring communion between
the two churches. If this is to happen it will not be in the immediate
foreseeable future, it will take many years of talks and will begin with
joint prayers with the hope of leading to full communion. But to be
realistic, this will never happen unless we recognise the Pope as a lawful
bishop. So the protesters are partly correct in saying that the dialogues
are aimed towards the submission of the Orthodox Church to the Pope. I say
partly because even if that day was to come it doesn’t mean that anything
will substantially change. The Pope will be given recognition as the
leader of the Church in the west and the rest of the Orthodox will
continue with their own church leaders without allowing the Pope to
intervene in their territory. Some of our church leaders responded angrily
with the protesters, and the world saw them as people full of hatred for
the Roman Catholics, but this is an exaggeration. They were pious people
who were concerned of what might happen to the Church if such agreements
were reached and so used their democratic right to protest, which they did
peacefully with banners: No violence was involved. If they did actually
react with hatred it was not without precedence.
History tells a
sorrowful story of the atrocities the Latins did to the Orthodox church
not only in Constantinople but here also in Cyprus. During the Frankish
and Venetian rules of Cyprus, the church suffered greatly under the Latin
bishops. Her own bishops were reduced from 14 to 4 and the 4 remaining
were forced away from their towns to small villages e.g the archbishop was
moved from Nicosia to the region of Solia, near Morphou and the bishop of
Larnaca was moved to the village of Lefkara. Each Orthodox bishop was
under the Latin bishop of the area. The Roman Catholic church tried on
occasions to force the Orthodox bishops to make concessions on the
differences in doctrine and practices between the two churches, sometimes
with threats and sometimes using violence and torture, as in the case of
the 13 monks of Kantara. Moreover the properties of many monasteries were
confiscated. The persecutions were many, especially during the Frankish
period, but none succeeded in uprooting the faith of the Orthodox Greek
Cypriots.
OK these were
things in the past and as Christians who preach love we should be able to
rise above these negative feelings and forgive. But forgiving is one thing
and doesn’t necessarily mean to forget and definitely doesn’t mean to
compromise on our differences. The Bishop of Paphos Georgios said everyone
stresses that “there are differences, there are serious differences; a
thousand years of division have increased our differences.” “But times
today necessitate reconciliation, despite our Churches going through hate
and animosity, today we understand that we need to cooperate.” The
Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew commenting on the joint talks said
“engaging in dialogue is our duty and obligation. Dialogue is a road of no
return”. In truth there is no harm in dialogue and it is our duty as the
True Church of Christ to bring about the union of all people that call
themselves Christians which cannot be done without dialogue. But this
union should in no way compromise the truth by which we proudly call
ourselves; I mean the word Orthodox which means Right worship. The Bishop
of Paphos said “today we understand that we need to cooperate.” What
exactly does he mean by “the need to cooperate”? I hope he doesn’t mean to
give and take on our differences.
So what are these
differences that have kept us apart for a thousand years? We have seen
many of them in the past, but it would be beneficial to look at them again
and some that we didn’t examine before. When we are asked to explain the
differences we usually mention the Pope, the insertion of the Filioque and
certain dogmas like purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, but the
differences are in fact far more numerous and quite profound. The main
reason for the schism is usually considered to be the insertion of the
Filioque in the Creed which in some placed was inserted centuries before
the Schism. This is a subject that we have covered in depth at a previous
talk and because it would take up most of our time, today we will pass it
over to see the many other differences that exist between the two
churches. Like the Filioque, a great many existed long before the Great
Schism of 1054 and many more developed after. Also, in modern times, since
Vatican II, that major, if not tragic attempt, to “update” Roman
Catholicism, the differences between Orthodoxy and the followers of the
Pope have widened. Some of these differences are external practices which
can easily be rectified or ignored because they are not based on dogmas
such as how we cross ourselves. Whether we cross ourselves from right to
left or left to right, whether we use one, two, three or four fingers is
not something that would keep us apart. To be fair we also have changed
the way we cross ourselves over the centuries. Originally from the times
of the Apostles we used only our thumb making the sign of the cross on our
foreheads, then we used two fingers and it was only in the ninth century
that we adopted the use of the three fingers. The things that have kept us
apart for a thousand years are more serious because they have to do with
faith, dogmas and our relationship with God and how we understand who God
is.
Both the
Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church approach this understanding
of God in different ways. The Orthodox Church does not seek to reconcile
faith and human logic. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science
what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics, biology, chemistry
or philosophy lend support to the teachings of the Church, she does not
refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual
accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith
to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.
Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and
that is how we know Him to exist. But who God is, is beyond our
understanding and whatever we know of him is only what he himself has
revealed to us and unless God speaks to us, human reason cannot know more.
The saving knowledge of God comes by the Saviour. Speaking to His Father,
He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent”. (John
17: 3)
Roman
Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. From
the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, blended
Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational
thinking and the study of nature, were valid ways to understand truths
pertaining to God. According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through
nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals of
theology, in Aquinas’ mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about God
and to experience salvation through that truth. Aquinas believed that
faith and reason were both necessary for one to obtain true knowledge of
God. From that period till now, the Latins have never wavered in their
respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology,
mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion. Roman Catholicism
teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and
with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Fathers
declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine
grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the
glorified flesh of Christ.
One of the
things that distinguishes the Orthodox faith is that it has remained
unaltered from the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Orthodox Church of
the twenty first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox
of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries. Of course
there have been external changes like vestments, monastic habits, new
feasts, canons of Ecumenical and Regional Councils, etc, also certain
differences in religious customs are obvious from one Orthodox country to
another, but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith, their
has always been “one faith, one Lord, one baptism”. (Eph. 4: 4)
The teachings
of the Church are derived from two sources: Holy Scripture, and Sacred
Tradition, within which the Scriptures came to be, and within which they
are interpreted by the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether
they be Greek, Latin, Syriac or Slavic. Their place in the Orthodox
religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded,
altered or ignored. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, unable to show a
continuity of faith and realizing how they have changed the apostolic
doctrines over the centuries, came up with another doctrine in the 19th
Century called “Doctrinal Development”.
Following the
philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman),
Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ
only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and
matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the
Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired
other needs. Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as
growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge.
The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage
or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and
that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as
Vatican II. The Catholic church thus believes that the Holy Spirit through
the popes develops, changes, adds, and subtracts various aspects of
Scriptural interpretation, early Christian analyses, and apostolic
Tradition. They believe that each new system of doctrines and replacements
of previous beliefs, such as Vatican I, Vatican II, etc., are superior in
intellect and spiritual enlightenment to the previously-accepted church
traditions and papal decisions. Furthermore, all future changes, according
to this new dogma, will supercede Vatican II and minimize or nullify
previous papal pronouncements on doctrine. All the stages are useful, all
are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example,
but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or
newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility”
and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary are justifiably
presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.
Orthodoxy does
not believe that Christ's New Testament Church should or can change
arbitrarily by the Holy Spirit. The Bible and the early Church both taught
that the written and oral traditions of the apostles must be adhered to
without change or variation in any way. The Holy Spirit struggled with the
Church against heresy and false doctrines for centuries and the early
Christians suffered martyrdom for this Faith. This is the Faith that
Orthodoxy has inherited and will continue to abide by and defend until the
coming of Christ.
Let’s now see
differences on how both churches understand Adam’s original sin and
Christ’s death on the Cross. The Orthodox believe that when Adam sinned
against God, he introduced death to the world. Death was the consequence
of the original sin. We are not liable for Adam’s sin but since we are all
born of the same human stock as Adam, we inherit the consequences of his
sin which is death. Death means that man is no longer immortal as God
created him, he has become mortal and the life of every human being comes
to an end but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate,
lust, greed, etc.), and brings disease and aging.
The Roman
Catholic church differs on what we inherit from Adam. Following Augustine
of Hippo, the Latins teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt
of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them.
All humanity is liable for their “original sin.” Whereas the Orthodox
believe that we only inherit the consequences of original sin.
These two
different approaches to the understanding of original sin determine how we
understand Christ’s death on the Cross. Following the holy Fathers,
Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave
“His life a ransom for many” as we are told by Matthew (Matt.
20:28) and “For even the Son of man came not to be
served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many”
according to Mark (Mark 10:45). The “ransom” is paid to the grave. As the
Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea, “I will ransom
them from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death.”
(Hosea 13:14) In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the
keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14). The man
Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all “a ransom
for many”. But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no
power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed
from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death
and sin. To be free of these, we become like God and may live with Him
forever.
Now according
to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine
Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin
Adam offended the infinite God and God demands that justice is paid for.
Since we are all guilty of original sin we are all liable to pay this debt
of honour to God, but we did not have the power to make amends, for the
“original sin” of Adam which passed to us, Only Christ, Who was God and
man, could pay this “debt of honour.” He pays the debt by dying on the
Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offence is removed.
God is no longer angry with man. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood
by the Latins as Christ suffering punishment for the human race when, in
truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and
destroy his power, to destroy death.
From what has
been said so far, the differences could be interpreted as meaning that the
two Churches worship a different God, but we still haven’t touched on the
more serious differences like the papal claims to supremacy and
infallibility, the dogmas of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception.
Let’s begin then with the papal claims of supremacy. This claim was in
fact the beginning of the schism of the Church. In the ninth century, Pope
Nicholas I (858-867), surprising not only the bishops of the East, but
even those of the west as well, tried to present himself as “sovereign of
the Church and the whole world, by divine right”. He claimed that he was
the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by
the Lord Himself with the words, “Thou art Peter and
upon this rock I shall build my Church . . .” (Matt. 16:18).
This teaching,
however, is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Bible and of the
fathers of the Church, and its only foundation is the egotistical and
absolutist aspiration of the Pope to become leader and despot, judge and
sovereign of the whole world. If we study the early fathers and the
Ecumenical Councils of the Church from the first nine centuries, we are
fully persuaded that the bishop of Rome was never considered as the
supreme authority and infallible head of the Church. Indeed, every bishop
is head and president of his own local Church, subject only to the
synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal, as being alone
infallible.
From the first
days of the Church, when the Apostles had to decide about an important
problem, they gathered at a Synod [council], they fasted, they prayed and
decided all together, inspired by the Holy Spirit:
“Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, with the whole Church”
(Acts 15: 22 and 15: 28), “For it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15: 28). This system called synodical
or conciliar has remained intact in the Orthodox Church up to the present
day. No bishop is over the others. The Church catholic never granted
rights to a bishop of a larger province to interfere in the matters of
another Church. Every local Church was self-governing and responsible for
her region. The only thing the Church recognized was the primacy of
honour, as to who would sit or be mentioned first in a council etc. Thus
the Second Ecumenical Synod defined by its third canon that the bishop of
Constantinople should have “the primacy of honour after the bishop of
Rome, for Constantinople is New Rome”. The Church recognizes only a
primacy of honour and seniority and not of authority over the rest of the
bishops in the Church, and in this way and with this spirit; she proceeded
during the first eight centuries. The passage of the Gospel
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church” (Matth. 16: 18) on which the Papal claim is based was never
interpreted to mean the church of Rome. All the fathers of the church
understood this metaphorically. The rock upon which the Lord has built His
own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, is
understood as being Peter’s true confession concerning the Lord that he is
“Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matth.
16: 16). Upon this confession and faith, the saving preaching of the
Gospel by all the Apostles and their successors rests unshaken.
The divine
fathers, respecting the bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital
city of the Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, and
considered him simply as the bishop first in order, that is, first among
equals; which prerogative they also assigned afterwards to the bishop of
Constantinople when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire.
If it is true
that the Lord Jesus Christ placed Peter above all the other Apostles, why
was the First Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem presided over by James the
Lord’s brother and not by Peter? And why, eventually, did the opinion of
Paul prevail, being adopted even by Peter himself? Besides, it is an
undoubted historical fact that the founder of the Church of Rome was Paul
and not Peter. The fact that Peter preached in Rome does not constitute a
right for papal primacy. It is equally known, as described in Holy
Scripture, that Peter stayed for a long time in Antioch and preached to
the Christians there. Why then, did he not give such a privilege to the
bishops of Antioch? Is it not clear by this event that the claim of the
Pope to be successor of the Apostle Peter is not based upon Holy
Scripture, but it is only an invention of the Pope in order to support his
monarchical aspirations, which are so contrary not only to the spirit, but
also to the letter of the Bible? The Pope, abandoning the Spirit of
Christ, and losing His grace, claimed the primacy, forgetting the words of
Christ to the Apostles John and James, when they asked Him for the first
place: “Ye know not what ye ask” (Mark 10:
38)
The papal
claims for supremacy gave birth to the dogma of infallibility. In the
nineteenth century, the Roman Church, proclaimed, to the astonishment of
the Christian world, that the bishop of Rome is infallible. The Orthodox
Church knows of no one infallible upon earth, with the exception of the
Son of God who was ineffably made man. Even Peter himself thrice denied
the Lord and Paul twice rebuked him for not walking uprightly according to
the truth of the Gospel.
When the
question arose whether the Christians should keep the decrees of the
Mosaic Law, the Apostles and the elders came together in synod to consider
the matter. (Acts 15: 6). They did not consult Peter as the only bearer of
the truth and Vicar of Christ on earth as the Pope would have him be. Is
this not proof that the truth is declared only by the Church and that only
the Church must decide in questions concerning the salvation of her
members? And is it not blasphemy to set the Pope over the Synods when even
the Apostles themselves never claimed such a privilege?
Observe
carefully the way the Apostles expressed the results of their disputes
during that Apostolic Synod: “For it seemed good to
the Holy Ghost and to us” (Acts 15:28). During their consultations
the Holy Spirit was present and directed the thoughts of the members of
the synod who sat and conversed as equals. None of them claimed
infallibility or primacy, which the Pope so insistently demands, thus
proving how much he has strayed from the spirit and tradition of the
Apostles. Moreover, how can we accept the doctrine of infallibility or
primacy from history, when so many Popes have been anathematised or
deposed by councils of bishops? It is well known that Pope Liberius, in
the fourth century, subscribed an Arian confession, likewise Zosimus, in
the fifth century, approved a heretical confession denying original sin.
Virgilius, in the sixth century, was condemned for wrong opinions by the
Fifth Council; Honorius, having fallen into the monothelite heresy, was
condemned in the seventh century by the Sixth Ecumenical Council as a
heretic and the Popes who succeeded him acknowledged and accepted his
condemnation.
By this novel
dogma, unprecedented in ecclesiastical history, the Roman Catholic Church
abolished the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, because their power
and infallibility were surrendered to the bishop of Rome, who on this
account is no more a bishop of the Church. He has become some fantastic
and inconceivable being who stands above the bishops and above the Church,
which could not exist without him. In other words, the Church has been
replaced by the Pope of Rome. No impartial Christian, searching for the
truth, can doubt the error of the Pope in this matter, or deny the
non-ecclesiastical and worldly reasons that motivated his grasping such
authority.
Another novel
and un-orthodox teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is the
superabundance of the good works of the saints. It teaches that the good
works or merits of the Holy Virgin and the saints are more that they need
to save themselves and therefore, the rest of them can be used for the
forgiveness of the sins of other men. Of course, the Pope himself, who
invented many ways to gather money through the administration of this
supposed right to forgive sins, has assumed the dispensation of these
merits. The Bible, however, is clear in this matter and warns us that
every man will be judged “according to that he hath done, whether it be
good or bad” (II Cor. 5: 10). Each man’s sins can be cleansed only by
sincere repentance and by his conformation to the divine commandments, and
not by the surplus merits of the saints’ good works.
An equally
un-orthodox and un-scriptural dogma is that of the purgatorial fire
wherein the sinful souls stay for a shorter or longer period, in
proportion to the number and weight of their sins, in order to be cleansed
and purified from guilt. The Lord, however, spoke about an eternal fire
only, which the sinful and unrepentant will suffer, and about an eternal
life, which the righteous and the repentant will enjoy. Nowhere did He
speak about a middle condition where a soul must be purified in order to
be saved. The Church believes the words of the Gospel, that both the
righteous and the sinful await the resurrection of the dead, and that they
enjoy in advance Paradise or Hell, in proportion to their good or bad
works, before the final placement.
Let’s now look
at the Roman Catholic’s dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Both Orthodoxy
and Roman Catholicism believe Mary is “the Mother of God” “The Theotokos”
and “the Ever-Virgin Mary.” On the 8th of December 1854 Pope Pius IX
presented the “dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary” This
dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed
Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God,
and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race,
preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by
God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the
faithful. As the Pope is infallible and cannot err then the dogma must be
true.
For the
Orthodox Church this dogma is totally ludicrous and even blasphemous.
because then Mary would no longer belong to the human race. The dogma
breaks Mary’s link to Adam and the rest of humanity and makes her a super
person with the attributes that we ascribe only to Christ. We can even say
that it makes her God incarnate, thus Joachim would not have been her
father and Anna, her mother, would have been the Mother of God. God
himself would not have needed to become man to save us, because if Mary
was born outside of original sin or rather we should say without the
consequences of the original sin, she would have been a perfect human
being, thus not needing to be saved and we could all find salvation
through her.
On the other
hand, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was born with the
consequences of the original sin just like every other human being, but
was cleansed of this the moment she accepted to become the Mother of God.
How this was possible is not for us to ask, but remains one of the
mysteries of salvation. All we need to know is that the Holy Spirit
prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled
with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she
might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ.
These then are
the main differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic
Church. There are still a great many smaller differences which although
small are not trivial because they also contribute to how we understand
our relationship with God.
The Orthodox
do not fast on Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday because of the
Joy of the Resurrection. Roman Catholics experience no such restriction.
For the same
reason Orthodox do not kneel on Sunday; Roman Catholics do.
Orthodox
presbyters and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman Catholic clergy
are celibate.
Orthodox
worship towards the East; for Roman Catholics it is not necessarily.
The Orthodox
Baptise with three immersions; the Roman Catholics only pour water on the
head.
After Baptism
the Orthodox are immediately Chrismated; the Roman Catholic equivalent
called confirmation is received at the age of seven.
At Baptism the
Orthodox receive their first communion, the Roman Catholics at a much
later age.
In the
Orthodox Liturgy, the “bread” of the Eucharist is “leavened” in the Roman
Catholic Mass it is “unleavened”.
The Orthodox
faithful receive both the “body and blood of Christ” in Holy Communion;
Roman Catholics receive only a wafer.
The Orthodox
see the canons of the Church as guides for governing The Church whereas
the Roman Catholics consider them as the law.
The list is
endless. If there ever is to be a unification of the two churches many of
these differences even those that seem trivial will have to be resolved.
There cannot be one church with two faiths, two types of baptisms, two
types of Eucharist, etc. Understandably many Orthodox today see the
attempts of the Ecumenical movement for reconciliation as a new threat
because to reach an agreement both sides will undoubtedly have to give and
take and compromise in some area of faith. For the moment the majority of
our Orthodox bishops are not in a willing position to sacrifice the Truth
for the sake of reconciliation. Any such tendencies will have consequences
with violent protests from the defenders of Orthodoxy which will
eventually cause another schism within the Church. Thus with foresight to
what might eventually happen, the protesters against the joint talks are
justified, but they should also have more faith that God, who for two
thousand years has protected his True Church from the many heresies, from
threats, from submission by force and violence, will not abandon us to the
enemies of the truth, but will continue to shield and protect the Orthodox
Church by his grace and divine providence.
|
|
|
