Similarity #2: Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches Share Common Apostolic Origins

Brethren: Peace and Good to all of you.

I continue my exploration of the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches by studying a second claim they make in common: a common historic origin in the preaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

Usually, experts who discuss this subject of the Church’s faithfulness to its apostolic origins emphasize the notion of apostolic succession, but I will discuss apostolic succession in the next post, focusing instead upon the apostles themselves, their preaching, and the process of founding churches in the Mediterranean world and beyond, apostolic origin and succession are linked closely, but I wish to separate them for the purpose of this brief essay. I’ll talk first the about apostolic origins of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the impact upon the Churches’ self-understanding and founding narratives.

Common Doctrinal Claims

First, let’s explore what the Orthodox and Catholic Churches hold in common regarding this note of “apostolicity” of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches:

857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

- she was and remains built on "the foundation of the Apostles," The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;

- with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, The "good deposit," the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;

- she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, "assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church's supreme pastor"…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the word “apostle,” 32 times; “apostles,” 166; “apostolate,” 12; “apostolic,” 109; “apostolicity,” 1; and “apostoloi,” 1. It is a notion permeating the self-identity of the Catholic Church throughout her teaching. The Orthodox Church’s teaching is virtually identical:

[The Church is so-called] Apostolic because it traces it beginning back to the Apostles, holds the teachings of the Apostles entire and unadulterated, and is governed by the canonical successors of the Apostles whose successors have received Holy Orders from them in uninterrupted succession. (CD)

And also:

The Church has been sent into the world, to bring the world into communion with God. Just as the Son was sent by the Father, and the Spirit sent by the Son, the Church has been sent by the Holy Trinity into the world.

Fr. Thomas Hopko:

As Christ was sent from God, so Christ Himself chose and sent His apostles. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you … receive ye the Holy Spirit,” the risen Christ says to His disciples. Thus, the apostles go out to the world, becoming the first foundation of the Christian Church. In this sense, then, the Church is called apostolic: first, as it is built upon Christ and the Holy Spirit sent from God and upon those apostles who were sent by Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit; and secondly, as the Church in its earthly members is itself sent by God to bear witness to His Kingdom, to keep His word and to do His will and His works in this world.

This sending was first effected with the apostles, thus apostolicity is not only the divine mission; it is also unity of the Church with the apostles who were sent out by Jesus Christ. Thus, there is an apostolic succession by which the pastors of the Church are able to trace their orders back to the infant Church founded by Jesus Christ in the first century. (OW)

This is how both Churches understand what St. Paul said to the Ephesians:

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:19-21, NIV).

Both Churches profess a common belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church they enshrined in the Nicene Creed, and both understand that the “apostolic sending” is a responsibility of every member of the Church, each according to his state in life.

The Emergence and Fall of the Ancient Apostolic Sees

A common geography of faith: The Ancient Pentarchy of Apostolic Churches

Scripture itself (cf. Revelation 2-3) associates the local churches with their “angels” which some theologians understand as being the bishops (episkopoi; “overseers”) of those cities and speak to them and about them interchangeably. As explained in St. Paul’s so-called “Pastoral Epistles” to Timothy and to Titus, it appears that as the Apostles preached, established, formed, or re-formed local churches (ekklesias; “assemblies, congregations”) of believers, they left behind a hierarchical organization derived from the synagogue model: deacons (diakonoi; “ministers” or “levites”) who administered the local church’s patrimony, elders (presbyteroi; from which we get our words “presbyters” and “priests”) who conducted the Divine Liturgy and assisted the bishops (episkopoi; “overseers”) in the apostolic mission, pastoral service, and temporal administration of the church’s common goods.

Though some scholars argue that Scripture does not distinguish between presbyteroi and episkopoi, the distinction is an essential one, and not only one in form or degree: an “elder” is such because he has reached a certain age, it’s a state, something one is. On the other hand, “superintendent” or “overseer” is an office, a responsibility one is named, or assigned to. Whether there were more than one “overseer” in each local Church, it appears that by the time St. John wrote Revelation there was only one overseer per local church, in other words, the monarchic episcopate, the rule of a single bishop per civitas was well-established in the Christian world.

Christian revered their bishops as the principal teachers and preachers of the faith, and as the principal presiders during Liturgy because of this direct link to the Apostles who named them. The bishops sat a unique “cathedra” which means “chair” or “seat” – from which we also get our word “see” – to impart the Apostolic Tradition upon theirs hearers. In time, the temples housing the bishop’s teaching seat became known as “cathedrals” and each city in the Roman Empire had one: a single community of Christians presided by one bishop, assisted by priests and deacons.

The identification of the cities with their bishoprics happened very quickly after the conversion of the Empire, so that an arc starting in northern Africa through Egypt, the Holy Land and the Levant, through Anatolia (Turkey) and into Europe via Macedonia down to Italy, was festooned with “apostolic sees,” Christian communities founded by the Apostles and/or their immediate disciples, spread out throughout the classical world. Principal among them were the See of Rome – probably founded by Jewish Christians but “re-constituted” by Sts. Peter and Paul; Alexandria – in Egypt, founded by John Mark, a helper of both Sts. Peter and Paul; Jerusalem – the Mother Church, presided by the Apostle James; and Antioch – where believers were first called “Christian” and which St. Peter himself may have presided for a time. Much later, when the town of Byzantium became the capital city of the Roman Empire, “Constantinople” became a recognized Holy See, having claimed the Apostle Andrew, “the First Called” and St. Peter’s brother, as its ancient founding Apostle.

Now, let’s separate or subordinate in our imaginations the apostles or bishops to the concept of the civitas or “city” and we will have hit upon a very Christian concept that scholars seldom analyze: the Christianized city as a “holy, apostolic see.” For Christians, “civilization” became synonymous with “Christianization”; and the church with the city: Ecclesia est civitatem. Christians could point out to the string of “holy sees” around the Mediterranean with pride of accomplishment, as milestones in the ascension of an obscure Jewish sect to be the religion of the Empire that once sought to crush it. The cities/sees were signposts of apostolic accomplishment and a mark of the worldwide church or ekumene. The “geographical consciousness” of apostolicity centering in the major holy sees of antiquity is unique to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, one not shared by Protestant bodies today.

The Islamic Invasions that started in the 6th century obliterated most of these holy sees; there are no modern dioceses, for example, in any of the particular Churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation and the “big holy sees” of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, although ravaged, continue to exist, operating under severe strictures. Other “apostolic sees” do survive to this day and operate freely in highly Orthodox Greece, such as Corinth and Thessalonica, but without claiming higher status for that reason.

As for the Roman See, the Church therein suffered from Saracen raids, starting with their sack of Rome in 846, under the pontificate of Pope Sergius II. During this raid, the Saracens violated the basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul, an event that may have resulted in the removal of the bones of St. Peter from the ground to a niche on the wall of its “Trophy” or funerary monument underneath the old Constantinian church, as suggested by John Evangelist Walsh in his book The Bones of St. Peter. Of the ancient Pentarchy of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome, only the Roman See operates with complete juridical independence from external political powers today.Bones of St. Peter

Apostolicity after the fall of the civitas

The obliteration of almost every apostolic see in the Mediterranean basin by the Muslims shocked the Christian world, and the people clung with more tenacity to the principal churches, now called “patriarchates” as their apostolic sees, all looking in varied ways to the leadership to the Church “that presides in charity” as the focus of the Christian world: Rome. The claim of “apostolicity” and civitas became focused and concentrated on these remaining holy sees, from which subordinate or sufraganean sees now derived their existence and constitutions and very often, their bishops.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians reflexively point to their apostolic sees as a sign of continuity: those cities witnessed in the past the people and events tied to our salvation and the persistence of these cities represent a living link to our Christian post. In a certain sense, the Churches’ apostolicity, their apostolic character, is as much tied to Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome as to their resident bishops. To be “apostolic”, for Catholics and Orthodox, means to be in canonical communion with at least one of these ancient Holy Sees. Catholics and Orthodox Christians can speak of a “spiritual geography of apostolicity” in their self- understanding and self-identity. Rescuing this common geographical self-understanding shared by our Churches should be strong enough to impel our current quest for communion and reconciliation.

In the next entry of this series, I will discuss the common understanding the Catholic and Orthodox churches share about apostolic succession, the continuing transmission of the powers to lead and feed, the Churches from one generation of Christians to the next, by means of preaching, teaching, and the administration of the sacraments in an unbroken chain linking today’s believers, priests, and bishops, to the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

a farewell weekend.

a few weekends ago, we were lucky enough to have some of our besties from nyc come visit for our going-away party.  i will miss being in such close proximity to my favorite girls in new york, and will also miss being able to visit nyc, one of my very favorite cities, so easily. during my years in dc my east coast friends have had multiple dc/nyc reunions, and i am going to be so sad to miss out on those weekends.  here is a summary of an amazing weekend with amazing friends...


a perfect ladies evening:
late tapas dinner at boqueria followed by wine & dessert at bistrot du coin.

    
a full-on saturday:
brunch at pearl dive oyster palace, some beersteins at the standard beer garden, a little pizza party in the apartment... 


and a farewell bash at eighteenth street lounge,


followed by a college-esque latenight with some of my faves.

on sunday we continued the festivities with a cookout by the pool with friends, and some of the best homemade crab dip i have ever eaten...


i feel so blessed to have such fun friends who will visit & celebrate with me. talk about being sent off in style - thanks holly and jacqui for a great visit!

Think and pray before you vote

Brothers and Sisters: Peace be with you.

It is once again time to think and pray before you cast your vote next November. Please, review these outstanding publications from Catholic Answers:
Also, get these inserts for your parish bulletin (with your pastor's permission, of course):
Get other guidance products from the Form your Conscience. Vote your Faith website.



so long, dc!

yesterday we pulled out of washington, dc in a rented penske with 'this is us playing and 22 feet of accumulated stuff behind us. it was so bittersweet.


dc has been so good to us.  it gave me my first real job and my first apartment, and all the independence and confidence that comes with those two things.  it also gave me some of the best friends and best memories of my life. and it introduced me to a cute boy from south carolina who would one day move to texas with me. while dc has also beat me up a little lot over the past four years, it has at the same time taught me patience (hello, public transportation), a willingness to to try new things, and also to accept things that i cannot change (hello, public transportation once again). not to mention the ability to parallel park like a boss.  stepping out of my comfort zone and making this city my home was one of the best things i've ever done, and this place will always hold a special place in my heart, and ww's as well.


so long dc!  until next time.

"One of these things is not like the others..."

Brethren: Peace be with you. The following image needs no explanation:


- Hat-tip to Καθολικός διάκονος.

Neil A. Armstrong, R.I.P.

Brothers and Sisters: Peace be with you.
Neil Armstrong, 1930-2012.
Back in the Sixties, when I was still a little child, one of the very first words I learned by heart were Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins - tough to do if you consider Spanish is my primary language.

Anyway, I watched the first Moon landing, although I didn't understand the black and gray shapes on the old black-and-white tube, but I saw it and I understood it later.

Neil Armstrong was an inspiration to me. He was the quintessential astronaut. I wish to mark his passing last weekend with special respect and admiration.

Neil Alden Armstrong (August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012) was the first person to walk on the Moon, as well as an American astronaut, test pilot, aerospace engineer, university professor and United States Naval Aviator. Before becoming an astronaut, Armstrong was a United States Navy officer and served in the Korean War. After the war, he served as a test pilot at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics High-Speed Flight Station, now known as the Dryden Flight Research Center, where he logged over 900 flights. He graduated from Purdue University and completed graduate studies at the University of Southern California.

A participant in the U.S. Air Force's Man In Space Soonest and X-20 Dyna-Soar human spaceflight programs, Armstrong joined the NASA Astronaut Corps in 1962. His first spaceflight was the NASA Gemini 8 mission in 1966, for which he was the command pilot, becoming one of the first U.S. civilians in space. On this mission, he performed the first manned docking of two spacecraft with pilot David Scott.

Armstrong's second and last spaceflight was as mission commander of the Apollo 11 moon landing in July 1969. On this mission, Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the lunar surface and spent 2½ hours exploring, while Michael Collins remained in orbit in the Command Module. Armstrong was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Richard Nixon along with Collins and Aldrin, the Congressional Space Medal of Honor by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.

On August 25, 2012, Armstrong died in Cincinnati, Ohio,[1] at the age of 82 due to complications from blocked coronary arteries.

Source: Wikipedia.

sneak peak...

a little sneak peak of where all these boxes will be ending up on thursday...


i can barely contain my excitement.  see ya in a few days houston!

home.

as a going-away/starting-a-new-life-in-a-new-city present, i gave ww (and really, myself, let's be honest) this awesome tin-on-canvas print:


our lives have felt a bit up in the air this past month, and i think remembering edward sharpe's wise words are a great way to start a 25 hour road-trip in a 22 foot truck.

the print is by emily rooney, 
and you can find her etsy shop here: www.emilyrooneydesigns.etsy.com
judging by her selection of song quotes, i think we must have the exact same taste in music. and i love her prints. so go check out her shop!

capitol tour

sometimes it's fun to be a tourist in the city you live in.  it is also a universal truth that you rarely think about doing quintessential things in your city until faced with the reality of leaving said city (or in the event that you have visitors in town to play tourist with you, like this time).


what i'm getting at is at that ww and i have lived in the district for 4 years, and while we may have been to a ridiculous number of bars & restaurants, we had yet to do a real tour of our nation's capitol building.


shameful? perhaps.


luckily, ww's awesome cousin caroline (also has an awesome name) is a hot-shot over on capitol hill & was nice enough to hook us up with a vip tour yesterday.


it was great.


we even got to sit on the floor of the house of representatives.


we also squeezed in a walk around the adorable homes on capitol hill, 
and some burgers at our favorite, good stuff eatery.


aaaand we also did this...sorry, we couldn't help ourselves.


thanks for a great dc day, caroline! we'll miss you.

Similarity #1: Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches Adhere to Holy Tradition

Brothers and Sisters: Peace be with you!

The first similarity between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches I wish to explore is the commitment that both Churches have to receive, transmit, and revere Tradition as the all-encompassing vessel in which the Church hands down God’s Word, in writing and orally, to every generation of Christian believers.

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had much to say about the relationship in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum. This is just one of the things they said:

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

Later, the Catechism of the Catholic Church enshrined the teaching of the Council Fathers regarding Tradition as follows:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

. . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

Similarly, Eastern Orthodox doctrinal sources emphasize the reality, character, and purpose of Holy Tradition:

Q. What is Holy Tradition, and is it absolutely essential to faith?

A. Holy Tradition consists of those things which Christ delivered to his Apostles and which they transmitted to their successors orally. It is absolutely essential to faith, because it is the source of the Holy Scripture and we cannot understand all of the Holy Scripture correctly without the help of Holy Tradition. Since the Protestant Churches reject Holy Tradition, they have no authoritative judge for the explanation of Holy Scripture. Each has his own opinion, and on this account they differ among themselves, although they have the same name, Protestant. And they will continue to be subdivided in the future as long as they do not restore Holy Tradition to its proper place in the Church. (CA)

There is also this handy definition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence. (OW)

And this one from Russian Orthodox sources:

17. What is meant by the name holy tradition?

By the name holy tradition is meant the doctrine of the faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual as handed down by the true believers and worshipers of God by word and example from one to another, and from generation to generation. (PD)

Convergences and Contrasts

The similarities are striking: authorities from both Churches affirm the objective reality of Tradition as a “deposit of revelation” forming a unity, yet transmitted flowing through two channels which converge in the end. Authorities from both Churches also understand that Revelation is not exclusively contained in Scripture alone, and that the living transmission of God’s Word in action and liturgy, as well as the understanding of the Fathers (and Doctors) of the Church constitute a fundamental and necessary means for the understanding of the written Word and its application to different times and places.

Both Churches also receive an “interpretative” Tradition from the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, as well as “the form” of the Liturgy, and with the exception of one (pesky, little, but oh so divisive!) word, the same Creed is proclaimed in the liturgies of both Communions.

Although the Churches have common views on the nature of Tradition, they hold different views about the identity of the custodians and authentic interpreters of Tradition/Revelation. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council expressed the normative Catholic view in the aforementioned Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum:

10b. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Orthodox Church authorities wince on the intimate connection between Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, preferring to see the entire Church, and not only the bishops, as the custodians of Tradition:

18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition?

All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15. (PD)

Orthodox Christians believe that by making the entire Church the custodian of Tradition, a system of “checks and balances” – although they don’t use that phrase – exist to check any misuse by bishops of their teaching office that would go beyond that which the Church has received and the Fathers explained. As a consequence, the Orthodox Church is adverse at the Catholic notion of development of doctrine as described by Cardinal Newman in his classic essay of the same name:

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession. (OW)

Incidentally, note how the author of the above quote from the Orthodox Wiki article on Tradition assigns a more active role to the hierarchy in the transmission of Revelation. Nevertheless, this other quote also expresses the Orthodox reluctance to consider dogmatic development:

Q. Which Church is right with regard to the sources of the Catechism?

A. The Orthodox and the Anglican, whereas others are in error, because no one has the right to change the dogmas which Christ gave to us, either to add to them or to subtract from them, or to pervert them; since, if we are sufficient of ourselves to find out what the dogmas are, and which are needed for our salvation, the Incarnation of Christ would have been superfluous. (CD)

Notice that when Father Demetry composed this catechism, the Orthodox Church and the Church of England where closer to each other than with the Catholic Church, something no longer true today.

Criticisms

Although, as we have seen, both Churches hold to an understanding of Tradition that is essentially the same and in generally agree as to the means of its transmission, the Churches differ on one significant point regarding how interpretative Tradition is preserved and handed down. Orthodox Christians would say that the formulation of interpretative Tradition occurred during the Age of the Fathers of the Church and that no further interpretative development binding upon the Church is possible after that age. The task of the bishops, those in holy orders, monastics, and lay people are to hand down this patrimony without deviation, and to hold other likely theological explanations of faith and morals not contained in Tradition as theologumena or non-binding theological hypotheses.

However, the Catholic Church teaches that authoritative doctrinal development is not only possible, but also necessary, as the Church faces new situations never before contemplated by the Apostles or the Fathers, and that this authority resides within the Successor of Peter in the Roman See, and in the bishops in communion with him. Both positions are susceptible to measured criticism.

Criticism of the Eastern Orthodox Reception and Transmission of Tradition

The Orthodox fear that doctrinal development leads to a faith …eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians is legitimate, but their own adherence to this principle has been inconsistent from time to time. For example, the doctrine of the divine energies as taught by St. Gregory Palamas – in which he drew a difference between God’s essence and his energies – and as recognized by a number of synods in Constantinople between 1347 and 1351, to which many Orthodox ascribe ecumenical authority – at least for them.

Personally, I have nothing against St. Gregory’s teachings. The Catholic Church would hold them as theologumena because Catholic theologians have given scant attention to St. Gregory’s teachings, and although many Catholic theologians of the past have held these teachings in contempt, I don’t think this would be the case today.

My point is that if the test for doctrinal continuity in the Orthodox Church is that an emerging teaching must be also recognizable to early Christians, then St. Gregory’s doctrines regarding the distinction in God between his essence and energies would fail this test. For what I have been able to ascertain, early Jewish and Gentile Christians would not have recognized St. Gregory’s teachings as part of the Tradition handed down by the Apostles. In fact, I argue that the Apostles themselves did not know, nor did they either explicitly or implicitly proclaim St. Gregory’s teachings in any way.

St. Gregory’s doctrine is clearly a dogmatic development, necessitated by internal conditions and controversies within the Orthodox Churches in the 14th century. St. Gregory’s teachings received their seal of apostolic authenticity and continuity from what some Orthodox theologians call “the Ninth Ecumenical Council”. In my judgment, this is not far from the Catholic position, that a teaching might have been neither known nor knowable to the primitive Church, but that the bishops’ judgment in a later age that a given theological “proposal” represents in fact a logical doctrinal development in continuity with Apostolic and Patristic teaching, is enough to proclaim the proposal a dogma of the entire Church. The Orthodox Church has done what the Catholic Church has done. Therefore, the synodal sanction of St. Gregory’s teachings set a unique precedent in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church after the Great Schism regarding doctrinal development.

Furthermore, I think that the joint guardianship that Orthodox monastic and non-monastic clergy and lay people exercise in their Church has elevated to the status of “Tradition” many things not belonging to it, with dire consequences not only for Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation, but for intra-Orthodox conflicts as well.

For example, the monks of Mt. Athos hold a de facto veto to any ecumenical initiative led by Orthodox hierarchs that may lead to recognize the Catholic Church as something more than a “sister church” – in the words of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, no doubt influenced by the stance of the monks of Mount Athos, this designation granted to the Catholic Church must be understood that the Catholic Church is a separate, independent, different “ontological” reality from “the real Church”, that is, the Orthodox Church. Both churches are two different species of bird, so-to-speak.

The Athonite monks discourage a priori any dialogue tending to mutual recognition that does not include total capitulation by the Catholic Church to Orthodox ecclesiology, and exalt along the those Orthodox saints who expressed this viewpoint, like St. Mark of Ephesus. The unofficial, but highly-regarded parallel magisterium of the Athonite monks represents, in my view, the principal obstacle facing Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation today.

Moreover, the Orthodox view of Tradition has had unintended consequences in intra-Orthodox conflicts as well, many of which have led to ruptures of communion within the Orthodox Church.

First, consider the schism of the Old Believers in Russia. At its root, the schism of the Old Believers from the Russian Orthodox hierarchy is a failure to distinguish between adiaphora – inconsequential teachings or practices of a devotional character – and Apostolic Tradition. Historians like to illustrate the schism with “two fingers”: the Old Believers taught that the Sign of the Cross must be done with two fingers; reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikhon of Moscow in the 17th century, made the Greek manner, with three fingers, as normative in the Russian Church. How much persecution, deaths, and suffering this little difference caused in the history of the Russian Church by one finger, the difference between two and three! In fact, the schism resembles in all of its milestones the political and internecine conflicts in the Latin Church of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance. We are more alike than what we are willing to admit.

Of more relevance today is the schism of the Old Calendarists. The central issue here is which calendar will govern the liturgical feasts of the Orthodox Church: will it be the Julian calendar, the modified Julian calendar, or the Gregorian calendar – the one the rest of the world uses. The Old Calendarists do not exist in a vacuum, for they appeal to three Patriarchal and Pan-Orthodox Synods in Constantinople in the 16th century that condemned the Gregorian calendar, and Pope Gregory who issued it. We might ask how is this attachment to a tool to measure the position of the sun in the sky related to the Apostolic Tradition. Why is the calendar a reason for breaking communion and launching anathemas between people who otherwise believe the same things? Again, this is due to confusion about the contents and character of Tradition in the absence of strong episcopal authority, critical study of the Christian sources, and the empowerment of ill-defined teaching authorities found in Mt. Athos and in popular anti-Catholic sentiments across the traditionally Orthodox lands. Hatred or distrust aimed the Catholic Church is now part and parcel of the Eastern Orthodox Church understanding of Tradition.

Criticism of the Catholic Reception and Transmission of Tradition

The teaching of the Catholic Church vis-à-vis the transmission and guardianship of Tradition is also susceptible to some criticism and therefore, to improvement.

I think that concentrating the guardianship of Tradition in the Catholic Church on the hands of the Magisterium – the Pope and the bishops in communion with him – the role of the Christifidelis laici, – Christ’s lay people –devolved into a mostly passive role, one of passive reception and acquiescence. The consequence has been twofold: on one hand, the rise of theologians and even bishops who have had little understanding and love for Tradition. The other consequence has been the rise of schismatic groups who isolated a limited portion of the Latin Catholic Tradition, staking their claim to exclusive, self-contained orthodoxy within their tight dogmatic boundaries. From this stance, these so-called Catholic traditionalists stand in judgment of the rest of the Church, not unlike the Old Calendarists of the Eastern Orthodox judge their fellow churchmen for pretty much the same reasons.

This tenet should be axiomatic for all: those who misunderstand Holy Tradition will not love Holy Tradition. They will not see themselves as stakeholders in its reception and transmission.

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council perceived this danger. The original purpose of the Council was ad sources, resourcement — meaning the return to the sources of our faith, to Scripture, liturgy, and the Fathers. Instead, we got the ascent of theological celebrities like Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Mary Daly, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, and the whole coterie standing behind the so-called Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church and like-minded organizations (e.g. the Leadership Council of Women Religious).

Why did this happen? Again, it happened because those who do not know or misunderstand Tradition will not love Tradition; they will, in fact, hate it. They have no use for Tradition, claiming instead direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit to justify their quests for renewal, and the autonomy of their individual, subjective conscience over and against the teaching of the Church. For these dissenters, Tradition is no longer a vehicle of the Holy Spirit transmitting the mind of the Church throughout history, but an antiquated notion to be ejected in their particular quests for liberation and emancipation from an oppressive, patriarchal hierarchy.

Schismatic traditionalists – which I must distinguish from those who remain within the Church in mind and heart – represent the other side of the dissenting coin. Schismatic traditionalism is a reaction to the excesses of the above crowd: these Catholics blame Blessed John XXIII and the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council for the failure to return to the sources of the faith and the confusion unleashed during the years after the Council. Their solution has been to isolate the Latin tradition reformulated in the Councils of Trent and First Vatican and proclaim it the standard of Catholic orthodoxy. For them, the Greek Fathers and the Greek Church before the schism were Roman Catholics who happened to think and speak Greek, not a diversity to be celebrated but to be Romanized, much as many Orthodox feel that reunion with the Catholic Church will be possible after the latter’s capitulation to the Orthodox ecclesiological self-understanding.

Furthermore, Latin traditionalists see themselves as loyal dissenters not unlike their liberal counterparts, who also stand in judgment of the Church, like the Old Calendarists of the East. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX) is the principal representative of this trend in the Catholic Church, while other extremists within this movement also claim particular private revelations, as well as byzantine – pardon the pun – conspiracy theories to justify their often bizarre views.

Healing the Great Schism between East and West will heal Holy Tradition

I believe we can conclude that the confusion and exaggerations found both in the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches can be laid at the doors of the Great Schism. The rupture also ripped apart our common Tradition and disrupted its transmission in both our communions. I am convinced that healing the schism will also heal the confusion and discontinuities in the transmission of Tradition which in the end, is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We can conclude the following: Healing the schism will heal the Tradition; also, the mutual healing between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will occur when what is best within one Church is applied to the other Church. The Great Schism left in each of our Churches a void in the shape of the other. As we look into the “shape” of the schism, we can tell its contour, much as we can tell that eastern South America and western Africa “fit together” like pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle.

For example, the Catholic Church can benefit from the Orthodox understanding of Tradition as something received, guarded, and transmitted by the whole Church, while the Eastern Orthodox can benefit from the more critical distinction that in the Catholic Church is made between Tradition and “little traditions” that, although beautiful in their diversity, are not intrinsic to Holy Tradition. Moreover, the Catholic Church will also benefit from the Orthodox concern for preserving a faith that would still be intelligible to the first Christians as note of Orthodoxy, while the Orthodox may indeed grow in their understanding of Holy Tradition if they were to acquire the Catholic understanding of dogmatic development, as one conducted in continuity with the Faith of the Apostles.

Finally, all concerned parties must agree that Christianity’s first dogma is Love: the love of God for us and of us for Him and of our neighbor as we do ourselves. The Master said that this is the summary of the Law and the Prophets. Love demands that we don’t only tell the truth to each other, but also attempt to understand what each other is saying. I trust this rather long essay will signify a step in that direction.

In the next post, I will discuss the equal love the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches feel for their apostolic origins.

last few days...


we've been busy our last few days in dc, and not just with packing.
unemployment is not so bad, really.
we've had an oysters date at hank's oyster bar,
wandered the streets of beautiful old town alexandria,
popped into society fair, which is total fun,
and had a last georgetown morning together.
we've also had many a farewell cocktail with sweet friends,
and in the process discovered our new favorite wine bar (perhaps a little late).
if you can, go check out dickson wine bar, but don't tell us about it....
we'll be jealous.
i had my last perfect latte at patisserie,
finally tried the cuba libre float at bar pilar,
and of course,
had a final pizza from 2 amys.

we'll miss you, dc!