The Greek Church

[oiccic]

i know this may be a lot, so just answer what you feel like answering

how did the eastern and western churches split? was there alwasy 2? what is the story about the mutual excomunications? does the Roman church recognize the eastern churches sacraments as "valid" (ie does the Roman church believe their Holy Eucharist hs the Real Preasence.) i have read that the Greek Orthodox church will only let Greek Orthodox members recieve communion, will the roman church allow Greeks Orth. to recieve? if not, why? what is the offical view by the Greek Orth. church on the Pope? and finaly, does the Greek orth. church have a "Pope" equvilent?

thank you very much. i have been quite curious about this for some time. thanks again for ANY help and/or answers

tom

[Adeodatus]

Dear Tom,

Out of all our fellow Christians, the Orthodox are the closest to us in terms of belief and practice. In the first millennium, the Orthodox and Catholics formed one, orthodox and catholic Church. Rome, as the place where the apostles Peter and Paul had been martyred, “presided in love” over all the other Churches throughout the world.

There had been a few schisms (separations) in the first 1000 years of Christianity between Rome and the East, and they were mostly caused by geographical separation, language barriers (Latin in the West, Greek in the East, with few speaking the other side’s language), and the interference of secular authorities (emperors, empresses, kings etc).

The so-called Great Schism happened in 1054, the bishop of Rome was Pope Leo IX and the bishop of Constantinople was Patriarch Michael Kerullarios.

The Patriarch had insisted that all liturgical traditions within his jurisdiction should be uniform, i.e. conform to the Byzantine usage. So for example, the Armenians and the Latins (that’s us) were criticised for using unleavened bread (bread without yeast) in the Eucharist because the Byzantines used (and still do) leavened bread (bread with yeast). When the Latin churches refused, Michael closed them down. Rome was naturally quite upset, and Leo sent his representative Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople. Michael had meanwhile sent more conciliatory letters to the Pope, so Leo gave Humbert some letters (which were not so friendly) that he was only supposed to use if negotiations broke down. Humbert however handed these over straightaway to the Patriarch, who refused to believe they were authentic. Meanwhile the Pope died, so Humbert had no authority to represent him, but didn’t know that. Humbert then had the Pope’s letters translated into Greek and published throughout the city. Naturally tempers flared. Cardinal Humbert then made the fateful move of marching into the main church of the city, Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) before Vespers on 16 July 1054 and laid a papal ‘bulla’ on the altar, excommunicating Patriarch Michael and all his supporters. A deacon ran out after them pleading with them to retract the excommunication, but Humbert refused. The Patriarch with his synod then, in his turn, excommunicated Cardinal Humbert.

What we have here is the clash of two very stubborn and difficult persons. Added to that is two different cultures and ways of looking at symbols and liturgical practice. Relations between East and West got worse in the thirteenth century when the Crusaders from the West, instead and moving on into Palestine, turned and sacked the city of Constantinople. Amidst the carnage, pillage and rape, the Crusaders even installed a prostitute in the Patriarch’s throne at Hagia Sophia, who then proceeded to sing obscene songs. This is not to say that the Byzantines were always blameless. Years before this, they had massacred thousands of Westerners in their city. It always takes two to tango.

In 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI cancelled these mutual excommunications, and deplored such terrible times. Relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have improved tremendously, but the Orthodox in general still harbour many suspicions about us. Some old wounds take a long time to heal. The Catholic Church recognises the true apostolic succession of the Orthodox Churches, and they have all 7 valid sacraments like us. We do allow them to receive communion in our churches if they can’t get to their own, and if they freely and spontaneously ask to do so. The Orthodox do not permit anyone to receive communion in their churches unless they are fully in communion with them. We do not re-baptise, re-confirm or re-ordain the Orthodox who come over to us, but some Orthodox will insist on doing that to Catholics who go over to them.

The Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the same role as the Pope in the West. In fact some of his Orthodox critics accuse the current Patriarch (His Holiness Bartholomew I) of being a “neo-Papist” and acting with authority as though he were an Orthodox Pope. I think Orthodox tradition is on his side and not on his opponents’.

The more well-disposed and traditional Orthodox see the Pope as bishop of Elder Rome, successor of Peter, and first among equals (in terms of bishops). They acknowledge Rome as the highest “court of appeal” to settle disputes, and would be happy to recognise that the Pope has a “primacy of honor”. What they have doubts about is whether he also has a “primacy of jurisdiction”. I think on our part, we believe Christianity does not care about ‘honors’ but only about ‘service’, like Christ our Lord. The Pope’s primacy is one of service---he is the servant of the servants of Christ. There are other theological difficulties, but most of them are soluble. The remaining stumbling block for the Orthodox is the role of the bishop of Rome. In his letter Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One) the Pope has invited the Orthodox to dialogue with him about the role of the papacy. Let’s pray that things go well. The Pope sees us and the Orthodox as two lungs of the Church, and he and Patriarch Bartholomew have affirmed that ‘The Church needs to breathe with both lungs’.