Will "the East" be Reunited to Rome?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LI, Issue 5, 31 January 1924, Page 41

Will "the East" be Reunited to Rome?

(By J. W. Poynter, in the London Catholic Times.) . How great a vision of majesty, and of power for good, is called tip to the mind of anyone who considers the possibility of the reunion of the “Eastern Churches” with the Holy See of Rome! For so many centuriesover twice as long as Protestantism has been in existence at —has the schism lasted between “East and West” So greatly has it hindered the fulness, not, of course, of the development of the Catholic Faith in itself (for that nothing can thwart) but of the spread of the Faith amongst the nations of the world ! A Splendid Vision. What glories we can imagine as resulting from a reunion of the schismatic “East” with the “West”!the ancient Sees of the Greek world (using the word “Greek” in its ecclesiastical sense, historically speaking would include Constantinople as regards the Patriarch thereof) joined once more in the communion of Catholicity, and, instead of hindering the spread of Catholic unity amongst the peoples of the world, mi the contrary potently aiding that! It is a grand vision! Is there any likelihood - of its becoming a reality? Meaning of the Terms. In the first place, we must define exactly what we mean by the phrase “the East,” or “the Eastern Churches.” In the foregoing paragraph these words have been put into italics. This has been done not for the purpose of depreciation or partisan sarcasm, but merely because the words are very inadequate to express the things which they are used to denote. There is no Church which is entirely “Eastern,” nor is there any which is entirely “Western.” India, for example, is certainly an Eastern land! The Catholics of India, however, are not (ecclesiastically speaking) “Easterns, v but “Westerns,” belonging to the Latin rite; although the Catholic Rutheniums are of an “Eastern” rite, though (geographically speaking) they are far more Western than is India ! Why Eastern and Western Churches are Thus Called. The paradox—as it. may seem at first glance to be —is solved by realising that “Eastern” and “Western” Churches are so called not so much on account of geographical position as by reason of what ecclesiastical rite, or Patriarchate, they belong to. Even when this is realised, however, there still remains a certain amount of vagueness about the, term “the Eastern Churches,” for we must also bear in mind that some of those Churches are already in full communion with Rome, although the majority of them are not. Those who are, are called “Uniates.” This article will not refer to them very much, as they do not greatly enter into our subject. We are here concerned mainly with those who . are in schism from Rome: the Orthodox Church of Russia; the Established Church of Greece; the Church, of Serbia; the Church of Bulgaria ; the Church of Cyprus; the Abyssinian, Coptic, Jacobite, Armenian, and other lesser Churches. Some of the smaller of these are in schism not only from Rome, but also from the “Orthodox” East itself. The Copts and Abyssinians, for example, are Monophysites, and reject the ancient Council of Chalcedon, which the “Orthodox East” receives. It v will be seen then, that “the East” is anything but a unity in itself! The greater part of it, it is true, is agreed in fundamentals of faith, the Monophysites, Nestorians, and other heretics (from the “Orthodox” point of view) being a small minority, while the great majority agrees in faith with the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Orthodox Church and the State. However, .the’fact remains that even the “Orthodox” are largely enslaved to the State. Under the Tsardom this slavery* was almost absolute in the case of the Russian Church (which, by the way, has never at any time been in communion with Rome, for the beginnings of the conversion of Russia to Christianity took place after the schism of Photius); and, under the Bolshevists, the tyranny of establishment seems merely to have given place to the tyranny of persecution and internal strife. The Serbian and Bulgarian Churches are ; closely bound up with the State; while as to that of Greece.it is necessary only to quote the words of the Synod of Nauplia (A.D. 1833): “The Eastern Orthodox and Apostolic Church of Greece. . . . acknowledges the King of Greece to be her Supreme Head as in nothing contrary to the holy canons. A permanent synod shall be established, consisting, entirely of archbishops and bishops appointed by the King, to be highest ' ecclesiastical authority” (see .Neale, History of the Eastern Church, i, p. 60). , Unity and Emancipation Needed in the East. - X-. It will be seen, then, that before the “East” can unite with Rom© it will have , to become united amongst itself and ; also to be emancipated from State domination! The history of the “Eastern-Church” is marked all over with the effects of politics and' -Imperial statecraft. ■ In fact'j-

the Patriarchate of Constantinople absolutely originated in that way! Before the old Roman “Empire of the East” was set up there was no such Patriarchate even dreamt of ! It has no claims to Apostolic origin, or to any origin (as.a Patriarchate) save from the influence of the old Eastern Emperors. Moreover, that influence was the main cause of the schism of Constantinople from Rome. In the words of Leopold von Ranke (History of the Pones, Kelly’s translation, 1852, p. 7) ‘The [Eastern] emperors were disposed to favor the rise of a great patriarchal authority. . . It was impossible that the Eastern Emperors, who clung so jealously to their ecclesiastical rights, should have favored the outspread of the power of the Western Patriarchs [the I opes] in their dominions.”

c- . Long-lasting Antagonism. 1 his antagonism to Rome has lasted for over ten centuries; it has been expressed in formulae of faith; in the case of Russia it has been embodied in a Church' which has never known, any other condition of affairs at all- and in all cases it is bound up with race, patriotic feeling, tradition, and the power of the State. To quote the late Dr. i o\ Ull r ,| l (>rtescue (home and Constantinople, 1908 rm 7- ) ; * *nere are about 100 millions of Orthodox Chrisans, speaking some twenty different languages, filling Eastern Europe and the Levant from the. White Sea to the Libyan desert, from Dalmatia' to the Euphrates, and then extending far cast again across Siberia to the Pacific ucean. . . She is the most conservative body in the norld, very much more so than her Catholic rival In many ways she still represents the ghost of the old Roman Empire on the Bosphorus, that perished with Constantine XIII. m • 1453 1 ” ~ Consider - all the age-long obstacles to W 10 % indeed ’ that a, huge territory, (Russia) has never been united to Rome, at all! . What hope is there? A Great and Unnecessary Schism, It is said that the schism ‘between “the East” and Rome is purely or chiefly over jurisdiction, and that in the essentials of . faith, Catholics and the “Orthodox”’are mainly agreed Dr Forteseue, indeed (Pome and Constan- ( li e, v , PI V 22 aml 2 ?)- said , “The most wonderful part of the whole story is that a quarrel so entirely personal in it. nature should still keep two mighty Churches apart. • • • this great schism seems to me to bo the most superfluous, the most unnecessary misfortune.” o Important Doctrinal Differences. L This, of course, is true if we look only’ at the immediate causes: the sordid quarrels of Photius and of CornJarms Immediate causes, however, are always (or very often) trivial compared with their effects; and this is because they are merely “the match which explodes the ~ der ’ , and the complete causes of the explosion are not that match only, but also the chemicals which compose he gunpowder. The whole history and nature of 'the Eastern world contained potent factors of schism; Photius and Cerulanus were mere proximate instruments. More“the pi!! 1 ”* 10 dlfferences in f aif h between Catholics and the East are by no means small. The dispute over the t rf -Primacy affects the whole conception of the nature of .the Church ; the differences as to baptism, and as to the ns* tothose « 6 Dmn ! L 4 Urg are of fimve importance as to those Sacraments, the doctrines of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception the Procession of the Holy ’Spirit (the fdwque . clause”), and the indissolubility of marriage, also provide serious difficulties.. The Council of Florence. Attempts at reunion have, indeed, been made; but permanent success has never attended them on any large fit % or examp '®’ *s® Council of Florence (A.D. 14391442). To quote The Dictionary of Religion (ed Rev W Bonham, London, 1891, p. 441): “Champions were chosen’ on each side; on the Latin, Cardinal Julian Caesarini and John the Provincial General of the Dominican Order in Lombardy; on the Greek, Isodore of Russia, and Cardinal Bcssanon. After two fine harangues made bv this last on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, all the ’Greeks subscribed to the belief of the Western Church, except Mark, Bishop _of Ephesus. Afterwards some other .. matters re- “ urgatoiy, were determined, and a union between the Greek and Latin Churches chided ; but, the conduct °f, le Eastern bishops not being approved by their party when they returned home, prevented the agreement from taking any effect ’ To put it plainly, the East repudiated the union with fury! To the question (“Will ‘the Fast’ be reunited to Rome?”) the answer, then, will seem by no means optimistic. A great and unexpected movement.may take place; but on such possibilities it is not permissible to count. Tim great age of the schism; its fundamental character as affecting the very nature of the Church; these and other factors seem to tell fatally against the human probability of reunion on any large scale. - The Hdlv See however fosters all possible tendencies to reunion. Meanwhile, it must be said things are not as bad as they were • . the Umate movement - 18 fairly strong, and large numbers of individual conversions: take place. Pray work S trust the Providence of God; ,vh| more is praible?-Md whatj indeed,' could be more p’oWerfulP