Celebrating Easter/Pascha Together
The center of our faith, the center on which all Christians agree, is the kerygma that Jesus is Risen, Jesus is Lord:
Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the Holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your Cross, O Christ and we praise and glorify Your Holy Resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your Name. Come, all faithful, let us venerate the holy Resurrection of Christ for behold, through the Cross, joy has come to all the world. --Matins of the Resurrection
Despite this agreement Catholics and Orthodox in fact celebrate Easter on different days, fracturing the proclamation of this Good News of the Resurrection.
The consequences of our division on this issue are significant. Interchurch families find themselves in conflict observing two Lenten cycles and two Paschal dates. The world looks on as Christians speak through their celebration with a divided voice. Many are impeded from hearing the Good News of the Resurrection by the scandal of this division.
In 2010, Eastern and Western Church Calendars coincided so that all Christians celebrated the Feast of the Resurrection on the same day. The dates for the Holy Day will coincide again in 2011, but will vary again after that. As we remember the joys of a common date this year, we look forward to the entire Christian world proclaiming the joy of the Resurrection together again next year. We are convinced that the time is at hand for a permanent resolution of this issue...
Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
1. Prologue. For almost forty-five years, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation has been meeting regularly to discuss some of the major pastoral and doctrinal issues that prevent our Churches from sharing a single life of faith, sacraments, and witness before the world. Our goal has been to pave the way towards sharing fully in Eucharistic communion through recognizing and accepting each other as integral parts of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
2. A Central Point of Disagreement. In the course of our discussions, it has become increasingly clear to us that the most divisive element in our traditions has been a growing diversity, since the late patristic centuries, in the ways we understand the structure of the Church itself, particularly our understanding of the forms of headship that seem essential to the Church’s being at the local, regional and worldwide levels. At the heart of our differences stands the way each of our traditions understands the proper exercise of primacy in the leadership of the Church, both within the various regions of the Christian world and within Christianity as a whole. In order to be the Body of Christ in its fullness -- to be both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” -- does a local community, gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, have to be united with the other Churches that share the Apostolic faith, not only through Scripture, doctrine, and tradition, but also through common worldwide structures of authority -- particularly through the practice of a universal synodality in union with the bishop of Rome?
It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion. While for Catholics, maintaining communion in faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome is considered a necessary criterion for being considered Church in the full sense, for Orthodox, as well as for Protestants, it is precisely the pope’s historic claims to authority in teaching and Church life that are most at variance with the image of the Church presented to us in the New Testament and in early Christian writings. In the carefully understated words of Pope John Paul II, “the Catholic Church's conviction that in the ministry of the bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity, constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections” (Ut Unum Sint 88)...
Posts
I really like the joint statement, thank you.
ReplyDeleteAs the liberal protestant Paul Tillich rightly said: "(Saint) Augustine is the beginning and end of everything the west has to say". The differences between the Catholic Church (i.e. the Orthodox) and the Roman Church are far greater than the assertions of the place of the Pope of Rome. Indeed, these assertions are merely a symptom of deeper divisions.
ReplyDeleteOf course, all this has been said before...
The differences are indeed much greater than papal authority, most notably the differing theologies in the areas of postlapsarian anthropology and soteriology. However, as Christopher noted in quoting Tillich, above, most of these differences are rooted in Augustine's theology (primarily as it developed in the course of the Pelagian controversy), yet the Eastern and Western churches remained in communion for many more centuries. Theophylact of Ochrid was even willing to be charitable about the filioque, which he ascribed to the Latins' inability to understand the nuances of trinitarian theology (I can't remember now where he wrote this, but I remember reading it in Francis Dvornik's _Byzantium and the Roman Primacy_).
ReplyDeleteI believe we have all become far too complacent about schism within Christianity and have therefore informally "dogmatized" a number of theological and other elements in which there was diversity in the early church. The calculation of the date of Easter is a perfect example: the First Ecumenical Council, according to the Emperor Constantine's letter announcing its decision on this matter, decided that Easter would be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox and specifically ordered that the Jewish passover *not* be included in the calculation. Yet we Orthodox indirectly do precisely that by using March 21 on the Julian calendar for our "spring equinox," even though that occurs two weeks after the actual astronomical equinox. I have actually heard and read Orthodox who, when faced with the fact that we are the ones not following the early tradition and decision of the church fathers on this matter, argue that this is part of our distinctiveness and that it is important for us to celebrate Easter on a different date from Western Christians. Wow, what does that say when many of us prioritize being different over following the decisions of an ecumenical council, not to mention seeking Christian unity with integrity and honesty?
To quote Valerie:
ReplyDelete"Wow, what does that say when many of us prioritize being different over following the decisions of an ecumenical council, not to mention seeking Christian unity with integrity and honesty?"
I am not sure you are meaning to do this Valerie, but I don't think scolding those who question the very foundations of the "ecumenical movement" is going to get anyone very far. Yes, you can point to many a red herring and clinging to questionable traditions here and there. So what? "honesty and integrity" means facing up to the fact that maybe this "theological diversity" as you put it could not and should not have lasted (as indeed it did not). It also means facing up to the fact that such a theological diversity (RC on the one hand, Orthodox on the other) is indication of a bridge too far as far as a real ecumenical council occurring between them. Such an thing would require a full scale repentance on the RC part of what exactly "ecumenical" means (i.e. a repudiation of Vatican I, etc.). Sure, in all possible universes such a thing is possible, but the current "ecumenical movement" is not even considering this. They are simply trotting out the usual re-redefinition of words and understandings so that an artificial unity can exist. "honesty and integrity" of course will never allow such a thing...
I agree with you, Christopher, about the necessity for the Church of Rome to repudiate Vatican I, something which I think will be quite difficult (even most Catholics -- including theologians -- have not really read "Pastor Aeternus" and understood its full-blown ultramontane papal supremacy). On the other hand, I have known most of the Catholic participants in the North American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue for many years and do not consider them heretical in their theological views.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ecumenical movement in general, I consider its foundations to be in the ecumenical councils and even unsuccessful councils such as that of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-39. Re-definition is not always false. If you have read the Second Agreed Statement, signed in 1990 between representatives of the Eastern and the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) churches, you see a perfect example of theologians and church leaders recognizing that the two church families are articulating the same christology using opposite terminology. This is something that scholars of historical theology have recognized for some time.
As for those Protestant Christians whose ecclesiology is much more distant from ours than Catholic, Anglican, or perhaps Lutheran, our presence and participation in ecumenical dialogue is an important witness. Orthodox participation has helped engender renewed interest among non-Orthodox Christians in liturgy and eucharist, icons, the Theotokos, and Greek patristic anthropology, christology, cosmology, and soteriology. I do not see how anyone can see that as anything but good.
Well, we do disagree on the ecumenical movement and it's fruits. I suspect the monks have it right on the "Second Agreed Statement". Give me a monk over a "scholar of historical theology" anytime. This is not mere sentiment, but a realistic view of human nature that would reduce theology to essentially western scholastic "method". Also, I don't see Orthodox participation in the WCC/NCC as anything but a scandal. Even on the pragmatic level from which you argue the case, the benefits are far outweighed by the moral confusion the participation itself engenders among the Orthodox AND the protestants who are involved. Those involved in the WCC/NCC have resolutely refused to LISTEN to this aspect. Not that it matters much as the Anglican’s and Lutherans (and others) are self destructing at a rapid pace. They are even now essentially Unitarians in all but name.
ReplyDeleteAgain, all this has been said before and frankly I tire of it. You are obviously a "company man" (or in this case a 'company women' ;) and are thus too close to it all to take seriously these fruits. It's all full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes to those involved in the ecumenical movement. Perhaps this is a sign of a movement, and idea, whose time has come and gone and is revealing it's intellectual and moral poverty. In any case I thank God Moscow has recently poured cold water on "the process". Interesting is it not, that the whole thing can be summed up as "The Process" in that Kafkaesque sort of way. Lord have mercy!