Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations

The Eastern and Western territorial split

The ‘Great Schism’ connotes the unremitting rupture of communion between the Catholic and Orthodox families.[11] Historians of the split have traditionally, following in the footsteps of Edward Gibbon,[12] recognised 1054 as the watershed of relational breakdown between the Eastern and Western spheres of the Christian World. In this sense, the schism can be understood as an event; the mutual excommunications issued in 1054.[6][13] The idea of a definitive break has, however, been called into question by more contemporary scholarship, which minimises the importance of this specific date.[14]

This breakdown, however, was the culmination of a process of distancing which unfolded over prior centuries.[15] Therefore, the schism can also rightfully be understood as an ongoing process of separation between the Greek East and Latin West beginning around the year 900.[11]

The primary cause of the schism is often recognised to be the ecclesiological differences.[16] Most notably, the Bishop of Rome’s growing claim to universal jurisdiction. The pre-eminence of this factor, however, is a heavily contested point; with numerous scholars placing greater importance on the theological[17][18][19] or political[20] disagreements instead.

It is unsurprising that the relationship immediately following the schism was one of animosity, considering Augustine diagnosed the moral origin of schism as “hatred among brothers”.[21] The phenomenon of cultural alienation between the Latin West and Greek East is crucial for understanding the historic relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.[22] The difference was, for one, pronounced in the language of the respective spheres. As a result communication became more strained and several seminal works were not translated on both sides.[23]

This led to a division in theological tradition in either milieu. The Eastern theologians relied more on the work of Greek philosophy, while in the West it was the Roman system of law that permeated the minds of theologians. One of the key divergences that emerged was regarding the nature and function of the Church: fundamental ecclesiology. The relational breakdown was also highlighted by the filioque controversy, where Rome in 1014 inserted the clause “and the Son” (filioque in latin) to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit into the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox argue that this modification was made in contravention of Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus.[Notes 1]

The Second Council of Lyons in 1274 was an attempted reconciliation called by Pope Gregory X. The council had in attendance over 300 bishops, who discussed the union of the East and the West. Pope Gregory X said Mass for the Feast of Peter and Paul which was attended by both sides. The Greeks conceded the contested Filioque clause,[24] which allowed reunification to be momentarily reached. However, it was only short lived, for while Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus was enthusiastic about reunion,[25] the Eastern clergy were largely opposed to the decisions of the council.[26] Hence, when his son Andronikos II Palaiologos succeeded as Emperor, he repudiated the union.

The Council of Florence

The Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1445 was the most notable historic effort towards achieving ecumenical unity. The Western Church sent letters to their Greek counterparts enthusiastic about future unity. They gathered with the intent of doctrinal agreement and ending the schism. The Greeks in attendance did eventually accept the filioque clause, as well as the Latin perspective on the Eucharist, purgatory and papal primacy.

The bull of unity, Laetentur Caeli, brought about a complete reunification; having been proclaimed by the representatives of all five patriarchal sees. The evidence of unity was most sensationally seen in the participation in each other's liturgies,[27] as well as growing appreciation for respective patristic traditions.

Unfortunately, this was short lived, due to the Eastern Orthodox deciding to later reject the union,[28] driven by the lower class’ anti-western sentiments. Along with the antagonism was an ongoing disagreement over those theological issues dealt with in the Council: the filioque, purgatory and papal primacy.[29] The Orthodox argued that Florence should not be considered a valid Ecumenical Council, as it didn’t follow the traditional method.[30] Ultimately, Florence served to highlight the overwhelming difficulty of unification.

Despite the failure of Florence, relations were fairly strong in the following centuries.[31] The Eastern Catholic Churches emerged out of a movement which sought to enter full communion with the Pope while retaining elements of their traditional liturgical practices and canonical rules. There are a range of Eastern Catholic Churches including (but not limited to):

• Melkite Greek Catholic Church
• Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
• Chaldean Catholic Church
• Maronite Church
• Armenian Catholic Church
• Syro-Malankara Catholic Church

Many Orthodox have criticised what they pejoratively call 'Uniatism', as an inadequate method of healing the split.[32] Leading Orthodox theologian and bishop Kallistos Ware has described this approach by Catholics, especially the Society of Jesus, as a "Trojan horse policy".[33] In fact, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin has even claimed that today this is the primary factor preventing the Orthodox and Catholics from fostering better relations.[34] Those in favour of the Uniates, generally Catholics, look at these churches as a bridge between the two Christian communities that is working towards full reunification. Nevertheless, after the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church has distanced itself from uniatism as an approach to finding lasting unity.[35]

The Second Vatican Council was a watershed in terms of the Catholic Church's pastoral approach.[39] Over two thousand bishops were called to Rome between 1962 and 1965 to discuss how the Church would face the challenges of the modern world. The Church, according to Peter A. Huff, largely redirected its concern from internal stability to external dialogue.[40] Seventeen Orthodox Churches sent observers to the council who participated in discussions, specifically on ecumenism between the two churches.[41] One of the council's primary concerns was to bring about the unity of all Christians.[1]

Significantly, at the close of the council Pope Paul VI and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted their respective excommunications in the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965.[42] This, however, was largely symbolic of intentions to eventually restore full communion between the churches.[43]

The Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism has driven Catholic efforts to reach out to the Orthodox over the last 60 years.[Notes 2] The dialogue that took place between 1963 and 1979 has been described as a "dialogue of charity".[44] This transitioned into a "dialogue of doctrine" with reference to the history and tradition of the early Church.[45] Consecutive popes have chosen to recite the Nicene Creed with Eastern Patriarchs according to the text prior to the addition of the Filioque clause. The Orthodox have engaged with the Vatican on several occasions over recent decades, significantly Patriarch Bartholomew I attending the Assisi Prayer Meeting.

The Joint Theological Commission was set up between the Holy See and fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches. In 1980 the Commission first met in Rhodes where they released a joint preparatory document stating that a deeper understanding of the sacraments would help further dialogue.[46]

Another issue that has been made clear is the disagreement surrounding the nature of the dispute. For many Catholics the primary issue is one of authority, which relates to ecclesiology. They do not regard the Orthodox as heretical but merely as schismatic, for they do not recognise Papal supremacy. Alternatively the Orthodox will often diagnose the problem as primarily theological, pointing to Catholic dogmatic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as being heretical.

One of the key tests today of theological harmonisation is over the essence-energy distinction.[47] Thomas Aquinas died on the way to the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, convoked to deal with the east-west split. His “divine simplicity” explanation of a virtual distinction between God’s essence and energies is one side of the debate;[48] the other side was articulated by the Mt Athos hesychast monk, Gregory Palamas, a contemporary of Aquinas, who argued for a real distinction between God’s essence and energies.[49] This issue is of great relevance since it deals with how the human being knows and relates to the Creator.

In 2018 the ecumenical effort was further complicated by tensions between the Russian Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church which resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarch establishing an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church.[50] Furthermore, Pew Research has shown that as of 2017 only 35% of Orthodox practitioners are in favour of communion with the Catholic Church, with a low of 17% among Russian Orthodox adherents.[51]

The Catholic Church has expressed a deep desire to heal the schism in order that the Church may "breathe with her two lungs".[52] The Orthodox, however, continue to insist that the Bishop of Rome holds a primacy which is limited to one of honour.[53] This is encapsulated in the phrase primus inter pares (Latin for "first among equals"). Given that the Catholic Church recognises more than just a distinction in honour there is clearly a need for one side to compromise on this matter. Currently there are no indications of a compromise of this sort in the near future.

Despite the enduring differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches some scholars hold that the main problem halting progress is behavioural and not doctrinal.[54] Thus, Robert F. Taft, S.J. believes that the answer to our problems is ecumenical scholarship which seeks understanding rather than confrontation.[55]