By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 32
The schism with the Orthodox churches could be solved in a comparatively easy way — because it is a silly schism, really — but the cultural baggage of resentment against Rome inherited from the past has hardened over the centuries.
In the previous article we learn something of the history of the schism, which is important to understand it in its proper context. In this article we consider the doctrinal differences between Rome and the Orthodox-schismatic churches.
The most important difference is, of course, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all bishops, in both East and West, and the infallibility of the same Pontiff. Our Eastern brethren in Baptism do not seem to realize that for a thousand years they were one with us, and the Primacy of Peter, of Rome, is both biblical and historical, as we have seen in previous articles. Since the schism in 1054, they accept only the first seven ecumenical councils, in which they participated, whereas we Catholics accept all 21 councils held by the Church since the beginning.
The second main doctrinal difference concerns the addition of the word filioque — and from the Son — to the Nicene Creed, to indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
The Orthodox churches refuse to accept this, even though they have no real solid theological argument to defend their view. It is mainly based upon the fact that they were not fully involved in the decision to add the word. In two councils the theological differences were solved, but the anti-Roman sentiment prevailed, unfortunately. They also claim that the decisions of a council should not be modified — not even to improve the clarity of the teaching.
A third doctrinal difference is the acceptance of divorce and remarriage in the Church, even though it is clear from the Gospels and 2,000 years of magisterial teaching that such a practice is not acceptable for a Christian.
A fourth doctrinal difference is Purgatory: Apparently they do not have a clear understanding of the difference between venial and mortal sin, and do not understand the reality and purpose of Purgatory, in spite of so many biblical passages and the teaching of the fathers. Consequently, they do not recognize the reality of indulgences for the souls in Purgatory, and they do not accept it for the living, either.
A fifth difference is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: They do not accept the dogma — of course, it was proclaimed by Rome — but accept the contents of it, which creates a contradiction. But one cannot find too much consistency in schism, especially when there are several different authorities teaching.
A few other differences of lesser importance refer to liturgy and pastoral practice.
For instance, they disagree with Rome on using unleavened bread for the consecration; they maintain that the consecration takes place not at the uttering of the words by the priest but afterward, at the invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis); they only perform Baptism by immersion, as it if were of divine institution, although there is nothing in the early Church documents — let alone Scripture — stating that only Baptism by immersion is valid; and they give the Sacrament of Confirmation immediately after Baptism, unlike the Latin Church that gives it later.
An evident contradiction is how they sometimes will not accept the validity of a sacrament given outside of their churches, even Baptism, but accept the validity of the Anglican orders, even though their invalidity has been demonstrated by Rome.
It seems that this contradiction is not based on proper reasoning, but simply because the Anglicans broke away from Rome, and the Orthodox feel a kind of solidarity with them.
Over the centuries, many Orthodox bishops have seen the light and returned back home to Rome, while maintaining the Eastern rites and practices, in everything that did not contradict the teachings of the Church. So you find in most places a variety of churches of the Byzantine Rite, some Orthodox, and some Catholic.
I personally frequented the Catholic Ukrainian parish in Perth, Australia, and thoroughly enjoyed the beauty and splendor of their Eastern liturgy for several years.
In fact, I do recommend that Wanderer readers go to Mass — or “Divine Liturgy,” as they call it — in a Catholic Eastern rite. You will be impressed by the beauty of the liturgy. Just make sure it is a Catholic church, and not Orthodox. Interestingly enough, in our Latin Rite we pray for the Pope and mention him once, but in the Catholic Byzantine Rite they mention his name four times!
One Lord, One Faith
Finally, the Orthodox churches have no concept of a universal Church, the central idea of the New Testament that there must be one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism (Eph. 4:5) in the one Church of God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Of course, they did have this concept for a thousand years before their separation from Rome. But since they have divided themselves into various churches, they have been forced to change their doctrine so that the “Church of Christ” is not one, but a conglomerate of churches.
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza is an EWTN program host; regional coordinator for Portuguese-speaking countries for Human Life International [HLI]; president of the Sacred Heart Institute, and a member of the Sovereign, Military, and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of Malta. His website is: www. RaymonddeSouza.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress