Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches 9781463203979, 1463203977

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION: ADRIAN FORTESCUE–THE SCHOLAR AND HIS WORKS
PART I FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS
1. THE SCHISMS I
2. EASTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND FAITH I
3. EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH STRUCTURE I
4. THE PROBLEM OF REUNION I
PART II. LATER DEVELOPMENTS
5. THE SCHISMS II
6. EASTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND FAITH II
7. EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH STRUCTURE II
8. THE PROBLEM OF REUNION II
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches

Gorgias Studies in Religion

19

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on all aspects of religion in both the ancient and modern worlds. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution towards the study of religion. Studies on Judaism, Islam and early Christianity and Patristics have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches

Anthony Dragani

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0397-9

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2007 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface................................................................................................................................ vii Introduction: Adrian Fortescue—The Scholar and His Works................................... 1 1

Part I

Fortescue’s Accounts

13

Part II

Later Developments

125

The Schisms I.......................................................................................................... 15 The Assyrian Church of the East and Nestorianism .............................................. 16 The Oriental Orthodox Churches and Monophysitism......................................... 23 The Schism of Photius................................................................................................ 34 The Schism of Cerularius ........................................................................................... 41 2 Eastern Christian Theology and Faith I .............................................................. 51 Eastern Orthodox Theology...................................................................................... 52 The Filioque ................................................................................................................. 55 The Consecration of the Eucharist ........................................................................... 59 Orthodox Theology and Protestantism.................................................................... 63 Eastern Christian Liturgy............................................................................................ 68 Eastern Christian Spirituality...................................................................................... 73 3 Eastern Christian Church Structure I .................................................................. 77 Belief in a Visible, Hierarchical Church.................................................................... 78 Patriarchs and Patriarchates ....................................................................................... 83 Ecumenical Councils................................................................................................... 90 The Orthodox Understanding of Papal Primacy .................................................... 92 The Danger of Nationalism ....................................................................................... 96 4 The Problem of Reunion I.................................................................................. 103 Reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church.............................................. 104 Reconciliation with the Lesser Eastern Churches................................................. 107 Failed Attempts at Reunion ..................................................................................... 109 Communion with Rome as the Guarantee of Unity............................................. 115 Role of the Eastern Catholic Churches .................................................................. 119 5

The Schisms II ...................................................................................................... 127 The Assyrian Church of the East and Nestorianism ............................................ 127 The Oriental Orthodox Churches and Monophysitism....................................... 129 The Schism of Photius.............................................................................................. 130 The Schism of Cerularius ......................................................................................... 132 v

vi 6

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Eastern Christian Theology and Faith II...........................................................137 The Filioque................................................................................................................140 The Consecration of the Eucharist .........................................................................144 Orthodox Theology and Protestantism..................................................................147 Eastern Christian Liturgy..........................................................................................150 Eastern Christian Spirituality....................................................................................152 7 Eastern Christian Church Structure II...............................................................157 Belief in a Visible, Hierarchical Church..................................................................157 Patriarchs and Patriarchates .....................................................................................159 Ecumenical Councils .................................................................................................166 The Orthodox Understanding of Papal Primacy...................................................168 The Danger of Nationalism .....................................................................................170 8 The Problem of Reunion II.................................................................................179 Reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church ..............................................179 Reconciliation with the Lesser Eastern Churches .................................................188 Failed Attempts at Reunion......................................................................................193 Communion with Rome as the Guarantee of Unity.............................................197 Role of the Eastern Catholic Churches ..................................................................201 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................211 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................215 Books and Articles by Adrian Fortescue ................................................................215 Fortescue’s Articles for The Catholic Encyclopedia ....................................................216 Books and Articles by Others ..................................................................................218

PREFACE Years ago, when I was first contemplating entering a doctoral program, someone offered me a key piece of advice: in order to successfully complete a dissertation, you must choose a topic that is so interesting that it will get you out of bed in the morning. I am profoundly grateful to my director, Fr. Michael Slusser, for leading me to such a topic. Over the past two years, as I immersed myself in Adrian Fortescue and his world, I found myself consumed by a project that was both deeply fascinating and wholly rewarding. Throughout this process, Fr. Slusser offered me exceptional guidance and helped me to shape my vision into a focused, tangible work. I am also indebted to Fr. David Petras, whose invaluable aid and encouragement was a tremendous support. Likewise, I must thank my fellow devotees of Fortescue, Fr. John R. McCarthy and Dom Alcuin Reid, OSB, for lending me their expertise, as well as the staff of the Catholic Truth Society. I also want to recognize the assistance of Fr. Sebastian Samay, OSB, who graciously helped me in translating material from German. Similarly, I must acknowledge the libraries of the following institutions, where I conducted the bulk of my research, and their ever-obliging librarians: Duquesne University, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, St. Vincent College, and Ss. Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Most of all, I am grateful to my family and friends for their unwavering assistance and understanding throughout this phase of my life. In particular my parents, Charles and Patricia, have been an endless source of encouragement and help. I dedicate this work to them.

vii

INTRODUCTION: ADRIAN FORTESCUE— THE SCHOLAR AND HIS WORKS Adrian Fortescue (1874–1923) was a priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster and an accomplished scholar with a wide range of interests. John G. Vance, who was Vice-President of St. Edmund’s College,1 Old Hall, and a personal friend of Fortescue, considered him to be “a man of such high attainment and of such breadth of knowledge that he may rightly be styled a genius. He knew so much, knew it so well, and loved the knowledge wholeheartedly.”2 Fortescue was one of the leading Roman Catholic voices in the English-speaking world, and his writings on Eastern Christianity are still regarded as classics on the subject. This volume is a critical examination of Fortescue’s writings on the Eastern Christian Churches. Its primary objective is to analyze in detail what he said about Eastern Christianity and to uncover and highlight his insights into key questions. In doing so, the study considers the relationship between Fortescue’s writings and the views held generally in the Roman Catholic Church during his lifetime, exploring both similarities and divergences. Also, Fortescue’s insights are critiqued in the light of later scholarship and subsequent developments in the Eastern Churches themselves, as well as changes in Catholic attitudes and official pronouncements. Thus it evaluates the extent to which his scholarship has withstood the test of time. Finally, the study reflects on whether Fortescue’s insights have continuing relevance for the contemporary ecumenical movement. The first part is a guided tour of Fortescue’s thought on Eastern Christianity. Chapter 1 introduces his understanding of the schisms that have led to the current divisions. Chapter 2 analyzes Fortescue’s comprehension of Eastern Christian theology and faith. Chapter 3 is an evaluation of his de1 St. Edmund’s College, Ware, Hertfordshire, is the oldest Catholic boys’s school in England. 2 John G. Vance and J. W. Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue—A Memoir, 18. 1

2

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

scription of Eastern Christian church structure. And Chapter 4 explores his insights into how reconciliation with the separated Eastern Christian Churches could come about, and what it would mean for all of the parties involved. Each of these chapters evaluates the explicit and implicit assumptions that underlie Fortescue’s work, in order to determine what proclivities and prejudices he brings to his treatment of Eastern Christianity. The second part chronicles developments since the time of Fortescue. It examines how things have changed in the Eastern Churches he wrote about, with a focus on the topics of the previous chapters. In this way Fortescue’s perspective is compared to advances in theology and historical scholarship, as well as important developments in the Eastern Christian Churches themselves, in order to ascertain the long-term accuracy of his writings. The volume concludes by reflecting on the extent to which Fortescue’s insights remain relevant today. Born on January 14, 1874, Adrian Fortescue was a direct descendant of the English martyr Blessed Adrian Fortescue.3 Blessed Adrian (ca. 1480–1539) was a highly respected knight and justice of the peace, as well as a maternal cousin of the ill-fated Anne Boleyn. Although a firm believer in papal primacy, he had initially tried to remain neutral in the conflict between Rome and King Henry VIII, going so far as to take an oath recognizing the legitimacy of Henry’s marriage to Anne. Nonetheless, after news of the king’s excommunication reached England in January 1539, Blessed Adrian remained loyal to the Catholic Church and was therefore arrested and condemned for “abominable treasons” and “seditions.” He was executed by beheading on July 9 of that year.4 Like his ancestor, the modern Adrian Fortescue would be a man unquestionably dedicated to his Catholic faith. Fortescue’s father, Edward Bowles Knottesford Fortescue, had been a renowned Anglican clergyman who was highly regarded as a preacher and retreat master.5 He had also been a leading figure in the High Church party within Anglicanism.6 In 1871, prior to Adrian’s birth, Edward had taken the Michael Davies, “Adrian Fortescue—Priest and Scholar,” 17. Alban Butler, “Bd. Adrian Fortescue,” 64–65. 5 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 18–19. 6 Edward Fortescue was an active participant in what has come to be known as the “Oxford Movement,” which sought to emphasize Anglicanism’s apostolic and catholic roots through theological and liturgical reforms. Opponents of this movement disparagingly referred to it as “Puseyism,” after one its most prominent leaders, Edward Bouverie Pusey. When Edward Fortescue was provost of St. Ninian’s 3 4

INTRODUCTION

3

life-altering step of converting to the Catholic faith and thus foregoing his successful career as a cleric.7 He arrived at this decision in response to the decrees of the First Vatican Council, which prompted him to carefully reevaluate the Anglican rejection of the papal claims. Tragically, Edward died only six years later, in 1877, at the age of sixty-one.8 Edward’s motivation for conversion undoubtedly had a lasting impact on his son, who later in life would tirelessly champion papal primacy in his writings.9 Following the death of his father, Fortescue was raised solely by his mother, Gertrude Mary (Robins) Fortescue. Sadly, she died in 1886, leaving him an orphan at the age of twelve.10 He then went to stay with his maternal aunt, Katherine Robins, in Wimbledon, where he lived for the remainder of his childhood. Despite these misfortunes, Fortescue was a highly precocious child, with a marked talent for drawing. He fostered the development of his artistic gifts and developed a high proficiency in both heraldic design and calligraphy. His aptitude for drawing would continue to serve him well throughout his scholarly career, as he took great delight in creating illustrations for his books. He also had a strong interest in music, and as a teenager served as an organist.11 From very early on, Fortescue expressed a desire to enter the priesthood. As a small child one of his favorite activities was to pretend to be a priest, and he would regularly hear the confessions of other children. In 1891 he entered the Scots College in Rome, where he began his academic formation for the priesthood. Determined to excel in his chosen vocation, he “proceeded to explore to their utmost depths, not merely the history of the church, but the origin and meaning of every ceremony, down to its minutest accessories, that formed part of his sacred office.”12 It was during this period as a seminarian in Rome that Fortescue’s fascination with Eastern Christianity began. Only a few miles southeast of the Cathedral in Perth, Scotland, “his ritual, considered Puseyite, aroused local derision; the children followed the cathedral clergy shouting ‘Pussy, Pussy,’ and mewing like cats.” See Gavin White, “Oxford Movement.” 7 Scott M. P. Reid, introduction to Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy, 7. 8 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 19. 9 There is a memorial chapel dedicated to Edward Fortescue in the Dominican church at Haverstock Hill, North London. See Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 49. 10 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 19. 11 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 51–52, 43, 49. 12 Ibid., 27, 43.

4

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

city is the famous Byzantine Catholic Abbey of Grottaferrata, with which he became intimately acquainted. In The Uniate Eastern Churches [UEC ], which was published posthumously, he reminisces on the impact that this encounter had on him: Years ago, when I was a student at Rome, it was at Grottaferrata that I first learned to be interested in the Byzantine liturgy. It was from a Grottaferrata monk that I learned to speak Greek. After nineteen years, on Sunday, February 9, 1913, I stood again in that church and heard the heavenly music of the Trisagion, the Cherubikon … before the Ikonostasion. So I thought of the days when I had stood there, a boy in my purple cassock, and I thanked God for all Grottaferrata had given me. (UEC 150 n. 4)

His experiences at Grottaferrata led to an enduring interest in the history, theology, and liturgies of the Christian East. In the years to come, the study of Eastern Christianity developed into a lifelong pursuit. After finishing his seminary studies in Rome in 1894, Fortescue received minor orders and began advanced studies at the Theological College at Innsbruck University.13 Throughout this period he spent his free time cultivating proficiencies in both ancient and modern languages, including classical Greek and Sanskrit.14 He ultimately completed his formal education in 1905, earning doctorates in both Theology and Church History.15 Fortescue was ordained to the priesthood for the Archdiocese of Westminster on March 27, 1898.16 After a series of short pastoral assignments, in 1907 he was appointed founding rector of St. Hugh in Letchworth,17 where he would remain until his death. According to a close confi13 Although Fortescue was a seminarian of the Archdiocese of Westminster, it is unclear whether he was sent for further studies by his ordinary, or whether he chose this route on his own initiative. Because Fortescue was to be ordained “on his own patrimony,” he was not financially supported by his diocese and therefore had a greater degree of freedom than most seminarians. See John R. McCarthy, Adrian [unpaginated]. 14 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 20. 15 J. D. Crichton, Lights in Darkness: Forerunners of the Liturgical Movement, 111. 16 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 78. 17 Letchworth, which was founded by Sir Ebenezer Howard in 1903, was the first Garden City. Howard developed the “Garden City” concept in order to revolutionize urban planning, so as to overcome the pollution and overcrowding often associated with nineteenth-century city life. His objective was to “raise the standard of health and comfort” of urbanites, by designing cities that would promote “a

INTRODUCTION

5

dant, “He had hoped to be recognized as a scholar and to receive an appointment as professor in one or other of our theological colleges. As no such appointment was made, Fortescue felt resentful and embittered at finding himself entrusted merely with a country parish.”18 Nonetheless, he dutifully took up the assignment with the special hardships it entailed. His first responsibility as rector was to arrange for the construction of a church building. Until this was possible, he celebrated Mass in small sheds that had been built to house railway workers.19 The magnitude of this assignment was compounded by the fact that his parish was financially destitute. Recent immigrants formed a significant percentage of the parishioners, including refugees from Belgium. Because of these circumstances, throughout his ministry he would find it necessary to support both himself and the parish through the publication of his writings.20 When the church was finally completed, its construction was financed primarily by Fortescue himself.21 On September 6, 1908, the new church was blessed and a splendid High Mass marked the occasion, followed by a celebration of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.22 In the years that followed, Fortescue came to deeply cherish his pastorate at St. Hugh, and all resentment dissipated.23 He took great pride in the decoration of the church, and he personally paid for most of its furnishings. Fortescue was fond of boasting that “It is the only church worth looking at west of Constantinople.”24 St. Hugh came to cultivate a reputation for exquisite liturgies and its decidedly unique but beautiful interior. He personally trained the parish choir to perform plainsong with haunting proficiency. He even compiled and edited a collection of ancient Latin hymns for use by the choir.25 Although today Fortescue is primarily remembered as a scholar, in his day-to-day life he was first and foremost a dedicated pastor.

higher and better form of industrial life.” See Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 50–52, 138. 18 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 28. 19 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 35. 20 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 55, 29. 21 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 35. 22 The Divine Liturgy was celebrated by Archimandrite Arsenios Atiyeh, while Fortescue sang the responses. See Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 53. 23 Ibid., 28. 24 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 43. 25 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 6, 20.

6

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Throughout his pastoral career, Fortescue’s interest in Eastern Christianity never wavered. In 1906 he took a sabbatical year in order to travel to Syria, where he cultivated firsthand experience with the Eastern Churches in that region. He also journeyed extensively throughout the greater Levant, observing the daily life of many ancient Christian communities.26 It was during these travels that, on two separate occasions, he had to engage attackers in combat in order to save his life. The second of these incidents was the most traumatic, for he shot and killed one of the assailants.27 Nevertheless, Fortescue’s sacrifices for the study of Eastern Christianity proved to be very fruitful in the long term, for by the time of his death he was one of England’s foremost experts on the Eastern Churches. Fortescue’s scholarly output was characterized by a fascination with history. Before tackling any theological or liturgical question, he would place the issue in its historical context. According to one of his biographers, Fortescue “was far more at home in history than in real life,”28 and “each book that he read—and he was omnivorous—would somehow take its place in the history of something.”29 During the composition of a book or article, he would double-check every historical detail with almost obsessive care.30 In this regard he demonstrated a serious commitment to excel as a highly disciplined scholar, with the presentation of objective truth as a major priority. At the age of thirty-two, Fortescue was selected to compose articles for the forthcoming Catholic Encyclopedia.31 Father Herbert Thurston, S.J., who was initially approached to write these articles, had to decline due to other outstanding commitments. Father Thurston recommended Fortescue Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 54–55. Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 36–37. 28 Ibid., 10–11. According to Vance, Fortescue “was not a practical man. … Practical life was all so strange and passed before him like a dream-world in which he was never at home.” Instead, he was far more comfortable in the realm of booklearning. 29 Ibid., 11. 30 Ibid., 13. 31 This English-language Catholic Encyclopedia [CE ] was created in response to the perceived misrepresentation of Catholicism in the various general encyclopedias available at the time. Work on this project began in January 1905 under the guidance of five editors and was completed in April 1914. Each article included in the work was to reflect official Church teaching on its intended subject, while simultaneously representing the best in available scholarship. See “The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia.” 26 27

INTRODUCTION

7

for the commission, although he himself did contribute a number of articles toward the project.32 In the years to come, Fortescue devoted a great deal of time and energy to his articles for the sixteen-volume encyclopedia, writing extensively on liturgy and Eastern Christianity. He ultimately contributed 120 articles to the project (see p. 216 below). Fortescue was widely recognized as an authority on liturgy, especially the evolution and celebration of the Roman Rite.33 Among his major works is The Mass, which is a detailed history of the Roman Eucharistic liturgy.34 For the most part avoiding dogmatic or theological questions, it is primarily a historical exposition.35 The first half of the book presents a broad overview of how the Mass developed, while the second half provides detailed observations on the development of each individual segment and prayer. Fortescue also includes a fascinating appendix on the absence of a clear epiclesis in the Roman Canon. Fortescue’s other major work on liturgy is The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. This book, which enjoyed tremendous popularity throughout the English-speaking Church, was written out of financial necessity.36 It is essentially a liturgical manual for clerics, explaining the nuances of how to celebrate the Mass and other important ceremonies. Prior to the publication of this book, English-speaking Catholic clergy had to rely on a flawed translation of an Italian manual written in 1839 by the Master of Ceremonies in St. Peter’s Basilica.37 Initially, Fortescue was asked to simply revise and correct the Italian volume, but he found it to be so thoroughly unsuitable for English clergy that he instead composed an entirely new work. The book was intended to be of practical use to the average priest, so Fortescue omitted papal ceremonies and other extraordinary functions that are still technically part of the Roman Rite. Furthermore, Fortescue included certain liturgical usages that were peculiar to the English Church in his time.38 He also Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 7. Ibid., 6. 34 Fortescue is quick to point out that the term “Mass” can only be properly applied to the Eucharistic liturgy of the Latin Church. Despite the frequency with which Eastern liturgies are referred to as “Masses,” he notes that such usage is incorrect. “Ite, missa est” (or equivalent) never appeared in any of the Eastern liturgies. 35 Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturg, vii. 36 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 20. 37 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 60. 38 Adrian Fortescue, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, xix–xx, xviii. 32 33

8

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

illustrated the book himself, a task which he reportedly enjoyed immensely.39 Because the book met a very real need, it was widely received throughout the English-speaking world and was reprinted twelve times. According to one of his biographers, Fortescue “possessed an unrivaled knowledge of the Eastern Churches” and “knew the origin and history of the Eastern Churches, both Uniate and Orthodox, as few priests of the Roman Rite have ever done, as is made clear in his books on the subject.”40 Fortescue’s reputation as an accomplished expert in this field resulted in his appointment as a consultor to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Eastern Churches in 1919. His primary works on Eastern Christianity consist of three volumes, which are today known as the “Eastern Churches Trilogy,” the third volume of which was published posthumously in 1923.41 Sidney Griffith, professor of Syriac Patristics and Christian Arabic at the Catholic University of America, writes that Fortescue’s trilogy on the eastern churches are classics in the library of books in English on Oriental Christianity. At the time of their publication they had a groundbreaking effect in bringing an awareness of the broader Christian world to westerners. To this day they remain among the most readable and authoritative sources of information about the churches to the east of Rome.42

These books almost tangibly convey Fortescue’s fascination with Eastern Christianity and his desire to educate the English-speaking world about its many facets.43 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 20. Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 6, 22. 41 The first two of these volumes were published by the Catholic Truth Society, while the third was published by Burns & Oates. The purpose of the Catholic Truth Society, which was established in 1884, was to provide English Catholics with quality educational literature. Its publications often engaged in apologetics, and they specifically took aim at Anglican claims. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first two books in Fortescue’s trilogy include a great deal of apologetic content. See James Britten and Thomas F. Meehan, “Truth Societies, Catholic.” 42 From the back cover of the reprint of Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches [LEC ]. 43 While on the one hand Fortescue was certainly interested in educating Latin Catholics about the Eastern Churches, he definitely mixes polemics heavily throughout his work. This occurs on two levels. First, whenever there is a significant conflict between Eastern belief and Roman Catholic belief, he generally switches into a polemical mode and shows why he considers the Eastern position 39 40

INTRODUCTION

9

The first volume, The Orthodox Eastern Church [OEC ], focuses on those Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Fortescue’s intended audience was English-speaking Catholics, whom he believed to be in need of education about their Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. He finds the ignorance of Catholics on this point to be particularly unfortunate “now that Anglicans especially have begun to take an interest in what they look upon as another branch of the Church” (OEC, 5). Because he is writing for a Catholic audience, Fortescue assumes that the reader has a Catholic point of view when he presents the various disputes that divide the Churches (ibid.). The first half of the book is a historical overview of Eastern Orthodoxy up to the time when Fortescue was writing, with a primary emphasis on the controversies that resulted in the present separation. The second half is an examination of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s liturgical rites, hierarchy, and theology. The final chapter of the work is a consideration of the possibility of reunion with the Catholic Church, and what this would entail for both sides. The second volume is entitled The Lesser Eastern Churches. Fortescue’s subjects are the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. In referring to these Churches as “lesser,” he in no way intends to devalue them. As Fortescue is careful to explain in the preface, they are “lesser” only in their sizes of membership, not in quality or significance (LEC, 5). Because of the dearth of literature on these Churches available at the time of his writing, Fortescue had to rely primarily on firsthand investigation. Thus, he explains that the book is based on “notes made by myself in their lands, interviews with prelates and clergy of these rites, observations of their services, and information supplied by friends in those parts” (ibid.). The result is a work of great originality, in which he presents the littleknown history of these Churches, together with an exposition of their theology and liturgical rites. As in The Orthodox Eastern Church, he concludes with a chapter on the prospects for reunion. The third and final volume, The Uniate Eastern Churches, is concerned with those Eastern Christian bodies that are in full communion with Rome.44 This book was originally intended to be an exhaustive treatment of to be incorrect. Second, very often he uses the Eastern Churches to make arguments against the Anglican Church. He does this with such frequency that it appears as if one of his primary reasons for writing about Eastern Christianity was to illustrate his arguments against Anglicanism. 44 Today the term “uniate” has negative connotations and is considered to be derogatory by most Eastern Catholics. During Fortescue’s lifetime, however, it was

10

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

all of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Sadly, Fortescue died before its completion, thus leaving his friend George D. Smith to edit and supervise the publishing of the unfinished manuscript (UEC, v). In this incomplete state the book only covers two Churches: the Italo-Greek Church and the Melkite Church.45 The two chapters on the Italo-Greek Church are particularly engaging, however, as Fortescue offers firsthand insights gleaned during his time spent at the monastery of the Mother of God at Grottaferrata. Fortunately, Fortescue completed an introductory chapter on Eastern Catholicism in general, in which he reflects on the particular challenges faced by these Churches. He is unusually candid in describing the mistreatment that Eastern Catholics have received from certain Roman prelates. As one reviewer remarked on this book, “Fortescue and Smith have handled intelligently a difficult issue, in which they have had to voice some severe criticisms of representatives of their own denomination.”46 Fortescue also composed what is probably the first Catholic translation of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom into English.47 This translation was specially prepared for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy that he organized in Westminster Cathedral, London, during the Eucharistic Congress of 1908.48 Fortescue translated directly from the Greek and arranged for the translation to be published by the Catholic Truth Society for use by the Congress’s participants. The Divine Liturgy was celebrated on September 12, 1908, in the Greek language, with Archimandrite Arsenios Atiyeh of Paris as the main celebrant. For the occasion, a temporary iconostasis was erected in the cathedral, and the Greek euchologion was followed carefully to avoid the incursion of any latinizations.49 This event is recorded to have been the first Catholic celebration of the Divine Liturgy in England, although Fortescue had previously arranged a celebration of significantly lesser scale to mark the blessing of St. Hugh.50

the standard terminology used to describe Eastern Catholics. 45 Fortescue’s thoughts on the other Eastern Catholic Churches can be found elsewhere in his writings, especially in his articles for the Catholic Encyclopedia. 46 Arthur Carl Piepkorn, “The Uniate Eastern Churches: The Byzantine Rite in Italy, Sicily, Syria and Egypt,” 145. 47 Serge Keleher, “Ukrainian Catholics: Four Translations of the Divine Liturgy: Some Early Translations,” 267. 48 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 54–55. 49 Keleher, “Ukrainian Catholics,” 268. 50 Ibid.; Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 53.

INTRODUCTION

11

As part of England’s Catholic minority and the son of a prominent convert, Fortescue was always interested in explaining and defending his faith in the face of Anglican criticism. He was regarded as something of an “apologist,” and many of his writings have a distinctly apologetic flavor. When it came to engaging an opponent in defense of the Catholic Church, he was “dictatorial and often savagely logical, giving and expecting no quarter.”51 Fortescue composed numerous apologetic booklets on behalf of the Catholic Truth Society and wrote a lengthy series of articles on papal primacy for The Tablet in 1919.52 He also lectured extensively, delivering presentations on such diverse topics as Eastern Christianity, Islam, liturgy, monasticism, Dante, and Esperanto.53 Tragically, the life of this immensely gifted man ended prematurely, while he was still in his prime. On December 21, 1922, Fortescue was diagnosed with cancer. In the weeks to come he would endure two painful operations and tremendous physical agony. Yet during this tribulation he found comfort in his spirituality and would constantly reflect on the sufferings of Christ.54 The last sermon he delivered was on “Christ, our Friend and Comforter,” on December 31.55 Adrian Fortescue died at Dollis Hill Hospital, London, on February 11, 1923.56 He was forty-nine years of age. Rather than being buried with his family, Fortescue arranged to be laid to rest at Letchworth in the midst of his parishioners.57 For nearly a century, Fortescue has had a tremendous influence on Western perceptions of Eastern Christianity, and in recent years there has been a new resurgence of interest in his work. Several of his books, including his Eastern Churches trilogy, have come back into print, and his articles for the Catholic Encyclopedia are now finding a sizeable audience on the Internet (http://newadvent.org). Fortescue’s liturgical writings have achieved something akin to cult status among those Roman Catholics who are interested in studying and preserving the Tridentine liturgy. Fortescue was one of the leading Catholic voices in the English-speaking world, and his legacy continues to live on through his writings.

Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 6. These articles have been collected and edited as The Early Papacy. 53 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 52–58. 54 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 65, 70. 55 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 58. 56 Davies, “Adrian Fortescue,” 69. 57 Vance and Fortescue, Adrian Fortescue, 29. 51 52

PART I

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

1 THE SCHISMS I As an ardent student of history, Fortescue devoted a great deal of time and attention to studying the schisms that continue to divide the Christian world. For him, the defining criterion of schism is primarily a rupture of communion with the Catholic Church.1 Yet he also recognizes that schisms can occur within bodies that are already separated from Rome, such as the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s break from Constantinople in 1872.2 Thus, he understands schism in its broader sense to be any division within a Christian body. Fortescue believes schism to be a more serious matter than heresy. The real sting of heresy, in his estimation, is that when persisted in, it inevitably leads to schism. Therefore, “It is schism that makes heresy so great an evil. … Heresy is wrong because it causes schism” (LEC, 84 n. 4). In the aftermath of any theological controversy, long after the embers of heresy have died down, it is the schism that remains and proves most difficult to heal. In the pages that follow we consider Fortescue’s view of the schisms that led to the division between the Catholic Church and the larger portion of Eastern Christianity. We first consider his exposition of the circumstances that separated the Assyrian Church of the East from the rest of Christendom during the Nestorian controversy. Next, his presentation of the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Monophysite dispute is explored. We then turn to the so-called Photian schism, and Fortescue’s contention that it set the scene for the excommunications of 1054. In doing so, we examine the underlying causes of friction between Rome and Constantinople. The chapter concludes with an analysis of his description of the schism of Cerularius, including the controversy over the azymes, which resulted in the parting of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Along the way we

1 In Fortescue’s usage, the term “Catholic Church” refers exclusively to the Churches that are in full communion with the See of Rome. I will be following Fortescue’s usage throughout this volume. 2 Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE, 5:231–32. 15

16

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

will look for common threads that shed more light on Fortescue’s understanding of schism, how it comes about, and its long-term effects.

THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST AND NESTORIANISM Fortescue recognizes the Assyrian Church of the East to be composed of sincere and committed Christians, who unfortunately find themselves in the situation of being both “schismatics” and “heretics” (LEC, 4). In his presentation of this Church and its history, he only briefly touches on the person of Nestorius and the heresy that came to bear his name. Fortescue’s purpose is not to revisit this controversy, but to comprehend the circumstances that led to the Assyrian Church becoming embroiled in it and resulted in the separation of this Church from all others.3 In contemporary parlance, “Assyrian Church of the East” is the accepted English name for this body of believers.4 Fortescue strenuously objects to this terminology, which he considers to be a misguided “new fad” among certain Anglicans, and “is emphatically not its old, accepted, or common name” (LEC, 8).5 The term “Assyrian,” he argues, refers to a vast and long extinct empire. This empire vanished centuries before the establishment of any Christian Church, and the ancestors of these Christians lived only in one distant corner of it (ibid.). He does not believe that it is appropriate for this tiny Church to be assigned the name of an ancient empire of which they were never a major part. Furthermore, Fortescue perceives a dubious motivation behind this designation. He suspects that Anglican writers constructed this terminology in order to avoid the use of the term “Nestorian,” because some Anglicans questioned whether or not these Eastern Christians really subscribe to the teachings of Nestorius. Moreover, many of the same Anglicans doubted the credentials of Nestorius as a bona fide heretic (LEC, 7). For his part, Fortescue prefers to label this body the “Nestorian” Church.6 He says that these Christians in no way disavow that name, but 3 An excellent overview of the history of the Assyrian Church of the East is found in Part III of Aziz S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity. See also Aubrey Russell Vine, The Nestorian Churches. 4 See Ronald G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches. 5 According to Atiya, the term Assyrian “had long been used” to designate this Church, although it was “brought into prominence by the Anglican missionaries of the nineteenth century to evade heretical incrimination by the use of the word Nestorian.” See Atiya, History, 239 n. 1. 6 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 232.

THE SCHISMS I

17

rather “glory in the memory of the Blessed Nestorius, and they use it for themselves” (LEC, 7). Likewise, he claims that they are committed to the teachings of Nestorius (LEC, 87). Therefore, throughout his writings Fortescue consistently refers to them as “Nestorians.” From the start, this designation invariably colors the reader’s impression of this Church. Fortescue begins his investigation of this Church and its separation by presenting its history prior to the rise of Nestorius.7 It was the national Church of Persia, he explains, although much of its character is East Syrian in origin (LEC, 18). This is because it was established by missionaries from Edessa, which was the primary center of East Syrian Christianity (LEC, 28). Persian Christianity distinguished itself by its extremely large number of martyrs, who suffered and died for rejecting the national religion of Zoroastrianism, or for converting one of its practitioners (LEC, 41). The most severe of these persecutions, which lasted from 340 to 372, was inflicted by King Shapur II,8 who according to Fortescue unleashed one of the most vicious persecutions that the Christian Church has ever witnessed. Shapur II’s reason for fearing Christianity was a telling one: Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, the great rival of Persia. Christians were perceived to be a dangerous foreign element within the kingdom, an element whose loyalty to the state was highly suspect (LEC, 45). At first the Persian Church was dependent on Edessa, from which it had received the faith. Edessa had an impressive pedigree, being a major Christian missionary see since the second century.9 It was “the chief see of far-eastern Christendom,” and was itself subject to the Patriarch of Antioch (LEC, 36). As Fortescue explains, whenever a dispute arose in the Persian

In presenting the history of the Assyrian Church, Fortescue regularly cites Jérôme Labourt, Le christianisme dans l’empire perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (224–632). He also draws material from W. A. Wigram, An Introduction to the History of the Assyrian Church or the Church of the Sassanid Persian Empire, 100–640 A.D. In his books, Fortescue consistently footnotes his sources. In his encyclopedia articles and other writings, Fortescue lists his sources at the end of each article. 8 W. Stewart McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, 117–18. 9 Ibid., 52. A succinct history of Christianity in Edessa can be found in McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam. For the origins of the Church of Edessa and its cultural background, see also Steven K. Ross, Roman Edessa (London: Routledge, 2001). 7

18

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Church it would immediately appeal to the Church of Edessa, who was recognized as having the authority to resolve the matter (LEC, 41–42). Based on this, Fortescue argues that the Persian Church acknowledged her place in the grand scheme of the universal Church. The Persian primate, the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, answered to the authority of the Bishop of Edessa, who in turn answered to the Patriarch of Antioch. Hence, the Persian Church fell within the confines of the Antiochene Patriarchate (LEC, 36). Until the fifth century, “this Church acknowledged a higher authority over her; she had a regular place in the ordered system of Catholic Christendom” (LEC, 42). This is a key point. Fortescue believes that “from the very beginning” there was “a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates.” The Bishop of Rome “was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid.”10 Of course, Fortescue recognizes that there is a question as to how much authority was ever actually exercised by Antioch (or Rome, for that matter) over the Persian Church (LEC, 36). Nonetheless, the salient point is that a higher authority was recognized. This situation changed in 424, when the Synod of Markabta declared the total independence of the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon from “any earthly authority” (LEC, 50–51).11 The sizeable geographic distance between Persia and Antioch facilitated this development.12 Fortescue considers this event to be the real beginning of the schism, as from this point on the Persian Church no longer acknowledged its station in the graduated hierarchy. In declaring its independence from Antioch and Edessa, it also indirectly made itself autonomous “from Antioch’s superior at Rome” (ibid.). Hence, Fortescue believes that from 424 on the Persian Church was “schismatical” (LEC, 51). He is convinced that this state of affairs made it all too easy for it to fall victim to the Nestorian heresy (LEC, 53). Here we encounter a theme that recurs throughout Fortescue’s writings: the conviction that ecclesiastical independence results in vulnerability to error. This belief underlies much of Fortescue’s treatment of the separated Eastern Churches. Using picturesque language, he describes the Persian Church as a “little ship” that unwittingly “left the harbour and sailed alone into the coming storm.” This ship was soon “overwhelmed and Adrian Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” CE, 13:535. Although the Persian Church became administratively independent from Antioch at this time, it continued to maintain Syriac as its language. See LEC, 159. 12 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 232. Seleucia-Ctesiphon was located approximately 800 km southeast of Antioch. 10 11

THE SCHISMS I

19

drowned almost immediately” (LEC, 51). Because the Persian Church was now independent from all earthly authority, it was now more susceptible to heresy (LEC, 78). It is somewhat curious that the Persian Church would so willingly embrace a Greek heresy promoted by a Patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorius was a West Syrian from Antioch, who composed all of his writings in Greek. As Fortescue is quick to point out, Nestorius had no relationship with either Edessa or Persia (LEC, 54). Yet for countless centuries the Persian Church has been virtually synonymous with Nestorianism. Fortescue believes that this Church was prepared for Nestorius’s ideas by the popularity of Theodore of Mopsuestia in its mother church in Edessa (LEC, 75). According to Fortescue, both Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus were the indirect originators of Nestorianism (LEC, 59). Both men taught that the man called Jesus of Nazareth was only a “temple” in which the eternal Logos dwelt, and that Mary was not the mother of the Logos but only of this human “temple.” Theodore in particular objected to the use of the title “Theotokos” for Mary for this reason (LEC, 60). Nestorius, therefore, was not the author of the teaching that still bears his name. But he had been schooled in the doctrines of both men and was carrying on and popularizing their ideas (LEC, 61). Fortescue holds that the exegetical writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia were highly influential throughout Syria (LEC, 60). He writes that Theodore’s works were especially revered in the theological school of Edessa (LEC, 75). When Nestorius and his teachings came under assault, Fortescue believes that the theologians of Edessa perceived this to be an attack on the orthodoxy of Theodore. Although they had no particular interest in Nestorius, they rallied to the defense of his ideas because they recognized them to be Theodore’s teachings (LEC, 61). The theological school of Edessa eventually became the primary center of Nestorianism in the empire (LEC, 75).13 When the Emperor Zeno forcibly closed the school of Edessa and banished all Nestorians in 489, they sought refuge among the Christians of Persia (LEC, 78). Despite their proclamation of ecclesiastical independence in 424, Persian Christians were still heavily influenced by the trends in Edessa. Even prior to the closure of the school in Edessa, Theodore of Mopsuestia was already greatly esteemed by the bishops of Persia (LEC, A more recent overview of these events can be found in Hans-George Beck’s treatment of “The Early Byzantine Church,” in Karl Baus et al., History of the Church, trans. Anselm Biggs, vol. 2 (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), 421–514. 13

20

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

79). Thus, in the Persian city of Nisibis a new Nestorian school of theology was soon established. “So,” in the words of Fortescue, “step by step the Church of Persia (already in schism) fell a victim to this teaching” (LEC, 86). Fortescue is quick to reiterate that the Persian Church became Nestorian so easily because it had rejected its place in the ordering of the universal Church. But he also identifies another reason that facilitated its transition into the “Nestorian” Church. By embracing Nestorianism and rejecting the Council of Ephesus, the Church of Persia was rejecting the official position of the Roman Empire (LEC, 54). As Fortescue argues is the case in most of the separated Eastern Churches, “The vehement and often intolerant ardour of what seems to be their religious conviction is always really national pride and national loyalty under the guise of theology.”14 In adopting Nestorianism, Persian Christianity perceived itself to be resisting an attempt to impose imperial theology on the worldwide Church, at the expense of authentic Eastern Syrian theology. Moreover, this development brought a virtual halt to the bloody persecutions under which they had suffered for so long. As soon as the Persian government realized that the promoters of Nestorianism were in theological opposition to the position of the Empire, the government approved of the spread of this teaching among Persian Christians. Thus, Fortescue holds that by becoming Nestorian the Persian Church was relieved of the suspicion of being a potentially treacherous ally of the Roman Empire (LEC, 79). In his writings, Fortescue expresses no doubts that the Assyrian Church of the East (in his time) continues to be not only schismatic but heretical. Nor does he question that Nestorius himself was a heretic: Nestorius (one feels no animus against a respectable man whose cause, to us, is buried since fifteen centuries), in spite of the harsh treatment he received and his good qualities, taught a doctrine which cut away the very root of Christianity; namely, that God the Son himself, for us men and for our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was made flesh of the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary, and was made man; was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. Nestorius’s doctrine had to be rejected; the man who persisted in it could not remain a Catholic: and the people who glory in the fact that they hold his doctrines are, at least implicitly, heretics. (LEC, 72)

14

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237.

THE SCHISMS I

21

Yet Fortescue does recognize that the average Assyrian Christian is not well informed about Nestorian doctrine and has little if any understanding of what the controversy is about (LEC, 87 n. 1). Nonetheless, he stands by his assertion that this Church does merit the designation of “heretical,” for it perseveres in its refusal to accept the Council of Ephesus and continues to honor both the memory and teachings of Nestorius (LEC, 85–86). As Fortescue puts it, “They prefer the teaching of this one man to that of all the rest of Christendom; they prefer to be in schism rather than give up Nestorius. That is the very essence of heresy” (LEC, 87 n. 1). In his insistence on the heretical status of the Assyrian Church of the East, Fortescue was hewing to longstanding Catholic opinion. In 1445, the Council of Florence described Assyrian Christians as “strangers to the truth of faith,” whose hearts must be freed from “the impurity of Nestorius.”15 Likewise, he was in line with the official Church thinking of his day when he reaffirmed Nestorius’s status as a heretic, a status which was being widely questioned during Fortescue’s lifetime.16 Pope Pius XI, writing eight years after Fortescue’s death, acknowledged “the condemnation of Nestorius as rightly and deservedly decreed” and proclaimed that “all should hold it as certain that Nestorius really preached heretical novelties.”17 Similarly, as late as 1872 Pope Pius IX still perceived Nestorianism to be a threat to the Chaldean Catholic Church. He warned Chaldean Catholics that “the damage brought to your regions by the Nestorian heresy is so great that like a wild beast from the forest it will destroy the Lord’s vineyard which once flourished there and devour it.”18 Nor was Fortescue alone in equating ecclesiastical independence with vulnerability, as this was standard Catholic teaching at the time.19 The “Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, 1:589. 16 Fortescue relates that many historians were attempting to exonerate Nestorius (LEC, 66). 17 Pius XI, “Lux Veritatis,” ¶27. English translation in The Papal Encyclicals, ed. Claudia Carlen, 3: 463–74. 18 Pius IX, “Quae in Patriarchatu,” ¶2. English translation, Carlen, Encyclicals, 1: 409–12. 19 The First Vatican Council taught that communion with Rome is the necessary safeguard against doctrinal error, for the guidance of the Roman pontiff ensures that “the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell” (Pastor Aeternus, 4.4, in Tanner, Decrees, 2:816). 15

22

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

famed Church historian Louis Duchesne (1843–1922), who was a contemporary of Fortescue, expressed similar convictions, albeit not as directly. Like Fortescue, he believed in the importance of each Church being inserted into a larger hierarchy and even went so far as to commend centralization as the “safeguard” of unity.20 Duchesne acknowledged that centralization “is not an ideal condition” and that it can be lessened depending on certain circumstances.21 Yet he argued that unity is one of the essential marks of the Church, and centralization is an important means of attaining it.22 Like Fortescue, Duchesne was convinced that it is ecclesiastical unity that protects and preserves the unity of faith, and that this ecclesiastical unity is expressed by unity with the Bishop of Rome.23 Certain attitudes and dispositions are detectable in Fortescue’s approach to the Assyrian Church of the East and the circumstances surrounding its division. For instance, he singles out “quarrelsomeness” as one of the distinguishing features of this Church, even prior to its adoption of Nestorianism (LEC, 41–42).24 Also, his overall position toward this Church is markedly different from his portrayal of the Eastern Orthodox Church. For while he holds that the Assyrian Church is a heretical body, he maintains that what divides the Eastern Orthodox from Catholicism “is not a heresy, but a schism.”25 Moreover, he points to the Assyrian Church’s status as “a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church” as an indicator of what may happen in the aftermath of schism.26 For he applies to them the adage “The branch Louis Duchesne, The Churches Separated from Rome, 12. Ibid., vii–viii. 22 Ibid., 12. 23 Ibid., 76–108. 24 As an early example of this “quarrelsomeness,” Fortescue recounts the story of Papa Bar ‘Aggai, who was primate of the Persian Church in the early fourth century. When Papa sought to assert his jurisdiction over the other Persian bishops, they refused to acknowledge his authority and instead reaffirmed their own independence. In order to resolve this dispute, a synod was held in 315, at which the bishops accused Papa of immorality and deposed him from his office. Papa appealed his case to the Church of Edessa and was eventually reinstated. Fortescue derives this story from Wigram. 25 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538 26 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 232. Fortescue does, however, also mention the role played by the spread of Islam in the decline of the Assyrian Church, albeit very briefly. He also attributes part of its wane to the fourteenth-century Mongol chieftain Timur Leng, who quashed the Assyrian missionary enterprise (LEC, 100). 20 21

THE SCHISMS I

23

which does not remain in the vine shall wither,” although acknowledging that “this did not happen at once,” as it is impossible to ignore their vast missionary enterprise which once flourished throughout the Far East (LEC, 88).27 Yet this attitude proves to be prevalent in his treatment of all of the separated Eastern Churches, to one extent or another. For, as will be seen, it is Fortescue’s conviction that separation from the Catholic Church inevitably results in deficiency and “withering.”

THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES AND MONOPHYSITISM The remaining “lesser Eastern Churches” that Fortescue discusses are the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which have historically been accused of Monophysitism. At the time when Fortescue was writing, there were five such Churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.28 As is the case with the Assyrian Church of the East, Fortescue considers these Churches to be “heretical” (LEC, 179). However, he counts them as being of greater importance than the Assyrian Church. For while the Assyrian Church was in his time a small body confined to a single geographic region, the Oriental Orthodox Churches are larger, and in some instances national, Churches (LEC, 163). In Fortescue’s estimation, these Churches are heretical because they subscribe to the Monophysite heresy. He has no doubts as to whether they are deserving of this label, for they reject the Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. This rejection is enough to qualify them as being Monophysite (LEC, 179). The enduring schisms that separate these Churches from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have their roots in the Monophysite controversy of the fifth century.29 This dispute is forever tied to the name of the Byzantine monk Eutyches, who was known to be a crusader against Nestorianism (LEC, 167).30 According to Fortescue, Eutyches went much 27 For background on the past missionary efforts of the Assyrian Church, see John Stewart, The Nestorian Missionary Enterprise. 28 A detailed history of these Churches is found in Atiya, History, parts 1, 2, 4, and 5. 29 The best study of the Monophysite controversy is W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. 30 In relating the history of Monophysitism, Fortescue frequently draws upon material found in Karl Joseph von Hefele, Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux. Among his other sources, he often cites Michel Lequien, Oriens christianus.

24

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

further doctrinally than later Monophysites were willing to go. The core of his teaching was that Christ had two natures prior to the hypostatic union, but only one nature afterward (LEC, 174). Fortescue argues that in advocating this teaching, Eutyches believed himself to be building on the work of the Council of Ephesus. Thus, he did not conceive of himself as presenting a novel doctrine, but merely as safeguarding the faith against the threat of Nestorianism (LEC, 167). Yet some of the teachings of Eutyches were, in Fortescue’s judgment, so extreme that they were rejected by later Monophysites.31 In particular, he advocated the position that Jesus’s body was created beforehand and was later placed in the womb of Mary. If this line of reasoning were to be followed, it would imply that Mary was not actually the Mother of God, but only a vessel. Thus, Fortescue believes that ultimately Eutyches contradicted the very substance of the Council of Ephesus, which he purported to defend (LEC, 168). It is for this reason that none of the Oriental Orthodox Churches have ever defended the teachings of this man but instead condemn him. However, in Fortescue’s mind this willingness to condemn Eutyches in no way absolves them from the charge of Monophysitism (LEC, 169). From a theological perspective, he defines a Monophysite to be a person “who believes in the identity of the human nature and the Divine nature in Christ” (LEC, 168). From a practical perspective, Fortescue defines a Monophysite to be a person who rejects the Council of Chalcedon (ibid. n. 4). Because the Oriental Orthodox Churches persist in this rejection, they meet Fortescue’s criterion for Monophysitism. Fortescue understands Monophysitism to be first and foremost an overreaction against Nestorianism (LEC, 163). Indeed, he goes so far as to call it “the extreme opposite of Nestorianism” (LEC, 164). But he regards it to be ultimately far more dangerous. For he believes that “of the two errors it is less harmful to conceive our Lord as a moral union between two hypostases than to deny that he was really man at all” (LEC, 169). In overemphasizing the union of his two natures, the Monophysites unwittingly lose Christ’s humanity in his divinity. It is for this reason that Fortescue considers Monophysitism to be a variation of Docetism (LEC, 164). Fortescue defines Docetism as “the her31 Frend recounts how, in the half-century following Chalcedon, the leaders of the Monophysite movement came to distance themselves from Eutyches and to draw a distinction between their beliefs and Eutychism, which they condemned (Monophysite Movement, 205–7).

THE SCHISMS I

25

esy which teaches that Christ had no real material body and human nature, but only an apparent body, a phantasm of humanity,” and he states that this heresy is found “in many grades.”32 He believes that Monophysitism, like Docetism, fails to recognize the reality of Christ’s human nature and makes him into something other than truly human (LEC, 213). The true champion of Monophysitism, as portrayed by Fortescue, was not Eutyches, but Dioscorus of Alexandria (ibid.). He was the successor of St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom he had accompanied to the Council of Ephesus (LEC, 165). Fortescue presents him as a ruthless “ecclesiastical pharaoh,” who had his own personal army of violent thugs, known as “parabolani,” to do his bidding (LEC, 173). An “unscrupulous” individual, Dioscorus exercised his might at the so-called Robber-Synod of Ephesus (LEC, 165).33 In Fortescue’s presentation, this synod was essentially a dangerous mob orchestrated from beginning to end by Dioscorus, in which Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was wrongly deposed and beaten nearly to the point of death (LEC, 173–74). In contrast, Fortescue portrays the Council of Chalcedon in the most positive light possible. At Chalcedon the true faith was defended against the error of Monophysitism. Moreover, Fortescue characterizes Chalcedon as being a great triumph for papal primacy (LEC, 176). “The man who comes out best in the whole Monophysite controversy,” he writes, “is the Pope of Rome” (LEC, 170). At Chalcedon the bishops recognized “the Pope as supreme bishop and visible head of the whole Church,” and they acknowledged “that his confirmation is necessary to give authority to all they do” (LEC, 176). He cites the fact that the papal legates presided over the council as further evidence of this (LEC, 177). Likewise, Fortescue greatly extols the significance of the Tome of Leo and its reception by the Council and emphasizes its lasting impact on Christianity (LEC, 172). In treating the ecclesiastical schisms that came in the aftermath of Chalcedon, Fortescue tends to cast them in terms of nationalism and national pride. This is especially the case in his treatment of the schism of the Coptic Orthodox Church.34 Egypt was the first nation in which MonophysiAdrian Fortescue, “Docetism,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 832. For a challenge to the traditional designation of this council as being a “robber-synod,” see Wilhelm De Vries, “Das Konzil von Ephesus 449, eine ‘Räubersynode’?” 34 For the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fortescue often derives information from Stanley Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages. He also regularly utilizes Eusèbe Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum. 32 33

26

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

tism really took root. In order to explain this, Fortescue states that the Egyptians as a people took great pride in Cyril’s victory over Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. Here was an instance in which the Patriarch of Alexandria had defeated the Patriarch of Constantinople, the bishop of the mighty imperial city. In their perception Egypt had triumphed over Constantinople (LEC, 183). Cyril was the national hero of Egypt, and the Monophysites saw themselves as continuing his legacy in the fight against Nestorianism (LEC, 165). For this reason the so-called Robber-Synod of Ephesus was warmly received in Egypt. In their minds it was a repeat of history, as yet another Patriarch of Constantinople had been deposed by an Alexandrian Patriarch (LEC, 183). Hence, Fortescue judges that the reversal that took place at Chalcedon was seen throughout Egypt as an intolerable humiliation (LEC, 184). The Egyptians’ national pride was wounded, and for this reason they were unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Chalcedon. For it was “an unheard-of outrage in Egypt that its Patriarch, its ‘ecclesiastical Pharaoh,’ should stand as a culprit before Byzantine bishops, should be deposed, excommunicated, banished” (LEC, 183). Furthermore, Egypt was already ripe with resentment again the Byzantine Emperor. Both he and his emissaries were viewed as foreign conquerors and were widely held in contempt by the masses (LEC, 182).35 As outright political rebellion was not a realistic option, Fortescue believes, they opted instead for theological rebellion. Chalcedon was perceived to be the emperor’s council and an affront to the Egyptian theological tradition. They would demonstrate their contempt for the emperor by rejecting his council and its Christological definitions (LEC, 182–83).36 Fortescue concludes that Monophysitism “became the expression of their national feeling” against the empire and its officials.37 Therefore, in a short span of time the Coptic Church became almost entirely Monophysite (LEC, 217–18). Only a small minority of persons accepted Chalcedon, and these were mostly members of the foreign ruling Fortescue notes that Egypt had never adopted the dominant Hellenic culture and instead preserved its own language and civilization. For this reason the emperor and his representatives appeared as foreign subjugators. 36 In Fortescue’s portrayal of events, the Egyptians were motivated more by anti-imperialism than by a desire to defend the theological teachings of Cyril, although this was a factor. Their anti-imperialism manifested itself concretely in their vehement rejection of Chalcedon. 37 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 233. 35

THE SCHISMS I

27

class (LEC, 184–85). Monophysitism, which began as an overreaction against Nestorianism, became Egypt’s national religion.38 As a result, the Coptic Church separated itself from Chalcedonian Christianity, and a schism came into being that persists into our own day. Egypt soon became the primary center for the spread of Monophysitism to other Christian Churches (LEC, 213). Fortescue says that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was a natural candidate to adopt this heresy.39 This Church, which he describes as one of the “smallest and least important of the lesser Eastern Churches,” was always heavily dependent on the Coptic Church (LEC, 292). Egypt was their closest Christian neighbor, and the Patriarch of Alexandria was traditionally considered to be the second most important bishop in Christendom. For this reason the primate of the Ethiopian Church was always a Coptic monk who was ordained by the Patriarch of Alexandria. Likewise, the Ethiopian liturgy is based on the Coptic liturgy, and the two Churches share a great common patrimony. Therefore, in Fortescue’s opinion, it was a foregone conclusion that the Ethiopian Church would follow her mother Church into Monophysitism (LEC, 296). Consequently, Fortescue does not regard the Ethiopian Church to be truly responsible for the “schismatic” state in which she finds herself. He deems it to be “one of the most excusable, one of the least responsible schisms in Church history.” After all, “what could these poor blacks in the heart of Africa understand of the issues involved, how could they realize the importance of the agreement of the great Church beyond Egypt?” (LEC, 299). Fortescue’s attitude toward this Church at best comes across as patronizing. In fact, he seems to hold Ethiopian Christianity in very low regard. He describes the Ethiopian Church as “the most backward part of the whole Christian family” (LEC, 297). This Church, “being the religion of a more than half barbarous people, cut off by the schism from relations with any other Christian body except the poor and backward Copts, is certainly the lowest representative of the great Christian family.”40 He challenges the reader to imagine “how little culture, theology and spirituality there is in a body which looks to the Coptic Patriarch as its highest standard” (LEC, 297). The lack of respect that Fortescue demonstrates for this Church is uncharacteristic of him. In a span of two pages, he employs the term Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 233. In his history of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Fortescue frequently cites Hiob Ludolf, Historia aethiopica. He also relies on Renaudot, Historia. 40 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 233. 38 39

28

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

“backward” to describe this Church no less than three times (LEC, 196– 97). Fortescue depicts the circumstances that led to the schism of the Syrian Orthodox Church as being distinctly different.41 Unlike Ethiopian Christianity, Syrian Christianity was never dependent on Egypt. Liturgically, the Syrian Church has always celebrated the ancient Antiochian rite.42 He points out that it is the only Church that still uses this rite in the Syriac language, which in his opinion “is perhaps the chief importance of the sect to students” (LEC, 323). Thus, the Syrian Orthodox Church has always been very much its own entity. Yet, in Fortescue’s presentation, this Church did not come into existence until the sixth century. Before that time there was a Monophysite party active throughout Syria, but it was not a separate body (LEC, 324). The Monophysites had persistently failed to take control of the official Church in Syria, and their movement was in danger of dying. But their faction was rejuvenated when the Byzantine Empress, Theodora, arranged for them to become organized into a separate Church with their own hierarchy. To spearhead this development she appointed the monk James Baradai, whom she had ordained by the Patriarch of Alexandria, who at that time was imprisoned in Constantinople (LEC, 324–25). Under Theodora’s protection James traveled throughout Syria establishing a new Church. For this reason Fortescue considers James Baradai to be the founder of the Syrian Orthodox Church (LEC, 325–26). Fortescue notes that Baradai always worked in cooperation with the Egyptian Monophysite party, with which he and his followers were in communion (LEC, 325). As in Egypt, Monophysitism spread in Syria “chiefly out of political opposition to the imperial court.”43 Yet it is intriguing to note that the Empress Theodora, whom Fortescue identifies as “an ardent Monophysite,” was indirectly responsible for the creation of this Church (LEC, 200). It is remarkable that a movement fueled by antiimperial sentiment would owe so much to the Emperor’s wife. Fortescue never adequately explains this, other than recounting the history of how the Emperor Justinian attempted to compromise with the Monophysites. But he leaves a question unanswered: was opposition to the imperial court still 41 Fortescue’s chief source for the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church is Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon ecclesiasticum. He also uses Michael I, Chronique de Michel le Syrien: patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199). 42 Adrian Fortescue, “Syrian Rite, West,” CE, 14:417. 43 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 233.

THE SCHISMS I

29

the driving force behind the spread of Monophysitism even when the emperor was sympathetic to it, and the empress herself was a Monophysite? If so, then how does one account for the creation of the Syrian Orthodox Church under the patronage of the Empress? These issues are never fully addressed by Fortescue.44 Instead, he simply asserts that the rapid spread of Monophysitism in Syria was fueled by anti-imperialism, and that this was greatly aided by the distinctive national identity of the Syrian people. Like Egypt, he says, Syria had never been assimilated into the pervading Hellenic culture of the time. Both of these provinces “kept their own languages, both had ancient civilizations of their own, totally different from that of the Greek court of the Roman Emperor at Constantinople.” Therefore, Fortescue concludes, it was the “same feeling of local patriotism, of anti-imperialism, which made the natives of these countries Monophysites” (LEC, 182–83). In his depiction of the Armenian Apostolic Church and its adoption of Monophysitism, Fortescue establishes a parallel between it and the Assyrian Church of the East.45 Like the Assyrian Church, at first the Armenian Church had “a normal place, as an outlying mission of Caesarea, in the great united body of which the chiefs were the three Patriarchs, and the Roman Patriarch head of the chiefs” (LEC, 405–6). St. Gregory the Illuminator (ca. 257–337), the Apostle to Armenia, was originally sent from Caesarea in Cappadocia and had been ordained to the episcopate by the bishop of that city.46 Therefore, the Armenian Church was “dependent on Caesarea, subA solution is provided by Frend (Monophysite Movement, 322–23). He points out that although there was considerable support for Monophysitism within the imperial court, a fundamental opposition existed between the Monophysite movement and the institution of the empire. This was because the empire was necessarily committed to the idea of there being only one Christian Church, of which the emperor was the head. The Byzantine system could not tolerate the existence of another Church within the geographic confines of the empire. Baradai and his followers, on the other hand, could not tolerate the Council of Chalcedon, and would not belong to a Church that subscribed to it. This was because, for them, Chalcedon was the symbol of Byzantine oppression. Hence, although certain officials of the empire were aiding the movement, the empire itself and the Monophysite movement remained diametrically opposed to one another. 45 For his history of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Fortescue’s main source is Henri François Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l’Arménie. He also uses material found in Victor Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie. Among his other sources, his lists N. Ter. Gregor, History of Armenia. 46 Adrian Fortescue, “Gregory the Illuminator,” CE, 7:23–24. 44

30

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

ject to the jurisdiction of Caesarea, just as the Persian Church was on Edessa, and Ethiopia on Alexandria” (LEC, 404). However, this situation changed when the Armenian Church declared itself independent of Caesarea in 374 and began to refer to its primate as a patriarch. In doing so, it “endangered her position by breaking the bond which held her in a canonical position, joined in the orderly scheme of the great united Church” (LEC, 406). Fortescue, though, is reluctant to say that this was an act of schism. Although the bishop of Caesarea vehemently protested this assertion of independence, he did not break communion with the Armenian Church. Fortescue is quick to highlight that in maintaining communion with Caesarea the Armenian Church maintained communion with Rome and the worldwide Church (LEC, 410). Nonetheless, he believes that this newfound independence left the Church vulnerable to heresy. “Like the Persians when they broke with Edessa,” he writes, “the Armenians lost their moorings and sailed out unprotected into the storm of heresy which was to wreck their Church” (LEC, 411). He holds that the Armenian Church was further inclined toward Monophysitism because of a lingering hostility toward the emperor. During that period the Christian population of Armenia was undergoing a fierce persecution at the hands of Persian conquerors. In vain they had hoped for the emperor’s assistance in this crisis, and his unwillingness to help them made him an object of scorn (LEC, 411–12). They saw Chalcedon as his council, and for that reason they were reluctant to accept it. In addition, they were repulsed by some of the Greek terminology that was employed in the council’s Christological definition. Greek terms such as “nature” and “hypostasis” lacked adequate equivalents in the Armenian language, and this caused them to look upon the council with suspicion. They feared that the council was the emperor’s attempt to impose Greek theology upon the universal Church (LEC, 412). For this reason, Fortescue believes that national pride played a key role in the Armenian Church’s adoption of Monophysitism. “Once more national feeling,” he writes, “loyalty to the cause of Armenia, their determination to be independent of a dangerous foreign power, did more than philosophical considerations to make Armenia Monophysite. They did not want to become Greeks” (ibid.). Fortescue is certain that this strong sense of nationalism is what has kept the Armenian Church Monophysite, but only nominally.47 Their adherence to the principles of Monophysitism is, in 47

Fortescue only briefly mentions Armenian participation in the Council of

THE SCHISMS I

31

his estimation, “very vague and shadowy.”48 Their Monophysitism is primarily a rejection of Chalcedon, motivated by nationalism. Fortescue was not alone in this analysis. Duchesne also considered nationalism to be the primary factor in the Armenian Church’s clinging to Monophysitism. He regarded as their goal “the preservation of their individuality, and to raise up, by means of their religion, barriers for the defence of their nationality.”49 By the nineteenth century their adherence to Monophysitism was apparently so vague that, in his encyclical on the Church in Armenia, Pope Pius IX was primarily concerned with their rejection of papal authority. For him, that was their heresy. He did not mention their supposed Monophysitism.50 In addition to nationalism, Fortescue identifies one more factor as being responsible for the Armenian schism. By rejecting Chalcedon, the Armenians were distancing themselves from the Empire, and their Persian overlords strongly encouraged this development. For them, therefore, the rejection of Chalcedon was also a means to ease their persecution (LEC, 411–12). Of all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Fortescue considers the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to have the most curious history.51 Despite its claim to have been founded by St. Thomas the Apostle, Fortescue believes it actually began as a mission of the Assyrian Church of the East.52 It was dependent on the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and used the same East Syrian rite as the Assyrian Church (LEC, 353). Therefore, this Church was for a considerable period of time “Nestorian,” as it naturally followed the teachings of its mother Church (LEC, 359). Yet by a strange reversal of Florence and completely ignores its bull of union with the Armenians. However, in LEC, 415 n. 2, Fortescue promises that the third volume of his trilogy, which was never completed, will describe attempts at reconciling the Armenian Church with Rome. 48 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 235. 49 Duchesne, Churches Separated from Rome, 37. 50 Pius IX, “Quartus Supra,” ¶13. 51 The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is based in Kerala, which is the southwestern province of India, along the Malabar coast. See Placid J. Podipara, The Thomas Christians. A historical overview of this Church’s origins can be found in George Mark Moraes, A History of Christianity in India. 52 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 234. In telling the history of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Fortescue frequently cites W. Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen. He also relies on George Broadley Howard, The Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies.

32

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

fortune, it ended up going to “the other extreme” and became Monophysite.53 In the intermittent period, it had been Catholic. When Portuguese explorers arrived in East India in the sixteenth century, they orchestrated the reunion of this Church with Rome. This was formalized by the Synod of Diamper in 1559, at which the Indian Church was made to officially renounce Nestorianism (LEC, 363). Fortescue reckons this reunion as “the only important event” in its history (LEC, 353). However, a portion of the native population soon became dissatisfied with the union and sought ecclesiastical independence. According to Ronald Roberson, this dissatisfaction was prompted by the forced latinization of their Church by the Portuguese conquers.54 Strangely, Fortescue completely sidesteps this well-known fact. Yet he does mention the establishment of the Inquisition in India, which contributed to the anti-Roman hostility. In any event, the faction that desired independence was so eager to break with Rome that it was indifferent as to whether it was to be Nestorian or Monophysite (LEC, 364). Bishops from the Assyrian Church of the East were not available to them (ibid.). Therefore, in order to establish an independent hierarchy, they obtained bishops from the Syrian Orthodox Church. They soon adopted the West Syrian rite of their new bishops and became nominally Monophysite (LEC, 365). Fortescue assesses that they did not give much serious thought to the theological issues involved but simply followed the lead of the Church which was gracious enough to supply them with bishops (LEC, 379). Hence, he concludes “that the one point that mattered to the schismatical party was to be independent of Rome, represented to them by the hated conqueror” (LEC, 364). Fortescue does not attribute this schism to national pride per se, but to a yearning for ecclesiastical independence nonetheless. A common theme can be discerned in Fortescue’s presentation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and their schisms. With one exception, he understands the spread of Monophysitism to be primarily a matter of politics, not theology (LEC, 182). Only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is guiltless in this regard. He sees it as being no coincidence that in the wake of Chalcedon, Monophysitism spread in the outlying parts of the empire, where anti-imperial sentiment was the strongest. “Egypt and Syria,” he 53 54

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 234. Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 37.

THE SCHISMS I

33

writes, “were just the two provinces in the East which had never been really loyal to the empire. They had never been thoroughly Hellenized. … So these countries were always ready for revolt, always gave trouble to the Government” (LEC, 182–83). In Fortescue’s portrayal of events, the Oriental Orthodox Churches became separated from the rest of Christendom because of political disputes and local patriotism, disguised under the veneer of a theological controversy. In relaying the history of Monophysite controversy, Fortescue exhibits a tendency to portray the Christian East as somewhat anarchic, as opposed to the West as being more orderly.55 “The 6th century in Eastern Christendom offers a desolating picture of confused heresies,” he says, while “the whole West behind its Patriarch stood solid for Chalcedon and watched the turmoil in the East scornfully” (LEC, 182). While it is undoubtedly true that the Monophysite crisis raged primarily in the East, Fortescue’s choice of terminology can unfairly color the reader’s perception of these events. Furthermore, he implies that because of this anarchy the Eastern Churches deserved the spread of Islam and the diminution of their numbers that accompanied it. Reflecting on the events surrounding the Monophysite controversy, he observes that “now from the churches for which these sects quarreled and fought the altars have been taken away; from their towers the mu’eddin proclaims that Mohammed is the Apostle of God. It is a dismal story; one can hardly deny that these preposterous Eastern Christians deserved the appalling disaster which swept over all their sects” (ibid.). This almost echoes a sentiment uttered by Pope Pius IX in his 1873 Encyclical on the Church in Armenia, Quartus Supra.56 Like Fortescue, the pontiff attributed the bad fortune of the Eastern Churches at the hands of Islam to their schismatic ways. He even went so far as to assert that “God overthrew the empire of the Greeks in punishment for the sundered unity

55 In this regard Fortescue follows in the footsteps of the nineteenth-century Orientalist movement, which, according to Edward Said’s polemic (Orientalism, 204–6), portrayed the East as a region plagued by an “aberrant mentality” and “backwardness.” For this reason, Orientalists “saw the Orient as a locale requiring Western attention, reconstruction, even redemption.” British perceptions of the Byzantine Empire in particular were heavily colored by Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which propagated the view of Byzantium as a place dominated by unsavory political intrigue and decadence. See J. M. Hussey, “Gibbon Re-written: Recent Trends in Byzantine Studies.” 56 Pius IX, “Quartus Supra,” ¶17.

34

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

of His Church.”57 While Fortescue holds these Eastern Churches responsible for the unhappy fate that befell them, he is not so bold as to declare that it resulted from the wrath of God. But he does find in the events of the sixth century, and the history of the separation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, political machinations taking precedence over the unity of God’s Church.

THE SCHISM OF PHOTIUS The final schism that Fortescue deals with in his writings on the Eastern Churches is the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. For the sake of convenience, this division is usually attributed to the year 1054, in which the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the papal legate, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, exchanged mutual excommunications. Fortescue, however, dates the real beginning of the schism to the ninth century, and he regards Photius of Constantinople (ca. 815–897) as its primary author.58 Fortescue considers Photius to be “the Luther of the Orthodox Church” (OEC, 134). Like Luther, Photius was a man of great erudition. And like Fortescue himself, he was an accomplished scholar in numerous fields of study, including philology, theology, and oration (OEC, 139). Indeed, Fortescue is so impressed by Photius’s learning that he heralds him as “one of the most wonderful men of all the middle ages,” and “the greatest scholar of his time” (OEC, 138). Fortescue even conjectures that had he not fallen into schism, Photius would have been remembered as one of the Greek Fathers (OEC, 165). Yet he also believes that Photius was full of dangerous and destructive pride, which ultimately proved to be his undoing. As Fortescue tells the story, in 857 the previous Patriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius, was wrongfully deposed by Bardas, the emperor’s regent. Ignatius’s offense was refusing communion to Bardas, who was openly living in an incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law.59 Bardas and the emperor, Michael III, then replaced Ignatius with Photius, who at the time Carlen, Encyclicals, 1:417. Adrian Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” CE, 12:43. The most important study on Photius and his legacy is Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend. A number of Dvornik’s other writings on Photius have been collected in his Photian and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Studies. See also Richard S. Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. 59 Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 44. Fortescue’s chief source on Photius is Joseph Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. 57 58

THE SCHISMS I

35

was a layman (OEC, 140). Photius received all holy orders in only six days time, which was highly irregular, being ordained bishop on Christmas day, 857.60 The followers of Ignatius, however, refused to recognize Photius as the lawful patriarch, and appealed their case to Rome. Photius did the same, writing a letter to the Pope which Fortescue characterizes as “very humble and very deceitful” (OEC, 143).61 The primary question to be settled, as framed by Fortescue, was whether the government had the right to replace Ignatius with Photius (OEC, 136). For Fortescue, there is no question that Ignatius was the rightful patriarch all along. “That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived,” he writes, “and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by anyone who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government.”62 Pope Nicholas I, after sending legates to investigate the matter, decided in favor of Ignatius (OEC, 147). In 862 he ordered Ignatius to be restored to his see, and Photius to be deposed as a usurper. Fortescue perceives this to be an act of heroism on the part of Pope Nicholas, for “once more then, as in the cases of St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and so many others, Rome had spoken and had taken up the cause of a lawful bishop who was being persecuted by the civil power” (OEC, 149). Fortescue’s perception differs significantly from that of Duchesne, who believed that Pope Nicholas may have behaved rashly. He regarded this event as a “useless quarrel,” in which the Pope became “mixed up in Byzantine concerns.”63 Duchesne argued that Nicholas “employed a very determined tone in treating with Photius,” and that “one may come to the conclusion that Pope Nicholas, badly or unfortunately advised, started, without due consideration, a most serious quarrel, which it would, at the time, have been easy to avert, and in the course of which the Holy See lost, in the East, much of the consideration it had hitherto enjoyed.”64 Unlike Fortescue, Duchesne did not paint Nicholas as a champion of Church rights.

Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 44. Yet Fortescue (ibid.) makes much of the fact that in this letter Photius apparently recognized the Roman primacy and acknowledged the Pope’s jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. 62 Ibid., 45. 63 Duchesne, Churches Separated from Rome, 147. 64 Ibid., 146. 60 61

36

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Whatever the case may have been, Photius chose to ignore the Pope’s ruling (OEC, 149).65 In 867 Photius retaliated by attempting to depose the Pope, “who was his own overlord” (OEC, 153). According to Fortescue, Photius found it necessary to fabricate reasons to justify this action and to continue ignoring Rome’s judgment against him (OEC, 150). Therefore, he constructed a list of charges against the Latin Church, two of which resonated especially strongly among his followers: the status of the Bulgarian Church and the Filioque. The question surrounding the Bulgarian Church was to which patriarchate it properly belonged. Both Constantinople and Rome had credible reasons for laying claim to it. The first Christian missionaries to arrive in Bulgaria, in 861, were sent from Constantinople, although the Bulgarian prince later decided that he would rather be connected with the Latin Church (OEC, 151). He then arranged for the first Bulgarian bishops to be appointed by Rome, and he expelled all Greek missionaries from the country. This was perceived by Constantinople to be a case of sheep-stealing, and it infuriated Photius and his followers. Fortescue, however, has no doubts that the Bulgarian Church properly belonged to the Roman Patriarchate. For, in his opinion, the Church in Bulgaria was not actually founded until it had received its first bishops, and these came from Rome. The Pope, therefore, was responsible for establishing the Bulgarian Church, and it properly belonged to his patriarchate. Moreover, Bulgaria was geographically located in Illyricum, which Rome had long claimed as part of its patriarchal territory, although this too was consistently disputed by Constantinople (OEC, 152). Photius’s charges regarding the Filioque would prove to be the most enduring.66 Prior to this dispute, the recitation of the Filioque in parts of the Fortescue is quick to remind the reader that even though Photius was unwilling to accept the verdict, he himself had previously appealed to Rome to resolve the matter. 66 The term “Filioque” refers to the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Filioque was initially added to the creed of the Latin Church in Spain following the conversion of the Goths and soon spread throughout Western Europe. The reason for the addition was to counter the Arian heresy, as teaching that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son was seen as a way of bolstering belief in Christ’s divinity. Initially the popes opposed the addition to the creed, although they accepted the theology behind it. The first pope to recite the Filioque was Pope Benedict VIII in 1014. For an overview of the controversy and the role played by Photius in it, see Haugh, Photius. For a Catholic 65

THE SCHISMS I

37

Latin Church was not a point of controversy. Fortescue believes that Photius was the first to voice this particular grievance.67 This became the most effective of Photius’s complaints, in Fortescue’s estimation, because it thrust him into the role of defender of orthodoxy. This afforded him a theological justification for disobeying Rome, something which he previously lacked. Soon the Filioque took on a life of its own as a rallying cry against the West, although Fortescue is convinced that the entire matter was baseless from the start: Although the question itself is far too subtle and too abstruse to have really caused so much bad feeling for its own sake, nevertheless it has ever since been looked upon by the Easterns as a sort of compendium of all our offences; this very remote speculation, that either way has certainly never for a moment affected the trinitarian faith or piety of a single human being, has become to them a standard of anti-Latin orthodoxy, and they cherish and value it accordingly. (OEC, 154)

Hence, Fortescue thinks that the theological outrage expressed against the Filioque was initially insincere, and that the addition of this single word to the Creed simply provided Constantinople with an opportune occasion to accuse the West of heresy, thus assaulting the primary obstacle to her own advancement.68 Despite Photius’s best efforts, his fortunes soon took a sharp turn for the worse. In 867 a palace revolution occurred, during which both Bardas and the Emperor Michael were murdered. The usurper to the throne, Basil I, desired to be rid of all of Michael’s friends, and so he deposed Photius and replaced him with Ignatius (OEC, 156). Fortescue counts this to be “the most dramatic change in Church history” (OEC, 155). Wishing to restore the peace between Rome and Constantinople, Ignatius soon requested that a general council be held (OEC, 156). This council, which is known as the Fourth Council of Constantinople, was convened in 869 and is regarded by Catholics as the Eighth Ecumenical Council (OEC, 157). At this assembly Photius was formally condemned, and its decisions were ratified by Pope Adrian II (OEC, 159). perspective on the procession of the Holy Spirit, see Leo Scheffczyk, “The Meaning of the Filioque.” See also Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983). For an Orthodox perspective, see Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter. 67 Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 46. 68 Fortescue’s interpretation of the Filioque controversy is covered in detail in chapter 3 below.

38

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

As Fortescue relates it, after his expulsion from office Photius sought to ingratiate himself with the new emperor, Basil. Fortescue says that Photius accomplished this through deceptive means, by forging a genealogy which traced Basil’s ancestry back to St. Gregory the Illuminator.69 This ruse apparently accomplished its intended goal, for after the death of Ignatius in 878 Photius was again made patriarch. This time his legitimacy was undisputed, and he was officially recognized by Pope John VIII, who removed all previous censures against Photius (OEC, 162). Fortescue explains this by noting that “it has always been the policy of the Roman See to concede whatever can be conceded without sin for the sake of peace” (OEC, 163).70 As told by Fortescue, something almost inexplicable then happened. Photius, now the universally recognized Patriarch, supposedly decided to seek open schism with Rome. Driven by an irrational “hatred of Rome and the West,” he organized a council in 879 at which he rehashed his old grievances against the Latin Church (ibid.). Pope John VIII retaliated by again excommunicating Photius (OEC, 164). And so Photius once again dragged the Byzantine Church into schism with him.71 And then Photius’s fortunes took one final, unpleasant turn. Basil I died in 886 and was succeeded by his son Leo VI, who harbored a dislike for the patriarch (ibid.). He therefore deposed Photius from office and sent him into exile, where he died in obscurity in 897. As framed by Fortescue’s portrayal of him, this appears to be a fitting end for such a creature of imperial politics. Following Photius’s removal from office, communion with Rome was once again restored. Fortescue argues that Photius’s stormy tenures as Patriarch of Constantinople had a lasting impact on relations with the West. “The schismatical Eastern Church,” he writes, “has always looked upon Photius (he is St. Photius to her) as the champion of her cause against Rome, and we too consider him not wrongly as the father of their schism” (OEC, 134). He Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 44. Fortescue does not mention that this was also the established policy for dealing with churches with competing bishops. This goes back to Nicea I, which, under certain conditions, allowed bishops and clerics who had been ordained schismatically by Meletius of Lycopolis to retain their office (Baus et al., History of the Church, 2:27). The text of Nicea’s decision concerning the Meletians can be found in a letter quoted in Theodoret, “Ecclesiastical History,” 46–47. 71 This account is re-examined in chapter 5 below in the light of later scholarship, some of which exonerates Photius. 69 70

THE SCHISMS I

39

believes that Photius created a fissure between East and West which was never really bridged (OEC, 167). Whenever the need arose, Constantinople would turn to the grievances enumerated by Photius to justify disobedience to Rome. Furthermore, through his writings and influence Photius founded an “anti-papal” party in Constantinople which would carry on his legacy of division for centuries to come (OEC, 167–68). From this party Michael Cerularius would arise in the eleventh century.72 The interpretation of history which sees in Photius the father of today’s schism has long been held in certain Catholic schools of thought. In 1755, Pope Benedict XIV, in his encyclical On the Observance of Oriental Rites, decried “the fatal schism of Photius” in which the Eastern Orthodox Church persists. This schism was simply “renewed by Michael Cerularius.”73 In 1873, Pope Pius IX also pointed to Photius as “the first cause of the Greek schism.”74 Nor is Fortescue alone in regarding Photius as an ambitious, dishonest person. As late as 1756, Pope Benedict XIV recalled in passing the “perverse mind” of Photius.75 Yet the Eastern Orthodox Church reveres Photius as a great saint and theologian, and celebrates his feast day on February 6. Fortescue sees in this fact evidence of selective memory on the part of the Eastern Orthodox, for “They have forgotten all his intrigues, his dishonesty, his miserable subservience to the secular power, the hopeless injustice of his cause” (OEC, 165). For his part, Fortescue counts Photius “as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had.”76 Fortescue’s Photius is not a saint, but a man driven by insatiable political ambition.77 Fortescue characterizes him as a political creature through and through, who functions primarily in the political sphere. In fact, he deems Photius to have been an “Erastian,” one who believes that the Church should be subject to the control of the civil authority (OEC, 30, 159). It was for this reason, he is convinced, that Photius was willing to seize the patriarchal throne from the rightful occupant at the behest of the emperor. He was subservient to the state and understood this to be the

Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 45. Benedict XIV, “Allatae Sunt,” ¶5. English translation, Carlen, Encyclicals, 1:52. 74 Pius IX, “Quartus Supra,” ¶33. 75 Benedict XIV, “Ex Quo Primum,” ¶57. English translation, Carlen, Encyclicals, 1:98. 76 Fortescue, “Photius of Constantinople,” 46. 77 Ibid., 45. 72 73

40

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

proper disposition.78 In Fortescue’s interpretation, Photius was not driven by faith or sincere religious convictions, but by purely secular and political motivations. He states that Photius exhibited “the typical attitude of the schismatic, who betrays the Church to the State rather than obey the Pope” (OEC, 150). Indeed, Fortescue understands the Photian schism to have been a political affair, not a theological controversy. It was a case of Rome standing in the way of one man’s ambition. He believes that the theological reasons given for the schism were ultimately insincere. Rather, Photius cunningly sought to represent himself as a defender of orthodoxy against heresy, which was a familiar and sympathetic role in the East.79 This made his political rebellion more palatable and provided it with a veer of legitimacy. Fortescue believes that in his personal ambition Photius manifested the centuries-old ambition of the See of Constantinople. Unlike the papacy, which he considers to have been established by divine fiat, Fortescue says that the See of Constantinople was established by sheer political power. By uncanonical means it gradually usurped authority from the other Eastern patriarchs and rose to a place of unparalleled dominance in the East.80 Although it was “neither Apostolic nor primitive,” Constantinople’s rise to supremacy was orchestrated through the ecclesiastical influence of the emperor.81 And in its unrelenting quest to accumulate more power, the only obstacle that stood in Constantinople’s way was the Patriarch of Rome.82 It is in the light of this ambition that Fortescue speaks of “the soulendangering throne of New Rome,” which Photius came to occupy (OEC, 161). Inasmuch as the Byzantine Church celebrated Photius as a hero and rallied to his cause, Fortescue interprets this as yet another case of nationalism overriding the universality of the Church. He finds this episode to be a defining moment for the Eastern Orthodox Church, in which it came to assert itself as a national Church, unwilling to accept the judgment of a foreign pope (OEC, 164). As was the case with the other separated Eastern Churches, strong national feeling came to manifest itself in open schism. And when this occurs, Fortescue believes, the Church invariably falls under state control. “Every schismatical body gets under the heel of the State at Ibid. Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 537. 80 Ibid., 536. 81 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. 82 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 536. 78 79

THE SCHISMS I

41

once, ” he writes. “It is the unfailing result of schism … to be independent of the Pope, a National Church and what not, always works out as a substitution of the king for the Pope, nowhere more than in the Eastern Churches” (OEC, 161 n. 1). In this regard, Fortescue considers the See of Constantinople to be the worst offender of all. “Let it always be remembered,” he admonishes, “that the rise of Constantinople, its jealousy of Rome, its unhappy influence over all the East is a pure piece of Erastianism, a shameless surrender of the things of God to Caesar.”83 Fortescue sees this attitude at work throughout the entire saga of Photius, who was unjustly and uncanonically appointed by one emperor and deposed by yet another. He believes that through his actions Photius accelerated the process of yielding universality for nationalism, and ecclesial liberty for state control. In Fortescue’s determination, this progression, which is the lasting legacy of Photius, would be completed by Michael Cerularius nearly one hundred and fifty years later.

THE SCHISM OF CERULARIUS The last step in the final schism described by Fortescue is the definitive breach which occurred between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. He matter-of-factly refers to this as the “schism of Cerularius,” as he regards this one man to have been its principal catalyst (OEC, 172). He considers this lasting schism, which he believes to have been primed by the actions of Photius, to be perhaps the most senseless and unnecessary of all of the schisms. This is a “breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology,” and he decries it as “the most superfluous evil in Christendom.”84 Fortescue depicts the events that led to this rift as a case of pure, unprovoked hostility against the See of Rome (OEC, 172). The rift, fueled by what he calls “Byzantine arrogance and intolerance,” he supposes to have been a more egregious scenario than even that of Photius, and it has spawned a schism that has proved very difficult to repair (OEC, 197). Of all the characters that appear in Fortescue’s accounts of the various schisms, none comes across more reprehensible and vile than Michael Cerularius (d. 1059).85 In describing Cerularius, Fortescue displays none of the Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 537. Ibid., 535, 539. 85 Considerable background on Cerularius and his involvement in this dispute is laid out in Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism. 83 84

42

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

grudging admiration that he holds for Photius.86 Instead, Fortescue depicts Cerularius as a virtual monster, practically consumed by naked ambition and intolerance. He presents a picture of this controversial historical figure as a man with no sense of Christian piety, as a politician with a keen interest in such occult pursuits as seances and alchemy (OEC, 195). This Cerularius is “certainly neither an edifying, nor an attractive person.”87 As the story is told by Fortescue, Cerularius never intended to pursue a career as a churchman.88 Rather, he had initially hoped to advance to power as a statesman. The tragic suicide of his brother caused him to rethink his plans and to hastily enter a monastery (OEC, 176). Fortescue also asserts that Cerularius had received considerable pressure from the imperial court to become a monk, as he was regarded as being a “dangerous person” whose political advancement had to be stopped.89 Whatever the reason for his entrance into church politics, Cerularius excelled in the field and quickly rose through the ecclesiastic ranks. He was eventually ordained to the episcopate, but like Photius, “who was in all things his predecessor and model,” irregularly: he received all holy orders in a matter of days, failing to observe the interstices, which dictated that a set period of time had to pass between the conferral of each order (OEC, 176). In 1034, Cerularius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by the emperor, without an election.90 Fortescue believes that Cerularius’s primary personality traits were “a savage reserve, vindictiveness, and unbounded pride” (OEC, 177). He is also convinced that Cerularius was a member of the extreme wing of the anti-Latin party in Constantinople, which was founded by Photius. This party, Fortescue claims, celebrated the polemics of Photius and was always waiting for an opportune moment to rekindle his tirade against Rome.91 As a member of this party, Fortescue conjectures that Cerularius “must have been determined from the beginning on war with Rome on any or no pretext, as soon as ever he had a chance of declaring it” (OEC, 177).

Adrian Fortescue, “Michael Cærularius,” CE, 10:274. Adrian Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 18. 88 Fortescue derives much of his information on Cerularius from material found in Cornelius Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant. He also regularly cites Louis Bréhier, Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle. 89 Fortescue, “Michael Cærularius,” 273. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 86 87

THE SCHISMS I

43

Fortescue considers the emperor who appointed Cerularius, Constantine XI, to have been an ineffectual and weak leader. He also suffered from some sort of physical paralysis (OEC, 175). Yet the emperor continuously sought to maintain good relations with the West and had no desire to be involved in any sort of schism (OEC, 175). Nor did he recognize that his appointment of Cerularius would precipitate the renewal of anti-Roman hostilities. Unfortunately, Fortescue believes that Constantine’s weakness made him incapable of putting a halt to the course of schism that Cerularius would embark on after taking office. The only person strong enough to stand up against Cerularius would be Pope Leo IX, whom Fortescue holds in unbounded admiration (OEC, 175). Leo was one of the great reforming popes (OEC, 172–73)92 and was especially keen on putting an end to simony and strengthening the discipline of clerical celibacy. Additionally, “no pope ever had a higher or more uncompromising idea of the dignity and rights of his see than Leo IX” (OEC, 174).93 As an unyielding defender of the Roman primacy, Fortescue presents Leo as practically the perfect foil to Cerularius. Fortescue holds that the conflict that ensued, and eventually resulted in schism, was not really about theological differences, but about power. The doctrinal reasons that Cerularius would give were insincere. He contends that Cerularius, driven by contempt for the papacy and a thirst for power, actively sought to provoke a schism. “The whole story” of Cerularius, writes Fortescue, “looks as if he and his friends had no other motive than a love of schism for its own sake” (OEC, 172). Fortescue repeatedly asserts that Cerularius’ assault against the Latin Church was entirely unprovoked (OEC, 177).

Toward the end of the ninth century a period of corruption began, during which a succession of immoral popes presided over the Church. “During that long period of a century and a half,” writes Fortescue, “there is hardly one, perhaps not one Pope, who was even an ordinarily good bishop.” This situation changed in 1046, when Clement II was elected. He was the first in a series of “reforming Popes” who, influenced by the Benedictine Abbey of Cluny, sought to eliminate all abuses and restore discipline. Leo IX was the third of these pontiffs. Friedrich Kempf, The Gregorian Reform, in Jedin and Dolan, History of the Church, 3:351–57. 93 Fortescue recounts how, in his correspondences with the Byzantines, Leo uncompromisingly affirmed his primacy over the other four patriarchs and stalwartly refused to acknowledge Constantinople’s claim to be the second see of Christendom. 92

44

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

He speculates that from the start Cerularius had a campaign meticulously planned out, only waiting for the opportune moment to fire the first shot (OEC, 178). In 1053, Cerularius arranged for one of his underlings to circulate a letter attacking various Latin customs. Fortescue refers to this letter, which soon found its way to Rome, as a “declaration of war against the pope and the Latins.”94 Cerularius followed this action by disseminating a treatise written by a Studite monk in which all manner of Latin disciplines were thoroughly assailed. The chief hallmark of these attacks, in the judgment of Fortescue, was intolerance. Any deviation from Byzantine practice on the part of the Western Church was vehemently denounced. In particular, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist was singled out as an especially egregious offense (OEC, 178).95 Within the boundaries of his own city, Cerularius put his intolerance into practice. He had all of the Latin churches closed, and his followers seized the unleavened hosts from the tabernacles and trampled them underfoot (OEC, 180). Cerularius and his associates demanded conformity with the practices of Constantinople, down to the minutest detail (OEC, 191). The Latin Church, in Fortescue’s opinion, has always been more tolerant of divergent disciplines. He points out that Rome has always allowed Eastern churches and monasteries to exist within the Latin Patriarchate (OEC, 181). He also heralds the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in the aftermath of the schisms, as proof of Rome’s great respect for Eastern customs.96 Fortescue believes that Rome’s behavior in the eleventh century was no exception to this rule. He states that “one cannot sufficiently admire the reasonableness and toleration of Rome at a time when Cerularius was calling us Jews, and our Holy Eucharist ‘mud’ ” (OEC, 189). The great tolerance of Rome, as opposed to the rigid intolerance of the Orthodox, is a theme that will reappear throughout Fortescue’s writings. He finds Cerularius’s complaints about the use of unleavened bread to be an especially ludicrous specimen of Eastern narrow-mindedness. Cerularius claimed that this practice was a return to “Jewish superstition” and therefore was contrary to the Gospel. Fortescue is “amazed at the impertinence of these Byzantines who will not mind their own business … and at Fortescue, “Michael Cærularius,” 273. As the word “azyme” means “unleavened bread,” this episode is known as the azyme controversy. This dispute is recounted in detail in Mahlon H. Smith, And Taking Bread …: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. 96 Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 21. 94 95

THE SCHISMS I

45

the ridiculous charges they rake up” (OEC, 178). He finds it equally amazing that the Filioque, which was exploited so profitably by Photius, was given scant attention by Cerularius and his party. Rather, his primary target was the unleavened bread (OEC, 178–79). Fortescue cannot help but wonder “why he did not stick to the Filioque grievance and make the most of that. It would have made a far better case than the nonsense he thought of” (OEC, 193). Meanwhile, as the conflict erupted before his eyes, the emperor sought to maintain peace. He had every reason to do so, as he desired the help of the West to stave off the Norman invasion of his territory in southern Italy (OEC, 174–75).97 He could not have cared less about whether or not the Latin Church used unleavened bread (OEC, 183). Unfortunately, Cerularius was completely beyond his control. Although the emperor had appointed him to his position, Cerularius no longer heeded the will of the infirm ruler and behaved ungratefully (OEC, 177). Fortescue hypothesizes that if the emperor had been strong enough to restrain Cerularius, the entire catastrophic episode could have been averted (OEC, 186). Hoping to quell the crisis, Pope Leo IX sent three legates to Constantinople. At the time of Fortescue’s writing, this was the very last ecclesiastical embassy to be sent from Rome to Constantinople (OEC, 182–83). The chief of these legates was the famous Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, who Fortescue notes was regarded as a renowned scholar (OEC, 179). Fortescue does acknowledge, however, that Humbert could at times behave somewhat intemperately. He mentions one instance in which Humbert wrote “as violently as any Byzantine” and launched “abusive epithets” against his opponents (OEC, 183–84). Fortescue describes the legates being subject to terrible mistreatment at the hands of Cerularius upon their arrival in Constantinople. Rather than being honored as the Pope’s personal representatives, which was the tradition, Cerularius demanded that they prostrate themselves before him and refrain from bearing their crosiers. Because they refused to comply with these demands, Cerularius would not even grant them an audience (OEC, 184). Believing themselves to be without recourse, the legates excommunicated Michael Cerularius on July 16, 1054 (OEC, 185). In retaliation, Cerularius excommunicated the entire Latin Church and supposedly made an 97 At this time the Byzantine Empire still controlled the southern portion of Italy, which was known as Magna Græcia. The emperor’s hold on this region was quite tenuous and was being threatened by the Norman armies. Leo IX’s holdings were also endangered by these same invaders.

46

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

attempt to murder the legates, an attempt from which they managed to escape (OEC, 186–87). Fortescue makes a point of mentioning that the excommunication against Cerularius was a personal excommunication of him and his party. It was not a sentence pronounced against the entire Eastern Orthodox Church (OEC, 185). The legates, he believes, still hoped that communion could be maintained between the Churches (OEC, 186). Yet in the aftermath of this event, virtually the entire Eastern Church ceased to be in communion with Rome. “It was the usurped authority of Constantinople,” he writes, “the Erastianism of the East, that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism.”98 Cerularius himself had already removed the pope’s name from the diptychs, which was in itself a schismatic act (OEC, 185). He ordered the other Eastern patriarchs to do likewise, thus pulling them into schism along with him. By this time Constantine IX had died, and his successor had taken the side of Cerularius. Most of the patriarchs were conditioned to be subservient to the emperor and therefore complied with the request to remove the pope’s name.99 Yet they themselves had no quarrel with the Latin Church and for the most part did not understand what had transpired.100 Only the Patriarch of Antioch refused to cooperate and made a futile effort to restore the peace (OEC, 188). Fortescue postulates that this schism was part of Cerularius’s grand scheme to fuse the roles of patriarch and emperor in his own person. But “when that plan failed his idea was to set up a kind of theocracy, in which the State should be the humble vassal of the Church, and the head of the Church the acknowledged over-lord of the head of the State.” Fortescue identifies this as “the exact reverse of the Erastianism that, as a rule, flourished unchecked in the Eastern Empire … the breach with Rome was only a means, the first step in this plan” (OEC, 193). Cerularius knew, according to Fortescue, that he could wrest control of the East and make himself both temporal and spiritual master. He also recognized that the other Eastern Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. The term “Erastianism” refers to the philosophy that the church should be subject to the authority of the state. It derives its name from the sixteenth-century theologian Thomas Erastus, whose theories on church–state relations found a wide audience in both England and Germany. See M. L. Fell, “Erastianism.” Erastianism is synonymous with “Caesaropapism,” a slur which has frequently been leveled against the Orthodox Church by its critics. 99 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 100 Adrian Fortescue, Russia and the Catholic Church, 13–14. 98

THE SCHISMS I

47

patriarchs would not be in a position to stand in his way. The only person who could oppose his designs was the Roman Pontiff, who would never tolerate Cerularius becoming absolute master over the East. Therefore, in order to make his grandiose dream a reality, Cerularius had to cut off the Eastern Church entirely from the West.101 According to Fortescue, when the schism was completed Cerularius did experience some success in his pursuit of control over the empire (OEC, 193). He became a “kingmaker” and managed to set up a series of emperors who would be subservient to his will (OEC, 194). He was the most powerful man in Constantinople, and no one possessed the courage to stand against him (OEC, 198). He even went so far as to begin wearing the purple shoes, a sign of imperial power which was reserved only for the emperor.102 Fortescue asserts that Cerularius, prior to his fall, had also made plans to have himself officially crowned emperor (OEC, 194). This final stratagem would prove to be his undoing. When Emperor Isaac I became aware of his scheme, he mustered the courage to have Cerularius arrested and tried for treason. Cerularius was convicted and banished from Constantinople.103 In 1059, while being transported to the site of his exile, Michael Cerularius died in the immediate aftermath of a shipwreck (OEC, 195). Although he was never formally canonized by the Orthodox Church, following his death Cerularius became something of a “mythical hero” (OEC, 198). His memory was sanitized, declares Fortescue, and all of his unsightly political machinations were forgotten (OEC, 195). Even the government that had sentenced him to banishment recognized his tremendous popularity and therefore cooperated in the rehabilitation of his memory.104 And most significantly, the schism that originated during his reign persisted and was embraced as the normal state of affairs. Therefore, Fortescue holds that Cerularius “founded the schismatical Byzantine Church.”105 This statement can be interpreted to imply that the Eastern Orthodox Church of today is out of continuity with the historic pre-schism Byzantine Church, which was in communion with Rome. Throughout his account of these events, Fortescue never once wavers from his conviction that the Latin Church did nothing to provoke this Fortescue, “Michael Cærularius,” 274. Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 101 102

48

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

schism. In his opinion, Cerularius’s hostility toward the papacy was completely unjustified and unprovoked.106 He judges that Rome was entirely in the right: The schism was caused first by a long period of friction and mutual bad feeling. Secondly, it actually took place because of certain political events in the 9th and then in the 11th centuries. As far as the friction and bad feeling go, I think there is a good deal to be said for the Orthodox. But when we come to the final quarrel I am bound to say that in that disturbance I believe the Pope to have been altogether right.107

He is certain that it was Michael Cerularius, “this preposterous person, and not some tyrannical Pope, who made the schism that still lasts.”108 Even Cardinal Humbert, whose bad disposition is often impugned for exasperating the crisis, comes across relatively blameless in Fortescue’s telling of the tale. Fortescue quickly glosses over some of the incredible charges made by Humbert against Cerularius and his party in the bull of excommunication. Among the reasons that Humbert provided for excommunicating Cerularius and his followers were that they allowed for a married priesthood and did not believe in the Filioque. Rather than mentioning this in the main body of the text of The Orthodox Eastern Church, Fortescue relegates this information to a footnote (OEC, 184–85 n. 5). It is revealing that he made this decision, as these charges call into question the absolute innocence and tolerance of the Latin Church in this affair. Fortescue’s approach differs to some extent from that of Duchesne, who was willing to ascribe at least some of the responsibility for the conflict to the Latin Church. “Cerularius had begun hostilities,” he wrote. “He wished for war, he made it, and succeeded all the better because, on the side of the Latins, arrogance and bitterness of speech were not sufficiently avoided.”109 In contrast, Fortescue is unwilling to concede that Latin arrogance played any notable role in the dispute. In his treatment of the Monophysite controversy, Fortescue stated that the loss of the Oriental Orthodox territories to Muslim conquerors was a deserved punishment. He pronounces a very similar judgment regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Islamic conquest of the Byzantine Empire: Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 537. Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 4. 108 Ibid., 22. 109 Duchesne, Churches Separated from Rome, 77. 106 107

THE SCHISMS I

49

It is always rather dangerous to claim that misfortunes are a judgement of God, and indeed no one could have any thought of satisfaction at the most awful calamity that ever happened to Christian Europe. At the same time one realizes how, from the day the Legates turned back from the altar on which they had laid their bull, the Byzantine Church has been cut off from all intercourse with the rest of Christendom, how her enemies gathered round this city nearer and nearer each century, till at last they took it, how they overturned this very altar as Cerularius overturned the Latin altars, took away the great church as he had taken away ours, and how since that the successors of the man who would not bow to the Roman Pontiff have had to bow to, have had to receive their investiture from, the unbaptized tyrant who sits on the throne of Constantine; one realizes this and sees that the words of the Legates were heard and that God has seen and judged. (OEC, 185–86)

Such an assertion is consistent with his contention that Cerularius “established the schismatical Eastern Church” (OEC, 195). If the post-schism Eastern Orthodox Church is no longer part of the original Church established by Christ, but is now a new body founded by Cerularius, it is possible to conclude that it would cease to enjoy God’s favor. In each of the schisms covered in this chapter, Fortescue believes that national pride proved to be the pivotal factor. Among the separated Eastern Churches, Fortescue holds that “theology counts for very little. Creeds and arguments, even when people seem to make much of them, are really only shibboleths, convenient expressions of what they really care about—their nation.”110 In his understanding, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Church chose to reject what they perceived to be imperial theology and decided in favor of national identity. But in doing so they cut themselves off from the rest of Christianity, thus losing their place in the orderly scheme of the universal Church. Likewise, he holds that the Eastern Orthodox Church, during the time of Photius, chose to place the judgment of the emperor above the verdict of the universal head of the Church. This precedent resulted in the Eastern Orthodox Church becoming aware of itself as a national body, unwilling to accept the authority of a foreign pope (OEC, 164). Michael Cerularius exploited this national feeling to his own advantage, and in the process severed the Eastern Orthodox Church from Catholicism. In the aftermath,

110

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238.

50

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Fortescue contends, the Eastern Orthodox Church has succumbed to “hopeless Erastianism.”111 In each of these instances, Fortescue maintains that Rome was never at fault. Nor does he believe that the Latin Church is primarily responsible for the longevity of the schisms. “It is not Latins,” he writes, “it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers.”112 These schisms persist, in his estimation, largely due to the intense conservatism of the separated Eastern Churches. The schisms have lasted for so long that now “the state of schism seems to be part of the faith of the fathers.”113 Fortescue finds in this conservatism a misapplication of an instinct that is genuinely Catholic.114 He concedes that inertia also plays a role. Admittedly, Fortescue is approaching this topic from a Catholic perspective. “I have to tell you this story from the Latin point of view,” he says. “Naturally each side thinks it is the fault of the other. You will no more expect me to say it is all the Pope’s fault than you would expect an Orthodox priest to say it is caused by Orthodox wickedness.”115 Yet one cannot help concluding that in relaying these episodes, Adrian Fortescue’s instincts as an apologist colored his reading of history.

Adrian Fortescue, “The Eastern Schism,” 160. Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 113 Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 22. 114 Fortescue, Russia and the Catholic Church, 16. 115 Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 4. 111 112

2 EASTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND FAITH I In his exposition of Eastern Christian theology, Fortescue focuses much of his attention on controversies. While he does present his readers with a general overview of the subject, his attention inevitably turns to ongoing disputes over matters of faith.1 He provides a succinct summary of these situations and typically expresses his own opinions on the questions at hand. Such perennial topics of debate between Eastern and Western Christians as the Filioque and how the Eucharist is consecrated receive the bulk of his attention. He devotes most of his consideration to the theological tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He does, however, address Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox theology to a limited extent. He regards Assyrian theology to be, like Eastern Christian theology in general, extremely conservative. This conservatism is, in his estimation, the “most remarkable characteristic” of their tradition (LEC, 136). He notes that in most points it coincides closely with Catholic theology, with the important exception of their adherence to the Nestorian heresy (LEC, 136)–37. He also remarks that their theology is “only half developed and cloudy, as is that of all the smaller Eastern Churches” (LEC, 139). Otherwise, he states that not much more needs to be said about their faith (LEC, 136). In addressing Oriental Orthodox theology, Fortescue makes similar observations. He writes that Oriental Orthodox theology differs from Catholic theology “in little except Monophysitism, rejection of the Papacy, and perhaps the procession of the Holy Ghost” (LEC, 265). He also points out that Oriental Orthodox theology is, in his judgment, by and large vague,

1 Although Fortescue was genuinely interested in informing his fellow Catholics about Eastern Christian theology, he was also a seasoned controversialist. As such, he tends to approach this subject, as well as others, by focusing on controversies. 51

52

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

which he observes to be a general characteristic of Eastern Christian theology (LEC, 262). Fortescue has virtually nothing to say about Eastern Catholic theology as a distinct entity apart from Latin Catholic theology. However, he might have eventually addressed this topic had he been able to complete The Uniate Eastern Churches. Because of this absence, the reader is left to assume that the Eastern Catholic Churches differ from the Latin Church only in matters of liturgy and discipline, but not theology.

EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY His treatment of Eastern Orthodox theology is the most extensive. He judges that, for the most part, Eastern Orthodox theology is in harmony with Catholic theology (OEC, 393). “The faith of the Orthodox,” he states, “is in nearly all points that of the Catholic Church.”2 Where there are discrepancies, he does not believe that they genuinely rise to the level of heresy on the part of the Orthodox. In his estimation, the Eastern Orthodox Church, unlike the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox Churches, is not ensnared in heresy, but only in schism (OEC, 362). He writes that before the schism of 1054, “the faith of the Eastern Churches was that of Rome” (OEC, 131). Yet Fortescue does recognize that prior to the schism Eastern Orthodox theology and Latin Catholic theology developed along different, but parallel, lines (OEC, 99). While the foundations of the faith were the same, doctrine developed and was expressed differently in East and West. In particular, he claims that Eastern Orthodox theology was highly philosophical and therefore focused more on Christological questions, while Latin theology was more concerned with legal questions, such as predestination and the role of grace in salvation (OEC, 109).3 He believes that this is the reason the Eastern Orthodox Church never produced a theologian comparable St. Augustine and has maintained a certain ambiguity on questions of grace and predestination (OEC, 108–9). Fortescue asserts that these differences did not affect crucial points of faith. Rather, “they were the natural result of different tempera-

Adrian Fortescue, “The Eastern Schism,” 158. This was a view commonly held in Fortescue’s time. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, for instance,. wrote that “Western theology is essentially logical in form, and based on law,” while Eastern theology “is rhetorical in form and based on philosophy” (Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, 22–23). 2 3

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

53

ments and attitudes of mind” (OEC, 131). In no way did they damage the harmony of faith between the two Churches (OEC, 111). It was after the schism, in his judgment, that more serious differences began to set in. He argues that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 had a profound effect on the future course of Orthodox theology. Since Orthodox Christians were now at the mercy of Muslim conquerors, Fortescue believes, the conservation of their tradition became their primary concern. This situation, however, left little room for theological speculation or development. Simply keeping the faith alive under these circumstances was an arduous challenge, and he observes that Orthodox Christians did so “very nobly” (OEC, 245). As related by Fortescue, a certain degree of theological activity did occur in the aftermath of this event, but it was not of a speculative nature (OEC, 268). Rather, Orthodox theology primarily took the form of polemics against the West. He believes that they were always conscious of the papal claims (OEC, 246) and constantly sought to provide justification for their separation from Rome (OEC, 257). Thus, Fortescue states that during this period the practice of Orthodox theology manifested itself primarily in anti-Catholic writings (OEC, 251). He assesses that later Orthodox theology, even up until his own lifetime, had not progressed far beyond where it was in the fifteenth century. Rather, he regards it as being essentially frozen in a particular period of development. Orthodoxy theology is, in his estimation, still stuck in a debilitating polemical mode: Controversy is never the highest kind of theological literature, and certainly one reason why Orthodox theology is so very far behind ours is that while Catholics during the last four centuries have written on every branch of theology, and have elaborated their system from every conceivable point of view, the others have been doing scarcely anything but fussing over and over again about the Filioque and the Primacy, and repeating the feeble accusations that they always ferret out against our rites and customs. (OEC, 247)

He evaluates Orthodox theology as lacking the continuous development that is necessary for any living theological tradition.4 Instead, Ortho4 Like Fortescue, Philip Schaff also believed that Eastern theology suffered from debilitating stagnation. He wrote that the “Greek church boasts of the imaginary perfection of her creed … when the Greek church became stationary, the Latin church began to develop her greatest energy,” producing “scholastic and

54

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

dox Christians celebrate this lack of development and continuously decry Latin developments as being “novelties” (OEC, 392). Fortescue regards this lack of development as being the Achilles’ heel of Orthodox theology, for he considers it to be fundamentally illogical. On the one hand, he observes, Orthodox Christians boast of being the authentic representatives of antiquity. Yet on the other hand, Orthodox theology does not represent the first ages of Christianity, for it is considerably more advanced than the theology of the early Fathers (ibid.). Instead, it represents the Byzantine period (OEC, 394). Fortescue finds this to be inconsistent, for while it is understandable that a person would seek to recapture the faith of apostolic times, he cannot understand why one would unyieldingly latch onto the faith of the Byzantine era. “But why develop down to the year 787,” he asks, “and then rigidly refuse to move any further? What is the especial sanctity of the Byzantine world?” (OEC, 393). In seeking to define the chief characteristics of Orthodox theology, Fortescue identifies “vagueness” as its primary attribute (LEC, 262).5 He considers this to be the hallmark of all Eastern Christian theology, not just Eastern Orthodox theology (ibid.). Orthodox theology, he notes, never went through a scholastic period. Nor did Orthodoxy ever have a St. Thomas Aquinas. He supposes that Orthodox theologians, unlike Latin theologians, never saw the need to organize their theology into a lucid and coherent system (OEC, 110).6 Fortescue clearly judges this to be a detriment, for he disparages “the really amazing confusion of their ideas,” as opposed to “the rigid consistency of Catholic theology” (OEC, 247). The other defining characteristic of Orthodox theology that Fortescue points out is its intense conservatism (OEC, 98). He draws attention to a particular manifestation of this, which is that Orthodox theology has, in his estimation, become reactionary, especially when confronted with Western mystical theology and a new order of civilization,” thus allowing Western Christianity to surpass that of the East. He considered this “Eastern stagnation” to be a major obstacle to the reconciliation of Christians (History of the Christian Church, 4:311, 325. 5 By “vagueness,” Fortescue means that Eastern Christian theology lacks the clarity and consistency that he believes to be characteristic of Latin theology (OEC, 110). 6 A similar perspective on Eastern Christian theology was offered by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, who wrote in 1861 that “the theology of the East has undergone no systematising process. Its doctrines remain in the same rigid yet undefined state as that in which they were left by Constantine and Justinian” ( Lectures, 34).

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

55

doctrinal definitions. As an example of this behavior, he invokes the Orthodox response to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (OEC, 107). Fortescue says that, prior to the papal definition, Orthodox theologians were already teaching Mary’s Immaculate Conception “more and more plainly,” although Protestant influence was giving impetus to an opposing school of thought (OEC, 108). Nonetheless, he believes that it was the Pope’s definition of the dogma that caused them to definitively reject this belief.7 He argues that “the definition of 1854 seemed a sufficient reason to these people, who generally are so jealous of the privileges and honor of the all-holy Mother of God, for entirely rejecting what a Roman Pope had declared” (OEC, 391). Therefore, in this instance, he believes that Orthodox theologians came to explicitly deny a belief primarily because the Catholic Church had formally defined it.8

THE FILIOQUE As an object of controversy, Fortescue is convinced that the Filioque has been blown significantly out of proportion. He asserts “with confidence” that the Filioque “has practically never mattered at all.”9 What he means is that it has, as far as he can tell, never affected the faith or piety of a single person (OEC, 372). Rather, he considers the Orthodox complaint against the Filioque to be an “entirely artificial” grievance.10 He believes that the Orthodox have made far too much out of what would otherwise have been a minute point of doctrine. Based on the amount of time and energy that they have exerted on this question, Fortescue concludes, the Orthodox behave as if opposition to the Filioque was one of the chief points of their faith (OEC, 373). He finds this to be unfortunate, as he holds that the entire controversy began as simply a “convenFortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 159. Fortescue does not recognize differing theologies of Original Sin as being the basis for the Orthodox rejection of the Immaculate Conception. For an overview of the Orthodox conception of Original Sin, which differs significantly from the Latin understanding, see Maximos Aghiorgoussis, “Sin in Orthodox Dogmatics.” 9 Adrian Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 23. 10 Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE, 5:240. In sharp contrast, George Broadley Howard wrote in 1892 that the “Holy Eastern Church has a legitimate and very serious grievance in respect of this addition to the symbol.” He believed that the Filioque was added to the creed improperly, and has been used as a tool to secure Orthodox submission to Rome (The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches, 85–88). 7 8

56

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

ient accusation” that was seized upon by Photius.11 But because of historical circumstances, this accusation has grown into a consuming obsession, he believes, which has fueled the writing of untold pages of hostile polemics. “They greedily found this charge,” he writes, “and they have never ceased clamouring about it as if it were the root of the whole Christian faith” (ibid.). In contrast, Fortescue believes that the Catholic Church has maintained a more balanced perspective on the entire question. In order to demonstrate the sensibleness and moderation of the Catholic position, Fortescue claims that the Catholic Church has never imposed the Filioque on Eastern Christians. The Orthodox, he says, have never been asked to recite the Filioque in the Creed.12 He also claims that the Eastern Catholic Churches have not been made to add the Filioque. Thus, he argues that it is Orthodox Christians who are being intransigent in this matter, for they are unwilling to tolerate the Latin practice of reciting the Filioque (ibid.). Further investigation into this issue, though, reveals that Fortescue is mistaken in his assertions. Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical on the observance of oriental rites, Allatae Sunt, yields considerable evidence contrary to what Fortescue has stated. Here Pope Benedict documented five historical cases in which the Holy See required Eastern Christian Churches to add the Filioque to the Creed. The list of pontiffs who ordered an Eastern Church to recite the clause includes Popes Nicholas III, Martin IV, Nicholas IV, Eugene IV, and Callistus III. Pope Benedict offered an explanation as to why the Holy See has in certain cases required the addition, but not in others: On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. … At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase “and from the Son.”13

Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 23. Ibid., 15. 13 Benedict XIV, “Allatae Sunt,” ¶30. English translation in The Papal Encyclicals, ed. Claudia Carlen, 1: 65–66. 11 12

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

57

Pope Benedict himself stated that certain Eastern Churches that are in traditionally Latin territories should be required to add the Filioque if there is doubt as to whether or not they accept it as dogma, or if its omission would lead to scandal.14 Therefore, it is clear that the Catholic Church has not been as consistently tolerant of the Eastern position as Fortescue claims. In order to explain the Filioque controversy, Fortescue summarizes the position of each side. At the very root of the question, he finds two different ways of perceiving the Trinity.15 In the Latin tradition, he explains, the three persons are constituted by their relations. If there were no relations, there would be only one person, and therefore there would not be a Trinity. It is these relations which establish the distinctions between the persons. The Father and Son are distinct persons, for instance, because of the relation between them. Likewise, the Spirit is distinct from the Father because he proceeds from him. But if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, there is no relation between the Spirit and the Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit must proceed from both the Father and the Son; otherwise he would not be distinct from the Son (OEC, 375–77). In the Greek tradition, explains Fortescue, the axiomatic principle is that the Father alone is the source of the entire Trinity. This is the foundation of unity within the Trinity. With this belief as the starting point, it is also understood that each of the divine persons has a specific, incommunicable property. The Father’s property is that he is the source, the Son’s property is to be begotten, and the property of the Spirit is to proceed. According to this perspective, the Filioque sets up two sources in God, therefore undermining the unity of the Godhead. Furthermore, in the Greek understanding, the Son cannot share the Father’s incommunicable property of being a source (OEC, 378). Although he understands their argument, Fortescue is critical of the Orthodox rejection of the Filioque. He answers their objection by citing the teachings of the Council of Florence, which he believes to have been very respectful toward the Eastern tradition. Florence, he is quick to point out, stated that the Father is the source of the Trinity, thus acknowledging the foundational belief of the Orthodox. Furthermore, he believes that it reIbid. Fortescue does not identify his source for this view. While he draws his presentation of the Latin conception of the Trinity primarily from Aquinas, he derives the Orthodox understanding from The Confession of Metrophanes Kritopulos, found in Ernst Julius Kimmel, Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis. 14 15

58

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

moved the problem of two sources by teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single source. Fortescue also argues that many Church Fathers, both Eastern and Western, taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Therefore, by denying the Filioque, “in this matter, too, the modern Orthodox have forsaken the faith of their fathers” (OEC, 380). Fortescue also takes pains to rebut the charge that the Filioque was added to the creed illegitimately. First, he explains the purpose of the addition, which was to combat the heresy of Arianism.16 It was intended to reaffirm the full equality of the Son with the Father (OEC, 381). Second, the addition of the Filioque was a disciplinary matter within the Roman patriarchate. Certainly, he argues, a patriarch has the authority to alter a liturgical text for use within his own territory. Finally, he contends that if it is unlawful to add anything to the original Nicene Creed, then both sides are guilty. He notes that at the Council of Constantinople the Eastern Church made significant additions to the initial creed, with no Latin bishops being present.17 Yet rather than protesting these additions, the Roman Patriarch ultimately adopted them (OEC, 392–83). In the end, Fortescue holds that the initial, underlying reason for the objection to the Filioque was political opportunity. If the Filioque had not become widespread throughout the Latin Church, he believes, Photius would have found something else to complain about (OEC, 384 n. 1). But sadly, this objection has crystallized into something nearing an article of the Orthodox faith. Hence, “this very remote speculation, that either way has certainly never for a moment affected the Trinitarian faith or piety of a sin16 Aidan Nichols writes that in “the late antique period the Spanish Visigoth kingdom had been disturbed by various heresies, notably Arianism, the denial of the Godhead of the Son, and a peculiar enthusiastic movement called Priscillianism, which in its Trinitarian theology was somewhat Sabellian, tending to regard Son and Spirit as forms of the Father. At Toledo III, the newly converted Spanish king Reccared made a statement of Catholic faith which included the phrase a Patre Filioque. Against Arianism, such a profession backed up the Son’s divinity: only One who is God can give the Spirit. Against Sabellianism, it highlighted the Son’s distinct identity as a person: a Giver of Spirit must be a true subject of activity” (Rome and the Eastern Churches, 197. 17 No representatives of the Western Church attended this council, as it was originally intended to be a local synod of Eastern bishops. Only later, in the sixth century, was it officially recognized by Rome as being the Second Ecumenical Council. See Francis Dvornik, The Ecumenical Councils, 20–21.

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

59

gle human being, has become to them a standard of anti-Latin orthodoxy, and they cherish and value it accordingly” (OEC, 154).

THE CONSECRATION OF THE EUCHARIST Concerning the matter of belief in transubstantiation, Fortescue does not find any substantial differences between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions. In his judgment, the classic Orthodox definitions of the Eucharist all agree perfectly with what the Catholic Church believes. And until very recently, he asserts, the Orthodox themselves employed language that was very similar to the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation (OEC, 384–85). Nevertheless, Fortescue observes that some later Orthodox theologians had begun to deny transubstantiation.18 He interprets their denial to be a rejection of the scholastic use of the concepts of “substance” and “accident,” not a denial of the real presence. Therefore, these theologians were rejecting the word “transubstantiation” because of the specifically scholastic baggage that it carries. Fortescue responds to this by stating that the Catholic Church is not exclusively committed to the scholastic explanation as being the only way to perceive the mystery. He writes that “we also distinguish between the defined dogma and its philosophical explanation, and that the Catholic Church has never officially committed herself to all the theories by which her theologians try to explain her mysteries” (OEC, 385). Thus, Fortescue does not believe that there is a serious difference in this matter, and he judges that, from a Catholic perspective, the traditional Orthodox understanding of the real presence is entirely satisfactory. Yet regarding the consecration of the Eucharist, Fortescue does find a point of real difference. The controversy is over when the change takes place. While the Western Church has traditionally identified the recitation of the words of institution as being the moment of consecration, the Eastern Church has tended to place greater emphasis on the epiclesis.19 Within Orthodoxy, Fortescue explains, there are two schools of thought. Some Orthodox writers hold that the epiclesis alone consecrates In a footnote (OEC 385 n. 4), Fortescue refers to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who in his 1839 Longer Catechism was critical of the use of the term transubstantiation to describe the manner of the transformation. See R. W. Blackmore, The Doctrine of the Russian Church, 92. 19 Adrian Fortescue, “Epiklesis,” CE, 5:502. His definition is “a solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, praying him to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ” (OEC 386). 18

60

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

the Eucharist.20 According to this view, the words of institution are recited merely as an historical remembrance but have no consecratory power (OEC, 386). However, the preponderant Orthodox opinion ascribes some value to the words of institution and argues that the epiclesis alone would not be sufficient. Those who subscribe to this view believe that both elements are essential and consecratory, and that one without the other is incomplete.21 The Western position, as Fortescue understands it, is bolstered by the record of what Christ said at the Last Supper. While we know that Christ said the words of institution and commanded us to do likewise, he observes that “there is no evidence for any sort of Epiklesis at the Last Supper” (OEC, 388). Fortescue considers this a compelling argument against the Eastern contention that the epiclesis is consecratory.22 Fortescue understands that this entire question arose out of differences in liturgical practice. In the Eastern liturgies, the epiclesis always comes after the words of institution. Hence, the Holy Spirit is invoked to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ after the words of institution have already been recited. Fortescue recognizes that this can be interpreted as lending credence to the Eastern view that the words of institution alone are insufficient. In the Roman Canon, which was the Eucharistic prayer of the pre– Vatican II Roman Mass (and is Eucharistic Prayer I today), there is no clear epiclesis. However, Fortescue does consider whether an epiclesis is indeed present in this prayer. He believes that at one time there was a clear epiclesis present after the words of institution, but “it seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.”23 If there is an epiclesis in the Roman Canon, he considers the prayer “Supplices te rogamus,” in which God is petitioned to have an angel carry the gifts to him, to be the best candidate. Fortescue considers the possibility of this prayer being an epiclesis because of its location in the canon, for its placement corresponds to that of the Syrian Rite’s epiclesis.24 In his writings, though, Fortescue expressed two contradictory opinions on this question. In The Orthodox Eastern Church, which was first pubIbid. Ibid. 22 Ibid., 503. 23 Ibid., 502. 24 Adrian Fortescue, “Canon of the Mass,” CE, 3:264. 20 21

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

61

lished in 1907, he concludes that this prayer is indeed an epiclesis. Responding to the Orthodox objection that the Roman Canon is deficient for want of an epiclesis, he writes: In the first place we have an Epiklesis, although hardly a recognizable one. The prayer Supplices te rogamus in our missal is the remnant of the old Latin invocation. Secondly the Orthodox admit that the words of institution must be said first, and that an Epiklesis alone would not be sufficient. Both sides in this controversy, then, use the two forms, words of institution and Epiklesis; the only question at issue is as to the moment at which Consecration takes place, as to which is, as we should say, the form of the Sacrament. (OEC, 386)

However, in his entry “Canon of the Mass” for The Catholic Encyclopedia, which he composed in 1908, he expresses a markedly different conclusion. Because “the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is wanting … this is not an Epiklesis, but an Offertory prayer.”25 Yet Fortescue is well aware that the controversy over what constitutes the form is foreign to the patristic understanding of the Eucharist. The Church Fathers, he explains, did not try to pinpoint a precise moment at which the change occurs.26 Instead, they regarded the entire Eucharistic prayer to be consecratory (OEC, 387). They never attempted to isolate a specific part of the Eucharistic prayer and identify it as being the form. Rather, they considered the whole prayer to be the form.27 Fortescue seems to be genuinely sympathetic with this patristic perspective. But ultimately he holds that the Western view is the Catholic, and therefore the correct, opinion. “But since we now do ask at what exact moment the bread and wine are consecrated, Catholics are most certainly right in fixing it at the time we say our Lord’s own words” (OEC, 388)28 25 Fortescue, “Canon of the Mass,” 264. Fortescue thinks that this prayer is really “a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer.” 26 Fortescue, “Epiklesis,” 502. 27 Ibid., 503. 28 Unlike Fortescue, John Mason Neale considered the Latin Church to be in error for focusing too heavily on the words of institution and not having an epiclesis. An Anglican cleric, he wrote in 1850, “The omission of the invocation is a very great blot in the Roman Liturgy, and in all others derived from it, our own included.” For this reason, he felt that “if either Church has a right to accuse the other of heresy, the Oriental stands on the vantage ground with respect to the

62

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

He refers to the Council of Florence an authoritative source of teaching on this question. It stated: “There should be no doubt at all that after the aforesaid words of consecration of the body have been pronounced by a priest with the intention of consecrating, immediately it is changed in substance into the true body of Christ.”29 It is not clear, however, that the “words of consecration” here mentioned necessarily refer only to the words of institution, to the exclusion of the epiclesis. Likewise, a similar question may be asked regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent on this matter. Trent taught that “by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.”30 Nowhere in Trent is it explicitly stated that the consecration corresponds exactly to the words of institution. Nonetheless, Fortescue accepts the prevalent view held in his time, which identifies the “consecration” as being the words of institution.31 As for why the epiclesis comes after the words of institution in the Eastern liturgies, Fortescue offers an explanation. He considers this a case of what he calls “dramatic representation.” He argues that “the succession of time in sacramental prayers necessarily involves nothing but a dramatic representation of what presumably really takes place in one instant,” and therefore these invocations are “dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment.”32 For this reason, he maintains that it is erroneous to consider the placement of the epiclesis after the words of institution as evidence for the insufficiency of the latter (OEC, 387). Fortescue also addresses the controversy surrounding the Assyrian Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which does not contain the words of institution but only has an epiclesis. He considers this omission to be “amazing” (LEC, 154). He speculates that the words of institution were neglected in this liturgy due to the Eastern insistence on the epiclesis as being the form of consecration (LEC, 154). As for whether or not this liturgy is “valid,” Fortescue is reluctant to make a definitive judgment. He mentions that while most Orthodox and Catholic theologians would pronounce this litLatin” (A History of the Holy Eastern Church, 1:485, 98. 29 “Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P Tanner, 1:581. 30 “Council of Trent,” in Tanner, Decrees, 2:695. 31 As is shown in chapter 5, the official Catholic position on this question has evolved considerably since 1990. 32 Fortescue, “Epiklesis,” 503.

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

63

urgy to be invalid, it is possible to explicitly defend its validity from the perspective of the entire Eucharistic prayer being consecratory (LEC, 155 n. 3). Throughout his treatment of the consecration of the Eucharist in Eastern Christianity, Fortescue demonstrates an appreciation for the patristic perspective, which does not narrow in on a specific formula or action as being the moment of consecration. Therefore, his willingness to entertain the possibility of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari being valid is not entirely surprising. Here again he indicates his sympathy for the patristic understanding of the consecration. While elsewhere he explicitly states his agreement with the Western position, his hesitancy to take a stand against the validity of this liturgy does call into question the firmness of his conviction. As an apologist for the Catholic faith, Fortescue defends what he perceives to be the official Catholic position. But as a student of Eastern liturgy and the Church Fathers, Fortescue apparently realizes that this question is not entirely black and white.

ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND PROTESTANTISM Fortescue provides a historical overview of the relationship between Orthodox theology and Protestantism. In particular, he is interested in the impact that Protestantism has had on Orthodoxy. Since Fortescue maintains that Orthodox theology has remained essentially frozen since the time of the schism, he is especially intent on explaining why Protestantism has had so little influence on it. Fortescue does not hold Protestantism in high regard and at times demonstrates contempt for it. Typically, he refers to Protestant denominations as “sects” rather than as churches.33 Also, in his writings Fortescue expresses no interest in any sort of ecumenical activity with Protestants, and he indicates that such activity is foreign to his experience. Instead, he expresses amazement when recounting positive interactions between American Catholics and Protestants, who were on the forefront of the ecumenical movement.34 He begins his historical overview by unfolding the relations between Orthodox Christians and non-Anglican Protestants, with a focus on Lutherans. This particular group of Protestants, he explains, recognized a point of commonality between themselves and the Orthodox Churches: a 33 34

Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 135. Adrian Fortescue, “Americanism,” 271.

64

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

mutual rejection of the papacy (OEC, 252). Therefore, various attempts were made to reach out to the Orthodox. The Orthodox leaders, for their part, were initially friendly with those Lutheran representatives who approached them. As Fortescue writes, “their common opposition to the Pope was a great tie of sympathy” (OEC, 254). Ultimately, however, these and other Protestant efforts to reconcile with the Orthodox met with failure. Among the theological reasons that Fortescue offers for this were the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation, as well as the fact that Protestants continued to hold the Western teaching on the Filioque.35 He contends that on a more fundamental level the Orthodox were disturbed by the Reformers’ insistence on “sola scriptura” and their rejection of sacred tradition as a font of revelation (OEC, 253). Of equal importance was the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which Fortescue believes to be at direct odds with Orthodoxy. Interestingly, he contends that the Orthodox teaching on this question is at the opposite extreme (OEC, 252–53). “As always happens to people who have not gone far into the matter,” he writes, “they rather inclined to the opposite of St. Augustine’s system, to loose and kindly principles which, if driven out of their vagueness, would become semi-Pelagian” (OEC, 109). Nonetheless, Fortescue contends that the primary reason for the Orthodox rejection of Protestantism was not theological. Rather, it was because, beginning in the nineteenth century, some Protestant missionaries had attempted to proselytize Orthodox Christians. Although the Protestants initially said that “they only wanted to teach, exhort and spiritualize” the Eastern Christians, in due time they were establishing Protestant congregations (LEC, 419). He believes that this, more than any theological factor, has poisoned relations between the two groups (OEC, 254). If there is one act that the Orthodox find intolerable, asserts Fortescue, it is attempting to steal Orthodox Christians away from their mother Churches. Once this began, “Even the precious bond of the fact that they were all against the Pope was no longer enough to make Orthodox and Protestants friends” (OEC, 255). Since then, he observes, Orthodox bishops have been almost as angry with non-Anglican Protestants as they have been with Catholics (OEC, 256). Fortescue is sympathetic with the Orthodox hostility toward proselytizers. Yet he believes that this hostility is ultimately rooted in their nationalFortescue does not understand why Protestants have retained the Filioque (OEC, 252). 35

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

65

ism. For, he contends, Orthodox Christians equate the Church with the nation, and to leave the Church is to abandon the nation (OEC, 254–55). “Our Western idea of separating politics from religion,” explains Fortescue, “of being on the one hand loyal citizens of our country and on the other, as a quite distinct thing, members of some Church, is unknown in the East.”36 Hence, those non-Anglican Protestants who attempted to lure Orthodox Christians away from their Churches were viewed as leading them to forsake their nations. The Anglicans, on the other hand, had established exceedingly good relations with the Orthodox (OEC, 257). Fortescue partly attributes this to the fact that Orthodox bishops were usually approached by the “extreme High Churchmen,” who presented their particular perspective as being the universal teaching of Anglicanism (OEC, 259). Fortescue believes that these individuals misrepresented what Anglicanism truly is and misled the bishops into thinking that Anglicanism holds Orthodox views (OEC, 260). He argues that the beliefs of the High Churchmen were not typical of Anglicanism, and he laments that no one really knows “what the views of the Church of England in matters of faith are …” (LEC, 374). In many cases, Fortescue believes that these men had engaged in blatant acts of deception in the way that they presented Anglicanism to the Orthodox (OEC, 260 n. 1). But the main reason for the Anglicans’ success in reaching out to the Orthodox was, in Fortescue’s opinion, their policy of not seeking converts among Eastern Christians. This was the usual Anglican approach when dealing with any Eastern Christian Church, whether it was Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian (LEC, 366). Instead, the Anglicans assured the Orthodox of their profound respect for Eastern Christianity and stated plainly that they would never wish to see an Eastern Christian leave his or her Church (OEC, 259). The Anglicans were, as far as Fortescue can tell, the only Christian body that did not proselytize among Eastern Christians (OEC, 269). The Anglicans offered aid and assistance to the Orthodox, and all that they asked for in return was to be recognized as a legitimate branch of the true Church (OEC, 260). However, as Fortescue explains, this recognition has never been granted. Nor does he think that it ever will be. For starters, Orthodox bishops have refused to acknowledge the validity of Anglican orders, and Orthodox theologians are undecided on the question. Fortescue attributes this 36

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237.

66

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

skepticism to the Orthodox belief that the grace of Holy Orders vanishes in schismatic bodies (OEC, 261). “It really is hard on Anglicans,” he observers, “that no one … will accept their orders” (LEC, 366). Realistically, Fortescue does not believe that the Orthodox will ever budge. Unless the Eastern Orthodox Church were to alter its fundamental beliefs, the Anglicans will never achieve their ultimate goal of establishing communion between the two bodies (OEC, 261).37 The main obstacle is that the Eastern Orthodox Church understands itself to be the one true Church and is not open to the Anglican theory of the true Church being divided into separate branches. In fact, Fortescue contends that in all of their dealings with the Anglicans, the Orthodox bishops were actually trying to convert them to Orthodoxy (OEC, 262). Fortescue does recount one instance in which Protestantism had a very direct impact on Orthodox theology. This is the famous case of Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638). As Fortescue relates the story, when Lukaris was a priest he was sent as a missionary to Poland, with the intention of converting Protestants to Orthodoxy (OEC, 264). Interestingly, his contacts with Protestantism had the opposite effect, and Lukaris himself became enamored with Protestant theology. When he returned home and was made Patriarch of Constantinople, he sought to bring about a Protestant-style reformation in the Orthodox Church (OEC, 265). In order to achieve this end, Lukaris established a Protestant theological school in Constantinople and published his Confession in 1629 (OEC, 265–66). Fortescue describes the faith espoused in this document as being pure Calvinism (OEC, 269). Among the various Calvinist beliefs espoused by Lukaris were absolute predestination, justification by faith alone, and a complete denial of free will. This led to a serious crisis within the Orthodox Church, which was ultimately resolved by Sultan Murad IV, who had his Janissaries murder Lukaris. However, Lukaris left a party of Calvinists behind who continued to work for the protestantization of the Church (OEC, 266).

A very different analysis was offered by William Palmer in 1845, who believed that reconciliation “with the Eastern Church is a thing both desirable and possible for the Anglican Church; not immediately indeed, nor even soon, but eventually; and that, by no organic or violent change on either side, but by a natural and gradual development of what exists at present.” He felt that it would be far easier for Anglicans to unite with the Orthodox than with the Roman Catholics Church(“Mr. Palmer’s Reply to Mr. Khomiakoff’s First Letter,” 23. 37

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

67

This Calvinist party continued to influence the Orthodox Church for nearly four decades after the murder of Lukaris. In 1672 the Synod of Jerusalem was called in order to counter its influence. This synod reaffirmed all of the traditional Orthodox teachings that Lukaris denied and anathematized all of the Calvinist ideas espoused in the Confession. While the Synod also anathematized all of Lukaris’s followers, it attempted to salvage the reputation of the man himself (OEC, 267). In fact, it went so far as to deny that Lukaris actually wrote the Confession, and it anathematized anyone who says otherwise (OEC, 268). Fortescue considers this denial of Lukaris’s authorship to be “a piece of palpable bad faith” (ibid. n. 1). He holds that it is absolutely certain that Lukaris wrote the document. Nonetheless, the Synod accomplished its intended goal, and soon all traces of Calvinist influence vanished within Orthodoxy. Fortescue also considers the Synod of Jerusalem to be worthy of our attention for a distinctly different reason: And in all the proceedings of this synod there is not a single word against the Azymite Creed-tampering Latins. They were so busy with these new enemies, the Calvinists, that they quite forgot us. As this is the only occasion in history on which Greek bishops met without letting us know what they think of us, the fact deserves to be noted. (OEC, 268)

In treating the relationship between Orthodox theology and Protestantism, Fortescue again reiterates his conviction that Orthodox theology is extremely conservative—so much so that it suffers from “arrested development” (OEC, 393). He counts this “intense conservatism” as being one of the chief characteristics of Orthodoxy.38 But in dealing with Protestantism, Fortescue believes that this conservatism has proven advantageous. For “the conservative spirit of the Orthodox Church” has, in his judgment, protected Orthodoxy from adopting Protestant teachings, or from compromising its apostolic faith (OEC, 252).39 He considers this a positive outcome because, in his opinion, Protestantism is inferior to Orthodoxy. Protestant missionaries who worked in the Christian East, he believes, were crudely attempting “to improve a Church Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. According to Orthodox theologians, such as John Meyendorff (Byzantine Theology, 128), during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Orthodox theology became reliant on Western philosophical and theological models. Fortescue does not demonstrate any awareness of this. 38 39

68

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

which had kept immeasurably more of historic Christianity than their own sects” (LEC, 419). Furthermore, he believes that Protestant principles are ultimately destructive to Orthodox theology. He writes that “Protestantism is too remote from all their theology, and its principles are too destructive of all their system for it to attract them.”40 Yet he does acknowledge that some Anglican missionaries positively impacted the lives of Eastern Christians, and that their heroic sacrifices should not go entirely unrecognized (LEC, 126).

EASTERN CHRISTIAN LITURGY At great length, Fortescue addresses the differences between the liturgical rites of the Roman Catholic Church and those of the Eastern Churches. He writes very eloquently of the various liturgical traditions employed by Eastern Christian Churches and goes into considerable detail describing their services. As a recognized expert in the field of liturgy, Fortescue demonstrates a remarkable knowledge of Eastern Christian ceremonies, vestments, and liturgical instruments. He is also keenly interested in the historical development of these rites. Very early on, he believes, different liturgical traditions began to arise in different parts of the Church. Yet the fundamental core of the Eucharistic liturgy remained essentially the same (OEC, 112). He does not believe that there was ever a single parent-rite from which all later rites evolved. Rather, he acknowledges that there was considerable liturgical diversity from the very beginning. Fortescue holds that in the ancient Church these liturgical differences were more noteworthy than any theological difference (OEC, 111). Being aware of their history and development, Fortescue does not hesitate to acknowledge the full legitimacy of the various Eastern rites. He believes that liturgical uniformity is completely unnecessary, and that there is plenty of room for diversity in this area, as was the case in the ancient Church.41 Nor does he believe that the Roman Rite is in any way superior or more fully Catholic than any of the others (UEC, 10). He does hold that some Eastern rites, however, are in need of correction. The purpose of such corrections is not to latinize the rites in question, but to remove traces of what Fortescue regards as serious deficiencies or errors. This is only necessary in the cases of those rites used by groups 40 41

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 240. Adrian Fortescue, “Rites,” CE, 13:66.

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

69

which Fortescue deems heretical, such as the Assyrian Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox Churches.42 Even then, though, Fortescue believes that completely unnecessary changes were sometimes made when groups from these bodies came into union with Rome as Eastern Catholic Churches. Such corrections were, in his judgment, “over scrupulous.”43 Those who were responsible for these unneeded alterations were “wellmeaning officials of Propaganda whose liturgical knowledge was not equal to their pious zeal.”44 In Fortescue’s informed opinion, there is only one actual case of the intentional latinization of an Eastern rite. This is the case of the SyroMalabar Rite, which was heavily modified by the Portuguese at the Synod of Diamper in 1599. Fortescue diplomatically refers to those prelates who were behind this event as being misguided and overzealous, and he believes that their work “spoiled the old Malabar Rite.” Yet Fortescue also claims that Rome was not responsible for this situation.45 Fortescue also notes that in each of the Eastern Churches the liturgy is celebrated in the vernacular. While he does not pass judgment on this practice one way or the other, he does understand the reasoning behind it.46 He does mention, though, that in many cases the form of the vernacular that is employed is an antiquated one that is practically unintelligible to the people. Furthermore, because of the diversity of liturgical languages used by Eastern Catholics, Fortescue bemoans the ignorance that leads people to say that Latin is the universal language of the entire Catholic Church (OEC, 396). While Fortescue unquestionably recognizes the legitimacy and catholicity of the Eastern rites, he consistently displays a greater admiration for his own Roman Rite. At times he writes as if it is superior to the Eastern rites. “The Roman Rite is the most venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all,” he says, “but our fellow-Catholics in

Ibid., 65. Ibid., 66. 44 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 239. Prior to the establishment of a separate Congregation for the Eastern Churches by Pope Benedict XV in 1917, the affairs of the Eastern Catholic Churches were managed by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, “de Propaganda Fide.” 45 Fortescue, “Rites,” 66. 46 Ibid., 68. 42 43

70

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours.”47 Yet Fortescue’s attitude is far removed from the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV, who wrote the following in 1755: Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is the mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites.48

Fortescue’s preference for the Roman Rite is based primarily on matters of taste, not ecclesiology. He prefers the sobriety, solemn dignity, and comparative brevity of the Roman Rite.49 In no way does he indicate that the Roman Rite is doctrinally superior or more fully Catholic. In this respect he is in conformity with the more recent teaching of Pope Leo XIII, who in 1894 extolled the Eastern rites as praiseworthy and important illustrations of the catholicity of the Church.50 Therefore, despite his preference for the Roman Rite, he demonstrates a great appreciation for the Eastern rites, and he remarks that they are “as venerable and as beautiful” as his own rite (OEC, 131).51 He particularly extols the majesty and splendor of the Byzantine Rite and openly wonders if it is prejudice that leads the Roman Catholics of his day to typically consider their own rite to be more dignified (OEC, 418). In his estimation, the

Fortescue, “Rites,” 64. Benedict XIV, “Allatae Sunt,” ¶20. English translation, Carlen, Encycllicals, 1: 58. This principle was first laid out by Benedict in his 1742 bull on the Italo-Greek Church, Etsi Pastoralis. In this bull he reaffirmed the legitimacy of many Eastern customs but also taught the primacy of the Roman Rite above all others. According to Robert F. Taft, this principle, known as the praestantia ritus latini, greatly influenced the work of some nineteenth-century liturgists (“ ‘Eastern Presuppositions’ and Western Liturgical Renewal.” 49 Adrian Fortescue, “Roman Rite, The,” CE, 13:155. 50 Leo XIII, “Orientalium Dignitas,” ¶5. 51 A very different perspective was expressed by Prosper Guéranger of Solesmes in the 1878 edition of his Institutions liturgiques: “One must note in the Greek liturgy a particular quality which admirably denotes the degradation of the Church that employs it. This quality … is a crude immobilism that renders it impervious to any progress.” He believed that the Eastern rites were seriously deficient because they were the liturgical rites “of a degenerate Christianity” (1:226–27, 229; English translation, Taft, “ ‘Eastern Presuppositions’,” 11. 47 48

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

71

loss of any of the Eastern rites “would be a misfortune second only to the loss of the Roman Rite.”52 As a student of liturgical history, Fortescue also appreciates the fact that the Eastern rites preserve many ancient practices that would otherwise be altogether forgotten. With regard to the Eastern Orthodox Church especially, Fortescue observes that “the way in which she clings to one stage of development is altogether unjustifiable theologically, but it results in a number of very curious and picturesque remnants of a past age, which exist only in her services” (OEC, 404–5 n. 2). Here is at least one case in which Fortescue does not find the supposed “arrested development” of the Orthodox Church to be altogether unfortunate, at least not from his vantage point as a liturgical scholar. Fortescue has a demonstrable appreciation for the way the Eastern Churches make use of both liturgical art and architecture. In particular, he has a special fondness for the Byzantine style. He heralds the Church of Holy Wisdom,53 in Constantinople, as being the single greatest example of church architecture in all of history, and he calls it the parent of Byzantine architecture, as opposed to its product (OEC, 121, 125). He also attempts to trace the diverse influences that converged into the Byzantine style of art (OEC, 122). Yet his opinion of Eastern Christian liturgical music is decidedly mixed. He finds Russian choral music on the whole to be pleasing to the ears and believes it to be among the most beautiful music in all of Christendom (OEC, 410). Conversely, he generally finds other Eastern Christian musical traditions to be unimpressive. He describes Ethiopian Orthodox music as punctuated by “strange shrill cries” (LEC, 318). Armenian music is simply “of the usual Eastern type, strange to us” (LEC, 441). He regards Byzantine Church music, as is found throughout parts of the Middle East, as generally insufferable. While it demonstrates a remarkable tonal accuracy on the part of its singers, it is altogether “unpleasant” to Western ears (OEC, 411). He opines that it is a “pity that so much skill should be spent to produce such a hideous result,” and calls this music “incredible wailing” (OEC, 412). Throughout his treatment of Eastern Christian liturgy, a common theme emerges. This is the rigid liturgical intolerance of Constantinople, as Fortescue, “Rites,” 64. Commonly known as Hagia Sophia, this structure was commissioned by the emperor Justinian I and was dedicated in 537. It is now called the Ayasofya Museum. 52 53

72

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

contrasted with the great liturgical broadmindedness of Rome (OEC, 395). He repeatedly decries Constantinople for forcing its Byzantine Rite on the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy and usurping the place of the older rites that were once used throughout whole regions of the Orthodox world (OEC, 114).54 He claims that this was a “ruthless” and systematic effort on the part of the patriarchs of Constantinople, who were intent on imposing liturgical uniformity.55 Fortescue judges the motivation for this effort to have been nothing less than the “jealousy and ambition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople,” who are “centralizers who ignore history for the sake of uniformity” (OEC, 396). He predicts that one day, when the influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople has sufficiently waned, the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches of Egypt and Syria may abandon the Byzantine Rite and restore their more ancient rites.56 In sharp distinction to Constantinople, Fortescue presents Rome as a beacon of liturgical plurality and tolerance. He cites Leo XIII’s Orientalium Dignitas, which affirmed the inestimable value of the Eastern rites, as clear evidence for this policy (OEC, 112 n. 1). Furthermore, Fortescue uses the historical example of the Eastern Catholic Churches to illustrate how Rome does not attempt to impose uniformity upon her sister-Churches (OEC, 112). He argues that the Catholic Church is the only religious body that permits such liturgical diversity (UEC, 11). “The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in favour of uniformity,” he writes, “has been the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople.”57 He believes that only a “Protestant of the more ignorant kind” could mistake the Pope for being the leader who demands liturgical uniformity (ibid.).

Beginning in the thirteenth century, all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches adopted the Byzantine Rite, albeit with minor variations. The Byzantine Rite had originated as the local rite of the city of Constantinople. As it spread throughout the empire, it displaced the older rites previously celebrated by the local Churches. Fortescue holds that the See of Constantinople sought “to make itself the one centre of the Orthodox Church” by compelling all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches “to use its own late derived rite.” Hence today “Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of Constantinople.” Only those Eastern Churches that were not in communion with Constantinople were able to maintain their ancient rites (“Rites,” 66). 55 Ibid. 56 Adrian Fortescue, “Greek Rites,” CE, 6:776. 57 Fortescue, “Rites,” 66. 54

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

73

EASTERN CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY Fortescue considers the spirituality of the Christian East to be very closely related to Roman Catholic spirituality, although he recognizes that it has its own distinctive flavor. Fortescue largely addresses the subject of spirituality in the context of liturgy, and he describes Eastern Christian spirituality as being very effusive in its devotion to the saints. He has particularly high praise for the fervent devotion given to Mary by the Eastern Churches. In fact, he says that the East exceeds the West in the devotion paid to Mary and the saints, and that “the sober Roman mind never produced such ornate prayers to the Saints, or such enthusiastic praises of them as the great Greek Fathers” (OEC, 102). Nonetheless, Fortescue is very critical of many of the saints to whom Eastern Christians give honor. He believes that Eastern Christian liturgical calendars are littered with false saints who simply do not deserve to be venerated, such as Photius of Constantinople. He attributes this to the circumstance that there was no single, centralized process of canonization in the East, as later developed in the West. On this count, Fortescue believes Constantinople to be especially guilty. He claims, “Never did the kingdom of heaven suffer violence as at Constantinople. Almost every Emperor who did not persecute the Church (and many who did), almost every patriarch who was not a heretic (and some who were) becomes a Saint” (OEC, 103). Fortescue has the highest regard for the veneration paid to icons, although he understands Eastern Christians to be prejudiced against the use of statuary (LEC, 264). He reports that some Eastern Christians erroneously distinguish between icons and impious idols by explaining that icons are flat while idols are three-dimensional. However, he does point out that this is not an official view held within Eastern Christianity,58 but rather is only a misperception held by the uneducated.59 Overall, Fortescue expresses great admiration for the tradition of iconography, and he bemoans that in his day some Eastern Churches had begun to create “icons” that did not adhere to the traditional principles, but rather mimicked Western paintings (OEC, 404). The official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church on this matter is elucidated in Metropolitan Philaret’s “Longer Catechism.” A “graven image, or idol, is the likeness of some creature in heaven, or earth, or in the waters, which men bow down to and serve instead of God their Maker.” By this definition, not every statue is necessarily an idol (“The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church,” in The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff, 527). 59 Adrian Fortescue, “Images, Veneration of,” CE, 7:669. 58

74

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Fortescue also mentions that the veneration paid to icons by Eastern Christians surpasses that which they offer to the reserved Eucharist. He recounts once witnessing an Orthodox priest walk past a tabernacle without even acknowledging its presence, while as a rule Orthodox Christians pay profound reverence to icons through kisses and prostrations. Citing this apparent discrepancy, Fortescue opines that “one realizes how little they trouble to be logical in their religious customs” (OEC, 422). He explains this by again referencing the dominant conservative instinct that characterizes Eastern Christianity. The use and proper veneration of icons developed long before it was a common practice to reserve the Eucharist in churches. Therefore, he holds, Eastern Christians maintain the old practice of venerating icons but are hesitant to introduce the veneration of the reserved Eucharist, as this would be a new practice (OEC, 422 n. 2). Fortescue also addresses the Eastern ascetic tradition. On the subject of fasting, he recognizes that fasting in the Eastern Churches is far more extensive than what is found in the Latin Church (OEC, 426). He is genuinely amazed by Eastern fasting practices, some of which he describes as “very stern.” He understands that this is due in part to the heavy influence of monasticism in Eastern Christianity. In the Eastern Churches, he says, the monastic state is the most perfect life to which a person can aspire. It is the ideal, and any other state of life is less than perfect.60 However, he argues that because of separation from the West, Eastern monasticism has “gradually drifted into the same stagnation as the rest of the Orthodox Church.”61 Yet he praises the example of the Eastern Catholic Churches, who have generally adopted the Latin model of religious orders. Because religious orders are active, and are engaged in more than just celebrating the Divine Office, he regards this development as being advantageous.62 Adrian Fortescue, “Monasticism, III. Eastern Monasticism,” CE, 10:468. Ibid., 470. Fortescue finds it unfortunate that the Eastern Churches have so many monks who engage in contemplation as their primary occupation, instead of apostolic work. He wrote: “Out of the old idea of the monastic life the West has evolved developments of importance and use. In the West the great majority of religious men and women do work for souls in some form. We have numerous teaching orders, preaching orders, nursing orders … it is difficult to realize a great Church having an enormous number of monks, none of whom do anything but contemplate—and this, once more, without any derogatory idea of contemplation” (Russia and the Catholic Church, 5). 62 Fortescue, “Monasticism,” 472. Unlike Fortescue, Stanley (Lectures, 24–25) 60 61

THEOLOGY AND FAITH I

75

Ultimately, Fortescue consistently portrays the separated Eastern Churches as being theologically frozen, almost lifeless. They can only react against things and are incapable of progress and growth in this area. He believes that this is the result of these Churches being removed from the “true vine,” which is the Catholic Church. “For,” he writes, “it was not on the bishops of Cerularius’ schism that Christ built his Church” (LEC, 126). He maintains that this stagnation has afflicted nearly all areas of Eastern Christian faith, including liturgy and spirituality. While he places great value on Eastern Christian liturgical rites, this value is due in part to the fact that they preserve ancient practices, although he also greatly admires their beauty. Furthermore, he treats certain aspects of Eastern Christian spirituality, such as the exclusive use of onedimensional iconography and the lack of veneration for the reserved Eucharist, as being the result of conservatism and the (at times illogical) clinging to ancient customs. Nonetheless, he believes Eastern Christian liturgy and spirituality to be valid expressions of the faith and generally recognizes that any unity between East and West does not require uniformity in these areas. Yet Fortescue also holds that the intense conservatism that characterizes Eastern Christianity has borne some positive results. It has kept much of the apostolic faith intact and has preserved Orthodox theology from adopting what he perceives as Protestant errors. Moreover, it has led to the preservation of many ancient liturgical practices that are well worth studying. Thus, Fortescue does not regard this conservatism as being entirely detrimental. If these Churches were to once again be united to the Catholic Church, he believes that their conservatism would prove to be “a sane and useful balance” for the universal Church and would no longer serve as a hindrance to them (OEC, 431).

did not see the dominance of contemplative monasticism in Eastern Christianity as a sign of stagnation. Rather, he viewed it as a manifestation of the East’s tendency to value the mystical and philosophical above the practical.

3 EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH STRUCTURE I In this chapter we explore Fortescue’s treatment of the structure and governance of Eastern Christian Churches. First, we examine Eastern Christianity’s belief in a visible, hierarchical Church and Fortescue’s assertion that this establishes considerable common ground with Catholicism. Next, we proceed to his portrayal of patriarchs and the concept of a patriarchate. We then consider his exposition of the place of Ecumenical Councils in Eastern Christianity, as well as the Eastern Orthodox understanding of papal primacy. Finally, we take into consideration Fortescue’s warnings regarding nationalism and the danger it poses to the Eastern Churches. In describing the structure of the Eastern Christian Churches, Fortescue tends to frame much of his presentation in the light of controversies. He recognizes that, among the differences that contribute to the ongoing division between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches, there is a divergence in how the structure of the Church is understood. Fortescue regards differences in this area to be of the utmost importance and therefore spends a great deal of time contrasting the Latin and Eastern positions on such matters.1 Hence, along the way we will also look at Fortescue’s presentation of these disagreements. In doing so, he attempts to identify deficiencies in the Eastern position and to demonstrate the correctness of the Catholic position. In more than a few instances, these efforts appear to be thinly veiled critiques of Anglicanism. Throughout his presentation of Eastern Christian Church structure, the reader is sometimes left with the impression that Fortescue is using the Eastern Churches as vehicles to illustrate his arguments against the Church of England. Likewise, it is worth noting that in Fortescue’s time many Anglican writers were using the Eastern Churches to bolster their arguments against Catholicism. See, for instance, the work of Arthur C. Headlam, who wrote in 1897 that Orthodoxy “bears a living witness against the teaching of the Roman Church” and used the example of the Russian Orthodox Church to prove the superiority of Anglicanism over Catholicism (The Teaching of the 77 1

78

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

BELIEF IN A VISIBLE, HIERARCHICAL CHURCH Fortescue believes that the Eastern Orthodox Church is inestimably closer to Catholicism than is any other body (OEC, 361). One of the primary reasons he holds this position is that Orthodox Christians believe that the Church established by Christ must be visible and governed by a hierarchy. He commends the Orthodox for believing in “a visible Church with authority to declare the true faith and to make laws,” and he lauds the fact that “they have a hierarchy against which our only complaint is that it has lost the topmost branch” (OEC, 361–62). An Eastern Church, he explains, is “ruled and served by the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” (OEC, 101). A single primate, who traditionally enjoys the rank of patriarch, holds the highest position in each Church.2 The patriarch generally exercises his authority in conjunction with a synod of bishops.3 Sometimes, however, a Church is headed by an Archbishop (OEC, 351). Eastern bishops, he writes, “depend immediately on their Patriarch or Holy Synod” and often have the title of Metropolitan, which is given out rather freely. This title, he says, has come to have little meaning and usually does not denote any authority outside of the bishop’s own diocese (OEC, 350). An Eastern bishop of special dignity is also sometimes referred to as an “exarch.” Eastern bishops must be celibate and are traditionally chosen from among the monastic ranks. Along with two assisting bishops, they are consecrated by the patriarch, as the “idea that to consecrate a bishop involves jurisdiction over him still prevails in the East” (OEC, 351). Eastern priests, he says, are appointed to their parishes by their bishop and are entrusted with the spiritual well being of their communities. In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, though, not all priests are permitted to hear confessions and those who are have been granted special leave to do so. Eastern priests may have wives, but they must be married prior to ordination (OEC, 353). The exceptions to this, he says, are the priests of the Assyrian Church of the East, who are permitted to enter into marriage after ordination (LEC, 134). A considerable number of life-long deacons also

Russian Church, 33). 2 Throughout most of Fortescue’s lifetime, the Russian Orthodox Church was an exception to this rule, as is seen in the final part of this chapter. The rights and powers of patriarchs are also elucidated below. 3 Adrian Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” CE, 11:553.

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

79

serve in the parishes, and this office is viewed as being more than a mere “stepping stone to the priesthood” (OEC, 353). Each Eastern Church, he says, is fully autonomous, although it may be in communion with other Churches.4 The various Orthodox Churches, for example, professing the same faith, together form the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoys a primacy of honor in this communion, he has no authority over the other Churches within it,5 as each retains its complete independence (OEC, 273). He observes that there “is no common authority obeyed by all, or rather it is only the authority of ‘Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods’.”6 Likewise, the Oriental Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another. The Assyrian Church of the East, however, “stands alone.”7 As explained by Fortescue, when Orthodox Christians speak of the Church, they mean only their own communion.8 They believe that it alone is “the only ark of salvation” for humanity (OEC, 347). Every Christian who is outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church is regarded as schismatic, and any person who denies any article of its faith is considered to be a heretic (OEC, 365). Fortescue notes that this even applies to Catholics, and that there are cases of Catholics being received into the Orthodox Church through rebaptism (OEC, 369). Therefore, when Eastern Orthodox Christians envision the reunion of Christendom, they intend for it to come about through the conversion of everyone else to Orthodoxy (OEC, 368). It is for this reason, argues Fortescue, that they have rejected Anglican overtures toward establishing communion, for “even Greek inconsistency cannot al4 Fortescue never actually employs the word “communion” to describe the relationship between Churches. Nor does he refer to the concepts of koinonia or sobornost’. Instead, he explains this relationship by saying that a “priest of any one of these Churches can celebrate the Holy Liturgy, and the faithful can receive Holy Communion at the altars of any other one” (OEC, 338). 5 “One might be tempted to conceive the Orthodox as subjects of the œcumenical patriarch, just as Roman Catholics are the subjects of the pope. This would be a mistake … the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox, although they still insist on communion with him, indignantly deny that he has any rights over them. Though they still give him a place of honour as the first bishop of their Church, the other orthodox patriarchs and still more the synods of national churches show a steadily growing jealousy of his assumption and a defiant insistence on their equality with him” (Adrian Fortescue, “Introduction I,” 22). 6 Adrian Fortescue, “Orthodox Church,” CE, 11:329. 7 Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE, 5:233. 8 Ibid., 240.

80

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

low a religious body that holds that position to make an alliance on equal terms of inter-communion with another body” (OEC, 261). While this would appear to set the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church in opposition to one another, Fortescue maintains that it is actually a point of great convergence. The Eastern Orthodox position is identical to the Catholic one, he observes, for they hold that there can only be one true Church, but they identify it as being the Orthodox Church, while Catholics identify it as being the Catholic Church (OEC, 368). He believes that if the Orthodox were to carefully consider this, they would not harbor such anger toward Catholic missionaries in the East, for they would recognize that these missionaries are only acting consistently with their beliefs, just as they are when they attempt to convert Westerners (OEC, 369). Fortescue contrasts this belief with the branch theory, which he describes as “the theory of a Church divided into mutually excommunicated bodies yet still mocked with the title of one” (OEC, 100).9 According to this theory, as Fortescue explains it, Christ’s Church has no visible unity but is instead portioned into numerous denominations that are somehow invisibly connected. He asserts that this theory is common among all Protestant bodies, although each one generally holds that it is the purest branch. Fortescue considers the Anglican version unique, however, for it divides the Church into only three branches: the Eastern branch (Eastern Orthodoxy), the continental Western branch (Roman Catholicism), and the British branch (Anglicanism). According to this version, of all of the Protestant bodies only Anglicanism is recognized as a branch of the Church (OEC, 366 n. 1). It is this Anglican version of the branch theory that Fortescue primarily critiques, and he judges it to be inconsistent. He wonders what criteria are used to determine whether a religious body qualifies as a branch: Are valid orders the test? Then the Nestorian and Monophysite bodies are branches? The Archbishop of Canterbury’s mission to the Nestorians and the civility of Anglicans to the Armenians would seem as if they thought so. … But probably most Anglicans would say that Nestorians and Monophysites are not Catholics because they are heretics condemned by general councils. (ibid.)

Fortescue regards the designation of no more than three branches as arbitrary. He relates the story of an English gentleman who traveled to RusElsewhere, he defines the branch theory as “the theory that the Catholic Church consists of a juxtaposition of several communions, in schism with one another” (Adrian Fortescue, Donatism, 20 n. 7). 9

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

81

sia and there attempted to explain the Anglican branch theory to the Orthodox hierarchy. Everyone kept asking him the same question: “Why three, and why those three?” (ibid.). This demonstrates what Fortescue believes to be the fundamental problem with all branch theories, which is that no one can definitively say what should or should not be a branch with any certainty (LEC, 13 n. 2). Furthermore, the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches is, in Fortescue’s judgment, a major blow to the Anglican branch theory. For, as he sees it, an awareness of them makes it impossible to neatly equate the Church that follows the Pope with the Latin, continental Western Church. Moreover, they refute the notion that the papacy is only recognized by the continental Western, i.e. Roman Catholic, branch (UEC, 27). According to Fortescue, the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, unequivocally rejects the branch theory in all of its forms. When Orthodox Christians speak of “branches of the Church,” they are referring only to the different national bodies that comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church. He writes that “the idea of a Church made up of mutually excommunicate bodies that teach different articles of faith and yet altogether form one Church is as inconceivable to them as it is to us” (OEC, 366). Rather, they believe that the Church established by Christ must possess a visible unity and really be one Church. For they hold that the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ is a real, identifiable entity and that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church (OEC, 365). In his estimation, the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself the one true Church is a sign of how close it really is to Catholicism. For “although these Eastern people are not remarkable for the consistency of their ideas,” comments Fortescue, “they have never let the confusion become so great as to believe that a body publicly and officially committed to heresy can be a branch of the true Church” (OEC, 368). Thus, Fortescue implies that there is a consistency present in the Eastern Orthodox view of the Church that is lacking in those Protestant churches that subscribe to branch theories.10

10 In 1853 a dissimilar opinion was offered by William Palmer, who argued that the Orthodox rejection of the branch theory was unfortunate. In his list of things that he wished for the Orthodox Church to change about itself, he wrote that “it should be made clear that the Eastern Church pretends no more for herself than to be a part of the whole,” rather than being the whole of the true Church (Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the Orthodox or Eastern-Catholic Communion, 308).

82

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

However, Fortescue considers the situation in the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox Churches to be less consistent. The “lesser” Eastern Churches, as he understands them, do maintain that they alone have maintained the true faith, and that all outside of their Churches are heretics.11 Assyrian Christians, for example, “certainly believe that they alone hold the true faith as to our Lord’s nature and person,” and that everyone else has “fallen away on this point” (LEC, 139). Likewise the Oriental Orthodox, he observes, believe that only they have preserved the true faith (LEC, 262). But, speculates Fortescue, when pressed on the question many of the members of these bodies would be hesitant to regard only their Church as being the true Church: Are they logical, claiming each to be the whole true Church, in the teeth of the absurdity of such a claim; or do they admit separated sects, teaching different faiths, as making up one Church together? Has, in fact, the Branch theory adherents in the Highlands of Kurdistan, the Egyptian desert and the wilds of Abyssinia? I am not sure; it is a difficult point; but I believe it has. In the first place, these rude folk have probably not thought much about the question at all; they have too little theology to have evolved a clear theory about the unity of the Church. It may no doubt be said safely that their sects have no dogmatic position as to this question, except that, of course, in any case they themselves are all right. Whoever else may be, they are members of the true and Apostolic Church. Otherwise, it is a matter about which each member will form his own opinion, and form it differently. (LEC, 13)

Providing an example, Fortescue writes that among the theologians of the Armenian Apostolic Church it has become commonplace to regard all Christian bodies as branches of the Church (LEC, 427). Nonetheless, this is not the official position of that Church, which has remained silent on this issue. Yet, he points out, this Church continues to officially condemn as heretics anyone who says that Christ has two natures (ibid. n. 4). Fortescue wonders how it is possible for a Church to condemn her opponents as heretics yet paradoxically be open to the possibility that these same heretics comprise branches of the true Church. He concludes that it is “all a hopeless tangle and a confusion beneath contempt,” and that “they have never considered the matter seriously” (LEC, 14). As for why neither the Assyrian Church nor the Oriental Orthodox Church firmly holds that it alone is the true Church, Fortescue offers a possible answer. He attributes this to an increased awareness of the outside 11

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 240.

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

83

world, along with a broader perspective. Offering an illustration, he explains that “the Nestorian who looks at a map of the world can hardly go on believing that his sect is the only and whole Church of Christ.”12 For his part, Fortescue remains steadfast in the conviction that Christ’s Church must be a visible entity, and that it must possess a tangible unity. He believes that this Church has to hold the same faith everywhere and has to have communion among all of her members in all places (LEC, 13). For him, the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church considers herself to be the one true Church is a sign of how close it is to Catholicism. In contrast, he considers the murkier position held by the smaller, “lesser” Eastern Churches to be an indication of confusion and illogic.

PATRIARCHS AND PATRIARCHATES Fortescue briefly details the important powers and responsibilities held by a patriarch. He explains that an Eastern Christian patriarch is traditionally elected by the synod of his Church.13 As the head of his Church, a patriarch possesses authority over the metropolitans and suffragan bishops.14 This is concretely manifested in his right to ordain all bishops within his territory, which is a very ancient sign of the patriarch’s jurisdiction over his subordinates. In fulfilling the duties of his office, a patriarch “makes laws, and has certain rights of confirming or deposing his bishops, generally in conjunction with his synod, and may summon patriarchal (temporary) synods.”15 Yet Fortescue highlights an important difference between patriarchs in the separated Eastern Churches and the Eastern Catholic patriarchs. For the former, he states, the accepted tenet is that no earthly authority is greater than a patriarch, with the exception of a general council. For the latter, there is always a higher authority that must be obeyed: the Roman pontiff.16 Fortescue also mentions several important restrictions that apply only to Eastern Catholic patriarchs. For instance, although Eastern Catholic patriarchs are typically elected by their Church’s synod, as is traditional throughout the East, their elections must be confirmed by the pope. Likewise, they may not resign without first receiving permission from the ponFortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 240. Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 553. 14 Ibid., 552. 15 Ibid., 553. 16 Ibid. 12 13

84

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

tiff. Also, Fortescue states that in the Catholic Church the cardinals, who are the princes of the Church, enjoy precedence over the patriarchs.17 This appears to conflict with another statement made by Fortescue, in which he says that patriarchs are “the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope.”18 When dealing with the topic of patriarchs, Fortescue takes a characteristically historical approach. He begins by tracing the evolution of the office in the ancient Church and recounts that certain bishops possessed authority over the other hierarchs in their geographic areas. Originally, there was not a technical name for these especially eminent bishops, but gradually they officially became known as “patriarchs,” which denotes a “father” or “chief.”19 He states that in the beginning there were only three patriarchal sees, all of which were associated with the memory of St. Peter.20 The first of these was the city of Rome, which was where the apostle was martyred (OEC, 8). The second was Alexandria, where tradition taught that St. Mark reigned as bishop after his ordination by St. Peter (OEC, 11). And the third was Antioch, where it was long believed that St. Peter was the first bishop (OEC, 15). Fortescue notes that the preeminent places of the bishops of these cities, in this order, were officially recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325.21 He also mentions that their special status was due in part to the fact that these were the most important cities in the Roman Empire, prior to the construction of Constantinople (OEC, 9). Although it was counted as one of the original three patriarchal sees, Fortescue emphasizes that Rome held a special status apart from the other two. Rome, he asserts, was always unquestionably regarded as the most important see in Christendom (OEC, 10–11). Not only was the bishop of Rome Patriarch of the West, writes Fortescue, but he was also the visible head of the universal Church.22 As explained by Fortescue, these are two distinct offices, and it is necessary for us to distinguish between them (OEC, 9). However, he recognizes that this distinction is not always a clear one, as “one cannot always say exactly in which capacity the Pope acts—in

Ibid. Ibid., 549. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 550. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 549. 17 18

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

85

earlier ages especially Popes were probably often not explicitly conscious themselves” (OEC, 10). In time the number of patriarchs rose to five, thus constituting what became known as the “Pentarchy.” The two additional sees were Jerusalem and Constantinople. Jerusalem was honored as a patriarchal see, says Fortescue, because of its intimate connection with the life and ministry of Jesus (OEC, 25–26). For its patriarchate it was assigned the territories of Palestine and Arabia, which had originally belonged to Antioch. This was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.23 However, Fortescue believes that the patriarchal title was bestowed upon Constantinople for improper reasons. In his judgment it was never an apostolic see. Although there is a legend of St. Andrew establishing the Christian community in Byzantium, Fortescue dismisses this story as a “forgery” (OEC, 29). He holds that the empire actively pushed for the recognition of Constantinople as a patriarchal see in order to solidify the control of the government over the Church (OEC, 30). This recognition was granted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which gave Constantinople Asia Minor and Thrace as its patriarchal territory.24 Fortescue regards this advancement as entirely unwarranted: The story, then, of the rise of the See of Constantinople is not a creditable one. It had no splendid tradition from the earliest ages; it had none of the lustre of Apostolic origin; its dignity could not be compared with that of the old patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch; it had nothing of the sacred associations of Jerusalem. A new see, in itself of no importance, its claims were pushed solely because of a coincidence that had nothing to do with the Church. It was only because of the presence of the Emperor and through his tyrannical policy that the Church of his city managed to usurp the first place among the Eastern Churches, and at last to lead them all in a campaign against the See of St. Peter. (OEC, 31)25

Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 550. Ibid. 25 A very different interpretation was offered by one of Fortescue’s Anglican contemporaries, Henry Fanshawe Tozer, who argued that Constantinople’s lack of an apostolic origin prevented it from becoming obsessed with its own power and thus kept it from falling into the same degradation that Rome had experienced: “Constantinople, as a Christian city, had no history behind it; and its bishops, being the head of a new patriarchate, could not put forth pretensions based on primitive inherent right … but at the same time, she was saved by her position from advancing claims incompatible with the independence of Christendom, and from incurring 23 24

86

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Thus, Fortescue believes that the development of five patriarchs, the Pentarchy, was motivated (at least in part) by political considerations. Yet he also acknowledges that the ideal of five patriarchates came to take on a special significance in Eastern Christianity, as it was seen to correspond with the five bodily senses (OEC, 46). This ideal did not stand for long, Fortescue explains, because of the schisms that resulted from the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies. New Churches arose out of these disputes, and each one set up its own patriarch. “To be under a patriarch had come to be the normal, apparently necessary, condition for any Church,” he writes, so “it was natural that these heretics when they broke from the Catholic patriarchs should sooner or later set up rivals of their own.”26 In later centuries, he recounts, the number of patriarchs would be further multiplied by the creation of a new Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, but only temporarily.27 The establishment of the Eastern Catholic Churches would also lead to the erection of new patriarchates.28 Fortescue states that patriarchal territories, which are called “patriarchates,” were originally defined by geography. A patriarchate was a region delineated by strict geographic boundaries, over which the patriarch reigned. Within each territory a certain degree of uniformity would inevitably arise, as each bishop and priest would try to duplicate the liturgical rites of the patriarchal see. Therefore, Fortescue maintains, throughout this era the prevailing principle was that “rite follows Patriarchate.” Hence, beginning in the fifth or sixth century, it was the norm for the same rite to be practiced throughout the geographic territory that comprised the patriarchate (UEC, 12). There were, of course, exceptions to this general rule. Fortescue cites the numerous instances of foreign colonies being established within patriarchates. In these special situations, the colonists were traditionally allowed to maintain their own rite and even have their own clergy. Nonetheless, says Fortescue, because they were located within his geographic jurisdiction, these colonists were subject to the reigning patriarch of that region (UEC, 13). For this reason, to offer an example, the Latin colonists who lived in the scandals which have disgraced the Church of Rome.” (The Church and the Eastern Empire, 61–62. 26 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 550. 27 The Patriarchate of Moscow, which was established in 1589, was abolished by Peter the Great in 1721. 28 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 551.

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

87

Constantinople were allowed to celebrate according to the Roman Rite, although they were still under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Likewise, the Greek colonists in Southern Italy were permitted to maintain the Byzantine Rite, but were nonetheless under the jurisdiction of the Rome Patriarch. This situation changed, Fortescue contends, because of “the arrogant intolerance of the Patriarchs of Constantinople” (UEC, 14). According to him, the Patriarch of Constantinople began to claim Southern Italy for his patriarchate based on the fact that the Byzantine Rite was predominantly used in that region. This inaugurated a new situation, in which rite no longer follows patriarchate, but patriarchate follows rite. No longer would patriarchates be defined by geographic boundaries (UEC, 15). Instead, “we have the beginning of a new principle. It is no longer that normally rite follows Patriarchate, with exceptions for foreigners, but that in every case Patriarchate is to follow rite. Whoever uses a certain rite is to obey the Patriarch of the city where that rite has its original home” (UEC, 14). Therefore, explains Fortescue, today multiple patriarchs coexist in the same geographic regions. They do not reign over a specific, defined province. Rather, each patriarch reigns over every person who follows his rite, no matter where they may live. This is the current meaning of “patriarchate,” even within the Catholic Church (UEC, 18). Illustrating this, he mentions that there are three different Catholic patriarchs of the very same city; there are a Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, a Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, and a Maronite Patriarch of Antioch.29 Their patriarchates are not defined by geography, for they all reign in the very same region. Instead, the patriarchate of each one comprises those individuals who follow his rite. This state of affairs was further exacerbated in the Levant, believes Fortescue, by the policies of the Turkish government.30 Ruling over many conquered peoples of various ethnic and religious backgrounds, the Turks would organize them into nations based on the criterion of religion. The religious leader of each nation would also be empowered with civil authority (OEC, 244). The end result of this policy was that patriarchate became synonymous with nation, and that the patriarch himself came to be looked upon as the father of his nation: So the old geographic idea of Patriarchate has broken down completely. Now a man belongs to a certain “nation,” in the Turkish sense [i.e., mil29 30

Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 551. Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237.

88

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS let]. He belongs to this by birth and heredity, except in the rare cases of conversion from one “nation” to another. He keeps his membership of his “nation” wherever he may live. The sign of his “nation,” at least among Christians, is the rite it uses. The rite has become much more important as a mark of membership than any point of faith. And he is subject ecclesiastically to the Head of his nation, even when that Head lives in a remote land. (UEC, 15)

Fortescue also addresses the existence of the various “Latin patriarchs,” such as the Latin patriarchs of Jerusalem and Venice. Most of these, he says, were created by the Crusaders in order to rival the “schismatical” Eastern patriarchs.31 The notable exception is the Patriarch of Venice, who absorbed the title from the city of Aquileia. The bishop of that city had called himself a patriarch since the fifth century, but not in the technical definition of the term. Rather, Fortescue states that this was an example of the title being employed in its earlier, vague meaning to denote any venerable bishop.32 No matter what their origins are, Fortescue does not believe that any of these Latin hierarchs can be counted as true patriarchs.33 For he holds that “in every case the essence of a patriarch’s dignity is that he has no other patriarch over him as patriarch.”34 A genuine patriarch is never under the jurisdiction of another patriarch. Even the Eastern Catholic patriarchs, he asserts, who do recognize the pope’s authority as the visible head of the Church, are independent of his patriarchal jurisdiction.35 But the Latin patriarchs, in contrast, fall within the jurisdiction of the Roman patriarchate. They do not possess their own patriarchates. For this reason Fortescue concludes that these Latin patriarchs simply enjoy “merely complimentary titles” that do not convey any jurisdiction and therefore are not authentic patriarchs. There is only one patriarch in the West, says Fortescue, and he is the bishop of Rome.36 Fortescue holds the patriarchal office in lower esteem than he does the papacy. While he regards the papal office as a divinely established and necessary institution, he believes that the patriarchal system of governance is only a product of historical evolution. In this point, Fortescue’s attitude Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 550. Ibid., 552. 33 Ibid., 551. 34 Ibid., 552. 35 Ibid., 551–52. 36 Ibid., 552. 31 32

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

89

toward patriarchs is consistent with the tenor of Catholic teaching during his lifetime, which tended to emphasize the superlative power of the pope and to restrain the traditional independence of patriarchs. In the 1873 encyclical Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX made several pertinent statements regarding the superiority of the papacy to the patriarchal office. For example, he taught that the special authority exercised by patriarchs is dependent on the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff.37 Therefore, the pope stated that it is necessary for a patriarch to be approved by Rome before his enthronement, so as to forestall the upheaval that would occur if he were first installed in his office and then deemed unacceptable by Rome.38 It is for this reason that Pius IX forbade a patriarch from being enthroned until after he had received papal confirmation.39 However, the pope did indicate that he was aware that throughout history patriarchs were routinely enthroned and exercised their power without first being confirmed. He responded that this was tolerated on account of the hardship of travel and communication in previous centuries, and that such excuses are no longer valid.40 Interestingly, Fortescue thinks that the patriarchal form of ecclesiastical government, as it developed throughout the East, actually facilitated the emergence of schism. For Western Christians, he says, the pope was always the immediate chief and head. This fostered a close relationship between the pope and the Western bishops.41 But this closeness did not hold sway in the East, where the bishops were first and foremost loyal to their own patriarchs (OEC, 97). There the pope came to be viewed as a distant stranger (OEC, 87). Thus, whenever a dispute arose, the Eastern bishops would naturally follow their own chiefs.42 Fortescue believes that this factor of loyalty to one’s own patriarch made possible the schisms that arose: The loyalty of the Eastern Christians on the other hand went first to his own patriarch, so there was here always a danger of divided allegiance— if the patriarch had a quarrel with the pope—such as would have been inconceivable in the West. Indeed, the falling away of so many hundreds of Eastern bishops, of so many millions of simple Christians, is explained sufficiently by the schism of the patriarchs. If the four Eastern Pius IX, “Quartus Supra,” ¶13. Ibid., ¶34. 39 Ibid., ¶24. 40 Ibid., ¶34. 41 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 549. 42 Adrian Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” CE, 13:536. 37 38

90

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS patriarchs agreed upon any course it was practically a foregone conclusion that their metropolitans and bishops would follow them and that the priests and people would follow the bishops. So the very organization of the Church in some sort already prepared the ground for a contrast (which might become a rivalry) between the first patriarch in the West with his vast following of Latins on the one side and the Eastern patriarchs with their subjects on the other.43

Therefore, for Fortescue, inasmuch as the office of patriarch has the potential to detract from one’s total allegiance to the pope, it is potentially dangerous. Nonetheless, he still recognizes it as an ancient and venerable institution with great significance for the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox.

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS With regard to ecumenical councils, Fortescue emphasizes their prime importance in Eastern Orthodoxy, although he largely ignores their significance in the lesser Eastern Churches. He asserts that among the Eastern Orthodox an ecumenical council is the highest earthly authority, and that, theoretically at least, it is the only authority greater than a patriarch.44 For this reason, he says, the Orthodox still look directly to the councils as the source of their doctrine and claim that they alone have preserved their teachings without corruption (OEC, 362–63). However, Fortescue never clearly explains the criteria used by the Orthodox to determine whether or not a council is truly ecumenical. He does provide a vague indication in The Orthodox Eastern Church, where he writes that the “theory that would find most favour with other Christians would doubtless be that it is the general acceptance of the Church that makes a council œcumenical” (OEC, 74). Yet he does not definitively say that this is the Orthodox position. Fortescue does point out what he believes to be a major inconsistency. He observes that in most instances the Orthodox speak of only seven ecumenical councils (OEC, 72). The number seven, he notes, is highly symbolic to the Orthodox, who “have not only seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ago by the seven-branched candlestick”

43 44

Ibid., 535. Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 553.

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

91

(OEC, 362–63 n. 2). The acknowledgment of any further council as being ecumenical would, he remarks, spoil this symbolism (OEC, 370).45 In spite of this, he states that the Orthodox sometimes list an eighth ecumenical council. This is not the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which Catholics count as the eighth, but the synod held by Photius in 879 (OEC, 81). According to Fortescue, this synod was primarily an antiWestern affair that was intended “to declare open war” against the Latin Churc, and was therefore never accepted by Rome (OEC, 163). The fact that the Orthodox primarily list seven ecumenical councils, but at other times count eight, is for Fortescue another glaring example of Orthodox inconsistency (OEC, 362 n. 2). Fortescue is highly critical of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of ecumenical councils. In particular, he openly wonders why they have not held an ecumenical council since the schism. He regards the ability to hold such a council as one of the most significant powers of the true Church (OEC, 370). If the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true and whole Church, which it claims to be, then Fortescue argues that it should be capable of holding a council every bit as authoritative as Nicea (OEC, 368).46 Yet he observes that they have not done so. Fortescue does recognize that historical circumstances may have made it difficult for them to organize such a gathering. Nonetheless, he writes, “Unless they are quite unusually inconsistent in this matter, they must hold that they could summon a general council now that would be as truly œcumenical as the first seven” (OEC, 369– 70). Fortescue contrasts the Orthodox understanding to the Catholic position that it is the participation or confirmation of the pope that makes a council ecumenical. The pope himself need not be physically present, but he must at some point confirm its decrees (OEC, 73). This, he believes, is the only reliable criterion for determining the true status of a council (OEC, 74). Making the determination based on the size of attendance is erroneous, he says, for one recognized council had as few as 150 participants. Likewise, he contends, the qualifying factor cannot be the representation of bishops from across the world, for there were no Western bishops present at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Also, he considers it especially misFortescue does not cite any authority when making this assertion. Like Fortescue, William Palmer also found the Orthodox to be inconsistent on this point. In its reluctance to hold another ecumenical council, he discerned an implicit admission that the Orthodox Church is not the entirety of Christ’s Church (Dissertations, 20). 45 46

92

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

guided to claim that it is the summons of an emperor that constitutes an Ecumenical Council, for “the Emperor has no commission from Christ to rule the Church,” and some emperors have been responsible for heretical councils. Therefore, Fortescue argues that the common denominator among all genuine Ecumenical Councils is the assent of the pope (OEC, 73–74). “Since,” writes Fortescue, “the Pope is the visible Head of the Church on earth, he alone has the right (1) of summoning a general council, (2) of presiding at it when summoned, (3) of confirming or rejecting its decrees” (OEC, 73). Because of this authority that the Pope possesses over a council, Fortescue objects to the Orthodox position that an ecumenical council is above the pope. Instead, it is his firm conviction that the pope is the highest earthly authority. Here Fortescue is echoing the teaching of the First Vatican Council, which stated the following: The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.47

Fortescue believes that Orthodox Christians are seriously misguided when they assert the superiority of a council over the pope. For it is his belief that an ecumenical council derives its legitimacy precisely because of the involvement or later consent of the Roman pontiff. “It is difficult to see what other theory will fit the facts,” he writes (OEC, 73). Therefore, Fortescue considers the Orthodox position on ecumenical councils to be intimately connected with what he regards as their erroneous position on papal primacy.

THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF PAPAL PRIMACY Among the separated Eastern Churches, Fortescue claims that the papacy is looked on as a common enemy. Although the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Church are in disagreement over many issues, he holds that they all possess a shared disdain for the Roman pontiff. “When the Orthodox fulminate a mighty protest against the horns of Roman pride,” he writes, “when they protest that 47

2:813.

Pastor Aeternus, 3.8, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner,

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

93

the ‘mad Pope makes himself equal to God,’ then they sound a note soothing and grateful to the unorthodox also. So there is a common Eastern attitude in many ways” (LEC, 12). In examining this rejection of the papacy, however, Fortescue concentrates his attention almost exclusively on the Eastern Orthodox position, which is in many ways representative of the overall attitude among those Eastern Christians who are not in communion with Rome. As he presents their stance on this issue, the primary point is that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the universal jurisdiction of the pope (OEC, 370).48 Instead, they persistently emphasize their belief that Christ, not the pope, is the head of the Church and cite biblical verses in order to make this argument (OEC, 371). In the governance of the Church, says Fortescue, the Orthodox still cling to the old ideal of the Pentarchy.49 Yet they believe that one of its prime members, the Patriarch of Rome, has fallen into grave heresy and must repent in order for the Pentarchy to be restored. He says that if the pope were to renounce what the Orthodox regard to be his errors, the pope would again be recognized as the first among bishops (OEC, 371).50 For traditionally the Eastern Churches acknowledged “the Pope as the first Patriarch and chief bishop in Christendom, and also as Patriarch having lawful jurisdiction over all the West” (LEC, 254). Fortescue maintains that in this scenario the primacy enjoyed by the pope would be merely a primacy of honor (OEC, 372). This means that he would have no real jurisdiction over the other patriarchs.51 While the pope would be able to exercise his power throughout the West, he would have 48 At the time when Fortescue was writing, some Anglican authors were using the Eastern Orthodox position on this question to demonstrate the correctness of their own stance. A prime example was F. G. Cole, who in 1908 wrote, “Our protest against the unscriptural and unhistorical claims of the modern Papacy finds an additional and forcible argument, the strength of which has hardly been weighed sufficiently, in the existence of a Church, which, with unbroken continuity, has always maintained towards Rome the attitude which in the name of truth and liberty we were compelled to assume more than three hundred years ago. We should be in a very much weaker position in our controversy both with Rome and with Puritanism were it not for the witness afforded by the history of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church” (Mother of All Churches, 234). 49 See H. Marot, “Notes sur la Pentarchie”; Ferdinand R. Gahbauer, Die Pentarchietheorie: Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 50 Ibid. 51 Adrian Fortescue, “The Eastern Schism,” 158.

94

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

absolutely no authority in the Christian East (OEC, 371). Until then, says Fortescue, as long as the pope continues to persist in his claims, the Orthodox view him as nothing more than “the head of a heretical Church, no more to be taken into account than the Armenian, Coptic, or Jacobite Patriarchs” (OEC, 372). Since the Orthodox believe their communion alone to be the one true Church, Fortescue cannot help questioning why they have not simply restored the Pentarchy by appointing an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Here again he identifies another example of what he regards as Orthodox inconsistency. If the Orthodox took their own claims seriously, he argues, they should have long ago established a rival patriarch of the Orthodox faith in Rome, just as they have done in Alexandria, Syria, and Jerusalem. Yet they have not done so, and in reality “they practically acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Western Church and legitimate first Patriarch, and they really only complain of his universal claim.” Thus, in this matter as in others, Fortescue believes that “it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology” (ibid., n. 1). Fortescue also takes exception to the Orthodox argument that while Catholics recognize the Pope as the head of the Church, Orthodox Christians recognize Christ. He deems this to be a libelous charge (OEC, 371). Catholics, he says, also acknowledge Christ to be the true head of the Church. The pope is only its earthly head, a visible vicar whose authority is delegated to him by Christ.52 He contends that the Orthodox also recognize visible vicars in the persons of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops. “If our Lord,” he says, “in spite of the fact that (as we all believe) he, and he only, is the Head of the Church, has vicars who rule in his name over local Churches and great patriarchates, there is no difficulty (from this consideration) in admitting that his vicars may have a head vicar set over them, as they are set over the faithful and subordinate vicars” (OEC, 370). Moreover, Fortescue judges the Orthodox idealization of the Pentarchy to be misguided. For the Pentarchy, he states, represents only the development of a specific era in the history of the Church and does not reflect the Church’s original state. He believes that the original, primitive state of the Church is for the pope to be recognized “as supreme Pontiff everywhere,” and that this is the ideal (OEC, 371). In order to demonstrate this claim, Fortescue provides quotes from numerous Church fathers, both Eastern and Western, and uses them to argue that prior to the schism, the 52

Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy, 28.

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

95

pope possessed “real jurisdiction” over the patriarchs and bishops of the worldwide Church.53 He also maintains that the ancient Church, at least as far back as the sixth century, believed in something akin to papal infallibility, as it was defined by the First Vatican Council.54 Therefore, “in rejecting the Roman Primacy,” he believes, the Orthodox “have forsaken the faith of their fathers” (OEC, 371). Fortescue’s approach to papal primacy is heavily colored by Vatican I, which stressed that the pope “possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.”55 Nonetheless, Fortescue admits that the governance of the Church was not always as centralized as it has come to be: There has been a constant process of centralising. This was caused in various ways. Increased facilities of communication with Headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of a letter; now it costs but a few pennies. Then there is the natural tendency of any society towards centralisation. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to Headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority, and no possibility of further dispute.56

Although he zealously defends the papacy, in his private correspondence Fortescue expresses some misgivings about Rome’s centralizing tendencies. In a personal letter to Herbert Thurston,57 Fortescue provides a rare glimpse into his concerns regarding papal power, especially as it was exercised by Pope Pius X during the crusade against Modernism: You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives—unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am Fortescue, Early Papacy, 63. Adrian Fortescue, The Formula of Hormisdas, 21–22. 55 “Pastor Aeternus” 3.2, in Tanner, Decrees, 2:813–14. 56 Fortescue, Early Papacy, 30. 57 Herbert Thurston (1856–1938) was a Jesuit liturgist best known for demythologizing the lives of the saints. For this reason, his revised edition of Butler’s Lives of the Saints was somewhat controversial in its time. His main liturgical work is Lent and Holy Week—Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual, which traces the evolution of the season’s liturgical services. It was upon Thurston’s recommendation that Fortescue was contracted to compose articles for The Catholic Encyclopedia. See J. D. Crichton, Lights in Darkness: Forerunners of the Liturgical Movement, 116–22. 53 54

96

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS always preaching that sort of thing. And yet is it not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum? Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic? … We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.58

In spite of his private concerns, Fortescue remained a stalwart defender of the papal prerogatives throughout his life. It is his contention that the papacy is the primary element lacking in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that it alone can enable the Eastern Churches to triumph over the challenges they face (OEC, 337).

THE DANGER OF NATIONALISM As was seen in chapter 1, Fortescue was convinced that a strong sense of ethnic identity and nationalism on the part of the Eastern Churches was a contributing factor to the schisms. He also refers to this phenomenon as “Phyletism,” which he defines as “the love of one’s race in ecclesiastical matters” (OEC, 277). In his judgment, this nationalism is a perennial aspect of Eastern Christianity and can possibly lead to the subjugation of the Church to the power of the state. In addition, he says, it continues to have a tremendous impact on the structure of the Eastern Christian Churches. In particular, he believes that nationalism threatens the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church.59 Fortescue to Herbert Thurston, November 5, 1910, quoted in John R. McCarthy, Adrian, [195–96]. 59 Unlike Fortescue, Cole held that nationalism did not pose a danger to the Eastern Orthodox Church’s unity. He wrote that “the Eastern Church possesses a federation of National Churches, held together by their loyalty to the ancient Patriarchates, as represented by the chief See of Constantinople. Strained relations may arise … but they are in no danger of separation, for they all bear the same filial feeling to Constantinople as our Colonial Churches bear to the See of Canterbury. 58

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

97

Fortescue holds that nationalism thrives throughout the Christian East. One of the prime reasons for this, he believes, is the political situation in the Levant, where the concept of “nation” has little to do with geographic boundaries. Among the various ethnic groups who live amongst one another in that part of the world, he says, nations are defined by language, culture, and most of all by religion. He maintains that this development was greatly facilitated by the policies of the Turks, who distinguished between the various ethnic communities whom they conquered on the basis of religion. Fortescue claims that this situation has become so ingrained in that region that when Levantines speak in either French or Italian, they tend to use the word for “nation” to denote “religion.”60 However, Fortescue does not clearly explain how this situation in the Levant has contributed to the widespread nationalism that he identifies throughout the Eastern Churches in Europe and other parts of the world. Fortescue maintains that in Eastern Christianity there is no separation of politics from religion.61 He believes that it is inconceivable for the Eastern Christian to be a loyal subject of his nation and to practice a different religion. “Our Western idea of separating politics from religion,” he writes, “of being on the one hand loyal citizens of our country and on the other, as a quite distinct thing, members of some Church, is unknown in the East.”62 Consequently, Fortescue states that national identity has actually become more important to them than theology.63 He holds that, in the long run, the typical Eastern Christian defends his Church and clings to it out of his

In fact, there is a close analogy between the way in which the Anglican Communion is held together by Canterbury as its centre of unity, and the federation of the Eastern Church with its mother city of Constantinople” (Mother of All Churches, 22). A similar opinion was expressed by Headlam: “One of the characteristics of the Eastern Church has been that it has apparently solved the problem of combining in Christian unity national churches, and of identifying the National Church with the life of the nation without leading to its separation from other bodies” (Russian Church, 27). 60 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237. 61 Fortescue does recognize, though, that the notion of separating politics from religion is a recent one within Catholicism. He comments, for example, on the “old ideal of the Catholic State” and says that American Catholics can only conceive of the far newer concept “of the free Church in a free State” (“Americanism,” 270). 62 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237. 63 Ibid., 238.

98

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

sense of national loyalty and that ultimately “theology, dogma, or any kind of religious conviction counts for little or nothing.”64 Fortescue argues that the intense conservatism that he identifies as a chief characteristic of Eastern Christianity is actually rooted in and fueled by nationalism. He claims that Eastern Christians are so reluctant to change even the smallest aspect of any of their rites because these rites, as well as other attributes, are what define their nations. This, he says, is why the various national Churches are so adamant about preserving their respective liturgical languages as well. The language is a key part of each Church’s national identity, he says, and to change the language would be to alter this identity.65 National identity is also an important factor in the lives of the Eastern Catholic Churches, according to Fortescue.66 He considers the existence of multiple Eastern Catholic patriarchs of the same see, such as the different Maronite, Melkite, and Syrian Catholic patriarchs of Antioch, to be “a concession to the national feeling of Eastern Christians.”67 Yet he also believes that the destructive consequences of nationalism are held in check in the Eastern Catholic Churches by their communion with Rome (OEC, 336–37). Among the separated Eastern Churches, however, he states, a fairly recent ecclesiological principle has come to dominate. This is the idea that the Church should follow the political modifications of the state.68 This means that the Church of a newly independent state must itself become an autocephalous Church, fully independent from all external authority. Fortescue says that this principle, “that each politically independent State should have an ecclesiastically independent Church,” has had dramatic consequences within Eastern Orthodoxy (OEC, 337). In particular, he claims, it has resulted in a tremendous loss of power by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Since the sixteenth century, says Fortescue, a number of independent national Churches have arisen out of what was once the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The end result is that the Ecumenical Patriarch is now Ibid., 237. Ibid., 238. 66 Ibid., 231. 67 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 551. 68 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. Elsewhere, he indicates that this principle is not so recent in origin. He describes “the fatal tendency of eastern bishops to alter ecclesiastical administration according to the changes of secular politics. The rise of Constantinople and nearly all the troubles of eastern Christendom to this day come from this misguided principle” (The Greek Fathers, 69 n. 1). 64 65

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

99

“only a shadow of what he once was,” with only a fraction of his previously vast territory remaining.69 Remarking on this, Fortescue observes that “the principle of the independent Church in the independent State finds no favour in the Phanar.70 The Patriarchs worked so hard and groveled so low in the old days for the sake of getting a big Patriarchate, naturally they do not like losing it piece by piece, as they have done throughout the 19th century” (OEC, 277). Fortescue describes the usual process by which a province breaks away from Constantinople and establishes itself as a newly autocephalous Church. First, the new Church declares itself to be a self-governing body, free from the authority of Constantinople. Initially there is a great deal of friction between the new Church and Constantinople over this declaration (OEC, 337). Sometimes the Ecumenical Patriarch even formally excommunicates the national Church.71 But almost inevitably, says Fortescue, the Ecumenical Patriarch realizes that he is powerless to stop the secession, and he eventually recognizes the new Church’s governing synod as a “Sister in Christ” (OEC, 277). As he is decidedly not a fan of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his historical rise to power, Fortescue cannot help perceiving a certain subtle justice at work in all of this. At the core of this movement for independent national Churches, Fortescue finds the old Byzantine idea of making the Church follow the vagaries of civil politics, that we saw to be the root of the claims of Constantinople, and indeed the original root of the great schism. Only the idea is turned against the very see that had grown and flourished on it. … It was on the strength of this very national idea that centuries ago the Patriarch waxed strong and rebelled against his over-lord, the Pope. Now he sees his own children, having learned it from him, also wax strong and rebel against him. And so he finds Philetism to be a deadly heresy. Poor Patriarch! (OEC, 277–78)

Apart from diminishing the power of Constantinople, Fortescue also believes that this newfound independence has negative consequences for the new national Churches. He contends that ultimately these Churches become subordinate to their state governments. Thus, he argues, these Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. The Phanar is the district in Istanbul where the Patriarch of Constantinople resides, the name used much in the same way as “the Vatican.” It is the center of the bureaucracy. 71 Ibid. 69 70

100

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Churches are simply trading the distant rule of the Ecumenical Patriarch for the significantly harsher rule of the government. This subjugation of Church to state, deems Fortescue, is one of the bitter fruits of intense nationalism.72 Fortescue says that this is the case in Eastern Europe more than in other parts of the world.73 The Russian Orthodox Church is, in Fortescue’s opinion, one of the most striking examples of this phenomenon. This Church gained its independence from Constantinople in 1589, and since then it has become in Fortescue’s judgment “shamelessly Erastian.”74 “Never yet,” he writes, “has there been a Christian Church so helplessly under the heel of the State as is the Church of Russia.”75 Throughout most of the period in which Fortescue was writing about Eastern Orthodoxy, the Russian Church was ruled by a Holy Synod and did not have a patriarch.76 This synod was established by Peter the Great in 1721, who modeled it after Lutheran consistories (OEC, 295 n. 2). Fortescue asserts that the function of the Holy Synod was to place absolute control of the Church in the hands of the state.77 According to him, this synod was in reality a governmental department through which the Czar exercised his authority over all ecclesial matters.78 Its members were nominated by the Czar, who reserved for himself the right to ratify any laws it passed.79 Fortescue calls attention to the fact that each member was required to swear an oath in which he acknowledged the Czar as the highest earthly authority in the Russian Church.80 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 155. 74 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. 75 Adrian Fortescue, Russia and the Catholic Church, 5. Fortescue’s perspective stands in stark contrast to that of Cole, who claimed that the “Erastianism which some have attributed to the Russian Church exists but in imagination” (Mother of All Churches, 23). 76 The Patriarchate of Moscow was reestablished in 1917, with Tikhon Bellavin elected as the first Russian Orthodox patriarch in nearly two centuries. Fortescue, though, had largely ceased writing about Eastern Orthodoxy before then. While The Uniate Eastern Churches, which he was working on at the time of his death, does touch upon the Eastern Orthodox Church to a very limited degree, he does not address the reemergence of the Moscow patriarchate. 77 Adrian Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” CE, 7:430. 78 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 231. 79 Fortescue, Russia and the Catholic Church, 6. 80 Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” 430. 72 73

CHURCH STRUCTURE I

101

However, Fortescue recounts that when the Russian Church had become newly autocephalous in 1589, the Metropolitan of Moscow was elevated to the rank of patriarch.81 This erection of a new patriarchal see was initially celebrated by much of the Orthodox world, who saw the appearance of the new Orthodox patriarch as being a return to “the classical order of five patriarchs.” This came to an end in 1721, when Peter the Great officially abolished the office of patriarch and replaced it with the Holy Synod.82 As Fortescue sees it, Peter did this with the intention of subjugating the Church to the state.83 Yet Fortescue reports that during his own lifetime many Russian Orthodox Christians were hoping for a restoration of the patriarchate, anticipating that this would be a first step toward independence from the rule of the state.84 Fortescue contends that nationalism poses a real danger for the separated Eastern Churches, as he maintains that unchecked nationalism almost inevitably leads to the Church becoming subject to the authority of the state. For evidence of this, he points to the fact that none of the national autocephalous Churches established during the nineteenth century were governed by patriarchs, but by Holy Synods modeled to some extent after the synod that ruled the Russian Orthodox Church. However, he also recognizes that most of these synods were not as completely beholden to the state as was the Russian synod.85 Nonetheless, Fortescue considers this to be a disturbing trend, as he believes that the “holy directing Synods simply mean the strong arm of the State.”86 Nor does he foresee this trend abating in the future: Lastly, it may be noticed, the church government by synod is a principle destined to flourish among the Orthodox. The secular governments of Orthodox countries encourage it and approve of it, for obvious reasons. It makes all the complicated questions of church establishment and endowment in the new Balkan States comparatively easy to solve; it has a fine air of democracy, constitutionalism, parliamentary government, that appeals enormously to people just escaped from the Turk and full of such notions. It seems then that the old patriarchal idea will linger on at Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (though even here, in its Ibid., 429. Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 551. 83 Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” 429. 84 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 551. 85 Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” 432. 86 Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 160. 81 82

102

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS original homes, it is getting modified in a constitutional direction), but that all new movement in the Orthodox Church will be more and more towards the principles borrowed by Peter the Great from Lutheranism. … What, one might ask, would their Fathers have said of national Churches governed by committees of bishops chosen by the State and controlled by Government officials?87

He regards the Eastern Catholic Churches as protected from this danger, for with them there is always a higher authority than the state that is recognized (OEC, 336–377). Yet he believes that those Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome, which lack this safeguard, are at risk of succumbing to Erastianism. With regard to the structure of the Church, Fortescue identifies many similarities between the separated Eastern Christian Churches and the Catholic Church. Above all, he underscores their shared belief in a visible, hierarchical Church. Yet he also argues that those Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome are lacking the uppermost tier of the hierarchy and are therefore at a disadvantage. He believes that this deficiency makes it possible for these Churches to fall victim to the ill effects of rampant nationalism, with the fragmentation of the Church being the inescapable consequence. Thus, he is convinced that the pope’s authority is the only remedy for this problem (OEC, 337).

87

Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” 432.

4 THE PROBLEM OF REUNION I Although Fortescue is highly critical of those Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome, he nonetheless believes that reconciliation between them and the Catholic Church would be positive and beneficial for both sides. He says that this would be “an untold blessing both to them and to us” and that the time has finally come for the centuries-old breach to finally be healed (OEC, 429–30). He is cautiously hopeful that shifting geopolitical circumstances, particularly the eventual decline in nationalism that he foresees, will help to make this aspiration a real possibility (LEC, 448 n. 3). This chapter analyzes his insights into how this reconciliation could come about and what it would mean for all of the parties involved. In particular, it considers what changes and compromises Fortescue deemed necessary. We first ponder his views on the possibility of reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then we explore his ideas regarding reconciliation with those bodies that he refers to as the “lesser Eastern Churches,” the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Church. Next, we look at Fortescue’s analysis of failed attempts of reunion, specifically the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. The chapter also focuses on Fortescue’s conviction that communion with Rome is the guarantee of the Church’s unity, and that being in communion with Rome would benefit the Eastern Christian Churches. Last, we contemplate the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches and whether he believes them to be an obstacle or a bridge to reconciliation.

103

104

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

RECONCILIATION WITH THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH In spite of his disagreements with Eastern Orthodoxy, Fortescue has great admiration for those Orthodox Christians who have heroically clung to their faith while faced with persecution (OEC, 244). Many of them, he says, have endured tremendous sufferings and even martyrdom for their commitment to Jesus Christ.1 In his estimation, a reunion of these Christians with the Catholic Church would be tremendously beneficial to Catholics. He believes that their presence would restore a proper balance to the Catholic Church, which is in need of both its Western and Eastern patrimonies in order to function healthily. Most Catholics need “to realize,” he asserts, “that the Latin Church is not, has never been, the whole Body of Christ” (OEC, 430–31). This important fact would be more difficult to forget in a reunited Church. Moreover, Fortescue argues that Western Catholics can learn a great deal from the example of Orthodox Christians. Specifically, the Orthodox have a tremendous love and respect for their liturgical heritage which, he contends, more Catholics would do well to emulate. This manifests itself in a dislike of innovations, which, in Fortescue’s opinion, was sorely needed in the Catholicism of his day: Their conservatism now means only fossilization; joined to our life it would be a sane and useful balance. Their love of liturgy and dislike of innovations has something to teach our people. If we regret the too sudden way in which new devotions spread amongst us, the gradual divorce of the people from the real rites of the Church, the slight regard paid to her seasons, the exaggeration of pious fancies above the old and essential things, the abuses in such matters as indulgences, privileges, and special favours against which the Council of Trent spoke, we should find the remedy of all these things in the solid piety and the unchanging loyalty towards the customs of their fathers among Eastern Christians. (ibid.)

Also, Fortescue says that a reunited Church would comprise such a large and impressive body that it would greatly enhance the worldwide witness of the Church.2 Compared to such a massive universal Church, “the new sects would count as almost nothing” (ibid.).3 Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 155. Ibid, 160. 3 An interesting comparison can be drawn between Fortescue’s statement, and 1 2

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

105

Yet as a realist, Fortescue recognizes that there are still serious obstacles impeding any immediate hopes of reunion. He believes that over the centuries the schism has grown stronger by the sheer force of inertia, until among the Orthodox the very state of separation from the West has become something akin to tradition (OEC, 433). It is very hard, he deems, to overcome assumptions and prejudices that have been handed on from generation to generation as veritable dogmas. To the Orthodox Christian, he observes, Rome’s heretical status and the falsity of her claims have becomes articles of faith. Nor did the Orthodox leaders of his day, he observed, seem to be particularly interested in reconciliation (OEC, 438). Fortescue contends that, as a general rule, Orthodox leaders tended to be rather arrogant and usually looked with disdain upon Catholic advances (OEC, 434). “It is not, it is has never been, Rome that is haughty or unconciliatory,” he writes. “Constantinople since Photius has always assumed a tone of arrogant defiance and insolent complacency that argues complete satisfaction with the horrible state of things produced by her schism” (OEC, 438). For a reunion to be effected, Fortescue holds, the Orthodox would have to acknowledge that the schism has been disastrous and be willing to make several significant changes.4 First and foremost, he says, the Orthodox would have to embrace the Catholic faith in its entirety. Their faith is already practically the same as that of Catholics, in his estimation (OEC, 432). They are “only just not Catholic” and therefore would have to concede no more than a few key points.5 They would have to acknowledge that the Filioque is a legitimate expression of the faith, he says, but would not be required to recite it.6 They would also have to accept the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility (ibid.). In Fortescue’s opinion, the most difficult but necessary change is for them to recognize the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope. Ultimately, he believes. the

the following from the Anglican writer A. H. Hore in 1902: “In the union of the Greek and Anglican Churches lie possibilities of the spread of the Christian faith, which it is impossible to calculate; and if the Greek and Anglican Churches were united, Rome would soon be forced to seek admission into the alliance” (Student’s History of the Greek Church, 474. 4 Adrian Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” CE, 13:539. 5 Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 155. 6 Ibid., 159.

106

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

disagreement over this issue is the most serious one, against which the others pale in comparison.7 While he deems these changes to be necessary, Fortescue is also insistent that the Orthodox should not have to alter much more than their position on these few issues. For instance, while he asserts that they must accept Western theology as legitimate, he does not believe that they should have to adopt Western terminology or philosophy (ibid.). Nor does he think that they would have to change any aspect of their canon law, other than abolishing “such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore.”8 He also maintains that their distinctive disciplines and customs, such as optional clerical celibacy and the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, would be fully respected in a reunited Church (OEC, 433). Fortescue is even willing to concede that the Patriarch of Constantinople could continue to call himself the Ecumenical Patriarch, as he judges that this once controversial title has now become entirely innocuous (OEC, 432 n. 1). As far as liturgical practice is concerned, Fortescue says that their rites would be left entirely untouched.9 Since he regards their liturgical tradition to be both venerable and splendid, he finds absolutely nothing within it in need of correction (OEC, 432). Yet there is one related point in which he believes that a modification is very necessary, for he says that the feast of Photius would have to be removed from their liturgical calendar.10 The Orthodox would probably be unwilling to make such concessions without corresponding concessions from Rome. Fortescue, though, is adamant that the Catholic Church cannot compromise on any matters of faith. It is his firm conviction that controversial teachings such as papal infallibility or the universal jurisdiction of the pope cannot be put on the table for negotiation (ibid.). However, he does believe that the papacy can be exercised in a way that shows the appropriate respect for the traditional autonomy of the Eastern Churches. “As for the Primacy,” he writes, “it need not, could not, involve so close a centralization as in the West—once more, the Pope is our Patriarch—and it would certainly not derogate from the dignity

Ibid. Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. Fortescue appears to be unaware that several Eastern Catholic Churches continue to celebrate St. Photius’s feast day on February 6 and have done so since their unions with Rome. 7 8

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

107

of their Patriarchs.”11 Whenever a dispute would arise, he contends, the Orthodox would not “have to submit to our special centralization. All our cases now go straight to Rome, and this, too, is a Patriarchal matter, not one that is involved in the Pope’s universal primacy.” Instead, he says, each Eastern Church would have its own patriarchal court; and, as was the case prior to the schism, the Pope would be “not the first, but the last, court of appeal” (OEC, 433 n. 1).12 In the final evaluation, Fortescue is convinced that the chief obstacle to reunion is the Eastern Orthodox fear of being latinized (OEC, 433). In their minds, he believes, they suspect that reunion with Rome would result in the loss of their distinctive Eastern Christian patrimony, thus resulting in a betrayal of the very faith for which they have suffered.13 The remedy to this, he says, is to persuade them that no latinizations would occur. Rather, he says, the Catholic Church must assure them that reunion would simply mean a return to the way things were before the schism. For Fortescue maintains that there “was then no idea of Latinizing the Eastern Churches, nor would there be now” (ibid).

RECONCILIATION WITH THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES Most of what Fortescue says about reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church is also applicable to the situations with the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The pressing difference, in his mind, is the serious Christological disagreements that have historically divided these Churches from the rest of Christianity. Yet as was the case with Eastern Orthodox Christians, Fortescue highly praises the resolute commitment to Christ demonstrated by the members of these Churches when faced with persecution. “Shall we call them heretics and schismatics?” he asks. “They are martyrs and sons of martyrs. The long blood-stain which is their history must atone, more than atone, for their errors about Ephesus and Chalcedon” (LEC, 449). For this reason Fortescue is resolute that, while reunion with the Eastern Orthodox is the primary hope, reconciliation with these other Churches must also be desired (LEC, 446). He recognizes these Christians as being “our Lord’s sheep,” who because of all they have been through are deservFortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 159. However, Fortescue does not explicitly say that there would be no direct appeal to Rome without first going through the patriarchal authority. 13 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 11 12

108

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

ing of the solidarity of Catholics (LEC, 449). Fortescue thinks that, on the final Day of Judgment, “we shall see that in their imperfect Churches they were more Catholic than we now think” (LEC, 450). Moreover, Fortescue actually believes that the path to reconciliation with these Churches may in some ways be somewhat less difficult than with the Eastern Orthodox. For he deems that, due to their different historical circumstances, the members of these Churches are not saddled with as much bitterness and anti-papal baggage. They ceased to be in communion with both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church so early on, he says, that the later conflict over the papacy did not affect them and leave residual hard feelings (LEC, 447). For a reunion to come about, though, Fortescue believes, they must first renounce their “heresies” and accept the teachings of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He does not think that such a turn of events would be as difficult or as unlikely as it may appear. Fortescue does not believe that the members of the Assyrian Church of the East are especially cognizant or enthusiastic about the particular teachings espoused by Nestorius.14 Nor does he think that most of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are championing Monophysitism.15 Instead, he admits that it “is hard to say how much any of these bodies (Nestorian or Monophysite) are now even conscious of what was once the cardinal issue of their schism.”16 According to Fortescue, in each case the primary factor impeding these Churches from reuniting with the Catholic Church is not an ancient Christological controversy, but rather their nationalistic tendencies (ibid.). He contends that, for them, theological disagreements and ecclesiastical squabbles are really masking that which truly moves them—love for their nation.17 And in their perspective, he says, the nation and the Church are one and the same. Thus, Fortescue writes, “The ancient questions decided by Ephesus and Chalcedon are not the real issue. If they keep heretical formulas, refuse to acknowledge old councils, name heretics in their liturgies, it is because these things, like their hierarchies, languages, rites, are part of their Church, and their Church is their nation” (ibid.).

Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE, 5:233. Ibid., 235. 16 Ibid., 238. Like Fortescue, Hore also suspected that the members of these Churches were not particularly attached to the “condemned doctrines” of the past (Student’s History, 209). 17 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 14 15

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

109

He asserts that their great fear is that communion with Rome would result in a betrayal of their nations. He says that, in their minds, the Pope would be determined to change their rites and traditions with the intended purpose of turning them all into Latin Christians, thus dissolving their distinctive national identities (ibid.). Fortescue maintains, of course, that nothing could be further from the truth, and that such fears are wholly unfounded. “The East may become Catholic again,” he writes, but “it will never be what it never has been—Latin.”18 For a reunion to become a reality, therefore, Fortescue believes, these Churches must become secure in the knowledge that communion with Rome does not equal uniformity. They must be assured that they would be allowed to maintain everything about themselves that does not directly conflict with Catholic faith or morals.19 When their fear of losing their national identity has dissipated, when “the conviction has spread that they have everything to gain by again becoming members of a really universal Church, that union with Rome means all the advantages of Western ideas and a sound theological position, and that, on the other hand, it leaves the national millet untouched, un-latinized, and only the stronger for so powerful an alliance,” then and only then, Fortescue believes, will these Churches choose to reconcile with the Catholic Church.20

FAILED ATTEMPTS AT REUNION Fortescue analyzes the two unsuccessful attempts to reconcile the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439. While both of these councils did achieve reunions, they were short-lived (OEC, 219). It is his analysis that these efforts were seriously flawed from the start, which is why they both ultimately “came to nothing.”21 Rather than bringing the Churches together, he says that in the aftermath of these failed attempts they continued to grow further apart.22 Despite their failures, Fortescue maintains that both of these councils remain important events from which there is much to be learned.23 Ibid., 236. Ibid., 238. 20 Ibid., 240. The “millet ” is the “nation,” or more precisely, the ethnic group, which in practice was usually also religiously defined. 21 Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 154. 22 Adrian Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 22. 23 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 18 19

110

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

The Second Council of Lyons, he says, was summoned by Pope Gregory X in order to launch a crusade to defend the Latin holdings in the Holy Land, as well as to heal the breach with the Eastern Churches (OEC, 205). It was the first major attempt to end the schism.24 He believes that the Latin participants were motivated by a sincere religious conviction and were genuinely enthusiastic about the possibility of reunion (ibid.). They wanted nothing from the Eastern Churches, he says, other than once again to be in communion with them.25 On the Eastern side, however, he declares the motivation to have been less pure. Fortescue says that the Byzantine Emperor realized that his dwindling kingdom was in grave danger of falling to the Turks and therefore sought a political alliance with the West. Furthermore, he says that the emperor feared the possibility of Constantinople’s again being attacked by crusaders, as it was in 1204 (OEC, 204–5). He contends that the emperor believed that his only hope was to negotiate a reunion with the Latin Church, which would hopefully result in the sending of military aid from the West. Thus, Fortescue states, as far as the Eastern Orthodox Church was concerned, the impetus for reunion came from the top down, from the emperor, and was never a popular movement. Because of this, holds Fortescue, there was no genuine dialogue on controversial issues at this council (OEC, 206). Official discussions were held, to be sure.26 But he says that the Orthodox participants were instructed by the emperor to concede all points to the Latin Church, so as to formalize the reunion as swiftly as possible (ibid.). For them, the reunion was a political necessity engineered by the government. Fortescue describes this reunion as “an unpleasant and humiliating condition in order that a Frank army might come and protect them.”27 Among the concessions made by the Orthodox Church was an acknowledgement of papal primacy (ibid.). They also accepted the Latin doctrine of the Filioque, professing that “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.”28 Yet, notes

Ibid. Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 26 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 27 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 28 Second Council of Lyons, “Second Constitution,” ¶1, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, 1:314. 24 25

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

111

Fortescue, they were not required to add the Filioque to the creed and were to preserve their own traditions, rites, and canon law (OEC, 206–7). In Fortescue’s estimation, the critical flaw that doomed this reunion from the start was its extreme unpopularity among the rank and file of the Eastern Orthodox Church (OEC, 207). This reunion, he says, always lacked a “solid basis on the Eastern side.”29 The average Orthodox Christian at that time did not want to be in union with Rome, for they were still deeply resentful of the sacking of Constantinople, which had occurred only seventy years earlier (OEC, 205). Fortescue writes that among the common people their anger against the West was ultimately more powerful than their fear of Islamic conquest.30 Thus, he concludes, for the Orthodox the movement toward reunion was never an authentic one but was simply a political maneuver made at the behest of the emperor (OEC, 208).31 Fortescue holds that the dissolution of the union was further hastened by the subsequent action of Pope John XXI, who, in spite of the agreement at Lyons, demanded that the Orthodox add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed. Fortescue describes this as a “fatal mistake” that greatly fueled antiLatin mistrust and resentment. And when the expected military aid was never sent, even the Byzantine Emperor lost his enthusiasm for reunion, which was then formally repudiated by the Eastern Orthodox Church (OEC, 207). There is one other crucial factor to which Fortescue attributes the failure of the reunion: the conservative instinct of Eastern Christians. By this time in history, he says, maintaining the schism was the conservative position. The reunion was looked upon as a dangerous, liberal betrayal of the faith, and those who fought to undo it were celebrated as the champions of Orthodoxy (OEC, 208). The story of the Council of Florence, says Fortescue, is largely the same as that of Lyons II (ibid.). This time, though, he believes that the motivation of the Latin Church was somewhat more complex. The Western Christians were more zealous for reunion than the Easterners, as was the case before (OEC, 213). But this time the impetus for reunion, he believes, Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. Ibid. 31 Henry Fanshawe Tozer painted a far grimmer portrait of the emperor’s involvement than did Fortescue. He wrote that “in order to silence opposition the emperor now proceeded to the most violent measures, and imprisonment, scourging, mutilation, and blinding were resorted to, as in the days of the iconoclast controversy” (The Church and the Eastern Empire, 187). 29 30

112

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

was in part the unique circumstances that the West was dealing with. The prestige of the papacy had been severely wounded by the great Western Schism, during which there were three claimants to the throne of Peter. A renegade body meeting in the city of Basel was advocating Conciliarism, the teaching that ecumenical councils are above the pope (OEC, 208–9).32 This group had even gone so far as to attempt to excommunicate Pope Eugene IV. According to Fortescue, Pope Eugene hoped that by orchestrating a reunion with the Eastern Churches he would be able to restore the luster of the papacy (OEC, 209). The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, was in Fortescue’s view again motivated by political necessity. Constantinople was once more in grave danger of falling to the Turks, and its chances for survival hinged on receiving Western military aid. Therefore Fortescue considers this to have been, as before, a movement from the top down, ordered by the emperor. Yet he does mention that there were persons of good will on both sides who genuinely desired reunion for all the right reasons (OEC, 210– 11). Fortescue says that this time around genuine dialogue did take place. And the Latin Church, he asserts, “made every possible concession” to the feelings of the East.33 An agreement was reached on the Filioque, which he describes as being “in the words of their own Greek Fathers.”34 Both sides affirmed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father through the Son,” and that the Latin variant of the creed does not exclude “the Father from being the source and principle of all deity.”35 This agreement, says Fortescue, acknowledges that both the Latin and the Eastern Churches are expressing the same truth while using different words and still has lasting significance (OEC, 214). The council also declared the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, states Fortescue, while reaffirming the traditional rights of Eastern patriarchs.36 As 32 In 1431, Pope Eugene IV convened an ecumenical council at Basel but later transferred the council to Ferrara in 1437 and then to Florence in 1439. A number of bishops continued meeting in Basel, however, claiming to be the genuine ecumenical council. This group finally disbanded in 1443. See Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 46–84. 33 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 34 Fortescue, Rome and Constantinople, 23. 35 Definition of the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Florence, session 6, July 6, 1439, in Tanner, Decrees, 1:526. 36 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238.

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

113

well, it acknowledged that the Eucharist can be confected from either leavened or unleavened bread, thus resolving the azyme controversy.37 Regarding the Orthodox concession on this point, Fortescue writes, “The Turkish armies at their very gates had at last made them see reason; they admitted that both leavened and unleavened bread are equally valid and lawful” (ibid.). The Eastern Orthodox Church was to keep its own rites, customs, and laws.38 However, he says that the Orthodox did concede the existence of purgatory and finally “admitted that Consecration takes place at the words of Institution” (ibid.). For its part, the Latin Church recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as being second in honor to the Pope of Rome.39 Fortescue mentions that representatives were also present from several of the “lesser” Eastern Churches, and that between their Churches and the Catholic Church either partial or total reunions were made.40 Although most of these unions proved to be as ill-fated as that with the Eastern Orthodox Church, he believes that the very presence of the representatives from these Churches makes it harder for the Orthodox to deny the ecumenical character of the Council of Florence: It is difficult to see from what point of view its œcumenical character could be denied. It was held in the presence of the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. There were many more Easterns present than there had been Latins at any of the early synods that we all agree in calling œcumenical. Even if one were to take up the shamelessly Erastian position that the Emperor’s presence and consent are necessary, Florence had both. Indeed, as a last possibility, if one were to require the presence of such old schismatical bodies as the Monophysites and Nestorians (a position which the Orthodox would of course abhor, and which would involve the denial of all councils except the first two), the heads of the Armenian, Coptic, and Abyssinian Churches were represented, and there were at least some Jacobites and Nestorians present. So that except, perhaps, Nicæa in 325 no council has ever had such a clear right to be considered œcumenical. (OEC, 216)

Definition, in Tanner, Decrees, 1:527. Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 39 Definition, in Tanner, Decrees, 1: 528. 40 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 37 38

114

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Yet the Eastern Orthodox Church did formally repudiate the union in 1472 and anathematized the Council of Florence as being a false council.41 Once again, Fortescue attributes the failure of the council to the overwhelming unpopularity of the union among the Eastern people. Reunion, he says, was only desired by the government, and the common people perceived it as a betrayal of the true faith handed on to them by their ancestors.42 The faithful of the Orthodox Church accused their bishops of becoming “Azymites” and “Creed-tamperers” and effectively pressured them to renounce the union (OEC, 216–17). The dissolution of the union was further advanced by the failure of the Westerners to send the promised military assistance, just as before (ibid.). Only Pope Eugene IV himself made good on his word by sending a small contingent of soldiers, but it was not large enough to be of real help in the defense of the city (OEC, 212). Despite their failure, Fortescue believes that both Lyons II and Florence established a valuable precedent. Especially the Council of Florence, he writes, “showed Eastern Christians what the conditions of reunion are, and it has left them always conscious that reunion is possible and desired by Rome.”43 Fortescue’s analysis of these two councils also highlights an indispensable historical lesson. For if the reader gleans anything from his account of these events, it is that lasting reconciliation cannot be engineered from the top down but must be genuinely desired by the rank and file members of both Churches.

41 The Council of Florence was officially anathematized by the Orthodox Church when a synod held in Constantinople in 1484 composed a rite for the reception of Latin converts. This rite required the convert to denounce Florence. See Gill, Council of Florence, 410–11. The text of this rite is found in Ta dogmatika kai symvolika mnēmeia tēs Orthodoxou Katholikēs Ekklēsias, ed. Ioannes N. Karmires, 2:987–89. 42 Like Fortescue, Tozer also said that the Orthodox faithful looked upon the union as a “betrayal of their cherished faith.” For this reason “the clergy who favored the union were regarded as traitors, and the churches where they ministered were deserted” (Church and the Eastern Empire, 190). 43 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. In contrast, Hore believed that these two episodes only exacerbated the estrangement between the Churches. “Schemes for reunion,” he wrote, “treated politically at Lyons and Florence, served only to aggravate and intensify the schism” (Student’s History, 476).

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

115

COMMUNION WITH ROME AS THE GUARANTEE OF UNITY One of Fortescue’s fundamental convictions is that the Roman primacy was divinely instituted by Christ in order to safeguard the unity of the Church. The pope himself, he believes, is both the “bond of union” and the “visible centre” of the Church, preserving its constitution as a tangible, visibly united body (OEC, 61). Without the papacy, he conjectures, the Church would fall victim to a ceaseless procession of divisions and would be unable to maintain its characteristic oneness. Hence, Fortescue argues, the pope’s necessary role as the guardian of unity is ultimately the most compelling reason for the separated Eastern Churches to reunite with Rome. Their recognition of this, he holds, is a key to reconciliation. Throughout the first millennium, he says, the See of Rome was the undisputed final court of appeal in questions of faith. He claims that whenever bishops found themselves embroiled in controversial disputes with one another, and circumstances prevented the summoning of an ecumenical council, they would appeal the matter to Rome, whose decision was looked upon as authoritative (OEC, 57). Even the “Eastern Churches,” he writes, “acknowledged the Pope as the highest judge and his see as the last court of appeal in their affairs too; their bishops constantly used this right of appealing to Rome” (OEC, 97). He contends that the presence of a final court is as important now as it was then, for it prevents the Church from being divided by each and every controversy that comes along. For such a court to be effective, however, Fortescue maintains, it must possess a genuine authority. A mere primacy of honor would not suffice. He says that if there is no authority behind its decisions, then its judgments are not definitive and are next to useless. There would be no point in appealing to an impotent court, for “the verdict must be accepted as final, or there would be no end to any trial.”44 The need for a final, authoritative court to settle disputes within the Church, he believes, implies the necessity of papal infallibility. “If God so carefully guides his Church,” asks Fortescue, “how can he allow the chief Patriarch to teach heresy, since he is the leader and judge of all the others? Other bishops can be put right by appeals to Rome: to whom could one appeal from the Pope? There must be a final court somewhere; no one could suggest any other than Rome, and the decision of the final court must be final. That means infallibility” (OEC, 432). For in the end, he says, the

44

Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy, 75.

116

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

definitive verdict of the Church’s highest court cannot be mistaken in matters of faith.45 Fortescue holds that the pope’s authority actually serves to empower bishops in their ministries as shepherds.46 He argues that by providing a firm point of reference in matters of faith, papal authority has been a bulwark for those bishops who courageously proclaimed the truth in the face of daunting opposition. Even some of the Church Fathers, he states, used the authority of the pope to shield themselves against their antagonists (OEC, 67). Moreover, he claims that the pope’s preeminence as final arbiter, along with his universal jurisdiction, protects bishops from complete subjugation to civil authorities. For those bishops who are in communion with Rome will always answer to someone greater than any government official. In his contention that papal authority actually serves to strengthen the authority of bishops, Fortescue is echoing one of the teachings of the First Vatican Council, which said, This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by the appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”47

In the case of the separated Eastern Churches, Fortescue believes that their independence from Rome has resulted in “servile dependence” on state governments (OEC, 430). He claims that only “union with Rome would save them from what is the curse of their Churches, hopeless ErastiFortescue, Early Papacy, 76. The criticism that the pope’s power robbed bishops of their proper authority was being leveled by some of Fortescue’s Anglican contemporaries, such as F. G. Cole: “Thus the Eastern Church bears witness to the inherent dignity of the Episcopal office against Popish and Puritan innovations, and, in doing so, like our own Church, she protests both against those who deny the historic Episcopate and also against the modern Vaticanism which reduces the bishop to the level of a mere delegate or mouthpiece of the Roman Curia” (Mother of All Churches, 70). 47 Pastor Aeternus, 3.5, in Tanner, Decrees, 2:814. 45 46

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

117

anism.”48 If they were to answer to an authority higher than any secular government, he says, an authority with the right to intervene when necessary, they could ordinarily no longer be controlled by government bureaucrats. Furthermore, he states, the Pope would treat them far better than government officials have, for no pope would inflict the manner of abuses that Eastern bishops have suffered under government rule (ibid.). Speaking of the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, Fortescue writes that “when they boast of their independence of Rome, one imagines that it would be less degrading to obey the first of the Patriarchs than the cavalry officer sent by the Czar to preside at the Holy Synod ….”49 Elaborating on this point, Fortescue recounts numerous cases of Eastern bishops being unlawfully deposed by government fiats. Even the Patriarchs of Constantinople, he says, have been routinely deposed on the whim of the Turkish Minister of Religions (ibid.). He states that the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot even assume his office without first obtaining permission from the Turkish government.50 If they were to reunite with Rome, Fortescue believes, the pope would stand up for the rights of Orthodox bishops and prevent such injustices from occurring. “There is a greater Patriarch,” he writes, “whom no bishop can feel it degrading to obey, who stands for the rights of old Canon Law, and whose honour is still in the firm strength of his brothers” (ibid.). Furthermore, Fortescue believes that reconciliation with Rome would solve the related problem of excessive nationalism. He contends that because of their independence from the papacy the separated Eastern Churches have been divided into warring nationalistic and ethnic bodies. He states that the Ecumenical Patriarch is powerless to stop this because he lacks any true authority and is seen as the representative of one of the ethnic factions. Because of this, Fortescue concludes, the Eastern bishops are in grave need of their “natural arbitrator,” the pope, who alone is able to definitively end their disputes (ibid.). Although there are sometimes disagreements among Catholic bishops, he believes that the presence of a final deciding authority allows these squabbles to achieve a timely resolution (OEC, 337). Fortescue says that the pope would use his authority to settle the constant disagreements that plague these Churches, all the while respecting their legitimate ethnic diversity. “Catholics are also citizens of many States, Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 160. Ibid. 50 Ibid. 48 49

118

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

and are still more divided among different nations,” he writes. “We have at least as many mutual race-antagonisms as the Orthodox; there are Polish and Russian Catholics, there are Greeks, Armenians, Croats, Vlachs, Bulgars, and Arabs in our communion, but their national feelings do not produce such an endless catalogue of schisms, mutual excommunications and bitter feelings in ecclesiastical affairs—simply because in these affairs we all acknowledge one central authority that has the right to settle our quarrels” (OEC, 336–37). Therefore, Fortescue believes, papal authority enables the Catholic Church to function as an authentically universal body. Fortescue’s conviction that the papacy safeguards the unity of the Church can possibly be challenged on historical grounds. For even a cursory examination of history reveals that, in spite of the exercise of papal authority, the Catholic Church has nonetheless experienced a series of tragic divisions—both in the East and in the West. In fact, it seems as if the papacy itself has become an ongoing source of controversy and division. If the mission of the papacy is to preserve the Church from division, it can appear to the casual observer that it has failed miserably. Fortescue’s response to this is that the Catholic Church has, regardless of any appearances to the contrary, remained united. There are no actual divisions within the Catholic Church. Rather, he believes, individuals and bodies have left the Catholic Church but have not divided it. He asserts, “The Church of Christ still lives, and will live to the end of the world. Christ said so. She remains always what he founded—one united society. Her rebel children may leave her and set up rival Churches of their own. That is tragic, it is the great tragedy of Christendom; but it does not affect the unity of the original Church, for unity is of her essence. … It is a fact that there are many Christians who have left her, that Christendom is divided; it is not a fact that the Church is divided.”51 He believes that the papacy has been successful in its intended mission and continues to be so. He holds that until Christ’s triumphant return, it is the mission of the papacy to guarantee the unity of the true Church. Anyone who wishes to be united to her, he contends, must be united with this principle and guarantor of unity. And to come into union with Rome, he says, is to fully benefit from the real, substantial unity that is one of the marks of the Church. He maintains that those Eastern Churches that are not already in union with Rome are in dire need of such unity, as they are beleaguered by ethnic and national divisions. He believes that the recogni51

Fortescue, Early Papacy, 21–22.

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

119

tion of this would greatly enhance the prospects for reunion. Therefore, he writes, “The conclusion that forces itself upon any one who considers the present state of the Orthodox Church is that that body wants many things to restore it to its old glory, but it wants nothing quite so much as the authority of the Pope” (OEC, 337).

ROLE OF THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES Fortescue perceives the Eastern Catholic Churches as playing a crucial role in fostering reconciliation between Rome and the separated Eastern Churches. He defines an Eastern Catholic or “Uniate” Church as being a Catholic Church which is not part of the Roman patriarchate.52 Rather, he says, they come from the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople and have their own rites and liturgical languages (UEC, 3–4). Although it was a common convention to speak of Eastern Catholic “rites” as opposed to Churches, Fortescue recognizes that these bodies are more than mere rites of the Catholic Church, but are full-fledged Churches in their own right (UEC, 2). For Fortescue the term “rite” refers to “the whole complex of services of any Church or group of Churches,” and it “comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men.”53 He realizes that the Eastern Catholic Churches are distinguished by more than just liturgical differences but also possess distinctive customs and canon law which validate identifying these bodies as individual “Churches” that are nonetheless part of the one Church (ibid.). However, he does not acknowledge any theological distinctions between the Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches and states that there are no differences in faith (UEC, 6– 7). In assessing the situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Fortescue says that they are in exactly the same position as were the Eastern Churches of the first millennium, prior to the outbreak of any schisms.54 Elaborating on this, he asserts that Eastern Catholic Christians are in the same situation as were the great Eastern Fathers of the Church (UEC, 28). He writes that “St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory the Illuminator, were Uniates,” no different than the Eastern Catholics of today (LEC, 449).

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 235. Adrian Fortescue, “Rites,” CE, 13:64. 54 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 235. 52 53

120

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Therefore, Fortescue rejects any criticism of Eastern Catholics as being in any way inferior to or less Catholic than Roman Catholics (UEC, 6). In no way does Fortescue regard the Eastern Catholic Churches as obstacles to reunion. Rather, he believes that they play a vitally important ecumenical role. Through them, he hopes, “the beginning of an understanding” can possibly come about (OEC, 434). For, he says, they tangibly demonstrate that the Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Patriarchate but is a truly universal body, capable of accommodating varying rites and traditions (UEC, 27). In this respect he believes that they “save the situation of a universal Church” and show the world that the Catholic Church is truly “catholic” and is not confined to the Latin Church (UEC, 44). Here Fortescue is echoing the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, who in his 1894 Apostolic Constitution Orientalium Dignitas elucidated the importance of the Eastern Catholic Churches as manifesting the universal character of the Church. Referring to the plurality of liturgical traditions found among the Eastern Catholic Churches, the pontiff wrote that “Nothing else, perhaps, is so breathtakingly effective for illustrating the mark of Catholicity in God’s Church than that striking sight of different forms of ceremonies and noble examples of the tongues of the ancient past—made all the more noble by their use by the Apostles and Fathers—rendering their submission to the Church.”55 For Fortescue, as for the pope, this diversity serves a valuable purpose and is to be cherished and guarded.56 In fact, Fortescue sees the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches as being a preeminent testament to the Catholic Church’s genuine universality and openness to legitimate diversity (UEC, 10–11). In contrast, he deems the Eastern Orthodox Church to be far more closed to diversity, rigidly imposing the Byzantine Rite on all members of its communion (UEC, 19). Illustrating this dissimilarity, Fortescue refers to the interaction 55 Leo XIII, “Orientalium Dignitas,” in Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Leonis Papae XIII Allocutiones, Epistolae, Constitutiones, Aliaque Acta Praecipua (Brugis: Typis Societatis Sancti Augustini, 1894), 5:305. English translation in The Vatican and the Eastern Christian Churches, trans. Edward Strickland, 81. 56 Some of Fortescue’s predecessors did not share his appreciation for liturgical diversity. See, for instance, Prosper Guéranger, who argued that “In the light of the evils of Christianity in the east, the churches of the west should hold strongly to the liturgical unity which alone has been able not only to deflect, but even render impossible, the schism and heresy which led to those evils” (Institutions liturgiques, 1:231, translated in Robert F. Taft, “‘Eastern Presuppositions’ and Western Liturgical Renewal,” 11.

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

121

of both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox missionaries with the Assyrian Church of the East: The attitude of these foreign missions towards the Nestorian sect is very curious. Of course, that of the Catholics and Orthodox is quite simple. They frankly make converts from the heretical body; with, however, this difference, that the Catholics make Uniates. A Nestorian who joins them does not give up his rite, nor any legitimate principle or custom of his nation. He abjures his heresy, acknowledges the Council of Ephesus, and so returns to the state of the old Persian Church before it fell into heresy and schism. But the Orthodox have no Uniates. In joining them a Nestorian must leave his nation, accept the Byzantine rite, and become practically a Russian. This is merely the invariable difference between the uniformity always demanded by the Orthodox and the more generous toleration of the Catholic Church. (LEC, 119–20)

In Fortescue’s judgment, the fact that there are “Uniate” Churches is ultimately to the credit of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, Fortescue believes that the reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches proves that it is possible for a Church to be in communion with Rome while still being Eastern (LEC, 448). Thus, he thinks, they can potentially assuage what he believes to be the primary fear that prevents other Eastern Christians from reconciling with Rome—the fear of losing their identities, both ethnic and religious (OEC, 433). He says that Eastern Catholics do not succumb to excessive nationalism on one extreme or assimilation into the Latin Church on the other. Instead, “the Uniates combine the national and Catholic ideals perfectly. A Uniate is a citizen of the universal Church, he shares her common life, as did his fathers before these unhappy schisms began. But he is not swamped in a Latin crowd. He keeps his own customs, laws, hierarchy, rites” (LEC, 448–49). Fortescue maintains that the Eastern Catholic Churches have benefited mightily from their union with Rome and through their example show the separated Churches how well they too would fare in a reunited Church. He says that Eastern Catholics are in a far better position than their nonCatholic counterparts, and that they are a sort of Eastern Christian “aristocracy” (UEC, 24). Explaining this, he says that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not beset by the incessant quarrelsomeness that he ascribes to the separated Churches. The fact of their union with Rome, he believes, serves to keep order among them, for Rome would not tolerate such behavior. For “whatever you may say about Rome, you cannot say that her discipline is slack” (UEC, 26).

122

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

Moreover, he holds that the Eastern Catholic clergy are generally far better educated than other Eastern clerics, although not quite up to the level of the Latin clergy (UEC, 25). In this respect, he says, they benefit from their exposure to Western ideals and methods of education (UEC, 24). He says that the other Eastern clerics, in contrast, are often poorly educated (UEC, 25). Fortescue also makes a point of stating that using Western methods of education to train Eastern clergy does not in any way constitute a latinization or even mild disrespect for any Eastern tradition. He writes that to “defend slackness of tone, a discipline which is the arbitrary whim of masters, alternately lax and cruel, desultory teaching with bad textbooks or none in Eastern schools because these things are ‘Eastern’ would be to overdo a principle which has some truth in it.” Instead, the “ideal is to adapt our methods intelligently, being always ready to see and allow for Eastern qualities,” and that this is the approach that Eastern Catholic clerics have been benefiting from (ibid. n. 2). Fortescue also claims that Eastern Catholic clergy, perhaps due to their superior education, often live “more edifying” lives than other Eastern clerics (UEC, 23). And through their example, he says, the Eastern Catholic Churches show other Eastern Churches how they can expect to be treated in a reunited Church. They illustrate “the terms on which reunion between East and West is possible.”57 For this reason, among others, Fortescue disapproves of any sort of latinization of Eastern Catholic Churches. “The idea of latinizing all Eastern Catholics,” he writes, “sometimes defended by people on our side whose zeal for uniformity is greater than their knowledge of the historical and juridical situation, is diametrically opposed to antiquity, to the Catholic system of ecclesiastical organization, and to the policy of all popes. Nor has it any hope of success.”58 Instead, Fortescue believes, the preservation of Eastern liturgical rites and traditions is an ecumenical imperative. Yet he is acutely aware that Eastern Catholics have historically suffered discrimination and injustices from some members of the Latin Church. He realizes that certain individuals have behaved as if the Eastern Catholic Churches were “a kind of compromise between us and schismatical sects,” in need of serious correction (UEC, 43). Fortescue decries such mistreatment, saying that nothing can ever justify denigration or condescension toward Eastern Catholics by Western Catholics (UEC, 29). “Nothing is more 57 58

Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 237. Ibid., 236.

PROBLEM OF REUNION I

123

to be denounced,” he writes, “than any attitude of superiority on the part of Latins towards their Uniate fellow-Catholics” (UEC, 44). His stated objective in writing The Uniate Eastern Churches was to correct such attitudes and misperceptions by demonstrating that Eastern Catholics are just as entitled to their traditions as Latin Catholics are to theirs (UEC, 6). Fortescue says that unfortunate behavior on the part of some Latin Catholics has been driven by ignorance, not malice (UEC, 28). At times a misplaced zeal for uniformity is also a contributing factor. It is easy to fall into such errors, he says, because of the overwhelming size of the Latin Church and the widespread unfamiliarity with the Eastern Catholic Churches (UEC, 5–6). “Western people get so used to look upon our Roman rite as the only correct one,” he observes, “that they are inclined to think a man who does not use it a kind of half-Catholic, better than the schismatic, but not quite so good as we are. Or when they meet a married Catholic priest they look upon his state as a temporary toleration which had better be done away with. Really he is obeying the Canon Law of his Patriarchate, to which he has just as much right as we have to our laws” (UEC, 28). In Fortescue’s estimation, the truly amazing thing is how the Eastern Catholic Churches have remained loyal to Rome in spite of the maltreatment that they have occasionally experienced (UEC, 29). He attributes this loyalty to their overarching commitment to the ideal of a universal Church: The really wonderful thing about the Uniates is not that occasionally they have grumbled; it is, in spite of that, in spite of blunders made by the West towards them, their magnificent loyalty to the Catholic ideal. It is the right sort of loyalty, to an ideal, not to persons. They have no more personal devotion towards Italian Cardinals and the Monsignori of the Roman Congregations than we have in the North. What they care for is the one united Church of Christ throughout the world, and the Holy See as guarding that unity. … This idea so dominates that, in spite of the occasional friction, the Pope has no more loyal subjects in the world than his brothers and children of Eastern rites. (UEC, 23)

Overall, though, Fortescue says that the Eastern Catholic Churches have received excellent treatment from the popes (UEC, 43). The Holy See, he says, has consistently honored and even cherished the unique patrimony of the East and has never demanded anything resembling uniformity (UEC, 31). To the contrary, he asserts that it was not the popes who had imposed unyielding homogeneity upon other Churches, but the Patriarchs of Con-

124

FORTESCUE’S ACCOUNTS

stantinople.59 By witnessing the exemplary treatment that Eastern Catholics have received from the popes, he hopes that those Eastern Christians who are not in communion with the Holy See will eventually come to the realization that they have nothing to fear from union with Rome, but much to gain. For a lasting reconciliation to come about, Fortescue holds, the separated Eastern Churches must come to perceive the importance of the papal ministry as well as the benefits of being united with a “really universal Church.”60 He says that they must also come to recognize papal primacy as the solution to their problems of fragmentation and excessive nationalism. Drawing from the failure of previous attempts, Fortescue demonstrates that, for a reconciliation to be enduring, all parties involved must be primarily motivated by religious considerations, not politics. Moreover, he shows that to be successful a reunion must be embraced by the laity of the Churches as well as their hierarchs. However, Fortescue also states that the members of the separated Eastern Churches must first overcome their perception that communion with Rome equals assimilation and latinization. It is the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches, he believes, to expose the unfounded nature of such fears through their living witness. He thinks that these Churches can serve as valuable models, demonstrating that it is possible for a Church to be in communion with Rome while fully retaining its Eastern identity. “We do not ask the separated Eastern Churches to be Latin,” he writes, “but to be Uniate” (LEC, 449). Hence, he attributes great importance to the role of these Eastern Catholic bodies in the work of healing the schisms.61 This belief, as well as the other views held by Fortescue, is critically assessed in the second part of this book.

Fortescue, “Rites,” 66. Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 240. 61 Ibid., 238. 59 60

PART II LATER DEVELOPMENTS Since Fortescue’s lifetime there has been considerable advancement in the study of Eastern Christianity. Numerous scholars, writing from both within and outside the Eastern Churches, have addressed many of the same issues that Fortescue dealt with in his work. There have also been important advances in historical scholarship, some of which have a direct bearing on the accuracy of Fortescue’s writings. Moreover, there have also been several theological developments of great consequence in the intervening years. There has been notable progress on the ecumenical front as well. Shifts in attitudes and perspectives have irrevocably altered the ecumenical landscape. And important ecclesial pronouncements, such the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and the statements produced by the various ecumenical dialogues, all shed new light on the problem of reunion. There have also been many significant developments in the Eastern Christian Churches themselves. The Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches, have all experienced noteworthy changes in the decades that have passed. In the light of all of these developments, this part critically assesses the main points that Fortescue made in his writings on Eastern Christianity, in order to see whether later scholarship and events bear out his assertions. Paralleling the previous chapters and sections, it compares Fortescue’s perspective with these later developments and provides for a critical assessment of his scholarship and theology.

5 THE SCHISMS II Over the years, the interpretations of the schisms have, in many cases, changed considerably. In at least one instance, groundbreaking research has dramatically shifted our understanding of events. As the readings of these historical incidents have changed, it is necessary to determine how well Fortescue’s writings on the schisms have withstood the test of time.

THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST AND NESTORIANISM At the Synod of Markabta in 424, the Assyrian Church of the East declared the independence of the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon from “any earthly authority.” Fortescue identified this event as the real beginning of the schism, as from this point on, he said, the Persian Church no longer acknowledged its station in the graduated hierarchy (LEC, 50–51). He also argued that this state of affairs made it vulnerable to the Nestorian heresy (LEC, 53). Later scholars do give some credence to the view that the schism had its roots in the Synod of Markabta’s assertion of ecclesial independence. Aidan Nichols writes that this declaration “raises the possibility, evidently, that the first Oriental schism would have taken place anyway, even had there been no Nestorian crisis on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean.”1 Yet Nichols, while recognizing the importance of this event, is unwilling to go so far as to regard the Assyrian Church as being schismatic from that point on, though he does surmise that this independence “greatly assisted” the “crystallisation of the Nestorianism schism.”2 Fortescue also stated that there was a political motive at work in this schism. He contended that, by embracing Nestorianism and rejecting the Council of Ephesus, the Church of Persia was rejecting the official position of the Roman Empire (LEC, 54). By becoming Nestorian, he believed, the

1 2

Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 37–38. Ibid., 37. 127

128

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Persian Church was relieved of the suspicion of being a potentially treacherous ally of the empire (LEC, 79). This view is still the dominant one held by later scholars, who recognize that the ongoing hostility between the Roman Empire and the Sassanid monarchy in Persia was a significant contributing factor to the schism.3 The noted ecumenist Ronald Roberson, for example, summarizes this schism as follows: In the 5th century, the Church of the East gravitated towards the radical Antiochene form of christology that had been articulated by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, and fell out of communion with the church in the Roman Empire. This was due in part to the significant influx of Nestorian Christians into Persia that took place following the condemnation of Nestorian christology by the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the expulsion of Nestorians from the Roman Empire by the Emperor Zeno (474–491). In addition, the Persian Christians needed to distance themselves from the official church of the Roman Empire, with which Persia was frequently at war. In this way they were able to maintain their Christian faith while avoiding suspicions that they were collaborating with the Roman enemy.4

Regarding the theological component of this schism, Fortescue taught that the Assyrian Church of the East did fully embrace the teachings of Nestorius, and was therefore heretical (LEC, 85–86, 87 n. 1). It is for this reason that he consistently referred to this body as the “Nestorian” Church (LEC, 7). Yet today scholars generally hold that the influence of Nestorius on this Church is questionable. Authors such as Sebastian Brock argue that, while the traditional christology of the Persian Church was undoubtedly Antiochene to the extreme, that does not necessarily mean that it was Nestorian.5 Some of these scholars even assert that the actual Christology of this Church was not that far removed from the teachings of Chalcedon.6 “Although today the Church of the Assyrian Christians has no theologians to speak of,” writes Nichols, “its theologians in the past came to adopt a

Ibid., 37. Ronald G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches, 15. 5 S. P. Brock, “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer,” 28. 6 W. Stewart McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, 128. 3 4

THE SCHISMS II

129

position not unlike that of Chalcedon, and at no great remove, indeed, from the more moderate statements of Cyril.”7 Scholars now believe that the primary theologian whose writings influenced the development of this Church’s position was not Nestorius, but Theodore of Mopsuestia.8 Over the course of the eight synods held by the Assyrian Church of the East between the years 486 and 612, the writings of Theodore were consistently extolled as examples of correct christology, while the person of Nestorius did not receive even a single mention. In fact, it appears that Nestorius is honored in this Church not primarily as a theologian or exponent of doctrine, but as a martyr for the cause of Antiochene christology. According to this reading of history, the rejection of the term “Theotokos” by the Assyrian Church should not be attributed primarily to the influence of Nestorius, but to the fact that the word had become a rallying cry for its theological adversaries. Nestorius’s own works, with a single exception, were not even translated into Syriac and were therefore largely inaccessible to Persian Christians.9 This leads Brock to conclude that “the association between the Church of the East and Nestorius is of a very tenuous nature, and to continue to call that church ‘Nestorian’ is, from a historical point of view, totally misleading and incorrect—quite apart from being highly offensive and a breach of ecumenical good manners.”10

THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES AND MONOPHYSITISM With regard to the emergence of the Monophysite movement and the separation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Fortescue believed that antiimperial politics was the primary motivating factor (LEC, 182). Monophysitism, he said, had in some cases become the primary form of nationalist expression against the empire.11 This reading of history has largely withstood the test of time, as the majority of scholars continue to hold that “incipient nationalism lay behind the Monophysite revolt.”12

Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 44. W. Macomber, “The Christology of the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon A.D. 486.” 9 The exception was the Bazaar of Heracleides, which is an apologia written by Nestorius during his exile. 10 Brock, “ ‘Nestorian’ Church,” 29–35 (quotation from p. 35). 11 Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE, 5:233. 12 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 64. See also Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 29. 7 8

130

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Yet there are some scholars who caution that this view may ultimately be an oversimplification.13 These scholars argue that while national identity was certainly an important factor, the initial impetus for schism was genuine concern over religious matters more so than politics.14 Only when passions had first been stirred over religion did national identity become a contributing factor to the schism.15 Yet these scholars do agree that Chalcedon eventually became, in the minds of the Oriental Orthodox, a symbol of intolerance and oppression by the empire.16 Also, scholars now tend to perceive the theological component of this controversy as being largely a communication problem.17 The majority of scholars, in fact, assert that the Oriental Orthodox Churches were never really Monophysite. “Today,” writes Roberson, “it is widely recognized by theologians and church leaders on both sides that the christological differences between the Oriental Orthodox and those who accepted Chalcedon were only verbal, and that in fact both parties profess the same faith in Christ using different formulas.”18 This reading conflicts with Fortescue’s assertion that these Churches were indeed Monophysite (LEC, 179).

THE SCHISM OF PHOTIUS Fortescue believed that the fallout from the Photian schism had a lasting effect on relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He said that it created a fissure between East and West which was never really bridged (OEC, 167). This reading is still widely held, as scholars recognize that the complaints lodged against the West by Photius, especially on the matter of the Filioque, were to become the staples of anti-Latin polemics. On the Filioque in particular, Photius’s writings are generally understood to have resulted in a hardening in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the question, which would prove to be an enduring source of conflict.19 This 13 See A. H. M. Jones, “Were the Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?” 14 W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 62–63, 69–71, 73–74. 15 Ibid., 71. 16 Ibid., 354. 17 Ware, Orthodox Church, 29. 18 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 24. This same sentiment is expressed in official joint statements issued by Catholic and Oriental Orthodox representatives. These statements are considered in chapter 9, where we revisit the problem of reunion. 19 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 211.

THE SCHISMS II

131

view is accurately summarized by Yves Congar, who writes that Photius “seriously increased the psychological tension and misunderstanding by transforming simple differences into opposition by strenuous polemic.”20 Also, Fortescue portrayed Photius as being in opposition to Rome primarily because the pope stood in the way of his own advancement. While later historians do see this as a contributing factor, they also believe that Photius’s hostility was in part provoked by Rome’s behavior in the Bulgarian situation and should be understood more squarely in this context. When Rome claimed Bulgaria as a part of the Latin patriarchate, even though the first Christian missionaries to arrive in Bulgaria were sent from Constantinople, Photius was deeply angered and perceived this to be blatant sheep-stealing. This controversy, scholars assert, occasioned many of Photius’s grievances against the Latin Church.21 Nichols, in fact, says that many of Photius’s complaints against Western practices were “probably reflecting mutual mudslinging between Greek and Latin clergy in Bulgaria.”22 Unlike Fortescue, who argued that Rome was clearly in the right, some observers now believe that a persuasive case can be made for Photius’s position on this issue. Historians such as Steven Runciman point out that it was the Latin bishop Formosus, who had been sent by Pope Nicholas to restructure the Bulgarian Church, who initially instigated the controversy by attacking the legitimacy of certain Byzantine disciplines and demanding the inclusion of the Filioque.23 Seen from this perspective, it appears that Photius was largely responding in kind to Latin provocations. Nichols states that “an unbiased observer would surely have to say that the papal case was pretty flimsy. … It is hard to avoid the impression that Nicholas’ aim was to humble the see of Constantinople which he thought was too proud by half. And as to Bulgaria, the overwhelming majority of Bulgarians were living in ancient Thrace, which had always been part of the Byzantine patriarchate.”24 The most dramatic shift in the interpretation of historical events, however, is with regard to the supposed second schism of Photius of 879. Fortescue wrote that Photius, driven by pure vitriol against the West, irrationally decided to seek open schism with Rome and so once again dragged Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years, 70. Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 24–25. 22 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 201. 23 Runciman, Schism, 24. 24 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 201. 20 21

132

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

the Byzantine Church into schism with him before his death (OEC, 163– 64). In his landmark study on the topic, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, the historian Francis Dvornik has conclusively proven this charge to be completely unfounded.25 He has shown that “the sources on which the history of the second schism was based were valueless, and that whatever had been written about a second rupture between Photius and Rome was not only inaccurate, but pure mystification.”26 The fact is that there was no second Photian schism, and that Photius himself died in full communion with Rome.27 It was only because of the proliferation of anti-Photian “propaganda” that this schism came to be erroneously accepted as historical fact.28 The result, unfortunately, was that the true history of Photius was largely forgotten or obscured.29 This leads Dvornik to conclude that “the person of Photius, the great Patriarch and Father of the Eastern Church, has for centuries been treated by the whole of the West with unmerited scorn and contempt,” and he says that the real Photius was “a great Churchman, a learned humanist and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies and to take the first step towards reconciliation.”30 Dvornik’s work has irrevocably altered the interpretation of the life and legacy of Photius.

THE SCHISM OF CERULARIUS Fortescue depicted Michael Cerularius as actively seeking schism with Rome, so as to secure his own unchecked power. He stated that, from the time at which Cerularius first assumed the office of Ecumenical Patriarch, he was determined to instigate a confrontation with the papacy (OEC, 177). Cerularius believed, according to Fortescue, that he could seize control of the East and make himself both spiritual and temporal master. The only person who could effectively oppose his plans was the Roman Pontiff, who would never tolerate Cerularius becoming absolute ruler of the East. Therefore, in order to accomplish his goal, he had to cut off the Eastern Church entirely from the West.31 Thus Fortescue speculated that Cerularius had an Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 236. Ibid., xi. 27 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 206–7. 28 Runciman, Schism, 26–27. 29 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 188. 30 Dvornik, Photian Schism, 432. 31 Adrian Fortescue, “Michael Cærularius,” CE, 10:274. 25 26

THE SCHISMS II

133

anti-papal campaign meticulously planned out from the start and that he only waited for the opportune moment to fire the first shot (OEC, 178). Today Cerularius is more often understood to have been driven primarily by a desire to impose liturgical uniformity.32 Runciman describes Cerularius as being a retired government official who had “the rigid mind of a civil servant.”33 He writes that “with his tidy bureaucratic mind” Cerularius was determined “to introduce a uniformity of usages within his Patriarchate.”34 As Patriarch of Constantinople, his argument was not at first with Rome per se, but with any deviation from the liturgical practices of Constantinople. His initial targets, in fact, were not Latin Catholics but the Armenian Christians who lived within his patriarchal territory.35 Scholars assert that in Cerularius’s mind the Byzantine tradition was the apostolic tradition, and anything that differed from it was contrary to genuine Christianity.36 This is not to deny, however, that Cerularius did welcome schism with Rome. Some scholars claim that he embraced the opportunity for schism when it arose. Congar, for instance, writes that “Cerularius very decidedly wanted the rupture,” as he sought “complete independence for Constantinople” from all outside interference.37 Yet Congar stops short of arguing that Cerularius actively sought schism from the start. In his exposition of the events of 1054, Fortescue tended to downplay the responsibility of Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida and instead placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Cerularius. Later writers, however, attribute considerably more of the blame to Humbert’s actions.38 Humbert, they argue, behaved in an arrogant and offensive fashion during his interaction with the Byzantines, which seriously exacerbated the situation.39 Runciman says that Cerularius “does not deserve all the obloquy heaped on him as chief architect of the Schism. At least equal blame for the events of 1054 must be assigned to Cardinal Humbert.”40 Congar, likewise, ascribes con32 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 234; John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 48–49. 33 Runciman, Schism, 39. 34 Ibid., 40. 35 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 234. 36 Congar, Nine Hundred Years, 25. 37 Ibid., 72. 38 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 235. 39 Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 132–34. 40 Runciman, Schism, 54.

134

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

siderable responsibility to the “combative, stiff-necked Humbert, whose bull of excommunication is a monument of unbelievable lack of understanding.”41 Some scholars even believe that Cerularius was justified in his refusal to negotiate with the papal delegation led by Humbert.42 And it is of great importance, they say, that Humbert single-handedly reawakened the controversy over the Filioque, which had long been dormant, when he accused the East of removing the clause from the Greek text of the Nicene Creed.43 Fortescue identified the events of 1054 as the start of the current schism, and Cerularius as its author (OEC, 172). Many prominent scholars, though, now disagree with this assessment.44 Instead, remarks Runciman, “Scholars are now reaching the conclusion that the year 1054, the date of the breach between Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert, can no longer be held to mark the final separation of their Churches.”45 Indeed, it has come to be generally accepted that there was no formal schism between the two Churches in that year, as Cerularius did not excommunicate the entire Western Church in retaliation, nor did Humbert possess the authority to excommunicate anyone, as the pope that he was representing was deceased and his commission had already expired.46 Strictly speaking, the canonical relationship between the two Churches in the immediate aftermath of 1054 was no different than before, although there was a rise in hostility.47 The exchange of excommunications in that year is now regarded by scholars as but another step in a process of gradual estrangement, albeit an important one.48 It is no longer viewed, though, as the culmination of tensions.49 Rather, many historians now hold that the current schism owes its

Congar, Nine Hundred Years, 71. Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 235. 43 Ibid., 239; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 133–34. 44 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 239. 45 Runciman, Schism, vi. 46 George Every, Misunderstandings between East and West, 10. 47 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 237. 48 Congar, Nine Hundred Years, 2–6. 49 George Every shows that the view which considers 1054 to be the start of the schism can be attributed to Jean Morin in the mid seventeenth century. This reading of history was later popularized by Gibbon and other notable historians (Misunderstandings, 9–25). 41 42

THE SCHISMS II

135

existence to the Crusades.50 “The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword,” writes Runciman, “and the sword was to sever Christendom.”51 The decisive issue, these scholars believe, was the way the Crusaders repeatedly replaced Eastern bishops, many of whom were still in tenuous communion with Rome, with Latin bishops.52 The vast majority of Eastern Christians, who were previously well disposed toward Rome, were unable to tolerate this humiliation.53 And as few Eastern bishops were willing to cooperate in their own replacement, rival Byzantine and Latin hierarchies emerged throughout the Levant. It was the establishment of these competing hierarchies that, in a sense, formalized the schism.54 Congar explains the long-term effect of the Crusades on relations between the Churches: It is evident that, in the spiritual atmosphere of the Crusades, with little historical sense or toleration of differences, the Latins of the time considered their tradition to be the tradition, their formulas to be those of the very Apostles, and of the Church Fathers; it is clear as well, that by their deeds, they frequently denied the existence and legitimacy of a tradition, of a rite and of an Eastern Church. The actual measures of subordination of the Greeks to the Latins … rather lamentably recall the situation created by colonization, when native officials are allowed some jurisdiction but are supervised by representatives of the dominating power. Thus the contact between the East and the West, resumed on the occasion and by the fact of the Crusades, turned into a new and very grave cause of estrangement. Today the memory of the Crusades still remains in the Greek mind as the memory of Latin aggression.55

Undoubtedly the most traumatic event was the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which resulted in the subsequent appointment of a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.56 Some scholars, such Runciman, consider this event to be the real moment at which the schism began.57 For from this point on, as Dvornik notes, all Greek theological writing on papal primacy 50

50.

Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 240; Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 49–

Runciman, Schism, 101. Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 240. 53 Runciman, Schism, 100. 54 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 240–41. 55 Congar, Nine Hundred Years, 26. 56 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 242. 57 Runciman, Schism, 151. 51 52

136

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

took a decidedly negative turn.58 Other scholars regard the fall of Constantinople (and the concurrent rejection of Florence) in 1453 as being the actual “point of no return.”59 But in any case, the long-standing tradition of dating the start of the schism to 1054, which was followed by Fortescue, is no longer accepted by the majority of scholars. Hence, although some aspects of Fortescue’s interpretations of the schisms have endured, other aspects have been superseded. The preponderance of later scholarship does indicate that the readings of history have, in most cases, changed. Yet, in at least a few key instances, later scholarship does continue to concur with Fortescue’s assertions. Therefore, it is necessary to judge that, while Fortescue’s historical scholarship on this subject has become partially outmoded, it nonetheless contains several significant points of lasting value.

Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 156. Every, Misunderstandings, 9; see also Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 50. An alternative view is that the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches was the final straw. For it was only in reaction to the formation of these bodies that the Orthodox Church began the practice of rebaptizing Catholics. See North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation, “Baptism and ‘sacramental Economy’,” 115. 58 59

6 EASTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND FAITH II There have been several significant developments on the theological front as well, some of which would have surprised Fortescue. In his description of Eastern Christian theology, Fortescue portrayed it as lacking the continuous development that is necessary for any living theological tradition. Instead, he assessed it as being essentially frozen in a particular period of development, having not progressed far beyond where it was in the fifteenth century. For this reason he believed that Eastern Christian theology was far behind Catholic theology (OEC, 246–47). There has been an amazing rebirth in Eastern Christian theology in the past century. This renaissance has occurred primarily in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, however; because of persecution and political circumstances, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have been primarily consumed with the struggle for survival. Such conditions have generally, with few exceptions, prevented any resurgence in theological exploration in these Churches.1 In the twentieth century the Eastern Orthodox Church came out of a long period that Georges Florovsky has called the “Western captivity” of Orthodox theology.2 During that period, Orthodox writers routinely used Catholic theology to refute Protestant arguments, and Protestant theology to counter Catholic arguments.3 The practice of genuinely Eastern Orthodox theology, unfortunately, was all but lost. This situation changed when Orthodox theology began to rediscover its own voice. One of the primary reasons for this was the establishment of new institutions where a more modern, scientific approach would be taken in the study of Orthodox theology. Among the most important of these is the Theological Institute of St. Sergius, which was founded in Paris in 1925 by Russian emigrants. In the years following, many of Orthodoxy’s greatest 1 Robert F. Taft, “Eastern Catholic Theology: Slow Rebirth after a Long and Difficult Gestation,” 72. 2 Cited by John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 128. 3 John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 90. 137

138

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

theologians have been associated with this school. Sergius Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov, Olivier Clément, Georges Florovsky, Alexander Schmemann, and John Meyendorff are among the numerous distinguished scholars who have taught there. The institute has also proven to be an important “point of encounter” between Western and Eastern Christians.4 Among the other notable schools that have contributed to a reawakening in Orthodox theology there are also American institutions such as St. Vladimir’s in Crestwood, New York, and Holy Cross in Brookline, Massachusetts.5 Today, Eastern Orthodox theology is a vital, flourishing discipline. Orthodox theologians are making valuable contributions to the study of moral theology, ecclesiology, spirituality, as well as patristics and liturgy. While it remains firmly rooted in the writings of the Church Fathers and liturgical texts, contemporary Orthodox theology utilizes these sources in a way that allows for fresh theological exploration, engaging in a reciprocal exchange of ideas with Western theology.6 There has also been an astounding revival in the practice of Eastern Catholic theology. While Eastern Catholic theology shares deep roots with Orthodox theology, as both draw from a common liturgical and patristic heritage, it has nonetheless come into its own as a separate, living entity.7 Robert F. Taft describes it as “the theology of Catholic practitioners with a knowledge and love for the traditions of the Christian East, a Catholic theology that seeks to breathe with both lungs, nourishing a sometimes anemic Catholic thought with oxygen from both sides of the East–West Christian divide.”8 A distinguishing feature of Eastern Catholic theology is that it is not exclusively Byzantine but encompasses theological thought from a wide variety of Eastern Catholic traditions.9 This renewal can be attributed in part to the establishment of the Pontifical Oriental Institute by Pope Benedict XV in 1917. Prior to the creation of this school, Eastern theology was often looked upon, even by Eastern Catholics themselves, as something existing outside of Catholicism. Eastern theology was generally understood to mean Orthodox theology, and Catholic theology was equated with Latin theology. Taft believes that, because of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, this situation Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 178–79. Ibid., 183. 6 See E. G. Farrugia, “The Rise of Modern Eastern Theology.” 7 Taft, “Eastern Catholic Theology,” 51. 8 Ibid., 53. 9 Ibid., 72. 4 5

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

139

has now totally changed. Eastern theology is not just studied. It is done from within, with sympathy and love. The point of departure, the perspective, the method, and above all the mentality, have all completely changed. Eastern theology is no longer an object, someone else’s theology, that one studies, but the subject of creation, a way of theology that engages one creatively and personally, in one’s life well as in one’s thought.10

The Pontifical Oriental Institute has also proven to be an important point of intellectual contact between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians. A number of Orthodox scholars and hierarchs have graduated from the institute, including Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. In this regard the school has fulfilled the aspiration of Pope Benedict XV, who founded the school “in the hope that one day Catholic and Orthodox students would there work side by side.”11 Another contributing factor to the renewal of Eastern Catholic theology has been the reemergence of a genuinely Eastern self-consciousness among the Eastern Catholic Churches. Often thoroughly latinized in the past in all things but liturgy, the Eastern Catholics of today more fully embrace the entirety of their Eastern patrimony, including their theological heritage. In this respect the pioneer has been the Melkite Church, which has led the movement among Eastern Catholics to reclaim their identities. This movement was sanctioned and given new impetus by the Second Vatican Council, which led to further renewal in the field of Eastern Catholic theology.12 Despite the revitalization that has taken place in Eastern theology, there is still some question as to whether or not Eastern theology is capable of addressing the concerns of the modern world. Fortescue identified intense conservatism as being one of the defining characteristics of Eastern Orthodox theology (OEC, 98). Today, “theological conservatism” is still recognized as one of the chief attributes of the Orthodox theological heritage.13 Too much conservatism, however, can result in intransigence. It is possible that this inflexibility could ultimately render Eastern Christianity incapable of effectively engaging modern humanity. Taft writes that “Eastern Christianity has not yet learned to face modernity, a lesson learned in the West only with great pain and many failures.” In order to carry on, he Ibid., 70–71. Michael O'Carroll, A Light from the East, 27–28. 12 Taft, “Eastern Catholic Theology,” 63–68. 13 See Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 7–10. 10 11

140

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

believes, the Eastern Churches need “the more typically ‘Western’ virtues of flexibility, objectivity, openness, fairness, self-criticism, and a sense of unity of modern global culture in which no one is or can remain an island.”14 It is yet to be seen whether the conservatism that is so characteristic of Eastern theology will prove to be an asset or a hindrance in the survival of the Eastern Christian Churches.

THE FILIOQUE In his writings, Fortescue defended the legitimacy of the Filioque clause, and he considered the Eastern Orthodox complaint against it to be an “artificial” grievance.15 He believed that the initial, underlying reason for the objection to the clause was political expediency, and he rebutted the charge that the Filioque was added to the creed illegitimately by saying that the addition was a disciplinary matter within the Roman patriarchate. For, he argued, the Roman patriarch had the authority to alter the liturgical text of the creed for use within his own territory (OEC, 381–83). Today the Filioque is still a key point of controversy, although there has been some significant progress in resolving this issue in recent decades. Of primary importance is the fact that many Orthodox theologians no longer consider the clause to be heretical.16 These theologians believe that the Filioque can be interpreted in a way that is compatible with Orthodox theology, although they assert that the doctrine has the potential to engender confusion about the Trinity.17 Theodore Stylianopoulos is representative of this view when he says that the issue ultimately “is not a difference in dogma but in the interpretation of dogma.”18 He, like other members of this school of thought, thinks that the inclusion of the Filioque in the Latin creed has had no real impact on the spirituality or ecclesiology of the Church.19 Nor do they hold that it “subordinates” the Spirit to the Son,20 or that it compromises the monarchy of the Father.21 Many of them even go so far as to say that it is perfectly Taft, “Eastern Catholic Theology,” 78–79. Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE 5:240. 16 Ware, Orthodox Church, 218. 17 Ibid., 213. 18 Theodore Stylianopoulos, “The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error,” 279. 19 Ibid., 284. 20 Ibid., 288. 21 Ware, Orthodox Church, 217. 14 15

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

141

acceptable to hold the teaching as a theologoumenon. For them the fundamental problem with the Filioque is that it was added to the creed unilaterally without the consent of the entire Church, and that its inclusion in actuality elevated it to the level of dogma.22 These theologians, whom Kallistos Ware calls “doves,” are essentially in agreement with Fortescue’s assertion that the Filioque has never fundamentally altered anyone’s Trinitarian faith (OEC, 154). Yet there is an opposing school of thought in Orthodox theology which continues to argue that the Filioque is a heretical doctrine that profoundly distorts the Christian faith. The proponents of this view, whom Ware labels “hawks,” follow in the tradition of Photius, arguing that the teaching compromises the monarchy of the Father and necessarily confuses the persons of the Father and the Son.23 Perhaps the most famous of these modern day “hawks” is Vladimir Lossky, who believes that the Filioque is so pernicious that it has actually distorted the structure of the Catholic Church. He contends that acceptance of this doctrine has resulted in the Holy Spirit’s role being partially suppressed within Catholicism, just as the authority of the Son, exercised through his vicar, is overstressed. The end result, he claims, is authoritarianism.24 On September 13, 1995, at the request of Pope John Paul II, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released a clarification entitled “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” The purpose of this document was to offer a clear, authoritative interpretation of what the Filioque actually means and to show that it is not in opposition to the Eastern theological tradition. Principally, it includes a strong reaffirmation that the Father is the source of the Trinity. The clarification unequivocally states that the Holy Spirit “takes his origin from the Father alone,” thus addressing one of the primary Orthodox objections.25 It also says that the original text of the creed, without the Filioque, is the normative version for the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Stylianopoulos, “Filioque,” 280. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, 213–14. 24 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 13, 191–92. Stylianopoulos counters this view by arguing that authoritarianism is just as present in those Churches that do not accept the Filioque (“Filioque,” 288). 25 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, “Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,” 36. 22 23

142

LATER DEVELOPMENTS Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council.26

Interestingly, it treats the version with the Filioque as being a liturgical usage particular to the Latin tradition: No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.27

Since the release of this statement, the Vatican has demonstrated a new appreciation for the normative character of the creed’s original text. On many occasions, Pope John Paul publicly recited the creed without the Filioque, and the 2000 document Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church features the creed without the addition of the clause.28 The primary Eastern Orthodox response to the clarification was written by John Zizioulas, and his reaction to it is mixed. On the positive side, he is very pleased with the Vatican’s affirmation of the normative value of the original creed. He also believes that the elucidations made within the document will prove to be extremely helpful in the ecumenical dialogue. On the negative side, however, he objects to its attempt to describe the Spirit as “the Gift of love from the Father to the Son.” In his estimation, the scriptural citations used in the document to make this point are referring to the economic Trinity and are being wrongly projected onto the immanent Trinity. Therefore, he says, further clarification is needed on this and several other aspects of the statement. Overall, though, Zizioulas does find it to be a valuable contribution to the discussion and a cause for encouragement.29 On October 25, 2003, the North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation issued an agreed statement entitled “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue.” The result of nearly four years of theological reflection and discussion, this document is a serious response to the 1995 Vatican statement.30 Aiming to move beyond the “polemical distortions” that have influenced perceptions on both sides, it recognizes that both traIbid., 35–36. Ibid., 36. 28 North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation, “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue,” 111. 29 Ioannis Zizioulas, “One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque.” 30 North American Consultation, “Filioque,” 93, 111. 26 27

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

143

ditions acknowledge the Father as being the ultimate source of the Trinity.31 Along with other observations, it finds that throughout the centuries the controversy over the Filioque has been inextricably linked with struggles for control and power.32 This statement makes very specific recommendations to both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Among them, it urges Orthodox Christians, as well as Catholics, to “refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.” And it asks the Catholic Church, “as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381,” to “use the original Greek text alone in making translations of the Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.”33 However, thus far there has been no indication of willingness on the part of the Vatican to removing the Filioque from the Latin version of the creed. Some Roman Catholic theologians, such as Avery Dulles, argue that doing so would ultimately be a mistake. Dulles believes that returning to the original text of the creed would “diminish the intelligibility of the revealed mystery, so brilliantly elucidated by theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.” Moreover, he fears that such an action would merely evade the issue of whether the Catholic Church has been advocating a heretical position. If the Eastern Orthodox Churches were to solemnly acknowledge the orthodoxy of the Filioque, though, he says that this concern would be somewhat diminished.34 But even then, he would not consider it prudent to remove the clause. For Dulles believes that “while the filioque is not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit, it embodies a profound truth that should not be sacrificed out of indifference, agnosticism, or ignorance, nor be discarded for the sake of a merely apparent unity.”35 While much progress has certainly been made in resolving this difficult controversy, clearly more still needs to be done before a final resolution will be reached.

Ibid., 112–13. Ibid., 119. 33 Ibid., 122. 34 Avery Dulles, “The Filioque: What Is at Stake?” 43. 35 Ibid., 44. 31 32

144

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

THE CONSECRATION OF THE EUCHARIST Fortescue identified the controversy over the moment when the consecration of the Eucharist takes place as being a key theological difference between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches. Yet he also recognized that this debate was foreign to the patristic understanding of the sacrament.36 The Church Fathers, he said, considered the entire Eucharistic prayer to be consecratory (OEC, 387). Nonetheless, he did identify the Western view as being the Catholic, and therefore the correct, opinion on the matter (OEC, 388). In recent decades there has been a considerable shift in the position officially held by the Catholic Church. According to Robert Taft, “Catholic teaching of late has moved toward the broader view that the eucharistic consecration comprises the prayer over the gifts in its entirety.”37 Such a perspective is able to recognize the important role of the epiclesis in the Eucharistic prayer. Thus, the majority of Catholic theologians no longer feel compelled to focus on the words of institution; indeed, they reject the isolation of the institution narrative from the rest of the anaphora.38 Evidence of such a shift is present in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, released under the auspices of Pope John Paul II in 1992. It recognizes the important role of the epiclesis, which it defines as the Church asking “the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit.”39 It teaches that “together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist.”40 Likewise, the Catechism affirms “the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.”41 However, it also states: The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Adrian Fortescue, “Epiklesis,” CE, 5:502. Robert F. Taft, “Mass without the Consecration?” 10. 38 Robert F. Taft, “The Epiclesis Question in the Light of the Orthodox and Catholic Lex Orandi Traditions,” 230. 39 Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1353. 40 Ibid., ¶1106. 41 Ibid., ¶1375. 36 37

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

145

Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you. … This is the cup of my blood.”42

While this statement recognizes the significance of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, a vestige of the old attitude is present when the words of institution are called “the words of consecration.” Similarly, the Catechism appears to locate the institution narrative as the place where “the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood.”43 Despite these statements, for the most part the Catechism reflects an important development in the official Catholic teaching on this matter. It is also worth noting that following the Second Vatican Council, new Eucharistic prayers were composed for the Roman Mass, each of which contains an explicit epiclesis. Unlike the Eastern tradition, in which the epiclesis follows the anamnesis, in these instances the epiclesis has been placed immediately before the institution narrative. The Roman Canon, though, in its original form without an apparent epiclesis, remains in use as Eucharistic Prayer I. Nonetheless, the inclusion of a clear epiclesis in the new Eucharistic prayers further signifies the enhanced appreciation for the epiclesis on the part of the Catholic magisterium. Arguably the most significant sign of change is found in a recent Vatican directive. On October 26, 2001, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. This document is intended to address the pastoral needs of Chaldean and Assyrian Christians who, due to particular circumstances, find it necessary to worship in each other’s churches. Robert Taft considers these guidelines to be “the most important magisterial decision since Vatican II.”44 This document deals with one of the more vexing problems for those who subscribed to the scholastic emphasis on the words of institution, namely, the status of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. This anaphora, which is one of the three anaphoras routinely used by the Assyrian Church of the East, does not contain the narrative of institution. While certain scholars used to argue that this anaphora originally contained—and then lost—the words of institution, it is now the

Ibid., ¶1412. Ibid., ¶1353. 44 Taft, “Mass without the Consecration?” 11. 42 43

146

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

scholarly consensus that these words were never present in this anaphora.45 The Vatican document acknowledges this fact and unequivocally affirms that this anaphora is “valid.”46 What compelled the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity to issue these guidelines was the already present reality of Chaldean Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Assyrian parishes. This pastoral situation made it necessary for the Vatican to make a definitive judgment on the validity of the ancient Anaphora of Addai and Mari. The Vatican’s affirmative judgment, which was personally approved by Pope John Paul II, was reached based on three vital points. First, the great antiquity of this anaphora proved to be a decisive factor. After an intensive study undertaken “from a historical, liturgical, and theological perspective,” it was determined that it is one of the earliest extant Eucharistic prayers, and that it fully expresses the intentions of the Church in celebrating the Eucharist. Nor was its validity ever officially disputed. The second pivotal factor was the Catholic Church’s recognition of the Assyrian Church of the East “as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession.” It is reasonable to conclude that a true Church would not routinely engage in an invalid Eucharistic celebration for nearly two millennia. The third and final point is that the words of institution are in a certain sense present, “not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.”47 Although this document recognizes the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as it stands, it is still possible to trace a slight remnant of the old Latin emphasis on the words of institution. For near the end of the guidelines a curious invitation is found: When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.48

Ibid., 8. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, “Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East,” 4. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 45 46

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

147

This statement seems somewhat incongruous with the rest of the document. If the anaphora is perfectly valid as it stands, there is no reason for an Assyrian priest to be “warmly invited” to insert the words of institution, thus modifying an ancient and venerable anaphora. Nonetheless, this document undoubtedly signifies a major change in the official Catholic attitude. Previously the Latin tradition’s narrow focus on the words of institution, which was the de facto Catholic position, eclipsed the importance of the epiclesis. According to Alexander Schmemann, any attempt to locate the transformation of the bread and wine “in formulas and causes, is not only unnecessary but truly harmful.”49 In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Taft says that this document “moves us beyond a medieval theology of magic words.”50 Rather, it recognizes “that the prayer of consecration is the entire core of the anaphora, not just some segment of it highlighted into an isolated ‘formula.’”51 It is for this reason that Taft heralds it as being “perhaps the most significant decision to come out of the Holy See in a half-century.”52 The new approach that is evident in this document is in accord with Fortescue’s own reluctance to declare the Liturgy of Addai and Mari invalid. He himself said that it was possible to defend its validity from the perspective of the entire Eucharistic prayer being consecratory (LEC, 155 n. 3). Although as an apologist Fortescue defended what he believed to have been the definitive Catholic position, his background as a liturgical scholar was evident in his cautious approach to this question.

ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND PROTESTANTISM A development which might have surprised Fortescue is the Orthodox involvement in the World Council of Churches. Beginning in the 1920s, under the leadership of Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV, the Eastern Orthodox Church began to demonstrate an increased openness to engaging the Protestant churches in dialogue.53 This led to the Ecumenical Patriarchate taking an active role in the first assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1948. Soon thereafter, other Orthodox Churches joined the Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, 222. John L. Allen Jr., “Ruling on Inter-Communion Sends Signals.” 51 Taft, “Mass Without the Consecration?” 10. 52 Allen, “Ruling.” 53 Gregory Woolfenden, “Some Reflections on Orthodox and Anglican Ecclesiologies and Approaches to ‘Intercommunion’,” 33. 49 50

148

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

WCC, until in due course almost all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches had become full members of this body.54 Many positive fruits have come from this involvement. For the WCC, the participation of the Orthodox Churches has been a constant reminder that Christianity is not a solely Western phenomenon, and it has given the organization added credibility as being more than an exclusively Protestant body. For the Orthodox Churches, their membership has served the valuable purpose of preventing them from falling into isolation and has led to the establishment of constructive relationships with other Christian bodies.55 Unfortunately, certain difficulties have also accompanied the Orthodox involvement in this organization. Consistent with Fortescue’s portrayal, the Orthodox Church has remained resolute in affirming its own unique status and has continued to reject Protestant theology. Because of this, within Orthodoxy itself many persons have vocally expressed reservations about the nature and purpose of the WCC.56 These individuals are troubled by the dominance of Protestant thinking within the body and fear that through its participation the Eastern Orthodox Church is implicitly denying its own status as the one true Church.57 Because of these concerns, the Orthodox Church of Georgia withdrew its membership in 1997 and was followed by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1998.58 The departure of these Churches led the WCC to conduct a careful self-evaluation so as to ascertain how it could alleviate the fears of its Orthodox participants.59 This resulted in the organization’s central committee deciding to implement a “consensus model of decision making,” which would replace the parliamentary system that had previously been employed. The purpose of this change is to ensure that the Orthodox perspective could no longer be effectively drowned out by the numerically

Ware, Orthodox Church, 322. Ibid., 324. 56 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 199–201. 57 Ware, Orthodox Church, 322–24. “Those Orthodox who are opposed to membership of the WCC argue that to participate in the Ecumenical Movement is to fall into the ‘pan-heresy of ecumenism,’ according to which all Christian confessions stand on an equal footing” (324). 58 “WCC Meets Orthodox Discontent with Policy Changes,” 17. 59 Evangelia A. Varella, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the World Council of Churches,” 167. 54 55

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

149

larger Protestant membership.60 This modification is also intended to clearly define the organization’s identity as “a fellowship of Churches,” providing a forum for dialogue and encounter.61 As well as participating in the WCC, the Eastern Orthodox Church also retained close relations with the Anglican Church throughout most of the twentieth century.62 As was the case when Fortescue was writing, however, the validity of Anglican orders has been an ongoing point of contention. In 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV issued a statement which declared Anglican orders to be as valid as Roman Catholic orders.63 Other Orthodox Churches soon made similar declarations.64 In 1948, though, the Russian Orthodox Church reached a negative judgment on this question, refusing to recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations.65 Moreover, those Churches that had previously issued positive statements have continued to re-ordain Anglican clerics who convert to Orthodoxy, while they do not re-ordain Catholic clerics, thus implicitly questioning the validity of Anglican orders.66 Fortescue did not believe that the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches would ever establish communion. Thus far, his prediction has held true. Full communion between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches is, to a large degree, impaired by the sharp differences that exist within Anglicanism itself. “From the Orthodox point of view,” writes Ware, “the main obstacle to closer relations with the Anglican communion is the com“WCC Meets Discontent,” 17. The Orthodox members of the WCC “have long complained that the organization is dominated by Protestant theology and decision making styles.” 61 Varella, “Ecumenical Patriarchate,” 169. Many Orthodox critics of the WCC are concerned that the organization intends to become a “super church.” See Peter Bouteneff, “Orthodox Ecumenism: A Contradiction in Terms?” 6–7. 62 Ware, Orthodox Church, 317–18. 63 Ibid., 319. 64 Colin Davey, “Anglicans and Eastern Christendom,” 13. 65 Ware, Orthodox Church, 319–20. 66 Woolfenden, “Reflections,” 41–42. Woolfenden points out that with regard to “clergy, the actual practice of the Orthodox Churches is again a good guide as to recognition or non-recognition of ecclesial and/or sacramental reality. In the case of one ordained within the Roman communion, concelebration with the bishop has long been the traditional way of receiving such a person.” In contrast, “the actual practice everywhere is to re-ordain former Anglican clergy. Since there is no complete official consensus amongst the Orthodox one must interpret this last fact as indicating that a prudent doubt remains.” 60

150

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

prehensiveness of Anglicanism, the extreme ambiguity of Anglican formularies, the wide variety of interpretations which these formularies permit.” Hence, the “Orthodox Church, however deep its longing for reunion, cannot enter into closer relations with the Anglican communion until Anglicans themselves are clearer about their own beliefs.”67 Thus, with regard to the Orthodox involvement in the WCC as well as the Orthodox relationship with the Anglican Church, Fortescue’s instincts have proven largely correct. Although engaged in the ecumenical movement, Orthodoxy’s “conservative spirit,” as he called it (OEC, 252), has prevented the Church from adopting Protestant theology or compromising its faith. Likewise, the resistance to recognizing Anglican orders demonstrates that Fortescue was correct in foreseeing that the Orthodox would not readily acknowledge the Anglican Communion as being a branch of the true Church (OEC, 260–61). Yet the active role that the Orthodox Church has taken in engaging the Protestant Churches in dialogue, although occasionally contentious, does go far beyond what Fortescue would have anticipated.

EASTERN CHRISTIAN LITURGY Fortescue believed that the Eastern Orthodox approach to liturgy was distinguished by its conservatism. In his estimation, the Orthodox Church clings “to one stage of development” liturgically, although he did not believe that this was necessarily problematic (OEC, 404–5 n. 2). He considered this liturgical conservatism to be characteristic of all of the Eastern Churches. Fortescue’s analysis has, for the most part, continued to hold true. There has been no widespread liturgical overhaul in the Eastern Churches comparable to that which occurred in the Roman Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council.68 Yet a significant movement for liturgical renewal in Eastern Orthodoxy has emerged, although it has encountered some resistance.

Ware, Orthodox Church, 321. Historically, though, there have been some notable reforms of the Byzantine liturgy, including those of the Studites, Nikon, and Peter of Moghila. Even as recently as the twentieth century, the liturgy was noticeably altered by certain Eastern Catholic bishops. For a historical overview, see Thomas Pott, La réforme liturgique byzantine. 67 68

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

151

One of the leading figures in this movement was Alexander Schmemann, who has been heralded as being “without doubt the greatest Orthodox liturgical theologian” of the twentieth century. Schmemann’s approach to the study of liturgy, which has come to be called “liturgical theology,” stresses the profound unity of worship and faith. He emphasizes that liturgy is the “primary theology” of the Church, and that there should be no disconnect between worship and faith.69 A major thrust of this movement has been to restore the practice of frequent communion among the Orthodox faithful.70 While in many places this practice has become more widespread, a significant percentage of Orthodox Christians still continue to receive communion only three to four times a year.71 Schmemann believes that this a major departure from the practice of the early Christians, and that it undermines awareness of the acute connection between the Eucharist and the Church as the body of Christ.72 He holds that Orthodox reluctance toward receiving communion regularly can be traced to the “Western captivity” of Orthodox theology, during which time consuming the Eucharist came to be viewed as an act of personal piety for which one must become worthy.73 Schmemann argues that a rediscovery of the Eucharist as “essential food uniting us to Christ,” which should be received frequently, will spark a major revival in Orthodox Christianity.74 Fortescue also contended that a form of liturgical intolerance holds sway in Eastern Orthodoxy, where everyone is required to adopt the Byzantine Rite. An interesting development which challenges this view has been the appearance of a “Western Rite” within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Western Rite Orthodoxy began in France in 1937, when a group of former Roman Catholics were received into Orthodoxy by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. Since then, Western Rite parishes have been established in Britain and the United States under the auspices of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.75

Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 230. Eastern Catholics, like Roman Catholics, have returned to the practice of frequent communion in large numbers, especially since the Second Vatican Council. 71 Ware, Orthodox Church, 287. 72 Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent, 113–14. 73 Ibid., 117. 74 Ibid., 132, 118. 75 Ware, Orthodox Church, 185–86. 69 70

152

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Today, Western Rite parishes use a modified version of the Anglican liturgy that has been altered to bring it into conformity with Orthodox teaching.76 The majority of Western Rite Orthodox Christians are converts from the Anglican Communion who have come into Orthodoxy through the Antiochian Church.77 The emergence of the Western Rite has been met with caution or even hostility in some circles, however. Reflecting this, Ware describes the position of Western Rite Orthodoxy as being “limited and tentative.”78 Concern over this development has been expressed by no less a personage than Schmemann himself. While he recognizes that Orthodoxy does not require conformity to the Byzantine Rite, he nonetheless believes that adoption of the Western Rite by Orthodox Christians is less than ideal.79 In fact, he believes that its spread can potentially impede the progress of Orthodoxy in the Western world: In our state of national divisions … what holds the Orthodox Church together, assures its real continuity with tradition and gives the hope of revival is precisely the liturgical tradition. It is a unique synthesis of the doctrinal, ethical and canonical teachings of Orthodoxy and I do not see how a real integration into the Orthodox Church, a genuine communion of faith and life may be achieved without an integration in the Orthodox worship.80

Thus, while the Eastern Orthodox Church may not be intolerant of rites other than the Byzantine Rite, the acceptance of a plurality of liturgical traditions, which is characteristic of Catholicism, still is not the rule in Orthodoxy. In this respect Fortescue’s contention has proven somewhat, though not entirely, accurate.

EASTERN CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY While Fortescue had high praise for the devotion given to Mary and the saints by the Eastern Orthodox Church, he was highly critical of its process of canonization. He believed that the Orthodox Church heedlessly canonMost significantly, the Filioque has been omitted from the Creed and the epiclesis has been amplified. 77 In several instances, entire parishes have left the Anglican Communion and converted to Orthodoxy as a whole. See Frederica Mathewes-Green, 126–28. 78 Ware, Orthodox Church, 185. 79 Alexander Schmemann, “The Western Rite,” 37. 80 Ibid., 38. 76

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

153

ized numerous political and religious leaders, many of whom were wholly unworthy of veneration (OEC, 103). A development which would likely have further confirmed Fortescue in this view was the canonization of Czar Nicholas II by the Russian Orthodox Church in August 2000. The Czar, along with other members of the imperial family, was canonized as a “passion bearer,” someone who accepts an unjust death with “Christian meekness.” There is a long tradition in Orthodoxy of Christian rulers being canonized as passion bearers, including early Russian saints such as the princes Boris and Gleb. Such an individual differs from a martyr in that while a martyr is executed for religious beliefs, a passion bearer is murdered for other reasons but responds to this fate with exemplary faith.81 In many ways, however, this situation appears to be a clear illustration of Fortescue’s criticism that the Eastern Orthodox Church has historically canonized unworthy secular rulers. There is significant reason to call into question the sanctity of the Czar. Particularly troubling is the fact that Nicholas is considered by scholars to have been an antisemite who promoted government policies which resulted in pogroms.82 While he did not officially order or organize any pogroms himself, he, in collaboration with his ministers, “fostered an anti-semitic mentality” and placed “Jews in a position that made pogroms appear acceptable” by passing laws that harshly discriminated against Jews and made them appear as enemies of the empire. When violence erupted against the Jews, Nicholas blamed them for provoking their own sufferings.83 Hence, the “attitudes of Nicholas II and his ministers created a perception among local officials that excesses against Jews were tolerable and condoned, albeit unofficially.”84 As well as being antisemitic, Nicholas routinely participated in assorted occult activities, especially séances.85 With these factors in mind, it is difficult to comprehend the criteria by which such a man could be counted as a Christian saint. While not addressing these concerns directly, Georgii Mitrofanov, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Synodal Commission on the Canonization of Saints, did comment that “saints are not sinless. And in the Emperor’s Georgii Mitrofanov, “The Glorification of the Imperial Family is a Settled Matter,” 46. 82 Shlomo Lambroza, “The Tsarist Government and the Pogroms of 1903– 1906,” 288. 83 Ibid., 293. 84 Ibid., 294. 85 See Robert D. Warth, “Before Rasputin: Piety and the Occult at the Court of Nicholas II.” 81

154

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

policies there were many shortcomings.”86 Nonetheless, some policies are arguably so abhorrent that they should effectively bar the way to canonization. This situation, therefore, seems to substantiate Fortescue’s criticism. Fortescue also emphasized the importance of monasticism in the East. He recognized that in the Eastern Churches the monastic state is regarded to be the most perfect life to which a person can aspire, and that it is held up as an ideal.87 Yet he ultimately believed that religious orders are more effective, and he praised the Eastern Catholic Churches for adopting the Latin model of active religious orders.88 In recent decades, though, there has been a renewed appreciation for traditional monasticism among the Eastern Catholic Churches. More so than before, Eastern Catholics are realizing the value of the monastic life as a way to fully live out “the very core of the Gospel, thus standing in the heart of Christianity itself.”89 In the traditional Eastern monastic life, the monk’s primary work is to pray.90 For the “activity” of the Eastern monk is to worship God through participation in the Church’s liturgical services.91 Any apostolic or charitable work, although not neglected, is secondary to the work of prayer.92 The importance of traditional Eastern monasticism has been reinforced in the writings of Pope John Paul II. Instead of regarding Eastern monasticism to be stagnant, as Fortescue did, he finds a remarkable vitality within it. In Orientale Lumen, the pontiff addresses the Eastern Christian Churches in the context of their monastic tradition.93 In doing so, he extols Mitrofanov, “Glorification,” 47. Adrian Fortescue, “Monasticism, III. Eastern Monasticism,” CE, 10:468. 88 Ibid., 472. 89 Boniface Luykx, Eastern Monasticism and the Future of the Church, 57. Archimandrite Boniface founded Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Redwood Valley, California. It is one of several traditional Eastern Catholic monasteries that were established in North America following the Second Vatican Council. 90 Ibid., 162. “For a monk, prayerfulness and worship are his very life and they are the Church’s primary witness to God’s absolute priority—not just in theory, but also in practice; for an active religious, apostolic activity is primary and prayer is seen (practically and mostly) as a support for finalizing apostolic activity towards God, since man in his practical needs is taken as primary.” 91 Peter Knowles, “Some Reflections on Orientale Lumen,” 110. 92 Tomas Spidlik, The Spirituality of the Christian East, 169–70. 93 “It is a little ironic that one of the best recent summaries of the ideals of Eastern monasticism should have come from the head of the Western Church” (Monk Maximos, “The Blessing of a New Monastery,” 119). 86 87

THEOLOGY AND FAITH II

155

the “great unity” that monasticism has retained in the East, where it “did not experience the development of different kinds of apostolic life as in the West.” He praises the fact that the monastic life is seen as “a reference point for all the baptized” and observes that “monasticism has always been the very soul of the Eastern Christian Churches.”94 Because of these factors, the pope resolves that with “regard to monasticism, in consideration of its importance to Eastern Christianity, we would like it to flourish once more in the Eastern Catholic Churches and that support be given for those who work for its revitalization.”95 This papal statement contrasts sharply with Fortescue’s position, which was that the active religious life is preferable to traditional Eastern monasticism.

John Paul II, “Orientale Lumen,” ¶9; English translation, John Paul II, Orientale Lumen. 95 Ibid., ¶27. 94

7 EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH STRUCTURE II Questions surrounding the structure of the Church have long been a source of strained relations between the Catholic Church and those Eastern Churches that are not in communion with her. This continues to be the case today, as topics such as universal primacy and the autonomy of particular Churches are still ongoing matters of controversy. Within the Eastern Orthodox Church itself, heated arguments have emerged regarding the boundaries of Christ’s Church, as well as the ecclesiological implications of the Church’s involvement in the ecumenical movement. As Fortescue devoted considerable attention to issues related to church structure, in this chapter we consider some of the key developments in this sphere and ponder their broader connotations.

BELIEF IN A VISIBLE, HIERARCHICAL CHURCH Fortescue held that that it is a central conviction of Eastern Orthodoxy that Christ’s Church must be a visible body, governed by a hierarchy, and that this is an indication of how close Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. He likewise said that the Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, rejects all forms of the branch theory (OEC, 365–66). Because of this, he believed that when Orthodox Christians speak of the Church, they mean only their own communion.1 Since Fortescue’s lifetime, the Eastern Orthodox Church has remained steadfast in emphasizing the visible unity of the Church and in rejecting any hint of a branch theory. For, as Meyendorff explains, the “Son of God made himself visible in the course of history, he became man and founded on earth a visible communion, which was to possess sacramentally the fullness of his redemptive grace.” Consequently, the “Protestant conception of the unity and fullness of the Church as either something of an invisible nature or belonging to an eschatological future seems, to Orthodox Christians, to amount to a denial of the reality of salvation, as a repudiation of 1

Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE 5:240. 157

158

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

that which God himself has given us.”2 In accordance with this view, Archpriest John W. Morris writes that “Orthodoxy is not a church, but is the Church which teaches the faith delivered by Christ to his Apostles for all men in all times and in all places.”3 While the Catholic Church continues to make similar affirmations regarding itself,4 its position has been somewhat moderated. Under the guidance of a centralized magisterium, Catholicism has come to officially recognize valid sacraments and legitimate hierarchies existing beyond its visible boundaries.5 The Orthodox Church, however, which lacks a central teaching authority, has been unable to reach a consensus on this issue.6 Although some Orthodox Christians do acknowledge that true sacraments may exist outside of Orthodoxy, others do not. For those who deny the efficacy of non-Orthodox sacraments, “outside the Orthodox Church as we see it there is simply undifferentiated darkness in which the Pope is no different than a witch doctor.”7 The Orthodox insistence on Christ’s Church being a visible, tangibly united body is manifested today in the controversy over ecumenism. Many Orthodox Christians, especially monks, are adamant in denouncing what they refer to as the “heresy of ecumenism,” and a bustling industry exists in publishing anti-ecumenical literature.8 A closer examination, though, reveals that these individuals suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of what ecumenism actually is. A formal condemnation of ecumenism which was issued by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in 1983 illustrates their fallacy: To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 202–3. John Warren Morris, “The Charismatic Movement: An Orthodox Evaluation,” 133. 4 For a recent example, see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dominus Iesus,” 216, ¶3–4. 5 Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium,” 11–12, ¶8. English translation, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, 357. 6 David M. Petras, “The Ecumenical Status of the Eastern Catholic Churches,” 356–57. 7 John H. Erickson, “Reception of Non-Orthodox Clergy into the Orthodox Church,” 131. 8 Peter Bouteneff, “Orthodox Ecumenism: A Contradiction in Terms?” 2–3. 2 3

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

159

in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the Priesthood and Mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their heresy of ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!9

As is evident in this condemnation, the opponents of ecumenism mistakenly confuse it with the branch theory.10 Authentic Orthodox ecumenism, in contrast, begins with the belief that the Orthodox Church is “the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” and “sees the encounter with non-Orthodox as an opportunity to witness to Orthodox truth, and perhaps also to learn something from aspects of the life of the nonOrthodox.”11 Unfortunately, the persistent dissemination of anti-ecumenical literature continues to propagate widespread misunderstanding on this topic.12 Yet this situation does indicate that Fortescue was correct in stressing the centrality of the Orthodox belief in a visible Church. The controversy over ecumenism serves to underscore the fact that, within Orthodoxy, this conviction has continued to endure. For if the Orthodox Church did not hold as a fundamental tenet that it alone is Christ’s Church, then the suspicion of embracing the branch theory, no matter how mistaken, would not excite such passion. Thus, in his portrayal of this aspect of Orthodox Christianity, Fortescue was accurate.

PATRIARCHS AND PATRIARCHATES While Fortescue regarded the papacy as a divinely established and necessary institution, he tended to portray the patriarchal system of governance as a product of historical evolution. Nor did he believe that that the office of patriarch had a secure future in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, he Pronouncement of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 1983, to be included with the existing anathemas in the “Rite of Orthodoxy,” performed on the first Sunday of the Great Fast, quoted in John W. Morris, Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View, 3. 10 Bouteneff, “Orthodox Ecumenism,” 4. 11 Ibid., 6. 12 Ibid., 7. “It is a sobering fact that this literature is gaining converts and has an effect on the life of the Orthodox Church, particularly some jurisdictions.” 9

160

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

predicted that “the old patriarch ideal” would gradually disappear throughout much of the Orthodox world and would be largely replaced by synods modeled after that which governed the Russian Orthodox Church during the reign of the Czars.13 Fortescue’s prediction is unfulfilled. Instead of receding from prominence, the office of patriarch has continued to be of major importance to the Orthodox Church. This is evidenced by the establishment of several new patriarchates during the past century. The Russian Patriarchate was reestablished in 1917, prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1920 the Serbian Church became a patriarchate, followed by the Romanian Church in 1925 and the Bulgarian Church in 1961. In each case, patriarchal status was formally conferred by Constantinople. The Georgian Patriarchate, which had been abolished by Russia in 1801, was restored in 1917.14 When explaining the traditional powers and privileges of patriarchs, and their significance in Eastern Christianity, Fortescue drew a sharp distinction between Orthodox patriarchs and Eastern Catholic patriarchs. For while Orthodox patriarchs were able to freely exercise the prerogatives of their office, he noted that the powers of Eastern Catholic patriarchs were considerably restricted.15 Since Fortescue’s lifetime, the role and position of Eastern Catholic patriarchs have undergone notable changes. One of these involves a resolution to the long-standing dispute over the ranking of patriarchs in the Catholic hierarchy. Fortescue observed that in the Catholic Church the cardinals, who are considered to be the princes of the Church, have historically enjoyed precedence over the patriarchs.16 Even until the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the Eastern Catholic patriarchs found themselves eclipsed in honor and prestige by the cardinals.17 Perhaps no event better demonstrates this fact than the controversy at the opening of the council’s first session over where the patriarchs should be placed in the inaugural procession, in which they were ranked below the cardinals. Melkite PatriAdrian Fortescue, “Holy Synod,” CE, 7:432. Ronald G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches, 61–81. 15 Adrian Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” CE, 11:553. 16 Ibid. 17 Brian McNeil, One City One Bishop? 11–12. A cardinal by nature differs significantly from a patriarch. A cardinal is a dignified member of the Latin patriarchate, “who is, ecclesiologically speaking, a parish priest of Rome.” A patriarch, in contrast, is the head of a Church. A sound ecclesiology would seem to dictate that the head of a Church should be given precedence over a member of a patriarchate. 13 14

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

161

arch Maximos IV Saigh was so deeply offended by this arrangement that he refused to take part in the procession.18 This policy of ranking cardinals above patriarchs had been reiterated in the partial code of eastern canon law that was issued in 1957 by Pope Pius XII.19 This code went so far as to give a cardinal precedence over a patriarch even in the patriarch’s own territory.20 Even those cardinals who were not bishops were to enjoy this precedence. However, this situation was effectively resolved by the new Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that was promulgated in 1990 by Pope John Paul II.21 In what is certainly a major step forward, canon 58 reads as follows: Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.22

Another source of ongoing friction has been the frequent bestowal of the cardinalate on Eastern Catholic patriarchs. Because the dignity of cardinal is an honor bestowed on clergy of the Latin patriarchate, in the judgment of many Eastern theologians it is not appropriate for the head of a Church to be enrolled as a member of another patriarchate. In their reasoning, a patriarch is accepting a lower dignity when he becomes a cardinal.23 18 The Melkite Church in particular, which entered into union with Rome as late as the eighteenth century, encountered endless friction with the Roman Curia over the rights of its patriarch. It was for this reason that the Melkite Church placed the role of patriarchs near the top of its agenda for the Second Vatican Council. See Philip A. Khairallah, “Melkite Expectations and the Post-Conciliar Church,” 105. 19 The promulgation of this code was met with considerable opposition from Eastern Catholic hierarchs. “Cleri Sanctitati, issued by Pope Pius XII on 11 June 1957, was a major portion of a projected code of canon law for Eastern Catholics. … It was highly controversial, and resisted strongly by the Greek-Catholic Church of Antioch in particular. Pope John XXIII agreed to suspend publication of further parts of the projected code, and referred the whole matter to the then-forthcoming General Council. … That council mandated a complete reform of Catholic canon law, which has resulted in the two codes promulgated by John Paul II” (ibid., 113 n. 8). 20 Elias Zoghby, A Voice from the Byzantine East, 111. 21 Ibid., 120. 22 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, p. 25. 23 “Pope Paul VI as well as Pope John Paul II have appointed patriarchs of Antioch and of Alexandria cardinals. … But since the cardinalate is an institution of the Church of the Occident, perceptive patriarchs did not at all accept this ‘dignity’

162

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Nonetheless, some Eastern Catholics have looked upon this as a promotion, as it enables the patriarch to participate in a papal conclave.24 But the Melkite Church, which has been especially conscious of its ecumenical responsibility, has attempted to resist the bestowal of this honor on its patriarchs. Its resistance has not always met with success, though, since Patriarch Maximos IV was ordered by Pope Paul VI to become a cardinal, although Maximos never wore the garb or used the title.25 While the matter of cardinals is one of precedence, the question of actual authority is a different situation. Fortescue described patriarchs as being “the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope,” who as “chief bishops” are “subject only to the first patriarch at Rome.”26 He believed that it was possible for Eastern patriarchs to exist in communion with Rome without being subject to “so close a centralization as in the West,” and without diminishing their traditional authority and dignity.27 Yet some observers have come to believe that the Roman Curia is uncomfortable with the traditional rights and privileges of patriarchs and would prefer to limit their autonomy.28 This view is most forcefully argued by the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby, who draws upon his personal experiences to support this position. In his book A Voice from the Byzantine East, Zoghby, who was a prominent figure at the Second Vatican Council, recounts the anguish of the Melkite Church in the face of what he considers to have been unwarranted interference from the Roman Curia. He believes that the clergy of the Roman

with enthusiasm. The cardinalate is not an elevation in rank for those who hold the top rank in the hierarchical structure of the universal church, even if they are made cardinal-bishops without a titular church in the Roman metropolitan province or in Rome itself but with the title of their patriarchal church” (John Madey, Orientalium Ecclesiarum: More than Twenty Years After, 88). 24 Madey offers a possible solution. “If, in the past, oriental patriarchs were ‘elevated’ to the cardinalate to enable them to participate in the election of the Bishop of Rome and supreme pastor of the universal church, this aim could also be achieved, if the patriarchs were ipso facto considered members of the electoral body” (ibid., 89). 25 Zoghby, Voice, 124. 26 Fortescue, “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 549. 27 Adrian Fortescue, “The Eastern Schism,” in Folia Fugitiva, ed. W.H. Cologan (London: R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1907), 159. 28 Madey, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 91.

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

163

Curia “have established themselves, with the pope and in his name, as administrators of the whole Catholic Church.”29 In particular, Zoghby bemoans the methods and philosophy of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches. In his estimation, especially prior to the Second Vatican Council, this congregation effectively usurped the powers proper to a patriarch for each Eastern Catholic Church. He candidly acknowledges that despite all claims of independence, the true “headquarters of the Uniate Churches” is this congregation.30 He even goes so far as to refer to it as a “pseudo-patriarchate.”31 Even today, he observes, this congregation primarily comprises Latin cardinals, many of whom are not well acquainted with the traditions and disciplines of Eastern Christianity. He recounts that at the end of the council in 1965 an effort was made to correct this imbalance by making the Eastern Catholic patriarchs “associate” members of the Congregation. Yet little was accomplished with this move, he believes, since the cardinals alone remain the only official members and the patriarchs have only a secondary status. Zoghby offers a startling analogy to demonstrate how inappropriate he considers this situation: What would anyone think of a commission in charge of the administration of the Archdiocese of New York composed of Eastern patriarchs as full-fledged members with the actual archbishop of that metropolis only an associate member with little more than advisory powers? Yet this is exactly the situation in which all the Uniate Eastern Catholic Churches find themselves today!32

Zoghby argues that this state of affairs smacks of colonialism and western triumphalism. He believes that it only serves to bolster the Eastern Orthodox suspicion that communion with Rome results in centralization.33 At the very least, this situation certainly calls into question Fortescue’s assurances that in a reunited Church the Eastern Churches would not “have to submit to our special centralization” (OEC, 433). Zoghby, Voice, 111. Ibid., 110. 31 Ibid., 145. 32 Ibid., 119. 33 In 2000, Pope John Paul II appointed an Eastern Catholic Patriarch, Ignatius Moussa I Daoud, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Upon accepting this position, the Eastern prelate in question resigned as Patriarch of the Syrian Catholic Church and became a cardinal. See Cindy Wooden, “The Catholic Churches,” 299. 29 30

164

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Vatican II’s decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, pays particular attention to the traditional role of the patriarch in an Eastern Church.34 It establishes several important principles concerning the role of patriarchs in the Catholic Church. Among them: Wherever a prelate of any rite is appointed outside the territory of his patriarchate, he remains attached to the hierarchy of his rite, in accordance with canon law. Following the most ancient tradition of the Church, special honor is to be given to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, since each is set over his patriarchate as father and head. Therefore this holy council enacts that their rights and privileges be restored in accordance with the ancient traditions of each church and the decrees of the ecumenical councils. … The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, not excepting the right of setting up new eparchies (dioceses) and appointing bishops of their rite within the patriarchal territory, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in any particular case.35

Immediately after the Council, the Melkite Church attempted to act on these principles. However, it instantly met with considerable resistance from the Roman Curia.36 The issue at stake was the appointment of a bishop for the growing Melkite immigrant population in the United States. In conformity with the traditional Eastern Christian practice of new bishops being elected by the patriarchal synod, the Melkite Synod convened in 1966 and elected the first bishop for the Melkite Church in the United States. When the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches became aware of this action, it immediately declared the election unacceptable and appointed an Apostolic Exarch who was directly dependent on Rome, with no connection to the Melkite hierarchy.37 This Apostolic Exarch, Bishop Justin Najmy, died within two years of his appointment. Upon receiving news of his death, Patriarch Maximos V appointed an administrator to succeed him. Within a day he was informed by Rome that this action was outside the reach of his authority and that 34 Paragraphs 7–11 of Orientalium Ecclesiarum specifically address the position of patriarch. 35 Vatican II, “Orientalium Ecclesiarum,” 79, ¶¶7, 9; English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 444, 445. 36 Khairallah, “Melkite Expectations,” 113. 37 Ibid., 112.

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

165

Rome would again choose a new bishop without any input from the patriarch or his synod. Furthermore, this bishop would again answer directly to Rome and would not be dependent on the Melkite hierarchy. The patriarch responded by holding a public press conference, at which he made the following statement: My predecessor of blessed memory (Patriarch Maximos IV), in a detailed statement addressed to the Holy Father, made it clear that it was most unfortunate that this arrangement, which is foreign to Melkite canon law, was introduced now, two years after the Second Vatican Council, which solemnly asserted that our traditions were to be respected. … In our recent Synod meeting, we studied this whole question carefully and agreed that the establishment of the American Exarchate directly dependent on Rome, rather than an Eparchy united to the Melkite hierarchy, was contrary to the very Eastern laws that were recognized and affirmed by this Council.38

A temporary compromise was eventually reached in which the Patriarchal Synod of the Melkite Church would draw up a list of three candidates to be presented to the Sacred Congregation, and the Congregation would have the option of choosing one of the candidates or of choosing someone not on the list.39 This compromise, which was intended to be a one-time solution, has since become permanent. It is now binding on all of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the New World.40 As a result of this situation, what became abundantly clear was that the reforms mandated by Orientalium Ecclesiarum would only be implemented when the long awaited Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches was promulgated. It is the opinion of some Eastern Catholics that the new Code of Canons, which finally appeared in 1990, proved to be largely a disappointment.41

38 Press conference by Patriarch Maximos V, released by the Melkite Exarchate, Newton, Mass., on October 30, 1968, and excerpted in ibid., 113. 39 Ibid., 114–17. 40 “Could not a compromise of the western and eastern views be found by saying that the patriarchs and their synods in using their traditional right for electing bishops and establishing eparchies outside the traditional patriarchal territory, act ‘on behalf and in the name of the Roman pontiff,’ supreme primate of the universal church? The present legal dispositions make it appear as if the Patriarch of the West reserved for himself exclusive territorial jurisdiction!” (Madey, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 86–87). 41 Khairallah, “Melkite Expectations,” 130–34.

166

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

On the positive side, the code does give tremendous authority to the patriarch and his synod in governing his Church, but only within the “traditional territory.” In fact, the patriarch has almost complete authority over his Church, but only within strict geographic limits set by Rome. In the estimation of many Eastern Catholic leaders, this territorial restriction is one of the principal flaws of the code. In the so-called “diaspora,” the Patriarch has full authority over liturgical matters, but otherwise he has no jurisdiction.42 Outside of the traditional territories, authority for governing each Church is given to the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which effectively functions as their patriarch. This arrangement is hard to reconcile with Orientalium Ecclesiarum’s principle that prelates in the “diaspora” remain united with their hierarchy, for they are appointed by Rome and answer only to Rome in all matters except for liturgy.43 However, this code is intended to be only provisional and temporary. Pope John Paul asserted that it is only to have the force of law until the long-awaited reunion with the Orthodox Churches takes place, at which time it will cease to be in effect.44 In the interim, though, Eastern Catholic patriarchs continue to face special restrictions on their authority, albeit to a lesser degree than previously. In this regard Fortescue’s description of the situation is still accurate, as the prerogatives of Eastern Catholic patriarchs continue to be restricted in comparison to those of their Orthodox counterparts.

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS Fortescue questioned why the Orthodox Church has not convened an ecumenical council since the schism, as he regarded the ability to hold such a council to be one of the most significant powers of the Church (OEC, 370). If the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church, he argued, it should be capable of holding a council every bit as authoritative as those of the first millennium (OEC, 368). In The Orthodox Church, Ware makes this very assertion: “Laws, enacted by the synod of bishops and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary or concern other decisions of this synod, they have the force of law within the patriarchal territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 150). 43 Khairallah, “Melkite Expectations,” 129–30. 44 John Paul II, “Sacri Canones,” English translation, Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, xiii. 42

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

167

Claiming as it does to be the one true Church, the Orthodox Church also believes that, if so desired, it could by itself convene and hold another Ecumenical Council, equal in authority to the first seven. Since the separation of east and west the Orthodox (unlike the west) have never in fact chosen to summon such a council; but this does not mean that they believe themselves to lack the power to do so.45

There has, in actuality, been a movement within Orthodoxy to convene a “Great and Holy Council.”46 Beginning in the 1950s, the possibility of holding such a council was consistently advocated by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, who in 1961 held a Pan-Orthodox Conference at Rhodes to commence planning for the event. Since then, further meetings have been held in preparation for the council, and various committees have been working to formulate a proposed agenda.47 The overall purpose of the council will be to resolve issues facing the Orthodox Church in the modern world, so as to maximize the Church’s effectiveness in witnessing to the Gospel.48 The topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to, Orthodox jurisdictional unity, the procedure for establishing the autocephaly or autonomy of a Church, the calendar, as well as the Orthodox Church’s role in fostering the reconciliation of Christians.49 Although some progress has been made in the planning stages, at the present juncture the future of the council is in doubt. Ongoing tensions between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II have resulted in preparations for the council being halted indefinitely. The basis of the quarrel is the Ecumenical Patriarch’s claim that all Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, including Russian Orthodox parTimothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 247. Because of the Orthodox understanding of the reception of councils, they are reluctant to call this council “ecumenical” until “it actually meets and proves to be the voice of the whole Church” (Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 235). Orthodox Christians believe that a council can only be considered ecumenical if its decrees are recognized as reflecting the true faith by both the hierarchy and laity of the Church. This reasoning, which was elucidated by Alexis Khomiakov in the nineteenth century, explains how the Orthodox Church can reject the authenticity of disputed councils such as Florence, which appear to meet the ancient criteria for ecumenicity. See Ware, Orthodox Church, 252–53. 47 Ware, Orthodox Church, 187. 48 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 235. 49 Maximos Aghiorgoussis, “Towards the Great and Holy Council,” 424. 45 46

168

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

ishes, fall under his jurisdiction.50 In a 2002 letter, Alexy accused Bartholomew of actively obstructing the council through his obstinacy and of instead pursuing a path of domination over worldwide Orthodoxy.51 It appears that until a resolution to this dispute has been arrived at, the future of the long-hoped-for council will remain in a state of uncertainty. Hence, nothing so far has happened to satisfy Fortescue’s concern.

THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF PAPAL PRIMACY When presenting the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church on papal primacy, Fortescue emphasized its rejection of the pope’s universal jurisdiction (OEC, 370). He believed that it is the pontiff’s “universal claim” that proves most difficult for Orthodox Christians to accept, and that this constitutes a stumbling-block for them (OEC, 372 n. 1). Today, Orthodoxy continues to reject the pope’s universal jurisdiction as a matter of course.52 One of their concerns is that it transforms Rome’s primacy into “supreme power,”53 and that this reduces the proper authority of bishops, making them effectively vicars of the pope.54 They also fear that this power has a wide potential for abuse, and that it could “lead to suppression of theological and liturgical traditions of which the bishop of Rome does not approve.”55 This view is consistent with Fortescue’s assertion that one of the primary obstacles to reunion is the Orthodox fear that communion with Rome would mean the loss of their tradition. Nonetheless, a number of Orthodox scholars are beginning to see the need for some sort of effective central primacy within the Eastern Orthodox Church. One such author is Antonios Kireopoulos, who writes: The present disunity among Orthodox Christians is disheartening. It is not enough to state, as we have tended to in the past, that though Orthodoxy is made up of several administratively separated local churches, 50 George Matsoukas, “Rifts among Orthodox Hierarchs Demonstrate Urgent Need for a World-Wide Pan-Orthodox Synod.” 51 Alexy II, “Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch from Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow,” September 18, 2002. 52 “We do not consider that, in the first ten centuries of the Church, the Pope possessed direct and immediate power of jurisdiction in the Christian east, and so we find it impossible to grant such power to him today” (Ware, Orthodox Church, 316). 53 Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Papal Primacy,” 128. 54 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 195. 55 Clapsis, “Papal Primacy,” 123–24.

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

169

we are theologically united. Aren’t we really saying that, in the absence of something else, perhaps an empire, to hold us together, we are condemned to, for want of a better term, “competing autocephalies”? This hardly does service to our universal witness to Christ. … If, however, we look critically at our own ecclesiological reality, perhaps then we can offer something better to ourselves, and something different to other Christians. If anything, it may help us to rediscover something we have previously slighted, namely the ministry of primacy.56

Some Orthodox writers are even willing to entertain the possibility that, under the right conditions, the Roman See could once again serve this purpose as “an ecumenical center” of “unity and agreement” in a reunited Church.57 Olivier Clément contends that one day the Orthodox Church will have to “overcome the temptation of autocephalism and religious nationalism in order to rediscover exactly how collegiality and primacy interconnect,” and that this should lead to the recognition of a more balanced Roman primacy.58 Even scholars such as these, however, remain highly critical of the way in which the papacy currently functions and believe that it must be altered to become acceptable to Orthodoxy.59 Their complaints include a perceived failure to implement genuine collegiality within the Catholic Church,60 as well as a tendency to exalt the pope “as a ruler set up over the Church” whose ministry is interpreted “through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction.”61 It is evident, therefore, that a gap remains between the conception of papal primacy espoused by Rome, which includes universal jurisdiction, and the more limited form of primacy that some Orthodox

Antonios Kireopoulos, “Papal Authority and the Ministry of Primacy,” 62. Clapsis, “Papal Primacy,” 128–30. 58 Clément argues that his fellow Orthodox Christians should not forget “what the East had fully recognized during the first millennium: that, once unity of faith is re-established, primacy will remain indivisibly founded on the person and faith of Peter, on a petrine ministry balanced by that of Paul, the charismatic, as well as by that of John, the visionary” (Olivier Clément, You Are Peter, 76). 59 It is Clément’s hope that Rome “will return to the authentic conception of primacy as the servant of communion, within a framework of genuine independence between her bishop and all other bishops, and also of real dialogue with the entire people of God” (ibid., 75–76). 60 Kireopoulos, “Papal Authority,” 48–50. 61 Clapsis, “Papal Primacy,” 129–30. 56 57

170

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

scholars are willing to accept for the good of the Church.62 Fortescue’s analysis of this situation thus continues to hold true.

THE DANGER OF NATIONALISM Fortescue believed that nationalism has had a tremendously destructive impact on the organization and functioning of those Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome. In particular, he contended that nationalism could lead to the submission of the Church to civil authorities. Reflecting on the history of Orthodoxy, Ware lends credence to this contention. He says, “This close identification of Orthodoxy with the life of the people, and in particular the system of national Churches, has had unfortunate consequences. Because Church and nation were so closely associated, the Orthodox Slavs have often confused the two and have made the Church serve the ends of national politics.”63 During the period of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe, the Communists grossly exploited this tendency, effectively subjugating the national Churches to state authority. Under the guise of patriotism, Churches were routinely coerced into carrying out the will of the state. For throughout this period, “in return for restricted toleration, the Church leaders were expected to be ‘loyal’ to the government.”64 This situation has lessened considerably since the collapse of the Soviet empire, although some observers have expressed concern over the inordinately close relationship that continues to exist between the Russian Orthodox Church and the government of the Russian Federation.65 Fortescue also argued that nationalism, when left unchecked, inescapably leads to the fragmentation of the Church. Many Orthodox scholars acknowledge that nationalism has continued to be an ongoing problem within Eastern Orthodoxy. “Nationalism has been the bane of Orthodoxy for the last ten centuries,” writes Ware.66 Meyendorff attributes this to the Byzantine theory of the Christian state, which provided a “fertile ground” for “the development of the modern, essentially secularized, form of naIbid., 117. Ware, Orthodox Church, 77. 64 Ibid., 156. 65 In 2002, following the creation of new Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia, the Russian Federation revoked the visa of Catholic Bishop Jerzy Mazur. This action was perceived to represent an attempt to “stifle religious freedom” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, April 24 press release). 66 Ware, Orthodox Church, 77. 62 63

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

171

tionalism.”67 He believes that nationalism has led to the destructive consequence of Orthodox Churches being largely isolated from one another, thus compromising their spiritual influence.68 “Clearly,” he remarks, “modern nationalism has effected a transformation of legitimate ecclesiastical regionalism into a cover for ethnic separatism.”69 This situation has been exacerbated by the emergence of newly independent Churches in Eastern Europe since the collapse of Soviet Communism. These Churches tend to have a strong sense of national consciousness70 and are inextricably linked with their particular nation-states.71 Two of these Churches asserted their independence unilaterally without first receiving the blessings of the Patriarch of Moscow and therefore now exist in a state of schism from the rest of Orthodoxy.72 In response to this trend, the Ecumenical Patriarch has consistently emphasized that the Church should not be too closely identified with national interests.73 Panayote Dimitras cites an interview of Patriarch Bartholomew from the Athens daily newspaper, Eleftherotypia, which quotes the patriarch as saying that “even when nationalism invokes Christianity as a means to justify its ends, this does not make it any less of a heresy.”74 In the face of rising nationalism he has attempted to refashion the role of his office in a way that some observers have labeled “neo-papal,” attempting to exercise “global responsibility” for the well-being of the worldwide Church.75

67 Meyendorff describes a frequent effect of nationalism: “The Church often comes to be regarded as nothing more than a mere adjunct of the nation, a mere instrument useful in helping to preserve the language and customs of the people” (Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 131). 68 Ibid., 209. 69 John Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, 225–26. 70 Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 329. 71 Philip Walters, “Notes on Autocephaly and Phyletism,” 358. 72 These are the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 209). 73 Theodor Nikolaou, “The Term Ethnos (Nation) and its Relevance for the Autocephalous Church,” 460. 74 Panayote Dimitras, “Greek Orthodox Churches’ Discordance Over NATO Strikes.” 75 Alexander F. C. Webster, “Split Decision: The Orthodox Clash over Estonia,” 614–15.

172

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

In spite of the fact that his patriarchate has been considerably reduced in size and scope compared to what it once was,76 the Ecumenical Patriarch has continued to assert his prerogatives as “first among equals.”77 His assertions, however, have not always been met with acquiescence. Perhaps no event better illustrates this than the Estonian crisis of 1996. In the wake of Estonia acquiring national independence in 1991, a dispute arose between members of the Estonian Orthodox Church who wished to remain under the jurisdiction of Moscow and those who desired ecclesial autonomy. In February 1996 the Ecumenical Patriarch intervened to reactive a long-defunct 1923 decree that granted autonomy to Estonia under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church, believing that Constantinople was unwarranted in its interference, retaliated by formally breaking communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. This schism lasted until April, at which time a compromise was reached. They agreed on the establishment of two separate but parallel jurisdictions in Estonia: one under the authority of Moscow, and one that would be autonomous under Constantinople.78 Although this particular conflict was resolved, it is indicative of a much broader issue within Orthodoxy.79 This is the problem of Orthodox unity, or the lack thereof, and how it is to be safeguarded. The fact that ecclesial communion could be ruptured over a matter as seemingly trivial as the status of the small Orthodox minority in Estonia has been a cause of great alarm and has pushed this question to the forefront.80 The Ecumenical Patriarch, on the one hand, believes that it is his responsibility to resolve disputes throughout the Orthodox world, thus securing the canonical unity of the Church. For this reason he holds that his intervention to establish an autonomous Church in Estonia was not only justified, but necessary.81 The Patriarch of Moscow, on the other hand, Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 132–33. Webster, “Split Decision,” 614. 78 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 110–11. 79 “The tiny Orthodox community in overwhelmingly Lutheran Estonia (45,000 out of a total population of 1.5 million) is merely a crackerjack prize, a trinket in a much greater contest” (Webster, “Split Decision,” 615). 80 Chrysostom Frank, “A Short Squabble?” 63. 81 In laying out his case for intervening in Estonia, Bartholomew insists that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has “the obligation given to her by tradition and established custom” to “meet the needs of the Churches in particular circumstances and of Orthodox people everywhere” (Bartholomew I, “Letter from Patriarch Bar76 77

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

173

strongly protests that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no right to become involved in the affairs of other Churches, and that it is precisely the actions of Bartholomew that threaten Church unity. He claims that the Patriarchate of Constantinople “continues to use every chance to extend its influence to the canonical territories of other Churches, thus dealing a lethal blow at the unity of the Church.”82 Interestingly, Alexy’s critique of Constantinople as being ambitious, and seeking to unlawfully usurp authority from other patriarchates, is not far removed from Fortescue’s portrayal of this see. The Estonian crisis and its aftermath have caused some Orthodox Christians to question whether something is fundamentally wrong with the Eastern Orthodox Church’s system of governance.83 In response to this situation, one Orthodox scholar, Chrysostom Frank, has conjectured that perhaps “the time has come to recognize the inanity and the senselessness of our ecclesiastical structure, which has produced national Churches that are apparently endlessly imprisoned in their own egoism, Churches in which the Catholic spirit and understanding can often be discerned only weakly.”84 He believes that it has become evident that a united Eastern Orthodox Church is an illusion, and that what truly exists is a conglomeration of “isolated national Churches” that are in desperate need of an effective center of unity.85 The fragmentation wrought by nationalism has been acutely felt not only in Eastern Europe, but especially in North America and other parts of the “diaspora.” Here it manifests itself in the existence of multiple parallel jurisdictions within the same geographic territory.86 Each of these jurisdictions is defined by its connection to a specific ethnic group and is (in most cases) dependent on a mother Church in the Old World.87 In the eyes of some observers, “In the religious life of the diaspora, national loyalties, in themselves legitimate, have been allowed to prevail at the expense of Ortholomew I to Patriarch Alexis II,” 164–65). 82 Alexy II, “Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church,” 175. 83 Webster describes how the Estonian crisis led one Orthodox archbishop to conclude that “our system does not work” (“Split Decision,” 621). 84 Chrysostom Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 66. 85 Ibid., 65. Frank has since entered the Catholic Church and now serves as a Byzantine Catholic priest in Denver, Colorado. 86 Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis of Pittsburgh, “Unity in the Orthodox Diaspora,” Sourozh, no. 61 (1995): 36. 87 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 99.

174

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

thodox Catholicity, and this has led to a grievous fragmentation of ecclesial structures.”88 Most Orthodox scholars regard the existence of parallel jurisdictions to be an ecclesial anomaly in need of immediate correction.89 This state of affairs arose from a unique set of historical circumstances. Initially, Orthodoxy in North America was canonically united under the Russian Orthodox Church, as Russian missionaries were the first to establish missions on American soil in the late eighteenth century. However, this arrangement was never officially recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople or by the Church of Greece. Therefore, when the Russian Orthodox Church in America split into rival factions following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, a separate Greek Orthodox archdiocese was established that now exists under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.90 Soon thereafter, other ethnic groups imitated the Greeks by setting up their own dioceses.91 In doing so, these immigrants were continuing their national existences through their Churches.92 The theologian Job Getcha, who teaches at the Theological Institute of St. Sergius in Paris, believes that they established separate dioceses and parishes because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Church: Our difficulties are a direct consequence of the notion of a “national” Church with “extraterritorial” powers. Thus the Greeks—to take just one example—have built Churches in order to have “Greek” communities. What was important was not that, being Orthodox, they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Catholics, Anglicans, etc. Rather, they wanted to distinguish themselves from the other Orthodox—the Russians, the Serbs, the Bulgarians—as being by nationality Greek. By confusing theology with politics, Christ and his Church with the nation and Ware, Orthodox Church, 174. Meyendorff is well aware that parallel jurisdictions have become commonplace in the Catholic Churches, although he does not approve of this. “We must follow Orthodox canonical models, and not the papal model, which allows—as we all know—parallel jurisdictions everywhere (e.g. the Uniate dioceses in America), with coordination only in Rome, because Rome and not the local church is the criterion of unity in Roman Catholicism. For us Orthodox, there must be one Church in America—not many churches, each controlled by a faraway foreign center, which, in the case of Constantinople (unlike Rome), can only be rather nominal and uninvolved” (John Meyendorff, “Orthodox Unity in America: New Beginnings?” 17– 18). 90 Ware, Orthodox Church, 182. 91 Ibid. 92 Alexander Schmemann, “Problems of Orthodoxy in America,” 77. 88 89

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

175

its State, religious nationalism has shown itself to be nothing more than a “modern form of idolatry.”93

Many observers believe that this state of affairs has done untold damage to the witness of Orthodoxy in the New World.94 “There is no doubt,” writes Meyendorff, “that the strange and utterly abnormal situation of Orthodoxy in America today is, first of all, rooted in ecclesiastical nationalism,” which, although “originally rooted in a positive and holy concern for integration of Christianity into culture,” has in practice “become a form of unenlightened and careless tribalism, incompatible with the Orthodox and catholic understanding of the Church.”95 It has, on a practical level, resulted in virtual isolation between the various parallel jurisdictions coexisting in the same geographic regions.96 Instead of working together to share resources and build up the Church, in most cases these jurisdictions rely on foreign hierarchies who are incapable of understanding the unique problems faced in America.97 Attempts have been made, however, to remedy this situation, albeit with little success. In 1970, the Russian Orthodox Metropolia was granted autocephalous status by the Patriarchate of Moscow and became known as the Orthodox Church in America.98 The reason for this act was to lay the groundwork for canonical unity among the different Orthodox jurisdictions on the continent.99 Unfortunately, this action did not achieve its intended result. Instead, the Ecumenical Patriarch challenged the legitimacy of the action, claiming that Moscow overstepped its authority.100 Constantinople still refuses to recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, and this dispute remains unresolved, although full communion has not been ruptured between the Churches.101 Job Getcha, “Can One Justify the Notion of a ‘National Church’ from an Orthodox Point of View?” 30. 94 Ware, Orthodox Church, 184. 95 Meyendorff, “Orthodox Unity,” 12–13. 96 Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis considers this isolation to be “tantamount to a scandal in terms of Orthodox unity.” He also decries the violation of the ancient principle of “one bishop in one city” (“Unity in the Orthodox Diaspora,” 36). 97 Schmemann, “Problems,” 72–73. 98 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 100. 99 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 227. 100 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 100. 101 “The Ecumenical Patriarchate takes the view that it alone, acting in consultation with the other Orthodox Churches, has the right to establish an autocephalous 93

176

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Another attempt was the creation of a pan-Orthodox bishops’ conference in 1960, known as the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA). While it has proven to be a valuable forum for interaction between bishops from the various jurisdictions, in the estimation of some observers it has not been remarkably effective in paving the way for unity.102 As the conference exists only as a consultative body, it lacks the canonical authority to make any substantive changes.103 Schmemann is of the opinion that the first step toward unity in North America is for SCOBA to be transformed into a genuine synod with actual authority. When this finally happens, he says, “we shall ‘taste and see’ the oneness of the Orthodox Church in America even if nothing else is changed and the various national ecclesiastical structures remain for a while in operation.”104 In 1994, while meeting in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, the conference issued a statement acknowledging the need for this very thing to happen and recognizing in itself “a precursor to a General Synod of Bishops.”105 It also rejected the use of the term “diaspora” to describe the Church in North America.106 This declaration, known as the “Ligonier Statement,” was unequivocally rejected by the Ecumenical Patriarch,107 and no further progress has been made toward achieving this goal.108 Therefore, the fragmentation of the Orthodox Church, which is driven by nationalism, continues to be an ongoing problem in America as well as in other parts of the world.109 The issue of parallel jurisdictions, and the Church in America” (Ware, Orthodox Church, 178). 102 Ibid., 185. 103 Schmemann, “Problems,” 82. 104 Ibid. 105 Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America, “The Church in North America,” 47. 106 Ibid., 46. 107 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 100–101. 108 Webster describes Bartholomew’s response as a “ruthless quashing of a nascent pan-Orthodox synod of bishops for North America that was gingerly proposed” by SCOBA (“Split Decision,” 614). 109 “The importance of the issue of diaspora is expressed by the fact that it has been placed first on the agenda of ten topics we have accepted for consideration and decision in the forthcoming Orthodox Council, referred to as the Great and Holy Synod” (Archbishop Paul of Finland, “Suggestions for a Solution to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora,” 8). See Interorthodox Preparatory Commission, “The Orthodox Diaspora.”

CHURCH STRUCTURE II

177

difficulties which it raises, do not appear to be anywhere near resolution.110 Nor has there been conspicuous success in achieving substantial coordination, let alone tangible unity, among the Orthodox Churches of the world. To the contrary, pan-Orthodox relations have proven to be seriously strained on several fronts, as is witnessed by the indefinite delay in convening the Great and Holy Council. These facts clearly indicate that Fortescue’s assessment of nationalism as a serious and ongoing threat to the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church has not ceased to be accurate.

Indeed, it is worth noting that the establishment of parallel jurisdictions was actually employed as a solution during the Estonian crisis. 110

8 THE PROBLEM OF REUNION II The twentieth century witnessed a profound stirring of interest in reconciliation among the various separated Christian bodies. It is unlikely that Fortescue could have foreseen momentous developments such as the Second Vatican Council and the “dialogue of charity” that accompanied it.1 Relations have warmed considerably between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Eastern Churches, and many concrete steps have been taken on the path toward unity. Nonetheless, there are still formidable obstacles that must be overcome, some of which are the very same impediments that Fortescue identified during his lifetime.

RECONCILIATION WITH THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH As a realist, Fortescue held that for the immediate future the prospects of reunion between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were not especially bright. He believed that over the centuries the schism had grown stronger by the sheer force of inertia, until among the Orthodox the very state of separation from the West had become something akin to tradition (OEC, 433). Nor did he think that the leaders of the Orthodox Church were particularly eager for reconciliation (OEC, 438). Furthermore, Fortescue was convinced that one of the main obstacles to reunion was the Orthodox suspicion that reconciliation with Rome would lead to the loss of their distinctive Eastern Christian identity.2 He believed that no lasting rapprochement would be possible until Orthodox Christians were convinced that their traditions would be fully respected in a reunited Church. Although reconciliation has not yet occurred, there has been a marked improvement in relations between the two Churches. During the first half Roberson describes the “dialogue of charity” as being “a kind of learning to trust one another again, a process that had to take place before any fruitful theological dialogue could begin” (Ronald G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches, 201). 2 Adrian Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” CE, 13:538. 179 1

180

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

of the twentieth century, this was facilitated by the work of such ecumenical pioneers as Lambert Beauduin, Andrew Sheptytsky, and Yves Congar.3 The most dramatic shift occurred, however, because of Pope John XXIII’s unanticipated decision to convene an ecumenical council. The Second Vatican Council, more than any other event in recent history, has spectacularly altered the ecumenical landscape. As stated in Unitatis Redintegratio’s opening paragraph, the “restoration of unity among all Christians” was one of the council’s “principal concerns.”4 This reflected John XXIII’s own desire for reconciliation among Christians.5 The healing of the rift with the Eastern Churches was an aspiration particularly close to the pontiff’s heart, as he had previously served as an apostolic visitor in Bulgaria and as an apostolic delegate in Istanbul, and he therefore had considerable experience interacting with the Orthodox.6 In its Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, the council took the vital step of formally acknowledging the separated Eastern Churches as being true Churches, having apostolic succession and possessing valid sacraments.7 This recognition made it possible to develop an understanding of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as being “sister churches” which, although visibly separated, are nonetheless joined together through the closest of bonds.8 3 Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873–1960) founded the “Monastery of Union” in 1925, which is “a ‘double rite’ community in which the members worship according to both the Latin and the Byzantine rites. It has many Orthodox visitors and friends, and issues a valuable periodical, Irénikon” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 315). The Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky (1865–1944) was a strong advocate for the rights and traditions of Eastern Christians and worked tirelessly for improved relations with the Orthodox Church (ibid., 314–15). Aidan Nichols credits Yves Congar, along with Beauduin, with helping to develop “a principled Catholic ecumenism” that “made possible a change of heart” on the Catholic side. He believes that their work culminated in Orthodox observers being invited to the Second Vatican Council (Rome and the Eastern Churches, 310). 4 Vatican II, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” ¶1. English translation, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, 452. 5 Alan Schreck, Vatican II: The Catholic Challenge, 197. 6 Xavier Rynne, Vatican Council II, 22. 7 Vatican II, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” ¶15. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 465. 8 Roberson holds that this new perspective regarding the non-Catholic Eastern Churches, which is evident in Unitatis Redintergratio, helped to lay the foundation for

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

181

The council also attempted to dispel all fears that communion with Rome means assimilation and latinization by making the following official pronouncement: From the earliest times the Churches of the East followed their own disciplines, sanctioned by the holy Fathers, by Synods, and even by Ecumenical Councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, such diversity of customs and observances only adds to her beauty and contributes greatly to carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove all shadow of doubt, then, this holy Synod solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while keeping in mind the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle—which indeed has not always been observed—is a prerequisite for any restoration of unity.9

The council even proclaimed that this principle extends to differing theological approaches, and that there may be a certain degree of diversity between East and West in the realm of theology.10 It asserts that “what has already been said about legitimate variety” applies “to differences in theological expressions of doctrine,” and that variances in “theological formulations are often to be considered complimentary rather than conflicting.”11 In this respect the council is in keeping with what was envisioned by Fortescue, who was insistent that the Orthodox should not have to adopt Western terminology or philosophy (OEC, 432). Also, the attendance of Orthodox observers had a distinct effect on the ambiance of the council.12 These observers, along with those representing the various Protestant confessions, were seated in a place of prominence during the council’s deliberations, on the opposite side of the aisle from the cardinals.13 Their presence served to punctuate the council’s directive to work for the restoration of unity among Christians. This ecumenical “an ecclesiology of communion” (Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 201). 9 Vatican II, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” ¶16. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 466. 10 Schreck, Vatican II, 204. 11 Vatican II, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” ¶17. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 466. 12 Rynne, Vatican Council II, 50. 13 Schreck, Vatican II, 200.

182

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

mission was given further impetus by a fraternal exchange of correspondence in 1963 between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, which culminated in the two leaders meeting one another in Jerusalem in 1964.14 This was the first instance of a pope and an Ecumenical Patriarch meeting face to face in over five hundred years, since the Council of Florence.15 The Second Vatican Council marked the dawn of a new era of hope for restored communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. No longer viewing the other warily from a secure distance, each of the two bodies began a process of mutual exchange and encounter, tentatively reaching out to reestablish trust.16 A significant milestone was reached on December 7, 1965, when Paul VI and Athenagoras simultaneously lifted the excommunications of 1054.17 Although largely symbolic, since they were not real mutual excommunications,18 this event, which occurred at the close of the council, nonetheless had profound importance. It showed that mutual trust was gradually being rebuilt,19 and it served as a “symbol of the intention to restore full communion when the time was ripe.”20 The two men also issued a common declaration in which they expressed a mutual desire to initiate a dialogue, the ultimate goal of which would be reconciliation.21 Ten years later, in December 1975, a delegation from Constantinople arrived in Rome, announcing the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s formal agreement to establish a joint committee in preparation for such a dialogue. It was during this encounter that, in a rare departure from protocol, Paul VI knelt down and kissed the foot of the patriarch’s personal representative, Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon.22 This act of humility and respect was indicative of the tone that the pontiff hoped for in the forthcoming dialogue.

Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 310. Ware, Orthodox Church, 315. 16 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 310–11. 17 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 201. 18 See p. 134 above. 19 Ware, Orthodox Church, 315. 20 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 311. 21 Paul VI and Athenagoras I, “The Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras,” 21, ¶5. 22 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 311. One can only imagine how Fortescue, who spoke of the pope as the “overlord” over other bishops, would have reacted to this gesture. 14 15

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

183

The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was officially launched in 1979.23 Since its inception, the commission has produced four agreed statements. The first of these, which was issued in 1982, is entitled “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.” It is an examination of the nature of the Church based on the ecclesiology of communion.24 Also known as the “Munich Statement,” it recognizes that the structural basis of the universal church is the celebration of the Eucharist in each local church and finds this to be a valuable starting point for further discussion. For just as “when the believer communicates in the Lord’s body and blood, he does not receive a part of Christ but the whole Christ,” so “the local church which celebrates the eucharist gathered around its bishop is not a section of the body of Christ,” but “is truly the holy church of God, the body of Christ, in communion with the first community of the disciples and with all who throughout the world celebrate and have celebrated the memorial of the Lord.” With this in mind, the statement concludes that “because the one and only God is the communion of three persons, the one and only church is a communion of many communities and the local church a communion of persons. The one and unique church finds her identity in the koinonia of the churches.”25 The commission’s second statement, “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church,” was issued in 1987. This document, which is often referred to as the “Bari Statement,” considers the relationship between the Church’s faith and sacramental life.26 While it finds that agreement exists between the Churches on many essential points, the statement does mention a significant difference with regard to the sacraments of initiation. This is the Latin practice of “admitting to first communion baptized persons who have not yet received confirmation,” which some of the Orthodox participants found to be problematic. In response to this “inversion,” the document calls for “deep theological and pastoral reflection because pastoral practice should

Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 201. Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 313. 25 Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity,” 195. 26 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 317–18. 23 24

184

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

never lose sight of the meaning of the early tradition and its doctrinal importance.”27 The third agreed statement to be produced by the commission, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God,” was released in 1988. Commonly known as the “Valamo Statement,” it finds agreement on the role of the ministerial priesthood in the Church and stresses the importance of the bishop as “the living link between his own church and that of others in professing an identical faith and manifesting that faith in Eucharistic celebration.”28 The document closes by stating that it “is in this perspective of communion among local Churches that the question could be addressed of primacy in the Church in general and, in particular, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, a question which constitutes a serious divergence among us and which will be discussed in the future.”29 Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches became the focal point of controversy between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Perceiving a return to the old policies of “uniatism” and proselytism, the Orthodox felt endangered and therefore insisted that the theological dialogue should immediately redirect its attention to this topic.30 The commission’s fourth and most recent statement, “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion,” issued in 1993, was an attempt to address Orthodox fears.31 Unfortunately, the document itself was met with hostility by some Orthodox hierarchs, and because of this issue the work of the Joint International Commission has been stalled ever since. At the commission’s final meeting to date, which was held in July 2000 at Mount St. Mary’s College in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the participants tried to make further headway on this

27 Joint International Commission, “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church,” 339. 28 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 319. 29 Joint International Commission, “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God,” 377. 30 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 202–3. 31 This document is examined at length below, when we consider the ecumenical role of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

185

question, but unsuccessfully.32 Thus far, the dialogue has been unable to satisfactorily resolve this issue or to move beyond it.33 Despite these and other setbacks, Pope John Paul II remained committed to carrying on the ecumenical legacy of his predecessors. Throughout his pontificate, the Slavic pontiff made rapprochement with the Orthodox one of his foremost priorities. By means of his numerous voyages and personal encounters with Orthodox leaders, he worked steadily to improve relations between the Churches.34 Although interactions have remained strained, his efforts have not been futile, as there are still some signs of hope. For as recently as 1997, Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I issued a common declaration that reiterates the accomplishments of the Joint International Commission, reaffirming that “our Churches recognize one another as Sister Churches, responsible for safeguarding the one Church of God, in fidelity to the divine plan, and in an altogether special way with regard to unity.”35 In the pursuit of reconciliation, the pope repeatedly harkened back to the situation of the first millennium as a model for reunion. In his 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint, he states that “the Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West,” and that the Church “finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium.”36 By looking at how the Church was structured during that historical period, he believed, it is possible to discern how a reunited Church should be structured.37 In this regard the pontiff’s approach was in concurrence with that of Fortescue, who held that reconciliation should principally mean a return to the way things were before the schism.

Chris Herlinger, “ ‘Uniatism’ Remains Thorny Issue for Catholic–Orthodox Commission.” The theme of this session was “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism.” A common statement was not issued, as no agreement could be reached. 33 See North American Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops, “Statement on the Catholic–Orthodox Dialogue at the Dawn of a New Millennium.” 34 Michael O’Carroll, A Light from the East, 47–51. 35 John Paul II and Bartholomew I, “Common Declaration,” 130, ¶2. 36 John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” ¶61. English translation, John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 72. 37 Ibid., ¶55. English translation, 65. 32

186

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

On the path to reunion, the pope deemed that it was of the utmost importance for Orthodox and Catholics to come to know one another.38 This is crucial, as it is widely agreed that no lasting reconciliation will be achieved unless the members of both Churches embrace it with their hearts and minds.39 Still, on the popular level residual mistrust lingers on and will not be easily dissipated. In Eastern Europe especially, the ongoing spread of “misinformation and rumor” continues to sour relations.40 Likewise, in some parts of the world good will is further impaired by the fact that Catholic and Orthodox Christians harbor unhealed memories of violence and persecution at the hands of one another.41 A large number of Orthodox Christians are highly suspicious of the motives of the Catholic Church. “Many of them perceive this church as vast in size, with huge resources, and disposing of a highly efficient organizational structure. When this is coupled with their historical consciousness of being the victim of Catholic aggression, which they blame for divisions in their own ranks, many Orthodox become fearful of entering into serious dialogue with Rome.”42 This situation is further exacerbated by the influence of numerous Orthodox “fundamentalists” who reject the very notion of ecumenical dialogue or encounter.43 Roberson believes that the only remedy for this state of affairs is “greater trust in the expressed intentions of the Catholic Church, a trust that can only be gained by careful study of the post–Vatican II developments and greater direct experience of Catholic ecclesial life.”44 38 John Paul II, “Orientale Lumen,” ¶24. English translation, John Paul II, Orientale Lumen. 39 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 49–50. 40 Rembert G. Weakland, “The Next Steps in Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 92. 41 Ware, Orthodox Church, 314. 42 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 209. Roberson believes that this misperception has been further reinforced by the unilateral erection of new Catholic hierarchies within Orthodox territories. “Many Orthodox feared that this indicated the beginning of renewed Catholic proselytism in their countries.” He argues that “the time when the Catholic Church can make major decisions without input from the local Orthodox Church is over. If these are truly churches in the theological sense of the term, they must at least be consulted before such decisions are made” (ibid., 212). 43 See John W. Morris, Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View, 15–29. 44 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 210.

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

187

As such trust builds, a fruitful theological dialogue will be able to resume. When this occurs, the chief obstacle that needs to be overcome is the disagreement over the meaning and exercise of papal primacy.45 Ware says that ultimately this is “the crucial issue” that must be dealt with.46 In this respect he concurs with the assessment of Fortescue, who believed that the disagreement over papal primacy is the most serious one, against which the others pale in comparison.47 However, as of yet it has not been discussed on the official level. Because this is the fundamental issue, it is the opinion of some observers that a resolution to this particular question would inevitably lead to a speedy resolution to any remaining disagreements.48 Although the obstacles that remain are daunting, there are still some portents of hope. In certain parts of the world, such as the Middle East and the Americas, relations between Catholics and Orthodox are, for the most part, extremely cordial.49 Also, the work of the North American Orthodox– Catholic Theological Consultation has continued unabated, producing valuable statements on a plethora of issues.50 Nonetheless, it appears that Fortescue was correct in projecting that this schism would not be overcome in the immediate future, and that it was greatly reinforced by Orthodox suspicion of Rome’s intentions.51 Yet if he was accurate in stating that the schism had grown stronger by the sheer force of inertia, something remarkable has happened—there has been movement, and perhaps even the beginnings of momentum.

Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 63. Ware, Orthodox Church, 315–16. 47 Adrian Fortescue, “The Eastern Schism,” 159. 48 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 63. 49 “This gives reason to hope that with the passing of time, a similar situation will develop in Eastern and Central Europe” (Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 210). 50 This consultation, which was “initiated in 1965, now meets twice a year with two bishops as co-chairs and about 12 scholars sitting on each side” (Weakland, “Next Steps,” 92). 51 In spite of the pronouncements made by the Second Vatican Council, some Orthodox leaders are far from convinced that their Eastern traditions, such as a married priesthood, would be fully respected in a reunited Church. This will be seen when we consider the ecumenical role of the Eastern Catholic Churches. 45 46

188

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

RECONCILIATION WITH THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES Fortescue believed that, for reunion to become a reality, the Assyrian Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches must become convinced that communion with Rome does not equal uniformity.52 The decisive difference was, in his mind, the serious Christological disagreements that had historically separated these Churches from the rest of Christianity. Therefore, he held, they must first renounce their “heretical” teachings if reconciliation is to occur. Fortescue did not, however, consider such a turn of events to be unattainable. Indeed, he did not believe that the members of these Churches are especially committed to or even aware of the particular Christological teachings that have occasioned so much controversy.53 Rather, he asserted that the primary obstacle preventing these Churches from reuniting with the Catholic Church is not a theological disagreement, but their nationalistic tendencies. Yet Fortescue was optimistic that, in the long run, reconciliation could possibly be somewhat less difficult to achieve with these Churches than with the Eastern Orthodox. For he felt that, because of their histories, the members of these Churches were not as bitter toward the Catholic Church or as anti-papal (LEC, 447). The path toward reconciliation has, in actuality, been considerably smoother with these Churches. There has not, for example, been a breakdown in dialogue over the issue of uniatism, a topic which has led to an impasse in the international dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, an amazing amount of progress has occurred, as the ancient Christological controversies have been effectively resolved. As Fortescue anticipated, these controversies were not as difficult to settle as they had seemed. Relations between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East have improved dramatically since the Second Vatican Council. This Church has been especially keen on pursuing reconciliation, as is evidenced by that fact that its leader, Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, has, according to his chancellor, “set into motion … an ultimate goal of a fully visible unity among the baptized of the Apostolic Traditions.”54 A momentous turning point in relations occurred on November 11, 1994, when a common christological declaration was signed by Pope John Paul II and

Adrian Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” CE 5:238. Ibid., 233–38. 54 Charles Klutz, “Full Communion—Ecclesial Unity,” 31. 52 53

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

189

Mar Dinkha IV.55 This event signaled an end to the theological controversy that had initially led to the rupture of communion. The declaration itself expresses a “common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.” Touching the very heart of the Nestorian conflict, it asserts that Christ’s “divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity, and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting ‘one and another,’ the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ who is the object of a single adoration.”56 Recognizing that the two Churches share a common understanding of the Incarnation, it goes on to state that the divisions of the past “were due in large part to misunderstandings.”57 As for the thorny question as to whether Mary should be called Theotokos or Christotokos, both sides now agree “to respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety,” since both expressions are fully legitimate.58 This declaration is, to a certain extent, the culmination of a dialogue that began in 1984, when Mar Dinkha first visited with the pope.59 Yet it is also an initial, but fundamental, step on a longer trek to full communion. The two Churches now acknowledge that they had been divided largely by a failure of communication.60 After nearly fifteen hundred years, the confusion has been put to rest.61 With the christological controversy behind them, a robust discourse is now under way, in which the remaining obstacles to communion are being discussed. Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 17. John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV, “Common Christological Declaration Signed between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East,” 152. 57 Ibid., 153. 58 Ibid., 152. 59 Klutz, “Full Communion,” 31. 60 “The mystery of Christ will always be infinitely larger than any human attempt at understanding and expression. Perhaps this is the best lesson learned from our long and painful history. We know now, that we cannot afford to stop our ears when we hear language about Jesus Christ different from the one we speak and pray—especially language that may sound new to us, but is, in fact, as old, and as holy, as the one we ourselves have always used” (Lawrence R. Hennessey, “A Moment of Grace: Some Reflections on the Common Christological Declaration between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Church,” 29). 61 Klutz, “Full Communion,” 31. 55 56

190

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

In order to facilitate the resolution of these issues, the pope and the patriarch erected a mixed committee for theological dialogue, which held its first annual meeting in 1995. One of the most tangible fruits of this dialogue has been an improvement in the relationship between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is its Eastern Catholic counterpart. These two Churches have agreed to start working toward the goal of reintegration and have begun cooperating on a number of pastoral efforts, including the formation of clergy.62 Also, they have launched a concerted effort to further the study of their common liturgical language, which is Aramaic.63 One of the difficulties that remains is, as with the Eastern Orthodox, the issue of papal primacy. The Assyrians are “intent on retaining their freedom and self-governance,” which they highly value.64 A consensus must be reached as to how the Assyrian Church could retain its full selfgovernance in the event of reunion. Another issue is their continued liturgical commemoration of Nestorius, whom they extol and invoke in prayer.65 Also, further discussion is needed on the status of the ecumenical councils held since the schism, and the doctrines that they set forth.66 Nonetheless, although these and other obstacles have yet to be resolved, there is an abundance of good will on both sides, which bodes very well for the future. Relations between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have also undergone considerable improvement. All of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are ecumenically engaged, and in the 1960s they entered into the initial stages of dialogue with the Catholic Church.67 In 1970, a pivotal event took place when the Armenian Orthodox Catholicos Vasken I visited Pope Paul VI, and the two leaders issued a common declaration in which they called upon theologians to begin studying the christological controversy which had rendered their communions divided.68 This process was greatly facilitated by the work of the Pro Oriente foundation, which was established by Cardinal König in 1964 to encourage interaction between Eastern and Western Christians.69 Beginning in 1971, Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 18. Klutz, “Full Communion,” 32. 64 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 18. 65 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 51. 66 Ibid., 52. 67 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 237–38. 68 Paul VI and Vasken I, “Joint Declaration on Unity,” 416. 69 Ronald G. Roberson, “Healing the Histories of East and West: Relations be62 63

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

191

the foundation sponsored a series of unofficial consultations between Catholic and Oriental Orthodox theologians, which were held in Vienna.70 During these discussions the groundwork was laid for the resolution of the christological argument. As it now stands, “the ancient christological dispute between the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church has been substantially resolved.”71 This is reflected in a succession of official statements issued in conjunction by the Churches. The first of these, which was signed by Pope Paul VI and the Syrian Patriarch Ignatius Jacob III in 1971, affirmed that the two Churches possess a common understanding of the Incarnation, and that past differences were over theological expressions, not the substance of the faith.72 A similar statement was signed by the Coptic Pope Shenouda III and Pope Paul VI in 1973.73 Another highly significant christological declaration was issued by Pope John Paul II and Syrian Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I in 1984, in which they made a common confession of faith: In our turn we confess that He became incarnate for us, taking to himself a real body with a rational soul. He shared our humanity in all things but sin. We confess that our Lord and our God, our Savior and the King of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to His divinity and perfect man as to His humanity. The Union is real, perfect, without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and invisible, became visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In Him are united, in a real, perfect indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in Him all their properties are present and active.74

tween the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches,” 106. 70 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 240. 71 “Even though different interpretations of the meaning of the Chalcedonian definition remain, the churches have been able to set aside the old disputes and affirm that their faith in the mystery of Christ which transcends all formulations is, in fact, the same” (ibid., 246). 72 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 86. This directly contradicts Fortescue’s assertion that the Oriental Orthodox Churches were still in fact guilty of the Monophysite heresy. 73 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 242. 74 John Paul II and Ignatius Zakka I, “Joint Declaration,” 224.

192

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Joint statements have followed from the heads of other Oriental Orthodox Churches together with the pope, and today it is generally “taken for granted” that the two communions share the same christological faith.75 Along with the resolution of the christological conflict has come an increase in good will between the Churches. A major indicator of this was the agreement by John Paul II and Ignatius Zakka I to formally permit sacramental sharing between their Churches in cases of necessity.76 This was the first time in history that the Catholic Church and a separated Eastern Church jointly agreed to allow limited sacramental sharing.77 In the United States there is also an official theological dialogue under way between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which has met regularly since 1970.78 There are, of course, significant obstacles that remain. One of these is, as usual, the issue of papal primacy. Among the six Oriental Orthodox Churches there is no concept of primacy, as each Church is completely independent from the others.79 Devoid of even a limited experience of primacy, such as that provided by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic understanding of universal papal primacy is Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 243. These joint statements have generally been met with universal acclaim. However, within the Armenian Apostolic Church some bishops expressed disapproval in 1996 when Catholicos Karekin I issued a common christological declaration with Pope John Paul II. These prelates felt that Karekin had acted unilaterally, without adequately consulting other Armenian bishops. Moreover, some of them believed that the declaration itself essentially affirmed Chalcedon and betrayed the Armenian theological tradition. See Vigen Guroian, “Doctrine and Ecclesiastical Authority: A Contemporary Controversy in the Armenian Church.” 76 John Paul II and Ignatius Zakka I, “Joint Declaration.” 77 Roberson says that this “illustrates the very close relationship that now exists between the two churches.” He even goes so far as to state “that one could make a case for the thesis that the relationship that existed between this segment of the Patriarchate of Antioch and Rome before the schism of 451 has been substantially restored. After all, there was never a time that Rome intervened in the internal affairs of the Syrian Church or took such initiatives as naming its bishops. They are now sister churches whose communion is very near perfect” (“Healing the Histories,” 107). 78 Ibid. 79 In 1993 the Eritrean Orthodox Church obtained independence from the Ethiopian Church and is now counted as the sixth of these Churches. Each of these bodies is in communion with the others while maintaining full ecclesiastical independence. See Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 40. 75

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

193

particularly hard for them to agree with.80 “It is doubtful,” writes Roberson, “that any of the Oriental Orthodox churches will accept a form of unity with the Catholic Church that does not fully respect their administrative independence.”81 Also, further discussion needs to take place regarding the status of the ecumenical councils that have been held since the separation.82 Even so, in Roberson’s judgment there has been “dramatic progress towards reestablishing full communion in a process that should give all of us encouragement and hope.”83 In the contemporary relationship between the Catholic Church and those bodies that Fortescue referred to as the “Lesser Eastern Churches,” there is no indication that nationalism is the primary hindrance to unity, as he had conjectured. Ecclesiological concerns, especially with regard to papal primacy, seem to be the more serious problem. Yet Fortescue was correct in predicting that the christological difficulties could be overcome without excessive heartache, and that the path toward unity with these Churches could possibly be smoother than with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

FAILED ATTEMPTS AT REUNION Fortescue held that the union enacted at the Second Council of Lyons was seriously flawed from the start, as he believed that, on the Eastern side, the impetus for reconciliation came from the emperor and was never a popular movement. Nor did he think that a genuine dialog on controversial issues had taken place at this council (OEC, 206). The Orthodox hierarchy, he said, viewed the union a necessity demanded by political circumstances,84 yet there was never a sincere desire for reconciliation among the Orthodox laity. Hence, Fortescue believed that the union’s extreme unpopularity was the key factor that spoiled its chances for success. He attributed this unpopularity to the conservative instinct of Eastern Christians, who looked upon the union as a betrayal of the true faith (OEC, 207–8). Today scholars still largely hold this same interpretation of the council and its subsequent failure, as they assert that for the Orthodox the union Ibid., 246–47. Ibid., 261–62. For its part, he believes that “the Catholic Church must decide if full communion with another church necessarily means that the Bishop of Rome must have unlimited authority to intervene in the affairs of the other church” (ibid.). 82 Ibid., 251. 83 Roberson, “Healing the Histories,” 108. 84 Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 80 81

194

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

was driven largely by political concerns.85 They acknowledge that the Byzantine emperor, Michael VIII, faced a serious military threat and therefore sought out the assistance of the West, which he believed could be secured by restoring full communion between the Churches.86 Thus, scholars agree that the union was made in haste, and that no serious theological dialogue took place at the council.87 This “absence of any real dialogue” is accounted one of the chief reasons for the union’s lack of longevity.88 Yet some authors go further by arguing that the Catholic Church deserved blame for relying on Byzantine caesaropapism to bring about the union.89 They say that instead of engaging the Orthodox in a serious discussion of the issues, Catholics opted to rely on the governmental power, mistakenly thinking that “it was sufficient to win over the emperor to gain the allegiance of the whole Church.”90 They note that rather than acquiescing, the laity correctly perceived the political nature of the union and therefore rejected it as “fraudulent.”91 Hence these scholars, unlike Fortescue, would be inclined to fault the Catholic Church’s approach as being the root cause of the union’s unpopularity, even more so than the conservative instinct of Eastern Christians.92 Those who subscribe to this reading of events believe that the lesson to be learned from Lyons’s failure is that lasting reunion is only possible when preceded by an honest and searching dialogue.93 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 249. Ware, Orthodox Church, 61–62. 87 Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches, 252. 88 Aristeides Papadakis, “Ecumenism in the 13th Century: the Byzantine Case,” 216. Surveying Byzantine literature from the period, Papadakis shows that the Orthodox felt that the Latins, rather than engaging them in a substantive dialogue, instead treated “the Byzantines like schoolchildren.” 89 Ibid., 215. 90 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 53. Meyendorff points out that “from the eleventh century the emperors were almost consistently in favor of reunion with Rome because of the undoubted political advantage to be derived from it, and they tried to bring reunion about at all costs, even by the use of brute force.” He thinks that the failure of the emperors to secure a lasting union shows that Byzantine caesaropapism “did not in fact exist” (ibid.). 91 Papadakis, “Ecumenism,” 215–16. 92 Papadakis holds that “some sort of rapprochement might well have been possible if Rome had been willing” to entertain a substantive discussion. While he acknowledges that “the Byzantine were more inflexible than Rome on the dogmatic issues,” he believes that they were more desirous of dialogue (ibid., 216). 93 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 52–53. 85 86

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

195

Fortescue held that the circumstances surrounding the Council of Florence were largely the same as those that led to Lyons II, although he believed that in this case the Latin Church had a more complex motivation. According to him, Pope Eugene IV sought union with the Eastern Churches in order to restore the prestige of the papacy in the aftermath of the great Western Schism (OEC, 208–9). In Fortescue’s estimation, the union did not last because, once again, the Orthodox Church was motivated by political necessity, and the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians did not accept it.94 Yet this time he believed that genuine theological dialogue did take place,95 and that the council clearly showed the Orthodox what the terms for reunion with the Catholic Church are.96 Later scholarship essentially agrees with Fortescue’s interpretation of the council. It is universally recognized that the Orthodox Church, threatened by the Turks, was compelled to agree to reunion because of military considerations.97 Scholars also concur that a serious dialogue did take place at this council.98 “The Greeks had far more satisfaction at Florence than at Lyons,” remarks Every, “in that there was a real confrontation of theological arguments over a large number of questions.”99 However, writers also point out that the freedom of the Orthodox participants was considerably impaired by the reality of the impending Turkish assault.100 Most scholars continue to assert, as did Fortescue, that the union failed because of its tremendous unpopularity among the Orthodox faithful.101 This disapproval was so widespread that the emperors, says Ware, “were powerless to enforce it on their subjects, and did not even dare to proclaim it publicly at Constantinople until 1452.”102 One factor that Fortescue did not mention, though, was the decisive role played by monks in promoting opposition to the union.103 These spiritual leaders, who were greatly revered by the laity, claimed that Constantinople had fallen into Ibid., 216. Fortescue, “Schism, Eastern,” 538. 96 Fortescue, “Eastern Churches,” 238. 97 Meyendorff, Orthodox Church, 52. 98 Ware, Orthodox Church, 70. 99 George Every, Misunderstandings between East and West, 64. 100 Ware, The Orthodox Church, 70. 101 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 49. 102 Ware, Orthodox Church, 71. 103 George E. Demacopoulos, “The Popular Reception of the Council of Florence in Constantinople,” 52. 94 95

196

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

apostasy by compromising with Rome. When the city fell in 1453, “Byzantine patriots and Orthodox apologists linked the end of their Empire to the punishment of God for the false Union established by their leaders in 1439. It is worth noting that since that tumultuous event, many Orthodox lay persons have ascribed an increased measure of authority to monastic leaders.”104 Some scholars also note that the union of Florence and its subsequent rejection decreased the prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox world.105 While the majority of scholars attribute the union’s failure to its rejection by the Orthodox faithful, Every takes a different approach. He argues that popular resistance was not the primary reason for the union’s failure. Instead, he believes that the day-to-day circumstances of most Byzantine Christians made it impossible for them to freely embrace union with Rome: It is true that there was opposition on the Greek side to any concession on the filioque or azymes, and that nothing was done to stop this by the Emperor or the church after the union. But the real reason for the failure of the Council of Florence lay less in the theological definitions than in the political and ecclesiastical implications of acknowledging the Pope as “pastor and teacher of all Christians.” It was evident that the Pope Eugenius intended to make full use of his prerogatives to regulate the future relations between Greeks and Latins in the East. He did little or nothing to remove the impression that any alliance with the Latins must involve submission to Latin direction. This made it certain that the Greeks under the Turks would have no chance to express approval of the union. They were already the majority, and already in 1440 it must have seemed to many only a matter of time before Constantinople itself was in Turkish hands. When the city fell in 1453 the union was finally doomed.106 Ibid., 53. Thomas Ferguson argues that “the results of Ferrara-Florence are indispensable to an understanding of the relationship between the Russian and Greek churches to this day. The results of the Muscovite rejection of the Council, and the independent course which the Russian church took, reverberate throughout the history of the relations between Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians … even up to the severing of communion during the Estonian crisis of 1996.” He believes that “the events of Ferrara-Florence engendered a pattern in which the see of Moscow sought to administer what it saw as its own affairs, with the Patriarchate on its part asserting its rights as first among equals” (“The Council of Ferrara-Florence and Its Continued Historical Significance,” 55). 106 Every, Misunderstandings, 64. 104 105

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

197

Nevertheless, Fortescue’s interpretation, that the union failed because it was never popularly embraced, continues to be the dominant position among scholars. Representative of them is Frank, who writes that “The restoration of communion had been achieved with paper and ink, but not in the hearts and minds of the faithful.” Applying this lesson to the present, he says, “This is where a major front of the battle, then, must be fought.”107 This is a sentiment with which Fortescue would surely have agreed.

COMMUNION WITH ROME AS THE GUARANTEE OF UNITY When approaching the topic of papal primacy, Fortescue emphasized the importance of the papacy as a visible center of union which serves to safeguard the Church’s constitution as a tangible, visibly united body. He argued that the pope’s role as the guardian of unity is a vital reason for the separated Eastern Churches to reunite with Rome, as he contended that it is the papacy that prevents the Church from being divided by each and every controversy that arises. Moreover, Fortescue held that rather than diminishing the importance of bishops, the pope’s authority actually strengthens bishops in their ministries (OEC, 61–67). Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has continued to emphasize the papacy as a center of unity, while simultaneously ascribing greater importance to the role of bishops than was previously customary. Lumen Gentium affirms that the “Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful,” while also asserting that “individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches,” of which the universal Church is comprised.108 This increased stress on the ministry of bishops is a major departure from the approach of the First Vatican Council, which exalted the office of the papacy without addressing the role of the episcopate.109 The council also resolved an ongoing dispute by clearly affirming that bishops possess “the fullness of the sacrament of orders,”110 whereas previously many theologians had speculated that bishops were merely priests who functioned as vicFrank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 49. Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium,” ¶23. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 376. 109 Schreck, Vatican II, 150. 110 Vatican II, “Christus Dominus,” ¶15. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 571. 107 108

198

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

ars of the pope, deriving their authority from him.111 Hence, the previous near-exclusive emphasis on the pope as the Church’s visible center of unity is now balanced by a new focus on the bishop as the focal point of unity within his diocese.112 This approach was continued in the statements of Pope John Paul II, who writes in Ut Unum Sint that when “the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also ‘vicars and ambassadors of Christ.’ ”113 It is in this context that the pope understands his role as “the first servant of unity,” who must ensure “the communion of all the Churches.”114 This deeper understanding of the role of bishops was made possible by the development of an ecclesiology of communion, which recognizes that the Church is in actuality a communion of local Churches,115 each of which is presided over by a bishop as successor to the Apostles. The “point of departure” for this ecclesiology is “the central event in the life of the visible Church, namely, the eucharistic celebration of the local church, when presided over by the bishop himself, surrounded by his presbytery, the deacons, and the Christian people.”116 Within the framework of this ecclesiology, the pope’s role is to “ensure and guarantee” communion, as he is “in the service of the communion of all the churches.”117 On the hierarchical level, this communion manifests itself in the exercise of collegiality,118 through which the pope and the bishops cooperate as “brothers in the ministry.”119 Although collegiality is a seemingly new concept within the Catholic Church, Xavier Rynne points out that “the collegial character of the organization of the Church based on the original body of Apostles was everyday doctrine among Melchite, Greek, Syrian, Chaldean Rynne, Vatican Council II, 176. Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium,” ¶23. 113 John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” ¶95. English translation, Ut Unum Sint, 102. 114 Ibid., ¶94. English translation, 101. 115 Jean M. R. Tillard, “The Church of God Is a Communion: The Ecclesiological Perspective of Vatican II,” 118. 116 Ibid., 117–18. The universal Church “grows out of the koinonia of the local churches in which ‘the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active’ since a true Eucharist is celebrated within them” (ibid.). 117 Ibid., 127. 118 Schreck, Vatican II, 151. 119 John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” ¶95. English translation, Ut Unum Sint, 102. 111 112

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

199

and Lebanese Catholics.”120 The Second Vatican Council aimed to strengthen the collegial character of the Church by instituting a Synod of Bishops which would facilitate improved collaboration between the papacy and the episcopacy.121 In spite of these advances, a difficulty that persists is that, in the opinion of some observers, the Catholic Church has largely failed to implement the collegiality required by an understanding of the Church as communion. These scholars point to the fact that the Synod of Bishops, which was called for by the Council, has become only a consultative body, with all decision-making power reserved to the pope.122 In practice, this means that the Synod’s deliberative authority remains squarely in the hands of curial officials who act in the name of the Roman Pontiff.123 This state of affairs is seen as symptomatic of excessive centralization within the Catholic Church.124 Jean-Marie Tillard believes that the reason for this is that, while the ecclesiology of communion did prevail at the council, the previous ecclesiology, which “emphasized hierarchical dependence” on the pope, has not been entirely abandoned, but to a certain degree continues to coexist along with the newer outlook.125 The slow progress in implementing collegiality is closely related to another, even more fundamental difficulty. While Fortescue taught that the papacy safeguards the unity of the Church and the Catholic Church continues to make this assertion, some observers believe that, in reality, the exercise of papal primacy has itself proven to be a source of division.126 Some of Rynne, Vatican Council II, 17. Schreck, Vatican II, 153. 122 “The tendency since the council would appear to be to restrict the synod as much as possible. For instance, the synod is called by the Pope; its agenda is determined by the Pope; preliminary documents of episcopal conferences are not permitted to be shared with other conferences or made public but must be sent directly to Rome; the synod is held in Rome; prefects of the Roman Curia are members; the Pope, in addition to the Curial members of the synod, appoints an additional fifteen percent of the membership directly; the synod does not have a deliberative vote; its deliberations are secret, and its recommendations to the Pope are secret; the Pope writes and issues the final document after the synod has concluded and the bishops have returned home” (John R. Quinn, The Reform of the Papacy, 111). 123 Rynne, Vatican Council II, xiii. 124 Quinn, Reform, 115. 125 Tillard, “Church of God,” 117. 126 Papadakis, “Ecumenism,” 216–17. 120 121

200

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

these scholars go so far as to argue that, “instead of safeguarding the unity of Christianity, the office of Peter was the cause of disunity.”127 Even Pope John Paul himself regretfully acknowledged that the papal ministry has been a basis for ongoing separation, as it continues to constitute “a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections.”128 It is for this reason that he expresses openness to finding a new way in which the primacy may be exercised.129 What remains to be determined, then, is how the papacy can come to be a source of unity among all Christians and cease to be an obstacle. Archbishop John R. Quinn believes that the essential first step is greater decentralization, which necessarily involves the implementation of actual collegiality.130 “Neither Catholic doctrine nor divine tradition,” he writes, “indicates that the Pope should fulfill his mission by an elaborate centralization such as we have today. It is necessary to distinguish between the essential powers of the primacy and the circumstantial powers, between the habitual powers and the substitutional powers, between the fraternal powers and the paternal powers, between the usual powers and the emergency powers.”131 Quinn’s judgment resonates with Fortescue’s own belief that centralization is not a necessary feature of the primacy but an historical development.132 Fortescue, while holding that the papacy’s purpose is to safeguard the unity of the Church, contended that the primacy could be exercised in a different, less centralized, fashion when dealing with the Eastern Churches.133 Therefore Fortescue’s emphasis on the pope as the guardian of unity, as he expressed it, does not necessarily exclude the possibility of collegiality or an ecclesiology of communion. Hence, although there has been 127

69.

Georg Denzler, “Basic Ecclesiological Structures in the Byzantine Empire,”

John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” ¶88. English translation, Ut Unum Sint, 97. Ibid., ¶95. English translation, 102. 130 Quinn thinks that “if decentralization does not take place, there will ensue great disorder in the Church because of its inability to respond to changing situations with sufficient rapidity, and the inability of an omnicompetent central bureaucracy to have an adequate grasp of swiftly changing, multicultural situations. It will be the paradox of the insistence on central control being, in reality, the loss of control” (Reform, 180). 131 Ibid., 115. 132 Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy, 30. 133 Fortescue, “Eastern Schism,” 159. 128 129

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

201

considerable development in the Catholic understanding of the papal ministry, especially regarding its relationship to the office of bishop, Fortescue’s thoughts on this subject, albeit incomplete, nonetheless are not obsolete but continue to be compatible with the current teachings of the Church.

ROLE OF THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES Fortescue held that the Eastern Catholic Churches play a crucial role in fostering reconciliation between Rome and the separated Eastern Churches. For he believed that one of the chief obstacles to unity was the Eastern fear of latinization, and that the Eastern Catholic Churches demonstrate that it is possible for a Church to be in communion with Rome and not lose its Eastern identity or traditions (LEC, 448). Thus he perceived the very existence of these Churches as being decisive evidence of the Catholic Church’s universality and openness to legitimate diversity (UEC, 10–11). Since Fortescue made these assertions, though, historical events have shed a different light on the openness of the Catholic Churches to Eastern traditions. It is true that, when the Eastern Catholic Churches came into union with Rome, “one of the principles was that the Eastern Churches should maintain all their traditions, except those that would conflict with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.”134 Yet this principle has not been consistently followed, especially with regard to the Eastern discipline of a married priesthood. Throughout the twentieth century, the Roman Curia made a determined effort to restrict the functioning of married Eastern Catholic priests to certain geographic territories.135 Even within the ancestral Eastern Catholic homelands, steps were sometimes taken to encourage or even require the adoption of mandatory celibacy.136 The ramifications of this policy have

134 David M. Petras, “The Ecumenical Status of the Eastern Catholic Churches,” 360. 135 “Married Priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches: A Report to the Australian Bishops Conference,” 7. 136 Prior to the twentieth century, in 1891, “the Vatican applied strong pressure on the Ukrainian Catholic Provincial Synod, in an attempt to convince the Synod to adopt sacerdotal celibacy ‘voluntarily.’” This attempt was successfully resisted by the priests themselves, though. Likewise, “when the Syro-Malankara Church in India entered the Catholic communion in the nineteen-thirties, they were required to accept a law of mandatory celibacy,” which remains in place to this very day (ibid., 11–12).

202

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

been most acutely felt in North America, where an ecclesiastical struggle erupted over this very issue. Previously, in 1890, the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith made a futile effort to forbid married clerics from serving in the New World. This ban was never successfully enforced and was largely ignored by Eastern Catholic bishops, until it was eventually revoked by Pope Pius X.137 There was, however, considerable fallout from this episode, as it contributed to the exodus of over 30,000 Byzantine Catholics into the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of Father Alexis Toth.138 The descendants of these former Eastern Catholics today comprise the overwhelming majority within the Orthodox Church in America.139 The second ban, which was enacted in 1929, proved to have greater longevity. In the decree Cum Data Fuerit, the Vatican ordered that all future Eastern Catholic priests who would serve in North America were to be celibate from this time forth.140 This interdict was extended to the rest of the Americas, as well as Australia, in 1930.141 This decision was occasioned by repeated requests from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who regarded the presence of married priests a “scandal” and an affront to “common decency.”142 As early as 1893, at a meeting held in Chicago, they had determined that Ibid., 17. “Father Toth was a nineteenth-century Greek Catholic priest who had come to America from Austro-Hungary. After being rejected as a legitimate Catholic priest (he was a widower) by the local Roman Catholic hierarchy, Toth eventually entered the Orthodox Church together with three hundred and sixty one members of St. Mary’s Church in Minneapolis.” He has since been canonized by the Orthodox Church in America (Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 52). 139 Constantin Simon, “Before the Birth of Ecumenism: the Background Relating to the Mass ‘Conversion’ of Oriental Rite Catholics to Russian Orthodoxy in the United States,” 128. As of 1986 it was estimated that 95% of the members of the Orthodox Church in America are former Eastern Catholics or their descendants. 140 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 112. It important to note that Cum Data Fuerit does not explicitly forbid the ordination of married men to the priesthood, but only their service in North America. 141 Roman M. T. Cholij, “An Eastern Catholic Married Clergy in North America,” 26–27. 142 Simon theorizes that the “American bishops of Irish stock” were particularly adamant on this issue because they had “emigrated from a land which had known the worst of Protestant Anglo-Saxon intolerance” and “had imbibed together with 137 138

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

203

…the presence of married priests of the Greek rite in our midst is a constant menace to the chastity of our unmarried clergy, a source of scandal to the laity and therefore the sooner this point of discipline is abolished before these evils obtain large proportions, the better for religion, because the possible loss of a few souls of the Greek rite bears no proportion to the blessing resulting from uniformity of discipline.143

For these bishops, the benefits of “uniformity of discipline” in this matter outweighed the right of Eastern Catholics to maintain their traditions, and Rome ultimately agreed. Indeed, the attitude exhibited by the Curia in Cum Data Fuerit “with regard to the issue of a married clergy” demonstrates that “this discipline was not considered to be an inalienable right of the Eastern Churches, part of its special canonical patrimony and something to be protected against Latin-Rite prejudice.”144 Among Byzantine Catholics the decree provoked a swift backlash, and a second bitter schism soon ensued. A large contingent of priests and laity, led by Father Orestes Chornock, returned to Orthodoxy and established their own Church. In 1937, this body was officially received into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and became known as the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the USA.145 This schism, along with the previous break over the first attempted imposition of celibacy, has had disastrous consequences for the membership of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America.146 their mother’s milk an aversion to everything which appeared non–Roman Catholic. Liberals and conservatives alike were particularly on guard against anything resembling Protestant practice. Such an aversion explains why the aspect of the Ruthenian clergy which seemed to irritate and at times exasperate the Roman Catholic bishops was the fact that the majority of the former, like Protestant ministers, were married men” (“Before the Birth,” 144). 143 September 1893 meeting of the American Catholic bishops, quoted in Gerald P. Fogarty, “The American Hierarchy and Oriental Rite Catholics, 1890– 1907,” 18. 144 Since “at least the 16th century the most authoritative Roman canonists understood the Orthodox tradition of a married clergy to be only a factual and not a legal custom which had developed in opposition to Roman discipline. A married clergy remained an illegitimate custom unless given at least tacit approval by Rome” (Cholij, “Eastern Catholic Married Clergy,” 46). 145 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 113. 146 “In 1982 it was estimated that out of 690,000 people of Rusyn ancestry in the United States, 225,000 were still Ruthenian Catholics, 95,000 belonged to the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese, 250,000 were in the Orthodox Church in

204

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

The ramifications of this policy have also been felt on the ecumenical front.147 Observers have remarked that it constitutes “an obstacle to union with the Orthodox Churches.”148 The Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos has been highly critical of this situation, arguing that it is proof of “a serious divergence in Vatican policy towards the Eastern Churches. The Vatican says one thing to the Orthodox, and then says something rather different to the Eastern Catholics.”149 He contends that for “Orthodox Christians, this unrelenting attempt to impose celibacy indicates a lack of respect for our Orthodox married priests.”150 Therefore, he concludes, this state of affairs constitutes an obstacle to reconciliation, for “We Orthodox will never believe that the Catholic Church respects our married priests, so long as the Catholic Church does not respect her own married priests.”151 At present the status of this issue is somewhat muddled. Most canonists agree that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was promulgated in 1990, rendered Cum Data Fuerit null and void, thus effectively abolishing the ban.152 In particular, they point to canon 373, which states that “the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.”153 As the new code abrogates all previous legislation, this canon would appear to finally put the matter to rest.154 However, the last-minute inclusion of another canon has caused considerable confusion. Canon 758 says that the “particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed America, 20,000 were in Orthodox parishes directly under the Moscow Patriarchate, and 100,000 belonged to various other Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Protestant denominations” (ibid., 172). 147 “As has been mentioned above, the ban has caused several large-scale defections of Eastern Catholics to Eastern Orthodoxy. Far from facilitating ecumenical relations, these converts to Eastern Orthodoxy and their descendants are often adamantly anti-Catholic, and actively warn their fellow Orthodox Christians against any contact with the Catholic Church” (“Married Priests,” 55). 148 Cholij, “Eastern Catholic Married Clergy,” 57. 149 Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, “Reflections on Balamand,” 39. 150 Ibid., 44. 151 Ibid., 58. 152 Cholij, “Eastern Catholic Married Clergy,” 23. 153 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 373. 154 Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Marriage Law According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 303.

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

205

in admitting married men to sacred orders.”155 The purpose of this eleventh-hour addition was to safeguard the ban on married priests in the diaspora.156 Amazingly, it was included at the behest of an Eastern Catholic bishop who championed mandatory celibacy.157 This was the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Stephen Kocisko of Pittsburgh, who “feared that if the ban was lifted, there would be increased bitterness (some priests still alive had broken their betrothals in order to be ordained), and the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church would use such a development as ‘proof that they had been right all along.’”158 Nonetheless, the majority of canon lawyers believe that this attempt was ineffectual, because Cum Data Fuerit did not explicitly mention the ordination of married men, but only the distribution of married clergy.159 Therefore, they conclude, the decree was abolished by canon 6, which says that “all common or particular laws are abrogated which are contrary to the canons of the Code or which pertain to a matter ex integro regulated in this Code.”160 Although it is widely accepted that the 1929 ban has lost all canonical force,161 the Vatican has made several attempts to enforce it since the promulgation of the code. The most startling of these was the 1998 order expelling all married Ukrainian Catholic priests from Poland. The surprising nature of this demand was underscored by the fact that married Ukrainian priests had been functioning undisturbed in Poland since the tenth century.162 Likewise, in the United States the Byzantine Catholic Church encountered opposition when, in 1998, it drafted a new particular law that Code of Canons, canon 758. Roman Cholij, “Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code,” 93. 157 In the United States a school of thought developed among the Byzantine Catholic clergy which favored mandatory celibacy on the grounds that the Latin discipline is superior. As holding this view was seen as a badge of loyalty to Rome, for many decades only candidates who subscribed to this perspective were chosen for the episcopacy. See George Nedungatt, “USA: Forbidden Territory for Married Eastern Catholic Priests,” 155–56. 158 “Married Priests,” 42–43 n. 112. 159 Cholij, “Eastern Catholic Married Clergy,” 38–40. 160 Code of Canons, canon 6. For a different interpretation, which holds that the ban is still in place, see Nedungatt, “USA: Forbidden Territory,” 157 n. 47. 161 “In private conversations, both officials of the Oriental Congregation and experts learned in canon law concede that this analysis is correct” (“Married Priests,” 43). 162 Ibid., 49. 155 156

206

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

restored the tradition of a married priesthood. Although initially this new statute was formally accepted by Rome, it was soon suspended without explanation.163 Vatican officials have also requested that, as a necessary condition, all Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States unanimously agree to allow the ordination of married men.164 Thus far such unanimity has been impossible to obtain. This stipulation is “a departure from the classical synodal tradition, in which decisions are taken by a majority vote.” The seeming arbitrariness of this requirement is interpreted by canonist George Nedungatt to be a “shrewd but ill-conceived diplomatic refusal,” intended to make the Eastern Catholics themselves appear responsible for the continuation of the ban.165 The resistance on the part of Rome to the Eastern Catholic married priesthood directly contradicts an expectation that was frequently asserted by Fortescue, which is that Eastern traditions would be fully respected in a reunited Church. Moreover, he maintained that, through their example, the Eastern Catholic Churches show other Eastern Churches how they can expect to be treated in a reunited Church. If this is indeed the case, the fallout from this situation has been considerable. For the Vatican’s attempts to impose celibacy on Eastern Catholic priests “give credence to the oftenexpressed Orthodox fear that Rome will promise anything to gain power over the Orthodox, and will then break such promises in order to suppress the Orthodox heritage and impose Latinism.”166 Beyond this or any other particular controversy, the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches in and of itself has become a serious ecumenical roadblock.167 While Fortescue did not regard the continuation of these Churches as being a hindrance to reunion, but rather as a help, the exact opposite appears to be the case. This is because of the “very deep163 This suspension occurred in reaction to a single erroneous Internet report that “misrepresented the decision as a unilateral move by the Ruthenian bishops without Vatican authorization.” The reality is that the Byzantine Metropolitan, Judson Procyk, “promulgated the new laws only after he had submitted them to Rome and received the required notice of reception from the Congregation of Eastern Churches” (Jerry Filteau, “Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA,” 283). 164 Nedungatt, “USA: Forbidden Territory,” 167. 165 Ibid., 169. 166 “Married Priests,” 55. 167 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 56.

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

207

seated Orthodox animosity towards these churches,” which continues to be a substantial factor in souring relations.168 The Eastern Catholic Churches are, in the minds of many Orthodox Christians, visible reminders of Catholic hostility and aggression.169 This outlook is primarily due to the historical circumstances that occasioned the founding of most of these bodies. For it is the Orthodox view that the “establishment of the Eastern Catholic Churches was accomplished through Roman Catholic proselytism and unacceptable civil pressure.”170 Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally viewed the formation of these Churches as representing the Catholic denial of its ecclesial reality.171 It still is a widespread perception in Orthodoxy that the purpose of the Eastern Catholic Churches is to proselytize among the Orthodox faithful, duping them into becoming Catholic.172 Even among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, with whom the Catholic Church otherwise have exemplary relations, there is residual bitterness and suspicion over this issue.173 Throughout much of the twentieth century, tensions over “uniatism” were effectively restrained by the dominance of Marxist regimes in Eastern Europe. These governments severely persecuted the Eastern Catholic Churches and forced them to be absorbed into their Orthodox counterparts. As the Orthodox Church appeared to collaborate willingly in this suppression, many Eastern Catholics concluded that “the Orthodox Church is essentially corrupt and open to abuse by secular authorities.”174 When Soviet Communism collapsed in 1989, the Eastern Catholic Churches reemerged, insisting on the recognition of their rights and the restoration of Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 212. Ibid., 196–97. 170 David M. Petras, “The Balamand Statement and Hierarchial Reception,” 78. 171 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 197. 172 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 55. 173 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 259. 174 “Over five million Greek Catholics were deprived of their religious freedom and compelled to join local Orthodox Churches. As Ronald Roberson has judiciously concluded on this topic, the precise extent to which the Orthodox collaborated with the Communist regimes in the violent suppression of these churches will probably never be known. Whatever role the Orthodox actually played in these events, however, many if not most Greek Catholics became convinced that the Orthodox Church willingly participated in the destruction of Greek Catholicism during the Communist era and so revealed itself as an all too willing collaborator with the forces of atheism and totalitarianism” (Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 55). 168 169

208

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

their church property.175 This reemergence provoked an intense reaction from the Orthodox, who immediately feared a revival in proselytism.176 When Orthodox memories of Catholic aggression were combined with a newfound Eastern Catholic fury toward the Orthodox, it became evident that a dangerously volatile situation had arisen.177 Sensing a serious threat to the ecumenical dialogue, the Joint International Commission took up this issue at its 1993 meeting at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon.178 The resulting agreed statement, entitled “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion,” makes two primary assertions: the method known as “uniatism” is henceforth to be repudiated, and the Eastern Catholic Churches, although born from uniatism, nonetheless “have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.”179 Furthermore, the document also reaffirms that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are “Sister Churches” and for this reason declares that while “the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for reestablishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.”180 Thus, it sets aside the exclusivist ecclesiology that motivated uniatism in the first place.181 The reaction to this agreed statement has been mixed. It was well received by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, as well as by Pope John Paul II.182 Many Orthodox Christians, however, have rejected it, objecting to the description of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as sister churches.183 These individuals interpret the statement as promoting the Petras, “Ecumenical Status,” 375–76. Petras, “Balamand Statement,” 69. 177 Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 56. 178 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 215–16. 179 Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion,” 17. 180 Ibid., 20. 181 Frank observes that this “sister-church ecclesiology espoused by the Balamand Statement does indeed represent a shift in the ecclesiological thinking for many Catholics and Orthodox, although less so for Catholics, who since Vatican II have both conciliar and papal confirmation that the priesthood and sacraments of the Orthodox Church are authentic” (“Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 57). 182 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 220–21. 183 Vsevolod of Scopelos, “Reflections on Balamand,” 32–33. 175 176

PROBLEM OF REUNION II

209

branch theory and therefore believe that it must be strenuously opposed.184 Also, at least one Eastern Catholic bishop has spoken out against it, arguing that by rejecting uniatism it is in actuality rejecting the Eastern Catholic Churches.185 At present this issue remains unresolved, as the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches continues to be a serious hindrance to reconciliation. Yet there is reason for optimism, however small, since in some parts of the world, especially North America and the Middle East, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians have managed to develop most amicable relations.186 This gives hope that, eventually, similarly good relationships could be established elsewhere. In spite of the difficulties they pose, Fortescue was not mistaken in ascribing an important ecumenical role to the Eastern Catholic Churches. While their example has largely failed to demonstrate to other Eastern Christians the Catholic Church’s universality and openness to diversity, their presence has continued to serve as an invaluable witness to Latin Christians. For they attest, albeit imperfectly, “to the possibility of a variety of theological, liturgical, and canonical traditions” coexisting within the Catholic Church.187 Thus, although the Eastern Catholic Churches have not played the crucial role in fostering reconciliation in the way that Fortescue expected, they have served to remind the Latin Church that Catholic does not necessarily mean Roman, and in this way have contributed to making the conditions for dialogue possible.188

Frank, “Orthodox–Catholic Relations,” 58. Petras, “Balamand Statement,” 73. This was the Romanian Bishop George Gutiu, who expressed his concern in a letter to the pope. 186 Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches, 210. 187 Petras, “Ecumenical Status,” 365. 188 Even though the Eastern Catholic Churches “never became, and never will become a ‘bridge to unity,’ they have, at least, kept the Roman Church ‘honest’ in its position within the universal Church. They have been a witness, within the Roman Communion, of the need for recognition of the value of the Eastern tradition” (ibid., 365–66). 184 185

CONCLUSION Fortescue’s most basic contribution was that he made available essential knowledge of Eastern Christianity to English-speaking Catholics, and he did so with a substantial degree of accuracy. He drew attention to the history and traditions of the Christian East, at a time in which awareness of these Churches was virtually nonexistent among his intended audience. Although his writings were often polemical, he was by and large accurate in his portrayal of the Eastern Churches, thus affording the English-speaking world an opportunity to learn about Eastern Christianity from a Catholic perspective. In recognizing the value of educating his fellow Catholics in this subject, Fortescue presaged what the Catholic Church would later come to teach about the importance of studying the Christian East. Today Catholics are admonished “to know the liturgy of the Eastern Churches,” as well as “to deepen their knowledge of the spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian East,” since “one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another.”1 In this respect, Fortescue was indeed a pioneer. However, the serious shortcomings of his work cannot be overlooked. Some of the more notable imperfections include his historical analyses of the schisms, which have largely been superseded by later scholarship as the readings of history have, in most cases, changed. Similarly, he was mistaken in his prediction that the office of patriarch would recede from prominence in the Orthodox world. He also failed to anticipate the ecumenical obstacle posed by the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. In his treatment of the Eastern Christian Churches, Fortescue approached this subject largely from the vantage point of an apologist. Conscious of his place as part of England’s Catholic minority, as well as being the son of a prominent convert, Fortescue was always intent on explaining and defending his faith. This heavily colored his exposition of Eastern Christianity and led to a lack of objectivity and an often polemical tone. These tendencies were manifest in his penchant for assigning the lion’s 1

John Paul II, “Orientale Lumen,” ¶24. English translation, Orientale Lumen. 211

212

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

share of responsibility for the schisms to the East and acquitting Rome of its portion of culpability. Moreover, Fortescue was not very critical in most of his arguments, as he largely echoed what the Catholic Church was teaching during his lifetime. He unquestioningly defended the Catholic positions on such hotbutton issues as the exercise of papal primacy and the addition of the Filioque to the creed, sometimes hastily dismissing non-Catholic objections. Rarely did he challenge what was the dominant Catholic opinion on any given topic, although he did demonstrate a considerable appreciation for nuance—for example, in his hesitancy to pronounce the Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari invalid, recognizing that it was possible to defend its legitimacy from the perspective of the entire Eucharistic prayer being consecratory. In spite of these deficiencies, many aspects of his scholarship have weathered the passage of time reasonably well. Ware says that in the quest for the reestablishment of full communion, proper attention must be paid to those issues that continue to divide us, “which need to be clarified between Orthodoxy and Rome.”2 Likewise, Pope John Paul II cautions that “all forms of reductionism or facile ‘agreement’ must be absolutely avoided. Serious questions must be resolved, for if not, they will reappear at another time, either in the same terms or in a different guise.”3 Fortescue’s instincts as an apologist caused him to devote a significant degree of attention to those key issues that have divided the Churches throughout the centuries. This has proven advantageous, for the controversial topics that he explored are, for the most part, the very issues that continue to divide the separated Eastern Churches from the Catholic Church today. Because of his special interest in the areas that separate us, his writings still provide a candid exposition of these crucial matters, tackling the heart of each disagreement head on. Although he admittedly and unabashedly took the Catholic side in these disputes, he generally dealt forthrightly with those problems that are still in need of resolution. Additionally, Fortescue also highlighted those factors that compel us toward unity. This has given Fortescue’s writings a certain degree of continuing relevance, as they still provide pertinent insights into those questions that must be resolved.

2 3

Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 314. John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” ¶36. English translation, Ut Unum Sint, 46.

CONCLUSION

213

Events have shown that he was correct in identifying nationalism as a serious and ongoing threat to the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was also accurate in recognizing the disagreement over papal primacy to be the most serious dispute, and in projecting that the rift with the Eastern Orthodox Church would not be overcome in the immediate future. Fortescue was especially prescient in holding that the christological difficulties with the Oriental Orthodox Churches could be overcome without extreme difficulty, and that ecumenical progress with these Churches could possibly be less challenging than with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He accurately assessed the importance of alleviating the Eastern fear of latinization, correctly perceiving that many Eastern Christians suspect that reconciliation with Rome would lead to the loss of their distinctive Eastern Christian identities. In this regard his work prefigured the assessment of the Second Vatican Council, which deemed it necessary to solemnly reassure Eastern Christians that their traditions would be respected in a reunited Church.4 In part, Fortescue rightly appraised the key role played by the Eastern Catholic Churches in the pursuit of unity. While he did not foresee that their existence would become a prime obstacle to reconciliation, he was nevertheless correct in ascribing serious ecumenical significance to these bodies. For this reason, at a time in which latinization was widespread throughout the Eastern Catholic Churches, and most Latin Catholics hardly recognized these Churches as genuinely Catholic, he saw the necessity of maintaining their liturgical and disciplinary patrimonies unaltered. In this way he anticipated Orientalium Ecclesiarum’s declaration that Eastern Catholics should “always preserve their own legitimate liturgical rites and ways of life,” and that “if they have fallen away due to circumstances of times or persons, they are to strive to return to their ancestral traditions.”5 It is the presence of insights such as these that infuses his work with enduring significance. In his time, Fortescue’s works provided his readers with a valuable, and mostly accurate, window into a world that would have otherwise remained inaccessible to them. For today’s reader, Fortescue’s books and articles are still useful, although they must be approached with discretion. While imperfect in many respects, his writings on Eastern Christianity still demonstrate a remarkable comprehension of the Christian East and a keen awareness of those factors that continue to strain relations be4 Vatican II, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” ¶16. English translation, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, 466. 5 Vatican II, “Orientalium Ecclesiarum,” ¶6. English translation, Flannery, Vatican Council II, 443.

214

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

tween Rome and the Eastern Churches. Therefore, although some aspects of his scholarship have not withstood the test of time, Fortescue’s work nonetheless has ongoing value.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY ADRIAN FORTESCUE “Americanism.” In Folia Fugitiva, edited by W. H. Cologan, 265–90. London: R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1907. “Apollinarism.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 1:606–8. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908. The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1937. The Divine Liturgy of Our Father among the Saints, John Chrysostom. Translated by Adrian Fortescue. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1908. “Docetism.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 4:832–35. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Donatism. London: Burns & Oates, 1917. The Early Papacy. London: Burns & Oates, 1920. Revision by Scott M. P. Reid, Southampton, England: The Saint Austin Press, 1997. “The Eastern Schism.” In Folia Fugitiva, edited by W. H. Cologan, 135–62. London: R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1907. “Febronianism.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 5:807–9. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. The Formula of Hormisdas. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1914. The Greek Fathers. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1908. “Hermesianism.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 6:624–26. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1914. Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie, by Jean Maspero. Edited by Adrian Fortescue and Gaston Wiet. Paris: E. Champion, 1923. “Iconoclasm.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 7:78–81. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915. “Introduction I.” In The Patriarchs of Constantinople, edited by Claude Delaval Cobham, 21–40. London: Cambridge University Press, 1911.

215

216

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Latin Hymns. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press for the Congregation of St. Hugh, 1924. Reprint, Harrison, N.Y.: Roman Catholic Books, 1994. “Law (Christian, Western; Christian, Eastern).” In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 7:832-40. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915. The Lesser Eastern Churches. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1913. Reprint, Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2001. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. London: Longmans, Green, 1912. The Orthodox Eastern Church. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1907. Reprint, Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2001. “Preface.” In Vespers for Sundays, 2–6. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1915. Rome and Constantinople. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1908. Russia and the Catholic Church. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1915. The Uniate Eastern Churches. London: Burns & Oates, 1923. Reprint, Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2001. The Vestments of the Roman Rite. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1908. The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue. Edited by Michael Davies. Fort Collins, Colo.: Roman Catholic Books, 1999.

FORTESCUE’S ARTICLES

FOR THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Charles George Hebermann. 16 vols. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913. Volume 1: “Alexandrine Liturgy, The,” 303–6. “Antiochene Liturgy,” 571–74. Volume 3: “Canon of the Mass,” 255–67. Volume 4: “Collect,” 103–4. “Communion-Antiphon,” 169–70. “Concelebration,” 190. “Confiteor,” 222–23. “Constantinople, Rite of” 312–20. “Cowl,” 463. “Denzinger,” 736–37. Volume 5: “Doxology,” 150–51. “Durandus, William,” 207.

“Durandus, William, the Younger,” 207. “Durham Rite,” 213–14. “Eastern Churches,” 230–40. “Elias of Jerusalem,” 385. “Eparchy,” 494. “Ephesus, the Seven Sleepers of,” 496–97. “Ephraim of Antioch,” 500. “Epiklesis,” 502–3. “Epiphanius of Constantinople,” 504. “Etherianus, Hugh and Leo,” 555–56. “Euchologion,” 595–96. “Eudocia,” 597. “Euphemius of Constantinople,” 606. “Eusebius of Laodicea” 623. “Eustathius of Sebaste,” 628–29.

BIBLIOGRAPHY “Eutychius I (Patriarch of Constantinople,” 638–39. “Eutychius (Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria),” 639. “Exarch,” 676–77. Volume 6: “Gennadius II, Patriarch of Constantinople,” 416–17. “Gennadius of Marseilles,” 417–18. “George Harmartolus,” 455–56. “Georgius Syncellus,” 463–64. “Gloria in Excelsis Deo,” 583–85. “Gospel in the Liturgy,” 659–63. “Gradual,” 715–18. “Greece,” 735–44. “Greek Rites,” 774–76. “Gregory the Illuminator,” 23–25. Volume 7: “Henoticon,” 218–19. “Hesychasm,” 301–3. “Holy Synod,” 408–32. “Iconoclasm,” 620–25. “Images, Veneration of,” 664–72. Volume 8: “Introit,” 81–82. “Isidore of Thessalonica,” 188–89. “Ite Missa Est,” 253–54. “Jerusalem (II. From A.D. 71 to A.D. 1099),” 355–61; “(IV. From the End of the Latin Kingdom to the Present Time),” 364–71. “John of Antioch (4),” 469. “Jerusalem, Liturgy of,” 371–72. “John Scholasticus,” 484. “John Talaia,” 485–86. “John the Faster,” 493–95. “Julius Africanus,” 565–66. “Justinian I,” 578–80. “Kyrie Eleison,” 714–16. Volume 9: “Latin Church,” 22–23. “Lavabo,” 44–45. “Lector,” 111.

217

“Leo Diaconus,” 174–75. “Leontius Byzantinus,” 180–81. “Lessons in the Liturgy,” 193–99. “Libera Me,” 214. “Libera Nos,” 214–15. “Liberatus of Carthage,” 215. “Liturgical Books,” 296–304. “Liturgy,” 306–13. “Lumen Christi,” 430. “Marcellinus Comes,” 639. “Marcian, ” 644–45. “Marcus Diadochus,” 650. “Marcus Eremita,” 650. “Mass, Chapter and Conventual,” 790. “Mass, Liturgy of the,” 790–800. Volume 10: “Mass, Nuptial,” 5–6. “Maurice, Roman Emperor,” 69. “Menaion,” 177–78. “Metaphrastes, Symeon,” 225–26. “Methodius I,” 242–43. “Metrophanes of Smyrna” 244. “Michael Cærularius,” 273–74. “Monasticism, III. Eastern Monasticism,” 467–72. “Nectarius, Patriarch of Constantinople,” 737. Volume 11: “Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow,” 77–78. “Nilus, Saint,” 79–80. “Nilus the Younger,” 80. “Nonnus,” 100. “Œcumenius,” 214. “Offertory,” 217–219. “Orate Fratres,” 269–70. “Oremus,” 295. “Orientius,” 305–6. “Orsisius,” 328. “Orthodox Church,” 329–30. “Orthodoxy, Feast of,” 330. “Palladius,” 425–26. “Patriarch and Patriarchate,” 549–53. “Paulicians,” 583–85. “Peter Mongus,” 770.

218

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Volume 12: “Photius of Constantinople,” 43–46. “Postcommunion,” 318–319. “Preface,” 384–86. “Protopope,” 503–4. “Psellus, Michael,” 545. Volume 13: “Rites,” 64–72. “Ritual,” 88–89. “Roman Rite, The,” 155–56. “Sanctus,” 432–34. “Schism, Eastern,” 535–39. “Secret,” 673–74.

Volume 14: “Suidas,” 328. “Synaxarion,” 382–83. “Synaxis,” 383. “Syrian Rite, West,” 417–19. “Theodosius I,” 577–78. “Ticonius,” 721. Volume 15: “Votive Mass,” 508–9. Volume 16: “Aquileian Rite,” 3–4.

BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY OTHERS Aghiorgoussis, Maximos, Bishop of Pittsburgh. “Sin in Orthodox Dogmatics.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1977): 179–90. ———. “Towards the Great and Holy Council.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 21 (1976): 423–28. ———. “Unity in the Orthodox Diaspora.” Sourozh 61 (1995): 33–41. Alexy II. “Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch from Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow.” September 18, 2002, translated in St. Andrew House. http://www.orthodoxdetroit.com/orthodoxunity.htm (accessed February 9, 2005). ———. “Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 1 (1996): 172–84. Allen, John L., Jr. “Ruling on Inter-Communion Sends Signals.” National Catholic Reporter, November 16, 2001, 12. Atiya, Aziz S. A History of Eastern Christianity. London: Methuen, 1968. Reprint, Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus, 1980. Bar Hebraeus. Chronicon ecclesiasticum. Edited by Jean Baptiste Abbeloos and Thomas Joseph Lamy. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1877. Bartholomew I. “Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew I to Patriarch Alexis II.” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 1 (1996): 162–67. Baus, Karl. “The Development of the Church of the Empire within the Framework of the Imperial Religious Policy,” in Jedin and Dolan, History of the Church, 2:3–90. Benedict XIV. “Allatae Sunt.” Magnum Bull 19 (1755): 151–66. ———. “Ex Quo Primum.” Magnum Bull 19 (1756): 192–211. Blackmore, R. W. The Doctrine of the Russian Church. London: Masters, 1845.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Bouteneff, Peter. “Orthodox Ecumenism: A Contradiction in Terms?” Sourozh 69 (1997): 1–7. Bréhier, Louis. Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle. Paris: Leroux, 1899. Britten, James, and Thomas F. Meehan. “Truth Societies, Catholic.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Charles George Hebermann, 15:77–79. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913. Brock, S. P. “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78, no. 3 (1996): 23–35. Bulgakov, Sergius. The Comforter. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. Butler, Alban. “Bd. Adrian Fortescue.” In Butler’s Lives of the Saints, edited by Peter Doyle, 7:64–66. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. ———. Lives of the Saints. Edited by Herbert Thurston et al. 12 vols. London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1926–38. Carlen, Claudia, ed. The Papal Encyclicals. 5 vols. Wilmington, N.C.: Consortium Books, 1981. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, Ky.: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994. Cholij, Roman M. T. “Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code.” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 3 (1996): 91–117. ———. “An Eastern Catholic Married Clergy in North America.” Eastern Churches Journal 4, no. 2 (1997): 23–57. Crichton, J. D. Lights in Darkness: Forerunners of the Liturgical Movement. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Clapsis, Emmanuel. “The Papal Primacy.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 115–30. Clément, Olivier. You Are Peter. Translated by M. S. Laird. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2003. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Translated by Canon Law Society of America. Washington: Canon Law Society of America, 1990. Cole, F. G. Mother of All Churches. London: Skeffington, 1908. Congar, Yves. After Nine Hundred Years. New York: Fordham University Press, 1959. ———. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. London: Geoffry Chapman, 1983. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Dominus Iesus.” Origins 30 (2000): 208–19. “Consultation on Orthodox Liturgical Renewal and Visible Unity.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 42, no. 3–4 (1998): 385–95.

220

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Crichton, J. D. Lights in Darkness: Forerunners of the Liturgical Movement. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Davey, Colin. “Anglicans and Eastern Christendom.” Sobornost 7, no. 2 (1985): 6–17. Davies, Michael. “Adrian Fortescue—Priest and Scholar.” In The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue, 17–77. Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 1999. De Vries, Wilhelm. “Das Konzil von Ephesus 449, eine ‘Räubersynode’?” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 41 (1975): 357–98. Demacopoulos, George E. “The Popular Reception of the Council of Florence in Constantinople.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1999): 37–53. Denzler, Georg. “Basic Ecclesiological Structures in the Byzantine Empire.” In History: Self-Understanding of the Church, edited by Roger Aubert, 61–69. New York: Herder & Herder, 1971. Dimitras, Panayote. “Greek Orthodox Churches’ Discordance Over NATO Strikes.” Alternative Information Network. http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/ archive/data/199904/90401-006trae-ath.htm (accessed October 20 2004). Duchesne, Louis. The Churches Separated from Rome. Translated by Arnold Harris Matthew. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1907. Dulles, Avery. “The Filioque: What Is at Stake?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 59, no. 1–2 (1995): 31–47. Dvornik, Francis. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. ———. The Ecumenical Councils. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1961. ———. Photian and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Studies. London: Variorum, 1974. ———. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Erickson, John H. “Reception of Non-Orthodox Clergy into the Orthodox Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29, no. 2 (1985): 115–32. Every, George. Misunderstandings between East and West. Richmond,.Va.: John Knox Press, 1966. Farrugia, E.G. “The Rise of Modern Eastern Theology.” Ephrem’s Theological Journal 1, no. 1–2 (1997): 5–16. Fell, M.L. “Erastianism.” In The New Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Berard L. Marthaler, 5:317–18. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Ferguson, Thomas. “The Council of Ferrara-Florence and Its Continued Historical Significance.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1999): 55–77. Filteau, Jerry. “Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA.” Eastern Churches Journal 5, no. 2 (1998): 280–84. Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, N.Y.: Costello, 1996. Florovsky, Georges. The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. 4 vols. Belmont, Mass: Nordland, 1976. Fogarty, Gerald P. “The American Hierarchy and Oriental Rite Catholics, 1890–1907.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 85 (1974): 17–28. Frank, Chrysostom. “Orthodox–Catholic Relations.” Pro Ecclesia 7 (1998): 48–78. ———. “A Short Squabble?” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 1 (1996): 63–66. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Gahbauer, Ferdinand R. Die Pentarchietheorie: Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1993. Germann, W. Die Kirche der Thomaschristen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1877. Getcha, Job. “Can One Justify the Notion of a ‘National Church’ from an Orthodox Point of View?” Sourozh 83 (2001): 21–32. Gill, Joseph. The Council of Florence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Gregor, N. Ter. History of Armenia. London: J. Heywood, 1897. Guéranger, Prosper. Institutions liturgiques. 2 vols. Paris: Société générale de librairie catholique, 1878. Guroian, Vigen. “Doctrine and Ecclesiastical Authority: A Contemporary Controversy in the Armenian Church.” In Practice What You Preach, edited by James F. Keenan, 252–67. Franklin, Wisc.: Sheed & Ward, 1999. Haugh, Richard S. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1975. Headlam, Arthur C. The Teaching of the Russian Church. London: Rivingtons, 1897. Hefele, Karl Joseph von. Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux. Paris: A. Le Clère, 1878. Hennessey, Lawrence R. “A Moment of Grace: Some Reflections on the Common Christological Declaration between the Assyrian Church of

222

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

the East and the Roman Catholic Church.” Ecumenical Trends 27 (1998): 26–29. Hergenröther, Joseph. Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Regensburg: Georg Joseph Manz, 1869. Herlinger, Chris. “ ‘Uniatism’ Remains Thorny Issue for Catholic-Orthodox Comission.” ENI (Ecumenical News International) November 20, 2000, news story accessed in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. http://www.unicorne.org/ orthodoxy/worldnews/uniate.htm (accessed October 26, 2004). Hore, A. H. Student’s History of the Greek Church. London: Parker, 1902. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: Faber and Faber, 1946. Howard, George Broadley. The Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies. Oxford: Henry and Parker, 1864. ———. The Schism Between the Oriental and Western Churches. London: Longman, Green, 1892. Hussey, J. M. “Gibbon Re-written: Recent Trends in Byzantine Studies.” In Rediscovering Eastern Christendom, edited by A. H. Armstrong and E. L. B. Fry, 90–105. London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1963. Interorthodox Preparatory Commission. “The Orthodox Diaspora.” Sourozh 55 (1994): 45–46. Jedin, Hubert, and John Patrick Dolan. History of the Church. Translated by Anselm Biggs. Vol. 2, The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Middle Ages. Edited by Karl Baus, Hans-George Beck, Eugen Ewig, and Hermann Josef Vogt. Vol. 3, The Church in the Age of Feudalism. Edited by Friedrich Kempf, Hans-George Beck, Eugen Ewig, and Josef Andreas Jungman. New York: Seabury, 1980. John Paul II. “Orientale Lumen.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87 (1995): 745–74. ———. Orientale Lumen. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1995; http://www. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_ apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html ———. “Sacri Canones.” October 18, 1990, as translated in Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, xi–xix. Washington: Canon Law Society of America, 1990. ———. “Ut Unum Sint.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87 (1995): 921–82. ———. Ut Unum Sint. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

John Paul II and Bartholomew I. “Common Declaration.” In A Light from the East, edited by Michael O'Carroll, 129–32. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1998. John Paul II and Ignatius Zakka I. “Joint Declaration.” Diakonia 19, no. 1–3 (1985): 221–24. John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV. “Common Christological Declaration Signed between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.” Eastern Churches Journal 1, no. 3 (1994): 151–54. Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church.” One in Christ 23, no. 4 (1987): 330-40. ———. “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.” One in Christ 19, no. 2 (1983): 188– 97. ———. “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God.” One in Christ 24, no. 4 (1988): 367–77. ———. “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion.” Eastern Churches Journal 1, no. 1 (1994): 17–25. Jones, A. H. M. “Were the Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1959): 280–98. Karmires, Ioannes N., ed. Ta dogmatika kai symvolika mnēmeia tēs Orthodoxou Katholikēs Ekklēsias. 2. vols. Athens, 1960. Keleher, Serge. “Ukrainian Catholics: Four Translations of the Divine Liturgy: Some Early Translations.” Logos 39, no. 2–4 (1998): 267–402. History of the Church. Translated by Anselm Biggs. Vol. 3. New York: Seabury Press, 1980. Khairallah, Philip A. “Melkite Expectations and the Post-Conciliar Church.” Eastern Churches Journal 2, no. 1 (1995): 105–34. Kimmel, Ernst Julius. Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis. Jena: Mauke, 1850. Kireopoulos, Antonios. “Papal Authority and the Ministry of Primacy.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997): 45–62. Klutz, Charles. “Full Communion—Ecclesial Unity.” Ecumenical Trends 27 (1998): 30–32. Knowles, Peter. “Some Reflections on Orientale Lumen.” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 1 (1996): 109–13.

224

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Labourt, Jérôme. Le christianisme dans l’empire perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (224–632). Paris: Lecoffre, 1904. Lambroza, Shlomo. “The Tsarist Government and the Pogroms of 1903– 1906.” Modern Judaism 7 (1987): 287–96. Lane-Poole, Stanley. A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen, 1901. Langlois, Victor. Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie. Paris: Didot, 1880. Leo XIII. “Orientalium Dignitas.” In Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Leonis Papae XIII Allocutiones, Epistolae, Constitutiones, Aliaque Acta Praecipua, 5:303– 11. Bruges: Typis Societatis Sancti Augustini, 1894. Lequien, Michel. Oriens christianus. Paris: ex Typographia regia, 1740. “The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church.” In The Creeds of Christendom, edited by Philip Schaff, 445–542. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1919. Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. London: Clarke, 1957. Ludolf, Hiob. Historia aethiopica. Frankfurt: Zunner, 1681. Luykx, Boniface. Eastern Monasticism and the Future of the Church. Stamford, Conn.: Basileos Press, 1993. Macomber, W. “The Christology of the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon A.D. 486.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 24 (1958): 142–54. Madey, John. Orientalium Ecclesiarum: More than Twenty Years After. Vadavathoor, Kerala, India: Pontifical Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1987. “The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, iii–viii. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1917. Marot, H. “Notes sur la Pentarchie.” Irénikon 32 (1959): 436–42. “Married Priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches: A Report to the Australian Bishops Conference.” Eastern Churches Journal 9, no. 1 (2002): 7–72. Mathewes-Green, Frederica. Facing East. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. Matsoukas, George. “Rifts among Orthodox Hierarchs Demonstrate Urgent Need for a World-Wide Pan-Orthodox Synod.” Hellenic Communication Service. http://www.helleniccomserve.com/panorthadoxsynod.html (accessed October 20, 2004). Maximos, Monk. “The Blessing of a New Monastery.” Eastern Churches Journal 3, no. 1 (1996): 115–26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

McCarthy, John R. Adrian. East Cleveland, Ohio: Author, 1999. McCullough, W. Stewart. A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. McNeil, Brian. One City One Bishop? Bangalore, India: Dharmaram Publications, 1988. Meyendorff, John. The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982. ———. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974. ———. The Orthodox Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. ———. “Orthodox Unity in America: New Beginnings?” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35, no. 1 (1991): 5–19. Michael I. Chronique de Michel le Syrien: patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166– 1199). Edited by J. B. Chabot. Paris: Leroux, 1910. Mitrofanov, Georgii. “The Glorification of the Imperial Family is a Settled Matter.” Sourozh 80 (2000): 43–49. Moraes, George Mark. A History of Christianity in India. Bombay: Manaktalas, 1964. Morris, John Warren. “The Charismatic Movement: An Orthodox Evaluation.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28 (1983): 101–34. Morris, John W. Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View. Minneapolis, Minn.: Light & Life, 1998. Neale, John Mason. A History of the Holy Eastern Church. 2 vols. London: Joseph Masters, 1850. Nedungatt, George. “USA: Forbidden Territory for Married Eastern Catholic Priests.” The Jurist 63 (2003): 139–70. Nichols, Aidan. Rome and the Eastern Churches. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. Nikolaou, Theodor. “The Term Ethnos (Nation) and its Relevance for the Autocephalous Church.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 45, no. 1–4 (2000): 453–78. North American Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops. “Statement on the Catholic–Orthodox Dialogue at the Dawn of a New Millennium.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/ seia/catholicorthodox.htm (accessed February 12, 2005). North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation. “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’.” Eastern Churches Journal 6, no. 2 (1999): 107–20.

226

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

———. “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48, no. 1 (2004): 93–123. O’Carroll, Michael. A Light from the East. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1998. Palmer, William. Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the Orthodox or EasternCatholic Communion. London: Masters, 1853. ———. “Mr. Palmer’s Reply to Mr. Khomiakoff’s First Letter.” In Russia and the English Church, edited by W. J. Birkbeck, 12–26. London: Rivington, Percival, 1845. Papadakis, Aristeides. “Ecumenism in the 13th Century: the Byzantine Case.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27, no. 3 (1983): 207–17. Paul VI and Athenagoras I. “The Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966): 20-21. Paul VI and Vasken I. “Joint Declaration on Unity.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 62 (1970): 416-17. Paul, Archbishop of Finland. “Suggestions for a Solution to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora.” Sourozh, no. 63 (1996): 7–24. Petras, David M. “The Balamand Statement and Hierarchial Reception.” Eastern Churches Journal 1, no. 2 (1994): 69–88. ———. “The Ecumenical Status of the Eastern Catholic Churches.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 37 (1992): 349–81. Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. “The Uniate Eastern Churches: The Byzantine Rite in Italy, Sicily, Syria and Egypt.” Concordia Theological Monthly 29 (1958): 145. Pius IX. “Quae in Patriarchatu.” Acta Sanctae Sedis 10 (1872): 3–10. ———. “Quartus Supra.” Acta Sanctae Sedis 7 (1873): 244–74. Pius XI. “Lux Veritatis.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 23 (1931): 493–517. Podipara, Placid J. The Thomas Christians. Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1970. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. “Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition), October 31, 2001, 4. ———. “Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” Eastern Churches Journal 2, no. 3 (1995): 35–46. Pospishil, Victor J. Eastern Catholic Marriage Law According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Staten Island, N.Y.: Saint Maron Publications, 1991.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Pott, Thomas. La réforme liturgique byzantine. Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2000. Quinn, John R. The Reform of the Papacy. New York: Herder & Herder, 1999. Renaudot, Eusèbe. Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum. Paris: Fournier, 1713. Roberson, Ronald G. The Eastern Christian Churches. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1999. ———. “Healing the Histories of East and West: Relations between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches.” Ecumenical Trends 26 (1997): 105–8. Ross, Steven K. Roman Edessa. London: Routledge, 2001. Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Rynne, Xavier. Vatican Council II. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1999. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1994. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910. Scheffczyk, Leo. “The Meaning of the Filioque.” Communio 13, no. 2 (1986): 125–38. Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist. Translated by Paul Kachur. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003. ———. Great Lent. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Semiary Press, 1996. ———. “Problems of Orthodoxy in America.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 8, no. 2 (1964): 67–85. ———. “The Western Rite.” St.Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly N.S. 2, no. 4 (1958): 37–38. Schreck, Alan. Vatican II: The Catholic Challenge. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Charis, 1991. Simon, Constantin. “Before the Birth of Ecumenism: the Background Relating to the Mass ‘Conversion’ of Oriental Rite Catholics to Russian Orthodoxy in the United States.” Diakonia 20, no. 3 (1986): 128–51. Smith, Mahlon H. And Taking Bread …: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. Paris: Beauchesne, 1978. Spidlik, Tomas. The Spirituality of the Christian East. Translated by Anthony P. Gythiel. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1986. Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America. “The Church in North America.” Sourozh 59 (1995): 46–48. Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn. Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. London: John Murray, 1884.

228

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Stewart, John. The Nestorian Missionary Enterprise. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1980. Strickland, Edward, trans. The Vatican and the Eastern Christian Churches. Fairfax, Va.: Eastern Christian Publications, 1996. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. “The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31, no. 3–4 (1986): 255–88. ———. “Holy Eucharist and Priesthood in the New Testament.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 23 (1978): 113–30. Taft, Robert F. “Eastern Catholic Theology: Slow Rebirth after a Long and Difficult Gestation.” Eastern Churches Journal 8, no. 2 (2001): 51–80. ———. “ ‘Eastern Presuppositions’ and Western Liturgical Renewal.” Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal 5, no. 1 (2000): 10–22. ———. “The Epiclesis Question in the Light of the Orthodox and Catholic Lex Orandi Traditions.” In New Perspectives on Historical Theology, edited by Bradley Nassif, 210–37. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. “Mass without the Consecration?” America 188, no. 16 (2003): 7– 11. Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990. Theodoret. “Ecclesiastical History.” In Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 33–159. Place: Publisher, Date. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Thurston, Herbert. Lent and Holy Week: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. London: Longmans, Green, 1904. Tillard, Jean M. R. “The Church of God is a Communion: The Ecclesiological Perspective of Vatican II.” One in Christ 17, no. 2 (1981): 117– 31. Tournebize, Henri François. Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Arménie. Paris: Picard, 1910. Tozer, Henry Fanshawe. The Church and the Eastern Empire. London: Longmans, Green, 1888. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “April 24 Press Release.” Eastern Churches Journal 9, no. 1 (2002): 159–60. Vance, John G., and J. W. Fortescue. Adrian Fortescue—A Memoir. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1924. Varella, Evangelia A. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the World Council of Churches.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 45, no. 1–4 (2000): 155– 70. Vatican II. “Christus Dominus.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966): 673–701.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

———. “Lumen Gentium.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965): 5–71. ———. “Orientalium Ecclesiarum.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965): 76–89. ———. “Unitatis Redintegratio.” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965): 90–112. Vine, Aubrey Russell. The Nestorian Churches. London: Independent Press, 1937. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1980. Vsevolod, Bishop of Scopelos. “Reflections on Balamand.” Eastern Churches Journal 5, no. 2 (1998): 29–58. “WCC Meets Orthodox Discontent with Policy Changes.” Christian Century 119, no. 19 (September 11, 2002): 11–24. Walters, Philip. “Notes on Autocephaly and Phyletism.” Religion, State & Society 30, no. 4 (2002): 357–64. Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin, 1997. Warth, Robert D. “Before Rasputin: Piety and the Occult at the Court of Nicholas II.” Historian 47, no. 3 (1985): 323–37. Weakland, Rembert G. “The Next Steps in Orthodox–Catholic Relations.” Ecumenical Trends 21 (1992): 81, 91–94. Webster, Alexander F. C. “Split Decision: The Orthodox Clash over Estonia.” Christian Century 113, no. 19 (June 5, 1996): 614–23. White, Gavin. “Oxford Movement.” The Scottish Episcopal Church: A New History. http://www.episcopalhistory.org.uk/06oxfordmovement.html (accessed November 26, 2004). Wigram, W. A. An Introduction to the History of the Assyrian Church or the Church of the Sassanid Persian Empire, 100–640 A.D. New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910. Will, Cornelius. Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant. Paris, Leipzig, and Marburg, 1861. Wooden, Cindy. “The Catholic Churches.” Eastern Churches Journal 8, no. 1 (2001): 299–300. Woolfenden, Gregory. “Some Reflections on Orthodox and Anglican Ecclesiologies and Approaches to ‘Intercommunion’.” Sourozh 81 (2000): 6–17. Zizioulas, Ioannis. “One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque.” Orthodox Research Institute. http:// orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_ source.htm (accessed February 15, 2005). Zoghby, Elias. A Voice from the Byzantine East. Translated by R. Bernard. West Newton, Mass.: Educational Services, 1992.

INDEX Addai and Mari, Liturgy of, 62, 63, 145, 146, 147, 212 Alexandria, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 84, 85, 94, 101, 113, 119, 161 Alexy II, 167, 168, 173 America, 8, 154, 173, 174, 175, 176, 202, 203, 204, 209 anamnesis, 144, 145 anathemas, 159 Anglican, 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 77, 79, 80, 81, 85, 93, 97, 105, 116, 147, 149, 150, 152 Aquinas, 54, 57, 143 Arabs, 118 Arianism, 58 Armenia, 29, 30, 31, 33 Assyria, 9, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 49, 51, 52, 62, 65, 69, 78, 79, 82, 92, 103, 107, 108, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 137, 145, 146, 147, 188, 190, 212 Athanasius, 35, 119 Athenagoras I, 182 Augustine, 52, 64, 143 Australia, 202 autocephalous, 72, 98, 99, 101, 175 azymes, 15, 196 Balamand, 204, 207, 208, 209 baptism, 159 Body of Christ, 62, 151, 183 branch theory, 80, 81, 157, 159, 209 Bulgakov, Sergius, 37, 138 Bulgaria, 36, 131, 180 caesaropapism, 194

calendar, 106, 167 Calvinism, 66 canon law, 106, 111, 119, 161, 164, 165, 205 canonization, 73, 152, 154 celibacy, 43, 106, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206 Cerularius, Michael, 15, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 75, 132, 133, 134 Chaldean, 21, 145, 146, 190, 198 Chrysostom, John, 5, 10, 35, 172, 173 Church of England, 65, 77, 96 Church of the East, 9, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 49, 69, 78, 79, 92, 103, 107, 108, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 137, 145, 146, 188, 189, 190 Clément, Olivier, 138, 169 communion, 9, 15, 21, 28, 30, 34, 38, 46, 47, 66, 72, 79, 83, 93, 94, 98, 102, 103, 108, 109, 110, 116, 118, 120, 121, 124, 128, 132, 135, 149, 151, 152, 157, 159, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170, 172, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 212 Congar, Yves, 37, 131, 133, 134, 135, 180 Constantine IX, 46 Constantinople, 5, 9, 15, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 231

232

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

53, 55, 56, 58, 66, 71, 72, 73, 79, 84, 85, 87, 91, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 119, 124, 131, 133, 135, 142, 160, 172, 173, 174, 175, 182, 195, 196 Coptic, 23, 25, 26, 27, 94, 113, 191 creed, 36, 53, 55, 58, 111, 112, 140, 141, 142, 143, 212 Crusades, 135 Cyril Lukaris, 66, 67 Cyril of Alexandria, 25, 119 deacons, 78, 198 diaspora, 166, 173, 176, 205 Dioscorus, 25 diptych, 46 Duchesne, Louis, 22, 31, 35, 48 Dvornik, Francis, 34, 58, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 East Syrian, 17, 31 Ecumenical Patriarch, 98, 99, 100, 106, 117, 132, 139, 147, 149, 167, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 182, 185, 192, 196, 208 ecumenism, 148, 158, 159, 180 Egypt, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 72 emperor, 19, 26, 28, 29, 37, 47, 73, 85, 92, 110, 111, 113, 128, 153, 196 Ephesus, Council of, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 121, 127, 128 Ephesus, Robber-Synod of, 25, 26 epiclesis, 7, 59, 60, 61, 62, 144, 145, 147, 152 Erastianism, 41, 46, 50, 100, 102, 106, 117 Ethiopia, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, 71 Eucharist, 44, 51, 59, 60, 61, 63, 74, 75, 106, 113, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 183, 198 Evdokimov, Paul, 138 Every, George, 195, 196 fasting, 74

Filioque, 36, 37, 45, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64, 105, 110, 111, 112, 130, 131, 134, 140, 141, 142, 143, 152, 196, 212 Florence, Council of, 21, 31, 57, 62, 103, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 136, 167, 182, 195, 196 Florovsky, Georges, 137, 138 France, 151 free will, 66 Georgia, 148, 160 grace, 52, 66, 157 Great and Holy Council, 167, 177 Greece, 174 Greek Catholic, 202, 203 Guéranger, Prosper, 70, 120 Holy Cross, 138 Holy Spirit, 36, 56, 57, 58, 60, 110, 112, 141, 143, 144, 145 Holy Wisdom, Church of, 71 Hugh, Parish of St., 4, 5, 10 Humbert, Cardinal, 34, 45, 48, 133, 134 hypostasis, 30 icons, 73, 74 Ignatius Jacob III, 191 Ignatius Zakka I, 191, 192 Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 34, 35, 38 Immaculate Conception, 55, 105 Incarnation, 189, 191 infallibility, 95, 105, 106, 115 Isaac I, 47 Islam, 11, 17, 22, 33, 48, 111, 128 Jacobites, 113 James Baradai, 28 Jerusalem, 67, 85, 88, 94, 101, 113, 119, 182 John Paul II, 141, 144, 146, 154, 155, 161, 163, 166, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 198, 200, 208, 211, 212 John VIII, 38 John XXIII, 161, 180

INDEX Joint International Commission, 183, 184, 185, 208 Justinian I, 28, 54, 71 Khomiakov, Alexis, 167 laity, 124, 167, 193, 194, 195, 203 Leo IX, 43, 45 Leo XIII, 70, 72, 120 Letchworth, 4, 11 Lossky, Vladimir, 141 Lutherans, 64, 100, 172 Lyons II, 103, 109, 110, 111, 114, 193, 195 Maximos IV, 161, 162, 165 Maximos V, 164, 165 Meletios IV, 147, 149 Meyendorff, John, 67, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 148, 151, 157, 158, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 194, 195 Michael III, 34 moment of consecration, 59, 63 monarchy of the Father, 140, 141 monasticism, 11, 74, 75, 154, 155 Monophysitism, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 51, 108, 129 Moscow, 59, 86, 100, 101, 151, 168, 171, 172, 175, 196, 204 music, 3, 4, 71 nationalism, 25, 30, 31, 40, 41, 65, 77, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 117, 121, 124, 129, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 193, 213 Neale, John Mason, 61 Nestorianism, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 127 Nestorius, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 108, 128, 129, 190 New Rome, 40 Nicholas I, 35 Oriental Orthodox, 9, 15, 23, 24, 31, 32, 34, 48, 49, 51, 52, 65, 69, 79, 82, 92, 103, 107, 108, 125, 129, 130, 137, 188, 190, 191, 192, 207,

233 213 Original Sin, 55 Orthodox Church in America, 174, 175, 176, 202 papal primacy, 2, 3, 11, 25, 77, 92, 95, 110, 124, 135, 168, 169, 187, 190, 192, 193, 197, 199, 212, 213 patriarchates, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 119, 160, 173 Paul VI, 161, 162, 182, 190, 191 Pentarchy, 85, 86, 93, 94 Peter of Moghila, 150 Philaret of Moscow, 59, 73 Photius, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 49, 56, 58, 73, 91, 105, 106, 130, 131, 132, 141 Pius IX, 21, 31, 33, 39, 89 Poland, 66, 205 Protestantism, 63, 64, 66, 67, 147 purgatory, 113 real presence, 59 Rhodes, 167 Romania, 160, 209 Runciman, Steven, 41, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 Russia, 46, 50, 74, 81, 100, 158, 159, 160, 170 Russian Orthodox Church, 77, 78, 100, 101, 117, 149, 153, 158, 159, 160, 170, 172, 173, 174, 202, 205 Sabellianism, 58 saints, 73, 95, 152, 153 salvation, 20, 52, 64, 79, 157, 159, 208 Schaff, Philip, 53, 73 Schmemann, Alexander, 138, 147, 151, 152, 174, 175, 176 scholastic theology, 53, 54, 59, 145 SCOBA, 176 Serbia, 160 Sergius, Theological Institute of St., 37, 137, 174 Sheptytsky, Andrew, 180

234

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Slavs, 170 Synod, Holy, 78, 100, 101, 102, 117, 146, 160, 173, 176, 181 Syria, 6, 10, 19, 28, 29, 32, 72, 94 Theodora, Empress, 28 Thurston, Herbert, 6, 95, 96 Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, 100 transubstantiation, 59, 64 Uniates, 119, 121, 123 Valamo, 184 Vatican I, 3, 92, 95, 116, 197 Vatican II, 21, 99, 120, 125, 139, 145, 150, 151, 154, 158, 160, 161,

162, 163, 164, 165, 179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 197, 198, 199, 201, 206, 208, 213 Vladimir, Semiinary of St., 138, 141 Western Rite, 151, 152 Westminster, Archdiocese of, 1, 4, 10 words of institution, 59, 60, 61, 62, 144, 145, 146, 147 World Council of Churches, 147, 148 Zizioulas, John, 142