|
Healing the Wounds of Division: Orthodox Old Catholicism
By His Apostolic Highness the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia
27 November 2024
Read also about the Canonical Status of the Church.
Read also about the Temporal Rights of the Church.
Read also the Statement of Mission and Service in the Church.
Read also about Minority Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches.
Read also about the Use of Secular-Style Dress by Clergy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church.
Introduction
The Roman-Ruthenian Church and State is unique
in terms of the spiritual and temporal patrimony that it inherited. It
is orthodox, i.e., right believing, in its Christian doctrine; and it
is catholic, i.e., universal. Furthermore, its apostolic succession is
both from Orthodoxy and Latin/Roman Catholicism, giving it a
pan-Christian heritage and nature that is both fully Orthodox and fully
Catholic that it devoutly maintains. It calls this, among other names,
Orthodox Old Catholicism.
As an organisation, the United Roman-Ruthenian
Church promotes a union and brotherhood of all Christians similar to
prior to the Great Schism. Yet, in the last 1000 years, the divisions
have only deepened. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church feels this
particularly acutely, given its heritage and mission.
The Great Schism of 1054, which divided Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism, remains one of the most significant and painful divisions
in Christian history. While the schism resulted from theological,
cultural, linguistic, and political differences, its effects continue
to shape how both traditions perceive each other. Unfortunately,
historical grievances and misunderstandings often overshadow the
profound unity in faith that still exists between these two branches of
Christianity.
In an effort to promote brotherhood and unity,
we will explore two emblematic issues of the schism—the filioque
controversy and the question of leavened versus unleavened bread in the
Eucharist—to demonstrate how linguistic and cultural nuances
contributed to divisions that need not have become permanent. Finally,
we propose practical steps for reconciliation and mutual understanding
in a spirit of humility, truth, and love.
Re-Examining the Filioque
Theological and Linguistic Roots of the Controversy
The filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which
asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son,”
was added to the Nicene Creed in the Latin-speaking West but remains
absent from the Greek-speaking East. The Orthodox rejection of the
filioque stems from its perceived implications for Trinitarian
theology, specifically the unique role of the Father as the sole arche
(source) of the Holy Spirit. In Greek, the term ekporeusis (procession)
refers strictly to the Spirit’s eternal origin, making the addition of
filioque appear to suggest dual sources within the Godhead—a
theological impossibility in authentic Christian doctrine.
In the Latin language, however, the term procedit (proceeds) has a
broader semantic range, encompassing not only eternal origin but also
relational dynamics within the Trinity. For Latin theologians, the
filioque affirms the close relationship between the Son and the Spirit,
emphasizing Christ’s full divinity in the face of Arian heresies. It
does not, however, in any way deny the Father’s unique role as the
source of the Spirit – nor was it ever intended to do so. Also, it is
reasonable to expect that Orthodoxy would approve of acts designed to
refute denials of the full divinity of Christ.
A Common Understanding
Modern ecumenical dialogues have revealed that, when properly understood, both traditions affirm the same Trinitarian truth:
1. The Father is the sole origin of the Spirit within the eternal Trinity.
2. The Spirit is eternally related to the Son and is sent into the world through Him.
It is unfortunately that this misunderstanding
resulted, and we assert that the filioque controversy, therefore,
arises more from linguistic and cultural differences than from genuine
theological divergence. We in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church see on
this issue no theological difference between our Eastern Fathers and
our Latin Fathers nor in the understanding of the modern faithful in
terms of the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity.
Resolution
Within the context of the United
Roman-Ruthenian Church, the practical and theologically faithful
resolution determined is to honor the linguistic and cultural contexts
of each tradition as follows:
- In Greek contexts: The
original Nicene Creed, without the filioque, should remain normative.
This preserves the theological precision of the Greek language and
respects the Eastern emphasis on the Father’s unique role as source.
This likewise applies to translations into languages such as English,
respecting the context.
- In Latin contexts: The
filioque may be retained, provided its meaning is clearly explained as
consistent with the shared understanding of Trinitarian theology. This
likewise applies to translations into languages such as English,
respecting the context.
- Liturgy: Within the
United Roman-Ruthenian Church, in the case of Latin-derived liturgy,
regardless of language used, such as the Tridentine and Anglo-Roman
liturgy, the filioque is retained. In the case of purely Eastern Rite
liturgy, it is always omitted. Likewise, in the case of the
Gallo-Russo-Byzantine and Anglican-Byzantine Liturgy, as they are
principally Eastern liturgy, it is omitted regardless of language
used.
- Ecumenical Gatherings:
The version of the Creed should be said as given for the
Gallo-Russo-Byzantine Rite above. However, no visitor shall be required
to state or to omit something that is held sacred as part of their
confession and tradition consistent with authentic Christian doctrine
and tradition.
It is further recommended to our brethren in
other communions and confessions that this or a similar approach be
adopted. Such an approach allows each tradition to articulate the same
truth in a manner authentic to its heritage, fostering unity without
imposing uniformity.
Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread: A Liturgical Dispute
The use of leavened (artos) or unleavened
bread (azymes) in the Eucharist became another source of division,
despite both practices being rooted in early Christian tradition.
Symbolic Differences
• Leavened Bread (Eastern
Orthodox): Symbolizes the risen Christ and the transformative power of
the Holy Spirit.
• Unleavened Bread (Latin/Roman Catholic): Reflects
the Jewish Passover and emphasizes Christ as the spotless Lamb of God.
The divergence arose from differing
theological emphases and liturgical customs rather than from doctrinal
disagreement. Both traditions affirm the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, regardless of the bread used.
Council of Florence and Beyond
The Council of Florence (1439) declared that
both leavened and unleavened bread are valid for the Eucharist. This
ecumenical acknowledgment highlights that such differences should not
divide the Church. Yet mutual suspicion and cultural misunderstandings
have kept the debate alive in some circles.
A Call to Unity
Both traditions would benefit from a renewed
focus on the shared Eucharistic mystery rather than on the external
forms. The type of bread, while symbolically significant, should not
obscure the deeper reality of communion with Christ and His Body, the
Church.
It is therefore the already-extant policy of
the United Roman-Ruthenian Church that, in the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine
and Anglican-Byzantine Rites, both leavened and unleavened bread may be
used for Holy Communion. Regular unleavened communion hosts are
permissible, as are both loaves of bread of both leavened and
unleavened types. However, the Reserved Sacrament, as a practical
matter, is maintained only in the form of unleavened hosts.
Healing the Fractures Within Orthodoxy
While addressing Orthodox-Catholic relations,
we must also recognize the fractures within Orthodoxy itself.
Jurisdictional disputes and issues of recognition undermine the
Orthodox witness to unity. These divisions often hypocritically mirror
the same political and cultural pressures that contributed to the Great
Schism.
Toward Greater Conciliarity
Orthodoxy’s strength lies in its conciliar
nature, which balances unity and diversity. Restoring communion within
Orthodoxy requires a recommitment to dialogue, humility, and the
willingness to place Christ’s will above political or national
interests. Indeed, it is the policy of the United Roman-Ruthenian
Church that an autocephalous jurisdiction is canonical through
adherence to the historic and constant faith of the Church as taught by
the saints and the Church Fathers (St. Vincent of Lerins) and the faith
once delivered for all unto the saints (Jude 3). Neither affiliation
with the Apostolic See of Sts. Stephen and Mark, nor the Bishop
of Rome, of Constantinople, or of any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction
is required. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church accepts as canonical all
who accept the traditional faith.
Paths Forward: Unity in Diversity
The ultimate goal of Christian unity is not
uniformity but a shared commitment to the truth of the Gospel. We, the
United Roman-Ruthenian Church therefore promotes:
1. Theological Dialogue:
Continue respectful and honest dialogue to clarify misunderstandings
and articulate shared beliefs.
2. Mutual Respect: Acknowledge and honor the distinct
traditions and practices of each autocephalous Church, recognizing
their complementary richness.
3. Ecumenical Worship: In contexts where it is
appropriate, use the original Creed without the filioque to emphasize
unity while respecting diversity.
4. Collaborative Witness: Work together on social,
charitable, and moral issues, demonstrating a united Christian witness
to the world.
5. Prayer for Unity: Commit to praying for the
healing of divisions, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church
toward reconciliation.
Conclusion
The United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as an
autocephalous Church that is both Orthodox and Old Catholic, we
constantly seek and promote Christian unity, particularly between the
Churches of the Apostolic faith. Indeed, we are in a unique position to
do so. The divisions between Orthodox and Catholic Christians, though
rooted in history, need not define our present or future. By
reexamining contentious issues such as the filioque and liturgical
practices in their proper context, we can uncover a profound unity in
faith that transcends cultural and linguistic differences.
As we move forward, let us remember Christ’s
prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). Achieving this unity
requires humility, love, and a willingness to learn from one another.
By focusing on what unites us—our shared faith in Christ and the
Apostolic tradition—we can begin to heal the wounds of division and
offer a powerful witness to the world.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14) May this peace guide our efforts toward reconciliation and unity.
|