In pondering the question of the recent Orthodox resistance to Catholic bishops in their own territories, we come once again across a thorny field, thick with complicated disagreements-which have only festered over time. There is an interesting dichotomy of thinking in the actions of the Orthodox, which, I think, reflects some of the confusion inherent in the theology. This is seen in a theology about the nature of the Church that percieves Her to be largely other-worldly; and yet the fruit of the Orthodox churches is often a nationalism that seems incongrous with the theology of "catholic(universal) and other-worldly".
As was discussed, the Church that Christ founded is a reflection-or better yet, a continuation of His Presence in the world. Therefore the Church must have a two-fold nature, the meshed nature of spirit and flesh. It must be "in the world but not of it." The Orthodox have criticized the Christian West- and they tend to see Catholicism and Protestantism as cut from the same cloth-for its apparent compromise with the world to the point of being corrupted fundamentally. This is a serious accusation and shows clearly that traditional Orthodox thought regarding the Western Christians is that Catholics and Protestants alike are outside the True Church of Christ. As was mentioned in Part One, when one looks at the seriousness of these accusations, imbedded so deeply for centuries in the relations between Orthodox and Catholic, one sees that the final unity of Orthodox and Catholic is a work of Our Lord. This is not to give up, but as St. Augustine said, "Pray as if everything depends on God(it does), but work as if everything depends upon you." I think the work here for us is prayer.
It can be asked here, "Is the Christian West all from the same cloth? Has the Catholic Church become worldly so that it is not the true Church of Christ? First of all, the Christian West is most certainly not cut from the same cloth. The core of Catholic theology and understanding of the word "church" alone is so different from Protestant thinking as to constitute different religions. The Church as purveyor of the salvific sacraments is fundamentally lost in much of Protestant thinking; and the real point we are getting to, the nature of the true Church of Christ and Her relationship to the world-being in the world but not of it- is a point of basic disagreement between Protestants and Catholics- and between Orthodox and Catholics. It is my basic understanding that the Protestants see the Church not as a visible institution at all- it is a spiritual network of believers, a mystical body, that can be manifested in the home just as well as in a building with others. The Catholics see in the Church the two-fold nature of the Body of Christ, that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Church, yet through Her members, her continuation of the Holy Sacrifice, the Sacraments, and Her teaching and tradition, the Church is a continuation of the Incarnation in a mystical and real way. The Orthodox, much like the Protestants, see the interconnection of believers as primarily a mystical or other-worldly reality, yet there is a connection to the flesh nature of man through the use of Tradition, Sacraments, hierarchy, etc.
What is the true nature of Christ's Church? I have made the argument that if the Church is the continuation of Christ's Prescence and His mission, it must be as He was; that is, the Church must be an incarnate Presence of the Spirit of Christ and come to save the sinners. The Church, like Christ, must go into the world and transform it, one person at a time. Therefore, the argument made by the Orthodox that the Catholic Church has compromised with the world may be flipped on its head. One could say instead: Has the Catholic Church, founded on St. Peter the Rock, stumbled through on Her mission, Christ's mission, to be in the world but not of it? Have her members utterly failed and compromised? The answers to both questions could be yes. Of course corruption and compromise have taken hold in the ranks and history of the Catholic Church. But has the fundamental nature of the Catholic Church been corrupted? This would, of course, mean that it would not be Christ's Church.
For the Orthodox, to answer that question we would have to go back to the first ten or eleven centuries of Christianity, and say that the Catholic Church, indeed the Bishop of Rome (Pope) went into schism from Christ's Church by asserting authority in two places that it could not. The real issue is over the right to decide the truth. Was there one bishop with the right to decide the truth without recourse or full agreement with the other bishops? Was the Bishop of Rome true successor to St. Peter or not? Indeed, is the argument also about the nature of St. Peter the Apostle's authority or not? Is there an authority incarnated still in the person of St. Peter (his successor)?
If indeed, it is true that St. Peter's successor was meant to be The Rock, and the term "rock" not just referring to his confession of faith; but rather that confession of faith marking Peter as the rock in his person and his successors after him, if this is true, then the bishops who are in union with St. Peter are the true and visible hierarchy of the True Church.
Who shall decide? Scripture scholars? Human interpretation of Scripture is suspicious at best; what is rationalized in interpretation is belief already present. St. Paul said, "Our faith is won not by argument..." Argument and dialogue have their place, but they are not the real catalysts for "having ears to hear and eyes to see" truth. The marks of the Church of Christ are these: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Christ's Body can be wounded but not separated from itself by heresy: it must be One. It must be Holy, that is, not "of the world"- fundamentally, nonwithstanding human weakness and sin- the Church must possess a purity and separateness for God- this can be most easily discerned in Her traditions and teachings, in the continuity and steadfast loyalty to the commands of Christ and Holy Scripture. It must be Catholic, universal-not based primarily in nationality or ethnicity, for in Christ there is "no Jew or Greek". Finally, it must be Apostolic- that is, the bishops of the Church descending by ordination and confirmation in an unbroken line from the Apostles- and unmarred by the acceptance of heresy.
But how is this to be when it must be carried out by sinners? The Apostles, especially St. Peter, must have felt this the weight of this insecurity tremendously: and they failed, as long as they tried to think in worldly terms. The people of the Church fail inasmuch as they think in worldly terms. Yet evidences of failure because of wrong-thinking about the Kingdom does not mean that the Church is no longer the Church. St. Peter still became St. Peter even though he failed. The Church remains the Church because of God's will, not because of human success and failure.
In the holy grief of love, we must pray. Not because the individuals of Orthodox and Catholic stamp have no guilt, no, there has been much hurt in the name of Christ. Nonetheless, we must pray, for a schism is a scandal and the world has too much scandal of its own. We must be reaching out, and now more and more, as the world darkens and shrinks at the same time, we need the unity once more.
Upon the election of Benedict XVI, there was a very profound and quiet statement made to the world. Perhaps it was missed by many, but I think not to the Orthodox bishops of the world. It was a symbolic statement that caused some confusion and criticism in Catholic circles, but was rather quickly forgotten. Perhaps it would have been seen as yet another nod to democratic and egalitarian thinking, but that it came from a man who is pointedly not a modernist nor prone to such facile thinking as to 'make the Church more democratic'. What it means for the future, I cannot tell. But it is interesting, in light of the new Pope's more clear declarations on his commitment to healing schisms and bringing Christians back into Christ's fold. What was this quiet statement?
If one looks at the coat of arms chosen personally by the new Pope, one will see a very interesting change of protocol and heraldic tradition. Instead of the triple tiara crowning the coat of arms, Benedict XVI chose a bishop's miter. Another question to ponder: but the real work is prayer.
