TODAY, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians have the wonderful opportunity to celebrate Easter together on the same date. To many, that idea might sound natural, since the celebration of Easter speaks to the most central aspect of the Christian faith: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Regrettably, though, the phenomenon happens only every few years. Most years, the date of Easter observed by Eastern and Western Christians varies from one to four weeks. The explanation is complex — a matter of calendrical calculations and astronomical applications based upon the lunar cycle. So whenever a common celebration of Easter does occur, it constitutes a true blessing.
With that in mind, I would like to point out a remarkable occurrence in the history of the long walk toward Christian unity: the visit last November of Pope Benedict XVI, the 264th successor of St. Peter the Apostle, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Istanbul, at the invitation of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the 270th successor of St. Andrew the Apostle and spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians.
While historic, this was not the first visit of a pope to the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II had visited in 1967 and 1979, respectively. (Patriarch Athenagoras, Patriarch Dimitrios and the present Patriarch Bartholomew in turn visited the Vatican several times.) These meetings are important because they offer hope in view of the long and painful history of separation between the Christian Churches, which officially occurred in 1054, the result of historical circumstances, theological differences and misunderstandings.
The exchange of visits has contributed to a rapprochement of the two churches and to more examination of those things that unite — as well as separate — Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In fact, just two months before the visit of Pope Benedict to Istanbul, the official international dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had resumed for the first time since 2000.
That is too long a period of inactivity. But, happily, the dialogue is scheduled to continue with a meeting tentatively planned for Ravenna, Italy, in May. There is a strong possibility that both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew will be present.
Their meeting last November was therefore of much more than symbolic importance. I had the honor to be with the patriarch and the pope throughout the visit, and I witnessed firsthand a genuine atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect. The patriarch and the pope clarified, in a common declaration, that our churches share much in terms of our commitment to safeguard human rights and religious freedom, to protect our natural environment from human harm and to advocate for justice and peace — especially as we are mindful of those who live with poverty, threats of terrorism, war and disease. Because the world’s Christian population stands at nearly 33 percent, or 2.1 billion people, our work to alleviate dire conditions is of global significance.
Our common celebration of Easter this year raises two hopeful perspectives for us to consider: first, the steps that we are taking toward the reconciliation of the churches; and second, the rediscovery of the holy and the sacred in human life and, ultimately, the discovery of the transcendent. Here are two things worth not only considering, but seriously pursuing.
Demetrios is the archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church in America.
This fascinates me to hear coming from Archbishop Dimitri. Hearing this really lends credibility to the prophecy of Myrna Nazzour in Damascus, and the same prophecies of other more controversial figures such as the Greek Orthodox Vassula Ryden. In essence, these are that if and when the Church unifies the date of Easter, the Lord himself will do what man cannot and enact the re-Union of the Catholic and the Orthodox.
How this could happen is another topic. It would be very difficult to see this being done on the ORthodox side… perhaps it is possible now after the climate change of the last 70 years since ATHENOGORAS tried to do so… Another possibility is for the Pope of Rome to switch to the Julian. This would be a beautiful act of humility and would show the EAst through actions just what the papal office in the West claims to be: the servant of the servants of God, who presides in charity. Charity always gives up itself for the sake of the other.
Another possibility is for the Pope of Rome to switch to the Julian. This would be a beautiful act of humility and would show the EAst through actions just what the papal office in the West claims to be: the servant of the servants of God, who presides in charity. Charity always gives up itself for the sake of the other.
What a cool idea!!!
RE: Comment 1, from An OrthodoxCatholic
I’ve heard of Myrna, but am not sure of any statements by Catholic hierarchs about the supposed prophecies.
On the other hand, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (the Holy Father’s old stomping ground) issued a statement about errors of Vassula Ryden’s prophecies. The statement can be reached here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRYDN1.HTM.
And the idea about a common dating of Easter is cool. As you suggest, it would be a lot easier to have the Pope enact this, rather than hash out a middle ground. But, calendrical changes are probably not on the foremost of his mind now.
Blessed Eastertime to all!
tl: I don’t know what the Catholic Church has said re Myrna’s prophecies, but I believe her local ordinary has firmly approved the mystical phenomena themselves. She has Church support, IOW. But re the prophecies, I don’t know. (I didn’t even know there were prophecies…I thought the messages were more along the lines of exhortations to charity and unity. Can you provide a link to the prophecies? Thanks!)
You are quite right about the Church’s view on Vassula, of course!
Myrna seems to have a nihil obstat from a local religious superior, who says that the final judgment on her private revelation belongs to the Church. I assume this means that the local bishop must investigate and approve? Does Rome involve herself in such things?
http://www.soufanieh.com/nihil.obstat.html
RE: #5
I believe Rome does not step in to rule on cases, and leaves it to the local ordinary; the bishop rules, as he is the shepherd and teacher of his flock. Rome only steps in when needed. HOWEVER, I cannot remember where I obtained this bit of info, so I will have to look further. Treat this as a provisional statement.
As a first time poster (on any blog, I think!), thank you CU for your posts. I blame you for my neglecting more pressing matters.
RE: #5,6
From EWTN:
“Certainly, however, the faithful benefit the most from the judgment of the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition occurs. He has the authority to assemble a commission of scientific and theological experts, to judge the case, as well as the grace of vocation to carry out this pastoral service. While his decision is not infallible, it has the presumption of being correct and should receive the respectfully adherence of the faithful (Canon 753).”
The local bishop rules.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm
Yes, the Pope could easily adjust the Western date of Easter to coincide with the Eastern date – and I would support changing the date.
On the other hand, for the Pope to change any Western tradition with the wave of a hand would not foster unity with the Orthodox. The key to reunification is, in my opinion, for the Orthodox to accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope as a theoretical matter and for Catholics to accept that the correct model for the functioning of the papal office is that of the first millennium and not that of the second.
A common date for Easter would be set at a reunification council where the Western bishops joyfully accede to the Eastern practice in the interests of unity.
The liturgical aspect of the filioque issue would probably be handled in the same way, although this is a tougher one.
the correct model for the functioning of the papal office is that of the first millennium and not that of the second.
With all respect, I’m not sure what this means. I’ve heard it again and again, but I’m still not getting it.
It seems to presuppose that the papacy was completely static during the first millennium. I respectfully submit that it wasn’t. It developed. So, which first-millennium papacy are we invoking as model here? Clement’s? Victor’s? Stephen’s? Damasus’? Leo’s? Etc., etc. With each succeeding pope, the powers of the Keys and of the supreme Shepherd were being clarified and actualized more and more clearly and fully. (These powers were all present in the original Depositum Fidei, but as Newman said, they could not all be exercised in their fullness during the protracted period of persecution.)
What’s more, this development–this legitimate development of the papacy–did not suddenly cease at the end of the first millennium. Personally, I think it would be both dangerous and flat impossible to try to turn back the clock and resurrect some mythical construct called “first-millennium papacy.” We cannot simply wipe out 1,000 years of authentic post-Schism development. Nor can we freeze some moment in the first millennium when the papacy was supposedly operating perfectly for both East and West. Thass how I see it, anyway.
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean that we should restore the papal states or the papacy’s temporal powers or anything like that. (Eek, horrors!) Far from it! Rather, IMHO, we need to distinguish between the “substance” and the “accidents” of the papacy, if you will. What is of the esse of the papal role, and what isn’t? This does not mean resurrecting some chimerical first-millennium papacy. It does not mean repudiating authentic second-millennium developments in the exercise of the papal office. Rather, it means sifting the essential papal wheat from the non-essential chaff—distilling the best, the truest, from the past 2,000 years of papal history.
Obviously, for instance, we cannot dismantle Vatican I or reject solemnly defined conciliar decrees. But we can expand the collegial role of the episcopate, per the directives of Vatican II. We can envision a more hands-off papal role vis-a-vis the East.
I think our current pope, like his predecessor, thinks along these lines. That’s my impression, anyway. That’s why JPII called for a re-thinking of the exercise of the papal role. (Such a re-thinking is not a free-for-all, though; it must take place within certain parameters: Scripture, Tradition, and conciliar decrees, including those of Vatican I and II.)
I’m not expressing this very clearly, but what I’m trying to say is: We cannot simply jettison the past millennium. We couldn’t if we wanted to. Nor can we effectively adopt a first-millennium model, since that’s a chimera and a moving target anyway. But we can distinguish between the papacy’s “substance” and “accidents”–and then take it from there.
My inchoate two cents’ worth, fwiw (kind of thinking this out as I type)….
Diane
The Catholic Church got along quite nicely for 1800 years without the definitions of papal powers in Vatican I. I am not saying Vatican I was wrong and certainly reunion with the Orthodox is inconceivable without their accepting those definitions. I am saying that Vatican I is not descriptive of the normal operation of the papacy.
Yes, it would take a book to delineate what a First Millennium-style papacy would look like.
My point is that for the Pope to change the Western dating of Easter to coincide with that of the East would not foster reunification of the churches because it would be an illustration of the kind of operating style in the Papacy the East rejects. What the Pope fixes with the wave of a hand can be undone with the wave of a hand and this is the fundamental issue blocking reunification.
Along this line, as the Western church has evolved, it is highly dependent on an authoritarian papacy. We look for the Pope to take action and fix things – synods and subsidiarity be damned. Changing this will take a long time, in part because so many Western bishops will do their own unorthodox thing without a strong Pope to ride herd over them.
The jury is still out on the innovation of the bishops’ conferences.
Yes, it would take a book to delineate what a First Millennium-style papacy would look like.
It would take more than a book,. It would take a crystal ball. Seriously. I think “first-millennium-style papacy” is a chimera. IMHO, we should not be trying to recapture the past; we should be looking toward the future. To that end, IMHO, we should draw on all the best that 2,000 years of papacy has given us–all that is true, valuable, and essential to the papacy, whether it came to the fore in 200 AD or in 1200 AD or in 1700 AD or whatever. We can jettison all that is not of the esse of the papacy–from tiaras to temporal power–but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I think you and I agree more than we disagree re this, although it seems you have a much more negative view of the post-Schism papacy than I do.
For what it’s worth, an Eastern Catholic priest (a very un-Latinized one at that) told me that he agrees that a simple return to the first millennium is neither practicable nor desirable. But (in his view) neither is a simple return to the second millennium Papacy, say, before Vatican II. In view of ecumenism with the Orthodox, he suggests that perhaps what is needed is a development in the “exercise” of the Petrine ministry (notice “exercise”, not the substance) for the third millennium. Now, as to what this means practically, I’m not entirely sure. But I thought I would throw it out there to see what people would do with it.
I think your EC priest friend is spot-on. I think that’s kinda-sorta what I was getting at, but I wasn’t expressing it very well.
Charles: Re the role of a more “authoritarian” papacy vis-a-vis the West: Maybe the Supreme Pontiff of a reunited Church could be firm and foreceful toward, say, the American Church and certain other Western Churches but much more hands-off with everybody else. LOL!
I think it’s a false dichotomy to set up the notion of a “conservative” papacy vs. “unorthodox” bishops. It induces a certain wistful resignation and lack of clear thinking much embodied in the old notion in Russia of “If only the Tsar knew”, he’d fix all the inadequacies of his own bureaucracy. Which of course was a real long shot, if it ever happened at all.
The bishops are no less a part of the institution of the Papacy as the Pope is. A Cardinal Mahoney is, for goodness sake, a member of the Roman clergy. He is the norm, not the outlier.
15: With all due respect, Stephen, do you think you could perhaps let Catholics define what their Church is all about? Do you think that–just possibly–Catholics may have a better take on whether Cardinal Mahony represents “the norm”?
Why Mahony as the “norm”? Why not Bruskewitz, George, O’Malley, or a host of other rock-solid bishops?
Sheesh.
Should we papists go over to ocanews.org, say, and tell the good folks there that Metropolitan Herman or Father Kondratick represents “the norm”?
Good grief. What can I say?
Diane
OK, things are getting a tad off-topic here.