The City and the City

It’s worth noting that you can never trust media reports of ecclesial news before this discussion begins. However, “Eirenikon” points out this bit of odd news from the EP.

Given the context of the current issues between Constantinople and Moscow, it seems unlikely that any such move would have much headway. The MP would read it as a way for the EP to extend its influence into areas (read: the Ukraine) that the MP thinks of as its soveriegn territory. Issues of nationalism are not yet alien to Orthodox ecclesial politics (as the struggle over the recognition of the Estonian Church, for example, betrays).

However, let’s take the statement at face value. What good could this sort of inter-communion without resolution of the outstanding issues bring other than a simple subordination of Orthodox interests? These are not articles of reunion, so there is no betrayal of Orthodoxy’s independence and theology as was found in Florence, but it does pose an interesting question: Does the EP believe (as some experts on the situation do) that the Great Schism is in fact no schism at all, but a lapse of communion?

Now, nothing will come of it if he does, but support and explication of such a view would lend it some power over the long term. I am sympathetic to it, but not being expert, clergyman or activist, my feelings are of little import. The basics of the view are this: The formal excommunications of 1054 were lifted; Orthodox and Catholics continued to inter-commune well into the 15th century in most places and into the 18th in a few; actions such as the councils of reunion presupposed that both bodies were the Church. Furthermore, I should note, the ancient ecumenical councils included proponents of both viewpoints; it was not until the issues were settled that supporters were anathametized. It is perhaps only through a true ecumenical council (it does not take an Orthodox observer of history to realize that the councils of union were not held on even ground) that the issues could ever be discussed in a fruitful manner. The current wine and cheese ecumenicalism is just a hobby for clergymen taken at the expense of the people of God.

Now, it is worth to note for non-Orthodox readers that if the EP supported such a thing, it means very little. Rank-and-file Orthodox (not just the “convert Orthodox” that Eirenikon oddly mentions) are very suspicious of ecumenical moves. I remember one Russian man telling me that the EP was no Orthodox bishop at all for the respect and honor given to the Pope in his visit to Constantinople. I understand this deep suspicion, even if I am both a convert and an American (and thus have a short memory for historical grudges).  The fact that this story involves the painful situation of the Uniates makes it even more unlikely to bear good fruit in the near future. It is the mere possibility that such a view is held by a prominent Orthodox bishop (and possibly the last EP to reside in what was once Constantinople) that makes this story potentially remarkable.

However, in the coming days, if the story does turn out to be substantially accurate, please take all optimistic hyperventilations with a grain of salt. While I don’t believe–as many do–that the problems are insurmountable and that both parties have “backed themselves into a corner” (I am, despite my failings, a Christian, so I believe in miracles–specifically the miracle of the Holy Ghost’s guidance of the Church), it is best to be a bit pessimistic, while retaining Christian optimism.

I believe G.K. Chesterton would agree.