Archbishop Hilarion and the Catholic-Orthodox schism
June 11th, 2008 by Ellopos Blog | Mail a friend
When I read that Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, the Russian Church’s Representative to European International Organizations, said in an interview “I think we should not expect the complete unity of Orthodox and Catholic rites. The division occurred almost 1,000 years ago and it can hardly be repaired”, I was glad, thinking that obvious things are at last officially recognised and supported. Reading further that the archbishop said he does not think the differences between Orthodox believers and Catholics will evaporate in the third millennium, I thought that this man has understood the reasons of the problem. My joy was complete by the statement “We will not unite but we can learn to be allies and partners”.
Alas, no joy anymore, the dream vanished when the unfortunate archbishop declared, that Orthodox and Catholics differ “in certain theological intricacies”. If we differ just “in certain theological intricacies”, my archbishop, then put them away right now, let us not be divided for another millennium because of matters you yourself despise.
Cf. Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Understanding the Priorities
» Grab the Link:
Tags : Orthodox | Russia | Orthodox Christianity | catholics | hilarion | Church union | russian church
Related (automatic selection) :
3 Responses to “Archbishop Hilarion and the Catholic-Orthodox schism”
You can post a comment here, or Start a discussion at Elpenor's Koinonia Forum
Loading ...
Archbishop Hilarion has very often made insightful comments regarding the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia and Europe. But if even the most pragmatic and resonable of us, in an age where theological differences are considered as belonging to another age, dismisses the raison d’etre of the Church, we may rightly feel dismayed and wondering about the successors of those who fought and died for the faith.
Let us appreciate at least the position of Archbishop Hilarion and the Russian Church on the issue–is Moscow indeed taking up the role of Constantinople?
Of course, doctrine, as you say, can not be treated as “theological intricacies”, i.e. technical and secondary matters for discussion between theology-technocrats. Beyond this, the problem that seems not to be understood by Hilarion and so many others, on which I have devoted many pages at this site, is that the schism right now is not mainly doctrinal. There are more in Church tradition that divide us. If doctrinal differences are so many (which I don’t believe), that can keep us divided for another millennium, thank God!, but we should also understand some time how wide and deep the schism is, and stop thinking that we are divided because of Filioque or Papal primacy, etc. We won’t be able to help ourselves and each other if we think that we are separated just by “theological intricacies”; thus our division will prove useless.
Dear Sylvain, I needed some time to think on your last question, if Moscow is indeed taking up the role of Constantinople. It is true that there is a lack of authority in Constantinople today, due to so many wrong decisions Constantinople takes. In Orthodoxy power is wherever truth is - there is no primacy in any of the Patriarchates. Moscow can not have the role of Constantinople for the moment, because there is no great difference between the two. You can understand this, if you think on the logic of their opposition - whenever they oppose each other.
To stay to the subject of the current post, what Hilarion says is, “some insignificant but complex doctrinal issues divide us from the Catholic Church, but we are the same in essence”. If two great Churches were divided for over a millennium and will stay divided for another millennium, because of nothing in essence, how great can they really be? And all of this smallness, all of this nothingness, is now dreaming of a co-operation - for what? What can be the goodness of their co-operation, how can they help each other and Europe, two Churches that managed to be divided for nothing?
For as long as Moscow will remain in that smallness (no matter how great the multitudes she contains), she can not have the role of Constantinople. Since Constantinople herself is inferior to her role, there is a lack of authority in both places. The same happens also with Papacy, resulting to a Christianity rather weak - in a time when Christianity should be much stronger. This I think explains why so many Christians who belong to the European Union, are unable to give her a shape proper to the Christian origin and history of Europe.