The neat narrative of the Oriental Schism occurring in 1054 between the East and West is conventional but altogether dubious in its simplicity. This is the viewpoint of Fr. Yves Congar and other contemporary historians who propose a more careful study of the historical records prior to and coexistent with the Schism so as to reveal both the variety and complexity of fallen human nature - though inspired by true religious convictions - which contributed to a gradual parting of ways between the two realms of Christendom as well as the reality that a complete and final schism may still yet be avoided. The 14th century Council of Florence serves as the best chronological reference mark for beginning but not full realization of the Oriental Schism.1
 |
| Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., circa 1964 |
Born in 1904, the future Fr. Yves Congar survived the German occupation of France in World War I, entered the Dominican order, and lived his priestly life engaged in teaching and writing. Despite being one of the foremost theologians of his time, his progressive positions were viewed as subversion by Pope Pius XII who enacted censures meant to drawn Fr. Congar back into the obedience of truth. With the election of Pope John XXIII, he was restored to good favor and became a consultant at the Second Vatican Council, contributing to the final wording of a number of the Council’s documents, despite the fact that his previous writings on ecumenism and church reform were in fact subject to censorship. As an early advocate for unity between schismatic Christian churches, Congar’s ecclesiology drew upon a tripartite authority of biblical, patristic, and medieval resources. Congar went on to write a significant corpus of theological and ecumenical works, including Divided Christendom (1937), Lay People in the Church (1953), Tradition and Traditions (1960), True and False Reform in the Church (1950), and I Believe in the Holy Spirit (1979). He continued to live an active and full life, being a made Cardinal by Pope John Paul II and entering his eternal reward in 1995.2
Congar viewed the desired outcome of the Council as a continuation on a trajectory from patristic sources of the early millennia, while emphasizing the desire of Christ that all Christians may “be one” (Jn 17:22). For Fr. Congar, the disunity amongst Christians was a continuation of Christ’s passion and a distressing pain upon His mystical body. It was both forms of Sacred Tradition - the Holy Scriptures and the Magisterium - which, though developing subtle nuances in approach, were viewed as important aspect not only in the transmission of the faith but also in the collectivization of the individual into the Body of Christ, the Church. Thus Divine Revelation and historical context were a lived experience of the dogmatic realities drawn form lex orandi - especially the Sacred Liturgy - and lex credendi - especially as handed on from the Early Church Fathers to each subsequent generation of Catholics.
In ardent desire for ecumenical healing, Congar contributed this publication to a larger work of collaborative articles for the 900th anniversary of the Schism of 1054. The work is readily approachable to readers of all levels with a direct and organized methodology addressing the varied aspects of the schismatic divide between East and West. Those interested in an historical work of ecclesial importance - especially those working for ecumenical dialogue - would be richly rewarded by contemplating the writing of Congar, whether approaching from the Christian viewpoint of the East or West. The “abundant bibliography and copious notes”3 which undergird this work are noted in the introduction by Fr. Paul Mailleux, S.J., supporting the historical narrative and hopeful blueprint for reconciliation in the near future between East and West. Brief expositions of the political, cultural, and ecclesiological components claim their own chapters, with thoughtful annotations and commentary underscoring the strong argument presented that the Schism did not begin and end in 1054 but rather extended “over a long period of history; in many respects it is coextensive with the very history of the Church, at least since the Fourth Century and even before”.4 Congar, with natural devotion to his alma mater - the Roman Church, more easily identifies the miscalculations of the Orthodox position. The works of Journet, Gasquet, Jalland, Baumstark, Pirenne, Fleury, and others are succinctly referenced and critiqued in the broader background Congar paints of the multifaceted steps leading toward schism. Emphasis is placed upon the dichotomy of East and West over the ecclesiological nature of the local and universal church, with his view that the East either disregarded or failed to acknowledge how the mystical life of the Church finds expression in the primacy of the Bishop and Church of Rome.5 Thus the moderator and guarantor of catholic unity was contravened but not altogether lost in a clean break of schismatic disobedience. If not then a mutual and conclusive schism, what might be the solution? Congar outlines a seemingly simple though not simplistic path to communion in the mutual recognition and respect of the two sides for the rights and rites of the other: the right of Rome to be held as the primate of the Church and right of the Orthodox to the exercise of their particular rites and Canon law. This directly appeals to the catholic proposition whereby all cultures and peoples in the family of Christ can find room to contribute in a framework of respectful diversity.
A fundamental concern for Congar is the breach of charity and acceptance of estrangement which grew in man's mind and heart before it was substantiated in acts of historical record. Indeed, “Congar’s preferred term throughout is ‘estrangement,’ rather than schism. He argues that schism only results from the acceptance of estrangement.”6 Acknowledging the excellent theological analysis formerly made by others, it is Congar’s apparent aim to seek for theological explanations of the historical facts which is why he takes such pains to provide a broadly dynamic historical presentation of several complicated pressures building up to 1054. While patristic sources had always acknowledged the primacy of Rome among the local churches, to which the Christians of the East had previously had taken no issue, the seeming lack of a divine approbation for Rome’s position was inserted into the various juridic-political realities which arose. “Legitimate authority can act wrongly: yet one may not separate oneself from it and the final wrong lies always on the side of those who cause separation.”7 Thus the displacement of political authority from Rome and transformation of the Empire into a fractured realm dominated by Germanic barbarians led by Charlemagne was, according to the Orthodox, a political and cultural affirmation of the loss of spiritual dominance by the Bishop of Rome. The politics of the Holy Roman Empire as they relate to the East-West schism process is a subject unintended for this book of Congar’s. Yet it is duly noted that the desire for autonomy and ambitious political dominance by the Patriarchate of Constantinople was a most definite factor accelerating the schismatic split with the West. The people of both East and West had real differences in cultural and political viewpoints which were constitutive to but not comprising the substance of the Schism. This, along with other cultural differences, divided the Latin and Greek speaking Christians, not merely because of the language partition but because of the cultural differences with which it was accompanied, leading to misunderstandings of theological and ecclesiological matters. Theological methodology, Congar notes, was prevailed upon by analytical scholasticism in the West which sought individuation and analysis of many facets of the whole while the East favored a tradition of which sought to see all the parts in relation to the whole. The eleventh century saw particular concretization of the polarization between the two sides, especially in the persons of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularious, blending ecclesial and political aspirations to poison the atmosphere and lead to mutual excommunications, unfortunately transforming misunderstandings into polemical diatribes.
1 Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University Press, 1959), Kindle Location 93-95.↩
4 Congar, After Nine Hundred Years, Location 105-107.↩
5 Congar, After Nine Hundred Years, Location 229.↩
6 Finbarr Clancy, S.J., "Breathing with Both Her Lungs: Yves Congar and Dialogue with the East," Louvain Studies 29 (2004), 335. ↩
7 Congar, After Nine Hundred Years, Locations 76-77.↩
8 Richard John Neuhaus, "Reconciling East and West," First Things v.188 (2008), 27.↩
9 Congar, After Nine Hundred Years, Location 1304.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment