Orthodox Churches

The Orthodox Churches separated from the Catholic Church mainly in the 11th century. They retain the seven sacraments, agree in doctrine and maintain apostolic succession (their bishops descend from the apostles by receiving the sacrament of orders). It is a pity that the conflicts of the past continue to maintain this separation between Catholics and Orthodox, since the faith and the sacraments are the same.

They can be grouped into three:

• The ancient Eastern Churches. They separated from the Catholics in the 5th century. These are the Assyrian, Jacobite, Malankara (India), Coptic (Egypt), Ethiopian and Armenian Churches.
• The four ancient Patriarchates. They separated from the Catholic Church in the 11th century. These are Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
• The Orthodox Churches that have arisen from the subdivision of the previous four. Listed from greatest to smallest number of faithful, these are the Patriarchates of Moscow, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.

It is worth noting that with those same names there are smaller Catholic churches that maintain unity with Rome. For example, there are Malankara, Coptic, Armenian, Chaldean (Iraq) Catholics, etc. The Maronites (Lebanon) are only Catholic.

Because these Churches are autocephalous, independent. They elect their own Patriarchs and the other Churches do not intervene in their affairs. This happens because they do not accept the successor of Peter, and without the Pope unity weakens.

The main difficulties are two:

• The principal obstacle is the enmity sustained over centuries. This psychological problem does not exist on the Catholic side but is more characteristic of some Orthodox Churches, due to errors of the past committed by both sides.
• Differences regarding the function of the Pope.

Catholics and Orthodox recognize these words of Jesus Christ: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18), but there is this difference:

• The Orthodox Churches are accustomed to independence, and only admit a primacy of honor, that is, a Peter who does not intervene in their Churches. We can say that instead of a real Peter, they prefer a photograph of Peter. But this is not so radical, and it is possible that the Pope's assistance could take a different form from the Western mode.
• The Catholic Church accepts the successor of Peter with true governing power (to bind and loose, to shepherd, to lead) so that he can fulfill his mission of preserving faith and unity. (In practice, each Catholic Bishop acts in his diocese without the Pope intervening much; so the difference with the Orthodox is small and lies mainly in the enmity.)

On the one hand, an example of unity is given to the world. In addition, both can learn from different spiritualities and benefit from mutual prayer and the goods of the Communion of Saints. The Orthodox benefit more by enjoying the office of Peter.

By having the office of Peter, the Orthodox would gain:

• Improved obedience to Christ, who chose Peter as the foundation and rock upon which he built the Church, with the mission of shepherd who leads and cares for the Lord's flock.
• They contribute their ideas to the universal Church helping the Pope with their experiences and prayers.
• They enjoy greater security in doctrine by having the support and backing of the Pope.
• They enjoy greater security on the path since they walk alongside Peter.

The Orthodox people would remain the same. Their Patriarchs would govern with the same or greater authority, having the backing of the Pope. Obedience to the successor of Peter may reduce their autonomy on occasion, but they would gain independence from civil power.

There were a series of factors that influenced the break between East and West (Orthodox-Catholics):

• Difference in mentality: more theoretical the Easterners; more practical the Latins. This led to mutual misunderstandings and mistakes.
• The territorial — distance — and linguistic barrier: some speak Greek, others Latin.
• Differences in discipline and liturgy, which created mutual distrust.

To this general situation were added specific events that worsened the divergences. Present in all of them is Photius, patriarch of Constantinople.

• The Bulgarian question. — In 864, Boris prince of the Bulgarians was baptized and wished to evangelize his people. He requested missionaries from Constantinople, but his patriarch Photius was slow to respond. Then he requested them from Rome, and the Pope sent him a group of priests. Shortly afterwards Boris expelled these and turned to Constantinople. These comings and goings increased tensions between Rome and Byzantium.
• The clash between patriarchs. — In 847, Ignatius was elected patriarch of Constantinople. Eleven years later there was a political change and Ignatius was exiled. The new prime minister chose Photius as patriarch, so there were two patriarchs. Rome supported Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch, and Photius issued a very violent reply, practically a declaration of war, going so far as to excommunicate the Pope. Photius remained for nine years and was deposed by the next emperor. Then, Ignatius returned to the see. Shortly after, an ecumenical council was held in Constantinople where the Greek Church made a solemn recognition of the Roman primacy. At the death of Ignatius, Photius returned, and the Pope accepted his appointment.
• The filioque. — In his battle against Rome, Photius introduced the question of the filioque, accusing Rome of heresy.

The strongest motive for the schism was the exaltation of Constantinople, which led it to confront the Pope, excommunicate him, accuse him of heresy, etc. The other issues would not have produced the schism without this elevation of Constantinople. Byzantine pride is understandable: the Western Roman Empire had been invaded by the barbarians, but the Eastern one remained and its capital was considered the new Rome. While Rome was in political decline, Byzantium maintained its brilliance and its emperor. Thus, if faith weakens, it is easy for the Patriarchate of Constantinople to equate itself with the Bishop of Rome.

It occurred in 1054, when Michael Cerularius — very anti-Latin — was patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope sent two important cardinals as legates to seek peace; they made errors in their assessments and actions. There were mutual excommunications and the Eastern schism occurred. The people did not even notice. Years later, both sides attempted to seek reconciliation, but without success. With time, some called themselves Orthodox, and others Catholic.

The mutual excommunications did not cause the schism:

• Of course no one can excommunicate the Pope.
• The excommunication launched by the papal legates affected only the patriarch and not his subjects.
• Moreover, this excommunication of the patriarch was not valid either, since at that moment the Pope had died, so his legates lacked the capacity to act because during a vacant see nothing should be innovated.

However, the separation created by pride could no longer be undone.