There are many reasons why the Church Christ founded was divided into three different confessions. These reasons are historical, political, cultural and even geographical. In Europe, where it all started, we can distribute these different confessions according to the four cardinal points. North is Protestant, South is Catholic; East is Orthodox, and West is Catholic.
The parameter remains true on the American continent. North is traditionally Protestant, such as the United States and Canada, with the exception of Quebec, the South is Catholic, from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America.
In the title of this text I put the Catholic Church in singular, and the Orthodox and the Protestant in plural, to underline the fact that there is not just one Orthodox or Protestant church, but many. In the case of the Orthodox, where they exist, there is one for each country with very little, if any, communion between them.
The word Orthodox does not cease to be an anachronism which, when it appeared, was meant to mean the truth; if it had remained united, that is, if we had only one Orthodox church, it could still use the name, but since there are several, none of them can claim to be the true one, because one of the characteristics of truth is that it is singular.
In the case of the Protestants, it makes sense that there are many of them because there can be many protests. Some of those in the Anglican tradition follow the nationalist line; as for the others, there are many in each country, as well as the sects derived from them. There is no communion whatsoever between the Protestant churches and the sects; the only thing they have in common is their veiled "hatred" of the Catholic Church.
In opposition to the plurality of the Orthodox and Protestant churches, the Catholic Church is singular: it has remained only one over time and over cultural and geographical space. There is only one Catholicism that remains identical and unalterable, true to itself, in all times, in all geographical and cultural places and spaces, in all languages, peoples and nations.
Although today it is designated as the Church that exists in opposition to the Orthodox and the Protestant, the term "catholic" was not born from confrontation with other Christian confessions. Before the division, the Church was already called catholic.
Where the bishop is present, there is also the Catholic Church (Letter to the Christians of Smyrna 8, 2, AD 150)
The Church therefore did not call herself Catholic to differentiate herself from the Protestant and Orthodox churches. The designation "Catholic" was attributed to the Church in the year 150 by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch, due to her vocation of universality. Thus, the second century had barely begun, at a time when there were still no divisions, the name ‘Catholic Church’ was already in use, to designate the name of the only church existing at that time, the one that Jesus founded.
The name quickly became popular because it corresponded to the truth. The term catholic means universal, and when it was used in those early days by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, it referred to the Church that was already present everywhere.
The term "catholic", besides meaning that it was universal and international, also meant, already at that time, that it was for everyone and not for a particular ethnic group, a caste or elite of specially initiated people, as was the case with Judaism, for example.
Catholic because it possesses the fullness of the means of salvation, destined to be universal in time and space, as Christ her founder has promised us: "... remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
Before describing the history of the schism and the identity of each of the confessions, it is appropriate to say a word or two about the genesis and identity of Christianity as a religion among other religions, especially in relation to the one which has historically opposed it, the Muslim religion, and even before that, a word about the notion of religion and for what it serves.
What is religion for?
There are fewer and fewer religious people. Could it be that religion serves no purpose? Apparently, it has no practical use today in the day-to-day life of the modern man. However, statistics show that people who believe and fulfill some religious practices are generally happier and better prepared for misfortunes.
Religion is a call to self-transcendence
Right from the start of their appearance on earth, humans looked at the stars at night and this lifted their thoughts beyond the things and worries of the daily life; a look beyond themselves and the world, towards the transcendence, naturally led to greater self-transcendence, which in turn made men more spiritual and less materialistic.
This self-transcendence included a metanoia, a change, a conversion, when life is seen as a spiritual progress and not just a material one. For many who live in pure worldliness, progress means to become richer and richer. For the religious man, progress is to become better and better, more human and more generous, gaining ground on flaws by transforming them into virtues at the light of the Gospel.
Unfortunately, in these modern times, men look at television at night instead of the stars. During peak viewing hours, the so-called prime time, the television shows the less prime programs. Watching TV these times has the opposite effect of looking at the stars, because it immerses us more and more into consumerist materialism.
Science versus religion
Those who live installed in pure mundanity argue that religion, as a general theory of life and the universe, explains less and less, while science explains more and more. Many have even made science the new religion, with the faith that it will one day explain everything and wipe out religion altogether.
Such a day will never come. The mystery not only involves the identity of God, but also that of Man, the Universe and all that it contains. In the field of every science, what we know continues to be very little of what is still left to be known. We do not know everything about biology, astronomy, physics, mineralogy, or any other positive or human science. I believe that no matter how much we know, we will never know everything. Only God knows everything about everything.
Science in fact explains many things, but it does not explain the most important things: it tells us that the world began with a "Big Bang" but it does not tell us who caused this big explosion, or what was there before it took place. It tells us that since this big explosion, the world continues to expand and will expand until it expends all of its energy and then it will end, but it does not tell us what is beyond the end of the world. Finally, above all, it does not tell us what is the meaning of life, why we exist, or why we exist between the "Big Bang" and the end of the world.
Technology versus spirituality and ethics
Science is the general theory of how things work, and technology is its practical application in machines, appliances and other applications that make human life on the material plane easier, more comfortable and enjoyable.
Similarly, religion is the general theory that explains the why of things; spirituality is its practical application in meditation and types of prayer, psychological exercises of self-awareness, rituals, liturgies, sacraments that contribute to the spiritual well-being of the person as an individual. Ethics aims at the well-being of the same person as a social being and as an integral part of a community.
Science tells us the “how”, while technology tells us the “what for”; only religion can tell us the “why” and only spirituality can make us more human and attain happiness, because it is made up more of joy than physical pleasure.
Christianity as the fullness of truth
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. Hebrews 1:1-2
Today the idea that all religions are equal and have the same worth is widespread; for the non-believers they are all bad; for the believers they are all good and lead to salvation; the catchphrase is that each one chooses the one that suits him or her the best.
It is understood that all religions worship the same God and aim to humanize mankind. This is why the Church no longer presents herself to the world as the only plank of salvation and recognizes in all religions "semina verbum" fragmented pieces of truth. There is therefore salvation without the Church,
but there can be no salvation without Christ because He, being God made man, is the only fullness of truth and therefore valid for all times and in all places.
Like the Old Testament prophets, the founders of all religions were the disclosers of God's will and the longings of the people at a particular moment in their history, to lead them along the right path.
Christ, more than a prophet, that is, the right Man for a specific moment in time, is the right Man for all times and places. Because He, fundamentally, did not come to found a new religion, but to teach humankind how to be human.
If, as impartial observers, we compare the narratives of the different religions, we cannot fail to agree that the New Testament of the Bible is the most beautiful, the most profound and the greatest human narrative of all times. Whether the agnostic world recognizes it or not, the Gospel is the narrative that best displays and understands human nature, and in accordance with it, how we ought to be in order to accomplish self-fulfillment and happiness. It is the moral imperative best suited to human nature. There is no other religious narrative more humane than that found in the Gospel. The Gospel contains the paradigm, the pattern of humanity.
As Christ is not just a prophet, in relation to other religions, Christianity represents a qualitative leap and, in this way, all religions are to Christianity what the Old Testament of the Bible is to the New Testament.
Since Christ, God made man, incarnated into life the most perfect model of humanity, He is the reference point, the paradigm, the role model for all human beings. Anyone who seeks and strives to be an authentic human person, whatever his creed or religion may be, does not have to profess the Christian faith, but must compare himself to Christ and to no one else; he needs to measure himself to Christ because He is the gold standard of humanity, the only way, truth, and life.
Christianity and Islam
Let us take Islam as an example, which is the religion with most followers after Christianity, with which it came into conflict when it was attacked in Europe and in the Christian holy places. From the point of view of Christianity, Islam as an Abrahamic religion is a version of Judaism that exchanges Hebrew Messianism for a last prophet, Mohammed, who has already come. There are inconsistencies in the Muslim religion that makes it adverse to reason; I want to point out just three:
The last prophet – If mankind lives for another 10,000 or 20,000 years, what is the meaning of a last prophet that came in the year 524? More changes have taken place in the world and humanity since the year 524 than in all the millions of years before; why then did prophets previously succeed each other frequently and then after the year 524 suddenly they are no longer needed?
In the case of Christianity, even if humanity lives until year 20,000, it still makes sense that the revelation took place in year zero. As the author of the letter to the Hebrews explains, in the text mentioned above, the one sent to mankind is NOT quantitatively just another prophet added to the long list of prophets, but qualitatively, God himself who came to live among us, as one of us.
There is a qualitative leap here. Prophets bring messages for a specific time, the word of God is everlasting for all times and places, because God does not need to speak twice. On the other hand, Christ is not only the spoken word, he is the lived word that is lived only once. God needs only to incarnate once, there were many prophets before Christ and there have been and will be many after Him.
Mary, mother and virgin – Many Muslims may conveniently want to forget that when Mohammed returned to Mecca, he gave orders to destroy all statues of idols, but he himself ran to embrace and protect with his own body the statue of the Virgin Mary with her son Jesus on her lap. Today’s Islam, to mark differences with Christianity, ignores these facts, but what is certain is that even for the Muslim faith, it is the prophet Isa, i.e. Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary, who will return on the last day to judge the living and the dead.
If for the Muslim faith, as for us, Mary the mother of Jesus is a virgin, who then is the father of Jesus? It is obvious that it cannot be Joseph the carpenter, for if it is him, Mary would not be a virgin. On the other hand, if he is not the father, the Conception of Jesus cannot have been natural and the father cannot have been human; if he is not human, then it must be the work of God, and if it is the work of God then God has a Son and he is not as Judaism conceives him, a solitary God, but as Christianity conceives him and as Jesus Christ revealed him to us, a God of love, family, community.
Absolute monotheism – Islam inherited the simple monotheism of the Hebrews. Therefore, both Jews and Muslims have no way of theologically substantiating that man is made in the image and likeness of God. If God is love and love that does not go out of itself is self-centered, God is more than one, God is a family – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – this fact itself points out the nature of the human family: father, mother and child.
God is at the same time one and three, He is triune; likewise, the human family is called to be a unity of three persons, where the existence of one is not possible without the existence of the other two; a man is not a father without having a wife and a child; a woman is not a mother without having a child and a husband; and a child does not exist by himself without having a father and a mother.
As Christ is the model for individual human life, the Most Holy Trinity is the model for social human life: a model of peace, harmony and love. Judaism and Islam lack the theological models or reference points for family and society life, conceiving God as a great loner.
Genesis and essence of Christianity
Christianity as a religion has its origin in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth during the first century, in the Roman provinces of Galilee and Judea. Jesus was seen by his contemporaries as a prophet mighty in words and deeds (Luke 24:19): a prophet because he was considered to have come from God, in words because he was a great orator, a rabbi who was treated by all as a master, in deeds because he was a famous healer who restored health to many people suffering from all kinds of physical, psychological and moral illnesses.
On religious ground – With his often-repeated phrase, "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times... but I say to you that..." (Matthew 5:21-48), Jesus stood in opposition to Moses, presenting himself as the new law that is morally superior to the former.
He replaced the sacrifice in the temple as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins from God with a simple declaration, "Your sins are forgiven" (Luke 7:48). And he proved in front of everyone that he had the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:5).
He also stated that He and God the Father are one (John 10:30), and that He is God's representative on earth, for whoever sees him sees the Father (John 14:9). He is the only intercessor between God and men and that no one goes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). Thus, it is proven that there is no salvation outside of Christ.
On eschatological ground – Jesus presents himself as the son of David, the messiah who was to come and whom the Jews were waiting for. However, He is more like the universalist Messiah in the manner of Isaiah, and not the nationalist one like Elijah, who not only gathers all the tribes of Israel into one Davidic Kingdom, but also gathers all peoples to one banquet, as Isaiah (25:6) had dreamt.
On individual ground – Jesus presented himself to his contemporaries as the paradigm of humanity, as the only Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6). Jesus is the reference of humanity, He is the best authority of human nature and his path, truth and way of living life are the only ones that lead to happiness and self-realization of all the potentials that exist within us. In Jesus' view, there is no equally valid alternative to himself. As He himself says, "He who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30).
On social ground – Jesus presents an alternative to this current society: the Kingdom of God. And he said that this is already among us with his coming; proof of this are the works he performs (Matthew 12:28). Defined in the prayer that Jesus taught as the place where God's will is done on earth as it is done in heaven, the Kingdom of God is a society where justice reigns, since there are neither rich nor poor people, and where peace reigns, since enemies are loved as much as friends, so there is no reason for violence or aggression.
With the exception of his disciples, Jesus encountered strong opposition, especially from Israel’s religious leaders. They took upon themselves to entice the people and to deceive the Roman authorities into condemning Jesus as a political agitator, which happened around the year 30-33 AD.
If nothing had happened after his death, his name would have inscribed both on the list of prophets as well as that of false messiahs and political agitators against the colonization of Rome. This did not happen: his disciples testified that they saw Him alive after his death. Their testimony was so vehement that they were willing to seal it with their own death like the master.
On the basis of Jesus’ Resurrection, the apostles began an arduous work of reinterpreting the scriptures, the Old Testament, as well as the master's entire life, words and deeds, as He himself had done with the disciples of Emmaus. Part of this reinterpretation is already found in the Gospels, especially the later ones. The other part is the Church's reflection on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, which took 5 centuries and several Councils to define.
The Church, or Christianity in the first few centuries of its existence
Before the Council of Nicaea, the apostolic era was followed by the era of the Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, they were the learned Hellenists who tried to discern the true nature of Jesus, as well as the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
As it is natural, "each head has its own sentence", several theories emerged on these two themes, the most important of which was Arianism, which denied the divinity of Jesus. This heresy was condemned by the first Council of Nicaea (325) and the first Council of Constantinople (381), and thus the Nicene Creed was produced. In the year 380, with the Edict of Thessalonica, Trinitarian Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
When the identity of Jesus was already more or less clear, in seeking to clarify the identity of Mary, his mother, the issue of Jesus' identity was reopened again. Before the Council of Ephesus, some had already claimed that Mary was the mother of God; however, Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople thought that Mary could only be the mother of the human part of Jesus.
The Council of Ephesus was convened, which defined Mary as the mother of the whole and indivisible Jesus in his two natures; Nestorius was called a heretic and was excommunicated from the Church. However, because of the high place he occupied, many churches in the East separated from Rome.
After the death of Cyril of Alexandria, the strong opponent of Nestorius who understood that the two natures of Christ were not united in the same person, a monk named Eutyches appeared who, by fighting Nestorianism in his ranks, ended up asserting a doctrine contrary to Arianism known as Docetism. According to this current, if in Arianism Christ did not have a divine nature, in Docetism he had no human nature: he was human only in appearance.
The Council of Chalcedon was convened in 451 to settle this matter and it defined once again the two natures, human and divine, united in the same person of Jesus, so that the Church of Alexandria, which became the Coptic church of Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea, separated from the rest of the Church.
Finally, in July 1054 there was a great schism in the Church that mirrored the division of the Roman Empire into two, East and West, with the East based in Constantinople and the West based in Rome. The last straw in this controversy came when in 1053, the Greek churches of southern Italy were forced to latinize. In retaliation, the Latin churches of Constantinople were shut down. Other disputes arose, such as the celebration of the Eucharist with leavened or unleavened bread, and the primacy of the Pope over all the churches.
ORTHODOX CHURCHES
The Orthodox church is considered the heir of all Christian communities in the eastern half of the Mediterranean. Subsequently, it spread throughout Eastern Europe thanks to the prestige of the Byzantine Empire and the work of missionaries.
Today there are about 300 million Orthodox Christians who are members of 14 national autocephalous churches. The Orthodox church includes Orthodox churches of Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Macedonia and Cyprus among others. It is worth mentioning that for most Christians, Orthodox faithful reside in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and the Balkans.
The first dioceses or patriarchates of the Church
Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to the ease of travel on Roman roads and the Pax Romana that the empire established and guaranteed. Because the early Christians were Jews, the first Christian communities were also formed outside Israel where many Jews lived.
Even Paul himself on his travels went wherever there were Jews and preached in their synagogues. These early nuclei of Christians were later called dioceses and still later, patriarchates. Because there are five of them, these patriarchates or dioceses were also called pentarchy. In order of importance and stratum in the ancient world, they are: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.
Rome – The importance of this city in the ancient world comes firstly from the fact that it is the capital of the Roman Empire. Within the Church, it was the seat of Peter and Paul, for it was here that they were martyred and buried. For these reasons, in the ancient Christian world, before any schism, Rome was regarded by the other dioceses or patriarchates as "primus inter pares". It should be said that in the first few centuries of the Church there did not exist the idea of the primacy of Peter, in the sense of having any juridical and executive power over the other churches.
The supreme power of the Church was not the successor of Peter, but rather the ecumenical councils that were taking place. The Council of Constantinople in the year 381 gave rise to the idea of the Pentarchy, the five most important seats of Christianity; on this list, Rome comes first, being recognized as the center of communion between the churches.
Alexandria – Together with Rome and Antioch, it is one of the most important seats of ancient Christianity. It corresponds today to the Coptic Church which emerged from the schism after the Council of Chalcedon. According to tradition, it was founded in the year 42 by evangelist St. Mark. Until the schism, after the Council of Chalcedon, it was the most important diocese after Rome.
Antioch – It was the fourth city of the Roman Empire, the capital of the East. It was probably also the first Christian community outside of Israel. Here the name Catholic Church was born and here the followers of Christ were first called Christians. The ecclesiastical authority of this diocese extended to Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Cyprus, Palestine and Arabia. It is thought that it was in Antioch that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written.
Constantinople – It is the fourth patriarchate in order of importance in the ancient world; the patriarch of Constantinople was elected by the patriarch of Antioch. Constantinople's power grew after Constantine designated this city as the capital of the empire of the East. Thus, while the other patriarchates of the East languished under the ravages of Muslims, Constantinople grew as long as the Byzantium Empire lasted.
Jerusalem – It came out directly from the Upper Room where the first Eucharist was celebrated, Jerusalem is certainly the first Christian community. It had as its leader James the Lesser, cousin of the Lord. From there the apostles set out to bring the good news to other parts. And they returned there to celebrate the first Council of the Church when the apostles were still alive. Then came the revolt of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the legions of Titus. Jerusalem as a patriarchate was born only after the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451. Jerusalem was the first Christian community, but not the first patriarchate.
Slow and progressive separation
The separation of the Church into East and West in the year 1054 was the sanctioning of a separation that already existed and was growing with the passage of the centuries. Let us look at some of the factors -- cultural, political and theological -- that were the remote causes of the separation of the Eastern Church from the Western Church.
Cultural factors – Language is the soul of a culture; in the more cultured East, Greek was spoken; the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. In the more ignorant West, Latin, the mother tongue of the Romans, was spoken.
Political factors – The transfer of the capital of the empire from the city of Rome to Constantinople in the 4th century.
Theological factors – The West changed the creed of Nicaea, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not only from the Father as the Nicene Creed originally said. Rome accuses the Orthodox Christians of being monophysists, both arians and docetists.
The Orthodox Patriarchates
The Orthodox church is divided into patriarchates among which there is equality. The patriarchate of Constantinople, which is currently occupied by Bartholomew, is considered "primus inter pares", the first among equals. For historical reasons, Bartholomew has a certain preeminence over all other Orthodox churches, but he has no jurisdiction over them. Moreover, his patriarchate, based in Istanbul and with about 10,000 faithful, does not have the weight of Moscow, which, with Kirill at the helm, has about 120 of the 300 million Orthodox faithful.
After these, which are the most important, there are the historical ones of Antioch and Alexandria and so many others, as we said earlier there are 14 Orthodox churches and each of them has a patriarch at its head. The term patriarch is used in Eastern churches, but not all patriarchs are Orthodox. There are some Latin patriarchs in the East and even in the West, like that of Lisbon and Venice.
The latest efforts at ecumenism
As he stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter's Square on March 13, 2013, the newly elected Pope Francis introduced himself simply as the "Bishop of Rome". This pleased the Orthodox leaders who see the Church as a collection of autonomous dioceses, not centralized in Rome. Therefore, for the first time in history, the Patriarch of Constantinople attended Francis’ investiture as pope.
The fact did not go unnoticed in Moscow, so in November 2014, the Pope extended his hand to Kirill: "I will go where you wish, if you call me I will come." On February 12, 2016, the Pope and Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church met for the first time in nearly a thousand years.
In a globalized world and in strong intercommunication, cultural and linguistic differences are no longer important; the theological ones may still be somewhat, but with the Orthodox churches, there is much more what unites us than what divides us; the different rites and ways of celebrating the Eucharist are also not a problem because there are Byzantine rite Catholics.
The big problem is the primacy of Peter which, in some way, the Orthodox churches accept and cannot deny as willed by Jesus. In the practical application of this primacy, which was not specified by Jesus, is where the problem lies.
The problem of authority already exists within the Orthodox churches, because they do not have one person who speaks for Orthodoxy. The division between the different Orthodox churches is perhaps the greatest problem in the (re)union with Rome. It took them 55 years to convene a synod (which in the Catholic Church is called council) that was finally celebrated on the island of Crete on June 2016. This should have been the largest gathering of Orthodox leaders since 787 AD and yet four Orthodox denominations, among them the Patriarchate of Moscow which has the largest number of faithful, did not participate.
CATHOLIC CHURCH
After the Church of Christ was split in two, the Catholic Church devoted herself to evangelizing the West and the Orthodox the East, the eastern part of Europe and Russia. The latter never ventured into the rest of Asia, Mongolia, China and South Asia, India. All these territories, as well as the entire continents of Africa, and North and South America, were later evangelized by the Western Catholic Church by sea. More evangelizing or more proselytizing, the Catholic Church has grown to the present 1.2 billion faithful, which somehow makes ecumenism with the Orthodox churches difficult.
We have been speaking about the Catholic Church in her confrontation with the Orthodox churches and we will continue to speak about her in her confrontation with the Protestant churches. So I will not linger too long in describing this Church which, even in the most radical orthodoxy, enjoys a certain honorary primacy, although not legislative or executive.
From the point of view of Catholics, the Orthodox faithful have abandoned the Mother Church; from the point of view of the Orthodox faithful, it was the Catholics who abandoned her. This idea may be valid in the case of the Protestant schism, but it is not the case of the schism with Orthodoxy. Since Pope Leo IX historically excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch Michael Cerularius and the latter excommunicated the Pope, what happened was a split into two of the Church that Christ founded, and not one coming out of the other.
The only relevant issue for this article is the one that divides not only the Catholic Church from the Orthodox churches, but also from the Protestant churches: the primacy of Peter, its historical significance, the present and future interpretation and application of Christianity as a universal religion.
Peter's primacy in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles
Pretending to deny the primacy of Peter over the other apostles is to set aside a large number of passages in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and even in the Pauline letters. The denials of theologians, both Orthodox and Protestant, concerning the primacy of Peter as presented to us in the Word of God, can only be ideological, that is, it cannot pretend to justify the Orthodox autocephaly and the Protestant acephaly.
In the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes Peter and gives him authority
• He is one of the first to be called by Jesus: Mark 1:16; John 1:40-42
• He is always first on the list of the 12: Matthew 10:2
• He is part of Jesus' inner circle: Mark 5:37; 9:12; 13:3; 14:33
• Jesus stays at Peter's house: Mark 1:29
• Peter's mother-in-law is the only relative of an apostle he heals: Luke 4:38-40
• Jesus goes into Peter's boat and from it he preaches to the crowd on the shore: Luke 5:1-11
• Peter walks on water, although the lack of faith almost sank him: Matthew 14:28
• He was the first to see Jesus as the Messiah: Matthew 16:16; Luke 9:20
• On the rock of Peter the Church is built: Matthew 16:18
• Peter was given the keys of the kingdom: Matthew 16:19
• Peter was the spokesman for the group on many occasions: Matthew 16:22; 17:24; 18:21; John?
• He denied Jesus because he was the only one who followed him at a distance: Mark 14:54
• Jesus tells Peter to sustain the faith of his brothers: Luke 22:31-62
• Jesus tells the women to give the news of his Resurrection to Peter: Mark 16:7
• He is one of those who runs to the tomb: Luke 24:12
• Jesus appears to Peter after the Resurrection: Luke 24:34
• Protagonist of miraculous catch of fish: John 21:11
• Jesus asks him if he loves Him and commands him to feed His sheep: John 21:15-19
In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter acts according to the authority given to him by Jesus
• Peter speaks to the 11 urging them to elect a replacement for Judas: Acts 1:15
• He preaches to the people like Jesus did on Pentecost and other occasions: Acts 2:1-36; 3:12-25; 4:8
• He heals like Jesus did: 3:1-10
• He is the spokesman of the apostles before the Sanhedrim: Acts 4:19
• He rebukes Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon the magician: Acts 5:3-9; 8:20
• He receives inspiration from the Holy Spirit to evangelize the Gentiles: Acts 10
• He presides over the Council of Jerusalem where he states his inspiration without imposing it: Acts 15: 7
St. Paul, the greatest of the apostles, acknowledges Peter’s authority
• Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet Cephas (Peter) and stays with him for 15 days: Galatians 1:18-19
• Paul confronts Peter precisely because he recognizes his authority: Galatians 2:11-13
• Paul says that Jesus first appeared to Peter then to the 11: 1 Corinthians 15:5
• Paul says that Peter is the evangelizer of the circumcised and uncircumcised: Galatians 2: 7-8
How far can it be accepted by the Orthodox churches
Because Peter lived and was martyred in Rome where his remains rest, the Orthodox churches accept that Peter's successor has a primacy of honour over all the other churches, but without juridical or executive power. His charge is to be the visible head of the Church in order to maintain her unity.
This would be the value, for Catholics as well as for Orthodox and Protestant Christians alike, of the successor of Peter as the visible centre of unity, representative of Christ, and head of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church. In some way for the civil world, the Pope, more than another Protestant patriarch or bishop, is the one who truly represents the Christian religion, he is its ex libris.
How could it be lived?
If we want to be faithful to the tradition of the Church, we have to agree with the Orthodox faithful who argue that the Church's highest authority from the beginning is the Council. The first dogmas of the Church were born in the Councils and only a council, not a Pope, has the right to define a dogma as a timeless truth of faith. If this is so, I fear that the infallibility conferred today on Peter's successor should be transferred to the ecumenical councils.
The power of absolute monarch of the Church goes against the tradition of the Church and is not convenient for the Orthodox Christians, Protestants or Catholics. In the light of the division of powers in Western democracies into Legislative – Judicial – Executive, we believe that the legislative power should belong exclusively to the Ecumenical Councils. The Pope would keep the other two, within the framework of greater collegiality and autonomy of the dioceses.
PROTESTANT CHURCHES
A union of people, a group, a company, an institution will always be a unit of diversity. The psychological diversity of individuals or the cultural diversity of societies is undeniable. Although the Roman Empire was divided into two, the Church remained united for centuries, even though the more cultured East spoke Greek and the less cultured West spoke Latin, the Church had remained united.
Political and cultural factors are never decisive in divisions and schisms. Just as it is not possible to explain World War II without the person of Hitler, or the Bolshevik Revolution without the person of Lenin, one cannot explain the partition of the Church into East and West without the personalities of Leo IX who sought a power that did not belong to him, according to Church tradition, and the retaliation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius.
In the same way, the schism in the West, between the North which became Protestant and the South which remained Catholic, did not happen or would happen without Martin Luther. He was a Catholic monk who basically accepted all Catholic doctrines, even the Marian dogmas. Theological differences are not the reasons for the schism, these appeared later to justify the existence of the newly created churches; it was rather the narcissism of small differences which Freud explains very well psychoanalytically.
Solus Christus sola fide sola scriptura – This was not followed even by the author, Luther, himself. If we consider that tradition is the life and reflection of the Church over the years, since the death and Resurrection of the Lord, then tradition is not only the councils of the Church, the definition of the two natures of Christ and the Trinitarian nature of God, which Protestants accept. The very same Bible is the child of tradition, for it did not fall from heaven as the Muslims believe of the Quran, but it emerged and reflects the life of the communities where the texts were written.
The Old Testament is born from the life, history and tradition of the Hebrew people; the New Testament is born from the life of the first Christian communities. Without them, there would be no Gospels. Saint Paul and the other apostles wrote to specific communities and in their letters, they responded to the problems of those communities.
There is more what unites us, and what divides us is, in some way, circumstantial. Yet, the theological reasons that moved Luther to divide the Church have already been assimilated by the Church as justification by faith and not by works. Therefore, I will not make any panegyric of what divides us, because there is more what unites us. I just want to focus on Luther's personality and compare it to another reformer of the Church, Francis of Assisi.
Francis of Assisi and Luther
The reform of Francis of Assisi was aimed at holiness, Luther's reform was aimed at criticism. Henri De Lubac
Francis and Luther were two reformers of the Church. Francis' reform, due to his humility and patience towards the Pope and the corrupt Church structures, was accepted; Luther's reform, due to his pride and impatience with the Pope and the corrupt Church structures, was initially rejected, but what was good in it was accepted later at the Council of Trent.
Both Pope Innocent III at the time of Francis, and Pope Leo X at the time of Luther lived sumptuously surrounded by luxury and corruption. Francis' humility guided him to be patient and wait. The Pope rejected Francis and with disdain, told him to go and lie down with the pigs. Being able to refute the Pope by appealing to the Gospel, and even drawing from the wealth of experience from his evangelical poverty in radical contrast to the extravagance of the papal court, Francis took the papal scorn literally and went to lie down with the pigs.
Francis did not deny the Pope's authority as Peter's successor. He patiently followed the way of Christ, allowing himself to be misunderstood and maligned, knowing that God would sooner or later vindicate him... something God always does. Called from the pigsty by the same Pope after his famous dream in which he saw how Francis was supporting the Church that was falling into ruins, Francis presented himself to the Pope dirty and smelling badly. The Pope understood that he was in the presence of a saint who had been obedient to the point of humiliation and therefore he approved Francis’ work.
Unlike Francis, Luther did not visit Rome for the confirmation of his cause, nor did he recognize the Pope's authority as Peter's successor, or respect the structures of the Church. In fact, his impatience led him not to trust in the divine providence to guide the Church and carry out the reforms he wanted, in God's time and not according to his agenda.
Unfortunately, Luther showed himself to be inflexible. He rejected dialogue and since the Pope did not agree with him, he rejected the papacy. In his pride, Luther did not tolerate any authority that did not support him immediately and without question. Consequently, when the papal bull arrived, Luther publicly burned it and began to insult the Pope as the Antichrist.
History shows that God does not use irascible men to lead his Church along the path of peace and righteousness. God chooses those who are little, meek, and humble –the Kingdom of Heaven is for such as these. Irony of fate, the Church founded by the Lamb of God, meek and humble of heart, was on the part of the papacy, torn apart by two lions: Leo IX in 1054, in the schism between East and West, and Leo X in 1517, between the Protestants of the North and the Catholics of the South.
Conclusion: Every Christian of goodwill desires that the Church which Christ founded continues united as in the apostolic times. Surely this is what Christ still wants for his Church today. Because with the autocephaly or acephaly of the Orthodox churches, as well as the anarchy of the many small and divided Protestant churches, we do not give a good testimony to civil society, nor do we render a good service to the Gospel.
No kind of unity is possible without a visible head as the reference point of every Christian. This visible head was Peter during the apostolic times, it must be Peter's successor in our times. A visible head emptied of every kind of authority, however small, is as insignificant as the Queen of England who reigns but does not rule. In the texts quoted above, we see that Peter exercises a certain authority and even goes so far as to rebuke Ananias and Sapphire.
As there have been in the history of the Church people who sought discord and division, so let there be now people who, gathered in ecumenical commissions, can find the formula of Peter's primacy, where every Christian sees himself or herself, according to the tradition of the Church.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC
No comments:
Post a Comment