Archbishop Elias on Double Communion (Part II)

Archbishop Elias Zoghby, We Are All Schismatics, trans. Philip Khairallah (Newton, MA: Educational Services, 1996), pp. 92-94.

Note: I have edited this excerpt slightly for grammar and spelling.

Acts of Rupture Across This Communion

If we make an exception of the Chalcedonian rupture in 451 that has been recently denounced by Pope Paul VI and the (so-called “Monophysite”) Coptic, Syrian and Armenian patriarchs during their common and solemn declarations when they attested to the identity of faith, even though using different ways of formulating this faith, one can say that the Churches of the East and the West lived in ecclesial communion during the first millennium of Christianity in spite of vicissitudes, political rivalries and conflicts of authority.  In spite of interferences in the internal affairs of the Church by the emperors who applied the principles of Christian Hellenism that envisioned the emperor as representing God on earth, such interferences did not shock the popes because, after having recognized that these interferences even existed among themselves, they treated the emperor civilly during the Councils of Lyons and Florence, and dealt only with the Byzantine emperor and not the patriarch. [1] And in spite of the exploitation of their prestige over the emperor, the hierarchs of Rome and Constantinople during the previous millennium always ended in reconciliation.  These ruptures did not involve [affect?] the unity of the two Churches, and did not entail a split between the Churches that lived within their own geographical orbits.

The Romans and Orthodox had, in effect, the consciousness of belonging to the same Church of Christ in spite of differences and political interferences in their reciprocal relationships.  The only criteria of communion was the common faith received from the Apostles and the Fathers, and defined by the seven Ecumenical Councils.

This communion allowed the Churches of Rome and the East to hold ecumenical councils together and to coordinate their efforts in maintaining the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Councils, and to regulate conflicts that arose among the different Churches.  Their hierarchs exchanged letters of communion.

Acts of Communion Bridging the Schism

Even as acts of communion bridged the ruptures during the first millennium, so did acts of communion occur after the Great Schism.  “Intercommunion was so numerous between 1054 and the Council of Florence,” says Father Yves Congar, “that one could not speak of total separation, but only a separation perforated by numerous exceptions.” [2] “On All Saints Day in 1384,” states B. Mestermann, “Frescobaldi and his companions received Holy Communion from the hands of the Archbishop of Sinai.  The Latins continued to celebrate Mass at St. Catherine’s Monastery until the 18th century.” [3] F. Bouwen also extended th date of this intercommunion until the eighteenth century.  “To give only a few examples from our region of Jerusalem and the Near East only, until 1655 we saw that the monks of the Monastery of St. Sabbas from the desert of Judea solicited aid from the Pope of Rome.  Until the 18th century the tone of letters exchanged between the monks of Sinai and the Popes of Rome leads one to understand that for both parties, intercommunion was still considered to be in force.” [4] The Metropolitan of Kiev, after the Council of Florence in the 15th century, was united to Rome without being separated from the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn was canonically separated from Rome.

The Patriarch of Antioch was more involved than others in the schism that separated Rome from Constantinople.  “In the fields of faith, liturgy and other riches of Christianity, he had given a lot to the two sees, and thus he could not, in strict logic, become part of either Byzantium of of Latin Catholicism.”  Thus, more than others, the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch knew the meaning of double communion throughout history.  In talking about the centuries that immediately preceded Uniatism, let us mention the Catholic profession of faith sent to Pope Sixtus V by the resigned Patriarch Michael Sabbagh (1570-1580).  The excellent relations between the Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo Malatios Karme and Rome led to the translation and printing of different liturgical books in Arabic. Having become patriarch, Malatios sent his protosyncellus [chancellor] Pacomius to Rome with his patriarchal seal to subscribe to everything the pope said, except the decrees of the Council of Florence.  However, the patriarch died before the return of his delegate.  His successor, Euthymius III, promised to write to the pope as did his predecessor.  Makarius III Zaim (1647-1672) who succeeded him also had good relations with the Church of Rome, so much so that he was called a crypto-Catholic.  Like his predecessors, he did not see any incompatibility between his belonging to Orthodoxy and his loyalty to the Roman Church, for the simple reason that the doctrine was essentially the same.  These Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch, as well as many other bishops, received Catholic missionaries in their churches and gave them the tasks of preaching and of helping in the development of the Orthodox youth.  Neither the Roman Church nor Orthodoxy had denounced these acts of communion. [5]

In brief, these acts of communion bridged the canonical schism throughout the centuries, and one can state that this schism, exacerbated by both the Crusaders and the substitution of Latin hierarchies for Orthodox ones, was not effectively consummated until the development of Uniatism, when the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith [known today as "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"] resolved to impose upon the East its new conception of unity which consisted in juridically incorporating the Eastern Churches into the Roman Church, separating the Eastern faithful from their legitimate pastors, and attaching them to a new hierarchy set up in parallel to the Orthodox hierarchy.

[To be continued.]

———

NOTES

1. G. Alberigo, Unity of the Church, p. 55.  Cited in Irénikon 1979, No. 1, p. 10.

2. Congar, Nine Hundred Years Later, p. 5.

3. From the Nile to the Jordan, pp. 135-137.

4. Proche-Orient Chrétien 1979, Vol. III-IV, p. 316.

5. See Abdullah Raheb, “The Concept of Union in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch,” and Athanasius Hajj, “The Basilian Chouerite Congregation,” Proche-Orient Chrétien 1979,Vol. III-IV, pp. 95-158.