Preliminary remark from Bishop Marian Eleganti: I was inspired to write this article by an Eric Sammons piece in Crisis Magazine with similar content: “Is a Leonine Unity Even Possible?” I agree with this view.
(LifeSiteNews) — Vladimir Soloviev writes: “The ‘Latins’, as you call the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, have never abandoned the faith. No amount of detailed argumentation can refute the fact that, apart from Rome, there are only national churches such as the Armenian or Greek churches, state churches such as the Russian or Anglican churches, or sects founded by individuals such as the Lutherans, Calvinists, Irvingians, etc. The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that is neither a national church nor a state church nor a sect founded by a human being; it is the only church in the world that upholds and defends the principle of universal social unity against individual egoism and national particularism; it is the only church that upholds and defends the freedom of spiritual power against the absolutism of the state; in a word, it is the only church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed.”
This is correct. In fact, most Orthodox churches are de facto national churches, and many of them are also historically or currently state churches, or at least have very strong ties to the state. Accordingly, they call themselves, for example, Russian, Serbian, or Greek Orthodox churches. There are exceptions among smaller patriarchates where this is not the case. This is a historical phenomenon that does not arise from the theological self-image of Orthodoxy (the latter is universal).
In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church is a universal church without any national or state affiliation. It is present practically everywhere in the world. The attribute “Roman” refers to the current seat of the pope in Rome and to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. Both apostles are of fundamental importance to the Church. The fact that they both suffered martyrdom in Rome is not an insignificant historical detail, but in a sense documents the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his successors, the popes, who see themselves as successors of St. Peter, who died in Rome. Christ founded the Church on Peter and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Soloviev points this out without envy. This is the basis for the unity of the Catholic Church: agreement and canonical (not idealistic) unity with Peter, or the pope. Soloviev is also correct in this regard.
To simplify matters, one could say that the Orthodox churches agree on faith and liturgy, but in fact have considerable problems living in unity (canonically) among themselves. The patriarchates compete with each other. There is no unified office (papacy), at most an honorary primacy, which is disputed, as we can see. It is no longer recognized by all. For this reason, among others, a pan-Orthodox council has not been convened in the recent past. New painful schisms have formed, such as that between Moscow and Constantinople (Cyril and Bartholomew), which also has repercussions in other countries, such as Ukraine, but not only there. There is no jurisdictional, canonical unity as in the Roman Catholic Church. This means that unity is not visibly constituted, but is of an abstract nature and, unfortunately, not realized in practice.
This does not apply to the Roman Catholic Church under the pope in this (canonical) respect. For even in it, schismatic realities are no longer taken seriously, as in Orthodoxy. That is to say, one lives with them, comes to terms with them, or glosses over them, as in the recent papal sermon that addressed the relationship with the Anglican Church. On the whole, however, a dirty schism is tolerated that runs through the entire Catholic Church between the so-called “modernist,” “zeitgeist-adapted,” “relativist,” and “pluralist,” “left-wing” “reform Catholics” and the “conservative,” “right-wing,” “traditional,” and “orthodox” Catholics. Both wings see themselves as faithful and Catholic. This is the paradox par excellence.
With the common attributes listed above, I am merely picking up on a vulgar, widespread typification in the minds and writing rooms of Catholics, without endorsing it. For one should only speak of Catholics. However, it must then be clearly defined who may be considered as such and who is not (or no longer is). In short: you are either Catholic or you are not. But you are not – as is often claimed in colloquial language – a right-wing or left-wing Catholic. You are either orthodox or heretical and therefore Catholic or not (any longer). Ultimately, this must be clearly defined and decided by the pope for the universal Church.
In any case, “Catholic” also constitutes an exclusion criterion, which is no longer understood or practiced today. People want to be inclusive. Unfortunately, this also gives heretics a home in the Church. They are allowed to teach and minister in their mission, even if they criticize the faith of the Church and do not live according to it. They proclaim a different gospel than the one handed down by the apostles and preserved by the popes (Tradition). Because the pope in the universal Church and the bishops in their dioceses tolerate heresies and heretics, we have a dirty, omnipresent internal schism in the Catholic Church.
Heresies are no longer identified and punished in the Catholic Church today. Heretics are no longer recognized as such, sanctioned, and excommunicated. They can freely corrupt the Body of Christ, the Church. Popes allow themselves to be photographed with them and make them socially acceptable because they talk to them without at the same time publicly distancing themselves from their views and activities, admonishing them publicly, condemning their positions, and, if necessary, excommunicating them. Thus, the diseases spread unchecked in the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.
The healing of the Church could only happen if heresies were clearly identified as such by the pope, and their representatives and promoters (activists) were excommunicated again if they did not want to repent. Then one could also speak of true unity (one faith, one baptism, one body) in the Roman Catholic Church. As John has already written, those who tear the Church apart and falsify the faith come from within the Church. The pope and the bishops should make it clear and publicly declare that, as John writes, they do not belong to us.
