(published on my Friendster blog, 16 April 2007)
Happy Easter to all!
I found out a few days ago that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches celebrated Easter Sunday on the same date. (Though both are branches of the Christian Church, the Orthodox Church follows the Julian Calendar while the Catholic Church follows the Gregorian Calendar. Last year, both Churches celebrated Easter Sunday a week apart.) I know it may not mean anything to the lay person, but the rich culture and history, and significance of the Oriental Churches in relation to the Western Church can expand our knowledge of Christian tradition and further strengthen our faith as Catholics. Given the chance, I would like to study more about the Eastern and Western Churches.
1. Eastern vs. Western, Roman/Latin vs. Orthodox
Before I even discuss the implications of this common Easter celebration, let me 
give you a background as to how the Christian Church came to be divided into East/West, Catholic/Orthodox. I know many well-meaning Catholics experience a little discomfort when the name "Orthodox Church" is mentioned. For some of us who have had the benefit of seeing a picture of an Orthodox cleric (i.e., a long- bearded churchman in black or gold, wielding a staff with snakes on them...much like the pharisees in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ), we tend to regard them as "enemies" of the Catholic Church who espouse creeds or doctrines that negate those of the Catholic faith. But even before the Catholic Church became more open about ecumenism, the Orthodox Church is and has always been its brother/sister. The truth of the matter is, although both Churches have had major and trivial disagreements (as siblings do), they both belong to one body, the body of Christ.
When Jesus established the early Christian Church, He never intended for it to be divided into two. But for purposes of culture and geography, the Church was traditionally designated as being Eastern (Middle East, Mediterranean region and Eastern Europe) and the Western (from Rome westward) in character. The West and the East sourced their doctrine from the same deposit of faith but added the unique features of the culture and tradition of the specific region (ie, Eastern is to Greek, Western is to Roman or Latin) to their rites and liturgy. Traditionally, St. Peter was designated as the father of the Church of Rome (the seat of the Western Church) while St. Andrew, his brother, was the father of the Church of Constantinople (the seat of the Eastern Church). When you look at it, the East and West are fraternal twins.
The Christian Church was ruled by five patriarchs (heads or fathers of the church) : the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over bishops in a specified geographic region. The patriarch of Rome was primus inter pares, "first among equals" or "first in place of honor" among the five patriarchs.
But man, although prompted by the Holy Spirit to do what is right, buckles and falls, and his pride or misguided sense of power makes him decide otherwise. I am not saying that a particular Church, much less a particular person should be blamed for the division. But we, as humans, should accept the fact that we have erred. It's not the Holy Spirit's fault; it is the bane of humanity, human weakness, that is at fault.
Although the Christian Church was doing well during the first millennium of its earthly existence, differences in doctrinal, political/juridical, geographic and linguistic aspects of the church arose. Among these are the assertion by the Pope of his authority over the Greek-speaking patriarchs of the East and the introduction of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed ("We believe in one God...) by the Western Church. (Ask your priest about the filioque clause or research about it and study it discerningly, so as not to be misguided.) These, among other things, brought forth what history calls the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches in 1054. The Eastern Church was left to the 4 patriarchs while the Western Church was governed by the bishop of Rome, the Pope.
The Eastern Church Called itself Orthodox Church because it views itself as having closely conformed to the original precepts of the Early Christian Church and the 7 church councils before the Schism. The Western Church came to be known as the Roman or Latin Church.
After the schism the honorary primacy among patriarchs shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had previously been accorded the second-place rank at the First Council of Constantinople.
2. Catholicism
The term "Catholic" means "universal." Being catholic or universal is one of the four marks of divinity of the true Church of Christ, the one which He Himself established. The True Church is (a) one - her members believe in the same things and follow one leader, the successor of St. Peter, (b) holy - it was established by Jesus Himself, (c) catholic or universal - it has reached out through everyone, Gentiles and Jews, servants or free men, man or woman and has subsisted through the ages and (d) apostolic - it was founded upon the apostles, whose lawful successors, through an unbroken line of succession, are the bishops.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of Antioch, in 110AD, was the first church father to refer to the Early Christian Church as being "catholic" or "universal" in nature. Thus, 900 years before the Great Schism, the Early Church was already referred to as being catholic. But after the Schism, the term Catholic was used to refer to the Western/Latin or Roman Church, with the Pope as its head. In fact, one of the honorific titles of the Pope, in relation to his Eastern counterparts, is "The Patriarch of the West."
3. Eastern Orthodoxy
The Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion comprising the fourteen or fifteen separate autocephalous or independent hierarchical churches that recognize each other as "canonical" (those who follow the original canons before the Schism) Orthodox Christian churches. The 10 or 11 other churches were born after the Schism, the original four being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
There is no single earthly head of all the Orthodox Churches comparable to the Pope of the Catholic Church. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople (presently Bartholomew I, whose picture you see above) who is also the head of one of the autocephalous churches, is considered the ecumenical patriarch, the primus inter pares. These organizations are in full communion with each other, so any priest of any of those churches may lawfully minister to any member of any of them, and no member of any is excluded from any form of worship in any of the others, including reception of the Eucharist. Each local or national Orthodox Church is a portion of the Orthodox Church as a whole.
4. Orthodox and Catholic Communion
Full Communion is a term used to describe relations between two distinct Christian churches that, while maintaining some separateness of identity, recognize each other as sharing the same union and the same essential doctrines. Its significance is understood differently in, on the one hand, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, and, on the other hand, in the theology of other Western Christians.
The Roman Catholic Church, however, makes a distinction between full and partial communion. Partial communion exists where some elements of Christian faith are held in common, but complete unity on essentials is lacking. Thus, the Catholic Church sees itself as in partial communion with Protestants, and as in much closer, but still incomplete, communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Canon law lists guidelines which can aid Catholic ministers in deciding whether to administer the sacraments to our brethren in the Eastern Churches, with whom we are not in full communion. Portions of Canon Law 844 are as follows:
- §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
- §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
5. The Eastern Catholic Churches
Not the entire Eastern Church joined the Orthodox Church during the Great Schism in 1054. There are particular churches that still maintained the unique quality and tradition of the East, while acknowledging the same beliefs as the Western Church and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the spiritual and temporal leader of the Catholic Church. These Churches are called the Eastern Catholic Churches or loosely, the Uniate Churches. Though their ministers look like Orthodox ministers and their liturgy is the same as that of the rites our Orthodox brethren use, they are in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Most Eastern Catholic Churches have counterparts in other Eastern Churches, from whom they are separated by a number of theological concerns or from whom they are separated primarily by differences in understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops. While Eastern Catholics are Catholics in full communion with the Pope, and are therefore members of the same Church that is sometimes officially called the Roma Catholic Church, they are not "Roman Catholics" in the narrower sense of that term since they are not part of the local Church of Rome and do not use the Roman Rite liturgy or any other of the Latin Rites.
The Eastern Catholic Churches were located historically in Eastern Europe, the Asian Middle East, Northern Africa and India but are now, because of migration, found also in Western Europe, the Americas and Ocenaia to the extent of forming full-scale ecclesiastical structures such as eparchies, alongside the Latin dioceses.
The terms Byzantine Catholics and Greek Catholic are used of those who belong to Churches that use the Byzantine Liturgical Rite. The terms Oriental Catholic and Eastern Catholic include these, but are broader, since they also cover Catholics who follow the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean liturgical traditions.
Thus, a Roman or Latin Rite Catholic follows the rites or liturgies that we normally follow in Philippine parishes and in the Vatican, while the Eastern Rite Catholics follow the liturgies of their culture or tradition. The different Eastern Christian liturgical traditions are: Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Byzantine and Chaldean.
6. The Common Easter
Now you begin to wonder, what is the significance of all these, especially the common celebration of Easter of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Well, I already mentioned it in passing somewhere in the middle of this post. The Church is Christ's body but sad to say, it is broken in many pieces. When He established the Church during His earthly ministry, He never intended for it to be divided. But unfortunately, it is. The celebration of the common date for Easter may not be a major milestone in mending the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches but is thus a portent of the joy the unification between the two Churches (in fact between the True Church and other Christian denominations) can bring. Not only will the body of believers be happy, but Jesus Himself, at the thought of his own body being mended and healed from the wounds of division and pride we have sown, will also be happy. Until man swallows his pride and accepts the will of the Spirit, however, we can only hope that the Julian and Gregorian calenders will again coincide soon, for us to experience and celebrate that common Easter joy.
Peace be with you!
Christ is Risen! Alleluia!
her designations are: berettino, calotte, subbiretumsubmitrale, soli-deo.
The Pope creates cardinals of his own volition and in complete independence from civil authority. Candidates are drawn from among male faithful who are at least in the order of priesthood and who distinguish themselves by their morals, their piety, their knowledge and their competence, whatever their nationality. In theory, a lay person can become a cardinal but canon law is firmly committed to a College of Cardinals strictly tied to the clergy. 
The cardinals are the Pope's chief advisers. However, the singular, most important role the cardinals play is that of electing a new Supreme Pontiff, when the See of Peter, the Diocese of Rome becomes vacant. We have become witness to this during the Sede Vacante (Vacant Chair) brought about by the death of our beloved Pope John Paul II in 2005.
Because cardinals are called to help the Pope in his leadership of the Church, they are also linked in a special way to the Diocese of Rome. Each of the bishops of the "suburbicarian sees" (or the dioceses immediately surrounding Rome), have been given the honor to be raised to the cardinalate by virtue of their holding office there.
In the Interregnum of 2005, we saw the representatives of the 3 degrees perform specific functions in liturgical celebrations, as well as in preparations leading to the Papal Election. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany, the most senior of Cardinal Bishops, presided over his brother cardinals in general congregations, consultations and discussions leading towards the election of the new pope. He was the Dean of the College of Cardinals, issuing guidance (not authority) over the other cardinals. He was the primus inter pares, the first among equals.
of the now Blessed John XXIII, otherwise known as the "Good Pope." But some say he was a Mason, one of the many who had infiltrated the Vatican at that time. I forget what Masonic Lodge the people in the Vatican were referred to, but they were regarded as a powerful block to reckon with. But perhaps the greatest controversy that can be hurled against the Good Pope (by traditionalists, that is) is convening the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II.) Here was a seemingly old school pope who, because of his age, was not believed to cause any major stir in the Church during his papacy, but suddenly shook its very foundations by adapting a more updated and lay-centered approach, especially to liturgy. Up to now, opposition to this change can still be felt, but the Holy Mother Church is still one and intact, despite the dawn of a new order. 
Incidentally, I acquired a book, Secrets of the Vatican, which gives numerous accounts of the dark side of the Vatican, including the absurd posthumous trial and conviction of Pope Formosus by his successor Stephen VII, the unpopular rule of Alexander VI or the Borgia Pope, and the Spanish Inquisition, among other "dark" stories of the Vatican.
