Here follows an extract from the Answers of Demetrius Chromatenus, Archbishop of Bulgaria (A.D. 1203,) to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachium.
Question. Is it any harm for a Bishop to enter the churches of the Latins, and to worship in them, on any occasion when he may be invited by them? And should he give them the kataklaston [that is, the antidoron or blessed bread,] when they are present at the Liturgy in the holy and Catholic Church?
Answer. Some of the Latins there are who do not at all differ from our customs either doctrinal or ecclesiastical, but are, as one may say, in this respect double-sided or neutral. As then it is our duty, and agreeable to piety, stiffly to oppose them that essentially differ from us, especially in the point of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, so on the other hand to use condescendence towards them that are not such, and to go with them into their churches, will be no fault in the Bishop who is charged with, and aims after, such economy as befits a steward of souls. Wherefore he will both go, when invited, to their churches without scruple, (for they too, no less than we ourselves, are worshippers of the holy Icons, and set them up in their churches,) and will give them freely the Antidoron when they are present in the Catholic Church and come up to receive it. For this custom may have the effect of gradually drawing them over altogether to our holy usages and doctrines. Italy itself is thickly studded with churches of the holy Apostles and Martyrs, the chief of which is the celebrated Church of Peter the Chief of the Apostles at Rome. Into these churches our people go freely, priests and laymen alike, and make their prayers to God, and render to the Saints who are honoured in them their due relative veneration and honour. And by doing this they incur no manner of blame, the churches in question being all under the Latins.
We remember that there were some Questions asked a good many years ago by Mark Patriarch of Alexandria, of blessed memory, and Answers written to the same by Theodore Balsamon, late Patriarch of Antioch. Among these there was one Question relating to Latin captives, namely, whether such ought to be admitted, when they come to the Catholic churches and seek to partake of the divine Sacraments? and subjoined to this an Answer altogether forbidding that the aforesaid Latins should be admitted to receive the divine Communion at the hands of our priests. The Answer professed to ground itself upon the holy Scripture, and quoted that saying of the Lord, He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.
This Answer however was disapproved of by many of the most eminent men who were living at that time, as showing too great harshness and bitterness, and an unjustifiable tone, in blaming the Latin forms and customs; because all this, they said, has never been read or decreed synodically, nor have they ever been publicly rejected as heretics; but both eat with us, and pray with us. And any one, they said, may readily prove the justness of this reasoning from Canon xv. of the holy Synod which is called the First and Second of Constantinople. And again because this very fact of the Latins coming to us, and seeking to communicate at our hands of the holy Oblation which is made with leavened bread, shows plainly that they cannot think much of their Azymes, nor make any great point of sticking to them: else they would not come to our celebration of the Divine Mysteries. These too, in order to support their own view from the Gospel, alleged what was said by St. John to the Lord. We saw, he said, one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for whosoever is not against us is for us.
They urged also in addition that the words He that is not with Me is against Me: are plainly and exclusively intended by our Saviour for the devil, as the context of the Gospel in the same place shows. For as Satan is an enemy from the beginning, and abides unchangeable in his malice, and is absolutely incapable of repentance, in this sense he, not being with the Lord, is against Him, and from so being has his name Satan, or adversary: inasmuch as the Lord loveth His own creation and gathereth it to Himself, but Satan hateth it and scattereth. But the words He who is not against us is for us are spoken in reference to a man who, though he follows not Jesus, yet emulates them that do follow Him, and in His name casts out devils, and so from walking apart may easily change to following. For for mere human infirmity there is a remedy, namely, conversion and repentance, and to change from what is worse to what is better.
They appealed also to the judgment on this same subject of Theophylact, the most wise Archbishop of Bulgaria, … which discourses of condescension and economy in a manner worthy both of admiration and of praise. And so they who argued against the opinion of Balsamon, as has been related, were judged to have insisted piously and reasonably for giving the preference over inflexible harshness to economy, in order that so, instead of casting down, we may gently and gradually win our brethren, for whom our common Saviour and Lord shed His own most precious blood.
As quoted in William Palmer’s Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Eastern Catholic’ Communion (1853).
Eirenikon 
I think that one needs to be careful about advice that is as dated as this is. A lot has happened since then. That said I don’t really see a problem with Orthodox bishops and their Latin counterparts visiting one another’s churches provided that their is no direct participation in liturgical rites. The question of the non-Orthodox taking the antidoron is a different matter and one I have mixed feelings about. I realize it is widely tolerated in some jurisdictions, but I am not altogether comfortable with it. In the end of course it is up to the local bishop unless the synod has spoken on the matter.
ICXC
John
I guess that means that every Ecumenical Patriarch since Athanegoras has been a heretic. All of them have gone regularly to worship at St. Peter’s for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. Each year the delegation prays the Nicene Creed in Greek (yes, in the original sans Filioque) with their Roman hosts. Likewise, the Patriarchate hosts the celebration of the Feast of St. Andrew at the Phanar for the Roman delegation.
To refer to Catholics as Latins and the Orthodox as Holy Catholics is unnecessarily provocative and undermines the stated purpose of your blog. If you would like Catholics and Orthodox to enter into conversation, you could at least call us by the names history has given us. I will not cooperate in such a conversation, except to point out these flaws as long as you persist in this.
The history of common prayer among divided Christians, some of whom have espoused real heresies condemned by the Orthodox Church is in deed most complex. It seems to me that the Canons refer to prayer that embodies a heresy. Generally speaking, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics are sensitive enough to pray based on forms that avoid breach of Canon Law, as we see in the Creed recited without the filioque. Whether or not such common prayer is a good idea at the present time is a matter that shall be debated on both sides for some time to come.
#3
Whoa, wait a minute, Father J! I didn’t compose this post. It’s from a correspondence between two Eastern Orthodox bishops of the 13th century. I found it interesting because it deals with common prayer and communio in sacris. Despite some of the coarse language (which I would never use), it’s actually a remarkably tame document for its time.
#5
My apologies, Eirenikon. I see now where I jumped to conclusions. My experiences with the Orthodox online have mostly been brutal. I promise to keep my cool.
#6
That’s quite alright, Father!
Sadly the RCC seems to have developed a more radical estrangement from the church of the first millenium since the time of Demetrius Chromatenus, Archbishop of Bulgaria
I came across this item on a site called Ruskij Sion, a Ukrainian Catholic blog. Does anyone know about this group?
The Second Annual International Conference of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies (1 – 4 June 2006), held at the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) in Lviv, was entitled: Radical Orthodoxy: a Christian Answer to Postmodern Culture. Mgr. Hlib Lonchyna, Curial Bishop of the UGCC and Professor at UCU, opened the conference with an introduction, Returns to a Radical Orthodoxy, and welcomed the conference’s guest speaker and well-known representative of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, Professor John Milbank of the University of Notthingham (UK), who gave a conference entitled: Paul versus Biopolitics.
One might not find it suprising that an Anglican theologian such a John Milbank be invited to speak at a Catholic University even though some of his opinions, as considered by most orthodox Catholics, are not “radically” rooted in the “orthodox” Tradition of the Faith. I am referring specifically to Milbank’s interview on “The Anglican Communion’s Argument Over Homosexuality” in the online Religious and Ethics Newsweekly (October 17, 2003; no. 707; http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week707/com mentary.html), where he expressed the following: “While I am in favor of the sacramental recognition of gay relationships (though not of gay marriage, since I think the theological notion of marriage requires both sexual difference and openness to procreation) and believe that clergy and bishops can appropriately be in active gay relationships that are sacramentally recognized…”; “In so witnessing they [the Anglicans] will be giving a lead to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which will shortly have to confront the gay issue for themselves. I believe that when they do, it will eventually become apparent that a Catholic theological view points to acceptance of homosexual practice by those created with such an orientation.
Since even many younger, quite conservative evangelicals are changing their minds on this issue, there is every reason to think that gradually resistance to gay practice will fade. Therefore, Catholic Christians should not feel afraid of taking a prophetic stand at this juncture for fear of schisms which are likely to prove only temporary, since they do not concern more perennial divergences of doctrine. Not to do so is likely further to compromise the church in the eyes of the world which, not at all without reason, believes that over this issue it is mired in fantastic and almost comical depths of hypocrisy.”
During the Divine Liturgy held at the conference, Milbank received the Eucharist from the hand of Mons. Hlib Lonchyna.
What a travesty!
I too was struck by how the Archbishop of Bulgaria in the early 13th century referred to what we today call the Orthodox Church as the “Catholic Church”. Of course this is still the case in official documents and publications. The main service book of the jurisdiction to which I belong, the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of N. America, is entitled “Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ,” — and there are many other examples. In spite of this, we all know what is meant when someone in our day and age says “the Catholic Church”, and likewise when someone says “the Orthodox Church”, and I fully appreciate why Eirnekon made the stipulations about terminology that he did upon inaugurating this blog. But what all of this raises for me is a question I have long wanted to have answered but haven’t done the research for myself, and I wonder if anyone has looked into it and knows: when did the designation “Orthodox Church” come into practice? A lot of people today tend to think that the so-called “Triumph of Orthodoxy” that took place in 843 and is commemorated on the first Sunday of Lent in the Orthodox liturgical calendar is somehow about the triumph of the Orthodox CHURCH over OTHER CHURCHES, when of course this isn’t what it was at all. It was the triumph of the truth of the faith (involving veneration of icons) over falsehood (iconoclasm) WITHIN a political-religious sphere comprised entirely of what were all at the time canonically “Orthodox Churches”. Anyway, if somebody knows when we Orthodox historically started calling our churches Orthodox Churches, I would be grateful to hear.
The consistent self description of Churches that departed communion over doctrinal issues began after Chalcedon with the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches. As Byzantine separation began to harden under Islamic rule, the Byzantine Churches ruled by the Patriarch of Constantinople began referring to themselves as Greek Orthodox. During the nationalist period of the late 19th century as Churches formerly under Patriarchal rule became autocephalous, the appellation Eastern Orthodox became common to distinguish between Greek and Slavic Churches of the Byzantine tradition.
As a matter of Imperial law beginning with Constantine, only the Christian Church in full communion with Rome could be called Catholic. Beginning with Theodosius and continued by Justinian, the Catholic Church became the Church of the State and Roman communion was a matter of civil law.
BTW, the Triumph of Orthodoxy was seen as a victory over Islam rather than over some other form of Christianity. It was the anti-iconic influence of Islam that caused the crisis in the Islamic ruled East.
#10
“when did the designation ‘Orthodox Church’ come into practice?”
That’s a great question, Will. Surely someone’s done research on this in English!
[…] Here follows an extract from the Answers of Demetrius Chomatenus, Archbishop of Bulgaria (a.d. 1203,) to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachium. […]