Pope Francis and Moscow Patriarch Kirill met in Cuba for only a few hours, yet the encounter was undeniably historic. It has kindled hope for unity and reconciliation among Christians. Rome had long yearned for such a meeting. But Moscow was wary. Why? Have things truly changed between Catholics and Orthodox?
Since the 1950s, the Catholic world has been animated by a desire for renewal and reconciliation. The Orthodox world does not share this same impulse. For centuries, and still today, it has lived in a posture of resistance—defending and preserving its own faith. Resistance against Turks, Muslims, communism, Western influences, and Catholic proselytism.
Peoples change their minds slowly. Only two decades have passed since the collapse of Soviet communism. The peoples of the Orthodox world cannot shed old suspicions so quickly. What prevails is a defensive stance toward the West and the Catholic Church.
For Catholics, understanding the Church as a worldwide, international entity rooted in many nations yet fundamentally united—with the pope as its visible sign—feels natural. The Church is universal. Christian unity is everyone's responsibility. But the Orthodox world is constituted differently: it consists of national churches. There is the Church of Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, and so on. This has been true for centuries. In fact, the local churches were essential to the formation of their nations, and later they defended their peoples through difficult times. Each national church must attend to its own affairs and not interfere in others', because national territory is also ecclesiastical territory. Outside interference is an insult and a challenge. That is why Orthodox communities scattered across the world—the Orthodox diaspora—are organized along national lines. In New York you will find the bishop of the Greek Orthodox, then the bishop of the Russian Orthodox, the Romanian Orthodox, and so on. The concept of a universal church exists, certainly. But for the average Orthodox Christian, it remains theoretical, abstract. For a Catholic, it is concrete and real. Papal authority unites the churches of every nation. For most Orthodox, the unity of the universal church is not an urgent matter.
The Orthodox do not understand why there must be a pope—a visible head of the entire Church in the world. They govern by synod. All major decisions must be made synodally. There is a president whose role is to enable the synod to work: he does not lead it (at least in principle) and does not intervene in the territory of others. The opposite system is papal governance. The Orthodox world has always struggled against "papalism," ever since the schism of the eleventh century.
We begin to see that the path toward Christian unity is not simple. There is a long history of division, opposition, and conflict—ecclesiastical, but also national, between Poles and Russians, Germans and Russians, and others.
What truly divides us in this context, and what unites us? The answer depends on who is answering. Many differences are not actually problems: liturgical traditions and local customs, different languages, different rites of celebration, different sacred music, different religious art and architecture. Different practices and rules exist: a married clergy, popular devotion to icons, the veneration of relics. Many liturgical differences pose no obstacle. We share a common faith in Christ, in the Gospel, in the one triune God. We have the same sacraments, veneration of the saints and the Mother of God, the same structure of the Church with monks, priests, deacons, bishops, local churches, and synods. We all appeal to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. This is truly the same faith, the same Church.
Yet there are also divisions rooted in history, theology, and ecclesiology. History weighs heavily on the Orthodox: they bear the memory of victimization by Rome's religious expansionism or imperialism. Under this influence, in the sixteenth century, some local Orthodox churches became Catholic while preserving their Eastern traditions—as happened in Ukraine, Romania, and elsewhere. These are the so-called Uniate or Eastern Catholic churches. For Orthodox, they are always the result of Roman aggression. What is to be done? Abolish these local churches that number ten or twelve million faithful? Impossible. Moreover, these Catholics have themselves been persecuted by the Orthodox and have preserved their Catholicism at great sacrifice. The question remains a problem, particularly for the Orthodox side.
There are also doctrinal differences. The most important—the primacy of the Pope of Rome—is the one that truly matters. Many Orthodox acknowledge that the first among bishops should be the bishop of Rome, according to ancient tradition. But the real question is: with what powers? The East has never known Catholic centralism, and they are not prepared to accept it. The Church's functioning must be rethought, and that is difficult for everyone.
Despite these differences, the pastors of the churches meet not as enemies, but as brothers. They present an image of unity. After centuries of separation, they take steps toward one another. They feel the need for reconciliation, to unite as disciples of Christ. We are in motion. There are signs of a desire for union, a memory of fraternity, an awareness of the Lord's will that we be one. In the heart of all Christians, then, there is consolation and hope.
Teodoro Kontidis SJ, Athens