I finished Montefiore's colossal book Jerusalem (9/5: including epilogue). Never a dull moment although plenty of "WTF" moments where I had to set the tome aside for a bit. Moments like the incessant brawls at Our Lord's feet at the Sepulchre. We should all be able to agree that these brawls are an international laughingstock and need to end.
I was reading Runciman in the meantime about how they started up in the first place: the Schism. Not all the brawls are doctrinally-related; the Copts and Aethiopes are both Tawahedo, they're just... well, sorry, racists. So I am under no illusions that this base tribalism won't still be a thing if all our Churches are in mutual communion. But at least we can quit giving the tribes excuses in holiness and Belief.
Catholics are a little better off in that when Irish and Italians (say) run grubby little political games against one another, they do come together at Mass. Why not also the Russians and Greeks? As they say, it's a long story, and there's blame to share around. One place to start, from the Catholic side, might be to show some humility.
The Latin Church is ancient. We call ourselves the See of Saint Peter, himself. Runciman points out that the Antiochene Church also calls itself the See of Peter, or Mar Kepha if you're a Syrian. This proved a famous problem during the Crusade when a Norman prince - Bohemund, I think - took Antioch and wouldn't give it back to the Greeks or at least Syrians.
Adding to this mess is that Egypt claims itself from Mark, Peter's disciple and probable author of the first-surviving Gospel. But this may be our route out of the mess. To whit: as the Melkites in Alexandria do not call themselves The See of Peter, perhaps Roma should focus more on her descent from Clement. Antioch would then get Ignatius of course.
I am unaware that Clement, Mark, and Ignatius had any mutual problem with one another (as Evan Powell argued for Peter and John) so raising this triad as a Petrine unity would take away one source of argument.
Also, although Latin is a fine language with a long tradition in the West, and influence in the East; it shouldn't be the language of the Councils. That place goes to the Greeks. The Liturgy is fairly vernacular in most places anyway, and I have no real preference as to which language it's conducted in, beyond the preference of the congregations; although, in neutral ground - I am thinking mainly of Jerusalem - my vote would be for Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
I doubt I am the only layman or even priest to consider these options. I suspect one reason the Latin Church hasn't considered them is because arrogating the Petrine primacy got "us" a bargaining-chip. I hope that is not true because it is tawdry and reflects badly on the sincerity of the Latin Saints. Mind, I've had some harsh comments about certain Alexandrine Saints as well, so why should "my side" feel left out.
Whilst we're carryin' on carryin' on, I'd even suggest a separately-published New Testament in Latin and Greek, for the West, which included "1 Clement" immediately before the Revelation. Antiochenes get, in this space, the authentic letters of Ignatius. Of course both sons of Peter are fully allowed to read each other's notes: perhaps reciting Ignatius quotes in the Latin Eucharist and at Easter, and the Greeks get 1 Clement at ordinations and marriages. (Alexandria already has the Gospel of Mark.) I'd excise so-called "2 Peter" from the NT entirely, like the Nestorians do, but that's just me.
BACKDATE 9/5, finished the epilogue, wrote this.
No comments:
Post a Comment