Orthodox and Catholic Theologians Discuss Papal Ministry
Symposium Organized by the Council for Christian Unity

Code: ZE03052707
Date: 2003-05-27

VATICAN CITY, MAY 27, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Catholic and Orthodox theologians met to identify key points on the question of the papal ministry, during a symposium convoked by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

With this initiative, the council's president, Cardinal Walter Kasper, wished to respond to John Paul II's petition in his encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" to "find a way to exercise the primacy that, without renouncing in any way that which is essential to its mission, will open to a new situation."

Papal authority is a fundamental issue that has separated Orthodox and Catholics since the schism of 1054.

Professors of the Teaching Academies of the Orthodox Churches participated in the academic meeting last week.

Representatives were sent by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople -- among others, the president of the Athens Academy -- as well as representatives of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchates, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

The Russian Orthodox Patriarchate was also invited, but the appointed representatives were unable to travel to Rome.

Topics discussed included the biblical foundation of the primacy; the primacy in the Church Fathers; the role of the pope in ecumenical councils; and recent debates on primacy in relation to the First Vatican Council and among Orthodox theologians.

Monsignor Eleuterio Fortino, undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told Vatican Radio that the atmosphere of the meeting was "fraternal" and "transparent and warm."

"Without the need to come to conclusions, the symposium was quite free, which facilitated discussion on the problems just as they are posed both in the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church," he said.

According to Monsignor Fortino, the principal contribution of the meeting was "to define and specify the problems."

The topic of the pope's ministry is also marked by a history "of controversies, misunderstandings, exaggerations," the monsignor added.

"I think that the real contribution has been the identification of the real problems, both on the evangelical foundation of the Petrine ministry, as well as on the evolution, growth and realization of this ministry in the Church," he said.

Special attention was given to the way the Fathers of the Church address the question, and the definitions and action of the ecumenical councils. Time was also allocated to clarifying and studying what Vatican I had to say.

This was the first symposium of this type held in the Vatican. "The study is open and must continue not only with the Orthodox Churches, but also with the ancient Churches of the East, which pose the same problem, and I think especially with the Churches stemming from the Reformation," Monsignor Fortino affirmed.

"The issue is much more difficult with them, as the topic in question is much greater; for example, a fundamental topic is apostolic succession and episcopal collegiality," he said.

The monsignor explained that in the last session of the meeting "there was also discussion on the possibility of preparing a joint publication to promote further reflection and wider dissemination of the issues."

Dear Administrator,

My own view here is that it is important for the Roman Church to clear up any confusion in its own mind and that of others with respect to the role the Pope plays over the Latin Particular Church, on the one hand, and other Churches, on the other.

Ultimately, Rome need not be involved in trying to pare down its authority over the Latin Church - that's an internal thing that has no real concern to other Churches.

The path to agreement here seems simpler if Rome would only agree to see its role with respect to other Particular Churches in the same way as it existed in the first Christian Millennium - period.

If Rome is hoping, and I hope not , to try and convince the Orthodox to accept a watered-down papal jurisdiction OVER them - then the rest of the Orthodox theologians in Rome might as well join the Russians who stayed at home.

Alex

The level of Papal authority will always be a major concern to the Orthodox.

I think it is key to understand the unity of the Church prior to 1054 and what were the causes of the schism. As I recall, in the waning days of Byzantium, the emperors made trips to the west to gain support against the Turks. In some cases bringing the Patriarch with him. Attempts at unity were always rejected back in the Orthodox areas, with papal authority one of the biggest issues.

As an Orthodox, I have no issues with the Pope's authority over the Latin Church, or the position of His Holiness being "First Among Equals." I do have problems with him exerting any authority over the Orthodox Churches.

I read this and was immediately jealous that I was not invited since this is in the area of my doctoral research!

So I tried to e-mail the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to get copies of the proceedings, but do they have addresses? I scoured the Vatican website for "Contact us" type links, and there were none. Has anyone ever e-mailed them before? Where is the list of addresses for the dicasteries, etc?

Adam

Hopefully, one day, Catholics and Orthodox can be in the same communion. I do not see it going any further than that. The Orthodox will never accept the Pope as anything but the head of the western church.

The real danger in all of this the fact that the Orthodox Churches are independent of each other. If the Greeks are in communion and the Russians are not, then how do we relate to each other. As much as communion would be a good thing, it is much more important that we maintain Orthodox unity. We can't afford to be "picked off one by one" and hopefully the Catholics won't follow that course.

No, no, Monsignor! Those would be "ecclesiastical communites", not churches, and especially not Churches.

Yes, I know: I'm a troublemaker!

Justinian,

"..any authority"? What about the way the early Church operated - - - obviously the Pope did have some type of authority over the Church.

Logos Teen

No, no, Monsignor! Those would be "ecclesiastical communites", not churches, and especially not Churches.

Yes, I know: I'm a troublemaker!

Justinian,

"..any authority"? What about the way the early Church operated - - - obviously the Pope did have some type of authority over the Church.

Logos Teen [/QB][/QUOTE]

The Pope had authority in the West, but not in the Byzantine Empire (unless, of cource you include the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204.) The Patriarchs in the East had authorities in their respective areas set by the Ecumenical Councils. From what I understand of the early church, major theological issues were decided in the Ecumenical Councils, not decided by one sole person in Rome or elsewhere.

I think there is value in looking at the church prior to 1054 and how it was structured.

jpo: I like this idea, as I see issues of faith far closer to solution than issues of administrative structure.

Justinian: What theological questions are now decided by one person in Rome?
As for jurisdiction, would you find it acceptable for the Pope, as first among equals an the undivided church, to exercise authority limited only be the precedents established by the EP during the last millenium, during which he was first among equals in the Orthodox church?

Justinian: What theological questions are now decided by one person in Rome?
As for jurisdiction, would you find it acceptable for the Pope, as first among equals an the undivided church, to exercise authority limited only be the precedents established by the EP during the last millenium, during which he was first among equals in the Orthodox church? [/QB][/QUOTE]

As far as the theologiocal questions go, I do not want to get into a debate.

You pose a good question on the EP, I am not an expert on the precedents of the EP in the last millenium. I do not follow his activities too closely, since he is not the Patriarch of my church. I think the EP prior to the Turkish takeover of Constantinople may be a better example to follow.

My feelings are to look at the church prior to 1054, understand how the unified church functioned the reasons why the spilt occurred.

Dear Friends,

Certainly, the Pope of Rome had no jurisdictional authority "over" the Eastern Churches in the first millennium.

The rule with respect to immediate jurisdictional involvement by the Bishop of Rome was the SAME as that involving the Emperor of Rome - anyone had the right to appeal to Rome in a situation that could not be resolved locally, either by the local (Church) authorities or to an individual's satisfaction.

This only occurred once or twice in the first millennium, as Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote.

However, Rome played a far greater role on the theological plane in those years, especially with respect to defending Orthodox doctrine against Arianism and also against iconoclasm (e.g. papal letters to the iconoclast Byzantine emperors, chiding them etc.).

In addition, we should not overlook the fact that it was the internal politics of the Byzantine Empire at Constantinople that truly established the grounds for a strong, jurisdictional papacy in the West.

This is discussed in Dvornik's work on the Photian schism.

The East needed a strong Western "referee" in Rome as a way to balance out the power struggles it was constantly experiencing.

It is no wonder that Rome quickly became such on the ecclesial level as well.

The praises of the Pope of Rome sung by the Eastern Churches at the Ecumenical Councils far outstrip anything said about the papacy in the later RC medieval times.

Alex

While some in the East might accept the Roman Pope's universal jurisdiction throughout the Latin Rite, others would point out that it fails to pass the test of "conciliarity."

If all of the other issues separating East and West were settled, this would still be a critical one. Would the West accept that every Patriarch (East & West) is ultimately fallible and removable by his peers in his respective synod/council?

In Christ,
Andrew

During St. Peter's (Cephas') life did any of the apostles and bishops ever oppose his authority as leader of the Church? (Other than when Paul corrected Peter for not eating with Gentiles in Galatians Chp. 2.)

BradM

BradM,

In which case Peter's papal authority was never questioned anyway.

Logos Teen

Dear Adam,

I just noticed your request for an e-mail address for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is: office1@chrstuni.va

I found this in the 2003 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican`s yearbook.

I hope that this helps.

Charles

If Peter's papal authority was never questioned by the catholic Church during the years he was alive, why should the non-western churches in the catholic Church question and oppose the juridical authority the successor to St. Peter has who holds the office and position that Christ established and gave the "keys to the kingdom" (cf. Isa. 22:15-25; Jn 1:42; Mat 16:15-19; Jn 21:15-19)?

Should we not look at the man that holds this office and position the same as St. Peter himself? Why does it matter if the primary See is in Rome? By stating "you are Latins" and "I am Greek" and "he is Maronite" and "he is Chaldean" and "he is Russian" and "he is Ukrainian", etc. do we not now bring the "kingdom that is not of this world" down to the petty polictics of this world?

Sincerely,

BradM

I understand the extremely 'cautious' feelings of our Orthdox brethren towards the Papacy. There is no need to experience once again the ostracism, the neglect, and the alienation that the east received from the Rome over the centuries. There is no need to reccount the sack of Byzantium under the very hands of the Roman crusaders. These were understably painful experiences with Rome.

But I guess we all have to look beyond the horizon where "we" all want to get to. Do we or do we not want the union between east & west??? Let me put it in another way: "Does everyone in this thread agree that he/she want to see the full communion between east & west during his/her lifetime???" I really am not soliciting for any opinion but I would personally underline that this is one of my dream that I want to see done in my own life time.

Well, if Rome has been aloof and has not stoop down to call for unity, if Rome has not budge a finger on this matter --- then we can all say Rome is not interested. But what if she did put down her hand and it is taken as a political move instead of a spiritual one?

I am not encouraging that both sides take short cuts and sweep the mess under the carpet. Yes we have all the face the issues. But let us not dwell on the past, on the hurts and the pains. Let us rather see how we can put things back in order, repair the damage (if possible) and mend our ways.

Everyone wants to chip-in his/her own bit of condition. Well, I guess they have all been laid on table including the self-governance of each sui juris Church by each respective Patriarch. If this is the case what do we do with the Petrine Ministry??? Do we leave this to the Latins alone? I fully agree that the Church of the first 500 was a great model of papal ministry, but how do we start to get great patrimony back in our hands? I was touched to read last year how Anthony Dragani described the papacy that "when fully appreciated, is a gift, a grace to the Church."

Again, it is my dream to see this in my lifetime. I sincerely believe it is the dream of the majority of those in this forum & thread (if not all). But I am sure - the current patriarch of Rome would also be happy once he sees this dream realized before he finally "close his eyes". And you bet, no less than Christ himself will be very happy to see this unity as he prayed in the garden for his followers. Let us all pray for that both sides can face all the issues soon and have them resolved.

Pray for me, a sinner!
Antonio

Lots of rhetoric here and reflection on history but the reality is we do not live in the world of the Roman or Byzantine Empires but in the time of the EU. If former enemies can get together in the EU and in NATO maybe the Churches should follow suit. if the Eucharist is a sign of unity in Faith than maybe its time to demonstrate Faith on the part of the People and be a step ahead of all the bishops, etc.

Bergschlawiner,

That's exactly what is happening, right or wrong. We all have known Orthodox believers who receive in Byzantine Catholic and even Roman Catholic Churches.

As far as the reality of European political unity, I think this will not address the two greatest threats to Orthodoxy in Europe: atheism and protestantism (esp. mormonism and evangelicalism).

Dear Friends,

There have been times in the past when East and West was on the brink of getting back together . . .

The problem here is with ecclesiologies, East and West.

The role of the popes throughout history has never been constant.

The later medieval papacy was like an earthly empire with the pope as a Christian version of Caesar (at which time the popes did accept Caesar's ancient title of "Pontifex Maximus").

In terms of papal jurisdiction, that did not exist in the first millennium of the Church. The Eastern Churches could ask for papal intervention in situations where no one could resolve a problem locally. But those instances were few and far between.

While maintaining its role as the Petrine See, Rome must also realize that there are exaggerated traditions associated with the papacy that are not part of the patrimony of the undivided Church and are all too human - these it must try to play down or else discard, at least with respect to the other Churches of the East.

Western Catholics associate Peter with the Bishop of Rome since Peter founded that Church.

And it was the ONLY Western Church that could claim Apostolic foundation.

But in the East, Peter was "all over the place" at Antioch, at Alexandria (through St Mark) and in many towns and villages.

St Gregory the Great even understood the "Petrine See" as consisting of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all founded by St Peter.

In fact, Rome's primacy in the Church had more to do with the fact of that city's position as capital of the Roman Empire than with Peter himself.

Byzantium followed suit and called itself the "New Rome" claiming apostolic foundation from the brother of St Peter, Andrew, a tradition later claimed by the "Third Rome," Moscow.

But I think the onus is now on Rome to show to the Orthodox what it is prepared to do to restore the unity of the first millennium of the Church once more.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I can sympathize with the eagerness for union between the two churches. "What's the big deal! This separation should have ended hundred of years ago!" Since I have had a broad experience in both churches, I have seen the many places in which Orthodoxy and Catholicism converge. But there is too much blood on both sides, and that blood has congealed into dogmas and intransigent attitudes. Both sides, in their worst forms, think they have nothing to learn from each other. And both do not want to betray the "Faith of our Fathers." It is really sad, because it is, in a sense, a holy blindness.
I like to reflect, for example, on the integrist aspects of both churches. I firmly believe that both Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco are both great saints (or at least very saintly men). All my professors in seminary, including my spiritual director, were formed by this Latin "schismatic" archbishop. I have read the biography of St. John, and also acknowledge that he was a living icon of Christ during his life. But, when they were both alive, they would have hurled anathemas at each other for being schismatic and heretical! I know one ROCOR monk who believes they are somehow compatible, but I am at a loss to explain any of this. If you really want to do an exercise in comparative religion, read the literature of the ROCOR defending the purity of Orthodoxy against ecumenism, and then read the Society of St. Pius X on ecumenism, and you will read the exact same words, with "Orthodoxy" exchanged for "Catholic Tradition", and vice versa.
In terms of union, all I can throw out is that the papacy should be changed back to the way it was exercised in the first 1,000 years. As Patriarch of the West, he should be king and absolute ruler. But the other Patriarchates should be their own "kingdoms", with Rome being a sort of court of appeal. I don't see the Vatican bureaucratic machine calling the shot in any decision of the Eastern Churches. For me, all the theological "differences", not matter how serious they may seem at first, are merely excuses to maintain the tradition and autonomy of a particular church. Any amount of digging in the Patrology of the Church can justify any position (for and against the Papacy, for and against Purgatory, etc.) Orthodoxy is afraid most of all (and rightly, in my opinion) of Papal authority. And even the theological differences reflect this. More often than not, the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that the Orthodox are less specific and precise. A lot of times, there is no "Orthodox" position on something, just a lot of opinions flying around depending on time, who the author has read, where he lived, and, most importantly, how mad he is at the Pope that day! (the Immaculate Conception is a classic example.)
Are the Orthodox afraid of commitment (doctrinal, structural, etc.)? Should they be? (Would Rome ever pull a Novus Ordo on Orthodoxy? Imagine a Vatican Cardinal going to an Orthodox Patriarch
saying: "This Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is so long, and all that talk about sin and repentance.... I've been doing some reading and I have a better idea." GULP!) Can the Latins finally learn to accept the Orthodox East as an equal and not as a "backwards step-sister? I do not know, but I am not optimistic.
I guess one step we can do is to stop beating each other the head with our martyrs and other historical attrocities. Both sides have blood on their hands, and there should be no more arguments as to who has more. God asks us to confess our own sins and failings, and not those of our ancestors! And St. So-and-so who was martyred by the barbaric Latins, and St. So-and-so who was martyred by the schismatics, if they are both in Heaven, would not want to be used as a polemical tank to destroy any talk of unity of the Churches. There is a lot of sifting that must be done here, and above all a lot of prayer.

Yours in Christ,
Arturo

To Alex,

Did you ever get "The New Jerusalem Bible"? I purchased one when you said you would.

I was just wondering how you liked it compared to "The Jerusalem Bible" you said you owned?

Shalom haMashiach Yeshua,

BradM
Hebrew-Roman Catholic who likes Orthodoxy also.

Check out:
Association of Hebrew Catholics:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/index.html

Second Exodus:
http://www.secondexodus.com/

Arturo hypothesized that the Orthodox may be afraid of papal authority. It is correct to say that they are afraid of any papal-like authority. It is not "Rome" per se, but any one authority (besides God) claiming universal jurisdiction and infallible judgement.

For this reason, we (the orthodox) hold all of our bishops, patriarchs (and readers) to be fallible and removable.

This attitude maintains an uncomfortable but necessary tension that forces us to remain vigilant over the faith handed down to us by the apostles. If you will, it is Orthodoxy's "thorn in the side."

In Christ,
Andrew

Wouldn't an ecumenical council be one such authority?

Logos Teen

Good Point!

But how many ecumenical councils were later overturned by subsequent ecumenical councils?

It works in a reverse way from the statement, "Everything that I say is a lie."

The councils say, "Everything that I say is the truth." However, subsequent councils then tell us that NOT everything that was said was the truth.

At that time of the controversy and dispute, when evil-doing men are playing with the faith of the belivers, how does one know what is the truth?

It becomes incumbent upon the faithful to trust holy men and women based upon how they live, not based upon the elloquence of their arguments (Arius). As the Apostle Paul says in the scriptures: you belived in this Gospel because of how we lived while we were among you.

For this reason, the moral integrity of our episcopacy and other clergy, heads of monasteries, etc., who define our doctrinal beliefs is critical to preserving the faith.

Let me offer one rather banal quote from our secular lives to put it into an everyday perspective:

They asked Ross Perot (one-time candidate for US President) if he would accept an adulterer on the Board of Directors of his computer company. He answered, "Why, hell no! If you can't trust a man with his wife, how are you going to trust him with your money?"

If we can't love others whom we can see, how can we love God whom we can't see? Didn't the Lord ask this same question?

So preserving the faith pure and unadulterated is a task handed down (paradosis) to each successive generation of believers.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Brad,

Shlom haMashiach!

Yes, I'm doing some writing for the Hebrew Catholic Association!

(Haven't gotten around to the Bible yet!).

Would you mind sharing how your own Hebrew heritage continues to be part of your Catholic experience?

Ba shana haba bi-Yerushalayim!

Alex

Dear Reader Andrew,

But the Spirit guides the Church into all truth, as you know.

The Ecumenical Council has been the historic "mouthpiece" for the expression of the truth of Christ.

If subsequent Councils altered what those before it pronounced on - that is simply the process of understanding the Apostolic faith that we humans go through with the help of Grace.

Papal authority is ALWAYS dependent on and limited to the Tradition of the Church.

St Robert Bellarmine, for example, outlined instances involving the duty of Catholics to even oppose the Pope should he fall into heresy, try to destroy the Church etc.

Such things make his authority over Catholics null and void.

Ultimately, though, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism believe that the power of bishops is absolute (Florovsky, Schmemann).

The bishop tells us to jump and we say, "Bless, Vladyko - how high?"

Alex

Dear Alex,

Unless the bishop is wrong, in which case we oppose him.

I don't say that we defy his judgement on disciplinary or administrative matters (ikonomia), but when he seriously distorts the faith or engages in personal scandal.

There is a difference, for example, between mismanaging money and stealing it. In the first case we sigh and perhaps contribute less. In the second case we defy his actions and report him to the synod.

[nice to see you around, again )

In Christ,
Andrew

Great! I just received an intro package from David Moss and need to read it. Also I just rec'd the book by Marty Barrack "Second Exodus" which looks real interesting. Will you be writing for the magazine "The Hebrew Catholic"? (If yes that would make me more likely to subscribe for a year or so.)

My dad is Jewish and my mother is Catholic. My father's name is Joseph and my mother's name is Mary! (For real! ) My mother has been the spiritual leader in our family and eventhough my father is non-observant, he seems open to both faiths but has not embraced Jesus Christ yet, please pray for him. I remember when I was around 6 to 8 yrs old when my great grandmother (who was the most devout Jew in the family) was alive we would go to my father's parent's home and during the Hanukah holiday period they would light the candles and read some prayers out of a Siddur. (I really am not too familiar with Jewish traditions and I would like to learn more.) The only time I have seen rabbis have been either at weddings or funerals. Whenever I see a biblical movie about the stories of the Old Testament I feel a link with the Israelites through my father's mother's family and when I read the New Testament or see my favorite movie about Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth", I feel that if I was alive back then I would love to be a disciple of Jesus or if I was on the Sanhedrin I would side with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea and be a follower of Jesus and believe in the gospel and be baptized.

I have been buying some of the videos and tape sets from Bob Fishman, a Jewish convert to Catholicsm, of Saint Joseph Communications and I like to hear him tell Jewish stories and how they relate to and are fulfilled in the Orthodox-Catholic Christian faith.

If there are any books you own specifically related to the Old Testament period and the Israelite experience, culture, and history up until Jesus' arrival, feel free to send me your recommendations. I like to read.

Shalom haMashiach,
(Peace of the Messiah)

BradM

haShanah HaBa, b'yiruslayim

"[We are] coming next year [to be] in Jerusalem!"

P.S. Is this the same as what you quoted above?

Dear Reader Andrew,

I'm like the stray dog that somehow always manages to come home again . . .

As for when a bishop is wrong, it's better than it not be someone like me to decide that!

So it's back to jumping for all of us . . .

Unless Albanians can't jump?

Alex

Dear Brad,

B'shem haAv v'haBen v'Ruach haKodesh, Elochim Echod, Amen!

I guess my Hebrew spelling can use some work, don't you think . . .?

I'm working on an article for that magazine on the Ethiopian tradition and on the idea of a "Particular Hebrew Catholic Church."

St Alexander Men was a Russian Orthodox priest and convert from Judaism who led many Russian Jews to Orthodox Christianity.

He was quite the intellectual and was admired by many - he was axed to death on his way to Church one morning and is widely venerated but not yet officially canonized.

He included a number of Judaic elements in his private chapel, including a menorah.

We Easterners have a seven-branched menorah on the altar - no other candles are allowed. We venerate the four corners of the altar, we solemnize Saturday and have numerous other traditions taken from the Temple of Jerusalem, some of our Eastern Churches more than others.

The Ethiopians actually practice circumcision at the time of baptism and celebrate a private Passover Seder during Holy Week - as do the Assyrians and others.

They also use the ram's horn to announce Easter, Pentecost and other great Christian holidays.

There is no reason why Hebrew Catholics should not have as much of their Hebraic traditions within the context of their Catholic Christian faith as possible!

Alex

Dear Alex,

We can jump, but we won't. And we usually don't.

We have a saying, "Nje malok hipur ne kal nuk zbret poshte pa koke prere." [A mountain man, once up on a horse, doesn't get down without (someone) cutting off his head.]

We're almost like the popes of Rome, except we're not always right.

In Christ,
Andrew

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Alex,

Congratulations on reaching your 10,000 post!

You said,

"We Easterners have a seven-branched menorah on the altar - no other candles are allowed. We venerate the four corners of the altar, we solemnize Saturday and have numerous other traditions taken from the Temple of Jerusalem, some of our Eastern Churches more than others."

How is Saturday solemnized in the Eastern Church? You might have answered this question for me before. Alas, I forgot! Thanks.

A sinner,

Adam

Dear Adam,

Saturday, like Sunday, is not a fasting day in the East - except of course for Holy and Great Saturday.

In addition, Saturday's great commemoration includes the Mother of God and All Saints, including All the faithful departed - in essence, a synopsis of the entire preceding week's commemorations.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually celebrates the Lord's Day as two days - where it begins on Friday evening and ends on Sunday evening.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Adam,

Alex is very busy accepting congratulations for being more verbose, I mean prolific, than the rest of us. Please allow me to attempt an answer.

Christ rested in the tomb on Saturday. It is still a kind of Sabbath, for this reason. Remember that Sabbath was not only Saturday, but any holy day of rest and worship.

Canonically, for Christians, Sunday is the holy day of rest each week. We are prohibited from keeping Saturday as our weekly regular day of rest.

Saturday is the day on which to remember the dead. Hence, all of the five soul Saturdays throughout the year when we pray for the dead and visit the cemeteries. Home visits to the families of the departed also usually occurred on Saturdays. The Trisagion or Panikhida was done in Churches on Saturday prior to Vespers. (Vespers, liturgically, marks the beginning of Sunday).

In Christ,
Andrew

Whoops! He beat me to it again!