I’m not one to speak of “insurmountable” obstacles between East and West, and I’ve never been able to subscribe fully to the notion (oft-repeated throughout the Orthodox blogosphere) that, in order for reunion to take place, one side would have to annihilate itself by becoming part and parcel of the other (actually, my view is that both sides would have to undergo fairly significant changes, repent of many things, and be converted one to another).
But this kind of bizarre, Pollyanna-esque commentary from the Roman Rite Archbishop of Moscow (well meaning as he most certainly is) does nothing to help the cause of Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement.
I would really like to think that there’s some mistranslation or misquotation going on here (remember that weird story, over a year ago, about the Ecumenical Patriarch and “dual communion”?), but the Archbishop is Italian and he made his comments to an Italian newspaper.
Any ideas as to what the good Archbishop was thinking?
The good archbishop has been drinking too much of that good Italian red wine. ;)
Or maybe he knows in advance of a major supernatural miracle about to be wrought through the intercession of the Theotokos?
My first thought was that it might have been hypothetical, along the lines of “it could only take a few months” provided ______.
They didn’t put any qualifiers in the NCR article – perhaps there were some in the interview that got left out.
The first thing I thought of is that the good Metropolitan Pezzi has gone pazzo! Diane, it may be that he’s mixing Russian vodka with his vino.
Vito
Reunion: Resistance is futile! :-)
I think kind of qualifier was lost in translation. Having said that, with God anything is possible. All it might take is for either the EP or the Russian Patriarch to have one mystical experience and quickly declare his submission to Papal “supremacy.” It take just one influential Patriarch in a high place and the whole separation come crashing down. But of course that’s just a dream of mine.
I suspect that what the archbishop meant by “could happen soon, also within a few months” was probably in reference to how soon reunion could occur once agreement on essentials had been reached. If you parse his quoted observations carefully, there is nothing that remarkable other than polite optimism. The spin put out by the journalist is what seems to be over the top.
That said, recent ill temper aside, the Moscow Patriarchate is theologically closer to Rome than any other major Orthodox Church I can think of. This might lead Archbishop Pezzi to see prospects for reunion in a somewhat rosier light than would Archbishop Foscolos, his long-suffering counterpart in Athens.
I would interpret his comments as diplomat speak for, “the skids are greased on our side.”
This is not just a case of “polyanna-ish” over-optimism, rather it highlights a problem on the Catholic side which is too often overlooked.
We are more used these days to hearing from Orthodox side the simplistic claim: “all you people have to do is renounce your errors and join us”. In fact we forget that until a generation ago this was equally favoured on the Catholic side – and it still has not entirely disappeared (I have heard it called “you-come-in-ism”!)
Now that voices opposing ecumenical engagement are reduced to a marginalised rump in the RC Church, it would be an error to think that triumphalism has disappeared entirely. It seems to me that it has simply changed its garb. Either it has dressed up in non-dogmatic glad rags ready for the all inclsive love-feast over the horizon (what? you don’t really think that old stuff matters do you? Trinitarian theology? Primacy? Strictly for the pre-conciliar birds…) or – and this is the tendancy now in the ascendant – it believes that the Roman magisterium has got all the answers and can resolve in a few pages the difficulties of a millenium.
On the latter view, anybody on the Orthodox side who is not convinced, for example, that the 1997 Vatican “Clarification” on the Filioque has resolved the issue once and for all must be in bad faith; and now that Rome, in JP II’s “Ut Unum Sint” has promised to look into how the Primacy might be exercised in a more friendly manner…well then, yes, a few months should be enough All that is needed are a few administrative concessions and a bit of spontaneous foot-kissing for our Orthodox friends to finally understand how right we were.
I apologise to my felow-Catholics for the weight of the irony, not untinged with frustration. But I hope that all will see my point: we need to take the other side seriously, try to respect its point of view, respect its objections and subject our own history and discourse to a painfully critical examination with them in mind. We need to believe that we can – nay, that we MUST – learn from the other side. One of the reasons I am glad to be a Catholic is that I believe our Church has at least begun the process, however imperfectly she is carrying it forward. I trust the present Pope to understand what is at stake and to be courageous and generous in taking initiatives which go beyond theatrical gestures while taking seriously the claims of truth.
All of this implies not just good will, but painstaking theological work. It will be, I think, a matter of generations of scholarly work, closer cultural contact and fervent prayer. While hoping that Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is wrong in thinking that reunion is off the cards for at least a millenium, I must say that the words of the good archbishop, if he has been accurately reported, are scarcely more helpful. They are not merely crassly over-optimistic, but they seem lacking in respect for the attachment of our Orthodox brethren to the truth claims of their own Church.
Orthodoxy is a religion which sees it unity as residing in its adherents having the same belief, i.e. ONE faith (I guess that’s logical enough). Catholicism is a religion which sees its unity as residing in the ONE person of the Pope of Rome. — Hence the two views on future Catholic-Orthodox unity.
We want the Catholics to obey the tenets of our religion (because that’s in what our religion consists: in its tenets — I guess that was pretty self-evident, pleonastic and circular enough for anyone to understand); and the Catholics want us to obey the words of their Pontiff.
So, if someone wants to be a member of the Orthodox Church, he has to have the Orthodox faith and adhere to its dogmatic teachings. And if someone wants to be a member of the Catholic Church, he has to be a follower of the teachings of the Pope.
and the Catholics want us to obey the words of their Pontiff.
No, Lucian. For us, too, it’s all about the tenets of our Faith.
How hard is that to understand? Why do you insist on trying to reduce Catholicism to “the words of the pope” when Catholics themselves keep telling you that’s not the gestalt of Catholicism?
Do you not see how arrogant it is to presume to tell other people what they believe? How would you like it if we kept misrepresenting Orthodoxy and insisting that you believe X, Y, and Z, while all the time you actually believe A, B, and C?
Lucian,
I am not really sure what can be gained by your offering tendentious interpretations of what Catholics think and how they see things. Given the premise of this site, it might be best to let Catholics speak for how they “see” their Church and its positions.
Flatly put, Catholics do not consider their “unity as residing in” the Pope (they are not noticeably less united when there is a vacancy in the Holy See, for example), but in the sacramental communion of their episcopate in fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles.
Papal primacy is one of a number of instruments of unity, not its source or foundation.
For us, too, it’s all about the tenets of our Faith.
And the Orthodox don’t lack a hierarchy either. BUT…
your tendentious interpretations
That’s what You’ve said regarding all my comments. :-) Too bad I was neither joking, nor insulting. But since Your name seems French, I completely understand Your sensitive and emotive reactions.
“But since Your name seems French, I completely understand Your sensitive and emotive reactions.”
Lucian, this is 100% unacceptable. I am not French and you are really close to being banned. It’s hard for me, at this point, to see you as anything other than a troll. Show me that you can contribute to an irenic, respectful discussion or you’re out of here.
I am not French
No, Iraeneus, You’re not; but I think I can safely assume that Michaël here is (which would then explain his temper, and -subsequently- his reactions). — the umlaut on the ‘e’ gave him away, so to say. (And why are You so upset? Do You have something against the French?). :-\
Lucian,
I appreciate your comments basically as a reminder that some, but not all, Orthodox have a rather mistaken view of Catholicism, in both its Roman and non-Roman expressions.
For Catholics, the Faith is paramount. Every Sunday the Creed is said, chanted or sung, ( with or witout the “Filioque” depending on the particular church), and that is the expression of the Faith.
The Pope is not mentioned in the Creed.
Therefore, the Pope, and the ecclesial structure, are supports of the Faith, not the Faith itself.
Why you should think that the Pope is part of the Creed is something I don’t quite understand.
Now…to get to another point.
I notice that many of the comments on this blog, but more on others, don’t really address what the archbishop stated for obvious reasons.
The article/ interview was in Italian. I don’t speak, read or write Italian but, with the help of the Internet, I was able to obtain a very, very rough translation of the article;
‘Catholic and Orthodox, ever so close to unity’
Archbishop Moscow: the primacy of the Pope is an obstacle be exceeded the persecution Communist struck all Christian beliefs and them has riavvicinate
Moscow-’ the miracle is possible, on the contrary has never been so close ‘. The reunification between Catholics and Orthodox, the end of the historian schism, communion spiritual Christianity ‘could happen soon, also within a few months.” Basically we been combined for a thousand years. Other thousand then we were divided. The path of rapprochement is now in full swing: the third millennium of the Church could begin in a spirit of unity. Now there are more formal obstacles; everything depends on the real desire of communion. ‘ Aside our, of the Catholic Church, the desire is deepest ‘. There is an Archbishop, in Moscow, giving interviews, wrong with tv, is not participating in polemics. Plays an important mission in silence. ‘ I have a great diocese seven times Italy, Murmansk, North of the Arctic, circle for the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad ‘ smiling. Son of trade unionist Ravenna port porters. Grown alongside don Giussani. Missionary in Siberia after the collapse of communism. Ratzinger man. You Paul parts, 49 years, ‘the mother of God in Moscow Metropolitan Archbishop’ (four Catholic dioceses Russian take by churches and not the city name to not strike the sensitivity of the Orthodox). The ‘mother of God’ is the Catholic Cathedral of Moscow, an impressive neogotica Church of red bricks. Behind the apse, where there was a workshop, today there is the arcivescovado. There are head priests Polish Slovak, German, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Spanish, Argentine, North American, Dutch, French, Portuguese: an outpost of the Church of Rome. Then there are eight Italian. And there is him, Archbishop. Responsible for steering and Catholics half a million Russian scattered on a sterminato territory. And re-establish relations with the Orthodox. That are knowing an unexpected, developments in some respects extraordinary. Two worlds who had ignored for centuries, tells the Archbishop, have been moved from history. ‘ Under communism, Orthodox and Catholics have experienced the same gulags, the same fate ‘. Paul VI encountered the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras. The Polish Pope had attention and passion for relations with Moscow, where however you was still the legacy of ancient rivalries national; especially the Catholic Archbishop was a Belarusian of Polish origin, Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI Archbishop of Minsk instead of the almost centenary Cardinal legendary Kazimierz Świątek, a life in the fields of Stalin. There is now in Moscow an Italian; and first bishop parts has made it clear that the mission is not the proselytism. On the other hand, after the death of the patriarch Alexei II, Kyrill was elected. Cyril, as the father of Russian Christianity. Already head of Department of the Patriarch of Moscow for relations with the outside world has met several times Ratzinger, familiar with the Vatican and the Roman Catholicism. Today, says Bishop parts, ‘there are no more real obstacles on the path towards full communion’, towards the reunification between the two religions. On the themes of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox think the same way. ‘Nothing divides us on bioethics, family, privacy, limits the insemination’. But also the doctrine, explains the Archbishop, is substantially the same. ‘There is the point of the three dogmas proclaimed after separation’. But two, the Immaculate Conception and the assumption into heaven of the Virgin, the problem is the wording, not the content of faith. There remains the question of the primacy of the Pope. If it will occupy the next meeting of the cattolici-ortodossi Committee. And seems unable to arrive at an agreement’. The history of Bishop parts is the name of the Romagna country where ‘ was born: Russians. His father founded Cisl of Ravenna, organizing workers of the port; melomane home has a great collection of classical music discs. The mother is teacher. He studied by expert technician, already has a job to Telecom when it encounters CL, and don Giussani. ‘ Three Avvertii forms of vocation: to be Virgin, priest and missionary ‘. Entering founded by other ciellino priest, Massimo Camisasca, San Carlo, fraternity that after the degree in theology and his PhD at the Lateran sends young parts in Russia. ‘I arrived in Novosibirsk, Siberia in ‘ 93.’ I met the survivors of the German Catholic deported by Stalin in the thirty years, and their descendants. Men and women which for decades had not met a priest if not a few fuggiasco churches had, they could not do communion or marry if not secretly; yet they had kept the faith. Babushke, the grandmothers, showed me the notebooks on which were written prayers to teach their daughters and the grandchildren. Including there that Christianity is like a plant that grows well in most impassable zones and cannot be eradicated. ‘I had confirmation that Jesus lives better’. Benedict XVI wanted it Rector of the Catholic seminary in St Petersburg, the only throughout Russia and from the 2007 Archbishop in Moscow. Bishop pieces annually is invited to the celebrations of Christmas and Easter: ‘the last lasted four and a half hours’. Who knows that boredom. ‘Contrary.’ The Orthodox rite is full of charm, because there is no nothing of static, is always in motion. And eventually, during the night, dinner at the canteen’. He met with Mr Putin – ‘not only authoritarianism; also authorities’ – and the new President Medvedev: ‘ Putin seems to rely on the strength, in particular on defence and Interior, army and secret services. ‘ Medvedev is law studies and business practice, and seems to be more attentive to the economy. ‘But there is no real differences between the two’. But the meeting marked more was with a Siberian babushka. ‘Stalin had murdered them two children.’ The thing I asked thought of him. I replied: “Thinking?” What does you think? Stalin I have forgiven. “Not otherwise I could live”. I was detained at the idea, this woman I spoke of life. We are in danger of stop thinking, while the Russian Catholicism stories speak to our hearts. And us recount the experience of martyrdom, forgiveness, and now the great hope of all Christian communion’. RESERVED REPRODUCTION
Cazzullo Aldo
If one reads carefully, one sees that the archbishop is seeing a reality that escapes all the idiotic, ( to my mind), blather about reunion, particularly in the last section concerning the babushka. If she can forgive Stalin for killing her two sons because she follows Christ and His teachings, then why go on and on and on about what are truly, in my mind, rather trivial questions?
The archbishop may have been mixing vodka with grappa but rather,I think, he was “drunk with the Holy Spirit” and saw something that escapes us all.
I was touching on Fr. Paul’s comment, wherein he said that:
a) “We are more used these days to hearing from Orthodox side the simplistic claim: “all you people have to do is renounce your errors and join us”. ”
and:
b) “Either it [R.C. triumphalism] has dressed up in non-dogmatic glad rags ready for the all inclsive love-feast over the horizon (what? you don’t really think that old stuff matters do you? Trinitarian theology? Primacy? Strictly for the pre-conciliar birds…) or – and this is the tendancy now in the ascendant – it believes that the Roman magisterium has got all the answers and can resolve in a few pages the difficulties of a millenium. ”
As far as I’m concerned, I personally liked the old(er) Catholic approach better (it was more… Orthodox). — i.e., the “you-come-in-ism” Fr. Paul was talking about. — and I also want to use this occasion to thank Fr Paul for rather involuntarily attesting to the unchangeable nature of our Orthodox faith (at least as far as our views regarding the conditions for reunion are concerned).
The main problem with the old triumphalist approach is that it obviates the need for self-criticism. It lets you wallow in your prejudices. It’s basically self indulgent and at its heart un-Christian. It blinds you to the difference between what is good and what is essential.
‘Michael’ with an umlauted ‘e’, ;-)
I disagree. As far as I’m concerned, all that the Catholics have to do is to embrace Orthodoxy. They don’t have to join anything, they just have to be Orthodox. (But I’ve already said that). For instance, I’ld be very happy to see them come to the understanding that the Epiklesis is indeed an ‘essential’ part of the Liturgy (to use scholastic terminology). I would also be very pleased to see them communing the faithful with both Bread and Wine (and when I say ‘bread’, then -by all means- I do mean BREAD!). And You know what else would really make my day? To see them grasping the Patristic understanding of the Holy Trinity, and seize once and for all with the senseless conflation of personhood and nature, as it happened with the Filioque. And, as a bonus, understand that if the Fathers say with one voice that the Godhead is dispassionate, then this means just that… and quit telling fairy-tales about God’s wrath, anger, or rage, and grasp that when the Fathers say that when the Bible speaks thus, then such expressions should be understood antropomorphically, then this is truly the case. I think that is enough. — They do that, and no-one will be able to deny the truthfulness of their religion.
Lucian
I have not involuntarily attested to anything. I do admire the strng grasp of the imortance of Tradition in the Orthodox Church. I also regret the way that some Orthodox with a thin verneer of theological knowldge confuse Tradition with traditions, and cling to an immobilist theology every bit as sclerotic as some of the Western scholasticism they so decry, bolstered by an unhistorical and selective reading of the Fathers.
God is indeed without Passions (the despised Augustine makes this point just as ably as the Greek Fathers) but humans are not. You have been immoerate and spiteful in your attack on Michaêl, and that betrays an immature outlook. You seem not able to accept that others might turn on your views the same robust criticism you direct to theirs. Michaêl, for his part, has responded to your adolescent provocations with admirable forbearance.
Michaêl also admirably sums up my own thoughts when he says:
“The main problem with the old triumphalist approach is that it obviates the need for self-criticism. It lets you wallow in your prejudices. It’s basically self indulgent and at its heart un-Christian. It blinds you to the difference between what is good and what is essential.”
What most of us are trying to do here is dialogue: let the others speak for themselves, see first what is positive in their position, without replyong hastily and in a manner unduly influenced by the passions so that we end up by being un-Christian. Like Irenaeus, I think you have overstepped the mark.
My understanding is that Michaêl is Canadian. Perhaps he is of French extraction. Whatever the case, racial prejudice and stereotyping are ugly and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. Whilst few of us in this fallen world are 100% free of these manifestations of sin, we are best advised not to indulge them in the public forum, and they are out of place in a discussion such as this.
<>
<>
Friends and Brothers,
It is, as an good student of contemporary ecumenical history would know, one of the basic errors of the followers of the Pope to contend that what divides their confession from the Orthodox Church are “trivial questions” or obstinate hierarchs. Rather, the auto-syneidisis of the laos tou Theou that Catholicism’s experience and beliefs are not the Church’s and not the Saints’ is that which keeps those ecumenist hierarchs at the Phanar and elsewhere from signing yet another false union.
And what does their conscience say? That the problems of the Pope and his followers are not limited to the filioque and primacy/infallibility (still held and confessed), but also include the idea that the Grace of God is created (blasphemy from an Orthodox point of view), that we are *guilty* of the sin of Adam and Eve (“original sin”), that the Mother of God was “immaculately” conceived (i.e. free of the ancestral sin and its effects), that – and here is one that is never discussed in those stuffy dialogue rooms, but is indicative of the state of contemporary catholicism more than most things – the charismatic movement is blessed and inspired by God (the Pope having blessed it and blessing it every year in Rome), that the messages being attributed to “our Lady” in places like Medjegore (sp?) or Damascus or hundreds of other “visions” occuring over the past few decades are not spiritual delusion but of God, that the phenomenon of the “stigmata” from Francis of Assisi down to Padre Pio are consistent with Christian spiritual experience and the witness of the Fathers, etc. etc. Any serious study of contemporary spiritual trends in catholicism as compared to the 2000 year old experience of the Orthodox ascetics and Saints would reveal a huge chasm between the two – certainly not bridgeable without deep repentance.
The conscience of the Orthodox Faithful – as expressed by the Church’s Saints in every age, including our own (by such lights as Elder Sophrony of Essex, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Justin Popovich, Saint Nicholai Velimirovich, and others) – is that which does not and will not permit another false union. Until the obstacles stated above are removed and true repentance is experienced, neither individuals nor “churches” will be united.
When will those interested in union with the Orthodox every learn that the voice of the Church is heard first and foremost in Her Saints – not the present Patriarch of Constantinople or representative to the European Union?
Do you want to know what the Orthodox believe and teach and think? Read the lives of the Saints of every age, but especially of this past century. When you do that, you’ll clearly see that the sentiments of the above-mentioned “archbishop of Moscow” are at best dreamy, at worst, deceptive.
God bless you all.
Panagiotis Dimitriadis
In related news:
Vatican sees end to tensions with Russian Orthodox
Published: 9/17/09, 1:06 PM EDT
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON
VATICAN CITY (AP) – Relations with the Russian Orthodox church have vastly improved, possibly paving the way for a papal visit to Moscow or a historic meeting between the pope and the Orthodox patriarch outside of Russia or the Vatican, a senior Vatican cardinal said Thursday.
Cardinal Walter Kasper told Vatican Radio “we have overcome all the tensions in recent years.”
He spoke after meeting with Archbishop Hilarion, head of external relations for the Moscow patriarch’s office. Hilarion is scheduled to meet Friday with Pope Benedict XVI.
Kasper said “yes” when asked if a trip to Moscow was a “little bit closer” but said that was not on the agenda for the moment.
More likely was a meeting between Benedict and Patriarch Kirill in another country.
“They are not refusing a meeting with pope: this will probably not take place in Moscow or Rome but in a third location,” Kasper said.
The previous pontiff, John Paul II, was frustrated in his efforts to visit Moscow, a trip that would be seen as an important sign that differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity were being narrowed.
The Moscow church blocked any visit, accusing the Vatican of poaching for converts in Russia and other traditionally Orthodox lands of the former Soviet Union. The Vatican always denied the charge.
Kasper said the two churches plan to resume theological talks soon in Cyprus.
As part of signs of an improving climate, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Italian reporters in July that Moscow wants to improve its ties with the Vatican.
What I find most puzzling about pieces like the one just posted by Panagiotis is the implicit assumption of their authors that such exercises are somehow fit to some purpose.
Setting aside the truth, falsehood or even the relevance of the assertions offered (all of which are seriously open to robust rebuttal). Who are such missives addressed to? Is their object to tempt Catholics to convert? To prevent Orthodox from apostizing?
Can such a profoundly alienating post realistically contribute to either goal?
“followers of the Pope?”
“ecumenist hierarchs at the Phanar?”
“another false union?”
“spiritual delusion?”
“not bridgeable without deep repentance?”
Even truth can benefit from being expressed without being garnished with such transparent contempt.
One historical fact Orthodox anti-ecumenists could do well to reflect on is that differences in sacramental practice, ecclesiology and trinitarian theology were the habitual grist of argument and controversy between Eastern and Western polemicists before, during and long after the conciliar period. Yet there were saints, recognized in both East and West, who did not see such differences, in and of themselves, as grounds for a breach of communion. If not then, why now?
Orthodox anti-ecumenists seem predisposed to pick and choose the saints they revere (at least with respect to East-West controversy) from amongst the least consensually recognized and the most intolerant. This goes a long way towards explaining a preference for those “of this last century.” Perhaps we should focus instead on what the saints of the 4th through 10th felt they could tolerate in others.
Excellent response, Michael. This is why I love comments by folks such as Lucian or Mr Dimitriadis. Would it be an exaggeration to say that 95% of the work of authentic ecumenism is demolishing all the misconceptions, the lies and the polemical strawmen, we’ve been setting up for centuries?
This goes a long way towards explaining a preference for those [saints] “of this last century.”
Ain’t that the truth! Alexis Toth…Justin Popovich….
Sorry, but I’ll take Saint Francis of Assisi, perhaps the most Christ-like man who ever lived, over Justin Popovich any old day and twice on Sundays.
Stigmata and all.
Diane
Yet there were saints, recognized in both East and West, who did not see such differences, in and of themselves, as grounds for a breach of communion. If not then, why now?
Indeed.
BTW, just for the record (not that it makes a bit of difference to polemicists, but here goes anyway): Rome has NOT, repeat NOT, approved Medjugorje. It is still under investigation and likely will remain under investigation for quite some time.
Details, details.
I was reflecting upon a response to Mr. Dimitriadis but Michael has admirably stated much of what I was thinking about.
The first Marian apparition occured in 352 in Rome resulting in the building of a church, St Mary Major, Church of St Mary of the Snow. I would note that this apparition occured long before the schism.
Dear Michael and friends,
Thank you for your comments, peaceful or otherwise.
Please believe that I wrote what I did in all love and with peace of mind and heart. I wrote what I did as I did because I believe it to accurately describe matters not in any way to disparage others.
Michael wrote:
– “Yet there were saints, recognized in both East and West, who did not see such differences, in and of themselves, as grounds for a breach of communion.” –
Please, I would like you to tell us the names of those Saints of the Orthodox Church who did not see such heretical teachings as the filioque, created grace, or papal infallibility as grounds for “cutting off the Latins”, as Saint Mark put it.
Michael wrote:
“Orthodox anti-ecumenists seem predisposed to pick and choose the saints they revere (at least with respect to East-West controversy) from amongst the least consensually recognized and the most intolerant.”
Questions:
1. Please tell me one Saint of the Orthodox Church who dealt with the issue at hand who held a position different from those Saints you are calling “intolerant.”
2. Can a Saint of the Church be called and actually be “intolerant?” Would he be worthy of being recognized by God and His Church as a Saint?
3. What do you mean by “consensually recognized?” Are Saints after the schism be so recognized? That is, the Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, has never recognized those considered saints in the catholicism. Let’s take Francis of Assisi as an example. Those who have authoritatively spoken on the man and his life in the Church – who are few and in the last few decades – have not considered him a saint, but quite the opposite. See Fr. Seraphim Rose, for example. But also in the academic world, at the University of Thessaloniki a few years ago a Ph.D. examining him and his life and teachings, approved by all the professors (including many ecumenists), came to the same conclusion. On the Roman Catholic side, let us take Saint Gregory Palamas as an example. The stance of Latin/Roman Catholic theologians re: this highly revered Saint in the Orthodox Church was to call him a heretic – up until, that is, about 30 years ago. NOW, most consider him a Saint and his theology immensely important – even if an obstacle to union. Even WITHIN catholicism there is no consensus on this great Father, so important to Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology.
— “This goes a long way towards explaining a preference for those “of this last century.” Perhaps we should focus instead on what the saints of the 4th through 10th felt they could tolerate in others.”
Reply:
1. The Saints of the last century are stressed and singled out for one simple reason: they dealt directly with the matter at hand – ecumenism and the contemporary attempts at union. They speak to us directly. What can the Saints pre-schism tell us about events and view which developed AFTER the schism? That is like saying we ought to consult the Saints of the 2nd century – before Arius and the christological controversies – in order to address the heresy of Arianism. No, rather, we should read the writings of Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory the Theologian and others who DEALT DIRECTLY with the matter. The same applies to the question of papalism/catholicism. Who wrote about their teachings among the Saints? Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki, Saint Nectarios of Aegina, Saint Paisuis Velichkovsky, etc. What do these Saints say? All with one voice: the papal teachings (on grace, on the Holy Spirit, etc.) are heresy and Orthodox faithful do well to avoid those who hold these views. . . Am I wrong about this? Please show me, if so.
Diane wrote:
–”Sorry, but I’ll take Saint Francis of Assisi, perhaps the most Christ-like man who ever lived, over Justin Popovich any old day and twice on Sundays.
Stigmata and all.” –
Your are, of course, free to do that and I respect your freedom. But, you shouldn’t expect ever to be united to the Orthodox Church, nor should your bishops or archbishop in Rome. And that is my point, actually. That, namely, the faith and practice of roman catholics is irreconcilable with that of the Orthodox. There is no hope of union – a true unity in faith – if there is not first repentance (change of mind and heart). You may think that we need to repent and be obedient to the papal teachings, undoubtedly. That would be more consistent than what most ecumenists are talking about and hoping for – some kind of merging or agreeing superficially without having true oneness in life and faith. That is why I used the term “false union”, Michael.
Diane agreed with Michael’s comment:
–”Yet there were saints, recognized in both East and West, who did not see such differences, in and of themselves, as grounds for a breach of communion. If not then, why now?” –
Reply:
Again, Diane and Michael, that was BEFORE the schism and before the many changes in life and practice we observe in the post-schism west. Those saints did not see differences such as a filioque not yet accepted and preached by the Pope of Rome (even if circulating unofficially for centuries) as reason for a breach in communion. But, in fact, Saint Photios did make it an issue and did call a council (which was attended by papal legates and which we consider the 8th ecumenical council) and his successors did remove the pope from the diptichs in 1014 when he officialy adopted the filioque. But, what would Saint Photios say today, when so many other innovations/changes have appeared in catholicism – things he couldn’t have imagined (like blessing the “charismatic movement” for example)? THEN, Michael, and NOW are worlds apart and cannot be compared, without doing harm to the truth of things.
Irenaeus wrote:
– “Would it be an exaggeration to say that 95% of the work of authentic ecumenism is demolishing all the misconceptions, the lies and the polemical strawmen, we’ve been setting up for centuries?” –
Please, do tell us what “lies” I told above? Which Saint that I quoted is “lieing”? Do I hold a “misconception” when I state that the Pope blesses the charismatic movement and its teachings every year? Am I mistake in saying that they teach that grace is created – a foundational error as it pertains to man’s salvation? It seems to me, Irenaeus, that it is the misconceptions of most ecumenists as to the “nearness” of the “churches” and their respective faiths that needs to be demolished. Please do tell me that the papal church doesn’t teach created grace, for example.
You have called me and the Saints I cite “liers” and their stance strawmen. Are you an Orthodox Christian?
Evagrius,
From an Orthodox standpoint, the appearances of the Mother of God in the local Orthodox church of Rome 1,700 years ago are a far cry from those happening around the world today and their messages – which are often times directly contradictory to the Orthodox Faith (such as those coming out of Damascus and the unfortunate lady there with the stigmata). Again, THEN and NOW are two worlds apart – always from an Orthodox point of view, of course.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your comments and hope that you not take my words in any way but the best and in all sincerity.
Panagiotis
Fr. Paul and Michael,
no, what I said about Michael was not meant as a rant, nor was it done in any ill-spirited manner. (Where I live, we have lots of different nationalities and religions, which form a very beautiful mosaic: we don’t try to melt them all into one, deleting their identity; nor do we try to keep them apart because of some sort of kosher-segregationist mentality).
But, you see, now I have a problem: why are ALL of You (Fr. Paul, Michael, Diane, and Irenaeus) constantly made upset by almost anything I write? — It’s very disturbing for me to have a dialogue under such weird circumstances… I feel just like the condemned guy in Kafka’s “Trial”; or just like a globe-trotter breaking some strange, unwritten rules of some foreign, exotic culture somewhere… what exactly is it that I’m doing wrong here?.. :-\
—————
Fr. Paul,
I don’t think that You’re correct when You try to call such things “traditions“: they’re not. — and this is why I’ve said that in order for someone to be Catholic, he has to obey the Roman Pontiff. — a remarque which (all of) You took too lightly. So let me explain: look at the way or the terms in which the Catholics grafted various Orthodox or Oriental and even Nestorian Churches unto themselves: recognizing their theology as valid [by saying that the Monophysites or Nestorians say the same as they do regarding Christology, but that somehow they come from a different culture, and only express the same things differently (contra the last five of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which begged to differ, and which were, to my knowledge, received and approved by the Papacy of their times)]. — That’s why I said what I said, and why I still continue to hold my stance on this matter.
And also another thing: the Catholics are just like us, so I basically have no problem with, say, over 90% of what they teach; … it’s just that, –when posting comments on blogs such as this one, for instance–, I like to focus on the under 10% of distinctives. — I’m telling You this so as not to leave anyone with a wrong impression.
What can we learn from the Catholics? To be better organized, to be more vocal when it comes to social issues, and to be more into missionary activity. — at least that’s the way I see it. (The second thing I mentioned is already checked, but the first one only partially, namely as far as having theological institutions is concerned; but we suck as far as the last one is concerned. [*DON'T* let my polemic via the internet misguide You: in real life, I'm shy, and I don't even mention religious differences with people, much less debate them, or anything; and when someone tries, in real life, to do that with me, I just 'freeze' inside and try to avoid the subject and change the discussion as subtly and as soon as I can. I'm on Jewish-Zoroastrian mode all of the time as far as converting anyone to my little religion is concerned; the "Great Commission" is for me the "Supreme Court", as far as I'm concerned... seriously!]). :D :p :-|
Would St. Maximos the Confessor count as an Eastern saint who did not see the filioque as something to split the Church over?
Lucian
I – at any rate – am not upset by most things you say. Irritated, sometimes, yes. But often you make points which deserve to be addressed, but which gain nothing from your at times abrasive style. I just thought your attempt at humour (I suppose that’s what it was) about Michaël’s supposed origins was in bad taste and discourteous.
I will concede that your point about Catholics attaching more weight to papal directives than to the sources of revelation rings true about SOME Catholics. There is abroad and has been for a long time an attitude which some call magisteriaism, but which might be better termed magisterial positivism. However, this is not the authentic position of historical Catholicism, for which Papal teaching is not a source of revelation – that is the prerogative of Scripture and Tradition – but a service of custodianship of the deposit of the Faith, performed within and for the Church and not over and above the Church.
As for the non-Calcedonian Churches, well I think it is just evident on the basis of incontrovertible scholarship that as Churches they were not teaching and do not teach what was condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon, whatever the positions of the heresiarchs those Councils condemned. If you are not convinced, I hope that someone bettter informed than I will be able to advance the discussion. There are many instances where Fathers such as St Basil recognize the limits of theological formulae as expressions of revealed truth, and accept diversity in the former as long as the latter is safeguarded.
Is it impertinent to ask where it is that you come from? You are Romanian I gather, but do you live in the diaspora? I have been impressed at the renewed vitality of the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Lucian,
“But, you see, now I have a problem: why are ALL of You (Fr. Paul, Michael, Diane, and Irenaeus) constantly made upset by almost anything I write? — It’s very disturbing for me to have a dialogue under such weird circumstances… I feel just like the condemned guy in Kafka’s “Trial”; or just like a globe-trotter breaking some strange, unwritten rules of some foreign, exotic culture somewhere… what exactly is it that I’m doing wrong here?.. :-\”
Yes, there are rules in ecumenical discussion, and you are consistently breaking them. Let me try to spell out some of them. The point of ecumenical discussion is not to convert the other or to prove that the other holds wrong theological beliefs. That’s proselytism. Ecumenical discussion involves an attempt to understand the beliefs and practices of the other while offering explanations for one’s own. The intended end is not unity (though this can always be hoped for) but a clearing up of misunderstandings. It is thus closer to an exercise in mutual apologetics.
You will note that Fr. Paul, Diane and I have never attempted to ascribe beliefs to you. When you attempt to explain your understanding of Orthodoxy, we listen. If your portrayal rings untrue, we invite you to respond to what strike us as valid counter examples or testimony from Orthodox sources, all the while accepting the possibility that Orthodoxy might legitimately allow for a diversity of views.
You give no sign of returning the favour, however. Instead you seem to have decided on your own what Catholicism teaches, how Catholics should understand Catholic formularies, and how Catholics experience the Church’s ecclesiology in practice. Your prejudices regarding Catholicism appear to be immune to correction from the Catholic posters here, which strongly suggests that you consider your Catholic interlocutors to be either ignorant or engaging in bad faith. That you continue to use ascriptive terminology with respect to Catholicism that Catholics here have told you on more than one occasion is both inaccurate and insulting is in itself telling.
It should be clearly apparent to any objective observer that you have not learned your Catholicism from a nuanced study of annotated Catholic sources, but from anti-Catholic polemics. You should instead cherish the opportunity provided to you on this site to learn about Catholicism directly from those brought up in the Catholic tradition, and accept correction about Catholicism when it is offered to you by Catholics.
You have asked for an explanation of the difficulties you are encountering, and I have offered one. But this does not mean that I consider the exchanges we have had have been a waste of time. I was not aware prior to our discussions, for example, that theologically sophisticated Christians could deny the hypostatic timeless nature of any aspect of the relationship between the three Persons. This is something of a revelation to me that I am still trying to come to terms with.
So I now understand the scope of Orthodox thought better than before our exchange. The revelation is disturbing to me, and certainly is not fuelling any hunger on my part for reunion. But this is the sort of insight ecumenical discussion is meant to expose. It can highlight real differences just as much as clear away misconceptions.
Michael,
“I was not aware prior to our discussions, for example, that theologically sophisticated Christians could deny the hypostatic timeless nature of any aspect of the relationship between the three Persons. This is something of a revelation to me that I am still trying to come to terms with.”
I’m a little confused. Where is this argument found?
On another note; I’m intrigued by how some have what could be called monolithic views of their faith and the faith of others. What I mean is that it’s always intriguing to see that some Orthodox and Catholics have quite rigid views of their faith not acknowledging that there might be more than one view of their faith and attributing the same rigidity to other faiths not acknowedging the complexity of that faith.
Panagiotis
RC theology does talk of created grace yes, by which it means the effects – the virtues and charisms – which accompany the divine indwelling in the soul . In so doing, it is not doing anything different than was done by the Photian theologians of the Orthodox Church when, in order to avoid aplying the term “through the Son” to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit they said that often the words Holy Spirit are often used in Scripture and the Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s created gifts.
Catholic theology uses the term “created grace” in contra-distinction to what it calls Uncreated Grace, or Sanctifying Grace, which refers to the divine indwelling in the soul, and which is Grace par excellence. It is thus innacurate, to say that we “teach that grace is created”. Your error lies in a failure to distinguish – an error common among those who are given to the monolithic characterizations beloved of anti-ecumenists. The latter are all too often better rhetoricians than they are scholars.
the Photian theologians of the Orthodox Church when, in order to avoid aplying the term “through the Son” to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit they said that often the words Holy Spirit are often used in Scripture and the Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s created gifts.
Uhm… did they say “created” ? (If so, who?)
—————
Michael,
there is no eternal origination of the Person of the Spirit from the Person of the Son [whether in conjunction with the Father, or not]. If You’re searching for an aternal relation, albeit not of origination, between the Son and the Spirit, it is rest: the Spirit is being poured out from the Father and it abides in & on the Son; the Father breathes forth His Spirit into the Son, and the Son receives it. (per John 5:26).
Panagiotis,
“Please believe that I wrote what I did in all love and with peace of mind and heart.”
Love presupposes a basic respect. Your protestations would be more credible if you did not cast your negative characterizations as self evident.
“I wrote what I did as I did because I believe it to accurately describe matters not in any way to disparage others.”
Painful truths can also be expressed eirenically, but I will keep your protestations in mind.
“Please, I would like you to tell us the names of those Saints of the Orthodox Church who did not see such heretical teachings as the filioque, created grace, or papal infallibility as grounds for “cutting off the Latins”, as Saint Mark put it.”
Right! Here is yet another example of what I mean by “negative characterizations” treated as “self-evident”. What specific and authentic Catholic teaching regarding the filioque has Orthodoxy authoritatively defined as “heretical?” Where do the terms “created grace” or “papal infallibility” figure in Catholic formularies?
Once you have answered these questions, or reformulated your request in less polemic terms, we could perhaps begin to comb through the Fathers for answers.
“Please tell me one Saint of the Orthodox Church who dealt with the issue at hand who held a position different from those Saints you are calling “intolerant.” “
Again, we have a bit of unpackaging to do before this request can be appropriately addressed. I would first of all make a distinction between various types of Orthodox opposition to and characterization of the filioque. The filioque is a term used by the Latin Church to represent its understanding of one aspect of the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity. I would put to you that while Orthodoxy has been fairly consistent in condemning the use of the term, no Orthodox council, to my knowledge, has ever condemned as heretical the authentic Catholic understanding of what the term is intended to represent. Instead we have a few Orthodox councils condemning as heretical notions they may have ascribed to the filioque but that the Catholic side does not actually teach.
Significantly, until 1180 or so, the vast majority of Eastern saints, including most of those objecting to the term on various grounds, were content to remain in communion with their filioque-reciting Latin counterparts, which fact would be peculiar if they considered authentic Latin teaching regarding the procession as heretical rather than just dubious theologoumena.
“Can a Saint of the Church be called and actually be “intolerant?” Would he be worthy of being recognized by God and His Church as a Saint?”
Yes. He could be, though presumably not on the grounds of his being intolerant. The only saint Catholics recognize as having lived a perfect and sinless life should be well known to you. :-)
“What do you mean by “consensually recognized?””
Recognized and venerated in both East and West.
“Are Saints after the schism be so recognized?”
I can’t speak for Orthodoxy, but yes, there are some post-schism Eastern saints whose sanctity is recognized by the Catholic Church, and Gregory Palamas is one of them, though he is understandibly not widely venerated in the Latin rite liturgy.
“NOW, most consider him a Saint and his theology immensely important – even if an obstacle to union. Even WITHIN catholicism there is no consensus on this great Father, so important to Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology.”
I don’t see on what grounds you would make this claim. Melkites are Catholics and venerate him on the second Sunday of Great Lent. That should settle the matter.
“What can the Saints pre-schism tell us about events and view which developed AFTER the schism?”
Again, more unpackaging. Catholics contest the assertion that any of their Church’s distinctive teachings are post-schism developments.
“That is like saying we ought to consult the Saints of the 2nd century – before Arius and the christological controversies – in order to address the heresy of Arianism.”
One would have thought that the views of the second century saints on Christ’s humanity and divinity would have been particularly pertinent. :-)
“No, rather, we should read the writings of Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory the Theologian and others who DEALT DIRECTLY with the matter. The same applies to the question of papalism/catholicism. Who wrote about their teachings among the Saints? Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki, Saint Nectarios of Aegina, Saint Paisuis Velichkovsky, etc. What do these Saints say? All with one voice: the papal teachings (on grace, on the Holy Spirit, etc.) are heresy and Orthodox faithful do well to avoid those who hold these views. . . Am I wrong about this? Please show me, if so. ”
What is “papalism?” Seriously, I don’t think your line of argument engages my point which is that all distinctive authentic Catholic teachings can be traced to a time prior to the schism. By this I am not claiming that such teachings were universally held, or that you can find the specific dogmatic formulations of Vatican I verbatim in the writings of the Fathers, but merely that those teaching consonant views were not considered worthy of excommunication by most fof their saintly peers in the East.
“That is why I used the term “false union”, Michael.”
Perhaps a more neutral term would have been “failed union”.
If you can only heap abuse on past efforts at reconciliation, and only have calls to repentance to offer those who do not share your preconceptions, why should they even want to be in communion with you, let alone be interested in what you have to say?
“Again, Diane and Michael, that was BEFORE the schism and before the many changes in life and practice we observe in the post-schism west. Those saints did not see differences such as a filioque not yet accepted and preached by the Pope of Rome (even if circulating unofficially for centuries) as reason for a breach in communion. But, in fact, Saint Photios did make it an issue and did call a council (which was attended by papal legates and which we consider the 8th ecumenical council) and his successors did remove the pope from the diptichs in 1014 when he officialy adopted the filioque. But, what would Saint Photios say today, when so many other innovations/changes have appeared in catholicism – things he couldn’t have imagined (like blessing the “charismatic movement” for example)? THEN, Michael, and NOW are worlds apart and cannot be compared, without doing harm to the truth of things.”
Well, to begin with Photius is not considered a saint in the West (and much of what I think of him personally is probably best not expressed here). As such, I am not sure why you feel his views are really pertinent to my point. No one here is suggesting that there were absolutely no Eastern hierarchs willing to risk schism in opposition to what they may have perceived as heresy in West. Significantly, however, neither Antioch nor Alexandria chose to break with Rome on either of the two occasions on which Photius was excommunicated. This should give you pause for thought.
Next, so far as I know, not all Orthodox consider Constantinople 879-880 to be an ecumenical council. But yes, the Papal legates did sign its canons. This does not mean that Rome ever considered the canons as anything other than disciplinary. Pointedly, the canons condemned the liturgical insertion of the filioque in the creed (which Rome had already done separately), but did not condemn the actual Western understanding regarding the procession of the Spirit (which Rome had consistently defended). So why shouldn’t the legates have signed? I have read the canons myself, and I don’t see them as condemning anything Catholics believe now, let alone in the 9th century.
This might be a good point to call attention again to an important difference in ecclesiology between Catholics and Orthodox. Catholics do not consider disciplinary canons, even of ecumenical councils, as universally binding, whereas Orthodox seem to in theory, if not necessarily in practice. So Catholics see nothing wrong (at least on conciliar grounds) in Rome or an authorized synod deciding to set aside disciplinary canons, even those agreed to at a council Catholics consider ecumenical.
“I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your comments and hope that you not take my words in any way but the best and in all sincerity.”
I am doing my best. I would just like to remind you that Catholics hold their views in all sincerity, and that you should temper your discourse accordingly. Catholics would be no more interested in a discussion that presupposed the appropriateness of the sort of language you have used than you would be in one in which the description of Orthodoxy as “institutionalised ecclesiological phyletism” would be expected to pass without comment.
Sorry, that should have been 1100 (when the John the Oxite was forced to leave Antioch) not 1180.
Lucian,
“there is no eternal origination of the Person of the Spirit from the Person of the Son [whether in conjunction with the Father, or not]. If You’re searching for an aternal relation, albeit not of origination, between the Son and the Spirit, it is rest: the Spirit is being poured out from the Father and it abides in & on the Son; the Father breathes forth His Spirit into the Son, and the Son receives it. (per John 5:26).”
Yes, Lucian, we have already established that this is your view. But as Fr. Paul has already mentioned, you can’t find this view reflected in any Western Fathers, no matter how far back you go, and there are a number of early Eastern Fathers whose writings could only be abusively shoehorned into conformity with this perspective.
Evagrius,
Does this answer your question?
It is virtually axiomatic in Western theology that God exists out of time and so does not change, as time is part of the created order. As a result, it follows that all aspects of the relationship between the three Persons must also be out of time and hence (in a strictly temporal sense) “eternal”. Photians, faced with the weight of Patristic tradition describing the procession of the Holy Spirit as occuring “through the Son,” appear to interpret this “throughness” as refering more narrowly to Christ’s time on Earth, and deny that the calling forth is a fundamental attribute to his relationship to the Spirit.
This is a new area of controversy for me, so others should feel free to clarify the points at issue better than I have here.
Michael,
The “throughness” is understood as I’ve explained in my previous comment: the Father breathes forth his Spirit onto or into the Son. “Through” as “through a pipe”, or “through something”.
Secondly, if Catholicism were to be consitent with itself, then it would have to say that –since the Spirit also “sent” Christ (Luke 4:18)– Christ is born from the Father and the Spirit as if from one: if they’re willing to interpret the “sent” in John 15:26 like that, why not do the same for this passage?
Or, if Christ was born (in time) of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, as we confess in the Creed following Luke 1:35, then He must also be eternally born of the same Spirit, obviously in conjunction with the Father.
And if You want “analogy” for the Orthodox position, I offer You Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32; as well as Genesis 2:7. For procession as different from birth, I’ve already offered Genesis 2:22.
Lucien,
“If Catholicism were to be consitent with itself, then it would have to say that –since the Spirit also “sent” Christ (Luke 4:18)– Christ is born from the Father and the Spirit as if from one: if they’re willing to interpret the “sent” in John 15:26 like that, why not do the same for this passage?
“Or, if Christ was born (in time) of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, as we confess in the Creed following Luke 1:35, then He must also be eternally born of the same Spirit, obviously in conjunction with the Father.”
I can’t even follow the grammar in your first paragraph, let alone make sense of it. Perhaps you might wish to recast it.
As for the second, being “born” is to be brought into this (temporal) world. The Holy Spirit is not “born” of the Father, for example, but “proceeds” from Him. Christ’s “birth” may have eternal significance, but it is an inherently temporal event. Christ does not continue eternally to be born. In contrast, the Spirit’s proceeding in the Creed is explicitly in the present, and so unending and eternal.
I am not asking you to accept the Catholic position, but this implication that it must be inconsistent based on this kind of word play lacks analytical rigour.
Michael,
You make a lot of case (actually not “You”, but Catholicism) about the fact that economy HAS TO parallel theology. Now, apply this to the passages I offered:
1) If we conclude that the sending of the Spirit into the world by the Son (John 15:26) parallels the Filioque, then why not conclude that the sending of the Son by the Spirit (Luke 4:18) parallels a possible “Spirituque” (birth of the Son by the Spirit in conjunction with the Father) ?
In other words, there’s an internal contradiction in Your logic when You say that if the Son sends the Spirit, then this means that the Spirit also eternally proceeds from the Son; but when the Spirit sends the Son, then this does NOT imply that the Son is born from the Spirit.
2) If economy necessarily parallels theology, then why does the birth of the Son by the Spirit in time NOT parallel the birth of the same in eternity from the Spirit (in conjunction with the Father) ?
3) And no, Christ did not send the Spirit 10,000 times upon the Apostles at Pentecost: only once. And the Spirit they received then was later given by them to the rest of the members of the Church by the laying on of hands (what we call Chrismation or Confirmation). Now, we do not conclude from here that the Spirit proceeds from Apostles, bishops, or priests; so why conclude that it proceeds eternally from Christ, when even the passage in John 15:26 sets a clear differentiation between out-pouring and sending?
So, in conclusion: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests upon the Son and abides in Him; and He then sends it to His Apostles, who then, by the imposition of hands, give it to Christians at Confirmation or Crismation.
Lucian,
Your logic escapes definition and comprehension, confusing time and eternity, the universal and the particular. Besides, instead of arguing abstractly as if this were a discussion on particle physics, why not reflect back on why the filioque occured in the first place and proceed from there? Placing the filioque into its context of origin might clarify exactly what was being attempted in enunciating it.
Lucian,
“If we conclude that the sending of the Spirit into the world by the Son (John 15:26) parallels the Filioque, then why not conclude that the sending of the Son by the Spirit (Luke 4:18) parallels a possible “Spirituque” (birth of the Son by the Spirit in conjunction with the Father) ?”
This is not a serious argument.
John 15:26 neatly encapsulates the nature, role and identity of the Spirit and His hypostatic relation to the two other Persons of the Trinity. This encapsulation is the very purpose of the verse. There is no other verse that I know of that covers all three Persons and defines their relationship in a trinitarian whole. The verse demonstrates that the filioque is simply intended as an enrichment of the original Creed that expands on it to bring it closer to its original scriptural root.
Luke 4:18, on the other hand, makes no reference to any hypostatic relation whatsoever, and so trying to impose such a reading on it (which, let’s be clear here, no one has ever seriously tried to do) would just be juvenile (as I am sure you agree).
“If economy necessarily parallels theology, then why does the birth of the Son by the Spirit in time NOT parallel the birth of the same in eternity from the Spirit (in conjunction with the Father) ?”
You have got me on this one. I am not aware of this as a necessary doctrinal principle. It certainly isn’t in the catechism.
“Now, we do not conclude from here that the Spirit proceeds from Apostles, bishops, or priests; so why conclude that it proceeds eternally from Christ, when even the passage in John 15:26 sets a clear differentiation between out-pouring and sending?”
Are you seriously suggesting that the “Apostles, bishops or priests” are actually “sending” the Holy Spirit anywhere? That strikes me as verging on blasphemy. Would it not be more accurate to suggest that the “Apostles, bishops or priests” are instead acting on the one chrismated (confirmed) with a view to opening or binding him or her to the Spirit? What do the Orthodox words of institution actually say?
Michael,
quit doubting my seriousness, and please start responding to my objections in a VERY serious manner (preferably by not contradicting Your previosuly-expressed opinions; or at least by showing how You DON’T contradict Yourself; or, better said, showing how Catholicism does NOT contradict itself). Thank You.
—————
Evagrius,
what was intended was to fight Arianism; what was achieved was another schism and heresy.
(You cannot fight a heresy [Arianism] by accepting its underlying principles; if the Arians conflated personal and natural attributes into one [equating spiration with divine nature] then the method to fight it does NOT consist in simply saying “yes, you’re right, but since the Son also spirates the Spirit, then He’s also divine”. The Fathers make it clear time and time again, without exception, that there are two kinds of attributes: natural [which belong to all] and personal [which belong to one]; and spiration is personal; and if it weren’t, it would belong to all three, which is absurd).
In conclusion, the trouble with the Filioque is that it contradicts not only Arianism, but also the way in which the Fathers contradict Arianism: hence why it can never be accepted.
Michael,
*I* am NOT “saying” anything; but Luke and Paul are: Acts 8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6; 20:28; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6.
Michael,
Thank you for your reply.
Your replies to my questions (which were replies to your statements) did not actually answer my questions at all, but took the discussion elsewhere.
From the beginning it is was my intention to present the Orthodox view of things based on the witness of the Saints of the Church. You called it and their witness into question and thus I asked:
“Please, I would like you to tell us the names of those Saints of the Orthodox Church who did not see such heretical teachings as the filioque, created grace, or papal infallibility as grounds for “cutting off the Latins”, as Saint Mark put it.”
You did not answer this in the least, but rather told me, in effect, that RCism does not hold these beliefs.
Still, you had earlier held that the Saints I cited were not representative of the Orthodox Church or not authoritative. But, in fact, that IS the view of the Church, as voiced in her Saints. To this you have no reply – judging from your reply to me, anway.
The same applies to the next question I asked:
““Please tell me one Saint of the Orthodox Church who dealt with the issue at hand who held a position different from those Saints you are calling “intolerant.”
Your reply was to say, basically, that although the Orthodox condemn the term and idea of the filioque, they just don’t get it because RCism doesn’t teach the idea they think it does. Again, you did not answer my question. In fact, the Saints of the Orthodox Church who DEALT WITH the teachings in question – all of the related matters, not just the filioque – are agreed. You cannot cite an Orthodox Saint that diverges from those I mentioned or the position I mentioned. Can you?
This is important, because first of all we must establish what the Orthodox Church believes – and that belief is expressed by Her Saints (that is how the Orthodox Church works, having no one infallible bishop, but a choir of “Grace-filled God-men” kata xarin). Once we do that and take it seriously, then we can begin to address the question of where the truth lies. Your replies to me basically say that the Orthodox don’t get it or didn’t get it because we (rcs) don’t believe what they have condemned. So, you don’t question my presentation of the Orthodox position.
To my question:
“Can a Saint of the Church be called and actually be “intolerant?” Would he be worthy of being recognized by God and His Church as a Saint?”
You answered:
“Yes. He could be, though presumably not on the grounds of his being intolerant.”
For the Orthodox Church no one who was truly intolerant of others could be considered to have seen the Uncreated Light or at least lived in a state of illumination – that is, be holy, be a “god by grace”. Intolerance of others (not of heretical teachings, of course) shows spiritual immaturity at best, spiritual sickness most probably. I find your answer most curious and probably not representative even of the official RC position. Can you cite RC teaching or documents or biographies to support your claim that there are RC saints who were intolerant?
Re: Saint Gregory Palamas: Do you not acknowledge the fact that just a few years ago most handbooks of catholic theology which dealt with Saint Gregory and his teaching on deification and the Jesus Prayer, etc. considered him and his teaching to be heretical (yes, they used this term)? Don’t you find the flip flopping of rc theologians to be problematic? Will the real RC position please “stand up”?
You stated:
“all distinctive authentic Catholic teachings can be traced to a time prior to the schism”
Can you state this with a straight face? No, but really, in all seriousness it is just amazing to us Orthodox that contemporary Catholicism believes and holds that a teaching like the infallibility of the pope (when he speaks ex cathedra, etc.) was held in the first millennium or even spoken of by any Saint at all. It is just totally inconsistent of our experience of the Saints to imagine any one of them saying, as Pope Leo XIII did: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty” (Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, dated June 20, 1894). Or Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), who is reported to have said: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth” (The Vatican Council 1869-1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Newman Press, 1962, orig 1930). Did he actually say this? It just seems too insane to be true.
In any case, surely the Vatican I dogma – that the Pope has “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church” AND that “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable”.- is a case of the “development of doctrine” idea/justification and cannot be claimed to have been in any way a part of the first millennium experience of the Church. The Orthodox never did nor ever could accept the idea that any bishop – apart from the consent of the Church (as defined above) – could pronounce “infallibly” on the faith this pronouncement be irreformable by the body of the Church.
(I think, by the way, that goes for the “charismatic movement” alive today in rcism, as well as the stigmata and other spiritual phenomenon.)
You wrote:
“Well, to begin with Photius is not considered a saint in the West…”
Wow. Really? Can you point me to an authoritative document issued by the Pope or other arm of the Vatican which states this, or for that matter, any handbook of theology or history of the church series? Really. I am interested in learning more of this. I can’t believe it. It has implications for contemporary catholicism and ecumenical dialogue. I tend to think that you are wrong on this, but I am willing to search your sources and see for myself.
“…(and much of what I think of him personally is probably best not expressed here). As such, I am not sure why you feel his views are really pertinent to my point.”
Wow. Just like that a great Saint like Photios is brushed aside and becomes irrelevant when he doesn’t support our views of the Church or the papacy. Perhaps I could do that with some Pope of the pre-schism west that doesn’t fit into my idea of the Church. But, then again, I don’t have to, because they were all Orthodox – except, that is, Honorius, who is mentioned in the 6th ecumenical council (or was it the 5th?) as one who is anathematized as a heretic for holding monothelite views. Right? Did I get this right? I need to dust up on my history of the church. It has been a while.
You wrote:
“Significantly, however, neither Antioch nor Alexandria chose to break with Rome on either of the two occasions on which Photius was excommunicated. This should give you pause for thought.”
It does. But not as you might think. It says to me that when it was all said and done they chose to not follow the popes of Rome when they fell away from the unity of the Church later on, in spite of their earlier esteem for the See of Rome and its witness. That is, they held the Faith of the Church in higher regard than passing politics but also old alliances and certainly claims of superiority by one bishop over other bishops. Certainly, they didn’t hold the Pope of Rome to be infallible (when speaking ex cathedra, etc.) – THAT is for sure.
What has remained and what counts was not the passing intrigues and political persecutions that the Saints suffered but their stance on matters of Faith. Antioch and Alexandria, in the end, chose to stand on this as on a firm foundation, together with Constantinople and the ancient Sees of the East.
You wrote:
“Pointedly, the canons condemned the liturgical insertion of the filioque in the creed (which Rome had already done separately), but did not condemn the actual Western understanding regarding the procession of the Spirit (which Rome had consistently defended)”
Rome condemned its insertion in the person of Saint Leo III, but later, post-schism – or rather provoking the schism in 1024 – added it. You write this off as a “disciplinary matter” that changes. Hmm. Why didn’t the council and Pope Saint Leo III do that? Or, more to the point, if it is just a “disciplinary matter” why don’t contemporary Popes do it – not just for certain rites, but for the whole of their communion? Why don’t they join Pope Leo and Saint Photios again, if it is just a disciplinary matter?
You wrote:
“Catholics would be no more interested in a discussion that presupposed the appropriateness of the sort of language you have used than you would be in one in which the description of Orthodoxy as “institutionalised ecclesiological phyletism” would be expected to pass without comment.”
I encourage both the frankness and the comments and have no problem with comments in reply – only that they be as devoted to the Truth as we Orthodox try to be. In particular reference to the question of Phyletism, may I suggest a recent podcast by an Orthodox priest in Greece which deals with it head on? I think you will appreciate it:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards
The Orthodox have – both in council and in their Saints – condemned phyletism as a heresy, by the way.
Sincerely,
Panagiotis
Too many subjects to deal with here.
So, allow me to post something I found on the ‘Net that might be of use to the discussion;
Levy on a crucial principle of complementarity
“the West and the East. . . . manifestly designate the same state-of-thing under wordings that merely sound mutually exclusive. ‘The vision of God according to essence,’ as Augustine conceives it, does not designate a vision of God that would comprehend uno intuitu the wholeness of the divine Being. Yet this type of vision is precisely what the Eastern Fathers reject when they say that no created mind will ever be able to contemplate the essence of God. Correlatively, the ‘vision of God according to the energeiai,’ as conceived by the Greek Fathers, does not designate the vision of an entity numerically different from the divine essence (God is uncomposed). Yet this type of vision is precisely what Augustine rejects when he states that operations and essence are one in God. Once again, it is worthwhile emphasizing, in opposition to Bradshaw, that this difference in the wordings is not due to Augustine’s ignorance of the philosophical patterns that inspired the Greek Fathers, but to his original way of reassuming these patterns. The fact that the interpretations of Augustine and of the Eastern Fathers, despite their difference of approach, coincide from a doctrinal point of view, is probably the best tribute possible to the idea that dogmatic unity within Christianity does not imply theoretical uniformity.”
Antoine Levy, O.P., “An introduction to divine relativity: beyond David Bradshaw’s Aristotle east and west,” Thomist 72, no. 2 (April 2008): 219-220. The Orthodox distinction between the ousia and the energeiai is what one must stress when one theologizes from that (or God’s) side of “the divine relativity”. But their unity (and therefore the visio Dei, i.e. essentiae) is what one must stress when one theologizes from this (or man’s) side. “there is no third point of view” from which these two complementary, yet “mutually exclusive” perspectives can both be embraced simultaneously: “one must choose [either] one system of reference or the other”, either the East or the West. Yet doctrinally, they are identical (229). Constitutive of this complementarity is what Levy calls “the Porphryian Principle” (196 ff.): the asymetricality of the cosmological relation grounded in the utter (but therefore immanence-enabling) transcendence of God (“a relationship from B to A, but no relationship from A to B” (200); “created beings are in-a-state-of-relationship, en skehesei, whereas God is foreign-to-any-relationship, askhetos” (209); etc.). And an insistence upon this asymetricality is as fundamental to the East as it is to the West. Or so Levy.
Posted by Steve Perisho at 8:31 PM
From the web site Liber locurum communium.
evagrius, that is an excellent excerpt. Thank you! :)
Lucian, pardon me, but your last response to Michael sounds EXACTLY like the sort of thing I hear all the time from Sola Scriptura fundamentalists who insist that the Bible is “perspicuous” and self-interpreting. It is odd to see such an approach employed by an Orthodox Christian. ;)
If one wants to do the “Scripture bit”,
( from Otto’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma- a real rip-roarer ), pp62-63.
Mt 10,20, Gal 4,6, Acts of the Apostles, 16,7, Romans 8,9, Phil 1,19, John 15,26, Luke 14,49; John 20,22.
As one can see, Scripture is not that clear about the matter.
Panagiotis,
“Your replies to my questions (which were replies to your statements) did not actually answer my questions at all, but took the discussion elsewhere.”
That’s true, but I also indicated a willingness to engage on their substance once we had resolved difficulties inherent in the assumptions underlying the way you were posing your questions. I can now see that such resolution is not in the immediate offing, so I will try my best with what we have.
“From the beginning it is was my intention to present the Orthodox view of things based on the witness of the Saints of the Church. You called it and their witness into question”
Not quite. I am sure there are indeed Orthodox saints who held and taught the views you indicate. I do not contest this. What I do contest is your suggestion that the views of these saints are necessarily historically normative even for Orthodoxy, let alone the Church before the schism.
“and thus I asked:
“Please, I would like you to tell us the names of those Saints of the Orthodox Church who did not see such heretical teachings as the filioque…”
Let’s just stop here, as with the filioque we can at least agree on what we are talking about: the following Eastern saints were alive during the controversies relating to the filioque, and did not see fit to break communion with the Latins over it: St Ignatius, St Anthony II, and St Polyeuctus (all three were patriarchs); other prominent saints would include St Andrew of Constantinople, and St Athanasius the Athonite (founder of Mt Athos).
“created grace, or papal infallibility as grounds for “cutting off the Latins”, as Saint Mark put it.”
“Created grace” is meaningless to me, so you would have to define what you are talking about, and despite what you may have heard or been told, Catholics do not believe in “Papal infallibility.” I have to assume you are referring to some aspect of Papal primacy, but what aspect…?
“You cannot cite an Orthodox Saint that diverges from those I mentioned or the position I mentioned. Can you?”
I believe I have, at least with respect to the filioque as an insuperable bar to communion. For the others, “created grace?” Papal infallibility?” you have first to spell out what you think these “Catholic heresies” entail, and then demonstrate that the Catholic Church actually teaches them.
“This is important, because first of all we must establish what the Orthodox Church believes – and that belief is expressed by Her Saints (that is how the Orthodox Church works, having no one infallible bishop, but a choir of “Grace-filled God-men” kata xarin). Once we do that and take it seriously, then we can begin to address the question of where the truth lies. Your replies to me basically say that the Orthodox don’t get it or didn’t get it because we (rcs) don’t believe what they have condemned. So, you don’t question my presentation of the Orthodox position.”
This is a bit confusing. I am not going to quarrel with your claims regarding what Orthodoxy believes about Orthodoxy. I find your epistemology a bit unconventional, but if it works for you…. I would prefer to use the traditional tools like scripture, patristic scholarship, conciliar definitions etc. to determine whether Orthodoxy considers a particular belief orthodox, but hey…, that’s just me.
My problem with the case you seem to be trying to make is that it seems to amount to the following:
1. Some (especially recent) Orthodox saints have inferred a set of distinctive “Catholic” beliefs based on their interpretation of Catholic “teachings”.
2. They have pronounced these ascribed “beliefs” heretical.
3. This ipso facto establishes to their satisfaction that Catholicism is heretical. The only reason other Orthodox saints would not have explicitly made this determination would be that they had not specifically addressed these ascribed beliefs in their own writings.
4. It follows that reunion is impossible on any other terms than unilateral repentance on the Catholic side.
Will you not allow for the possibility that one can be saintly and yet still misunderstand and so misrepresent the beliefs of another? Does canonization somehow endow someone with post-facto inerrancy? Does Orthodoxy proclaim the infallibility of the writings of the saintly departed? If so, wouldn’t this infallibility lie more properly with those tasked with acknowledging the sanctity of the departed? Is this not the living bishops? Should one then not rely more on the words and judgment of the living episcopate. And if the episcopate has not chosen to explicitly condemn as heretical even one belief Catholics can actually recognize themselves as holding, does this not at least allow for the possibility of a variety of legitimate Orthodox views on the question?
“Can you cite RC teaching or documents or biographies to support your claim that there are RC saints who were intolerant?”
No, I can’t. Can you cite any Orthodox teaching or documents or biographies that support your claim that no Orthodox saint was intolerant?
From the catechism:
“827… All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.
“828. By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizees the power of the spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers….
“829. But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the fiathful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness.”
I don’t see anything here precluding the possibility of an intolerant saint. Perhaps Fr. Paul might have more to say on this point.
“Re: Saint Gregory Palamas: Do you not acknowledge the fact that just a few years ago most handbooks of catholic theology which dealt with Saint Gregory and his teaching on deification and the Jesus Prayer, etc. considered him and his teaching to be heretical (yes, they used this term)? Don’t you find the flip flopping of rc theologians to be problematic? Will the real RC position please “stand up”?”
I have never read such a handbook. Are you in possession of one that contains an episcopal imprimatur and yet makes such a claim? Even when the Hesychast controversy was at its height in the East, the West just looked on in bemusement without taking sides even though the Barlaamites were widely seen as the pro-Western party in 14th century Orthodoxy.
Gregory’s theology is deeply anti-scholastic and he himself was anti-Western, but scholasticism isn’t binding on Catholics, and they are free to believe in the energies/essence distinction if they find it compelling.
““all distinctive authentic Catholic teachings can be traced to a time prior to the schism”
Can you state this with a straight face? No, but really, in all seriousness it is just amazing to us Orthodox that contemporary Catholicism believes and holds that a teaching like the infallibility of the pope (when he speaks ex cathedra, etc.) was held in the first millennium or even spoken of by any Saint at all.”
Panagiotis, I speak to you with the most absolute and utmost sincerity. There is NO Catholic teaching that speaks of the “infallibility of the Pope.” Your presumably deeply set certainty to the contrary is the result of a sadly common misconception. There is Catholic teaching that describes the Pope’s ability to “teach infallibly” (in restricted circumstances) just as there is Catholic teaching that describes the episcopate’s ability to “teach infallibly” (in restricted circumstances).
You might think this is a distinction without a difference, but there is a difference and the distinction is critical. In fact, shortly prior to Vatican I, the Irish episcopate expressly denied that the Pope was “infallible”. Yet the Irish bishops signed on to Vatican I without hesitation, and without seeing any inconsistency. Either Catholics are unprincipled idiots, or you are missing a nuance that they see as obvious.
You won’t find “Papal infallibility” anywhere in the Fathers. You will, however, find recognition of the bishop of Rome’s ability to speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals on behalf of the episcopate as its president and as Peter’s successor. And this is what Catholics believe. Ironically, Vatican I constrains the possible scope of this authority by spelling out in detail some (though not all) of the criteria an infallible definition must meet.
The problem for polemicists is that “can teach infallibly” sounds so much more reasonable than “is infallible”. After all, you or I can also “teach infallibly” (if we happen to be teaching the truth). Hence the preference for the more radical sounding misrepresentation.
“It is just totally inconsistent of our experience of the Saints to imagine any one of them saying, as Pope Leo XIII did: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty” (Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, dated June 20, 1894).”
Why? Does not every priest (Catholic or Orthodox) stand in for Christ in offering the eucharistic sacrifice?
“Or Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), who is reported to have said: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth” (The Vatican Council 1869-1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Newman Press, 1962, orig 1930). Did he actually say this? It just seems too insane to be true.”
Perhaps because it isn’t. Am I to assume that you believe in the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion as well? Note that Butler was not the witness to such a pat self allusion to the Beast, but merely repeated an unconfirmed report.
“In any case, surely the Vatican I dogma – that the Pope has “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church” AND that “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable”.- is a case of the “development of doctrine” idea/justification and cannot be claimed to have been in any way a part of the first millennium experience of the Church. ”
You are construing unintended meanings from narrowly technical theological jargon. It is hardly surprising then that you should see this as alien to the first millenial experience. Read the explanations of the terminology in the Council proceedings, if you really want to know what the definitions mean. I have explained them elsewhere on this site.
“The Orthodox never did nor ever could accept the idea that any bishop – apart from the consent of the Church (as defined above) – could pronounce “infallibly” on the faith this pronouncement be irreformable by the body of the Church.”
If its any comfort to you, this is a faulty interpretation of the significance of the text.
You wrote:
“Well, to begin with Photius is not considered a saint in the West…”
Wow. Really? Can you point me to an authoritative document issued by the Pope or other arm of the Vatican which states this, or for that matter, any handbook of theology or history of the church series? Really. I am interested in learning more of this. I can’t believe it.
Hmm, you may be right on this one after all. He reportedly figures on the liturgical calenders of Byzantine Catholic Churches. If this is true, I guess the wider Church is stuck with him.
I have to say that I have great difficulty feeling much veneration for a man who would dismiss all Latins as “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” on the grounds (amongst others) of fasting on Saturday, beginning Lent on Ash Wednesday, not allowing priests to marry and not allowing priests to administer confirmation. Did I mention something somewhere about intolerant saints?
“I don’t have to, because they were all Orthodox – except, that is, Honorius, who is mentioned in the 6th ecumenical council (or was it the 5th?) as one who is anathematized as a heretic for holding monothelite views. Right? Did I get this right? I need to dust up on my history of the church. It has been a while.”
Umm no, that’s not quite right. He was anathemized (40 years after his death for what that is worth) at the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III) not for holding monothelite views per se but for failing to condemn them. The contention that he actually sympathized with monothelitism can’t be demonstrated from his writings. I think we can agree, however, that he was a poor excuse for a Pope.
“Rome condemned its insertion in the person of Saint Leo III, but later, post-schism – or rather provoking the schism in 1024 – added it. You write this off as a “disciplinary matter” that changes. Hmm. Why didn’t the council and Pope Saint Leo III do that?”
Leo was concerned that reciting the Creed in two different forms would cause scandal (rather prophetic when you think about it). As only the uninterpolated form enjoyed conciliar sanction, he felt it was best in practice to stick with the original formula. He did however, defend the theology behind the filioque in his letter to the Eastern bishops, and commended its use in catechetics in the West.
“Or, more to the point, if it is just a “disciplinary matter” why don’t contemporary Popes do it – not just for certain rites, but for the whole of their communion?
Why don’t they join Pope Leo and Saint Photios again, if it is just a disciplinary matter?
“They might have done so long ago if that was all the Orthodox side had been demanding. The Pope is not, however, in a position to repudiate the underlying theology, which is what most Orthodox would currently require. There are things he just cannot do. It’s not just a disciplinary matter anymore. If Orthodoxy cannot accept the validity of the filioque, then it cannot accept the validity of the Catholic understanding of John 15:26. So it’s no longer just a matter of terminology. If modern Catholics are heretics, than so was Leo, filioque or no filioque.
“The Orthodox have – both in council and in their Saints – condemned phyletism as a heresy, by the way.”
No one suggests Orthodoxy is phyletist in a pure form. The idea that the Church should be structured according to the principles of 19th century nationalism really gives hives to Catholics, however, and strikes them as essentially phyletist in inspiration if not intent.
This thread is exceeding the 50 comment rule but allow us to clarify some things.
Michael,
A correction, or at least a different opinion about the debate;
I don’t think St Gregory Palamas was “anti-western”, anti-scholastic etc;. There’s quite a bit of evidence that he used St. Augustine as a patristic source. As far as “scholasticism’ is concerned, the term is a bit ambiguous since John Damascene is now recognized as having used a “scholastic” approach.
The Catholic encyclopedia of 1910 is not kind to Palamas and there was considerable prejudice against hesychasm until just recently.
I refer to A.N. William’s, “The Ground of Union” for the history of this, ( which was paralled by Orthodox writers regarding Aquinas, Thomism, and scholasticism).
Evagrius,
“there was considerable prejudice against hesychasm until just recently.”
Yes, of course. But to suggest the West ever declared it a heresy is going a bit far in my view. The Orthodox entry in the Wikipedia accuses Fortescue of doing so, but a careful reading of his text leads me to conclude that he uses the word ironically in reference to the canons of the Eastern councils that condemned Gregory. In contemporary editorial usage one would have put the word in quotations. Fortescue may not be kind to Palamas, but he isn’t kind to the Balaamites either.
No Western bishop ever condemned hesychasm outright, to my knowledge. At worst it was considered a silly and potentially dangerous superstition (sort of the way Panagiotis seems to be treating the charismatic movement.)
Michael,
The most extreme view that I read on the Catholic encyclopedia basically stated that it was a form of quietism and nearing pantheism, linking it to the “eastern”, ( Asian), forms of mysticism. Of course, this view of hesychasm, ( and for that matter, “Eastern”, ( Asian), religion has been shown to be erroneous.
The other point to make is the viewpoint of Mr. Dimitriadis regarding the Saints as guaranteeing the Truth of the Church. This is a view held by many ,both Catholic and Orthodox. Fr. John Romanides, in fact, held the view, as I understand him, that the Saints, ( not the bishops or hiearchy/ clerics), were the guarantors of Truth. One can see the lineage of this attitude going back to at least St. Symeon the New Theologian if not further back. Scholars have dubbed this the conflict between “charismatic” leadership and hiearchical leadership. It’s an ongoing dynamic in Orthodoxy but Catholicism, Latin and non-Latin, have also had this dynamic conflict.
The problem is that the saints are not self-explanatory, so it stills boils down to the living magisterium.
Don’t forget the example of St. Maximus the Confessor and that of the iconoclastic controversy. I suppose that it can, and should, be argued that the hiearchy is not to total magisterium.
Michael,
Your wrote:
<>
The Saints interpret the Saints, just as Holy Scripture interprets Holy Scripture, so to speak.
But, moreover our “magisterium” is the people of God, as the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs said, because they have the criteria, the spiritual criteria, and recognize the Saints among the worldly and imposters – even if they be pope or patriarchs. There is no institution on this earth which can guarantee Orthodoxy – neither the Vatican nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Only The Holy Spirit, speaking in and through the Saints, is the infallible voice of God on earth and the organ able to explain the Saints.
Listen to what the Patriarchs wrote – the very “living magisterium of their day:
“Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers.”
Again, if we have a “living magisterium” it is the Saints of our day – the saints of every age are those who interpret the saints of previous ages and upon this basis guide the church.
When you speak of “living magisterium” you are referring to the pope and the bishops in communion with him? Right? If one stops there and does not hold them accountable to the witness and tradition of the Saints, it is very easy to see why a whole local church (like Rome) can be led astray over time and depart from the concensus of the Fathers. Especially if one allows that the pope can fall into heresy and delusion (that he is not retrained to act and be free – to err). But, who is to hold the pope and bishops accountable, if not the people and the Saints of every age?
In the Church, if a pope or patriarch or group of bishops – it has happened many times in history – adopt teachings different from that which was received and held by the Saints of every age, the faithful are called upon to NOT follow them, are praised if they DO NOT follow them.
So, you can see that it is the people of God are the
sorry, it was cut off prematurely:
…It is the people of God who are the “last word” on the Orthodoxy of a patriarch or pope or whomever.
In essence, however, this does not mean that there is conflict between the charismatic leadership of the church and hiearchy, for the simple reason that the hierarchy cannot stand if it does not have charismatic experience – not the crazy charismatics of today, but the experience of the grace of God as seen in the Saints.
On what basis does a bishop stand if he does not know by experience the Living God? He is in a very dangerous position, putting himself and his flock in jeopardy.
That is why the view of many Roman Catholics that the pope is unable to err dogmatically on the strength of his supposed position of primacy, as a successor of Peter, etc. etc., – that it is the institution that is the guarantee of Orthodoxy not one’s life and experience – is rejected by the Saints.
Panagiotis
The problem with Mr. Dimitriadis’ argument is simple; who “certifies” the saints. To say saints interpret saints, paralleling Scripture interpreting Sripture, means that it’s a closed logical circle. If so, it’s difficult to verify in any way.
Now, if “verification” comes from the people, the laity, then the situation is even more complex. Mr. Dimitradis will have to provide an adequate response to the fact that the laity, the people, are the source for the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for instance, or the love for St. Francis among the peasants of Italy etc;. In fact, quite a few Catholic saints have been canonized due to laity urging.
Evagrius wrote:
<>
But, then again, who said it has to be explained logically? Does the work of the Holy Spirit fit into men’s logic? It is superlogical, not illogical.
If things that the Lord and the Apostles and the Saints had to fit into our logical confines, where would we be today?
Assurance – verification – is not an extra-ecclesial task. It is not open to extra-ecclesial scrutiny. Just as the Holy Scriptures belong exclusively to the Church. Tertullian had it right on that. The same applies to the Truths of the Faith: it is a in-house matter. Those who, according to the Apostle, judge and are judged by no one – the Saints – are in a position to know.
But, if the Saints aren’t in a position to know the Saints and verify the Faith from heresy, who is? A committee? A collection of Bishops who, however, have no BIOMATA/experience? How many of those have fallen outside the mark, out of the Church? Indeed, usually it is precisely these types – those in authority – who have introduced the heresies. The “theologians” – academic theologians – are the first to suspect and fear. The demons tremble and believe. And they are better theologians than any graduate from any pontifical institute or theological school. But, the ascetic, the one who has passed through and is under obedience, the one who prays – this is a true theologian – as you, Evagrius, know for sure, since your namesake is quoted as saying it first.
What you say about Francis of Assisi and other such instances of popular piety is another matter entirely. Popularism is alive and well in Papism (oops, that wasn’t very “ecumenical” of me, but it is the term used by the Orthodox Saints who dealt with the matter; what to do – follow the trends of the day or the Saints?). That is why something like the charismatic movement – frowned upon just decades ago by the Vatican – is blessed and embraced today. For goodness sakes, Pentecostalism started in Los Angeles among sectarian Protestants experimenting with the “spirit”. Right-minded people in the Vatican rejected it out of hand for decades. Now, it is fine. Why? It seems it is fine just as long as they are faithful and obedient members of the church, and some to Rome every year to get the blessing of the Pope.
In any case, I was referring to the way the Church works, the way the Holy Spirit works in the Church, rather, not the way it works outside of Her. And I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way. Rather, it is basic to the understanding of the issue.
Panagiotis
First, “Papist” is a term originating with Protestants. So, I would suppose, the saints you refer to were influenced by Protestants? Before Protestantism, the term used, I believe, was “Latin”.
Second, your argument parallels that of Zen Buddhism, in a peculiar way;
“A special transmission outside the scriptures/ Without depending on words and letters/ Pointing directly to the human mind/ Seeing one’s nature and becoming a Buddha”.
Here scripture means the recorded sermons of Buddha, words and letters the commentaries and logical philosophy,
pointing directly to the human mind the fully integrated mind, reason, awareness of the embodied human being, seeing’s one nature as a an expression of Buddha-nature.
It’s only a parallel, not a direct one-to-one correspondence but it does show that the problematic is not just in Christianity.
As for logic, yes, Reality is above/ beyond logic but it does not contradict logic by being irrational.
I have always wondered (WRT the contention that the people determine what’s orthodox and what isn’t): How do the people do this?
If it’s via an ecumenical council…well, Orthodoxy hasn’t held one of those in a long, lonnnnng time.
So, how else do we know what the people have determined? Do we take a poll?
ISTM the logistical problem here is insuperable. But what do I know? I’m just a dumb papist. ;)
BTW, where is Lucian? I miss him! :D
In Orthodoxy, the monastics pften “represent” the laity for a simple reason; they are not priests. Quite often, the monks come straight from the laity and they, unlike western monks, do not receive an intellectual training.
Western monastics did receive an intellectual training. In fact, this was their main vocation for centuries-to preserve knowledge. They prayed and contemplated, of course, but they were the ones responsible for preserving learning in the west.
Later on, the vast majority of monks became clericalized by becoming ordained as priests. The late Thomas Merton, through his research and writings, urged that the monastics revert back to the earlier practice, one kept by the eastern monastics, of having only one or two priests in a monastery.
The clericalization of monastics in the west removed them from links to the laity.
OK, so I’m confused. Do the monastics, as representatives of the laity, determine what is orthodox doctrine and what isn’t?
If so, this still raises the question: How? Does one poll the monks? What if they disagree?
(Perhaps I am reading you incorrectly, evagrius. I was assuming you were addressing my question, but maybe you were addressing something else? It’s hard to follow the different strands within this now lengthy thread! ;))
I miss You too, Diane. (And I miss her even more).
This being said, the tenets of the faith are basically a given. The reason we didn’t have ecumenical councils for the last million years or so is because we had no major heresies in the last millennium. The last major one was iconoclasm, that’s why its defeat at the Seventh Council is considered the Triumph of Orthodoxy over all heresies.
Hmmm…didn’t y’all have that little squabble over neo-hesychasm? I know there’s a tendency to minimize it now, but my historian hubby assures me it was quite the big deal in its day. ;)
Plus, our friend Panagiotis assures us that ecumenism is a major heresy.
Then there’s phyetism…wouldn’t you count that as a heresy?
I’m sorry, Lucian, but I’m afraid that excuse won’t quite fly. There have been many HUGE challenges to the Christian faith over the centuries, both in the East and in the West. The devil didn’t cease trying to undermine the Church after the Seventh Ecumenical Council. He was just getting started. ;)