Once again, apologies for the lack of activity here. Lately I am finding it very hard to focus on blogging.
There’s a very interesting combox discussion going on over at The Continuum, an Anglo-Catholic blog. It’s in response to this essay, “Basic Points of Difference between the Orthodox Church and Papism”, by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), Metropolitan of Nafpaktos in Greece. The Metropolitan’s little book, Orthodox Spirituality, is one of the first Orthodox books I ever read. On the whole it’s a wonderful book, and I highly recommend it.
But I’m afraid that I have very little patience for the sort of polemic that the Metropolitan offers here. Generally, my impression is that theological polemics (whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant) very rarely, if ever, clarify anything. In fact, polemical discourse tends to crystallize existing differences, create new differences, or even alter the theologies of the polemicists themselves. Theology becomes ideology and an excuse for the inexcusable evil of schism. And so I find myself in broad agreement with the responses left by Anglican posters Fr Robert Hart and “Poetreader”, and the Eastern Catholic poster “A Simple Sinner”. (Fr Hart, of course, is the brother of David Bentley Hart, the brilliant Eastern Orthodox theologian whose gentler approach to Western Christianity makes him a favorite punching-bag of some Orthodox bloggers.)
There are real differences, of course, between the Churches; I do not deny that. Authentic ecumenism begins with humble and honest acknowledgement of our differences. But it also involves a very careful parsing, by both sides, of real problems from problems that are merely apparent or resulting from misconceptions or even lies about the “other side.” The Metropolitan mentions some real problems, such as the current Roman Catholic understanding of the Papacy, or the alteration of the ecumenical Creed by the Latin West. However, I find it very hard to see most of the Metropolitan’s other points as authentically church-dividing issues.
The liturgical complaints are, to me, the most disappointing, as most of these points haven’t been taken seriously even by strict Orthodox authorities for many centuries (surprise! the Latin Rite and the Byzantine Rite are different, had been quite different for some time before the schism). Some of the complaints regarding the Franks, Scholasticism, Palamism, Original Sin, etc. are merely talking points from twentieth-century Greek neo-patristic sources (with a particularly heavy-dose of Romanides), feeding on popular caricatures about Rome and the Western Church. It’s alarming that so many Orthodox, particularly converts, understand their faith, and other Churches, only through the lenses of these modern (and in many cases novel) thinkers.
While I’m at it, I’d like to say that I have only recently discovered The Continuum and I am reading through its archives with great interest. I have never been an Anglican, but I have always had an admiration for the traditional Anglo-Catholic temperament, its characteristic balance and “feel” for the Faith. Two of the most valuable books on the Papacy I have ever run across were written by English Anglo-Catholic priests: The Church and the Papacy by Trevor Jalland (1944) and Dom Gregory Dix’s Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal (1936) [and I must once again thank Professor Bill Tighe for bringing these studies to my attention … are you still out there, Professor?].
At some point in the near future, I’d like to post here on Jalland’s conclusions concerning the development of the Papacy and the current state of the Church following the Schism.
Eirenikon 
Still here, still interested, still benevolent.
“Generally, my impression is that theological polemics (whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant) very rarely, if ever, clarify anything. In fact, polemical discourse tends to crystallize existing differences, create new differences, or even alter the theologies of the polemicists themselves.”
Very well put, very trenchant.
I’ve got a copy of Jalland, so if you post on it, I’ll read with interest.
The fact that a metropolitan archbishop would pen a screed like this is exceedingly sad to begin with. One wonders about the level of scholarship – is it simply not there, or is polemic simply preferred?
I am trying to picture +Kasper sitting down to write a book entitled “Basic Points of Difference between the Catholic Church and Fermentarianism”
I admit I am familiar with no more of the text then is (I would hope accurately) quoted in the post you reference… That as the case may be, reading through it I was left to wonder has he spent any time in the West? Does he know them and understand them?
If I had any real question, after reading:
“13. the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos and the development of the worship of Mary (mariolatria), according to which the All-Holy Virgin is elevated to Triune Deity and even becomes a concept leading to a Holy Quaternity (!),”…
The answer was pretty clear – no he did not understand the Catholic Church, and didn’t really seem to want to.
While I think your analysis is in deed insightful, never the less I find it a bit much that you manage to take to task two hierarchs of the Orthodox Church whose positions you find offensive in succession. Would it not be more productive to write on works of other Orthodox theologians who are more supportive of a more gentle dialogue? Your comments about polemics tend to be rather polemical.
#1: “Still here, still interested, still benevolent.”
Oh, good! :-)
Re: #4
Dear Father Gregory, if I have come across as disrespectful or overly combative, I regret that. Actually, I respect these hierarchs immensely for their many good works. I simply disagree with them on a few points. Your advice to write on more positive Orthodox interactions with the West is an excellent one, and I hope to do more of that as time allows.
#3 – Actually, I’ve heard this “mariolatry” complaint from other Orthodox, mostly converts from Evangelicalism. I find this funny, because the Byzantine Liturgy is far more effusive and even over-the-top when it comes to Our Lady than the very reserved Roman Liturgy.
I seem to recall, perhaps in that fascinating book The Byzantine Lists by Tia Kolbaba, that one of the major complaints against the Latins was that they were Nestorians because they did not refer to the Virgin constantly as “Theotokos” (this complaint, of course, existed alongside other accusations that the Latins were Armenian Monophysites, or Judaisers!).
I am a big fan of the Blessed Mother myself, so I can’t get enough of things like the Akathist Hymn or the Dormition Paraklesis. But I do wonder what some of these Evangelical converts think about these services. Come to think of it, in many convert parishes I’ve been in, there’s a great nervousness about saying “Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” This is often edited as “pray for us.” Admittedly I’m quite offended by this.
After reading the Archbishop’s list, I can only conclude that he was not writing about the Catholic Church that exists in the real world. The “Papist” Church and doctrine he describes are mostly figments of his imagination, and are well known to the readers of Jack Chick comics.
For a cradle Catholic like myself, I can only shake my head in disbelief. How tragic that a bishop — who is supposed to be a servant of unity — can write such stuff. Even more so that an educated man believes it.
God bless you for your humble attitude in accepting fraternal correction. I really do enjoy your blog and feel it provides a creative avenue for dialogue in love with our Roman Catholic brethren.
“For a cradle Catholic like myself, I can only shake my head in disbelief. How tragic that a bishop — who is supposed to be a servant of unity — can write such stuff. Even more so that an educated man believes it.”
I really can’t emphasize my agreement on this matter with you enough, Ed.
I have been dealing with this sort of lit for 16 years as I too once was at a crossroads between staying in Granny’s Greek Catholic Church, or moving into Orthodoxy. I was on every mailing list, getting a catalog from every publishing house, and getting and reading everything I could get my hands on for some time. I would have expected this sort of screed from an ethusiastic low-level convert cleric to HOCNA who just grew out his beard, decries Constantinople as being “proto-uniate” and cannot say the word Orthodoxy without saying “Most All Holy Orthodoxy”…. Guys like that are usually named Reader Papahanoutios (Used to be Rob) O’Boyle…
But that this was penned by an Archbishop in the Greek Church against those pesky Quaternitarian Azymites…
We hadn’t made near the progress I had thought or hoped.
#9 – Thankfully, in real Orthodox parishes, I haven’t encountered many of these sort of folks. It’s a species of convert whose natural habitat is the internet message board or listserv. And they usually belong to fringe groups (like HOCNA) who aren’t in communion with anybody.
Eirenikon,
Thanks for your very kind words about The Continuum.
I was interested in your comment above (No 6), as I recently came across the liturgical phrase “Most Holy Theotokos, save us” and found it offensive to my sensibilities.
Would you, or one of your commentators be kind enough to explain to this ignorant soul why this is not heretical. I, too, am deeply devoted to the BVM, the Theotokos, but the last I checked, it is Jesus Christ, her Son, who saves us.
I warmly recommend the book, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, by Hans Urs Von Balthasar. The various forms of refusals and abstractions of papal authority are presented along with explorations of the Christological character of the Petrine Office seen alongside the Motherhood of the Church. Von Balthasar deals with the Charism of leadership, consent and the risks of the office. He then makes a series of proposals of how the office should function and how it has been effected by history.
A very enlightening read by one of the most influential thinkers in modern history.
http://www.amazon.com/Office-Peter-Structure-Church-Balthasar/dp/0898700205
Re: #11
Dear Albion,
My understanding (and I call on Hieromonk Gregory to confirm if I’m on the right track) is that there are different senses of the word “save.” For instance, Saint Paul says that he sought to “save” fellow Jews through his example (Romans 11:14).
Of course there is but one Saviour and Redeemer, but perhaps Mary can “save” us by bringing us to her Son, through her prayers and advocacy for us. I’m open to elaborations or alternative explanations.
This is all very off-topic, of course, but I hope this helps a bit.
Save has again many meanings. However, it is easier to understand when we pray “through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior save us. Just as Mother of God is understood in the longer formula of Mother of Christ our God. Those fuller expressions are perhaps a bit more precise and far less problematic to persons first encountering the shorter terms.
An interesting dichotomy. Traditionalist Catholics complain that appreciation for Mary has been pointedly muted in the West since Vatican II, which may indicate that Mariology was careening too far towards the “Mediatrix of Graces” extreme pre-Vatican II. Or, they may have a point, as devotions and references to Mary within the liturgical life of the west are decidely not identical as before Vatican II.
At a minimum, this essential difference remains between East and West: Orthodox are bound much more closely to understanding their faith via their liturgical life, ie little variance exists between lex orandi and lex credendi. Catholics, for better or worse, have a greater variance, and depend more on their understanding of the Magisterium to fill in the greater gap. Clerics as consultants, institutionalized, as it were.
“While I think your analysis is in deed insightful, never the less I find it a bit much that you manage to take to task two hierarchs of the Orthodox Church whose positions you find offensive in succession. Would it not be more productive to write on works of other Orthodox theologians who are more supportive of a more gentle dialogue? Your comments about polemics tend to be rather polemical…”
Dear Hieromonk Gregory, may I ask a question? Aside from Orthodox bishops in the Diaspora (who live among Catholics and Protestants anyway), are there Orthodox bishops in the “old countries” who have spoken fairly and gently of Catholics and Protestants? Quite frankly, I’ve never heard of them. I’m not saying that they don’t exist; it’s just that they don’t seem to exist. If there are, please give me the names of these Bishops.
Wow, this is the most irenic “East vs West” style post I’ve read in quite some time, cheers gentlemen.
Eirenikon and Fr Gregory, thank you for your elaboration on the phrase “Theotokos save us,” I share Albion’s slight unease at this phrase, but your explanations make quite a bit of sense.
Ed, I’m right there with you, it saddens me to no end to see someone willfully distort the teachings of any church to score points. We (East and West)have real disagreements that would be far more beneficial to discuss than trying to suss out knots that purposefully have been tangled.
A simplesinner wrote:
If I had any real question, after reading:
“13. the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos and the development of the worship of Mary (mariolatria), according to which the All-Holy Virgin is elevated to Triune Deity and even becomes a concept leading to a Holy Quaternity (!),”…
The answer was pretty clear – no he did not understand the Catholic Church, and didn’t really seem to want to.
Perhaps the Archbishop’s statement isn’t quite as outrageous as all that, at least with regard to the informal beliefs held by some Catholics. I quote an anecdote told by the eminent Catholic priest and author Fr. Richard John Neuhaus from his book *Catholic Matters*, p. 108:
People on the way to becoming Catholic frequently raise objections about the current state of Catholicism. They don’t know the half of it… In my parish there is an elderly woman who really does believe in a Holy Quadernity, although she doesn’t put it that way. She was much taken with, and mistaken about, a homily in which I explained why we call Mary the Mother of God. I obviously did not explain it very well, for this dear woman thanked me for confirming what she has always believed: There is no point in praying to the son when you can go directly to the mother. I no longer try very hard to correct her. God will no doubt sort out her prayers.
I find Fr. Neuhaus’s sanguine attitude towrds this lady’s heresy only slightly less disturbing than the heresy itself.
Then there is the t-shirt worn by a teen aged girl that I observed at a Mass last week: “Mary I give myself to you/All that I have is thine”. Mariolatry is a problem in the Catholic Church. Joe
In the dogma of the Immaculate Conception let me point out several considerations from an Eastern orthodox perspective. 1. No council has proclaimed it to be an heretical utterance. 2. Our problem with the dogma is 3 fold: a. It is predicated upon a very narrow view of Original Sin. b. It was not a necessary proclamation in view of the fact that even within the roman communion it did not enjoy acceptance by several popes, nor was any Chritological controversy ensuing. c. It should have had a clear place within the life of both the church of the East and Wes. In reality the pitfall at dogmatizing is that collegiality qand primacy should act in concert. Over emphasis on primacy is always problematic to Orthodox Theology.
Now having said that, to make the dogma into raising the Holy virgin Mother of God to the rank of the divine fourth person is absurd, for the dogmatic pronouncement does no such thing. a Valid adage always remains: if you wish to find out what an ecclesiatical community teaches, check with their doctrinal statements.
Re: “Mariolatry”
Of course, there are poorly-formed Catholics who are fuzzy about the role of Mary in the economy of salvation. Of course, there are even more people (Catholics and, no doubt some Orthodox as well) who would look at you funny if you even used the phrase “economy of salvation”. But the folly (or sinfulness) of individuals is not the church-dividing point — that’s equally present in all churches, and is entirely beside the point. The problem here is that a bishop of one of the Orthodox Churches grossly mis-stated the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church. That in itself is church-dividing.
True dialogue that intends to unite the Churches — which Our Lord commanded and to which the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed — must be based on honesty about our true differences, not on myth or fantasy.
BTW, a charitable reading of the slogan on the girl’s shirt is that it was probably an awkward reference to the spirituality of St. Louis de Montfort. His notion of slavery to Jesus through slavery to Mary was the source of Pope John Paul’s papal slogan, “Totus Tuus”. That is itself the short version of St. Louis’ prayer of consecration to Jesus through Mary: “All that I have is thine, and all that I am is thine, Most Loving Jesus, through thy most holy mother Mary.” Nothing heretical there. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that many of our Orthodox brethren would find it a very attractive spiritual practice.
Carlos – It’s only one example, but even the second “unfortunate” (eirenikon’s characterization) piece by Russian Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev linked in the prior post concludes:
“I would like to reiterate that good and constructive relations between the Catholics and the Orthodox are crucial for the present and future of Christianity. We need a type of relationship based on the understanding of the fact that we are allies, not adversaries, that we have a common missionary task and face common challenges, to which we can respond together.”
I think that’s fair and gentle. My sense, to take it further, is that the whole Moscow Patriarchate is being a lot fairer and gentler toward Rome than even a few years ago. And then, we had the late visit between the EP and the Pope, which came off ecumenically enough that some on Mount Athos were quite angered.
There are a lot of bishops out there, and I don’t think we can paint with a broad brush in one color or the other.
Carlos,
Did you read the statements of Patriarch Bartholemew and Archbishop John Ziziolis who vistied the pope this week, and deliverd major position papers at a symposium held at the Pontifical Oriental Institute? The Greek Patriarchate have political considerations vis a vis the Turks, as opposed to political climate in Russia today. Actually there is a thawing going on between Moscow and Rome. The recent statement of Fr. Chaplin about no joint prayer may be a personal take rather than official position of the Moscow Patriarchate. But then again look at the liberal Protestant communities that make up the WCC, and the liberal RC wackos who do so much harm to authentic dialogue. If you know anything about the Assisi Conference held some years ago, that did not st very well with many Orthodox Faithful. Unfortunately reps from the Orthodox church attended. The more recent convocation held in Naples last year was far more muted, with the Pope being far less visible as was the case with the Orthodox Reps. I hope that this helps.
Gregory,
You have chastened the host here for presenting Orthodox polemics. But your negative attitude toward Catholics is only some shades more subtle.
I notice that you always write out the word Orthodox, but like to call us RC’s. You know full well that Catholics prefer to be called Catholics, while you insist on calling us Romans or RC’s. This is very poor judgment on your part. If you can be called Orthodox, we can be called Catholic. Simple fairness is a prerequisite for dialogue.
Is a good pope always one that is “far less visible?”
You have no idea what it is like to be a Catholic and have one’s faith continuously slighted if not denigrated. We should be able to expect better from our Orthodox bretheren–especially from a priest!!
I do not say what I do to be disrespectful, but to insist that the bar of mutual respect be raised, especially by clergy.
Andrew,
I understand your concerns. Those who have read this blog, or my previous one, know that I have little to no patience with Rome-bashers on the Orthodox side. I try my best to be sensitive about language here, and I expect combox posters to do likewise. This is not mere “political correctness” but a matter of basic Christian charity.
Aas to the use of the words “Latins” “Romans” “Papists” “Greeks” “Orientals” “Eastern dissidents”, etc. I won’t tolerate that sort of thing, but I haven’t seen any of it from posters yet. If these epithets have appeared on this blog, they have been in quotes from other sources (like the post “He who is not against us is for us”).
But let me come to Father Gregory’s defense here for a moment. Sometimes I use the abbreviation “RC.” Sometimes also I use the abbreviations “EO” (Eastern Orthodox) or “EC” (Eastern Catholic) or “BC” (Byzantine Catholic) or “AC” (Anglo-Catholic). It’s also possible that sometimes I’ve written out “Orthodox” while in the same place using the abbreviation “RC”. I certainly don’t mean anything by that, and I would give Father Gregory the benefit of the doubt here. Based on his other posts, he doesn’t sound like he’s here to Rome-bash.
I noticed that your comment begins with “Gregory” rather than “Father Gregory” or “Hieromonk Gregory.” This could be read as disrespectful, but I will also give you the benefit of the doubt (perhaps you forgot, or didn’t know how to address a hieromonk properly).
# 18. Joe,
I have been a Catholic all my life and a priest for 11 years. I have never ever come across someone who believed in a Quaternity either in name or in practice. This charge is just simply NOT an issue.
Thank you, Fr. J!
Of course Joe’s charge is absurd. Quaternity–gimme a break.
Eirenikon…please e-mail me privately when you get a chance.
God bless,
Diane, up way too late (having a blog-surfin’ orgy after giving ’em up for Lent)
You have no idea what it is like to be a Catholic and have one’s faith continuously slighted if not denigrated. We should be able to expect better from our Orthodox bretheren–especially from a priest!!
Amen.
And, pace our good host, it’s not just on the Internet either. You should see the lovely little tracts given out at our local Greek festival.
Diane,
I wrote a much longer response to your point about Orthodox anti-Catholicism … the blog ate it, but what I really wanted to do is call your attention to the following words of Archimandrite Serge Kelleher, a Greek Catholic priest in Ireland, about what feeds this attitude:
We should not forget that many Eastern Byzantine Orthodox clerics receive very little seminary education. What little formation they do receive is of low quality.
This, of course, is not a broad generalization. There are a few examples of outstanding seminaries and scholars within Orthodoxy. However, there is no systematic process of formation or even a broadly accepted formula for requisites in seminary formation.
Many of the larger jurisdictions supplement their own formation programs with attendance at Roman Catholic seminaries. Many smaller jurisdictions may have a period of study lasting 2 years before ordination.
This problem is self admitted in Orthodox circles. Many jurisdictions abroad have few resources and simply are not able to make an open ended commitment to 8-9 years of formation like Catholic candidates receive.
The result is, too often, a clergy that do not represent the best of Orthodoxy.
I seem to recall Pope John Paul II, probably in his letter Orientale Lumen, proposing that Orthodox scholars and students be welcomed in pontifical universities and other Catholic institutions. This would be so helpful, not only for Catholics to learn more about Orthodoxy, but also for Orthodox to learn more about Catholicism from Catholics themselves.
In my experience, so many Orthodox, even very intelligent ones, know Catholicism only through the lens of Orthodox critics (or, more often, through the repetition of popular oversimplified versions of their arguments). For instance, one often gets an earful about Augustine or Aquinas from an Orthodox convert, but I know very few Orthodox who have actually read the primary sources.