… [T]he reading of history that you have taken on from Joseph Farrell, that I think constitutes an ideology, in fact resembles, theoretically and rhetorically, the ideology of those who gave fuel to the Bosnian war. It presents a discourse wherein the West is conceived to have fallen from divine grace, and the chief villain of the story is St. Augustine. It is to his “dialectic” of divine simplicity, which you see as fundamentally akin to that of Eunomius, that you ascribe the manifold problems of the West. It may well be that you accord Augustine some credit as an honest Christian; but his thinking you consistently represent as heresy, “Sabellianism” or “Semi-Sabellianism.” When I say that this is an ideology, I mean that it is maintained only through a kind of willful disregard of Christian history. It presents a caricature view of both the West and the East, a caricature that arises from an impatience with looking at facts. Neither the East, nor certainly the West, was ever as monolithically Photian in its understanding of the trinitarian mystery as you make it out to be. That is one of the things, in writing this blog, that I have tried to show.
That impatience with looking at facts has serious consequences for Christian relations. The West is asked to renounce its own past, to take on a view of God that never really belonged to it. I do think that this is a kind of destruction of memory, implicitly a kind of violence, and that the West rightly rejects such a demand. And I know that theoretical violence often issues in the physical kind.
This is not to say that the West never perpetrated violence on the East, both theoretical and physical. And it is right that the theoretical and physical causes of violence be acknowledged and renounced on both sides. But my consistent claim throughout this blog has been that people like the Cappadocians, St. Athanasius, St. Maximus, and other fathers of the Church were constantly aware of the dangers of Christian misunderstanding, dangers of violence, and that they sought to obviate those dangers by perceiving, if at all possible, the underlying commonality of doctrine when there was a verbal disagreement. I think that that is what St. Maximus does in his Letter to Marinus. And I am pretty certain that the underlying commonality of doctrine St. Maximus defends in that letter allows for the orthodoxy of St. Augustine’s teaching on the Holy Trinity, in spite of what is said by Anastasius the Librarian.
In short, I think that Bekkos is a better reader of the patristic evidence than Photius is. It may be that you think such an acknowledgment is inconsistent with belonging to the Orthodox Church. Perhaps you are right; God is judge. But I have a great hesitation to leave Orthodox discourse entirely in the hands of those who are impatient with fact, and who thereby disallow the possibility of any Christian reconciliation from the outset …
Update (6/30/2008) – A new post at De unione ecclesiarum: “On exclusive truth-claims; or, What I Believe”
Eirenikon 
BRAVO!
Yes! this is right on target.
The arguments made by Farrell and many Orthodox (and Catholic) apologist like him are predicated an ideological reading of history that justifies violence.
Thinking about your argument, I think you are correct, many of those who engage in East/West polemics have as their goal the West’s (or East’s) renouncement of their past. I would go further, I can’t help wonder if the argument is structured so that–intentionally or not–reconciliation becomes impossible or at least increasingly unlikely.
Again, whether intentional or not, polemics of Farrell et. al., are not oriented towards the reconciliation of East and West, or even the repentance of the West, but the perpetuation of the estrangement.
Again, thank you, Peter (and Eirenikon), well spoken.
In Christ,
+FrG
Father,
I should also acknowledge that I’m not beating up on certain parties on the Orthodox side only. Any sort of theology – Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, whatever – can degenerate into mere ideology. A timely example on the Catholic side (rather extreme, yes) might be the SSPX.
Have no fear–I do not think you are beating up on anyone. While I recognize the ideology of estrangement in other Christian communities, it is only only my own, the Orthodox, who I feel can rightly criticize.
Cheers!
+FrG
Wow! Peter Gilbert is a treasure. And he sure can write. :)
Greetings and happy Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul! I’m mainly a lurker here, but I wanted to ask a question. I used to sing Vespers in Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) church. For Vespers of the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical Councils we sang the Kontakion:
The Fathers of the Council proclaim to us today that the eternal Trinity is one God and one Lord, explaining to us that it is of one nature, consubstantial, of one will and one act, not divided nor shared but existing in the simplicity of God’s being;
I was surprised to find divine simplicity mentioned in a Byzantine liturgical text. Is that used only by the Eastern Catholic? My Google search seams to suggest that. Does anybody know if it were ever used by the Orthodox? Thanks!
Cheers,
RL
I have been around academics long enough to be able to distinguish authentic scholars from hacks and ideologues. Peter Gilbert is an authentic scholar. He is born and bred Orthodox and has a deep love for his Church; but like any good scholar, he insists on attending to all the data as honestly and patiently as he can. He knows that life, and history, is more complicated, confusing, and ambiguous than our political, ideological, and religious commitments would sometimes allow us us to believe.
Ideologues are easy enough to spot. They have all the “answers” and rarely admit their ignorance. Their goal is to win arguments and squash their opponents. Their scholarship is at all times agenda-driven. It lacks that humility and modesty necessary for the authentic advancement of knowledge. Ideologues are often brilliant people, but their intellects are corrupted by their need to prove themselves right in all matters of importance. Victory is more important than truth.
Those of us who take our religion seriously are susceptible, I think, to that pride, narrowness, pretension, immodesty, and violence that characterize those who have been captured by ideology. We need authentic scholars like Peter Gilbert to summon us to reality.
These are all excellent comments and in particular I think that Pontificator puts the case with admirable succinctness and clarity. I was reluctant to chime in – in spite of the fact that I am honoured to count Dr Gilbert as a friend and now a collaborator – because I do not think it a good idea for non-Orthodox to wade into intra-orthodox “debate” (let us use a neutral term). In the same way I think it would not be very helpful for Orthodox commentators to weigh in on the often intemperate and violent “debate” currently being fought out on the internet over, for example, the FSSPX. The point has been made that Catholics too can and do give in to the temptation of substituting ideology for theology. This can sometimes be seen in the com box of this blog. An ideological bent is something which, ironically, unites many a man (I mean ‘anthropos’, not ‘aner’) to those he considers his sworn opponents.
I hope at some stage to find the time to write a longer contribution on Dr Gilbert’s blog, where he has done me the honour of offering me “hospitality” for the expression of my own thoughts, on a suject which has pre-occupied me for some time: the nature and necessity of dialogue, its incompatibility with polemics, and its distinction from apologetics. I think the latter point is not sufficiently understood. There must be a place for apologetics in our world where Christianity as such is under attack constantly. CONFESSIONAL apologetics, however, (those directed at “converting” other Christians to one’s own Church or one’s own “take” on Christianity) I find rarely fruitful or useful. They sometimes lead to selective blindness and more or less unconscious intellectual dishonesty. They almost always lead, I think, to a tendancy to exagerate the “perfections” of one’s own Church and not see as clearly as one should the good and beautiful things outside it. There is a tendancy among some Catholics and Orthodox to what I call “ecclesiolatry”. We are easily led astray into puting the gift in the place of the Giver.
Pehaps readers willl forgive me a personal refection. I am sensitive to these things because I was imyself, n a not so distant past, prey to many of these temptations: a confessional zeal but little respectful of persons; a polemical temperament ready to ride roughshod over the feelings of others; a self-centred conviction that one possesses the truth. As time went on I was, often painfully, forced to realise what was going on. What we smugly believe to be zeal for the truth is often nothing more than self-love, combined with neurotic fear.
I can claim no personal credit for having made some progress away from ideology as I have gotten older. The circumstances of life have forced me to face up to some realities about myself. These circumstances, often painful, were mercies of Christ.
If you understand what I am saying and you agree with me, then chances are you have yourself experienced something of what I am describing. But a word of caution is in order: it is easy to turn our zeal now towards those who display a tendancy towards ideology, and vent on them our wrath, which in reality will be in part self-directed. We will want to set others free, as we have been set free. We will be tempted to take up a sledge-hammer to break down the walls of prejudice which others have erected to protect themselves, but which have become prisons. We need to remember, however, that in this way we will only frighten them more and stiffen their resistance. Ideology thrives on fear. It seeks to use fear to manipulate others, and deep down it arose as a bullwork against our own internal fear. It is an idol which must be overthrown. But only gentleness can bring about its downfall.
Bedwere.
THe Menaion for July published by the Apostolic Diakonia of the Church of Greece (you can’t get much more Orthodox than that!) gives the text you appear to be quoting as the fourth of the stichera at the “Lord I have cried unto Thee” of Vespers for the Sunday on or after 13th July (which it calls the Feast of the Fathers of the Fouth Ecumenical Council, but which Orthodox Wikipedia gives as the Feast of the Fathers of the First Six Councils). THe translation you quote is rather loose for my liking, but we do find in the Greek a very clear reference to “One God and Lord…simple in all things, of one nature…with a common will and simplicity of action/energy” (Θεὸν ἕνα Κύριον…τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἅπασι, τῆς μιᾶς φύσεως…κοινῷ θελήματι, καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας ἁπλότητι). Of course one quotation without much in the way of context can hardly be conclusive (and we can be certain that those who say that the doctrine of divine soimplicity is a purely Western and philosophical doctrine will come up with their own…er “interpretation”). Nonetheless it is interesting, since it clearly talka bout simplicity in the context of divine nature as well as energy; and I am sure that there are lenty of others in both liturgical and Patristic texts. So thanks for mentioning this!
Father Paul: I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree that there is little or no place for confessional apologetics or that such apologetics rarely bear fruit. As with any human enterprise, there is always room for sin–and perhaps the apologetical enterprise can too easily foster certain sins–but, if we desisted from an activity simply because we are sinners, then we wouldn’t do much of anything.
The Internet is the proverbial two-edged sword. It seems to bring out the best and the worst in us sinful human beings. In my years of engagement with other Christians on the Internet, I have seen both–the best and the worst. I have exemplified the worst on many occasions, I know. But I have also seen and benefited from the best. I myself was brought back to the Catholic Church largely via Internet apologetics. And I have witnessed many other conversions and reversions wrought at least in part via Internet apologetics.
As to whether it is a good idea to make a case for one’s own communion: Well, with Francis de Sales inter alia, I would respond, Why ever not? If we believe we possess the fullness of the Faith, why would we not want to share it? Do not recent Vatican pronouncements encourage us to do precisely that? And is this not in line with classic, immemorial Catholic Teaching?
I know this is a particularly thorny subject when it comes to our relations with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. We regard them as “so close to us” (although they often do not return the compliment). But, as Lumen Gentium, the Decree on Ecumenism, and Dominus Iesus make clear, “close” is still not quite there. Sometimes I get the impression that some Catholics feel it is “six of one, half a dozen of the other” whether one is Catholic or Orthodox. But is this really Catholic Teaching? I would respectfully submit that it is not. No official Magisterial document has ever said such a thing. Church Teaching still (and always) holds that the fullness of the Christian Faith subsists in the Catholic Church. If this is so, why would we not wish to invite all our brethren, including the Orthodox, into that fullness?
I like to think of it in terms of the Fifth Joyful Mystery: the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. One does not find Jesus in a vacuum. Ideally one finds Him in the Temple of the New Israel–the Catholic Church. That is why evangelization and apologetics go hand in hand: We invite our brethren to find Jesus in the Temple He Himself has founded upon the Rock of Peter.
There is another compelling reason for confessional apologetics: self-defense. We Catholics may hesitate to go on the warpath versus other communions. But, believe me, Internet representatives of those other communions feel no similar hesitancy when it comes to attacking our Faith and our Church. And certain Internet Orthodox polemicists are active (one could almost say relentless) participants in this online Catholic-bashing. I do not think Our Lord either expects or wants us to sit back in silence while our Church is savaged, our beliefs are misrepresented, and our members are seduced away from the Church by lies and distortions. Quite the contrary.
Saint Peter enjoins us to be ready always to give a defense for our Faith–but to make our case in gentleness and love. It’s the “gentleness and love” part that too often falls by the wayside during Internet inter-religious discussions. But IMHO this does not mean we should abandon confessional apologetics. It means we (I above all) should start acquiring that “gentleness and love” stuff.
I commend Peter Gilbert, ( and the commentators), for their excellent viewpoints.
Someone has already pointed out how many of the ideologues lack humility with regards to the topics they discuss. To discuss such topics as the “nature of God”, the Trinity, Incarnation, grace, salvation etc; without immediately pointing out one’s limited understanding is dangerous, to say the least.
One can also point to a certain arrogance with those, past and present, that they disagree with but also with those they claim support their viewpoint. They claim to fully understand the latter, even to the point of correcting them.
And underneath all the ideology is a deep, willful, ignorance of the human condition, a willful ignorance that leads to a lack of charity.
What we smugly believe to be zeal for the truth is often nothing more than self-love, combined with neurotic fear.
I do heartily agree with this point, Father. That is perhaps why we should listen more and speak less. ;) But I still think there is a valuable place for confessional apologetics, as long as it is done in humility and charity. And there, of course, is the rub.
I think it would be fair for the readers to read this article and honestly ask themselves if this person expresses the mind and intentions of an “ideologue.”
http://filioque.com/farrell-continuum1.html
At the risk of being the lone dissenter here, I must say that I am not comfortable with the tone of Dr. Gilbert’s response mainly since it is not so much a general observation, in which case I would heartily agree with most of it. But because it was a response and there fore a criticism directed at someone whose comments do not in my opinion justify this critique. I have read the discourse between him and Daniel and I do not feel that Dr.Gilbert’s response holds water in this case, at least in so far as it was directed at Dan (Photias). In a very general sense I think his point is sound. But I think that the implied attack on Daniel was simply unjustified. In my experience Daniel has been a very clear if occasionally forward apologist for Orthodoxy.
Some of his comments back during the glory days of wide ranging and (usually) polite debate at Pontifications (memory eternal!) were instrumental in helping me to finally take the plunge and convert to Orthodoxy after decades of dithering. In posting this rather lonely dissent, I wish to in no way impugn Dr. Gilbert’s broader points which I reiterate are fair and sound. It is rather the implied attack on Daniel that I am uncomfortable with.
Under the mercy,
John
ICXC
John
Ad Orientem: May I ask what you converted from? If it was from Catholicism, then your case perfectly illustrates my point that we Catholics must engage in online confessional apologetics, albeit with charity and humility. Otherwise, we leave our own co-religionists vulnerable to “sheep-stealing” (please pardon the expression) at the hands of those online polemicists who feel no compunction whatsoever about arguing for their own communion, endlessly, at various venues.
John,
Thanks for that.
What gets me about all this is that I posted a two liner reply due to a standing challenge that Dr. Gilbert made to me to find one Latin writer before the schism that interpreted Maximus unambiguously in a non- “Augustinian” fashion. I posted a short reply saying:
“It looks like Anastasius Bibliothecarius holds to my interpretation of Maximus on this question Peter. And in being a Latin, it seems odd that he would contradict his own tradition if Maximus wasn’t quite getting them right.”
That’s it. Then we have a long reply by Dr. Gilbert that my views lead to physical violence. Look, I don’t care if people disagree with me strongly or even pointedly, but I didn’t waste 12 years of my life studying this stuff to be told that I’m “empty headed” and an ideologue that is a progenitor of “christian” violence. I’ve never read St. Justin Popovich and I’ve avoided some of the more extreme polemics as I investigated Orthodoxy, not because they ipso facto are false polemics, but that they didn’t answer any theological questions to move the discussion forward, which WERE paramount for me, e.g. the problem of evil, predestination, the eternality of the world, etc.
Have I been arrogant at times? Yes I have, and I beg everyone’s forgiveness for that. I’m a very intense and competitive person, and I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings in any way shape or form. I am like all of you concerned about the truth and a wayfarer on my way to sanctification.
To Dr. Gilbert publically,
I’m more than willing to work this out with you and listen to you as an Orthodox christian and to reconcile with you by any means necessary that is truth preserving. But I do not believe it is helpful for you to basically say I am a “fool” and an “idiot.”
Photios
Diane
If I gave the impression that I was opposed to any kind of defense of one’s own Communion, then I wasmyself forgetting the maxim I most love to quote: abusus non tollit usum. Our past exchanges here and elsewhere suggest to me that you and I differ, not so much on the principle, but on its application. I do not favour the proselytiing of Christians from Oriental Churches, preferring to suggest to them that they actively engage in the cause of unity, as Eirenikon and Dr Gilbert have both done. There is nothing scandalous in the fact that we disagree; it is indeed larrgely a matter of emphasis. Neither is there anything to impose infallibly the conclusion that I am right and you are wrong. I do however believe that recent official teaching in the Catholic church at least implies my view (that is one reason for example why the Lefebrists remain aloof from attemps by the Pope to procure a reconciliation) Please note that I am NOT putting you on the same level as those who refuse the evolutions brought about by Vatican II (whom I believe to be condemned almost inescapably to the trap of confusing ideology and theology). I simply believe that you and I do not draw exactly the same interpretation from those evolutions. Nothing dramatic there – it is part of what one may call the hermeneutical process, and the final conclusions will be drawn neither by me nor by you.
For the record, I do not take the same view concerning those Christians belonging to communions deprived of Apostolic Succession as the Catholic Church – I think with good reason – understands it. I think that concern for their spiritual welfare would involve encouraging them to join the Eucharistic communion of Christ’s Church. For some this may make ME an idealogue. One man’s liberal is another’s conservative. These days I dislike such labels intensely.
Diane,
I am indeed a former Catholic (sort of). I spent a large chunk of my adult Catholic life affiliated with the SSPX (mea culp mea culpa…). Thus you could argue that I was simply moving from one schismatic sect to another :-) With respect to online apologetics I have never had any problem with them at all and I rather enjoy a good discussion provided as you note, that it is conducted with charity and humility. I know that we ALL have fallen short of that mark at times. For which ask forgiveness.
Yours in ICXC
John
Photius
while there does indeed seem to be another tone in the article to which you direct us (I have often noted, and I try to understand, why belligerent anti-Catholic Orthodox are often more tender to the Anlicans), I cannot resist quoting from another article which I found by following a link from that by Dr Farrell which you recommend.
“It would be never enough for the Papacy simply to scrap the Filioque, let alone to simply “clarify” it. To become Orthodox, the Papists would have to dispense with the entire piety and the entire sstem of ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, theology, christology, mysteriology, pneumatology, etc. that are the products of the filioque. The papists are not simply in schism but are worshipping a different god, a god that does not exist, a god of their imagination . They are no church, their bishops are not bishops, and their mysteries are no mysteries at all.”
“And however much many of our clerics would refuse to say that they are not Christians, that their god is no god, that they are no church, and that it is unloving for me to say so, I say then may God condemn me…”
I could continue, but I believe I have quoted enough to show that the writer of these lines corresponds to most people’s definition of an ideologue. Now of course, we are not obliged to follow the judgement of “most people”, and as Christians (sorry if, for you, I am usurping the term…) we must at least sometimes refuse to do so. However, I do think that it reasonable to conclude that this author is violently prejudiced, that any attempt to dialogue with him is condemned to failure, and that any attempt to debate with him is a waste of time and energy.
the papists are not simply in schism but are worshipping a different god, a god that does not exist, a god of their imagination
What a lovely description. I’m sure it perfectly fits Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, Maximilian Kolbe, and Mother Teresa, among countless others.
And they wonder why we despair of fruitful interaction with such a mindset!
Fr Paul,
Those are not the words of Dr. Farrell, but of the testemony of a man named “Asher Black.”
Photios
I think the only man here that can actually lay claim to have read Farrell’s works is Al Kimel and you can read some of his thoughts of Farrell’s dissertation on Maximus the Confessor here:
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/predestination/
The questions here my friends are deeply theological and not about polemics. Polemics is a short coming to adequately express oneself respectively (in which I am no doubt guilty of). The arguments and the theology is what needs to be taken hold of and aimed at.
Photios
Photios
the identity of the author is immaterial. My point is that the “arguments and theology” cannot be “taken hold of and aimed at” because they seem to be the products of minds impervious to the possibility of any truth existing outside their own mental universe.
Fr Paul,
If this were a psychological problem in which I am impervious, then none of us would have become Orthodox in the first place. The fact that I was once a Roman Catholic and Dr. Farrell was once an Anglican, would seem to undercut that idea.
Even if such a psychoanalysis of my personality were possible to show that I have formed my habit in such a way as to make dialogue superfluous from your point-of-view, the arguments are still arguments that have to dealt with on their own terms.
Photios
Photius
I have known many people who have left one ecclesial body (to choose as neutral a term as possible) for another. In a number of cases, it has seemed to me to be because they perceived that the one in which they found themselves left them too little scope for their need to define themselves over and against the unacceptable other. This does not prove that they are reasonable or intellectually open.
In particular many such people find the post-Vatican II Catholic Church an uncomfortable place to be. Some leave for the logical contradictions of Lefevbrism or sede-vacantism. The latter is based on a logical fallacy which I believe it is easy to demonstrate. They are following a syllogistic argument – typically western I agre – which goes like this: the Pope is infallible. BUT the man claiming to be pope has erred. THEREFORE he is not the Pope. Here the major premise begs a distinction, and the minor is not proven, so the conclusion is unsound. If the minor were proven, and no distinction to the major were possible, then the only logical solution would be to conclude that the major is false, and cease to believe in Catholic teaching.
Others leave for the Orthodox Church. This involves no such logical inconsistancy, and can marshall serious arguments in its favour. You are right that that they must be dealt with. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is profitable to engage with a particular interlocutor . Without engaging in anything as impossible and beyond my competence as a pschoanalysis of anybody at all, most of all someone personally unknown to me, I am stating here only that I see little gain to be had in choosing to discuss the serious arguments with the writer of the lines I quoted above, and those who make his conclusions their own.
1. I find interesting the usage of the currently popular notion of connecting exclusivist rhetoric with what is essentially a necessary relationship to violence. One wonders to what degree the user of this logic, and his fans here, appreciate the intellectual pedigree of such an argument. I know that it is quite popular at the moment for Orthodox intellectuals to be taken with “post-modernism” but this convenient adoption of poststructuralist theory is a bit of a jolt.
2. The jolt demands questions regarding its particular application. If Perry’s rhetoric incites violence, then one would be inclined to bring out vast swaths of texts from a host of fathers of the Church, and assume a similar analysis regarding their work. We are not simply talking Sts. Mark of Ephesus and Photius here, as you all well know. While there are many examples of irenic prose in the fathers, there are just a many examples which would easily be categorized with that which Perry offers, and indeed, not a small amount that would seem to be even more potentially violence inducing. In fact, it is not uncommon for one and the same father to write sometimes in the irenic, sometimes in the “violent.”
It also seems to me that when one posits the whole theory of violence begetting rhetorical styles, one does so from a posture of self-aware enlightenment. In other words, to hold such a view demands a progressive view of human discourse, one in which we at some point crossed a line into proper civility and cannot go back without falling into the former darkness. If you read most, yes most, of what Latin Catholics wrote concerning Orthodox 100+years ago one finds rhetoric akin to how Perry’s and Daniel’s is portrayed here. Most Orthodox rhetoric from then and before was of the same sort. This would, in other contexts, seem to infer a well established rhetorical precedent. If that precedent is no longer accepted at the table, then one must assume there has been a break in that precedent.
3. Stating that Bekkos is a better reader of the patristic evidence than Photius, if here we mean St. Photius and not Daniel Photius, begs many a question. Is it inferred from this that Orthodox priests and even bishops might well teach the faithful to turn to Bekkos, who has been condemned, rather than Photius, who is a saint, with regard to these matters – matters which pertain to what got Bekkos in trouble with the Church and with much of the weight of St. Photius’ corpus? If we are suggesting this, there are consequences, ones which RCs do not often enough consider. To do this is to introduce a hermeneutic of mistrust for Orthodox. There was an article in First Things some years ago by an Orthodox priest who wrote of the infatuation of certain RCs with pro-western Orthodox in Moscow, pointing out that these very pro-western Orthodox loved in the West those intellectual themes which undermined all Christianity. They would be the allies of those who dissent from Rome in a Western context, yet certain conservative RCs found them quite useful. I get the same sense here.
4. The whole use of the term ideology here begs more questions? Are we using it in the Strauss sense? In the neo-Marxist critique of orthodox Marxism sense (a sense which has been now widely adopted in the Western academy)? Or is it rather a loose colloquial sense in which the term is used?
From my perspective, we live in an ideological age. Ideology is the usual though not necessary means through which modern Western educated humanS appropriate knowledge today. Yet the use of the term ideologue here appears in a manner as to render it no more than a question of psychology. In fact, the main “argument” against Perry and Photius here appears to be psychological with themes of socio-theology.
One sees the same sorts of intellectual methodologies which Farrell uses used all the time by RCs and Orthodox in all ages. The “willful disregard” of this or that is a matter of intellectual commitment. What does it mean to say that Perry has willfully disregarded this or that point from Christian history when he routinely responds to questions regarding such points in a manner that makes evident that he is aware of the information at hand via peer reviewed literature and has considered it before, other than essentially saying that Perry willfully ignores Christian history because he does not interpret it as I would have him? It clearly has more to do with Perry’s rhetorical style than anything else. And this causes me to wonder. De Lubac slyly suggests (in their letters), in as many words, that Gilson’s dismissal of the work of de Chardin was based on Gilson’s ideological commitment to his brand of Thomism. Was Gilson an ideologue? The man did say that Bach’s Mass in B Minor was a “liturgical monstrosity” – is that an instance of ideological anti-Protestantism? Josef Pieper categorically rejected the methods of modern advertisements, and theorized concerning the development of these methods and their effect upon the human person. All of it, he suggests, amounts to flattery. Is Pieper’s reading of modern mass-speak an ideological reading? One thinks of Chesterton on America, or Belloc on economics, or Ronald Knox on the Quakers. Are these men ideologues? Furthermore, if it is ideological to suggest that “The West [be] asked to renounce its own past, to take on a view of God that never really belonged to it,” then is it ideological for Roman Catholics to ask non-Christian peoples to renounce their former rejection of Christ, and take on a view of God which they had not formerly held? In the brave new world of rhetorical pacifism, how is evangelism possible?
That Perry, that Farrell, is considered an ideologue really matters little to me. I know Perry, and I know that he is not given to ideology any more than most of us, though certainly influenced by it, as are all of us. I do not know Farrell, and have only read his book on St. Maximus. What does concern me in this discussion, however, is that those who find themselves of different opinion or conviction than Perry clearly believe, as the combox here again makes evident, that they are less given to ideology than Perry. The language of rhetorical violence and its relationship to physical violence is itself ideological language (indeed, those who first widely disseminated this view believed that language could not escape ideology). If I may use the term with the same degree of breadth, ecumenism is defended here in an ideological manner. John 17 is read in an ideological manner. The Bekkoses of the world are here always praised, the St. Marks and St. Photius nearly always looked down upon. What unites the two communions is necessarily good, what divides is necessarily bad. Arguments concerning why the division is as it is are here deemed “unhelpful” and cast aside as necessarily being polemical. At best I believe you have an agenda which you are as committed to as you believe Perry is to his. What I find on this blog and those like it is “scholarship at all times agenda-driven.” Can you not see your own ideology?
6. But instead of arguing the merits of the agenda, which never seems to be enough, we go after the person. In private emails which I have read, and on several public internet occasions, Pontificator has offered his analysis, indeed spiritual analysis of Perry, and we get that again in comment 6 here. Those who go after Perry are always the “authentic scholars.” What I find so interesting in this now years long debate/debacle, is that the side of the ecumenists, which presents itself as the compassionate, caring, moderate, even-tempered, and urbane side of the debate, never seems to notice its own crass condescending elitism. Indeed, I would ask readers of this thread to consider Pontificators comments 6 above. Who is the Pharisee here? Who is in effect saying, “thank God I am not like other men,” by so contrasting himself with the ideologue so “easy enough to spot?” Oh, in order to wave our credentials of modesty we get the requisite we “are susceptible” to that which is so easy to spot, but the rhetorical posture found in Pontificator’s comment is of the man who thinks himself wise and looks down on the man he clearly thinks is, spiritually at least, a fool. That so many here are so taken with such language, and actually believe it to be the language of genuine humility and modesty, is a sign I hope that others note.
Many here do not like the way that Perry’s arguments make them feel, and in response to that, we get to read psycho-spiritual analysis. To misparaphrase Dostoevsky (himself clearly an ideologue, should you read his diary notes): therepy will save the world. You all so very clearly belong to your generation. May Rieff yet get his hearing
Photios: Would you include “the papists worship a false god” among those “arguments that need to be dealt with”?
I agree that there are arguments that need to be dealt with. But is that one of them?
“In a number of cases, it has seemed to me to be because they perceived that the one in which they found themselves left them too little scope for their need to define themselves over and against the unacceptable other. This does not prove that they are reasonable or intellectually open.”
That might be, but I don’t think that would be the case here in which I was an Augustinian in thinking and someone, from a soteriological standpoint, who held to an absolute predestination which Rome still holds as a plausible view per the De Auxillii Conference between the Dominicans and the Jesuits. It took a lot of study and a real paradigm shift to consider someone like say Maximus the Confessor as “solving” the predestinarian key for me in which my own Augustinianism seemed hostile towards to such a “semi-Pelagian.” Anyways, my concerns for conversion and the spiritual life I predicated on some existential issues I deemed important. Such is my testemony.
Everyone at some point has to end the search, make a decision, and find some existential peace. I found it in the Orthodox Church.
Photios
Diane,
How about we deal with what I write…if you wish to dismiss that stuff, that’s fine by me. I think you should focus on what the source material says and not necessarily what someone’s testemonial and strong feelings towards natural theology and the filioque. So, no you shouldn’t because it isn’t an argument.
Photios
Photios
between the testimony you have just given and the quotations I gave above there is a world of difference. I respect your journey, and I have grappled with the same difficulties. I personally remain an Augustinian, allthough I believe that the Latin Church did indeed argue itself into an impasse (and in effect admitted as much by the outcome of the De Auxiliis disputation). By following too exclusively the thought of Augustine it became to some degree the prisoner of the unresolved tensions in his theology. I do not believe that this unchurches me, or the millions of others who believe that they are Christians by belonging to the Catholic Church. If I did, I would of course have long since followed you, allthough I do not think I would necessarily be the kind of Orthodox you would approve of.
Might not the conclusion to be drawn be that following too enthusiastically and uncritically a thinker we find inspirational can lead us to make mistakes with heavy consequences? “I am for Paul, i am for Kephas, I am for Apollo”. Nor should we be too quick to proclaim, as another Corinthian apparently did “I am for Christ”, thus purporting to put ourselves above party strife, but in fact running the risk of dragging Him down to our own partisan level.
After posting my last comment, I reflected that I was perhaps falling into the trap I had myself described, wielding the sledge hammer and beginning to sound a little self-satisfied. I apologise for that. If our exchanges were to be carried out in the tone of your last comment, it might indeed be profitable and interesting to debate the issues you raise, as far as time and opportunity permit. Not only might we both learn something, but I for my part might even start to enjoy it.
Might not the conclusion to be drawn be that following too enthusiastically and uncritically a thinker we find inspirational can lead us to make mistakes with heavy consequences? “I am for Paul, i am for Kephas, I am for Apollo”…
Father Paul, that was my thought exactly, but you have put it so much better than I ever could!
Photios: Forgive me, but I almost wonder whether you haven’t simply moved from one ideology to another. Here’s what I mean.
OK, I’m a Cradle Catholic, so take it from whence it comes, but it would never remotely cross my mind to say, “I am Catholic because I am Augustinian.” No. I am Catholic because I’m Catholic. The Church comes before any individual theologian, no matter how influential he may be. The Church transcends her theologians and their theologies. It’s not like, say, Calvinism, where everything hinges on whether Calvin’s take on the Gospel is the right one.
Thus, for me, identifying the True Church is not a matter of pinpointing which communion has the “correct” theological system (according to my own private judgment). Rather, it’s a matter of pinpointing which Church Christ actually founded. (Which means it’s more an historical question than a theological or ideological one. For me, at least.)
For me, the Scriptural and patristic evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Church Christ founded is the Catholic Church, in communion with the Successor of Peter. Once that’s esatblished, we can go on to decide whether we’re more Augustinian or Cappadocian, whether we’re Thomist or Molinist or whatever. The Catholic Church is a pretty big tent, and there’s room under that tent for a wide diversity of theologies and spiritualities (within the parameters of de fide dogma grounded in the Deposit of the Faith). We don’t have to squeeze ourselves into a certain narrow theological grid associated with one theologian or theological school. Indeed, it’s best if we don’t.
All we have to do is believe the de fide dogmas. In non-essentials, as Augustine himself said, we have liberty. Which is why I’m a happy Molinist in happy coexistence with my Thomist / predestinarian co-religionists. Some things are simply mysteries (apophasis, ‘member?)…and we can agree to disagree, because we just don’t know.
And that’s the beauty of the Catholic Church, the Church of “Here Comes Everybody.” And that’s why it’s a Church — the Church IMHO — not an ideology.
Diane,
I was using my “Augustinism” as an example of my own personal development and paradigm shift. In other words, I’m capable of listening to new ideas, arguments, etc., and changing my mind.
I understand that you like to deal with the question of authority first. For me, I’m moved by the content of the faith as Maximus was.
Photios
1).I find it interesting to see a discussion on this blog in which I can participate while being unable to do so on the blog in question, ( being persona non grata- prevented from blogging), as well as another that touts itself “Orthodox”.
All because I’ve stated opinions that either questioned some assumptions or pointed out the “Amen corner” atmosphere of the blog.
2) Dr. Farrell is interesting. I have yet to find any referral to him or his work in any scholarly journal. I did find one referral in Henry Chadwick’s “East and West: The making of a Rift in the Church”. Professor Chadwick states that Farrell’s translation of Photius’ Mystagogy is adequate but for readers to avoid the introductory essay which he found tendentous. Farrell’s “magnum opus”, “God, History and Dialectic” is only available on the blog, “Filioque, the Sum of all Heresies”. It has not been reviewd by any scholar as far as I know.
3) I am intrigued by the references to Eunomius. Having just finished reading “Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution” by Richard Paul Vaggione, it seems to me that what happened to Eunomius was that he was a victim of being too reliant on a pre-Nicene theology believing it to be theologically and linguistically adequate for explaining the Incarnation. His faith in “tekne” ( rhetoric), and akribia, ( the exact definition of terms and concepts), made him unable to see the “grey areas” surrounding the Mystery of Incarnation. I find that there is, ironically, the same mentality among those who adhere strictly to the words and letters of some patrictic sources without recognizing or acknowledging the “grey area” of the context in which those words and letters are found.
P.S. Henry Chadwick died this past week at the age of 87.
A memorable quote; ““Nothing is sadder than someone who has lost his memory, and the church which has lost its memory is in the same state of senility.”
I understand that you like to deal with the question of authority first. For me, I’m moved by the content of the faith as Maximus was.
But was Maximus unconcerned with authority? I think it can be demonstrated that it was a very real concern for him.
Doesn’t it really come down, finally, to authority? If authority is not part of the equation–indeed the crucial part–then are we not operating like the Protestants, choosing our church based on how closely it accords with our own views? Even if we have undergone a “paradigm shift” and changed our views…if we then switch churches based on that, based on our paradigm shift, then how is this not a typically Protestant exercise of private judgment? How can we possibly rest secure in such a choice, which is grounded in the incredibly subjective exercise of our own judgment–our own “take on truth”?
I ask this sincerely. I sense in you a sincere readiness to dialogue, and I would like to respond in kind.
Photios,
I’m more than willing to work this out with you and listen to you as an Orthodox christian and to reconcile with you by any means necessary that is truth preserving. But I do not believe it is helpful for you to basically say I am a “fool” and an “idiot.”
I never had the intention to assert that you are a “fool” and an “idiot.” I asserted that a certain reading of Christian history is empty-headed; that is to say, it doesn’t answer to the evidence. You presented to me one piece of evidence, a text by Anastasius the Librarian; in my post, I gave an interpretation of why that evidence took the form it did, and presented you, in return, with a series of texts to show that the Augustinian view was, in fact, already widespread and authoritative in the West at the time St. Maximus wrote. The issue was not you; it was a theory, espoused by many people; I mention some of these others in the post (Jean-Claude Larchet, Theophanes Prokopovitch, Adam Zoernikavius). In your subsequent comments to the post, you consistently refused to address the evidence I had produced, and — in a way that I have found pretty predictable from previous exchanges — went directly towards telling me that my ignorance would be enlightened if I’d only pay attention to the great Farrell and read the indispensable Siecienski, and taking personal offense at supposed slights. It’s a routine, Mr. Jones, that I find pretty tedious.
If you want to engage in a dialogue on my blog, I would ask of you certain favors:
(1) Make it clear, in your response to a post, that you have actually read the whole thing and understood the argument that is being made in it, and respond to that argument.
(2) Do not present me with an ever-increasing battery of charges to which I am expected to respond in my unlimited spare time. Address a central point, address it with civility, and wait for a reply before you find additional things to say about it.
(3) Understand that a basic assumption of dialogue is the possibility of friendship in a common acknowledgment of truth. Do not cut off that possibility from the start by adopting a gratuitously adversarial stance.
(4) If possible, take the time to use proper grammar and spelling. The lack of it is a sign of haste and thoughtlessness.
The chief thing I would hope to see, on the part of both of us, is some acknowledgment that the other is, before all else, a fellow Christian, and both of us, from our different standpoints, love the same thing. Consider me as someone standing in the same congregation as you on a Sunday, someone whom you may not agree with on all things, someone who has perhaps irked you in various ways and whom you have repaid in kind, but who, when the priest comes out from behind the altar with the Body and Blood of Christ, also partakes in that same Body and Blood. We have, in fact, a responsibility to be at peace with one another.
Peter
Diane,
Private judgment is inescapable for any person. Ever single person makes private judgment about one thing or another. Your willingness to follow the Pope and to come back again as a Catholic is in fact a private judgment, because it is all your own. It was your decision to make and no one made it for you.
I think you are confusing private judgment with what is normative. My judgment to follow Orthodox dogmatics is indeed my own and nobody else’s. My judgments in and of themselves are not sufficient to bind the conscience of the faithful barring a direct experience of God Himself. The Ecclesiastical judgments on the other hand are normative especially if they are following the teachings of those who are “Fathers.” In that respect, the teachings of the Church are not a “divine intervention” that “coopts” or determines the human will in such a way that it is divorced from the spiritual life that the teaching or dogma is based on, but rather grounds it.
Photios
Peter,
Fair enough. I’ll take you up on all your points.
Photios
Peter,
Fair enough. I’ll take you up on all your points.
Photios
Photios- Really? Then how about letting me make comments on your blog?
Photios: That is all very well, but how does it prove your truth-claims? Catholics, too, have “normative” ecclesiastical judgments, you know. ;)
Sorry, folks. I didn’t mean for this post to get so personal. I think it’s best to close the combox.