The very problem of Christian reconciliation is not that of a correlation of parallel traditions, but precisely that of the reintegration of a distorted tradition. The two traditions may seem quite irreconcilable, when they are compared and confronted, as they are at the present. Yet their differences themselves are, to a great extent, simply the results of disintegration: they are, as it were, distinctions stiffened into contradictions.
– Fr. Georges Florovsky, “The Ethos of the Orthodox Church” (an address to the World Council of Churches given in 1960); emphasis in original
From Torn Notebook
Eirenikon 
I find that incredibly helpful. But would we need to “unring bells” that can’t be unrung to reintegrate?
“But would we need to “unring bells” that can’t be unrung to reintegrate?”
IMO yes. But only if you believe one side has made additions to the Deposit of the Faith. Obviously there are those who will disagree. This is one major reason why Roman Catholics tend (there are obviously exceptions) to be so much more optimistic about restoration of communion than Orthodox.
I have never heard any Roman Catholics accuse Orthodoxy of adding doctrine. And the ones who (quite rightly from their POV) accuse us of heresy are often tut tutted by their co-religionists who point out that we have never held an ecumenical council anathematizing the RCC or its doctrinal additions. Of course they are approaching the entire question from a Roman Catholic perspective, i.e. It’s not a done deal without an ecumenical council. (I will for the sake of not straying avoid commenting on the 8th council.) Obviously that is not an Orthodox approach. though. And thus we are back to the bells that have been rung.
ICXC
John
It’s obvious that Florovsky’s point hasn’t been understood;
“The very problem of Christian reconciliation is not that of a correlation of parallel traditions, but precisely that of the reintegration of a distorted tradition.”
It’s not two traditions that need to correlate but one tradition that needs to blend. Both are in need of each other. As for accusations of “adding doctrine”, one could argue, with some plausibility, that the neo-Palamite theology held by some Orthodox, ( but not all), is an addition to doctrine. Neo-Palamism is as closely related to Palamas as neo-Thomism is to Aquinas.
“The two traditions may seem quite irreconcilable, when they are compared and confronted, as they are at the present. Yet their differences themselves are, to a great extent, simply the results of disintegration: they are, as it were, distinctions stiffened into contradictions.”
It’s the “stiffening into contradiction” that needs to be confronted and overcome.
I have never heard any Roman Catholics accuse Orthodoxy of adding doctrine.
That’s only because we play nice. :)
Just kidding. Really. But there is a certain truth in it. Accusations sometimes reflect more on the accusers than on the accused, if you know what I mean. ;)
Obviously, we believe there has been Development of Doctrine in Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox twist themselves into pretzels to deny this, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..
Of course, Development of Doctrine is not at all the same thing as “adding doctrine.” Not everyone, alas, gets that, no matter how often it is explained, even when it is explained by the indefatigible Dr. Liccione. Thus we keep getting the same tired assertions (not from you, John; present company excepted): “You Catholics change doctrine, invent new doctrines, add doctrines,” etc.
Perhaps we do not lob the same accusations at y’all simply because we know, from personal experience, how tiresome and silly such polemics are. And for no other reason.
What is the content of ‘Neo-Palamism’? Who made up this category? And more importantly *why* ? Think about it.
Neo-Palamism is the interpretation of Palamas by some Orthodox theologians who wished to counter Neo-Thomism.
Since Neo-Thomism itself is a distortion of Aquinas’ theology, the result was also a distortion of Palamas.
Photios,
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where the notion of Neo-Palamism comes from. I am far from an expert in this area, but I have heard the term used by both Catholic and Orthodox scholars – and not necessarily in a polemical manner.
“It’s obvious that Florovsky’s point hasn’t been understood”
Exactly. Florovsky’s point seems to be that it takes two to tango: both sides of the schism have made distinctions, which due to the heat of polemics, have “stiffened into contradictions” – and therefore both sides have to do a fair amount of crow-eating, or, at least, declare a mutual cease-fire, e.g. not being so quick to call each other’s developments “heresies” (see the Ratzinger formula).
I’m not sure when the term Neo-Palamism originated.
I do know that’s it’s now used by many to describe not the thought not of Palamas per se but of theologians writing or commenting on Palamas.
I think there’s quite a difference between the two, ( Palamas and Neo-Palamism).
If the “Neo-Palamites” are not “Palamites”, then who are “Palamites?” Who has been a faithful interpreter of St. Gregory’s works?
Palamas is a faithful interpreter of Palamas.
In other words, read Palamas first before reading interpretations of what he means.
The same principle applies to other Patristic theologians.
Origen is not Origenism, Augustine is not Augustianism.
I think it is important to distinguish the theologian from his interpreters, as Evagrius (comment #11) has done. For example, my friend who is studying Origen in graduate school informs me that the Alexandrine theologian is far more reserved and humble in his speculations than his students and later interpreters lead us to believe.
As with the interpretation of Scripture, we Christians need to acknowledge that we are always approaching realities with one hermeneutic or another. There is a distinction to be made between the “objective reality” and the always-subjective way in which we choose to see it. Some ways of seeings are closer to the reality itself; others are further. But to acknowledge that there is a distinction is itself a very helpful step, I think.
Perhaps what Fr. Florovsky observes in the quotation above (I couldn’t locate the full text) is that the integrated Christian hermeneutic has been fractured by the events of time, with each of its pieces flying away from the other. Not only that, each of the fragments has with time developed its own distinct features and peculiarities, perhaps to ensure its own survival independent of the whole, such that it has become more difficult for an observer to see that the fragment belonged to a larger object in the first place. This is why, while I do not deny that Eastern and Western theologies have developed into perhaps mutually irreconciliable (“ontologically different” forms), I believe that that at their respective cores they are in fact not only “in harmony” with each other—they are essential pieces of a lost whole. Our reconciliation as a people, then, lies in re-integration, not loosely stringing the broken pieces into a necklace.
The distinction stiffened in to contradiction unfortunately seems to be a hallmark of much of Orthodoxy; i.e. not western = Orthodox.
What I read in these words of an Orthodox priest is the kind of genuine kindness, generosity and reciprocity which is the only way that East and West can hope to come to the Unity desired by Christ. It is the very Spirit of Christ himself. I find this attitude sorely lacking among Orthodox interlocutors today. AndI must admit that in dealing with the Orthodox I have lost this Spirit myself. It is now perceptible on the internet that Catholics have cooled in their previous warmth toward the Orthodox whom we find cold, cold, cold–not to mention openly hostile to the Catholic faith.
Thanks for this glimmer of hope, Eirenikon, and the many other lamps you have lit in the darkness. If only the rest of us, myself included, could exhibit this same Spirit we now witness between Benedict and Bartholomew.
Fr. J—Amen!!!!