Via two excellent blogs with serious ‘traditionalist’ credentials – Ora et Labora (Russian Orthodox) and Rorate Caeli (Roman Catholic) – I present the following new official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Apolytikion, Mode 1
Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.Kontakion, Mode 1
We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.
This (as Mr Palad of Rorate Caeli points out) coming mere months after the election of the new Serbian Patriarch, Irinej (Gavrilovic), a ‘moderate’ who apparently welcomed the idea of a papal visit to Serbia (which would be the first in history) and even proposed that it happen in 2013, in commemoration of the 1,700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan.
Some readers may be familiar with St Justin’s famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) declaration: “In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope.”
Eirenikon 
“In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope.”
Well, however much I believe we should strive for union, that is, in the end, a pretty good summary of the Orthodox position. In the history of Christianity, the departure of the first Bishop from the Church is, I believe, our greatest tragedy. And the greatest witness against the Gospel.
St. Justin Popovich saw a bold break with Church tradition in terms of the dogma of papal infallibility. In his mind papal ifallibility was the culmination of European humanisms in the Western Church. He saw all the European humanisms as striving consciously or subconsciously for one result, which is, the replacing of faith in the God-Man with faith in man. In St Justin’s mind the dogma of papal infallibility allowed the pope to usurp the voice, jurisdiction, and prerogatives of the God-Man and his body the Church, and replace the conciliar episcopacy with the papacy. St. Justin believes the pope effectively proclaimed himself as the Church, the papal church, and he has become the end-all ruler in all matters.
John W. O’Malley wrote in America Magazine August 26, 2000, “Pius’s interventions and the emotional pressures he directly and indirectly applied to the bishops, as when he threatened, ‘If they won’t define it, I will do it myself.’ Cardinal Guidi, an ardent infallibilist, proposed to the council that it was the papal magisterium, not the person of the pope, that was infallible and that this magisterium was infallible only when exercised in accord with the episcopacy. Pius, angry, dressed him down that evening with the famous words, ‘I am the church! I am the tradition.'”
Subdeacon Joseph,
As I have mentioned before, I think many Orthodox fundamentally misunderstand the Vatican I definition. Significantly, nowhere in any of the canons is the Pope described as “infallible.” And I very much doubt Pius’ ever said ‘If they won’t define it, I will do it myself.’
You can’t believe everything you read in America Magazine which is a liberal and largely anti-Papal publication. If you are interested, I would recommend instead the following scholarly historical treatment by Robert Lockwood which came out in the same year as Fr. O’Malley’s rant: http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=The+Papacy&id=99
Michael,
Roman Canon Law does not not define the pope as infallible, the dogma does. If I understand it correctly the infallibility refers only to the pope’s teaching concerning faith or morals, and then only when the pope speaks officially as teacher addressing the whole Church with the intention of obliging its members to assent to his definition (and this intention must be manifest, though not necessarily expressed); that neither impeccability nor inspiration are claimed; that infallibility is personal to the pope and independent of the consent of the Church. This doctrine was declared by some, but not all Vatican I fathers to be an implicit tradition handed down from apostolic times.
Canon 333 (Roman) states sec.2 that the pope as supreme pontiff has the right according to the needs of the Church to determine either personal or collegial as to how he exercises this function. Sec.3, and I quote, “There is neither appeal or recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” While Roman canon law does not implicitly define the dogma it nonetheless juridically codifies and facilitates the administration of the dogma.
What the Orthodox cannot accept is that infallibility is personal to the pope and independent of the consent of the Church, and by the Church I mean the voice of all the bishops, and in extremely rare circumstances the consent of the laity too. Twice in the history of the Orthodox Church the laity have told the bishops they were wrong on issues. And this is a brief reason why St. Justin believes that the dogma of papal infallibility was the final end result of European humanism. It authorizes a bishop, not a college or synod, with the authority to exercise dogmatic teachings over the whole Church with no appellate option (Because a man can be wrong). Many Roman bishops at Vatican I saw this dogma as outside the tradition of the apostolic faith. In history it wasn’t only the Orthodox that felt this way.
I look forward to reading the article by Fr. Lockwood. I do have one question though, while you allege Fr. O’Malley has an agenda, and I take you on your word concerning this, I have read those statements before and could find other sources for them. For the sake of discussion what do you say to a) ‘If they won’t define it, I will do it myself.’ and b) ‘I am the church! I am the tradition.’”?
Subdeacon Joseph,
Let me work backwards. Pius certainly said “I am the church! I am tradition.” But he said it casually in Italian in a non formal context and, in a sense, he was correct if you don’t take the words too literally.
Catholics believe that the Petrine function is inherent to the Church, and that it is Pope who holds this function in the fullest sense. Therefore the Pope serves as the source of unity for the Church. Where the Pope, is so is the Church, and this what Pius meant. He did not mean that he was the whole Church or that the Church ended with him.
As to being “tradition,” the Pope is the voice of Tradition. This in fact represents the most important limitation on his ability to teach infallibly, yet is largely ignored by critics. If the Pope is not speaking to Tradition, i.e. if his teaching cannot be found in the Fathers, if it is in contradiction to the accepted deposit of the faith, he is simply not teaching infallibly. The bishops gathered in an ecumenical council are subject to exactly the same limitations; they embody tradition insofar as they are faithful to it (which, btw, is why Catholics do not attach any infallibility to conciliar decisions regarding canon law which is mutable, unlike the faith, or to condemnations of persons as only God knows the hearts of men).
I am sure that “If they won’t define it, I will do it myself” is apocryphal. I doesn’t make any historical sense, as there already was a consensus regarding papal infallibility, and the issue was never in doubt. The bulk of the bishops opposed to it (and they were clearly in the minority) were inopportunists, i.e. felt that a definition would be inopportune at that time.
Your statement that “many Roman bishops at Vatican I saw this dogma as outside the tradition of the apostolic fatih” is incorrect. At most only a handful initially dissented on such grounds, while perhaps 20% of the council Fathers opposed the definition as inopportune. On the final vote, only two voted against and ultimately only one refused to sign. The sixty or so bishops who had left the council (including the Melkites) to avoid voting in favour ultimately all signed.
Your reference to Papal decrees and judicial decisions is not germane to this discussion. In the Catholic Church, the Pope has been endowed with final appellate and legislative authority by his fellow bishops, but this is not inherent in his teaching function. It’s just the way practice has evolved over time. It has nothing to do with infallibility.
Still going backwards let us compare your phrasing with the actual words of the council.
This is you: “infallibility is personal to the pope and independent of the consent of the Church”
This is the council: “…such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
It is the definitions, not the Pope, that are irreformable (i.e. infallible). They are so “of themselves,” as opposed to from the consent of the Church (i.e. post facto consent of the Church does not make a doctrine objectively true). Nowhere in the definition does it state that the definitions are “independent of the consent of the Church.” That would be logically absurd, as a doctrine cannot be taught effectively if the rest of the Church chooses to ignore it.
Finally, while your initial paragraph is otherwise correct, the dogma does not “define the Pope as infallible.” There is a distinction between the person and the teaching, and it is maintained consistently.
So only the teachings of the pope on faith and morals can be defined infallible independent of the Church irreformable. Therefore while the bishop in Rome can err in his person, he cannot err in the exercising of his teaching on faith and morals ex cathedra. I understand the separation between the teachings and the person. It still would not change the fact that other Roman bishops were opposed to the dogma as the Orthodox still are.
The greatest opposition came from Germany and Austria, joined by all the Hungarian bishops headed by the primate of Hungary, Simor, Archbishop of Estergom, and Haynald, Archbishop of Kalosca. Prominent in this group was Joseph Karl Hefele, Prof. at the University of Tubingen and later Bishop of Rottenburgh. Joseph George Strossmayer, Bishop of Diakovar, was an unflinching witness for the minority. There was also Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans. Another leading French prelate was Georges Darboy, the brilliant Archbishop of Paris. There was Henri Maret, Bishop of Sura, dean of the theological faculty of the Sorbonne. From England William Cliford, bishop of Clifton, and Archbishop George Errington represented the minority. The Irish bishops were John McHale, Archbishop of Tuam, and Bishops Moriarty of Kerry, Furlong of Ferns, and Leahy of Dromore. From N. America the opposing bishops were Archbishop McCloskey of New York, Kenrick of St. Louis, Purcell of Cincinnati, Connolly of Halifax, and nineteen other U.S. bishops. And the anxiety of John Henry Newmann cannot be forgotten, even though he supported it in the end with grave hesitation.
These were some of the most illustrious and best educated bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. So great was their resistance that the council had to employ closure. While I grant some of this minority saw it as inopportune timing for the passing of this dogma, the majority did not. Darboy was correct when he said that papal infallibility could be supported by neither history or common sense (The Triumph of the Holy See pg. 153).
Subdeacon Joseph,
I don’t understand your “So only the teachings of the pope on faith and morals can be defined infallible independent of the Church irreformable.” It is best to stick to the actual words of the council. Significantly, the word “independent” doesn’t figure anywhere in the canon.
All those you cite were “inopportunists.” They agreed that the doctrine was true, but felt that defining it was unnecessary and would prove counterproductive on a number of grounds. You cannot simply ignore their publicly stated reasons for opposing the definition, and then blithely ascribe Orthodox views to them. ALL the bishops you cited signed. Mgr. Dupanloup, notably, was amongst the first to do so. The only bishop who categorically refused to agree to the definition was Mgr. Alosio Riccio. That’s ONE out of about 1,000 Catholic bishops, 600 of whom attended the council.
If you were to tell me that Orthodox bishops now oppose the definition, as did the minority at Vatican I, on the grounds of expediency, I would have to describe this as an ecumenical breakthrough. Unfortunately, we both know that this is not the case.
Perhaps we can discuss this again after you have read Lockwood’s description of the proceedings, and had an opportunity to verify the accuracy of his very detailed treatment. This is not ancient history on which there is little documentation. The proceedings of the debate along with press reports on statements made by the various bishops both inside and outside the confines of the council are freely available to anyone who wishes to consult them.
Michael,
I didn’t subscribe Orthodox views to all the dissenting bishops of Vatican I because I was careful not to do that. I take issue with that charge. I will read Fr. Lockwood’s description, and, look further into cited opposition to the dogma by the bishops above.
To be honest, I think it was unfortunate that so little effort was made at Vatican I to attempt the incorporation of Orthodox thinking on the infallibility of the Church’s teaching function, and to root papal infallibility firmly within this understanding.
Still, the almost complete unanimity of the Catholic bishops in 1870 regarding the reality of the Pope’s ability to speak infallibly for the Church as its president should be sobering. As this consensus clearly predated the council, extending back into a time during which the two communions were not viewed as being doctrinally all that different.
This testifies to a fundamental yet, at the time, largely unperceived breach in the habit of common ecclesiological reflection and discourse. East and West just stopped listening to each other after Florence, out of hatred and resentment by the East, matched by contempt and complacency by the West. Instead, both sides indulged in faulty constructions of the other, preferring to dismiss these constructed “straw men” to dealing with the real articles.
This is why I am so eager to attend this June conference in New York on “Eastern constructions of the West.” It should perhaps go without saying that I would be equally interested in one on Western constructions of the East.
Western constructions of the East: We really like youse guys. Why won’t you like us back?
;)
Ah, but that’s only a relatively recent Western construction.
Besides Orthodox anti-ecumenists keep volunteering to tart up the earlier ugly lean-to that previously served us so well (or not!) as conceptual housing for our poor benighted Eastern sisters. ;-)
Diane,
I do like you guys. I am often envious of the order in the Roman Church. Good to see you here again Diane!
Michael,
I would love to go but as a poor seminarian and a thesis writer this summer my time and means are exasperated.
Michael and Diane,
I’m slowly becoming convinced I’m one of the few Orthodox in my world who actually want to understand why Roman Catholics think and believe the way they do. I’m considering attending the Franciscan University of Steubenville after seminary next year for an M.Th in Roman Catholic theology, and so far it has been met with caution and resistance by some of my authorities in the Church. We shall see.
I would take their concerns very seriously, if I were you, and stick to studying for your Masters thesis at an unquestionably Orthodox institution.
This is not to say that you have to take an anti-ecumenist as your thesis advisor, but there is always a very real danger of unwittingly becoming captive of an “alien” theological tradition before having fully mastered one’s own.
I would hold off on attending Steubenville until you are ready to do a doctorate. That said, Orthodox seminaries sometimes have Catholic lecturers, and you could also perhaps negotiate with your thesis advisor so as to attend Steubenville for a term or a few specific seminars while still intending to submit your thesis to an Orthodox institution.
Still, it’s your call.
Michael,
I obviously didn’t make myself clear. The thesis I’m writing this summer is for seminary here. I present it this fall to my adviser, it comes back, I make corrections, it is reviewed and passed by two profs. (I hope!), I graduate, and after that or sometime before, God willing, ordination.
I was considering doing the distance education module with mandatory three week summer sessions at F.U.S. for a separate M.Th degree not related to the B.Th I’m currently working on ( Our B.Th is somewhat equivalent to a S.T.B. in that you have to have an undergraduate degree to enter the program. It was designed with that model in mind and has never been updated). Of course I would do this after I graduate from seminary. But maybe taking classes only in areas of interest would be better. I like the program because the profs. teach according to the Magisterium, and no matter where I’m assigned as a priest I can still do the classes.
I’m not too intrested in the above debates regarding the primacy of the Pope- those discussions can go on and on like the Energizer Bunny.
I’m more interested in finding out the purpose of what occured.
It seems to me that this is not just an “ecumenical reality check” but a movement backwards, towards reinvigorating emnities that should have had their day.
Well said, Evagrius.
The Serbian situation is complex.
The current Patriarch is a moderate, but he was not elected by a majority in the synod. Instead, when three candidates failed to achieve a majority, he was chosen my lot.
It might also be a bit much to expect the Serbian Church to be all sweetness and light towards the West given recent Balkan history.
Kosovo remains a thorn, and the recent financial/property scandals involving the hardline Metropolitan there suggests some sort of shake-up is likely.
How the chips will fall is still an open question.
Btw, completely of topic, and assuming anyone can answer this, what is it with Orthodox clergy and financial scandals? It’s like with the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. They only seem to make the news these days when they have their hand in the till, or are trying to rip off or make off with someone else’s property whether it’s in the USA, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Greece, the Holy Land or now Kosovo. One would have thought that aged, life-long monastics would be beyond this sort of thing.
If it isn’t sex it’s money and vice-versa.
We’ve had our share of sex scandals. One case comes to mind: a married* priest and instructor at St Vladimir’s taking sexual advantage of a young student whom he was counseling for confusion about sexual orientation. The priest (to the credit of his hierarchs) was very quickly deposed from the sacred ministry; but the young student (who was publically demonized by some in the Church) later took his own life.
*No, the married priesthood will not prevent homosexual and paedophilic misconduct.
Anyone wanting the “dirt” on Orthodoxy in America can go to the website Orthodox Christians for Accountability. Made more than a few bishops furious.
Michael,
Concerning The Syllabus of Errors it seems St. Justin and Pope Pius IX shared an eerily common worldview concerning modernity. Very interesting syllabus, I plan to read it in its entirety soon. It seems from the article that much of the syllabus could possibly be relevant today.
Two question arose: Considering the sweeping and rampant anti-Catholicism the Church was facing in Europe during Pius’ pontificate, is it possible this prejudice and hatred factored into the revelation of the dogma of infallibility being promulgated at an “inopportune time”? A second question, did the promulgation of the dogma succeed in securing and protecting the Church’s teaching and moral authority? What I mean by this is that sadly I see many Roman Catholics openly rejecting the very moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church today. Last semester in seminary we watched a Latin High Mass and attended one also. Then our prof. had us watch a slide show he created of the many blasphemous mass abuses. After having witnessed the mystery and majesty of the Latin High Mass, and the stunning beauty of the Gregorian chant, I was sickened to see that bishops allow such atrocities to go unchecked. And if those bishops won’t stop the blasphemy, why won’t the pope? At least this Orthodox Christian sees the need, in this situation, for
The German Shepherd to exercise his universal authority like a mother Rottweiler protecting her litter of precious pups.
Fr. Lockwood said, “However, it had never been clearly defined as to the extent of that infallibility and that is where true divisions existed.” I suppose this is where the Orthodox and Catholics are today in dialogue.
Fr. Lockwood also said, “There were some that rejected outright any definition of papal infallibility as unclear within Catholic tradition.” It seems not all the bishops were inopportunists.
The Syllabus, written in a different age and in circumstances different from our own, has one major flaw in that it attacks whole ideological perspectives without adequately distinguishing between their positive features and those elements that constitute a rejection of Christian teaching. This leads to resistance by, and ultimately a crisis of faith for, Christians who value those aspects of the anathemized ideologies that are compatible with Christian doctrine.
“…is it possible this prejudice and hatred factored into the revelation of the dogma of infallibility being promulgated at an “inopportune time”?”
Whether the definiton was historically opportune or not is hardly a given. But yes, political currents may have played a greater role in the perceived necessity for the definition than did actual dissent over the doctrine itself. That said, Jansenism (primacy of individual conscience and piety), Gallicanism (national Churches as sui juris constitutive elements of the ecclesia) and Erastianism (the Church as agent of the religious policy decided on by the state) were all theological currents hostile to Papal authority, and served as ecclesiological Trojan Horses with which to undermine this authority (much as theological liberalism is in Catholic circles today.) and, as a consequence, the orthodoxy it defended in the face of modernist criticism. I hope this makes sense.
“A second question, did the promulgation of the dogma succeed in securing and protecting the Church’s teaching and moral authority?”
For a time, yes, but at the cost of a lasting rupture with “progressive” social forces, and an unfortunate identification with their reactionary opponents.
“And if those bishops won’t stop the blasphemy, why won’t the pope?”
The Pope does intervene when abuses reach the level of “blasphemy.” Such cases are actually quite rare, however, and usually one-offs. I have never encountered blasphemy in church myself. Part of the problem is that liturgical tastes vary. Lituregical irreverance is largely in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, the resources to support certain liturgical preferences (choirs for example) are not always available, and prudential judgment might lead to a greater stress on other aspects of mission.
As Fr. Paul notes below, whatever the faults of individual bishops, critics often fail to appreciate the degree to which Catholic bishops are sovereign. They can’t be laicized, even by the Pope. To my knowledge, no Catholic bishop has ever been deposed over use of a liturgy (no mater how “irreverant”) that did not spill over into actual heresy.
“Fr. Lockwood also said, “There were some that rejected outright any definition of papal infallibility as unclear within Catholic tradition.” It seems not all the bishops were inopportunists.”
No, I would still describe these as “inopportunists.” They didn’t disagree with the doctrine that the Pope could teach infallibly. They just did not believe that Tradition could not support the doctrine with the narrow precision articulated at Vatican I.
In a sense, they were certainly right, as all Catholic theologians agree that a number of restrictive qualifications for the exercise of dogmatic infallibility are not explicitly included in the definition, and must be inferred from elsewhere. Furthermore the definition does not exhaust all circumstances in which infallibility applies.
All the Fathers at Vatican I managed to do was describe some narrow circumstances under which infallibility is entailed. Some have sought to use the very narrowness of these defined circumstances to contest the infallibility of other papal pronouncements that would qualify according to other criteria that were not explicitly spelt out at Vatican I.
One case in point is JPII’s statement that it it is not within the Church’s power to extend ordination to women. As this involves a restatement of universal and heretofore uncontested teaching applicable to the whole Church and all believers, it has all the objective characterisitics of an infallible definition. Yet it lacks some of the technical features associated with the Vatican I definition, so some liberals argue it has no binding force.
It’s very impressive how you avoid dealing with the question of what is “authority’.
I am not sure I understand. I tried to answer all of Subdeacon Joseph’s questions. Where was he asking for a definition of authority?
Well, there is a similarity between Fr. Justin and Pope Pius in that both saw what they perceived as “authority” being not just questioned but dismissed as irrelevant.
More and more, I find that the little work, “Freedom and Authority”, by the late Paulos Mar Gregorios of India, is extremely relevant, no matter how dated some of his remarks may seem.
Essentially, he argued that any authority based on power and coercion was doomed, by its very nature and by “modern” society’s emphasis on “personal freedom”, because it was not based on authentic truth. He argued that Christianity must recover the meaning of true authority as exemplified by Christ.
Any authority, nowadays, cannot be coercive but only persuasive. That means that the authority proceeds, as it were, not from the “office” of the authority but from the deep personal experience of the office holder. That is how the “validity” of the office becomes authoritative.
I don’t find it that remarkable or puzzling but rather sad that someone like the Dalai Lama, a Tibetan Buddhist, can, somehow, have more respect and authority in the “post-Christian” world than any Christian authority. His pre-eminence is not just a result of a media fascination but the result of the recognition by many of how true authority must be linked with not power but, as the Buddhists would say, compassion.
This isn’t to say that Christianity lacks persons with that type of authority.
Subdeacon Joseph
the questions you raise about theological dissent and liturgical abuse might seem naive to some but they are an important test, demonstrating that the Catholic Church is not as monolithic as many (Catholics and others) believe and that papal authority is not as absolute.
However deplorable these cases might be they show that the Pope cannot effectively exercise his authority without the cooperation of the bishops. He cannot micro-manage the whole Church and nor should he try. The Vatican has pressured some bishops into acting in a few egregious cases of heterodox teaching and liturgical abuse “pour encourager les autres”, but in general it relies on the bishops to do their job. Unfortunately, in general they don’t.
The fact is that bishops in the Catholic Church (as in most others which posess them) have become administrators to the detriment of being pastors and teachers. The promise they made at their episcopal ordination to defend and teach the Catholic faith is usually way down the list of their priorities, although this situation has started to evolve positively in some countries (not, alas, my native UK). The then Cardinal Ratzinger once said, in a remark I thought of brilliant insight (a qualifier I usually give when prominent people say what I myself think!) that the much-desired decentralisation in the Church will come about of its own internal dynamic when local bishops start do do their most important job – that of being shepherds of souls and teachers of the Faith once received from the Apostles.
p.s. It is interesting that witrh regard to the abuse scandal, the voices being raised to condemn the Church for not acting in a way which befits a monolithic multi-national institution which sacrifices subsidiarity to (largely imaginary) efficiency are precisely those which until now have had form in demanding decentralisation whether opportune or not. The liberal press, both Catholic and secular, has forgotten its advocacy of the autonomy of local and national Churches in its outrage that the Vatican has not dealt expeditiously with every case at the highest level.
Excellent point, Fr. Paul. I’ve noticed that irony, too. :)
Not to mention the fact that the recent NYTies smear campaign, which dredges up old cases that were publicized to death at the time they were first exposed, has not been able to link a single case to the pope. Moreover, in both the Wisconsin and the Oakland cases (the two the NYT salivated over), the perp *was* in fact removed from ministry expeditiously. The problem (per the NYT) was that they were not laicized fast enough — never mind that laicization would not have had the slightest effect on their predatory behavior; if anything, it would have facilitated it, since they would no longer be under diocesan oversight. And, if memory serves, it was the civil authorities, not the Church, that dropped the ball on jailing the Wisconsin perp (NB, the Catholic Church does not run the prison system!), yet the smearers conveniently ignored this and instead tried to implicate the pope.
Aidan Nichols OP says concerning Orthodox nationalism, “An extreme example is the widespread philosophy in the Church of Serbia which goes by the name of the mediaeval royal Serbian saint Sava – hence Svetosavlje, ‘Saint-Sava-sm’. The creation of the influential bishop Nikolay Velimirovich, who died in 1956, it argues that the Serbian people are, by their history of martyrdom, an elect nation, even among the Orthodox, a unique bearer of salvific suffering, an incomparably holy people, and counterposes them in particular to their Western neighbours who are merely pseudo-Christians, believers in humanity without divinity.” (This is a very fair and unbiased article called: A Catholic View of Orthodoxy. )
I would add that Fr. Aidan’s assessment is correct. Often even converts to Orthodoxy in America are taught that the Serbian people as a suffering Orthodox nation, which is known more commonly as, “Suffering Orthodoxy”. No one can deny they have suffered, and still consider to suffer for Christianity terribly. Yet still Fr. Aidan makes a good point.
Very good points.
Which adds to my remarks concerning authority.
I meant continue instead of “consider” above. Finals are getting the better of me.
“I am not sure I understand. I tried to answer all of Subdeacon Joseph’s questions. Where was he asking for a definition of authority?”
I guess you didn’t read my remarks.
Authority and power are not the same.
Power can only be based on true authority and that true authority can only be expressed by someone with an authentic insight into the human condition.
The confusion in the Roman Catholic Church revolves around that question. It’s not just a question limited to Catholics. Orthodox have the same problem but originating from a different source.
The monastic influence in Orthodoxy is deep, for obvious reasons since the bishops and other hiearchical members often had to conform to the State while monks didn’t. This was especially true in Byzantium and Old Russia and those Orthodox countries that followed the same model of state-church synergia.
The Catholics did not have quite the same situation since, from very early on, the church and state were not seen as synergestic but, sometimes cooperating and sometimes not. Further, the monastic influence waned, at least politically, in the West. Authority was transferred to the hierarchy over the centuries while the monastics were regarded , quite often, as curiosities or remnants of the past.
Today, one sees in both expressions of the Church, a questioning of authority. In one, the hierarchy is regarded as primary. This one has recently had scandals involving matters of sexual improprety. In the other, the monastics have been involved in scandals involving money. One may also point out that the monastics were involved, through preaching etc;, in rather awful events.
In both, authority has been shown to be more of power than of expressing authentic insight into the human condition.
“Authority and power are not the same.”
Ok.
“Power can only be based on true authority.”
Ok.
“and that true authority can only be expressed by someone with an authentic insight into the human condition.”
I disagree with this, both in general and with regards to the successors to the Apostles.
pb-
Good point.
I wasn’t thinking of “apostolic succession”.
“It should perhaps go without saying that I would be equally interested in one on Western constructions of the East.”
Permit me to present, in highly (over)simplified and exaggerated form, a few of the various Western Catholic constructions of the East, which are not necessarily all held at the same time by the same persons, and which are often expressed in a lot more diplomatic language (and sometimes in far harsher terms):
1) The Eastern Churches actually believe the same things as the Catholic Church does. It’s just that the separated Eastern Churches do so in an under-developed, stagnant, mystical and vague manner, as they have been deprived of any real theological capacity or development for the past millennium.
Corollary: for the schism to be healed, the separated Eastern Churches must admit that everything that the Catholic Church has officially taught to the present is perfectly compatible with what the separated Eastern Churches already teach. Indeed, the Catholic Church merely makes explicit what the Eastern Churches already teach implicitly. Unfortunately, the Orthodox are too dogmatic and stubborn to admit this.
Second corollary: the modern Western (e.g. Novus Ordo) and the ancient Eastern liturgies show forth exactly the same faith, and only hard-headed and narrow-minded traditionalists maintain otherwise.
2) The Eastern Churches are separated from Rome for purely political and cultural reasons. Faith, spirituality and theology have nothing to do with it, and are just window-dressing for the geopolitical machinations and aspirations of the Easterners.
This is especially true of the hard-headed Russian Orthodox, who are just too land-hungry, too proud to give Rome and Constantinople the honor they rightly deserve, and too servile in its obedience to Putin, or whoever rules in the Kremlin.
3) We Catholics like you Orthodox, therefore you Orthodox have no right not to like us back. If you don’t like us, it is only because you obstinately want to persist in schism.
4) We Catholics want to be reunited with you Orthodox: therefore you Orthodox have no right to refuse to be reunited with us. Your refusal to reunite with us is proof that you are hard-headed, obstinate, and proud.
5) The Eastern Churches have nice liturgy and music, nice iconography, nice monasteries and really cool ecclesiastical dress; but they have no missionary ardor and no charitable or social outreach.
6) If only the Pope will actually obey Our Lady’s commands at Fatima and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Russia will become a Catholic country and there will be world peace. The only reason why Russia is still Orthodox is because the Vatican II Popes have all been too timid and nice to obey Fatima.
Now, as a Catholic, I would be the first to say that nos. 1, 2 and 4 contain much truth. Many Orthodox polemicists like to exaggerate the differences between East and West, and want to fasten to the Catholic Church all sorts of outrageous misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine that are not even mere caricatures, but seem to be deliberately distorted (and intentionally made to offend Catholics). Furthermore there is the tendency to exaggerate the role of the papacy to a monstrous extent that has absolutely nothing to do with reality, as can be attested by anyone who is remotely familiar with the history of the Catholic Church. The closeness of the Orthodox to national regimes – whether it be the Greek or Russian governments – is also cause for profound unease, as is the scandal of the disunity of the Orthodox in Western countries.
The comparative lack of missions and charitable outreach among the Orthodox is also a source of scandal for Catholics (yes, the Orthodox have had a very hard time for the past 6 centuries, there used to be missions in Central Asia and Siberia and now there are missions in Africa, but still…)
However, I like to think that I am fair-minded enough to be able to discern that there have been serious faults as well on the Catholic side. The Orthodox have no monopoly on hard-headedness, or on stubbornness, or on misunderstanding the other side, or even on dishonesty (especially when it comes to news reporting, where the situation is particularly troublesome on the Catholic side).
Speaking of the news reporting: I am utterly shocked at the way the Catholic press has covered the “Ravenna Document”. The Ravenna Document, it should be pointed out, does not have the status of an official declaration or document of the Magisterium for the Catholic Church, raises unavoidable questions for orthodox Catholics, and it is telling that the Vatican website’s text of the declaration has a note at the very top of the webpage stating that it is not “an official declaration of the Church’s teaching”. On the Orthodox side, no Synod of an autocephalous Church has voted to accept it, and the Serbians, Bulgarians and Russians (who represent the vast majority of Orthodox) have clearly rejected it. Recently there was news that the State Church of Greece has practically rejected its contents as well. And yet, parts of the Catholic press have trumpeted this declaration as if it represented some sort of breakthrough on the official level along the path to unity between East and West. The Ravenna Document has value in that it is an interesting exercise in how a possible theological agreement between East and West might look like, but it is no more than that. As it stands, it has not been officially accepted by any Church, and on the Catholic side I highly doubt that it will pass muster with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, let alone Pope Benedict XVI.
It is interesting that this document – the work of an important commission that, nevertheless, had no authority to issue any binding statements on behalf of either Church – was taken by the Catholic press as some sort of authoritative document that officially signifies at least a partial theological agreement between the hierarchies of East and West on an issue of primary importance. This incident speaks volumes about the distorted concept of authority vis-à-vis theology that has crept into the minds of not a few Catholic journalists.
As the years have passed, I have become more and more convinced that the theological disagreement between East and West are not merely semantic or cultural, but real, and is much wider than most Catholics (among whom I do not include the Pope and the consultors and officers of the CDF) and some Orthodox would like to admit in this ecumenical age. The “traditionalist” and “conservative” Catholics and “traditionalist” Orthodox who maintain the reality of this chasm are doing so not because they are “uncharitable”, or “do not wish to put things in context”, or “are too polemical”, or are “dogmatic”, or “do not want reunion” and “rejoice in the separation”, but because that is what they actually see according to the available evidence, and they do not wish to pretend that the chasm does not exist. By and large, the Orthodox hierarchies, even the most-ecumenically inclined, also maintain that the theological disagreements are real, even when all misunderstandings and all semantic differences have been peeled away, thus narrowing – but not entirely closing – the gap. It is Catholics, by and large, who refuse to admit that there really is a theological separation – and who are thus forced to caricature the position of the separated Eastern Churches as the product only of culture, nationalism and semantics. As John of Ad Orientem put it recently: “Breaking News – the Orthodox Church is not Catholic”. When will we Catholics take them at their word for it?
I would like to note that there is actually a parallel here with the situation between the SSPX and the Vatican. Many Catholics think that the SSPX is separate only because of the latter’s insistence on the Traditional Latin Mass. Others are aware of the theological reasons of the SSPX for maintaining the status quo, but insist that the SSPX should be flexible enough to enter back into “full communion” (yes, I know, the SSPX rejects the validity of that term) with Rome, and should be content to have its theological stance considered as one of many possible interpretations of Catholic doctrine. Now, I would like to state for the record that I am not an SSPX supporter. Nevertheless, their point deserves to be heard: they sincerely think that their interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church – an interpretation that sees an unavoidable doctrinal conflict with certain aspects of Vatican II – is indeed the only possible interpretation, if the Catholic Church’s doctrine is not to fall into self-contradiction. At this point in time, to ask the SSPX to just come in and be regularized and be content to be part of a broader spectrum, is itself a way of asking the SSPX to surrender its theological convictions without discussion – and that would be asking the SSPX to turn its back on its very raison d’etre. That would be unacceptable – and Rome knows it, hence the current theological discussions.
I [am] more and more convinced that the theological disagreement between East and West are not merely semantic or cultural, but real, and is much wider than most Catholics… and some Orthodox would like to admit in this ecumenical age.
I do not really disagree with this. I think that if one is fair-minded in one’s reading of Catholic and Orthodox theological pronouncements, one must conclude that there are points of genuine disagreement that cannot be reduced merely to different expressions of the same conclusion (although this process is made tedious by the difficulty of identifying Orthodox pronouncements that are to be understood as expressions of the Church itself and not just one theologian’s pious opinion).
That said, I think that if one studies history with the same fair-minded spirit, one is forced to conclude that degree of disagreement between the modern Catholic and Orthodox churches is no greater than existed between the western and eastern Church in the first millennium. Literally everything that currently divides the two communions has been at issue since long before the Schism.
Firmilian and St. Stephen, for instance, were part of the same Church, despite obvious disagreements between the two over the authority of the Roman see. St. Leo the Great disapproved of the Eastern practice of giving communion under both species, and made his disapproval known, and yet Leo did not break communion with the other Patriarchal sees over this point, nor did they break communion with him. The Roman Church had formally inserted the filioque into the Creed as early as 650 (as evidenced in St. Martin’s synodal letter to the eastern Sees), and it seems clear that many in the East were not happy with that, but this did not split the Church.
I could continue to multiply examples, but I imagine that these suffice to illustrate the point – the holy fathers such as Sts. Stephen, Firmilian, Leo, Flavian, Martin, Maximos & al. were content to live in unity with other Christians who disagreed with them on these points of doctrine. In other words, while it may well be that the “the theological disagreement between East and West… is much wider than most Catholics… would like to admit,” this is not the same as to say that the the difference is so wide that it can justify the continued Schism.
I wonder, then, to what extent the Catholics with whom you take issue for “refus[ing] to admit that there really is a theological separation” are actually guilty of “caricatur[ing] the position of the separated Eastern Churches as the product only of culture, nationalism and semantics.” Given that the theological chasm is not enough to justify the Schism (or at least the holy fathers did not consider it to be enough), what other explanation can be given for its continuation other than culture, nationalism and simple human obstinacy?
This is a remarkably uninformed letter, e.g.,
“St. Leo the Great disapproved of the Eastern practice of giving communion under both species, and made his disapproval known,”
I know of no evidence for this. Does anyone?
“The Roman Church had formally inserted the filioque into the Creed as early as 650 (as evidenced in St. Martin’s synodal letter to the eastern Sees)”
150 years later the Papacy was resisting the insertion of the filioque into the creed, and seemingly did not accept its insertion until 1014. Are you claiming that it inserted it, and then removed it?
Carlos,
I offer some sound teaching from Metropolitan Hierotheos of Vlachos for your edification.
Orthodox theology and spirituality is strictly of the Church Fathers. Philosophy is only a discipline we use to explain theology. Orthodox spirituality differs distinctly from any other “spirituality” of an eastern or western type. There can be no confusion among the various spiritualities, because Orthodox spirituality is God-centered, whereas all others are man-centered, as in scholasticism.
The dogmas are the results of decisions made at the Ecumenical Councils on various matters of faith. Dogmas are referred to as such, because they draw the boundaries between truth and error, between sickness and health. Dogmas express the revealed truth. They formulate the life of the Church. Thus they are, on the one hand, the expression of Revelation and on the other act as “remedies” in order to lead us to communion with God; to our reason for being.
Dogmatic differences reflect corresponding differences in therapy. If a person does not follow the “right way” he cannot ever reach his destination. If he does not take the proper “remedies,” he cannot ever acquire health; in other words, he will experience no therapeutic benefits. Again, if we compare Orthodox spirituality with other Christian traditions, the difference in approach and method of therapy is more evident.
A fundamental teaching of the Holy Fathers is that the Church is a “Hospital” which cures the wounded man. In many passages of Holy Scripture such language is used. One such passage is that of the parable of the Good Samaritan: “But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion . So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you” (Luke 10:33-35).
In this parable, the Samaritan represents Christ who cured the wounded man and led him to the Inn, that is to the “Hospital” which is the Church. It is evident here that Christ is presented as the Healer, the physician who cures man’s maladies; and the Church as the true Hospital. It is very characteristic that Saint John Chrysostom, analysing this parable, presents these truths emphasised above.
Man’s life “in Paradise” was reduced to a life governed by the devil and his wiles. “And fell among thieves,” that is in the hands of the devil and of all the hostile powers. The wounds man suffered are the various sins, as the prophet David says: “my wounds grow foul and fester because of my foolishness” (Psalm 37). For “every sin causes a bruise and a wound.” The Samaritan is Christ Himself who descended to earth from Heaven in order to cure the wounded man. He used oil and wine to “treat” the wounds; in other words, by “mingling His blood with the Holy Spirit, he brought man to life.” According to another interpretation, oil corresponds to the comforting word and wine to the harsh word. Mingled together they have the power to unify the scattered mind. “He set him in His own beast,” that is He assumed human flesh on “the shoulders” of His divinity and ascended incarnate to His Father in Heaven.
Then the Good Samaritan, i.e. Christ, took man to the grand, wondrous and spacious inn – to the Church. And He handed man over to the innkeeper, who is the Apostle Paul, and through the Apostle Paul to all bishops and priests, saying: “Take care of the Gentile people, whom I have handed over to you in the Church. They suffer illness wounded by sin, so cure them, using as remedies the words of the Prophets and the teaching of the Gospel; make them healthy through the admonitions and comforting word of the Old and New Testaments.” Thus, according to Saint Chrysostom, Paul is he who maintains the Churches of God, “curing all people by his spiritual admonitions and offering to each one of them what they really need.”
In the interpretation of this parable by Saint John Chrysostom, it is clearly shown that the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops and priests are the therapists of the people of God.
And this precisely is the work of Orthodox theology. When referring to Orthodox theology, we do not simply mean a history of theology. The latter is, of course, a part of this but not absolutely or exclusively. In Patristic tradition, theologians are the God-seers. Saint Gregory Palamas calls Barlaam [who attempted to bring Western scholastic theology into the Orthodox Church] a “theologian,” but he clearly emphasises that intellectual theology differs greatly from the experience of the vision of God. According to Saint Gregory Palamas theologians are the God-seers; those who have followed the “method” of the Church and have attained to perfect faith, to the illumination of the nous and to divinisation (theosis). Theology is the fruit of man’s cure and the path which leads to cure and the acquisition of the knowledge of God.
Western theology, however, has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West [after the Carolingian “Renaissance”], scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox Tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm [Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109, one of the first after the Norman Conquest and destruction of the Old English Orthodox Church]: “I believe so as to understand.” The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by theoria* and experience the Revelation of God.
Scholastic theology reached its culminating point in the person of Thomas Aquinas, a saint in the Latin Rite Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God. Supernatural truths – such as the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies – cannot be proven philosophically, yet they cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result, faith was altered and scholastic theology itself fell into complete disrepute when the “idol” of the West – metaphysics – collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.
The Holy Fathers teach that natural and metaphysical categories do not exist but speak rather of the created and uncreated. Never did the Holy Fathers accept Aristotle’s metaphysics. However, it is not my intent to expound further on this. Theologians of the West during the Middle Ages considered scholastic theology to be a further development of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and from this point on, there begins the teaching of the Franks that scholastic theology is superior to that of the Holy Fathers. Consequently, Scholastics, who are occupied with reason, consider themselves superior to the Holy Fathers of the Church. They also believe that human knowledge, an offspring of reason, is loftier than Revelation and experience.
It is within this context that the conflict between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam should be viewed. Barlaam was essentially a scholastic theologian who attempted to pass on scholastic theology to the Orthodox East.
Barlaam’s views – that we cannot really know Who the Holy Spirit is exactly (an outgrowth of which is agnosticism), that the ancient Greek philosophers are superior to the Prophets and the Apostles (since reason is above the vision of the Apostles), that the light of the Transfiguration is something which is created and can be undone, that the hesychastic way of life (i.e. the purification of the heart and the unceasing noetic prayer) is not essential – are views which express a scholastic and, subsequently, a secularised point of view of theology. Saint Gregory Palamas foresaw the danger that these views held for Orthodoxy and through the power and energy of the Most Holy Spirit and the experience which he himself had acquired as a successor to the Holy Fathers, he confronted this great danger and preserved unadulterated the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.
We are the Church exclusively of our Fathers.
I think the problem is that, as in any construction, the one “constructed” doesn’t recognize himself in the edifice. If Orthodox wish to describe their own spirituality in positive terms, that’s one thing. Once they start drawing tendentious contrasts with what they assume Western spirituality involves, it is altogether another. One of the most tiresome aspects of Orthodox discourse is this apparent inability to describe Orthodoxy in terms that don’t include “unlike in the West,” as if God, Scripture and the Fathers can’t be trusted to act as sufficient points of reference.
Carlos says,”The Orthodox are too dogmatic” and,” The Eastern Churches actually believe the same things as the Catholic Church does. It’s just that the separated Eastern Churches do so in an under-developed, stagnant, mystical and vague manner, as they have been deprived of any real theological capacity or development for the past millennium.”
What I find so tragic is that in this anti-dogmatic age a devout Latin Rite Christian would negatively accuse the Orthodox of something as noble as believing in revealed truth. Christians can never be overly dogmatic, unless truth is plastic.
In addition, when Carlos declares that the Orthodox Church believes the “same things” as the Latin Rite Church does he is clearly mistaken.
You misunderstood Carlos’ purpose. He listed and critiqued a number of what he considers”Western constructions of the East.” All such constructions have a grain of truth to them, which he pointed out, but are fundamentally false caricatures as they reflect the outsider’s prejudices and a priori assumptions rather than authentic insights.
Subdeacon Joseph-
Thank you for presenting a wonderful “construction of the West”.
Subdeacon Joseph,
I came across the following post, and thought of you:
http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-every-catholic-should-know.html
While obviously some of the suggestions in the posting and in the comments would be redundant for Orthodox, the list does form a good compendium of must-reads for anyone wanting to understand Catholic thinking from the inside.
Thank you Michael. I will be doing research this summer at the Athenaum of Ohio/Mt. St. Mary’s seminary of the West. I will definitely check some of these books out of their library.
I’m aware at times I can be a tad polemical, but it doesn’t change the reality that I do genuinely want to understand Western Catholicism on its own terms. Thanks for at least recognizing this fact within my shortcomings.
For the record, I don’t think you are being polemical at all. I have issues with some of your sources, not with you. ;-)
Even polemic sources merit answers, however, so there is no problem in introducing them for purposes of discussion so long as we don’t mistake their ascriptions for givens.
“You misunderstood Carlos’ purpose. He listed and critiqued a number of what he considers”Western constructions of the East.” All such constructions have a grain of truth to them, which he pointed out, but are fundamentally false caricatures as they reflect the outsider’s prejudices and a priori assumptions rather than authentic insights.”
Precisely my point. Thanks, Michael, for clarifying this for Subdeacon Joseph.
“Carlos says,’The Orthodox are too dogmatic’ and, ‘The Eastern Churches actually believe the same things as the Catholic Church does. It’s just that the separated Eastern Churches do so in an under-developed, stagnant, mystical and vague manner, as they have been deprived of any real theological capacity or development for the past millennium.’
What I find so tragic is that in this anti-dogmatic age a devout Latin Rite Christian would negatively accuse the Orthodox of something as noble as believing in revealed truth. Christians can never be overly dogmatic, unless truth is plastic.”
My response: While I certainly am not the one making this accusation, the general loss of esteem for dogma and an exaggerated concept of “doctrinal development” and “updating” that has taken root in not a few Catholic circles, means that for many Catholics, “dogmatism” is precisely one of the worst errors of the Orthodox (and of traditionalist Catholics such as myself, for that matter).
“In addition, when Carlos declares that the Orthodox Church believes the “same things” as the Latin Rite Church does he is clearly mistaken.”
I don’t think we believe the same things at all. However, it is a fact (which Orthodox bloggers seem to be better at detecting than Catholic ones) that for some Catholics, reunion should be achieved either on the basis of “agreed statements” that are vague enough to cover the beliefs of both Orthodox and Catholics, or on a “live-and-let-live” attitude which will see both Orthodox and Catholics simply establishing full communion without solving the doctrinal disagreements that have sprung up in the past 1,000 years. This is exemplified by the statement that “the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion”, as well as the drive of some Melkite and Ukrainian Greek Catholics for “double communion” with both Rome and Constantinople.
“double communion” with both Rome and Constantinople.- people mistakenly think that communion with Rome for Roman Catholics can be translated to communion with Constantinople for the Orthodox. There is no such requirement. The Orthodox always maintain that the unity that they have is a unity of faith and that communion with Constantinople is only necessary if Constantinople maintains the same faith that the rest have. Let us be careful with this double communion nonsense. For us Catholics, communion with Rome is a must. Let us not “construct” the same for the Easterns.
Carlos,
If communion is not achieved in the fullness of spirit and truth than the Church will be left with some type of half communion (I think this was your point), which makes a mockery of our Lord’s sacrifice, and is actually not communion at all. I am so discouraged with the situation in Alexandria where the Greek Orthodox laity and Coptic Orthodox laity (not clergy) can be married in each other parishes and even partake of the Eucharist together, but the clergy cannot. While it is only my opinion, I see this as a failed type of half communion which must be avoided at all costs in the dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics. If bishops do not celebrate the Mystery together I do not wish to partake, except in a life or death situation. My bishop has instructed me that in life and death situations WE MUST administer the mysteries to Western Catholics, and I know most Western Catholics would offer us the same oikonomia.
I now understand your honest statement. Eucharistic celebration between Eastern and Western Catholics to me at times seems hopeless, but, I believe our Lord wants this, and, He can soften the hardest of hearts and cut down the most rigid of minds, while simultaneously revealing the mysterious bridges necessary to unify us. In the end all that matters to me is that I believe this is something we all must be willing to die for. Because if it is not, then it will never come to fruition.
An ecumenical reality check
Irenaeus,
Welcome… to the real world! :-)
Carlos,
Excellent posts and commentary.
In ICXC
John
Carlos, your is perhaps the very first hint of a less than enthusiastic embrace of “the development of doctrine” by a Catholic blogger I have seen on the Internet. Are there others who raise a skeptical eyebrow when they hear that phrase? It seems to be almost a fetish among many these day, a first resort to square circles, offering an easy answer to any seeming contradiction in space or time in the Church. Yet I would think any traditionalist might sense it to be a Trojan horse, even if given by the saintly Newman.
“Carlos, your is perhaps the very first hint of a less than enthusiastic embrace of “the development of doctrine” by a Catholic blogger I have seen on the Internet.”
I have to be brief, so pardon me if I speak here in generalizations.
I assure you that you will find not a few traditionalist and conservative Catholics who think that, in our times, “development of doctrine” has been turned into a propaganda phrase that has little to do with the original thought of such luminaries as John Henry Newman, and that other (but very neglected) giant of correct development of doctrine, Fr. F. Marin-Sola OP (who used the term “evolution of dogma”).
“It seems to be almost a fetish among many these day, a first resort to square circles, offering an easy answer to any seeming contradiction in space or time in the Church”
Precisely. You will find, for instance, that some Catholic writers declare that while they accept all the defined dogmas of the Church, they reject the “common teaching” and the “common interpretation” regarding these dogmas by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II or hereabouts, in order to accommodate certain new understandings of said dogmas. The implication, of course, is that while dogmas are infallible, we can never really trust the interpretation of these dogmas by the generality of Catholic theologians or even bishops over an extended period of time — which renders these dogmas worse then useless, as well as raising serious questions about the authority of the episcopacy. I am thinking here of the question of limbo in particular. Yes, limbo has never been defined as dogma, but it certainly touches on matters that have to do with defined dogma. My own views on limbo are admittedly fluid at the moment, but I also think that the defenders of the new [in Catholic terms] belief that limbo doesn’t exist, have been too cavalier in their treatment of the fact that at one point, the generality of Catholic theologian and bishops DID teach it.
There are also the debates regarding Catholic doctrine (not on the level of defined dogma, but quite close to it) on religious liberty and on Church-State relations.
I would like to add that, in some Catholic circles, Pope Benedict’s wise phrase “hermeneutic of continuity” has been turned into a slogan as well. When some Catholics ask how this or that aspect of Catholic teaching or liturgy could be “interpreted in continuity” with the pre-Vatican II tradition, for instance, the response can often be summarized as: “how dare you say that! how dare you question the hermeneutic of continuity! That’s that, you MUST accept that they are in continuity!”
One can be a supporter of the hermeneutic of continuity without demanding that people submit to it as if it is some article of faith.
Subdeacon Joseph,
Carlos,
I offer some sound teaching from Metropolitan Hierotheos of Vlachos for your edification.
Is this a direct lift from Metropolitan Hierotheos’ work or is this your understanding of him condensed into the paragraphs you provided?
Carlos, thank you. Would you happen to know the URLs of their blog sites? I am most especially interested in those that you consider to represent the best in the correct understanding of DoD as you see it.
GrzeszDeL – you make excellent points, but some of the examples you cite of first-millennium “peaceful coexistence” involve praxis, not doctrine. (Communion under both species, for example, is a matter of praxis; one certainly hopes that praxis would not be a church-splitter!)
I do not think that the early pntiffs would tolerate outright heresy in either the East or the West. Of course, the definition of heresy is historically contingent. As Newman said, before Rome speaks definitively, even the saintliest may err without guilt; but, once a formal dogmatic definition has been rendered, then it is incumbent on all Catholics to adhere to it.
I can understand the distinction that you are drawing between doctrine and praxis, but I am not sure that it is really germane to the point that I was trying to make. If you look at lists of reasons (usually assembled by the Orthodox) for the separation, one inevitably finds mention of issues like unleavened bread or communion under both kinds.
In other words, both reasons of “doctrine” and reasons of “praxis” are put forward to justify the continued schism. My point was that all of these reasons, of whatever sort, were already points of friction between the eastern and western Church back in the time of Maximos and Gregory and Leo (etc). If they were not willing to view these differences as great enough to justify a split, where do we get off claiming that such differences are significant enough?
Without wanting to sound too partisan, I think you hit the nail on the head.
There are two legitimate general grounds for schism:
1. heresy, in which case schism is necessary; and
2. breach of good order, in which case schism is optional as a disciplinary tool.
Setting aside for the moment the reunions of Lyons and Florence, we have been in communion-wide schism by my count for 911 years. I would think that it is safe to assume that if the original grounds for schism were disciplinary, the medicine has long since failed, is unlikely to bring the “other” into compliance with good order, and is thus impossible to justify on prudential disciplinary grounds.
We are then left with the potential grounds of heresy, and this is consequently the one which Orthodox anti-ecumenists most commonly choose to advance in justifying continuation of the schism. It’s a very useful argument from their point of view as it precludes a subsequent discussion over whether continued schism is appropriate. If Catholics are heretics, then schism is *necessary*. This leaves one free to shed pious tears for lost unity without actually having to do anything to reverse it.
Yet this is where matters get (or at least should get) sticky for any scrupulous anti-ecumenist who might be open-minded enough to view history with some sense of objectivity. There are three questions that Orthodox anti-ecumenists making the heresy argument have to answer:
When exactly did Catholics become heretics?
What is the substance of their heresy?
How has it been determined that these beliefs are in fact heretical?
Here the anti-ecumenist is faced with no small degree of embarrassment (assuming he is committed to intellectual honesty). All the traditional doctrinal suspects (the filioque, the papal claims and Augustinian notions of original sin), as you indicate, clearly and demonstrably precede 1099 by centuries (I stick to 1099 because 1054 was a purely bilateral schism between the sees of Rome and Constantinople, and not communion-wide).
So either these beliefs were not perceived as heresy prior to the schism, or literally dozens of saints venerated by Orthodox were quite content to keep faith knowingly with heretics.
I have sometimes encountered the argument that gradual cultural separation between East and West predates the Western “heresies,” and so Eastern hierarchs only belatedly became aware of its existence. This sounds nice, except for the fact that this is chronological rubbish. Are we seriously going to argue over whether Photius was aware that Westerners were filioquists or backed the Papacy’s claims to oversight over the whole Church? And yet Photius was quite content to maintain communion with any and all actual filioquist or papalist Western Christians willing to recognize him as the legitimate patriarch of Constantinople.
But let’s just dismiss SS. Photius et al. as hopelessly ignorant and naïve regarding the extent of Western heterodoxy, and focus on the last of these three questions: how can one know that the beliefs particular to Western Christians are heresy? More pointedly, who determined this and on whose authority?
These two questions leave most Orthodox polemicists stumped. No pan-Orthodox synod has ever condemned actual Catholic teaching as heresy–not even Constantinople IV which clearly anathemized the filioque *as an addition to the creed*. Essentially, Orthodox anti-ecumenists take Western heresy as a given, with ex post facto justification derived from the polemics of selectively chosen saints.
There is, however, an argument that can be advanced by more subtle anti-ecumenists, that is perhaps deserving of more intellectual respect and that cannot be so easily dismissed. According to this view, the objective heresy inherent in distinctive Catholic teachings only became explicit (and thus a necessary bar to reunion) once their doctrinal content and implications become more fully “developed,” presumably at and after Florence. Prior to this, the schism would have been merely disciplinary.
Once these developments became manifest, according to this argument, Orthodoxy would have had no difficulty universally recognizing these (the filioque after Florence, Augustinian original sin after the 1854 definition of the Immaculate Conception, and the papal claims after Vatican I) as heresy through the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church (setting aside the inconvenient fact that Greek, Ukrainian and Antiochan Byzantine bishops nevertheless felt capable of accepting these more fully developed teachings either at the time or subsequently).
I don’t think the Catholic side has defended itself adequately against an Orthodox charge of heresy framed in these terms. This is not to say that such a defence is impossible, merely that I haven’t seen it explicitly attempted yet. It would take some care, however. Development of doctrine is really a tricky subject, particularly when one only loosely applies the tests for legitimate development set out by Newman.
I don’t think I was disagreeing with the substance of your argument. I was just lodging a minor quibble. :)
“Furthermore there is the tendency to exaggerate the role of the papacy to a monstrous extent that has absolutely nothing to do with reality, as can be attested by anyone who is remotely familiar with the history of the Catholic Church.”
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN! Even our good friend evagrius seems prne to this exaggeration.
As someone who has reported for nearly 11 years to the Micromanaging Control Freak from Hell, I can safely safeiy that the pope is not some sort of Ultimate Ecclesiastical Control Freak, nor do Catholics experience the papacy as such. Try reporting to a real control freak…then compare and contrast that experience with Catholics’ experience of the papacy!
I have heard of former Orthodox (now Catholic) who claim that their local EO bishop was a ton more overbearing than the pope could ever hope to be.
The papacy is not some sort of worldwide dictatorship, and we Catholics are not craven thralls of the pope. This is a silly canard. Get real, folks!
Diane
P.S. Did I really write the comment of May 13? I don’t think I even visited this site then…haven’t been back here for ages. Very odd!
Sorry for typos above. May I blame my new keyboard, which sticks like crazy? ;)
Those who know me online know my take on this: traditionalist but not getting involved in RC-Orthodox fights, holding the belief (like those involved in ecumenism) that there’s only one real difference between the two sides but (like the anti-ecumenists) that it’s a doozy for which there’s no solution other than one side giving in to the other and thus ceasing to be as we know it. That difference is not the mere existence of the papacy but the origin and scope of its authority: divinely instituted channel of the church’s infallibility or man-made office of the infallible church’s divinely instituted episcopate, just like any other patriarch, metropolitan et al., for the good order of the church?
It was taken in part from Met. Hierotheos’ work. It is not the complete text.
I think the differences are far wider than that, but on these narrow points I don’t see how a mere difference in views could be necessarily construed as heretical. Insofar as papal authority is a service to the universal Church, it must by definition be universal in scope whatever it actually entails in practice or theory. And does it really matter whether authority is of divine or human origin if there is agreement on what this authority involves and that it forms a constitutive feature of the Church. By way of comparison, are the diaconate and presbyterate (as opposed to the episcopate) divinely instituted or man-made states/offices? What about ecumenical councils?
In any case there are no prospects of reunion without *both* sides “ceasing to be as we know it” as all we know is schism. The whole point isn’t to remain as *we* know it, but to become as *He* wishes it.
It is a brilliant piece. Thank you for posting it. May I use it on my blog with reference to you if I post it one day?
Sophocles,
I am not sure what part of this discussion you find so brilliant, but if its anything I wrote, feel free to pillage, edit and reuse it at will. :-)
“In any case there are no prospects of reunion without *both* sides “ceasing to be as we know it” as all we know is schism. The whole point isn’t to remain as *we* know it, but to become as *He* wishes it.”
Well said, Michaël. Unless we understand this, there is absolutely no point in our conversing here at all.
As for those who question the concept of doctrinal development: of course, like any other hermeneutical tool in theology, this one is open to abuse. However, without admitting it in some form, the only alternative for an orthodox Christian is to abandon alltogether either the Faith of the ecumenoical councils or any shred of intellectual honesty. The fact is that everything we know about the pre-Nicene Church indicates that the differences in theological expression, liturgical practice and may other things between it and what was in place by tthe end of the first millenium were far greater than those which distinguish the Western and Eastern Churches today. Only some theory of legitimate and necessary development can save us from positing an “ontological” divergence far greater than that which has subsequently arisen, according to some, between Rome and Constantinople.
I do not think, however, that it is helpful to juxtapose, as does Mr Palad, the name of Cardinal Newman with that of Fr. Marin-Sola. Newman’s work remains epoch-changing in spite of the inevitably outdated character of many of his concrete judgments. His massive and painstaking historical scholarship contrasts sharply with what appears to me, in the case of the Marin-Sola, to be a a rationalistic and a priori intellectual construction which has not withstood the test of time. Orthodox who read it will risk seeing in it – and not entirely without reason – the confirmation of all their worst fears about the pretensions of the Catholic Church.
Carlos
On the subject of Limbo, the undoubted fact that the generality of Catholic bishops and theologians did hold it at various times is utterly irrelevant. None of them held it for an entire milennium. The generality of Catholic bishops and theologians held for many centuries that the matter of the sacrament of order was the porrectio instrumentorum. They were wrong. The generality of Catholic bishops and theologians, teaching privately, dispose of no authority beyond the authority of the solemn teachings they rely on, and in the case of Limbo, there was none.
Personally, I can see of no way in which the nature and limits of the right to freedom from constraint in matters of faith is even remotely related to articles of faith. If the nineteenth century popes mistook matters of political philosophy for doctrines of the faith, well stuff happens.
You are quite right, however, in asserting that the “hermeneutic of continuity” has become a slogan. It is bandied about liberally (no irony intended) by the most reactionary Catholic commentators. What the Pope did in fact oppose to the “hermeneutic of rupture” was a necessary “hermeneutic of reform” which is the key to understanding and appropriating the legacy of Vatican II. I agree that reform has to be advocated and carried out within a hermeneutic of continuity. But we don’t hear much about the “hermeneutic of reform” in the traddy blogosphere, do we?
Fr. Paul, you wrote, “The fact is that everything we know about the pre-Nicene Church indicates that the differences in theological expression, liturgical practice and may other things between it and what was in place by tthe end of the first millenium were far greater than those which distinguish the Western and Eastern Churches today.”
This is quite an interesting hypothesis. Would you be so kind as to elaborate, either in your own prose or by hyperlink reference? For example, to which differences are you referring? How do you weight the differences, as well as what is not so different? And what do you see as current differences, and their relative importance?
Thank you in advance.
Michaël,
Please forgive me!
Though you are brilliant, I was replying to Subdeacon Joseph about his piece regarding Metropolitan Hierotheos of Vlachos. I should have specified my intended audience.
However, I may well take your offer up in the future so thank you!
divinely instituted channel of the church’s infallibility
“Tu es Petrus,” etc. etc. etc. ;-)
I know that may sound simplistic to those who like to nuance and attenuate the evidence into vapor. But I do not think Orthodox anti-papalists have ever completely risen to the challenge presented by the Scriptural texts adduced for papal authority. These texts, along with the numerous patristic texts affirming papal jurisdictional primacy, cannot simply be wished away. Or explained away. Or dismissed with shopworn and oft-refuted arguments of Protestant provenance. Or waved away as an irrelevancy.
As with the Resurrection itself, we will never come to an airtight conclusion based solely on examining the evidence. But we can come pretty darned far. Which is why it is incumbent on us to examine the evidence as thoroughly and honestly as we can, without recourse to the polemical playbook.
(YF, NOT accusing you of doing any of this. You have of course framed the $64,000 question quite correctly.)
Diane,
Scripture and the Fathers are less helpful in this regard than you see to warrant.
Most Orthodox have no problem identifying Peter as the rock on which the Church is built, or as the leader of the primitive Church. Nor do they have any problem acknowledging the Pope’s primacy in the context of a reunited Church (though many would not use such an expression as they deny that the Church could ever be divided).
But that is far as Scripture and the Fathers can take us.
Since the Pope does not share in Peter’s divine inspiration, other aspects of Peter’s charism might also not have been transmitted.
We have to appreciate that the way in which the Petrine function has been exercised by the Pope has varied greatly over time, and often been successfully contested. It follows then that the scope and detail of the function are in large part contingent and not simply innate.
The task for canonists, theologians and historians is first to strip the function down to its divine essentials, determine which are unique to the Pope (as other bishops also share in the function), and then propose a nuanced re-edification of an agreed practical primacy based on the shared experience of the undivided Church AS WELL AS on prudential judgments regarding the Church’s current needs.
Michael–I am of course aware of the arguments you provide. Nonetheless, I stand by my statements.
I said nothing about variations in the way the Petrine ministry has been exercised — not because I was unaware of these variations but because I do not see them as particularly germane. So, the precise manner in which the papacy operates has varied over time. So what? The same can be said of any institution in this ever-mutable world. (Slightly OT: Why do the Nuance Police always assume the rest of us are stupid and/or ignorant? – sorry; pet peeve here.)
For me, the essential question is whether the papacy is divinely instituted and whether the popes exercise jurisdictional authority, not merely primacy of honor. I happen to believe that Scripture and the Fathers provide affirmative answers to this two-part question. Conclusive answers? Of course not. We don’t have conclusive proof of the Resurrction; why should we expect conclusive proof of anything else? Nonetheless, as with the Resurrection, the cumulative weight of the evidence is highly compelling.
No less a luminary than Father Jaki has noted that it takes pretzel-like grammar-and-syntax twisting to interpret Matt 16: 16-18 as referring primarily or exclusively to Peter’s Confession. Perhaps his analysis is as simplistic as mine. If so, I’m in good company. ;)
The task for canonists, theologians and historians is first to strip the function down to its divine essentials, determine which are unique to the Pope (as other bishops also share in the function), and then propose a nuanced re-edification of an agreed practical primacy based on the shared experience of the undivided Church AS WELL AS on prudential judgments regarding the Church’s current needs.
When on earth have I ever said otherwise? Please pardon me, Michael, but I almost feel as if you are addressing someone else’s argument and someone else’s post.
The question of precisely how the popes should exercise their primacy in our day is completely separate from the question of whether the papacy itself is divinely instituted and the bearer of authoritative jurisdictional primacy. You seem to be assuming that I am using terms like “jurisdictional primacy” in some rigid ultramontane sense. This is a straw-man.
Again, I am flummoxed by your response, which seems to be addressed to an argument I haven’t made.
Sorry
No need to be sorry. Forgive me instead for using your remarks as a springboard for a more extended argument. I should have made clear that the passage you are quoting should be read as a gloss to my own comments for the benefit of non-Catholic readers, and not as a critique of your own views. I assumed as a point of departure and from everything you have written that we shared a common view of what the primacy currently involves, and how much of it is mutable and how much immutable.
Orthodox readers, however, have to be educated that such a distinction exists for Catholics as “rigid ultramontanism” is often all they purport to see.
Diane,
I am not belittling your faith or your intellect. I am merely suggesting that if Scripture and the Fathers were as determinative as you seemed to be suggesting in your earlier post, then the answers would be self-obvious to anyone with good will. The best these can offer, however, is an analogic basis for a papal primacy that reflects that of Peter within the apostolic college.
I prefer to approach the issue of the papal jurisdiction not through this kind of hermeneutic proof texting but through an epistemology based on three axiomatic principles: the universal validity of the sacraments, a conceptual distinction between jurisdiction and primacy, and the objective validity of past ecclesiological practice (insofar as it can be known).
What this means is that instead of looking at the Pope’s jurisdiction as having been extended over the whole Church, we should look instead at that of individual bishops as having been prudentially narrowed to individual sees. It is fairly clear from Scripture that the Church began as a homogenous whole, an undifferentiated single see with 12 apostles each universally competent to administer the sacraments anywhere. The converts of one were not rebaptized when they joined a new eucharistic community, and those excluded from the table by one were excluded by all.
While the successors of the apostles did not enjoy the divine inspiration of the latter, the bishops did inherit the theoretical universal validity of their sacramental acts. There is one baptism, one ordination and one eucharist. So at its root, the sacramental jurisdiction of ALL bishops is theoretically universal by divine institution, the Pope’s no less than that of any other.
Where human agency comes in, is in the NARROWING of the day-to-day exercise of this theoretically universal episcopal sacramental jurisdiction to particular sees. We see this in the customary norms affirmed in the post-Nicene Church and in their consistency with the practice that can be inferred from the writings of the pre-Nicene Fathers. The logic offered for this narrowing is not the explicit will of God, but the good order and governance of the Church as determined by the bishops themselves.
So the real issue here is not whether papal jurisdiction is divinely instituted since all episcopal jurisdiction is “divinely instituted.” The more pertinent question is to what degree was the Pope’s jurisdiction ever constrained in practice by human institution either through a definitive exercise in self-restraint or at the behest of his peers, and to what degree are these human constraints reversible. Essentially it is the remnant of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction which is not now contingently constrained that constitutes his primacy.
The “primacy of honour” bit is a very late invention insofar as I can tell. The canons never limit the Pope’s primacy in these terms, and such limitiations would in any case be quite inconsistent with the historical exercise of a clearly substantive primacy not only by the Pope but even by other patriarchs and metropolitans (albeit in a narrower territorial context).
Michael–please forgive *me.* I am way too sensitive, too quick to feel offended, which probably means I should stay off the Internet, LOL.
Thank you for your illuminating responses!
Regrettably, I do not seem to be able to reply directly to Dr. Tighe’s post, so I will simply make my reply down here at the bottom of the thread. A few points in reply:
1) I know of no evidence for [St. Leo objecting to communion under both species]. Does anyone?
In response to your remark, I have tried to track down my source for this claim. I confess that I cannot find any. Indeed, I see that St. Leo actually condemns the Manichees for receiving under only one species, which would suggest that he was not advocating this as a policy. I think that it is safe to say that I was wrong about this. Thank you for pointing that out.
2) 150 years later the Papacy was resisting the insertion of the filioque into the creed, and seemingly did not accept its insertion until 1014. Are you claiming that it inserted it, and then removed it?
I went looking for my source for this claim, and I see that I overstated my claim. St. Martin did not include a transcript of the creed with the filioque included in his synodal letter. He simply discussed the filioque in his letter. Once again, thank you for the correction.
I think, however, that my broader point still stands. St. Martin’s filioque anecdote, for instance, really illustrates this point. It was clear that his letter occasioned a great deal of consternation in the eastern sees. We know this because St. Maximos took the trouble to defend St. Martin’s letter. Clearly, then, there were disagreements between Rome and the East, and they were known disagreements (that is to say, it was not simply the fact that the two disagreed each without realizing that the other held a contrary position). And yet, they managed to maintain communion nevertheless.
If Rome and Constantinople could maintain communion for centuries after St. Martin’s letter, despite the disagreement over the filioque, then why should the filioque divide us now? Multiply that same question by the number of controversies supposedly at issue, and the answer is still the same.